Some phases of the boundary problem of Arizona

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Schiff, Raymond Irving, 1926-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 07/10/2021 06:44:21

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/553810 SOME PHASES OF THE BOUNDARY PROBLEM OF ARIZONA

by Raymond I rv in g JSohiff < •. ' *. .it's.

A T h esis submitted to the faculty of the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Graduate College, University of Arizona

1950

Approved r - / / ’s ’ & 4> 9 r f / S ? S 6 7 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page INTRODUCTION ...... iv I . THE BOUNDARIES OF FORMATION ...... 1 I I . THE ARIZONA CITY CONTROVERSY . . . . *. '. . . 15 I I I . UTAH V. ARIZONA ...... k l IV. THE LOSS OF PAH U T E ...... 59 V. ARIZONA SEEKS THE S E A ...... 75 V I. THE GRANT COUNTY EPISODE...... 89 CONCLUSION ...... 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 98

214iI-7 LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page 1. Arizona and Neighboring Jurisdictions . . . iz 2. Proposed Boundaries of Formation ...... 8 3* Confluence of Colorado and Gila Rivers, Imagined and Actual ...... 18 4. Areas in Controversies with U ta h ...... 46 5. Area in Controversy with Nevada ...... 61 6. Areas in Controversy with Mexico . . . . . 80 7. Area in Controversy with New Mexico . . . . 93

i l l INTRODUCTION

Most lexicographers agree that a boundary is a line which limits or divides a territory. This is the history o f some of th e in c id e n ts which have come from th o se lin e s , which lim it Arizona. The reader must realize that each line which lim its Arizona has on its other side another jurisdic- tion which is similarly limited by the boundary. Actually then, this is the history of the Arizona-California boundary, the Arizona-Nevada boundary, the Arizona-Utah boundary, the Arizona-Colorado boundary, the Arizona-New Mexico boundary, and the Arizona-Mexico boundary. . Each of these boundaries, with the exception of one, that with Colorado, has had its own history of controversy. This thesis is the history of the main controversies from 1848 to the time of writing, 1950...... , Arizona offers a particularly interesting study in the history of her boundary controversies due to the variety of surrounding jurisdictional types. On the south Arizona is bounded by a foreign power, so that her boundary relations in that direction are a matter of national concern. For much of the period dealt with in this thesis, Arizona was a Territory or a proposed Territory. It was in this juris­ dictional state that most of her controversies were decided. On the west the Territory of Arizona was hounded by a state, relatively established and powerful, California. To the northwest the lim iting line was shared with Nevada. Nevada, in her boundary controversies with Arizona, repre­ sented a newly-created state, and in that role it made the only successful attempt at changing Arizona’s boundaries. On the north Arizona was faced with a jurisdictional equal through most of the time of the main controversies, another Territory, Utah. After gaining statehood, Utah sought to take advantage of her advanced status to take from Arizona that territory which she had sought as a Territory and failed to get. On the northeast Arizona was contiguous with the Territory of Colorado^ the only one of her neighbors with which the Territory had no quarrels. The reason for this border peace was perhaps that the contiguity repre­ sented an infinitely small point where the two imaginary lines forming the northern boundary of Arizona arid New Mexico 1 and the western boundary of Colorado and New Mexico crossed. On the east Arizona bordered on the Territory from which it was created, the Territory of New Mexico. V/ithin fifteen years of 1863, Arizona’s year of creation, Arizona was seek­ ing to take a substantial area from the Territory of New Mexico. • - -

1. This spot is also interesting in that it is the only 1 - point in the United States common to four states. This thesis was written topically rather than chrono­ logically so that the reader must remember these controver­ sies did not run their own separate courses. All of the controversies had their beginnings in the fifteen years after the creation of the Territory of Arizona (1863-1878) and most were running concurrently through the early part of that era. Two of the bitterest controversies, those with Cali­ fornia and Nevada, were both,at the height of their impor­ tance during the years 1866-1871. A year, before that era began, Utah tried to get a part of northern Arizona and through all this time Arizona’s desires for a port on the Gulf of California provided another potential boundary con­ troversy. The attempted annexation of Grant County, New Mexico in 1877 was.the only controversy which ran its course while no other boundary problem was pressing. From the 1880’s on, Arizona’s attem pts.at a port on the. Gulf were in­ terspersed with Utah’s attempts at obtaining northern Ari­ zona. The reader would do well to remember that often while Arizona was seeking to extend its boundaries in one direc­ tion, a neighboring jurisdiction was trying to expand at the expense of Arizona. . The chapters of this thesis were so placed,in order that a chronological unity be achieved in that each succes­ sive problem started later than that discussed in the pre­ ceding chapter. The first chapter is the story of the boundaries which were created to set aside a portion of the v i United States into a jurisdiction known as the Territory of Arizona. The second chapter is the history of the claim of California to a small strip of land where the present city of Yuma, Arizona stands. Next is traced the story of Utah’s attempts at the land above the Grand Canyon, and the fourth chapter is the history of the only successful attempt to change the boundaries of Arizona, that of Nevada. The fifth chapter is the history of Arizona's attempts to obtain a sea port, and the final chapter deals with the attempt of Arizona to annex part of the Territory of New Mexico. Outline maps have been provided to show the contested areas and suggested boundaries but, since they have little local detail, the reader would do well to have a map of the Southwest before him as he reads this thesis. Even with such a map, it is difficult to realize the size of the areas involved, but the reader should remember that the territory which Nevada took from Arizona, for instance, if made into a separate state, would rank above any of the New England states except Maine in respect to area. The territory in­ volved in each of the other controversies, except that with California, was only slightly smaller or, in the case of some of the demands for Mexican territory, substantially larger. The size of New Jersey on the accompanying map w ill probably aid the reader's perspective as to size, I wish to gratefully acknowledge the help given me by the Library staff at the University of Arizona, and by the v i i members of the Arizona Pioneer H istorical Society who aided me so consistently in my search for the data from which this thesis was written. I also owe a great debt of gratitude to my thesis' director, Professor H.A. Hubbard for the assistance and guidance he so willingly gave me; I also gratefully ac­ knowledge the aid given me by Professor Russell C. Ewing; and special recognition must also be given to my foremost ' •; ? proofreader and critic, Corinne P. Schiff, my wife.

v i i i AtiEAS in e@NT*»vf*fy t o F A^iZe riA

3 CR5IY T U fCAlf ® ^ xh Vf A6oV€

FIGURE i x CHAPTER I

THE BOUNDARIES OF FORMATION

Arizona, as organized "by the Congress of the United States, represented an entirely new jurisdictional area. In creating this area the legislators had no guides as to ex­ actly where it began or where it ended. There were some neighboring jurisdictions, but they had had very indefinite boundaries in most cases. As Bancroft put it: In Spanish and Mexlcapt times there was no such province under that [Arizony or any other name, nor was the territory divided by any defi­ nite boundaries between adjoining provinces. That portion south of the Gila was part of Pimeria Alta, the northern province of Sonora. Except for a small district of this Pimeria, the whole terri­ tory was uninhabited, so far as any but aborigines were concerned. A small tract in the northwest was.generally regarded as belonging to New Mexico, , because the Spaniards of that province had some­ times visited, and had once for a brief period been recognized as masters of, the Mogul pueblos. Not only were no boundaries ever formally indicated but I have found nothing to show how far in Spanish and Mexican opinion New Mexico was regarded as ex­ tending west or Sonora north. Each was deemed to stretch indefinitely out into the despoblado fun- known or barreq} . California however, while no boundary was ever fixed officially, was not gener­ ally regarded to extend east of the Rio Colorado.! The area north of the Gila, below the 37th parallel and east of California, after being taken by the United States

1.' H.H. Bancroft, History of Arizona and New Mexico, nn. 344-345. ™ ” ------2 from Mexico in the treaty of GuadalupeHidalgo, was made a - 2 ' part of the Territory of New Mexico. In 1853 the Gadsden Treaty provided for the last major addition to the contin­ ental United States to date. Tlie Gadsden Purchase, or New Purchase as it was sometimes called, was also added to the y Territory of New Mexico. This made that Territory swell to some 246,000 square miles, an area only slightly smaller than Texas. The new area was so large and difficult to ad­ minister to that the first official suggestion that a new Jurisdictional area he carved from it came from the Legis­ lature of New Mexico T erritory,itself. Patrick Hamilton reports that on December 31# 1854, a memorial to Congress asking the establishment of a new Territory was introduced into the Legislature of New Mexico by the representative from Dona Ana County, which at that time included all.of ■ 4 present-day Arizona. A convention at Tucson in 1856 sent a memorial to Con­ gress requesting the organization of a separate Territory.

2. House Documents No. 357. 59th Cong., 2nd Sess.. Vol. 5. pp. 2616-1?. Some or the plans for the state of Cali­ fornia" had included land as far east as* the present city of Mesa, Arizona. Brigham Young's projected State of Deseret also included a good deal of present-day Arizona. ... 3. United States Statutes at Large. Chap. 245, Vol. X, p. 575. 4. P. Hamilton, 'Compiler,' TEe Resources of Arizona, p. 13. Parish says on p. 322 of Vol. I of EXs History of Arizona that in 1854 New Mexico memorialized Congress for the organization of a new Territory. Since there is : no reference to the receipt of such a memorial in the Congressional Globe, I have used Hamilton’s report as a u tn e n tic . 5. Bancroft, o£. cit., p. 504. 3

This memorial was referred to the Committee on Territories which reported back unfavorably on the request. The Commit­ tee pointed out that the Gadsden Purchase area had just been attached to New Mexico. They did recommend that a new ju­ dicial district be established for the area, but as to the granting of Territorial status they reported: It is to be presumed that the eastern por­ tion of New Mexico w ill be prepared at no distant day for admission into the Union as a State. When the Territory is divided for that purpose, as it unquestionably w ill be, then would seem the proper time for the establishment of a new territorial governm ent. 6 The Committee apparently thought of dividing New Mexico Ter­ ritory into east and west parts, as indicated by their use of "eastern portion" in their report. The idea of a separate jurisdiction gained wide approval despite the adverse report of the Committee, especially with those people living in the Gadsden Purchase area and in the southern part of New Mexico. The New Mexico officials did not often leave the Santa Fe area, so that governmental functions were sadly neglected in the lower Rio Grande valley 7 in New Mexico and in the land below the Gila. The area north of the Gila was at that time practically uninhabited by whites, so the boundaries of the proposed new jurisdic­ tional area were at first designed to take care of the

6 . House Reports No. 117, Cong., 3rd Sea's., p. 1.------7. See Bancroft, o&. c lt.. pp. 499-507; Parish, op. c it., Vol. I passim. ~— k people in the lower Rio Grande valley and those south of the Gila. These early ideas of a new jurisdiction seem to have visualized a Territory extending across the southern half of the Territory of New Mexico, which in the 1850’s included both present-day New Mexico and present-day Arizona. In 1857 an election was held at Tucson with the result that Sylvester Mowry was sent to Washington as a delegate from the proposed Territory, which by then had adopted the name Arizona. Mowry published a pamphlet during 1857 in which he. gave the. boundaries of the proposed Territory of Arizona as: - ■. : the 34th parallel of latitude, with New Mexico on the north, from the 103rd meridian west to the Colorado; Texas on the east; Texas and the Mexi­ can provinces of New Mexico and Sonora on the south; and California on the west ....9 Mowry in his pamphlet also explained why the proposed new Territory ran east and west across New Mexico Territory rather than comprising the western half of that Territory. He pointed out that New Mexico was s till largely Mexican in character and vote, and that Sonora which he expected us to take soon was even more so. The Apaches, however, had chased the Mexicans from the area of the proposed Arizona so that whites dominated, and Mowry said that Arizona, as a typically American state inserted between the two Mexican-oriented areas, would act as a "leaven which shall leaven the whole

8 . S. Mowry, Memoir of the Proposed territory of Arizona. - P. 4 . ------:------5 lllQQ)** President Buchanan had suggested in his messages to the 35th Congress that Arizona he given Territorial status, al­ though he did not mention what area he considered to he Ari- 10 zona. Senator Gwin of California during December of 1857 11 introduced a b ill to establish the Territory of Arizona with boundaries, according to Bancroft, which included "not only the Gadsden purchase, but Dona Ana County in New Mexico, 12 extending east to Texas.” This bill was sent back to com­ mittee, after having been favorably reported, because of 13 the b ill’s "confused condition,” and when it next came from the Committee on Territories it was unfavorably reported. .:: During 1858 the New Mexico Legislature broached the idea of a north-south boundary dividing their Territory in­ stead of the east-west line proposed by Mowry and Gwin. In a memorial to Congress approved February 12, 1858, the Legis­ lature suggested that the new Territory of Arizona be created out of that part of the Territory of New Mexico west of the 109th meridian. As a second part of this memorial, and pro­ bably revealing the reason for their suggestion, they requested that the United States Government

9. Ibid., p. 35. " — ' : 10 . House Executive Document No. 2, 35th Cong., 1st Sess., p . 26, and Nouse Executive Document No. 2 , 35th Cong. 2nd Sess., p. 19. 11. Congressional Globe. 35th C ong., 1st Sess., Vbl. 3 6 , p . 13. 12. Bancroft, op. cit., p. 505. 13. Congressional Globe, 35th Cong.. 2nd Sess.. Vol. T7 Ep. 4'ff,..'837. 6

cause all of the wild Indians within the lim its of the Territory of New Mexico to be removed and collocated in that part of the Territory of Arizona as lies north of the thirty-fourth parallel of nor­ thern latitude.14 . , New,Mexico's suggestion as to the north-south dividing line did not claim much attention at that time. During both sessions of the 36th Congress (1859-1861) bills to give Arizona Territorial status were kept before 15 Congress. The only indication of the boundaries of the proposed Territory was in a statement made by Senator Green of Missouri, who said in a Senate speech, "When we look at the Gadsden purchase, which is now proposed to be made into 16 the Territory of Arizuma . which would indicate that Arizona was s till thought of as extending across the southern part of New Mexico Territory. Sylvester Mowry, in an ad­ dress before the American Geographical and S tatistical So­ c ie ty in 1859, revealed that he still considered that the proposed Territory ran lengthways across southern New Mexico but by that time the proposed northern boundary was the A 17 parallel of latitude of 33° 40*. . The people of the proposed new Territory, angered by

14. House Miscellaneous document No. lO l, 35th Cong.. 1st Se S S e , P . 1 e 15. Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 1s t S e s s ., Y ol. 39 , pp. 214, 51b; and 36th Cong., 24 Sess., Vol. 40, pp. 120, 212# 16. Ibid. . 36th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 40, p. 211. In the Senate the name of the Territory had been changed to Arizuma for some reason which I could not determine. : It was later changed back to Arizona. 17 . S. Mowry, A rizo n a' and S onora, p . 3. 7

Congressional failure to provide them with a Territorial gov­ ernment, held a convention in Tucson from April 2 to April 5, I 860, for the purpose of setting up a provisional government ^ which would remain in existence until Congress created a Territorial government for the area. The boundaries in which this provisional government was to operate were those men­ tioned by Mowry in his above-mentioned address, all of New ' : 18 Mexico Territory below the parallel of 33° 40’. Besides the election and appointment of officials, Bancroft says that this provisional government did nothing which he found record i 19 o f. . 1 - ; ' • Before the b ill which was finally to bring Territorial organization to Arizona was introduced, the Civil War brought new developments in the Territory of Arizona. In the summer. of 1861, the Second Regiment of Texas Mounted Rifles under Lieutenant Colonel John R. Baylor invaded New Mexico and took possession for the Confederacy. On August 1 , 1861, an order by Baylor provided that "the Territory of Arizona shall com-■ prise all that portion of New Mexico lying south of the 20 thirty-fourth parallel of north latitude." In a. letter dated August 14, 1861, however, Baylor wrote: ; I-have proclaimed myself the'Governor, have authorized the raising of four companies to hold ■

