Followers 2

## Recommended Posts

Thought since we have had such a discussion on this and you now have my attention a little better.

This is a rectangle map from the INITIAL POINT + -

The South base line is 219.78 miles + - .

The North base line is 213.93 miles + - .

I know there is a convergency of the Meridians but not 5.85 miles in 188.68 miles on the west N/S line.

188.18 miles the on East N/S line.

Bill, Geo, et al

I found some of the other CO-NM markers in the data base and plotted stated distance versus longitude.  There is a tendancy to run to larger stated distances, relative to longitude, in the middle of the line than nearer either end.

There is something strange to the tune of 2 1/2 miles somewhere in the first 19 miles of the line, that may account for most of the difference we see between stated length and length from coordinates.  A closer re-reading of the history might explain that?  Did they really begin at 0?

Sometimes a picture is really worth a thousand words. A close up of the NGS topos

on Topozone, etc. near the New Mexico, Colorado and Oklahoma corner shows the "Macomb Monument" to be two and a half miles west of the "Preston Monument" which is OK CO NM COR RESET.

The "Macomb Monument" is mile zero in the stationing schema that has drawn so much attention here. 163 + 22 CHS that Colorado Papa found should be 163+ miles west of the "Macomb Monument", not the "Preson Monument" which is the tri-state corner. There are two sets of mile marker nos 1 & 2. One set going west from the "Macomb Monument", another going west.

I hope this adds more fuel to this discussion. I wish I knew how to add links to this post, then I would have added the links to the benchmarks, instead of relying on my memory. Please have patience for this forum newbie. g'day.

Which is the Macomb Monument?

Does it have a PID #?

It's too bad we can't move the posts from the other string to here. This has been another lesson in Surveying 101.

Which is the Macomb Monument?

Closest Macomb mark I could locate was near Macomb, OK. The monument may not be in the database.

Anyone want to check out this corner marker that is under the cover and not just the cover itself? I see there have been three claims, but...

GL1538 FBN - This is a Federal Base Network Control Station.

GL1538 DESIGNATION - BOUNDARY MON CO KS OK

GL1538'DESCRIBED BY BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 1990

GL1538'STATION IS LOCATED ABOUT 13 KM (8.1 MI) WEST OF ELKHART, KANSAS, AT

GL1538'THE TRI-STATE JUNCTION CORNER, IN THE WESTBOUND LANE OF THE STATELINE

GL1538'ROAD, AT THE JUNCTION OF SECTIONS 15 AND 19, T 35 S, R 41 W AND 43 W,

GL1538'AND SECTION 13, T 6 N, R 9 E. OWNERSHIP--BACA COUNTY, CO, MORTON

GL1538'COUNTY, KS, AND TEXAS COUNTY, OK.

GL1538'NOTE--CONTACT TED HARDER IN ELKHART FOR HELP IN REMOVING LARGE COVER

GL1538'OVER STATION. PHONE IS 316-697-2696. CONTACT PAUL GROUT, COLORADO

GL1538'DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS IN PUEBLO FOR INFORMATION ABOUT BLOCKING LANE

GL1538'AFTER DARK. PHONE IS 719-546-5487.

In all actuality though and according to th PLSS Survey Instructions.

The Initial Point is Near Here.

TWP 1 RNG 1 SECTS 1-6-36-31

EQ0191

Edited by GEO*Trailblazer 1

JBAnderson is right on the money:

Sometimes a picture is really worth a thousand words. A close up of the NGS topos

on Topozone, etc. near the New Mexico, Colorado and Oklahoma corner shows the "Macomb Monument" to be two and a half miles west of the "Preston Monument" which is OK CO NM COR RESET.

The "Macomb Monument" is mile zero in the stationing schema that has drawn so much attention here. 163 + 22 CHS that Colorado Papa found should be 163+ miles west of the "Macomb Monument", not the "Preson Monument" which is the tri-state corner. There are two sets of mile marker nos 1 & 2. One set going west from the "Macomb Monument", another going west.

Most state boundaries are not controlled by the initial point for that state. The initial points are the starting points for the PLSS within the bounds for that particular area.

