State of Arkansas v. State of Tennessee
Decision Date | 23 April 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 9,O,9 |
Citation | 310 U.S. 563,84 L.Ed. 1362,60 S.Ct. 1026 |
Parties | STATE OF ARKANSAS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE. riginal. Argued on Exceptions to Special Master's Report |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. D. Fred Taylor, Jr., of Osceola, Ark., for complainant.
Messrs. Nat Tipton, of Nashville, Tenn., and C. M. Buck, of Blytheville, Ark., for defendant.
The State of Arkansas brought this suit against the State of Tennessee seeking a decree determining the true boundary between the States at certain points and confirming the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the State of Arkansas over the described territory.
The bill of complaint set forth two counts. The first count presented the contentions of Arkansas as to the boundary in relation to an area known as 'Needham's Island', later as 'Cutoff Island' or 'Moss Island', and to a contiguous formation known as 'Blue Grass Towhead'. This is the only area which remains in controversy, as the parties have agreed by stipulation upon the boundary line to be fixed in relation to the land described in the second count.
Tennessee answered, contesting the claims of Arkansas and asserting by cross-bill its jurisdiction and sovereignty over the territory in question.
The issues were referred to Monte M. Lemann as Special Master. 301 U.S. 666, 57 S.Ct. 920, 81 L.Ed. 1332. The Master has filed a careful and comprehensive report recommending a decree in favor of Tennessee as to the area described in count one, and in accordance with the stipulation as to that described in count two. The case has been heard upon that report and the exceptions filed by Arkansas.
The Master set forth the following facts as agreed upon by the parties:
.
After a review of the evidence upon points in dispute, the Master made a summary of his findings and conclusions as follows:
'(1) The Territory of Arkansas was organized by Act of March 2, 1819, 3 Stat. 493, being carved out of the Territory of Missouri, which was a part of the Louisiana Purchase, and the eastern boundary of the Territory was the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi River.
'(2) In 1819 the lands in controversy were on the west side of the main channel of the river and were part of the Territory of Arkansas.
'(3) The avulsion at Needham's Cutoff occurred in 1821.
'(4) The main channel of the river flowed through the cutoff prior to 1836.
'(5) Arkansas was admitted into the Union on June 15, 1836, 5 Stat. 50, and its eastern boundary was fixed at the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi River.
'(6) On June 15, 1836, when Arkansas was admitted into the Union, the lands in controversy were on the east side of the main channel of the Mississippi River.
'(7) The avulsion did not change the boundary line theretofore existing between Tennessee and the Territory of Arkansas.
'(8) The Act of Congress of June 15, 1836, admitting Arkansas into the Union, did not have the effect of excluding from the boundaries of the State of Arkansas lands which immediately prior to the adoption of the Act were within the Territory of Arkansas.
'(10) The Act of June 15, 1836, 5 Stat. 50, admitting Arkansas into the Union, did not have the effect of enlarging the boundaries of Tennessee.
'(11) From 1826 to the date of the filing of this suit, Tennessee has continuously exercised dominion and jurisdiction over the lands in controversy.
'(12) Arkandas has acquiesced in Tennessee's exercise of dominion and jurisdiction.
.
The exceptions of Arkansas to the Master's report present for the most part questions of law. Arkansas contends that its true eastern boundary at the place in controversy was determined by the rule of the thalweg, being the middle of the main channel of navigation of the Mississippi River as it existed when the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Great Britain was concluded in 1783, subject to such subsequent changes as occurred through natural and gradual processes. Arkansas v. Tennessee, 246 U.S. 158, 38 S.Ct. 301, 62 L.Ed. 638, L.R.A.1918D, 258; Arkansas v. Mississippi, 250 U.S. 39, 39 S.Ct. 422, 63 L.Ed. 832; Arkansas v. Mississippi, 252 U.S. 344, 40 S.Ct. 333, 64 L.Ed. 605. The Master supports that contention with respect to the original boundary of the Territory of Arkansas, and also the contention that the avulsion of 1821 did not change the boundary line theretofore existing between Tennessee and the Territory of Arkansas; and, further, the Master holds that the Act of 1836 admitting Arkansas into the Union did not operate to exclude from its boundaries the lands which immediately before were within the Territory of Arkansas or to enlarge the boundaries of Tennessee.
Despite these conclusions, the Master is of the opinion that the area in question should now be deemed to be within the boundaries of Tennessee by virtue of prescription and the acquiescence on the part of Arkansas in the exercise by Tennessee of dominion and jurisdiction over that area. Upon that question of fact, the Master found that Tennessee had continuously exercised that dominion and jurisdiction from the year 1826 to the time of the bringing of the present suit. In support of this finding, the Master thus summarized the evidence:
.
The Master added that if he was mistaken in thinking it proper to consider the depositions and opinion in Moss v. Gibbs, supra, as affording evidence in this case, 'the testimony taken before me and the other documentary evidence, consisting of certified copies of entries, surveys and patents, is, in my judgment, sufficient to prove Tennessee's long and uninterrupted exercise of dominion and jurisdiction over the lands in controversy'.
The Master was equally explicit in finding that the record showed the acquiescence of Arkansas in this assertion of dominion by Tennessee. On this point his report states:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New Jersey v. New York
...1881-1882, 114 L.Ed.2d 420 (1991); Georgia v. South Carolina, supra, at 389, 110 S.Ct., at 2911-2912; Arkansas v. Tennessee, 310 U.S. 563, 570, 60 S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 84 L.Ed. 1362 (1940); Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593, 613, 53 S.Ct. 708, 715-716, 77 L.Ed. 1392 (1933); Louisiana v. M......
-
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip
...46 S.Ct. 290, 294, 70 L.Ed. 595 (1926); Massachusetts v. New York, supra, at 95, 46 S.Ct., at 363; Arkansas v. Tennessee, 310 U.S. 563, 569, 60 S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 84 L.Ed. 1362 (1940). In United States v. Stone, 2 Wall. 525, 537, 17 L.Ed. 765 (1865), involving a boudnary between the Delaware......
-
City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando
...principles of international law evolved for the accommodation of interests between sovereign nations. (Arkansas v. Tennessee (1940) 310 U.S. 563, 569--570, 60 S.Ct. 1026, 84 L.Ed. 1362; Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) 148 U.S. 503, 523, 13 S.Ct. 728, 37 L.Ed. 537.)78 Plaintiff argues that 'cor......
-
I & M Rail Link v. Northstar Navigation
...and is intended to safeguard to each State equality of access and right of navigation in the stream." Arkansas v. Tennessee, 310 U.S. 563, 570, 60 S.Ct. 1026, 84 L.Ed. 1362 (1940) (citing Illinois, 147 U.S. at 7, 8, 13 S.Ct. 239). In this case, the main navigation channel is arguably (due t......
-
Crossing The Line - Does The Georgia Plan To Redraw The Tennessee-Georgia Border Pass Legal Muster?
...523 U.S. at 792. 30. See Michigan v. Wisconsin, 270 U.S. at 306. 31. See New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. at 792; Arkansas v. Tennessee, 310 U.S. 563, 568 Michigan v. Wisconsin, 270 U.S. at 306- 07. 32. See New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. at 792; Illinois v. Kentucky, 500 U.S. 380, 385 (19......
-
Arctic equity? The Supreme Court's resolution of United States v. Alaska.
...See supra notes 88-89 and accompanying text. (94) Amicus Brief, supra note 80. (95) Id. at *8-17. (96) See, e.g., Arkansas v. Tennessee, 310 U.S. 563 (1940) (applying the doctrine to hold that Tennessee owned land previously belonging to Arkansas after the border river altered its course); ......