University of Oklahoma College of LawUniversity of Oklahoma College of Law Digital CommonsAmerican Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-18993-19-1842Boundary between Missouri and Iowa. Letter fromthe Secretary of State, transmitting the informationrequired by the resolution of the House ofRepresentatives of the 28th ultimo, in relation tothe boundary line between the State of Missouriand territory of Iowa.Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/indianserialsetPart of the Indian and Aboriginal Law CommonsThis House Document is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in American Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 by an authorized administrator of Universityof Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact darinfox@ou.edu.Recommended CitationH.R. Doc. No. 141, 27th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1842)2 7th CONGRESS, 2d Session. ,Doc. No. 14). , Ho. OF REP,-State Dept. "BOUNDARY BETWEEN MISSOURI AND IOWA. LETTER "Pll01\l THE SECRETARY ()F STATE, TRA1'SMJTTJNG The 'information required by the resolittion of the House ?I Representa-tives of the 28th ultimo, in relation to the boundary lme between the State ef Missouri and the T.erritory of Iowa. MARCH 19, 1S42. Referred to the Commiltee on the Territories . T o the House of Representatives: • l}EPARTMENT OF STATE, Washi11gton, /Jfarch 11, 1842. In complianc~ with a rernlution 9f the House of Representatives of the 28th ultimo, directing the Secreia y of-State to furnish that House with all information on file in the State epartment relating to the boimdary line between the State of Missouri nd the Territory of Iowa; with copies of all correspondence with the laie and present Governor of Iowa Territory on the subject; to include aJ{ communications, letters, and documents, that may have been forwarded by Governor Lucas to the State Department, on the subject of the boundi ry line, or the clashing jurisdiction ,between the authorities of the State of Missopri and the authorities of the United State.s, within the Territory of Iowa, with regard to said line ; also, a copy of all correspondence between the State Department and the authorities of :Missouri. on the su9ject: I have the honor to transmit the accompanying papers, a list of which is annexed. The rest of the pavers called for by the resolution having been already communicated to~ the House of Repre-sentatives, it has not been deemed necessary again to tra~smit copies. Respectfully submitted. ' · . , DANIEL WEBSTER. -Doc. No. 141. LIST. Mr. Forsyth to General Atkinson, June 28, 1838. Mr. Forsyth to Governor Boggs, June 2~, 1S38. Gove/nor Boggs to Mr-. Forsyth, Jtily 28, 1838. , Mr. Conway to Mr Forsyth, August 14, 1838. · Governor Lucas to Mr. Forsyth, September 5, 1838. Mr. Linn to the President, January 14, 1840, with enclosure. Mr. Linn to Mr. Forsyth, January 22, 1840. Mr. ·Forsyth to Governor Lucas, .Ianuary 22, 1840. . Governor Lucas to Mr. Poinsett, February 12, 1840, with enclosures. DEPARTM,ENT OF STATE, Washington, June 28, 1838. Srn: I transmit·to your excellency the copy of an act of Congress, _ap· proved on the 18th instant, "to -authorize the President of the Ututed States to cause the southern boundary line of the Territory of Iowa to be ascertained and marked." The Presiq.ent, acting under authority of that act, has, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint,~d Mr. Albert M. Lea commissioner on tlie part of the United States for the purposes therein mentioned; who is instructed, with as ' little delay as possible, to repair to the spot, notify your excellency of th_e place where any comm~-nication you may- have to make can be addressed to him, and proceed, m ~onjunction with such commissioners as may be appointed on the ~art of the Territory of Iowa, and by the State of Missouri, or otherwise, as ~irected by the act, to rµn, mark, and ascertain the boundary line. . . · Should it be your excellency's intel\tion not to appoint a commissioner to act with Mr. Lea, on the ~art ?f the Territory of Iowa, you are requested · to ma:ke the fact,known to him, m order t\rnt he may, without unnecessary . del~y, proceed in the discharge of 'his ~uty, as otherwise pointed out by · the act. \ · I have the hono-r to be your obedient seFant, JOHN FORSYTH. His Excellency HENRY ATKlNsoN, Governor of Iowa. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 28, 1838. Srn : I transmit to your excellency the copy of an act of Congress, ap-proved on the 18th instant, "to authorize the President of the United States ~o cause the southern boundary line of the Territory of Iowa to be ascertame~ and mark~d." The President, acting under authority of that act, ha~, with t~e_adv1ce and consent of the Senate, appointed Mr. Albert M. ~ea com_m1ss1oner o~ the part of the United States for the purposes th~rem mentioned; ~vho 1s instructe'pjunctjon witl1 s'uch c~'mmissioners ~s m~y be appointed_ by th~ St~te: of ].\'{issouri, and the· Governor of the femtory of Iowa, or otherwise, as directed by th_e act, to run, mark, and as?ertain the ~ou~dary line. . . Should it be your excellency's intention not t~ app?mt a comm1ss1oner to act with Mr. Lea, on the part ·of the State of M1ssoun, you are requested to rnake the fact known to him, in order that he may, without unnecessary delay, proceed in the discharge of his duty, as otherwise pointed out by the act. . ·, . I have the honor -to be your obedient servant, , JOHN FORSYTH. His Excellency LtLBURN W. l~oGGS," . Governor of the State of Missouri. