The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.10

In the house the bill was referred to the committee on the territories;11 but it was sponsored by Mr. Valentine (then the sole member from Nebraska), though he was not a

10 Ibid., p. 861.

The queries of Senator Plumb and Senator Butler as to the reason why Dakota showed no interest in the proposed dismemberment of her territory are sufficiently answered, probably, in letters to the editor from Mr. Ed. A. Fry, founder of the Nebraska Pioneer, and now a resident of Yankton, under dates of September 12 and 14, and October 11, 1913. Mr. Fry said: "In regard to what we know of the 'Ponca Strip,' comprising the west part of Knox and all of Boyd, it was the child of the late Alvin Saunders while a member of the Indian and territorial committees in the U. S. senate, and was done to straighten out the Nebraska boundary to the Missouri river. I recall no opposition from Dakota Territory, but E. K. Valentine made a strenuous effort to get credit for it, and quite a controversy arose over it, in which I was a part.

"Mr. [George W.] Kingsbury, who was editor of the Press and Dakotan at the time, tells me that there was no protest from South Dakota respecting the 'Ponca Strip.' The territory at that time was more interested in division than the 96,000 acres of land, and Senator Saunders was in position to aid them and did so. He says that Senator Plumb of Kansas, as the Congressional Record at that time will show, made some inquiries in debate, but beyond this no effort was made lest opposition might be made to division.

"Mr. Van Osdel says there was no contention on the part of the South Dakota delegate. As before stated, he said statehood was uppermost in the minds of the leaders. Niobrara, of course, had a desire at that time to see this territory come into Nebraska on account of the Niobrara river, that it might come under the exclusive control of the state. The Ponca treaty did not even give Nebraska the river, reading to the south bank as the line of the Ponca possession.

"As to Congressman Valentine's claim of the shifting channel of the Niobrara river, this is correct. It is liable to be on the opposite side of the stream over-night-this is where it spreads out to any extent. There are occasional confined rapids after the turn in the river about five miles above. These do not shift materially. It is a remarkable river, in that it seldom, if ever, leaves its banks unless gorged by ice. It is a spring-fed stream its whole length and is probably the least affected by drouth or flood of any stream known."

Dakota was not divided until 1889, when it was changed from the territorial status into the states of North Dakota and South Dakota. Therefore, the delegate to congress was from Dakota and not from South Dakota as Mr. Fry inadvertently has it.

11 Ibid., pt. 2, p. 1501.

member of the committee. The colloquy in the house was brief:

Mr. Valentine. I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of a senate bill. If the house will give me a moment for a statement of the case, I think there will be no objection.

The Speaker. The Clerk will read the title of the bill.
The clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. No. 17) to extend the northern boundary of the State of Nebraska.

Mr. Valentine. I would like to have a moment to state the object of this bill.

Mr. Springer [Illinois]. I reserve points of order. Mr. Bragg [Wisconsin]. And I reserve the right to object.

Mr. Valentine. Mr. Speaker, it is intended by this bill to straighten the northern boundary of the state of Nebraska. A portion of the present northern boundary is down the Keyapaha and the Niobrara Rivers. The Niobrara is a shallow sandy stream, from half a mile to a mile and a quarter in width, full of timber islands. Under the present law the northern boundary of our state down that stream is the main channel of the stream. That channel shifts with the wind. When the wind is blowing from the north or the northwest the channel is upon the southern bank of the stream. If the wind shifts to the south or southwest the channel moves from half a mile to a mile and a quarter northward around these islands. It is very necessary to have a fixed, well-defined boundary line. I will add that there is no objection to this bill on the part of the people of Dakota who are as much interested in having this line straightened as are the people of Nebraska.

Mr. Dunnell [Minnesota]. Has this bill been examined by the House committee?

Mr. Valentine. Yes, sir; they have had it under consideration, and allowed me to take it from the hands of the committee to bring it up at this time.

