The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1901-05-28

At great length the court then dis
cuSsed similar cases arising from
previous acquisitions of territory by
the United States, reviewing very fully
former decisions of the court involving
questions such as are presented in this
case. me possessions in connection
with which the main question involved
i'm this case has arisen are Louisiana,
Florida, Texas, California and Alaska
Each case was taken NO In order and
analyZed minut9ly. The court then
presented its conclusions in the follow
ing language:
As showing the construction put
upon this question by the legislative
department, we need ouly TO add that
section of the Foraker act makes a
els5lq 15.ti between Iorelgn countries
and Porto Rico, by enacting that the
same. duties shall be paid upon all ar
ticles Imported 5nto Porte Rico from
ports other than those OF the United
states, which are required by law to
/ be collected upon articles imported into
the United states from foreign coun-
Z tries
From this resume Of the decisions
I Of this court the Instructions of the
Z executive departments and abe above
4 act of congress, III is evident that from
I 1903, the date of Mr.. Callatin's letter
/ TO this present time there is not a shred
B of authority, except the dictum in
! Fleming VS. Page, for holding that a
3 Il
j POSSESSION OF the. United States re-
/ mains for any purpose a foreign coun-
try
I Both these conditions must exist To-
! produce change Of nationality for
& revenue purposes Possession is not
I alone sufficient, as was held in Fleming
I vs.. Page5 nor is a treaty ceding such
/ territory sufficient without a surrender
\ of possession. The practice Of the eX-
/ ecutiVe departments, thus continued
I y
I titled to great weight and should not
L be disregarCed nor overturned except
! for cOgent reasons and unless it be
/ clear that such construction be enron
( eous.
POWER TO MAKE TREATIES.
I eff this were presented as an original
question we should be impelled ire
/ sishbly to the same conclusion BY
article II, section 2 of the constitution
4 the president is given power, by and
4 With the consent of the senate, to make
4 treaties, provided that tWO-thirds Of
1 the senators present concur and by
/ article VI this constitution and the
1 laws of the United States. which shall
( be made in pursuance thereof, and all
4 treaties made or which shall be made
under the authority of the United
/ States, shall be the supreme law of the
I land
1T will be Observed that no dfstinc-
\ ton is made as to the question of SUI
] premacy between laws and treaties, exc
I eept that both are controlled By the
4 sent Of both houses Of congress, and
I except in certain specided cases the
I signature OF the president. A treaty.
! is negotiated and made by the presi-
/ dent with the concurrence of two
4 thirds of the senator's present, but
/ each Of them is the supreme law Of the
/ land
/ cone of the ordinary incidents of a
] -.
Z is not too much to say il is the rule,
i rather than the exception, that a
! treaty of. peace, following upon a war,
[ provides for a cessiOn of territory TO
! the victorious party. The territory
/ thus acquired is acquired as absolute
I in the case OF Texas and Hawaii, by an
] act of congress.
PORTO RICO A TERRITORY.
ct follows from this that by ratidca-
4 ton of the treaty off Paris, Porto Rico
/ became territory OF the United states,
/ although not an organized territory IN
I the technical sense OF. the word.
j.. 1T is true Chief Justice Taney held
in Scott vs.. Sanford that the TERRI
/ toTial clause of the constitution was
I confined. and intended TO be confined,
/ to the territory which at that time
/ belonged 10 or was CANNED Dy JIle
I United States and was within their
4 boundaries, as settled by the treaty
/ with Great Britain, and was not in
! tended 10 apply TO territory SubSe-
Queutly acquired. He seemed to diTIer
in this construction from Chief JUS
/ tice Marshall, who in speaking Of
/ Florida before it became a state, re-
marked that it continued to be a ter
/ rihory of the United States governed
! by the territorial clause Of the con-
4 stitutiOu
/ 'But whatever be the source of this
j power its Interrupted exercise By con-
gress for a century and the repeated
: declarations OF this court have settled
rttory involves the right to govern AMI
i dispose Of it. Indeed, it is scarcely too
I much TO say that there has not been
/ q session Of congress since the terri-
/ tory Of Louisiana was purchased that
/ thar body has not enacted -1leglS latloll
/ based upon the assumed authority to
4 govern and control the territories
j ST is an authority which arises. not
i necessarily from the territorial clause
OF the constitution, nut from the ne
L cessitfes OF the case and from the iu-
( ability 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 Co
lumbia: it may organize q local terri
torial government; it may admit it as
/ q state upon an equality with other
state it may sell its public lands %
( then. as homesteads to actual settlers
In short. when once acquired by. treaty
I It belongs to the United States and is
subject to the disbositiOn Of congress.
1 AS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
Territory thus acquired can remain
a foreign country. under the tariff laws
EOnlV upon one Of two theOrieS-eitlel'
K that the word foreign applies to such
Il countries as were foreisn at the time
4 the statute was enacted, notWIt nstard-
ing any subsequent change in their
4 condition or that they remain foreign
under the tariff laws until congress
has formally embraced them WithiR
the customs union Of the states.
st'The first theory is obviously unten-
liable. While q statute is presumed 70
1 speak from the time of its cuactmeub
I it embraces an such persons or things
las subsequently fall within its scope.
Thus a statute forbidding the sale of
LIQUORS to minors applies not only to