State boundaries are generally governed by meridians, parallels, water courses, mountain ranges and other assorted boundaries. The state boundaries have been run during different time periods, different surveyors and varying degrees of equipment accuracies. These are the reasons for differences in found measurements, this is why surveyors report the angles and distances found versus the previously reported measurements on their surveys.

Surveying is not an exact science, there will always be inconsistancies in data and newer and better equipment will come along and pinpoint that position closer and easier than our predecessors.

The only true way to find out where and why these monuments are positioned is to get the G.L.O. survey notes for the running of this boundary. These can be acquired through the BLM for a cost.

I really enjoy going to these Initial Points and have been to eight of them in last 15 months. I was surprised to be the first to log:

Sixth Principal Meridian just a couple of weeks ago.

Regards,

CallawayMT

MD,

I'm the one who screwed this thread up. I should have started a new subject way back up the line when I started "crowing".

Point of Beginning 6th Principal

I thought it was here.

Point of Beginning 6th Principal

I thought it was here.

Goes to prove us benchers have a sence of humor.

USGS PUBLIC LAND SURVEY SYSTEM

BLM MANUAL OF INSTRUCTIONS

What is a TRUE Meridian?

Starting with Greenwhich.

0.000*

E-W+ -15*0.000

+ -30*0.000

+ -60*0.000

+ -90*0.000

+ -91* 0.000

What is a Standard paralell?

From the Equator.

N-S+ -0*0.000

+ -15*0.000

+ -30*0.000

+ -36*37.000

Been out of communication for past few days. Just checked NGS for my submitals last week and I see Deb Brown agreed with me about duplicate entries and posted my findings:

GM0519'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2004 (TWS)

GM0519'RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION. RM2 RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION. RM1

GM0519'HAS BEEN DESTROYED, ONLY CONCRETE BASE REMAINS. AZIMUTH MARK NOT

GM0519'FOUND. THIS MARK IS SAME AS PID GM0837.

GM0837'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2004 (TWS)

GM0837'RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION. RM2 RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION. RM1

GM0837'HAS BEEN DESTROYED, ONLY CONCRETE BASE REMAINS. AZIMUTH MARK NOT

GM0837'FOUND. THIS MARK IS SAME AS PID GM0519.

Case closed. The system does work!

Disregard the previous post. Apparently the subject has not been resolved, yet.

Ted,....I need to consult with Burt who's been out of the office all

week due to a family problem.  I'm going to be out until 10/26 but will

get this resolved shortly thereafter.

deb

I am preparing an email for Deb to present to Burt. Here are the highlites of the argument. Please make suggestions for improvement.

Thanks, Ted

Deb,

Here are my arguments that PID GM0519 and GM0837 are for the same station.

Picture of station in question: http://img.Groundspeak.com/benchmark/lg/2e...cdd2b1773a6.jpg

In 1925,

GM0837 HISTORY - 1925 MONUMENTED USSC

GM0519 HISTORY - 1925 MONUMENTED USSC

Why would USSC mount two of the same markers at the same east-west location in 1925?

In 1933, a north-south survey line was run along the railroad mounting GM0567 (A 32). See GM0517, GM0518, HK0394 and HL0076. The crew probably found GM0837 but could NOT have given the description about the dismantled railroad since it existed until 1941.

A boundary dispute between New Mexico and Colorado had to be settled by a Supreme Court decision, sometime in the 1920s. The final location of the boundary was marked by serious monuments, looking very similar to NGS benchmarks, placed every mile starting in the east and going west to the Four Corners Monument. You were looking for the 163rd one from the Oklahoma, or Texas (I don't have my atlas handy) line. I have a feeling that the Supreme Court monument was placed out of the normal mile interval to place it close to the old right-of-way, for a reason. The dismantled railroad is that of the Santa Fe branch of the Denver and Rio Grande Western narrow gauge, known as the Chile Line. It was dismantled in 1941. In 1933 it appears Hwy 285 did not exist yet and the railroad was the transportation corridor in this neck of the woods. NGS (USCGS?) placed benchmarks every two miles along the old railroad bed. A lot of these are still in place.
.

