The Universe Lonely Planet

Visit to download the full and correct content document:

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-universe-lonely-planet/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Lonely Planet Cancún Cozumel the Yucatán Lonely Planet

https://textbookfull.com/product/lonely-planet-cancun-cozumel-
the-yucatan-lonely-planet/

Lonely Planet Scandinavia Lonely Planet

https://textbookfull.com/product/lonely-planet-scandinavia-
lonely-planet/

Lonely Planet England Lonely Planet

https://textbookfull.com/product/lonely-planet-england-lonely-
planet/

Lonely Planet Europe Lonely Planet

https://textbookfull.com/product/lonely-planet-europe-lonely-
planet/
Lonely Planet France Lonely Planet

https://textbookfull.com/product/lonely-planet-france-lonely-
planet/

Lonely Planet Germany Lonely Planet

https://textbookfull.com/product/lonely-planet-germany-lonely-
planet/

Lonely Planet India Lonely Planet

https://textbookfull.com/product/lonely-planet-india-lonely-
planet/

Lonely Planet Brazil Lonely Planet

https://textbookfull.com/product/lonely-planet-brazil-lonely-
planet/

Lonely Planet Berlin Lonely Planet

https://textbookfull.com/product/lonely-planet-berlin-lonely-
planet/
 The Universe Contents

Foreword

Introduction to the Universe

Scale of the Universe
Modern Observing Methods
Today’s Telescopes
How to Use This Book
Naming Conventions
Highlights

The Solar System

Transits & Eclipses

Introduction to the Planets

Manned Space Flight

The Quest for Orbit
Race to the Moon
Shuttle Programme
The Present Day
The International Space Station

The Sun
Orientation
Atmosphere
Heliosphere
Solar Flares
History
In Popular Culture
Mercury
Orientation
Magnetosphere
History
BepiColombo Mission
In Popular Culture
Caloris Planitia
Pantheon Fossae
Raditladi Basin
Rachmaninoff Crater
Caloris Montes

Venus
Orientation
Atmosphere
History
In Popular Culture
Mariner 2
Magellan Mission
Signs of Life
Baltis Vallis
Maat Mons
Alpha Regio
Maxwell Montes
Aphrodite Terra

Earth
Orientation
Atmosphere
Magnetosphere
History
 NASA Earth Science
Mt Everest
Challenger Deep
Atacama Desert
Mauna Kea
Chicxulub Crater
Silfra
Death Valley
Antarctica
Great Barrier Reef
Amazon Rainforest
Ngorongoro Conservation Area
Great Wall of China

The Moon
Orientation
History
In Popular Culture
Apollo 11
Orbital Gateway
Lunar Eclipses
Sea of Tranquility
South Pole-Aitken Crater
Copernicus Crater
Montes Apenninus
Oceanus Procellarum

Mars
Orientation
Mapping Mars
Martian Moons
 Atmosphere & Magnetosphere
History
In Popular Culture
Investigating Mars
Curiosity Rover
InSight Lander
Travelling to Mars
Polar Caps
Tharsis Montes
Olympus Mons
Valles Marineris
Hellas Planitia
Bagnold Dune Field
Gale Crater
Elysium Planitia
Syrtis Major Planum
Utopia Planitia
Vastitas Borealis

Jupiter
Orientation
Atmosphere
History
Great Red Spot
Ring System
Surface
Clouds
Oceans
Magnetosphere
Juno Mission
Io
 Europa
Ganymede
Callisto

Saturn
Orientation
History
Cassini Mission
Saturn’s Rings
Magnetosphere
Surface
Titan
Enceladus
Rhea, Dione & Tethys
Iapetus
Mimas
Phoebe

Uranus
Orientation
History
Surface/Atmosphere
Aurorae
Magnetosphere
Ring Systems
Miranda
Ariel
Umbriel
Oberon
Titania
Shepherd Moons
Neptune
Orientation
Magnetosphere
History
In Popular Culture
Surface/Atmosphere
Rings
Proteus
Triton
Nereid
Other Moons

Non-Planetary Solar System Objects

Asteroid Belt/Asteroids
Bennu
Ceres
Chariklo
EH1
Eros
Ida
Itokawa
Phaethon
Psyche
Vesta

Kuiper Belt

Dwarf Planets
Eris
Farout
The Goblin
 Haumea
Makemake
Pluto
Comets
Borrelly
C/1861 G1 Thatcher
Churyamov-Gerasimenko
Hale-Bopp
Halley
Hartley 2
ISON
’Oumuamua
Shoemaker-Levy 9
Swift-Tuttle
Tempel 1
Tempel-Tuttle
Wild 2

Oort Cloud

Exoplanets
2MASS J2126-814b
51 Pegasi b
55 Cancri
Barnard’s Star b
CoRoT-7b
CVSO 30b and c
Epsilon Eridani
Fomalhaut b
Gliese 163 b, c & d
Gliese 176 b
Gliese 436 b
Gliese 504 b
Gliese 581 b, c & e
Gliese 625b
Gliese 667 cb & cc
Gliese 832 b & c
Gliese 876 b, c, d & e
Gliese 3470 b
GQ Lupi b
HAT-P-7b
HAT-P-11b
HD 40307 g
HD 69830 b, c & d
HD 149026 b
HD 189733 b
HD 209458 b
HIP 68468 b & c
Kapteyn b & c
KELT-9b
Kepler-10b & c
Kepler-11b to g
Kepler-16 (AB)-b
Kepler-22b
Kepler-62b to f
Kepler-70b & c
Kepler-78b
Kepler-90b
Kepler-186b to f
Kepler-444b to f
Kepler-1625b
Kepler-1647 (AB)-b
 Lich System (PSR B1257+12)
Methuselah’s Planet
Pi Mensae b & c
Pollux b
Proxima b
PSO J318.5-22
Ross 128 b
TRAPPIST-1
TrES-2b
WASP-12b
WASP-121 b
Wolf 1061 b, c & d
YZ Ceti b, c & d

