there "maybe occupied and used under the direction of the governor and legislative assembly." These expressions might possibly be construed to imply that when, in a previous section of the act, it was enacted that "the first legislative assembly shall meet at such place and on such day as the governor shall appoint," the word "place" means place at Fort Leavenworth, not place anywhere in the territory. If so, the governor would have been the first to err in this matter, not only in himself having removed the seat of government to the Shawnee Mission, but in again removing it to Pawnee City. If there was any departure from the letter of the law, therefore, it was his in both instances. But, however this may be, it is most unreasonable to suppose that by the terms of the organic act, congress intended to do impliedly what it has not done expressly—that is, to forbid to the legislative assembly the power to choose any place it might see fit as the temporary seat of its deliberations. That is proved by the significant language of one of the subsequent acts of congress on the subject, that of March 3, 1855, which, in making appropriation for public buildings of the territory, enacts that the same shall not be expended "until the legislature of said territory shall have fixed by law the permanent seat of government." Congress, in these expressions, does not profess to be granting the power to fix the permanent seat of government, but recognizes the power as one already granted. But how? Undoubtedly by the comprehensive provision of the organic act itself, which declares that "the legislative power of the territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act." If, in view of this act, the legislative assembly had the large power to fix the permanent seat of government at any place in its discretion, of course by the same enactment it had the less and the included power to fix it temporarily.
Nevertheless, the allegation that the acts of the legislative assembly were illegal by reason of this removal of its place of session, was brought forward to justify the first great movement in disregard of law within the territory. One of the acts of the legislative assembly provided for the election of a delegate to the present congress, and a delegate was elected under that law. But, subsequently to this, a portion of the people of the territory proceeded, without authority of law, to elect another delegate.
Following upon this movement was another and more important one of the same general character. Persons confessedly not constituting the body politic, or all the inhabitants, but merely a party of the inhabitants, and without law, have undertaken to summon a convention for the purpose of transforming the territory into a state, and have framed a constitution, adopted it, and under it elected a governor and other officers, and a representative to congress.
In extenuation of these illegal acts, it is alleged that the state of California, Michigan, and others, were self-organized, and as such were admitted into the Union, without a previous enabling act of congress. It is true that, while iu a majority of cases a previous act of congress has been passed to authorize the territory to present itself as a state, and that this is deemed the most reg-
