tracting States. Certainly, at any rate, they cannot be designated as unions of a juristic character, for, as analysis will later show, treaty relations are not of this character."

Coming now to "Organized Unions" we find in them, as their name imports, permanent central organs. They admit of segregation into the four following classes: (1) International Administrative Unions, (2) The Realunion and Personalunion, (3) The Staatenbund (Confederacy), and (4) The Bundesstaat (Federal State).

Examples of the first sub-class are combinations of States for the common regulation of particular interests wherein permanent administrative authorities are created. Of this kind are the commissions for the regulation of navigation upon the rivers Po and Danube, and the international Postal and Telegraph Unions. There is the same objection to considering these types of unions of States that we have made to the whole of the class of unorganized unions above considered.

By the term "Realunion" is indicated by German publicists that composite type of State life in which there is an intimate and lasting union entered into between two or more sovereign States, according to which there is a common ruler, but a preservation of the territorial divisions, and a recognition and protection of the constitutional rights of each of the uniting States. Thus, it is "that form which arises when two or more independent States unite for common protection, according to which one and the same physical person appears as the representative of the States' authority and according to which the extending of this union to other functions is not forbidden." 10 In other words, the essential element of the Realunion is that it is provided by the constitution of

9

10

Upon this point, compare Gareis, Allgemeines Staatsrecht, pp. 103-105. Jellinek, Die Lehre von den Staatenverbindungen, p. 215.

each member State that the representative of its Sovereignty (Repräsentationshoheit) shall be in one and the same physical person, and that this connection shall obtain irrespective of who the prescribed qualifications happen to determine this common ruler shall be. The most conspicuous example of this form of union is that formerly exhibited by Austria and Hungary, and Norway and Sweden. And, it may be added, the relation between Great Britain and its "Dominions" is tending toward, if it has not already reached, this type of political association.

It will be seen that that which distinguishes a Realunion from a simple sovereign State whose organization provides for distinct governmental agencies in different portions of its domain is that the members of the union are true sovereign States and that though the powers of the Crown of all of them are vested in the same individual, that individual is constitutionally viewed as having as many distinct official or public personalities as there are States over which he rules. Thus it is possible that, as to one of the States he may be constitutionally regarded as the original and subsisting source of all legal authority, while, as to another of the States he may be viewed as possessing only such powers as have been delegated to him by the citizen body from whose will it is assumed that all legal legitimacy is derived.

A type of union much resembling the Realunion, and, in fact, juristically of the same class, is the so-called Personalunion. The distinction between the two consists merely in the fact that the associated States come to have the same ruler only by reason of the casual circumstance that their rules of royal descent, as fixed by their several systems of constitutional law, happen to call to their thrones the same person. In such cases the union of course lasts only during the reigns of such monarchs. Of

this character were the relations for a time between England and Hanover, Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein, Prussia and Neuenburg; and such was the relation that once existed between Holland and Luxemburg. In these cases the ruler is to be considered as possessing as many political personalities as there are States under his rule. It is thus proper to consider each of the members of a Personalunion as well of the Realunion as having its own ruling head. The Sovereignty of each of the individual States is preserved.11

Federal States (Bundesstaaten) and Confederacies (Staatenbunden). The two main types of the composite State are the Confederacy (Staatenbund) and the Federal State (Bundesstaat), and a critical examination of the nature of these two forms will serve to bring out the general principles that are applicable in determining the juristic form of all kinds of political unions. The necessity of this examination is amply testified to by the great diversity that exists in the views held by different publicists upon the various points involved. Thus, Waitz, Bluntschli, Ruttiman, de Tocqueville, and many American writers, maintain the doctrine of divided sovereignty in a Federal State. As regards the nature of our own union, Wheaton and Halleck and other international law writers declare that the international sovereignty of the

