My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05764
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05764
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:19:47 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:15:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
2100
Description
Laws-Acts-Policy Rulings Affecting CWCB and Colorado Water - Federal
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
6/4/1921
Author
Delph E Carpenter
Title
Statement of Delph E Carpenter - 06-04-21 - Before the Committee on the Judiciary - House of Representatives - RE-HR 6821
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Of.lJlJ6 <br /> <br />-15- <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />exhausted, and that none of those suits should have been filed without <br />a preliminary requil'6ment by the oourt of an attempt to force those <br />States to a peaceable settlement of their differences, And the dispo- <br />sition of tho court in that respect appears in the Sand Island caGe, in <br />the Columbia River, between I-!ashine;ton and oregon. The States having <br />quarreled over the island for years, the Supreme Court finally turned <br />the matter back to the States. with the suggestion that they settle it <br />by compaot, the same as boundaries are settled. <br /> <br />11R. B01:;;S. They probably, as a matter of law, could not settle it <br />among themselves without the approval of Congress, <br /> <br />MR. C!JtPENTER. They could not. to be sure; but where the II!l.tter <br />is primarily one between the States, as in a case involving boundaries, <br />as I read the reports. the consent of Congress usually goes as a matter <br />of form. <br /> <br />MR. YATES. I want to ask whether there is l'nguage in this bill, <br />or in any line of decisi ons affecting the questio,., that would make a <br />compact approved by the commissioner so binding that they could not get <br />away fram it and get into this unfortunate litigation? <br /> <br />MR. C;~ENTER, Yee. The ceneral construction of interstate com- <br />pacts, which are older than the Constitution, is that when a compact <br />has been entered into between States it then becomes a document that <br />the Supreme Court of the United states may enforce between the parties. <br />A discussion of that will be found in the case of Richmond v. Massa- <br />chusetts, in the early reports. I also have that in the memorandum <br />which I Will, with your permission, incorporate in the record, <br /> <br />MR. MICHENSR. Just one question. Ae I understand your statenent, <br />two cour ses are open. The Stotes could go on and make thi s tentative <br />arrangement and then come in and ask for confinnation of it? <br /> <br />MR. C'RPENT2R. Yes, sir. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MR. MiCHi>N3R. Or they could adopt t his method. And you have adopt- <br />ed this method, principally because you desire that a car:nnissioner be <br />appointed to represent the United states Goverrnuent and that the Govern- <br />ment should be a party to the negotiation and in the consideration of <br />the matter? That is true. is it not? <br /> <br />11R. CJ~ENT~R. Yes. sir. <br /> <br />MH. 11ICHENZR. That is the real purpose of this particular measure <br />at this time, is it not? <br /> <br />MR.. CARPENTER. Well. it is one of the real, 'u-poses. It was <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.