Boundary disputes have ever constituted a fruitful source of
contention between men and nations. Probably no people has more
frequently engaged in them than our own, although, contrary to
Old-World precedent, we commonly wage our boundary contentions
verbally rather than with arms. Wisconsin, like others of the
sisterhood of states, was early in its history a party to a number of
boundary disputes, the fruits of victory commonly going, at least in
local contemporary judgment, to her opponents. Since Wisconsin has
become a state, boundary disputes have until recent years ceased. Two
such have, however, arisen within the twentieth century and are still
pending, one with the state of Minnesota, the other with that of
Michigan. The former is in process of settlement by due governmental
procedure, and accordingly no discussion of it would now be useful.
The latter is at present in a state of quiescence; yet the boundary
paragraphs of the constitutions of Michigan and of Wisconsin contain
mutually contradictory clauses with respect to a strip of territory
over which Michigan claims and Wisconsin exercises jurisdiction.
Moreover, the overtures of our northern neighbor a few years since
looking to a determination of the question met on our part with
rebuff. Sooner or later, the issue will have to be determined; pending
this, an historical résumé of the points at issue may be of some
interest, especially to Wisconsin readers.
The boundary between Michigan and Wisconsin was first determined in
the act that in 1836 created Wisconsin Territory. In ignorance of the
real geography of the region this act described a supposititious line,
under the belief that the Montreal River had its source in Lake Vieux
Desert. Two years later Congress appropriated $3,000 for the survey of
the Michigan-Wisconsin boundary. The appropriation was considered
insufficient and no attempt was made to run the line until 1841. Then,
the matter having been transferred to the War Department, an army
engineer, Lieutenant Thomas J. Cram, was detailed to undertake the
survey. Cram spent the summer of 1841 in Wisconsin’s northern forests,
ascertained many facts about the lakes and streams therein, and
reported them to the department. Two years later Cram was again
detailed to search for the true Wisconsin-Michigan boundary. He spent
four months under conditions involving much hardship, in the attempt
to determine the line as nearly as possible in accordance with
official description. In the report which he made to the head of his
department he recommended the abandonment of Lake Vieux Desert as a
determinating factor in the interstate boundary line.[123]
The determination of the line rested until 1846, when, in the enabling
act providing for the admission of Wisconsin, Congress established the
line “to the mouth of the Menominee river; thence up the channel of
the said river to the Brulé river; thence up said last mentioned river
to Lake Brulé; thence along the southern shore of Lake Brulé in a
direct line to the center of the channel between Middle and South
Islands, in the Lake of the Desert [Vieux Desert]; thence in a direct
line to the head waters of the Montreal river, as marked upon the
survey made by Captain Cramm; thence down the main channel of the
Montreal river to the middle of Lake Superior.” The constitution of
Michigan, adopted in 1850, repeated the boundary article of
Wisconsin’s enabling act with only slight verbal changes, including
the omission of Captain Cram’s name. The fundamental laws of the two
states were thus in accord concerning the line separating these
states.
In the meanwhile, in 1847 a portion of the boundary was surveyed by
William A. Burt, under the direction of Lucius Lyon.[124] Burt took
the contract on April 27 and performed his work during the succeeding
summer months. The field notes of his survey do not accompany his
printed report, but Lyon stated that Burt’s notes would be forwarded
later, and no doubt they are yet preserved in the General Land Office
at Washington. From these field notes it might be ascertained why
Surveyor Burt chose the eastern branch as the “main channel of the
said Montreal river.” In so doing he assigned to Wisconsin 360 square
miles of land that now include the towns of Hurley and Van Buskirk.
Had he chosen the western branch, rising in the Island Lake as the
Montreal’s headwaters, the jurisdiction of this strip would have
rested in Michigan.
No one undertook to investigate the matter until quite recent years.
Then Hon. Peter White of Marquette, Michigan, believing that his state
was illegally deprived of the land between the two branches of the
Montreal River, had a survey thereof made at his private expense.
White’s surveyors ascertained, to their own and his satisfaction, that
the western branch was the “main” channel of the Montreal River.
Meanwhile Mr. White had interested in Michigan’s claims Clarence W.
Burton of Detroit, the president of the State Historical Commission.
Burton discovered that one of Burt’s surveyors, George H. Cannon, was
still living, and arranged for the publication of an article from his
pen supporting White’s contention that Michigan had been wrongfully
deprived of a portion of her upper peninsula.[125]
Shortly after this, in 1907, Michigan held a convention to prepare a
new constitution for the state. Burton was chosen a member of this
body, and became chairman of the committee on boundaries. That
committee, without discussion upon the floor of the convention, had
the boundary article of the new constitution drawn to read: “thence in
a direct line through Lake Superior to the mouth of the Montreal
river; thence through the middle of the main channel of the westerly
branch of the Montreal river to Island Lake, the head waters thereof,
thence in a direct line to the center,” etc. This became part of
Michigan’s fundamental law on February 21, 1908.
Meanwhile in 1907 two resolutions passed the Michigan legislature. The
first, after reciting the mistakes in Captain “Cramm’s” surveys,
authorized the governor to appoint a commissioner to visit Wisconsin
in order to secure a joint commission for the adjudication of the
boundary. In pursuance of this resolution the governor appointed Hon.
Peter White to this office. He came to Madison twice, but could not
interest the state’s officials in his enterprise, and was unable to
secure any promise of participation in a joint commission. In June,
1908, Mr. White died, and so far as known no successor to him as
boundary commissioner has ever been appointed.
The second Michigan resolution of 1907 authorized the attorney-general
to direct a survey of the state’s northwest boundary, and also to
institute proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to secure a
rectification of the boundary line. Acting on this authorization the
attorney-general employed Professor J. B. Davis, of the University of
Michigan, to investigate the survey and prepare a brief of Michigan’s
claims. The result of Professor Davis’ investigation has not yet been
given to the world. A chronicler of Michigan wrote in 1908 that “in
view of the political excitement of the presidential year no active
measures [concerning the disputed territory] are likely to be taken
this season.” On another page the author expresses a doubt “whether
the state of Michigan can ever occupy the territory justly hers.” He
concludes with the observation that it “is believed to be the only
instance in this nation where two sovereign states are occupying a
dividing line of doubtful legality, merely by common consent.”[126]