statement of the provisions of the ordinance establishing it. This was the ordinance of July 13,1787.

The ordinance provided for a governor of the territory, to be appointed by Congress for the term of three years; a secretary, to be in like manner appointed for the term of four years, and three judges, to hold office during good behavior. The judges were not only to exercise judicial authority, but they were to be the legislature for the territory until it should have five thousand inhabitants, when the people were to elect representatives to sit in a general assembly. Meantime the governor was to appoint magistrates and other civil officers. The general assembly was to consist of the representatives, constituting one house, and a council of five members chosen by the Congress from ten names nominated to it by the representatives. All laws required the assent of both houses and of the governor. The fifth article of the ordinance provided that there should be formed within said territory not less than three nor more than five states; and after indicating boundaries for three states, it declares that, "whenever any of the said states shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such state shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and state government.

After the federal government was organized under the constitution, the appointing power for the territory was transferred from the Congress to the president, but in other respects the ordinance remained in force. New territories were formed within its limits, however, as the needs of the people Beemed to require separate governments, and in time, when the requisite population was obtained, the five states contemplated as possible by the ordinance, were formed and admitted into the Union in the following order: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Here we observe a normal condition of things contemplated by the constitution when it speaks of the admission of new states into the Union. It contemplated that settlements would be formed on the unoccupied lands belonging to the United States; that the people would for a time be governed by the "rules and regulations" established for them by Congress, but that eventually, when the population was sufficient to warrant it, states suitable in size should be admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the original states. What should be sufficient population to justify admission has never been definitely agreed, but it has generally been thought it should be equal to the number required to entitle the existing states to a representative in Congress. according to the ratio of representation as it stands at the time.

Congress has not always-nor generally of late-in organizing a territory, nade the judges a legislative authority, but it has provided for a legislature chosen exclusively by the people. Whatever may be the local legislature, it possesses general legislative power, to be exercised, however, in conformity to the constitution of the United States, and to the organic law. Miners' Bank v. Iowa, 12 How., 1; Vincennes University v. Indiana 14 How., 268; Cross v. Harrison, 16 How., 164. But Congress may, in its discretion, disallow any territorial legislation, and legislate directly for the territory itself, so far as

it shall deem necessary or expedient: American Ins. Co., v. Canter, 1 Pet., 511; Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall., 434;, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. Rep., 145.

Before any state can be admitted to the union, there must be a state ready to admit; and this implies that there shall be a state with a constitution and laws, so that when admitted, it can proceed at once in the performance of sovereign functions. The regular method of obtaining admission is for Congress to pass an "enabling act," as it is called, which empowers the people of the territory who possess such qualifications as voters as the act prescribes, to elect representatives to a convention, for forming a constitution, and to vote upon the adoption of such instrument as the convention shall frame. If this authority shall be acted upon, and a constitution adopted and submitted to Congress. that body, if satisfied with the constitution, will pass another act admitting the state to the union under it. In some cases the people of territories have proceeded irregularly to form a state constitution, without the previous authority of Congress, and Congress has deemed it wise to overlook the irregularity, and pass an act of admission. There is no question of its power to do so.

But though it was probably expected that new states would generally be formed from territory belonging to the United States, there was nothing in the constitution to preclude the United States from acquiring new territory from foreign nations, and this has been done to a very large extent. The general understanding has always been, that all such territory shall have suitable territorial governments established for its people, and that eventually states of suitable size and population shall be formed from it. And many new states have already been admitted from the territory thus acquired. In no case, with the possible exception of Alaska, has it been supposed that the territory would remain permanently in a territorial or dependent condition. Such may possibly be the fate of the country just named. It is certain that it has no suitable population at the present time to be entrusted with legislative authority, and that the probability of a self-governing state being formed within its limits, is very remote and uncertain.

For the formation of a new state within the limits of an existing state, we have a precedent in the case of West Virginia. See Virginia v. West Vir ginia, 11 Wall., 39; Kanawha Coal Co. v. Kanawha Coal, etc. Co., 7 Blatch., 391. The precedent comes from troublous times, and possesses some features which are never likely to present themselves again; but it nevertheless serves to show the operation of the constitutional provision.

In several cases-notably those of Missouri, Michigan and Nebraska-Congress has admitted states to the union subject to a condition to be thereafter accepted by the states. That conditions may thus be imposed will probably not be questioned; but as all new states must come into the union "on an equal footing with the original states," any condition that would preclude this must be inoperative.

The constitution under which any state can be received, must be republican in form. Const. of U. S., Art. 4, § 4.

