Page images
PDF
EPUB

the benefit of the few." Democratic The election was held on November Progressivism, he declared, stands for 5, 1912, and resulted in the choice of taking government out of the hands Governor Wilson as President and an of “ special privilege " and restoring overwhelming Democratic majority it to the people.

of Representatives in the House.

CHAPTER XIX.

1865-1912.

INTERSTATE CONTROVERSIES. *

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 be- agreement. The debt amounted to tween the States continued to be a $33,000,000 in 1861 and had increased source of great annoyance. The most considerably since then through acnotable of these disputes were those crued interest. In 1871 Virginia proover boundaries, of which all save one ceeded ex parte to determine her arose over water boundaries. In 1870 share and assumed two-thirds of the Virginia lost a suit against West Vir- burden, leaving the rest for West Virginia for the possession of three coun- ginia. This still left a heavy burden

. ties. The suits on water boundaries

on Virginia and gave rise to the readhave brought out no new principles, juster movement in State politics. A the courts holding that boundaries

new arrangement was made in 1892. change by erosion, but not by avul- After making repeated overtures to sion.* A suit of this kind has re

West Virginia and waiting 14 years, cently been begun by Arkansas Virginia finally (in 1906) turned to against Tennessee.

the Supreme Court. West Virginia When West Virginia was formed

was ordered to appear and the Court into a State she agreed to assume

held that she must assume a share of some of the financial burdens of the

the debt and in 1908 appointed a parent State, but steadily refused to

special master to ascertain the facts do so after the war, though Virginia

necessary as a basis for an equitable repeatedly asked her to stand by her

distribution of the burden.

[ocr errors]

* Ky, vs. Ind., 136 U. S., 479; Neb. vs. Iowa, 143 U. S., 359; Iowa vs. Ill., 147 U. S., l; Mo. ts. Neb., 196 U. S., 23; Mo. 18. Kan., 312 U, S., 78; Ilash. us. Oregon, 211 U. S., 127; La. vs. Miss., 202 U. S., l.

* Prepared for this History by David Y. Thomas, Professor of History and Political Science, University of Arkansas.

† 206 U. S., 290; 209 U. S., 535.

[graphic][merged small]

INTERSTATE CONTROVERSIES.

303

a

*

*

The taxable values in 1861 were have had an idea that a successful suit taken as the basis for apportionment by a State would in some way enable and 23.5 per cent. of that debt was as- him to collect on the rest. When signed to West Virginia.

South Dakota brought suit against In 1879 the State of New Hamp- North Carolina she tried to bring him shire passed a law to allow citizens into the suit, but the Court ruled him holding claims against any of the out. The Court held that the bonds United States of America to assign were originally valid, that the transthem to the State. The Attorney- fer to South Dakota was genuine and General was then to bring suit on such in no way affected by the motive back claims as he found to be valid and of it, gave judgment for $37,400 and turn over the net proceeds to the orig- ordered this sum to be paid by Januinal holder. The following year a ary of 1905, in default of which the similar law was enacted by New York. marshal was to sell enough shares in Some individuals then assigned cer- the North Carolina Railroad, owned tain Louisiana bonds on which they by the State, to satisfy the claim. Juswere unable to collect interest or

tices White, Fuller, McKenna and principal, and the States began mak- Day dissented.* This decision proing suits. Speaking for the Court, duced alarm in the other Southern Chief Justice Waite held that States

States which had repudiated their could not prosecute such suits for bonds, but there have been no more their citizens when they had no in- such suits. terest in them.

More or less ill feeling has been ocThe next attempt of this kind came casioned by governors refusing to defrom South Dakota. In 1901 this liver up fugitives from justice when State passed an act requiring the demanded by the executives of the governor to accept bequests to the States from which they fled, but in no State and ordering proceedings for case has the trouble risen to the digcollection when necessary. Simon nity of a controversy between the Schafer, of New York, at once gave States as such. In numerous cases the State ten North Carolina bonds for fugitives applied to the Federal courts the benefit of the University or some in the hope of preventing extradition of the asylums. He had held $230,

on requisition papers already honored 000 of these bonds for 30 years with by the executives. The most noted out being able to collect either interest

case of this kind was that of H. Clay or principal and had refused to com

Pierce, president of the Waters Pierce promise with the State. He seems to

Oil Company, who was wanted in cases the court denied the relief de- not for the sake of health, but to favor manded.* A near approach to an in- Texan ports at the expense of New Orterstate controversy was made when leans. Texas demurred and was susthe governor of West Virginia de- tained by the Court, which held that, manded the return of a man kid- to get a controversy between States, napped in that State and taken to “ something more must be shown than Kentucky for trial. On meeting with that the citizens of one state are ina refusal, he applied to the United jured by the maladministration of the States court for a writ of habeas cor- laws of the other ”; but the thing compus, but the prisoner was not dis- plained of here was only the malevocharged, on the ground that no law lent action of a health officer.* of the United States secured the right Shortly after this Missouri asked of asylum, hence the United States for an injunction against Illinois and authorities could not interfere in a the sanitary district of Chicago to precase of abduction.t

Texas, but in this and in all other * The Outlook, March 25, 1911, p. 611.

* X. II. ls. La. and N. Y. 18. La., 188 U. S., 76,

* S. D. i's. X. C., 192 V. S. 286.

vent the latter from discharging its Several controversies or near con- sewage into the Illinois River and troversies have arisen over questions thereby polluting the waters of the of health and sanitation.

Mississippi, which would endanger the Quarantine regulations have been a health of the people of Missouri. Illifruitful source of public complaint, es- nois demurred to the jurisdiction of pecially the quarantine against yellow the Court, but the Court overruled this fever in the South. These troubles demurrer on the ground that, if the finally led to a conference at Atlanta health of the people were endangered, in 1897, which adopted certain regula- the State was the authority to defend tions designed to make the quarantine them, and Illinois was made a party interfere as little as possible with in- because the sanitary district was its terstate commerce.

To this agree

agent created by its statute and actment Texas was not a party. In 1899, ing under its law. Six years later, when a few cases of yellow fever ap- when the case was finally decided peared in New Orleans, the health (1906), the Court held that Missouri officials of Texas placed an interdict

had not made out her case and the inon all commerce coming from that city. junction was denied. † Louisiana then filed a bill of complaint Since then Georgia has secured an and asked for an injunction against injunction against the Tennessee Copthe Texas officials on the ground that per Company, without making Tenthe quarantine was being maintaine 1, nessee a party to the suit, restrain

ing it from spreading noxious fumes * See Hughes vs. Pflanz, 138 Fed. Rep., 980;

over the line into Georgia. I
In re Strauss, 126 Fed. Rep., 327; Appleyard vs.
Mass., 203 U. S., 222; Pierce vs. Creecy, 210 * La. vs. Texas, 176 U. S., l.
C. S., 389; Marbles i's. Creecy, 215 U. S., 63.

† Mo. vs. Ill., 180 U. S., 208; 202 U. S., 496. † Mahon vs. Justice, 127 U. S., 700.

* Ga. vs. Tenn. Copper Co., 206 U. S., 230.

« PreviousContinue »