law and her whole history show that all federal authority exercised on her soil is delegated by her, and remains hers; and that all federal sites and jurisdiction are to be used solely for her "defence and safety," leaving her sovereignty unabated. For example, in the act of June 25, 1798, she cedes Castle Island, in Boston harbor, to "the united states," declaring that "all civil, and such criminal process as shall issue under the authority of this commonwealth, . may be executed therein, in the same way and manner as though this cession and consent had not been made and granted." See also the act of June 17, 1800,"authorizing the united states to purchase the site for the navy-yard at Charlestown"; and the acts. of June 20, 1795, and June 20, 1816. These sites are to be used for "the defence and safety of the state;" and the sovereign declares in some, if not all, of the acts, that when the federal foothold ceases to be used for the purposes contemplated, the grant of it is to be void, and of no effect."

:

In her revised statutes of 1836, page 56, will be found the following: "Of the jurisdiction of the commonwealth, and of the concurrent jurisdiction of the united states, over places ceded by the commonwealth Section 1. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of the commonwealth extend to all places within the boundaries thereof; subject only to such rights of concurrent jurisdiction as have been, or may be, granted over any places ceded by the commonwealth to the united states. Section 2. The several places here following, which have been ceded to the united states for forts, arsenals, dockyards, lighthouses, hospitals, and other purposes, and over which concurrent jurisdiction has been granted to the united states, shall continue to be subject to such concurrent jurisdiction, according to the tenor and effect of the respective laws of this commonwealth, by which they were so ceded." Then follow designations of about fifty federal sites.

The Voice of Pennsylvania on the Subject. In her cession of Mud Island, she specifies the use, makes the grant void if not within a year accepted, with conditions; and provides that "the jurisdiction of the state of Pennsylvania over the said island, in civil and criminal cases, be the same as before the passage of this act." See also act of assembly, Feb. 1, 1796.

The act of April 18, 1795, provides for the survey and cession of several tracts at Presqu' Isle on Lake Erie, "for the accommodation and use of the united states, in erecting and maintaining forts thereon," to be held by "the united states so long as they shall actually maintain a fort thereon, and no longer." This act contains the following: "And it is the express intent and meaning of this act that

nothing herein contained shall be deemed, construed, or in anywise taken to cede and transfer unto the united states the jurisdiction or right of soil in and to the said three last-mentioned lots, but only the occupancy and use thereof, for the purposes aforesaid.”

Pennsylvania thus shows herself to be absolute in her territory, and she only admits the federal government therein as the agent of the federation, to occupy and use definite portions of her soil for her "defence and safety," while she keeps her sovereignty and jurisdiction unabated.

Old Virginia acted in the Same Way.- In her code of 1849, is found an enumeration of the sites for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc., the jurisdiction over which is granted by her to the united states. There are nearly a score of them, including Old Point Comfort and the Rip Raps. The chapter concludes as follows: "And the transfers of property and jurisdiction, authorized by the said acts, being subject to certain terms and conditions therein expressed; and with certain restrictions, limitations, and provisions therein set forth: It is hereby declared that this state retains concurrent jurisdiction, . . . and its courts, magistrates, and officers may take such cognizance, execute such process, and discharge such other legal functions within the same as may not be incompatible with the true intent and meaning of the said acts."

The act ceding soil and jurisdiction at Old Point Comfort (Fortress Monroe) contains the usual limitations, conditions, aud reservation of jurisdiction, and concludes as follows: "And be it further enacted, that should the united states at any time abandon the said lands and shoals, or appropriate them to any other purpose than those indicated in the preamble to this act, that then, and in that case, the same shall revert to, and revest in, this commonwealth."

The Understanding of South Carolina. President Jefferson reported to congress, February 3, 1806, "an act of cession, of the state of South Carolina, of various forts and fortifications, and sites for the erection of forts, in that state, on the conditions therein expressed."

Her act of December 19, 1805, provides that hereby is granted to the United States of America all the right, title, and claim of this state to the following forts, and sites for the erection of forts, etc.: Five acres at Fort Moultrie; twenty acres at Fort Johnson; three acres at Fort Pinckney; two acres of "the sand-bank marked 'C' in the plan of Charleston Harbor," etc. It is provided that commissioners are to survey and locate; that if the united states shall not repair the present, and build certain new fortifications, "this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect;" and that "all process, civil or

criminal, issued under the authority of this state, or any authority thereof, shall, and may, be served and executed on any part of lands, sites, forts, and fortifications so ceded by this act, and on any person or persons there being, and implicated in matters of law."

