50TH CoNGREss, } ROUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. {Ex. Doc. 1st Session. No. 21. REPORT TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE . INTERIOR, TRANSMITTING, With inclosures, the report of the comm·issioners appointed in pursuance of the ttet of J an·ua.ry ~1, 18t;5, to run the line between a portion of the In-dian Territory and the State of Texas. DECEMBER 16, H:!87.-Laid on the table and ordered to be printed. DEPARTMENT OF 'l'HE INTERIOR, Washington, December 9, 1887. SIR: Accompanying this letter I have the hon.or to transmit a copy of the report of the commission appointed by the President, in accord-ance with the act of Congress approved .Jan nary ·31, 188 ), to run and mark the boundary lines between a portion of tbe Indian Territory and the State of Texas, in connection with a similar commission appointed by the State of Texas. · The report is accompanied by 23 maps, viz: 1. Humboldt's map of New Spain, 1804. 16. Map of the Uuited States and Texas 2. William Darby's map, 181i;. boundary line, J. H. Clark, United 3. Melish's map, 1818. States couimissioner. 1857-1860. 4. Carey and Lea's map, 1818. 17. Capt. Z. M. Pike's n~ap of Louisiana. 5. Disturnell's map, 1846. 18. Capt. Z. M. Pike's map of New Spain, 6. Disturnell's map, 1847. 1807. 7. Lieut. William H. Emory's map, 1844. 19. Sheet No. 4, map of tPrritory of the 8. Maj. S. H. Long's map, l tl20. United States west of the Missis-9. Daniel C. Major's map, 1859. sippi, General H. G. Wright, 18~3. 10. Maj. G. L. Gillespie's map, 1876. 20. Map of the United States, by John 11. Extract from Pressler aud Langer- Melish, 1826. man's map of Texas. 21. Red and black map prepared by the 12. Capt. R. B. Marcy's map, 1852. United States Commission to ac-13. Map of Kansas, published b.'l: the State company report, ltl86. Board of Agriculture, 1886. 22. Red and blue diagram of the Texas 14. J. De Cad ova's map of Texas, 1849. Commission, G. R. J<'reeman. 15. Map of the lands owned by the New 23. The Texas laud-offine map of Deaf York and Texas Land Company, Smith and Randall counties. 1882. I ' 2 REPORT OF T:mXAS BOUNDARY CO:MMISS10N. The following letters of transmittal are also inclosed : 1. Letter dated December 15, 1886, signed by Mad. S.M. Mansfield and Lieut. Lansing H. Beach, with indorsement dated December 21, 1886, by W._ C. Endicott, Secretary of War. 3. Letter dated February 28, 1887, signed by Lieut. Lansing H. Beach. 4. Letter dated March 7, 1887, signed by William C. Endicott, Secretary oi War. 2. Letter dated March 4, 1887, signed by William C. Endicott, Secretary of War. 5. Letter dated March 4, 1887, signed by Lieut. Lansing H. Beach. The total number of inclosures, including the report of the commis-sion, is 29. · Very respectfully, L. Q. 0. LAMAR, Secretary. The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. [Office of the United States Commiss:on on boundary between the Indian Territory and Texas.] DETROIT, MICH., .December 15, 1886. SIR: The Commission appointed by the President in accordance with the act of Congress approved January 31, 1885, providing for the ap-pointment of one or more officers of the .Army, who, in conjunction with such person or persons as may be appointed by the State of Texas, shall ascertain and mark the point where the one hundredth meridian of lon-gitude crosses Red River, in accordance with the terms of the treaty of 1819 between the United States and Spain, has, as required by the · act of Congress, the honor to make report of its action in the premises by submitting herewith in full the record of its conference with the com-mission on the part of Texas. From the report it will be seen that the Commission has not yet been abre to effect a settlement of the controversy, the present condition of which is set forth in the following resolution: Resolved, That the joint commission having done everything possible under the circumstances, and being unable to proceed further with the work in hand, do now adjourn without day, and that each commission make its report to the proper au-thorities and await instructions. • Very respectfully, S. M. MANSFIELD, Major of Engineers, Bvt. Lieut. Col., U.S. A., Senior Member of Commission. LANSING H. BEACH, First Lieutenant of Engineers, Secretary of Commission. The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D. C. WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington City, March 4, 1887. SIR : I have the honor to inclose a letter, of the 28th ultimo, from First Lieut. Lansing H. Beach, Corps of Engineers, together with a REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 3 copy of the report of the Texas Boundary Commission and accompany-ing maps. · It 'will be observed from Lieutenant Beach's letter that it bas been impossible to obtain copies of Strum's two maps and Colton's map of ·Texas, 1872, which three maps were presented by the Commission on the part of 'fexas, and that the Texas land-office map of Deaf Smith and Randall counties bas not yet been received from Austin, but will be for-warded as soon as received. Attention is called to the fact that the original report, papers, and map, of which the accompanying are copies, were transmitted to the Department of the Interior December 21, 1886, and lost on the ay, and have not :ret been rPcovcred. Vei·y respectfully, your obedient ser~ant, WM. C. ENDICOTT, Secretary of War. The SECRETARY OF 1'HE INTERIOR. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, CUSTOM-HOUSE, Cincinnati, February 28, 1887. SIR: I have the honor to inform you that I have this day forwarded a copy of the report of the Texas Boundar.v Commission by express in two packages, one containing the teit and the other the accompanying maps. It has been impossible to obtain copies of Strum's two maps and Col-ton's map of Texas, 1872, which three maps were presented by the Com-mission on the part of Texas. The Texas land-office :map of Deaf Smith and Randall counties has not yet been received from Austin, but will be forwarded as soon as received. To save delay the rest of the report is transmitted without it. Very respectfully, LANSING H. BEACH, First Lieu,t. of Engineers. The CHIEF o:F ENGINEERS, United States .Army, Washington, D. C. WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington City, March 7, 1887. SIR: I have the honor to inclose a letter of the 4th instant from Lieut. Lansing H. Beach, Corps of Engineers, together with the inclosed tracing, to accompany the copy of the report of the Texas Boundary Uommission transmitted to you by War Department letter of the 4th instant. Very respectfully, yoq.r obedient servant, WM. C. ENDICOTT, . StJoretary of War~ 4 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 3224 RHODES A VENUE, Chicago, Ill., March 4, 1887. SIR: I have to inform you tha.t I have this day forwarded by mail a tracing from the Texas land-office map of Deaf Smith and Randall counties, which tracing forms one of the maps accompanying there-port· of the Texas Boundary Commission. Very respectfully, The CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, LANSING H. BEACH, First Lieutenant of Eng·ineers. United States Army, Washington, D. 0. II e REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. TUESDAY, Februm·y 23, 1886. The Commissions met at 10.30 a. m., and were called to order by Colonel Mansfield. Present, on behalf of the United States, Maj. S.M. Mansfield, brevet lieutenant-colonel U. S. Army; Maj. W. R. Livermore1 First Lieut. Thomas L. Casey, and First Lieut. Lansing H. Beach, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army; and on behalfofthe StateofTexas, Messrs. J. T. Breckenridge, W. S. Henderson, G. R. Freeman, and vV. H. Burges. After some discussion it was decided that each Commission was a unit in itself, and it was agreed that the two chairmen be empowered to draw up and adopt rules of proced-ure to govern all meetings of the Commissions. Adjourned at 11.30 a.m., subject to the call of the chairmen. LANSING H. BEACH, First Liet~tenant of Engineers, Secretary. ; THURSDAY, February 25, 1886. The Commissions met at 11.10 a. m., pursuant to the call of the chairmen. Present, all the members of both Commissions. Colonel Mansfield then presented the credentials of the members of the Commission on the part of the United States by reading the following act of Congress and orders of the President: ''CHAPTER XLVII. An act to authorize the appointment of a Commission by the President of the United States to run and mark the boundary lines between a portion of the Indian Territory and the State of Texas, in connection with a similar Commission to be appointed by the State of Texa"s. "Whereas the treaty between the United States and Spain, executed February 22, 1819, fixed the boundl.try line between the two countries west of the Mississippi River, as follows: Beginning on the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the Sabine River, in the sea, and continuing north along the western bank of the river to the thirty-second degree oflatitude; thence by a line due north to the degree of latitude where it strikes the Rio Roxo ofNachitoches or Red River; thence followingthecourseoftheRioRoxowestward to the one hundredth degree of longitude west from London, and the twenty-third from Washington; thence crossingthe said Red River, and running thence by a lineduenorth to the River Arkansas; thence following the course of th~ southern bank of the Arkansas to its source in latitude 42° north, and thence by that parallel of latitude to the South Sea; the whole being as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the 1st of January, 1815; and "Whereas a controversy exists between the United States and Texas as to the point where the one hundredth degree of longitude crosses the Red River as described in the treaty; and "Whereas the point of crossing has never been ascertained and fixed by any authority competent to bind the United States and Texas; and . " Whereas it is desintble that a settlement of this controversy should be had, to the end that the question of boundary, now in dispute because of a difference of opinion as to said crossing, may also be settled: Therefore, "Be U enacted by the Senate and House of Representat?"ves of the United States of .America t:n Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and is hereby, author-ized to detail one or more officers of the Army, who, in conjunction with such person or persons as may be appointed by the State of Texas, shall ascertain and mark the point where the one hundredth meridian of longitude crosses Red River in accordance with the terms of the treaty afor~said, and the person or persons appointed by virtue of this act shall make report of his or their action in the premises to the Secretary of the Interior, who shall transmit the same to Con~r(j~~ \lit the ne4t session thereof after &lJGh report may be madel for a.ctiou by Congrefls, . - 6 6 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. ''SEC. 2. That the sum of $10,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to be ex-pended under the direction of the War Department, be, and the same is hereby, appro-priated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated to pay the expenses of the United States in carrying out the provisions of this act. "Approved January 31, 1885." WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-'GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, September 24, 1885. The following order of the President is published for the information of all concerned: EXECUTIVE MANSION, Wash?:ngton, September 23, 1885. "Under a provision of an act of Congress entitled 'An act to authorize the appoint-ment of a Commission by the President of the United States to run and mark the bound-ary lines between a portion of the Indian Territory and the State of Texas, in connection with a similar Commission to be appointed by the State of Texas,' the following officers of the Army are detailed, in obedience to the provisions of said act of Congress, to act in conjunction with such persons as have been appointed by the State of Texas, to ascertain and mark the point where the one hundredth meridian of longitude crosses the Red River: Maj. W. R.Livermore, Corps of Engineers. First Lieut. Thomas L. Casey, jr., Corps ofEngin:)ers. First Lieut. Lansing H. Beach, Corps of Engineers. By order of the Secreta!y of War. Official: WM. J. VOLKMAR, .Assistant .Adjutant-General. "GROVER CLEVELAND." R. C. DRUM, Adjutant-General. WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, Octobe1· 26, 1885. The following order of the President is published for the information of all concerned: "EXECUTIVE MANSION, Wa,shington, October 24, 1885. "Under the provision of an act of Congress entitled 'An act to authorize the appoint-ment of a Commission by the President of the United States to run and mark the bound-ary lines between a portion of the Indian Territory and the State of Texas, in connection with a similar Commission to be appointed by the State of Texas,' Maj. S. N. Mansfield, Corps of Engineers, is detailed, in addition to those officers named in executive order dated September 23, 1885, in obedience to the _provisions of said act of Congress, to act in conjunction with such persons as have been appointed by the State of Texas, to ascer-tain and mark the po~nt where the one hundredth meridian of longitude crosses the Red River. By order of Secretary of War. Official: J. C. KELTON, .Assistant .Adjutant-General. ''GROVER CLEVELAND.'' R. C. DRUM, .Adjutant-General. Mr. Brackenridge then presented the credentials of the members of the Commission on the part of the State of Texas, reading the act of the Texas legislature, as follows, to wit: '' CHAPTER XI. "An act to provide for running and marking the boundary line between the State of Texas and the territory of the United States, from the northeast corner of said State to the degree of longitude 100 west from London and 23 degrees west from Washington as said line is described in the treaty between the United States and Spain of February 22, 1819, and for th~ payment of the expenses of such survey. " SECTION 1. Be it enacted by tlze Leg1'slature of the State of Texas, That the governor of this State be, and is hereby, authorized and empowered to appoint a suitable person, or persons, who, in conjunction with such person, or pers'ons, as may be appointed by or on REPORT 01!, TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 7 behalf of the United States, for the same purpose, shall run and mark the boundary lines between the Territories of the United States and the State of Texas, as follows: Begin-ning at a point where a line drawn north from the intersection of the thirty-second de-gree of north latitude with the western bank of the Sabine River crosses the Red River, and thence following the course of said river westwardly to the degree of longitude west from London and 23 degrees west from Washington, as said liue was l!lid down in Me-lish's map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the 1st of Janu-ary, 1818, and designated in the treaty between the United States and Spain, made Feb-ruary 22, 1819. ''SEc. 2. Said Joint Commission will report their survey, made in accordance with the foregoing section of this act, together with all necessary notes, maps, and other papers, in order that in fixing that part of the boundary between the Territories of the United States and the State of Texas the question may be definitely settled as to the true location of the one hundredth degree of longitude west from London, and whether the North Fork of Red River, or the Prairie Dog Fork of said river, is the true Red Ri,ver designated in the treaty between the United States and Spain, made February 22, 1819; an(l in locat-ing said line, said Commissioners shall be guided by actual surveys and measurements, together with such well-established marks, natural and artificial, as may be found, and such well authenticated maps as may throw light on the subject. ''SEC. 3. Such Commissioner, or Commissioners, on the part of Texas shall attempt to have said survey herein provided for by the Joint Commission made and performed be-tween the first day of July and the :first day of October, in the year in which such sur-vey is made, when the ordinary stage of water in each fork of said Red River may be observed; and when the main or principal Red River is ascertained as agreed upon in said treaty of 1819, and the point is fully designated where the one hundredth degree of longitude west from London, and twenty-third degree of longitude west from Washing-ton, crosses said Red River, the same shall be plainly marked and defined as a corner in said boundary, and said Commission shall establish such other permanent monuments as may be necessary to mark their work. ''SEc. 4. That the sum of $10,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro-priated, to carry out the provisions of this act: Provided, That the commissioner or com-missioners on the part of Texas shall act in making such survey under instructions from the governor of the State, and shall receive for their services such sum or sums of money as the governor may offer to pay, not to exceed the sum of $3,000 each: A.nd provided further, That the person or persons to be appointed and employed by the United States are not to be paid by the State of Texas. " SEc. 5. The facts that the settlement of the boundary of that portion of the State of Texas embracing Greer Connty will involve important public as well as private interests, which should be immediately settled, and that the present session is confined to thirty days, creates an imperative public necessity that the constitutional rule requiring that bills shall be read on three several days be suspended, and an emergency that this act take effect and be in force from and after its passage, and it js so enacted. "Approved May 2, A. D. 1882. '' Takes effect from passage.'' The commissioners on the part of the State of Texas then severally presented their commissions from the governor of the State. The rules of procedure agreed upon and adopted by the two chairmen were then read as follows, to wit: ''1. The senior member of the Commission appointed by the President of the United States and the chairman of the Commission appointed by the State of Texas shall con-jointly preside over all meetings of the Joint Commission. • "2. A member of either Commission desiring to address the Joint Commission, or to make a motion, shall apply to the chairman of the Commission of which he is a ;member. '' 3. The chairman may adopt such additional rules for the conduct and dispatch of business as may be from time to time deemed necessary. '' 4. The meetings of' the Joint Commission will be held at such a time and place as may from day to day be agreed upon by both chairmen, and no meeting of the Joint Commis-sion shall take place without such agreement, nor excepting betwee:h the hours of 10 a. m. and 3 p. m. If the two chairmen fail to agree upon a time and place of meeting, being a difficulty inherent in the nature of the Commission, it then becomes the duty of each chairman to report the result to the appointing power for instructions. "5. A motion to adjourn takes precedence of all other motions, and is made by any member to his own chairman. ''6. That the junior member of the United States Commission be required to keep the record of the Joint Commission, and each Commission, for its own convenience, may designate one of its members to act as its secretary. H. Ex. IS-61. 8 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. "7. No person not a member of the Joint Commission will be allowed to attend its meetings except such as the two chairmen may agree to admit for the purpose of giving evidence, or when invited by the Joint Commission. '' 8. In order to facilitate the proceedings of the Commission, every ~otion except for adjournment will be reduced to writing by the member who makes it. "9. Argument:'3 shall not be reduced to writing as part of the record. "10. All evidence decided to be relevant to the issues investigated shall be reduced to writing. '' 11. Oral testimony shall be taken down in the form of narrative and signed by the witness. "12. .Any member of the Commission may offer documentary evidence relevant to the issues investigated, such as maps, charts, surveys, sketches, acts of either government, reports of heads of Government or Departments and committees, and the same may be filed as a part of the record.'' Mr. Herndon then presented the following resolution: "That the affirmative of the issues in controversy is conceded to the United States, and the committee on the part of the United States shall have the opening and conclu-sion in presenting evidence and argument, and may offer all needful evidence in support of such issue or issues as may be formulated; and the State of Texas shall then offer all needful evidence and argument in support of its side of the issues as presented, and in case either party shall call a witness whose evidence it becomes necessary to take at once, the regular order may be suspended -for the purpose and such testimony taken, and then the regular order resumed.'' On motion of Major Livermore, the Joint Commission adjourned for ten minutes to enable each Commission to discuss the resolution separately, at the end of which time the two Commissions came together and the resolution was adopted. Adjourned at 12 m. to meet to-morrow at 10 a. m. The Commissions met at 10~40 a. m. Present: .All the members of both Commissions. LANSING H. BEACH, ' First Lieut. of Enqineers, S~cretary. FRIDAY, February 26, 1886. The Commissions then listened to the testimony of General Marcy, which it was de-sirable to take at this time, and which was as follows: ''.As the interrogatories that have been submitted to me involve so wide a scope that it would require much time and labor to answer them in detail, and as the answers to most of them are more fully set forth in my report of the exploration of Hed Hiver in 1852, than I could do at this time, it has occurred to me that a narrative of facts and opinions connected with the special subjects before the Commission might be more satis-factory than any other course. · ''If this meets the approbation of the gentlemen of the. Joint Commission, I remark, first, that in 1849 I was ordered to escort emigrants from Fort Smith, .Ark., to Santa Fe, N. Mex., en route to California, and on the 4th of April left Fort Smith with some 5 0 emigrants, following up the Canadian Hiver for about 200 miles through a timbered sectiOn, when we emerged into the plains upon the elevated ridge dividing the waters of the Canadian and the Washita Rivers. .And we continued upon this divide, passing the headwaters of the latter near the .Antelope Hills, and thence upon the continuation of the divide of the Red and Canadian Rivers for about 300 miles over a very smooth prairie, and our tracks seldom running out of sight of the Canadian Hiver, but a much greater distance from the Red River. .And I here remark that the ground upon both sides ott this divide was so cut up by ravines anrl washes that it would have been diffi-cult to have taken our wagons over any other track except directly upon the divide . .At length, however, the Canadian turned so much out of our course that we left it and struck a straight course for the Pecos River, and crossing at .Anton Chico we found a wagon road that led us to Santa l''e, N.Mex., 120 miles from the point of our departure at Fort Smith. ''Finding here that there was no direct wagon road to California, the emigrants were obliged to descend the Rio del Norte 300 miles to reach the Gila route, the only one then traveled. I accompanied them to where they struck this route, then left them and turned to the east at Dona .Ava, taking my party of soldiers directly back to Fort Smith via the headwaters of the Colorado, Brazos, and Trinity Rivers, making a most excellent wagon trail 904 miles in length, which was followed for several years after-wards by California emigrants. "In 1851 I was ordered to establish a militarypost as far out on the south sideofthe Canadian River as requisites for a garrison r.ould be · found, but I ad vised p}acing this post on the Washita Hiver, which was acceded to, and I established it near that stream and named it Fort .Arbuckle. REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION • 9 . ''The Washita was here about 75 yards wide, a deep and rapid stream, furnishing a good portion of water to Red River. It rises near the·Antelope Hills, within about 5 miles of the Canadian River, and enters Red River near Preston, Tex. "The detailed account of my exploration of the Red River, with descriptions of the country through which it flows, will be found in my report, which is before the Com-mission, and to which I beg leave to refer. As the time that has elapsed since I made that exploration (thirty-three years) is so great, many of the facts and events connect~ therewith have passed from my memory, but some matters relative to the objects for which this Commission was convened, as I understand, may not be found in the report. ''I have this morning for the first time, seen a copy of that portion of Melish's map of the United States embracing the part of the Red River country which the Commission has under consideration at this time, which is authenticated by the signature of the Sec-retary of State of the United States. Upon this map only one large fork of Red River is delineated, with one more northerly small affluent, which is not named, but may have been intended for the Washita River or Cache Creek. But none ofthe important south-ern tributaries, such as the Big Witchita, Pease River, and the Prairie Dog Town River are delineated thereon, unless the stream marked as the "Rio San Saba," is designed for the Prairie Dog Town branch, and as the rflal Rio San Saba of Texas is 500 miles or there-abouts distant from this locality, it does seem improbable that if the maker of the map had any vague conception of the existence of such a stream as the Prairie Dog Town River, he might have intended this as such. It certainly runs as far as the section of the map shows it nearly in the direction of that branch of the Red River, and is put down as rising near the eastern border of the Staked Plain, but the small section of the map does not show where it runs. ''I regarded the Prairie Dog Town branch as the main Red River,for the reason that its bed was much wider than that of the North Fork, although the water only covered a · small portion of its bed, and as the sandy earth absorbed a good deal of the water it de-bouched from the ca.fion through which it flows, it may not contribute any more water to the lower river than the North Fork. The Prairie Dog Town branch and the North Fork of Red River from their confluence to their sources are of about equal length, the former being 180 miles and the latter 177 miles in length. For reasons which I will presently state, I have been unable to resist the force of my own convictions that the branch of Red River that I call the North Fork of that stream was what is designated upon Melish's map as "Rio Roxo." I doubt if the Prairie Dog Town River was ever known to civilized men prior to my exploration in 1852, and if it was ever mapped. be-fore then I am not aware of it. ''The character of the country through which this stream flows is such that travelers would not have been likely to pass over it when there was a mnch more favorable route nor~h of the North Fork. The water in the Prairie Dog Town branch from its confluence with the North Fork to within 2 miles of its head spring (about 180 miles) I found so bitter and unpalatable that many of my men became sick from drinkin~ it. But one pool of fresh water was found throughout the entire distance, and the Indians told me they never went up this stream with their families if it could be avoided, for the Ieason that the nauseous water frequently proved fatal to their children. Hence it is not sur-prising that but little if anything should have been. known of this repulsive region be-tore my exploration in 1852, and this probably accounts for the entire absence of most of the southern branches upon Melish's map. "It is very certain that the Prairie Dog Town River was never delineated upon any of our maps or designated by any Spanish, French, or English name, as were most of the other streams in that country, and it was only known to the Indians, and possibly to some Mexi-can traders, as the 'Keche-ah-qui-ho-no,' a Comanche appellation, the signification of which the Delawares informed me was Prairie Dog Town River. I was informed in New Mexico that the Mexicans were the only semi-civilized people who for many years ventured into the Comanche and K,iowa country, and they ori.ly went there for traffic, transporting their merchandise in ox-carts from Santa Fe, along the identical track which I followed in escorting California emigrants from Arkansas in 1849, wh~re, as I said before, we found for the greater part of the way a perfectly smooth prairie surface upon a high divide, admir-ably adapted to wagon travel, with abundance of good wood, water, and grass for camping purposes, and upon this route deep Mexican cart tracks, made when the ground was soft many years previous, were observed, showing that the route had been traveled for a lolig time; but no such tracRs, roads, or trails were seen within the valley of Prairie Dog Town River, and no evidences of Indians having frequented that section were noticed there. As before stated, owing ,to the absence of good water, the sandy character of the soil along this river, and the formidable obstruction presented by the elevated and sta~d plain and the extensive beds of gypsum crossing this route, the Mexicans would never have attempted to traverse it with their carts in their trading expeditions from Santa Fe to Nacogdoches, especially when there was so good a route a little further north possess-ing all the requisites for ~rairie traveling, 10 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. ''The Rio Rojo or Roxo upon Melish's map is almost entirely south and west of the Witchetaw Mountains but in close proximity to them, whi~h is in accord with my de-termination of the position of the North Fork, while there are no mountains upon the Prairie Dog Town branch. "The head of the Rio Roxo upon Melish's map is put down as in about latitude 37° while upon my map the true latitude is 25~0 ; while the Prairie Dog Town River rises in altout latitude 34~0 ; so that if his Rio Roxo was intended to represent the "Prairie Dog Town River," it; would be 2t 0 of latitude too far north. "Owing to the imperfection of our instruments for the determination of longitude we did not place implicit reliance in the accuracy of our conclusions regarding the 100° oflongitude, although a series of observations upon lunar distances were taken. But as Captain McClellan was unable to procure a chronometer from the Engineer De-partment at Washington, he was obliged to substitute therefor a pocket lever watch, which probably accounts for the error in the determination of the longitude at the one-hundredth meridian, but the latitudes given upon my map were the results of from twelve to fifteen observations of Polaris for the determination of each position, and are believed to be correct. "I passed over the traders' overland route from the Missouri River to Santa Fe first in 1867, striking the Arkansas River near Fort Larned, about 75 miles from Fort Dodge. The road I traveled up the Arkansas keeps altogether upon the north bank of the river, and, with the exception of 10 miles, in the river bottom. It continues for several hun-dred miles to Pu.eblo, whenitturnstothe south and traversesthe mountains through the Raton Pass, thence to Las Vegas and Santa Fe. This is one of the traders' routes from the Mis~ouri River and Independence, Mo., which for many years was the eastern ter-minus of their route. This was a broad, smooth, natural road, and many large trains of merchandise passed over it annually.. Another road called the Cimmaron route was some-times traveled by the traders, which only followed up the Arkansas a short ' distance above Fort Dodge, where it crossed, and leaving the river passed entirely around the mountains, uniting with the Raton Mountain road on the southwest side of the moun-tain. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad runs up the Arkansas River upon the old Raton Mountain track to the base ofthe mountains near Fort Larned, then turns more south, passing over a spur of the Raton chain. "A great deal of the trade with Northern Mexico for many years passed from Inde-pendence over these roads, extending as far south as Chihuihui, and the Spanish governor of New Mexico. levied toll upon all that passed down from Santa Fe. " ,When I visited Santa Fe first, in 1849, the trade from the Missouri River over the traders' route from Independence to Santa Fe and Northern Mexico was and for many years previous had been in successful prosecution, and, as I understood afterwards, it con-tinued to Chihuihui until this trade was in a measure transfer-red to San Antonia, Tex. "It is true that what appears on late maps as the Elm Fork of Red River and flowing into the North Fork, was named by me 'Salt Fork', and so designated on my map, and the stream called 'Salt Fork' and flowing into the South Fork of Red River· was named 'Gypsum Creek,' and so styled on my map. "Respectfully submitted. "R. B. MARCY." "Sworn to and subscribed before me by R. B. Marcy this 26th day of February, A. D. 1886. [SEAL.) ''I. LOVENBERG, H Notary Public for Ga.lveston County, Tex." Here the Texas Commission ceased to inquire, and in answer to questions propounded by Commission of United States witness states as follows, to wit: "I do not know what means Melish had for delinea.ting the course of Upper Red River upon his map, but think it was for the most part compiled from hearsay, and it is possible that the courses of smp.e other stream may have been thought to flow into Red River. "Respectfully submitted. '' R. B. MARCY." "Sworn to and subscribed before me by R. B. Marcy, this 26th daiof February, A. D. 1886. . [SEAL.] "I. LOVENBERG, "Notary Public for Galveston County, Tex." 'fhe Commissions then, at 1 p. m., adjourned to meet Wednesday, March 3, at 10 o'clock a. m. 1 LANSING H. BEACH, First Lieutenant of Engineers, Secretary. REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 11 WEDNESDAY, March 3,1886. The Commission on the part of the United States met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m., and receiving the following telegram. 11 AUSTIN, TEX., 3-2. "Colonel Herndon is called to his dying mother at Denton. ing one day. This will delay our com• "J. T. BRACKENRIDGE. '' Colonel MANSFIELD, "Care Tremont Hotel, Galveston." Adjourned to 'meet to-morrow at 10 a. m. LANSING H. BEACH, First Lieutenant of Engineers, Secretary. THURSDAY, March 4, 1886. The Commissions met pursuant to adjournment at 10.55 a. m. Present, all the members of both Commissions except Mr. Herndon, of the Texas Com-mission, who telegraphed that be would be unable to arrive before noon Friday. The secretary then read the following statement of the United States Commissioners: ''The records of the meeting February 25 show that we have been detailed by the Presi-dent of the United States to act in conjunction with the Commission appointed by the State of Texas to ascertain andmark the pointwheretheonehundredthmeridian oflon-gitude west from London crosses the Red River, in accordance with the terms of the treaty between the United States and Spain, executed February 22, 1819. "Some time after the publication of the order of the President, the governor of Texas requested that the terms of the order should be modified. He sa,ys: ' The ascertainment of the point where the true one hundredth meridian crosses Red River was an easy task, one that well-known rules of mathematics and astronomy could aid in ascertaining. It was capable of demonstrating and incapable of furnishing any grounds of misunderstand-ing between the two Governments. The agents of both parties could ascertain it.' (Let-ter of Governor Ireland, Appendix A.) "It is hoped that the Commissioners from Texas agree with Governor Ireland in this view. ''In reply the honorable Secretary of War wrote that the matter had been laid hefure the President, and said: 'The executive orders in the case, copies ofwhich have been furnished you, .are considered to include all that you suggest in the matter and all that is r~quired by the act of Congress. The Commission is to perform the duty prescribed by the act of Congress, and the orders do not and should not limit the extent of the process of the Commission.' (Letter of the Secretary ofWar, Appendix B.) "It is then only necessary to. consider the terms of the treaty before proceeding to-gether to make a more accurate determination of longitude than was practicable in 1859, owing to the want of telegraphic communication. The terms of the treaty require that the whole shall be as laid down in Melish's map, and in order that we may act in harmony as far as possible with the commissioners from Texas, it is proper to consider, first of all, bow this provision may be carried out to the fullest extent. "Ori the accompanying map is represented in red ink an exact copy ofMelish's map of 1818, and in black the true course of the priRcipal streams and a few other topograph-ical details. ''It has long been known that Melisb's map was but a most imperfect representation of the country. Governor Ireland says: 'It was well known no doubt to both contract-ing parties that Melisb's map was not correct. He knew that there was a Red River in Louisiana, and that it bad a source, but where the source was, or the tributaries or branches, if any, were wholly unknown to him and to the contracting parties. This is the conclusion drawn from the language of the treaty.' The governor further says: 'The true meridian was stable, and so was the stream referred to. But being conscious of the errors of Melisb's map, and that it would not stand the test of demonstration, but hav-ing it before them, they undoubtedly intended that the boundary should be at the point where Melish showed the one hundredth. meridian on Red River.' This point is marked on the red and black map with a star, and is found in latitude 33° 551 or thereabouts, and on or near the Big Wichita River. As suggested by Governor Ireland, if the com-missioners of the United States and Spain in dividing up the land between the two coun-tries were guided by the po~ition of Red IUver as laid rlown in the map affixed to the treaty, they intended to assign to the United States about 15,000 square miles of ter-ritory over and above that which bas ever been claiTDed, for the boundary as defined by Red River is represented 40 or 50 miles south of the true course of this river. 12 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. " It appears from the records in our possession that a commission was appointed by the. President of the United States, under the act of Congress June 5, 1858, to survey the boundary line between the United States and Texas, in connection with a like commission on the part of Texas. In the year 1859 the joint commission on the part of the United States and the State of Texas commenced work together on the Rio Grande, but the Texas commissioner did not remain long in the field, on account of personal differences between himself and the United States commissioner. A new Texas commissioner came and as-sisted in the survey of a part of the west bou:adary, or one hundred and third meridian, west longitude.' In the month of April, 1859, under a contract betweenJonesand Brown and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, an astronomical survey was made of the one hundredth meridian west from Greenwich, being the boundary line between the Choctaw and Chickasaw country and Texas. The initial point of the boundary was determined to be at the intersection ofsaid meridian with what is designated upon the maps of the General Land Office. as Red River, and a monument was established 30 chains due north from the north bank of said river. The following extract is taken from the field notes of such survey: 'The river due south from monument is 76 chains and 85 links wide from high-water mark to high-water mark; while the North Fork of Red River is 23 chains wide. It will be sufficient to say to those interested that there can be no doubt as to the fact of its being the main branch of Red River, as was doubted by some persons with whom we had conversed relative to the matter before seeing it, for the reason the channel is larger han all therestofits,tributariescombined, besidesaffordingitsequalshare of water, though, tlike the other branches, in many places the water is swallowed up by its broad and ex-tensive sand beds; but water can in any season of the year be ob.tained from 1 to 3 feet from the surface in the main bed of the stream.' Captain Marcy in his report and map also specifies it as the Ke-che-ah-que-ho-no, or main Red River. "This determination was at once questioned by the governor of Texas. Commission-ers appointed on the part of the United States and of Texas proceeded to their work in May and June, 1860. Governor Sam Houston, of Texas, instructed the commissioner of that State as follows: 'In the prosecution, then, of the survey, you will be guided by Melish's map, and insist upon the North Fork as the main Rio Roxo, or Red River, and as the true boundary line as described in the treaty of 1818.' He refers in his let-ter of instructions to the Marcy survey, and claims that Marcy was clearly of the opinion that the North Fork was the true Rio Roxo, or Red River proper, and further claims that said map ofMelish's lays down the North Fork asthemainprong. The commissioners were unable to agree, the one on the part of the United States claiming that at and across the~Red River and to a point about half way from the North Fork to the Canadian. River the line had been definitely located by Messrs. Jones and Brown the year before, and that nothing now remained but to extend the line north to latitude 36° 301 , its northern extremity. To this the commissioner on the part of Texas objected. and the latter proceeded south to the North Fork and placed a monument thereon on the north bank, 15 feet in diameter and 7 feet high, claiming that as the true southwest corner of Indian Territory, and reported his doings to the governor of Texas. The United States commissioner retraced the line and confirmed the location of the monument on Prairie Dog Town Fork. ''Messrs. Brown and Jones had no doubt of the south being the main branch. The reasons they give seem to be conclusive. The width of the South Fork at the one hun-dredth meridian is 76 cba.ins and 85 links; that of the North Fork 23 chains. The field notes of the commissioner on the part of the United States, acting under the act June 5, 1858, of the date of August 29, 1860, say the channel of the North Fork is only 25 chains and 44 feet; and that he found 'no water on the surface, i.e. river bed, but it is found by digging 2 feet 3 inches below the surface.' While in his field notes of August 30 he says: 'Struck main Red River. Main Red River where crossed, 65 chains and 38 feet; channel of running water 22 feet, 6 inches deep. Plenty of long, large lagoons of water in the bed besides the running channel.' "The Judiciary Committee of the House, to whom was referred H. R. 1715, in their report, No. 1282, Forty-seventh Congress, first session, to accompany House resolution No. 223, state that if the data which they had been considering are correct, there would seem to be no doubt of the claim of the United States to the tract in dispute, and the committee reports adversely on the bill. But for reasons stated, the committee were of the opinion that the State should be beard and given an opportunity to co-operate with the United States in settling the facts upon which the question in dispute rests. "The act of the Texas legislature authorizing the appointment of the Commission from their State has in view the exact location of the me-ridian, and the determination 'whether the North Fork or the !'rairie Dog Town Fork is the true Red River desig-nated in the treaty,' and directs that-" 'SEc. 3. Such commissioner, or commissioners, on the part of Texas shall attempt to have said survey herein provided for by the Joint Commission made and performed be-REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 13 tween the 1st day of July and the 1st day of October of the year in which said survey is made, when the ordinary stage of water in each fork of said Red River may be observed.' ''The United States commissioners are ready to co-operate in these astronomical and hydraulic determinations, and would recommend that the examination be extended over a year or more, if no other criterion will finally determine which of the two forks is the main Red River. "The Texas commissioners are also required by act of legislature to examine maps, etc., and that we may co-operate with them as far as possible, and give them the ad-vantage of all records and knowledge at our command, we will first examine the map of Mr. Melish to which so much importance has been attached. We have already found by superposition ti:J.at the treaty map does not correspond with the true delineation of the country, which, so far as concerns the location of the larger streams and mountains, is no longer uncertain or indefinite. It is true that the treaty only takes cognizance of what Mr. Melish, the pnblisher,.laid down on his map, and not of what he intended to represent, for the latter is to a certain extent hypothetical, and not, perhaps, so clear as to settle the boundary to the satisfaction of all parties. But many whose opinions are entitled to great respect have fancied that the upper course of the stream bore a great resemblance to the North Fork, and others to the Prairie Dog Town Fork of the Red River. We wish to disclaim any opinion based solely upon a theory that Mr. Melish, or his authorities, thought that the tortuous stream descending from the neighborhood of Taos represented any of the particular forks of the Red River as we now know them. Such fancied resemblances often have the appearance and force of reality to the minds of those who discover them. For example, Governor Houston, in 1860, thought that Melish's map laid down the North Fork as the main prong, and he appears to ha,-e been well satisfied that 'its prominent features' helped to 'establish this fact.' Accordingly in appointing a commissioner to co-operate with the one for the United States, he in-structed him to locate his monument, not according to his judgment in the field, but accOTding to the governor's preconceived theory. Others fully as sincere as Governor Houston have identified this river of Mr. Melish with the North Fork, the South Fork, the False Washita, the Pecos, and the Canadian Rivers, and some have noticed the striking resemblance of its upper or middle course to the big bend of the Rio Grande. "While the United States Commissioners fully believe that the Prairie Dog Town Fork of the river corresponds most nearly with the Red River as laid down on this map, they do not mean to claim that Mr. Melish was aware of it. An examination of the map shows that Mr. Melish, the publisher, was indebted for this part of it to the New Spain of the celebrated Baron Von Humbolt, who derived hisknowledgeofthe country from the Mexicans. No one appreciated better than he the folly of the early geogra-phers of this country. He says: 'It is a false application of theprinc~plesofhydrography when geographers attempt to determine the chains of mountains in countries of which they suppose they know the course of rivers. They suppose that two great basins of water can only be separated by great elevations, or that a considerable river can only change its direction when a group of mountains oppose its course. They forget that fre-quently the most elevated beds give rise to no water, while the sources of the most con-siderable rivers are distant from high chains of mountains. Hence the attempts which have hitherto been made to construct maps from theoretical ideas have never been very successful.' Yet so strong is the tendep.cy of the human mind to construct and gener-alize that Humboldt himself had his theory of mountain systems, and he has been accused by more patient topographers of 'attempting to figure the whole North Ameri-can continent from the results of a few excursions into Mexico.' The compiler of the surveys for the Pacific railroads complains that mountain ridges have sometimes been improvised for the occasion, and the want of facts supplied by generalizations and ideal connections. Confusion and error have thus resulted, rendering much study necessary toseparate the ascertained from the assumed. And it is said that in no country has hypo-thetical geography been carried to such an extent or been attended with more disastrous consequences than in .the United States. According to Humboldt's theory, the Rocky Mountain chain stood in the same relation to the northern half of the continent that the Andes did to the southern, and this may have led to the conclusion that 'in the north-ern part of New Mexico, near Taos, and to the north of that city, rivers take their rise which run into the Mississippi. The Rio de Pecos is probably the same with the Red River of Natchitoches, and the Rio Napestle is perhaps the same river which further east takes the name Arkansas.' {New Spain, Vol. II, p. 214, New York, 1811.) From his account of Texas {pp. 186 to 190) it appears that the country north of the Colorado of Texas was uninhabited. The knowledge of its geography did not extend far beyond the banks of this river, but the parties sent out from the mission of San Saba would bring back some information about the neighboring streams. By examining the red and black map it will be seen that in this reglon the Red River as laid down by Melish coincides with the Brazos, and corresponds with it in general shape and in distance from San Saba. The 14 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. Brazos de Dios of Melish shows the Clear and Elm Forks of the Brazos as they would ap-pear to the Mexicans, and the forks of Melish's Red River coincide exactly with the Double Mountain and Salt Forks as they flow from the breaks of the Staked Plain. The deep red color of the water of these forks, as well as their general direction, led the early settlers to mistake them for the Red River of Natchitoches, and it is probable . that the Red River of Melish and Humboldt was formed by tracing the upper course from near Taos and to the north of that point across the unexplored regions of the Staked Plain to the Red River north of San Saba, and from this river to the borders of Louis:. iana, where it coincides, as well as can be expected, with the 'River of Natchitoches,' to which he refers. ''The orthography of Indian names has never been as inflexible as that of more civilized nations, and the rivers represented on modern maps as Big and Little Wichita are spelled indifferently Washita or Ouachita by the early writers. "For the object of this Commission it is hardly necessary to examine other errors in this map, but the topographer may find interest or diversion in comparing the ranges of mountains with the break of the Staked Plain, and considering whether they were in-tended to represent these declivities, or whether they were inserted in accordance with the theories ·above mentioned, viz, to divide the mountain streams and to account for the change of direction at the big bends. ''SUMMARY. "Leaving out of consideration all other streams that may appear to coincide with the fictitious representation of the Red River, our instructions, as well as those of the Com-mission on the part of Texas, require us to direct our efforts to determine 'whether the North Fork of Red River or the Prairie Dog Town Fork of said river is the true Red River designated in the treaty.' Our first duty appears to be to test the accuracy of those reports that to the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives appeared sufficient to fix the boundary at the Prairie Dog Town Fork, and if they prove to be erroneous, then to decide which of the two forks above mentioned is the longer, which drains the greater area, which shows the greater flow of water at the one hundredth meridian, at the junc-tion, and throughout its course, and which corresponds more nearly with the boundary as laid down on Melish's map. If it then appears that the main or Prairie Dog Town Fork is also nearer to the boundary as laid down, we should determine the meridian and place the monument. ''In the present stage of the investigation it appears to the United States Commissioners that all these conditions are best satisfied by the Prairie Dog Town Fork, for the follow-ing reasons: '' (1)' It corresponds more nearly in position with the Red River as laid down in Melish's map. "(2) It corresponds more nearly in direction with the Red River as laid down on Melish's map at its intersection with the one hundredth meridian west from London. "(3) It corresponds more nearly in direction with the main course of the Red River than the North Fork. . "(4) It is a longer stream; its source is further from the mouth and from the junction of the two forks, and it probably affords a greater development. "(5) It is wirler and deeper at its intersection with the one hundredth meridian, and contains more water. "'(6) It drains a larger area. "(7) It appears to be wider and deeper, and throughout the year to contribut~ more water to the stream below. "The reasons for forming these conclusions will now be briefly stated under the cor-responding number. "(1) The North Fork lies about 80 miles north of the stream as laid down on M lish's map; the Prauie Dog Town Fork about 40 miles. "(2) The North Fork, from the one hundredth meridian to the junction, differs in di-rection from the stream o:n Melish's map by 30°, the Prairie Dog Town Fork by 10°; from the one hundredth meridian to the ninety-ninth meridian, the North Fork by 30°, the Prairie Dog Town Fork by 0°; from the one hundredth meridian to the ninety-eighth meridian, the North Fork by 15°, the Prairie Dog Town Fork by 6°; from the one hundredth meridian to the ninety-seventh meridian, the North Fork by 12°, the Prairie Dog Town Fork by 5°; from the one hundredth meridian to the ninety-sixth meridian, the North Fork by 8°, the Prairie Dog Town Fork by 4°. Beyond this the advantage is all with the Prairie Dog Town Fork. "(3) From the one hundredth meridian to the junction the two forks make the fol-lowing angles with the river below: To ninety-eighth meridian, North Fork50°1 Prairie REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 15 Dog Town Fork 5°; to ninety-seventh meridian, North Fork 50°, Prairie Dog Town Fork 0°; to ninety-sixth meridian, North Fork 48°, Prairie Dog Town Fork 3°. " ( 4) The source of the Red River was determined by Captains Marcy and McClellan to be west of the one hundred and third meridian, but Mr. Clarke, United States Co~missioner, surveying the line, found no ~ater in the arroyos on this meridian. Captain Clous, acting engineer officer for General Mackenzie, from observations with a sextant, placed the source at latitude 32° 441 , longitude 102° 451 • This is the latest and best in-formation we have. It makes the total length of the Prairie Dog Town Fork 200 miles in a straight line from its source to the junction. That of the North Fork is 125 miles. The road that follows the course of the North Fork is estimated by Captain Marcy at 177 miles. According to the latest maps it is 180 miles. Captain Marcy estimated the road along the Prairie Dog Town Fork at 180 miles; the latest maps show it to be 220 miles. "(5) the evidence in favor of the Prairie Dog Town Fork at its intersection with the one hundredth meridian has already been quoted, and may here be recapitulated as follows: · Width of North Fork. Width of Prairie Dog Town Fork. Brown and Jones ... .. ....... ............ .. ... .................................... 23 chains ... .. ... .. ....... 76 chains 8.'5 links. United States Commissioner in 1860...... ......... ................... 25 chains 44 feet. .. ... 65 chains 38 feet. "The United States Commissioner reported that he found in the North Fork no water on the surface, and in the Prairie Dog Town Fork water 22 feet wide and 6 inches deep. '' (6) According to the latest map issued by the Chief of Engineers, which has been care-fully compared with the best information we possess, the area drained by the two forks is as follows: North Fork, 4,560 square miles; Prairie Dog Town Fork, 9,420 square miles. ''(7) No exact measurements have been made of the flow of the water throughout the year, but the fact that the Prairie Dog Town Fork drains twice as large an area makes it highly probable. The evidence of Jones and Brown, already quoted, and all others that we have been able to collect, tends to confirm this view, and to show also that its river bed is wider. In the case of navigable streams the annual discharge is often taken as a criterion for determining the main fork or channel, but with other streams the area that it drains has been held conclusive. · "We do not make these assertions dogmatically, but in the light of our present knowledge, and in the conscientious belief in their truth and accuracy. We know that many have claimed for· the North Fork some of the points that we claim for the Prairie Dog Town Fork, and with a sincere belief in the accuracy of their own views. "We are open to conviction on all points, and would be glad to bear from the Texa-s Commissioners a statement as frank and explicit as ours upon these points and others that appear to them to bear upon the problem before us, in order that we may bring our differences within as narrow scope as possible, and thereby reduce the labor and ex-pense of the field operations necessary to decide them. S. M. MANSFIELD, Major of Engineers, Bvt. Lieut. Col. U. S. Army. W. R. LIVERMORE, Major of Engineers. THOS. L. CASEY, First Lieut. of Engineers. LANSING H. BEACH, First Lieut. of Engineers. Adjourned at 11.40 a. m. to meet to-morrow at 2 p. m. LANSING H. BEACH, FiTst Lieut. of Engineers, Secretary. FRIDAY, March 5, 1886. 'l;'he Commission met, pursuant to adjourument, at 2.25 p. m. Present: All the members of both Commissions. Adjourned at 2.55 p. m. to meet to-morrow at 10 a. m. LANSING H. BEACH, First Lieut. of Engineers, Secretary. 16 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. SATURDAY, March 6, 1886. The Commission on the part of the United States met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., and, receiving a request from the Commission on the part of Texas for further time, adjourned to meet at the call of the chairman. · LAN'SING H. BEACH, First Lieut. of Engineers, Secretary. TUESDAY, JJfarch 9, 1886. The Commission met, pursuant to call of the chairman, at 2.10 p. m. Present: All the members uf both Commissions. The Secretary of the Texas Commission then read the following: [Office of Joint Commission on Boundary between the United States and the State of Texas.] GALVESTON, TEX., March 8, 1886. SIR: Under the rules and resolutions adopted by the Joint Commission for its pro-cedure and government your Commission has formulated and presented to the Texas Com-mission the issues on the question of boundary on the part of the United State~, the affirmative of which you propose to maintain .by evidence and argument, and said issues and a statement of your case have become a part of the record. In answer to these is-sues the Commission on the part of Texas, for the purpose of narrO\.Ying the controversy to the fewest possible propositions consistent with the grave duties imposed and the re-sult to be attained, Tespecttully submit a statement of the acts creating the Joint Com-mission and prescribing its action, the positions assumed as conceded and requiring no proof, and the issues and claims of Texas, which will be supported by evidence and ar-gument. STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS. The act of Congress approved January 31, 1885, quoting from the treaty between the United States and Spain made 22d February, 1819, on the boundary line, and adopt-ing the same as part of the act, says: "Beginning on the Gulf of Mexico at th~ mouth of the Sabine Hi ver, in the sea, and continuing north along the western bank of that river to the thirty-second degree oflatitude, thence by a line due north to the degree of latitude where it strikes the Rio Roxo of Nachitoches or Red River; thence following the course of the Rio Hoxo westward to the one hundredth degree of longitude~west from London and the twenty-third from Washington; thence crossing the said Red River and running thence by a line due north to the river Arkansas; thence following the course of the southern bank of the Arkansas to its source in latitude forty-two degrees north; and thence by that parallel of latitude to the South Sea; the whole being as laid down in Melish's map of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the 1st of January, 1818; and "'Whereas a controversy exists between the United States and Texas as to the point where the one hundredth meridian of longitude crosses the ·Red River as described in the treaty; and "Whereas the point of crossing has never been ascertained and fixed by an-y author-ity competent to bind the United States and Texas; and ''Whereas it is desirable that a settlement of· this controversy should be had, to the end that the question of boundary, now in dispute because of a difference of opinion as to said crossing, may also be settled: Therefore, "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and is hereby, authorized to detaiJ ·one or more officers of the Army, who, in conjunction with such person or per-sons as may be appointed by the State of Texas, shall ascertain and mark the point where the one hundredth meridian of longitude crosses Red River, in accordance with the terms of the treaty aforesaid.'' And the legislature of Texas passed an act approved May 2, 1882, on the same subject, to wit: "SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the legislature of the State of Texas, That the governor of this State be, and is hereby, authorized and empowered to appoint a suitable person or persons who, in conjunction with such person or persons as may be appointed hy or on behalf of the United States tor the same purpose, shnditions as' described 1n the statement of the proposition is denied; because the same was ascertained and located without the knowl-edge or presence of Texas, was made ex parte and contradicts the location of said merid, ian line by Melish's map, made part of the treaty, which fixes the one hundredth degree of west longitude on said map relative to certain well-known and permanent natural objects, such as the great bend of the Arkansas River, the mouth of the Canadian Hiver, where it empties into the Arkansas; the range of Wichita Mountains, stretching along the course of the Rio Roxo on the east and north side thereof; the bend of the Red River to the northward as shown on said map, the watershed and great basin toward the source of Red River. These and others then and now exist and no doubt influenced and con-vinced the framers of the treaty that the degree of west longitude was far to the east-ward of the location of said meridian now cot:tended for by the United States. And this location of said meridian claimed also contmdicts the finding and location thereof made hy the United States under the direction of Capt. R. B. Marcy in 1852. And upon the said issue presented on the part of the Uniteu States, the Texas Commission reserve the right any time during the progress of these proceedings to offer evidence and argument in support of said meridian being located according to Melish's·map made part of the treaty. II. By the terms of the issues presented it is affirmatively alleged and declared that the South Fork or Praire Dog Town Fork of Red River is and was the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches or Red River described in the treaty of 1819. This is denied. On the con-trary it is alleged and claimed on the part of Texas that the true "Rio Roxo of Natchi-toches" or "Red River," described in the said treaty and delineated on Melish's map, was what was named and styled the North Fork of Red River for the :first time, in 1852, by Capt. R. B. Marcy, and has since been so called. Because said stream was, at the date of said treaty, and for a long time prior thereto, well known to civilized man, and was, in fact, delineated on Melish's map, constituting part of the treaty as the Rio Roxo or Red River; and the true boundary line was intended to follow the course of said stream until the one hundredth degree of west longitude crossed it, and not the Prairie Dog Town Fork, which was unknown to civilized man at the date of the treaty, was not discovered until 1852. and was never delineated on any map until Capt. R. B. Marcy, who discovered said stream, made his report thereof . . AFFIRMATIVE ISSUES AND CLAIMS OF TEXAS. I. Texas alleges and will suppQrt by evidence that under and by virtue of the treaty of February 22, 1819, between the United States and Spai~, that part of the boundary line now in controversy is and was a natural water-course then and there declared to be the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches or Red River, and that part of the said line now in dispute should be run and established as follows: Beginning at a point on the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, or Red River, where a line due north from a point where the thirty· second degree of north latitude crosses the west bank of the Sabine River, ''thence following the course of Rio Roxo westward to the one hundredth degree of longitude west fi:om London, and the twenty-third from Washington; thence crossing the said Red River, and running thence by a line due north,'' etc. That where the one hundredth degree of longitude crosses said river the corner in the said boundary line of the treaty should be established. II. Texas alleges and will support by evidence that the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches. or Red River, described in the said treaty is the continuation of said stream from the point of beginning described in proposition number I, now known and called the North Fork of Red River, but at the date of the treat.y and for a long period before that time . well known and actually delineated on Melish's map, made part of the treaty, as the Rio Roxo or Reel River, and that this Yery stream was in fact the stream known and des·· ignated hy the treaty as constituting the boundary line in controversy, and not the Pmirie Dog Town or South Fork of Red River, which was not known to civilized man, delineated on any map at the date of the treaty, nor in fact discovered until 1852 by Capt. H. B Marcy. REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 19 III. That if in ascertaining and locating the true one hundredth degree of longitude west from London, and 23° west from Washington, the said meridian shall be found to cross both the said Prairie Dog Town Fork and said North Fork of l{ed River, in that case Texas alleges that the said meridian should be located and established on the said North Fork as the true corner in said boundary, the said North Fork being in fact and truth the Hio Hoxo or Hed River intended by and described in said treaty of 1819. In submitting the statement, issues, and claims on the part of Texas, the commission-ers have done so with the lights before them, and may have committed some errors that will require a change, and if upon a more thorough examination into the evidence here-after to be in trod need the views here presented shall req nire modification, the Commission will deem it a duty to follow the light of truth into whatever field it may lead them. COL: S.M. MANSFIELD, J. T. BRACKENRIDGE, Cha.irman T. B. 0. Chairman of the QQmmission on the part of the United States. The Commission then (at 2.40 p.m.) adjourned to meet at the can of the chairman. LANSING H. BEACH, First Lieutenant of Engineers, Secretary. THURSDAY, March, 11, 1886. The Commission met, pursuant to the call of the chairman, at 10.10 a. m. Present: All the members of both Commissions except Mr. Burges of the Commission on the part of Texas. The secretary then read the following statement of the United States Commission: [Office of Joint Commission between the United States and State of Texas.] GALVESTON, TEX., Mareh 10, 1886. Sm: In reply to your paper presented and read at the last meeting of the Joint Com-mission, the Commission on the part of the United States have the honor to present the following n:ioinder: This paper, in answer to the issues on the part of the United States, submits certain po-sitions assumed as coucerled and requiring no proof. A silence on our part might lead to the belief that our views coincided with those of the Commission for 'l'exas. We there-fore de~m it onr duty to state frankly to what extent we r~gard these assumptions as self eviuent. · . I. We agree with the first assumption as stated, excepting in so 1ar·as the State of Texas by her own act or acquiescence may have already committed herself to a definite and specific interpretation of the treaty or some part thereof. II. We see no reason to dissent from the second as::~urnption, which appears to be a quotatipn from our instructions embodied in the President's order. III. With regard to the third assumption, we agree that it is the duty of the Joint Commission to ascertain whether the North Fork or the Prairie Dog Town Fork is lhe true Hcd H1ver of the treaty; but we can not find that the act of Congress or thatofthe '.fexas legislature authorizes the Commission to mark and define the point of intersec-tion until it is ascertained which is the main or principal Red Hiver as agreed upon in the treaty of 1819. After making these assumptions, to which the United States Commission assent with the above provisos, the Commis!':'ion on the part of Texas, for the purpose of narrowing . the controversy to the fewe::;t possible propositions consistent with the grave duties im-posed and the results to be attained, reassert and deny those of our issues from which they dissent, and submit the issues and claim of Texas to be supported by evidence and argument.. Hence we infer that the Texas Commission does not deny that the Prairie Dog Town Fork is the larger nor that it would justly be regarded as the main stream., except for the reason, which they allege, that the North Fork was at the date of said treaty, and for a long time prior thereto, well known to civilized man, and was in fact delineated iu Melish's map, constituting part of the treaty, as the Rio Roxo or Red River. We will be glad to hear and consider any evidence that will tend to show that this fork was so designated, and on our part we herewit,h offer the following documents in support of our assertion. We do not claim 1or these maps the accuracy that could be attained by original observations in the field; we do not even find an exact coincidence between the two maps; nor have we positive evidence of the exact result of the astro-nomical determinations on which they were based; but we believe that we can, from these and other maps and surveys, establish the points referred to in our papers with re-20 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDAH.Y C0)1MISSION. gard to tl1e relative size of the streams. n: however, the Texas Commission does not consider the results of previous surveys sufficient to establish these points, we are ready to co-operate with them in the field operations necessary to decide them, such as run-ning out together the water-shed between and around these streams and their tributaries, measuring and gaugi:Jg them at different periods, and meandering their courses together. REFERENCES. Map ofthe United States west ofthe Mississippi River, ChiefofEnj:!;ineers, U. U. A., 1883. Map of Indian Territory, Texas, and New Mexico, by Lieut. L. H. Orleman, 1875. Report of United States Boundary Commissioner Clark, Senate Ex. Doc. No. 70, forty-seventh Congress, first session. Humboldt's New Spain and Marcy's report. The map of the United States is the latest issued from the War Depattment on a large scale, and we believe is correct in its representation of the disputed territory and of the basins of the North and Prairie Dog Town Forks. The black lines upon the red and black map were reduced from this map, and it is herewith introduced to prove the accuracy of the former, on which were measured the angles between the rivers and the Jorks mentioned in the summary of the first paper. The report of the United States commissioner is presented to show that he found the Prairie Dog Town Fork wider than the North Fork at its intersection with the lOOth me-ridian, and for other reasons. The map of the Indian 'ferritory, etc., signed by Lieut. Orleman! was compiled from maps of scouts and surveys made up to the date of its issue. He quotes the authorities from which his map is compiled, among others Captain Clous, who was acting engineer officer and astronomer of General Mackenzie's command. The upper Red River is, we belieYe, constructed according to Captain Clous's observations, and the opinions of the United States commissioners with regard to the relative length of the two forks was based upon measurements on this map. The report of Captain Marcy is presented to show that he regarded the Prairie Dog Town Fork as the main Red River, and for other purposes. Humboldt's New Spain is presented to substantiate our statement in the first paper regarding the errors ot Melish's map. We hope soon to be able to offer other documentary evidence bearing upon the points at issue, among others a photograph of Melish's map attached to the treaty. With regard to the right which the Texas Commission reserves at any time during the progress of the proceedings to offer evidence and argument to show that the one hundredth meridian of west lo.Qgitude from London does not cross the Prairie Dog Town Fork of Red H.iver west ofitsjunction with the North Fork, we can only state that we find it hard to believe that Melish's map will prove more accurate than the subsequent obser-vations which have been so carefully made and so repeatedly tested; but we are ready at any time to determine this intersection by astronomical observations on the spot when-ever the Texas Commission will co-operate with us. If, however, it shall be fqund from evidence to be produced that the North Fork is the true boundary, we wiU co-operate with them in marking the corner of the boundary at that point. We are also ready and prepared, whenever the Texas Commission will co-operate with us, to make such other determinations in the field as may be necessary to determine which fork is the Hed River. Mr, J. T. BRACKENRIDGE, S. M. MANSFIELD, Chairman United States Boundary Commission. Chairman Texas Boundary Commission. The Commission then took a recess until 12 o'clock, at which time business was re-sumed, with all members present except Mr. Burges. The Commission on the part of Texas then pre8ented and read the following: OFFICE JOINT COMMISSION ON BOUNDARY, Galveston, Tex., March 11, 1886. SIR: Your reply, denial, qualification, and rElfltatement of issues on boundary pre-sented, and made part of the record to-day, we have considered, and in response thereto submit the following: •' The Texas Commission denied the fact alleged, that the one hundredth degree crossed the Prairie Dog Town River, not because it may not be found true, but because Texas was never a p~rty t, line 31.1 "Since the cession of Lonisiann to the United States, the bounds between the province of Texas and the county of Natchitoches (a county which is nn integral pat:t of the con-1ede~tion of American republics) have become the subJect of a politic.."ll disc .ssion, equally tedious and unprofitable. Several mem hers of the Congress of Washington were of opimon that the territory of Louisiana might be extended to the left bank of the Rio Bravo del Norte. According to them all, the couJ;J.try called by the Mexicans the prov-ince of Texas anciently belonged to Louisiana. Now, the United States ought to pos-sess this last province in the whole extent of rights in which it was possessed by France before _its cession to Spain, and neither the new denominations introduced by the vice-roys of Mexico nor the progress of population from Texas towards the east can derogate from the lawful tit.le of the Congress. During these debates the American Govern-ment did not fail frequently to adduce the establishment that M. de Lasale, a French-man, formed about the year 1685, near the bay of St. Bernard, without having appeared to encroach on the rights of the crown of Spain. "But, on examining carefully the general map which I have given of Mexico and the adjacent countries on the east, we shall see that there is still a great way from the Bay of St. Bernard to the mouth of the Rio del Norte. Hence the Mexicans very justly nllege in their favor that the Spanish population of Texas is of a very old date, and that it was brought, in the early period8 of the conquest, by Linares, Revilla, and Camargo, from the interior of New Spain; and that of M. de Lasale, on disembarking to the west of the Mississippi, found Spaniards at that time among the savages whom he endeavored to combat. At present the intendant of San Luis Potosi considers the Rio Mermentas, or Mexicana, which flows into the Gulf of Mexico to the east of the Rio de Sabinn, as the eastern limit of the province of Texas, and consequently of his whole intendancy. "It may be useful to observe here that this dispute as to the true boundaries of New Spain can only become of importance when the country, brought into cultivation by the colonists of Louisiana, shall come into contact with the territory inhabited by Mexican co1onists; when a village of the province of Texas shall be constructed near a village of the county of the Opelousas. Fort Clayborne, situated near the old Spanish mission of the Adayes (Adaes or Adaisses), on the Red River, is the settlement of Louisiana which approaches nearest to the military posts (presidios) of the province of Texas; and yet there are nearly 68 leagues from the presid"io of Nacogdoches to Fort Clayborne. Vast steppes, covered with gramina, serve for common boundaries between the American con-federation and the Mexican territory. All the country to the west of the Missis!>ippi, from the Ox River to the Rio CoJorado of Texas, is uninhabited. These steppes, partly marshy, present obstacles very easily overcome. We may consider them as an arm oft he sea which separates adjoining coasts, but which the industry of new colonists will soon pene-trate. In the United States the popubtion of the Atlantic provinces flowed first tow:nds the Ohio and the Tennessee, and then towards Louisiana. A part of this fluctuating population will soon move farther to the westward. The very name of Mexican territory will suggest the idea ofproximity of mines; and on the banksoftheRio Mermentas the American colonist will already, in imagination, possess a soil abounding in metallic wealth. This error, diffused among the lower people, will give rise to new emigrations; and they will only learn very late that the famous mines of Catorce, which are nearest to Louisiana, are still more thon 300 leagues distant from it. · •·several of my Mexican friends have gone the road from New Orleans to the capital of New Spain. This road, opened by the inhabitants of Louisiana who came to purchase horses in the provinces internas, is more than 540 leagues in length, and is consequently equal to the distance from Madrid to Warsaw. This road is said to be very difficn1t, from tee want of water and habitations; but it presents by no means the same natural difficulties as must be overcome in the tracks along the ridge of the Cordilleras from Santa Fe, in New Granada, to Quito, or from Quito to Cusco. It was by this road ot Texas that an intrepid traveler, M. Pages, captain in the French army, went inl767 from Louisiana to Acapulco. The details which he furnishes relative to the intenden('y of San Luis Potosi, anrl the road ti·om Queretaro to Acapulco, which I traveled thirty years nfterwarrl, display great precision of mind and love of truth; but unJortnnately this traveler is so incorrect in the orthography of Mexican and Spanish names that, we can with difficulty find out from his descriptions the places through which he passed. The road from Louisianfl. to Mexico pre8ents very few obstacles until the Hio del Norte, 1tEPO~T OF TEXAS 130tJNDARY CO:MMtSSTON. 27 and \Ve only begin from the Saltillo to a:;;cend towards the 1able-1ands of Anahuac. The declivity of the Cordillera is by no means rapid there; and we can have no rlonbt, con-Sidering the progrt..ss of civilization in the new continenL, that land communieation will become gradually very frequent between the United· States and New Spain. Public coaches will one day roll on from Philadelphia and \Vashington to Mexico and Aca-pulco. "The three counties of the State of Louisiana, or New Orleans, which approach near-est tu the desert country considered as the eastern limit of the province of Texas, are, reckoning fi·om sou1h to north, the counties of tlJe Attacappas, of the Opeloussas, and of the Natchitoches. The latest settlements of Louisiana are on a meridian which is twenty-five leagues east from the mouth of the Hio .Mermentas. The most northern town is Fort Clayborne, of Natchitoches, seven leagues east from the old situation of the mission of Adaycs. The northeast of Clayborne is the Spanish Lake, in the m1dst of which there is agreatrock covered with stalactites. Following this lake to the south-southeast, we meet in the extremity of this fine country, brought into cultivation by colonists of French origin, first, with the small village of Saint Landry, three leagues to the north of the sources of the Hio Mermentas; then the plantation ofS. Martin; a.nd lastly, New Iberia, on the RlVer Teche, near the cttnal of Bontet, which leads to the lake of Tase. As there • is no Mexican settlement beyond the eastern bank of the Rio Sabina, it follows that the uninhabited country which separates the villages of Louisiana fi·om the mission!? of Texas amounts to more than 1,500 square leagues. The most southern part of these savannas, between the bay of Carcusin and the bay of La Sabina, presents nothing but impassable marshes. The road from Louisiana to Mexico goes, therefore, farther to the north, and fol-lows 1 he parallel ot the thirty-second degree. From Natchez travelers strike to the north of the lake Catavuillon, by Fort Clayborne, of Natchitoches; and from thence they pass by the old situation of the Adayes Chichi and the fountain of Father Gama An able engineer, M Lafond, whose map throws much light on these countries, observes that 8 leagues north from the post of Chichi there are hills abounding in coal, from which a subterraneous noise is heard at a distance like the discharge of artillery. Does this cu-rious phenomenon announ~e a disengagement of hydrogen produced by a bed of-;coal in a state of inflammation? From the Adayes the road of Mexico goes by San Antonio de Dejar, Laredo (on the banks of the Rio Grande del Norte), Saltillo, Charcas, San Luis Potosi, and Queretaro to:the capital of New Spain. Two months and a half are required to tra.vel over this vast extent of country, in which, from the left bank of the_Rio Grande del Norte to Natchitoches, we continually sleep sub dio.'' v. [The Emigrants' Guide to the Western and Southwestern States and Territories. comprising a geo-graphical and statistical description of the States of Louisiana, etc. Accompanied by a map of the United States, including Louisiana, projected and engraved expressly for this work. By William Darby. New York: Published by Kirke & Mercein. 1818. Page 83, line 37.1 ''Texas is bounded west and south west hy the Rio Grande del Norte, southeast by the Gulf of .Mexico, east by the State of Louisiana, and northeast and north by Red River. Its greatest length is from the mouth of the Hio Grande del Norte to the sources of Red River, afiout 800 miles; its greatest breadth, from the northwest angle of the Rtate of Louisiana in a southwest direction to the Rio Grande del Norte, 500 miles. Estimated by the rhombs on Melish's map, Texas extends over 240,000 square miles, or as extensive as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky. "The climate mus,t vary considerably. The mouth of Rio Grande del Norte is in 25° 551 north latitude; the head of Red River is in 37° north latitude. According to the in-formation derived from General Pike, on the high table-land upon the headwaters of the Red and Arkansas Rivers the cold is excessive. This respectable testimony needs no further authority to give it credence; but if it did need corroborative proof~ the proofis afforded by the low temperature experienced on the shores of the Mexican Gulf. "Though, taken as a whole, Texas can not be considered a fertile country, yet on so vast an extent there are many very fertile tracts. Red River will no doubt admit of settlement albng its whole length. The same may be said of several of -the other streams; and though the population can not be yery compact, yet the individuals that compose it may be free and happy. The air of this region is, according to every account yet made public, pure, serene, and in the highest degree healt.hful. '' The pur~ui ts of the people of the interior of the country will be, it is most probable, forever past-oral. 'l'he soil, the want of wood in many places, and remoteness from large commercial ports will all combine to perpetuate the present order of things in that ex-tensive and in many respects delightful country. ''In point of geological structure Texas iR remarkably regular. H.esting upon the Rio Gra de del Norte as a base, the country lies ifl the form of an immense triangle, all the 28 R}jPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. rivers conforming to each other in an astonisqing degree. Red River and the Rio Grande, on the two opposite sides, have great resembhtnce to each other in their courses and par-ticular bends. The intermediate streams for some distance from their sources flow south-east, when, gradually turning south, they pursue that course to the Gulf of Mexico. In this manner flow the Nueces, Guadalupe, Colorado, Brazos aDios, Trinity, Sabine, and Caleasieu. The sources of the Mermentau being too far south to admit it<3 conform-ity to the foregoing streams, its course is nearly south. The Calcasieu and Mermentau are neither in Texas; their names are mentioned here to afford examples of the regular formation of the country bordering on 1 be north shore of the Gulf of Mexico. ''We will close this chapter with a review of the northwest section of the State of Louisiana. It i's within five or six years past that much of this country was discovered. This may seem almost incredible, but it is really a fact that, in 1811, considerable streams that flow into the Red and Ouachitta Rivers were unknown, except to a few hunters. If this had been the case with rivers remote from the Mississippi, the claim in geography would not have excited surprise, but it is certainly astonishing that Ruch water-courses should be unexplored as the Derbane, Saline of Ouachitta, Saline of Hed River, Dacheet, Bodcau, Black Lake River, and the Dugdomini, all in the neighborhood of long-established posts. A glance at Lafond's map of Louisiana, published in 1805, will enable any person acquainted with the real features of the country to understand how utterly the country upon the< Red and Ouachitta Rivers were unknown at the epoch of the publication of the ioregoing map. "The Government of the United States commenced surveys in Louisiana west of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers in 1805, but did not extend the operations of sur-veying to the north side of Red River until 1813. The author of this treatise assisted in perlorming surveys on each side of Red River, under the authority of the United States; and in addition made extensive surveys, on his own account, of many places not embraced by the work done bv order of the General Government, and traversed re-peatedly the hitherto most imperfectly known parts. These circumstances are men-tioned here in order to apprise the reader of the means taken to procure correct informa-tion of tllis valuable country. • "The northwest section of the State of Louisiana is bounded east by the Mississippi; north by the northernmost part of the thirty-third degree, north; by a meridian line due south from the t:N.irty-second to the thirty-third degree north latitude, west; by the Sa-bine Hiver southwest; and by the thirty-first degree north latitude, or Opelousas, south. [Page 88, line 26.] ''In the peninsula between Red and Ouachitta Rivers rise several small streams, part ofwhich fall into the latter and others into the former. Of those which unite with Red River the principal are Bodcau, Dacheet, Black Lake, Saline, and Hietan Rivers; the tributaries of Ouachitta are Derbane and the United streams of Dugdomini and Little River, entering Ouachitta under the nama of Ocatahoola River." -VI. l [A geographical description of the United States, with the contiguous British and Spanish Posses-sions, intended as a n accompaniment to Melish's Map of 'l' hese Countries. By John Melish . Phila-delphia. .Published by the author. 1818. page 10, line 33.] " In coustructing the map, recourse was had to the following materials: "For the United States. - The various State maps, from actual survey, so far as the suneys have extended, aided by much useful information as to the roads and distances, from Bradley's very excellent general map; and as to the delineation of the mountains aud styleoftbe work, from Arrowsmith 's. Information regarding the Territories was prin-cipally procured from the Laud Office at Washington. The Mississippi River and the higher parts of the La Platte, Osage, Arkansas, and Red H.ivers, with thearljacentcoun-tnes, are delineated from Pike's travels. It is a tribute of respect, justly due to the memory of that enterprising traveler and brave officer, to say that the information fur-nished by him has been of great value to this map, and the memorial of his adventures has accordingly been perpetuated by the delineation of his route upon its surface, not only tllrough Louisiana, but also through the Spanish internal provinces. ''The Missouri River and its various branches, together with the Columbia and its numerous streams, and the Rocky Mountains, are laid down principally from the in-formation communicated to the world by Lewis and Clark, who performed one of the greatest and most important overland journeys ever undertaken by man. The light whieh their researches have shed upon thegeographicalscienceofNorthAmericacannot be too highly appreciated. Their routes are also delineated on the map. The name of Lewis is consecrated to everlasting remefu.brance among the friends of geographical sci-REPORT OF TE X:AS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 29 ence, and Clark has lived to receive the reward of his intrepidity, by the gratitude of his country, in being appointed governor of the territory he so perseveringly explored. "Before closing this part of the su"Qject, it may be proper to notice several important alterations and additions that were made upon the map while it was in progress, because this will have the double effect of showing the great pains that were taken to render the subject complete, and of bringing into view the works of several very meritorious labor-ers in the vineyard of geography. After the plan work was wholly :finished. Mr. Will-iam Darby and Mr. Lewis Bringier arrived in Philadelphia with manuscript maps of Louisiana, of great value and importance. Mr. Darby's map embmced the whole of the State of Louisiana, principally from actual survey, and more accurate materials than had been produced heretofore of the country east of it to Pensacola, and the country west nearly to the Rio Bravo del Norte. Mr. Bringier's map embraced the whole of that par·t of the :Missouri territory known by the mtme of Upper Louisiana, from the northern boundary of the State of Louisiana to above Saint Louis, and from the Mississippi to the twenty-third degree of west longitude. An arrangement was immediate! v formed with these gentlemen by which the result of their information was incorporated into this map. The old work was accordingly erased from the plates and the new substituted, at great labor and expense. We may add here that Darby's map, with a descriptive volume of new and interesting matter, has been published. Tiringier's manuscript map is in the bands of the author, and being a work of great value, particularly as regards the mount-ains and mineralogy of the country it delineates, it will probably be published at no distant day.'' [Page 14, line 12.] "For the Spanish part Humboldt's very excellent map was selected as the basis, use being made of Pike's travels for filling up some of the details. ·The valuable charts of Vancouver furnished the materials for delineating the western coast and California, and some of the details, particularly about the Bay of St. Francisco, were procured from the 'Voyages and Travels of G. H. Von Langsdor:ff, '. lately published.'' [Page 42, line 5.] "The Red River rises in the mountains to the eastward of Santa Fe, between north latitudes 37° and 38°, and pursuing a general southeast course, makes several remark-able bends, as exhibited on the map; but it receives no very considerable streams until it forms a junction witli the Wachitta and its great mass of waters, a few miles before it reaches the. Mississippi." VII. ["A Geographical Description of the United States, with the Contiguous Countries, including Mexico and the West Indies; intended as an accompaniment to Melish's map of these cow1tries. By John Melish. Philadelphia: Published by the author. 1822." Preface, line 1.] ''Tile first edition of this work was published in 1816. '' [Preface, line 12.] ''When the late treaty was negotiated with Spain, which "had reference to the map in :fixing the southwest boundary, it was determined to bring forward an entire new edition of the map, exhibiting Florida as a part of the United States, and marking all alter-ations that had taken place in the country np to the time of publication; and from a conviction that Mexico would soon become independent, and would eventually be of great importance to the United States, it was determined to add another sheet exhibit-ing a complete view of that very interesting country." [Page 12, line 25.] "The boundary line between the United States and. the Spanish possessions was fixed by the treaty between this country and Spain as follows: "The boundary line between the two countries, west of the Mississippi, shall begin on the Gulf of Mexico, at the mouth of the river Sabine, in the sea, continuing north along the western bank ofthat river to the thirty-seconddegreeoflatitude, hyaline drawn due north to the degree oflatitude where it strikes the Rio Hoxo of Natchitoches, or Red River; then, following the course of the Rio Roxo westward, to the degree of longitude 100 west from London and 23 from Washington; then, crossing the said Red River, and running thence by a line due north to the river Arkansas; thence following the courF>e of the southern bank of the Arkansas to its source in latitude 42° north; and thence, by that parallel of latitude to the South Sea. The whole being as laid down in J\Ielish's map ao REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. of the United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the 1st of January, 1818. But if the source of the Arkansas River shall fall north or south of latitude 42°. then the line shall run from the said source due south or north, as the case may be, tili it meets the said parallel of latitude 42°, and thence f1long the said parallel to the South Sea. All the islands in the Sabin and the said Red and Arkansas Rivers, throughout the course thus described, to belong to the United States; but the use of the waters and the navi-gation of the Sabin to the Sea, and of the said rivers Roxo and Arkansas, throughout the extent of the said boundary on their respective banks, shall be common to the re-spective inhabitants of both nations." [Page 14, line 26.] "In constructing the map, recourse was had to the following materials: "Fm· the United States.-The various State maps, from actual survey, so far as these sur-veys have extended, with compilations of others from the best materials extant. The Territories were principally executed from the surveys of the public lands in the United States Land Office, and other authentic materials in the public offices at Washington. Extensive use was also made of Lewis and Clark's and Pike's travels for information as to the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and their waters." "For the Spanish possessions.-Humboldt's very excellent maps were taken as the basis, and some of the details, particularly in the upper part, were furnished from Pike's travels. Improvements have been made from late Spanish charts and other docu-ments.'' (Page 38, line 11.] "The Red River is a very large stream, rising near Santa Fe about 900 miles north west from its outlet, and is, for a considerable distance, the southern boundary of the United States." [Page 302, line 1.] "Red River rises near Santa Fe, and runs a course a little south of east, distant 900 miles, to where it passes into this State (Louisiana) at the northwest corner." fPage 380,line 15.] "Before describing the Canadian River and its branches, it may be proper to notice that great researches have been made in the country west of the Mississippi, and partic-ularly in this section of it, under the auspices of the War Department. Major Long and Captain Bell, two very meritorious and enterprising officers belonging to the Corps of Engineers of the United States, explored all the country from Council Bluffs to near the sources of the Arkansas and Platte Rivers. In returning, Captain Bell's detachment de-scended the Arkansas from the mountain called by Pike the Highest Peak (but which they have called James's Peak) downward; and Major Long's detachment proceeded to the southward, with the view of descending Red River. They entered the river as laid down by the former maps and descended by its banks, but to their great surprise found it conducted them into the Arkansas. This discovery led to an entire new view of the rivers in this quarter, and it is found that four large streams exist between the Arkan-sas and Red River, and some of them rise further west than the Red River. "The Canadian Fork, which Major Long descended, rises by several branches in the mountains near Santa Fe, and runs a ·general course of about south by east to· its out-let, opposite Illinois River, before mentioned. Its comparative course is about 660 miles. '' Canadian Fork, north branch, rises near the Spanish Peaks, 80 miles north of Santa Fe, and runs a general south-southeast course to where it meets the main branch, about 20 miles west of its junction with the Arkansas. Its comparative course is about 480 miles. · ''Little North Fork, a branch 220 miles long, falls into the North Fork on the north side. · "South Fork of Canadian River, rises to the west of the twenty-fourth degree oflong-itude and ruus nearly an east course to where it joins the main branch, near the outlet of the North Fork. Its length, by comparative course; is about 350 miles. ''These discoveries have given an entire new .view of Red River. It bas not yet been ex-plored, but it is presumed that it rises in the mountains, southeast of Santa Fe, and runs a southwestwardly course for some time, and then, turning eastward, it runs nearly in that direction to the upper settlements of the United States, to which point it has been surveyed. Its comparative course from its source to the western limit of the State of Louisiana is, by this view, about 650 miles; and its length in that State is about 220 miles, making the entire length 770 miles. REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 31 [Page 310, line 16.] "Natchitoches is the most remote town in the United States. It is situated on the S. W. bank of the river, 60 miles above Alexandria. It is an old settlement, having been established by the Spaniards in 1717. Monroe is situated on the east bank of Wacbita River, about 90 miles N. W. of Natchez." ''On Red River." [Preface, page iv, line 5.] ·The description having answered a valuable purpose, it was determined to bring C0r1'Vard a new and improved edition as soon as possible after access could be had to the United States census of 1820. This, it was presumed, could be comprised in a work of 250 pages; but on arranging the necessary details it has swelled out to more than 500 pages, and that, too, without having a single redundant article." VIII. [Louis tle Onis, Spanish plenipotentiary, to Secretary of State of United States, December 12, 1818.J The disastrous expedition of M. de la Salle, the absurd grant in favor of Crozat, and the erroneous narratives of travelers with maps formed at pleasure, by uniformed and interested geographers, such as Melish and others, who ran their lines as they were dic-tated to them, and thus disposed of the dominions of Spain as suited their wishes. IX. (Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, performed in the years 1819-1820, under the command of Maj. S. H. Long, of the United States Topographical Engineers. In three volumes. London: Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, Paternoster Row. 1823. Vol. II, page 273, line 12.] ''The stream which may be supposed to exist in it for a part of the year at least, but which is now dry, runs towards the southeast. Having arrived at that part of the country which has by common consent been represented to contain the sources of the Red River of Louisiana, we were induced by the general inclination of the surface of the country and the direction of this creek to consil:ler it as one of those sources, and accord-ingly resolved to descend along its· course, hoping it might soon conduct us to a country abounding in ~ame and presenting fewer obstacles to our progress than that in which we now were.:' [Same, Vol. II, page 278, line 27.] ''In the midst of one o.f;, the violent storms we encountered in passing this trap forma-tion, we crossed the point of a long and considerably elevated ridge of amygdaloid so sin-gularly disposed as to suggest to every one of the party the idea that the mass bad once been in a fluid state; and that when in that state it had formed a current descending along the bed of a narrow ravine, which it now occupied, conforming to all the sinuos-ities and inequalities of the valley, as a column of semi-fluid matter would do. Its sub-stance was penetrated with numerous vasicular cavities, which were observed to be elongated in the direction of the ridge. Its color is neaTly black, and when two masses are rubbed together they yield a smell somewhat like the soot of a chimney. These appearances are so remarkable that it is not at all surprising these rocks should have been considered of volcanic origin; and it is this supposition, unquestionably, from which. has originated the statement contained in the late map of the United States by Melish, that the district about the sources of the Red River is occupied by volcanic rocks, the information having probably been derived from the accounts of hunters." [Same, Vol. II, page 281, line 22.) "Our morning's ride of16 miles brought us to a place where the water of the river emerges to view, rising to the surface of that bed of sand beneath which it bad been concealed for a distance of more than 100 miles. The stream is still very inconsidera-ble in magnitude; the water brackish, and holds suspended so large a quantity of red earth as to give it the color of florid blood. The general direction of its cours~ inclining still towards the southeast, we were now in'.lnccd to believe it must be one of the most considerable of the upper tributaries of nerl River. A circumstance tending to confirm this opinion was our falling in with a larg~ and much frequented Indhn trace, crossing the creek from the west and following down along the east bank. This trace consisted 32 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. of more tha.u twenty parallel paths, and bore sufficient marks of having been recent].}' traveled, affording an explanation of the cause of the alarming scarcity of game we bad for some time experienced. We supposed it to be the road leading from the Pawnee Piqua village on Hed Hiver to Santa Fe." [Same, Vol. II, page 318, line 3.] ''In speaking of a country whose geography is so little known as that of the region of the Arkansa, we feel very sensibly the want of ascertained and fixed points of reference. Were we to designate the locality of a mineral or any other interesting object as found twenty or thirty days' journey from the Hocky Mountains, we should do nearly all in our power; yet this sort of inlormation would probably be thought vague and nseless. The smaller rivers of this region have as yet received no names from white hunters. If they have names among the Indians, these are unknown to us. There are no mount-ains, bills, or other remarkable objects to serve as points of departure nearer than the Hocky Mountains and the Arkansa. The river itself, which we supposefl to be the Red Hiver of Natchitoches, is a permanent landmark; but it is a line and not a point, and aids us only in one direction in our attempts to designate locality. The map accom-panying this work was projected in conformity to the results of numerous astronomical observations for latitude and longitude; but many of these obserYations were made at places which are not, and at present can not be, known by any names we might attempt to fix upon them. More extensive and'minute examination than we have been able to bestow might establish something like a sectional division, founded on the distribution of certain remarkable plants. The great cylindric cactus, the ligneous rooted cucumi, the small-leaved elm, might be used in such an attempt, but it is easy to see that the advantages resulting from it would be for the most part imaginary . • ''Discussions of this sort have been much insisted on of late; and may be important as aiding in the geography of climate and soils, but can afford little assistance, to topog-raphy.'' [Same, Vol. II, page 320,line 6.] "We left our encampment at 5 o'clock, the morning fair, thermometer at 62°. Our courses, regulated entirely by the direction of the river, were north, fifty-five east, 11 miles; then north ten east, 7 miles; in all 18 miles before dinner. The average direc-tion of our courses for some days bad been rather to the north than south of east. This did not coincide entirely with our previous ideas of the direct,ion of Hed River, and much less of the Faux Ouacbitta, or False "'Washita, which, being the largest of the upper branches of the Reel Hiver from the north, we believed might be the stream we were de-scending. From observations taken at the several points along the river we had ascer-tained that we must travel three or four clays' journey to the south in order to arrive at the parallel oftbe confluence of tbe Kiamesha with the Hed River, and we were con-stantly expecting a change in the direction of our courses. The confident assurance of the Kaskaias that we were on the Heel River and but a few 'tlays' march above tbe vil-lage of the Pawnee Piquas tended to quiet the suspicions we began to feel on this sub-ject. We bad now traveled, since meeting tbe Indians, a greater distance than we could suppose they had intended to indicate by tbe admeasurement of ten lodge days,' but we were conscious our communication with them bad been made through inadeqnatt'l inter-preters, and it was not without reason we began to fear we might have receive,d errone-ous impressions. In the afternoon, however, tbe river inclined more to the direction we wished to tmvel and we bad several courses to the south of east.'' · [Same, Vol. III, page 176, line 6.] ·'Of the Vaseau, or Boggy Bayou, and tbe Blue River, two considerable streams tribu-tary to Reel River, next above the Kiamesha, we have little information. They appear to enter like what are called tbe North and South Forks of the Canadian, near tbe foot of the western slope of the Ozark Mountains. Above these the principal tributary is the Faux Ouacbitta, or False Washita, from the north, which has been described to us (hy Mr. FindJay, an enterprising bunter, whose pursuits often len him to visit its banks) as bearing a very near resemblance to the Canadian River of Arkansa." "We are as yet ignorant of the true position of the sources of Hed River, but we are well assured the long received opinion that its principal branch rises about 30 or 40 miles east of Santa Fe is erroneous. "Seve:ral persons have recently arrived at Saint Louis, in Missouri, frorn Santa F6, and among others the brother of Captain Shreeves, who gives information of a large and fre-quented road which runs nearly clue east from that place, and strikes one of the branches of the Canadian, that, at a considerable distance to the south of this point, in the high nEPQRT OF TEX.AS BOtJ:t:rDARY COMMISSION. 