The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-12-19
does not extend of it's own force over

does not extend of its own force over
acquired territory.
In his general contention on behalf
of the United States Mr.. Griggs ar
gued that his opponents We're wrong
from both legal and a constitutional
point of view. Referring to the legal
aspect of the case, he asserted that
the Dingley act applied to merchan-
disc imported from Porto Rico and
the Philippines after their cesSiOn to
the United States the same as it did
before and that there is no principle
of justice. much less of constitutional
| restriction, which forbidS congress
from taxing in this way the mer.
chandise of outlying possessions of the
United States when brought into the
ports of the Union.
He laid down as established the two
following propositions: First-That
the tariff act of 1897 was intended by
congress to classify as foreign all
countries not part of or belonging
to the United States at the time of
its passage and the subsequent ces-
sion of the Spanish islands to the
United States did not operate to ad-
nit imports from those islands free
of duty, under that law. Second
That the tariff act so construed and
enforced violates no constitutional
rule of uniformity.
The Constitutional Question.
Taking up the constitutional ques-
ton, the attorney general declared
that there was no doubt that it was
the intention of the Paris treaty not
to make the ceded islands part Of
the United States and also that it was
intended not to make the inhabitants
of these islands citizens. The only
thing that could justify n declaration
that the treaty is invalid would be
that it violates the Constitution OF the
United States.
Calling 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 SOW
ereignty over subject territory, which
it does not make part of itself under
the Constitution Mr.. Griggs said.
II this were true. il would be a limitation
upon the usual and necessary powers OF sover'
eign independent nation OF such tremendous iG-
portance as to Justify MS inquiring why = was
rot clearly expressed in the fundamental law by
the men who drafted our Constitution. They
We're learned in the law of nations, they knew
the nature of colonies and provinces and how
they We're acquired by treaty and conquest and
discovery and how they We're held and gov
erned by other nations, They gave to the nation
they founded the usual untrammeled powers Of
making war and treaties, the most frequent
methods by which foreign territory is acquired
by the nations Of the earth. II they intended to
restrict or limit their own government in these
respects, would they not have done in express
terms? They did not do by any language
which can even be suggested capable OF such
import, and il is therefore right, nay, necessary,
10 conclude that they did not intend to do sn
Intent of the Fathers.
He then proceeded to argue that this
was not only the intention of the franz
ers of the constitution but declared
that it could be positively shown that
so far from their intending to organize
government which should be inca
pable of acquiring foreign territory eX-
cept upon condition of making 1t an
organic part of the United States. the
early statesmen Of the republic We're
under the impression that no territory
could be annexed to and become a part
of the United States without amending
the constitution. He said:
| shall show that the practical construction
put upon the Constitution by the executive and
congressional branches Of the government f)r .