New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-09-26

| and already In circulation with the free coin
age of an unlimited amount of silver to initiate
the currency was at once exposed and widely
| commented on But Mr.. Hill probably sup
poses the Democrats of Elmira are too ignorant
to know the difference When he came to tall;
of Imperialism he made still more startling
drafts not only on the intelligence of his hear
ers but on his own sef-respect. A lawyer who
would deceive n court by knowingly quoting to
| it a discredited and reversed opinion, pretend
| ing that he found 1t to be the accepted law,
| would deserve disbarment a dishonorable
! practitioner. Mr.. Hill does not hesitate to de-
ceive the people with like false statement OF
| the law He says:
The Supreme Court OF the United States has
already decided the constitutional question in
volved and held 40 Howard, 393-44O that
there is no power given by the Constitution to
establish maintain colonies bordering on the
United states or at distance; 10 De ruieu anu
governed at its own pleasure
Permit me to suggest right here that our
opponents, who during the memorable campaign
of 1896 so severely took to task those Democrats
who had ventured to crlticise certain nQted
decision of the Supreme Court adverse to their
spect and accept as conclusive the time honored
decision Of that high tribunal expressly sustain
ing the Democratic position in this campaign in
reference to the unconstitutionality of American
colonial governments.
That is not a time honored decision and
David B. Hill knows it. He conceals from bis
audience its origin under the innocent cover Of
citation from page and volume which they
would not understand, because he knew that If
he named the case every voter present would
say that his authority was worse than worth
less. That decision Is on the record, but it was
long ago informally reversed and is of no au-
thority whatever Those words were written
by Chief Justice fancy as a part of his argu-
ment for keeping bred Scott n slave. 1t is
the bred Scott decision which Mr.. Hill sur
reptitiously quotes the foundation of the
present Democratic position, while other deci-
siOns stand unreversed and undsCredited which
affirm in the strongest terms the plenary power
of Congress to rule territory anywhere accord
ing to it's exclusive discretion, and so far as
the case has been carried the United States
courts have upheld the exercise of that power
over our present new possessions
1t is also interesting to note Mr.. Hills COM
plant about the Franchise Tax law for Tex
"cluding local tax officials everywhere from
participation" in assessments and comforting
that work on a State Board. The law as orig
inally passed placed the duty of assessment
of franchises, of other property on local
assessors. On May II. 1899, at a hearing on
the original bill given by the Governor, David
B. Hill appeared, declared that the local assess
ment feature would give political organizations
in cities tremendous power of coercing and
Matchmaking corporations referred guardedly-
Mr.. Croker complains that Mr.. Hills attacks
are always underhanded-to the then recent
Tammany Strike at the Manhattan Elevated
Railway Company. and was the first to propose
TO the Governor the calling Of an extra session
of the Legislature TO eliminate what he re-
garded as the dangerous features of the bill
while retaining the principle of franchise taxa
tion.
We wonder if Mr.. Hill is trying to reduce
the Democratic cause and his support Of it to
an absurdity. If he is not, he must be trying
TO reduce himself to an absurdity or something
worse.