delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit to establish by judicial decree the true boundary line between the States of Virginia and Tennessee. It embraces a controversy of which this court has original jurisdiction, and in this respect the judicial department of our government is distinguished from the judicial department of any other country, drawing to itself by the ordinary modes of peaceful procedure the-settlement of questions as to boundaries and consequent rights of soil and jurisdiction between States, possessed, for purposes of internal government, of the powers of independent communities, which otherwise might be the fruitful cause of prolonged and harassing conflicts.
The State of Virginia, as the complainant, summoning her’ sister State, Tennessee, to the bar of this court—a jurisdiction to which the latter promptly yields-—--sets forth in her bill the sources of her title to the territory embraced within her limits, and also of the title to the territory embraced by Tennessee.
The claim of Virginia is that by the charters of the English sovereigns, under which the colonies of Virginia and North Carolina were formed, the boundary line between them was intended and dеclared to be a line running due west from a point on the Atlantic Ocean on the parallel of- latitude thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north, and that the State of Tennessee, haying been created out of the territory formerly constituting a jiart of North Carolina, the same boundary line continued between her and Virginia. And the contention of Virginia is that the boundary line claimed by Tennessee does not follow this parallel of latitude but varies from it by running too far north, so as to unjustly include a strip.of. land about one hundred and thirteen miles in length and varying from two to eight miles in width, over which she asserts and unlawfully exercises sovereign jurisdiction.
On the other hand, the claim of Tennessee is that the
In order to clearly understand and appreciate the force and effect to be accorded to the respective claims and contentions of the parties, a brief history of preceding measures should be given, with reference to the oharters and legislation under which they were taken.
On the 23d of May, 1609, James the Eirst of England, by letters patent, reciting previous letters, gave to Robert, Earl of Salisbury, Thomas, Earl of Suffolk, and divers other persons associated with them, a charter which organized them into a corporation by the name of The Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and Plantеrs of the city of London, for the first colony of Virginia, and granted to them all those lands and territories, lying “in that part of America called Virginia, from the point of land called Cape or Point Comfort, along the sea coast to the northward 200 miles, and from the said point of Cape Comfort along the sea coast to the southward 200 miles, and all that space and circuit of land lying from the sea coast of the precinct aforesaid up into the land throughout, from sea to sea, west and northwest ”; and, ■ “ also all the islands lying within 100 miles along the coast of both seas of the precinct aforesaid.”
■On the ,30th of May, 1665, Charles the Second granted to the above proprietors of Carolina a charter, confirming the previous grant, and enlarging the same so as to include the following-described territory: All that province and territory within America, “ extending north and eastward as far as the north end of Currituck Fiver or inlet, upon a straight westerly line to "Wyonoke Creek, which lies within or about the degrees of thirty-six and thirty minutes northern latitude; and so west in a direct line as far as the South Seas; and south and westward as far as the degrees of twenty-nine inclusive of northern latitude, and so west in a direct line as far as the South Seas.”
The northern and southern settlements of Carolina were separated from each other by nearly three hundred miles, and numerous Indians resided upon the intervening territory, and though the whole province belonged to the same proprietors, the legislation of the settlements was by different assemblies, acting at times under different governors. Early in 1700 the. nоrthern part of the province was sometimes called the colony of North Carolina, though the province was not divided by the crown into North and South Carolina until 1732. (Stores Commentaries on the Constitution, sec, 137.) Previously to this division the settlements bn the borders of Yirginia, and of what was called the colony of North Carolina, had largely increased, and disputes and altercations frequently occurred between the settlers, growing out of the
In January, 1711, commissioners were again appointed, but failed for want of the requisite' means to accomplish their intended object.
