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
