Jf-rWli'f
I,
The Commoner.
,
Y9 aitNo. 33.
Constitutional Liberty & ";Sr:;::
1
I
t
t
Tho worst feature of the supremo court deci
sion in tho Dowries caso Is that it strikes a blow
at constitutional liberty. In attempting to de
fend the position takdn by tho majority of tho
court, Justice Brown used arguments which, if
carried to their logical conclusion, would deny tho f
necessity for a constitution anywhere. Accord
ing to tho decision of tho court, congress can gov
orn Porto Rico as a, colony, without constitutional
limitations, so far as the taxing power is con
cerned, and enough is said in the majority opinion
to show that no political right is absolutely secure.
Tho question naturally arises: If tho Porto
RIcans do not need the protection of a written con
stitution, why do the people of the United States
need a written constitution? If we concede that
the Porto Ricans are safe without a constitution
wo must also admit that tho American people
would bo safe without a constitution. Justice
jBrown says: "Gravo apprehensions of danger are
felt by many eminent men a fear lest an" unre
strained possession of power on the part of con
gress may lead to unjust and oppressive legisla
tion, in which the natural rights of territories, or
their inhabitants, may be engulfed in a central
ized despotism. These fears, however, find no jus
tification in the action of congress, nor in the con
duct of the British parliament toward its outly
ing possessions since the American revolution.
. . . There are certain principles of natural jus
tico Inherent in the Anglo-Saxon character which
need no expressions in constitutions or statutes
Ato' give them effect or to secure dependencies
, against legislation manifestly hostile to their real
. Interests."
I shall at another time treat of his reference
to the benevolence of the British parliament, but
my purpose at this time is to emphasize the fact
that he repudiates the arguments which have al
ways been given in support of a written constitu
tion. It was necessary to do so in order to justify
the Porto Rican decision, and yet in doing s,o he
surrenders one of the most vital principles of
government. Some of the republican papers have "
violently assailed mo because I pointed out the
political heresy uttered by the court. Will any re
publican paper quote the language which I have
quoted above, and then answer ttwo questions?
FIRST: IS THE CONSTITUTION A GOOD
THING FOR THE PEOPLE OF' THE UNITED
STATES?
SECOND: IF SO, DO NOT THE PORTO RI
CANS ALSO NEED A CONSTITUTION?
A special invitation is extended to the editor
of Postmaster General Smith's paper to answer
these questions, but any republican paper, great
or small, conspicuous or obscure, is at liberty to
try. The Porto Ricans do not olect the congress;
wo do, and yet we have the protection of a con
stitution whie tho Porto Ricans have none. We
can retire the members of congress If we don't like
their conduct; the Porto Ricans cannot, and yet we
have a constitution and the Porto Ricans have
none. The members of congress are chosen from
among us, and they must live under the laws
which they make for us; the congressmen are not
chosen from among the Porto Ricans, and do not
live under the laws made for the Porto Ricans,
and yet we have a constitution and tho Porto
RicanB have none. If "there are certain principles
. of natural justice inherent in the Anglo-Saxon
character which need no expression in constitu
tions or statutes to give them effect or to secure
dependencies against legislation manifestly hostile
to their real interests," why were the people of
revolutionary days unwilling to rely upon that
"natural justice?" If there is no danger in "an
unrestrained possession of power on the part of
congress" why wore our forefathers so careful to
restrain that power? Has human nature so
changed as to make unnecessary now tho con
stitutional limitations which were thought neces
sary a century ago?
Constitutional liborty has been attacked and
the attack must bo met at once. The doctrine laid
down by Justice Brown Is antagonistic to all that
the American people have been taught to believq
sacred. If we admit his argument when, applied
to Porto Ricans, upon what ground can we stand
when we claim for ourselves the protection of tho
constitution or tho bill of rights? If the principle
contended for by Justice Brown is established for
the government of colonies, it will by irresistible
logic become operative in the United States. That
the readers of The Commoner may fortify their
own views by the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson,
the following extracts are made from his writings
as collected in that invauable volume "The Jef
fersonian Cyclopedia."
In 1803 Mr. Jefferson said: "Our peculiar se
curity is in the possession of a written constitu
tion. Let us not make it a blank paper by con
struction." In 1802 he wrote: "Though written constitu
tions may be violated in moments of passion or de
lusion, yet they furnish a text to which those
who are watchful may again rally and recall the
people. They fix, too, for the people the prin
ciples of their political creed."
At another time he described our constitution
as "the ark of our safety, and grand palladium of
our peace and happiness."
