> While that may be true, as you just mentioned, that country may not have had a tree accessible.
You'd have a hard time finding a spot without a tree within 100 varas. Nearly all the bearing trees de Montel marked were mesquites and the area today is covered with them.
> The general presumption, when retracing any footsteps, is that the surveyor did what he said he did, until you can PROVE he didn't. In this case, I don't think you'll ever prove he didn't.
In this case, figuring out what de Montel did is an important part of the reconstruction problem. If one wanted to pretend that all four sides of every survey for which field notes were ever returned to the GLO was actually run on the ground, he would quickly be disabused of that notion. It's a rebuttable presumption.
The surveying practices of the time are fairly common knowledge and in many cases are even documented by the field books of the surveyors themselves or by testimony later given in court about their work.
I thought I was named after a surveyor now I found out he is just a chain carrier "John Lamon".
> I thought I was named after a surveyor now I found out he is just a chain carrier "John Lamon".
As I recall, that John Lamon was also a surveyor himself, later. It's not unusual to find the names of men who later were County or Deputy Surveyors working early in their careers as chainmen.
On occasion or two, in west Texas, I have noticed the patentee for the grant was also one of the chain carriers.
> > While that may be true, as you just mentioned, that country may not have had a tree accessible.
>
> You'd have a hard time finding a spot without a tree within 100 varas. Nearly all the bearing trees de Montel marked were mesquites and the area today is covered with them.
>
> > The general presumption, when retracing any footsteps, is that the surveyor did what he said he did, until you can PROVE he didn't. In this case, I don't think you'll ever prove he didn't.
>
> In this case, figuring out what de Montel did is an important part of the reconstruction problem. If one wanted to pretend that all four sides of every survey for which field notes were ever returned to the GLO was actually run on the ground, he would quickly be disabused of that notion. It's a rebuttable presumption.
>
> The surveying practices of the time are fairly common knowledge and in many cases are even documented by the field books of the surveyors themselves or by testimony later given in court about their work.
This sounds like one of your "faith based approaches" of what you "feel" may have happened versus what the written word actually said. :>
> On occasion or two, in west Texas, I have noticed the patentee for the grant was also one of the chain carriers.
In West Texas, that was probably more common in the 20th century when school land was being resurveyed for corrected field notes to be used in the sale and issuance of patent. In many counties, the office of County Surveyor was in effect a part-time job and the occupants of the office just grabbed whomever they could to use as chainmen since they didn't have steady work to keep regular staff occupied.
> > The surveying practices of the time are fairly common knowledge and in many cases are even documented by the field books of the surveyors themselves or by testimony later given in court about their work.
>
> This sounds like one of your "faith based approaches" of what you "feel" may have happened versus what the written word actually said. :>
Believe it or not, land surveying does require the use of one's brain. Novel concept, I know.
Lying wasn't invented yesterday and just because a surveyor in West Texas said he set a "stake & mound" doesn't mean that he set a stake and mound when it was a conventional notation for "no corner set".
> > > The surveying practices of the time are fairly common knowledge and in many cases are even documented by the field books of the surveyors themselves or by testimony later given in court about their work.
> >
> > This sounds like one of your "faith based approaches" of what you "feel" may have happened versus what the written word actually said. :>
>
> Believe it or not, land surveying does require the use of one's brain. Novel concept, I know.
>
> Lying wasn't invented yesterday and just because a surveyor in West Texas said he set a "stake & mound" doesn't mean that he set a stake and mound when it was a conventional notation for "no corner set".
I'm quite certain that the use of one's brain is requisite; however, I wasn't aware that a presumption that the surveyor was lying should be jumped to automatically. I'm also quite aware that the ubiquitous "stake" can mean that no corner was set; however, we still make a practice of looking for them as opposed to dismissing them from the confines of the office. 🙂
The other interesting portion of this exercise in futility is that you posted snippets of the field notes rather than the whole; thereby exposing to us that which you felt important as opposed to letting the rest of the class decide with all the information.
🙂
> > It is interesting thathe 'Frenchified" his name like early German immigrants to Louisiana did to assimilate into the culture.
>
> I trust you noted that he studied at the Sorbonne.
Yes, I noticed that and also that he was tied to Henri Castro and also to Jacques LaFitte and their big money. He also married into a French family.
It seems that surveyors were always tied to big money or land holders back then in soime way.
There is such strong Geramn influence in Louisian in the river region from the 18th and 19th century.The call the lower Ms. R., the Ruhr valley of the West here.
BASF(Badische Anilin- und Soda-Fabrik), the largeest chemical company in the world has it's largest plant in Geismar,La.
plus all the good French bread in New Orleans are baked by the original German bakers to this day.
Leidenheimers, Reising etc.
Can't have a po'boy without Leidenhimers bread. 🙂
> > Lying wasn't invented yesterday and just because a surveyor in West Texas said he set a "stake & mound" doesn't mean that he set a stake and mound when it was a conventional notation for "no corner set".
