HAMILTON said the union was a confederacy," the constitution a compact," the states the "parties to the compact," and "the people of this state [New York] the sovereigns of it." And CHANCELLOR LIVINGSTON said the constitution provides for "a league of states,' thus forming a "federal republic" the very idea of Montesquieu, heretofore referred to. For a more extended citation of Jay and others see supra, p. 92, et seq.

No dissent is anywhere found. Her greatest men asserted her and her sisters to be "a confederacy" of sovereigns — a league of states — each the highest authority on earth. They considered the constitution to be the breath of the said monarchs, and "the government " their creation, agent, and servitor. How could it be otherwise when these sovereigns created its existence, “delegated" to it all of its " powers," and chose and commissioned their members and subjects to administer it? In the nature of things, their union, as associated bodies or "united states," was impossible except by federation. The "moral persons," each with her will, must act, and must survive the act.

She now Claims Sovereignty over People and Soil. After declaring her boundaries in her constitution, New York says: "The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundaries thereof, as declared in the preceding title; but the extent of such jurisdiction over places that have been or may be ceded to the United States shall be qualified by the terms of such cession." [See present constn. of N. Y.]

She also declares it to be "the duty of the governor and of all subordinate officers of the state, to maintain and defend its sovereignty and jurisdiction." [I. N. Y. Rev. Stat. chap. i., tit. 2. §§ 1, 2.]

She also declares, in as autocratic a manner as Kaiser William could possibly do, declaring to-day what she declared at first, — that "no authority can, on any pretence whatever, be exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is, or shall be, derived from, and granted by, the people of this state." [Ibid. ch. iv. §1.]

Mark the words, "citizens of this state"; and to show how completely this harmonizes with the federal constitution, and agrees with the theory of this work, see articles III. § 2, IV. § 2, and amendment XI. of the federal pact; and article I. § 1 of her own constitution, ordained in 1846- the latter reading as follows: "No member of this state shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers."

Note that she calls "the people" the "members of this state" (just as the federal pact calls "the people" the "citizens of different states"), assumes to be their sovereign, and to be obliged to protect

their liberty and rights. "The people" are New York, i. e. a commonwealth so named, which is formed by social compact, wherein each member agrees to be governed by all. Precisely thus does Massachusetts set forth this republican social compact (see the preamble to her constitution); and, consistently, she calls her citizens "subjects of the commonwealth." And even the federal supreme court recently declared (in the Cruikshank case, 1876), that "citizens are members of the political community to which they belong." Hence, under the concurrent declarations of Queens New York and Massachusetts, to say nothing of the united sovereigns and their su preme court, we may consider "member," "citizen," and "subject " as convertible terms; also, that the only allegiance of the citizen is due to the society of which he is an integral part; also, that the only tie of allegiance in "the united states" is the social compact, especially as no king, prince or feudal lord can be found there. At all events, government in republics, being created, delegative, and vicarious, and being administered solely by citizens and subjects of the sovereigns, it cannot possibly be the object of allegiance or treason, as will be duly and more lucidly shown. Treason is a crime against the state or the states.

Uncle Sam stands in New York only on her Grant. Seeing the pronounced absolutism of New York, we cannot be surprised to find the federal agency under her queenly thumb. Indeed, she never seems to tire of reminding that agency, that it is the "business" of her and her sisters that is done, and that those who "receive that business to manage" do it (as Jay above says), "not for themselves, but as the agents and overseers of the people."

Nay, more, she over and over again declares or implies as we shall see - that the said limited agency, calling itself "the government," can have no foothold or jurisdiction on her soil, except with her permission, and on her conditions. Greek and Roman proprietors, if leagued for joint government, and protection of their estates and families, could not have had a more masterly and owner-like control over their owned administrators, than these associated moral persons called the states have over their administering and managing subjects. And it is preposterous to suppose that these agents, who are appointed by the state for her purposes, who have only her powers, and are her subjects, should, against her consent, and for some outside authority enter of right on her soil, occupy her strong positions, and gain all points of vantage, so as to be able to encompass her attack and destruction, instead of her "defence and safety."

New York on the Lordship of the Soil. - She considers that all rights and powers spring from the commonwealth, and fall thereto.

when they lapse. As to the soil, she says in Article I. § 2, of her present constitution: "The people of this state, in their right of sovereignty, are deemed to possess the original and ultimate property in and to all lands within the jurisdiction of this state; and all lands, the title to which shall fail from a defect of heirs, shall revert or escheat to the people."

Virginia in her constitution expresses it as follows: "All escheats, penalties and forfeitures, heretofore going to the king, shall go to the commonwealth."

Judge Kent thus states the American and republican idea, in IV. Com. 424: "The state steps in place of the feudal lord, by virtue of its sovereignty, as the original and ultimate proprietor of all the lands within its jurisdiction."

