The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-02-27
HAWAIIAN PRODUCES AND
TIE UNIFORMITY CLAUSE
Ea.Iua. Hawaii. Feb. =, 1875.

Ea.lua. Hawaii. Feb -. 1873.
Editor OF the Advertiser: The ques-
tion Of Congress remodeling the gov
arament of Hawaii TO correspond to
that of Porto Rico does not ap-
pear to have had such general
consideration by the people of the is
Hands as the Importance of the matter
! warrants The Governors message, to
be sure, has gone into the subject with
considerable detail, and the Advertise
er's editorials have forcibly handled the
relative merits of the two forms OF
government, but the Indifference of the
public in responding to your Invitation
of one month ago has been disappoint
ing.
| For the purpose, then, of replying to
! your editorials in the spirit in which
| they have been written, the suggestion
! is here offered that, according to the
celebrated case of DowneS VS. BidWell.
1872 L. :. pa, tn underlying proposition
of your arguments is at least disput-
able. the same proposition having been
stated by Governor Carter as follows:
| mo tariff can be levied on our prod
ucts sent to the mainland"
! This statement quoted is 4 fair de-
duction. probably, from the reasoning
found in this same case n tine jointly
concurring opinion of Me srs. justices
White Shiras and McKenua. and the
separately concurring opinion Of Mr..
Justice Gray, but it certainly is at va
rance with the more mastery logic Of
Mr.. Justice Brown, WOO wrote the Onin-
ion of the court in DowEeS vs. Eidwell,
as we'll as in other insuiar tariff cases.
In the case referred to the court con-
Guided:
We are therefore of opinion that the
island of Porto Rico is a territory appur-
tenant and belonging to the United
States, but not a part of the United
States within the revenue clauses of
the Constitution; that the Foraker act
is constitutional. so far as it imposes
duties upon imports from such island,
and that the plaintiff cannot recover
back the duties eXacted in this case
page 2S7.)
But it may be, and indeed is. urged
that Hawaii is not merely territory
appurtenant, but an Integral part of
the United States, within the revenue
clauses of the Constitution.
While as a matter of convenience
nowadays a division is often made into
states, territories, and ''insular pos
sessions it appears from the line of
reasoning followed by Mr.. Justice
Brown that constitutional law requires
a division simply into states and what,
for the lack of a better name, may be
termed non-states, the former being
the really integral parts of the Union
and the latter, including all else,
whether organized territories 'insular
possessions, or guano islands appur-
tenant.
The application of constitutional pro-
visions to non-states may be treated as
follows:
% In framing the Constitution very
little attention was directed TO terri
tories. Interest was conferred mainly in
the relations between the new Federal
government and the individual states
and hence many, if not most. CT the
matters contained in the Constitution
have no applicability to territories. }
''AIl legislative powers were vestej
in a Congress consisting 81 ~epreselta-
tives from the several states, hot no
provision was made for the admission
of delegates from he territories, and
no mention was made os territories a :
separate portions IF the Union. except |
that Congress was empowered to dis |
pose of and make 81. needf2l rules and |
regulations respa ting the territory o.
other property JelDug.ng to 'he iaited |
States It is SuiiicienL to or |
serve in relation to these three funda- !
mental instruments that t can nov hCIe |
be inferred that the territories Were |
considered a part of the United States. |
The Constitution was created !ry Ihe |
people of the Unitc5 states, rs Il uhjun |
of states, to be GOV erncd S,'!eiN p3 rrr- |
resentatives % The states. ans eN er |
the provision relied upon here, that all |
duties, impostS. and excuses shall be |
uniform throughout the United States, |
is explained by subsequent provisions |
of the Constitution, that no tax or |
duty shall be laid on articles exported |
from any State and no preference |
shall be given by any regulation of /
commerce or revenue to the ports of !
one State over those of another: nor |
shall vessels bound to or from one !
State be obliged to enter, clear or pay
duties in another In short the Con- |
stitution deals with States, their people |
and their representatives" pages $50 I
and 251)
The words United States are used |
with two very different meanings. |
namely. in the broad or International
sense, and in the narrow or constitu-
tional sense. In the uniformity clause
they have the latter meaning, equfva-
lent to the words States which have
been United"
Upon the other hand, when the Con- ,
stitution declares that all duties shall
be uniform throughout the United
States it becomes necessary to inquire
whether there be any territory over
which Congress has jurisdiction which
is not a part of the United States by