« ForrigeFortsett »
where the Indian Territory and the state , ary between the United States and Texas of Texas adjoin, east of the 100th de- at any point; and setting up a countergree of longitude," it was provided that claim and other matters not necessary the act should not apply to that county to be here repeated. until the title thereto had been ad- The United States, by leave of the judicated and determined to be in the court, intervened, and by its petition United States; and, in order to provide of intervention set up an interest as for a speedy and final judicial determi- trustee of Indian allottees with respect nation of the controversy, the Attorney to certain portions of the bed of the General  was authorized and di- Red river, and as owner in its own right rected to commence in the name and be- of a large part of the bed and of numerhalf of the United States, and prosecute ous islands therein; and supported the to a final determination, a suit in equity contentions of the state of Oklahoma as in this court against the state of Texas; to the location of the boundary line by that accordingly, at the October term, the true construction of the Treaty of 1895 (1890), the Attorney General of 1819, and as to the effect of the final dethe United States filed in this court an cree in United States v. Texas. original bill against the state of Texas At the same time it was brought to to determine whether the territory em- the attention of the court that, because braced within the then county of Greer of the recent discovery and development was in the state of Texas or within the of oil and gas deposits in the bed of the territory and exclusive jurisdiction of river adjacent to Wichita county, Texthe United States; that, after a full as, serious conflicts had arisen between hearing of said cause, this court found, parties claiming title from the state of decided, and decreed that the territory Texas and others claiming title from east of the 100th meridian of longitude, the state of Oklahoma, or under the west and south of the river now known mineral laws of the United States; and as the North Fork of Red river, and that there was danger of the exhaustion north of a line following westward, as of the deposits of oil and gas pending prescribed by the Treaty of 1819, the the determination of the questions at iscourse and along the south bank, both sue between the parties to the cause, of Red river and of the river now and danger of armed conflict between known as the Prairie Dog Town Fork, rival claimants under them; and thereor South Fork of Red river, until such upon, on motion of the United States, line meets the 100th meridian of longi- concurred in by the state of Oklahoma, tude, constitutes no part of the territory and consented to by the state of Texas, properly included within or rightfully as to lands claimed in its proprietary belonging to Texas at the time of the capacity, we appointed a receiver to take admission of that state into the Union, possession of that part of the river bed and was not within the limits nor under | lying between mid-channel and the south the jurisdiction of that state, but was bank, and within the disputed oil field. subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Pending the receivership, by order of the United States of America (162 U. S. June 7, 1920, made pursuant to the sug1, 90, 91); and that afterwards, under gestion of the parties, we set the cause act of Congress approved June 16, 1906 down for hearing at the present term (chap. 3335, 34 Stat. at L. 267), the in- upon two questions of law, with leave to habitants of the area constituting the take testimony pertinent to the purpose. territory of Oklahoma (including said 253 U. S. 471, 64 L. ed. 1017, 40 Sup. Ct. Greer county) and the Indian Territory Rep. 580. were admitted into the Union as the  The testimony was taken and restate of Oklahoma.
turned, a hearing has been had, and the The state of Texas appeared in the matter is now to be decided. present suit and filed an answer deny- The questions are as follows: "(1) Is ing that the Treaty of 1819 fixed the the decree of this court in United States boundary at the south bank of the Red v. Texas, 162 U. S. 1, 40 L. ed. 867, 16 river; asserting, on the contrary, that Sup. Ct. Rep. 725, final and conclusive the treaty, by its legal meaning and ef- upon the parties to this cause in so far fect, fixed it in the middle of the main as it declares that, the Treaty of 1819 channel of that river; denying that the between the United States and Spain effect of the decree in the case of United fixed the boundary along the south bank States v. Texas was to determine that of Red river? (2) If said decree is not the south (84) bank of Red river, or of conclusive, then did the Treaty of 1819, the Prarie Dog Town Fork or South construed in the light of pertinent pubFork of that river, constituted the bound- I lic documents and acts, fix the boundary
along the mid-channel of Red river, or 285, 291, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488. It was along the south bank of said river? set at rest when followed by the mak
The first is a question of res judicata, ing of a final decree. United States v. and, obviously, if it is answered in the Texas, 162 U. S. 1, 90, 91, 40 L. ed. 867, affirmative, the second becomes imma- 902, 903, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 725. terial.
