Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/414

394 394 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. Mr. Justice Campbell called attention in the Dred Scott case, to serve as a warrant to the new Congress to treat the Western terri- tory and any other that we might acquire in the future as absolute sovereigns. He contemplated as probable the ultimate inclusion of the whole continent of North America in the limits of the United States, and possibly that we might reach out still further, though it was a possibihty that he deplored. He meant, to quote his words, that as to all territory outside the original States, we should "govern them as provinces, and allow them no voice in our councils. In wording the third section of the fourth article, I went as far as circumstances would permit, to establish the exclusion. Candor obhges me to add my belief, that had it been more point- edly expressed, a strong opposition would have been made." * This section, it is important to remember, is not put in that part of the Constitution which is specially concerned with the legisla- tive department, and in which most of the powers of Congress are particularly specified. Each of the three great departments is made the subject of a separate article, and then comes the fourth where are gathered together certain rules to govern the relations of the States to each other, the character of their government, and the privileges of their citizens. The third section of this article begins with regulations as to the admission of new States into the Union, and then follows the clause now especially under consideration, which is that "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." It is evident that this might not unfairly be understood to refer to the pubhc lands mainly in their character as public property. The phrase "Territory or other Property" certainly impHes that "Territory" is to be considered as property. Thus read. Congress would deal with it as represent- ing the owner, rather than the sovereign. In one of its opinions the Supreme Court of the United States seems to look at it from this point of view. "The term Territory," it was remarked, "as here used is merely descriptive of one kind of property; and is equivalent to the word lands." ^ ^ United States v, Gratiot, 14 Peters, 526, 527.
 * Scott V. Sandford, 19 Howard, 507