E. M. Pease, ex-governor of Texas, who began his investigations upon this subject in 1853, said: "From a review of all the facts and circumstances, I am forced to the conclusion that Greer County (territory in dispute) rightfully belongs to Texas." (Letter to John M. Swisher, October 3, 1882.) Ex-Governor Ó. M. Roberts, and ex-chief justice of the supreme court of Texas, said: * "When the line may be run, and with a knowledge of all the facts, the territory of Greer County, between the forks of the two streams, will be found to belong to Texas." (Special message to Texas legislature, January 10, 1883.) Governor John Ireland, among other things, says: * "Inasmuch as this State feels that she has a perfect title to the territory (Greer County), I respectfully and earnestly urge such steps on the part of the United States as will enable the joint commission to be raised. I am aware that the Secretary of the Interior holds that the territory belongs to the United States; we are no less confident that the territory belongs to Texas." (Letter to President Arthur, August 24, 1883.) By the legislature of Texas this territory has been indicated as an integral part of the State, defined and designated as Greer County (Revised Statutes of Texas, p. 132); it has been placed in land districts (id., 548); its vacant and unappropriated public domain has been set apart, one-half for public free schools for the education of children in Texas, without reference to race or color, and the other half for the payment of the State debt (Acts Sixteenth Legislature, p. 16); it has been placed in judicial districts (Acts Sixteenth Legislature, p. 28; Acts Seventeenth Legislature, p. 8); it has been included in State senatorial and representative districts, and is a part of the eleventh Congressional district of that State. In August, 1881, one James S. Irwin was indicted in the (State) district court of Wheeler County, Texas (to which county the territory now in dispute had by statute been attached for judicial purposes), for the murder of one Bryson, committed in Greer County. The defendant was brought to trial. A plea to the jurisdiction of the court was by him entered, upon the ground that Greer County was not a part of Texas nor subject to its jurisdiction. The said district court, Hon. Frank Willis, judge, overruled the plea, held that Greer County was a part of Texas, and that her courts had cognizance of offenses therein committed. Bryson was convicted of murder in the first degree, his punishment assessed by the jury at imprisonment in the penitentiary for life, was sentenced accordingly, and is now serving a life-term in the State prison of Texas. In a still more recent case before the same judge it was sought by parties owning property in Greer County to resist the payment of taxes to the authorities of Texas, and, by injunction, to restrain the collection thereof, because it was alleged that Greer County was a part of the Indian Territory. The court upon hearing dissolved the injunction, and beld that the assessment and collection of taxes in the said territory by the officials of Texas was legal, thus again deciding in favor of the jurisdiction and dominion of Texas over the tract of country in controversy. (Letters of Judge Willis to Mr. Lanham, dated October 19, 1883, and December 27, 1883.) This will serve to show with what earnestness the claim of Texas is asserted. On the other hand it is maintained with equal earnestness by the Secretary of the Interior that the territory in controversy is a part of the Indian Territory, and much has been recited by the Department of the Interior in support of the claim of the United States. (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 70, Forty-seventh Congress, first session; extract from Report of the Secretary of the Interior for 1877 on Texas boundary.) Much interesting information on this subject can also be had by consulting Senate Doc. No. 54, Thirty-second Congress, second session, which contains the exploration of the Red River of Louisiana, in the year of 1852, by Randolph B. Marcy. This bill may be regarded in the nature of a revival of an act of Congress passed June 5, 1858 (vol. 11, U. S. Stat. at Large, page 311), providing for a Texas boundary commission, and is really no new measure. In 1854 (11th February), the legislature of Texas passed an act authorizing the appointment of a commission to co-operate with a similar commission of the United States to ascertain the identical boundary line now sought to be discovered, and in 1858 as, above stated, Congress responded to the efforts of Texas by raising the commission; but no final report has ever been made in the premises, and the matter remains to all intents and purposes as if nothing had been done. This question has received some attention from the Forty seventh Congress. In December, 1881, a bill (No. 1715) was introduced in the House to define the boundary between the Indian Territory and the State of Texas, the purport of which was to affirmatively settle the question without the intervention of a commission, and to relinquish all claim by the United States to the territory in dispute. The committee to whom that bill was referred, while expressing an opinion adverse to the title of Texas to the disputed territory, still say: "It is manifest, therefore, that some means should be taken to settle this dispute as soon as possible. Conflicts are arising between the United States authorities and persons claiming to exercise rights on the disputed tract under the jurisdiction of the State of Texas; bloodshed and even death has resulted from this conflict. (H. R. Report No. 1282, Forty-seventh Congress, first session.) "But, inasmuch as the claim is disputed, and that with the earnestness of belief on the part of Texas, and, inasmuch as none of the surveys referred to have been made with the privity of the State of Texas, the joint commission appointed (act June 5, 1858) having failed to act in concert, your committee are of the opinion that that State should have a hearing in the matter, and