The Washington times., 1901-10-12
Taxing the Philippines.

The new Philippine tariff, which is to
go into effect on November 16, is not
cver-pleasant reminder of the insular
decisions by the Supreme Court in the
Porto Rico cases. There are several
things connected with this tariff which
are far from agreeable TO those who be-
heve in genuine republicanism and con-
stitutional government as they were
understood during more than one hun
dred years Of our national life.
First of all. We are met with the
fact that the tariff emanates from the
War Department 1t is very difficult
to see what possible connection there
is between the duties of the War De-
partment as they were formerly under
stood, and the purely civil matter of
Philippine revenues. We may grant
that recent events have painfully dem
onstrated the continued existence of
war in a part of the archipelago; but
this tariff is not in any sense a war
measure. The money raised by ii is
not TO be used for war purposes, and it
Sc as distinctly a civil measure as is th>
Dingley law itself. A so-called civil
Philippines. but even that Government
in the exercise of its authority reports
directly 10 the War Department 1t is
quite impossible 10 resist the con-
cIusion that the affairs of the islands
are thus being kept in the hands of the
military branch of the executive de-
partment. in order to strengthen the
Administrators position with refer
ence to the Philippine cases now pend
Ing in the Supreme Court. Intimations
having been thrown out that in dealing
with new territory the continued exist
ence of state of war might validate
acts which otherwise would be uncon-
stitutional, it looks very much as If
civil government had been establish
ed under military control for the pur-
pose OF enabling the Administration to
plant itself either on military or civil
ground as legal exigencies may require.
If the Spooner resolution is upheld, the
Taft government is civil; If that reso-
luton is declared to be extra -consti-
tutional, then the Taft Commission is
merely a civil branch of military gov
ernment which is being maintained be-
cause of the continued existence OF a
state oS war in the islands.
Pat. under any condition, either of
5eace or war. this tariff seems to be in
defensible upon constitutional princi-
pies. OF course, we do not undertake
to say what the Supreme Court will de-
eide respecting Il. The insular decisions
already rendered have taught US eau
ton upon that point. But we do feel
very strongly that the measure under
consideration is utterly at variance
with the plain spirit of the Constitu-
ton, and that IL presents at least one
very important question that is not
covered in the Porto Rico cases. There
1t was merely decided that the clause
OF the Constitution requiring duties to
be uniform throughout the United
States does not apply TO new terri
tory. The idea seems to be that terri
tcry Is TO be considered outside the
purview of this clause until territorial
governments have been established
therein. Hence, the court held that a
law OF Congress prescribing rates of
duty for Porto Rico different from those
fixed by the general tariff law were
not In violation OF the Constitution.
Now. however, we have a tariff not
prescribed by Congress at all; one pre-
pared and promulgated by the secre-