garding its peculiar character, and especially regarding the relative advantages and disadvantages that it presents as contrasted with those of civil government.

The great advantage of a military government lies in the absolute power that is vested in the military commander to take such action as he deems best without being hampered by the necessity of obtaining the consent of any other body or authority. By the mere promulgation of a general order he can nullify existing laws, amend them, or create new laws to take their place. The period of military rule can thus be very profitably employed in making those changes which are absolutely essential in order to accomplish the transition from the old to the new system of government, but which are certain to be antagonized by the persons affected. Thus, for example, where the people are indifferent to, or even opposed to, necessary sanitary measures and cannot be made to authorize such measures themselves, the military authorities can, regardless of such indifference, insure their accomplishment. Or, again, there may be certain public services which under the old régime were entrusted to the local authorities and were very inefficiently performed which in the interest of economy and efficiency should be placed under the direct control of the central government. Under any civil government in which the people possess a large share in the management of their own affairs it is often impossible to secure such a transfer. All such questions can most easily be solved by a military government where nothing more is needed than the fiat of the commander.

It is hardly necessary to comment upon the advan

tages that this method of managing public affairs presents under circumstances such as existed in the Philippines upon their first acquisition. There was there presented the exceedingly difficult task of changing from one system of government to another based upon entirely different principles. Such a change, no matter how desirable it might be, could not possibly have been made without encountering a great deal of opposition on the part of certain classes of the population affected. Not only were the people accustomed to the old régime, but it was impossible for them at once to understand or appreciate the advantages of the new system, or the real object that was sought to be attained by making the change. It may safely be said that it would have been an almost hopeless task to have effected this transformation without a tremendous amount of friction and intolerable delay had it been necessary to work through the ordinary ma-. chinery of civil government. Action of the military authorities may, thus, be likened to a surgical operation. Although apparently radical and arbitrary, and even at times carrying with it a certain element of hardship, it yet in many cases means a more speedy recovery and ultimate benefit to the general public. Had, therefore, the Philippines come to us through voluntary cession by Spain, without the intervention in any way of the military forces, it is difficult to see how the government of these islands could have been brought under the general system of American administration except after generations of effort.

Notwithstanding these manifest advantages enjoyed by a military government, there are certain disadvan

tages inherent in that form of administration which render it desirable that it should be discontinued at the earliest possible moment, and a complete form of civil government substituted in its place. A population naturally chafes under such an autocratic régime, and constant friction results. More important still, the moral effect is bad where, as in the case of the United States, the essential aim is to develop a spirit of self-reliance and ability on the part of the people governed to manage their affairs, and to make them satisfied with the new sovereignty under which they have been brought. Rightly or wrongly, a people whose affairs are being administered in an arbitrary way will believe that such administration is conducted without regard to their rights. Military officers, moreover, are by their very training unfitted in a way to appreciate the feelings of the people being governed, and unwittingly look upon them in the nature of a subject people who are to be governed rather than to be educated in the art of government. Even if the superior officers appreciate the delicate nature of their task, their subordinates will not always fully do SO. For these reasons the United States, as will be seen, has at the earliest possible moment taken the action necessary for the substitution of civil for military authority in all territory acquired by military operations.

CHAPTER II

GOVERNMENT OF EARLY ACQUISITIONS ON THE MAINLAND

Northwest and Southwest Territories. The problem of the government of territory not comprehended within the boundaries of an individual State but belonging to the nation as a whole first arose through the cession to the Federal Government by the original thirteen States of lands stretching to the westward as far as the Mississippi River, the possession of which was conferred upon them by the treaty of 1783. This cession by the different States took place during the years from 1781 to 1802. The territory thus transferred to the Federal Government was from the start divided into two large areas: the one lying north and the other south of the Ohio River and both having for their western boundary the Mississippi River. They were designated, respectively, as "The territory of the United States northwest of the River Ohio" and "The territory of the United States south of the River Ohio," but were usually known simply as "The Northwest Territory" and "The Southwest Territory."

Before these cessions were completed the Continental Congress addressed itself to the question of their government. In 1783 it appointed a committee, of which Thomas Jefferson was chairman, to report a plan for

tages inherent in that form of administration which render it desirable that it should be discontinued at the earliest possible moment, and a complete form of civil government substituted in its place. A population naturally chafes under such an autocratic régime, and constant friction results. More important still, the moral effect is bad where, as in the case of the United States, the essential aim is to develop a spirit of self-reliance and ability on the part of the people governed to manage their affairs, and to make them satisfied with the new sovereignty under which they have been brought. Rightly or wrongly, a people whose affairs are being administered in an arbitrary way will believe that such administration is conducted without regard to their rights. Military officers, moreover, are by their very training unfitted in a way to appreciate the feelings of the people being governed, and unwittingly look upon them in the nature of a subject people who are to be governed rather than to be educated in the art of government. Even if the superior officers appreciate the delicate nature of their task, their subordinates will not always fully do So. For these reasons the United States, as will be seen, has at the earliest possible moment taken the action necessary for the substitution of civil for military authority in all territory acquired by military operations.