well understand that the framers of that amendment might be, and no doubt were, in great doubt as to whether, if the amendment were adopted as originally proposed by Senator Henderson (or by Mr. Stevens in the House), it would apply to the eleven States then in rebellion, which had, in the opinion of many, forfeited their statehood, and which would, if the Union could be restored, become subject to the jurisdiction of Congress as conquered territory. The words "or any place subject to their jurisdiction" were therefore made a part of the amendment. And Mr. Stevens had contended that the decision of this court in the prize cases (2 Black, 66) was regarded as contributing to that doubt.

Here were sufficient grounds for doubt as to whether, after the rebellion was suppressed, the court would hold that the rebel States had been “out of the Union," and whether while they were so out they were or were not a part of the United States, and whether, when the thirteenth amendment should be adopted and become a part of the supreme law of the land, it would apply to them at the end of the rebellion unless they could then be regarded as conquered territory, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It will be seen that these debates and differences of opinion afford another illustration of the differences that had existed prior to the civil war with reference to the subject of slavery in the Territories and the power of Congress in relation thereto. There is no hint or suggestion by any person speaking on the subject that it was desirable, as the Attorney-General would have you infer, to introduce into the Constitution words recognizing that we might need to embark on a colonial policy which would enable the United States to accept grants of territory and assume the government of places as places within their jurisdiction, but not an integral part of themselves.

In conclusion, I make no appeal to this court upon other than constitutional and historical grounds. Absolute power is dangerous, more so to its possessor than to the people subject thereto. I feel assured that you, familiar with all the battles for freedom which have adorned and elevated the human race in its evolution from barbarism to civilization, will not find that any agency of the freest people on earth, the foundation of whose Government was everywhere welcomed as the greatest political achievement of all time, is possessed of absolute or unrestrained power over these lands and peoples brought within our direct influence and control. Your decision will carry to them, not the assertion of arbitrary power over their future, but the assurance that theirs shall be a government limited by that instrument which every citizen should regard as the only source of Federal power.

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

OCTOBER TERM, 1900.

No. 456.

ELIAS S. A. DE LIMA, ELIAS A. DE LIMA, AND EDWARD DE LIMA, COMPOSING THE FIRM OF D. A. DE LIMA & CO., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,

IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

FILED OCTOBER 23, 1900.