Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1900-02-09
Member From Massachusetts, Dis
sents From His Republican
Colleagues
On the Proper Form of Gov
ernment to Be Given Porto
Rico.
In His Opinion Constitutional
Prohibitions Cover ALI Our
Territory. @

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9.-The reports Of
the bill framed by the ways and means
committee, imposing duties equivalent
to 25 per cent of the American tariff on
goods imported into Porto Rico from the
United States and vice versa, was sub
mitted to the house. The Republicans
of the committee, except Mr.. Mccall
(Mass.) agreed to report in support of
the bill, devoting a considerable portion
of their argument to sustaining the con-.
tention that the clause Of the constitu-
ton declaring that all "duties, imposts
and excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States,'' is not applicable to
our new possessions, which, they say,
are not United States territory within
the meaning Of that declaration.
The Democrats, together with Mr.
Newlands (Nev.), took the contrary
view. Mr.. Mccall, dissenting Republ-
can, practically holds with them. He
made separate report, saying he can
not support the bill, "because it does not
follow the rule of uniformity pre-
scribed by the constitution rule
which, in my opinion, governs congress
in legislation for the territories of the
United States.'' Mr.. Mccall is unspar-
ing in his denunciation of the policy to
which the bill will commit the govern
ment.
| Mr.. McCall's Position.
| In his report Mr.. Mccall SAYS:
''The pending bill is, in my judg-
ment, well considered measure from a.
fiscal standpoint and is likely to produce,
q sufficient revenue. [ am unable to
give it my support, because it does not
follow the rule of uniformity prescribed.
by the constitution, a rule which, in my
opinion, governs congress in legislating
for the territories of the United States.
do not think it material to consider
whether the constitution propria vigore
extends to the territory of Porto Rico.
In my opinion, the question involved is
whether congress in legislating for that
territory is bound to observe those linn
itations upon it's actions which are i'm
posed by the constitution, or whether it
possesses arbitrary power, excepting
the power to establish slavery, and can
govern that island and other territories
of the United States subject only to its
| own will. If congress is restrained by
the limitations of the Constitution, it
cannot pass the pending bill. If, on
the other hand, it is not SO restrained.
but has the power to pass the pending
bill, then it follows that it also has the
power to pass ex post facto laws, bills of
attainder and to do all other acts pro-
hibited by the constitution, and the peo-
pie of Porto Rico are merely subjects
without legal rights and can only enjoy
their lives and property by the grace of
congress. Believing that this assertion
of despotic power is contrary to the life
and spirit of our institutions, 7 am COM
PEELED to dissent from the recommends
ton of my colleagues that the bill be
passed"
Should Have Constitutional Rights.
Mr.. Mccall then reviews the law au-
thorities and says:
81 am unable to find any support in
Judicial decisions for the doctrine that
the inhabitants of territories have no
constitutional rights but exi st only by
the will of congress. On the other hand
it has been repeatedly held by our su-
preme court that congress is bound by
restrictions Of the constitution in deal
ing with territories"
Mr.. Mccall concludes as follows:
81 recognize our full duty to do our
utmost to secure the welfare and happi-
ness of the people of our new possessions.
But I regard it as most inauspicious
omen that our first legislative acts be
framed on the theory that freedom does
not follow the flag. Is it not clear that
at the outset you are paving the way
for more hideous extortion and rob,
berry than ever disgTaced India?''