A state neither loses any of its rights nor is discharged from any of its duties, by a change in the form of its civil government. The body politic is still the same, though it may have a different organ of communication. So if a state should be divided in respect to territory, its rights and obligations are not impaired; and if they have not been appor tioned by special agreement, those rights are to be enjoyed, and those obligations fulfilled, by all the parts in common; Snow, Cas. Int. L. 21. The same writer also thus states the distinctions between a state and a nation: "Though the terms are frequently used inter changeably, strictly speaking, a nation is com posed of people of the same race, whereas a state may be composed of several nations. The Jews are considered to bn a nation, while Austria-Hungary, as a state, is composed of three distinct races: Germanic, Slavic, and Magyar. This 'distinction has in recent years become of importance from the fact of the movements towards the unity of races, each under one state. Thus we have the Pan-Slavic movement, the Irridentist party in Italy, and various other minor cases." Snow, Int. L. 20. This distinction, however, cannot be said to be at present recognized to the extent here suggested.
The actual organization of governmental powers: thus, the actual government of the state is designated by the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has passed such a law or prohibited such an act.
The section of territory occupied by a state: as, the state of Pennsylvania.
A union of two or more states under a com mon sovereign is called a personal union where there is no incorporation, but the com ponent parts are united with equality of rights, as in the case, by way of illustration, when Great Britain and Ireland and Hanover were under one prince but without any inter dependence. On the other hand, a real union of different states is where there is a merging of the separate sovereignties in a new and general one, at least as to all international relations; as, in the case of the union of Hungary, Bohemia, and other states prior to 1849. An incorporate union is where there is one sovereign government, though there may be a separate subordinate administration; Halleck, Int. L. § 11, 12, 13.
One of the commonwealths which form the United States of America.
The various uses of the word "state" are well expressed in Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 19 L. Ed. 227. It sometimes designates a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, in habiting temporarily or permanently the same country. Often it denotes only the country,
or territorial region, inhabited by such a community. Not infrequently it is applied to the government under which the people live. At other times it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government. In the same case a state in the sense of the United States constitution is defined as a political community of free citizens, occupy ing a territory of defined boundaries, and or ganized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and estab lished by the consent of the governed.
The several states composing the United States are sovereign and independent in all things not surrendered to the national govern ment by the constitution, and are considered, on general principles, by each other as foreign states: yet their mutual relations are rather those of domestic independence than of for eign alienation ; Miller, Cohst. 103; Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cra. (U. S.) 481, 3 L. Ed. 411; Gel ston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 324, 4 L. Ed. 381.
The sovereignty of a state embraces the power to execute its laws and the right to exercise supreme dominion and authority ex cept as limited by the fundamental law, "and all sovereign powers not limited by the feder al constitution are vested in the states," ex cept as limited by the state constitutions; People v. Tool, 35 Colo. 225, 229, 231, 86 Pac. 224, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 822, 117 Am. St. Rep. 198; Southern Gum Co. v. Laylin, 66 Ohio St. 578, 64 N. E. 564.
A state has jurisdiction over all persons and property within her boundaries, and may subject both to her jurisdictional power, but cannot do so with respect to persons or prop erty not within her jurisdiction; Sturgis v. Fay, 16 Ind. 429, 79 Am. Dec. 440; but by compact between two states, some extra-ter ritorial jurisdiction may be given to each within the boundaries of the other, and in such compact the word "jurisdiction" will not be construed to mean sovereignty; Central R. R. Co. v. Jersey City, 72 N. J. L. 311, 61 Atl. 1118.
Concurrent jurisdiction of two states over rivers is familiar to our legislation; e. g. Ken tucky and Ohio, over the Ohio river; Wed ding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573, 24 Sup. Ct. 322, 48 L. Ed. 570; Oregon and Washington, over the Columbia river; Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U. S. 315, 29 Sup. Ct. 383, 53 L. Ed. 528. Where act malum ins, 8C is prohibited by both states, the state first acquiring jurisdic tion may punish, but not so where the act is forbidden by only one state. If an act is malum. prohibitum in one state and is commit ted in the other, it cannot be punished in the former ; id.