The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-12-19

LittlefeId. of Maine. whose speech in the
Porto Rico debate was one OF the most
notable expressions on the status of the
new insular possessions.
Mr.. Grfggs's plea was based on a brief
OF two hundred pages, the greater part
or which is devoted to presenting the ar
gument of the United States, while the
remaining portion is in the shape OF an
appendix giving the text OF the peace
treaty between the United States and
Spain, and also the text of other treaties
supposed to bear upon the question. In
presenting the governments side of the
controversy the attorney general first stat
ed the two cases on which the proceeding
is based. This was followed by a general
explanation and summing up of the gov
ernInentS position, after which came the
citation of numerous authorities, under ap-
fropriate headings, with pertinent running
comment upon them. The attorney gen.
eral contended that the United States has
the power to acquire territory; that, having
acquired IL, Ii has the right 10 govern IL:
that administrative construction, congress
sional action and judicial precedent az
hrm that every port in a coded country is
properly regarded as foreign until Jaws
are extended by Congress to the new pos
sessions; that the clause of the Consti-
tuition of the United States declaring duties
uniform throughout the United States is
rot applicable TO new possession, and ttat
the Constitution does not extend, OF its
own force, over acquired territory.
In his general contention on behalf OF
the United States Mr.. Griggs argued that
his opponents were wrong from both a
legal and a constitutional point of View
Keierring to the legal aspect of the case,
he asserted that the Dingley act applied 10
merchandise imported from Porto Rico
and the Philippines after their cessio1
to the United States, the same as 1t did
before, and that there is no principle tf
justice, much less of constitutional %restric-
ton, which forbids Congress from taxing
In this way the merchandise of outlying
possessions of the United States when
brought into the nOrfS of the Union
he laid down as established the two fol-
lowing propositions: First, that the tariff
act of 1897 was intended by Congress to
classify as foreign all countries not a part
or or belonging TO the United States at
the time of its passage, and the subsequent
cession of the Spanish islands to the United
States did not operate to admit imports
from those islands free Of duty under that
law; second, that the tariff act so con-
strued and enforced violates no constitu-
tional rule of uniformity.
Taking up the constitutional question,
the attorney general declared that there
was no doubt that it was the intention of
the Paris treaty not TO make the coded
islands a part of the United States, and
also that it was intended not to make the
Inhabitants of those islands citizens. The
only thing that could justify a declara-
ton that the treaty is invalid would be
that it violates the Constitution of the
United States.
LIMITATIONS OF POWERS.
Mr.. Griggs called attention to the fact
that those who attack the treaty rest
their case upon no specific provision OF
the Constitution, but rather upon a prin-
ciple Of our government which they say
| forbids this Nation to hold sovereignty
over subject territory which it does not
make a part of itself under the Consti-
tuition. On this point he said: eff this
were true 1T would be a limitation upon
the usual and necessary powers of a SOW
ereign independent nation of such tre-
mendous Importance as to justify us in in
curing why it was not clearly expressed
IL, the fundamental law by the men VINO
drafted our Constitution. They were
learned in the law of nations, they knew
the nature of colonies and provinces and
how they were acquired by treaty and
conquest and discovery, and how they were
held and governed by other nations. They
gave to the nation they founded the usual
powers of making war and
treaties, the most frequent methods by
which foreign territory is acquired by the
nations of the earth. If they intended
to restrict or limit their own government,
IN these respects would they not have done
so in express terms? They did not do So
by any language which can even be sug-
gested as capable of such import, and il
is therefore right-nay, necessary-to con
conclude that they did not intend to &c
So.'
He then argued that not only was this
4 not the intention Oh the trainers OF I1t
Constitution, but declares that it could bt
positively shown that so far from then
intending to organize a government which
should be incapable of acquiring foreign
| territory except on condition of making L
an organic part of the United States, the
early statesmen of the Republic were un-
der the impression that no territory could
be annexed TO and become a part of the
United States without amending the Con
stitution. Il shall show" he said. THAI
the practical construction put upon ths
Constitution by the executive and congress
Sional branches of the government for &
hundred years had, with one partial excep,
ton, been uniform in regard TO an acquired
territory as neither bound nor privileged
by that instrument until brought within
its operation, either by express compact
in the treaty or by act of Congress-; ant
that acts of Congress do not apply to aft
e~r-acquired territory until extended by
subsequent legislative enactment
He said 1T was not commended that Con
gress had absolute power over the live:
and property of citizens. There is here,
he went on, mo proposition to confiscatt
or destroy the possible quality of tn,
plaintiffs merchandise. 1t is a mere de
mand of a right to tax it at the custom
house. The right TO tax at our own port
merchandise coming from outlying terri
tory of the United States is not a strang,
nor an unusual exercise of power. There
is nothing essentially unjust in such {
practice. 1t may be made unjust by tn
severity of the tax or rigor of the prohi
bition, but so nay any other kind of z
custom house imposition. Such a practic,
has long been followed by every civilize,
power. England to-day levies duties Oh
the merchandise of all her colonies wheI
brought into the United Kingdom. Sh'
cid the same in ante-revolutionary days
and we will not find among the complaint.
of the American colonists any protest OF
this score"
RIGHT OF ADJOURNMENT.
Mr.. Griggs then entered upon details. Ht
commended that the right of the United
States to acquire territory had been as
serted in the Declaration of independence
and said that such acquisition could b'
made by conquest. by treaty, by annexa
ton or by discovery. He quoted a number
of Supreme Court decisions in support o.
this contention.
A great deal of attention was given t.
the right to govern territory when onc
acquired, and many authorities were ad
duced in support of this position, among
others the decision of the Supreme Cour
In the Mormon Church case, In which tn
court said tina sit would be absurd TO hol,
that the United States has power to acquir,
territory and no power 10 govern il whel
acquired" In this case the court said fur
ther on that the United States having ac
quired the Territory of Louisiana and tn
Territories west of the Rocky mountain
1.-THE United States government was til
only one which could impose avs upol
them and its sovereignty over them wa
complete" In the course of his argumen
in this connection Mr.. Griggs asserted tina
"lnternationa law declares that the ney
sovereign may deal will the inhabitants o
CONQUERED or coded territory and give then