The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-07-22

why the suprsme Courts Rebuke 90 the In
aarvener C0nnerna me HAGue Tribunal.

WHY tno 1nyfo1uo NNuftN WtuuNo 70 uuo M
tervoner Concerns the Hague Tribunal.
To THE EpIron or TEE suN-Sir A con.
gress Of nations has been an object for which
good mon In the old world and the new have
lonGed and lsbored. Such . congress 10 now
In session al The Hague. One Of It's endeavors
70 to establish Q permanent judicial tribunal
which shall have Jurisdiction TO decide cases
arising between sovereign and independent
States. Such . tribunal the Constitution Of
the United States established 10 ~adjudicste
controversies in which the United States
should be q party. or between two or more
States Of the Union that should assume such
. form that the judicial power could act upon
them.
There has been Q recent application Of
legal right by that tribunal to q controversy
over the use OF waters Of the Arkansas River.
in which the state Of Colorado was defendant
and the State Of Kansas and the United States
were comp%lsinants-all Of the parties quasi
sovereign states-the quality and importance
Of which has. ! think. not yet been adequately
recognised.
Colorado 10 q State wherein are the sources
Of two rivers. the Rio Grande and the Arkan-
sas. the use Of the waters of which have
caused controversies OF an International char
scter. The former river. rising In Colorado.
flows across New Mexico and then 10 the
boundary between Mexico and Texas. The
Arkansas River. also rising In Colorado, flows
through Kansas. thence through oklahoma
and onward into the Mississippi. Each IL
available for irrigation In the States through
which IL runs or Of which IL Ia the boundary.
One has on that account caused q controversy
between Mexico and the United States. ard
the other for a similar reason has made dis
putes between Kansas. Colorado and the
United States. The latter dispute between
three sovereignties has recently been de-
cided by the Supreme Court. but the former
could receive only diplomatic treatment. which
In not final.
Questions and controversies growing out Of
the diversion or pollution Of the waters Of
international rivers are not unusual. They
form q class Of international disputes for the
decision Of which there is an effort at The
Hague. more or less earnest. 10 create a per-
manent international court, like the Supreme
Court for our American Interstate cases.
With the effort OF President Roosevelt's
administration to deny the sovereignty OF
Colorado over It's owl unnavigable waters
and TO inject the sovereignty Of the United
States which last endeavor the Supreme
Court rebuked and thwarted, l have now
no concern. | only wish to suggest how
much In ooTi.non there is zen the work
accomplished by our Constitution for the
semi-sovereign States Of the United StS~-s
and the work which the Ha que congvess has
In hand for all the nations.
u Nv PubllNiHlS VI uc I1dkut VIII nO1 ~ n
the less interested in the American suprenc
Court as an international tribunal because
told by President Roosevelt that Colorado
and all the other American States are not
completely sovereign. Each and every one
OF them has admittedly. however. SOM
rights OF sovereignty. The Supreme Court
repeatedly refers to them as semi-sovereign
or quasi-sovereisn States. Tho publicists
assembled at The Hague will correctly APP
preciate. even II We in the United States do
not. the quiet dignity with which the court
In its recent opinion explained that neither
the President nor Congress had constitutional
power TO settle the dispute between Kansas
and Colorado and compel them to abide by
the settlement: that a resort by either OF the
States to a treaty with each other, or to war,
is eliminated; but that the Constitution has
vested in the court Jurisdiction TO decide
the dispute. Nothing can, In a political way,
be finer or grander than these decisive and
deciding words:
Nor is our Jurisdiction ousted. even n because
Kansas and Nebraska are States sovereign and
independent In local matters; the relations between
them depend In any respect upon principles Of
International law. That law is no alien In this
tribunal. II ia q part OF our Law. This court II
practically building up what may not be improperly
called Interstate common law"
The tone Of calm and conscious superiority
with which the court. In perception OF the
faCt that the Arkansas River IL not naVl-
gable, and declaring the law OF the Consti-
tuition, finally excluded the United States
as a party from any consideration In the
final judgment cannot fail TO impress the
statesmen and diplomats now at The Hague.
The spectacle OF a court in effect excluding
from the court room the Government which
Is the giver OF the commissions OF its mem
bers Is not often witnessed.
But. after all. the feature OF the case most
directly interesting to Colorado is the vindi-
cation Of her sovereignty against the vigorous
welding OF his big stick" at Harrisburg by
the President after the issues were all made
up. the testimony all in. the oral arguments
in preparation. and only a few days before
they were delivered. Those were blue days
for Colorado. although the Presidents in
herent" doctrine seems since the decision
Of the court very absurd. The frmDess Of
the court Is all the more firm after its demon
strated resistance 20 the spoken speeches
Of the President. the Department Of State.
and the Department OF Justice only = little
while before the decision. COLORADO.
DENVER. July 20.
$500 49,