"Beginning in the middle of the Mississippi River, on the parallel of thirty-six degrees of north latitude; thence west along the said parallel of latitude to the St. François River; 662*] * thence up and following the course of that river, in the middle of the main channel thereof, to the parallel of latitude of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes; thence west along the same to a point where the said parallel is intersected by a meridian line passing through the middle of the mouth of the Kansas River, where the same empties into the Missouri River; thence, from the point aforesaid, north along the said meridian line, to the intersection of the parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of the River Des Moines, making said line correspond with the Indian boundary line; thence east from the point of intersection | last aforesaid, along the said parallel of latitude, to the middle of the channel of the main fork of the said River Des Moines; thence down along the middle of the main channel of the said River Des Moines to the mouth of the same, where it empties into the Mississippi River; thence due east to the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi River; thence down and following the course of the Mississippi River, in the middle of the main channel thereof, to the place of beginning."

In 1821, Missouri was admitted into the Union with these boundaries.

By an act of Congress approved August 4, 1820, the southern boundary of Iowa was made

run the line which should be thus agreed upon. Beginning on the bank of the Missouri, opposite the mouth of the Kansas, at A in the diagram, he ran north just 100 miles to the point C; and thence pursued what he thought was a due east course (but which was in fact to the north of east), until he struck the River Des Moines at the point F. This line is marked No. 1, and runs from C to F; the true parallel of latitude being afterwards ascertained to be from C to G.

The State of Missouri alleged, that, at the point E in the River Des Moines, there existed rapids which answered the call in the constitution, and that the parallel of latitude spoken of in that instrument must consequently be a line running from E to D, and that the north line, which commenced at A, must therefore be protracted to D, where it intersected the parallel of latitude called for; that the phraseology used required the "rapids of the River Des Moines" to be in that river, and not in the Mississippi.

*On the other hand, it was alleged [*663 by the State of Iowa, that in the Mississippi River, at the place marked H, there were rapids which were commonly called and known by the name of "the rapids of the River Des Moines," long anterior to the formation of the constitution of Missouri; that the parallel of latitude must run through the head or centre of these rapids, and that the line HB would therefore be the true boundary, the point B being the spot where this parallel of latitude would intersect the line running north from A.

These were the claims of the respective parties. To sustain them, a great mass of evidence was taken on both sides.

The cause was argued by Mr. Gamble and Mr. Green for the State of Missouri, and Mr. Ewing and Mr. Mason for the State of Iowa.

[The Reporter regrets that he cannot give an extended notice of the arguments of the respective counsel. But he is admonished, by the size which this volume has already attained, that he must reduce the cases which are yet to be reported to as small a compass as possible.]

The positions assumed by the counsel respectively are thus stated in the briefs of Mr. Green for Missouri, and Mr. Ewing for Iowa: Mr. Green:

On the part of the State of Missouri it is in

sisted

1st. That the words "rapids of the River Des Moines" constitute the controlling call to determine the northern boundary, and that the natural and obvious import of these words is "rapids of and in the River Des Moines itself."

2d. That the evidence establishes the fact, that there are rapids in the River Des Moines.

3d. That there is no ambiguity in reference to the river of which the rapids are spoken, and none as to the rapids, unless more rapids than one are found in the River Des Moines.

4th. That having established the fact that

In 1816, prior to the passage of these laws, commissioners were appointed on the part of the United States to settle with the Osage chiefs the boundary of the cession which the Osage tribe had just made to the United States, and

satisfying the call of the constitution, no evidence can be introduced to contradict or vary the meaning of the constitution, or to prove that rapids of some other river were intended, different from that which the language indicates and describes.

will contend that those rapids are, and must be held in law to be, the object called for; and that the centre of that object, namely, the centre of "the rapids of the River Des Moines" in the Mississippi, is the point over which the line of latitude must be drawn which shall mark the northern boundary of the State of Missouri.

Mr. Justice Catron delivered the opinion of the court:

On the 10th day of December, A. D. 1847, the State of Missouri filed her original bill in this court, according to the third article and second section of the Constitution, against the State of Iowa, alleging that the northern part of said State of Missouri was obtruded on and claimed by the defendant, for a space of more than ten miles wide and about two hundred miles long; and that the State of Missouri is wrongfully ousted of her jurisdiction over said territory, and obstructed from governing therein; that the State of Iowa has actual possession of the same, claims it to be within her limits, and exercises jurisdiction over it, contrary to the rights of the State of Missouri, and in defiance of her authority.

