OCR Text |
Show adjustment by interstate oompaot before directing the issuance of process against a State or States upon the complaint of another State„ But however interesting discussion of the subject may be and re- gardless o-f divergent opinions' of the law or of what it should be« we are confronted with the present fact that seven of the Western States have al- ready exercised their sovereign powers of diplomatic adjustment of pending or threatened controversies respecting the use and disposition of the ?;atere of two interstate rivers>7 to the extent of enactment of the neces- sary legislation and the appointment of compact commissioners.. The far- sighted Governor cf another State has exercised the inherent power of his office by appointment of a commissioner for his State3 without legislative sanction or mandate, to act upon a joint commission to conclude an inter- state compact respecting the equitable disposition of tho waters of a third river, long involved in past and pending litigation,, and the Governors of two other States have signified their favorable consideration of similar proceedings respecting two other riverc now involved in interstate litigation The seven Colorado River States have not only appointed their commissioners, pursuant to legislation enacted by each state5 but tho Governors have wsited upon the President of the United States and made re- quest of the President and of Congress for appropriate legislation author- izing the sppointment., by the President9 of a representative of the United States -to sit with the representatives of the States to formulate a com- pact be-bween the States and between the States and the United States re- specting the future use and disposition of the waters of thiss the third of the large rivera of America, in advance of further large construction of works upon that stream &nd in advance of possible future collision re- specting jurisdiction over the waters thereof«, Colorado has not only joined with other States for settlement, in advance of further construction/ of their respective limitations to future exercise of jurisdiction over and disposition of the waters of the Colorado River, but has likewise joined with New Mexico and Kansas j.n separate joint commissions for consideration of the La Plata and Arkansas Rivers, respectively, and has made offer, by appropriate legislation and through overtures "by the Governor, to adjust by compact the pending liti- gation with Nebraska respecting the South Platte and with Wyoming respect- ing the Laramie RiverQ This deliberate concerted action by eight Western States (and in whicKt two others will probably join) is probably without a parallel in American history,> It has been awakened, in part, through abuses of Federal power in the grasp of control of the waters of certain Western streams by denial of rights of way for further private development,, and by the openly declared ambition for ultimate Federal control of the de- tailed administration of all western streams,-as revealed by the doctrine urged by the United States in Kansas vs. Colorado (206 U» S. I46, 87, 97) and lator in the more recent case of Wyoming vs, Colorado wherein the United States again urged the same doctrine notwithstanding definite and positive denial thereof by the decision in the former ease* These asser- tions artd manifestations of bureaucratic ambitions for ultimate Federal |