tive power over the Territories? And yet the honorable Senator says I assign no reason for it. I assigned the strongest reason. If the Constitution does not extend there, you have no right to legislate or to do any act in reference to the Territories. Well, as to the next point. The honorable Senator states that he was surprised to hear from a strict constructionist the proposition that the Constitution extends itself to the Territories. I certainly never contended that the Constitution was of itself sufficient for the government of Territories without the intervention of legislative enactments. It requires human agency everywhere; it can not extend itself within the limits of any State, in the sense in which the gentleman speaks of it. It is, nevertheless, the supreme law, in obedience to which, and in conformity with which, all legislative enactments must be made. And the proposition that the Constitution of the United States extends to the Territories so far as it is applicable to them is so clear a proposition that even the Senator from Massachusetts, with his profound talent, can not disprove it. I will put the case of some of the negative provisions of the Constitution. Congress can make no law concerning religion, nor create titles of nobility. Can you establish titles of nobility in California? If not, if all the negative provisions extend to the Territories, why not the positive? I do not think it necessary to dwell any longer upon this point.

Mr. WEBSTER. The precise question is whether a Territory, while it remains in a territorial state, is a part of the United States. I maintain it is not. And there is no stronger proof of what has been the idea of the Government in this respect than that to which I have alluded and which has drawn the honorable member's attention. Now, let us see how it stands. The judicial power of the United States is declared by the Constitution to be "vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress shall from time to time ordain and establish." The whole judicial power, therefore, of the United States is in these courts. And the Constitution declares that "all the judges of these courts shall hold their offices during good behavior." Then the gentleman must admit that the legislation of Congress heretofore has not been altogether in error; that these Territorial courts do not constitute a part of the judicial power of the United States, because the whole judicial power of the United States is to be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress shall establish, and the judges of all these courts are to have a life tenure under the law; and we do not give such tenure, nor never did, to the judges of these Territorial courts. That has gone on the presumption and true idea, I suppose, that the Territories are not even part of the United States, but are subject to their legislation. Well, where do they get this power of legislation? Why, I have already stated that the Constitution says "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," and it is under that clause only that the legislation of Congress in respect to the Territories has been conducted. And it is apparent from our history that no other provision was intended for Territorial Government, inasmuch as it is highly probable, I think certain, that no acquisition of foreign territory was ever contemplated.

And again, there is another remarkable instance. The honorable gentleman and his friends who act with him on these subjects hold that the power of internal improvement within the United States does not belong to Congress. They deny that we can pass any law for internal improvements within any State of this Union, while they all admit that the moment we get out of the States into a Territory we can make just as much improvement as we choose. There is not an honorable gentleman on that side of the Chamber who has not, time and again, voted money out of the public Treasury for internal improvements out of the Union in Territories, under the conception that, under that provision of the Constitution to which I have referred, they do not constitute any portion of the Union—that they are not parts of the Union.

Sir, there is no end to illustrations that might be brought upon this subject. Our history is full of them. Our history is uniform in its course. It began with the acquisition of Louisiana. It went on after Florida became a part of the Union. In all cases, under all circumstances, by every proceeding of Congress on the subject, and by all judicature on the subject, it has been held that Territories belonging to the United States were to be governed by a constitution of their own, framed by a convention, and in approving that constitution the legislation of Congress was not necessarily confined to those principles that bind it when it is exercised in passing laws for the United States itself. But, sir, I take leave of the subject.

Mr. CALHOUN, Mr. President, a few words. First, as to the judiciary. If Congress has decided the judiciary of the Territories to be part of the judiciary under the United States, Congress has decided wrong. It may be that it is a part of the judiciary of the United States, though I do not think so.

Mr. WEBSTER (in his seat). Nor I.

Mr. CALHOUN. Again, the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts says that the Territories are not a part of the United States—are not of the United States. I had supposed that all the Territories were a part of the United States. They are called so. Mr. WEBSTER (in his seat). Never.

Mr. CALHOUN. At all events, they belong to the United States.

Mr. WEBSTER (still in his seat). That is another thing. The colonies of England belong to England, but they are not a part of England.

Mr. CALHOUN. Whatever belongs to the United States they have authority over, and England has authority over whatever belongs to her. We can have no authority over anything that does not belong to the United States, I care not in what light it may be placed.

