The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-06-12

ent with the Constitution of the United
States, have been established law within
this Territory ever since the Ordinance
'swas passed, and hence the Ordinance
itself is sometimes spoken of as still IN
force. But these provisions owed their
legal validity and force, after the Con-
9 stitution was adopted, and while the
Territorial Government continued, to the
act of Congress of August Z, 1889,
which adopted and continued the Ordi-
nance of 1877, and carried its provisions
into execution, with some notifications
which were necessary to adapt its form
8 of government to the new Constitution.
And in the States since formed In the
6 Territory, these provisions, so far as they
have been preserved, owe their validity
and authority to the Constitution of the
United States, and the Constitutions and
laws of the respective States, and not to
the authority of the Ordinance Of the old
Confederation.
GAS we have already said, it ceased to
be in force upon the adoption Of the
Constitution, and cannot now be the
source of jurisdiction of any description
in this Court"
In the same case, (page 95, he says !:
,"The act of Congress of April T. 1898,
"a Statutes at Large, 549D extended the
Ordinance of 1857 to the then Territory
& of Mississippi, with the exception of the
'Anti-Slavery clause"
In the case of Permoli Us. First NUM-
oipaIity, Howard, $50, above cited, the
Court says:
Congress declared in advance to the
people of the Territory the fundamental
principles their Constitution should con-
tain this was every way proper under
{ the circumstances. The instrument hav-
ing been duly formed and presented, it
ewas for the National Legislature to Judge
whether it contained the proper prin-
6 ciples, and to accept it if it did, or reject
{ it if it did not" Per Catron.)
In Pollard's Lessee as. Hagan, How
ard, $780, the Court (per Mckinley, J.)
cites with appreciation the passage above
read from the opinion of the Court in the
case of Gibbons Us. Ogden, with reference
to the powers vested in Congress. In the
case of the American Insurance Company
Us. Canter, Peters, $40, the Court says !:
In the mean time, Florida continues
{ to be a Territory of the United States,
governed by virtue of that clause in the
Constitution which empowers to make
all needful rules and regulations respect
+ ing the territory or other property Of the
United States
'Perhaps the power of governing a
Territory belonging to the United States,
which has not, by becoming State,
{ ha Of
may result necessarily from the facts that
6 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 ter
ritory. Whichever may be the source
whence the power is derived, the pos
session of it is unquestioned."
1t was no part of the intention of the
Court to throw doubt upon their own un-
qualified declaration, that the words in
the Constitution did confer the power, but
to indicate their opinion that even without
that clause Congress would have, by neces-
sary implication, the power which, in
order to avoid dispute, has been conferred
by express words.
The case of the State of Missouri rs.
Iowa, 7 Howard, 667, $50, shows in
what light the Supreme Court of the Uni-
ted States regard Territorial Government
after it has been organized. The case was
one of dispute with regard to the bound
airy between Missouri and Iowa. The
controversy originated in 1887, and was
carried on between the United States and
Missouri for ten years before Iowa was adj
mitted as State.
The Court says:
The new State of Iowa came into the
Union, December 81, 1847, and up to
this date she was bound by the acts of
her predecessor, the United States, for
asmuch as the latter might have directly
conceded to Missouri new boundary
on the north, as was done on the west
6 and so, likewise, Iowa is bound by the
acts and admissions of the United States,
tending indirectly to confirm and estab-
lish a particular line as the northern
6 boundary of Missouri"
But the power of Congress over the
Territory appears also from its laws, to
establish needful rules and regulations of
intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to
preserve peace on the frontiers. The act
of 30th June, 1884, is entitled can act
10 regulate trade and intercourse with
the Indian tribes, and to preserve the
peace on the frontiers" a Statutes,
1897 The act is long one, and con-
tains great variety of provisions, civil
and criminal, with reference to Indians,
to foreigners, and to citizens of the United
States authorizes, among other things,
the President to use the military force Of
the United States to drive settlers from
the Indian lands, and to remove all per-
sons from the Indian country, found there
contrary to law, (secs. 10, ~ 1t pro-
vides that the laws of the United States,
which provide for the punishment of
crimes committed within any place
within the sole and exclusive jurisdic-
ton of the United States, shall be in
force in the Indian country; provided
the same shall not extend to crimes COM
mitted by one Indian against the person
or property Of another Indian" (Sec. 25.)
Section twenty-six enacts, That if any
person who shall be charged with viola
ton of any of the provisions or regula-
tions of this act, shall be found within
any of the United States, or either of
the Territories, such offenders may be
9 there apprehended, and transported to
the Territory or judicial district having
jurisdiction of the same" This is only
one of long series of acts, beginning in
1870, in which the whole power of Gov
ernment, civil and military, is exercised
over the Indian territory. BY the laws of
the United States, made for the govern