In subsequent years, after the seat of government had been located in the District of Columbia, and the population of the District had increased, the fact became more noticeable that its inhabitants-contrary to the general principles of our system of government-were deprived of the privilege of voting in Federal elections, and even had no voice in making their own local regulations. President Monroe, in 1818, in his annual message, called the attention of Congress to the anomaly existing in our system, and recommended to their consideration the problem whether an arrangement better adapted to the principles of our Government could not be devised, which will never infringe the Constitution nor affect the object which the provision in question was intended to secure.1 In 1844 a proposition was made to so amend the Constitution that Congress should retain the power of exclusive legislation over the Government buildings and grounds in the District of Columbia and in Federal territory situated in other States; but all rights of legislation over other parts of the District of Columbia should be retroceded to the States of Maryland and Virginia whenever the legislatures of these States should signify a willingness to accept the same. This amendment was probably suggested by the slavery question, as were several other propositions which will be considered in connection with the slavery amendments.3 91. ABRIDGING TERRITORY. The peace of 1783 left several perplexing boundary controversies affecting territory normally within the area of the United States. The British continued to occupy posts within the northwestern frontier; the Spaniards retained their hold in west Florida, above the parallel of 31°. In the southwest also, Georgia stubbornly laid claim to a large area of territory then occupied by Indians. It is therefore easy to account for the presentation in 1794 of an amendment dealing with both these problems. This proposed amendment declared that the powers of the Government should not extend to curtail or abridge the limits of the United States as defined by the Treaty of Paris in 1783, nor should the 1 App., No. 480. Const., Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 17. 3 Post, par. 112. H. Doc. 353, pt 2—12 State rights of preemption to Indian hunting grounds within its limits, after a fair treaty and sale, be questioned.' The Jay treaty of 1794 and the Spanish treaty of 1795 put an end to the exterior boundary disputes; and in 1802 a settlement of the Georgian land claims was reached. When, in 1826, and again in 1842, the negotiations with England threatened to deprive Maine of a part of the territory to which she asserted title, no attempts to secure an amendment is recorded. 92. ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY. The next year after the Georgia controversy was laid at rest, the annexation of Louisiana brought on a new controversy with the New England States. No formal attempt was made to introduce an amendment in Congress relative to the annexation of Louisiana. It seems necessary, however, to consider certain amendments drawn up by President Jefferson.2 In July, 1803, news arrived of the treaty concluded at Paris, April 30, between the United States and the French Republic, for the purchase of Louisiana. President Jefferson considered that there was no constitutional authority for the annexation of foreign territory by treaty, and prepared the following draft of an amendment which was to be submitted to the States: "The province of Louisiana is incorporated with the United States, and made part thereof, the rights of occupancy in the soil and of self-government all confirmed to the Indian inhabitants as they now exist." Then, after creating a special constitution for the territory north of the thirty-second parallel, reserving it for the Indians until a new amendment to the Constitution should give authority for white ownership, the draft provided for erecting the portion south of latitude 320 into a territorial government, and vesting the inhabitants with the rights of other territorial citizens.3 This draft he sent to his Cabinet, but none of them considered an amendment necessary. Jefferson was not ready to yield his views at once, and in August he proposed a new and briefer draft. "His first," Mr. Adams says, was "almost a App., No. 326. 2See Henry Adams's History of the U. S. for extended accouat, Vol. II, Chap. IV, V, VI; Story, Vol. 11, p. 168, note 1: Vol. 1, p. 373, note 2; Jefferson's Works, Vol. IV, pp. 500, 504, 505. For Federal opposition, see Fisher Ames's Works, Vol. 1, p. 323; Foster, Com. ou Const., I, sec. 31, pp. 116-118. Henry Adams, Hist. U. S., Vol. 11, pp. 86, 87. constitution in itself." It read as follows: "Article XIII. Louisiana, as ceded by France to the United States, is made a part of the United States; its white inhabitants shall be citizens and shall stand as to their rights and obligations on the same footing with other citizens of the United States in analogous situations, save only that as to the portion thereof lying north of an east and west line drawn through the mouth of Arkansas River, no new State shall be established nor any grant of land made, other than to Indians in exchange for equivalent portions of land occupied by them, until an amendment to the Constitution shall be made for these purposes. Florida, also, whensoever it may be rightfully obtained, shall become a part of the United States; its white inhabitants shall thereupon be citizens, and shall stand as to their rights and obligations on the same footing with other citizens of the United States in analogous situations." Jefferson's party friends and advisers considered that the introduction of an amendment would be inexpedient, and tried to dissuade him from urging such a change. Finally their efforts met with success. In a letter to Senator Nicholas of Virginia, Jefferson writes: "I confess I think it important in the present case to set an example against broad construction by appealing for new power to the people. If, however, our friends shall think differently, certainly I shall acquiesce with satisfaction, confiding that the good sense of our country will correct the evil of construction when it shall produce ill effects." 