Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1900-12-20

classes of emigrant or aboriginal in
habitants who may become citizens,
and the proper period of probation
and the terms and conditions of adj
mission, why is it unreasonable or I'M
just to leave to their judgment and
discretion the time, the terms and the
conditions upon which the inhabitants
of lately foreign islands may be adj
mltted to the same high status?
Are the United States so bound
and tied by this constitution of ours
that they can never acquire an island
of the sea, a belt across the Isthmus,
station for a naval base, unless it be
at the cost of admitting those who
may happen to inhabit the son at the
time of the purchase 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, tho he
dwell half a century among us?
What reason can be suggested for
denying to this nation such full
power and discretion as are
possessed by other nations in this
respect? Why should the trainers OF
the constitution have wished to put
| shackles on the national limbs, or to
strip the nation of powers necessary
to the preservation of it's dignity and
the maintenance of its material inter-
ests on an equality with the nations
of the earth?
| The full exercise of these ordinary
powers tends to the exaltation of the
dignity, influence and welfare of the
nation. These powers are inconsist-
ent with no principle of personal liber-
| ty. Why seek to needlessly limit and
restrain the national functions? Why
not rather, with the same largeness of
view and purpose that characterized
such statesmen as Jefferson and Mar
| shall, seek, by liberal Interpretation,
to give broad and ample scope to the
spirit of national Development looking
| forward, as Marshall expressed it, to
the ages to come when newer, grand
er and more potential opportunities
| for national growth and influence
| should have come to us than our faith
ers ever dreamed Off"
Mr.. Griggs went at length into the
| claim that the constitutional clause
which provides that duties, imposts
and excuses shall be uniform thruou.
the United States" prohibits imposi-
ton of duties in the cases before the
court.
"That clause" he said, "does not APP
ply to nor govern these cases, because
the term United States as there used,
means only the territory comprised
within the several states of the union,
and was intended only for a benefit
or protection of outside territory be
longing to the nation; in the latter
sense duties on imports from these is
lands were uniform thruout the Unit
ed States because they are uniformly
imposed at every port in the United
States, so that there is no preference
/ given to the ports of one state over
those of another, nor is any inequality
between the several states created
The attorney general argued for a
sharp delineation between the rights
of the people of the states and those
of our immediate territories, saying
that all the authority of the United
States is derived from the people OF
the states and not from those of the
territories; that the people of the ter
ritories cannot share or contribute to
that authority, as they are deprived
of the right to elect officials, etc. The
purpose of the constitution provision
| for uniformity was that of insuring
fair treatment to all the states by
congress and it was known to have
been one of the guarantees held out
to the states to accept the constitu-
ton. 1t was not a personal, but
local guaranty, operating not as
| privilege to individuals but to states
considered as organized constituents
of the union. Hence, he argued, rea-
sons for applying it to territories are
wanting.
The last feature of the argument
was contention that the constitution
does not extend OF its own force over
acquired territory, and in this connec-
ton the attorney general sought to re-
flute the doctrine as laid down by Chief
Justice fancy in the bred Scott case,
that the United States could not ac-
i qulre territory for any other purpose
that to convert it into states of the
4 union.
4 The doctrine announced in the bred
! Scott decision was, said Mr. Griggs.
not original with Chief Justice fancy,
but was originated by John C. Cal
1 the discussion of the Wilmot proyisio
of 1S47
This doctrine had been tacitly ignor-
ed and repudiated in later opinions
and in congressional action, to say
nothing of the effect upon it of the re-
suit of the civil war. Indeed" said
the attorney, in the language Of Prof.
Pomeroy, the bred Scott decision had
become a by-word and Kissing .
In conclusion Mr.. Griggs submitted
that the judgments in the lower
courts in both cases violate no consti-
j tutional or other right and tharafnre-