THE "OPEN DOOR" POLICY AND THE LAW. By Benjam1n S. Dean. TT is our policy to increase by growing .■. and spreading out into unoccupied re gions, assimilating all we incorporate," wrote John C. Calhoun, secretary of state, to Mr. King, our minister to France, in 1844. "In a word," he continues, "to in crease by accretion, and not through con quest by the addition of masses held together by the cohesion of force. No system can be more unsuited to the latter process, or better adapted to the former, than our ad mirable Federal system." Perhaps the tra ditional policy, and the true one, of this republic has never been better stated than in the words quoted above, and it is because thoughtful men see in the proposed "open door " policy a complete abandonment of this ideal, and the assertion of powers on the part of the general government which have not been delegated to the Congress or to the executive, that the dormant states manship of the nation is finding expression in the demand that we shall not assume the responsibilities incident to the annexation of the Philippine Islands. Andrew Carnegie, voicing a considerable sentiment, and one which is destined to grow, has already called attention to the error in business policy, and to the fact that there is no power, either in the executive or in the legislative branch of the government, to establish the "open door" policy in the Philippines, without abandoning our tariff system in the nation. Senator Foraker, in a published interview, attempts to controvert Mr. Carnegie upon the constitutional propo sition, and asserts the somewhat remarkable doctrine that the provision of subdivision one of section 8 of article I, that "all du ties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States," refers only to the United States, and not to the ter
ritories within its control, and that, under the provisions of section 3 of article IV, that "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," the Con gress has plenary powers to deal with the territory and inhabitants of conquered pos sessions in such manner as it may deem proper. It is apparent either that Senator Foraker is ignorant of the history of the Constitution, or that he is attempting to deceive the peo ple in a partisan effort to sustain the admin istration in its untenable position. These precise questions have been before the Su preme Court of the United States, and both of them have been decided in accordance with the contention of Mr. Carnegie. Dur ing the war with Mexico the United States took military possession of California, and came into control of the port of San Fran cisco. R. B. Mason, military governor of California, appointed Edward H. Harrison on the 3d day of September, 1848, tempo rary collector of the port of San Francisco, and authorized the collection of a tariff, based upon a schedule furnished by the treasury department. In a letter by Mr. Buchanan, secretary of state, to Mr. Yorhees, on the 7th of October, 1848, after call ing attention to the fact that by the treaty of peace California had been ceded to the United States, but that no provision of law had been made for its government, the mili tary government is practically authorized to | continue in operation until the legislature has had time to act. "This government de faeto" says Mr. Buchanan, " will, of course, exercise no power inconsistent with the pro visions of the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land.