Stellar Objects
Nebula & Protostars
Main Sequence Stars
Giant Stars
Binaries & Clusters
End of Life
Life Cycle of Stars
Spectra Classification
1E 2259+586
3C 273
Achernar
Aldebaran
Algol
Alpha Centauri A
Alpha Centauri B
Altair
Antares
Arcturus
Barnard’s Star
Betelgeuse
California Nebula
Canopus
Capella
Cat’s Eye Nebula
Crab Nebula
Cygnus X-1
Deneb
Dumbbell Nebula
Epsilon Aurigae
Eta Carinae
Ghost of Jupiter
GRS 1915+105
HE 1256-2738
HE 2359-2844
Helix Nebula
Herschel’s Garnet Star
HLX-1
Horsehead Nebula
HV 2112
IGR J17091-3624
Iris Nebula
Kepler’s Supernova
Kes 75
Little Dumbbell Nebula
Mira
MY Camelopardalis
North America Nebula
Omega Centauri
 Orion Nebula
Owl Nebula
Pleiades
Polaris
Procyon
RCW 86
Regulus
Rigel
Ring Nebula
Rosette Nebula
Sagittarius A*
SAO 206462
SDSSJ0927+2943
SGR 1806-20
Sirius
Spica
Tabby’s Star
T Tauri
ULAS J1120+0641
UY Scuti
Vega
Veil Nebula
VY Canis Majoris
W40

Galaxies
Andromeda Galaxy
Black Eye Galaxy
Bode’s Galaxy
Canis Major Dwarf
Cartwheel Galaxy
 Centaurus A
Cigar Galaxy
Circinus Galaxy
Condor Galaxy
Grand Spiral Galaxy
Hoag’s Object
Large and Small Magellanic Clouds
Malin 1 Galaxy
Markarian 231
M77
M87
NGC 1512
NGC 3370
Pinwheel Galaxy
Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy
Sculptor Galaxy
Sombrero Galaxy
Sunflower Galaxy
Tadpole Galaxy
Triangulum Galaxy
W2246-0526
Whirlpool Galaxy

Colliding Galaxies
Antennae Galaxies
Arp 273
Mayall’s Object
NGC 2207 & IC 2163
NGC 2623
NGC 3256
Galaxy Clusters
Abell 1689
Bullet Cluster
El Gordo
Fornax Cluster
Local Group
Musket Ball Cluster
Norma Cluster
Pandora’s Cluster
Perseus Cluster
Phoenix Cluster
Virgo Cluster

Glossary

Acknowledgements

Author Biographies
A star being distorted by its close passage to a supermassive black hole at the centre of a
galaxy.
© SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY / ALAMY STOCK PHOTO
Welcome to the Universe
Bill Nye
Lonely Planet’s The Universe gives us more perspective, often
breathtaking, more insight, often deep – and more unusual facts,
often ones you can’t find anywhere else, regarding the profound
happenstance of our existence. Simply put, the remarkable sequence
of cosmic accidents required to enable us to be here on this planet
and publish books like this one is astonishing. Unique to these pages
are wonderful comparisons of Earth with the other worlds of our
solar system and even those exoplanets orbiting other stars. They
drive home the jaw-dropping idea that you and I, and everything we
can observe around us, are made of the dust and gas blasted
spaceward by exploding ancient Suns. And from the stardust and
drifting gas, the extraordinary diversity of living things, including
animals like you and me, emerged. You and I are at least one way that
the cosmos knows itself. An utterly amazing idea that fills me with
reverence every time I think on it.
While you are going about your business every day, thinking about
what’s happening on Earth right now, this book will help you think
about a much grander timeline as well. From the comfortable surface
of Earth, our deep-thinking ancestors observed our planet and its
relationship, their relationship, to the night sky and the Sun. They
learned where to live and how to survive. From the icy blackness of
space, our spacecraft, built by our best scientists and engineers, make
further observations that relentlessly show us Earth is like no other
place in the solar system, and remains the only place we can live and
thrive. By understanding the changes here over recent millennia, we
can see that, if we’re going to continue to thrive, we must preserve
our environment. Otherwise, we’ll go extinct, like 90% of the species
that gave it a go on Earth before we showed up.
This cosmic perspective induces all of us to compare Earth to our
neighbouring worlds out there. It’s one thing to consider Earth as a
pretty big place, especially if you tried to walk around it. It’s another
thing to think that 1300 Earths would fit inside a sphere the size of
Jupiter, and over a million Earths would fit inside the volume of the
Sun. While we’re appreciating the visible differences of the traditional
planets, what you might call their qualitative differences, this book
helps us take it all in by the numbers, the planets’ (and exoplanets’)
quantitative differences, and beyond that, the differences between our
own Sun and the uncountable stars above, visible and invisible. In
here, these essential distinctions are spelled out – or counted up.
The rocky and metallic compositions of Mars, Venus, and Mercury
are very much like Earth’s, but the environments of these other
worlds are completely different. The text and pictures here will help
you understand why. The unique chemical composition of the rocks,
craters, and sands of the other worlds in the solar system has caused
these extraterrestrial environments to have chemistries that are
literally other worldly. These processes have conspired to produce
radically different surface temperatures on Mars and Venus. Our
discoveries in planetary science offer us a planet-sized lesson in the
importance of the greenhouse effect, how our planet became
habitable, and how the biochemistry of life changed the chemistry of
the atmosphere and sea.
The story carries out away from the Sun, where we find the gas-
giant planets: Jupiter and Saturn. They don’t seem to even have
surfaces as such. There’s nowhere to stand, but they’re so massive
that, if you got too close, their gravity would crush you quick. On out
further from the Sun we find Uranus and Neptune. They’re very large
and very cold, with enormous icy storm systems and winds moving at
fantastic speeds. All of these other worlds in our solar system, the
ones that are not Earth are very different, very interesting – and
utterly hostile.
As you turn these pages, learning the facts of everything from our
solar system to the far reaches of intergalactic space, consider that
there’s no other planet that we know of anywhere, upon which you
could even catch a breath to be taken away, or seek a deciliter of
water to be sipped – let alone be afforded an opportunity to live long
and prosper. The Earth is unique, amazing, and our home.
From a cosmic perspective, we are a pretty big deal. We’ve changed
the climate of a whole planet. Run the numbers for yourself. Climate
change is our doing. If we’re going to make it much farther on this
world, we’re going to have to engage in some un-doing. Right now, it’s
our chance to change things. We are but a speck in the cosmic
scheme. But it’s our speck, and the more we know and appreciate it,
the better chance we have keeping it hospitable for species like us.

