The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-01-11
Different Uses of the Words Omitted
States, and sthe Territories Ex-
planned by Solicitor
VIEWS OF ATTORNEY GRIGGs
OWNER AM THE THING OWNED ARE
NOT THE SAME, HE SAYS.
Porto Rico and the Philippines "Be-
long, to the United States, but Are
Not n "Part, of United states.

| Porto Rican cases when the Supreme Court
convened to-day. Before taking up the line
OF his argument he made reply to a ques-
ton by Justice White as to the meaning
of the words "the Territories as used by
| Chief Justice Marshall in the Laugh
borough case. He said in that connection
that the power of Congress over territory
does not cease when it is organized and
brought under the United States, but that
he did recognize that there is a distinction
in the control under the differing circum-
stances.
The solicitor general then discussed at
| some length the different uses of the words
United States" The first use defined was
| that in which sovereignty is expressed and
in that sense he said the words refer to
the area occupied by the people who parti-
cipated in the functions of government.
Another use was that in the legislative
sense. in which sense the words were used
to indicate the States and Territories as
regarded by Congress for legislative pur-
poses. Then there was an international
sense in which the words could be used.
In that sense the phrase indicates, he says,
all territory coming under the dominion of
| the United States whether organized or
not. But while he recognized sovereignty
over unorganized territory he said it did
not become a part of the Union for legis-
lative purposes until ii is organized. Dis
cussing the constitutional provision for
uniformity in the matter of taxation. Mr..
Richards said that provision was inserted
to remedy the diverse and conflicting
claims of the various States comprising the
Union in the matter of the revenues and
was never meant to apply to a condition
like that which now confronts the country
in connection with it's insular possessions.
When Mr.. Richards concluded Attorney
General Griggs addressed the court. He
said that his remarks were intended to be
supplemental to those submitted in the
cases involving similar questions which
have heretofore been argued. His remarks
would apply especially to the construction
of the clause of the Constitution which
requires duties. impoSts and excise TO be
uniform throughout the United States.
Taking up the question of taxes the at
torney general commended that the Constitu-
ton does not provide for absolute uniform
ity of duties under all circumstances and
that the uniformity clause OF the Constitu-
ton refers to the States and not to the
Territories
POWER TO GOVERN. o
THE power to govern territory" Mr..
Griggs said, 'is expressly conferred by the
Constitution. This power was given with
out limitation, and there was no reservation
of power in the people of the Territories,
though there is the people of the States.
On the subject of the government of the
territory of the United States the States
reserved nothing; they granted the power
to make all needful rules and regulations
respecting it," Then he drew the inference
that the power to govern territory, which
is absolutely conferred on Congress, in
cludes the power to tax either by direct
or indirect methods. This light was abso-
lutte, but not despotic, and Mr.. Griggs con-
tended that 1t included the constitutional
right to lay duties on merchandise import
ed into the United States from its insular
possessions. He commended that such a pro-
ceeding does not violate the uniformity
clause, and laid down the following general
proposition:
There is no principle of inherent Justice
or personal rights at stake. 1t is a pure
matter of geographical equality. There -
no question of arbitrary or despotic power
such as counsel have imagined. We find
power in the Constitution" he added, mot
outside nor beyond it. nor contrary to 1t.
Defining his position more specifically he
said: Direct taxes must be laid on all the
States alike none may be exempted. They
may be, but they need not be. laid on the
territorial possessions. In the same way
we contend that indirect taxes must be
uniformly imposed throughout the States
which compose the Union; that they may
be extended, but do not need to be extended
TO the territorial possessions. The laws,
the administration and the revenues of the
territories are subject to the absolute con-
troll of Congress. Congress may repeal the
whole form OF government existing In a
Territory, may destroy the Legislature,
may vacate all the offices and may take
over all the public funds and absorb them
pirate out of the federal treasury all the
money necessary to carry on a territorial
government, emitting all local taxation. We
must not forget that territory belonging
to the United States Is the common prop
erty of the United States, and is to be adj
ministered at the common expense and for
the common benefit of the States united.
who, jointly, as a governing entity, own 1t. I"
NOT JOINT PARTNERS.
Referring TO the acquisition OF Porto
Rico and the Philippines Mr.. Griggs said:
""The inhabitants OF the islands are not
joint partners with the States In the trans
action. The islands are territories belong
ing to the United States. not a part of the
United States. The Islands were the things
acquired by the treaty; the United States
was the party who acquired them, and to
whom they belong The owner and the
thing owned are not the same"
Upon the point that laws OF Congress
do not extend in operation to territory, Mr..
Griggs said that many instances of legis-
iation show that Congress has always con-
sidered something more than the term
United States" when IL designed a stat
ute to extend TO a Territory. The attorney
general cited authority to show that in
1 terndl revenue laws nave HOl Deen unlEer-
sal in application in the history of the
country and concluded that, while Con-
gress has provided throughout the United
States and its territories for the
ton upon which direct taxes have been an
portioned, il never seems to have been sup
posed that such taxes must be levied be-
yond the States or apportioned to the Ter
! ritories unless congress saw fit so to pro-
vide.
Referring to the Presidents right of ex-
ercising the legislative function, Mr.. Griggs
said: When, as commander-in-chief, he
i exercises government over conquered ter
ritory, he has, by the undoubted law of ma
tons. the right. not only 10 govern. but
to make laws for the territory so occupied
The legislative functions thus exercised
are not a part of the legislative power
conferred by the Constitution upon Con-
gress and have no relation to ii. They
are merely Incidents under the public law
of belligerent right, vested by the Con-
s~titution I'm the President as commander
in-chief of the army and navy. They are
not unconstitutional. but are exercised by
virtue of the Constitution: not by any ex-
press clause which confers them, but are
implied i'm the functions and duties of the
commander-in-chief."
Closing. he said: There must be. in the
nature of things, a time between the deed
of acquisition and the m by the
United States of the full government OF
iacquired territory when the relation be-
tween the federal government and the ac-
quired territory will be inchoate. There
may be cases OF the acquisition OF territory
eminent whatsoever, not even OF a local
= -,,tof1o1 L,,1 xyhafhar s,s~h ferrtforx,