Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/326

306 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. superfluous or that the barriers we built for self-protection are not needed for the protection of Asiatics? Perhaps some of the amendments would be inappropriate in Asia, but we cannot pick and choose among them. Perhaps constitutional government in the PhiHppines would be a failure, but if Asiatics can be ruled only by a system which places their lives, liberties, and property at the disposition of the government, the work is unrepublican and not in our line. I have shown that the opinions of the Supreme Court affirm the proposition that the Territories are within the purview of the Constitution, and this will he the position of the Philippines if they are annexed, for they cannot be acquired in a way that will differen- tiate them organically from our present possessions. The domain of our republic is divided into two primary classes only, — land sub- ject to the jurisdiction of States and land not so subject. Congress may divide its possessions into political districts, but it cannot extend the Constitution to or withhold it from each district at pleasure. The Constitution is not at the disposition of Congress. It is superior to Congress. It is a self-extending law, and so far as it covers our present possessions must cover future ones. The proposition has an important bearing upon a commercial policy in respect of the islands and upon the status of the islanders. It is asserted that having annexed the Philippines we would not be obliged to treat them as commercially a part of the United States, but could, for example, prescribe special customs regulations for them. Indeed, we hear the prediction that we would open the islands to the world's trade and help Great Britain open the door to China. So far as the assertion claims the support of law, it appears to rest upon the following passage from Chief Justice Taney's opinion in Fleming v. Page,^ The Chief Justice after deciding that a port in the belligerent occupation of the United States is a foreign port in respect of our tariff laws said : — " This construction of the revenue laws has been uniformly given by the administrative department of the government in every case that has come before it. And it has, indeed, been given in cases where there appears to have been stronger ground for regarding the place of shipment as a domestic port. For after Florida had been ceded to the United States, and the forces of the United States had taken possession of Pensacola, it was decided 1 9 Howard, 603, 616.