[455] Warren, The Supreme Court and Disputes Between States, p. 13. However, only three such suits were brought in this period, 1789-1849. During the next 90 years, 1849-1939, at least twenty-nine such suits were brought. Ibid. 13, 14.
[456] 2 Dall. 419 (1793).
[457] Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 721 (1838).
[458] Ibid. 736-737.
[459] Ibid. 737. Chief Justice Taney dissented because of his belief that the issue was not one of property in the soil, but of sovereignty and jurisdiction, and hence political. Ibid. 752-753. For different reasons, it should be noted, a suit between private parties respecting soil or jurisdiction of two States, to which neither State is a party does not come within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Fowler v. Lindsay, 3 Dall. 411 (1799).
[460] 180 U.S. 208 (1901).
[461] Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907).
[462] 283 U.S. 336 (1931).
[463] Ibid. 342. See also Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589 (1945), for the restatement of the familiar principle that the power of apportionment among several States of waters of an interstate river where the demands of the users exceeds the supply is a matter of sufficient importance and dignity as to be justiciable in the Supreme Court.
[464] South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U.S. 286 (1904).