Barred spiral galaxy NGC 1300.

© DESIGN PICS INC / ALAMY STOCK PHOTO
Introduction to the Universe
With 2 trillion estimated galaxies and uncountable
stars, our Universe is filled with wild examples of
exoplanets, stars, black holes, nebulae, galaxy clusters
and more, which scientists are still probing.
Our Universe began in a tremendous explosion known as the Big
Bang about 13.7 billion years ago. We know this by observing light in
our Universe which has travelled a great distance through space and
time to reach us today. Observations by NASA’s Wilkinson Anisotropy
Microwave Probe (WMAP) revealed microwave light from this very
early epoch, about 400,000 years after the Big Bang.
A period of darkness ensued, until about a few hundred million
years later, when the first objects flooded the Universe with light. The
first stars were much bigger and brighter than any nearby today, with
masses about 1000 times that of our Sun. These stars first grouped
together into mini-galaxies; the Hubble Space Telescope has captured
stunning pictures of earlier galaxies, as far back in time as ten billion
light years away.
By about a few billion years after the Big Bang, the mini-galaxies
had merged to form mature galaxies, including spiral galaxies like our
own Milky Way. It had also expanded, racing under the force of the
so-called Hubble constant. Now, 13.7 billion years from the Big Bang,
our planet orbits a middle-aged Sun in one arm of a mature galaxy
with a supermassive black hole in the middle. Our own solar system
orbits the Milky Way’s centre, while our galaxy itself speeds through
space.
Under the Milky Way in San Pedro de Atacama, Chile.
© MAVENVISION / ALAMY STOCK PHOTO
Scale of the Universe
Throughout history, humans have used a variety of techniques and
methods to help them answer the questions ‘How far?’ and ‘How big?’.
Generations of explorers have looked deeper and deeper into the vast
expanse of the Universe. And the journey continues today, as new
methods are used, and new discoveries are made.
In the third century BC, Aristarchus of Samos asked the question
‘How far away is the moon?’ He was able to measure the distance by
looking at the shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar
eclipse.
It was Edmund Halley, famous for predicting the return of the
comet that bears his name, who three centuries ago found a way to
measure the distance to the Sun and to the planet Venus. He knew
that the planet Venus would very rarely, every 121 years, pass directly
between the Earth and the Sun. The apparent position of the planet,
relative to the disc of the Sun behind it, is shifted depending on
where you are on Earth. And how different that shift is depends on
the distance from both Venus and the Sun to the Earth. This rare
event, the transit of Venus, occurred again most recently on June 8,
2004. It was knowing this fundamental distance from the Earth to
the Sun that helped us find the true scale of the entire solar system
for the first time.
A timeline of the Universe since the Big Bang.
© COURTESY NASA/WMAP SCIENCE TEAM

When we leave the solar system, we find our star and its planets
are just one small part of the Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way is a
huge city of stars, so big that even at the speed of light, it would take
100,000 years to travel across it. All the stars in the night sky,
including our Sun, are just some of the residents of this galaxy, along
with millions of other stars too faint to be seen.
The further away a star is, the fainter it looks. Astronomers use this
as a clue to figure out the distance to stars that are very far away. But
how do you know if the star really is far away, or just not very bright
to begin with? This problem was solved in 1908 when Henrietta
Leavitt discovered a way to tell the ‘wattage’ of certain stars that
changed their pulse rate linked to their wattage. This allowed their
distances to be measured all the way across the Milky Way.
 Beyond our own galaxy lies a vast expanse of galaxies. The deeper
we see into space, the more galaxies we discover. There are billions of
galaxies, the most distant of which are so far away that the light
arriving from them on Earth today set out from the galaxies billions
of years ago. So we see them not as they are today, but as they looked
long before there was any life on Earth.
Finding the distance to these very distant galaxies is challenging,
but astronomers can do so by watching for incredibly bright
exploding stars called supernovae. Some types of exploding stars have
a known brightness – wattage – so we can figure out how far they are
by measuring how bright they appear to us, and therefore the
distance to their home galaxy. These are called ‘standard candles’.
So how big is the Universe? No one knows if the Universe is
infinitely large, or even if ours is the only Universe that exists. And
other parts of the Universe, very far away, might be quite different
from the Universe closer to home. At the time of publication using
our most advanced technology and given the current size of the ever-
expanding Universe, scientists estimate it is roughly 46 billion light
years, or 440 sextillion km (274 sextillion mi). If it’s hard to wrap your
head around that number, welcome to the club. The Universe is
almost inconceivably big, and we have only observed a small portion
of it (astronomers estimate we have observed roughly 4% of the
known Universe).
This Hubble Space Telescope image captures the effect of gravitational lensing by dark
matter in a galaxy cluster.
© SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY / ALAMY STOCK PHOTO
Modern Observational Methods
In 1609 an Italian physicist and astronomer named Galileo became
the first person to point a telescope skyward. Although that telescope
was small and the images fuzzy, Galileo was able to make out
mountains and craters on the moon, as well as a ribbon of diffuse
light arching across the sky – which would later be identified as our
Milky Way Galaxy. After Galileo’s and, later, Sir Isaac Newton’s time,
astronomy flourished as a result of larger and more complex
telescopes. With advancing technology, astronomers discovered many
faint stars and the calculation of stellar distances. In the 19th century,
using a new instrument called a spectroscope, astronomers gathered
information about the chemical composition and motions of celestial
objects.
Twentieth century astronomers developed bigger and bigger
telescopes and, later, specialised instruments that could peer into the
distant reaches of space and time. Eventually, enlarging telescopes no
longer improved our view, because the atmosphere which helps
sustain life on Earth causes substantial distortion and reduction in
our ability to view distant celestial objects with clarity.
Hubble Space Telescope in orbit.
© JURGEN FALCHLE/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO

