| OCR Text |
Show 488 INTERSTATE ADJUDICATIONS jurisdiction, or external political dependence, or general commercial privileges;" while compacts and agreements might be very properly applied "to such as regarded what might be deemed mere private rights of sovereignty; such as questions of boundaries; interests in land situate in the territory of each other; and other internal regu- lations for the mutual comfort and convenience of States bordering on each other." 2 Story, Const. §§ 1402, 1403; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S.I. Undoubtedly as remarked by Mr. Justice Bradley in Hans v. Louisi- ana, 134 U.S. 1, 15, the Constitution made some things justiciable, "which were not known as such at the common law; such, for example, as controversies between States as to boundary lines, and other ques- tions admitting of judicial solution." And as the remedies resorted to by independent States for the determination of controversies raised by collision between them were withdrawn from the States by the Constitution, a wide range of matters, susceptible of adjustment, and not purely political in their nature, was made justiciable by that instrument. [The Court here examines Missouri v. Illinois and The Sanitary District of Chicago, 180 U.S. 208, post pp. 703ff, concluding:] As will be perceived, the court there ruled that the mere fact that a State had no pecuniary interest in the controversy, would not defeat the original jurisdiction of this court, which might be invoked by the State as parens patriae, trustee, guardian or representative of all or a considerable portion of its citizens; and that the threatened pollu- tion of the waters of a river flowing between States, under the author- ity of one of them, thereby putting the health and comfort of the citizens of the other in jeopardy, presented a cause of action justici- able under the Constitution. In the ease before us, the State of Kansas files her bill as represent- ing and on behalf of her citizens, as well as in vindication of her alleged rights as an individual owner, and seeks relief in respect of being deprived of the waters of the river accustomed to flow through and across the State, and the consequent destruction of the property of herself and of her citizens and injury to their health and comfort. The action complained of is state action and not the action of state officers in abuse or excess of their powers. The State of Colorado contends that, as a sovereign and independent State, she is justified, if her geographical situation and material wel- fare demand it in her judgment, in consuming for beneficial purposes all the waters within her boundaries; and that as the sources of the Arkansas Eiver are in Colorado, she may absolutely and wholly de- prive Kansas and her citizens of any use of or share in the waters of that river. She says that she occupies toward the State of Kansas the same position that foreign States occupy toward each other, al- though she admits that the Constitution does not contemplate that controversies between members of the United States may be settled by reprisal or force of arms, and that to secure the orderly adjustment of such differences, power was lodged in this court to hear and deter- mine them. The rule of decision, however, it is contended, is the rule |
