The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1867-05-28

the compact comes into question, 1t viii
be suffi cient. This is clear, If the COM
pact bipg the States the parties to II
before such consent is given. main
tain that 1t does. 1t cannot be necessa-
ry tocite authorities to prove that the
States as between themselves may en-
ter into compacts. That is a right Incl :
dent to their sovereignty, In the cases
of Poole Us. Fleeger, III Pet, 209, and OF
Rhode Island and Massachusetts, (l2
Pet, 725.) it was held that before the
adoption of the Constitution by virtue
or their sovereignty the States could
have entered into such compacts, and
that the single limitatio upon the pow
er Is that the consent OF Congress Is now
required. In the prior case Of Green
and Biddle. [5 VIII, IS, the court, In re-
ferring to the clause, said that 'the
mode or form in which the consent of
Congress ls TO be siguihed" is not
pointed out, the Constitution every
properly. leaving that matter to, the
wisdom of that body to be decided upon
and of right reason" They further
said that the only question In such a
csse was, "Has Congress, by some posi-
tive act in relation to such agreement,
signltied the consent OF that body. to its
validity" In neither of the cases was
it even intimated that the agreement
was not binding between the States
until Congress should consent to it. 5s e.
| submit, therefore, that until a
reasonable, period shall have elapsed
to enable Congress- to consider and pass
upon the subject, the agreement is bind
ing on the parties TO it--thsa States.
This would seem to follow from the adj
mitted right of the States to contract
with each other. But as such contracts
might injuriously affect the other
States the Constitution properly gives
to Congress, the representative OF all
the States, the right to decide whether
they should be executed or not. The
States however entering into them were
not in the interval to be permitted to
violate them. Congress might be of
opinion that it would be for the good OF
the whole that such agreements should
be fulfilled. The authority to decide
that they should not necessarily in
should. To enable Congress to perform
this duty ylunderstandinglyi it is neces-
sary that the States should be bound as
between themselves until that body
shall have reasonable time to perform
it. Tue case cited by my brother Cur
tis, of Florida Us. Georgia, az How,
4S4,) is perfectly consistent with this
view. The Chief ustice, in giving the
opinion, is evidently considering the
rights of the States who were not par
ties 10 the compact in that case, and
not the rights or obligations of the Two
States. 1sIiat 4s5 ui asil -
Speakingof the purpose of the pro.
vision, he said It was ''to guard the
rights and interests Of other States and
to prevent any compact OF agreement
between any two States which affect in
juriously the interests of the others.u p
When, therefore,, he added that the
compact there in question ''would have
been null and I-void without the
assent of Congress-" he clearly did
not mean to say that such Compact
as between the parties to it was
from the moment 1t was entered into
null and void, or that 1t could have
been Withdrawn or changed by either
without the assent oft other at any
time before Congress could have an op-
portunfty of passing upon it. Such a
doctrine would enable a party to COM
pact entered into for a valuable cOusid-
Grafton to violate it with impunity; a
proposition which is, i submit, not less
morally than . legally unsound. And
yet that isi the very doctrine upon
which, as L understand it, the COM
plainant in this part Of her case relies;
for it is here assumed that the provision
of her lawS of January and February,
1868, proposing. the compact, were fully
and fairly complied with; that the cleo
tions they provided for were properly
held and conducted, and that her Gov
ernor truly and legally certified the re-
suit to Wet Virginia. i1atszHe .. .t.974
And it is also assumed that that State
in good faith acted upon this official In
formation, aud at once admitted the
counties into her limits and has ever
since extended her laws over them and
their inhabitants; taxing the people,
establishing local courts, granting them
representatives in'her legislature and
exercising oYer'them the same jurisdic-
ton in all respects as over any other
part of the State. Under these circum-
stances it seems to me. to befperfectly
evident that to permit Virginia in De-
cember, 1865, more than two years af-
terward, to regain them, would as
against West Virginia be a gross wrong.
Nor is the doctrine In conflict! with the
authority of Wheaton, (LAwrence's
edition, 453,) referred to in complain
ants brieE. That author does not main
tain, as .hei is supposed to do that one
OF the parties to a treaty between States,
fully concluded, can Rnnul 1t upon dis
covering a mistake as to fundamental
facts, So far from 1t he says that 1t can
made. previous to ratification. And a
treaty Is never fully concluded until it
is ratified. II, therefore, as have en-
deavored TO show, the compact'in the
present casewas as between the parties,
fully executed, IL, as far as they are
concernedI nothing further was to be
doneto give 1t validity, It is as binding
onlboth as treaty is binding after rat
ification. 90 10 zE74ts b5'7oas f5u
T1.,kg Itt,,o,, ! f,A ,r>,,,
plainant Is. not entitled to the relief
Sought The Certif ificate of7the Governor
of September, 1885, was given In due
form. The effort to avoid IL is upon the
ground that itwas obtained through
| fraudulent Misrepresentation It, is
not stated when these were discovered,
\ or that the defeudant1Wa advised OF
them before the fillng of the bill In De-
cember, 1865. , NoTeason is assigned for
the delay. The adefendant, therefore,
for three years had 4 right to believe
that the counties belonged to her. jUn-
der that impression; and without objec-
exercised entire jurisdi etiOn over them
and their Inhabitants, Whatever re-
lief, therefore, the complainant might
at one time have been entitled to, she
has lost by lRChesd Ici Sgd sissW Ia
Second, II the, court shall be against
us upon the first question, then the
second must be decided: Is Virginia a
State competent to sue3 The original
ljurisdictio of the Court can beinV0ked
| bYa State. The State meant I'M this
part of the Constitution evidently'is Is q
State Of the Union possessing all Che
| rights which belong to any other state:
The Union consists of States equal In
all RESPECTS In dignity, and possessing
the same rights! The most important
ofithese rights, the one upon which all
It's other rights and interests I; depend tSr
Of representation In Congress-. This is
given 10 secure the State and its people
I against unjust and Oppressive legisla-
tion, especlally against that particular
\ oppression to resist which our fathers
separated from England they being
taxed without being represented in
4 T1uf. aSafff16I IN