The Hawaiian gazette., 1900-10-30
THE FLAG AND
THE CONSTITUTION
The New YORK Suns Able Pre-.
sentiment Of the
Law.

The cxposurc Of the Hon Davi1 u
. lfnn's isimira performance has not d.
TERED him. II appears, from further at
ltcmpts In the same line. tie therefou
lreaulres little further attention a.;
Unconstitutional Jaw yer.
In his DroOk.yn speech on Mtnic
levenlrg MIR. Hill said:
1T L. monstrous doctrine that tht
lCoustttutton does rot extend Is tn
Territories. 1t has. only now been ala
lyoked T. Justify the proposed estab
llshmcnt u colonial & DyCrnme. Is wuics
lare confessediy To b. and remain out
side Of the Constitution"
II was Invoked by n Democrat viii
la greater and straighter Intellect 'Har
MIR. Hlls when Thomas Jefferson sac
l4f the Louisiana pArchase almost o"'
hundred years ago;
The territory was purchased ~ the
United States IN tneit con- 'al@ 90
Ipacity, and may be disposed of by th2n
at their pleasure. 1t ~ ~ the mature
of Il colony whose commerce may b.
regulated without any reference 20 IN.
CONSTITUTION"
Forced to confess that It was thu
bred Scott ease which he cited nrony-
mously at Elmira as aff0rding 4 Goa
elusive decision" that the United
States has no power to hold ard gov
ern the Philippines or Porto R.rO *
Icept under oil the limitations and re-
strictions imposed by the Constitution
Mr. Hill had the impotence to plead
that the bred Scott case has never
been reversed, and it's btnhiag lh,..nr-
lily has never since been questioned
by the Supreme Court of the United
States" ..#
This Is characteristic Of MIR. Hill. AS
| we have shown clearly, lnd as every
lawyer knows, the only point in jldg-
ment in the bred Scott case was the
exclusive right OF Mis5onri To de-
termine and regulate the status nj per-
sons within her territory. Thai mas
not yet been reversed, except by The
events of the civil war AMI the Corsti-
tutional Amendments resulting th"rc-
from. Chief Justice Taney's dictnIn,
which Mr.. Hill cited as Il pretended
decision" did not need to be reversed.
for 1t never possessed any binaire au-
thority.
This trick in Mr.. Hills statement Is
crude and cheap. But either in igrio-
rance or in reckless audaclty Ie goes
further and denies that he doctrine
invented by Calhoun and annouhc'd
obiter from the bench by TancY has
ever been controvertcd In any decision
States. He said at Brooklyn:
with due Difference to those who
differ with ire on any subject, ieny
that there Is any such decision
The reports of the opinions If ne
Supreme Court since its organization
contain many such decisions; wtrir he
dictum in the bred Scott case stands
practically alone.
In the case of GIBSON against Cho-
eau the Supreme Court said:
with respect to the public domain,
he Constitution vests in Congress the
over of disposition and Of making all
leedful rules and regulations. That
power Is subject to no limitations
In deciding the case of the Arierican
insurance Company against Canter,
Chief Justice Marshall held that the
Constitution does not extend of its "wn
unaided force over every territory ac-
quired by the United States. In arSu-
ing that case Daniel Webster had said:
DO the laws of the United states
reach Florida? Not unless by portiru-
lar provision Does the law es-
tablishing the court at Key West come
within the restrictions Of he Constitu-
ton of the United StatesP"
And Marshall answered the question
In the opinion which he delivered.
tutional courts, in which, the jutlicial
power conferred by the Constitution
on the general Government can be- de-
posted. They are incapable of r"cei" |
ing It, They are legislative - irtS. |
created in virtue Of the General r,glt |
CT sovereignty which exists in thu Gov
eminent. or in virtue of that clause
which enables Congress To MAKE Ill
needful rules and regulations respect
Ing the territory balongins TO the Unit
ed States The jurisdiction vita which
they are invested Is not y part or that
judicial power which Is defined in the
Third Article of the Constitution. but
9 conferred by Congress in the ex' Gu
ion of those general powers whi'h
hat body possesses over The ter'i.Orirs
IF the United States.
In the case of the Mormon Ci:urch
against the United States, n case ,efrr-
ed to by Mr.. Hin only to dist ut Its
rue significance, the Supreme Court L
laid:
Doubtless Congress In leSislatlng for
he Territories would be subject .
# personal rights '"hlch are formula
ID in the Constitution and its annnG-
ncnts; but those limitations would
X'st rather by inference and the ger-
raj spirit of the Constitution. from
Which Congress derives al its uuw.rs
han by any express and direct app,i-
ntion Of It's provisions"
These ana many similar op.nl ms OF Il
he Supreme Court of The United )
tates Will not interest the Hon. David -,
iennett Hill ut the present time He {
5 too busy adding the embers f his !
Professional reputation 20 the asker n {
is political fame.-Naw York SuG. I
october 4. :
ENnYTSuT N NUEn, -. IN