United States" "shall, before pay due compensation to the "the United States," the prop

The act, then, requires that "the possession be taken of said sites, owners;" and it exempts, in favor of erty it thus allows that association to acquire, occupy, and use, from taxation.1

How distressing this revelation must be to the Websterian expounders of the day, such as Curtis, Pendleton, Adams, Jameson, Mansfield, Greeley, Lincoln, and others! What! must this great "nation," or great "union," or great "united states " go only as an agent into South Carolina, and under her grant? Must this mighty and august "union," or association, acquire its property in South Carolina just as John Smith does? Does it have no right of occupancy, use, or jurisdiction on the soil of South Carolina, but what it suits her to grant? Must Uncle Sam be exempted from taxation, just as Uncle Tom or Aunt Sally would be? And must this potentate hold his occupancy, use, and jurisdiction in South Carolina "so long as " he uses them "for the defence and safety of this state, and no longer"}

Are all these grants or cessions to be "void and of no effect," if the conditions afore-mentioned be violated? And are they primarily for her benefit, and subject to her will, so that she can raise her little foot, and (with no other restraint than the fear of getting whipped) kick the said avuncular relative out of her premises, if he violate her conditions, insult or menace her, or attempt her harm or destruction?

And when it is tritely said that "the military is subordinate to the civil power," do we mean that federal soldiers and officers, to wit, "the army and navy of the united states" and "the commander-in-chief" ! are subordinate to, and never above, the civil power of South Carolina, i. e. her sovereignty and right of government?

All these questions are to be answered in the affirmative. And

1 For numerous acts of cession on conditions and defeasible, see X. Stat. of S. C., pp. 74, 589, et seq. After much inquiry and considerable research, aided by friends of ability in South Carolina, I am almost forced to the conclusion that the united states has never had any title to the site of Fort Sumter. One of them says: "The view that this fort has never been ceded is much strengthened by the ordinance of April 18, 1861, which makes a general grant to the Confederate States of the occupation and use of all the forts, etc., lately in possession of the united states, together with Fort Sumter," etc. Is it possible that Uncle Sam was on Miss Carolina's premises by her permission and for her uses, and that he threatened to shoot her, if she did not let him be master?

history shows that these were the views of the fathers, so far as they expressed themselves on ultimate sovereignty and final remedies.

All historical evidence shows South Carolina to have been, and to have intended to remain, an absolute sovereign; to have used her own exclusive reason, judgment and will in making a voluntary union with her sister states, to "provide for " her and their "defence and safety;" and, finally, like New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, to have confided her powers, men, and means, and permitted federal foothold on her soil, on the express condition that "the United States was to hold and use them "so long" as they were "used for the defence and safety of the state, and no longer."

So say the New States. As the universally accepted principle was that new states, admitted by the congress of the states, from time to time, into the union of states [Art. IV., § 3], became equally "sovereign, free, and independent," they are naturally to be expected to have similar records as to the subject in hand. For instance, Alabama provides that "the united states may acquire and hold lands within the limits of this state, as sites for forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc., as contemplated and provided by the constitution of the united states" [Ala. Code, Art. III., § 21, p. 61]. "The governor . . is authorized, on the part of the state, to cede the united states jurisdiction over such lands, to hold, use, and occupy the same for the purposes of the cession, and none other. The jurisdiction thus ceded does not prevent the execution, on such lands, of any process, civil or criminal, under the authority of this state, nor prevent the laws of this state from operating over such lands" [Ibid. § 22]. Alabama then proceeded to provide for the security of united states property, and exempt it from taxation.

...

Surely, where the only foothold and jurisdiction the union of states can have in a state, is granted by the latter on conditions that the same is to be used for certain purposes, and no others, and be held just so long as used for the defence and safety of the state, and no longer, the proper conclusion or principle is, that the state is sovereign, and that the governmental agency of the united states (the said states being themselves the government) is subordinate to, and without control over, the state.

CHAPTER X.

SOVEREIGNTY IN THE NEW STATES.

MPORTANT quotations apposite to this subject are to be found in Chapter VII. of this Part. Of the great publicists quoted, Montesquieu and Vattel were, at the time our federal polity was established, the best authorities of the world on public law and political philosophy; and they especially the former-greatly guided and influenced our fathers in their grand work.

These publicists laid down the principle that republican states can make of themselves " an assemblage of societies, that constitute a new one, capable of increasing by new associations." Such confederation, being "composed of small republics, it enjoys the internal happiness of each," while, by uniting their strength, means, and wisdom, they have “all the advantages OF LARGE MONARCHIES." They do not, by uniting, part with their sovereignty.

The idea, on the one hand, is that the individual, self-governing people can, in small communities, ascertain, comprehend, and act upon the comparatively few facts necessary for self-government and the promotion of "internal happiness," while they could not possibly do so over an immense area and population. The idea, on the other hand, is, that all these societies or states shall, as one state, hold relations with the outside world, and be able to command respect as a member of the family of nations.

Here, in epitome, is the very system which our fathers sought to establish. It suits, with expanding autonomy, our growing country and rapidly increasing people, and assures to all Americans, however distant in space or time, the safety of their inherited "blessings of liberty"!

Of course our statesmen must have expected that the thirteen selfgoverning peoples, which they were then inducing to federalize themselves, would greatly "increase by new associations," so that, in time, through natural growth and immigration, commonwealths or republics would be spread over this vast continent, each enjoying the priceless "blessings of liberty" and autonomy, "representative democracy and the federalizing of states," to use Joel Barlow's expression,