Washington v. Oregon

211 U.S. 127, 29 S. Ct. 47, 53 L. Ed. 118, 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1529
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided November 16, 1908·No. 3, Original·Published·Cited by 39 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brewer;

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The northern boundary of the State of Oregon was estab *131 lished prior to that of the State of Washington, and it is not within the power of the National Government to change that boundary without the consent of Oregon. Nor, indeed, was there any attempt to change it. The same description is found in both the act admitting Oregon and in the constitution of Washington, under which that State was admitted. It will be perceived that the starting point in the line running up the Columbia River is a point “due west and opposite the middle of the north ship channel of the Columbia River.” This language implies that there was more than one channel, and the middle of the north channel was named. There were at that time two channels, and the northerly one ran to the north of what is called “Sand Island.” This is shown by abundant testimony, and is admitted by counsel for complainant. At that time the north channel was perhaps the better one — at least one quite generally used by vessels passing in and out of the river, although the quantity and.direction of the wind was an important factor. It is true there has been no little variation in the channels at and near the entrance as might be expected considering the great width of the mouth and the sandy character of the soil underneath a large part of the river. The earliest known chart is a sketch made in 1792 by Admiral Vancouver, which does not show Sand Island, but discloses two inside channels uniting and crossing the bar into the ocean with a depth of twenty-seven feet. Chart “A,” made by the United States authorities in 1851, shows the condition of the mouth of the river as it then existed. The two channels are plainly disclosed. The brown color indicates land above low-water mark; the yellow, water of 18 feet in depth .or less, and the white, water over 18 feet in depth. See notation at the upper left hand corner. The existence of the two channels clearly opened the way for a selection of one as the boundary, and the north one was adopted. Sand Island appears as a, small body of land í-surrounded by shoal water. Another chart was prepared in 1854; which of all the charts and maps is the nearest in point <3f time to the admission of *132 Oregon. On this, as in Chart “A,” Sand Island is shown, and the two channels, one north and the other south of the island. It is called an island, but it was little more than a sand bar.

By the action of the waters it had been gradually moving northward, but the general configuratiomof the mouth of the river was unchanged. Since then the movement of Sand

*0

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Washington v. Oregon, 211 U.S. 127, 29 S. Ct. 47, 53 L. Ed. 118, 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1529 (1908).

211 U.S. 127 (Washington v. Oregon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Norman
40 P.3d 1161 (Washington Supreme Court, 2002)
Connecticut v. Cahill
217 F.3d 93 (Second Circuit, 2000)
The State of Connecticut v. John Cahill
217 F.3d 93 (Second Circuit, 2000)
I & M RAIL LINK v. Northstar Navigation
21 F. Supp. 2d 849 (N.D. Illinois, 1998)
New Jersey v. New York
523 U.S. 767 (Supreme Court, 1998)
State v. Pepper
803 P.2d 1213 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1990)
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
575 F.2d 620 (Eighth Circuit, 1978)
Omaha Indian Tribe v. Wilson
575 F.2d 620 (Eighth Circuit, 1978)
Texas v. Louisiana
410 U.S. 702 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Port of Portland v. Island in the Columbia River
326 F. Supp. 291 (D. Oregon, 1971)
Frances Uhlhorn v. U. S. Gypsum Company
366 F.2d 211 (Eighth Circuit, 1966)
Sharp v. Learned
188 So. 302 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1939)
State of Washington v. United States
87 F.2d 421 (Ninth Circuit, 1936)
State v. United States
87 F.2d 421 (Ninth Circuit, 1936)
United States v. Columbia River Packers Ass'n
11 F. Supp. 675 (D. Oregon, 1935)
Strandholm v. Barbey
26 P.2d 46 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1933)
Williams Fishing Co. v. Savidge
277 P. 459 (Washington Supreme Court, 1929)
Columbia River Packers' Ass'n v. United States
29 F.2d 91 (Ninth Circuit, 1928)