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, City of Jpjfenon, (Mo.) July 28, 1838. Sm: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communica-tion of the 28th ultimo, enclosing a copy of the ·act ,of Congress authorizing the President of the United States "to authorize the southern boundary line of the Territory of Iowa to be ascertained and marked-,'' and inform-ing me of the appointment of :rvlr. Albert M. _Lea, as a commissioner on the part of the United States, to carry into effect the provisions of that act. ln te1)ly to which, 1 have to say that, at the last session of the General Assembly of this State, an act was passed, approved 21st of December, 1836, to cause the northern boun~ary of the State to be surveyed and i-narked out. In pursuance of the provision·s of said act, commissioners were appointed, and a communication was addressed by 'the undersigned to the President of the United States, with the view of opening a corres-pondence on the subject with the authorities of the General Government,. and requesting the appointment of a commissioner or commissioners, 011 the part of the' United States, to act in conjunction with those appointed on the part of the State of Missouri. To this communication rio reply what-ever was eve~ received. ~he provisions of the act being imperative on the commissioners appointed by the State to proceed· to the discharge of the duties assigned them, if·the United States should fail, for the space of six l:nonths after -the passage of the act aforesaid, to appoint commissioner~ on her part, and none -having been appointed, they were accordingly -directed to proceed to run and mark the line, in accordance with 1the provisions of ~aid act. -Having completed the same, the report and map of survey were filed in the office of the Secretary of State of this State, to be laid before the ne'xt General· Assembly, for their approval or rejection. _ / , Entertaining the op~nion (which i~ affirmed ~y that of th~ Attorney General of the State) that all the powers vested m the ExP-cut1ve in rela-tion to this matter have been exercisod, the undersigQed respectfully de-dines (n~twithsta_nf his arrival at that city. Mr. Lea has been informed of the appointment, -<>fa commission.er on the part of lo\va Te_rritory, ana that he would be reacly ,=t: o m eet the . other comm1ssi~ner. at such time and place a~ might be d,e-::s i gn ated. W ith sincere respect, I am your obedient servant, , H o).. JoHN FoRsYTH, Secret~ry ~J State . ROBERT LUCA,S . .[ UNOFFICIAL. J WASHINGTON C1TY, , · January ·14, 1840. M Y DEAR Srn ': I send you the\. enclosed procl~mation, for fear it may·es-£JCa.pe your attention. ' _ · I regret most sincerely that the authorities of Iowa have not set at "lib e rty the sheriff of Clark county, Misso1ui, inasmuch as that _act would have gone far to indispose the people of Missouri from proceeding to ex~ tT.emities with- their brethren of Iowa:. . If you can interfere so as to have -the °'sheriff discharged from custody, it is m y opinion it would have a decided influence in restoring tranquillity. , 'Yours, truly, L. F. LINN. T.o M. VAN Bu REN' President of the United States. Doc. No . .141. , ' PROCLAMATION., , . I By the Governor of the Stat.e of Missouri. . . STAT'E OF l\th~SOURI, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, City of Jefferson, December 24, lf339. I_nfotmation has bee~ received at this Depi.utment, that the exercise · of the ~rightful jurisdictioµ of tqe 'State of Missouri has been suspended over that portion of tl1e domain of said State, (which it is pretended belongs t<>' the Territory of Iowa,) by the adoption of the following preamble and res-. olutions, on the part of the Council and House 9f Represyntatives of Iowa,. and the county court of Clark comity, in this State: I • P1·eamble and res_olutions relative lo the difficulties between the Territory of Iowa and the S~ate of Missouri. Whereas an unfortunate crisis has arrived in the difficulties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the Territory of Iowa, in rela-tion to the boundary line between , the two Governments : and whereas. the · Territory of "Iowa, under 1any circumsta11.ces, would der,re~ate _any military coll.isioR between the forces of said State ·anµ Territ9ry, fully be-lieving that the most friendly feelings exist between the .great mass of the citizens-of the respective parties: and whereas the organic law of -said Territory renders it impossible· for the ' constituted authorities of said Ter-rito~y to accede to the p_roposition hitherto made.by the citizens of Missouri,. although they fully -reciprocate the' kind feelings evinced bv the late delega-,tion from ·the ·comity court of Clark county : · thetefore, · • . Resolved by the Council and House of Representatives of the Territory of Iowa, That the officers now on duty, on the part of the State of Mis-. souri, be requested to suspend alUurther military operations, on the patt of the said State, .until these resolutions can be submitted to his excel-lency Governor Boggs. -. Resolved, That his excellency Governor Boggs be requested to au-thorize a suspension of hostilities, on the part of the State of Missouri, until the first day of July next, with a view· of having the unfortunate difficulties now existi~g between the Stafe ofMissouri and the Territory of Iowa ad-justed hy the action of Congress. , Resolved, That his excellency the Governor of Iowa be requested t0< suspend all further military operations until the decision of his excellency . Governor Boggs may be obtained, relativ~ to the propositions herein con-- tained . . Resolved, That the Go,ve~nor be requested forthwith to forward a copy-of these resolutions to the Governor of Missouri, one to the county court. of Clark county, and copies to the officers in command on the disputed, ground, to be by them presented to the o,mcers of the Missouri forces. EDWARD JOHNSTON, Speaker of the House of Reprn,entatives. S. HEMPSTEAD, President of the Council. Information has also be.en received at this Department; from the sheriff of Clark county, that he is at thi_s time imprisoned within the limits of the Doc. No. 1-U . "l ·a Territory of