Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-05-28

The Supreme Court has decided the insu-
lar cases in such manner as to promote the
welfare both of the Union of States and of
our new island possessions. The fexibility
in methods of governing our Asiatic terri
tory which is essential to the latters
quickest and best development is confirmed
attribute of Congress in its capacity
OF territorial legislature. Congress may
legfslate discriminatory for the territory
belonging to the United States. unham
pered by those provisions of the Constitu-
tion which compel rigid uniformity in
dealing on the same lines with the States
Of the Union
The Star has insisted from the first that
the avowed purpose of the Constitution
to promote the general welfare" could be
satisfied only by such a construction of it's
terms: and the decision is profoundly graf
flying to It, as it must be to all good cit
liens. in that 1T enables the republic to
enjoy commercial and territorial expansion
in the Eastern Hemisphere without detri-
ment either to constitutional principles or
to material prosperity.
The Supreme Court in it's specifically in
consistent decisions emphasizes the more
strongly its reputation of the idea that
possession by Congress of the broadest
powers of legislation over the territory be-
longing to the United States means the en-
siavement of our insular possessions and
the denial of all American rights to their
inhabitants. In the first line of cases de-
Cided. touching duties collected under the
Dingley act prior to specific legislation
concerning the islands like the Foraker
tariff act for Porto Rico the court holds
that the islands coded to us were from the
cessi1n no longer foreign. but domestic
territory q the Tinted hat
duties upon them under the Dingley tariff
act which by its terms apply only to i'm
rnrtatiOns from foreign countries were
Unla wfuly levied and collected. But while
this territory was not foreign but domes-
tic. 1t was nevertheless territory of the
MON subject to the full control of Con-
gres5 as its legislature unhampered by GER
tain limitations imposed upon 1t by the
Constitution in dealing with the states
1t results from the decisions that while
Congress may impose tariff upon importa-
lions from the insular possessions, 1t must
do specifically in order to prevent free
trade between the Islands and the MAIN
land Of the United States. As matters now
stand Porto Rico and Hawaii have received
such legislative consideration and the
Philippines apparently have not. 1t would
to follow that no duties can be COL
and until Congress shall meet In special or
regular session and specifically SO prescribe
as was done by the Foraker act concerning
Porto Rico. The Supreme Court however
has adjourned today without rendering a
decision in the Philippines case and it is
left uncertain whether conditions exist in
the case of the Philippines which render
inapplicable any of the principles laid down
la respect to Porto Rico.
As in the beginning of the century so the
Supreme Court serves today to strengthen
national power: to clothe the government
with all characteristics Of sovereignty; to
deny TO 1t impotency in any particular. The
effective labors of John Marsha'"s Supreme
Court in building up a strong central gov
erument. in developing the nation az dis
tinguished from the states. are now dupIi-
Gated by the present Supreme Court after
the lapse of century. To be sure, Mar
shall in Loughborough vs.. Blake expressed
the opinion that the words United States
in the uniformity Of duties provision cover
the whole American empire. states and ter
rit1ries alike But this question was not
the one specifically at issue in the case
Marshall was contendng as usual for the
largest possible powers for Congress the
national legislature; and he decided that
congress had the power to impose direct
taxes upon the District OF Columbia In pro-
portion to the census. and 10 withhold from
II congressional representation in proper
ton TO the census. though the Constitution
couples the two things. He was thus en-
larging the national power at the expense
OF surface consistency in dealing with the
District and in disregard of the principle
which forbids taxation without representa-
ton. Would Marshall have hesitated for a
single instant to reverse or modify his view
or the construction of these words when
the case turned directly on that point and
when the power. efficiency and prosperity
VI The national government were at stake?
Thu present Supreme Court has not fol-
lowed MarshalIs incidental construction of
certain words, but has decided in accord
ance with his spirit and policy. 1t has
acted as John Marshall would though in
doing so it has disregarded certain of his
spoken words. not vital TO the decision
actually rendered by him.
TNlman has six years To serve and Nc