[BOUNDARY LINE]. GRAHAM, James Duncan. Report of the Secretary of War, Communicating in Compliance with a Resolution of the Senate the Report of Lieutenant Colonel Graham on the Subject of the Boundary Line Between the United States and Mexico [caption title]. [Washington, 1852]. [1] 2-250 pp., 2 folding lithographed maps [1] Mexican Boundary B. Extract from the Treaty Map of Disturnell of 1847 (23 x 39.2 cm); [2] Mexican Boundary. Sketch A. Referred to in Colonel Graham’s Report (13.6 x 46.9 cm) folding lithographed chart [1] Barometric Profile of the Route from San Antonio (23.3 x 114 cm). 8vo (24.2 x 16 cm), modern gilt-lettered green cloth. Scattered light foxing, maps with fold splits (no losses), profile slightly wrinkled. Overall very good.

First edition (32nd Congress, 1st Session, Senate Executive Document 121). Basic Texas Books 57n. Garrett & Goodwin, p. 298, 413 & 414. Graff 1609. Howes G296. Martin & Martin 40: “The history of the Mexican Boundary Survey was, perhaps more than any other episode in the American West, colored by ineptitude, personal animosity, ambition, and political interference. It was to have a significant effect on the final shape of the region.” Meisel III, p. 100. Munk (Alliott), p. 89. Plains & Rockies IV:212: “In addition to reporting his troubles with John R. Bartlett, Graham included information and reports on southern New Mexico.” Raines, p. 96. Wheat, Mapping the Transmississippi West 717-18 & pp. 225-27; III:227: “This Document contains Graham’s elaborate defense of his conduct while detailed to the Boundary Commission.”

The map entitled Mexican Boundary B (see Plate 40 in Martin & Martin) delineates the boundary difference that would result from the two different interpretations of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo vis-à-vis the Disturnell map. The first interpretation was based on strict reference to the lines of longitude and latitude on the map; the second, on actual reference to the landmarks of El Paso and the Rio Grande. The Disturnell map had placed El Paso too far north and west of its actual position. Graham’s maps show that the two interpretations would result in a difference of 5,950 square miles to U.S. territory in an area strategic to mining and railroads.