If the framers of this late treaty intended to invest Congress with unlimited control over the territories acquired, it is enough to say that the Constitution of this Republic cannot be amended by the Spanish monarchy even with the aid of the five worthy commissioners who assisted in the work. If they mean that the "civil rights" of the people in this territory "shall be determined by the Congress" regardless of those constitutional restraints which operate upon it as upon all departments of our Government, their intentions will be disappointed by the wisdom of the Supreme Court and the patriotism of the people.

This paper has perhaps already reached unnecessary length. If more be needed to convince even skepticism itself, it may be found in the debates of that memorable convention of 1787 which framed the Constitution in this city. It may be found in the proceedings of the thirteen State conventions immediately thereafter assembled to determine the ratification or rejectment of the instrument thus framed; and it may be equally found in those celebrated papers of Madison, Jay, and Hamilton, explaining to the American people the origin, history, and meaning of each of its provisions. These will furnish that contemporary interpretation which the courts have adopted as the best expounders of laws and constitutions. If still more be needed for safe construction, it may be found in the undoubting acquiescence and the unbroken practice of the Government, in all its departments, for one hundred and twelve years. These are the faithful prophets of interpretation, and if men refuse to hear them, "neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead" and proclaimed the truth. If the legislation now proposed for Puerto Rico should be applied for twenty-five years to the richest State in the American Union, its wealth will have departed and its inhabitants will have become paupers. It has been said that the trusts and protected interests of the country have demanded this sacrifice of republican justice to the now dominant spirit of avarice and greed. If such be the case, no accusation of the anti-imperialist is without its vindication. If this legislation is to be enforced the Territories of the United States will hereafter be known as colonies. They will be governed, not by those familiar and sympathetic with their interests, but by aliens, greedy of their earnings and heedless of their sufferings. As the feast grows small the vultures will fight over the prey. Rome did no more than this; and if we follow her example we must expect to follow her fate.

WASHINGTON, D. C.

JOHN B. HENDERSON.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

October Term, 1900.

No. 340.

JOHN H. GOETZE, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF JOHN H. GOETZE & CO., APPELLANT, VS. THE UNITED STATES, APPELLEE.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT IN REPLY.

I.

The position of the Government, upon that branch of the case to which the argument of the learned Attorney-General was chiefly devoted, is thus stated in his brief (p. 4):

* * *

"The Government contends that it is within the constitutional province of the treaty-making power to accept the cession of foreign territory upon such terms, conditions, and limitations as to its internal status as may best subserve the interests of the United States, and it is not necessary to invest the territory with the full status of an integral part of the Union."

"The internal status of territory," as the words are here used, must mean, we presume, the relation of the inhabitants to the government; its powers over them; their rights as against it.

But what is meant by "an integral part of the Union?" Of course the expression does not refer to statehood. No one claims that a new territory becomes a State by the act of annexation. Nor does it refer to political rights. No one claims that the inhabitants are legally entitled to them. It means nothing more, then, than a territory which belongs to the United States, and which is under the Government of the United States (per Taney, C. J., 9 How., 614); and in defining the "status" of such a territory we are not assisted when we are told that it is or is not "an integral part of the Union."

This expression, like that used from the bench during the argument, "incorporation into the United States," is perhaps a convenient short term to designate the condition of an annexed territory whose inhabitants stand in the same relation to our Government as those of the Territories heretofore included in our dominions; but it does not serve the purpose of a definition, and its use is purely conventional.

And the whole claim of the Government, which we have just quoted, resolves itself simply into this, that when the United States acquires