Congress upon the Constitution has been long
 continued and uniform to the effect that the
 Constitution is applicable to territories acquired by
 purchase or conquest only when and so far as
 Congress shall so direct;" that while all power of
 government may be abused, the same may be said
 of the power of the government "under the
 Constitution as well as outside of it;" that "if it once
 be conceded that we are at liberty to acquire
 foreign territory, a presumption arises that our
 power with respect to such territories is the same
 power which other nations have been accustomed
 to exercise with respect to territories acquired by
 them;" that "the liberality of Congress in legislating
 the Constitution into all our contiguous territories
 has undoubtedly fostered the impression that it
 went there by its own force, but there is nothing in
 the Constitution itself and little in the interpretation
 put upon it, to confirm that impression;" that as the
 states could only delegate to Congress such
 powers as they themselves possessed, and as
 they had no power to acquire new territory, and
 therefore none to delegate in that connection, the
 logical inference is that "if Congress had power to
 acquire new territory, which is conceded, that
 power was not hampered by the constitutional
 provisions;" that if "we assume that the territorial
 clause of the Constitution was not intended to be
 restricted to such territory as the United States then
 possessed, there is nothing in the Constitution to
 indicate that the power of Congress in dealing with
 them was intended to be restricted by any of the
 other provisions;" and that "the executive and
 legislative departments of the government have for
 more than a century interpreted this silence as
 precluding the idea that the Constitution attached
 to these territories as soon as acquired."

 These are words of weighty import. They
 involve consequences of the most momentous
 character. I take leave to say that if the principles
 thus announced should ever receive the sanction
 of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous
 change in our system of government will be the
 result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of
 constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a
 written constitution into an era of legislative
 absolutism.

 Although from the foundation of the
government this court has held steadily to the view
that the government of the United States was one
of enumerated powers, and that no one of its
branches, nor all of its branches combined, could


 constitutionally exercise powers not granted, or
 which were not necessarily implied from those
 expressly granted (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 326,
 331, 4 L. ed. 102, 104) we are now informed that
 Congress possesses powers outside of the
 Constitution, and may deal with new territory,
 acquired by treaty or conquest, in the same manner
 as other nations have been accustomed to act
 with respect to territories acquired by them. In my
 opinion, Congress has no existence and can
 exercise no authority outside of the Constitution.
 Still less is it true that Congress can deal with new
 territories just as other nations have done or may
 do with their new territories. This nation is under the
 control of a written constitution, the supreme law of
 the land and the only source of the powers which
 our government, or any branch or officer of it, may
 exert at any time or at any place. Monarchical and
 despotic governments, unrestrained by written
 constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories
 what this government may not do consistently with
 our fundamental law. To say otherwise is to
 concede that Congress may, by action taken
 outside of the Constitution, engraft upon our
 republican institutions a colonial system such as
 exists under monarchical governments. Surely
 such a result was never contemplated by the
 fathers of the Constitution. If that instrument had
 contained a word suggesting the possibility of a
 result of that character it would never have been
 adopted by the people of the United States. The
 idea that this country may acquire territories
 anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty,
 and hold them as mere colonies or provinces,-the
 people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as
 Congress chooses to accord to them,-is wholly
 inconsistent with the spirit and genius, as well as
 with the words, of the Constitution.

 The idea prevails with some-indeed, it found
 expression in arguments at the bar-that we have
 in this country substantially or practically two
 national governments; one to be maintained under
 the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to
 be maintained by Congress outside and
 independently of that instrument, by exercising
 such powers as other nations of the earth are
 accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such
 a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as
 will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon
 a particular occasion or upon a particular subject,
within its provisions. !t is quite a different thing to
say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed
outside of the Constitution. The glory of our


423