Page images
PDF
EPUB

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

another tribunal if your decision be against us. But we wish to be saved the necessity of going to another tribunal; and we invoke your justice and your magnanimity, and ask you to save us that necessity, by giving us a decision according to the law and the facts of the case.

The Committee on Territories admits that this question, "so far as the rights of Missouri are involved, is peculiarly for the judgment of the courts; but the authorities, both of the State and Territory, have repeatedly referred it to Congress, and be. sought its decision. The action of the National Legislature cannot conclude Missouri, but it will be binding on Iowa, though it should concede something of her rights to her adversary in this controversy." See page 11, doc. 791, 2d sess. 27th Cong. This opinion, advanced by the committee, is clearly right. I am, therefore, saved the necessity of proving this point.

This is not a case in which Missouri is one party and Iowa the other. Iowa is not directly a party in the case at all. It is a case in which the State of Missouri is one party, and the United States the other. The territory in dispute belongs to the State of Missouri, or else it belongs to the United States. If it belongs to the State, you have no power over it; if it does not belong to the State, then you can do what you please with it. That speck of it which does not already belong to the Indians, you can sell even to them to-morrow, if you choose, if the territory be yours, and not ours. If it be not ours, you have complete control over it, and you will continue to have till Iowa becomes a State, and then you can give it to her if you choose. Iowa expects to get it, and for this reason is interested in your retaining it. This is all the interest she has in the case.

The case is one, then, of singular character: the State is one party, and you are the other party; and yet the State asks you to decide the matter. And not exactly to decide the matter either. We call upon you, rather to settle it; and you have the power to do so. We say the territory is ours, and not yours. We call upon you to acknowledge our right to territory which we claim to be our own, and to renounce your claim to territory to which we contend you have no title. If you refuse to do so, this does not prevent us from applying to the courts of justice. This is the nature of the case.

The

The boundary in dispute is that between the State of Missouri and the Territory of lowa-being the northern boundary of the former, and the southern boundary of the latter. The State of Missouri insists upon a line which runs with the parallel of latitude passing through the rapids of the river Des Moines, at the Great Bend in said river. Committee on Territories insists that the true boundary runs through the "Des Moines rapids," in the Mississippi river; but as this line would cut deep into our counties, the committee, out of abundant mercy to the State, agrees to give us the old Indian boundary line run by John C. Sullivan in 1816, four years before the State Government was formed. This line runs much nearer to the one claimed by Missouri than that which the committee says is the true line. But the committee says this Indian line is not, and cannot be, the true line. This is an admission, at once, that they have not decided the case according to the law and the facts. Let them not say that they have done us more than justice. We understand that, and will inquire

into it.

The territory in dispute-that lying between these two lines-the line claimed by Missouri and the old Indian line-at the eastern end, next the Des Moines river, is over eight, and less than nine miles wide; and at the western end, next the Missouri river, about thirteen miles wide. The whole territory in dispute embraces about 2,616 square miles. Of this tract of country, about one-sixteenth, being about nine miles average in width, by an average of about eighteen miles in length, containing about four and a half congressional townships, and a population of 1,500 or 2,000 versons, has been ceded by the Indians to the United States. This one-sixteenth your committee magnifies into "near one-third of the territory now in dispute." But this is by no means their largest blunder. The remaining fifteen-sixteenths of the disputed territory are still in possession of the Indians, and have no population to be affected by the ultimate decision of this case.

The people already in the disputed territory went there with a full knowledge of the existence of this controversy; and, of course, with a determination

Missouri Boundary Line-Mr. J. C. Edwards.

to abide the result. In fact, many of them may ||
have gone with the hope and the expectation that
this country was part of the State of Missouri.
But, no matter what they expected, you should de-
cide this case, not as a question of expediency, but
according to the law and the facts of the case.
Any other decision must be unjust, and cannot be
submitted to by Missouri.

In the progress of this discussion, we should
bear in mind an important distinction between a
Territory and a State. The former is a sort of
preparatory grade of government. The latter is a
complete and perfect government. The jurisdic-
tion of the former is fixed by this Government;
and may be altered or changed, enlarged or di-
minished, at any moment, by Congress. The ju-
risdiction of the latter is fixed, in the case of Mis-
souri, by the State constitution, and cannot be
changed or altered, enlarged or diminished, by
Congress. The territory of the former is fixed by
an act of Congress, and can be enlarged or cur-
tailed by Congress. The territory of the latter is
fixed by the Constitution, and cannot be enlarged
or diminished by an act of Congress.

The 6th day of March, 1820, Congress passed an act authorizing the people of Missouri Territory to form a constitution and State Government. This act prescribed boundaries for the State to be formed. The 19th day of June, 1820, nearly four months afterwards, the people of Missouri Territory formed a constitution and State Government. This constitution defined the boundaries of the "State of Missouri." That section of the act of Congress which describes the boundaries of the Territory, and that article of the constitution of the State which describes the boundaries of the State, are in the same words. It is a curious and an interesting question of law, that, notwithstanding both these instruments use the same words in describing the boundaries, yet it becomes necessary, in deciding this case, to determine whether the act of Congress or the constitution of the State is the paramount instrument; whether the act of Congress or the constitution of the State gives boundaries to the State.

The question, whether the act or the constitution is the controlling instrument, becomes important, because the great difficulty in settling this controversy grows out of a latent ambiguity, both in the act of Congress and in the constitution of the State; and this difficulty is increased by an attempt to enlarge this ambiguity. The ambiguity consists in the expression, "the rapids of the river Des Moines," used both in the act of Congress and in the constitution of the State. We have no evidence that, when the constitution was adopted, more than one rapid of the river Des Moines was known; but, by late surveys, we ascertain that there are several "rapids of the river Des Moines;" and the difficulty now consists in determining which of these "rapids of the river Des Moines" were called for in the act of Congress and the constitution of the State. The enlargement of the ambiguity--and which, beyond all question, is a very absurd one-consists in an attempt to make the "rapids of the river Des Moines" mean the "Des Moines rapids" in the Mississippi river. Let me here say, that three miles above the mouth of the Des Moines river commences a chain of rapids in the Mississippi river, which extends up that river fourteen miles. These,

"The boundaries of "Missouri Territory," as described in the act of Congress approved March 6, 1820, and of the "State of Missouri," as described in the constitution of said State, adopted July 19. 1820, are described in the following words:

"Beginning in the middle of the Mississippi river, on the parallel of 36 degrees of north latitude; thence west, along the said parallel of latitude, to the St. Francis river; thence up and following the course of that river, in the middle of the main charnel thereof, to the parallel of latitude of 36 degrees and 30 minutes; thence -west, along the same, to a point where the said parallel is intersected by a meridian line passing through the middle of the mouth of the Kansas river, where the same empties into the Missouri river; thence, from the point aforesaid, north, along the said meridian line, to the intersection of the parallel of latitude which passes through THE RAPIDS OF THE RIVER DES MOINES, making the said line correspond with the Indian boundary line; thence east, from the point of intersection last aforesaid, along the said parallel of latitude, to the middle of the channel of the main fork of the said river D: 8 Maines; thence, down and along the middle of the main channel of the said river Des Moines, to the mouth of the sanie, where it empties into the Mississippi river; thence, due east, to the middle of the main chanuel of the Mississippi river; thence down and following the course of the Mississippi river, in the middle of the main channel thereof, to the place of beginning."

