can find any countenance for this proposition
that paramount allegiance is due to the Fed-
eral Government. I go further, and call to
your minds the jealousy that existed within
the States with regard to delegating many of
the powers that were proposed to be delegated
to the Constitution of the United States
Look through the debates from the beginning
to the end, and see what difficulty the
framers of that Constitution would have had
to encounter in getting it adopted, if such a
proposition had been incorporated in it. Is
there a man who believes that there is a soli-
tary State which would have adopted it with
such a provision in it? Not one, judging
from the debates which were contemporaneous
with the Constitution.
Is it possible in the nature of things, look-
ing at the powers of the Government of the
United States, and looking at the powers of
the government of the several States, that any
such idea can be entertained? Where is the
mass of the powers of government delegated
by the people to their agents? Is it in the
Federal Government? The powers of the
Federal Government are few and specific, and
mainly external, relating to our intercourse
with foreign nations. Look at the mass of
powers delegated by the people to their State
governments.
The idea, as laid down in that authority, in
Dallas, is that allegiance is due, and is con-
nected with the idea of ownership and juris-
diction over land. if this right of eminent
domain is to be the criterion of allegiance,
where does it exist" Has the Federal Govern-
ment, from the time of its foundation down
to the time of these unfortunate difficulties
that are now upon us, ever claimed the right
of going into a solitary State of the confed-
eracy, to appropriate one foot of land for any
purpose whatever by an act of Congress with-
out the assent of that State previously had
and obtained? Was any such right dele-
gated to the Federal Government? That is
a test to show what was the idea of the
framers of the Constitution. If this govern-
ment is paramount, if the citizen owes para-
mount allegiance to it, then it has paramount
jurisdiction over the soil on which he lives,
Is any such idea contained in the Constitu-
tion of the United States? It was known
that the Federal Government must have dock-
yards, navy-yards, forts, lighthouses, to carry
out its powers of regulating commerce. This
was known, contemplated, and provided for,
But was that Government vested with au-
thority to go where it pleased, and appro-
priate land for a dock-yard, or to build a fort,
or a lighthouse, or any other needful build-
ing, without the assent of the States? By
no manner of means. The Constitution did
not leave the subject in doubt; but among
the enumerated powers of Congress is this :
"To exercise exclusive legislation, in all
cases whatsoever, over such district (not ex- |
ceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession
of particular States and the acceptance of
Congress, become the seat of government of
the United States, and to exercise like au-
thority over all places purchased, by the con-
sent of the Legislature of the State in which
the same shall be, for the erection of forts,
magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other
needful buildings."
The Constitution not only gives authority
to purchase with the consent of the States,
but they specially hedge it round that they
shall not purchase within their limits and be-
come the holder of enough land to build a
lighthouse, or a dock-yard, or even a fort for
the protection of the country, without the as-
sent of the State Legislature first had and ob-
tained.
This doctrine is fully recognized in the case
before the Supreme Court of the United States
involving the grant of land in Alabama. 3
Howard, 212. The Supreme Court expressly
say that Alabama, over all her rivers, and
bays and harbors, and over every foot of soil
within her boundaries, had eminent domain
which was supreme; and the Federal Gov-
ernment could not grant one foot of it, or en-
ter upon it for any purpose, without the as-
sent of the State Legislature first had and
obtained; that although not one of the origi-
nal thirteen, lout formed out of the public
lands, yet when admitted she was admitted
with equal rights with the old thirteen States,
and had the right of saying how far the Fed-
eral Government should enter upon their ter-
ritory; and therefore within her territory
not a foot of land could be occupied without
her consent.
They go further and say that not only has
the Federal Government no such municipal
jurisdiction, but has not the const. tutional
capacity to exercise it, except in the cases
where it is expressly granted. It has not the
right of eminent domain anywhere. Even
the public lands are held in trust, for the pur-
pose of forming new States out of them. It
has no right to appropriate them except in
the way the trust requires, for the purpose of
settlement to form new States to be admitted
upon an equality with the old States.
The right of eminent domain, upon which
depends the right to appropriate to public
purposes all the property within the State,
belongs to the State, and not to the United
States. The Government of the United States
has the right of taxation, which the Constitu-
tion prescribes, and which is concurrent with
the State governments. But it has no right
of eminent domain, no right to appropriate
private property to the public use in any
mode except by taxation. The State may do
it, because the State power is paramount.
The State may do it, because the States sov-
ereign, and has never stripped herself of the
power which belongs to her as a sovereign
State. |
