Page images
PDF
EPUB

These difficulties are understandable. The need for a determination of jurisdiction arises early in the settlement of a new country, frequently before much exploration has been done. Old maps show many mistakes easily recognizable from our knowledge of geography today. Often the remarkable thing about these maps is how accurate they are. The mapmaker knows that much data and many position determinations enter into making an accurate map. The historian has given us a picture of the vast regions unexplored in the 18th century, the lack of roads, the hostile Indians, and the small population for so large an area. It is little wonder, then, that the treatymakers found it difficult to define the limits of national sovereignty, and that it is even more difficult to mark them on the ground.

Inexact wording has frequently made ambiguous the intent of the signers of the document fixing a boundary. Disputes over the meaning of treaties have led to long negotiation and sometimes to war. Court records are full of suits brought to settle ownership of property. The same type of disagreements arise over limits of political divisions: nations, states, and even counties. Unfortunately, in the case of nations, there usually exist no courts that can make a decision and enforce it. Bitter quarrels have arisen over boundaries and some surprising claims have been advanced, such as the cry of "Fifty-four forty or fight." Yet almost always cooler judgment has prevailed and the matter was settled fairly. The surrender to the Federal Government of land in the Northwest Territory claimed by some of the Thirteen Original States illustrates the concessions that were made which permitted the orderly development of the new nation.

Surveying methods and practices have been greatly improved since the days when most of our State and national boundaries were located. Latitude and longitude determinations are made with greater accuracy today, as are angle and distance measurements. This accuracy is due

A map of the colonial period, the "Map of the British and French dominions in North America," by Dr. John Mitchell, was possibly printed between 1762 and 1775 but retained the original publication date, 1755.

Copies of Mitchell's map were used at different stages of the negotiations in Paris be tween the American and British framers of the peace treaties of 1782-83.

John Adams wrote regarding this map: "We had before us, through the whole negotiations, a variety of maps; but it was the Mitchell's map upon which was marked out the whole boundary lines of the United States." No particular copy has so far been identified as the one thus referred to.

A copy of the Mitchell map used by John Jay, one of the American commissioners, on which a red line was drawn to indicate one of the preliminary boundary proposals, is now in the library of the New York Historical Society.

In the British Museum there is a heavily annotated copy of Mitchell's map that has on it a red boundary line, which differs from that on the Jay copy (Moore, 1898, p. 154, 161). The Library of Congress has many copies of the Mitchell map besides those published in England, including 7 French, 2 Dutch, 2 Italian, and 2 Spanish issues, as well as 40 or more reproductions of parts of the map.

Although there are many errors in this map, in 1782-83 it was the best available. Martin (1927) stated, "It appears to be the most important map in American history."

to better instruments and higher requirements. The early surveyor had to endure many hardships. Sometimes it is surprising that his work was as good as it was.

It is legally well established that a boundary or property line once marked on the ground and accepted by the interested parties becomes the true line, whether or not it follows the written description. The surveyor who reruns the line must find where it is rather than move it to conform to the wording of the original document (148 U.S. 503; 103 U.S. 316; 137 U.S. 584; 267 U.S. 39). Conflicting boundary claims and lack of knowledge as to the exact location of the boundary have presented problems to the courts and to the surveyor until very recently. As late as 1936 a commission made a report to the Supreme Court as a basis for its decision on the Vermont-New Hampshire boundary. The following discussion on how boundaries are established and changed, on the boundaries of the United States and additions to its territory, and on the formation of the various States and the establishment of their boundaries are presented for their historical and geographical interest and for a reference to those who do not care to take time to go to original source material. Certain factual information concerning areas, altitudes, and geography is presented at the end of the book with the thought that it is of general interest and is readily available to the Geological Survey.

HOW BOUNDARIES ARE ESTABLISHED AND CHANGED Boundaries between countries are established by treaties made by the sovereign powers concerned (Brigham, 1919, p. 201–219).