[NOTE.-The act of Congress and the constitution of the State, go far as they describe the boundaries, are in the same words, with this difference: In the constitution, the words "the said" are used for the word "that" in the act; and the words "o" and "and" in the act, are dropped in the constitution; but this is immaterial, and does not change the boundaries.]

H. of Reps.

from their proximity to the mouth of the Des Moines river, and to distinguish them from other rapids in the Mississippi above, are called the "Des Moines rapids," and have been so called for ages. The first rapids of any note in the Des Moines river itself are about sixty miles above the mouth of that river.

This ambiguity, like other latent ambiguities, can be explained by parol testimony. If the act of Congress and the constitution of the State refer to the same "rapids," then the explanation of the one is the explanation of the other, and the testimony of the same witnesses would explain both. But your committee decides that the act of Congress calls for one "rapids," and we contend that the constitution of the State calls for another "rapids;" and if this be so, then the explanation of the one will not be the explanation of the other; and it will, consequently, become necessary to decide. which is the governing instrument-which is to be explained, the act or the constitution.

This explanation can be given only by those who passed the act and the constitution, and those who were otherwise connected with the passage of these instruments. If the act of Congress be the controlling instrument, then the explanation must come from members of Congress, and those connected with the proceedings of Congress about the time the act was passed; but if the constitution of the State be the controlling instrument, then the explanation must come from the members of the convention which framed the constitution, and those connected with the proceedings of that convention. It is hardly probable that anybody else knows or recollects anything about either of them; and these instruments can be explained in no other way. It is probable that no member of Congress recollects anything about the meaning of the act, except the delegate from the Territory of Missouri himself. It is highly probable that no member of Congress, except the delegate referred to, knew anything, at the time the act was passed, about the boundaries. At this time Florida is applying for admission; and yet I am sure not one member in this House, when she is admitted into the Union, will understand her entire boundaries. Her delegate probably will. It was still more so the case with Missouri. The delegate himself from that Territory says he was unacquainted with the country.

We must have the testimony of those who know what was intended by the ambiguous phrase. Without that, a correct decision of this controversy cannot well be given. It is entirely com. petent to explain the ambiguity by parol testimony. The Committee on Territories, in their argument against us, have followed this course. They have resorted to a letter of Pierre Chouteau, the case of Louis Honore, and other evidence, to prove that an American Congress, removed a thousand miles from any French influence, had used the expres sion "rapids of the river Des Moines," when they meant the "Des Moines rapids," in the Mississippi river, simply because the French called the latter "rapides de la rivière Des Moines." Just here, however, as it suited their purposes, the committee may have intended to treat the constitution as the controlling instrument, and to lay the act of Congress aside for awhile. That constitution was made among the French at St. Louis; and, although the convention was almost to a man English, yet it might be a little Frenchified. But the committee should take the act of Congress for their guide altogether; or else should drop it, and take the constitution altogether; and not one, and then the other, as it may suit their convenience. But the committee introduces parol testimony, and you are acting on it. I claim the same right, and shall exercise it. But the question is yet to be settled whether the act or the constitution is to control, and which is to be explained. Let us now examine that question, and then we will introduce our evidence.

The act of Congress "authorizing the people of Missouri Territory to form a constitution and State Government" was passed on the 6th day of March, 1820. The constitution of the State was "ordained and established" the 19th day of July, 1820-the same year-three months and upwards after the passage of the act aforesaid. The second day of March, 1821-four days less than one year after the passage of the act of March 6thCongress passed a resolution providing "that Missouri shall be admitted into the Union on an equal

27TH CONG....SD SESS.

footing with the original States."* The act of March 6, 1820, and the resolution of March 2, 1821, being each of them acts of Congress, are of equal dignity. The latter, by admitting Missouri into the Union, sanctions the constitution of that State; and thus recognises that constitution as being of equal dignity, also. If the three instruments be of equal dignity, and any of their provisions clash, then the latter must control the former, under the general rule that, when laws conflict, the latter must govern the former. If the boundaries prescribed in the act of Congress differ from the boundaries prescribed in the constitution, then the latter must govern the former, and must give boundaries to the State.

The Territory of Missouri was one thing--the State of Missouri is another thing. The Territory existed under an act-the work of Congress. The State exists under a, constitution--the work of a convention. The Territory of Missouri received its boundaries under different acts of Congress, and these boundaries were at one time larger, and at another time less. They were least under the last act. The State of Missouri received her bounda ries from her constitution, afterwards sanctioned by an act of Congress; and these boundaries remain the same, so far as this controversy involves them. The Territory of Missouri was not admitted into the Union. A Territory cannot become a member of the Confederacy. The State of Missouri was admitted into the Union. A State can become a member of the Confederacy. It was not the Territory, but the State, which was admitted into the Union; and, if it was not the Territory which was admitted into the Union, then the act of Congress does not give boundaries to the State, because the act of Congress only describes the boundaries of the Territory; but, if it was the State which was admitted into the Union, then the constitution does give the boundaries, because that instrument describes the boundaries of the State thus admitted.

The act of Congress did not describe the bounda.ries of a State. It could not do so, because the State did not then exist. The act described a certain tract of country, and authorized the people of that country to form a constitution and State government. I admit that the act provided "that the said State shall consist of all the territory included within the following boundaries," and that it then went on to describe the boundaries for a State. But the convention had a right to adopt different boundaries in forming the State; and, although Congress had prescribed boundaries, and had the power to do so, yet she had a right to waive her boundaries, and to adopt those prescribed by the convention. In this case, if there be any difference between the boundaries prescribed by the act and the constitution, then Congress has, by admitting Missouri into the Union, sanctioned the latter, and waived the former-has given up the boundaries as prescribed in the act, and has assented to those prescribed in the constitution. If so, the constitution governs the boundaries, and not the act.

