opinion: ILLINOIS v. MISSOURI
  No. 18,
  Orig.
  Decree entered June 22, 1970
  William J. Scott, Attorney General of Illinois, and Terence F. MacCarthy, Special Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff.
  John Danforth, Attorney General of Missouri, and Merle L. Silverstein for defendant.
  The Court having referred this case to a Special Master who has filed his Report, and the parties having agreed as to the form of the decree, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are hereby adopted, and
  IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED That:
  (1) The boundary line between the States of Illinois and Missouri for the geographical area involved in this action is hereby determined and decreed to consist of the following legal description:
  Beginning at a point in present centerline of the Mississippi River at the intersection of the center-line of the Old Mississippi River said point being designated as the Southeasterly corner of Kaskaskia Island; thence following the centerline of the slough which is the approximate centerline of the Old Mississippi River, described more particularly by the following courses and distances: S 39° 30' W, 2100 feet; thence S 55° 30' W, 900 feet; thence S 34° 30' W, 850 feet; thence N 83° 00' W, 500 feet; thence S 61° 00' W, 1000 feet; thence S 42° 30' W, 2500 feet; thence S 37° 00' W, 4000 feet; thence S 45° 00' W, 2000 feet; thence S 56° 30' W, 4600 feet; thence S 63° 00' W, 2150 feet; thence S 79° 30' W, 1525 feet; thence N 86° 30' W, 4500 feet; thence N 70° 00' W, 5050 feet; thence N 57° 30' W, 3850 feet; thence N 46° 00' W, 1550 feet; thence N 24° 00' W, 5650 feet; thence N 39° 00' W, 1800 feet; thence N 17° 00' W, 1900 feet; thence N 25° 30' W, 3150 feet; thence N 32° 00' W, 1580 feet; thence N 4° 30' W, 3250 feet; thence N 53° 45' E, 3300 feet; thence N 69° 00' E, 1050 feet; thence 19° 00' E, 2350 feet; thence N 75° 00' E, 350 feet to a point at the northwest corner of Kaskaskia Island; thence S 47° 00' E, 250 feet; thence N 81° 00' E, 1050 feet; thence S 78° 00' E, 600 feet; thence N 88° 45' E, 1551 feet; thence N 70° 45' E, 709 feet; thence N 48° 30' E, 2986 feet; thence N 51° 45' E, 627 feet; thence N 81° 45' E, 990 feet; thence N 62° 45' E, 495 feet; thence N 40° 00' E, 2937 feet; thence N 28° 00' E, 528 feet; thence N 04° 00' E, 429 feet; thence N 12° 00' W, 759 feet; thence N 6° 00' E, 412 feet; thence N 33° 00' E, 264 feet; to a point which intersects the centerline of a slough at the south side of Beaver Island; thence along the center-line of said slough S 85° 00' W, 924 feet; thence S 79° 00' W, 775 feet; thence N 88° 00' W, 1452 feet; thence N 23° 00' W, 825 feet; thence N 20° 00' W, 3000 feet to the centerline of the Mississippi River.
  (2) In incidence to the establishment of such boundary line, and upon Missouri's disclaimer herein, the territorial and sovereignty right claimed by Illinois to the body of land given identification in the evidence as “Kas-kaskia Island” is hereby confirmed as against Missouri and decreed to exist in Illinois.
  (3) In further incidence to the boundary establishment made, the territorial and sovereignty right claimed by Illinois to the body of land given identification in the evidence as “Beaver Island” is hereby confirmed as against Missouri and decreed to exist in Illinois.
  (4) In similar incidence, the territorial and sovereignty right claimed by Missouri to each of the two bodies of land given identification severally in the evidence as “Cottonwoods” and “Roth Island” is hereby sustained as against Illinois and decreed to exist in Missouri.
  (5) The boundary description decreed in paragraph (1) hereof is taken from Attachment “C” of the parties’ stipulation as being agreed upon by them to be appropriate and accurate for dispositional use in the event of and in relation to the result here reached. The bodies of land as to which Illinois’ rights are confirmed in paragraphs (2) and (3) hereof are located on Illinois’ side of the boundary line fixed, and those as to which Missouri’s rights are sustained in paragraph (4) hereof are located upon Missouri’s side thereof, so that no separate description is here necessary as to any of these bodies in order to effectuate the rights decreed in respect to them.
  (6) The costs of the suit shall be assessed equally against the parties.
  Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the entry of this decree.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.