Schouler's History of the United States, Vol. III., pp. 101-103, 134–173, 178–186; Tucker's History of the United States, Vol. III., pp. 269–287; Carr's History of Missouri, American Commonwealths Series, pp. 139–148; Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, Vol. I., ch. XI.; Draper's Civil War in America, Vol. I., pp. 350-355; Hart's Formation of the Union, pp. 238-241; Goldwin Smith's Political History of the United States, pp. 177–178; Bryce's American Commonwealth, Vol. II., pp. 12–14.

AUTHORIZE

THE

AN ACT TO
TERRITORY ΤΟ FORM A

PEOPLE OF THE MISSOURI

CONSTITUTION AND STATE

GOVERNMENT, AND FOR THE ADMISSION OF SUCH STATE INTO THE UNION ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE ORIGINAL STATES, AND TO PROHIBIT SLAVERY IN CERTAIN

TERRITORIES.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That, etc.

Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the state, contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited: Provided always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed, in any state or territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.

Approved, March 6, 1820.

-Reprinted from U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. III.,

548.

p.

NUMBER III.

INTRODUCTION.

In the year 1821 Missouri was admitted into the union on an "equal footing with the original states." But no provisions were made for government in the residue of the Louisiana territory which lay to the north and west of Missouri. Indeed, this territory, which embraced the geographical area of the future Commonwealth of Iowa, seems to have been left wholly without a local constitutional status.1 And in this anomalous status it remained until 1834, when, by an act of Congress approved June 28th, 1834, it was, "for the purpose of temporary government, attached to, and made a part of, the territory of Michigan." The act specifically declares that "the inhabitants therein shall be entitled to the same privileges and immunities, and be subject to the same laws, rules, and regulations, in all respects, as the other citizens of Michigan territory."2

1 See' No. II. of this series, p. 26. Observe the use of the words "local constitutional status." The territory in question had a constitutional status; for the constitution, laws and treaties of the United States remained the "supreme law of the land." But this was a sovereign or general constitutional status or relation, and therefore not local. Furthermore, it would not be safe to say that this territory, or the people inhabiting this territory, was without a political status; for a study of the "claim association” gives evidence of the existence of local political organization. But such local political organization was extra-legal, and therefore not constitutional.

* See entire act as reprinted in this No.

What were the "privileges and immunities" of the "other citizens of Michigan territory"? What were the “laws, rules, and regulations” under which they lived? It is to afford data for the answering of such questions that certain documentary material is reprinted in this number.

Furthermore, no right understanding or just appreciation can be had of the political institutions of early Iowa without an intensive study of such documents as the Ordinance of 1787 and certain acts of Congress and of the Territory of Michigan. For the early political institutions of this Commonwealth appear as sequences in those governmental developments which took place in and through the territories of the north and west. And here, as in political study in general, effects can best be studied through their causes.

B. F. S.

THE TERRITORY OF THE NORTHWEST.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES.

Journals of Congress, Vol. XII., p. 49, 58–63; Poore's Constitutions and Charters, Vol. I., pp. 427–433; Public Domain, p. 153; U. S. Land Laws, p. 356; St. Clair Papers, Vol. II., p. 612; Preston's Documents, pp. 240–250; Albach's Annals of the West, pp. 466-472; Mag. of Western Hist., Nov., 1884, Vol. I., p. 56; Curtis's Constitution, Vol. I., p. 302; Tucker's United States, Vol. I., Appendix; Towle's Constitution, p. 360; Cooper and Fenton's Am. Politics; U. S. Stat. at Large, Vol. I., pp. 50, 285.

Winsor's Narrative and Critical Hist., Vol. VII., p. 537; Bancroft's U. S. Hist., Vol. II., p. 277 (last ed.); Burnet's Northwestern Territory, p. 37; Rufus King's Ohio (Am. Commonwealths), pp. 161-188; Dunn's Indiana (Am. Commonwealths), pp. 177-218; Harper's Mag., Vol. 71, p. 554; Bryant and Gay's U. S. Hist., Vol. IV., p. 109; Howard's Local Const. Hist., pp. 408-410; Hart's Formation of the Union, p. 108; Cooley's Michigan (Am. Commonwealths), p. 127; Adam's paper in Maryland Hist. Soc. Fund Publ., No. 11, p. 60; Cole's Hist. of the Ordinance in Pa. Hist. Soc. Papers (Phila., 1856); Lalor's Cyclopedia, Vol. III., p. 31.

FRIDAY, July 13, 1787.

Congress assembled: Present as yesterday.

According to order, the ordinance for the government of the territory of the United States north-west of the river Ohio, was read a third time, and passed as follows:

AN ORDINANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES, NORTH-WEST OF THE RIVER OHIO.

Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled, That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary government, be one district; subject, however, to be divided into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the opinion of Congress, make it expedient.

Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the estates, both of resident and non-resident proprietors in the said territory, dying intestate, shall descend to, and be distributed among their children, and the descendants of a deceased child in equal parts; the descendants of a deceased child or grand-child, to take the share of their deceased parent in equal parts among