Court Opinion

ID: 9425218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:14:04.948353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:54.058278
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
Louisiana was admitted into the Union in 1812. 2 Stat. 701. The Constitution of Louisiana of 1812 described her western boundary as “beginning at the mouth of the river Sabine, thence by a line to be drawn along the middle of said river, including all its islands, to the *715thirty-second degree of latitude . . . .” That was the description1 that was recited in the 1812 Act in which Congress approved the Constitution of Louisiana. 2 Stat. 702. There remained a controversy between this Nation and Spain over this western boundary and the Treaty of 1819 settled the question by the only authority that could establish a boundary with a foreign government. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 725.
That treaty provided that the boundary should start “at the mouth of the river Sabine, in the sea, continuing north, along the western bank of that river, to the 32d degree of latitude.” 8 Stat. 252, 254, 256. When Texas was admitted to the Union in 1845, 9 Stat. 108, that same boundary was used to describe her eastern line. 8 Stat. 372, 374. The Treaty of 1828 recognized that as the boundary line between Louisiana and Texas for it was the boundary between the United States and Mexico, of which Texas was a part. 8 Stat. 372. Texas did not come into the Union until 1845. The Treaty of 1819 read in context means that Louisiana’s western border, coinciding with that of the United States, was the western bank of the Sabine.
The 1819 Treaty does not mention Louisiana. But Louisiana along that segment of our western boundary was a buffer between this Nation and Spain. It is therefore dubious that the United States was bargaining for that narrow strip between the “middle” of the Sabine and the west bank of the Sabine as a detached, isolated piece of our public lands. Rather, it seems well-nigh conclusive that in 1819 this Nation was bargaining with Spain for a border that in part at least of its reach would be the western border of Louisiana.
*716Louisiana claims that much and alternatively only the “middle” of the Sabine which, according to the thalweg doctrine, when describing boundaries on navigable waters, means the middle of the channel, which is not necessarily the geographical “middle.” The thalweg doctrine had that meaning both when Louisiana was admitted to the Union2 and since that time.3
Why then does Louisiana lose? Why is her boundary restricted?
The Court relies on the Act of Congress of July 5, 1848, 9 Stat. 245, which gave Texas permission to extend her eastern boundary “so as to include within her limits one half of Sabine Pass, one half of Sabine Lake, [and] one half of Sabine River.”
Washington v. Oregon, 211 U. S. 127 (1908), makes clear that the boundary originally established when Louisiana was admitted to the Union “is not within the power of the National Government to change . . . without [Louisiana’s] consent . . . .” Id., at 131.
Given that legislative restraint, Congress had no power to take the west bank from Louisiana or, alternatively, it must have used “one-half” in a general, rather than a mathematical, sense, thereby granting to Texas only those areas lying west of the thalweg.
The Sabine River, Sabine Lake, and Sabine Pass are one continuous body of navigable water. Heretofore when in controversies between States the “middle” of a navigable stream has been described as the boundary, the middle of the channel is intended. Iowa v. Illinois, 147 U. S. 1, 7-8; Arkansas v. Tennessee, 246 U. S. 158, 173; Minnesota v. Wisconsin, 252 U. S. 273; Wisconsin v. Michigan, 295 U. S. 455.
*717Mississippi, which was admitted to the Union five years after Louisiana, argued much as Texas does in this case to the effect that Congress had given her territory that Louisiana claimed under an earlier title. The Court held “[i]f it were true that . . . repugnancy between the two acts existed, it is enough to say that Congress, after the admission of Louisiana, could not take away any portion of that State and give it to the State of Mississippi.” Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U. S. 1, 40. This reasoning is equally applicable to Louisiana’s western border.
I conclude in the alternative that the thalweg doctrine — widely and generally accepted — has not been constitutionally displaced by statutory language in this case.
The question remains whether acts of acquiescence and prescription have since replaced the thalweg with some other boundary between Louisiana and Texas. Although the Special Master concluded that the maps and other evidence in question support both the conclusion that Louisiana has acquiesced in a mid-stream boundary, rather than the claimed west-bank boundary, and that the mid-stream boundary thus recognized is in the geographic center rather than the thalweg, I cannot agree. The vast majority of the maps in evidence do denominate a boundary between the banks of the waterways in issue. The quality of the boundary representation is, however, quite inadequate even to determine whether a geographic centerline designation was attempted. Moreover, the main channel is not depicted, so that any possible variance from the thread of the stream is incapable of determination.4 Indeed, the language employed by the Master to describe these maps in the Appendix to his Report depicts this uncertainty; the terms “middle,” “mid-Sabine,” and “centerline” ap*718pear to be used interchangeably, with only an occasional use of the more precise terminology “geographic middle.” 5 Acquiescence on the part of one State or prescription on the part of another should not be predicated on such an inadequate showing.
The case should be returned to the Special Master for hearings that will thoroughly explore the factual issues concerning the alleged acquiescence or prescription.

 It was also in the Enabling Act giving Louisiana authority to form a constitution and state government and gain admission to the Union. 2 Stat. 641.

 The earlier authorities are discussed at length in Iowa v. Illinois, 147 U. S. 1, 7-10 (1893).

 G. Thompson on Real Property §3075 (1962 ed.); 3 American Law of Property § 12.27 n. 16 (A. Casner ed. 1952).

 See generally Texas Exs. A, F. But see Louisiana Ex. K.

 Report of Special Master, App. B.