One minor mystery that I've been working on related to the Galveston project is which map is the one "drawn by Andrew J.F. Phelan" to which every single patent issued by the Republic of Texas for lots on Galveston Island refers for description.
The actual survey that laid the lots out was made in 1837 by a couple of surveyors named R.C. Trimble and William Lindsey. Mr. Phelan, it turns out, was Chief Clerk of the General Land Office from early 1838 through about the summer of 1839 and a particularly large and poorly drawn copy (GLO Map No. 2032) of the actual surveyors's map (GLO Map No. 1954) is probably his handiwork. So, why refer to that copy derived from the map that the surveyors themselves apparently furnished to show the layout of their work instead of the surveyors's map itself?
His signature on another document a couple of years later looks to me to probably provide part of the answer:
Hmmm...interesting question. Sort of the old PLSSia question of whether to use either the official notes or the plat as approved or the field tablets (which were supposed to be destroyed) to solve discrepancies.
Pablo B-)
[flash width=420 height=315]//www.youtube.com/v/oIUPCfIihQ4?version=3&hl=en_US[/flash]
Little did Glen know; the beach where he used to run, was fraught with so much confusion....
> Hmmm...interesting question. Sort of the old PLSSia question of whether to use either the official notes or the plat as approved or the field tablets (which were supposed to be destroyed) to solve discrepancies.
In this case, the patents to the lots identified them by number and section "on Galveston Island, agreeably to the survey made by R.C. Trimble and William Lindsey, all which will more fully appear by reference to the Map of said Island drawn by Andrew J.F. Phelan."
So, the patents refer to the actual survey, but upon their face appear to rely upon the map as copied in the GLO for a more particular description. I think my own opinion is that the call for the survey is superior to the second or third-hand representation of the survey as appears upon the office copy. However, in the event that there is some significant discrepancy, there's always room to argue, particularly if something really valuable is at issue since the reference to Phelan's map was plainly inserted.
Probably the key fact is when exactly Phelan's map was drawn and whether it can be shown to have been created only after the lot was sold (but prior to patent issuing), the buyer relying upon the surveyors's map and such evidence of their survey as presumably existed upon the ground.
I would be interested to read the entire statement containing "...all which will more fully appear by reference to the Map of said Island drawn by Andrew J.F. Phelan.".
The 'more fully appear' seems to elevate the Phelan map. Whether it makes it a superior call or not would require a deeper read.
My .02
> I would be interested to read the entire statement containing "...all which will more fully appear by reference to the Map of said Island drawn by Andrew J.F. Phelan.".
Pretty much what I posted is the entirety of the descriptive language used throughout the patents. The first part is simply to identify the lots by number and section. So the most certain part is the reference to the survey and the question is whether the surveyors's own map of their work is more definite and reliable than a map drawn by someone (apparently from their map) two years afterward and a year after the sale of lots. I think when framed that way, the question pretty much answers itself.
"The Song Sung by Glen Cambell"
Did anyone else notice the "State Historical Survey Committee" plaque near the end of the video?
😀
