1. On a question of the exact ancient course of a river in a
wild region of our country, maps made by early explorers being but
hearsay evidence, so far as they relate to facts within the memory
of witnesses --
ex. gr. since A.D. 1800 -- are not to
control the regularly given testimony of such persons.
2. It seems that the old maps (those
ex. gr. prior to
A.D. 1800), indicative of the physics and hydraulics of the
Mississippi are not greatly to be relied on.
3. Wolf Island, in the Mississippi River, about twenty miles
below the mouth of the Ohio, is part of the State of Kentucky, and
not part of the State of Missouri. This fact settled by the
testimony of witnesses as to which state exercised jurisdiction, as
to where the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi River
had been when the boundary between the states was fixed, by the
character of the sod and trees of the island as compared with the
soil and trees of Missouri and Kentucky, respectively, and by the
natural changes produced in the course of the current by the
physics and hydraulics of the river since the time mentioned as
generally and specifically shown.
The State of Missouri brought here, in February, 1859, her
original bill against the State of Kentucky, the purpose of the
bill being to ascertain and establish by a decree of this Court the
boundary between the two states at a point on the Mississippi River
known as Wolf Island, which is about twenty miles below the mouth
of the Ohio. The State of Missouri insisted that the island was a
part of her territory, while the State of Kentucky asserted the
contrary. The bill alleged that both states were bounded at that
point by the main channel of the river, and that the island, at
the
Page 78 U. S. 396
time the boundaries were fixed, was and is on the Missouri side
of said channel.
The answer stated that Kentucky, formed out of territory
originally embraced within the State of Virginia, was admitted into
the Union on the 1st day of June, 1792, and that she had always
claimed her boundary on the Mississippi to the middle of the river,
and Wolf Island to be within her jurisdiction and limits as derived
from Virginia, a part of Hickman County, one of the counties of
Kentucky, opposite to which it lay. And it denied that the island
belonged to Missouri or that the main channel was on the eastern
side of it when the boundaries of the states were fixed.
An immense amount of testimony, derived from maps as ancient as
the earliest well known navigation of the river; from the journals
of ancient and later travelers; from official and
quasi-official surveys &c., was introduced by the
counsel of both sides, but more especially by those of Missouri, to
show where the main channel had been and was -- whether on the east
or on the west of the island -- in 1763, where the boundary between
France and England, then owners respectively of the regions now
known as Missouri and Kentucky, and more particularly where it was
in 1783, when by our treaty of peace with Great Britain we
succeeded to the rights of that government; and also where it was
in 1820, when Missouri, part of the territory acquired from France,
was admitted into the Union, the middle of the main channel of the
river confessedly having been fixed in all these cases as the
boundary. The depositions of many witnesses on both sides,
particularly on the defendant's, were also read, testifying as to
where within the memory of man the channel in dispute had been.
The witnesses of the complainant -- to give the case of Missouri
more particularly -- stated that from the present time back to
1830, the main channel of the river was on the east side of the
island, and that from 1830 as far back as 1794, both channels were
navigable. They admitted that from 1832 to the present time, the
eastern channel had been chiefly used for navigation.
Page 78 U. S. 397
The early maps and charts of the river, introduced by the State
of Missouri, laid down the island as nearly in the middle of the
river, but the larger portion of it west of the middle line.
Amongst these were the map of Lieutenant Ross, of the British army,
made in 1765 in an expedition from Fort Chartres to New Orleans;
the map of Captain Philip Pittman, published in London in 1770; the
map of General Collot in 1796; Hutchins's map in 1778; and Luke
Munsell's map of Kentucky, made in 1818.
Extracts from the books of early travelers stated their passage
down the river on the east side; among these books were the travels
of Ashe in 1806, and of Sir Francis Baily in 1796.
The Pittsburg Navigator, in several editions from 1806 to 1818,
was relied on, stating the channel to be on both sides, but best on
the east side.
