Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/904

 Rh created, control over certain subjects, ex clusive as to some, concurrent as to others. This apportionment of control over certain subjects necessitated the exercise of both legislative and judicial powers, and provi sion was made for the former in the crea tion of Congress, and for the latter in the creation of the Supreme Court, and by con ferring authority on Congress to create other courts. The courts thus created were vested with jurisdiction in admiralty and at common law and in equity." AN article in the November Columbia Lava Rcz'iciU on Article IV., Section i, of the Con stitution, by George P. Costigan, Jr., of the Denver Bar, is summed up by the author as follows : First—That the fundamental difference between strictly foreign judgments and those American judgments which we have denominated sister-state judgments, lies in the fact that the standing of the former rests on comity, while that of the latter is pro tected by constitutional and statutory pro visions. Secondly—That Article IV., Section i, of the United States Constitution, like its pro totype in the Articles of Confederation, was framed for the express purpose of giving sister-state judgments a favored footing over strictly foreign judgments, and that the acts of Congress carried out the purpose by providing a mode of authentication, which, when resorted to, would entitle them to that favored footing. Third—That Article IV., Section i, of the United States Constitution applies only to State judgments when proved in other States, but that the acts of Congress go far ther and give effect to State judgments in the territories and insular possessions, as well as in other States, and likewise, in aid of the general judicial power of the United States, give the same conclusive effect in the States to the judgments of our territo rial and insular possession courts. Fourth—That by judicial legislation the judgments of United States Courts are held to be as conclusive in the States as are sis ter-state judgments.

843

Fifth—That the acts of Congress provide a mode of authentication which would seem erroneously to be deemed by some courts to be applicable to judgments of courts of record alone; and that since it has never been determined by the United States Su preme Court that Article IV., Section I, of the Constitution, is self-executing, there is a conflict of State authority as to whether a judgment of a Justice of the Peace of one State rendered with jurisdiction is conclu sive evidence when proved in the courts of another. Si.rth—That the favored standing of sis ter-state judgments does not exist as to cer tain strictly foreign judgments made con clusively by comity; does not extend to sister-state judgments rendered without ju risdiction over the person or the res; may not exist as to judgments obtained by fraud, except in cases where our own judgments, when sued on in the country from which the foreign judgment comes, are not pro tected from reëxamination as to matters of fraud already passed upon by the courts rendering the judgments, and does not ap ply to sister-state judgments which are penal in the international sense, or which are sued on by foreign corporations. ON the question of "Diverting Interstate Streams," Case and Comment says: One of the greatest and most difficult questions that has been presented in recent years to the courts is that of the relative rights of States and the inhabitants of differ ent States in respect to the waters of inter state water courses. The case that has been for some time pending in the United States Supreme Court between Kansas and Colo rado to determine whether or not the peo ple of Colorado have a right to appropriate the waters of the Arkansas river, to the detriment of the people of Kansas, involves interests of vast importance to the people of those States. The question there to be decided is also of great importance in other localities. A decision pertinent to the case was rendered by the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit in the case of Pine v. Mayor, etc., of the city of New York, 112