196 U.S. Argument for State of Missouri. Bridge Co. v. People ex rel., 125 Illinois, 228; Butterworth v. St. Louis Bridge Co., 123 Illinois, 535. It has been said that a river is composed of the bed, banks and stream. Eastman v. Water Company, 43 Minnesota, 60. This, however, is not an exact statement of the true meaning of the term. A more apt way of putting it is that a river is composed of a stream of constantly and continuously flowing water, through a natural drainage basin, with the bed and banks as essential incidents to it. It is not the bed and banks which constitute the river, but the natural stream of water. When observed from the standpoint of the reason upon which the legislature of Missouri memorialized Congress to annex Platte's Purchase to Missouri and the act of Congress annexing the same, no other conclusion can be reached but that it was intended to make the stream the boundary line wherever that stream might at any time run. The channel is the passageway between the banks through which the water of the stream flows. Benjamin v. River Improvement Company, 42 Michigan, 628. The term "natural channel" includes not only all channels through which in the existing conditions of the country. water naturally flows, but new channels through which it might afterwards flow. Larrabe v. Cloverdale, 131 California, 96. The rule is settled that meander lines are not intended as boundaries, but that the body of the water will be regarded as the true boundary. Jeffries v. East Omaha Land Co., 134 U. S. 178; Mitchell v. Smith, 140 U. S. 406; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371; Clute v. Fisher, 65 Michigan, 48; Norwood v. Smith, 59 Wisconsin, 344. This notwithstanding that in certain instances if a boundary river leaves its old channel and forms a new one, within the limits of either of the States which border on it, the old channel will remain the boundary. Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U. S. 479; Missouri v. Kentucky, 11 Wall. 395; Nebraska v. Iowa, 143 U. S. 359, however, do not control as different principles and facts are involved. In this case Argument for State of Missouri. 196 U. S. that territory known as Platte's Purchase, was annexed to Missouri by reason of a memorial coming from its legislative department in 1831, wherein certain important and substantial reasons were set out why the Missouri River, north of the mouth of the Kaw, should be fixed forever as an absolute boundary of Missouri. Soon afterwards this territory was annexed to the jurisdiction of the State. Congress had undoubted authority to annex the territory in the manner herein described. There can be no question but that it was the intention of the legislature of Missouri to make the request in the manner herein presented, because it was so shown clearly from the resolution. As the annexation statute construed in the light of the memorial, shows the plain intention of Congress was to make the Missouri River wherever it might run the absolute boundary of the State, it matters not whether those conditions still exist which were considered in the memorial, and which authorized, warranted and induced Congress to so ordain. The conditions which moved Congress to enact the statute may have passed away. That, however, does not deprive the State of Missouri of the right to demand a strict compliance with the original grant as it was intended when made. Missouri was admitted into the Union in 1820, long prior to the admission of Nebraska and during a time when all the territory immediately west of the Missouri River belonged to the Federal Government. At the time of its admission there was no practical assurance that the territory now known as Nebraska would ever be admitted into the Union. It belonged to the Federal Government to be disposed of at will, to be held as a territory or afterwards subdivided and admitted into the Union as a State. By accepting the terms of the memorial annexing Platte's Purchase to the State of Missouri, the Federal Government made an absolute guarantee to the people of Missouri that the stream of water flowing from the Rockies, known as the Missouri River, should forever be its absolute boundary line. 196 U. S. Argument for State of Missouri. Construed in the light of the memorial and according to the plain words of the statute of annexation, Missouri now claims that fixed and vested rights were obtained thereunder, and that she is entitled to complete jurisdiction and sovereignty over all the territory lying east of the Missouri River as hereinbefore stated, and that it was more important at the time of the annexation that this river be made the absolute boundary for all time to come than to afterward have such boundary changed by reason of sudden variation in the channel of the river. Indeed, had the fact in question been raised long prior to the admission of Nebraska into the Union, and after the annexation statute had been approved, no one would have questioned the right of Missouri to claim and obtain absolute sovereignty over the territory here involved. This principle is made manifest by