Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/316

296 296 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. committed to Congress to relieve it from all restrictions, Congress cannot itself impose restrictions upon commerce by prohibiting the sale of a par- ticular coxnmodity ; that if Congress has the power to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors within the Territories as a police regulation, it can only enact laws applicable to all the Territories alike. The answer to these and other like objections urged in the brief of counsel for defendant is found in the now well-established doctrine that the Territories of the United States are entirely subject to the legislative authority of Congress. They are not organized under the Constitution, nor subject to its complex distribution of the powers of government as the organic law, but are the creation exclusively of the legislative department and subject to its super- vision and control. Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235, 242. The United States, having rightfully acquired the territory, and being the only govern- ment which can impose laws upon them, has the entire dominion and sovereignty, national and municipal, Federal and State. Insurance Co. V. Canter, i Pet. 511, 542; Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164, 193; Na- tional Bank v. Yankton Co., loi U. S. 129, 133 ; Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 44; Mormon Church v. U. S., 136 U. S. i, 42, 43; McAllister V. U. S. 141 U. S. 174, 181 ; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. i, 48. Under this full and comprehensive authority, Congress has unquestionably the power to exclude intoxicating liquors from any or all of its Territories, or limit their sale under such regulations as it may prescribe. It may legis- late in accordance with the special needs of each locality, and vary its regulations to meet the conditions and circumstances of the people. Whether the subject elsewhere would be a matter of local police regulation, or within State control under some other power, it is immaterial to con- sider. In a Territory all the functions of government are within the legis- lative jurisdiction of Congress, and may be exercised through a local government or directly by such legislation as we have now under consideration." This passage is to be read as an affirmation of the unquestionably broad and exclusive power of Congress in administering the Terri- tories, but not of a right to deal arbitrarily with persons and prop- erty therein, for it will be shown that the Supreme Court recognizes the Territories as part of the United States for most important purposes, and confirms to their people the great constitutional guarantees. The words " United States " in the Constitution may be construed in some cases to refer to the States alone. For example, territorial courts are not technically courts of the " United States." ^ Pre- 1 Benner v. Porter, 9 Howard, 242.