OCR Text |
Show Arkansas River Litigation Kansas v. Colorado 185 U.S. 125 (1902) The State of Kansas, by leave of court, filed her bill of complaint against the State of Colorado on May 20,1901 * * *. * * * * * # * Thereupon, October 15, 1901, the State of Colorado, by leave, filed its demurrer to the bill of complaint * * *. * * * * * * * Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court. The original jurisdiction of this court over "controversies between two or more States" was declared by the judiciary act of 1789 to be exclusive, as in its nature it necessarily must be. Reference to the language of the Constitution providing for its exercise, to its historical origin, to the decisions of this court in which the subject has received consideration, which was made at length in Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, demonstrates the comprehensive- ness, the importance and the gravity of this grant of power, and the sagacious foresight of those by whom it was framed. By the first clause of section 10 of article 1 of the Constitution it was provided that "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;" and by the third clause that "No State shall, without the consent of Congress, , . . keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." Treaties, alliances, and confederations were thus wholly prohibited, and Judge Tucker in his Appendix to Blackstone (vol. 1, p. 310) found the distinction between them and "agreements or compacts" mentioned in the third clause, in the fact that the former related "ordinarily to subjects of great national magnitude and importance, and are often perpetual, or made for a considerable period of time," but agreements or compacts concerned "transitory or local affairs, or such as cannot possibly affect any other interest but that of the parties." But Mr. Justice Story thought this an unsatisfactory expo- sition, and that the language of the first clause might be more plausi- bly interpreted "to apply to treaties of a political character, such as treaties of alliance for purposes of peace and war; and treaties of confederation, in which the parties are leagued for mutual govern- ment, political cooperation, and the exercise of political sovereignty; and treaties of cession of sovereignty, or conferring internal political 487 |