March 18, 2006

Nevada's Online State News Journal

 

.
   
 
[From The History of Nevada, edited by Sam P. Davis, vol. I (1912)]
Nevada History: 

198      THE HISTORY OF NEVADA

 

CHAPTER IV.

THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOUNDARIES OF NEVADA.

BY BEULAH HERSHISER, M. A.

 

THE ORIGIN OF THE BOUNDARY DISPUTES BETWEEN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA.

            The origin of the boundary disputes between the State of California and the western part of Utah Territory, which became Nevada, is to be sought mainly in the character of the country traversed by the common line of California and Nevada.[1] Another cause of contention is to be found in the attitude of the people living in the valleys on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the vicinity of the California line, whose interests made them desire to be a part of California.

            The organic Act of Utah (September 9, 1850) defined the boundary of that Territory as follows : west, California; north, the Territory of Oregon; east, the Rocky Mountains; and south, the 37th parallel.[2] California was admitted into the Union as a State at the same time that the vast region called Utah was organized into a Territory of the United States.

            The eastern boundary of California, with which this essay is concerned, is defined in the California Constitution as follows : "Commencing at the point of intersection of the 42d degree of north latitude with the 120th degree of longitude west from Greenwich, and running south on the line of said 120th degree of west longitude until it intersects the 39th degree of north latitude; then in a straight line in a southeasterly direction to the Colorado River at a point where it intersects the 35th degree of north latitude." [3] This line passes through the Sierra Nevada Mountains from the 42d parallel to the 39th and then across the desert.[4] The mountains are cut in some places by canons; in others they are heavily wooded.

THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOUNDARIES        199

            On the desert little vegetation grows save the cactus. During the years immediately following 1850 the parts of the country through which the boundary line ran were only vaguely known. In the report of the Surveyor-General of California for December, 1852, these portions are called "the most dangerous in the State." [5]

            The question of the exact position of the eastern boundary line became important as the population increased. When farms and mines were taken up in the neighborhood of the California line, discussions over jurisdiction followed. The regulation and protection of the government became more desirable, and the men of Carson Valley in 1852 hoped that they were under the law of the State of California.[6] The first recorded opinion of the location of the Carson Valley with reference to the eastern boundary is given by Mr. Eddy, California Surveyor-General, in his report for 1852.[7] Mr. Eddy went to Placerville for the express purpose of answering inquiries concerning the position of the boundary line. He wrote : "While here (Placerville) we computed a sufficient number of observations to satisfy ourselves as to our position approximately, and finding that Placerville was about forty-six miles from the angle of the State boundary at the intersection of the 120th meridian and the 39th parallel, and that the lowest estimate of the air-line distance from Placerville to Mormon Station in Carson Valley was sixty miles, I was reluctantly forced to the conclusion that the valley was from twelve to fifteen miles out of the State." [8]

            Carson Valley increased in population and became important, principally because of its situation just where the traveler to the goldfields of California usually rested from the fatigue of crossing the desert before climbing the steep ascent of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. [9] The consideration which Carson Valley received from the government of Utah Territory is shown by the fact that when Utah was divided in 1851 into court districts, Provo, a town almost directly south of Salt Lake, was made the meeting place of the district which included all western Utah.[10]

200      THE HISTORY OF NEVADA

            To attend court from Carson Valley would have involved a journey of hundreds of miles, an arrangement obviously not satisfactory. In this plight the citizens of Carson Valley petitioned the California Legislature to extend the jurisdiction of the State over the Valley.[11]

            The Select Committee of the California Senate, to which the petition was referred, prepared and presented to the Senate a memorial to Congress with the recommendation that it be adopted. This memorial of March, 1853, urged that Carson Valley should be under the control of California, because the desert was the natural boundary and Utah was too remote.[12] It further suggested as the eastern boundary of California a line drawn from the intersection of the 42d parallel and the 120th meridian to the intersection of the 35th parallel and the Colorado River.[13] The memorial, which was adopted by the California Senate, but not by the Assembly, is interesting as revealing the ideas and desires of the people of Carson Valley and of California.[14] It also affected the policy of the government of Utah, arousing it to the organization of Carson County. The Act creating Carson County was passed in 1854, and a colony of Mormons was sent to put it into effect.[15]

            So great was the uncertainty concerning the actual location of the California State line that before Judge Hyde, whose task it was to organize the county, could proceed, he had to clear up the indefiniteness.[16]

            In connection with an Act to build a wagon road to the eastern boundary of the State, in 1855, the California Surveyor-General appointed Mr. Goddard to survey "such portion of the State line as shall fall in Carson Valley."[17] For this work Judge Hyde of Utah furnished the supplies. As soon as Mr. Goddard felt convinced that Carson Valley was in Utah, Judge Hyde, who had accompanied the party from Sacramento, hastened on to Mormon Station to hold court.[18]

THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOUNDARIES        201

            The citizens of Carson Valley from the beginning, as has been shown, expressed preference for the rule of California; naturally then, when thus made subject to Utah, they turned to California. In November, 1855, a traveler wrote of Carson Valley : "The inhabitants of the valley were nearly all unanimous in their desire to be annexed to California."[19] November 23, 1855, the citizens of Carson Valley petitioned the California Legislature to become a part of the State.[20] The Committee on Federal Relations, to which the petition was referred, made a favorable report and presented a resolution asking Congress for the 118th meridian as the eastern boundary of California.[21] The Representatives and Senators were requested to urge the passage of such a bill in Congress. The result was that the report of the Committee on Territories to the House, of Representatives, January 20, 1857, was unfavorable to the annexation of Carson Valley to California, on the ground that California was already too large. [22] The committee felt that if Utah had good government the desire to be annexed to California would cease.

