Page images

Inmigracion, disposiciones relativas a. Habana, 1907. 62 p.

Secretaria de hacienda.


British Bechuanaland and German S. W. Africa, report on the boundary survey between. Berlin, 1906. 162 p., maps. Anglo-German

boundary commission.


Corea. [Agreements with Corea, 1904-1905. 1906. 22 p.]

Organization of the residency-
Foreign office.

Foreign office. Corea. Imperial ordinance No. 267. general and residences. [1906.] 6 p. Corea, treaties and conventions between, and other powers [1905.] 204 p. Foreign office.

Russia, correspondence regarding the negotiations between Japan and. (1903-1904.) [1904.] 36 p. Foreign office.

Russie, protocoles de la conference de paix entre le Japon et la. [1906.] 89 p. Foreign office.

Russia, protocols of the peace conference between Japan and. [1906.] 85 p. Foreign office.

Russie, traité de paix entre le Japon et la. [1905.] (French, English, and Japanese texts.) Foreign office.


Relaciones exteriores, memoria presentada a la Asamblea nacional de 1906 por el Secretario de gobierno y. Panama, 1907. xcv, 449 p.

Secretaría de gobierno y relaciones exteriores.


Consultation pour le Gouvernement du Pérou par M. M. Louis Renault, A. de Lapradelle et N. Politis, professeurs de droit international aux Universités de Paris, de Grenoble et de Poitiers. Paris, 1906. 29 p. Ministerio de relaciones exteriores.

Exposición de la República del Perú presentada al Excmo. Gobierno Argentino en el juicio de limites con la República de Bolivia conforme al tratado de arbitraje de 30 de Diciembre de 1902. Barcelona, 1906. vol. 1. Ministerio de relaciones exteriores.

Juicio de límites entre el Perú y Bolivia. posición del Perú. Barcelona, 1906. 43 p. exteriores.

Conclusiones de la exMinisterio de relaciones

Juicio de límites entre el Perú y Bolivia. Prueba Peruana presentada al Gobierno de la República Argentina por Víctor M. Maurtua, abogado y plenipotenciario especial del Perú. Barcelona, 1906. 12 v. Cartas geográficas. 2 v. Ministerio de relaciones exteriores.


Betänkande afgifvet af den enligt nådigt beslut den 17 november 1905 förordnade Kommitté om nya organisationer af Utrikesdepartementet, diplomatien och Konsulatväsendet jämte förslag till utgiftsstater. Stockholm, 1906. iv, 264, 250 p., maps.


Mensaje del Presidente. 15 de Febrero de 1906. Montevideo. 120 p. Relaciones exteriores, memoria presentada por el Ministro de. 1905. Montevideo, 1906. xxxvi, 63 p. Ministerio de relaciones exteriores.


81 p.


12 P.


Boutres de Mascate, recueil des actes et protocoles concernant le differend entre la France et la Grande Bretagne à propos des, soumis au Tribunal d'arbitrage constitué en vertu du compromis arbitral conclu à Londres le 13 octobre 1904 entre les puissances susmentionnées. La Haye, juil.-août 1905. La Haye, 1905. Bureau international de la Cour permanente d'arbitrage. Exposé de quelques traités d'arbitrage. international de la Cour permanente d'arbitrage. Fonds pieux des Californies. Recueil des actes et protocoles concernant le litige du "Fonds pieux des Californies " soumis au tribunal d'arbitrage constitué en vertu du traité conclu à Washington le 22 mai 1902 entre les Etats-Unis d'Amérique et les Etats-Unis Mexicains. La Haye, september-october, 1902. La Haye, 1902. 110 p. Bureau international de la Cour permanente d'arbitrage.

Rapport du Conseil administratif de la Cour permanente d'arbitrage, adressé aux puissances signataires de la Convention pour le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux, en exécution de l'article 28 de cette Convention, sur les travaux de la Cour, sur le fonctionnement des services administratifs et sur les dépenses pendant l'année, 1901, 9 p.; 1902,

16 p.; 1903, 16 p.; 1904, 32 p.; 1905, 33 p.

