The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-01-24
Did Constitution
Follow the
Flag?
STRONG ARGUMENTS
FOR AND AGAINST
Solicitor General Richards Says
the United States Could Part
With These Islands.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14.-When the
hearing had been completed in the other
cases involving the connection of the
United States with the insular posses
sions the case of George W. Crossman
et al, appellants, VS.. the United States
was called. This case is one covering
the entry of goods from Hawaii con-
sisting of whisky, brandy and jam, at
the custom house at New York, April
2e, 1900, and is the only Hawaiian case
in the list. Duty was assessed under
the provisions of the Dingley law.
The importers protested against col
lection of duty on the ground that the
Hawaiian Islands We're part of the
United States; that the provision of the
annexation resolution which continued
the customs laws of the Republic OF
Hawaii in force until Congress should
legislate was Unconstitutional. Appeal
was taken to the Board of General An
praisers, to the United States Circuit
Court and to the Supreme Court. w
Wickham Smith presented the case for
the appellants. He laid down the fol-
lowing propositions upon which he said
his clients rely;
!, First-At the time of the Importation
of these goods the Hawaiian Islands
having been, by the. action of Congress
.appFoEed -hy the President, annexed as
part efsthe United States, were not 9
foreign country within any sense Of
that term and certainly not within the
sense Of that term as used in the en-
acting clause of the Dingley tariff act.
Second-The action of Congress il
providing in the Joint resolution of an.
- A.. ~, -. ~
the Hawaiian Islands with the United
States, and with other countries should
remain unchanged until Congress.
should further 1egislate on the subjec'
was a. violation OF the provision of ths
Constitution that all duties. impost!
and excises shall be uniform Throughout
the United States
| Third-As such joint resolution pro
vided for the collection at the ports o.
the Hawaiian Islands of the duties up
on articles sent thither from other port:
of the United States, this was in effect
a violation of the provision of section
of the Constitution that no tax o.
duty shall be laid on articles exported
from any state.
Counsel argued that this case wa!
not like others before the court recent
ly for the reason that there was n
question involved as to the force or eff
feet of a treaty. the Government of tn
Republic of Hawaii having ceded it
sovereignty to the United States, whicl
cession the Congress ratified. There i
no question of a military government
The language of the annexation ac
provides that the Islands were annex
ed "as part of the territory of the Unit
ed States
! Mr.. Smith then argued that in the fiy'
places where the words United State
were used In the Constitution, with on
exception, the term includes the state
and the territories as well. The excep
ton is that clause providing for tn
election of presidential electors. Afte
considering the application of the nat
uralization and bankruptcy laws in ter
ritories and states alike, counsel said
"It would be a strange view of Ian
guage to hold that the words through
out the United States in article I, sec
ton s, were narrower or more limite'
in their scope than the words in tn
United States in the fourteenth amend
ment There is no principle of gram
mar logic, law or common sense Il
which the words throughout the Unit
ed States in the uniformity clause wit
regard to taxation can be restricted t
the states, excluding the territories.
"a long line Of decisions by this cour
that certain fundamental limitation
upon the power of Congress containe
in the Constitution are in force IN vari
Gus territories of the United States. ar
those disposed of by those on the othe
side of this controversy by the state
iment that the Constitution operates i
these territories because Congress ha
seen fit to extend it to them by its ow,
act. In other words they advance tn
doctrine that the Constitution has n
force or operation in any territory unit
Congress puts it there, and, of course
this logically implies that it only ex
tends there to the extent to which Con
igress puts it there, and can renal
there only as long as Congress choose
ito permit In other words those VIII
bold that Congress puts the Constitu
ton into the territories cannot escap
from saving that Congress has powe
at any time to take the Constftutio
out of the territories. IF the Constitu
ton operates today in Arizona, Ne'
Mexico and Oklahoma only beeaus
Congress has chosen to extend 1t t
those territories, it must be within tn