Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/402

382 382 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. that it had been used in another sense in the first ^ of the two Acts of Congress which gave rise to the litigation in question, and that his argument, therefore, required him to show that the mean- ing which he attributed to the term, rather than one of the others, was its true meaning in the clause of the Constitution upon which he was commenting. Perhaps it will not be thought unreasonable to place against the dictum in question the dictum of Webster in another case,^ also decided by Chief Justice Marshall. It is true that he was arguing for a chent; but then it was not his habit, even as counsel, to state propositions of law which he did not beheve to be true, and the truth of which he was not prepared to maintain. He said : ^ "What is Florida? It is no part of the United States. How can it be? How is it represented? Do the laws of the United States reach Florida? Not unless by particular provisions. The Terri- tory and all within it are to be governed by the acquiring power, except where there are reservations by the treaty. . . . Florida was to be governed by Congress as she thought proper. What has Congress done ? She might have done anything, — she might have refused a trial by jury, and refused a legislature. . . . Does the law estabUshing the court at Key West come within the re- strictions of the Constitution of the United States? If the Con- stitution does not extend over this territory, the law cannot be inconsistent with the national Constitution." It may be added that the decision was in Webster's favor, that not a word was said by the Chief Justice in disapproval of the passage just quoted, that Loughborough v. Blake was not cited either by counsel or judge, that it has seldom been cited by any member of the court by which it was decided, and that the dictum under consideration has, it is beheved, never been so cited. One other observation may be made upon Loughborough v. Blake, namely, that the District of Columbia differs materially from a Territory, that the former is within the limits of a State, was once a part of a State, and, therefore, the Constitution once laid upon the United States, and the same shall be and is hereby apportioned to the States respectively in manner following: To the State of New Hampshire $193,586.74," etc. (enumerating the eighteen then existing States). Plainly, therefore, "United States" is here used in its original sense. • Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter, i Pet. 511. ' i Pet. 538.
 * Which enacts (sect, i) "that a direct tax of $6,000,000 be and is hereby annually