| OCR Text |
Show -23- been working out in interstate litigation. Social traditions, political loyalties, extensive economic interests begin to manifest themselves, which are wholly absent in a case of Doe v. Roe, We strike here serious limits to effective judicial action.88 It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Massachusetts and Rhode Island, after experiencing one long drawn-out irritating litigation over their boundary, disposed another phase of that conflict by compact.89 Still more significant, the Supreme Courtj conscious of its practical limitations, in tv/o boundary cases counselled States to seek settlement through compact rather than by judicial decree.90 Boundary disputes being so obstinate to litigious treatment, we natur- ally find that more complicated interstate controversies are still less amenable to court control. The attempt to make an equitable apportionment of water among States within a given region has been sought through litiga- tion as though it involved the riparian rights of neighboring individuals.91 The most informed professional opinion registers the failure of this attempt 92 and the present movement towards solution by interstate treaties is a decisive recognition that the instrument of state-craft in this field is not court but compact.95 While assuming jurisdiction over these complicated and pervasive interstate difficulties the Supreme Court has recognized its own inadequacy to give relief. Continuous and creative administration is needed; not liti- gation, necessarily a sporadic process, securing at best merely episodic and mutilated settlements, which leave the central problems for adjustment un- solved. Thus, the futility of asking the Supreme Court to devise a scheme for sewage disposal for the cities bordering on the waters of New York Bay, simply because cast in the form of suit between New York and New Jersey, has been exposed by the Court* "We cannot withhold the suggestion, inspired by the consideration of this case, that the grave problem of sewage disposal presented by the large and growing population living on the shores of New York Bay is one more like- ft/ ly to be wisely solved by cooperative study and by conference and mutual concession on the part of representatives of the States which are vitally interested than by proceedings in any court however constituted. "9*+ / 88CF. Pound, The Limits of Effective Legal Action (1916) Pf-Bar AssT:n- Sep. 221* 89See Appx* A, III, (7); Appx. B, I, (2) infra. See also note 2+1, supra. 9°See Supra note 1+2. 9*See e. g* Kansas v. Colorado (1907) 206 U. Se. h6, 27 Sup. Ct. 655j Wyoming v. Colorado (1922) 259 U. S. 1+19$ h96, 1*2 Sup. Ct. 552, 39h; (1922) 260 U. S* 1, k3 Sup. Ct. 2. 92Bannister, interstate Rrghts in Interstate Streams in the Arid Wes"b (1923) 36 Harv. L. Rev. 960, 968-977j Rogers, Some Problems of Interstate Water War (1923) Colo. Bar Ass»n. Rep« 107, 11^-116. 93see supra notes 71-7^» See also 1 Wiel, Water Rights (3d ed. 1911 ) 372j Carpenter, Application of Reserve Treaty Powers of the States to Inter- state Water Controversies (1921) Colo. Bar Ass'n. Rep. k5» 82-88. 9%ew York v. New jersey (1921) 256 IT. S* 296, 31-3, il Sup* C.t. J+92, 498* . . |
