OCR Text |
Show -13- more fruitful method of settlement.42 (2) Community interest in navigation upon common waters of adjoining States gave rise to difficulties prior to the Constitution,43 are pressing today,44 and are bound to Manifest themselves in the future. We find ne- gotiated agreement between the affected States the key to such difficulties in pre-Constitution days.45 State Compacts give the most successful answer to similar problems of today. The history of the New York Port Authority furnishes a most hopeful story of effective treatment of interstate rela- tions.46 New York and New Jersey have a special interest in the Port of New York. But the greatest harbor in the United States is of vital com- mercial importance to the whole country. About half of the foreign com- merce of the country passes through this port. The flow of commerce into New York from the West and the vast flow of importations from abroad entail an infinite complexity of transactions, facilities and processes in order to achieve an economic., efficient and continuous movement of commerce. This implies an alert regulation of traffic on the water, a steady attention to the engineering needs of the harbor, an adequate supply of terminal facili- ties, both on the New York and. on the New Jersey side* the wise utilization of such facilities, quick means for loading and unloading, and speedy dis- tribution. 4-7 Plainly these are the factors that make or mar a harbor* From the point of view of geography, commerce, and engineering* the Port of New York is an organic whole. Politically* the port is split be- tween the law-making of two States, independent but futile in their res- pective spheres. The scarcity of land and mounting commerce have concen- trated on the New York side of the Hudson River the bulk of the terminal facilities for foreign commerce, while it' has made the Jersey side? to &. substantial extent, the terminal and breaking-up yards for the east and west-bound traffic. In addition, both sides of the Hudson are dotted with municipalities, who have sought to satisfy their interest in the generaX problem through a confusion of local regulations.48 in addition; the United to set aside the two prior decrees of the Court and asked the Court to en- ter as a final decree the boundary line agreed upon between the parties *> which request the Court so ordered. . See also Nebraska v« Iowa (1891) lU3 u» S. 359* 12 Sup. Ct. 396; Nebraska v. Iowa (1892) I45 U. S. 5*9* 12 Sup* Ct. 976. 4-2"it seems appropriate to repeat the suggestion* made in Washington v. Oregon, supra, 217* 218, that the parties endeavor with the consent of Congress to adjust their boundaries." Minnesota v« Wisconsin (1920) 252 U» S«- 273, 283,'UO Sup. Ct. 313, 319o See si&so State v. Faudre (1903) ^4 W. Va» 122, 136, U6 So E. 269* 275- 4-3See e«go the agreement between Virginia and Maryland concerning "the Potomac River, Appx. A, II (3) infra. 44New York port Authority Agreement* Appx« A* III (35) infra. 4f?See South Carolina and Georgia Agreement* Appx» A* II (U) infra. See also note 1+3• 4-6see Reports listed in Appx. A, III (35)-(d) infra. 47See the comprehensive plan contained in N. Y. Laws, 1922, ch* U3 *P*6l» 48joint Report of New York, New Jersey Port & Harbor Com. (1920) p • 6« |