The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-06-17
THE MAIN QUESTION

absolute power armed with despotic func-
tons. deriving its authority from its own
will and interest, without regard to the
restraints and guarantees which the peo-
pie of the republic have set up in de-
Tense Of the common liberty in that great
organic act? This is the all important
issue which juts through all of the cases
before the court. Upon that issue hangs
the question whether out government is
a constitutional republic. or an imperial
oligarchy.
Judge Lochren, of the United States dis
| trict court, In ST. Paul, stated the ques-
ton plainly when he said, only a year
| ago: eff the constitution does not ex-
tend to Porto Rico and our other new
acquisitions of territory, but congress has
the untrammeled absolute power to estab-
lish subject governments, or make laws
for such territories, it has the power to
establish dependent monarchies and sa-
trapies, state religions and even sla-
very"
Daniel Webster, in his reply to Hayne.
stated the time-honored Interpretation Of
a century Of constitutional liberty when
he said: 1.-The national government pos
| sesses those powers which it can be
shown the people conferred upon it, and
no more. The people erected this gov
eminent. They gave it a constitution
and in that constitution they have emu
merated the powers which they bestow
on it. 1t is a government of strictly lin
tied powers; of enumerated, specified and
particularized powers; and whatever is
not granted is withheld"
The United States supreme court, in
the Miliken case 4 Wallace, denied the
right Of the government to exercise pow
ers outside of the constitution, when it
declared: "This constitution Of ours op-
places as well as under all circumstances.
1t is a law for the rulers as well as for
the people; each and every one within
our political Jurisdiction is bound by
it."
The supreme court. in 149 U. s. 1873. in
the language of Justice Brewer reiterates
the supremacy Of the constitution over
the government in these words: 'NThe
constitution has potency everywhere
within the limits of our territory, and
the powers which the national govern
ment may exercise are those and only
those given it by that instrument"
For one hundred years the supreme
court Of the United States has stood for
the doctrine that the constitution is the
supreme law of the land-suprene over
the rulers as over the ruled, supreme
alike over the government and the gov
erned. The question which now confronts
us is this-Is the will of congress or OF
the president supreme as against the con-
stitution? Do their powers exceed those
enumerated in the constitution? Do
their powers extend beyond the limits
of the constitution? May they set up
government outside of the constitution?
Justice Clifford, in 101 u S. 13S, held:
''Our constitution in it's operation is CO.
extensive with our political jurisdiction
And that has always up to the year 1901
been considered elemental and funda-
mental in the court annals of this re-
public. But today the government at
Washington assumes to go where it de-
mics that the constitution has gone or
can go. The administration claims the
power to cross oceans in the spread of
it's political jurisdiction and denies that
tine constitution can follow or can re-
strain government exercise of power.
How far we have gone and are going is
only discernible by looking back to the
landmarks which dot our route. Look
ing back a half century we hear Webster
declare, in a great senate debate which
would appear to apply as well to our
situation today as to any precedent that
could be produced: "An arbitrary govern
ment may have territorial governments
in distant possessions, because an arbl-
trary government may rule its distant
territories by different. laws and differ
ent systems. Russia may govern the
Ukraine and the Caucasus and KAN
chatka by different codes or ukases. We
can do no such thing They must be Of
us, part of us, or else cstranged. thinY
I see, then, in progress what is to dis
figure and deform the constitution"
Looking backward three-fourths of
century we hear Chancellor Kent thus
speak of the possibility of the republic
attempting to hold colonies without con-
stitutionaI restraint: "Such a state of alb
solute sovereignty on the one hand and
of absolute dependence on the other is
not congenial with the free and indie
pendent spirit of our institutions"
From these landmarks of constitu-
tional liberty, we turn to the new doc
trine Of supreme sovereignty at Wash
ington and absolute dependence in Por-
to Rico and Luzon, as expressed by the
secretary of war in his official report:
"As between the people of the eeded
islands and the United States, the for
mer ere SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETE