March 10, 1905.] 



SCIENCE. 



369 



viding that such a tax, as regards any one 

 estate or any one item of property belong- 

 ing to an estate, could be laid but once^ 



If so, it would be to advance the powers 

 of the nation a step farther than they have 

 ever yet gone, and weaken correspondingly 

 the sovereignty of the states. If, on the 

 other hand, Congress has no such power, 

 does it not naturally lead to the conclusion 

 that the states have"? Certainly a remedy 

 more in accordance with our constitutional 

 traditions than an act of Congress would 

 be concerted action to the same end by the 

 states under the principle of reciprocity. 



From the beginnings of American his- 

 tory, neighboring English colonies were 

 accustomed, at times, to send delegates to 

 mutual conferences on matters of common 

 interest. When they became states, the 

 same practise was continued. Agreements 

 were made in such conventions while the 

 Articles of Confederation were in force, 

 affecting matters of importance, although 

 some of the statesmen of the day viewed 

 them with disfavor as contrary to the 

 spirit of the confederated government and 

 tending to disintegrate the Union.* 



This led to the provision in the Consti- 

 tution of the United States (Art. I., Sec. 

 10) that no state should ' enter into any 

 Treaty Alliance or Confederation ' nor 



* * * ' without the consent of Congress 



* * * enter into any Agreement or 

 Compact with another state or with a for- 

 eign power.' 



The courts have construed these pro- 

 visions so as to make them detract as little 

 as may be from the sovereignty of the 

 states. 



Three principles may be considered as 

 settled with regard to them : 



1. They do not refer to any agreements 

 not affecting the political relations of a 

 state to another state or to the United 



* ' Madison's Introduction to his Journal of the 

 Federal Convention' (Scott's ed.), 47. 



States.* It was their object to prevent the 

 formation of any combination of states 

 that might encroach upon the supremacy 

 of the United States.f 



2. No agreement or compact between 

 states is to be deemed of that nature, unless 

 it is clearly such. J 



3. Agreements or compacts between 

 states of a political nature, although made 

 without asking or obtaining the consent of 

 Congress are not invalid if CongTess after- 

 wards should ratify them.§ 



In practise the states from the first have 

 regarded this section of the constitution 

 as not precluding arrangements and agree- 

 ments between any of them of a business 

 character which they might deem of mu- 

 tual advantage. 



They have by concurrent grants of 

 charters similar in form created interstate 

 corporations, which are as much at home 

 in one state as another, and have in each 

 the same powers and rights under the 

 same name and with the same members. || 



Interstate commissions have been con- 

 stituted by appointments made by neigh- 

 boring states to ascertain and mark the 

 boundary between them.^[ 



Statutes to promote freedom of inter- 

 course and exchange of business between 

 states, have been passed by one state in 

 favor of non-residents, conditioned on the 

 existence of like legislation in the state of 

 which they may be citizens. 



* Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S. Reports, 503, 

 519. 



t Williams v. Brufl'y, 9C U. S. Reports, 176. 



i Baltimore and Ohio R. R. Co. v. Harris, 12 

 Wallace's Reports, 65, 82. 



^ Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheaton's Reports, 1. Cf. 

 21 U. S. Statutes at Large, 351; Wharton v. 

 Wise, 153 U. S. Reports, 155. 



II Two Centuries' Growth of American Law, 279; 

 Graham v. Boston, Hartford and Erie R. R. Co., 

 118 U. S. Reports, 169, 170; 'Report of the 

 American Historical Association for 1902.' I., 268. 



^'Papers of the New Haven Colony Historic.) 

 Society,' III., 284, 286. 



