OCR Text |
Show Virginia v* Tennessee, holding that a compact made ninety years before had been approved because the boundary it involved had been recognized by Con- gress in connection vrith judicial and congressional districts and otherwise Not all interstate agreements moreover, require even the shadow of consent, This is the emphatic pronouncement of practise and is supported by unquestion- ed dicta. Where is the line between those that require the assent of Congress and those that do not? We> can only reply," it was said in Virginia v. Tenn- essee-. ';by looking at ths object of the constitutional provision and constru- ing the terms agreement ? and 'compact 1 by reference to it . . . it is evi- dent that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States." With the- receding risk of sectional intrigue or military opposition this doctrine would lead to an extremely narrow construction of the requirement of con- gressional consent, if it were not for the multiplication of the points at which a national interest is involved in problems which can be matters neither wholly of central nor local concerne It is significant in this connection to note the extent to which the national government has recently participated in the negotiation of compacts. Before 1921 all interstate agreements formally approved by Congress wore drafted without previous permission by it leaving out of account a few to which it consented in advance. In the case of the Colorado River Compact, concluded in 1922, finally approved in 1928 (45 Stat. 1057,- 1064) contingent- ly on its acceptance by six instead of seven states and proclaimed as effec- tive on June 25* 1929* the delegates originally chosen under state laws .re- quested in 1921 that the national government designate a representative to . sit with. them. The statute they evoked (42 Stat. .171)* permitting the for- mulation of a compact on the condition.that a national agent be allowed to participate, has set a pattern for procedure in proposed agreements regard- ing water rights in the public.land states. It has been copied in the fol- lowing authorizations Columbia River (Washington- Idaho* Oregon, Montana, 1925> h3 Stat. 1268i the time limit having been subsequently twice extended)) Snake River (Idaho* Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, 19263 ^4. Stat. 831)5 Belle Fourche and Cheyonne rivers and "other streams in which such states are jointly interested" (South Dakota and Wyoming, lcj27* Uh Stat. 121*7)s Rio Grande,, San Juan, Las Animas rivers, etc. (Colorado and Hew iiexicc), Rio Grande, Peaos,' Canadian rivers, etc. (Oklahoma. Uevt Mexicoj Texas), 'Cimarron Rivera e*tc« (New Mexico and Oklahoma), Grila and San Francisco rivers, etc* vEew Mexico and Arizona) and Arkansas River, etc. (Colorado, Oklahoma;, Kansas) ---- all by separate acts on Haroh'2, 1929 (U5 Stat. 1502-5^ 1517); and sup- plementa.ry agreements regarding the Colorado River (1928. k5 Stat> 1059, IO65): The force of these examples is only slightly weakened by the fact that the La Plata. River Compact between Colorado and.Kew Mexico (concluded 1922, ap- proved 1925* i-j-3 Stat. 796) and one between Colorado and Nebraska regarding the South Platte River (concluded 1923* approved 1926, kh Stat, 195) were arranged without the previous permission of Congress* The bilateral charac- ter of nLany of the foregoing proposals elicited repeated warnings from, the Secretary of the Interior against agreements that fail to consider whole drainage systems* Aside from a boundary settlement between New York and Conn- ecticut in 1911-12, belatedly "consented" to by Congress in 1925 (k3 Stat*. 731 )> th« other compacts that have received the formal assent of Congress |