Iowa; that an indictment has 1be~n found ag~inst lt1, sa1 the ~e? suspended, and· that no effort will hereafter be made to enforce juri~-n, the suspension of any'law is wholly intrll;sted; and I should feel equal. repugnanGe to approve the resolution~, because thereby I am reque·sted to -eoncede the power that the Cor1gress of the United States h as the right to decide upon the qiiestion of boundary between the sove· reignty qf Missot1ri and the Territory of Iowa. I must be excused from_ap· p roving any _ act which, by any construction·, can, for one moment, adm1t or concede to the Congress of the United States the right. of exercising any ~u-thority, not expressly derived from the Constitution,over a territory to which h as fo r ever been relinquished the "title of the General Government, which has been . unalterably conveyed to tlrn State of Missouri, and which ·is described by metes so-distinct that none but the wilfully perverse can mistake them, T he coustitutional and declared limits of this State Congtess has no pow~r to alter; for the General Government . has irrevocably transferred to tins State, by the act of i ts admission, the exercise of ~11 sovereign power over i ts included territory. The General Government has no right to take from the State of Missouri one inch of its declared li~nits ; and, in my estima· tion, has no course left bnt. to approve the legislative action of this State, by w_hich i_t~ bon_ndaries_ have been finally and openly decided. The rig~t of M1ssot~n m t.h1s vase 1s paramo unt; and the interference of any power m the ~xe;c:se of her lo?al admini~tration is · a gross and palpable violation of h er mdiv1dual sovereignty. \Vitll :he action of the General Government, lJoc. No. 141. 17 beyond the_limits of this State, Missouri has no other than a gen~eral con-cern. Congress may, in its discretion, attach one-half of the Territory of Iowa to this State, or any other State or Territory of the United States, because, by the act establishing the territorial Government of Iowa, it has · €Xpressly reserved to itself that power; but even this it cannot do to this State, unless with the declared consent of the State of Missouri. This power it may exercise ; but to admit that it has a right to ~etach any portion from the constitutional limits of this State, is an acknowledgment that strikes at the essence of the mutual compact, and at the fundamental principles of our co,nfederation. I deem it unnecessary to enlarge upon this principle,. for it is ,,one so clearly defined and universally acknowledged,. that, in all the dissensions that have at different times distracted the harmony of the States of this Republic, it has never been thought sufficiently dubious to warrant a controversy. For these, reasons, I do not conceive tha,t I have any power, nor, if I had, could I, in the conscientious discharge of my ex-ecutive duties, concur in the resolutions submitted to me. I am, however. constrained to regard their adoption by the county court of Clark county as an evidence of the sincere desire of that body for the preservation of peace and the maintenance of friendly feeling with their frontier neighbors; and this expression of the collected will of" the great mas~ of the citizens" of t~at county deepP-ns my regret that the constitution and my oath com-pel me to disregard their declared voice, in order to maintain inviolate the supremacy of the law. > Now, therefore, I, Lilburn \V. Boggs, Governor of the State of :Missouri, do hereby express my dissent from the foregoing resolutions which have been this day submitted to me, and hereby order that no suspension of civil or military functions, under the laws of this State, be allowed within its rightful limits,as declared by the law thereof; and I do furthermore call upon all the officers of the State of Missouri, civil and military, that they use all legal power to prevent any violation of law, or exercise orfor-eign jurisdiction, with.in the limits aforesaid ; and that therein, to the full extem,. they exercise their respective duties, in conformity with the laws of this State. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused to be affixed the great seal of the State' of Missouri. Done at the city of Jefferson, this t\1.renty-fifth .day of December, in the year of our Lord [L, s.] one thousand eight hundred and thirty-nine, of the independence of the United _States the sixty~fourth, agd of this State the twentieth. LILBURN W. BOGGS. By-,the Governor : , JAMES L. MrnoR, DECEMBER 28. ,5/ecretary of State. E. Report of Doctor James Davis, Commissioner to ascertain the southern . boundary of the Territor,y of Iowa. Srn :· Having been appointed by your excellency, on the 1st i>f Septem-ber last, a commissioner on the part of the Territory of Iowa, under the 2 !l8 Doc. No. 141. ;provisions of an act of Congress, passed Jnrie 18th, 1~38, entitl1;d "An ~act to authorize the President of the United States to cause the southern -bo~ndary line of the Territory of Iowa to be ascertained and marked" I proceeded, in company with :1\lr. A. M. Lea, the commissioner appointed by ;the President on the part of the United States, (Missouri failing to appoint :,one on her part,) to perform the duties required. The time of the appoint-·ment, and the necessary and consequent delay in the organization of a ,proper surveying corps, dictated the impossibility of running and complet-ing the line the present se~son ; and our operations were confiued to the collection and perfection of documentary evidence 611 the subject ;'whichis r~spectfully si1bmitted i11 this report. It is unfortunate that, iu the organization of most Territories or States, there is not that identity or particularization of boundarim; and limits which prudence would dictate ; but it'does appear to me that there is no want of identity or particularization in the organization