The Saint Paul globe., 1900-05-08

wrote separate opinion. without disa-
greement as to the powers of the general
| government over such territory. Mr.. JUS
| ttce Curtis, who dfssented from the ma
| 1orfty as to the status 'of the negro, fully
concurred upon the subject now under
| consideration, and expressed his views In
his usual plain and apt language He
says, at page 6l2, ct seq:
But it IS also insisted that provisions
| OF the constitution respecting territory be-
longing to the United States do not apply
to territory acquired by treaty from a
foreign nation. This objection must rest
upon the position that the constitution
did no authorize the federal government
| 10 acquire foreign territory, and conse-
quently has made no provision for its
government when acquired; or that,
though the acquisition of foreign territory
was contemplated by the constitution. its
| provisions concerning the admission of
new states We're not designed to be appli-
cdDie TO territory acquired from foreign
nations 1t Is undoubtedly true that at
| the date of the treaty of 1903, beween the
! United states and France, for the ces-
| sion OF Louisiana ii was made a question
! whether the constitution had conferred
on the executive department of the United
states power to acquire foreign territory
| Dy treaty. There is evidence that very
grave doubts We're then entertained con-
cerning the existence of this power But
that there was then a settled opinion in
the executive and Legislative branches OF
the government that this power did not
exist cannot be admitted without at the
same time imputing to those who nego-
the laws necessary to carry 1t into execu-
tion a deliberate and known violation
or their oaths to support the constitu-
| ton; and whatever doubts NAV have
then existed. the question must now be
taken to have been settled. Four dis
tinct acquisitions of foreign territory have
Sseh mace ny as many administrations.
Six states formed on such territory are
now in the Union. Every branch Of this
government during period of fifty years
mas participated in these transactions.
THEIR
10 question their validity is now in
vain. As said by Mr.. Chief Justice Mar
shall in & the American Insurance Compa-
ny VS. Canter, l Peters 542: The constitu-
uon confers absolutely on the govern
ment of the Union the powers of making
war and of making treaties; consequent
acquiring territory, either by conquest or
treaty (see Cerre VS.. Pilot, 6 Or. $780,
ana add II also possesses the power of
governing 1t, when acquired, not by re-
sorting to suppositious powers nowhere
found described in the constitution, but
expressly granted in the authority to
make all needful rules and regulations
respecting the territory Of the United
States. l construe this clause,
therefore, as 1t had read, congress shall
nave power to make all needful rules and
regulations respecting these tracts of
country out of the limits of the United
States, which the United States have ac-
qufred, or may hereafter acquire by ces-
Sions. as well of jurisdiction as of the
SOIL, so far as the soil may be the prop
1
the time of making it, If, then
this clause does contain a power to leg
the limits of that power? To this l an
Swer; that in common with all the other
legislative powers of congress. it finds
| limits in the expressed prohibitions on
! congress not to do certain things that in
the exercise of the legislative power con-
greSs cannot pass any eX-post facto law
or bill of attainder; and so in respect to
each of the other prohibitions contained
in the constitution.
In National Bank VS. County of Yank-
ton. 1O1 U. s.. 129. 133. Chief Justice Waite
says:
''All territory within the Jurisdiction of
the United States. not included in any
state, must necessarily b0 governed by
or under the authority OF congress. The
territories are but political subdivisions
States. Congress IS supreme and
for the purpose of this department of its
governmental authority has all the pow
ers Of the people of the United states
except such as have been expressly or
by implication reserved in the prohibi
tions of the constitution. 1t may
do for the territories what the people,
under the constitution may do for the
states.
NOT A SERIOUS ONE.
The fact that the third article Of the
constitution, providing for the federal
judiciary, has been held not applicable
to the local judiciary Of a territory is
sometimes graveiy urged as supporting
the idea that the constitution does not
cover the territories. 1t does not deserve
serious notice. AS has been often decided
congress exercises In respect to a terri
tory all the powers of the general gov
ernment and also all the powers which
a state government may exercise in
state. The federal judiciary has a very
| limited Jurisdiction, and q local judiciary
is therefore as necessary in a territory as
in state and may be provided for by
congress under the power of local gov
ernment. just as state may establish its
local judiciary. SO, with reference to any
other constitutional provisions applicable
only to the federal government, and not
to state governments; they may not apply
to the local government of territories, and
this could constitute no argument that
the territories more than the states are
outside the constitution.
The plain, obvious and undeniable fact
Is that the general government of the
| United States created by the ConstItu-
| ton, and possessing vitality or power
not directly drawn from that instrument,
| can only exist and legislate where that
Constitution is in force and that every
tract of territory that comes under the
sovereignty of the United States comes
necessarily under that Constitution. which
alone gives life to that sovereignty, and
beyond which that sovereignty must
cease.
PUERTO RICO IS INCLUDED.
That the words United States. as a gen.
eral description of the country, subject
to the general government, created by
the constitution, includes not only the
states or the Union, but the District of
Columbia, and all the territories, and con-
sequently extends to all places over
which the general government extends,
and that the constitution is equally eX-
tensive, was held, In 1926. by Chief Justice
Marshall, in LoughbOrough VS.. Blake 8
Wheat. 317, 3l9, and the doctrine has
never since been questioned by any court
Further discussion or citation of au-
thorities upon this branch of the case
seems to me to be needless. 1t must be
held that upon the cession by Spain to
the United States of the Island of Puerto
Rico, that island became a part of the
dominion Of the United States. as much
so as is Arizona or Minnesota; and that
the Constitution Of the United States, ex
| propria Yigore, at once extended over that
island; and that this extension of the
constitution gave congress, whose every
power must come from that instrument
the authority to legislate In respect TO
that island as a part of the United States
territory.
1t follows that all the provisions OF the
| constitution in respect to personal and
property rights including the right To
trial by jury in criminal prosecutions, be-
came at once, when the cession was COM
pleted a part of the supreme law of the
land The character of an offense and
the nature of It's punishment would be
determined by the law in force when and
where the act was committed: and laws
of that character remain in force after
the cession until changed but the man
ner of the trial must depend on the law