New-York tribune., 1901-11-16
FROM ORLEANS TO LUZON
HOW THE UNITED STATES HAS AC-
QUIRED NEW LANDS AND
GOVERNED THEM


1S3 Harper Bros
The title of this book is scarcely indicative VI
its contents True, 1t opens with a cursory coii
parison or rather, a contrast between 'i
first Treaty Of Paris which trahsIeiieu
Louisiana Territory to the United STATES ~
that latest one which brought the philippines
and Porto Rico into the possession or thls couli
try But all that is merely by 1he way -
sersous attempt is made to draw conclusions
from the contrast, for. indeed. none aie ~ "
drawn other than the most obvious ana mack
Moved chief among which is that OF autre
+ernns autre r1purs' The two other imam
nurelv c;rcunstantial differences considered by
Mr. Webster are, first, that our present fresi-
dent has greater powers of government IN 'iIe
Philippines than jefferson had in LoulsiaiI"'
and second that this later treaty or1llls lie
stipulation which was contained in the FORMER
and also in three other cessional conVehlloii''
that the people of the ceded territory shal DC
invested with ali the immunities, rights and
privileges Of the United States; and Mr. Wep-
ster raises the question whether this latter
omission and its intent, were noticed and sus-
pected by those who ratified the treaty we
should certainly be sorry to believe that any
Senator. any one else who read the last
Treaty of Paris failed TO observe that feature
OF it and to understand fully its obvious pur-
port Secret intent it had and has none Ii is
simply practical application of the principle
already quoted Louisiana was adjacent to the
then existing United States and was certain
To be colonized from them and to become homo
geneous in population with them; wherefore 1t
was proper to provide for the admission of its
people to citizenship the first step toward
erecting it into a State States Of this Union
But Porto Rico and the Philippines are insuar
and remote from our continental domain, and IN
the nature Of the case cannot be largely COLO
rized from this country; are Inhabited by peo-
pies not yet up to the American standard OF
intelligent and moral self-governing communi-
ties. and so should not be admitted into this
Union as States, not merely to govern them
selves but to hold possible balance OF power
IN poverning us Wherefore the citizenship
stipulation was omitted from the treaty. That
is all. Other times-or other condiuons-other
manners and. We may add, other measures
So much for the brief and slight linking OF
the two treaties Of Paris The bulk OF the DOCK
is devoted discussion OF the status OF Porto
Rico and the Philippines in respect to the con-
stitut;on OF the United States the precedenls
being sought not in the Louisiana Purchase put
in the acquisition of California and the attitude
and intentions OF the government being CLEANED
from the Porto Rico decisions; so that a more
truly descriptive title Of the book would have
been california, Porto Rico and the Supreme
Court" In his consideration Of the matter MI
Webster makes one and by no means un-
interesting contribution to historical literature
in the form of extended transcripts from a
hitherto unpublished private diary Of President
Polk. This document throws some entertaining
and instructive sidelights upon the workings
OF the administrative and legislative machinery
of government in those days. and adds little
to our knowledge Of men and motives 1t does
not however appear to have vital significance
Of q
later and of essentially different character.
In the course of an extended review OF the
Supreme Court decisions in the Porto Rico
cases. Mr.. Webster strongly commends Justice
Harlan's reputation Of the theory that prece-
dents for this country's guidance may be drawn
from the doings Of European powers. To a GER
tain extent it must, of course, be cordially con-
ceded that Justice Harlan and Mr.. Webster are
right But their principle must not be carried
too far; not far some who think with them
have striven TO carry It. The United States is
a Nation, and IN independence and sovereignty
1t is the peer of any other nation in the world
1t cannot for a moment be conceded that this is
any less a nation than is any other. or that It
is In the least respect inferior to any other In
the attributes Of national sovereignty And 1t
may well be asked If there is not natural and
inherent principle in nationality which tran
ecends all formal constitutions. A nation is, OF
course bound by its constitution, If 1t has one.
But the fact Of having constitution ably
implies the power to make it. and the power to
amend It; even the power to abrogate it. should
need be-in brief, the nation is greater than
the constitution. In that sense all nations are
kin and the example of one may serve in
guidance Of another. Nor agree with
Mr. Webster in his doubts concerning the COM
patibility between constitution and inter
national law. No item Of the latter can be per-
rnitted to override the former That goes with
out saying But the great Of recognized
international law is neither prescribed nor pro-
htbited by the constitution Of the United States
Practically its acceptance by this government is
provided for, and, indeed, contemplated, in that
part of the constitution establishing a treaty
making power. There is nothing In the con-
stitution about International arbitration. or sup
preston of the slave trade. or prohibition OF
traffic in strong drink with natives OF the Congo.
But is the United States. therefore. to have
nothing to do with such matters?
Mr. Webster asks where the President gets
authority to govern our insuar possessions in
time Of peace and declares that the constitution
does not specifically confer II upon him. No.
but what we may term the lex necessitatis does
This is the simple logic Of the case: The Presi-
dent is commanded by Congress to wage war.
That is according to the constitution He does
SO. successfully. and in so doing finds himself
in control and possession Of conquered terri
tory, which. while the lasts. he governs in
according to the constitution But when the
war ends what is he to do? Doubtless, accord
ing to the constitution, Congress can take the
whole matter out Of his hands. But If it does
not DO SO, until It does SO, what is he to do?
The constitution is silent, but common sense is