were binding on all the states. And though they constantly admitted the states to be "sovereign and independent communities;"[1] yet it must be obvious, that the terms were used in the subordinate and limited sense already alluded to; for it was impossible to use them in any other sense, since a majority of the states could by their public acts in congress control and bind the minority. Among the exclusive powers exercised by congress, were the power to declare war and make peace; to authorize captures; to institute appellate prize courts; to direct and control all national, military, and naval operations; to form alliances, and make treaties; to contract debts, and issue bills of credit upon national account. In respect to foreign governments, we were politically known as the United States only; and it was in our national capacity, as such, that we sent and received ambassadors, entered into treaties and alliances, and were admitted into the general community of nations, who might exercise the right of belligerents, and claim an equality of sovereign powers and prerogatives.[2]
§ 216. In confirmation of these views, it may not be without use to refer to the opinions of some of our most eminent judges, delivered on occasions, which required an exact examination of the subject. In Chisholm's Executors v. The Stale of Georgia, (3 Dall. 419, 470,[3]) Mr. Chief Justice Jay, who was equally distinguished as a revolutionary statesman and a general jurist, expressed himself to the following effect: "The revolution, or rather the declaration of independence, found the people already united for general purposes, and atPage:Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1st ed, 1833, vol I).djvu/244
204
HISTORY OF THE REVOLUTION.
[BOOK II.
