OCR Text |
Show -167- THE COMPACTS AND AGREEMENTS OF STATES iriTH ONE ANOTH3R AIID V.TETH FOIZEIGft POWERS Minnesota Law Review Vol. 2 - I917-I9I8 It is proposed in this paper to consider the meaning and scope of Section 10, Article I of the federal constitution, which provides: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation . • • • No state shall^ without the consent of Congress, • • « enter into any agreement or compact with another state or with a foreign power•" May a state without the consent of oongress first had and' obtained make an agreement with another state or country for the construction of the outlet of a sewer or drainage project within the borders of such other state? May it con- tract for the leasing or purchase of ground for the construction of a terminal elevator or exposition building? May it contract for the transportation of its products and exhibits over canals which are owned by neighboring states? May it make a contract for the joint suppression of the spread of a threatened oontagious disease, either among cattle or human beings, or for the joint con- trol of the vagaries of the I. \'u W«s, or for the suppression of the traffic-in intoxicating liquors? What is an agreement or compact? Wherein does a treaty differ from an agreement, and an agreement from a compact? A cursory examination of the section of the constitution cited and of t-he original case of Holmes v» Jennison,l to whioh we shall presently refer, would lead one to think that the hands of the states are absolutely tied and that the states are under congressional tutelage in all matters involving compacts or agreements not only with foreign nations but in the ordinary incidents of inter- state social intercourse. If, however, the later decisions, or rather the later dicta, of the courts are to be relied upon* this is not and perhaps should not be the case* So far as the supreme court of the nation is concerned, we have but little more than dicta to guide us in the determination of these questions, and it is equally strange that at the time of the adoption of the federal constitution there was little, if any, discussion of the particular clauses here involved* These clauses were seemingly lost sight of in the larger question of the pro- priety of the delegation of the treaty making power to the federal government, and whether, if delegated at all, it should be exercised by the President alone, or by the President in conjunction with a majority or other proportion of tHe senate, or by the national oongress as a whole• The treaty proper, indeed, seems to have been the topic under consideration rather than the compacts and agreements between the several states, and the relationship of the states wi-th foreign nations rather than between themselves, with the single exception of interstate commerce* The comprehensiveness of the broad grant of power to the president and the 1(18l+0) 11+ Pet. 5^0 (6H;), 10 L. Ed. 538 (579). |