state is the plaintiff is not a conclusive test | which permitted it. By a concurrent resoluthat the controversy is one in which this tion of 1900 a legislative commission was court is authorized to grant relief against created, to investigate and report on the another state or her citizens. oyster industry of the state.

Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co. 127 U. S. 287, 32 L. ed. 242, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1370. No state can be sued either in its own courts or those of any other state or nation without its consent, and states can only be sued in proper cases in this court by reason of their agreement in the Constitution that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases arising under the Constitution and laws.

In January, 1898, the parochial authorities of the parish of St. Bernard equipped and sent out an official expedition to exclude from the oyster water of the parish any nonresident *oyster fishermen who might be[34] found fishing therein. Nonresident Mississippi oystermen were found fishing oysters there, and they were notified that they must stop fishing and move out of those waters. These Mississippians then complained to the

United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 646, Mississippi authorities and a conference en36 L. ed. 293, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488.

The controversies existing at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were the cause and origin of extending the judicial power of the United States to controversies between the states, and the only purpose of such constitutional provision was to provide a tribunal for settlement of such controversies as to boundaries and other like controversies.

sued between representatives of the parish of St. Bernard and the county of Hancock. In January, 1901, at the instance of the Louisiana legislative commission appointed under the act of 1900, and of committees appointed from the police juries of the Louisiana parishes of St. Bernard and Plaquemines, a meeting of the state officials of Louisiana was held in New Orleans to consider the subject of the dispute with the

United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 639, 36 state of Mississippi, and the invasion by L. ed. 291, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488.

It was not the intention of the states, in adopting the Constitution, to give their consent to be sued whenever a dispute arises between citizens of different states in regard to commerce or any property right affecting such citizens.

nonresidents of the Louisiana oyster waters. This meeting resulted in the appointment by the governor of Louisiana of a commission of five members, and an official communication from the governor of Louisiana addressed to the governor of Mississippi, requesting the latter to appoint a similar

Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 15, 33 L. commission to see if it were possible to efed. 847, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 504.

fect an amicable settlement of the dispute between the two states. This Mississippi

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the commission was accordingly appointed, and opinion of the court:

The demurrer was overruled because the court was of opinion that the bill presented a prima facie case of justiciable controversy between the state of Louisiana and the state of Mississippi as to the boundary line between them, and we are clear that the proofs establish the existence of such a controversy as to fully sustain our jurisdiction. It is apparent that the enforcement of the oyster legislation of the two states led to a conflict between the authorities of both, which involved a dispute as to the true boundary line.

the two commissions held a joint conference in New Orleans in March, 1901. Louisiana presented at the conference a map showing the Louisiana contention as to the boundary, which is the map attached to the bill, and marked Exhibit E. The Mississippi commission reported that it was impossible to effect an amicable extrajudicial settlement of the dispute, and that the only hope of settlement was a friendly suit in the Supreme Court of the United States. This report was submitted by the Mississippi commission to the governor of Mississippi, and was transmitted to the legIn 1886 the state of Louisiana passed an islature of that state. At this session the act vesting the power to control the oyster state of Mississippi passed a new law conindustry in the hands of the officials of the trolling her oyster waters and oyster indusparishes of the state in their several locali- try. Laws 1902, chap. 58. This act created ties, along general lines laid down in the a state oyster commission, vested with enlaw. La. Laws 1886, act No. 106. This tire control of the Mississippi oyster induswas followed by the acts of 1892 (No. 110), try. It took the control of the industry 1896 (No. 121), and 1900 (No. 159). By out of the hands of the coast county authorthe act of 1896 nonresident oyster fisher-ities and centralized it in this state dewere prohibited from fishing oysters partment, which was authorized to estab in Louisiana waters, and the dredging of lish a system of patrol of the Mississippi [85] oysters was also prohibited, in this particu- oyster waters, and to maintain patrol boats lar differing from the laws of Mississippi, to sustain the oyster laws in her territory.

men