Missouri v. Iowa. miles to the point C; and thence pursued what he thought was a due east course, (but which was in fact to the north of east,) until he struck the River Des Moines at the point F. This line is marked No. 1, and runs from C to F; the true parallel of latitude being afterwards ascertained to be from C to G. The State of Missouri alleged, that, at the point E in the River Des Moines, there existed rapids which answered the call in the constitution, and that the parallel of latitude spoken of in that instrument must consequently be a line running from E to D, and the north line, which commenced at A, must therefore be protracted to D, where it intersected the parallel of latitude called for; that the phraseology used required the "rapids of the River Des Moines" to be in that river, and not in the Mississippi. *On the other hand, it was alleged by the State of Iowa, that in the Mississippi River, at the place marked [*663 H, there were rapids which were commonly called and known by the name of "the rapids of the River Des Moines," long anterior to the formation of the constitution of the Missouri; that the parallel of latitude must run through the head or centre of these rapids, and that the line H B would therefore be the true boundary, the point B being the spot where this parallel of latitude would intersect the line running north from A. These were the claims of the respective parties. To sustain them, a great mass of evidence was taken on both sides. The cause was argued by Mr. Gamble and Mr. Green, for the State of Missouri, and Mr. Ewing and Mr. Mason, for the State of Iowa. The Reporter regrets that he cannot give an extended notice of the arguments of the respective counsel. But he is admonished, by the size which this volume has already attained, that he must reduce the cases which are yet to be reported to as small a compass as possible. The positions assumed by the counsel respectively are thus stated in the briefs of Mr. Green, for Missouri, and Mr. Ewing, for Iowa. Mr. Green. On the part of the State of Missouri it is insisted, 1st. That the words "rapids of the River Des Moines" constitute the controlling call to determine the northern boundary, and that the natural and obvious import of these words is "rapids of and in the River Des Moines itself." Missouri v. Iowa. 2d. That the evidence establishes the fact, that there are rapids in the River Des Moines. 3d. That there is no ambiguity in reference to the river of which the rapids are spoken, and none as to the rapids, unless more rapids than one are found in the River Des Moines. 4th. That having established the fact that there are rapids in the River Des Moines, thus satisfying the call of the constitution, no evidence can be introduced to contradict or vary the meaning of the constitution, or to prove that rapids of some other river were intended, different from that which the language indicates and describes. 5th. That the evidence offered does not prove the rapids in the Mississippi River to have been commonly known and called by the name "rapids of the River Des Moines," as alleged by Iowa. 6th. That if it were true that the rapids of the Mississippi were commonly known and called "rapids of the River Des *Moines." still these rapids could not be taken as the *664] rapids called for, as they do not answer to the descrip tion, while those in the Des Moines fulfil exactly the description, and none others will. 7th. But if the constitution be considered ambiguous, as between the rapids of the River Des Moines and rapids of the Mississippi, it serves only to let in proof of intention beyond what the language indicates And on this point the evidence is clear in favor of Missouri. From a full examination of all the facts and circumstances, as established by the evidence in connection with the language of the constitution, and by giving to each the weight to which it is entitled, we contend, in behalf of Missouri,— 1st. That the old Indian boundary-line (marked as line No. 1 on the diagram) cannot be the true northern boundary of Missouri, and the terms of the descriptive call do not allow the adoption of that line. 2d. That the parallel of latitude passing through the old northwest corner of the Indian boundary (marked on the diagram as line No. 2) is neither legally nor equitably the northern boundary of Missouri. 3d. That the parallel of latitude passing through the rapids of the Mississippi River (marked on diagram as line No. 3) will not fulfil the descriptive call of the constitution, and cannot be the northern line of the State. 4th. That the parallel of latitude passing through the rapids of the River Des Moines, at the Big Bend, in latitude 40 degrees 44 minutes 6 seconds north, (marked on the diagram Missouri v. Iowa. as line No. 4,) will precisely and accurately satisfy the descriptive call of the constitution, and is the true northern boundary of the State of Missouri, as established by her constitution. Mr. Ewing, for Iowa. We will endeavour to show by the evidence, that, at the time of the adoption of the constitution, there was one object, and one only, namely, the rapids of the Mississippi, a few miles above the mouth of the Des Moines River, which was called in English "the rapids of the River Des Moines," and in French "les rapides de la Rivière Des Moines," which object had notoriety by that name; and that its position is every way adopted to satisfy the locatave call. We shall also expect to show by the evidence, that there were no rapids in the River Des Moines, then called, or entitled to be called, on account of position or magnitude, "the rapids of the River Des Moines." These facts being established, we will insist that the *notorious object bearing the name used in the locative [*665 call, and every way satisfying the call, must be taken in law to be the object called for; and that the centre of "the rapids of the River Des Moines" in the Mississippi is the point over which the line of latitude marking the boundary of the State of Missouri must run. 1st. We will show by public acts, and by numerous witnesses, the position of "the rapids of the River Des Moines"; that they are the same with the lower or Des Moines rapids of the Mississippi, and that those rapids were in 1820, and prior thereto, well known by the name of "the rapids of the River Des Moines" in English, and "les rapides de la Rivière Des Moines" in French. 