a nut-shell." It is axiomatic and needs no demonstration.

The American people have lived so long under a divided and complex sovereignty that they have become experts in the doctrine of division and limitation of sovereignty. Under our system the jurisdiction, respectively, of the states and nation determine the sovereignty of each. They each have a limited jurisdiction, hence limited sovereignty. The jurisdiction being subject to change by constitutional amendment, sovereignty is not stable, but always subject to enlargement or to contraction according to existing constitutional conditions.

Works on international law show that nations limit their sovereignty by sending and receiving ambassadors and ministers plenipotentiary; by permitting armed ships of foreign nations in domestic waters; by giving permission to foreign armies to cross their territory; by accepting protection or suzerainty from another nation; by permitting outside nations to dictate matters of internal policy; and by treaties of alliance. In fact any joint undertaking between states, which is founded on binding compact would be a limitation on sovereignty, and, no doubt, the same result follows from permitting foreign nations to buy and hold buildings for ambassadorial purposes in another state or nation.

Our national Supreme Court has recognized this doctrine in numerous cases. In Schooner Exchange v. McFadden Cranch, Chief Justice Marshall gives a most interesting and instructive discussion of the rights of foreign ministers, ships of war, and the passage of foreign armies in domestic territory; and how these may affect sovereignty.

says:

In McCulloch v. Maryland 4 Wheaton, Marshall "That the sovereignty of the state extends to

everything which exists by its own authority or is introduced by its permission." He seems to limit sovereignty to the exact power of the state. He holds that a state can tax only what is in its power and cannot tax things within the power of the nation.

Again he holds that the creation of a corporation appertains to sovereignty, and asks: "But to what portion of sovereignty does it appertain? Does it belong to one more than to another? In America the powers of sovereignty are divided between the government of the Union and those of the states. They are each sovereign with respect to the objects committed to it, and neither sovereign with respect to the objects committed to the other." This McCulloch case is one of the famous cases of American history; it has always been accepted as a great landmark in juridical matters and has never been disputed. Can sovereignty be divided when the great Marshall says that it was divided by the American Constitution?

When Kentucky parted from Virginia and became a separate state, there was a compact between them, by which certain lands held under Virginia grants were still to be governed by Virginia law, notwithstanding, their location in Kentucky. The latter sought to disregard the compact on the ground that as the lands were within Kentucky's sovereignty, this must be paramount and absolute, and must govern and control the title. The Federal Court in Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheaton, held that Kentucky's sovereignty was expressly limited by the compact of separation and that it took, precisely, what was granted by the parent state, Virginia; that it took a limited sovereignty.

By closely reading the testimony given before the Senate Committee of 1914, considering toll exemption, it drops out, that the doctrine of the absolutism of sov

ereignty was based on the theory of John Austin, the writer on government, during the first quarter of the 19th century. Austin assumed the theory of sovereignty, that the King in Parliament had all power, and which was of Divine origin-that this power was in no way limited or circumscribed. It was the same absolute power claimed by Louis XIV and by George III, put into different form and reasserted. Austin should have recognized, that England lost America, through the asserted absolutism of the King over the colonies across the sea.

Herbert Spencer says that Austin was brought up to military life, and applied the dictatorial rules of the army to civil government. Every one should recognize, that military rule is founded largely on necessity, while civil government should be based on contract and some kind of constitutional theory.

The English people are so imbued with the idea that parliament has absolute sovereignty, that they have become really sensitive on the question. Yet no nation has more colonies operating under systems, more or less, freed from the sovereignty of King and Parliament, than has England. The Austin theory was academic and not in accord with English practice.

Nothing can be clearer than this: If England confers on a Dublin parliament, power over Ireland, which has been heretofore vested in the London parliament, to that extent, the latter has parted with the sovereignty which will be exercised by the former. It is mathematically true, that, what London gives away to Dublin, she will cease to hold and own. Two different parliaments, acting in the same realm, cannot both be supreme. Each may be sovereign as to its own legal pow. ers, but both cannot be sovereign as to the same right and power.

Herbert Spencer's theory is a modification of the extreme doctrine of Austin. The Spencer view is in entire harmony with our Supreme Court, as laid down by McLean, J. in License Cases 5 Howard. It reads: "The powers of the general government and of the state, although both exist and are exercised within the same territorial limits, are yet separate and distinct sovereignties."

Absolute sovereignty claimed by some of our states, brought on the Civil War; and it was decided by wager of battle, that state sovereignty had in 1787, been limited by the national constitution. It is futile to attempt to argue away the correctness of an axiom.

If a nation could exist at the North Pole, or other inaccessible region, it would have the fullest and most complete sovereignty; there would be no others to molest or control it.

As individuals, in society, lose part of their liberty, so do nations through association limit their sovereignty. A state's sovereignty is measured by its powers, its jurisdiction, and it true legal rights.

CHAPTER XX

EXEMPTION AND POLITICAL PLATFORMS.

Since toll exemption had its origin in the intense feeling against railroads, and in the desire to aid shipping and the ship building industry, it became a most fertile field for political crops.

The exemption bill was appoved August 24, 1912, and the presidential election was not held until the November following. The National Conventions were held that year, one in June, one in July and the other in August. What would a National Convention be without its long drawn charges (against all supposed political offenses and offenders) and called the platform?

The Republican Convention adopted a platform on June the 22nd, but for some inscrutable reason escaped the catastrophe by making no declaration about toll exemption. Senator Root was chairman and his wisdom may have directed the course, or perhaps this political issue as a platform plank had not yet been created.

The Democratic Convention at Baltimore created the invention, which fate compelled its votaries in Congress in 1914 utterly to abandon and destroy. The party received its reward for inserting an extraneous, impolitic plank into the platform. The exemption plank adopted, July 2, 1912, read as follows:

"We favor the exemption from tolls of American ships engaged in coastwise trade passing through the Panama Canal. We also