TERRITORIAL EXPANSION 
 
 AND THE 
 
 FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 
 
 BY 
 
 THOMAS B. MARSTON 
 
 1 
 
 A PAPER READ BEFORE THE LAW 
 CLUB, CHICAGO. OCTOBER 29, 1698. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE CLUB FOR ITS 
 MEMBERS 
 
rr"' ti I o 
 
 M^T 
 
 -^ 5'Cf ^•'.sct.MV'C. 
 
COMPLIMENTS OF THE LAW CLUB OF CHICAGO 
 
 TERRITORIAL EXPANSION AND THE 
 FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Just one huiulred 3'eais ago tlie United States of America 
 sent to Paris a Commission, composed of Elbridge Gerry, 
 John Marshall and Charles C. Pinckney, to negotiate a treaty 
 with France, settling the differences then existing between 
 the two countries. These gentlemen represented a new-born 
 Union of thirteen states, with a territory of 800,000 square 
 miles, and a population of 5,000,000 people — a nation 
 scarcel}^ recognized among the Powers of Europe, which 
 Tally rand did not hesitate to insult, by suggesting to its 
 Commission that the prerequisite to an audience was the 
 preliminary payment of a so-called "gratification " to him- 
 self. 
 
 hi 1898, at the present moment, there is sitting in Paris 
 another Commission — representatives of that same Nation, 
 now a Union of forty-five States and five Territories, having 
 an area of 3,595,000 square miles and a population of 
 72,000,000 people, and now recognized by every People as 
 one of the great nations of the world, whose friendship 
 and good-will is desired by every European Power. 
 
 Whence came tliis great increase in territory and popu- 
 lation and power? How was the number of States increased 
 from thirteen to forty-five, and how did the great States of 
 the Mississippi Valley and the Pacific Slope become part of 
 the Union? Will not a little reflection and looking back- 
 ward into the history of our [)ast, a consideration of the 
 
discussions on questions of constitutional power, aroused by 
 each succeeding acquisition, answer most of the objections 
 and remove man}- of the grounds of hesitation which we hear 
 urged on every side against territorial expansion to-day? 
 
 A stranger to our institutions and history, reading the 
 article of Senator Proctor in the September number of the 
 Forum, favoring expansion, or the article of Ex-Secretary 
 John G. Carlisle i)ubHshed in Harper's Montldy for October, 
 opposing territorial acquisition, might fairly conclude that 
 this was a new question to the Nation, fraught with vast 
 dangers to the very existence of the Republic, calling for 
 new constructions of the Federal Constitution and wide 
 departures from our civic institutions — a veritable "parting 
 of the ways," as it has been called. Histor3% however, 
 reveals that nearly, if not quite, all the questions that 
 can arise under the Federal Constitution, incident to terri- 
 torial expansion, have been thoughtfully considered and 
 settled; that the strains and wrenches which are predicted 
 for the sinews of the Republic have been already experienced, 
 and the body politic has gained strength and vitality from 
 the exercise. 
 
 Among the objections urged by those opposed to territorial 
 expansion are, first, that there is no provision in our Consti- 
 tution for a Colonial System; second, that such a system is 
 contrary to and inconsistent with our institutions; third, 
 that under our form of government we have, and can make, 
 no adequate provision for the vast number of Porto Ricans, 
 Hawaiians, Kanakas, Filipinos, Japanese, Chinese, and 
 other Asiatics — inhabitants of the lands proposed to be ac- 
 quired, consistent with their needs and welfare; and that to 
 corporate these people into the Nation by the proposed 
 treaties is a menace to our prosperity, peace and happiness. 
 
I. Of the power of the Utiited States to acquire territory 
 under the Constitution, there can now be no doubt. The 
 power of any sovereignty to acquire territory pertains to, 
 and is an incident of, the power to declare war and make 
 treaties. As a legitimate means of prosecuting war, the 
 propert}' and territory of a belligerent may be seized and 
 confiscated at the will of the captor; and " when war exists, 
 the government possesses all the extreme powers which any 
 sovereignty can wield, and among these is the power to 
 acquire territory either by conquest or treaty." 
 