of the State of Missouri, either in ~h~ act of Congress or the constitution of the State-.as the one prescribes, so does the other. The · controversy between the 'Territory of low'l;l and the State of Missouri is relative only to the liae between the two-the northern boundary of the one, and the ~outhern boundary of the other. Disregarding the fact, which is of.no little impor-tance, that, until within a few years, Missouri has never claimed the exten-sion of her northern boundary, the documentary evidence hereunto annexed must convince the most sceptical on this point of the fallacy of her claim, · anq of the validity of the claim of Iowa. . The act of Congress, which fixes the Jimits of the State, describes that portion of them which is of any importance in the present controversy as extending north, along a meridian line which passes through the mo~1th of the Ka:nzas river, to the intetsection of the parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of the river Des Moines, making said line c?r· respond with the Indian boundary line ; thence east, from the point of in-tersection, along said parallel of latitude, to ,the middle of the channel .0f the main fork of the river Des J\Toines, thence down·said river to the Mis-sissippi, &c. The Indian boundary line above refered to is a part of th.e limits of a purchf1,se made of the Osages by a treaty made in 180S; this line was .run and permanently marked in 1816 .by Col. Sullivan. It ex-tended one hundred miles north of the mouth of the Kunzas river, thence due east to the Des Moines ri:ver, thence down said river to the Missis~ip· pi, &c. By comparing the acts' of Congress, the first article of the constltU· tion of MiRsouri, and the article of the Osage treaty above cited, there ap-pears to be no doubt that they must all contemplate and mean the same limits and boundary lines. , . If the line run by Col. Sullivan in 1816, four years before the adopt10n of the constitution of Missouri, was not intended as the northern boundary of Missouri, why was the line run and marked by him adopted in the consti-tution as her northern boundary ? The letters of the Solicitor and Com-missioner of the General Land Office, hereunto , annexed, (and marked A and B,) f~r.nish a fund of instrnction on this subject sufficieat to satisfy _the 1~10st fast1d1011s caviller of the injustice of Missouri's claim, and of the J,U5• tice of that of Iowa. A close and critical examination of this subject_ mmt res~lt i~1 the conviction that the rapids spoken of in the _first artic~e of the const1tut10n of Missouri are the lower rapids in the Mississippi nver, a short distance above the mouth ot the ri,,er Des Moines. As an impor-Doc. No. 141. 19 ~~nt proof of this ·fact, I refer to a copy of a letter from General William .C1ark,,of St. Louis, Missouri, hereunto appended, (marked C.) It ~ay not be imp-roper to remark here, of General Clark, that no man ~assessed more ]:cnowledge on this subject, than himself. ~e wa~ an old India!1 ~rader, one <=:>-f the fir_st settlers of the Territory of Missouri, and a comm1ss10ner who ~ade most of the treaties of the Territory and State, and consequently must have possessed as much knowledge of the boundaries of water--courses of' the State of Missouri as any other man. In the letter above re-ferred · to, General Clark uses the following language : "I have al ways l::Jeen of opinion, that the rapids of the Mississippi just above the mouth of the river Des Moines, which were, at the period when the convention was beld, as they still are, called the Des Moines rapids, were the rapid con---.:emplated by the convention; it_ being understood, as I presume, that the line run by Col. Sullivan, east from a point one hundred miles north of the mouth of the river Kanzas, if continued, would strike some point in the , -rapids." - But it has recently been asserted by the Missouri claimants that the rapids of the river Des Moines is an appellation that cannot with pro-priety be applied to rapids in the Mississippi river ; and hence it is contend-ed that the parallel of latitude forming tbe northern limits of Mi soun must pas~ through some rapids in the Des Moines river. It should be ob--served that they are not called lite rapids in the river Des .Moines but th rapids of the river Des Moines. It does not follow, .as a natural consequence, that, because the rapid are called the Des Moines rJpids, or the rapids of tlze Des Moines rfrer th~y -should be in that river. The names of rapids, like many other nan,e or appellations, are freqnently arbitrary or conventional ; and if, by common ,consent, or long-established custom, they are known and spoken of by u par-ticular phrase, (though the 11ame may be inappropriate,) yet that caunot be :Set np tc, change the meaning of an act of Congress, or the article of a .c.0nstitution, in which that improper name or phrase may be n .. ed. There are Frenchmen and Indian traders who have been acquainted with this ec-tion of the Mis~issippi for the last twenty or thirty years, all of whom ·-state that the lower rapids of the Mississippi have ·been called "/ h.e Des Moines rapids, and the rapids of I he Des ldoines,'' promiscuouslv. There is more, and some would say higher, authority than tbqt ahove c·ited that the rapids alluded to were called and known by the name of "the rapids of the river Des Moines." In i-he reports of l\:Ir. Clayton, of the Senate, -and Mr. Huntsman, of the House of Representatives of the United States, frorn Committees. on Private Land Claims, in favor of the heirs of Thomas 'S. Reddick, (the report of Mr. Clay_ton was made iu January, 1835~ and :t !1at. of Mr.Huntsman wai:;; on the 12th of June, 1836,) the claim of the iheirs-of Reddick was predicated on a warrant issue_d to Lewis (Tessau) Honore, by the Lieutenant Governor of Upp~r Louisiana, dated 30th March, 1799, in which warrant