ence

of the

facts

createdshall be guided by that principle

in eliminatmg bancos.55 This treaty applies to bancos formed

treaty,65

1IlIl unsurveyed at the

of the boundary.66

date
formed.56

of

the

treaty

and

to

Annotation Summary
ncos thereafter

bations preceding the treaty,

In view
it has

of the

been

held

nego-

that

cordingly,

and
can

calling

to mark

for

and

Findings
have

no

elimination

to establish

under
the

of the commission,

binding

effect

on

the

location
ac-

private

rights.67

x22

27 annotations on 2 pages by Roark Schwagerl

The governmental powers of the United States, to

extent that they are conferred or not withheld by
Constitution, are supreme
and paramount.
The

United States has no inherent sovereign powers,

legislative
powers other than those conferred
Constitution.

x5

and no
by the

ment Co. V. Caples, Civ.App., 48 S.

Tex.-Xunez v. State, 156 S:W. 57. U.S.-'Villis
v. First Real Estate
& Investment
Co., C.C.A.Tex., 68
W.2d 329.
933.70Tex.Cr. 481.
F.2d 671. certiorari
denied 54 S.Ct. 64. TeX.-San
5C.J.p 1253note 37.
Lorenzo Title&
Im631, 292 U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed. 1481, re. T(,x.-San Lorenzo Title & Improvement
Co. v. Clardy, Civ.App.,
hearing
denied
54
S.Ct.
713,
292
U.S.
provementCo. v. City Mortg. Co.,
48 S.W.2d 315.
604, 78 L.Ed. 1467.
Civ.App.,48 S.W.2d 310.
It is for the court to determine
Tex.-Fragoso
v. Cisneros, Civ.App.,
M. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Imfacts as to location of land in con154 S.W.2d 991, error refused.
provementCO. V. City Mortg. Co.,
troversy
along
boundary
between
65 C.:!. p 1253 note 42.
supra.
United States and Mexico and adjudiLorenzo Title & Im- cate
accordinglY.-'Villis
v. First
. U.S.-Willis v. First Real Es- 58. Tex.-San
provement
Co. v. Clardy, Civ.App., Real Estate & Investment
Co., C.C.
tate & Investment Co., C.C.A.Tex.,
48 S.W.2d 315.
A.Tex., 68 F.2d 671, certiorari
denied
68F.2d 671, certiorari denied 54 S.
54 S.Ct. 631, 292 U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed.
Ct.631,292U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed. 1481, 59. Tex.-San
Lorenzo Title & Im1481, rehearing
denied 54 S.Ct. 713,
rehearing denied 54 S.Ct. 713, 292
provement
Co. v. City Mortg. Co.,
292 U.S. 604, 78 L.Ed. 1467.
U... 604,78 L.Ed. 1467.
Civ.App .. 48 S.W.2d 310.
TWEA/EBRA
is "external"
protection from
65. Tex.-San
Lorenzomatters
Title regarding
& Im. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & Im60. Tex.-San
Lorenzo Title & Im- "enemies"
and not
of v.
theCaples,
Constitution;
and, the laws
provement
Co.
Civ.App.,
provementCo. v. City Mortg. Co.,
provement
Co. v. City Mortg. Co.,governing
48 S.W.2d
329-San Roman
LorenzoInt'lTitle
are therefore
law &
C1v.App
.. 48 S.W.2d 310.
Civ.App .. 48 S:W.2d 310.
Improvement
Co. Constitution.
v. Clardy,
(;iv.
that existed
prior to the
let 011private ownership
65 C.:!. p 1254 note 45.
App., 48 S.vV.2d 315.
Wherea tract of governrrient-Iegislatin,
land which was
executive,
and judicial-'
with
respect
to
the
latter
the
powers of the federal
Lorenzo Title & Im- 66. Tex.-Fragoso
v. Cisneros,
Civ.
transferred by shifting
course of 61. Tex.-San
within
the
sphere
of
action
confined
to
it
by
the
Congovernment
are
not
derived
from
the Constitution
provement
Co.
v.
Caples,
Civ.App.,
App.,
154
S.W.2d
991,
error
refused!
TWEA/EBRA is "external" matters regarding protection
from
er from the Mexican to the United
48 S.W.2d
329.
-San
Lorenzo
Title
& Improve68
tes side of the stitution
Rio Grande
are did
supreme
and paramount.
The Con-"enemies"
and are
not
among
the
enumerated
implied pow
and
not of
the
Constitution;
and, the or
laws
65
C.:!.
p
1254
note
46.
ment
Co.
v.
Capies,
Civ.App.,
48
S.
t have an area of stitution
250 hectares
doesnornot, however, make any general grant governing
are
therefore
Roman
Int'l lawcome into ,being before
ers but
inherent,
having
W.2d
329.are
populationof 200, the political sov- 62. Tex.-San
Lorenzo Title & Im- that existed prior to the Constitution.
of
power,
the legislative
powers Civ.App.,
that are 67.theU.S.-Wiilis
adoption of
the Constitution
and now existing
gnty of the land involved but
was statesprovement
v.
First
Real
Estate
CO.
V.
Clardy,
What isn't enumer(erred to the United
governrrient-Iegislatin,
executive,
&
Investment
Co.,
C.C.A.Tex.,
68 takes ofnothepower
with
respect
the United
latter the
powers
federalor
granted,States,andbut provides
that
powers and
not judicial-'
delegated
outside
it.73 toThe
States
48 S.W.2d
315.
rated is
reserved
private
ownership
thereof
was
F.2d
671, certiorari
denied
54 S.Ct.
74
within
the sphere
of action
confined toto the
it bystates,
the Congovernment
are
not
derived
from
the
Constitution
to
the
United
States,
or
prohibited
are
authority
from
state
constitutions
or
laws.
for the thereby
People.affected.-eanales
v. 63. Tex.-Fragoso
v. Cisneros,
Civ.
631, 292 U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed. 1481,
68 error
stitution
are
supreme
The
and are not
among
the enumerated
or implied pow
reserved
to the
states
or154toparamount.
the people,
and
itConhas
pton, Tex.Civ.App..
145 S.W.2d
App., and
S.vV.2d
991,
refused
rehearing
denied
54 S.Ct.
293- all activities
It has been
said
broadly713,that
of the
-San
Lorenzo
Title
& Improvel
U.S.
604, are
78 L.Ed.
1467. having come into ,being before
stitution does
not, an
however,
make
any general
grantas
ers but
inherent,
therefore
become
accepted
constitutional
rule,

