Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br />\CX:: <br />.- <br />_. <br /> <br />c: <br /> <br />,\ <br /> <br />;......'.... <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />CONGRESSIONAL RECORD <br /> <br />this determ.1nation 18 erroneous. For whether the water of an <br />interstate stream must be apportioned between the two States is <br />a question of "Federal common law" upon which neither the <br />statutes nor the decisions of either State can be conclusive. (Kan~ <br />sas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 95, 97-98; Connecticut v. Massachu- <br />setts. 282 U. 6. 660, 669-71; New Jersey v. New Y01'k. 283 U. S. <br />336, 342-43; Washington v. Oregon, 297 U. S. 617. 528.) Jurisdic- <br />tion over controversies concerning rights in interstate streams Is <br />not dIfferent from those concElrning boundaries. These have been <br />recognized as presenting Federal questlons.u <br /> <br />Uctssna v. Tennessee, 246 U. 8. 289, 295; compare R'USt Land & <br />Lumber Co. v. Jackson, 250 U. S. 71, 76. In Haward v. Ingersoll, <br />13 How. 381, this Court reversed the supreme Court of Ala.bama's <br />decision locating the Alabama-Georgia boundary, which depended <br />upon the construction at a cession of territory by Georgia to the <br />United states In 1802. Compare Coffee v. Groover, 123 U. 8. 1. <br />The decisions are not un1form as to whether the Interpretation of <br />an interstate compact presents a Federal. question.. compare Pea- <br />68160-15432 <br /> <br />It has been suggested that this Court lacks jur1sd1ctlon to deter- <br />mine the validity and effect of the compact because Colorado and <br />New Mexico. the partIes to It. are not parties to tb1S suit and can- <br />not be made so. The contention Is unsound. The cases are many <br />. where title to land dependent upon the boundary between States <br />haa been passed upon by this Court upon review of judgments of <br />Federal and of State coW'ts in suits between private I1tigants.u <br />Beversecl. <br />:Mr. Justice Cardozo took no part in the consideration or dec1s1on <br />of this case. <br /> <br />ple v. Central B. B., 12 Wall. 455, with Wedding v. Megler, 192 <br />U. S. 573, and Wha.rton v Wise, 153 U. S. 155. <br />U Compare Handly's Lessee v. Anthony, 6 Wheat. 874: Howard v. <br />IngersoU, 13 How. 881; Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. 185; Coffee v. <br />Groover, 128 U. S. 1; st. Laui8 v. Butz, 188 U. 8. 226; Moore v. <br />Maguire, 205 U. S. 214; Cissna v. Tennessee, 246 U. 8. 289; MartM <br />By. & Coal Co. v. United states, 257 U. S. 47; Smoot Sand. &- Gnwel <br />Corp. v. Washington Airport, 283 U. S. 848. <br /> <br />a.S.GOVER..EIlTI'R1HTUleO'FICI,IIH <br />