to allow Philippine products to enter American markets free of duty until 1909, thereby retarding the natural recuperation of the archipelago from the effects of its long and disquieting internecine strife and recent economic losses. A large loan to all the insular treasuries from the National Government, even at the risk of limiting for a time their financial independence, would remove the most serious obstacle, and would thereby enable the local administrative officials to complete in a short time the destruction of those fundamental barriers to progress,-ignorance and inaccessibility. In no field of our colonial administration has the lack of funds such serious consequences as in that of education. A glance at the reports of the insular officials in charge of public instruction shows that in spite of the most liberal appropriations which the insular treasuries can bear and a highly efficient administrative personnel, the public schools reach only a minor portion of the children of school age. Taking for example the Philippine conditions, we find that for the last reported school year, 1912-13, there was a total attendance of 463,000, which is a trifle less than one-third of those who should be in school. Over 1,000,000 children in the archipelago are not provided with educational facilities, and in the words of the report: "this condition is largely due to insufficiency of funds." The Insular government, the provinces and the municipalities in the Philippines expended $3,500,000 or about 47c per capita of the population; while in the United States we spend $4.45 per capita, nearly ten times as much. A very small outlay from the Federal treasury or a loan guaranteed by the National Government would speedily remedy this condition.

The problem of equitable taxation arose from the antiquated system bequeathed by Spain. The richer classes, almost without exception, escaped tax paying, leaving the burden of the government costs to the poor. This was arranged by taxes on food and the necessaries of life, upon small retail dealers, octroi taxes (duties upon goods entering the towns) and a ruinous tax upon certain colonial exports. Vexatious fees and other duties were also collected for trifling services by government officials. The corrupt methods of administering the law were far worse than the legislation itself. The American administrator has substituted for this system a general property tax so arranged as to fall principally upon the wealthier classes. Its administration does not admit of the same amount of "favors to friends." As a result the burden of taxation is more equitably distributed and a larger revenue is actually collected with less cost to the people.

Does the Constitution Apply to the Territories and Dependencies? An important distinction is to be made between different parts of the territory owned or controlled by the United States. In the States all portions of the Constitution apply, as they do also in the incorporated territories, such as Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia, but in those districts which are no*

corporated nor technically a part of the United States, and are held in the national possession, such as the Philippines, the Panama Canal Zone, Porto Rico, Samoa, etc., the usual restrictions upon the United States Government, contained in the Constitution, do not apply, and the people of each dependency may constitutionally be tried without a jury and their political and civil rights may be adjusted in such ways as the National Government finds necessary or expedient. The only universal prohibition or limit placed upon the powers of Congress, which operates in every district controlled by the United States, is the 13th Amendment which prohibits slavery in the United States "or in any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The Admission of New States.-The Constitution provides that new States may be admitted by Congress. It was originally intended that these new commonwealths should be formed from the territory then owned by the National Government, but with the acquisition of new tracts of land extending to the Pacific, a number of new districts were populated by immigration and were admitted into the Union until the present number, forty-eight, has been reached. There now remains only Alaska, on the mainland and Hawaii, Porto Rico, and the Philippines among the insular possessions, which have not been admitted. All of these demand and expect either statehood or independence. There is no constitutional reason why the islands could not be admitted if they became sufficiently advanced in civilization, prosperity and the ability to manage their affairs. Hawaii has already reached this point and Porto Rico is nearing it.

The usual procedure in admission is an enabling act passed by Congress authorizing the inhabitants of a territory to hold a constitutional convention and to prepare the draft of a new State Constitution. When this draft has been formally presented to Congress and approved by that body, a date is fixed in the final act of Congress at which the new State shall spring into being. In approving the draft of the new Constitution, Congress may, and frequently has taken the occasion to require certain provisions to be incorporated in the new Constitution, and in some instances the Executive has let it be known that he will veto admission if the new Constitution contains obnoxious features. President Taft in 1912 vetoed an act of Congress, approving the State Constitutions of Arizona and New Mexico because they contained a provision for the recall of judges by popular vote. The President held that a new State should not start out on its career as a commonwealth under the handicap of a dangerous institution which would deprive the judiciary of its independence. The provision objected to was thereupon dropped and the new States admitted. When Utah was admitted, it was stipulated by Congress that the new Constitution should contain a provision prohibiting polygamy.

The admission of these three States has brought to light an interesting undeveloped part of our constitutional law. Could Utah,

once admitted, amend her Constitution and permit polygamy? Could Arizona and New Mexico reinsert in their Constitutions the provision for a recall of judges by a popular vote? Can a territory, once admitted as a State, "change its mind" and reinsert in its constitution by amendment a provision objected to by the national legislature when the territory was admitted? Or can it drop from that constitution a provision required for admission by the Congress? The prevalent view is in favor of the State's right to do so, Coyle v. Smith, 221 U. S. 559, 1911. There are cogent reasons on both sides. Those in favor of the right to amend declare that if the State does not possess this right it is placed on a different footing from other States already admitted. We should then have "classes" of States, some with greater power than others; some with the ability to regulate marriage relations as they choose, others without this prerogative; some with the power to adopt popular checks upon the judiciary, others without such a right. It is unthinkable, the advocates of this view declare, that the framers of the Constitution intended to vest in Congress any such power to cripple the State sovereignty permanently in some commonwealths, while allowing it free play in others.

