lation of the territory of the United States, were adopted without debate in the convention.

There was a warm discussion on the clauses that relate to the subdivision of the States, and the reservation of the claims of the United States and each of the States from any prejudice. The Maryland members revived the controversy in regard to the crown. lands of the southwest. There was nothing to indicate any reference to a government of territories not included within the limits of the Union; and the whole discussion demonstrates that the convention was consciously dealing with a territory whose condition, as to government, had been arranged by a fundamental and unalterable compact.

An examination of this clause of the constitution, by the light of the circumstances in which the convention was placed, will aid us to determine its significance. The first clause is, "that new [*505] States may be admitted by the congress to this *Union."

The condition of Kentucky, Vermont, Rhode Island, and the new States to be formed in the northwest, suggested this, as a necessary addition to the powers of congress. The next clause, providing for the subdivision of States, and the parties to consent to such an alteration, was required, by the plans on foot, for changes in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. The clause which enables congress to dispose of and make regulations respecting the public domain, was demanded by the exigencies of an exhausted treasury and a disordered finance, for relief by sales, and the preparation for sales, of the public lands; and the last clause, that nothing in the constitution should prejudice the claims of the United States or a particular State, was to quiet the jealousy and irritation of those who had claimed for the United States all the unappropriated lands. I look in vain, among the discussions of the time, for the assertion of a supreme sovereignty for congress over the territory then belonging to the United States, or that they might thereafter acquire. I seek in vain for an annunciation that a consolidated power had been inaugurated, whose subject comprehended an empire, and which had no restriction but the discretion of congress. This disturbing element of the Union entirely escaped the apprehensive previsions of Samuel Adams, George Clinton, Luther Martin, and Patrick Henry; and, in respect to dangers from power vested in a central government over distant settlements, colonies, or provinces, their instincts were always alive. Not a word escaped them, to warn their countrymen, that here was a power to threaten the landmarks of this federative Union, and with them the safeguards of popular and constitutional

liberty; or that under this article there might be introduced, on our soil, a single government over a vast extent of country-a government foreign to the persons over whom it might be exercised, and capable of binding those not represented, by statutes, in all cases whatever. I find nothing to authorize these enormous pretensions, nothing in the expositions of the friends of the constitution, nothing in the expressions of alarm by its opponents-expressions which have since been developed as prophecies. Every portion of the United States was then provided with a municipal government, which this constitution was not designed to supersede, but merely to modify as to its conditions.

The compacts of cession by North Carolina and Georgia are subsequent to the constitution. They adopt the ordinance of 1787, except the clause respecting slavery. But the precautionary repudiation of that article forms an argument quite as satisfac

tory to the advocates for federal power, as its *introduc- [*506 ] tion would have done. The refusal of a power to congress

to legislate in one place, seems to justify the seizure of the same power when another place for its exercise is found.

This proceeds from a radical error, which lies at the foundation of much of this discussion. It is, that the federal government may lawfully do whatever is not directly prohibited by the constitution. This would have been a fundamental error, if no amendments to the constitution had been made. But the final expression of the will of the people of the States, in the 10th amendment, is, that the powers of the federal government are limited to the grants of the constitution.

Before the cession of Georgia was made, congress asserted rights, in respect to a part of her territory, which require a passing notice. In 1798 and 1800, acts for the settlement of limits with Georgia, and to establish a government in the Mississippi territory, were adopted. A territorial government was organized, between the Chattahoochee and Mississippi rivers. This was within the limits. of Georgia. These acts dismembered Georgia. They established a separate government upon her soil, while they rather derisively professed, "that the establishment of that government shall in no respects impair the rights of the State of Georgia, either to the jurisdiction or soil of the territory." The constitution provided. that the importation of such persons as any of the existing States shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by congress before 1808. By these enactments, a prohibition was placed upon the importation of slaves into Georgia, although her legislature had made none.

This court have repeatedly affirmed the paramount claim of Georgia to this territory. They have denied the existence of any title in the United States. (6 C. R. 87; 12 Wh. 523; 3 How. 212; 13 How. 381.) Yet these acts were cited in the argument as precedents to show the power of congress in the territories. These statutes were the occasion of earnest expostulation and bitter remonstance on the part of the authorities of the State, and the memory of their injustice and wrong remained long after the legal settlement of the controversy by the compact of 1802. A reference to these acts terminates what I have to say upon the constitutions of the territory within the original limits of the United States. These constitutions were framed by the concurrence of the States making the cessions, and congress, and were tendered to immigrants who might be attracted to the vacant territory. The legislative powers of the officers of this government were limited to the selection of

laws from the States; and provision was made for the in[*507] troduction of popular institutions, and their * emancipation from federal control, whenever a suitable opportunity occurred. The limited reservation of legislative power to the officers of the federal government was excused, on the plea of necessity; and the probability is, that the clauses respecting slavery embody some compromise among the statesmen of that time; beyond these, the distinguishing features of the system which the patriots of the revolution had claimed as their birthright, from Great Britain, predominated in them.

