Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/318

298 298 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. this point Justice Curtis concurred with the court in his dissenting opinion. He said of the power of Congress over Territories, " in common with all the other legislative powers, it finds limits in the express prohibitions on Congress not to do certain things ; that in the exercise of the legislative power Congress cannot pass an ex post facto law or bill of attainder, and so in respect to each of the other prohibitions contained in the Constitution" (p. 614). And he agreed further that property within the Territories was pro- tected by the Fifth Amendment (p. 624). More restrained in expression, but equally to the point, is Justice Bradley's opinion : " Doubtless Congress, in legislating for the Territories would be subject to those fundamental limitations in favor of personal rights which are formulated in the Constitution and its amendments; but these limitations would exist, rather by inference and the general spirit of the Constitution, from which Congress derives all its powers, than by any other express and direct application of its provisions." ^ In another opinion of the Supreme Court we read, "Congress is supreme [over the Territories}, and for the purposes of this depart- ment of its governmental authority has all the powers of the people of the United States except such as have been expressly or by impli- cation reserved in the prohibitions of the Constitution." ^ In Thompson v. Utah^ it is held, "That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States relating to the right of trial by jury in suits at common law apply to the Territories of the United States is no longer an open question,"^ and further, " it is equally beyond question that the provisions of the National Constitution relating to trials by jury for crimes and to criminal prosecutions apply to the Territories of the United States." ^ In Callan v. Wilson^ a person convicted in the Police Court of the District of Columbia without the interposition of a jury was ordered to be discharged from custody, and the Court said (p. 550): " There is nothing in the history of the Constitution or of the orig- inal amendments to justify the assertion that the people of the 1 Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U. S. i, 44. 2 National Bank v. County of Yankton, loi U. S. 129, 133. 8 170 U. S. 343. 346. U. S. 707. 6 See also Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 154. « 127 U. S. 540.
 * See American Pub. Co. v. Fisher, 160 U. S. 464, 468; Springville v. Thomas, 166