The Holly chieftain., 1900-12-21
DOES THE CONSTITUTION
EXTEND TO THE COLONIES?

having acquired it, ii has the right to
govern il; that administrative construc-
ton. congressional action and judicial
precedent affirm that every port in a
ceded country is properly regarded as
foreign until laws are extended by
Congress To the new possessions: that
the clause Of the constitution declar-
ing duties uniform throughout the
United States il not applicable to new
possessions. and that the constitution
does not extend of its own force over
acquired territory.
Mr.. Griggs argued that his oppone-
enfs We're wrong from both u legal and
n constitutional point of view. Refer
ring to the legal aspect of the case. he
asserted that the Dingley act applied
to merchandise imported from Porto
Rico and the Philippines after their
cession to the United States. the same
as it did before, and that in view of
the fact that tariff laws are in rem,
there is no principle of justice. much
less of constitutional restriction. which
forbids Congress from taxing in this
way the merchandise of outlying pos
sessions of the United States when
brought into ports of the Onion.
MIR. Griggs contended that the right
OF the United States to acquire terri
tory had been asserted in the Declara
ton OF Independence. and said that
such acquisition could he made either
by conquest. by treaty. by annexation
or by discovery. He quoted a number
of Supreme Court decisions in suppor,
of this contention.
An examination of Jefferson's writ.
ings and of his whole course OF action
with reference to the Louisiana pur.
chase. and especially with reference to
the constitutional question. he said
shows, conclusively that Mr.. Jefferson's
doubt was not with reference to the
power of the United States to acquire
territory, but rather as to the right to
annex IT TO and make il part of the
United States. Liberal extracts were
also made from the annals of Congress
to show that the only doubt in the
minds Of members Of Congress in con
nection with the acquisition of Louis.
lana was the right to attach 1t as a
part of the United States. Referring
to the doubts of Jefferson, Madison and
various others of their time. as to the
power TO bring acquired territory into
the Union. Mr.. Griggs said that power
had now been affirmed by the judiciary,
and he quoted numerous opinions in
support of the statement.
He contended also that 1.-THE conceti-
ed power to acquire territory by treaty
or by conquest. includes the right to
prescribe what terms the United States
will agree to in fixing the future status
of its inhabitants"
He asserted that 1.-THE treaty-making
power of the government had exercised
the right to deal with the status of the
Inhabitants of ceded territory In every
treaty of cession from 1903 to 1885,"
The status fixed. he said, had not
been uniform, but exceedingly varying.
He then proceeded to argue that this
practice is entirely at variance with the
doctrine that 'the constitution follows
the flag" and that when territory is
ceded to the United States, the inhabi.
tants become Immediately proprie Wig
ore citizens Of the United States. IF
that doctrine is true" he said. every
treaty that has been made as to new
lands and new inhabitants has violat.
ed in this respect the principles of the
constitution. 1t convicts of error and
usnrpation Thomas Jefferson, James
Madison. James Monroe. James X.
Polk. Franklin Pierce. Andrew Jack
son. their cabinets and the Senates that
ratified their treaties
Are the United States so bound and
tied by this constitution of ours that ii
can never acquire an island of the sea,
Il belt across the Ithmus. station for
a naval basis, unless 1t be at the cost
of admitting those who may happen to
inhabit the soil at the time of the pur.
chase to full rights as citizens of the
Union, no matter how incongruous or
unfit they may be, while the foreign
born inhabitant or the aboriginal red
man must depend upon the grace of
Congress, though he dwelt half cen
tury among us?'
a contention that the constitution does
not extend of its own force over ac-
quired territory. and In this connection
the doctrine as laid down by Chief Jus.
tice Taney In the bred Scott case, that
the United States could not acquire
territory for any other purpose than to
convert 1t into states of the Union,
1.-The doctrine of the eN proprio Wig
ore extension of the constitution was
never heard Of" he said. until It was
invented and advocated by Calhoun as
a means Of fastening slavery upon
California and New Mexico beyond the
power of Congress to disturb or abolish
1t. 1t was in conflict with all previous
views Of statesmen OF all parties and
opposed to the compact in the ordin-
ance Of 1887. as well as to the act of
Congress known as the Missouri COM
promise"
Scott decision was, said Mr.. Griggs,
not ,original with Chief Justice Taney,
and pronounced by him during the dis
r,,autov, of tho Urilynnt vrovtvn ~ fQlr