| OCR Text |
Show -127-. losses incurred by the owners of land in Mexico due or alleged to be due to the diversion of the waters of the Rio Grande within the United Statesj nor does the United States in any way concede tho establishment of any general principle or precedent by the concluding of this treaty'*, January 11, 1^093 the United States and Great Britian signed a treaty allocating and apportioning the water of Milk River* It thus appears to be the settled doctrine of the United States , respecting international rivers-, that, the United States may use and enjoy all the waters of streams rising wholly within the United States and flow- ing into other nations, irrespective of prior use by or the necessities of the citizens of such other nations? that by the rules of international law the lower nation may not justify a claim of servitude upon the stream with- in the upper nation upon the ground of prior appropriation (by the lower nation) of either all or a- part of the waters of the stream rising vithin the territory of the upper nation; that any adjustment respecting such in- ternational streams must be determined by considerations different from those which apply between individual citizens of either nation (L E#r prior appropriation, riparian uses, etc<,); that a recognition of an international rule of distribution and administration of waters by px-ior appropriation would amount to a recognition of an international servitude upon the terri- tory of one nation for the benefit of the other and would be entirely incon- sistent with the sovereignty of the upper nation over its national domain; and that the rules, principles and precedents impose no liability or obli- gation upon the upper nation with respect to the use of water of the river by the lower nation but that all such questions should be decided only as matters of policy and are properly settled by treaty, INTERSTATE COIIPACTS RESPECTING RIVERS We have already observed that the States, as separate sovereign- ties., have the reserved power to adjust their interstate differences and to negotiate and conclude engagements respecting boundaries,, fisheries^ inter- state servitudes and easements and other liko matters, through the instr»>> mentality of interstate compacts or agreements formulated and adopted by prior consent or subsequent approval of Congress,* and, further, that as re- gards purely local matters in which the Federal Government is in no manner concerned, the States may enter into binding obligations with each other without consent or approval of Congress; and that, while Congressional con- sent for or approval of every sm'Ai compact would appear to be the better procedure, after all it is for the United States to object and the subse- quent recognition, by the United States, of compacts between States may "be- come an implied approval thereof. We have further observed that under our form of government, full authority exists between the United States, and a State or States, to en-ter into and become parties signatory to binding conventions or compacts re- specting all matters involving exercise of the separate sovereign powers of the Nation and of the States; and that, whether the compacts are betweern State and State or Nation and State or Ste&es, when such conventions havo been properly concluded and sanctioned or ratified they become the law of the land and may be enforced by the Supreme Court, if thereafter disre- garded by either of the high contracting parties© |
