New-York tribune., 1901-01-11
NO ABSOLUTISB

NO ABSOLUTISH
Attorney-General Griggs did wisely yesterday
TO relterate with great clearness the Admins
ratons reputation of all claim to despotic
powers in the Territories There has been
much misrepresentation on this subject and
strenuous efforts have been made to excite ap-
prehenslon that the Republican theory of the
constitution opens the door to tyranny. AS he
said in arguing the Goetze case the Govern
ment does not pretend TO be unrestricted, but
merely TO be vested with certain particular
powers in dealing with territory which are for
hidden to 1t in dealing with States. There are
certain restrictions of the Constitution which
are binding upon Congress and upon the States
Everywhere within this Nation and within the
scope Of its power those acts are forbidden.
title of nobility could not be conferred on
any person in Japan nor could any ex post facto
law be passed concerning him, although the
Supreme Court has held that he might there be
condemned TO death by United States officer
without the jury trial which is provided for in
the most general terms by the Constitution.
The reason for this is that every governmental
power of the United States. or any State, is
forbidden TO grant titles of nobility or pass ex
post facto laws. On the other hand, the Fed
eral authority as a government Of States must
grant jury trials and levy Uniform imposts and
direct taxes proportional to the population of
the States. The States themselves however
can abolish jury trials and by express warrant
Of the Constitution can with the consent of
Congress do away with the uniform tariff and
levy duties on imports or exports and the net
produce of all duties and imposts laid by any
state on imports or exports shall be for the
use of the Treasury of the United States"
The Supreme Court has frequently described the
function Of Congress in governing territory as
combining the powers of both the Federal and
State authorities" What both or either could
do in State, Congress could do in a Territory
whether IL could do the same thing in a State
or not. Therefore in a Territory Congress
can lay a special tax. such as with its consent
a State might levy within its own limits. 1t
possesses, with respect to territory that gen.
eral power inherent in sovereignty which the
States possess at home That is not tyranny.
1t is not despotism 1t is merely the reason
able Interpretation Of the Constitution which
made the Federal Government the sole SOW
ereign of the Territory while maintaining in the
States divided sovereignty.
This general sovereign power has been exer-
cised time and time again The Federal Gov
eminent has in general found il possible 10
treat territory much the as States with
regard TO taxation and judicial process and
local self-government, and the courts have up
held its power TO do when il ques-
toned. and in some cases even assumed its
duty TO do so. But the Government has also
never hesitated r time Of emergency to eXer-
else its sovereignty without regard 10 its lmta-
tions in States, and in no case has the court
ever nterfered. As the Attorney-General
pointed out yesterday the President exercises
legislative powers over conquered territory
which are not a part of the legislative power
granted by the Constitution General Kearny,
In New-AeXico, in 1916. promulgated a code
by virtue of the authority conferred upon him
by the Government Of the United States" and
part of it remains the law of New-Mexco 10
this day But there is no express warrant in
the Constitution for any such legislation. Con
gress conferred on the first civil Governor of
Florida the powers of a "Captain-General and
Intendente of Cuba" and he exercised them.
Now, facing the great and difficult problems
in our new possessions, which Congress can
not well solve under the rules laid down for
its activities in relation to States. the Govern
ment again exercises over those possessions
that sovereignty which ii and the States to-
gether might exercise within the limits of
State 1t is a well settled rule of law that
constitutions and statutes must be interpreted
by courts in the light of their administrative
construction. As the Supreme Court says:
The practical construction given to a statute
''by the public officers Is TO be consd-
sc and is perhaps decisive in case of doubt
FIR yhe beginning of the Government Con-
gre as never ceased TO assert this SOW
ereig -er the Territories unhampered by the
rules srcting it within States The fact
that to the nature and situation of the
peopIe IL be governed, Congress rarely needed
10 exercise that power does, not invalidate it or
make controlling court decisions ratifying its
government of territory substantially the
same lines as States. When the Government
has needed larger powers it has used them and
three-duarters of a century ago Congress, IN
the case Of Florida, deliberately refused TO ad-
nit that the act of cession extended the Con-
stitution Mr. Justice Johnson, in the Circuit
Court. explicitly upheld its view, and the Su-
nreme Court refused TO reverse his decision
When again that same question comes up II Is
not unreasonable to expect that the supreme
Court will sustain the Government and declare
that the way in which Congress may exercise
.the combined powers Of the general and OF
State government is purely matter of pohti-
cal discretion Nobody claims that this Gov
ernnent can rule any Territory absolutely and
without restrictions, but within its sphere the
political power is controlling.
YESTERDAYS "PLEASANT WEATHER."