[ Previous Page ] -- [ View PDF ] -- [ View in MS Word ] -- [ Next Page ]

3768
growing oat of the war, we annexed the Hawaiian Islands.   At the 
conclusion of that war we had obtained by treaty with Spain the 
cession of Porto Rico and, so far as Spain could rive to us by treaty, 
the Philippine Islands. The Hawaiian Islands are a part of the United 
States to-day, as much so as is the Territory of Oklahoma, or the State 
of Pennsylvania.  Not only is this true of the Hawaiian Islands, bat it 
is also-true as to the island of Porto Rico.   The Hawaiian Islands 
annexed by joint resolution of Congress, carrying into effect the 
offer and agreement of the government of those islands, and Porto Rico 
ceded to us by treaty with Spain, the inhabitants of the island 
being most willing, both stand on the same footing as Territories of 
the United States, and each of them is entitled to the same 
consideration, for over both Territories the Constitution of the United 
States extends equally and to the same extent that it extends over 
any Territory or State under the jurisdiction of the United States.                         
In the bill before the House no attempt is made to legislate for the 
Hawaiian Islands except under the provisions and strictly within 
the limitations of the Constitution of the United States. Particularly 
is this true in the matter of taxation.) In the bill before the House 
the trade of the Hawaiian Islands with other Territories and States 
of the Union stands upon the same footing in that there is no 
discrimination whatever.   In dealing with Porto Rico the majority 
in this House have attempted to treat her in a very different manner.   
For Porto Rico, the effort is made to treat the island as if the same was 
not a part of the United States and to impose a tariff upon certain of 
her products coming into our ports. Why this discrimination?   Why 
treat the island of Porto Rico differently to the way we treat and 
deal with the Hawaiian Islands?  If one is a part of the United States 
and under its jurisdiction the other is.   We treat the Hawaiians as 
Citizens of the United States, why not treat the Porto Ricans in the 
same way? Both are entitled to all the benefits, privileges, and 
immunities conferred by the Constitution of the United States upon 
any citizen.   In the matter of impost duties or taxation the products 
of these territories must be treated the same in all respects as we 
treat the products of Pennsylvania or California. Mr. Chairman, in a 
few words I will give my opinion as to why the Hawaiian Islands 
have been treated as a part of the United States and why Porto Rico 
has been treated as a foreign territory. It has been said by those 
advocating the imposition of a duty on the products of Porto Rico 
shipped into the United States that, first, Congress has a right to do 
so under the Constitution; second, that in order to raise money to 
relieve the sufferings of the people of the island it must be done, and 
third, that to do so is to strike a severe blow at the sugar and 
tobacco trusts; therefore it is necessary.   In answer to the first 
proposition, Mr. Chairman, I will say that Congress has no right or 
authority under the Constitution of the United States to levy a tariff on 
the products of Porto Rico coming into our ports, because Porto Rico is 
a part of our territory. As to the second proposition, in my opinion no 
good, but only harm, can result to the Porto Ricans from the 
imposition of this tax.     As to the third proposition, I think it 
amounts to jesting with a serious question. If this is true, would it 
not be equally a blow at the trusts to impose a tax upon the 
products of the Hawaiian Islands coming into the United States?   
Why, if it is necessary in dealing with Porto Rico to impose a tariff 
upon her products in order to strike a blow at the trusts, is the 
necessity and the argument not equally as strong in the case of 
Hawaii?   If it is necessary to strike a blow at the trusts in one case, it is 
in the other.     No, Mr. Chairman, these are not the reasons for the 
imposition of a tariff upon the products of Porto Rico.     In my 
judgment, Mr. Chairman, the reason is that in the Hawaiian 
Islands the greater part of all that is valuable and productive to any 
great or considerable extent, including the land and franchises, is 
owned by capitalists, speculators, and trusts. On the other hand, in 
Porto Rico this state of facts does not exist. Since we acquired Porto 
Rico from Spain there has not been time for the capitalists, the 
speculators, and the trusts to manipulate and obtain possession of the 
valuable lands and franchises. Mr. Chairman, if like conditions existed 
in Porto Rico that exist in the Hawaiian Islands in the ownership of 
lands, franchises, and other valuable property, I submit that no fight 
would have been made by the sugar and tobacco trusts, or anyone 
else, to impose a tax upon the products of Porto Rico.   Mr. Oxnard 
and Mr. Myrick would never have been heard of in connection with 
Porto Rican legislation. Mr. STOKES.   Will it disturb the 
gentleman to interpose a question?                                           . Mr. 
FINLEY.   Not at all. Mr. STOKES.   Do I understand you to imply 
that that probably is the reason why the tariff was imposed upon the 
products of Porto Rico?

