Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1867-06-25

lions on which tie Commonwealth OF VIr-
ginia was willing to assent to the proposed
transfer of these counties had wholly failed,
aud that no agreement had been entered in
to, with the assent Of Congress, and formally
Withdrawing, by express repeal, all previous
proposals on the subject.
GA the tenth dav of March, 1853, more
than three months after Virginia formally
withdrew from the proposed compact, a Com
gress, in which West Virginia was represen-
ted, aud Virginia not represented, expressed
by n resolve its assent to the transfer of these
counties.
These are the facts:
The rules of law on which we rely are as
incOntrOvertible as these matters of fact
The first of them is in the Constitution of
the United States:
enter into any agreement compact with another
State OF a foreign power"
The second is, that transfer by one State
Of a part of its territory and jurisdiction to
another State, can be made only by COM
pact or agreement between them.
1t would be difficult to adduce arguments
in proof of this proposition. No proof can
be more evident than the proposition itself
1t is not conceivable how one State can VOL
UNFAIRLY prUtfer transfer of part of its ter
ritOry to another State, and how the latter
can accept the proffered transfer without a
compact or agreement between them, A
compact or agreement is the reciprocal and
concurrent consent of two or more parties to
u change of rights or interests. That such
compact or agreement was not only necessary
to effect this proposed transfer, but is pro-
vided for in terms by Virginia, is beyond
question. In the act concerning the transfer
of the county Of Jefferson is this language:
nd Re Of
hereby given for the annexation to the said State
Of West Virginia of such Of the said Districts or
each district may determine; provided that the
Legislature OF the State "t West Virginia shall lso
Consent and agI &c to the said annexation -
The act respecting Berkeley is the same in
substance. But we are relieved from all
necessity ofurgument on so plain proposition
by the uniform, repeated and explicit declara-
tiOns of this Court.
In Rhode Island Us. Massachusetts, II Pet.
Il. I25. this Court said: sit is most manifest.
that by universal consent and action. the
words agreement and Compact are con-
strued to include those which relate to boun-
Diary, yet that word boundary is not used
No one has ever imagined that compacts of
boundary were excluded because not expressly
named on tho contrary, they are held by the
States, Congress and this Court, to be included
by necessary implication; the evident conse.
quence resulting from their known object.
subject matter, the context. aud historical
reference to the state the times and country.
No such exception has been thought of, as
1t would render the clause u perfect nullity
for all practical purposes; especially the one
evidently intended by the constitution ia
giving To Congress the power of discerning to
such compacts. Not to prevent the States
from settling their own boundaries, SO far as
mo rail- rnfla Il 4!
but to guard against the arrangement of their
federal relations with the other States of the
Union, and the federal government: which
mightbe injuriously affected if the contracting
States might act upon their boundaries at
their pleasure"
In Poole as. Flecger, II Pet. r. 2O9.
speaking of the power of State to make
conventional lines of boundary, this Court de.
clares the right still exists under the Constitu-
ton, - guarded in its exercise 10y the single
Limitation or restriction, requiring the assent
OF Congress"
In Florida Us. Gcorgia, II How. 494, it
was declared, by the 10th section of the Ist
article of the Constitution. no State can enter
into any agreement or compact with another
State without the consent Of Congress. Now,
question of boundary between States is. in
Its nature, political question, to be settled
by compact made by the political departments
OF the Government. Aud if Florida and
Georgia had, by negotiation and agreement,
proceeded to adj lust this boundary, any com-
pact between them would have been null and
void, without 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 injuriousIv
the interest of the others And the right
and the duty to protect these interests is vest.
ed in the General Government"
The recent case of Massachusetts u.s. Rhode
Island is instructive, because it involved the
action Of Congress as we'll as of this Court.
The case is not reported, no action adverse
to either Of the parties being had by the
Court
The suit was originally an adverse suit
brought by Massachusetts against Rhode
Island to determine and fix a part of the
boundary line between the two States, and to
restore to Massachusetts, jurisdiction over the
territory in dispute.
After the answer of Rhode Island had
been filed ,contesting the pretensions of Massa
chusctts, the two States, through their au-
thOrized commissioners, whose acts were ap-
proved by the Legislature of each State.
made a conventional line of boundary, the
establishment of which would operate to
make mutual cessiOns Of territory by way of
exchange. The two States united in request
ing Congress to sanction their proposed COM
pact and in requesting this Court to estab>
lish by its decree the proposed conventional
line. by an act passed February 8, 1859,
Oh Stats. at Large, 1922 Congress empow-
cred the Attorney General to intervene in
the cause, and consent for the United States
''tO the conventional line to be agreed on by
the Parties;'' and upon such consent being
given, this Court passed the decree establish
ing the proposed line.