New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-01-22
TARIFF IN THE ISLANDS.
DEMOCRATS MAY OPPOSE EXTENSION
OF AMERICAN LAWS.
[BY TELEeRAPH ID LIE rnInuxE.1


IBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUSE-1
Washington. Jan 21.--In conversation to-day
a Representative who was present at the con-
ference Of Democrats held last night to try to
agree upon and formulate policy to guide their
party and govern it's action in regard to proposed
legislation affecting Puerto Rico. the Philippines
and Hawaii remarked that while definite
conclusions were reached. he thought the dis
cussons indicated a strong disposition to take
the position that the general laws OF the United
States were Immediately extended over and be-
came applicable without any action by Con-
gress to those possessions as soon as the joint
resolution annexed the Sandwich Islands and
the treaty of peace with Spain was concluded
and ratified by Spain and the United States.
He thought that this position the only one
that could be sustained on Constitutional
grounds. and that a majority Of his party In
Congress held the same view.
If the Democratic party IN the House OF Rep
resentatives should decide to take this ground
1t would. of course. soIidly oppose the bill TO
extend the tariff and internal revenue laws
relating TO commerce and navigation over
Puerto Rico. the ground that that had al
ready been done by the force and operation OF
the Constitution Of the United States; and il
would also solidly oppose a measure providing
for distinct and separate laws affecting the
tariff internal revenue and commerce and nayf-
cation. The Representative before referred TO
expressed with much emphasis the opinion that
II the Republicans took the opposite position
they would fly in the face Of a decision OF the
Supreme Court of the United States. pronounced
by Chief Justice Marshall"
HAWAIIAN COURTS DECISION
The latest judicial decision bearing on ths
status Of territory belonging to the United States
by virtue of conquest or by cession or annexation
in
May 81. 1899. by the Supreme Court of the Ha-
walian Islands. and many Senator'S and Repre-
sentatives have been studying it with consider
able interest. The decision was rendered in two
suits brought to recover duties paid to the
Hawaiian Government after the joint resolution
for the annexation OF Hawaii had been passed
by Congress and approved by the President.
After an elaborate review of the precedents
bearing the political status and relations OF
territory acquired by the United states either
by conquest or by cession in time Of peace. and
copious citation Of judicial precedents in the
United States courts. including one decision pro-
nounced by Chief Justice Marshall and one by
Chief Justice Taney. the Hawaiian Supreme
Court decided against the plaintiffs. among
other things it said:
We have endeavored thus far to show that the
Constitution of the United States was framed by
reasonable men to provide for the requirements
o
with reference to recognized principles; thAI;
construed with reference TO those principles. al
its provisions that may be ultimately apphcaols
TO acquired territory do not necessarily eAtepo
to il of their own force Immediately upon con-
quest or the ratification OF a treaty or the pas
sage of a joint resolution of annexation
Further on the Court said:
In Ieitensdorfer vs. Webb GO How. 1T6-1S5Il
in New-BIexieo by the military authorities on the
United States upon the conquest Of that eoun-
ton of the war. until changed by or In pur-
sUance Of act of Congress. (See also Hamilton
vs. Dillon, 81 Wall, 13, So
on the whole while the actual decisions may
be generally accounted for on other grounds.
and while the dicta are not always conslstent
and not always favorable to the proposition
that uDon the ACQUISITION of territory the Con-
stitutiOn in all it's fulness may not Immediately
extend to it, either because Of the inaction o1
treaty or joint resolution OF annexation, yet the
prevailing view seems to support this PROPOSE
tion. and it certainly seems founded on good
sense and has been uniformly followed IN prac-
tice.
JUSTICE TANEY's RULING.
The citation from the decision of the suprens
Court by Chief Justice Taney contains the fol-
lowing passage:
The Department in no instance that ara
aware Of since the establishment Of the Govern
ment, has ever recognized a place in newly
acquired country domestic port from which
the cOasting trade might be carried on, unless
gress. The principle thus adopted and acted
upon by the Executive Department Of the
Gov ernment has been sanctioned by the de-
csiOns in this court and the circuit courts when
ever the question came before them
Following is the citation given by the Ha-
waiian Supreme Court from the decision by the
Supreme Court of the United States by Chief
Justice Marshall In one OF the cases arising
after the acquisition Of Florida:
The usage Of the world is. II a nation be not
entirely subdued to consider the holding OF
conquered territory a mere military occupa-
ton until it's fate shall be determined at the
treaty of peace If IL be ceded by the treaty, ths
acquisition is confirmed. and the ceded territory
becomes a part Of the nation 10 which Il 10
nexed, either on the terms stipulated in ths
treaty Of cession such its new master
shall impose. On such transfer OF territory II
has never been held that the relations OF the
inhabitants with each other undergo any
change. Their relations with their former sov.
ereign are dissolved and new relations are Gre
ated between them and the government which
has acquired their territory
All the laws which IN force in FlOrida
while province OF Spain. those excepted which
were political in their character, which con-
cerned the relations between the people and
their sovereign remained in force until altered
by the Government OF the United States.