The Thirtieth Congress did not accept the view expressed in the Walker circular, and at its second session passed "An act to extend the revenue laws of the United States over the territory and waters of Upper California, and to create a collection district therein," approved March 3, 1849 (9 U. S. Stats., chap. 112, p. 400).

Historically we know that the Polk administration did not act in California in accordance with the doctrine announced in the circular of October 7, 1848. If the Constitution and laws of the United States were in force in California, then it followed that the landing of foreign products in that territory, excepting at a port of entry, was prohibited by law. Since there were no ports of entry in the territory, no foreign products could be landed. Yet in October, 1848, California was the objective point of ships sailing on every sea, bringing passengers attracted to that territory by the discovery of gold therein, and these emigrants and their goods were not refused admission.

In none of his messages to Congress did President Polk advance the theory given form and substance by the Walker circular.

In his first annual message (December 2, 1845) President Polk, with reference to the annexation of Texas, said:

The Executive Government, the Congress, and the people of Texas in convention have successively complied with all the terms and conditions of the joint resolution.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Questions deeply interesting to Texas, in common with the other States, the extension of our revenue laws and judicial system over her people and territory, as well as measures of a local character, will claim the early attention of Congress. (Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 4, pp. 386, 387.)

* *

*

In his second annual message (December 8, 1846) President Polk said:

It will be important during your present session to establish a Territorial government and to extend the jurisdiction and laws of the United States over the Territory of Oregon.

*

*

*

*

The establishment of custom-houses * * requires legislative authority. (Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 4, p. 504.)

In his third annual message (December 7, 1847) President Polk, with reference to Oregon, said:

*

*

*

They

Our citizens who inhabit that distant region of country are still left without the protection of our laws or any regularly organized government. should have the right of suffrage, be represented in a Territorial legislature and by a Delegate in Congress, and possess all the rights and privileges which citizens of other portions of the Territories of the United States have heretofore enjoyed or may now enjoy.

Our judicial system, revenue laws, laws regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and the protection of our laws generally should be extended over them. (Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 4, pp. 553, 559.)

In his message to Congress, dated July 6, 1848, notifying that body of the ratifications of the treaty of peace with Mexico on May 30, 1848, President Polk said:

The immediate establishment of Territorial governments and the extension of our laws over these valuable possessions are deemed to be not only important, but indis

pensable to preserve order.

*

*

Foreign commerce to a considerable amount is now carried on in the ports of Upper California, which will require to be regulated by our laws. As soon as our system shall be extended over this commerce a revenue of considerable amount will be at once collected. For these and other obvious reasons I deem it to be my duty earnestly to recommend the action of Congress on the subject at the present session. (Messages of the Presidents, vol. 4, pp. 588, 589.)

In his annual message to Congress dated December 5, 1848, President Polk said:

No revenue has been collected at the ports in California because Congress failed to authorize the establishment of custom-houses or the appointment of officers for that purpose. (Messages of the Presidents, vol. 4, p. 638.)

In the same message President Polk further said (ib., p. 643):

It will be important to extend our revenue laws over these territories, and especially over California, at an early period. There is already considerable commerce with California, and until ports of entry shall be established and collectors appointed no revenue can be received.

Thereupon Congress passed "An act to extend the revenue laws of the United States over the territory and waters of Upper California, and to create a collection district therein," approved March 3, 1849. (9 U. S. Stats., chap. 112, p. 400.)

Mr. Polk retired from office March 4, 1849, leaving to his successor the adjustment of the complications which arose when Congress ascertained that the Executive had attempted to deal with California and New Mexico as being territory bound and benefited by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

*

*

The inhabitants of California and New Mexico, being advised by the Walker circular that "by the treaty with Mexico the Constitution of the United States is extended over that territory," naturally arrived at the conclusion that the provisions of the Constitution guaranteeing a republican form of government and securing representation in Congress were as potent as the requirements of the Constitution regarding uniform duties and imposts. If Congress were without discretion as to the one, how could it exercise discretion as to the others? Therefore the inhabitants, without waiting for Congress to authorize them so to do, proceeded to organize an independent State government, adopt a constitution, and elect Senators and Representatives in Congress. When the matter came before Congress, both the Senate and House of Representatives refused recognition to the credentials of the gentlemen claiming to be the Congressional delegations from said "States."

The numerous "enabling acts" whereby the creation of States has been authorized, and the various acts whereby the States so authorized to be created were thereafter admitted into the Union of States, show how universally and constantly it has been considered that the rights in relation to government of territory belonging to the United States are to be conferred or granted by Congress, and do not proceed from self-operating provisions of the Constitution.

President Taylor in his first annual message (December 4, 1849) said: A collector has been appointed at San Francisco under the act of Congress extending the revenue laws over California, and measures have been taken to organize the custom-houses at that and the other ports mentioned in that act at the earliest period practicable. The collector proceeded overland and advices have not yet been received of his arrival at San Francisco. Meanwhile it is understood that the customs have continued to be collected there by officers acting under the military authority, as they were during the administration of my predecessor. It will, I think, be expedient to confirm the collections thus made and direct the avails (after such allowances as Congress may think fit to authorize) to be expended within the Territory, or to be paid into the Treasury for the purpose of meeting appropriations for the improvement of its rivers and harbors. (Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 5, p. 19.)

ALASKA.