Reliance was had, too, on certain official or
quasi-official maps of the federal government. An official
map, made in 1821 by the United States Engineers' Department, under
an Act of Congress of April 14, 1820, and a United States Survey
and Report, made in 1838 by the Land Department, with official
computation, showed the area of the cross-section of the east
channel to be 31,020.33 square feet, and of the west channel to be
18,625.71, and the mean velocity of the east channel to be 3.72
feet per second, and of the west channel to be 2.79 feet, and
giving the gallons discharged by the east channel per second as
115,395, and of the west channel 51,965, being less than one-half
on the west side; and also the greatest depth of water on the east
side as being 23 feet against 22 1/2. General Barnard's apparently
official map of 1821 was relied on as laying down the channel on
the east side; as also the United States Coast Survey map, of 1864,
presenting it in the same way. The island, it seemed, had been
surveyed by the United States, in March, 1821, as part of Missouri,
and in April, 1823, steps were taken to locate on it a New Madrid
certificate for 600 arpents; and in August, 1834, a plot of the
island was sent to the Register of the Land Office at Jackson,
Missouri.
The State of Missouri relied also a good deal on the fact,
Page 78 U. S. 398
which seemed to have been sufficiently proven, that in 1820 the
Sheriff of New Madrid County (the county in Missouri opposite to
the island), had executed process of the Missouri courts on the
island against the only settler on it, one Hunter, and who entered
upon it prior to 1803; and that one of the Missouri circuit court
judges had once -- though when did not appear -- resided on the
island.
Evidence introduced by Missouri tended to show that the first
clear act of jurisdiction exercised by Kentucky was not earlier
than 1826, and that it was only in 1837, when her legislature
passed an act for the sale of lands on the island and her people
purchased under her title so offered, that Kentucky asserted open
and exclusive ownership of the island.
The State of Kentucky, on its side, gave proof which was much of
it in direct opposition to that presented by Missouri. It proved
that land on the island was entered in the Virginia land office
during the Revolutionary war; the state now known as Kentucky being
then part of Virginia, and that in 1828, one of the courts of
Kentucky exercised jurisdiction over the island in a matter of
apprenticeship. Although it presented fewer evidences from ancient
maps and books of travels than did the State of Missouri, it
produced more living persons whose recollections came in support of
its case. More than a score of witnesses, many of them ancient,
including boatmen, navigators, and several persons who had lived
from childhood close by the island, some opposite to it, and
specially interested by their business to note on which side
vessels sailed, all testified that while now the main channel of
the river was to be regarded as on the east side of the island, it
was undoubtedly and within their memory and knowledge not so
formerly, but was on the west side; many of these witnesses going
into details, and showing a positive and experimental knowledge on
the subject upon which they spoke -- details of a sort that could
not easily be invented and which, if not invented but true, tended
to give the case to Kentucky.
The geology of the island and its sylva were relied on by
Page 78 U. S. 399
Kentucky and shown to be more coincident with its own soil and
woods than with those of Missouri, the argument hence being that
what was now an island was originally part of the mainland of
Kentucky.
The counsel for Kentucky directed evidence yet more specially to
the physical changes which the shores of the two states had
undergone since the years 1763, 1783, and 1820. It was not denied
by them that now and since 1820, the river on the east side of the
island had become broad, deep, and navigable; the testimony
introduced by them being directed to show that this was the result
of physical and hydraulic causes, working changes since the
boundary had been fixed, some of the changes being the results of
actual efforts of science to improve the channel, but others,
immeasurably more operative, natural ones only; a continuation of
those changes caused in the basin of the Mississippi, by the mighty
rises to which the river is subject; estimated at such magnitude
that men of science [
Footnote
1] have considered that the river poured past even at this high
point of it, at the rise in March, 1858, 1,130,000 cubic feet per
second; at the rise in April of that year 1,260,000, and at the
rise in the following June (continuing for several days), the
immense volume of 1,475,000 of cubic feet per second, inundating
cities, changing courses of the stream, and in former ages leaving
far to the west of the present river course those crescent-shaped
lakes, noted by Sir Charles Lyell and other geologists, plainly
bends in the ancient channel. [
Footnote 2]
These were causes, sufficient as the counsel of the State of
Kentucky argued, to account for the change in the course of the
channel, and the counsel produced a map known as H. G. Black's
(
see it
infra, p.
