New-York tribune., 1901-01-08
REPLY TO GEN. HARRISON.
BRIEF OF soLIcIToR-GEN RICH
ARDS IN PORTO RICAN CASES


ARDS IN PORTO RICAN CASES.
Washington. Jan. 7-solicitor-General Richards
IN behalf of the Government to-day filed in the
United States Supreme Court a brief in the
brought by Elias s. A. De Luna, Samuel B. Downes,
Henry W. Dooey. Carlos Armstrong and George
w Crossman against either George R Bidwell.
Collector Of the Port OF New-York. or the United
States directly. all involving the taxation questions
between the United States and it's insuar posses
sions The feature of the brief is the direct notice
IL takes of ex-President Harrisons address at Ann
Arbor and the response made IN behalf Of the
Administration The De Luna case concerns duties
collected on sugars imported into New-York from
Porto Rico after ratification OF the Peace Treaty
and before the passage OF the Porto Rican act;
the Downes case duties oranges brought from
Porto Rico into New-York after the passage OF the
Porto Rico act; the two Dooley cases and the Arm
strong duties goods imported from Porto
Rico during military occupation and partly before
and partly after the ratification OF the treaty and
also after passage OF the Porto Rican Tariff act.
and the Crossman case duties liquors imported
from Honolulu into New-York after the passage
Of the resolution annexng the Hawaiian Islands
and before the passage Of the act providing for
their government.
The reference 10 ex-President Harrisou's Ann
Arbor address is preceded by statement OF the
Governments position with reference to the extent
20 which the Constitution applies to newly acquired
territory. The brief denies the doctrine Of ex
propro vigore. and that all the limitations of the
scope OF the authority of the Government but
says there limitations IN the Constitution which
do apply throughout both the States and Terri
tories organized and unorganized. Because some
limitations apply II does not follow that all apply
Those which do apply everywhere. both within
and without the United States. In its broadest
sense. II says. those securing the blessings OF
Justice and liberty to all the people Tyranny and
oppression cannot constitutionaly exist under the
sovereignty Of the Republic, whose founders de-
clared that all entitled 10 life liberty and
the pursuit Of happiness. That is what Justice
Mormon Church against the United States uSs
Doubtless Congress in legslating for the Terri
itations in favor of personal rights which are
but these lmita tons would exist rather by infer
ence and the general spirit Of the Constitution from
express and direct application of its provisions.
GEN. HARRIsON's ANN ARBoR ADDRESS
This statement leads up to the notice taken Of
ex-Presdent Harrison's address. OF this address
Solicitor-General Richards says:
In a recent address, a portion Of which. under
Court distinRusbed Statesman snd wver 9I ts a
fects to believe that if the view of the Government
is correct Congress could without constitutional
number OF shocking things The Government has
never asserted and does not believe that Congress
limitations IN favor m Of rights
smendmen referTed IN 10 e bv M nsee RradeV aad s
stand In the way Of everything suggested which
any post facto law or declare an attainder or
grant any e OF OF nobility or provide vide for % me the trial b
marked out by the Constitutlons all these things
visions. If the first ten amendments do not limit
by direct @ G9ngres % a, In iegsang f for
I'm the States which compose the Union.
said in United States agt Cruikshank ct al 82 u. S.
54l, 552): The first amendment to the Consttu-
Of the people to assemble and to petition the GOV
the other amendments proposed and adopted at the
same time. was not Intended to limit the powers
citizens but to operate upon the National Gov
Projection to life liberty and property rests
primarily with the stsseg as d Shief JustiGs Fuller
81 makes AK for IN Ss ns
beTties this is LETT to The State contributions and
laws" said Mr. Justice Catron in Permo agt; First
forbds the States to pass any bill of attander, ex
Of contracts or 10 grant any title Of nobility and
the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State
eg 9iog s q aS Or 9f
Of the laws: but outside the range OF these iimta-
tions the people of the State through it's consti-
treason against the State as they see t; they can
they can restrict the BEARING Of u arms; I they n can
provide for the quartering of troops; they can
Fn Of Gf or tas
Infamous d crimes upon Information end without in
50. They can DO away with the trial Of civil suits
which need not enumerate.
a., Ihe right OF the people OF the States TO change
make them conform to changed views OF admin
istraton the exigencies OF their social life has
been sustained. If the constitutional guarantees
relating 20 Indictment by a Grand Jury and trial
by a petit jury not fundamental In character,
and therefore do not tie the hands Of the inhabi-
tants OF a Territory when organizing State, why
should they tie the hands OF the President and
Congress IN preserving order and protecting life
and property In our new possessions?
A STRANGE CONTENTION.
Tt Is a strange contention that soon as the
treaty into effect the power of the Pres-
dent and Congress 20 preserve order In the new
possessions ceased. There Grand Juries,
no petit juries. no machinery for furnishing crime
by the processes OF the Anglo-SaIon law, and yet,
II the limitations intended for the States at once of
their own force applied I'm these possessions
crime could be punished In other way The
ronrtitetion which gave the United tho
power tc acquire territory by treaty. and imposed