The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-11

under the conditions then existing in the
island of Porto Rico. Manifestly, he SAID,
Congress intended by the passage Of the
act not to recognize or treat the island
is part OF the United States. but as a
possession thereof. With political eX-
istence under its sovereignty, but out
side the limits OF the United States.
The duties were not laid by Congress
under the general grant of taxing power,
in Article l of the Constitution, but under
the power to make all needful regulations
respecting the territory belonging to the
United States, Congress had determined
that these revenue regulations for Porto
Rico were needfui. which the Solicitor
General contended was conclusive and
sustained the exercise of the power.
Therefore the uniformity clause did not
apply; but if IL were held to do so, then
he said, they were uniform in all the
ports of the United States: neither were
the duties collected in Porto Rico duties
on exports from the State, but imports
to the island. That they were not ex-
ports, counsel said, he cited the decision
of the court in Woodruff VS.. Parham. The
legislation in question was a purely local
measure, the Solicitor General said, and
on this point an interesting and important
colloquy occurred. {
MI JG5AlCS f1STldn dSheu II lHe ldtI
that the revenue derived under the act
was intended solely for the benefit of
Porto Rico had any relations to the ex
ercise of power of the United States.
Mr.. Richards-I think it does.
Mr.. Justice Brewer-Could Congress
pass law imposing duties upon imports
into New Mexico?
Mr. Richards-f thirk my argument
compels me to admit that Congress could
place New Mexico in the position of Porto
Rico. think Congress could sell or other
wise dispose Of Alaska il 1t saw fiji. Or
even of New Mexico or Arizona II, in the
treaty, ii took care to protect the rights
of citizenship of the inhabitants
Mr.. Justice BreweT-If Congress can ex-
teCd the limitations of the Constitution
can it not restrict them?
Mr.. Richards-I suppose so, unless vest
ed rights intervene to prevent II.
Mr.. Justice White asked what rights OF
citizenship. that must be protected in
treaty of cession or sale, were held by the
people of Arizona and New Mexico, un
less they were a part of the United States
Mr.. Richards replied that citizenship
did not depend alone upon residence; that
Congress had passed laws en- tf)c natural
fzing people without reference to where
they lived.
Mr.. Richards Concludes.
The Solicitor General referred TO the
contention of opposing counsel that by the
terms of the ordinance Of 1887 and of the
treaty OF peace between Great Britain and
the United States. the Northwest Terri
tory was included within the term ''the
United States" On the contrary, he as
serted that an Intelligent study OF the
ordinance quoted would show that a clear
well defined distinction between the origi-
nal States and the Territory was recog-
nized in the instrument
AS | have sat here and listened to
these elaborate arguments whereby coun-
sci, ignoring the plain and simple pro-
visions of the Constitution. seek by a re-
finement Of reason to induce this court
TO take away from the President and Con-
gress the power 10 govern newly acquired
territory according to its nature and
needs. / cannot but recall the impressive
language Of the great Chief Justice Mar
shall at the clcse of the remarkable op.n-
ion which he delivered in the case Of
Gibbons vs.. Ogden:
:" Powerful and ingenious minds, tax
ing. as postulates, that the powers ex-
pressly granted to the Government CT the
Union are TO be contracted by construc-
tion into the narrowest possible compass,
and that the original powers Of the States
are retained, if any possible construction
will retain them. may by a course of
well-digested but refined and metaphysi-
cal reasoning, founded on these premises.
explain away the Constitution Of our
country and leave it a magnificent struc-
ture indeed to look at, bur totally un-
fit for use. They may SO entangle and
perplex the understanding as TO obscure
principles which were before thought
quite plain, and induce doubts where, if
the mind were TO pursue its own course,
none would be perceived
I'VE have the new territories. We are
responsible to tnem-responsible to their
people, to ourselves, to the world We
- must proSjde them a government May
we not give Them a government adapted
10 their needs May we Il, : in governing
them, carry Jut the solemn stipulations of
the treaty through which we acquired
sovereignty over them? The path of duty
is plain. May We not walk in it? Is
the Constitution stumbling block. or
trap, caught in which, we shall excite the
pity of our friends and the derision of
our foes? l refuse to believe so. The
Constitution is no mere declaration of
denials. II created a nation to which
was entrusted the full power asserted
In the Declaration of Independence. TO
levy war, conclude peace, contract alli-
ances, establish commerce, and to do all
other acts and things which independent