78 U. S. 409),
showing how the eastern channel had been produced by recent mighty
rushings of the river against the "iron banks," above the island,
and which, while they were able to resist the current, threw it
with a rebound to the Missouri side, but which, now yielding to the
tremendous stream and being gradually washed away, let the whole
force of the river come in a more direct and easy course.
The statement, in more detail, of this great body of evidence,
tending only to the establishment of facts, would serve no purpose
of judicial science, and may be the more properly omitted by the
reporter since in most of the details not already given, it is
minutely presented by the learned Justice who gives, after stating
it, the opinion of the Court as a result.
Page 78 U. S. 401
MR. JUSTICE DAVIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is unnecessary, for the purposes of this suit, to consider
whether, on general principles, the middle of the channel of a
navigable river which divides coterminous states is not the true
boundary between them, in the absence of express agreement to the
contrary, because the treaty between France, Spain, and England, in
February, 1763, stipulated that the middle of the River Mississippi
should be the boundary between the British and the French
territories on the continent of North America. And this line,
established by the only sovereign powers at the time interested in
the subject, has remained ever since as they settled it. It was
recognized by the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain of 1783, and
by different treaties since then, the last of which resulted in the
acquisition of the Territory of Louisiana (embracing the country
west of the Mississippi) by the United States in 1803. The
boundaries of Missouri, when she was admitted into the Union as a
state in 1820, were fixed on this basis, as were those of Arkansas
in 1836. [
Footnote 3] And
Kentucky succeeded, in 1792, [
Footnote 4] to the ancient right and possession of
Virginia, which extended, by virtue of these treaties, to the
middle of the bed of the Mississippi River. It follows, therefore,
that if Wolf Island, in 1763, or in 1820, or at any intermediate
period between these dates, was east of this line, the jurisdiction
of Kentucky rightfully attached to it. If the river has
subsequently turned its course, and now runs east of the island,
the status of the parties to this controversy is not altered by it,
for the channel which the river abandoned remains, as before, the
boundary between the states, and the island does not, in
consequence of this action of the water, change its owner.
[
Footnote 5]
That Virginia Claimed the ownership of the island as early as
1782 is very certain, for at that date the arable land on it was
entered in the proper office of Virginia as vacant land lying
within the territorial limits of the state, although it
Page 78 U. S. 402
seems the entry was never surveyed or carried into a grant. And
that Kentucky is now, and has been for many years prior to the
commencement of this suit, in the actual and exclusive possession
of the island, exercising the rights of sovereignty over it, is
beyond dispute. The island lies opposite to and forms part of
Hickman County, one of the counties of the state, and the lands
embraced in it were, in May, 1837, surveyed under state authority,
and have since then been sold and conveyed to the purchasers by the
same authority. The people residing on it have paid taxes and
exercised the elective franchise according to the laws of the
state. In 1851, a resident of the island was elected to represent
the county in the General Assembly, and served in that capacity.
