The Farmville herald. (Farmville, Va.) 1957-current, 1962-08-10
". D. Workman


had the door slammed in its
face by the U. S. Court OF Ap-
peals for the District OF Col
In slamrning that door. the
Court has strengthened the right
Of states to combine with one an
other in joint governmental en-
terprise. Unfortunately, the
Court did not 60 SO far as to
reaffirm the Constitutional val
idity of such joint enterprises.
But it did focus new attention
on that little known institution,
the interstate compact - an
agreement between two or
more states to work together
in solution of common problems.
In the current case. this COM
pact was made by the states OF
New York and New Jersey.
Back in 1921 the two states join
ed hands in a successful effort
! to solve the complex programs
Of operating and developing the
Port Of New York. In recent
years, however, Congress has
been poking into the affairs Of
the Authority. and demanding
access to the authority's books
and other records of its inter-
nal management.
In the name of states rights,
the Governors of New York and
Of New York and New Jersey
stiffened their necks, and told
the Port Authority officials to
stand their ground against Con-
gressional interference.
| At this juncture, Congress re-
taliated by citing several Auth
GRITTY officials for contempt in re-
fusing to turn over the agency's
records. The executive director
Of the Authority, Austin j. To-
bin, was convicted of contempt.
But this latest decision of the
Circuit Court Of Appeals has re-
versed that conviction. The
Court held that the Congress
sional committee had not been
authorized to conduct so sweep
ing an investigation.
| This decision represents at
least a partial victory for the
States. But it does not 60 to the
heart Of the matter, which con
Germs the rights of Congress to
intervene in the management OF
interstate compacts. So far there
has been general willingness tc
let interstate cOn1pacts go theiI
own way. after having obtained
initial Congressional approval.
Such approval is necessary un-
der the wording of the Constitu.
ton, which says that mo state
Shall enter into any agree
ment or compact with another
state. without the consent Of
Congress.
The inclusion of that provision
in the Constitution was simply a
carry-over of a similar provision
in the older Articles of Confed
GRAFTON. Thus, from the earliest
days of the American republic
it has been recognized that Ger.
tain problems lend themselves
to Joint solution by the affect
ed states 81 rather than by the
federal government itself.
For many years, the growth
Of interstate compacts was slow
For the most part, they repre-
sented attempts to find admins,
tratlve solutions to interstate
problems without becoming EN-.
broiled in the tolls of interstate
litigation.
Later on, adjoining states rec
ognized that they might fore
stall or control the growth of
common problems by taking af-
flrmatlve, administrative &C
ton before these problems be-
came critical.
This line of though was cry
stalllzed back in 1925 by Felix
F'rankfurter and James M. Land
Is. in a Yale Law Journal art
lcle in which they said:
The imaginative adaptation
of the compact idea should add
considerably to reserves avail
able to statesmen in the solu-
ton of problems presented by
growing interdependence, social
and economic, of groups of
states forming distinct re-
glonS.
Since then. these regional ar
rangements have grown in
| number and effectiveness To
day, dozens of such interstate
cOmpactS are operating fire.
quently without public attention
and sometimes without public
aWareness.
In the West, these interstate
compactS are concerned primar-
lily with the ALLEGATION and con-
Servatlon of water. Numerous
other compacts scattered all ov-
err the nation deal with water
pollution, fishing agreements,
and flood control.
The South pioneered in the
development of regional edu-