The acquisition of Louisiana, in 1803, introduced another system into the United States. This vast province was ceded by Napoleon, and its population had always been accustomed to a viceroyal government, appointed by the crowns of France or Spain. To establish a government constituted on similar principles, and with like conditions, was not an unnatural proceeding.

But there was great difficulty in finding constitutional authority for the measure. The third section of the fourth article of the constitution was introduced into the constitution, on the motion of Mr. Gouverneur Morris. In 1803, he was appealed to for information in regard to its meaning. He answers: "I am very certain I had it not in contemplation to insert a decree de coercendo imperio in the constitution of America. * I knew then, as well as I

do now, that all North America must at length be annexed to us. Happy indeed, if the lust of dominion stop here. It would therefore have been perfectly utopian to oppose a paper restriction to the violence of popular sentiment, in a popular government." (3 Mor. Writ. 185.) A few days later, he makes another reply to his cor

respondent. "I perceive," he says, "I mistook the drift of your inquiry, which substantially is, whether congress can admit, as a new State, territory which did not belong to the United States when the constitution was made. In my opinion, they cannot. I always thought, when we should acquire Canada and Louisiana, it would be proper to GOVERN THEM AS PROVINCES, AND ALLOW THEM NO VOICE in our councils. In wording the third SECTION OF THE fourth article, I went as far as circumstances would permit, to establish the exclusion. CANDOR OBLIGES ME TO ADD MY BELIEF, THAT HAD IT BEEN MORE POINTEDLY EXPRESSED, A STRONG OPPOSITION WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE." (3 Mor. Writ. 192.) The first territorial government of Louisiana was an imperial one, founded upon a French or Spanish model. For a time, the governor, judges, legislative council, marshal, secretary, and officers of the militia, were appointed by the President.*

* Besides these anomalous arrangements, the acquisition [* 508] gave rise to jealous inquiries, as to the influence it would exert in determining the men and States that were to be "the arbiters and rulers" of the destinies of the Union; and unconstitutional opinions, having for their aim to promote sectional divisions, were announced and developed. "Something," said an eminent statesman, "something has suggested to the members of congress the policy of acquiring geographical majorities. This is a very direct step towards disunion, for it must foster the geographical enmities by which alone it can be effected. This something must be a contemplation of particular advantages to be derived from such majorities; and is it not notorious that they consist of nothing else but usurpations over persons and property, by which they can regulate the internal wealth and prosperity of States and individuals?”’ The most dangerous of the efforts to employ a geographical political power, to perpetuate a geographical preponderance in the Union, is to be found in the deliberations upon the act of the 6th of March, 1820, before cited. The attempt consisted of a proposal

*Mr. Varnum said: "The bill provided such a government as had never been known in the United States." Mr. Eustis: The government laid down in this bill is certainly a new thing in the United States." Mr. Lucas: It has been remarked, that this bill establishes elementary principles never previously introduced in the government of any territory of the United States. Granting the truth of this observation," &c., &c. Mr. Macon: "My first objection to the principle contained in this section is, that it establishes a species of government unknown to the United States." Mr. Boyle: "Were the President an angel instead of a man, I would not clothe him with this power." Mr. G. W. Campbell: "On examining the section, it will appear that it really establishes a complete despotism." Mr. Sloan: "Can anything be more repugnant to the principles of just government? Can anything be more despotic?"—Annals of Congress, 1803–'4.

to exclude Missouri from a place in the Union, unless her people would adopt a constitution containing a prohibition upon the subject of slavery, according to a prescription of congress. The sentiment is now general, if not universal, that congress had no constitutional power to impose the restriction. This was frankly admitted at the bar, in the course of this argument. The principles which this court have pronounced condemn the pretension then made on behalf of the legislative department. In Groves v. Slaughter, (15 Pet.,) the chief justice said: "The power over this subject is exclusively with the several States, and each of them has a right to decide for itself whether it will or will not allow persons of this description to be brought within its limits." Justice McLean said: "The constitution of the United States operates alike in all the States, and one State has the same power over the subject of slavery as every other State." In Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, (3 How. 212,)

the court say: "The United States have no constitutional [* 509] capacity to exercise municipal * jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in cases where it is delegated, and the court denies the faculty of the federal government to add to its powers by treaty or compact.

This is a necessary consequence, resulting from the nature of the federal constitution, which is a federal compact among the States, establishing a limited government, with powers delegated by the people of distinct and independent communities, who reserved to their State governments, and to themselves, the powers they did not grant. This claim to impose a restriction upon the people of Missouri involved a denial of the constitutional relations between the people of the States and congress, and affirmed a concurrent right for the latter, with their people, to constitute the social and political system of the new States. A successful maintenance of this claim would have altered the basis of the constitution. The new States would have become members of a Union defined in part by the constitution and in part by congress. They would not have been admitted to "this Union." Their sovereignty would have been restricted by congress as well as the constitution. The demand was unconstitutional and subversive, but was prosecuted with an energy, and aroused such animosities among the people, that patriots, whose confidence had not failed during the revolution, began to despair for the constitution.* Amid the utmost violence

* Mr. Jefferson wrote: "The Missouri question is the most portentous one that ever threatened our Union. In the gloomiest moments of the revolutionary war, I never had any apprehension equal to that I feel from this source."