And as early as 1828, a minor living there with one Samuel Scott
was bound an apprentice to him by the proper court having
jurisdiction of such subjects. This possession, fully established
by acts like these, has never been disturbed. If Missouri has
claimed the island to be within her boundaries, she has made no
attempt to subject the people living there to her laws or to
require of them the performance of any duty belonging to the
citizens of a state. Nor has there been any effort on her part to
occupy the island or to exercise jurisdiction over it. If there
were proof that the island, by Legislation, had been included in
the limits of New Madrid County, then the service of a writ in 1820
on the solitary settler there by the sheriff of the county would be
an exercise of sovereign power on the part of the state. But in the
absence of this proof, there is nothing to connect the state with
the transaction or from which an inference can be drawn that the
sheriff was authorized to go on the island with his process. And
for the same reason it is hard to see how the fact, conceding it to
be true, that a person occupying the position of a circuit judge of
Missouri once lived on the island (when or how long we are not
informed) tends to show that the state intended to take possession
of it.
These things may prove that in the opinion of the judge and
sheriff, the island belonged to Missouri, but they do not
Page 78 U. S. 403
go further and put the state in any better position than she was
if they had not occurred. And so with the locator of the New Madrid
Claim in 1821. He doubtless believed he had authority to locate his
warrant on the island, but surely the state cannot claim that she
acquired any right by this proceeding. There is therefore nothing
in this record which shows that Kentucky has not maintained, for a
long course of years, exclusive possession and jurisdiction over
this territory and the people who inhabit it. It remains to be seen
whether she shall remain in possession and continue to exercise
this jurisdiction or whether she shall give way to Missouri. The
case is certainly not without its difficulties, but we think these
difficulties can be removed by a fair examination of the testimony,
and the right of the contestants properly determined.
The evidence to be considered consists of the testimony of
living witnesses, the physical changes and indications at and above
the island, and the maps and books produced by the complainant. In
a controversy of this nature, where state pride is more or less
involved, it is hardly to be expected that the witnesses would all
agree in their testimony. And as this conflict does exist, it is
necessary to consider the evidence somewhat in detail in order to
justify the conclusions we have reached concerning it.
There are eight witnesses called for the complainant, who
testify confidently that the main channel of the Mississippi River
was always east of Wolf Island, and one of them (Swon), an
experienced river man, who navigated the river from 1821 to 1851,
in all stages of water, says there are no indications that the main
channel was ever on the west side. Only three of them knew the
river prior to 1820, and they were engaged in the business of
flatboating, which is hardly ever undertaken in a low stage of
water. There is nothing to show that anyone of them ever made a
personal examination of the channels and surrounding objects at
this point, and there is a remarkable absence of facts to sustain
their opinions. It is also noticeable in connection with this
evidence that none of the witnesses (Hunter may be an
exception)
Page 78 U. S. 404
ever lived in the vicinity of the island or remained there any
length of time, and that all the knowledge any of them acquired of
the state of the river was obtained by passing up or down it at
different times, either on flatboats or steamboats. Notwithstanding
they swear positively that the channel was always east of the
island, yet Watson says it changed for about three years, and
Ranney testifies that on one occasion, when the main channel was
divided into three parts, the deepest water for a short time in the
fall of the year was found on the west of the island, and
steamboats passed on that side. But they do not prove a deficiency
of water at any time in the Missouri channel, or that any boat,
from that or any other cause, was ever hindered in any attempt to
run it. It is undoubtedly true that the Kentucky channel, when the
river was full, for many years has afforded a safe passage for
boats, because at such a time, if the obstructions were not
submerged, they could be avoided, and navigators would take it, as
it was five miles the shortest. And passing the river only
occasionally, and without any knowledge of where the volume of
water flowed when the river was low, they would naturally conclude
it was the main channel. It is equally true that now it is the main
highway for the business of the river, but the point to be
determined is was it so as far back as 1763, or even 1820? If in
the investigation of such an inquiry positive certainty is not
attainable, yet the evidence furnished by the defendant affords a
reasonable solution of it. And at any rate it greatly outweighs the
evidence on the other side, and in such a case the party in
possession has the better right. The proof on behalf of the
defendant consists of the testimony of twenty-seven witnesses. Many
of them have been acquainted with the river from an early period in
this century, and quite a number have spent their lives near the
disputed territory, and, therefore had better opportunities for
observing the condition of the river at this point than the
witnesses for the complainant, who only passed there occasionally.
