Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-12-09

foreign country If it is desired that duties
| similar to those imposed by the Dingley act
| upon foreign countries shall be collected on
the imports from a new territorial acquiSi-
| ton, provision to that effect must be made
! in the treaty or in an act of Congress to
] go into effect upon the ratification of the
! treaty or the tariff act must itself provide
separate schedules for foreign countries and
! for domestic appurtenant territory.
1t has been suggested as a distressing
deprivation of privilege from the occupants
| of this limbo that the appurtenant status
violates the letter and spirit of the Consti-
tuition and from the constitutional point of
view is virtual slavery. But when the Con-
sttution says in the thirteenth amendment
that slavery or involuntary servitude shall
not exist within the United States or any
place subject to their jurisdiction" it as
serts by implication that there are places
subject to the jurisdiction Of the United
States which are not within. the United
| States. And it also asserts by implication
that the appurtenant or uriincorporated
status thus recognized is not in essence one
or slavery or involuntary servitude, since
the latter are forbidden to exist in the APP
purtenant territory in the very words which
| recognize the existence of this limbo
Not Outside of the Constitution.
There is no authority in Congress to gov
ern appurtenant territory outside of the
Constitution" "in the case of the terrific
ries the question which arises is not wheth-
er the Constitution is operative, for that is
self-evident;" Congress in legislating for
appurtenant territory lis only empowered
to act within the Constitution and subject
to its applicable limitations" Justice
White in Downes against Bidwell, voicing
sentiments of himself, McKenna, Shiras
and Gray, and also, as appears from the
dissenting opinions, those of Fuller, Har-
LAM Brewer and Peckham.)
The opinions in Downes against Bidwen,
when analysed and compared, indicate the
opinion of the court that the people OF ap-
purtenant territory are far from being sub
jects or slaves to be governed as such by
Congress outside of the Constitution, and
unprotected by that instrument; and that
on the contrary the national organic law
is operative in their territory; that the gen.
eral prohibitions of the Constitution for
the protection Of life, liberty and property
are applicable in their favor, like those
against ex post facto laws. bills of at
tainder, titles of mobility and suspensions
of habeas corpus; and that they probably
enjoy the benefit of practically all of the
personal privileges guaranteed by the bill
of rights embodied in the first eight amend
ments.
Since the four dissenting justices in Downes
against Bidwell are committed 20 the view
that the people of appurtenant territory
are entitled to all American constitutional
rights and privileges. the vote of only one
Of the majority is necessary in addition to
decide in their favor on any specific point
Every concession then, whether made in
the opinion delivered by Justice White or
Justice Brown or Justice Gray, is to be
viewed as receiving the tacit but inevitable
| Endorsement of four other justices, and as
being, in effect, Supreme Court declara-
ton upon the subject The rights and
privileges of appurtenant territorial citt-
zens, as thus determined, are found to be
extensive, instead OF non-existent, lacking
little in essentials except In the particu-
lars already specified under the head of
deficiencies and disabilities.
Congress in legislating for Porto Rico
was only empowered to act within the Com
stltutlon and subject to its applicable limi-
tatfons. Albeit, as a general ruIe
the status OF particular territory Gas in
taken in view when the applicability of any
provision OF the Constitution is questioned
1t does not follow when the Constitution
has absolutely withheld from the govern
ment all power on a given subject that
such inquiry is necessary. UndoubtedIv
there are general prohibitions in the Con-
stitution in favor of the liberty and prom
erty of the citizens. which are not mere
regulations as to the form and manner In
which conceded power may be exercised.
but which are an absolute denial OF ali
authority under any circumstances or con-
ditions to do particular acts In the nature
OF things Limitations of this character can
not be under any circumstances tran
scended. because of the complete absence
OF power. There Is in reason then
no room in this case to contend that Com
gress can destroy the liberties of the peo-
pie OF Porto Rico by exercising In their re-
nd 5,,cf