The bill was read, as follows:

Be it enacted, &c., That the northern boundary of the State of Nebraska shall be, and hereby is, subject to the

provisions hereinafter contained, extended so as to include all that portion of the Territory of Dakota lying south of the forty-third parallel of north latitude and east of the Keyapaha River and west of the main channel of the Missouri River; and when the Indian title to the lands thus described shall be extinguished, the jurisdiction over said lands shall be, and hereby is, ceded to the State of Nebraska, and subject to all the conditions and limitations provided in the act of Congress admitting Nebraska into the Union; and the northern boundary of the State shall be extended to said forty-third parallel as fully and effectually as if said lands had been included in the boundaries of said State at the time of its admission to the Union, reserving to the United States the original right of soil in said lands and of disposing of the same: Provided, That this act, so far as jurisdiction is concerned, shall not take effect until the President shall, by proclamation, declare that the Indian title to said lands has been extinguished, nor shall it take effect until the State of Nebraska shall have assented to the provisions of this act; and if the State of Nebraska shall not, by an act of its Legislature, consent to the provisions of this act within two years next after the passage hereof, this act shall cease and be of no effect.

Mr. Springer. How much territory is to be added to the State by this change?

Mr. Valentine. About a township and a half.

There being no objection, the Committee on the Territories was discharged from the further consideration of the bill; which was ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.12

The process of coaching this measure followed, now and then, darksome ways. For example, Senator Saunders declared that the second bill-which was enacted-"is the same exactly that passed the senate unanimously at the last session of congress after having been thoroughly canvassed. . On the contrary, it was the bill as it was originally reported, without the numerous amendments 12 Ibid., p. 2007.

which were made "after having been thoroughly canvassed" on the 3d of May, 1880. The bill, with amendments, which first passed the senate and to which Senator Saunders referred has already been copied (ante, pp. 66, 67, 68).13

The bill which the senator offered the second time was as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the northern boundary of the State of Nebraska shall be, and hereby is, extended so as to include all that portion of the Territory of Dakota lying south of the forty-third parallel of north latitude and east of the Keyapaha River and west of the main channel of the Missouri River; and when the Indian title to the lands thus described shall be extinguished, the jurisdiction over said lands shall be and hereby is ceded to the State of Nebraska, and the northern boundary of the State shall be, and hereby is, extended to said forty-third parallel as fully and effectually as if said lands had been included in the boundaries of said State at the time of its admission to the Union; reserving to the United States the original right of soil in said lands and of disposing of the same: Provided, That this act, so far as jurisdiction is concerned, shall not take effect until the President shall, by proclamation, declare that the Indian title to said lands has been extinguished, nor shall it take effect until the State of Nebraska shall have assented to the provisions of this act.14

The words "hereby is" occurred three times in the bill before it was amended, in 1880, by striking them out. They were stricken out in only one instance, just before final passage. Thus the senator gained two important points, to which strong objections had been made in the debate on amendments, by slipping in cards from his sleeve.

18 The bill and the amendments adopted are printed on page 3644, pt. 4, v. 10, Congressional Record.

14 The elimination of the amendments adopted (Congressional Record, v. 13, pt. 1, pp. 860-861) from the act as it passed (U. S. Statutes at Large, v. 22, p. 35) leaves the bill as it was introduced.

The words, "so far as jurisdiction is concerned," which were stricken out at the instance of Senator Hoar before the passage of the first bill in the senate, slipped by on final passage through Saunder's masterly mistake as to the contents of the bill. By the same misapprehension the senator got rid of the amendments, "if it [the Indian title] ever shall be extinguished"; "nor shall this act create any liability or obligation of any kind whatever on the part of the United States to extinguish said Indian title or in any way affect the title thereto"; and "and provided further, That this act shall in no way affect the right of the United States to control any military or other reservation, or any part thereof, which may now or hereafter be on said land." By leaving out the one year limit for accepting another year was gained. Thus Senator Saunders got back by indirection most of that which had been directly taken from him and, in a way, got even with the irreverent eastern senators who had so inconsiderately put and kept him on the gridiron.

There is an inexplicable discrepancy between Senator Saunders' estimates of the area of the proposed transfer in 1880 and in 1882. In response to Senator Thurman's specific inquiry during the discussion of the first bill Saunders replied: "It will make somewhere probably about eighteen townships." 15 To a like specific inquiry by Senator Cameron, of Wisconsin, during the debate of February 3d, 1882, Saunders replied: "There are, I think, over two townships of land, but it is in such an irregular shape that I cannot tell exactly the quantity." 16 On the day the bill

15 Congressional Record, v. 10, pt. 3, p. 2960. According to the census of 1880 the area of the state was 76,185 square miles, and by that of 1890 it was 76,855 square miles. The difference between these sums, 670 square miles, or 18.6 townships, is approximately the area of the transferred territory. According to the surveys, as indicated on the township plats, the total area of the addition appears to have been 406,566 acres, or 17.64 townships.

16 Ibid., v. 13, pt. 1, p. 861.