Union is

of states

with diverse

interests

Disputes

between states

Boundary disputes

T

CHAPTER THREE

INTERSTATE RELATIONS

HUS FAR we have been considering the relations of the states to the central government. But it is obvious that in a Union which includes forty-eight different states there will be many points of contact among the several states. Their interests are not the same on all subjects, nor are the states always in agreement on the course of action to be followed with regard to a particular activity which concerns them collectively. Some states Some states are very large territorially, while others are very wealthy in natural resources. The coast states are not always confronted by the same current problems that confront the inland states. Neither do the states have an equal amount of influence in the central government. Populous states have more votes in the House of Representatives at Washington than do those having a small number of people. Only in the Senate are they equal in voting power. But the states are legally equal as members of the Union in that all of them have certain fixed rights and privileges because of their membership in the Union. These are the same for all states, whether they be large or small, wealthy or poor.

That disputes between the states of the Union would arise was to be expected, and the task of providing a method of settling these disputes caused the framers of the present Constitution no little difficulty. Finally, the Supreme Court of the United States was given original jurisdiction over cases involving controversies between states. This jurisdiction has been made exclusive in the Supreme Court by congressional statute. Many of the controversies between states which have been settled in the Supreme Court of the United States have been concerned with boundary disputes. That the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over boundary disputes between states was settled by that court in the case of Rhode Island v. Massachusetts in 1838.1 But not all suits between states have involved disputes over boundary lines. Sometimes one state sues another because the first state claims that the second owes it a sum 112 Peters 657.

State

›f money. This usually happens when the plaintiff state has become he owner of bonds or other securities issued by the defendant state. If the plaintiff is the real owner of the bond, it can recover the money Hue from the state which issued the bond by means of a suit against debts he latter in the Supreme Court. But the court will look into the case rather closely to make sure that some citizen has not procured the plaintiff state to sue for his benefit on a claim which he holds against the defendant. If the court thinks that the plaintiff state is only trying to collect a claim for one of its citizens, the suit will be thrown out of court. The reason for this is that a citizen of one state is not allowed to sue another state in the federal courts.2 If the court allowed the citizen to turn over his claim to his state and then permitted the state to sue on it and recover the money, only to be handed over to the citizen, the restriction upon the right of the citizen to sue a state would be virtually nullified. The Eleventh Amendment to the federal Constitution cannot be evaded in that way. But if the plaintiff state is the real owner of the bond, the Supreme Court will proceed to hear the case on its merits.

One of the most interesting disputes between two states to be Virginia settled by the Supreme Court was that of Virginia v. West Virginia. v. West Virginia claimed that West Virginia should pay a portion of the Virginia debt of Virginia as it stood at the time of the admission of West Virginia to the Union because the latter had received a part of the benefit of the money spent in incurring the debt. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed with this contention. West Virginia was finally ordered to pay the sum demanded, and after some delay took proper measures to raise the money needed to pay the amount of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court against it. If West Virginia had refused to pay the judgment, a very awkward situation would have arisen, although the Supreme Court said that methods would probably be devised to force the state to pay it in case of such refusal. It is not likely that a state will refuse to abide by a decree of the Supreme Court which has been rendered in a litigated case. The people of the United States would disapprove of such action, and quite properly so. Thus far, most states have acquiesced in the decision of the court in disputes to which they have been parties.

One other class of cases should also be mentioned in this connec- Parens tion. They are the cases in which one state has sued another to Patriæ doctrine protect the citizens of the plaintiff state from conduct on the part

'U. S. Const., Amendment XI.

Interstate relations

in U. S. Constitution

Full-faithand-credit clause

Applies only to

civil laws

of the other which is injurious to them. Thus if state X empties sewage into a river which flows into state Y to the damage of the citizens of the latter state, Y can go to the Supreme Court to have this objectionable practice stopped. So, too, if state X dams up the water in a river which runs into state Y so that the river goes dry and the people in state Y who live along the river suffer from this drought, state Y can bring a suit against state X in the Supreme Court to stop it from holding back the water in the river. The doctrine which allows one state to sue another in behalf of its citizens collectively is called the parens patriæ doctrine.

There are to be found in the Constitution a few explicit rules governing interstate relations. It was thought best to treat of a few of these relations in that document because of their importance to the continued success of the new Union which had been established. The fact that some of the relations between the states under the Articles of Confederation had not been very harmonious, and the fact that considerable embarrassment had resulted to the efficiency of government, caused the relations which are hereinafter considered to be taken care of by constitutional provision. In a federal system of government it is not only necessary to mark off the territorial division of powers between the central government and the states, but it is also important to fix certain relations which are to exist between the territorial divisions themselves. Particularly is this true when the territorial divisions are in existence prior to the formation of the central government, as was the case with the states in this country.

