|
<br />Congr<,~s in orel!'I' to be bindin.~, it. has been snggested by the Supreme Court
<br />that compacls Il1nt1l~ be(:wcell two SlaLes respecting mal1.ers in which the Stntes
<br />alone are intel'~f:l(.ed might be taken as binding wilhout COll:ient or approvnl by
<br />Congress. (ViJ'gillin v. 'l'cnncssce, 1.48 U. S., 503; WllUl'tOll '1'. Wise, 153 U. 8.,
<br />155.)
<br />For a iull discussion respecting the rights ot the States to cuter into treaties.
<br />or compnct~, with consent of Congress, see Rhode Islaml v. Mfissud..lllsetts (12
<br />PeL, 657, 725-731). . .
<br />In the case .im,t cited the Supreme Court observed tlmt ,,,hen Congl'css hus
<br />given its consent Lo two Slates to enter into n compact or agreement, "' then
<br />tIle Sates wcre in this rcspect restored to their original iuherent sovereignty;
<br />such cOllHent be-illg- the sole limitation Imposed by the Constitution, when given,
<br />ieft the Stutes u:-: they were before, us held by tbls court in Poole .v, Fleeger (11
<br />Pet., 200) ; whernllY their compacts became of binding force, and final1~' settlecl
<br />the boundary heLween tl1em; operating with the same effect as a treaty between
<br />~ovel'l~lgn pOWCl'~. That ifi, that the boundaries so established and fixed by com-
<br />pact hetween nuLlons, become conclusive UpOll all the subjects and citizens-
<br />thereof, anu bind their rights, and nre to be treated to all intents and purposes,
<br />as tbe true real boundal'ies. ... . '" '.rhe construction of such a r.ompact is
<br />a judicial quesLton," for the United States Supreme Court. (12 Pet., 725.)
<br />See also disCIISSloll of the same suhject in Virginia v, Tennessee (148 U. S.,
<br />503,517-528); Wharton 1J. WIse (153 U. S., 155).
<br />In other wonl:-), the States of the Union, by consent of COllgress, have the-
<br />SRmo lJowor to cllter Into compacts with ea-ch other as do imlepcnclent nations~
<br />upon all matters Hot delegated to the Federal Government,
<br />
<br />INTERNATIONAL RIVERS,
<br />
<br />Cont.1'0versie8 respflcting inLcrllationnl rivers Imvc lie-en fieUl('(l hy tr€nty.
<br />(Heiner Droit ]nd., ApJ>l'ndix VIII; I-Iall, International Law, sec. 39.)
<br />WilDe the right of tile Ulliteu States Lo the use un(1 henefit of the ent.ire flow
<br />or the Rio Grunclc River irrespectlve of any former uses mude in Mexico wus.
<br />llphehl by the opinion of the Attorney Gpnernl in 1895 (21 Opi>. Atty. G01l., 274,
<br />282), 1he rigl1t~ of the t.wo Blltions were settled by n "com'ention providing for
<br />the equiLable (li~t.ributioll of the waters of the Rio Grande for irrigation
<br />purposes" made May 21,1906, (Malloy, Treaties, Vol. I, p. 1202.)
<br />Thnl t.he United StntCE-lIHlf:i n perfect right to divert the waters of tlw Colorado
<br />Hiver at !lny point. allove the international boundary with Mexico iI'rcspect.ivc
<br />of tlw effect or :-ouch diversion upon the flow of the river in Mexico 01' along
<br />that part oi its course which forms the boundary lJetwecll the two nations was
<br />held by tbe Attol'lIey GeneL'lll Septemher 28, 1903. (Relli. to AtLy. Gen. of U. S.,
<br />Colorado llivel' III Cu.lit'ornia, p. 58; Opinion of Atty. Gell., Aug. 20, 1\)10.)
<br />The above opinion is in hllrmony with the decision in tile Rio Grnnl1e case',.
<br />wher<'iu if. wa!-l lleld (quoting from syllabus) :
<br />"~I'he fact that there is Hot enough water in the Rio Grnn(1e for t.he use of the
<br />inhabitants of iJOlll countries for Irrigation plll'poses does not give Mexico tile.
<br />right lo subject. tile United States to the burden of arrest.ing itg development
<br />nud of del1,Vi1Lb" Lo its inilallitnnls the lHm of n provision whicllllutlll'e hilS SUPI)1ied
<br />entirely within itl:i own territory. The re('ognition of SUe'll U ri~ht i1:l entirely
<br />inconsistent wiLli the soverciJ,'"I1ty of t.he United State~ over its national domain.
<br />"The rules, princIples, and precedents of international lnw iml)OSl?tl no duty
<br />01' obligation 11Jl1l11 the United States of denyillR" to its inhniJitants the u~e of
<br />the waleI' of tlm( part of the Rio Grnnde lying entirely within the lJniled State~,
<br />flIt.hough sucll ll~(': results in reducing the volume of water in the river below
<br />the Jloint whr.]'\~ it censes to be entirely within the Unitcrl States." (21 Ops.
<br />Atty. Gen., 274.)
<br />For a full di~cussion of international rights upon the Colorado River, see
<br />Appendix, pages 318-343, part 2, Hearings Before Committee on Irrigation of
<br />Arid Lands, HOllse of Hepref:ientatives, Sixty-sixth Congl'ess, tirst t3ession.
<br />While by all rules or intel'l1atioJlnl law the llpper nation is entitled to make
<br />full use of the wat.ers of an international stl'eam rising; wholly witllin the
<br />borders of thr. upper natioll, nevertheless such matteri:l m:e usually !:H?t.tled by
<br />treaty in the samo numner as the settlement between the United States ann
<br />Mexico respecting the use Hod benefit of the waters of the Rio Gmnde (above
<br />cited), wherein it Is provld.ec1 for an .. eqnitnble apportioIlment" of the waters
<br />of that stream belween tIle two Governments.
<br />'l'tlc rule of equilable apportionment applies to the settlement by the Supreme
<br />Court of controversies between States over rivers corn mOIl to two Qr more
<br />States oi the Ullitln. (Knnsus 1], Colorado, 206 U. S., 46,117.)
<br />
|