Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

*

*

#

Spain of 1819, and in the second article the boundary line between the two countries is described and defined as follows: "Then following the course of the Rio Roxo (or Red River) westward, to the degree of longitude 100 west from London, and 23 from Washington; then crossing the said Red River, and running thence by a line due north to the Arkansas." It is understood that the State of Texas claims that the North Fork of the Red River, as laid down on the inclosed map, is the main branch of the Red River, and the one referred to in the before-mentioned treaties. The fact is that the Red River mentioned in the treaty of 1819 with Spain, as laid down on Melish's map, referred to in that treaty, and which is now on file in the State Department, is identical with the present main Red River as delineated on the maps of the United States. Additional evidence of the identity of the Red River as represented on the Melish map, with the main Red River, as shown on the maps of the United States, consists in the fact that the map of the United states of the Republic of Mexico, by Disturnell, published in Spanish in 1848, compiled from the best authorities and laws of Mexico, and which was used in the Mexican boundary commission in surveying the boundary between the United States and the Republic of Mexico, corroborates the course of the Red River as laid down on Melish's map referred to in the treaty with Spain. In fact, neither the Melish map nor that of Disturnell shows the North Fork of the Red River, and hence the latter could not have been regarded at the contemporaneous dates of the treaties as the boundary between the United States, Spain, Mexico, or finally by the Republic of Texas. The fact that this tract having been ceded by Spain to the United States in the treaty of 1819, subsequently ratified and confirmed by the United Mexican States by the treaty of 1828, and not claimed by Mexico since her independence from Spain, stops the State of Texas from claiming it. (See letter of Commissioner of the General Land Office to Secretary of the Interior, dated May 10, 1877.) The Judiciary Committee of the House, to whom was referred H. R. 1715, in their report, No. 1282, Forty-seventh Congress, first session, to accompany House resolution No. 223, state that if the data which they had been considering are correct, there would seem to be no doubt of the claim of the United States to the tract in dispute, and the committee reports adversely on the bill. But for reasons stated the committee were of the opinion that the State should be heard and given an opportunity to co-operate with the United States in settling the facts upon which the question in dispute rests. A substitute was reported for the appointment of a Joint Commission, the passage of which the committee recommended. (See also House Report No. 63, present Congress.) No final settlement of this question appears ever to have been made.

A copy of House Report 1282 is herewith inclosed, accompanying which may be found a copy of the letter of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, above referred to, as well as of one from that officer, dated January 5, 1882, and a tracing of Melish's map referred to in the treaty of 1819 with Spain.

By the second article of the treaty of 1833, with the Quapaws, the United States agreed to convey to those Indians one hundred and fifty sections of land west of the State line of Missouri. By the fourth article of the treaty of 1867 (15 Stat., 514), the boundaries of the Quapaw lands were modified and reduced. That tribe now occupies and owns the tract on the map numbered 26, which contains an area of 56,685

acres.

Tract numbered 27, containing an area of 50,301 acres, was granted to the Peorias, Kaskaskias, Weas, and Piankeshaws by the twenty-first article of the treaty of 1867. (Id., 518.)

Tract numbered 28, containing an area of 14,860 acres, was granted to the Ottawas by the sixteenth article of the same treaty.

Tract numbered 29, containing an area of 13,048 acres, is the reservation of the Shawnees as diminished by the third article of the aforesaid treaty.

Tract numbered 30, containing 4,040 acres, was purchased by the Modocs from the Shawnees, by agreement dated June 23, 1874, and confirmed by an item in the Indian appropriation act, approved March 3, 1875. (18 Stat., 447.)

Tract numbered 31, containing an area of 21,406 acres, was given to the Wyandottes by the thirteenth article of the treaty of 1867. (15 Stat., 516.)

Tract numbered 32, containing an area of 51,958 acres, is the reservation of the Senecas as modified by the same treaty.

In the foregoing the status and area is given of each tract in the Indian Territory outside of those owned by the five civilized tribes. None of the lands in the Indian Territory, while they maintain their present status, are subject to entry under the land laws of the United States, and none can be made so subject to entry by the action of the Executive.

Upon the question of the status of these lands I quote from Department letter to this office dated April 25, 1879:

"By the intercourse act of June 30, 1834, this tract of territory, with others, was declared Indian country, and for its government the basis was created of the present intercourse laws as embodied in the Revised Statutes, sections 2111 to 2157. Since

that period, although the boundary of the Indian country has been varied under the operation of numerous laws, the whole Indian Territory has been regarded as Indian country, subject to no State or Territorial laws, and excepted from judicial process, except under special enactments providing for a limited and restricted jurisdiction, for the purposes of which it has been, by section 533, Revised Statutes, attached to the western district of Arkansas. (See act January 6, 1883, 22 Stat., 400.)

