The Portland daily press., 1900-12-19
Does Constitution Extend TO Island
Possessions.
Attorney Gen. Griggs
Speaks For Govt.
Congressman Littlefield One of
Spectators.

Washington, December is.-Arguments
in the Porto Rico philippine cases invoi-
wing tina status OF those countries By the
United States, were resumed In the Unit
cd states supreme Court today.
Mr.. Perkins on rssuming his argument
whioh began yesterday, took IN the bred
Scott and other cases relating to the ex-
tension OF the Constitution over territory.
Soon after Mr.. Perkins began, Justice
Brown intsrpossd an inquiry as to
whether Mr.. Perkins had examined the
more recent cases relating to the extern
sion OF the Constitution TO territories and
also whether he had examined those
sections OF the United States statutes
wherein Congress extended the Constitu-
ton to certain Territories. Mr.. Perkins
said he had examined both OF those
branches and he hoped to bs able to pre-
sent answers to the contentious as to
both Of them.
After examin ing numerous cases, Mr..
Perkins said that the doctrine that the
Constitution did NOT extend to the ter
ritories was based on the idea that the
Constitution was substance a sort OF
chsttel which could be moved about here
and thers as Congress saw ut, rather than
something bequeathed to us by our an
cestors. 1t was contention that thesCon-
stitution could not get into a territory
unless Congress placed It there. He de-
MED that the Constitution In itself ex-
tended to the territories by declaring that
1t was an inanimats substance lacking
the powers of locomotion. At this point
Justios White asked q series OF pointed
ques tions of MIR. Perkins.
The justice first asked If Mr.. Perkins's
contention would lead him to the con-
olusion that Immediately upon the max
Ing OF a treaty osding territory TO the
United States, every person born in that
territory after the date of oession became
ipso jure citizen Of the United States.
MIR. Perkins answered In the affirmative,
saying that II his contention was GORE OF,
those born in the territory after the ces-
sion were citizsns II they were civilized
and not In the position of our Indians.
Justics White asked what authority
there was for excluding Indians. he
pointed out that the distinction between
the American Indian and the citizen
ante-dated the Constitution. He again
propounded the query OF citizenship fol-
lowing Immediately on the conclusion OF
a osssion OF territory.
Mr.. Perkins answered that undou bted-
ly persons born In the territory after the
cession and subject to the jurisdiction
OF the United States were citizens OF the
United States Justice White suggested
that In this answer under the Jurisdic-
ton of the United States," stated out
OF the question, the very contention
which was being made in these GASES.
MIR. Perkins said thsflimitations OF his
answer were intended to cover such special
circumstances relating to Indians and
uncivilzed persons which had been re-
ferred to.
Continuing his argument, Mr.. Perkins
cited many other authorities supporting
bis view that the Constitution in itself
extended to territories.
Mr.. Perkins also referred TO some other
constitutional requirement. such as this
right OF habeas corpus, which might have
to be extended to ell territory alike. JUS
tice Brown asked in this connection II
counsel thought we could single out what
provisions of the Constitution apply to
new territory and what do not. MIR.
Perkins responded that it was for the
court to say "thus far and no farther, !"
that 1t was for Congress to act, always,
however, within the limits defined by
the constitution.
''The<power.to govern the people inhab-
iting the territory of the nation, which Is
delegated BY the Constitution Co Con-
gress, Is limited and defined by the Con-
stitution and Congress cannot transcend
the limits imposed"
When counsel referred at one point to
the need OF applying general oonstitu-
tionaI principles to the new domain In
stead of considering mere commercial or
practical features, Justice Brown asked
II the court could not consider the prao-
tioal effect of extending to the Philip
pines the requirement for trial by jury in
every case.
MIR. Perkins said that II the Constitu-
tion provided that trial by jury should
not be withheld, he doubtsdswhsthsr the
court would consider the practical incon-
vsniences of giving that right TO parsicu-
lar localities.
Mr.. Harmon OF counsel for appellant
in the Philippine case, followed Mr.. Per-
kins, speaking at times in impassioned
tones which rang through the chamber.
he spoke OF the august character Of tbs
court and said that on this
"holy ground" justice and right Were
csrtain &c. prevail. Ths proposition now
present, small In Itself, involved results
affecting the entire future of the govern