The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-06-02


 Supreme Court decision in the insular cases. MT. Bryan frankly admits that the courts verdict is extremely distasteful to him and the language he employs is more vigorous than IS cus- tomary with him. He boldly declares the Supreme Court has joined hands with the President and Congress in. .an effort to change our form of govern- ment and he calls on the people to repudiate the verdict.
 MT. Bryan says in part:
 By a vote of five to four the Supreme Court has declared President Mckinley emperor of Porto Rico and according to the press dispatches, the Emperor had gladly and gratefully ac- cepted the title conferred upon him by the highest judicial tribunal of the land.
 Those who were encouraged to be- lieve that the constitution had caught up with the flag were doomed to dis appointment. In the Downes case, decided immediately afterwards. majority of the court. composed of Justices Brown. Gray. White. Shires and McKenna, held that Congress could deal with Porto Rico (and the same logic applies to the Phifippines) without regard to the limitations of the constitution.
 The Dissenters.
 Chief Justice Fuller and Associate Justices Harlan, Peckham and Brewer dissented in strong and vigorous lan- guage, but the opinion of the majority even majority of one--stands until it is reversed. This is one of the most important decisions, if not the most important .ever rendered by the court; it not only declares that Congress Is greater than the constitution which created IL; the creature greater than the creator, but 1t denies tho necessity for a written constitution. The posi- tion taken by the court is defended. or rather excused, by reasoning which. if followed, will destroy constitutional liberty in the United States. Every reason given by Justice Brown could be used with even more force to s&p- port a decision nullifying all limitations placed by the constitution on Congress, when dealing with the citizens of the several States. If the Porto Ricans can trust the wisdom and justice of Congress which they do not elect and cannot remove, why do the people of the Unite& States need a constitution to protect them from Congress which they do elect and can remove? The decision in effect declares that the people are not the source of power; 1t defends taxation without representa- tion and denies that governments de- rive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
 On Grounds of Expediency.
 "It assails the foundation of the re- public and does so on the ground of expediency.
 "The dissenting opinions bristle with precedents and burn with patriotism. They ought to waken conscientious Re- pubficans to a realization of the mean ing of imperialism.
 "This decision, like the Dred-Scott decision, raises a political issue, which must be settled by the people. The Supreme Court has joined with the President and Congress in an attempt to change the form of our Government, but there yet remains an appeal to the people.
 Tn order to fully understand those opinions, it must be known that in rul- ing that the Dingley tariff rates could not prevail against Porto Rico, the court did not act on the theory that the Constitution followed the flag dur ing any of those periods under consid- eration.
 Reason of Ruling.
 This ruling was made because, in the opinion of the court, a law enacted for the purpose of levying tariff duties against a foreign country could not be applied in levying tariff duties against a country that was not foreign In other words, if immediately after the ratification of the peace treaty, Con- gress had enacted a law levying the Dingley rates especially against Porto Rico those rates would have prevailed. In the courts opinion, the legality of any tariff rate between Porto Rico and the United States simply waited upon a formal act of Congress establishing these rates as applying to Porto Rico.
 The logic of this opinion, as it ap- plies to the right of Congress to levy tariff customs, would make it possible for Congress to levy tariff duties on articles coming from any territory of the United States.
 With respect to our new possessions the decision is an unfair one because it denies to them equal trade privi- leges with other portions of the Uni ted States whose sovereignty has been established over them, and the pur- pose of the Constitution in providing for equal trade privileges was that no section subject to United States sov- ereignty shall ever become the victim of discrimination.
 This principle is in line with the very foundaton principles of this govern