Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/391

THE STATUS OF OUR NEW TERRITORIES. 37 1 It is plain, therefore, that for one hundred and fifteen years there has been more or less need of some word or term by which to des- ignate as well the Territories of the United States as the States themselves; and such word or term ought, moreover, to have been one signifying directly not territory, but sovereignty, sovereignty being the only thing that can be predicated alike of States and Ter- ritories. The same need was long since felt by England as well as by other European countries, and the word "empire" was adopted to satisfy it ; and perhaps we should have adopted the same word, if we had felt the need of a new word or term more strongly. Two peculiarities have, however, hitherto characterized the terri- tory held by the United States outside the limits of any State: first, such territory has been virtually a wilderness; secondly, it has been looked upon merely as material out of which new States were to be carved just as soon as there was sufficient popu- lation to warrant the taking of such a step ; and hence the need of a single term which would embrace territories as well as States has not . been greatly felt. At all events, no such new term has been adopted ; and hence " United States" is the only term we have had to designate collectively either the States alone, or the States and Territories; and accordingly, while it has always been used for the former of these two purposes, it has also frequently been used for the latter. It is very important, however, to understand that the use of the term "United States" to designate all territory over which the United States is sovereign, is, like the similar use of the word "empire" in England and other European countries, purely con- ventional; and that it has, therefore, no legal or constitutional significance. Indeed, this use of the term has no connection whatever with the Constitution of the United States, and the occa- sion for it would have been precisely the same if the Articles of Con- federation had remained in force to the present day, assuming that, in other respects, our history had been what it has been. The conclusion, therefore, is that, while the term "United States" has three meanings, only the first and second of these are known to the Constitution; and that is equivalent to saying that the Con- stitution of the United States as such does not extend beyond the limits of the States which are united by and under it, — a proposition the truth of which will, it is believed, be placed beyond doubt by an examination of the instances in which the term "United States" is used in the Constitution.