The Washington–Idaho Line Was Never Quite Where Everyone Thought It Was

In making a favorable report on the Heyburn bill to mark the boundary between Washington and Idaho, the Senate committee on public lands publishes a letter from E. C. Eagleson, surveyor general of Idaho, calling attention to inaccuracies in the original survey and the imperfect marking of the line. The committee, in recommending the passage of the bill, remarks that the great importance of having an accurate survey and visible marking is obvious. The letter of Surveyor General Eagleson is as follows:

"Dear Sir — In accordance with [our] conversation regarding the Idaho-Washington boundary, I have had the matter looked up in connection with the various contacts adjoining this line, as well as the report of the boundary survey itself.

"I find there is considerable doubt as to the initial point, which is at the junction of the Snake and Clearwater rivers. It was then run in a zigzag fashion in a northerly course, and certainly encroaching upon Idaho to quite an extent. The southern part of the survey runs to the east as much as a degree and a half. Only 176½ miles of the survey was completed when, 'on account of cold, snow, storm and unavoidable lack of subsistence for men and animals, we were forced to quit the work to save our lives,' as reported by Rollin J. Reeves, one of the surveyors. There must yet remain from five to ten miles of line unmarked.

"Very little is said in the report about adjustment of instruments and observations. The observations, I should judge, were nearly all made upon the sun after the initial point had been established, and as no longitude was called for by the special instructions, no more than an approximation was attempted.

"With the exception of three trees, all of the mile monuments were posts, many of them of green timber, possibly 25 per cent.

"The line was measured with link chains, and is very erroneous.

"Enclosed herewith are blue prints showing the location of the initial point; also a couple of township plats showing the error of the line toward the west, and also toward the east. I am having tracings prepared of the remainder of the line, and will forward you prints as soon as they can be prepared. I also enclose for your information the report of the boundary surveyors."

The original boundary surveyors, whose report is referred to in this letter, were Rollin J. Reeves and Charles S. Dennison, and the survey was made in 1873. This report is highly technical in nature, but shows conclusively that there was much doubt as to the location of the initial point. The evidence is complete that the real boundary is not identical with the line which is at present commonly accepted as such.