OCR Text |
Show -8- III While a notable study has been made of the employment of State compacts in the past and of their future possibilities,26 the historyof the consti- tutional provisions providing for this resource of state-craft has received scant attention. In fact, however, the Compact Clause has its roots deep in colonial history. It is part and parcel of the long and familiar story of colonial boundary controversies.27 Almost all of the colonial charters, it will be recalled, were necessarily vague and expansive. They had to be applied to strange and ill surveyed territory. We are also familiar with the surrender by the sea-board colonies of extravagant claims to remote stretches of the continent. More important, however, for our purposes were the conflicts ensuing from the claims of colonies to territory along the Atlantic sea-board. 27.a As the populations of bordering colonies began to impinge upon one another the settlement of boundaries became one of their predominant prob- lems. The story of these disputes, their final outcome and the resulting territorial changes, concern the historian; the methods evolved for settle- ment are of prime importance to the lawyer. The records reveal two peaceful modes of settling these disputes. Nego- tiation between the contending colonies was the obvious way out, carried on usually through joint commissions.28 if an agreement was reached, not in- frequently after years of tortuous discussion, the further approval of the Crown was required.29 If negotiations failed or in lieu of such direct I. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation .. 3, ? . . . Nor shall any State . . . enter into any agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign power, . . . But when any river divides or flows through two or more States, they may enter into compacts, with each other to. improve the navigation thereof. 2°Report of the Committee on Inter-State Compacts to the National Con- ference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (1921) 297. 27See Appx. B, I, infra. 27a see e. g» Adams, Founding of New England, I665-I667 (1921) 216, 227* 520, 328; Nevins, The American States (I92J4) 5^7 , 578 et seq. 28see e« g. the Connecticut and New York negotiations of 166U, 1683* 1700, arid 1725, Appx. A* I. (3), (U), (7). 29xhat the determination of boundary disputes was subject to the prero- gative of the King is evident from the Opinion of Lord Mansfield, as. Sir. W. Murray, Attorney-General, in the second controversy between Massachusetts and Connecticutg "I apprehend His Majesty will confirm their agreement, which of itself is not binding upon the Crown . . .V! quoted in South Australia v. Victoria (1911) 12 C* L* R» 6675 70U» Agreements between the Colonies were made subject to the approval of the Crown. The instructions to the Massachusetts Commissioners appointed to treat with the New York commissioners at Albany in 175^4 provide that the "line (is) to be immediately submitted to his Majesty for his Royal Approbation and Confirmation ..." See 15 Mass. Prov. Aots, 157.. The Act of April 11, 1729, appointing the Massachusetts |