| OCR Text |
Show -14- States has been asserting its guardianship over interstate and foreign com- merce. What in fact was one, in law was many. Plainly the situation could not be adequately dealt with except through the coordinated efforts of New York, New Jersey, and the United States. The facts presented a problem for . the unified action of the law-making of these three governments, and law heeded facts. In 1917 New York and New Jersey established commissions "to negotiate or agree upon a joint report recommending a policy to be pursued by the State of New York, the State of New Jersey, and the United States by legis- lative enactment or treaty or otherwise" for the Port of New York.49 After comprehensive study and tentative proposals submitted for public discussion, the Joint Commission in 1920 submitted reports to the Governors of New York and New Jersey.50 The recommendations of this report led to further legis- lation, in 1921, for the appointment of commissioners by the two States to negotiate a compact between them 51 A compact was agreed upon, ratified by the States, and consented to by Congress.52 In brief, the agreement es- tablished an interstate administrative agency known as the Port of New York Authority, which is empowered to own or operate transportation facilities in conjunction with municipalities and private owners, to procure coopera- tion among existing agencies, and, most important, to formulate a compre- hensive plan for the development of the port, the administration of which, approved by the Legislatures of the two States,53 is entrusted to the Port Authority. (3) Controversies over boundaries furnish loopholes for defendants in criminal cases where the locus of the crime is committed in disputed territory. Similar jurisdictional claims arise in prosecutions for crimes committed on boundary waters. To avoid the difficulties of proof compacts r have been resorted to, giving penal authority to adjoining states. 54 The most striking illustration of this mode of accommodating interstate prob- lems is the consent given by Congress for the formulation of some agree- ment by Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan for the trial of crimes committed on Lake Michigan.55 (4.) Diversity of legislation among the several states as to some matters is inevitable and desirable. We have all too few social experiments carried on "in the insulated chambers afforded by the several. States.fl5& tetJ. Y. Laws, 1917, ch* J+26, p. 1325; N.J. Laws, 1917, ch. 130, p. 288. 50joint Report, supra note I48. 51N.Y. Laws, 1921, oh. 15k* p. i+925 N.J. Laws, 1921fl ch. 151, p. i*12. 52Act of Aug. 23, 1921 (U2 Stat. at L. I7J4); N. J. Laws* 1921, ch. 151, p. 1*12 j N. Y. Laws, 1921, ch. 203, p. 81*1. 5JN. Y» Laws, 1922, ch. L&* p» 61; N. J. Laws, 1922, ch. 9, p. 25. See also Act of July 1, 1922 (1+2 Stat. at L. 822). 5-Usee Appx. A, III (h)» (l9)-(23), (25)* (32) infra. 55See Appx. A, IV, (25) infra. 5^>Holmes, J.., dissenting, in Truax v. Corrigan (1921) 257 U. S* 312, 3hh$ k-2 Sup, Gt. 12I+, I3I4.5 Taft, Popular Government (1913) 155« |
