OCR Text |
Show United States representing all of the states. =* It is a covenant for the benefit of the other six Colorado River basin states which are named in the Limitation Act. An interstate agreement or compact has often been characterized by the Court as a contract-/ and as a treaty.-2/ Thus the words to be construed are, at the same time, a part of a federal statute, a state statute, and a statutory compact, contract, and a treaty between the United States and California.-!/ Howsoever denominated, it impels certain i/ Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U.S. 223, 248 (1900). 2/ Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341, 356-57 (1934); Virginia v. West Virginia, 220 U.S. 1, 34 (1911); Kentucky Union Co. v. Kentucky, 219 U.S. 140, 161 (1911); Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 1, 92 (1823); see concurring opinion of Jackson, J., West Virginia ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U.S. 22, 36 (1951); Zimmermann and Wendell, The Interstate Compact Since 1925* at 32 (1951). ^ Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92, 104, 105-06 (1938); Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341, 359-60 (1934); Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 527 1893 ; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 591* 635 ,1846 ; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657, 725 '1838 ; see Zimmermann and Wendell, op. cit. supra note 2, at 31-32. -i/ Statutes, contracts, and treaties are similar and cannot be isolated in mutually exclusive compartments. A treaty is in many respects a contract between sovereign nations. Zimmermann and Wendell, op. cit. supra at 32. The Supreme Court has compared treaties to contracts and to statutes. See Santovincenzo v. Egan, 284 U.S. 30, 40 (1931); Sullivan v. Kidd, 254 U.S. 433, 439 (1921); Leavenworth, L. and G. R.R. v. United States, 92 U.S. 733, 751 (1876); Poster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 314-15 (1829); The Bello Corrunes, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 152, 171-72 (1821); The Amiable Isabella, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 1, 71 (1821); Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199, 244 (1796). The Court has also described a treaty as a compact, Prelinghuysen v. United States, 110 U.S. 63, 71 (1884), and has interpreted a treaty "upon general principles applicable to the construction of written instruments." Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U.S. 424, 436 (1902), where the Court applied to a treaty the canon of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. III-3 |