Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/410

390 390 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. The earliest legislation respecting naturalization * and bankruptcy ' was also limited in its operation to the States; and it seems that this was in violation of the Constitution, if "United States," as used in Art. i. Section 8, subsection 4, includes the territories; for a consequence was that no person residing in a territory could be naturalized, and that neither any debtor residing in a territory, nor the creditors of any such debtor, could have the benefit of the bankrupt law. Thirdly, all naturalization acts except the first, and all bankrupt acts except the first, have been extended to the terri- tories, but it by no means follows that Congress regarded itself as bound by the Constitution so to extend them. So also the Act of March 2, 1799,' to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage, was extended to the then existing territories, i. e., the latter were divided into collection districts; and this is true also of all similar acts which have since been passed, and of all territories which have since been acquried; and, if Congress had not taken this course, it must have either prohibited the importation of foreign goods into territories, or it must have admitted all foreign goods free of duty, or it must have established for the territories a revenue system of their own. Moreover, there were many reasons in favor of the course adopted, and none in favor of either of the other three: First, all the different parcels of territory acquired by the United States from time to time (with the unimportant exception of Alaska) were contiguous either to existing States or to terri- tory previously acquired; secondly, none of them differed more widely from the States in soil and climate than the States differed from each other; thirdly, they were all virtually without inhab- itants and were expected to be peopled by immigrants from the States, from the British Islands, and from Western Europe; fourthly, they were all expected, at an early day, to be formed into States, and as such to be admitted into the Union; fifthly, none of them produced (to any extent) dutiable articles which, if admitted into the United States free of duty, would either deprive the government of revenue, or compete with home products, or produce both of these effects; sixthly, they all bordered upon navi- limited to the States. See Act of March 3, 1791, ch. 81 (i Stats. 199). It seems, there- fore, that such legislation was in violation of Art. i of the Constitution, Sec. 8, subsect. i, if "United States," as used in that subsection, includes territories, as no excise duties were imposed upon the latter.
 * Act of March 26, 1790, ch. 29, i Stats. 103.
 * Act of April 4, 1800, ch. 19, 2 Stats. 19. » i Stats. 627.