should have an opportunity to cooperate with the United States in settling the facts upon which the question in dispute rests. A substitute is reported for the appointment of a joint commission, the passage of which is recommended." (Id., p. 4.) No action was had at that Congress upon the joint resolution (No. 223) which accompanied the report from which the above extracts are made. On the 24th January, 1882, there was introduced in the Senate a bill (S. 954) creating a commission as contemplated in the bill now under consideration. It passed the Senate, but has received no final attention upon the part of the House, so far as your committee is advised. Many important considerations suggest the necessity of the passage of this bill; questions of jurisdiction, of revenue and taxation, of title to real estate, of the settlement and development of the country, of public peace, and others of kindred nature, all combine in support of this measure. The question of title to the disputed territory is pretermitted in the bill, and its object is the raising of the commission for the ascertain ent of facts as a basis for the future action of Congress. Your committee, therefore, recommend that the bill, with the amendments hereinafter suggested, do pass, and, further, that it receive the consideration of the House at the earliest possible opportunity. AMENDMENTS. Correct certain typographical errors in the first section of the preamble as indicated in the copy of the bill herewith submitted. In the fifteenth line, page 2, section. 1 of the bill, strike out the word "said” and insert the word "that." In the twenty-fourth line, page 3, section 1 of the bill, strike out the word crossing" and insert the words "running due north strikes." In the first line, section 3, page 4 of the bill, insert in the blank space the words "ten thousand." In the fourth line, section 3, page 4 of the bill, between the words "act" and ". provided," insert the words "the same to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury." [House report No. 1282, Forty-seventh Congress, first session.] Mr. WILLITS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following report, to accompany H. Res. 223: The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1715) to define the boundary between the Indian Territory and the State of Texas, begs leave to report: That said bill seeks by legislative enactment to define said boundary at the point in dispute as the North Fork of the Red River, instead of the South Fork, commonly called the Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River. The importance of the issue involved may be seen at a glance when it is observed that the tract in dispute, lying within said two forks of Red River and bounded on the west by the one hundredth meridian of longitude west of Greenwich is about 60 miles long and 40 miles wide, probably over 2,000 square miles, and containing a large amount of valuable land. If this tract is a part of Texas the lands belong to that State under the act of her admission, while if it is a part of the area of the Indian Territory it becomes a portion of the public domain. The real question in dispute is which branch or fork of Red River is its main branch, or the continuation of the river. The initial point of investigation is the treaty between the United States and Spain, dated February 22, 1819, in which this part of the boundary is defined as follows: After it strikes the "Rio Roxo of Nachitoches or Red River" it then follows "the course of the Rio Roxo westward to the degree of longitude 100 west from London and 23 from Washington; then crossing said Red River, and running thence by a line due north to the Arkansas, &c. The whole being as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, mproved to the 1st of January, 1818." * * S. Ex. 50--3 By this it will be seen that the western boundary of that portion of the United States lying on and north of the Red River was said one hundredth meridian, and that its southwestern corner was where said meridian crosses the river. At the date of that treaty this region had never been accurately explored, and the fact was not known that Red River divided into two branches before it reached said meridian; in fact, the very map referred to in the treaty makes the river a continuous stream, and does not lay down the North Fork at all. Subsequent surveys have discovered the two forks, and have definitely located said one hundredth meridian about 80 miles west of where the two forks form the river proper. The treaty with Mexico, dated January 12. 1828, recognizes the boundary as stipulated in aforesaid treaty with Spain, as did the joint resolution admitting Texas into the Union. Even at as late a date as her admission into the Union there was no knowledge of uncertainty in this boundary. Lieutenant Emory made a map for the War Department in 1844 (which is now in the Land Office), on which the North Fork is not laid down, and on that Red River traces nearly the course of the Prairie Dog Town Fork. Disturnell's map of Mexico, dated 1848, follows in this regard Emory's and Melish's maps. The first accurate knowledge of these streams seems to have been obtained by Capt. R. B. Marcy and Capt. George B. McClellan, who, under the directions of the War Department, explored the headwaters of the Red River in 1852, and made an elaborate report, which was published under the authority of Congress. (See Ex. Doc. Senate, No. 54, Thirty-second Congress, second session.) Even this report did not develop the data for this dispute, as Captain McClellan, doubtless from the inaccuracy of his instruments, located said one hundredth meridian below the fork of the river several miles; over one degree of longitude east of its actual location. The question does not seem to have arisen until after the astronometrical survey of said meridian, by Messrs. Jones and Brown, in 1857 to 1859, in pursuance of a contract between them and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, who wished to know the boundary line between the Choctaw and