The Saint Paul globe., 1900-05-08
JUST THE SAME
AS In MINNESOTA
Continued From Ftr.t Pare.

Continued From First Page.
said by Chief Justice Marshall in Am.
ms; GO. VS.. Canter, l, Pet, 546:
In legislating for them congress ex-
erc1ses the combined powers of the gem
eral and Of state government"
AS TO THE TERRITORIES.
This definition of the power of con-
sress In respect to the territories has
oeen often repeated in later decisions,
DER the protection of the constitution.
Wnlch grants the power, and which enum-
crates every power of the general govern
mentS are subordinate
Ihe novel doctrine that the power to
II1hsress 70 govern territory ceded to the
toreiSh sovereign, by and through the
terms of the treaty of cession. and that
the general government can exercise pow
ipSana5 GpS rnns granted by a foreign sovereign,
constitution, until congress, rnayhap in
the future, shall by its enactment see fit
10 10 extend the constitution over the ter
Itory, IS contrary to the holding of the
supreme court of the United States
above cited, to the effect that the general
government is one of enumerated pow
ers and can claim and exercise no poWer
not granted to it, the constitution either
expressly or by necessary implication Ii
is clear that the general government can
not iegislate over territory where the
constitution from which its every power
Is derived does not extend The constitr-
tlon must be in force over territory be-
any authority to legislate respecting it.
No foreign sovereign can invest the gen
eral government with any legislative
Plain as this proposition appears, 1t
happens to be directly supported by de-
cision of the supreme court.
In Pollards, LeSsees, vs.. Hagan How
225. the court says: 1T cannot be admit
ted that the king of Spain could by treaty
Or otherwise impart TO the United States
any of its royal prerogatives; and much
less can it be admitted that they have
capacity to receive or power to exercise
them. Every nation acquiring territory
by treaty or otherwise must hold it sub
1ect to the constitution and laws of its
own government, and not according to
those of the government ceding it."
I'm In License Cases. . How. p. 6ls, Mr..
United States, in order to be binding,
must be within the legitimate powers
vested by the constitution. Treaties to
be valid must be within the scope of the
same powers; for there can be no author
1ty of the United States save what Is
derived mediate or Immediately, and reg
ularly and legitimately, from the consti-
tution.''
FORCE OF THE TREATY.
1t has been also held by the supreme
of treaty have no more force than an
act Of congress, and may be abrogated
or repealed by an act of congress at any
time.
Head money cases 112 United States
$780, Whitney VS.. Robertson, 124 United
States 1870; Chinese exclusion case, 100
United States ISL. From the opinion of
the court by Mr.. Justice Field in the
case last cited quote:
The power Of exclusion of foreigners
being an incident Of sovereignty belong
States, as part of those sovereign pow
ers delegated by the constitution, the
right to It's exercise at any time when,
In the Judgment of the government the
interests of the country require 1t, cannot
be granted away or restrained on behalf
of anyone.
The powers of government are delegat-
ed in trust to the United States, and are
incapable of transfer to any other par
ties. They cannot be abandoned or sur
rendered, nor can their exercise be ham
pered. when needed for the public good,
by any consideration of private interest.
The exercise of these public trusts is not
the subject of barter or contract"
If an incident of sovereignty, part Of
those sovereign powers delegated by the
constitution" cannot be restrained by
treaty, stipulation, and lis not the sub
jeet of barter or contract" it seems to
me that the claim that whether the en-
to territory within the dominion and SOW
ereignty of the United States depends
upon the stipulations OF treaty with
some foreign power, can deserve no seri-
Gus consideration.
DRIED SCOTT CASE
The subject of the status of newly ac-
quired territory was very fully eonsid-
cred in the Dred Scott case, 10 How $685.
In the opinion of the chief justice, page
446, 1t is said:
There is certainly no power given by
the constitution to the federal govern
ment to establish or maintain colonies
bordering on the United States or at a
own pleasure. The power to ex.
pand territory of the United States by the
admission Of new states is plainly given,
and in the construction Of this power by
all the departments Of the government it
has been held to authorize the acaulSi-
ton of territory not fit for admission at
the time, but to be admitted. 1t is ac-
quIred to become a state, and not to be
held as a colony and governed by con-
greSS with absolute authority. . =
Power therefore in the general govern
ment to obtain and hold colonies and
dependent territories, over which they
might legislate without restriction, would
be inconsistent with its own existence In
it's present form. 1t cannot create
for itself a new character separate from
the citizens of the United States, and the
duties it owes to them under the consti-
tuition. The territory being part of the
United States, the government and the
citizen both enter 1t under the constitu-
ton, with their respective rights defined
and marked out; and the federal govern
ment can exercise no power over his per-
SUI vi property DcyOHQ what InaI 1nSJru-
ment confers. nor lawfully deny any right
which 1t has reserved A reference to a
few of the provisions Of the constitution
will illustrate the proposition. For exam
pie, no one, we presume, will contend
that congress can make any law In a
territory respecting the establishment of
religion or the free exercise thereof or
abridging the freedom of speech or of the
press, or the right of the people of the
territory peaceably to assemble and to
petition the government for the redress
of grievances nor can congress deny to
the people the right to keep and bear
arms, not the right to a trial by jury.
1t could confer no power on any
local government established by its au-
thority to violate the provisions of the
constitution
NINE JUDGES WE'RE AGREED.
While the decision in that case relative
to the status of the negro race has been
the subject of much criticism, no one has
ever questioned that part Of the decision
which relates to the status of acquired
territory. Each one Of the nine justices
-