 Moreover, the Constitution in terras contemplates the 
 acquisition of territory. Section 3 of Article IV provides 
 that " new States may be admitted by Congress into this 
 Union." And here let it be noted that this provision is 
 without restriction as to numb(^r, size or location. 
 
 The separate States could not acquire territory ; and if the 
 Nation, acting through Congress, could not — then the prog- 
 ress of civil liberty was thereby limited to the infant dimen- 
 sions of the original States, and our Nation, full of the 
 vigor and vitalitN^ and growth of a young and active 
 people, must have been paralyzed and have withered away 
 for the want of the power of expansion. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson, the Father of the Democracy and the Patron 
 Saint of the strict-constructionists, thought at the time of 
 the Louisiana Purchase that he was exercising a power not 
 conferred by the Constitution; but it was in his adminis- 
 tration that the treaty with France was ratified — a treaty 
 negotiated by him, and which gave to the country a terri- 
 tory of 1,170,000 square miles, which has since become seven 
 States of the Union, viz.: Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, 
 Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas and Nebraska, and originally 
 Texas. 
 
If, now, the Nation has power to acquire territory, it 
 must also have the power to govern the territory acquired. 
 That right is vested in Congress by Section 3 of Article IV 
 above referred to, which provides that "The Congress shall 
 have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and 
 regulations respecting the territory or other property 
 belonging to the United States." This power is clearly 
 exclusive and universal. 
 
 The right of Congress to legislate regarding such 
 territory is absolute and unlimited, except so far as 
 it may be affected by the Constitution and the stipula- 
 tions of the treaty of cession. It has the power to establish 
 local courts and local government; to repeal and render 
 void any territorial laws which are inconsistent with 
 the Organic Acts under which the local government is so 
 established; to make laws for the taxation of such territory, 
 and the collection of revenue therefrom; and, furthermore, 
 has the exclusive right to say when and how, and under 
 what terms and restrictions, such territory shall be 
 admitted into the Union. 
 
 This doctrine has not only been established by decisions 
 of the Supreme Court of the United States, but it has been 
 maintained after many a hard fought struggle in the arena 
 of politics, and exhaustive discussions by America's greatest 
 men in the Senate Chamber and on the floor of the House. 
 Benton, Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Douglas and Lincoln, all 
 gave it their deepest thought and most earnest consideration . 
 What was the controversy which was temporarily settled 
 by tlie Missouri Compromise? What necessitated the 
 passage of the Kansas and Nebraska Bill? What were 
 the main points of discussion by Mr. Lincoln and Senator 
 Douglas in their celebrated joint debates preceding the 
 election of 1860? In that memorable campaign it was 
 
contended by the defeated party, represented by Mr. 
 Douglas, that Congress had no right to legislate on the 
 domestic concerns of the people of the Territories; that the 
 people had the right to determine for themselves whether 
 slavery should exist within their limits, and that at the 
 proper time they should be admitted to the Union with a 
 constitution of their own adoption, with or without slavery 
 as they chose. Mr. Lincoln contended otherwise, claiming 
 that the power and control of Congress over the Territories 
 was absolute, and it alone could say upon what terms and 
 under what form of constitution any Territory should be- 
 come a State. The question was fully decided by the Civil 
 War, and was never afterward raised, until the prosecu- 
 tions in Utah of the polygani}-^ cases under the Edmunds 
 Bill. In those cases the power of Congress to exercise 
 absolute control in the Territories was reaffirmed by the 
 Supreme Court. 
 
 Such being the powers of Congress, the question is pro- 
 pounded — Is a Colonial System possible under the Federal 
 Constitution? Like the true Yankee, we answer the ques- 
 tion by asking another. What kind of a Colonial System 
 is referred to? If is meant such a system of colonies as 
 Spain has maintained in America and in Asiatic waters for 
 the past three centuries, dependencies held merely as a 
 source of revenue to the Home Government — the answer 
 must be in the negative. If the question means a system 
 of charter colonies, such as Massachusetts, Rhode Island 
 and Connecticut were, prior to the Revolution, or of pro- 
 prietary colonies, as were Maryland, Pennsylvania and 
 Delaware — the answer is still in the negative. But if is 
 meant provincial establishments, similar to the colonies of 
 New York, New Hampshire and Virginia in those days, or 
 Canada, the Australian Colonies and New Zealand of the 
 
C) 
 
 present day — the answer is that such colonies differ in hut 
 few particulars from our own Territories, already organized 
 by Congress under the Federal Constitution, and that with 
 a few modifications, easily possible, to conform to certain 
 restrictions imposed by limitations in our Constitution, such 
 colonies can be established. 
 
