Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1900-12-20
CONSTITUTION FOLLOW THE FLAG?
Argument Of Attorney General Gggs Before the Supreme
Court Of the United States Tuesday e &c &c

0~-s-SSS-S->- ~
The question, "Does the Constitu.
ton Follow the Flat,?" agitated many
people during the iaEe UNDERSTANDINGS.
sometimes called the last presiden-
tial campaign, and in view Of that
fact the argument Of Attorney Cen
eral Griggs before the United States
supreme court yesterday in two cases
where it is sought to impose duty
on imports into the United States by
citizens of countries which are now
recognized as part of the United
States, will be of great interest. Be
lieving this to be the case the Courier
prints the argument of the attorney
general almost as fully as the Asso-
ciated Press sends it. Ittfollows:
Washington, Dec. 19.---Mr. Grigg's
plea, was based upon brief of 200
pages, the greater part of which is
devoted to presenting the argument
of the United States while the remain
ing portion is in the shape of an APP
pendix giving the text of the peace
treaty between the United States and
Spain and also the text of other trea-
ties supposed to bear upon the ques-
ton.
In presenting the governments side
of the controversy the attorney gener-
al first stated the two cases upon
which the proceeding is based
and commended that the United States
has the power to acquire territory;
that, having acquired it, it has the
right to govern 1t; that administrative
construction, congressional action and
judicial precedent affirm that every
port in coded country is properly re-
garded as foreign until laws are ex-
tended by congress to the new posses
sions; that the clause of the constitu-
ton Of the United States declaring
duties uniform thruout the United
States is not applicable to new pos
sessions, and that the constitution
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 were wrong
from both legal and constitutional
point of view.
He laid down as established the two
following propositions:
ID 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 subse-
quent cession of the Spanish islands
to the United States did not operate
to admit imports from those islands
free of duty under the law; (2) that
the tariff act so construed and en-
forced violates no constitutional rule
of uniformity.
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 in
tended not to make the Inhabitants
Of thoseislands citizens. The only thing
that could Justify 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 he
constitution, but rather upon a prin-
ciple of our government which they
say forbids this nation to hold soyer-
eighty over subject territory which it
does not make q part of itself under
IF this were true, it would be linz
itation upon the usual and necessary
powers of a sovereign independent ma
ton Of such tremendous Importance
as to justify us in inquiring why it was
not clearly expressed in the fundamen-
tai law by the men who drafted our
constitution. They were learned in
the law of nations, they knew the ma
<Yyw If ny1 M
how they were acquired by treaty and
were held and governed by other ma
tons. They gave to the nation they
founded the usual untrammeled pow
most frequent methods by which for
lions of the earth. If they intended to
In these respects, would they not have
done so in express terms? They did
not do so by any language which can
even be suggested as capable of such
import, and 1t is therefore right
necessary-to conclude that they did
not intend to do so.
He then proceeded to argue that
this was not only the intention of the
trainers of the constitution but declar-
ed that it could be positively shown
that SO far from their intending to or
ganize a government which should be.
incapable of acquiring foreign terri
tory except upon condition of making
it an organic part Of the United States,
the early statesmen of the republic
were under the impression that no
territory could be annexed to and be-
come part of the United States with
out amending the constitution.
Il shall show" he said, that the
practical construction put upon the
constitution by the executive and con-