OCR Text |
Show JF The fa SUPREME Pfffififfis C0URT hit5ilUMLMr AND HOW IT WORKS Disputes Betiveen States By ROBERT MERRILL ONE of the important functions func-tions of the Supreme court of the United States consists in protecting the people of one state from being be-ing deprived of their rights by a neighboring state. ! Like individuals, the 48 states in the Union do not always agree on matters which affect them in common. com-mon. i In many respects each state is independent in-dependent of every other state. Each has its own government, constitution, constitu-tion, and laws. Each surrenders to the federal government, under the Constitution, only enough of its independence in-dependence to assure regulation for the common good in matters of national na-tional concern. Frequently one state believes that a neighboring state has deprived or is depriving it of certain rights, j It may believe that some of its territory is wrongfully claimed by its neighbor. Or it may think that j another state is polluting a river I which runs through, or bounds both i states. Perhaps the waters of an ! interstate river are being diverted j by an upper state, so that the lower ! state is deprived of some of its benefits. ben-efits. A difference ovjr financial matters mat-ters may also demand a decision by an impartial umpire. Constitution Provides Umpire. Under such circumstances, the state which believes itself to be in-! in-! jured will ask the other to repair the alleged damage, give up the disputed dis-puted land, or make payments of ; money claimed on loans, etc. Often the state on which such de-j de-j mands are made disputes the i claims. What are the possible results? re-sults? ! The disputing states could, in such a situation, have a difficult time. I When similar disputes arise between ! independent nations, the choice lies j between diplomatic conferences and j war. But, here, under the Constitu-j Constitu-j tion, the Supreme court is prepared to meet such situations. What were some of these differences, differ-ences, amicably settled by submitting submit-ting them for decision to our National Na-tional Umpire? Here are a few: In 1832 Rhode Island asked the Supreme court to determine the correct cor-rect boundary line between that state and Massachusetts. Both ' claimed title to trie land under their respective charters from the British Brit-ish crown. Massachusetts Wins. After determining that the evidence showed the territory in dispute had been possessed and occupied by the people of Massachusetts for over two hundred years, the court decided de-cided in favor of the Bay state. "It would be difficult." explained the opinion, "to disturb a claim thus sanctioned by time, however unfounded un-founded It might have been In Its origin." In another case, Missouri and Ken- tucky could not agree as to the own-j own-j ership of an Island in the Mississippi the boundary between the two states. The main channel of the river had been fixed as the dividing line. From thc evidence submitted the court decided that at that time the main channel had been on the west side, nnd therefore the island was part of Kentucky. Numerous wars have been fought In the course of history because one country thought it should have part of another's territory. Many not dissimilar dis-similar disputes between our states, however, have been settled so quietly quiet-ly by our National Umpire that few people were even aware that differences differ-ences had arisen. Court Recalls Old Treaty. In 1921, for example, the Supreme court was nsked to decide a dispute between Oklahoma nnd Texas. Involving In-volving a strip of valuable oil land claimed by both. To avert possible armed conflicts between parties claiming title from the state of Texas and others claiming claim-ing title from thc state of Oklahoma, it became necessary for thc Supreme court to assume charge of the territory ter-ritory through a receiver, until the dispute was decided. The case was settled In favor of Oklahoma, after thc court found it necessary to consider a treaty be-tween be-tween the United States nnd Spain, signed bark In 1(11!). On another occasion thc Supreme court ordered Colorado not to divert more than a small nmount of the waters of a river within its boundaries, bounda-ries, because such nction would de-prive de-prive the people of Wyoming of their right to have the river, on whose waters they depended, flow through their state. In these, nnd other cases, the Supreme Su-preme court, by lis decisions determined de-termined the law for the whole people, peo-ple, and fulfilled lis purpose lis guardian of their rights. 10 WcRtern Newspaper Union. |