Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER II.

THE DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES.

[blocks in formation]

merce is vested in the legislative branch of the government.

31. The commercial power and the taxing power are distinct.

32. Limitations upon the commercial power of congress 33. Constitutional provisions correlated to the commerce clause.

34. Commerce within the meaning of the constitution is a unit.

35. The commercial power of congress does not extend to state commerce. 36. Commerce defined. 37. When the commercial power of congress is exclusive, and when paramount only.

38. Failure of congress to act in regard to any commercial subject of a national nature is a declaration that as to such matter commerce shall remain free.

39. Powers expressly prohibited to the states.

40. The reserved powers of the

[blocks in formation]

§ 44. Riparian rights determined § 54. The subject-matter of inspec

by state laws.

45. Riparian rights subordinate to the commercial power of congress.

46. Authority to maintain bridge across navigable stream. 47. Same-Federal statute rerequiring assent of the federal government.

48. Power of the states to im-
prove their harbors, bays
and navigable rivers.

49. Same-Federal statute re-
quiring assent of the fed-
eral government.
50. Distinction between munici-
pal sovereignty and na-
tional sovereignty.

51. Admiralty jurisdiction of
the United States over the
public navigable lakes
and rivers of the states.
52. State pilotage laws-Admin-
istered in federal courts.
53. Constitutional power of the
states to levy duties on
imports and exports for
executing their inspection
laws.

tion laws-Do not operate

upon persons.

55. What articles are subject to
state inspection laws.
56. The object of state inspec-
tion laws.

57. The methods and means of
executing inspection.
58. Distinction between the pow-
er to enact inspection
laws and the power to
levy duty for their execu-
tion.

59. Commercial classification of
the subjects of inspection
laws.

60. Inspection laws act on articles of commerce in the exercise of the police powers of the state.

61. Same-Harmony with the commercial power.

62. Quarantine laws enacted by the states.

63. State action incidentally affecting foreign and interstate commerce.

§ 16. By revolution the thirteen colonies became sovereign states. By revolution, made good and effectual by the success of the war for independence, each one of the thirteen colonies became a free, independent and sovereign state, charged with all the duties and vested with all the powers, rights and incidents of sovereignity, and so continued until by the adoption of the federal constitution a large and important portion of that sovereignity was devolved upon and vested in the government of the United States. By the treaty of peace Great Britain acknowledged and recognized the sovereignty and inde-pendence of the colonies, each, respectively, but she did not grant those rights. They had already been achieved by suecessful revolution.1

1 McIlvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 4 Cranch, 209; Martin v. Waddell,

16 Pet. 406-418; Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 219-230; License Cases, 5.

§17. Two governments in each state-Relations between them -Each supreme in its sphere.-There are, as a result of the adoption of the constitution, within the territorial limits of each state two governments, restricted in their spheres of action, but independent of each other, and supreme within their respective spheres. Each has its separate departments; each has its distinct laws, and each has its own tribunals for their enforcement. Neither government can intrude within the jurisdiction, or authorize any interference therein by its judicial officers, with the action of the other. The two governments in each state stand in their respective spheres of action in the same independent relation to each other, except in one particular, that they would if their authority embraced distinct territories. That particular consists in the supremacy of the authority of the United States when any conflict arises between the two governments. The constitution and the laws passed in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States are declared by the constitution itself to be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state are bound thereby, "anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Whenever, therefore, any conflict arises between the enactments of the two sovereignties, or in the enforcement of their asserted authorities, those of the national government must have supremacy until the validity of the different enactments and authorities can be finally determined by the tribunals of the United States. This temporary supremacy, until judicial decision by the national tribunals, and the ultimate determination of the conflict by such decision, are essential to the preservation of order and peace, and the avoidance of forcible collision between the two governments. The judicial power conferred by the constitution upon the courts of the United States extends to all cases arising under the constitution, and, therefore, embraces every legislative act of congress, whether passed in pursuance of it or in disregard of its provisions; the constitu

