THE SCRANTON TRIBUNE-WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 1900. 5 The Constitution and the New Territories NOTWITHSTANDING the omis sion from the Republican na tional platform of the plank declaratory of the administra tion's policy with reference to the Rovernment of new territory, tho constitutional question involved Is cer tain to flRure largely In tho discussions of the ensuing campaign. Uelow will be found an exhaustive contribution to tho literature of this subiect from tho Republican standpoint, being an ad dress delivered yesterday before the Pennsylvania Bar association by the solicitor general of the United States: On April 11, 1SOT, nn unanticipated war, waged In tho Interest of humanity, distinguish cJ by an unbroken succession of glorious victor ies on land and sea, and memorable alvvnjs as narking an (poch In the history of tlie Re public, was formally ended by the exchange of ratifications of tho Treaty of Paris, thereby Spain ceded to tho United States l'orto ltlco, Guam and the Philippine Islands. The acquisition of these Territories, situated in distant tropical seas, and inhabited by alien races savage or scml-civlllzcd, strangers to cur fystcm of lav,' and mode of government, with tlic acconipanjlrg obligation of ro govern! lg them as to secure and prescrvo peace and order and protect life ami rropcrty, has brought us face to face with problems, more or let serious. The serious problem is how to govern them; un derline it is the question whether the con stitution forbids us to give them the govern ment they need. Tho former is a iiucstion of policy, the latter a question of Iw, To tho dis cussion of the latter, as the more appropriate lor the occasion and the audience, 1 shall ad dress mjsclf. The question of the power of congrc-a over the territories Is an important but not a nc.v one. It seems new, but it is as old as the con stitution itself. Wo had a vast territoiy when the constitution was adopted and expected to ac quire more, so express provision for its govern ment was made. Ihe purchase of Louisiana, and the government of that enormous region, scantily populated by the people of miny race and of every degree of civilization, forced Jefferson's administration to find a practical solution of this question. They were the strict construction ists of that early day. but they promptly took the view tint the limitations of the constitution applied only within the strtes united under the constitution, and that congress was entirely free to govern Louisiana as the existing conditions re quired And this view was earned into legisla tion. The same thing was dene in the case of riorida, and the Supreme court upheld it. In deed, the cry "The Constitution follows the Flag," was not heard unlit after the Mexican war, when the grapple between freedom and slavery In the territories forced Calhoun to bring forward the doctrine that tho Constitu tion ex proprio xigoro extended to the terri tories, carrjing with it, not the guarantees of liberty, but the safeguards of slavery. As Thomas ricnton sajs in his Thlrtj Years View (Vol. 2, page 713): A new dogma was inverted to fit the case that of the transmigration of the Constitution--(the slavery part of it) Into the Territories, overriding and overruling nil the nnti slavery laws which it found there, and phntlng the institution there under its own wing, and main taining it bc.vond the power of eradication cither by coi gross or the people of the Territory. "Webster Fought the Dogma. The great expounder and defender of the Con stitution, Daniel Webster, fought this dogma Jn the sentte, hut the Supreme court, in lhVJ, in the Drcd Scott case, approved and applied it, holding the Missouri Compromise of 1820 un constitutional and declaring that congress had no power to prohibit slavery In the territories. According to the construction thus sanctioned, wherever the flap; flew the constitution went, carrjing with It human slavery. The Consti tution so construed was naturally denounced by he Abolitionists as "A covenant with death and league with Hell." Ac quiescence in the do-.-Islon as a rule of political action was impos sible for those who believed slavery wrong, and so a new party was formed, pledged to tho proposition that congress could control as to slavery In tho territories, and Abraham Lincoln was elected piesidcnt, and the civil war came, and on a thousand battlefields the supremacy of the nation ever national matteis was vindi cated and established then and for all time. It was supposed this doctrine of Calhoun's, brought forward to extend and nerpetuate slav ery, was buried with slavery, but here it is again, threatening misihiet and potent for evil. And now let us examine it closely, licduccd to n legal proposition, the denial of tlie power which is lelug and must lie exer cised by the president and by congress in our new territories, nmoui.U to this- Ceded terri tory becomes by the ait of cession an Integral part of the I'nitcd States, to which tlie consti tution ex; proprio vigore at once- extend, plac ing its people, its products and its poits on an immediate equality with ours, and confining upon them all the rights, priv ileum and im munities enjojed under the constitution by tho people, tho products and the ports on an im mediate equality with ours, and conferring upon them all the rights, privileges and immunities enjojed under tho Constitution by the people, the products ard the ports of the several state. Moreover, tho limitations of the Constitution ap ply there as here, requiring same taxes, in posts, duties and excises to be collected, and the same Anglo Saxon svstcm of trial by jury to be used. Their people become at once our people, citizens of the United States, our ports become their ports, and our naikcts their markets; they are free to com- here or to send their products here, while our taxes and our- laws, although whollj' unsuitable, mu-t go there. There Is nothing obscure about this doctrine. It i plain and unmlst,d.ablc. The act of cession Is nil pov crful, its effect Imim table. As soon as the title passes, the tcnitory becomes a part of the United States, and the Constitution, ex proprio vigore, does tho rest This proposition Is true as it Is stated or not true at all, Either the mere act of cession makes territory it part of the United States, or it does not; cither the Constitution extends as Constitution immed lately rind of Its own fcrce, or It does not ex tend as Constitution at all. Moreover, if