1925 Supreme Court Decision: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...ol=267&invol=30

Picture of GM0517: http://img.Groundspeak.com/benchmark/lg/99...cf4393daa49.jpg

In 1935, reference and an azimuth marks were established for the 1925 mounted station GM0837 as can be seen by date in next picture.

Picture of GM0837 RM2 with tape measure from station indicating 100'+7' 6-1/2" (measurement taken with 50' tape): http://img.Groundspeak.com/benchmark/lg/9a...dc9aebfd7cb.jpg

Picture of GM0837 RM1 remains. Measured properly from station: http://img.Groundspeak.com/benchmark/lg/6a...6fcd6a17053.jpg

Picture of the area: http://img.Groundspeak.com/benchmark/lg/a4...96f853bc305.jpg

I was able to get to the University of Iowa Law College library today but was not able to find anything new on this subject.

I looked up the NM-CO cases in the supreme court, 267 US 30 and 268 US 108, and neither of them had the surveyor's notes from the retracement. Basically the bound volumes had the same thing you can get on line. I had some hopes of more detail because my 1852 volume with the Iowa vs Missouri case did include the retracement notes.

I also asked in the microfilm media area where they have many of the more complete case files that go beyond the reporter books, and there were gaps in their coverage so these cases did not appear.

Further search for the surveyor's notes would probably have to be in some archive or historical publication in those states.

If you know the right name of the specific document you seek all records of all States,

The Volutes of(Missouri)ect.are recorded here.

Library of Congress

Here's some fodder that may help keep this thread going strong.

Bill93 said: I looked up the NM-CO cases in the supreme court, 267 US 30 and 268 US 108, and neither of them had the surveyor's notes from the retracement. Basically the bound volumes had the same thing you can get on line. I had some hopes of more detail because my 1852 volume with the Iowa vs Missouri case did include the retracement notes.

William McComber, a Colorado surveyor wrote an article for "Side Shots", a newsletter for Colorado surveyors, about this subject. Unfortunately the article is not online. Here's an excerpt that applies to the missing field notes.

In the Decree entered April 13, 1925, Arthur D. Kidder, cadastral engineer, was designated as a commissioner to run, locate and mark the boundary between the two States. All field work was done under the supervision of Mr. Kidder but was not completed until September 11, 1950. (Mr. Kidder died suddenly at his home in Terre Haute, Indiana, in June, 1958.) There was a delay in the preparation of the field notes and final report due to lack of funds.

On July 2, 1958, The Supreme Court of the United States appointed Joseph C. Thoma, of Washington, D.C., Boundary Commissioner, to complete the report and field notes of the boundary survey. The reports, in three sections, were submitted and in its October, 1960, term the Supreme Court Per Curiam New Mexico v. Colorado, 364 U.S. 296:

I've tried searching court records using this information but have not come up with

anything yet. Anyone want to help?

jbandersen

So Far I have found>

USGS PRELIMINARY REPORT AND SKETCHES

LOOK UNDER SUBJECTS AND CONTENT TAB

For Fun;

Ancient Treasures of the Southwest.

More to come

Select this link to >> Start Over.

Indeed, that citation 364 US 296 is what I should have been asking for, and will if I can get back to the library in the next few weeks. If I'd had dedication to be thorough I could have Shepardized those cases (looked up cases that cited the originals in Shepard's Citation Index) and come up with this one, but I wasn't expecting it so didn't look.

Since the on-line version doesn't have the field notes, I'm betting the bound volume won't either, but I'd bet higher probability on the microfilm files. There could be quite a few pages to cover 300+ miles so I probably won't copy all of it, but will try to scan for the more interesting parts.

For starters I want to read about their point of beginning and also see if there are "plus chains" values on those other markers that haven't been seen lately.

Thanks,

BH

The Library of Congress >> Go to Library of Congress Authorities

DATABASE: Library of Congress Online Catalog

YOU SEARCHED: Keyword Relevance Search = New Mexico v. Colorado, 364 U.S. 296

SEARCH RESULTS: Displaying 61 of 10000.

