The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-12


States or Territories thereof are the
phrases used to describe or locate the
| persons or property subject to tax"
In the legislation regarding Alaska, the
| Attorney General pointed out that Con-
iegress evidently did not consider that the
Internal Revenue laws must be applied
uniformly throughout the territory OF
! the United States because they extended
| some of the laws over Alaska and some
they did not.
As to whether Congress had ever made
a distinction between the States and Ter
| ritories regarding tariff laws. the Attor-
| ney General said he had not been able to
| examine all the laws. But only yesterday
he had lighted upon the act of 1893 extend
| ing the tariff laws of the United States
over the Northwest Territory which made
an exception in favor of the Territory in
the importation of peltries.
An Instance of Distinction.
-"nce of distinction made by
es and Territories
General was in the
! srnaI Revenue laws
Paul and st. George
eral, in closing. read
i from the opinion of
.ali in the case of Nc
nd:
the execution of those
which the welfare of a
ally dependent. 1t must
entiOn of those who gave
ensure. 50 far as human
insure. their beneficial ex-
.ould not be done by con-
ce of means to such mar
lot to leave it in the power
adopt any which might be
nd which vare conducive to
lis provision is made in
intended to endure for ages
consequently, to be adapted
Gus crises of human affairs
escribed the means by which
should. in all future times
powers, would have been to
tirely the character of the in
and give to it the properties OF
,ode.
a. would have been an unwise attempt
to provide by immutable rules for cxi-
gencies which, II foreseen at all, must
have been seen dimly, and which can be
best provided for as they occur. To have
declared that the best means shall not be
used, but those alone without which the
power to govern would be nugatory would
have been to deprive the Legislature of
the capacity to avail Itself of experience
to exercise its reason, and to accommo-
Every word of that applies to this
very subject as connected with the new
conditions that confront the governing
power of this country" said Mr.. Griggs.
The contention Of the opponents of the
Government in these cases, If sustained
will not safeguard single personal right.
1t will only hamper the Government in the
choice of its means. in the exercise OF its
discretion, to the wisest method for
/.
territory that belongs to it. 1t viii Sc
cure nothing to the States: nothing to
the inhabitants of the islands, except the
necessity of sharing the burdens of Fed
eral taxation even if such course shall
plainly be to their prejudice and ruin. /
submit that neither reason nor precedent
nor policy requires that this court should
make a decision which. contrary to a
course of the Government for almost
century, shall reverse the action of Ad-
ministration after Administration and in
all future time hamper the purpose. the
power, the progress, and the growth OF the
great American Republic"
The Huns Case.
The case of Huns vs. the New York and
Porto Rican Steamship Company comes
before the Supreme Court upon certificate
from the Court of Appeals for the Sec
ond Circuit, asking these questions:
/. Since the PRONUNCIATION of the Treaty
OF Paris and the passage of the Porto
Rican act, do Porto Rican ports remain
foreign ports In the sense in which the
words are used in the New York statutes
regulating pilotage?
2. Are vessels trading between the ports
of Porto Rico and OF the United States
engaged in the coasting trade in the sense
of the New York statutes?
3. Are steam vessels trading between
Porto Rico and the United States coast
wise vessels in the sense of those words
in section 4444 Revised Statutes United
States.
Senator Lindsay in his argument an
tagonized the attitude and argument Of
Mr.. Carlisle being arrayed with the Gov
ernment law officers in support of the
contention that Porto Rican ports are for
eign ports for legislative purposes. He
first presented the point that presumption
is against the claim of Federal inter-
ference with the subject of port pilotage,
it being regulated by State laws.
The major part OF the argument of the
Senator was devoted to a consideration of
the propositions that the Constitution did
not 20 eX proprio y!gore over territory
acquired by treaty or conquest and that
Congress was restricted in its dealings
with the government of territory by the
lSi VI Nut tiSdLE uHNS4 hHlIA ~ hao
acquired.
Answering questions by Mr. Justice Har-
Ian. Senator Lindsay said that in doing so
Congress was restrained also, as Mr.. Jus
tice Matthews said in one OF the cases
decided by this court, not by the Consti-
tuition. but by the great principles under
lying free institutions. Congress could do
nothing in the Territories in violation of
the consensus OF civilized peoples Nor
could it set up the Presbyterian as the
State religion; nor grant titles of nobility;
nor institute slavery.
The treaty making pOwefoof the United
States, ne further said was subject to
only such limitations as were imposed !
upon the sovereign power of any civilized
Government on earth. Because we had a
written Constitution and a Bill of Rights f!
in the United States, it had become the |
prevailing idea that we enjoyed cur rights |
and immunities because of the COnstitu- |
tion. But that was far from the truth |
The rights existed long before the Con /
stitution existed. and it vas ordained by /
the people OF the United States to pre- |
serve those rights TO themselves and their |
posterity.
IL was poor compliment to the Consti- !
tuition, counsel said, to say that under it .
we could not govern these islands for .
their benefit and for our own benefit Had /
it not been for Chief Justice Taney's die !
tum in the Dred Scctt case, in his
opinion, the doctrine Of ex proprio vigore (
would never have been advocated Nei her
Calhoun nor Webster was right in his |
ton nm TftNf,