Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/323

CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF ANNEXATION. 303 ing on the exercise of their sound discretion. That discretion has hitherto been exercised in wisdom and good faith, and with an anxious regard for the security of the rights and privileges of the inhabitants, as defined and declared in the ordinance of July, 1787, and in the Constitution of the United States. 'All admit,' said Chief Justice Marshall, * the constitutionality of a territorial gov- ernment.' But neither the District of Columbia, nor a territory, is a state, within the meaning of the Constitution, or entitled lo claim the privileges secured to the members of the Union. This has been so adjudged by the Supreme Court. Nor will a writ of error or appeal lie from a territorial court to the Supreme Court, unless there be a special statute provision for the purpose. If, therefore, the government of the United States should carry into execution the project of colonizing the great valley of the Columbia or Oregon River, to the west of the Rocky Mountains, it would afford a subject of grave consideration, what would be the future civil and political destiny of that country. It would be a long time before it would be populous enough to be created into one or more independent states ; and in the mean time, upon the doctrine taught by the acts of Congress, and even by the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court, the colonists would be in a state of the most com- plete subordination, and as dependent upon the will of Congress as the people of this country would have been upon the king and parliament of Great Britain, if they could have sustained their claim to bind us in all cases whatsoever. Such a state of absolute sovereignty on the one hand, and of absolute dependence on the other, is not congenial with the free and independent spirit of our , native institutions ; and the establishment of distant territorial governments, ruled according to will and pleasure, would have a very natural tendency, as all proconsular governments have had, to abuse and oppression." ^ And Judge Story said: "The power of Congress over the public territory is clearly exclusive and uni- versal ; and their legislation is subject to no control, but is absolute and unlimited, unless so far as it is affected by stipulations in the cessions, or by the ordinance of 1787, under which any part of it has been settled." ^ If these comments have as broad a meaning as can be inferred from their texts, they are discredited by the opinions of the Supreme Court. But the suggestion that a bald despotism is 1 Commentaries, i. 385. * Commentaries, Section 13^8. ClEORGE R. WALKER COUNSELOR AT LAW 59 WALL STREET