Cooperative Federalism

SEPARATE, DISTINCT, AND FOREIGN

The notion that the States of the Union are separate, distinct, and foreign to each other also applies to the relationship the States of the Union have to the United States government. This relationship is embodied in both state and federal court decisions. State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co, 127 U.S. 265, 8 S.Ct. 1370, 32 L.Ed. 239 (1888); Robinson v. Norato,  R.I., 43 A.2d 467 (1945); Salonen v. Farley, 82 F.Supp. 25 (1949); 19 C.J.S. Corporations § 883 citing In re Merriam’s Estate, 36 N.Y. 505, 141 N.Y. 479 (1894), and affirmed in United States v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287 (1896) . While Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. doesn’t specifically use the word “foreign”, the next two cases, as well as the esteemed legal encyclopedia Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), do use that term. Here are quotes from those cases and C.J.S. Robinson v. Norato (July 25, 1945) Rhode Island Supreme Court “In the sense of public international law, the several states of the union are neither foreign to the United States nor are they foreign to each other. But such is not the case in the field of private international law... “That it is the settled view of the Supreme Court that, on questions of private international law, the states are foreign to the United States would seem to be clear from the decision in State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 8 S.Ct. 1370, 32 L.Ed. 239. In that case Wisconsin, on a judgment obtained in one of her courts against a Louisiana corporation, brought suit in the United States Supreme Court. On the theory that Wisconsin was a foreign state and that the suit was founded upon a  penal statute, the court held that it would not entertain the suit to enforce that statute, saying, 127 U.S. at page 289, 8 S.Ct. at page 1374, 32 L.Ed. 239, of the opinion: ‘By the law of England and the United States the penal laws of a country do not reach  beyond its own territory, except when extended by express treaty or statute to offenses committed abroad by its own citizens; and they must be administered in its own courts only, and cannot be enforced by the court of another country.’ That case has been frequently cited by the Supreme Court and never has it been qualified in any manner... “The supremacy clause of the federal Constitution cannot, in our opinion, be legitimately construed to compel state courts to take jurisdiction and enforce such  penal statutes. On that score such statutes of the several states and the United States stand upon an equal footing. They are to be enforced or not enforced according to the rule of comity in private international law and not by reason of any constitutional mandate... “To summarize our position, we hold that, in the consideration of a statute like the one before us, this court has the right and authority to determine its character  before allowing it to be enforced in the courts of this state; that if we find it to be  penal we may refuse to enforce it regardless of its federal origin; and that the federal Constitution does not require us to treat the Un ited States in a matter of this nature more favorably than we do a sister state of the Union. The contrary view would make the state courts, nolens volens, in effect, inferior federal courts to enforce all federal statutes, whenever Congress so declares.” Robinson v.  Norato, 71 R.I. 25, 643 A.2d 467, 162 A.L.R. 362 (1945) Salonen v. Farley (Jan. 18, 1949) U.S. District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Covington District

Cooperative Federalism [v.040408]

Page 13 of 40

“The government of the United States is foreign as to the states of the union within rule of private international law that penal statutes of one sovereignty will not be enforced  by another... “The defendants have correctly stated the well established principle of law that the Government of the United States is foreign as to the States of the Union within the rule of private international law that the penal statutes of one sovereignty will not be enforced by another. Robinson v. Norato, 71 R.I. 25, 643 A.2d 467, 162 A.L.R. 362; State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co, 127 U.S. 265, 8 S.Ct. 1370, 32 L.Ed. 239. It is universally recognized that foreign jurisdictions will not enforce penal statutes of another state. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Wallace, 223 U.s. 481, 32 S.Ct. 205 56 L.Ed. 516; The Antelope, 10 Wheat 66, 23 U.s. 66, 6 L.Ed. 268, wherein Chief Justice Marshall made the short statement that, ‘The Courts of no country execute the penal laws of another.”’