|
<br />Ou',416
<br />
<br />United States (162 U. S., 1, 66); "a joint commission on the part of the United
<br />States and Texas commenced the wcrk," eto. (143 u. s., 621, 635); "the oommis-
<br />sioner on the part of the United States" (id.); "the commissioners of the United
<br />State8 and Texas" (id.);
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />By the aot of January 31, 1885, ohapter 47 (23 Stat., 296, 297), it was pro-
<br />vided that the United States '8hould appoint a representative who should work in
<br />conjunoticn with a representative to be appointed by the State of Texas, for the
<br />purpose of asoertaining the boundary. The following references appear as des-
<br />oriptive of the person and the agenoYI
<br />
<br />"The two Governments (United States. and State of Texas) appointed oommis-
<br />sioners" (162) U. S., I, 76); the joint body so oonstituted is defined as "the
<br />Joint Boundary Commission" (162) U. S., I, 21); in the aot by the Legislature of
<br />Texas authorizing the appointment of its oommissioner, the oombined repre-
<br />sentation of the two Governments (State and National) i8 designated a "joint
<br />commission" (162 U. s. I, 73); by the aot authorizing the suit between the United
<br />States and Texas (26 Stat., 81, 92, ohap. 182, seo. 25) the oommis8ion formed
<br />under the act o'f 1885 with the State of Texas is designated as "the joint boundary
<br />oommi8sion under the aet of Congress," eto. (143 u. S., 621, (22); and by the
<br />aot of 1885 "a joint commission was organized" (143 U. S. 621, 636);
<br />
<br />,'J
<br />'.
<br />
<br />Without further multiplioation of examples, it would appear that where two
<br />representatives of the United States and of a State are duly appointed for the
<br />purpo8e of settling a boundary or some other dispute, such persons are "commis-
<br />sioners" and are colleotivelya "joint oommission," and as the oourt said (162
<br />U. s., 76), "Under the aot of Texas of 1882 and the aot of Congress of 1885, the
<br />two Governments appointed oommissioners," and the body so oonstituted was a
<br />"joint oommission.tt
<br />
<br />This exercise of the treaty-making powers of the two separate Governments
<br />(National and State) neoes8arily prooeeds upon the fundamental faot that there
<br />are two separate and distinot Governments, eaoh having its attributes of sover-
<br />eignty. Of this we shall make mention in a separate memorandum.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />COMPACTS BETWEEN STATE AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />Controversies arising between two States or between the United States and a
<br />State or States may be settled by oompaot or agreement or by judioial determin-
<br />ation by the United States Supreme Court. Diplomaoy failing, the suit before the
<br />oourt is. the substitute for war. In either event the high oontraoting or liti-
<br />gating parties prooeed upon the basis of sovereignties, each exercising independent
<br />and separate pmvers, and eaoh exolusive within its p~Oper sphere. As said by Mr.
<br />Justioe Harlan in United States v. Texa8 (143 u. S., 621, 646)1
<br />
<br />"The submission to judioial solution of oontroversies arising between these
<br />two Governments, 'each sovereign with respeot to the objeot8 committed to it,
<br />and neither sovereign with respeot to the objects oommitted to the other,'
<br />MoCullooh v.. State of Maryland (4 Wheat, 316. 400, 410), but both subjeot to the ,
<br />8upreme law of the land, does no violenoe to the inherent nature of sovereignty.
<br />The States of the Union have agreed, in the Constitution, that the judioial p~fflr
<br />of the United States shall extend to all cases arising under the Constitution,
<br />laws, and treaties of the Unite~ States, without regard to the oharacter
<br />
<br />.6-
<br />
|