|
<br />(J()J\:IPAC'l'S AND AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CER'l'AIN STATES. 27
<br />
<br />By U1C act of January 31, 1885, chapter 47 (23 Stat., 206.. 297), it was pro.
<br />vided that the United States ,should appoint ,n representative who should work
<br />in cOIljllllclion with II representative to be appointed by the State of.Texas, fOL'
<br />the l)lJI'pose of !lscerlnining the boundary, The following references appear as
<br />descl'ipU....0. of the pet'son llnd the agency:
<br />"'j'he two Governments (United States und State of Texas) nppointeu COIll-
<br />missionc~rs" (162 U, S., I, 76) ; the joint body so cOIl!:iLituted is deltned us" t.he
<br />Joint UUlllltlarr COlllmission" (Hi2 U. S., I, 21) ; in the net by the Legislature
<br />of 'l'exDs :luthol'izing the apPoint.ment of its commissiolWI', the comhilled repl'e-
<br />seutaUolI or the two Governments (St.ate and Nationnl) is dc::;iglJateu [I ., joint
<br />cornmissLoll" (162 U. S" 1, 73) ; by the nct authorizing the suit hetween the
<br />Unitcd 8tates flllll Texas (26 Stnt., 81, 02, chap. 182, sec_ 25) the commission
<br />forme(l lillclcl' tIlC nct of 1885 with the State of 'J'exus is clesignflted us "the
<br />joint lJollllclury commission under the act of Congress," etc, (143 U, S" 621,
<br />(22) ; and h;y llw act of 188:> "u joint, COlllmlssion wus ()l'gani~ed" (143 U. S.,
<br />621, 636) ;
<br />Without, further 111ll1tiplicaUon of examples, it would approa!' that where two
<br />l'Cpre~elll.utives oC the United States and of n State are duly appointed for the
<br />l)llrl1ose of ~etll]llg n boundary or some ot1H~r dispute-, Hllch.persons are" corn-
<br />llIi$sionel's" unci arc collectively a "joint commission," _find as the court said
<br />(162 U. 1:)., 76), "Under the act of Texfls of 1882 and the nct of Congress of
<br />'ISt:iii, I.1w Iwo Goverllments appoilltcd cOIHll1is:,:ouen;," anu the body so com,ti-
<br />tuter} "'tiS a " ioint cOllllnlssion."
<br />This C'xercist~ of-the treaty-making powers of the two separate Guvernments
<br />(Natiullfll allcl StlltP.) lIecessnril~' prot'eetls UpOll tIle fUllllnmentnl fact t1mt the-l'e
<br />He two ~~Jl[Lrnte il11l1 distinct GoVel'llllleuts, each hav,ng: it<; attributes of sover-
<br />eignty. Of. th:s we shall Illake mention ill a septU'[lte meUloL'ullumn,
<br />
<br />(:O:i\(l......CTS nl!:TWEI!:N STATE AND NATIONJ\L GOY~RNMENTf:!.
<br />
<br />Contl'ovel'.sles arising between two State)'! or between the United States and u
<br />~tale or i')tntes lllay be settled hy cornp[lct or u~reement 01' by jud1ciai tleteL--
<br />minl1t[OIl by the UnlLed Stlltes Supreme COl1l't. Diplomacy failing, the suit he-
<br />fot'e tile {:ourt is the ~ubst.itllte for war. In either eve-nt the higil coutracting or
<br />litigating- p[lrLie~ })l'oeeed upon the basis of sovereiguties, each exercising' incJe-
<br />11~lHl(,llt :lllll F;epal'fitc vowers, und eHch exclm;ive wilhill its propel' sphere. . Ai:!
<br />said by !\1r. Jw;Uo:.:c Hal'lan in United Stlltes v. Texas (143 U. S., 6~1, 646) :
<br />"The sul1misf;;on to jurUrial solution of cOlltl'oveI'~ies arising between these
<br />l,wo Govl'J"J1111ellts, 'cach sovereign with respect to the oiJjects committed to it,
<br />Illld nciUlt'r sovercign with respect to the object.r; committed to the othee,'
<br />!\lcCulloch v, ::-illIte of. Marylalltl (4 Wheat., 310, 400, 410), but both subject to
<br />the supreme law of the- lanel, does no violence to thc inhcrent nature of sover-
<br />eignty. '.I'he Stut,c$ of the- Union have agreed, in the Constitntion, that the. judi-
<br />dill power of the United States sunil extend to nil efl3es ari~ing under tile Con-
<br />stit.ution, laws, nlHl treaties of the United States, WitllOut regard to the charac-
<br />ter of Llle l)Urtics (excluding, of course, suit::; ngain:::;t a State by its own citlzen~
<br />or lJY cit\\'.t'us of other States, or by citizens or sulJjects of fui:eign States), [lnd
<br />equally 10 controversies to which the Uuited States shall be a party, without re-
<br />gal'd to thc subject of such controversies, find that 1.11is cOlat lllUY exercise origi-
<br />nul iurisdiction in nil such cn.!'ies . in wIlich a I:;tate shall be- party,' without ex:.
<br />c1llu'ing those ill which the- United States way be the opposite party."
<br />The l)Ower tv enter into compnct between a Statc 01' Stutc!s and t.he United
<br />Stfltt~S is founeled UI101l the st\me pl'inciple Llf) thr. power in the Supreme Court
<br />lo setUe controversic.!:l between Slates, fiS snit! by Mr, Justice Harlan in the
<br />fOl'C'goin~ Cll!'ie (V. 644), "We can not aSSUIlle that (,he fl'Rmers of the COIl::';t.i-
<br />tUtlOIl, wilile extending the judiciul power of the United States to contl'ovel'si~8
<br />between (:wo or more States of the Union find betweell n State of the Union and
<br />fOl'eign :-:illites, inlclllletl to exempt a State altogether fl'OIU .snit by the General
<br />Govoi.llIl1cnt."
<br />The nllOve slatement followed un flllaly~is of the posiLioll tal,en by Texas
<br />
<br />(p, 641) :
<br />"Texas insists that 1\0 snch jurlsutctlon hm; becn conferred Ul1011 thIs conrt,
<br />[Iud that lbc only mode in which the present dispute call be pE'a~eflbly spttled is
<br />by flp.cclllcnl, In sonio form, between the United St~te8 and that Stat~. Of
<br />course, if no such ngl'eement cnn lJe reachecl-and It seems thnt ODe IS not
<br />{)rohal,l\c--and if neilher party will surrender its claim of RuthorHy tind juris-
<br />diction 0\'01' t.he tlisputed territory the result, according to the defendant's
<br />theory of lite Constitution, l1lust be thRt the United Stutes, in order to effect a
<br />"">I/'I,,,;n"'111 ....f lhi<:. VPYPll nllPf.;Uon of hont1rlnrv, mnst: bring its Imit in olle of t1w
<br />
|