tions cannot govern subject provinces. If they are unable or unwilling to admit their dependencies to share their own constitution, the constitution itself will fall to pieces from mere incompetence for its duties. If it be true, Mr. Chairman, as declared by all these great authorities, that an attempt to govern subject provinces is at war with the spirit of a free republic, where will the majority of this committee find its justification for asserting that "upon reason and authority the term 'United States' does not include our territories ?" But, sir, there is a still more conclusive answer than any which has been read-an answer that is not political or historical or literary, but one from the lips of the greatest chief justice who ever served this or any other republic in the history of the world. Although I agree with but little of his political philosophy, the services, the character, and the ability of John Marshall entitle his memory to be revered and his words to be respected. The authority which I shall read is not only a judicial opinion sanctioned by Marshall's great name, but it was the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court. With that highest tribunal known to our law explicitly and unequivocally declaring that the term "United States" does include our territories, I think this committee will find it difficult to explain why they have reported a different conclusion to this House. What opinion of our courts have they cited to sustain their report? What learned judge supports their contention? Not one; and against their single and unsupported assertion I offer these words of Chief Justice Marshall. He says: Does this term-meaning the "United States "-designate the whole or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. He had not lived long enough to see this remarkable report of this remarkable committee [applause on the Democratic side], or perhaps he would not have ventured to say that the question admits of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania. I defy any gentleman on either side of the aisle to take an hour, a day, or week, and write out a more explicit contradiction of the statement contained in that committee's report than is found in these words of Chief Justice Marshall. [Applause on Democratic side.] Let us compare them. The committee say: That upon reason and authority the term "United States," as used in the Constitution, has reference only to the states that constitute the Federal Union, and does not include the territories. Marshall says that the "United States" is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories, and includes our territories as much as the State of Maryland or the State of Pennsylvania. [Applause on the Democratic side.] Gentlemen, whose judgment will you follow-that of the greatest lawyers that ever adorned our bench, or the political report of the Hon. Mr. Payne of New York? [Laughter and applause on the Democratic side.] That is not the only case in which this same doctrine is asserted. In Cross vs. Harrison the court says: By the ratification of the treaty California became a part of the United States. California could not become a part of the United States if these gentlemen are right, until it became a state of the Federal Union, and therefore if California became a part of the United States by the ratification of the treaty, as stated, by the Supreme Court, this report must be wrong, because the ratification of the treaty only made it a territory, which is not, according to the report, a part of the United States. Who is right-the unanimous Supreme Court or this divided committee? Who is most apt to have understood the Constitution—those judges, removed from the passions and perplexities of the political question that now confronts us, or these politicians who three weeks ago introduced a bill for free trade and now report a substitute which is exactly opposite? [Applause on the Democratic side.] I shall submit the first conclusion of the Committee on |