The act of Congress was merely directory. The people of the Territory were not obliged to follow it. They had the right to choose boundaries for their own State, and to ask Congress to grant them those boundaries. Their selection of boundaries amounted to nothing more than a mere choice, without the sanction of Congress, afterwards obtained. It gave them no right to the boundaries selected by themselves, because the land belonged to the United States. But the convention had the right to describe the boundaries, and Congress had the right to say you shall have those boundaries. The convention did prescribe the boundaries, and Congress did say you shall have those boundaries. This settled the matter. Congress gave up the boundaries when she admitted the State of Missouri into the Union. She admitted the State of Missouri, not the Territory. There is no State of Missouri but that described in the constitution of the State. It consists of that tract of country bounded by the constitution of that State. The act *Extract from the resolution admitting Missouri into the

Union.

"That Missouri shall bej admitted into this Union, on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever, upon the fundamental condition that the fourth clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third article of the constitution, submitted on the part of said State to Congress, shall never be construed to authorize the passage of any law, and that no law shall be passed in conformity thereto, by which any citizen of either of the States of this Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of the privileges and immunities to which such cit izen is entitled under the Constitution of the United States." [Approved, March 2, 1821.

Missouri Boundary Line-Mr. J. C. Edwards.

of Congress describes a Territory, and does not de-
scribe a State. The constitution, then, must control,
and not the act.

I admit the lands belonged to the United States.
No question of that. Congress had the right to
give or withhold them. No doubt of that. She
had the right to say to the people about to form a
State, you shall take these boundaries, and you shall
have no others. If the people then adopted differ-
ent boundaries, Congress had a right to say, we
will not admit you into the Union, because you
have not taken the boundaries we gave you. You
have adopted boundaries different from those we
prescribed for you. You must remodel your State
before we can admit you into the Union. You
must change the boundaries, and make them corres-
pond with those we prescribed for you, before we can
admit you. This Congress could have done. But
if Congress chooses to admit the State, as she clear-
ly has the power to do, although the State has
adopted boundaries different from those which
Congress has prescribed for her, this admission
settles the question of boundaries in favor of the
constitution, and forever puts that matter to rest. If,
then, the boundaries prescribed in the act of Con-
gress and in the constitution of the State be dif-
ferrent, then the boundaries prescribed in the con-
stitution are the true ones.

Congress prescribed boundaries in the act, but it is not absolutely certain that the people of the Territory adopted these boundaries. If the act and the constitution differ in reference to them, then the people of the Territory did not adopt them. The people adopted only the boundaries prescribed in constitution. To make the boundaries permanent, it required the assent of the people of the Territory, as well as of Congress. The convention gave her assent to the boundaries prescribed in the constitution, by the adoption of that constitution. Congress gave her assent, also, to the boundaries prescribed in the constitution, by admitting the State into the Union. These boundaries, then, have the assent of both parties. If so, and the boundaries in the act have not, then the boundaries in the constitution are the true ones, and the constitution controls the act.

But Congress did not admit Missouri into the Union, except "on a certain condition." This condition was, not that Missouri should change any part of her boundaries, or surrender any part of the boundaries which the convention had prescribed in her constitution, or any part of the territory included in those boundaries. There was no condition of this character. The State was admitted without any objection to boundaries whatever. No exception was taken to the constitution, in any other than that one condition. The only condition annexed was, that "no law should be passed in conformity" to a certain provision of the constitution, "by which any citizen of either of the States of this Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities to which such citi zen is entitled under the Constitution of the United States!"* Every other part of the constitution was sanctioned by Congress, that prescribing boundaries and all. The exception to one part amounted to a sanction of the others.

If any other name than Missouri had been adopted by the convention, it would be less difficult to separate the State from the Territory-less difficult to show that it was the State which was admitted into the Union, and not the Territory. The act of Congress authorizes the people of the Territory "to assume such name as they shall deem proper." But this was useless. They had the power as full without the grant of it. But if Congress had required the people to call the State Missouri, and they had adopted a constitution, and in that had

This resolution required the Legislature of the State, by "a solemn public act," to assent to this fundamental condition. The Legislature acted under the constitution of the State. They had no power, except what they derived from that constitution, and could exercise no other. They had no power to change the constitution, except in the manner pointed out by that instrument; and that was not by "a solemn public act," but by an amendment supported by two-thirds of each branch of the Legislature, at two successive sessions. If this "condition" was to effect anything, it was to effect a change in the constitu tion; but the Legislature could not effect a change in the constitution in that way. They complied with the condition imposed by Congress, but that condition amounts to nothing more than if Congress had required me to comply with it. The Legislature had no power to assent in that way. Then no legal as. sent was given An illegal assent is a nullity. The solemn public act" is then a solemn mockery. But the condition imposed being complied with, the President, by proclamation, declared the admission of Missouri into the Union to be complete. Her admission was complete; and she came into the Union with her constitution untouched and unaltered.

H. of Reps.

called the State Osage, or Gasconade, or Nodaway, or Des Moines, or any other name, and Congress had admitted the State into the Union with that name, most clearly, after the admission, the State would have been entitled to that name, and could not have been called Missouri, as required by the act of Congress. In giving the name, then, the constitution, with the subsequent sanction of Congress, would have controlled the previous action of Congress. So with the boundaries.

Congress admitted the State of Missouri into the Union "on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever." This is the language of the resolution admitting the State into the Union, omitting the condition. The State of Missouri shall be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. Let us inquire on what footing the "original States" stood when Missouri was admitted. So far as jurisdiction was concerned, they exercised complete jurisdiction over all the territory within their limits, as prescribed in their constitutions. If Missouri, then, stands on an equal footing with "the original States," she, too, has the right to exercise complete jurisdiction throughout her limits, as prescribed in her constitution. If so, her constitution controls the previous act of Congress, and gives the boundaries.

As before said, the act of Congress was merely directory, and not binding on the people of the Territory. They had the right to reject the boundaries prescribed in the act of Congress, or to adopt them, as they saw proper; but, till the people did adopt them, they formed no part of the boundaries of the State. The State itself could have no existence till the people did adopt them, or some other boundaries, to make the State. Congress has no power to form a State. A State must be formed by the people who inhabit the Territory of which it is to be composed. Congress cannot give a single feature to a State, without the assent of the people of that State. She can neither fix the name nor the boundaries, nor any other feature of the State, without the concurrence of the people. She can assent or dissent to what is done, but no more. If the name, the boundaries, the constitution generally, do not suit her, she can refuse admission. But if she admits, she adopts all. Her power is then at an end, and the State constitution controls her previous legislation.

