Gilpin observer., 1900-12-20

govern it; that administrative cOnStruc-
ton, congressional action and judicial
precedent affirm that every port in
ceded country Is properly regarded as
foreign until laws are extended by
Congress to the new possessions; that
the clause of the constitution declar-
ing 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.
Mr.. Griggs argued that his oppone-
ents were wrong from both legal and
constitutional point of view. Refer
ring to the legal aspect of the case he
asserted that the Dingley act applied
to merchandise imported from Porto
Rico and the Philippines after their
cession to the United States, the same
as 1t 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 pos
sessions of the United States when
brought into ports of the Union.
MIR. Griggs contended that the right
OF the United States to acquire terri
tory had been asserted in the Declara-
ton 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 contention.
An examination of Jeffersons writ
ings and of his whole course of action
with reference to the Louisiana pur-
chase, and especially with reference to
the constitutional question, he said.
shows popplnSivn1,r NI, Jnfr,
doubt was not with reference to the
power of the United States to acquire
territory, but rather as to the right TO
annex 1t to and make it n part of the
United States. Liberal extracts We're
also made from the annals of Congress
to show that the only doubt in the
minds of members of Congress in CON
nection with the acquisition of Louis
lana was the right to attach it as a
part of the United States. Referring
to the doubts of jefferson. Madison and
various others of their time. rs to the
power to bring acquired territory into
the Union, Mr.. Grggs said that power
had now been affirmed by the Judiciary.
and he quoted numerous opinions in
support of the statement
He contended also that 1.-THE conced-
ed power to acquire territory by treaty
or by conquest includes the right to
prescribe what terms the United States
will agree to in fixing the future status
of its Inhabitants
He asserted that "the treaty-making
power of the government had exercised
the right to deal with the status of the
inhabitants of ceded territory in every
treaty of cession from 1903 to 1885,
The status fixed, he said, had not
been uniform. but exceedingly varying
He then proceeded to argue that this
practice is entirely at variance with the
doctrine that 'the constitution follows
the flag" and that when territory is
ceded to the United States. the inlIabi-
tants become Immediately proprie Wig
ore citizens of the United States. IF
that doctrine is true" he said every
treaty that has been made as to new
lands and new inhabitants has violat-
ed in this respect the principles of the
constitution. 1t convicts of error and
usurpation Thomas jefferson. James
Madison. James Monroe. James *.
Polk. Franklin Pierce. Andrew Jack.
son, their cabinets and the Senates that
ratified their treaties.
Are the United States so bound and
tied by this constitution OF ours that II
can never acquire an island of the sea.
belt across the lthmus. n station for
n naval basis, unless ii be mt the cost
of admitting those who may happen to
inhabit the soil at the time of the pur-
chase to full rights as citizens of the
Union. no matter how incongruous or
unfit they may be, while the foreign
born inhabitant or the aboriginal red
man must depend upon the grace of
Congress, though he dwelt half a cen
tury hmong us?"
The last feature of the argument was
n contention that the constitution does
not extend of It's own force over ne
quired territory. and in this connection
the attorney general sought to refute
the doctrine as laid down by Chief Jus.
tice Taney In the Drcd Scott case. that
the United States could not acquire
territory for any other purpose than to
convert 1t into states of the Union.
THE doctrine of the eN proprio Wig
ore extension of the constitution was
never heard Of" he said, until It was
Invented and advocated by Calhoun as
"A means Of fastening slavery upon
California and New Mexico beyond the
power of Congress TO disturb or abolish
It, 1t was In conflict with all previous
views of statesmen of all parties and
opposed to the compact in the ordln-
ance OF 1877. ms well as to the act OF
Congress known ns the Missouri cont
promise"
The doctrine announced In the Dred
Scott decision was said MIR. Grlggs.
not original with Chief Justice Tancy.
but was originated by John G. Calhoun
and pronounced by him during the dis
cussion of the Wllmot proviso of 1877.
This doctrine had been tacitly ignored
and rcpudiatcd In later opinions and in
congressional action. to say nothing OF
the effect upon It of the result of the
Civil War. Indeed, said the attorney
general. In the language OF Professor
Pomcroy. the Drcd Scott decision has
become n by-word and "A kissing.