OCR Text |
Show -129- with any expenditure of Government funds in construction of works by which the collision between the States will be hastened• For the United States is a Union of States whose integrity and comity it is the first duty of the nation to preserve and the Nation is not only in duty bound to ex- pend the funds which belong in common to all the States with the prudence of a.trustee but as well to so conduct its affairs as not to encourage one State to trespass upon the rights of another or to lay claim to inter- state servitudes upon tho streams and territory of others without their consent. Ever more it is the duty of the Nation to avoid placing itself in the position of becoming arrayed with one State against another State or States, for not only are the States equal in all respects but,, the more, are each entitled to equal protection at the hands of the Government of their Union as "the Constitution., in all its provisions, looks to an in- destructible Union., composed of indestructible States" and conflict between States made possible or encouraged by the United States is violative of first principle of self preservation of the Union* The ssme fundamental reasons for invok.ii.ig ths treaty powers of the Nations respecting the use and disposition of wafers of international rivers likewise apply to the solution of problems of disposition of the waters of interstate streams., Not only does the v ery nature of the stream and the ordinarily gradual character of the alleged encroachments there- upon, lead to sober and deliberative consideration (unless provoked by some sudden and monopolistic appropriation) but the better knowledge of actual conditions and future problems, by the citizens and those in charge of the governments of the States; naturally calls for some other method of adjustment than that furnished by a Court whose judges are wholly unfamiliar with facts that are matters rf common knowledge within the States whose present and future development and general welfare is involved* As most aptly said by Mr, Justice Clarke on May 2, 1921, in the case between the States of Ntiw York vs0 New Jersey, after specifically de- termining that the case presented a justifiable question of river control: "We cannot withhold the suggestion, inspired by the considera- tion of this case * * * *that the grave problem * * * *is one more likely to be wisely solved by cooperative study and by conference and mutual concession on the part of representatives of the states so vitally interested in it than by proceedings in any court how- ever constituted", New York vs. New Jersey, o5 L, Ed# 5UU> 551 • "Any Court however constituted", including the Supreme Court of this land, whose language we have just quoted, must necessarily have meagre oppor- tunity of that study and ascertainment of the facts essential to a correct ultimate decision, compared with consideration of the same complicated conditions by those familiar with the facts and therefore better able to interpret present conditions and to reasonably forecast the future neces- sities of growing commonwealths« The prolonged character of proceedings rendered necessary in order to bring before the Court even the smaller part of the facts and conditions bearing upon and necessary for the proper consideration of interstate water controversies does not facilitate rapid disposition of such suits. Judges, unfamiliar with natural conditions and the future |