Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (June 7, 1901)
iri 99 The Commoner. Vol. i. No. 20. Lincoln, Nebraska, June 7, 1901. $1.00 a Year Emperor McKinley The Porto Rico Case. By a vote of five to four tlie Supremo Court lias declared President McKinley em peror of Porto Rico, and according to the preBS dispatches the emperor has gladly and grate fully accepted the title and authority thus con ferred upon him by the highest judicial tribu nal of the land. As the last issue of Tiie Commoner was going to press, Justice Brown "began reading the opinion of the court in the De Lima case and as the decision was against the govern ment in that case it was at first thought that the inhabitants of Porto Rico had been brought under the protection of the constitution. But those who were encouraged to believe that the constitution had caught up with the flag wore jioQmed-to Somjtment. In ninority opinious(sec. pages five to ojicven)that case, aeciaea immeaiaieiy miurwinua, u "Mrextendcd comment is impossible at this time, jority of the' court, composed of Justices Brown, Lut tLe discuasion of the Slltyecl wm i)C con- Gray, Vvhite,.Shiras ana mciienna, neia tnat and does so on the ground of expediency. The dissenting opinions bristle with prece dents and burn with patriotism; they ought to awaken conscientious republicans to a realiza tion of the meaning of imperialism. This decision, like the Drcd Scott decision, raises a political issue which must be settled by the people. The Supreme Court has joined with the President and Congress in an attempt to change the form of our government, but there yet remains an appeal to the people. The election of 1900 did not decide this question, for the republicans denied that they favored imperialism, but they can deny it no longer. They must now admit their repudia tion of the .constitution as well as the Declara tion of Independence. So much space is given to the majority and congress could deal with Porto Rico (and the same logic applies to the Philippines) without regard to the limitations of the constitution. Chief .Justice Puller and Associate Justices Harlan, Peckham and Brewer dissented in strong and vigorous language, but the opinion of the majority even a majority of one stands until it is reversed. This is one of the most im portant decisions, if not the most important, ever rendered by the court; it not only declares that congress is greater than the constitution which created it the creature greater than the creator but it denies the necessity for a written constitution. The position taken by the court is defended, or rather excused, by reasoning which, if followed out, will destroy constitutional liberty in the United States. Every reason given by Justice Brown could bo used with even more force to support a decis ion nullifying all limitations placed by the con stitution on congresB when dealing with the citizens of the seyeral states. If the Porto Ricans can trust the wisdom and justice of a congress which they do not elect and can not remove, why do the people of the United States need a constitution to protect them from a congress which they do elect and can re move? The decision in effect declares that the people are not the source of power; it de fends "taxation without representation" and denies that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed." It assails the foundations of the Republic tinned in future issues. The opinions delivered by the United States Supreme Court in the Porto Rican cases are so important, not only for the A Statement present but for the future, of the Case. that it behooves every Ameri can citizen to thoroughly un derstand their purport. In these opinions, three separate periods were treated, and it will be well to consider them in proper order. Between the time when General Miles took possession of Porto Rico and the time of the ratification 'of the peace treaty, the military authorities established certain military tariff duties. The court sustained these duties on the broad ground of military authority and ne cessity. After the ratification of the peace treaty and prior to the enactment of the Poiaker law, in which law the present Porto Rican tariff duties are set forth, tariff duties were levied on goods coming from Porto Rico to "the United States under the terms and rates of the Ding ley law. On this point the court held that the Dingley law contemplated the levying of duties on foreign goods from foreign countries; that after the ratification of the peace treaty Porto Rico became "domestic" territory, and there fore the Dingley duties could not prevail. In the Downes case the court took up that feature of the Foraker law which established tariff duties on goods coming from Porto Rico to the United States. The court held these duties to be lawful on the ground that congress had full authoiity to make rules, regulations and laws for the govern me ul of "domestic" ter ritory other than states. In order to fully understand these opinions it must be known that in ruling that the Ding ley tariff rates could not prevail against Porto Rico, the court did not act pi the theory that the constitution followed the flag during any of these periods under consideration. This ruling was made because, in the opinion of tlio .'court, a law enacted, for the purpose of levying tariff duties against a foreign country could not be applied in levying tariff duties against a country that was not "foreign." In other words, if immediately after the ratification of the peace treaty, congress had enacted a law levying the Dingley rates specially against Porto Rico those rates would Jhavejprevailcd. In the court's opinion", The 'legality of any tariff rate between Porto Rico and the United States simply waited upon a formal act of congress establishing those rates as applying to Porto Rico. The logic of this opinion as it applies to the right of congress to levy tariff custom would make it possible for congress to levy tariff duties on articles coming from any terri tory of the United States. With respect to our new possessions, the decision iB an unfair one because it denies to them equal trade privileges with other portions of the United States Avhose sovereignty has been established over them, and the purpose of the constitution in providing for equal trade privileges was that no section subject to United States sovereignty should over become the vic tim of discrimination. This principle is in line with the very foundation principles of this government which contemplated that all the people of the United States should have equal privileges, should be exempt. from discrim inations, and should enjoy the immunities which the constitution makers conceived to be essential to the perpetuity of free institutions. In the opinion delivered by Justice Brown in the Downes case, the Supreme Court went much farther than the consideration of the right to levy tariff duties. Justice Brown contended that power to acquire territory by treaty "implies not only the power to govern such territory, but to prescribe on what terms the United States will The Attitude of Aliens. .ijl