But, sir, as to the other point raised by the Senator-internal improvements. The Senator says there is not a member on this side of the Chamber but what has voted to appropriate money out of the public Treasury for internal improvements in the Territories. I know that a very large portion of the gentlemen on this side have voted to appropriate money out of the public Treasury for improvements in Territories, upon the principle of ownership; that the land in the Territories in which improvements are made has an increased value in proportion to the sums appropriated, and the appropriations have in every case been given in alternate sections. But many gentlemen here have utterly denied our right to make them under that form. But that question comes under another category altogether. It comes under the category whether we have a right to appropriate funds out of the common Treasury at all for internal improvements.

Sir, I repeat it, that the proposition that the Constitution of the United States extends to the Territories is so plain a one and its opposite-I say it with all respect— is so absurd a one that the strongest intellect can not maintain it. And I repeat that the gentlemen acknowledge, by implication, if not more than that, that the extension of the Constitution of the United States to the Territories would be a shield to the South upon the question in controversy between us and them. I hold it to be a most important concession. It narrows the ground of controversy between us. We then can not be deprived of our equal participation in those Territories without being deprived of the advantages and rights which the Constitution gives us. (Appendix to Cong. Globe, vol. 20, pp. 272-274.)

THE PROCEEDINGS IN CONGRESS DURING THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF ALASKA, WHEREIN THE HOUSE REQUIRED THE SENATE AND EXECUTIVE TO RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT THE RIGHT OF THE HOUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT A CESSION OF FOREIGN TERRITORY TO THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE ASSENTED TO BY THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

In my report on "The status, etc.," submitted February 12, 1900,1 reference was made to the proposition that, in order to complete the cession of territory from another sovereign to the United States, it is necessary to secure the assent of the sovereign of the United States to such transfer; that sovereignty in the United States is vested in the people, and the sovereign will of the people is to be declared by the Congress and can not be declared by the military authority nor the treaty-making power of this Government. The House of Representatives has always asserted its high prerogative respecting this matter and insisted upon its being recognized. It would seem that ample justification for such insistence is found in propounding the question, How can the will of the sovereign people of the United States be ascertained except by the action of Congress, in which the House must participate?

There is also an additional reason, of great importance, why the House of Representatives should participate in determining whether or not a proposed cession of territory should be accepted, to which attention is directed by a discussion now in progress in this country. It is asserted by no inconsiderable number of people that a treaty providing for the cession of foreign territory to the United States being ratified by the Senate, signed by the Executive, ratifications exchanged and the treaty proclaimed, ipso facto, the revenue laws of the United States are so modified that the products of the territory to which the treaty relates are to be admitted into the ports of the United States free from custom duties. The Constitution provides (art. 1, sec. 7, cl. 1):

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.

In respect of this provision of the Constitution, The Federalist says (No. 58, pp. 269-270, ed. 1852):

The House of Representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of Government. They, in a word, hold the purse— that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people, gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the Government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every grievance and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

1 Ante, page 37.

Is not this great power of the House of Representatives rendered nugatory if the treaty-making power, in which the House does not participate, may exempt from the operations of the revenue laws originating in the House the products of territory which the House contemplated and declared should be subject to said laws?

The fact that such modification of the revenue laws arises by implication from the cession or is incidental thereto, does not avoid the force of this important provision of the Constitution. If the treatymaking power may properly exercise this authority inferentially or incidentally, it may exercise it directly and enter into such reciprocity treaties respecting trade and commerce with foreign countries as it sees fit to do, and the House of Representatives is powerless to prevent such action.

The report on "The status, etc.," submitted February 12, 1900, contained the following:

The subject was again before Congress when the bill making appropriations for the purchase of Alaska was under consideration, and was disposed of by the House accepting from a conference committee a preamble reciting that the stipulations of the treaty "that the United States shall accept of such cession can not be carried into full force and effect except by legislation, to which the consent of both Houses of Congress is necessary." (15 U. S. Stat., 198.)

*

*

*

The report of the conference committee was adopted by the Senate and House of Representatives, and thereby Congress declares that the cession of territory to the United States must be effected by legislative enactment; that is, the assent of both Houses of Congress must be secured.