the affirmative be true, the trcatj -making power, In acquiring territory, is necessarily limited to providing for the mere act of cession. It cm make no terms; It cannot make for this purpose or that; It can give no pledges; It can gm.t no privileges, it can reserve no questions fur future disposition; In short, although railed the treaty making power, and granted wlhout limita tion, it Is stripped of its proper functions, it cannot treat, it is lame, impotent, impossible, ridiculous. President Cannot Extend Boundaries. On tho other band, if the territory does not, by the act of cession, become immediately an Integral part of the United States, if the Con stitution does not ex proprio vigore extend over It then, of necessity the provisions of the treaty and the action of congress must determine whether it shall or thall not become or bsj deemed a part of the United States In the con stitutional sense, and if ever, when? In other words, the disposition and government of the acquired territorj' rests with the treaty-making power and with ccrgrcea. The president can not extend the boundaries of the United States. It takes the legislative power to do that, and it may do It upon whit terms it deems best. If It takes action by congress to send tl a Constitution and the lavs of the United States Into tho territorj', or stated differently, to brln the territory within the scope of the Constltu tion, the disposition of the matter Is left who'ly , to the discretion of congress. Congress may send or withhold, or send In part and when It sees fit. Such, in fact, has been the practice. Thus, to take one Instance, In the act of Sep tember 0, ISM, organising the territory of Uti.h the following section was inserted: The Constitution cud laws of the United Etatea are hereby exteidrel over and declared "Xto lc In forco in said territory of Utah, so far N(i the same, or any provision thereof, may be lUHivuujt;. , If It ttkes action by congress to "extend" the corstltutlon, In the sense of appijlinr Its limitations and lestriitlons, evidently the con stitution goes cot as a constitution but as an act ci congress. Ita provisions ore virtually In- cotporatcel Into the act extending It and oper ate by adoption as a legislative enactment. In short, under this view, the territory becomes by the acts of session not a part but a possession of the United States, subject to complete con trol and disposition by congress. Such terri tory may, if conditions permit and if congress deems proper, be treated for legislative pur poses as a rart of the United States, but it does not in the constitutional sense become a part of the United Slates, over which the constitution ex proprio vigore extends, until organized as a stato and admitted to the union. In the noted case of Fleming vs. rage (9 How. 583,011), Chief Justice Taney saj-s that th United States "may demand the cession of ter ritory as the condition of peace, In order to In demnify its citizens for the Injuries they have suffered, or to reimburse the government for the cxpenso o' the war." If territory may be ac quired for such purpose, it certainly may be held under such conditions as may be proper and tieccsary to carry the purpose Into (.fleet. Territory ocquired to Indemnify and relmbuise may be held as a posesslon or as a pledge, with the reserved power of disposition and contiol suitable to accomplish the desired tnd To In corporate such territory Into the union and make it a part of the United States might de feat the vcrv object ot the acquisition. Once there it would have to stay. The Constitution. The constitution, while vesting In the presi dent and scnitc treat) -making power, provide that "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall Iks made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land" (Article 0). The treaty of Paris was made "under tho authority of the United States," anl contains the terms upon which we acquired these terri tories. It is unique In this, that while former treaties of cession all provided that the civilized inhabitants of the ceded territories should ultl r.ately become citizens of tho United States, this treaty lefc the determination of their civil right and political status to congrefw. Let me refer to a few pertinent trovMcns. Spain ceded to the United States Porto Rico, Guam (Article 2) and the Philippines (Article 3). Spanish subjects, ratlves of the peninsula, residing in such territory, were given one J oar from the excharge of latiflratinns, that is, until April 11, 1000, to preserve their allegiance to Spain by making a declaration in a court of record. In default of this, they were to be held to have adepted, not the nationality of the ac ulring power, but the "nationality of the er ritory in which they may reside." (Article 0). Then comes this striking provision: The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitant of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shell bo determined by the congress. The inhabitants of the territories were to be "secured in the free exercise of their religion" (Article 10), a wholly unnecessary piovision If the constitution of the United States extended its shield over thim. Spaniards residing in the tcnitory were to he "subject to tho jurisdiction of tin1 courts of the countrj-," nut the courts of the United Statis, "pursuant to the ordiniry laws governing the same" (presumably the Spanish or civil law), and wcie to have the nght to appear and pursue the same course therein "as citizens of the country to which' the courts belong" (s.rtlcle 11). I'or ten jiars Spanish ships and merchandise were to be admitted to the ports of the Philip pnies on the seme terms as ships and merchan dise of tho United States (Article 1); and for ten jears Spanish scientific, llterarj and artis tic works were to be admitted free of dutj into alt th ceded territories (Ariclc 1.1). Purpose of Provisions. The purpose of these provisions is plain. Al though under tho power and pretention of the United States, the- territories ore to have their own laws, their own courts, their own ports, their own commerce, their own citizenship, their own sjstem of revenue A separate and distinct existence under but without the Lniteel Slates Is contemplated. The parties to the tcaty both knew that the location end condition of these islands would lot permit their incorporation into the United States, and tho application tatlu m of those laws of loir.incrce, ot revenue and of civil and criminal i