In connection with the slavery controversy the extent of the power of Congress over the Terri tories and the District of Columbia early became the subject of debate. Those who favored the restriction of slavery by constitutional means. in cluding members of the Free-Soil and Republican parties (qq.v.1, made the question of Congres sional prohibition of slavery in the Territories a constant and in some cases a paramount po litical issue, while the pro-slavery partisans, recognizing, that a Territory free from slavery would develop into a State free from slavery and thus disarrange the balance between the free and slave States in the national Senate, fought with great vigor and tenacity all proposed men.: nre... which had in view slavery prohibition in the national domain. As early ns 18'20 petitions were presented for abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. By the Missouri Compromise (q.v.) of 1820 it was provided that Territories south of the line of latitude 30° 30' N. might have slavery, while those north of that line should not. The question again came up in 1850, when, as one of the compromise measures, Utah and New Mexico were organized without reference to slavery (see COMPROMISE OF 1850), and in 1854 the so-called principle of popular or squatter sovereignty was established by the passage of the Kansas-Nehraska Bill (q.v.), which had for its basis the right of each Territory to determine for itself whether or not the institution of slavery should obtain within its limits. (See POPULAR SOVEREICNTY.) In 1859. in the Dred Scott Case. the Supreme Court of the United States decided in an ()biter dictum that the power of Congress over the Territories was limited by the obliga tion placed upon Congress to protect private rights in property, that slaves were property, and that, therefore, Congress could not consti tutionally prevent slaves from being earried into any of the Territories. In 1863, however, slav
ery was abolished and slaves were emancipated in all national territory held or to be acquired.
The Territorial stage is one of preparation for the Commonwealth status. The Constitution empowers Congress to erect the Territories into States and admit them into the Union whenever it sees fit. Usually when the Territory has a population equal to that of the Congressional district the inhabitants memorialize Congress to pass an 'enabling act' empowering them to form a constitution, and prescribing the conditions to be fulfilled. In a number of instances, however, the inhabitants without asking for an enabling, net have adopted a constitution and then applied for admission to the Union. As the language of the Constitution is not mandatory. hut per missive, the question has arisen as to whether Congress in admitting new States may impose such conditions as it chooses. especially if such conditions were not imposed upon time original States. This was the main question in the Con troversy over the Missouri Compromise (q.v.), since which time Congress has admitted a num ber of new States under conditions which were not imposed upon the old States.
After the Spanish-American War the exact status of Territories as compared with the Na tional Government and the rights and duties of the National Government with regard to Terri tories again came into controversy. In 1901, however, in the Insular Cases, the United States Supreme Court decided that Congress may freely determine when new Territories are to be in corporated into the Union, can create such forms of government as it sees fit for all regions out side the limits of the States, and can legislate differently for different parts of the national do main.