State the right of trial by jury, or of habeas corpus, or immunity from illegal arrest and search and seizure, or take away from them the right of religious opinion? If a Territory occupy the relation to the Federal Government that a county does to a State, what can the State authorities do as to a county? Can they govern it without reference to the State constitution; and could the Congress of the United States, under the decision of Chief Justice Waite, concurred in by all the judges, govern the Territories at their own will without regard to the limitations and prohibitions of the Federal Constitution?

I shall not weary the Senate by reading other opinions, but I will refer to them, and Senators can satisfy themselves. In the case of Thompson vs. Utah, decided in 170 U. S., the Supreme Court unanimously declared that the right of trial by jury in criminal cases to the people of a Territory could not be taken away by Congress and that the powers of Congress as to Territories were limited and defined by the Constitution of the United States and not unrestricted. They made the same decision in two other cases, the American Publishing Society vs. Fisher, 166 U. S., 464, and Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wallace, 35. There can no longer be a question, nor the shadow of a question, that the Congress of the United States is as to the Territories limited in its action by the Federal Constitution.

I have not controverted, and do not propose to controvert, the power of the Federal Government to acquire and govern territory, but I do deny that territory can be acquired to be held as colonies, peopled by millions of subjects not citizens, with no hope or prospect of its ever becoming a State of the Union. I may be answered by the statement that this is not a practical question, because Congress has exclusive jurisdic

tion as to the admission of States, and it may hold this territory indefinitely without any idea of its ever coming into the Union; in other words, establish under cover and by a fraud upon the Constitution the colonial system which the Constitution never contemplated.

I will not insult my brother Senators by supposing that they would thus evade the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and when believing that the colonial system is not possible in this country, would vote to take in vast tracts of land inhabited by barbarians, intending never to allow this territory to come in as a State, but to hold it for commercial advantages alone, in violation of the fundamental law of the land. Whenever the Congress of the United States becomes so degraded as to do this, it matters little what occurs in the future. It is simply a question of time when the disastrous end will come.

We are told that this country can do anything, Constitution or no Constitution. We are a great people-great in war, great in peace-but we are not greater than the people who once conquered the world, not with long-range guns and steel-clad ships, but with the short sword of the Roman legion and the wooden galleys that sailed across the Adriatic. The colonial system destroyed all hope of republicanism in the olden time. It is an appanage of monarchy. It can exist in no free country, because it uproots and eliminates the basis of all republican institutions, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

I know not what may be done with the glamor of foreign conquest and the greed of the commercial and money-making classes in this country. For myself, I would rather quit public life and would be willing to risk life itself rather than give my consent to this

fantastic and wicked attempt to revolutionize our Government and substitute the principles of our hereditary enemies for the teachings of Washington and his as.sociates.

[Extract of speech delivered December 12, 1898.]

CHAPTER XIX.

THE PASSING OF CONSTITUTIONAL

RESTRAINTS.

BY HON. STEPHEN M. WHITE,

UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.

The extracts which I present are announcements of the Supreme Court of the United States and include declarations from the President of the United States and from the distinguished naval commander whose victory at Manila has made him an historical character.

This grant (the power to lay and collect taxes, etc.) is general without limitation as to place. It consequently extends to all places over which the Government extends.-(Loughborough vs. Blake, per Marshall, C. J., 5 Wheat., 323.)

There is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the Federal Government to establish or maintain colonies bordering on the United States or at a distance, to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure. It (the new acquisition) is required to become a State and not to be held as a colony by Congress with absolute authority.-(Dred Scott vs. Sandford, per Taney, C. J., 19 How., 393.)

This decision has never been reconsidered in the Supreme Court of the United States.-(Justice Miller's Lectures, page 406.)

Manifestly the nationality of the inhabitants of territory acquired by conquest or cession becomes that of the government under whose dominion they passed, subject to the right of election on their part to retain their former nationality by removal or otherwise as may be provided. (Boyd vs. Nebraska, per Fuller, C. J., 143 U. S., 186.)

That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States relating to the right of trial by jury in suits at common law apply to the Territories of the United States is no longer an open question.(Thompson vs. Utah, per Harlan, J., 170 U. S., 346; Callan vs. Wilson, 127 U. S., 551.)

I speak not of forcible annexation, for that can not be thought of. That, by our code of morality, would be criminal aggression.-(President McKinley, messages, December, 1897, and April 11, 1898.)

The United States disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island (Cuba) except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people.-(Joint resolution, Congressional Record, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session, voiume 31, part 4, page 3393.)

In a telegram sent to the Department on June 23, I expressed the opinion that "these people (the Filipinos) are far superior in their intelligence and more capable of self-government than the natives of Cuba, and I am familiar with both races." Further intercourse with them has confirmed me in this opinion.-(Admiral Dewey to Secretary of Navy, August 29, 1898; Senate Document No. 62, part 1, Fifty-fifth Congress, third session.)

That flag has been planted in two hemispheres, and there it remains, the symbol of liberty and law, of peace and progress. Who will withdraw from the people over whom it floats its protecting folds? Will the people of the South help to haul it down?-(President McKinley, address at Atlanta, Ga., December 16, 1898.)

The mission of the United States (to the Philippine Islands) is one of benevolent assimilation, substituting the mild sway of justice and right for arbitrary rule.-(President McKinley to the Secretary of War, December 21, 1898.)

I do not intend to elaborately discuss the question of law heretofore debated. I do not believe that it will serve any useful purpose to enter into an attempted differentiation between the authority of the United States in its relation to foreign powers and its authority as regards domestic affairs. I dispute the contention which seeks to give jurisdiction in the one case and to deny it in the other, and which limits the operation of the Constitution as to the rights of Territories and new acquisitions to Congressional discretion, denying to those within such area "the equal protection" of our laws and reducing their constitutional rights to the insignificant and problematical protection of colonial dependencies.

It appears to me that when our Constitution was made it was supposed that the United States would never extend its domain save over those who were not only within the equal protection of its laws, but who were competent to participate in the efforts of an aspiring people to conserve for themselves and humanity the benefits of representative civilization. Whatever may be the truth as to the issue of power, I design to discuss this subject more largely from the standpoint of policy.

It is conceded by all that the latter proposition is open for debate. Those who are regardless of organic restraints so admit. I do not desire to detain the Senate with any elaboration regarding the opinions of our courts or the views of eminent lawyers with reference to the subject of the construction of the Constitution