The territory which the constitution contemplated should be obtained for the seat of government, was afterwards acquired by cessions from Maryland

and Virginia, and was named the District of Columbia. Over this district, with the exception of a portion, subsequently retroceded to Virginia, Congress exercises all the powers of sovereignty. See Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat., 317, 322; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat., 264, 424 For a time the district was given a territorial government, but the experiment was not satisfactory, and it was abolished. The executive and administrative authority of the district is now vested in two commissioners appointed by the president.

As the power of exclusive legislation carries with it exclusive jurisdiction (United States v. Cornell, 2 Mass.,60), the states cannot take cognizance of acts done in places acquired by the United States, with the consent of the states, for forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings, and the inhabitants of those places cease to be inhabitants of the states, and can no longer exercise any civil or political rights under state laws. Commonwealth v. Clary, 8 Mass., 72; Sinks v. Reese, 19 Ohio St., 306. But it is competent for the United States to acquire lands for its purposes under the eminent domain, without the consent of the states: Kohl v. United States, 91 U. S. Rep., 367; and whenever it acquires or holds territory within the limits of a state, without its consent, state jurisdiction is not excluded. People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns., 225. It is common for the states, when ceding jurisdiction of smali parcels of territory for national purposes, to reserve authority for the service of state process within them.

574

APPENDIX.

SECT. 1. RECORD OF AN INDICTMENT AND CONVICTION OF MURDER,

AT THE ASSIZES.

Warwickshire, BE IT REMEMBERED, the hold at Wawion, of the for the king of oyer and terminer holden at Warwick, in and for the and terminer. said county of Warwick, on Friday, the twelfth day of March, in the second year of the reign of the lord George the Third, now king of Great Britain, before Sir Michael Foster, knight, one of the justices of the said lord the king assigned to hold pleas before the king himself, Sir Edward Clive, knight, one of the justices of the said lord the king, of his court of common bench, and. others their fellows, justices of the said lord the king, assigned by letters patent

of the said lord the king, under his great seal of Great Britain, made to them Commission of the aforesaid justices and others, and any two or more of them, (whereof one of them the said Sir Michael Foster and Sir Edward Clive, the said lord the king would have to be one) to inquire (by the oath of good and lawful men of the county aforesaid, by whom the truth of the matter might be the better known, and by other ways, methods, and means, whereby they could or might the better know, as well within liberties as without) more fully the truth of the treasons, misprisions of treasons, insurrections, rebellions, counterfeitings, clippings, washings, false coinings, and other falsities of the moneys of Great Britain, and of other kingdoms or dominions whatsoever; and of all murders, felonies, manslaughters, killings, burglaries, rapes of women, unlawful meetings and conventicles, unlawful uttering of words, unlawful assemblies, misprisions, confederacies, false allegations, trespasses, riots, routs, retentions, escapes, contempts, falsities, negligencies, concealments, maintenances, oppres sions, champerties, deceits, and all other misdeeds, offences, and injuries whatsoever, and also the accessories of the same, within the county aforesaid, as well within liberties as without, by whomsoever and howsoever done, had, perpetrated, and committed, and by whom, to whom, when, how and in what nanner; and of all other articles and circumstances in the said letters patent of the said lord the king specified; the premises, and every or any of them howsoever concerning; and for this time to hear and determine the said trea- oyer and tersons and other the premises, according to the law and custom of the realm of miner, England; and also keepers of the peace, and justices of the said lord the king assigned to hear and determine diverse felonies, trespasses, and other mis- and of the demeanors committed within the county aforesaid, by the oath of Sir James peace. Thompson, baronet, Charles Roper, Henry Dawes, Peter Wilson, Samuel Rogers, John Dawson, James Phillips, John Mayo, Richard Savage, William Grand jury. Bell, James Morris, Lawrence Hall, and Charles Carter, esquires, good and lawful men of the county aforesaid, then and there impanelled, sworn, and charged to inquire for the said lord the king and for the body of the said county, it is presented; That Peter Hunt, late of the parish of Lighthorne in Indictment. the said county, gentleman, not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil, on the 5th day of March, in the said second year of the reign of the said lord the king, at the parish of Lighthorne aforesaid, with force and arms, in and upon one Samuel Collins, in the peace of God and of the said lord the king, then and there being, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did make an assault; and that the said Peter Hunt, with a certain drawn sword, made of iron and steel, of the value of five shillings, which he the said Peter Hunt in his right hand then and there had and held, him the said Samuel Collins, in and upon the left side of the belly of him the said Samuel Collins, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did strike, thrust, stab, and penetrate; giving unto the said Samuel Collins, then and there, with the sword drawn as aforesaid, in and upon the left side of the belly of him, the said Samuel Collins, one mortal wound of the breadth of one inch, and the depth of nine inches; of which said mortal wound he the said Samuel Collins, at the parish of Lighthorne aforesaid, in the said county of Warwick, from the said fifth day of March in the year aforesaid, until the seventh day of the same month in the same year, did languish, and languishing did live; on which said

