The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-08-11

~4@ 80 lrtAtE % US sane S4QtecE the
co1rts viii zlwmvs eadeayox 10 con-
ssl ~ then GO as to give eject 70 bosk.
Z that CA BE do1a ~ishoas violating
The language Ok either: but II the tw1
are inconsistent. the one last In date
vii eongrcl the other. p-usided al
ways that the stipulation Of tie treaty
on the subject is seif-execnsinx
10 the same effegs are the Cherokea
Tobacco. g11 Wall $50 ard the Heal
Money cases. l112 O. s 5Sal
One Of the ordinary incSesrss OF A
treaty IS the cesston Of territory. n
3 not toe much 70 szy It Is the ruie.
rather than the exception. that a treaty
Of peace. following upon 8 war. pru-
yides for = cession OF territory 10 the
victorious party. Il was said b. Chief
Justice Marshall in American Ins. Co
y Canter. q Pet. 511. $50.
The Constitution eouferS absolutely
upon the government Of the Union the
powers OF making war and OF making
treaties consequently that gov
eminent possesses the power OF ac-
curing territory, either BY conquest
or by treaty. The territory thus ac-
quired is acquired as absolutely as Il
the annexation were made. as in the
case OF Texas and Hawaii. By an act
OF Congress
Il follows from this that by the rati-
fcation OF the treaty OF Paris the is
land became territory of the Unit
ed States-although not an organized
territory in the technical sense of the
word.
II is true Mr.. Chief Justice fancy
held in Scott v Sanford. l19 How.
$685. that the territorial clause OF the
/ Constitution was confined, and intend
| ed to be confined, to the territory
{ which at that time belonged 20 or was
claimed by the United States, and was
within their boundaries, as settled by
the treaty with Great Britain, and was
not intended TO apply to territory sub
sequently acquired. He seemed TO
differ in this construction from Chief
/ Justice Marshall in the American Tns.
Co. V. Canter. q Pet 511. 542.) who,
/ in speaking of Florida before il be
came a State, remarked that il con-
| tinued to be territory Of the United
States, governed by the territorial
clause Of the Constitution.
But whatever be the source of this
power, its uninterrupted exercise by
Congress for a century, and the re-
lpeated declarations of this court, have
settled the law that the right TO &C
cuire territory involves the right 70
| govern and dispose of it That was
stated by Chief Justice fancy In the
bred Scott case. In the more recent
case of National Bank V. County OF
| Yankton. (I01 q. S. 1891 it was said
nv Mr.. Chief Justice Waite that Con
gress has full and complete legisla
tive authority over the people OF the
territories and all the departments o.
the territorial governments.
NAV do for the territories wh2i
the people. under the Constitution o.
the United States. may do for the
States Indeed, it is scarcely tex
much to say that there has not beer
a session Of Congress since the Ter
ritory of Louisiana was purchased
that that body has not enacted legis
lation based upon the assumed au
thcrity to govern and control the ter
ritories. Ii is an authority which
arises. not necessarily from the ter
ritorial clause of the Constitution.
hut from the necessities OF the case
and from the inability of the States tc
act upon the subject Under this
power Congress may deal with terri
ritory acquired by treaty; may ad
minister its government as it does
that of the District of Columbia; II
may organize a local territorial gov
eminent; it may admit it as State
upon an equality with other States; II
may sell its public lands to individual
citizens or may donate them as home
steads to actual settlers. In short
when once acquired by treaty. it be
longs to the United States. and is sub
jeet to the disposition OF Congress.
Territory thus acquired can remain
a foreign country under the tariff
laws only upon one OF two theories:
either that the word foreign" ap
plies to such countries as were for.
eign at the time the statute was en-
acted, Notwithstanding any subse
quent change in their condition. OF
that they remain foreign under the
tariff laws until Congress has formal
" embraced them within the customs
union Of the States The first theory
is obviously untenable- While q
statute is presumed to speak from the
time Of its enactment. 1t embraces al
I SuCu ptESUuS OF kuiuS6 6S 6uDSe
Quently fall within its scope, and
ceases to apply to such as thereafter
fall without its scope Thus. a statute
forbidding the sale of liquors to mi
nors applies not only to minors IN
existence at the time the statute wa.
enacted. but to all who are subse-
Quenfly born: and ceases to apply Il
such as thereafter reach their ma
iority. So. when the Constitution o
the United States declares in Art
l. sec. 10. that the States shall not d,
certain things. this declaration oper
ates not only upon the thirteen orr
ginal States. but upon all who sub
sequently become such. and vhel
Congress places certain restriction
: upon the powers of q territorial leR
islature. such restrictions cease 4
operate the moment such territory I
: admitted as a State. BY parity .
! reasoning country ceases 70 b
foreign the instant it becomes DO
nestle So. too. If Congress saw 8
} TO cede one Of it's newly acquired ter
] rit0ries teven assuming that II hal
. the right 10 do sol TO foreign pow
er. there could be no doubt that from
! the day Of such cession and the de
livery Of possession, such terrftor