Thishasbeenrepeatedlyaffirmedbyourcourts,bothStateandfederal,andhasneverbeendeniedbyanyclassofpoliticians.Who,then,istodeterminewhetherithassotranscendeditsconstitutionalobligationsornot?Itisadmittedthat,toacertainextent,theSupremeCourtisthepropertribunalinthelastresort,becausetheStates,inestablishingthattribunal,haveexpresslyagreedtomakeitso.Thejurisdictionofthefederalcourtsextendstocertaincases,affectingtherightsoftheindividualcitizens,andtocertainothersaffectingthoseoftheindividualStates.SofarastheFederalGovernmentisauthorizedtoactontheindividualcitizen,thepowersoftheoneandtherightsoftheother,areproperlydeterminablebythefederalcourts.Andthedecisionisbindingtoo,andabsolutelyfinal,sofarastherelationofthecitizentotheFederalGovernmentisconcerned.Thereisnot,withinthatsystem,anytribunalofappeal,fromthedecisionsoftheSupremeCourt.AndsoalsoofthosecasesinwhichtherightsoftheStatesarereferredtothefederaltribunals.
Inthissense,andtothisextent,itisstrictlytruethatthepartieshavenot\"anindependentrighttoconstrue,controlandjudgeoftheobligations\"
oftheFederalGovernment,buttheyareboundbythedecisionsofthefederalcourts,sofarastheyhaveauthorizedandagreedtosubmittothem.Buttherearemanycasesinvolvingthequestionoffederalpowerwhicharenotcognizablebeforethefederalcourts;and,ofcourse,astothese,wemustlookoutforsomeotherumpire.Itispreciselyinthiscasethatthequestion,whoarethepartiestotheConstitution,becomesallimportantandcontrolling.IftheStatesarepartiesassovereignStates,thenitfollows,asanecessaryconsequence,thateachofthemhastherightwhichbelongstoeverysovereignty,toconstrueitsowncontractsandagreements,andtodecideuponitsownrightsandpowers.Ishalltakeoccasion,inasubsequentpartofthisreview,toentermorefullyintothequestion,whoisthecommonumpire?Thestatementheregiven,oftheleadingpointofdifferencebetweenthegreatpoliticalpartiesofthecountry,isdesignedonlytoshowthattheauthor\'spropositiondoesnotinvolveit.Thatpropositionmaymisleadthejudgmentofthereader,butcannotpossiblyenlightenit,inregardtothetruenatureoftheConstitution.
Hehasbeenscarcelylessunfortunateinthenextproposition.Takinghiswordsintheirmostenlargedsense,heisprobablycorrectinhisidea,thoughheisnotaccurateinhislanguage;butinthesenseinwhichhisownreasoningshowsthathehimselfunderstandsthem,hispropositioniswhollyuntenable.If,bythewords\"stipulationstothateffect,\"hemeanssimplythattheeffectmustnecessarilyresultfromtheprovisionsoftheConstitution,hehasmerelyassertedatruismwhichnoonewilldisputewithhim.Certainly,ifitdoesnotresultfromthenatureofallgovernment,thatitisacompact,andiftherebenothinginourConstitutiontoshowthatitisso,thenitisnotacompact.Hisownreasoning,however,showsthathemeansbytheword\"stipulations,\"somethinginthenatureofexpressagreementordeclaration;and,inthatsense,thepropositionisobviouslyuntrue,andaltogetherdefectiveasastatementforargument.ItisverypossiblethatourConstitutionmaybeacompact,eventhoughitcontainnoexpressagreementordeclarationsodenominatingit,andthoughitmaynot\"resultfromthenatureandobjectsofaframeofgovernment,\"thatitisso;andthissimplybecauseitmay\"resultfromthenatureandobjectsofourgovernment\"thatitisacompact,whethersuchbetheresultofothergovernmentsornot.Iftheauthordesignedtotakethisviewofthesubject,theexaminationwhichhehasgivenoftheConstitution,inreferencetoit,isscarcelyasextendedandphilosophicalaswehadarighttoexpectfromhim.Hehasnotevenalludedtotheframeandstructureofthegovernmentinitsseveraldepartments,norpresentedanysuchanalysisofitinanyrespectastoenablethereadertoformanysatisfactoryconclusionastoitstruecharacterintheparticularunderconsideration.Everythingwhichhehasurgedasargumenttoprovehisproposition,maywellbetrue,andeverysentenceoftheConstitutionwhichhehascitedforthatpurpose,maybealloweditsfulleffect,andyetourgovernmentmaybeacompact,eveninthestrictestsenseinwhichhehasunderstoodtheterm.
Hisfirstargumentis,thatthe\"UnitedStateswerenostrangerstocompactsofthisnature,\"andthatthosewhoratifiedtheConstitution,iftheyhadmeantitasacompact,wouldhaveused\"appropriateterms\"