Chickasaw country. They located one hundreth meridian, as before stated, some 80 miles west of the junction of the two forks, and they designated the Prairie Dog Town branch as the main branch of the Red River. It appears that this designation was at once questioned by Texas, and at the instigation of the Senators of that State Congress passed an act, approved June 5, 1858 (11 U. S. Stat., p. 319), authorizing the President, in conjunction with the State of Texas, to run and mark said boundary-line. Commissioners were appointed on the part of the United States and of Texas, who proceeded to their work in May and June, 1860. Governor Sam Houston, of Texas, instructed the commissioners of that State as follows: "In the prosecution, then, of the survey you will be guided by Melish's map, and insist upon the North Fork as the main Rio Roxo of Red River, and as the true boundary-line as described in the treaty of 1819." He refers in his letter of instructions to the Marcy survey, and claims that Marcy was clearly of the opinion that the North Fork was the true Rio Roxo, or Red River proper, and further claims that said map of Melish's lays down the North Fork as the main prong. The commissioners were unable to agree, the one on the part of the United States claiming that at and across the Red River and to a point about half-way from the North Fork to the Canadian River the line had been definitely located by Messrs. Jones and Brown the year before, and that nothing now remained but to extend the line north to latitude 36° 3', its northern extremity. To this the commissioner on the part of Texes objected, and the latter proceeded south to the North Fork, and placed a monument thereon on the north bank 15 in diameter and 7 feet high, claiming that as the true southwest corner of Indian Territory, and reported his doings to the governor of Texas. The commissioner on the part of the United States seems never to have completed his report. Texas adopted and acted upon the report of her commissioner as settling the question of boundary, and established the territory in dispute as a county of that State, naming it Greer, and has assumed jurisdiction over it; and by an inadvertence, not singular in our legislative history, the United States, by act of Congress approved February 24, 1879 (see 20 U. S. Stats., p. 318), included said county of Greer as a part of Texas in the northern judicial district of that State, not annexing it for judicial purposes, but recognizing it apparently as an integral part of Texas. It is manifest, therefore, that some means should be taken to settle this dispute as soon as possible. Conflicts are arising between the United States authorities and persons claiming to exercise rights on the disputed tract under the jurisdiction of the State of Texas; bloodshed and even death has resulted from this conflict. As long ago as May, 1877, the attention of the Secretary of the Interior was called to the dispute by the War Department, and the Secretary of the Interior replied to the letter of inquiry under date of May 10, 1877, which letter we add as part of this report. A careful review of the facts in the case-for the question as to which prong of the river is the true river is really a question of fact-your committee is decidedly of the opinion that the South Fork is the true boundary, and that therefore the claim of the State of Texas is unwarranted. So far from Captain Marcy being clearly of the opinion, as Governor Houston claimed, that the North Fork is the main branch, his final opinion was in favor of the South Fork. It is true that in his diary on the day he struck the North Fork, he uses the language attributed to him, under the date of May 26, to wit: "We are now in the immediate vicinity of the Wichita Mountains [a range of mountains lying east by northeast from the mouth of Otter Creek, which empties into the North Fork, and where he was encamped]. Red River, which passes directly through the western extremity of the chain, is different in character at the mouth of Otter Creek from what it is below the junction of the Ke-che-ah-que-ho-no [the Dog Town Fork 1." But he had been for several days traveling along the north bank of the Red River west, and struck the North Fork when it, as well as the South Fork, was swollen with the rains, and both branches he says "were apparently of about equal magnitude," and he naturally spoke of the North Fork as "Red River." But he continued up the North Fork to its source, which he located at longitude 101° 55'. Then he took a southwesterly course till he came to the headwaters of the Prairie Dog Town (or South Fork), which he located at longitude 103° 7' 11", and from that time on he repeatedly speaks of that branch as the main branch (see his report, pp. 55, 58, 84, 86, and 87). He also entitles his plate No. 10, which is a picture of the rock and gorge out of which the head-spring of that fork flows, as "Head of Ke-che-ah-que-ho-no or the main branch of the Red River." It is manifest that, whatever may have been his first impressions, he finally came to the conclusion, both from its greater length and size, that the South Fork is the main branch. A reference to the letter of the Commissioner of the Land Office, hereto annexed will show that Messrs. Brown and Jones had no doubt of the South being the main branch. The reasons they give seem to be conclusive. The width of the South Fork at the one hundredth meridian is 76 chains and 85 links; that of the North Fork 23 chains. The field-notes of the commissioner on the part of the United States, acting under the act June 5, 1858, of the date of August 29, 1860, say the channel of the North Fork is only 25 chains and 44 feet; and that he found "no water on the surface, ie, river bed, but it is found by digging 2 feet 3 inches below the surface." While in his field-notes of August 30 he says: "Struck main Red River. Main Red River where crossed, 65 chains and 38 feet; channel of running water, 22 feet; 6 inches deep. Plenty of long, large lagoons of water in the bed besides the running channel." If