The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-03-06

OF wnicn Is fdentical with the section
quoted from the first Constitution.
I'm 1850 a third Constitution was adopted
for the State of Kentucky, embodying the
same provisions as Article s. Section 3.
OMITTED IN 1891
Until the adoption of the present Con-
stitution of Kentucky in 1891. when 1t was
omitted, the compact with Virginia was
thus formally recognized by the Constitu-
ton a part of the fundamental law of
the State.
I'm Article /, Sections, of the Constitution
Of the United States. Congress is given the
power ito exercise exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever over such district.
not exceeding ten miles square. as may
by cession of particular States and the ac-
ceptance of Congress, become the seat of
the government of the United States; and
TO exercise like authority over all places
purchased by the consent of the Legisla-
ture of the State in which the same shall
be. for the erection of forts, magazines
buildings
Pursuant to this authority, Congress has
purchased, in every State In the Union.
grounds for postoffices. forts. magazines.
arsenalS, dockyards and other needful
buildings, including, in many States, homes
for disabled soldiers and sailors the juris-
diction over the land having been. in every
instance, ceded by the State to the federal
State, land within the territorial bound
aries OF the State, jurisdiction over which
both civil and criminal. has been coded to
the federal government and the validity
of such cession of jurisdiction has been uni
formly sustained by the courts.
In very many States municipalities have
been properly given a territorial jurisdic-
ton for certain purposes extending beyond
their corporate limits; and such extraterri-
|. torfal jurisdiction has been uniformly sus-
tanned by the courts.
The Indiana Constitution of 1851. which
provision, In Article H. Section 2: The
State OF Indiana shall possess Jurisdiction
ana sovereignty coextensive with the
boundaries declared in the preceding Sec
ton; and shall have concurrent jurisdic-
ton, In civil and criminal cases, with the
| State of Kentucky, on the Ohio river, and
with the State of Illinois. on the Wabash
river, so far as said rivers form the COM
mon boundary between this State and said
states, respectively
These authorities show that certainly
since 1880. the State of Indiana has exer-
cised civil and criminal Jurisdiction upon
the Ohio river beyond low water mark on
| the Indiana side; that it has done this on
| the declared authority of the Virginia
compact; and that it has sustained and
| enforced the service of civil process on
| the river by appropriate legislation and
| In its courts. They also show that the
state OF Indiana and its courts have con-
strued the concurrent jurisdiction granted
.
| the right to enforce its laws and its pro-
cess, civil and criminal, upon the river
Wherever 1t constitutes the boundary line
between Indiana and Kentucky.
PUBLIC POLICY DEMANDS 1T.
Every consideration of public policy
points to the construction which is claimed
by appellees for the words concurrent
| jurisdiction in the Virginia compact 1t
| Is difficult to protect commerce from
| depredations wherever it is carried upon
the surface of a stream. River thieves
and pirates have been the especial dread
| of navigators in ali times. The policing of
| boundary streams Is one of the most diff
| ficult problems of modern government
AT the very best 1t is expensive and made
quate. property rights should be as safe
upon the water the land, and yet
| ii is VIGOROUSLY fact that they are not
In the case under consideration there
are no cities in Kentucky of any size i'm
| mediately opposite the Indiana river cities,
excepting the city of Louisville. If the
concurrent jurisdiction of Indiana is rec
ognized the Indiana cities can protect
themselves. their shipping and their
wharves as effectively as they always
have done. without expense or any particu-
lar burden to the State of Kentucky.
IF the concurrent jurisdiction is denied
the burden of their protection, for the
good name of the commonwealth, If for no
other reason. must be borne by Kentucky
alone.
THE difficulty of the successful prosecu-
ton OF crimes committed on the river I'm
interior cities Of Kentucky will be very
great, the burden of such prosecutions
which must fall on Kentucky alone will
be considerable, and ii goes without say
ing that the inability to compel the pro-
duction of Indiana witnesses will in many
cases defeat prosecutions.
"A recognition by Kentucky of concur
rent jurisdiction takes nothing from the
| jurisdiction and authority of the COM
monwealth, nor does it add in any way to
| it's burden.
1.-THE interests Of the people in maintain
ing good government by the vigorous
prosecution of crime and such misdemean-
ors as are common to the criminal statutes
of both States, would seem to require that
both States should exercise Jurisdiction
| on the river, and to vindicate the wisdom
| of our fathers in providing for it in the
compact.
THE Court of Appeals is with all respect
reminded that a reversal of the Judgment
of the Warren Circuit Court violates the
Constitution of the United States in two
respects:
Il. 1t tends to impair the Virginia COM
| pact. which Is a contract of the common
wealth of Kentucky, and thus violates Ar
/ ticle j. Section 10, of the Constitution as
| fully as might any act of legislation i'm
| pair the obligation Of that contract
"2. 1t denies to the Indiana court and
| its proceedings the full faith and credit
| guaranteed by Article 4, Section L.