That’s why astronomers around the world dreamed of having an

observatory in space – a concept first proposed by astronomer Lyman
Spitzer in the 1940s. From a position above Earth’s atmosphere, a
telescope would be able to detect light from stars, galaxies, and other
objects in space before that light is absorbed or distorted. Therefore,
the view would be a lot sharper than that from even the largest
telescope on the ground.
In the 1970s the European Space Agency (ESA) and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) began working
together to design and build what would become the Hubble Space
Telescope. On 25 April 1990, five astronauts aboard the space shuttle
Discovery deployed the eagerly anticipated telescope in an orbit
roughly 600 km (380 mi) above the Earth’s surface. That deployment
and, later, the unprecedented images that Hubble delivered
represented the fulfillment of a 50-year dream and more than two
decades of dedicated collaboration between scientists, engineers,
contractors, and institutions from all over the world.
Since Hubble was launched, a number of other space telescopes
have been successfully deployed to advance our knowledge of the
Universe. These include the Spitzer Space Telescope, named for the
man whose idea sparked a new era in telescopes and observation.

Today’s observatories have significantly larger apertures than the basic telescopes of
Galileo’s day, but the principle is the same.
© ALEXANDER CASPARI/SHUTTERSTOCK
Today’s Telescopes
Around the world, astronomers, space scientists and astrophysicists
plying the depths of the Universe work in a variety of scientific fields,
combining physics, chemistry, biology and other sciences to advance
human knowledge of space. Much of their work relies on data from
telescopes devoted to the observation of celestial objects. These can
be either ground-based (located here on our planet) or space-based,
rotating in orbit around Earth.
Ground-based telescopes are typically located in places around the
world that meet a certain set of observing conditions. Broadly
speaking, this includes locations with good air quality, low light
pollution, and often high altitude to reduce the impact of the
atmosphere on observations. Generally, you’ll find the world’s top
observatories on mountains, in deserts, and/or on islands –
sometimes a combination of all three. Well-known locations with
multiple ground-based telescopes include Mauna Kea in Hawaii, the
Atacama Desert in Chile, and the Canary Islands.
Space-based telescopes are, as their name suggests, located outside
the Earth’s atmosphere in orbit. As such, they often have much
greater ability to capture high-resolution images of celestial objects,
unaffected by the interference of our atmosphere. The most popular
space telescopes include the Hubble and Spitzer Space Telescopes,
both operated by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) in California. Other
space telescopes include the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite
(TESS) and forthcoming James Webb Space Telescope (which will
replace the Hubble).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
upon such terms, conditions, and limitations as to its
internal status as may best subserve the interests of the
United States, and it is not necessary to invest such
territory with the full status of an integral part of the
Union.

"That this is one of the ordinary and necessary sovereign

powers of an independent nation, and nothing in the Federal
Constitution or in the fundamental principles that underlie
our Republic denies to the nation a right to the full exercise
of this usual and common sovereign right.

"That the treaty-making power—the President and the Senate—as

evidenced by the language of the treaty of Paris, did not
intend to make Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands integral
parts of the United States, but intended, in several
particulars, to reserve their final status for adjustment by
Congress, at the same time making peculiar and special
differential provisions for variations and exceptions in
customs and port regulations as to Spain and Spanish goods and
subjects, which are inconsistent with the intention that the
ceded countries became upon the ratification of the treaty a
part of the United States in all respects and in the fullest
sense.

"The Government contends that the term 'foreign countries' in

the act of 1897 is to be regarded as having been understood by
Congress to be subject to the rule of interpretation of the
phrase given by the Supreme Court in the case of Fleming v.
Page, where it was held that under our revenue laws every port
is regarded as a foreign one until expressly established as
domestic under the authority and control of the statutes of
the United States.

"That the clause of the Constitution which declares that

duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the
United States does not apply to nor govern these cases,
 because the term 'United States,' as there used, means only
the territory comprised within the several States of the
Union, and was intended only for their benefit and protection,
and not for the benefit or protection of outside territory
belonging to the nation; that in the latter sense duties on
imports from these islands are uniform throughout the United
States, because they are uniformly imposed at every port in
the United States, so that there is no preference given to the
ports of one State over those of another, nor is any
inequality between the several States created.

{671}

"That the right to bring merchandise into the United States is

a right entirely within the regulation of Congress; such right
in no wise differs as to either citizens or aliens.
Citizenship carries with it no special or peculiar privileges
at the custom-house. The American, the Spaniard, the Porto
Rican, are treated alike. The basis of the customs laws is not
ownership, but (1) the geographical origin of the shipment,
and (2) the nature of the goods. The duty is imposed against
merchandise, not upon the importer. "The Government contends,
therefore, that in view of the fact that tariff laws are 'in
rem,' there is no principle of justice, much less of
constitutional restriction, which forbids Congress from taxing
in this way the merchandise of outlying possessions of the
United States when brought into the ports of the Union. That
the limitations of the Constitution as to customs, etc., were
intended to secure equality between the States in the
geographical sense, and not to forbid Congress from exercising
the ordinary sovereign power of taxation as to the products of
other sections of country not included within the geographical
boundaries of the States; for which we rely upon the opinion
of this court in Knowlton v. Moore as decisive and conclusive.

"If the foregoing propositions are sound, then it is

established (1) that the tariff act of 1897 was intended by
Congress to classify as foreign all countries not a part of or
belonging to the United States at the time of its passage, and
the subsequent cession of the Spanish islands to the United
States did not operate to admit imports from those islands
free of duty, under that law; (2) that the tariff act so
construed and enforced violates no constitutional rule of
uniformity.

"And the case of the plaintiffs in error would seem on these

grounds to have no legal foundation.

