other port of the United States. We come, then, to the consideration of the question whether the Constitution, under the provis ions of section 3 of article IV, has authorized Congress to override this positive rule of the Constitution in dealing with the territo ries, which may from time to time come within its control, for unless this has been done, the " open door " policy cannot be in augurated, unless we are willing to adopt the same policy in respect to all of our ports of entry. This question has also passed in review before the Supreme Court of the United States, and while its decision precipitated the baptism of blood which redeemed this na tion from slavery, its doctrine has never been disputed in any tribunal, in so far as this particular question is concerned. In the decision of the Dred Scott case (19 Howard,- 393) it became necessary to con sider the power of Congress to enact a law in respect to the Northwest Territory, and the question decided cannot be better stated than in the words of the court: "The act of Congress, upon which the plaintiff relies," says Chief Justice Taney, delivering the opinion of the court, " declares that slav ery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever pro hibited in all that part of the territory ceded by France, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, and not included within the limits of Missouri. And the dif ficulty that meets us at the threshold of this part of the inquiry is, whether Congress was authorized to pass this law under any of the powers granted to it by the Constitu tion; for if the authority is not given by that instrument, it is the duty of this court to declare it void and inoperative, and inca pable of conferring freedom upon any one who is held as a slave under the laws of any one of the States." This case came before the court in 1856, at a time when the agitation against the insti
tution of slavery was fast bringing to a crisis the affairs of the nation, and when there was every inducement to compromise and con ciliate the people on both sides of the Mis souri compromise line. The decision is, therefore, of great importance, as a declara tion of the true construction to be put upon the Constitution, and to show that the exact question presented in the controversy be tween Mr. Carnegie and Senator Foraker was before the court, the language of the Chief Justice will again be quoted : " The counsel for the plaintiff has laid much stress upon that article in the Constitution which confers on Congress the power 'To dispose of and make all needful rules and regula tions respecting the territory or other prop erty belonging to the United States '; but, in the opinion of the court, that provision has no bearing upon the present controversy, and the power there given, whatever it may be, is confined, and was intended to be con fined, to the territory which at that time be longed to, or was claimed by, the United States, and was within their boundaries as settled by the treaty with Great Britain, and can have no influence upon a territory afterward acquired from a foreign govern ment. It was a special provision for a known and particular territory, and to meet a present emergency, and nothing more." The court then enters, into an exhaustive discussion of the history of the clause under consideration, and concludes that " there is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the Federal government to establish or maintain colonies bordering on the United States or at a distanee, to be ruled and gov erned at its own pleasure; nor to enlarge its territorial limits in any way, except by the admission of new States. That power is plainly given; and, if a new State is ad mitted, it needs no further legislation by Congress, because the Constitution itself de fines the relative rights and powers, and du ties of the States, and the citizens of the State, and the Federal government. But no
