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


to its constitutional agents, and that
this includes the power ito occupy for
eign territory and to govern it and its
inhabitants while it remains foreign ter
ritory. subject only to the 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 its ter
ritory.
But with these concessions, Mr.. Brown
declared, that the people had established
certain constitutional limits never to be
trahscended. This case was something
more than one of eX propio Vigor. 1t
went to the extent of denying the right
of any branch of the 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-
foundIy important that they ever mad
been called upon to present
MUST FOLLOW THE FLAG.
Mr.. Perkins followed, taking up more
particularly the constitutional phases of
the case. He maintained that the const-
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"the claim Of IN
limited power in new territories is opposed
to our entire theory of constitutional gov
eminent"
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, applies to judi
cial 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
That NOIAStI uCIiOl upon ltSdly the pro-
vision would be void, asseontrary to the
constitution, but this would not in any
way prevent or affect the Accomplishment
or the usual results OF annexation
eff the tariff act imposes a duty or tax
upon goods brought from Porto Rico to
a 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 PARIS t0ol1 effect
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 4:30 p. NJ, the court adjourned
until tomorrow, when Mr. Perkins viii
continue 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 occupiAi.
MORE PORTO RIcAN CASES.
Chief Justice Fuller TODAY advanced a
number of cases involving the relation
between the United States and Porto
| Rico so as to be heard with the De'irna
case in which this question is at issue
! 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 losdY advanced. Two of the
cases so advanced are in the NAME of
Dooley, Smith e Co., and both come
from the circuit court fer the southern
district Of New York. In one case the
| action is brought to recover money ex-
acted from them at Porto 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 set
In the other case the duties We're col
Iected after the Porto Rican law was
enacted. a third case is that of Carlo:
Armstrong, coming from the court OF
Claims and also involving the same gen
eral opinion and still sanother. that OF
Samuel B. Downs ms 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 case
from Idaho on an application for habeaa
corpus by Jack Davis, iunder sentence
Of execution The point was made that ne
was convicted and sentenced TO %
hanged by the sheriff subsequently IN
law placed hangings in charge OF the
warden of the state penitentiary IL was
commended that the old law was repeated
and the new law inapplicable, bs1ng eX
post facto. Justice Brown remarked t. IA
1T would make difference 70 III
accused who executed him. ana lne o5
clsion OF the state court was Gil 49,
giving the sheriff custody or inc ~