18. I'he Constitution of the Provisional Government of the territory of Arizona and the Proceedings of the~~Conven­ tion hela uE Tucson7 p. 3 « ’ 19. Bancroft, op. clt.. p. 507. 20. The War of Rebellion. A Compilation of the O fficial Records of the Union mid confederate ArHTes Series I Vol. iV, p.HRT. ------* U j %)ooMOm#V AS ESTAf^vtSm Ih THE GtCAHlC ACT; Vb'BtuARN 2M, i M FIGURE 2 9

the Territory and offer protection to the citizens, and extended the lim its of the Territory to the parallel of 36° 301, thence due west to the Colo­ rado and down that stream to its mouth. 21 The United States did not own the Colorado to its mouth. The fact that Baylor was thus extending the bounds of the Territory of Arizona beyond the bounds of the United States was probably explainable in the light of Confederate ambi­ tion. According to F.S. Donnell: The organization of the Territory of Arizona was only a p a r t o f a much la rg e r p la n of th e Con­ federates which contemplated adding the Mexican States of Chihuahua and Sonora to the Confederacy. 22 Confederate ambitions in this direction never got beyond the planning stage. The only mention of an Arizona Territory such as Baylor describes was found in that letter. On January 18, 1862, the Confederate Congress passed an act organizing the Territory of Arizona bounded by the 34th parallel on the north, Texas on the east, the Colorado River 23 oh the west, and the Mexican boundary on the south. A proclamation issued by Jefferson Davis on February 14, 1862, 24 declared the act to be in full force and effect. The Ter­ ritory of Arizona thus created hardly had time to function. L.M. Ganaway says: It is doubtful that all the officers had reached their posts before the middle of August, 1862, when the Union m ilitary occupied Mesilla and

21. Ibid., p. 23% . ' — " ~~ ' ------22. y.5. Donnell, "Confederate Territory of Arizona," New Mexico H istorical Review. XVII, No. 2 (April, 1943TT 160. 23. Ibid., p. 158. ■ 24. Vfar of the Rebellion. Series I, Yol. IV, pp. 853, 859. 10

out short further civil.government under the authority of Richmond.25 The Union forces, while they cut off the Confederate Territory of Arizona, created a similar jurisdiction in the name of the Union. The Union Territory of Arizona was pro­ claimed by Colonel Carelton, in charge of the California Column, as the Union forces entering Arizona from California were called. On June 8, 1862, Colonel Carelton, then at Tucson, proclaimed: The Congress of the United States has set aside a portion of New Mexico and organized it into a Territory complete of itself. This is known as the Territory of Arizona. It comprises, within its lim its, all the country eastward from the Colo­ rado River, which is now occupied by the forces of the United States known as the Column from Cali­ fornia; and as the flag of the United States shall be carried by this column still further eastward, these lim its w ill extend in that direction until they reach the furtherest geographical boundary of this Territory.26 Although the b ill which was finally to create the Territory of Arizona had been introduced into Congress by that time, and indeed had been passed by the House of Representatives, the Senate had postponed consideration until December, 27 1862, leaving much to be doubted of the accuracy of the Colonel’s first statement as quoted above. As to the boun­ daries of the Territory which the Colonel announced, he ap­ parently had in mind certain lim its which would become

25. L.M. Ganaway, Mew Mexico and the Sectional' Controversy p . 120. — - ______— ------Lt 26. War of the Rebellion. Series I, Vol. TV, p. 96. 27. Congressional Globe. 37th C ong.. 2d Sess.. nn. 167 2050, W5. ' 11

Arizona as the California Column retook the old Jurisdic­ tional area, the Territory of New Mexico. The rest of his m ilitary correspondence gave no hint as to what he felt those lim its might he. There are indications that Cardlton felt that Arizona ran across southern New Mexico since he wrote on September 8 , 1862, to Colonel Joseph R. West at Mesilla, 28 Arizona. Mesilla was located on the lower Rio Grande in present-day New Mexico. The Arizona which Carelton announced was the last "Ter­ ritory of Arizona” before Congress organized that jurisdic­ tion which preceded the present state of Arizona, the Terri­ tory of Arizona. After postponing House Resolution No 357, the b ill which would organize the Territory, until December, the Senate did not actually consider the bill again until February of 1863• On February 20, 1863, the Senate passed the b ill and on February 2k with Lincoln's signature the b ill became law, thus finally and officially creating the 29 - ■ Territory of Arizona. The boundaries of the Territory of Arizona were de­ scribed in the act by declaring that all that part of the present Territory of New Mexico situate west of a line running due south from the point where the southwest corner of Colorado joins the northern boundary of New Mexico be, and hereby is, erected into a

28. The War of the Rebellion, p. 126. - • • 29. Congressional Globe* 3?th Cong.. 3d Sess.. nn. 1128. 13o6 . — . 12

temporary government by the name-of'the Territory of Arizona.30 The southwest corner of the Territory of Colorado had been described as the place where the 32nd meridian west from 31 Washington, D.C., met the 37th parallel of north latitude. The measuring point in Washington, D.C., had been designated as the old naval observatory which was located 77° 03* 02. 3" west of Greenwich. The eastern boundary of Arizona was to be along the meridian 109° 03* 02.3" west from G re e n w ic h .32 The other boundaries were those of New Mexico west of that li n e , th e 37th degree of latitude west to the boundary of California, with that boundary to an intersection with the Colorado River at the 35th parallel, down the center-of that river to the international boundary line between the United States and Mexico, and then east with that international boundary line to the meridian designated as separating New Mexico and Arizona, 32° west from Washington, D.C. In order to find the boundaries of New Mexico, which became those of Arizona, one had to consult the Organic Act of New Mexico, the Organic Act of Colorado, the 1849 Consti­ tution of the State of California, the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo between the United States and Mexico, and the Gadsden

30. House Documents No. 357, 59th Cong., 2d Sess.. vol. I. P • 259• 31. I b id . . p . 464. 32. J". Baldwin, MA H istorical Note on the Boundaries of New Mexico,” New Mexico H istorical Review. V, No, 2 (April, 1930), 131." The present Boundary is at 109° 02* 59.25", probably due to an error in the original measurement. 13

Treaty between the same two countries, since the boundaries depended on descriptions of neighboring boundaries in each of those documents. In addition to the complicated descrip­ tion of the boundaries, Arizona was troubled by the fact that her boundaries were mainly arbitrary linesv There were controversies later as surrounding states sought natural boundaries and as Arizona herself sought to incorporate areas which would give her more advantageous boundaries. The arbitrariness of the boundary lines has caused in­ teresting comment and rumor. Samuel Cozzens, a traveler and author of the Southwest, wrote: In 1863, our sapient legislators, knowing as much of the geographical formation of that country or the real needs of its inhabitants as a bear knows about Sunday Schools, declared the eastern boun­ dary of the Territory of Arizona to be an imaginary line supposed to run somewhere near the thirty- second degree of longitude west from Washington.33 Apparently Cozzens felt that Arizona should run across south­ ern Hew Mexico. The way in which the southern boundary of the Territory swung north at the 111th meridian, thus denying Arizona a port on the Gulf of California, has caused rumors still heard at the time of this writing that the surveyors were thirsty and when they heard of beer at Fort Yuma, they swung their line in this direction. A variation of this rumor claims

33« Samuel Cozzens, The Marvelous Country, p. 152. - 34. First heard by the author in an interview with the di­ rector of this thesis, Professor H.A. Hubbard, in an interview on September 26, 1949. 14 that the Mexican half of the survey team got the United States surveyors drunk and then pointed their instruments 35 toward Yuma so that America would not get a port on the Gulf. Actually, of course, the boundary swings north since the . 36 treaty specified that it should. The fact that Arizona does not have a port can probably be blamed on an economy- minded Congress which would not provide enough money so that Mexico would give us a boundary touching the Gulf, although 37 Gadsden had negotiated for such a treaty with some success. The Territory of Arizona was finally an actuality, and despite the many documents which delineated her boundaries and the arbitrariness of many of her lines, the boundaries of formation were those of the state of Arizona, except in the northwest corner where one of the many attempted changes was successful.

35. First heard by the author in an interview with Thomas-T7 Gannon, Head of the County land Office, Nogales, Arizona, on April 5, 1950. 36. House Documents No. 357. 59th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. I, pp. 255-256. 37. P.N. Garber, The Gadsden Treaty, pp. 64-145. CHAPTER I I

THE ARIZONA CITY CONTROVERSY

The first boundary controversy which the newly-formed Territory faced was over a strip of land at the junction of the Gila and Colorado Rivers included in a town called Arizona City. Before final settlement of the controversy, th e name of th e town had been changed to Yuma, th e name i t bore at the time of this writing. The controversy so far as the Territory of Arizona was concerned started soon after the calling of the First Territorial Legislature in 1864, but the area had been contested between California and New Mexico even before Arizona took over New Mexico’s boundaries and with them the Arizona City controversy. The controversy arose since California, by virtue of a technicality in the treaty of Snsidalupee Hidalgo border designation, claimed and taxed a strip of land east of the Colorado River. The strip of land was only some seven miles long and from a few yards to about three-quarters of a mile wide, but the fight for possession lasted some twenty-five years (1848-1873). For seven years after the formation of the Treaty of Arizona (1863- 1870) tax collectors from San Diego.County, California were collecting taxes on the eastern side of the Colorado River, and not until three years after the tax collections 16 were stopped did what seems to be the final decision as to possession arrive. California's claim to this area came from the provisions of A rticle V of the treaty of 'QuadaltEpe: Hidalgo which was signed on February 2, 1848. That part of the. fifth article which has bearing reads: ... thence northward along the western line of New Mexico until it intersects the first branch of the River Gila, (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, then to the point on said line nearest such branch, and thence in a direct line to the same); thence down the middle of said branch and of said.river, until it empties into the Rio Colorado; thence across the Rio Colo­ rado following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean. The southern and western lim its of New Mexico, mentioned in this article, are those laid down.in the map entitled "Map of the United Mexican States, as organized and defined by Various acts of th e Congress o f t h e 's a id Republic, and constructed according"Tothe best authorities. Revised Edi­ tion. FublYshed at NewTork in TSV/. by J. BTs'tur- n ell;" of which "map a copy is added to thTs treaty, bearing the signatures and seals of the under­ signed Plenipotentiaries. And, in order to preclude all difficulty in tracing upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California, it is agreed that the said limit shall consist of a straight line drawn from the middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with the Colorado, to a point on the Pacific Ocean, distant one marine league due south of the southernmost point of the port of San Diego ....1 The Plenipotentiaries, drawing their boundary from Distur- nell's map, probably expected that the confluence of a river flowing west, the Gila, and a river flowing south, the

1. bouse Documents too. 357, 39th Cong., 2d S e s s .. vol. I . ~p7"379: ' . 17

Colorado, would create a situation such as is illustrated in Figure 3a. The boundary commission, on its arrival at Fort Yuma in 1850, found that the situation at the point where the rivers met was actually as explained by Commissioner B artlett: Fort Yuma stands on a rocky h ill at the junction of the Gila and Colorado rivers, and on the north­ west angle of the bank of the united stream. The Colorado comes from the north, and, where it re­ ceives the Gila, is about five hundred yards wide. A bend, which the Gila takes about fifteen miles from its mouth, makes it come from the south to join the Colorado. The united stream first takes a westerly course, forcing itself through a canon in a chain of rocky hills seventy feet high and about three hundred and fifty yards in length. After sweeping around some seven or eight miles, it again assumes a southerly direction; and after a very tortuous course for about one hundred and thirty miles, it empties into the Gulf of Cali­ fornia ....% Since that was the situation, the provision that a straight line be drawn from the mouth of the Gila where it meets the Colorado to the point below San Diego caused a situation such as is shown in Figure 3b, with a small strip of land south of the Gila and east of the Colorado belonging to the United States, though separated from other United States ter­ ritory by the two rivers. The boundary commission was then faced with the prob­ lem of how to decide the ownership of the strip. The con­ troversy was between the United States and the Republic of

2 . John k. Bartlett, Personal Narratives of Explorations and Incidents in Texas. New Mexico, California. Sonora ancT~ Chihuahua connected with the United States and Mexican Boundary Commission during the years 1850. *52. ' t r y f i y r . 1 8

0 UNITED STATES Q C AL IFo < &T V------~0— —C-) tn A ------J c ALI F-ORMIA O r v ^ lr A tCO

FIGURE 3a

Cali Po R |X , A UN ITE 0 STATES

FIGUH E 3 b 19

Mexico since this was an international boundary and since there were no state or territorial governments in official existence at the time. It was agreed by the commissioners that the treaty wording should be followed, despite the un­ expected turn of the river which gave the United States both banks for a short distance. The Mexican commissioner agreed to the erection of a boundary monument on the south side of the Colorado River, thus acknowledging the United States’ claim to the river front strip. This settled the problem so far as the United States and Mexico were concerned, since a later part of A rticle V of the treaty of 'euaiIaHa$£B> Hidalgo had further stipulated: In order to designate the boundary line with due precision, upon authoritative maps, and to establish upon the ground land-marks which w ill show the lim its of both republics, as described in the present article, the two governments shall each appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who, before the expiration of one year of the date of the exchange of ratification of this treaty, shall meet at the Port of San Diego and shall proceed to run and mark the said boundary in its whole course to the mouth of the Rio Bravo del Norte. They shall keep journals and make out plans of their operations; and the result shall be deemed a part of this treaty and shall have the same force as if it were inserted therein ....3 Therefore the agreement of the Mexican commissioner to mark­ ers south of the Colorado blocked any Mexican claim to the a re a . The importance of the small strip of land was apparent

3. kouse Documents flo. 357, £9th Cong., 2d Seas.. Voi. I. p . 3W: 20 even at that early date. Commissioner Bartlett, after re­ viewing the technicality under which we gained the land south of the Gila and east of the Colorado, wrote: The land on the southern bank of the Colorado which we thereby obtain is of little value for agricultural purposes; but should a considerable town be built where Fort Yuma now stands, which is altogether probable if a railroad should ever pass here, it w ill be an advantage for the United States to possess both banks of this river for so long a distance.4 In 1853 a treaty with Mexico, commonly called the Gadsden Treaty, was concluded. The change in boundary which this treaty entailed gave us not only the little strip of river frontage east and south of the Colorado, but all the frontage south of the Gila and east of the Colorado for a distance of "twenty English miles below the junction of the Gila and Colorado rivers." This.land, with all the rest obtained in the Gadsden purchase, was added to the Territory 6 of New Mexico by an act of Congress dated August 4, 1854. This removed all possibility of a dispute with Mexico, since the small area had been included in the Gadsden purchase. Before the purchase of the new area, however, both the Territory of New Mexico and the state of California were established by Congress. The Territory and state were re­ spectively created and admitted on the same day, September

4. Bartlett, op. cit.. p. 159. " 5. House Documents No. 357. 59th Cong., 2d Sess.. Vol. I. "™ pT356. — 6. United States Statutes at Large. Vol. 10, Chap. 245, p . 5731 21

9, 1850. In defining the boundaries of both new jurisdic­ tions, Congress referred to the boundary line with Mexico a s i t was e s ta b lis h e d by th e t r e a t y of fGuaidalu&e: H id alg o . The boundary of the state of California in the area in ques­ tion was delineated in Article XII of the 1849 State Consti­ tution as follows: ... thence running in a straight line in a south­ easterly direction to the river Colorado, at a point where it intersects the thirty-fifth degree of north latitude; thence down the middle of the channel of said river to the boundary line be­ tween the United States and Mexico as established by the treaty of May 30, 1848; thence running west along said boundary line to the Pacific Ocean ....7 These boundaries were accepted by Congress when that body accepted the constitution of which they were a part and ad­ mitted California as a state. On the same day on which California was admitted as a state, Congress provided for the creation of the Territory of New Mexico with boundaries which ran: Beginning at a point in the Colorado River where the boundary line with the Republic of Mexico crosses the same; thence eastwardly with said boundary ... thence west with said parallel 37th to its intersection with the boundary line of the State of California; thenceft\d.th said boundary line to the place of beginning . 8 Since it was mid-June of 1850 before the boundary com­ mission discovered that the turns of the Colorado River gave the United States both banks for a short distance, Congress

7. EOUde ,0#*: .N&. 357i "59th Cong. , 2d Sess., Vol. I. n. L.05. 8. Tbiurnrerr t , ■ g. 2617. 22 on September 9, 1850, probably imagined that the boundary situation was as the Plenipotentiaries at Gaudeloupe Hidalgo seem to have anticipated, something akin to Figure 3a. So the boundary question, already settled between the United States and Mexico, arose again between the newly- created state and Territory because of the way in which their boundaries had been drawn, both based on inaccurate knowledge of the actual conditions where the Mexican boundary crossed the Colorado. Actually, until 1863 when the Territory of Arizona was created from the western part of New Mexico, it was not much of a dispute. The territorial officials of New Mexico did not bother with the western part of their vast Territory and even, as reported previously, joined in urging the creation of a separate territorial jurisdiction in the western part of their Territory. With the growth of Fort Yuma, California, the area across the river, which included the contested strip, assumed marked importance as a ferry slip and other buildings of a town were built there. For the most part, however, the people who settled the area came into it from the west rather from the east and so were partial to California's claim to the crossriver area. Even those who felt that the strip be­ longed to the Territory of New Mexico were forced to trans­ act official business through San Diego County, since com­ munication to the east was very slow and uncertain. One man who advocated California ownership was no less a personage 23 than Charles D. Poston, "the father of Arizona," who wrote: By the treaty with Mexico of 18J>8 the boundary line was established from the mouth of the Rio Grande northwardly, to the headwaters of the Gila River, thence along the channel of the Gila to its con­ fluence with the Colorado. The treaty then says; "From a point at the confluence of the Gila and Colorado rivers, westward to a point on the Pacific Ocean six £si

