New-York tribune., 1901-01-10
LAWYERS UNDER FIRE.
Continued from first pnre.

Toudert- InOuFn i KNOW the letter was written
some time after the Constitution was formed"
1T was in 1S03.' volunteered Attorney Gen
e-aI Griggs.
CONGRESS AND THE TERRITORIES
Justice shiras asked NIr Coudert if in the
treaty with Russia ceding Alaska il was not
nrovided that only the civilized tribes of the
new territory should become citizens Of this
country
Coudert-
Justice Harlan-Can State lay an uneven
tax?
Mr.. Coudert-Yes. for strictly local purposes
Justice Harlan-Are you arguing against the
uniform rule of Congress in territorial legisla-
ton?
Mr.. Coudert-Most certainly do. for I hold
that when Congress is enacting local legislation
for an organized Territory il has the same power
IN the matter of laying taxes for local pur-
noses as a State has
Justice Brewer-Does that carry the right Of
Congress TO dispense with the Grand Jury in
eanizing local courts for a Territory?
Nj Coudert-I think not because that would
ocntravene the Fourteenth Amendment which
prescribes due process of law.
Justice Brewer-Then Congress doesn't have
the same power in Territory as State has in
certain matters?
Mr COudert-No. think not.
Justice Harlan-Does the Fourteenth Amend
rnent apply 10 the Filipinos and the Porto
Ricans?
Mr. Coudert-I think not.
Justice Gray-Do you interpret the Fourteenth
Amendment as applying to all Filipinos and
Porto Ricans born after the ratification Of the
Paris Treaty?
Nj Coudert-Tes. in z sense
While Mr. Coudert stood the rapid fire Of
cUestions with marked composure, il was evi-
dent from his manner afterward that he was
glad when the Chief Justice informed him by a
nod Of the head that his time had expired.
QUESTIONS TO THE sOLICITOR-GENERAL.
Scarcely had Solicitor-General Richards begun
his argument before the Courts peppery ques-
tions were showered on him. Mr.. Richards was
saying.
II the territory does not by the mere act OF
oession. become Immediately an integral part OF
the United States in the constitutional sense, or
necessity the provisions Of the treaty and the
action Of Congress must determine whether t
shall or shall not become or be deemed a part
Of the United States, and. if ever. when. In
other words. the acquired territory became not
a part hut possession Of the United States
territory, 10 use the language of the Constitu-
ton belonging to the United States and its
disposition and government rest under the Con-
stitution with the treaty making power and
with Congress.
justice bGONn-ll II De ISTIllOES utiDHSlllB 10
the United States then does il fall within the
provisions Of the Dingley act. which requires
duties 10 be assessed upon goods arriving from
foreign country-does 1t not cease to be foreign
country?
The Solicitor General think not-not within
the meaning OF the customs law. The Dingley
law treated as foreign all territory outside the
limit Of the United States-meaning the States
and Territories then created, for customs pur-
poses, as the United States, and that condition
remained until Congress saw f1t to change it. IN
the case Of Cross agt. Harrison Mr.. Justice
Wayne uses this language: BY the ratification
Of the treaty California became a part of the
United States So il did; in the international
sense, in the legislative sense, subject to the
dominion OF the United States to be ruled and
regulated by Congress under the power granted
10 pass all needful rules and regulations for the
Territories of the United States. And he con-
tinues: And as there is nothing differently
stipulated in the treaty with respect TO COM
rnerce it became instantly bound and privileged
by the laws which Congress had passed TO raise
q revenue from duties imports and tonnage"
Justice Brown-That case did not involve the
question presented here; that was an importa-
ton from California to New-York.
The Solicitor -General-That is true enough.
Justice Brown-That case presented quite
different question: case of importation from
an admittedly foreign country.
The Solicitor -General-The Court did say, If
remember correctly, that If these goods had
been allowed by the military authorities to en-
ter California without the payment of duties
then they would have been exacted on those
goods in the ports of the United States am
saying that the Court used that language. OF
course. California was contiguous territory. It
was much better, as 1 matter OF policy, to bring
IL as soon as possible within the operations of
the customs laws of the United States. and that
was what was done But that does not apply to
Porto Rico and the Philippines.
THE TREATY MAKING POWER.
Mr.. Richards continued:
The Constitution, while vesting in the Presi-
dent and Senate the treaty making power, pro-
Vides that this Constitution and the laws OF
the United States which shall be made in pur-
suance thereof, and all treaties made or which
shall be made under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme law of the land
The Treaty Of Paris made under the au-
thortty OF the United States, and contains the
terms upon which we acquired these territories.
II is unique IN this, that while former treaties
or cession all provided that the civilized inhabi-
not Immediately, but NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. citi-
zens Of the United States, this treaty left the
determination of their civil rights and political
status TO Congress TO determine
Justice Harlan-State that proposition again
The Solicitor -General-I say that the treaty
with Spain is unique in this That while former
treaties, such as the Florida Treaty. the Louisi-
ana Treaty, and others, provided that the civil
ized inhabitants Of the ceded territories should
utimatey-not Immediately, but ultimately
in course Of time. become citizens Of the United
States. this treaty, the Treaty Of Paris left the
determination of their civil rights and political