the rapid_s of Des Moines river were re-cognised as being ,in the Mississippi river, just above the mouth of, the Des Moines river. A minute of the same claim rnay be fonncl in Bates's ,report, page thirty-three, now in the office of .l\'Ir. Con way, a t St. Louis, Missouri. . · I am not vindicating the propriety of giving such a name to the rapids in the :Mississippi river; that is not necessary for my pres~nt purpose. \Vhenever, by common consent, a word or phra~e is med to convey or ex-press a particular idea, such is its actual meaning. It matters not if the 20 Doc. No. 141 . . r8;pids in question had been denominated · the rapids of the north pole~ Once let them be universally known as such ; let voyagers and settlers, pri-v ate citizens and public functionaries, concur in the appellation, and f doubt whether its absurdity could be taken advantage of or made ajust ground for extending the northern boundary line of Missouri to the arctic region. Admit that there are rapid~ in the Des Moines river, the questionS> arise, were these rapids known in 18~0? and how far from its mouth were-these rapids? Were they at any reasonable point that the line.contended for by Missouri would touch? I think the above questions may be an-·swered with great propriety in the negative ; and, as a strong evidence in support, it is. only necessary to remark that those who contend for the· rapids in the Des Moinatl river differ very materially among themselves-some fix them at the · Great Bend of the Des Moines, some below, and others far above. Commissioners were appointed for the first time last year, by the State of Missonri, to survey the Des Moines river, and t~ as-certain, if practicable, the rapids in said river corresponding with their idea of the northern boundary of that State. ' They fixed upon one in the Great Bend of that river as the rapids in-tended by the act of Congress. No reason can be assigned for such a con-.cl usion or location, except cupidity; for there are places i_n satd river, f~r below the one designated by the Missouri commissioners, equally as pr?m1:--nent and deserving of the appellation of the rapids of the Des Moines nv~r. T he rapids, about two miles below Lexington, and twelve below the rapids; in the Great Bend, and the rapids at Farmington, within a short distance of ·the place where the Indian boundary line strikes the river, ar~ equally en-titled to the same consideration and importance as those selected at the Great Bend. I have been informed, by undoubted authority, that, iii the n~igh--borhood of the forks of the Des Moines river, and some seventy or eighty miles above the rapids of the Great Bend, there are rapids worthy of that appellation; and they are the only rapids in that river known ta th~ oldest - settlers and Indii:in traders by the name of the rapids in the Des lVIom~s. If the act of Congress and constitution of Missouri designed the great rapids of that river as the northern boundary of the State of Missouri, certainly the Missouri commissioners have done their State great injustice by-not extend-ing their location qms far. Why did they not do so ? For the best of r~asons;: ,because such a claim would be too great an absurdity. The legislative ac-. tion of Missouri, and the organization of her northern counties, (some of which counties have been organized ten years,) refer particularly to the-northern boundary of. the State, which goes far to rshow that that boundary w as considered permanently fixed by the old Indian line, known as Sulli-van's survey. · · The fo regoing vie:¥s appear to me to be sustained by reason and_ the · strongest documentary facts; and, upon unprejudiced minds, will be irre-sistible in creating a conviction of the right of Iowa to what she contends for. In opposition to the above views and facts, I have been enabled to obtain two letters from citizens of Missouri. The writer of one of these ~etters, Mr. Milbourn, (letter appended, marked D,) states that, when a clerk m the surveyor general's office, he executed a map, wherein the northern bounda~y of ~ issonri was represented as passing through rapids in the Des ~ornes nver. That such a map was furnished by Mr. Milbourn, I am not disposed t? doubt; bu,t it ~atters little, in this controversy, whether the map was fur =-.•1-'!:led or not. It 1s known that it was an unofficial map, and,, Doc. No. 141. 21 :as acknowledged bv' Mr. Milbourn in his letter, sn.nk, with the rubbish of ,o ther legislative trash, into obscurity. The map of ~r. ~Iilhourn was, doubt-less, thrown as.i1de for its imperfections;"' and I t_hrnk ~t very probab~e that this marking on that map rapids in the Des M9mes river was one of the imperfections for which it was condemned. Had the map been such a one as the convention were satisfied with, instead of.having sunk into obscurity> it wo·uld have -been engraved, and would exhibit at this day what was -then considered the northern boundary of the State. It may be fortuna te, ,for the preseNt claim of Missouri, that she had not a correct map drawn at the period' of .her convention, delineating what was then considered her <"b oundaries. She would ·now ha've no chance to cavil about and claim ter-ritory to which she has not the most foreign right. If the map of Mr . . lvlilbom:n had been perfect, would not .the maps of the State, since published, have corresponded in ' the northern line, l}y marking rapids in the Des· Moines river? They certainly would; but, so far from being correct was ::the surveyor general's clerk's map, that no other map of Missouri, or of the United States, lias ever been dra~vn or published, marking rapids, as he con-'t ends for, in the Des Moines river. Probably the map of the surveyor gen-' eral's clerk-was drawn 1ip in accordance with the views and desires of some -of the members of the Missouri convention, who wanted to extend the north-··-ern bounda1:y line of Missouri as far north as a line drav.