plicable without recourse to the common law of England; and not only is the existence of that system supposed by the Constitution of the United States, but it is constantly appealed to for the construction of powers granted to the Federal Government. The general question, however, as to the application and influence of the system, in reference to our national institutions, has not been settled upon clear and definite principles, and may still be regarded, especially in civil cases, as open for farther judicial investigation. The prevailing opinion at present seems to be, that, under the Federal Government, the common law, considered as a source of jurisdiction, was never in force, but considered merely as a means or instrument of exercising the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution, it does exist in full validity, and forms a safe and beneficial portion of our national code.

The Constitution erected on this basis, and from these materials, is declared, by its preamble, to be "ordained and established by the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity." By the terms, therefore, of this compact, the states are no longer known to each other merely in their sovereign and corporate capacities; but, without destroying their previous organization, the people of the respective states united with each other in founding a new government, operating directly on themselves as individuals, for the attainment of objects for which neither the states separately, nor the former confederation had been found competent. The principle of representation is applied in it, not only to the individual citizens of the respective states as citizens of the United States,

but also to the individual states themselves; and it pervades the three great departments of which the government consists.

Besides a general delegation of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers to distinct departments, so far as necessary to effect the purposes of national union, the Constitution specially defines the powers and duties of each of those branches of the government. This was essential to peace and safety, in a government invested with specific powers for national objects, and formed from the union of several independent states, as well as of the individuals composing them; each of the former yielding for that purpose the requisite portion only of its sovereignty, while they retained the executive control of their local concerns.

In analyzing the Federal Constitution, it may therefore be considered, as has already been indicated, under two principal points of view, viz. :

First. With regard to the particular structure and organization of the government, and the distribution of its powers among the several branches, in reference to which, the necessary provisions for their organization into separate departments, for making, executing, and expounding the laws; for rendering efficient those powers, and for confining them to their respective spheres, as well as for ascertaining the limits between the national and state jurisdictions, are all contained in that instrument. Besides which, it comprises the necessary regulations in respect,

Secondly. To the nature, extent, and limitation of the powers conferred on the government of the Union, and the restraints imposed on the state governments.

All the powers requisite to secure the objects of national union are vested in the Federal Government, while those powers only, which are not essen

tial to these objects are reserved to the state governments, or to the people. In all other respects, the sovereignty of the individual states remains unaltered. The respective obligations of duty and allegiance to them are unimpaired, except that, in all cases within the range of its jurisdiction, the higher obligations of duty and allegiance to the General Government necessarily supersedes that which would otherwise have remained to the separate states. From the nature of the case, the national and state sovereignties cannot be coequal; for two governments of concurrent right and authority in every respect, cannot exist in the same society. The supremacy was, consequently, conferred on the Federal Government, as the government of the whole, rather than on the governments of the constituent parts; otherwise, the establishment of the former, instead of "promoting domestic tranquillity," would have produced perpetual discord and disorder. The Convention therefore declared, in the name of the people, that the "Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties" made under the authority of the Union, should be the supreme law of the land.

The powers thus conferred on the government of the United States may be reduced to different classes, as they relate to different objects, each of which will be the subject of distinct, full, and particular investigation, under their appropriate heads and subdivisions. But from the view already presented of the fundamental principles of the Federal Government, in connexion with the general outline exhibited of its organization, it may be perceived that the Constitution of the United States was erected on the foundation of those inalienable rights, which the people of the several states derive, in common with all man

kind, from their Creator, and of those institutions and privileges which they inherited from their ancestors as subjects of the British crown, modified by their situation and circumstances as colonists, and subsequently varied by their successful vindication of their natural and political rights in the assertion of their independence; that it was formed on the Republican principle of representation in all its branches, adopted by the people themselves, and not by their state legislatures, and establishes a GOVERNMENT proper, operating upon every individual residing under its jurisdiction, and extending over the Union as one national community or body politic-composed, not only of the people of the several states, but to a certain degree of the states themselves, thus happily combining the principles of federation and consolidation, for the purpose of investing the states, as well as the people, with one national character; that, as the Union thus formed constitutes the nation, so the people of the several states have, for all the purposes of the Constitution, become one people, owing local allegiance to the states in which they reside, paramount allegiance to the National Government; that all the powers requisite to secure the objects of national union are vested in the General Government, while those only which are not essential to that purpose are reserved to the states or the people; that the National Government, though united in its powers to national objects, is supreme in the exercise of those powers; and that, whenever any of those powers, in their exercise, come in collision with the powers reserved to the states, the state authority, which is subordinate, must yield to the national authority, which is supreme.

Each state, nevertheless, although no longer possessing the absolute independence essential to it as

a separate national sovereignty, must still be regarded as sovereign in all matters not transferred to the General Government. The supremacy of the Union on all those points which are thus surrendered, and the sovereignty of the states in those not ceded to the nation, have been justly considered as two coordinate qualities, in attempting to ascertain the real meaning of the Constitution, in cases which, from the uncertainty and imperfection of human language, it is liable to dispute or doubt. As different views and interests have prevailed, different theories for the construction of the Constitution have been advanced. It has sometimes been regarded as a mere confederacy or alliance between the states, implying no surrender of their sovereign power or character; but this opinion is inconsistent with the nature of the federal compact, as explained by judicial interpretation of conclusive authority. Some jurists and politicians, however, who admit that it constitutes a government, have yet contended that, inasmuch as it establishes a government of limited powers, it should be construed strictly; while others have asserted that, from the extensive and high objects to be accomplished by the exercise of these powers, the most liberal interpretation should be allowed. As, on the one hand, a strict adherence to the letter, without regarding the spirit or pursuing the manifest sense of the instrument, can only proceed from groundless jealousy or concealed hostility to the system, so, on the other, a liberal construction may, from the possession or desire of power under it, be carried to a pernicious extreme. Limitations and restrictions may be conceived to exist, by some, which would render nugatory the national authority, and were, therefore, never meant to be imposed; while concessions of power may be imagined or as