| OCR Text |
Show -71- (7) Vermont and Canada Extradition Agreement of 1839 ? The governor of Vermont authorized the seizure and extradition of one Holmes, who had committed a crime in Canada and fled to Vermont. His writ of habeas corpus was denied by the lower Court, and the Supreme Court of the United States being divided upon the appeal, the decision was affirmed. Holmes v. Jennison (1840, U, S«) 14 Fet. 540. Taney Co J», assumes that there was a tacit agreement between the Governor of Vermont and the Canadian author- ities to deliver Holnes into the custody of the latter,*5° and asserts that such an agreement, without the assent of Congress, is a violation of the Com- pact Clause of the Constitution. ?' (8) Massachusetts and Connecticut Agreement of 1871 By the Act of April 5, 1872, °° the Massachusetts legislature in con- junction with the Connecticut legislature* who had already enacted the neces- sary legislation on July 26, 1871* accomplished the merger of a Connect- icut and Massachusetts railway corporation in order to subject this corpora- tion to the laws of each State as to the portion of the road within its boun- daries* In Mackay v. New York, N. H. & H, R R. Co., (1909) 82 Conn. 73, 72 Atl 583# it was held that this was not a compact* within the meaning of the Constitution, requiring the assent of Congress 2°2 (9) Louisiana and Arkansas Levee Agreement of 1896* In 1886 Louisiana provided that certain State taxes should be placed to the credit of certain levee districts "to be used. . . in constructing, re- pairing, and maintaining any and all levees in the State of Arkansas (said State consenting) that will protect said district from overflow. 263 There is no evidence that Arkansas consented by any other action than mere acquies- cence. In Fisher v. Steele (1887) 39 La. Ann. 447, I So. 882 (1887), this Act and action under it were held not to be in violation of the Compact Clause of the Federal Constitution. (10) Now Hampshire and Massachusetts Boundary Agreement of 1889 and 189U* An agreement, reached between the commissioners of these two States on August 16, 1888* defining their respective boundaries, was assented to by 2./8[t is submitted that such an assumption is unwarranted in the face of the express assertion that there was no request by Canada for extradi- tion. See Holmes v. Jennison (181+0, U. s«) lk Pet. 5ij.O, 595. 259Taney*s dictum has been cited with approval in United States v. Rauscher* (1886) 119 U, S* i+07, hlh$ 7 Sup, Ct. 23U, 237, and People v. Curtis (1872) 50 N« Y. 321, 325. 26CMass. Acts, 1872, oh. 171* p* 12i|. 26X7 Conn. Spec. Lews* 252. 262sc- also Dover v. Portsmouth Bridge (I8ij.5) 17 N* H. 200, which hel4 that the incorporation of a bridge company by two States, to construct a "bridge across the boundary river between them, was no violation of the compact clause. 263La. Acts, 1886* No. 79, p. 120. |
