Evening star., 1901-05-30
THE LAWS DIFFERENT
Foraker Act and Spooner Amendment
Contrasted !
l.
POWERS DELEGATED TO, PRESIDENT
Situation in the Philippines Ac-
cordng to Senator, Harris.
QUESTION FOR THE CABINET

Concerning the position maintained in
certain quarters that the Spooner act occu-
pies the same relative position either Who'll
ly or in part regarding the levying of tariff
duties in the Philippines as the Foraker
law in Porto Rico, as outlined by the
Supreme Court, Senator Harris of Kansas
expressed this opinion to a Star reporter
this morning:
There is a vast difference between these
two laws. The Spooner act was merely in
tended to delegate certain general powers
of authority to the President in connection
with the government of the Philippines
The Foraker resolution. on the other hand
was enacted as a schedule of government
for the precise regulation and control of
affairs in Porto Rico. In relation to the
tariff problem, that apparently being the
chief topic of discussion, 1t is question as
to whether the President can be legally
clothed with certain authority relating to
the imposition and collection of such taxes
me Spooner amendment IN a general way,
of course, cOnfers legislative power upon
the President. but it is a very doubtful
question whether the power Of taxation
can be conveyed in such manner
Military Control Considered.
Then the subject of military control
also enters into the question, far as the
Philippines concerned. The situation
there in this respect seems to be somewhat
nebulous. 1 have not been able to ascer-
tain to just what extent military authority
prevails and just how far the civil authori-
ties have taken hold. There is no doubt
of the fact, however, that so long as the
military powers control the island they
have ample authority to arrange the sys-
| tenn of taxation The Supreme Court on
Monday, in it's Porto Rican decision, held
that the military authority was clothed
with that authority in the island. In my
judgment, if it Is assumed that the mill
tary authority has control over the arch
ipelago then there can possibly be no room
for question as to the legality Of the tariff
duties which have thus far been levied and
collected. But If authority has passed be-
yond the control of the War Department it
would seem that specific action on the sub
ject by Congress would be necessary in
the near future.
For Cabinets confederation.
Il have no doubt that the President and
his cabinet will immediately begin consil-
GRAFTON of this question and reach some
decision as to whether Mr.. Mckinley has
authority to prescribe tariff rates in the
T Philippines. l do not believe that the
Spooner act is of sufficient scope to war
rant Its substitution for military author
ity with the idea CI establishing a civil
form of government under it's provisions
There ought to be more direct legislation
on the subject. The question as to wheth-
er the President has the power to regulate
the tariff in any form or other under am
eXigency which may arise has been much
discussed, and it IS held by great many
that the President has little power In
this direction that he is not cOnstit ution-
ally empowered even to the extent of deal
ing with the various international reci-
procity treaties which are being negotiat-
ed and agreed to from time to time. l
think that Congress will attend to this
matter without delay, although l am not
in position to predict with any degree Of
accuracy as to whsther there will be an
extra session of Congress-.
Action of the .Cubans.
In speaking the action of the Cuban con-
stitutional convention in voting to adopt
the Platt amendment, Mr.. Harris said:
''As yet we have not been able to learn
the details regarding the action of this
convention and no one apparently knows
just how the convention interpreted our
law. The construction placed by the con-
vention upon certain features of the law
may not be satisfactory to the United
States government. In that event. further
action will no doubt be demanded by our
authorities Assuming, however that the
convention has agreed to the Platt amend
ment without any changes, its adoption
means independence for the island, not,
however, without granting the United
States certain rights, the possession OF
which l deem to be entirely justifable. In
my opinion, we We're placed in a somewhat
awkward and unhappy position regarding
this question of Cuban independence
Broadly speaking, we had agreed to give
the Cubans carte blanche, but as matters
developed circumstances absolutely re-
qutred that we oe allowed certain assur-
ances before such plan could be effected
l think it would be risky and even dan
gerous to give Cuba absolutely full swing
/ deem 1t wise for US to preserve certain
rights In the government Of the island
winch, generally speaking, are really re-
qu1red by the Monroe doctrine, and in this
special case required for the safety of the
Cuban people, as we'll as for the subser-
vence of our own interests"