| OCR Text |
Show -12+7- Supreme Court, the states in those regions sponsored by concerted action a bill which was enacted in April, 193&.> &nd which gave the consent of Gongress to compacts negotiated by states relating to the regulation, control, and pro- duction of tobacco.. This is a limited blanket consent act, as it is applicable only to certain specific states. The two acts previously referred to gave blanket consent to all states to form compacts. Compacts Without Consent of Congress Since the ratification of the Constitution more than fifty-five com- pacts have been consummated with the consent of Congress* About seventeen ad- ditional compacts, however, have been ratified by the states, and although they have never received the consent of Congress, have been put into operation. These cover such subjects as agreements to run a boundary line, provisions for concurrent jurisdiction and free navigation in certain areas, provision for railroad right of way, the merger of a railway corporation, the Palisades .Inter- state Park Agreement, and the forerunner of the oil compact now legally in operation. Several years" ago Vermont and New Hampshire entered into an agree- ment whereby a penitentiary was established to serve both states. A number of states have entered into cooperative agreements for the advancement of a project to connect the Great Lakes and the Atlantic through the St. Lawrence River. Florida and Georgia have created commissions looking toward the construction of the canal connecting the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. In not on© o;f these cases is there a record of Congressional consent. The Palisades Interstate Park Agreement of 1900 is an outstanding instance of a compact made without Congressional consent. No one would deny, however, that its operation has been effective and satisfactory both to New York and to New Jersey, the states which were the parties to the agreement* In these cases, if legal rights were questioned, there is no doubt but that the agreements would have to run the gauntlet of the test of consti- tutionality* In Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet* 185, and Virginia v.'Tennessee, IJ46 U» S. 503, 519, the Court ruled that the constitutional prohibition contained in the compact clause was directed to the "formation of any combination tending to the increase of .political power in the states, which may encroaoh upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States,tf The Court went on, however to point out that Congressional assent is not necessary where purely local problems are dealt with, as, for example, where one state desires to purchase.land from another as a site for a public building, or where exhibits are to be transported through different states for use at fairs. Congressional consent would not be necessary in order that ex- hibits could pass over state lines. Another instance cited by the Court is where a boundary line crosses through a disease producing district. The consent of Congress would not be :ne~ oessary in order for the bordering states to take steps to "prevent and repel |