rucuhirc. which the consti tution requires to be unifoim throughout the United States Thc.v provided, therefore, for a sjstem of government which should be suited to local conditions and needs. Arc we tree to dts regard the plain piovlslons ot tho treatj, which the constitution sajs shall be the supreme law of the land? If so, what becomes of the con sent of the treat) -miking power to the acqui sition? Would the president and the senate have consented to take the tcriltorios upon any other terms? Certainly the treaty never intended to make these tropical islands a part of tho United States in the constitutional sense, and Just as certainly did it make them a part of the United States in the international sense. The term "the United States" may mean the territory which governs or the territory over which the government ex tends. The former is tlie constitutional, the lat ter the International, or It may be, legislative sense-. In the latter sense, states and territories, all places subject to the jurisdiction of the na tional power, combine to constitute what Chief Justlvc Marshall In Ixmghbcroi'gh xs. Dlakc (13 Wheaton, 317, 310) (1K0), termed the Ameri can Elliptic." "Our Great Itepubllc." "flues this term," said he, referring to the "Lnited Stats," "designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It Is the name given to our great re public, which is composed of states and terri tories." The expression was a dictum, unneces sary to the decision of the case, for the exclu sive power of leglshtion within the District of Columbia vested in congress authority to levy a direct tax there, which was the only question involved. Hut it is to be observed that the great chief justice was clearly correct in holding that the taxing power extends throughout the lUnitcd States in the International sense, although the limitations of he constitution apply only throughout the United States, in the constitu tional sense. What we arc concerned with Is the constitutional sense, for tlie vital question is whether tuc limitations and prohibitions which uneler the constitution apply throughout the United States, opera e in our new territories. Established by the People. As stated In its preamble, the constitution ot the United States was ordained and establisheel by "the people of the United States" "for tho United States of America." There is no am blgtilt) about tlie meaning of the words "United States of America" as here used. They mean the states united under the constitution and are named individually in the second section of the first article. They were the luirteen colonies which had first become United States under the confederation, and through their people, framed the present constitution in order, among other tilings, to form a more perfect union. This con clusively appears from tho slxtu article, which provides that all debts contracted before tin adoption of the constitution "shall bo as valid against the United States under tho constitu tion, as under the confederation." The fact Is not to be lost sight of that the primary source of sovereign power was the peo ple of the thirteen original states. These men knew they were foiming a government that would enduro for aces and dominate a contin ent, but it does not apcar that they worried themselves about the "consent ot the governed" outside the states which they Inhabited and which alone were to participate in political pow. er. They formed a government in which the people of the states were alone represented and adopted a constitution which, In its distribution ami limitation of power, applied only to the states. In the early rase of Hepburn vs. El I toy (2 Cranch, 4)5) (ISOj), the question came before the Supreme court whether a citizen ot the District of Columbia could maintain an action against a citizen of Virginia. In support ot the jurisdiction Mr, Lee insisted that to give the term state a limited construction, would deprive the citizens ot the district of the general rights ot citizens of the United States and put them In a worse condition thsn aliens; and he put the pertinent question, whether, in tho face of the provision that "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state," con gross could lay a tax or duty on articles export Address Delivered Be fore the Pennsylvania Bar Association, at Cambridge Springs, Pa., Tuesday, June 26, J 900, by Hon. John K. Richards, Solicitor-General of the United States. ed from any stale, congress could lay a tax or luty on articles exported from tho District of Columbia. Rut the court properly held that a citizen of the district Is not a citizen ot a state and cannot use the United States courts as such, Chief Justice Marshall sajlng: The members of the American confederacy only are the States contemplated In the Constitution. The house of representatives is to be composed ot members chosen by the people of the sev eral states, and each state shall have at least one representative. The senate of the United States shall bo comixweel of two senators from each state. Kach state shall appoint, for the election of the executive, a number of electors equal to its whole number of senators and rep resentatives. These clauses show that the word state is used in the Constitution as designating a member of the Union. Applies to Citizen. It Is obvious that this ruling applies, and in deed it was subsequently held to apply, to the citizens ot the territories. The states alone are the members of the Ameri can confederacy; they constitute the union, and the union and the United States arc equivalent terms In the constitution. Thus the constitu tion and "the laws of the United Stales" are made the supreme law of the land (Article 0, Clause 2), yet congress is to provide for culling forth the militia to execute "the laws ot the union" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15). All legislative powers grantee! are vested in the con gress "of the United States" (Article 1, Section 1), but the president is required, from time to time, to give to the congress Information of the state "of the union" (Article 2, Section 3). In the first article, defining the legislative pow ers, it is provided that "representatives and di rect taxes shall be apportioned among the sev eral stales which may be included within this union." This does not Include the territories, but does operate throughout the United States. "Duties, Imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." This, too, is a geographical