In support of the bill, Mr. Eustis, of Massachusetts, said:

It is extremely difficult to form any system of government for this Territory with our ideas of civil liberty under the Constitution of the United States. It appears to me that before we determine the principle on which the council is to be formed it is necessary distinctly to understand the genius, the manners, the disposition, and the state of the people to be governed. The treaty has been resorted to by my colleague to show that they are entitled to elect their own legislature. It says:

"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 the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States."

Are the people of Louisiana admitted at this time or not, with all the rights of citizens of the United States? The answer to this inquiry will lead to a right decision of the question under discussion. If they are so admitted they are entitled to all the rights of citizens of the United States. And if they are thus entitled there remains another inquiry: Are they qualified from habit and from the circumstances in which they are placed to exercise these high privileges? If they are both entitled and qualified to enjoy them we can have no hesitation in pronouncing the bill grounded on a wrong principle, that it ought to be rejected, and another a bill, of a far different nature, be introduced in its room. But I do not consider the subject in this light. The people, in my opinion, are at present unprepared for and undesirous of exercising the elective franchise. The first object of the Government is to hold the country. How? By protecting the people in all their rights, and by administering the government in such a manner as to prevent any disagreement among them, to use no other term. Suppose the people called upon to choose those who are to make laws for them, does the information we possess justify the belief that this privilege would be so exercised as to conduce to the peace, happiness, and tranquillity of the country? I apprehend not.

The government laid down in this bill is certainly a new thing in the United States; but the people of this country differ materially from the citizens of the United States. I speak of the character of the people at the present time. When they shall be better acquainted with the principles of our Government, and shall have become desirous of participating in our privileges, it will be full time to extend to them the elective franchise. Have not the House been informed from an authentic source, since the session, that the provisions of our institutions are inapplicable to them? If so, why attempt, in pursuit of a vain theory, to extend political institutions to them for which they are not prepared? I am one of those who believe that the principles of civil liberty can not suddenly be ingrafted on a people accustomed to a regimen of a directly opposite hue. The approach of such a people to liberty must be gradual. I believe them at present totally unqualified to exercise it. If this opinion be erroneous, then the principles of the bill are unfounded. If, on the contrary, this opinion is sound, it results that neither the power given to the President to appoint the members of the council or of the governor to prorogue them are unsafe or unnecessary. The extension of the elective franchise may be considered by the people of Louisiana a burden instead of a benefit. I have understood there is none of that equality among them which exists in the United States; grades are there more highly marked, and they may deem it rather a matter of oppression to extend to them the privileges which we deem inestimable, and with the value of which we have been long familiar. Before we decide this principle it is absolutely necessary to consider the relation of these people to the United States. I consider them as standing in nearly the same relation to us as if they were a conquered country. By the treaty they are, it is true, entitled to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of

citizens of the United States and to be incorporated into the Union as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution. But can they be admitted now? Are they at this moment so admitted? If not, they are not entitled to these rights; but if they were I should doubt the propriety of extending them to them.

If the present provisions of the bill are carried into effect there will be more security than will arise under the motion of my colleague. It is very natural and honorable to gentlemen of liberal minds to be desirous of extending to this people the privileges enjoyed by our own citizens, but sentiments of this kind, however liberal and praiseworthy, may be carried in the face of facts and may operate injuriously on those they are intended to benefit.

Upon the whole, as the bill only purports to provide for a temporary government, and as in the course of a year we shall have more information respecting the country, when it will be in our power, in case such information shall justify it, to extend all the privileges which gentlemen seem so desirous of doing, I hope the committee will not rise or agree to strike out this section. (Annals of Congress, 1803, pp. 1058-1059.).

Mr. Holland, replying to Mr. Jackson, said:

As my ideas are very different from those of the gentleman who has preceded me, and as I do not believe that either policy or moral obligation recommends the adoption of a system such as he has avowed to be proper, I will, in a few words, state the sentiments I entertain. I do not view this discussion as involving the question whether the people of Louisiana shall be admitted into the United States. The only question is whether we shall extend to them the right of free suffrage in its fullest extent and such as is enjoyed by the people of the United States. Gentlemen in favor of striking out this section seem impressed with the idea that every gentleman friendly to the section is in favor of an absolute despotism, is inimical to their rights, is desirous of making the people of Louisiana slaves. They take the ground that if we deny them this right we deny them everything; but there is a wide difference between denying them the privilege of election and extending to them other high privileges, more, perhaps, than they are capable of enjoying. This law will extend to them the privileges of 21 acts of the United States to which the freemen of the United States are subject. Is this nothing? Gentlemen say they ought not to be subjected but to laws of their own making, but the whole frame of this bill contradicts the assertion, as it principally consists in imposing laws which the people never made or ought to participate in making. Will the gentleman take the broad ground that people should never be governed but by laws of their own making? This is, indeed, the amount of the argument, and proving too much it proves nothing. Mr. H. said he believed the people of St. Domingo who had been alluded to, not qualified to support a free government, not possessed of sufficient knowledge. People who never had an opportunity to obtain knowledge can not be supposed to possess it, and no kind of knowledge was more difficult to obtain than that which qualified men to be legislators. Can gentlemen conceive the people of Louisiana, who have just thrown off their chains, qualified to make laws? Under the late system the people had no concern in the Government, and it was even criminal for them to concern themselves with it; they were set at a distance from the Government, and all required from their hands was to be passive and obedient. Can it be supposed such a people made the subject of government their study, or can it be presumed they know anything about the principles of the Constitution of the United States? Would persons thus elected be of any service to the Government? So far from being an assistance, they would be an incumbrance. Why, then, impose this burden upon them? The object of this bill is to extend the laws of the United States over Louisiana, not to enable the

people of Louisiana to make laws. This extension, so far from being an act of despotism, will be an important privilege. If the laws of the United States were founded in injustice they might have some right to complain, but we only apply to them laws by which we ourselves consent to be governed. Gentlemen say if we deny the right of self-government we deny everything. But before they are permitted to make laws ought they not to understand what law is? If we give power to the people, will they not choose persons as ignorant as themselves? It is a fact that many of the most respectable characters in the country conceive the principle of self-government a mere bubble, and they will not consider themselves aggrieved if it is not extended to them. Does the history of nations show that all men are capable of self-government? No such thing. It shows that none but an enlightened and virtuous people are capable of it; and if the people of Louisiana are not sufficiently enlightened, they are not yet prepared to receive it. If this be the case, the arguments of gentlemen are inconclusive. They are not prepared for self-government. For what are they prepared? To remain in a passive state and to receive the blessings of good laws; and receiving these, they have no reason to complain.

When the people understand the value of laws equally and impartially administered, and begin to feel an attachment to the United States, and to inquire into the principles of free government, it will be time enough to give them the elective franchise. (Annals of Congress, 1803, pp. 1072–1073.)

A majority of the House refused to support the President's bill, and amended it so as to authorize the inhabitants of Louisiana to elect the members of the legislative council. The Senate refused to concur, and the outcome as stated in the Annals, was:

It may not be unsatisfactory here to state that the bill, as finally passed, is limited in duration to one year from the 1st day of October next (when it is to take effect) and thence to the end of the next session of Congress. It directs the appointment by the President of a governor, to hold his office for four years; the appointment annually of a legislative council, composed of inhabitants of Louisiana, and the appointment of judges. It will be perceived that the principle of the Senate, withholding for the present the right of suffrage from the people of Louisiana, prevailed, subject, however, to the limitation of time introduced in the bill by the House of Representatives. (Annals of Congress, 1803, p. 1230.)

In 1804 Jefferson was a candidate for reelection to the Presidency. The course pursued by his Administration in the acquisition and government of Louisiana was submitted to the people. Jefferson received 162 electoral votes out of 176, while in 1801 he received but 73 out of 138.

In the Ninth Congress (1805) the opposition to Jefferson could muster only 7 Senators out of 34, and 25 Representatives out of 141. The extent of his triumph is thus described:

From the St. Marys to the Potomac and the Ohio every electoral voice was given to Jefferson. With some surprise the public learned that Maryland gave 2 of 11 votes to C. C. Pinckney, who received also the 3 votes of Delaware. This little State even went back on its path, repudiated Cæsar A. Rodney, and returned to its favorite, Bayard, who was sent by a handsome majority to his old seat in the House of Representatives. Broken for an instant only by this slight check, the tide of Democratic triumph swept over the States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, and burst upon Connecticut as though Jefferson's hope of dragging even that

State from its moorings were at length to be realized. With difficulty the Connecticut hierarchy held its own, and with despair after the torrent passed by it looked about and found itself alone. Even Massachusetts cast 29,310 votes for Jefferson,

At the close of four years of administration all Jefferson's hopes were fulfilled. He had annihilated opposition. The slanders of the Federalist press helped to show that he was the idol of four-fifths of the nation. (Adams's History, vol. 2, p. 201.)

