Jasper County Democrat, Volume 4, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 22 June 1901 — POLITICS OF THE DAY [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

POLITICS OF THE DAY

IMPERIALISM REALIZED. Tbe Supreme Court does no half-way in sustaining the administration’s foreign possessions policy. It goes »veu beyond tbe administration, for the latter had unintentionally weakened Its position somewhat by contending that s’orto Rico was a foreign country until the Foraker bill was passed. The Supreme Court Isolds that it was foreign no more after the treaty of cession, and therefore the Dingley tariff law did not apply to It, for it levied duties only on “imports from foreign countries.” This xvaa the decision in the De Lima case. St means only that Congress had not acted. In the Downes case the court comes to the question whether Congress may levy a tax on imports from this Porto Hico, which is not a foreign country—a tax different from what is levied anywhere else in the United States—and here the Supreme Court feustalns the very dreams of the administration. It fairly revels in its new 'doctrine. It indorses Judge Taney's Ured Scot decision. It sustains Beveridge. It holds up imperialism as the destiny of the country. At the outset it announces the technical legal decision, in Its effect, as follows: “We are of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant, and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States within the revenue clause of the Constitution; that the For* er act is constitutional >o far as it Imposes duties upon imports from such island.” To reach this conclusion it has to rteer around the clause of the Constiutlon that “The Congress shall have bower to lay and collect taxes, duties, Imposts and excises to pay the debts, hnd provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” It evades this by the theory that the second "the United Btates” means the several States in their individual capacities, and gravely proceeds to argue that Porto Rico Is not a state. It puts no construction on the href “the United States” of this clause tn this connection, and very wisely, for k would call attention to the absurdity of the decision. As a matter of course Vorto Rico is not a state. Nobody ever claimed that It was. But tbe Supreme Court holds that it is neither a foreign state nor a part of “the United States.” And the court does not restrict itself to the matter before It. It shows its complete subserviency to the executive and Its adoption of imperialism in the fullest sense by its concluding words, as follows:

“A false step at this time might be fatal to the development of what Chief Justice Marshall called THE AMERICAN EMPIRE, Choice in some cases, the nntural gravitation of small bodies toward larger ones in others, the result of a successful war in still others, may bring about CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD RENDER THE ANNEXATION OF DISTANT POSSESSIONS DESIRABLE. If those possessions are inhabited by alien races, differing from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of taxation nnd modes of thought, THE ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT AND JUSTICE ACCORDING TO ANGLO-SAXON PRINCIPLES MAY FOR A TIME RE IMPOSSIBLE; nnd the question nt cnee arises whether LARGE CONCESSIONS ought not to be made for a time, that ultimately our theories may be carried out nnd the blessings of a free GOVERNMENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION BE EXTENDED TO THEM. WE DECLINE TO HOLD that there is anything in the constitution to forbid such action.” Here is the explanation of the court’s action In a nutshell: “We decline to hold” anything that will interfere with the imperail program. We make “eon cessions.” Concessions from what and to what? Obviously from the constitution to the President. We will uphold Congress not only in a tax that is not uniform, but also In withholding “the administration of government and Justice aeording to Anglo-Saxon principles.” This was not before them— It is gratuitous—it Is as completely obiter as the Died Scot decision. And .why this decision? Because “the annexation of distant possessions” may be desirable in the formation of “the •American empire.” What worse can happen? The Supreme Court relinquishes its guardianship of the constitution at the demand of the executive. If this lie not imperialism realized In ■it but form, what could lx-?—lndian-apolis Sentinel.

