Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-12-19

he Sa1u tIldt recent annexation OI leIIl-
tory by the United States was somewhat
out of the line with American history
and proceeded as follows:
We have now acquired insular terri
tory unsuitable for American settlers,
even if they were not populated as they
are. We have taken on peoples rather
than lands. The native labor IS cheap and
threatens competition. We have said that
the Chinese will not amalgamate, and
the Filipino will be equally slow at least.
1t is not open to question l think, that
if we had only taken over the Sandwich
Islands and the West Indies, the ques-
tons would have been otherwise.
The Supreme Court has said that the
Constitution gives the power to make
war, and that carries with it the power
to acquire territory. The people, then,
have delegated to Congress and the Pres
ident the power to acquire territory, as
we have acquired the Hawaiian Islands,
Porto Rico and the Philippines. These
islands have been taken over not for
temporary purpose, as we have taken
Cuba, but to have and to hold fovever.
Indeed, we have not yet make up our
minds what we will do with them. and
only claim now that they are part of the
United States and the people must obey
our authority.
1t is argued that Spain was not in pos
session when she sold the Philippines,
but this is not proved. There is no doubt
that any international tribunal would at
firm our title to the Philippines. The
question which troubles us is their status.
Are these people citizens or subjects,
which? recent newspaper heading at
tracted my attention Citizens of Porto
Rico Not Properly Citizens of the United
States Are they improperly citizens or
citizens improperly? There seems to be
something improper about it.
A treaty is a part of the law in the
same sense that an act of Congress is
and not as the Constitution is. If the
Constitution leaves the subject open as
to whether the people of Porto Rico shall
be citizens after annexation then the
President and Congress may deal with
them as they see fit. If the Constitution
has left no such controversy then the
Constitution must stand no matter what
the treaty may say.
There are two views to be taken: First,
that all the governmental powers are
delegated by the Constitution, that equal
taxation applies to every man and wo-
man within the nations sovereignty;
second, that the term United States de-
fines only those regions and people with
in the organized States, and that the gov
eminent of the Territories is an absolute
government and not constitutional, and
we are under no obligations to treat as
citizens those living in the Territories
This tde aseems to have found its birth
within a commercial necessity. The man
who must entirely depend upon the be-
neVolence of another is slave A gov
eminent of unlimited and absolute eXecu-
tive powers is not an American govern.
ment For one, | do not believe the
makers of our constitution ever intended
to confer the power of any such govern
ment over any one in the Constitution
1t is not right to say that because of slav-
cry our fathers did not mean all men. 1t
is a different thing to allow an existing
condition to continue from creating an
entirely different condition TO meet com
mercial necessity.
Perhaps it should be asked further
whether the rule of equal taxation must
apply to all people The instructions Of
the President 10 the Phi;rp,na commits
sion secm to indicate that the Constitu-
should be established there The provis-
ions our fathers tough for were for
rights, not for privileges. NJ man can
read that schedule oc rlyh-: which i.
President gave to the Philippine commits
sion in an inverse order, without horror
Did you ever read one Of the treaties
made by the United States with an Old
World Power? On one side they speak
the other the citizens Of the United
States" Now if these provisions guaran-
teed to citizens of the United States do
not apply to citizens of the Philippine Is
lands, it is time for US to amend these
treaties by adding and subjects" after
the words citizens of the United States
The Constitutional provisions regulating
the crime of treason seem to apply TO
these people. We have never had any
trouble with this question in our govern
ment of the Territories before. What
have we been doing? Have we acquired
these Territories that we might hold
them for crown colonies? There was
only one door of escape from the provis-
ion for uniformity of taxation in the Con-
stitution, and that was to declare that
Porto Rico was not a part OF the United
States. 1t would seem that a region
where the educational and sanitary and
other regulations are OF interest to the
United States is of itself a portion Of the
United States. 1t would seem that we
should seek TO find a way to govern this
territory that Providence has thrown
upon us. for which We paid $2o ono C00
But don't you see that there is a
graver peril hanging over US? Are the
rights Of the people upon the mainland
secure when We exercise arbitrary power
over people from whom We demand en-
tire obedience? The flag cannot stand
for the benevolent policies of the admin
istration- 1t must stand for permanency
Is it not moclery 70 raise the flag over
the people of Porto Rico and bid them
respect it. and then issue to them an alb
solute power of government from the
staff beneath? If the fact Of annexation
does not carry the Constitution, / can
think of nothing that does The Consti-
tuition goes TO annexed territory because
o. the act.
A gentleman wrote me that L was alb
solutely necessary TO pass the Porto
Rican tariff 10 protect the beet-sugar
business. / thanked him, but I could not
see that It referred TO the question The
fact that we give all the money secured
by the tariff back 10 Porto Rico does not
affect the question. 1t did not satisfy
a