I am not sure that I can make this matter plainer. If, however, the constitution of a State describes one Territory, and Congress admits another Territory into the Union, that is no admission of the State, and that State is still out of the Union. Congress must admit the Territory described in the constitution of the State, if so described at all, else the State is not admitted. If this be so, it is because the constitution gives boundaries to the State, with the assent of Congress, and not the act of Congress, without the assent of the people. If an act of Congress describes one tract of country for a State, and the constitution describes another tract of country for that State, and Congress admits the State created by that constitution into the Union, then she admits her with the boundaries prescribed by her constitution, and not those prescribed by any act of Congress. The admission is a sanction of the boundaries prescribed in the constitution, and a waiver of any boundaries prescribed in an act of Congress.

We have the right to admit Texas, or we have the right to admit one-half of Texas, into the Union. If Congress should pass an act to admit one-half of Texas into the Union, and should prescribe the boundaries of that one-half, and Texas should "form a constitution and State government," embracing the whole of her territory, instead of but one-half, and should call that government "the State of Texas," and Congress should then admit "the State of Texas" into the Union, that would be an admission of the whole country described in the constitution of "the State of Texas," and not of the one-half, as described in the act of Congress. If this be so, it is because the constitution of the State, with the assent of Congress, gives boundaries to the State; and not the act of Congress without the assent of the State.

If an act of Congress gives one limit, and the constitution of a State assumes another, this may form a good reason for not admitting a State info the Union till she changes her boundaries; but, after the State is once admitted, the question as to boundary is settled in favor of the constitution of the State, not to be altered without the consent of both

27TH CONG.... 3D SESS.

parties. Congress can say, We will not admit you into the Union with that territory or those boundaries; but, after admitting a State, she cannot say, You shall not have that territory or those boundaries. It is then too late. By the admission, Congress sanctions all.

If the constitution altered the boundaries prescribed by the act, Congress clearly had the right to adopt the altered boundaries. A case has occurred since the admission of Missouri into the Union, precisely in point. The State of Missouri changed her constitution so as to alter one part of her boundary, and Congress sanctioned this alteration; and the boundary thus changed is now the permanent boundary of the State. If the State, by altering her constitution, and with the sanction of Congress, could change her boundary recently; surely, by the adoption of her constitution, and with the sanction of Congress, when she was just coming into existence, she could change a mere direction of Congress to adopt certain boundaries.

The "State of Florida" is now applying for admission into the Union. No act of Congress has been passed to authorize her to form a constitution and State Government; and yet she has done so, and is now applying for admission. Surely no one can doubt the power of Congress to admit her. An act of Congress authorizing the people of a Territory to form a constitution and a State Government, is by no means a requisite indispensable preparatory to the admission of a State into the Union. We should act a silly part if we were to pass a law to authorize Texas to form a constitution and State Government, preparatory to her admission into the Union; and yet, if she were to apply to-morrow, with her present republican form of Government, we should, beyond all dispute, have the power at once to admit her. She has her existence as a State, independent of the action of Congress; so has Florida, and so had Missouri; and each of these Governments became a State by virtue of its own constitution, and not by virtue of any act of Congress. Congress did not make them States. They made themselves so. All Congress can do, is to give her assent, or enter her dissent, to what they have done, and to admit or reject them when they apply for admission into the Union.

The act of Congress, then, of the 6th of March, 1820, does not prescribe the boundaries of the State of Missouri. The constitution formed by the convention the 19th day of July, 1820, and sanctioned by Congress the 2d day of March, 1821, does prescribe the boundaries of the State. Then, if the first act of Congress prescribed one set of boundaries, and the constitution of the State prescribes another set of boundaries, the constitution controls the boundaries, and not the act of Congress; and the ambiguity in the constitution of the State is to be explained, and not the ambiguity in the act of Congress; and the witnesses to explain are the members of the convention, and those connected with the proceedings of the convention at the time the constitution was adopted, and not the members of Congress, and those connected with the proceedings of Congress, at the time the act of Congress was passed. Then we can proceed with our evidence.

Let it be remembered that the northern boundary of Missouri was to run through a country then a wilderness, and but little known. The northern boundary was to run upon "the parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of the river Des Moines." "The rapids of the river Des Moines" is the ambiguous phrase in the constitution, as well as in the act of Congress. To explain this, I shall introduce the evidence of a number of the surviving members of the convention which framed the constitution, and of all who have been heard from. I shall also introduce the evidence of General William Milburn, who was at the time a clerk in the surveyor general's office, and who has been in the same office ever since, till very recently; and who, during the latter part of the time, has been surveyor general himself. I shall introduce a number of witnesses, who, for respectability and intelligence, and a mass of testimony, which, for clearness and conclusiveness, have probably not been equalled in any case before. I shall show, first, that the convention supposed there were rapids in the Des Moines; second, that they called for rapids in the Des Moines; third, that there are rapids in the Des Moines; fourth, the size and magnitude of those rapids; fifth, that the convention did not call for rapids in the Missippi river; sixth, that they did call for the rapids

Missouri Boundary Line—Mr. J. C. Edwards.

at the Great Bend in the Des Moines river; and, seventh, that there are no rapids below the Great Bend.

1. The convention believed there were rapids in the river Des Moines. In 1816, four years before the State Government was formed, John C. Sullivan ran the Indian boundary line. This line passed within eight miles of the rapids in the Des Moines, at the Great Bend in said river. John C. Sullivan was there. He was a skilful, practical surveyor, with a practised eye. He was afterwards a member of the convention which formed the constitution of the State. He has now been dead several years. He was a man in whose statements the utmost reliance could be placed. From him and others, the convention derived information.

General Jonathan Ramsay, a member of the convention, says: "I well recollect having a conversation with John C. Sullivan on the subject of the rapids in the Des Moines, not as [to] their being the rapids called for in the act of Congress, (for of this there appeared to be no doubt,) but as to their magnitude, and whether there was any considerable fall at any one place."

The honorable James Evans, then a member of the convention, and since a judge of one of our circuit courts, says: "I distinctly recollect conversing on that subject with General W. Rector and Col. John C. Sullivan. The conclusion was, that the rapids of the river Des Moines meant the rapids in the river, and not those in the Mississippi."

The honorable Hiram H. Baber, then a member of the convention, and for several of the last years auditor of public accounts for our State, says: "I have a distinct recollection that a map was procured from the office of the surveyor general for the use of the convention; but I do not recollect distinctly whether or not 'the rapids in the river Des Moines,' or the 'Des Moines rapids' in the Mississippi river, were marked upon it. From conversations, however, with several members of the convention, I incline to the belief that the rapids in the river Des Moines were designated upon it."

Another witness, General William Milburn, says: "The northern boundary was drawn, according to the general understanding at the time, a few miles north of the Indian boundary."