"The Government might well be content to rest its argument

upon these propositions. But counsel for the plaintiffs in
error, in the court below as well us in this court, have gone
far beyond these limits, and have challenged and denied the
constitutionality of certain provisions of the treaty of
Paris, contending that the cession of Porto Rico and the
Philippine Archipelago effected a complete incorporation of
those countries with the United States, so that they have
become a part of the United States in the fullest and largest
sense, not only internationally, but organically, so
completely, indeed, that no difference or distinction can be
made by law between imports from those countries and imports
from one of the States of the Union.

"They insist that there can be no limited or qualified

acquisition of territory by this nation; that when Porto Rico
was ceded to the United States it came at once under the
obligations of the Constitution and became entitled to the
privileges of the Constitution, its inhabitants citizens of
the United States, and its territory a part of the United
States. They argue, therefore, that the clause of the treaty
which says that 'the civil rights and political status of the
inhabitants shall be determined by the Congress,' in so far as
it is intended to defer the full enjoyment of the rights and
privileges of citizenship under the Constitution until
Congress shall bestow them hereafter upon the inhabitants, is
'ultra vires' and void, or at least superfluous and
ineffective, because the Constitution 'ex proprio vigore'
extends at once, as an automatic operation, to all territory
ceded to this Government, and no treaty or treaty-making power
can hinder or even suspend it. …

"Counsel have been at great pains to prove that the Government

of the United States is one of delegated powers, and that its
powers are not absolute and untrammeled, but subject to
certain limits never and nowhere to be transcended; that the
vague political entity known as The People stands behind the
constituted agencies of government, holding in reserve the
sources of supreme power, capable and ready to alter or
destroy at its pleasure the machinery heretofore set up in its
behalf. They call these doctrines truisms, and so they are.
They do not help us in this case.

"The Government of the United States has been vested not with
all powers but only with certain particular powers. These
particular delegated powers are in some respects limited and
confined in scope and operation, but in other respects they
are entirely unlimited. So that the real and practical
question is whether there is any limitation preventing the
particular thing here complained of.

"It is worth while, in passing, to allude to the undeniable

fact that 'The People' referred to are not the people of the
Territories or of the outlying possessions of the United
States, but the people of the several States, who ordained and
established for themselves and their posterity the Federal
Constitution.

"Counsel confuse ideas when they argue that the contention of

the Government in these cases implies the possession by
Congress of all unlimited and despotic powers in the
government of territory. We mean no more than this court meant
when it said:
"'The power of Congress over the Territories is general and
plenary.

"'Its sovereignty over them is complete.

"'It has full and complete legislative authority over the

people of the Territories and all departments of the
Territorial governments.

"'The people of the United States, as sovereign owners of the

National Territories, have supreme power over them and their
inhabitants.

"'In legislating for the Territories Congress would doubtless

be subject to those fundamental limitations in favor of
personal rights which are formulated in the Constitution and
its amendments, but these limitations would exist rather by
inference and the general spirit of the Constitution than by
any express and direct application of its provisions.'"

In the Supreme Court of the United States,

October Term, 1900, John H. Goetze, Appellant, &c.;
Brief for the United States.

On the 8th of January, 1901, four other causes, involving

substantially the same questions, came before the Supreme
Court, and, by order of the Court, were consolidated, to be
dealt with virtually as one case. The titles of the cases were
respectively as follows:

Elias S. A. Dc Lima et al., plaintiffs in error,

agt. George R. Bidwell;

Samuel B. Downes et al., plaintiffs in error,

agt. George R. Bidwell;
 Henry W. Dooley et al., plaintiffs in error,
agt. the United States;

Carlos Armstrong, appellant,

agt. the United States, and George W. Crossmon et al.,
appellants, agt. the United States.

{672}

For the plaintiffs, in the case of Henry W. Dooley et al., the

Honorable John G. Carlisle made an oral argument, in which he
said: "What is the Constitution? In the first place it is not
only the supreme law of the States composing the union, but
the supreme law of the land; supreme over every branch and
department of the Government; supreme over every one
exercising authority under the Government; supreme over every
other law or order or regulation, and supreme over all the
people, wherever they may be, within its jurisdiction, and
what we claim is, that so long as this Constitution exists
absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberties, or
property of the people can be exercised nowhere in this
Republic. It is now argued that it is supreme only within the
boundaries of the several States, unless Congress extends it
to the Territories; that it limits the powers of Congress only
when legislating for the geographical area embraced in the
States; that the inhabitants of the States are the only people
who can, as a matter of right, claim the benefit of its
guarantees and prohibitions for the protection even of those
personal and property rights which have for ages been secured
by the common law of England, and that all other people within
the jurisdiction of the United States are dependent for the
protection of their civil rights substantially upon the will
of Congress. The question whether the Constitution should be
declared to be the supreme law of the whole land, or only the
supreme law of the respective States and their inhabitants or
citizens, was presented in the Federal Convention of 1787, and
was finally disposed of by the adoption of the clause as it
now stands in the Constitution, which declares it to be "the
supreme law of the land.

"In the plan proposed by Mr. Charles Pinckney, of South

Carolina, it was provided that 'all acts made by the
legislature of the United States pursuant to this
Constitution, and all treaties made under the authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme law of the land,' etc. (1
Elliot, page 46). Mr. Patterson's plan proposed 'that all acts
of the United States in Congress assembled made by virtue and
in pursuance of the powers hereby vested in them, and by the
Articles of Confederation and all treaties made and ratified
under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
law of the respective States, so far as those acts or treaties
shall relate to such States or their citizens,' etc. (pages
71, 72). These plans and others were referred to the Committee
of the Whole House and were reported back without any
provision upon this subject. Afterwards the Convention
unanimously agreed to the following resolution:

'That the Legislative acts made by virtue and in pursuance of

the Articles of Union and all treaties made and ratified under
the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law
of the respective States, so far as those acts or treaties
shall relate to the said States or their citizens or
inhabitants' (page 100). Thus it stood when referred to the
committee of five, of which Mr. Rutledge was chairman, and on
the 6th of August, 1787, that committee reported back to the
Convention a draft of the proposed Constitution, the eighth
article of which was the same as the resolution last quoted,
except that in the place of the words 'Articles of Union' it
contained the words 'this Constitution' (page 120). This
report was considered in the Committee of the Whole, and on
the 23d of August the eighth article was unanimously amended
so as to read: 'This Constitution and all laws of the United
States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made under
the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of
the several States and of their citizens and inhabitants,'
etc. (page 151).

