Thus was established the principle that the territories were but extensions of the nation, and entitled, not
 as a privilege, but as a right, to all the benefits of equality that the states enjoyed in the field of civil rights.
 This new principle of equality was reiterated by the Louisiana treaty of cession, April 30, 1803:

 The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the
 United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of
 the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all rights, advantages and
 immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be
 maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the
 Religion which they profess ... .5


 The United States continued this policy when it acquired Florida on February 22, 1819. The treaty
 declared the intent that "The inhabitants .... shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, as
 soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment
 of all the privileges, rights and immunities of the citizens of the United States." Unrestricted freedom of
 religion was also guaranteed.6

 The same policy was followed when Alaska was ceded on June 20, 1867, with one exception: no
 mention was made, in the convention of cession, of any intent on the part of the United States to
 "incorporate" the inhabitants into the Union. The language of the convention excepted the "uncivilized
 native tribes" from the ordinary rights conferred:

 The inhabitants of the ceded territory, .... with the exception of the uncivilized
 native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages,
 and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and
 protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion. The
 uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United
 States may from time to time adopt in regard to the aboriginal tribes of that
 country.7

 Thus, the federal government was consistent in its policy as it acquired continental territories. The
 inhabitants of the various territories were guaranteed all rights enjoyed by the citizens of the United
 States. Yet, as will be shown later, the very language of these documents was, in later years, to be used to
 withhold from other territories the rights here conferred.

 W. W. Willoughby, having made a review of the decisions of the Supreme Court prior to the Insular
 cases, concluded that, from the first, the doctrine was held by the Court that Congress, when legislating
 upon the civil rights of inhabitants of the territories, is governed by all those expressed and implied
 limitations which rest upon it when dealing with the same subjects within the States.8 It was after the
 Spanish-American War that the Supreme Court was called upon to reexamine this doctrine, and the
 question whether that principle of equality applied to the extracontinental territories, acquired by the
 United States as a result of that war, became a paramount and fervent controversy.


 THE DOCTRINE OF TERRITORIAL INCORPORA TION

 The question of the status of civil rights in the new possessions of Puerto Rico and the
Philippines was related to a larger question: whether or not the Constitution follows the flag. The issue
was raised in Downes v. Bidwell (1901), when Downes brought an action against Bidwell, the collector of
the port of New York, to recover duties exacted and paid under protest upon certain oranges consigned
to Downes at New York. The oranges were brought to New York from the port of San Juan, Puerto Rico,
after the passing of the Foraker Act,10 which provided for a temporary civil government and revenues for
Puerto Rico.


383