limitation, requiring indirect taxes to operate generally throughout the United States, that is, among the several states coin posing the union. Tlie history of the adoption of tliis provision will bo found, in interesting form, in the learned opinion of Mr. Justice White in the recent case of Knowlton vs. Moore (1T7 U. S. ), sustaining the constitutional ity of the federal tax: on legacies. In the ori ginal draft, the provision prohibiting any prefer ence to the ports of one state over those of an other and that conferring and limiting the tax ing power, were plarcd together. They really mean the same thing, that the states of the union shall be treated alike in the regulation of commerce and the imposition of taxes. Tho uni formity required in each case was a uniform ity among the several states of the union. And this is shown by tlie decision in the Cherokee tobacco case (It Wall., 018), affirming tlie con stitutionality of the Act of 1S(1S, extending the excise tax on liquors and tobacco alone to the Indian territory. A minority of the court (Jus tices llradley and Davis) held, in view of the treaty provisions, that it was not the inten tion of congress to extend even the tax on liquors and tobacco to the Indian territory. Obviously, the court was unanimous in the opin ion that, although the Indian Territory is within the exterior boundaries of the United States, the provision of the constitution requiring excises to be uniform throughout the United States docs not apply within the Indian Territory, a conclu sion which effectual)- disposes of the dictum in Loughborough vs. Dlakc. Powers of Regulate Commerce. The constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce 'among the several states;" "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy throughout the United State. The recent acts have properly been extended to the contiguous territories, which congri'ss, in its discretion, has seen fit to treat as a part of the United States. It is provided that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state," but nothing is said about any territory; and that "no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another, nor shall vessels bound to or from one state be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another;" but nothing is said about the ports of any territory. Tho prohibitions of the Tenth section of the l'irst article apply only to the states. In the Second article, relating to the executive power, it is provieleil that congress may deter mine the elate on which the electors shall give their votes, which elay shall bo the .same "throughout the United States" (article 2, Sec tion 1) Necessarily the United States here means the states ot tho union, which alone take pait in electing a president. Later it is provid ed, that during his term of office, the president shall not receive in addition to his stated com pensation, any other emolument "from the Unit ed States, or any of them," Bhowing the states alone were In mind. The third article is devoted to the Judicial power of the United States. It has been re peatedly held tint the territorial courts are not organized under this article and are therefoie not courts ot the United State, and I think when the question is properly presented, It will be held that the limitation contained In his article with respect to trial by jury only applies to the courts of he United States, and does sot extend to tho territorial courts unless congress has so provided. The cases which apparently hold that it does can all be distinguished. This third article constantly keeps In mind the rela tion of tho United States to the several states, and of those states and their citizens to one an other. No consideration whatever Is given to territories and their citizens. The Fourth articles guards the rights of each state and Its citizens with respect to ever) other state. Tlie public acts of each shall have full faith and credit Is all others. The citizens of each shall be entitled to tho privile-gcs and im munities of citizens in the several states. Fugi tives from Justice shall be surrendered; new states may be admitted into "this union"; ami a republican form of government to every state in the union is guaranteeel. Hut there Is no safe guard or guarantee whatever in the rase of a territory and Its citizens. No republican form of government for the territories is guaraneed. On the contrary, Just preceding he guarantee to the states and following the provision for the admission of new states, the following plenary power Is made: Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respect ing the territory or other property belonging to the United States. Territory as Property, Notice the phraseology. Territory Is treated as property, as something distinct from the United States, something owned by tho United States, a subject to be ruled and disposed of by con gress at Its discretion as conditions might re quire .without being hampered by the restric tions which were framed for the states. The thirteenth amendment contains an explicit recognition of the fact that a place subject to tho jurisdiction of the United States, is not necessarily a part of the United States, for It provides: Neither slavery nor Involuntary servtfude, ex cept as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any plaio subject to their jurisdiction. There arc other provisions to which I might refer if time permitted. I believe a careful ex amination of the constitution leads to but one conclusion, that the power of congress over the territories Is plenary and absolute. Whether It follows from the power to acquire and hold terri tory, or Is conferred by the clauso of the con stitution which declares that "congress shall have power to dispose ot and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to tho United States," It Is full and complete and Is unham pered by those limitations and restrictions which were intended to apply only within the states of the union. There is a line of decisions of the Supreme court going back to the early days which sustains this view. Some jcaro after the dlctume in Loughborough vs. Dlake, the case ot Insurance Company vs. Canter (1 Peters, 11, 1628), came before the Supreme court over which Chief Justice Mar shall still presided. A court of the territory of Florida, composed of a notary and five Jurors, bad sold a wrecked cargo of cotton, on a salv age clilm, and transferred the title to Canter, the purchaser. It was insisted that upon