The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-08-15
.lNSULAR
DECISION
Views of Eminent
New England
Jurist.
THE STATUS OF
THESE ISLANDS
A Possibility of Disproportionate
Taxation in Hawaii, New
Mexico and Arizona.

HE following letter from an emf
! nent New England jurist discuss
d ing the status of Hawaii and 9TH
er insular possessions under the late de-
cisions of the Supreme Court. appears
in the Springfield (Mass) Republican:
To the Editor of the Republican,: An
| impression, somewhat broadly diffused at
/ least IN New England, has cIassed the
/ recent decisions of the Supreme Court,
| in regard to our insular possessions, as a
new departure in constitutional interpra-
| tation. 1t is felt that our chief guardian
| of the constitution has cut away from
the whole body of constitutional law, la
| boriously devised throughout a century
| by our greatest jurists and set up u new
! system. founded on new principles The
| feeling is SO strong, and in some cases
| so immoderately expressed, that we may
| wei ask ourselves: Has it valid reason
| for existing? Has the Supreme Court
abandoned its ancient traditions and hon
/ ored principles? In a word, have its re-
| cent decisions changed the status of our
| insular possessions; the status which
| they derived from our previously existing
| body of constitutional law? A satisfac-
! tory answer will require some examina-
! ton of the status of various portions of
! lIiS vast region cOnprenenUeU within the
jurisdiction of the United States previous
| to May q, when the insular cases were
| decided
| Ever since the inception of consti-
| tuition all land within the jurisdiction of
| the United States has been classed as
| States, or Districts, or Territories That
| portion known as States need not be de-
| fined; it is with the portion not States
| that our inquiry is at present concerned.
| al
classed either as Districts or as Terri
tories. OF Districts only one remains ex-
| iStent; of territories there are still two
sorts, the unorganized and the organized.
| The two types are distinguished by the
| character of their government. The un-
| organized Territory is administered di-
rectly under Congressional law by one or
more appointees of the President, whose
appointive power is, in this case, derived
| from Congress. Alaska is an example of
| this type The organized Territory is adj
ministered by a popular body authorized
! by Congressional law, and governor ap-
Epointed by the President under authority
delegated by Congress. And over every
action of this territorial organization
Congress has the power of absolute veto.
OF IL type Hawaii and Arizona are eX-
| amples. The District of Columbia be-
longs, in all essentials, to the type of un-
organized territory. 1t is so classed by
! James Bryce, whom we may safely fol-
low in this particular. We have, there
| fore of the land not States within the
| Jurisdiction of the United States two
| types of political unit, which together
comprise the whole of that region.
These two types have always comprised
the not-States portion of the United
States Whenever any region or tract
| has been acquired by treaty or by reso-
luton OF annexation, it has ipso facto be-
come unorganized territory, that is, I'M
organized in the legal sense. Nu-
merous examples of this constitution
al principle might be cited. Two only
will suffice to illustrate it's various as
poets. In the case of east Florida, when
| ceded to this country by treaty with
I Spain in 1919, no special action of Con-
gress was required to constitute that
tract an unorganized territory. 1t be-
came such by the mere act of cessfon
/ Again in 1898, neither at nor after the
annexation of Hawaii by joint resolution
| of Congress was any special action nee
essary to make the Islands a Territory of
the unorganized type. Mere annexation
| sufficed to produce that status.
This territorial condition derived ipso
| facto bv cession being a recognized prln-
| cipIe of constitutional law, the question
! arises. Does the constitution embrace
the Territories of either type, and now
far? Obviously the question suggests
| that the action of the constitution Is III
visible Such, indeed, is the fact, as VIII
readily be seen when the nature of the
government of an organized TERRITORY Is
even superficially examined. In all that
concerns political rights, the inhabitant
! Of such A Territory is absolutely at the
mercy of Congress. His every polllcai
function is derived from that body, ana
NAV he withdrawn by it, reasonably or
unreasonably, as far as can now oe ue
termined. The inhabitant OF an unoL
ganized Territory, on the other ia 49,
has no political rights whatever Inc
1;1,o;rlIo u,ae recognized as early as 1871
hv chief Justice Marshall, who dwelt up
| nm il at some length in the case or Amer
fcan insurance company against cdh'ei
tho decision of which has never peeh re-
yarsed He held that no Territory enjoys
iapy noIiticaI rights under the constitution
hut derives whatever such rights may
possess from Congress alone.
Personal or private rights uliu i., 80
coDs+itution. that is, the guarantees VI
1ifa of personal liberty and OF propeit y
,ra anioved by the inhabitants Oh the
Territories. The rights go manu- III , -
with the territorial status lies
been affirmed by Marshall III .,ie -,
inst cited: they are as fnsepardpie - On =.
the Territory as the territorial sta.u
from any part OF Jurisuielioi4 bean
United states, which has not YET 80
formed into states. The principe lS
many times been tacitly ach iOV ie aa7,ar
bv Copgress. for that body mas hesel
deemed if necessary to pass lesis!a'''
!. acts extending the personal sudi
the Constitution to inhabitants
newIv-acouired tract, though III -
case it has conferred political rights OS
The right of uniformity of taxation 1Iaito ~
throuehout every portion of the ohi'e'