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

3769
has jurisdiction.   We have not in the past one hundred and twenty-
four years governed any territory except under the provisions of the 
Constitution of the United States, and I believe that the Hawaiians 
and Porto Ricans can be governed better under its provisions than by 
any other form of government. We can govern them in no other way. 
The United States can not long exist with a part of the Territory 
within its jurisdiction under a constitutional government and the 
balance under a nonconstitutional government.   In the case of the 
Territory of Hawaii we give full force and effect to the provisions of 
subsections 5 and 6 and section 1 of the Constitution, which provides 
as follows:  No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.   
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.  In the case of Porto Rico 
the majority deny this, and attempt to justify their course upon the ground that Congress 
has supreme authority over the property and territory of the United States. 
No one denies that Congress has jurisdiction over property and territory of the 
United States; but that jurisdiction is limited. It only is 
jurisdiction to do what is authorized by the Constitution.   It has no  
jurisdiction in a State, Territory, or elsewhere to do those things 
prohibited by that instrument. That the Constitution and jurisdiction of the 
United States are coextensive is evident from a consideration of section 4 of Article IV 
of the Constitution, which provides:  The United States shall  guarantee to every State 
in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against 
invasion, and, on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature 
can not be convened), against domestic violence.  The word "State" is used in this clause 
of the Constitution, yet this is the only provision in the Constitution making it a duty of 
Congress to protect from invasion.   The word "State" as used here is synonymous with the word 
"Territory."   Therefore it is the duty of Congress to 
protect each and every part of the domain subject to its jurisdiction from 
invasion; that is, each of the various 45 States and all of its Territories, 
including Hawaii and Porto Rico. It is also our duty to guarantee to 
each of them a republican form of government. To my mind it can not 
be contended successfully that it is the duty of Congress, under the 
provisions of the Constitution, to protect Porto Rico from invasion 
without admitting under the same authority that it is equally our 
duty to give to her a republican form of government.   In the case of 
Porto Rico, in considering the legislation proposed by the Republican 
party, in determining whether or not the Constitution is being 
violated, the question naturally arises, What is a republican form of 
government?   The answer can only be, as it has been, "A 
government of the people, by the people, and for the people."SThe 
right of local self-government and that all government shall be 
under the restrictions and limitations of a written constitution is 
absolutely essential to a republican form of government.   We 
recognize this principle, and give a republican form of government to 
Hawaii.   The majority deny the application of this principle in the 
case of Porto Rico, and refuse to her a republican form of 
government.   The framers of the Constitution were jealous of giving 
to Congress unlimited power, and did not do so. The Constitution of 
the United States is the sole grant of power to Congress, and this 
power is limited in the grant.   This is necessarily the case, as I have 
stated, in a republican form of government; under an imperial form 
of government, a written constitution defining the rights of the 
citizen and protecting him from oppression by the government, is 
not usual, as in the case of England, having no written constitution 
other than Magna Charta.   Her Parliament, in all matters outside of 
the provisions of that instrument, has unlimited power, and there is 
no such thing as an unconstitutional act of Parliament.   And, 
because of oppression by the British Parliament in the exercise of 
this unlimited power, our revolutionary fathers rebelled, achieved 
their independence, and gave to us a system of government with a 
written Constitution, and forever guaranteed to the American citizen 
exemption from the oppressions they had suffered. In the bill before the 
House, Hawaii is placed under our customs and revenue laws, as 
required by the Constitution of the United States.   The majority here 
refuse this to Porto Rico.   In the Hawaiian bill the principle that all 
taxation by Congress must be uniform and for a national purpose is 
recognized and carried out. In the Porto Rican bill taxes are imposed 
upon the products of that island coming into the United States, thus 
violating the rule of uniformity in taxation required by the 
Constitution, and the proceeds of this tax are appropriated for local 
purposes an the Island. Congress derives its sole power to levy taxes 
under the Constitution.   It can only levy taxes upon the subjects and 
in the manner prescribed by that grant of power.   If the Constitution does not 
extend to Porto Rico, and its people are not citizens of the United 
States, I am at a loss to know where Congress obtains its grant of 
power to levy taxes at all, as the grant of power can not extend 
beyond the jurisdiction and operation of the instrument giving the 
power.   Porto Rico is unquestionably a part of the territory of the 
United States, subject to its jurisdiction, and therefore within the 
operation of the Constitution and all of its provisions and 
limitations; taxes can only be levied in strict accord with the rules 
therein provided. The language of the Constitution is unmistakable 
that no-preference shall be given, that the taxes shall be uniform and 
levied only for national purposes, and the following authorities 
settle beyond question the soundness of this contention: Story on the 
Constitution, edition 1859, sections 154 to 159. It was decided in Cross 
vs. Harrison (16 Howard, 197), that - By the ratification of the treaty (with Mexico) 
California became a part of the United States.  And as there is nothing differently 
stipulated in the treaty with respect to commerce, it became instantly bound and privileged 
by the laws which Congress had passed to raise a revenue from imports and tonnage.  
On page 198 the court said:  Having been shown that the ratifications of the treaty made 
California a part of the United States, and that as soon as it became so the territory 
became subject to the acts which were in force to regulate foreign commerce with the 
United States, after those had ceased which had been instituted for its regulation as 
a belligerent right (i.e., strictly a war tariff under military occupation).  In 
Longborough vs. Blake (5 Wheaton, 317), the Supreme Court held:  The power then to lay 
and collect duties, imports, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout 
the United States.   Does this term 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 Republic, which is composed of States and Territories.  The District of 
Columbia or the territory west of the Missouri is not less within the United States than 
Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, 
that uniformity in the imposition of imports, duties, and excises should be observed in the 
one than in the other.  Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 129 and 499, states the rule to be:  
Taxes should only be levied for those purposes which properly constitute a public burden.

Return to Top