33 plain, is the principal source of Red River. His account confirms an opinion we had pre-viously formed, namely, that the branch of the Canadian explored by Mador Long's party in August, 18:W, has its sources near those of some other stream which descends towards the west into the Rio del Norte, and consequently that some other region must contain the bead of Red River. From a careful comparison of all the information we have been able to collect, we are satisfied that the stream on which we encamped on the 31st of August is the Rio Raijo of Humboldt, long mistaken for the source of the Red River of Natchitoches, and that our camp of September 2 was within 40 or 50 miles east from Santa Fe. In a region of red clay and sand, where all the streams have nearly the color of arterial bloofl, it is not surprising that several rivers should receive the same name, nor is it surprising that so accurate a topographer as the Baron Humboldt, hav-ing learned that a red river rises 40 or 50 miles east of Santa Fe and runs to the east, should conjecture it might be the source of the Red River of Natchitoches. This con-jecture (for jt is no more) we believe to have been adopted by our geographers, who b1ave with much confidence made their delineations and their accounts correspond to it.'' [Same, Vol. III, page 29, Hne 6.] ".At this point, and again at an inconsiderable distance below, a soft green slaty sandstone forms the bed of the river, and occasions a succession of rapids. At noon an observation by the meridian altitude of the sun's lower limb gave us 35° 301 as an ap-proximation to our latitude. This was much greater than we had anticipated from the position assigned to Red River on the maps, and tending to confirm the unpleasant fears we had entertained of having mistaken some tributary of the Arkansas for the Red River. "Thick and extensive canebrakes occurred on both sides of the river, and though the ·bottoms were wide and covered with heavy forests, we could see at intervals the distant sandstone bills, with their scattered forests of cedar and oak. ''September J 0 we left our camp at the usual hour, and after riding 8 or 10 miles ar-rived at the confluence of our supposed Red River with another of a much greater size, which we at once recognized to be the Arkansas. Our disappointment and chagrin at discovering the mistake we had so long labored under was alleviated by the conscious-ness that the season was so far advanced, our horses and our means so far exhausted, as to place it beyond our power to return and attempt the discovery of the sources of Red River. We had been misled by some little reliance on the maps and the current state-ments concerning the position of the upper branches of Red River, and more particularly by the confident assurance we bad received from the Kaskaia Indians, whom we did not suspect of a wish to deceive us in an affair of such indifference to them. Knowing there was a degree of ambiguity and confusion in the nomenclature of the rivers, we had in-sisted particularly on being informed whether the river we were descending was the one on which the Pawnee Piquas had theirpermanentresidence, and thiswewererepeatedly assured was the case. Several other circumstances, which have been already mentio~ed, led us to the commission of this unfortunate mistake. "According to our estimate of distances on our courses it is 796~ miles from the point where we first struck the Canadian, to its confluence with the Arkansas. If we make a reasonable allowance for the meanders of the river and for the extension of its upper branches some distance to the west of the place where we commenced our descent, the entire length of the Canadian will appear to be about 1, 000 miles. Our journey upon it had occupied a space of seven weeks, traveling with the utmost diligencethestrengthof our horses would permit.'' X. [Narrative of an expedition across the Great Southwestern Prairies, from Texas to Santa Fe. By George W. Kendall. In two volumes. London: David Bogue, Fleet street. MDCCCXLV. Vol. 1, p. 75, line 14.] "All that was known in our case was, that Austin was in such a latitude and longi-tude and Santa Fe in another; of the principal part of tl)e country between the two points, not a man of us knew anything. That deep rivers were to be crossed; that ravines were to l)e encountered; that salt and dry prairies were to hemet-in short, that innumerable obstacles would be found in pur path-were things that every one expected; of the nature and extent of these obstacles, all were alike ignorant." [Vol. 1, page 266, line 18.] ''A majority of the map-makers, by joining the Red River as far as known, with some one of the rivers rising in the Rocky Mountains, have made a long and very pretty stream, as seen upon their charts. Were they to journey along the line of their im-B. Ex.21--3 H4 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. aginary river, with the hope of finding the water they haYe traced, I am inclined to believe they would suffer much from thirst before they had crossed the boundless prairie spreading eastward from the outer spurs of the Hocky Mountains." XI. [Report of Capt, R. B. Marcy's route from Fort Smith to Santa Fe in 1849. Senate Executive Docu-lilent No. G4, Thirty-first Congress, fir::;t session, pa5e 2i7, line 4.] "About 30 miles north of our camp there is a sharp mound visible from the hills, about here, and Beaver tells me that directly at the foot of this mound runs the big Witchita, one of the principal tributaries to Red, River, and 30 miles, in a northwest course from that mound, the Red River forks; one branch coming in from the west, is called Ke-che-a-que-ho-no, or 'Prairie-Dog Town River,' from the circumstance of there being a l'Otmd mound upon the stream which has a prairie-dog town on the top of it. This branch rises in the Llano Estacado. The other, or northern branch, is the princi-pal stream, which rises in the Salt Plains, near the head of Dry River." ''October 24.-After march 6. 7 miles this morning, we came upon the bluffs which border the valley of the main branch of the Rio Brazos; we descended about 50 feet by an easy slope into the valley, and struck the river at a place where it was fordable. It was a much larger stream than I had anticipated, being 200 yards from bank to bank, with a current of about 4 miles an hour, and 3 feet deep in the channel at this time (when the water is at a medium stage). Jurlging from the drift, jt does not appear to be su"Qject to rise of more than 5 feet above its present depth, and does not overflow its banks." lSame, page 222, line 34.J "Disturnell's map of Mexico, etc., upon which the boundary between the United States and Mexico is by the treaty defined, is one of the most inaccurate of all those I have seen, so far as relates to the country over whicli I have passed. He makes a greater error than most others in laying down the Pecos, and has the Colorado, Brazos, and Red River all inaccurately placed . . Upon the Red River he has a very large branch coming from far west, near El Paso, which he calls 'Ensenado Choctaw.' This is altogether an imaginary stream, as no one who has been in the country ever heard of it; neither does any hranch of Red R:i.ver extend to within 300 hundred miles of the Rio del Norte. There are hut three principal tributaries to Red River above Fort Washita; these are the Bag and the Little Witchita and the Ke-che-ah-qua-bo-no, but neither flows far from towards ElPaso. These, with the main branch of Red River, and the Brazos, all have their sources in extensive salt plains far east of the Rio Pecos. Their waters are strongly saline and unpalatable, and for a long 0istance run through a country poorly watered and bordered by rugged cliffs and deep ravines. Hence it appears to me impracticable to find a road to the Rio Grande which shall fol-low up the•course of either of these streams. Even if the road could be made to the head of one of them it would terminate at the eastern border of the Llano Estacado; for no man, as I have remarked before, attempts to cross that desert, except at certain. points. [Explorations of the Red River of Louisiana, in the year 1852, by Randolph B. Marcy. Senate Ex-ecutive Document, Twenty-third Congress, first session, page 1.] Before proceeding to give a detailed account of the expedition, it may be proper tore-mark that during the greater portion of the three years previous to the past summer I had been occupied in exploring the district of country lying upon the Canadian River of the Arkansas and upon the headwaters of the Trinity, Brazos, and Colorado Rivers in Texas. During this time my attention was frequently called to the remarkable fact that a portion of one of the largest and most important rivers in the United States lying directly within the limits of the district I had been examiniug remained up to that period wholly unexplored and unknown, no white man having ever ascended the stream to its sources. The only information we had upon the subject was derived from the Indians and semi-civilized Indian traders, and was, of course, very unreliable, ·indefinite, and unsatisfac-tory; in a word, the country embraced within the basin of Upper Red Hiver had always been to us a terra incoqnita. Several enterprising and experienced travelers had at different periods attempted the examination of this river, but as yet none had succeeded in reaching its sources. "Hence it will be seen that up to this time there is no record of any traveler having reached the so'Urces of Red River, and that the country upon the headwaters of that REPOU'f OP TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION • 35 . stream ha!;) heretofore been unexplored. The Mexicans and Indians on the borders of Mexico are in the habit of calling any river the waters of which having a red appearance 'Rio Colorado' or Red Hiver, and they have applied this name to the Canadian in com-mon with several others; awl as many of the Prairie Indians often visit the Mexicans, and some even speak the Spanish language, it is a natural consequence that they should adopt the same nomenclature for rivers, places, etc. Thus, if a traveler from New Mex-ico were to inquire for the head of Red Hiver, he would most undoubtedly be directed to the Canadian, and the same would also be the case in the adjacent Indian country. These facts will account for the mistake into which Baron Humboldt was led, and which will also account for the error into which Colonel Long and Lieutenant Pike have fallen in regard to the sources of the stream which we call Red River. ''Dr. Gregg, in his 'Commerce of the Prairies,' tells us that on his way down the south bank of the Canadian, his Comanche guide, Manuel ( w bo, by the bye, traveled GOO miles with me upon the plains, and whom I always found reliable), pointed out to him breaks or bluftH upon the stre..'tnl to the south of the Cauadian, one would ascertain to be the true position of the head of the north branch of the 'Red Hiver,' where it ap-proaches within the 25 miles of the Canadian. These bluff::~ he said were upon the 'Rio Negro,' which the doctor supposed to be the Washita l{iYer; but after having examined that section of country, I am satisfied that the north branch of Red Hiver must have been alluded to by my guide, as the Washita rises farther to the east. It therefore seems probable that 'Hio Negro' is the name which the Mexicans have applied to Red River of Louisiana. [Marcy, same, page 19, line 2.] "' "The chief represented the river from where it leaves the mountains as flowing over an elevated flat prairie country wholly destitute of wood, water, or grass, and the only substitute for fuel that could be bad was the 'buffalo chips.' They remarked in the course of the interview that some few of their old men had been to the head of the river, and that the journey could be made in eighteen days by rapid riding; but the accounts given by those who bad made the journey were of such a character as to deter others from attemJ)ting it. ·They said we need have no apprehension of encountering Indians, as none ever visited that section of the country. I inquired of them if there were any holes in the earth where the water remained after rains. They said no; that the soil was of sopor-ous a nature tbatjt soaked up the water as soon as it fell. I then endeavored to hire one of their old men to accompany me as a guide; bnt they said they were afraid to go into the country, as there was no water, au d. they were fearful they would perish before they could return. The chief said, in conclusion, that perhaps I might not credit their state-ments, but that I would have abundant evidence of the truth of their assertions if I ven-tured much farther with my command. This accouutof the country ahead of us is truly discouraging, and it would seem that we have anything but an agreeable prospect before us. As soon, however, as the creek will admit of fording, I shall, \~itbout subjecting the command to too great privations, push forward as far as possible into this most in-hospitable and dreaded Salt Desert. As the Indians, after their own statements, had traveled a great distance to see us, I distributed some presents among them, with a few rations of pork and flour, for which we received their acknowledgments in their customary style-by begging for everything else they saw. "May 28. Captain McClellan has, by observations upon the lunar distances, determined the longitude of our last camp upon the creek to be 100° 01 4511, which is but a short distance from the point where the line dividing the Choctaw territory from the State of Texas crosses Red River. The point where this line intersects Otter Creek is marked upon a large elm tree standing near the bank, and it will be found about 4 miles from the mouth of the creek, upon the south side, with the longitude (100° 01 4511 ) and the latitude (34° 361 611) distinctly marked upon it." [l\Iarcy, same, page 21, line 1.] "1\Iay 30. Captain McClellan returned this morning, having traced the meridian of the one nundredth degree of west longitude to where it strikes Red River; this point be ascertained to be about 6 miles below the junction ofthetwo principal branches and three-fourths of a mile from the north, upon the left bank, near where the river bends over al-most due west to north. At this point a cottonwood tree standing 50 teet from the water, upon the summit of a sand bill, is hlazed upon four sides, facing north, south, east, and west, and upon these faces will he found theiollowing inscriptions: Upon the north side, 'Texas, 100° longitude'; upon the south side 'Choctaw Nation, 100° longitude'; upon the east side, 'meri(tian of 100°, May 2B, 1852'; and upon the west side Captain McClellan marked my name with date. At the base of the sand hill will be found four cotton-wood trees, upon one ofwhieh i~:; nunked 'Texas,' und upon another will be found in-scribed, ' 20 miles from Otter Creek.' 36 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. " Red River at this place is a broad, shallow stream, 650 yards wide, running over a bed of sand. Its course is nearly due west, and thence the course of the south branch is WNW. for 8 miles, when it turns to nearly NW. The two branches are apparently of about equal magnitude, and between them, at the confluence, is a very high bluff, which can be seen for a long distance around. "We are encamped to-night near the mountains, about 3 miles from the river, and 1 mile west of the head of the west branch of Otter Creek, near a spring of pure cold water, which rises in the mountains and runs down past our camp. "'Our road leads along the creek valley, which is from 1 to 2 mges wide, with a very productive soil, covered with a dense coating of grass and skirted with a variety of hard timber." [Marcy, same, page 31, line 34.] ".As we ascend the river we have conclusive evidence of the falsity ofthe representa-tions of our visitors, the Washitas. It will be remembered they told us that the entire country was a perfectly desolate waste, :where neither man nor beast could get subsist-ence, and that there was no danger from Indians, as none ever resorted to this section of Red River. Their statements have proved false in every particular, as we have thus far found the country well watered, the soil "in many places good, everywhere yielding an abundance of the most nutritive grasses, with a great sufficiency of wood for all pur-poses of the traveler. · ''There are several old camps near us, which appear to have been occupied some two or three weeks since by the Comanches. The grass where their animals grazed is not yet grown up. ''Red River, which is about 6 miles distant from our present position, is 80 yards wide, with but a small portion covered with water, running over the quicksand bed. The banks upon each side are from 4 to 10 feet high, and not subject to inundation. The valley is here about half a mile wide, shut in by sandy bluffs 30 feet high, which form the border to a range of sand hills extending back about 5 miles upon each side of the river. 'l'he soil in the valley is sandy and sterile, producing little but scattering weeds and stunted brush.'' [Marcy, same, page 37, line 32.] "June 13. Leav-ing the command this morning encamped upon Sweet Water Creek1 I made a trip to Red River, which is about 6 miles in a southwest direction. It was but 100 yards wide where we struck it, with but a very small portion covered with water, and, very much to our astonishment, for the first time, upon tasting it we found it free from salts. Following up the stream about a mile, we discovered that this good water all issued from a small stream that put in upon the north bank, and above this the bed of the main river was dry." [Same, page 53, line 13.) Speaking of·South Fork, says: "It was here 900 yards wide, flowing over a very sandy bed, with but little wate1 in the channel." XIII. [Texas: The Rise, Progress, and Prospects of the Republic of Texas. In two volumes. By William Kennedy, esq. London: R.Hastings,13Careystreet, Lincoln's Inn, 1841. Vol. I, page34,line9.) "Brazos River and its branches.-The distance from Galveston Inlet to the embouchure of the Brazos is about 40 miles coastwise. The Brazos River (on the older maps the Rio Flores) rises in the Guadalupe Mountains, and has a circuitous course, the whole extent of which is computed to reach 1,000 miles. Like Red River, the waters of the Brazos are frequently red, from earthly deposits, and brackish, owing to one of its branches running through a large salt lake far in the in-terior. The name of Colorado would be applied to the Brazos with much greater pro-priety than to the river so designated, the waters of which, instead of being red, as the name indicates, are clear, except during and after its periodical rising, whereas those of the Brazos are red and muddy." [Same, page 167, line 31.) "The laborers in the mines fled, and were butchered iu detail. The priest alone escaped, and by a miracle. The holy man having fled to the Colorado River, the waters divided, permitted him to pass through and closed upon the pursuing Indians, consigning them to a common grave. .After great suffering the priest reached the Spanish mission of San Juan, at that period the only settl~ment on the SI.~Jn Antonio River. The absent sol< Ok ->< made known·to me with the same frankness, of t.he United States' desire to unite to its dominions all the territories which belong to Spain east of the Mississippi, and that for them they will offer to Spain those which were between the river Del Norte and. the Colorado. But as not only these lands but all those which lie between the Colorado and Cape North, drawing a line by the river Memento or Mementao towards tbe presidio of Adais, and from thence by the Arroyo Undo towards the Natchitoches, or a part of the province of 'I'exas, belonging to and in the uninterrupted possession of His Majesty, with· H. Ex. IS-63 40 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. out there having been in relation thereto any dispute between France and Spain-that dispute being :::;olely as to Natchitoches, which fort the French raised unjustly in the territory of His Catholic Majesty. It results that this proposition not only does not offer compensation to His l\!ajesty for West and East Florida, * -:~ 7<- but it involves the relinquishment of the property and possession which His Majesty has of the territory in the province of Texas, which lies between the Colorado and the vicinity of Natchitoches. "To propositions so distant from equal and reciprocal conventions in which we have agreed to treat these affairs, I answer that * * * ·I saw myself obliged to wait for instructions o* * * but that in the mean time, if you should propose to me on the part of this Government to make the Mississippi the boundary, I should see in that proposition a disposition on the part of the United States to offer some equivalent. And I would recommend it to the consideration of His Majesty as a fixed and stable limit to insure the peace and tranquillity of the two nations." (Vol. 4, American State Papers on Foreign Relat.ions, p. 438.) 3. Mr. Monroe, on the 25th of January, 1817, replied, using this language: "Finding by your letter that I had distinctly understood the views of your Government as explained by you in our late conference, and stated in my last letter, and perceiving, also, that you still adhere to those views, which, being altogether inconsistent with the rights of the· United States are inadmissible, I have to repeat that this Government has no motive to 'continue this negotiation on the subject of boundaries. (Id., p. 439.) [Extract from letter of Don Luis de Onis to John Q. Adams, Secretary of State, Washington, Decem-ber 23, 1817.] " I also acquainted you that the King, my master, * * * would condescend to cede the two Floridas to this Republic in consideration of an exchange or an equivalent which might be useful or convenient to Spain. Bnt as this exchange or equivalent must con-sist of a territory belonging to the United States, and which may offer in'Variable points, marked by nn.tu1·e, to fix the divisional line between the possessions of the Union and those of th•e Crown of Spain in a manner never to admit of doubt or controversy·hereafter, His Catholic Majesty caused certain proposals for the said exchange or equivalent to be made through his principal secretary of state to the minister of the United States at Madrid; they were decidedly declined by him. * * * It is consequently necessary to have recourse to others which may be admissible." * * * (Id., p. 452.) 5. [Extract from letter of Luis de On is, January 5, 1818, to Mr. Adams.] "I now confine myself to declare tG you, sir, and to the Government of the United States, in the name of the King, my master, that although Spain has an original and indisputable right to all the right bank of the Mississippi, His MaJesty has resolved to claim this right solely with a view to adhere to the uti possidetls or state of possession in which the Crown of Spain was when she acquired Louisiana, in 1764, and in which that of France was at the time she made the cession. His Majesty, paying due respect to all snch treaties and conventions as have caused a change in the state of possession of the two natwns in that part of America, religiously confines himself to the express pe-riod when Louisiana was circumscribed by the well-known extent and boundaries with which it passed into the hands of the United States. "As these boundaries to the westward of the Mississippi, although always notorious and acknowledged, have not been marked out with the formality necessary to avoid doubts and arbitrary pretensions, and as it is only evident that they undoubtedly pro-ceed from the Mexican Gulf by the river Mermen to or Mermen tao and Arroyo Hondo, by drawing a line betweenNachitoches and Adaes, which crosses the H.ed River and ex-tends toward the Missouri, I have done no more than point out the basis for the line of demarkation." * * * (Id., p. 4fi9.) 6. [Extract from letter of J. Q. Adams t.o Luis de Onis, January 16, 1818.] "The President considers it would be an unprofitable waste of time to enter again at large upon topics of controversy which were * * * so thoroughly debated. * * -x-I am instructed by the President to propose to you au adjustment of all the difference& between the two countries by an arrangement on tho following terms : u 1. Spain to cede all her claims to territory eastvyard Qfthe Mississippi, REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 41 '' 2. The Colorado from its mouth to its source, aud from thence to the northern limits of Louisiana, to be the western boundary, or to leave that boundary unsettled for future arrangement." ,* * * (Id., 464.) 7. [Extract from letter of Luis de Onis, January 24, 1818, to J. Q. Adams.] ''You have proposed to me in your note a plan of arrangement or adjustment embrac-ing the question of boundaries and that of indemnities, which is as follows: To settle the former you propose 'that Spain shall cede all her claims to territory eastward of the Mis-sissippi' (that is to say, ~he two Floridas), and 'that the Colorado from its mouth to its source, and from thence to the northern limits of Louisiana, shall be the western boundary of that province.' I have expressed in one proposal what you have stated in two, as both are reduced to the cession of territory by Spain. It is not only proposed that Spain shall cede both Floridas to the United States, but that she shall likewise cede to them the vast extent of Spanish territory comprehended within the line following the whole course of the Colorado. I presume that it is the river Colorado of N acbitocbes you speak of, and not another bearing the same name which is still farther witbin the limits of the Spanish provinces. I leave it ~o you, sir, to examine the import of tbe~e two pro-posals and see whether they are compatible with the principles of justice or with those of reciprocal utility or co::1venience. It is demanded of Spain to cede provinces and ter-ritories of the highest importance, not only to the eastward but to the westward of Louisiana, and that without proposing any equivalent or compensation. '"" * * I can not refrain from expressing my great concern at not being able in any degree to rec-oncile the proposals you have made me by order of the President wit,h the inviolable principles of common justice, * * * the said proposals being altogether inadmis-sible. * * * I !'ball therefore point out to you such as I conceive to be founded in justice and reciprocal convenience, and therefore can not fail to meet the wishes of the United States." ''I. The dividing line between Louisiana and the Spanish possessions to be established in one of the branches of the Mississippi, either that of LaFourche or of the Atcha-falaya, following the course of that river to its source, Spain to cede the two Floridas to the United States in full and complete Rovereignty. In case this proposal should not appear admissible to your government, the following may be substituted: The uti pos-sidetis or state of possession in 1763 to form the basis, and the western line of division to be established from the sea, at a point between the rivers Carcasa and the Mermento or Mermen tao, running thence by Arroyo Hondo till it crosses the Colorado of N atcbitoches, between that post and Adaes; thence northward to a point to be fixed and laid down by commissioners respectively appointed for the purpose." (I d., 465, 466.) 8. [Extract from letter of J. Q. Adami' to Luis de Onis, of March 12, 1818:] "You perceive, sir, that the Government of the United States is not prepared either to renounce any ofthe claims which it bas been so long urgingupon the Justice of Spain or to acquiesce in any of those arguments which appear to you so lummous and iiTe-sistible (p. 477). * * * With regard to those parts of the province of Louisiana which have been incorporated within a State of that name, it is time that discussion should cease. Forming a part of the territory of a sovereign and independent State of the Union, to dispose of them is not within the competency of the '-'xecutive government of the United States, nor will discussion be hereafter continued. But if you have proposals to make to which it is possible for the Government of the United States to listen with a prospect of bringing them to any practicable conclusion, I am authorized to receive them and to conclude with you a treaty for the adjustment of all the differences between the two nations, upon terms which may be satisfactory to both." (Id., p. 478.) 9. (Third article of "Translation of Propositions" received in Mr. Onis's letter of October 24, 1818, to $ecretary ofVi'ar John Q. Adams.] "3. To avoid all cause of dispute in future, the limits of the respective possession of both Governments to the west of the Mississippi shall be designated by a line beginning on the Gulf of Mexico, between the rivers Mermen to and Calcasia, following the Arroyo Hondo, between the Adaes and Natchitoches, crossing the Rio Ro~o, or Red River, at the ~hirt7-se~on~ degr~e of latit~q.~ !lnd :ninety·tbir4 of lon9itHU~ fmm Lppqou1 ~C.9oniin0 w , 42 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. Melish's map, and thence running directly north, crossing the Arkansas, the White, and the Osage Rivers, till it strikes the Missouri, and then following the middle of that river to its source, so that the territory on the right bank of the said river will belong to Spain, and that on the left bank to the United States. The navigation as well of the Missouri as of the Mississippi and Mermento shall remain free to the subjects of both parties. "To :fix this line with more precision, and to place the land-marb which shall desig-nate exactly the limits of both nations, each of the contracting parties shall appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who shall meet before the termination of one year from the date of the ratification of this treaty, at Natchitoches, on Red Hiver, and proceed to rnn and mark the said line in conformity to what is above agreed upon and stipulated; they shall make out plans and keep journals of their proceedings, and the 1·esult agreed upon by them shall be considered as part ofthis treaty, and shall have the same force of if it were inserted therein," etc. ~See Annals of Congress, Fifteenth Congress, second session, vol. 2, 1819, page 1900. See Annals of Congress, Fifteenth Congress, second ses-sion, 1819, page 1900.) 10. To which proposition John Q. Adams, under date of October 31, 1818, replied : "Instead of it, I am authorized to propose to you the following, and to assure you that it is to be considered as the :final offer on the part of the United States: Beginning at the mouth of the river Sabine, on the Gulf of Mexico, following the course of said river to the thirty-second degree of latitude; the eastern bank and all the inlands in the said river to belong to the United States, and the western bank to Spain; thence due north to the northernmost part of the thirty-third degr~e of north latitude, and until it strikes the Rio Hoxo, or Hed River, thence following the course of the said river to its source, touching the chain of the Snow Mountains in latitude 37° 251 north, longitude 106° 151 west, or thereabouts, as marked on Melish's map; thence to the summit of the said mountains and following the chain of the same to the forty-first parallel oflatitude; thence following the said parallel of latitude 41° to the South Sea. The northern bank of the said Red River and all the islands therein to belong to the United States, and the southern bank ofthe same to Spain. , · ''It is believed that this line will render the appointment of commissioners for fixing it more precisely unnecessary, unless it be for the purpose of ascertaining the spot where the river Sabine falls upon latitude 32° north, and the line thence due north to the Red River; and the point of latitude 41° north on the ridge of the Snow Mountains, to which appointment of commissioners this Government will readily agree," etc. 11. To this Don Luis de Onis, on the 16th of November, 1818, as found in Annals of Con-, gress, Fifteenth Congress, second session, page 19081 replied: "Acceding as far as it is possible for me to do to the modifications proposed by you 1 and with a view of offering to the United States an additional proof of my wish to re-move existing difficulties, I will undertake to admit the river Sabine instead of the Mermen to as the boundary between the two powers, from the Gulf of Mexico, on con-dition that the same lineproposed by you shall run due north from the point where it crosses the Rio Roxo (Red River), until it strikes the Mississippi, and extend thenee along the middle of the latter to its source, leaving to Spain the territory lying to the right, and to the United States the territory lying to the left of the same. What you add respecting the extension of the same line beyond the Missouri along the Spanish possessions to the Pacific Ocean exceeds, by its magnitude and its transcendency, all for-mer demands and pretensions started by the United States. Confining myself, there-fore, to the powers granted me by my sovereign, I am unable to stipulate anything on this point,'' etc. 12. To this John Q. Adams, on November 30, 1818, replied: "As you have now declared that you are not authorized to agree either to the course of tbe Red River (Rio Hoxo) for the boundary, or to the forty-first parallel of latitude, from the Snow Mountains to the Pacific Ocean, the President deems it useless to pursue any further the attempt at an adjustment, the object of this present negotiation. I am therefore directed to state to you that the offer of a line for the western boundary, made to you in my last letter, it is no longer obligatory upon this Government. Heserving then all the rights of the United States to the ancient western boundary of the colony· of Louisiana by the course of the Rio Bravo del Norte, I am,'' etc. (See Annals of Con-gress, Fifteenth Congress, second session, page 1942.) .. REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 43 13. To this De Onis replied, December 12, 1818:-x-, 'As you stated to me in your note of the 31st of October last, that the proposals you then made me by order of your Government comprehended everything which the Presi-dent conceived it possible within the compass of Lis powerr,; aud duty to offer tor the final arrangement of the pending differences, I endeavored in my letter of the 16th of No-vember last to modifY the ]Jroposals made in yours of the 31st of October, and approxi-mate them to yours to the utmost extent of iuy po\Yers. I eYen expresse<- * * Two or three hours before night struck the Spanish road; and as it was snowing, halted and encamped the party at the first woods on the river. Distance, 12 miles. October 30.- * -x- * Discovered also that the Spanish troops bad marched the river up. * * * Distance, 4 miles. October 31.- -;(- * ·:+ Marched -:<- * * on the Spanish road; * * * made 16 miles. We observed this day a species of crystallization on the road (when the sun was high) in low places where there bad been water settled; on tasting it found it to be salt. This gave in my mind some authenticity to the report of the prairie being covered for leagues .• * * -:< November 2.- * * * River turned to north by west; hills changed to north side. Distance, 13} miles. * * -><-November D.- o~- * * Struck Spanish road (which had been on the outside of us), which appeared to be considerably augmented, and on our arrival at the camp found it to consist of 96 fires, from which a reasonable conclusion might be drawn that there were from 600 to 700 men. +:· * * November 13.- ''" +:· * The river begins to be entirely covered with woods on both sides. * * * November 15.- * * * At two in the afternoon I thought I could distinguish a mountain to our right, which appeared like a blue cl9ud; * * * in half an hour they appeared in full view before us. When our party arrived on the hill they with one accord gave "three cheers for the Mexican Mountains;" * * * discovered a fork on the south side bearing south 25° west, and the Spanish troops appeared to have borne up it; we encamped on its hanks, about 1 mile from ·its confluence. * 'f +:-November 16.-Spanish troops had ascended the right branch or main river. * * * November 21.- -x- * -x- Passed two Spanish camps within three miles of each other. * -x- * November 23.- ·:+ * * Came to third fork on south side. * * * I concluded to put the party in a defensible situation and ascend the North Fork to a high point on the Blue Mountain. +:· * * ' Nm;ember24.- * * * Put up a ,breastwork 5 feet high. * * * After giving the necessary orders for their government during my absence, * * . * we marched * * * with an idea of arriving at the foot of the mountain. * * -x- Our party con-sisted of Dr. Robinson, Privates Miller and Brown. November 25.-Marched early with an expectation of ~scending the mountain, but only able to camp at its bas~. · !fovember 26.-We commenced ascendingi ca.mped in a C'llve, 54 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. November 27.- * * * Commenced our march up the mountain; * * * ar-rived at the summit; found the snow middle deep. November 29.- * * * Arrived a,t our camp. * * * December 6.-Sent out three different parties to hqnt the Spanish trace, but without success. ·>< * * December9.- * ·>< * FoundtheSpanishcamp, * -K· * andfromeveryobserva-tion we could make conceived they had aU ascended the river. * * * December 13.- * -K· * Passed a dividing ridge, * 7<· * fell on a river 40 yards wide, frozen over, * * * runs northeast. * -K· * Must it not be the headwaters of the Platte? ·>< * * December 16.-Froma high ridge we reconnoitered the adjacent country, and concluded putting the Spanish trace out of the question and to bear on our course southwest for the head of Red River. December 17.- * ·>< * Striking the left-hand fork of the river we had left, found it to be the main branch and ascended it some distance, but finding it to bear too much to the north we encamped about two miles from it. December 18.- * * * Crossed the mountain which lay to the southwest of us; * * * arrived at a small spring; * ·X· * struck what we supposed to be the Red River, which here was about 25 yards wide. * * * December 21.- * * * Myself and two men ascended 12 miles. * * * December 22.-Marched up 13 miles to a point of the mountain whence we had a view at least 33 miles to where the river entered the· mountains, it being at that place not more than 10 or 15 feet wide, and, properly speaking, only a brook. December 2'3.- * * * Arrived at * * * encampment of the party. December 31.- -K· * * The river turned so much to the north as almost induced us to believe it was the Arkansas. 1 January 5.- * * * From some distant, peaks I immediately recognized it to be the outlet of the Arkansas, which we had left nearly one month since. * * 7<· We proceeded to our old camp, which we had left the lOth of December, and .reoccupied it. January 13.- -x· * * Obtained an angle between the sun and moon, which I con-ceived the most correct way I possessed of ascertaining the longitude. * * >} January 14.- * * * Crossed the first ridge, leaving the main branch of the river to the north of us, and struck on the south fork. * •'+ * ' January 15.- * * * Passed the main ridge of what I term the Blue M~tmtains. January 27.- * * * We struck on a brook which led west, which I followed down, and shortly came to a small run, running west, which we hailed with fervency as the waters of Red River. January 30.-We marched hard and arrived in the evening on the banks (then sup-posed Red River) of the Rio del Norte. February 16.-(This entry recites visit at his camp of a Spanish dragoon and Indian.) February 26.- * ·>< '* Two Frenchmen arrived. * * * They informed me that his excellency Governor Allen Coster * -K· * had detached an officer with 50 dra-goons to come out and protect ine. Shortly after the party came in sight ·* 7<· ok 50 dragoons and 50 mounted militia of the province. * * >} After breakfast the commanding officer addressed me as follows: '' Sir, the governor of New Mexico, being informed you had missed your route, ordered met~ offer yon, in his name, mules, horses, money, or whatever you may stand in need of, to conduct yon to the head of Red River; as from Santa Fe to where it is sometimes navigable is eight days' journey, and we have guides and routes of the traders to conduct us." "What," said I (interrupting him), "is not this Red River?" "No, sir; the Rio del Norte." -:<· * ·>< He now added that he had provided one hundred mules and horses to take in my part of the baggage, and how anxious his excellency was to see me. * ·X· * I stated to him * * -K· my orders would not justify my entering into Spanish terri-tory. He urges st.ill_further. * ·:f ·>< I was induced to consent to the measure by my .conviction that the officer had positive orders to bring me in. * ·X· >< Febrnar.1J 28.- -K· * * One of the Frenchmen inlormed me that the expedition which had been at the Pawnees had descended the Red River 232 leagues, and from thence crossed to the Pawnees expressly in search of my party. This was afterwards confirmed by the gentleman who commanded the troops. * ><· 7:· JJfarch :~.- * * * Prepared for entering the capital, which we came in sight of in the evening. It is situated along the banks of a small creek which comes from the mountains and runs west to the Rio del Norte. The length of the capital on the creek may be estimated at 1 mile; it is but three streets in width. * '~ * The supposed popul~tion is 4, 500 souls. JJfarch 6.-Marched down the Rio del Norte. -Y-· .,'(- * On our arrival at the bouse of the father, etc. * -K· * Father Rubi displayed a liberality of opinion and a fund of knowledge which astonished me, He showed me~ st(l.tistic~l table on which he had_ i.I! REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 55 regular manner taken the whole province of New Mexico by villages, beginning at Taos on the northwest and ending at Valencia on the south, and giving their latitude, longi-tude, and population, whether natives or Spainards, civilized or barbarous, christian or pagan, numbers, name of the nation, when converted, how governed, military forces, clergy, salary, etc., etc.; in short, a complete geographical, statistical, and historical sketch of the province. * * * (Sources of the Mississippi, Pike's expedition, pages 111 to 221.) [Li~utenant Wilkinson's report of his passage down the Arkansas. Extract.l On the 17th (October, 1806), * * * Lieutenant Pike having determined that I should descend the Arkansas, we cut down a small green cottonwood, and with much la~or sp~~t ~~1t a canoe, which being insufficient, we formed a second of buffalo and elk SkiDS. -.-- " * The weather became extremely cold on the 27th. ·:f * * In the morning the river was almost choked with drifting ice. ·x- * * I took leaYe of :M:r. Pike, who marched up the river at the moment I embarked on board my newly-cow;;tructed canoe. * * * We bad not proceeded more than 100 yards when my boats grounded, and the men- were obliged to drag them through sand and ice 5 miles to a copse of woods on the south-western bank. ·X * * I here hauled up my canoe, formed a kind of cabin of it, and wrappefl. myself up in my buffalo robe, disheartened. -x- -x- * In the morning the river was so full of ice as to prevent all possibility of proceeding. * -x- * On the 30th the river was frozen up. On the 31st of October, after having thrown away all my clothing and provision, except half a dozen tin cups of corn for each man, I slung my rifle on my shoulder and with buffalo robe at my back and circurn.terentor in my hand I recommenced my march. * * * On the 1st, 2d, and 3d of November I marched over high and barren hills of sand, and at the close of each day passed strongly impregnated salines and perceived the shores of the river to be completely frosted with niter. The face of the country I de-scended looked more desolate than above, the eye being scarcely able to discern a tree. * * * On the 4th we experienced a heavy rain, but hunger and cold pressed me forward. After marching 10 miles I reached a small tree, where I remained in a con-tinued rain for two days, at the expiration of which time, having exhausted my fuel, I had again to push off, * * * and formed my camp at the mouth of a bold running stream, whose northern bank was skirted by a train oflofty ridges. On the 8th * * * I began my march early. * * * I saw more than 9, 000 buf-faloes during the day's march. * * * On the lOth, * * * after a severe day's march, I encamped on the bank of a large creek, and discovered a species of wood differing from the cottontree. * * * I was just entering on a hunting ground of the Osages. * * * On the 12th, * ~* * our marches lay through rich bottoms. * * * On the 15th, * -x- * discovering timber sufficiently large to form canoes, I felled a couple of trees and commenced splitting out. On the 25th I again attempted the navigation of the river. * * * The following day I passed the N egraca, at whose mouth commenced the craggy cliffs which line a great partoftheshoresoftheArkansas. * * * (Appendix toPartiiof Sourcesof the Mis-sissip:r>i, pp. 25 to 27.) [Extract-letter of Z. M. Pike to General Wilkinson.] NATCHITOCHES, July 5, 1807. DEAR GENERArj: * * -x- But the general will please to recollect that my jour-nals were saved at Santa Fe, which were continued and are entire to this post, a fortu-nate circumstance of the doctor's having copied my courses and distances through all the route (except an excursion we made to the sources of the river Platte) unto the Spanish territories, preserved them, which will enable me to exhibit a correct chart of the route. * ·X· * (Appendix to Part III of Sources of the Mississippi, p. 59.) [What the north fork of Red River was called prior to the date when the one hundreth meridian was located west of the forks of Red River (by Daniel G. Major, of the United States Astronomical Corps, in the spring of 1859).] · Capt. R. B. Marcy, in his report of his exploration of a road from Fort Smith to Santa Fe in 1849, used this language on page 217: ''About 30 miles north of our camp there is a sharp mound visible from the hills above here, and Beaver (his Indian guide) tells me that directly at the foot of this mound runs the Big Wichita, one of the principal tributaries to Red River, and that 30 miles in a porthwest course from that mound the Red River forks, one branch coming in from th~ :p, Ex. IS-6i 56 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. west is called "Kecbeaquebono," or ''Prairie Dog Town R~ ver," f~·om th~ circumstance of there being a round mound upon the stream, which bas a prairie dog town upon top of it. This branch rises in the Llano Estacado. The other or northern branch is the principal stream, wllich rises in the Salt Plains near the head of Dry River." What R. B. 'Marcy called the north fork of Red Rive·r before his survey of the south fork: 7:- * * ''We traveled in a westerly direction about 8 miles, when we tmned north toward two very prominent peaks of the Wichita Mountains, and continued in this course until we arrived upon an elevated spot in the prairie, where we suddenly came in sight of Red River directly before us. Since we had last seen the river it had changed its course almost at right angle~:>, and here runs nearly north and south, passing a chain of mountains in front of us. \Ve continued on for 4 miles further, when we reached a fine, bold, running creek of good water, which we were rejoiced to see, as we bad found no drinkable water during the day. We encamped about 4 miles above its confluence with Red River. This stream, which I called Otter Creek (as those animals are abundant here), rises in Wichita Mountains, and runs a course south 25° west." (Red River of Louisiana, by Marcy, pp. 13 and 14.) "The direction of this mount:lin chain is about south 60° west, and from 5 to 15 mile~:> in breadth. Its length we are not yet able to determine. Red River, which passes directly through the western extremity of the chRin, is different in character at the mouth of Otter Creek from wllat it is below the junction of the Kecheaquehono. Thereitisonly120 yards wide; the banks of red clayare from 3 to 8 feet high, the water extending entirely across the bed, and at this time (abighstage) about 6 feet deep in the channel, with a rapid current of 4 miles per hour, highly charged with a dull-red sedi-mP.n tary matter and slightly brackish to the taste." (I d., p. 15.) May 28.-Captain l\IcClellan bas, by observations upon lunar distances, determined the longitude of our last camp upon the creek to be 100° 01 4511 , which is but a short distance from the point where the line dividing the Choctaw Territory from the State of Texas crosses Red River. The point where this line intersects Otter Creek is marked upon a large elm tree standing near the bank and will be found about 4 miles from the mouth of the creek, upon the south side, with longitude (100° 01 4511 ) and lati-tude (34° 341 611 ) dis_tinctly marked upon it." · (Id., p. 18.) ''May 30. -Captain McClellan returned this morning, llaving traced the meridian of the one hundredth degree of west longitude to where it strikes Red River. This point he ascer-tained to be about 6 miles below the junction of the two principal branches and three-fourths of a mile below a small creek which puts in from the north upon the left bank, near where the river bends almost due west to north. At this point a cottonwood tree, standing 50 feet from the water, upon a summit of a sand hill, is blazed upon four sides, facing north, south, east, and west, and upon these faces degrees of longitnde; upon the south side, 'Choctaw Nation, 100° longitude;' upon the east side, 'Meridian of the one hundredth degree, May29, 1852;' and upon the west side, Captain McClellan marked my name with date. At the base of the sand hills will be found four cottonwood trees, upon one of which is marked "'],'exas," aud upon another will be found inscribed "20 miles 1rom Otter Creek.'' (I d., pp. 19 and 20.) June 1.-Capt. R. B. Marcy speaks of passing the base of Mount Webster, named by Captain McClellan, and ascertained by barometer to be 780 feet high above the base, and says: "Taking an old Comanche trail this morning, I followed it to a narrow defile in 'the mountains, which led me up through a very tortuous rocky gorge, where the well-worn path indicated that it had been traveled tor many years. * * -x- After crossing the mountains we descended upon the south side, where we found the river flowing di-rectly at the base, and after ascending it about 2 miles arrived at a point where it again divided into two nearly equal branches. The water in the south branch, which I have called Salt Fork, is bitter and unpalatable. * * * The north branch, which I propose to ascend, is, near Lhe.junction, 105 feet wide and 3 feeL deep, with a very rapid cur-rent." -x- -x- * Id., (p. 21.) .June 2.-We -x- * -x- taking a course nearly due west, emerged from the mountains out into the high level prairie, where we found neither wood nor water until we reached our present position, about half a mile from Red River. * ·* * The latitude at this point is 85° 81 ; longitude, 100° 121 . (Id., page 22.-x-) Captain Marcy first reaches the South Fork and recognized its name as "Kecheaque-hono.'' June 27.- * * * After traveling 14 miles we reached the valley of the principal branch ofthe river (South Fork). It was here 900 yards wide, flowingoverasandybed, with but little water in the channel, and is fortified on each side by rugged hills and *See also pages 23, 25, 29, 34, 35, for instan<;es of Captain Marcy's habit of calling the north branch Red River: REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 57 deep gullies, over which I think it will be impossible to take our train. The soil through-out this section is a light ferruginous clay, with no tiJ;Uber except a few hadkberry and cottonwood trees upon the banks of the streams. There is but little water either in the river or in the creeks, and in a dry season I doubt if there would be any found here. Our route to-day has continued to lead us through dog towns, and it is probable that the fact of their being so abundant here has suggested the name which the Comanches have applied to this branch of Red River, of Kecheaquehono, or Prairie Dog Town River. (Id., 49.) List of" Tributaries of Red River," given in J. DeCordova Immigrant and Traveler's Guide Book, published in 1856, page 82: Sulphur Fork. Big Bayou. Red Bayou. Mud Creek. Mill Creek. Pecan Bayou. Bason Creek. Little Pine Creek. Lower Pine Creek. Upper Pine Creek. Sanders' Creek. Clear Lake. Sluce ·Creek. Bois d'Arc. Jennett's Creek. Sandy's Creek. Caney Creek. Brushy Creek. Choctaw Bayou. Mill Ure~k. Iron Ore Creek. Shawnee Creek. Little Mineral Creek. Big Mineral Creek. Sandy Creek. Clear Creek. Fish Creek. Saline Creek. Coffee Creek. Belknap Creek. Little Wichita. Big Wichita. Pease River. Wanderer's Creek. Prairie Dog River. Reed's Creek. [Extract' from list of all the streams in Texas, and where they empty.] Puum Creek empties into Leon River. Prennett's Creek empties into Caddo Lake. Pleasant Run Creek empties into Trinity River. Prairie Dog River empties into Red River. (I d., page 98.) [Extract from official letter of R. S. Neighbors, Indian agent of United States, to General Twiggs, July 17, 1857.] "The members of the above-named (Texas Indians) tribes not on the reserves in Tex~ are east of Red River in the Chickasaw and Choctaw country." (See Report of Sec-retary of Interior, Message and Documents, President of the United States, 1857-'58, page 553.) [Extract from official letter of Elias Rector, superintendent Indian Affairs, reporting personal sur-vey by him of the Indian Territory.] ''To the south of the mountains two streams flow off to Red River-Otter Creek and Cache'Creek-the former at the western extremity and the latter at the eastern extrem-ity of the mountains." (Part I, Message and Documents, 1859-'60, Report Secretary Interior, Document 148, pages 673, 674.) · [Extract from letter of Governor E. M. Pease to John M. Swisher in" Greer County Investigated," pages 13 and 14.] "It (the North Fork of Red River) was always known to travelers and in our history ai 'Red River,' and was never called by any other name until Captain Marcy, after his discovery of the Prairie Dog Town Fork, 1852, designated it as the 'North Fork,' upon his map; * * -x- that the North Fork wus well known to travelers as ''Red River" at the time of this treaty (1819), and long before, •s proved by the fact that the old Spanish road from Louisiana to Santa Fe followed up this fork as 'Red River,' a short distance north of it, and crossed the Canadian River near the point where the two approach each other nearest. It is asserted by those who favor th9 claim of the United States, that the Prairie Dog Town Fork is the largest and longest fork of Red River, and is the main or principal stream, and must therefore be considered as the Red River named in the treaty. They also claim that the South Fork is larger at the point of intersection with the one hundredth meridian oflongitude than the North Fork is at thepointwhereit intersects said meridian. This last may well be, for it will be seen from an inspection of the map of the Indian Territory, published by the General Land Office of the United States, on which both forks are meandered from their confluence to said one hundredth meridian, that the North Fork has a course nearly, if not more than, three times the distance from their confluence to said meridian that the South Fork has. * * * All the informa-58 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. tion I have been able to obtain from persons who have often visited and crossed both branches at many different points, and at different seasons of the year, tends to prove that the North Fork has more permanent tributaries, and furnishes much more water to the river below than the South Fork. "In answer tp all these claims it is sufficient to state that the treaty says nothing about the main or principal stream being intended, but designates the Red River as laid down on Melish's map, without any qualification whatever, and this map places all the upper forks of Red River within the limits of Texas. * * * "E. M. PEASE." [Extracts from "Description of the New Counties of Texas, by H. Wickeland," in Texas Almanac, 1859-'60.] "WICHITA AND WILBARGER COUNTIES. ''These counties are located on the south bank of Red River and Prairie Dog Town River, the former separating them from the Indian Territory. * * * Within the limits of Wilbarger County, 4 miles 2 hove the northwest corner of Wichita County, is the junction of Pease and Red Rivers, and & miles northwest of said corner is the confluence. of the latter and the Kecheaquehono, or Prairie Dog Town River. The bed of Red River at this point is about 500, that of the other 800 yards wide, but Red River' furnishes the most water and is always running, when Prairie Dog River is frequently dry during the summer. * * ·:<-''A most magnificent view presents itself at sunrise to a person standing on the pre-cipitous hills west of the mouth of the Kecheaquehono. The Wichita Mountains rise in large dark blue masses from the apparently unlimited carpet of bright buffalo and mes-quite grasses. By the dark foliage of the timber you can follow t.he course of the tort-nons streams and copy a map of tlle country from the original plat. The mountains appear not very distant, and you propose a short ride; still from your high stand at the mouth of the Kecheaquehono you will find it fully 20 miles to the nearest mount-ain. * * * ''THE PANHANDLE OF TEXAS! as nearly everybody knows, is that portion of the State north of the Kecheaquehono or Prairie Dog Town River, and between Red River and the one hundredth meridian on the east and the one hundred and third meridian, the boundary of New Mexico, on the west. * * .y, The southeastern section is decidedly the most fertile, being watered entirely by Red River and its branches, and forms a basin of about 6,000 square miles from 800 to 1,000 feet lower than the plain west of it. Red River proper (sometimes called NorthFork), the Salt Fork, Prairie Dog Town River,and their upper tributaries, have their sources in deep ravines of the eastern border of the Llano Estacado. * * * Red River flows in an easterly course until it encounters the Wichita Mountain~; thence it turns south and receives the Salt Fork; * * * having wound its way around the mountains, and having its waters increased by those of the Kecheaquehono and Pease Rivers, it resumes its eastern course." (Texas Almanac, pages 174, 178, and 179. ) DEPOSITIONS RELATING TO THE GREER COUNTY BOUNDARY. I. Deposition of Capt. R , B. JJ:fm·cy. As the interrogatories that have been ~bmitted to me involve so wide a scope that it would require much time and labor to answer them in detail, and as the answers to most of them are more fully set forth in my report of the exploration ofthe "Red River" in 1852 than I could do at this time, it has occurred to me that a narrative of facts and opinions connected with the special subjects before the Commission might be more satis-factory than any other course. If this meets the approbation of the ·gentlemen of the Joint Commission, I remark first, that in 1849 I was ordered to escort emigrants from Fort Smith, Ark., to Santa Fe, N.Mex., en route to California; and on the 4th of April left Fort Smith with some five hundred emigrants, following up the Canadian River for about 200 miles, through a timbered section, when we emerged into the plains upon the elevated ridge dividing the waters of the Washita and Canadian Rivers; and we continued upon this divide, passing the head-w;:~.ters of the l;:~.tter near the Antelope Hills, and thence npon the continuation of the di-R:BPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY CO!iMISSlON. 