the acquisition of Florida It became a part ot the United States, over which the constitution ex tended, and that under the constitution admiralty Jurisdiction could be exercised only, by the courts of the United Stales. It had to be con ceded that the territorial court had not been organized In accordance with the constitution, winch requires Judges to be appointed during good behavior. Mr. Webster argued the casa for Canter, and In behalf of the jurisdiction said (pigoMS): What Is Florida? What Is Florida? It Is no part of the United States, How can It It? How Is It represented? Do the laws of the United States reach Florida? Not unless by particular provisions. The terri tory and all within it are to be governed by the acquiring power, except where there are reser vations by treaty. lly the law of England, when possession 1 taken of territories, the king. Jure Coronae, has the power ot legislation until parliament shall interfere. Congress have the Jus Coronae In thli case, and Florida was to be governed by con gress as she thought proper. What has congress done? She might have done anv thing she might have refused a trial by jury and refused a legislature. She has given a legislature, to bo exercised at her will, and a government of a mixed nature, In which she has endeavored to distinguish between State and United States Jurisdiction, anticipating the future erection of tlie Territory In to a state. Mr. Webster won his case. The opinion of Chief Justice Marshall Is worthy of careful study. Its logic Is unanswerable. While the power ot congress tei govern ceded territory was declared to bo Inevitable and absolute, the limi tation of the constitution upon the exercise of the Judicial power of the United f.ates was ex pressly held to be confined to the states, the chief Justice sajlng (page tVM): t Although admiralty Jurisdiction can be exer cised in the states In those courts onlv, which are established In pursuance of the third article of the Constitution, the same limitation does not intend to tho territories. In legislating for them, congress exercises the combined powers of the general, and of the state government. The doctrine thus enunciated by the great chief Justice, has been approved and followed b) his successors In a long line of cases, in cluding Ilenner vs. Porter (I) Howard, 2.13; 1S.V)), Mr. Justice Nelson: Clinton vs. Knglebrctht (11 Wall., 412; 1S71), Chief Justice Chase; National Hank vs. Yankton (101 U. S., 120; 1670), Chief Justice Walte; Murphy vs, ltnmsey (114 U S 13; IsM), Mr. Justice Matthews; Mormon Church vs. United States (ISO U. S.. 1; It,'), Mr. Jus tice llradley; McAllister vs. United States (HI U. S. 174; 1691), Mr. Justice Harlan; and Shlvcly vs. tlovvlby, (132 U, S 1; 1M)I), Mr. Justice Gray. Justice Wait Speaks. Chief Justice Walte speaks of the territories as "tho outlying dominion of the United States," an apt phrase. He sajs that congress "may do for the territories what tho pec pic, under the constitution of the United States, may do for the states," the fullest and clearest expression of sovereign power without limitation. Mr. Jus tice Matthews sajs flat "the people of the United States, as sovereign owners of the Na tlunil teirltorles, have supreme power over them and theii it habitants." "n tests with congress to say, whetler, In a given case, any of the iej. pie, resident of the territorj-, shall participate in the eletlioi. of its officers or the making of Its laws." Mr. Justice Dnelley sa)s that "It would be absurd to hold tint the United States has power to acquire territory, and no power to gov em it when acquired." Mr. Justice Harlan sajs tjint "Tlie whole subject of the organization of territcrlal courts, etc., was left, by the con stitution, with congress under its plenary power over the territories of the United States," And Mr. Justice Ora) sa)s that "lly the constitu tion, as is now well settled, the United States, having rightfully acquired the territories, and being the only government which can impose laws upon them, have the ci.tlre dominion and sovereignty, national and municipal, federal and state, over all the territories, so long as the)' re miln in a territorial condition " Are there then no limitation! on this plenary power of congress to govern the territories? t believe there are. Obviously, those limitations which are laid upon the exercise bj' congress of a special power irrespective of the place where exercised, do apply, such ns those forbidding congress to pass anv bill of attainder, or any ex post ficto law, or confer any title of nobility. Tlie prohibition of slavery operates bj- express provision everywhere. Dut these are not the only limitations. It is alvvajs to be borne in mind that this Is a government of the people, by tho people ard for tho people, which was created, among other things, to establish Justice are! to secure the blessings of liberty. A gov ernment thus dedicated to liberty and justice, is based on fundamental principles and at all times must show respect for fundamental rights. Out side the limitations of the constitution, its spirit requires the government to treat all subject to our dominion with Justice and equality under the- low. Tjrtnny and oppression i-annot consti tutionally evi-t under the soveieigntj of the re public which Is based upon the proposition that all men are entitled to life, liberty and the pur suit of happiness. This is what Mr. Justice llradley meant when ho said in Mormon Clime h vs. United Stales (13rt U. S. 1, 41). "Doubtless consress in legislating for the territories would be subject to those fundamental limitations In favor of personal lights which are formulated in the constitution and its amendments, but these limitations would exist rather by Inference, and the general spirit of tlie constitution from which congress derives all its powers, than bj any ex press and direct application of its provisions." And It vvn to this that Mr. Justices Harljn re ferred In McAllister vs. United States (141 U. S-, 171, US), when he said: "How far the exerc'se of that power (the power to govern the terri tories) is restrained by the essential principles upon which our sjstem of government rests, and which arc embodied in the constitution, we need not stay to inquire"; and then he quotes tlie language of Mr. Justice Dradley, which I have Just read. Essential Principles. Dut these essential principles upon which our government rests, these fundamental limitations in favor of personal right", do not compel the president and congress to provide trial by Jury in territories where fo proper Juries are to be had, or to let crime go unpunished. It Is true tint. In the case of Cillan vs. Wilson (127 U. S-, 610, lr87), It was held that under the constltu tion a man accused of a misdemeanor, committed in tlie District of Columbia, involving the pun IshmcntfOf imprisonment, was entitled to a trial by Jurj. The case was properly decided, bccaise the District of Columbia had ome been a part of Mar lam and therefore a part of the Unltexl States under the constitution The guarcntce having onco attached, was never with drawn. Dut the case of Webster vs. Held (It How, 437. 