The Indianapolis journal., 1904-03-01

s c.. 90 L. S 90; Memphis & Cincinnati
Packet Company vs.. Pikey, 142 Ind. 3Oi 200,
80; Blanchard VS. Porter, ii Ohio, l5S, lf2.
The question that remains, then. Is the
construction of the Virginia compact. II
was suggested by one of the Judges below
that the words the respective Jurisdictions
shall be concurrent only with the
States which may possess the opposite
shore did not import a future grant. but
only restrictions: that they excluded the
United States or other States, but LETT the
jurisdiction of the states on the two sides
TO be determined by boundary, and there
fore that the jurisdiction OF Kentucky was
exclusive up 20 its boundary line OF low
water mark on the Indiana side.
This Interpretation seems 10 be without
sufficient warrant to require discussion. a
different one has been assumed hither and
is required by an accurate reading
ANOTHER CONSTRUCTION DISPUTED.
''The several jurisdictions of two States
respectively over adjoining portions OF a
river separated by boundary line is no
more. concurrent than is similar jurisdic-
tion oyer adjoining counties or strips of
land. Concurrent Jurisdiction. properly So
called on rivers is familiar TO our legisla-
tion. and means the jurisdiction of two
powers over one and the same place. There
is no reason 10 give an unusual meaning
20 the phrase See Sanders VS. ST. Louis
and New Orleans Anchor Line. 81 Mo-, q,
30; Opsahil vs.. Judd. 30 Mimi, l26, 12g, 150;
j. 5. keator Lumber Company VS.; ST CrolX
Boom Corporation. 72 Wis, 81, and the cases
last cited.
THE construction adopted by the ma
jOrity of the Court of Appeals seems to
us at least equally untenable 1t was held
that the words meant only that the states
should have legislative jurisdiction; But
jurisdiction, whatever else or more 1t may
mean, IS JurisdictiO, in its popular sense OF
authority to apply the law to the acts of
men. Vicat Vocab, sub. VS.. See Rhode
Island VS.. Massachusetts. II Peters, 607, as.
REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT MADE.
what the Virginia compact most GER
tainly conferred on the States north of the
Ohio was the right to administer the law
below low-water mark on the river, and.
as part of that right. the right to serve
process there with effect. State VS. Mullen,
IS Iowa. 100. 2O5. 206. What more jurisdiction.
as used in the statute, may embrace, or
what law or laws properly would determine
the civil criminal effect of acts done
upon the river, we have no occasion to de-
eide in this case. But. so far as applicable,
we adopt the statement of Chief Justice
Robertson i'm Arnold VS. Shields. Dana, Is.
p: Jurisdiction, unqualified, being, as Ii is.
the sovereign authority to make, decide on.
and execute laws, concurrence of juris-
dictiOn, therefore. must entitle Indiana TO
as much pOwer-iegislative, Judiciary and
eXecutive-as that possessed by Kentucky
over so much of the Ohio river as flows be-
tween them.
'tThe cOnveniences and inconvenience of
concurrent Jurisdiction, both, are obvious
and do not need to be stated. We have
nothing to do with them when the law
making power has spoken. To avoid mis-
understanding, it may be well to add that
the concurrent jurisdiction given is juris-
dictiOn on the river, and does not extend
to permanent structures attached to the
river bed and within the boundary of one
or the other State. Therefore, such cases
as Mississippi & Missouri Railroad VS..
Ward, Black, 4S5, do not apply. State VS..
Mullen, 80 Iowa. 199 206, 207.
Judgment reversed.