59 vide of tlw Red and Canadian Rivers for about 300 miles over a very smooth prairie, and our track seldom Tunning out of sight of the Canadian River, but a much greater distance from the Red River. And I here remark that the ground upon both sides of this divide was so cut up by ravines and washes that it would have been difficult to have taken our wagons over any other track except directly upon the divide. At length, however, the Canadian turned so much out of our course that we left it and struck a straight course for the Pecos River, and, crossing at Autine Chico, we found a wagon-road that led us to Santa Fe, N. Mex., 120 miles from the point of our departure at Fort Smith. Finding here that there was no direct wagon-road to California, the emigrants weTe obliged to descend the Rio del Norte 3'00 miles to reach the Gila route, the only one then traveled. I accompanied them to where they struck this route, then left them and returned to the east at Dofia Afia, taking my party of soldiers directly back to Fort Smith via the headwaters of the Colorado, Brazos, and Trinity Rivers, making a most excellent wagon-trail, 904 miles in length, which was followed for several years after-wards by California emigrants. In 1861 I was ordered to establish a military post as far out on the south side of the "Canadian River" as requisites for a garrison could be found; but I advised placing this post on the Washita River, which was alluded to, and I established it near that stream, and named it Fort Arbuckle. The Washita was here about 75 yards wide, a deep and rapid stream, furnishing a good portion of water to Red River. It rises near the Antelope Hills, within about 5 miles of the Canadian River, and enters Hed River, near Preston, Tex. The detailed account of my exploration of Red River, with descriptions of the country through which it flows, will be found in my Teport, which is before the Commission, and to which I beg leave to refer. As the time that has elapsed since I made that exploration (thirty-three years) is so great many of the facts and events connected therewith have passed from my memory; but some matters relative to the objects for which this Commission was convened, as I understand, may not be found in the report. I have this morning, for the first time, seen a copy of that portion of Melish's map of the United States embracing the part of the Red River country which the Commission has under consideration at this time, which is authenticated by the signature of the Sec-retary of State of the United States. Upon this map only one large fork of Red River is delineated, with one more north-erly small affluent, which is not named, but may have been intended for the Washita River or Cache Creek. But none of the important southern tributaries, such as the ''Big Wichita," Pease River, and the Prairie Dog Town River, are delineated thereon, unless the stream marked as the ''Rio-san-saba" is designed for the Prairie Dog Town Branch; and as the real ''Rio-san-saba'' of Texas is 500 miles, or theTeabouts, distant from this locality, it does not seem improbable that if the maker of the map had any vague conception of the ex-·istence of such a stream as the Prairie Dog '.rown River, he might have intended this as such. It certainly was, as far as the section of the map shows it, nearly in the direction of that branch of Red River, and is put down as rising near the eastern border of the staked plain, but the small section of :the map does not show where it runs. I regarded the Prairie Dog Town Branch as the main Red River, for the reason that its bed was much wider than that of the North Fork, although the water only cov-ered a small portion of its bed, and as the sandy earth absorbed a good deal of water after it debouched from the cafi.on through which it flows, it may not contribute any more water to the lower river than the North Pork. The Prairie Dog Town Branch ai\d the North Fork of Red River, from their conflu-ences to their sources, are of about equal length-the former being 180 miles and the latter 177 miles in length. For reasons which I will presently state I have been unable to resist the force of my own convictions, that the branch of Red River that I called the North Fork of that stream was what is designated upon Melish's map as Rio Rojo. I doubt if the Prairie Dog Town River was ever known to civilized men prior to my exploration in 1852; and, if it was ever mapped before then, I am not aware of it. The character of the country through which this stream flows is such that travelers would have' not likely passed over it when there was a much more favorable route north of the North Fork. , The water in the Prairie Dog Town Branch, from its confluence with the North Fork to within 2 miles of its head spring (about 100 miles), I found so bitter and unpalatable that many of the men became sick from drinking it. But one pool of fresh water was found throughout the entire distance, and the Indians told me they never went up this stream with their families if it could be avoided, for the reason that thenauseo,Is water GO REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY CO:MMISSIO~. frequently proved fatal to their children. Hence, it is not surprising that but little, if anything, should have been known of this repulsive region before my exploration in 1852 . .And this probably accounts for the entire absence of most of its southern branches upon Melish's map. It is very certain that the "Prairie Dog Town River" was never delineated upon any of our maps, or designated by any Spanish, French, or English name, as were the most of the other streams in that country, and it was only known to the Indians and possibly to some Mexican traders as ''The Ke-che-ah-que-ho-no," a Comanche appellation, the sig-nification ofwhich theDelawaresinformedmewas, ''Prairie DogTown River.'' I was informed in New Mexico that the Mexicans were the only semi-civilized people who, for many years, ventured into the Comanche and Kiowa country, and they only went there for traffic, transporting their merchandise in ox-carts from Santa Fe, along the identical track which I followerl in escorting California emigrants from .Arkansas in 1849, where, as I said before, we found the greater part of the way a perfectly smooth prairie surface upon a high divide, admirably adapted to wagon travel, with abundance of good wood, water, and grass, for camping purposes, and upon this route deep Mexican cart tracks, made when the ground was soft many years previous, were often observed, showing that the route had been traveled for a long time, but no such tracks, roads or trails were seen within the valley of Prairie Dog Town River, and no evidences of Indians having frequented that section were noticed there. .As before stated, owing to the ab-sence of good water, the sandy character of the soil along this river, and the formidable obstruction presented by the elevated and wide spur of the staked plains and the exten-sive belt of gypsum crossing this route, the Mexicans would never have attempted to traverse it with their carts in their trading expeditions from Santa Fe to Nacogdoches, especially when there was so good a route a little farther north, possessing all there-quirements for prairie traveling. · The Rio Rojo, or lioxo upon Melish's map, is almost entirely south and west of the Wichita Mountains, but in close proximity to them-which is in accord with my deter-mination of the position of the North Fork, while there are no mountains upon the Prairie Dog Town Branch. The hearl of the Rio Roxo, upon Melish's mal), is put down as in the latitude 37°, while upon my map the true latitude is 351°, while the Prairie Dog Town River rises in about thirty-four and one-half degrees, so that if his Rio Roxo was intended to represent the ''Prairie Dog Town River," it would be two and one-half degrees oflatitude too far north. Owing to the imperfection of our instruments for the determination oflongitude, we did not place implicit reliance in the accuracy of our conclusions regarding the one hundred negrees of longitude, although a series of observations upon lunar distances were taken. But as Captain Mc(Jlellan was unable to procure a chronometer from the Engineer De-partment at ·washington, he was obliged to substitute therefor a pocket lever watch, which probably accounts for the error in determination of the longitude at the one hundred degree meridian. But the latitudes given upon my map were the results of from twelve to fifteen observations of Polar is for the determination of each position, and are believed to be correct. I passed over the traders' overland route from the Missouri River to Santa Fe first in 1857, striking the Arkansas River near Fort Larned, about 75 miles below Fort Dodge. The road I traveled up the .Arkansas keeps altogether upon the north bank of the river, with the exception of 10 miles in the river bottom. It continues for several miles to Pueblo, where it turns to the south and traverses the mountains through the Raton / Pa~s, thence to Las Vegas and Santa Fe. This is one 0f the traders' routes from the Missouri River and Independence, Mo., which, for many years, was the eastern terminus of their route. This was a broad, smooth, natural road, and many large trains of merchandise passed over it annually . .Another road, called the Cimarronroute,was sometimes traveled bythetraders,which only followed up the .Arkansas a short distance above Fort Dodge, where it crossed, and leaving the river passed entirely around the mountains, uniting with the Raton Mount-ain road on the southwest side of the mountains. The .Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad runs up the .Arkansas River upon the old Raton Mountain track to the base of the mountains near Fort Lyon, then turns more south, passing over a spur on the Raton chain . .A great deal of the trade with Northern Mexico for very many years passed from Inde-pendence over these roads, extending as far south as Chihuahua, and the Spanish gov-ernor of New Mexico levied toll upon all that passed down from Santa Fe. When I visited Santa Fe first, in 1849, the trade from the Missouri River over the traders' route from Independence to Santa Fe and Northern Mexico was, and for many previous had been, in successful prosecution, and, as I understood afterward, it continued to Chihuahua until this trade was in a measure transferred to San Antonio, Tex. fiEPOR'l' OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 61 It is true that what appears in late maps as the Elm Fork of Red River, and flowing into the North Fork, was named by me ''Salt Fork," and so designated in my map, and the stream called ''Salt Fork," and flowing into the South Fork of Red Hiver, was named by me Cypress Creek, and so styled in my map. Respectfully submitted. R. B. MARCY. Sworn to and subscribed before me by R. B. Marcy this 26th day of February, A. D. 1886. [L. s.J I. LOVENBERG, Notary Public fm· Galveston County, Tex. Here the Texas Commission ceased to inquire, and in answer to questions propounded by the Commission of the United States, witness states as follows, to wit: I do not know what means Melish had for delineating the course of the upper Red River up0n his map, but think it was for the most part compiled from hearsay, and itis possible that the upper courses of some other streams may have been thought to flow into the "Hed River." Respectfully submitted. • •n. B. MARCY . Sworn to and subscribed before me by R. B. Marcy, this 26th day of February, A. D. 1886. I [L. s.J I. LOVENBERG, Notary Publicfor Galveston County, Tex. II Deposition of Hugh F. Young. THE STATE OF TEXAS, County of Bexar : Before me, I. H. French, a notary public in and for Bexar County, Tex., on this 4th day of June, A. D. 1886, personally came Hugh F. Young, to me well known, who, upon being duly sworn, on his oath states that be has caused to be written out on this page and the seven following pages (duly numbered from 1 to8) his answers to certain direct interrogatories propounded by "the United States Joint Commission on Boundary," copy of which is hereto attached, and true answers made to said interrogatories, as fol-lowing, to wit: To the first direct interrogatory he answers: I was born in Augusta County, Va., November 3, 1808; emigrated to Texas and settled in Red River County in Au-gust, 1841, and bav~ resided in the State ever since. On April21, 1846, I was commis-sioned by the governor of Texas colonel of the First Regiment, First Brigade, First Divi-sion of State troops. In 1848, when the office of colonel of the First Regiment became elective, I was elected to the position, which I held to December, 1852, when I removed from Red River to Grayson County. I was elected chief-justice of Red River County in August, 1848, again in 1850, and held the office till my removal from the county. In 1853 I was· elected chief-justice of Grayson County and held the office one term, from that time till the war being busily engrossed in farming and stock-raising in Gray-son County, from which the troubled state of affairs then, in 1863, induced me to move my family to San Antonio, Bexar County, Tex., which bas since been my residence. In 1859 I was commissioned by Governor Runnels a brigadier-general and assigned to Seventeenth Brigade, State troops, enrolled in Grayson and Collin Counties; was elected to same position in 1860 and held till1863. I held the office of mayor of Sherman for the year 1861. In San Antonio I was engaged a few years in the business of wholesale grocer; from 1H69 to the present time have been senior meinber of the firm of H. F. & W. H. Young, conducting a business styled the "West Texas Law and Land Office." To the second direct interrogatory he answers: I am very well acquainted with the eastern border and boundary of Texas, and know "Greer County." In emigrating to Texas I came by boat from New Orleans, up Red River to Fulton, Ark., thence overland to Clarksville, Hed Hiver County, Tex. In the spring of 1843 I was mustered into the command of Col. Jacob Snively, which was organized for the purpose of intercepting Mexican trains (a state of war then existing between Mexico and the Hepublic of Texas), which were carrying on the commerce between Santa Fe and Saint Louis. The place of rendezvous for Snively's command was :fixed at "Old Georgetown," 6 miles south of "Hed River," in the northwestern part of what is now Grayson County; I traveled from Clarksville to the rendezvous on horseback, traversing the counties of Lamar, Fannin, and Grayson, 110 miles. Here the command fully organized. A special band or company of spies was selected from the main body, consisting of twelve men, being for the most R:mt>o:RT OF 'l'E:}tAS 130UNDARY COMMISStON. part men who had either resided upon upper "Red River" or were familiar with it. But I remember we chiefly relied upon James 0. Rice, who was appointed guide for the spy company. He was an intelligent, brave, and reliable man, and was a resident of Texas prior to 1819, and lived, scouted, and hunted all along upper Red River, and had been engaged in numerous engagement~> with Indians in that section. He was also fa-miliar with the names and languages of both Indians and Mexicans, and knew the names of all streams and marked localities in that section. There were a number of other men in the command who had lived in Texas prior to 1819 and were familiar with the facts of history and with the country we were to traverse. Colonel Snively insti-tuted the most rigid discipline, and communicated to his command the particular in-structions by which the expedition was to be governed. In these was particularly set out that in no event were we·to go beyond the limits of Texas as defined between the UnitedStates and Spain in 1819, :mel this was specially impressed upon our guide. I may also state that from the beginning to the end of the expedition I was a messmate of Col-onel Snively and kept a daily journal, which I preserved until about twenty years ago, when it was unfortunately destroyed by fire. · -The expedition started April 21, 1843, and, as instructed, pursued a route leading up the south side of "Red River," and as near thereto as convenient for travel, passing the counties (as now laid out) of Cooke, Montague, Clay, Wichita, and Wilbarger, thus far having crossed Big and Little Wic~ita and Pease Rivers, to the mouth of" Prairie Dog Town River," crossing which, leaving main "Red River" on our right, we pursued our course, about northwest, still as near said river as convenient, for a distance of 50 or 60 miles, crossing also in the interval what our guide and spies called "Salt River." Hav-ing reached a convenient crossing of main ''Red River" Colonel Snively was assured by our guide and others that we must now have arrived at the one hundredth parallel of longitude. We cross ''Red River," whence the expedition advanced to the point where the1 Santa Fe trail crossed the Arkansas River, which we all , held was still within the limits of Texas, crossing the False Washata, South and North Canadian, and Cimarron Rivers. After the end of the expedition I returned in company with Colonel Snively over nearly the same route to Clarksville, and in this way I became familiar with the streams, mountains, and physical features of the country. 'l'o the third direct interrogatory he answers: I learned after arriving in Texas, from early American settlers, from native Mexicans, and Indians from the Indian Nation, where the eastern boundary of Te~as was located, under the treaty of 1819, to wit: Be-ginning at the month of Sabine River, up that stream to thirty-second para1lel of north latitude; thence north to Red River; thence up Red River to the one hundredth parallel of longitude; thence north to 36° 301 north latitude. This boundary followed Red Hiver past w bat is now called South Fork of Red River, and on up the so-called North Fork of Red River. Said streams were first called North and South Fork of Red River by Capt. R. B. Marcy in 1852. Previously they were always called "Red River'' (meaningwhat is now called the North Fork) and "Prairie DogTownRiver" (meaning the South Fork). To the fourth direct interrogatory he answers: It was called by the Indians and other forei{;!;ners mentioned "Chiquiahquahono," which the English-speaking people inter-preted to mean "Prairie Dog Town River," which is the name I knew it by in 1843 and ever afterwards. It was :QOt called fork. It was known as above stated and regarded as a distinct and separate river, entirely different from •• Red River," and was always called by the old settlers with whom I have talked ''Prairie Dog Town River," and whenever there was a rise in the water in this river it took its color from the light-colored soil in which the prairie-dogs made their villages. To the fifth direct interrogatory he answers: It was always, prior to 1852, called "Red River,'' or ''Rio Roxo of Natchitoches'' or ''of Louisiana,'' from the earliest time I ever heard anyonespeak ofit, and I remember our guide, James 0. Rice, distinctly gave these names to the two streams. There were all along what I always kn.ew as "Red River" such signs of Indians and explorers, indicating that this stream had long been known and visited before our expe-dition in 1843, and, as I said before, many in our command had traversed this country before and gave only the names above mentioned, ''Prairie_ Dog Town l{iver '' to South Fork, and ''Red River" to North Fork. The latter was named from the very red water which flowed in it, which became much redder from a rise. We discovered the cause of this to be the very red soil through which it ran, and this red soil was only above the mouth of ''Prairie Dog Town River.'' During my twenty-odd years' residence on Red River we always knew from the color of the water in Red River whether the rain which caused the rise fell on the ''Prairie Dog Town,'' ''Salt and Pease'' Rivers, which come into Red River from the south, or whether it fell on main "Red River" above where the red soil existed. It was this latter that we always regarded as the true boundary line between Texas and the United States, anti it was so handed down to us bytradi.tion of Mexicans and Indians. R~PORT OF r:E:X.A.S BOUNDARY CoM:M:tsstON. 63 There is another distinction between ''Prairie Dog Town River" and "Red River," which goes to show that the latter should be regarded as the main stream, and hence the true dividing line. "Prairie Dog Town River" runs through a :flat country, bas very low banks, incapable of containing much water,· frequently spreads out over great extent in freshets, and is quicksandy when it bas water; again, it is often dry. On this level are many prairie-dog towns, which gave name to it. Red River runs through an undulating country, bas clay banks and bottom, and affords a much more steady stream of water, and never goes dry. There are other tributaries of "Heel River" in that section much better entitled, by volume and permanence of water, than Captain Marcy s South Fork to claim to be the main river, as, for instance~ the False ·washita. To the sixth direct interrogatory he answers: The territory known as Greer County has always, within my recollection, been claimed by Texas, both as a republic and as a State. From reliable information imparted to me during 1~1y residence in rrexas, and in one of the instances ii:om actual participation, I know that satd territory known as ''Greer County ''bas at various times been occupied by the military forces of the republic and State, uning timJ to collect, select, arrange, and print the same, so it can be offered in consecutive order andrednceLlin \'Olumeready for use; and as they were unwilling to go into the field until this work had been com-pleted, the Joint Commission, at their demand, adjourned until the 15th day of June. Since the Joint Commission has reas-;embled both parties have presented the evidence that l1a!i been collecte,l, which we will now review in its bearings upon the several issues that 1t we been formul ated. Fin;t. Our assertion that the Prairie Dog Town Fork of R'ed River is and was the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, or Red Hiver, described in the treaty of 1819, it is denie BOUNDARY COMMISSION. "A glance at Lafon's map of Louisiana, published in 1805, will enable any person ac· quainted with the real features of the country to understand how utterly the country upon Hed and Ouachita Rivers were unknown at the epoch of the publication of the foregoing map.'' Upon this subject Kendall, in his account of ·an expedition from Austin to Santa Fe in 1841, says: "All that is known in our case was that Austin was in such a latitude and longitude, and Santa Fe in another. Of the principal part of the country between the two points not a man among us knew anything. That deep rivers were to be crossed, that ravines were to be encountered, that salt and dry prairies were to be met; in short, that innum-erable obstacles would be found in our path, were things that every one expected; of the nature and extent of those obstacles all were alike ignoraut. '' And again be says: ''Majority of map-makers, by joining the Red River as far as known with some one of the rivers rising in the Rocky Mountains, have made a long and very pretty stream, as seen upon their charts; were they to journey along the line of their imaginary river I am inclined to believe they would suffer much from thirst before they crossed the bound-less prairie spreading eastward from the outer spurs of the Rocky Mountains." General Marcy says up to the date of his expedition the country embraced within the basin of the Red River had always been to us a terra incognita, and gives a very inter-esting account of all the vain attempts that have been made to explore it. At the meeting held last spring the Commissioners from Texas were inclined to the belief that the North Fork was well known to civilized man at the time of the treaty, and asked for three months' time to collect and arrange information in support of this and other points upon which the views of the Joint Commission were not then unani-mous. We will now review the evidence they have presented, and consider its bearing upon this first proposition. An examination of the maps confirms ml.r former opinion. The statements of resi-dents of Texas, some of whom bad visited the .country between the two forks, estab-lish the fact that in 1843 an expedition was sent out from Texas to intercept Mexican traders between Santa Fe and Saint Louis. The leaders of this expedition were well posted in the terms of the treaty of 1819, and took a deep interest in the matter which is now before our Commission, and the Indians employed as their guides appear to have concided with their views. General Marcy, who explored the sources of the Red River in 1852, appeared before the Commission on the 26th of February, at the request of the Commissioners from Texas. He says: ''The detailed account of my exploration of Reel River, . with descrip-tions of the country through which it flows, will be found in my report, which is before the Commission, and to which I beg leave to refer. As the time that has elapsed since I made that exploration (thirty-three years) is so great, many of the fil.cts and events connected therewith have pa:ssed from my memory." We have already referred to this report, which shows that the country in question was unknown up to the elate of his exploration. In his evidence he says: ''I regarded the Prairie Dog Town Branch as the main Reel River, for the reason that its bed was much wider than that of the North Pork, although the water only covered a small portion of its bed, and as the sanely earth absorbed a good deal of the water after it debouched from the canon through which it flows, it may not contribute any more water to the lower river than the North Fork." He further says: ''I have this morning for the first time seen a copy of that portion of Melish's map of the United States embracing the part of the Red River country which the Commission bas under consideration at this time, which is authenticated by the sig-nature of the Secretary of State of the United States." This hasty examination led General Marcy to suppose that the tortuous stream descend-ing from Taos was intended to represent the North Fork of Red River, and the San Saba River to represent the Prairie Dog Town Forie We have already explained the cause of Melish's error in regard to the upper Red River, and have shown that the country about San Saba was well known, and this was, in fact, the only point in this neighborhood that was properly located. An examinatjon of the black and reel map will make it clear that Melish intended the stream marked San Saba River to represent the true San Saba River with which it nearly coincides, and it is unnecessary to assume an error of 500 miles in its location, but it is only just to General Marcy to state that his opinion was based upon the examination of a tracing of a very small fragment of the treaty map, which was not provided with a scale of miles, and it is true the upper course of the Red River as thereon delineated corresponded more nearly in general direction with the North Fork than with the Prairie Dog Town Fork. The Commissioners from Texas have embodied the remainder of their researches in a printed pamphlet, which is entitled: ''Evidence Pertaining to the Boundary between the United States and Texas." REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMtSSlON. 75 The first article consists of extracts from the correspondence between the United States and the Spanish Government preceding the treaty of 1819. These extracts are probably intended to show what was known of the country by the framers of the treaty. This point may be further elucidated by the following quotation from one of the letters re-ferred to: [Luis de Onis to Secretary of State, December 12, 1818.] ''The disastrous expedition of M. de la Salle, the absurd grant in favor of Crozat, and the erroneous narratives of travelers with maps formed at pleasure by uninformed and in-terested geographers-such as Melish and others-who ran their lines as they were dic-tated to them and thus disposed of the dominions of Spain as suited their wishes.'' The second article treats of the wandering of ancient explorers "up and down through the woods and prairies west of the Mississippi.'' The third article is a very interesting paper, now, we believe, first published in the English language, and which appears to have escaped the diligent and patient researches of Baron von Humboldt and of all subsequent geographers. It forms a valuable contri-bution to the literature which has been accumulated on this subject. It is an itineracy, diary, etc:, of a journey of discovery from the province of New Mexico to Natchitoches by Francisco Xavier Fragoso in 1788. By platting this itineracy it will be seen that he struck the sources of the main fork, and followed down the Red River for 105 leagues, which brought him to the neighborhood of the Cross Timbers and the Trinity River. Besides these landmarks he also mentions the Sabine River, which he touched· before reaching Natchitoches. The accuracy with which the Rio Blanco coincides with the true position of the Red River, including the main or Prairie Dog Town Fork, is quite remarkable when we consider the lack of means at his disposal for determining his position. The location of the Cross Timbers and of the Trinity and Sabine Rivers coincides very nearly with the results of modern surveys. The next four articles give an account of the expedition of Major Pike. We have already alluded to the failure of his expedition. A statement of the Spaniards, that they had guides and routes of traders to conduct Pike down Red River, is printed in italics and small capitals in the pamphlet. We have explained that these routes lay among the Mora and the Canadian Rivers, which Mulgares himself mistook for the upper course of the Red River. The remaining articles consist of extracts from the report of Captain Marcy, and state-ments and opinions of Governor Pease and other gentlemen of Texas. The second proposition involved in the first issue is that the Prairie Dog Town Fork was unknown to civilized man at the date of the treaty; was not discovered till 1852, and was never delineated on any map until Capt. R. B. Marcy, who discovered said stream, made his report thereof. It is not necessary to comment on this proposition, in-asmuch as the Commissioners from Texas have changed their views about it since the issues were formulated and have introduced swo::n testimo:::ty to prove the contrary. We have already expressed our views with regard to the denial that the one hundredth degree of west lo:::tgitude crosses the Prairie Dog Town Fork up Red River west of its junc-tion with the North Fork of Red River as ascertained by observations and surveys made by different parties and under different conditions. The Texas Commissioners denied ~ this issue, in order to reserve the right at any time during the progress of these proceed-ings to offer evidence and argument in support of said meridian being located according to Melish's map, made a part of the treaty. As they have offered no evidence on this point it requires no further comment. It seems to us then that the only point upon which there can be any further issue is whether or not the North Fork was well known to the framers of this treaty, and the evidence on this point may be summed up as follows: The early explorers were lost west of the Mississippi and could not have furnished very definite information to the framers of the treaty. Francisco Xavier Fragoso explored the Prairie Dog Town Fork, or main fork, in 1788, but his discoveries were forgotten. Mulgares took the Canadian for the Red River. The Texans laid a claim to the land in question at an early date, and sent an expe-dition there in 1843, and perhaps the Indians in their employ fell into this view, but we cannot see that their opinions throw any light upon the knowledge possessed by the framers of the treaty. Humboldt delineates the course of the Red River to conform to geographical theories based on a wrong assumption of the position of its source, and says the country was un-explored. Pike knows nothing of the country, and never visited it. Darby says it was unknown, except in its lower course. Melish says he derived his knowledge from Humboldt, Pike, and Darby, and in 1822 says the country has not yet been explored, etc. 76 REPORT OF TF:XAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. De Onis complains that Melish was totally uninformed about this region. Dr. James, author of the account of Long's expedition, says that river was unknown, except in its lower course. All of which seems to us to prove most conclusively that nothing was known of the upper courses of the Red River, either by Mr. Melish or by the framers of the treaty of 1819, and hence it can not be claimed that either the North Fork or Prairie Dog Town Fork was delineated on the map; nor can it be maintained that either was intended in the treaty. · There being no reason, then, as far as the treaty is concerned, for taking one fork more than the other as boundary, the question is resolved simply to this: Which branch should properly be considered as the prolongation of the lower river, or, in other words, which branch is Hed River. For the reasons given in our first statement, the Commissioners on the part of the United States believe this to bethe Prairie DogTownFork, and nottheNorth Fork, and maintain that the boundary should be marked accordingly. S. M. MANSFIELD, Maj. of Engineer.s and Bvt. Lieut. Col. U. S. A., Chairman U. S. Comm-i.ssion. Mr. J. T. BRACKENRIDGE, Chairman Texas BoundarJJ Commission. Mr. Freeman then offered the following resolution: Whereas it is stated before the Joint Commission that there is an early prospect of se-curing additional evidence by the Commission on the part of Texas. Resolved, That the Commission do now adjourn till 10 o'clock Wednesday morning, to give time for the reception of such evidence. Which resolution being carried, the Commission, at 1.10 p. m., adjourned·. LANSING H. BEACH, First Lieutenant of Engineers, Secretary . . AUSTIN, TEX., Wednesday, June 23, 1886. The Commission met at 10.25 a. m., pursuant to adjournment. Present, all the members, except Mr. Freeman, of the Commission for Texas. The Texas Commission then presented the following evidence and summary of the same: Memor~:.nda of additional evidence offered to and admitted bv the Joint Commission on the part of Texas upon the question of boundary, VJune 23, 1886. 1. Letter of instructions by Governor Sam Houston toW. H. Russell, commissioner on the part of Texas to establish the boundary between the United States and Texas, under the act of June 5, 1R58, dated April 28, 1860. 2. Report of W. H. Russell, Texas commissioner on boundary, April 2, 1861. 3. Message of Governor 0. M. Roberts to the legislature of Texas of January 10, 1883, on the subject of boundary. 4. Deposition of Will Lambert. 5. Deposition of F. M. Maddox, including the interrogatories propounded to all the witnesses who testified. We also refer to the entire evidence introduced on the part of the United States Commission, so far as the same may be applicable and useful in sup-port of the issue presented by Texas. UNITED STATES JOINT COMMISSION ON BOUNDA:&Y. Direct interrogatories to be propounded ~o the witnesses hereinafter named, and at the particular places describeJ, on the part of the Commission for the State of Texas, under a joint resolution of agreement adopted by said Joint Commission on Boundary between the United States and the State of Texas, the answers of the witnesses to be used as evidence before said Joint Commission. The witnesses are as follows, to wit: Hon. George B. Erath, who resides in McLennan County, Texas; Hon. 0. M. Roberts, .John M. Swisher, John Hancock, Ham. P. Bee, Perry Day, John M. Day, Frank Maddox, P. De Cordova, William Pitts, William Lam-bert, who reside in Travis County, Texas; S. P. Ross, of McLennan County, Texas; Jdhn _S. Ford, of Bexar County, Texas} ~~ief Charley_, of the Tonkawas, Fort Griffin, Texas; REPORT OP TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 77 S. S. Ross, McLennan County, Texas; H. L. Young, San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas; George B. Erath, P. F. Ross, McLennan County, Texas. First direct interrogatory. You will state your age and how long you have resided in Texas, and have you ever held any official position, civil or military'? Declare when and \vhere you held the same, and how long you exercised said trust. · Second direct interrogatory. Are you acquainted with the eastern border and boundary of Texas, and do you know that part of the territory described on the map of Texas as Greer County, and how long have you known the same, and have you ever traversed or explored said boundary line and made yourself familiar with that country, its streams, mountains, and physici:11 features generally? Third direct interrogatory. If you answer that you are acquainted with said eastern border of Texas, its early history and physieal features, you will then state all facts within your knowledge tending to show where said eastern boundary was located under the treaty of the 22d of February, 1819, between the United States and the Kingdom of Spain, and if you state that said boundary line runs at or near the two streams now known and called the North and Routh Forks of H.ed River, you will declare fully when said two streams took the names of North and South Forks of Red River, by whom were said two streams so named, and state particularly by what names said two streams were known prior to the date they were first called by the names of theN orth and South Forks of the Red River. Fourth direct interrogatory. If yon answer that the said South Fork of Red River was first known and named the South Fork of Red River by Capt. R. B. Marcy, in 1852, you will declare by what n,Lme said stream was then and prior thereto called and known by the Indians, Spaniards, Mexicans, and French, or others speaking thereof. If you answer said stream was called the Chiquiahquahono, state what said name•meant when interpreted or translated in to English. If you answer it meant Prairie Dog Town River, then state whether it bore the cognomen of "fork" or was it known as above named, a distinct and separate river, as having no relation whatever to the Red River. And you will declare fully every fact tending to show that said stream bore a different name from that of Red River, and had always prior thereto been so known by the Indians and traders, and tha~ the first change of said name showing said river to be a part of Red River was in 1852. Fifth direct interrogatory. If you answer that the North Fork of Red River, so called, was so designated for the first time by Capt. R. B. Marcy in 1852, you will then state what name said stream was known and called by prior to 1852, and how long prior to that time the said stream was so called. And if you answer that said stream was known and called the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, or Red River, state how longithad borne said name; if said stream had ever been called or known by any other name. You will also state whether there were any signs along said stream tending to show that it had been known for a long period of time, such as trails, roads, old camps, Indian villages, stumps of trees that bad been cut, crossings made on the streams leading into the main stream, maps of that country then in existence, traditions of Indians and white people concern-ing the same, historical sketches and references in the English, French, Spanish, or Mexi-can languages. You will declare fully all matters and facts tending to show that said stream was the Red River referred to in the said treaty, and that it was then and since known as the true boundary line between Texas and the United States; and if you have any map, historical sketch, or ancient written document that will throw light on this question, attach the same to your answer and make it a part ot the same. Sixth direct interrogatory. Has Texas ever exercised ownership, control, or had pos-session of said territory known and described as Greer County, located between said two ''forks '' of Red River ? If so, you will answer distinctly as you can when such owner-ship was first exercised. Was the same under the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Mexico, the Republic of Texas, or the State of Texas, and bow such ownership was exer-cised. State if any military control was ever exercised over the same. If the civil gov-ernment has ever extended over said country. If the lands thereof have been located, and if the citizens of Texas have been protected in their persons and their property within said county. And declare fully all official and public acts by the government of Texas and its predecessors claiming said territory, holding possession, and exercising authority over the same. Seventh direct interrogatory. You will state any other facts that may be within your knowledge and possession, showing or tending to show that the said territory known as Greer County belongs to the .State of Texas under said treaty of February 22, 1819, and that the said North Fork of Red River, so called by Captain Marcy was and is the true Red River described in the said treaty as the boundary line between Spain and the United States, and attach any map or written document to your evidence explaining the same. J. T. BRACKENRIDGE, Chairman on the part of Texas of Boundary Commission. 78 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, HENDLY BUILDING, Galveston, Tex., JJiay 10, 1886. DEAR MAJOR: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your favor of the IHh instant, including the direct interrogatories to be propounded to certain old citizens that have, it is supposed, some information that they may impart, of value to the Joint Commission in determining the question in dispute between the United State and Texas. I 1 hink I can add nothing thereto, as the questions seem to cover the ground of in-quiry, and I return the paper to you. It is my desire that the Joint Commission assemble at the appointed time (June 15), and I will be present with the United States Commissioners in Austin, Tex., n said day, ready to proceed with t l-) e work before us. I leave here on Thursday, May 13, for Detroit, Mich., my future station, though re-taining temporary charge here. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, S. M. MANSFIELD, Major of Engineers and Brevet Colonel, United States Army, Senior JJiember United States Boundary Commi~Ssion. Maj. J. T. ·BRACKENRIDGE, Chairman Texas Boundary Commission, Aust·in, Tex. Answers of Frank M. Maddox . To interrogatories propounded to him by J. T. Brackenridge, chairman of the Commis-sion on the part of the State of Texas, to be used in evidence before the United States Joint Commission on Boundary, taken befure R. C. Shelley, a notary public in and for Travis County, Tex.: To first interrogatory : I am thirty-six years of age. Have resided in Texas all my life. Never held any position, civil or military, except that of deputy surveyor of Jack and Bexar land districts. I held such a position for a period of six years. To second interrogatory: I am acquainted with the greater part of the eastern bound-ary of Texas, and I particularly know that part in the region of Greer County. I have traversed said boundary line, and I know all the principal streams in Greer County, and am familiar with the mountains and physical features generally. I have been in pos-session of this know ledge thirteen years. To third interrogatory: I can not answer this interrogatory from my own personal knowledge. The only knowledge I have of the location of said boundary line is de-rived from the laws of Texas and the t-reaty referred to. I know from Captain Marcy's Teport of his explorations of that country in 18;)2 that he discovered and named the North and South Forks of the Red River, and that prior to that time said south stream had been known as Kechebq uehono, or .Prairie Dog Town River. To fourth ~nterrogatory: As before st~ted, I know nothing except what is a matter of history. To fifth interrogatory: I know nothing, except what I derive from history. To sixth interrogatory: State of Texas bas exercised ownership and control over arid has had possession of said territor,y since 18GO, when the county of Greer was created. The control and ownership over said territory was evidenced by the stationing of troops therein at different times by the State of Texas. The civil government of Texas bas been extended over said county by acts of the legislature in attaching the same to or-ganize counties for judicial and other purposes. A portion of the lands in said county have been located and patents issued thereon by the State of · Texas, and the holders under said patents have been protected by the State in their rights and have been re-quired to pay the taxes to the State of Texas upon their property. Persons have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by the .State courts for crimes comm,.itted in said county, and Greer County has been treated by the State as any other unorganized county within the borders of Texas. To seventh interrogatory: The North Fork flowR more water than the South Fork, the latter being a dry sand bed at nearly all times of the year. The streams flowing into the Prairie Dog To,wn or South Fork are as follows: Frazier River, now call.ed Salt;Fork, Gypsum, Lebes, and Buck or Clear Creeks. Buck Creek empties into Prairie Dog Town River about 40 miles west of the confluence of North and South Forks. It is a bold running stream and furnishes the best water in that part of the country. It is fringed with cottonwood timber, and there is a range of hills 15 or 20 miles west of north from the mouth of said creek. Lebes Creek empties into South Fork .about 20 miles below the mouth of Buck or Olear Creek. Gypsum REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 79 Creek empties into the South Fork 12 or 15 miles below the mouth of Lcbes; and Frazier or Salt Fork empties into said South Fork about 2~ miles below the mouth of Gypsum. Frazier River is about :30 yards wide, and is dry most of the time. The Wichita Mount-ains can be seen from a point near the mouth of Frazier River. For a distance of 20 miles up said river there is very little timber of any kind. The streams emptying into theN orth Fork are Elm Fork, Big and Little Turkey Creeks, Sweet W-ater Creek, and numerous other smaller streams. Elm Fork is a bold running stream emptying into North Fork at the base of Wichita Mountains about 40 miles above the confluence of North and South Forks. Big and Little Turkey Creeks are living streams of water, emptying into North Fork about 30 miles above the mouth of Elm Fork. Sweet Water Creek is about 50 miles in length, and runs more water (except Elm Fork) and better water than any other tributary of North Fork. There is a bend in Red River about 100 miles below the confluence of North and South Fork, in what is now Montague County, callea "Spanish Fort Bend." Whether there was any fort t.here I have no personal knowledge, but I have heard my father and uncle, who came to Texas in 1840, speak of such a fort. F. M. MADDOX. Sworn .o and subscribed before me this 21st d;ty of June, 188G. [L. S.] R. C. SHELLEY, THE STATE OF TEXAS, County of Travis: Notary Public, Travis County, Tex. I, R. C. Shelley, a notary public in and for said county, do hereby certify that the foregoing answers of the witness, Frank M. Maddox, to interrogatories propounded to him by J. T. Brackenridge, chairman on the part of Texas Boundary Commission, were :;nade before me, and were sworn to and subscribed by said witness before me. Given under my hand and seal of this office the 22d day of June, A. D. 1886. [L. S.] R. C. SHELLEY, Notary Public, Travis County, Tex. Answers of Will Lambert. To :first interrogatory: I am past forty-six years of age. Was born on Governor's Island, New York, February 29, 1840, my father being at the time :first sergeant of D Company, First Infantry, U. S. Army. I have resided in Texas since the fall of 1848. I have held po-sitions in Texas, both civil and military. I was second lieutenant of D Company, .First Regiment Texas Mounted Riflemen from, April, 1861, to April, 1862; was assistant clerk of the house of representatives. tenth and :fifteenth legislatures; was chief clerk of th~ house of representatives, sixteenth and seventeenth legislatures, and a general clerk in the House Eighteenth Legislature. Have been deputy clerk of the supreme court of Texas, and served on the staff of Governor R. B. Hubbard as aid-de-camp, com-missioned as such with the rank of colouel; my occupation is printer and journalist. To second interrogatory: I am acquainted with what appears on the present maps of Texas as the eastern boundary line, separating Greer County from the Indian Territory. To third interrogatory: I enlieted as a private in Capt. Ed. Burleson's Company of Texas Rangers, and was regularly mustered into the State service on the 23d day of Jan-uary, 1860, at the town of San Marcos, Hays County. After marching to San An-tonio , where the equipment was completed, we proceeded to Coleman County and estab-lished headquarters on the south bank of Home Creek, about 18 miles south of Camp Colorado, then commanded by Capt. E. Kirby Smith, Second Cavalry, U.S. Army. After a series of minor scouts in the month of June, 1860, Captain Burleson received orders from Governor Sam Houston to march with his company and report to Col. M. T. Johu-son, in the Wichita Mountains, Indian Territory. We arrived at Major VanDorn's old camp, "Radziminsky," about the last of the month, and remained there till near the close of September. In marching from our camp on Home Creek to '' Radziminsky ''we passed through what are now known as the counties of Coleman, Ca11ahan, Stevens, and Young to Fort Belknap; thence through, and in direction a little west of north through, the counties of Young, Archer, Wilbarger, 11nd Hardeman, until we cross Prairie Dog H.iver; thence traveling in a direction a little north of east until crossing Red River near the mouth of Elm Creek, and camped on Otter Creek about 4 or 5 miles south of "Radziminsky." In crossing Prairie Dog River we found it more_like a sand beach over a half a mile in width, and perfectly dry; even water could not be found by digging. While camped in the 80 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. \Vichita MonntainR, ''Old Placido," n Tonkawa chief, with some eighteen of his young men,eameto our camp and were employed to aetas guards. "Placido" was quite familiar with C'ilptain Bnrlesoll, havin~ fought with his f~1ther,General Ed. Burleson, and in 1H58 was with the son V\xpedition in 1843, as I have fully detailed in former answers. All these passed into and through 'Greer County,' under instructions not to cross 'Red River1 ' or not to get off the soil of Texas. "Texas (Republic and State) has always exercised civil jurisdiction over the section knownas 'Greer County,' byattachingit, an unorganized territory, to organized counties, by having her surveyors make locations of Texas land certificates upon the lands, issuing patents therefor, etc.; but better evidence of such fact may be found in the archives of the State." A careful examination of Young's testimony will hardly fail to show that the North l'ork of Red River was in 1843 well known as the boundary line of the treaty. The testimony of George B. Erath, now seventy-five years old, and who held many high positions in the Republic of Texas, is as follows: "As a member of the congress of the