reason of the terms of the statute construed in the light of the memorial and it fixes a vested privilege and right in the State of Missouri regardless of what might afterwards have been done by the Federal Congress without the consent of this complainant. The rights and duties with respect to waters depends primarily upon the relations which the opposing parties bear towards each other. Farnham on Waters and Water Rights, 3. In this controversy, there is no agreement or contractual relations existing between the State of Nebraska and the State of Missouri, so far as the boundary line between the two States is concerned. Both States derive their power and rights in the premises from the Federal Government and Missouri, prior to the admission of Nebraska, being granted and delegated with sovereignty and power over the territory known as Platte's Purchase, and the Missouri River being at the time fixed as the absolute boundary line, is asking that the terms of the grant annexing the northwestern territory to it be strictly carried out. Congress unquestionably had authority to fix the Missouri River as it then and as it might subsequently run as the western boundary. When Nebraska was admitted into the Union, it came with both actual and constructive notice Argument for State of Nebraska. 196 U. S. that its jurisdiction could never extend to the east of the Missouri River south of the boundary line between Iowa and Missouri. Mr. Frank N. Prout, Attorney General of the State of Nebraska, and Mr. W. H. Kelligar, for the State of Nebraska: Where the course of a river forming the boundary between States is suddenly changed by avulsion, the boundary remains unchanged. The findings of the commissioners and the evidence adduced before them show that the Missouri River between Missouri and Nebraska changed its course in a single day-July 5, 1867-and left a large area of Nebraska land on the east side. This fact and the correctness of the findings of the commissioners are also established by stipulations of the parties. The change having taken place in a single day, it is perfectly clear that no law applicable to accretion could have operated to transfer the territory in controversy from Nebraska to Missouri. The jurisdiction of those States and the status of the citizens do not fluctuate with every freak of the Missouri River. If they did, a large portion of the Nebraska population might go to bed at night in Nebraska and get up in the morning on the same spot in Missouri. The rule applicable to the facts presented by the record has been stated by this court, that where a stream, which is a boundary, from any cause suddenly abandons its old and seeks a new bed, such change of channel works no change of boundary; and that the boundary remains as it was, in the center of the old channel, although no water may be flowing therein. Iowa v. Nebraska, 143 U. S. 361. The boundary line between States does not change with a change in the channel of a river which had been the boundary. Missouri v. Kentucky, 11 Wall. 401; Holbrook v. Moore, 4 Nebraska, 437; Collins v. State, 3 Tex. Cr. App. 325; Willey v. Lewis, 28 Wkly. L. B. 104; Act of 1836, 5 Stat. 34. The act of 1836, 5 Stat. 34, merely extends the boundary of the State of Missouri to the Missouri River upon extinguishment of the Indian title to the intervening land, and does not purport to change the rule of law that where the course of a river forming a boundary is suddenly changed by avulsion, the boundary remains unchanged. The act furnishes no foundation for complainant's argument that the shifting channel of the Missouri River, wherever it may be, whether changed by accretion or avulsion, is the eternal boundary line between Missouri and Nebraska. If the Missouri River should suddenly cut across the west end of Nebraska, complainant's theory would wipe Nebraska off the map and leave Missouri in possession of a vast empire acquired without regard to the rights of the inhabitants. No such conclusion is deducible from the enactment quoted. But the argument of complainant seems to be that the act of Congress derived some additional significance from the legislative memorial of Missouri, in pursuance of which the statute was enacted. The memorial amounts to nothing more than an argument in favor of the passage of the act. The intention of Congress is clearly expressed in the enactment and there is no occasion to resort to the memorial, either to ascertain the legislative will or to give effect to the statute. Had Nebraska never been admitted into the Union, the State of Missouri would not now have jurisdiction of a crime committed on the land in dispute known as Island Precinct. It is a rule of the courts, both state and Federal, that where the course of a river forming the boundary between States is suddenly changed by avulsion, the boundary remains unchanged. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. It is undisputed in the case that prior to July 5, 1867, the bed and channel of the Missouri River were substantially as they had been continuously from the date of the admission of VOL. CXCVI-3 |