9. Charles D. Poston, ^Building a State in Apache Land," The Overland Monthly. XXIV, 2nd series. No. 139 (July, 1894J, 91-92. Poston's quoting of the treaty seems to be most inaccurate. 24

the Gila had not been recognized as being within the jurisdiction of California ....10 One of those who felt that the strip should belong to New Mexico was George F. Hooper, a merchant whose store was located on the land south and east of the Colorado claimed by California, who wrote to a friend on June 15, 1865: Sometimes in the years 1853 or 1854, Mr. Poole, who was then county surveyor had a contract for surveying public lands on the desert and about F o rt Yuma. I employed him to survey and lo c a te and map two tracts of land of 160 acres each for Hinton and myself, adjoining and south sie of the boundary line between Sonora, Mexico and the United States. My claim bounded on the north by said boundary line, on the east by the Gila River, and the other two boundaries forming the quarter section by south and west lines extending toward the desert. Hinton’s land adjoins mine along said boundary line between Mexico and the United States on the West. Poole promised to have these claims recorded in San Diego. These claims are located in Arizona and not in California and properly should have been recorded in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, but as there was no communi­ cation at that time we concluded to have them recorded in San Diego. He also wrote that his original title papers were lost in a flood and that he wanted to re-register his claim in the proper Arizona office. The state of California paid little attention to the claims of the few dissatisfied individuals in the area, and the Territory of New Mexico continued to do nothing about contesting California’s claim so that California remained in

10. ibid., p. 921 ~ 11. A copy of this letter is included in the George F. Hooper file at the Arizona Pioneer Historical Society. 25 undisturbed possession. To make the question of ownership even more complicated, it was found that the markers of the 1850 commission ran to a point which was then some distance up the Gila River instead of at the mouth as the treaty had stipulated. The California explanation and the state’s atti­ tude in general as to the strip were revealed in the report of the surveyor of San Diego County who in 1856 re p o rte d : The junction of the middle of the channel of the Colorado with the Mexican boundary line is not now as formerly at the mouth of the Gila River. The shifting of the sandy channel of the Colorado considerably to the westward, has left the initial point of the treaty boundary nearly a quarter of a mile up the Gila River, and consequently the junction of the former river with that boundary is something like seven miles down the Colorado, at a place where that line crosses that river and enters upon the desert. This change in topography I apprehend does not affect the question of the county or State boundary, though the matter has been th e s u b je c t o f some d is c u s s io n by p ersons interested in claims at that place. It has been alleged that the territory on the south or Sonora side of the river, does not now belong to the State of California, but to the territory known as the "New Purchase," inasmuch as the channel intersects the Mexican boundary at but one point and that is where the latter leaves the river at Pilot Knob, seven miles from the mouth of the Gila. In my surveys at that point I have consid­ ered the old boundary throughout as the proper o n e .12 The state of California remained in possession of the strip of land, receiving no official protest from New Mexico and disregarding the questions raised by some of the inhabitants of the contested strip.

12. Annual iReport of the Surveyor General of the State of C alifornia. Document No. 5 , Senate Session o? 18567”“ pp. 223-224. 26

Seven years after this survey, in 1863, the Territory of Arizona was formed from the western part of the Territory of New Mexico, with boundaries the same as had been given to New Mexico west of a line drawn south from the intersection of the Territory of Colorado boundary with the northern boundary of New Mexico, as explained above. Arizona inherited the dispute from the Territory of New Mexico. While the ter­ ritorial officials at Santa Fe did not contest California’s claims, this was not the case with the officials of the newly-created Territory. A thriving town had grown up in and near the townsite surveyed a decade before by Poston, parti­ ally on the strip of land in contest. The town was named Arizona City, but before the controversy over some of the land on which it stood was over, the town had been renamed Yuma.

The First Territorial Legislature (1864) of the Terri­ tory of Arizona sought to gain complete control of the dis­ puted area within a month after it was called together, by memorializing Congress to pass an act annexing the disputed territory to Arizona. This memorial was in very mild terms, and it repeated and agreed to California’s claims to the area, tracing the argument much as Poston had. The memori­ alists then pointed out that in their Organic Act they were granted a ll of New Mexico’s lands west of the dividing line and thus they owned the whole east bank of the Colorado River where it served as a boundary line between state and 27

Territory except for the small strip on the east bank which California claimed. They did not contest the validity of California's claim, but instead represented: ... that said tract of land lies just below the junction of the Gila and the Colorado river; that it is an important commercial point, and is the commercial landing place and business point for the Territory of Arizona on the lower Colorado; that it is opposite Fort Yuma and re­ mote from any civil government organized in California; that there are no police and civil regulations there; that it is essential and important for Arizona to have said tract of land annexed to its territory for the purpose of forming a landing-place and a commercial town; that it is of little importance to the State of California and of vast consequence to Arizona to possess it; that if annexed to Arizona the benefit of civil government would be immediately extended over it from Arizona City, which lies adjoining it on contiguous territory, separated from it by an imaginary line, while the Colorado flows between said tract of land and other por­ tions of the territory of the State of Cali­ f o r n ia . 13 Since they had not contested California’s claim, the memori­ alists ended by asking Congress to pass, an act annexing the territory in question to Arizona, "providing that the State of California by an act of her State Legislature will relin­ quish all her right over said tract of land to the said Ter- 14 ritory of Arizona." The tax collectors of San Diego County meanwhile were collecting taxes from the various parts of Arizona City which fell within what they considered to be their boundaries.

13. Miscellaneous Documents Ho. 22, 38th Gong.. 2d Sess.. p. 1. — ' 14. I b id . 28

A letter from George Hooper", the merchant whose store was located on the contested strip, dated April 13, 1864, re­ vealed that he had apparently paid a $50.00 tax to San Diego officials although in his letter he insisted, as before, that the strip "is not in the State of California and there­ in fore not in your district." Another piece of valuable 16 property in the strip housed the Ferry Company, all the more important since there was no bridge over the Colorado at that time. The first memorial got to Congress, was referred to the Committee on Territories, and died there without being re- 17 ported out of committee. Apparently undiscouraged, the Second T erritorial Legislature again memorialized Congress using essentially the same arguments and very nearly the same wording, and apparently with the same result since- no 18 Congressional action was forthcoming. The Third Terri­ torial Legislature (1866) did not take any action on the Arizona City question, and the Fourth Legislature (1867) also stood idly by while officials from San Diego County continued to collect taxes from occupants of the strip which California claimed. It remained for the Fifth Territorial Legislature (1868) again to take up the fight for possession, and that

15. George F. Hooper file, Arizona Pioneer Historical As- s o c ia tio n . 16. Thomas E. Parish, History of Arizona. Yol. IV, p. 203. 17. Congressional Globe, 41st Tong., 1st Sess.. p. 1072. 18. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Second Legisla- tlve Assembly of the Territory of Arizona, p . 8o. 29 organization made a real contest of it. The Governor in his message to the Fifth Legislature (1868) pointed out that "a new and earnest memorial to Con­ gress regarding the boundary at Arizona City may hasten jus- 19 tice to the Territory in this important matter." Governor McCormick never got the memorial which he requested, but the Legislature did act to hasten "justice to the Territory" in quite a different manner. The whole tenor of Arizona's ar­ gument changed and a new course which precluded Congres­ sional action was begun. The matter was first discussed in the Committee on Counties and County Boundaries of the Council and the Committee on Federal Relations of the House, m eeting in jo in t s e s s io n on December 13, 1868. Mr. McKey, chairman of the joint committee, reported the findings of said committee to the Council. His report clearly marks the change of course. He points out that California's claim is invalid and that the wording of the Organic Act of New Mexico precludes ownership of land east of the Colorado, in the opinion of the committee. California also had a member of its Legislature inves­ tigating the situation at Arizona City; this investigator, a Mr. Meagher, had reported that California's claim, un­ changed and unchanging, was still valid and that the strip of land was indeed in California. Mr. McKey in his report

1 9 . Journals of the Fifth Legislative Assembly of the ' territory of Arizona, pT 4(3. 30 contradicted the conclusions of Mr. Meagher and launched Ari­ zona on its new course as follows: The report before referred to Meagher's appears to be based on as much ignorance in re­ gard to this question as was the action of the first two Legislatures of Arizona, which com­ mitted the grave error of memorializing Congress upon the subject; when, if they had examined the question, they would have found that the State of California never claimed this disputed land, and that Congress had specifically included it in the Territory of New Mexico in the Organic Act for that Territory. Arizona claims that the western boundary line consists of the middle of the main channel of the Colorado River, running southerly to the Sonora line. How is it possible for the First Legislature of this Territory to overlook her own acts, as to this matter, and the language of the Organic Act of New Mexico, so far as to recognize the usur­ pation by the County of San Diego as to cause it to memorialize Congress upon the subject, is a matter of astonishment to say the least of it. Mr. Meagher says, "Recently the Territory of Arizona has set up a claim" etc. He is mistaken in his statement: we have al­ ways claimed this territory and have ever main­ tained that there were no tenable reasons why San Diego should hold authority over it. Let us see for what reason or upon what grounds we base these c la im s. In the first place, in the year 1349 Cali­ fornia by the vote of her people ratified the Constitution of that state, in which the lim its are plainly set forth. After fixing the northern line to where it intersects the 39th degree of north latitude, it says: Thence running in a straight line in a southerly direction to the river Colo­ rado, at a point where it intersects the 35th degree of north latitude, thence down the middle of the channel of said river to the boundary line between Mexico and the United States, as estab­ lished by the treaty of May 30, 1848, thence west etc. to the Pacific Ocean. 31

Now, Sir, it would appear that the above quoted language was sufficient to satisfy any un- prejudicial mind that California never claimed any inch of land east of the Colorado River .... 20 McKey continued by claiming that California’s greed was aroused by the wrong action of the Legislature of this Terri­ tory in memorializing Congress to give us that which I shall convince any and all who will care­ fully examine the subject, was always ours.21 The legislator continued with a review of Article V of the treaty of Guadalupe?; Hidalgo, and then continued by refuting the report of the California Surveyor General, as reported above, to wit: . To those who are not conversant with the minute points of the geography of these two rivers, it is necessary to say that at the junc­ tion, and for two miles around and above this junction, is one immense mud flat, over which the Colorado River (at all times when high) overflows; and all the apparent circumstances go to show, and those who were on the ground at the time of the running of the line by the commissioners who fixed the line between the Republic of Mexico and the United States, by the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, say that all of the said flat country was inundated at the time. This accounts for the fixing of the initial point up the Rio Gila some hundreds of yards from its actual mouth, when both rivers are low, advantage being taken of the high condition of the Colorado, in connection with the language of the treaty, which says: That the boundary line between Upper and Lower California shall consist of a straight line drawn from the middle of the Rio Gila where it unites with the Colorado, etc.

20. Ibid. , pp. 189-190. 21. Ibid"., p . 191. 32

The high condition of the Colorado at that time, owing to the flatness of the cpuntry, left the place of unity between the two streams very indefinite; but a point was agreed upon between the two commissioners from which to start, for purposes of dividing the two Californias. But there is no good reason to doubt that the inten­ tion of the Plenipotentiaries was at the time of making the treaty, to cross the Colorado River directly, from the fact that the general course of the Colorado is north and south and this di­ viding line runs directly west; but owing to a short bend from south to west, this line starting from the agreed initial point did not cross the Colorado until the commissioners had run six and a half miles, cutting off a strip of land between the line and the river bn the west varying from a few hundred yards to three-quarters of a mile in width. It must be kept in view, however, that this line was to be run for the express purpose of dividing upper from lower California. Now it is understood that this line was for the sole purpose of dividing the Califdrains, w ill anyone claim that it divided any part of the Californias before it crossed the Rio Colorado. If either of those states ever claimed an inch of territory east of the Colorado River, then it were possible but as neither of them ever made any such claim, then it is simply ridiculous to suppose that this line divided them before reaching their territory; the initial point not­ withstanding, which was so fixed by the commis­ sioners for the reasons given. And when running this line, where they struck the bank of the Gila on the south or western side, they came to the bank some four hundred yards from the Colorado R iv er and ran some s ix and o n e -h a lf m iles b efo re coming to the Colorado River. But bearing in mind that California in her constitution claims the middle of the Colorado as her boundary, as between her mid any "other territory of the United States, and this constitution was accepted by Congress, and California was admitted as a state, September 9, 1850 ....2 2

Ibid. , pp. 190-191. 33

McKey’s two main claims were that the line which gave Cali­ fornia her technical claim was only to divide the Califor- nias, neither of which came beyond the river, and that since the center of the Colorado to the Mexican boundary was California's line, the land was not California's since the only place where mid-channel of the Colorado touched the Mexican boundary was at Pilot Knob, below the mouth of the Gila. Having thus disposed of California's claims, MoKey continued by showing how, according to his committee's inter pretation, the disputed area had been made a part of New Mexico and thus of Arizona: The Organic Act creating the Territory of New Mexico by Congress, was approved on the same day, and in giving the boundary lim its of said Territory, in this act they commenced the boundary in the Colorado River, where the boundary line with the Republic of Mexico crosses the same; thence eastwardly with the boundary to the Rio Grande, with the meanderings east, north, and west until it intersects the line of California at the northwest corner of Pah Ute County; thence back on th e C a lifo rn ia lin e s down th e C olorado R iv er to the place of beginning. I ask is this conclu­ sive? ... In the name of common sense and good reason, if this strip of land belonged to Cali­ f o r n ia , why d id n o t C a lifo rn ia p r o te s t, o r why has she not long before this made complaint? Or if we admit for a moment that it did belong to h e r, why d id Congress commence th e boundary of New Mexico by starting six and a half miles off the edge or border of the Territory to be pre­ scribed by said boundary, and follow then east­ erly, northerly, and westerly to the California line at the northwest corner of Pah Ute County; thence following the California lines back and down th e Colorado R iv er to th e p la c e of beginning? Tfhat was the object of commencing six or seven miles down the Colorado River and running to the Gila by the line formerly established by the Com­ missioners, and then afterwards, when they got back to the mouth of the Gila River, why did they 34

run down the river to the place of beginning? Did the territory included within these lim its below the Gila belong to California. Sir, it is a presumption to contend any such thing.23 MoKey was pointing out that while the language of the Cali­ fornia Constitution had to be misinterpreted by imagining that the Californias came east of the Colorado to be di­ vided in order for California’s claim to have any validity, the language of the Organic Act of New Mexico showed that the Congress had intended that land east of the Colorado should belong to New Mexico, and so to Arizona. He said that this was evident since the boundary was started where the Mexican boundary crossed the Colorado (due to the turn, it did not cross at the mouth of the Gila), and was returned to that point rather than stopping at the mouth of the Gila, as it would if Congress had felt that California had owned the land. McKey then gave a short, impassioned summary and con­ cluded his report. The years of agreeing with California’s claims were over, and the fight for possession had begun. Right after the conclusion of his report, Chairman McKey opened Arizona’s fight for the disputed strip. At that time he reported back from committee Council Joint Resolu­ tion No. 1, Arizona’s first blow in her new fight for posses­ sion. On the next day, December 14, 1868, the resolution was approved and became law, proclaiming:

