The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1865-10-11

ID. n A.H
ON tho 18th of january, 1900, an act
was passed by the legiBtAtufei!0f rvirls
ginih, which, after u preamble rdcitInp,
tifat commissioner had been appointed
70 ADJUST the line between Virginia and
hentucky, who had reported n boun--
Diary which they recommended. pro-
ytded, "Ihat the said boundary line be-
tween this State and the State of Ken
Stuqky rs laid down, fixed, and ascer-
.tained by the said commissioners
.iRbove named IN their said report above
redlted shall be, and Is hereby. fnl1y
land ahsol lutelY, y, to Rll intents and .puE-
RoseS &hntsoevef1 ratified, ,estab-
"lished and confrlned on the part OF
this Commonwealth as the true, GER
tsstRin and real boundary line betSyeen
the said States. y. lst Va. Revised Code
bf 1919, p. 6l.as s. H5,at III. ..i.J.lu4lil5. :.
y iThere was concurrent legislation ON
the part0ot North Carolina, Tennessee
and Kentucky, establ blishipg the same
boundaries, and Congress has never
ratified or consented 10 the action OF
daries. . Z Z
The. "compacts', ., referred toby Mr.
Dawes between VirSihli and Kenfneky
and North tCarolinn and Tennessee,
which were, Eatih by Congress; were
the compacts by which the States 6fSViF-
gtnia and North SCRrolinHi ceded the
territory comp ng che states pf, ,KeH7
lucky and Tennessee,, and .consehtIn0
to their being created now States. i
suppose no one ever doubted bpt tho
the creation OF "a new Stata. . But these
are not the laws referred 70 above, which
i again repeat Were never ratified nv
Congress-. The case Of Green pS. Bio
die, VIII Wheaton, page j, was
an action Off eiectment for lands
lying in Rsntucky,i In which the
nnH. ~
occupying claimant laws OF the State
Of Kentucky. 1t was claimed by the
tplRintiH that those laws were in Viola
latlon OF the compact between Virginia
and Kentucky, under which Kentucky
was admitted into, the Union as a State.
In reply to this IL was claimed that the
compact had not been ratified by.
Congress, and, was therefore void. " ~.
Upon this point the court hold, that
]. 1T - not necessary that the consent of.
,Songres5 to- q compact between two.
Estates, should be expressed in any
particular form, and when Congress
!s.,eonsented to the separation OF ken
itucky and Its erection into a State, It
F.hlnSt be taken to hive consented to the
Compact by which the separation was
made" 1t Will be observed th6Ea this
cpmpaet was no part Of the Constitu-
ton of kentucky which Congress was
required to pass upon before Kentucky
could be admitted into the Union as a
Statei but q compact or tagreemant be-
tween Virginia and KentuelSy, (which
probably was not before Congress ut
NJ, at the time Of the admission OF
kentucky into the Union as a State.
The case of Poole, Is. F1eegree. N
4 Peters 2Q7,, referred to by AIR. Dawes;
was upon a regular formed compact
iDetween kentucky and Tennessee. IN
ls2O, In which the boundary line and
the title 70 lands in the disputed terri
IofIy was 40 nstadt andithe eompactwas
rnIined Dy Congress- flr-t ulat !. .fs.flrT
In the citation made fby Mr.. Dawes
mom the decision of the court in this
case, heReepls to have overlooked that
part 1.-The opinion which refers Tex
pFessly to the subject in controversy.
= Thepoprt in thHt-casR say:ryI -
It clunSe be doulteh that IL Is lriiuitf
aof the Eehernl Sovereignty beI8nHffS
TO independent nations, to establish
snnd fix the disputed boundaries be-
Tween their respective territories, and
Z the, e,bpuldgg ablished and fixed /
a. by eempast Become coneluslYe upon |
ALI the subjeets-nhd citizens Il sTeofi4
"nnd bind their rights, and are to be |
treated to all intents and purposes ns |
"the, true and real hOdndarfesg This n
"a right Jttpive " recoeninad Ia the I
law and practice of nations. II fsd /
....rtght equally belonging to the States on
1.ls .,l!F IIlloli unless Y has rbegn slFpen-
-
United States. So fhr from there be- /
ing any pretence of such a general
Surrender OF the rights. II Is expressly 1,
: '.'reeognized 6go tho CoabfftHtioI1, and K
E..gEanted by single Limitation or, re-
striction, requiring the consent JofE
Congress. IL Peters, a09.n az
1 submit that IfHin sustained in NV
epnstfncttonp Of this clause OF the Con-
sttutton by the practice of the frnmers'
OF the Constitution, and TINT IL b difIer-
ent practice has been adopted fin later
times, as in the case of Ninssachusetts
and Rhode Island, 1t has only been
done out OF abundant caution, and to
avoid caV1l and CONTROVERSY, and caii@
not be regarded as tho adoptfon of n |
different rule of Interpretation.
The >ihetLblIat in the case before us
mere me ~ was E tr9nsteS Of territory, and
line, cannot change the Question,
20 Tho question is as the violation ofthe
clause OF the Constitution which pro-
hibits the States from entering into any
compact or agreement. And whefherSk
territory Is transferred OF a boundary
of this clause oflthe Constitution.
2!LBdt II am wrong in this, then the
question arises, whether under section
10, of articln, Ii OF the, Constitution lof
West Virginia, which provides tlIHt-l
Additional territory may be admit
ttea -.ii:esii INTO and become part OF this State
WI p The consent Qf the Legislature,'l p
y y, Ss ShsEsH htEHP isfft tFq constif q ion
Mr.. Dawes admits that this provision
is broad enough to cover the aruexa-l
i1on OF the counties in controversy, but
ne claims that II Is In itself a yiolationil
OF the Constitution OF the United States.
ia II Is to be borne inamInd that this
provision OF the Constitution of West /
Virginia has been ratified and approved /
6y Congraes by the admission OF the
state @ into the Union: 1t Is thereforeg gH
much a part OF the Act of Congress ad-
mitting the StRte, as ifli6 We're in
eorporated into Il and made part of it. |
The question, therefore, Is no longer
whether the States of VirRinia and |
West Virginia have transcribed their
powers IN this transfer of territory. but /
whether Cohgrdss shhs ttFanscshded iits /
powers by comforting on West Virginia
the power 70 mcguire dditional territory.
ana So Mr.! Dawes understands the
question, and claims that Congress has
transcribed its powers in attempting
West Virginia. y
Now, whlt clause of the constitution
is violated by this grant OF power 10
the State IN her 'const tit1ti6nf 2 17fsaS
The constitution does not take away
iroIn rom the States the power to regulate I
from one to the other. This Is express-
" decided in the cnse Of Poole Us. Flee
gre, III Peters, already referred to-, on
the contrary, the Gotirts2 sRy ND com
stttui lon & gnizes q the fright. Z bnt
guards Its exercise by a single limita5 \
tstion or restriction, requiring the con.
'sentoti onsfess. VIffl1D Id q aOI5cl
z, Now submit TINT as the whole mat