OCR Text |
Show -11+3- until they had passed upon the report of the commissioners, ratified their aotion, and mutually declared the boundary established by them to be the true and real boundary between the, states. Such ratifi- cation was mutually made by each state in consideration of the ratifi- cation of the other* Negotiation of Compacts There are two methods of negotiating interstate compacts. One is by reciprocal legislation and the other by the contract system. Each method has advantages and their comparative merit depends on circumstances. In the contract, method an agreement is reached by commissioners ap- pointed by the states in interest. This agreement is ratified by the state legislatures and is then submitted to Congress for final'approval. Congression- al approval may precede the actual agreement where it falls within such subjects as come within the purview of a blanket consent act. The commissioners appointed by a state are not empowered to bind the state. Resultant legislation is the only method of binding a state. The reciprocal legislation method consists in the enactment of a, statute, which is in effect an offer, by one state, followed by acceptance . evidenced by enactment, of the same law by one or more other states. The' law usually provides for exchange of formal ratification by the enacting states. In order to constitute a legal compact, however, there must, of course, be con- sent by Congress. . . Consent of Congress \ As was remarked by the Court in Virginia v. Tennessee, lLj.8 U#S» ^>02, 520, "The Constitution does not state when the consent of Congress shall be given, whether it shall precede or may follow the compact made, or whether it shall be expressed or may be implied*11 The Court said: In many cases the consent will usually precede the compact or agreement, as where it is to lay'a duty-of tonnage, to keep troops or ships of war in tine of peace, or to engage in war. But where )/ the agreement relates to a matter which could not well be considered until its nature is fully developed, it is not perceived why the consent may not be subsequently given. Story says that the consen~fc may be implied, and is always to be implied when Congress adopts the particular act by sanctioning its*objects,and aiding in enforc- ing them; and observes* that where a state is admitted into the Union, notoriously upon a compact made between it and the state of which it previously composed a part, there the Act of Congress, admittiixg such state into the Union is an implied consent to the terms of tlxo . .contract. _ •••¦•. ' ¦ ¦ ' ¦ ¦ This, case has "not been overruled** In a later case, Wharton v» Yfise, |