of in behalf of the United States by Commander Taussig, January 1899. The Panama Zone should be regarded more in the light of a piece of property because the ownership and the government are in the one person, the United States.

The question of the right of the United States to extend its boundaries and to acquire and govern foreign territory has ever been a question of dispute. The right to acquire adjacent territory was settled under an administration espousing the most strict construction of the Constitution, and action was taken, as we have seen, without resorting to an amendment to the Constitution. When the first disconnected territory was acquired by the purchase of Alaska, the influence of the strict constructionists was at its lowest ebb, and no question was made. As to the foundation of right and the policy of acquiring and maintaining insular possessions, to be held as Colonies, we have strangely enough the views of Jefferson, decrying the policy as to distant possessions, but advocating the acquisition of Cuba, so soon as that might be done without dishonor. It would seem that in view of the easy means of communication with all parts of the world, any argument which would justify the seizing of disconnected territory in one part of the world would at the present time justify it in any other part. There is, however, another view to to be taken as a political view, and that is that there is not always a choice, for any nation which recognizes its moral obligation as one of the brotherhood of nations may be forced by the inextricable logic of circumstances to take what it originally

had no intention of acquiring, and having acquired, to assume all the burdens and obligations incident to such acquisition and required by the political ethics of modern civilization.

CHAPTER XI.

THE SOURCES AND SYSTEMS OF LAW.

§ 167. A government of law. In noticing the development of American jurisprudence and the establishment of the American constitution, occasion has been taken to emphasize the principle, often repeated, that in America is established a government of laws and not of men (1).

What is intended in American jurisprudence by the constant repetition of this form of expression "a government of laws, not of men?”

Probably as good an answer to the inquiry as can be made is that although all law emanates from the people, it is the will of the people that their public affairs as well as the rights and interests of individuals shall be guided, controlled and moulded in accordance with the doctrines, principles and rules made the basis of the system of law established by them, or in other words there is a law unto lawgivers, the constitution is the supreme law.

1 Marshall says: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right. * * It behooves

us then to inquire whether there be in its [the government's] composition any ingredient which shall exempt it [the government] from legal investigation, or exclude the injured party from legal redress." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137.

The government is not supreme. It has been well said that "as a state has claimed precedence to the people, so in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the state. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of magistrates, have wished, and succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the rulers of the state" (2).

The individuals who occupy the positions of trust designated as public officers in every case exercise merely an agency or a trust. All of their acts are in the name of the law. "The law commands," or "in the name of this commonwealth, I demand," is the language of the official, and the warrant for his action must be in every case the law.

§ 168. The sources of law. It is frequently said that it is the province of the legislative department of government to make the law, the judiciary to expound it, and the executive to carry it into effect; and, in the outward manifestation of this separation of the powers of government, the actual fact that the legislative department is not the only law-making power is frequently lost sight of.

As it has been frequently shown that the parliament of England is not the only law-making power of England, and that, as a matter of fact, the largest body of English law is not statutory law (3), so it may be shown that a great portion of our law does not emanate from the legislative department, and that in fact changes of the law take place in which the legislature has no hand.

2 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 455. 31 Wilson's Works, p. 171 et seq.

§ 169. The supreme law of the land. Article VI, section 2, of the United States constitution says: "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

In this section of the constitution it will be seen that a most important body of laws which control and affect the rights of the nation, the state and the individual emanate from sources other than the legislative department, either of the Union or of the states.

The United States was the first among the governments to provide that treaties duly entered into were a part of the supreme law of the land (4).

This provision was undoubtedly inserted because of the existence of thirteen separate jurisdictions, each having and exercising governmental powers.

§ 170. Legislative branch may be obliged to act. It is well understood that there may be secret articles in a treaty which it is not wise to make public, and of a character which only a legislative power can carry out. It follows that a treaty stipulation for anything of this nature is to be given effect by legislative authority, and the legislature is authorized, and under public obligation, to give effect to the treaty (5).

4 Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199.

Id.