US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Washington v. Oregon, 211 U. S. 127, reaffirmed on rehearing.

Although the volume of water and depth of a channel have constantly diminished, if it all results from process of accretion, or, as in this case, possibly from jetties constructed by governmental authority, that channel still remains the boundary line, the precise line of separation being the varying center thereof.

The settlement of boundaries is generally attended with difficulties, and it is wise for adjacent states to adjust their boundaries by boundary commissions and agreements, as has been done with the consent of Congress in several instances.

The facts, which involve the boundary between the States of Washington and Oregon as the same was determined by this Court in this action, 211 U. S. 211 U.S. 127, are stated in the opinion.

The State of Washington filed a petition for a rehearing herein, upon the following points:

I. The Court erred in finding and holding that the present ship channel at the entrance to the Columbia River was the old south channel.

II. The Court erred in finding and holding that the former north channel still subsisted to the northward of Sand Island, and that the boundary between the States of Washington and Oregon was to the northward of said Sand Island.

III. The Court erred in not finding and holding that the present single channel at the entrance to the mouth of the Columbia River was as much the former north channel of the entrance to said river as it was the former south channel, and in not giving effect as a matter of law to the said combined single channel as the boundary between the two states.

IV. The Court erred in finding and holding that the Columbia chanrobles.com-red

Page 214 U. S. 206

River inside the entrance was not divided by islands and in finding and holding that the testimony failed to show anything calling for consideration in respect to the ownership of the said islands. chanrobles.com-red

Page 214 U. S. 214