The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1901-05-27


Inasmuch as the District of Colum.
bia was carved out of states which were
then under the Constitution it has beer
strongly urged that these statements
are mere dicta. Mr.. Justice MarshalPs
proposition is that since the power tt
levy taxes may and must be exercised
, throughout the United States, the limi.
tation of the power must cover an equa
area. But in no event could it be ne
cessarily decisive as to whether we car
held the title to territory without max
ing it a part of the United States.
No other decision of the Supreme
court has been cited as furnishing any
authority to support the claim that this
treaty is unconstitutional. The ques-
tlon is therefore an open one.
On the one side it is contended that
the United States may hold title to ter
ritory without Incorporating it fully
under its organic laws; on the other
that when it accepts sovereignty the
coded territory at that instant becomes
fully a part of the United States with
out possible qualification or limitation.
If the character Of the acquisition be
limited the attempt to preserve the for
eign status of the islands until con-
gress shall determine the extent to
which it is to be incorporated, is con-
stitutional. If cession, ipse facto, ac-
complishes an unqualified incorpora-
ton, Porto Rico is no longer foreign.
If we cannot hold coded territory
without bringing it under the Constitu-
ton as an integral part of the United
States then we cannot give to Porto
Rico practical independence consti-
tuition and laws of her own, taxes of h7r
own, and hold merely the sovereignty,
confined, perhaps, to control of foreign
relations. If Porto Rico is still for
eign country we might adopt that
course. IF it is a part of the United
States in the sense that the appellants
urge, we cannot grant independence un-
less we entirely renounce our sovereign
ty. For otherwise, under their conten-
ton, the island would be under the uni
formity clause Of the Constitution and
we should be compelled to tax it uni
formly with our own nation. Such a
view of our constitutional limitations
would make it impossible to accept
from another nation cession of terri
tory on the condition that we should not
tax 1t for a number Of years. If session
works incorporation and it's effects cam
not be limited we cannot stipulate to
hold the coded territory without impos-
ing upon it at once the burden of our
excise laws and our tariff. Can we not,
in acquiring territory provide for free
trade with it's former sovereign for
time? Counsel for appellants contend
that we cannot and that such provi-
sion would be unconstitutional. If this
contention is well founded, If such ter
ritory is at once necessarily incorpora-
ted, then the stipulation in the Treaty
of Paris that the Philippines are to
have free trade with Spain for ten years
is void because in violation of the uni
formity clause of the Constitution.
Then the treaty which coded Louisia-
ma was unconstitutional, as some of its
opponents urged at that time, in its at
tempt to limit the Incorporation of that
territory to the extent of admitting to
it's ports certain Spanish and French
ships on payment Of smaller tonnage
duties than would be required In other
ports Of the United States Here, to
this extent, Louisiana was kept apart
from a full union with our nation, and
in this respect it was not bound by the
clause of the Constitution.
similar provision secured privileges
for Spanish ships for twelve years in
the ports of Florida when that territory
was coded, thereby granting that terri
tory commercial advantages not in har-
mony with the full incorporation under
the Constitution. Are we to declare
these treaties unconstitutional? Are
we to say that the United States, as a
sovereign nation exercising full power
to make war and treaties, is to be so
limited that it cannot accept sover-
eighty without unconditional incorpora-
ton? This is what we must decide If
we declare the treaty before us uncon-
If the treaties with France
and Spain, sanctioned in the former by
resolution. unquestioned !
In our courts and acduiesced in all |
these years are valid precedents; if the
treaty of Paris, giving Spain free trade |
with the Philippines is constitutional, |
then the treaty clause in question is
not unconstitutional and void and Por- |
to Rico is still In it's constitutional re-
ations to us a foreign country until |
should otherwise determine.
1t may be argued, that as the treaty
making power has not stipulated as to
he rates of duty for the coded territory, |
his power is not included in the sub
ects left to congressional discretion. |
But it is difficult to conceive any gen
.ral language more apt to express an |
Intention to leave to congress the de-
elimination of all such matters than
hat used in the treaty. Porto Rico
vas foreign country and it's inhabit-
mt were foreigners prior to the treaty
NE treaty virtually provided either
hat the status of the island as a for
ign country should be continued or
hat the status of it's inhabitants as
oreigners. should he continued until
he essentials of a change of condition
hould be determined by congress. No
digestion has been made as to how
he treaty can have changed the status
t the island as foreign country when
expressly provides that the inhabt-
nts shall retain their foreign status.
If this treaty must be so constructed
hat the territory is incorporated into
be United States While the inhabitants
re denied the civil rights and political
tatus of citizens, the treaty must be
eclared unconstitutional and in that
ase Porto Rico remains a foreign
ountry and the duties We're properly
ssessed But such a construction Is
~ To-,