| OCR Text |
Show in the first instance subject to subsequent Congressional ratification * Many occasions might well arise where it would be futile to request con- sent of Congress before formulating definite conclusions upon the subject matter of the interstate difference or before the States, through similar legislation, had determined their willingness to enter into any engagement or compact and; in such instances, it would appear to be the wiser plan to secure sanction of Congress by ratification subsequent to the adoption of t. the final compact between the States, than to secure consent as a prelimin- ary tc conversations and negotiations which might utlimately fail of defi- nite conclusion in the form of a compacts As already observed, compacts between the States have ob- tained both before and since the adoption of the Constitution- Most fre- quently -these compacts have adjusted controversies respecting boundaries while some of them have dealt with fisheries, navigation, easements and other like subjects* Among the many boundary disputes settled by compact between States of the Union, ths following may be mentioned; Virginia and Pennsyl- vania, 1780 (11 Pet«, 1, 20, ); Virginia and Pennsylvania, 1784. (3 Dal 1, 425)| Kentucky vs Tennessee 1820 (11 Pet, 207) Virginia and Tennessee, 1802 and 1856 (148 U. S 503, 511, 516)5 Virginia and Maryland, 1705 (153 U. S 155, l62) Mississippi and Arkansas, (2l4 U. S, 205, 218); New York and New Jersey, 183& (65 L, Edc 5tt\, 5¥>). Of the compacts between States respecting the taking of fish in boundary rivers may be mentioned those between Washington" and Oregon, Columbia River, and Marvland and Virginia, Potomac River (153 u» So 155). Xt is particularly worthy of note that the States of New- York and Hew Jersey are reported to have recently concluded a convention settling the long pending litigation between these States respecting sew- age pollution of the waters of New York Harbor, referred to in the recent case of Mew York vs» New Jersey and in harmony with the suggestion of such a method of settlement by the. Supreme Court in the recent case from which we have quoted (H. Y. vs. Ne Je, 65 L. 3d, 5JJ4, 551)* Without further consideration of precedents full discussion respecting the rights of ths States to enter into compacts, the legal ef- fects thereof and the subject matter of many thereof may be found in the opinions in: Rhode Island vs, Massachusetts., 12 Pet* 657; 725-31; Virginia vs. Tennessee. lLB U. S. 503- 517-528: Wharton vs. Wise, 153 U. S. 155, 162, and references* COMPACTS BETWEEN STATES AND U1JITED STATES C ontroversies arising between one or more States and the United, States may be settled, either by compact or by judicial determina- tion by fhe United States Supreme Court, That which may be a proper sub- ject for iudicial determination may likewise be settled through the more peaceable method of compact. ~120~' |
