of the Senate. During this period, then, there was to be no local self-government whatever.

By the Act of May 26, 1790, the Southwest Territory was given a government in all respects the same as that erected for the Northwest Territory.

By the Act of October 31, 1803, passed for the government of the Louisiana Territory purchased from France, the President was given full power to take possession, using for this purpose such force as might be necessary, and "that, until the expiration of the present session of Congress, unless provision for the temporary government of the said territories be sooner made by Congress, all the military, civil, and judicial powers exercised by the officers of the existing government of the same shall be vested in such person and persons, and shall be exercised in such manner, as the President of the United States shall direct, for maintaining and protecting the inhabitants of Louisiana in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion."

A formal remonstrance against the autocratic regimé thus established, as being in violation of the rights guaranteed by the treaty with France, was presented in behalf of the inhabitants of the Territory to the United States Senate, but no question as to the constitutionality of the action was raised.

The Act of March 3, 1819, for the taking possession and temporary government of Florida, was almost identical with the Louisiana Act of 1803.

Without attempting to trace further the legislation with reference to the government of the Territories it is sufficient to say that Congress has continued to the present day uniformly to consider this subject one to be dealt with absolutely at its own discretion.2

2 For legislation of Congress with reference to the Territories, see W. F. Willoughby, Territories and Dependencies of the United States: Their Government and Administration; Farrand, The Legislation of Congress for the Government of the Territories of the United States; Organic Acts for the Territories of the United States with Notes Thereon, Compiled from the Statutes at Large of the United States; also Appendix Comprising Other Matters Relating to the Government of the Territories. (Senate Document, No. 148,

56th Congress, 1st Sess.)

Acting in pursuance of its powers, Congress has thus from time to time, as new territories have been acquired, established for them, by statutes, territorial governments. The latest of these statutes are those establishing civil rule in Porto Rico and the Philippines.

§ 159. Classes of Territorial Governments.

Generally speaking, it may be said that the governments thus created have been and are of four kinds.

First, there is the class of so-called Unorganized Territories, at present consisting only of Alaska. These have no local selfgovernment but are governed by officials nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and have for their laws such as have been given them by Congress. To this class of autocratically governed territories should also possibly be added the Samoan, Wake, Midway, and Guano Islands which are ruled by officers of the military force of the United States.

Second, there is the whole class of Organized Territories that has included all of the continental territories of the United States except Indian Territory and Alaska, and at the present time embraces New Mexico, Arizona, and IIawaii. The chief executive and judicial officers of these governments are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and hold office for four years. Their legislatures consist of two Houses, each elected by those inhabitants of the territories who have been given the suffrage by federal law. The law-making power of these bodies is extended by Congress "to all rightful subjects of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” The laws passed in pursuance of this legislative authority are, of course, not only subject to scrutiny in the courts as to their constitutionality, but may be amended or annulled at any time by an act of Congress.

Third, there is the government of the island of Porto Rico which stands in a class by itself. According to the Foraker Act of April 12, 1900, its governor and chief executive officials and judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the

Senate, and its legislature is composed of two houses, the upper of which consists of the six chief executive officials and five native Porto Ricans, and the lower of thirty-five members elected by popular vote.

Fourthly, and finally, there is the government of the Philippine Islands by means of a Commission appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate under authority granted by act of Congress. Since 1907 there has been also a popularly elected legislative chamber.

§ 160. Constitutionality of These Governments. The constitutionality of this legislation has has never been seriously questioned.3

3 In the early case of Sere v. Pitot (6 Cr. 332; 3 L. ed. 240), decided in 1810, in its first reference to the power, the Supreme Court, without dissent, speaking through Marshall, after declaring the right of the United States to acquire and govern territory say: "Accordingly we find Congress possessing and exercising the absolute and undisputed right of governing and legislating for the Territory of Orleans. Congress has given them a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary, with such powers as it has been their will to assign to those departments respectively."

In American Insurance Co. v. Canter (1Pet. 511; 7 L. ed. 242), decided in 1828, Marshall, after referring to certain provisions of the treaty by which Florida was acquired from Spain, says: "This treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States . . . They do not, however, participate in political power; they do not share in the government, till Florida shall become a State."

