Andy Nold, post: 363843, member: 7 wrote: I know the subject of Twichell's 2" iron pipe marking the purported location of Clark's 27 remains a hot topic out there. Nothing short of an archeological dig could prove it up and maybe not even then.
The money quote is on Page 6 of the Edwards report:
"In 1902, W.D. Twitchell, State Surveyor, surveyed the Public School Lands east of Block 53, Township 2, and the surrendered Block 53, Township 1, of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company 16-Mile Reservation Surveys (Block 76). On his plat, and many other subsequent plats along the Texas-New Mexico state boundary, he makes specific ties to Clark's Monument 26 and in doing so he mentions a passing tie to a "Pine Post charred by prairie fire bears S.73 vas. -5" dia. Post badly burned & rotted, Stn. Md. Around post - T mk? ... added 2" iron pipe" along the north line of Block 54, Township 1.This single reference is the basis for the 2002 construction of Block 76."
"Correspondence in the GLO files relating to the resurveys conducted by the Texas and Pacific in the 1930s indicates that Mr. Twichell himself states that he did not accept the pipe post as Clark's monument. (See references in letters received May 31, 1938 from H.L. George to W.J. Powell)"
In other words, the evidence that Twitchell found in 1902 no longer exists and the opinion of Twitchell, who actually had seen it, was that it wasn't what a century later, sight unseen, it was claimed to be. That is pretty much indistinguishable from no evidence.
It's right up there with:
(a) the surveyor who in resurveying along the Rio Grande "re-established" a corner from bearings off mountains in Mexico that were originally taken to the nearest 15 minutes with a compass adjusted for a grossly erroneous variation, and
(b) the surveyor who concluded from reading the field notes of an office survey reciting bearing tree calls transcribed from a resurvey in the adjacent block that somehow an original corner of the next block had been perpetuated in a location hundreds of varas South of where it originally was located (producing corrected field notes for tens of surveys using a construction that looked obviously wrong).
Not my circus. And it doesn't mean that there won't be repercussions for moving the lines back and forth. Surface interests have been transferred based on the Newton lines. Primarily around corrals, wells and windmills. It will be interesting to see what comes next out there because this doesn't necessarily make everyone happy. I'm sure the roughnecks and the drilling rig are right around the corner, too.
Do you guys have any thoughts on Culberson county rolled sketch 48 which contains a letter to J Luchini from commissioner Jerry Sadler rejecting Luchini's construction in favor of work by Irving Webb and Clifford Cool for PSL Block's 109-115?
I thought Cool and Luchini were working together or for the same client? Let me go reread and refresh my memory.
(edit) And it might take me a while. That's a huge file to download.
Here is the letter I am referring to extracted from the sketch file.
It just finished downloading. I think my internet connection was running slow, but it is 102 page file.
My work was in Block 45. I forget which map I was going by, but we found all the controlling monuments called for and we were hitting distances very close to reported. Because the surveys were tied to NGS monuments, we were also matching the bearings within a few seconds. I was not impressed with the Rider work in Block 45 and I don't recall holding those monuments. I am in my Fort Worth office and my file for Block 45 is in my Midland office.
I think the discussion in rolled sketch that you reference illustrates the correct method for retracing these blocks and what the controlling monuments are. Your controlling monuments may not be very close - few and far between, but talking to other surveyors who have worked in those areas, you can find what is called for and it fits very well. Webb, Armstrong, etal did some pretty good work for the time. Rob Maloy has been all through there and I think Anthony (ArcTan) could give some insight.
The GLO didn't accept Luchini's work in Blocks 109-115 but beware that if you go looking for monuments, you're going to find Luchini all over. I haven't found that CC Cool worked with Luchini maybe some older surveyors know this information. But as far as the letter states...
In Block 45, Rider controls. There is a North-South distance bust though (400' or so). The north line of Block 45 is now the south line of Block 112 PSL as its location has been "corrected" by Fred Armstrong. So Armstrong holds in Block 112.
If you hold the Webb and Cool construction in 109-115 and Rider in 45 and Armstrong in 112 you will find that there are gaps in the called for distances to where the monuments actually are.
I think Luchini's work was the best reconstruction but Webb and Cool beat him out in filing patents. All of Luchini's work fits together with what I've found to be Parker's original corners and ancient occupation. But that's just my opinion.
Where exactly are you working?
