The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-12-19
And that All Civilized Residents of
Porto Rico and the Philippines
Are United states Citizens.
ARGUMENT OF MR.. GRIGGs
WHO HELD THE CONSTITUTION DID
NOT EXTEND TO NEW LANDS.
Right OF United states to Acquire Ter
ritory-Power OF Congress-Har-
mons PIea-Questions Asked.

WASHINGTON. Dec. 1s.-Arguments in
the Porto Rico-Philippines cases. involving
the status of those countries to the United
States. were resumed in the United States
Supreme Court to-day. The widespread
interest in the cases was shown by a large
attendance of prominent members Of the
bar and by a crowd of spectators which
filled the public galleries and overf1owed
into the corridor. Senators and representa-
tives In Congress, who had taken part in
the Porto Rlco-Phiippine legislation drop
ped IN as the arguments proceeded and
gave attentive ear to the proceedings.
Edward c. Perkins. senior counsel in
the Porto Rico case on resuming his argu-
ment took up the Dred Scott and other
cases relating to the extension Of the Con-
stitution over territory. Soon after Mr..
Perkins began Justice Brown put in an in
quiry as to whether Mr.. Perkins had read
the most recent cases as to the extension
oe the Constitution to territories and also
as to whether he had examined the sections
OF the United States statutes, wherein
Congress extended the Constitution to GER
tain territories. Mr. Perkins said he had
examined both of those branches and he
hoped to be able to present answers to the
contentious made as to them.
After examining numerous cases Mr.. Per-
kins said the doctrine that the Constitution
did not extend TO the territories was based
on the idea that the Constitution was
substance, a sort OF chattel, which could
be moved about here and there. as Con-
gress saw fit, rather than as something
bequeathed to us by our ancestors. 1t was,
he said, "a sort OF transsubstantiation OF
the Constitution" 1t was contention that
the Constitution could not get into a terri
tory unless Congress placed it there. He
denied that the Constitution. IN itself. ex-
tended to the territories. by declaring that
IL was an inanimate substance, lacking the
powers of locomotion.
POINTED QUESTIONS.
At this point Justice White asked series
OF pointed questions of Mr.. Perkins. The
justice first asked if Mr.. Perkins's conten-
ton would lead him to the conclusion that
Immediately upon the making of treaty
ceeding territory to the United States
date of cession became ipsa jure citizen
of the United States.
Mr.. Perkins answered in the affirmative,
those born in the territory after the
eession were citizens, If they were civil
tied. and not in the position of our In
dians.
Justice White asked what authority there
was for excluding Indians. He pointed out
that the distinction between the American
Indian and the citizen antedated the Con-
stitution. He again propounded the query
TO citizenship. following Immediately on
the conclusion CT a cession of territory
Mr. Perkins answered that undoubtedly
persons born in the territory after the ces-
sion and subject to the Jurisdiction of the
United States were citizens OF the United
States.
Justice White suggested that in this
answer Under the jurisdiction of the
United States stated out of the question
the very contention which was being made
IN these cases.
Mr.. Perkins said the limitation of his
answer was intended TO cover such special
circumstances. relating to Indians and un-
civilized persons, which had been referred
to. Continuing his argument Mr.. Perkins
cited many other authorities supporting his
view that the Constitution in itself ex-
tended to territories.
Mr.. Perkins summed up the arguments
for the appellant in part as follows: 'sThe
people of the United States In and by the
Constitution. organized and erected one
and the same government OF defined and
limited powers, for all people who might
inhabit within the dominion of the Nation.
The whole purpose and theory Of the Con-
stitution is the establishment in a per-
manent form, unalterable except by the
people themselves, OF fundamental prin-
ciples or government applicable in all time
and in every place The power to govern
the people inhabiting the territory Of the
Nation. which is delegated by the Con-
stitution to Congress. is limited and defined
BY the Constitution. and Congress cannot
transcend the limits imposed. The Consti-
tuition limits the powers OF Congress to i'm
pose taxation by the mandate that all
duties, imposts and excises shall be uni
form throughout the entire domain of the
United States
THE TARIFF ACT.
Mr.. Perkins said the appellants felt that
they had established that neither the treaty
of Paris nor the tariff act of 1897 are vio-
Iative OF the constitutional principles he
had set forth. but that the tariff act was
IN full force and effect throughout the ma
tional domain. Well in Porto Rico and
the Philippines as elsewhere. and it did not
contemplate a tax upon goods transported
from one part OF the national domain to an
other.
When counsel referred at one point TO the
need OF applying general constitutional
principles TO the new domain, instead OF
considering mere commercial or practical
FIXTURES. Justice Brown asked II the court
could not consider the practical effect OF
extending 10 the Philippines the require
ment for trial by Jury In every case.
Ir Perkins said that IL the Co 1sfffuffon