Laserfiche WebLink
<br />th~il' power~ not gl'antc(l. (II', in the lunguage of tile tenth UI1l~IUJ- <br />lllE-ut, "J'cscl'vcd/,-are as independent of the General Government <br />as that (lO\-erument within its sphere is iudependent of the <br />Stat"s." (~Ir, .TlIstice Nelsoll ill Collector v. Day, 11 Wallaee, <br />11:J, lCC!, deeided in 18;0,) <br /> <br />"\Yt? have in this Hepuhlic a dual system of government, <br />national :HIll I';tate.. each operating' within tlie s<UlIC tel'l'itory and <br />UIJUIl the same persons.; aIltl yet working without collision, <br />because their flludiom; ure dift'crento There fl're certain matters <br />oYer whkh the National GlJ\'ernIllent has ah!:;olute control and <br />no action of tile State ('an intel'fere therewith, and there are <br />others in 'whkh the ~tnk iR supl'eme~ allrl in respect to them the <br />National GO\"CrIlmcnt is powerless" To presenre the eren balance <br />between these two GO\-erlllllcnts and hold each in its separate <br />sphere if-; the peculiar duty of all court:::;, preemiucntly of this- <br />a duty ofteutimeR of gl'e<lt delicaty and difficulty," (:MI'. ~Jl1stice <br />B,'ewer in Sont.h Cal'oliua \" United Stntes, 190 United States, <br />4:1;, 448, decided in 1905,) <br /> <br />"Eaeh State is snbjcet. only to the limitations V""8c,'iued hy <br />the Constitution and within it~ OWIl tenitol'\' js otllerwh::.e su- <br />prellle. Its Jntprnnl af:f~lil"s are matters of it'~ own t1i!-:itretion:' <br />(T.T.. 454,) <br /> <br />"The powers affecting the internal affair:":. of the StntE'B not <br />gmnted to the United States by the Constitution, nor pl'Ohibited <br />by it to the State~, are resel'n:d to tlle States l'esIJceth"ely, and <br />all powers of a national ehar;wter which are not delegated to <br />the Nntional noverllmeIlt hv the Constitution are reser"eo to <br />the peo,-.Ie of the United 8t"ltes,~' (~Tustiee HT'ewer' in Kan8a~ \', <br />Colorado, ~Or. U. S., 46. 00.) <br /> <br />In the case of Kansas v, Colorado, last ab/)\"l~ cited, tile United <br />St.ates intenened, in effe(~t e1aiming national eontl'ol of the watel':-l <br />of \Ve:'itern streams to be [l(lministered under the doctrine of <br />prior' approJlriation, In answer to the primary question of na- <br />tional control, regardless of the rights. of the States, intcr s('se. <br />.Ju~tiee Brewer, after observing that the United States h:1(1 an <br />interest in the public la]1d~ within the "'cstmon States [JIHI might <br />legislate for their l'E'Clamlltion, ~llbject to State laws, thll~ dispn~ed <br />of the claim of national control of 'VesteI'U interstate 8tl'eams: <br /> <br />"Tur.ning to the enllLnpratioll of the powers granted to Con- <br />gress by the eighth sec.tion of the first 31'tide of the Constitution, <br />it. is enough to Hay that no one of them hy any illlIJlic:ltion refers <br />to the reclamation of arid I:1.IHl . . . :Ko indepellllent :mtl unmen- <br />tioned power passes to the :Kationnl Government or loan right- <br />fully he. ~;x.e.'..'~i!;~(l b;1' the. COllg~'e.\:',~, . * * Rut it iB u<;:R.l('.'i;'\-', to }I\\\" <br />sue the inquiry furtlIer in thi~ direction, It is enough for the <br />purpose of this case that eu('h ~t;lte ha!oi full jurisdiction lweI' the- <br /> <br />[ :111 ] <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />J <br />I <br /> <br />l <br /> <br />","; <br />