That the court had jurisdiction over The general principle, applied in nu- the parties is obvious from the fact that merous decisions of this court, and defi- the suit was brought in behalf of the nitely accepted in Southern Pacific R. Co. United States, pursuant to an act of v. United States, 168 U. S. 1, 48, 49, Congress (Act of May 2, 1890, chap. 42 L. ed. 355, 376, 377, 18 Sup. Ct. 182, § 25, 26 Stat. at L. 81, 92), that a Rep. 18, is, that a question of fact or of bill of complaint and an amended bill law, distinctly put in issue and directly were filed, to each of which the state of determined by a court of competent ju- | Texas demurred, and also answered; risdiction as a ground of recovery or and that the United States filed a replidefense in a suit or action between par- cation (162 U. S. 21-23), and both parties sui juris, is conclusively settled by ties introduced evidence and participatthe final judgment or decree therein, so ed in the hearing. that it cannot be further litigated in a There is identity of parties between subsequent suit between the same par- the former suit and the present one, so ties or their privies, whether the second far as concerns the proprietary interest suit be for the same or a different cause now set up by the United States. As to of action. As was declared by Mr. Jus- governmental jurisdiction, the state of tice Harlan, speaking for the court in Oklahoma has succeeded in part to the the case cited (p. 49): "This general position formerly held by the United rule is demanded by the very object for States, and therefore is in privity with which civil courts have been estab- it. lished, which is to secure the peace and  The former decision was based repose of society by the settlement of upon final hearing, on issue joined bematters capable of judicial determina- tween the parties and upon evidence tion. Its enforcement is essential to the taken by both; and, as stated, it resulted maintenance of social order; for the aid in a final decree (162 U. S. 90, 91).
invoked for the vindication of rights of whether the "right, question, or fact" person and property if, as between par, now in controversy—the location of the ties and their privies, conclusiveness did boundary line with respect to the course not attend the judgments of such tri- of the Red river, and whether, by the bunals in respect of  all matters true construction of the Treaty of 1819, properly put in issue and actually deter- its location is along the south bank or in mined by them.”
mid-channel-was put in issue and diIn order to aid us in ascertaining rectly determined in the former case. whether the question of boundary loca- Thať the final decree purports to detertion now at issue was settled by the de- mine it is obvious from a reading of the cision and decree in the Greer county language employed (162 U. S. 90): case, the parties have stipulated that "That the territory east of the 100th the entire record in that case, includ- meridian of longitude, west and south ing pleadings, stipulations, testimony, l of the river now known as the North briefs, and documents of every charac-Fork of Red river, and north of a line ter, now on file in this court, and the orders and decrees of the court therein, I following westward, as prescribed by the are to be considered in evidence for all Treaty of 1819 between the United States purposes.
and Spain, the course and along the south They have been examined and considered accordingly.
bank, both of Red river and of the river The jurisdiction of the court over the now known as the Prarie Dog Town subject matter of that suit-its original Fork, or South Fork of Red river, until jurisdiction
suit in equity
such line meets the 100th meridian of brought by the United States against longitude,-which territory is sometimes one of the states to determine the called Greer county,-constitutes no part boundary between such state and a ter- of the territory properly included withritory of the United States-was put at in or rightfully belonging to Texas at issue by a demurrer to the bill of com
the time of the admission of that state plaint in that case, and decided in favor into the Union, and is not within the of the jurisdiction. United States v. limits nor under the jurisdiction of that Texas, 143 U. S. 621, 641 et seq., 36 L. ed. / state, but is subject to the exclusive ju
risdiction of the United States of Amer- 100th meridian. But the bill and the ica."
