I9I2.] OF THE UNITED STATES. 293 



So far as the question is raised by the quotations above made as 

 to the power of the President and Senate to enter into commercial 

 treaties and so affect the tariff laws, it will be seen that this question 

 is one which may involve individual rights and so become the subject 

 of judicial determination. Its further consideration will therefore 

 be postponed till the inductive study of the decisions of the Supreme 

 Court of the United States be had.^^ 



The acquisition or cession of territory, however, by the United 

 States, involves problems of wholly national and political import. 

 The power of the United States to acquire territory by the exercise 

 of the treaty-making power is firmly established and has been exer- 

 cised in a series of treaties. In 1803 Louisiana was ceded by France ; 

 in 1819 Florida by Spain; in 1848 California and New Mexico by 

 Mexico; in 1867 Alaska by Russia; and in 1899 Porto Rico and the 

 Philippine Islands by Spain. 



The exercise of the treaty-making power relative to the acquisi- 

 tion of Florida came before the Supreme Court in American Insur- 

 ance Company vs. Canter,-'- and was judicially sanctioned. 



" The Constitution," said Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the 

 opinion of the Court, "confers absolutely on the government of the Union, 

 the powers of making war, and of making treaties; consequently, that gov- 

 ernment possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by 

 treaty.""' 



A long series of cases recognizes without question and discusses 

 this power to acquire territory by treaty. The extent and operation 

 of this power receives the most thorough criticism in the Insular 

 Cases."* In those cases there was not directly in issue the extent 

 of the treaty-making power with reference to the acquisition of 



'^^ Infra, 100-105. 



"-I Peters, 511 (1828). 



"^ I Peters, p. 542. 



■""^ These are: De Lima vs. Bidwell, 182 U. S., i (1901), Downes is. Bid- 

 well, 182 U. S., 244 (1901). Directly connected with these cases, but estab- 

 lishing no additional principles are: Dooley vs. United States, 182 U. S., 222 

 (1901), Dooley vs. United States, 183 U. S., 151 (1901), Fourteen Diamond 

 Rings, 183 U. S., 176 (1901). More recently the same principles have been 

 reenunciated in Lincoln vs. United States, 197 U. S., 419 (1905), 202 U. S., 

 484 (1906), Pearcy vs. Stranahan, 205 U. S., 257 (1907), United States z's. 

 Heinszen. 206 U. S., 370 (1907). 



