Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-09-16

that the Whpefb OF tnc Noieh hViN WNttN
Hush were rcd, while the waters Oh me
south Fork when flush were OF whltish |
color; that the banks OF the North Fork |
we're red and gave color TO It's water,
while the banks and sands OF the South |
PORK where white and gave color 20 It's
water. that the North Fork at the juno
zion of the two streams was always run
ming, while the South Fork was often for
considerable periods but dry sand bed,
destitute Of water; that when Gen.
Marcy explored the two streams In 1852
ne found but very little water 10 the South
Fork, while the North Fork was
a bold running stream several feet deepi
that there were mountains and gypsum
bluffs on the east and north side OF the
North Fork corresponding to the noun
tains on the east aud north side OF the
stream laid down on Melish's map for
the Rio Roxo or Red river, while there
were none to be found on the north side
OF the South Fork. That the course of
Melish's upper Red river was copied ex-
actly from Humbolt's map, on which
were delineated several road sta
tions on the north side OF the stream,
indicating road up the stream
on the north side; that Gen.
Marcy exploring the two streams in 1863
by order OF the United States govern
ment, reported q well-worn trail across
the Wichita mountains, over which he
took his wagon train, and further up on
the same side OF the North Fork, the north
eide, he found wellworked, ancient
wagon road, and all along the stream,
from the mountains 10 its source, he
found traces Of former habitatlons; but
he reported that there was no sign or
trace Of former habltetion, nor Of road
on the north side Of the South
Fork and that q wagon road there was
not practicable; that consequently Hum
bolts upper Red river, COPIED by
Melish) with its road-s.atlons on the
north side musthaye been the North Fork.
To Offset these evidences, the commits
sioners Of the United States showed con-
clusively what the Texas commission did
not deny that the South Fork had the
wider channel, was the longer stream,
drained a larger area OF county
and was more nearly IN the
general course OF the river
below the junction with the North Fork,
and from these admitted facts insisted
that 1t ought to be considered the main
Red river of the treaty, and consequently
that the true Tooth meridian should be
Ou budl blltum lNuNlIS
county to the United States
In view OF these facts it would seem
the Texas commission would have been
unfaithful to their trust had they not
stoutly and to the end maintained their
first proposition, and they would have
been recreant TO duty and weak in the ex-
treme to have yielded the second issue. BY
way Of illustrating the thorough knowl-
edge OF the region of the boundary line in
question possessed by the treaty
the Texas commission presented dia-
gram on which was copied model map
Of that region, by an engineer of the
| United States army, tracedin blue and on
which also was drawn in red a copy Of
Mellsh's map Of the same region upon the
same scale. The comparison was made by
| placing the great right-angular bend Of Red
river OF Melish's map upon the same bend
OF the other map, and projecting the draw
ing Of the balance of Melish's map
from that point, giving the exact
courses and relative positions of Melish's
map, but upon the scale Of the other map.
This diagram is strong and striking IL
Illustration, and II IL could be Autographed
and published with the arguments of the
Texas commission would go far towards
convincing any rational mind of the
logical soundness Of thas argument. The
United States commissioners, as plausi
bic excuse for ignoring Melisn's map as d
factor In determining the boundary, as
sumed, and at length tried to prove, tha
neither Melish nor the treaty makers
deemed his map of the region
in question more than Hypothetical
/ delineation. But the Texas com
mission met this attempt with over
whelming proof to the contrary, and II
doing so brought to light many interest
ing facts about the early occupancy of the
Red river and Arkansas country and 1t
early explorers. Among these were tn
existence Of places, streams, etc, there
| bearing Spanish names as early as 1888
! an official record of journey of that dat
/ from Santa Fe down Pralrie.Dog river
) then called White river, an expedition O
/ six or seven hundred Spanlard
: and Mexlcans down Red rive
I and over to the Arkansas in 1906
4 the existence of an old SPANS
: fort at that time high up on Red river
I north OF Montague county, road-statio
3 settlements called San Callxto, Canoa
: tinos, Xanesis and Quichicans on tn
@ upper Red river prior to 1904, posi- iv
: proof of the existence of the old Spans
II road from Santa Fe to Nachitoche
d on the north side Of the North Fork of Re
h river, of which before we had only III
q tradition, explorations and maps OF th
IS country by Pike, exploration and maps
II the country from the Mississippi river |
d the l00Lh meridian by Binisier These an
II other similar data, were shown to be witt
II in the knowledge OF Melish, aud the con
e plrlson on the diagram OF his map wit
J. q modern engineer map evinced clear
Is that his information for that day an
l. time was remarkably accurate. Bl
n what can Texas hope or expect In tn
is matter? II is to be supposed that b.
4 cause the United States has occupied II
territory in question ana appropriated |
e the right of Texas TO 1t Is to be denied
B. We suppose not The title Of Tex
e seems clearer than she ever had to Ne
Y Mexico, for which the United States pal
s. her ten millions. Greer county we hav
d Why should we not be fully paid for Il
A. balanceI
g Your correspondent Is Indebted to Co
of G.. Il. Freeman, one of the boundal
le commissioners, for a complete report
O. proceedings.
,yuet Try Ona