are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States. Their relation to the general government is much the same as that which counties bear to the respective states, and congress may legislate for them as a state does for its municipal organizations. The organic law of a territory takes the place of a constitution as the fundamental law of the local government. It is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities; but congress is supreme, and for the purposes of this department of its governmental authority, has all the powers of the people of the United States, except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved in the prohibitions of the constitution."

The District of Columbia.

The position of the District of Columbia is even more peculiar than that of the territories. In fact, it constitutes the most singular anomaly in our political systems. The District is that portion of territory ceded to the United States for a site for the national capital. It is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of congress. It is neither a state nor a territory. Its people have no direct participation in the government, even in respect to the administration of municipal affairs. Its executive department consists of a board of three commissioners who are appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the senate. Its judges are appointed in like manner. Its local legislature is congress. Its permanent residents are citizens of the United States, if they fulfill the conditions of citizenship laid down in the fourteenth amendment, but they are not citizens of any state.

Restricted Meaning of the Term "State.*

When the word "state" is to be taken in its more restricted sense, as designating one of the component states of the Union, there is often some difficulty in determining its exact limits. This ambiguity arises chiefly in connection with the peculiar position of the territories and the District of Columbia. It may be stated, as a general rule, that the term "state" may include the territories and the District when used geographically, but not when used politically. And while these communities are not technically "states" of the Union, as the term is used in the constitution, yet they may be held ♦ National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U. S. 129.

to come under that designation, as used in treaties and acts of congress, if plainly within their spirit and meaning. For instance, in the internal revenue acts of congress it is provided that the word "state" shall include the territories and the District of Columbia, whenever such construction is necessary to carry out their provi sions." So the term "state," in an act of congress regulating the taking of pilots on water forming the boundary between two states, includes an organized territory of the United States.

SOVEREIGNTY AND RIGHTS OF THE STATES.

12. The several states have not the attribute of sovereignty, except in a limited and qualified sense. They are local self-governing communities, independent as respects each other, independent in a limited and qualified sense as respects the Union, but not ranking as nations or sovereign powers for the purposes of international law.

State Sovereignty.

The several states composing the American Union never enjoyed complete sovereignty as regards the external side, and do not now possess it. This is shown by the fact that they were always subject to some common superior in respect to their relations with foreign powers. First it was the king and parliament of England, then the revolutionary congress, then the confederation, and now the United States. For as all authority over foreign relations and affairs is confided to the national government, it follows as a necessary consequence that all such authority is denied to the separate states. None of them can deal directly with a foreign nation. "The only government of this country which other nations recognize or treat with is the government of the Union, and the only American flag known throughout the world is the flag of the United States." On the external side, therefore, we may entirely dismiss the notion of any state sovereignty. An apparent exception may be found in the case of Rhode Island and North Carolina, which

Rev. St. U. S. § 3140.

• The Ullock, 19 Fed. 207.

7 Fong Yue Ting ▼, II. &, 149 U. S. 698, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; 1 Story, Const.

remained out of the Union for a short time after the national government was organized, and thus acquired complete independence, and also in the case of Texas, which was a sovereign and independent republic at the time of its admission. But the two former states never sought or obtained recognition from any foreign government, nor exercised any act of external sovereignty. And the latter state, on coming into the Union, surrendered all such powers and rights as were incompatible with its new rank and position as one of the states. None of these states, therefore, now possesses any sovereignty except such as may be enjoyed by all the states alike.

But the question of state sovereignty is not determined alone with reference to external relations. It also depends in a measure upon the relation of the states to each other and to the Union, and on their internal powers of legislation. "As applied to a state within a federation, as one of the United States, or a kingdom or duchy of the German Empire, the term 'sovereign' signifies that the community referred to is the political equal in the federation of each of the other members. Not that it may have in all respects the same weight in the federal councils, but that its political tie with the others is alone through the federal government, and but for that tie the states would be independent of one another.” We may say, therefore, that, as respects each other, the several states of the Union enjoy a qualified sovereignty. It is not an absolute sovereignty, even here, because they cannot make treaties with each other (unless with the consent of congress), and there are numerous particulars in which the relation of the states is regulated by the federal constitution. In all such matters as the effect of judicial proceedings, the extradition of criminals, and the privileges of citizens, the several states are not at liberty to deal with each other as independent communities.

