OCR Text |
Show -176- Although the above is dictum merely, the reasoning which accompanies it and which was applicable to the question under consideration, as well as to the dictum, is full of significance and fully supports the theory that it is only in things political that congress has exclusive and original jurisdiction. The doctrine of noscitur a sociis is relied upon and the argument is made that the words "treaty," "compact," and "agreement" merely take the place of the words "confederation," "agreement," "alliance," and "treaty," which are to be found in Article 6 of the articles of confederation, and of the provision that "no two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation, or alliance whatever "between them," which are contained in the same articles. These two clauses are as follows: "Article VI. Ho state without the consent of the United States in Con- gress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any king, prince or state, nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign state: nor shall the United States in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility,'' "No -two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation or al- liance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Con- gress assembled, specifying accurately the purpose for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue." In the case of McCready v. VirginialO ^^ Supreme Court of the United ¦: States held that each state owns the beds of all tidewaters within its juris- diction and may appropriate them to be used by its citizens as a common for taking and cultivating fish, and a law of Virginia prohibiting non-citizens of the state from planting oysters in the soil covered by her tide-waters is valid; and in Wharton v. Wisell the validity of a compact between Virginia and Maryland was involved, which gave to the citizens of Maryland the privilege of taking oysters within the waters of the former state. The question, there- fore, was whether a state by agreement with another4 state, and without the consent of congress, could give to the citizens of the favored state privi- leges whioh it did not accord to those of other states. The court pointed out that this agreement had been made under the articles of confederation and was not antagonistic to these articles. It held it was "not a treaty, confedera- tion, or alliance," within the meaning of those terms as they are used; it remained as a subsisting, operating contract between them in full force when the confederation went out of existence upon the adoption of the present consti tution of the United States, and it was not affected or set aside by the pro- hibitory clauses of that instrument. It is a prohibition that extends only to future agreements or compacts, not against those already in existence, except so far as their stipulations might affect subjects placed under the control of congress, such as commerce and the navigation of public waters, which is 10(1877) 9k U. S. 391#.2U L. Ed. 21+8 11(189l+) L53 u. S, 155, 11+ S. C. R. 787, 3 L. Ed. 6-jk |