OCR Text |
Show (11 Pet., 209); whereby their compacts became of binding force, and finally- settled the boundary between them; operating with the same effect as a treaty between sovereign powers. That is, that the boundaries so established and fixed by compact between nations, become conclusive upon all the subjects and citizens thereof, and bind their rights, and are to be treated to all intents and purposes, as the true real boundaries. * * * The construction of such a compact is a judicial question/' for the United States Supreme Court* (12 Pet., 725.) See also discussion of the same subject in Stearns -v. Minnesota (179 U. S, 223) Virginia v. Tennessee (l48 U. S., 503, 517, 528); Wharton v. Wise (153 U.S* 155). In other words, the States of the Union, by consent of Congress, have the same power to enter into compacts with each other as do-independent nations, upon all matters not delegated to the Federal Government* INTERNATIONAL RIVERS Controversies respecting international rivers have been settled by treaty. (Heffter Droit Ind., Appendix VIIT; Hall, International Law, sec. 39.) While the right of the United States to the use and benefit of the entire flow of the Rio Grande River irrespective of any former uses made in Mexico was upheld by the opinion of the Attorney General in I895 (21 Ops. Atty, Gen., 271+., 282), the rights of the two nations were settled by a "convention providing for the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande for irrigation pur- posesM made May 21, I906. (Malloy, Treaties, Vol. I, p, 1202.) That the United States has a perfect right to divert the. waters of the Colo- rado River at any point above the international boundary with Mexico irrespective of the effect of such diversion upon the flow of the river in Mexico or along that part of its course which forms the boundary between the two nations was held "by the Attorney General September 28, 1902. (Rept. to Atty, Gen. of U. S., Colo- rado River in California, p. 58; Opinion of Atty, Gen., Aug. 20, 1919,) The above opinion is in harmony with the decision in the Rio Grande case, wherein it was held, (quoting from syllabus)i nThe fact that there is not enough water in the-Rio Grande for the use of the inhabitants of both countries for irrigation purposes does not give Mexico the right to subject the United States to the burden of arresting its develop- ment and of* denying to its inhabitants* the use of a provision which nature has supplied efitirely within its territory. The recognition of such a right is en- tirely inconsistent with the sovereignty of the United States over its national domain. wThe rules, principles, and precedents of international law imposed no duty or obligation upon the United States of denying to its inhabitants the use of the water of that part of the Rio Grande lying entirely within the United States although such use results in reducing the volume of water in the river below the point where it ceases to be entirely within the United States.w (21 Ops • Atty. Gen., 2%*) -2- ¦ ¦' |