of 1944 were w.bstantially those finally granted except that from the mouth of the Sioux the northern boundary line was to run north-east to about the present Iation of Mankato, Minn, thence along the Minnesota River-then called St. Peter's to the Mississippi River.

(See C. S. Ex. Doc., 1844, Vol. 4, Doc. 5.)

A large slice of what is now Minnesota would thus have been included in the State, while a smail corner of Northwestern Iowa would have been left out in the cold.

It at once appeared that there was decided opposition in Congress to granting the desired boundaries on the south, west, and north. The opposition to the southern boundary came from Missouri. As her claim dates back many years, it may be well to consider it before taking up the discussion in Congress.

The Constitution of the State of Missouri defined her western and northern boundaries as follows: "A meridian line passing through the middle of the mouth of the Kansas River, where that river empties into the Missouri

to the intersection of the parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of the river Des Moines, making the said line correspond with the Indian boundary line, thence east from the last point of intersection along said parallel of latitude to the middle of the channel of the main fork of the river Des Moines, etc."

The Indian boundary line was one run in 1816 by John C. Sullivan to settle the boundaries of lands ceded to the United States by the Osage Indians, and is frequently referred to as "Sullivan's line." The description was doubtless supposed to be definite at the time, but the phrase "the rapids of the river Des Moines "proved sufficiently ambiguous to be the pretext for a long and angry dispute between Missouri and Iowa. The whole controversy, when stripped of all extraneous matter, seems to turn almost entirely on the question whether the framers of the constitution intended to designate certain rapids in the Mississippi River opposite the mouth of the

Des Moines, which the early French settlers called "Les rapides de la riviere Des Moines" literally translated—“ The rapids of the river Des Moines," or whether they meant rapids in the Des Moines, which as some claimed were to be found at the great bend near where Keosauqua now stands.

In 1831 Missouri added to the memorial regarding annexation of territory on her western border the request that Congress take measures for settling her northern boundary line, saying, it "is vague and indefinite," and "we are not informed of the precise location of the rapids of the river Des Moines."

(See Ex. Doc. 1830–31, Vol. 2, No. 71.)

Gov. Miller, who was a member of the Constitutional Convention, vetoed the memorial on the ground that he was confident the northern boundary was run and marked by Sullivan, though the record could not then be found.

(Reports of U. S. Com. 1841-2, Vol. 4, No. 791.) The memorial was passed over his veto, but Congress took no action. In 1837 Joseph C. Brown under the authority of the State Legislature of Missouri made a survey. Meantime the Territory of Wisconsin had been organized and viewed with alarm the prospect that Brown's line, considerably farther north than Sullivan's, might be adopted as the boundary and thus encroach upon her limits. Accordingly her delegate in Congress was instructed to use his best exertions to secure the appointment of commissioners to settle the boundary. The claim was put forth in her Legislature that Missouri had accepted the old Indian boundary line without complaint till certain persons interested in the half-breed reservation between the Des Moines and Mississippi hoping to extend their territory, asserted that the rapids were in the Des Moines farther north than those in the Mississippi; and that then Missouri took up the claim and provided for the survey as

stated above.

Congress authorized the appointment of commissioners, but by that time it had ceased to be any concern of Wisconsin, for the part of her territory west of the Mississippi had been organized as the Territory of Iowa.

The U. S. Commissioner, Albert Miller Lea, made a long report accompanied by several important documents.

(Ex. Doc., 1838-9, Vol. 10, No. 128.)

From this report it appears that Sullivan's line, beginning in the Missouri River opposite the mouth of the Kansas ran one hundred miles north then-according to the field-notesdue east one hundred and fifty and one-half miles to the Des Moines River, but for want of proper corrections of the needle, its course was really, as shown by later surveys, north of east by about 21⁄2°. Lea discussed four possible lines.

First-Sullivan's line, which has in its favor the almost uniform reference to the point one hundred miles north of the mouth of the Kansas River as the northwest corner of Missouri. On the other hand it is an oblique line and the law calls for a parallel of latitude. Moreover it does not pass through any rapids of the Des Moines, and hence is not a legal line though from its long use as such, it might be proper to establish it by legislation.