Republic of Texas (and, my impression is, as a member of the committee) it became my duty to especially investigate the boundary of Texas, between the United States and Texas, in 1843. Colon'el Snively during that year, with a command of Texans, was captured on the Arkansas by a force of the United Sta.tes, it being claimed that he was within the territory of the latter. But this bad ~EPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 93 nothing to do with Red River. At t.hat time Texas claimed that the head of the Arkan-sas was within Texas Territory, which was conceded by the United States in its subse-quent purchase of territory of Texas. In this investigation it became necessary to place the entire eastern and northern boundary of Texas, and of course to ascertain from all possible inquiry the locality of the Red River, or Rio Roxo, as laid down on the maps extant at that day, and referred to in the treaty of 1819 ·between the United States and the Kingdom of Spain. We, fu1ly as our means would permit, examined the Mexican maps, and such as we could find of the United States and Melish's maps. We also, in order to ascertain the stream that had been before that date, 1843, known as Red River, or Hio Roxo, examined old hunters and trappers, and others who were familiar with the territory through which the stream courses, and from them we could learn nothing of but one stream then and before that time called Red River, and that is the stream now called the North Fork of Red River. There was no stream in 1843 called the South Fork of Hed River, nor any called the North Fork. I also, while engaged in military expedi-tions on and up the Brazos, during the times I was in the military service of the Republic of Texas, met up with old hunters and trappers, and made inquiries about the region of country on the border of Texas, and as to the streams, and never heard from any of them of any but one Red River. I have every reason to believe that they were fully ac-quainted with the entire region of country in which Greer County is situated. ''Especially in 1837, when engaged in an expedition under command of Captain East-land, which expedition w·ent farther westward of the Brazos River than any previous ex-pedition or any before annexation, we were accompanied by six or more old hunters and trappers, who had been for many years hunting and trapping on Red River and in the region of the territory embraced in Greer County. These men had come from the region to join the expedition, and importuned the commar.der to go up to Red River and in the region ·in question, and attack certain Indian villages on and in the region of Red River; and they particularly described the locality of the villages, and spoke of the streams, and never mentioned but one Red River, w hicb, from their description, is the one now claimed as theN orth Fork of Red River. They called it simply Red River. These men were over fifty years of age, and had in their number three whose names I now recollect-two Bluers and one Nicholson. A portion of the men of the ~ommand separated from East-land's company and went with the hunters and trappers on an independent expedition to make the attack, and more than half of them were killed before reaching Red River. There were eighteen, including the hunters and trappers, who went on this expedition, and their nominal commander was one Nanthuseyere. These hunters and trappers spoke of and described the stream now claimed or assumed to be the South Fork of Red River. They described it as a stream that at times, when the weather was very wet, or in rainy seasons, was from one-half mile to a mile and a half wide, with a bottom of quicksand, and that in crossing it they bad to go rapidly to keep from sinking. They stated it was called by the Comanche Indians Prairie Dog water. These trappers stated that this last-named stream connected with the Red River. I never heard of this stream being called the South Fork of the Red River until after 1856. This was when Cordova went up t.here on a surveying expedition. · "The river now claimed as the North Fork of Red River was, before 1852, known and called by no other name in English than Red River. In Mexican it was Rio Roxo. I, before that time, had never heard the term '' fork'' applied to it in ei tber language. "The Santa Fe expedition, authorized by the president of the Republic of Texas, in 1841, traversed this region, known as Greer County, and it was then claimed as terri-tory of Texas, and this claim was not disputed. In 1843 Colonel Snively, by authority· of the president of Texas, traversed Greer County with his command, and it was claimed and treated as territory of Texas by President Lamar, who authorized the first, and President Houston, who authorized the latter.'' The next witness on these points isS. P. Ross, nowseventy-:fiveyears of age, who bas been a distinguished citizen of Texas and an officer of the United States Army, well able to speak on this issue: "I am acquainted with the territory named and described on maps as Greer Co"\}nty; I have explored all the territo.ry from the head of the Colorado to the Canadian River, and know all the rivers and physical feat(ures of the country named. In 1847 I, as cap-tain (above stated), was ordered by the United States Government to give military as-sistance to Major Neighbors, who was then in charge of said Indian agency and all In-dians in Texas. He called on me and I went with my command 'to the Clear Fork of the Brazos, called by the Indians 'Tah KonHo Mep,' which is interpreted Snow River. In 1848 I was ordered to meet the United States troops in the country of the Comanche Indians at the bead of Pease River. I did so. I bad Jim Shaw, a Delaware Indian, as interpreter, and some Indians from five different tribes. Jim Shaw had been their in-terpreter for a long time, and be and those other Indians knew the physical features of ~11 the region of country, and knew its mountains and streams, and the names by which 94 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. they were called. I learned from them the names of all the rivers in that region ol country, and that embraced Greer County. ''In 1S58, with a command of over on~ hundred Indians, in company with Capt. John S. Ford, who was in command of about one hundred white soldiers, I went on an expe-dition against the Comanche Indians. We crossed Red River below the mouth of the stream called by the Indians T~ch-ah-qua-ho-mep-in English this means Prairie Dog River. We then went five days' travel up the Red River. After the third day, crossing back into Texas below Mount Webster, we went about 10 miles and recrossed. I mean by Red River the stream now claimed as the North Fork of Red Riv:er, on the northern boundary of Greer County. I bad an old Waco chief with me . who, when we got up into that region, and at tbelast-namedcrossing, told me that be wasbornandraised uptbere on Red River, at that place, and showed me the place, which was at the crossing we were then making; and I asked him what the river was called. He replied, Red River. At this place we bad with us Jim Logan, an old Delaware Indian, who had been an old trader and bunter in that region, and who bad been with both Captain Marcy and Major Neighbors in that region as a hunter. Jim Logan said tome, while we were on the east side Qf this river: 'This is Indian Tenitory,' pointing eastwardly; and pointing to the south side of the river and directly riortb, also said: 'That is Texas.' Jim Logan also showed me a corner on this river, where, be said, Marcy bad placed a rock, and there, pointing north, be said, could be found a pile on the mountains on the line, he said, Marcy run, wberewerecut Marcy's name, Neighbors's name, Black Foot's name, and his (Jim Logan's) name. This crossing is on the Red River, which is claimed by Texas as the northern and eastern boundary of Greer County. We then went about ten miles and recrossed the same river. The Indians spoke of it again as Red River. We then recrossed to the east side, and kept up it two days' more travel. . During this trip an Indian of my command caught a runaway negro and brought him into camp. I asked him: 'Did you catch him on Red River?' (on which wewere then camped). He answered no, and point-ing southwardly, he said: 'We caught him on Teach-ah-qua-honop' (Prairie Dog River). I talked with many Indians. We were all interested in learnini about the \ streams and country, and I heard no stream called Red River but the one now claimed 8S the north and eastern boundary of Greer County by Texas. All the other rivers in that region had distinct names. In 1859 I, as Indian agent, moved the Indians of the Brazos Agency to the Indian Territory, and located them there myself on a hundred miles square, and with my knowledge of the country and of the boundary line I located them on the Washita, northeastoftbe Wichita Mountains. These Indians all understood fully that they had no right to locate in or hunt in the territory known as Greer County, as the old Indians seemed to understand the matter fully. None of these Indians moved or located west of above the mouth of Teach-ah-q ua-hono, or honop, and were located full 50 miles southeast of the mouth of the Teach-ah-qua-hono River. From these facts I conclude that by the treaty of 1819, referred' to in this question, none other could have been referred to as Rio Roxo than the Red River, which is now claimed as the ea~Stern and northern boundary of Greer County. I heard of no river other than this as Red River. "I never knew the 'Che-qua-ah-qua-hone '-which I spell Teach-ah-qua-hono-to be in any way called or referred to as a fork of Red River; but it was called by the Indian name above given, which means, in Indian, Prairie Dog River. It was so called because of the numerous prairie-dog towns on it. The country was the home of the Comanches. '' J. De Cordova made many surveys in territory known as Greer County,. claiming it as Texas territory in 1856 or 1857. Old Indians who spoke the Mexican language always spoke of the territory, south and west of Red River as belonging to Texas. The old ones of them all spoke the Mexican language, and seemed to be conversant with the boundary separating Mexico from the United States, when Texas belonged to Mexico." We submit next the testimony of John S. Ford, perhaps the best qualified of any living witness on this subject: "At an early date that country was occupied by troops under Col. Jacob Snively, previous to the annexation of Texas. During the year 1843 he was moving in that di-rection for the purpose of intercepting a caravan of Mexican traders on their way to Santa Fe, and which is in New Mexico, then belonging to Texas. His command was captured by an officer of the United States Army, Captain Cook. It was then under-stood that this affair happened on the territory belonging to the Republic of Texas. The same was made a matter of diplomatic correspondence and action by the Republic of Texas and of the United States. At different dates parties of Texans went int'l that country for various purposes. "Land was surveyed by Texas surveyors on Red River between Prairie Dog River and Red River, and between Red River and the False Washita. "The jurisdiction of Texas over that territory was never questioned by any civilized power as far as I have heard. It is true the Indians contested its occupancy by the whites, as they had done in every State in the Union. nEPORT OF 1'EXAs BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 95 ii 1 speak of the boundary line between Spain and the United States, as it was under-stood by the people of Texas in 1836, and since, and that boundary is known as Red River, or what is sometimes called the North Fork of Red River. I am not able to say at what date the terms north and south fork of Red River were first used. I do know that Indians raised in that. section, hunting and campaigning also, invariably designated what is now called the North Fork of Red Hiver as Red River. I saw them make maps on the ground on various occasions in 1858 and 1859, and held various councils with them, and they never departed from this rule. My command in 1858 consisted of 100 Americans and 113 Indians. Among the whites were men who had explored the country, campaigned over it, and helped to survey it. They all agreed with the Indians, and always spoke of Red River, and always said they meant what is now called the North Fork. "I have always understood what the Com:u:iches called Teach-a-que-hone-up, or Prairie Dog River, was first called South Fork of Red River by Captain Marcy, at a date I can not now recall. It was always considered to be a distinct river from Red River; and no one, until very recently, ever attempted to confound the two. Their characteristics are different. The Prairie Dog River is broad and sluggish; it stands in holes in places, and has a considerable amount of sand in its channel and also in the valley. As a gen-eral rule the water is shallow. Red River is a narrower and deeper stream; it has more current, and in my opinion furnishes more water than Prairie Dog River. The differ-ence between the two streams above the junction is strongly marked. No man would be apt-to mistake one for the other without doing injustice to truth and common sense. "From the year 1836 to the date ofMarcy'sexploration, what is now called the North Fork of Red River, was known simply as Reel River-the Rio Rojo-the boundary line between the Spanish possessions in Mexico and the United States, as specified in the treaty of 1819. I can not tell how long what is now termed the North Fork was known as Red River. On the North Fork of Red River are evidences of encampments, made years ago. In 1858, Indians in my command pointed out a spot on the North Fork, or Red River, where they bad established a village. 'Shot Arm,' a Waco chief, an old man, was born and raised at that point, which was abovetbemouthofPrairie Dog Riv-er, and all the Indians of his tribe said the village was on Red River. About the year 1800 Col. Ellis B. Bean, in his memoirs, speaks of the Caddo town on Red River, which must have stood, acccording to accounts, not far from the mouth of Pease Hiver. Others of the Indians in my command had been born in that section, and were well ac-quainted with the whole country, and not one out of one hundred and thirteen ever thought of designating any stream but the North Fork as Red River. They invariably spoke of Prairie Dog River as different and distinct from Red River. Their traditions run back to the days of the Spanish and Mexican occupancy of that country, and they persistently represented the North Fork of Reel River as the boundary between the Span-ish and American races, consequently the river mentioned in the treaty of 1819. I again refer you to the expedition of Col. Jacob Snively in 1843. He was acting under the authority of Ron. G. W. Hill, secretary of war during General Houston's second term as president of the Republic of Texas. It resulted in the armed occupation of the coun-try in que!)tion, and the eventual invasion of Texas soil by Capt. Philip St. George Cooke, of the United States Army. Snively's command surrendered to Cooke on the Arkansas River. The Congress of the United States afterwards acknowledged the claim of Texas to the soil and the illegality of Captain Cooke's proceedings." (See Yoakum's History of Texas, Vol. II, page. 405, foot note.) "As before stated, the jurisdiction of Spain, the Republic of Mexico, the Republic of Texas, and the State of Texas extended over Greer County for a long period of time, and over all the terri tory south of Red River, or the so-called North Fork. The United States exercisednojurisdictionovertheabove-mentioned territory, asfarasknown, until after an-nexation, and then onJy through the instrumentality of the articles of annexation. Texas occupied the country between Prairie Dog River aud Red River, notably during Snively's expedition in 1843, dnringotber military occupations, and by parties of surveyors, traders, etc. It is not the custom, even in the United States, to attempt to exercise civil juris-diction over a territory infested by a band of Indians. ' "The occupation of the county of Greer by troops placed in the field by the State of Texas in 1858, and at other periods of time, produced no question of ownership to the soil or right of jurisdiction. After the State of Taxas had expended life and treasure in opening up the country in question to settlement, it seems rather late for the United States to interpose a claim of ownership and jurisdiction. . ''In order to more fully explain the. foregoing, it is necessary to state that in 1858 I was appointed to command the State troops of Texas operating against the hostile In-dians; that early during the year I iormed an encampment near the mouth of Hubbard Creek, on the Clear Fork of the Brazos. In April of said year an expedition was fitted out against the hostile Comanches. It consisted of 100 Americans and 113 friendly In-dians. the latter being under the control of Capt. Shapley P. Ross, agent for the Braz~ :kEPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISStOM. reservation, on which was located various tribes of Indians. During this campaign Wt\ struck Red River near the Wichita Mountains, and moved up the same, crossing and re; crossing to suit our convenience. We made a number of encampments in what is now known as the county of Greer, and became pretty well acquainted with its topography. We passed up the valley of the Red River, or what is now called the North Fork of Red River, into the Gypsum region. On the 12th of May, 1858, we fought and defeated the Comanches on the South Canadian, and returned back from that point. Early in the spring of 1869, I was again campaigning on the waters of upper Red River against the hostile Indians, and again had friendly Indians under my command. During these op-erations I became acquainted with the Indian views concerning Red River, and all agreed, without exception, that what is now called the North Fork was the Red River of Louisi-ana, and the same stream mentioned in, the keaty between Spain and the United States in 1819.'' Governor Sam. Houston, who had lived among the Indians on Red River at an early period, and who, at that time, was no doubt the best informed of any living white man concerning the Red River of the treaty in this region, as well as with the traditions of the Indians, on April 28, 1860, instructs William H. Russell, the Commissioner of Texas, appointed to establish this very boundary line, as follows: "Melish's map of the State, hereinbefore mentioned, lays down the North Fork as the main prong, and the treaty of limits, also referred to, declares that the boundary line shall be determined as laid down in this map. "In the prosecution, then, of the survey, you will be guided by Melish's map, and insist upon the North Fork as the main Rio Roxo or Red River, and as the true bound-ary line as described in the treaty of 1819. "Should the United States Commissioner insist upon making the Ke-che-qui-ho-no or Prairie Dog Town River the boundary, you will, notwithstanding, co-operate with him in running the line, but you will do it under written protest. ''The traditional history of the Indian tribes along its banks, the evidence of Marcy's survey, and the prominent features laid down in Melish's map, alike establish the fact that the North Fork is the main prong of the Red River, consequently the Joint Com-mission has nothing further to do than to run the line according to the treaty of 1819. '' This evidence is of the utmost value, from men of great age and unimpeachable character, whose official duties required of them to examine the upper Red River, to meet the Indians as friends and enemies, to call to their aid as guides old, friendly, in-telligent Indians, and the most intelligent and noted trappers. hunters, and traders among the white men acquainted with that country. Some of these Indians, quite old, having been born on upper Red River, could point out the villages, then in ruins, where their fathers and grandfathers had been born, reaching back to a remote period in the century 1700. These old guides were fully interrogated touching every material point concerning Red River, its occupation, the period of .its settlement, the villages, 1orts, roads, streams, names, and, generally, the physical features of that country. The folk-lore of the Indians and white guides, running back to a remote period, always valuable in such an investigation because it is unbiased, unerrin~ly established two things: (1) That the Red River of Natchitoches had been known so long that no fixed time could be given when it was not known by these people, and that this stream continued by this name to the source of what is now North Fork of Red River; that they knew the Chi-qui-ah-que-hono as a distinct and different river, and never confounded the two rivers. (2) That along this Red River of Natchitoches the Indians had lived for generations; that villages there existed, and the ruins of ancient villages were pointed out where their ancestors had once resided and passed away. That trails run along this stream be-tween the forts established by white people a tan early day; that the limits of the treaty were well known to be this Red River; that Mexican and Spanish traders traversed this country; that the Republic of Texas defended this very country to Red River as a limit of her boundary, and se:p.t several military expeditions along this line, and in this way occupied the country to the same extent that all new countries are occupied among ho!')tile Indians, by military force, until a period when the Indians were driven off. From these sources, then, it would seem that the question of the true limit and the occupancy of the country were established, especially as there is no evidence, beyond mere assertions, to the contrary. It will appear that the United States had not exercised jurisdiction over Greer County in any other sense than claimed through Indian agents. No settlement has been per-mitted. We refer to a letter on this subject, to wtt: Mr. Secretary Schurz, who held, in letter addressed to the Commif':sioner of Indian Affairs, dated April 25, 1879, as follows: "None of the land or general laws of the United States have been extended to any part of the Indian Territory, except as to crimes and runishments and other provisions regulated by the intercourse acts. REPORT oF TEXAS BoUNDARY coMMtssioN. 97 "This being the condition of things, it is clear that no authorized settlement could be made by any person in the Territory except nuder the provisions of the intercourse laws; such person having first obtained the permission provided for in those statutes. "It. may be further stated that no part of said territory remains free from appropria-tion, either to a direct trust assumed by treaty or by reservadon for tribes thereon under executive order, except that portion still claimed by the State of Texas and lying between .Red River and the North Fork of the same. (See the various treaties, agreements, and executive orders from 1866 to the present time.)" And H. Price, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, January 21, 1884, in a report referring to the location of the several tracts of land surveyed and numbered, among· others that surveyed by Jones and Brown in 1857 to 1859, uses this language: "Tract numbered 25 contains an area of 1,511,576.17 acres, and is unassigned. "There is some question as to the status of this tract. The State of Texas claims and attempts to exercise jurisdiction over it. It is called Greer County. I do not think the claim of the State to this tract of country is well founded." It is quite natural this Commissioner should think the claim of Texas not well founded. Still both he and his predecessors regarded it as sufficiently well founded not to take possession of it and assign it to any Indian tribe for a home. It will be noted, too, that it had been surveyed and mapped by Jones and Brown for more than twenty-five years previous to that date. · The United States has, in fact, acted on the true meaning of the treaty, recognizing that Red' River was the boundary line to the one hundredth degree, and not Prairie Dog· Town River, notwithstanding the survey of Jones and Brown and the pretensions of the several Indian CommissionerS'. On February 24, 1879, Congress created and established the northern judicial district of Texas, and actually included and treated Greer County as a part of Texas returnable to Graham. This was a solemn act of the law-making power of the Government, afte::: full and mature discussion, and by this act the boundary limit to the North Fork of Red River was recognized to be the real treaty limit. It is true that Mr. Willet in Congress, after this, in 1882, attempts to apologize for the act of Congress, and again mooted the question, sufficiently, perhaps, to give notice to Congress of the error, if one was com-mitted. He says : "Texas adopted and acted upon the report of her Commissioner as settling the ques-tion of boundary, and established the territory in dispute as a county of that State, naming it Greer, and has assumed jurisdiction over it, and by an inadvertence, not sin-gular in our legislative history, the United States, by act of Congress approved February 24, 187!:) (see 20 U. S. Stats., p. 318), included said County of Greer as a part of Texas in the northern judicial district of that State, not annexing it for judicial purposes, but recognizing it apparently as an integral part of Texas.'' This was made the report of the Judiciary Committee of Congress. Now if it was an error to treat Greer County as a part of Texas, it was quite easy to amend that law and exclude it. Congress, after proper notice, did not do so, and it may be fairly presumed that Congress concluded that it was correctly included as a part of Texas territory. This will become the more apparent when it is known that the Committee on Terri-tories had made a report to Congress on the same su~ject, in which this language is used: "By the legislature of Texas this territory has been indicated as an integral part of the State, defined and designated as Greer County (Revised Statutes of Texas, p. 132) t it has been '(>laced in lana districts ( id., 548); its vacant and unappropriated public do-main has been set apart, one-half for public free schools for the education of children of Texas, without reference to race or color, and the other half for the payment of the State debts (Acts Sixteenth Legislature, p. 16); it has been placed in judicial districts (Acts Sixteenth· Legislature, p. 28; Acts Seventeenth Legislature, p. 8); it has been in-cluded in State senatorial and representative districts, and is a part of the Eleventh Con-gressional district of that State. , "In August, 1881, one James A. Irwin was indicted in the (State) district court of Wheeler County, Texas, to which county the territory now in dispute had by statute been attached for judicial purposes, for the murder of one Bryson, committed in Greer County. The defendant was brought to trial. A plea to the jurisdiction of the court was by him entered, upon the ground that Greer County was not a part of Texas, nor subject to its jurisdiction. The said district court, Ron. Frank Willis, judge, overruled the plea, held that Greer County was a part of Texas, and that her courts had cognizance of offenses therein committed. Irwin was convicted of murder in the first degree, his punishment assessed by the jury at imprisonment in the -penitentiary for life, was sen-tenced accordingly, and is now serving a life term in the Rtate prison of Texas. In a still more recent case, before the same judge, it was songht by parties owning property in Greer County to resist the payment of ta.xes to the au.thorities of Texas, andJ H.Ex.21-7 ' 98 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. by injunction, to restrain the collection thereof, because it was alleged that Greer County was a part of the Indian Territory.. The court, upon hearing, dissolved the in-junction, and held that the assessment and collection of taxes in said territory by the of-ficials of Texas was legal, thus again deciding in favor of the jurisdiction and domin-ion of Texas over the tract of country in controversy." Texas has never doubted her right to the territory of Greer County. As early as 1855 to 1857, Cordova located lands, as shown in evidence, in that country before the county was created, for prior to this date the territory was included in Cooke County. It is worthy of note that the act of Congress of June 5, 1858, authorizing the appoint-ment of commissioners, jointly with Texas, to run and establish the boundary line in dispute, is as follows, to wit: '' SEC. 2. And be it furthet· enacted, That such landmarks shall be established at the said point of beginning on Red River, and at the other corners, and on the said several lines of said boundary, as may be agreed on by the President of the United States, or those acting under his authority, and the said State of Texas, or those acting under its au-thority.'' It is obvious that it was not even contemplated to trace a line along the river itself, because that was the real boundary; it wasonlyto establish the corners, such as the pomt where the one hundredth degree of longitude crossed Red River, that was intended by the act. Under said act and the instructions by the two governments, a part of the boundary was established and approved; but the commissioners disagreed as to which stream was Red River; each commissioner for himself established a corner and monument, properly lettered to mark it; the United States Commissioner, on Prairie Dog Town ~ver, and theTexasCommissioner on Red River, or the North Fork (so-called). The Texas Com-missioner (W. H. Russell), in his report, 1850, on this point. says, to wit: "Arriving at this point, I addressed a communication to the United States Commis-sioner, which, with his reply, I herewith submit. ''From this it will be seen that the United States Commissioners declined co-operating with the Texas Commission in running and marking that portion of the one hundredth meridian line between the Canadian and Red Rivers. It is true that a United States party had run this line in la.ying off the boundaries of the Indian agencies or territories, bu as Texas was not represented in this work, it was the duty of the Joint Commission to run this line conjointly as though no survey of it had been made. "I had expressed a willingness and a determination on my parttoacceptthe one hun-dredth meridian as established by the United States party above referred to; because, from the evidence I could get, I believed it to be correct; therefore, an apprehension that I would insist on a re-determination of the meridian on part of United States Com-missioner is entirely unfounded and can not be urged as a reason for declining his co-op-eration. "It would be. proper to show here that the one hundredth degree of longitude, a1s es-tablished, is correct. , "The astronomical determinations on the Mexican boundary survey, made by Maj. W. H. Emory, U. S. Army, are justly regarded as a basis for the minor surveys in the interior of the continent. The one hupdred and third meridian, as established by the United States Commissioner and by his predecessor in office, was transferred from one of the determinations above alluded to, and afterwards corrected by its prolongation from the Kansas boundary survey, as determ~ned by Colonel Johnston, U. S. Army. Then, as the connection between the one hundredth and one hundred and third meridians is per-fect, both directly agreeing with the determinations on the Mexican and Kansas sur-veys, the one hundredth degree of west longitude may be regarded as one of the most accurately established points in any of the interior surveys. "Having determined to accept the one hundredth meridian, I commenced tracing it southward from its intersection with the Canadian River, on the lOth of June, and fin-ished it to the north prong or main Red River, on the 13th of the same month. On the north hank of Red River the line was marked by a monument, 15 feet in diameter, 7 feet high, with a large wooden shaft in the center, marked on the north space, '100 W, L.', and on the east, 'Ind. Terr'y.', on the south, 'Texas,' 'Red River,' and on the west, 'Texas, 1860.' " So, it will be seen that the boundary line north of Red River was run separately by one member of the Commission, and the corner established separately on each of said rivera. But both governments accepted as correctly established that part of the line north of Red River, and have since acted on it as correct. Texas approved the corner of the boundary thus established by Russell, and has exer-cised her jurisdiction over said territory by legislation, executive and judicial acts regu~ larly ever since. - -... \ : ,-REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 99 We submit some of the legislative acts covering this territory since the boundary was established: AN ACT creating the county of Greer. SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the leg,islature of the State of Texas, That all the territory contained in the following limits, to-wit: Beginning at the confluence of Red River and Prairie Dog Hiver, thence running up Red River, passing the mouth of South Fork and following main or North Red River to its intersection with the twenty-third degree of west longitude; thence due north across Salt Fork and to Prairie Dog River; and thence following that river to the place of beginning, be, and the same is hereby, created into a county to be known by the name and style of the county of Greer.-Approved .Febru-ary 8, 1860. Attached to Montague County by act of November 6, 1866. An act to set aside the public lands embraced within the territorial limits of the County . of Greer to educational purposes and for the payment of the public debt. -Approved .Feb-ruary 25, 1879. Made part of the thirty-fifth judicial district by act approved .February 15, 1881. Made part of '' Clay land district'' by act approved March 1 t, 1881. A.ct providing for appointment of commissioners to run the boundary line between the State of Texas and the United States, approved May 2, 1882. Made part of the thirty-fifth judicial district by act of March 27, 1883. Made part of the thirty-first judicial district by act of September 1, 1884: Made part of Wheeler land district by act approved April 9, 1883. Made part of thirty-fifth judicial district by act approved January 30, 1884. Made part of the thirty-first judicial district by act approved .February 5, 1884. Act approved March 26, 1885, provides for hearing of writs of error from. Attached to Wheder County for judicial purposes by act approved April 1, 1885. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Department of State I, J. w·. Baines, secretary of state of the State of Texas, do hereby certify that the fore-going is correct abstract from the general laws of the State of Texas concerning the crea-tion and other legislation pertaining to the county of Greer, by the legislature of the State of Texas. Witness my official signature and the seal of State, affixed at the city of Austin, this 21st day of June, A. D. 1886. (L. S.] J. W. BAINES, Secretary of State. Again, attention is directed to the convention between the Republic of Texas and the United States, and to that part of the boundary west from the point where it began on the Red River. It says: "And that the remaining portion of the said boundary line shall be run and marked at such time hereafter as may suit the convenience of both the contracting parties, until which time each of the said parties shall exercise, without interference of the other, within the territory of which the boundary shall not have been so marked and run, ju-ribdiction to the same extent to which it has been heretofore usually exercised.'' Now, what part, of the boundary line was to be run and marked? Not Red River. The first corner was established under this very agreement, aud the act of June 5, 1858, required only the corners established, and to begin for corner where the one hundredth degree of west longitude crossed Hed Hiver, over 500 miles by the Red River from the first corner to the second corner. Is it not clear that Red River was adopted between these corners as the boundary line without a surveyor's line and marks of an ordinary kind? If this be found true, then had not both of said Governments exercised jurisdic-tion on each side of said Red River, the then known boundary line? And was it not the expressed intention of the contracting parties that each should exercise in this territory "jurisdiction to the same extent to which it had been hereto-fore usually exercised?" Upon this contract the Republic acted, and in 1839 anrl 1841 the line on the east and the beginning corner on the Red River was established not far from where the town of Texarkana now stands, and where the 30° 301 of north latitude crosses Red River. The corner established the controlling call in the treaty; from thence to the next corner, some 500 miles, where the one hundredth degree crossed Red River, has never been traced by compass line-both parties have continuously adhered to it, and based all public and private acts upon it. Millions of acres of lands have been allotted and assigned to the Iudians on the east side by the United ~tates, and Texas has laid out the counties of Bowie, Red River, .Fannin, Lamar, Grayson, {)ooke, 1\Ion-tagne, Clay, Wichita, Wilbarger, and Greer on the west side of this bou.p.dar,r lin~;). 100 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. Vast property rights have vested on both siJes, and yet no line was ever traced, but all knew t.hQ boundary and acted upon it, and are a<> much bound by it as if two pen;ons, the owners of a tract ofland, go upon it and divide it on the ground, by fixed natural o~jects, and each takes possession of his part agreed upon. Neither party would. be beard to complain after the lapse of years that there was a mistake. By the plainest principle'l of justice the United States is estopped both in law and in fact from now asserting a claim to Greer County. II. ·;he Texas Commission presented three affirmative issues and a final pleading in re-sponse to the final one on the part of the United States, all of which are printed in the record and referred to here. All of these issues are now considered together and presented in the following, to wit: "The real question is: 'Vas the North Fork the Hio Roxo of the treaty, al)(tlaitl down on Melisb's map, or was the Prairie Dog Town River? Which was known hy the framers of the treaty? Which was known prior to that. time? Which was laid downonMeliRh's map? Which stream, whether it be large or small, long or short, wide or narrow, deep or shallow, was really intended by the treaty?" Under this proposition we will consider the evidence and deductions therefrom in two parts: First. Did Melish's map deiineate the North Fork (so called) as the Hie, H~jo, or did it lay down the Prairie Dog Town Hiver on said map as the the Hio Hojo'? Sec-ond. 'Vhich of these streams was known by the framers of the treaty, independent of Melish's map? ·were they both known? If not both known, which was intended to be the boundary line? III. Melisb's map, improved to January 1, 1818, made part of the treaty, does delineate a river thereon named Hio H.ojo, or Red River. Was that stream intended to be and rep-resent what is now called North Fork of Red Hiver, or Prairie Dog Town River? We will examine the map of Mel ish and the maps referred to by his map, and the maps since, to the map of Capt. R. B. Marcy, in 1852, for light on this question. Melish's map, improved to January 1, 1818, was referred to and made part of the treaty iu this language: "The whole as being laid down on Mel ish 's map of the United Htate:;, published at Philadelphia, improved to the 1st of January, 181H." Now, the Rio l~ojo of Natchitoches delineated on this map is the boundary line of the treaty; and if that fact can be determined from this map by the aid of evidencP, in explanation, it is our duty to do so. Some misapprehension has arisen about the sources of information , possessed by l\Ielisb, and it is claimed that he was in great etror and misled the framers of the treaty. Melish, however, published a book about the same time of his map, from which an extract is submitted on the part of the United States Commission in evidence, which shows that the author had explored all attainable sources of information. He used Baron de Humboldt's map of New Spain west of the one hundredth degree of longitude, Mr. Darby's map for South Louisiana and eastward,. and had followed Hum-boldt ~ast of the one hundredth degree to Mississippi, as the baRe of his map, until he saw tne manuscript of Mr. Bringer, who had made a very accurate survey west of the Mississippi Hiver to twenty-third degree from ·washington; and also be obtained access to Lieutenant Pike's notes, and after seeing these he erased the old data from the plates, and inserted the corrected data from these sources. Ho he had all the data of a reliable nature on this :>pecial point that seems to have been known, with slight exceptions, till 1852 . . On the map of Humboldt, published in 1804, Red River of Natchitoehes has no south-ern branches or forks, until be.vond Santa Fe. It shows the Washita, but does not name it, and the Caddo flowing into it from the north side, and shows settlements along the entire river. He no doubt believed that the source of the Canadian IUver was the sonrce of the Red Hiver, and did not delineate the Canadian on his map if known; aud this was a common error indulged in for a long time, that the waters since known to flow into the Canadian were believed to be the sources of Red River. 'rwo points are made by tllis map, however: that the Hed Hiver was then known as one continuous iltream, without hranches or forks flowing into it from the south and west, and that it had settlements along its entire course, being !mown to ci,·ilization. The map of William Darby is almost a literal copy of Humboldt'R for upper ned Rivei·. It differs only in laying down an unknown Rmall stream nearly east of Banta Fe. flowing southeast into Red River a little son.th of the branch called, hy Humholdt, Mora; while both of these were more than 100 miles northwest of the source of Red River as now known. Darbr, however1 does show five streams, two of which are named, flowing into REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 101 the Red River on the north side, and, like Humboldt, shows that Red River was known as one main continuous stream, with no southern forks, and that this stream was known on its north side by the fact that the streams since found there were then Jinown. This was owing, no doubt, to the fact that the great Spanish road from Santa Fe to Natchi-toches led down the east side of this river. We have not been able to find a map by Mr. Bringer nor obtain one by Lieutenant Pike, although one of Pike's has been examined, and it does not change this view. Hence the next map in order is that of Melish, which is the most important to consider-in fact, it was the basis of the treaty and constituted a material part of it. Without this map and the references to and delineations thereon, it may be said there was no intelligent understanding between the two governments; therefore this map and a proper under-standing of its meaning must tend to make plain the question now being considered, "Which stream was the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, described in the treaty, theN orth Fork (so called) or Chequeahquehono, or South Fork (so called)?" We ask a' candid investigation of this map upon its face, and in the light of the evi-dence before and since it was published, January 1, 1818. 1. The treaty called for only three rivers-the Sabine, Red River of Natchitoches, and Arkansas. No branches, prongs, or forks were mentioned. 2. The treaty called for a course westward up the Red River from a point where a line run due north, from the corner on Sabine River, intersected Red River. Wherever said stream meandered in the west this boundary line should follow, subject to one limit. 3. The limit of this natural boundary line fixed was a point on Red River, where the one hundredth degree of longitude west from London crossed said streams. 4. These were the calls of Melish's map and the treaty, and showed Red River and the one hundredth degree of west longitude delineated thereon. Whether they were truly presented or not does not materially affect the question to be decided. The real question was then, and now is, was there a Red River in that region flowing from the westward, and was there the one hundredth degree of west longitude crossing said stream? The two contracting parties then believed these facts existed and acted upon them as existing, and eubsequent investigation has shown them to be true. It was not necessary for either party to know the exact location of the one or the other; that is, just where the Red River :was, or the one hundredth degree crossed it. The fourth article of the treaty provided that these unknown facts should be ascertained afterwards, to wit: "ART. 4. To fix this line with more precision, and place the landmarks which shall designate exactly the limits of both nations, each of the contracting parties shall appoint a commissioner and surveyor, who shall meet before the termination of one year from the date of the ratification of the treaty at Natchitoches, on Red River, and proceed to run and mark the said line from the mouth of the Sabine to the Red' River, and from the Red Hiver to the river Arkansas." 5. The map became a positive truth, with this provision in tJ:J.e treaty, because it showed the Hed River of Natchitoches and the one hundredth degree of west longitude, and the exact locality of each has since been found, and in a deed or treaty that which can be made certain is treated as certain. And it becomes wholly immaterial as to how much error and ~onfusion then existed as to the sources or forks of Red River, and as to the relative sizes of these streams. Look upon this map, and it will be·seen that the Arkansas River is laid down as running into the Mississippi River, and no other stream between this and Red River, of Louisiana. This stream is the first south and west of the Arkansas, that flows into the Gulf of Mexico. 6. The Canadian Hiver was not then known nor laid down as crossing as far west as the one hundredth degree ; the space' between the Red River and Arkansas had one watershed, partly drained by both streams. The first Red River, therefore, south of the Arkansas River, which drains that territory and flowed into the Gulf, must have been the Red River intended by the treaty. And it · does not detract from the force of this position to admit that the exact locality of that stream was then unknown; it being declared the boundary, its course was to be followed to the westward, wherever it might go, until crossed by the one hundredth degree. 7. You will search this map in vain to find any stream flowing into it from the south and west side from the ninety-seventh to one hundred and second degree oflongitude, a distance of some 300 miles; but on the north side there are four laid down (three with-out names). And you will be equally disappointed in your search for any stream run-ning parallel for the same distance; the two streams-the Arkansas and Hed Rivers-only appear in this locality, and they are distinctly named. 8. The Prairie Dog Town River, Big Wichita and Pease Rivers, and the Canadian Riv-er do not appear on this map, and yet they have since been discovered in this region, all running substantially in the same direction, and all crossed by the one hundreth de-gree of west longitude; three of them flow into Red River from the south, while the up-per Canadian was, at the date of the map, supposed generally to be Red River, or to be 102 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. one of the sources; and it drains part of the watershed between the Arkansas and Red Rivers. Why should not one of these streams be adopted as the boundary line? These streams each have the characteristics of rivers, and are now so recognized, and lie in that region,and run in the proper direction, and may have become the boundary line if so agreed. But to make one the boundary, each government must have so determined, as running the line up one stream rather than another would make a difference of millions of acres of land; hence have been a matter of consideration. None of these rivers were discovered until many years after the treaty. Are these new and recent discoveries to become a factor in the determination of the boundary line of the treaty-are they to control the plain import of the treaty itst>lf? You must see that the United States would not have consented for the Canadi~n River to be substituted for Red River, and the line run up that stream to where the one hundredth degree crossed it, because it was not the stream of the treaty, and she would lose immensely by it. And it is equally plain that Spain would not have agreed for the line to run up Prairie Dog Town River, it not having been mentioned in the treaty, and by which she would be the loser. The map is or is not the law on this question; it must lle fo1Jo:wed if it can be understood. The first duty is to see if the map can be understood, and, if consistent with the terms of the treaty; if not, does it contradict the treaty to such an extent that it can not be construed with it? 9. It will be observed that the Red River was the boundary line of the treaty, the stream bearing this name, and no other. Consider yourself in the very position of the two ministers of the contracting governments, exl!-mining the ml1p for a line of boundary and limits. You will not forget that this line was limited west by the one hundredth degree. The stream was not to be followed to its source, but only to where the one hundredth degree crossed it. Now, with this data in hand and the map before them, could the thought have been for a moment entertained as to the width of the stream, the height of its banks, the amount and flow of the water, the length and where its sources were? The exact channel through which the stream flowed, the exact direc-tion, quantity of water and all such matter did not enter into the consideration. It only concerned the parties, then, to know that there was a Red River in that territory, that it flowed from the westward, and that it was long enough for the one hundredth degree of west longitude to cross it, when the boundat'y line would leave it and run due north to the Arkansas River. If, in fixing a boundary line between the two nations, such minor matters were to control subsequently as fast as discovered, then the line would be so unstable that property rights would be of little value, but, what is more, peace could not long be maintained. 10. The North Fork of Red River does substantially agreewith the Red River of Mel-ish's Jpap-does no violence to it as laid down, because it is the first stream south of the Arkansas and its tributaries at its source. It rises in a re~ion westward from the point of beginning on said river and westward of the point where Melish's map fixed t.he one hundredth meridian, as well as westward of the point where the one hundredth meridian is now truly located-and therefore flowed across the one hundredth me-ridian-to the east and sout.heast. This same stream had been known since 1542, re-ferred to in history and exploring expeditions, was used as the basis for a line of forts by the Spaniards. · The g~eat Spanish road from Santa Fe to Fort Natchitoches descended along the east bank of this stream and by this line of forts. Old Indian villages were located along it to a point above where the one hundredth degree crossed it. Baron Humboldt delineated this one continuous stream on his map in 1804. Lieu-tenant Pike, in 1806, referred to it and tried to explore it, but was misled; still he obtained most valuable data concerning its course and sources. William Darby, before 1818, had obtained sufficent information to delineate this river through the same region, and Mr. Bringer, before 1818, referred to by Melish, had made a survey of that country as far west as the one hundredth degree, as marked on Melish's map. No other Red River did flow in a:a easterly and southerly dir-ection through that territory, then being divided. If no South Fork had been discovered, would it have ever been doubted for a moment that this was the veritable Red Ri"1er of the treaty? Was it not the Red River of the treaty the day the treaty was signed, and did it not so continue to be till Captain Marcy claimed to have discovered Prairie Dog Town River, and called it South Fork, or main branch of Red River? Is this to change the rule? If so, the boundary might have been changed as many times as new prongs of Red River were discovered after the treaty, and in that case Big Wichita, Pease Hiver and Prairie Dog Town River in turn would have been the boundary, which is preposterous. But under the evidence now shown a different view may be taken, merely to show the folly of leaving the map and river of the treaty to adopt some other, because a new name may be given t,o it. The False Washita, Big Wichita, Pease River, and the NorthFork, each flow in an easterly direction, and the one hundredth meridian crosses the sources of e~ch, l t is s"4own, too, that ;:~.t cert~in se~sons of the ;rear ~he w~ter flowing in eacb REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 103 is about the same, little more, perhaps, in False Washita River. You will note that the Red River becomes the boundary far below the mouth of any of these rivers. Now, can you imagine what reason was suggested that induced the United States, through her officials in her land office, to followtthe course up Red River, passing the mouths of each of these rivers successively. until the Prairie Dog Town River was reached, and then and there declaring this last stream for the first time named, in 1852, to be the boundary line? It is quite plain that the streams flowing into the Red River from the north below the North Fork, would not be adopted, because that territory was already occupied by the United States, and such a line would have caused loss of country; and It is equally plain why the rivers flowing into Red River from the south were not called the line, becanse lands were located by Texas on these streams, her people occupied and claimed the country, and there was no pretense that any of these streams bad ever been known as Red River. It is more probable that this pretension was first set up because it extended the area of territory a little farther westward for the United States, and land speculators in that region urged it upon the Government. It might be noted, too, that in the search tor the real Red River in going up that stream it will be found that the North Fork shows itself to be the dominant controlling river in this, that it is narrower with high banks and bold flow of water above the junc-tion, while the South Fork is a wide sand bed, often dry, very low banks, and enters from a westward course in.tothe North Fork or main river. Theeffectof this is visible for only a few miles below the junction, when the North Fork becomes dominant and the controlling stream, for it again flows through high banks and along a deep channel and strong current, and this continues below the mouths of the several rivers that make into it below. 