The House of Representatives through all our history has guarded with vigilance its constitutional right to participate in the declaration of the will of the sovereign people of the United States in all matters which by the Constitution are subjected to the legislative branch of this Government. A review of all the instances in which the House has asserted this right would constitute a volume; therefore, I select the instance of Alaska, for the proceedings therein contain reviews of many former instances.

When the bill making an appropriation for the purchase price of Alaska was reported for passage, Mr. Loughridge, of Iowa, moved to amend by inserting the following as a substitute:

Whereas the President of the United States, on the 30th of March, 1867, entered into a treaty with the Emperor of Russia, by the terms of which it was stipulated that, in consideration of the cession by the Emperor of Russia to the United States of certain territory therein described, the United States should pay to the Emperor of Russia the sum of $7,200,000 in coin; and whereas it was further stipulated in said treaty that the United States shall accept of such cession, and that certain inhabitants of said territory shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights and immunities of citizens of the United States; and whereas the subjects thus embraced in the stipulations of said treaty are among the subjects which, by the Constitution of the United States, are submitted to the power of Congress, and over which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction; and it being for such reason necessary that the consent of Congress should be given to the said treaty before the same can have full

force and effect, having taken into consideration the said treaty and approving of the stipulations therein. To the end that the same may be carried into effect: Therefore, SEC. 1. Be it enacted, That the assent of Congress is hereby given to the stipulations of said treaty. (Cong. Globe, 2d sess. 40th Cong., part 4, p. 3621.)

Mr. Loughridge supported his proposal with marked ability, advancing with other arguments the following:

I shall leave the question of the physical character of this territory and its value to others better informed than I am on that question. There is another question involved of far more importance, one before which the question of the value of this territory sinks into utter insignificance, a question more important than which has never been discussed within these walls. That question, sir, is in relation to the rights, the powers, and the constitutional prerogatives of this House of Representatives as one of the departments of this Government. That question is directly involved in this case, and to that I propose to direct my remarks; and so far as that question is concerned it makes no difference whethe. this territory is a worthless, frozen waste of eternal ice and snow or whether it is a fertile, blooming, fruitful garden. Upon this question the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs has said but little in his remarks in favor of this bill, and I say in all candor that I am unable to gather from the report of the committee or from the speech of the chairman what the opinion of the committee or of the chairman is in relation to the extent of the treaty-making power as vested in the President or in relation to the constitutional rights and prerogatives of the House in connection with treaties.

An attempt is being made, through the means of the treaty-making power, to concentrate almost all of the power of this Government in the hands of the President, subject only to the advice and consent of the Senate. And this proposition is, if adopted, a long step in that direction. I hesitate not to say, sir, that if, without any explanation, disaffirmance, or protest, we make this appropriation, we shall, so far as this House can do it, have surrendered practically all the power of the Government into the hands of the treaty-making department and reduced this House to the position of an involuntary agent of that power, with no discretion but to carry out its expressed will. That we are rapidly drifting in that direction it seems to me must be apparent to the most casual observer. By substituting a foreign government or an Indian tribe in place of this House, on the principle claimed by the Executive, there is nothing within the whole scope of the legislative powers of the Government that can not be done without the consent or intervention of this House. I defy any gentleman to point out a single act of legislation that can not be done through and by the treatymaking power if we admit that power to the extent claimed by the Executive.

From the course of the Executive in this case it is clearly his opinion and that of his advisers that Congress has in no case any discretion in relation to passing the laws necessary to carry treaties into effect; but that when a treaty is made by the President and ratified by the Senate it is the duty of this House then to recognize it as the supreme law of the land and to pass all laws necessary to carry it into effect, whatever may be the nature or character of its stipulations and regardless of the views of Congress as to its expediency or its bearing upon the public good. That the President has the power, with the consent of the Senate, to purchase territory from foreign powers to any extent and annex such territory to and make it a part of this Government and make all its inhabitants citizens of the United States, and to appropriate for such purpose such sums of money as he may see fit; that this may be done by secret treaty, without any authority or consent from Congress, and that after such treaty is consummated Congress has no control whatever over the matter, but must, without question or hesitation, appropriate the money required and pass all necessary