I'm in San Marcos at the conference right now. If you're here and would like to talk about it, let me know.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Arctan, I didn't make it to San Marcos this year, do you work from the midland area? We are in the process of following the construction of those blocks you mentioned as you described, but as Andy said those original called for controlling monuments are few and far between. Has anyone looked at armstrongs construction of block 112 as it relates to the east line of block 59? He appeared to have put a bend at the NW corner of 112.
Have any of you West Texas guys done any work in Blocks 58 and 59, T1 and T2 of the T and P in this same area? We are scratching our heads a bit especially with the western tier of sections in Block 58. it appears that Jacob Keuchler originally surveyed these blocks monumenting various corners with stones marked TP and was later followed by Paul McCombs who corrected Keuchler's field notes. We have recovered 10 original Keuchler monuments across block 58 and 59 out of 17 called for. It is obvious that McCombs disregarded Keuchler's original monuments specifically in Block 59 and changed the original construction again specifically affecting the west tier of sections in block 58 and continuing to affect sections west of that tier in Block 59. We believe that McComb must have had some direction from the GLO that caused him to do this but we have not been able to find any physical evidence of this instruction. We are working with a couple of people at the GLO but it is proving to be a time consuming process. Any direction you guys may be able to point us in would be appreciated.
surveyor_a, post: 397031, member: 1194 wrote: Have any of you West Texas guys done any work in Blocks 58 and 59, T1 and T2 of the T and P in this same area? We are scratching our heads a bit especially with the western tier of sections in Block 58. it appears that Jacob Keuchler originally surveyed these blocks monumenting various corners with stones marked TP and was later followed by Paul McCombs who corrected Keuchler's field notes. We have recovered 10 original Keuchler monuments across block 58 and 59 out of 17 called for. It is obvious that McCombs disregarded Keuchler's original monuments specifically in Block 59 and changed the original construction again specifically affecting the west tier of sections in block 58 and continuing to affect sections west of that tier in Block 59.
I haven't cheated and looked the field notes for the surveys in the west tier of Block 58, but is the irregularity the result of the shortage that McCombs reported between the Kuechler corners K-6 and K-7? Edit: I see that McCombs found 1447 vrs. between those Kuechler corners and that shortage also creates a similar shortage in the surveys of the west tier of Block 58.
I trust you know that the red interlineations on the Kuechler field notes upon which patents issued is based upon the McCombs resurvey as Special Surveyor under the authority of the Commissioner GLO.
Yes sir, the patents were issued with the 1447 vr width however I believe I know within a few vrs where K6 was located based on a good deal of evidence. The distance from K7 to K8 is something like 1850 vrs, I am out of the office now or I could give you an exact distance. It appears that Kuechler monumented that west tier as being close to a typical width and McComb rejected the monuments.
surveyor_a, post: 397038, member: 1194 wrote: Yes sir, the patents were issued with the 1447 vr width however I believe I know within a few vrs where K6 was located based on a good deal of evidence. The distance from K7 to K8 is something like 1850 vrs, I am out of the office now or I could give you an exact distance. It appears that Kuechler monumented that west tier as being close to a typical width and McComb rejected the monuments.
McCombs evidently found the distance between K-7 and K-8 to be 1862 vrs. I think that I'd want to examine his field book (which is available on line at the GLO) to see what accounts for the several miles after K-7 being uniformly 1862 vrs. McCombs had the advantage of actually having Jacob Kuechler along with him to identify Kuechler's original corners, one of which was what Kuechler originally described as a "stake and mound" but turned out actually to be the stub of a pencil in a few rocks.
Kent McMillan, post: 397040, member: 3 wrote: McCombs evidently found the distance between K-7 and K-8 to be 1862 vrs. I think that I'd want to examine his field book (which is available on line at the GLO) to see what accounts for the several miles after K-7 being uniformly 1862 vrs. McCombs had the advantage of actually having Jacob Kuechler along with him to identify Kuechler's original corners, one of which was what Kuechler originally described as a "stake and mound" but turned out actually to be the stub of a pencil in a few rocks.
I downloaded them today and plan to dig through them tomorrow, hopefully that will help.
I've done a bit more searching of the GLO map collection and found the 1885 map ( Map/Doc #92884) made by Paul McCombs that appears in the Twitchell Collection. As I read McCombs' map, it appears that he didn't actually recover Kuechler monuments across Block 59. You'd have to examine Kuechler's field book to see how he actually ran across the block. The uniform 1962 vara width of the surveys in Block 59 is almost certainly a mathematical construction.
