|
<br />
<br />stored to their oIliginHI inherent sovereignty; lmell COTIHent, Ilt'ing
<br />the sole 1imitatipn imposed by the Constitntion, when ~iven)
<br />left the States as they we,'e before, as held 11\' this ('ollrt in
<br />Poole v. Fleeger 1(11 Pet" 21Hl) : whereby th<.'il' ,,;nnpads be('lIll1e
<br />of binding force,; and fiulIlIy' settled the boundllrj' between thl'm;
<br />operating with the Name eU'ett flR a trenty between Ron~l'f'ig'll
<br />powers. That i~; that the boundaries so PHtnhlish(>{luJld fixod by
<br />compact between llni-imlR, bl:'('onJ(~ {'onelnl'live BlInn all the sub-
<br />ject" and Citizen:" thereof. and bind their rights, and are to be
<br />treated to all i~lent" and purposes, u. the trill' I'elll bOllnda-
<br />rieR. . . . l'he C'oll!il.tl'l1r1ion of s;urh a compact iR a judicial
<br />qllestion," for tl\e United .Hatt'. flllpreme COIII't. (12 Pl't" 725,)
<br />
<br />8ee als;o dis~USMjOll of the same Huhjeet ill Blenrns v. Min.
<br />nesota (179 U, 13., 22:1) ; Virginia v, TennesBee (148 U. S., 50:1,
<br />5171528); Whadon v, Wise (15:1 U. S., 155),
<br />
<br />In other words, the Statei! of tlle rllion, hy ('(}USeHt of Con-
<br />gl-eSSj have the ;same power to enter into ('or~Jpacts with each
<br />other as do inde})endent nations, upon ull matters not delegated
<br />to the Federal Government.
<br />
<br />J:\'l'EH~_\.TIONAI~ HIV~LU;.
<br />
<br />ContJ'oversieR respecting intf'rnational rivers have been set-
<br />tled by trl'at)'. !(Hetfter Droit Iud" Appendix VIII; Halt, In-
<br />ternational Law, se<'. :19,)
<br />
<br />While the right of the United States to the use and benefit
<br />of the eutire fidw of the Rio Grande River il'rl'.pet'live of any
<br />fonner useR ma~e in :Mexh'o W:L8 l1plH~ld b~\' the opinion of the
<br />Attorney Gendrll in 1895 (21 OpR, Att)', Gen., 274. 282), the
<br />rights of t.he t\\[O nations were settled by a uroTlnmtioll provid-
<br />ing for the equi~able difltributioll of the waters of the Hio Grande
<br />for irrigation P1"'pos"." made )Iay 21, 1911G, (:\lnlloy, Treatie.,
<br />Vol. I, 1', 121lZ,l
<br />i
<br />That the t)llited StateA' ha" a perfect right to divert the
<br />waters of the Oolorado Hiver at an,v point above the intl'l'Ua-
<br />tional bOIlr.dary with Mexil'o il'l'l'specti\'e of the etJ'el't of slIeh di-
<br />version IIpon the flow of the rh'er in Mexico 01' along that part
<br />of its cOUl'se w~irh forms the houndal'Y hetw(,{>1I the two nations
<br />was held by the Attorney General September 28, 1903. (Bept.
<br />to Atty, Gen. bf U, 1'1., Colorado Ril'er in California, p, 58;
<br />Opinton of Att~" Gen., Ang. 20, 1919.)
<br />
<br />The above lopinion Is in harmony with the dedsion in the
<br />Rio Grande ca~, wherein it was 1ll'ld (quoting from syllabus):
<br />
<br />"The fact that there is not enough watl'r in the Rio Grande
<br />for the use of ,the inhabitants of both countries for irrigation
<br />purpo_ does pot give Mexico tbe right to subject the United
<br />
<br />[ 12 ]
<br />
|