amended bill, after reciting article 3 of The literal meaning of this is not se- the treaty, defining the boundary line riously disputed; but it is insisted that, between the United States and Spain, so far as it describes the boundary line by which both parties to the cause were of the treaty as following the south bound, and recounting  the history bank of the river, it was outside the is- of the controversy, concluded with sues litigated, and hence is not conclu- prayer that the bill might be filed and sive upon the parties to this cause,-in Texas made a defendant thereto, “to the effect, that, in construing the decree, end and for the purpose of determining the words "along the south bank” should and settling the true boundary line bebe excluded from consideration. Clear-tween the United States and the state of ly, the inclusion of those words amount- Texas, and to determine and put at rest ed to a decision that the correctness of questions which now exist as to whether that particular definition of the bound the Prairie Dog Town Fork
or the ary (88) was within the issues in the North Fork of Red river, as aforesaid,
But we concede that, in a subse constitutes the true boundary line of the quent suit upon a different cause of ac- Treaty of 1819;" and that, upon final tion, the question whether the matter de-hearing, a decree might be entered escided on the former occasion was within tablishing complainant's rights as set up the issues then proper to be decided, or in the bill; and there was a prayer for was presented and actually determined in general relief. The contention now the course of deciding those issues, is made is based upon an unduly narrow open to inquiry, and that, unless it be interpretation of the act and of the answered in the affirmative, the matter pleading. Granting that the substantial is not res judicata.
controversy related to the ownership of What was involved and determined in and jurisdiction over the tract lying bethe former suit is to be tested by an tween the forks, it was essential to a examination of the record and proceed- complete and precise disposition of that ings therein, including the pleadings, the controversy that the court should define evidence submitted, the respective con- with certainty the bounds of the tract. tentions of the parties, and the findings If it were to be awarded to the state and opinion of the court; there being no of Texas, an accurate definition of its suggestion that this is a proper case for northerly boundary was essential; if to resorting to extrinsic evidence. Russell the United States, like accuracy in dev. Place, 94 U, S. 606, 608, 24 L. ed. 214, fining its southerly boundary was called 215; Last Chance Min. Co. v. Tyler Min. for; in either case, the line to be defined Co. 157 U. S. 683, 688, et seq., 39 L. ed. was “the true boundary line between 859, 862, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 733, 18 Mor. the United States and the state of Min. Rep. 205; Baker v. Cummings, 181 | Texas." And if, as suggested, the river U. S. 117, 124–130, 45 L. ed. 776, 779–1 is to be regarded as navigable (upon 782, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 578; National which we express no opinion), so that Foundry & Pipe Works v. Oconto Wa- a boundary line separating national terter Supply Co. 183 U. S. 216, 234, 46 ritory from that of the state, if described L. ed. 157, 169, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 111. as following the river, without more,
The Act of May 2, 1890 (26 Stat. at would, by implication, follow the middle L. 81, 92, chap. 182), briefly recited the of the main navigable channel, as in a existence of a controversy between the case between adjoining states (Iowa v. United States and the state of Texas as Illinois, 147 U. S. 1, 13, 37 L. ed. 55, to the ownership of the land known as 59, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 239; Arkansas v. Greer county, and directed the Attorney Tennessee, 246 U. S. 158, 171, 62 L. ed. General to bring suit in this court in 638, 646, L.R.A.1918D, 258, 38 Sup. Ct. order that the rightful title to that land Rep. 301), so much the more was specific might be finally determined. Referring mention of the bank essential to an acto this, and to the history and nature of curate description of the tract in issue, the controversy, it is contended that the if the bank was the true line, instead of pleadings should be so construed as to mid-channel. And if, at the termination confine the issue to the identification of of the suit, the line were left undefined, one of the forks of the Red river with a ground of further controversy would the Red river of the treaty. It is true remain; and it is as foreign to correct that the principal matter in dispute was  practice as to the principles of the claim of the United States to own- equity that a final decree should be pregership of the tract of land lying between nant with further litigation. the forks, and bounded on the west by the Even less substantial is the suggestion
