Valentine Democrat. (Valentine, Neb.) 1900-1930, 1901-06-20
Commoner Comment.
ELI r RICO CASE.

THE PORTO RICO CASE.
BY a vote of five to four the supreme
court has declared President McKin-
ley emperor of Porto Rico, and accord
ing to the press dispatches the emperor
has gladly and gratefully accepted the
title and authority thus conferred upon
him by the highest judicial tribunal
Of the land.
AS the last issue of The Commoner
was going to press, Justice Brown be-
gan reading the opinion of the court in
the De Lima case and as the decision
was against the government in that
case IL was at first thought that the
inhabitants of Porto Rico had been
brought under the protection of the
constitution. But those who were en-
couraged to believe that the constitu-
ton had caught up with the flag were
doomed to disappointment. In the
Downes case, decided Immediately af-
forwards, a majority of the court, COM
posed Of Justices Brown, Gray, White,
ShiraS and McKenna, held that con-
gress could deal with Porto Rico land
the same logic applies to the Philip
plnes) without regard to the limita-
tions of the constitution. Chief JUS
tice Fuller and Associate Justices Har-
Ian, Peckham and Brewer dlssented in
strong and vigorous language, but the
opinion of the majority-eVen q ma
pority Of one-stands until it is re-
Versed. This is one of the most i'm
portant decisions, if not the most i'm
portant, ever rendered by the court;
1t not only declares that congress is
greater than the constitution which
created 1.-THE creature greater than
the creator-but it denies the necessity
for a written constitution. The posi-
ton taken by the court is defended.
or rather excused, by reasoning which,
If followed out, will destroy constitu-
t1oDal liberty in the United States,
Every reason given by Justice Brown
could be used with even more force to
support a decision multiplying all limita-
lions placed by the constitution on
congress when dealing with the citi-
Zens or the several states. If the Porto
Rlcans can trust the wisdom and JUS
lice OF a congress which .Aey do not
elect and cannot remove, why do the
people of the United States need a con-
stitttion to protect them from a con-
STesS which they do elect and can re-
move? The decision in effect declares
that the people are not the source of
power; it defends taxation without
representation and denies that gov
derive their Just powers
from the consent of the governed"
1t assails the foundations of the re-
public and does so on the ground of
The dissenting opinions bristle with
~precedents and burn with patriotism;
they ought to awaken conscientious
republicans to a realization Of The
meaning of imperialism.
This decision, like the bred Scott
decision, raises a political issue which
must be settled by the people. The
supreme court has joined with the
president and congress in an attenpt
10 change the form of our
there yet remains an appeal to the
people.
The election of 1900 did moi decide
this question, for the republicans de-
MED that they favored imperialism.
u they can deny it no longer. They
u now admit their reputation of
the constitution as we'll as the Declar-
alton of independence.
so much space is given to the ma
Jority and minority opinions that ex-
tended comment is impossible at this
time, but the discussion of the subject
will be continued in future issues.
A STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
The opinions delivered by the United
states supreme court in the Porto
Rlcan cases are so important. not only
Tor the present. but for the future. that
1t hehooves every American citizen TO
thoroughly understand their purport,
In these opinions, three separate per-
lods were treated and it will be well
to consider them in proper order.
Between the time when General
Miles took possession of Porto Rico
ana the time of the ratification of the
treaty, the military authorities
established certain military tariff du-
ties. The court sustained these duties
on the broad ground of military au-
thortty and necessity.
After the ratification of the peace
treaty and prior to the enactment of
the Foraker law, In which law the
present Porto Rican tariff duties are
set forth, tariff duties were levied ON
goods coming from Porto Rico to The
United States under the terms and
rates of the Dingley law. On this point
the court held that the Dingiey law
contemplated the levying of duties on
Foreign goods from foreign countries.
that after the ratification of the peace
treaty Porto Rico became domestic"
territory, and therefore the Dinglev
duties could not prevail.
In the Downes case the court took
up that feature of the Foraker law
established tariff duties ON
GOODS coming from Porto Rico to the
united States. The court held these
duties to be lawful on the ground hat
congress had full authority to make
rules, regulations and laws for the gov
OF domestic" territory other
than states.
In order to fully understand these
opinions it must be known that in rul-
ing that the Dingley tariff rates could
not prevail against Porto Rico. the
court did not act on the theory that
me constitution followed the flag dur
-ng any of these periods under con-
'~ideration. This ruling was made be-
cause, in the opinion of the court. a
NV enacted for the purpose of levying
arm duties against a foreign country
could not be applied in levying tariff
lutles against a country that was not
foreign" In other words. if imme-
Taking Care OF Forests.