            Accordingly the new Governor sent out to Utah in 1857 by the United States was expected to give efficient protection to all parts of the Territory. [23] But the conditions which arose in Utah led to quite different results. In January, 1857, Carson County was attached to Great Salt Lake County and lost most of its rights of self-government. [24] And late the same year the Mormon colony in Carson Valley was recalled to Salt Lake City. The reasons assigned for the withdrawal of the Mormons by Mr. Smith of the Committee on Territories in his report of May 12, 1858, were the friction between the Mormons and Gentiles in Carson Valley and "the increasing difficulties between the Federal Government and the Mormons."[25] These changes left western Utah free from Mormon domination, but also without settled institutions of any kind.

202      THE HISTORY OF NEVADA

THE ENDEAVORS OF NEVADA TO SECURE A TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT.

            The origin of the boundary dispute between California and Nevada, due to the nature of the country traversed by the line of California and the consequent uncertainty as to jurisdiction, has been briefly stated. The next phase of the controversy centers about the struggle of Carson Valley to obtain recognition as a separate Commonwealth. This was sought in two ways—by the aid of California, and by an agent sent to Congress.

            The Governor of California, John B. Weller, sent the memorial of Carson Valley,[26] asking Congress for a temporary government, to President Buchanan with the following note : "February 2, 1858. The President will see that this subject has received the favorable action of our State Legislature. The gentlemen whose names are attached to this letter are men of high character and have been attending to the subject. I recommend this memorial to your favorable consideration."[27] The California Legislature passed a resolution[28] which was presented in the United States Senate March 1, 1851,[29] to the effect that, "in view of the impending difficulties in Utah," a territorial government should be given Carson Valley, "with such boundaries as circumstances may warrant and require."[30]

            During the summer of 1857 numerous meetings were held at Genoa in Carson Valley to debate the subject of a Territorial government.[31] Mr. James M. Crane was chosen to present at Washington the needs of the people of western Utah for a more adequate government.[32] On October 3, 1857, Mr. Crane addressed a meeting of the people of Honey Lake Valley, at which resolutions were adopted endorsing the action of Carson Valley and approving Mr. Crane's election as delegate of the new Territory.[33] Mr. Crane had no official standing in Congress, since

THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOUNDARIES        203

the district in whose interest he went was not organized under the authority of the United States; but he was recognized as representing the people of his section. President Buchanan referred to Mr. Crane as "the delegate of the people of Carson Valley." [34]

            The efforts of Mr. Crane, supported by the influence of the California members of Congress, resulted in a very favorable report from the Committee on Territories, together with a bill "to organize a Territorial Government of Nevada."[35] The report of the Committee on Territories May 13, 1858, epitomized the history of Utah Territory, covering the grievances of Carson Valley against the Mormons by quoting from their memorial.[36] The Committee suggested as the extent of the new Territory the area between the eastern boundary of California and about the 114th meridian west from Washington.[37] The bill was lost in the Committee of the Whole, May 13, 1857.[38] The opinion of the House is probably expressed by Mr. Jones of Tennessee, who said: "We certainly do not want any more Territories at this time."[39] The failure to secure Federal acknowledgment of their need was a deep disappointment to the people of Carson Valley. They strove to supply the deficiency by a provisional government which declared them free from Utah.

            A convention was held in Genoa, Carson Valley, July 18-28, 1859,[40] which made a declaration of independence of Utah,[41] framed a Territorial Constitution,[42] and authorized an election of Territorial officers.[43] Article X of the proposed Constitution defined the western boundary of the Territory as the summit of the Sierra Nevada Mountains from

204      THE HISTORY OF NEVADA

the 42d to the 35th parallel.[44] Mr. Crane was again elected to represent the people of western Utah in Congress, but died before the time of starting on his mission.[45] The sending of a new Governor to the Territory of Utah has been mentioned.[46] Mr. Cumming had been appointed by President Buchanan, July 11, 1857, and arrived in Salt Lake City, November 19, 1857.[47] It is sufficient to say that Governor Cumming's energies were fully occupied with the situation in and near Salt Lake City. This was one reason why Carson County received no better government from Governor Cumming. Another was the bitterness of the people toward the Mormons.

            Judge Child, sent out from Salt Lake to Carson Valley in the fall of 1859, could do nothing because the people said: "Much as we desire the protection of law, we do not want the laws of Utah."[48] This determined opposition to Mormonism is well illustrated by the report of the grand jury empaneled for the September term of the United States District Court for the Second Judicial District of Utah Territory to Judge Cradlebaugh : "Hitherto we have presented the anomaly, without a parallel in the United States, of a people living under a constitutional government, with no voice in it, remote from the seat of government, without courts or other tribunals of justice, yet maintaining loyalty to the Constitution, supporting its laws and promoting the prosperity and wealth of the country.”[49] The provisional government served to bridge over a period when the citizens of western Utah were without recognized laws and officers to enforce them. That lynch law prevailed was one of the arguments used by the Committee on Territories in favor of the Territorial government, May 13, 1858.[50]

The provisional government also directed the efforts to secure Federal recognition, and in 1860 bills to organize the Territory were introduced

THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOUNDARIES        205

into both House and Senate, but they failed.[51] The existence of this local government came to an end when the people's struggles for a Territorial government were rewarded by the passage of the organic Act of Nevada, March 2, 1861.[52]

THE WORK OF THE JOINT CALIFORNIA AND UNITED STATES BOUNDARY

COMMISSION.

