| OCR Text |
Show -170- consequently, it -was designed to include all those subjects, which in the ordi-¦ nary intercourse of nations had usually been made subjects of negotiation and treaty; and which are consistent with the nature of our institutions, and the distribution of powers between the general and state governments . « . "It being evident, then, that the general government possesses the power in question, it remains to inquire whether it has been surrendered by the states. Me think it has; and upon two grounds: (l) According to the express words of the constitution, it is one of the powers that the states are forbidden to exercise -without the consent of congress. (2) It is incompatible and incon- sistent with the powers conferred on the federal government. "The first clause of the tenth section of the first article of the consti- tution, among other limitations of state power, declares that 'no state, shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation1• The second clause of the same section, among other things, declares that no state, without the consent of congress, shall *enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power.* "We have extracted only those parts of the section that are material to the present inquiry. The section consists of but two paragraphs, and is em- ployed al-fcogether in restrictions upon the powers of the states. In the first paragraph, the limitations are absolute and unconditional; in the second, the forbidden powers may be exercised with the consent of congress, and it is in the second paragraph that the restrictions are found which apply to the case now before us. "In expounding the constitution of the United States, every word must have its due foroe and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instru- ment that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added. The many dis- cussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition, and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning; and this principle of construction applies with peculiar force to the two clauses of the tenth section of the first article, of which we are now speaking, because the whole of this short section is directed to the same subject; that is to say, it is employed to- gether in enumerating the rights surrendered by the states; and this is done with so much clearness and brevity that we cannot for a moment believe that a single superfluous word was used, or words which meant merely the same thing. When, therefore, the second clause declares that no state shall enter into *any agreement or compact' with a. foreign power without the assent of Congress, the words ?agreement* and 'compact' cannot be construed as synonymous with one another; and still less can either of them be held to mean the same thing with the word 'treaty* in the preceding clause, into which the states are positively and unconditionally forbidden to enter, and which even the consent of Congress could not authorize. MIn speaking of the treaty-making power conferred on the general government^ |
