Show JNCLE SAM FILES BRiE I i Pertains to Cases Regarding 1 Our NewiPossessions r VL y T 1 QUESTIONS ARE JMPQRTANT 1 1 I Cases Cover the Several Phases of the I Dominion the United States Over tho Islands Beforeand After the Ratification of the Paris Treaty of Peace and After fLegislation by CqngicBS With R2ferenc > to Them 1 Direct Notice Taken of ExPresi dents Address at Ann Arbor Washington D Ct Jan Solicitor I General Richards in behalf of the Government Gov-ernment today fceln the United I tl Supreme court a brief in he caso brought by Ellas S Delimit Caleb B I jbownes Henry W Dooloy Carlos Armstrong and George AY Grossman against George Bidwejl collector of the I nod ff Joi 1w1 0 flit TTnllnfl < 3tnlo directly 1 involving questions t riltnltc of taxation relations between the United States and out insular posisessipns The cases cove rtho several phases of the I dominion of the United States over the Inlands before and after the ratification of the Paris treaty of peace and after legislation by Congress with reference to them The feature of the brief Is the direct notice it takes of exPresi dent Harrisons address at Ann Arbor and the response made thereto In behalf be-half of the Administration WHAT CASKS COVER I The DelImit case concerns duties collected col-lected on sugars imported into NeW I York from Porto Rico after ratification ratlcaton of the Paris peace treaty and before passage of the Porto Rican act the I Downes cases duties on oranges brought from Porto Rico into New I York after the passage of the Porto I I I I I Rican act the Dooley cases and tho I 1 Armstrong case duties on goods im I i p irted from Porto Rico during mlll I I tary operation and partly before and partly after the ratification of the I I treaty and also after passage of the I I Porto Rican tariff act and the Cross I I oman case duties on liquors imported from Honolulu Into New York after j thc passage of the resolution annexing I the Hawaiian Islands and tho passage of the e providing for their government govern-ment POSITION OF GOVERNMENT The reference to exPresident Harri sons Ann Arbor address is preceded by l a statement of the Governments position with reference to the extent to I which the Constitution applies to new I lyacqulred territory The brief denies the doctrine of proprio Igore and that all the limitations of the Constitution apply everywhere throughout the scope of the authority of the Government but says there are limitations In the Constitution which apply through both the States and Territories organized and unorganized MORMON CHURCH CASE CITED Because some limitations apply t does not follow that all apply Those which do apply everywhere both within i and without the United States In its broadest sense It says arc those securing secur-ing the blessings of justice and liberty I to all people Tyranny and oppression cannot constitutionally exist under the sovereignty of a Republic whose founders declared that all men are entitled en-titled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness This Is what Justice Bradley Brad-ley meant when he said in Mormon Church vs United States 13G U S 1 In Doubtless Congress in legislating legislat-ing i for the Territories would be subject sub-ject to those fundamental limitations In favor of personal rights which are formulated for-mulated in the Constitution and its amendments but these limitations lmiatons would exist rather by inference and the general spirit of the Constitution from which Congress derives all its powers than by any express and direct application of Its provisions HARRISONS ADDRESS NOTICED This statement of the Governments standing ground leads it up to the notice no-tice which it takes o exPresident Harrisons address Of this address SolicitorGeneral Rlchardss brief says In n recent address a portion of which I understand has been brought to the attention t of the court a distinguished dis-tinguished statesman and lawyer affects af-fects to believe If the view of the Government Gov-ernment Is correct Congress could witjiout constitutional objection pass n Porto RIcan act providing for a number num-ber of shocking things The Government Govern-ment has never asserted and does not believe that Congress has the power of 3 despot in Porto Rico The fundamental funda-mental limitations in favor of personal rights which are formulated In the Constitution and its amendments referred re-ferred to by Justice Bradley stand in the way of everything suggested which shocks the moral sense Congress could met pass an ex post facto law or declare an attainder or grant any title of nobility no-bility or provide for the trial or punishment pun-ishment of treason other than In the law marked out by 1 the Constitution all these things being prohibited by direct and applicable propositions 1C the first ten amendments do not limit by direct application Congress in leg islating for our new possessions neither