« PředchozíPokračovat »
tions with our Insular brethren are protected by "the fundamental principles formulated in the Constitution," or by “the applicable provisions of the Constitution," is translated into the doctrine that these individual and civil rights are protected by the principles of the Law of Connections and Unions of Free States, as these principles are formulated in the Constitution and as they are disclosed by an examination of the applicable provisions of the Constitution, and that not only are these civil rights protected by this law, but also the political rights of all the parties to the relationship. On this theory, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court continues to be exactly the same as at present. The necessary Advisory Councils for ascertaining the just political relations between the American Union and the Insular regions and for determining the political rights growing out of that relationship, would not in the least interfere with the Supreme Court in the exercise of its functions. They would supplement that Court, which now protects the civil rights of all concerned through its adjudications in civil cases, by assisting the Congress and the President to protect and preserve the political rights of all concerned through dispositions and needful rules and regulations in political cases.
By adopting this theory of the Reformation and the American Revolution, may not the American System extend indefinitely without danger to America herself? There would be no domination, no subjection. The same Law of Connections and Unions would extend over and govern throughout the whole Greater American Union. This Greater American Justiciary Union would be but a logical application of the principles underlying the American Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Union formed by the Constitution of the United States.
It would not be the Constitution which would follow the flag into the regions which America has annexed to herself, but the Law of Connections and Unions, which is a part of the Law of Nature and of Nations according to the American System.
I recur, therefore, to my first proposition and submit to your judgment whether the terms “colony," "dependence,” and “empire,” on the one hand, and the terms “free state," "just connection,” and “union," on the other, are not the symbols of two great and fundamentally opposed systems of politics—the one European, and the other American; whether the American terms and the American System are not capable of being applied universally and beneficently, in the way pointed out above, throughout all places outside the present Union which are within the limits of its justiciary power; and whether, if they are capable of this application, it is not our duty, both logically and ethically, to use the American terms in describing the relations between us and our Insular brethren, applying at the same time the principles of the American System, and thus calling into existence a Greater American Union.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMERICAN
DOCTRINE OF JURISDICTION OF
COURTS OVER STATES
Reprinted from “Judicial Settlement of International Disputes,"
Y the Articles of Confederation, the American
States made the United States, in Congress
assembled, "the last resort on appeal" in all disputes between them, and authorized the Congress, upon the complaint of any State against another, to institute a special tribunal, according to a method prescribed by the Articles, for the final decision of the dispute. By the Constitution, the people of the United States and the States of the Union established a Supreme Court of the United States and made it a tribunal for the judicial settlement of all interstate and international disputes in which the United States or the States of the Union might be involved with each other or with foreign states, and which were capable of being settled by the exercise of "the judicial power" of the United States. By these two documents, therefore, it was recognized as an American doctrine that disputes between states may, under some circumstances, properly be settled according to the decision of courts-or, to put it inversely, that courts may, under some circumstances, properly have jurisdiction over states.
Now that the states of the society of nations are on the point of establishing a Court of Arbitral Justice for the settlement of such international disputes as are ca