The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-07-26

came part OF the United STATES 4.
otherwise tho plaintiffs foreign Import
could not have been affected by the tariff
laws or tnat country. The court, through
Mr.. Justice Wayne. held:
Wy the ratiftcauons of the treaty,
Saliiornia became part OF the United
states. And as there Is nothing differ.
emily stipulated in the Greatly with re-
spect 10 commerce.. II became Instant,
Mound and privileged by the laws which
congress had passed 10 raise a reyenu,
from duties on imports and tonnage |,
was commended that the duties were no
payable because no collection district had
peen established at the Time, the case OF
fIemAng vs. Page @ How. U. S.. 6i3l
peIng cited in support OF the position
but the contention WAS denied. the court
pointing out that in the case OF the cess
SION OF Louisiana by sreaty OF April 80
ieVS. the possession Of the United States
was uependent upon delivery of the rat
lneauons by commissioner TO be ap-
peInued by the French government, until
Which time the old laws necessarily re-
,lhe IN force, and that. In the case OF
FIorida. the treaty was not ratified until
fepruary 10. 1921. the revenue system
belng extended no that territory a few
uavs thereafter. The concluslyeness of
the courts answer. from which no dis
sent was made by Chief Justice Taney.
VINO wrote the opinion in Fleming VS..
rage Is apparent In the familiar rule
lhat the laws prevalent in the old coun-
uS except those which may be denom-
4hdted political. remain in force until
superseded by the new CAmerican ms
20 VS.. Canter. supra; STROLLER VS.. Luz
eas ~ yet. U. s., 40: / Blackstone's
ooul,. l0i; l Konts Com, 1881 Thus. in
Ml toneil VS.. United States 60 Pet, U. S..
~ when was case relating to land
tlties In East Florida. the court said.
According TO the established prinoi-
Yves OF the laws OF nations. the laws OF
conquered or ceded country Remain On
dore until altered by the new sovereign !,
1t may be remarked before leaving our
review Of the authorities, that two United
states district judges, Isochren in ex
parte ortiz u0O Fed. Rep, 1851, and
townsend In Goethe VS.. United States
"a Law Notes, CD have considered the
question under discussion in its relation
10 Puerto Rico, reaching Numerically op-
posite conclusions; but the opinions thus
rendered not being binding authority, quo
talon from them is pretermitted.
Inc authorities which we have reviewed.
some OF them hoary with antiquity and
nowhere authoritatively disputed in tho
judicial evolutions OF succeeding ages
speak to us with no uncertain accent.
lhey teaeh, II revealing anything, that
the United States is a constitutional
sovereign, and they have no room to
longer doubt that the constitution. though
born of and carved out the States. ex-
tends It's great mantle OF protection TO
territory OF the Union everywhere. every
where beneath its mighty flag. II would
seem supernuous to say more but FOR de-
mas when are urged with apparent con-
hdenee Contention is made that, in the
history OF our other acquisitions. the con-
stiluti1s was rendered applicable nv
treaty provisions. The claim is had in
tact and worse in law. The French and
eheXiean treaties. whatever may be
thought OF the Spanish treaty for the ces
SION OF Florida, contained no provision for
constitutional rights to the Inhabitants
~ me ceded territory while in a terri
-erlaI condition, 1t being merely required
'uat ourlng such period they shall be
maintained and protected In the free en-
oyment OF their liberty property and the
'engion which they profess" (Cong Rec.
'O5S.) The claim. hence, is futile in nolnt
u ract, 1t is equally untenable in law.
since 1t is settled that a treaty is sub
ordinate to an inconsistent later act OF
and that congress Itself and u
consequence the treaty IS subordinate TO
.he constitution (Head-Money cases, 112
=. s. $50; Fung Yue Ting vs. United
states, f49 Y, s., COS; whitney VS.. Robert
ION, 124 u. s.. 100: Chinese Exclusion
asses, 1870 u. s., 5s1; The Cherokee To-
'acco, rs U S., SIG, LIST ed, 229 Pollard's
1essees VS.. Hagan. How, U. s.. 25).
'hus, In License cases. How. U. s.. G1s.
he court, through Mr. Justice Daniel.
avs:
Laws of the United States, In oreler TO
'e binding, must be within the legitimate
,uwers vested by the constitution, Trea-
les to be valid must be made within the
cope Of the same powers, for there Gan
je no authority of the United States save
What Is derived medately or Immediately
nd regularly and legitimately from the
constitution" Another argument ad-
anced Is that the Puerto Ricans are NOT
izens OF the United States. and that
fence the territory they inhabit is for
ign. The fallacy Is not difficult to ex-
ose. If the premise were admitted, tho {
onclusion is non sequitur 1t is settled
hat citizen OF the United States be- !
ONES the citizen OF State by residence I
herein (Boyd VS.. Nebnska. 143 U. s., +
S5), but that one may be citizen of the !
inlted States without being citizen OF n
my State C'rhe Slaughterhouse cases, \
3 U. S., sc, 1861 Boyd VS.. Nebraska, >
uPIdi was case involving the citizen (
hip Of B5yd, an unnaturalzed son OF a o
lthor OF foreign birth, by the admission I
the Territory OF which he was an in ,
abitant into statehood on an equal foot {
IL with the other States. In the opinion /
the court. speaking through Mr.. Chief h
lstice Fuller, it was pointed out as illus A
'atiye that by the admission of Texas into 3
le Union all the citizens OF the former I.
spuhlic became, without any express dec r
nation, citizens OF the United States. A.
lumber Of decisions being cited to that
Iect, and, IN the course OF the opinion,
lie chief justice declared:
Congress In the exercise OF the power =
establish a uniform rule OF naturaIiza- =
Ion has enacted general laws under !
inch individuals may be naturalized, hut u
ne Instances Of collective naturalization y
treaty or by statute are numerous =
Manifestly the nationality OF the In, IL
lbltants of territory acquired by con-
lest or cession becomes that OF the gov
'nment under whose dominion they pass. $
lbtect to the right OF election on their :
irt TO retain their former na,ionall,y by T.
'moYal, or otherwise as may be pro-
ded" But II the technical citizenship
the Puerto Rican be not admitted. the n
iestion remains unaffected. The safe n
ial DIS OF the constitution, in relation TO a.
WI rights and not mere political status,
e understood to extend to every inhab
AM within the Unions territory, whether y