"This was the form in which the article stood when the whole
draft was referred to the committee of eleven, but when
reported back September 12, it constituted the second clause
of the sixth article and declared that the Constitution and
laws and the treaties made and to be made should be 'the
supreme law of the land,' and so it now stands as part of the
Constitution. If the clause had been adopted in the form
agreed to in the committee and inserted in the first draft,
there would have been at least a certain degree of
plausibility in the argument made here for the Government, but
even in that case we think the powers of Congress would have
been limited whenever and wherever it might attempt to
exercise them. But it is argued here that the history of the
Constitution and the language employed in the preamble, and in
some other places, show that it was intended to establish a
government only for such of the States then existing as might
ratify it, and such other States as might thereafter be
admitted into the Union, and that, therefore, while it confers
power upon Congress to govern Territories, it does not require
that body to govern them in accordance with the supreme law of
the land; that is, in accordance with the instrument from
which the power to govern is derived. Even if the premises
were true, the conclusion would not follow; but is it true
that the Constitution was ordained and established for the
government of the States only? If so, how did it happen that
the great men who framed that instrument made it confer the
power to govern Territories as well as States? It is true that
the Constitution was ordained and established by the people of
the States, but it created a National Government for national
purposes, not a mere league or compact between the States, and
jurisdiction was conferred upon that Government over the whole
national domain, whatever its boundaries might be. It is not
true that the Government was established only for the States,
their inhabitants or citizens, but if it were true, then it
 could exercise no power outside of the States, and this court
would have to put a new construction upon that provision which
authorizes Congress to dispose of and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory, or other property,
belonging to the United States. The necessary construction of
that clause would be that it conferred power only to dispose
of land or other property, and to make necessary rules and
regulations respecting land or other property belonging to the
United States; that is, belonging to the several States
composing the Union. It would confer no power whatever to
govern the people outside of the States."

Supreme Court of the United States,

October Term, 1900,
Henry W. Dooley [et al.] vs. the United States:
Argument of J. G. Carlisle.

{673}

On one point the argument of Mr. Charles H. Aldrich, attorney

for the plaintiff in the case of the "Fourteen Diamond Rings,"
was as follows: In "the relations of the United States to other
nations, our government is a sovereign state, and has the
right, and as such 'free and independent State has full power,
to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish
commerce, and to do all other acts and things which
independent States may of right do.' In this relation it is
correct, as I conceive, to speak of the United States of
America as a unit and use a singular verb. It is such unit and
has this power because there was created a government upon
which the people conferred these powers. If war is declared it
must be under the constitution; if peace is concluded it is in
the exercise of a constitutional power; if commerce is
established it is because Congress under the constitution was
given power to regulate commerce; if alliances are contracted
it can only be done under the constitution. In short, the
sovereign nation exists through the adoption of the
constitution, and its powers are derived from that instrument
and must be found, as this court has often declared, in the
language thereof or by necessary implication therefrom. We are
in the Philippines and Porto Rico and can be rightfully there
only in the exercise of some of these enumerated powers, as in
the language of the tenth amendment, 'the powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.' This amendment designates the constitution as the
source of the power of the United States and excludes the idea
of power free from constitutional restraint derived by
implication from powers delegated by the constitution.

"Nor is it true that at the time this declaration was made all
independent states or nations claimed and exercised the right
to acquire, hold and govern foreign dependencies, and no state
or nation then recognized its obligation to confer on the
people of such acquired territory the privileges and
immunities enjoyed by the people of the home government,
except at its own will and discretion. It is true that all
independent states claimed and exercised the right to acquire
territory, but if it were important in this case I think the
arguments of Pitt, Camden and Barre could be used to establish
the proposition that under the British Constitution as it
then was, that nation had, from the time of King John and the
Great Charter until King George, recognized that its subjects
had essential rights not dependent upon the 'will and
discretion' of the home government. It is unnecessary to
follow that subject here. It is sufficient that the
Declaration of Independence was brought about by the assertion
on the part of King George and his ministers of precisely the
present doctrine of this administration and its
representatives in this court. If value is to be attached to
contemporary history that fact cannot be lost sight of. The
speeches of Grenville and Townshend in favor of unlimited
power on the part of Parliament over the American colonists
and their affairs have been substantially parodied in Congress
by the advocates of unrestrained power over our 'colonies,' as
it is now unfortunately fashionable to denominate them. The
signers of the Declaration of Independence held that as
subjects of the British Constitution there was no right to
impose taxes upon them without their consent, to deprive them
of trial by jury, to deprive them of their legislatures, and
to declare Parliament in vested with power to legislate for
them 'in all cases whatsoever.' These and other grievances
were held denials of rights belonging to every British subject
as such and to justify rebellion and war. It seems impossible
that a people who rebelled for such reasons established a
State invested with the very power which they had denied to
the British government and the assertions of which made
rebellion necessary.

