ference with them, and what may be termed artificial or remedial rights, which are peculiar to our own system of jurisprudence. Of the former class are the rights to one's own religious opinion and to a public expression of them, or, as sometimes said, to worship God according to the dictates of one's own conscience; the right to personal liberty and individual property; to freedom of speech and of the press; to free access to courts of justice, to due process of law, and to an equal protection of the laws; to immunities from unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as cruel and unusual punishments; and to such other immunities as are indispensable to a free government. Of the latter class are the rights of citizenship, to suffrage, and to the particular methods of procedure pointed out in the Constitution which are peculiar to AngloSaxon jurisprudence, and some of which have already been held by the states to be unnecessary to the proper protection of individuals.

"Whatever may be finally decided by the American people as to the status of these islands and their inhabitants-whether they shall be introduced into the sisterhood of states or be permitted to form independent. governments-it does not follow that, in the meantime, awaiting that decision, the people are in the matter of personal rights unprotected by the provisions of our Constitution, and subject to the merely arbitrary control of Congress. Even if regarded as aliens, they are entitled under the principles of the Constitution to be protected in life, liberty, and property. . . . We do not desire, however, to anticipate the difficulties which would

naturally arise in this connection, but merely to disclaim any intention to hold that the inhabitants of these territories are subject to an unrestrained power on the part of Congress to deal with them upon the theory that they have no rights which it is bound to respect" (17).

These important suggestions have been applied in two recent cases, in which it was held that the requirement of grand and trial juries for the prosecution of criminals did not bind the United States government in Hawaii (18), or in the Philippines (19).

§ 265. Foreign territory temporarily occupied. (d) As regards territory temporarily occupied by this country, though not annexed, probably the Constitution does not apply at all. During the American occupation of Cuba after the Spanish war, the entire government was adminstered under American control. An American citizen who was alleged to have committed a crime in Cuba was arrested in this country to be sent back there for trial. The contention of the defendant and the answer of the court appear in the following quotation:

"It is contended that the act of June 6, 1900, is unconstitutional and void in that it does not secure to the accused, when surrendered to a foreign country for trial in its tribunals, all of the rights, privileges, and immunities that are guaranteed by the Constitution to persons charged with the commission in this country of crime against the United States. Allusion is here made to the

(17) Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S., 244, 282-3.

provisions of the Federal Constitution relating to the writ of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, trial by jury for crime, and generally to the fundamental guarantees of life, liberty, and property embodied in that instrument. The answer to this suggestion is that those provisions have no relation to crimes committed without the jurisdiction of the United States against the laws of a foreign country" (20).

§ 266. Foreign consular jurisdiction. (e) It seems also that the Constitution of the United States does not apply to any actions of our government that may be authorized within foreign countries by the law there. If the Japanese government permits American consuls to conduct trials in Japan in the consular courts, no jury need be provided. "The Constitution can have no operation in another country. When therefore the representatives or officers of our government are permitted to exercise authority of any kind in another country, it must be on such conditions as the two countries may agree, the laws of neither one being obligatory upon the other" (21).

§ 267. Admission of new states into the Union. The Constitution provides, Article IV, section 3, § 1: "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."

It was contemplated that new states, formed out of the territory owned by the United States, should be admitted to the Union from time to time, as the various organized territories became fitted for this. The first new state admitted under this clause was Vermont in 1791, and the number has been increased until at this date (1909) thirty-three states have been admitted in addition to the original thirteen. It is generally admitted today that the admission of a state to the Union is irrevocable, and that the state can neither withdraw nor be excluded.

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union and all the guarantees of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the state. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. . . . There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the states. . . . Texas continued to be a state, and a state of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions [secession and Civil war] to which we have referred" (22).

...

§ 268. Can new states be admitted with powers less than those of other states? Where this question has been referred to by courts or political writers it has been gen

(22) Texas v. White, 7 Wall., 700.

erally assumed that a state can only be admitted upon the same footing as the other states and that any attempt by Congress in the terms of admission, either to increase its own powers or diminish those of the new state as compared with its neighbors, are invalid (23). Congress has at various times purported to limit in certain particulars the legislative powers of states newly admitted, like Utah, or "reconstructed," like Mississippi, the former in respect to the future legalization of polygamy, and the latter in respect to the restrictions upon suffrage. These attempts are doubtless invalid (24).

A distinction has been made, however, between terms of admission limiting the political rights of new states, and those limiting their rights with respect to property. Thus, provisions qualifying the right of Minnesota to deal with the public lands of the United States in the hands of the latter or its transferees have been upheld as an agreement respecting property made by the new state upon its admission (25).

(23) Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Bolln v. Nebraska, 176 U. S. 83. (24) Sproule v. Fredericks, 69 Miss. 898.

(25) Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U. S., 223.