In 1728 an attempt to settle the difficulties wras renewed, but, as on previous occasions, it failed. ' The commissioners of the colonies met, but they could not agree at what place to fix the latitude- thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north, nor upon, the place called Wyohoke, and they broke up without doing anything. The governors of North Carolina and Virginia then entered into a convention upon the subject of the boundary between the two provinces, and transmitted it to England for approval. The king and council approved of it, and so did the lords and proprietors, and returned it to the governors to be executed. The agreement was as follows:
“That from the mouth of Carrituck' River, setting the compass on the north shore thereof, a due west line shall be run and fairly marked, and if it happens to cut Chowan River between the mouth .of Nottаway River and Wiccacon Creek, then the same direct course shall be continued towards the mountains, and be ever deemed the. dividing line between Virginia and Carolina. But if the said west line cuts Chowan River to the southward of Wiccacon Creek, then from that point of intersection the bounds shall be allowed to continue up the middle of Chowan River to the middle of the
“ That if a due west line shall be found to' pass through . islands or cut out small slips of land, which might much more conveniently be included in one ■ province or other, by natural water bounds, in such case the persons appointed for running the line shall have the power to settle natural bounds, provided the commissioners on both sides agree thereto, and that all variations from the. west line- be punctually noted on the premises or plats, which they shall return to be put upon the record of both governments.”
Commissioners were appointed by Virginia and North Carolina to carry this agreement into effect. They met at Currituck Inlet in March, 1728. The variation of the compass was then found to be three degrees one minute and two seconds west, nearly, and the latitude thirty-six degrees thirty-one minutes. The dividing line between the provinces struck Blackwater one hundred and seventy-six poles above the mouth of Nottaway. The variation of the compass at the .mouth of Nottaway was two degrees thirty minutes. The line was afterward extended to Steep Eock Creek, 320 miles from the coast, by commissioners Joshua Fry and Peter Jefferson, on the part of Virginia, and Daniel Weldon and William Ohurton, on the part of North Carolina.
In 1778 and 1779 Virginia and North Carolina having become by their separation in 1776 from the British crown independent States, again took up the question of the boundary between them, and appointed commissioners to extend and complete the line from the point at which the previous commissioners, Fry and Jefferson and others, had ended their work on Steep Eock Creek, to Tennessee Eiver. The commissioners undertook the work with which they were charged, but they could not find the line on Steep Eock Creek, owing,
This was in 1779 and 1780. The line adopted by the Virginia commissioners was known as the Walker line and the line adopted by the commissioners of North Carolina was known as the Henderson line. Walker’s line was approved by the legislature of Virginia in 1791, but it never received the approval of the legislature of Tennessee. Previously to the appointment of these commissioners, and on the 6th of May, 1776, the State of Virginia, in a general convention, with that generous public spirit which on all occasions since has characterized her .'conduct in the disposition of her claims to territory under different charters from the English government, had declared that the territories within the charters erecting the colonies of Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Caro-' lina and South Carolina were thereby ceded and forever confirmed to the people of those colonies respectively. On the
' “Whereas, Since the said cession, the general government hath erected, the said Southwestern Territory into an independent State, by their act, June 1st, 1796, whereby it has become the duty of the said State of Tennessee and of this State to settle all differences between them with respect to the said bоundary line:
“ Resolved,
thertfore,
That the executive be' authorized and requested to appoint three commissioners, wrhose duty it shall > be to meet commissioners to be appointed by the State of Tennessee, to settle and adjust all differences concerning the said boundary line, and to' establish the one or the other of the
On the 13th of January, 1800, this resolution was agreed to by the Senate.
On the 13th day of November, 1801, the general assembly of Tennessee passed an act on the same subject, Laws of Tennessee, 1801, c. 29, the first section of which is these words:
“ Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Tennessee, That the governor for the time being is hereby authorized and required, as soon as may be convenient after the .passing' of this act, to appoint three commissioners on the part of this State, one of whom shall be- a mathematician capable of taking latitude, whо, when so appointed, are hereby authorized and empowered, or a majority of them, to act in conjunction with such commissioners as are or may-be -appointed by the State of Yirginia to settle and designate a true line between the aforesaid States.”
The 2d section is as follows:
u And whereas, It may be difficult for this legislature to ascertain with precision what powers ought of right to be delegated to the said commissioners; therefore,
“ Be it enacted, That the governor is hereby authorized and required from time to time to issue such power to the commissioners, as he may-deem proper, for the-purpose of carrying into effect the object intended by this act, consistent with the true interest of the State.”