seventh day of March, in the year aforesaid, the said Samuel Collins, at the parish of Lighthorne aforesaid, in the county aforesaid of the said mortal wound did die; and so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say, that the said Peter Hunt, him the said Samuel Collins, in manner and form aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder, against the peace of the said lord the now king, his crown, and dignity. Whereupon the sheriff of the county aforesaid is commanded, that he omit not for any liberty in his bailiwick, but that he take the said Peter Hunt, if be may be found in his bailiwick, and him safely keep, to answer to the felony Session of gaol and murder whereof he stands indicted. Which said indictment the said jus

Capias.

delivery.

Plea: not guilty.

Issue.

Venire.

tices of the lord the king above named, afterwards to wit, at the delivery of the gaol of the said lord the king, holden at Warwick, in and for the county aforesaid, on Friday, the sixth day of August, in the said second year of the reign of the said lord the king, before the right honorable William lord Mans field, chief justice of the said lord the king, assigned to hold pleas before the king himself, Sir Sidney Stafford Smythe, knight, one of the barons of the exchequer of the said lord the king, and others their fellows, justices of the said lord the king, assigned to deliver his said gaol of the county aforesaid of the prisoners therein being, by their proper hands to deliver here in court of record. Arraignment in form of the law to be determined. And afterwards, to wit, at the same delivery of the gaol of the said lord the king of his county aforesaid, on the said Friday, the sixth day of August, in the said second year of the reign of the said lord the king, before the said justices of the lord the king last above-named, and others their fellows aforesaid, here cometh the said Peter Hunt, under the custody of William Browne, esquire, sheriff of the county aforesaid, (in whose custody in the gaol of the county aforesaid, for the cause aforesaid, he had been before committed,) being brought to the bar here in his proper person by the said sheriff, to whom he is here also committed: And forthwith being demanded concerning the premises in the said indictment above specified and charged upon him, how he will acquit himself thereof, he saith that he is not guilty thereof; and thereof for good and evil, he puts himself upon the country: And John Blencowe, esquire, clerk of the assizes for the county aforesaid, who prosecutes for the said lord the king in this behalf doth the like: Therefore, let a jury thereupon here immediately come before the said justices of the lord the king last above mentioned, and others their fellows aforesaid, of free and lawful men of the neighbourhood of the said parish of Lighthorne, in the county of Warwick aforesaid, by whom the truth of the matter may be the better known, and who are not of kin to the said Peter Hunt, to recognize upon their oath, whether the said Peter Hunt be guilty of the felony and murder in the indictment aforesaid above specified, or not guilty: because as well the said John Blencowe, who prosecutes for the said lord the king in this behalf, as the said Peter Hunt, have put themselves upon the said jury. And the urors of the said jury, by the said sheriff for this purpose impanelled and returned, to wit, David Williams, John Smith, Thomas Horne, Charles Nokes, Richard May, Walter Duke, Matthew Lion, James White, William Bates, Oliver Green, Bartholomew Nash, and Henry Long, being called, come; who, being elected, tried and sworn, to speak the truth of and concerning the preVerdict: guilty mises, upon their oath say, that the said Peter Hunt is guilty of the felony of murder. and murder aforesaid, on him above charged in the form aforesaid, as by the indictment aforesaid is above supposed against him; and that the said Peter Hunt, at the time of committing the said felony and murder, or at any time since to this time, had not nor hath any goods or chattels, lands, or tenements, in the said county of Warwick, or elsewhere, to the knowledge of the sand jurors. (1) And upon this it is forthwith demanded of the said Peter Hunt, if he hath or knoweth any thing to say, wherefore the said justices here ought not upon the premises and verdict aforesaid to proceed to justice and execution against him: who nothing farther saith, unless as he before hath said. Where upon all and singular the premises being seen, and by the said justices here fully understood, it is considered by the court here, that the said Peter Hunt be taken to the gaol of the said lord the king of the said county of Warwick from whence he came, and from thence to the place of execution on Monday now next ensuing, being the ninth day of this instant August, and there be hanged by the and dissection. neck, until he be dead; and that afterwards his body be dissected and anatom ized.

Judgment of death

(1) This averment is now rendered unnecessary. See 7 and 8 Geo. IV, a. 28; ante, p 887, n. (1)

576