OCR Text |
Show -89- ' ' ¦ The Laramie River decision is subject to criticism in so far as it rests upon the fact that each of the two States, after assuming public ownership of all unappropriated, waters within its borders, then granted to its own citizens the right to appropriate suoh waters in order of priority for bene- ficial uses; subject to preferences set forth in its state constitution* The benevolence of a State toward its own citizens, obviously bestowed to promo-be internal development, ought not to be extended to citizens of another and rival State having the same internal policy- upon any theory of estoppel or .consent by either sovereignty tc the adoption of that principle for adjustment of its external rights* The inferences are to the contrary. Besides, the States of the American Union,, being quasi-sovereigns on the same plane of equality,, have no more legitimate interest in the internal affairs of each other than independent sovereignties in the family of nations where equitable division of international waters is the conventional practice, if not yet the established law.; If Few Jersey may preserve intact for .future use its intra state streams now flowing unused into the ocean and -'give no one a reason for night during hours when the power was not used.. Persons having, private interests in the stream in Aargau, the lower riparian canton, were consulted and. after a hearing.. Zurich gave the concession with the provision that 6700 francs be deposited in a national' bank to the credit of the persons having the private interest, in Aargau for the construction of compensating works in Aargau to equalize the flow to their factories if they should be prejudiced thereby Appeal by the Canton of Aargau to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court on the ground that this was an impairment of its sovereignty ''HELD* (1) An upper riparian canton may use its streams as it, sees fit within, its territorial limits though on the other band it cannot -deprive a lewer riparian canton of its equal right to the use of the stream. u(2) A lower riparian canton is entitled to have already exploited interests within its borders absolutely protected but it is not entitled to such protection in respect of merely potential interests not yet exploited for a canton cannot, as can a private person, insist on the maintenance of an abstract status ouo based on only possible or not yet exploited uses of the stream. c !<f(3) Zurich acted properly in requiring its grante&s to deposit funds for the disposal of the Aargau owners for it would have been an impairment of Aargau!s sovereignty if Zurich had taken the alternative course "of order- ing either the Aargau owners or its own grantees to build the compensating works in Aargau territory<-, ??bo Aargau v, Solothurn, 1892, 18 id, 689? ' "FACTSs Pursuant tc concessions by both cantons, a oanal was built de- flecting part of the river Aar in Solothurn, the upper riparian canton; the canal after crossing the border into Aargau, the lower riparian oani-.cn.,-poured ifcs waters back into the river* Immediately after crossing the border into Aa.rgau, the canal discharged its waters over two falls which were in part exploited for water power« Solothurn, some years after the oanal was built- imposed, a tax on canals based on the water power made available thereby, computing it by multiplying the amount of water flowing through the canal per second by its fallc. Aargau, the lower riparian canton, appealed to the Swiss Federa-1 Supreme Court against the application of this tax to the canal in question on |