Page:A legal review of the case of Dred Scott, as decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.djvu/32

 deemed indispensable to the purposes of the cessions made by the States." 2 Story on the Constitution, § 1325.

In no previous case in the courts has it been even suggested that the power of congress to govern the Territories was limited in any respect except by the express provisions of the Constitution. The first opinion expressed on this point, is in Serè v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 336, decided in 1810, in which Chief Justice Marshall said: "The power of governing and of legislating for a territory is the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire and to hold territory. Could this position be contested, the Constitution of the United States declares that 'congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.' Accordingly, we find congress possessing and exercising the absolute and undisputed power of governing and legislating for the Territory of Orleans. Congress has given them a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary, with such powers as it has been their will to assign to those departments respectively." Again, in M' Culloch v. State of Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 422, decided in 1819, the same great judge, after referring to this clause as the source of the power of congress, speaks of the "universal acquiescence in the construction which has been uniformly put on this clause; and says: "All admit the constitutionality of a territorial government."

The first case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which any question upon the construction of this clause was directly in issue, and by far the most important case upon this subject, is that of American Insurance Company v. Canter, 1 Peters, 511, decided in 1828, in which Chief Justice Marshall, speaking of the condition of Florida between the times of its acquisition by treaty, and. its becoming a State, said: "In the meantime Florida continues to be a Territory of the United States, governed by virtue of that clause in the Constitution, which empowers congress 'to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory and other property belonging to the United States.' Perhaps the power of governing a Territory belonging to the United States, which has not, by becoming a State, acquired the means of self-government, may result necessarily 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 may