It will be remembered that the federal consti
tution was-opposed by some because it did not
contain a bill of rights, and the first ten amend
ments were immediately adopted to remedy this
defect and provide additional guarantees to life,
liberty and property. Jefferson was a firm believer
in the doctrine which led to the adoption of tho
bill of rights. In a letter written in 1789 he said:
"I disapproved from the first moment the want
of a bill of rights (in the constitution) to guard
liberty against the legislative as well as the ex
ecutive branches of the government; that is to say,
to secure freedom in religion, freedom of the
press, freedom from monopolies, freedom from un
lawful imprisonment, freedom from a permanent
military, and a trial by jury in all cases determ
inable by the laws of the land."
In a letter to James Madison, written in 1787,
Jefferson said: "A bill of rights is what the peo
ple are entitled to against every government on
earth, general or particular; and what no just
government should refuse, or rest on inferences."
At another time he defined his position as fol
lows: "By a declaration of rights I mean one
which shall stipulate, freedom of religion, freedom
of the press, freedom of commerce against monop
olies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of
the' habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are
fetters against doing evil which no honest gov
ernment should decline."
Jefferson was a believer in popular govern
ment, but he also believed in the Inalienable rights
of Individuals rights which the government does
not give and ought not to take away rights
which cannot be safely intrusted to tho keeping of
anylegislative body. Until recently, Jefferson's
.position on this subject was unanimously in
dorsed. Every state has adopted a constitution placing
restrictions upon the legislative branch as well as
upon the other branches of the government. The
state of Ohio has a constitution and a bill of
rights; how can Senator Hanna and President Mc
Kinley favor a constitution and a bill of rights
for Ohio and then declare that the people of
Porto Rico need no such protection? If the farm
ers, laborors, and business men of Ohio are not
willing to trust the wisdom and justice of an un
restrained state legislature, by what process of
reasoning do thoy reach -tho conclusion that tho
people of Porto Rico can entrust their rights to
the protection of an unrestrained congress?
Justice Brown, is a citizen of the state of
Michigan,, and Michigan also has a constitution
and a bill of rights. Is Justice Brown, willing to
go before the people of his own state and tell
them that their legislature should be vested with
full and unrestrained power to act on all questions
affecting the rights and property of tho citizens?
If not, why not? Is. a congress more reliable than
a state legislature? Is a representative body more
trustworthy as it gets farther away from the peo
ple? Is delegated authority more carefully ex
ercised in proportion as the seat-of government is
farther removed from the voters?
The position, taken by Judge Brown would bo
ludicrous if It were not so serious. It is strange
that his language is not challenged by republicans.
Two republican judges out of six dissented from
this position; have the republican newspapers less
independence than the judges? Have the rank and
file of the republican party, who are under no obli
gation to the party, less independence of thought
and action than the. justices who hold their com
missions from republican presidents? Unless tho
people are wholly absorbed in money-making and
entirely indifferent to that constitutional liberty
so highly prized and so dearly bought by our an
cestors there will be so emphatic a protest against
the Imperialistic utterances of the court that no
body of officials on the bench or elsewhere will
soon again disregard the spirit of American in
stitutions. Note: The doctrine applied last year to Porto
Rico is now applied to the Philippine islands and
unless repudiated by the people' will ultimately be
applied to the United 'States.
JJJ
A Needed Reform.
Judge Tuley of Chicago is rendering his party
as well as the public a real service when he se
cures from the democratic candidates in Cook
county pledges to turn over to the county the in
terest on public funds which other treasurers have
appropriated. The following pledge is an illus
tration: Chicago, Aug. 7, 1902. To the Democratic
Campaign Committee and the Voters of Cook
County: I pledge my sacred honor that if
elected to the office of county treasurer, at the
coming November election, I will" cause to be
paid into the county treasury all interest upon
public moneys deposited in banks, and that
I will be content with the, salary of $4,000.00
per annum allowed by law as treasurer; and
that if the county board can legally allow any
compensation to me as collector, that I will
not ask, take or receive more than $5,000.00
per annum for such services as collector;
also, that I will not take or receive, directly
or indirectly, any other compensation or per
quisites for the performance of the duties of
treasurer or collector for said county.
PETER KIOLBASSA,
Democratic candidate lor county treasurer.
Witness: M. F. TULEY.
This, according to Judge Tuley, would give
the county $500,000 that has been going into tho
pockets of the treasurer. '
Here is a refbrm that means something and it
will bo strange if the people do not express their
appreciation by giving a large majority to the
reform.
JJJ
Go Sin. No More.
Rev. Sam. Small, for many years an eloquent
evangelist and an able writer and speaker on
public questions, recently yielded o temptation
and became intoxicated. He is not the only ono
who has made that mistake, but the fact that ho
had for years been a tetotaller and had won dis
tinction as a minister of the gospol has made him
the target for cruel jests and the victim of malic
ious criticism. It is a sad commentary on human
iV
' . ; .hjmtiA
"fe'.
mMJ