~n on a parallel of ,latitude passing through Rock island. In answer to that part of Mr. Mil-tbonm's letter which asserts that the northern boundary was uRderstoo.d "as ;Striking the rapids in the river Des Moines, which rapids were understood, withouteitherdoubtorcontradiction,(sofaras I heard,) to be the rapids intend--ea by the act of Congress," I would respectfully refer you to the letter of Gen--eral Clark, before cited. The circumstances of General Clark's having made :several Indian treaties, and being acquainted with the northern line of the St1ate, certainly gav~ him greater advantages than those possessed by a sur-veyor general's clerk. The other letter, from John SGott, Esq., (marked E,) ;;appears more inconsistent and unreasonable than that ofMr. Milbourn. He -·differs, in almost every particntar, with almost every m~mber of the Mis-.·souri convention that fi;amed the constitution. This fact alone is calculated to throw a suspicion over his whole statement, and, at least, attri~tlte it to -treachery of memory. The matter stated by him, if correct, mnst have been ·,known to the most ·of the other members of that convention, and, being iknown, would not h~ve been forgotten. As an evidence of the foaccuracy of Mr. Scott's recollection, you are referred to his relation of General Clark's ,,opinions; and to the' letter of General Clark, before referred to, and hereunto appended. In the letter of General Clark, lhere are calm and disinterested .answers given .. to inquiries niade. by Mr. Harris. He says he has always ,considered the old Indiap boundary line as marking the norther~ a,s wel~ ~s part of the western boundary of Missouri, and refers to· the treaties wh~rem he acted as 01ie of the commissioners with Eteveral different tribes of Indians, i n all of ,vhich particular reference is made either to the northwest corner or i~he northern boundary of Missouri. But how different is the whole tenor' ,of Mr. Sc@tt's letter. Every line of it appears to me to show inte·rested motives. On the subject of the rapids of.the Des Moines river, Mr. Scott ·r emarks: "I applied to several for information, but more particularly to General William Clark, Major A. L. Langham, and General William Rec-1t or, then surveyor general. They all conc\ured that the Indian bouhdary line on the west extended"north, so that ail east line would pass through the Doc. No. 141. rapids of the river Des Moines, and ought to be the northern line of the State~ of Missouri, making the Missouri river run thwagh the centre of the State,,~ frofll west to east.; and they all concurred that there were. rapids in the Des Moi1rns river itself, some sixty miles from the mouth." The following is an extract from William ClarJ('s letter, which is so par--ticularly referred to in the above extract from Mr. Scott's letter: "I have always been of opinion that the rapids of the Mis~·issippi, just above the mouth of the river Des Moines, which were, at the. period when the conven-tion was held, as they still are, called the Des Moines rapids, · were the rapids contemplated by the convention, it being understood, as I presui:ne,-that the line nm by Colonel Sullivan, east from a point one hundred ~nl~s north of the mouth of the Kanzas; if c011tinued, would strike some pomt m those rapids." . . The following is also an ext.ract from Mr. Scott's letter: "I am ent_irely sure that the rapids sppken of in the bill, and intended by the comm~tt~e, were the rapids in the river Des Moines itself, and not rapids in the M~sis-sippi river, called, from their proximity to the mouth of the Des Momes r~ver, the 'Des J.V.Ioines rapids.' " Compare the two following extracts on the subject of the Indian bounda-ry: Mr. Scott says: "They (General Clark and others) all conc\med that the Indian boundary line on the west extended north, so that ·an east line would pass through the rapids of the river De~ Moines, and ought to be the 'north line of the State of Missouri.' " • , · , General Clark says:" The impre·ssion was very generally prevalent,~fter the adoption of the State constitution, that the survey of Colonel Sullivan not only designated a part of the western, but also the northern line of the State, and, in fact, that both were synonymous with the Indian boundm·y line. How these view's _came to be so generally entertained, if the conye?· _ tion really did not intend to adopt the survey in question throughout, 1t is, perhaps, now impo~sible to determine.'' It appears to me that, when th~ letters of Mr._ Scott, Mr. Milbourn, and General Clark, are. compared, they require no comment. There is one oth_er remar~ made in the letter of Mr. Scott that is worthy of notice, more for its absurd1t~ than for any other light in which it can be viewed. In speaking of the boundaries and the Des .Moines rapids, he tinishes that part of the letter thus: "making the Missouri river nrn through the centre of the State, from west to east." What his object could have been for making such remarks, 1 am totally at a loss to know. It cannot be that he is ignorant of that part of the State through which the Missouri river runs.; nor could he have ex-pected to impose ontofore referred to. and appended to this re-port, ( marked F ,) was· concluded with the Sac and Fox nations of Indians, from which the following is an extract: "Said tribes or nations hereby cede, relinquish, and forever quit claim unto the United States, all right, title, in--terest, and claim to the lands which the said Sac and Fox tribes have or. . claim ~ithin the limits of the State of Missouri, which are situated, lying,. a nd bem~ b_etween the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, and a line rmming· from the Missouri, a_t the entrance of Kanzas river, north one hundred miles, 24 Doc. No. 141. to the north \Ves.t corner of the