Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1865-09-21
+ Status of Berkeley and Jefferson.
Letter from de Hon. IL u. Ddlees, Member @
Congress from Massachusetts.
PIrTsFIELD, Mass, Aug. Is, 1865.
fors W-kes7iag E,fel1;0eaeer - -.

/
question of boundary between the States Of
Virginia and West Virginia, which was raised
in the recent election case decided by the House
of Representatives As you seem to be discus
sing the question with candor and goodtemper,
/ venture TO say a word in reference to your
comments upon quoted portion OF some re-
marks made by me upon the subject in the
House Of Representatives You quote correct
| " that | had said that no two States could
change or alter their boundary line without
the consent Of Congress and that also said:
Q 1.-The Supreme Court has said so, and
that has been always the rule acted upon, 1t
was SO in case of the boundary line between
Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and also in
the case of the late change of boundary between
New York and Massachusetts,. All the practice
has BEEN that without the consent of Congress
there can be no change in the boundary lines
of States" ~
Mr.. Dawes then proceeds to collate the dii-
ferent decisions of the Supreme Court, bearing
upon this subject, referring to certain cases of
boundary between Massachusetts, and Rhode
Island and between New York and Massachu-
setts showing that even the adjustment of
disputed boundary by the adoption of a new
conventional line, could not be done, without
the consent of Congress He then proceeds:
"And how could it be otherwise? This trans
fer of these counties from Virginia to West Yir-
ginia is the result of an agreement between the
two States The one agrees to transfer and the
other to receive them, and by mutual compact
the boundary line and jurs lict on are establish
ed accordingly Now the Constitution of the
United States, Art. /, Sec 10, expressly de-
clares "no Safe shall, icithom the consent Of Con-
gress, enter into any agreement or compact Nth
| another State"
You will also find that the reports of the Su
preme Court are not entirely silent upon the
subject, hut fully sustain this position. In the
case of Florida VS.. Georgia, 10 Towards reports
478 which was case to determine where the
true boundary exists, the Chief Justice uses the
following language in reference to the case OF
boundary agreed upon between two States:
"By the 10th Section LIST Art. of the Consti-
tuition no State can enter into any agreement or
compact with another State without the consent
of Congress. Now a question of boundary be-
tween States is in its nature, political ques-
ton to lie settled by compact made by thepc-
litical departments Of the government. And II
Florida and Georgia had, by negotiation and
agreement proceeded to adjust the boundary,
any compact between them tcodd hace been null
and rei witht ut the assent Of Congress. This
provision is obviously intended TO guard the
rights and interests of the other States, and to
prevent any compact or agreement between any
two States which might affect injuriOusly the
interests of the others. And the right and duty
to protect their interests is vested III the general
government
And Mr.. Justice Curtis, dissenting from the
majority of the Curt on other points, agrees in
this-using the following words:
"UnquCstionably there are political consid-
erations affecting the federal relations of the
States and connected with the extent of their
territory, in reference to which the UnitedStates
has direct and important interest. This is
recognized amongst others, by the prohibition
of the States to make any compact without the
consent of the United States. But this suit is
not to change the limits or territory of States,
but to ascertain their true and actual boundary.
But if such arguments of counsel
respecting the mode of conducting suit be-
tween two States could be deemed compacts be-
tween those States, within the restraining
clause of the 10th Sec Art. LIST, of the constitu-
ton, Congress- and not the Attorney General
Of this court, must sanction them. Any agree
ment, fixing the line of boundary made by the
two States and not sanctioned by Congress,
would certainly not be executed by this court.
You further sly:
at is held, however that fair infcrcntial
consc NJ exists from the reference made to the
act of admission TO the act of cession, which act
of cession named the counties of Berkeley and
Jefferson, although coupling condition, which
condition, however, was fully complied with
But you overlook the fact that it was three
unite BE 'eT, Jefferson and Frederick, and
not either two of them, that are embraced in
j this condition, one of which never complied, as
! understand. If Congress consented at all, it
was to the boundary line made by the transfer
of the three, which it is apparent is different
from that made by transfer of either one or
two of them And it does not yet appear
that Congress would ever cons mt 10 such a
boundary as would be made by the trans
fer of only two, though doubtless it would have
no objection.
| must apologize for trespassng upon your
space to such an extent, or even at ALL But
it is question of some Importance to your peo-
pie, and your article seemed to be prompted by
1
therefore vefturcd these views
H. l.. DAWES.
The Wheeling L1telIgeacer comments ON the
above as follows:
The letter Of Hon. II. L. Dawes, in reference
TO the status ofBerkeley aud jefferson counties,
is undeniably strong document, and will, we
doubt not, attract general attention throughout
the country, especially in this State aud at
Richmond. Theposition assumed by Mr.. Dawes,
that the consent of Congress is necessary to an
agreement or compact between two States, is
undoubtedly correct, and his further position
that Congress, in the true intent and spirit Of
the Constitution, never did assent to the pres
eDt Berkeley and Jefferson boundary of the
State is, candor compels us to say, seeming full
ly sustained. The dictum of the Supreme
Court in the case cited between Georgia and
Florida, bears with sufficient directness on our
dispute to make it an applicable ruling, and
such we have no boubt would be the mind Of
Congress or Of the Supreme Court, were the