absconding debtor, whose effects are attached by due process of law.

Such priority does not overreach any lien on or specific right in the debtor's property, which accrued prior to such act. (10 Pet. 596. 4 Wheat. 108. 1 Comst. N. Y. R. 201. 1 Pet. 439. 8 Ib. 271.)

In United States vs. Hack and others, assignees, (8 Pet. 271-276,) the Supreme Court of the United States held that the priority given to the government does not overreach any lien created by law, or any bona fide transfer of property in the ordinary course of business, and this right of prior payment of debts to the United States. is not a lien, but is confined to the general funds of the debtor in the hands of an assignee; and that, where the debtor is a member of an insolvent firm, and the partnership property is not sufficient to pay the partnership debts, the interest of each partner in the partnership property is his share of the surplus after payment of the firm debts, and that surplus only is liable for the separate debts of each partner; and that the government right to prior payment, like that of a private creditor of the firm, is subject to the partnership debts.

PRIVILEGES OF SOVEREIGNTY.

SEC. 25. The United States and our State governments have certain exemptions on account of sovereignty, not on account of dignity merely, but for the benefit of the people, whose aggregate and individual rights are placed, by our national and State constitutions, under their guardianship and protection. Hence no prescription or statute of limitations runs against the United States, unless specially authorized by act of Congress; or against a State, unless a statute thereof shall so enact. (18 Johns. R. 229, 230. 4 Mass. R. 522. 2 Mason R. 311. 3 Pet. 12. 10 How. U. S. R. 511.)

No franchise or governmental power, or property, real or personal, can be claimed by individuals or corporations, though a long period of use and usurpation may have existed. (Ib.) The actual grant must always be shown to use a public franchise, or the exercise of it is a usurpation, as it is not a matter of private right. (8 How. U. S. R. 581, 595, and 23 Wend. 554.)

Nor can a suit be brought against the United States, or any State, unless their respective laws allow and prescribe, except that one State may sue another in property

matters.

The reason of these privileges of sovereignty are based upon the principle of popular sovereignty, and that the powers of government must remain in officers of government, State and national, as distributed by their respective constitutions among their different departments, without diminution, assignment or deputation. Hence neither the legislative, judicial or executive departments of the United States, or of any State, can legally abnegate any constitutional power, or assign or depute it to any other body.

Though no suit can be brought against a State of our Union, except by another State or by a foreign State, a State may, in another State court, be admitted a defendant to protect its rights, but not to enforce a decree against it. (Const. U. S. & Am. 1 Barb. Ch. R. 163, 164.)

CHAPTER II.

OF THE CESSION OF TERRITORY OF NATIONS; OF STATES DE FACTO; OF THE UNION AND DIVISION OF NATIONS, OF OUR STATES, AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES.

SECTION 1. Any two or more nations may, by the solemn assent of their respective people, in whom resides the national sovereignty, unite and form one sovereign State. The form or the mode by which the national will is to be expressed must be according to the internal constitutions of the uniting nations. One way of effecting this union is by the formation of a compact, bringing two or more States together, as sovereign States, agreeing by treaty to the creation of a new State and a new sovereignty. Another mode is by a cession by one nation of its sovereignty and national character to another, by simply adding the territory of the ceding State to that of the other nation, whose sovereignty remains unchanged, though her dominion is enlarged. In the first case the former sovereignties are destroyed by the act of union, and merged in the newly-formed State. The union of England and Scotland, under the name of Great Britain, in 1707, is, perhaps, an example of a mode of creating a new nation in effect; and the cession of the sovereignty of Texas to the United States of America, in 1845, presents a case of the merging of the national existence of one State in that of another. After the revolutions of Belgium and France of 1830, a union of Belgium to France was proposed, and Lafayette gave the following opinion on the right of uniting with Belgium:

"As to the union of Belgium with France, I would not have stopped to inquire whether it would be displeasing to this or that power. I would only have asked whether it was the will of a majority of the Belgians to effect, and the will of the representatives of the French nation to accede to the union." This is a high French authority for our doctrine-the sanction of the great and good Lafayette.

As nations may, by the intervention of their executives, or of them and legislative assemblies, duly authorized by the respective constitutions of States, or vested with the necessary power by the body of each nation, may, according to Grotius and Vattel, cede all of the national sovereignty and domain to another, it follows that a part may be ceded. A permanent right of fishing may be ceded as appurtenant to the territory of the acquiring State. The mode of the grant is controlled by the internal constitution of each State, and by it the necessary officers to do the act must be ascertained.

The Supreme Court of the United States have decided that the Constitution of the United States confers on the national government the power of making war and treaties, and, by consequence, the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty. (1 Peters' U. S. R. 542, 571.)

By treaties and by the revolution, our republic has spread its jurisdiction over a territory of about three millions three or four hundred thousand square miles, extending from the St. Lawrence to the Rio Grande, and from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific. This vast country is an asylum for the people of all nations.

The assent of nations to receive a cession from another State must be given by the Executive and Senate, or by the Executive and Congress, or by the Prince, or by the Prince and Council, according to the respective constitutions of nations.

In our republic it is settled that foreign territory may be constitutionally annexed to the United States, and that Congress may govern it until States of the Union are formed out of it. When Florida was ceded to our republic in 1819, by Spain, the same course was pursued. In the case of the Republic of Texas, the assent to annexation was given by the President and Congress of the United States, and Texas having ceded her sovereignty in 1845, she became part of our republic. The practical construction of our constitution as to the mode of admitting a foreign State or a part of its territory and people, must be considered as finally settled. This view of the subject is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the American Insurance Company, et al. vs. Canter, (1 Peters' U. S. R. 542.) The court decided the annexation of Florida to be legal, and that Congress had a general legislative authority over the territory.

Chief Justice Marshall, in giving the opinion of the court in that case, said: "The Constitution confers absolutely, on the government of the Union, the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently, that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty." He then proceeds to say, that such conquest or cession only affects the political relations of the inhabitants of the conquered or ceded territory.

SEC. 2. The power of a nation to mortgage a part of its public domain, or the whole of it, of necessity, according to Vattel and Grotius, belongs to every nation, and may be exercised by the executive or the executive and other officers to whom, in any nation, the power to cede and mortgage the national territory is confided. Many instances of national mortgages have occurred in Europe. The provinces of Rousillon and Cerdagne were mortgaged