Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />! <br /> <br />lDay enter Into fompacts or a~ents with one or more of the <br />Btatell, acting IIli their sovereign capaclt.iel!. <br /> <br />The usual ",ethod of formulating such compacts or agree- <br />ments, either between the States or between the States aud the <br />United States, \B through the Instrumentality of joint commla- <br />sions thereunto! duly constituted by legislative enactments and <br />appointment 1:>y! the executives of the State or the Btates and <br />of the Nation. ~uch joint commissions are In all reapects similar <br />to the joint cO!\,misaiona constitutcd by separatA! Governments <br />for formulation! of treatiea between independent nationa. The <br />term dOCl! not refer to a joint commission conlliating only of <br />members of one! aovereignty and created by joint action of two <br />or more legi.latice branches, but refer. to that character of com. <br />mission formed 'by two independent powers for the purpose of <br />joint action to a :('ommon (ind. <br /> <br />Of the available examples of settlements of controver.ies <br />between the United f:ltates and one or mOl'e of the States through <br />the instrnmt'Ilt-'lll it,y of joint ('ommisHiolls, the most convenient <br />example i. that of the attempts at .ettlement of the boundary <br />between the rn\ted States and Texa.. lIere two joint cornmis- <br />8iOl~8, dnljf ('omttituted bJ the National and ~tate Oovel'nmentR, <br />sought to settle the boundary line. The history of these attempts <br />is found in tlw reports of the Fnited 8tatel'l ~npl'eme Court in <br />the case of United l-Hates v, Tem, (143 U. S., 621; 162 U. B., 1). <br /> <br />Throughout, the IIIauy pag('s of the reports eovered by the <br />decisions in thi~ case, the reprf'sentati\'e of the Goyernmt>nt of <br />the United States on the one hand and that of the State of Texas <br />Oil the other, ar~ designated as t'ommiHHioners, and the COIllluon <br />ageney for settlement of tllP eontrovers~. is designated as the <br />joint ('ommiA8iOl~ 01' joint houndar,v ('ommission. <br /> <br />Lest there Ue Borne 'll1estioll rf>specting- the use of the term <br />"joint commissi4n." the following references to the opinions in <br />the auove eafle ltiaS- be prolltaule: <br /> <br />BS- a treats-'eolteJuded Au/{ust 2G, 1S:l8. between the United <br />Stateo and the ,Republic of TexaR 1,8 Stat" Gll), pach of thp <br />contractinA' part~es agrccd to appoint "a commi8sioner" for the <br />pllrpm~e of joint~y agreeing upon the line between the two Re. <br />publi('s; i <br /> <br />By the aet of .June 0, 1808, ehapter 92 (11 Stat., 310), enat.ted <br />in harmonv with! the aet of the J..e/{i.lature of the State of TexaR, <br />FelH'uary "11, 1~54, it was provided that the Presiilent .hould ' <br />appoint a repre*,ntative to aet in harmony with one from the <br />State (If Texas fOr the purpose of definitely loeating the boundary <br />betwpen the In(ljan Territory and the State of Texas. The fol. <br />lowing refer{'nc~s to the representatives so apl'ointc(} and the <br />name of the body so conotituted appeal' in the decisions in the <br /> <br />[ 16 ] <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />