Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1900-02-22

said of the clause of the constitution
requiring uniformity of duties, excises
and imposts throughout the United
States, the very clause involved by this
bill:
"The power to lay and collect duties. imposts
and excises may be exercised and must be exer-
cised throughout the United States Does this
term designate the whole or any part Of the
American empire2 Certainly this question can
admit Of but one answer 1t is the name given
to great republic, which is composed Of
states and territories. The District Of Columbia
or the territory west OF the Missouri is not less
within the United States than Maryland or Penn
syvania and it is not less Necessary, the prin-
ciples OF constitution, that uniformity in the
imposition Of imposts duties and excises shall be
observed in the one than the other.
constitutional Restrictions.
''This may have been dictum, but
if so, it was dlctum of a great jurist
speaking for a great court, and when
it declared that the question put in
issue by the pending bill can admit of
but single answer one may well hesi-
tate before adopting a different con-
struction. In the case of Cross versus
Harrison (16 Howard, 19S) the court
clearly considered the territory en-
braced in California as a part of the
United States within the meaning Of
this same clause of the constitution.
II am unable to find any support in
judicial decisions for the doctrine that
the inhabitants of territories have no
constitutional rights but exist only by
the will of congress. On the other
hand, it has been repeatedly held by
our supreme court that congress Is
bound by restrictions of the constitu-
ton in dealing with territories. The
| broadest construction have been able
to discover, given by any decision Of
our supreme court to the legislative
power of congress over territories, is
set forth in the Canter case and holds
in effect that congress possesses the
powers of the general government and
also the powers of state legislature
unrestrained by a state constitution.
This Interpretation would still leave
congress subject to those limitations
which are imposed by the constitution
upon both the national and the state
governments. Since the national gov
ernment is required to observe the
rule of uniformity in levying duties,
excises and imposts and the states are
substantially prohibited from levying
such taxes, 1t follows that congress has
no power to tax thus unequally either
in its capacity as a national or state
legislature.
Webster's Argument
''AIr. Webster has been cited as au-
thority for the position that congress
has absolutely unlimited power over
the territories. The argument Of even
so great lawyer as Mr.. Webster in a
law case can hardly be considered as
authority, and the speech which he
made in the senate near the end of his
career falls far short of the assertion
of the doctrine of unlimited power over
territories On the other hand. in one
Of the best considered speeches of his
career Mr.. Webster spoke directly up
on the very proposition involved in this
bill. On the 23d of March, 1S4S. he
said in the United States senate:
"An arbitrary government may have territorial
arbitrary government may rule its distant terri
| tories by different laws and different systems.
Russia may govern the Ukraine and the Cau-
casus and Kamchatka by different codes ukases.
| We can dc such thing. They must be OF US
part OF us-or else estranged. think see, Them
in progress what is to dishgure and deform the
constitution. | think see course adopt
ed that is likely to turn the constitution under
which we live into a deiormed monster, into a
curse rather than a blessing, into a great frame
of unequal government, not founded popular
representation, but founded in the grossest in
equalities. and think if it go on-for there is a
great danger that it viii go on-that this govern
ment viii be broken up.
'eThe territories with which the courts
have dealt have been in the main vast
| thinly inhabited areas, with hardly the
germs of a civil life. If under such
circumstances they have shown them
selves so careful of individual rights,
what would they have done if. upon an
area smaller than that of Connecticut,
they had been called upon to deal with
a population greater than that of the
greatest state at the time Of the Revo-
luton? 1t is inconceivable that the
great basic principles of the constitu-
ton would not have been even more
strongly asserted, certainly against the
denial of those muniments Of individ-
ual liberty for which our frame of gov
ernment stands.
Treaty CesssOns.
Il do not think the stipulations of
the treaty of cession are entitled to
weight in deciding the question. If it
bo ooroodo51 +ba4 Gfba p,,loe ond roo1,
lations' respecting territory should be
made subject to the limitations of the
constitution. it could as well be held
that the constitutional powers of con-
gress over the people Of a state could
be enlarged by treaty as that they
could be enlarged over the people Of a
territory Such a contention puts a
treaty above the constitution and
makes it the supreme law of the land.
If the instrument can be set aside by a
treaty as to one article, it can be set
aside as TO all. The president and two
thirds of the senate would only have to
secure the consent of a foreign sover-
eign to abolish the house of representa-
tives If the constitution can be chang
ed by treaty, it would be interesting to
know why its trainers provided so cum
brous a method for its amendment and
required the consent of two-thirds Of
both houses and three-fourths of the
states.
81 recognize our full duty to do our
utmost to secure the welfare and hap
piness of the people of our new posses
sions, but l regard it as most inaus-
picious omen that our first legislative
act should be framed on the theory
that freedom does not follow the flag.
but that the latter goes to those islands
unattended by the great principles of
liberty which have made it glorious.
Who can measure the evils that viii
result from denial of the fundamental
muniments against oppression with
which our constitution surrounds the
individual? If even in this country
and with all these safeguards the citi-
zen is not always secure against Off
cial exaction or the rapacity of those
who are more powerful than he, what
can be expected without this protection
in islands that are separated from us
by 10000 miles of sea? Is it not clear
that at the outset there is danger that
we may pave the way for more hid
eous extortion and robbery than ever
IL