Nearly all of them are old men, and there is no diversity of
opinion between them concerning the location
Page 78 U. S. 405
of the main channel of the Mississippi River at Wolf Island. All
who testify on the subject -- there are only a few who do not --
agree that until a comparatively recent period, it ran west of the
island, and to fortify their opinions they describe the state of
the respective channels at different times and tell what was done
by themselves or others about the navigation of the river. They
concur in saying that in early times it was difficult for
flatboats, even in the highest stage of water, to get into the
Kentucky chute, owing to the current running towards the Missouri
side, and that if they succeeded in doing it, the navigation was
obstructed on account of the narrow and crooked condition of the
stream, which was filled with tow-heads, sand-bars, driftwood, and
rack-heaps. One of the witnesses, in describing the appearance of
this chute in 1804, states that it looked like lowlands, with
cottonwood and cypress on it, and that there was only a narrow
channel close to the island; all the other space to the Kentucky
shore, now open water, was then covered with large cottonwood
timber.
Other witnesses corroborate this testimony and unite in saying
that in early times, at an ordinary stage of water, it was
impossible to take the Kentucky channel at all on account of these
obstructions, while the Missouri channel was wide, deep, and
unobstructed. And one of them expresses the opinion that in low
water, anyone could have got to the island from the Kentucky shore
without wetting his feet by crossing the small streams on the
drift-wood. But we are not left to conjecture on this point, for
Ramsey, an old inhabitant of the country, swears that on one
occasion he walked over from the Kentucky side to the island,
nearly all the way on dry land, and the residue on drift-wood, and
noticed while on the island that there was plenty of water in the
Missouri channel.
Can it be possible that such a stream at this time was the main
channel of the Mississippi River? Although the Kentucky channel,
from natural causes, had improved in 1825, still in the low water
of that year it did not have a depth of over two and a half feet
nor a width exceeding one hundred
Page 78 U. S. 406
and fifty yards, while steamboats passed through the Missouri
channel without any difficulty. The witness who testifies to this
state of things, at that time, had his attention especially called
to the subject as he kept a woodyard on the Kentucky side opposite
the island, and missed the opportunity of supplying boats that ran
the Missouri channel.
And there is no one who speaks of a scarcity of water in the
Missouri channel until after Captain Shreve operated in this
locality with his snag boats, which had the effect of opening and
deepening the Kentucky channel, so that it has now become the
navigable stream. Judge Underwood says that in 1820 the west
channel was between four and five hundred yards wider than the east
one, and must have discharged nearly double the quantity of water.
And one witness testifies that the east channel was formerly so
narrow that two steamers could not pass in it abreast. It would
seem, therefore, that the condition of this channel, as told by
these witnesses, was proof enough that the main channel was west of
the island; but this is not all the proof on the subject. Russell,
who was appointed superintendent of river improvements in 1842 and
knew the island since 1814 and spent five months there in 1819,
swears that in descending the river in 1830 or 1831, he sounded the
Kentucky channel, and, not finding water enough in it by two or
three feet to float his boat, was compelled to go down on the
Missouri side, where there was nine or ten feet of water. To the
same effect is the evidence of Holton, who in 1828, being unable to
get up the east channel with a steamer drawing upwards of six feet
of water, went over to the Missouri side and passed through without
any trouble. And three years later Peebles saw three or four
steamers attempt to run up the Kentucky channel, and failing to get
through, back out and easily ascend the other. Christopher, who ran
the river from 1824 to 1861, on one occasion could not pass the bar
at the foot of the Kentucky chute with a boat drawing twelve feet
of water, and was compelled to change to the other side, and got up
without any difficulty, and there are other witnesses who testify
to the inability of boats to
Page 78 U. S. 407
pass east of the island, and to their safe passage west of it.
