OCR Text |
Show -6- The federal or national government of the United States succeeded directly to none of the sovereignty relinquished by England; the thirteen States got all of it.H This is still important in any study of sovereign rights in the United States; and especially so in relation to national waters-which afforded the only worth-while highways of travel and transportation at the time this federal sovereignty was created. In the immediate contemplation of the revolutionary fathers, navigation and commerce were synonymous terms. And there was then no other use of the waterways of any importance in an interstate or national sense. Turing the short period of their separate national existence before the formation of the Union, at least four treaties were made between American States in relation to' their international boundary waters* One was a treaty or compact made in April, 1783* between Pennsylvania and New Jerseyl2 which succeeded and amplified an earlier colonial compact by the very same treaties then made. This restraint was not in derogation of sovereignty, but was merely an agreement among sovereigns to refrain from ex- erting their power externally in a particular way. The succession of the States to the sovereignty of England is aptly stated by Mr« Chief Justice Shaw of Massachusetts in Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush, (6l Mass.) 53, 81 (I85I), as follows; "There is now no occasion end no ground to deny or question the full and sovereign power of the commonwealth within its limits by legislative acts, to exercise dominion over the sea, and all its arms and branches, and the lands under them, and all other lands flooded by tide water, subject to the rights of riparian ownership. Whether any portion of this sovereignty remained in the British crown after the colonial and provincial charters were granted, it is now immaterial to inquire; for it is ouite certain that the entire right of property in the soil was granted to the colonists in their aggregate capacity, and if any power remained in the .crown, it was that of dominion and regulation of the public right, and this was wholly determined by the Declaration of Independence, acknowledged and ac- ceded to by the treaty of peace, sanctioned by an act of parliament. This right of dominion and controlling power over the sea and its coasts, shores'and tide waters, when relinquished by the parent country, must vsst somewhere; and, as between the several states of the United States,'whatever may have been the doubts, on -fahe subject, it is settled that it vested in the several states, in their sovereign capacities, respectively, and was. not transferred to the United States by the adoption of the constitution intended to form a more perfe01 unjLon. Special jurisdiction has been from time 10 time vested in the general government for special purposes, b-ut the general jurisdiction remains with the several states, subject, however, to such regulations as congress may make in the exercise of their admitted powers to regulate foreign commerce and commerce among the states. Such is the principle determined by the supreme court of the United States, the ultimate tribunal to decide questions of this kind. New Orleans v. The United States, 10 Pet. ((U.S.)) 662, 737, (9 L. Ed. 573 (1836)); Pollard v. ffiigan, 3 How. ((U.S.)) 212, (11 L. Ed. 565 (18^5))." (Italics added.) 12 For a. discussion of this compact and its history, see Bundle v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Co., 1J4. How. (U.S.) 80, lL. L. Ed. 335 (I852), aff»g 1 IVall. Jr. 275. Fed. Cas, #12139 (C.C. pa. I849); Att'y Gen'l v. Delaware & Bound Brook Ry., 27 N.J-. Eq. 1 (1876), afftd, 27 N.J. Eq. 63I (I876). To the report of the Rundle case in the Circuit Court is appended an opinion by Pdchard Stockton, said to have been one of the greatest of the early lawyers, upon international |