23. Ibid., pp. 191-192. ' “ 35

Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona:. Section 1* That the County Assessor of Yuma County is hereby empowered and instructed to assess all of the property to be found within the lim its of Yuma County, as prescribed by the Howell Code, section first of chapter second, of the formation and rights of the counties, not exempt by law from ta x a tio n . Section 2. The Sheriff of Yuma County, is hereby empowered and instructed to collect all taxes levied on property assessed under provisions of section first of this act, and if said taxes are not paid in the usual time, to proceed to enforce their payments according to the laws of the Terri­ to r y . " Section 3. The County Officials of Yuma County are hereby empowered and instructed to ex­ ercise civil and criminal jurisdiction over all the territory of said County, as prescribed by the Code of Arizona, Section F irst, chapter second?^ This was a very strange piece of legislation, since the sheriff and assessor (at this time the same man) were so em­ powered by the original law. of the Territory, the Howell Code, 25 passed October A, 1864. The explanation of this strange action may be found in a review of the county boundaries as specified in the Code of Arizona, the Howell Code. Section first, chapter second of the Howell Code gives as the boun­ d a rie s o f th e County o f Yuma: On the east by the line of 113 degrees 20 minutes west longitude; on the north by the middle of the main stream of the Santa Maria to its junction with William’s Fork, thence by the middle of the main

Acts, kesolutlohs, and Memorials adopted by the ^ifth legislative Assembly of the Territory of "Arizona, p. 59. 25. Compiled laws of the Territory of Arizona 1664-1871 Inclusive. p.*~j9. 36

channel of the said stream to its junction with the Colorado; on the west by the main channel of the Colorado River; and on the south by the Sonora lin e.2" These boundaries, then, paid no attention to any claim of California east of the Colorado, specifically designating the main channel of the Colorado as Yuma County’s western boundary and thus including the contested strip within the County of Yuma and the Territory of Arizona. Arizona would tolerate no foolishness, and her sheriff- assessor and other officials were now doubly enjoined to tax, protect, and in all ways exercise their jurisdiction over the contested strip. The Arizona Citizen ran a two-column editorial repeating and reinforcing Mr. McKey’s avowals as to the non-existence of a California claim on the strip and as to the utter absurdity of California’s position. The edi­ torial then presented Arizona’s claims and concluded: We have examined a ll with much care, and have made comparisons and drew conclusions after much deliberation, and have no doubt as to the correct­ ness of our position, and we are pleased to learn that it is the determination of the Arizona authorities to assert by every legal process their jurisdiction over the strip of land until they shall have gained undisputed possession. The taxes of California are higher in gold than those of Arizona in currency, and the convenience to the county and the Territorial records and official business of all kinds, combine to in­ cline the occupants of that strip of land to recognize Arizona authority, and they may safely do s o .27

£6. ibid., pi 31• ” 27. The Arizona Citizen. December 21, 1872, p. 1. 37

Despite this burst of activity on the part of Arizona, the tax collectors of San Diego County continued to collect taxes from the occupants of the contested strip until 1870, and even though they were forced to stop such collections in that year, it was not until three years later that they seem to have given up their claim to their right to collect taxes 28 there. By the time of the meeting of the Sixth Territorial Legislature (1871), the Federal Government had been appealed to, with the result as reported by Governor A.P.K. Safford in his message to that Legislature: ' Over a year ago the subject of jurisdiction was raised in the Internal Revenue Department, and the matter was referred to Judge James, of Washington, D.C., for examination and decision. After a careful investigation of the subject, he decided that the territory belonged to Arizona, and the officers of this Territory were directed to collect the revenues therein. That the dis­ puted territory belongs to Arizona, in my judgment, does not admit of a d o u b t . 29 The tax collectors of San Diego County seem to have been stopped by Judge James* order, and from that time on the actual jurisdiction was in the hands of the Territory of Ari­ zona. Governor Safford in his message in 1871 also mentioned that some suits had been started to bring the matter to a final adjudication. That these suits did not settle the case was evident from the article in the Arizona Citizen on December 21, 1872,

28. Ibid.' ' 29. Journals of the Sixth Legislative Assembly of the territory of Arizona, p. 5$. " which read: FOR PUBLIC CONSIDERATION Here is a petition in circulation for signa­ tures and intended to be presented to the en­ suing session of the Arizona Legislative Assembly: Whereas the town of Arizona City is the main port of entry for all merchandise coming to this Territory from California; and, "Whereas th e w a te rfro n t of s a id town i s in dispute between the State of California and the Territory of Arizona, evidenced as follows, to w it; 1st.- That the county of San Diego has claimed and collected taxes from that portion of the population of said town living north of the line of survey established by the treaty of 1848, between Mexico and the United States, and known as the treaty of "Guadeloupe Hidalgo," and between said line and the Colorado River up to and until A.D. 1870 and still claims the right to so collect ta x e s . 2nd.- The Land Commissioner at Washington, upon application of the town of Arizona City for the purchase of the lands embracing the townsite of said town, has refused to sell that portion to said town authorities embraced within the lim its aforesaid, alleging as a reason for withholding such sale that the lands before described were in dispute between the said State of California and the said Territory of Arizona, and that no grant would be made until such dispute had been set­ tled in the courts. 3rd.- That State School warrants of the State of California have been laid over said tract, as lands belonging to said State of California, and subject to entry by said warrants: and Whereas, by reason of such conflicting claim and doubts concerning the true line between the State of California and Arizona Territory great uncertainty exists - 1st.- As to the jurisdiction of the courts of said Territory over persons and property with (word illegible) 39

2nd.- That persons living and owning property within said tract are in great doubt as to whether they really belong within this Territory or Cali­ fornia; and Whereas the whole Territory is concerned and interested in the early and complete settlement of this boundary question, Now therefor, we the undersigned, your peti­ tioners, would most respectfully ask that a sum or sums sufficient to defray the expense of liti­ gating said question of the boundary between the State of California and this Territory, of said lands in dispute, be set aside from the funds now in the Territorial Treasury, or that a special fund for this purpose be provided by law. And your pe­ titioners w ill ever p r a y . 30 Editorially the Citizen commented that San Diego County ad­ mitted that mid-channel of the Colorado is her boundary and only persisted in her claims because of the attitude of the Land Commissioner. The editor felt that a decision by the Attorney General of the United States would settle the matter 31 satisfactorily. The Journals of the succeeding Legislature show no ae- 32 tion taken to set up the fund requested. The final deci­ sio n in t h i s co n tro v ersy seems to have come from th e Commis­ sioner of the General Land Office in July of 1873 and is re­ ported without comment in the Arizona Citizen, to wit: THE DISPUTED LAND AT YUMA Under the date of July 28, the Commissioner of the General Land Office addressed the Surveyor General of Arizona as follows:

3d. The Arizona Citizen, December £l, 1872, p. 1. 31. Ibid., p. 2. 32. Journals of the Seventh Legislative Assembly of the Ter­ ritory"o7~Arizona, passim? 40

Sir: In answer to your letter of the 15th of May transm itting a communication from Mayor Finlay of Yuma City, Arizona Territory, I have to say that after a careful review of the question, and an examination of the act admitting the State of California, and that organizing the Territory of New Mexico, both approved September 9th, 1850 (U.S. Stats at Large, vol. 9, pg. 446) and the C o n s titu tio n of C a lifo rn ia (Wood’s D ig e s t, I860) I am satisfied that all that portion of land lying south of the Colorado River, west of the Gila River, and north of the boundary line be­ tween the United States and Mexico as established pursuant to the treaty of February 2, 1848, is within the jurisdiction of the Territory of Ari­ zona, and you w ill hereafter so consider and treat it.33 The comment of the editor of the Arizona Citizen of the pre­ vious year as to the reason for San Diego’s continuing her suit was apparently justified, since San Diego seemed to give up the fight and, as Bancroft says, "after 1873 I find no 34 trace of the dispute.”

33. The Arizona Citizen, August $0 , 1873* 34. Bancroft, op. eit., p. 529. CHAPTER I I I

UTAH V. ARIZONA

While Arizona and California were contesting the Yuma strip in 1864, a new boundary controversy broke out on the north between Arizona and Utah. This boundary problem was actually composed of two distinct parts. The first part treated was the question which Arizona raised as to some set­ tlements near her northern boundary. These towns submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of Utah, although the area was very close to the thirty-seventh parallel, Arizona’s unsur­ veyed, unmarked northern boundary. Arizona sought to have the northern boundary surveyed, since that survey might prove that the towns in question were below the thirty-seventh parallel instead of above it as they claimed. In the main, this problem was settled in favor of Utah by 1872. The second part of the northern boundary problem consisted of Utah’s three attempts to get that area of Arizona north of the Colorado River. These attempts stretched from 1864 to 1919, and all ended with the failure of the Utah attempt. It was the First Territorial Legislature of Arizona (I 864) which memorialized Congress for a boundary survey when they found that the settlements of Saint George and Santa Clara on the Rio Virgin were submitting themselves to 42 the jurisdiction of Utah. These towns, according to the memorialists, contained "some five hundred inhabitants," and represented what would amount to a substantial increase in Arizona’s population. The northern boundary of Arizona, the thirty-seventh degree of north latitude, had not been surveyed or marked, and these towns were within a few miles of that degree of latitude by rough survey, so Arizona memori­ alized for an exact survey which might put both towns below the thirty-seventh parallel and in the jurisdiction of Ari­ zona. The memorialists pointed out that the rapid settlement of this Territory, along and near its boundary lines, in connection with the known rich mineral and agricultural wealth, make the question of civil jurisdiction one of delicacy and vexation which, they said, could be cleared up only by speedily and permanently locating and marking the boundaries of the Terri­ tory. Therefore they asked the appointment of a commissioner to survey and fix the boundaries between Arizona and Utah, 2 Nevada, and Colorado Territories. Congress, however, did not act upon the memorial. Governor R.C. McCormick in his message to the Second

1. A c t s , Resolutions, and Memorials Adopted by th e First ^Gsisl&tlve Assembly of the Territory "ox Arizona, p . 64. 2. Ibid; it is strange thafT this memorial Includes Colorado Territory, since Arizona and Colorado are contiguous at only one point, and that must be satisfactorily deter­ mined by the juncture of the line separating Utah and New Mexico Territories from Arizona. This is probably an indication of how little was known of the boundary to the north. 43

Territorial Legislature of Arizona (1865-1866) sought to bring a renewal of the memorial by reminding the Legislature 3 that the boundary line had still not been surveyed. Prompted by the Governor, the Second Legislature did memori­ alize Congress again for the surveying of Arizona boundaries. By now, 1865, th e m e m o ria lists claim ed, th e re were some two thousand inhabitants in the towns of Saint George and Santa Clara. Another respect in which this memorial differed from the first was that it asked that the boundary between Arizona and California be surveyed as well as that between Arizona and the three aforementioned Territories, Utah, Nevada, and Colorado. The Arizona-California survey, it was hoped, would settle the controversy over the small tract of • land in the bend of the Colorado in contest between Arizona 4 and California. Both these memorials called for the Territorial dele­ gates to Congress to call the attention of that body to the needs expressed in the memorial rather than being addressed to the Congress directly. Neither Charles Poston in 1864 nor John Goodwin in 1865, delegates at the time of the first and second memorials, respectively, succeeded in bringing the matter to the official attention of Congress. This task was left to ex-Governor McCormick who in 1870, while serving as

3» Journals of the Second Legislative Assembly of the Ter- r i t o r y of Arizona, p. 34.' 4. Acts, ^esoTutions and Memorials of the Second Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona, pp. 69-70♦ the Territorial Delegate, succeeded in presenting a bill which would achieve Arizona's ends in regard to the boundary survey. His success was short-lived, however, since the bill which he introduced on June 6, 1870 "to authorize the Presi­ dent of the United States to cause the northern and eastern boundaries of the Territory of Arizona to be surveyed" was referred to the Committee on Appropriations and was pigeon- 5 holed there. In the meanwhile the memorials of the Territory of Ari­ zona ceased as more was learned of the area near the boundary line on the north. It was determined by parties sent to explore that region that the Rio Virgin settlements actually were in the Territory of Utah. One member of such a party, Stephen Vandeveer Jones, wrote in his journal of determining the position of Kanab, a settlement:near Saint George, in re­ lation to the Arizona line, which proved to be a few miles 6 south of the town. Not until 1902 is there a record of an official survey of the Utah-Arizona line, which showed that the towns in question were definitely and officially in Utah. While Arizona was thinking of the possibilities of

5« ^ e Congressional Globe. 4lst dong.. 2d Sess.. Part V. p . 4-100. 6. H.E. Gregory (Editor), "The Journal of Stephen Vandeveer Jones," Utah H istorical Quarterly, XVI, No. 1 (January, 1948), 1W.------7. This information comes from an undated clipping in the file on Boundaries at the Arizona Pioneer Historical S o c ie ty . 45 finding the Rio Virgin settlements within her territorial lim its, Utah was thinking in terms of annexing all of Arizona Territory north of the Colorado River. Early in 1865, Utah’s Delegate to Congress, Mr. Kinney, presented to Congress the memorial passed by the Utah T erritorial Legislature on Janu­ ary 11 of that year. This memorial asked that all that portion of Arizona bounded north by the thirty-seventh degree of north latitude, west by longitude thirty-eight degrees west from Washing­ ton, south by that portion of the thirty-sixth degree of north latitude going between afore­ named thirty-eighth degree of longitude and the center of the channel of the Colorado River, thence by the center of the channel of the aforenamed Colorado River, southerly easterly, and northerly to its intersection with the thirty-seventh degree of north latitude, be attached to the Ter­ ritory of Utah, for a ll governmental purposes.8 910 At this time, 1865, the Territory of Arizona included the 9 area later lost to Nevada, and Utah too was bigger since she had not yet lost the area to Nevada which she was to lose in 1866. Therefore, the area which Utah asked was that shown in Figure 4. Utah asked that this land be given her since the "geo­ graphical position of the Territory of Utah is such as to 10 isolate it entirely from navigable waters." The memori­ alists pointed out that in an effort to end this isolation, the settlers of Utah had built roads toward the Colorado

8. Rouse Miscellaneous Documents Mo. $3,' 3&th Cong.. 2d S e s s ., p . 1. 9. See Chapter IV. 10. House Miscellaneous Documents No. 53, 38th Cong*, 2d Sess., p. 1. 4 6

I E

J

— A*ER SOVtWI U1AW t ne ^ mimioha

/ IN l 8 US

FIGURE 4 River which, they said, was navigable to within a hundred and twenty-five miles of the southern settlements in their Terri­ tory, On reaching the southern boundary of their Territory the road builders continued seeking a route for a road to the Colorado through a land "mostly uninhabited, and deriving its principal value from the fact that it affords a chance of com­ munication with the commercial world by way of the Colorado 11 River.” The memorialists next say that the growing interest in agriculture, commerce, and mining, as well as potential desert reclamation, demand an outlet for products which could be achieved by attaching to the Territory of Utah that portion 12 of Arizona defined above and shown in Figure 4. This memorial was referred to the Committee on Terri­ tories, which body seems to have disregarded Utah’s plea for early and favorable action to give Utah the territory desired, since no b ill to accomplish that objective was reported back from the Committee. During the next year, 1866, both Utah and Arizona lost territory to the newly-formed state of Nevada. After this came a long period of peace between Arizona and Utah as far as the area north of the Colorado is concerned.