Divide I Courts. "These opinions,” says the Boaton Bera Id in commenting on the recent action of the Supreme Court, "have be come part of the historical record of the nation. They will be subject to discussion and review for years, and perhaps for generations, to come. But it is proper to express a regret that the decision api>ears to have been reached In each case by a bare majority. Remembering what happened in the legaltender cases, it is open to doubt whether the Judgment of yesterday will be accepted as final.'* A comment like this is deeply signlfia.iut and suggestive. There Is a great Meal more respect for a decision of a >-ourt that is unanimous, or approximately so, than for one which becomes Boe supreme law of the land **b< a

scratch.” When tbe dissenters are meu of equal ability with the “bare majority,” apd as profound in learning, the thoughtful citizen feels as if a great point in government had been decided by a process not much more impressive than the flip of a penny. On what slender threads do hang some of the cardinal principles of our system. Tbe Supreme Court of the United States has a powerful veto on Congress and the executive. There aro nlpe judges, and in an Important case each one arrives at a conclusion by a different route. Judicial minds are not able to agree on grave propositions. Sometimes conclusions are arrived at by so close a vote that the result may be practically obtained through the partiality of a judge for the appointing power that placed him on the bench. We cannot hope, though, to be perfect oven In our great republic. Lawyers, like doctors, will differ, and tbe Supreme Court cannot be prevented from becoming a debating society. When, however, there are so many surprises from tbe bench, perhaps there should be a surcease of the sportive comment on the uncertainty of the American jury.—Cincinnati Enquirer. Leaving the Protection Ship. When so chronic and hide-bound a protectionist organ as the Boston Transcript indicates an inclination to climb down off the high tariff horse and demands a reduction of the Dingley duties, It gives token of a marked change In the sentiment of that section of the Union which has always believed that its inhabitants had a prescriptive right to levy tribute on the rest of the people of the United States for the enrichment of its manufacturing Interests. Referring to the report that Senator Cullom has determined to work when Congress meets for the ratification of the reciprocity treaties negotiated by Commissioner Kasson, the Transcript says: “Concurrent testimony, showing the feeling among representative Republicans regarding the necessity for a change in our present tariff, Is accumulating at a rate that should leave no doubt as to the policy which ought to dominate the party in the coming Congress. Reference has been made to the attitude of President McKinley and members of his Cabinet and others well qualified to speak for him, as well as the attitude of the South upon a question the right settlement of which is considered as vital to the great manufacturing interests which are being developed there. The feeling is also strong In the West, and the Republican press of that section is advocating most earnestly the passage of such laws as will promote the freest trade interchange between this country and outers.”

Thia is a remarkable change of front for a protectionist journal, which, if we mistake not, was loud last year in approving the retrogressive and stupid course of those Republican Senators wlio are responsible for smothering to death the several commercial treaties with foreign countries that Mr. Kasson negotiated. Reciprocity is only free trade in restricted form, and its advocacy by a leading exponent of New Euglaud selfishness shows that the Republicans of tliat section have been forced by changing conditions to adopt Democratic ideas. It is no sentiment of justice, fair play, or a desire to quit bleeding the many for tlie fattening of a favored class that is actuating Mr. McKinley, the Transcript, and tin- Republican leaders of the West to want such laws passed "as will promote the freest trade Interchange between this country and others.” They see the storm of tariff hostility gathering among the nations across the water, and know that unless the Democratic policy is adopted the foreign trade of the United States will be ruinously reduced.-Kansas City Times. Sugar a« a World I’ower. It is a curious fact that at this moment sugar is a leading factor in world politics. For the British Government It is a revenue and tax question. For Germany, whose yearly production, 1,700,000 tons of beet sugar, namely, one-fourth of the total sugar production of the world, it is a tariff. For Russia it is tbe same. And in the United States it is a tariff nnd trust question and mixed up in the colonial policy of the administration. The canesugar erop of Cuba plus that of Louisiana and “our island possessions," would if Cuba were annexed—make the United States sugar crop neariy 1,000,000 tons a year, and the annexationists claim tills would put us into formidable competition with Germany for the sugar trade of Britain and other non-sugar-growing countries. But the tariff-propped interests ot the sugar trust want Cuba to remain a colony or be permitted to become a sort of semiIndependent "dependency" so as to enable the trust to maintain the tariff barrier against her big sugar crop. It will be seen that sugar is figuring extensively in tlie affairs of the world.— Illinois* Register.