The honorable John D. Cook, then a member of the convention, and for many years since a judge of one of our circuit courts, says: "In convention, the subject of boundary was referred to a committee, of which I was a member, and all the means accessible to that committee were employed for the purpose of acquiring correct information on that subject. The committee, and I believe the members of the convention, had free access to the office of General Rector, then surveyor general of Illinois and Missouri, which afforded extensive information. They likewise availed themselves of the opportunity of conversing with several gentlemen, then in St. Louis, who had personal knowledge of the existence and locality of several of the objects called for in the proposed boundaries, and especicially of the rapids in the river Des Moines. The information thus acquired left no doubt on my mind as to the existence of such rapids."

General William Milburn, then a clerk in the office, but afterwards surveyor general himself, says: "I have to say that, at the time of the sitting of the convention, I was employed as a clerk in the United States surveyor's office for Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas. That General W. Rector, then surveyor general, was a member of that body, from the county of St. Louis; and that a map was constructed in the surveyor's office, under my superintendence, by direction of the surveyor general, and, as I believe, either at the request of the convention, or of the members, or a portion thereof, in their individual and unofficial capacity. My recollection is distinct relative to the northern boundary of the State, as delineated on the map.

The position of the rapids was assumed from the general understanding at the time, and from the particular information of Colonel Sullivan, who was a member of the convention, and was also the surveyor of the Indian boundary line in 1816."

After examining this evidence, no man can hesitate in believing that the convention which formed the constitution of the State of Missouri did believe there were rapids in the river Des Moines.

2. The convention called for rapids in the river Des Moines, and not for rapids in the Mississippi river. The evidence which I shall produce to es

[blocks in formation]

tablish this point seems to me to be irresistible. Le me commence with the testimony of the Hon. John Scott. He says: "I am entirely sure that the rapids spoken of in the bill, and intended by the committee, [in Congress,] were the rapids in the Des Moines river itself, and not the rapids in the Mississippi river, called, from their proximity to the mouth of the Des Moines river, the 'Des Moines rapids.' I am also satisfied that the committee who reported, and the convention who formed and adopted the State constitution, and who assembled on the 12th June, and signed that instrument on the 19th of July, 1821, had reference, in forming the northern line, to the rapids in the Des Moines river, and not those in the Mississippi river. called the 'Des Moines rapids.' * * I am satisfied that the committee, and Congress, and the convention, all meant and intended the rapids in the river Des Moines itself, which were then known to exist, and were spoken of; and not the rapids in the Mississippi river, called, by way of distinction from the upper rapids, the 'Des Moines rapids.'

Let it be borne in mind that the Hon. John Scott was our Delegate in Congress when the act was passed, and afterwards a member of the convention which formed the State constitution.

The Hon. B. H. Reeves, (then a member of the convention, and for several years after a member of our State Senate, but at the time of giving this evidence, and still, a citizen of Kentucky) says: "I am unable, thus hastily, to bring my mind to bear upon any particular circumstance connected with the location of the northern boundary, except so far as relates to the rapids of the river Des Moines. Those rapids, then and now, I considered to be the rapids of the river Des Moines. * * No difficulty ever presented itself to the convention on the subject of those rapids, that I have any recollection of. Indeed, I cannot conceive, at that day, that any existed."

The Hon. H. H. Baber says: "I have always believed that the constitution clearly designated these rapids as the rapids in the river Des Moines, and I never heard this point questioned until within a few years."

The Hon. Jonathan Ramsay says: "So far as my knowledge extends, no other rapids than those in the river Des Moines were ever thought of; certain no other was ever spoken of in the convention, nor out of the convention, within my hearing. I well recollect having a conversation with John C. Sullivan on the subject of the rapids of the Des Moines."

The Hon. James Talbot, another member of the convention, says: "My own distinct impressions were, that it was the rapids in the Des Moines river itself, and not those in any other river that might be of the same name."

The Hon. R. P. Clark, another member of the convention, says: "In relation to the rapids of the Des Moines, I can only say I heard of no other rapids of that name mentioned, but those mentioned in the constitution."

The Hon. James Evans says: "I distinctly recollect conversing on that subject with General W. Rector and Colonel John C. Sullivan. The conversation was started by myself, as to the expression 'through the rapids of the river Des Moines.' The conclusion was, that the rapids of the river Des Moines meant the rapids in the river, and not those in the Mississippi, opposite the mouth of the Des Moines. For the convention to have said the Des Moines rapids, would have left the question vague and uncertain as to the rapids meant; because the Des Moines rapids would as well have meant the rapids in the Mississippi at the mouth, as those in the river [Des Moines;] and to put the question beyond the possibility of a doubt, the expression used in the constitution, 'rapids of the river Des Moines,' was intended for the rapids in the river Des Moines. I have no doubt, from my recollection at this late period, that what I have stated was the idea and intention of the whole convention. I may have conversed with many others, besides those two gentlemen named, on this question; but I am certain that this was mine and their views at the time."

The honorable Edward Bates, who was then a member of the convention, and afterwards a member of Congress from the State of Missouri, says: "In answer to the first point, I have to say, that, while a member of the convention, (nor since,) never had a doubt that the rapids of the river Des Moines, mentioned in the act of Congress of 1820,

27TH CONG.......3D SESS.

and in our constitution, meant the rapids of and in the river Des Moines, and of and in no other river whatever. And it is my confident belief, that every member of the convention entertained the same opinion. At that time there was much conjecture and inquiry about the precise locality of the rapids. The country in that quarter was then a wilderness, and very imperfectly known." This witness says, "the rapids of and in the river Des Moines, and of and in no other river whatever," were called for. No evidence could be more positive or clear.

In reply to a letter of A. M. Lea, commissioner on the part of the United States for ascertaining and marking the boundary between Missouri and Iowa, General William Milburn (who, as before said, was not a member of the convention, but in the office of the surveyor general) says: "In reply to your letter asking me to give you the views entertained and expressed by the members of the convention at the time of the adoption of the constitution of Missouri, and of myself, as to what rapids were meant by 'the rapids of the river Des Moines,' * I have to inform you that, to the best of my recollection, I never, at the time above named, heard any other rapids spoken of, with reference to our boundary, by any member of the convention, than the rapids in the river Des Moines; which rapids were understood to be at a short distance north of the Indian boundary run by Col. Sullivan in 1816. This understanding was firmly fixed in my mind by the following circumstances: General William Rector, a member of the convention, was, at the time, United States surveyor general for Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas; and, by his direction, a map of the State, intended particularly to show the boundaries thereof, was constructed in the surveyor's office, under my superintendence, for the use of the convention. On this map, the northern boundary was drawn, in accordance with the general understanding at the time, a few miles north of the Indian boundary. I was with some of the members of the convention every day while they were in session, and often attended their deliberations; and I am certain I did not hear a doubt as to the accuracy of the location of the northern boundary, as delineated on the map. Had there been any dif ferent understanding expressed at the time, it would most undoubtedly have come to my knowledge. This recollection of my understanding of the views entertained and expressed by the members of the convention as to the position of our northern boundary, is fully corroborated by the continued and uninterrupted action of the surveyor general's office, with which I have been connected ever since the adoption of the constitution. In none of the operations of said office has the line run by Sullivan been represented as the State boundary; it has uniformly and invariably been treated and considered as an Indian boundary; which would not have been the case, had the convention thought differently; for it cannot be supposed that a matter of this importance would have been overlooked or forgotten. I am, therefore, satisfied and convinced that I cannot possibly be mistaken. It is not with me a vague recollection of a transaction with many intervening and dormant years; but it is a matter which has been constantly before me, in my connexion with the surveyor general's office." It would seem incredible to suppose, after such testimony as this, and from such a man, (and no one stands higher for honor, integrity, and veracity,) that any man could still hesitate to believe that the northern boundary called for "the rapids of the river Des Moines" itself. But this is not all.

