OCR Text |
Show -173- apply as clearly to compacts and agreements between states as between a state and a foreign nation, and to embrace literally "every agreement s written or verbal, formal or informal, positive or implied,-by the mutual understanding of the parties *" But without ever referring to that opinion, the supreme court of New Hampshire in 1845 , in the case of Dover v. Portsmouth Bridge,? held that there was no violation of -the federal constitution in the erection, pursuant to concurrent legislation 'by the states of New Hampshire and Maine, of a bridge over a navigable river,-such joint action not being the result of a contract requiring the consent of congress* The court intimates that the prohibition embraces only some "league or allianoe, or contract of a-political nature," and was "probably not intended to require the consent- of congress to enable states to agree'to run the boundary line between them, or to mark and establish its particular locality, etc«" Says Parker, C. J.x "As independent states, New Hampshire and Massachusetts might have made a compact for the building- of a bridge over this river. 12 Peters* Rep# 91* 9&* City of Georgetown v. The Alexandria Canal Co. And they might have authorized the erection of such kind of bridge as they deemed expedient, and have pre- scribed the place, terms, and conditions. All the territory above the navi- gable waters above or upon any thoroughfare leading to them belonged to the one or the other of these states, and the inhabitants might have had more than an equivalent for the inconvenience of a bridge in the facilities for inter- course and trade which it furnished. This must have been a matter for the consideration of the respective legislatures having jurisdiction over the soil and waters* Yvhether the inhabitants above received a benefit or not, they would not have been entitled to compensation for a consequential injury. 8 Cowen II4.6, I67. ' "Prior to the Revolution, the power of the colonies of New Hampshire aaod Massachusetts over the soil and waters where this bridge is situated were s-ub- ject to the jurisdiction and control of the mother country. On the declaration of independence, this control being removed, they might have agreed in relation to the manner of the use of• the waters, or in regard to the closing of the navi- gation, or respecting obstructions to it; or they might, by their separate legislation, have acted upon the subject matter, without any responsibility for their acts except to each other, and except, perhaps, that the union of the colonies for their common defence required them to admit the vessels of the other colonies when resorting thither for intercourse or shelter from the ccffimcn enemy. "By the articles of confederation, in 1778, each state retained its so-vere- ignty, freedom and independence, and-every power, jurisdiction and right which was not by that confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Con- gress assembled. The provision that the people of each state should have free ingress and egress to and from any other state, and should enjoy there all i:he privileges of trade and commerce, subject to thesame duties, impositions and :i restrictions, as the inhabitants thereof respectively, etc., would not'have (" r (1845) 17 N. H . 200. ' ' * ....... '¦'.".;¦¦ '".",'/.• 7: |