11. Let us for a moment, however, drop the map made part of the treaty and admit, for the sake of argument, that there was nothing in t.he name of Red River of Natchi-toches, and that any other river found in that region possessing the proper characteristics would do as well. We will adopt an extract from one who has written on this exact subject and which expresses our views: ''If the map stream is not to control, then what are the characteristics of the stream that will control ? ''(1) Its length. "(2) Its width. "(3) Its volume of water. ''(4) Its constancyof flow "(5) Its navigability. "(6) Its proximity to the Arkansas; or ''(7) The source of its headwaters. "And from what sources are we to draw· our information, the treaty river•being laid aside? We can but come to subsequent discoveries. "(1) There is no great difference between the lengths of the North and South Fork of the Red River and the Washita. In a straight line the South Fork rises farthest west; but take the tortuous channel of the North Fork and it measures as great, if not the greater distance. The Washita is but little shorter. "(2) The South Fork is the widest. "(3) As to the volume of water and constancy of flow neit.her the North or South Fork is to be compared with the Washita. '' ( 4) Neither the north or the south fork is navigable at all, except in rainy seasons, while the Washita is navigable at all times by light-draught boats. "(5) The Washita is nearest the Arkansas. · "What makes a river? It is not the width of sand-bed over which water flows in freshet 'times. It is not its length; but it is its normal condition in volume and con-stancy of flow of water. If length should govern, then the Missouri ought to be the Mississippi, and if width, then the Canadian would be the Arkansas. "If the tributary of Red River, which furnishes the greater volume of water, which runs constantly, navigable at all seasons, and which is nearest the Arkansas, but not flowing into it, be Reel River, then the Washita is Red River, and to find treaty boundary we will be forced up it to where the one hundredth meridian cuts it." This conclusion, yon will admit, is absurd; but is it more absurd than to start at the beginning of the boundary line on Red River and pass along up t.hat stream, disregard-ing the Big Wichita, False Washita, Pease River, and the North Fork (so called), and at last cross theN orth Fork and adopt the Chi-qui-ah-que-hono River as meant and described in the treaty? The .truth is that there has never been any dispute about Red River being the Red River of the treaty up to the junction of Prairie Dog Town River, and no confusion, likely, could or would have arisen if Captain Marcy had not given that river the name ·of South Fork of Red River. II. Ex. IS-61 104 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 12. Again, Melish's map shows two streams rising in the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh degrees of north latitude, flowing in a southeasterly direction and forming a junction a little west of the one hundredth and first degree of longitude. These streams at and near their junction both take the same course that the North Fork is now known to have. There is, as stated, no stream noted from the west. on the south, for 300 miles of Red River, and none tall to correspond to Prairie Dog Town River. No map prior to this shows such a stream, and the solitary reference to any white man knowing of this Prairie Dog Town River is the expedition of Fragoso, in 1788, from Santa Fe to Fort Natchitoches of Louisiana. He descended the west side of this stream and gave it the name of Hio Blanco or White River-doubtless from the white earth worked up by prairie dogs1 and the white sand in the bed of the river. But these discoveries were not knownor published until now. This information is found in an old Spanish mann- . script obtained by Texas during her provincial days and filed among the archives of the land office, where it lay until the Texas Commission had it translated into English. It is very evident that it has never been referred to in the history of Texas. It was not known to Melish, for if he had obtained possession of it he would have laid this river down on his map as Rio Blanco or White River. Nor did Melish's successor; in 1823, show this stream on his improved map. The Mexican Government did not have this data published, because Desternell, who made three maps and whose :first map was used as the basis of the treaty between the Republic of Mexico and the United. States in 1828, and whose last map of 1846-'47 was used as the basis of the treaty between the same Governments in 1848 did not show the Rio Blanco or White River. The atlas of Carey & Lea, of 1822, delineating this region of country, shows but one unnamed stream flowing into the Red River from the south, thus admitting clearly that this fact was not known. Lieutenant Emory, in his map of 1844, describes Red River as one continuous stream, without southern branches, and fixed its source at about the one hundred and third de-gree of west longitude. Thus it is plain that none of these maps attempted to show the Rio Blanco or White River, of Fragoso, nor the Chi-qui-ah-qui-hono River. In fact, it was never explored and published until1852, by Captain Marcy. Fragoso had as well. never traversed Rio Blanco as to have done so and had his manuscript filed away until ninety-eight years afterwards. What map since the treaty of 1819, until that of Captain Marcy in 1852, shows any South Fork of Red River? We answer none. Melish could not have known of the Rio Blanco or White River (now called Prairie Dog Town River), because no such name was given it, and the course and the way it flows into the other streams are so variant as to lead to the opposite conclusion. But why would he have named this stream Rio Rojo if he knew it from Fragoso. Such conclu-sions are largely drawn from the imagination, and took their rise first from the fact that Captain Marcy gave a new name to the Che-qua-oh-qua-ho-no, and since this it has been built upon and added to by the reports in the Land Office at Washington and by com-mittees who have given the subject a partial and hasty investigation. We submit on this point an extract of a review of the claims of the United States from one who has given much thought to the subject, which will meet many of those untenable positions assumed concerning this map: A short review of the claim of the United States to Greer County, as formulated bythe Commissioner of the General Land Office in his letter to the Secretary of the Interior, dated May 10, 1877, and reiterated by the report of Mr. Willetts, from the Commit-tee on the Judiciary. (See House Report No. 1282, Forty-seventh Congress, :first ses-sion, and the letter of the Secretary of the Interior to the President, under date of the 8th of January, l 884.) As Mr. Willetts's report adopts the letter of the Commissioner of the General Land Office of the lOth of' May, 1877, and makes it a part of his report, and as the letter of the Secretary of the Interior contains no new matter of particular interest, except that it corrects the error committed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office of the lOth of May, 1877, in the sixth claim set forth by him, I will confine my remarks prin-cipally to that report. After stating the importance of the issue involved, Mr. Willetts says: "The real question in dispute is which branch or fork of Red Hi Yer is the maiu branch or the contin-uation of the river. The initial point of investigation is the treaty between the United States and Spain, dated February 22, 1819, in which this part of the boundary is de-fined as follows: "After it strikes the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches of Red River, it then follows the course of the Rio Roxo westward to the degree of longitude 100 west from London and 23 from Washington, then crossing said Red River, and running thence by line due north to the Arkansas, etc. The whole being as laid down in Melish's map of tbe United States, published at Philadelphia, improved to the 1st of J;;~.nuary, 1818. '' REPORT OF TEX.A.::> ll0UrrDAHY COMMISSION. 105 "By this it will he seen that the western boundary of that portion of the United States lying on and north of the Hed Hiver was8aid one hundredth meridian, and that its south-western corner was where said meridian crosses the riYer. At the rlateof that treaty this region had never heen accurately explored, and the fact was not known that lled River divided into two branches betore it reached said meridian; in fact, the very map referred to in the treaty makes the river a continuous stream, and does not lay down the North Fork at all. "Sabsequent surveys have discovered the 'two forks,' and have definitely located said one hundredth meridian about 80 miles west of where the two torks form the river proper. ''The treaty with Mexico dated January 12, 1828, recognizes the boundary as stipula,ted in aforesaid treaty with Spain, as did the joint resolution admitting Texas into the Union. "Even at as late a day as her admission into the Union, there was no knowledge of uncertainty in this boundary." ''Lieutenant Emory made a map for the War Department in 1844 (which is now in the Land Office) on which the North Fork is not laid down, and on that, Red River traces nearly the course of the Prairie Dog Town Fork. Disturnell's map of Mexico, dated 18-18, follows in this regard Emory's and Melish's maps." Now, what does Mr. Willetts mean when he says: "The very map referred to in the treaty makes the river a continuous stream, and does not lay down the North Fork at all. It certainly does not lay down the South Fork, for it was geographically unknown to civilized man for t,hirty-four years after the map was published. Because the map does not show the North or South Fork to be where subsequent surveys prove them to be, does that j usti(y Jones and Brown in ignoring the treaty entirely by llJ.aking the line leave I~ed River and running it alri:wst at a right angle up the Prairie Dog Town Fork, and definitely locat:ng the hundredth meridian on that stream about 80 miles west of Hed River? Verily, I do not understand this mode of reasoning. The treaty confines the boundary line to the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches or Red River. Now, if the Prairie Dog Town River was twice as long and twice as wide, and was in point of fact the main branch of Red River, it could not figure as a boundary line according to the treaty of the 22d of February, 1819, because it was known or believed by all the early explorers, traders, and travelers before the treaty wa..<~ signed, and since it was signed, that the waters of the Red Hi ver of Louisiana ran far north of the waters of the Prairie Dog Town Fork. All of whicb is demonstrated by Humboldt's and· Melish's maps, Captain Pike's report of 1806-' 07, Colonel Long's report of 1819-'20, Captain Marcy's reports of 1849 and 1852." Mr. Willetts says: "Lieutenant Emory ma.de a map for the War Department in 1844 (which is now in the Land Office), on which the :North Fork is not laid down, and on that Red River traces nearly the course of the Prairie Dog Town Fork." ·why this pe-culiar language, unless it be to lead the unwary to believe that Mr. Emory intended eight years before its discovery to show the Dog Town River to be the Red River of Louisiana? The Commissioner of the General Land Office uses similar language. He says: "It further appears that neither the Melish map nor that of Disturnell shows the Nol'th Fork of Red Hiver. '' Lieutenant Emory compiled his map in his office from the data before him. He places Rerl. River in its proper position-that is, the first river south of the Washita. As to any North or South Fork in the vicinity of the ninety-ninth meridian, he knew no more about. them than di not _gep~rapbica.lly known until :~4years after Melish's map wascrnnpiled, it occurs to me that it.,vill heimpoRRihle to have that stream figure as a boundary line without violating the treaty of 22d oL' February. 1819. 13. We do not see how the map since 18tH could really affect the one madP part of the treaty. There is really no material change in rt·spect to Hed Hiver until 1H52. ~i1we then all the maps hrwe more or less con1ormed to the changes wr,1ught by the discoYer-ies then made and publiRhed. From the 1oregoing we conclude that l\Ielish did not intend to delineate on this mnp the Rio Blanco or White Wvcr,namcd hy Fragoso, and with whom that u:.uue died; nor ~ --- -- o--ltEPon·r OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 107 the Chui-qua-ah-qui-ho-no, or Prairie Dog Town Hiver of the Indians; nor the South Fork ofHed River, discovered and published to civilized man in 1862. But that he in-tended to, and did describe the Rio Roxo, as his map shows, and concerning which he had large information, coming down since 1542; and the littlestrearushown on his map, ann which has no name (just east of the Red River), he no doubt had some information concerning it, but not enough to designate it accurately or give it a name. It would be a thing almost incredible to suppose that the great Spanish road leading from Santa Fe to Fort Natchitoches could have passed down the east fork of this unnamed :stream with-out giving it a name; and that the Indians, who had villages in that vicinity, and who hunted up these streams, should have known so little of it as not to find a name, espec-ially when the very small creeks were named. The Red River ofthe treaty is that Red River named on this map and along which was the ancient villages, iorts, and trading roans; this was the river, and no other laid down on that map; and the unbiased mind that will carefully e.xamine the evidence can hardly escape this conviction. We will conclude this branch of the subject by offering extracts from the testimony of Capt. R. B. Marcy, from whom all the confusion has arisen. He was sworn anrl testi-fied February 26, 1886, with Melish 's map betore him. He says: "'l'he Rio Rojo, or Roxo, upon Mel ish's map is almost entirely south and west of the Wichita Mountains, but in close proximity to them-which is in accord with my determination of the position of the NorthFork, while there are no mountains upon the Prairie Dog Town branch. " The head of the Rio Roxo, upon Mel ish's map, is put down as in latitude 37°, while upon my map tl1e true latitude is 35~0, while the Prairie Dog Town River rises in about 34~0, so that if his Rio Roxo was intended to represent the 'Prairie Dog Town River,' it would be ~o oflatitude too far north. ''I do~ if the Prairie Dog Town River was ever known to civilized men prior to my exploration in 1852; and, if it was ever mapped before, then I am not aware of it. ''It is very certain that the 'Prairie Dog Town River' was never delineated upon any of our maps; or designated by any Spanish, French, or English name, as were most of the other streams in that country, and it was only known to the Indians and possibly to some Mexican trader as the Ke-che-ah-que-ho-no, a Comanche appellation, the significa-tion of which the Delawares informed me was 'Prairie Dog Town River.' "I regarded the Prairie Dog Town branch as the main Red River, for the reason that its bed was much wider than that of the North Fork, although the water only covered a small portion of its bed, and as the sanrly earth absorbed a good deal of the water after it debouched from the canon through which it :flows, it may not contribute any more to the lower river than the North Fork. · ''The Prairie Dog Town branch and the North Fork of Red River, from their conflu-ences to their sources, are of about equal length-the former being 180 miles, and the latter 177 miles in length. ''For reasons which I will presently state, I have been unable to resist the force of my own convictions, that the branch of l~ed River that I called North Fork of t~at stream was what is designated upon Melish's map as 'Rio Rojo'." H.-Second proposition made under the second general division. Which stream North Fork (so called), or South Fork (so called), was known at and before the date of the treaty, February 22, 1819. Which of these streams was in the mind of the framers of the treaty, and actually made the boundary line? It is admitted that there was a Reel River of Natchitoches; the framers of the treaty admitted it, and based their articles of agreement on this a'! a substantive truth, it hav-ing been known more than three hundred years, and so well known that it was made the controlling call in the boundary line for nearly 500 miles. Two calls were made on this river, both of which have since been~found and verified. There is no dispute what-ever about said river for a distance of over 400 miles. From the beginning corner up to the .i unction of Prairie Dog Town River it is the boundary line. It is only above this point that trouble is found. The treat.y in fixing this boundarw called for Red River, a natural object; it was de-lineated on the map or plat, was known by no other name, and by actual verification on the ground has been found to substantially correspond with the description in the deed of treaty. They must control in :fixing the true line, over the fact that some thirty years later another stream was discovered flowing into the :first, much larger and longer, with a different name, and then, for the first time, the name of South Fork of Red River given to it. Under a proper interpretation of the treaty, and the evidence adduced, the Heel River described in and intended by the· treaty was that continuous stream running westwardly from the said point of beginning then and ever since known as Red River; nothwithstanding in 1852 the new name of North fork of Red River was given to it, 108 RErOR'l' OF 'rEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. and another larger and longer stream was discovered flowing into it, known by a totally different name, and that name changed so it might be applied to the previously known stream of Red River. The correspondence between the ministers of Spain and the United States, covering a period of more thau three years before the signing of the treaty of the 22d of February, 1819, shows that they were in possession of all the reliable published information con-cerning the Hed River and the territory then being divided. Each minister offered one proposition after another, Spain seeking to fix the boundary line to the eastward and the United States westward of where it is now, under the treaty. It was claimed by Spain that Red Hiver of Natchitoches had its source only a few leagues from Santa Fe, and the demand of the United States to make it tae boundary line to its source was ex-orbitant and would not be considered, and it was finally agreed to follow the Red Hiver to where the one hundredth degree of west longitude crossed it, thence north to the Arkansas River. Neither party then knew of but, one Red River in that region. Another Red River was expressly mentioned to he within the interior part of the Spanish provinces-merely to distinguish it fi·mn this Hed River of N9.tchitoches-and Melish's map, then before them, did not show the Che a. m. to meet at 10 a. m. to-morrow. LANSING H. BEACH, First Lieutenant of Engineers, Secretary. AUSTIN, TEX., Saturday, J1tne 26, 1886. The Commission met pursuant to adjournment at 10.25 a. m. Present, all the members except Mr. Herndon. The Commission on the part of the United States then passed to have the following placed on the record of the Joint Commission, which was agreed to: Since a part of the record of the Joint Commission has been printed by the Commis-sioners on the part of Texas while it was in their possession, and contrary to our advice and without our approval, we feel compelled to state that we have been in no way a party to such action, which we believe to be opposed to the spirit and the letter of our instructions, the Texas Commission adding the following: Resolved, on part of the Texas Commission, that the foregoing resolution expressed the true state of the case, and in justice to the United States Commission the Texas Commis-sion assumes all responsibility for ·said printing, which is done solely for their own con-venience and not for publication. Mr. Freeman then presented and read the following "additional argument of Texas Commissioners:'' PROPOSITION. The bou'l.dary is the one hundredth meridian on Melish's map, whether the true one hundredth meridian or not, and lies east of the junction of the North and South Forks of Red River. AUSTIN, June 26, 1886. SIR: The undersigned Commissioners on the part of Texas beg leave to submit to the Joint Commission the following additional views for the consideration of the Commission in connection with what was submitted on yesterday. While the Texas Commission consider that under the facts and for the reasons pre-sented the United States are estopped from claiming that the Prairie Dog Town River is the Rio Roxo of the treaty between Spain and the United States and from claiming that any stream south and west of the North Fork of Red River is that river. The under-signed members of the Commission on the part of Texas wish to say, in addition to the report heretofore submitted, that if it should be held by any competent authority that such is not the case, and that the whole question (as to the original line of boundary from the Red River to the Arkansas should be estttblished according to the terms of the treaty) is now open as an original question without respect to any such estoppel, then they have this explanat.ion to make of their second and third propositions and argument, viz: Those propositions were based upon the assumption of the Commission on the part of , the United States that the true meridian oftheone:hundredthdegreeof west longitude was the line intended by the treaty-makers as the line of boundary between the rivers Arkansas and Red, without respect to the line of that meridian as it was laid down on Melish'R map; and further, upon consideration that section 2 of the act of the legis-lature of Texas providing for the appointment of the Commission seems to require that meridian to be marked by the Commission whether it be the meridian ''as laid down on Melish's map'' or not. The part of said act referred to is in these words, viz: "SEC. 2. Said Joint Commission will report their survey made in accordance with the foregoing section of this act, together with all necessary notes, maps, and other papers, in order that in fixing that part of th.e boundary between the territories of the United States and the State of Texas the question may be definitely settled as to the true loca-tion of the one hundredth degree of longitude west from London, and whether the North Fork of Red River or the Prairie Dog Fork of Red River is the true Red River designated in the treaty between the United States and Spain made February 26, 1819; antl in locating said line said Commissioners shall be guided by actual surveys and measure-ments, together with such well established marks, natural and artificial, as may be found, and such well authenticated maps as may throw light upon the subject, and when the main or principal Red River is ascertained as agreed upon in said treaty of 1819, and the nEFOR1' OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMtSStON. 111 point is fully des;ignated where the one hundredth degree of longitude west from London and the twenty-thin! degree oflongitude west from Washington cro3ses said Red l{iver, · the same shall be plainly marked and defined as a corner in said boundary, and said Commissioners shall establish such permanent monuments as may be necessary to mark their work." But inasmuch as the first section of said act of the legislature expressly provided that the boundary line should be run and marked ''as said line was laid down in Melish's map of the United States published at Philadelphia, improved to the 1st of January, 1818, and designated in the treaty between the United States and Spain made February 22, A D. 1819;" and the act of Congress also provided that: "Whereas a controversy exists between the United States and Texas as to the point where the one hundredth degree of longitude crosses the Red River as described in the treaty; and ''Whereas the point of crossing has never been ascertained and fixed by any authority competent to bind the United States and Texas; and "Whereas it is desirable that a settlement of this controversy should be had, to the end that the question of boundary now in dispute because of the difference of opinion as to said crossing may also be settled: Therefore. ''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of R Ppre.'lentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, au· thorized to detail one or more officers of the Army, who, in conjunction with such per-son, or persons, as may be appointed by the State of Texas, shall ascertain and mark the point where the one hundredth meridian of longitude crosses Red River in accord-ance with the terms of the treaty aforesaid"-W e have felt it our duty to present for the consideration of the Joint Commission the evidence tending to show: That, "according to the terms of the treaty," the line of boundary between the Ar-kansas and Red Rivers was to be and is along the one hundredth meridian, as that line was laid down on Mellish's map, and is far to the east of the line claimed as the true meridian by the United States, and, in fact, east of the junction of the North and South Forks (so called) of Red River. It will be remembered that tlie Texas Commission expressly reserved the right to offer evidence and argument on this proposition at any time during the progress of the pro-ceedings of the Commission, in the following words: ''The issue matle, alleging that the one hundredth degree of west longitude from Lon-don crosses the Prairie Dog Town or South Fork of Red River west of its junction with the North Fork of Red River, as ascertained by observations and surveys made by differ-ent parties, and under different conditions, is denied, be<'anse the same contradicts the location of saJid meridian line by Mellish's map made part of the treaty, which fixes the one hundredth degree of west longitude on said map, relative to certain well known and prominent natural o~jects, such as the Great Bend of th~ Arkansas River, the mouth of the Canadian River where it empties into the Arkansas, the range of the Witchita Mountains Rtretching along the course of the Rio Roxo on the east and north side thereof, the bend of the Red River to the northward as shown on said map, the watershed and great basin toward the source of Red River; these aml others then existed, and now exist, and no doubt influenced and convinced the framers of the treaty that the one hundredth degree of west longitude was far to the eastward of the location of said meridian now contended for by the United States. -* * -* And upon the said issue presented upon the part of the United States the Texas Commission reserves the right at any time dur-ing the progress of these proceedings to offer evidence and argument in support of said meridian being located according to Mellish's map, made part of the treaty.'' This reservation was in accordance with the as-;umptious stated as preliminary prop-ositions by them to the Joint Commission, as follows, to wit: 11 ASSUMPTIONS. "1. It is assumed as a truth conceded by the Joint Commission that the State of Texas, under and by virtue of the several treaties and concessions between the United States and the Republic of Mexico and the United States and Republic of Texas is now subrogated to and entitled to every right, privilege, and title concerning the boundary in dispute to which the Kingdom of Spain was entitled under the treaty of February . 22, 1819. '' 2. It is assumed that the Joint Commission must ascertain and mark the point where the one hundredth meridian of west longitude ~rosseH Red Hiver in accordance with the terms of the treaty of 1819." From the evidence introduced under this reserved proposition and these assumptions, we have arrived at the conclusion that the boundary line of the one hundredth meridian, 112 REPOR'l! 01<~ 11~XA8 BOUNDARY COMMISSION. according to the terms of the treaty, lies entirely east of the forks of Red River, and touches neither the north nor the south fork of the ri Yer, and is to b~ ' · run and marked'' by the natural landmarks indicating its position which are deliue;;~ted on Melish's map, and it does not require astronomical observations to determine its po~ition on the ground, and, further, that it was not contemplated or intended by the makers of the treaty that it should be so determined or ascertained. In declaring what was agreed upon as the boundary, the makers of the treaty, after tracing the lines verbally, concluded by the words, ' 'the whole as laid down in Mellish's map," adding, however, a single exception to this. Every part of the boundary was to be as laid down in that map with that single exception: as w .:ll one part as another; as well the line north from Red River tu tlw Arkan:-;as, which wuuld seem, a.s those parts following along the rivers which intersected the Great Bentl of the Arkansas and a lesser bend of Red River, as any other points. The single excepLiou to the rule was, that if the source of the Arkansas Hiver should not be found in latitnde 42° north, near which the map laid it down, then the boundary Commission shoul1L "ascertain the latitude" of the source, etc., audit is worthy particular notice that the treaty did not likewise pro-vide that th~ one hundredth meridian also should be '" as l!ertained " by the Commis-sioners, but, on the contrary, provided that they should simply "run and mark" the line from the mouth of the 8abine to the Red River, and from the Red River to the Ar-kansas. The fomth clause of the treaty expressly provides just what should be done by the boundary Commissions. We submit that the terms used, "run and marked," do not include determination of the longitude of the line, and that the positive direction for the Commissioners to "ascertain" the latitude in theonecaseand the omission to direct them to ''ascertain" the one hundredth meridian in the other, by necessa.ry intendment, interdicted the latter. 'l'he line of the one hundredth meridian was reqnirect simply to be "rnn and marked" as it was laid down in Mellish's map, not as it might be "a.<;cer-tained" by astronomical observations. Evidently, the position of this line was to be marlt:ed according to the plat of the land, the diagram of it incorporate(\ in the treaty, Mellish's map, because it was to be "a.,; laid down in that map." These are plain and simple words of no doubtful signification. On the map which is in evidence this line is laid down as cutting the Arkansas River a little west of the northern extremity of the Great Bend, where is now situated the village known by the name of Great Bend, and just westward of and above the stream delineated on the map and corresponding to that now bearing the name of Rattlesnake Creek; very near, also, the notable point where is marked the commencement. of the route of the survey of Lieutenant Pike up the Arkansas to its source, which was un-der the orders of the United States Government, as early as 1806. (See Mellish's map; Pike's Sonrce of the Mississippi, Part III, pp. 107 to 100, and Pike's Diary, pp. 111 to 121.) It is also (a'3 laid down) a degree or more eastward from the next abrupt bend from the general course of the stream above, which corresponds on the ground to that bend situated about 20 miles east of Dodge City, according to recent maps in evidence. It is likewise laid down as cutting through the eastern part of a chain of mountains which courses along the north and east side of upper Red River, corresponding (in rela-tive positions to the other points already named) to the Wichita Mountains and the gypsum bluffs noted by Capt. R. B. Marcy. And it cuts Red River more than a degree eastward of a great right-angular northward bend of the general course of the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, corresponding to the great right-angular bend of that river, considered in conjunction with the North Fork as a continuous, stream which is delineated on the recent maps as about 10 miles south of the junction of the North Fork and South Fork. These notable naturallandm·uks are all laid down on both Mellish's map and the re-cent maps of that re~ion in S'> nearly the sa.me relative positions as to identify them be-yond question, and at the same time to unquestionably fix the position of this boundary line by a close approximation, and demonstrate that it lies to the east of the junction of the North and South Forks of the Red River. The relative positions of these several objects show that Mr. Bringer, from whose surveys Melish corrected the plates of his map from the Mississippi to this one hundredth meridian, must have had a knowledge of the relative situation of the country under its topography, and closely approximated correct-ness. (See Mellish's Geographical Description, evidence on the part of United States, pp. 80 and 81.) The great northward bend in the upward course of the Red River of Mellish's map, lying a little west of south from the Great Bend of the Arkansas (through which the boundary line is delineated on that map), is one of the principal features in which this stream remarked hy Mellish himself. *To illustrate what we have now suggested, we append a tracing from Gillespie's map, put in evidence by the United States, sheet No.2, Western Territories, by Maj. G. L. *We have added this paragraph since the argument was read to the Joint Commission, calling their attention to it, and submitting the diagram before any reply from the United States Commission. REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 113 Gillespie, Corps Engineers, U. S. Army, bearing date 1876, upon which we have drawn that part of Mellish'!-3 map referred to, enlarged to the scale of Gillespie's map. The comparison is made by superposing the great right-angular bend of Mellish's Hio Roxo of Natchitoches upon the like bend of Gillespie's main Red River, considered in con-junction with the North Fork thereof as a continuous stream, and then projecting the Rio Roxo from that point as it is laid down on Mellish's map, but on the same scale which was u setl by Gillespie, together with the other streams and mountains of that re· gion as laid down by Mellish. The red diagram represents Mellish's map enlarged, and the blue representing Gillespie's map. We have not attempted a copy of either map in every particular, bnt have endeavored to show from Gillespie's map the Arkansas River with its two great bends, which we have mentioned, the great sandy desert mentioned by Lieutenants Pike and Wilk;nson, Rattlesnake Creek, the Salt Fork of the Arkansas, : the Nenesah River, and several creeks, together with Red River and its branches about the region of the junction of the North Fork and Kecheaqnehono, and the Wichita Mountains, Gypsum Bluffs, and Kechi Hills. From Mellish's map we have taken most of the streams and mountains delineated upon it, so as to show its principal outlines. It will also be noticed that between the red and blue lines for Red River below the North and South Forks we have noted the true course of the river upward from just below the mouth of the Big Wichita to the point where Captain Marcy marked the crossing of the one hundredth meridian. This is ascertained from th·e observation for latitude made by Captain Marcy at the point where he crossed th~river just below the mouth of the Big Wichita, and from his observation of the latitude at his camp on Otter Creek at a point 20 miles north of the place of intersection of Red River by the one hundredth meridian as marked by him. (See Marcy's Red River of Louisiana, p. 20.) The correspondence in respect to this right-angular bend between the river as laid down by Melish and the actual stream as it is now well known to be on the ground at the point about 10 miles below the junction which we have mentioned is the more strik-ing when we consider that its upward general course, there boldly taken, is maintained beyond the junction of the Kechequehano, and up the North Fork for a distance of 50 or 60 miles to the point where it cuts through or near the western extremity of the Wichita Mountains, showing the latter to be the dominant stream. While, however, this correspondence as to the great right-angular bend is very strik1ng, it is true thatin minor respects there is not an exact and precise agreement, nor could such precise agree-ment be expected. "\Ve do not understand the words ''the whole being as laid down on Melish's map" to mean that in every minor circumstance and particular the boundary shall conform exactly and precisely with that map, for in the nature of th~ngs that would be impossible, unless the map were in every respect an exactly correct deline-ation of the country, which is not true of any map. This map was understood by the treaty makers no doubt to present to view with proximate correctness real rivers with real general courses in their different parts, with real notable bends or changes of course, with real tributaries and their real junctions, as well as with real mountains and routes of survey, etc., the localities of which were susceptible of certain identification on the ground by reason of their peculiarities and distinctive character shown on the map, in respect to which, however, there might be some errors of delineation. There is nothing to indicate that the words ''as laid down in Melish's :!hap'' were intended in other than their ordinary signification, which seems to be that, as to these prominent outline features of that map, the boundary line wherein it mi~£ht otherwise be doubtful, must conform to the map as nearly as it might be reasonable to expect it to do. so; that the map in respect to these things should be a guide to explain and resolve doubJ that might arise as to any part of the boundary. At the same time it was perfectly well understood by the intelligence which negoti-ated this treaty, that where artificial lines were to be considered (which represent longi-tude or anything else), in case of inaccuracy of their delineation, they must yield to natural landmarks as being less certain than the latter. This was the law in respect to boundaries founded in reason and universally established in the jurisprudence of the world. It may be remarked, then, that so far as the boundary pursued the great rivers men-tioned by the treaty and delineated on this map, there could be no reason for any other guide than the rivers themselves. Nature bas made them fixed landmarks, and no mis-take could be m'l.de about the boundary along them, unless a-doubt should arise, as in the case before the Commissiou, as to which fork of a river was the t.rue river. But in case of uncertainty of this kind something to guide and indicate the intention of the treaty makers was evidently necessary, and for that purpose a diagram was adopted showing the lines of the boundary with respect to its surrounding topography, the great natural featu'res and landmarks, by reference to which any future doubts of this kind might be resolved. Again, the meridian line of 100° west mentioned in the treaty and delineated on the map being an artificial device, and not a natural landmark, there might H. Ex. 21--8 r 114 REPORT OP TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. be doubt, and doubtless was doubt, as to where it might be fixed if ]eft to artificial or scientific determination. But it was not the intention of the treaty makers, as we shall see presently, to leave anything uncertain that could be made certain by them. The one hundredth meridian had been mapped by Lieutenant Pike, as will be seen by his map, as much as two degrees to the eastward of the point near the Great Bend of the Arkansas, where he first reached that river in making a survey of that region in 1806. * According to his map of the province of Texas (made and improved after his passage through Texas, and after extensive intercourse with Malgares, a Spanish officer who had been sent to survey that regiun of country), there was a fort located high up on the Hed River ot' Natchitoches, immediately no1 th of the head of the Trinity River, noted by him as Fort Yawayhays, corresponding in relative position to the bead of the Clear Fork of the Trinity H.iver to the old Spanish fort of Pressler's map of Texas, in Montague County (see sketch of Pressler's map), which was evidently the point where Fragoso tarried for six days in makmgbis survey in 1788 (see Fragoso's Diary, Ev. of Texas Com., Exhibit ·A, p. 15), and which he called the "Taguayase Villages." Now it will be seen from his map aforesaid that Pike bad laid down the one hundredth meridian as intersecting Hed River just about one degree west of that fort. Its position was no doubt as well known to the parties to the treaty as it is to-day. (See Pressler's map, and Maddox's testimony.) But with Pike's delineation at command, it appear~d to the framers of the treaty as a fact that it was not a safe guide, for within a few previous years that country had been carefully surveyed by Mr. Bringer from the Mississippi up to the line of the twenty-third or one hundredth meridian discovered by him, as he supposed, to intersect the Arkan-sas River two degrees west of where Pike had located it (see Melish's geographical ex-planation put in evidence by the United States); and Mr. Melish having embodied and published the re:mlts of Mr. Bringer's survey in his map, it was made known to the framers of the treaty that a more reliable survey than Pike's bad shifted this meridian line from the east side of the Great Bend of the Arkansas, where Pike bad marked it, to about two degrees westward, so that it now appeared to intersect that river west of that bend and between it and the notable South Bend of the river. Whether this last determination was correct or not could not be known. But evi-dently it was deemed more reliable than that of a distinguished and faithful officer of the United States Army, and whatever opinion was really entertained of :M:elish him-self by the shrewd diplomat De Onis, he evidently thought highly enough of this sur-vey of Mr. Bringer, by which Melish's map had been so recently corrected, for both he and Mr. Adams determined to make it the basis and means to fix and determine clearly and unmistakably the line they were about to adopt. This diagram-the map of Melish corrected by Bringer's recent survey-furnished the means of avoiding the un-certainty of a meridian not fixed on the ground by any natural landmark, such a meri-dian, we may be permitted to remark, as that found and mapped by Lieutenant Pike, in 1806, as intersecting the Arkansas RiYer far to the east of the Grert Bend; by Bringer, in 1817, shifted two degrees farther west,cuttingtbe Arkansasjustwest of the Great Bend and Red Hiver about one and one-fifth degree east of its right-angular bend, before de-scribed, and so laid down on Melisb's map; by Captain Marcy, in 1852, again shifted so as to cut Red River only just a little east of that bend; and by still another distinguished and able officer, in 1859, again shifted westward still another degree; thus in the period of fifty-three years making three several migrations, and sweeping over a vast region of country 200 miles from east to west and 160 from north to south, and making a movable meridian if not a cntzy one, and this, according to scientific determinations, by three separately acting, -educated, and skilled topographical engineers of the U.S. Army, and a private citizen who surveyed it for the express purpose of publishing a map-men of the highest character and noted for their fidelity and ability. We say a simple diagram, the map showing the line of the boundary at certain fixed localities, marked by great natural objects, avoided the uncertainty thus demonstrated by both previous and subse-quent events. Because, in the vicinity of the northern extremity of the line as laid down on the diagram, there was an unmistakable natural landmark, a well-defined bend of the river there intersected by it, and on either side of it were other great natural landmarks hereinbefore referred to. These corresponded to the ''invariable points, marked by nature, to fix the divisional line betyveen the possessions of the Union and those of the Crown of Spain in a manner never to admit of doubt or controversy hereafter," which, we shall see, the parties to the treaty deemed " essential " and not to be lost sight of by them. We have a striking illustration of the wisdom of providing this diagram of the bound-ary in the obviou& facts already alluded to, especially the fact that recent geographers *This and the three following paragraphs were moelified after we had opportunity to examine Pike's map, and the attention of the United States Commission was called to the fact before their reply. REPORT OJt' TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 115 and surveyors have laid down this one hundredth meridian of west longitude in posseS.: sion far to the west of where it is indicated to be in the diagram of that line in the treaty-that it is far to the west of the Great Bend of the Arkansas, through which the line cuts on the map of the treaty, and far to the west of the great chain of mountains and hills which this diagram places to the west of it and to the west even of the more western line which was proposed between the two powers for the boundary and rejected because it was too £'1r west, the line connecting the southern bend of the Arkansas, 20 miles east of Fort Dodge, with a bend of Red River as proposed by Mr. Adams to Luis de Onis. (Exhibit A, Evidence Texas Commission, page 8). It is impressively obvious from all these facts why it was deemed important to have some means of making this line definite and fixed, so that the evident purpose of the treaty-makers to pass eastward from the line previously proposed by Mr. Adams might not be defeated, and why the diagram of Melish's map was adopted. It is to be remarked also that the topographical features of the map, its mountains, bends of rivers, junctions . of rivers and creeks, roots of surveying expeditions, and meridian lines with their rela-tive positions, were all calculated to secure the certainty sought, and were all alike parts of the plat, and were all alike .needful to determine the location of this boundary line in a manner to make it certain, and were alike adopted as a part of the treaty, because these were the very parts of the map that pointed out how the line was laid down. But if there could be any doubt as to the purpose which led the treaty-makers to use the words, ''the whole being as laid down in Melish's map," we think it must be re-moved by considering the steps by which they arrived at the adoption of these words as part of the treaty. This is not done to explain the meaning of those terms, for that would seem to be clear, but to show that the parties themselves clearly indicated to each other before their final adoption the sense in which they understood and used them. The parties to the treaty were in controversy over the vast territory stretching from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean, and from the Missouri to the Rio Grande. (See Exhibit A of Evidence on part of Texas, pages 1 and 2.) They were as wide apart as these limits, but they gradually approached each other, Mr. Adams receding from the west and south, and Mr. De Onis from the east and north, till they met upon a compromise boundary line, the Spanish envoy struggling all the while to retain as much territ<>ry eastward and northward as possible, while the representative of the United States, with a determined arm, was reaching as far to the west and south as practicable. (See Diplomatic Corre-spondence, Exhibit A, pages 1 to 10.) But throughout the negotiation the parties evinced their purpose to secure a boundary as far as practicable marked and made certain by fixed and staBle natural landmarks, ' as appears from the tollowing extracts from the correspondence between them: [Statement of Luis de Onis in letter to the Secretary of State, January 16, 1817.] ''I took thelibertytoproposetoyou * * * thatthetwopowers * * * should proceed with good faith to fix limits between them, which should be mutually conven-ient, which should not be liable to controversy, or be unknown to or violated by the re-spective subjects of each. * * * If you should propose to me on the part of this Gov-ernment to make the Mississippi the frontier, I should see in that proposition a disposi-tion on the part of the United States to offer some equivalent, and I would recommend it to the consideration of His Majesty as a fixed and stable limit to assure the peace and tranquility of the two nations." (Vol. 4, American State Papers on Foreign Relations, page 438.) [Extract from letter of Don Luis de On is to John Q. Adams, Secretary of State, Washington, Decem-ber 29, 1817.] "I also acquainted you that the King, my master, would condescend to cede the two Floridasto this Republic, in consideration of an exchange or an equivalent which might be useful or convenient to Spain. But as this exchange or equivalent must consist of a territory belonging to the United States, and which may offer invariable points, marked by nature, to fix the 'divisional line between the possessions of the Union and those of the Crown of Spain in a manner never to admit of doubt or controversy hereafter, his Catholic Majesty caused certain proposals for the said exchange." * * * (Id., 452). [Extract from letter of J. Q. Adams to Luis de Onis, January 16, 1818.] * * "" "The President considers it would be an unprofitable waste oftitneto enter again at large upon topics of controversy which were 7:- * * so thoroughly debated. * * * I am instructed by the President to propose to you a:a adjustment of all the differences between the two countries by an arrangement on the following terms: "(1) Spain to cede all her claims to territory eastward of the Mississippi. 