Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/407

387 THE STATUS OF OUR NEW TERRITORIES. 387 Utah was a territory, and, therefore, inoperative; and that question was decided in the affirmative, and for the reason that the law of the Territory, as it was when the crime was committed, required any person accused of such a crime to be tried by a jury of twelve persons. But, if such was the law of the Territory, it seems to have been immaterial how it was established, — whether by the Constitution of the United States, or by Act of Congress, or by Act of the territorial legislature; and, in fact, such was the law of the Territory by virtue of an Act of the territorial legislature,* and there- fore it was not necessary for the accused to invoke the aid of the Constitution of the United States.^ It may aid us in determining the status ot our new territories to inquire what their status would be, if the United States, instead of being a confederation of States, were a single State, organized sub- stantially as our several States are, or if it were a monarchy, either absolute or constitutional. The mere acquisition by one country (A, for example) of the sovereignty over another country (B, for example) produces no other legal effect upon the latter than to give it a new sovereign, and consequently to substitute the legislature and the chief execu- tive of A for those of B; but A and B will still be in strictness foreign to each other, each having its own government, laws, and institutions; and though the legislature and chief executive of each will be the same, yet they will act in an entirely different capacity when acting for B from that in which they act when act- ing for A.' If any greater change than this is wrought, it will be because A has done something more to B than to acquire the sovereignty over her. She may do with B whatever she pleases, assuming the sovereignty which she has acquired over her to be absolute. She may (for example) incorporate B so completely with A that B's own government, institutions, and laws will cease to 458), for organizing the Territory of Utah, it was enacted as follows: "The Constitution and laws of the United States are hereby extended over and declared to be in force in said Territory of Utah, so far as the same, or any provision thereof, may be applicable." And though it was not within the power of Congress to extend the Constitution over territory to which it did not extend by its own force, yet Congress could give it the effect of a statute in such territory, and that was the effect of this provision. the power to refuse trial by jury to the Territory of Florida. See supra, page 382. ' Hence, no statute made by the legislature of A as such will affect B, unless it ex- pressly declare that it shall extend to B. See supra, page 382.
 * See 170 U. S. 345. Moreover, by the Act of Sept. 9, 1850, c. 51, s. 17 (9 Stats. 435,
 * In Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter, i Pet. 511, 538, Webster, arguendo, said Congress had