|
<br />
<br />"No State shall, without consent of Cougress, . . . enter
<br />into any agreement or compact with another State, '. . ."
<br />
<br />Interstate controversies and differences respecting bounda-
<br />t'ies, fisheries, etc" have been frequently settled by interstate
<br />compact,
<br />
<br />Among the many boundary disputes so settled may be men-
<br />tionedthe following: Virginia and Pennsylvania, 1780 (11 Pet"
<br />20) ; Virginia and Pennsylvania, 1784 (3 Dall" 425) ; Kentucky
<br />and Tennessee, 1820 (11 Pet" 207) ; Virginia and Tennessee, 1802
<br />and 1856 (148 U, S., 503, 511, 516') ; Virginia and Maryland, 1785
<br />(153 U, S" 155, 162) _ .
<br />
<br />Of the compacts between States respecting the taking of
<br />fish in rivers forming the boundary' between the two di~putant
<br />States may be mentioned: Washington llIid Oregon, Columbia
<br />River; Maryland and Virginia, Potomac River. (153 U, S, 155,)
<br />
<br />It is currently reported that recently the States of New York
<br />and New Jersey settled their harbor differences by interstate
<br />. compact,
<br />
<br />While all compacts which woul,l in any way involve the
<br />Federal Government or its jurisdiction, property, etc., mnst be
<br />mad<; with consent or approval of Congress in order to be bind-
<br />ing, it has been suggested -by the Snpreme Court that compaets
<br />made between two States respecting) matters in which the States
<br />alone are interested mig'ht be taken as binding withont consent
<br />or approval by Congress, (Stearns v, Minnesota 179 U, So, 223,
<br />245; Virginia v, Tennessee, 148 U. S., 503; Wharton v, Wise,
<br />153 U, S" 155,)
<br />
<br />For a fnll discussion respecting the rights of the States to
<br />enter into treaties or compacts, with consent of Congress, see
<br />Rhod'e Island v, Massachnsetts (12 Pet" 657, 725-731).
<br />
<br />In the case jnstcited the Supreme Court observed that when
<br />Oongress has given its consent to two States to enter into a
<br />compact or agreement, "then the States were in this respect re-
<br />stored to their original inherent sovereignty; such consent, being
<br />the sole limitation imposed by the Oonstitntion, when given,
<br />left the States as they were before, as held by this court in
<br />Poole v, Fleeger (11 Pet" 2'09) ; whereby their compacts became
<br />of binding force, and finally settled the boundary between them;
<br />operating with the same effect as a treat)' between sovereign
<br />powers, That is, that the boundaries so established and fixed by
<br />compact between nations, become conclusive upon an the sub-
<br />jects and citizens thereof, and bind their rights, and are to be
<br />treated to all intents and purposes, as the true real bounda-
<br />ries. * * * The construction of such a compact is a judicial
<br />question," for the United' States Supreme Oourt. (12 Pet., 725,)
<br />
<br />
<br />[ 21 ]
<br />
<br />. "
<br />
<br />l
<br />
|