Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-11-19

TEE MEMPH
They said that the territorial limits of
Alabama bad " extended all her Sover-
eign power into the sea.T Judge CATION
alone dissented, and be did not pretend
to deny that the States we're possessed OF
all Sovereign powers which were not ex-
pressly delegated by them to the United
States. Inthe &ate Of Rhode Island u.
The STATE Of Massachusetts, IA Peters
CSC, the Court, by Chief Justice TANEY,
an old Federalist, said, that the case was
"a question Of boundary between two
Sovereign States, litigated 10 s Court Of
Justice /" and, sgain, that two Sovereign
States were eontesting the boundary be-
tween them. Mr.. Justice MCLEAN used
the same phrase, and said that the de-
termination in the case might draw
after it 8 change Of sovereign poWer over
a district Of country ; !" quoting VATTEL
in regard to disputes between sovereigns.
In florida rs. Georgia, II Hoa0ard 4s2,
the Court used the same phrase over and
e again, declaring that Sovereign
States were there ~litigatiBg = question Of
boundary; and Mr.. Justice CURTIS, q
WEBSTER Wing and Federalist, dissent
ing, said that what Florida sought was
" the protection Of its rightful jurisdic-
ton as q Sovereign State. FLORIDA
Is A SOVEREIGN STATE. On the
other hand, the United States is q land
holder. The line carries with it the
Sovereignty and territorial Jurisdiction
Of States"
The matter Of Sovereignty was much
discussed by the Judges, in Chisholm Us.
The State Of Georgia, ? Dallas, 4ls, in
1898, and PsahdHolg Us. Doane's Adm.
8 Dallas 81, iu 1875. In the former case,
the Supreme Court sustained an action of
assumpsit brought by an individual
against a State. The great question was
whether it was not inconsistent with the
Sovereignty Of a State to hold that it was
liable 10 be brought into the Federal
Courts at the suit Of an individual and
several of the Judges gave their views.
IREDELL, J., said;
"Every State in the UnionS in every
instance where its Sovereignty has not
been delegated to the United States, 1
consider to be as completely sovereign as
the United States are, in respect to the
powers surrendered. The United States
are sovereign as to all the powers of
Government actually surrendered each
State in the Union is sovereign as to all
the powers reserved. It must necessa-
rily be SO, because the United States
have no claim TO any authority but such
as the States have surrendered to them.
OF course the part not surrendered must
remain as it did before"
BLAIR, J. said, "If Sovereignty be an
exemption from suit in any other than
the Sovereign's " Court, it follows
that when a State, by adopting the Con-
stitution, has agreed to be amenable to
the Judicial power Of the United States,
she has, in that respect, given up her
right OF Sovereignty" WILSON, in a
loose rambling disquisition that cannot
be called argumeat, held that the peo-
pie Of Georgia, when they acted upon
the large scale of the Union, as q part Of
: the people of the United States did
not surrender the Supreme or Sovereign
power to that State, but, as to the pur-
poses Of the Union, retained it TO them
selves :" so that, as to the purposes Of
the Union, she wss not a Sovereign
State. CUSHING, J., relied on the letter
Of the Constitution, giving jurisdiction
in controversies between q State and
of another State" and thought
that this provision abridged, to that ex-
tent, the Sovereignty Of the State. JAY,
Oh. J., held that the Sovereignty Of the
was in the people Of the Nation,
and the residuary Sovereignty Of each
State in the people Of each State that,
after all, the people only weEe Sovereign,
and stability was not incompatible with
Sovereignty.
In Ware y. HyBoa, 8 Dallas 1879, the
anne Judge WILSON said, of the State
II Virginia, in relation to the present
Constitution, she still retains her Sow
sreignty and Independence as q State,
except in the instances of express delega-
ion to the Federal Government"
We might continue these citations 4,
rom the decisions Of the Supreme Court, I
o almost anyextent the Sovereignty of I
he States having been spoken Of contin- :
SILLY by that high tribunal. We may G
ONE time favor the Governor with fur
her quotations. :
just now we prefer to go still further :
ack, aud see what vas said when the I
Constitution had been made, but not T
The S2d number of the Federal 9
It was written by the Governors beau u
zeal ofFederalism, ALEXANDER HAMIL b
and the whole work was written for d
he purpose of ~persuading the people Of :
Few York to adopt the Constitution. It !
'ould not be respectful, perhaps, nor !
lst, to It's authors, JAY, HAMILTON and v
ADDISON, to suppose that they deliber- 7
tely endeavoured, in any instance to dc. Il
give the people 70 whom they were ad- b
In the S2d number, HAMILTON said, '
An entire consolidation of the Ststes \
Ito one complete National Sovereignty o
,ould imply an entire subordination of d
le parts and whatever powers might \
10 them, would be altogether de- 4
sndent on the general will" That is il
he JACoBIE theory Of the present day; -,
I'd Governor BRowLOw adopts it, glo- =
iies it, and says that it always was his h
reed. But HAMILTON went on TO say : t
Bot as the plan of the Convention aimed 2
at q partial union or consolidation, .
he State Governments would clearly r
stain all the rights Of Sovereignty d
-hieh they before had, and which we're 2
OF by that act, exclusively delegated to r
be United States"
When the Governor next feels dis Il
Osed to argue about the Sovereignty Of Z
be States, we should like 10 have his !
to this question: Amendments 8
} the Constitution must be adopted by Y
be States, either by means of Legislative d
or ordinance Of a Convention. In a
Ither case it is the act Of the State. S
Iust not q State have retained its Sow U
reignty, in order to be able to adopt an
mendment and make it part Of the
'onstitution2 The States adopted the
constitution itself as Sovereigns, for they
7ere declared to be such by the Articles Z
{ Confederation, and If they ceased s
be Sovereign By its adoption, they u
aust still have exercised their Sovereign 4
in adopting it. To sbdicate Sow !.
reiguty Is ITSELF necessarily, an exercise 9
the Sovereign power. If they did alb I
.icate it, how can they, acting as States, 9
mend the Constitution? l
Also we would like an answer to this ?
Their question. A Cooperation is q person v
D law, distinct and different from the :
orporstors. When these c-orporators 4
s~soeiate together and become a Corpora t
do thew dbISa0fe ee1e ~ /