1ST0), and Icc.vnolds vs. United States (OS V S., 115, ls7ii), which are cited in Callnn vs. Wilson, ore not authoiitles upon the point that the limitations of the constitution respecting trial by jury extmd, ex proprio vi gore and without congressional action, to the tcnllories. The first rase (Webster vs. rcii'j aiose in the territory of Iowa and In'olvcd tho right of trial by Jury in o civil action, but thi court points out in the opinion that th; ' -'ganlr law of this territory, by express provision and by reference, extended the laws of the United States, including the ordinance of 1S78, over the territory, thus guaranteeing the right of trial by Juiy inolved In the case. And in the second case (llejiiolds vs. United States), arising out ot a conviction in Utah tor blgamj-, while the court did hold that the accused was cnluied to a trial by Jury, it Is to be observed that con gress, bj' the act of September 9. IPSO, hail ex tended the constitution an laws cf the United States over the territory, and thus granted by Bt.atutory enactment the light Inolreil. In the latter rase of American Publlihlnj Co. vs Flshei WO U. S.. 464; 1607), whllo the court held that the teirltcrlal law cf Utah authorizing a verdict when nine or more Jurors concurred, was invalid, the decision was placed solely upon the ground that congress had, bv the ait of Sep tember 0, 1660, extended tho constitution aid laws ot t)he United States over the territory and subsequently enacted that no party should be deprived of the light of trial by Jury, Mr. Jus tlce Brewer points out tint the euses of Webster vs. Iteid and Iteynjlds vs. United States, do not conclusively establish the proposition that the constitutional guarantee of a trial by Jury ex tends ex proprio vlt-ore Into the terrltiries. It Is, he sajs, "nutter of dispute." The clear ef feet of this decision Is to hold that 'he guaran. tees of the constitution do not, of their own force, extend Into the territories. When they go there, they go as the consequence of congres sional action. Case of Thompson. The recent ease of Thcmpson vs. Utah (170 U. S., 343; 1608), turns upon one point simply, the ex post facto character of the state law- ot Utah, providing for a Jury of eight, when applied to a crime when a territorj-, and when, under the tor rltorlal law, the accused was entitled to a trial by a Jury of twelve. On the other hand, the supreme court has held, over and over again, that the states may do away with an Indictment by a grand Jury and a trial by a petit jury In criminal cases, and that no fundamental rights under our constitu tion or form of government are violated by so doing (Hurtado vs. California, 110 U. S., 510; Maxwell vs. Dow, 17(1 U. S SSI). In the line of decisions between these two cases, it has been repeatedly held that the first ten amendments were intended as restrictions and limitations up on the power ol the general movement.snd wer At Ten Dollars Copyright, 1699. The stein-Bloch Co. Samter Brothers, not intended to and did not have any effect upon the powers of tho several states; also, inevit ably, that the riRht to be Indicted by a grand jury and tried bv a petit jury is not a privilege or immunity of a cltircn of the United States. The right of the people of the states to change their law ami sjstrni of procedure so as to make them conform to changed views of admin istration, or the exigencies ol their siclal life, has been sustained. If the constitutional guar antee relating to Indictment li a grand jury and .1 trial by a petillt jury are not fundamental in character, and therefoic do not tic the fnnd of the inhabitants of a territory when organiz ing a state, how can they bo held to tie the hands of the president and congrcs in preserv ing order and protecting lite and property In our new pooscftstons. It is a strange contention that as soon as the treaty went Into elicit tho power of the presi dent and congress to preserve order In these new possessions ceacd. 'there were no grand jurlos, no petit juries, no machinery for punishing crime by the process of the Anglo-Saxon law, and jet, if the limitations of the constitution ex proprio vigore extended over these possessions, crime could be punished in no other way. Tho con stitution which gave the United States the power to acquire tcnitory by treaty, and im posed upon congress the duty of disposing of and governing it, did not leave the national government helpless by demanding impossibili ties. Until the progitss of the peoplo of these territorks, their civilization and education, will permit of the organization of courts and jriea after our system, thce guarantees must be held Inoperative, or the preservation of peace and order and the protection of life and property bo abandoned. The situation resembles that ills cude in the case of In re Itoss (110 U. S , 453), where a conviction of murder by a consular court in Japan, acting without a jury and upon infor mation, was sustained, Mr. Justico Field sajing (page 404): And besides their enforcement abroad in nu merous places where it would be highly im portant to have olTlecrs Invested with Judicial authority would be impracticable from the im possibility of obtaining a competent grand or petit jury. Tho requirement of such a body to accuse and try an olTcnder would, in a ma jority of cases, cause an abandonment of all prosecution. Territorial Governments. The theory upon which our territorial govern ments have been organized has been to leavo to the Inhabitants of each territory, such powers of civil government as they may be capable of exer cising. As their education In government pro gressed, the powers were enlarged until, finally, upon demonstrating their fitness for statehood, they have been allowed to organize their own republican form ot government and have been admitted into