21 and comfort of the inhabitants of a state are threatened, the state is the proper party to represent and defend them. "That suits brought by individuals, each for personal injuries threatened or received, would be wholly inadequate and disproportionate remedies, requires no argument." State of Missouri v. State of Illinois, 180 U. S. 208. In the Court below it was urged that the application for injunction could not be maintained against the Federal Game Warden, because it was in effect a suit against the United States. We incline to the opinion that the Government will abandon such contention. The cases of Hamilton, Collector of Internal Revenue, appellant, vs. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Company, Dryfoos, et al., appellants, vs. Edwards, Collector of Internal Revenue, and Ruppert vs. Caffey, United States Attorney and McElligott, Acting and Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue, involving the constitutionality of the War Time Prohibition Act, and recently decided by this Court, were all applications for injunctions against Federal officers. That this was a proper method to test the constitutionality of the statutes involved in those cases is evidenced by the fact that no discussion of the proposition appears in the opinion. When the sovereign power of the State of Missouri is invaded it seems to us self-evident that the State in its own name is pre-eminently the party to preserve and defend that sovereignty. Can it be that in the circumstances the State of Missouri is impotent and must depend for the protection of its sovereign rights and powers upon the submission to arrest and prosecution by some private individual for a violation of the Migratory Bird Law? The time worn maxim that equity does not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy is applicable here. If the State of Missouri may not itself restrain an invasion of its sovereignty by the Federal Government, there exists no way in which it can defend-an unthinkable situation. To so protect itself it cannot go to war. Surely, it will be permitted to come to Court. 22 II. Our government had no prototype in history. The Federal Government and the States are separate and distinct sovereignties. The one, within the sphere of its delegated powers is supreme; the other, within the sphere of its undelegated and reserved powers, is no less supreme. It was never intended that the states should be shorn of their sovereignty in internal affairs. Declaration of Independence, last par.; Constitution of the United States, Arts. IX and Collector v. Day, 11 Wlal. 113-124, 20 L. Ed. 122; Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71-76, 19 L Gordon v. United States, 117 U. S. 697-705; Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279-295, 48 L. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. Willoughby, Constitution, Vol. I, p. 66; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 447. that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do." Declaration of Independence, last par. "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is 23 not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." Articles of Confederation, Art. II. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained the people." Constitution of the United States, Amendment IX. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Constitution of the United States, Amendment X. "We pass, therefore, to the vital question in this case, and it is one of far-reaching significance. We have in this Republic a dual system of government, National and State, each operating within the same territory and upon the same persons; and yet working without collision, because their functions are different. There are certain matters over which the National Government has absol5te control and no action of the State can interfere therewith, and there are others in which the State is supreme, and in respect to them the National Government is powerless. To preserve the even balance between these two governments and hold each in its separate sphere is the peculiar duty of all courts, pre-eminently of this a duty oftentimes of great delicacy and difficulty." South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 447, 448, 50 L. Ed. 261. "It is a familiar rule of construction of the Constitution of the Union, that the sovereign powers vested in the State governments by their respective constitutions, remained unaltered and unimpaired, except so far as they were granted to the government of the United States. That the intention of the framers of the Constitution in this respect might not be misunderstood, this rule of interpretation is expressly declared in the tenth article of the amendments. . The gov 24 ernment of the United States, therefore, can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication. "The general government, and the States, although both exist within the same territorial limits, are separate and distinct sovereignties, acting separately and independently of each other, within their respective spheres. The former in its appropriate sphere is supreme; but the States within the limits of their powers not granted, or, in the language of the tenth amendment, 'reserved,' are as independent of the general government as that government within its sphere is independent of the States." Collector v. Day, 11 Wall, 113, 124; 20 L. Ed. 122. "This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge. That principle is now universally admitted." McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405; 4 L. Ed. 579. "The latter doctrine, upon the contrary, would derive federal authority not from powers expressly granted, but from an abstraction, and would, at a stroke, equip the Federal Government with every power possessed by any other sovereign State. "There can be no question as to the constitutional unsoundness, as well as of the revolutionary character, of the theory thus advanced. To accept it would be at once to overturn the long line of decisions that have held the United States Government to be one of limited, enumerated powers." Willoughby on the Constitution, Vol. I, p. 66. "By the Tenth Amendment the powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited by it to the States, are re 25 served to the States respectively or to the people. The reservation to the States respectively can only mean the reservation of the rights of sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, and which they had not parted from by that instrument. And any legislation by Congress beyond the limits of the power delegated, would be trespassing upon the rights of the States or the people, and would not be the supreme law of the land, but null and void; and it would be the duty of the courts to declare it so.". Gordon v. United States, 117 U. S. 697, 705. "Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument, established a more perfect union, by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States. But in many articles of the Constitution the necessary existence of the States and, within their proper spheres, the independent authority of the States, is distinctly recognized. To them nearly the whole charge of interior regulation is committed or left; to them and to the people all powers not expressly delegated to the National Government are reserved." Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76; 19 L. Ed. 101. "While undoubtedly the United States as a nation has all the powers which inhere in any nation, Congress is not authorized in all things to act for the nation, and too little effect has been given to the Tenth Article of the Amendments to the Constitution, . . . The powers the people have given to the General Government are named in the Constitution, and all not there named, either expressly or by implication, are reserved to the people and can be exercised only by them, or upon further grant from them." Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, 295-296; 48 L. Ed. 979. it is perfectly clear that the sovereign powers vested in the State governments, by their respective constitutions, |