The honorable John D. Cook says: "In convention, the subject of boundary was referred to a committee, of which I was a member; and all the means accessible to that committee were employed for the purpose of acquiring correct information on the subject. * The information thus acquired, left no doubt in my mind of the existence of such rapids; and I have no recollection of any other rapids having been spoken of by any member of the committee or of the convention.

*

It was certainly my understanding at the time, and I believe it was that of the members of the convention, that the rapids called for in the northern boundary were rapids in the Des Moines river."

It is clear beyond doubt, then, that the convention did call for rapids in the river Des Moines. With testimony like this, in a court of justice, a jury would not hesitate an instant to decide who was entitled to the territory in dispute, and that decision would be in favor of the claim of Missou

Missouri Boundary Line—Mr. J. C. Edwards.

ri. All we ask is such a decision as a court of justice would give in the case.

Here the CHAIR announced the fact that the gentleman's hour was out.

his case.

Mr. EDWARDS said that he was not half through He had not even offered all his evidence. He should appeal to the courtesy of the House for permission to go on. The case was a peculiar one. The House would certainly not undertake to decide, without hearing the whole of it-at least the whole of the evidence.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri cannot proceed without the unanimous consent of the House.

Mr. EDWARDS. Nobody objects; then I can go on. I will now show that there are rapids in the Des Moines river itself.

[Here a member rose and objected to Mr. ED. WARDS proceeding. We had rules, and must adhere to them.]

The CHAIR. If objection be made, the gentleman from Missouri can proceed no further.

Mr. EDWARDS asked if it would be in order to offer an amendment to the bill?

The CHAIR answered it would.

Mr. EDWARDS then offered the following amend

ment:

Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert "That the parallel of latitude which passes through the rapids of the Des Moines, at the Great Bend in the said river, shall be the northern boundary of the State of Missouri, from the point where it intersects the middle of the main channel of the Missouri river to the point where it intersects the middle of the main channel of the Des Moines river; and the said northern boundary line shall run from thence, with the main channel of the said river Des Moines, to the Mississippi river, as provided in the constitution of Missouri."

Mr. EDWARDS. 1 claim the floor on this amendment, and will now proceed with my case.

The CHAIR. The bill and amendment are, in substance, the same; and the gentleman from Missouri cannot proceed.

Mr. EDWARDS said they were not the same; that they were totally different. The bill proposed to make the Indian boundary, run by John C. Sullivan in 1816, the State boundary; the amendment proposed to make the parallel of latitude which runs through the rapids of the river Des Moines, at the Great Bend, the boundary. They were totally different.

The CHAIR looked upon them as the same thing, and the gentleman from Missouri could not proceed.

Mr. EDWARDS. I think the Chair is wrong; and that belief, and the importance of presenting my case entire, force me to appeal from the decision.

The question was put, and the committee sustained the Chair, and Mr. EDWARDS took his seat.

Mr. A. C. DODGE replied to the arguments of the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. MCKAY had an amendment which he wished to submit, and to which he wished to call the attention of the Delegate from Iowa. His vote would depend on whether the House would adopt it. He would observe that, so far as Iowa was concerned in this controversy, it was in the power of the House to fix the boundary line; but, with regard to Missouri, the case was otherwise-it was not in the power of Congress to deprive her of any of her territorial rights. The boundaries of Missouri were fixed by law when she was a Territory; and what these boundaries were, was a judicial question for the United States courts to decide. proviso he wished to offer was, that this boundary line should not be deemed conclusive till the Legislature of Missouri declared the assent of the State to it.

The

Mr. EDWARDS explained. The boundaries of Missouri are fixed by her constitution. They cannot be changed by a simple act of the Legislature. It must be by a change of the constitution. To make this change will require a vote of two-thirds of each branch of the Legislature, at two successive sessions, and then the assent of Congress.

After some further remarks from Mr. McKAY, Mr. G. DAVIS addressed the committee at length in support of the claims of the Territory of Iowa. Mr. EDWARDS again obtained the floor.

Mr. Chairman: When my hour expired, I had just finished showing that the convention did call for rapids in the Des Moines river. I shall now proceed to the next point.

3. There are rapids in the river Des Moines.

H. of Reps.

This is the next point to be established; and this I shall establish without reference to the testimony of any one member of the convention. My first witness is Doctor James Davis, commissioner on the part of Iowa herself to ascertain the boundary in dispute. To his testimony Iowa will hardly object, even if the United States should. He says: "I admit there are rapids in the Des Moines river." Here is the very thing itself-dressed in the proper language-neither a word too much, nor a word too little. This evidence is conclusive against Iowa; but, as she has only a remote interest in the territory in dispute, the House may not consider it conclusive against the United States, one of the real parties in this case. I will therefore introduce the evidence of other witnesses. Doctor James Davis speaks of several rapids, and notices them by name; but I have not time to refer to everything at once. The point is, "there are rapids in the Des Moines river," and the commissioner for Iowa admits the truth of it.

In 1838, A. M. Lea was appointed by the United States to run the boundary in dispute. His evidence will not be questioned even by the United States. He is your own witness. Lieutenant Lea says: "In ascending the Des Moines river from its mouth, several shallow places, with swift currents, are found below the 'Great Bend;' but there is to obstruction of magnitude sufficient to deserve the appellation of 'rapids' below those at the place just named," the Great Bend. There is at the Great Bend, "at low water, a fall of one or two feet in a distance of about eighty yards; and, in a part of the width of the stream, the water falls perpendicularly about ten or twelve inches." Here are two important facts stated by your own witness: 1st. There is nothing which deserves "the appellation of 'rapids' below those at the Great Bend." 2d. There are "obstructions of magnitude sufficient to deserve the appellation of 'rapids' at the Great Bend." Lieutenant Lea says, also, "there are other rapids above the Great Bend." This we admit. [See House Doc. 128, 3d sess. 25th Congress.] Lieutenant Lea says: "the water falls perpendicularly about ten or twelve inches." Then the fall is hardly less than "two feet in a distance of about eighty yards," the length of the rapids. There was no dam here when Lieutenant Lea examined the rapids, and he saw them in their full extent.