116 REPORT 01!' TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. "(2) The Colorado* from its mouth to its source, and from thence to the northern limits of Louisiana, to be the western boundary, or to leave that boundary unsettled f()r future arrangement." * * * (Id., 464). [Extract from letter of Luis de On is to J. Q. Adams, February 1, 1810.] * * * "Considering that the motive for declining to admit my proposal of extend-ing the boundary line from the Missouri to the Columbia, and along that river to the Pacific, appears to be the wish of the President to include within the limits of the Union all the branches and rivers emptying into the said river Columbia, I will adapt my pro-posals on this point so as to fully satisfy the demandofthe UnitedState::;withoutlosing sight of the essential o~ject, namely, that the boundary line shall, a~ far as possible, be natuml, and clearly defined, and have no room for dispute to the inhabitants. * * * It appears from these extracts that it was deemed "the essential object" * * * that the boundary line should, ''as tar as possible, be natural and clearly defined,'' and that the country about it ''should offer invariable points, marked by nature, to fix the divisional line between the possessions of the Union and those of the Crowh of Spain in a manner never to admit of doubt or controversy hereafter." Accordingly, with this view, Mr. De Onis proposed the Mississippi fi·om its source to its month, while Mr. Adams propOi>ed for a part of the boundary "the Red River to its source, touching the chain of the Snow Mountains, or thereabouts, as marked on Melish's map.'' Mr. De Onis, rejecting this proposed limit as altogether inadmissible because of its proximity to Santa Fe, the capital of New Mexico, suggested in::-tead of it that river, for a short distance, and the Arkansas Rher from the ninety-fifth meridian west longitude to its source, and the ninety-fifth meridian between the two ri,·ers, not referring to Melish's map at all; whereupon Mr. Adams, yielding eastward some four hundred miles, proposed the Red River from near the west I ine of the State of Louisiana tip ward to a di-rect line connecting its northernmost point of the bend between the one hundred and first and one hundred and second meridians of west longitude with the southernmostpoint of the bend of the Arkansas situated between the same meridians, and the latter river from its said bend to its source, etc., the whole to be as laid down on Melish's map. Now it will be observed from that map, which is in evidence, that between the one hundred and first and one hundred and second meridian it lays down a very striking bend of the Arkansas River, corresponding to the first conRiderable abrupt bend in the course of that river above the northern bend, now well known by the characteristic ap-pellation of the Great Bend, as delineated on modern maps in evidence. The relative position of it to the Great Bend appears to be about southwest at a distance of about 70 miles, more or less, as shown by Melish's map, recent maps in evidence, and the diary of Lieutenant Pike, and on recent maps is noted at about 20 miles east of Dodge City. The localities of these bends of the Arkansas River had both been brought to view by Lieutenant Pike, of the U. S. Army, in his survey up that river from the point of the lower bend; and their .relative positions to each other and to the Pawnee village and the Great and Little Osage villages were well known to Mr. Adams, as well as to the Spanish Government, through either the survey of Lieutenant Pike or the expedition of Lieutenant Malgares, of the Spanish Army, contemporaneous with that of Lieutenant Pike. Pike's survey had been made by the order of the United States Government with sp~cial reference to getting information of the topography of that region, as appears from the following extracts from his orders and his preface to his Sources of the Mississippi (page 18 of Exhibit A, Ev. of Tex. Com., and page 4 of preface of Sources of the Mississippi): "It is an object of much interest with the execntivetoascertain the direction, extent, and navigation of the Arkansas and Red Rivers; as far, therefore, as maybecompatible with these instructions and practicable to the means you may command, I wish yon to carry your views to those subjects, and should circumstances conspire to favor the enter-prise, that you may detach a party from a few Osage to descend the Arkansas under the orders of Lieutenant Wilkinson or Sergeant Ballinger, properly instructed and equipped to take courses and distances, to remark on the soil, timber, etc., and to note the tribu-tary streams. This party will, after reaching our post on the Arkansas, descend to Fort Adams and there await further orders; and you yonrst>J.f may descend the Red River, accompanied by a party of the most respectable Comanches, to the post of Natchitoches, and there receive further orders. '' Wishinp; you a safe and successful expedition, I am, sir, with much esteem and respect, your obedient servant, ''JAMES WILKINSON. "To Lieut. Z. M. PIKE." ---------------------------------------------------* Colorado is the Spanish word for red. REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 117 '· The great objects in view by this expedition, as I conceived in addition to my instruc-t ion~, were to attach the Indians to our Government and to acquire such geographical knowledge of the southwestem boundary of Louisiana, then claimed to include that region, as to enable the Government· to enter into definite arrangement 1<.1r a line of demarkation betwee:J. that territory and North Mexico." (Pike's Sources Miss., p. 4.) The expedition of Malgares was made the same year, 1806, and for the like purpose of information in reference to the localities of that country, and for the additional pur-pose of intercepting and defeating the expedition of Lieutenant Pike. Thus were the two Governments well informed as to these two localities and their relative positions to each other and the surrounding country. Both of the treaty powers, by their agents, had been on this precise ground. (See Exhibit A, Ev. of Tex. Com., pp. 1D to 21, pp. 2:~, 23; also Lieutenant Wilkinson's report, Exhibit A, Ev. Tex. Com., p. 23.) Lieutenant Pike, through three or .four several independent sources, received an ac count of the expedition of Malgares from Santa Fe, 233 leagues (about 700 miles) down Hed River "as far as the Sabine," with a force of several hundred men, and thence with the same force through the region of the Great Bend of the Arkansas, where be himself found their road and recent camps, and therefrom estimated their number, and thence to the Pawnee a,nd Osage villages, each account corroborating the others, and he gives a memorandum of the orders under which it was undertaken. in which he says "they descended the Red River 233leagues, met the Grand Bands of the Tetaus" [Co-manches], etc. (Pike's Sources of the Missi~sippi, p. -.) On the 28th of February, 1807, be entered in his diary these words: "We marched late. One of the Frenchmen [of the Spanish force which intercepted him] informed me that the expedition which bad been at the Pawnee had descended the Red River 233 leagues [about 700 miles] and from thence crossed to the Pawnees, expressly in search of my party. This was afterwards confirmed by the gentleman [Malgares J who commanded the troops." (Pike's Sources of the Miss., p. 206.) We may add that it alRo corrobor-ated and corresponded with the information received by him from the Pawnee hunter five months before ''that a party of three hundred Spaniards bad lately been as far as the Sabine." (Id., p. 140.) This officer (Pike) had made observations for latitude ap.d longitude and kept the courses and distances of each day's travel, and all of their observations up to his arrival in the vicinity of the Great Bend of the Arkansas River were preserved and transmitted to his Government from that point. From that bend be continued his survey up that river, while Lieutenant Wilkinson, who accompanied him to that point, descended the river to its mouth, noting the junctions of its tributaries and the distinctive features of the country. From this sun>ey the map of Melish was constructed and afterwards cor-rected by Mr. Bringer's more recent and exte::1sive survey as to this region. (See Me-lish's map; Pike's Diary, Exhibit A, Ev. of Texas Com., pp. 18 to 24; Melish's expla-nation of his map; Doc. Ev. of U.S. Com., V; also Pike's map accom·panying his report, which has come into our hands since the writing of this argument.) We invite special attention to the following extracts from Melish's geographical de-scription given in evidence by the United States Commission, on pages 80 and 81 of our · printed pamphlet: ''In constructing the map recourse was had to the following materials: * * ·x- and as to the delineations of the mountains and style of the work from Arrowsmith's. In-formation regarding the Territories was principally procured from the Land Office at 'Vashington. The MisRissippi River and the higher part.s of the La Platte, Osage, Ar-kansas, and Red Rivers, with the adjacent co~ntries, are delineated from Pike's travels. It is a tribute of respect justly due to the memory of that enterprising traveler and brave officer, to say that the information furnished by him has been of great value to this map, and the memorial of his adventures has accordingly been perpetuated by the delineation. of his route upon its surface, not only through Louisiana, but also through the Spanish internal provinces. "Before closing this part of the subject it may be proper to notice several important alterations and additions that were made while it was in progress, because this will have the double effect of showing the great pains that were taken to render the subject com-plete, and of bringing into view the works of several very meritorious laborers in the vineyard of geography. After .the plan work was wholly finished, Mr. William Darby and Mr. Lewis Bringier arrived in Philadelphia with manuscript maps of Louisiana, and of great value and importance. Mr. Darby's map embraced the whole of the State of Louisiana, principally from actual survey, and more accurate materials than have been produced heretofore of the country east of it to Pensacola, and the country west nearly to the Rio Bravo del Norte. Mr. Bringer's map embraced the whole of that part of the Missouri territory known by the name of Upper Louisiana, from the northern boundary of the State of Louisiana to above Saint Louis, and from the Mississippi to the twenty-third degree of west longi-llR REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. tude. An arrangement was immediately formed with these gentlemen by which there-sult of their information was incorporated into this map. The old work was accordingly erased from the plates and the new substituted at great labor and expense.'' * * * This• surveying expedition of Pike furnished his Government quite a fund of accurate data and information about the region of the two great bends of the Arkansas, which particularly concerned the two governments in considering the proposed line of Mr. Adams as to its intersection with this stream, and which, in connection with Bringer's survey, also served to identify its point of intersection with Red River. He embodied and pub-lished this information, together with an account of other expeditions made by him, under the title of "Sources of the Mississippi," in the year 1810, at Philadelphia, illus-trated with maps and charts, as appears upon the title page. (See Pike's Sources of the Mi~sissippi.) ·we have had access to a copy of this work, from which, however, the map had been lost. But we have been unable to see copies of his maps until since the body of this argument was written. We have had them photographed and propose to offer them in evidence. A few extracts from ''The Sources of the Mississippi" will suffice to show the char-acter of the mformation it gave, and will be found apropos to the subject in hand. He wrote as follows: "As you approach theArkansason this route (the route from the Pawnee village), within 15 or 20 miles, the country appears to be low and swampy, or the land is covered wi1h ponds extending out from the river some distance. The river where I struck it is nearly 500 yards wide from bauk to bank; those banks L.ot more than l1 feet high, thinly covered with cottonwood. The north side, a swampy, low prairie, and the south, a sandy, sterile desert. From thence about half way to the mountains the country continued the low prairie hills, with scarcely any streams putting into the river; and on the bottom many bare spots, on which, when the sun is in meridian, is congealed a species of salt sufficiently thick to be accumulated, but it is so strongly impregnated with nitric quali-ties as to render it unfit for use until purified. The grass in this district on the river bottoms has a great appearance of the grass on our salt marshes. From the First South Fork (see chart) the borders of the river have more wood, and the hills are higher, until you arrive at its entrance into the m0untains.'' (Pike's Sources of the Mississippi, Ap-pendix to Part II, p. 6.) The report of Lieutenant Wilkinson, tound in the same volume, described the same sandy desert, and also numerous salines entering the Arkansas from the southwest, along his journey on the southwest side as he passed downward toward the southeast from the Great Bend. He said: "On the 1st, 2d, and 3d of November I marched over high and barren hills of sand, and at the close of each day passed strong!y impregnated salinoo, and perceived the shores of the river to be completely frosted with niter. ''The face of the country as I descended looked more desolate than above, the eye being scarcely able to discover a tree, and if one was discovered it proved to he a solitary cot-tonwood, stinted in growth by the sterility of the soil. * * * On the 25th I again attempted the navigation of the river, but was unfortunate, as at first. ·* * * The following day I passed the N egracka, at whose mouth commence the craggy cliffs which line agreatpartof the shores of the Arkansas. * ·* * The night of December 2 was in-ten~ely cold, but hunger obliged ·me to proceed, and we fortunately reached the mouth of the N eskalonska River without accident or injury, excepting that one of my men got frosted. This day we passed two salines which enter on the southwestern side." (Pike's Sources of the Mississippi, pp. 26 to 28.) We have given these extracts to call particular attention to how well informed both governments were in respect to the particular locality through which Mr. Adams pro-posed his line to connect the South Bend of the Arkansas with a North Bend of the Red River, and to the probable reason for this particular proposition. It is to be remembered that this information was procured by the United States with special reference to a divisional line of demarkation between the territories of the two governments (see Preface, p. 4, of Pike's Sources of t:p.e Mississippi); and as it had been published to the world in the year 1810, it is evident Mr. De Onis was familiarwith it when, in his letter to Mr. Adams, of February 1, 1819, he said: * * * "it must be indifferent to them [the United States] to accept the Arkansas instead of H.ed River as the boundary. This opinion is strengthened by the well-known fact that the intermediate space between those ".rivers is so much impregnated with niter as scarcely to he susceptible of improvement." (American State Papers on Foreign Relations, vol. 4, p. 616.) He was doubtless equally well informed about it also through the expedition of Malgares, made by order of his own Government, the developments of which, as we have seen, had in like manner become known to Mr. Adams. It was then twelve years subsequent to both these experli tions. · · The deso1nte character given this region by Lieutenants Pike and Wilkinson doubtless suggested it to Mr. Adams as the situs for the bonndary line, since his Government wa& REPORT OF TEllS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 119 desirous of making an uninhabited desert of 30 leagues in width along the boundary. This had been proposed in a letter of Mr. Ewing, minister of the United States at Mad~ rid, of August 9, 1818, to Don Jose Pizarro, first secretary of state of the King of Spain. (See American State Papers on Foreign Relations, vol. 4, p. 522.) The salines, sandy desert, and great bends of the Arkansas River, and other general features noted by the two faithful officers from whom we have quoted, which Mr. Adams found noted on Melish's map, furnished the means (in connection with that map, which he made a part of his proposition) of fixing and identifying the line he proposed beyond the possi· bility of a doubt. It is to be observed that Pike noted in his diary the particular bend of the river re-ferred to in the proposition of Mr. Adams. (See entries on October 24, ofthesouthw~st course of the river above his camp; these entries till November 2, when he reached the point where the river "turned to the northwest, hills changing to north side of river.") (Exhibit A, Ev. Tex. Com., pp. 20 and 21.) · His report bad been published, and both parties to the treaty were presumably in possession of it, and well informed of this particular locality. Melish had drawn from it, and based his map of the upper Arkansas upon it, and traced the route of this survey from just below this point upon its face (see Melish's book, extract Evidence on the part of the United States), and had attempted to correct Pike's delineation of the hundredth meridian, so as to make it cut through the sterile desert in the vicinity of the two great bends.* On comparing Melish1s map with the natural landmarks on the ground, or as de-lineated on the recent maps in evidence, the remarkable southern bend of the Arkansas . referred to in this proposition of Mr. Adams, and found on Melish's map between the lines marked for the one hundred and first and one hundred and second meridians, is at once recognized as the same shown on these recent maps as situated about 20 miles east of Dodge City, and as the first considerable bend of the river above what is known as the Great Bend of the Arkansas before mentioned. It will at the same time appear that while Melish's map bas the meridians on one side of this bend numbered 101, and on the other 102, the recent maps have them numbered 99 and 100 respectively. (See our red and blue diagram.) But this discrepancy in numbering these meridian lines does not prevent the identification; for the great topographical landmarks of the adjacent and surrounding regions delineated on Melish's map, which we have already more than once referred to, place the identificat,ion beyond question. Mr. Adams's proposition to connect this notable bend with another between the same meridians on Red River by the shortest line between them, which would have crossed the desert region described by Lieutenants Pike and Wilkim;on, was, however, rejected by the Spanish envoy, who was very averse to a boundary so far west and reaching so near the capital of New Mexico. He, however, proposed .instead a line more than a degree farther east, at t;he one hundredth meridian ''according to Melish's map,'' which would cross the same desert region. "The boundary line between the two countries shall begin OR the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the river Sabine, in the se:t; continuing north along the middle of the river to the thirty-second degree of latitude; thence by a line due north to the thirty-third de-gree oflatitude where it strikes the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches (Red River), following the course of the Rio Roxo to the westward to tb~ one hundredth degree of longitude, and thirty-three and one-fourth degree of latitude, where it crosses that rlver; thence by a line due north by the said one hundredth degree of longitude from London according to Melish's map, till it enters the river Arkansas; thence along the middle of the Arkan-sas.''. * * * But did he imagine for one moment, or did Mr. Adams conceive that this line, pro-posed under these circumstances, might in fact be the west of the line just rejected? Was it possible for a sane mind to conclude that such a thing might be? The map re-ferred to showed it to be eastward of the line proposed by Mr. Adams, and that it inter-sected the Arkansas River in the immediate vicinity of the Great Bend, which was both below and eastward of the south bend of Mr. Adams's line. It was of course less ad-Vl}ntageous to the Government of Mr. Adams, and more advantageous to"bis own .than the one just rejected. None but a line farther east could be so. Mr. De Onis was look-ing for and demanding "invariable points marked by nature to fix the divisional line," and as an essential object he required that the boundary line ''as far as possible be nat-ural and clearly defined." . The boundary he proposed was for the most part natural; and was not the balance ''clearly defined'' by declaring it to be a line running due north by the one hundredth degree of longitude from London according to Melish' s map? He proposed the line should be "according to Melish's map," which was substantially *These two last lines were added after the reading of the argument, when we had examined Pike's map. H. Ex. 1S-6S 120 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. agreed to by Mr. Adams, since it was agreed in the treaty that the whole boundary (with the exception before noted) should be as laid down in Melish's map. Melish's map was thus in effect incorporated with the treaty, and, it would seem, be-came as much a part of it as any other part for the purpose of showing the relative sit-uation of this line upon the face of the country to the naliurallandmarks (jherein delin-eated; for the treaty itself declared the boundary should be as laid down on that map. Shall it be said that a qualified call for an artificial line not then known, not yet cer-tainly known, shall control the call for a line intersecting the Great Bend of the Ark-ansas, and fixed in its relative situation to many other well-defined natural landmarks, by the express delineation of this map? It seems to us that this would contradict rea-son-would be preposterous. What authority can be adduced to support the proposition that the natural landmarks of the diagram or map should yield to an artificial line ex-isting then only in imagination, and unmarked on the ground? Is not the settled law to the contrary? Those natural landmarks were a part of the treaty. Have we not found from the facts and circumstances of the case a necessity for just such a limiting and controlling factor as a diagram of natural objects to show just how this line was in-tended to be, in order to make that certain which would otherwise have been uncertain? If not for this purpose, for what purpose was it adopted? It could not render the rivers of the boundary more certain, for nature had fixed them and made them invariable, and they were well known. But in making his proposition, Mr. De Onis could not in the nature of things be certain that the absolute one hundredth meridian was east of this line through the south bend of the Arkansas, which he had just rejected, for it might, by more a~curate observations than those by which Melish had attempted to lay it down, be determined at a point farther west than the line he had rejected, since Bringer and Melish had so recently altered Pike's delineation of it and made it appear two degrees farther west than Pike. He did not, therefore,_ call for it without qualification. He wished to avoid ambiguous language. There was b}lt one true meridian. Why, then, did he use the qualifying words ''according to Melish's map?" Had he intended the real one hundredth meridian, would he not have proposed the one hundredth meridiaa simply, without the additional ~ords "according to Melish's map? " Why did he add these words? Was it not to confine the line to the Great Bend and make it "clearly defined," which with him was an "essential object?" Was it not to avoid the very thing now being insisted on before this Commission, the shifting of this line from where Melish laid it down at the Great Bend to a distant locality ab-: jured by the treaty makers as too far west, which would do violence to the intentions of both parties? Was it not deemed as essential to have this line as clearly defined as any other? And did he, in full view of the natural landmarks, then before him on the map, which would, if called for, unmistakably define this line, carelessly fail to call for them; or did he, on the contrary, by making that map his diagram of the line, intend it as a call for the natural objects which is shown in contact with the line and in close proximity to it? This line proposed by Mr. De Onis was adopted, the words "according to Melish's map" being substituted by the words "aslaiddownin Melish's map," applied to the whole boundary. Now, is it not incredible that the ministers of these two great nations should leave a certain line which could so easily be fixed and made certain? It is not utterly incredi-ble that they intended to leave the line uncertain, so that when determined it might, as it claims it does, fall far to the west of the line which both parties had agreed to reject as too far west and more than 70 miles, perhaps, west of the line marked on the map as the line agreed upon, or so that it might the like or great greater distance eastward of the line agreed upon as laid down on the map, as Lieutenant Pike was known to have laid it down? (See Pike's map.*) We submit to the candid judgment of the Commission on the part of the United States, that no rational mind, after reading the correspondence which we have cited, in the light of the facts we have now adduced, can doubt that both Mr. Adams and Mr. De Onis understood the line of the "one hundredth degree of longitude according to Me-lish's map,'' offered by De Onis, and afterwards adopted, was a line situated to the east-ward of the line through the south bend of the Arkansas proposed by Mr. Adams, and intersected the Arkansas in the vicinity of the Great Bend. If this be so, it follows as an inevitable conclusion that this line, offered and understood and afterwards adopted by the treaty makers, lies far to the east of where the true one hundredth meridian, west longitude, i~ claimed to be by the United States, since a line drawn south from any point in the vicinity of the Great Bend will pass eastward to the junction of the North and South Forks of Red River and will touch neither of those streams, and our propo-sition is maintained. We further submit that the conclusion is irresistible that the one hundredth meridian, as laid down on Melish's map is definitely fixed to a certain *This reference to Pike's map we have added since the reading of Oll.): argument. REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION.. 121 locality, and may be run and marked by the naturallandmarks'delineated on Melish's map (without the aid of astronomical observations) to a close approximation of correctness, sufficiently close to enable a boundary commission to run and mark its position exactly on the ground as these great landmarks fix it-sufficiently close to avoid any great vio-lence to the intention and expectation of the treaty makers, such as would result if the boundary were removed from the neighborhood of its original nosition, cutting the Great Bend of the Arkansas and the eastern extremity of the Wichita Mountains, to the po-sition westwaTd of those mountains, and neaT 120 miles from where it was understood to be by the men who framed the treaty-thereby depriving the State of Texas of nearly 14,000 square miles of territory which the treaty makers evidently conceded to the Spanish Government as a part of Texas. G. R. FREEMAN. J. T. BRACKENRIDGE. Col. S. M. MANSFIELD, President of the Boundary Commission on the part of the United States. I concur in the foregoing to this extent: I believe that the treaty meant the meridian as laid down on the map of Melish, whether the true one hundredth meridian or not. W. H. BURGESS. The Com.missioners then, at 12.15 p. m., adjourned to meet Wednesday at 11 a. m. LANSING H. BEACH, First Lieutenant of Engineers, Secretary. AUSTIN, TEX., Tuesday, Jttly 6, 1886. The Commission met at 11.15 a. m., pursuant to agreement. · Present, all the members ~xcept Mr. Herndon. The following letters were ordered placed on the record, explaining why the meeting had not been held pursuant to the last adjournment: OFFICE UNITED STATES BOUNDARY COMMISSION, Raymond House, Austin, Tex., June 29, 1886. SIR: We have been surprised to learn recently that one of the Commissioners on tQ.e part of Texas desires and intends to review our paper. The report and argument of the Texas Commission, signed by all the members, distinctly states: "We do not deem it pro:fitabl~ to enter upon a special denial and answer of each position assumed and argued py the Commission on-the part of the United States. It is presumed they have care-fully examined the points claimed, and would not change the views now declared unless convinced by such an array of evidence and cogency of reasoning as could not properly be indulged in by us in such answer without manifest neglect of our affirmative issues. Therefore the Texas Commission adopts a different method, and proposes to answer each and every position, argument, and conclusion upon which a difference is expressed, by the argument and 'conclusions hereinafter presented, on the affirmative issues of Texas involved.'' 'Ibis action on the part of the Texas Commission has put upon us the necessity of re-viewing your papers in detail, and if after this work is. over we are to have the subject opened from the beginning, we do not see when or' how anything, :final can be reached. Major Brackenridge's paper embodying his remarks made at the last meeting has not yet appeared, and we do not think it advisable to present any further statement until we have heard all that is to be said in reply to our last one. · If the Texas Commission desire at this late date to change their course of proceeding and review our paper, we will be compelled to delay our reply until we shall have due time to consider all that may be said. An early reply to this letter will greatly facilitate the progress of the work before the Joint Commission. Very respectfully, Maj. J. T. BRACKENRIDGE, S. M. MANSFIELD, Major of Engineers, Bvt. Lieut. Col. U.S. Army, Senior JJ[ember of the United States Commission. Oltairman Texas Boundary Commission, Austin, Tex. 122 REPORT OP TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. OFFICE OF THE TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION, Austin, Tea;., Jt~ne 29, 1886. DEAR SIR: Your communication of this da~e expressing surprise, etc., has this moment been received through Commissioner G. R. Freeman, to whom it was addressed on tho envelope covering it. I have not been aware of Mr. Freeman's particular wish to review your argument until now. He informs that the paper containing your argument was delivered, as he sup-poses, to Commissioner Herndon, who prepared the argument signed by all the Texas Commissioners, and that since its supposed delivery to Colonel Herndon (who is now ab-sent from the city) he has not hall any opportunity to examine it, it having been, as he is informed, placed by Commissioner Herndon in the hands of the printer to multiply copies of it for the convenient examination by the members of the Texas Commission, and I may add that I, myself, have, for the like reason, never seen it. · Commissioner Freeman also informs me that he has not, up to this time, had access to the manuscript of it, because it is still, at this writing, in the hands of the printer, but now about ready to be delivered in printed form. It has been his and my wish, expectation, and inten-tion to examine it carefully, and give it a respectful consideration and review; which desire, he tells me, he expressed to you verbally on yesterday, and he understood you to indicate that it would be agreeable to the Commission on the part of the United States if he should do so. When the argument signed by all the members of the Texas Commission was pre-sented, you will remember, it was with a verbal explanation before the Joint Commission that it was the wish of some of the Texas Commissioners to present their views upon an issue not touched by your argument; and that time for the preparation of these views in writing was desired, and that thereupon the Commission took a recess from Thursday morning till Friday and from Friday till Saturday to allow time for the preparation ofthese views, when they were read in joint session. You will further remember that then the views of myself were verbally pr~sented, and it was suggested that it was de-sirable that I should reduce them to writing and submit them to the Commission in that form, and that it was informally agreed that I should do so, and the Commission then adjourned over for five days for the purpose of giving time to the United States Commission to prepare a reply to the arguments of the Texas Commissioners. The Joint Commissi::m has not since been in session, and the Commission on the part of Texas has had no meeting. But as Commissioner Freeman and myself, for reasons stated, have not had the op-portunity to consider your argument with the manuscript of it before us, the want of opportunity being in no sense chargeable to us, it. would seem reasonable that we should have the opportunity a·fforded us. You are, I believe, aware of our unremitting atten-tion to the business before the Joint Commission, and in view of the importance ofthe duties devolving upon the Joint Commission, and of the fact that it is the object of prime importance that we adopt every means to come to au agreement, it does not occur to me that this suggestion of a review of your argument comes at a "late day." I hope, there-fore, it will meet with the approval ofthe Commission on the part of the United States that we have a reasonable time, say five days from to-morrow morning, exclusive of Sunday, to prepare for your consideration such suggestions and views as we think p~rtinent and appropriate. It will be remembered by you that notwithstanding the words . you quote from the first argument presented "by the Texas Commissioners, that argu-ment was accompanied with the explanation that another argument would he pre~ented, supporting an issue not touched by yon, and for the preparation of which the Commis-sion then took a recess. It is due as many as three out of four ofthe Texas Commissioners to say that each of them then contemplated presentmg, also, a separatewrittenargument, and they were un-fortunate if they did not make the fact understood by the Joint Commission. It would have been preferable t9 the Texas Commission that the Commissioners on the part of the United States should have had all the arguments before them before making their reply, but it was understood by us to be the wish of the Commission on the part of the United States to take them in hand as they might be prepared. Should it be agreeable to the Commission on the part of the United States to receive and consider the additional arguments suggested, that of Commissioner Freeman and myself, we hope to present considerations worthy your serious attention and worth 1:he delay it may occasion. Respectfully, Col. S.M. MANSFIELD, J. C. BRACKENRIDGE, Chairman of Board of Commissioners on the part of Texas. President United States Boundary Commission. REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 123 Mr. Brackenridge then presented an9. read the following: ARGUMENT OF J. T. BRACKENRIDGE ON THE CLAIM OF TEXAS TO GREER COUNTY. Outlines of the argument. After a careful study of facts and history I have come to the conclusion that the proper boundary between the Indian Territory and Texas :fixes the county of Greer in the State of Texas; and the right of Texas thereto is beyond dispute. In discussing the question of boundary between the Indian Territory and Texas, as involving the right of Greer County, I will present historical facts and arguments on the following subjects: · 1. Early history of the settlement of the valley of the Mississippi, and explorations. 2. Review of the operations of Commissioners heretofore appointed to settle the ques-tion of the boundary of Texas. R Argument proving the north branch of Red River, as now recognized, is the true Red River as meant and understood by the treaty of 1819 between the United States and Spain. . 4. Argument showing that well-known and boldly-defined natural landmarks guided Count rle Onis and John Quincy Adams in the division of the territory between the United States and Spain and not the true one hundredth meridian as now established. 5. History of the undisputed occupancy of Greer County by Spain from the settlement of Santa Fe up to 1828, afterwards by Mexico up to 1836, then by the Republic of Texas up to 1845, afterwards by the State of Texas up to this time-covering a period of one hundred and seventy years. This occupancy was recognized by the Governments of France and the United States acquiescing in the line of this boundary, thus :fixing title by prescription. The effects on the civilization of the age by the occupancy of the disputed territory by the white race, and by the appropriation of the moneys arising from the sale of the land to the education of the masses, as distinguished from the effect of occupancy by the In-dians, who have not until recent years set up claim to the land. In discussing these points I have been compelled to deviate from following the prop-ositions exhaustively, each in turn, logically; but the entire arguments presented em-brace the facts and reasons on the outlines presented. It will be understood that I have not endeavored to exhaust the arguments that sub-stantiate the justice of the claim of Texas to Greer County. I have occupied only a por-tion of the field of facts and arguments that prove the claim of Texas to t,he territory. My associate Qommissioners have occupied with their papers, that are presented, other branches of the snQject. Argu1nent. The early settlements of the western portion of the Mississippi Valley._ embracing the Missouri River, the Arkansas and Red Rivers, were made by the Spanish at Santa Fe, El Paso, San Antonio, and Nacogdoches. The Spanish trail from San Antonio to Santa Fe, via El Paso, and to Nacogdoches, in Texas, crossed streams emptying into the Gulf of Mexico, and the names they bear attest the nationality of the. explorers. 'l'he French settlements were at Natchitoches, on Hed Hiver, Natchez and Saint Louis, on the Mississippi. The explorations from these settlements throlighout the region north of Red River gave names to the rivers in that region. Traders established trails from Saint Louis reaching to the neighborhood of Santa Fe, from Natchez and Natchitoches! up Hed Hiver, the Ouachita, of Louisiana or Arkansas, and the Arkansas River. A trail of trappers and traders, up Red River to the neighborhood of Santa Fe, was up the southern bank of that stream until near the mouth of the False Washita, where it crossed Hed River, following up the north and east bank of that stream, upon the divide between the Canadian and the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches. Red River beyond the Wichita Mountains had its course north and south, where traders visiting tribes of Indians left this stream; and north and west beyond this point the trail struck what is now known as the Canadian and dry fork of that stream, which they naturally thought the same stream or a prolongation of the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches. They were con-firmed in this idea by the Indians calling all the streams in that section (on account of the color of the water) by this name. Therefore, Humboldt was Jed to believe that the first streams south of the Arkansas was Red River and tributaries of that stream. Traders knew nothing about Red River above and in the neighborhood of the settlements, where the trail left it. Marcy, in 1849, when laying out a road from Fort Smith for California emigrants, says that he locat~d a trail or road on the divide between the Washita and Canadian 124 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. Rivers; that he found evidence sufficient to satisfy him that this was the rotttA of the old trail. Those passing up north of the False Washita, which is truly the north fork of the Red River, crossed it near the Antelope Hills; and when they crossed the branches of the Canadian, beyond and above, they supposed it to be the NorthForkofRedRiver, and in this they thought they were confirmed by the Indians. Hence, all of those streams heading north of the thirty- fifth parallel up to the thirty-seventh north latitude, south of the Canadian, were supposed by the French and Spaniards to be the headwaters of the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, and Humboldt so platted it, and Melish adopted his platting, and the correctness of their work was not questioned by any one at the time of making treaty in 1819, and the contrary was not known until August, 1820, one year and six months after the terms of boundary had been agreed upon. Colonel Long was, while exploring the headwaters of the Missouri River, ordered by the Government of the United States to proceed, after finishing his work, across the country and go down the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches, which he undertook to do. Taking a branch in the proper latitude corresponding with the maps as to the Rio Roxo of Melish, and from all other information he could gather~ he was satisfied that he was on the Rio Roxo of Louisiana; but after descending it about 200 miles, he tells us, he met Indians, who told him .that he was descending Red River. After proceeding to the mouth he found th:;tt he had descended a tributary of the Arkansas, an.d it was too late in the season to retrace his steps and descend Red River. But suppose he had returned. He certainly would have taken the next stream to the south of the Canadian, which would have been the Washita; or, if he bad been too far to the west for that stream, be would have taken what General Marcy styles the North Fork of the Red River; and whichever he took, if the Washita. or North Fork, it would have settled this question forever, for he would have given the name of Red River to the one he descended to Natchitoches. In the duties assigned to us, we are confined to establishing and marking the one hun-dredth meridian of west longitude of the treaty, between the territory of the United States and the State of Texas from Red River north. If we find the initial point on Red River east of the mouth of Prairie Dog Town River, our work will be confined to the meridian; but if we find that the one huRdredth meridia:p. is west of the confluence of the North and South Forks, then our work becomes complex, and we will first have to ascer-tain which is the river of the treaty. The treaty does not give us any data or descrip-tion, and refers us to Melish's map for information, stating it is the Rio Roxo of Natchi-toches (or a river upon the bank of which is situated the old French town of Natchi-toches in Louisiana). This river has been established and identified, and recognized and adopted by both, in all its course and meanderings, as the true boundary between the United States and the State of Texas up to the so-called North and South Fork. We should adopt the one that conformEr nearest to the river of the treaty. Now we will as-sume we are on Red River, at the mouth of Cache Creek, for the first time, to determine the Red River of the treaty. We stop at the North Fork of this river, because, accord-ing to the map of the treaty, this is the first river south of the Wichita Mountains de-lineated upon the map. We now determine to send out exploring parties, one down the stream to see if upon its banks we can find the French town Natchitoches, the other we send up the river to determine its course. In that expedition is General Marcy, Colonel Erath, Captain Ross, General Ross, General Bee, Colonel Ford, Colonel Young, Captain Pitts, Captain Lambert, with old Indians and half-breeds who had been born on the waters of Red River west of the Wichita Mountains; who were familiar with all the country west as hunters and as traders; who in trading bad acquired the language of several savage tribes of Indians, and also the language of several civilized nations, English, Spanish, and French. Some of the Indians and half-breeds were chiefs of different tribes. Others were distinguished braves. After waiting three months our explorers returned. Those that went down the river gave us a plat of the river, and said they found Natchitoches upon the bank of this river, thus establishing its identity with Melish's Rio Roxo. General Marcy reports that his Indian guides took him up what we will call the North Fork of Red River; that they told him it was Red River; that he found on its east or north bank evidences of travel by civilized men, to wit, old ruts of wagons or carts; that he found that this stream did not extend as far to the north and west as platted by Melish; but to make sure that he was on the longest branch he took his course north, and found at a distance of 25 miles "the Canadian, a tributary of the Arkansas, and that this fork of Red River was the first stream south ofthe·Arkansas. He then took his course from the head of the North Fork south; found several streams which flowed into the North Fork, and at last struck a stream that the Indians called '' Keche-quihono," which they examined from its source to its mouth. He found that this stream headed farther to the west than the North Fork, but was over a degree far-ther to the south; that, upon this stream, he found no evidence of civilization or its ever having been visited by man, and that it was the main tributary or branch of Red River; but that it was not known until1852, and had never been platted or laid down on any REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 125 map prior to that date. The Rosses, Young, Ford, Pitts, all report that, in going up, they gave instructions to the Indians to take them up theRioRoxoofNatchitoches, and that they passed the mouth of Pease River, also the Kechequihono, which the old In-dians said was not the Red River but was the Kechequihono. That on the North Fork, above the mouth of the Kechequihono, on the northeast bank, they pointed out an old Indian village where some of them were born. Under thisstatementoffacts I hold that we shall be compelled to decide: First, from latitude and position to Arkansas, it comes nearer conforming to the Rio Roxo, as platted on Melish's map, than the South Fork does, which has only one advantage in conformity, that of reaching farther west. Sec-ond, the North Fork was a known stream prior to the compiling of the map, and the other, or South Fork, was an unknown stream, and was not platted upon any map for years after the ratification of the treaty. Third, that both were known by the Indians prior to date of treaty; that the North Fork was known only by one name, that of Red River; that the South Fork bad with them but one name, Prairie Dog Town River. Fourth, that from the earliest settlement by Spain the United States, up to this date, bas never authoritatively occupied ortreatedany portion of the territory south and west of the North Fork of Red River as being a portion of the territory of the United States. Brown and Long, in 1857, under a contract they had to sectionize the Indian terri-tory, sectionized the county of Greer and established a monument on the Kechequihono, west of its mouth, which was without authority, and has never been recognized by the State of Texas or by the United States. This region has been held and occupied by Spain for over one hundred years, by Mexico eight years, by the Hepublic of Texas nine years, and the State of Texas thirty years-one hundred and seventy years of.peaceful possession, undisputed, unquestioned, until 1856, which was based on a discovery by General Marcy, which he says is not good in fact or reason. He certainly ought to be allowed his own statement to interpret the meaning of the language he used in the de-scription .of his explorations. He says under oath: "I have been unable to resist the force ofmy own convictions that the branch of Red River called the North Fork of that stream is what is designated upon Melish's map as Rio Roxo." This ought to forever silence those who quote from him to prove that the Prairie Dog Town Fork was the Rio Roxo of the treaty of 1819. -All of the boundary lines have been fixed and agreed upon. Whether in accordance with the letter and spirit of the treaty is not for us to inquire; and the only portion is the one hundredth meridian on Melish's map, left for us now to fix or determine what was intended by the treaty. Was it the one hundredth meridian west of Greenwich, and twenty-third west of Washington, as marked upon the ground by General Marcy in1852, De Cordova in 1856, Brown and Long in 1857, as marked upon the maps of Disturnel, Humboldt, Colton, or Emory, upon any other map? It certainly was none of these lines, unless they conform to and are the same as ma.rked upon Melish's map referred to in the treaty, for the true line is unques_tionably the one marked upon Melish's map, designated as the one hundredth meridian of longitude; because, the treaty says, the whole being as laid down in Melish's map-the whole with reference to acreage, rivers, mountains, to the east and west of said line, platted on Melish's map, designated as the one hundredth meridian. This treaty was formulated by John Quincy Adams, of the United States, and Don Louis de Onis, of Spain, appointed by their respective Governments to settle and to define .by treaty the limit of the United States to the west and south, adjoining the territory of Spain, and to define the limit of the possessions of the Crown of Spain to the east and north adjoining the territories pf the United States. A vast region of this territory was claimed by both, Spain basing her claim by right of discovery, conquest, and treaty, and the United States by purchase from France. These distinguished diplomats were unable to divide the disputed territory by actual survey and observation on the ground. They therefore agreed to take lVIelish's map, improved to January, 1818, as the true plat of the country, and each, with the map of Melish spread out before him, traced his idea of what would be a just and equitable division, according to the plat or map before him. They traced from the Gulf up the Sabine to the thirty-second degree of latitude; then north to the Rio Roxo; then west-ward along the Rio Roxo to a point east within about 65 geographical miles of the forks of Red River; then crossing Red River, running due north, crossing the Wichita Mount-ains about 60 miles north of the Rio Roxo, at their most eastern extremity; then on to the Arkansas River. Here was a vast section of country, extending from the mouth of the Mississippi up to the mouth of the Missouri River, and up that stream to its source, and then west to the Pacific Ocean, claimed by Spain; and the United States, on her part, by virtue of purchase from France, west of the Mississippi to the Rio Grar:de, claiming a portion of the same territory. They agreed not to arbitrate, but to divide the disputed territory, its mountains, plains and vales, seas, lakes and rivers, as portrayed, delineated, and enumerated and platted upon Melish's map. If this is not so I am unable 126 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. to understand the language of the treaty. It says: "The whole being as laid down on Melish's map." Was it intended to divide the country at this point by the true one hundredth meridian from Greenwich and twenty-third from Washington? If so, the true meridian must be found, and the expression, or portion of the treaty which says ''the whole being as laid down on Melish's map'' is irrelevant, meaningless, and superflu-ous, and has ilo more to do with the treaty ·han the fly-specks or ink blots tllat may be found upon the original parchment. I asswne that the marking of meridians upon the map by Melish were correct, but that the country and rivers had been stretched to the west, and would, in correct platting, be brought back to the eaRt to conform to the meridians. Here it appears that the country had been &tretched 125 miles to the west, and by taking the true meridian Hpain lost 125 miles of territory in width, and from Red Hiver to the Arkansas in length; and the boundary line would be established on the ground 125 miles west of where John Quincy Adams said it would be, and 'Yhere Spain agreed that it should cross the Rio Hoxo. But, on the contrary, the treaty was intended as an equitable division of territory, not with regard to distance froru WaRbington or London, which they did not think of, but with regard to the extent of territory between the Mississippi River and the Rio Grande, embracing acres, mountains, and riverA on the east and on the west of said line; and they found a point on Melish's map on Red Hher where they agreed to cross; and this point Melish had marked or designated as the one hundredth meridian, and itwonld haYe been adopted bad it been called the ninety-eighth or one hundred and second by Melish. The Government of the United States holds that jt must be the true twenty-third meridian from WaRbington. Texas holds that it was s. point located two and two-thirds degrees west of the mouth of the False Washita and three and one-tenth de-grees west of the mouth of Blue Water River, and was three degrees west of the mouth of the Canadian River, bdng about 65 miles east of the mouth of the Keche-aque-bo-no (which the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Teller, says was the main Red River, as platted hy Melish, notwithstanding the tradition of tile Indians and history given us by eminent explorers and subsequently established facts to tbe contrary). If this was intended as an equitable division, and we find the streams and territories had been stretched 125 miles to the west, then in equity the territory between the true meridian and the meri-dian of :M:elish should be di\'ided between Texas and the United States. 