>
> I'm quite certain that the use of one's brain is requisite; however, I wasn't aware that a presumption that the surveyor was lying should be jumped to automatically.
Well, if you ever get out of East Texas, you'll probably learn something more about Texas surveying. In virtually any West Texas railroad block where the calls are just for "stake & mound" with no supporting calls for topography or bearings to objects at the corners, the safe presumption is that the corner was originally protracted until the contrary is shown. If one considers the actual circumstance of those surveys, it isn't difficult to understand why such a volume of essentially fictitious work was the standard of the day and was almost certainly known as such by the GLO staff at the time it was submitted.
The example par excellence is that of the thousands of field notes that former COMMISSIONER of the GLO, Jacob Kuechler, wrote for the Texas & Pacific Rwy. Co. in 1876 to cover lands in the 80-Mile Reservation West of the Pecos.
Kent,
Which Commissioner said this:
“So long as land is unproductive and is regarded as of but little value, it will take care of itself, but the moment one discerns evidence of valuable returns there from it has many covetous admirers.”
DDSM:-D
> > > Lying wasn't invented yesterday and just because a surveyor in West Texas said he set a "stake & mound" doesn't mean that he set a stake and mound when it was a conventional notation for "no corner set".
> >
> > I'm quite certain that the use of one's brain is requisite; however, I wasn't aware that a presumption that the surveyor was lying should be jumped to automatically.
>
> Well, if you ever get out of East Texas, you'll probably learn something more about Texas surveying. In virtually any West Texas railroad block where the calls are just for "stake & mound" with no supporting calls for topography or bearings to objects at the corners, the safe presumption is that the corner was originally protracted until the contrary is shown. If one considers the actual circumstance of those surveys, it isn't difficult to understand why such a volume of essentially fictitious work was the standard of the day and was almost certainly known as such by the GLO staff at the time it was submitted.
>
> The example par excellence is that of the thousands of field notes that former COMMISSIONER of the GLO, Jacob Kuechler, wrote for the Texas & Pacific Rwy. Co. in 1876 to cover lands in the 80-Mile Reservation West of the Pecos.
First, you're assuming facts not in evidence again there Kent. Second, your "presumption" effectively flies in the face of those court cases that have held the surveyor went where he said he went, until you can "prove" otherwise.
The area West of the Pecos notwithstanding, which has been documented as a horrible area to work in ad nauseum, I'm actually quite surprised at your lack of attention to this point. I mean, if you extrapolate from there, how many deed descriptions have you "thrown out" because you think you know who the surveyor was and he never set corners, or he never did a good job, or it reads like an attorney wrote it? Seems a bit dangerous on cross examination as to your perception of the project and the appearance of a "God Complex". Just sayin. 🙂
> Which Commissioner said this:
>
> “So long as land is unproductive and is regarded as of but little value, it will take care of itself, but the moment one discerns evidence of valuable returns there from it has many covetous admirers.”
That sounds like something Commissioner of the General Land Office J.T. Robison would have observed.
I'm surprised that ...
no one has commented on the signatures. The John Lamon signatures are in at least two (if not 3) different hands.
Does that mean any thing? Or was it just some clerk entering documents and putting in the signatures himself?
> First, you're assuming facts not in evidence again there Kent. Second, your "presumption" effectively flies in the face of those court cases that have held the surveyor went where he said he went, until you can "prove" otherwise.
All it takes is actually reading just about any of the West Texas boundary cases to see why judges take judicial notice of the sketchy nature of nearly all of the early surveys in West Texas. You seem to think that land surveyors and judges in West Texas live in fantasyland detached from experience. Fortunately, that isn't true.
> ... you posted snippets of the field notes rather than the whole ...
That would be for the advanced group who have a bit more experience. :>
Yes...it was during his 'unpleasantness of 1929'...
...he was accused of malfeasance and mismanagement and was forced to go before the House of Representatives for an impeachment trial in June of 1929...
DDSM;-)
> > First, you're assuming facts not in evidence again there Kent. Second, your "presumption" effectively flies in the face of those court cases that have held the surveyor went where he said he went, until you can "prove" otherwise.
>
> All it takes is actually reading just about any of the West Texas boundary cases to see why judges take judicial notice of the sketchy nature of nearly all of the early surveys in West Texas. You seem to think that land surveyors and judges in West Texas live in fantasyland detached from experience. Fortunately, that isn't true.
Not at all. What I think is that Karma can be a "B" and I'd rather go look for a corner than presume it not being there.
> > ... you posted snippets of the field notes rather than the whole ...
>
> That would be for the advanced group who have a bit more experience. :>
Evidently you haven't deemed anyone advanced just yet. That or you enjoy controlling the conversation at your speed and doling out data when it suits your needs of proving a point, as evidenced by your want and desire to blatantly disregard that a corner may have been set and a line run in the field. 🙂