Captain Guion surveyed the Des Moines in 1841, under instructions from the Topographical Bureau. He is another of your own officers and own witnesses, and from whose report your committee has drawn bountifully. He surveyed simply for the purpose of ascertaining the obstructions to navigation, and not with reference to any particular rapids. He says the obstructions in the Des Moines "consist of slight rapids, termed by the boatmen 'ripples." He marked twelve rapids. He says: "I was met by a considerable flood of water in ascending;" and he does not give the fall in any of the rapids, and probably for this reason. But he states the importaut fact, that there are rapids in the river Des Moines itself.

Lieutenant J. C. Fremont, another of your own officers and witnesses, and one from whom your committee has drawn information also, made a survey of the Des Moines in 1841. He says: "The bed of the river is sand and gravel, and sometimes rock, of which the rapids generally consist.

*

The most considerable rapid above the Great Bend is at the head of the island above Keokuc's village." He speaks, also, of other rapids. It is useless to refer to the evidence of officers appointed on the part of the State of Missouri to ascertain the true location of the Northern boundary. This evidence is sufficient to establish the point that there are rapids in the Des Moines itself, without more, unless those who are to decide the case are determined on not believing anything.

In the first report of the Committee on Territories, made in 1840, "the committee admits that the name of the rapids, called for in the boundary of that State, would indicate their situation to be in the river Des Moines;" and they admit that "the two first rapids in that river have each but a fall of about two feet in about eighty yards."-[House Document No. 2, 1st session 26th Congress.] This is an admission on the part of your committee, that there are rapids in the river Des Moines itself; and yet, strange as it may appear, in the next report, made in 1842, your committee says, in so many words, "there are no rapids in the Des Moines."-House Doc. No. 791, page 6, 2d session 27th Congress.

27TH CONG....3D SESS.

In the main, the committee may have been differently organized; yet both reports are drawn up by the same member, and without any additional testimony on this point, except that of Captain Guion and Lieutenant Fremont, both of whoin say there are rapids in the Des Moines. I allude to this because it indicates a disposition to waive the facts, instead of meeting them openly, and deciding the case according to the law and the facts. You have the power to save us the necessity of resorting to the courts. If we are right, you ought to do so. There is no wisdom in perplexing us, when you have nothing to gain by it. We wish to avoid any ill-feeling between ourselves and our near neighbor, the Territory of Iowa. You should aid us in doing so.

I have now shown that the convention believed there were rapids in the Des Moines; that they called for rapids in the Des Moines; and that there are rapids in the Des Moines. The next inquiry would naturally be, what rapids in the river Des Moines did the convention call for? But as the committee have discredited their own officers and their own witnesses, and have decided that "there are no rapids in the river Des Moines," and that "they are ripples merely," and as the House may be disposed to adopt the opinions of the committee now advanced against their former admissions, I shall next attempt to show the magnitude of these rapids, and that one of them, at least, is entitled to that appellation.

4. Then let us inquire what are rapids; and let us look at the size and magnitude of these rapids in the river Des Moines. Rapids are that part of a river where the current runs with more celerity than the common current; and they imply a considerable descent of the earth, but not sufficient to cause a fall of the water, or what is called a cascade, or cataract. This is Webster's definition; and it is certainly a very good one. Rapids, then, are something less than a cataract, a cascade, or a fall; and something greater than a shallow, a shoal, or a ripple. Lieutenant Lea says, in speaking of the Great Bend, "there is, at low water, a fall of one or two feet in a distance of about eighty yards; and in part of the width of the stream, the water falls perpendicularly about ten or twelve inches." At this point the river is about six hundred feet wide. This perpendicular fall of twelve inches, as I am informed, runs from three to four hundred feet across the river. This perpendicular fall is at the foot of the rapids. The rapids are about eighty yards long; and the other twelve inches of the fall in the water are in the eighty yards above the perpendicular fall. In the report made in 1840, the Committee on Territories said: "The first two rapids in that river have each but a fall of two feet in about eighty yards." This admission was made by taking the evidence as they found it. Captain Guion says he was met by a flood when he surveyed the river; and he does not give the fall of any of the rapids.

Lieutenant Fremont speaks of the falls at the Great Bend as well as others. He says: "The rapid of the Great Bend * ** has a fall of twelve inches; and, so far as I could ascertain, had formerly a depth of eighteen inches at low water. A dam has been built at this place." The fall of "twelve inches" here spoken of is the perpendicular fall. "A dam has been built at this place." This dam is near this fall, and backs the water over the fall in the eighty yards above, and thus prevented Lieutenant Fremont from seeing any but the perpendicular fall.

Lieutenant Lea saw the rapids before the dam was built. At low-water mark there is an abrupt fall in part of the width of the stream of "about ten or twelve inches." This seems to be sufficient to constitute a "rapids;" it borders closely on a "falls." A declension of two feet in eighty yards, with a perpendicular fall at the foot of them of "ten or twelve inches," through the whole width of the stream, would evidently have entitled the place to the appellation of "falls;" but, as the perpendicular fall was only "in part of the width of the stream," and that, of course, irregular and broken, it is probable that few points could have deserved better the appellation of a "rapids," as distinguishing it from a "fall," or "cascade," or "cataract," either of which might have been higher on the one hand; or from a "shallow," which might have either a rock or gravel bottom, with little current; or from a "ripple," with scarcely any fall, and not much current; or from a "shoal," which always has a "gravel bottom."

But, as to the amount of declension here, it is suf

Missouri Boundary Line-Mr. J. C. Edwards.

ficiently great, whether it be one or two feet in eighty yards.

The fall of the "Des Moines rapids" in the Mississippi river is but twenty-four feet in fourteen miles. This is a fall of less than one inch--barely over three quarters-in every eighty yards. The fall at the rapids of the Great Bend in the Des Moines is from twelve to twen y-four inches in eighty yards. If a fall of less than one inch in eighty yards will make a "rapids" in one river, a fall of twelve inches in eighty yards, in another river, would constitute a pretty fair claim to the appellation of "rapids" also; and a declension of two feet in eighty yards would give the claim beyond all dispute. A declension of twelve inches in eighty yards would give, in fourteen miles, a fall of three hundred feet and upwards; and a fall of two feet in eighty yards would give, in fourteen miles, a fall of six hundred feet and upwards; while the rapids in the Mississippi fall, in fourteen miles, but twentyfour feet. Your committee admit that there are other rapids in the Des Moines still larger than these, but higher up. (See report 1842, page 4.) They admit and deny everything; they admit there are rapids, and they deny that there are rapids. But these rapids are of sufficient magnitude to deserve the appellation of rapids; and this is what I wanted to prove here.