            The California boundary of 1850[53] was in reality so little known that an accurate official survey of the eastern boundary of the State was urged upon the California Legislature by the Surveyors-General in each report from 1855 to 1861.[54] One reason given for the fixing of the line between California and the United States Territories was that California lost taxes because people residing near the disputed line claimed to live in Utah. Another reason was that the citizens of the boundary region were in confusion over all sorts of legal questions, not knowing whether to appeal to the courts of Utah or of California.[55]

            The plan of a joint United States and California Commission to lay at rest authoritatively all doubts concerning the eastern California line was recommended to the California Legislature in the report of the Surveyor-General for January, 1858.[56] The Legislature took up the suggestion and passed the following resolution: "Whereas, no portion of the boundary line between the State of California and the Territory of Utah has ever been definitely ascertained by actual survey, under the authority of the Government of the United States, and in consequence thereof conflicting claims exist between said State and Territory as to the jurisdiction over lands and their inhabitants situated near the boundary line ; therefore, be it resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, that our Senators be instructed and our Representatives in Congress be requested to procure at an early date the passage

206      THE HISTORY OF NEVADA

of a bill authorizing the survey of the boundary between the State of California and the Territory of Utah, to be designated by appropriate monuments. The said survey to conform to the boundary line now established by law of Congress between said State and Territory."[57] This resolution was presented in the United States Senate, May 13, 1858, and was referred to the Committee on Territories, which was in turn discharged from further consideration of the same.[58]

            In February, 1859, the California Legislature passed an Act to authorize the government of California in conjunction with the United States "to run and mark the boundary lines between the Territories of the United States and California."[59] A similar Act was not passed by Congress and approved by the President till May 26, 1860.[60] It provided that the President should appoint Commissioners to meet those of California, and for their work Congress appropriated $55,000.[61] The United States Commissioners were duly appointed and were in the field by the fall of 1860.[62] Meantime the California Legislature of 1860 repealed the Act of 1859, and instead of authorizing a commission directed the California Surveyor-General to run the northern portion of the eastern boundary line of the State.[63] When the United States Commissioners applied to the Governor of California for coworkers from his State, he refused to appoint them, because of this action on the part of the Legislature.[64]

There was no united action because, although the California Legislature had enacted two laws[65] intended to meet the demand by providing a commission, the action was too late ; the work of the United States was suspended April 1, 1861.[66] The Commissioner of the United States

THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOUNDARIES        207

was removed May 15, 1861, because the funds had been squandered.[67] However, two points of the boundary line had been fixed: that at the intersection of the 35th parallel and the Colorado River, and that at the meeting of the 39th parallel and the 120th meridian.[68] The astronomer said in his report to the United States Surveyor-General, August 30, 1861, that any surveyor could complete the boundary between these two points.[69]

            The report of the Secretary of the Interior for December, 1865, gave a review of the work of the United States Commission, adding that nothing further had been done.[70] It is evident that the great Civil War had left neither inclination nor opportunity for the completion by the United States of the survey of the old California line. The significance of the joint United States and California Commission is that enough work was done by the United States to have settled all the perplexities of the location of the eastern boundary line of California.

            In 1861, the very year of this project, a new factor entered into the situation, namely, the securing by Nevada of the Organic Act.[71]

            The organic Act provided that the new Territory should have "the ridge of the Sierra Nevada Mountains" as the western boundary, with the proviso "that so much of the said territory as is within the present limits of California, shall not be included until California assents to the same."[72] Thus the United States for a time was withdrawn from the adjustment of the 'boundary difficulties between California and Nevada.

THE CONTENTION OVER THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA FROM THE ORGANIC ACT OF NEVADA TO THE AUTHORIZED LINE OF THE UNITED STATES, 1861-1874.

            By the organic Act of Nevada the boundary disagreement became a question of two lines—the constitutional line of California being the 120th meridian between the 42d and 39th parallels and southeast from the intersection of the 39th parallel and the 120th meridian to the inter-

208      THE HISTORY OF NEVADA

section of the Colorado River and the 35th parallel ;[73] and the new line of the organic Act, "the ridge" or water-shed of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.[74]

            The issue between the two Commonwealths, involving possession of the eastern slopes of the Sierra, soon began to take shape. November 9, 1861, the first Nevada Legislature passed an Act providing for the election of two Commissioners who, with the Governor, should present , to the next California Legislature the provisions of the organic Act. They were to try to get from California the recognition of the summit of the Sierra as the boundary line.[75] The Commissioners appointed to act with Governor Nye were ex-Governor Roop and Mr. R. M. Ford.[76] Although the Commissioners were given the privileges of the Assembly and addressed the California Legislature, their efforts failed.[77] A bill to "cede certain territory of the State of California to the Territory of Nevada" was referred to a Committee of Border Counties, and was lost.[78] On the part of California no boundary commission was appointed, and since the new line was not conceded, the question was left open.[79]

            Meanwhile the citizens of Nevada were taking other measures to protect their Territorial interests. November 28, 1861, the Territorial Legislature paid to John F. Kidder the sum of $550 for surveying the boundary line from Lake Bigler to Honey Lake.[80] And the day after the Legislature passed an Act authorizing the Governor to have the boundary surveyed "from Lake Bigler to below Esmeralda ;"[81] but the survey was to be made only in case California failed to cooperate with the Nevada Commission already appointed in establishing the line.[82] Since the California Legislature refused to unite in a joint commission, the Governor of Nevada appointed Butler Ives and John F. Kidder to

THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOUNDARIES        209

run the boundary line ; and in the summer of 1862 they made the survey as prescribed by law from Lake Bigler south.[83]

            Trouble followed in the settled region adjacent to the two lines. Quarrels over jurisdiction came even to the use of force between Roop County, Nevada, and Plumas County, California.[84] In the south, Aurora, a thriving mining camp, was a prize which both California and Nevada claimed.[85] The differences were temporarily adjusted by a line agreed upon by Judge Robert Robinson, agent for California, and Territorial Secretary Clemens, Acting Governor of Nevada.[86] These concrete cases aroused the California Legislature to pass an Act "to survey and establish the eastern boundary of the State of California."[87] The Act provided also that the Governor of Nevada be requested to have his State join in the survey. A debate in the California Senate on this bill showed most of the members in favor of the constitutional line of California. The Senators declared that the water-shed or "ridge" of the Sierra could never be defined, and that no part of California should be relinquished.[88] In 1865 the Secretary of the Interior gave as a reason for the preservation of the old line that "the Legislature of California * * * has refused to accede to the proposed modifications" (the line of the organic Act of Nevada), assigning as the reason that "the State Constitution is inhibitory in that respect."[89] Acting Governor Clemens complied with the request of California, and appointed Mr. Butler Ives as Nevada's commissioner on the boundary survey.[90]

            This joint work was completed in the summer of 1863, and on Novem-

210      THE HISTORY OF NEVADA

ber 20 of that year the Surveyor-General of California reported that the survey extended from the 42d parallel along the 120th meridian to the 39th parallel and south to beyond Aurora, but not to the 35th parallel and the Colorado River.[91] The survey gave Aurora to Nevada and the larger part of Plumas County to California.[92] April 4, 1864, the California Legislature adopted the boundary as run by the joint commission of California and Nevada (1863) by an Act "relating to the establishment of the eastern boundary of the State of California,"[93] and designated it as "the legal boundary between California and Nevada."[94] On February 7, 1865, the Nevada Legislature gave its approval to the line of the commission of 1863, and provided for completing the survey.[95] In the report of the Secretary of the Interior for October, 1866, the United States Surveyor-General recommended that Congress give its recognition to the survey marked by California and Nevada, "should the evidence produced be satisfactory to the department that the line has been established according to the law of Congress."[96] This line, however, was never officially recognized by Congress.[97]

            When Nevada became a State of the Union in 1864, the enabling Act and the Constitution gave the western boundary of the State as "the eastern boundary of the State of California."[98] Nevada thus tacitly gave up the line of the organic Act. The line between California and Nevada remained as run in 1863,[99] and was considered correct till Mr. Major, while surveying the northern boundary of California, found the eastern boundary to vary somewhat from the location by his computations.[100] The United States Surveyor-General then urged Congress to establish the exact line dividing California and Nevada.[101] The appropriation for the survey, $41,250, was made in a bill "for sundry civil expenses of the government," June 10, 1872.5 The work was done by contract with

THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOUNDARIES 211

Alex. W. von Schmidt, who finished it in October, 1873, and made his report in 1874.[102] Thus the more serious problems concerning the frontiers of Nevada were finally solved.[103]

THE ADDITIONS OF TERRITORY TO NEVADA.

            The organic Act for the Territory of Nevada, March 2, 1861, gave the eastern limit of Nevada as the 39th parallel west from Washington, while the south was bounded by the northern line of New Mexico.[104] The next year after its Territorial organization Nevada secured by Act of Congress, July 14, 1862, a degree of longitude on the east, making the 38th meridian west from Washington, instead of the 39th, the dividing line between Nevada and Utah.[105] When this addition of territory was under discussion in Congress,[106] objections were answered by saying: "The proposition is simply to extend the eastern boundary some sixty miles."[107] Bancroft says that Congress attempted to compensate for the loss of territory on the west by adding a degree of longitude on the east.[108] The desire for larger area was natural to Nevada, because it was a mining and grazing Commonwealth. Both of these industries required a large region, wide in extent, for their development.[109]

            The first Senators from the State of Nevada, under title of a bill "to amend an Act to enable the people of Nevada to form a Constitution and State government and for the admission of such State into the Union on equal footing with the original States,"[110] asked that the State be given an additional degree of longitude on the east.[111] The bill passed the Senate, but failed in the House of Representatives for lack

212      THE HISTORY OF NEVADA

of time.[112] A bill "to extend the eastern and southern boundaries of Nevada" in the House of Representatives was lost at the next session.[113]

            In the Senate, however, Senator Stewart of Nevada presented a bill which made the 37th meridian west from Washington the eastern boundary, and the Colorado River the southern boundary.[114] It was passed, and became a law May 5, 1866.[115] The action was vigorously resisted by Mr. Hooper, Delegate from Utah Territory.[116] The usual argument was employed by its supporters, that the desired tract was a mining district ; that Nevada was a mining State ; and that the interests of the two sections were therefore identical.[117] The new boundaries were from the intersection of the 42d parallel and 37th meridian west from Washington, south on said meridian to the Colorado River, thence down the Colorado River to the eastern boundary of California.[118]

            The same sort of trouble followed over the eastern boundary as had been experienced over the western. The Surveyor-General of Nevada in his report of August 5, 1867, told of citizens in Lincoln County who refused to pay taxes, declaring they resided in Utah. Questions of jurisdiction were also in confusion. The report of the United States Surveyor-General, November 18, 1867, urges the establishment of the dividing line between Nevada and Utah.[119] The Secretary of the Interior recommended that Congress make the necessary appropriation for the survey of the eastern boundary of Nevada.[120] On July 2, 1868, Congress included this survey in the appropriation bill for civil expenses.[121]

