WSPC07667

• File Number: 8044
• Description: Section D General Studies-Compacts-general writings
• Date: 6/4/1921
• Title: Brief of Law of Interstate Compacts-Submitted by Delph E Carpenter to Judiciary Committee of House of Rep 67th Cong 1st Session June 4 1921-Powers of States to Enger into Compacts
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

{

til

.".\
v'

i'
,.

.','jD
"

OOd12

oompaot between nations, beoome oonolusive upon all the subjeots and oitizens
thereof, and bind their rights, and are to be treated to all intents and purposes,
as the true real boundaries. * * * The' oonstruotion of suoh a oompaot is a
judioial question," for the United States Supreme Court. (12 Pet., 725.)

See also disoussion of the same subject in Streans v. Minnesota (179 U. S.,
223); Virginia v. Tennessee (148 U. S.,'503, 5171528); \Vharton v. Wise (153 U.S.
155).

In other words, the states of the Union, by oonsent of Congress, have the
same power to enter into compaots with eaoh other as do independent nations,
upon all matters not delegated to the Federal Government.

INTERNATIONAL RIVEfiS

Controversies respeoting international rivers have been settled by treaty.
(Hertter Droit Ind., Appendix VIII; Hall, International Law, seo. 39.)

Vihile the right of the United States to the use and benefit of the entire
flow of the Rio Grande River irrespective of any former uses made in Mexico was
upheld by the opinion of the Attorney General in 1895 (21 Ops. Atty. Gen., 274,
282), the rights of the two nations were settled by a "oonvention providing for
the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande for irrigation purposes"
made May 21, 1906. (MallOY, Treaties, Vol. I, p. 1202.)

That the United States has a perfeot right to divert the waters of the Colo-
rado River at any point above the international boundary with Mexioo irre8peotive
of the effeot of suoh diversion upon the flow of the river in Mexioo or along that
part of its oourse which forms the boundary between the two nations was held by
the Attorney General September 28, 1903. (Rept. to Atty. Gen. of U.S., Colorado
River in California, p. 58J Opinion of Atty. Gen., Aug. 20, 1919.)

The above opinion is in harmony with the decision in the Rio Grande case,
wherein it was held, (quoting from syllabus),

"The fact that there is not enough water in the Rio Grande for the use of
the inhabitants of both oountries for irrigation purposes does not give Mexioo
the right to subject the United State8 to the burden of arresting its develop-
ment and of denying to its inhabitants the use of a provision whioh nature has
supplied entirely vnthin its territory. The reoognition of suoh a right is en-
tirely inoonsistent with the sovereignty of the United States over its national
domain.

"The rules, prinoiples, and preoedents of international law imposed no duty
or obligation upon the United States of denying to its inhabitants the use of
the water of that part of the Rio Grande lying entirely within the United States
although suoh use results in reduoing the volume of water in the river below
the point where it oeases to be entirely within the United States." (21 Ops.
Atty. Gen., 274.)

For a full disoussion of international rights upon the Colorado River, see
appendix, pages 318-343, part 2, Hearings Before Committee on Irrigation of Arid
Lands, House of Representative8, Sixty-sixth Congress, first session.

-2-