OCR Text |
Show -130- necessities of our Western areas and familiar only with natural conditions which are the reverse of ours, are unable to obtain from mere printed pages and maps, that 'clear understanding essential to a proper judicial considera- tion of controversies involving not only the present status of the litigant States, but as well the necessities of the future development, prosperity and. general welfare of the immense areas included within the territory of each State, The very confusion which necessarily results calls for prudent delay and provokes inquiry respecting peaceable methods of consid- eration of the same subject matter prior to resort to extreme measures in the form of a suit e And. whenever the jurisdiction or interests of the Government is in any manner involved, the United States should not only participate in the negotiation but should be represented by one thoroughly advised in the principles of international and interstate law and whose motives are above and far removed from the desires or ambition of those having immediate charge of various bureaus Such a representative should not only lend great assistance to the representatives of the States but could be of permanent benefit to the United States by preservation of the integrity of and comity between the States 3 After an exhaustive consideration of the various prior attempts by the Court to justify claims of foreign servitudes, by citizens of one State upon streams rising within and forming part of the territory of another State, and the subsequent announcement of a permanent rule of in- terstate law respecting interstate streams by the Supreme Court in Kansas vs0 Colorado (206 U* S, L6), Mr* Weil, in his work on Water Rights (3d Eda Ya 1, p. 372) ten years since, concluded: "Between statesP each is entitled to have for its prosperity an equitable apportionment of benefits from an interstate stream* Consequently, control of interstate streams is likely to gravitate toward the formation of joint commissions between the States to supervise their use and make regulations." The rapid trend of thought toward resort to diplomacy in lieu of intersta-te litigation, is not only exemplified by the action of New York and ITew Jersey in their recent convention respecting Hew York harbor, but as well \>y the prior concurrent legislation b3r seven of our Western States providing for compact commissioners for the States (with a commissioner for the United States) to determine the future use and disposition of the waters of the Colorado river, and also for determination of right of the States respecting four other streams concerning which litigation is no?; threatened or pending* Time forbids ai extended discussion of the factors and rules of law which necessarily enter into any adjustment between States repec- ting the allocation of the waters of interstate streams*. "The rule of decision is not to be collected frcm the decisions of either State, but is one, if we may so speak, of an international character" • (Harlett- ve« Silk, II Pete, 1, 23; see also-Kansas v? Colorado, 165 U. S. 125, li»6j 206 U. S. I|6, 97; Missouri vs0 Illinois, 200 U, So i#6s 520a) |