#1

p.1

government,
constitutionally
authorized by congress,
of power, inbutConstitutional
states the legislative
powers
that isarea
the
adoption
of thein Constitution
and
now existing
discussed
Law 68,
that this
75
are
governmental
nature
and protection
performed
What isn't enumerTWEA/EBRA is "external"
regarding
fromin its
73 The matters
granted,
andof provides
that or powers
notpowers,
delegated
outside
it.
United
States
takes
no power
or
government
enumerated
delegated
and
sovereign
and that
the laws
United
States
rated is reserved
"enemies"
and notcapacity,76
of the Constitution;
and, the
74
to
or prohibited
the states,
are
authority
from
state
constitutions
or
laws.
thattheit United
has onlyStates,
such powers
as haveto been
conferred
for the People.
does are
not therefore
have separate
governmental
and proprie
governing
Roman Int'l
law
reserved
to the or
states
or to the implication.
people, and it
hasthat existed
,on
it, expressly
by necessary
There
broadly
activities
of dis
the
priorbeen
to thesaid
Constitution.
taryIt has
capacities;77
but
it hasthat
alsoallbeen
held, as
therefore
an accepted
rule, as
is,
however,become
a distinction,
in constitutional
this respect,
between
government,
constitutionally
authorized
bythecongress,
governrrient-Iegislatin,
executive,
and judicial-'
with
respect
to
the
latter
the
powers
of
federal
cussed
supra

2,
that
when
the
United
States
enters
Bingo. Supreme discussed in Constitutional
Law
68,
thissince,
is a
the
legislative
power
and theconfined
judicial
are governmental
in derived
nature75
and performed
in its
within
the sphere
of action
topower,69
itthat
by the
Congovernment
are not
from
the itsConstitution
into
commercial
business
it abandons
sovereign
Court is from
government
of
enumerated
or delegated
powers,
and
as
provided
in
the Constitution,
Article
3The
1,Conthe
68
sovereign
capacity,76
and
that
United
States
stitution
are
supreme
and
paramount.
and
are not
enumerated
implied
pow
capacity
and among
is to bethe
treatecl
like the
anyorother
corpora
Constitution;
that
it judicial
hasdoes
onlynot,
such
powers
as
have
conferred
entire
power
of the make
nation
vested
in its
does
separatehaving
governmental
and
stitution
however,
anyisbeen
general
grant
ers
arehave
inherent,
come into
before
tion, butnot
and,
as
considered
infra
7 a,,being
the proprie
United
Emergency
it, expressly
or by
necessary
implication.
supreme
court
and
inthe
such
inferior
courts that
asThere
contary
capacities;77
butConstitution
it has the
also territory
been now
held,
dis
Banking Relief is ,on
of
power,
but states
legislative
powers
are
the
of the
and
Statesadoption
may own
land
within
of existing
aas state
What isn't enumer-is,
however,
a
distinction,
in
this
respect,
between
gress
may
from
time
to
time
ordain
and
establish.
73 The
from Congress,
cussed
supra
2,
that
when
the
United
States
enters
granted,
and
provides
that
powers
not
delegated
outside
it.
United
States
takes
no
power
or
in
a
proprietary
capacity
only.
Bingo.
rated isSupreme
reserved the
legislative
power
and
the
power,69
The
Constitution,
Article
2 judicial
1, alsoto confers
thesince,
enseparation of
into
commercial
business
it abandons
its74sovereign
to the
United States,
or prohibited
the states,
are
authority
from state
constitutions
or laws.
Court
from
for theisPeople.
as
provided
in power
the
Article in
3 general
the
powers. The
tire
executive
on
the thepresident
capacity
and is to
treatecl like anyEffect
other corpora
It5. hasPowers
in beCarrying
reserved
to the
statesConstitution,
or to
people,
and
it1, has
Constitution;
been said
broadly thatinto
all activities Powers
of the
Congress
ordained
the EMBRA/TWEA
court you want is entire
judicial
power
of
the
nation
is
vested
in
terms.
tion,
and,
as
considered
infra

7
a, bythecongress,
United
Emergency
therefore
become an accepted constitutional
rule, its
as
Granted
government,
constitutionally
authorized
one under
supreme court
and in such inferior
courts
as conBanking Relief is discussed
States
may own
within75expressly
theandterritory
of aon
in Constitutional
68,sovereign
that this
is a
In
addition
to land
thein powers
conferred
the
The United
States has no Law
inherent
poware
governmental
nature
performed
instate
its
Supreme Court
gress
may
from
time
to
time
ordain
and
establish.
United
States by the
Constitution,
it has all the attributes
from Congress,
in
a
proprietary
capacity
only.
government
of
enumerated
or
delegated
powers,
70
ers
and
no
inherent
common-law
prerogatives,
and
sovereign
capacity,76
and
that
the
United
States
Rules.
of
sove"eignty,
except
as
restricted
by
the
Constitution,
The
Constitution,
Article
2

