OCR Text |
Show -97- seem illogical and hopelessly impractical* The Supreme Court possibly could and would enjoin such private litigation in a subordinate court as invading its own assumed jurisdiction of the res. Opportunities for litigation of the same type exist on the Laramie River since the case of 'Wyoming vs. Colorado ands with somewhat altered phases will occur on other streams if the present crop of compacts ma- ture. More will be heard of this subject. Our discussion assumes that individual claimants in states which have litigated or traded their rights on streams are bound by such action. The late Senator McCreery vigorously assailed such conclusion before this As- sociation last year. His position is technically arguable-, but it seems to the writer that it cannot prevail against the obviously practical con- siderations. The jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is in- effective if its decrees between States are not to bind the persons claim- ing under each. (d) The fourth type of priva.te interstate litigation is represented by several reported cases in which tho plaintiffa while applying water from the stream to lands in a lower state, had to invoke the laws of the upper state, either to exercise the right to divert it within the upper state, or for some other incidental privilege^ like that of eminent domain. The cases are conflicting. We will not be tempted into this bypath for the presents except to note the historical occurrence of these controver- sies. On the whole, the settlement of interstate controversies over water rights in suits where the states concerned, are not before the court is a troubled subject where much easy deciding must be unsaid and undone in "the years to come. The awarding of injunctions in private cases over inter- state rights almost necessarily adjudic-tes or contradicts and confuses state 'rights if the doctrines of either Kansas vs. Colorado* Wyoming vs« Colorado or the pending compacts are to be the basis of adjustments be- - tween states» III. SETTLEMENT BY COKPACT BETWEEN STATES. The third and last avenue for the adjustment of conflicting claims to water between states, is the ancient custom of treaty* Freedom to ad- just their difficulties by this means is limited among American States, however, by the Constitutions "No state," it declares,"shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation" (Art. I, sec. 10). This language* in view of the latter context, seems to have, foreign engagements in mind, but it has been interpreted as including domestic alliances, such as th.e Confederacy. Later in the same section after a great variety of other prohibitions, it is stated that "Ho State shall- without the consent of Congressj * * * enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power" or engage in war, and so forth. History has written some interesting footnotes to this old text. The provisions have been forgotten sometimes, and years afterwards the |