            Attempts in both Senate and House further to extend the limits of Nevada failed in 1869.[122] In a long speech Mr. Hooper of Utah opposed any further taking of territory from Utah.[123] The appropriation of July 20, 1868, had been at the rate of twenty-five dollars per mile for the

THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOUNDARIES        213

survey of the eastern line of Nevada. The work required experts, so that the sum appropriated was too small.[124]

            In the civil expense bill of July 15, 1870, Congress made the appropriation $17,000, at the rate of forty dollars per mile, which "proved adequate," and the work was completed in the winter of 1870-1871.[125]

            The last attempt to gain more territory was made by Nevada in 1871 by way of a memorial from the Nevada Legislature to Congress asking for a portion of Idaho lying between the Snake River and the northern boundary of Nevada.[126] The resolution set forth that the district was interested in mining and that its citizens desired to belong to Nevada. The petition was never acted on, since it was smothered in the Committee on Judiciary to which it was referred.[127]

            The northern boundary of Nevada was run by the authority and under the direction of the United States, and was completed in 1874.[128] It was reported by the United States Surveyor-General at the same time with the survey of the line between California and Nevada- The southern boundary followed the channel of the Colorado River.[129]

            Thus, the last line being established, the boundaries of Nevada were finally adjusted.


[1] Statutes of Calif. 1850, 24 Art. XII.

[2] U. S. Statutes at Large, IX. 453.

[3] Poore, Charters and Constitutions, Part I, 205; Calif. Const. "Boundary," Art. XII; Statutes of Calif. 1850, 24, Art. XII; Calif. Blue Book, 1903, 46, Art. XXI, Sec. 1.

[4] The intersection of the 120th meridian and the 39th parallel falls in Lake Tahoe.

[5] Calif. Senate Journal, 4th Sess. App. Doc. 3, 8.

[6] Calif. Senate Journal, 4th Sess. App. Doc. 3.

[7] Calif. Senate Journal, 4th Sess. App. Doc. 3.

[8] Calif. Senate Journal, 4th Sess. App. Doc. 3, 14.

[9] Carson Valley was very fertile. The first settlers sold their crops to the emigrants. The character of the place is suggested by the name of the first town, Mormon Station (later Genoa). The Mormons could not keep the political control of the settlement because they were too few and too far away from the aid and influence of the church at Salt Lake. For the early growth of the settlement, see Bancroft, Hist. of the Pacific States, XX, 66-73; Angel, Hist. of Nevada, 29-49.

[10] House Exec. Docs. 32d Cong. 1st Sess. V, Doc. 25, 28. Brigham Young, in his defense to the President of the United States, mentions the division of the Territory, but gives neither dates nor limits of the districts. Utah records were not accessible.

[11] Calif. Senate Journal, 4th Sess. 90, 130-131; Bancroft, XX, 74-75.

[12] Calif. Senate Journal, 4th Sess. App. Doc. 46.

[13] Calif. Senate Journal, 4th Sess. App. Doc. 46; Bancroft XX, 75. This line would have added to California a vast mountain and desert region. On the map it is marked "A."

[14] Calif. Assembly Journal, 4th Sess. has no mention of this memorial.

[15] House Report of Committees, 35th Cong. 1st Sess. 1, Doc. 375. Bancroft gives the area of Carson Valley as all of western Utah above the present southern line of Humboldt County, south as far as latitude 38, and east to the 118th meridian. Bancroft, XX, 75. For the Act of the Utah Legislature organizing Carson County and the work of the citizens in establishing county government, see Angel, 37-39.

[16] Calif. Assembly Journal, 7th Sess. App. Report of Surveyor-General. S. H. Marlette, 92. At the time of the organization of Carson County, the Utah Legislature appointed a commission to cooperate with the authorities of California in establishing the boundary line. The Utah Commissioners were Judge Orson Hyde, Judge Stiles, and Joseph L. Haywood. Through their work a provisional line seems to have been agreed upon. Bancroft XX, 76-77.

[17] Calif. Assembly Journal, 7th Sess. App. 92.

[18] Mr. Goddard said the Mormons carried the county election, making themselves the officers. Calif, Assembly Journal, 7th Sess. App. 110. See, also, Angel, 38-40.

[19] Wilson Flint in California Farmer, Sacramento, November 16, 1855. The same idea of desire for annexation is found often in California papers. Daily Alta California, June 20, 1857; Bancroft, XX, 151-152.

[20] California Assembly Journal, 7th Sess. 141; Bancroft XX, 78.

[21] For this line see map, line "B." It is two degrees east of the constitutional California line. Calif. Assembly Journal, 7th Sess. 387-388; Senate Journal, 34th Cong. 1st Sess. 296; Bancroft XX, 78.

[22] House Report of Committee, 34th Cong. 3d Sess. 1, 116. This was in 1857, the year in which Utah was in "open rebellion" against the United States. The Governor was Mr. Cumming.

[23] House Exec. Docs. 35th Cong. 1st Sess. X, Doc. 71, 1-120.

[24] Angel, 42; Bancroft XX, 81.