 The fact is that our territorial system is already quite sim- 
 ilar to the colonial system of England, Congress having 
 very much the same power in this regard as the British 
 Parliament. In the colonial system the Governor General 
 is appointed by the Crown; in the territorial system, by the 
 President. The duties of such officer in each system are 
 very much the same, as are also their powers. The Terri- 
 tories are taxed by a Government in whose legislature they 
 are not represented, a fact which, though entirely incon- 
 sistent with the democratic principle of " no taxation with- 
 out representation," has never been a cause of complaint 
 from the Territories. Congress may without restriction 
 overrule the statutes passed by any Territorial legislature — 
 as the British Parliament may overrule those of any of the 
 Queen's self-governing colonies. But, as said by Mr. Bryce 
 in his American Com n:ion wealth: "Self-government is 
 practically enjoyed in the Territories despite the supreme 
 authority of Congress, just as it is enjoyed by Canada and 
 the Australian Colonies of Great Britain, despite the legal 
 right of the British Parliament to legislate for every part 
 of the Queen's dominions." 
 
 In some particulars, however, the two systems differ, viz.: 
 Every Territory established, under the spirit of the Federal 
 Constitution, looks forward to at some period becoming a 
 com plete State — which is not the prospect of a British colony . 
 
 Again, a British colony may, under permission either spe- 
 cially granted or tacitly tolerated, impose its own duties, 
 
imposts and excises, or Parliament may establisli for it a 
 peculiar system of revenue laws most suitable to its partic- 
 ular needs; whereas Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitu- 
 tion requires that " all duties, imposts and excises shall be 
 uniform throughout the United States." The Federal Su- 
 preme Court has held that the words " United States" are 
 here used to designate the whole domain of the American 
 people, including the Territories and the District of Colum- 
 bia, and that under the principles of the Constitution uni- 
 formity in the imposition of imposts, duties and excises 
 must be observed in the Territories as well as in the 
 States. So, also, any direct tax levied by Congress, if levied 
 in the Territories, must be levied by the rule of apportion- 
 ment as is constitutionally required in the case of the 
 States. 
 
 The suggestion that this very rule of uniformity would 
 work a hardship against the proposed new Territories — in 
 that wliat are reasonable imposts, duties and excises for the 
 States, would be burdensome to them, is superficial. All 
 such taxes operate with more hardship on certain parts of 
 the country than on others, because of the divers needs 
 and varying products of the different sections of our 
 country; but unquestionably the rule of uniformit}^ is the 
 best, and operates with the least hardship on different local- 
 ities. The new Territories could hardly complain, if subject 
 to the same internal revenue laws and direct taxes as are 
 imposed in every portion of the States and older 
 Territories. 
 
 Subject to these few restrictions imposed by the Federal 
 Constitution, however, the power of Congress is absolute. 
 If it should be deemed advisable by Congress to create a 
 Colonial or Territorial office — a Department of Territories 
 or Colonies, it has full power under the Constitution to do 
 
so; to create a Secretary of the Colonies, or any other office, 
 and make all necessary and needful rules and regulations 
 for their wise and economic administration. 
 
 II. But it is urged that a colonial or territorial system is 
 inconsistent with our Republican institutions founded on 
 the fundamental idea of self-government. 
 
 It has been well said by that eminent constitutional 
 writer. Judge Cooley, that " it can not be contended that any 
 territory which by purchase, cession or conquest should at 
 any time come under the control of the United States, should 
 be permanently held in a territorial condition by the cen- 
 tral government, under its own imperial rule." While 
 this may be admitted, still it is not inconsistent with our 
 institutions to hold such territory temporarily as a 
 Territory, under the central government. 
 
