As the sole representative of the Nation in its international dealings it is of course necessary that a Federal Government should possess adequate military forces for purposes of both offense and defense-or at least it should possess the constitutional authority to provide for and maintain an adequate army and navy when the occasion for their use arises.

As a practical proposition it is also necessary that the Federal Government should be constitutionally empowered to raise an adequate income, either by taxes or loans or both. It is, of course, possible to provide that the financial needs of the general government shall be met by assessments levied upon the States as such, and apportioned among them according to their size, wealth, population or any other principle that seems just and politically expedient. This, in part, was the plan pursued in the German Empire. In Germany there were special reasons why "matricular" contributions of the States, as they are called, were provided for, but, in general, it may be said that it is expedient that the National Government should be able to provide itself with funds without needing in any way the cooperation or acquiescence of the federated States. So important is this principle felt to be in the United States that the individual States are not permitted to levy the smallest tax upon the bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of the Nation, or upon the income derived from them.

Though perhaps not indispensable, experience has shown that it is highly desirable that, in a Federal State, the General Government should be authorized to regulate trade and commerce among the States, including, if found expedient, the construction, ownership and direct operation of inter-state railways and steamship lines, the telegraph, telephone, wireless and other means of communication. An opinion, is, indeed, widely held that this

authority should include as well those instrumentalities of trade and communication which operate wholly within State lines, for, in the present day, so intimate are interState and intra-state commercial relations, a severance of the two, placing the regulation of the one in the hands. of the General Government and of the other in the hands of the several State Governments, is often impossible and, where possible, not desirable.

It is also very desirable, though not absolutely necessary, that, in a Federal State, the control of the currency should be subject to the regulation, if not exclusively vested in the hands, of the National Government. The reasons for this require no elaboration.

One other power which it is highly important that a Federal Government should possess is the right to require that the citizens of each State in the Union shall be accorded in all the other States of the Union those civil rights of residence, ownership and use of property, freedom of contract, guarantees of rights of speech and press, due process of law, etc., which those States accord to their own citizens. In fact, no State should be permitted to discriminate in any way, except as to political rights, between its own citizens and those of the other States. And even as to these political rights provisions should exist whereby, without onerous restrictions, the citizens of one State may obtain citizenship in another State and thereby become entitled to the political rights which appertain to that status.

In all the federal States which now exist care is taken to provide for this inter-state comity. Thus, in the United States, it is constitutionally established that a State cannot forbid the citizens of other States of the Union from establishing their residence within its borders and thereby becoming its citizens; and it specifically provided that no State shall "deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," and, furthermore, that "full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State"; and that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." With reference to this last requirement we have the statement of the Federal Supreme Court that “It has been justly said that no provision of the Constitution has tended so strongly to constitute the citizens of the United States one people as this. Indeed, without some provision of the kind, removing from the citizens of each State the disabilities of alienage in the others, and giving them equality of privilege with citizens of those States, the Republic would have constituted little more than a league of States; it would not have constituted the Union which now exists." 27

Disadvantages of the Federal System of Government. The disadvantages of the federal system of government are obvious. It necessarily means, to a considerable extent, a duplication of governmental machinery, and this is especially so in a federation of the American type, in which practically all the national functions are exercised through national agencies.

A federal government is thus a complicated as well as an expensive method of political rule. In addition, it is politically and administratively weak. It is politically weak because authority is divided, and there is ever the danger that the member States will refuse to fulfil their constitutional duties, or, at least, will be negligent and lax in so doing. In the United States, as is well known, there were numberless conflicts between federal and State authorities which aroused bitter feelings and finally led to the bloody four years' Civil War of 1861-65. And, as "Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wallace 168.

has been earlier adverted to, there have been not a few occasions upon which the federal government has been greatly embarrassed in its dealings with foreign nations by the failure or open refusal of the States to give full recognition within their borders to the international rights of resident aliens. And there are pending at this time questions of this sort for which no fully satisfactory solution has been found.

Administratively viewed the federal system is an unsatisfactory one because State borders constitute jurisdictional lines which State authorities cannot cross. This greatly hinders the administration of justice, making difficult and often impossible the serving of that notice upon defendants of the beginning of judicial proceedings which must be had in order that jurisdiction may be obtained to proceed against them; the attendance of unwilling witnesses in another State cannot be obtained; property removed from one State to another in order to escape taxation or liability for seizure in payment of a debt or legal judgment is difficult to reach; when a personal judgment is obtained in one State it cannot be enforced in another State except by instituting a new suit upon it in the State in which its enforcement is sought; and, finally, troublesome extradition proceedings must be gone through with before fugitives from the justice of one State can be apprehended in a State to which they may have fled.

When, as in the United States, each State determines for itself the private laws, civil and criminal, which are to have validity within its limits, the practical disadvantages of the federal system are multiplied. To mention but a few of the disadvantages thus arising: legal instruments, including wills, deeds and all sorts of commercial contracts may be valid in some States while inoperative in others; common law principles receive different interpretations in the different States; statutory laws are alike

in no two States; a child may be legitimate in one State and illegitimate in another, and a man may be deemed married or unmarried according to the State he is in,—he may even be regarded as married to one woman in one State and the husband of another woman in another State; a corporation having a legal existence in the jurisdiction of its birth has no right to do business in another State without its consent unless it happens to be engaged in interstate commerce which activity, fortunately, is placed within the regulating control of the General Government. In the United States the attempt is made to overcome some of this diversity of State law by the drafting of model acts dealing with some of the more important subjects, such as negotiable instruments, marriage and divorce, and securing their adoption in identical terms by the several States. This, however, is a very tedious and slow process, and, even when uniformity has been thus secured, it is impossible to maintain it, for there is no constitutional way of guaranteeing that the statutes thus adopted will receive the same interpretation by the courts of the different States. The only real solution of this evil is, therefore, to transfer the control or regulation of these matters to the legislative power of the central government whose laws will have validity throughout the Union. And, in this connection, it may be remarked that, in all the Federal Unions of the world, the tendency has been to extend the scope of the federal power.

To make more nearly complete the enumeration of the disadvantages inherent in the federal system, the fact needs to be pointed out that federalism necessarily leads to innumerable technical controversies between the States themselves, and between them and the Union as to their respective spheres of authority. As Dicey has said, "federalism means legalism," that is, the settlement by juristic