OCR Text |
Show -26- judgment cannot stand if this determination is erroneous. For whether the water of an interstate stream must be apportioned between the two States is a question of "federal common law" upon which neither the statutes nor the decisions of either State can be conclusive. Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46 95, 97-98; Connecticut v. Massachusetts 282 U. S. 660, 669-71; _New Jersey v New York, 263 U* S» 336, 342-43; Washington v. Oregon, 297 U. S. 5l7» 528 Jurisdiction over controversies concerning rights in interstate streams is not different from those concerning "boundaries. These have been recognized as presenting -federal questions.12 It has been suggested that this Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the validity and effect of the Compact because Colorado and New Mexico, the parties to it, are not parties to this suit and cannot be made so. The con- tention is unsound. The cases are many where title to land dependent upon the boundary between States has been passed upon by this Court upon review of judgments of federal and of State courts in suits between private liti- gants »3-3 Reversed. Mr* Justice Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of this case » ; Cissna v. Tennessee, 246 U. S. 289* 295; compare Rust Land & Lumber Co. v. Jackson, 250 U. S. 71, 76. In Howard v. Ingersoll, 13 How. 381, this Court reversed the Supreme Court of Alabama's decision locating the Alabama- Georgia boundary, which depended upon the construction of a cession of territory by Georgia to the United States in 1802. Compare Coffee v. Groover, 123 U. S. I,- The decisions are not uniform as to whether the interpretation of an interstate compact presents a federal question. Compare People v. Central Railroad, 12 Wall. i+55, with Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U. S. 573, and Wharton v. Wise, I53 U. S. 155. Compare Handly's Lessee v. Anthony, j? Wheat, 37i+; Howard v. Ingersoll, 13 How. 38I; Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. 1&5; Coffee v. Groover, 123 U. S. 1; St. Louis v. Rutz, 138 U. S. 226; Moore v. McGuire, 205 U. S.'21lu Cissna v. Tennessee , 21+6 U* S. 289; Marine Ry. & Coal Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. U7i Smoot Sand & Gravel Corp. 7, Washington Airport, 263 U. S. |