A boundary between two States of the United States may be changed by agreement of the State legislatures, but this agreement must be approved by Congress. The U.S. Congress cannot change a State boundary without the consent of the State, nor can two States by mutual agreement change their common boundary without the consent of Congress. The consent of Congress to a change in a boundary need not be granted by a special act but may be inferred from subsequent legislation. Several times Congress has given its consent

3 U.S. Supreme Court Repts., 11 Wallace, p. 39-59 (78 U.S. 39-59); 148 U.S. 502 et al. (Prior to 1875 the volumes of the U.S. Supreme Court reports were designated by the name of the official reporter and a number. Some sets of these early reports are now numbered serially also. In order of issue there are 4 reports by Dallas (serial Nos. 1-4). covering the years 1790 to 1800; 9 by Cranch (serial Nos. 5-13), 1801 to 1815: 12 by Wheaton (serial Nos. 14-25), 1816 to 1827; 16 by Peters (serial Nos. 26-41), 1828 to 1842; 24 by Howard (serial Nos. 42-65), 1843 to 1860; 2 by Black (serial Nos. 66–67), 1861 to 1862; and 23 by Wallace (serial Nos. 68-90), 1863 to 1874. Beginning with No. 91, for 1875, the volumes have been numbered serially only. References to these reports

are customarily made thus: "6 Cranch 24," "10 Howard 40." The serial number of the volume is sometimes given also. Beginning with v. 91, the references are given in the form "97 U.S. 271," meaning v. 97 of the U.S. Supreme Court reports, p. 271, the page number always being given last.)

in advance for adjoining States to fix an indefinite water boundary between them."

A boundary between a State and a Territory was fixed by joint action of Congress and the State. Boundaries between Territories were fixed by congressional action alone. Disputes between States regarding boundaries must be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, whose decisions are final. (148 U.S. 503. For reference to the procedure for submitting boundary disputes to the U.S. Supreme Court, see Martin, 1930, p. 113.)

Long acquiescence in the possession of territory and in the exercise of dominion and sovereignty over it is conclusive of the Nation's title and rightful authority (136 U.S. 510; 202 U.S. 1; 270 U.S. 295; 4 Howard 639).

The statute of limitations in the possession of land does not operate against the United States or a State, and title to Government land cannot be acquired by adverse possession.5

When original boundary marks have been destroyed, "the law, as well as common sense, must declare that a supposed boundary line long acquiesced in is better evidence of where the real line should be than any survey made after the original monuments have disappeared" (Stewart v. Carleton, 31 Mich. Repts. 270; Diehl v. Zanger, 39 Mich. Repts. 601).

An original monument determines a point on a boundary with greater certainty than courses and distances. "Errors in courses are immaterial" (23 Wallace 46; 103 U.S. 316). When courses have not been marked, a line long recognized as a boundary must be accepted as such (103 U.S. 316).

Three of the most common means of defining a boundary are: By a water boundary, such as a stream, lake, or other body of water, By a divide between two drainage basins,

By a meridian of longitude or a parallel of latitude.

The last of these depends for its exactitude on the work of the surveyor. There is no doubt as to the intent of the wording when

435 Stat. L. 1160-1161; 36 Stat. L. 881; see also 41 Stat. L. 1447. (References in this volume to acts of Congress, joint resolutions, and presidential proclamations, contained in the U.S. Statutes at Large are given in the form used here, or in the later references, the "L" is dropped. "36 Stat. L. 881" (36 Stat. 881), for example, means v. 36, p. 881.) See Article IV, sec. 3, of the Constitution of the United States. The conditions under which ratification by Congress is essential are described at length in 148 U.S. 520-522. See also an excellent review of this question in the opinion, dated June 17, 1929, rendered by the attorney general of Texas to a joint legislative committee of that State, regarding the 100th meridian boundary.

539 Fed. 654; 95 Pac. 278. References given here are from The Federal Reporter and The Pacific Reporter. The former source has to do with Federal cases in courts below the Supreme Court, and the latter with State supreme court cases in the western part of the United States. See Act of Dec. 22, 1928, Public No. 645, 70th Cong., for conditions under which a patent may be obtained to United States land held for 20 years under "color of title."

a parallel of latitude is specified, because the numbering always begins with zero at the equator. The numbering of the meridians now generally accepted increases from zero to the east and west of Greenwich. This has not always been so, and even today in some countries the initial meridian is the one passing through their capital. In the United States the Washington meridian was used as a point of departure in much of the 19th century.

