OCR Text |
Show 31 statute.^, which approves an agreement between Minnesota and South Dako- ta as to criminal jurisdiction over boundary waters ^, and consents in ad- Tance to a similar compact between the states of North and South Dakota, Minnesota.. Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska* Such a statute is to be com- mended.. Compacts between state S;, approved by Congress, offer a solution to interstate disputes hitherto considered unapproachable 9'~ and afford a remedy less troublesome to the court ** and more satisfactory to the parties "'-* than recourse to the Supreme Court ^ Resolution of Mar 4 1921 .? No 68 See 1921 Fed. Stat, Ann. Nos. 26-27,, p» 67. Seventeen statutes have been passed confirming existing com-' pacts between states seven approving in advance prospective compacts The statute most closely resembling that under discussion is 36 Stat at L 882, by which approval was given to a prospective agreement by Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana.,, and Michigan as to their criminal jurisdiction on Lake Michigan See the statutes listed by Andrew A» Bruce supra, 2 Minn. L Rev 500» 32 Questions as to expropriation of lands in another state, impossible by ordinary eminent domain proceedings, might "be settled by this means See Charles N Gregory "Expropriation by International Arbitration, 21 Harv,, L Review 23 Carman F. Randolph, supra, 2 Col « Rev 364, 378* - Cf Virginia v» Tennessee, l48 U S« 503,, 518 (1893)<, So as to the question of how much water a state may divert from an interstate river? raised by Kansas v0 Colorado, 185 U, Sn 125 (19O2)| 206 U# S. h£> (1907) 0 See a similar situation discussed in George B# French and Jeremiah Smith. "Power of a State to Divert an Interstate River,'5 8 Earv0 L« Rey» 138» 3^The Supreme Court urges that interstate compacts be employed as far as possible. See Washington v. Oregon, 2lU U. So 205, 217, 218 (1909)} Minnesota vc Wisconsin, 252 U,, S, 273, 283, (1920). |