State of Washington v. State of Oregon
| Decision Date | 16 November 1908 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,O,3 |
| Citation | 53 L.Ed. 118,211 U.S. 127,29 S.Ct. 47 |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Complainant, v. STATE OF OREGON. riginal |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is an original suit, commenced in this court on Feb- ruary 26, 1906, by the state of Washington against the state of Oregon, to determine their boundary line. Pleadings were filed, testimony taken before a commissioner by consent of the parties, and on these pleadings and proofs the case has been argued and submitted. The maps or charts accompanying this opinion have been prepared from exhibits filed by the parties, and will aid to an understanding of the case.
A brief chronological statement is that on August 14, 1848, the territory of Oregon was established (9 Stat. at L. 323, chap. 177), and on March 2, 1853, the territory of Washington, including all that portion of Oregon territory lying north of the middle of the main channel of the Columbia river (10 Stat. at L. 172, chap. 90). On February 14, 1859, Oregon was admitted into the Union. The boundary, so far as is important in this controversy, is as follows (11 Stat. at L. 383, chap. 33):
'Beginning one marine league at sea due west from the point where the forty-second parallel of north latitude intersects the same; thence northerly, at the same distance from the line of the coast, lying west and opposite the state, including all islands within the jurisdiction of the United States, to a point due west and opposite the middle of the north ship channel of the Columbia river; thence easterly, to and up the middle channel of said river, and where it is divided by islands, up the middle of the widest channel thereof, to a point near Fort Walla-Walla.'
On February 22, 1889, an act was passed providing for the admission of Washington. 25 Stat. at L. 676, chap. 180. On November 11, 1889, the President, as authorized by § 8 of the statute last referred to, issued his proclamation, declaring Washington duly admitted into the Union. 26 Stat. at L. 1552. The material part of the boundary described in the Constitution of that state is——
'Beginning at a point in the Pacific ocean one marine league due west of and opposite the middle of the mouth of the north ship channel of the Columbia river, thence running easterly to and up the middle channel of said river, and where it is divided by islands up the middle of the widest channel thereof to where the forty-sixth parallel of north latitude crosses said river, near the mouth of the Walla Walla river.' Art. 24, § 1; 2 Hill's Anno. Statutes & Codes (Wash.) p. 851.
Messrs. E. C. Macdonald, John D. Atkinson, Samuel H. Piles, A. J. Falknor, and J. B. Alexander for complainant.
Messrs. A. M. Crawford, I. H. Van Winkle, Harrison Allen, C. W. Fulton, and A. M. Smith for defendant.
The northern boundary of the state of Oregon was estab- lished prior to that of the state of Washington, and it is not within the power of the national government to change that boundary without the consent of Oregon. Nor, indeed, was there any attempt to change it. The same description is found in both the act admitting Oregon and in the Constitution of Washington, under which that state was admitted. It will be perceived that the starting point in the line running up the Columbia river is a point 'due west and opposite the middle of the north ship channel of the Columbia river.' This language implies that there was more than one channel, and the middle of the north channel was named. There were at that time two channels, and the northerly one ran to the north of what is called 'Sand island.' This is shown by abundant testimony, and is admitted by counsel for complainant. At that time the north channel was perhaps the better one,—at least, one quite generally used by vessels passing in and out of the river, although the quantity and direction of the wind was an important factor. It is true there has been no little variation in the channels at and near the entrance, as might be expected considering the great width of the mouth and the sandy character of the soil underneath a large part of the river. The earliest known chart is a sketch made in 1792 by Admiral Vancouver, which does not show Sand island, but discloses two inside channels uniting and crossing the bar into the ocean with a depth of 27 feet. Chart 'A,' made by the United States authorities in 1851, shows the condition of the mouth of the river as it then existed. The two channels are plainly disclosed. The brown color indicates land above low-water mark; the yellor, water of 18 feet in depth or less, and the white, water over 18 feet in depth. See notation at the upper left-hand corner. The existence of the two channels clearly opened the way for a selection of one as the boundary, and the north one was adopted. Sand island appears as a small body of land surrounded by shoal water. Another chart was prepared in 1854, which of all the charts and maps is the nearest in point of time to the admission of Oregon. On this, as in Chart 'A,' Sand island is shown, and the two channnels, one north and the other south of the island. It is called an island, but it was little more than a sand bar. By the action of the waters it had been gradually moving northward, but the general configuration of the mouth of the river was unchanged. Since then the movement of Sand island has continued, the north channel has been growing more shallow, and the southern channel has become the one most used. The movements of Sand island and the changes in the entrance are shown in chart 'B.'
Looking only at the description of the boundary in the act, one might think that there were three channels, north, south, and middle; but it is quite apparent from the testimony that there were but the two. The meaning would be more clear if the language was 'easterly to and up the middle of said channel,' and that that was the intent of Congress is, we think, obvious; first, because there were only two channels; second, to locate a starting point on the west line in the ocean, opposite the middle of one channel, and thence run the boundary up the middle of another channel, would hardly be expected. If the middle of the northern channel was intended to be the dividing line between Oregon and the territory north, it would be natural to fix the point of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Jersey v. New York
...their own notions of an "equitable apportionment' for the apportionment chosen by Congress.''); Washington v. Oregon, 211 U.S. 127, 135, 29 S.Ct. 47, 49, 53 L.Ed. 118 (1908) (noting that Congress had established the boundary between Washington and Oregon in the middle of the north channel, ......
-
Commonwealth of Virginia v. State of West Virginia
...25 Sup. Ct. 580, 49 L. Ed. 881; Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U. S. 1, 26 Sup. Ct. 408, 571, 50 L. Ed. 913; Washington v. Oregon, 211 U. S. 127, 29 Sup. Ct. 47, 53 L. Ed. 118; Id., 214 U. S. 205, 29 Sup. Ct. 631, 53 L. Ed. 969; Missouri v. Kansas, 213 U. S. 78, 29 Sup. Ct. 417, 53 L. Ed. 70......
-
State of Washington v. United States
...Washington as States, together with the material legislation regarding the boundary between them may be found in Washington v. Oregon, 211 U.S. 127, 29 S.Ct. 47, 53 L.Ed. 118. On October 21, 1864, the Oregon Legislature passed an act, a part of which is as follows: "There is hereby granted ......
-
I & M Rail Link v. Northstar Navigation
...become so far superior as to be practically the only channel for vessels going in and out of the river." Washington v. Oregon, 211 U.S. 127, 135, 29 S.Ct. 47, 53 L.Ed. 118 (1908). Neither a sudden shoreline change, known as an "avulsion," nor the "diversion of the water effected by human ag......
-
§ 12.2 - Lands Managed by the Department of Natural Resources
...of "north channel" and "widest channel." Washington v. Oregon, 214 U.S. 205, 29 S. Ct. 631, 53 L. Ed. 969 (1909); Washington v. Oregon, 211 U.S. 127, 29 S. Ct. 47, 53 L. Ed. 118 (1908). Oregon and Washington settled the matter in 1958 by entering into a compact establishing the boundary bas......
-
Table of Cases
...4.1(1), 7.3(1) Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 120 S. Ct. 1073, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1060 (2000): 7.4(2)(c) Washington v. Oregon, 211 U.S. 127, 29 S. Ct. 47, 53 L. Ed. 118 (1908): 12.2(5)(c)(v) Washington v. Oregon, 214 U.S. 205, 29 S. Ct. 631, 53 L. Ed. 969 (1909): 12.2(5)(c)(v) Wa......