Argument for the State of Texas.

to the tract of land lying between the North and South Forks of the Red River where the Indian Territory and the State of Texas adjoin, east of the one hundredth degree of longitude, and claimed by the State of Texas as within its boundary and a part of its land, and designated on its map as Greer County." This suit was commenced in compliance with that direction. A demurrer to the bill was heard and overruled at October Term 1891, (143 U. S. 621,) and the case was at this term heard upon its merits.

Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Edgar Allan for the United States.

Mr. George Clark, Mr. M. M. Crane and Mr. A. H. Garland for the State of Texas. Mr. Charles A. Culberson, Mr. George R. Freeman and Mr. H. J. May were on the briefs for the State.

I. The map of Melish, improved to the first of January, 1818, made part of the treaty, conclusively establishes the claim of Texas to the territory in controversy, and known as Greer County.

The boundary line from the mouth of the Sabine River to the point where the line strikes the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches or Red River is not disputed, and that on the north and west of the State was settled by the act of September 9, 1850. This act of 1850 has no reference to the boundary line from the point where it intersects Red River, thence up that river to the 100th meridian and northward, or to the disputed territory. This is plain from the act itself, and it is expressly alleged in the bill. The case therefore turns upon that portion of the treaty providing, "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," and "the whole being as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the first of January, 1818."

Argument for the State of Texas.

Accepting the admission and argument of complainants' counsel, that unless the act of 1850 operates to settle the eastern boundary line of the State against her claim, the territory rightfully belongs to Texas, other facts make it indisputable that the act can be given no such effect. In the first place, when this act was passed, the actual intersection of the 100th meridian with Red River had not been determined, and the meridian referred to in the act necessarily and logically was that shown on the map of Melish made part of the treaty. The title of the act shows that it is confined to the northern and western boundaries. By the first section of the act Texas agreed that "her boundary on the north" should commence at the point of intersection of the 100th meridian with the parallel 36° 30', and by the second section ceded to the United States "all her claim to territory exterior" to this line, thus clearly and undoubtedly ceding only territory north of this line. This is also shown by the controversy which led to the passage of this act; for it is well known that it had no reference to the eastern boundary line of the State. At that time the United States had not asserted any claim to Greer County, and did not do so till years afterwards. The eastern boundary line of the State is regarded by the United States as that laid down by Melish on his map of 1818; the act of 1850 has been so construed by Congress. By the act of the legislature of Texas of May 2, 1882, the United States were invited to appoint commissioners to mark the line thus defined, and the Congress accepted said invitation by the act of January 31, 1885, reciting the terms of the treaty of 1819, and directing the commissioners to "mark the point where the 100th meridian of longitude crosses Red River in accordance with the terms of the treaty aforesaid." In view of these solemn declarations by Congress, together with the pleadings and other considerations mentioned, it is manifest that the 100th meridian of longitude named in the act of 1850 is that laid down by Melish.

But if the intersection of the 100th meridian of longitude with the parallel 36° 30′ north latitude, constituting the beginning of the north boundary line of Texas under the act of 1850,

Argument for the State of Texas.

shall be held to mean the actual, and not the Melish intersection, it does not follow that the actual, and not the Melish 100th meridian constitutes the eastern boundary line of the State. Before this court can reach the conclusion contended for by complainants, it must set at naught the pleadings in the cause, the repeated declarations of the sovereign power of the United States, and the obvious meaning of the act of purchase. Nor is the situation altered by the fact that this construction will leave for future determination the ownership of a portion of the northeastern territory. That has occurred before. Cook v. United States, 138 U. S. 157. It should not be used as a pretext to disturb the integrity of our territory. The small consideration of ten millions of dollars, paid under the act of 1850, in itself refutes such a contention; and the United States, now grown imperial in every national aspect, should limit rather than enlarge the terms of contracts with members of the Union.

Counsel for the United States does not appear to contest the proposition that the map of Melish constitutes part of the treaty, and that its representation of degrees of latitude and longitude is controlling unless affected by the act of 1850. The rule is thoroughly settled. McIver v. Walker, 9 Cranch, 173; McIver v. Walker, 4 Wheat. 444; Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black, 499; Davis v. Rainesford, 17 Mass. 207; Jenkins v. Trager, 40 Fed. Rep. 726; Koenigham v. Miles, 67 Texas, 113; Cragin v. Powell, 128 U. S. 691; Jefferis v. East Omaha Land Co., 134 U. S. 178.

