Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/408

388 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. exist, and even she herself will cease to exist as a separate country,- or A may keep the two countries entirely separate and distinct, and yet reduce the inhabitants of B to a condition of servitude. But if B be incorporated with A, or the inhabitants of B be reduced to a condition of servitude, it will not be because of the acquisition by A of the sovereignty over B, but because of the action taken by A consequent upon the acquisition of such sovereignty. If, indeed, A have a written constitution, by which her government was created and organized, and under which it acts, and the powers of such gov- ernment are subject to limitations imposed by the constitution, and such limitations are made by the constitution to apply to all future acquisitions of territory, and so are applicable to B, of course it will follow that the government of A will be subject to the same hmita- tions when acting for B as when acting for A; and A can get rid of these limitations, in respect either to herself or B, only by changing or overthrowing her constitution. Does, then, the fact that the United States is a confederation of States make any difference? It is conceived that it makes no dif- ference whatever as to the foregoing principles; but it does sug- gest two observations which affect their application: first, that, as all the limitations imposed upon the United States by the Consti- tution have reference primarily to the States, and owe their exist- ence primarily to the fact that the sovereignty over the territory of each State is divided between the State and the United States, there is a strong presumption that such limitations have no appli- cation to territory which is subject to no State sovereignty, and in which the United States can exercise all the power which can be exercised within a State either by the State or by the United States; secondly, that there is but one known mode of incorporating newly acquired territory into the United States, namely, by admitting it as a State. Much confusion of ideas has been caused as to the effect of the acquisition of new territory by the United States, by the constant use of the word "annexation," — a word which has no constitu- tional or legal meaning. It first came into general use in connec- tion with the agitation for and against the acquisition of Texas. Whether its use was by design or accident may not be certain. The acquisition of Texas was peculiar in this, namely, that it was the first instance (as it is still the only instance) of the acquisition of foreign territory by admitting it as a State. For this reason, the