Here in Oklahoma there are a large number of sections that were subdivided into "40 acre" allotments, genreally between 1875 and 1900. Although there are number of reasons for the disposition of these lands, here in central Oklahoma one of the primary reasons was to allot these surplus lands to Native American tribal members in an effort to assimilate them into the "status quo" (white man's) populus.
The subdivision of these sections was performed, almost exclusively, by what we call the "Three Mile Method". In a nutshell, the surveyor ran east from the NW/16th. corner on a random line, closed on the NE/16th. corner and then ran west on a true line, proportioning the line into 4 equal segments. The next 1/16th. line was ran from 1/4 corner to 1/4 corner the same way, et cetera. Eventually the section had been sub-divided by running three east-west lines across the section, hence: Three Mile Method. Here's a portion of the plat showing 2 sections:
As far as I know, these tracts were never numbered. They were patented as alliquot portions, i.e. "NW/4 of the NW/4" or the "NE/4 of the NW/4", etc. One glaring difference with standard section sub-dividing is that running these lines and sub-dividing the section in this manner does not create true alliquot portioning.
A center of section set with an intersection of lines ran between opposing 1/4 corners rarely, if ever, fits a half-way point between the east and west 1/4 corners. Which is where the "NE Corner of the NE/4 of the SW/4" would be in a section sub-divided by this method.
Retracing 1/16th. lines set by this method is probably one of the most ardent tasks I run into in the "PLSS" world around here. I believe these were ran rather quickly, Their notes are brief, and I can't remember if I've ever seen any of these interior 1/16th. corners set with any accessories. Some were stones, most were "Set Post". Trying to get the math to fit the notes is usually fruitless.
I have been fortunate enough in my career to have found a couple of these lines intact. Interestingly enough, they weren't even in a straight line. The distances on the ground and the record distances can vary as much as 10 links. One immediately gets the impression that the survey was done almost haphazardly.
This leaves actually retracing these lines with a lot of fence and occupational locations, combined with a lot of research and property owner testimony. The term "bona-fide rights" sometimes plays a key role in the retracement. Here's a current aerial of the same two sections shown above:
Notice the irregularity of the 40 acre tracts.
If one were to proportion the interior 1/16 lines strictly by calculations, some of the calc'd corners can fall 50 links or more outside of 'ancient' occupation. A real "can o' worms."
Any other PLSS States have this sort of section sub-division? I remember Dennis Mouland speaking about some in New Mexico once, but I have no idea how prevalent it was. Anybody outside of Oklahoma have any idea?
I do quite a bit of work on the reservations here in Washington. The 3 mile rule was designed for speed of the breakdown--so they aren't always pretty nowadays especially if some of the 1/16ths are found and some aren't. I don't think I've run into any of the interior 1/16 corners here, but not for a lack of trying. Nor any of the accessories, so we go from the sidelines of the section and then split into 4.
You mention "a true alliqout portion." I remember an old timer reminding me that the definition of an alliqout part is a subdivion as to there is no remainder. Which the 3 mile rule does.
I think the picture you posted says it all about bona fide rights.
There is some 3-mile stuff in the Uintah Basin region of Utah. The area even has its own meridian the Uintah Special Meridian. It also is/was an Indian Reservation. Then later they opened some of it up and sold it to non-natives.
I've only done a coupe of projects there and they were both in the City of Roosevelt. Yes, the subdivision was done by the 3-mile method but things were well established long before I got there. I didn't even consider doing any sort of section breakdown but did check into some of the existent corners, which according to the city plat of about 1905 were found by the city plat's surveyor.
Similar stuff is found in many areas where Indian Lands were allotted in the PLSS. Oklahoma has them as part of the original survey. In some places they may have been done 'less officially' by Indian agents and records are hard to find. I know we have them in Wisconsin and Minnesota for example not to mention North Dakota, probably Montana, the Ute Reservation in Colorado down by 4 corners and there is a whole meridian and base over by Grand Junction done that way.. and so on.
If you have a record of survey before conveyance, the rebuttable presumption would be that any reason for deflections and variations in the occupation lines would be attributable to land owners finding and using the original 3 mile method corners and it would be reasonable to accept them. It would be hard to explain the deflections any other way.
There may be cases where unofficial status may not trump the public land laws and normal division per the act of 1805. Are there notes and who did the surveys is one question along those lines.
Evidence confirming either of those assumptions could be bolstered by research on the chain of title and possibly earlier aerial photos which are often available back into the 30's at least. If the ownership or allotments were made by the '40' then one would expect the corners to have been used as originals as intended.
If you don't have any occupation evidence and nothing else you can't make up where it might have been and you would have to resort to proportion, normally single along the lines.
These exist in the Navajo reservation run zig zag through sections. That might require some creativity.
Most I have seen were run across the sectin East to West, and not the other way, but the record usually tells.
- jerry
> Any other PLSS States have this sort of section sub-division? I remember Dennis Mouland speaking about some in New Mexico once, but I have no idea how prevalent it was. Anybody outside of Oklahoma have any idea?
Here's an article I wrote for POB about the history and remonumentation of the Uintah Special Meridian. It's got some background information about the 3-mile method along with a photo of a 1/16th corner stone.
JBS
Great discussion paden..thanks for the pics!
'A Colonial Surveyor'
I've seen some with a twist.
You might call it the one mile method.
The 1/16 corners along the north and south section lines were set.
Then the e-w centerline was run and the CW1/16, CE1/16 and the C1/4 were set.
They were called 1/8 corners and were marked that way.
The ones I've seen have been partial townships.
This is a Section 12 in one of them:
Of course, the classic breakdown method: running between the 4 quarters to place the Center is meaningless in these sections.
Who did the subdivision of these Sections? GLO surveyor? Or was some of it just given to the original entry man to do himself? That was often acceptable (and often done)as long as he had reasonable instruction or knowledge. I would also be suspicious that the lack of notes also implies that the work may not have been done by a surveyor.
The ones I've dealt with were surveyed by the original surveyor. They are in the notes and shown on the original plat. If you need to replace the center 1/4 and it's lost then the CE and CW1/16 are located and the C1/4 in propated between them. It often makes the survey less complicated.
I've seen that term 1/8th corner used by 19th century County Surveyor Field Notes subdividing Sections by running east to west only.
Anybody notice the lines on the GLO plats posted in this thread? The boundary lines that were "run and marked" on the ground are "solid" lines, and the lines that were not "run and marked", but are merely protracted, are "dashed lines?
[sarcasm]Why do you suppose that is?[/sarcasm]
Could there be legal differences to consider when retracing/resurveying those lines?
Those sections look beautiful! You should come to my country were they set corners every 10 chains on those east-west lines throughout land interupted by steep canyons. No BT's, no topo calls (unless it is squeezed between corner calls), half of the corners were wood posts... They were at least setting 2-4 times as many corners as a "normal" original survey, and they surveyed whole townships by this method within a couple of weeks. Is it just me, or are we complete pu**ies compared to these original surveyors? Ohh, how I would love to spend a day on their crew! I have known places where original evidence lined up on these interior subdivision or section lines, except for the last 10 or 20 chains! They were not running random and true! All of those local conditions look appetizing! Whose to say the whiskey didn't make those sections the "perfect subdivsions" that I see on your aerial 100+ years later? Treat every corner or condition as if it were set in the original survey, and especially in its "east-west" aspect or component. I don't know too much, I just spend alot of time around the water cooler, and I have been known to get "splashed" every once in a while.
