San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1894-02-10

intersected Red river about one de-
gree, or more, of longitude, below
and cast Of the forks Of Red river
leaving to the westward, and in
Texas, not only Greer county, but
also a large part Of what is now
called Oklahoma, and all OF the
Cheyenne, Kiowa and Comanche
country.
The Texas commissioners of
course claimed this line to be the
boundary line. BY it Texas en-
braCed twenty odd thousand
square miles of territory claimed
by the United States. They also
insisted that the north fork of Red
river was Red river, and that if it
were conceded that the boundary
line was along the Tooth
meridian, as claimed by the Unit
ed States, still Greer county
being south of that stream was in
Texas. The United States COM
missiOners on the other hand as
sumed Melish's map was entirely
incorrect, and that it was an
imaginary representation in that
part based upon entire ignorance
of the country alleged to have been
unknown to civilized man at the
date of the map, and that it was
insufficient to fix the Tooth meri-
dian to any locality, and they de-
manded that the line Of the true
Tooth meridian should be recog-
nized as the line, and then that
the south Fork of the Red River
should be taken as Red River
and the boundary line to that
meridian, which would give Greene
county to the United States.
Failure of the joint commission
resulted, thereupon the United
States Congress provided for this
suit, and it was brought involving
the same issues that had been
IA ised before the joint commission
to wit: LIST. Is the boundary line
to be located by Mel1sh's Tooth
meridian or by the true Tooth mer-
idian? End. If by the latter then
which to be deemed Red river and
the boundary to that line, the
north or the south fork of Red
river. @H,
On these issues, besides the evil
dence collected by the joint COM
mission, State Attorney General
Culberson has collected many more
old maps and books, which will be
in evidence, and has
discovered some very ancient
Spanish official documents, which
strongly favor the Texas side of the
case, and upon the same issues, he
and his associate counsel have
taken many dispositions OF wit
nesses.
1t is shown among other things
by this evidence that comparing
Melish's map with the ground as
found by careful examination and
survey, the salient features Of his
map, such as the great north and
south bend Of the Arkansas river,
its eccentric bends at the mouths
of its salt fork, it's long southeast
and southwest stretches from the
great north bend, the forks of Red
river and the mountains to the
north, thereof occupy relative posi-
tiong to each other on his map so
closely, similar to their relative pO-
sition on the ground, and one indi-
vidually. so similar on the map to
the respective relatives on the
ground as to show their identity,
beyond the possibility Of doubt.
These confine and fix Melish's
Tooth meridian within very narrow
limits and render it impossible that
it should be west Of the forks of
Red River and fix it far east of that
point. This illustrated by super
position of Melish's map upon a
map carefully prepared from a re-
cent actual survey made for the
purpose. 1t is also cOncluSively
shown that as far back as 177c
the upper Red River region
was we'll known to white people
and was tTavcrSed from that date
10 the date of the treaty of bound
airy by many white men, French
men Spaniards and Americans
and it will appear from careful
scientific survey Of the north anC
south forks Of the Red river that
the north fork is the deeper anC
more constant stream, has TIT
larger, though narrower channel,
flows more water and at the
| junction with the south fork, il
the dominant stream, controlling
the course OF the united river; anC
hence is the principal stream
From many sources it will appeal
that along its course is good sup
ply Of good water and wood, ant
an ancient road was marked b,