2d. We will infer from the language of the constitution itself, and the then existing knowledge of the country, that "the rapids of the River Des Moines were called for in the constitution merely to fix the parallel of latitude on which the boundary-line was to run, and were not supposed to be touched by that line. 3d. We will show by actual survey, as well as by general evidence, that there are no rapids in the Des Moines entitled to the general descriptive appellation of "the rapids of the River Des Moines." 4th. And we will insist that in 1820 there were no rapids in the Des Moines River known as "the rapids of the River Des Moines." 5th. We will contend, that the State of Missouri has failed to prove a general understanding or opinion in Congress and Missouri v. Iowa. in the convention counter to what we have shown to be the obvious construction of the act of Congress and of the constitution of Missouri, when taken in connection with the wellestablished facts. 6th. We will contend, that the evidence on the part of Missouri shows that all, or nearly all, of the members of the convention, and other witnesses who supposed, or now think they supposed, the rapids named in the constitution were in the Des Moines River, knew nothing of any particular rapids to which the constitution referred; but that their impression was vague and general, fixing on no actual known or existing object. 7th. We will show that the evidence which tends to give to rapids in the Des Moines River a distant locality and name is insufficient and unsatisfactory, and that in the aggregate it applies as well to the Sweet Home or the Farmington rapids, as to the rapids of the Big Bend. 8th. We will insist that the rapids at St. Francisville and the rapids at Farmington are each and either of them better *entitled to the appellation of "the rapids of the River *666] Des Moines," than the rapids at the Great Bend,—the first because of its position, the second because it is the greater rapid. And that the rapids at Sweet Home conform better than those at the Great Bend to the locative calls in the constitution, and to contemporaneous opinion and usage. Fall at Great Bend, in 87 rods, 1.80 feet. Fall at Farmington, in 87 rods, 2.05 feet. 9th. If we succeed in maintaining these propositions, we establish as matters of fact, that the lower rapids of the Mississippi were the object, and the only object, which, in 1820, bore in English the name used in the constitution, “the rapids of the River Des Moines," and in French the name used in the translation, les rapides de la Rivière Des Moines." And that, at that time, they had notoriety in both languages by those names, and that they every way satisfy the locative call. 10th. And these facts being established, we will contend that those rapids are, and must be held in law to be, the object called for; and that the centre of that object, namely, the centre of "the rapids of the River Des Moines" in the Mississippi, is the point over which the line of latitude must be drawn which shall mark the northern boundary of the State of Missouri. Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court. On the tenth day of December, A. D., 1847, the State of Missouri v. Iowa. Missouri filed her original bill in this court, according to the third article and second section of the Constitution, against the State of Iowa, alleging that the northern part of said State of Missouri was obtruded on and claimed by the defendant, for a space of more than ten miles wide and about two hundred miles long; and that the State of Missouri is wrongfully ousted of her jurisdiction over said territory, and obstructed from governing therein; that the State of Iowa has actual possession of the same, claims it to be within her limits, and exercises jurisdiction over it, contrary to the rights of the State of Missouri, and in defiance of her authority. And the complainant prays, that, on a final hearing, the northern boundary-line of said State of Missouri (being the common boundary between the complainant and defendant) be, by the order of this court, ascertained and established; and that the rights of possession, jurisdiction, and sovereignty to all the territory in controversy be restored to the State of Missouri; that she be quieted in her title thereto; and that the defendant, the State of Iowa, be for ever enjoined and restrained from disturbing the State of Missouri, her officers and people, *in the full possession and enjoyment of said territory, thus wrongfully held by the [*667 State of Iowa. To this bill the State of Iowa answers. She denies the right claimed by Missouri; alleges that Iowa has the sovereign authority to govern and hold the territory in dispute as part of her territory, the common line dividing the States being the southern part thereof; and also prays, that the rights of the parties may be speedily adjudicated by this court, that the relief prayed by complainant may be denied, and that her bill be dismissed. To the bill of Missouri Iowa files her cross-bill, charging Missouri with seeking to encroach on the territorial limits of Iowa to the extent aforesaid, and more; prays, that, on a final hearing, a decree be made by this court, settling for ever the true and rightful dividing line between the two States; that Iowa may be quieted in her possession, jurisdiction, and sovereignty up to the line she claims; and that the State of Missouri be perpetually enjoined from exercising jurisdiction and authority, and from disturbing the State of Iowa, her officers and people, in the enjoyment of their rights on the north side of the true line. To this bill the State of Missouri answers, and sets up in defence the same matters set forth by her original bill. Replications were filed to both answers. On these issues |