On the 22d day of January, 1803, a report having been made by the commissioners, which is copied into the act, the legislature of Yirginia. ratified what had been done in the following act:
“Whereas, The commissioners appointed to ascertain and adjust the boundary line between this State and - the State of Tennessee, in conformity to the resolution passed by the legislature of this State for.that purpose, hаve proceeded to the execution of that business, and made a report thereof in the words following, to wit:
“‘2. And the said commissioners do further unanimously agree to recommend to their respective States, that individuals having claims or titles to lands on either side of the said line, as now fixed and agreed on, and between the lines aforesaid, shall not in consequence thereof n anywise be prejudiced or affected thereby; and that the legislatures of their respective States should pass mutual laws to render all such claims or titles secure ,to the owners thereof.
‘“3. And the said commissioners do further agree unanimously to recommend to their States respectively that reciprocal laws should be passed confirming the acts of all public officers, whether magistrates, sheriffs, coroners, surveyors or constables, between the said lines, which would have been legal in either of the said States had no difference of opinion existed about the true boundary line.
“‘4. This agreement shall be of no effect until ratified by
“ ‘ Jos. Martin. [l. s.]
“£ Creed Taylor. [l. s.]
“ ‘ Peter Johnson. [l. s.]
“£ John Sevier. [l. s.]
“ ‘Moses Fisk. [l. s.]
“ ‘ George Rutledge. [l. s.] ’■
“5. And-whereas, Brice Martin and Nathan B. Markland,the surveyors duly appointed to run and mark the said line, have granted their certificate of the execution of their duties, which certificate is in the words following, to wit: ‘ The undersigned surveyors, having been fully appointed to run the boundary line between the States of Virginia and Tennessee, as directed by the commissioners for that purpose, have agreeably to their orders, run the same, beginning on the summit of the White Top Mountain at the termination of the northeastern corner of the State of Tennessee, a due west course to the top of the Cumberland Mountains, where the southwestern corner of Virginia terminates, keeping at an equal distance from the lines called Walker’s and Henderson’s, and have had the new line run as aforesaid marked with five chops in the form of á diamond, as directed by thé said commissioners. Given under our hands and seals, this eighth day of December, eighteen hundred and two. (8th December, 1802.)
££ £ B. Martin. [l. s.]
“ ‘ Nat. B. Markland. [l. s.] ’
“And it is deemed proper and expedient that the said boundary line, so fixed and ascertained as aforesaid, should be established and confirmed on the part of this Commonwealth—
“ 6.
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, That said boundary line between this State and the State of Tennessee, as laid down, fixed and ascertained by the said commissioners above named, in their
“ 7. All claims or titles derived from the government of North Carolina or Tennessee, which said lands by the adjustment and establishment of the line aforesaid, have fallen into this State, shall remain as secure to the owners' thereof as if derived from the government of Yirginia, and shall not be in anywise prejudiced or affected in consequence of the establishment of the said line.
■ “ 8. The acts' of all public officers, whether magistrates, sheriffs, coroners, surveyors or constables, heretofore done or performed. in that portion of the territory between the lines called Walker’s and Henderson’s lines, which has fallen into this State by the adjustment of the present line, and which would have been legal if done or performed in the States of North Carolina or Tennessee, are hereby recognized and confirmed.
“ 9. This act shall commence and be in force from and after the passing of a like law on the part of the State of Tennessee.” Laws of Ya. 1802-1803, c. 39.
And on the 3d of November, 1803,- Tennessee passed the following ratifying act:
“Whereas,-the commissioners appointed to settle and designate the true boundary between this State and • the State of ■ Yirginia, in conformity to the act passed by the legislature of' this State for the purpose, on the thirteenth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and one, have proceeded to the execution of said business, and made a report thereof in the words following, to wit ” :
(Here follows the report named in the Yirginia act:)
“And it is deemed proper and expedient that the said boundary line, so fixed and ascertained as aforesaid, should be established and confirmed on the part of this State —
• “ 1.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Temiessee,
That the said boundary line between this State
“ 2. Be it enacted, That all claims or titles to lands derived from the government of Virginia, which said lands, by the adjustment and establishment of the line aforesaid have fallen into this State,-shall remain as secure to the owners thereof as if derived from the government of North Carolina or Tennessee, ¿nd shall not be in anywise prejudiced or affected in consequence of the establishment of the said line.
