|
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />their powers not granted, or, in the language of the tenth amend-
<br />ment, "resel'ved~" are: as independent of the General Government
<br />as that GoverI\ment within its sphere is independent of the
<br />States," (M~'.IJustice :Nelson in Oollector v, Day, 11 Wallace,
<br />1.13, 12'4, decidell in 187P,) ,
<br />
<br />"We haveJ'n this BepubHc a dual system of government,
<br />national and st te, each operatiug within the same territory and
<br />upon the sam persons; and yet working without collision,
<br />becuuse their f nctions 'are different. There a:rc. certain matters
<br />over which thet' National Government has absolute control and
<br />no a.ction of t le State can interfere therewith, and there are
<br />others in 'which the State is supreme, and: in respect to them the
<br />National Gover mont is powerless. 'fo preserve the even balance
<br />between these two Governments and hold each in its separate
<br />sphere is the ptculiar duty of all courts, preeminently of this-
<br />a duty oftentilljes of gr~at delicacy and diffi'culty," (Mr, Justice
<br />. Brewer in South Carolina v, United States, 199 United States,
<br />437, 448, decid~d in 1905,)
<br />
<br />"Each Sta~e is subject only to the limHations prescribed by
<br />the Constitution and within its own territory is otherwise su-
<br />preme. Its rntrnal affairs are matters of its own discretion,"
<br />(Id" 454,) ,
<br />
<br />"'rhe powe s affecting the internal affairs of the States not
<br />granted to the, nited States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
<br />by it to the SItes; are reserved to tile States respectively, and
<br />all powers of national character which are not delegated to
<br />the National overnment by the Constitution al'e reserved to
<br />the peop'le of t~Te United States," (Justice Brewer in Kansas v,
<br />Colorado, 206 ~, S" 46, 90,) .
<br />I ,(,
<br />In the casef-of Kansas v, Colorado, last above cited, the United
<br />States interven d, 1n effe... ct claiming national control of the waters
<br />of Western stJ eams to be administered under the doctrine of
<br />prior appropri tion, In answer to the primary question of na-
<br />tional contl'ol; Iregardless of the rights of the States, inter sese,
<br />Justice Brewe~t. after 0.. bserving that the United States had an.
<br />interest in the f.'ublio lands within the Western States and might
<br />legislate for thlir recla. rtl. ation, subject to State Jaws, thUS. disposed
<br />of the claim of national eontrol of Western interstate streams:
<br />
<br />"Tur'ning 0 the enumeration of the powers, granted to Con-
<br />gress by the ei hth section of the first article of the Constitution,
<br />it is enough to say that no one of them by any implication refers
<br />to the reclamat'on of arid land, . . . NG independent and unmen-
<br />tione\ipower asses tq the National Government or can right-
<br />fully be exerel ed by tl1e Congress, . · . But it is useless td pur-
<br />sue the inquir, further in this direction, It is enough for the
<br />purpose of this case that each State has full jurisdiction over the
<br />
<br />[ 30 ]
<br />
|