The National tribune., 1901-05-30
THE STATUS OF THE ISLANDS.

NOnd question or dispute the status OF th'
territory acquired by us in the recent wal
with Spain. As the question was one en-
tirely and solely within the jurisdiction
of the Court, and as there is no appea
from its decision, the settlement becomes
the rule of our policy. and henceforward
everything must proceed on the lines the
Court has laid down.
The decision of the majority of the
Court is in accordance with the doctrine
that THE NATIONAL TRIBUNE has sup
ported from the first. 1t is the doctrine
first enunciated by Webster, and which
was antagonized by Calhoun and his dis
ciples and which was contravened by the
''obiter dicta' in the Dred Scott decision.
This doctrine is:
l. That the United States has the right
to acquire territory without any neces-
sary implication of q design to erect the
same into States;
3 That the territory so acquired be-
comes the possession of the United
States. and domestic territory. but
8. That there is no Constitutional OBJ
legation upon Congress to make laws gov
e1ning it uniform with those governing
the States.
4. That, on the other hand. Congress is
at liberty to govern it and all Territories
as it may see fit, and make any special
laws it may deem necessary for the gov
ernment of any particular Territory, or
portion of such Territory.
The majority of the Court reaches this
conclusion by long and intricate reason
ing. each Justice taking a somewhat diff
ferent route. The minority differ still
more among themselves.
Justices Gray, Brown, Shiras, White,
and McKenna-four Republicans and one
Democrat. constituting the majority-hold
that Congress has full power to legislate
for the acquired territory. Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices Harlan. Brewer and
Peckham-two Republicans and two
Democrats-hold that revenue legislation
must be uniform for both States and Ter
ritories. and that the Foraker Act is in-
valid.
The majority opinion. delivered by JUS
tice Brown, goes into an exhaustive ex-
animation of the history of our Govern
ment, saying that the Constitution does
not answer the question presented to
sought elsewhere in the nature of the
Government and the practical cOnstruc
tions put upon the Constitution in the
past by Congress. After citing some in,
stances, it says:
at is sufficient to observe in relation
to these fundamental instruments that it
can nowhere be inferred that the Terri
tories were considered Il part of the
ated by the people of the United States,
as q union of States, to be governed sole
ly by representatives of the States, and
even the provision relied upon here. that
all duties, impOStS, and eXciSeS shall be
uniform throughout the United States
is explained by subsequent provisions or
the Constitution, that no tax or duty
shall be laid on articles exported from any
State and no preference shall be given
by any regulation of commerce or revenue
to the ports of one State over those OF
another; nor shall vessels bound to or
from one State be obliged to enter clear.
or pay duties in another In short, the
Constitution deals with States, their peo-
pie, and their representatives.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, prohibiting slavery and in
voluntary servitude within the United
States, or in any place subject to their
jurisdiction, is also significant as show
ing that there may be places within the
jurisdiction of the United States that are
no part of the Union. To say that the
phraSeOlogy of this amendment was due
TO the fact that it was intended to pro-
hibit slavery in the seeded States, under
a possible Interpretation that those States
We're no longer a part of the Union, is
to confess the very point in issue, since
it involves an admission that if these
States were not a part of the Union they
were still subject to the jurisdiction Of
the United States
Upon the other hand, the Fourteenth
Amendment, upon the subject of citizen
ship, declares only that all persons born
or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizen. Of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside Here there is
a limitation to persons born or naturaiiZed
in the United States which is not exten,!-
ed TO persons born in any place subject
to their jurisdiction
Justice White held that it had been con-
clusively shown that the Constitution fol-
lowed the Flag, but though it did so there
were certain provisions which were appIi-
cable to the Territories and certain which
were not. For example, those Constiti-
tional limitations in favor of life and
liberty withdrew all power from Congress.
and could be never transgressed. Other
provisions were applicable only to the
States, and left Congress a free hand in
the Territories. He summed up this part
Of his opinion as follows:
'There is in reason, then no room in
this case to contend that Congress can de-
stroy the liberties of the people Of Porto
Rico by exercising in their regard powers
against freedom and justice which the
Constitution has absolutely denied. There
can also be no controversy as to the right
of Congress to locally govern the island
of Porto Rico as its wisdom may decide.
and in so doing to accord only such de-
gree of representative government as may
be determined on by that body. There
can also be no contention as to the
authority Of Congress to levy such local
taxes in Porto Rico as it may choose.
even although the amount of the local
burden so levied be manifold more OnerOus
than is the duty with which this case is
concerned"
THE result of what has been said is
that whilst, in an international sense, Porto
Rico was not foreign country, since it
was subject to the sovereignty of and was
owned by the United States, it was
foreign to the United States in a domestic
sense, because the island had not been in
corporated into the United States, but
was merely appurtenant thereto as pos
session. As necessary consequence, the
impost in question assessed on merchan-
disc coming from Porto Rico into the
United States after the cession was with
in the power of Congress, and that body
not