Evening star., 1901-02-05

the Constitution would mean merely that
the body iegisiating for the people who live
In such territory has as free hand under
the Constitution before statehood as after
1t. The contrary view results in the con-
clusion that the legislature for the COM
munity In Its crude formative territorial
period when 1t most needs fexibility and
favorable discrimination In treatment IL
more tightly bound by constitutional re-
strictions than that Of the same community
when 1t has developed into statehood. In
other words and for example, the Consti-
tuition commands that trial by jury be pre-
served in the territory of Arizona, but the
command is withdrawn when Arizona,
having developed all the conditions which
make trial by jury easy and effective, De-
comes a State. Congress as the legislature
of Arizona must preserve trial by jury
there; the State legislature of Arizona need
not.
Though the Constitution does not In these
particulars specifically 'extend to the
States" and compel them to grant to their
people precisely the constitutional Dill OF
rights. there Is no complaint that the
States, unrestrained. have run-a-muck
among these American privileges. They
have voluntarily adopted In their own con-
stitutions substantially the same bill or
rights.
And though the Constitution should not
In these same particulars extend to the
territories and should not bind Congress
as territorial legislature by the strict re-
auirements of the 1rst ten amendments,
nevertheless the people Of the territory be-
longing to the United States will be just as
safe as the people of the States against the
danger of their injurious violation. Con-
gress. though not constitutionally compelled,
would extend these safeguards to the terri
tories as fast as practicable, just as the
States without constitutional compulsion.
have pursued the same course in respect to
their people Principles of American legis-
lation in respect to individual rights are
laid down in these amendments which will
control every American Legislature, even
though the Constitution may not specih-
cally command it. AS the Supreme Court
(Mr Justice Bradley In the Mormon
Church case) has said: Doubtless Congress
in legislating for the territories would be
subject to those fundamental limitations IN
favor of personal rights which are formu-
lated in the Constitution and its amend
ments: but these lmitatio would exist
rather by inference and the general spirit
of the Constitution than by any express and
direct application Of its provisions.
Thus though the restrictions Of the sec
ond to the eighth amendments, inclusive. are
general in their terms they are held not to
extend to State legislatures but only to the
national legislature. In view of this fact
is there anything monstrous in the conten-
tion that they are intended to extend not
to the people Of the territories. but eXclu-
sively to those of the States? May not
one discriminate be made as reasonably
as the other? If it Is not a denial of
American rights to the people of the States
to say that the Constitution does not COM
pei their State governments to observe
these amendments, is it a denial of these
personal rights to the people of the terri
tories to say that the Constitution does not
directly subject their legislature, Congress.
to the commands and prohibitions of these
amendments?