The Spokane woman. [volume] (Spokane, Wash.) 1921-1935, 1929-06-20


su-h a plan might not be perfected
in eyery detail at once but II the
thinking people Of this twentieth cen
cnly establish some such institution
for foundation upon which the com
inp generations may build il will be a
teeo we'll sown. Any institution has
70 nave beginning, then improved,
corrected, and amended as circum-
stances and situations demand.
The women Of the State Of Washing
ton, Individually and in groups snoulj
study this question, SO that they may
use an intelligent influence in molding
public opinion in favor Of a World
Court, or whatever il may be called,
10 take the place Of war.
II il not as visionary as II may
seem to some. We are quite familiar
with individuals instituting legal pro
oeedings one against another, even
with groups, as corporations suing and
being sued, but not 80 many know that
the Supreme Court OF the United
States adjudicates controversies be-
tween States in the Union. This pro-
vision Is made in the Constitution but
4 similar provision was made before
this in the Articles Of Confederation.
When the thirteen separate, indepen-
dent. sovereign American States, as
diverse in race, language. habits and
customs and even as to geographical
surroundings. as the countries OF Eu-
rope. adopted a framework Of Govern
ment a provision was made to give
tie Congress the power to constitute
d Court to settle all disputes and dit
ferences.
II provided that for each case. as 1t
arose the litigant state should name
a certain number of persons from
V HON commissioners or judges
should be drawn by lot and that ii
any state should neglect to name them
the Congress might do so in its place;
these judges were TO have power to
proceed to judgment and to pronounce
a final decree, even if the defendant
state refused to appear before them.
Between l7S1. when the Articles OF
Confederation went into operation.
and l7s7. when the Constitution was
framed, just one case was tried. That
was relative to boundary line be-
tween Connecticut and Pennsylvania.
certain territory being claimed by
each state.
There were some defects in this
scheme and the tribunal resembled
more an arbitration commission than
court. 1t was not a permanent body.
the members being chosen for each
case after the controversy had reached
the boiling point.
When the Constitution was adopted.
il set forth in Article Ill. more spe-
officially the various controversies over
which the Court should have iuris.
diction and this was the first time in
history that provision was ever made
for a permanent Supreme Court. with
compulsory jurisdiction over "eontro-
Versies between two or more states
Between 1889 and 1923. in such in
t5rstate suits, twenty-seven states of
the Union had appeared as plaintiffs
and twenty-three as defendants. There
had been altogether thirty.nine contro.
versies involving eighty-one decisions
by the Supreme Court.
Most of the controversies were over
boundary lines and claims of territory
but not all of them. Some of them
involved direct injuries alleged to have
been committed by one state against
another, such as diverting the waters
OF a river by obstruction and thus cur.
talling the commerce of another state:
by permitting sewage to pollute the
waters of river or harbor of a neigh.
boring state and thus menace the life
and health of its inhabitants: by the
use of water for irrigation and thus
depriving a state of its adequate