How. 586-590; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 187; Mumford v. Wardell, 6 Wall. 423-439; Knight v. United States Land Ass'n, 142 U. S. 161-216; Johnson v. McIntosh,

8 Wheat. 584 (5:691); Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 720 (9:1259); In re Narragansett Indians (Supreme Court Rhode Isand, Feb. 24, 1898), 40 Atl. 347-373.

tion is brought under the view of the tribunals of the United States when any act of congress is brought before them for consideration. Such being the distinct and independent character of the two governments, within their respective spheres of action, it follows that neither can intrude with its judicial process into the domain of the other, except so far as such intrusion may be necessary on the part of the national government to preserve its rightful supremacy in cases of conflict of authority. In their laws and modes of enforcement, neither is responsible to the other. How their respective laws shall be enacted, how they shall be carried into execution, and in what tribunals, or by what officers, and how much discretion, or whether any at all shall be vested in their officers, are matters subject to their own control, and in the regulation of which neither can interfere with the other.2

§ 18. Sovereignty of the state restricted by the federal constitution. The constitution was not formed merely to guard the states against danger from foreign nations, but mainly to secure union and harmony at home; for if this object could be attained, there would be but little danger from abroad; and to accomplish this purpose, it was felt by the statesmen who framed the constitution, and by the people who adopted it, that it was necessary that many of the rights of sovereignty which the states then possessed, should be ceded to the general government; and that, in the sphere of action assigned to it by the constitution, it should be supreme and strong enough to execute its own laws by its own tribunals, without interruption from a state or from state authorities. And it was evident that anything short of this would be inadequate to the main objects for which the government was established. And although each state is sovereign within its territorial limits to a certain extent, yet that sovereignty is limited and restricted by the constitution of the United States. And the general government, and the state governments, although both exist and exercise their powers within the same territorial limits, are yet separate and distinct sovereignties, acting separately and independently of each other, within their respective spheres. And

2 United States v. Tarble, 13 Wall. 397, 413 (20:597, 600); McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat.

316-437 (4:579); Ableman V. Booth, 21 How. 506, 526 (16:169).

the sphere of action appropriated to the United States by the constitution is as far beyond the reach of the judicial process issued by a state judge or a state court, as if the line of division was traced by landmarks and monuments visible to the eye.3

§ 19. Two judicial systems in each state. There are, as a necessary result of our dual government, within the territorial limits of each state, two systems of judicial courts, the federal and the state, administering justice within the same territorial limits at the same time; sometimes exercising co-ordinate and concurrent jurisdiction, at other times exclusive jurisdiction; sometimes administering and applying the same system of laws, at other times separate and distinct systems of laws; but in all instances, except in the class of cases in which the United States supreme court is by the federal constitution given appellate jurisdiction over the state courts, the two systems of courts act separately and independently of each other; and in their respective spheres of action, when jurisdiction has attached, the processes, judgments and decrees of the one are beyond the reach of, and cannot be interfered with by the other.*

§ 20. The federal government does not possess all the attributes of sovereignty.-Although the government of the United States is sovereign and supreme in its appropriate sphere of action, as defined by the federal constitution, yet it does not possess all the powers which usually belong to the sovereignty of a nation. Certain specified powers, enumerated in the constitution, have been conferred upon it; and neither the legislative, executive, nor judicial departments of the government can lawfully exercise any authority beyond the limits marked out by the constitution. The government of the United States is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers; the principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it in the constitution, has been universally admitted from the time of its organization.

6

$ Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 526 (16:169, 177).

4 Amy v. Barkholder, 11 Wall. 136 (20:101); Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wall. 166 (18:768); Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 516 (16:173).

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19

How. 393, 633 (15:691); Re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 600 (39:1092); Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506 (16: 169); U. S. v. Tarble, 13 Wall. 397 (20:597).

6 McCulloch V. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (4:579).

« AnteriorContinuar »