11. I b i d . 12. Ibid. Thomas Farish in Vol. 17, p. 202 of his History of Arizona says in writing of this episode that Utah in 18b5 "tried to get a slice of northern Arizona, claim­ ing that the natural boundary formed by the Grand Canyon cut off that part of Arizona north of the Grand Canyon from easy intercourse with the balance of the Terri­ tory." Mr. Farish seems to be in error as to this ex­ planation of Utah’s claims, but perhaps the error is understandable since at the time he was writing his book, Utah was again seeking the area, at that time for the reasons he mentions. 4 8

By 1902 the relationship between Arizona and Utah had changed, since on January 4, 1896, Utah had been admitted to the Union as the forty-fifth state. Thus when Utah started her second attempt, or series of attempts, to get the area north of the Colorado from Arizona, it was a contest between the state of Utah and the Territory of Arizona, while in 1865 it was the Territory of Utah against the Territory of Ari­ zona. This contest began on March 13, 1902, when Mr. Suther­ land of Utah introduced a b ill into the House of Representa­ tives which called for annexing that area of Arizona north 13. of the Colorado River to the state of Utah. (hi April 14, 1902, Senator Kearns of Utah introduced a similar b ill in 14 the Senate. In both cases the bills were referred to the Committee on Territories in the respective houses and were pigeon-holed there. The state of Utah then sought another means of achiev­ ing her purpose. On February 4 , 1903, the governor of Utah approved a joint resolution of the Legislature of that state which called for the appointment of a commission to visit and negotiate with the Arizona Legislature. The goal of this commission, which consisted of Messrs. Davis H. Morris and Joel H. Johnson, was to obtain the consent of the Arizona Legislature to the annexation of the land north of the

13. Congressional Record, 37th Cong., 1st Bess., Vol. XxXV! Part 4, p. 4.O85. 14. Ibid.. Part 2, p. 2764. 49

Colorado River. On February 10 these commissioners were introduced to the Council of the Legislative Assembly by a 15 message from the Governor of Arizona, Alexander 0. Brodie. On the next day, February 11, the commissioners themselves visited the Council session and asked that the body arrange to hear them in respect to matters contained in their com- 16 mission. The Council thereupon passed Council Concurrent Resolution No. 12 which called for the appointment of a joint committee consisting of three members of the Council and five members of the House to treat with the commissioners 17 from Utah. The Arizona Daily Star in reporting this action by the Legislature included in the article those reasons Utah gave for feeling she should have the area. These reasons were that the area was mainly a grazing area and the inhabi­ tants thereof regarded Utah as their home, that county of­ ficials from Arizona could not preserve order in the area, and that the strip was really a part of Utah except for an 18 imaginary line. On February 13, 1903, the joint committee of the Arizona Legislature made its report. The members reported that they had given the commissioners a full hearing and had also lis­ tened to testimony from members of the committee residing in the counties whose area would be affected, Coconino and

15. Journals of the ‘Twenty-second Legislative Assembly of" the Territory of Arizona, p. 607 16. Ibid. , p. 65. 17. TEIcT. 18. Arizona Daily Star, February 12, 1903, p. 4. 50

Mohave. As a result of this hearing the committee reported that In their opinion "the annexation of any portion of our Territory to the State of Utah would be highly injurious and 19 detrimental to the interests of the entire Territory." They pointed out that this proposal would take some eight thousand square miles of valuable grazing, mining, and timber land from the Territory along with the taxes being collected there, and that Utah had asked that it be given "without re- 20 muneration of any kind." Therefore, the members of the joint committee concluded saying that they were unalterably opposed to Arizona’s acquiescence to Utah’s proposal, and recommended that if any action be taken it should be an urgent 21 protest to Congress against any such acquisition by Utah. The Legislature acted upon the joint committee’s recom­ mendation and by February 20, 1903, had passed a memorial which was sent to Congress and introduced into the House and 22 the Senate before the end of the month. The memorialists pointed out that Utah was asking from Arizona an area nearly as large as the state of Massachusetts, rich in minerals, tim­ ber, and grazing land, and of potential value as farm land. They also pointed out that the tract was traversed by the Grand Canyon, "the most marvelous and majestic of all nature’s

19. Journals of the Twenty-second Legislative Assembly "of the Territory of Arizona, p. 7l7 20. I h H .------1 ------:— — 21. THcT. 22. Gohgresaional Record. 57th Gong., 2d Session, Vol. !MV!i!, j?art 3, pp. 2686, 2772. 51 handiwork of world wide fame, and which has always been pe- 23 culiarly and exclusively an Arizona endowment.Therefore the memorialists protested against any act by Congress which might accomplish Utah’s desires, and requested that "the do­ main of Arizona be protected by Congress against the proposed 24 unjust and indefensible encroachment by the State of Utah." It is not possible to judge the effect of this memorial but Congress, by inaction, did accomplish Arizona’s purpose. Whether because of the Arizona memorial, the prejudice then felt against Utah because of polygamy, or just Congressional inertia, it was impossible to ascertain. After this rebuff Utah kept a b ill for the annexation of northern Arizona to Utah before one or both Houses of 25 Congress in each session from 1903 to 1905• Bach b ill met th e same fate, being referred to the Committee on Territories and there being pigeonholed. In 1905 the Arizona Legislature sent a second memorial to Congress, changing the memorial of the preceding Legislature only by inserting twenty-third 26 where the previous memorial read twenty-second. Again Con­ gress did not take any action, which was what the Arizona

'£%• Acts, he solutions, and Memorials o t the Twenty-second Legislature of the' Territory of Arizona, p.' 181. “ 24. iB if . ------;— - 25. Congressional Record. 58th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. JQGiVlII, tart 2, p. 1903 and 58th Cong., 3d Sess., V ol. XXXIX, Part 1, p. 250, and 59th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. XL, pp. 115, 270. 26. Acts, Resolutions, and Memorials adopted by the Twenty- ' t h i r d Legislative Assembly o f the ‘Territory of Arizona. p n ? 6 . ------' 52 memorialists desired, but the effect of the memorial, of course, cannot be reckoned. From 1905 to 1909, Utah lapsed into a period of official silence as to her desires for the strip of northern Arizona. During early 1909 in a sudden change of tactics, Utah memori­ alized Congress for the strip of northern Arizona instead of introducing a b ill aimed at achieving that purpose. The memorial was passed unanimously by both houses of the Utah Legislature, and was Introduced into the Senate on February 2? 6, 1909. The memorialists represented that the northern part of Arizona, north of the Grand Canyon, was cut off from the rest of the Teeritory by an impassable barrier and thus was deprived of the benefits of local government. The in­ habitants of the area, they claimed, were desirous of annex­ ation to Utah since they had most of their dealings with Utah citizens and had interests in common with them. The memorialists also claimed that the area's physical conditions were such that "its future development either in population or wealth is impossible," thus the loss of the area would not be a great loss to Arizona. As to taxes, the memorialists pointed out that most of the taxable wealth of the area con­ sisted of grazing herds of domestic animals which, under Arizona’s control of the area, crossed and recrossed the boundary at w ill and were taxed by neither Utah nor Arizona. One last section pointed out that under Arizona administration,

27. Congressional Record, bOth Cong., 2d S e s s .. Vol. XLIII. Part 2, p. 19721 53 because of the isolation of the area north of the Canyon, "criminals rendezvous therein and obtain immunity from prose­ cution." For all these reasons the Legislature of Utah, with the Governor concurring, asked that Congress "enact the necessary legislation in order that the tract of country in Arizona Territory lying north of the Colorado River, be an- 28 nexed to and become part of the State of Utah." This memorial was referred to the Committee on Terri­ tories, as the bills to achieve the same purpose had been. It apparently had little effect on Congress, since no bill which called for the annexation by Utah of northern Arizona was reported from the Committee. The memorial did have the effect of causing the Legislature of Arizona to pass a memo­ rial very similar to the two previously presented. This memorial, when presented to Congress during March, 1909, was 29 referred to the Committee on Territories also. For a third time Congressional inaction achieved what Arizona desired, and the land north of the Colorado was still Arizona’s. Utah, realizing perhaps that it would soon lose the ad­ vantage of being a state while Arizona was only a Territory, sought once again to gain control of the strip by introduo- 30 ing a bill for that purpose on January 27, 1910. When this effort met with exactly the same result as all previous

25. Ibid. ‘ "" " 29. TbTcT. , Part 1, pp. 52, 457. 30. Ibid. , 6lst Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. LX7, Part 2, p. 1060. 54 attempts, being referred to the Committee on Territories and there pigeon-holed, Utah gave up her attempt to obtain the strip from Arizona Territory. Nine years later, in 1919, Utah made her final attempt to secure control of the 11 Arizona S trip,” as the area north of the Colorado came to be known. By then Arizona had been admitted to the Union so Utah, now dealing with a sovereign state, again changed her tactics. The Governor of Utah again sent a commission to try to get the consent of Arizona to the annexation of the area by Utah; however, this time Utah stood prepared to buy the land or to trade it for some of Utah’s land contiguous to northeastern Arizona. Yfhat many Arizonans thought of that idea may be seen in the headlines given to the story of the formation of the commission in some Arizona Newspapers. The Tombstone Prospector announced "Wool Will Fly When This Gang Reaches Phoenix," and the Arizona Daily Star headed its story "HorrorsI Utah Would 32 Annex North Arizona."

31. The Tombstone Prospector, January 28, 1919. The P ro s­ pector later commented that Utah had as much chance of getting the strip as the Kaiser had of succeeding Wilson as President. 32. Arizona Daily Star, January 28, 1919• On the next day the Star commented editorially that perhaps Arizona should sell the strip to Utah and use the money for good roads, since, in its opinion, the area was "more Utah than Arizona at the present time.” Later news stories indicated unfriendliness to the Utah proposi­ tion, however, and there was no more editorial comment on it, pro or con. 55

On February 3, 1919, Governor Campbell of Arizona sent a message to the Legislature announcing the receipt of a resolution sent him by the Governor of Utah which called for the appointment of a commission to discuss the "Arizona Strip" with the Arizona Oegislature. Governor Campbell recom­ mended that as a matter of courtesy a committee of Arizonans 33 be chosen to meet with them. The Council thereupon auth­ orized the Governor to appoint a committee of three to con­ fer with Utah's three-man commission, which he did the fol­ lowing day, appointing A,C. Peterson, Speaker of the House; C.W. Herndon, State Senator from Mohave County; and W.A. 34 Mouer, State Land Commissioner. On February 5, 1919, a communication from the State Attorney General was read in the Council. In it he remarked that he had heard from unofficial sources that a committee from Utah was due to arrive in Phoenix for the purpose of ac­ quiring a portion of the state of Arizona. He reminded the Legislature of Utah’s attempts to wrest the area from Arizona Territory by Congressional action, and continued:

33. Journal's of th e Fourth. State Legislature of A rizo n a, p • lifb # 34. Ibid., p. 163. The House appointed a committee of three to meet with the Senate to discuss possible action. "When the House learned that the Senate had already auth­ orized the Governor to pick a committee, it unanimously passed a motion calling for the Chief Clerk of the House to transmit a message to the Senate conveying the disapproval of the House on Senate action in this matter. 56

If the committee comes from that State pursuant to the information which we now have, they should be welcomed to our beautiful valley and our salubrious climate, but we can no more part with our climate than we can part with the domain which the visiting committee seeks. I would be remiss in my duty did I not state that neither the Legislative Department nor the Executive, nor the Judicial Department has any power to even entertain the subject which brings the Utah committee to our m idst.35 In a final paragraph the Attorney General said that the boun­ daries of the state were defined in the first article of the State Constitution, which was approved by the people and en­ dorsed by an act of the Federal Government. Now, he wrote, those boundaries could not be changed by the State Legisla- 36 ture. Congress, or the two bodies acting jointly. On February $, 1919, the Utah commissioners were sched­ uled to arrive. Newspaper reports showed continued antagonism to the thought of selling any of the state to Utah. The com­ missioners did not arrive as scheduled, however, and it was not until February 9 that the Arizona Daily Star reported "Utah Bargain Hunters Reach State Capital." The commission­ ers, on arrival, reported that they would not even offer a trade of the Utah territory below the San Juan River for the 37 Arizona Strip since they felt Arizona would not be interested.

35* i b i d . , p » 173» 36. Ibid., pp. 173-174. A study of the Arizona and United ' 'States Constitutions would indicate that the Attorney General was wrong* provided a referendum were passed. 37. This trade was never mentioned in official dealings, but was heavily criticized in Arizona newspapers since the area was an Indian Reservation which most of the Arizona newspapers felt Arizona had enough of. The Tucson Citizen on January 31> 1919, commented that the only trade Arizona would consider would be if Utah bought enough of Sonora to give Arizona a seaport and then of­ fered that for the Strip. 57

They said that they would offer a straight purchase of 7,650 square miles of northern Arizona peopled by some 250 people. One of the commissioners, Mr. A.W. Ivins, commented that most of the settlers in the area were from Utah, and that the area was a no-man’s land as far as justice was concerned, with law enforcement officials mainly on the other side of the Grand Canyon. These, he said, were the main reasons Utah 38 sought the strip. Two days later, on February 11, 1919, the Arizona Daily -—3 $ Star reported "Utah Abandons Purchase Idea After Meeting." The commissioners left, apparently satisfied that nothing could come of their proposal. They did remark on leaving, however, that the conference had given the impression that there would be closer cooperation between the two states on roads and other joint projects. Thus ended fifty-five years of attempts at changing the Arizona-Utah boundary. Three attempts by Utah, each under different circumstances as far as the governmental relation­ ship of the participants was concerned, ended in failure.

38. A rizona bally Star. February 9 . 1919. p . 1. 39. Ibid. , February II. 1919, p. 2. I can find no mention o fa report of this meeting of the committee with the Commissioners in the Journals of the Legislature. On February 11, however, a communication from S.A. Fisher of Globe, Arizona, was read into the record. He pro­ tested against the sale since, among other reasons, "’twould almost break my poor old heart to see that beautiful Kaibab Forest Reserve pass to the sovereignty of another S tate." Thereupon a motion of Senator Camp­ bell was duly seconded and carried that the Secretary inform Mr. Fisher that the Strip would not be sold. 58 leaving the boundary to the north at the thirty-seventh parallel of north longitude, exactly where it was when the Territory of Arizona was created in 1863. CHAPTER IT

THE LOSS OF PAH UTE

On May 5, 1866, Congress provided that some twelve thousand square miles of Arizona Territory be given to her neighbor on the northwest, the state of Nevada. This pre­ cipitated the next in the series of Arizona boundary con­ troversies, but it differed from the others in that this controversy was the only one which ended with a change of jurisdiction over a large area. The area lost by Arizona is generally referred to as Pah Ute, or Pah Ute County. Actually, the loss included part of Mohave County as well. Pah Ute County itse lf had been formed from Mohave County only a year before, in 1865• Arizona did not give up the area willingly, and it was not until 1871 that the Legisla­ ture gave a sort of de facto recognition to Nevada’s owner­ ship by discontinuing the existence of Pah Ute County. The Organic Act for the Territory of Arizona provided that the boundary in the northwest be the same as that of the Territory of New Mexico had been, that is, running along the thirty-seventh degree of north latitude west to the boundary of California and then with that boundary to 60

1 the boundary of Mexico. This created a boundary alignment such as is outlined in Figure 5 for the northwest part of the Territory of Arizona. In the first internal partition, this entire area was included in the County of Mohave. The Second T erritorial Legislature (1865), however, designated that much of the northwest area should be made into a new 2 jurisdictional area, the County of Pah Ute, with boundaries such as are shown in Figure 5. The county seat of the newly created county was to be at Callville, situated on the western side of the Colorado River. In the meanwhile in 1865 the state of Nevada was mak­ ing plans to expand its territory. The boundary provisions in the Nevada State Constitution provided for a further ex­ tension to the east or the west by providing that whensoever Congress shall authorize the addition to the Territory or State of Nevada of any por­ tion of the territory on the easterly border of the foregoing defined lim its, not exceeding in extent one degree of longitude, the same shall thereupon be embraced within and become a part of this State. And furthermore provided, that all such territory lying west of and adjoining the boundary line herein prescribed, which the State of California may relinquish to the Territory or State of Nevada, shall thereupon be embraced within and constitute a part of this State.3 With the way west blocked by an unwilling state of Cali­ fornia, Nevada turned east and sought to get Congressional

1. House Documents No. 357. 58th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 259. 5617. 2. Acts, Resolutions, and Memorials adopted by th e Second Legislative Assembly of the Territory o f "Arizona, p. 1 9 . 3. House Documents No. 357. 5 &th Cong., 2 d S e ss., p. 2 4 2 1 . PAH UTE

•Holbrook

♦ivcson

arca ust to nevApm

FIGURE 5 62 permission to annex all of the one degree of longitude which was provided for in its Constitution. It introduced k a bill to effect this purpose, which passed the Senate but 5 was not acted upon in the House because of lack of time. This b ill did not call for the annexation of any of the Ter­ ritory of Arizona. Since the b ill to gain more territory for Nevada did not become law, a similar b ill was introduced during 1866. This second b ill, however, included a section which provided that the area north and west of the Colorado River and the thirty-seventh degree west from Washington should be taken from the Territory of Arizona and made a part of the state of Nevada. This area was in addition to the one degree of 6 longitudinal area sought from Utah. John N. Goodwin, Arizona Territory’s Delegate to Con­ gress, let the bill pass the Senate unchallenged. In the House of Representatives, however, he made a strong fight to have the section of the b ill dealing with Arizona stricken. In this fight he was aided by Mr. Rice of Maine who moved to amend the b ill by striking out that portion

4. Congressional Globe, 38th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 663-665. 671-672. 5. E.M. Mack, Nevada. A History of the State from the E a r l i e s t Times through the (JivillVar, p. 4 6 8 . 6 . Congressional Globe, )9 th Cong. , 1 st Sess., P a rt 3 , p7 2 3 6 8 . John N. Goodwin of Maine, an ex-colleague of Rice, had been appointed first governor of the Terri­ tory of Arizona. 63

