The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1865-09-26

ney General sought to appear. It WINS
nom the reasons given by the Court
.admitting himito be heard in the case,
and fEom the dissenting opinion oil
Judge Curtis that 1 quoted the opin-
ions expressed by that Court, and by
that eminent Judge in dissenting from
the; Court on other points, that no two
adjacent States could agree upon n new
line between them without the consent
of Congress. The Court, In giving
reasons why the Attorney General
ought to be permitted to appear, put 1t,
that otherwise the two States might
compromise their contest, agree upon n
new line and then so conduct the suit
as TO lead to n decision establishing TINT
as the true line, in evasion of the con-
stitutional prohibition which requires
the consent of Congress. They say:
For this Is the only mode they can
.sguRrd the interests Of the rest Of tle
Union, when the boundary is to be
adjusted by q suit in this Court. For
'lfi 1t be otherwise, the parties to thesuit
may, by admission Of facts and bv dgree-
.meTts admitting bJ' rejecting tc8tinlOny,
"plnce n case before the Court which
would necessarily be decided accOrd-
'sing to their wishes and the interests
and rights of the rest of tho Union ex-
"cluded from the consideration of the
court. The States might thus, in u
"fOrm of action, accomplish what the
"Constitutton PROHIBITS them from do
''lng directly by compact" The Court
had previously said what quoted in
my first letter. "If Florida and Geor-
t'gta had, by negotiation and agree
"ment, proceeded to adjust this bound
''nry, any compact between them
"wOnld have been null and void
without the assent of Congress, -
Aud they here deny the ability 10 do It
nNSr
It's meet this argument in dissenting
from the decision of the Court to admit
the Attorney General to be heard in the
case3 Does he do It by denying that
the Constitution would be in the way
ofsuch an arrangement Not at all,
but by admitting that It would, and
saying that no such agreement would
DO executed by the Court for want of
Constitutional power. These are. his
words: 5
"But If such agreements of counsel
8 respecting the mode of conducting a
"sult between two States could be
deemed cOmpacts between those States
"within the restraining clause of the
10th section Of the first article of the
q Constitution, Congr and not the At
torney General or this Court, must
sanction them-and there does not
"Seem to be any satisfactory reason
"why that officer should be connected
: WIN tHS SuLuects any u9FeeHlGnL llX-
ing the line OF boundary, made by the
two States and not sanctioned by Com
"gress, would certainly not DO executed
"by this Court, which Is to decree on
4" the existing rights of the parties, and
ts not upon new rights created by a
compact, which is not valid without
+" the assent of Congress-"
do not SEQ how any one can read
this case and doubt.
Mr.. Stanton disposes of the next
case more summHrily. He says:
HAs to the unpublished cnse between
massachusetts and Rhode Island. as
Two don't know what the case was, and
t'the failure to report the case would
ssseem to indicate that the court were
mot satisfied with 1t, and were not
willing to be responsible for 1t rs an
authority upon aqucstiOn of constitu-
ssdonal law, Mr., Dawes must excuse us
for not attaching any importance
"toit.u
1 will certainly excuse him If he In
sists upon It, but not for the reason ho
gives. There Is not only no evidence
offered by Mr.. Stanton, or to be found
elsewhere, that the .'court were not sat
tatied with it, and We're not willing to
be responsible for It as an authorify,"
but 1t Is In entire harmony with the
opinions and judgments of the court
upon this question, from the beginning
dence of this, In addition to what has
already been furnished, j will give be
fore 1 close. Why does he say, there-
fore, without evidence, "that the court
are dissatisfied with it.n Is not this the
reason that 1t Is not reported, plain to
every lawyer? 1t was suit COM
menced to settle n contested boundary.
but was never tried because the PARTIES
agreed, by concurrent Legislation. unon
q boundary, and asked the court not TO
decide contrOverted points, which are
reported, but to enter up Judgment es-
tablishing the lines thus agreed upon.
1t WnS a Judgment merely, not n
decision of points-and because such.
never reported. But the Supreme
Court, before entering up this iudg-
mont, required the parties, in Ao-
cordance with their previous opin-
ions aud decisions, TO obtain the assent
of. Congress. i cited the law of Con-
greSs authorizing the Attorney General
TO appear in the case and give that as
sent. BE did, and Judgment was then
entered by the Court. All this WINS re-
qutred. And do not know OF any one
but Mr.. Stanton who is .'dissatisfied. -
Mr.; stanton further says:
But II ts very certain that tho bOun-
diary between Virginia and North
nCarolina, Virginia and Tennessee, and
"..Yirgininand Kentucky were all settled
stby concurrent acts OF IeHislntion. on
'the part of the States interested, and
that they have never been ratified by
Congress" eA3 y
Then, without citing any book or
page tnat Will show when, how or
where this was done, that we might
judge as we'll as he OF the forco of the
authority appealed to, he Immediately
draws his differences, as follows:
This shows that the trainers of the
"..Constttntion, who Mt that day were
.controling public nf1inrs, both in the
Federal and State governments, did
led boundary between States by con
tcurrent acts oflegislHtiOn, as an 1aRree-
t.ment or compact within this prOVis.
zion OF the Constitution" =
1t would have been mora satisfilctoryii
he had spread out a little at largo this
action. that II might have been seen, and
Judged of. Th9re may have been NOR,
than one dispute between Viruinia,
| North Carolinn and Tennessee respect
ing boundaEies-and in: the absence oi
citation by Mr.. Stanton NAV have fall
len on the wrong one. All Tennessee
WINS oncen part of North Carolina. In
ITO two different lines were run by dIE-
\ terent surveyors between Virginia and
\ North Carolina. One State Claimed Ia
| the one, the other to the other. IN Inn
North Carolina ceded all that part OF
| her territory now Tennessee with fhis
disputed line to the United States, who
by net of Congress (1st at Large, lO9i.
accepted the cesstOn. After TsnIssee
become n State in 1902 the dispute was
settled between Virginia and tennessee
by a line eQui-d distant between the Two.
In. 1903, after this new line WINS agreed
upon between Virginin and Tennessee.
/ North Carolina passed an act to author.
lie the State of Tonnessee with this neW
line to perfect titles to lands within It's