Albuquerque citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1907-1909, 1907-09-20

anCl acres shOul1 oe soiu 70
0nf ssr % that nat f6p sa'Ss %ore snGaa tSaS
five - -, and should all be termi-
mated by the admission Of New Mex
leo TO the union as state, and that
all leases made and all investments
of the proceeds Of leases and sales
should be subject to the approval of
the secretary of the interior. and fin
ally In the last section of the act, to
put its benefaction into effect con-
gress appropriated ten thousand dol
lars from the treasury of the United
States. Obviously the only induce
ment to the United States to make
the grant was the public benefit to
be expected from 1t. In United states
VS. Trinidad Coal company, 1877 L. S.
160, 40, the court said: The vacant
lands Of the United States were held
In trust for all the people, and In
making regulations for disposing of
them, congress took no thought of
their pecuniary value but (acted) in
the discharge of a high public duty
and in the interest of the whole
country The provisions of the act
to which I have referred were plainly
intended to promote that purpose. 1t
would have been idle to make such
provisions unless congress assumed
that they could be effectually enforced
and unless they followed the land,
charging 1t with a trust. there could
be no effectual enforcement That
they did charge the land with a trust
and made the territory of New Mex
leo, trustee. of the trust, l am con-
vinced. Rice VS.. Railroad company
1 Black, 35S, 37S; Charles River
Bridge VS.. Warren Bridge, IL Pet,
544; Missouri & C. Railway Co. VS..
Kansas Pacific Ry. Co. 81 U. s. 4s1,
Fed. Rep 5S6. $50; United States
VS.. Railroad Co.. Il Wall, 1922,
That the United States, the grantor
of the trust property. is proper
party to call in question in a court
having jurisdiction, the acts of the
trustee, would seem to be settled for
this court by United States VS.. Des
Moines &c. Co., 142 L. S. $40. 53S.
But the defendants contend further
that even if so much be granted this
court has not jurisdiction because the
territory of New Mexico cannot be
sued in it. That a territory cannot
be brought into a court of the United
States, without its consent, to answer
to a suit of the United States. is a
proposition which If the researches
of the able counsel in the cause are
to be considered exhaustive of the
| subject, has in addition to its intrin-
| sic importance the interest of COM
plete novelty. The question could not
arise directly under the constitution,
~
| there used obviously meant the lands
| of the United States. United States vs.
| Gratiot, IA Pet. 537. And when by
| that instrument provision was made
| for suits against states in the su-
preme court it could not have been
then intended to apply to the legal
entities, now known as territories,
which We're the later creations of the
| United States--not strictly congress
alone, since the president has con-
| stitutional share in such legislation.
| AS the basis of their contention, the
defendants assert that New Mexico is
| a Sovereign" political body. Wheth-
| er ii is so or not is question of
| words rather than things, except for
the inference which they ask the
| court to draw from the alleged fact
| of it's sovereignty, that 1t is in pari
materia with the states, and so can
be used, If at all, only in the supreme
court of the United States. The word
| sovereignty has, however, come to be
one of elastic meaning. In strictness
| it means ultimate authority, supreme
and uncomfortable, giving an abso-
lutte right to govern. In that sense,
however, there is no sovereign au-
thOrity in the United States. The
| states have but a qualified" sover-
eighty. Field. c. j., in Moore VS..
Smaw, etc, II Cal. 199. And the fed
eral government is from time to time
limitations which restrict its power
over it's citizens. But the original
states were sovereign prior to the
constitution and remain so except as
they gave up to the general govern
ment, established under the constitu-
tion, some of the usual attributes OF
sovereignty. The partial sovereignty
which they retained they cannot be
deprived of by the federal govern
ment. The states since admitted tc
the union are on precisely the same
/ | footing as the original ones. Between
the states and the territories there /!
broad. and, il seems to me, funda
| mental difference. The rights of the
: former are grounded on the consti
tuition; the latter. as governments
) have no constitutional rights what
ever, although its citizens doubtless
| have personal rights under the con
. stitution of which congress could no
/ deprive them They are Legislative
. governments" Norman church VS.
( United States, 1856 L. s., l, 43, A
They are the creations Of the fedora
5 governments on which even thei
f existence depends. Their Legislation
= is limited in scope by the acts creatin
them and may be nullifed at VIII b
} | their creator. Their relation 10 tn
t general government is much the sam
e as that which counties bear TO tn
I | respective states" Clinton VS.. En-
ntical rights, as the court said, 4
4 | Murphy vs.. Ramsay, ia u. s., Al
. As. "are franchises which they hol
= as privileges I'm the legislative dis
% erection Of the congress of the Unite
e States" Such sovereignty as the
e may have can bear but a slight anal
n ogy to that Of a state. 1t is true tina
5 I'm Kawananahoa vs.. Polyblnk, 20
e L. s., 349 G906), the court hel
d that Hawaii could not be sued again'
$ its objection I'm its own courts, bu
e the decision is expressly put on IN
e ground that there can be no legs
l. right against the authority thl
e makes the law on which the rigf
e depends"
Is That is very far from holding thi
T. territory cannot be made deteuC
e ant against its objection i'm a suit D
If the United States i'm a case arism
.c under a law Of the United States,
+ court created by the United stat
e for The trial of such causes. l..
.c Rev. stat. Sec. 1910; organic ac
l. sec. 10; see L. 5. vs.. Texas, 143, L. 5