Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-07-23

invested 10 the General Government and
inhibited to the States. Craig vs. Mis-
souri,. 4 Peters, 1853. Mclean, j.
1t would be as gross usurpatiun on the
mart of the Federal Government to inter-
fere with State rights by an exercise of
powers rot delegated as it would be for q
Safe to interpose its authority sgainst
law of the Union. Qbid.)
The Federal Government is one OF dele
gated powers, and all powers not dele
gated to it OF inhibited to the States are
reserved TO the States or to the people.
(Briscoe VS.. Bank of Kentucky, IL
Peters, 1885,
The sovereignty of the United States
and of a State are distinct and iudepend-
ent of each other within their respective
spheres of action, though both exist and
exercise their powers within the same
territorial limits. (Ableman vs.. Booth,
q H., SO
No department Of the Government can
disturb any one of the safeguards of civil
liberty Incorporated into the constitution,
except so far as the suspension Of the
privilege of the writ of habess corpus is
thereby authorized, (Ex parte Mllligan,
Wallace, 4
No State has the right TO place reslric-
tons upon commerce between the States
of the Union. (BaltimJre vs. Caunells-
vile aud Southern Pennsylvania Railway
Company, Is Pitts, i. j $40, S. C. IL
Am. l.. r, 1901
A State HIS no power TO regulate g
commerce which it extends beyond its
Jurisdiction; but where commerce be-
gins and terminates within State it has
the exclusive commercial power over it.
(Halderman VS.. Beckwitn, 4 Mclean,
1861
The fifth and sixth amendments to the
Constitution were. not designed as limits
upon the State governments IN reference
to their own citizens, but exclusively as
restrictions upon Federal power. CTwit-
chelI VS.. The Commonwealth, Wallace,
92l, in year 1868.
The Union of the States is indissoluble
by the act of any portion OF them; not
withstanding the ordinance OF secession
passed By the State of Texas, her Oblga-
tons as member of the Union remain
ed perfect and unimpsired. (TeXas VS..
White, Wallace, 700.)
But the perpetuity and indlssolubillty
of the Union by no means implies the
loss of distinct and individual existence,
or the right of self government by the
States; the Constitution looks TO an indie
structible Union, composed Of indestruct-
ible States. Qbid.)
Congress has no power over the strictly
internal commerce Of State. Omitted
States VS.. The Blight Star, s Int. K.
Rec, 1870 }
The words cal laws necessary and
proper for carrying into execution pow
ers expressly granted, mean laws not alb
solutely necessary, but appropriate, and
plainly adapted 10 constitutional and
legitimate ends which are not prohibited,
but consistent with the letter and spirit Of
of the constitution; laws really calculated
to effect objects intrusted TO the Govern
ment. (HepburD VS.. Griswold, Wal
lace, 603 }
Among means appropriate the Legis!a-
ture has unrestricted choice but no power
can be derived by implication from an
express power to enact laws as means
for carrying it INTO execution, unltss
such laws come within this description.
q bid)
The design of The Constitution was to
establish Government competent 10 the
direction and administration of the affairs
of great nation, and at the same time
to mark by sufficiently definite lines the
sphere of its operation. To this end 1t
was needful only to make express grants
of general powers, coupled with further
grant of such incidental and auxiliary
powers as might be required for The exer-
else of the powers expressly granted.
q bid.)
The tenth article Of the amendments u
the Constitution was intended to have an
adnaonitory and directory sense, and to
restrain the limited government establish
ed under the Constitution from the eXeT-
else of powers not clearly delegated, or
derived by just interference from the
powers SO delegated. Qbld.)
The powers of the General Govern
ment are made up of concessions from
the several States. Whsteyer is not
expressly given to the former the latter
expressly reserved. Certain implied
powers must necessarily result to our
courts OF justice from the nature OF their
institution. But jurisdiction of crimes
against q State is not among these pow
ers. (Umted States VS., Hudson, 5.
Cranch, 50 J