sentatives of twenty-six members with a term of service of two years, all to be elected directly by the qualified voters of the Territory. The electoral franchise was at the same time broadened by dropping the requirement regarding the payment of taxes; universal manhood suffrage thus practically resulting. The territorial legislature, however, was given the power to change this provision regarding the suffrage and to determine the qualifications of voters at subsequent elections as it deemed best, provided that the right of suffrage should not be conferred upon any person not a citizen of the United States. Definite provision was also made that all township and county officers except judicial officers, justices of the peace, sheriffs and clerks of the court should be elected. The Wisconsin act may, therefore, be considered as the revised model of the Northwest Ordinance, upon which has been based the form of government given to most, if not all, of the territories that have subsequently been created.

The Oregon act of 1848 may also be specially noted, as it introduced the principle, which was followed in a number of subsequent acts, but afterwards abandoned, of having the members of the upper house, whose term was three years, divided into classes, so that one-third should retire each year. The term of office of the members of the lower house was fixed at one year. For the first time there also appeared the provision limiting the duration of the ordinary sessions of the legislature to sixty days. The Oregon act also represented the growing tendency on the part of Congress to incorporate in the organic acts for the government of Territories special provisions and restric

tions. The Oregon legislature was thus expressly denied the power of incorporating any banking institution, of borrowing money in the name of the Territory, or of pledging the faith of the people for any loan whatever, directly or indirectly. This tendency to limit the powers of the territorial legislature and to incorporate in the organic act provisions which partake of a legislative rather than a constitutional character from this date became increasingly prominent.

In the foregoing, as has been said, no effort has been made to follow out every step that has been taken in the way of splitting up the territory that has been acquired into smaller geographical divisions, or to trace all the changes that have necessarily been introduced in the forms of government that have been created for the latter. All that has been sought has been to make known the essential character of the policy that has uniformly been pursued by the United States in respect to providing for the government and administration of territory while in a position of dependency. No one can read the history of this action, extending over a period of more than a hundred years, without being impressed with the extent to which a knowledge of it is essential to a correct appreciation of the reasons and motives that have underlain the action that has been taken in recent years for the government of our newly acquired possessions. The historical basis for much of this later action is found in the events which we have just passed in review. Particularly will it be seen that the very provisions of the organic acts for the insular possessions that have received the most

criticism as being violations of the political principles and traditions of the United States, find ample precedent in the systems of government that have been created for dependent territories on the mainland. Instead of being treated more harshly in respect to the grant of political rights and privileges, the insular possessions have, if anything, received a more liberal treatment than has in many cases been accorded to newly acquired territory in the past.

In the first place, our history has made clear that, from the very outset, Congress, notwithstanding its sincere desire to give to the principle of self-government the fullest possible application, has not hesitated to deny the grant of such privilege until it has been satisfied that the inhabitants of the territory in question are fully qualified for its enjoyment. In the second place, Congress has in the same way laid down the principle that all of the rights guaranteed to citizens of the States by the Constitution do not of their own force apply to dependent territory but only as they are expressly extended to it by legislative act. Neither has Congress felt itself under any compulsion to apply in all cases those political principles which lie at the very basis of the American constitutional system, but on the other hand has resolutely refused to do so until it has been satisfied that such action will be for the best interests of the people of both the dependent territory and the nation as a whole. Thus Congress has granted to the same person, the President of the United States, full executive and judicial power to take such action as he may deem best for the government of territory pending definite provision by Con

gress. Even when Congress itself has created a system of government, the exercise of two or all three of the branches into which governmental powers are dividedlegislative, executive and judicial-has been placed in the same hands, thus violating the principle of the separation of powers, which is considered one of the most characteristic features of our constitutional system. So, also, Congress has not hesitated to make provision for an appointive or partly appointive instead of an elective legislature.

CHAPTER III

PRESENT GOVERNMENT OF TERRITORIES

In the preced

Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma. ing historical account of the treatment of dependent territory by the United States, allusion has been made to all of the more important provisions that have been incorporated in organic acts. A description will now be given of the form of government possessed by existing Territories in order that the extent to which these provisions find a place in legislation at present in force may be seen.

In the exercise of its powers over dependent territory, Congress can proceed either by special act having reference to a particular territory, or by general legislation relating to all political divisions having the same status. In the earlier years the former method was almost exclusively employed. As, however, the policy of the United States became more settled there was exhibited an increasing tendency to make use of the latter method. As a condition precedent to action in this way, it was necessary that a distinction should be made between those territories which were fitted for the enjoyment of a large measure of self-government and those which, on account of their recent acquisition or undeveloped character, had not yet reached the position that would make safe the grant to them of this