"Thus says Jellinek (op. cit., p. 212), "Die Personalunion ensteht durch Momente, welche keine Willenseinigung der Staaten voraussetzen und zur Folge haben, die Realunion hingegen beruht auf dem übereinstimmenden, geeinigten Willen der Staaten, welche die Fülle der Staatsgewalt, die Entscheidung über die wichtigsten Angelegenheiten der Staaten Einer natürlichen Persönlichkeit zuweisen." In his latest work, Allgemeine Staatslehre, Dritte Auflage, p. 751, Jellinek, as to the distinction between Personalunion and Realunion, says, "Die ursprüngliche Unterscheidung beider Typen, je nachdem bloss die Person des Monarchen oder überdies staatliche Angelegenheiten den einzelnen Staaten gemeinsam seien, die noch in der ausserdeutschen Literatur und in der Sprache der Tagespresse angetroffen wird, ist auf rein äusserlichen Merkmalen basiert und rechtlich belanglos."

individual State is destroyed, but domestic sovereignty retained, though it is apparent that in taking this view. a conception of sovereignty is taken that makes of it a mere collection of powers so loosely related that they may be separated without loss of real sovereignty to the possessor of any part. According to Twiss, the members of our union though not "independent" are yet "all sovereign States."12 According to Calhoun and his school, they are completely sovereign; while by the opponents of that school they are held as entirely devoid of this character. As opposed to complete sovereignty, either of the individual States or of the national government, Brownson holds that, "while the sovereignty is and must be in the States, it is in the States united and not in the States severally." "The organic American people do not exist as a consolidated people or State, they exist only as organized into distinct but inseparable States."13

Treitschke did not attempt a rigorous juristic analysis of the Federal State, but he evidently had a conception of it peculiar to himself, for he maintained that, in the German Empire, Prussia remained sovereign, although the sovereignties of all the other member States had been swallowed up in that of the Empire.14

LeFur says that the peculiar characteristic of the Federal State is the joint participation of the several subordinate states collectively, and their citizens individually, in the formation of the sovereign will: "Un seul caractère peut être considéré comme appartenant en propre à l'Etat fédéral, c'est l'existence dans cette forme d'Etats, entre l'Etat lui-même et les citoyens, d'un nouveau facteur coopérant comme les derniers à la forma"The Law of Nations Considered as Independent Political Communities, vol. I, p. 23.

The American Republic, pp. 221, 245. "Politics, chapter XXII.

tion de la volonté souveraine. Ce nouveau facteur, ce sont les Etats particuliers, qui participent à la souverainté sous une double forme, tantôt indirectement par l'intermédiaire de leur representants, tantôt directement, surtout en matière de révision constitutionnelle, grâce à l'existence d'un véritable referendum d'Etats, semblable à celui qui existe au profit des citoyens dans les républiques démocratiques. Cette participation de certaines collectivités publiques à la formation de la volonté souveraine existe, on l'a vu, dans tout Etat fédéral; et à l'inverse elle n'existe que là."15

Von Mohl declares that the sovereignty is divided between the collective state and its members: "Als Bundesstaat bezeichnet man aber bekanntlich die jenige Vereinigung von Staaten, über welcher eine gemeinschaftliche Regierung mit allen dazu nothwendigen Rechten und Organen besteht, so dass die Selbständigkeit und namentlich die völkerrechtliche Souveränität der einzelnen theilnehemenden Staaten sehr geschmälert ist, und eine durchgehende Theilung der Regierungsrechte zwischen ihnen und der oberen Gesammtgewalt staatfindet."16

Borel, who has given us one of the best discussions of the subject, defines a Federal State as: "un Etat souverain, dont les membres ne sont pas souverains . . L'Etat fédératif est donc l'Etat dans lequel une certaine participation à l'exercice du pouvoir souverain est accordée à des collectivitiés inférieures, soit qu'on les adjoigne à l'organe souverain pour la formation de la volonté nationale, soit que, prises dans leur totalité elles forment elles-même cet organe souverain." 17

16

This diversity of opinions could be further multiplied

Etat fédéral et confédération d'États, p. 673.

Staatswissenschaften, vol. I, p. 560. (Ed. 1855.)

"La Souveraineté et l'État Fédératif, pp. 74, 172.