Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />stored to their priginal inherent sovereignty; such consent, being <br />the sole limita;tion imposed by the Constitution, when given, <br />left the States' as they were befare, as held by this court ,in <br />Poolev. Fleege~ (11 Pet., 2'(9) ; whereby their compacts became <br />af binding ford;, and finally settied the bonndary between them; <br />operating withl the same effect as a treaty between sovereign <br />pawers. That js, that the boundaries sa established and fixed by <br />compact between nations, become conclusive upon all the sub. <br />jects and citizens thereof, and bind their rights, and are to be <br />treated to all iintents and purposes, as the true real baunda. <br />ries. * * * i The construction of such a compact is a judi~ial <br />qnestion," for the United' States Supreme Court. (12 Pet;, 725,) <br /> <br />See also discussion of the same subject in Stearns v. Min- <br />nesota (179 U.I S., 223); Virginia v. Tennessee (148 U. S" 593, <br />5171528); Wharton v. Wise (153 U. S., 155). <br /> <br />. ' <br />In other Words, the States of the Union, by consent of Con. <br />gress, have the same power to enter into compacts with each <br />other as do independent nations, upon all matters not delegated <br />to the Federal' Government. <br /> <br />, <br />I <br /> <br />Controversies respecting international rivers have been set. <br />tied by treatyi (Heffter Droit Ind., Appendix VIII; Hall, In- <br />ternational Law, sec, 39.) <br />, <br />While the ]right of the United States to the use and,beneflt <br />of the entire fjow of the Rio Grancie River irrespective of any <br />former uses mitde in Mexico was upheld by the opinion of the <br />Attarney Gen~ral in 1895 (21 Ops, Atty. Gen" 274,282), the <br />rights of the t;wo nations were settled by a "convention provid- <br />ing far the equ~able distribntion of the waters of the Rio Grande <br />for irrigation 'urposes" made May 21, 1906. (Malloy, Treaties, <br />Vol. I, p, 1202') . <br /> <br />That the . nited States has a perfect right to divert the <br />waters of the I Colorado River at any point above the interna. <br />tional bound'ary with Mexico irrespective of the effect of such di- <br />version upon tile flow of the river in Mexica or along that part <br />of its course Which forms the boundary between the two nations <br />was held by the Attorney General September 28, 1903. (Rept. <br />to Atty. Gen.lof U. S., Colorado River in California, p. 58; <br />Opinian of Atry. Gen., Aug. 20, 1919.) <br /> <br />The abovel opinion is in harmolIY with the decision .in the <br />Rio Grande ca~e, wherein it was held (quoting fram syllabus) : <br /> <br />"The fact ~hat there is not enough water in the Rio Grande <br />for the use of] the inhabitants of both countries for irrigation <br />purposes does !not give Mexico the right to subject the United <br /> <br />IN'I'ERNATIONAL RIVERS. <br /> <br />[ 12 ] <br />