WSP12253 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the substitute fo~ will'. In either event the high contracting or litigating partie~ proceed upon the hasis of sovereignties, ell;ch exercising independent and separate powers, and each excluslVe within its prope~ sphere. As said by Mr. Justice Harlan in United States v.ITexas (143 U. S., 621, 646) : "The submission to judicial solution of controversies al'ising hetween these two Gavernments, 'each sovereign with respect to the objects. comm,itted to it, and neither sovereign with respect to the objects comrrjitted to the other,' McCulloch v. Stllte of Mary. lllnd (4 Wheat, ;l16, 400, 410), but both subject to the supreme law of the land, 1l0es no violence to the inherent nature of sover- eignty. 'l'he Strutes of the Union have agl'eed, in the Oonstitu. tion, that the ju4icial power of the United States shall ext~nd to all cases arising! nnder' the Constitution. laws, and treaties of _ the United States, without regard to the character of the parties (excluding, of cohrse, suits against a State by its own citizens or by citizens of other States, or by citizens or subjects of foreign States), and equally to controversies to which the United States shall be a party) without regard to the subject of such contro- versies, and that! this court may exercise original jurisdiction in all such cases 'i4 the which a State shall be party,' without ex. clnding those inl which the United States may be the opposite party." , The power tb enter into' compact between a State or States and the United States is founded upon the same principle as the power in the' f'\\;preme Court to settle controversies betweeu States, as said ~y Mr. Justice Harlan in the foregoing case (p, 644), "We call n'ot assume that the framers of the Constitution, while extending :the judicial power Of the United States ta con. troversies betwe~n two or more States of the Union and between a State of the Union and foreign States, intended to exempt a State altogether r~am suit by the General Government." The above ~tatement followed an analysis of the position taken by Texas (p. 641) : ' "Texas insi~ts that no such jnrisdiction has been conferred npon this court) and that the only mode in which the present dispute can be ~eaceably settled is by agreement, in some form, between the United States and that State. Of course, if no such agreement can b~ reached-and it seems that oIfe is not probable -and if' neither! party will surrender its claim of authority and jurisdiction oveJ the disputed territory the result, according to the defendant's I theory of the COJ;lstitution, must he that the United States, in order to effect a settlement of this vexed ques. tion of boundarlv, must bring its snit in one of the comts of Texas' . . or t~at, in the end, there must be a trial of physical strength betweeI/- the Government of'the Union and Texas." The conrt d~cided that, inasmnch as the State and the United [ 18 ]