7 which would take territory from Arizona. In support of Mr. Rice’s motion to amend the b ill, Mr. Goodwin spoke at some length calling attention to the fact that while he had allowed the b ill to clear the Senate unchallenged, since he desired to find out how his constituents felt in the matter, he had since found that Arizona opposed the annexation. 'When the b ill came before the Committee on Territories in the House, he reminded them, that body had decided to strike

out as much of the bill as dealt with Arizona. He continued: ... the House of Representatives is not the most convenient tribunal before which to present a question of this kind. A question regarding the dismemberment of a Territory should be decided upon evidence and facts and not upon simple state­ ments made in the course of debate; and the question was so regarded by the Committee on Ter­ ritories of this House. I hope that the House w ill adopt the recommendation of the committee on this subject.° Next he presented a few of the principal arguments given against the proposed annexation. First he pointed out that there was no natural connection between the state of Nevada and the territory sought. The area was drained by the Colorado and the people living in the area received their supplies from that river. In the matter of governmental convenience, he pointed out that Prescott, the capital of the Arizona Territory, was only two hundred miles from the area in question, while because of the desert separating

7. Ibid. , p. 2364. 8 . Ibid. 64 the area from Nevada*s cities on the north, communioation with those cities would have to go by way of San Francisco. This desert, he contended, formed a natural boundary be­ tween the area to be annexed and the state which sought to annex it. Mr. Goodwin also objected for another reason, explaining: There is another objection to this bill. It establishes a new precedent in legislation. While the consent of the State of Nevada is made a condition precedent to the annexation of this Territory, no consent is required on the part of the people of Arizona. They are obliged to take upon themselves the burden of a State government without their consent. I would be perfectly willing that this bill should pass if the people of that portion of Arizona can be permitted to vote upon the question and decide it by a ma­ jority. And I propose to offer, if this amendment is not adopted Mr. Rice’s and the bill should pass in its present shape, an amendment of this kind. And Sir, I know, and the gentlemen who advocate this bill know, that if the b ill does pass in this shape there will be an almost unani­ mous vote of the people of that portion of the Territory against it.9 Mr. Goodwin ended his speech by pointing out that there were fifteen hundred people in the area in 1865, and that Gover­ nor Goodwin had informed him that there were then in early 1866 twenty-five hundred while the population by mid- 10 summer was expected to be n e a rly f iv e th o u san d . Mr. Ashley of Ohio then spoke in favor of the un­ amended b ill, pointing out that taking the area from Utah

9. Ibid., p. 237o« Mr. Goodwin did not Introduce the amendment calling for a vote of the people in the Ter­ ritory as he had promised. 10. I b id . 65 and Arizona would tend to equalize the size of the states in the west, giving Nevada a total of 104,000 square miles instead of 80,000 and still leaving Arizona with 121,000 miles and Utah with 88,000 square miles. He was also in favor of making the Colorado River the southern boundary, since it was a natural boundary and it would provide Nevada 11 with an outlet to the Gulf and to the sea. Next Mr. Ashley of Nevada spoke in favor of annexation of the entire area, emphasizing in regard to that area taken from Arizona that it had only recently been occupied by people from Utah and that these objected to state government only since they would have more influence in a Territorial govern- 12 m ent. Next a vote was taken upon the amendment of Mr. Rice which would have excluded Arizona land from annexation. This got only twenty ayes while the noes were so numerous that no count was taken. Then the b ill itself was read a third time and passed, so that Arizona was officially now 13 some 12,000 square miles smaller. There was a provision in the section of the bill dealing with the territory granted from Arizona which said that "the Territory mentioned in this section shall not become part of the State of Nevada until said state shall, through its legislature,

11. Ibid~ ' “ T” ■ " ' 12. ibid. Mr. Ashley spoke of the Arizona area as being about six thousand square miles when actually it was more than twice that figure. 13. I b id . 66

14 consent thereto,” and around this proviso Arizona fashioned a five-year fight to retain the territory. . The fight was keynoted by a part of the message of Governor McCormick to the Third Arizona Legislature (1866). In speaking of the lost area he points out that the Legis­ lature of Nevada had passed an act on March 1, 1866, which p ro v id ed : Whenever, by consent of Congress, additional territory shall be added to the State of Nevada on its eastern or southern border, or both, then until further provided by law, all such added territory, lying east of Lander County, shall be a part of said Lander County; and all such part of added territory lying south or east, or both, o f Nye County, s h a ll be a p a r t of s a id Nye. . C ounty.15 He emphasized that this act had been passed on M%rch 1, 1866, more than two months before Congress provided for the grant of the Arizona land to Nevada. Thus there was some question as to whether this act of the Nevada Legislature would suf­ fice to satisfy the proviso calling for acceptance on the part of the Nevada Legislature. Governor McCormick outlined Arizona’s case when he explained that he felt that Congress appeared to demand "subsequent specific rather than previous indefinite action on the part of the State, in acceptance of 16 the tract mentioned.” He also pointed out that since the

14. United States Statutes at Large, Chap. LXXtll, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol._T4, p . 43. 15. Journals of the Third Legislative Assembly of the Territory o? Arizona, p7 40 . 16. i e i t : ...... 67 boundaries of Nevada were stipulated in her constitution, it would take an amendment to that constitution to change them rather than a simple act of the Legislature. Having pre­ sented his reasons for doubting the validity of Nevada’s claim, he concluded: If in your wisdom you think this division of the Territory not yet consumated, you w ill, I doubt not, use your influence to prevent it, as a movement highly detrimental to our citizens living in Pah-Ute and Mohave Counties, (against which their unanimous protest w ill be presented to you honorable bodies) and calculated to deprive us of a large extent of valuable mining and agricultural lands, bearing a natural geographic relation to Arizona, and an unnatural one to Neyada.17 Thus admonished by the Governor, the Third Territorial Legislature did memorialize Congress to lay aside the action whereby it gave to Nevada part of Arizona Territory. This memorial included the Arizona interpretation that the terri­ tory had not as yet been accepted by Nevada and so was s till liable to Congressional action. The reasons given for de­ siring this action were those given by Delegate Goodwin in his speech, the area as a watershed of the Colorado River, and the ease of dealing with the area from Arizona as opposed to the difficulties faced in communication to the north by way of Los Angeles and San Francisco, some 1500 miles. Also the memorialists claimed that it was the unanimous wish of the inhabitants of the area to remain under Arizona

17. Ibid. , p. if-L« 68

18 jurisdiction. The memorial was not presented to Congress directly but the Territorial Delegate, John N. Goodwin, was asked to see that Congress was informed and acted favorably. There is no official record which indicates that the memo­ rial was ever received by Congress, although Goodwin probably did introduce it into committee Meetings. . The Nevada Legislature, seeking to fu lfill the condi­ tions of the proviso, passed a resolution on January 18, 1867, accepting the land which Congress had given it by the Act of 19 May 5, 1866. The Fourth Arizona Territorial Legislature (186?) sent another memorial to Congress asking that the area be returned to Arizona. In this memorial they pointed out that although the Nevada Legislature had passed a resolu­ tion calling for the acceptance of the area given them by Congress, they had.not as yet changed their constitution. The memorialists continued their argument by claiming that while Nevada had made constitutional provision for acceptance of land to the east or west, they had not done so for land to the south. Therefore they reasoned a constitutional amend­ ment was necessary and, since it had not been made, the area 20 was not yet legally under the jurisdiction of Nevada. In support of their theory as to the necessity of an amendment

18. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials adopted by the Third ~ legislative Assembly of the Territory or Arizona, p. 67. 19. Acts, Resolutions, and"~Memorials adopteT~by the fourth legislative Assembly-of ike 'Territory of~ArTzona, p. 69. 20. I b id . 69 to the Nevada State Constitution, the memorialists quoted Governor Blaisdell of Nevada to the effect that such an amend­ ment was necessary "in order to legally and fully extend the 21 jurisdiction of the State over the ceded territory." Since such an amendment could not he effected in less than two years, the memorialists said that the matter was still in the hands of Congress and asked again that the Ter­ ritorial Delegate (at this time Coles Bashford) use all honorable means to bring about a Congressional reversal so 22 far as the Arizona area was concerned. Bashford seems to have had as little luck as had Goodwin in bringing the matter to the official attention of Congress, since there is no record of such action. 'While these maneuvers were going on, Arizona continued to treat Pah-Ute County as its own, and continued to legis­ late for the area. An act passed November 1, 1866, changed the time of holding D istrict Court in several counties, in- 23 eluding Pah Ute. On October 1, 1867, ah act was approved which provided for the removal of the county seat of Pah Ute County from Callville to St. Thomas, another city in the 24 area given to Nevada by Congress. On the next day, fictober 2, 1867, the Council of the Arizona Legislature

21. Ibid. 22. Ibid...... 23. Acts, Resolutions, and Memorials adopted by the Third legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona, p. 30. 24. Acts, Resolutions, and memorials adopted~by the fourth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona, p. 24. 70 petitioned Major W.R. Price for protection for the towns of 25 Pah Ute County. After this last-mentioned action, nothing official was done for or to Pah Ute County until 1871, al­ though Pah Ute County was s till represented as "being en­ titled to a seat in the Territorial Legislature. In 1871 the Sixth Territorial Legislature met at Tucson. The O fficial Register showed Mohave and Pah Ute Counties as 26 "Not Represented," but the fact that Pah Ute was still listed as being entitled to representation indicated that the Legislature s till felt the county belonged to Arizona. Further proof that the Legislature still considered Pah Ute County as a legal part of Arizona soon came as the Legisla­ ture investigated the claim of Mr. William A. Hardy, who claimed to be the representative from Pah Ute and Mohave Counties by virtue of having received 22 of the 23 votes case in the election held for representative at the Mohave County seat. Another man, O.D. Gass, had received all of the 161 votes cast for representative in the election held in Pah Ute County for the same post, but Hardy claimed that the votes for Gass were not legal since they were cast by people who were living in that part of Pah Ute County which had been annexed to Nevada. A special committee was ap­ pointed to look into the problem of whether or not to seat

2$. Journals of th e Fourth Legislative Assembly of th e T er- .riiory~of~~ArIzona. pp. ly^-lSO. 26. Journals of the 8'ixth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. p7 13. 71

Mr. Hardy. It reported back that "there is no evidence be­ fore us, nor could we obtain any, that said act giving Pah 27 Ute to Nevada had been complied with on the part of Nevada.n Since they felt Nevada had not properly accepted Pah Ute, the committee still considered it a part of Arizona and felt that votes from that area were valid, so that Mr. Gass was considered to have received more legal votes than Mr. Hardy with the result that the committee recommended that Mr. Hardy not be seated. The committee report was 28 adopted and Hardy was not seated. This committee report clearly showed that as late as January 16, 1871, when the report was presented, the Legisla­ ture of Arizona had not accepted the resolution of the Nevada Legislature of January 18, 1867, as satisfying the proviso in the act ceding the land to Nevada, and still con­ sidered that an amendment to the Nevada Constitution was necessary. - - Apparently the Arizona Legislature was not alone in this idea, since the Arizona Citizen quotes the State Regis­ te r, a newspaper published at Carson City, Nevada, as fo llo w s: The official survey now being run to deter­ mine the boundary will settle ... but it does not determine whether the territory acquired

27. ibid., p. 73I 28. Ibid., p. 74. The committee stipulated that rejection of Hardy’s claim did not mean Cass would be accepted. They said that Gass’ case would have to be tried on its merits when he claimed his seat. Gass saved the Legis­ lature embarrassment by not claiming his seat. 72

from Arizona has been legally accepted or not by the State of Nevada. This matter has been dis­ cussed c o n sid e ra b ly h e re , and as th e re i s some doubt as to the present status, it would be well f o r th e L e g is la tu re to ta k e some a c tio n in th e premises. The Constitution having fixed the boundary, an amendment of that instrument may be considered essential to a legal transfer of a portion now known as Lincoln County.29 The Nevada Legislature apparently did not act as the Register had suggested. Despite this support in Nevada, the Legislature of Ari­ zona gave up the fight. On February 18, 1871, "An Act fixing the apportionment for members of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona and providing for the taking of a 30 census and other purposes" was approved. Sections 6 and 7 ; - . . of that act provided: That an Act creating the County of Pah-Ute approved December 22, A.D. 1865, is hereby re­ p e a le d . The boundary lines of the County of Mohave are hereby extended so as to include the County of Pah-Ute, as described in the act mentioned in the preceding section, or so much thereof as re­ mains within the boundaries of this Territory.31 In passing this act the Legislature gave a kind of de facto recognition to Nevada's claim since they abolished the county of Pah Ute, but actually they did not recognize Nevada's claim nor did they admit that the area was not still part

29. Arizona Daily Star. February U, 1871. The article quoted from the duate Register was dated January 11. 1871. — 30. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials adopted by the Sixth Territorial legislature of the Territory of "Arizona. p . 87. 31. I b id . 73 of Arizona. This was.actually the end of the fight, how­ ever, and Arizona no longer legislated for the area nor did it provide for representation from it. The area became the lost county of Pah Ute. After this tacit agreement that the area belonged to Nevada, that state practiced official functions there for the first time. The Arizona Citizen reported that most of the Mormon inhabitants of St. Thomas had moved back to Utah or to Arizona. The reason was probably the heavy taxes, since the article in the Citizen continued: I learn that O.D. Grass w ill contest the right of Nevada to collect back taxes .... From the above it would appear that those people have no love for the blessings of State govern­ ment, and Mr. Hardy reports that the heavy taxes imposed on those people by Nevada, induced their removal from that State.32 The importance of this area became apparent when Boulder Dam, now Hoover Dam, was built on land which would have been entirely within the state of Arizona had it not been for Congressional cession of the west bank of the Colo­ rado at that point to Nevada. John R. Murdock in comment­ ing on this said, "Arizona lost Pah-Ute before its signifi- 33 canoe could be appreciated.” An interesting point is that to the date of this writ­ ing, 1950, Nevada has never passed the amendment to her

32. Arizona Citizen, March Id, 1871. 3 3 . Murdock, op. cit., p. 2 1 . 7k constitution which Arizona claimed was necessary to fu lfill the proviso in the act giving the land to Nevada. While Arizona has since drawn boundaries in her own state consti­ tution which do not include the area given to Nevada, tech­ nically Arizona can still reopen her claim to ownership of the land by virtue of the view that Nevada has not legally accepted the land. Practically, of course, that action is impossible, but technically Arizona ray bring suit in a 3 federal court to have the lost county of Pah Ute returned.

34. Another interesting possibility, suggested to the author by Professor N.D. Houghton, is that some person or cor­ poration in that area might refuse to obey the laws of or pay taxes to the state of Nevada, claiming that since the area is not within the boundaries mentioned in the state constitution, it is not required to obey the laws or pay the taxes of that state. CHAPTER V

ARIZONA SEEKS THE SEA

Many of the attempts to extend Arizona’s borders to the south•and southwest were products of one of the great motivating forces of nineteenth century American history, Manifest Destiny. A few expeditions were attempted, and many more were planned, which would have added more area to the United States on the Arizona-Mexican boundary. These at­ tempts or plans, however, did not specifically seek to add to the area of Arizona. While some of the filibustering ex­ peditions started from Arizona and many of the plans were centered in that Territory, the effects of outside influ­ ence could generally be seen, Arizona did have its own his­ tory of attempts at boundary change on the south. These attempts were probably a very real part of the Spirit of Manifest Destiny. Although Gadsden had been in- 1 struoted to bargain for a port on the Gulf of California as well as for the land necessary for the rail route south of the Gila, he was unable to offer Mexico enough money to get that country to allow a boundary which would include such a port. Blocked from the Gulf by this refusal, Arizona began

I. Paul N. Garber, The Gadsden ‘treaty, pp. 9&-93. 76 its own fight for a deep sea port. On December 11, 1665, Governor Richard G. McCormick began the official overtures by saying in his message to the Second Territorial Legisla­ ture (1865): For the accommodation of the southern part of the Territory, the acquisition of the port of Libertad, upon the Gulf of California, is a matter of the first importance, and, whatever the controlling power in Mexico it should be negotiated for at the earliest practical moment. Its accession with that part of the State of Sonora which lies between it and our present line, would give new life to the region below the Gila River, and be largely beneficial to the whole T e r r i t o r y .2 3 Despite the recommendation by the Governor, the Second Ter­ rito rial Legislature did nothing toward achieving the sea port which he had mentioned. The next mention of the desired territory came in a communication from Governor McCormick to the Fourth Terri­ torial Legislature (1867) just before that body adjourned. In commenting on the calling of the next session of the Legis­ lature, Governor McCormick wrote that while a special ses­ sion was not probable, it was possible because of "the pend- 3 ing negotiations for the extension of our southern boundary." The negotiations mentioned did not reach a stage where they were recorded in available government documents, however, and Arizona’s boundaries remained unchanged.