“ 3. Be it enacted, That the acts of all officers, whether magistrates, sheriffs, coroners, surveyors or constables, heretofore done or performed in that portion' of territory between the lines called Walker’s and Henderson’s lines, which has fallen into this State by the adjustment of the present line, and which would have been legal if done or performed in the State of Virginia, are hereby recognized and confirmed.” Laws of Tennessee, 1803, c. 58.
The line thus run was accepted by both States as a satisfactory settlеment of a controversy which had, under their governments and that of the colonies which preceded them, lasted for nearly a century. As seen from the acts recited, both States through their legislatures declared in the most solemn and authoritative manner- that it was fully and absolutely ratified, established and confirmed as the true, certain and real boundary line between them; and this declaration could not have been more significant had it added, in express terms, what was plainly implied, that it should never be departed from by the government of either, but be respected, maintained and enforced by the governments of both. All modes of legislative action which followed it indicated its approval. Each State asserted jurisdiction on its side up to the line designated, and recognized the lawful jurisdiction of the adjoining State up to the line on the opposite side. Both States levied taxes on the lands on their respective sides and
The line was marked with great care by the commissioners of the States, with five chops on the trees in the form of a diamond, at such intervals between them as they deemed sufficient to identify and trace the line. Not a whisper of fraud or misconduct is made by either side against the commissioners, for the conclusions they reached and the line they established. It is true that in the year 1856, fifty-four -years after the line was thus settled, Yirginia, reciting that the line as marked by the commissioners in 1802 had, by lapse of time, the improvement оf the country, natural waste and destruction and other causes, become indistinct, uncertain and to some extent unknown, so that many inconveniences and difficulties, occurred between the citizens of the respective States and in the administration of their governments, passed an act for the appointment of commissioners, to meet commissioners to be appointed by Tennessee, to again run and mark said line, — not to run and mark a new line, — and provided-that where there was no growing timber on any part of -the line by which it might be plainly marked, if the old marks were gone, the ■commissioners should cause monuments of stone to be permanently planted on the line, at least one at every five miles or less, where it might seem best to the commissioners to do so, that the line might be readily identified for its entire length. The whole purpose of the-act, as is evident on its face was, not to change the old boundary line, but only to more perfectly identify it. Tennessee, responded to that invi
. The Constitution provides that “no State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnagé,,keep troops or ships of war in time of peace,' enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”
Is the agreement,, made without the consent of Congress, between Virginia and Tennessee, to appoint commissioners to run and mark the boundary line between them, within the prohibition of this clause
%
Thó terms “ agreement ” or “ compact ” taken by themselves are sufficiently comprehensive to
There are many matters upon which different States may agree that can in no respect concern the United States. If, for instance, Virginia should come into possession and ownership of a small parcel of land in New York which the latter State might desire to acquire as a site for a public building, it would hardly be deemed essential for the latter State to obtain the consent of Congress before it could make a valid agreement with Virginia, for the purchase of the land. ■ If Massachusetts, in forwarding its exhibits to the World’s Fair at Chicago, should desire to transport them a part of the distance over the Erie Canal, it would hardly be deemed essential for that State to obtain the consent of Congress before it could contract with New York for the transportation of the exhibits through that State in that way. If the bordering line of two States should cross some malarious and disease- ■ producing district, there could be no possible reason, on any conceivable public grounds, to obtain the consent of Congress . for the bordering States to agree to unite in draining the district, and thus removing the cause of disease. . So in case of threatened invasion of cholera, plague, or other causes of sickness and death, it would be the height of absurdity to hold that the threatened States could not unite in providing means to prevent and repel the invasion of the pestilence, without obtaining the consent of Congress, which might not be'at the time in session. If, then, the terms “compact” or “agreement” in the Constitution do not apply'to every possible compact or agreement between one State and another, for the validity of which the consent of Congress must be obtained, to what compacts or agreements does the Constitution apply ? '
Looking at the clause in which the terms “compact” or “agreement” appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the, formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States. Story, in his Commentaries, (§ 1403,) referring to a previous part of the same section of the Constitution in which the clause in question appears, observes that its language “ may be more plausibly interpreted from the terms used, £ treaty, alliance or confederation,’ and upon, the ground that the sense of each is best known by its association
