| OCR Text |
Show into prior to any future construction* In factr settlement of possible interstate controversies by interstate com- pacts is recommended by the United States Supreme Court* (Washington v. Oregon, 2li|., U. S,, 205, 2180 COMPACT BY "JOINT COMMISSION" BETWEEN STATES AND UNITED STATES In another section we observe that the States, with consent of Congress, have full powers to make compacts with each other. Treaties between States are designated as agreements or compacts. (Art. I, section 10, par. 3* Constitution.) The United States, in the exercise of its sovereign powers, may enter into compacts or agreements with one or more of the States, acting in their sovereign capacities. The usual method of formulating such compacts* or agreements, either between the States or between the States and the United States, is through the instru- mentality of joint commissions thereunto duly constituted by legislative enact- ments and appointment by the executives of the State or the States and of the Nation. Such joint commissions are in all respects similar to the joint com- missions constituted by separate Governments for formulation of treaties between independent nations. The term does not refer to a joint commission consisting only of members of one sovereignty and created by joint action of two or more legislative branches, but refers to that character of commission formed by two independent powers for the purpose of joint action to a common end. Of the available examples of settlements of controversies between the United States and one or more of the States through the instrumentality of joint oom~ missions, the most convenient example is that of the attempts at settlement of the boundary between the UnitedStates and Texas, Here two joint commissions, duly constituted by the National and State Governments, sought to settle the boundary line. The history of these attempts is found in the reports of the United States Supreme Court in the Case of United States v. Texas (11+3 U. S»> 621j 162 U, S., 1), Throughout the many pages of the reports covered by the decisions in this case, the representative of the Government of the United States on the one hand and that of the State of Texas on the other, are designated as commissioners, and the common agency for settlement of the controversy is designated as the joint commission or joint boundary commissions. Lest there be some question respecting the use of the term "joint com- mission," the following references to the opinions in the above case may be pro- fitable 1 By a treaty concluded August 25, I838, between the United States and th,e Republic of Texas (8 Stat., 511), each of the contracting parties agreed to ap- point "a commissioner" for the purpose of jointly agreeing upon the line bet-ween the two Republics; By the act of June 5, 1858, chapter 92 (11 Stat., 310), enaoted in hanaony with the act of the Legislature of the State of Texas, February 11, 185U* i"t was |
