The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1865-09-04

an actual and ~ agreement. aug
exception IL The hnlt case between
Massachusetts, ana Rhode Island, Whieh
Wa 9 question OF boundary, bat In
which Il does not appear that the con-
sent 81 Congress was ever invoked.
Mr.. Dawes quotes 4 part Of the oPini'
on Of the Supreme Court In case BE-
tween Georgia and Florida. This aP-
pears 70 have been q question Of con.
\ tested boundary, and the Court said
that "if Florida and Georgia had, ny
negotiation dad dgTet,Aeilt, proceeded 70
adjust the boundary, any compact be-
Tween them would Elye BEEN null and
| void without the assent Of Congress.
Does this exclude all other modes Of
IhrFunRementY Or, does II, In fact, say
more than that II the mode adopted Eds
u compact, itwould require such assent :
| II Is tue the court further says, that "a
lGuostion of boundary between States
/ Ii, IN It's nature, political question to
DO settled by compact mnde by the POI
lItical departments OF the government"
| II Is, think, plain, that the court here
refers 10 u question Of contested boOn.
idHTy, Anch ~ that thcn before II, and
does NOT mean 10 imply that any adj
I juStmOnt Of q boundary must neces-
lsaFily be By compact. Suppose that
one Of these parties had Withdrawn hcr
lpretensIOns by Legislative act, and the
other had proceeded 10 organize the ter
ritory formerly In dispute, wonld this
have been a compact requiring the con-
sent OF GOngTes6R This, think, VIII
hardly be contended. lf
The Supreme Court, then, has deci.
dOd nothing mora than that when there
Is q compact between States, Il Is null
and void without the consent Of Com
Rress. / do not perceive that this has
any application TO the cases Of Berkeley
and jefferson counties, because do
not perceive that there has been any
compact between the two YirRintas"
Ia relation to them. Whether the ar.
rangeInent that has been made should
have been by compact, and will there
! fore be treated ~ n compact 'n0tWith-
standing II Is not formally such, may
need some consideration. The Supreme
Court In the case before referred 70,
says, that the clause Of the constitution
on which Il bases its opinion, lis Obvi-
ously intended to guard the rights and
interests of the other States, and to pre-
vent any compact or agreement be-
tween any two States, which might af-
feet injuri0usly the interests Of the
Others. SIT may therefore be we'll to
inquire whether thereIis anything in
the action In reference to the two cOun-
tiles, or In the nature Of tho case, that
can injuriously affect the rights Of any
other State. th
How a mere change Of the boundary
between two States can, injuriOusly or
otherwise, affect such rights and inter
estS, Is not very obvlOu& What grave
political consequences could possibly
have attended the transfer Of tBoStOn
, COTner'' from Massachusetts 10 New
York? Or, even ifHLitLle Rhody" had
transferred large slice Comparatively
spealing) of her territory tothe former,
what injury to other Suites would have
followed? There IL clause in the
cOnstitution which fOrbids the merging
of one Stlte III another, and the divi-
sion of one Into two States, without the
consent Of Congress. But this does not
rest upon mere territorial Considera-
tons, ur depend at all upon the fact
that tho States involved are large or
small. II finds Its sanction IN the fact
that the action towhiCh such consent
Is required would alter tho relative
Representation in the U. S. Senate. In
u Union of States varying in size from
Rhode Island and Delaware up TO Ill
inois and other northwestern States,
and even To ToXas, It would surely
seem absurd to argue that injury TO the
lriRhtR and siptaIeSiA Of, ether Statgs luI
bthor fraNlt poll len. eleonsoq ncEpes
! could follow The ttntaiet az two inNaf.
fage COUNTIES ffoIli one Slai 3 70 hnhtllef.
ID the cases oiled ~ Mr.. naN y
(which Massachusetts, was d 1part3, 4
6eemsithat cOmpaois refo unIeCessa.
fily entered into, ast be subj them
, might have been disposed Of by the
separate and independent, but conenr-
rent, action of the States concerned.
For the reasons stated, and for Others
It is unnecessary 10 refar to at present,
/ am still Of opinion, TINT In all that
was done by the States OF Virginia and
West Virginia in relation to the trans
fer OF the counties of Berkeley and JEFF
ferson from the former to the latter,
: there was nothing In tho nature Of IN
agreement or compact between those
States, nor was any required, and, con-
sequently, that the consent, OF Congress
is not necessary tOgiye validity to!~hat
has been done In the premises, and that
therefore those counties are legally and
constituti0nllly part and parcel of the
State ofWest Virginia. 2
Yours truly and respectfully,
Iat p. G.NAN WINKLE.