In Article IV, Section 1, of the federal Constitution it is provided. that,

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

The full-faith-and-credit clause does not apply to the criminal laws of a state, and no state is required to aid another state in the enforcement of its criminal laws, except as it may indirectly do so through extradition. The clause is restricted to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the states. Congress has prescribed the method of authenticating public acts and records, and when they are duly authenticated in the manner prescribed they are evidence

of laws, or of claims which have been settled by the courts of some

other state or territory.

Public

records

The phrase "public acts" refers to the public statutes passed by Public a state legislature. To make sure that the states would recognize the acts statutes of other states when properly authenticated, the full-faithand-credit clause was inserted into the Constitution. The courts of Massachusetts must recognize the validity and binding character of a Wisconsin statute upon any subject which may arise in the Massachusetts courts, the settlement of which depends upon the laws of Wisconsin. The public records mentioned in this section include such records as mortgages and deeds which are recorded in some public office. A deed which is properly drawn up and recorded in Kentucky will be binding in an action which may be brought in the courts of Maine regarding any matter which may involve that deed. If two witnesses are required in Maine, and Kentucky requires only one, and there is only one witness to the deed, that will be considered sufficient in Maine also. The law of the place where a deed or contract is executed is the law that governs its validity and meaning. The same is true of a will made in Ohio, where the number of witnesses required is different from that required in Indiana. If the Ohio law has been complied with, the courts of Indiana must give effect to the will, although the requirements of the Indiana laws are different in this matter.

ings

The full-faith-and-credit clause also extends to judicial proceed- Judicial ings. If Smith sues Jones in Georgia and wins the case, he is said proceedto get a judgment against Jones. Now suppose Jones moves out of the state of Georgia before Smith can stop him or attach his goods. Jones moves to Rhode Island and Smith finds out that he lives within that state. Smith can come to Rhode Island with a certified copy of the judgment which was given by the Georgia court and the Rhode Island courts will recognize the validity of the judgment and give Smith relief upon it without again trying the merits of the case. The only defense which Jones could advance in the Rhode Island courts would be that the Georgia court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case or that he had not been properly served with notice of the suit in Georgia. If the suit is against the property, the court of a state gets jurisdiction if the property is located within the state. But usually if the suit is against the person, some notice must be given to him personally that a suit is being started against him in order that he may have an opportunity to prepare a defense to the suit. If the state court

Marriage and divorce

Interstate

rendition

of persons accused

has tried the case without having jurisdiction over the person or the property, the judgment of the court in such a case need not be honored by the courts of any other state. The fact that judgment was obtained on an obligation which arose out of a transaction which another state will not recognize does not justify that other state in denying full faith and credit to the judgment. For example, a judgment may have been given upon a gambling debt in one state. The rule in another state might be that a judgment could not be given in suits to collect such debts. But that would not justify the second state in refusing to give recognition to the judgment granted on a gambling debt in the first state.

Marriage and divorce cases have caused a great deal of trouble and confusion under the full-faith-and-credit clause. Each state has control over the marriage and divorce of persons domiciled within its own territory. But the difficulty arises in deciding when a person is domiciled in a state and when he is not. It has been said that the power of a state to grant divorces cannot be taken away from it by the fact that the husband or wife of a resident of the state has moved away from the state. But if the husband and wife are both nonresidents, the state has no power to grant a divorce through its courts. The objectionable feature about the divorce cases is that a husband can be divorced from his wife in one state, but in another state he will be considered as still married to her. The reason for this is that some states do not recognize divorces granted in other states, because they do not meet the requirements of jurisdiction and domicile which are thought necessary to give the decree of divorce full force and effect in the latter states under the full-faith-and-credit clause. Some states recognize these divorces, although they need not do so. Of course, if all the requirements of the full-faith-and-credit clause as to jurisdiction have been complied with, all the states must recognize the decree of divorce. The differences in the requirements of grounds for divorce, methods of serving notice on the defendant, and definitions of domicile and jurisdiction are the causes of the shameful confusion in the divorce laws of the various states and promote evasion of the law governing this subject rather than obedience to it. Congress should have been given the power to regulate marriage and divorce in order that uniform regulation of these subjects might be obtained throughout the United States.

In Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States of crime the following provision is found,