'l'hat is, ifthe one hundredth meridian of Melish on the ground was the ninety eighth true meridian, then equity would say as to division of territory the ninety-ninth meridian would con-form to the intention and understanding of tbe governments at that time. This treaty was a quitclaim by Spain to the United States of all interest in the terri-tory to the east of the one hundredth meridian from the Rio Roxo to the Arkansas, and was a conveyance by the United ·States of all her interest to Spain west of said line, des-ignated as to the one hundredth meridian of longitude. To the governments this ap-peared, from Melish's map, to be an equitable division of territory, and was adopted as such by them. If this line had not been intended to be the true boundary, reference would not have been made to Melish's map. Deeds of lands frequently refer to older deeds of the same property for better description; and where reference is made to another prior deed for description, the deed referred to will cure any defect in description; or when a deed refers to a plot, the plot will cure any defect in description. And if from deed the property can not he located,and the quantity conveyed estimated, reference should be bad to the plot referred to, to locate the land and show the quantity conveyed. Melish's map, referred to and made part of the treaty, locates the one hundredth me-ridian on the Hio Hoxo about 65 miles east of all the forks of the Rio Roxo, and three degrees due west of the mouth of the Canadian, and two and two-thirds degrees west of the mouth of the False Washita, and all the forks of the Rio Roxo and the river west of that point, with its tributaries, forks, and branches, belong to Spain; and all of the range known as the \Vicbita Mountains, except the extreme eastern portion of that range, dis-tant north about 50 miles, where the hundredth meridian of Melish crosses it. were con-veyed by this treaty to Spain. Now, these mountains must have been noted landmarks from their great elevation, en-abling them to be seen at a great distance by explorers, traders, and trappers, and by the excursion of Spanish troops, who were frec(uently sent into the region of the North Fork of Red River and upon the waters of the False Washita~ treat with the Indians. But, assume that this range had been a depression instead of an elevation, and its deep cov-ered with water, and it had been called Lake Wichita; that the Rio Roxo of the bound-ary skirted near its western and southern banks, and the one hundredth meridian of the treaty found upon Melisb's map was found to pass through the eastern portion of the lake, leaving to the west the great body of the lake, would it not have established the line, entitled Spain to the use of the waters and the possession of its banks? The ex-tent and limits of the mountains are not easily defined, as they are approached by eleva-tions and steeps, and slope away in ranges of hills and peaks more or less elevated. The REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 127 meridian of the treaty gave to Spain, as shown upon the map referred to in the treaty, most of the range called the Wichita Mountains. The true one hundredth meridian of Emory gives the entire range to the United States, and, if adopted and substituted for Melish's meridian, would place the line 60 miles west of the range and about 125 miles west of the meridian of the treaty as platted by Melish. As before said, the platting of longitude upon the map may be correct, taking Washing-ton as zero. The line delineated was the correct distance for tbe twenty-third meridian of longitude at that latitude, and the error was in platting the land and rivers; and it may be contended that the error should be corrected where i't is found to exist. As I understand the treaty, it was an amicable division of disputed territory, or, say, common territory, lying between the Mississippi and the Rio Grande, by known natural marks on the ground, such as rivers, etc., the knowledge of which must be actual, prior to, and at tije time of the treaty. Nothing subsequent thereto can be substituted. The knowl-edge is established by the deed or treaty itself, and the language of the treaty ''follow-ing westward the Rio Hoxo of Natchitoches to the one hundredth meridian, etc., the whole being as laid down in Melish's map." These natural landmarks upon the ground, and platted upon Melish's map, constitute the essence of the treaty. What goes before and comes after constitute the hull and shell; the rivers called for and the lines called for, as platted upon Melish's map, con-stitute the kernel. To change this, or to undertake to depart from it, destroys the ker-nelandleavesin the treaty nothing but worthless parchment-waste paper. By all known rules of law, which is founded upon reason, known landmarks called for in deeds or con-veyances govern, without regard to latitude, longitude, or distance. The only other lines adopted in this treaty were the lines drawn across ·Melish's map, and they took one of these lines with reference to the territory east and west marked upon the map as the one hundredth meridian. The landmarks were traced upon the face of the earth by the fin-ger of God; the meridians on the ' map by the finger of Melish; the one upon the country immutable, unchangeable, fixed by God; the other upon the map, as fixed and certain, established by Melish. This line, the one hundredth meridian, was taken, we say, with reference to extent of territory, rivers, mountains, \plains, and valleys, to the east and to the west, and not with regard to actual distance from London or G1·eenwkb. The knowledge that De Onis bad of the topography of the country was not confined to accounts of explorations as given in history. His sources of information were innumer-able, the chiefofwhich were Spanish officers stationed at Santa Fe, who had made fre-quent excursions into the interi01·of that region bordering upon the Arkansas and Cana-dian Rivers, and upon the north bank of the Hio Roxo, for the purpose of intercepting and turning back American and French explorers, and for the purpose of treating with the various tribes of Indians located in that region (every tribe in that region being furnished with the flag of Spain, which they preserved as evidence of their submission and allegiance to the Crown of Spain), and by civilized Indians employed as guides and interpreters to the Spanish troops and traders, all of which is evidenced by language used in some of De Orris's letters to Adams during the negotiation of the treaty. And Adams bad knowl-edge-not as extensive and as accurate as the knowledge of De Onis, but sufficient to sat-isfy him that this line would be a just division of territory east and west. Suppose two parties, say A and B, own jointly 100,000 acres of land, and a third party, say Melish, furnishes them with a plot of the land, showing the hills, plains, valleys, streams, and springs; and across this plot, or tpap, be undertakes to mark the parallels and meridians; and what he marks and calls the one hundredth meridian west from Greenwich and twenty-third from Washington. This looks like an equitable division of the 100,000 acres both as to quantity of land, springs, and valleys to the east aud to the west, and they agree to divide, making this line, the one hundredth meridian, the line of division, A taking all on the east of said one hundredth meridian, and B taking all on the west, and the deed or instrument of division says ''the true boundary line be-tween A and B shall be the one hundredth meridian of longitude west from Greenwich and twenty-third west from Washington, the whole being as laid down on Melish's map, or plot, made January, 1818, and of record in, etc." . But years afterwards, surveyors employed find the true one hundredth meridian is west of the meridian of Melish, so as to leave B west of the true meridian, instead of 50,000 acres, only a fraction of an acre. Here the courts of the land would intervene, at the request ofB, and by reference to the language of the treaty of division would take the line upon the plot, or map, styled the one hundredth meridian referred to, and establish the title to the 50,000 acres of the 100,000 in B, according to the map or plot of Melish-discarding and not regarding the true meridian. But, on the contrary, if A owned 100,000 acres ofland, and sold to B, by deed, 50,000 acres on the west side of a stream, known as the Rio Roxo, and in the deed defined the corners by natural landmarks, taking the known point where the river left the 100,000 ~cres of l~nd, ~nd ~dopted the western bank of th~t stream as the e~stern boundary up li 128 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION~~ to the point where it entered the 100,000 acres of land, and in after years by survey it was found that this land contained several thousand acres less than was supposed, the courts would not interfere, or suffer B to cross the stream, the Rio Roxo, and take a quantity otland sufficient to make up his 50,000 acres. The reason is that natural ob-jects upon the ground given as boundary would be supposed to have been as well known to B as to A, and the rule is that natural objects called for in the deed, or conveyances, must govern without regard to distance or extent of territory. Now we find that we have two meridiansoflongitude, named the one hundredth west from London, and twenty-third west from Washington. We will call one the one hun-dredth meridian of longitude of Melish, as platted upon his map improved up to Janu-ary, 1818. The other we will call the one hundredth meridian of Emory. Which shall we take? Which must we take? The United States says the meridian of Emory, or the true meridian, wherever it may be found by observation upon the ground one hund'ted degrees west from Greenwich and twenty-three degrees west from Washinp,ton. We say that we must take the meridian of the treaty. What does the treaty say? The treaty says ''the ona hundredth meridian as found on Melish's map improved to January, 1818." Adams says "the one hundredth meridian west of Greenwich and the twenty-third west from Washington as laid down in MeHsh's map." De Onis says the same. The treaty by agreement between John Quincy Adams on the one part and Count Luia De Onis on the other, ratified and adopted by their respective Governments, says "the whole being as laid down in Melish's map, streams, forks, mountains, seas, rivers, plains, meridians, and parallels," and this can not be varied except by treaty, ratified by the respective Governments owning the soil on each side of the said line or lines; and I am therefore satisfied that the true meridian of the treaty is the one hundredth.meridian of l\Ielish'smap improved to January, 1818, and should be established on the ground with reierence to and so as to conform to rivers, mountains, and territory, as shown upon the face of the map, and not as to actual distance from London or Washington. Policies enter into negotiations, constitute the outworks of treaties, and supplement the laws of nations. The question before us involves grave ideas of public policies, af-fecting the interests of every individual citizen in the United States. First, shall the area of civilization be diminished to the extent of Greer County? Shall it he taken from the productive citizen and turned over to the non-productive savage? Shall it become the home in the near future of a million of happy, prosperous citizens, giving strength and health to the Union, and thereby lightening the burden of taxation, or shall it become the hunting ground of the Indian, guarded upon the territory by a standing army at heavy expense to keep them upon their reservation? · There has never been a que~tion or a doubt as to the justice of the claim of Texas to this territory. She has exercised jurisdiction and treated it in all respects the same as she has treated any other portion of her territory, whether bordering upon the Rio Grande, the Gulf, or the Sabine. She has dedicated this territory, one-half to further the civilization of the age, to wit, for public free schools; the other half for matters of justice and humanity, to wit, the payment of the public debt, whether founded in law, equity, gratitude, or humanity. Three millions of dollars (estimated value of one-half of these lands) for the educa-tion of all the children of the State, black and white, gives an interest to every parent in every State in the Union, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, who, by emigrating to this Rtate, can avail themselves of its benefit~. This fund is pure in its conception. This fund is the product of the patriotism, the matchless valor and heroism of the patriots of San Jacinto, the fathers of the Republic. The other h'alf, as I have said, dedicated to the payment of the public debt. The first debt that she has undertaken to pay is one of gratitude to the veterans of the Republic of Texas. In the payment ol this debt we have been hasty, taking into consideration their great want and extreme old age. At the eleventh hour the State has issued to each of the surviving veterans certificates for 1,280 acres of land, and this was done after the public domain had been exhausted. They have therefore been allowed to file their certificates in this disputed territory of Greer County. Their title to these lands are as precarious and uncertain as the tenure of their lives. With bent forms, eyes dimmed with age, and with trembling limbs, they have sought approach to the door of this Commission, asking for one word of hope that their titles were secure. The Governmem of the United States, be it to her credit said, has never forgotten the services rendered her by the patriotic soldiers. The pension list, the soldiers' homes, the annual decoration of graves, attest in the nation a grateful remembrance. The United States can well afford, and should enroll the names of the heroes of Goliad, the Alamo, and San Jacinto upon her list of pensioned heroes, thus giving to them their due-place in the temple of honor. Their heroism gave to the Republic liberty, and this State to the Union, resulting in the acquisition of a vast region of country, reaching from the Gulf to the Pacific Ocean, REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. ' 129 grander in extent of territory than the original thirteen colonies. In the person of these heroes every State in the Union was represented. The results have inured to the whole people, and their acts and achievements consti-tute a portion of the history of our country, begun by our sires at Concord and Lexing-ton, finished by their s~ns at San Antonio and San Jacinto. For Freedom's battle, once begun, Bequeathed by bleeding sire to son, Though baffled oft, is ever won. I have now stated what I believe to be the facts: (1) That all that :line of boundary formulated and adopted as a treaty between the Government of the United States and the Government of Spain, signed on the 22d day of February. 1819, by the accredited representatives of the Government of the United States and the Government of Spain, fully authorized to do so by their respective Gov-ernments, has been finally settled by Commissioners on the part of the United States ancl the State of Texas from that point in the sea·at the mouth of the Sabine River, np the west bank of that stream to where the thirty-second parallel crosses it, due north to the Rio Roxo of Natchitoches or Red River; thence following westward that stream to the mouth of the Kecheaquihono. No portion of this is in question, whether settled in accordance with the terms of the treaty or the spirit thereof. It is now valid and can not he disturbed, and this Commission is not authorized to question the equity or validity of the same. (2) That from the platting of Red River of the treaty upon Melish's map we are of the opinion and believe that the Red River of the treaty, west of the mouth of the Kechea-quihono, is what is styled as the North Fork of that river, from the fact that it is the first stream extending to -the north and west south of the Canadian, receiving the waters of the divide between those streams, and its sources approaching nearer the sources of the Red River as platted on Melish's map of the treaty; that Colonel Long was 9f this opinion when he quoted the statement of one of his guides; that the excundons of Colonel Young, Erath, three Rosses, Colonel Ford, Captain Pitts, General Bee, and Lambert, satisfied each and every one of them according to their testimony that the North Fork, so called by Marcy, was the true Rio Roxo of the treaty, and Marcy himself, under oath, states that he is satisfied that the Rio Roxo of Louisiana, as platted upon Melish's map, ruust have been what he called the North Fork; and that Wakeland, in the employ, as a surveyor, of Jacob De Cordova, states that he is satisfied that the North Fork is the true boundary line between the territories o( the United States, but does not give his reasons; but I suppose his reasons were founded upon actual observation and tradition of Indians in his employ living upon the upper Red River~ and we deny the statement made by the Commission on the part of the United States, that the South Fork, so styled by Marcy, was the river platted upon Melish's map, for the reason that it was never known by travelers, traders, trappers, explorers-Spanish, French, or American-as Red River, and had never been known by the Indians, savage and civilized, living in that region upon theN orth Fork of Red River by any other name than that of Kecheaquihono, and if known to civilized men it was to a few Spanish explorers as White River, which knowledge is of very recent discovery and publication, and that it has never been platted upon any map of the United States prior to the exploration of Marcy, in 1852; that the North Fork, on the contrary, prior to 1852, was known only as Red River, has never borne any other name, and the Commissioners on the part of the United States have failed to tell us what the North Fork was called prior to 1852. It must have had some name prior to that date if it was not the Rio Roxo of the treaty. I (3) We deny that the one hundredth meridian, or the line on M:elish's map adopted as the line of the treaty, as delineated on Melish's map, will be found west of the mouth of the Kecheaquihono, admitting the impossibility to accurately locate this line, as marked upon Melish's map with reference to mountains, streams, bends of rivers, etc., so as to conform upon the ground with the division of territory as platted upon the map, yet we believe it should be done approximately, and by mutual concession if the equities of the treaty are to be carried out. If they had .been carried out, and marked upon the ground the year of the ratification of this treaty, I am satisfied that the one hundredth meridian would have been located over a degree to the east of the forks of Red River, and all of t.hat territory west of that line, now the Indian Territory, would have been the territory of his Catholic Majesty, and to-day the home of thousands of civilized, en-lightened citizens from every State in the Union, established, encouraged, and protected under the regis ofthe United States, amenable to the laws of Texas, and we would not have been called upon to mark the line of boundary in a section upon a stream (Prairie Dog Town River) unknown to civilized man atthat time, and that was not discovered to exist during the generation of those that made the treaty. H.Ex.21-9 130 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. A policy divesting the State of Texas of this territory would not be in the interest of civilization, but would tend to perpetuate the Indian race in all that is degrading, de· moralizing, brutish, and beastly, burdening civilizativn to do it-alienating a sacred soil, dedicated by the fathers to civilization, as the home of God-fearing, law-abiding, liberty-loving citizens. But if divertecl to the use of a savage, degraded race, they will be main-tained in idleness, fed and clothed by the Government, taxing the sweat of honest in-dustry for that purpose. The nineteenth century demands a different policy-a management making them self-reliant, perhaps industrious, frugal, and thrifty. There should be given to each in sev-eralty their proportion of the soil, and they should be forced to live by the sweat of their brows, and not by that of others. Substitute for the tomahawk and scalping-knife the hoe and plow; clothe them with all the habilaments of civilization. They may become useful members of society, and the Indian Territory would become the home of an enlightened people. General Miles, commandin~ the Department of Missouri, in his report for 1885, says: "The Indian Territory is now a block in the pathway of civilization. It is preserved to perpetuate 1 mongrel race, far removed from the influence of civilized people; a refuge for the outlaws and indolent whites, blacks, and Mexicans. The vices introduced by these classes are rapidly destroying the Indians by disease. Without courts of justice or public institutions, without roads, bridges, or railways, it is simply a dark blot in the center of the map of the United States. It costs the Government hundreds of thousands of dollars to peacefully maintain from sixty to eighty thousand Indians there when the territory is capable of supporting many millions of enlightened people." In the foregoing argument it will be noted that the following proposition has been argued at some length: Well-known and boldly-defined landmarks, mountains, bends of rivers, and forks of streams, as laiddown on Melish's map, guided Count de Onis and John Quincy Adams in the division of territory between Spain and the United States, and the line of division between the two countries was intended to be located at the point where a meridian crosses the landmarks as delineated on the map. As laid down on the map, the one hun-dredth meridian crossed these landmarks. If it was an error in ·Melish in placing the one hundredth meridian at this point, the correction to be made, in the question of boundary, is to follow· the meridian that conforms to the landmarks on the map and on the ground, and to take this meridian as the bo.undary, and not the one hundredth me-ridian. In other words, the one hundredth true meridian was not the controlling call in the description of boundary. In presenting this ar~ument it is considered that it is a new view of the question, neither contemplated in the act of the legislature of Texas nor in the act of Congress by which the boundary Commissioners were appointed. It is well understood that both these acts may be strictly construed as limiting the work of the Commission to marking the true one hundredth meridian, and then to a determination as to which branch of Hed River was referred to in the treaty of 1819-the north or the south branch. The arguments have, of course, been addressed to this latter question, as being the matter under the immediate jurisdiction of the Commissioners. But it was not deemed improper in the settlement of the question of boundary to present the view of the case as stated in the aho,·e proposition. The question at issue is as to the ownership. of Greer. County; and while it may he established by limiting the argument and investigation as to which is the true Heel River of the treaty of 1819, it is thou~ht that as a collateral argument to settle the question of ownership, this second f>roposition, with a new view of the case, should be presented. In the final determination of the question of owner-ship all the facts and circumstances should be taken into consideration to explain the meaning of the words of the treaty and the intention of Count de Onis and Mr. Adams. It is thought that th~ main work sought to be accomplished by the act of Congress and the legislature of Texas was to settle the question of title to Greer County. If the set-tlement of the question equitably can be aided by arguments and facts not contem-plated in the laws creating the Commission, it is thought proper to make a presentation of the facts and arguments that have occurred to the Commissioners in pursuing their investigations, outside of the strict limit of their work, under the law. This explanation is made in order tllat it may be understood that the strict line of work laid out for the Commission by law was fully understood and has been closely fol- • lowed. But it was thought the paramount work was to determine the question of ownership of Greer County, and hence this collateral argument was prepared to be con-sidered as strengthening the claim of Texas from a new standpoint. The Commission then, at 12.25, adjourned to meet at 10 a. m. to-morrow. LANSING H. BEACH, First Lieutenant of Engineers, Seresumed to have assumed the less rigorous obligation. (9) However general may be the terms in which an a,greement is drawn, it can not, in any case, contain more than what the contracting parties intended and contracted for. (10) Wbe~ a special case is expressed in a contract, in order to remove any doubt as to that case, the extension given by law to the obligation must not be considered as re· stricted with regard to the cases not therein expressed. 148 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. (11) When no interpretation can be made without resulting in an evil, damage, or injury, the less unjust interpretation must be adopted, by the general rule that the least of two evils should be chosen. · I certify that the foregoing is a correct translation of the rules of interpretation as found in Escriche's Dictionary of Legislation and Jurisprudence, Madrid edition, page 927 et !eq.; the preface to which bears date May 14, 1851. X. B. DEBRA Y, Spanish Clerk and Translator, General Land Office of Texas. AUSTIN, July 3, 1886. Conclusions of law from tlte foregoing. From the foregoing authorities it appears that treaties are to be interpreted just like any contract, deed, or convention between private parties, and according to the maxims of the civil law. That the prime and only object of such interpretation is to ascertain the intention of the contracting parties, which must prevail, even if it be contrary to the express literal meaning of the words used. And in order to this, we may examine into the history of the negotiation which led to final agreement to find ''the circumstances in which the contract was made" and ''the motives which may reasonably have prompted it." We have endeavored to follow in the line of these maxims in our argument heretofore submitted. And now, in accordance with Escriche's rule 5, we desire to inquire into "The practice of the land"-the rulings of the courts of highest resort-in regard to such expressions as the words "the whole being as laid down in Melish's map" when found in a deed, contract, or agreement. The rule is, that in case of" d<;>ubt resulting from obscurity, * * * and the will of the parties is not apparent, the practice of the land in similar cases must be adhered to.'' The words in question seem to be differently understood by the two parts of the Com-mission, and it would seem there can be no agreement unless the law of the case as we may find it shall carry conviction. The maxim from Escriche refers us to the practice of the land for the exposition of these words, which practice can only be found in the rulings of courts of highest resort. Recollecting that treaties are to be constr-qed as any other contract, or as any deed, let us inquire what then is the practice of the land as to contracts in cases similar to the one in band; that is: (1) In respect to contracts, deeds, arguments, etc., wherein maps or plats are referred to as a part of the description of the land conveyed or contracted about. (2) When a deed or contract for a tract of land, after giving its .boundary by field-notes, showing the courses and distances of its lines, refers to a map or plat for :(urther descrip-tion, what effect bas such a map or plat? Is it to be considered as much a part of the deed or contract as any other part of it or not? (3) If it must be considered as much a part of the deed or contract as if inserted. in it, and it is found to contain delineations of natural objects or landmarks across, within, or about the boundaries described in the field-notes, that are not mentioned in the field-notes, and it is also found that according to the calls of the field-notes independent of the reference to the map, the boundary would lie in an entirely different relative position to those natural landmarks from that shown by the map or plat, what influence or effect then does the practice of the land give to the map or plat? Which shall control the other, and which shall yield to the other, the calls for course and distance or the map? Shall the lines of the land be run according to the field-notes1 or shall they be run as laid down on the map? They can not be run both ways. Fortunately, we are not left in doubt on this subject by the practice of the land-the rulings of the courts of the highest resort. The practice under the civil law, in countries where it prevailed, is to be gathered from the following extract from Col-quhoun's Civil Law of Rome, vol. 1, page 478: "The twelve tables provided for the appointment of three arbitri, who were to be a,qri-mensores, or professional engineers. '' * -l<· * '' The Romans had the most exact surveys, not only in Italy, but also in the provincial lands, municipalities, and colonies; and so REPORT 01!' TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 149 accurate were these, that not only were the mere boundaries of contiguous states laid down, but even the hedges and olive trees, together with the number of slaves, build~ ings, etc., were marked or scheduled; these maps were engraved on tables of brass and deposited in the rerarium at Rome. In case of municipalities and the like, the original was preserved in like manner, but a copy printed off on linen from the engraving was sent to the locality to which it applied. These surveys being made on an accuratl~ scale, there was, therefore, very little difficulty in an agrimensor ascertaining the exact spot, and by measuring from any fixed points about which he entertained no doubt he could easily settle a boundary in a far more satisfactory manner than by examining peasant people." 7:· * * (Roman Civil Law, by Colquhoun, vol. 1, p. 478.) From the peculiarity of the ci villaw, as indicated by Colquhoun in this extract, it ap-pears so high authority was given to the land maps traced on tables of brass and printed on lin~n that they were deemed the only evidence worthy to be considered in questions of boundary. The civil law prevailed in Spain and made its impressalsoupon the land of the Montezumas. Tlte practice in the United States. In the United States there were no "argrimensores" for "arbitri. '' Instead, juries were used to find the facts from all the evidence, while the law applicable to the facts found was delivered from the bench by men learned in the law. That we may see what these judges of the law have held concerning maps and plats, and bow far they concurred with the practice under the rules of the twelve tables, we here subjoin the reports of two decisions of the highest court of the United States, in which they declare the law relative to maps, referred to for description in deeds or contracts, in cases covering every point in the question we are investigating. . "Mciver's Lessee v. Walker et al. Error to the circuit court for the district of East Tennessee. This was an ejectment brought in that court by the plaintiff in error against the defendants. Upon the firsttrialofthecause ajudgmentwas rendered in the circuit court in favor of the defendants, and upon that judgment a writ of error was taken out and the judgment reversed by this court at the February term, 1815, and the cause was sent back to be tried according to certain directions prescribed by this court. "As the opinion given by tlris court upon reversal of the first judgment contains a statement of the facts given in evidence upon the first trial, it is deemed proper to insert the opinion in this place. It is as follows: On the trial of this cause the plaintiff pro-duced two patents for 5,000 acres each, from the State of North Carolina, granting to Stockley Donelson (from whom the plaintiff derived his title) to several tracts of land lying on Cow Creek, the one, No. 12, beginning at a box-elder standing on a ridge, cor-ner to No. 11, etc., as by the plat hereto annexed will appear. The plat and certificate of survey were annexed to the grant. "The plaintiff proved that there were eleven other grants of the same date for 5, 000 acres each, issued from the State of North Carolina, designated as a chain of surveys joining each other from No. 1 to No. 11, inclusive, each calling for land on Cow Creek as a general call, and the courses and distances of which, as described in the grants, are the same with the grants produced to the jury. It was also proved that the beginning of the first grant was marked and intended as the beginning corner of No. 1, but no other tree was marked, nor was any survey ever made, but the plat was made out at Raleigh and does not express on its face that the lines were run by the true meridian. It was also proved that the beginning corner of No.1 stood on thenortbwestsideofCow Creek, and the line running thence down the creek called for in the plat and patent is south 40° west. It further appeared that Cow Creekrunstbroughavalley of good land, which is on an average about 3 miles wide between mountains unfit for cultivation, and which extends from the beginning of survey No. 1 in the said chain of surveys until it reaches below survey No. 13, in nearly a straight line, the course of which is nearly south 35° west by the needle, and south 40° west by the true meridian; that in the face of the plats annexed to the grants the creek is represented as running through and across each grant. The lines in the certificate of survP-y do not expressly call for crossing the creek; but each certificate and grant calls generally for land lying on Cow Creek. If the lines of the tracts hereinbefore mentioned, Nos. 12 and 13 in the said chains of surveys, be run according to the course of th.~ needle and the distances called for, they will not in-clude Cow Creek or any part of it, and will n:ot include the land in possession of the defendants. If they be run according to the true meridian, or so as to include Cow Creek, they will include the lands in possession of the defendants. Whereupon the counsel for the plaintiff moved the court to instruct the jury: 1st. That the lines of the said lands ought to be run according to the true meridian, and not according to the needle. 2d. That the lines ought to be ron so as to include Cow Creek and the lands in possession of the defendants. 150 REPORT 01!' '.rEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. "The court overruled both these motions, and instructed the jury that the said grant must be run according to the course of the needle and the distances called for in the said grants, and that the same could not legally be run so as to include Cow Creek, and that the said grants did not include the lands in possession of the defendants. ''To this opinion an exception was taken by the plaintiffs' counsel. A verdict and judgment were rendered ior the defendants, and that judgment is now before the court on a writ of error. I\ is undoubtedly the practice of surveyors, and the praetice was proved in this case, to express in their plats and certificates of survey the courses which are designated by the needle; and if nothing exists to control the call for courses and distance the land must be bounded by the courses and distances of the patent ac-cording to the magnetic meridian. '' llut it is a general principle that the course and distance must yield to natural ob-jects called for in the patent. All lands are supposed to be actually surveyed, and the intention of thegrantis"to convey the land according tothatactual survey; consequently, if marked trees and nurked corners be found conformably to the calls of the patent. or if water-courses be called tor in the patent, or mountains, or any other natural objects, distances must be lengthened or shortened and courses varied so as to conform to those ob-jects. The reason of the rnle is that it is the intention of the grant to convey the land actually surveyed, and mistakes in courses and distances are more probable and more frequent thaJ?. in marked. trees, mountains, rivers, or other natural objects capable of being clearly designated and accurately described. Had the survey in this case been actually made, and the lines had called to cross Cow Creek, the courses and distances might have been precisely what they are; it might have been impracticable to find cor-ner on other marked trees, and yet the land must have been so surveyed as to include Cow Creek. The call in the lines of the patent to cross Cow Creek would be one to which course and distance must necessarily yield. This material call is omitted, and from its omission arises the great difficulty of the cause. That the lands should not be described as lying ou both sides of Cow Creek, nor the lines call for crossing that creek, are such extraordinary omissions as to create considerable doubt with the court in de-ciding whether there is any other description given in the patent of sufficient strength to control the call for course and distance. The majority of the court is of opinion that there is such a description. The patent closes its description of the land granted by ref-erence to the plat which is annexed. The laws of the State require this annexation. In this plat thus annexed to the patent, and thus referred to as describing the land granted, Cow Creek is laid down as passing through each tract. Every person having knowledge of the grant would also have knowledge of the plat, and would by that plat be instructed that the lands lie on both sides the creek. There would be nothing to lead to a different conclusion but a difference of about five degrees in the course, should he run out the whole chain of surveys in order to find the beginning of No. 12; and he would know that such an error in the course would be corrected by such a great natural object .as a creek laid down by the surveyor in the middle of his plat. This would prove, not-withstanding the error in the course, that the lands on both sides of Cow Creek were in-tended to be included in the survey and intended to be granted by the patent. It is the opinion of the majority of this court that there is error in the opinion of the circuit court for the district of east Tennessee; in this, that said court instructed the jury that the grant under which the plaintiff claimed could not be legally run so as to include Cow Creek, instead of directing the jury that the said grant must be so run as to include Cow Creek and to conform as near as may be to the plat annexed to the said grant; wherefore it is considered by this court that said judgment be reversed and annulled, and the cause remanded to the said circuit court, that a new trial may be had according to law." Upon an<'~her trial in the circuit court of Tennessee judgment again went for the de-fendants, and upon writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States this cause was argued and reargued at two terms of the court by eminent counsel. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court, as follows: "The court has re-examined the opinion which it gave when this cause was formerly before it, and has not perceived any reason for changing that opinion.'' * * * The cause was again remanded accordingly, to be tried in accordance with law, and it seems was never again in that court. (Mciver's Lessee v. Walker et al., 4 Wheaton, p. 444 to 452.) This was a leading case, and has been followed by all the courts generally of the Union, whose reports may be said to be crowded with similar adjudications. In the case of Noonan v. Lee, reported in 2 Black's Reports, decided by the same court, the plat was simply referred to in the deed. Under the statute of the State, a plat, before it could be legally recorded, had to be properly authenticated in a certain way. In this case it wa.s not properly authenticated, but was put of record and referred REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 151 to in the deed. Objection was made to its want of authentication. Hut the United States Court, Justice Swayne delivering the opinion, held as follows: ''As regards the statute. the plat was fi.ttally detective and afforded no warrant to the recording officer for pntting it on record. Nevertheless, its being there was a fact, and whether ther~ or elsewhere the reference to it in a deed for the purpose of :fixing a bound-ary is sufficient. That ia certain which can be made certain. Where a map or plot is th.ns referred to, the effect is the same as if it were copied into the deed. * -x- * (Davis v. Rainesford, 17 Mass., 211; Mciver's Lessee v. Walker et al., 4 Wheaton, 445.)" (Opinion of Mr. Justice Swayne, Noonanv. Lee, 2 Black's U.S. Reports, p. -.) Conclusion. It would therefore appear that Melish's map, referred to in the treaty in t1J.e words we have considered, is made thereby as much a part of the treaty as if it had been copied into it; and that the call fi)r distance up Red River to the one hundredth meridian must yield to the delineation of that line in a certain relative position to the bends of the Arkans:ts anrl H.ed Rivers and the mountains and other natural landmarks between and arounJ, wb.ich is shown in that map, if it he found that the true one hundredth meridian lies in a different locality from that in which Melish thus delineates it. Such being the case, it follows that the line in q'nestion is to he ascertained by the relative position given it on the map to these natural landmarks, and not hy astronomical observations to find the true meridian. Having found before, hy comparison of maps, that the line so found will lie to the east of the junction of the two forks, North and Sou'ch. of Red River, we submit that this Commission, if it :fixes the line according to the terms of the treaty, must of neces-sity hunt for and :find it east of and below both the North and South Fork of Red River. Col. S. M. MANSFIELD, J. T. BRACKENRIDGE, Chairman Boundary Commission on therpart of Texas. W. H. BURGES, Commissioner. G. R. FREEMAN, Commissioner. President United States Boundary Commission. The Commission then, at 2.15 p.m., adjourned to meet at 10 a.m. to-morrow. LANSING H. BEACH, First Lieutenant of Engineers, SeC'l'etary. AUSTIN, TEX., Thursday, July 8, 1886. The Commissioli met, pursuant to adjournment, at 11 a. m. Present, all the members except Mr. Brackenridge and Mr. Burges. Mr. Livermore presented the following resolution, in view of the absence of two members of the Texas Commission and the fact that those present did not feel author-ized to state whetl1er the Texas Commissioners desired to present any further state-ments to the 3oint Commission: Resolved, That the Joint Commission take a recess until notified hy the Texas Com-missioners that they are prepared for further action. Carried at 11.50 a. m. AUSTIN, TEX., Friday, July 9, 1886. Business resumed at 11.10 a. m. in accordance with the resolution of yesterday. Present, all the members except Mr. Burges. Mr. Herndon then presented the following: SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT. Again we assume an additional ground of estoppel against the United States independ-ent of the views before expressed, which we trust will commend itself to the considera-tion of the Joint Commission, that under the joint resolution of the Congress of the United States ofJst of March and 29th of December, 1845, and the joint resolution and ordinance on the _Part of the Rc>;rmblic of Texas, dated 23d of June and the 4th day of July, 1845, by wh1ch the Repuhhc of Texas became one of the States of the Union, certain condi~ H. Ex. li-70 152 REPORT OF TE.XAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. tions were to be performed and certain guarantees were given on the part of the United States to the new State of 'Texas and her people, one of which wa:.-:; that Texas should re-tain all her vacant and unappropriated lands to pay her liabilitie:;;, etc., and the residue of said lands ''to he disposed of as ~aid State,may direct.'' Another of said guarantees was that "said State be formed suhjeetto the adjustment lly thisGovemmentofall ques-tions of boundary that may ariHe with other goYernments. '' lt was agreed to that' 'the territoryproperlyintlnded. within aml rightfully belonging to the HepublieofTexasmay be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas,': etc. Hefertmce is made to the acts themselves. (Paschal's Digest of Laws, pp. 44, 45, 46.) You will observe from these several acts that a solemn contractwas made and concluded between two high con-tracting parties upon valuable and othe1, the highest considerations that can possibly in-fluence men or nations. No onewill doubt the immense value to the United States ofthis acquisition from the Republic of Texas, nor the f~wt that it was done ~ifter the most mature discussion and con-sideration of all subjects of di!lere~cc. All "territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Hepu hlic of Texas'' should be indud('d in the new f'tate of Texas and disposed of by Texas as she should direct. ''All questions of houndary that may arise with other governments" shall he adjusted by the United Rtates. These mat-ters were considered and entered into the contract, and the United States agreeJ)resentatives the purport of which was, by legislative enactment, to define the boundary as theN orth Fork of Hed River. As already s:ated, this bill was reported adversely by the committee to which it w:ts referred, on the ground that if Brown and Jones were right in their statement about the relative size of the two forks at the crossing of the one hundredt.h meridian there coultl be no doubt about the true boundary, but it was simply because the survey reierre(i to had been made witbouttheprivityoftbe StateofTexas,tbat the appointment ofa.ioiut commission was recommended, that the State might have a bearing in the matter and an opportunity to co-operate with the United States in the surveying and making of the boundary at the intersection of the true one hundredth meridian with the Red Hiver. It was in accordance with this suggestion that the Texas legislature authorized the appointment of its Commissioners, who are directed to be guided by surveys and meas-urements, natural and artificial landmarks, and authenticatellowed along the Canadian River to trade . with the Comanches should make this mistake, but Commissioner Brackenridge (P) thinks that this road extended down the Hed River to Natchitoches, that it left the Canadian near 'the Antelope Hills and struck the North Fork of Red River above the Wichita Mountains. A traveler who followed this road could hardly mistake the little stream on his right for the great river on his left that he had beeu following from near Santa Fe, yet this is the only possible supposition of those who maintain that Melish's map was constructed from infQrmation derived from travelers along the old Spanish road. ; General Marcy says this is the identical road along which he conducted the emigrants from Fort Smith to Santa Fe in 1849; that it followed along the divide between the Washita and the Canadian Rivers. This road is delineated for Carey and Lea's map of 1822, and Melish 's map of 1823, extending as far as the mouth of the Washita. The trail observed by General Marcy along the east bank of this North Fork of Red River was the old Comanche trail, through a narrow defile in the mountains, which led up through a very tortuous rocky gorge, where the well-trodden path indicated that it had been traveled for many years. It is hardly necessary for any one familiar with the Coman-· .. REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSlON. 159 che trail to call the attenti.on to the difference between such a path and a road indicated by Mexican cart tracks, to which General Marcy alluded. This Spanish road is represented as crossing the False Washita in its middle course, and then following along between the False Washita and the Red River to the neigh-borhood of their junction. If this road skirted along the North Fork of Red Hivcr, nnd followed it down to Natchitoches, it could hardly have heen there at the time of Fra-goso, in 1788, for he surely would have discovered it, or his guides would have pointed it out to him. If the great Spanish road is correctly laid down on Carey and Lea's map of 1822, and Melish's map of 1823, and if the little stream along which it runs, after crossing the False Washita, is intended to represent the North Fork of Red River, it fol-lows that the Prairie Dog Town Fork is correctly delineated as the main Red Hiver. We have no knowledge of the e~istence of the Spanish road except along the divide immediately south of the Canadian River. Melish knew nothing about it. The road which General Marcy followed along the divide between the Canadian on the north and the Red River and False Washita on the south passes nearer to the sources of 1.be Keehequahono than to those of the North Fork, and the location of the sources of Hed River by the brother of Captain Shreevs, above quoted, coincides with the position of the headw<~ten; of the Quicheaquehono upon the map of Carey and Lea in 182·2, and Melish, 182:~, of Emory in 18H, and of Distnrnell in 1847, and all other maps publishecl from the date of the treaty up to 1R52. The Prairie Dog Town Fork is distinctly delin-eated as the main Red River, and the North Fork, which is unnamed, is represented as a little stream, and nearly in its true position. On Disturnell's map, published in Spain in 1848, compiled from the best authorities and laws of Mexico, and which was used by the Mexican Boundary Commission in sur-veying the boundary between the United States and the Republic of Mexico, the Prairie Dog 'l'owu Fork is indicated as the main stream, and is called the Rio Colorado; the North Fork is unnamed and represented as an insignificant tributary. The position of the Washita Mountains defines it beyond a doubt. If this road skirted along the North Fork, and if Melish 's map was constructed from the reports of those who ha.d traveled this road, and if the mountains referred to by Commissioner Freeman, etc., were indeed the Wichita Mountains and not simply a representation of the water-shed, the conclusion is irresistible that the stream next the mountains represented the North Fork, and ·that they knew that the South Fork was wider and longer, and it was therefore conneeted with the imaginary sources near Santa Fe to complete the picture. Commissioners· Herndon, Brackenridge, and Burges (D) produce evidence to show that a detachment from Captain Eastman's expedition in 1837 crossed the Prairie Dog Town Fork to attack certain Indian villages on a stream which is supposed to be the North Fork of Red River, and · also that tbe Santa Fe expedition, authorized by the President of the Republic of Texas in 1841, traversed the region known as Greer County. With regard to this expedition General Marcy says, page 58: "A gentleman who is traveling with us an1l who was attached as a captain to Colonel McLeod's expedition to Santa Fe, so graphically described by Mr. Kendall, recognized a point near the head of the river where his command passed. He is of the opinion that the river which they ascended and supposed at the time to be the principal branch of Red River must have been the Big Witchita\ and they probably passed entirely to the south of the main branch of the river. The fact that they were for a long time upon the plams of 'Llano Esta-cada' would go to confirm this supposition; at anywhere to the north of this stream they would not have encountered much of it." The report of the Pacific Hail way Survey, vol. 11, 1861, in describing this expedition, says: ''This expedition left Austin, the capital of Texas, on the 21st of June, 1841." The whole party was under the command of General McLeod. Leaving Austin, they traveled north, crossed the Brazos at the cross timbers, and thence turning westward struck the Big Witchita, which they thought was Red River. They entered upon .the ''Llano Estacado" at the head of the red main river: The party was then divided in two portions, the one under Colonel Cook proceeding rapidly in advance, and General McLeod following more slowly with the main train. The pioneers of the ad vance gnard traveled northwest and struck the Canadian at the Arroy() de Truxillo; thence they fol-lowed up the valley to the Santa Fe and Independence road, which led them to Anton-chico. Some Mexicans were sent hack as guides to Colonel Cook, and be was led by the way of 'l'rucuncari Hill, along the road generally pursued by emigrants near the Canadian River to New Mexico. Kendall, in his narrative, page 198, says that these guides were unacquainted with the American name of Hed River. Snively's expedition in 1843 seems to have been aggressive in its nature. It is not improbable that he passed through Greer County and found Indians there who called the North Fork Red River. · 160 REPORT OF TEXAS BOTTNDA}{Y COMMISSION. We have already seen that many streams in that neighborhood were so called, nor is it improbable that Snively encouraged them in ealling it so. It is well known to all that are acquainted with the habits of Indian guides that they are very quick to learn what is e~pected of them. It appears, also, tha,t his guide was well posted in the terms of the treaty of 1819, and by wonderful astronomical im;tinct determined with great ac-curacy the point where the one hundredth meridian erossed the North Fork of Red H.i ver. It is not necessary to make any further allusion to Marcy's expedition, excepting that as he has been quoted to prove that the Indians called North Fork H.cd Hi ver, it may be necessary to allude to the 1ollowing, wbieh has already been put in evidence: ''Dr. Gregg, in his Commerce of the Prairies, tells ns that on his way down the soutli bank of the Canadian his Comanche guide, Manueh (who, hye the hye, travel ell GOO miles with me upon the plains and whom I always fon:fmittecl to Joint Commission for a vote: .Resnlved, That Red Hi ver from the point of beginning on said stream, near where the latitude 33° 301 crosses it, westwwrd, and up said stream to the junction of the North Fork and Prairie Dog Fork of H.ed River, has never been surveyed or marked as a boundary line, still said Heel River between said two points has constituted the real boundary of the treaty of 1819 from itR adoption till n:ow. Proposition III, submitted to Joint Commission for a vote: Resolved, That the North Fork of Red H.iver runs through red clay formation that gives color to its waters, and the Prairie Dog Fork of Red Hiver does not run through said red clay formation, bnt through gypsum deposits and a whitish soil that does not color its waters red. Proposition IV, submitted to Joint Commission for a vote: Resolved, That the North Fork of Red River is a bolder stream than the South Fork, and discharges as much or more during the year at its confluence with the Prairie Dog Town Fork. 1 Proposition V, submitted to Joint Commission for a vote: Resolved, That the stream sty led and called South Fork or main Red River was known and called prior to 1852 Chequeahquehono, or Prairie Dog Town River. Proposition No. VI, submitted to Joint Commission for a vote: Resolved, That Capt. R B. Marcy, while in the service of the United States, in 1852, explored the two streams, upper Red River and Prairie Dog Town River, and he was the first person who gave and applied the names to these streams, respectively, to Red River "North Fork of Red Hiver," and "South Fork of Heel H.iver" to "Prairie Dog Town River." Proposition No. VII, submitted to Joint Commission for a vote: Resol11ed, That in 1852, when Capt. R. B. Marcy gave the name of N( rth Fork to Red River, that stream had never been known or called by any other name than Red River prior to that time, and the same name continued until the maps made and published by the United States afterward changed the name to that of North Fork thereon. Proposition VIII, submitted to Joint Commission for a vote: Resolved, That the range of mountains located eastward and northward of the Rio R~jo, or Red River, delineated on Melish's map, made part of the treaty, and which said range of mountains runs parallel to said H.ed Riv~r, and are known to exist there, does not appear east and north of the Prairie Dog Town River, nor does said range appear on any map since published relatively located on said Prairie Dog Town River, and in fact there are no mountains on the east or north side of said last-named stream. IX. Resolved, That the Spanish part of Melish's map, including upper Red River, was · based upon Humboldt's map of 1804. X. Resolved, That Humboldt delineated three road stations on the north side of upper Red River-one at the northward bend of th~ :river, a:qq Qne above and one below that ~m~ . REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. 167 XI. Resolved, That according to General Marcy's testimony a road along the north side of the Kecheaquehono was impracticable, and there was no vestige of such a road there, while there were deep ruts and signs of an ancient road on the divide north of the North Fork. XII. Rt>JJolved, That the road indicated as on the north side of the Red River of Humboldt and Melish, by the road stations of Humboldt's map, passed down the North Fork of Red· River, and identifies it as the Red River of Melish and Humboldt's maps. XIII. Resolved, That the publication of Bringier's maps of upper Louisiana from the Missis-sippi to the one hundredth or twenty-third meridian by Melish, as related by the latter, gave the treaty makers information of the surveys of Bringier to the vicinity of the bend 10f Red RiveF and the Wichita Mountains, and accounts tor the correct delineation on Melish's map of ranges of mountains along his upper Red River as they are found along the North Fork. XIV. Resolved, That according to the terms of the treaty of 1819 between Spain and the United States, it was the intention of the parties to the treaty that the boundary estab-lished by the treaty from l~ed I~iver to the Arkansas River should be along the line of the one hundredth meridian of west longitude from London as that line' was laid down in Melish's map of the United States, improved to January 1, 1818. Respectfully submitted. Col. S. M. MANSFIELD, Chairman, etc. J. T. BRACKENRIDGE, 0 hairman Te:cas Oommisrion. The Commission on the part of the United States then presented their opinions of the foregoing propositions in the following: OFFICE JOINT 90MMISSION ON BOUNDARY, . Austin, Tex., .July 16, 1886. Sm: The fourteen resolutions adopted and presented by the Texas Commission to the United States Commission, having been duly considered, are now returned with the opinion of this Commission in regard to each duly expressed. We have applied the term '' r~j ected '' to some of those resolutions to which we do not assent. Some of these are partially true, and our previous statements explain to what extent we concur and wherein we differ. Proposition No. I.-No. Proposition No. H.-Yes, excepting the words "surveyed or." Proposition No. IlL-Yes, excepting the words "and the Prairie " 'and all following. Proposition No. IV.-Uejected. Proposition No. V.-Ye!:!, adding the words "and other names." Proposition No. VI.-Rejected. Proposition No. VII.-No. Proposition No. VIII.-Rejected. Proposition No. IX.-Yes, excepting the wo,"7d "upper," substituting therefor the words '' the sources of." Proposition No. X.-No Proposition No. XI.-Rejected. Proposition No. XII.-No. Proposition No. XIII.-No. Proposition No. XIV.-Rejected. S. M. MANSFIELD, Major of Engineers, Brevet Lieutenartt-Oolonel, U. 8 • .A. Maj. J. T. BRA(!KENRIDGE, Chairman Teras Bonndm·y Commission. Jl. E:x. 18-1'1 W. R. LIVERMORE, JJiajor of Engineers. THOS. L. CASEY, JJirst Lieutenant of Engineers. LANSING H. BEACH, First Lieutenant of Engineers. 168 REPORT OF TEXAS BOUNDARY COMMISSION. The following resolution was then presented by Mr. Herndon· Whereas the Joint Commi8sion on Boundary created under the acts of the United States Congress and the Texas_legislature, to establish the boundary and mark the point where the one hundredth degree of west longitude crosRes Hed H.iver, according to the terms of the treaty of February 22, 1819, between the United States and Spain, was duly organized under said acts on the 23d day of February, 1886; and Whereas the said Joint Commission has since its organization carefully investigated the subject committed to it, has adduced a large mass of documentary evidence more or less pertinent, presented a number of maps, introduced witnesses who have testified by deposition, examined all attainable matter where there was reason to believe any .Perti-nent evidence could be obtained, and carefully considered the statements and arguments in writing offere

Boundary Between Texas and Indian Territory

Abstract

Extracted data

Boundary Between Texas and Indian Territory

Abstract

Extracted data

Related items

Related items