that the language of § 25 of the Act of ern and southern banks," and at last 1890 (26 Stat. at L. 92, chap. 182), au- prevailing. J. Q. Adams's Memoirs, vol. thorizing suit to determine the title to 4, pp. 255, 256, 261, 264, 266, 267, 270. the tract "lying between the North and It is true these references were made by South Forks of the Red river,” etc., and counsel for Texas principally with the the use of that phrase in the amended object of showing the important part bill, had the effect of excluding from the that the Melish map (mentioned in the issue land south of the middle of the treaty) played in the negotiations; but south fork. Upon so narrow an inter- it is impossible to escape the conclusion pretation, the controversy might as well that both counsel and the court underbe confined the upland between the stood that the question whether the forks, leaving the United States without boundary line, where it followed the claim to any part of the bed of the Sabine and Red rivers, should be so lostream, if the south fork proved to be cated as to establish the United States the river of the treaty. Of course, the as owner of the rivers, or so as to diphrase merely pointed out the tract in vide the ownership between the United dispute, without attempting to delimit | States and Spain, figured to an imporit.
tant extent in the negotiations, was disThe contention that the evidence and posed of by the treaty, and hence was the arguments in the Greer county case vital to the correct location of the raised no controversy as to whether the boundary line as between the litigants. boundary followed the mid-channel or If the point was not controverted, it the south bank of the river is not well was only because counsel for Texas in founded. The Treaty of 1819, and a effect conceded that the treaty line ran mass of historical and other data bear- along the south bank of the Red river. ing upon its proper interpretation, were It may have seemed, at that time, a before the court. It appeared that the matter of no great moment. treaty was negotiated at Washington Finally, the precise matter was disbetween the Spanish Minister, Don Luis cussed in the opinion of the court, and de Onis, and the United States Secre- was made the subject of a finding which tary of State, John Quincy Adams; M. was carried into the final decree. In de Neuville, the French Minister, acting the course of an outline of the diploat times as an intermediary. The state matic correspondence and negotiations of Texas itself introduced authenticated that preceded the making of the treaty, extracts from the instructions of the the court said (162 U. S. p. 27): "The Spanish Minister, and excerpts from Spanish Minister required that the correspondence between him and Mr. boundary between the two countries Adams, from which latter it appeared shall be the middle of the rivers, and that the question whether the boundary that the navigation of the said rivers should follow the middle of the Sabine (92) shall be common to both countries.' and Red rivers, or the westerly bank of Mr. Adams replied that the United the former and the southerly bank of States had always intended that the the latter, was one of the points under property of the river should belong to discussion; the Spanish Minister pro- them, and he insisted on that point 'as posing the middle lines, Mr. Adams the an essential condition, as the means of banks.
avoiding all collision, and as a principle Furthermore, in the principal brief adopted henceforth by the United States for the state of Texas, reference was in its treaties with its neighbors.' He made to entries in Mr. Adams's diary, agreed, however, that the navigation found in his Memoirs, vol. 4, pp. 233- of the said rivers to the sea shall be 280, in connection  with which the common to both people.'” Citing Anbrief declared: “An objection was long nals of Congress, Appendix, 15th Cong., persisted in by Spain that instead of the 2d Sess., 2120, 2121, 2123. The opinion banks of the rivers named being bound then proceeded to set forth (pp. 27–29) aries the middle of the river should be the third and fourth articles of the treaty, the dividing line (Adams, supra). This in the former of which occurs the lanobjection was at last abandoned,” etc. guage that Mr. Adams had insisted The diary itself, in the pages thus re- upon as carrying out the purposes of ferred to, abounds in statements to the the United States, that "the property effect that the representative of Spain, of the river should belong to them;" during the course of the negotiation, in- and at a later point the opinion declared sisted that the middle of the rivers (p. 37): "The two governments certainshould be taken for the boundary, Mr. ly intended that the line should be run Adams firmly insisting upon "the west-I from the Gulf along the western bank of
the Sabine river, and after it reached |  JAMES A. OWNBEY, Piff. in Err., Red river, that it should follow the course of that river, leaving both rivers JOHN PIERPONT MORGAN, William P. within the United States."
