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 />ijGJ219 <br /> <br />-38- <br /> <br />~. <br /> <br />The power to enter into compruot between a State or etates and the <br />United States is founded upon the same prinoiple os the pow.r in the <br />Supreme Court to settle controversies between St-t es, as said by l-lr. <br />Justice Harlan in the foregoing oaee (p. 644), "Ho cnn not assume thet <br />the framers of the Constitution, while e~tending the judicial povrer of <br />the Uni tad Stctes to controversies between two or more States of the <br />Union and between a State of t he Union D.nd foreign Stctos, intended <br />to exeropt a State altogether from suit by the General Government." <br /> <br />~, <br /> <br />The above statement followed an analysis of the position taJ,en by <br />Texas (p, 641), <br /> <br />"Texas insists that ne suoh jurisdiction has been oon- <br />ferred upon this court, and that the only mode in which the <br />present dispute cen be peaceably settled is by "_greement, in <br />some form, betV/een t re United States and th-. t State, Of <br />cour sa, if no such agreement can be re"cheQ - and it seems <br />that one is not probable - and if neither party vii 11 sw"render <br />its claim of authority and jurisdiction over the disputed <br />territory, the result, according to the defendant's theory <br />of the Constitution, must be that the United States, in order <br />to effect a settlement of this vexed question of boundary, <br />must bring its suit in one of the oourts of Tr.xas + * * or <br />that, in the end, there must be a trial of physical strength <br />between the Government of the Union and Texas." <br /> <br />The court decided tlk'1.t, inasmuch as the state and the United States <br />did not settle their controversy by compact, the SuprellB Court had the <br />pow'r to determine the controversy between the United States and the <br />State. <br /> <br />The right to settle by compact proceeds upon the sovereignty of <br />the State and the sovereignty of the Nation, As stated regarding <br />another matter, "It is a me.tter between two sovereign poV/ers," (U. S. <br />v. la., 127 U.S. 182, 189), <br /> <br />The follcming quotations bear upon thi5 general subject of power <br />and separate sovereigntys <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />"The pow-rs not delegated to the United States by the <br />Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re- <br />served to the States, respectively, or to the people." <br />(Constitution of United States, tenth amendment). <br /> <br />"It must be reco llected thot previous to the formD.tion <br />of t he new COllsti tution we were divided int" independent <br />States, united for some purposes, but in most respects <br />sovereign." (Chief Justice j.hrshall in Sturges v, Crownin- <br />shield, 4 Wheat., 122, 192), <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.