But suppose, as the committee assert, that "there are no rapids in the Des Moines river:" what shall be done? It is clear that the convention thought there were rapids in the Des Moines river. It is equally clear that the convention called for rapids in the Des Moines river. As this is so, you cannot drive us out of the Des Moines river, and into the Mississippi river. Our bearing point must still remain where it was fixed originally-in the Des Moines river itself. If there be no rapids there of great magnitude, we must then take that fall or declension of the water in said river, which bears the nearest approach to a rapids. This is what must be done. Nothing else can be done.

5. The convention did not call for rapids in the Mississippi river. The members of the convention are clear on this point. I will make the extracts from the evidence as short as possible. Ramsey says: "I will only add, that neither in nor out of the convention, during its session, did I ever hear the rapids in the Mississippi mentioned as in any way connected with the northern boundary of this State." Bates says: "I am satisfied that, for ten years after the formation of the constitution, I never heard it suggested that the rapids of the Mississippi river had any relation whatever to the designation of our northern boundary. I believe it was an afterthought." Cook says: "I have no recollection of any other rapids having been spoken of by any member of the committee or of the convention; and, indeed, I had no knowledge or information of the existence of the rapids in the Mississippi, called the Des Moines rapids, until after the dispute respecting the northern boundary of this State had arisen." Scott says: "I am satisfied that the committee, and Congress, and the convention, all meant and intended the rapids in the river Des Moines itself, which were then known to exist, and were spoken of, and not the rapids in the Mississippi river. Clearer, more positive, more unequivocal, more pertinent testimony, never was given in any case, to establish any point. The convention, then, did not call for rapids in the Mississippi river.

But, aside from the evidence, the language used in the constitution is itself clear, and distinct, and unequivocal, so far as any ambiguity, in reference to the river in which the rapids are to be found, exists. I admit that, since it has been ascertained that there are more rapids in the river Des Moines than one, there is an ambiguity as to the rapids in that river which the convention called for. But that there is any doubt, from the character of the language used, whether they called for rapids in the river Des Moines or in the Mississippi river, I utterly deny. The phrase which is attempted to be made ambiguous is, "the rapids of the river Des Moines;" but there is no ambiguity in it in reference to the river called for. This phrase means "the rapids in the river Des Moines." The "falls of the Ohio." There is no ambiguity here. This means "the falls in the Ohio." "The falls of the Niagara." There is no ambiguity here. This means "the falls in the Niagara." "The falls of the St. Anthony." There is no ambiguity here. This means "the falls in the St. Anthony." "The rapids of the Mississippi." There is no am

H. of Reps.

biguity here. This means "the rapids in the Mississippi. "The rapids of the river Des Moines." Why fasten an ambiguity here? This means "the rapids in the Des Moines;" and man had to tax his keenest ingenuity, in perverting language from its proper use, before he could torture this expression, to make it mean rapids in the Mississippi river. If the convention had called for the "Des Moines rapids," then an ambiguity, as to the river in which these rapids were to be found, might have existed. "Des Moines rapids" would naturally mean "rapids of the river Des Moines;" and we know that "Des Moines rapids," by custom, now means, and has for a long time meant, certain rapids in the Mississippi river. An ambiguity might then have existed, if the phrase "Des Moines rapids" had been used; but that the phrase "the rapids of the river Des Moines" should be considered ambiguous, as to the river in which the rapids were to be found, is, indeed, strange enough.

In

6. The convention did call for the rapids at the Great Bend in the Des Moines river. The evidence in support of this point is less clear and less abundant than in support of some of the other points. There are several rapids above those at the Great Bend, and some of them are said to be even larger than those at the Great Bend. General Milburn says: "My recollection is distinct relative to the northern boundary of the State, as delineated on the map. It was represented at some short distance north of the Indian boundary run by John C. Sullivan in 1816, and as striking the rapids in the river Des Moines." Sullivan had run the Indian boundary line four years before the State constitution was formed, and had visited the rapids at the Great Bend, and had examined them, and was able to give correct information in regard to them. Our committee are inconsistent and contradictory in their report. In one place they say, "there are no rapids in the Des Moines." another page they tell us that the rapids at the Great Bend "are not the first, by three, in ascending the river." Not the first by three! This is not only giving us rapids in the river Des Moines; but it is giving us one more than anybody else has ever pretended to find, and three more than anybody, whose business it was really to look for rapids, has ever found below the Great Bend. Captain Guion surveyed the river to find the obstructions to navigation. He mixes them all together, and says there are six rapids or "ripples" "in the first hundred miles in ascending from the mouth:" "one at Keosauque," [the Great Bend;] another "about ten miles lower down;" "three in forty miles above the mill-dam at Keosauque," [the Great Bend;] and "one in forty miles, [of the mouth,] having a gravel bottom." This makes three above the Great Bend; one at the Great Bend, is the fourth; one ten miles below, is the fifth; and one in forty miles of the mouth, is the sixth: making the six in the first one hundred miles; and, if I am capable of counting, only two below the Great Bend, and the lowest of these has a gravel bottom. Let it be remembered that this officer and witness says they are "slight rapids, termed by the boatmen ripples;" and that he says, "I was met in my ascent by a considerable flood;" and then the appearance of the rapids to him will be easily accounted for. In high water they looked like ripples merely, and they all looked alike. Lieutenant Fremont says, "Another dam has been built at a rapid twelve miles lower down, [than the Great Bend,] where the river was six hundred and fifty feet wide. The fall✶✶✶✶ was represented to me as slight." This is the rapid which Captain Guion fixes ten miles below the Great Bend. "Four and a half miles lower down, another dam is in the course of construction, but the rapid here is inconsiderable." This is the last noticed by Lieutenant Fremont, and is the same noticed by Captain Guion, within forty miles of the mouth. They differ slightly in distances; but Lieutenant Fremont seems to have been more particular than Captain Guion.

The lowest he fixes four miles and a half below the next above, and the next only twelve miles below the Great Bend. Guion says ten. This first one has a "gravel bottom," and an "inconsiderable" current. The committee say, "there are no rapids in the river Des Moines." Of course, then, they would not count this "gravel bottom,' with "inconsiderable" current, as one. The next

is six hundred and fifty feet wide-a little above the usual width of the river-the current "slight," and of course owing to the great width and want of fall. And this the committee would not con

« PreviousContinue »