[25] Calif. Assembly Journal, 7th Sess. App. The story of the troubles in Utah is to be found in House Exec. Docs. 35th Cong. 1st Sess. 11, Doc. 2; X, Doc. 71, Senate Miscel. Docs. 35th Cong. 1st Sess III, Doc 240; Bancroft XXIX, ch. 19. Utah was declared by Congress to be in "open rebellion" December, 1857. House Journal, 35th Cong. 1st Sess. 112-115. 1t is alleged that Brigham Young recalled all the faithful to Salt Lake City in anticipation of trouble with the Federal Government. Angel, 42; Bancroft XX, 80.

[26] The catalogue of grievances mentioned. Mormon intrigues with the Indians, including attacks upon the emigrants and hindrance of the mail; the Mormon Church a despotism; lack of loyalty to the United States; and finally western Utah having been for six or seven years without government. The memorial is printed in Angel, 43-45, and summarized in Bancroft XX, 82-83.

[27] House Exec. Docs. 35th Cong. 1st Sess. 102; Bancroft. XX, 83, n. 46.

[28] Statutes of Calif. 1858, 350; Calif. Senate Journal, 9th Sess. 111, 140; Calif. Assembly Journal 9th Sess. 114, 158; Bancroft XX, 83.

[29] Senate Journal, 35th Cong. 1st Sess. 590.

[30] Senate Miscell. Docs. 35th Cong. 1st Sess. III. Doc. 181.

[31] Daily Evening Bulletin, San Francisco, October 20, 1857; Angel, 42-46; Bancroft XX, 83.

[32] Mr. Crane was appointed as Delegate to Congress by the people of Carson Valley at the mass meeting held in Genoa, August 8, 1857, which was formulated the memorial asking Congress for Territorial government. Angel, 43-45; Bancroft XX, 83.

[33] Daily Evening Bulletin, San Francisco, October 6-20, 1857; Angel, 42-46; Bancroft XX, 83. Honey Lake Valley was on the eastern slope of the Sierras, and wished to belong to the new Territory.

[34] House Journal, 35th Cong. 1st Sess. 615.

[35] House Journal, 35th Cong. 1st Sess. 789, 1221; House Reports, 35th Cong. 1st Sess. III, 375; Bancroft X, 83 n. 47. The names by which this new government was called in California "Carson Territory," "The Territory of Sierra." Daily Evening Bulletin, San Francisco, October 6, 1857, and March 20, 1858; Daily Alta California, San Francisco, December 20, 1859. Angel, 46, prints a letter from Mr. Crane to his constituents, February 18, 1858, recounting his efforts for Territorial government.

[36] House Report of Committees, 35th Cong. 1st Sess. III, Doc. 375.

[37] For this line see map, line "D."

[38] House Journal, 35th Cong. 1st Sess. 789, 1221.

[39] Congressional Globe, 35th Cong. 1st Sess. 2122.

[40] For a full account of the steps leading up to the convention, its proceedings, and the organization of the provisional government, see Angel 61-66. The proceedings of the convention were printed in full in the Territorial Enterprise, Genoa July 30, 1859, reproduced in fac simile in Angel, 69-72, As to the convention, see Daily Alta California, San Francisco, July 27, August 10, 13, 20, September 14, October 7, 14, 1859; Bancroft XX, 87.

[41] The "Declaration" was printed in the Territorial Enterprise, Genoa, July 30, 1859, and is reprinted in Angel 63-70; Daily Alta California, San Francisco, August 13, 1859. It emphasizes the evils of Mormon oppression.

[42] The Constitution is also reproduced in fac simile from the Territorial Enterprise, July 30, 1859, in Angel, 70-71. It comprises eleven articles, and is signed by forty-seven members of the convention. It was modeled on the Constitution of California. Bancroft XX, 87.

[43] For the organization of government under the new Constitution, see Angel, 63-66; Bancroft XX, 88-91. The first and only session of the Legislature under the provisional government was held at Genoa, December 16, 1859, but there was no quorum and no business was done.

[44] "The boundary lines of the Territory of Nevada shall be as follows, to-wit: Commencing on a point on the Sierra Nevada Mountains, where the 42d degree of north latitude touches the summit of said mountains; thence southerly with said summit to the 35th degree of north latitude; thence east of said parallel to the Colorado River; thence up said river to its junction with the Rio Virgin; thence up said Rio Virgin to its junction with the Muddy River; thence due north to the Oregon line; thence west to the place of beginning." Angel, 71. As will be noted, this definition of the western boundary was the one adopted in the organic Act of 1861.

[45] Daily Alta California, San Francisco, September 28, 1859; Angel, 65; Bancroft XX, 89.

[46] Chapter 1, p. 124.

[47] House Exec. Docs. 35th Cong. 1st Sess. X, Doc. 71, 1-215. This document recounts the troubles between the United States and Utah.

[48] Daily Alta California, San Francisco, October 14, 1859 See Bancroft XX, 88-89, 151-152.

[49] Territorial Enterprise, in Daily Alta California, San Francisco, November 4, 1859; Bancroft XX, 152, n. 9. The grand jury's list of grievances; Mormon theocracy and outrages; Gentiles have no political power; it is 700 miles from the Capital of Utah to Carson Valley; the 1ndian funds are spent at Salt Lake and the 1ndians are incited to depredations. See, also, the message of Governor Roop to the provisional Legislature, December 15, 1859. Angel, 65-66.

[50] House Reports of Committees, 35th Cong. 1st Sess. III, Doc. 375.

[51] House Journal, 36th Cong. 1st Sess. part 2, 825; Senate Journal, 36th Cong. 1st Sess. 66, 813. After the death of Mr. Crane, the people of Carson Valley elected Mr. John S. Musser to represent them in Congress. Angel. 65, 66; Bancroft XX, 90.