the union upon terms of equality with tho other states. Whether any one of these new possessions will ever become fit to Lo admitted as a state, time alone will show. We do not have to cross that stream jet. We can hold these territories, enforce peace and order, protect life and property, educate their people, civilize them, put them in the way of making the most of themselves, and leave the result to the future. When they are ablo to govern them selves, we shall be free to determine Intelligent ly their permanent relations to us. Time and experience will show what is best for them and for usi ue regard for their laws and traditions should bo shown. They have been accustopied to the Jurisprudence of the civil law. It would bo the height of tjranny and oppression to com pel them to abandon It without good cause. In providing them a system o local government W3 should keep in mind what Mr. Justice Drown said in tlie recent rase ot Ilolden vs. Hardy (109 U. S 300)! In the future growth of the nation, as here tofore, it is not impossible that congress may sec fit to annex territories whoso Jurisprudence la that of tho civil law One of the conslderatl ins moving to such anneiation mir.ht be the very fact that the territory so amiexed should enter the Union with Its traditions, laws and systems ot administration unchanged. It would le a narrow- construction of the Constitution fo ic quire them to abandon these, or to substitute for a system which representee! tho growth of generations of inhabitants a Jurisprudence with vvhclh they had had no previous acquaintance or sympathy, We have tho new territories. We aro responsl. bio for them. We have entered upon a new epoch. The ohl serse of security and Indifference, which a policy of Isolation gave us, Is gone, Wc have become one ot the world powers, shar ing the burdens they must bear, liven now our marines, shoulder to shoulder with tho men of England and Germany and Itussia and France and Austria, and Italy tnd Japan, aro at the We Want Critical Dressers To see and examine these TEN, TWELVE AND FIFTEEN DOLLAR . SUITS. A great many men in this city good dressers have already bought them. Maybe you have seen them on your friends and taken them for the custom tailor's pro duct? There is a great deal more than ordi nary merit about these ready-to- vear suits, and we only want a chance to convince you that this is the only store in this city that can show such cloth quality and tailoring for these prices. We placed our cloth orders long before you ever thought of wearing a Summer Suit, the consequence is that we got in ahead of the recent advance in price and these ready-to-wear suits are marked at prices hardly more than the wholesale tailors would charge us today. At Twelve Dollars We have unusual advantages in this store for giving you quality and style that cannot be had in other stores. We give large orders to our tailors and to the cloth mills. For these reasons we get big ger discounts and give better values than if we had to buy from the jobber, as All these ready-to-wear suits are cut by the newest pat terns, either in the single or double breasted style. The cloths are fancy worsteds or Ban nockburn Tweed of neat and dressy pat terns. The cloth values and style can seen in our large Penn avenue show window, marked in plain figures, M A the smaller do. See these values at Scranton's Leading Outfitters. gates of far-oil Pekin to enforce the Just de mands of civilization. The path of duty before us is plain. Slaj we not walk in it? Does the constitution forbid? Is the constitution a trap, caught in which we shall excite the pity of our friends and the- derision of our foes? I refuse to believe so. The constitution is no mere declara tion of denials. It created a nation, which has become the greatest on the earth. When It con ferred power, It took care not to cripple action. It still lemilns the most perfect instrument ever struck oft by the hand and brain of man, under which we are armed for every emergency and ablo to cope with cverj' condition. Riissia a Menace fo World's Progress THF. WOItl.D'S HISTORY Is the story ot the white man. With the exceptions of the Chinese, Mexicans and Peruvians history treats of the Caucasian or white races al most culmUTly, Ihe Kgjptlans, Hebrews and Phoenicians, who were the ruling powers In an cient times, belonged to two groups of the Cau casian races. A third division Is the Arjan or Indo-Kuropean and this is the true hlr'-rlc fam ily. As the swinging of the pendulum, he surg ing and ebbing of the tide, the courses of the planets and the life of a human being follow a universal law of rythmical movement, so the members of this group, obeying the same law, rise from obscurity to a controlling position, spread themselves abroad by force of arms, im press on the dependent and surrounding tribes their customs, religion, education and civiliza tion. Kach exhausts itself in the process, has its position wrested from it by a race of superior energy and retreats into obscurity and subjection. This has been tlie courses of the Hindoos, Per sians, Greeks and Latins, and is it not the prob able career ot the remaining Arvan races? o The Anglo Saxons, uniting the best of the German and Celt, have rapidly traversal the first part of this course. Their advance during tills century in territorj', population, commerce, navigation, war power, Invention, industry and colonization has far surpassed that of nny other nation for a like period, Great Ilritaln and the United Mates, the Anglo-Saxons powers, control nearly one-third of the land area and population of the world. Their position is one of the most unique and marvelous in history. Tho Anglo. .Saxon stands as the arbiter of tho world, su preme, self-confldent, rcspcotcel and feared. As stood tho Itoman republic In relation to the an cient civilized world, so stand the Anglo-Saxon nations in the world today. Dut there is another Arj-an race whose civiliz ing Influence has not jet had a chance to exert its power. With this linglo exception all the white races have successfully led in the progress of civilization and each has left as its legacy to the world some idea necessary to the highest advancement of humanity. Now, however, this race, tho Slavonian, is advancing on the stage, eager to take the leading role. The Slav Is good natured, long-futTcring, strong and hardy and en dowed with marvelous poweis of adaptation to circumstances. Eminent authorities recognize him as the best