The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1901-06-05
} RTHUR ROPES. General Editor.
As to the Philippines.

N OuoO 10 POhNih5 Al WIZ CNPASS
Court of the United States involving
the collection of duties on goods
brought into this country from Manila.
1t was expected that the Courts deci-
sion in this case would follow that on
similar question in respect of Porto
Rico. The decision will not be made
public till October or later Meantime
speculation is rife as to the nature Of
that decision. The assumption, gem
orally, is that the circumstances are
identical, substantially, with those of
Porto Ricsn cases, and the Court will
follow it's own lead. There are those
who contend that the Court may shuttle
the cards and make new deal nlthe
Philippine case. In respect Of the de-
cisiou already made public Senator
Foraker writes in Lesle's Weekly:
"The holding Of the court is that
Porto Rico, being territory of the
United States, is subject to government
by Congress, not only by reason of the
Constitutional authority conferred by
Congress for that purpose, but elso BE-
cause of the inherent power OF sover-
eighty, and that il is consequently
within the power of Congress to pre-
vide such government and such tariff
duties as it NAV see fit, and that in ex-
ercising this power it is not subject to
the restraint Of the Constitution, but is
free to act according to the necessities
of the people.
The third point, as to the power Of
Congress to legislate, involves the
whole contention that the Republican
party has made, and the decision of
the Court fully sustains the Republican
view. In so far as there was any de-
cision adverse to the government it in
volved nothing more than dollars and
cents; that is to say, it simply held as
illegal the duties collected after the
territory became ours, and before Con-
gress exercised its power to govern and
impose duties.
"Under this decision it is settled
finally that these islands, Porto Rico
and the Philippines, are not part OF
the United States, but only dependen-
cies that belong TO the United States
aud that Congress has full power tC
govern them according to their necessi
ties, and that the Constitution does moi
extend and apply to them except only
es Congress may see fit to make II
do 80.
SIN other words, the Constitution
does not follow the flag e. proprio
ufgOre."
This exposition helps to make clear
to the general understanding what the
Court has decided Probably the grea
mass of research, discourse and dis
cussion the opinions of the JusticeI
contained was desirable in a decision
of constitutional question of so grea
Importance, but the layman is put to G
disadvantage by so much legal erudi
ton and is driven from the text of The
decisions themselves to briefer ant
clearer exposition, in every day Ian
gusge, like this of Senator Foraker
written expressly for the popular en-
lightenment.
In respect of the Philippines, thu
case pending in the Court seems rather
to present legal matter of dollars anC
csnts than of question of constitu
tional Interpretation; whether any
moneys collected as tariff dues on i'm
ports from the Philippines after the
ratification of the treaty of peace with
Spain were illegal and should be re
funded, or whether there is any reason
in the circumstances or the condition.
existing in the Philippines after TIL
ratification of the treaty why the de
cision of the Court covering the period
between ratification of the treaty an(
the enactment by Congress of the For
aker law, should not apply to
similar period there.
Competent lawyers, in sympath.
with the majority of the Supreme Court
in the decision recently rendered, sal
there is no reason why the Porto Rice
decisions do not apply directly to thu
Philippines; that in any condition.
which have been existent there sine,
peace was ratified can be found nj
valid reason for the non-application o
the law and doctrine promulgated il
the Porto Rican cases. The reason
set up why the the Court might max,
distinction are, first, that state o
war existed in the Philippines after tn,
ratification of the treaty of peace will
Spain, and possession by the United
States was disputed, was limited TO
small area about Manila. But, 80 ia
as Spain was concerned, possession
was complete. Title to the archipelago
had been passed. 1t was complete
The opposition to possession came no
from Spain, but from the natives. l
was the business of the United State
to enforce its title and It's authority
II the circumstance that the island
were under military government con
stituted difference that would justif