The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-06-16


Another Stab Mt the Constitution.
The country Is again presented with an
unpleasant reminder that the Constitution
of the United States no longer can be de-
pended upon TO control or limit the ac-
tons of the combination of trusts, mo-
nopolies. and political bosses which has
| unless the voting masses shall rise in
their might in November and restore the
people TO power, the Constitution may he
| considered as dead letter in future.
A Republican Federal judge in New
York, William X. Townsend by name, has
the Dingley Tariff law, as applied to the
| domestic trade of Porto Rico, that. viii e
the island is an integral part of the United
States, as far as foreign nations are en-
cerned. il is a foreign country as to s
relations with the United States. We n: e
entirely confident that such a decision VIII
be reversed should the case be Appealed to
the Supreme Court, and reach it while its
personnel remains as at present; but there
is no reasonable ground for doubt that,
should the trusts and monopolies succeed
in electing their ticket next autumn the
Supreme Bench will be expanded aid
packed. with a view to constitutional in
terpretations, which no man who can read
English, be he jurist, lawyer, or layman,
would now think of accepting as possible or
sane
In his decision. Judge Townsend says
that the question to be decided is not
what is eNpedient, not what the people OF
the United States may desire, not what is
the duty~of Congress. not a matter Of in
dividual preference; it is a question pure
ly CT constitutional law We are glad
that the court has narrowed the issue
down to this point, because it is thus SIM
plified and easier to handle. The decision
continues:
That have the power 10 govern without
the obligation Of uniform taxation may be an un-
familiar ~ eIpstiop, but ii Is so. because we have
reytr before had occasion the power 10
the same extent. II could not have been intended
by those who hamed our Constitution that we
should be born a cripple among the nations.
There has been found. then, no reason, either
on priISiplr OF authority. why the United States
should not accept sovereignty over territory with
out admitting it an integral part Of the Union
or making it bear the burden Of the taxation uni
form throughout our nation. The Treaty OF Paris
is valid. 1t lett the political status Of the inhabi
tants of Porto Rico unchanged.
Article OF that treat! provided that Spain
codes 10 TIC United States the island of Porto
Rico Article 9 provided that the civil rights
and political status of the native inhabitants OF
the territories hereby ceded shall be determined
by the Congress =" - f" --.
Certainly the trainers of the Constitution
did not intend that we should be born
cripple among nations, and took inteli-
gent and ample care that nothing of the
kind should happen They were equally
careful, however, to provide that the pow
ers 10 be exercised by the legislative, the
executive and judicial branches of the
Governmental creatures of the Consti-
tution-should be exercised under and
strictly limited by its provisions and pro-
hihitions. There is. then, every reason
why the United States cannot accept SOW
ereignty over any territory independently
of the Constitution, and whatever its pow
ers and authority may be in such acquired
territory, they can only be derived from
the Constitution. To hold, as Judge Town
send does. that the Treaty of Paris is the
supreme law of the land, unless its terms
aud provisions are strictly within the Con-
stitution, is a new. strange, and, We think,
dangerous doctrine. In the Chinese exclu-
sion cases the Supreme Court has held that
a mere act of Congress is sufficient to alb
rogate any treaty. Is. then, convention
with a foreign state TO be held superior to
the national fundamental law. Is it
competent TO fix the political status and
define the rights or negation of rights of
people living under the Gag and authority
of the United States. in contravsntion o:
the clear letter of the Constitution? Dis
cussing what would be the effect of rul-
ing concedng Porto Rico to be an Ameri-
can Territory in the sense that others are.
the decision says:
'Ii we cannot hold coded territory without
bringing il under the Constitution as an integral
part Of the United States, then cannot give
Porto Rico trIcticar inlependehce a constitution
and laws of her own. taxes OF her own and hold
merely the sovereignty. confined perhaps to con-
troll OF foreign relations II Porto Rico is still
a foreign country We might adopt that course.
If it is part Of the United States in the sense
that appellants urge cannot grant ndepcnd-
ence unless We entirely renCunce our sovereignty"
AS ii strikes us, the logic of the above
paragraph tries to stand on its h ad.
In violation of the Constitution, we are
holding Porto Rico as ceded territory not
entitled to its protection, and the kind OF
practical independence" we are according
the island is taxation on domestic COM
merce, for the benefit of the oil, sugar.
tobacco. and rum trusts. Only in cases
where trusts and monopolies are con-
cerned is it treated as a foreign country.
To say that we cannot give the people
of acquired territories freedom under the
Constitution, while we can do so If we
treat them as conquered and subject de-
tendencies. is a proposition hardly worth
discussing. California, New Mexico. and
Louisiana are completely in proof TO he !
contrary. The decision of the New York
Republican Judge as compaign docu-
ment may be very interesting, but as for
its law, any lawyer of fair ability ought to
able to drive a coach and four through it. |
Practical jokes at Weddings.
A bridal party in New York the other |