The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-06-09

To the Editor: The main question de-
cided by the Supreme court of the United
States in the Porto Rico case is so inn
portant that perhaps it may answer
good purpose to examine it and see what
are the foundations on which the de-
cision rests.
Our country has seen fit to acquire ter
ritory formerly belonging to Spain-al
ready we'll peopled; and the question is:
What is the status of that territory?
Our country-the United States-is COM
posed of States, of organized districts or
Territories, and of other regions and pos
sessions net yet organized into Terri
tories.
Before the adoption of the present con-
stitution, while the States were united in
the Perpetual Union called the Confed
GRAFTON, there had been ceded to the
United States vast territorial possessions,
over which Congress was invested with
authority to make regulations; but those
cessions were subject to stipulations, one
of which was that this territory should
eventually be erected into States and be
admitted to the Union as States.
Subsequently circumstances led to the
adoption of the present Constitution and
Union as a substitute for the old Per-
petual Union and Confederacy. Chief
among those circumstances were matters
relating to foreign commerce; relating to
raising money by import duties on for
eign importations, and preventing the
interference by one State with the COM
merce of another, either by having no
duties or smaller duties than its neigh
Dor imposed.
Under the acute pressure of those con-
siderations the new Constitution was
adopted.
The only references in the Constitution
to the possessions of the United States
are as follows: New States may be adj
mitted by the Congress into this Union
1.-THE Congress shall have power to dis
pose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory and
other property belonging to the United
States.
THE United States shall guarantee to
every State Republican form of gov
eminent.
This Constitution and the laws of the
United States. which shall be made in
pursuance thereof, and all treaties made
shall be the supreme law of the land"
What is meant by the supreme law of
the land? 1t is the law that runs with
the land Wherever any part of our land
is, there the Constitution and the laws
made in pursuance of it are the supreme
law. If the land be a State, or a District
or Territory with an organized govern
ment or a region in which no organized
government has yet been established
in every case, the Constitution and laws
of Congress are the sureme law.
Under the Constitution Congress can
make needful rules and regulations re-
specting our territory, and its acts passed
in pursuance of the Constitution are SUI
preme. But they must be in pursuance
of the Constitution Certainly if contrary
to the Constitution the acts Of Congress
are a nullity.
Let us illustrate. The Constitution
says: 1.-The Congress shall have power
to declare the punishment of treason, but
no attainder of treason shall work cor
rupticn of blood or forfeiture except du-
ring the life Of the person attainted.
Suppose Congress, as to our possessions,
shall declare that treason shall work
corruption of blood. and that all proper
ty of a traitor shall be forever forfeited?
That act would be a nullity.
Or suppose Congress shall grant a title
of nobility to some resident of our posses
sions, would it not be in violation of the
provision. No title of nobility shall be
granted by the United States.
There are many such prohibitions on the
power of Congress, and on the power of
the United States And certainly the
power to make all needful rules and reg
ulations respecting our possessions is
subordinate to these particular prohibi-
tions on the power of the United States.
If the United States is prohibited from
doing anything by the Supreme law Of the
land, it follows that it cannot lawfully
do it.
Now the main question in the Porto
Rioco case was: Can Congress have one
set of duties for Porto Rico, and another
set of duties for our land OH this CONT
nent?
On that point the chief justice and three
justices said no; while five justices said
yes. Which are right, the four or the
five?
In discussing the question, Justice
Brown, who delivered the opinion of the
court, said in effect that our insular pos
sessions are not under the Constitution,
but are under the power and dominion of
Congress.
He holds that Congress can govern our
possessions without any regard to the
provisions of the Constitution; that the
Constitution does not run in those parts.
He SAYS in substance that it would be
inconvenient and therefore it must not be-
In his discussion, he mentions that there
are some provisions of the Constitution
that apply to States, but do not extend to
territories; while on the other hand there
are other provisions of the Constitution,
wherein the territories are not specif-
calIy mentioned, which have been con-
strued to embrace them. In addition to
the cases mentioned by him a great many
other cases, too plain for doubt. may also
be mentioned illustrating the same point
But all that is aside from the question
decided by the court. In all those cases
1t is taken for granted that the Constitu-
tion extends over the territories, and the
question in each case has been: What Is
the meaning of the particular clauses of
the Constitution involved?