OCR Text |
Show -7U- The principles which the Commission must apply to determine, in detail, the rights of the two countries and their inhabitants are so obviously fair, just and ecmitable as to leave no room for well-founded criticism or lor evasion* Under the mandates of tjiat plain common sense prominent in the life history: of both of the negotiators, the use of the waters covered by the treaty for domestic and sanitary purposes is placed above use for navigation--although there are no inland waters in all the world v.here navigation is of greater importance.' In further support of the natural primary uses to which prefer- ence is given, pollution of these waters is positively prohibited. In this treaty, navigation retains its historical precedence over irrigation and water power; but at the principal place on the boundary line where I'ature has made irrigation paramount, it is so recognized by stipulations in the treaty for equitable division of the waters of the Milk and St« Mary rivers to be used for that purpose. And in furtherance of the same principles, the treaty is clothed with a flexibility designed to bring about the greatest possible measure of beneficial use of the waters of these streams on both sides of i:he international boundary. In these, and in less particulars, the broad-gauged equity and common sense of this treaty may well serve as a guide for the making of water com- pacts between States of the American Union. And finally, it is worthy of note that in the Root-Bryce treaty there is no stipulation against the force of its provisions as precedents, such as appeared in the treaty with Mexico for eauitable division of the waters of the Rio Grande; 15*4^- nor is there any camouflage about recommending co-operation to the. States on the one side and the Provinces on the other, such as chara- cterized earlier treaties about the same waterways. Here the undoubted treaty-making power of both nations is assumed without equivocation* ^-55 Supra, footnote fill& and text thereto. 5-?Supra, footnotes $90-92, PP» 166-167» where quotations from earlier treaties contain mere stipulations that the United States will recommend and urge the States to permit the use of canals, etc., by both the signatories to the treaty on equal terms. The Root-Bryce Treaty makes similar stipulations unconditionally. The constitutional power of the United States so to provide by trea-ty with a foreign nation is beyond the sphere of doubt. Whatever may be said of other provisions of the federal constitution, it is clear from the debates in the constitutional convention and from contemporary writings (The Federalist) that the framers of the constitution intended that the President, ¦with the advice and consent of the Senate, should have treaty-making power co- extensive with that of the other governments of the world, at least up to any point net destructive of the general system of government established by the constitution. And this power was repeatedly exercised by the United States in the fisheries treaties* 10 Stat. at L. IO89, 1 Malloy's Treaties, 668; 1? Stat. a-fc L. 863, 1 Malloy's Treaties, 700; 18 Stat. at L. Sl+2, 1 Malloy's Treaties, 727; 18 Stat. at L. 8U7, 1 Malloy's Treaties, 728; 1 Malloy's Trea- ties, 729; 1 Malloy's Treaties, 7I4.6; 1 Malloy's Treaties, 8O5; 35 Stat.. at L. 200, 1 Malloy's Treaties, 827; 3& Stat. at L. 211+1, 1 Malloy's Treaties, 835, although internally the federal government has no constitutional power over |