The Worthington advance., 1900-12-28
VIEWsOF Mr.. GRIGGS. O.

VIEWS l: Y sOF !, J! |! MIR GRIGGS.
Attorney General Presents Arxu-
ment to Supreme Court.
ao Defends the Governnent,. Poais
il tioa intInaportant Gases Involv. /
:; iag. Status OF Porto Rico
and the Philippines.
Washington, Dec. 1s.-Arguments in
The Porto Rico-Philippines cases, in
volving the status Of those countries to
the United States, were resumed III the
United States supreme court Tuesday.
The widespread interest in the cases
was shown by large attendance of
prominent members Of the bar and ,by
. crowd Of spectators which filled the
public area and overdowed into the
corridor. 49,, IL. .~ ,ss-:,,.
Argument by 1lF. CRISES. !:
Mr.. ,Griggs' plea was based upon q brief
Of 200 pages. the greater part Of which IL
devoted to presenting the argument Of the
United States, while the remaining portion
Is In the shape of an appendix giving the
text Of the peace treaty between the United
Staes and Spain, and also the text Of other
treaties supposed to bear upon tho question.
In presenting the governments side Of
Tho of 0of
stated the two cases upon which the pro-
ceeding is based. This was followed by a
general explanation and summing up Of
the governments position, after which
came the citation OF innumerable authori-
ties, under appropriate headings. with per-
tinent running comment upon them. The
attorney general contended that the United
States has the power to acquire territory:
that, having acquired it, it has the right to
govern it: that administrative construc-
ton. congressional action and judicial pre-
cedent affirm that every port in ceded
country is properly regarded as foreign un-
til laws are extended by congress to the
new possessions: that the clause of the
of the United States declaring
duties uniform throughout the United
States Is not applicable to new possessions,
and that the constitution does not extend
OF Its own force over acquired territory.
Wrong from Two Points Of View.
In his general contention on behalf of the
United States. Mr.. Griggs argued that his
opponents were wrong from both a legal
and constitutional point of view. Refer
ring to the legal aspect of the case, he as
serted that the Dingley act applied to mer-
chandise imported from Porto Rico and the
Philippines after their cession to the
United States the same as it did before, and
that In view of the fact that tarih laws are
In rom there Ia M nr1nc If i,,c<}oa vr,,,ch
less of constitutional restriction, which
forbids congress from taxing In this way
the merchandise of outlying possessions Of
the United States when brought into the
ports Of the union.
Two Established Propositions.
He laid down as established the two fol-
lowing propositions:
l. That the tariff act Of 1897 was intended
by congress to classify as foreign all coun-
tries not part of or belonging to the
United States at the time of its passage,
and the subsequent cession Of the Spanish
islands to the United States: did not oper-
ate to admit imports from those islands
free Of duty, under that law. 2. That the
tariff act so construed and enforced violates
no constitutional rule Of uniformity.
Right to Acquire and Govern.
Mr.. Griggs then entered upon the presen-
tation of his subject in detail. He contend.
ed that the right Of the United States to &C.
Quire territory had been asserted in the
declaration of independence. and said that
such acquisition could be made either by
conquest, by treaty, by annexation or by
discovery. He quoted a number of supreme
court decisions in support Of this conten-
ton. A great deal Of attention was given
to the right to govern territory when once
acquired, and innumerable authorities were
a 4 fSn aFt III
others the decision Of the supreme court in
the Mormon church case, In which the court
said that 1T would be absurd to hold that
the United States has power to acquire ter
ritory and no power to govern it when &C.
uuired."
He asserted that "the treaty-making DOW
er Of the government has exercised the
right to deal with the status of the inhabit-
ants Of ceded territory In every treaty of
he said. has not been uniform, but exceed
tngly varying. He then proceeded to argue
that this practice is entirely at variance
with the doctrine that sthe constitution
follows the flag" and that when territory is
ceded to the United States the inhabitants
become Immediately proprio vigore citizens
of the United States. If that doctrine be
true" he said. "every treaty that has
brought US new lands and new Inhabitants
has violated in this respect the principles
of the constitution. It convicts of error
and usurpation Thomas Jefferson, James
Madison, James Monroe, James K Polk,
Franklin Pierce, Andrew johnson, their
cabinets and the senates that ratified their
treaties
AZ to ''Uniform Duties'' Clause.
Mr.. Griggs went at length into the claim
that the constitutional clause which pro-
vides that duties, imposts and excuses
shall be uniform throughout the United
States prohibits imposition of duties in
the cases before the court.
'"rhat clause" he said, "does not apply
to nor govern these cases. beca use the term
United States,' as there used, meanp only
the territory comprised within the several
states of the union, and was intended only
for their benefit and protection, and not
for the benefit or protection Of outside ter
ritory belonging to the nation: In the lat
lands were uniform throughout the United
States. because they are uniformity i'm
posed at every port in the United States, so
that there Is no preference given to the
ports Of one state over those Of another, nor
Is any inequality between tho several states
created"
Constitution Not Elastic. ::
The last feature Of the argument was a
contention that the constitution does not
extend Of It's own force over acquired ter
ritory. and in this connection the attorney
general sought to refute the doctrine, as
laid down by Chief Justice Taney in the
Dred Scott case, that the United States
could not acquire territory for any other
purpose than to convert it into states of
the union. 1.-THE doctrine OF the ex-proprio
vigore extension of the constitution was
never heard Of" he said, until It was in
vented and advocated by Calhoun as a
means of fastening slavery upon California
and New Mexico beyond the power Of con-
gress to disturb or abolish it. 1t was in
conflict with all previous views Of states
men of all parties, and opposed to the COM
pact in the ordinance of 1857. as well as to
the act of congress known as the Missouri
compromise