Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1902-09-20
CONSTITUTIONAL
LIBERTY.

published in w. J. Bryan's Com
moner, June 81, 1901, and republished
in the last issue of the paper by re-
quest)
The worst feature of the supreme
court decision in the Downes case
is that it strikes a blow at constitu-
tional liberty. In attempting to defend
the position taken by the majority
of the court, Justice Brown used
arguments which, if carried to their
logical conclusion. would deny the
necessity for Il constitution any
where. According to the decision of
the court, congress can govern Porto
Rico as a colony, without constitu-
tional limitations, so far as the tax
ing power is concerned. and enough
is said in the majority opinion to
show that no political right is abso-
lutely secure.
The question naturally arises: IF
the Porto Ricians do not need the
protection of a written constitution,
why do the people of the United
States need written constitution?
If we cOncede that the Porto RicanS
are safe without a constitution we
must also admit that the American
people would be safe without con-
stitution Justice Brown says:
Grave apprehensions of danger are
felt by many eminent men-a fear
least an unrestrained possession Of
power on the part of congress may
lead to unjust and oppressive legis-
lation. in which the natural rights
of territ cries. or their inha bitants,
may be engulfed in centralized des-
potiSm. These fears. however, find
no Justification in the action of con-
gress. nor in the conduct If
the British parliament toward
its outIaying possessions since the
American revolution. There are
certain principles of natural justice
inherent in the Anglo-SaNon charac-
ter which need no expressions in
constitutions or statutes to give them
effect or TO secure dependencies
against legislation manifestly hos
tile to their real interests"
| shall at another time treat of his
reference to the benevolence of the
British parliament, but my purpose
ut this time is to emphasize the fact
that he repudiates the arguments
which have already been given in
Il
1t was necessary to do so in order
TO Justify the Porto Rican decision,
and vet in doing so he surrenders
one of the most vital principles of
government. Some of the republi-
can papers have violently assailed
me because l pointed out the politi-
cal heresy uttered by the court. VIII
any republican paper quote the Ian
guage which l have quoted above, and
then answer two questions?
FIRST:-IS THE CONSTITUTION
\ GOOD THING FOR THE PEOPLE
OF THE UNITED STATES?
SECOND:-IF SO. DO NOT THE
PORTO RICANS ALSO NEED \ CON
STITUTION?
\ special invitation is extended to
the editor of Postmaster General
Smiths paper to answer these queS-
lions, but any republican paper, great
d. or small, conspicuous or obscure, IS
al liberty to try. The Porto Ricans
do not elect the congress; we do, and
vet we have the protection of a con-
stitution while the Porto Ricans have
none. We can retire the members of
congress if we don't like their con-
duet; the Porto Ricans cannot, and
yet we have a constitution and the
Porto Ricans have none. The MEM
bers of congress are chosen from
among us, and they must live under
the laws which they make for us; the
congressman are not chosen from
among the Porto Ricans, and do not
live under the laws made for the
Porto Ricans, and yet we have a con-
=fi nj nd ha haN aI
none. If there are certain Princi-
pies of natural Justice inherent in the
Anglo-Saxon character which need
no expression in constitutions or
statutes to give them effect or Sc
cure dependencies against legislation
manifestly hostile to their real inter
ests," why were the people of revolu-
tionary DAYS unwilling to rely upon
that natural iustice?" If there is no
danger in IAN unrestrained possession
of power on the part of congress
why were our forefathers so careful
to restrain that power? Has human
nature so changed as to make neces-
sary now the constitutional limita-
tions which were thought necessary
a century ago?
Constitutional liberty has been at
tackled and the attack must be met at
once. The doctrine laid down by
Justice Brown is antagOnistic to all
that the American people have been
taught to believe sacred. If we admit
his argument when applied to Porto
Ricans, upon what ground can we
stand when we claim for ourselves
the protection of the constitution or
the bill of rights? If the principle
contended by Justice Brown is estab-