Recueil des actes et protocoles concernant le litige entre l'Allemagne, l'Angleterre et l'Italie d'une part et le Vénézuela d'autre part. Tribunal

d'arbitrage constitué en vertu des protocoles signés à Washington, le 7 mai 1903 entre les puissances susmentionnées. La Haye, sept. 1903–fév. 1904. La Haye, 1904. Bureau international de la Cour permanente d'arbitrage.

159 p.

Recueil des actes et protocoles concernant le litige entre l'Allemagne, la France et la Grande Bretagne d'une part et le Japon d'autre part. Tribunal d'arbitrage constitué en vertu de protocoles signés à Tokyo le 28 août 1902 entre les puissances susmentionnées. La Haye, nov. 1904– Bureau international de la Cour

mai 1905. La Haye, 1905.

54 P.

permanente d'arbitrage.


8 p.

Le développement des conventions de la Haye du 29 juillet 1899. Conference faite à l'Institut Nobel à Kristiania le 18 juillet 1906 par M. Albert Gobat, conseiller national suisse. Stockholm, 1907. (Les prix Nobel en 1902, suppl.)

Les prix Nobel en 1904. Stockholm, 1907. 82, 8, 10, 18 p.





Supreme Court of the United States. May, 1907.

The use of the waters of a non-navigable interstate river for irrigation.

On May 20, 1901, pursuant to a resolution passed by the legislature of Kansas, (Laws Kansas, 1901, chap. 425,) and upon leave obtained, the State of Kansas filed its bill in equity in this court against the State of Colorado. To this bill the defendant demurred. After argument on the demurrer this court held that the case ought not to be disposed of on the mere averments of the bill, and, therefore, overruled the demurrer without prejudice to any question defendant might present. Leave was also 185 U. S. 125. * * * given to answer.

On August 17, 1903, Kansas filed an amended bill, naming as defendants Colorado and quite a number of corporations, who were charged to be engaged in depleting the flow of water in the Arkansas River. Colorado and several of the corporations answered. For reasons which will be apparent from the opinion the defenses of these corporations will not be considered apart from those of Colorado. On March 21, 1904, the United States, upon leave, filed its petition of intervention. The issue between these several parties having been perfected by replications, a commissioner was appointed to take evidence, and after that had been taken and abstracts prepared counsel for the respective parties were heard in argument, and upon the pleadings and testimony the case was submitted.1 *

Mr. Justice BREWER delivered the opinion of the Court.

While we said in overruling the demurrer that "this court, speaking broadly, has jurisdiction," we contemplated further consideration of both the fact and the extent of our jurisdiction, to be fully determined after the facts were presented. We therefore commence with this inquiry. And first of our jurisdiction of the controversy between Kansas and Colorado.

1 The facts will sufficiently appear in the opinion.

This suit involves no question of boundary or of the limits of territorial jurisdiction. Other and incorporeal rights are claimed by the respective litigants. Controversies between the States are becoming frequent, and in the rapidly changing conditions of life and business are likely to become still more so. Involving as they do the rights of political communities, which in many respects are sovereign and independent, they present not infrequently questions of far-reaching import and of exceeding difficulty.

It is well, therefore, to consider the foundations of our jurisdiction over controversies between States. It is no longer open to question that by the Constitution a nation was brought into being, and that that instrument was not merely operative to establish a closer union or league of States. Whatever powers of government were granted to the nation or reserved to the States (and for the description and limitation of those powers we must always accept the Constitution as alone and absolutely controlling), there was created a nation to be known as the United States of America, and as such then assumed its place among the nations of the world.

The first resolution passed by the convention that framed the Constitution, sitting as a committee of the whole, was "Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee that a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislative, judiciary, and executive." 1 Eliot's Debates, p. 151.

In M'Culloch v. State of Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405, Chief Justice Marshall said:

The government of the Union, then, (whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case) is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.

See also Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 324, opinion by Mr. Justice Story.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 441, Chief Justice Taney observed:

The new government was not a mere change in a dynasty, or in a form of government, leaving the nation or sovereignty the same, and clothed with all the rights, and bound by all the obligations of the preceding one. But, when the present United States came into existence under the new government, it was a new political body, a new nation, then for the first time taking its place in the family of nations.

And in Miller on the Constitution of the United States, p. 83, referring to the adoption of the Constitution, that learned jurist said: "It was then that a nation was born."

« PreviousContinue »