| OCR Text |
Show There was hesitation at first, during the framing of the Constitution, as to whether Congress, or the Supreme Courts or both., should be the tribunal to determine such questions.^ When the Supreme Court was final- ly fixed upon > the provision was warmly supported,,0 and the court's original jurisdiction over interstate suits of a civil nature was by statute -" made exclusive. This function of the. court has justly become one of the most admired featured of the American federal system ^^ By this means over seventy suits between states have been decided""1',, But this method of determining interstate disputes, necessary though it is.-^ is not entirely adequate„ It is difficult to secure execution of 'For the history of this provision in the Constitutional Con- vention see Missouri v. Illinois, supra,, at 219-224; William C, Coleman, supra, 31 HARV. L. REV, 210, 211-216. 8See Hamilton in THE FEDERALIST, No p 80, Some such method must be available, since neither war nor diplomatic means is open to the states. See 1789 1 STAT AT L, 80, In Switzerland the Federal Tribunal has jurisdiction over suits between cantons, See DICEY, CONSTITUTION, 7 ed, 522, The High Court of Australia has jurisdiction over suits between states; and perhaps a wider range of disputes is made justiciable. See 1900 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA cOnstitution act, 6.3 & 64 vict., c, 12. secs * 75 (iv), 76? a., i, Clark, STUDIES IN AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1 ed,, 110 j W h. MOORE, COMMON- WEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, 1 ed., 267-269,, Most of these are boundary disputes« Others concern extradition, state obligations, riparian rights in interstate rivers and jurisdictions, over interstate oyster beds> and public healths ¦ The cases are collected in JAMES B. SCOTT, JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT' OF CONTROVESIES BETWEEN STATICS OF THE AMERICAN UNION, and are fully annotated in a separate ANALYSIS. See an instructive review of this work by George C. Lay, "Interstate Controversies," 54. MM. L. REV. 705, The cases are listed in the Contents to Mr« Scott's ANALYSIS. To this list should be added Arkansas v, Mississippi, 250 U. S. 39 (1919); Uw S. Sup, Ct.x Octc Term/lfoo 6 Original; Minnesota v, Wis- consin, 252 U. S, 273 ('l920)j Oklahoma v, Texas,, U, S. Sup. Ct., Oct. Term, 1920, Noc 23,- Original; New York ve New Jersey and Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, Ue S, Sutd. Ctt, Oot- Term, No, 2 Original. .....It is necessary vhere statoo cannot cone to an agreement, where congressional assent to an agreement ie re fuse d> or vhere a state disputes the -terms, of ^n agreement it has made or refused to perform it. See Virginia v. We3t Virginia, 206u. W. 290 (1907). |
