The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1903-06-12
DOES THE CONSTITUTION FOLLOW
THE FLAG?

81 stand by the doctrine that the
Constitution is the supreme law in
every territory as soon as it comes
under the sovereign dominion of the
United States for the purpose of civil
administration" Thus declares
Judge Harlan, of the Supreme Court
of the United States, in powerful
minority opinion delivered in the
case of an alleged murderer, named
Osaki Mankiche, who was convicted
inHawaii without trial by fulljury,
in the period since the Archipelago
became a territory of the United
States. The Court was divided in
this case and stood five to four in
favor of upholding the decision ofthe
inferior Court. In his appeal, the
defendant maintained that the trans
fer of the islands to the United States
brought them at once under the Fed
eral Constitution and that, under
application of its provisions, he was
entitled to a trial by jury. The
Court rejected the plea on the grounds
that the territory of Hawaii was in
a stage of transition during which
Congress had the power to make all
rules and regulations for its Govern
ment. 1t would thus seem that Con-
gress can keep in force at will the exist
ing criminal laws of Hawaii, though
in direct conflict with the Consti-
tuition of the United States, of which
tits now a portion, and that though
a territory ofthis country, the strong
analogy of the denial of trial by
jury, in cases involving the life and
liberty of a citizen, is presented.
Unfortunately, this decision does
not reach the germane contention as
to whether or not the Constitution
really does follow the flag and
whether, after the close of the transi-
ton stage of a coded or conquered
territory, the Constitution goes into
full effect and vigor within its limits
without the action of Congress.
There is much anxiety to have this
important political question fully
and finally determined, but the Su-
preme Court of the United States
has in this case followed the rule
acted upon from the beginning ofits
judicial history by deciding nothing
beyond the case brought up for its
determination. The Court construes
that it is not political tribunal, and
will only pass upon political ques-
tions when called upon to adjucate
the rights of parties in actual cases
involving the constitutionality of
Federal, State or territorial laws.
1t is to be sincerely hoped that the
issue can at some time in the near
future be presented in such manner
that we can have the highestjudicial
Interpretation of this vexatious SUBJ
iect. In the Insular cases the opinion
of the learned Court might be termed
ingenious fromwhatis avoided rather
than what was passed upon. A
judicial Interpretation is necessary
before it can certainly be known
whether or not the colonization
theory which has lately been adopted
as part of our civil government is
constitutional, and so long as this
territory is not admitted to state
hood it seems hard to get the matter
properly into Court.
Now that we have gone so far, this
country would be placed in a peculiar
condition if the Court of last resort
should take the broad ground that
the Constitution does follow the
flag. This has been the contention
of the Democratic party, who has
steadily opposed annexation of
foreign territory on the grounds that
many complications will undoubted-
" arise should the inhabitants of
these strange lands be entitled to the
full rights of citizenship.
POSTOFF1CE SCANDALS.