OCR Text |
Show -179- than a governmental power. It is true that in the case of Virginia v. Tenn- essee the -Supreme Court of the United States drew a careful distinction between an agreement for the survey of a boundary line and an agreement which would make that line controlling * Permanently locating a boundary line, however * would place the persons on either side of it either within or without the juris- diction of the particular state and would increase or decrease its sovereignty and often that of the rational government itself «^7 boards of certain counties in North Dakota and a municipality in the province of Manitoba for the improvement of Mouse River., which flows from North Dakota into Canada, in order to facilitate the drainage of certain lands by securing an outlet for surface waters. The contract was made under the authority of the state of North Dakota and contemplated the expenditure of money and the performance of work in the territory of a foreign country * It was attacked as being an "agreement 11 or "compact" with a foreign power, prohibited by the constitution. Held, (Bruce, C. J.) an agreement not in any way calculated to encroach upon or weaken the authority of congress, not political in its charac- ter, and therefore not within the constitutional prohibition.~-Ed« 17 On April 1, 1918* congress gave its consent to a compact and agreement between the states of Oregon and Washington regarding concurrent jurisdiction over the waters of the Columbia River and it's tributaries, in connection with reg-ulatiig* protecting, and preserving the fisheries in the river* Congf Record, 1918* P« Following is a list of agreements between states to which the consent of congress has been givent ACTS OF CONGRESS GIVING CQNSEFT TO AGREEMENTS B3TWEEN STATES. Resolution of May 12, 1820 (3 Stat., 609). Kentucky and Tennessee, Fet>-- ruary 2, 1820. Boundary line.' Act of June 28, I83I+ (i+ Stat., 708). New York and New Jersey, September 16, 1833* Boundary line, execution of process, etc* Act of January 3, 1855 (1° Stat. 602). Massachusetts and New York, Maj- lis and July 21, 1853* Cession'of district of Boston Corner by Massachusetts to New York. Act of February 9, 1859 (11 Stat., 382). Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Attorney General directed to assent to agreement between States in adjustmejit of boundary dispute before Supreme Court. Joint resolution of February 21, 1861 (12 Stat*, 250). Arkansas, Louis- iana, and Texas. Joint action for removal of raft from Red River (past or prospective agreements)o Joint resolution of March 10, 1866 (14 Stat. 350). Virginia and West Virginia. Cession of Berkeley and Jefferson Counties to West Virginia* Act of March 3, I879 (20 Stat., I4.8I). Virginia and Maryland, January 16, 1877* Boundary line. Act of April 7, 1880 (21 Stat,, 72), New York and Vermont, November 2 7, I876, and March 20, I879. Boundary line. Act of February 26, 1881 (21 Stat., 351). New York and Connecticut, December 8, I879. Boundary line. Act of October 12, 1888 (25 Stat., 553). Connecticut and Rhode Island., May 25, I887. Boundary line. |