Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/404

384 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. in that respect, the same as to all; and hence it follows that they must all receive the same construction, in respect to the extent of territory over which they shall be operative, at least so far as their construction in that respect depends upon intention. Moreover, subsections 5 and 6 show conclusively upon their face that they are to be operative only within the States, and subsection 4 shows the same intention with sufficient clearness. Subsection 4 has also the same raison d'etre as the limitations in subsections i and 4 of Section 8, i. e., it was designed to secure a minority of wealthy States against the risk of having the whole burden of government thrown upon them by the less wealthy majority; and, therefore, it is absurd to suppose that it was intended to be operative in terri- tories, — which were never to have any voice in Congress, and as to which, therefore, no such precaution was necessary. Subsection 8 of Section 9 is more doubtful as to the territorial extent of its operation than any other part of the Constitution, — not because of any intention that can be justly attributed to its authors, but because of the language in which it happens to be couched. Thus, it provides in effect, that no title of nobility shall ever be granted by the United States as a sovereign, and that no person holding office under the sovereignty of the United States shall accept any present, etc. Fortunately, however, this subsec- tion is of little importance, and any doubt that may exist as to its true construction, as it arises from accident, can have no influence upon the construction of other parts of the Constitution. In respect to the first ten Amendments of the Constitution, it seems scarcely necessary to say more than to refer briefly to the circumstances under which they were adopted. They were pro- posed by the first Congress and at its first session, and were a concession to the party which had opposed the adoption of the Con- stitution, and which had thus far prevented its ratification by two of the States, namely, Rhode Island and North Carolina. Some of the States also which had ratified it, had done so only because they had been induced to believe that it would be amended at the earliest opportimity. In respect to the nature and objects of the amendments adopted, it may be said that they are in the nature of a bill of rights, i. e., they were designed still further to limit and restrict the powers of the new government under the grants contained in the first three articles of the Constitution, and especially those contained in the