BILL OF RIGHTS SUSTAINED.
The recent decisions of the supreme
court in the cases of Do Limn aucl
Downes haxo elicited more comments
than any other decision of that court
since the Dred Scott case in 1857 , and
these comments indicate great diversity
of opinion. After a careful reading of
the records , briefs , and arguments of
counsel in all the insular cases ( which
have been published by order of con
gress in house document 509 , fifty-sixth
congress , second session ) and compar
ing these with the opinions delivered
by the several justices in the two cases
decided by the court , we have come to
the conclusion that Mr. Justice Brown's
opinion in each case was correct. He
seems to have recognized the essential
distinction between those negative and
self-executing provisions of the consti
tution .jvhich require no legislation to
make them effective , and those positive
provisions which delegate certain pow
ers to be carried into execution only by
means of necessary and proper laws
made by congress. And it is upon this
distinction that the difference between
his opinions in the two cases rests.
Mr. Coudert and Justice White.
The colloquy between Mr. Ooudert
and Justice "White , in the course of
Coudert's argument , shows how this
matter stands. Justice White asked the
question : "How is it that they ( the
fminers of the constitution ) put no
limit upon congress in the exercise of
that great body of local power of taxa
tion in a territory which you concede
must be confided to congress by the con
stitution ? "
Mr. Ooudert replied that , "as a local
legislature , congress is bound by the
constitution of the United States as a
state woiild be bound by its own consti
tution. "
Justice White then put this question :
"Do you say that congress is restrained
by the restrictions which are found in
the state constitutions , when they tax
the territories locally for local pur
poses ? "
Mr. Ooudert. "Not the restraints
that are found in the state constitutions ,
but those which are found in the federal
constitution , because when congress
taxes locally , acting as a local govern
ment , it is subject to the constitution
( of the United States ) just as a state ,
when it taxes , is subject to its constitu
tion. "
Justice White. "Then what is the
restraint in the federal constitution ,
which protects the people of the terri
tories when congress is dealing with
them locally ? "
Mr. Ooudert. "I think the bill of
rights protects them clearly. "
Justice White. "What bill of
rights ? "
Mr Coudert. "Amendments one to
fifteen. "
Imperialist's Claims Overthrown.
Now , the decision in the Do Lima
case certainly goes to the full extent of
Mr. Coudort's contention , and totally
overthrows the claims of the Imperial
ists , as set forth in the Spooner bill and
the second clause of Article Nine of the
Treaty of Paris , so far as these relate to
civil rights secured by the constitution.
Hence , it is admitted by the adiniuis-
istration that if a spurious civil gov
ernment is established in the Philippines
under the Spooiier law , the decision in
the Do Lima case will certainly become
effective there , and it will be impossible
to impose a duty under the Dingley act.
Imperialism , then , has received a coup
de grace. Nor does the decision in the
Downes case help them , as Mr. Bryan
erroneously supposes. Jb'or that decision
simply holds that congress does not de
rive the power to lay a tax for the sup
port of local government in Porto Rico
from clause one , section eight , article
one , of the constitution , and is not
bound by the limitation upon the power
conferred by that clause. It does not
declare or imply a power of unlimited
taxation for unlimited purposes. It
does not acknowledge any unlimited
power in congress. " It is perfectly con
sistent with the constitution and with
the just decision in the Do Lima case.
The two decisions , taken together , mean
that congress lias power to relieve and
protect , but not to oppress or enslave
the population of the islands or other
American citizens. This is the net re
sult of the litigation in the insular
cases so far. It is enough. It could
not have been better. The only sad
thing about it is , that only one man out
of the nine on the bench was wise
enough to bring it about. We make a
distinction between the court and the
joint effect of its two decisions.
Whence Comes Taxing Power ?
But it will be asked "whence does
congress derive the power to lay taxes
within a territory for the benefit of that
territory , if not from article one , section
eight , of the constitution ? "
In the Yankton case (101 ( U. S. , 182) )
the true answer will be found. There
the supreme court said :
"There have been some differences of
opinion as to the particular clause of
the constitution from which the power
is derived , but that it exists has always
been conceded. "
Congress , when legislating under this
authority to govern territories , acts aa
the agent of the whole people of the
United States , including the inhabitants
of that particular place , and is endowed
with the authority , and no other auth
ority , than that transmitted to it by or
under the terms of the constitution. It
can not confer titles of nobility or es
tablish a religion there , as Mr. Griggs ,
speaking for the administration , con- *
tended. But it can levy local taxes di
rectly or indirectly. All the people of
the Union , including Filipinos and Porto
to Ricaus and the inhabitants of Wash
ington City , hold life , liberty , property ,
and immunities under the protection of <
the bill of rights and the general rules
which govern society ; and this tenure is
expressed and secured by the fifth
amendment of the constitution. There
is nothing in Justice Brown's opinion in X
the Downes case in conflict with these
views. We are prepared to support his
opinions in both cases as a proper expo
sition of the constitution , and especially f
of the bill of rights.
Even Senator Jones , chairman of 'the
national democratic committee , practi
cally supports this view. In his inter
view with a reporter for the Washing
ton Post of June 18 , he says :
"In my judgment the next session of
congress will devote a very large portion - .
tion of its time to the question upon
which the next campaign will be fought.
This will be the Philippine question. "
"But did not the supreme court settle
that question ? "
"Not by any manner of means. The
supreme court , if I read the decision
rightly , simply said that congress would '
have to deal with the Philippines. As
soon as congress meets it must take up / * :
the whole problem , and therein will be
the opening skirmish of the campaign.
Until the supreme court acted , the
question was , 'does the constitution fol
low the flag ? ' The question now is ,
'ought the constitution follow the
flag. ' If the republican majority
in congress , which will be respon
sible for all that is done , shall by its
action declare that the constitution
ought not to follow the flag , I think
that there will be a day of reckoning at
the polls which will surprise the repub
lican leaders. " Journal of the Knights
of Labor.
ANECDOTE OF THE OTOES.
From the journal of John K. Townsend -
send , the naturalist , who crossed the
plains in 1834 with Wyeth's second ex
pedition. The date is May 12 , the
place somewhere about the Kansas-Ne
braska line in the neighborhood of the
Blue river.
* # * # * * # * # #
While we were at breakfast , three In
dians of the Otoe tribe came to our
camp , to see and smoke with us. These
were men of rather short stature , but
strong and firmly built. Their counte
nances resemble in general expression
those of the Kanzas , and their dress is
very similar. We are all of opinion
that it is to these Indians we owe our
difficulties of last night , and we have
no doubt that the three missing horses
are now in then : possession , but as we
cannot prove it upon them , and cannot