The Eighth Congress, in which occurred the two debates on Louisiana, was composed of Federalists and State rights men, strict constructionists and liberal constructionists, extremists and conservatives of both parties and schools. Yet all agreed that the newly acquired territory could not become incorporated into the United States or bound and benefited by the Constitution except by legislative action of Congress. As to the government of such territory little doubt was expressed as to the right of Congress to govern it as a colony. The serious doubt arose as to the right of the nation to ever govern it in any other way.

THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN ANDREW JACKSON, MILITARY GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, AND JUDGE FROMENTIN, UNITED STATES JUDGE FOR THAT TERRITORY, AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DOCTRINE OF EX PROPRIO VIGORE.

When the United States acquired East and West Florida the Louisiana law was taken for a model and the Government of Florida was the same as had been that of Louisiana. Monroe was President, and he followed Jefferson's example and acted upon Jefferson's advice. When the Florida bill was pending in Congress an amendment was offered providing as follows:

That all the principles of the United States Constitution, for the security of civil and religious freedom, and for the security of property, and the sacredness of rights to things in action; and all the prohibitions to legislation, as well as with respect to Congress as the legislatures of the States, be, and the same are hereby declared to be, applicable to the said Territory, as paramount acts. (Annals of Cong., 1st sess., 17th Cong., vol. 2, p. 1374.)

This amendment was voted down. In opposing the amendment Mr. Rhea, speaking for the Administration, said:

* * *

The people of Florida (except citizens of the United States who may have removed there either temporarily or permanently) know little of our Constitution and laws; to these they are strangers. Many principles of the Constitution of the United States require laws of the United States to carry them into operation. That the Constitution of the United States shall obtain and have full force and effect in a territory not included within the bounds and limits of the territories of the old thirteen States, or either of them, but which has been acquired by treaty from any foreign power since the adoption of that Constitution, and that the inhabitants of such territory shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities, sanctioned and confirmed by the Constitution to the citizens of the United States; it appears necessary and consistent with the Constitution of the United States that the sovereign people shall, by the Congress of the United States, enact laws preparatory to, and

declaratory of, the admission of such territory to a participation of the rights, etc., derived from the Constitution, and afterwards to be admitted a State of this Union on the same footing as one of the original States; the people of such new State will then have their full representation in both Houses of the Congress of the United States, and then the Constitution of the United States is in full operation in and over such new States as it is in one of the original States. (Ib., p. 1375.)

Next an amendment was offered to authorize the people of Florida to elect their legislative council. This amendment received only 15 votes, and was lost. (Ib. p. 1377.)

The bill passed without amendment and was approved by President Monroe. The following is Benton's comment on the incident:

*

*

*

This prompt rejection of Mr. Montgomery's proposition shows what the Congress of 1822 thought of the right of Territories to the enjoyment of any part of the Constitution of the United States. The only question between Mr. Montgomery's proposition and the clause already in the bill was as to the tenure by which these rights should be held-whether under the Constitution of the United States or under a law of Congress and the treaty of cession, and the decision was that they should be held under the law and the treaty. Thus a direct issue was made between constitutional rights on one hand and the discretion of Congress on the other in the government of this Territory, and decided promptly and without debate (for there was no speech after that of Mr. Rhea on either side) against the Constitution. It was tantamount to the express declaration: "You shall have these principles which are in the Constitution, but not as a constitutional right nor even as a grant under the Constitution, but as a justice flowing from our discretion and as an obligation imposed by the treaty which transferred you to our sovereignity.” (Benton's Abridgment, vol. 7, p. 295, note.)

Andrew Jackson, then a major-general, was appointed governor of Florida under this bill and authorized by the President to exercise all the powers theretofore possessed by the Spanish governors of East and West Florida and in addition the powers of the captain-general of Cuba and the intendant of Cuba. Jackson went to Florida and proceeded to exercise these powers in the style for which he is still famous. As a legislature he enacted many laws, some of which were afterwards repealed by Congress; as the supreme court and chancellor of the Territory he heard and determined many cases both at law and in equity, and as the chief executive or governor he extended his authority to issuing orders expelling certain inhabitants from the Territory.

Shortly after Jackson assumed control, a matter arose which squarely raised the question as to whether the Constitution followed the flag into Florida.

Jackson learned that a Spanish military officer named Sousa had in his possession and refused to surrender certain documents relating to the claims of a private individual to an estate. Jackson issued an order requiring the delivery of these documents to the American authorities. Instead of complying with the order, Sousa consulted the commander of the Spanish forces, Colonel Callava, who instructed him to turn over the documents to the steward of the Colonel's household; which instruc