Laserfiche WebLink
<br />\JJiJ2H <br /> <br />-33- <br /> <br />governmen t s. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The rule of equitable apportionment applies to the set~ler.ent by <br />the Supreme Court of controver si es between Sta tes over ri vers co.. _on to <br />two or mo,'e States af the U,lion. (Kansas v. Colorado, 21)) U. s. L6, <br />117. ) <br /> <br />-, <br /> <br />This eauitab1e anportionment of the waters of an interstate river <br />may be made by one of two methods: <br /> <br />(1) By interstate "compaot or agreement" between the States, by <br />consent of Congress; and <br /> <br />(2) By suit between the States before the l!ldted States Supreme <br />Court, <br /> <br />The latter method is the substitute, unJer our form of government, <br />for war between the St'tes, In other words, Were it not for the pro- <br />visions of our Constitution the States mlght settle their differenoes <br />over interstate rivers by resort to arms. But by the terms of the <br />Constitution the right toresort to settlement by foroewas surrendered, <br />and in lieu thereof was substituted the right to submit interstate oon- <br />troversies to the Supreme Court in original prooeedings between the <br />Stetes. (Kanses v, Colorado, 206 U. s. 46; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, <br />12 Pet., 657). <br /> <br />f <br /> <br />f,. suit between t he States is but a sub sti tute for war. It is the <br />last resort, and should not be resorted to unti 1 all avenues of settle- <br />ment by compact have been exhausted. It has been suggested that the <br />Supreme Court should announoe the principle that no suit between States <br />would be entertained without a preliminary sha'ling that reasonable <br />efforts had been made by the complaining State to compose the differenoes <br />between it and the defendant State by mutual oompact or interstate can- <br />pact. It would appear that the rule of settlement by treaty of inter- <br />national disputes over rivers common to two nations should likewise apply <br />to settlements of controversies, present or possible. between States of <br />the Union. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The object of the present legislation is to follow the international <br />prinoiple of settlement. <br /> <br />INTERSTATE COllPACTS RESPECTING USE OF Wf1'ERS C. INTERSTATE RIVERS <br /> <br />Hhi Ie, as we have already observed, various of the Stotes have <br />settled their controversies respecting boundaries, fisheries, eto., by <br />interstate co~paot or by concurrent State legislation, having the same <br />effect, this method of settlement of pending or threatened controversies <br />