The times., 1900-12-18

virtue of the Articles of Confederation
nor by the fact that they had heretofore
been within the jurisdiction of one OF the
States. The accepted doctrine was that
such guarantees and rights must be con-
| ferred by Congress. Thomas Jefferson
was chairman of the committee which
presented the first plan for the govern
ment OF the territory, and he drafted it,
The Attorney General then argues that
/ the clause of the Constitution which de-
clares that duties. imposts. and excuses
shall be uniform throughout the United
States does lot apply to or govern these
cases. because the term United Sta-es.
as there used, means only the territory
comprised within the several States of the
Unicn. He says:
THE Constitution does not require that
either direct taxes or duties. imposts or
eXcses. shall be laid throughout the
whole territory belonging to The United
States uniformly with the States. Loush-
borough versus Blake is clear in holding
that while Congress cannot exempt any
State from its due share of the burden
of direct taxes. yet this regulation IS
expressly confined to the States, and
creates no necessity for extending the
tax to the district or Territories. In
that case Chief Justice Marshall denied
that the power of taxation was lin ted
by the right of representation as a Legal
principle; that taxation and representa-
tion ought to and necessarily do go to-
gether in government is a political and
not Il judicial doctrine"
The Attorney General next argues that
the Constitution does not extend of its
own force over acquired territory.
THE doctrine of the ex proprio vigore
extension of the Constitution he says,
was never heard c. r..til it was invented
and advocated by Calhoun as means of
20 < a
Mexico beyond the power of Congress to
disturb or abolish ii.
Lengthy extracts are given by the At
torney General from the Senate debate in
February, 1S49 in the resolution to OK
tend the Constitution to California. In
that debate Mr.. Webster said that it was
impracticable and impossible to extend
the Constitution to a Territory of The
United States.
Argument in the case will be closed ty
c. H. Aldrich. of Chicago, for Pepke
When motions were in order in the Su-
preme Court yesterday, John G. Carlisle
and other counsel asked that several ad-
ditional cases be advanced to be heard
with that of De Lima & Co. VS.. The United
States on January Z. They all involve
the constitutionality of the Porto Rican
tariff act, and the titles are. Carlos Arm
strong VS.. The United States, from the
Court Of Claims; Dooley. Smith & Co
two cases. VS.. The United States from the
Court of Appeals for the Second circuit;
Samuel B. Downes & Co. IS. The United
States, from the Court of Appeals of the
Second circuit. This makes five cases in
all to be heard together after the holiday
recess.
Before argument was begun in the
GoetZe case leave vas granted Alexander |
Porter Morse, w Ham, and Charles F. |
Manderson TO file brief in that case |
'on behalf of individuals as deeply inter |
ested in the final determination of the |
questions involved as the Government it
self" The brief says:
a decision in these cases adverse to /
the Government would make il possible |
not only to suddenly endanger our rev |
enues upon a mere cession of acquired !
territory-no one can say TO what extent |
without the consent of Congress, but it |
would jeopardize i very large amount of |
capital invested in the States in certain /
agricultural industries, the protection and |
development OF which it has long been |
the policy Of the Government to safe
guard in our customs revenue laws These /
industries, embracing tobacco. sugar. rice.
hemp. fruits, etc, cannot compete on the |
unequal terms which would be forced upon
them with like products grown in ceded |
(tropican possessions.
No one can now say TO what extent
the United States may go or feel re-
quired to 90. through the fortunes OF /
war in taking over ceded possessions. No
one would have been bold enough 10 as
sert at the inception of our last war that
a cessicn of Porto Rico and the Philip I
pines would be one OF the results. Event
ually Cuba may be taken in to safeguard
cur interests. CT her people may finally
vote for annexation. This case is far
reaching in its possible consequences TO
our fiscal, Industrial and labor interests
Heretofore our cessions have been CT con-
tiguOus territory having scanty products
and Comparatively few people who could !
be readily assimilsted. etc. We have row
other and serious conditions to deal with. /
The Union was OF States for their Pro-
lection first and nOt-as too many seem
to suppose-fUr the exercise Of charity
toward inhabitants who might might
not come 10 US by war