Double Proportion
I happened to see a 1967 Survey that double proportioned some corners.
He rejected some monuments set by a Surveyor in 1888 because they were single proportioned east and west. The Manual (1947 I assume) calls for double proportioning in this situation. The prevailing guidance in the 1880s was single proportioning interior corners north and south but he didn??t seem to know that.
What is different is the Township boundaries and section lines were surveyed in 1855. Then the GLO resurveyed the north boundary of the Township in 1875. They only found the NW and NE corners of the Township and proportioned all the corners in between. 1967 found the 1875 monuments.
So 1967 is double proportioning 1855 distances to 1875 monuments which seems improper to me. Going on the presumption that the 1855 notes are a true record of the survey then the 1855 true lines go to the 1855 corners which had disappeared by 1875. The 1875 section corners are about 83 chains apart so it makes a difference.
Maybe the 1888 Surveyor knew more than us.
The good news is all the surveys since then are ignoring the 1967 monuments and using the 1888 monuments.
Log in to reply.