Rock Island Argus., 1894-01-18
THAT BOUNDARY LINE.
THE nucA Disp.ted Qses,son sem Unset
tied.

The nlinois-lowa boundary is still
a matter of dispute. Chief Justice
Fuller having set aside the order OF
the court made April 10. 1898, con-
ilrming the report of the commits
sioncrs.
There is an interesting history con-
ncctcd with this cause celcbre. I'm
der an order of the court made more
than a year ago, three commission
crs were appointed TO determine the
disputed boundary and to report.
The state of Iowa claimed that the
boundary line was the exact center
of the river from shore to shore,
while the Illinois authorities insisted
that the proper boundary was the
center Of the navigable channel. The
ease grew out Of suit for taxes
brought by the county of Hancock,
Illinois. against the company owning
and opcratin. the bridge across the
Mississippi river between Hamilton
and keokuk. The Illinois authori-
ties claimed taxes upon the bridge as
far as the center OF the channel,
which at that point is located near
the Iowa side of the river. The Iowa
authorities claimed payment to the
center of the river as measured from
shore to shore.
Tine Iowa Side.
The lower courts recognized the
center of the navigable channel as
the boundary by deciding in favor OF
the Illinois convention, and at the
October term of 1892 the United
States supreme court affirmed this de-
cision, and appointed three commits
sioners to formally fix the boundary.
Last spring Commissioners Meiggs,
Wempcr and Carpenter made an eX-
animation and submitted their re-
port to the court. 1t was approved.
and afterward il was discovered by
the attorney general of Illinois that
the boundary had been fixed in the
center of the river, as measured from
ter of the navigable channel. as the
supreme courts decision had di-
rccted. The boundary had been
placed just where the Iowa authori.
ties wanted it, instead of where the
Illinois authorities had contendcd j,
should be. This fact had been seem.
ingly overlooked by the court at the
time it approved the report of tn,
commissioners. the presumption
of the court being. of course
that the commissioners had acted
in good faith, and had carried
out the courts directions. The ap.
proval of the report was mere for
mality made in haste. and after the
alleged deception practiced upon the
supreme court by the commissioner:
had been discovered, Attorney Gen
cral Moloney came here and entered
a motion to set aside the order o
confirmation of last April. His mo
, tion was entered on Oct. Il last.
CHIEF sasti-c Fulicr's Decision.
Tuesday the chief justice, speaking
for the court. ordered the prcyiou
Z order OF confirmation set aside upoi
the ground tha: lit had been i'm
+, properly entered. in that the state o
r Illinois had not received due motto,
of application and had not consentc,
to the order" This is understood t,
| tilIt luC COull Will hpN ~ oNc
the report of the commissioners yer,
= carefully. and where it does not con
5 form To the directions of the cour
1 under the original opinion it will b
. sent back for correction. Attorne,
I General Moloney. when here. askc'
for the appointment of new commits
4 sioners, but no change will be mad
2 in the commission unlesS il fails 4
c comply with the directions of TIN
) court. The commissioners are cS
: pected to complete the location no
I only rs to the Hamilton and keoku
4 bridge, but throughout the rive
4 wherever other bridges cross betwee
), the two states. Until the boundar
line is settled throughout its extent
: the court says, all orders in the cas-
: will 60 interlocutory.