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

oLuteH LOOKUP e0gl at n time, tlt
\ result of these negotiations and acted
upon Il. But Air. Van Winkle sayl
1 further, "There were no mutual de
pendent or conditional underthk king
. or PROMISES Did not the act of trans.
fer by the old State depend upon West
Virginia aCcephnge Did she transfer
her Jurisdiction uncOndit itionally ,wheth,
or the latter Suite would accept 1t OF
'notf And did not both States make
their action depend upon the vote OF The
counties-and was not that mutual /
Again Mr.. Van Wrinkle says, Wnor was
eanything moving from either to the
otherin the nature ota consideration p
Was II not a proposition to move three
counties from one State to the otherf
Now Is that no considerRtionP Imny
be pardoned for saying, with respect,
that am not surprised that Mr.. Van
Winkle should apprehend that such
rensoning might be deemed "cYnsion,' y
and that It Was necessary to guard
| against such d conclusion.
Mr.. Van WinlSle again answers me
as tollowS: asrf .fss- m
"In all but ono of the cases cited by
Mr.. Dawes there seems to have been
"An actual and formal agreement. The
exception Is the first tcase between
Massachusetts, and Rhode Island,
(Which was a questionsOf boundary,
. but in which II does not appear that
evoked.
reply that 1t is not only true that in
all these cases there was an stnctJul and
formal agreement;' but I have sub
mitted that the thing cannot. be done
without nm "actunl agreement . or the
taking of tho new territory by force.
NopartioulRrform Is necessary, but the
actunlity must be an agreement. Mr..
lVanWinlkle ''not having access tOthe re-
"pOrts ofthe Supreme Court" us hesays,
mistakes about the first caIse between
Rhode Island and MASSACHUSETTS,, in
which he says that the consent OF CON
gress does not appear to have been in
yoked. stated in my first letter that
this question did not arise III that case,
and therefore, the CQnsdutof. Congress
had nothing t6do With Il. That was n
case of contested, not adjusted boundn-
ry. Rhode Island and Massachusetts
claimed that the actual boundary, Us
established by, the charter, would take
on from Massachusetts and transfer to
her Il portion of territory within the
limits claimed and asserted by AIassn-
chusetts. Tho question for the Court
to decide was, where the actual boun-
diary was. And the Court decided
against Rhode Island. In the second
case Massachusetts, sued Rhode Island,
setting up a similar, claim as to tho
line on another part of their contiguous
territory, This suit was compromised
by the Two StRtes,a agreeing upon new
line, not where either State claimed II.
but one Ofgreater convenience to both.
And they did II by separate and indie
pendent concurrfng acts of their Legis-
lntures-on0 preceding the othor-nnd
as much independent OF each other,nnd
MS much without negotiation, constitu-
tionul undertakings or considerations
moving from one to the other Ms could
possibly exist In the action of the two
Virginins under consideration. And
yet, as stated in my first letter, when
their line was brought into Court the SUI
preIne Court refused to enter up n jndg-
mcnt confirming and establishing It,
until Congress had hRsented. And i
gave the action OF Congress, citing tho
lnw by which the assent WIS given ]
hnve been informed since by one OF the
counsel, formerly n judge OF that high
Court, that 1t never was, for mo-
ment, made aquestion between Court
and counsel. But that tho consent OF
Congress was deemed by all constI-
tutionHl and adjudicated necessity, so
plain as not to be open TO question in
that forum.
Mr.. Van Wrinkle further observes: ID
1t may therefore be we'll to inquire
whether there Is anything in tho nc
ton in referepco to the two counties,
. or IN the nature OF tho case, that can
iniurionsly affect the rights of any
"other State. -
How mere change of the boundary
between two States can, injnrioualy
or otherwise, affect such rights and
interests, Is not very obvious. What
" grave political consequences could
possibly have attended the transfer of
Boston Corner. from Massachusetts,
t'to New York; Or, oven if Little
!. Rhody' had transferred "A large slice
"tconpafatively speRking) of her ter
" ritOry to the former, what injury to
"Other States would have followed Pt'
answer thnt agree with him that /
cannot see what possible injury can ac-
erue to these States by tho transfer of
to New York, or OF two counties from
one to the other Virginia, But that
does not answer the question.
Tho trainers OF the Constitution
I We're ofopihion, not that there could
not be n possible alteration of State
lines which would not be injurious 70
other States, but that there possibly
might be such nm one that would be in
furious, and that II would be wise 10
gunrd against that probability by re-
quiring In all cases the consent of Con
gross. The Supreme Court in Florida
vs.. Georgtn, already cited, say: "There
fare twenty-nine other States who arr
,.'also interested In this boundary, whose
ttinterests are represented by the United
4 Estates. For their interests NAV bt
different from those OF either OF these
t'lidgnnts." Again. tho Court saw,
''The Stntes might thus-tllat is by an
erdSiOR. such us Mr.. Van Wrinkle had
| In his mind ,-.in the form OF. an action
.tnccomplls what the Constitution pro.
Nhtbits them from doing directly by
'sconpact." SE =
/ am conscious that have left, for q
reply to Mr.. Stanton little space either
In your columns or your patience
But tho gravity of the question dis
cussed Is such MS hnrCily TO Justify M
omission, or any consideration tendinT
to lead to right conclusion. The lettoi
d OF AIr. stanton. Is unlike that Of Mr.
j Van Wrinkle, which admits tho law ant
the authorities 1 quoted, but contends
that the VirginiaS have avoided botI
n by the mode adopted in doing the bust
y ness. understand Mr.. Stanton. OF
the other hand, to deny the application
OF, the authorities cited by me, and ais,
TO deny broadly that the Constitution
requires tho assent of Congress to I
change by adjacent States of the bOun
Y Diary line between them, and then Z
J assert that Congress hns already EiyeI
Y TINT assent in the case under discussion
Il And first as to the authorities cited by
me, he says: tas IiI.-,5..f ~
Il SIN the published cases referred to BY
I. mfr. Dawes, in the Supreme Court o
.the United States, the question of tn,
"power of adjacent States to chang,
'their boundaries, and transfer terri
d t''torY rom one to the other, did not ant
"could not arise. l,eiE :. z
ttTha case of Florida VS.. Georrin. n,
ttHowart, 42lJ was a bill fled by thu
Estate of Florida vs.. tho State OF. Geor
J "gia, to settle n disputed boundary be
J tween tho Stntes, becdItSe the pdFtte
! ''comtd not agree upon tho boundary"
i LII. hna siniall ikEA ssnsn cf INln..iAc. ~.