|
<br />i'"
<br />
<br />..'
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />OU ~411
<br />
<br />076-1827
<br />
<br />BRIEF OF LAW OF INTERSTATE COMPACTS
<br />
<br />(Submitted by Delph E. Carpenter to Judioiary Committee of
<br />House of Repre8entatives, 67th Congress, 1st Session, at
<br />Hearing on June 4, 1921, in re H. R. 6821.)
<br />
<br />POWERS OF STATES TO ENTER INTO COMPACTS.
<br />
<br />Compaots or agreements between the States are reoognized by Artiole I,
<br />seotion 10, paragraph 3, of the Constitution of the United States, whioh pro-
<br />vides ..
<br />
<br />"No State 8hall, without oonsent of Congress, * * * enter into any agree-
<br />ment or oompaot with anot;her State. * * *"
<br />
<br />Interstate oontroversies and differences respeoting boundaries, fisheries,
<br />eto., have been frequently settled by interstate oompaot.
<br />
<br />Among the many bcundary disputes so settled may be mentioned the following.
<br />Virginia and Pennsylvania, 1780 (11 Pet., 20); Virginia and Pennsylvania, 1784
<br />(3 Da1l., 425); Kentuoky and Tennes8ee, 1820 (11 Pet.; 207); Virginia and Ten-
<br />nessee, 1802 and 1856 (148 u. S., 503; 511, 516); Virginia and Maryland, 1785
<br />(153 u. s., 155, 162).
<br />
<br />Of the compacts between States respecting the taking of fish in rivers form~ ,
<br />ing the boundary between the two disputant States may be mentioned, Washington
<br />and Oregon, Columbia River; Maryland and Virginia, PotJIllac River. (153 U.S, 155.)
<br />
<br />It is currently reported that recently the States of New York and New Jersey
<br />8ettled their harbor differences by interstate oompact.
<br />
<br />While all oompaots whioh wculd in any way involve the Federal Government or
<br />its jurisdiotion, property, etc., must be made with oonsent or approval of Con-
<br />gress in order to be binding, it has been suggested by the Supreme Court that
<br />oompaots made between two States respecting matters in whioh the States alone are
<br />interested might be taken as binding without oonsent or approval by Congress.
<br />(Stearns v. Minnesota 179 u. S" 223, 245; Virginia v. Tenne8see, 148 U. S" 50;;
<br />Wharton v. Wise, 153 u. S" 155.)
<br />
<br />For a full discussion respeoting the rights of the States to enter into
<br />treaties or compaots, with oonsent of Congress, see Rhode Island v. Massaohusetts
<br />(12 Pet., 657, 725-73l)~
<br />
<br />In the oase just oited the Supreme Court observed that when Congress has
<br />given its oon8ent to two States to enter into a oompaot or agreement, "then the
<br />States were in this respeot restored to their original inherent sovereignty; suoh
<br />oonsent, being the sole limitation imposed by the Constitution, when given, left
<br />the States as they were before, as held by this oourt in Poole v; Fleeger (11
<br />Pet., 209); whereby their compacts became of binding fcrce, and finally settled
<br />the boundary between them; operating with the same effect as a treaty between
<br />sovereign powers. That is, that the boundaries so established and fixed by
<br />
<br />-1-
<br />
|