Page:Hawkins v. Filkins 01.pdf/25

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
310
CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Hawkins vs. Filkins.
[DECEMBER

extent; no government can, properly speaking, conquer its own territory. And, more particularly, may it not be done in a complicated government like ours. The idea of either conquest or coercion, is not to be tolerated from any thing in the history or structure of our government, unless it be that coercion which is necessary to suppress insurrection and rebellion. The public mind has been for a time unsettled upon this question, and, even at this time, it would seem that there exists, in some minds, an impression that, by the exercise of military force, the whole civil governments of the states have been overturned by revolution; in consequence of which, new powers have sprung into existence. However much this may be indulged in, by wild theorists in politics, it can never be sanctioned by the judiciary.

We will best understand the extent of this error by keeping constantly in mind the fact, that in the civil war just closed, there was but one great political question at issue, which was as to the power of a state to dissolve its connection with the national government—in which, by a conflict in arms, it has been settled that such power does not exist. That is the question, and the only question settled. In all other respects the compact remains just as it was previous to the war, and this change is but a change in the construction of the compact. The powers of the two governments, state and federal, remain the same—the rights of the people the same. The question thus settled, not only denies that the states have power to secede, but upon principle, must also deny to the states the right to destroy or suspend their state governments, by any means whatever; for it cannot be denied that upon the existence of the state governments depends that of the federal government under its present constitution. A consolidated national government may be established upon the ruins of the state governments, but there will cease to be any longer, a government under the present constitution. Nor can we conceive how it would be possible for the federal government to destroy a state government. Because, as has at all times been held, that government is of limited delegated powers, and the constitution