The debt controversy between Virginia and West Virginia The Louisiana bond dispute The dispute between South Dakota and North Carolina over interest on bonds Cases of fugitives from justice-Controversies over quarantine regulations — The dispute between Illinois and Missouri over water pollution. During all these years disputes between the States continued to be a source of great annoyance. The most notable of these disputes were those over boundaries, of which all save one arose over water boundaries. In 1870 Virginia lost a suit against West Virginia for the possession of three counties. The suits on water boundaries have brought out no new principles, the courts holding that boundaries change by erosion, but not by avulsion.* A suit of this kind has recently been begun by Arkansas against Tennessee. When West Virginia was formed into a State she agreed to assume some of the financial burdens of the parent State, but steadily refused to do so after the war, though Virginia repeatedly asked her to stand by her *Ky. vs. Ind., 136 U. S., 479; Neb. vs. Iowa, 143 U. S., 359; Iowa vs. Ill., 147 U. S., 1; Mo. rs. Neb., 196 U. S., 23; Mo. vs. Kan., 312 U. S., 78: Wash. vs. Oregon, 211 U. S., 127; La. vs. Miss., 202 U. S., 1. agreement. The debt amounted to $33,000,000 in 1861 and had increased considerably since then through accrued interest. In 1871 Virginia proceeded ex parte to determine her share and assumed two-thirds of the burden, leaving the rest for West Virginia. This still left a heavy burden on Virginia and gave rise to the readjuster movement in State politics. A new arrangement was made in 1892. After making repeated overtures to West Virginia and waiting 14 years, Virginia finally (in 1906) turned to the Supreme Court. West Virginia was ordered to appear and the Court held that she must assume a share of the debt and in 1908 appointed a special master to ascertain the facts necessary as a basis for an equitable distribution of the burden.t INTERSTATE CONTROVERSIES. The taxable values in 1861 were taken as the basis for apportionment and 23.5 per cent. of that debt was assigned to West Virginia.* In 1879 the State of New Hampshire passed a law to allow citizens holding claims against any of the United States of America to assign them to the State. The AttorneyGeneral was then to bring suit on such claims as he found to be valid and turn over the net proceeds to the original holder. The following year a similar law was enacted by New York. Some individuals then assigned certain Louisiana bonds on which they were unable to collect interest or principal, and the States began making suits. Speaking for the Court, Chief Justice Waite held that States could not prosecute such suits for their citizens when they had no interest in them.t The next attempt of this kind came from South Dakota. In 1901 this State passed an act requiring the governor to accept bequests to the State and ordering proceedings for collection when necessary. Simon Schafer, of New York, at once gave the State ten North Carolina bonds for the benefit of the University or some of the asylums. He had held $230,000 of these bonds for 30 years without being able to collect either interest or principal and had refused to compromise with the State. He seems to 76, *The Outlook, March 25, 1911, p. 611. N. H. vs. La. and N. Y. rs. La., 188 U. S., 303 have had an idea that a successful suit by a State would in some way enable him to collect on the rest. When South Dakota brought suit against North Carolina she tried to bring him into the suit, but the Court ruled him out. The Court held that the bonds were originally valid, that the transfer to South Dakota was genuine and in no way affected by the motive back of it, gave judgment for $37,400 and ordered this sum to be paid by January of 1905, in default of which the marshal was to sell enough shares in the North Carolina Railroad, owned by the State, to satisfy the claim. Justices White, Fuller, McKenna and Day dissented.* Day dissented.* This decision produced alarm in the other Southern States which had repudiated their bonds, but there have been no more such suits. More or less ill feeling has been occasioned by governors refusing to deliver up fugitives from justice when demanded by the executives of the States from which they fled, but in no case has the trouble risen to the dignity of a controversy between the States as such. In numerous cases fugitives applied to the Federal courts in the hope of preventing extradition on requisition papers already honored by the executives. The most noted case of this kind was that of H. Clay Pierce, president of the Waters Pierce Oil Company, who was wanted in Texas, but in this and in all other *S. D. vs. N. C., 192 U. S. 286. cases the court denied the relief demanded.* A near approach to an interstate controversy was made when the governor of West Virginia demanded the return of a man kidnapped in that State and taken to Kentucky for trial. On meeting with On meeting with a refusal, he applied to the United States court for a writ of habeas corpus, but the prisoner was not discharged, on the ground that no law of the United States secured the right of asylum, hence the United States authorities could not interfere in a case of abduction.† Several controversies or near controversies have arisen over questions of health and sanitation. Quarantine regulations have been a fruitful source of public complaint, especially the quarantine against yellow fever in the South. These troubles finally led to a conference at Atlanta in 1897, which adopted certain regulations designed to make the quarantine interfere as little as possible with interstate commerce. To this agreement Texas was not a party. In 1899, when a few cases of yellow fever appeared in New Orleans, the health officials of Texas placed an interdict on all commerce coming from that city. Louisiana then filed a bill of complaint and asked for an injunction against the Texas officials on the ground that the quarantine was being maintained, See Hughes vs. Pflanz, 138 Fed. Rep., 980; In re Strauss, 126 Fed. Rep., 327; Appleyard us. Mass., 203 U. S., 222; Pierce vs. Creecy, 210 U. S., 389: Marbles rs. Creecy, 215 U. S., 63. Mahon rs. Justice, 127 U. S., 700. not for the sake of health, but to favor Texan ports at the expense of New Orleans. Texas demurred and was sustained by the Court, which held that, to get a controversy between States, something more must be shown than that the citizens of one state are injured by the maladministration of the laws of the other "; but the thing complained of here was only the malevolent action of a health officer.* Shortly after this Missouri asked for an injunction against Illinois and the sanitary district of Chicago to prevent the latter from discharging its sewage into the Illinois River and thereby polluting the waters of the Mississippi, which would endanger the health of the people of Missouri. Illinois demurred to the jurisdiction of the Court, but the Court overruled this demurrer on the ground that, if the health of the people were endangered, the State was the authority to defend them, and Illinois was made a party because the sanitary district was its agent created by its statute and acting under its law. Six years later, when the case was finally decided (1906), the Court held that Missouri had not made out her case and the injunction was denied. † Since then Georgia has secured an injunction against the Tennessee Copper Company, without making Tennessee a party to the suit, restraining it from spreading noxious fumes over the line into Georgia.‡ La. vs. Texas, 176 U. S., 1. Mo. vs. Ill., 180 U. S., 208; 202 U. S.. 496. |