|
<br />JOJ221
<br />
<br />-40-
<br />
<br />t
<br />
<br />"The General Government, and the States, although both
<br />exist within the sane territorial limits, are separate and
<br />distinct sovereignties, aoting separately and independently
<br />of eooh other, within their respective .pheres. The former
<br />in its appropriate sp!lere is supreme; but the States ,',ithin
<br />the limits of their pow-rs not Cranted, or, in the 1anguuge
<br />of the tenth amendment, ;reserved,I a,-e as independeilt of
<br />the General Government as that Government within its sphere
<br />is independent of the States." (Mr. Justice Nelson in Col-
<br />lector v. Day, Ulia11aoe, 113, 124, decided in 1'170),
<br />
<br />.'
<br />
<br />"He have in this Republic a <1\al systelO of government,
<br />national and Soate, each operating within the same territory
<br />ond upcn the same persons; and yet wOl'kin:: without collioion,
<br />because their functions are different. There are certain
<br />matters over whi ch the National Government has abs olute con-
<br />trol and no action of the Stete cen interfere therewith, end
<br />there are others in which the State is SUprel!1e, and in res-
<br />pect to them the National Government is powerless. To pre-
<br />s I've the even balance between these two Govermnents end hold
<br />each in its separate sphere is the I_eoClliar duty of all
<br />courts, preeminently of this - a duty oftentimes of (;reat
<br />delicacy and difficulty," (!'II'. Justice Brewer in South Carolina
<br />v. United States, 199 United Stdes, L~37, U-S, decided in 1905),
<br />
<br />";:;ach State is subject only to the limitations prescribed
<br />by the Constitution and wi thin its own territory is otherwise
<br />supreme. Its internal affairs pre matters of its own discre-
<br />tion." (Ld., 454),
<br />
<br />"The powers affecting the internal uffairs of the States
<br />not granted to the United States by the Constitut;_on, nor pro-
<br />hibited by it to the St8tes, are reserved to the States res-
<br />pectively, and all pow rs of a national oharacter which are
<br />not delegated to the National Government by the Constitution
<br />pre reserved to the people of the United States." (Justice
<br />Brewer in Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. s., 46, 90).
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />In the case of ;(ansas v. Colorado, last above cited, the United
<br />States intervened, in effect c1aiminc; n' tiona1 control of the "aters of
<br />Western strer.ms to be administered under the doctrine of prior appro-
<br />priation. In answer to the prir..ary que8tiol! of no_tiona1 control, reg"rd-
<br />less of the rights of the Stetes, inter sese, Justice 8rewer, after ob-
<br />servin!'; that the United States bad an interest in the public le.nds with-
<br />in the ,jestern States and might legislate for their rec1a'TIation, subject
<br />to St".te laws, thus disposed of the claim of n^tion"l control of Hestern
<br />interstate streams I
<br />
|