Jasper County Democrat, Volume 4, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 June 1901 — ISLES' II THE UNION [ARTICLE]

ISLES' II THE UNION

Supreme Court Hands Down an Important Decision. LAW FOLLOWS FLAG. Constitution Covers Possessions, but Separate Tariff Is Legal. Porto Rico and the Philippine* Are Integral Port* of the Republic Since Signing of the Pari* Treaty—Koraker Law I* Upheld, and Congress Ha* the Right to Impose Custom Hu tie* on flood* Brought Into the Country from New Territory. Washington correspondences By n vote of five to four the Supremo Court of the United States Monday linnd•d down what is undoubtedly the greatest decision ever made by that tribunal. In brief it is declared that the (onstitutlon follows the ling, but uot to the extent that tariff laws in the territories must be vniform with those in force in the United States. Porto Itico aud the Philippines Wcaine integral parts of the l nited States upon the ratification of the treaty •f Paris, but Congress has power to gov•rn them according to their needs with •at reference to. the excise limitations of the constitution. By a series of decision* which develop•d differences among the justices as remarkable hr they were confusing, the Supreme Court decided: 1. The constitution does not follow the flag ex propria vigore—of its own force. 2. The United States may miter upon • colonial policy—has already entered upon it without violation of the constitution. 8. This nation has all the powers that rightfully belong to a sovereign international state and may acquire territory without incorporating such territory as an integral part of itself. 4. The simple act of acquisition by treaty or otherwise does not automatically bring about such incorporation; and incorporation is effected only by the will of the States acting consciously through Congress. 5. Porto Itico is not n part of the United States, but "u territory appurtegaut aud belonging to tho United States." Tariffs established by Congress upon goods coming from or going t'* Porto Itico •re valid aud collectible. The Foraker act Is constitutional. 6. Congress has full power over the territories, may regulate and dispose of them, may at its discretion extend the constitution to them, may admit them as States, or may hold them indefinitely us territories, colonies or dependencies. 7. Porto Kico is not a “foreign conn try,” and thcirtuie lie —Meh lev!*** •t.itlc. upon spoils imported “from foreign countries,” does not apply to I’orto Itico. Nor yet is "Porto Itico a psrt of the United States." it is a domestic territory, over which Congress has “unrestricted control." Much confusion existed until the last •s to the purport and effect of the decisions, owing to the indistinctness of delivery from the bench. Because of the fact that the decision in the Del.iiuu case, first announced, was antagonistic to the contention of the government, it was generally reported that the court had overthrown the government generally, and that. In the common parlance of the eases, “the constitution did follow the fiag.” The salient points of the great decision which the court handed down are, however, found to bo: First—That the constitution did follow the flag, that Porto Itico and the Philippine Islands became parts of the United States as soon as the treaty of peace was ratified, and that all duties collected on merchandise passing between the mainland and the islands under the Dingley law were illegnl aud must ho refunded. Second —’That the Foraker act is constitutional, and that Congress lias tho right to legislate for the territories, without regard to the provision of the constitutbm which requires all duties, imposts and excises to In* uniform throughout the United States. Insular Policy Sustained. The government was beaten in the first tase, and sustained in the seioud. As the Foraker act was the main issue, it ean be stated generally that the insular policy of (lie administration lias been sustained by tiie court of last resort. Both of tiie issues decided by the court express the opinion of a bare majority of the nine justices. That majority was reversed completely by the action of one member of the court, Justice Brown, who held first that Porto itico clearly became • pHrt of the United States in u general sense (lie moment the treaty of pence was ratified, and then the same justice held that Congress had the power to legislate for the territories independent of the constitution. To show how curiously the court reversed itself in the same day, it is neees■ary to note that tiie majority of tho court, which declared that the islands became part of the United States when the treaty was ratified, was made up of Justice* Brown. Fuller, Harlan, Brewer and Peck ha in. To this decision Justices Gray. White, Slilras and McKenna dissented. Then, in the second case, wherein the right of Congress to legislate for tiie territories independent of the constitution was sustained, the majority was made up •f Justices Brown, Shims, White, Gray ■nd McKenna. To this decision Chief Justice Fuller, Justices Harlan, Brewer and Peck ham dissented. The curious feature, of course, is that Justice Brown, who acted first will) one quartet and then with another quartet, delivered the majority opinion in each ease. To cap the climax, when he delivered the opinion atistitlning die right of CnnkroNs to legislate for the territory ■ml upholding the constitutionality of the Foraker act, his reason for arriving at his decision was dissented to not only by the four dissenting justices but even by the four with whom he was acting to ■take up a majority, la this second brsneb of the case, in-

volving tiie constitutionality of the Foraker net. Justices Gray. White, Shims and McKenna took occasion to declare publicly that, while they agreed with Justice Brown in declaring tiie act constitutional, they did not lit all agree with the reasons which he assigned for his decision. Thus, in the second branch of the case, the remarkable spectacle was produced of a Justice reading a majority opinion whose logic was repudiated by every other member of the bench. Owing to the tangled-condition of affairs on the liench and the different opinions handed down, great confusion arose as to the effect at the actions of the court, and the earlier reports sent out from Washington were almost wholly misleading. In all these eases tho question Involved was the legality of duties assessed, either in this country or in its island possessions, oh goods passing between the two. In no case is the relation of the islands to foreign countries a question at issue. Kffect of the Decision. The decision disposes of a good many ugl.v possibilities. -It will not be necessary to admit duty-free the sugar and tobacco of Cuba if it should be annexed. It will not be necessnry either to close the "open door” in the Philippines by imposing duties on the goods imported from foreign countries while those from the United States go ill free, or to impose lower duties throughout the United States so that lower duties may be charged in the Philippines. It is settled, furthermore, that the internal revenue duties levied on this continent will not have to lie levied in Porto Kico and the Philippines, where < onditlous are so different from what they are here that their imposition w*stld be inexpedient, not to say unjust. Congress may legislate for the insular possessions without being bound by any revenue provisions of the constitution. That instrument does not “follow the flag” so far as taxation is concerned, nor ns regains certain political rights. An obiter dictum of the court which no one will take exception to is to the effect that certain rights, like that of the freedom of speech and religious worship, which nre in the bill of rights of the constitution, go to the new possessions with tiie flag and cannot be taken away by Congress. Mourn of the eases decided by the court related to the collection of duties between the date of ratification of peace and that of the enactment of the Foraker law of last year. Here the court holds the duties were improperly collected. This is a defeat for the government, but it involves merely the refunding of some duties. The decision In the Dowtos case, which holds that at this time Porto Kico is a territory "appurtenant to and belonging to the United States, but not n part of the United States,” is the important decision. It sustains fully the view of Congress ami tiie administration as to the status of these insular possessions.