The treaty for the purchase of Alaska was proclaimed June 20, 1867. (15 Stat. L., 539.) On April 6, 1868, Mr. McCullough, then Secretary of the Treasury, addressed a letter to the collector of the port of New York wherein he acknowledged receipt of a request from the Russian minister for the free entry of certain oils shipped from Alaska to San Francisco and from there reshipped to New York. In response to this request Mr. McCullough said:

The request for the free entry of said oil was made on the ground that the oil was shipped from Sitka after the ratification of the treaty by which the territory of Alaska became the property of the United States. The treaty in question was ratified on the 20th of June, 1867, and the collector at San Francisco has reported that the manifest of the vessel shows the oil to have been shipped from Alaska on the 6th day of July, 1867, and that the shipment consisted of 52 packages. Under these circumstances you are hereby authorized to admit the said 52 packages of oil free of duty.

The views expressed by the Secretary of the Treasury were also entertained by the Secretary of State, William H. Seward. In a letter dated January 30, 1869, Mr. Seward said:

I understand the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harrison v. Cross (16 How., 164) to declare its opinion that, upon the addition to the United States of new territory by conquest and cession, the acts regulating foreign commerce attach to and take effect within such territory ipso facto and without any fresh act of legislation expressly giving such extension to the pre-existing laws. I can see no reason for a discrimination in this effect between acts regulating foreign commerce and the laws regulating intercourse with the Indian tribes.

On July 27, 1868, Congress passed an act entitled "An act to extend the laws of the United States relating to customs, commerce, and navigation over territory ceded to the United States by Russia, to establish a collection district therein, and for other purposes." ." (15 Stat. L.. 240.)

The first section of this act extended the laws of the United States relating to customs, commerce, and navigation to and over "all the mainland, islands, and waters of the territory ceded to the United States by the Emperor of Russia."

In connection with the course pursued by the administration of

President Johnson in the instance of Alaska, it is advisable to recall that President Johnson, prior to the time Alaska was acquired, had insisted that the Executive possessed the authority to determine what relations to the Federal Government of the United States should be sustained by the territory and inhabitants of the late rebellious States. If his position were well taken, it followed that, the treaty having been ratified by the Executive, there remained nothing to be done to complete the incorporation of Alaska into the United States.

COMPARISON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIFORM TARIFF LAWS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AS TO UNIFORM LAWS ON INTERNALREVENUE AND DIRECT TAXES.

Under the Constitution, the internal-revenue laws should be as universal and uniform in application as the tariff laws.

The first internal-revenue tax on spirits distilled in the United States was levied by the act of March 3, 1791, which, for purposes of collection, provided "that the United States shall be divided into fourteen districts, each consisting of one State." (1 U. S. Stats., sec. 4, pp. 199, 200.)

Although said act did not prohibit the distilling of spirits except in compliance with said tax regulations, no provision was made for the collection of said tax in the territories not included in the boundaries of the existing fourteen States.

It was not until 1868 that the internal-revenue laws were extended to apply to all places "within the exterior boundaries of the United States. (15 U. S. Stats., sec. 107, p. 167.)

The territories thus subjected to the provisions of the internalrevenue acts were the Indian reservations and the lands of the civilized tribes, which theretofore had not been invaded by the collector of internal-revenue taxes.

The provisions of the Constitution for direct taxation, instead of requiring that direct taxes shall be universal and uniform, requires that they shall be "apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined" by enumeration. (Art. 1, sec. 2, clause 3.) This provision is apparently coextensive with that relating to customs. The two clauses must be taken together, and the fact that one in requiring uniformity mentions the United States as a whole, and the other in prescribing a rule of proportion among the several parts refers to the taxable area distributively, can not be taken to mean that the limits of the taxable area in the two cases are different. In the first twenty-five years of the Government's existence, under the Constitution, Congress provided for several levies of direct taxes, which were imposed solely on the States. Finally, one was extended to territory (District of Columbia), and in upholding it Chief Justice

Marshall held that while Congress might include the Territories in imposing a direct tax, Congress were not required to do so. (Loughborough. Blake, 5 Wheat., 317.)

If, as Chief Justice Marshall held, the Constitution allows Congress discretion in fixing the area to be affected by direct taxation, by confining the direct tax to States or extending it to include the Territories, does not the Constitution permit a like discretion in fixing the area. affected by indirect taxation?

Attention is also directed to certain legislation of Congress relating to the United States Bank and Louisiana. The original charter of the bank authorized the directors to establish branch banks "wheresoever they shall see fit within the United States." (Act Feb. 25, 1791; 1 U. S. Stats., sec. 15, p. 195.)

Upon the acquisition of Louisiana the bank desired to establish a branch in New Orleans. To enable it to do so Congress passed the following act:

AN ACT supplementary to the act intituled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States."

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the president and directors of the Bank of the United States shall be, and they are hereby, authorized to establish offices of discount and deposit in any part of the Territories or dependencies of the United States, in the manner and on the terms prescribed by the act to which this is a supplement. Approved March 23, 1804. (2 U. S. Stats., p. 274.)

The Constitution requires that

Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. (Art. 4, sec. 1.)

The First Congress (1790) passed an act providing—

That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any State shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States by the attestation

* *

*

And the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as * (Act of May 26, 1790, 1 U. S. Stats., p. 122.)

When the province of Louisiana was acquired, it was of course necsary to secure a like recognition in that territory for such public acts, records, and judicial proceedings.

To accomplish this the Eighth Congress (1804) passed "An act sup plementary to the act entitled," etc., being the act above referred to. This act specifically divided all territory under the sovereignty of the United States into three classes, as follows:

(1) States of the Union.

(2) Territories of the United States.

(3) Countries subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This classification appears in section 2 of said act, which is as follows: That all the provisions of this act and the act to which this is a supplement shall apply as well to the public acts, records, office books, judicial proceedings, courts,