The Supreme Court is often regarded as the sole arbiter in all constitutional questions. This is to be understood with some comitations. For instance, it would not consider itself at liberty to decide the question, whether the acquisition of foreign territory is constitutional or not; the other branches of the Government, the Legislation, the treaty making power, the Executive, having determined the high political question involved, the Supreme Court conforms to that decision. It, therefore, moves in a groove, and is not Supreme over all. Yet it has decided, in the case of Cairter, that the Courts of the territory are not constitutional Courts, and the Judges not constitutional Judges; consequently its inferior Courts not inferior Courts of the United States. We must distinguish between Political, and Municipal or local laws; the former are abrogated _ipso facto_, by the charge of sovereignty, the later continue in force until repealed. For instance the whole body of the Spanish law was repealed in Louisiana, by an edict of Governor O’Reilly, and in Missouri, the Spanish code, continue to Paris and we, were abrogated by the Governor and Judges, under the first grade of Government, and the common law with the statutes of one of the States, substituted in their place. One of the earliest decisions of the Supreme Court, was that the United States had no code of municipal law, but must resort to the municipal law of the State in which it happened to sit.