Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-12-25

DTolHeT u odHnuel MCDOndlu Is expected TO
arrive here this afternoon from Denver.
and he will stop at the Arlington Hotel.
William Mcdonald Miller, nephew from
Ohio, is also expected to be here today.
"The Constitution and the Flag,
To the Editor of The Evening Star:
In your able editorial on the above subject
in The Star of Saturday evening last i:
strikes me you have left weak spot The
error in my opinion is in contending that
our insular possessions are not IAN integral
part of the United States" But you are
not alone. l always thought the contention
of the republicans in the debates in Con-
gress to this effect was not tenable The
able argument Of the Attorney General be-
fore the Supreme Court Is tinctured with
it. Next to the absurdity of holding that
the Constitution follows the flag is the
other abSurdity that the territories belong
to, but not a part of the United States"
Such nonsense was never necessary to
reach the conclusion that Congress has the
power to enact a particular tariff for Porto
Rico and the Philippines without regard to
the uniformity clause in the Constitution
This contention is about the same as say
ing, If a man owning a hundred-acre farm
should buy ten acres more and remove his
fence to include the new tract 1t would
belong to him, but not be a part of his
farm; or, If the land was not adjacent it
would belong to him. but not be a part of
MS estate Cnle1 JuStlCe Marshall was
right when he said in the Loughborough
case that the District of Columbia and all
the territories belonging to the United
States were a part of the empire of the
republic the first. use of the word EN-
pre- in our judicial history. But it does
not follow that because our territorial pos
sessions, when or however acquired are
integral parts of the United States, they
occupy the same legal relations as the
states, and that it is not possible under
the Constitution to hold any of them as
permanent colonies, and the great chief
justice never said SO. The Constitution, as
you well say, does extend to Porto Rico,
the Philippines and Hawaii. because it is
the power of attorney-the foundation for
all authority exercised anywhere by the
United States-t precedes the fiag-but this
does not mean that all its provisions go
with that authority.
Suppose the District of Columbia instead
of being acquired by cession from Maryland
and Virginia, had been acquired by the
fathers of the republic by conquest or pur-
chase from some foreign power or from
an Indian tribe, the foreigners Indians
being allowed to remain in the District;
and suppose some question had gone to the
Supreme Court about taxation within the
District, would Chief Justice Marshall have
made the same decision he did in the
Loughborough case? l think not, unless
the treaty of cession had admitted these
foreigners or Indians to the rights and priv
ieges of citizens Of the United States as
in the cases Of the Louisiana purchase, the
cession of Florida and the territories &C
quired from Mexico. When Justice Harlan
read the pertinent part of the Loughbor-
ough case to Mr.. Griggs for his opinion
about 1t, it does not seem to me the law
officer Of the government was as happy in
disposing of it he might have been. In
the case l have supposed the District of
Columbia would have been quite as much
a part of the United States as it was when
occupied by citizens of the United States
entitled to equality and uniformity of tax
alton under the Constitution.
If at the moment any territory passes into
the possession of the United States the
Constitution of its own force extends over
it, making the inhabitants of the acquired
territory citizens of the United States of
course the provision of the Paris treaty
that leaves the status of the population as
to civil and political rights in the free hand
of Congress cannot stand Treaties cannot
violate the Constitution. The argument of
the Attorney General, which is mostly his,
torical clearly showed that If the cession
itself transforms the inhabitants Of ac-
quired territories to be citizens of the
United States, it was a work of supereroga-
ton in the treaties with Napoleon, with
Spain in the Florida cession, and with
Mexico later on in providing for the en-
dowment Of the people of these various
parts Of our domain with the rights and
tmmunities Of citizens of the United States;
but he failed SO far as l noticed, to show
that they would not have become citizens
by the operation of the Constitution itself.
The question is not what done by JEFF
ferson, Monroe and Polk, but what the
Constitution requires to be DONE or rather
what 1t forbids.
I was surprised to see an able lawyer
like Mr.. Griggs repeat the absurd Foraker
argument in the Senate pending the Paris
treaty, that the power to acquire and gov
ern colonial dependencies is derived from
the sovereignty of nations, the same as
that exercised by England, Germany and
France. The analogy is not good. There
is sovereignty in the government in this
country. The sovereignty is in the people,
and for national purposes speaks only
through the legislative, executive and judi
cal departments created by the Constitu-
ton. The true authority for what we have
been doing is the implied powers of the
Observation-Disclosures in the war and treaty
making powers-and this power is as COM
p,ete as if written down in the Constitution
1t is the same kind of power as was ex-
ercised in the establishment of a United
States bank in early history in act
ing protective tariff laws. in building trans.
continental railways and that Is now pro-
posed to be used in constructing a canal
across the isthmus-powers that can no
where be found in any express grants in
the Constitution. The democratic party
has always denied these implied powers
and it is not strange that they can see no
authority for colonial policy under the
Constitution.
1t is to be hoped II the Supreme Court
sustains the position of the government In
what has been done and is proposed to be
done In our insular possessions. 1t win base
Its decision on solid grou..-.
aTIrnENT