The Washington times., 1901-07-16

| tlOn IN certain particulars, they tiio"
the door wide open for their political
| opponents to carry the doctrine much
| further. end no one can say to what
it ultimately will lead.
The doctrine that Congress is abso-
lutte outside of the States means that
| all political rights may be denied by
| that body to ten millions Of people
| living in Porto Rico and the Philippines.
as well as to million more living in
| the organized Territories and the Dis
trict of Columbia. This is the palpable
! fact, and it cannot be obscured by any
| outburst of stilted rhetoric about the
American flag standing for liberty
| everywhere The very claim of alb
| sclutism in Congress is directly op-
| posed TO the idea of the flag every
where standing for liberty. There can
be no liberty where people are subject
| to the exercise of arbitrary power,
even though at given time it is eX-
ercised in a kindly and benevolent
way. Privileges which can only Re
enjoyed at the sufferance of others,
and which privileges may be with
drawn at any time. are in no proper
sense the equivalent of political liber
| ty. In ante-bellum days many of the
slaves had kind masters. who granted
| them many indulgences, but that did
not make them free.
The dangerous and obnoxious char
aeter of this new doctrine IS clearly
shown by the exceptions which its
advocates seek to make. Thus it is
| admitted that where the Constitution
prohibits Congress from doing certain
things, as the granting of titles of no.
bility, the prohibition applies every
where. But why should it. if the Con-
stitution is confined in its operation to
the States? These negations upon the
power of Congress are part and par
eel of the Constitution itself. If we
wish to show that Congress has no
power to grant title of nobility, we
must go straight to the Constitution to
find the words of negation. In brief.
we are told that Congress cannot grant
a title of nobility in the Philippines
because the Constitution, which mas
no application to those islands, pro-
hibits any such act.
If the general provisions of the Con-
stitution relating to Territories do not
extend to the Philippines, there is no
way by which its negative provisions
can operate there. These negations
upon the power of Congress We're not
designed as mere arbitrary limitations.
They were put into the Constitution
because tkey were deemed essential for
the protection of the people. But what
people? The people of the United
States, of course, because it was for
them that the Constitution was being
framed. It was a matter of no con-
cern to the members of the Constitu-
tional Convention how many titles of
nobility were created or conferred in
other countries. and it is safe to say
that not a single member imagined,
even as a remote possibility. that Con-
gress would attempt to grant title of
nobility outside of the United States.
Some of the provisions of the Con
stitution are affirmative in form, as
that Congress may or shall do so and
so; others are negative, as that Con-
gress shall not do certain things. The
reason for this difference is simply
that some provisions logically take he
affirmative form, lille others are bet
ter expressed negatively. prohibit
ing of the granting of title of nobil-
ity can, in fact, hardly be expressed
clearly save by words of direct mega
ton. To argue that the affirmative
provisions are limited to the States,
while the negative ones operate every
of expression.
The truth is that the advocates of
the unlimited power of Congress saw
the danger that lurked in the doctrine
OF course, if there is no limitation out
side Of the States, Congress might set
up monarchy in some outlying pcs
session, or it might re-establish slav-
cry, or it might create an aristocracy
Hence, the champions of Imperialism
were forced to admit that there were
some things that Congress could not do
because the Constitution prohibited
them. The exceptions disclose the
weakness of their position.
In dealing with this question, the
Republicans assume that they are GER
tain to retain power for a long time
perhaps indefinitely; hence that they
are safe. because they can change their
attitude whenever TREY deem it neces-
sary. In this, however they reckon
without their host. There never was
flood tide that was not followed by
an ebb. and political parties are some
times in the greatest danger when they
imagine themselves the most secure
1t is to be devoutly hoped that no other
party in the United States will ever
follow the pefnicious precedent. which
the Republicans have sought to estab-
lish, but of that we cannot be certain,
and it may easily come to pass that
the same imperialistic doctrine may
hereafter arise in new form to plague
those who are responsible for this de-
parture from true American principles
that has aroused the deepest appre-
hension in the minds of all sincere be-
lievers in constitutional government
The Great Strike.
There were few developments yester-
day in the strike situation. Two nom