So we see that New York now considers herself as having upon her soil displaced the former sovereignty, that of Britain. And, consistently, she declares that "all grants of land and charters of incorporation made by the king of Great Britain, or by his authority, after October 14, 1775, shall be null and void." [Const. N. Y.]

The Conditions Federal Foothold is Granted on. It will now be seen that the foothold of the federal agency in New York is held under her grant, and solely on the conditions she imposes. Nay, more, the said agency accepts those conditions, in behalf of its principals, the united states.

On this point, please note, in the first place, the clause of Art. I., § 8, of the federal pact, providing that the congress shall legislate over such ten-mile-square district as shall be "ceded by a particular state," and accepted by congress, for the seat of the government; and shall "exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state, in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;" note also the act of congress of March 20, 1794, § 3: "It shall be lawful for the president of the united states to receive from any state (in behalf of the united states) a cession of the lands on which any of the fortifications aforesaid . . . may be erected,” etc. This referred to sites of forts, arsenals, etc., generally.

The action of New York in the matter is shown in one hundred and fifty-seven, or more, different acts, to be found in the revised statutes of 1859, in which she granted to the united states, as to any other owner, as many different tracts of land, under conditions which she, as a sovereign grantor, imposes, and which are in every case accepted. The following, which is in the act ceding the use and jurisdiction of lands adjoining the Brooklyn navy-yard, is a fair specimen: "The united states are to retain such use and jurisdiction so long as said tract

shall be applied to the defence and safety of the city and port of New York, and no longer." "But the jurisdiction hereby ceded, and the exemption from taxation herein granted, shall continue, in respect to said property, and to each portion thereof, so long as the same shall remain the property of the united states, and be used for the purpose aforesaid, and no longer."

a tract in the town of "The united states are to

So with the federal "jurisdiction over Watervliet," the site of the great arsenal: retain such jurisdiction so long as the said tract shall be applied to the use of providing FOR THE DEFENCE AND SAFETY OF THE SAID STATE, and no longer."

Further quotation is unnecessary. It is hoped the reader will refer to and read some of the one hundred and fifty-seven statutes aforesaid.

New York, then, is Absolute on her Soil. It is certain, then, that as the United States is a party to these proceedings, declarations, and grants made by New York, long after the present federal constitution was established, never objecting or protesting, but accepting the conditions, there has never been the slightest abatement of the sovereignty of that commonwealth; and that the united states enters upon her soil solely by virtue of her authority, with her permission, and for the exclusive purpose of promoting her defence and safety. And New York receives the united states in two capacities: First, as a simple property-holder on the same footing with other owners; second, as a sort of viceroy or commission of the sovereigns in league, to do the "business" of their "defence" on their respective territories, and with their authority and means, Uncle Sam to continue doing this "business" as long as he uses the said foothold, authority, and means in "providing for the defence and safety of the said state, and no longer."

Surely no king of earth was ever more of a sovereign than New York! If Fort Lafayette, standing on her conditional and defeasible grant, menace her with attack and destruction, if she do not yield her will at the command of the said Uncle Sam, should she, and would she not, with guns, speak her judgment, annulling the federal tenure? If she cannot rightfully act so, in such an exigency, she is a province, and not a state, a subject, and not a sovereign, having returned to the condition she held under Britain, and nullified the American revolution!

NEW

CHAPTER IX.

OTHER SOVEREIGNS LIKE NEW YORK.

TEW YORK, then, exhibits herself and appears, in the present federal system, as the absolute sovereign within her boundaries; and the association called "the united states," so far as relates to its foothold, to its use and occupation of property, and to its governmental jurisdiction on the soil of New York, appears simply and only as her agent and grantee. Nay more, all of New York's grants of sites for forts, navy-yards, lighthouses, etc., are accepted from her, by the said associated states, on the express condition, in each case, that they "are to retain such use and jurisdiction, so long as the said tract shall be applied to the use of providing for the defence and safety of the said state, and no longer."

On New York's soil, federal authority is solely her own authority, delegated for her own purposes; her safety, and the security of her sovereignty, or right of self-government, being the vital objects; and those who act in wielding the same only appear as "representatives," agents," servants," and "trustees," as the fathers all habitually called them.

66

66

There can be no possible question that this is the correct view, for New York has, from the beginning to this day, kept the solemn declaration in her fundamental law - and she entered the union with it that: "No authority shall, on any pretence whatever, be exercised over the people or members of this state, but such as is, or shall be, derived from, and granted by, the people of this state."

I cursorily review New York's case at the opening of this chapter, because it is, in principle, that of the rest, as will now be seen.

Queen Massachusetts speaks idem sonans. This federalized or leagued sovereign, like New York, grants the sites of forts, navyyards, lighthouses, etc., which she thinks necessary for the "business" of "providing for" her "defence" and "welfare," to the associated states, to be held so long as the said "business" remains entrusted to said states. Her conditions are the same as New York imposes. Her status is precisely that of New York. Her fundamental