State of Missouri, and from thence east to 1:he iVIississippi-it oeing understood that the small tract of land lying be-tween -the riv_ers Des Moines· aud the Mississippi, and the section of the abov·e line between the Mississippi and the Des Moines, is intended for the use of the half breeds belonging to the Sac and Fox nations, they holding it, however, by the same title and in the same manner that other Indian titles are held.'' lt will be seen that the small tract of land l'ying between the Mississippi and the Des Moines, on a line running east from the northwest corner of the State of Missouri, is reserved for the use of the half preeixty _miles ; and Gene-ral Rector made me out a map of the boundaries of the contemplated State, which was the only map before the committee .who reported the bill, and which map I be1i~ve lstill ~ave.in my old Congress papHs? and will try, on my return home, to furmsh you Wlth. .-I would hem remark, that the northern Indian boundary line had then b een run by Sullivan, and was deemed incorrect a1id badly done. I was chairman of the committee who reported the bill that passe·d into a law on 3 34' I Doc. No. 141. the 6th of Mil'rch, 1820. Judge Bald win, now on the hench of the Supreme Court, aNd Arthur Livermore, were with me on the c9mmittee. The others I do not now remember ; and should not these, probably, but for the fact that they sugg~sted, and particularly Livermore, the propriety to report a bill with restrictions as regards slavery, &c. After the bill had passed the Hou,se of Representatives and went to the Senate, it was attacked by Ru(ns King, of New York, on the ground of want of certainty in the lines . . He contende(l that the description was not 'mathematically ( kis own expression) correct ; that li'nes to correspond iµust be either the same or parallel; and I was, sent for to explain that part of the lipv which speaks of the corresponding lines. I ~vent and explained thus: that the ·western Indian line was to be extended north to the parallel of latitude that passes through the rapids of the river Des Moines, and that the meaning and correspondence intended was, that the extension of the western line north was to correspond in direction with the Indian line already established. This seemed satisfactory, and opposition was with-drawn. I am ·entirely sure that ,the-rapids spoken of in the bill, and intend-ed by the committee, ,vere the rapids in the Des Moines itselt~ and not the rapids in the Mississippi .river; called, from their proximity to the mouth of the Des Moiaes river, the Des Moines rapids. I am sati~fied that the committee who reported, and t_he convention who formed and adopted, the State constitution, and who assembled on the 12th of .Tune, and signed that instrument the 19th.of July, 1820, had reference, in forming the northern line, _to the .rapi<;is in the Des Moines river, and not those in the Mississippi river called the Des Moines rapiqs.-The words used in the act of 'Congress of the 6th of Match~ 18_20, and those used by the convention who framed the constitution, are the san_ie ; and I am not a ware that there is any discrepancy or difference of intent10n as to tae point in both named. I have alrctady stated. W'.e had no map but the one made for me by General Rector, then surveyor general; nor does the act of the 6th of March, 1820, in the heading of the constitution of the State, appear to me :to be of doubtful character or construction. From the northwest corner you are to start east, on the parallel of latitude which passes through thf3 rapids of the Des }.;Joines rfo~r, or rather" river Des Moines," and to follow that parallel (not to the Mississippi river, which would have been the wording, without reference to the crossing the Des Moines river if you were to run straight out to the Mississippi river) to the middle of the main channel of the main fork'of the said river Des Moines ; and there you stop, and change the course of the line down the Des Moines to its mouth, and thence resume your course east to the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi, which will make the line for the first time strike the Mississippi, and consequently leave the State line unclosed. The law speaks of the rapids of the river Des Moines, and not the Des Moines rapids. I am satisfied that the committee and Congress and the convention all meant and intended the rapids in . the river Des lJIIoines itself, which were then known to exist and spoken of, and not the rapids in the Mississippi river, called, by way of distinction from the upper rapids, the Des _Moines rapid . Very respectfully, your obedient servant, · JOHN SCOTT. Majur A. M. LEA. Doc. No .. 141. 35 F. Willia,m Clark, commissioner on the part of the United States,concluded a treaty with the chiefs and headmen of the Sac and Fox tribes of Indians ~t Washington citv, Auo-ust 4, 1834; and the first article read~ as follows: "ART. 1. The Sac ar~d Fox tribes or nations of Indians, by their depu-ta~ion, in council assembled, do hereby agree, in consideration of certain. sums of money, &c., to be paid to the said Sac and Fox tribes by the Gov-ernment of the United States, a.s hereinafter stipulated, to cede and forever quit claim, and do in behalf of their said tribes or nations hereby cede, relinqui_sh, and forever quit claim, unto the United States? all right, title, interest, and claim, to the' lands which the said Sac and Fox tribes have or claim within the limits of the State of Missonri, which are situ~ted, lying, and ,peing between the Mississippi a:nd Missouri rivers, and a line running from the Missouri, at the entrance of Kanzas river, north one ,hundred miles, to the northwest corner of the State of Missouri, and from thence east to the Mississippi-it being understood that the small tract of land-lying between the r-iver Des Moines and the Mississippi, and