Kent McMillan, post: 397050, member: 3 wrote: As I read McCombs' map, it appears that he didn't actually recover Kuechler monuments across Block 59. You'd have to examine Kuechler's field book to see how he actually ran across the block. The uniform 1962 vara width of the surveys in Block 59 is almost certainly a mathematical construction.
Of course, Jacob Kuechler's field book is on file at the GLO, as well (Map/Doc #3050).
His field book reflects that he ran along what would be the North line of Block 58 to the NW Corner of Survey 5, same block, and there he offset 100 varas back East and ran South 1900 varas "on the North Side of a hill" and West 100 vrs to "a large rock mkd. T.P. with a md of rocks on its top, the NW corner of Sur. 8, Block 58.
From that point, Kuechler ran West 1900 vrs to a Stone md mkd. T.P. for the NW Corner of Survey 7.
From there, he ran West, crossing Delaware Creek at 245 vrs. and passing the top of a hill at 1600 vrs., in all 1900 vrs. to stone md. mkd. T.P. for the NW Corner of Survey 12, Block 59.
He ran West from there, building corners of various descriptions at nominal 1900 vr. intervals for four nominal miles before turning South and so forth.
Such shortage as may exist in Survey 6 would appear to necessarily be proven (or not) by the actual positions on the ground of the NE Corner and SW Corner of Survey 6.
From Kuechler's Field Book:
Give me a call tomorrow around anywhere from 10-2, surveyor_a.
469 850 2757.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Kent McMillan, post: 397054, member: 3 wrote: Of course, Jacob Kuechler's field book is on file at the GLO, as well (Map/Doc #3050).
His field book reflects that he ran along what would be the North line of Block 58 to the NW Corner of Survey 5, same block, and there he offset 100 varas back East and ran South 1900 varas "on the North Side of a hill" and West 100 vrs to "a large rock mkd. T.P. with a md of rocks on its top, the NW corner of Sur. 8, Block 58.
From that point, Kuechler ran West 1900 vrs to a Stone md mkd. T.P. for the NW Corner of Survey 7.
From there, he ran West, crossing Delaware Creek at 245 vrs. and passing the top of a hill at 1600 vrs., in all 1900 vrs. to stone md. mkd. T.P. for the NW Corner of Survey 12, Block 59.
He ran West from there, building corners of various descriptions at nominal 1900 vr. intervals for four nominal miles before turning South and so forth.
Such shortage as may exist in Survey 6 would appear to necessarily be proven (or not) by the actual positions on the ground of the NE Corner and SW Corner of Survey 6.
I agree with what you state here, that is the same conclusion I arrive at. I find it extremely hard to believe that McComb did not recover any of the K monuments in block 59 while recovering most other ones in various other blocks he worked in. They are there at distances and locations that match (within reason) Kuechlers notes. It is fairly well documented that his distances are not good. Kloh Ramsey and Abrams, KRA, perpetuated the Keuchler monuments in 1930 and published data sheets for the monuments that they recovered. The data sheets reference various witness points, concrete hubs, boulders marked as well as bearing ties to landmarks. I was able to recover quite a few of the witness points that help prove the monuments we have recovered. KRA did not recover K5 in 1930, and it appears to be located very near Delaware creek and I believe it to be gone. K6 as you describe above is on the NE face of a large hill, however the location I compute for it falls in an area heavily disturbed by lease roadwork and I have not been able to recover that monument. I have utmost confidence that the original monuments are in different locations from McCombs notes by plus or minus 400 vrs. My question is why? Without direction from someone why would he and everyone following him disregard original monuments?
arctan(x), post: 397056, member: 6795 wrote: Give me a call tomorrow around anywhere from 10-2, surveyor_a.
469 850 2757.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Will do, thanks
BTW, if you haven't read Powell's report, it's worth a look as a very good summary of the history and status of official recognition of both Kuechler's work in 1878 and McCombs's resurvey that generated the interlined calls in red added to Kuechler's original notes.
Powell provides a memorandum of agreement between himself and Commissioner Walker regarding how his resurvey of the T&P lands was to proceed.
http://www.glo.texas.gov/ncu/SCANDOCS/archives_webfiles/arcmaps/webfiles/arcmaps/pdfs/2//2247.pdf
