The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-06-04
Sir. Longs view of Ii.


the decision in the Downes case. in so
far as II sustains the contentious of the
Administration. although it IS surpris-
ing that he should give his comment a
partisan turn and publicly assert that
the decision IS in accordance with the
views Of the Republican party To say
the least. it was in bad taste and es-
peciaIly SO as the Supreme Court di-
vided apparently without much, if any,
regard for party Affiliations. In the de
Lima case there We're three Republican
and two Democratic Justices opposed
to the Governments view. while in the
Downes case there were four RepubIi-
cans and one Democrat supporting the
position cf the Government
But more than this, when we turn
from the naked judgment and consider
the reasoning Of the several Justices,
it may we'll be doubted whether the
action Of the coNrt Upholds the Repub-
] Iican view Of the constitutional status
Of our msular possessions The very
fact that the Republican justices were
substantially divided may fairly be
taken to indicate similar division of
sentiment among the masses Of Bepub-
Iicans throughout the country And it
is y ell known that there is great deal
of Republican sentiment that i oDpCs-
ed to the Administration policy Of
holding these new territories under
what Is essentially a British colonial
system 1t is not probable that one
half or even one-third of the rank and
file Of the Republican electorate would
cast their ballots against the Admins
tration upon the issue, because with
the average voter the party spirit is
very strong. and leads him TO cling to
his party, even though in his heart he
believes that some features Of its policy
are wrong.
But we may concede that the Ad-
ministraeion has the support Of a ma
jority Of the Republican voters. and
still challenge the correctness Of Mr.
Longs statement that the decision is
in accordance with the Republican
view. From the first the argument Of
the Republican party leaders has been
that the Constitution does not extend
of its own force into these territories,
but can only be carried there by q spe-
ciaI act of Congress. Considering the
de Lima and Downes cases together
(and that IS the only proper way to get
the real significance OF the one last
named1. il IS clear that d majority of
Constitution does extend to newly ac-
qUired territory and that It remains
there until It IS excluded by an act Of
Congress The argument of a majority
Of the judges is diametricaIIy opposed
u the contention with which the Re
publican leaders have beIabOred US
from the beginning Of the controversy;
and if Justice Brown had voted in the
Downes case as he argued in the de
Lima case, the imperiaIistic colonial
policy would have been left without a
leg to stand on.
Mr. Longs reported statement
upon another point is equally open to
question. He is quoted as saying that
in the old pro-slavery days the effort
was made TO carry slavery into the Ter
ritories under the theory that the Con
stitution went there with it, but that
| docrIne never found favor IN public
opinion, which Is now confirmed by the
present decision Of the Supreme Court
This statement is unfair and nisIead-
ing It seeks to convey the idea that
| the constitutional question involved in
the slavery issue was parallel with the
| one recently passed upon by the Su-
| pTeme Court
The Secretary states what may be
termed a half truth He is right in
/ saying that the effort was made to
carry slavery into the Territories by
virtue of the Constitution. but It by 10
means follows that the opposition was
based upon the theory that the Con
stitution did not extend into the Ter
ritories. If that point was ever made
il certainly was not made by any Of the
recognized leaders of public thought
Some Of the anti-sIavery extremists
would have abolished the institution on
humanitarian grounds, regardless Of
the Constitution. but that is an entirely
different proposition Practically every
body admitted that the Territories were
covered by the great organic law Of our
national existence; but il was denied
that there was anything N the Cousti-
tuition which could fairly be Interpreted
as carrying slavery into the Territories.
If the Constitution had provided af-
firmauveIy that slavery should be law
full throughout the United States then
the question would have arisen whether
the United States included the Ter
ritories. and the issue would have been
essentially the same as the one now
before the country But the Constitu-
ton did not affirmatively create sIav-
cry, or provide for its existence any
where. II merely recognized the insti-
tuition as one that had an existence.
and the anti-slavery men claimed that
this was not enough TO carry slavery
into Territory where it did not already
lawfully exist In short it was insist
ed that property il slaves was excep-
tionaI in character and dependent en-
tirely upon local law; or as the formula
ran, that slavery was sectional and
freedom national" and that there was
nothing in the Constitution which eth
CT carried slavery into Territory or
excluded Il therefron.
The great issue in pTO-sIaveTy days
was not whether the Constitution ex-
tended into the Territories. but what il
meant after It got there The present
Republican contention is that the Con
stitutOn does not extend TO a Territory