OCR Text |
Show -2k- , established and fixed by compact between nations, become conclusive upon all the subjects and citizens thereof, and bind their rights; and are to be treated, to all intents and purposes, as the true and real boundaries, . This is a doctrine universally recognized in the law and practice of nations. It is a right equally belonging to the states of this Union; unless it has been surrendered under the Constitution of the United States. So far from there being any pretense of such a general surrender of the right, it is expressly recognized by the Constitution and guarded in its exercise by a single limitation or restriction, requiring the consent of Congressaw -. In Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657* 7^5 > the Court, discussing the origin and scope of the Compact clause, said* "if Congress consented, then the States were in this respect restored to their original inherent sovereignty; such consent being the sole limi- tation imposed by the Constitution, when given, left the States as they were before, as held by this Court in Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. 209; whereby their compacts became of binding force, and finally settled the boundary between them; operating with the s«.me effect as a treaty between sovereign powers. That is, that the boundaries so established and fixed by compact between nations, become conclusive upon all subjects and citizens thereof, eind bind their rights; and are to be treated to all intents and purposes, as the true real boundaries #" See also Garcia v. Lee, 12 Pet. 511, 521; Coffee v. Groover, 123 U. S. 1> 29,3O,$l; Virginia v. Tennessee, li+8 U. S. 563, 525. The rule as applied to the apportionment by judicial decree of the water of an interstate stream was stated in Wyoming v. Col or ad og 286 U. S« h9k, 508? "Bui; it is said that water claims other than the tunnel appropriation cculd no-t be, and were not, affected by the decree, because the claimants were not parties to the suit or represented therein. In this the nature of the suit is misconceived. It was between States, each acting as a quasi- s eve reign and representative of the interests and rights of her people in a controversy with the other. Counsel for Colorado insisted in their brief in that suit that the controversy was 'not between private parties1 but 'between the two sovereignties of Wyoming and Colorado'; and this Court in its opinion assented to that view, but observed that the'controversy was one of immediate and deep concern to both States and that the interests of each were indissolubly linked with those of her appropriators. 259 U« S. i|.68. Decisions in other cases also warrant the conclusion that the water claimants in Colorado, and those in Wyoming, were represented by their respective States and are bound by the decree." Foui-th* As the States had power to bind by compact their respective appropriators by division of the flow of the stream, they had power to reach tha.t end either by providing for a continuous equal division of the water from time to time in the stream, or by providing for alternate periods of flow to the one State and to the other of all the water in the stream. To secure "the greatest beneficial use of" the water in the . stream, the Compact provided that the water may be "rotated between the two States, in such manner for such periods, and to continue for such time as the State Engineers may jointly determine." |