Again, as regards the relation of the several states to the Union, it may be said that each state enjoys a qualified and relative sovereignty. "Not every subjection of a state," says Bluntschli, "destroys its sovereignty completely, since the dependence may not be absolute. In composite states, confederations, federal states,

Crane & M. Compar. Pol. 38.

and federal empires, the particular states, although in certain respects subordinated to the whole, yet have a relative sovereignty limited in extent but not in content. Thus in Switzerland, cantonal sovereignty is distinguished from federal sovereignty; similarly in North America and in the German Empire, there is a difference between the sovereignty of the Union or Empire and that of the federated states." The practical description of the manner of this apportionment of sovereign power which has been agreed on by statesmen and courts is that each state retains plenary authority over those matters which have not been confided to the general government by the constitution nor prohibited to the states, and that the Union possesses plenary authority over those subjects which the constitution intrusts to its regulation.

Finally, in respect to the regulation of their own system of government and internal affairs, the states possess no more than a limited or qualified sovereignty. The ultimate test of sovereignty, in this respect, as we have already said, is the power to alter the constitution at will. But this the states cannot do. For there are numerous provisions of the federal constitution which impose limitations upon the power of the states, as well in the making or changing of constitutions as in the enactment of laws. For example, no state, in adopting or amending a constitution, could establish anything but a republican form of government, or abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States, or impair the obligation of contracts.

State Rights.

The rights of the several states of the Union, possessed and to be enjoyed by them as such, are political and governmental in their nature. They consist in such a degree of autonomy and such powers of free action and of regulation of their own affairs as may not be inconsistent with the nature of the relation of the Union to each of the states, nor with the exercise of those powers which are confided, by the constitution, to the federal government. They embrace all those powers which were possessed by the several states at the time of the adoption of that constitution, with the exception of such as are therein delegated to the central authority,

Bluntschli, Theory of the State, 475.

But it is evident that, with

or thereby prohibited to the states. in the limits of this definition, there is room for great difference of opinion in details. And in fact, ever since the foundation of the Union, two schools of statesmen have been found, divided in their views on the nature and boundaries of state rights. According to one school, the federal constitution is to be subjected to a strict construction in respect to the powers granted to the national government and a liberal interpretation for the preservation of the autonomy of the states. According to the other school, the rule of interpretation is to be reversed. Those holding the one opinion contend that the government of the Union should be held strictly to the exercise of the powers expressly granted to it, and that its province and jurisdiction should not be enlarged by implication. According to the other party, the true theory of our government and institutions is in favor of such a construction of the constitution as will give the federal government the largest measure of power which is compatible with the continued and useful existence of the states. By them the nation is regarded as the only sovereign power, and they contend that it should be accorded all such rights. and powers as may be convenient to enable it to discharge its func tions as such and to maintain its place among the nations of the earth. The extreme advocates of the one view have maintained that it was within the rightful power of a state to nullify (that is, refuse submission to, and resist by any adequate force) any act of the general government which, in the judgment of that state, was contrary to the constitution or beyond the boundaries of the legitimate power of the Union. These theorists also contended that a state possessed the power and the right to withdraw from the Union and set up a new government, either alone or with other states which might follow its example, whenever, in its judgment, its own interests required such a dissolution of the tie which bound it to the other states. On the other hand, statesmen of the other party have gone so far as to regard the several states as mere emanations from the Union, and as standing in the same relation to it which is occupied by the municipal corporations of a state towards the state. Between these two extremes lies the truth. Although the two theories of construction, strict and liberal, still subsist, it is now quite generally agreed that both the several states and the