In Snow v. United States (18 Wall. 317; 21 L. ed. 784), decided in 1873, the court say: "The government of the Territories of the United States belongs primarily to Congress; and secondarily to such agencies as Congress may establish for that purpose. During the term of their pupilage as Territories, they are mere dependencies of the United States. Their people do not constitute a sovereign power. All political authority exercised therein is derived from the General Government. It is, indeed, the practice of the Government to invest these dependencies with a limited power of self-government as soon as they have sufficient population for the purpose. The extent of the power thus granted depends entirely upon the organic act of Congress in each case, and is at all times subject to such alterations as Congress may see fit to adopt."

In the Dred Scott case, Taney, though otherwise emphasizing the limita tions upon the power of Congress over Territories, concedes that it has a full discretion with reference to the form of governments it may establish over

The plenary character of the legislative power of Congress in this respect is perhaps best stated in National Bank v. County of Yankton.4 Chief Justice Waite, speaking for the court, says: "Congress may not only abrogate laws of the territorial legislatures, but it may itself legislate directly for the local government. It may make a void act of the territorial legislature valid, and a valid act void. In other words, it has full and complete legislative authority over the people of the Territories and all the departments of the territorial governments. It may do for the Territories what the people, under the Constitution of the United States, may do for the States." Again, in Murphy v. Ramsay the court declare: "The people of the United States, as sovereign owners of the National Territories, have supreme power over them and their inhabitants. In the exercise of this sovereign dominion, they are represented by the government of the United States, to whom all the powers of government over that subject have been delegated, subject only to such restrictions as are exthem. He says: "The power to acquire, necessarily carries with it the power to preserve and apply to the purposes for which it was acquired. The form of government to be established necessarily rested in the discretion of Congress. It was their duty to establish the one that would be the best suited for the protection and security of the citizens of the United States and other inhabitants who might be authorized to take up their abode there, and that must always depend upon the existing condition of the Territory, as to the number and character of its inhabitants, and the situation in the Territory. In some cases a government, consisting of persons appointed by the Federal Government, would best subserve the interests of the Territory, when the inhabitants were few and scattered, and new to one another. In other instances, it would be more advisable to commit the powers of self-government to the people who had settled in the Territory, as being the most competent to determine what was best for their own interests. But some form of civil authority would be absolutely necessary to organize and preserve civilized society, and prepare it to become a State; and what is the best form must always depend on the condition of the Territory at the time, and the choice of the mode must depend upon the exercise of a discretionary power by Congress acting within the scope of its constitutional authority, and not in fringing upon the rights of person or rights of property of the citizen who might go there to reside or for any other lawful purpose. It was acquired by the exercise of this discretion and it must be held and governed in like manner, until it is fitted to be a State."

4 101 U. S. 129; 25 L. ed. 1046.

5 114 U. S. 15; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747; 29 L. ed. 47.

pressed in the Constitution, or are necessarily implied in its terms, or in the purposes and objects of the power itself; for it may well be admitted in respect to this, as to every power of society over its members, that it is not absolute and unlimited. But in ordaining government for the territories, and the people who inhabit them, all the discretion which belongs to legislative power is vested in Congress; and that extends, beyond all controversy, to determining by law, from time to time, the form of the local government in a particular Territory, and the qualification of those who shall administer it. It rests with Congress to say whether, in a given case, any of the people resident in the Territory, shall participate in the election of its officers or the making of its laws; and it may, therefore, take from them any right of suffrage it may previously have conferred, or at any time modify or abridge it, as it may deem expedient. The right of local self-government, as known to our system as a constitutional franchise, belongs, under the Constitution, to the States, and to the people thereof, by whom that Constitution was ordained, and to whom by its terms all power not conferred by it upon the government of the United States was expressly reserved."

In Late Corporation, etc., v. United States the foregoing decisions are cited and unqualifiedly approved.

There is in fact an unbroken line of judicial dicta upon this point. Even in the Dred Scott case, Taney, who would limit the legislative power of Congress over the Territories in other re spects, does not deny that as to the form of government to be established over them, Congress has full discretion. Upon this point the preceding opinions which we have quoted are cited by Taney with approval. He does, indeed, say that no power is given by the Constitution to the Federal Government to acquire territory to hold and maintain permanently as colonies, but admits, as we have seen, that territory may be annexed which is not immediately ready for statehood, and that until so fitted, the form of its government must necessarily lie in the discretion of Congress.

6 136 U. S. 1; 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 792; 34 L. ed. 478.