2 Nothing further was heard of amendments from the President, but Senator John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, adhering to the views first set forth by Jefferson, after waiting in vain for some move from the Executive, finally, on the 25th of November, 1803, moved "that a committee be appointed to inquire whether any, and if any, what further measures may be necessary for carrying into effect the treaty whereby Louisiana was ceded to the United States."3 His motion failed to be recorded, and the Senate unanimously laid it on the table. 505. Lalor, 1, p. 609. Letter to Levi Lincoln of August 30, 1803. Works, Vol. IV, p. 504, Adams, II, p. 91. See comments of Judge T. M. Cooley on Jefferson's attitude, in pamphlet entitled Louisiana, p. 16. 3 Annals of Congress, Eighth Congress, first session, p. 106. Adams said the annex. ation was "an assumption of implied powers greater in its consequences than all the assumption of implied power in the twelve years of Washington's and Adams's adminis trations put together." Cooley, Louisiana. 93. ADMISSION OF NEW STATES. Only two other amendments have been offered relative to the admission of new States, except those presented in connection with the slavery question, which are treated under that subject. The first of these was drawn up by the Hartford convention, and brought to the attention of Congress at the same time as the other amendments proposed by this assembly in 1815. This amendment stipulated that no new State should be admitted without the concurrence of twothirds of both Houses of Congress.2 The New England States doubtless believed that such an amendment was necessary for their protection, in view of the fact that by means of the votes of the members from the new States measures inimical to their interests could be pushed through Congress. This had been the case in 1812, when war had been declared contrary to the desire of a large majority of the people of New England. This series of resolutions, as introduced by Massachusetts and Connecticut members in obedience to the instructions of their respective legislatures, called out resolutions of disapproval from the legislatures of several of the other States.1 The second proposition was not presented until over half a century later, in 1871, and was designed to prevent the too early admission of new States. It provided that hereafter no Territory or District should be admitted as a State that did not contain a population that would entitle it to at least one Representative according to the ratio of representation at the time of its application for admission.5 1 Post, par. 110. Even in the Constitutional Convention hostility was shown by some of the members to new States, and an attempt was made to restrict their representation in the National Legislature. Mr. Gerry gave formal expression to this hostility in his motion of July 14: " That in order to secure the liberties of the States already confeder ated, the number of representatives in the first branch of the States, which shall hereafter be established shall never exceed in number the representation from such of the States as shall accede to this confederation." Elliot, v, p. 310. Four States favored it, five opposed it, and one, Pennsylvania, was divided. 2 App., Nos. 426, 434, 442. Story, 11, p. 169, note 2. 3 For address of the Congressional minority, see Niles' Register, II, pp. 309–315. 4 Ante, par. 22, p. 45. The house of representatives of Massachusetts, in 1844–1845, passed strong State rights resolutions against the admission of Texas. H. J., February 28, 1845, p. 509. Foster, Com. on Const., I, p. 118. 5 App., No. 1341. In 1871, besides Delaware there were of the new States Nebraska, Nevada, and Oregon which did not have a population equal to the representative ratio. According to the census of 1890, the population of Delaware, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Wyoming, respectively, did not equal the ratio of representation now in force, which is one for every 173,901 inhabitants of a State. 94. REPRESENTATION OF THE TERRITORIES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN CONGRESS. Each Territory has long been entitled to send a Delegate to the House of Representatives, but he has no vote. In recent years, Delegates from the Territories have presented four dis tinct proposals in Congress to give them voting members in the House of Representatives. No important action has been taken relative to any one of them.' The District of Columbia, although the seat of the Federal Government and more populous than some States, has under the Constitution no share in the Presidential and Congressional elections, and has not by law received even the privilege of sending a Delegate to Congress. One of the above-mentioned resolutions included the District of Columbia in its provisions." As recently as 1888 Senator Blair introduced an amendment to give to the District representation in the two Houses of Congress and votes in the electoral college. Since the admission of six new States, in 1889 and 1890, the question of changing the peculiar status of an inhabitant of the Territories is not now as urgent as formerly, but the problem in regard to the District of Columbia still confronts the nation. 3 95. DISPOSITION OF THE PUBLIC LANDS. It is somewhat remarkable that during the periods when the questions relating to the public lands were prominent in the deliberations of Congress, only one proposal was made to amend the Constitution relative to their disposal. When the legislature of Georgia, in 1833, petitioned Congress to call a convention to amend the Constitution, they included as one of the questions they desired to have considered, an amendment which should settle the "right to and disposition of the public lands of the United States." 5 It was not, however, until the early seventies, after large tracts of the Government land had come into the possession of 1 App., Nos. 1348, 1394, 1454, 1510. No. 1294 also provided that each Territory should be entitled to choose one elector for President and Vice-President. App., No. 1454. 3 App., No. 1726. The District should have as many electors for President and VicePresident as it has members in Congress, but their representatives in Congress were not to participate in joint convention of the two Houses, nor in proceedings touching the choice of President and Vice-President, nor in the organization of either House of Congress. Utah admitted in 1896. App., No. 622. See letter of Governor Troup of Georgia to the Secretary of War, of June 3, 1825. Niles' Register, Vol. XXVIII. p. 240; also, Von Holst, U. S. Hist., Vol. 1, pp. 438-439. See post, par. 146. |