OCR Text |
Show ¦-17- When a controversy between States is found to be of such nature that neither the constitution nor international law discloses any rule for determination of the dispute, then the Supreme Court proceeds under an implied duty to be guided by parity of principles just as lesser courts, in deciding quarrels between private persons, draw upon the analogies of their law to supply its omissions. The States have a right to assume that a tribunal sitting for the decision of sovereign controversies will not readily descend to the forum of mere private litigants for guidance; nor often fail to find in the transcendent law of its cwn realm an equivalent to that flexibility of the lowly common law which it has always been the pride of nisi prius judges to discover and apply so ably to novel problems almost daily arising in their humble courts of first im- pression.3° Opinions of the courts having occasion to apply international law, or inter- state law if such there be, to the decision of disputes involving rights in American waters, under sovereign grants or otherwise, may indicate the trend of judicial thought and be highly informative; but cannot be taken as author- itative in controversies between the States-excepting only the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in litigation to which a State is a party.39 And oven those decisions may be taken as having permanently fixed the status of sovereign rights only in respect to their distribution between the federal sovereignty and the States, which remains unchangeable save by constitutional amendment. Tho Supreme Court cannot restrict the President and the Senate in the exercise of their constitutional power to make treaties or to formulate and accept international law contrary to its decisions; nor can such judicial restraint be imposed upon the States making compacts and establishing interstate (1916). 38 A distinction must be made, however, between the determination of contro- versies among sovereigns and the adjudication of the mere proprietorial rights of sovereigns in conflict with like rights of private individuals. In the latter class of disputes the sovereign, always in court by his own volition and not engaged in litigating the high prerogatives of sovereignty, is deemed to have descended to the plane of private litigants and to have submitted his pro- perty rights to the ordinary or municipal law of the forum in which he has seen fit to bring his opponent to account. The decisions in such cases, however able, are without weight in controversies between sovereigns unless the same be limited to like property rights. See Mountain Copper Co. v. United States, 73 CCA. 621, 142 Fed, 625 (C.CA 9th Cir* 1906); State v. Horr, 165 Minn. 1, 205 NiW. W4. (1925); Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 1+36, 20 Sup, Ct. 919, I4JL+. L. Ed. IIJ4.O (1900); Clark Vo Barnard, 108 U.S. I4.36 2 Supe Ct. 878, 27 L. Ed. 78O (1883)5 The Siren, 7 Wall. (U.S.) 152, 19 L* Ed. 129 (1068). In Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. U36, i&9, 20 Sup* Ct. 919, 920, I4I4. Lf Ed. III4.O, HJ4.3 (1900)* the court quotes with approval from the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Waite in Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U.S. 711, 728, 2 Sup. Ct. 128, lifc, 27 L. Ed. I4J4.8 h&U. (1882) % "Whon a state submits itself, without reservation, to tho jurisdiction of a court in a particular case, that jurisdiction may be used, to give full effect to what the state has by its act of submission all-owed to be donej and if tho law permits coercion of the public officers to enfor-ce any judgment that may be rendered3 then such coercion may be employed for that purpose o" 39Ecenemy Light & Power Co. v* United States, 256 U.S. 113, 123, Ul Sup. |