The times., 1901-06-05
How About Citinenshin.

The confusion ensendered by the
mixed decisions and contrariety of
judicial reasoning in the various in
sular cases recently acted upon by the
Supreme Court is by no means con-
fined to the question Of revenue laws,
but extends to many other matters as
well. Prominent among these is the
status of the people living in the Ter
ritories. Are they citizens of the United
States2 If so, why are they, and if
Congress is free from all constitutional
restraint in the Territories, what as
sa:ance have the people living therein
of any permanent status whatever?
Without a most careful and labOred
study of the various opinions it would
be presumptuous in anyone TO venture
a positive expression upon these sub
jects, and it is doubtful if any amount
of study Of the opinions would justify
such an expression.
The majority opinion in the de Lima
case presents no difficulty whatever
when considered alone, for it holds
broadly and clearly that Porto Rico is
American territory, which, of necessity,
makes its permanent inhabitants citf-
zens Of the United States. But in al
most the same breath Justice Brown
reverses himself and holds that the ISL
and is not American territory, bu;
merely territory under American juris-
diction-whatever the distinction may
be. This distinction is clear enough to
that Justice to enable him to hold that
the Uniform revenue clause of the Con-
stituuon does not apply to it, and that
Congress may lawfully pass a revenue
act affecting it that differs essentially
from the general law.
What Justice Brown would hold with
reference TO the citizenship Of the na-
tives is altogether uncertain. On its
face it would appear that If the people
Of Porto Rico are not entitled to the
benefit Of cur general revenue laws
they cannot be covered by the provi-
sions in the Constitution relative to
citizenship. If Porto Rico is not Amer
lean territory, but is merely under
American Jurisdiction OF control. the
conclusion follows. logically If not ir-
resistibIy. that the natives are not
American citizens. but simply people
over whom we are exercising jurisdic-
tion.
Then again we have no means Of
knowing how far Justice Brown would
go in applying the same rule to the
other Territories. because his reason
ing appears 70 be so contradictory as
TO furnish no safe guide TO the judg-
.nent Mr.. Justice White seems to pro-
ceed upon the theory that the status
of Porto Rico is essentially different
from that of Arizona and the other or
ganized Territories, but even he init
mates that there are parts of the Con
stitutiOn that are not applicable to the
Territories. He is silent, though as to
what parts these are, and here again
we are left in state Of rather painful
uncertainty.
In this connection it must be borne
in mind that leading Republicans.
including representatives Of the Ad-
ministration, are now very earnestly
contending that the position Of the Gov
ernment is fully sustained by the de-
cision in the pownes case. In the argu-
ment Of that case the law officer Of
the Government admitted broadly that
the status Of Porto Rico was the same
as that of the other Territories, and he
claimed for Congress the same unre-
strained power in New Mexico and the
District Of Columbia as in Porto Rico.
He made no distinction. This certainly
tends to cast a cloud upon the citizen
ship of persons born in the Territories
or the District Of Columbia, and those
Of American birth permanently domi-
ciled therein.
The question is both a serious and a
curious one, in view Of the fact that
the Secretary Of State under the very
Administration that has invoked this
remarkable doctrine is resident Of
the District of Columbia, and possibly |
not a citizen Of the United States, if
the position Of the Administration is
fully sustained. To appreciate the i'm |
portance of this suggestion it must be |
remembered that the Secretary of State |
is in direct succession TO the Presidency, |
in the event Of the death or disability l