New-York tribune., 1901-07-25
THE OATH IN THE PHILIPPINES
WHY THE DECLARATION TO SUPPORT THE
CONSTITUTION WAS OMITTED


Manila, June 12.-The passage to-day by the Phil
ippine Commission of the act organizing the courts
of the archipelago was preceded by two interesting
incidents, both Of which brought out authoritative
statements from President Taft The first was in
reference to the wording of the oath of office be
taken by judges Support of the constitution OF the
united States (Which all officials in the United
States subscribe to in their oaths of ofice) was
purposely omitted from this OATH but recognition
of the supreme authority of the United States was
included Judge Ide, author of the judiciary bills.
held that swearing TO support the United States
constitution, when il had already been decided that
at least feature of that instrument uniformity
of duties clause does apply in the Philippines.
would be improper. He considered that discussion
OF the meaning OF the constitution affecting
powers and duties of United States officials in the
Philippines would be of service here. since these
questions in process of settlement in the United
States Supreme Court.
Replying TO question by Sehor Palermo FORMER
Secretary of State ir the Aguinaldo Cabnet) as to
whether since it was generally assumed that the
constitution follows the flag. the oaths Of office OF
Philippine officials should not include support of the
constitution, Judge Taft says:
The oath TO support the laws of the Philippine
Islands, II the validity Of those laws depends upon
to support laws enacted IN accordance with the
SO much discussion Of the issue pressnted a in tbs
folm, Does the constitution of the United States
thought best NOT to invite discussion by Changing
the form of oath from that which had originally
been adopted by the military government when the
commission here.
Personally think that statement of the issue is
exoeedinsly misleading; Every person who comes
70 these islands accredited as an officer or agent
OF the United States Government derives his au-
thority from some officer who appointed under
the constitution of the United States: therefore
seems to that TO say that the constitution has
no operation In these islands Is to say something
winch logically cannot be sustained, and the real
question Is not whether the constitution extends
these islands but what clauses of the constitution
auect the government of them. In other words,
the real Issue is whether Congress the Presi-
dent, acting under the constitution in asserting
the authority of the United States these islands,
Is restricted by certain limitations in that const-
tuition which certainly apply TO the action OF the
President and apply to the action OF Congress in
dealing with the States
Now. the constitution contains a clause which
REQUIRES all duties on imports 10 be uniform
throughout the United States The Supreme Court
has; In a recent decision, news of which came yes
terday decided that that clause of the constitu-
ton does not Apply to government created by Com
EresS IN Porto Rico and these islands. The state
ment that the constitution Is in operation these
islands may thus mean thing to one person and
another thing TO another. Why, therefore intro
duce into an oath Of office form OF statement
which might lead 10 misconstruction? Way not fol-
low the old form. which serves every purpose?