And the complainant prays, that, on a final hearing, the northern boundary line of said State of Missouri (being the common boundary between the complainant and defendant) be, by

to a hearing, and was heard with a most commendable spirit of liberality on both sides. And we take occasion here to say, on a matter of practice, that bill and cross bill is deemed the most appropriate mode of proceeding applicable to cases like the present, as it always offers an opportunity to the court of making an affirmative decree for the one side or the other, and of establishing by its authority the disputed line, and of having it permanently marked by commissioners of its own appointment, if that be necessary, as in this cause it is.

The present controversy originated in 1837, between the United States and the State of Missouri, and was carried on for ten years before Iowa was admitted as a State. Previous to the controversy, and after Missouri came into the Union, in 1821, many acts had been done by both parties most materially affecting the controversy, and tending to compromit the claims now set up, on the one side as well as the other. The new State of Iowa came into the Union, December 27th, 1847, and up to this date she was bound by the acts of her predecessor, the United States, forasmuch as the latter might have directly conceded to Missouri a new boundary on the north, as was done on the west; and so, likewise, Iowa is bound by the *acts and admissions of [*668 the United States, tending indirectly to confirm and establish a particular line as the

souri; that she be quieted in her title thereto; and that the defendant, the State of Iowa, be forever enjoined and restrained from disturbing the State of Missouri, her officers and people, 667*] *in the full possession and enjoyment of said territory, thus wrongfully held by the State of Iowa.

sovereign authority

To this bill the State of Iowa answers. She denies the right claimed by Missouri; alleges that Iowa has the sovereign authority to govern and hold the territory in dispute as part of her territory, the common line dividing the States being the southern part thereof; and also prays that the rights of the parties may be speedily adjudicated by this court, that the relief prayed by complainant may be denied, and that her bill be dismissed.

To the bill of Missouri Iowa files her cross bill, charging Missouri with seeking to encroach on the territorial limits of Iowa to the extent aforesaid, and more; prays, that, on a final hearing, a decree be made by this court, settling forever the true and rightful dividing line between the two States; that Iowa may be quieted in her possession, jurisdiction and sovereignty up to the line she claims; and that the State of Missouri be perpetually enjoined from exercising jurisdiction and authority, and from disturbing the State of Iowa, her officers and people, in the enjoyment of their rights on the north side of the true line.

To this bill the State of Missouri answers, and sets up in defense the same matters set forth by her original bill.

Replications were filed to both answers. On these issues depositions were taken, on which, together with much of historical and documentary evidence, the cause was brought on

risdiction has been exercised in the country west of the Mississippi River. It was acquired in 1803, and in 1804 the Territory of Orleans and the District of Louisiana were divided, the latter then embracing what is now the State of Missouri, and much more. In 1805, the District of Louisiana was erected into a separate territorial government, the name of which was changed to Missouri, on the State of Louisiana being created, in 1812, that State having adopted the name of Louisiana. In 1819, the Territory of Arkansas was formed from the southern part of the Missouri Territory; the lines of division being the same that now divide the States of Missouri and Arkansas.

In 1818, the inhabitants of Missouri Territory petitioned Congress that it might be admitted into the Union as an independent State. They set forth the boundaries which they desired that the new State should have, with the reasons favorable to the boundaries desired. They alleged that the petitioners resided in that part of the territory which lies between thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes and forty degrees north, and between the Mississippi River east, and the Osage boundary line west; and they prayed to be admitted into the Union of the States within these limits. The petitioners further declared, that "the boundaries which they solicit for the future State they believe to be the most reasonable and proper that can be devised. The southern limit will be an extension of the line that divides Virginia and North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky. The northern will correspond nearly with the north limit of the territory of Illinois, and with the Indian boundary line, near the mouth of the River Des Moines. A front of three

and a half degrees upon the Mississippi will be left to the South, to form the Territory of Arkansas, with the River Arkansas traversing its centre. A front of three and a half degrees more, upon a medium depth of two hundred miles, with the Missouri River in the centre, will form the State of Missouri. Another front of equal extent, embracing the great River St. Pierre, will remain above, to form another State at some future day. The boundaries, as solicited, will include all the country to the north and west to which the Indian title has been extinguished. They will include the body of the population."