Mr. FINLEY.   I think that is why the sugar and tobacco trusts are in 
favor of the Porto Rican bill.   I take it that the trusts reasonably 
suppose that by proper effort on their part during the continuance 
of the tariff that the trade of Porto Rico will be hampered by the 
iniquitous and unlawful burden imposed upon her trade.  The value 
of property in the island, now very low, will continue so, and they will 
be enabled to obtain possession of the greater part, and then they will 
be most anxious for Congress to treat Porto Rico as we propose to 
treat the Hawaiian Islands in the bill under consideration. Mr. 
STOKES.   A pretty good deduction.    . Mr. FINLEY.   Mr. 
Chairman, I think that we are treating the Hawaiian Islands as we 
should treat them in this bill, as I understand the Constitution of the 
United States and as I believe its provisions imperatively demand.   
We give to them the rights of citizenship.   We deny to them nothing 
that is given to other citizens of the United States as such, whether 
they reside in a Territory or in a State. I believe that this is the correct 
construction of the Constitution of the United States.   Something 
has been said in the debate to the effect that the bill before the 
House extends the Constitution of the United States over the 
Hawaiian Islands.   Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with this argument.   
In my judgment, the Constitution of the United States can not be 
extended over territory belonging to the United States by an act of 
Congress, for the reason that over all territory of the United States 
the Constitution extends by its own force, and any act of Congress 
for this purpose is a nullity.   Mr. Chairman, in admitting the products 
of Hawaii to our ports, without taxation or any discrimination 
whatever, we but obey the Constitution of the United States and 
carry out the practice of our Government in the past, and act in 
accordance with an unbroken line of judicial decisions by our Supreme 
Court construing the Constitution.   In denying to Porto Rico the 
same rights the majority go contrary to all precedent in the history Of 
our Government, and in the teeth of both the Constitution of the 
United States and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 
States. When the Porto Rican bill was under consideration in this 
House, the Republican position was that the Constitution of the 
United States did not follow the flag, and its provisions were not 
coextensive with the jurisdiction of the United States over territory, 
and that territory within our jurisdiction, over which Congress had 
not extended its provisions, did not fall within the provisions of the 
Federal Constitution.   It was argued strenuously by the majority 
that the Constitution could only be extended to newly acquired 
territory by an act of Congress.   It seems from an examination of the 
arguments made in support of the position of the Republicans in this 
matter that the reasons for their position are: to avoid its provisions 
in some of our new possessions or territories, first, as to citizenship, 
and, second, its limitations as to taxation.   In a republic, such as 
ours, there can only be citizens and uniformity of taxation; and free 
intercourse between all citizens of the republic is absolutely necessary.   
These two propositions are the groundwork and underlying 
principles without which there can be no republic. Section 3 of 
Article VI of the Constitution provides that - This Constitution, and the 
laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all 
treaties made, or which shall he made, under the authority of the United States, 
shall be the supreme law of the land; am! the judges in every State shall be 
bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary 
notwithstanding.
The language of this section is not that the Constitution shall be the 
supreme law of the various States in the Union, or the supreme law 
of the States and Territories, but that the Constitution shall be the 
supreme law of the land.   It is immaterial whether that land is within 
the boundaries of a sovereign State or whether it is comprised within 
the boundaries of a Territory not yet admitted into the Union as a 
sovereign State.   Over all land, including States and Territories, 
where the jurisdiction of the United States extends, the supreme law 
of the land is the Constitution of the United States.   The only 
question, then, as to where the Constitution extends, is one of 
jurisdiction.   If the jurisdiction exists, the flag and the Constitution 
go along with it. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Republicans, having 
recognized in a practical way this principle, in the case of Hawaii, 
will find some difficulty in explaining to the American people their 
course in ignoring the principle in the case of Porto Rico.   The action 
of the Democrats and Republicans in the House, in the case of 
Hawaii, is an unanswerable argument that the Republican majority 
is wrong in the proposed legislation for Porto Rico. Section 1 of 
Article XIII is a further expression in the Constitution of the United 
States that the provisions of the Constitution extend to all territory 
over which our flag floats, and that it is coextensive with 
jurisdiction.   Section 1 of Article XIII reads:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, 
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United 
States or any place; subject to their jurisdiction.
This article expressly provides that the provisions of the Constitution 
shall extend to all territory over which the United States

Return to Top