OCR Text |
Show -13- and place to place. The federal government can do nothing to increase its sovereign power; for that would be to hoist itself by its own petard. The sovereign power of the State governments over waters within their jurisdiction varies according to the differing restraints of their own constitutions; and the residuum of sovereign power in the people of the several States is cor- respondingly diminished or increased. As each State has retained all of its original sovereign rights in waters within or bordering upon its territorial domain except as diminished by the federal consitution, it follows that the pre-constitutional treaties and com- pacts of the States relating to their waters still remain to this day in full force (except as modified by inconsistent provisions of the federal consti- tution) unless changed by reserved right or mutual consent. Except as so limited, the waters of each State remain foreign waters to every other State since the formation of the Union the same as before;^9 and the sovereign rights of each State in such waters continue as before until modified by compact or international law. Compacts between the States, when approved by Congress, become treaties between them attended with the same con- sequences as their treaties before the formation of the Union;3^ although the rights of the States under such compacts or treaties can no longer be vindicat- ed by final resort to the sword because all controversies between*the States us the owner of lands bordering on a stream, to the continued flow of its waters; so far at least as may be necessary for the beneficial uses of the government property." See also, Winters v« United States, 207 U» S. 564 28 Sup* Ct, 207, 52 L. Ed. 34O (1908) Wharton v. Wise, 153 U 3* 155, l4 Sup. Ct. 783, 38 L. Ed. 669 (1894.) ., where it was held that the compact of I785 between the States of Maryland and Virginia was not prohibited by the .Articles of Confederation, and continued in full force after the adoption of the constitution, except so far as inconsis- tent with its provisions. See also, Poole v. Fleeger's Lessee, 11 Pot. (U.S.) I85, 9 L. Ed. 680 and 955 (I837), ?9 In Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 657, 720, 9 L. 3d. 1233, 1259 (I838), the Court referred to the States as "« . . two States of this Union, sovereign within their respective boundaries, save that portion, of power which they, have granted, to the federal government, and foreign to each other for all but federal purposes. So they have been considered by this court, through a long series of years and oases, to the present term; during which, in the case of The Bank of the United States v. Daniels, 12 Pet. ((U.S.)) 32 (9 L. Ed* 989 (I838)), this court has declared this to be a fundamental principle of the constitution. . ."¦ (italics added.) 30 Of compacts or agreements made between the States with the consent of. Congress, the Court said in Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. U.S.) 637* 725, 9 L. Ed. 1233, 1261 (1858): "If congress consented, then the Statos vtfere in this respect restored to their original inherent sovereignty; such consent being the solo limitation imposed by the constitution, when given, left the States as they were before, as held by this Court in Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. ((U. S.) I85,) 209 (9 L* Ed. 68o"and 955 (I837)); whereby their compacts became of binding force • . . operating with the same effect as a treaty bo- twe on s ove r e i gn p owe r s .n |