"This argument that the power to declare war and conclude

peace carries with it, as an auxiliary, power to do whatever
other nations are accustomed to do with the people and
territory acquired through the exercise of these powers, has a
remarkable likeness to the arguments put forward at the
beginning of the century with reference to the Alien and
Sedition Acts. The supporters of the constitutionality of
these acts claimed that the common law had been introduced and
become a part of the constitution of the United States, and
therefore the powers usually exercisable under the common law
could be exercised by the Congress of the United States in the
respects involved in those acts. Mr. Madison's letter
discussing this contention was answered, so far as it asserted
the right of a state to nullify an act of Congress, but was
never answered, so far as it denied the existence of the
common law as a part of the constitution of the United States.
His objections to that contention, succinctly stated, were,
that if the common law was a part of the constitution, then
there were no constitutional limitations. Congress, like
Parliament, could legislate in all cases whatsoever; that the
President would be possessed of the royal prerogatives (as is
now claimed in this case by the Attorney-General); that the
judiciary would have a discretion little short of legislative
power; that these powers in the different branches of the
government would not be alterable, because, being in the
constitution, they could only be repealed by amendment of that
instrument; and, lastly, that the constitution would have a
different meaning in different States, inasmuch as the common
law was different in such States, and that it would lack the
certainty which a constitution should have, as the common law
was an ever-growing or varying body of law, and, therefore,
with reference to the proper action of the government in each
instance, the question would be important as to what portion
of the common law was in the constitution and what not so
embodied.

"Nearly every sentence of Mr. Madison's able argument with

reference to the common law as a part of the constitution is
applicable to the contention that sovereign powers, so-called,
as derived from or defined by international law, became a part
of the constitution of the United States through the
delegation of the powers to make war, conclude peace, and make
all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and
other property belonging to the United States. This court has
adopted the view of Mr. Madison. It is hoped that the child of
the old error by which again the executive and legislative
power is sought to be enlarged through the incorporation into
the constitution of 'the sovereign power of other nations'
will receive the same answer.

"In fact, we submit that this court has already held that
sovereign power in the sense that the words are used in the
law of nations as prerogative rights of the King or Emperor,
not only is not vested in the United States or in any branch
of its government, but cannot be so vested. The sovereign
power is with the people. In leaving it with the people our
government marked a departure from all that had previously
existed."
 Supreme Court of the United States,
October Term, 1900, Number 419:
C. H. Aldrich, Argument in reply.

{674}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901.

Military and naval expenditure,
compared with that of other Powers.

See (in this volume)

WAR BUDGETS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (January).

Apportionment of Representatives under the Twelfth Census.
The question of obedience to the Fourteenth Amendment.
Restrictions of the elective franchise in the States.

Section 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution requires that

"Representatives … shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union according to
their respective numbers. … The actual enumeration shall be
made within three years after the first meeting of the
Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent
term of ten years. … The number of Representatives shall not
exceed one for every 30,000; but each State shall have at
least one." The first meeting of Congress was in 1789; the
required first census of the United States was taken in 1790,
and, in obedience to the constitutional requirement, the
enumeration has been repeated within the closing year of every
decade since, to supply the basis for a new apportionment of
representatives among the States. The twelfth census, taken in
1900, called for such new distribution, and action upon it was
taken in Congress in January, 1901.

As the section quoted above stood in the Constitution until

1868, it contained a further clause, inserted as one of the
original compromises made between the slaveholding and the
free States, requiring that the determination of numbers to be
represented in the several States should be made "by adding to
the whole number of free persons, including those bound to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three-fifths of all other persons." This original clause of
the Constitution was superseded by the Fourteenth Amendment,
adopted in 1868, which introduced this new provision, in its
second section: "Representatives shall be apportioned among
the several States according to their respective numbers,
counting the whole number of persons in each State, except
Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election
for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of
the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive
and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of
the United States, or in any way abridged, except for
participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion
which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole
number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such
State." To many persons it seemed to be very clear that this
provision of the amended Constitution required account to be
taken of the qualifications by which a number of States have
abridged the suffrage, especially where done for the
understood purpose of disfranchising colored citizens and that
Congress was left with no discretion to do otherwise.

See, (in this volume),

LOUISIANA, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA,
MISSISSIPPI, and MARYLAND.

Those holding this view in the House of Representatives gave

support to the following resolution, introduced by Mr.
Olmsted, of Pennsylvania:
"Whereas the continued enjoyment of full representation in
this House by any State which has, for reasons other than
participation in rebellion or other crime, denied to any of
the male inhabitants thereof, being 21 years of age and
citizens of the United States, the right to vote for
Representatives in Congress, Presidential electors, and other
specified officers, is in direct violation of the fourteenth
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which
declares that in such case 'the basis of representation
therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of
such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male
citizens 21 years of age in such State,' and is an invasion of
the rights and dignity of this House and of its members, and
an infringement upon the rights and privileges in this House
of other States and their representatives; and

"Whereas the States of Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut,

Delaware, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Wyoming, Oregon, and other States do, by the
provisions of the constitutions and statutes of said States,
and for reasons other than participation in rebellion or other
crime, deny the right to vote for members of Congress and
Presidential electors, as well as the executive and judicial
officers of such States and members of the legislatures
thereof, to male inhabitants 21 years of age and over and
citizens of the United States; and such denial in certain of
the said States extends to more than one-half of those who
prior to the last apportionment of representation were
entitled to vote in such States; and

"Whereas in order that the apportionment of membership of the

House of Representatives may be determined in a constitutional
manner: Therefore, be it

"Resolved by the House of Representatives, That the Director

of the Census is hereby directed to furnish this House, at the
earliest possible moment, the following information;
 "First. The total number of male citizens of the United States
over 21 years of age in each of the several States of the
Union.

"Second. The total number of male citizens of the United

States over 21 years of age who, by reason of State
constitutional limitations or State legislation, are denied
the right of suffrage, whether such denial exists on account
of illiteracy, on account of pauperism, on account of
polygamy, or on account of property qualifications, or for any
other reason.

"Resolved further, That the Speaker of the House of

Representatives is hereby authorized and directed to appoint a
select committee of five members from the membership of the
Census Committee of the House of Representatives, who shall
investigate the question of the alleged abridgment of the
elective franchise for any of the causes mentioned in all the
States of the Union in which constitutional or legislative
restrictions on the right of suffrage are claimed to exist,
and that such committee report its findings within twenty days
from the date of the adoption of this resolution to the said
Census Committee, and that within one week after the said
report shall have been received by the Census Committee the
Census Committee shall return a bill to the House of
Representatives providing for the apportionment of the
membership of the House of Representatives based on the
provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of
the United States."

