| OCR Text |
Show -107- So much for the Colorado River Compact* And here this review ends. The conclusions reached have been indicated, in the main, as the discussion proceeded* But it may not be amiss to add a very general summary* Sovereign rights and relations in the control and use of American waters had their inception in the discovery and settlement of the continent by European nations, which extended their sovereignty and the international law and oust cans of Europe and the Occident over North America. To such European sovereignty the original States of the American Union and the United States succeeded, re- distributing the same by written agreements in the form of a limited federal constitution over all, and of residuary state constitutions over the domains of the respective States. Additional States were added under the same govern- mental plan as the United States expanded to its present limits. In relations with foreign nations the federal government of the United States alone has acted fpr all the States; otherwise the States have controlled their own re- lations subject to their general governmental agreement. In this manner the use and dispose of the public lands and property of the United States $ a power which includes projects for reclamation of government lands. By its terms the Boulder Canyon Project Act is declared to be supplementary to the Reclamation Act; and the United States is to be reimbursed from the operation of the pro- ject for the I65 million dollars advanced to start it. This may be more reasonable than an outright expenditure; but it does not otherwise affect the constitutional power of the United States. The extent of this federal power has never been clearly defined by the United States Supreme Court, which has declared, at one time or another} (1) "» . • the government has with respect to its own lands the right of an ordinary proprietor to maintain its possession and to prosecute trespassers* It may deal with such lands precisely as an individual may deal with his farming property*" Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, 17 Sup. Ct. 86U, Ij2 L. Ed, 260 (1897)5 (2) "• • • a11 the public lands of the United States are held in trust for the people of the whole country* And it is not for the courts to say how that trust shall be adminis- tered* That is for Congress to determine. . . These are rights incident to proprietorship, to say nothing of the power of the United States as a sovereign over the property belonging to it." Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 5^3> 5^ Sup. Ct. U85, 55 L. Ed. 570 (1911); but (3) "... the United States do not and cannot hold property as a monarch may, for private or personal purposes*'1 Van Brocklin v* Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 6 Sup. Ct. 67O, 29 L. Ed. 8^5 (1886). The principles controlling the Boulder Canyon Project are that the Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of Congress, nor concern itself with the wisdom of this congressional legislation if it is "naturally and reasonably adapted" to the discharge of the trust under which the public lands and property are held by the United States, or has a "substantial connection" therewith; but the Court cannot be blind to that which "all others can see and understand,rT nor sustain this law if it appears that it is primarily intended to accomplish purposes not authorized by the constitution even though tending in minor or incidental ways to protect and preserve the public lands. Tested by these principles, the Boulder Canyon Project is legal or illegal as a federal enter- prise according to the facts about the public lands and property of the United |