Indeed, the concurrent testimony of all the persons engaged in the
navigation of the river is that they could never safely go east of
the island unless in high water, and that they uniformly took the
west channel in dry seasons, and the flatboatmen, in early times,
even in high water, were frequently compelled to uncouple their
boats in order to descend the Kentucky channel, and then were
obliged to pull through by trees, on account of the narrowness of
the channel. In low water, they would quite often get aground and
have to wait for a rise of the river to take them out. It will
readily be seen that this class of men would naturally take risks
in order to save five miles of navigation. Moseby, who has lived in
the vicinity for forty-two years, testifies to the greater volume
of water in the Missouri channel and to boats usually taking it,
and all the witnesses agree that since they knew the river, the
chutes around the island have undergone great changes, and that the
east one is now, in depth, width, and freedom from obstructions,
wholly unlike what it was formerly. In this state of proof, how can
it be successfully contended that Missouri has any just claim to
the island?
But there is additional proof growing out of certain physical
facts connected with this locality which we will proceed to
consider. Islands are formed in the Mississippi River by accretions
produced by the deposit at a particular place of the soil and sand
constantly floating in it, and by the river cutting a new channel
through the mainland on one or the other of its shores. The inquiry
naturally suggests itself of which class is Wolf Island? If the
latter, then the further inquiry whether it was detached from
Missouri or Kentucky. The evidence applicable to this subject tends
strongly to show that the island is not the result of accretions,
but was once a part of the mainland of Kentucky. Islands formed by
accretions are, in river phraseology, called made land, while those
produced by the other process necessarily are of primitive
formation. It is easy to distinguish them on account of the
difference in their soil and timber.
Page 78 U. S. 408
It has been found by observation and experience that primitive
soil produces trees chiefly of the hardwood varieties, while the
timber growing on land of secondary formation -- the effect of
accretions -- is principally cottonwood. Wolf Island is of large
area, containing about fifteen thousand acres of land, and, with
the exception of some narrow accretions on its shores, is primitive
land, and has the primitive forest growing on it.
On the high land of the island there are the largest poplar,
chincapin, oak, and black-jack trees growing, and primitive soil
only has the constituent elements to produce such timber. But this
is not all, for trees of like kind and size are found on the
Kentucky side on what is called the second bottom, near the foot of
the Iron Banks, which is about two feet higher than the bottom on
which Columbus is located. There are no such trees on the Missouri
shore. Those found there are of a different kind and much smaller
growth. Besides this, the high land on the island is on the same
level with the second bottom on the Kentucky side, while it is four
or five feet higher than the land on the Missouri side opposite the
island and above it. In this State of the case, it would seem clear
that this second bottom and island were once parts of the same
table of land, and at some remote period were separated by the
formation of the east channel. In the nature of things it is
impossible to tell when this occurred, nor is it necessary to
decide that question, for, by the memory of living witnesses we are
enabled to determine that the east channel, or cut-off, as it
should be called, was not the main channel down to 1820.
If the testimony already noticed be not enough to prove this,
there is the additional evidence furnished by the changes which the
river has accomplished in the neighborhood of the island, within
the recollection of many intelligent persons. These changes are
important, and are shown on the map of H. G. Black (on the opposite
page), which is proved to be a correct representation both of the
present and original position of the island, the river, and its
banks. The effect of the evidence on this subject is that the
filling
Page 78 U. S. 409
image:a
Page 78 U. S. 410
up at the mouth of Town Creek, the washing away of the point
above on the Missouri side, the abrasion of the Iron Banks, and the
partial destruction of Toney's Point, have operated to straighten
the banks above the island on the Kentucky side, to bring the water
closer to them, and, as a consequence, to cast it into the east
channel. And that before these projecting points were removed and
the accretions made at Town Creek, the water was thrown towards the
Missouri side. This was necessarily so, as can readily be seen by
an inspection of the map. In the original condition of the river,
the current must have been carried from the Missouri point to the
Iron Banks opposite, and rebounded from them across to the Missouri
side, so as to carry the channel west of Wolf Island. And it is
equally clear that the changes which have occurred within this
century have straightened the river and turned the channel to the
east of the island. Can there be any need of further evidence to
sustain the long-continued possession of Kentucky to the island,
and are not the witnesses, who swear that in their time the main
channel of the Mississippi River ran west of Wolf Island,
abundantly fortified?
