State of Minnesota v. State of Wisconsin
Headline: Court confirms commissioners’ map fixing the Minnesota–Wisconsin boundary through St. Louis Bay and St. Louis River, establishes the line, and orders shared payment of expenses and printing costs.
Holding:
- Establishes the official boundary between Minnesota and Wisconsin in St. Louis Bay and River.
- Files two official maps as part of the decree; clerk will send copies to governors without maps.
- Splits commissioners’ costs and printing expenses equally between the two states.
Summary
Background
The States of Minnesota and Wisconsin had a dispute about their shared boundary through Lower Saint Louis Bay, Upper Saint Louis Bay, and up the Saint Louis River to the falls. The Court appointed three commissioners on October 11, 1920 to locate and mark that boundary. The commissioners used the original Meade chart, made accurate tracings and coordinate tables, surveyed the waterway in winter 1921, and placed permanent monuments and two maps as exhibits.
Reasoning
Minnesota moved for a final decree to confirm the commissioners’ report. The Court reviewed the commissioners’ work, including their use of triangulation points, field measurements, and detailed descriptions and maps. Finding that the commission followed the Court’s decree and produced precise surveys and monuments, the Court confirmed the report and declared the surveyed line, as shown on the two exhibits, to be the true boundary between the two states.
Real world impact
This decree makes the surveyed and monumented line the official state boundary for government action, property titles, and local management along the bays and river. The maps are directed to be filed as part of the decree, and the clerk will transmit authenticated copies of the decree to the two governors but will omit the maps in those transmissions. The Court also allowed and approved the commissioners’ expenses and printing costs and ordered those costs to be borne equally by both states.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?