If there were otherwise doubt of the matter, the fact that the treaty expressly provides for determining the actual source of the Arkansas River, regardless of the map, establishes beyond question that the purpose was to leave all else to the delineation of the map. While this rule is practically admitted, it seems to be insisted by counsel that the Melish delineation of upper Red River is inaccurate, that the North and South Forks of that river, as now known, are not represented upon that map, and that the United States had no other knowledge of the country other than that afforded by the Melish map. Recalling the admission heretofore referred

Argument for the State of Texas.

to, that according to that map Greer County is in Texas, it is not material, if true, that the forks are not represented, or that the map is not accurate, or that the United States were without other information, and a decree should be entered for the defendant regardless of these matters. For reasons to be stated, it is certain, however, that both of the forks of the river are laid down on the Melish map of 1818, that their existence was fully known to the United States and Spain at the date of the treaty, and that the map is surprisingly accu

rate.

Before discussing these propositions, however, we call attention to the strong testimony to the effect that the South Fork, or Prairie Dog Town River, is not laid down on the Melish map, that the treaty was entered into without reference to it, and consequently the North Fork is the river of the treaty. Especially we invite attention to the testimony in the record of Mr. Charles W. Pressler, at present and for 38 years engaged as chief and assistant draughtsman in the General Land Office of Texas, and the most experienced and competent map maker in the State.

The testimony demonstrates that the North and South Forks of Red River are laid down on the Melish map of 1818 and made part of the treaty, the confluence being just west of the 101st meridian of longitude, between the 33d and 34th parallels of latitude. By the scale of this map the confluence is about 70 miles west of the intersection of the 100th meridian with Red River, and therefore the territory in controversy belongs to Texas. The propositions which we now purpose establishing are that the parties to the treaty were well informed of the geographical features of the country in the vicinity of the forks of Red River; in reference to these features they agreed upon the 100th meridian of west longitude, as laid down on the map of Melish, as the boundary line from Red River to the Arkansas, whether astronomically correct or not; that said boundary line was thus fixed by the map and with reference to the great natural landmarks shown on the face of the map; that its position so fixed is far east of the forks of Red River and of Greer County, and of the line now claimed by

Argument for the State of Texas.

complainants to be the true 100th meridian; and that the map of Melish delineates the North and South Forks of Red River and is substantially accurate. The position assumed by complainants, that the section of country in dispute was unknown to them and to the Spaniards, is thoroughly disproved by the record. It will be shown that it was known to the Spanish government and the United States in this order. The negotiations between the parties leading up to the treaty show that the territory which had been under discussion at the time of the treaty, was bounded on the south by a line along Red River, from the vicinity of Natchitoches to its head, and thence west to the Pacific Ocean, and on the north by a line from the mouth of the Missouri River westward to the Pacific Ocean, along the courses of the Missouri and Columbia rivers; but that towards the close of the discussion, it was narrowed principally to the region between the Red River, west of Natchitoches and the Arkansas.

The question of boundary had existed from the acquisition of Louisiana by the United States in 1803, and both parties to the treaty had, for many years, been informing themselves of this extensive region and its geographical outline.

The record shows that it was known to the Spaniards as early as 1541, when Coronado made a military expedition from the mouth of the Puerco or Pecos River, reaching the region of the Arkansas, Kansas and Platte Rivers, occupied by the Quivera Indians, subsequently, in 1778, called the Pawnees or Pananas by the Spaniards.

It was visited and occupied by them continually from that time until the date of the treaty, from Santa Fé as a base of operations, as shown by the record.

[Counsel then referred in detail to Spanish expeditions in 1601, 1611, 1629, 1632, 1650, 1654, 1698; and to French expeditions in 1698, 1719, 1722, 1724, 1727, 1729 and 1759.]

But there still remains to be mentioned perhaps the most conclusive evidence of the familiar knowledge the Spanish government had of the region under discussion.

On the face of the country, from the northeastern borders of Texas along the Red River to the head of the North Fork