be levied in California on articles the growth, produce or manufacture of the United States, as no such duties can be imposed in any other part of our Union on the productions of California.

"Nor can new duties be charged in California upon such foreign productions as have already paid duties in any of our ports of entry, for the obvious reason that California is within the territory of the United States."

This precedent was followed when Alaska was acquired. In 1820 Chief Justice Marshall, who had been in the revolutionary war and who had a concrete knowledge that that war was waged against taxation without representation, decided that duties, imposts and excises must be uniform as between the states and the District of Columbia. And he wrote: "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 that uniformity in the imposition of import duties and excises should be observed in the one than in the other."

The defenders of the present revolutionary administration argue that this decision of Marshall's is not binding because Marshall was called upon to pass on the status of the District of Columbia and not upon that of Missouri or a territory. The revolutionists further say that the Dred Scott case, which held that there is "no power given by the constitution to the federal government to establish colonies to be governed at its pleasure," was reversed by the battle of Gettysburg. But Lincoln in his oration at that battle field declared in effect that it was the declaration of independence which had there received a new baptism,

which declaration of independence must be repealed in order to carry on colonialism.

But in view of the traditions of the revolutionary war, which was a concrete struggle on this self-same question of taxation, it is too obvious for discussion and admits of no denial that the McKinley administration has perpetuated revolution in the form of this government. What is there in the constitution to have prevented Porto Rico from being treated as a territory advancing to statehood, or even as to a state presently to be formed? What is there in the constitution to have prevented due observance of that principle that taxation and representation go hand in hand, and that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights?

These principles were grappled into the adamant of all American charters, including the constitution, with hooks of steel, and were welded there by the fierce heat of an eight-year struggle never to be dislodged except by a blast of revolution. But as the English were determined that the American colonists should not participate in the political power of Great Britain, but should be used for the purpose of commercial profit, so do the revolutionists now proceed upon that theory as to the Porto Ricans.

It was a significant thing that the English government annexed the Boer republics on July 4, 1900, the one hundred and twenty-fourth anniversary of our declaration that taxation without representation is tyranny, and a few weeks after the McKinley administration had repudiated that doctrine by the Porto Rican bill. The English celebrated the confession of our

error on the anniversary of the day when we committed it. And so the administration was estopped to decry the strangulation of the Boer republics when it had assassinated in our own midst the republican principle which caused the revolutionary war and armed the patriots to secure liberty and independence. The English had good cause for rejoicing on the anniversary of the declaration of independence in 1900.

What is the Porto Rican bill, therefore, but an act of revolution having the full effect of changing the form of government and extinguishing the soul of liberty in the constitution? The American colonists had no representation in parliament, nor have the Porto Ricans in congress, with or without the privilege of debate. The American colonists were subjects of the crown; the Porto Ricans have been made subjects of the United States. The councils of the American colonists were appointed by the crown; the executive council of Porto Rico is appointed by the president. The governors of the colonists were appointed by the crown and had the power of veto; the governor of Porto Rico is appointed by the president and has the power of veto. The crown taxed the colonists without representation; the United States by the Porto Rican bill tax the Porto Ricans without representation. The crown's appointees in the colonies were paid by the Americans; the president's appointees in Porto Rico are paid by the Porto Ricans.

How are these revolutionary policies justified? On the ground that only part of the constitution is over Porto Rico, and that as to the part that is not over Porto Rico the congress has despotic power.

The Porto Rican bill is declared by the revolutionists to be the forerunner of a like bill as to the Philippines. The Filipinos know this. They also know and believe that President McKinley was right when he said that "forcible annexation is criminal aggression," and, believing these words, they have taken encouragement from them and are resisting criminal aggression. But suppose the supreme court decides that the constitution is over the islands where the congress is expressly restrained and that it is not otherwise over the islands; that in consequence the Porto Rican act is constitutional, not because it is warranted by words in the constitution, but because it is not expressly prohibited by words in the constitution-what will be the status of the republic?

Will the people have the courage to say that such a decision cannot prescribe a rule of political action which shall be binding on future presidents and congresses? Or will they tamely submit as upon a question irrevocably and firmly settled? To this point does the Porto Rican bill conduct a republic which grew out of resistance to taxation without representation.

THE PHILIPPINE CONQUEST.

During the campaign of 1900 the argument advanced against the Philippine aggression was the repudiation of the fundamental principles of the republic involved in that aggression. And coupled with this was the claim of injustice being perpetrated against a helpless people. The problem now seems to be what guarantees have the people at home against infractions of their liberties and why may not the limitless power of a "sovereign" nation be directed against them when the apparent exigency arises in favor of those who control the government? For when a principle is once undermined the principle can no longer be looked to for security. It is then a question of chance as to the means of redress and protection.

Since then the constitution and the declaration have been duly ravished. The country has settled down to hear the reports of pillage, murder and rapine in the islands in the great work of destroying an Asiatic republic. Plutocracy proceeds with solemnity and dispatch to gather in the insular concessions or to obstruct all policies when the concessions are not readily granted. The people at large are paying the taxes and undergoing the obvious moral decline which has set in. In short it is discovered that the United States have embarked on a colonial policy, but not the colonial policy of England today. It is the colonial policy of the Eng