1,
also
confers
the
enseparation of
that
haspower
only such
powers inas the
havepersonal
been conferred
it hasit no
to interfere
or social
as wellnotas have
such separate
powers asgovernmental
are necessary and
to carry
into
does
proprie
powers. The
tire it, executive
power
on the president
in general
5. the
Powers
Carrying into Effect Powers
effect
granted in
powers.
,on
expressly
or
by
necessary
implication.
There
relations Congress
of citizensordained
by virtue
of authority deducible
Relations
=
Trust
tary
capacities;77
but
it
has
also
been
held,
as
dis
the
EMBRA/TWEA
court you want is terms.
Granted
is,
a distinction,
this respect, butbetween
As discussed
4, the
the United
government
the
fromhowever,
the general
nature of in
sO\'ereignty,71
it has
cussed
supra
2,supra
that when
States of
enters
one
under
Bingo.
Supreme
the
legislative
power
and
the
judicial
power,69
since,
In
addition
to
the
powers
expressly
conferred
on
the
The
United
States
has
no
inherent
sovereign
powUnited
States,
at
least
with
respect
to
domestic
so
much
of
the
royal
prerogatives
as
belonged
to
into commercial
business it abandons its sovereign
Supreme
Court
Court
is from
United States by the Constitution, it has all the attributes
as
in
the Constitution,
Article
3 patriae
1, and
the
ers70provided
and ofnoEngland
inherent
common-law
prerogatives,
matters,
is
one
of
enumerated
powers,
and
it
has
no
the
king
in
his
capacity
of
parens
Rules.
capacity
and
is
to
be
treatecl
like
any
other
corpora
Constitution;
of sove"eignty, except as restricted by the Constitution,
72 of However,
entire
judicial
power
the innation
is vested
in inits
it has
no
powertrustee.
to interfere
the personal
social
inherent
is tothe
a carry
national
or
universal
this
lackor of
as
welland,
as sovereign
such
powerspowers,
as are
necessary
into
tion,
as considered
infrabut
it7 a,
United
Emergency
effect
the granted powers. the scope of its enumerated
supreme powers
court
and
such
inferior
courts
as conrelations
of citizens
by
virtue
of limited
authority
sovereignty,78
has in
been
held
to deducible
domestic
RelationsRelief
= Trust
Banking
is herent
States may ownwithin
land within the territory
of a state
gress
may
from time
time
ordain and
establish.
As
discussed
supra
only.
4,attributes
the government
of the
from the
nature to of
sO\'ereignty,71
but
it and
has
powers,79
and has
all the
of sovereignty,
matters
asgeneral
distinguished
from
external
matters,
from Congress,
in a proprietary
capacity
The
Constitution,
Article prerogatives
2 1, also confers
the enUnited
States,
at least with respect to domestic
separation of
so much
of the royal
as belonged
to
68.
U.S.-Graves
v. People
of State
"If in
anyone
could
com- of enumerated
App.D.C., 56 powers,
S.Ct. 855,and
298itU.S.
powers. The
tire
executive
power
the
president
general
matters,
is one
has 238,
no
the king
of England
in on
his capacity
of parens
patriaeproposition
5. Powers
Carrying
into Effect
Powers
of New Congress
York ex ordained
reI. O'Keefe,
N.Y" mand the universal assent
L.Ed. 1160.
of man- in 80
the EMBRA/TWEA
court you want is terms.
72 466,However,
inherent
sovereign
powers,
but
it
is
a
national
or 59universal
lack
of
inS.Ct. 595, trustee.
306 U.S.
83 L,Ed. this
kind, we might expect it would
be D.C.-U. S. v. Peace Information Cen
Granted
one under
927. 120
A.L.R. has
1466-U.
S.held
ex reI.
this-that
the government
of the Un-withinter, the
D.C., 97 F.Supp.
255.enumerated
sovereignty,78
of its
herent
powers
been
limited
to domestic
In
addition
powers scope
expressly
conferred
on the
The
United
States
has
no
inherent
sovereign
powSmith
v.
Baldi,
D,C.Pa.,
96
F.Supp.
ion,
though
limited
in
its
powers,
isto the
Supreme Court
74.Constitution,
N.Y.-U.
S.it v.
Sumner,
211 N.Y.
powers,79
and
has
all
the
attributes
of
sovereignty,
matters
as
distinguished
from
external
matters,
and
United
States
by
the
has
all
the
attributes
70
affirmed,
C.A., 192
F.2d 540, prerogatives,
supreme within
ers100, and
no inherent
common-law
and its sphere of action,
S.
705,
125
l\Iisc.
658.
Rules.
sove"eignty,
73 S,Ct.to 391,
344 U.S.
561, personal
This would
seem to of
result,
necessari- except as restricted by the Constitution,
it affirmed
has no power
interfere
the
or social
as Itwell
as such
as are56necessary
carry
into
75.App.D.C.,
N.C.-Unemployment
Compensa
68.
People v.
ofinAllen,
State
anyone
proposition
comS.Ct. 855, to
298
U.S. 238,
97 U.S.-Graves
L.Ed. 54n, andv. Daniels
ly,"Iffrom
its nature.
iscould
the
gov- powers
tion
Commission
of North Carolina
of
York
ex reI.byO'Keefe,
N.Y"
80 L.Ed.
1160.
mand
assenttheare
ofgranted
mancitizens
virtue
of authority
deducible
Relations = Trust relations
73 New
S.Ct. of
437,
34<1U.S.
443,
97 L.Ed.
ernmentthe
of universal
all; its effect
powers
dele- powers.
v. Wachovia
Bank
& Trust Co.,
59 S.Ct.
595, v.306!lIetropolitan
U.S. 466,
L,Ed.
would
be supra
D.C.-U.
S. v.thePeace
Information
469-Paris
Life kind,
gated we
by
all;
it expect
rcpresents
all, and
Asit discussed
592,
4,
government
of Cen
the
from
the general
nature
of 83sO\'ereignty,71
but might
it has
S.E.2d
N.C. 491.
927. 120
1466-U.
S. ex reI.
this-that
