CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF ANNEXATION. 29$ act of the territorial legislature valid, and a valid act void. In other words, it has full and complete legislative authority over the people of the territories and all the departments of the territorial governments. It may do for the Territories what the people, under the Constitution of the United States, may do for the States." ^ Although the difference between federal and local affairs is not marked in the Territories by governments organically distinct, as in the States, it exists nevertheless, for Congress stands in a double relation to each Territory, caring for its local interests as a State government might, and treating it as a part of the republic in mat- ters of federal concern. IV. May Congress exert its power over territory within its jurisdiction and outside the limits of States without regard to the Constitution? A desire to possess new lands, coupled with a fear lest the exten- sion of the Constitution to some of them at least and their people would both prejudice our own interests and hamper our rule, has begotten the proposition that annexed territory not admitted as a State is not an integral part of the " United States " and need not be governed by the law of the Constitution. Although this proposition is suggested by an assumed emergency, it would, if established, affect equally all territory without the limits of States, — Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and the District of Columbia would He beyond the pale of the Constitu- tion, and therefore under the arbitrary control of Congress. The popular authority in support of the proposition is a passage in a recent opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sustaining an Act of Congress forbidding the importation, manufacture, and sale of liquor in Alaska. ^ The Court says : — " In support of the first ground of demurrer, it is contended that the law upon which the prosecution is based is unconstitutional, because, among other things, the government of the United States can exercise only those specific powers conferred upon it by the Constitution ; that the Constitution guarantees to the citizens the right to own, hold, and acquire property, and makes no distinction as to the character of the prop- erty ; that intoxicating liquors are property, and are subjects of ex- change, barter, and traffic like any other commodity in which a right of property exists ; that, inasmuch as the power to regulate commerce was 1 National Bank v. County of Yankton, loi U. S. 129, 133. » Endleman v. United States, 57 U. S. App. i, 86 Fed. Rep. 456, 458.
