OCR Text |
Show -104« United States Constitution makes no such explicit distinction^ But it does recognize different degrees of prohibitions. Thus treaties, al- liances, or confederations are absolutely prohibited. On the other- 27 hand, though in no case is Congressional assent expressly dispensed with state decisions and unchallenged federal dicta do sanction compacts un- approved by Congress if the political condition of no state is affected thereby. Intermediate are those compacts where the assent of Congress is required. This assent may be permissive or ratifying, express or im- plied c / The adoption by Congress of proceedings taken under the com- pact is the typical instance of implied ratification *^ Both permission and ratification are combined in a recent federal ^ The Articles of Confederation had distinguished dealings with foreign nations (absolutely prohibited) and with other states (permissable with the assent of Congress). Art, VI, Sec, 2 Story, op. cit., Sec l402. ^ The framers were familiar with the New England Confederacy of 1643 ; the Temporary Congress of 1690, and the Plan of Union of 1754 and especially of course, with the successful! united action of the colonies against Great Britian in fighting the Revolution, See Cooley, op. cit, 7 ed, 7 Egerton Federations and Unions within the British Empre, 8, li(.a 27 Since the Constitution forbids "treaties, alliances or confedera- tions" between states at all times, and then goes on to refer to "agreement or compact," Story concluded that the latter words must have been used in a very broad sense to include any sort of arrangement between states., even as to local administrative matters, and that no agreement would ever be good without Congressional consent. See 2 Story, op, cit., Sec, lljO3; Andrew A. Bruce, "Compacts and Agreements of States," 2 Minn. L. Rev. 500, 51I4. 28Mackey, v. R.R. Co., 82 Conn. 73, 72 Atl. 583 (1909)1 Kendricks- v. Commonwealth, 75 Va» 93I4. (1882), See Virginia v. Tennessee, 11$ U. S. 503, 518 (1893); Wharton v0 Wise, 153 U. S. 155, I67-I7O (1893)• See Andrew A. Bruce, supra, 2 Minn, L. Rev, 500e Chief Justice Bruce approves the dis- tinction but suggests that non-political compacts are voidable by Congress. See also 1 Willoughby, Constitutional Law, Sec. 112: Putney, op. cit.. Sec. 101. ^Poole v« Fleeger, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 185 (1837); Central R. R. Co* v. Jersey City, 209 U. SB Ltf3 (1908). 30 ^ See State v. Cunningham, 102 Miss. 237, 59 So* 76 (1912); Russell y. American Ass'n., 139 Tenn« I2I4, 201 S. W. 151 (1918). Approval may be inferred from admission as a state under the terms of a compact. Green v« Biddle. 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 1 (1823); Virginia v. West Virginia, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 39 (1870). See 2 Story, op, cit., Sec. li>05. |