the section of the abov,e lin@ between the Mississippi and the Des Moines, is intended for the use of the half breeds belo,nging tq the Sac and Fox nations; they holding it, however, by the same title and in the same manner that other Indian titles are held." . G. The following is an extract from the 1st article of a treaty concludeq ~t 1 Bellevue, Upper Missouri, October 15, 1836, between John Dougherty and Joshua Pitcher, commissioners on the part of the United States, and the chiefs, brav_es, &c., of the Otoes and Missourias, (E.T. C., page 6~9.) "ART. 1. Whereas it has been r~presented that, according to the stipu-lations of the 1st article of the treaty of Prairie du Che in, of the 15th of Ju\y, 1830, the countr-y ceded is to be assigned and allotted, under the direction of the Presid~nt of the United States, to the tribes now living thereon, or such other tribes as the President may locate thereon, for hunting and other purposes." .• · , " And whereas it is -further represented to us, the chiefs, braves, and headmen, of ' the tribes ~foresaid, tha_t it is desirable that the lands lying betwe,en the Sta~e o( Missouri and the Missouri river, and son th of a line running due west . from· the northwest corner of said State,' until said line strikes the Missouri river, should be attached to and become a part of said State." · ' -. . In the same article the following is also found: "And willing, moreover, to give the United States a renewed evidence of our attachment and friend-ship, do hereby, for ourselves, ail.a on behalf of our respective tribes, (hav-in~ full power a~d authority to this effect,) forever cede, relinquish, ~nd qmt claim to the United_States, _all our right, title, and interest, of wha~soeve1· , nature, in and to the lands lying between the State of Missouri ·a:nd the Missouri rive,r, and south of a line running due w·est from the northwest corner of the State to the Missouri river, as hereiribefore m~ntioned," &c. Doc. No. 141. H. In a treaty concluded at Prafrie du Chien, by William Clark and Wil-loughby Morgan, commissioners on the part of the United States, and the-Sac and Fox Indians, the following may be found in the first article: "Art. 1. The said tribes cede and relinquish to the United Statesforever-all their right and title td the lands lying wtthin the following boundarie~,. to wit : Beginning at the upper fork of the Des Moines river, arid passing the sources of the Little Sioux and Floyd's rivers, to the fork of the first creek which falls into the Big Sioux, or Calumet, on the east side; thence ' down said creek and Calumef river to the Missouri river; thence down said Missouri river to the Missouri State line, above the Kanzas; thence along . said line . to the northwest corner of the said State; thence to the high-lands,'' &c. I. In a treaty concluded at St. Louis, June 3, 1825, between William Clark,, commissioner on the· part of the United States, and the chiefs of the Kan-zas tribe of Indians, the following is found in the first article: "Art. I. . The Kanzas do hereby cede to the United States .all the lands lying within the State of Missouri, to which the said nation have title or claim ; and do further cede and J'elinquish _to the said United St~tes all other lands which they now occupy, or to which they have title. or claim, lying west of the said State of Missouri, and within the followi~g boundaries: Reginning at the entrance of the Kanzas river into the Mis-sissippi river, from thence north to the northwest corner of the State of Missouri, from thence westwardly ," &c. J. ' AN A CT to establish an additional land offi~e in the S1ate of Missouri. Be it enacted by the Senate an(! House of Representatives of the Unit~rl States of .IJ.merica in Congress assembled, That so much of the p_ubl_ic lands of the United States included in the present district of ' St. Loms, _m the State of Missouri, as lies within the following boundaries, to wit; "Beginning on the Mississippi river, between townships numbered forty-eight and forty-nine, thence west to the range line between ranges ten and eleven, thence north to the township line between townships num~ered fifty-two aud three, thence west to the range line between ranges thirteeif and fourteen, thence north to the northern boundary line of the State 0 Missonri, thence east with the State line to the river Des Moines and . th~ State line to the Mississippi river, thence with and down the Mississ1~P1 river to the place of begin1'1ing, so as to include all islands within the limits of the State of Missouri," shall be formed into a new land district, t? ~e called_ "~he district of Salt river;" and for the sale of public land~ w1thm the d1stnct hereby constituted there shall be a land office established at such place within the said di;trict as the President of the United States may designate . P assed May 26, 1824. Doc. No. 141. 37 K. The first artic1~ of the cQnstitution of the. S_tate of Missouri : Art. I. We do declare, establish, ratify, and confirm the following, as the· permanent boundaries of said State, that is to say : " Beginning iii the middle of the Mississippi river, on the parallel of thirty-six degrees of north latitude ; thence . west along the said parallel of 1atitade to St. Francis 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 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 Kanzas 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 the said line correspond with the Indian bound~ry line ;_ thence east, from the point of intersection last aforesaid, along the said parallel of latitude, to the middie of the channel of the main fork of the said river Des Moines ; thence ··down and 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.''

Boundary of Missouri and Iowa

Abstract

Extracted data

Boundary of Missouri and Iowa

Abstract

Extracted data

Related items

Related items