Legal Document

426 U.S. 363 96 Supreme Court Reporter 2113 48 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 701 State of NEW HAMPSHIRE, Plaintiff,v.State MAINE. Number 64 Orig. Argued April 19, 1976. Decided June 14, Syllabus Following institution this original action by New Hampshire against Maine to locate the lateral marine boundary separating between mouth Portsmouth Harbor and entrance Gosport in Isles Shoals, a settlement agreement was reached joint motion filed for entry judgment consent, together with proposed decree, based on stipulated record, which Special Master concluded should be submitted Court, at same time expressing view that decree impermissible under Vermont versus York, 417 270, 94 2248, 41 61, but recommending its if otherwise. Thereafter declared entire case, including consent submission. The had agreed Master's conclusion King George II's 1740 fixed Piscataqua (now Portsmouth) area differed over location certain points terms decree. embodied States' upon meaning those terms. Held : 1. Entry proposes wholly permissible final resolution controversy both as facts law comports Court's Article III function. can therefore effectuated. supra, provided "no findings shall made" "it not constitute an adjudication any issue fact or law, evidence, admission party respect such issue," whereas here records extent hitherto imprecisely described locations line relevant evidence; nor is anything like "arbitral" function future disputes York involved here. Pp. 367-369. 2. Adoption does involve compact I, § 10, cl. 3, requiring Congress. application Clause limited agreements "directed formation combination tending increase political power States, may encroach . just supremacy States," Virginia Tennessee, 148 503, 519, 13 728, 734, 37 L.Ed. 537. Here litigant are adjusting them, decree; simply locates precisely already existing boundary, neither enhancing threatening Federal Government. 369-370. Edward KF105 F3 Bradley, Jr., Chicago, Ill., plaintiff. Richard Upton, Concord, N. H., defendant. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Both have exceptions Report brought Maine, 414 810, 996, 25, 233, 38 45, 348 (1973), Shoals.1 Prior trial Attorneys General jointly "Motion Judgment Consent Plaintiff Defendant," record.2 thereafter, without further hearing supplemental briefs, 2 "concluded consideration," expressed rejection must recommended principle 277, 2252, 61 (1974), "mere settlements parties acting compulsions motives no relation performance (the Court's) functions" do relieve constitutional duty decide merits States. However, would consistent function.3 We hold sustain Maine's exception Accordingly, we occasion address other 3 dispute II England. That set follows: 4 "That Dividing Line pass up thro Mouth Harbour Middle River And part Shoals run Islands Sea Southerly Side. ." 5 historical events produced summarized briefly here, detailed Report. In early 18th century, major arose provinces Massachusetts regarding southern border Hampshire. legal issues focused Merrimack River, portion also involved. When representatives two were unable 1731 reach agreement, presented matter II. referred Board Trade, 1735 commissioners from England Colonies designated resolve question. 1737 accordingly appointed 20 members Provincial Councils Jersey, Rhode Island, Nova Scotia serve commissioners. Although much debate related only question, point controversy. commission rendered decision later year, appealed King. 1738 Lords Committee Privy Council Hearing Appeals Plantations acceptance commission's change. signed accepting recommendation and, employing quoted language, thereby permanently Maine-New boundary. This when Union, Hampshire, formed, formally separated admitted Union. 6 expressly agree "the area." Their quarrel "Mouth River," "Middle Harbour" within contemplation embodies terms, give effect consistently our duty. 7 found "case controversy" existed filed, compromise represented "(a)t moving papers propose case might apply 'principles equity facts, distilled hearings stipulations.' (Vermont 2252.)" 3-4. true circumstances before it case. 8 issue." U.S., 271, S.Ct., 2249. appointment authorized consider all disputes, after exhaustion administrative remedies, file recommendations Court; these become decisions unless disapproved. Obviously proposal "would materially change interstate contests." Id., 2252. If police prospectively conduct parties, "we more arbitral rather than judicial manner." Ibid. 9 contrast, States; nothing except record states "determines inner breakwater end Shoals." 10 law. Nothing remotely resembling "judicial" functions involved, unlike York. Moreover, there suggest contrary see reason effect, even different evidence. nature fall into category reject because Does proscribe merely reasonably investing imprecise definitions 11 suggests, however, independent determination validity principles circumvention Compact Clause, 3. premise argument "Agreement Compact" thus requires Congress effective. disagree. 12 "Directed states, interfere States." 537 (1893). Whether particular respecting boundaries will depend whether establishment lead influence affected, full free exercise federal authority." 520, 735. See Wharton Wise, 153 155, 168-171, 14 783, 786, 669 (1894). plainly falls test. them; centuries ago directed locating viewed sense threatens defined "takes alienation territory, definition ancient boundary." 522, 736. North Carolina 235 1, 15-16, 35 8, 13, 59 97 (1914). entered. 15 So ordered. 16 WHITE, whom BLACKMUN STEVENS join, dissenting. 17 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions find unacceptable cursory ourselves bound accept words "middle river" phrases used document describe boundaries, well their where lies face earth. 18 interpret thalweg, they understand middle main channel navigation. then fashioned mutually river harbor basis, ocean being straight navigation channels cross closing lines Harbors. No inquiry made, either has, had, commonly understood words, 1740, intended geographic equidistant nearest pois shores. given very similar Texas Louisiana, 410 702, 93 1215, 646 (1973); seems incredible me however correct regard imply he wrong nevertheless parties' 19 holding Whatever import courts imprimatur. As stipulation been acceptable binding us mean geographical center stream. middle-of-the-river language determined accordance principles, convenience. employed thalweg intended. regard, difficult believe what turn out 1970's. 21 totally concepts. map connection indicates great difference makes rule strongly objects latter substantial areas seaward lost neighbor, 22 Furthermore, shores, laid seem Harbor; proceeds absolutely lines, following deepest proceed invariable course. What actually done assert represents course most usually followed navigating river. thing thalweg. 23 think could them shore controlling describes river; nor, made plain line, stipulate stream court approve stipulation. Rather determine lay accepted enter accordingly. do, his entered therewith. lobster fishing seabed. regulatory laws, applicable, restrictive For example, license, available residents, taking lobsters waters. Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 12, 4404 (Supp. 1975-1976). imposed stricter minimum- maximum-size requirements. Compare 4451 (1964), N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 211:27 1975). Before efforts settle failed, violence rights threatened. A intervene behalf Commercial Fishermen's Association denied Master, leave Amicus curiae granted. noted Legislature supported support "Counsel assure requested disposition has fully explained Governor Executive each Counsel action." contention legislative approval disapproval renders ineffective.

Classification Label: 10