OCR Text |
Show -39- . Prior to the year 1834 New York and New Jersey had been in dispute for many years over their common boundary line and jurisdiction in New York Bay, the Hudson River and adjacant waters. This controversy was then settled by a com- pact between the two States 94 generally fixing the boundary line in the middle Government of the Dominion of Canada to secure to the citizens of the United States the use of the Welland, St. Lawrence and other canals in the Dominion; and the Government of the United States engages that the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty shall enjoy the use of the St. Clair Flats canal on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United States, and further engages to urge upon the State Governments to secure to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty the use of the several State canals connected with the navigation of the lakes or rivers traversed by, or contiguous to the boundary line between the pos- sessions of the High Contacting Parties, on terms of equality with the in- habitants of the United States» Art- 28.--*The navigation of Lake Michigan shall also . « * be free and open for the purpose of commerce to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, subject to any law and regulations of the United States or of the States bordering thereon, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation." 93 1 See, supra, footnote #12. In Rundle v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Co.,, 11+ How, (U«S,) 80, 91, llj. L. Ed. 335, 339-31+0 (1652), the Supreme Court, after giving the history of the dispute, saids "In the meantime> each State appro- priated to itself as much of the waters of the river as suited' its purpose» In 1827 a^l 1828 Pennsylvania diverted the River Lehigh, a confluent, of the Delaware; and afterwards, finding that stream insufficient, took additional feeders for her canal, out of the main stream cf the Delaware, On the i+th February, 1830. the Legislature of Naw Jersey passed the Act under which the defendants were in- corporated, and in pursuance of which they have constructed the dam and feeder., the subject of the present suite KThe canals in both States, supplied by the river, are intimately and ex- tensively connected with their trade, revenues, and general prosperity-while the navigation of the river above tide water, and the rapids at Trenton, is of comparatively trifling importance, being used only at times of the .spring freshets, for floating timber down the stream, ?/hen the artificial diversions do not affect the navigation The practical benefits resulting to both parties9 from their great public improvements, appear to have convinced them that further negotiations, complaints, or remonstrances would be useless and unreasonablej and thus, by mutual acquiescence and tacit consent, the necessity of a more formal compact has been superseded." The controversy has been recently revived and is now the subject of a pro- posed compact between Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York covering in elabor- ate detail the use of the waters of the Delaware River- which will be diseased in Part III of this articleo ¦'This compact is set out in full in the act of Congress assenting there"toc Act of June 28, I83J+, c< 126, k Stat. at L. 708% and its effect on sovereignly and jurisdiction is discussed in Central R9 R. of New Jersey v* Jersey City, 209 Ur Sc i+73, 28 Sup, Ct. 592, 52 Lo .Ed. 896 (1908), aff*g, 72 N.J.L. (1+3 Vroom) 311, 61 Atl. 1118 (1905), aff*g, 70 N-J.L. (1+1 Vroom) 81. 56 Atl« 239 1903). ^ New Jersey had previously brought suit in the United States Supreme Cour"fc against New York to determine property and jurisdiction in these waters, New |