The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1901-07-11

A Question Of E1pediency.

LIS DoSUOn TRANSCRIPT says that
there can be neither escape from nor
evasion of the conclusion that under
authority of the Porto Rican decision
congress can maintain a colonial sys-
tenn" Then the Tran script says:
To-day there may be a disposition in
some quarters to say that the people
will not acquiesce in the supreme
courts decision any more than it ac-
cepted the bred Scott Judgment as
final, but that disposition will pass
away. It is but the ebullition Of a
heated moment. The people will ac-
ccpt, if for no other reason than it will
see the vast moral distinction between
the case of bred Scott and that of Porto
Rico. The former was in it's essence a
case of morals; the Porto Rico tariff is
In its essence simply a question of ex-
pediency."
1t is strange that such a statement
as this should be made by a newspaper
printed in the shadow of Bunker Hill
monument, and within the sound of
the waves that dash against the harbor
made famous by the Boston Tea Party.
There is no "vast moral distinction
between the case of bred Scott and
that of Porto Rico"
At the time of the bred Scott de-
cision slavery was an institution recog:.
nized by our constitution. bred Scott
was a slave who sued in the federal
courts for freedom. He was put out of
court on the ground that although he
had been taken into territory covered
by the Missouri Compromise, he was
yet a slave and therefore not a citizen
and having no standing in the federal
court.
At the very time hat the supreme
court denied to bred Scott the right to
sue for his freedom there were then in
the southern states at least 5000, 900
human beings in slavery and not one
of these would have the legal right to
u for his freedom. If the bred Scott
matter was purely a moral one then
how did it happen that no proceeding
was taken in behalf of the 5000, 900
slaves? The reason was that however
immoral the institution might have
been, slavery in certain states had a
recognized legal standing. In the
bred Scott case, then, a purely legal
question was presented to the court.
In giving it's sanction to the slavery of
this human being the supreme court
had at least the excuse that slavery
was recognized by our constitution and
our laws, however inconsistent it may
have been with our declaration of in
dependence.
In the Porto Rican case was involved
the right of taxation explicitly forbid
den by the constitution. If a case were
presented involving the proposition
that a tariff duty be levied on goods
going to and coming from the state of
Massachusetts. the Boston Transcript
would very readily recognize that a
great moral as we'll as legal question
was involved in the proposition. Such
q tariff would be illegal because ex-
pressly prohibited by the constitution.
Such a tariff would be immoral because
every section Of our union is entitled
to equal opportunities and equal priv
leges with every other section.
AS the Boston Transcript says of the
Porto Rican tariff, so the slave owners
of the bred Scott period said of that
case-itwas sa question of expedicncy."
Every public wrong sought to be per-
petrated under conditions where fund
amental law must be violated has been
excused on the ground that it was sim
ply "a question of expediency."
Both the bred Scott and the Porto
Rican cases were cases of law. The
element of immortality enters in both,
it is true. But the Porto Rican case
has the advantage;that the immortality
sought to be accomplished under the
guise of a statute is forbidden by the
letter Of the fundamental law and re-
pugnant to the spirit of American in
stitutions. The bred Scott case in
volved an institution likewise repug-
nant and inconsistents with our declar-
alton of independence, but an institu-
ton nevertheless formally sanctioned
by our constitution and laws of that
period.
If there are no morals in the Porto
Rican case there were no morals in the
Boston Tea Party.
If there is no morality in the conten-
ton of the Porto Ricans that they be
given equal advantages and opportuni-
ties with other sections of the country
of which they are a part, then there
was no morality in the contention of
the men of the revolutionary period.
Mr.. Foraker announces that the Ohio
campaign is to be fought out on ma
tiOnal issues, This is an interestinr