"None of the land or general laws of the United States have been extended to any part of the Indian Territory, except as to crimes and punishments and other provisions regulated by the intercourse acts.

This being the condition of things, it is clear that no authorized settlement could be made by any person in the Territory except under the provisions of the intercourse laws, such persons having first obtained the permission provided for in those statutes. "It may be further stated that no part of said Territory remains free from appropriation either to a direct trust assumed by treaty, or by reservations for tribes thereon under Executive order, except that portion still claimed by the State of Texas, and lying between Red River and the North Fork of the same."

The resolution of the Senate is herewith returned.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Hon. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

H. PRICE,
Commissioner.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, January 8, 1884.

SIR: I have considered the communication of August 24 last, addressed to you by Hon. Jno. Ireland, governor of Texas, and referred by you to me, relating to the boundary line between the United States and Texas.

Said communication states that the governor of Texas is authorized to form a Joint Commission with the United States, to run and define said boundary line, and a printed copy of an act of the legislature of said State to that effect, approved May 2, 1882, is inclosed with the communication. The act provides that the line shall be run as follows, viz:

66

Beginning at a point where a line drawn north from the intersection of the thirtysecond degree of north latitude with the western bank of the Sabine River crosses the Red River, and thence following the course of said river westwardly to the degree of longitude one hundred west from London, and twenty-three degrees west from Washington, as said line was laid down in the Melish's map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the first of January, 1818, and designated in the treaty between the United States and Spain made February 22, A. D. 1819.” The object of the act is recited therein to be that

"The question may be definitely settled as to the true location of the 100th degree of longitude west from London, and whether the North Fork of Red River, on the Prairie Dog Fork of said river, is the true Red River designated in the treaty [aforesaid]."

The act further provides that

"In locating said line said Commissioners shall be guided by actual surveys and measurements, together with such well-established marks, natural and artificial, as may be found, and such well-authenticated maps as may throw light upon the subject."

The act also provides that the

"Commissioner or Commissioners on the part of Texas shall attempt to have said survey made between the first day of July and the first day of October of the year in which said survey is made, when the ordinary stage of water in each fork of said Red River may be observed; and when the main or principal Red River is ascertained, as agreed upon in said treaty of 1819, and the point is fully designated where the 100th degree of longitude west from London and the 23d degree of longitude west from Washington crosses said Red River, the same shall be plainly marked and defined as a corner in said boundary."

The communication from the governor states that—

"In view of the fact that the United States is setting up some sort of claim to that territory known as Grier County, in this State; and inasmuch as this State feels that she has a perfect title to the territory, I respectfully and earnestly urge such steps on the part of the United States as will enable the Joint Commission to be raised. There are now a large number of people settled in the Territory, and if the restrictive claims of Texas and the United States were settled the country would rapidly fill up." On the 6th day of January, 1882, the Secretary of the Interior was instructed, by Senate resolution of that date

"To furnish the Senate with the report, if any, of the survey of the United States and Texas Boundary Commission, made under the provisions of the act of Congress

approved June 5, 1858, and if no final report of said Commission was made, to report that fact, together with the maps, surveys, and report of work, so far as it was proseented."

My predecessor accordingly, on the 19th of the same month, made such report, and transmitted therewith, as a part thereof, the report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, of January 11, together with inaps and papers. (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 70, Forty-seventh Congress, first session.)

From such report it appears that in the year 1859

"The Joint Commission on the part of the United States and the State of Texas commenced work together on the Rio Grande, but the Texas Commissioner did not remain long in the field, on account of personal differences between himself and the United States Commissioner. A new Texas Commissioner came and assisted in the survey of a part of the west boundary, or 103d meridian west longitude."

The next year the United States Commi-sioner surveyed the north and east boundaries, but it does not appear that the Texas Commissioner took any part in the work. On the 16th day of January, 1862, the Secretary of the Interior directed that the work of the Texas Boundary Commission be termina ed, and during that month the work was terminated accordingly. The office work was never completed. The field work seems to have been executed, except a part of the west boundary, which was not run from 33° north latitude to 33° 45′ north latitude.

No part of said boundary survey has ever been officially agreed upon or accepted by the two Governments, as contemplated by the act of Congress authorizing the survey.

