has no right to establish governments for the Territories; secondly, that under no circum stances have they the right to pass any law to regulate the internal affairs of the people inhabiting them." (Congressional Globe, First Session of the Thirty-first Congress, page 528.) The issue of " Harper's New Monthly Mag azine " for September, 1859, contains an ar ticle by the Hon. Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, entitled "The Dividing Line be tween Federal and Local Authority, Popular Sovereignty in the Territories," in which the author clearly establishes his contention that the Federal Government has no constitu tional authority to govern the people of the Territories without their consent, his conclu sion being stated in a single sentence at the end of his article as follows: — "The principle, under our political system, is that every distinct political community loyal to the Constitution and the Union, is entitled to all the rights, privileges and im munities of self-government in respect to their local concerns and internal policy, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." (Vol. XIX.. p. 537.) It will be perceived that so far as the ab solute sovereignty of the people of the Ter ritories is concerned, Mr. Cass and Mr. Douglas were of the same opinion; but the latter believed that it is guaranteed to them by the Constitution itself, while the former contended that it is possessed by them independently of that instrument. This doctrine was advocated with great ability and force by Mr. Cass in a speech delivered in the Senate on January 21 and 22, 1850, and published in the Appendix to the Con gressional Globe, First Session of the Thirtyfirst Congress, p. 58, to which the attention of the reader is respectfully directed. Of course the writer is aware that the position which he has assumed on this ques tion is contrary to certain decisions which have been rendered by the Supreme Court; and although these decisions must be con
sidered as a part of the fundamental law of the nation until they shall have been revers ed by that tribunal, or until they shall have been nullified by a constitutional amend ment, he nevertheless feels perfectly justified in expressing his dissent from the conclusions expressed therein by the court. It is impos sible to consider all of these decisions; nor is it necessary to do so, as there is no mate rial difference between them. He will, therefore, confine his observations to only three of them, these having been cited and approved by the court in all subsequent opinions bearing upon this question. "In the meantime Florida continues to be a Territory of the United States, governed by that clause in the Constitution which em powers Congress ' to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.' "Perhaps the power of governing a Ter ritory belonging to the United States, which has not by becoming a State acquired the means of self-government may result neces sarily from the facts that it is not within the jurisdiction of any particular State and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United States. The right to govern may be the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory. Whichever may be the source whence the power is derived, the pos session of it is unquestioned." (The Ameri can Insurance Company v. Canter, 1 Peters, 542.) "It is certainly now too late to doubt the power of Congress to govern the Territories. There have been some differences of opinion as to the particular clause of the Constitution from which the power is derived, but that it exists has always been conceded. All terri tory within the jurisdiction of the United States, not included in any State, must neces sarily be governed by or under the author ity of Congress. That body has full and complete legislative authority over the people of the Territories and all the departments
