Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/321

301 CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF ANNEXATION. $01 therefore subject to all the duties and responsibilities of a citizen, should have a citizen's rights. There are now within the United States "citizens," "wards" (Indians), and "aliens." Is there room for " subjects " who will be burdened with duties without enjoying compensatory rights? Citizens of the United States residing without the limits of States have not the constitutional right to be represented in Congress, which must nevertheless lay upon them the taxes required by the Constitution to be " uniform throughout the United States." Here is taxation without representation, — one of the major grievances of the American Colonies against Great Britain. In reply to the charge that the United States maintain a condition that the Colo- nies denounced, Chief Justice Marshall said : " The difference between requiring a continent with an immense population to sub- mit to be taxed by a government having no common interest with it, separated from it by a vast ocean and associated with it by no common feelings ; and permitting the representatives of the Amer- ican people under the restrictions of our constitution to tax a part of the society which is either in a state of infancy advancing to manhood, looking forward to complete equality so soon as that state of manhood shall be attained, as is the case with the terri- tories, or which has voluntarily relinquished the right of represen- tation and has adopted the whole body of Congress for its legitimate government, as is the case with the District, is too obvious not to present itself to the minds of all." ^ Not only are citizens not residing in States without a voice in federal affairs, they are without constitutional right to regulate their own. The entire sovereignty over territory outside of the States is vested in the Federal Government. This position has not been always conceded. It was questioned in the Dred Scott Case,^ and Senator Douglas declared that the people of the Territories pos- sessed sufficient "popular sovereignty" to decide for themselves whether slavery should exist within their respective communities. The doctrine of popular sovereignty in the Territories is incom- patible with the fundamental conception of the Union of States, and is thoroughly discredited.^ ^ Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheaton, 317, 324. 2 19 Howard, 293; see especially Justice Campbell's opinion, page 501. ' See National Bankz'. County of Yankton, loi U. S. 129, 133; Murphy z/. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 44; Mormon Church z/. United States, 136 U. S. i, 44.