OCR Text |
Show purposes, they can scarcely fail to interfere with the general purpose and in- tent of the constitution." On the other hand, Story, writing about the year 1833^5 commenting on the two clauses under consideration before any of the cases above mentioned were decided, saysj "Sec. li+03« Perhaps the language of the former clause may be more plausi- bly interpreted from the terms used, 'treaty, alliance, or confederation,1 and upon the ground, that the sense of each is best known by its association (nosoitur a sociis) to apply to treaties of a political character; such as treaties of alliance for purposes of peace and war; and treaties of confeder- ation, in which the parties are leagued for mutual government, political co- operation, and the exercise of political sovereignty; and treaties of cession of sovereignty, or conferring internal political jurisdiction, or external political dependence, or general commercial privileges. The later clause Compacts and agreements,1 might then very properly apply to such as regarded what might be deemed mere private rights of sovereignty; such as questions of boundary; interests in land situate in the territory of each other; and other internal regulations for the mutual comfort and convenience of states bordering on each other. Such compacts have been made since the adoption of the consti- tution. The compact between Virginia and Kentucky, already alluded to, is of this number. Compacts, settling the boundaries between states, are, or may be, of the same character. In such oases, the consent of Congress may be pro- perly required, in order to check any infringement of the rights of the national government; and, at the same time, a total prohibition to enter into any compact or agreement might be attended with permanent inconvenience or public mis chief.M If we consider the history of these constitutional provisions together with the other provisions of the constitution which grant or limit authority, we are led to conclude that only political compacts or agreements which af- fected their sovereignty as between themselves or between them and the federal government were sought to be regulated or controlled. We realize that the support to be found for this proposition in the federal causes is largely dicta, yet such dicta have been of long standing and, so far as we can learn, have never been judicially criticized. Vie realize also the difficulty of determining in every particular case whether the sovereignty of the sta.te is enlarged or that of the federal government encroached upon. It seems clear, however, that where a state obtains permission to drain its surface m.ters within the borders of another state or nation, as was the situ- ation in the case of McHenry County v. Brady,l6 or seeks to purchase a site for an exposition or other public building, or to do things mentioned by Mr. Justice Fi-eld in the dictum in the case of Virginia v. Tennessee, such a state is in no way increasing its political power or encroaching upon that of the nation. Though the transaction may involve a negotiation and perhaps an agree- ment or compact, it is an exercise of a corporate and property-owning rather Story*s Commentaries on the Constitution, Sec. II4.O3* ¦^(N.D. 1917) I63 N •!*."• 5UOt An agreement was entered into between the drainage |