| OCR Text |
Show -55- (6) Massachusetts and New York Boundary Compact of 1853* (a) Congressional assent was given by the Act of January 3* 1355* (b) By the Act of May l4, 1853,79 Massachusetts ceded to New York cer- tain territory on condition that the cession would be accepted by the latter State. Acceptance by New York is found in the Act of July 21, 1853 80 (7) Massachusetts and Rhode Island Boundary Settlement of 1859* (a) Congressional assent was given by the Act of February 9* 1858* (b) A boundary suit had been pending for many years in the Supreme Court of the United States. By the Resolution of April 5, 1859 82 Massachu- setts authorized its attorney-general to conclude an adjustment of this dis- pute that would be binding upon both States* By the Act of March 8, 1860* 83 Rhode Island invested its attorney-general with similar authority. (8) Prospective Agreement between Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas of 1861* (a) By a Joint Resolution of Feb. 21, 1861,84 Congress gave its assent to joint action by these States for the removal of raft from the Red River* 78 10 Stat. at L. 602. 79Mass. Acts, 1852-1853, ch. 340, p. 564* 80 N. Y. Laws, 1853, ch. 586, p. 1102. 81 11 Stat. at L. 382. 83Tiass. Acts, I858-I859, ch. ($, p. U59. ^R. i. Acts, 1859-1860, ch. 320, p. 139. There have been other cases of an agreement between counsel representing the interests of two States in a boundary dispute, where an agreement was reached to avoid determination by a commission appointed by the Court. Thus in Nebraska v. Iowa (l892)lli-3 U. S» 359, 12 Sup. Ct. 396, the Court having held that avulsion did not af- fect the former boundary line between the States, permitted the two States to agree upon a designation of the boundary to pass into the final decree, and provided that if the parties could not agree a commission would be ap- pointed by the Court to survey the line. An agreement having been reache d by the parties, its terms were embodied in the final decree. Nebraska v. Iowa (1892) li+5 U. S. 519, 12 Sup. Ct. 976. Exactly the same procedure was adopted in the case of a boundary dispute between Missouri and Nebraska. Missouri v. Nebraska (190I4) 196 U. S. 23, 25 Sup. Ct. I55. Here again th.e final decree was entered in accordance with the agreement of the parties* Missouri v. Nebraska (I90I4) 197 U. S. 577, 25 Sup. Ct. 58O. In Iowa v. Illinois (1893) lltf U, S. 1, 13 Sup. Ct. 239, the Court having held that the boundary line between the two States was the middle of the Mississippi River, ordered a commission to be appointed to designate this line. The report of the commissioners was confirmed, but later set aside on a showing that Illinois had not, contrary to the CourtTs belief, concurred in the motion for approval. Iowa v. Illinois (I89I+) 151 U. S. 238, lU Sup. Ct. 333* Later both States moved to set aside the proceedings had in the second case and the order of the court in the first case appointing a commission, and the Court* upon their request, entered as its final decree a boundary line agreed upon by the parties. Iowa v. Illinois (1906) 202 U. S. 59* 26 Sup. Ct. 57I* ^12 Stat. at L. 250. |
