Evening star., 1901-05-27

is placed the same footing and made
of right obligation with an act of legiSa
ticn. Both are declared by that instrument
to be the supreme law of the land and no
superior efficacy is given to either over the
other. When the two relate to the same
subject the courts will always endeavor to
coEStrue them so as to give effect to both,
if that can be done without violating the
language of either: but if the two are in
consistent the one last in date Will contro!
the other. provided always that the stpu-
fation of the treaty on the subject is self
executing
'To the same effect are the Cherokee To-
bacco and the Head Money cases.
"One Of the ordinary incidents of treaty
is the cession of territory 1t is not too
much to say il is the rule rather than the
exception that a treaty of peace following
upon war provides for cession of terri
tory to the victorious party. 1t was said
by Chief Justice Marshall'in American In
surance Co. agt Canter: The Constitution
confers absolutely upon the government of
the tnion the powers of making and
Of making treaties, consequently that gov
ernment possesses the power of acquiring
territory. either by conquest or by treaty.
The territory. thus acquired is acquired as
absolutely as if the annexation We're made
as in the case of Texas and Hawaii by an
act of Congress
L. =. Territory. bat Not Organized.
1T follows from this that by the ratifi-
cation of the treaty of Paris the island be
came territory of the United States-al
though not an organized territory in the
technical sense of the word.
1T is true Mr.. Chief Justice Taney held
In Scott against Sandford that the terri
tOrlai clause of the Constitution was con-
fined and intended to be confined to the ter
rltory which at that time belonged to or
was claimed by the United States. and was
within their boundaries as settled by the
treaty with Great Britain, and was not in
tended to apply to territory subsequently
acquired. He seemed to differ in this con-
struction from Chief Justice Marshall in
the American Insurance Company against
Canter, who, in speaking of Florida before
/. became a state, remarked :hat it
tinued to be territory Of the United
States governed by the territorial clause
of the Constitution.
But whatever be the source of this power,
its uninterrupted exercise 0y Congress for
a century and the repeated declaration ons of
this court settled the law that the right
to acquire territory involved .he right
to govern and dispose of It. That was
stated by Chief Justice Taney in the bred
Scott case. In the more recent case of
National Bank against County of Yankton
1t was said by Mr.. Chief Justice Waite
that Congress has full and complete legis-
lative authority over the people Of the ter
ritories and all the departments of the
territorial government. 1t may do tor the
territories what the people under the Con-
stitutiOn of the United States may do for
the states Indeed 1t is scarcely too much
to say that there has 1ot been a session
VI toliSt tSS Slilct- tile territory Louisiana
was purchased that that body has not en-
acted legislation based npOn the assumed
authority to govern and control the terri
tories.
1T is an authority which arises not neccs-
saTily from the territorial clause of the
Constitution, but from the necessities Of
the case and from the inability of the
states to act upon the subject. Under this
power Congress may deal with territory
acquired by treaty; may administer its
government as it does that of the District
OF columbia; 1t may organize a local terri
torial government; it may admit 1t as a
state upon an equality with other states:
1t may sell its public land to individual cit
liens, or may designate them as home
steads to actual settlers. In short, when
once acquired by treaty it belongs to the
United States and is subject to the dis
position of Congress.
Not Foreign Territory Under TAriY
Laws.
TERRITORY thus acquired can remain a
foreign country under the tariff laws onlv
upon one of two theories; either that the
word foreign applies to such countries as
were foreign at the time the statute was
enacted, notwithstanding any subsequent
chahge IN their condition, or that they re-
MAN iorelSn under the tariff laws until
congress has formally embraced them
WITHIN the customs union of the states
ne hrst theory is obviously untenabIe
hiie statute is presumed to speak from
the tilfle OF It's enactment it embraces all
such persons or things as subsequently, fan
within its scope and ceases to apply %
such as hereafter fall without It's scopc
Thus a statute forbdding the sale of
liquor to minors applies not only to minors
in existence at the time the statute was
enacted, but to all who are subsequently
born, and ceases to apply to such as there
after reach their majority So whom the
!. Constitution of the United States declares
IN article !, section 10, that the states
snail not do certain things, this declaration
operates not only upon the thirteen states.
but upon all which subsequently become
sVch, and when Congress places certain
restrictions upon the powers of a territorial
legislature such restrictions cease to oper-
ate the moment that territory is admitted
as state.
BY parity of reasoning a country ceases
10 De foreign the instant it becomes do
mestic- So, too, if Congress sees fit to
cede one of it's newly acquired territories
(even assuming that it has the right to do
so) to a foreign power, there can be no
doubt that from the day of such cession
and the delivery of possession such terri
tory would become a foreign country and
be reinstated such under the tariff laws
Certainly no act of Congress would be
necessary in this case to declare that the
laws of the United States had ceased to
apply to it.
The theory that country remains for
e1Sn, with respect to the tariff laws ln-
til Congress has acted by embracing it
within the customs union presupposes that
purpose
and foreign for another. 1t may undoubt-
edly become necessary for the ADEQUATE
administration of domestic territory to
pass special act providing the proper ma
chlnery and officers las the President would
have no authority, except under the war
power, to administer it himself but no act
IS necessary to make a domestic territory
II once 1t has been ceded to the United
States.
we express no opinion as to whether Com
sfess Is bound to appropriate the money to
pay Tor it. This has been much discussed
by writers on constitutional law but 1t Is
not necessary to consider 1t N This case as
congress made prompt appropriation Of the
money stipulated in the treaty. This theory
also presupposcs that territory nay be he Id
indefinitely by the United States: that n
may De treated in every particular, except
lor tarir purposes, as domestic territory:
mat laws may be enacted and enforced by
ofhcers of the United States sent there for
that purpose; that instructions NAV he
suppressed, wars carried on, revenues COL
lected, taxes imposed; in snort that eyery-
thing may be done which a government can
| 90 within it's own boundaries, and Yet that
| the territory may still remain foreign
country.
Ihat this state of things may continue for
years, Tor century even, but until Con-
SresS enactS otherwise, 1t still remains a
| foreign country. To hold that this can be
| nf In