as the result of said avulsion, and to 'give its findings of fact and the evidence on which the same are based '.1 sion. The balance of the decree contained the provisions which have become usual in Powers granted such cases; that the commissioners should, before entering upon the discharge of to the their duties, take an oath for their faithful performance, after which they were commisauthorized and empowered 'to make examination of the territory in question, and to adopt all ordinary and legitimate methods in the ascertainment of the true location of said boundary line; to summon witnesses and take evidence under oath; to compel the attendance of witnesses and require them to testify; to call for and require the production of papers and other documentary evidence; such evidence, however, to be taken upon notice to the parties, with permission to attend by counsel and cross-examine the witnesses; and all evidence taken and all exceptions thereto and rulings thereon shall be preserved and certified and returned with the report of said commissioners; and said commissioners are also at liberty to refer to and consult the printed record in the cause and the opinion of this court delivered on March 4, 1918, and to do all other matters necessary to enable them to discharge their duties and attain the end to be accomplished conformably to this decree '.2 Foreseeing that a vacancy might occur in the personnel of the board, either through death or inability to act, or for any other reason, the Chief Justice was authorized to fill the vacancy or vacancies in the commission. As large bodies are proverbially said to move slowly, the decree wisely ordered the commissioners to 'proceed with all convenient dispatch to discharge their duties conformably to this decree', and, in their discretion, they were specifically authorized to request the co-operation and assistance of the state authorities of Arkansas and Tennessee, or either of those States', in the performance of the duties imposed upon them by the decree. That a foundation should be laid for such co-operation, the clerk of the court was directed to 'forward at once to the Governor of each of said States of Arkansas and Tennessee and to each of the commissioners hereby appointed a copy of this decree and of the opinion of this court delivered herein March 4, 1918, duly authenticated'. As a further incentive to speed on the part of the commissioners, they were instructed to 'make a report of their proceedings under this decree as soon as practicable and on or before such date as hereafter shall be fixed by the court', and all other matters relating to the case were reserved 'until the coming in of said report '.3 1 State of Arkansas v. State of Tennessee (247 U.S. 461, 462). 2 Ibid. (247 U.S. 461, 462–3). Ibid. (247 U.S. 461, 463-4). General XI. A LESSON FOR THE WORLD AT LARGE. Such are the controversies between the States of the American Union which Summary. have been decided in the Supreme Court of the United States, by that due process of law which obtains between individuals, between the States of the Union, and which must one day obtain between the nations of the world, to the end, as stated in the Constitution of Massachusetts of 1780, the oldest of existing written instruments of this kind,' that it may be a government of laws and not of men.' The thirteen American States were, after their Declaration of Independence, sovereign, free, and independent, and they were only held together in an informal Union by pressure from the outside. They felt, however, the need of formal union, and two years after their Declaration of Independence they entered into what they called in the Articles of Confederation,' a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.' But the Articles of Confederation, approved by the Congress on November 15, 1777, were only to become effective and binding upon all when the last of the thirteen States had ratified them. This took place some three and a half years later, to be accurate, on March 1, 1781, by the adherence of the State of Maryland. The Union was declared in the caption of the Articles to be perpetual. It was a very loose one, properly termed by the States themselves to be a league of friendship, confined to matters of common interest, each State retaining, as specifically stated in Article 2 thereof, 'its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.' The leaders of opinion in the different States foresaw that they were likely to have controversies in the future, as the States had while still Colonies, and which they themselves had subsequently to the Declaration of Independence. They had not been over-successful in settling these disputes, which in some instances had become quarrels, by direct negotiation, and they were unwilling to continue this means of adjustment and Judicial accommodation. They therefore renounced it for themselves, allowing the Congress of the Confederation to indulge in diplomatic discussion and argument with the outer world. War existing at the time between Great Britain on the one hand and the States on the other, they were unwilling that war should exist between the States. macy and Therefore they renounced the right to wage war against one another. To settle their disputes, which would otherwise engender quarrels, and perhaps degenerate into wars, they interjected between diplomacy and war, both of which they renounced, the method of judicial settlement, providing in the ninth of the Articles of Confederation for the selection of temporary commissions with a limited number of judges, to be selected by the agents of the States in dispute, with the approbation of Congress, settle ment midway between diplo war. of select ing Com to settle or upon failure of the agents to agree, to select commissioners from a panel of thirty- Method nine, composed of three chosen by the Congress from each of the States, by striking alternately a name from the list of thirty-nine, beginning with the agent of the missioners defendant, or, in his absence or unwillingness to act, by the Secretary of the Congress, disputes. until thirteen names were left, from which nine were drawn by lot, of whom not less than five nor more than seven were to form the Court and act as commissioners. By agreement of the agents the commission was appointed which decided in 1781 the boundary dispute between Pennsylvania and Connecticut (131 U.S. Appendix, liv), a dispute which had embittered the relations of these two States and had been the cause of bloodshed in Pennsylvania, in which the land in question lay. A commission was appointed in 1786 by the method of alternate striking to decide a boundary dispute between South Carolina and Georgia (131 U.S. Appendix, lxii), but the cause was settled by the parties out of court. The success of the Commission in the case of Pennsylvania v. Connecticut, and the constitution of a commission in South Carolina v. Georgia 'showed that justice could be administered by a commission composed of Commissioners agreed upon by the parties, and that one could be constituted without their agreement upon the judges. However, the difficulty of creating a temporary tribunal for each individual case, and the delay involved therein caused the framers of the Constitution to invest the Court of the States, which they were forming for the more perfect union, with the jurisdiction which, under the ninth of the Articles of Confederation, was to be exercised by temporary commissions created for the occasion. They had renounced diplomacy; they had abjured war under the Articles of Confederation. The temporary tribunal did not give satisfaction, although the principle did. They retained therefore the principle of judicial settlement, fitting it to the needs of a more perfect union by conferring Establishthe jurisdiction to be exercised through the Congress representing the States upon ment of the Supreme Court of the United States, which, in name and in fact as well as in manent theory, is the judicial agent of the States, and is the permanent Court instead of Court. a temporary commission, in which the States of the Union agreed to settle their controversies by due process of law. The following States have, as shown by the records of the Court, been parties plaintiff in controversies between States: I. Alabama Georgia (23 Howard, 505) 1859. 2. Arkansas Tennessee (246 U.S. 158) 1918. 3. Florida Georgia (11 Howard, 293) 1850. 4. Indiana Kentucky (136 U.S. 479) 1890. a per 21. Virginia West Virginia (11 Wallace, 39) 1870. Oregon (211 U.S. 127) 1908. The following States have been parties defendant: |