 It is entirely consistent with our ideas of self-government, 
 and in furtherance of the development of our institutions 
 and the extension of civil liberty, both to acquire and 
 to hold such territory, with the assured right to its inhabit- 
 ants to create and establish State institutions and become a 
 State as soon as the nature of the population and local con- 
 ditions are suitable. 
 
 Under the Federal Constitution, the people in the ac- 
 quired territory are guaranteed all the benefits of the con- 
 stitutional principles protecting life, liberty and property. 
 We hold out, also, to them the right to come into the Union 
 under a State Constitution, which must, however, be ac- 
 ceptable to the Union and consistent with our principles of 
 self-government, so soon as, in the opinion of Congress, the 
 local conditions are such as to guarantee the permanence 
 and endurance of the local government of the State so 
 created. 
 
 How long it may be before these local conditions become^ 
 
9 
 
 satisfactory, no one can say. It may be ten years, 
 or fifty years, or one hundred years before Porto Rico, 
 Hawaii or the Philippines have local institutions and social 
 conditions justifying their admission into the Union. The 
 rich and prosperous States of Kansas, Nebraska and Min- 
 nesota were held as Territories for more than fifty years, 
 while North and South Dakota, Idaho, Montana and Wyo- 
 ming remained under territorial organization for nearly 
 ninety years before statehood was granted to them. New 
 Mexico and Arizona are still Territories, although ceded to 
 the United States fifty years ago. Their population is suffi- 
 cient, yet they have not been admitted because — owing to the 
 predominance of the Spanish race — their local conditions are 
 not such as to warrant it. Under our institutions and gov- 
 ernment they have, however, made vast strides in civiliza- 
 tion and progress, surpassing their Mexican neighbors 
 across the border, who are only just beginning, under the 
 powerful rule of Porforio Diaz, to realize the blessings of a 
 stable government. Alaska, a purchase of thirty years ago, 
 is as yet a District merely, without even a Territorial legis- 
 lature, and destined to remain so for many years to come. 
 What may be accomplished, however, with native popula- 
 tion even, under good government, is shown by the results 
 of English rule in New Zealand in the last sixty years. 
 
 And here let us pause to note a peculiar circumstance in 
 the development of this great Union. Both the Louisiana 
 purchase and the territory acquired from Mexico, were in a 
 large measure accidental expansions. 
 
 When Mr. Monroe and Mr. Livingstone were sent to 
 France, their instructions were to negotiate the purchase 
 of New Orleans and the territory surrounding the mouth of 
 the Mississippi River for not over $3,000,000. To the sur- 
 prise of President Jefierson, they returned a treatv for the 
 
10 
 
 acquisition of the whole of the Province of Louisiana for 
 $15,000,000. There was great hesitation in accepting the 
 treaty, it being at the time considered as involving a great 
 acquisition of useless territory. That territory contained at 
 the time only 30,000 civilized inhabitants, and a horde of 
 unknown savage tribes. 
 
 Mr. Trist, who negotiated the treaty with Mexico, had 
 been recalled from Mexico, but — disregarding his recall — 
 remained and negotiated and signed the treaty. Although 
 it was negotiated by one not in authority, yet the President 
 and Senate adopted and ratified it; not, however, without 
 bitter opposition, for although it was a Treaty of Peace, it 
 was ratified by a majority of only tiiree in the Senate. 
 
 It is also noteworthy that at the time of each acquisition, 
 the United States was in no need of additional territory. It 
 already possessed vast areas which were but very sparsely 
 settled at the time of each treaty. When the Louisiana 
 Purchase was made, Ohio had just been admitted to the 
 Union, while Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin 
 were a vast wilderness inhabited only by Indians and 
 pioneers. Yet both acquisitions have been the direct cause 
 of enormous growth and prosperit}' to the Nation. 
 
 III. Let us now consider whether it is a menace to our 
 peace and prosperity to corporate into the Nation these 
 proposed new territories, containing peoples unacquainted 
 with the Anglo-Saxon principles of self-government, and 
 not educated to a life of independent action. 
 
