The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1900-11-01
CONSTITUTIONAL Law
AND EXPANSION POLICY


.
- po-er of tie goye-zze1- over RI s=s
ritor..s. h~ .ays
The securities f9- g.rs-z4l liberty
which arr incorporated IN u Co.'s
ton we're intended p ul 10.
power over any AID a.. -e-sa-- z1
- within it, jurisdiction anywhere and
citizens q the tsr-ito-5< zs E as alc1.
zeus 81 the state nay .au raa
benefit OF their protection. IA.
people y the Ams-eau territories are
gssrEafeeS al the beleEts os -te E.--u-
ciples OF constitution r.slt which pro
,ect life, liberty and PROPERTY. and ua5
defend them ss4tr tie i-sr ever a= against
The action Of the g1gl---1e1t --z-.t
The same view Is given IL Farrar'
Manual OF the Consti-uc.5 u---- z-l-..e-t
short treatise upon mat document 70
3o4, Little, Brown * Co. DO VI. 1901.
Chief Justice MARSHAL aruly and
iclesriy announced the szme rrsac1plss o.
law In the case o. Loqzhboro-sl Vs.
Blake In that cas- the question vas
whether an act Of congress imposing I
direct tax upon the citizens Of the Dis
trict OF Columbia vas constitutional II
WAS oontsnded, as the Consti tuition con
terred on congress the power TO exer-
- ---s.--.s.- S@sasIaeEOn I'll cSlses what
soever" over the District Of Columbia.
| that only in the character Of . local legis-
larure for the District and for District
purposes only could congress impose d.
rect taxes upon It's citizens. Tee alieT
justice, however, held that tie general
power Of congress 10 lay and collect taxes.
duties, imposts and excuses extends u all
places over which The jurisdiction OF the
country extends, including the District u
Columbia and all the territories OF the
union. as well as TO the states and tlar
direct taxes may be apportioued among
all. Speaking for the court the great
chief justice said:
The rover, then, TO ley end collect du-
ties, imposts and excuses may be exercised
and must Re exercised throughout the
United States. Does this term designate
the whole or any particular portion of
the American empire: Certainty thjs
question coz admit Of 6Rt one Gastccr.
1t IS ne name gipeIs to orr G-cat TeD. bic,
sck,cb SO composed OF states and terrific
r,es. The District OF Columbia or The
territory tcest Of the Missouri is not less
s0ithsn the United Ststcs tiGa NgrgiaHd
or Pesnsylede<o; and it is not less rec5s-
sdrg On the principles Of our CoFsiits-
ton tko. s.,forusity ~ the iis position of
'mposts, dsttss and ercfSes 10 Be Observed
.'n the ore than the Other. Since then the
power to lay end collect taxes, which III
cluies direct taxes. is obviously co-exteu-
sive with the power to lay and collect
duties, imposts and excuses, and since the
latter extends throughout the United
States it follows that the power To impose
direct taxes also extends throughout the
United States
1t is apparent that in thus holding that
direct taxes can be imposed upon the ter
ritoriss, and that the provision Of the
Constitution requiring uniformity in tax
alton also applies to them. the court must
be understood as having ruled 5hat tie
express limitstin of that instrument re
garding the manner in which direct taxes
shall be levied is likewise applicable to the |
territories.
In the early days of the republic the |
first judges Of the supreme court had m |
nounced substantially the same principle !
as that just quoted FROM the decision of
Chief Justice Marshall. In the case OF |
United States VI. Moore 6 Cranch. p. /
leo, NJ in vas declared:
The Constitution was made for the |
benefit of every citizen of the United |
States, and there is no citizen, whatever |
his condition or wherever he may be |
within the territory of the United States. |
who has not right to its protection"
In the case Of New Orleans vs. the |
United States 90 Peters, coz it was !
held that the succession of the govern |
ment Of the United States upon the ces-
sion of Louisiana to sovereignty over that /.
territory did not authorize the United |
States to exercise prerogstives OF SOW
sreignty sOt consistent tci.k the CoESt,- |
tuition of the United StGtes''
In Pollard's Lessees We Hagan 6 |
Howard, 225) to the same effect the su- !
preme court declared:
at cannot be admitted that the King |
of Spain could by treaty or otherwise i'm /
par. to the United States one Of MS |
royal prerogatives; and much less can It |
be admitted that they have capacity to re-
ceiys the power 10 exercise them. Every
nation acquiring territory by treaty or /
otherwise must hold it subject to the laws
of its own government and not according
TO those Of the government ceding il"
In Gross vs.. Harrison TIC Howard. !
l64) the supreme court pronounced ex-
plicitly and conclusiyely upon tifis sub
ject. In that case an action was brought
To recover duties paid On goods iuportel
into California during the period between
the execution Of the treaty of Guadaloupe
Hidalgo in 1siS and its admission INFO
the union in 1850. During this period l
congress had never established . ter-i-
military government had existed. follow
ed after peace had been r,ade by q sc
fGcto government The military govern !
ment collected duties according to war
tariff. but the Dc fceto government col
lectsd them vpder the tariff of the United /
States
In passing upon the r.swerS Of this d !
fGcto government the supreme court said
This government Dc facto win. O. :
course. exercise no p0ssr iacosstS;cs: I
'cIfs the provisions Of The COAST
:u.ioa Of the CEite5 States. ,cIica
80 fhe ssprsne ldc OF the Iogs.