It is true, as stated in the said letter addressed to you by the governor of Texas, "that the Secretary of the Interior holds that the territory belongs to the United States." Such claim is set forth in a letter addressed to my predecessor, Secretary Schurz, May 10, 1877, by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, substantially as follows, viz:

Article 3 of the treaty of February 22, 1819, between Spain and the United States (8 Stat., 254) describes the line, so far as it relates to the territory in question, as begiuning

"On the Gulf of Mexico, at the mouth of the river Sabine, in the sea, continuing north along the western bank of that river to the 32d degree of latitude, where it strikes the Rio Roxo, of Natchitoches, or Red River; then following the course of the Rio Roxo westward to the degree of longitude 100 west from London and 23 from Washington; then crossing the said Red River and running thence by a line due north to the river Arkansas. 'The whole being as laid down in Melish's Map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the 1st of January, 1:18."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

After the acquisition of independence by Mexico, the treaty between that country and the United States of January 12, 1828, recited and confirmed the boundary as above quoted from the treaty between the United States and Spain. (8 Stat., 372, Article 1.)

By the joint resolutions of March 1 (5 Stat., 197) and of December 29, 1845 (9 Stat., 108), Texas was admitted into the Union with "the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas."

In the mouth of April, 1859, under a contract between Jones and Brown and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, an astronomical survey was made of the 100th meridian west from Greenwich, being the boundary line between the Choctaw and Chickasaw country and Texas. The initial point of the boundary was determined to be at the intersection of said meridian with what is designated upon the maps of the General Land Office as Red River, and a monument was established 30 chains due north from the north bank of said river.

The following extract is taken from the field-notes of such survey:

It

"The river due south from monument is 76 chains and 85 links wide from high-water mark to high-water mark; while the North Fork of Red River is 23 chains wide will be sufficient to say to those interested that there can be no doubt as to the fact of its being the main branch of Red River, as was doubted by some persons with whom we had conversed relative to the matter before seeing it, for the reason the channel is larger than all the rest of its tributaries combined, besides affording its equal share of water, thongh like the other branches in many places the water is swallowed up by its broad and extensive sand beds, but water can in any season of the year be obtained from 1 to 3 feet from the surface in the main bed of the stream. Captain Marcy, in his report and map, also specifies it as the Keche-ah-que-hons, or main Red River." The report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office of May 10, 1877, aforesaid, states that the

"Joint commissioners on the part of the United States and the State of Texas proeeeded to the field in May and June, 1860, and commenced work from the point where the 100th meridian crossed the Canadian River. They retraced the meridian line established by Messrs. Brown and Jones in 1859, as aforesaid, and prolonged it further

north to the intersection of the 36 30 of north latitude, or the northeast corner of the State of Texas, thereby determining the jurisdiction over said territory west of the North Fork of Red River to be within the United States."

I think, however, that this statement is erroneous, and that said commissioners did not join in such survey; but that each commissioner determined separately such line or parts thereof-the commissioner on behalf of the United States in 1859 and on the part of Texas in 1860.

The Melish map, so generally referred to, and now on file in the State Department, shows but one of the said forks of the Red River, and the one shown is delineated upon that map as lying to the south of the South Fork as marked upon modern maps, a fact not perhaps surprising, considering the somewhat imperfect knowledge that then existed as to the precise location of rivers and other natural objects upon the face of that region of country.

"At a very early period officers were sent out by the French Government to explore Red River, but their examinations appear to have extended no further than the country occupied by the Natchitoches and Cardoes, in the vicinity of the present town of Natchitoches, La. Subsequent examinations had extended our acquaintance with its upper tributaries, but we were still utterly in the dark in regard to the true geographical position of its sources." (Marcy's Exploration of the Sources of the Red River, 1852, p. 2.)

It would seem, however, that the fork or river delineated upon the Melish map must be identical with the South Fork or main Red River as shown upon the maps of the General Land Office. Although the knowledge of the country was imperfect, it is probable that the existence of the North Fork was known, and that the South Fork was marked upon the Melish map as the river, while the North Fork, being regarded as a tributary, was omitted.

* * *

It further appears that the map of "Mexico, by Disturnell, published in Spanish, in 1848, compiled from the best authorities and which was used by the Mexican boundary commission in surveying the boundary between the United States and the Republic of Mexico," does not show the North Fork of the Red River, but indicates the river as laid down on the Melish map.

In the exploration made in 1852, by Captain Marcy, assisted by Captain McClellan, they traced the north branch of said Red River to its source, and thence taking a sontherly direction, reached the south branch, and in June and July made an exploration of that branch from its source. This seems to have been the first authentic exploration of such branches. The report speaks of the south branch very generally as "the principal or main branch of the Red River" (pp. 49, 55, 83); and I think the physical features of that branch as given in the report prove that it is the main branch or principal river.

I have thus recited some of the prominent facts relating to said boundary line and the action heretofore taken in reference thereto, as they are disclosed by the records of this Department.

It will be seen from the foregoing that the question of the disputed boundary has never been determined between the United States and the State of Texas. The latter State desires a speedy adjustment of the question; and in view of the settlement of the territory in controversy, and of claims made to tracts of land lying therein, and in view of the civil jurisdiction which prevails or ought to prevail therein, it is important that such boundary line should be finally fixed and determined.