do they operate within the States which compose the Union CRUINKSHANK CASE CITED dAn this court speaking by Chief Justice Waite said in United States vs Crulnkshank et al 92 U S r 541552 I OI1U Him iiiiictiuiiimik lu tlC v uiit > Utll ton prohibits Congress from abridging the right of the people to assemble and tp i petition the Government for a redress I re-dress of grievances This like other amendments proposed pro-posed and adopted at the same time wns not Intended to limit the powers of the people but to operate upon the national Government alone Protection life liberty and property prop-erty rests primarily with the State a Chief Justico Fuller said In PM E Kemmlcr 136 U S 43S14S ViA CONSTITUTION PROVIDES The Constitution makes no provision for protecting the citizens of respective States In their religious liberties for this is left to the State constitutions and laws said Mr Justice Catron In Pcrmeli vs First Municipality 3 How 530GOD The Constitution forbids for-bids the States to pass any bill or attainder at-tainder ex post facto law law or law Im i pairing the obligation of contracts or 1 I I fourteenth to grant any amendment title of nobility provides and that the i no State shall deprive any person of life liberty or property without due pro pfs of law nOI deny to any person per-son within Its Jurisdiction the equal i protection of the laws but outside the range of theso limitations the people of the State through tls constitution and laws are supreme RIGHTS OF TIIID PEOPLE i They can define treason against the Stato as they see fit they can limit the freedom of speech and of the press they can restrict the bearing of arrangements ar-rangements they can provide rangcmcIts for the quartering o1 troops they can regulate regu-late the right ofscarch and of Ilt rIgltotsClloh otaziest they can provide for the trial of capital capi-tal or other Infamous crimes 01 upon Information In-formation and without indictment and I w I without a Jury and they have done no They can do away with the trial 10 of civil suits by a Jury And suis Anl they may do many other things which I need not enumerate The right of the people of the States to change their lawn and thel nystcrn of procedure so as to make them conform to changed views of administration or the exigencies their social life has been sustained I the constitutional guarantees relating to indictment by a Jury and trial by a petit Jury are not n Federal in character and therfore do not tie the hands of the Inhabitants of a Territory when organizing aa a Slate why should they lie the hands of the President and Congress in preserving pre-serving order and In protecting life aM < J property in our new possessions STRANGE CONTENTION I Is a strange contention that as soon aa the treaty went Into effect the power of the President and Congrcsu to preserve order In the new possessions posses-sions ceased There wore no grand ce hol gand Juries Ju-ries no petit juries no machinery for punishing crime by the forces of the AngloSaxon law and yet It the limitations limi-tations intended for the States at once of their own force applied In these now possessions crime could be clme punished i pun-ished in no other way The Constitution Constitu-tion which gave the United States the power to acquire property by l treaty and imposed on Congress the duty of governing It did not leave the national Government helpless by demanding impossibilities im-possibilities The brief then goes into the question of the validity of the duties assessed and collected on the several Importations Importa-tions Involved In the cases at bar fol 101D the general Inca oC the argument argu-ment heretofore made by Attorney cpnPI1 I < < 00 SOME NEW SUGGESTIONS I however contains some new suggestions sug-gestions the most interesting being this I Chief Justice Tancy was wrong referring to the ease of Fleming Flem-ing i vst Pago holding that the United States may demand the cession of territory ritory ns the condition of peuce In order I or-der to Indemnify its citizens for the injuries in-juries they hae suffered or to reimburse reim-burse 1 the Government for the expenses of war and we cannot take territory sub modo to Indemnify or reimburse us but only to make It n part of the United States then before the President Presi-dent carries n war into the enemys country he should send a committee ahead of the army to ascertain and report whether the territory he proposes I pro-poses to invade and conquer Is fit to be I made a part of the United States for neither the treatymaking power or Congress can prevent that result If a cession follows conquest Before the President sent Dewey to Manila ho should have satisfied himself that the Philippines were suitable for Incorporation Incorpo-ration IntD the Union for we could destroy de-stroy the Spanish power there only at the risk of having to assume the burdens bur-dens of sovereignty ourselves |