shall be made, under the authority of the United
 States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and
 the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
 anything in the constitution or laws of any state to
 the contrary notwithstanding." Meigs's Growth of
 the Constitution, 284, 287. That the convention
 struck out the words "the supreme law of the
 several states," and inserted "the supreme law of
 the land," is a fact of no little significance. The
 "land" referred to manifestly embraced all the
 peoples and all the territory, whether within or
 without the states, over which the United States
 could exercise jurisdiction or authority.

 Further, it is admitted that some of the
 provisions of the Constitution do apply to Porto
 Rico, and may be invoked as limiting or restricting
 the authority of Congress, or for the protection of
 the people of that island. And it is said that there is a
 clear distinction between such prohibitions "as go
 to the very root of the power of Congress to act at
 all, irrespective of time or place, and such as are
 operative only 'throughout the United States' or
 among the several states." In the enforcement of
 this suggestion it is said in one of the opinions just
 delivered: Thus, when the Constitution declares
 that 'no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be
 passed,' and that 'no title of nobility shall be granted
 by the United States,' it goes to the competency of
 Congress to pass a bill of that description." I cannot
 accept this reasoning as consistent with the
 Constitution or with sound rules of interpretation.
 The express prohibition upon the passage by
 Congress of bills of attainder, or of ex post facto
 laws, or the granting of titles of nobility, goes no
 more directly to the root of the power of Congress
 than does the express prohibition against the
 imposition by Congress of any duty, impost, or
 excise that is not uniform throughout the United
 States.The opposite theory, I take leave to say, is
 quite as extraordinary as that which assumes that
 Congress may exercise powers outside of the
 Constitution, and may, in its discretion, legislate
 that instrument into or out of a domestic territory of
 the United States.

 In the opinion to which I have referred it is
suggested that conditions may arise when the
annexation of distant possessions may be
desirable. "If," says that opinion, "those
possessions are inhabited by alien races, differing
from us in religion, customs, laws, methods of
taxation, and modes of thought, the administration
of government and justice, according to Anglo-


 Saxon principles, may for a time be impossible; and
 the question at once arises whether large
 concessions ought not to be made for a time, that
 ultimately our own theories may be carried out, and
 the blessings of a free government under the
 Constitution extended to them. We decline to hold
 that there is anything in the Constitution to forbid
 such action." In my judgment, the Constitution
 does not sustain any such theory of our
 governmental system. Whether a particular race will
 or will not assimilate with our people, and whether
 they can or cannot with safety to our institutions be
 brought within the operation of the Constitution, is
 a matter to be thought of when it is proposed to
 acquire their territory by treaty. A mistake in the
 acquisition of territory, although such acquisition
 seemed at the time to be necessary, cannot be
 made the ground for violating the Constitution or
 refusing to give full effect to its provisions. The
 Constitution is not to be obeyed or disobeyed as
 the circumstances of a particular crisis in our history
 may suggest the one or the other course to be
 pursued. The People have decreed that it shall be
 the supreme law of the land at all times. When the
 acquisition of territory becomes complete, by
 cession, the Constitution necessarily becomes the
 supreme law of such new territory, and no power
 exists in any department of the government to
 make "concessions" that are inconsistent with its
 provisions. The authority to make such
 concessions implies the existence in Congress of
 power to declare that constitutional provisions may
 be ignored under special or embarrassing
 circumstances. No such dispensing power exists in
 any branch of our government. The Constitution is
 supreme over every foot of territory, wherever
 situated, under the jurisdiction of the United
 States, and its full operation cannot be stayed by
 any branch of the government in order to meet
 what some may suppose to be extraordinary
 emergencies. If the Constitution is in force in any
territory, it is in force there for every purpose
embraced by the objects for which the government
was ordained. Its authority cannot be displaced by
concessions, even if it be true, as asserted in
argument in some of these cases, that if the tariff
act took effect in the Philippines of its own force,
the inhabitants of Mandanao, who live on imported
rice, would starve, because the import duty is many
fold more than the ordinary cost of the grain to
them. The meaning of the Constitution cannot
depend upon accidental circumstances arising out
of the products of other countries or of this country.
We cannot violate the Constitution in order to serve