the government ofv. theMaryUnter,
D.C.,
97215
F.Supp.
255.
Ins.
Co., A.L.R.
D,C.N.Y"
68 F.Supp.
64, acts
for all."-lVIcCulloch
United
States,
at
least
with
respect
to
domestic
so Smith
much
of
the
royal
prerogatives
as
belonged
to
v.
Baldi,
D,C.Pa.,
96
F.Supp.
ion,
though
limited
in
its
powers,
is
reversed on other grounds, C.C.A., land, Md., 4 'Vheat. 316, 405, 4 L.Ed. 74.
Agency
as govel'Jl!llental
in nature
N.Y.-U.
S. v. Sumner,
211 N.Y.
affirmed,
C.A., in192
F.2d
540,
matters, of isaction,
one of enumerated
powers,
it has can
no
579.
Every
agency
which
Congress
the100,
king
of 834,
England
his denied
capacity
parens within
patriae its sphere
167
F.2d
certiorari
69 ofsupreme
S. 705, 125
l\Iisc.
658. and
affirmed
73
S,Ct.
391,
344
U.S.
561,
This
would
seem
to
result,
necessariS.Ct.
53, 335 trustee.
U.S. 827,
L.Ed. 38l. this
constitutionally
"govern
72 n3 However,
69, U,S.-Kansas
Colorado, sovereign
Kan., 75.
powers,
but create
it isis aaCompensa
national
or 97
universal
lack itsof nature.
in- v.inherent
N.C.-Unemployment
L.Ed.
54n,
and
Daniels
v.
Allen,
ly,
from
It
is
the
govagency."-Graves
v. People
N.C.-Unemployment
Compensation
27 S.Ct. 655, 206 U.S.
46, 83, 51 L. mental
Commission
North
Carolina
the
of of its
enumerated
herent
powers
has
held
limited
to domestic
73 S.Ct.
437, of
34<1U.S.
443,
97 L.Ed.
of all; its sovereignty,78
powers are dele-within
of tion
State
of scope
Kew York
ex
reI.
O'Keefe,
Commission
~orthbeen
Carolina
v. ernment
Ed. 965.
v. Wachovia
Bank
& Trust Co.,
469-Paris
v.
!lIetropolitan
Life
gated
by
all;
it
rcpresents
all,
and
N.Y.,
59
S.Ct.
595,
120
A.L,R,
1466.
'Vachovia
Bank & Trust from
Co" external
2 S. 65 C,J.
all the 592,
attributes
of
sovereignty,
matters
as distinguished
matters,
p 1254 and
note 56.powers,79 and has S.E.2d
215 N.C. 491.
Ins.
Co., 215
D,C.N.Y"
v. MaryE.2d 592,
N.C, 49l.68 F.Supp. 64, acts for all."-lVIcCulloch
70.
U.S.-Hodges
v.
U.
S.,
Ark.,
27
76. D.C.-U.
S. v. I. C. in
C.,nature
D.C., 78
reversed on other
grounds, Inc.,
C.C.A.,
as govel'Jl!llental
Md., 4 'Vheat. 316, 405, 4 L.Ed. Agency
Pa.-Scranton
Broadcasters,
v. land,
68.167U.S.-Graves
v. People denied
of State
"If anyone
proposition
could65.comApp.D.C.,
56 S.Ct.
855,Congress
298 U.S. 238,
F.Supp.
580.
S.Ct.
6, 203 U.S.
1, 51 L.Ed.
Every
agency
which
can
F.2d 834,
certiorari
69 579.
American
Communications
Ass'n,
of
New
York
ex
reI.
O'Keefe,
N.Y"
80
L.Ed.
1160.
mand
the
universal
assent
of
manS.Ct.
53, 335 U.S.
827, n3 1,
L.Ed.
38l. 69, U,S.-Kansas
constitutionally
"govern
D.C.-U.
S. create
v. 1.Information
C.isC.,a supra.
CIO,
Broadcast
Com,PI.,
U.S,-Ex
parte
Neb.,
10 77.
v. Burrus,
Colorado,
Kan.,
59
S.Ct.
595, 306Dist.
U.S.Ko.
466, 83
L,Ed. 71.
kind,
we
might
expect
it
would
be
D.C.-U.
S.
v.
Peace
Cen
mental agency."-Graves
v. People
N.C.-Unemployment
Compensation
48 Lack.Jur.
241.1466-U.
S.Ct.
850,the
136
34theL.Ed.
27 S.Ct.
655,
206U.S.
U.S.586,
46,of83,
51UnL. 78.
927.
120 A.L.R.
S. ex reI. this-that
government
D.C.,
97 F.Supp.
255.reI.
U.S.-Legal
Tender
Cases,
N.Y"
of ter,
State
of Kew
York
ex
O'Keefe,
Commission
ofAircraft
~orth Carolina
v. ion,
500.
''Vash.-Boeing
Co.
v. ReEd.
965. limited in its powers, is 74.
Smith v. Baldi,
D,C.Pa.,
96 F.Supp.
though
4 S.Ct.
122, S.
110v. US.
421, 28
L.Ed.
Sumner,
211
N.Y.
59 S.Ct.
595,
120
A.L,R,
1466.
'Vachovia
Bank
& Trust
Co"1712540,
S. supreme
65 C,J.
C.:r. p 1254
60.sphere of action, N.Y., N.Y.-U.
construction
Finance
Corp.,
P.
65
noteits56.
100,
affirmed,
C.A.,
192
F.2d
within
204-Liberty
Mut.658.
Ins. Co. v. John
S. 705, 125 l\Iisc.
E.2d
592,25215
N.C, 49l.652, 168 A,L,R.
2d 838,
70.
v.
U.
S.,
Ark.,
27
76.
D.C.-U.
S.
v.
I.
C.
C.,
D.C.,
78
affirmed
73Wash.2d
S,Ct. 391,
344 U.S. 561, 72.
This U.S.-Hodges
would
seem
to
result,
necessarison Shipyards Corporation, C.C,A.
U,S.-Stanley
v. Schwalby, Tex.,
Pa.-Scranton
Broadcasters,
Inc.,Airv.
539,L.Ed.
appeal
dismissed
Boeing
N.C.-Unemployment
Compensa
F.Supp.
S.Ct.
6, its
203
U.S.
51It L.Ed.
97
54n,
and Daniels
v. Allen,
ly,13
from
is the
gov- 75.N.
S.Ct.
418,nature.
147 1,
U.S.
508,
3765.
L,Ed.
Y.,
6 580.
F.2d 752. affirmed
StriIre
American
Communications
Ass'n,
craft
Co.437,
v. 34<1U.S.
King County,
tion
of
North U.S.
Carolina
73 S.Ct.
443, 97'Vash.,
L.Ed. ernment
of all;parte
its powers
dele259,
v. D.C.-U.
U.Commission
S., 46 S.
S.Ct.
182,
v. 1.
C. 269
C., supra.503,
CIO,
Broadcast
1, U.S.
Com,PI.,
U.S,-Ex
Burrus, are
Neb.,
10 77.v.
67 S.Ct.
972, v.
twoDist.
casesKo.
330
803, 71.
469-Paris
!lIetropolitan
Life
gated
all; 136
it U.S.
rcpresents
all,L.Ed.
and
65S.Ct.
C.J. by
p 850,
1254
note
61. 586, 34
70 Wachovia
L.Ed. 379. Bank & Trust Co.,
48
Lack.Jur.
241.
592, 215 N.C.
491.Cases, N.Y"
91 L.Ed.
U.S.-Legal
Tender
Ins.
Co., 1262.
D,C.N.Y" 68 F.Supp. 64, acts
v. Mary- 78.S.E.2d
500.for all."-lVIcCulloch
''Vash.-Boeing
Aircraft
Co. v.
Re65reversed
C.J. p 1254
52. grounds,
4 S.Ct.as122,
110 US. 421,
28 L.Ed.
onnote
other
C.C.A.,
govel'Jl!llental
in nature
Md., 4 'Vheat. 316, 405, 4 L.Ed. Agency
65 C.:r. p 1254 note 60.
construction Finance Corp., 171 P. land,
Every
agency Mut.
which
can
204-Liberty
Ins. Congress
Co. v. John
167 F.2d 834, certiorari denied 69 579.

