Sec. 3--New States and Territories Cl. 2.-Government of Territories Powers of Congress to Legislate for Territories In General The power of governing and of legislating for a Territory is the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire and to hold territory. Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch 336. This clause has been considered the foundation upon which the Territorial governments rest. U. S. v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 537. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 267. Congress may legislate directly in respect to the local affairs of a Territory. Binns v. U S., 194 U. S. 491. In the Territories, Congress has the entire dominion and sovereignty, national and local, Federal and State, and has full legislative power over all subjects upon which the legislature of a State might legislate within the State. Simms v. Simms, 175 U. S. 168. U. S. v. McMillan, 165 U. S. 510. The act of Congress of June 11, 1906, known as the employers' liability act, was held valid as applied to causes of action arising within the District of Columbia and the Territories. El Paso etc., R. Co. v. Gutierrez, 215 U. S. 87. Congress may transfer the power of legislation in respect to Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 44. Congress Has Supervisory Legislative Control In general. Without an express reservation, Congress has the power to amend the acts of the Territorial legislatures. Such a power is an incident of sovereignty, and continues until granted away. Congress may not only abrogate laws of the Territorial legislatures, but it may itself legislate directly for the local government. It may make a void act of the Territorial legislature valid, and a valid act void. National Bank v. Yankton County, 101 U. S. 133. See also U. S. v. McMillan, 165 U. S. 510. Snow v. U. S., 18 Wall. 319. Miners' Bank v. Iowa, 12 How. 1. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Sowers, 213 U. S. 55. The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the Territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty which restrain all the agencies of government, State and National; their political rights are Sec. 3.-New States and Territories CL. 2.-Government of Territories franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of Congress. Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 44. The power to govern territory, implied in the right to acquire it, and given to Congress in the Constitution, to whatever other limitation it may be subject, the extent of which must be decided as questions arise, does not require that body to enact for ceded territory, not made a part of the United States by congressional action, a system of laws which shall include the right of trial by jury, and that the Constitution does not, without legislation and of its own force, carry such right to territory so situated. Dorr v. U. S., 195 U. S. 149. Where the Constitution has been once formally extended by Congress to Territories, neither Congress nor the Territorial legislature can enact laws inconsistent therewith. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 271. Alaska is a Territory of the United States within the meaning of the interstate commerce act. I. C. C. v. U. S., 224 U. S. 474. Steamer Coquitlam v. U. S., 163 U. S. 346. The United States district court for Porto Rico was created under the authority of this clause. Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298. No annulment of Territorial statute by implication. In order to subject a Territorial statute to the annulling clause of an act of Congress, the conflict should be direct and unmistakable. No law will be declared void because it may indirectly, or by a possible, and not a necessary, construction, be repugnant to an annulling act. Cope v. Cope, 137 U. S. 686. Validating county bonds.-It is within the power of Congress to validate bonds issued by a county in a Territory when their only defect was that they had been issued in excess of the powers conferred upon the Territorial municipalities by the act of Congress giving the Territory authority to issue bonds for debts or obligations necessary to the administration of the internal affairs of the county. Utter v. Franklin, 172 U. S. 423. Revocation of charter of Mormon Church.-The revocation of the charter of the Mormon Church was a constitutional exercise of the power of Congress over Territories and of the power ex12703°-S. Doc. 157, 68-1-37 Sec. 3.-New States and Territories CL. 2.—Government of Territories pressly reserved in the organic act establishing the Territory of Utah. Mormon Church v. U. S., 136 U. S. 47. Legislative power of a Territory.—A Territorial legislature has all the legislative power except as limited by the Constitution of the United States and the organic act and the laws of Congress appertaining thereto. Walker v. New Mexico, etc., R. Co., 165 U. S. 604. Congress has enacted that, with certain restrictions, "the legislative power of every Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." (R. S. sec. 1851; act of July 30, 1886, chap. 818, 24 Stat. L., 170.) The power so conferred upon a Territorial assembly covers the domestic relations, the settlement of estates, and all other matters which, within the limits of a State, are regulated by the laws of the State only. Simms v. Simms, 175 U. S. 163. For assessment and collection of taxes.-The power to legislate delegated to a Territorial legislature includes the right to pass uniform laws for the assessment and collection of taxes, and a Territorial statute under which it is competent for the taxing authorities of an organized county to levy and collect taxes on personal property situated within the attached reservations of Indians, and belonging to other persons than Indians, is valid. Wagoner v. Evans, 170 U. S. 591. Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264. Territorial courts are legislative courts created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the Government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is defined in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the Territories of the United States. American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 546. U. S. v. McMillan, 165 U. S. 510. Defining jurisdiction of the courts. It is within the competency of Congress either to define directly, by their own act, the jurisdiction of the courts created by them or to delegate the authority requisite for that purpose to the Territorial government; and by either proceeding to permit or to deny the trans Sec. 3.-New States and Territories CL. 2.-Government of Territories fer of any legitimate power or jurisdiction previously exercised by the courts of the provisional government to the tribunals of the government they were about to substitute for the Territory in lieu of the temporary or provisional government. Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 182. Absence of distinction between Federal and State jurisdictions.The Territorial governments are legislative governments, and their courts legislative courts; Congress, in the exercise of its powers in the organization and government of the Territories, combines the powers of both the Federal and State authorities. Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 242. Exercise of admiralty jurisdiction.-Although admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the States in those courts only which are established in pursuance of the third article of the Constitution, the same limitation does not extend to the Territories. In legislating for them, Congress exercises the combined powers of the General and of a State Government. American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 545. Sovereign power over acquired territory.-Power to acquire territory either by conquest or treaty is vested by the Constitution in the United States. Conquered territory, however, is usually held as a mere military occupation until the fate of the nation from which it is conquered is determined; but if a nation is entirely subdued, or in case it be destroyed and ceases to exist, the right of occupation becomes permanent, and the title vests. absolutely in the conqueror. U. S. v. Huckabee, 16 Wall. 434. Control of public lands—In general.—No appropriation of public land can be made for any purpose but by authority of Congress. U. S. v. Fitzgerald, 15 Pet. 421. California v. Deseret Water, etc., Co., 243 U. S. 415. Utah Power, etc., Co. v. U. S., 243 U. S. 389. Power to dispose of public lands.-The words "dispose of" vest in Congress the power not only to sell but also to lease the lands of the United States. The disposal must be left to the discretion of Congress. U. S. v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 538. Exemption from debts of land conveyed.-Revised Statutes, section 2296, provides as follows: No lands acquired under the provisions of this [homestead] act shall in any event become liable to the satisfaction of any debt or debts contracted prior to the issuing of the patent thereof. This statute has been held to be constitutional as against the contention that Congress had no power to restrict alienation of Sec. 3.-New States and Territories CL. 2.-Government of Territories homestead lands after conveyance by the United States in fee simple. Ruddy v. Rossi, 248 U. S. 104. Power to declare mode of conveyance.-Congress has the absolute right to prescribe the times, the conditions, and the mode of transferring this property or any part of it and to designate the persons to whom the transfer shall be made. No State legislation can interfere with this right or embarrass its exercise. Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 99. Irvine v. Marshall, 20 How. 558. Emblem v. Lincoln Land Co., 184 U. S. 664. Grants below high-water mark.-Congress has the power to make grants of lands below high-water mark of navigable waters in any Territory of the United States, whenever it becomes necessary to do so in order to perform international obligations, or to effect the improvement of such lands for the promotion and convenience of commerce or to carry out other public purposes appropriate to the objects for which the United States hold the Territory. Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 48. McGilvra v. Ross, 215 U. S. 70. Power to declare effect of titles.-Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States; and the whole legislation of the Federal Government, in reference to the public lands, declares the patent the superior and conclusive evidence of legal title; until its issuance, the fee is in the Government, which, by the patent, passes to the grantee, and he is entitled to recover the possession in ejectment. Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 450. Field v. Seabury, 19 How. 332. Patents and rights acquired by entry and occupancy.—A State has no power to declare any title less than a patent valid against a claim of the United States to the land, or against a title held under a patent granted by the United States. Wilcox v. McConnel, 13 Pet. 516. Mere possession of public land without title for any time, however long, will not enable a party to maintain a suit against one deriving his title from the Government. Burgess v. Gray, 16 How. 65. The occupation of lands derived from the United States before the issue of a patent for the period prescribed by the statute of limitation of a State for the commencement of actions for the recovery of real property is not a bar to ejectment founded on the legal title conveyed by the patent. Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 102. |