WSP07699 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[ 28 I 1<'01' a t'ul! discussion ot' illternationnl rights upon the 0010- rado R.iver, see Appendix, pageR a18-:~43, part 2, Hearings Be- fore Committee on Irrigation of ....L~rid L,ands, House of Repre- sentatiyes, Sixty-sixth Congress, first session. 'Vhile hy all rules of international law the upper nation is entitled to make full use of the waters of an international stream rising wholly within the bordet,s of the upper nation, neverthe- less such matters are usually settled by treaty in the same man- llel' as the settlement between the United States and Mexico re- specting the use and benefit of the waters of the Rio Grande (above cited), wherein it is provided for an "equitable appor- tionment" of the waters of the stream between the two Govern- ments. 'rhe rule of equitable apportionment applies to the settle- JIlen by the Supreme Court of controversies behveen States over dvm's eonllnon to two 01' more Sta1-es of the Union. (Kansas v. Colorado, 2'On U, S" 46, 117,) 'l'his equitable .apportionment of the waters of an interstate river mo.y be made by one of two methods: (1) By interstate "compact or agreement" between the 8ta j'eR, by conscn t 'of Congress; ond (2) By suit between the States before the United States Su- pn~me Court. ' The lattl'" method is the suhstitute, under our form of gov. ernment, for war between the States. In other words, were it not for the provisions of our Oonstitution the States might set- tle theh~ differences' over interstate rivers by resort to arms. But b.Y the terms of the Oonstitution the right to resort to settlement by force was surrendered, and in lieu thereof was substituted the right to submit interstate controversies. to the Supreme Court in original proceeding's between the States. (Kansas v. Colo- rado, 20G U, S" 46; Rhode Island v, Massachusetts, 12 Pet" 657,) A suit between the States is but a subtitute for war, It is the last resort', and should not be resorted to 'lUltil all avenues of settlement by compact have been exhausted. It has been sug~ gested that the Supreme Court should announce the principle that no suit between States would be entertained without a preliminary showing that reasonable efforts had been made by the C'omplaining State to compose the differences between it and the defendaut State by mutual agreement 01' interstate l'ompact, It would appeal' that the rule of settlement by treat.Y of inter- notional disputes over rivers common to two nations should likewise apply to settlements of controversies present 01' pos- sibIl', between States of the Uuion, The object of the present legislation is to follow the intere natioual prinl'iple of settlement.