the data given in these reports are correct there would seem to be no doubt of the claim of the United States to the tract in dispute, and therefore your committee report adversely to the bill referred to it. But, inasmuch as the claim is disputed, and that with the earnestness of belief on the part of Texas, and inasmuch as none of the surveys referred to have been made with the privity of the State of Texas, the Joint Commission appointed having failed to act in concert, your committee are of the opinion that that State should have a hearing in the matter, and should have an opportunity to co-operate with the United States in settling the facts upon which the question in dispute rests. A substitute is reported for the appointment of a joint commission, the passage of which is recommended. EXHIBIT No. 1. [Extract from Report of the Secretary of the Interior for 1877.] TEXAS BOUNDARY. During the year information was communicated by the War Department to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior that the State of Texas asserted jurisdiction over that part of Indian Territory between the Red River and the North Fork of Red River as a part of her domain. A report upon the subject having been called for from this office, the following was submitted to the Hon. Secretary of the Interior for information of the War Depart ment: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt, by reference from the Department for report, of a letter from the Secretary of War, dated the 3d instant, inclosing copy of a statement of the commanding officer at Fort Sill, to the effect that a map of Texas, in his possession, represents that part of Indian Territory bounded on the north and east by the North Fork of Red River, and on the west by the one hundredth meridian as a portion of the State of Texas called Greer County. The Secretary of War invites attention to the remarks of the commanding general, Department of the Missouri, asking that a decision be made on the question of jurisdiction over the tract above described. In reply, I have the honor to report that the question of the jurisdiction over that portion of country represented upon maps from this office as a part of Indian Territory, and lying between Red River and the North Fork of Red River, was originally defined to be within the United States of America: 1st. By the treaty of limits between Spain and the United States, signed February 22, 1819. (U. S. Stats. at Large, vol. 8, p. 254, art. 3.) In this treaty the line from the south, after reaching Red River, was to follow the course of Red River westward to the degree of longitude 100 west from London, then to cross said river, and thence due north to the river Arkansas, &c., "the whole being as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the 1st of January, 1818." 2d. By treaty with the United Mexican States, January 12, 1828 (U. S. Stat., vol. 8, p. 372), art. 1 confirms the validity of the limits described in the treaty with Spain, February 22, 1819, and art. 2 quotes the boundary line. 3d. The joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, March 1, 1845 (Stats. at Large, vol. 5, p. 797), stipulated that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas. 4th. By joint resolution of December 29, 1845 (U. S. Stats., vol. 9, p. 108), the State of Texas was admitted into the Union in accordance with the terms of the joint resolution of March 1, 1845, cited above. 5th. By the astronomical survey made of the 100th meridian west from Greenwich, being the boundary-line between the Choctaw and Chickasaw country, in the Indian Territory and the State of Texas, in the month of April, 1859, under contract of 13th of October, 1857, between Messrs. A. H. Jones and H. M. C. Brown and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the initial point of the boundary was determined to be at the intersection of the said meridian with what is designated upon maps from this office as Red River, and a monument was established thirty chains due north from the north bank of the river. The surveyors in their field-notes of the survey remark: "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. It will be sufficient to say to those interested that there can be no doubt as to the face of its being the main branch of Red River, as was doubted by some persons with whom he 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, though like the other branches in many places the water is swallowed up by its broad and extensive sand-beds; but water can, at 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 Kec-he-ah-que-ho-no, or main Red River." 6th. Under the act of Congress approved June 5, 1858 (U. S. Stats., vol. 11, p. 310), authorizing the President of the United States, in conjunction with the State of Texas, to run and mark the boundary-line between the territories of the United States and the State of Texas, and by the second section of said act it was required that landmarks be established at the point of beginning on Red River, and at the other corners, &c. Accordingly, joint commissioners on the part of the United States and the State of Texas proceeded 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 farther 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. Referring to that part of the report of Lieutenant Ruffner, chief engineer officer Department of Missouri (received with letter of Secretary of War), wherein Lieutenant Ruffuer states that the tract in question is represented upon maps from the Interior Department as public land, I have to say that this land is a part of the ceded lands to the United States by the Choctaws and Chickasaws by treaty of April 28, 1866 (see U.S. Stats. at Large, vol. 14, page 769), and forms a part of Indian Territory, though not yet permanently located by any tribe of Indians. The strip of land north of Texas and west of the 100th meridian, the jurisdiction over which is also referred to by Lieutenant Ruffner as public land belonging to the United States, and as proposed by act of Congress approved September 9, 1850 (vol. 9, |