| OCR Text |
Show two Governments, leach sovereign- with respect to the objects committed to it, and neither sovereign with respect to the objects committed to the other,T MoCulloch v. State of Maryland (I4 Wheat, 3I6, 1+00, lj.10), bixt both*subject to the supreme law of the land, does no violence to the inherent nature of sovereignty. The States of the Union have agreed, in the Constitution, chat the judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, without regard to the character of the parties (excluding, of course, suits against a State by its own citizens or by citizens of other States, or by citizens or subjects of foreign States), and equally to controversies to which the United States shall be a party, without re- gard to the subject of such controversies, and that this court may exercise original jurisdiction in all such cases fin which a State shall be party,1 with- out excluding those in which the United States may be the opposite party*" The power to enter into compact between a State or States and the United States is founded upon the same principle as the'power in the Supreme Court to settle controversies between States, as said by Mr. Justice Harlan in the fore- going case (p. 6L{1+), "We can not assume that the framers of the Constitution, while extending the judicial power of the United States to controversies between two or more States of the Union and between a State of the Union and foreign States, intended to exempt a State altogether from suit by the General Govern- ment •" The above statement followed an analysis of the position taken by Texas (p. 6U1), "Texas insists that no such jurisdiction has been conferred upon this court, and that the only mode in which the present dispute can be peaceably settled is by agreement, in some form, between the United States and that State. Of course, if no such agreement can be reached-and it seems that one is not probable-and if neither party will surrender its claim of authority and jurisdiction over the disputed territory the result, according to the defendant!s .theory of the Con- stitution, must be that the United States, in order to effect, a settlement of this vexed cmestion of boundary, must bring its suit in one of the courts of Texas * * ? or that, in the end, there must be a trial of physical strength "be- tween the Government of the Union and Texas." The court decided that, inasmuch as the State and the United States did not settle their controversy by compact, the Supreme Court had the power to determine the controversy between the United States and the State. The right to settle by compact proceeds upon the sovereignty of the State and the sovereignty of the Nation. As stated regarding another matter, "It is a matter between two sovereign powers." (U. S« v. La., 127 U. S* 182, 189«) The following quotations bear upon this general subject of power and sepa- rate sovereignty* ' : "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, noi- pro- hibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." (Constitution of the United States, tenth amendment.) "It must be recollected that previous to the formation of the new Constitition |