#2

p.2

#3

p.2

#4

p.2

r treaty provided

that

the

boundary

the center of the normal

alterations by erosion

channel

and

that in case of changes

or the deepening
'ch originally

the
the

being

tf land on the opposite

toeliminate these bancos

from
was

minion

and jurisdiction

mer shall pass to Mexico

ction of those on the

of a new

to

while

boundary,

the

river

made

in

the
order

of the prior

providing

such

of

south

the
bank

dominion

north

tracts

from

and,

the effect

that

line
channel.52

of the

and

tates and that the boundary

tory,57

or small

of

of the boundary

than

original

ready surveyed as lie on the

it is to be treated

channel

belonged,53

truties,54 a new treaty

fol-

alluvium,

bancos

side

they

of

by the cutting

follow

's resulted in there

ClIlIIltriesto which

deposit

of another

marked

ould continue to

should
notwithstand-

bank

that
bancos
of

and

to

the

commission

the

jurisUnited

previously

and

have

been

ty,59
the

always

Mexico

in the

determine

ence

tracts

it power
facts

treaty,65

1IlIl unsurveyed at the

of the boundary.66

date

formed.56

bations preceding the treaty,

of

the

In view
it has

treaty

and

of the
been

held

to

negothat

The governmental powers of the United States, to

extent that they are conferred or not withheld by
Constitution, are supreme
and paramount.
The
Tex.-Xunez v. State, 156 S:W.
933.70Tex.Cr. 481.
5C.J.p 1253note 37.
. T(,x.-San Lorenzo Title & ImprovementCo. v. City Mortg. Co.,
Civ.App.,48 S.W.2d 310.
M. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & ImprovementCO. V. City Mortg. Co.,
supra.
. U.S.-Willis v. First Real Estate & Investment Co., C.C.A.Tex.,
68F.2d 671, certiorari denied 54 S.
Ct.631,292U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed. 1481,
rehearing denied 54 S.Ct. 713, 292
U... 604,78 L.Ed. 1467.
. Tex.-San Lorenzo Title & ImprovementCo. v. City Mortg. Co.,
C1v.App
.. 48 S.W.2d 310.
let 011private ownership
Wherea tract of land which was
transferred by shifting
course of
er from the Mexican to the United
tes side of the Rio Grande did
t have an area of 250 hectares nor
populationof 200, the political sovgnty of the land involved was
(erred to the United States, but
private ownership thereof was
thereby affected.-eanales
v.
pton, Tex.Civ.App.. 145 S.W.2d
l

cordingly,

and

can

signed,

not

declare

de

facto

gave

new

the

to
the

treaty

judicial

func-

to determine

as to the

no

to establish

exist-

under
the

effect

on

or
but

the

location

of the commission,

binding

land
court

The

eliminated,64

and

the

possession

boundary,63

elimination

the
trea-

although

be

for

and,

was

a Mexican
no

fix

shall

Findings
have

of the

of the title.61

calling

to mark

1905

transferred

the

to

of terri-

States,58

was

commission

which

createdshall be guided by that principle

in eliminatmg bancos.55 This treaty applies to bancos formed
ncos thereafter

did

meantime

power

gives

adjustment
is presumed

to

date

was

and

no

of the

United

the

to dispose

boundary

and

an

river

prior

the treaty

later,60

no jurisdiction

merely

until

commission

until

the

the

formed

when

boundary

tions,62

of the

thereover

States

gives

in

a banco

dominion

a banco
of

north

of Mexico

United

for

and not for a cession

a banco

such

property

as providing
line,

ac-

private

rights.67

United States has no inherent sovereign powers,

legislative
powers other than those conferred
Constitution.

and no
by the

ment Co. V. Caples, Civ.App., 48 S.

57. U.S.-'Villis
v. First Real Estate
W.2d 329.
& Investment
Co., C.C.A.Tex., 68
F.2d 671. certiorari
denied 54 S.Ct. 64. TeX.-San
Lorenzo Title&
Im631, 292 U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed. 1481, reprovement
Co. v. Clardy, Civ.App.,
hearing denied 54 S.Ct. 713, 292 U.S.
48 S.W.2d 315.
604, 78 L.Ed. 1467.
It is for the court to determine
Tex.-Fragoso
v. Cisneros, Civ.App.,
facts as to location of land in con154 S.W.2d 991, error refused.
troversy
along
boundary
between
65 C.:!. p 1253 note 42.
United States and Mexico and adjudiaccordinglY.-'Villis
v. First
58. Tex.-San
Lorenzo Title & Im- cate
Co., C.C.
provement
Co. v. Clardy, Civ.App., Real Estate & Investment
A.Tex., 68 F.2d 671, certiorari
denied
48 S.W.2d 315.
54 S.Ct. 631, 292 U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed.
59. Tex.-San
Lorenzo Title & Im1481, rehearing
denied 54 S.Ct. 713,
provement
Co. v. City Mortg. Co.,
292 U.S. 604, 78 L.Ed. 1467.
Civ.App .. 48 S.W.2d 310.
65. Tex.-San
Lorenzo Title & Im60. Tex.-San
Lorenzo Title & Improvement
Co. v. Caples, Civ.App.,
provement
Co. v. City Mortg. Co.,
48 S.W.2d 329-San
Lorenzo Title &
Civ.App .. 48 S:W.2d 310.
Improvement
Co. v. Clardy,
(;iv.
65 C.:!. p 1254 note 45.
App., 48 S.vV.2d 315.
61. Tex.-San
Lorenzo Title & Im- 66. Tex.-Fragoso
v. Cisneros,
Civ.
provement
Co. v. Caples, Civ.App.,
App., 154 S.W.2d 991, error refused!
48 S.W.2d 329.
-San
Lorenzo
Title & Improve65 C.:!. p 1254 note 46.
ment Co. v. Capies, Civ.App., 48 S.
W.2d 329.
62. Tex.-San
Lorenzo Title & Im67. U.S.-Wiilis
v. First Real Estate
provement
CO. V. Clardy, Civ.App.,
& Investment
Co., C.C.A.Tex., 68
48 S.W.2d 315.
F.2d 671, certiorari
denied 54 S.Ct.
63. Tex.-Fragoso
v. Cisneros,
Civ.
631, 292 U.S. 626, 78 L.Ed. 1481,
App., 154 S.vV.2d 991, error refused
rehearing
denied 54 S.Ct. 713, 293-San
Lorenzo
Title & ImproveU.S. 604, 78 L.Ed. 1467.

TWEA/EBRA is "external" matters regarding protection from

"enemies" and not of the Constitution; and, the laws
governing are therefore Roman Int'l law
that existed prior to the Constitution.
governrrient-Iegislatin,
executive,
and judicial-'
with respect to the latter the powers of the federal
within the sphere of action confined to it by the Congovernment
are not derived from the Constitution
stitution are supreme and paramount.68
The Conand are not among the enumerated
or implied pow
stitution does not, however, make any general grant
ers but are inherent, having come into ,being before
of power, but states the legislative powers that are
the adoption of the Constitution
and now existing
What isn't enumergranted,
and provides
that powers not delegated
outside it.73 The United States takes no power or
rated is reserved
to the United States, or prohibited to the states, are
authority from state constitutions
or laws.74
for the People.
reserved to the states or to the people, and it has
It has been said broadly that all activities of the
therefore
become an accepted constitutional
rule, as
government,
constitutionally
authorized by congress,
discussed in Constitutional
Law 68, that this is a
are governmental
in nature75 and performed
in its
government
of enumerated
or delegated powers, and
sovereign
capacity,76
and that the United
States
that it has only such powers as have been conferred
does not have separate
governmental
and proprie
,on it, expressly or by necessary implication.
There
tary capacities;77
but it has also been held, as dis
is, however, a distinction,
in this respect, between
cussed supra 2, that when the United States enters
Bingo. Supreme
the legislative power and the judicial power,69 since,
into
commercial
business it abandons its sovereign
Court is from
as provided in the Constitution,
Article 3 1, the
capacity and is to be treatecl like any other corpora
Constitution;
entire judicial power of the nation is vested in its
tion, and, as considered
infra 7 a, the United
Emergency
courts as conBanking Relief is supreme court and in such inferior
States may own land within the territory
of a state
gress may from time to time ordain and establish.
from Congress,
in a proprietary
capacity only.
The Constitution,
Article 2 1, also confers the enseparation of
powers. The
tire executive
power on the president
in general
5. Powers in Carrying into Effect Powers
Congress ordained the EMBRA/TWEA
court you want is terms.
Granted
one under
In
addition
to the powers expressly conferred on the
The
United
States
has
no
inherent
sovereign
powSupreme Court
United States by the Constitution, it has all the attributes
70
ers
and
no
inherent
common-law
prerogatives,
and
Rules.
of sove"eignty, except as restricted by the Constitution,
it has no power to interfere in the personal or social
as well as such powers as are necessary to carry into
effect the granted powers.
Relations = Trust relations of citizens by virtue of authority deducible
As discussed
supra 4, the government
of the
from the general nature of sO\'ereignty,71 but it has
United
States,
at least with respect to domestic
so much of the royal prerogatives
as belonged to
matters, is one of enumerated
powers, and it has no
the king of England in his capacity of parens patriae
inherent
sovereign
powers,
but it is a national
or universal
trustee.72
However,
this lack of insovereignty,78
within the scope of its enumerated
herent
powers has been held limited to domestic
powers,79 and has all the attributes
of sovereignty,
matters as distinguished
from external matters, and
68. U.S.-Graves
v. People of State
of New York ex reI. O'Keefe, N.Y"
59 S.Ct. 595, 306 U.S. 466, 83 L,Ed.
927. 120 A.L.R. 1466-U. S. ex reI.
Smith v. Baldi, D,C.Pa., 96 F.Supp.
100, affirmed, C.A., 192 F.2d 540,
affirmed 73 S,Ct. 391, 344 U.S. 561,
97 L.Ed. 54n, and Daniels v. Allen,
73 S.Ct. 437, 34<1U.S. 443, 97 L.Ed.
469-Paris
v. !lIetropolitan
Life
Ins. Co., D,C.N.Y" 68 F.Supp. 64,
reversed on other grounds, C.C.A.,
167 F.2d 834, certiorari denied 69
S.Ct. 53, 335 U.S. 827, n3 L.Ed. 38l.
N.C.-Unemployment
Compensation
Commission of ~orth Carolina v.
'Vachovia Bank & Trust Co" 2 S.
E.2d 592, 215 N.C, 49l.
Pa.-Scranton
Broadcasters,
Inc., v.
American Communications
Ass'n,
CIO, Broadcast Dist. Ko. 1, Com,PI.,
48 Lack.Jur. 241.
''Vash.-Boeing
Aircraft Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 171 P.
2d 838, 25 Wash.2d 652, 168 A,L,R.
539, appeal dismissed Boeing Aircraft Co. v. King County, 'Vash.,
67 S.Ct. 972, two cases 330 U.S. 803,
91 L.Ed. 1262.
65 C.J. p 1254 note 52.

