|
<br />C:OMPACT;:j AND Al1UEBMBNTS DETWEl!,N CERTAIN STATES. 13
<br />
<br />Mr, MICHENER, As a legal proposition you are satisfied that tl,,\t
<br />can be oone?
<br />: Mr, CARPEN'rER, Yes; indeed, In fuet, I might state further that
<br />having been upon three of those interstate water suits, I !tm convinced
<br />that it is wild folly to cntcr into litigation unti I this method has been
<br />cxhausted, and that none of those suits should have been filed without
<br />a preliminary requirement by the court or an attempt to force those
<br />Statcs to a peaccablc settlement of their differences, And I,he dispo-
<br />sition of the court in that respect appears in the Saud Island case,
<br />in the Columbi.u River, between W n.shington and Oregon. The States
<br />having- quarreled over the island for YODI'S, the Supreme Court
<br />finally (,urn.eel the BlaLtOl' back to the Stntes, with t.he suggest-ion that
<br />they settle lt b,y, ccmpaet, the same as boundaries are settled,
<br />Mr, Boms, '1 hey probably, as a mlttter of hw, could not settle it
<br />umong thomselves without the approva.l of Congress.
<br />:Ml'. Cl\1U'ENTJi',R. They could not, to be. sure; but where t.he ma.tter
<br />is primltrily one between the States, as in a case involving bounda.ries,
<br />as.I read the reports, tho consent of Cungress usually goes as (1 matter
<br />of form.
<br />Mr, YATES, I want to ask whether there is language in this bill,
<br />or in an)' line of decisions affecting the quesl.ion, that would make a
<br />compact approved by the commissioner so binding that they could
<br />not get; away from it and got into this unfortunate lItigation 1 .
<br />]\I[r. CAHPEN'l'I::R. Yes. The general construction of intcn:;tate com-
<br />pacts, which are older tban the Constitution, is that when a compact
<br />has been entered into between States it then beconlcs a document that
<br />the Supreme Court of the United States may enforce betwee:t&~ Is
<br />parties, A discussion of that will be found iu the case of +I:, I, e I
<br />v, Massachusetts, in the early reports, I also have that in the memo-
<br />randum which I will, with your permission, incorporate in the record,
<br />Mr, M,cHENEa, Just one question: As I understand your st,ate-
<br />ment., two courses are open. The States' could go on and make this
<br />tenta.tive arrangement :l.IlCI then come in and ask for c.onfirmation
<br />oJ it?
<br />Ml'. CAHPEN1'En. Yes, sir.
<br />Mr, M1CHENBR, 01' they could adopt this method, And you havo
<br />~dopted this method, principally because you de.sire that a commis-
<br />sioner bo appointed to represent the United States Govllrnment and
<br />that, tlw Governmcnt should be a party to the negotiation and in the
<br />consideration of the mat.ter? That is true, is it not?
<br />Mr. CAUPENTF.ll. Yes, sir.
<br />Mr, MrCIiEN>:u, That is the real purpose of t,his particular measure
<br />at this t.ime, is it not?
<br />M 1', CARPENTER, WeU, it is one of the real purposes, It was
<br />thought advisable, inasmuch as seven Sta.tes were involved, to obtain
<br />" consent:" in the lnngmt.ge of the Constitution, ~n the first instl1nc~ j
<br />the word" consent," rather than" approval," bemg the (;erm llsed In
<br />the Constitution,
<br />Ml'. MICHENER, Ye,s; I understand tllat,
<br />Mr, CAHPENTEll, And sceond, in view of thc fact that the United
<br />St.ates has certain interests in that river, it was thought advisal?le
<br />that a representative of the United Stat,cs be present ill t,his negotIa-
<br />tion,
<br />I might state further, ill that connection, tl~at it would be to tl~e
<br />liking oJ the Westcrn States d that eommlSSlOllCI' could have suili.
<br />
|