Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/388

368 368 HARVARD LA IV REVIEW. the people of that State; and if the people of any State had finally refused to ratify and adopt it, the consequence would have been that that State would have ceased to be one of the United States. Indeed, the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation differ from each other, in respect to the source of their authority, in one particular only, namely, that, while the former proceeded from the people of each State, the latter proceeded from the Legislature of each State. In respect to their effect and operation also, the two instruments differ from each other in one particular only, namely, that, while the Articles of Confederation merely imposed an obli- gation upon each State, in its corporate and sovereign capacity, in favor of the twelve other States, the Constitution binds as a law, not each State, but all persons and property in each State. These differences, moreover, fundamental and important as they un- doubtedly are, do not, nor does either of them, at all afi'ect either the meaning or the use of the term "United States"; and, there- fore, the conclusion is that the meaning which that term had the day after Independence was declared, it still retains, and that this is its natural and literal meaning. Regarded, then, as simply the collective name of all the States, do the United States comprise territory? Directly, they certainly do not; indirectly, they do comprise the territory of the forty-five States, and no more. That they comprise this territory only indi- rectly, appears f: om the fact that such territory will always be iden- tical with the territory of all the States in the aggregate, — will increase as that increases, and diminish as that diminishes. Secondly. — Since the adoption of the Constitution, the term "United States" has been the name of a sovereign, and that sove- reign occupies a position analogous to tl at of the personal sove- reigns of most European coimtries. Indeed, the analogy between them is closer, at least in one respect, than at first sight appears; for a natural person who is also a sovereign has two personalities, one natural, the other artificial and legal, and it is the latter that is sovereign. It is as true, therefore, of England (for example) as it is of this country, that her sovereign is an artificial and legal per- son {i. e., a body politic and corporate), and, therefore, never dies. The difference between the two sovereigns is, that, while the former consists of a single person, the latter consists of many persons, each of whom is a member of the body politic. .In short, while the former is a corporation sole, the latter is a corporation aggregate.