"If anyone proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be
this-that
the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is
supreme within its sphere of action,
This would seem to result, necessarily, from its nature.
It is the government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it rcpresents all, and
acts for all."-lVIcCulloch
v. Maryland, Md., 4 'Vheat. 316, 405, 4 L.Ed.
579.
69, U,S.-Kansas
v. Colorado, Kan.,
27 S.Ct. 655, 206 U.S. 46, 83, 51 L.
Ed. 965.
65 C,J. p 1254 note 56.
70. U.S.-Hodges
v. U. S., Ark., 27
S.Ct. 6, 203 U.S. 1, 51 L.Ed. 65.
71. U.S,-Ex parte Burrus, Neb., 10
S.Ct. 850, 136 U.S. 586, 34 L.Ed.
500.
65 C.:r. p 1254 note 60.
72. U,S.-Stanley
v. Schwalby, Tex.,
13 S.Ct. 418, 147 U.S. 508, 37 L,Ed.
259,
65 C.J. p 1254 note 61.

App.D.C., 56 S.Ct. 855, 298 U.S. 238,

80 L.Ed. 1160.
D.C.-U. S. v. Peace Information Cen
ter, D.C., 97 F.Supp. 255.
74. N.Y.-U. S. v. Sumner, 211 N.Y.
S. 705, 125 l\Iisc. 658.
75. N.C.-Unemployment
Compensa
tion Commission of North Carolina
v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.,
S.E.2d 592, 215 N.C. 491.
Agency as govel'Jl!llental in nature

Every agency which Congress can

constitutionally
create is a "govern
mental agency."-Graves
v. People
of State of Kew York ex reI. O'Keefe,
N.Y., 59 S.Ct. 595, 120 A.L,R, 1466.
76. D.C.-U. S. v. I. C. C., D.C., 78
F.Supp. 580.
77.

D.C.-U.

S. v. 1. C. C., supra.

78. U.S.-Legal
Tender Cases, N.Y"
4 S.Ct. 122, 110 US. 421, 28 L.Ed.
204-Liberty
Mut. Ins. Co. v. John
son Shipyards Corporation, C.C,A.
N. Y., 6 F.2d 752. affirmed StriIre
v. U. S., 46 S.Ct. 182, 269 U.S. 503,
70 L.Ed. 379.

except as restricted
prerogatives

by' the

Constitution,80

as a sovereign

with the powers

nation

committed

are

and

its

to it,81 so that,

power to spend in the general

ployed

to
thereto.86

coextensive
touching

matters within its jurisdiction,

ment's

to promote the general

it has inherent power

welfare.82
There is also a

and

wide scope of selection

of the means

for the execu-

power

tion of the enumerated

powers

what

termed the "coefficient

power"83

in Constitutional

68,

Law

all laws necessary

under
is the

and proper

fect the enumerated

powers

vested by the Constitution

which,

power

of.

The words

and

all

congress,

would

most

end ;84 and it has

purpose of the

and

conducive
and
been

federal

into

other

proper"

include

all

to the

end

in the

judgment

of

advantageously
said

that

government

less
states.85

effect

the

that

and

confining

than the individual

In the exercise

65C.J. p 1255note 66.