[52] U.S. Statutes at Large, XII, 210. After the collapse of the provisional government, the authorities of Utah resumed jurisdiction over the Carson County region. Angel, 73-75.

[53] Beginning at the intersection of the 42d parallel and the 120th meridian, south on that meridian to its intersection with the 30th parallel; thence in a southerly direction to the, meeting of the Colorado River and the 35th parallel.

[54] Calif. Senate Journal, 4th Sess. to 14th, App. Reports of the Surveyor-General.

[55] Calif. Senate Journal, 9th Sess. App. Report of the Surveyor-General. The officers of Carson County even appropriated money to aid citizens in their resistance to the collection of taxes by the authorities of Plumas County, Calif. Angel, 75; Bancroft XX, 152.

[56] Calif. Senate Journal, 9th Sess. App. Report of the Surveyor-General.

[57] Statutes of Calif. 1858. 356-357; Calif. Assembly Journal, 9th Sess. 424. See, also, 114, 158; Bancroft XX, 152.

[58] Senate Journal, 35th Cong. 1st Sess. 555, 590; House Journal, 35th Cong. 1st Sess. 977-978.

[59] Calif. Assembly Journal, l0th Sess. 67; Statutes of Calif. 1859, 313; Bancroft XX, 152.

[60] Congressional Globe, 36th Cong. 1st Sess. App. 475; U. S. Statutes at Large, XII, 22; Bancroft

XX, 152.

[61] U.S. Statutes at Large, XII, 110.

[62] Senate Docs. 36th Cong. 2d Sess. I, Doc. 1; Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1860-1861.

[63] Statutes of Calif. 1860, 184, 185; Bancroft XX, 152-153.

[64] Statutes of Calif. 1860, 184. The popular reports of the California Legislature indicate an uncertain attitude as to just what should be done about the eastern boundary. March 3, 1860, one Senator suggested asking Congress for the 118th meridian; March 14th another thought that such an addition of territory would be unconstitutional "because proposing a change in the State's boundary line without a vote of the people." Daily Evening Bulletin, San Francisco, March 5, 6, 15, 1860; Calif. Assembly Journal, 12th Sess. 98. Meanwhile the Governor of California recommended that the Legislature memorialize Congress to extend the eastern boundary of California to the 118th meridian. Bancroft XX, 153, suggests that probably at this time the California legislators did not know that Congress had already organized the Territory of Nevada.

[65] Statutes of Calif. 1861, 73-74, 587-588; Bancroft XX, 153.

[66] Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1861-1862, 490.

[67] Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1861-1862, 490.

[68] The latter angle falls in Lake Tahoe.

[69] Messages and Does. Interior Dept. 1861-1862, 490.

[70] House Exec. Docs. 37th Cong. 1st Sess. II, Doc. I; Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1864-1865.

[71] U.S. Statutes at Large XII, 210; also Chapter II, page 125.

[72] Statutes of Nevada, 1864-1865; Sacramento Daily Union, April 6, 186; Angel, 100; Bancroft XX, 151. For the general line of the summit, see map.

[73] Statutes of Calif. 1850, 24, Art. XII.

[74] U. S. Statutes at Large XII, 210; Bancroft XX, 151.

[75] Statutes of Nevada, 1861, 513-514; Calif. Senate Journal, 13th Sess. 387; Angel, 100-101; Bancroft XX, 153. Angel, 100, is mistaken in saying the Commission was never appointed.

[76] Statutes of Calif. 1862, 612; Senate Exec. Docs. 37th Cong. 2d Sess. V. Doc. 36. Report of Governor Nye to Congress.

[77] Calif. Assembly Journal, 13th Sess. 19; Senate Journal, 13th Sess. 535, 559, 862; Bancroft XX, 154.

[78] Calif. Assembly Journal, 13th Sess. 599.

[79] Calif. Assembly Journal, 13th Sess. 599. The Statutes of California, 1862, show no law granting Nevada's demand or appointing the members of a joint commission.

[80] Statutes of Nevada, 1861, 132. The line surveyed was doubtless the summit line as prescribed by the organic Act. Angel, 100.

[81] Statutes of Nevada, 1861, 269; Bancroft XX, 153-154.

[82] Statutes of Nevada, 1861, 269.

[83] Statutes of Nevada, 1862, 114; Bancroft XX, 154; Angel, 100; Sacramento Daily Union. April 4, 1863.  This line was run southeast from the intersection of the 39th parallel and the 120th meridian and conformed substantially to the present boundary line.  Calif. Senate and Assembly Journal, 14th Sess. App. Judge Robinson's report to the Governor of California.

[84] Sacramento Daily Union, March 6, 1863; Calif. Senate and Assembly Journals, 14th Sess. App. Judge Robinson's report to the Governor of California; Bancroft XX, 154; Angel, 100. For the problems of legal jurisdiction, see Statutes of Nevada, 1862, 37-38; 1864, 54.

[85] Sacramento Daily Union, March 6, 1863; Statutes of Nevada, 1864, 93-94; Calif. Senate and Assembly Journals, 14th Sess. App. For the interesting tangle as to jurisdiction in Aurora, see Angel, 102.

[86] Sacramento Daily Union, March 6, 1863; Territorial Enterprise, March 17, 1863, in Sacramento Daily Union, March 19, 1863. For Acting Governor Clemens' report to the Nevada Legislature, January 14, 1864, see Angel, 101-102. This report contains the more essential details as to the controversy to date. The provisional line followed the survey of Ives and Kidder, 1862, from Lake Tahoe south. Bancroft XX, 154-155.

