"There is no body of federal common law separate and distinct from the common law existing in the several states, in the sense that there is a body of statute law enacted by congress separate and dis tinct from the body of statute law enacted by the several states. But it is an entirely different thing to hold that there is no common law in force gen erally throughout the United States, and that the countless multitude of interstate commercial trans actions are subject to no rules and burdened by no restrictions other than those expressed in the stat utes of congress. . . . Can it be that the great multitude of interstate commercial transactions are freed from the burdens created by the common law as so defined, and are subject to no rule except that to be found in the statutes of congress? We are clearly of opinion that this cannot be so, and that the principles of the common law are operative upon all interstate commercial transactions except so far ae they are modified by congressional enactment" Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 181 U. S. 92, 101, 102, 21 Sup. Ct. 561, 45 IL. Ed. 765, quoted in Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 96, 27 Sup. Ct. 655, 51 L. Ed. 956.
In Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 97, 27 Sup. Ct. 655, 51 L. Ed. 956, it was said: "International law is no alien in this tribunal. In The Habana, 175 U. S. 677, 700, 20 Sup. Ct. 290, 44 L. Ed. 320, Mr. Justice Gray declared: 'International law is part of our law and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.' And in de livering the opinion on the demurrer In this case Chief Justice Fuller said (Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 146, 22 Sup. Ct. 552, 46 L. Ed. 838): 'Sitting. as It were, as an international, as well as a domestic tribunai, we apply federal law, state law, and in ternational law, as the exigencies of the particular case may demand.' " In a qualified sense and to a limited extent the separate states are snvereign and independent, and the relations between 'them partake something of the nature of international law ; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 27 Sup. Ct. 655, 51 L. Ed. 966.
Where wrongs affect the public at large and are in respect of matters which by the constitution are entrusted to the care of the nation, and concerning which the nation owes a duty to all its citizens of securing to them their common rights, the nation may take measures to discharge those constitutional duties, though it has no pecuniary interest in the controversy ; In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 15 Sup. Ct. 900, 39 L. Ed. 1092, cited in Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1, 20 Sup. Ct. 251, 44 L. Ed. 347.
The government of the United States as a nation by its very nature benefits the citizen and his prop erty wherever found, and no imaginary barrier shuts that government off from exercising the pow er which Inherently belongs to It by reason of its sovereignty ; U. S. v. Bennett, 232 U. S. I99, 34 Sup. Ct. 433 (here a foreign-built yacht which was never, during the tax year, used within United States ter ritory).
Territories are instrumentalities created by congress for the government of the people within their respective borders, with author ity to subdelegate the governmental power to the municipal corporations therein, and the latter are therefore instrumentalities of the federal government ; Farmers' Bank v. Minnesota, 232 U. S. 516, 34 Sup. Ct. 354, 58 L. Ed.
The United States is not, under the New York statutes, a corporation in the sense that it will be exempted from an inheritance tax on personal property bequeathed to it by will ; U. S. v. Perkins, 163 .U. S. 625, 16 Sup. Ct. 1073, 41 II. Ed. 287.
If the nation comes down from its posi tion of sovereignty and enters the domain of commerce, it submits itself to the same laws that govern individuals therein. It assumes the position- of an ordinary citizen and it cannot recede from the fulfilment of its obli gations; U. S. v. Commercial Co., 74 Fed. 145, following Cooke v. U. S., 91 U. S. 398, 23 L. Ed. 237.
For analysis of the structure of a federal government, see Dicey, Constitution.
See SOVEREIGNTY; ARTICLES OF CONFEDER ATION; STATE ; TERRITORY ; COMMENCE ; SOV EREIGN; CONSTITUTIONAL; CONSTITUTION 014 THE UNITED STATES; FOURTEENTH AMEND MENT; EXECUTIVE POWER; JUDICIAL POWER; LEGISLATIVE POWER; SECESSION.