Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1857-1858, 1857-02-28


rights and powers from the principles promulgated
therein
The Jurisdiction Of the courts of the United States
as to crimes is co-extensive with its exclusive ter
ritorial sovereignty. 1t embraces the District Of
Oolumola the territories and all lands or lots ceded
70 the Federal Government by any State for the
erection of any forts, dock yards, armories, or any
other public work. The reservation of exclusive
control over all matters of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction of course gives to those courts the sole
cognizsuce Of piracy and other crimes committed
upon the high seas This power to take cogDizance
Of, and to punish crimes committed in the territo>
res and other places under the general jurisdic-
ton is absolute and unrestricted nnder the regula-
tons prescribed 10 the constitutional extends TO
all the territories and every part thereof, what
may be relinquished by treaty stipulatOns with the
Indian tribes,-it continues until the territory is
erected and organized into State, under consti-
tuition and laws for its government-and, it seems,
il cannot be delegated even concurrently to the
State courts. The erection of State out of e ter
riory includes aBabsolute transfer of all jurisdiction
over crimes committed within its limits TO the State
government, save certain enumerated Offences
against the Union, such as treason, denquencies in
the mail service, mail robberies, embezzlement of
federal treasures ct id omne genus Crimes against
the United States, generally such as are crea-
ted by statute; it has been graveIy questioned
whether there can be crime at common law
against the general government. If territory
sumiug the dignity of State, adopts the system Of
Jurisprudence known as the common law, it as
sumes the whole body Of that system consistent
with our repubcaDism, with all its varied and
multiform rights, powers, duties, rules and RENEE
dies.
On the LIST day of June, 1896, the State Of
Tennessee was received into the Union as a sove>
reign State. With its republican constitution it
adopted for its government the body of the COM
mon law Of England so far as it was compatible
with that constitution. Its boundaries were well
defined, and embrace the coded lands in question.
By the constitution which was the basis of its
admission into the Union, its boundaries set
forth and designated as the boundaries and limits
of exercising sovereignty and the right of soil, so
far as is consistent with the constitution of the
United states. recognizing the articles Of confeder
alton, the bill of rights, and constitution of North
Carolina, the cession act of said State and the or
dinance of Congress for the government of the ter
ritory Northwest of the Ohio, provided nothing
herein contained shall extend to affect the claim or
claims of individuals to any part of the soil which is
recognized to them by the aforesaid cession act and
provided also that the limits and Jurisdiction this
State, shall extend to any other land and territory
now acquired, or that may hereafter be acquired
by compsc, or agreement with other States or other
wise although such land and territory are not in.
cludsd within the boundaries herein before desig-
nateG." ...
1t is principle of the common law, independent
of any constitutional provision, that sovereignty
goes with the soil. By the cession of 1916 it is
very clear that the State of Tennessee surrendered
its sovereignty and its rights of eminent domain
over the territory in question; it is equally clear
that by the act Of retrocession the Federal gov
eminent surrendered its sovereignty over the ter.
rtory in question 1t had right to do so, and the
act by which it was done can in no sense be i'm
peached for inVadity. But to whom is that SOW
ereignty surren dered? We are told that the gift
ha. not been ratified by the Government of Ten
nessee. Is there any conceivable necessity for
such ratification, or where can we find an author
ty in the constitution or in the maleabs principles
of the common law itself, for holding that formal
acceptance by the Legislature of a mere donation
from the sovereign power is essential to the valida
ity OF such donation. There is no such principle.
But the gift to the city of Memphis, and not to
the State of Tennessee. The city of Memphis is a
part of the State OF Tennessee and under its sove.
reiguty. It cannot take cognizauce Of crimes
against the peace and dignity of the State, and it
cannot take donation Of lands within the terrific
rial limits of the State over which the laws and ju-
risdiction Of the sovereign power do not extend.
The gift is the same in effect as if made to the
county OF Shelby or any other quasi corporation
ameDable to the sovereign power of the State.
Il is Fundamental principle Of our system Of iuriss
prudence, that "the law pervades ali human soce-
~, and knows no vacuum" There can be no such
thing in this government as doubtful jurisdiction
as to crimes, where the locus in gao be deter
Intimately assigned as the territory either Of the
ally as e region either Of large or small area, with-
10 the limits of the United States whore crime
be committed with impunity-a sanctuary for the
felon-emenable TO no human laws, is wholly re-
pugnant not only to the principles Of law We have
stated; but to the plain letter Of the Federal and
State constitutions as well the theory OF human
government itself. The jurisdiction over crimes
committed upon the ceded grounds in question,
cannot be in a state of allegiance. II il be not 10
the general government j. must be in the State.
We have seen that for the purposes Of jurisdiction
it matters not how the territory be acquired.
The sovereignty attaches to the soil acquired
from North Carolina and organized into State in
1895, and to any lands thereafter acquired "by
compac, or agreement with other States or other
wise" So jealous, indeed, have been our courts
upon this subject that II has been held by our
highest Judicial tribunal, in the most elaborate
opinion ever announced in the State, that the jG-
risdesion OF the State Courts could be extended
over region Of country within the original char"
tered limits OF the State, the occupation and enc
joyment Of which bad been guaranteed by treaty TO
the Cherokee tribe Of Indiana, notwithstanding the
existence of the treaty under which that tribe
claimed jurisdiction to punish all crimes commit
ted among themselves. How far this would be
authority with the highest Judicial tribunal of the
Union, is evinced by the repeated adjudicAIIous Of
that Court that the expositiOus Of State cOns,i.u-
tons and State laws by State Courts, is generally
TO be Iakea as conclusive authority. q
In view Of these general principles, therefore,
and without further elaboration, the conclusion is
in my Judgment, unavoidable, that the act Of re,
trOcession by che General Governments was an un-