[87] Statutes of Calif. 1863, 619; Angel, 101; Bancroft XX, 154-155. This means the constitutional line.

[88] Sacramento Daily Union, March 30, 1863.

[89] Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1864-1865; House Exec. Docs. 38th Cong. 2d Sess. V. Doc. 1. No other mention of this reason was found.

[90] Calif. Senate and Assembly Journals, 15th Sess. App. 36. This appointment was made by the Governor on his own authority and confirmed by the Legislature later. Angel, 101. John F. Kidder was the representative of California in the survey. Angel, 102; Bancroft XX, 155. The Nevada Legislature of 1864 paid Ives $3,000 for his services as Boundary Commissioner. Statutes of Nevada, 1864, 139, 308.

[91] The Indians were hostile and an early winter stopped the survey. Angel, 102.

[92] Calif. Senate and Assembly Journals, 15th Sess. App. 42; Angel, 102.

[93] Calif. Senate and Assembly Journals, 15th Sess. 763; Bancroft XX, 155.

[94] Statutes of Calif. 1864, 506-507.

[95] Statutes of Nevada, 1864-1865, 133-134, 379. 1n this way Nevada seemed to give up its contention for the summit line of the organic Act. But see the later developments.

[96] Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1866-1867, 374.

[97] Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1871-1872, 54.

[98] U.S. Statutes at Large, XIII, 30; Statutes of Nevada, 1864-1865, 35, 60.

[99] In 1871 the Nevada Legislature sent a memorial to the California Legislature asking to reopen the question, but without success. Statutes of Nevada, 1871, 187-188; Bancroft XX., 156; Angel, 102. The memorial asked California to cede to Nevada the eastern slopes of the Sierras, on the grounds of geographical conditions and the provisions of the organic Act.

[100] Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1871-1872, 54.

[101] Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1871-1872, 54.

[102] Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1873-1874, 7, 1874-1875, 13; Reports of the Surveyor-General of Nevada, 1871-1872, 7-8; 1873-1874, 7-8; Bancroft XX, 156-157. The survey retraced the whole boundary line from Lake Tahoe north to the Oregon line and from Lake Tahoe south to the Colorado River. The line as run by Mr. von Schmidt was 611 miles long. For the effect of the survey on political jurisdiction, see Statutes of Nevada, 1873, 180-181.

[103] "Thus it will be seen that by the munificence of the General Government that within a year the State will be enclosed by an actual surveyed line and monuments, and the troubles heretofore existing, to State and county officials, in dealing with an imaginary line, will be entirely and forever obviated." Report of Surveyor-General of Nevada, 1871-1872, 8.

[104] U. S. Statutes at Large, XII, 210. The southern boundary was the 37th parallel.

[105] U. S. Statutes at Large, XII, 575; Bancroft XX, 154.

[106] House Journal, 37th Cong. 2d Sess. 617, 660.

[107] Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess. 230.

[108] Bancroft XXV, 154.

[109] The area of Nevada was 80,000 square miles. Congressional Globe, 39th Cong- 1st Sess. part 3, 2370.

[110] Senate Journal, 38th Cong. 2d Sess. 379, 1208. The State Constitution, 1864, provided that the State might annex territory acquired after its adoption. Statutes of Nevada, 1864-1865, 60; Bancroft XX, 155.

[111] This action was in response to a joint resolution of the Nevada Legislature, December 27, 1864, asking for this addition. Statutes of Nevada, 1864-1865, 455; Bancroft XX, 155, n. 22.

[112] Senate Journal, 38th Cong. 2d Sess. 379, 1208; Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. part 2, 1386.

[113] House Journal, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 13, 1242.

[114] Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st. Sess part 2, 1386.

[115] U. S. Statutes at Large, XIV, 43. The Legislature of Nevada accepted the gift by an Act, January 18, 1867. Statutes of Nevada, 1867, 145; Bancroft XX, 156; Angel, 102.

[116] Mr. Hooper called the bill "this dismemberment." Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. part 3, 2370.

[117] Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. part 3, 2370.

[118] U. S. Statutes at Large, XIV, 43. Area of Nevada, 112,000 square miles.

[119] Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1867-1868, 342.

[120] All three reports—U. S. and Nevada Surveyors-General, and Secretary of Interior—are to be found in Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1867-1868, 342.

[121] Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1868-1869, 108-110; U. S. Statutes at Large, XV., 117; Bancroft XX, 156. March 5, 1869, the Legislature of Nevada appropriated $4,000 to help in this survey. Statutes of Nevada, 1869, 36; Angel, 102; Bancroft XX, 156.

[122] Senate Journal, 40th Cong. 3d Sess. 150, 466; House Journal, 40th Cong. 3d Sess. 133, 155, 602.

[123] Congressional Globe, 40th Cong. 3d Sess. part 3, App. 243-247. Mr. Hooper recites the history of the Mormon Church to prove its loyalty to the United States even through persecution.

[124] Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1870-1871, 37.

[125] Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1870-1871, 37; U. S. Statutes at Large, XVI, 305; Report of the Surveyor-General of Nevada, 1871-1872, 7. The eastern boundary from the 42d parallel to the Colorado River was 401 1/2 miles long.

[126] House Misc. Docs. 42d Cong. 1st Sess. Doc. 32; Statutes of Nevada, 1871, 184; Bancroft XX, 156.

[127] House Journal, 42d Cong. 1st Sess. 138; Angel, 102.

[128] Messages and Docs. Interior Dept. 1874-1875, 13.

[129] Report of Surveyor-General of Nevada, 1873-1874, 8.