New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-04-03
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
MIR RANDOLPH ON QUESTIONS OF AN
NEXATTON.

THE Law AND POLICY OF s aNS NE At sss
Longnans. Green s. CO.
AS an exposition of the law Of annexation the
authority OF this work is practically destroyed
by she fact that almost before II was tiloue"
the presses the Supreme Court HANDED oo"ii
decisions uphol6ing the test acts which the au-
thor had proved to his satisfaction to De uh-
constitutional and void AS an exposition VI 'iie
so-called anti-imperialist theory Of colonial gov
srnment It Is interesting. though on seFeIdA
phases OF the subject the dissenting opinions III
NE insular cases supersede it with much more
lncisive statements. The book was apparently
Intended to be a deanitive commentary; but even
IL some of its crucial declarations had not been
negatived by the Supreme Court, 1t would still
fail to occupyIhat position, for it partakes much
more Of the character OF lawyers brief, which
quotes cases parts Of cases suitable 10 It's
purpose, and passes over everything else, than
Of the character OF judicial review Of all sloes
Of the subject. Chief Justice Marsha1rs warn
ing that general expressions in every opinion
are 10 be taken in connection with the case in
which those expressions are used" is frequently
forgotten.
For instance. among Mr.. Randolphs favorite
quotations is this from the Ross case: by the
constitution a government is established for
the United States of America and not for coun-
tries outside their limits and he this to
show that the United States exercise no
right Of government beyond its territory
subject to the constitution This ignores the
real point decided in the Ross case, namely.
that federal officers deriving all their power from
our constitution and laws could exercise that
power abroad without regard to the constitu-
tion, and could condemn and bring him
home and cast him into OF prisons
without jury trial.
Another favoTite source of phrases with Mr..
Randolph is the American Insurance Company
VS.. Canter, but he ignores the history of that
case ana its point opposed to his principal
contention. In that it decided that
a Territorial court of Florida (Which was not a
federal court was organized in obedience
20 she constitution in accord with its pre-
scription and was incapable Of receiving federal
5urisdiction) might exercise admiralty jurisdic-
ton, which by the constitution exclusively
committed TO the federal courts and must be
exercised by them alone within the States This
case was tried at circuit by Mr. Justice John
son, OF the Supreme Court, who, in his opinion,
declared that the United States did not govern
Florida under the constitution, but under such
laws as it saw fit &c impose. and that the States,
the Northwest Territory and future States were
1.-THE sole objects of the constitution" In arguing
the appeal before the Supreme Court Daniel
Webster made his we'll known remarks: do the
laws Of the United States reach Florida? Not
unless by particular provisions. Florida
was governed by Congress as she thought
proper What has Congress done? She might
have done anything-she might have refused
trial by jury and refused a legislature. Web
ster won his case and Justice Johnson's decision
was affirmed in opinion less positively
worded than his TO the absolute power of
SOLD ling
the right Of Congress in the Territories TO do in
one way something which the constitution says
in the broadest terms shall be done in another
way wherever it is the rule of action.
In view Of this it is hardly judicial to
say that the proposition that the consti-
tuition was made for States Is not encour-
aged by a single dictum Of the Supreme
Court and hardly countenanced by a ques-
tioning phrase. The imperialists are fair
enough TO concede that in many cases the
Supreme Court, particularly during the as
cendancy OF the Calhoun ideas, assumed the ap-
plication of the constitution in the Territories.
Nor is it just to pass by Webster with the in
cidental admission that he questioned the oblig-
atory force Of the constitution in California
because he opposed Calhouns plan to buttress
slavery when he took a similar position with
regard TO Florida in 1925 The same tendency
TO ignore history when il does not serve the
authors purpose is shown in this dismissal of
the Florida precedent:
After the cession General Jackson COM
rnissioned by authority Of Congress with all
the powers and authorities heretofore en-
5oyed by the Spanish rulers jackson was not
AFFECTED, however, with a Spanish offcers irre-
sponsibility in regard TO our constitution,
though he is said to have declared that his
powers were those that no one under republic
ought 10 possess; and if during his brief term
he was Justly chargeable with arbitrary actions,
they are not evidence Of a general policy.
So much was this responsibility in regard to
the constitution policy Of the government that
when Jackson refused TO recognize Judge Fro
,aentin's right TO issue the constitutional writ
Of habeas corpus in the Territory he was sus-
tanned by the administration. and, though the
subject was laid before Congress for investiga-
ton the administrations view was not I'M
reached In a letter recently published in THE
Boston Public Library Bulletin President
Monroe stated that while this government out
side the constitution was only momentary, yet
under the law the constitutional jurisdiction Of
the United States extended to revenue and the
slave trade only those laws having been
xnecially extended and that until the next
meeting Of Congress and further provision being
made. the laws Of Spain were TO govern there.
when Congress did in 1922 organize regular
-r,;.o,t.l government it gave Florida a bill
of rights. but il specifically voted down the
nroposition to declare the principles and pro
b,bi.ions of the constitution applicable 10 said
Territory as paramount acts
u,ha steniscance and Importance of these facts
in the discussion may be small or large but they
sbouid be considered and not glided over IN a
treatise on constitutional law. Mr. Randolph s
,nethod may answer for the pamphleteer or
.hs advocate but it is not that Of the scholar