{675}

Republicans, hardly less than Democrats, in Congress and

outside, were averse to raising what could not fail to be a
burning sectional issue, and grounds for ignoring the
constitutional mandate were sought with considerable eagerness
on both sides. Strict obedience to the requirement of the
Constitutional provision was claimed to be impracticable, at
least within the time available for proceedings connected with
the present apportionment of representatives. Said one
speaker, opposing the resolutions in the House: "There is not
a State in this Union that has not added to or subtracted from
the Federal constitutional requirements—not one. … If there is
any addition, whether as a matter of police regulation or
otherwise, to the constitutional amendments regulating the
franchise and the resultant representation in this House—if
there is addition or subtraction of one iota—then those who
desire to live up to this Constitution, no matter whether they
ruin their neighbors, no matter whether they again kindle the
fires of sectional strife, those who in their love for the
Constitution are so mentally rigid that they would demand its
enforcement though they set the Union aflame, must include
every State in this Union."

Said another: "How would anybody find out how many people in
the State of Mississippi were disfranchised for the reasons
stated in this resolution? There is there an educational
qualification. How are you to determine how many of the men in
the State of Mississippi who did not vote, did not vote
because they were disfranchised under the educational
qualification? Then there is a qualification in extension and
not in limitation of the suffrage, saying that even those who
can not read and write may still vote, provided they can give
an understanding interpretation of the Constitution or any
part of it. How are you going to determine how many are
disqualified by that? And then there is a qualification which
says that those can not vote who shall not by a certain time
have paid their poll tax. Out of the number of people who did
not vote, how are you going to determine which of them have
not voted because of the educational qualification? Which
because of the understanding qualification? Which because of
the poll-tax qualification? Which because of the registration
qualification? How many because of the pure Australian ballot
which exists in the State of Mississippi? … There is not a
State in the Union which has the Australian ballot which by
the very fact and the necessity of voting according to that
Australian ballot does not prevent the citizen who can not
read and write from voting if he votes a split ticket of any
sort."

A third speaker remarked: "To live up to that amendment, 'that

no male inhabitant shall be deprived of suffrage except for
participation in the rebellion or other crimes,' the male
inhabitant, I take it, is he who has acquired domicile in that
State, and the moment that he acquires domicile, and is a
male, he is a 'male inhabitant' of that State, and entitled
at once to suffrage; and yet every State in the Union, I
believe without exception, has requirements as to residence
not only in the State, but in the city, in the county, in the
precinct and ward and the voting place; and everyone of those
requirements, as every gentleman on that side must admit, are
in direct conflict with and contravention of the fourteenth
amendment to the Constitution of the United States literally
construed."

But the advocates of obedience to the Constitution, supporting

the resolutions of Mr. Olmsted, planted their argument on the
very facts brought against it, as demonstrating the need of
measures to check a growing tendency in the country to
restrict the elective franchise. Said Mr. Shattuck, of Ohio:
"We find that in 1870 there were three States that had
abridged their electorates—California, Connecticut, and
Massachusetts. In these three States there was a
constitutional provision for an educational qualification,
which disfranchised a certain percentage of the
electorate—namely, the illiterates. But, in those States, the
percentage of illiteracy is very light, averaging about 6 per
cent. The basis of representation would hardly have been
affected in those States had the fourteenth amendment been
conformed with.
"An examination into the election laws of the various States
reveals an astonishing tendency at this time to abridge their
electorates. When the Congress which adopted the existing
apportionment discussed the matter ten years ago but three
States had abridged their electorate by action of the State,
and in these the percentage of disfranchised males was but 6
per cent. But since that time similar policies have been
adopted by other States, and to-day we face the fact that ten
of the forty-five States of this Union have abridged their
electorates, and that in these the percentage of males 21
years of age and over, disfranchised, averages over 20 per
cent. The constitutions of several other States permit such an
abridgment. Besides, there are other States preparing to adopt
these policies and to disfranchise thousands of men who to-day
hold the right of franchise. In view of this remarkable
tendency it is inconceivable that Congress can longer permit
the fourteenth amendment to remain a dead letter, and to pass
a bill making an apportionment based solely upon the
population and neglecting the proviso which applies to all
States which have abridged their electorate.

"We will not review the past by any discussion of the question
as to whether the provisions of the fourteenth amendment
should have been made effective when the last apportionment
was made ten years ago. We find to-day conditions existing
which make its enforcement imperative. I do not propose to
discuss at this time whether the reasons given for these
abridgments by the people of the various States are valid or
not. … I am simply pointing out the conditions as they exist;
I am simply pointing out that the time has come when the
tendency of the States to abridge their electorates has grown
to such proportions as to demand that this Congress shall
proceed in a constitutional manner in making the new
apportionment. I do not say that States have not the right to
establish educational qualifications for their electors, but I
do maintain that when they have done so they must pay the penalty
 prescribed in the Constitution, and have their representation
abridged proportionately.
{676}
I do not say that we shall punish only Louisiana;
I do not say that we shall punish only Massachusetts;
I do not say that we shall punish only California;
but I do say and insist, as the representative of a State in
which every male member 21 years of age and over is guaranteed
the sacred right of franchise, that there is a constitutional
remedy prescribed for their acts, and I do demand that that
remedy be applied."

The following interesting table, showing the restrictions of

the electorate in the various States of the Union, was
appended to the remarks of Mr. Shattuck:

STATES.
REQUIREMENTS AS TO CITIZENSHIP. [First paragraph]

PERSONS EXCLUDED FROM SUFFRAGE. [Second paragraph]

ALABAMA.
Citizen of United States, or alien who has declared intention.

Convicted of treason or other crime punishable by

imprisonment, idiots, or insane.

ARKANSAS.
Citizen of United States, or alien who has declared intention.

Idiots, insane, convicted of felony until pardoned, failure

to pay poll tax, United States soldiers on duty in State.

CALIFORNIA.
Citizen by nativity, naturalization, or treaty of Queretaro.

Chinese, insane, embezzlers of public moneys, convicted