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

002417

of the parties (exoluding, of oourse, suits against a State by its own oitizens or
by oitizens of other States, or by oitizens or subjeots of foreign States), and
equally to oontroversies to whioh the United States shall be a party, without
regard to the subjeot of suoh oontroversies, and that this oourt may exeroise
original jurisdiotion in all suoh oases 'in the whioh a State shall be party,'
without exoluding those in whioh the United States may be the opposite party."

~1

The power to enter into oompaot between a State or States and the United
States is founded upon the same prinoiple as the power in the Supreme Court to
settle controversies between States, as said by Mr. Justice Harlan in the fcre-
going oase (p. (44), .We can not assume that .the framers of the Constitution,
while extending the judioial power of the United States to oontroverBies between
two or more States of the Union and between a State of the Union and foreign
States, intended to exempt a State altogether from suit by the General Govern-
ment.1I

,)

The above statement followed an analysis of the position taken by Texas
(p. 641)1

"Texas insists that no suoh jurisdiotion has been oonferred upon this oourt,
and that the only mode in whioh the preBent dispute oan be peaoeably settled is
by agreement, in some form, between the United States and that State. Of course,
if no suoh agreement can be reaohed--and it seems that one is not probable--
and if neither party will surrender its olaim of authority and jurisdiotion over
the disputed territory the result, aocording to the defendant's theory of the
Constitution, must be that the United States, in order to effect a settlement of
this vexed question of boundary, must bring its suit in one of the courts of
Texas * * * or that, in the end, there must be a trial of physioal strength be-
tween the Government of the Union and Texas."

The oourt decided that, inasmuch as the State and the United States did not
settle their oontroversy by compact, the Supreme Court had the power to determine
the oontroversy between the United States and the State.

.

The right to settle by compaot proceeds upon the sovereignty of the State and
the Bovereignty of the Nation. As stated regarding another matter, "It is a
matter between two sovereign powers." (U. S. v. La., 127 U. S. 182, 189.)

)
.

The following quotations bear upon this general subjeot o~ power and sep-
arate sovereigntYI

"The powers not delegated to the United States b~' the Constitution, nor pro-
hibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respeotively, or to the
people." (Constitution of the United States, tenth admendment.)

"It must be reoolleoted that previous to the formation of the new Constitu-
tion we were divided into independent States, united for some purposes, but in
most respeots sovereign." (Chief Justice MarBhall in Sturges v. Crowninshield,
4 Wheat., 122, 192.)

"Reference has been made to the politioal situation of these States, anterior
to its (Constitution) formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were

-7-