Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-10-22
WHAT THE PEOPLE
WANT 10 KNOW.

fniiaQelpnfd Record.
Inc political heirs Of those who put for
ward the dogma that the Constitution OF
It's own force carried slavery into the ter
ritories Of the United States now maintain
ries free trade even into the new island
territory of the United States, without
any legislative action. = Authoritative
statemen by member of the Cabinet.
Very well. Why not? Does not the Con-
stitution of its own force carry free trade
everywhere within the jurisdiction of the
United States between the parts thereof
for example, between Pennsylvania and
New Jersey. and between both of those
States and Arizona and Alaska? Why not
between Porto Rico and all of these, with
the rest of the Union into the bargain?
And what If legislative action be neces-
sary-as IL generally is necessary mot al
ways)-to carry into effect the powers del
egated by the Constitution? Congress cam
not transcend the Constitution, and what
ever legislative action it may take must
conform to the supreme law.
AS to the dogma mentioned, the rea-
son why the Constitution of its own force
did not carry slavery into the territories
is that slave property. unlike property in
general, was the creature of positive law,
which law, so far as 1t concerned the crea-
ton of slave property, did not exist in the
territories and could not exist in them
save by the consent of Congress. Congress
refused to grant such consent. as ii had
the constitutional right to do. That ended
the matter. The fallacy of the dogma"
did not consist in the affirmation that the
Constitution of its own force extends over
the territories, but in the assumption that
the status of slave property was the same
as that of other property-an assumption
which was put out of court for good and
all by Lord Mansfield in the celebrated
case of Somerset. The extension or nom
extension of the Constitution by its own
force has logically nothing to do with the
dogma one way or the other. The ques-
ton raised by the dogma" related to the
Interpretation of the Constitution, not to
the extension hereof.
If the dogma" had been put forward on
behalf of sugar, coffee or tobacco, instead
of slaves, nobody would have gainsaid it.
1t is on behalf of sugar. coffee and tobac-
con, not on behalf of slaves, that Porto
Rico now puts forward her claim-her
claim that as part Of our country she
has right to send these and similar COM
modities into any other part of the coun-
try free of duty, and take back in like
manner such commodities as she may re-
ceive in exchange for them. These privi-
leges and immunities are enjoyed by Ari-
IONA, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Alaska,
as they were by all other territories in
their time. Why are they denied to poor,
war-wasted, storm-swept Porto Rico?
What Porto Rico demands is her right.
under the Constitution; and it is our duty,
as it Is our interest, to recognize the right
President Mckinley in his late annual
message enjoined upon Congress as our
plain duty" the recognition of this right
Why did Congress trample on this injunc-
ton and pass a bill repudating the right
in place of recognizing it? And why, es-
pecially did the President turn himself
around and unite with Congress in both
of these proceedings? That is what the
people want to know. 1t is what they
have right to know; and now, if ever, is
the time for him to tell them.
Was it CHS Cabinet mouthpiece says 1t
was) because there were good men and
some business and agricultural interests
that demanded it? Or was 1t because his
spinal column is a boneless notochord? Or
because he honestly does not know better
is a lawyer IMMERSED in the Constitution
of his country, and politician unequel to
the higher problems of craftsmanship?