But it is said the maps of the early explorers of the river and
the reports of travelers, prove the channel always to have been
east of the island. The answer to this is that evidence of this
character is mere hearsay as to facts within the memory of
witnesses, and if this consideration does not exclude all the books
and maps since 1800, it certainly renders them of little value in
the determination of the question in dispute. If such evidence
differs from that of living witnesses, based on facts, the latter
is to be preferred. Can there be a doubt that it would be wrong in
principle to dispossess a party of property on the mere statements
-- not sworn to -- of travelers and explorers when living
witnesses, testifying under oath and subject to cross-examination,
and the physical facts of the case, contradict them?
But it is claimed the books and maps which antedate human
testimony, establish the right of Missouri to this island. If this
be so, there is recent authority for saying they are
Page 78 U. S. 411
unreliable. In 1861, Captain Humphreys and Lieutenant Abbott, of
the Corps of Topographical Engineers, submitted to the proper
bureau of the War Department a report based on actual surveys and
investigations upon the physics and hydraulics of the Mississippi
River, which they were directed to make by Congress. In speaking on
the subject of the changes in the river, [
Footnote 6] they say:
"These changes have been constantly going on since the
settlement of the country, but the old maps and records are so
defective that it is impossible to determine much about those which
occurred prior to 1800."
In the face of this report, authorized by the government and
prepared with great learning and industry, how can we allow the
books and maps published prior to this century to have any weight
in the decision of this controversy?
Without pursuing the investigation further, on full
consideration of all the evidence in the case, we are satisfied the
State of Missouri has no just claim to the possession of Wolf
Island.
It is therefore ordered that the bill be
Dismissed.
[
Footnote 1]
See the report of Captain Humphreys and Lieutenant Abbott, of
the Topographical Engineers of the United States upon the physics
and hydraulics of the Mississippi River, made by order of
Congress.
[
Footnote 2]
See Lyell's Second Visit to the United States, vol. ii, pp. 248,
250. By way of illustrating the immense geological changes which
the basin of the Mississippi has undergone in the course of time, a
passage was quoted from Lyell's Principles of Geology (10th ed.,
vol. i, p. 462). The author is describing a cliff near the Gulf,
which he examined in 1846, and which he says had been well
described by Bartram, the botanist, sixty-nine years before, "a
cliff continually undermined by the stream." He says:
"At the base of it, about forty feet above the level of the
gulf, is buried a forest, with the stolls and roots in their
natural position, and composed of such trees as now live in the
swamps of the delta and alluvial plain. Above this buried forest
the bluff rises to a height of about seventy-five feet, and affords
a section of beds of river sand, including trunks of trees and
pieces of driftwood, and above the sand a brown clay. From the top
of the cliff the ground slopes to a height of about two hundred
feet above the sea. From this section we learn that there have been
great movements and oscillations of level since the Mississippi
began to form an alluvial plain and to drift down timber into it,
and to bury under sand and sediment ancient forests. When the trees
were buried, the ground was probably sinking, after which it must
have been raised again, so as to allow the stream to cut through
its old alluvium. The depth of this ancient fluviatile is seen to
be no less than two hundred feet, without any signs of the bottom's
being reached."
[
Footnote 3]
3 Stat. at Large 545; 5
id. p. 50.
[
Footnote 4]
1
id. 189.
[
Footnote 5]
Heffter, Du Droit International, p. 143, § 66;
Caratheodery, Du Droit International 62.
[
Footnote 6]
Page 104.