Second-The parallel of latitude passing through the old northwest corner. It is not known whether this line passes

through any rapids.

Third―The parallel passing through the Des Moines rapids in the Mississippi. The argument for this is that the rapids are the point of paramount importance in determining the boundary as established by the constitution and that by general notoriety the rapids in the Mississippi were known by the name given in the description.

Fourth-The parallel passing through the rapids in the Des Moines near the Great Bend. This was the line surveyed by Brown in 1837. In favor of this line he refers to letters of John Scott and Wm. Milburn, stating their recollections that these rapids were the ones intended by the framers of the State Constitution.

Lea's conclusion is, that the first line is equitable but not・ legal, the second line is neither equitable nor legal, and that the third and fourth both fulfill the conditions of the law.

Meantime the Legislature of Missouri had declared Brown's line the northern boundary of the State, and the authorities of Clark county undertook to levy taxes in the adjacent county of Van Buren, Iowa. These attempts were resisted, proclamations were issued, and troops called out on both sides, but no blood was shed and the militia was soon disbanded.

(Ex. Doc. 1841-2, Vol. 3, Doc. 141.)

Subsequent attempts at legislation accomplished nothing, and when Iowa framed her constitution in 1844 she demanded Sullivan's line for her southern boundary. Missouri at once protested in a long memorial.

(Ex. Doc. 1845-6, Vol. 10, No. 104.)

Congress finally left the matter to the decision of the Supreme Court. The unanimous opinion of the judges was in favor of the old Indian line, and they appointed commissioners by whom the line was run and marked with iron pillars at intervals of ten miles. The final settlement of the matter was at the December term, 1850, long after the admission of the State.

(Howard's Reports, Vols. 7, p. 660 & 10, p. 1.)

Coming back now to the time when Iowa applied for admission under the constitution of '44, we find the House Committee on Territories reported a bill for her admission with the desired boundaries, on the ground as stated by Mr. Brown, of Tennessee, the chairman of the committee, that "the people of Iowa, were there, had settled the country, and their voice should be listened to in the matter."

(Globe, Vol. 14, p. 269.)

Mr. Duncan, of Ohio, moved an amendment which, if adopted, would have made the boundary thirty to fifty miles farther north than it is at present, but would have reduced the width of the State by more than one-third. Over this amendment the controversy began. The chief speaker in its favor was Mr. Vinton, of Ohio.

(Globe, Vol. 14, App. p. 330, seq.)

He spoke at some length of what he characterized as “the unwise and mistaken policy" which had prevailed in the formation of western states by which the valley of the Mississippi had been deprived "of its due share in the legislation of the country." He thought the act limiting the number of states formed from the Northwest Territory to five a "flagrant injustice," in compensation for which a series of small states ought to be formed on the west bank of the Mississippi. He also argued at great length and very ably that in the long run the control of the government might be more safely entrusted to the West than to any other hands. The main points of his argument were, that the West had no prejudices against either the North or the South, that the whole body of grain-growing states, slave-holding and non-slave-holding, had an intermediate position between the exclusive interests of the North and the South, and hence were deeply interested in the prosperity of both: that the West had also a middle ground between the two social systems-the one based on free, and the other on slave labor; finally, and this is the point he labored most earnestly to impress, that in this region there was growing up a conservative power which would be strong enough "to hush into submission the elements of dissension." In the light of subsequent events one or two passages of his speech have an interest, not otherwise belonging to them, perhaps. "The people of the great valley will forever be conservative whoever may be otherwise, not because of their superior patriotism, virtue, and love of country, but simply because their position forces them to be so."

Again- "If the attempt at separation be made at North or South-in Massachusetts or South Carolina-it will be put down by the hand of this great central power, impelled to action by an overruling necessity. It must put it down, or lose its own independence, and its people become hewers of wood and drawers of water for the people of the new empires at the North and the South."

His objection of course to the admission of new states of