Willmar tribune., 1900-12-26
VIEWS OF MR.. GRIGGS,

Views Uf NH. URlUUS,
Attorney General Presents Argu-
ment to Supreme Court.
He Defends the Governments Posi-
ton in Important Cases Involve
ing Status Of Porto Rico
and the Philippines.
Washington, Dec. 1o.-Arguments in
the Porto Rico-Philippines cases, in
| volving the status of those countries to
the United States, were resumed in the
United States supreme court Tuesday.
The widespread interest in the cases
was shown by large attendance of
| prominent members of the bar and by
a crowd of spectators which filled the
| public area and overhowed into the
| corridor.
Argument by Mr.. GriEgs.
Mr.. Griggs' plea was based upon a brief
Of 200 pages, the greater part of which is
United States, while the remaining portion
is in the shape of an appendix giving the
| text of the peace treaty between the United
Staes and Spain, and also the text of other
| treaties supposed to bear upon the question.
In presenting the. governments side of
the controversy the attorney general first
stated the two cases upon which the pro-
ceeding is based. This was followed by
| general explanation and summing up OF
the governments position, after which
| came the citation of innumerable authori-
ties, under appropriate headings, with per
| t1nent running comment upon them. The
attorney general cOntended that the United
! States has the power to acquire territory;
| that having acquired it, it has the right to
govern 1t: that administrative construc-
ton, congressional action and judicial pre-
cedent affirm that every port in a ceded
country is properly regarded as foreign un-
| til laws are extended by congress to the
| new possessions: that the clause of the
| constitution of the United States declaring
duties uniform throughout the United
| States is not applicable to new possessions,
and that the constitution does not extend
OF Its own force over acquired territory.
| Wrong from Two Points Of View.
In his general contention on behalf of the
| United States, Mr.. Griggs argued that his
opponents were wrong from both a legal
| and constitutional point of view. Refer
ring to the legal aspect of the case, he as
serted that the Dingley act applied to mer-
| chandise 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 possessions of
the United States when brought into the
| ports Of the union.
!
He laid down as established the two fol-
| lowing propositions:
| l. That the tariff act of 1897 was intended
by congress to classify as foreign all coun-
! tries not part of or belonging to the
| United States at the time of it's passage,
| and the subsequent cession of the Spanish
islands to the United States did not oper-
ate to admit imports from those islands
| free of duty under that law. 2. That the
tariff act so construed and enforced violates
! no constitutional rule of uniformity.
| Right to Acquire and Govern.
Mr.. Griggs then entered upon the presen-
| tation of his subject in detail. He contend
ed that the right of the United States to ac-
! Quire territory had been asserted in the
declaration of independence, and said that
such acquisition could be made either by
| conquest, by treaty, by annexation or by
| discovery. He quoted number of supreme
| court decisions in support of this conten-
ton. A great deal of attention was given
| to the right to govern territory when once
| acquired, and innumerable authorities were
| adduced in support of this position, among
| others the decision of the supreme court in
| the Mormon church case, in which the court
! said that 1T would be absurd to hold that
! the United States has power to acquire ter
ritory and no power to govern it when ac-
! quired."
He asserted that "the treaty-making pow
er of the government has exercised the
| right to deal with the status of the inhabit-
ants of ceded territory in every treaty of
cession from 1903 to 1S9S.'' The status fixed.
| he said, has not been uniform, but exceed
iEgly varying. He then proceeded to argue
that this practice is entirely at variance
with the doctrine that 1.-The constitution
| follows the flag and that when territory is
become Immediately proprio vigore citizens
of the United States. "If that doctrine be
true" he said, "every treaty that has
brought us new lands and new inhabitants
has violated in this respect the principles
| of the constitution. 1t convicts of error
and usurpation Thomas Jefferson, James
| Madison. James Monroe, James K. Polk,
| Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, their
| cabinets and the senates that ratified their
treaties"
As to "Uniform Duties" Clause
Mr.. Griggs went at length into the claim
that the constitutional clause which pro-
vides that duties, imposts and excises
shall be uniform throughout the United
States: prohibits imposition of duties in
the cases before the court.
''That clause" he said docs not apply
| to nor govern these cases, beca use the term
United States as there used. means only
the territory comprised within the several
states of the union, and was intended only
for their benefit and protection, and not
for the benefit or protection of outside ter
| ritory belonging to the nation: in the lat
ter sense duties on imports from these is
lands were uniform throughout the United
States, because they are uniformity i'm
posed at every port in the United States, so
that there is no preference given to the
ports of one state over those Of another, nor
is any inequality between the several states
created"
Constituti0n Not Elastic.
The last feature Of the argument was a
contention that the constitution does not
extend of it's own force over acquired ter
ritory, and in this connection the attorney
| general sought to .refute the doctrine, as
laid down by Chief Justice Taney in the
Dred Scott case, that the United States
could not acquire territory for any other
purpose than to convert it into states Of
the union. 1.-The doctrine of the ex-proprio
vigore extension of the constitution was
never heard Of" he said. until it was in
vented and advocated by Calhoun as a
means of fastening slavery upon California
and New Mexico beyond the power Of con-
gress to disturb or abolish it. 1t was in
conflict with all previous views of states
men of all parties, and opposed to the COM
pact In the ordinance of 1857, as we'll as to
| the act of congress known as the Missouri
compromise"