 In the first place, be it remembered that these people do 
 not, by annexation, become entitled as of right to partici- 
 pate in political authority. It is the inherent right of every 
 independent nation to determine for itself, and according to 
 its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall 
 
11 
 
 be entitled to citizenship. This we, as a nation, liavo 
 already done. The Federal Constitution grants to Con- 
 gress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. 
 Under this power the control of Congress over the question 
 of the citizenship of foreign-born inhabitants is absolute and 
 exclusive; and until two years after the adoption of the 14th 
 Amendment, Congress never recognized the naturalization 
 of any but free white persons. The political rights which 
 these inhabitants of ceded territory will have as a matter of 
 right will be only those retained to them by their former 
 sovereign in the treaty of cession. Subject to these restric- 
 tions, their right to participate in political authority is 
 exclusively under the control of Congress. 
 
 Let us recur again to history and precedent to ascertain 
 what rights have been heretofore reserved by the former 
 sovereign to the inhabitant of the ceded territory, under 
 the treaty by which it was acquired. 
 
 The treaty with Spain, under and by virtue of which the 
 Floridas were acquired, contained this provision regarding 
 citizenship: 
 
 "Article 4. The inhabitants of the territories which his Catholic 
 Majesty cedes to the United States by this treaty, shall be incorporated 
 into the Union of the United States as soon as may he consistent with the 
 principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of 
 all the privileges, rights and immunities of citizens of the United States." 
 
 Under this treaty it was held by our Federal Supreme 
 Court that the inhabitants did not become entitled to 
 f)articipate in political power nor share in the government, 
 until Florida became a State. 
 
 The treaty with France of April 30, 1803, by which 
 Louisiana was ceded to the United States, contained this 
 provision : 
 
12 
 
 " Article 3. The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated 
 in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible according 
 to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the 
 rigfhfs, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in 
 the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the full enjoyment 
 of their liberty, property and the religion which they profess." 
 
 Article 8 of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of February 
 2, 1848, provided that Mexicans within the territory of 
 Mexico ceded to the United States, might elect whether they 
 would remain Mexicans or become citizens of the United 
 States, but they must make that election within one year. 
 
 Article 9 provided that 
 
 " The Mexicans who, in territory aforesaid, shall not preserve the 
 character of citizens of the Mexican republic, conformably with what is 
 stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of 
 the United States, and be admitted at the proper time {to he judged of hy 
 the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of 
 citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; 
 and in the meantime shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoy- 
 ment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their 
 religion without restriction." 
 
 The treaty with Russia, dated AVashington, March 30, 
 1867, by which Alaska and the Aleutian Islands were 
 acquired, provided: 
 
 "Articles. The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their 
 choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three 
 years; but if they prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, WJiV/i the 
 excejytion of the uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoy- 
 ment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United 
 States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their 
 liberty, property and religion. 
 
 The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as 
 the United States may from time to time adoi^t in regard to aboriginal 
 tribes of that country.'" 
 
 It is to be observed that in all of our treaties except the 
 
13 
 
 one with Russia, we have been careful to reserve to Congress 
 the right to say when, liow and under what circumstances 
 these additions to our population shall receive political 
 power, and in the Alaskan treaty even the constitutional 
 rights were not given to the " uncivilized native tribes," but 
 they were to be subject to the same laws as pertained to the 
 aboriginal Indians of the United States. 
 
 The political status of the Indian is and always has been 
 peculiar. He is not a natural born citizen, although born 
 within the territory of the United States, and although under 
 both the common law and our Constitution every child born 
 within the limits of the country, even though of alien par- 
 ents — except the child of a diplomatic agent or of an alien 
 enemy — is a citizen. But our Constitution as originally 
 framed contemplated the Indian as a subject of an alien 
 tribe residing within our borders, and such the Federal 
 Courts have decided he must ever be until duly naturalized 
 under a Congressional law. The decision was based on the 
 well recognized principle that, being an alien, he can not 
 become a citizen without the consent of the Nation expressed 
 through Congress. Still Congress has passed special laws 
 permitting the naturalization of the Indian. 
 
 Is it not possible to provide, in the treaty of cession of any 
 territory which we may now acquire, that in the case of 
 uncivilized native tribes occupying such territory, they shall 
 be subject to laws similar to those established for the abo- 
 riginal tribes of our own country ? 
 
