treaties was there any provision relegating that subject to the control of Congress; which fact clearly shows that the present treaty is in this respect entirely without pre cedent in the history of the United States. These people being now citizens of the United States are justly entitled to the same rights, privileges and immunities which are enjoyed by the citizens residing in the other Territories which are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government; and as Article XV. of the Amendments of the Constitution provides that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," there can be no de nial of the right of suffrage to any of these newly-made citizens on either of the grounds above stated; although it may be denied to them for the same reasons for which that is now done to other citizens. In other words, the women and the minors among these peo ple may suffer the same political disabilities which are now suffered by our native women and minors. But any law which Congress may enact which shall discriminate in favor of our native citizens and against those who are made citizens by this treaty, so far as the right to vote is concerned, will be in contravention of this provision of the Consti tution. The writer is of the opinion, there fore, that in so far as the treaty attempts to authorize Congress to determine the civil rights and the political status of the inhab itants of our newly-acquired Territories, it is manifestly unconstitutional and consequently null and void. As the views above expressed by the writer may appear to be inconsistent with those stated by him in his article entitled "Territorial Sovereignty," which was pub lished in the issue of The Green Bag for January, 1899, he will say that he has treated this subject according to what he under stands to be the law bearing upon it, as ex pounded by the Supreme Court, although
he dissents from the decisions of that tribunal affirming the complete power of Congress over the Territories; and he has endeavored to indicate some of the conse quences of that construction of the property clause of the Constitution. In his opinion, the Territories are not a part of the United States; nor are their inhabitants citizens of the United States; and as the Constitution was made by and for the States only, it does not extend and cannot be made to extend to the Territories, except by the consent of the people residing therein; and as Con gress has no power to legislate for any other persons than those over whom the Consti tution does extend, it necessarily cannot do so for the people who reside outside of the boundaries of the United States unless they also consent to such legislation. The Con stitution is binding on the States only, be cause the thirteen original ones gave their consent to it when they ratified it; and the others did so when they voluntarily entered the Union in pursuance of acts of Congress passed for that purpose, — the Government having only such powers as the people have conferred upon it; and while they had the right to delegate to it unlimited power to legislate for themselves, they had no right to, and did not, delegate to it the power to legislate for others; and as the people of the Territories -had no part in the formation of the Constitution, and as they have never ratified it, they are not and cannot be bound by it, although they may acquiesce in such laws as Congress may enact for them, if they choose to do so. It is true that legislation is necessary to enforce the provisions of the Constitution in the States; but no such legis lation can properly accomplish the same result in the Territories, as the laws of the United States do not extend and cannot be made to extend where the Constitution does not, except by the consent of the people who are therein sought to be brought under them; and the same principle applies with equal force to treaties. It follows, therefore,
