The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1900-07-02
cases on international lawl. 1s7 u. s.

One of the powers granted to Congress
is to punish crimes against the law of
nations; but in this case the court
said: by the constitution of the
United States, while a crime committed
within any state must be tried in that
state and in a district previously ascer-
tailed by law, yet a crime not COM
mitted within any state of the Union
may be tried at such place as Congress
may by law direct" p. 211.
Again the court say: Both the acts
of Congress clearly include murder
committed on any land within the ex-
elusive jurisdiction of the United States
and not within any judicial district, as
we'll as murder committed upon the
high seas D. 212-
And again the court say: "All courts
of justice are bound to take judicial no
tice of the territorial extent of the jur-
isdiction exercised by the government
whose laws they administer" p PA.
And the court very unkindly decided,
that the President, exercising the dis
cretionary power conferred upon MIN
by the Constitution and the laws, was
satisfied that the island of NavaSSa
was not within the jurisdiction of Hay
I'll, or of any other foreign government"
p 223.
decide that an island appertaining to
the United States is outside Of its ter
ritorial boundaries; but does decide
that Congress in legislating for Ma
vassa island was within the ConSt1tu-
was, within the Constitution. and that
this island is within the territorial ex-
tent of the jurisdiction of the United
States' 1t is one of the places over
which the government extends, and
appears to be wanting in none of the at
tributes of territory within the terri
torial boundary of the United states,
THE DATA FOR DIFFERENTIATION
Now these two decisions furnish US
the data to determine whether any ter
ritory is within the territorial limits of
the United States. 1t must be WITHIN
the territorial extent of the jurisdiction
exercised by the government. 1t must
be land within the exclusive Jurisdiction
of the United States 1t must be a place
over which the government extends.The
Philippine Archipelago, Guam, and Por-
to Rico are within the territorial extent
of our jurisdiction, they are land within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the United
States, and they are places over which
the government extends. Hence, we are
justified in claiming that they are with
in the territorial boundary of the United
States.
But the administration relies. upon
two other cases, Fleming vs. Page
Howard, Ga, (Magoon PIP. II, 49, and
In Re Ross, 40 L. S. 453, (Magoon PIP.
ID, and 1920. These cases are particu-
larly valuable to show the weakness of
the Administrations case. The first case
simply decides that national boundaries
are not changed by the advance and re-
treat of armies. So the occupation OF
Mexican territory by the army of the
United States did not change the ma
tional boundary. That proposition is
self-evident, and has no bearing upon
the present situation.
The Ross case is, if anything, more
far-fetched than the Fleming case Ross
was tried and convicted of murder be-
fore the consul-general of the United
States in Japan The conviction was
sustained, the court saying: THE con-
stitution can have no operation in an
other country. When therefore, the rep
resentatives or officers of our govern
ment are permitted to exercise authori;
ty of any kind in another country it
must be on such conditions as the two
countries may agree, the laws of Meth
er one being obligatory upon the other.
The deck of a private American vessel,
it is true, is considered for many pur
poses conStructively as territory of the
United States, yet persons on board of
such vessels, whether officers, sailors, or
passengers, cannot invoke the protec-
ton of the provisions referred to until
brought within the actual territorial
boundaries of the United States"
To make this case applicable to our
present situation, the islands must be in
some other country, and our rights
there must depend upon treaty Stipu-
lation with that other country. What
and where is that other country? And
with whom can we treat for permission
to exercise authority?
But the administration claims that
even if the islands are within the terri
torial boundary of the United States,
their inhabitants cannot invoke the
projection of the constitution and says:
The conclusion seems irresistible that
the sovereign people of the United
States, in acquiring territory by the ex
ercise of the inherent right of sovereign
ty, secure said territory free and clear
of incum branceS other than 1t sees lit
to impose upon itself by treaty stipula-
ton or other agreement entered into
with direct reference to said territory"
(Magoon, p. 26). The will of the con-
queror is the law of the conquered"
(Magoon, p. 24).
To sustain this high and mighty doc
trine, three decisions are apparently re-
lied upon:
Talbot VS.. Silver Bow county, 139 U. S.
446.
Shively vs. Bowlby, 1872 U. s 49,
Benner VS.. Porter. 9 Howard 235.
Abiding to the territories, it quotes
from the first:
1T is not a distinct sovereignty 1t has
no independent powers. 1t is a political
community organized by congress, and
all whose powers are created by con-
greSS, and all whose acts are subject to
congressional supervision It's attitude
to the general government is no more
independent than that of a city to the
state in which it is situated, and which
has given to it its municipal organiza
tion.'
1t quotes from the second:
by the constitution, as is now well
settled the United States having right
fully acquired the territories, and being
the only government which can impose
laws upon them, have the entire do
minfon and sovereignty, national end
municipal, federal and state, over all
territories. so long as they are in a
territorial condition"
It quotes from the third:
THE distinction between the federal
and the state jurisdictions under the
constitutions of the United States has
no foundation in these territorial gov
ernments, and consequently no such
distinction exists either in respect to the
jurisdiction of their courts or the sub
jects submitted to their cogniZance
They are legislative governments and
their courts are legislative courts, con-
gress. in the exercise of it's powers in
the organization and government of the
territories, combining the powers of
both the federal and the state authori-
ties Thara Is system VS.