 Our best information is to the effect that the native tribes 
 of the Philippines, outside of the settled portion of Luzon 
 and a small portion of Panay and Cebu, acknowledge 
 no allegiance to Spain, and never have. They are really 
 independent tribes, having their own rudimentary tribal 
 
14 
 
 governments. This being so, Spain has no sovereignty- 
 over them to cede to us by treaty, and our relations with 
 these tribes — their rights and privileges — can be fixed here- 
 after by treaties with them as was done with the Indians of 
 our own land. 
 
 Now what are the constitutional rights which the inhab- 
 itants of ceded territory do obtain by annexation? Not the 
 right of suffrage; but the right of trial by jury, the right to 
 the writ of habeas corpus, freedom of speech, freedom of the 
 press, freedom of conscience in matters of religion, immu- 
 nity from unreasonable seizure and search, the right to 
 acquire and hold property free from molestation, except by 
 due process of law, and other such personal rights and 
 privileges familiar to us all from our early education. 
 
 Can these privileges not be accorded to the people it is pro- 
 posed to acquire without danger to the peace and prosperity 
 of the Republic? How could the extension of these rights to 
 the population of Hawaii, for instance, affect this Nation? 
 The whole population of these Islands is only 109,000, or 
 about the same number as are contained in the city of 
 Indianapolis. Of these 23,000 are Americans, Germans, 
 English and Portugese, who certainly make good citizens; 
 24,000 are Japanese, and 21,600 Chinese, almost all of whom 
 retain the citizenship of their native lands. This leaves but 
 31,000 Kanakas, and 8,500 half-whites, a mere handful of 
 people who are dying off as rapidly as our Red Men, and 
 will soon cease to be an element in the Islands at all. The 
 population of the Philippines is variously estimated at from 
 seven to thirteen millions, but it must be remembered that 
 portions of the Island of Luzon alone has been reduced to 
 possession by Spain. All the other Islands are occupied by 
 uncivilized native tribes, who have no civil status under 
 
15 
 
 the Spanish law, and to whom, therefore, Spain can not 
 request us to grant citizenship or constitutional rights. 
 
 But it is suggested that Hawaii and the Philippines already 
 contain a vast number of Japanese and Chinese who, by the 
 annexation of these islands, might acquire the right to be- 
 come citizens under our naturalization laws, and having 
 become citizens, have the right to migrate to other States. 
 
 No such danger is possible. Citizenship, unless expressly 
 reserved by the treaty of cession, can be acquired 
 in but two ways: by birth within the United States or by 
 becoming naturalized under the laws of Congress. The Fed- 
 eral courts have decided that our naturalization laws do not 
 apply to Mongolians, Japan*ese and Burmese. The right 
 to become naturalized is entirely under the control of Con- 
 gress, and in order to make certain by statutory enactment 
 that the naturalization laws already passed did not apply to 
 Chinese, Congress, by the act of May 6, 1882, provided that 
 thereafter no State court or court of the United States 
 should admit Chinese to citizenship; and the Convention 
 between China and the United States of 1894, while guar- 
 anteeing to the Chinese, either permanently or temporarily 
 residing in the United States, all the rights granted by us to 
 citizens of the most favored nations, expressly and in terms 
 excludes the right to become naturalized citizens. 
 
 However, our idea that the Japanese and Chinese are 
 anxious for American citizenship is grossly exaggerated. 
 The Japanese are a most home-loving and loyal people, at- 
 tached to their native land and to the Mikado, who is to them 
 a deity. Only in very rare cases do they give up allegiance 
 to their native land. As for the Chinese — listen to the pen- 
 alty prescribed by their code of laws for expatriation : "All 
 persons renouncing their allegiance and country shall be 
 beheaded, and in the punishment therefor no distinction 
 
16 
 
 shall be made between principals and accessories. If the 
 crime is contrived but not executed, the principal shall be 
 strangled. Tlie property of all such criminals shall be con- 
 fiscated, and their wives and children distributed as slaves 
 to the great officers of the State. The parents, grand- 
 parents, brothers and grandchildren shall be banished." 
 A condign punishment this for the Celestial, the cardinal 
 doctrine of whose religion is ancestral worship. 
 
