—decided that these territorial courts' are not constitutional courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the constitution on the general government can be deposited.*** They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables congress to make all needful rules and …

Moreover, at the federal level, "the judicial power of the United States is not limited to the judicial power defined under Article III."

This court has repeatedly held that congress has full legislative power over the territories,—as full as that which a state legislature has over its municipal corporations.

"The Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union, the powers of making war, and of making treaties; consequently, that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty."

—dealing with the territorial courts. "The jurisdiction," he said, "with which they are invested, is not a part of that judicial power which is defined in the 3d article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress, in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States."

Constitution which empowers Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. Perhaps the power of governing a territory belonging to the United States, which has not, by becoming a State, acquired the means of self-government, may result necessarily from the facts that it is not within the …

—the status and jurisdiction of courts created by Congress for the Territory of Florida were drawn in question.[p450]

At that time he expressed that admiralty cases do not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States but are as old as navigation itself and that the Law of Admiralty as it has existed for ages is applied by our courts (referring to federal courts) to the cases as they arise.

"The Constitution certainly contemplates these... as distinct classes of cases; and if they are distinct, the grant of jurisdiction over one of them does not confer jurisdiction over... the other.... The discrimination made between them, in the Constitution, is, we think, conclusive against their identity."

By established principles of international usage, when conquered or ceded territory is transferred to a new sovereign "the law, which may be denominated political, is necessarily changed, although that which regulates the intercourse, and general conduct of individuals, remains in force, until altered by the newly created power of the state

[CITATION] Lurk v. United States