OCR Text |
Show BRIEF OF LAW OF INTERSTATE COMPACTS* POWERS OF STATES TO ENTER INTO COMPACTS Compacts or agreements between the States are recognized by Article I, section 10, paragraph 3 * of the Constitution of the United States, which pro- vides No State shall, without consent of Congress, * * * enter into any agree- ment or compact with another State. * * * ff Interstate controversies and differences respecting boundaries, fisheries, etc, have been frequently settled by interstate compact Among the many boundary disputes so settled may be mentioned the following Virginia and Pennsylvania, 1780 (11 Pet,, 20); Virginia and Pennsylvania, l784 (3 Dall «, 1425); Kentucky and Tennessee, 1820 (11 Pet., 207); Virginia and Ten- nessee, 1802 and I856 (1^8 U. S., 503, 511, 516); Virginia and Maryland, 1785 (153 u. s., .155, 162). Of the compacts between States respecting the taking of fish in rivers forming the.boundary between the two disputant States may be mentioned*. Wash- ington and Oregon, Columbia River; Maryland and Virginia, Potomac River* (153 u.s. 155.) It is currently reported that recently the States of New York and New Jersey settled their harbor differences by interstate compact. While all compacts which would in any way involve the Federal Governmen"t or its jurisdiction, property, etc., must be made with consent or approval of Congress in order to be binding, it has been suggested by the Supreme Court that compacts made between two States respecting matters in which the States alone are interested might be taken as binding without consent or approval by Congress. (Stearns v. Minnesota I79 U. S., 223, 2k5i Virginia v. Tennessee, 11+8 U. S., 503; Wharton v. Wise, 153 U. S., 155.) For a full discussion respecting the rights of the States to enter into treaties or compaots, with consent of Congress, see Rhode Island v» Jylassaohus- etts (12 Pet., 657, 725-731)• In the case just cited the Supreme Court observed that when ^Congress has given its consent to two States to enter into a compact or agreement, "then the States were in this respect restored to their original inherent sovereignty; such consent, being the sole limitation imposed by the Constitution, when gi*ven, left the States as they were before, as held by this court in Poole v. Fleeg<er *Submitted by Delph E. Carpenter to Judiciary Committee, of House of Representatives, 67th Congress, 1st Session, at Hearing on June if, 19^1* i*1 re H. R. 6821. |