The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-08-24
L.. VI. Rose Elected President and Sam
uel o. Pickens Vice Presi-
dent for Indiana.
BANQUET IN THE EVENING
AT WHICH do TOWNSEND RE-
Piled TO MIR. LITTLEFIELD.
Decisions of Supreme Court in the In
sular Cases UpheId-Officers of the
Negro Business League.

DENVER. Aug. 2s.-The American Bar
Association to-day elected the following Of
fcers: President. L. M. Rose. Little Rock.
Ark; secretary, John Huxley, Baltimore;
treasurer. Francis Rawle. Philadelphia.
Among the vice presidents is Samuel o.
Pickens, of Indiana.
The following executive committee was
chosen: L. NJ. Rose, president, ex o%fficio;
Edmund Wetmore, retiring president, eN
%oficio; John Hinkley. secretary. ex %officio;
Francis Rawle. treasurer, ex ofticio; Will
liam A. Ketcham, Indianapolis; Henry st.
George Tucker, Lexington, Va; Charles F.
Libby, Portland. Me-; Rodney A. Mercer.
Towanda, Pa, and James Hagerman. st.
Louis, Mo.
The report of the committee on John
Marshall day was read by Henry E. Davis.
of Washington. The report told of the
various exercises over the country in cele-
bration of the centennial of the birth of the
great judge" The action of the general
council favoring a constitutional amend
ment admitting women to membership was
Endorsed. The next convention will be held
at Saratoga next year.
After a brief address by President-elec
Rose the convention adjourned sine die.
The annual dinner tonight was attended
by most of the members of the association
in the city. A large number of toasts were
responded to. w. L.. Hensel, of Pennsyl-
vania, was postmaster. The most notable
response was by Judge VIM. X. Townsend,
of the United States District Court, New
Haven. Conn. who originally decided the
Porto Rican tariff cases, the decision of
which by the Supreme Court has caused
much comment. In his address tonight he
| said:
Mr.. Chairman: / was greatly interested
yesterday in the satirical, though forceful,
address of the eminent gentleman from
Maine. l honor his courage. ability and
independence, but, sir, l listened in vain
throughout the entire address for n
statement of law or fact TO support his as
sertion that the decision of the Supreme
Court was contrary to precedent and au-
thority. From the time of the Louisiana
purchase, in 1903, down to the treaty OF
Spain, in 1898, the treaty-making power OF
|, the government has exercised the right TO
deal as IL saw fit with the status of the
inhabitants of coded territory, and, as Mr..
Justice Brown says I'm his opinion, the
statutes passed In pursuance of the LouiSi-
ana purchase, show the view of Congress
that a discrimination in favor of foreign
vessels trading with the ports of a newly
acquired territory is no violation of the
clause of our Constitution that declares
that no preference shall be given to the
800 - Cb0 wv afp't VI
The same practical construction was put
upon the Constitution upon the purchase
of Florida and In the annexation of Hawaii.
Now, gentlemen. one hundred years ago
the Supreme Court of the United States
said that contemporaneous construction.
especially when long acquiesced in, was
very strong. If not controlling. with refer
ence to the provisions of the Constitution.
Chief Justice Marshall expressly left open
the question whether any act of Congress
was necessary TO incorporate the inhabit-
ants of newly acquired territory. For one
hundred years We have acted upon the
theory that such al act of Congress was
necessary, that the imposition of differ
cnt rates of duty was not in violation of the
Constitution and in our civil war we
stamped out the heresy that the Constitu-
ton followed the flag. And so, gentlemen,
/ rejoice in this great decision of the Su-
preme Court that the trainers of the Con-
stitution must have intended that this
| country should come forth born as a Grip
pie into the family of nations, but that she
should possess all the essential attributes
of society which would enable her TO
govern her possessions according to the
best interests of the American people and
subject only to those prohibitive provi-
sions Of the Constitution which guarantee
protection against interference with ma
tional rights"