The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-12-18

to its constitutional agents, and that
this includes the power to occupy for
eign territory and to govern it and its
inhabitants while it remains foreign ter
ritory. subject only to fthe rules and
usages of civilized warfare under inter-
national laws
1t was also conceded Mr.. Brown said,
that the people had delegated the power
to add permanent acquisitions to it's ter
ritory.
But with these concessions, Mr. Brown
declared, that the people had established
certain constitutional limits never to be
transcended. This case was something
more than one of ex prepio vigor. 1t
went to the extent of denying the right
of any branch of thes government to
transcend the limitations laid down by
the constitution
Mr. Brown closed his brief Introductory
presentation of the case by referring to
its momentous character; which he and
his colleagues regarded as the most pro-
foundly important that they ever mad
been called upon to present.
MUST FOLLOW TIE FLAG.
Mr.. Perkins followed, taking up more
particularly the constitutional phases of
the case. He maintained that the constf-
tuition was in effect a power Of attorney,
and said the question as to what whether
those powers The prosecution of the
war to Porto Rico or elsewhere, or to the
ACQUISITION of this or that place We're all
acts which must be brought within the
powers of the constitution. The metaphor
as to the constitution following the flag
Mr. Perkins regarded as equivalent TO
saying that a mans shadow followed
him. The first constitutional point urged
by Mr. Perkins was that.tthe claim of un-
limited power in new territories is opposed
to our entire theory of constitutional gov
ernment
A large number of cases were cited to
show the attitude of the United States su-
preme court on analogous issues in the
past An unbroken line of discussions,
it was maintained, established the pro-
hibitory clauses of the constitution, ap-
ply in the government OF the territory of
the United States. In one decision as
late as last March, Mr.. Perkins said that
Justice Harlan had held that the seventh
amendment to the constitution, securing
the right of trial by jury,5applies to judi
cal proceedings in territories. The other
chief points advanced in. behalf of the
appellant were: Were the treaty of Pa
ris is not open to the construction that it
provides for the governing of Porto Rico
without regard to constitutional limits,
and as a secondary foreign country to the
United States. If it were possible to place
CLciI NOIAStI OOIiOu upon Treaty InG pro-
vision would be void, as contrary to the
constitution, but this would not in any
way prevent or affect the Accomplishment
or the usual results OF annexation
If the tariff act imposes duty or tax
upon goods brought from Porto Rico to
place elsewhere in the United States
after the annexation, the imposition is
void as being in conflict with an express
provision of the constitution.
when the treaty. of PartS tool- affao%
Porto Rico ceased to be "a foreign coun-
try within the meaning Of those words.
as used in the tariff act.''
Mr.. Perkins argument was in progress
When, at 4:50 p. m., the court adjourned
until tomorrow, when Mr., Perkins will
commune and the other counsel will be
heard.
The five hours on each side which the
court has allowed will extend the hearing
through tomorrow and part of next day
if all the time is occupied
MoRE PORTO RIeAN CASES.
Chief Justice Fuller Today advanced a
number of cases involving the reist:or1
between the United States and Porto
Rico so as to be heard with the De,irna
case in which this Question is ar issu.
The Delima case is set for Jan and
will be argued by former Secretary Car.
Isle. 1t was at his instance that these
cases were lodaV advanced. Two of the
cases SO advanced are in the narae of
Dooley, Smith & Co. and both come
from the circuit court for the southern
district Of New York. In one case the
action is brought to recover money ex-
acted from them at -P5rto Rico as Gus
toms duties upon merchandise taken
from New York to Porto Rico, between
the date of the ratification of the Paris
treaty and the date of the enactment of
the Porto Rican civil government act
In the other case the duties We're col
lected after the Porto Riean law was
enacted. a third case is that of Carlos
Armstrong. coming from the court OF
Claims and also involving. the same gen
eral opinion and still another. that OF
Samuel B. Downs. IIl5 the last named
case Frederick Coudert Jr. appears as
counsel
WILL BE HANGED ANYHOW.
A special question arose in the United
States supreme court today III a case
from Idaho on an application for habeas
corpus by Jack Davissiunde sentence
Of execution. The point was made that he
was convicted and Sentenced to be
hanged by the sheriff. subsequently the
law placed hangings in charge OF the
warden of the state penitentiaryi IL was
contended that the old law was repeated
and the new law inappHcahle, pelng eX
post facto. Justice Brewn remarked l.iat
1T would make little difference TO u"
accused who executed him. and IIa, tne oe-
cision of the state court was aniliheu'
giving the sheriff custody Of the prisoner.