Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OU1l212 <br /> <br />-31- <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />Of the compaots between States respecting the takinr, of fish in <br />rivers fonnin~ the boundary between the two rlisputant States may be <br />mentioned. 'lashington and Oregon. Columbia River; Barjland and Virginia, <br />Potomac River. (153 U. s., 155)' <br /> <br />".. <br /> <br />It is currently reported that reoently the States of New York and <br />New Jersey settled treir harbor di rferences by interstate oompaot, <br /> <br />,.,hi1e all oompaots whioh would in any way involve the Federal Govern- <br />ment or its jurisdiotion. property. etc,. mu:;t be made with consent or <br />approval of Congress in order to be binding, it has been sugEested by the <br />Supreme Court that oompacts made between two Statr..s respecting matters <br />in whioh the States alone are interested might be taken as binding with- <br />out consent or approval hy Congress, (Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U, s. <br />503; 'lharton v. Wise, 153 U. s., 155). <br /> <br />For a full disoussion respecting the rights of the States to enter <br />into treaties or oomp".ots, with oonsent of Congress. see Rhode Island v, <br />Massaohusetts (12 Pet,. 657.725-731). <br /> <br />In the oase just oited the Supreme Court observed that when Congress <br />has given its consent to two Stotes to enter into a oo~paot or agreement, <br />"then the Stat es were in this respect restored to their original inherent <br />sovereignty; such conserrt being the sole limitation imposed by the Con- <br />stitution. when given, left the States as they were before, as held by <br />this court in Poole v. Fleeger (11 Pet.. 209); r:hereby their oompncts <br />became of hinding fm' ce, and finally settled the bou dary between t ham; <br />operating with the same effeot as a treaty between sovereign powers. That <br />is. that the bou'darie" so e stabl1shed and fixed by compact between nations. <br />become conclusive upon 911 the subjects and citizens thereof. and bind <br />their rights. and are to be treated to all .intents and purposes. as the <br />true real bound"ries, * * " The construction of such a oompact is a ju- <br />dici~l question." for the United States Supreme Court. (12 Pet.,725). <br /> <br />I <br />. <br /> <br />See also discussion of the same subject in Virginia v. Tennesses <br />(14B U.S.. 503, 517-528); Hharton v. "ise (153 U.S.. 155). <br /> <br />In other words. the Ste.tes of the Uni on. by consent 0f Congress. <br />have thc same power to enter into comp"cts with each other as do inde- <br />pendent nati ons, upon all matters not delegated to the Federal Govern- <br />ment. <br /> <br />INTERNATIONAL RIVERS <br /> <br />Controversies respecting international rivers have been settled by <br />treaty. (Heffter Droit Ind., Appendix VIII; Hall. International Law. <br />seo. 39). <br />