(noscitur a
sociis) to apply to treaties of a political character; such as treaties of alliance for purposes of ■ peace and war; and treaties of confederation, in which the parties are ieagued for mutual government, political cooperation, and the exercise of political sovereignty, and treaties of cession' of sovereignty, or conferring internal political jurisdiction, or external political dependence, or general commercial privileges ”; and that “ the latter clause,
‘
compacts and agreements,’ might then very properly apply to such ás regarded what might be deemed mere private rights of sovereignty; such as questions of boundary; interests in'land situate in the territory of each other, and other internal regulations for the mutual comfort and convenience of States bordering on each other.” And he a<ids : “ In such cases the consent of Congress may be properly required, in order to check any infringement of the rights of the national government ; and, at the same time, a total prohibition to enter into
Compacts or agreements — and we do not perceive any difference in the meaning; except that the word “ compact ” is generally used with reference to more formal and serious engagements than is usually implied in the térm “agreement” — coverall stipulations affecting the conduct or claims of the parties. The mere selection of parties to run and designate the boundary line between, two States, or to designate what line should be run, of itself imports no agreement to accept the line run by them, and such action of itself does not come within the prohibition. Nor does a legislative declaration,-following such line, that it is correct, and shall thereafter be deemed the true and established line, import by itself a contract or agreement with the аdjoining State. It is a legislative declaration which the State and individuals, affected by the recognized boundary.line, may invoke against the State as. art admission, but not as a compact or agreement. .The legislative declaration will take the form of an agreement or compact when it recites some consideration for it from the other party affected by it, for-example, as made upon a similar declaration of the border or contracting State. The mutual declarations may then be reasonably treated as made upon mutual considerations. The compact or agreement will, then be within the prohibition of the Constitution or. without it, according as the establishment of the boundary line may lead pr not to the increase of the political power or influence of the States' affected, and thus encroach or not,upon the full and free, exercise of Federal authority. If the boundary established is so run as to cut off an important and valuable portion of a State, the political power of the State enlarged wоuld be affected by the settlement of the boundary; and to an agreement for the running of such a boundary, or rather for its adoption afterwTards, the consent of Congress may well be required. But, the running of a boundary may. have no-effect upon the' political influence of either State; it .may simply serve to mark and define that which actually existed before, but was undefined and unmarked. In that case' the agreement for the running of the line,, or its actual survéy,
The Constitution does not state when the consent of Congress shall be given, whеther it shall precede or may follow the compact made, or whether it shall be express or may be implied. In many cases the consent will usually precede the compact, or agreement, as where it is to lay a duty of tonnage, to keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, or to engage in war. But where the agreement relates to a matter which could not well be considered until its nature is fully developed, it is not perceived why the consent may not be subsequently given. Story says that the consent may be implied, and is always to be implied when Congress adopts the particular act by sanctioning its objects and aiding in .enforcing them ; and observes that where a State is admitted into the Union, notoriously upon a compact made between it and the State of which it previously composed a part, there the act of Congress, admitting such State into the Union, is an implied consent to'the terms of the compact. Knowledge by Congress of the boundaries of a State, íjnd of its political subdivisions, may •reasonably be presumed, as much of its lеgislation is affected by them, such as Relates to the' territorial jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, the extent of their collection districts, and of districts in which process, civil and criminal, of their courts may be served and enforced.
In the present case, the consent of Congress could not have preceded the execution of the compact, for, until the line was run, it could not be known where it would lie and whethet or not it would receive the approval of the States. The preliminary agreement was not to accept a line run, whatever it
Independently of (any effect due to the compact ás such, a boundary line .between States or Provinces, as between private persons, which has been run out, located- and marked upon the earth, and afterwards recognized and acquiesced in by the parties for a long course of years, is conclusive, even if it be ascertained that it varies 'somewhat from the courses given in the original grant; and' the line so established takes effect, not as an alienation of territory, but as a definition of the true and ancient boundary, fiord Hardwicke, in
Penn
v.
Lord
Baltimore, 1 Vesey Sen, 444, 448;
Boyd
v.