80. U.S.-Burnet v. Brooks, 53 S.Ct.
457, 288 U.S. 378, 77 L.Ed. 844, 86
A.L.R.74'7-Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Johnson Shipyards Corporation, C.
C.A.N.Y.,6 F.2d 752, affirmed Stripe
v. U. S., 46 S.Ct. 182, 26g U.S. 503,
70 L.Ed. 379.
81. U.S.-Elliot v. Van Voorst, C.C.
N.J., 8 F.Cas.No.4,390, 3 ,Vall. Jr.
299.
Power as coextensi ve with sovereignty

"It is beyond dispute that the Government of the United States may exercise, within the limits of its sovereignty, and upon the soil which is
a part of the United States, its powers and functions."-Hardyman
v.
Collins,D.C.Cal., 80 F.Supp. 501, 504.
reversed on other grounds, C.A., 183
~'.2d 308, reversed on other grounds
Collins v. Hardyman, 71 S.Ct. n37,
341U.S. 651,g5 L.Ed. 1253.
82. U.S.-Nebbia v. People of State
of New York, N.Y., 54 S.Ct. 505, 291
U.S. 502, 78 L.Ed. 940, 89 A.L.R.
1469, affirming People v. Nebbia,
186N.R 694, 262 X.Y. 259.
Discretion in exercise of powers
The science of Government is the
scienceof experiment and is the most
abstruse of all sciences, practically
consisting in little more than the exercise of a sound discretion applied
to exigencies of state as they arise.Beauharnais v. People of State of
Ill., Ill., 72 S.Ct. 725, 343 U.S. 250,
96 L.Ed. 919, rehearing denied 72 S.
Ct. 1070,343 U.S. gS8, 96 L.Ed. 1375.
Matters in "national public interest"
Condition of national public inter-

and

require

narrow

4 S.Ct. 122, 110 U.S. 4~1, 28 L.Ed.

the

nature

be subject to restraints

204.

of the

or officer there-

or adapted

which,

ef-

powers

in the Government

"necessary

to be accomplished

to make

for carrying

United States or in any department

means which are

has been

as discussed

it

of its

attain
The

express

a power

er, it has

functions.

power

may,

such measures
order

Thus,

sovereignty,89

it

same,87

incident

Law

177,

is appropriate

by virtue

power

to in-

of any of its

to protect
charged

its own
with

of protecting
the rights and property
of
citizens.9o
It is also vested with all the powers
necessary

of international
On

the

to maintain
re1ations.91

principle

est, so as to permit of federal regulation, only exists when person, company, or thing affected with public
interest is in fact involved directly
in activities over which federal government through one or more of powers delegated to it by Constitution
has jurisdiction.-In
re American
States Public Service Co., D.C.Md.,
12 F.Supp. 667, modified on other
grounds, C.C.A., Burco, Inc. v. Whitworth, 81 F.2d 721, certiorari denied
56 S.Ct. 670, two cases, 297 U.S. 724,
80 L.Ed. 1008.
83. U.S.-Legal
Tender Cases, N.Y.,
4 S.Ot. 122, 110 U.S. 421, 28 L.Ed.
204.
84. U.S.-Graves
v. People of State
of New York ex reI. O'Kecfe, N.Y.,
59 S.Ct. 595, 120 A.L.R. 1466.
65 C.J. p 1255 note 71.
85. D.C.-Keild
v. District
of Columbia, 110 F.2d 246, 71 App.D.C.
306.

of

sovereignty

to

of its sov-

duty

government

al-

specifi-

as are necessary

is always

to a

police pow-

of sovereignty

in performance

it has

and

as an

has no general

to it, and
and

are the

Constitutional
police

em-

adapted

of the govern-

powers

of any attribute

take

peace

and incidents

States

whatever

granted

ereignty,
sure

in

the United

the means

be plainly

be implied
is itself implied.88

the exercise
cally

scope

welfare

must

and implied

discussed

though

end

may

which

As

the

the
its
of

effective

control

growing

out

of

tion Act of 1935 that it was enacted

to meet an emergency or for the general welfare added nothing to its constitutionality.-Township
of Franklin, Somerset County, N. J., v. Tugwell, supra.
Work relief appropriation
Although right to regulate grade
crossings is within police power of
the state and has not been undertaken by Congress under its interstate
commerce
powers, federal
government could use grade crossings as
projects for relief from unemployment witheut co-operation from the
state, or by co-operating with state
by making a conditional grant, under
power to promote the "general we 1fare."-Warm
v. City of Cincinnati, 1
Ohio Supp. 273, affirmed 11 N.E.2d
281, 57 Ohio App. 43.

'in. U.S.-Ruppert

v. Caffey, N.Y., 40
S.Ct. 141, 251 U.S. 267, 300, 64 L.Ed.
260.
Mass.-Commonwealth
v. Nickerson,
128 N.E. 273, 236 Mass. 281, 10 A.
L.R. 1568.

86. D.C.-Township
of
Franklin,
Somerset County, N. J., v. Tugwell,
85 F.2d 208, 66 App.D.C. 42.
88. U.S.-Ruppert
v. Caffey, N.Y., 40
Housing appr"priation
S.Ct. 141, 251 U.S. 267, 300, 64 L.
Emergency
Relief
Appropriation
Ed. 260.
Act of 1935, as respects appropriation
65 C.J. p 1255 note 80.
contained there in for "housing," relied upon as authorization
for es- I 89. U.S.-Craig
v. Steele, D.C.~10.,
tablishment
of Resettlement
Admin123 F.Supp. 153.
istration, held not sustainable under 90
US -U
S
P t
DC C I
general welfare clause of Constitu.
..
"
v. e ersen,
.. a.,
t
.
b t
f
t "h
."
91 F.Supp. 209, affirmed, C.A., PelOn, smce y erms 0 ac
ousmg
tersen v. U. S., 191 F.2d 154, cer~as not shown to have any conn~ctiorari denied, State of Cal. v. U.
tlO? wIth ~tated purpose to prOVIde
S. 72 S.Ct. 174 342 U.S. 885 96
relIef and mcrease employment, and
L 'Ed 664'
,
since projects contemplated by term
..
.
"housing" concerned themselves with 91. U.S.-Burnet
v. Brooks, 53 S.Ct.
local conditions constituting concerns
457, 288 U.S. 378, 77 L.Ed. 844, 86
of the state, and the mere de claraA.L.R. 747.
tion in Emergency Relief Apflropria65 C.J. p 1255 note 65 [a].