Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1900-04-25
OUR 1NsULAR POSSESSIONS.

naNlDS hctu tAlAtSoNN III N 0
 the opinion set forth in the cOmmuni- cation. the aforesaid young man backs up his views with the following state ment and the reasons why. which will be found of interest to all:
 Congress has plenary power to gov ern the territories of the United States as ii sees fit and deems eXpedient and is not hampered by any of the con Stitution's provisions which limit its power when legislating for the states. This has been decided by the supreme court of the United States and in all probability the same court would re affirm its former decision as a short conclusion of the cases and eXamina- ion of the authorities will show.
 The question of the power of con yress over the territories came square ly before the United States supreme court for the first time in the case of the Insurance Co. Ys. Canter Pelzrs 511 in 1928 and Chief Justice Marshall. than whom no abler interp- reter of our constitution lived. there held thaC%Ia legislating for them G. C., the territories) congress exercises the combined powers of the general and of state government. This
 m effect was a declaration that in leg
 slating for the territories congress had supreme uncomfortable sovereign power. because however the powers If a sovereign may be distributed and partitioned between the general gov ernment and that of each state, by the general government and in the govern ment of each state all the powers of an absolute sovereign are embraced and included. Now this has been de cided It is the law. IL has been said that Marshall. chief justice, in enunc iating his principle simply made a casual remark, that he interjected this by the way in deciding something else-sOme other question to whose determination decision of the power of congress over the territories was unnecessary; and upon this basis it has been claimed that the words quoted do not express the law. This is an idle contention as a perusal of the case will show that the very ques- ton involved in it was the power of congress over a territory of the United States. 'the relation in which Florida (a territory when controversy arose. stands to the United States" as the learned chief justice expressed it. The absolute power of congress to legislate for the territories as it saw it was decided to exist by the case cited: it was not asserted superfluOus- ly and the words declaring it were not
 'obiter dicta." That this is the view the United States supreme court takes is evidenced by the fact that this case has been cited as authority for the uncontrolled power of congress over the territories in very recent times: see Romney vs United States. 136 United States. 1. decided in 1890: Howard 54O. 1856.
 Here then in the infancy of our re- public. when there was nothing to dictate a decision by the supreme court on grounds of political exped- iency rather than of reason, principle and law. We find that the plenary power of congress was solemnly over the territories of the United States. 9djudged by a full court speaking through the greatest interpreter of our constitution America has ever produced. This has been reaffirmed at intervals ever since: see United States vs. Gratiot. ct al., II Peters 526. 53T QS4M; Renner vs. Porter. .9 Howard. 235. 242. 1850; National Bank vs. County of YauktOn. 101 United States. 129. 133. 1879; Murphy vs. Ramsay. III. United States. 15. 44. 1884: Mormon Church case. 136. United States. 1. 1890. The principle thus laid down in 1928 has never been denied but once and that was in the case of Dred Scott vS. Sanford. 19 Howard. 393. 1856, when a portion of a packed court in a desire to pro tect the peculiar institution" of slavery said obiter that the power of congress over the territories was limited, two justices dissenting. This case was Overruled by the civil war and has never since been regirdcl l as of any weight as the subsequent decisions cited above, as reaffirming the doctrines of plenary power in congress to Iegislate for the territories. show: on this see Story. Comm. on Const.. H. Par. 1905. Cooley editor.
 Here having established the plen- ary power of congress by adequate authority it would be proper to note what has been said by our supreme court as % the existence of limitations upon the power.
 There is ample authority for the contention that it is unlimited; but there are indications that the supreme court would recognize the existence # lmi ati, ,HS upon the power of con -reSS 10 legislate for the territories. These indications are to be found not in decisions. for the decisions and
 many of the dicta of the court are against such limitations; but in a few cases the court has made in pas sing certain remarks, has indulged in certain "obiter dicta." which indi- cate that in legislating for the ter ritories congress is under a moral Ob- :igation not to interfere with the per Sonal rights of the inhabitants. The court has never gone farther than this and has never asserted that congress was under a legal obligation to respect ihe personal rights of the people of the territories.
 The extent of the Limitations upon congress power in this respect. which might be adjudged to exist if occas- ion arose for a decision upon the matter. can be Surmised from the dictum in ROmney vs. United States the Mormon Church case. 136 United