|
<br />1'1.1'. \.JAm'ENTEll. 1'10; CCl'tf\.lllly noL.
<br />Mr, YATES, I want to know if anything of this kind has ever bee"
<br />done before, or whother this is an experiment-something brand
<br />new?
<br />:Ml'. CAnrEN'l'ER. It is new on rivers j the method has been very fre-
<br />quently applied to Ii l I :if ) matters affecting interstate boundarie"
<br />MI'. . YATES. I mc..1.Il caSEls of the Government a.ppointing reprc-
<br />sentatl ves 1
<br />Mr. CARrEN'l'lm. J 11 one case. Yon see in matters of boundaries
<br />between States, the Government has no mut..erinl interest ordinarily,
<br />and those maUers are settled between the StiLtes themselves,
<br />Mr, YATES, Without any Gov.,rnment representative!
<br />Mr. CARl'F.NTlm. Yes, fiir; bllt in one case, t.hat of the boundary
<br />controversy between Indian Territory and the Stat.e of Texas, niter
<br />Texas became a State of the Union, the United Stutes appointed"
<br />commissioner on belwlf of the lTniten. States of America., and the
<br />State of Texas appointed a commissioner on behnlf of the State, for
<br />Lhe purpose of trying to a.rrive. at nn understanding re.specLing the
<br />. clisptJted llOundary 011 Lhe Red River. The first commission having
<br />disflgrced, it. appointed a, second commission: and the second com.
<br />mission hflving disagreed, a.nd diplomacy failing, they finally re.
<br />sOl'lecl to the ~npreme COlIrt. in the case of lJnit.cd States 'v. Texas.
<br />I have noted that in a memorandum that I will put in the record,
<br />Mr. YATES, What I am driving at is this: It hilS never been found
<br />necessary, has it, to make fi.n apportionment of the wnt..e.rs of other
<br />rivers, snch as the Mississippi, the Missouri, etc., between the Sta.t.e,s,
<br />by agreement '?
<br />:Mr, CARPION'l'ER, No; for the reason that in the case of other rivers
<br />the waters have not been devoted to irrigation purposes to a (legree
<br />sufficient to Illlve flny material effect upon them. And, secondly,
<br />the unfortunate part of the whole problem has been thlLt the States
<br />that felt aggrieved, instead of using the peaceful method of diplo-
<br />macv which this bill provides, have plunged iuto eourt by interstate
<br />suits, and thero have been several of those affecting western riverl:i.
<br />Those suits have invariably up to date been very disappojlll.iI~,
<br />as they have been in the cuse of eastern rivers-for example, the t::it.
<br />Louis 'controversy as to sewage. resulting in the case of Missouri v;
<br />Illinois, and [l. Nmv York case, recently divided, involving- a contro-
<br />versy between New York and New Jersey. I
<br />M"r, BOIEB, We recently reported out a bill conllrming an agr.""
<br />ment of two New England States as to the set.t1ement of their
<br />boundaries.
<br />Mr. CAnPEN'l'En. Yos, sir.
<br />Mr, YATES, But that, was a boundary matter!
<br />Mr, BomB, Yes,
<br />Mr, CARPENTBR, Yes, I will say, as a mat.ter of history, that inter-
<br />national complications respecting rivers have been universally seWed
<br />by treaty j and this compact bet~'een the States is in every degree
<br />analogous to a treaty hetween IlIl,tlOllS. .
<br />Mr, GOODYlWONTZ, In your absence, Gov, Yates, the witness pointed
<br />out the faet that undel' the Constitution the States are forbidden to
<br />enter into a eompact, except by consent of the Congress,
<br />Mr. CAIIPEN'l'ER. In other words, to put it in n. different manner,
<br />this bill eont.eroplates the application of the international rule of
<br />peaceable seWement of river controversies by treaty, in the form
<br />here of a compact between the States, '
<br />
|