Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 22, Number 76, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 11 June 1901 — VICTORY FOR EXPANSION. [ARTICLE]

VICTORY FOR EXPANSION.

Supreme Court’s Gratifying Decision in Insular Cases. The Supreme Court’s decisions are an overwhelming defeat for those who contended that in their own constitution the American people had deprived themselves of any of the attributes of sovereignty. Whatever else may be said of them, they are a sweeping victory for the principle of national sovereignty and for expansion as an application of that principle. The order in which the Court announced its decisions, and the fact that evening newspapers Jumped to the conclusion that the first decision covered the whole field, have caused a certain confusion in the public mind as to the purport of the court’s rulings. Upon consideration of all the decisions together this confusion disappears. In the De Lima and Dooley cases the court decided that Porto Rico became American soil from the moment of the ratification of the treaty of Paris. “From the moment,” to quote the court, “the United States ceased to be a foreign country with respect to Porto Rico, and until Congress acted, importations were free from duty from one place to the other, or vice versa. The right to free entry of goods continued until Congress constitutionally acted.” In the Downes case, however, the court held that, while Porto Rico became American soil by the treaty of Paris, ft did not thereby acquire all the privileges of an, American State. “Porto Rico,” the court said, “is a territory belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States within the revenue clause of the constitution.” Therefore the Foraker Act, imposing a ta,x on Porto Rican products, is unconstitutional. The distinction here made the court based upon a variety of reasons. “The said Mr. Justice Brown, “has been longcontinued and uniform that the constitution is applicable to territories only when and so far as Congress shall direct.” “Power to acquire territory,” he added, “implies not only power to govern, but to prescribe upon what terms the United States will receive its inhabitants, and what their status shall be.” “The logical inference Is,” he concluded, “that if Congress had power to acquire new territories, which is conceded, that power was not hampered by the constitutional restrictions.” Justices White, Shiras, McKenna, and Gray reached the same conclusion by different roads. They pointed out that the Paris treaty expressly provided that the civil rights and political status of. Porto Ricans should be determined by Congress, and that Porto Rico “had not been Incorporated into the United States, but was merely appurtenant thereto as a possession.” Therefore Congress was not controlled by the revenue clause of the constitution. The Supreme Court’s decisions have cleared away many misapprehensions. They have declared our new possessions American soil, and thus refuted the Bryanite attempts to pick flaws in our title. They have delivered us from the danger of having suddenly injected Into our citizenship millions not yet fitted for all its "privileges. They have left us free to apply to these millions the test of fitness, and to say when they may be properly admitted into full membership in the American family. On the other hand, the court has said that we cannot govern these peoples oppressively. It requires us to consider their needs as well as our interests in governing them. It has declared that the American people have not in their constitution deprived themselves of any attribute of sovereignty, but may in the future, as in the past, exercise all their powers for the education and elevation of all who come under their sway.—Chicago Inter Ocean.

Concerning Reciprocity. Habitual disregard—suppression, it might be called—of central principles and facts seems to be a uniform characteristic of the votaries of tariff tinkering by means of special trade treaties secretly negotiated and secretly confirmed. They argue along general lines that, If we are to sell more to foreigners, we must buy more from foreigners, unmindful of the complete negation of this theory by the enormous increase in the export of our agricultural and manufactured products in the past four years of adequate protection. They urge that our trade balances are too large and must be cut down by an increased acceptance of foreign commodities to take the place of articles which are now produced at home; but when they are itsked to specify the extent to which this Industrial hari-kari shall be carried into effect, where it is to stop and what lines of domestic production shall be driven out of business in order that we may buy as much as we sell, or thereabouts, they make no answer; they dodge the point. A conspicuous instance of this tendency to ignore leading questions and disregard inconvenient facts is exhibited by the Philadelphia Ledger of recent date in commenting upon the attitude of the American Economist in its controversy with Hon. George E. Roberts, Director of the Mint. Mr. Roberts, says the Ledger, was asked by the Economist “to what extent fair trade and reciprocity would Introduce foreign merchandise and supplant production in the United States." A fair question, was it not? Yet the Ledger in defending the position of Mr. Roberts utterly fails to make note of the fact that that gentleman did not answer the question, but applauds him for evading it by a quotation from the Republican platform of 1896, while suppressing the more recent, and therefore more binding, declaration of the National Republican platform of 1900, -which limits reciprocity “to what we do not ourselves produce.” It is a con-

venient memory which can forget 1900 and remembers 1896, but it is a mental eccentricity absolutely peculiar to the strenuous advocates of “fair trade and reciprocity.” The St. Paul Pioneer-Press exhibits the same Idiosyncrasy when it says: “To designate the failure of the treaties as shameful is hardly too severe. The reciprocity clauses of the Dingley law were included in response to a very general demand for reciprocity, and as the first step in the redemption of a pledge in the Republican platform.” Again the platform of five years ago, but not the platform of eleven months ago! The official proceedings of the twelfth Republican National Convention, held at Philadelphia in June, 1900, are incorporated in a neatly bound volume, which is, or should be, in the library of every newspaper office. The little book is undoubtedly on the shelves of the Ledger and the Pioneer-Press. Presumably its existence has been forgotten. So we venture to refresh the editorial memory by directing attention to the paragraph which begins at the bottom of page 105 and ends at the top of page 106. It should be read over and over again by some people, for it possesses a peculiar pertinency to the question of “fair trade and reciprocity.”—American Economist. A New Market. While the free traders are looking all over, the earth for new markets, they are overlooking a very important one that ought to be gained, and gained easily. This information is of great value, but the American Economist gives it freely to our poor, blind, deaf (but not dumb) American Cobdenites. During the fiscal year 1900 there were imported into the United States $849,941,184 worth of merchandise, a part of which can be grouped as follows: Animals $3,597,953 Breadstuff's Chemicals, etc 21,599,570 Cotton manufactures 39,789,972 Earthen, stone and china ware 8,646,224 Fibers and manufactures of. 32,986,486 Fish 5,826,731 Furs and manufactures of.. 5,426,998 Fruits and nuts 11,799,419 Glass and manufactures of. 4,905,388 Iron and steel and mfrs. of. 20,857,844 Jewelry and precious stones. 13,290,466 Leather and manufactures of 13,130,742 Liquors , 11,892,581 Oils 2,531,416 Paints and colors 1,515,697 Paper and manufactures of. 3,787,523 Provisions • 2,255,491 Rice 2,062,298 Silk manufactures 30,358,777 Sugar, confectionery and molasses 80,800,221 Tobacco and manufactures of 13,597,162 Toys 2,893,116 Vegetables 2,707,964 Wood and manufactures of. 14,113,231 Wool and manufactures of. 30,656,715 Total of ab0ve5382,156,813 Most of which could be produced in the United States. In fact, we are importing annually over $400,000,000 worth of merchandise ■which could be produced at home. Our total imports for 1900 were, in value: Free.. 5367,236,866 Dutiable 482,704,318 $849,941,184 Why not look into this, free traders? Think of the freight we could save, and think of the additional labor that would be employed and the amount of wages that would be paid. Why go to Europe, Asia and Africa looking for a chance to sell a few million dollars’ worth of stuff when there is a market for over $400,000,000 to be gained at our very doors? As A. Lincoln said of the rat hole, this will bear looking into.