Graves,
' As said by this court in ■ the recent case of the
State of Indiana
v. Kentucky, (
Vattel, in his Law of Nations, speaking on this subject, says: “ The tranquillity of the people, the safety of States, the happiness of the human race do not allow that the possessions, empire, and other rights of nations should remain uncertain,, subject to dispute and ever ready to occasion bloody wars. Between nations, therefore, it becomes necessary to admit prescription founded on length of time as a valid and incontestable title.”
1
(Book II, c. 11, § 149.) And
There are also moral considerations which should prevent any disturbance of long recognized boundary lines; considerations springing from regard to the natural sentiments and affections which grow up for places on- which persons have long resided ; the attachments to country, to home and to family, on which is based all tliat is dearest and most valuable in lifé.
Notwithstanding the legislative declaration of Yirginia in 1803 that the line marked by the joint commissioners of the two States was ratified as the true and real boundary between them, and the repeated reaffirmation of the same declaration in her laws since that date, notably in the Code of 1858, in the Code of 1860 and in the Code of 1887 ; notwithstanding that the State has in various modes attested to the correctness of the boundary — by solemn affirmation in terms, by legislation, in the administration of its government, in the levy of taxes and the election of officers, and in its acquiescence for over eighty-five years, embracing nearly the lives of three generations, she now, by her bill, seeks to throw aside the obligation from her legislative declaration, because, as alleged, not made upon the express consent, in terms, of Congress, although such consent has been indicated by .long acquiescence in the assumption of the validity of the proceedings resulting in the establishment of the boundary, and to have a new boundary line between Yirginia and Tennessee established running due east and west on latitude thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north.
The compact in this case having received the consent of Congress, though not in express terms', yet impliedly, and subsequently, which is -equally effective, became obligatory and binding upon all the citizens of both Yirginia and Tennessee. Nor is it any objection that there may have been errors in the demarcation of the line-,which the States thus by their compact sanctioned. After such compacts have been adhered to for years neither party can be absolved from them upon showing errors, mistakes or misapprehension of their terms, or in the line established; and this is a complete and perfect answer to the complainant’s position in this case.
It may also.be stated that if the work of the joint commissioners, under the laws of 1800 and 1801, approved by the legislative action of both States in 1803, could be left out of consideration and a new line run, it would not follow that the
The general testimony, with hardly a dissent, is that the old line of 1802 can be readily traced throughout its whole length; and, moreover, that line has been recognized by all the residents near it, except those in the triangle at Dеnton’s Valley and in another district of small dimensions, in which it is stated that the people have voted as citizens of Virginia and have recognized themselves as citizens of that State. That fact, however, cannot affect the potency and conclusiveness of the compact between the States by which the line was established in 1803. The small number of citizens whose expectations will be disappointed by being included in Tennessee are secured in all their rights of property by provisions of the compact passed especially for the protection of their claims..
Some observations were made, on the argument of the case, upon the propriety and necessity, if the line established in 1803 be sustained, of having it re-run and re-marked, so as hereafter to be more readily identified and traced. But .a careful exam
Our judgment, therefore, is that the boundary line established by the States of Virginia and Tennessee by the compact of 1803 is the true boundary between them, and that on a proper application, based upon a showing that any-marks for the identification of that line have been obliterated’ or have become indistinct, an order may be made, at any time during the present term, for the restoration of such marks without any change of the line.
A decree will, therefore, be entered declaring and adjudging that the boundary line established between the States of Yirginiá and Tennessee by the compact of 1803 is the real, certain cmd true boundary between the said States, and that the prayer of the complainant to ham. the said compact set '■ aside and annulled, and to have-a new boundary line run between them on the parallel of 36° 30' north latitude should bé and is denied at the cost of the complainamt; and it is so ordered.
Notes
La tranquillité des peuples, le salut des États, le bonheur du genre huruain, ne soufll'ent point que les possessions, l’empire, et les áutres droits des Nations, demeurent inoertains, sujets a contestation, et toujours en état d’exciler des guerres sanglantes. II faut done admettre entre les peuples la prescription fondée sur un long espace de temps, comme un moyen solide et incontestable.