The two Indian boundary lines referred to (as "the Osage or Indian boundary") were run 669*] in pursuance of a treaty made *in 1808, between the United States and the Great and Little Osage nations, by which it was stipulated that the Osage boundary should begin at Fort Clark, standing on the south bank of Missouri River, about twenty-three miles below the mouth of the Kansas, thence running due south to the Arkansas River, and with it to its mouth; thereby ceding to the United States all lands lying east of said line, and north of the southwardly bank of the Arkansas. The treaty also ceded "all lands belonging to the Osages situated northwardly of the River Missouri." The boundary lines were to be run and marked as soon as the circumstances and convenience of the parties would permit. And the Great and Little Osages promised to depute two chiefs from their respective nations to accompany the commissioner or commissioners who might be appointed by the United States to settle and adjust the said boundary. The war of 1812 seems to have hindered a survey of the lines, as, in 1815, by another treaty, peace was re-established between the contracting parties, and former treaties were renewed, and in 1816 John C. Sullivan was sent by the United States to run the lines north of the Missouri River. The Osages, by the treaty of 1808, having surrendered all claim to territory north of the Missouri River, it became necessary that they should show to the United States what part of that country they owned, so that it might be separated, by a defined boundary, from other Indian territories. Sullivan, the surveyor, commenced his first line on the north bank of the Missouri, opposite to the middle of the mouth of the Kansas, and ran north one hundred miles, made a corner, and

thirty-six degrees of north latitude; thence west along the said parallel of latitude to the St. François River; thence up and following the course of that river, in the middle of the main channel thereof, to the parallel of latitude of thirty-six degrees and *thirty [*670 minutes; thence west along the same to a point where the said parallel is intersected by a meridian line passing through the middle of the mouth of the Kansas River, where the same empties into the Missouri River; thence, from the point aforesaid, north along the said meridian line, to the intersection of the parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of the River Des Moines, making said line correspond with the Indian boundary line; thence east from the point of intersection last aforesaid, along the said parallel of latitude, to the middle of the channel of the main fork of the said River Des Moines; thence down along the middle of the main channel of the said River Des Moines to the mouth of the same, where it empties into the Mississippi River; thence due east to the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi River; thence down and following the course of the Mississippi River, in the middle of the main channel thereof, to the place of beginning."

According to this law, the people of the territory, in 1820, proceeded to form a constitution, by which the boundary prescribed by the act of Congress was adopted; and by resolution of March 2, 1831, the State was admitted to enter the Union on certain conditions, to which she assented in June, 1821. On the north and west, as already stated, the new State bordered on Indian territory, over which the general government exercised that modified jurisdiction which existing Indian rights would allow, and had the exclusive power to extinguish the Indian title. The boundaries were therefore common to the two governments, and the acts of either, when exercising jurisdiction with respect to the common boundary, become proper subjects of consideration in the present controversy, as either government might bind itself to a practical line, although not a precisely true one, within the foregoing description. And in pursuing this branch of the subject, our first inquiry will be, how far the general government has committed itself to the old Indian boundary. Its action has been, first, through the Indian department; second, through the surveyor's department; and third, by the ex

one hundred and fifty miles more, west of the first line, and north of the second. The entire country was then claimed, and partly occupied, by different nations of Indians. In 1816, also, Joseph C. Brown ran the line from Fort Clark south to the Arkansas River, in execution of the Treaty of 1808. And the lines run by Brown and Sullivan are "the Indian boundary" referred to in the foregoing petition of the inhabitants of Missouri Territory.

In March, 1818, the petition was referred to a select committee; and on March 6th, 1820, an | act of Congress was passed, pursuant to the petition, authorizing the people of Missouri Territory to form a constitution and State government within the limits designated by the act; that is to say, "Beginning in the middle of the Mississippi River, on the parallel of

form of government on the north of Sullivan's line, embracing the territory now in controversy.

