Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~tatps to the hnrrlen of nrrpfolting- Hi'! development and of de- <br />n;riu~ to its inhahit.allt~ the m;:e of a provision ,vhich nature has <br />supplied entirely within it"- territory. 'fhe rpe~)gnition of Bueh a <br />rig-ht is euti",ly inconsistent with the sovereignty of the United <br />~tate8 over its nntiOJlal domHin. <br /> <br />"The rules, Vl'iu('iples, Hnd prccpd('ut'i'l of international law <br />imposed no duty or ohlig-ation upon the T;nited Stat"" of deny, <br />ing to its inhabitants the \lse of the water of that part of the Rio <br />Grande lyi\lg' entirely within the ['nited States a!thoug-h such <br />use results in redudng' the volUllle of ',":iter in the l'iyer below <br />the point where it ceas(;~ to he cntil'p!.,. within the l'nited Htates." <br />(21 OpR. Atty. nen., 274.) <br /> <br />For a full discussion of international rights upon the 0010- <br />ra.do Iti\,('I'. Nee ApJl('ndix, p<l~(,R ~n :-':'.:~4a. part 2! Hearings Be. <br />fore ('onlIllitlf'~' on hrigatiol1 of Arid Lllnds. Honse of Hepre- <br />sentatin~l'I. 8ixt,y-sixth ('ollgress, tir~t session. <br /> <br />'Yhile hy all rulef, of intcrTIHtiouaJ lnw the lippeI' nation is <br />entitled to make full HAP of the waterR of an intl'rnational stream <br />rising wholly within the borders of the nppf'r nation, neverfhe- <br />lesf! 81l('h matter:;; are mmally sflttled in' treaty in the Rrtme man. <br />ner us the oettlement ht>1wpen the {'nii:ed f~t::;t{'" and Mexico re- <br />"peeting the use and henetlt of thp waters of the Rio Grande <br />(al)O\"e cited), whrrein it if' provided for an "equitable appor. <br />1'iOTlllH'nt" of tlw W3t('I'8 of the ~tI'P3rn bptween the two Govern- <br />ments. <br /> <br /> <br />The rule of equitahh> apportionment applh~s to the Rettie- <br />mt'n by 1he BUJll'eme Court of t'ontro\'crfJiea betw€'<'n Hwtes over <br />ril'er~ ('om'mon to two or more Statt'H of the Union. (Kansas y, <br />Colorado, ~"06 P. 8" {ii. 117,) <br /> <br />1'hi8 <>'luitnhlr apporiinnmt'nt of tht~ watpt's-of an interstate <br />river may he ma.de hy one of two methods: <br /> <br />(l) n,Y interstate "rompud or agreement'.' bei'tn,,'€n the <br />StateR, by consent of COni;rIi'RS; and <br /> <br />(2) By suit between the 8tutes b"fore 1he Unit"d 8tates Su. <br />preme Court. <br /> <br />The latter method is the substitute, under our form of goy. <br />ernment, tor war hetween the Stat.es. Tn other words, were it <br />not 101' the provisions of oul' Constitution the State<! might set- <br />tle the-ir differences Over jnte-f@tate rivers: by resort to armEl, But <br />by t.he terms of the COl18ntution the right to resort to settlement <br />by for('s was surrender€<l, and in lieu thereof was suhstituted <br />tbe right to submit interstate controversies to the Hupreme Court <br />in original proceedinl!" between the 8tates. (Kansas v. Colo. <br />rado, 206 U, S., 4fi; Rhode hland v. Massachusetts. 12 Pet., 657.) <br /> <br />[ 13 ] <br />