708

TWENTY-THIRD CONGRESS. Sess, I. Ch. 125, 126. 1834.

Statute I.June 28, 1834.

Register ofland office to is-sue patents inconformity withacts of April 5,1832,ch.65,andJune 15, 1832,ch. 140.

Re-survey onBayou St. Vin-cent confirmed.

1832, ch. 65.

Chap. CXXV. —An Act in reference io pre-emption rights in the south-easterndistrict of Louisiana . (a)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the UnitedStates of America, in Congress assembled, That the pre-emption rightsgranted by the register and receiver of the land office at New Orleans ,to certain individuals claiming, the same, in the south-eastern land districtof Louisiana, under the act of Congress approved fifth April, eighteenhundred and thirty-two, entitled “ An act supplementary to the severallaws for the sale of public lands,” and the act approved fifteenth June,eighteen hundred and thirty-two, entitled “An act to authorize theinhabitants of the state of Louisiana to enter the back lands,” be, andthey are hereby, confirmed,; and the register of the land office is herebydirected to issue patent certificates accordingly.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the re-survey made under thesupervision of the surveyor general of Louisiana , of certain lands on thebayou St. Vincent, in sections designated as numbers one hundred andten and one hundred and forty-three, in township thirteen of range four-teen east, situate in the south-eastern district of Louisiana , and whichre-survey purports to include the improvements of the actual settlerswithin its limits, claiming the right of pre-emption thereto under the actof fifth April, eighteen hundred and thirty-two, aforesaid, be, and thesame is hereby, confirmed; and payments may be made and patentsissued in accordance therewith.

Approved, June 28, 1834.

Statute I.

June 28, 1834. Chap. CXXVI. —An Act giving the consent of Congress to an agreement or com*pact entered into between the state of New York and the state of New Jersey ,respecting the territorial limits.and jurisdiction of said states. (5)

Whereas commissioners duly appointed on the part of the state ofNew York , and commissioners duly appointed on the part of the state

(a) See notes of acts which have been passed relative to pre-emption of public lands, vol. iv. p. 420.

(b) The decisions of the Supreme Court upon the compacts between states have been :—

The compact of 1789, between Virginia and Kentucky , was valid under that provision of the consti-tution which declares, that “ no state shall, without the consent of Congress , enter into agreement orcompact with another state, or with a foreign .powerno particular mode, in which that consent mustbe given, having been prescribed by the constitution; and Congress having cc/isented to the admissionof Kentucky into the Union, as a sovereign state, upon the conditions in the compact. Green v. Biddle,8 Wheat. 1; 5 Cond. Rep. 369.

The compact is not invalid upon the ground of its surrendering rights of sovereignty, which are in-alienable. Ibid .

To bring a case within the protection of the seventh article in the compact between Virginia andKentucky, it must be shown that the title to the land asserted, is derived from the laws of Virginia , priorto the separation of the two states. "Lessee of Fisher v. Cockerell, 5 Peters, 247.

The construction of a compact between the states of Virginia and Pennsylvania , is not to be settledby the Jaws or decisions of either of those states, but by the compact itself. Marlattu. Silk et al.,11 Peters, 1.

The decision of a question of the construction of such a compact, is not to be attested from the deci-sions of either state, but is one of an international character. Ibid.

It is a part of the general right of sovereignty, belonging to independent nations, to establish andfix the disputed boundaries between the respective limits; and the boundaries so established and fixed bycompact between nations, become conclusive upon all the subjects and citizens thereof, and bind theirrights ; and are to be treated, to all intents and purposes, as the real boundaries. This right is expresslyrecognised to exist in the states of the Union, by the constitution of the United States ; and is guardedin its exercise by a single limitation or restriction, only, requiring the consent of Congress . Ibid .

The compact between New Jersey and Pennsylvania , recognises the right of fishery in riparian own-ers on the Delaware . Bennet v. Boggs, Baldwin’s C. C. R. 60.

The plaintiffs, in the circuit court of West Tennessee , instituted an ejectment for a tract of land heldunder a Virginia military land warrant, situate south of a line called Mathews’ line, and south ofWalker’s line; the latter being the established boundaries between the states of Kentucky and Tennes-see , as fixed by a compact between those states, made in 1820; by which compact, although the juris-diction over the territory to the south of Walker’s line, was acknowledged to belong to Tennessee , thetitles to lands held under Virginia military land warrants, &c. ; and grants from Kentucky , as far southas (t Mathews’ line,” were declared to be confirmed : the state of Kentucky having, before the com-