 Undoubtedly all persons born within the territory 
 of the United States, after such territory is acquired, 
 and subject to the jurisdiction tliereof, will, under the 14th 
 Amendment to the Constitution, be citizens by reason of their 
 birth. This will include the Children of Spaniards, half- 
 whites, Chinese and Japanese alike, and of the Filipinos and 
 Hawaiians, who, under the territorial laws to be established, 
 will be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and 
 who shall be born after the treaty of cession has been rati- 
 fied and become a law. It would not include children of 
 the native savage tribes, if by the treaty of cession, these are 
 treated as alien tribes and not subject to the jurisdiction of 
 the United States. In the Organic Acts of the new terri- 
 tories or colonies, when formed, the political status of the 
 inhabitants of each of these territories will be fixed. It may 
 be fairly predicted that the position of the inhabitant, 
 except the uncivilized native tribes, in the new territories, 
 as in the old, will be the same as that of Australian subjects 
 under the British Crown. He has "full British citizenship 
 as respects his private civil rights, and a share of the 
 government of his own Colony, but does not participate in 
 the government of the British Empire at large." 
 
 In conclusion, we must realize that territorial annexa- 
 tion is now purely a political question. Whether expan- 
 sion in the direction now contemplated by this country is 
 
17 
 
 wise, or not, is a question of policy only — a question worthy 
 of tlie careful consideration of every thoughtful citizen and 
 lover of the progress of civil liberty — a question having 
 many p-os and cons, but which, nevertheless, we may con- 
 fidently trust to the sober second thought of the American 
 people to answer. Greater problems than this have been met 
 and successfully solved. A Nation full of restless activity and 
 power, of growing vigor and vitality and energy within, 
 which is asserting itself more broadly each year, we must 
 and will have a share in tlie great trade of the world at 
 large. 
 
 The high-handed action of France in lately depriv- 
 ing us entirely of our growing trade in Madagascar; the 
 action of the European nations in dividing the entire conti- 
 nent of Africa into so-called " Spheres of Influence," within 
 which the influential nation has its own peculiar advantages 
 of trade; the seizure of Manchuria by Russia, and of the 
 eastern portion of China by Germany ; the evidentprepara- 
 tion for the partition of China by the great Powers of Europe, 
 all of these outside forces are driving us to a point where a 
 foreign policy must of necessity be formed. Whether it 
 shall be to our greatest advantage to unite with England, 
 and insist with her on the " Open Door " polic}' of trade 
 which she has always so strenuously advocated, or whether 
 it will be wiser to establish achain of naval stations around 
 the world and maintain a large and effective navy in con- 
 nection therewith, to enable us to insist on trade privileges 
 equal to those granted to the most favored nation, or wiietlier 
 it shall be to our interest to establish a Colonial 
 System, and acquire territories in far-off lands, as other 
 nations have done and are doing, the American people will 
 ultimatelv decide. 
 
18 
 
 In working out this problem, let us not be moved 
 by those faint-hearted, hesitating statesmen who doubt 
 our powers, under the Federal Constitution and under our 
 republican institutions, to take whichsoever policy our 
 needs may demand. 
 
 Although the Constitutions of all the thirteen original 
 States, except Massachusetts, have been completely changed 
 in the past one hundred years, the Constitution of the 
 United States remains practically unchanged to-day. That 
 was not an unmerited eulogy by Mr. Gladstone when he 
 pronounced the American Constitution "the most wonder- 
 ful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and 
 purpose of man." Through all the varying needs of this 
 People it has remained steadfast, but with inherent elasticity, 
 enabling it to conform to the requirements of the growth of 
 the Nation. As in the past, so in the future, it will be found 
 a bond holding the people together, not in an unyielding 
 grasp, dwarfing their growth and restraining their energies, 
 but containing within itself power of accommodation to 
 their every need and necessity. If territorial expansion 
 shall be determined by the American people to be necessary 
 for the preservation of its interests and for the growth of 
 the nation and of civil libert}^, it will be found that such 
 growth and expansion is entirely possible under the Federal 
 Constitution as it exists to-day. 
 
IflB ( 
 
 w W13 744 839 7 ^ \ 
 
 \