And, first, as to Indian treaties. The earliest one materially bearing on the question was that of August 4, 1824, with the Sac and Fox tribes. They ceded to the United States all the title and claim that they had to any lands within the limits of the State of Missouri, "which are situated, lying, and being between the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, and a line running *from the Missouri, at the en- [*671 trance of the Kansas River, north one hundred miles to the northwest corner of the State of Missouri, and from thence east to the Mississippi; reserving to the half-breeds of said tribes the small tract in the fork between the Mississippi and Des Moines river, and south of the said line." The Indian tribes admitted that the land east and south of the given lines belonged to the United States, and that none of their people should be permitted to settle or hunt on it. Although the Osages had, in part, ceded the same country in 1808, still the Sacs and Foxes set up a claim to part of it, and the Treaty of 1824 was made to quiet their claim.

June 3, 1825, the Kansas tribe also ceded to the United States all claim they had to any lands in the State of Missouri, and further ceded and relinquished all other lands which they then occupied, or to which they had title or claim, "lying west of the said State of Missouri, and within the following boundaries: Beginning at the entrance of the Kansas into the Missouri River; from thence north to the northwest corner of the State of Missouri," thence north and west. Of course, the northwest corner here referred to was the one made by Sullivan in 1816, as none other was then claimed by Missouri herself, nor known to the United States or the Indians.

In February, 1831, the State of Missouri, by a memorial from the Legislature to Congress, petitioned the United States for an addition of the country west of the line running from the mouth of the Kansas north, and between said line and the Missouri River, alleging that it was a small slip of land that had been acquired, by the Treaty of June 3d, 1825, from the Kansas Indians. The petition declared, that the line from the mouth of the Kansas north was about one hundred miles long; that the country was settled, and rapidly settling, to its utmost verge; and that, as the Missouri River was the only great highway of this region, and could not be reached through a country inhabited by Indians, and being without roads, a cession of it to that State was necessary and proper.

June 7, 1836, Congress acceded to the request of Missouri, and granted to that State all jurisdiction over the lands lying between its then western line and the Missouri River, making the river the western boundary. But the accession was not to take effect until the Indian title to the country was extinguished.

were interested, and also that it was desirable and necessary that the country should be attached to the State of Missouri; and thereupon these Indian tribes (being part of the ten) did cede and relinquish to the United States all their right and interest to the lands lying between the State of Missouri and the Missouri River; and the United States were exonerated from the guaranty imposed on them by the Treaty of 1830, known as the Treaty of Prairie du Chien. And on the 27th of September, 1836, another band of the Sac and Fox tribes made a similar cession. And on the 15th of October, 1836, various bands of the Sioux, by another treaty, also assented to the cession, but in more definite terms: they gave a quitclaim to the United States of their interest in the lands "lying between the State of Missouri and the Missouri River, and south of a line running due west from the northwest corner of the State to the Missouri River." The country having been disencumbered of the Indian title, the President, by proclamation of March 28, 1837, declared that the Act of Congress of June 7, 1836, should take effect; and thereby the ceded territory became a part of the State of Missouri.

There are, in all, fifteen Indian treaties referring to the Osage boundary of 1816, as run by Sullivan, each of which recognizes that boundary as the Missouri State line; and all of which treaties were made after Missouri was admitted into the Union, and before Iowa became a State. And as the treaties were drawn by authority of the United States, they must be taken as recognitions, on the part of the general government, that the Missouri boundary and the old Indian boundary are identical.

In the second place, it is proper to inquire how far the general government has recognized the Indian boundary line of 1816 in its land department. By the Act of February 17, 1818, the Howard District was established. This extended west to the old Indian boundary, and ran with it from the *mouth of the [*673 Kansas north, through its whole length, and thence east with Sullivan's line to where it intersected the range line ten west from the principal meridian; extending on the east line about four fifths of its length.

In 1823 this district was divided, and a western one established fronting on the two lines.

To the eastern part of Sullivan's line, next to the Des Moines River, the St. Louis District extended until 1824, when the Salt River District was established, running west to the range line between ranges 13 and 14; thence north to the northern boundary line of the State of Missouri; thence east with the State line to the River Des Moines, and down the same with the State line.

By the Act of August 29, 1842, the western land district was divided, and that part of it lying north of the Missouri River had attached to it the Platte country; that is to say, the country annexed to Missouri by the Act of Congress of 1836, lying west of the old Indian boundary, and next to the Missouri River.

When acting through the surveyor's depart

its enlarged, a treaty was made on the 17th of September, 1836, with the Iowas, Sacs, and Foxes, reciting the facts, so far as the Indians

general government has never recognized on the north, nor, until the Platte country was attached, on the west, any boundary as belong