The Map That Wasn’t Evidence May Reopen a State Boundary Fight
Washington’s special attorney says the Supreme Court relied on a colored map never introduced in the Oregon-Washington boundary case.
Olympia, Wash., March 8.—E. C. McDonald, special attorney for the state of Washington, who has returned from the National capital, where he presented a petition for a rehearing of the Oregon-Washington boundary case, is of the opinion that the United States Supreme Court will grant a new trial of the case.
Mr. McDonald bases his opinion upon the contention that in arriving at its decision fixing the boundary, the Supreme Court, by mistake, considered and referred to in its opinion as Chart A, a reproduction of a colored map which was never introduced in evidence in the case, nor properly belongs in the files of the case. This map, it is said, is misleading.
“This map, it is said, is misleading.”
Boundary lines look permanent on a map, but they are legal arguments that can be reopened when the evidence behind them is flawed. The 1909 petition is a reminder that jurisdiction over land and water is still fought with old documents and new interpretations.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.