I am of the opinion that the one hundredth meridian of west longitude has been correctly surveyed, marked, and established, and that a resurvey of that meridian will be unnecessary.

The question to be determined is, which fork of said Red River was intended under the treaties and joint resolutions before recited to mark and designate the boundary line between Texas and the United States. I submit that this does not necessarily depend upon the relative size or formation of the forks.

I am of the opinion that it is necessary that a joint commission on the part of the United States and Texas should be formed to determine definitely such boundary line, and reccommend that the proper steps be taken for that purpose. I suggest, however, whether sufficient data of an authentic character does not already exist to enable a commission to determine the question without further surveys in the field.

Very respectfully,

The PRESIDENT.

H. M. TELLER, Secretary.

[House Report No. 63, Forty-eighth Congress, first session.]

Mr. LANHAM, from the Committee on the Territories, submitted the following report to accompany bill H. R. 1565:

The Committee on the Territories, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1565) to authorize the appointment of a commission by the President of the United States to run and mark the boundary line between a portion of the Indian Territory and the State of Texas, in connection with a similar commission to be appointed by the State of Texas, respectfully submit the following report:

The object of the bill is the ascertainment of the dividing line between a part of the Indian Territory and the State of Texas, through the instrumentality of a commission, the results of whose investigations are to be hereafter submitted to Congress, in order to settle a question of confusion of boundary.

The legislature of the State of Texas, on the 2d May, 1882, passed an act authorizing the governor of that State to appoint a commission to act in conjunction with a similar commission on the part of the United States for the purpose stated in this bill; and it is now proposed to raise the commission on the part of the United States, and to direct its action in the premises, affording thereby an opportunity to the State of Texas to co-operate with the United States in the determination of the facts out of which the controversy arises. For more than a quarter of a century it has been contended by the State of Texas that the boundary line between a portion of the Indian Territory and that State is what is now known as the North Fork of Red River up to the degrees of longitude 100 west from London and 23 west from Washington. It is claimed by the United States that what is now known as the South Fork of Red River is the boundary. The territory lying between these two streams is that which is in dispute. It is distinctively known in Texas as Greer County, and so designated on the maps of that State. If the North Fork be the boundary, this tract of country is a part of Texas; if the South Fork be the boundary, it is a part of the Indian Territory. In extent it is approximately 2,400 square miles. The dispute has its inception in the different constructions and understandings which obtain as to the true meaning and intention of the contracting parties in the treaties between the United States and Spain of date February 22, 1819, and the United States and Mexico of date January 12, 1828, with reference to the boundary line between the different countries as therein designated. So much of said treaties as is here pertinent reads as follows: "The boundary line between the two countries, west of the Mississippi, shall begin on the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the river Sabine, in the sea, continuing north along the western bank of that river to the 32d degree of latitude, thence by a line due north to the degree of latitude where it strikes the Rio Roxo of Nachitoches or Red River; then following the course of the Rio Roxo westward to the degree of longitude 100 west from London and 23 from Washington. The whole being

[ocr errors]

as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the first of January, 1818." (Vide U. S. Stat. at Large, relating to public treaties, pp. 713, 474.)

Texas was admitted into the Union upon this boundary line (27th December, 1845). The said Melish's map is now on file in the State Department, and upon it only one stream is laid down as Red River, and that is shown to be a continuous stream, without fork or tributaries, until after it passes far beyond the said meridian. At the dates of said treaties but one stream was known as Red River. Subsequent explorations have discovered the fact that there exist two streams (North and South Forks of Red River) which flow together before said degree of longitude is reached, and the point of controversy is, which of these streams is the Red River contemplated and intended by said treaties "as laid down on Melish's map"? While it is not the purpose of this committee to express any opinion as to the relative merits of the conflicting claims to this territory, or to declare in favor of the title of either party, believing as they do that the investigations of the commission to be appointed ought to be free and untrameled, still by way of formulating the nature and importance of the controversy, and emphasizing the necessity for its adjustment, it is considered not improper to submit the following statement, designed as evidentiary of the existence and magni tode of the question. For years, by the executive, legislative, and (in part) judicia. anthority of Texas, this territory has been claimed as being within the jurisdiction of that State.

In 1860 General Sam. Houston, who was then governor of Texas, in speaking of this matter, said:

"The traditionary history of Indian tribes along its banks, the evidence of Marcy's survey, and the prominent features laid down in Melish's map alike established the fact that the North Fork is the main prong of Red River." (Letter to William H. Russell, 28th of April, 1860.)

« AnteriorContinuar »