OCR Text |
Show -70- report, agreeing upon the location of the boundary line* was ratified by both States in 1821.%5l In North Carolina v. Tennessee (19l4) 235 u« S« 1* 35 Sup* Ct. 8, the Court made a determination of what the judgment of the commissioners* as to the exact location of the line agreed upon by them, was with reference to the agreement of 1821. It was held that the question of whether this agree- ment required for its validity the consent of Congress was foreclosed by the decision in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) 148 U. St 503* 13 Sup* Ct. 728. The agreement was also construed in the cases of Belding v. Hebard (l900 C» C. A. 6th) 103 Fed. 532* and Stevenson v. Fain (l902 C!» C» A. 6th) 116 Fed. l47« (5) South Carolina and Georgia Navigation Agreement of 1825 8 In 1820, at the instance of South Carolina, commissioners were appointed by Georgia and South Carolina to negotiate a convention concerning the im- provement of navigation on the Savannah and Tugaloo Rivers. This convention, as negotiated, was to be effective only upon ratification by the legislatures of both these States and the consent of Congress. It was ratified by Georgia on December 20, 1823, 252 and by South Carolina on December 20, 1825 2^3 How- ever, Congress never assented to the compact and it failed to come into ef- fects On November 29- 1828, the Georgia legislature passed a resolution de- claring "that under present circumstances it is impolitic on the part of Georgia, to attempt to procure a full and entire ratification of the Conven- tion with South Carolina, 254 (6) Georgia and Tennessee Agreement of 1837 By the Act of January ,24 1838 ^55 Tennessee granted a railroad company the privilege of a right of way through the State, on condition that upon the extension of its line through Georgia the latter State would give it the same privileges. By the Act of December 23, 1847 ?5o Georgia granted the railroad the same privileges In Union Bridge R« R» Co. v» E• T & Ga. R. R Co. (1853) l4 Ga* 327* the Court held that this was not such a compact as required the assent of Congress in order to make it valid*^57 2?1 2 N. C* Rev. Sts. 1837, 963 Term. Code, I857-58* tit. 2^ ch. 1, art. 1, sec. 61* p* 80. ^5| Ga. La^^ 1823, 102. ^p I Cooper, S. C. Sts. i+22. 25^Ga. Laws, 1828, 239. Jg^Tenn. Laws, 1837-1838, ch. 221, p. 319. 25° Ga* Laws* 1Qh7, 171* 25' in St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. James (I896) 161 U. S« 5^5, 562, 16 Sup. Ct* 621, 627, the Court said* "It is caipetent for a railroad corporation organized under the laws of one State, when authorized so to do by the c onsent of the State which created it, to accept authority from another State to extend its railroad into such State and to receive a grant of power s to own and control, by lease or purchase, railroads therein, and to subject itself to such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the second Sxate. Such legislation on the part of two or more States is not, in the a"bsence of inhibitory legislation by Congress regarded as within the Constitu-tional prohibition of agreements or compacts between States." |