2. Journals of the Second Legislative Assembly of the Terri- tory of Arizona, p. 54. In the referenceTo the con­ trolling power in Mexico the Governor means Maximillian. 3. Journals of the Fourth Legislative Assembly of the Terri- tory ofTrlzona, p. 67. 77

A further evidence of such negotiations or projected negotiations by the Federal Government was found in the Weekly Arizonian during 1870. That newspaper printed a le t­ ter from a Washington correspondent of the New York Standard in which he wrote: President Grant now has in contemplation the securing by proper treaties and negotiations for enough of the present Mexican territory to give us an undisputed road to the Gulf of Cali­ fornia and a harbor. This would include the present town of Libertad, which would then become a port of entry and entrepor for the Arizona re­ gion. The President expressed himself as being very desirous of accomplishing this on account of its importance to the people of New Mexico and Arizona; so that in the event of war com­ munication might be had without crossing what might be an enemy*s country. It is probable that the matter will receive further publicity before long.4 Despite the apparent optimism of the Standard’s reporter, the Weekly Arizonian commented cryptically: "It is not _ ' " - - ; ' ■.. :: . c*:• ■ likely however, that the government w ill take any early ac- 5 • tion on this matter.** The attitude of some of Arizona’s newspapers toward the acquisition of a port on the Gulf was not what one might expect. Commenting on a proposed raid supposedly being or­ ganized to wrest Sonora from Mexico, the Arizona Citizen in 1874 s a id : Several times the Citizen has given what we con­ sider solid reason why this nation does not want any more strips of Mexican territory and several

4. Weekly Arizonian. June 18, 1870, p. 2. 5. I b id . 78

papers near our southern border have republished them with favourable remarks .... The United States has no need nor business with any more of M exico.o The newspaper pressure for the acquisition of a port seems to have come mainly from eastern papers. In an article re­ printed without comment by the Arizona Miner in 1877, the New York Herald advocated a port for Arizona and also the establishment of either a natural boundary with Mexico or else a straight line boundary instead of the existing one. The Herald did suggest that we negotiate for the territory rather than make war which the Herald said would be "a dis- 7 ~ ~ grace to us." It was the Thirteenth Territorial Legislature (1885) which renewed official interest in the area which would give Arizona a Gulf port. With no suggestion from the Governor, the Legislature passed a memorial which it sent to Con­ gress requesting that Congress "take measures" for the ac­ quisition of a port on the Gulf of California. More specif­ ically the memorialists asked: The purchase by the United States Govern­ ment from the Republic of Mexico, of that portion of the territory of the latter commencing at a point where the 111th Meridian intersects the present southern boundary line of the Territory of Arizona; thence running south along the line of the said Meridian to the 30th p arallel of 67

6. Arizona C itizen . August 8, 1874, P. 1. 7 . d'he A rizona Miner. July 6, 1877, p. 2. The natural boun­ dary suggested by the Herald was the Rio Bravo and the Sierra Madras. The proposed straight line boundary was not located but it was mentioned that it would be 872 miles long. 79

north latitude; thence west along said parallel to the center of the Gulf of California; thence northwestwardly along the center of said Gulf to the mouth of the Colorado River; thence along the center of that river to the northern boundary line of Lower California . The Thirteenth Legislature gave as a reason for desiring the above outlined strip that the territory was "greatly retarded 9 by the lack of proper coast advantages." Although the memo­ rial specified that copies were to be sent to each member of both houses of. Congress and to the President-elect, there 10 was no official mention of receipt of the memorial. The reaction of the Tucson newspaper showed a change from the comments of fifteen years earlier, but still no great enthusiasm was evident. The only mention of, the memo­ rial was in the issue immediately after its introduction to the Legislature, at which time the Arizona Star commented editorially that the possession of a strip of land bordering the Gulf of California would be of great good to Ari­ zona .... It will be the aim of President Cleve­ land to get from Mexico territory which we ought to possess.

Laws of the' Territory of Arizona, Thirteenth Legislative' Assembly; also Memorials and Resolutions, pp.' 367-368. The legislators made a technical error in not closing their proposed boundaries, i^e., running them back to the place of beginning. See Figure 6. 9. Ibid., p. 368. 10. Ibid. It is interesting that Arizona picked this time to memorialize and that they specify that the memorial be sent to President-elect Grover Cleveland, a Democrat. Perhaps the fact that Republicans had dominated the Federal Government had kept Arizona, politically Demo­ cratic, from memorializing earlier. 11. The Arizona Star, February 26, 1885, P* 2. A ft A tOo*HT 6 V %5 TM /s R I 2.C iSA AKCA 50U&WT %Y H T h ARIZONA -I6 RMX6 # LEVrlSLATuHE r e rritcr,ial LtfrUiAtuAt

FIGURE: b 81

The Fourteenth Legislature did nothing toward the ac­ quisition of a port, and the next mention of the idea comes in an interesting variant on the proposed acquisition re­ ported in the January 7, 1889, issue of the Arizona Daily Citizen. According to the Citizen: The latest phase in state making projects is the purchase of a portion of Sonora from Mexico, attach the same to Arizona and admit her as a State. The proposed purchase would embrace all lands lying between Arizona and the tidewater to the south, thus giving her a deep sea port. If such a thing was possible Arizona would within the next decade become one of the richest and most populous States in the Union.12 The Citizen commented editorially, however, to the effect that Mexico would revolt before allowing such a purchase, and that since Mexican debt installments had been paid regu­ larly, there was no hope of getting the land through default 13 on d e b t.

The Fifteenth Legislature (1889), perhaps inspired by the article quoted above, again memorialized Congress asking: That the President and Congress of the United States ... enter into a negotiation with the Republic of Mexico for the cession of sufficient territory adjoining Arizona on the southern boun­ dary to secure a deep water port on the Gulf of California.14 They reasoned, as had the Thirteenth Legislature, that Ari­ zona was then an inland Territory and would be greatly

12. Arizona Daily Citizen, January 7. 1889, P. 1. 13 . Ibid. 14. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Fifteenth Legis­ lative Assembly of the territory of Arizona, pp. Il2- l l 3 . — 82

"benefitted by a port. This memorial, called a petition in the Congressional Record, was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and died there when introduced into the 15 House of Representatives. Again the following Legislature did nothing officially to obtain a port for Arizona, and the Seventeenth Legisla­ ture (1893) was the next to seek that goal. The Solons of the Seventeenth Legislature passed a Concurrent Resolution requesting the President of the United States to open friend­ ly negotiations with Mexico for the purpose of obtaining enough Mexican land to give Arizona a deep sea port, They specifically charged the Governor of Arizona with the re­ sponsibility of reporting to the next Legislature the prog- 16 ress made by the government toward that end. The legislators,' in presenting their reasons for desir­ ing the territory, were careful to use language intended as a sop to Mgxioov to wit: The possession of such a port by the United States with the railroad construction which would certainly follow promptly, would unquestionably redound equally to the advantage of our good neighbors of the Republic of Mexico by vastly increasing the trade facilities of their west coast with this country, and by imparting a high value to the immense natural resources of that re­ gion, now underdeveloped and useless to humanity

15. Congressional Record, 51st dong., 1st Sess., Yol. 21, Part 1, p. 11+2. 16. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Seventeenth LegisTaiive Assembly of the Territory of Arizona, pp. 169-170. The Governor apparently did not report to the Eighteenth Legislature as he had been requested. 63

by reason of their isolation from the highways of commercial intercourse.17 This attitude is revealed later in the same document, where the legislators wrote: That the people of Arizona entertain only feelings of the most cordial friendship and pro­ found respect for their good neighbors, the good citizens of the Republic of Mexico, and would wish these negotiations to be undertaken in a spirit which cannot wound their national sensibilities. But we believe that so enlightened and pro­ gressive a government as the Republic of Mexico now enjoys would meet the government of the United States in an accommodating spirit if the case were delicately and energetically presented, as a brief study of the conditions must convince all, that while the concession sought would greatly increase the wealth and importance of a region so abun­ dantly endowed by nature as Arizona, it would equally enrich the whole west coast of the Republic of Mexico.18 The legislators presented another reason for believing that the United States should own the area below the mouth of the Colorado besides that the port thus gained would benefit both Arizona and Mexico. They wrote: I t i s c u rre n tly re p o rte d and b e lie v e d among us that by the first and mutually accepted draft of the Gadsden treaty the boundary line agreed upon was to terminate "at a point twenty miles south of the mouth of the Colorado River," but in the engrossed and ratified treaty this was in­ advertently altered to read "twenty miles south of the mouth of the Gila River," which deprives Arizona of the advantage of possessing a harbor near the head of the Gulf ....19

17 . ibid., p. 169. ■ ~ : 18. I b i d . , p . 170. 19. I b id . This memorial was introduced by Representative Rogers "by req u est." I t is interesting to speculate as to who actually composed the memorial, but there is no . evidence to indicate who that person or organization was. Gadsden had presented a number of plans to Congress, but no evidence has been found to indicate that an "inadvertent" error such as is mentioned ever occurred. Despite the Concurrent Resolution, the President appar­ ently did not enter into negotiations with Mexico as the Ari­ zona Solons had requested. After this rebuff, the official quest for land below the southern border and the port which that land would bring ceased until 1909. The Twenty-fifth Territorial Legislature (1909) passed a memorial asking that the President of the United States and the Secretary of State "take such steps as may be necessary 20 by and with the Government of Mexico" to secure a tract of land lying between Arizona * s border and the Gulf of Mexico. Specifically the tract was described as: Beginning at Monument No. 127 (stone) on the In­ ternational Boundary Line between the United States of America and the Republic of Mexico, as estab- ' lished by the International Boundary Commission under the Convention of July 29, 1882, revived February 18, 1889; thence due west along 31° 20* North Parallel of Latitude, to an intersection with the Gulf of California; thence at right angles to the coastline to a point three leagues from land; thence in a general northerly direc­ tion following a sinuous line three leagues from and parallel to the east coast line of the Gulf of California, to a point three leagues from land opposite the mouth of the Colorado River; thence up the middle of that river following the deepest channel where it has more than one, to a point be­ tween Monuments No. 205 and No. 206, where it intersects the International Boundary Line between the United States of America and the Republic of Mexico as established under the Convention

20. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Twenty-fifth Legislative Assembly of the Territory ofArizonaT" 85

herein-before referred to; thenee in a south­ easterly direction following the said Interna­ tional Boundary Line between the United States and the Republic.of Mexico to Monument No. 127, thereon, the place of beginning; containing an approximate land area of eight thousand four hun­ dred square miles ....21 The reasons for which the memorialists sought this area ostensibly had nothing to do with the acquisition of a port on the Gulf. According to the memorial, the area was needed since much of it was capable of irrigation from waters which were to be collected behind the laguna Dam, then being constructed on the Colorado River. The purchase of this land by the United States, it was contended, would "greatly and materially reduce the pro rata cost per acre of said Dam 22 to all lands now lying in the United States.” The fact that the land was ”naturally a tributary to the town of 23 Yuma” was also mentioned. The Arizona Daily Star gave the Mexican reaction to this memorial in a statement from Senor Garcia, the Mexican Consul at Tucson, who said: "The people of the United States are very much mistaken if they think for one minute that Mexico is in the market with its territory just like mer- 24 chandise." To which the Star replied editorially that we had bought Mexican territory before and that we would do 25 it again. Despite this brash statement by the Star,

21. Ibid., pp. 298-299; see accompanying map. 22. THcT., p. 299. 23. ISIcT. 24. Arizona Daily Star, February 18, 1909, p. 4. 2 5 . i b id . 86 nothing official seems to have been done toward buying the desired piece of land. The twenty-fifth was the last of the Territorial Legis­ latures, since Arizona was granted statehood before another Legislature convened. The first few State Legislatures did not attempt to acquire the land below the border which would give Arizona a port. In 1923 the Sixth State Legislature witnessed the last attempt to date to reach the sea. This attempt was begun by Representative Rogers of Yavapai County who introduced into the lower House of the State Legislature a memorial which requested that the President of the United States deal with Mexico to obtain the land above a line which would run due west from the border at Nogales to the Gulf of 26 California. The reasons given were a summation of all those used in the past, with the addition of some which were applicable to the situation at that time. The fact that the area was believed necessary to the national defense was the first reason given. Next it was pointed out that if the govern­ ment of the United States had pressed its demands while the Gadsden treaty was being w ritten, the area would then have belonged to the United States. Next, taking a cue from the Seventeenth Legislature (1893), the memorialists pointed out in flowery language the advantages which the Republic of

26. Journals of the House of Representatives of the Sixth State Legislature of T5Ee State of Arizona, p. 1*$6. 87

Mexico would gain from an American port on the Gulf. Then, perhaps remembering th e C itiz e n 's comment about M exico's debt in 1889, the memorialists pointed out that Mexico was in debt to the United States so that perhaps some "amicable 27 exchange can probably be executed." And lastly it was pointed out that at that time Mexico was very desirous of diplomatic recognition by the United States and so would 28 be inclined to look upon a proposal of that sort with favor. Despite the barrage of reasons for United States owner­ ship, the memorialists asked that the area be acquired "either by purchase, lease, the exercise of police powers, joint control, or concession that will permit occupation by 29 the United States." This memorial was passed unanimously by the House. The index of the Journal of the Sixth State Legislature indicated that this memorial "died in the 20 - Senate," but there was no record of the introduction of that memorial into the Senate. Thus ended the last of Ari­ zona's official attempts at a port on the Gulf to date. The history of the unofficial attempts at union with Southern California was another interesting manifestation of the drive for a sea port. On January 22, 1889, a special committee of the Arizona Pioneer H istorical Society reported that "the people of this Territory protest against the an- 31 nexation to Southern California or to any other state."

27. Ibid. : 29. Ibidl 28. T E H ., pp. 450-451. 30. TEH. , p . 708. 31. Minutes of the Arizona Pioneer H istorical Society, January 22, 1889. 88

Fourteen years later, in 1903, the idea of uniting with Southern California was again before the people of Arizona. At this time the Arizona Daily Star commented editorially that if the then current attempt at statehood failed, Arizona should seek a union with the southern counties of California 32 to form a state of Callzonla. In 1912 another movement for union of the southern counties of California with Ari­ zona appeared, but this time the plan was to annex Southern „ 33 California to Arizona rather than vice versa. The last mention of such a movement came in 1934 when County Super­ visor Edgar Hastings of San Diego County suggested in a letter to the Arizona Daily Star that Arizona annex San Diego and Imperial Counties of California, forming a new state for which he suggested the name Arizonia. Hastings pointed out the advantages to the California counties if they were so annexed, and the advantages of the sea port 34 which would thus be acquired to Arizona. Arizona, since the early days of its creation, has sought the sea. The benefits to be derived from a deep sea port are not to be denied, so that it remains within the realm of possibility that more attempts to obtain a port will be made, perhaps eventually to be crowned with success.