Hamilton, Herbert L. Satterlee, and Lew.
is C. Ledyard, as Executors of the Estate And, having decided the case in favor
of John Pierpont Morgan, Deceased. of the United States, the court embodied in the final decree a description of the
(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 94–113.) boundary line, in terms quoted above.
To sum it up, we find that the ques- Constitutional law due process of tion of the true location of the bound- law foreign attachment special ary between the territory of the United security.
1. The Delaware statutes which afford States and Texas, where it followed the Red river bordering upon Greer county, suit begun by foreign attachment an oppor
a nonresident individual defendant in a and the question whether the boundary tunity to appear and defend only in case followed the middle or the south bank he gives bail or security for the discharge of the river, were within the issues of the property seized to the value of such made by the pleadings, and so recog- property and costs do not deny due process nized by both parties, as well as by the of law, even though defendant may have court; that, by the concession of both, no resources or credit aside from the propthe location was to be determined accord erty attached.
Constitutional Law, ing to the true effect and meaning of the IV. b, 8, b, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] Treaty of 1819; that, in elucidation of Constitutional law equal protection the matter, the treaty, and much histori- of the laws discrimination between cal evidence of the negotiations that led
individuals and corporation foreign
attachment. up to it, were introduced, discussed by counsel in argument, and referred to in the laws results from the provisions of the
2. No denial of the equal protection of the opinion of the court;  and that Delaware foreign attachment laws, under the point was directly determined by the which a nonresident individual defendant is court and the determination made a part debarred from appearing and defending of its final decree. By every test that without first giving special security, while properly can be applied, the matter is a foreign corporate defendant may appear res judicata.
and answer without giving any security exAnd, of course, it not only concludes cept for the lien of the process upon the the parties with respect to that part of (For other
Constitutional Law, the boundary which borders upon what IV. a, 7, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.) was called Greer county, but settles the Constitutional law privileges and construction of article 3 of the Treaty
immunities foreign attachment. of 1819 as to the entire course of the izens of the United States are not uncon
3. Privileges and immunities of cit. Red river where it marks the boundary stitutionally impaired by the Delaware forbetween the territory then owned by the eign attachment statutes which debar a United States and that of the state of nonresident individual defendant from apTexas.
pearing and defending unless he first gives Having reached this conclusion upon TFor other
Constitutional Law, the first of the two questions proposed IV, a, 7, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.) for decision, it is unnecessary to con- Constitutional Law privileges and sider the second, which is whether the immunities Federal origin. treaty, by proper construction, fixes the 4. Privileges and immunities referred boundary along the mid-channel or the to in U. S. Const., 14th Amend., are only south bank. The matter being res
Note.-As to what constitutes due judicata, as the result of the decree in
process of law, generally--see notes to the former suit, it is of no consequence People v. O'Brien, 2 L.R.A. 255; Kuntz whether it was correctly decided or not.
v. Sumption, 2 L.R.A. 655; Re Gannon, We say this without intending to inti- 5 L.R.A. 359; Ulman v. Baltimore, 11 mate the least doubt about the propriety L.R.A. 224; Gilman v. Tucker, 13 L.R.A. of that decision.
304; Pearson v. Yewdall, 24 L. ed. U. S. The parties may submit within thirty 436, and Wilson v. North Carolina, 42 L. days a proper form of decree for carry- ed. U. S. 865. ing this decision into effect.
As to constitutional equality of priviIt is so ordered.
leges, immunities, and protection, gener
ally-see note to Louisville Safety Vault Mr. Justice Clarke took no part in the & T. Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 14 consideration or decision of this case. L.R.A. 579.