While a state cannot be compelled by suit to perform its contracts, any attempt on its part to violate property or rights ac quired under its contracts may be judicially resisted; and any law impairing the ob ligation of contracts under which such prop erty rights are held is void; Hans v. Louis iana, 134 U. S. 1, 10 Sup. Ct. 504, 33 L. Ed. 8f2.
The relation of the federal courts to these cases was stated in Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama, 161 Fed. 925, where it was held that issuing an injunction by a federal court to restrain state officers from enforcing a state law in volves no question of state rights or local self-government, and an injunction was grant ed against the state railroad commission. But the court of appeals reversed the decree upon the facts and dissolved the injunction having in the beginning of their opinion, however, made a general statement as to the law on the subject, as follows: "We as sume as true and indisputable that the fed eral courts have jurisdiction and authority to annul and enjoin acts of a state legisla ture that are confiscatory or otherwise in conflict with the constitution ; that they have no right to decline to exercise such jurisdiction when properly invoked; that every citizen, when the amount involVed is sufficient and there is either diverse citizen ship or a federal question involved, has the right to invoke such jurisdiction; that when such jurisdiction has attached it is exclusive, in the sense that state courts or state au thority cannot interfere with it; that the process of injunction may be lawfully issued to preserve such jurisdiction from invasion by either civil or criminal proceedings; and that an injunctive suit to stay action by state officers under an unconstitutional state law is not necessarily a suit against the state. There is in our minds no doubt as to these general principles, though innumerable difficulties and disputations arise iu their practical application:" Railroad Commission of Alabama v. R. Co., 170 Fed. 225, 231, 95 C. C. A. 117. A certiorari was denied ; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. R. Comm., 214 U. S. 521, 29 Sup. Ct. 701, 53 L. Ed. 1066.
In a qualified sense separate states are sovereign and independent and the relations between them partake of something like the nature of international law. The supreme court by its decisions of controversies be tween states is constructing what may be called a body of interstate law ; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 27 Sup. Ct. 655, 51 L. Ed. 956.
The supreme court has jurisdiction and au thority to deal with a question between two states which if it were raised between two independent sovereignties might lead to war; Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496, 26 Sup. Ct. 268, 50 L. Ed. 573.
As the remedies resorted to by independent states for the determination of controversies arising between them were withdrawn from the states by the constitution, a wide range of controversies susceptible of adjustment and not purely pblitical in their nature was made justiciable by that instrument ; Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, 22 Sup. Ct. 552,
46 L. Ed. 838; as to the practice, see Com. of Virginia v. West Virginia, 209 U. S. 514. 28 Sup. Ct. 614, 52 L. Ed. 914.
The supreme court has original jurisdic tion of a bill filed by one state against an other for relief from the deprivation by the direct action of the latter of the water of a river accustomed to flow through and across her country and consequent destruction of property and injury to health ; Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U. S. 125, 22 Sup. Ct. 552, 46 L. Ed. 838; id., 206 U. S. 46, 27 Sup. Ct. 655, 51 L. Ed. 956.
The jurisdiction of the supreme court of controversies in which a state is a party is not affected by the question whether it is plaintiff or defendant, and where a state sought an injunction against a United States officer and the United States was, for the purposes of the case, a real party in interest, the court had jurisdiction; Min nesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373, 22 Sup. Ct. 650, 46 L. Ed. 934.
The supreme court has no jurisdiction where the name of a state is used simply for the prosecution of a private claim; Kansas v. U. S., 204 U. S. 331, 27 Sup. Ct. 388, 51 L. Ed. 510; although a state may be sued by the United States without its consent, pub lic policy forbids that the United States may without its consent be sued by a state; Kan sas v. U. S., 204 U. S. 331, 27 Sup. CL 388, 51 L. Ed. 510.
A state bordering on the sea may, in the exercise of its sovereignty, extend its own borders one marine league from low water mark and make the region so annexed as much a part of the state as any other part of its territory, and therefore within the fed eral district ; U. S. v. Imp. Co., 173 Fed. 426.
"There are many matters upon which dif ferent states may agree that can in no re spect concern the United States. If, for in stance, Virginia should come into possession and ownership of a small parcel of land in New York which the latter state might de sire 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." Vir ginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 503, 13 Sup. Ct. 728, 37 L. Ed. 537, followed in Stearns v. Minnesota, 179 U. S. 246, 21 Sup. Ct. 73, 45 L. Ed. 162.
As to the relation between the state and the United States, See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JURISDICTION; as to courts, see JUDICIAL POWER; as to legislatures, see ISLATIVE POWER; as to governors and execu tive officers, see EXECUTIVE POWER; as to surrender of fugitives front justice, see Ex TRADITION ; as to taxation, see TAX; as to constitutional rights and guaranties of citi zens of states, see PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNI TIES; EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS; DUE PROCESS OF LAW ; CONSTITUTION OF THE UNIT