Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />may enter into compacts ar agreements with one 01' more of the <br />States, acting in ~heir 'sovereign'capacities. <br /> <br />, The usual m~thod of formulating such compacts or agree- <br />ments, either between the States or betWeen the States and the <br />United States, is! through the instrumentality of joint commis. <br />sions thereunto 4uly, constituted by legislative enactments and <br />appointment by the executives of the State or the States and <br />of the Nation. Such joint commissions are in all respects similar <br />to tbe joint commissions constitnted by separate Governments <br />for formulation Of treaties between independent nations. The <br />term does not r~fer to a joint commission consisting only of <br />members of one sovereignty and created by joint action of two <br />or more legislaticb branches, but refers to that character of com. <br />mission formed ~y two independent powers for tbe purpose of <br />joint action to a dommon end. <br />! <br />Of the avaiH,ble examples of settlements of controversies <br />between the Unit~d States and one or more of the States througb <br />the instrumentality of joint commissions, the most convenient <br />example is that Of the, attempts at settlement of the boundary <br />between the Unit~d States and Texas. Here two joint cammis. <br />sions, duly constituted by the Nationai and State Governments, <br />sought to settle the boundary line. The history of these attempts <br />is found in the rbports of the United States Supreme COUl't in <br />the caseof Unite~ States v. Tevas (143 U. S" 621; 162 U. S., 1). <br /> <br />Throughout the many pages of the reports, covered by the <br />decisions in this, case, the representative of the Government of <br />the United State~ on the one hand and that of the State of Texas <br />on the other, are! designated as commissioners, and the, common <br />agency for settl~ment af the controversy is designatecl as the <br />jaint commission: or joint boundary commission. <br /> <br />Lest there b~ some question respecting the use of the te~m <br />"joint commissio~." the following references to the opinions in <br />the above case mF be prafitabie: <br /> <br />By a treaty boncluded August 25, 1838, between the, United <br />States and the ~epublic of Texas (8 Stat., 511) j each of the <br />cont.racting part~es agreed. to appoint "a commissioner" for the. <br />pnrpose of jointly agreeing npon -the line between the two Re. <br />puhlics ; <br /> <br />By the act of; ,Tune 5, 1858, chapter 92 (11 Stat., 310), enacted <br />in harmony with the act of the IJegislature of the State of Texas, <br />Febrnary 11, 1854, it was provided that the President should <br />appoint a represfntative to act in harmony with one from the <br />State of Texas for the purpose of definitely locating the boundary <br />between the Indian Territory and the State of Texas. The fol. <br />lowing references to the representatives so appointed al,ld the <br />name of the body so constituted appear in the decisions in the <br /> <br />[ 16 ] <br />