32. Arizona Daily Star, F eb ru ary 13, 1903. 33. Tombstone Epitaph. July 21, 1912. 34. Arizona Tally 6tar, Ju ly 25, 1934. CHAPTER TI

THE GRANT COUNTY EPISODE

In 1877 Governor Scufford in his message to the Ninth Territorial Legislature (1877) disclosed that a committee of citizens from Grant County, New Mexico, one of the counties in southwestern New Mexico which bordered on Arizona, had asked him to call the attention of the Legislature to their almost unanimous desire to be annexed to th e T erritory of Arizona. Governor Safford continued: - They allege, among many other reasons, the supe­ riority of our laws and of their execution, which is complimentary to the wisdom of our lawmakers. The trade and intercourse between that county and Arizona are already extensive, and constantly increasing, and I consider the acquisition de­ sirable. It seems to me that the people of that locality are the proper judges as to which gov- ernmane they prefer, and inasmuch as a change of Territorial lim its w ill not add to the expense of the Federal Government, I ... hope that you w ill memorialize Congress upon the subject. 1 This part of the Governor’s message was referred to the Com- 2 mittee on Territorial Affairs by the Senate and to the Com- 3 mittee on Counties by the House. On January 9, 1877, Mr. Samaniego, Representative from

1. Journals of the Ninth Legislative Assembly of the Ter­ ritory of Arizona, pp. 43-44. 2. Ibid., p.T3. 3. Ibid., p. 67. 90

Pima County, introduced House Memorial No. 1 into the House. This Memorial was read for the first time and referred to 4 the Committee on Federal Relations. The memorialists pointed out, as had Governor Safford in his message, that the people of Grant County had expressed an almost unani­ mous desire to be annexed to Arizona, and that geographically the area could be more easily governed from Arizona than from New Mexico. They further represented that the trade of the area was more with Arizona than New Mexico, and that the expenses of the Federal Government would not be increased by the change so that it would be "in accord with our republi- " 5 can Institutions" to grant the people of Grant County their choice of government. Arizona’s Delegate in Congress was instructed to use all honorable means to bring about Con­ gressional action which would detach Grant County from New . 7 Mexico and attach it to Arizona. ' . The Committee on Federal Relations of the House, to whom the Memorial had been referred, reported it back on

February 1, 1877. The recommendation of the majority of the Committee was that no further action be taken upon the Memo- 8 rial or that it be allowed to die through inaction. J.W. Dorrington, the chairman of the Committee, however, made a

4. Ibid., p. 87. ~ $. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Ninth Territorial Legislature of the Territory of Arizona, p. 124. 6. i b i a r ------:------7 . I b id . 8 . Journals of the Ninth Legislative Assembly of the Terri- tory of"Srizona, p. 282. 91 minority report in which he said he believed that the Memo­ rial should be passed for the reasons outlined in the docu­ ment itself and particularly since the mutual Interests and commercial intercourse "justify and warrant" the passage of 9 the Memorial. On February 2, 1877, a vote was taken in 10 the House and the Memorial passed by a vote of 12 to 6 . There was an attempt by two of those who voted in favor of the Memorial to have it reconsidered, probably with a view to recording a unanimous action, but the motion for recon- 11 sideration was laid upon the table. ' On February 3, the Memorial was referred to the Commit-

• .12 tee on Territorial Affairs of the Council. This Committee reported back in favor of passing the Memorial but with one 13 of its three members dissenting. George D. Kendall, the dissenter, issued a minority report in which he recommended: That no further action be taken upon the said House Memorial, for the reason that the boundary [sic] line between Arizona and New Mexico is now well defined and has been surveyed by the United States; that it would be an act of great injus­ tice to segregate from a sister Territory so im­ portant and large a portion of her territory; and in this connection your committee well remembers the earnest protest of our people and Legislature, a few years ago, when the State of Nevada segre­ gated a large portion of our Territory. The same principle that governed us then should prevail now, and I would therefore protest against the passage of this memorial.14

9. ibid.t p. 2837 12. Ibid., p. 303. 10. I b i d . , p. 299. 13. /“Ibid., p. 318. 11. IHcT. 14. Ibid. . pp. 318-319. 92

The effect of Kendall’s report was Impossible to measure, of course, but the Memorial barely passed by a vote of 5 to 15 4. On February 8 the Governor approved the Memorial and, as stipulated therein, a copy was sent to the Delegate in 16 C ongress. On October 29, 1877, Mr. Stevens, Arizona’s Delegate in Congress, introduced into the House of Representatives a b ill which called for the segregation of Grant County, New Mexico, from the Territory of New Mexico and the annexation of said county to Arizona. The b ill was referred to the Committee 17 on Territories and was pigeon-holed there. New Mexico did not even petition Congress against the proposed annexation, probably because the New Mexico Legislature did not meet un­ til after Mr. Steven's b ill had been pigeon-holed. The attempt at annexation by Arizona probably had been prompted by the fact that the natural features of Grant County made it much closer allied to southern Arizona than to the area near the Rio Grande where the bulk of New Mex­ ico's population was located. Because of the sim ilarity of terrain and economic background, the residents of Grant County were drawn more to sim ilar Arizona than to dissim ilar New Mexico. It was also an easier journey to the towns of Arizona than to those of New Mexico for the people of Grant

15. Ibid., p. 319. 16. T b H ., p . 383. 17. Congressional Record. 45th Cong., 1st Sess.^Vol. 6 , t a r t 1 , p . 147% AR I ZOMA NEW (MEXICO

AREA AAizonA Seui,Hr m Ifn

FIGURE 1 94

County. After the failure of Stevens’ bill, however, the people of Grant County, apparently resigned to their fate, made no more attempts to be annexed to Arizona, nor did Ari­ zona again attempt to annex Grant County. CONCLUSION

After 1923, none of the boundary controversies dis­ cussed in the thesis reappeared, nor did any other major problems arise. This does not preclude the changing of Ari­ zona’s boundaries, however. Despite the difficulties in­ volved in changing the boundaries of a sovereign state, geographers, geopoliticians, economists, and others inter­ ested in the problems presented by boundaries are speaking of revising state boundaries in increasing numbers. Dr. Renner, professor of geography at Columbia, for instance, writes of such ideas in an article in the American Magazine. Ee suggests that North and South Dakota would be more sensi­ bly organized as East and West Dakota, while Southern Cali­ fornia, which has developed a separate political philosophy from the rest of the state and even has established its own State University, might logically be reorganized as a separate state. The author believes that similar plans for the reorganization of Arizona into a unity of some sort are d i s t i n c t l y p o s s ib le ...... The lesson of Arizona’s history of boundary controversy is plain. Arizona’s boundaries, except where the Colorado

1. (Seorge T. Renner, "border Battles Among the States,” ’ Americanisy: Magazine, CXLYII, No. 1 (January, 1949), 122- 96

River serves as a boundary, are all arbitrary lines, drawn in most cases by Congresses which knew little or nothing of the area they were delineating. Thus the Mormon of the mountainous region of southern Utah was separated from his co-religionists,who occupied most of the similar terrain south of the thirty-seventh parallel and north of the Grand Canyon, by a state boundary. The fact that the region north of the Grand Canyon had a closer relationship to Utah than to Arizona economically, culturally, politically, in natural features, and in accessibility meant nothing to the men in Washington who established the thirty-seventh parallel as the northern boundary of Arizona. Attempts to change the illogical boundary for one based on knowledge of the area came to nought, as did Arizona’s attempts to annex Grant County, an area closer related to Arizona than to New Mexico. The southern boundary is another case in point. The boundary obtained by Gadsden did get the United States the desired railroad route south of the Gila, but the boundary was swung north at the 11th parallel, denying Arizona a port on the Gulf. The reason, according to Murdock, was "the fact that the statesmen of the period wished to economize and the 2 northern statesmen did not want anymore 'slave territory . 'n Jesse Reeves said in a lecture delivered before the Summer Session on International Law at the University of

2. John R. Murdock, Constitutional Development of A rizo n a, pp. 10- 1 1 . ------97

Michigan in 1938: The boundary lines of Europe were based on knowledge. Ours were not. Such a line an arbi­ trary boundary agreed upon when the territory was unexplored, excludes all considerations of strategy, of natural features, or of economic u n i t y .3 The author concurs heartily. 3

3. Jesse S. Reeves, "International Boundaries," American Jo u rn a l of I n te r n a tio n a l Law, XXXVTII, No. 4 (O ctober, 1%4), 54£. Mr. Reeves was speaking of the northern boundary of the United States, but the section quoted is applicable to Arizona’s boundaries. BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Government Documents and O fficial Reports . 1. Federal Documents and Reports 1. Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 1st Session. 2. Congressional Globe, 35th Congress, 2nd Session. 3 . Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 1st Session. A. Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2nd Session. 5. Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session. 6. Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 3rd Session. 7. Congressional Globe, 38th Congress, 2nd Session. 8. Congressional Globe * 39th Congress, 1st Session. 9. Congressional Globe, List Congress, 2nd Session. 10. Congressional Record. 45th Congress, 1st Session. 11. Congressional Record, 51st Congress, 1st Session. 12. Congressional Record, 57th Congress, 1st Session. 13. Congressional Record, 57th Congress, 2nd Session. 14. Congressional Record, 58th Congress, 2nd Session. 15. Congressional Record, 58th Congress, 3rd Session. 16. Congressional Record, 59th Congress, 1st Session. 17. Congressional Record, 60th Congress, 2nd Session. 18. Congressional Record, 6lst Congress, 2nd Session. 19. House Report No. 117, 34th Congress, 3rd Session. 99

20. House Executive Doouments No. 2, 35th Congress, 1st S e ssio n . 21. House Miscellaneous Documents Ho. 101, 35th Congress, Tst Session. 22. House Executive Documents No. 2, 35th Congress, 2nd Ses- sTon. 23. Miscellaneous Documents No. 22, 38th Congress, 2nd Ses­ sion! “ 24. House Miscellaneous Documents No. 53, 38th Congress, 12nd S essio n . 25. House Documents No. 357» 59th Congress, 2nd Session. 26. United States Statutes at Large, Tol. X. 27. United States Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. 28. Emory, William Hensley. Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey~kade under the Direction of the~Secretary or the Interior, Vol. T7™ ” C.“Wendell, printer, Washington, 1857-1859. 29. The War of the Rebellion: A compilation of the Official "Records of the Union and* Confederate Armies', Series I , Volume IV. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1882. Series I, Volume L. Government Printing O ffice, Washington, 1896.

2. State Documents and Papers 1. Journals of the Second Legislative Assembly of the Ter- rit'ory of Arizona. 2. Journals of the Third Legislative Assembly of the Ter- ritory.of Ar'jzona. . 3. Journals of the Fourth Legislative Assembly of the Ter ritory of Arizona. 4 4. Journals of the Fifth Legislative Assembly of the Ter- ritory of Arizona.

21411'? 100

5. Journals of the Sixth Legislative Assembly of the ~ Territory of Arizona. 6. Journals of the Seventh Legislative Assembly of the 'territory of Arizona. 7. Journals of the Twenty-second Legislative Assembly of th e Territory"of Arizona. 8. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the First Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 9. Acts t Resolutions and Memorials of the Second Legisla- 7ive Assembly "of the Territory of Arizona. 10. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Third Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 11. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Fourth Legisla- five Assembly of the Territory of A rizo n a. 12. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Fifth Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 13. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Sixth Legislative Assembly of the ‘Territory of Arizona. 14. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the ninth Legislative Assembly of theT err it or y of Arizona. 15. Laws of the Territory of Arizona, Thirteenth Legislative Assembly: Also Memorials and ResolutionsT 16. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Fifteenth Legisla- five Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 17. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Seventeenth legislative Assembly of the~TefrTfory of Arizona. 18. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Twenty-third legislative Assembly of the Territory"of Arizona. 19. Acts, Resolutions and Memorials of the Twenty-fifth legislative Assembly of the Territory of Arizona. 20. Journals of the Fourth State Legislature of the State °t Arizona. 21. Journals of the Sixth State Legislature of the State of Arizona": ' 101

22. Annual Report of the Surveyor General of the State of Califorhia,"Document No. 5i Senate Session, 1656.

23. Constitution of the State of Arizona.

2if. Bashford, Coles . (Compiler) Compiled Laws of the Territory of Arizona 1864-1871 Inclusive; Including the HoweTT Code.

25. Ellison, Samuel (Translator) Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Hew Mexico, Twenty-third Ses"sTon.

26. Hillyer, Curtis (Compiler) Nevada Compiled Laws, 1929.

27. Wells, Howard (Publisher) Constitution of the Provisional Government of the ^Qrritory oT~"Arizona and theHProoeedings oT the' Convention~lTeid at TucsonT~Xpril 2- 5 , 186DT

B. Books

1. Bancroft, Hubert Howe History of Arizona and New Mexico 1530-1888. The History Company, dan Erancisco, 1889. 2. Bartlett, John R. Personal Narrative of the Expedition and Incidents in Texas, New Mexico,C alifornia. Sonora, and Chihuahua, connected with the United States and Mexican Boundary Commission during the years 1&50, ' 52~and '5 3 . D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1854. 3. Cozzens, Samuel W. The Marvelous Country. Shepard and G ill, Boston, 1873. 4 . P a r is h , Thomas Edwin History of Arizona (8 Volumes) The Yilmer Brothers Electrotype Co., San Francisco, 1915. 5 5. Ganaway, Loomis Morton New Mexico and the Sectional Controversy 1846-1861. The-University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1944. 102

6 . G arber, P au l N eff The Gadsden T re a ty . P re s s ..of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1924. 7. Hamilton, Patrick The Resources of Arizona. Prescott, 1801. 8 . Hinton, Richard Josiah The Handbook to Arizona: Its Resources, History, Towns, Mines, Ruins and Scenery. American News Co., New York, l8'?8. 9. Jones, Stephen Barr Boundary-Making; A Handbook for Statesmen, Treaty Editors, and Boundary Commissioners. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law, Washington, 1945. 10. Lockwood, Frank 0. Pioneer Days in Arizona. The Macmi 1 lanTompany, New York, 1932. 11. Mack, Effie Mona Nevada; A History of the State from the Earliest Times through the Civll~War. Arthur R. Clark Co., Glendale, California, 1936. 12. McClintock, James H. Arizona, The Youngest State, Vol. I (3 V olum es). S. J. Clarke" Publishing. Co. “ Chicago, 1916. 13. Mormon Settlement in Arizona. The Manufacturing Stationers, Phoenix, 1921. 14. Mowry, S y lv e s te r Memoir of the Proposed Territory of Arizona. H. PolkTnhorn, Printer, Washington, 1857. 15. ______. The Geography and Resources of Arizona: An Address tefore the American Geographical and Statistical S o c ie ty . A. Roman and Co., New York and San Francisco, 1863. 16. . Arizona.and Sonora: The Geography, History, and Re­ sources of the Silver Region ox North America. Harper and~5ros., New York, 18647 103

17. Murdock, John Robert Constitutional Development of Arizona. Phoenix, Arizona, 1930.

C. A r tic le s 1. Baldwin, J. "A H istorical Note on the Boundaries of New Mexico. 8*11 New Mexico H istorical Review, V, No. 2 (April, 1930), 116-137. 2. Coffey, Frederick A. "Some General Aspects of the Gadsden Treaty.n New Mexico Historical Review, VIII, No. 3 (July, 1933). — ------' 3. Donnell, F.S. "Confederate Territory of Arizona." New Mexico H is to r ic a l Review, XVTI, No. 2 (A p ril, 194-2 ), 148-164. A. Goodwin, C ard in al "The Eastern Boundary of California in the Convention o f 1 8 4 9 .” Southwestern H istorical Quarterly, XVI, No. 4 (January, I9i3), 227-235T 5. Gregory, Herbert E. (Editor) "Journal of Stephen Vanderveer Jones: April 21, 1871, to December 1 4 , 1872." Utah Historical Quarterly, XVI. No. 1 (January. 1948). I9-T7JT.

6. Poston, Charles D. "Building a State in Apache Land." The Overland Monthly, XXIV, 2nd series. No. 139 rJuly, 1894), 87-93. 7. Reeves, Jesse S. "International Boundaries." American Journal in International Law, XXXVIII, No. 4 (October, 1%4), 533-545. 8 . Renner, George T. "Border Battles Among the States." American Magazine, CXLVII, No. 1 (January, 1949), 12-13, 122-123. 9. Watford, W.H. "Confederate Western Ambitions." Southwestern H istorical Quarterly, XLIV, No. 2 (October, 1940J, Ibl-lM ^

D. Newspapers

1. Arizona Weekly Star. Tucson, Arizona F ebruary 4 , 1871 January to March, 1885. 2 . Arizona Weekly Citizen, Tucson, Arizona March 18, 1871 December 21, 1872 August 30, 1873 August 8 , 1874 3 . Weekly Arizona Miner, Prescott, Arizona July 6, 1877 4. Arizona Daily Citizen, Tucson, Arizona January 7, 1889 5 . Tombstone Epitaph, Tombstone, Arizona July 21,1912 6 . Arizona Daily Star, Tucson, Arizona January to March, 1885 January to March, 1889 January to March, 1903 January to 1'arch, 1909 January to March, 1919 June to August, 1934 7. Tucson Daily Citizen, Tucson, Arizona January to March, 1903 January to March, 1909 January to March, 1919 January to March, 1923 June to August, 1934 8 8 . Tombstone Prospector, Tombstone, Arizona January 28,1919. 105

E. Unpublished Materials

1. Letters from the George F. Hooper file at the Arizona Pioneer H istorical Society. 2. Minutes of the Arizona Pioneer H istorical Society, 1888- 1889.

F. Personal Interviews

1. Howard A. Hubbard, Professor of History at the Univer­ sity of Arizona, September 26, 1949, Tucson, Arizona. 2. Thomas I. Glannon, Clerk of the County Recorder’s Office, Santa Cruz County, April 5, 1950, Nogales, A rizona.