colonizer among the Arjans by reason of his wonderful ability to absorb the tribes with which ho comes In contact. Strange as It may seem, he is possessed of a thoughtful ness for others and a vein ot soft humaneness that does not belong to any other of the western peoples, o When the Huns, Mongols and Tartars were making their Invasions into Europe, the Slavon ians received the brunt of the conflict and, while thus guarding the western nations from hin drances to their advancement, were) themselves retarded In civilization and education. Their for mer lack of progresslvrness was also due to their distribution over so largo a territory, only thir teen per cent, living in towns or cities. Dut the civilization ot the Slavs is only a matter of time, as Is shown by' the ability which the Rus sians have already exhibited In music, art and science. Russia today Is a veritable bee-hlvc. Factories are springing up, the methods ot agri culture are being improved, the press is free, anil the number ot schools and colleges is con itantly Increasing, The young czar, .Nicholas If, considers the Internal development ot his realm his paramount duty to his subjects and his re rent law- to abolish Siberian exile is a proof of his interest in their welfare, The attainment by the blavi of the higher civilization will bo no more wonderful than has been tho transformation cf the barbaric German conquerors ot Rome, who are considered T,. V?r At Fieen Dollars If you looked over all the cloths shown by every custom tail or in this city, we don't believe the as sortment could be any larger than we show in these suits made up ready to wear, and no custom tailor could possibly put the 'same work into a single suit for less than $25. See them in our Lacka. stores $12 avenue show window at... $15 Our strongest Impression of Russia, however, is that of a vast military empire. The Russian army of more than 5,000,000 men is, in the opin ion of General Miles, tho best in Europe. Its officers are well-skilled, its soldiers hardy and capable ot greater endurance than those ot any other armj Its army and its severe and vari able climate lender Russia practically uncon querable and he who would attempt to subduo the Slavs would probablj- repeat the cxporlcnco of Knpoleou, and ilnd the grave of his hope in the Russian snow. When the Russians first appeared in history they occupied one-fifth of their present European possessions. Now the Russian empire has a larger continuous territorj- than anj" other na tion, having increased slxtecn-fohl in 400 jears. As a glacier steadily and powerfully moves down from the region of eternal snow, so Russia has extended her domains on the line ot least re sistance over the effeminate races of Asia. I.liOs. a glacier, also, this slow advance maj- at any time break forth into a rapid torrent and carry everything before It. The history of Russia is a chronicle of expan sion, conquest and absorption, containing no rce ord ot any important withdrawal from previous' occupied territory. Although elefeated by l.: land. Trance and Turkej- in the Crimean vvnr, Russia in a short time retrii'veil the slight fr rltorlal losses, re-fortified Scbastnpol, rrgalnu her control of the lll.ick sea, and took mh.ui tago of the ensuing peace to obtain new territory in Asia. Tlie- whole of Siberia has been obtain--I without a cunlllct with European nations an J uv ually without exciting the conquered tribes. This acquisition of territory is still contirfuirflf through the use of bold and skillful methods. One of these Is the sending of trad-rs into adja cent foreign towns followed by Cossack guards. In this way Russia obtained a hold on Fersli and the giasp was tightened this jear bj- a. large Russian loan to the 1'erslin government. In J tills way also Russia has anliiKful, slice aftcd slice ot Arguanlstan in lier ejgnernets tnj galj Herat, the "Gite of India " she has now M a rallvvaj to tlie iioumiary Hue within a fl miles of Herat, In the event of war Russia could seize this key to India and hold the country at her mercj. At the Pamirs Russia has extended her tirrltory to j point within twenty miles of India. Towering over the "Roof of sla, ' the great black bear is coretously viewing the riili land of the Hon. His figure looms up agaiH-V" the horizon large ami piotentous, He repre sents a nation whose manhood has been strength eneil bj life in n vioious climate, whose army Is tho largest and most effective in the world: whose country is as invulnerable as Achilles; and whose aim and dream is even greater than Itsj power. This aim is nothing less than the conii plete control of Asia, In the attainment of purpose the English vili bo driven from III me .xuiericans win ic i, trust our Ol tne I'll pines, China will be annexed to Russia, J-"i kev', the sick man of tlie East, wil. De nil in a Russian hospital for treatment. With tl results attained tho position of tho Slav lsl siirrel and who, then, can mcasuro the pow oil me ivoru oi ,siar Shall the Anglo-Saxons passively allow the! rerriiory io ue lanen irom tnem, their cml mercial interests in the east to bo dcstroycl their sunrem-irv to bp mnrtsA.I 1,.- n nK.ne..l - .,'-, t'j at, auiuiu. monarchy? The people of the United Statcx srl me i.idisi, iniitt- iiuiuiaeicaiiy anei connelcis answer ".Vol" Humanity and civilization rc-ocl euu ausnt-i twin a raj.criui "Amcni To Sll huh urn ueeisiuii special preparation Is need in me une oi uipiomatic training and fuller formation on tho part of officials, and rJ unanimny anci quickness of action In conj and narliament. So rln-elv am 1sa c.. 1 Slavs related that the old adage may be fittil cnangeci to reaa: "ivncn-raxoj meets .Ms comes me lug oi war," The strugghfl m-nd the exercise of alt ih he.t mviiiel Anglo-Saxon cnaracter. The Anglo-Saxl of libertv. rnere-v. rtncji. tnlont fn, n,-,.! gross, morality and Christianity will prel factors In winning the victory, Dut J eat the lotus leaves of over-confidence,! sieep may prove fatal, v Tho stability of a nation denends on I acter of the individual. Therefore, let t the standard of integrity and r.uritr Ht inished and increasing vigor and keep 1 irom stain ana ueieat. May tlie Ang awake to the greatest international nn tho twentieth century and continue the oi empire in the assurance that none. their place, while freedom and rlghtel Bun ucix vTUccwcra, .Wayland . Li akfaalSliAi-JliiJl 1 , j"v'i i4,jLV.I ' J&N&Li. , tv . W A Ji. . :' . "" .
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers