OCR Text |
Show between the United States and Canada; and declared it to be decisive in a boundary dispute between Louisiana and Mississippi because it was so in- tended by their predecessors in sovereignty under the Treaty of Paris made in 1763• Soon afterwards Congress granted to those States and to Arkansas and Tennessee its consent for them to fix by compact their respective rights in and jurisdiction over, the Mississippi River. Like consent had already been given to, and utilized by, South Dakota and Nebraska in respect to a part of the Missouri River; and this privilege was also extended to Missouri and Kansas. l^-7 By a compact meticulous and elaborate, New Jersey Edo 1363 (1913), aff»g 47 Ct. Cl. 579 (1912), on federal jurisdiction over the Mississippi River; Boquillas Land & Cattle Co, v« Curtis, 213 U. S. 339* 29 Sup. Ct. 493, 53 L. Ed. 822 (1909), aff'g Boquillas Land & Cattle Co, v. St. David Co-op, Comm'l & Dev. Ass'n. 11 Ariz. 128, 89 Pac. 504. (1907), on prior appropriation in Mexico; Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 31 Sup. Ct. 250, 55 L- Ed. 246 (1911), rev'g 44 Ct. Cl. 137 (1909), on the power of the Supreme Court to decide only justiciable cases and controver- sies. Act of June 17, 1902, c. 1093, 32 Stat. at L. 388, supra at foot- notes #l42a and l43<> *¦ Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U. S. 1, 26 Sup. Ct. 408, 50 L. Ed* 913 (1906) 5 citing with approval Hamburg-American S*S. Co. v. Grube, 196 U. S» 407, 25 Sup. Ct, 352, 49 L, Ed. 529 (1905). ^" Mississippi and Louisiana* Joint Res. of Jan. 26, 1909, 35 Stat- at L. 1160. Mississippi and Arkansas: Joint Res. of Jan. 26, 1909* 35 Stat. at L» 1161. . ' . Tennessee and Arkansas Joint Res. of Feb. 4, 1909, 35 Stat. at L. 1l63 South Dakota and Nebraska. Act of July 24, 1897, c• 12, 30 Stat. at L. 214: Act of March 1, 1905, c. 1295, 33 Stat. at L. 820. Missouri and Kansasj Joint Res. of June 7, 1910, 36 Stat. at L. 881. Congress also granted permission for a compact between Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and-Michigan to fix oriminal jurisdiction on Lake Michigan. Joint Res* of June 22, 1910, 36 Stat. at L. 882. The Mississippi-Arkansas compact is the only one whioh appears to have been concluded. The boundary troubles of Missouri and Nebraska in the Missouri River were the subject of suit in the Supreme Court of the United States in 1901+ and 1905* Missouri v. Neb- raska, 196 U.S. 23, 25 Sup. Ct. I55, 1+9 L. Ed. 372 (190U), 197 U. S. 577* 25 Sup. Ct. 58O, k9 L. Ed. 881 (I905); likewise those of Missouri and Kansas in the same river in 1909* Missouri v. Kansas, 213 U. S. 78,29Sup. Ct. i+l?^ 53 L. Ed. 706 (1909) of Washington and Oregon in the Columbia River in 1908 and 1909, Washington v. Oregon, 211 U. S. 127, 29 Sup. Ct. 1+7, 53 L» Ed. 118 (1908), 211+ U. S. 205, 29 SUp. Ct. 63I, 53 L. Ed. 969 (1909); and of Mary- land and West Virginia on the south shore of the Potomac River in 1910-191^» Maryland v. West Virginia, 217 U. S. 1, 30 Sup. Ct. 268, 5I+ L. Ed. 61+5 (1910)* 217 U.S. 577, 30 Sup.Ct. 630, 5I+ L. Ed. 688 (1910), 225 U.S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct* 672, 56 L. Ed. 955 (1912). Arkansas and Tennessee litigated their Mississ- ippi River dispute in the same court in 1918-1925* Arkansas v» Tennessee j 21+6 U. S. 158, 38 Sup. Ct, 301, 62 L. Ed. 638, L. R. A. |