OCR Text |
Show -103- •18 ments e So also where the injury to a state is one of which the law usually takes no cognizance, the Supreme Court will give no relief « 9 In view of these defects, agreements between states upon points likely to cause friction are desirable. But there are constitutional difficulties to be overcome„ The Constitution forbids absolutely all "treaties, alliances or confederations," and any "agreement or compact with another State," without the consent of Congress ® These provisions seemed so naturally desirable ^ to the framers that they called forth little comment, either in the Convention debates or in the Federalist 22 ?^ essays c Parallel provisions in the Swiss Constitution ^ distinguish between political agreements, which are prohibited absolutely, and non- political agreements, which with federal consent, are permitted « ^ The 18In Kentucky v Dennison, 24 How, (U. S.) 66 (1860), the court refused to order a state governor to perform his constitutional duty to return a fugitive. See Holmes v» Jennison, 14 Pet. (U, S.) 540, 614. (1840); Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins, Co., 127 U. S, 265, 288, 289 (1888); South Carolina v, Georgia, 93 U. S. 4 (.1876); PATTERSON, UNITED STATES AND THE STATES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, 2 ed,, Sec. 96. Compare the broad conception of Hamilton as to the probable scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. TEE FEDERALIST, No« 80, And compare the powers given to the High Court of Australia, note 10, supra. •^See Lousiana v Texas, 176 U. S. 1 (1900); Kansas v. Colorado 206 u. s. 46 (1907). 20 Art 1, Sec. 10, cl« 1 and 3. 21 See Marshall, C. J., in Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. (U, S.) 243> 248 (1833)5 1 BRYCE, A1ILRICAN C0M,01;TSALTH, 2 ed,, 375. The "confederation" clause was of course one decisive reason against the legality of the South- ern Confederacy. See Patterson, op. cit., Sec. 8j}» See Kadison in The Federalist, No. LU» 25Arto 7. ' ' ' ' " TThe Swiss cantons had been truly sovereign states, and had even been in the habit of negotiating independently with foreign countries. But after the Sonderland of 18[|7, "the cantons were willing to resign their rights to prevent the recurrence of such a menacing confederation. See W.A.B. Coolidge, "Switzerland; History," ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA,¦11 ed.; Dicey, op, cit,, 527* In America, although the states <*rere jealous of each other and:of the federal power, and although no such impelling historical example was before them, yet they had never been truly sovereign as colonies, and it is not surprising that they made little objection to this limitation on their powers. Indeed, it would have been surprising if they had permitted states by coupacts to enlarge their powers at the expense of the rest of the states'. See 1 Story, op. cit., Sec, 2hhi COOLEY," CC:,STITU- TIOHAL LIHITATIO7S, 7 ed,, 8. |