The act of September 28, 1850 (9 Stat. 515), provided, among other things, "That hereafter the meridian of the observatory at Washington shall be adopted and used as the American meridian for all astronomic purposes and *** that the meridian of Greenwich shall be adopted for all nautical purposes." This act was repealed August 22, 1912 (37 Stat. 342).

The Washington meridian passes through the center of the dome of the old Naval Observatory at 24th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D. C. It is 5 hours, 8 minutes, 12.15 seconds or 77°03'02.3" west of Greenwich.

During the period of nearly 62 years that the act was in force, the meridional boundaries of the Territories and States of Arizona, Colorado, Dakota, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Wyoming and the States of Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Utah were referred to the Washington meridian.

The use of a divide or ridge summit for a boundary has considerable logic to support it. It is a natural barrier and tends to confine political and economic activity to some extent. The intent of the document defining the boundary is clear, and the topographer can mark the line on the ground within very close limits.

If by treaty or statute a nonnavigable river or smaller stream is named as a boundary between States or nations and neither the bank nor the main channel is specified, the line midway between the two banks is the actual boundary. A treaty, statute, or cession may specify that one bank or the other is the boundary; in that case either the high-water or the low-water mark may be the line, according to the wording of the agreement. For example, the north boundary of Kentucky is the low-water mark on the north bank of the Ohio (see p. 179), as fixed by the act of ression by Virginia, and the high-water mark on the west bank of the Chattahoochee River forms part of the west boundary of Georgia (13 Howard 380).

If a boundary line described as following the middle of a river intersects an island, it is the usual policy to give the entire island to the State or Government to which the greater part would fall. This rule was followed by the commission acting under Article VI of the

treaty of Ghent in fixing the St. Lawrence River boundary, and also by the Rhode Island and Massachusetts commissions."

No land can be considered an island unless it is surrounded by water at all times. The same tract of land cannot be sometimes in Kentucky and sometimes in Indiana, according to the rise and fall of the river. It must be always in the one State or the other."

Where running streams are the boundaries between States,

when

the bed and channel are changed by the natural and gradual processes known as erosion and accretion, the boundary follows the varying course of the stream [see 265 U.S. 499]; while if the stream from any cause, natural or artificial, suddenly leaves its old bed and forms a new one, by the process known as avulsion, the resulting change of channel works no change of boundary, which remains in the middle of the old channel [or on one bank if so fixed by statute], although no water may be flowing in it [246 U.S. 173].

So long as that channel [as it was previous to avulsion] remains a running stream the boundary marked by it is still subject to be changed by erosion and accretion; but when the water becomes stagnant *** the boundary then becomes fixed in the middle of the channel [246 U.S. 175].

Thus a line described by statute or treaty as a river boundary may later run across dry land, where it remains fixed unless the river returns to its former channel and changes the channel by slow action. There are many illustrations of this rule in the United States-for example, along the Missouri River between Missouri and Kansas and between Missouri and Nebraska, and on the Mississippi between Tennessee and Arkansas.

If after an avulsion the boundary is again moved by new accretions, a Supreme Court rule (18 Howard 150; 1 Black 209. See also 48 Mich. 88) requires that the boundary be so placed that each State (or individual) shall have a water frontage proportional to what it was immediately after the avulsion occurred, general directions only being considered.8

When a navigable river constitutes the boundary between two independent States, the line defining the point at which the jurisdiction of the two separates is well established to be the middle of the main channel of the stream."

For reference to the use of the water of rivers that cross State lines, abstract of laws, and bibliography of 70 entries relating to that subject, see Hinderlider and Meeker, (1927, v. 90, p. 1035-1051). See also 206 U.S. 46, 259 U.S. 419, 206 U.S. 46-98 (Arkansas River), 259 U.S. 419 (Laramie River), 282 U.S. 660 (Ware River, Mass.), 283 U.S. 336 (Delaware River), 283 U.S. 423 (Colorado River).

75 Wheaton 374. See decision regarding Wolf Island, Mississippi River, 11 Wallace 395.

* Many examples of the application of this rule are shown on the maps accompanying the reports of the commissioners who established the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas along the Red River. See report 4, Jan. 31, 1927, U.S. Supreme Court.

This general rule has no application to a case governed by convention or by a special right based on prior possession. (See 202 U.S. 29.)

776-664 O-66-2

« PreviousContinue »