San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-01-15
Stale Is Given Great Part
of the Territory 1t
Claimed.
HAS FAMOUS HISTORY
Miners and Indians Also
Claimed Oil Under
Channel.

Washington, ID. C.. Jan. 15.-The
south cut bank of the Red river was
made the boundary line between Texas
and Oklahoma by order of the Supreme
court today in the famous Red river
case.
The decision is a compromise Of the
conflicting contentious of the United
States and Texas. the cut bank, for
most of the distance, where the contest
eentered at the Big bend. being between
The bluffs, which. the United States IL
sisted. should be made the boundary,
L.alJ the south bank of the river at its
normal stage, which Texas urged should
be made the line.
With regard. to the location Of the
cut bank in the Big Bend area, the
court stated. in detail the rule which
would be followed in determining what
constituted the cut bank. giving TO
Texas, in substance, much of the ter
ritory over which the controversy arose.
Justice McReynolds dissented.
Started in 1918.
The Red river case brought to the
SLJreme court the boundary dispute
between Oklahoma and Texas. which
grew acute in 1918, when oil was dis
covered in the Big Bend of that river
between Tillman and Cotton counties,
Oklahoma, and Wichita county, Texas.
Much of the oil property in contrO-
rersy is in the bed OF the river. and
the case quickly developed many di-
versified claimants. Not only did the
two states strive for title. but the fed
cral government interviewed. claiming
that the river. where il forms the
. boundary, is not navigable was not at
TIE time Oklahoma was admitted into
the Union, and that the river bed be-
T.
those who held allotments of Indian
lands.
Texas and its grantees and licensees
were supposedly eliminated from the
controversy by the opinion of the Su-
preme court in April. 1921. holding
that the south bank Of the river was
the boundary. When the court under
took TO locate that bank its troubles
quickly increased. The records in the
case grew in volume as briefs and evil
dence of contesting claimants were filed.
Texas and those claiming under its
contentious we're found to be actively
interested and insistent.
Indians Wanted It.
Oklahoma and its grantees and IL
censees. contending that the river bed
belonged to that state, pressed their
claims. Indian allottees and those hold
ing under them, asserting that the
United States was the owner, prosecut-
- riparian claims to the river bed
across to the Texas border. and among
other claimants were those who had
made placer mining locations on the
theory that the river bed was public
land opened under the mineral laws.
Many of these conflicting claims were
quieted by the Supreme court in its
opinion of May 1. 1922. which held IN
part that the river where it forms a
boundary between the two states is not
navigable, and that title to it did not
pass to Oklahoma upon its admission
into the Union. but remained in the !
United States; that the land had not
been opened to entry under the mineral
Laws, and that the placer mining claims |
were not valid: that riparian rights at. |
taehing to Indian allotments extended |
only to the middle Of the river, and /
that similar riparian rights were en-
ioyed by Oklahoma and others who had |
obtained title to lands which originally |
were part of the Indian reservation |
The opinion left until today decision
the highly interesting and important /
phase of the controversy of where the |
boundary line shall be drawn.