Those who hold the opposite view advance two strong arguments in its favor: first, that the State when admitted makes a solemn agreement with the Nation to observe certain deep, fundamental principles of constitutional law which are considered so vital as to be made a condition of entrance to the Union. To declare that this solemn obligation holds only during the brief period of admission and that the State, once admitted, may immediately revoke its action, is to hold that the State's word was given in a spirit of deceit and subterfuge and that the Nation is helpless to enforce its pledges against its own members. Second, the clear language of the Constitution offers much support to the theory of binding force of agreements made at the time of admission. Section III, Article 4, declares that "new States may be admitted by Congress into this union:" Article 6, Clause 2, declares, "this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, etc.,-shall be the supreme law of the land;-anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This clause lends support to the view that the admission of a State by Congress, having been enacted by a law, becomes a part of the supreme law of the land and the conditions under which this admission is stipulated are also essential parts of that supreme law. Once this is admitted, the whole question devolves upon a single point-what is the intent of Congress in passing the enabling act? This intent, like the purpose of Congress in passing any other act, then becomes subject to the usual rules of interpretation. Accordingly, the refusal of the President to sign an act admitting two territories until a change in their Constitutions was made would not bind them permanently, since it is a simple refusal by the President to concur in the act of Congress,

but a positive condition inserted by Congress in an act admitting the State would become, when signed by the President, a law of the United States and would seem to have such permanence and fundamental force as to render it a part of the "supreme law of the land." The Panama Canal.-In 1902 the United States purchased from a French company and from the Republic of Panama the site and rights of the Panama Canal which had been partly excavated by the French corporation. By the law of June 28th, 1902, it established a commission of seven members appointed by the President and Senate with full authority over the canal zone including the work of construction. The general powers of the commission as a governing body were executed by its chairman, while the active work of construction was carried on by the chief engineer. A strip of territory five miles wide on each side of the canal was taken by the Canal administration and paid for by the United States, the price being fixed by a joint commission of four members composed of representatives of Panama and the United States. This strip has been laid waste and all human habitation forbidden, except by agents of the canal administration, the purpose being to protect the waterway in time of war. Both ends of the canal are fortified. The results secured by the commission astonished the civilized world. Previous to the American control of the canal strip the French engineers had been engaged for decades in the construction work and had been defeated only by the insuperable obstacle of yellow fever. It was a known certainty that every white man who went to the canal region must succumb if he remained there only a few years. Meanwhile the experiments made by physicians in various parts of the world within the previous five years, had shown that the chief means of spreading yellow fever was the mosquito. The American engineers began their work at this point. Under the direction of Colonel Gorgas a war of extermination and prevention was started against the mosquito, the swamps were drained, pools filled in, stagnant water sprinkled with petroleum, and in a short time yellow fever and other epidemics were wiped out. Upon the basis of healthful sanitary conditions the remainder of the work has been pushed energetically, and although it was seriously hindered by political influence in appointments, and by the intrigues of certain interests opposed to the canal, it was completed before the date originally set for its opening. The cost has been $350,000,000. The highest number of men engaged 40,000. The United States government has issued $130,000,000 of canal bonds to pay for the construction, and arrangements are made to retire these bonds within thirty years. The remainder of the cost has been paid from current funds. The tolls charged ships in passing through the canal are fixed at $1.20 per net ton (100 cubic feet) for ordinary vessels and $1.50 per ton of displacement for warships.

On August 24, 1912, Congress passed an act providing for the opening, maintenance, protection and operation of the Canal and

the government of the Canal zone. The Zone includes a strip 10 miles wide, running from a point 3 miles from the shore in the Caribbean to a point 3 miles from the coast in the Pacific, and including the group of islands in the Bay of Panama. The President is authorized to declare any and all land in the Zone to be necessary for the construction and operation of the canal and to take title to such lands for the government. He is also authorized to establish and has established a new government to supersede the Canal Commission which built the waterway. This new government consists of a governor and a number of department chiefs subordinate directly to him.

Authority is also given to the governor to divide the Zone into districts and determine the location of towns and cities, and establish a magistrate's court in each district. One district court of the United States for the Zone is established by the Act. Rules and regulations governing the right of any person to enter or remain in the Zone are made by the Governor and it is made a felony to injure or obstruct the waterway. Railway companies are forbidden to own, control, or operate any ships through the canal which do or may compete for traffic with such railways. The fact of competition is determined by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Vessels belonging to corporations which are violating the Sherman Act are forbidden to pass through the canal. In time of war or when war is imminent the Present may designate an army officer to take charge of the Zone in which case the civil Governor becomes his subordinate. Following this Act, the President by executive order of Feb. 4, 1913, and Feb. 2, 1914, created the following executive departments under the direction of the Governor:

Operation and maintenance,

Purchasing,

Supply,

Accounting,

Health,

Executive Secretary.

The latter has general charge of the administration under the Governor's direction. The Governor himself reports to the Secretary of War.

Naturalization.-The Constitution confers upon Congress power to establish "an uniform rule of naturalization,"-In pursuance of this power two methods of naturalization have grown up. First, by general acts Congress has conferred citizenship upon whole classes of persons such as tribes of Indians, the inhabitants of new territory acquired by the United States, etc. By the Act of June 28, 1898, the Muscogee or Creek Tribe of Indians and the Choctaw and the Chichasaw Tribes were admitted to United States citizenship upon the breaking up of their tribal relations; the Act of April 30, 1900, provided that all persons who were citizens of Hawaii at the time of its acquisition by the United States, should be ad