The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1865-08-25

EassaehuseftS. GBIh NJ 3,ffl6I
!; PTTsyIEIp, MASS, Aug. Is, 1866.
EIolttors Wheeling 1nietl5sneee,::
j A friend has handed me IA. csoi,v ot
your paper of the 10th inst, in which
lyouidiscuss the question of botndhry
J, between the States of virginia and
West i{ginia, which was raised ina
recent election case decided by3lthe
House of Representatives AS YOU
Iseem to be discussing tho question with
lcandor and good temper, i venture to
isay n word in reference to your COM
Iments upon n quoted portion of some
in the House of Representatives. You
quote correctly that / had said that no
4 two States could change or alter their
i boundary line without The consent of
lCongressi and that / also said: -.
Il The Supreme Court has said
4 SO, ana that has been always the rulo
Il acted upon. lit was so in case of. the
boundary line between Massachusetts
and Rhode Island, and also in the case
4 OF the late change of boundary between
/ New York and Massachusetts Allgthe
practice has been, TINT without the con-
sent of Congress there can be no change
In the boundary lines of States"
! In reference to these remarks your
comments arc as follows:
eff the above views of Mr.. Dawes arc
correct, we should say at once, there is
an end of the dispute, and berkeley
county is still a part of old Virginia.
But reference to the reports of the Su-
preme Court of the United States, does
not show any analogous case to the one
under consideration, andwe apprehend
thatSNfr Dawes has simply assumed to
laid down. :. ,ii.-i 1.F...8 n. !.
1t has occurred to me that for want of
little more particularity In these re-
marks, / may have led you astray.
There is a case in the reports of the Su4
preIne Court between Massachusetts
and Rhode Island, in which. though 1t
was question of boundary, this pre-
else question did not arise, and a refer
lence to that decision merely would ius-
Il 6ty what you say. But there was an
other case of boundary between AIassa-
chusetts and Rhode Island, in which
this precise question did arise, and
(which tustites my remarks, This lat
ter case have never, seen in the Re-
ports, and presume IL is not reported,
Il for the reason that IL was settled by the
two States doing precisely what the
two Nirginias did, by. their agreeing
upon new line. The two States exc
changed territory and established,
through their respectfvei legislatures, a
NEW line of convenience. When the
parties brought TINT legislation into
4 the Supreme Court, the Court refused
to sanction 1t and establish the line,
until the consent of Congress was OBJ
tained. And if you will turn to the
sion 35th Congress, page 3S2, you will
find it enacted: dThat the ATTORNEY
General is hereby authorized and di-
rected to intervene and represent the
/ United States in the proceeding in
equity now pending in the Supreme
/ Court between the CommonweaIt of
Massachusetts and the State of Rhode
/ Island, and to consent on behalf of the
| United States to the adjustment of said
suit by q conventional line to be agreed
upon between the parties, and con-
frmed by decree OF said Court, If in
of the United States Will not be preju-
diced thereby.p Thisswas done under
the direction of the Supreme Court.
4 The two States had come 10 be entirely
agreed without it. But the Court re-
fused to confirm their agreement until
this WAS done. oOnthe passage ofithat
lact, authorizing the consent Of Con-
gress, no one doubted that 1t wns re-
4 lduired by and in conformity with the
iconstitution but james 51l.I Orr then
j Speaker, who thought that some South
lCarol1na State sovereignty abSurClity
u would be compromised by it. Legisla-
ton of. a like character WINS required a
Il
and New York had, by their legisln5
ttures, agreed upon II transfer of aI3os-
ton Corner" from Massachusetts to
II New II orlS. This was done without the
4 intervention of the Supreme Court,
& md you VIII find the statute giving
j the consent of Congress, though i have
not the book before me to give the page
II And how could it be otherXvise This
transfer of these counties from Virginia
Ito West Virginia is the result OF am
I Idgreemeilt between the two Stttes. Tie
q one agtees to trapster and the other to
receive them, and by mutual compact
4 the boundary line and Jurisdiction are
established aecordingly, Now the Con-
stitution of the United States, Art. j,
lISec. 10, expressly declares iftIbo State
shall, aOith0Ht the consent of Congress, en-
ter into any agreement or compact lrith
qRother STATE
You. will also find that the reports of
1.-THE supreme Court are not entirely
Isilent upon the subject, but fully sus-
tain this position. In the case of Flor
Ida VS.. Georgia, 10 Howard's Reports
4 4IS, which was q case 10 determine
where the true boundary exists, the
Chief Justice uses the following lam
lgpage in reference to the case of boun-
fary agreed upon between two States ;
"By the 10th Section list Art. of the
Constitution no State, can enter into
any agreement or compact with an-
lotlier State without the consent of Com
gress. Now question of boundary
between States Isl limits nature, a polit-
ical question to be settled by compact
made by the political departments OF
the government, And IL E4oFida and
Georgia had, by negotiation and agree
4 Ement5 proceeded to adjust the boundary,
! any compact between them to0lttd hdpd
Il bcen null and Void without the assent oi
/ Congress-. This provision is obviously
: intended to guard the rights apdinter-
: lests of fheiothet States, land to prevent
my compact or agreement between any
two States which might affect injurf-
7 otfsly the interests of the others. And
the right and duty to protect their fn-
> teSests IS vested IS the general govern
lment. 7, ~ 81. y ,,tii- !
And Mr.. Justice Curtis, dissenting
. from the matpllty Of the, Court on other