The times., 1901-05-28

TO be uniform throughout the United
States. It also held that since the ces-
sion Gid not make Porto Rico an inte-
gral part of the United States, it was.
as territory belonging TO the United
States, under the control of Congress,
and that Congress could legislate for
it without regard to those limitations
of the Constitution which were only in
tended to apply within the States united
in the Union.
ACTION BY CONGRESS NECESSARY.
''The mere act of cession, so the court
held. did not incorporate the acquired
territory within the United States. 1t
took action by Congress TO DO that, and
Congress showed by its action, just as
the Dingley act had shown by its
terms. that it was not intended by the
Government TO make Porto Rico a part
of the United States-to make its ports
ports Of the United States. its citizens
citizens of the United States. and trade
tetween it and the United States as
free and open as between States of the
Union. l take ii that the effect of this
decision is to sustain the position the
Government has taken in dealing with
the insular possessions.
1T is to be noted that the court did
not decide the Dooley case, which in
wolves the validity of the collection of
duties under the Foraker act on goods
brought from the United States into
Porto Rico after the Foraker act pro-
viding a government for that Territory
went into effect
Il take it that it follows from the
fact that the court did not decide the
Pepke case that we can draw no infer
ences from the Porto Rican cases as to
the view the court will take of the
status of the Philippines after the rati-
fication of the treaE. Because, if the
decision in the De Lima case had set
tied that fact the court would have
decided the case, just as it did decide
the Hawaiian case. in view Of its hold
ing in the De Lima case.
The Huns case was one involving
the question whether vessels plying be-
tween Porto Rico and New York were
in the coashng trade. The court, in
view of the provisions of the Foraker
act, held they were. This case turned
on the provisions of the Foraker act
The important thing decided is that
the United States can acquire territory
and Congress can govern it without
that territory being a part of the
United States-that is, within the
meaning of certain limitations of the
Constitution.
DOWNES VS.. BIDWELL
In the case of Downes VS.. Bidwell, Mr..
Justice Brown said the court was asked
to hold that Porto Rico became a part of
the United States within the operation of
the uniformity clause OF the Constitution
relating to duties, excuses, and taxes.
The case, he added, also involved the
broader question whether the revenue
clauses OF the Constitution extended
OF their own force to newly acquired
territory. The. Constitution itself,
he went on. does not answer the ques-
ton. Its solution must be found in the
nature Of the government created by that
instrument, in the opinion Of its contem-
poraries, in the practical construction put
upon it by Congress, and in the decisions
of this court -
These were all reviewed in turn. OF the
Constitution as adopted, Justice Brown
said:
..All legislative powers were vested In
a Congress consisting of representatives
from the several States. but no provision
was made for the admission of Delegates
from the Territories, and no mention was
made OF Territories as separate portions
OF the Union except that Congress was
empowered to dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting
the territory or other property belonging
TO the United Safes At this time ali Of
the States ceded their unappropriated
lands except North Carolina and Georgia.
II was thought by Chief Justice Taney in
the Dred Scott case, that the sole object
of the territorial clause was TO transfer
TO the new Government the property
then held in common by the States, and
TO give TO that Government power to ap-
ply II TO the objects for which il had been
destined by mutual agreement among the
States before their league was dissolved =
that the power to make needful rules and
regulations was not intended to give the
POWERS OF sovereignty. or TO authorize the
establishment Of territorial governments
lin short. that these words were used IN
q proprietary and not in a political sense.
But, as we observed In De Lima VS. Bid
we'll the power TO establish territorial
governments has been too long exercised
by Congress and acQuiesced in by this
court to be deemed an unsettled question.
Indeed. IN the Dred Scott case it was ad-
mitted to be the inevitable consequence
of the right TO acquire territory.
1T can nowhere, in the three funda-
mental Instruments of the Government,
be inferred that the Territories We're con-
sidered q part Of the United States. The
Constitution was created by the people Of
the United States, as a union OF States,
to be governed solely by representatives,
of the States; and even the provision re-
lied upon here. that all duties. imposts,
and eyciseS shall be uniform throughout
the United States, is explained by subse-
Quent provisions of the Constitution, that
no tax or duty shall be laid on articles
exported from any State and no prefer
ence shall be given by any regulation Of
CONNIE rec or revenue to the ports Of one
sells bound to OF from one State be obliged
10 enter clear. or pay duties In another
In short, the Constitution deals with
States. their people, and their represen-
tatiVes.
THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT.
''The Thirteenth Amendment to the
Constitution. prohibiting slavery and in
voluntary seryitude 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
q possible Interpretation that those States
were 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 q part Of the Union. they were
still subject 10 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