Previously unpublished expedition sketches by Henry W. Elliott united with...

Relevance:

LC Control Number: 2004564648

Type of Material: Text (Book, Microform, Electronic, etc.)

Brief Description: Previously unpublished expedition sketches by Henry W. Elliott united with the Preliminary field report of the United States Geological Survey of Colorado and New Mexico, 1869, by F.V. Hayden [electronic resource] : digital archives / [edited by Kevin C. McKinney].

Version 1.0.

[Denver, Colo.] : U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 2003.

1 CD-ROM : col. ; 4 3/4 in.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CALL NUMBER: QE91 [2004 00758]

Copy 1

-- Request in: See Reference Staff. By Appt in Jefferson Main RR (MRC)

-- Status: Not Charged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CALL NUMBER: QE91 [2004 00758]

Copy 2

-- Request in: See Reference Staff. By Appt in Jefferson Main RR (MRC)

-- Status: Not Charged

Save, Print and Email (Help Page)

Select Format Print or Save

Text Format (Save, Print or Email)

MARC Format (ONLY Save)

Help - Search - History - Headings - Titles - Request - Account - Databases - Exit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Library of Congress

101 Independence Ave, S.E.

Washington, DC 20540 Catalog/authority record errors?

Use our Error Report Form

Ask a Librarian Library of Congress Online Catalog

Library of Congress Authorities

The Library of Congress >> Go to Library of Congress Authorities

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DATABASE: Library of Congress Online Catalog

YOU SEARCHED: Keyword Relevance Search = New Mexico v. Colorado, 364 U.S. 296

SEARCH RESULTS: Displaying 163 of 10000.

Ancient treasures of the Southwest : a guide to archeological sites and...

Relevance:

LC Control Number: 93047282

Type of Material: Text (Book, Microform, Electronic, etc.)

Brief Description: Folsom, Franklin, 1907-

Ancient treasures of the Southwest : a guide to archeological sites and museums in Arizona, Southern Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah / Franklin Folsom, Mary Elting Folsom ; illustrations by Rachel Folsom.

1st ed.

America's ancient treasures. Selections

Albuquerque : University of New Mexico Press, c1994.

130 p. : ill. ; 26 cm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CALL NUMBER: E78.S7 F5825 1994

Copy 1

-- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms

-- Status: c.1 Charged: Due - (Internal Loan)

Save, Print and Email (Help Page)

Select Format Print or Save

Text Format (Save, Print or Email)

MARC Format (ONLY Save)

CALL NUMBER: E78.S7 F5825 1994

Copy 1

-- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms

-- Status: c.1 Charged: Due - (Internal Loan)

Edited by GEO*Trailblazer 1

Boundries as set.

Borders

STATE OF N.M. v. STATE OF COLO., 268 U.S. 108 (1925)

268 U.S. 108

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

v.

No. 12.

Decided April 13, 1925.

Messrs. Frank W. Clancy, of Santa Fe, N M., and O. A. Larrazolo and Jay Turley, both of Albuquerque, N. M., for the State of New Mexico.

Messrs. Victor E. Keyes and Delph E. Carpenter, both of Greeley, Colo ., for the State of Colorado.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been heard and submitted, and the court having considered the same and announced its conclusions in an opinion delivered January 26, 1925 ( 267 U.S. 30 , 45 S. Ct. 202, 69 L. Ed. --):

It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed:

1. The bill of the state of New Mexico is dismissed, and the cross- bill of the state of Colorado is sustained. [268 U.S. 108, 109] 2. The true and lawful boundary between the state of New Mexico and the state of Colorado consists of the following connecting lines: (a) The line extending westwardly from what is known as the Preston monument, marking the intersection of the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude with the Cimarron meridian (the one hundred and third) of longitude west from Greenwich, to what is known as the Macomb monument, as the said line was surveyed and marked in the year 1900 by Levi S. Preston, deputy surveyor, while engaged, under the direction of the Surveyor General for New Mexico, in retracing and re-marking between said Cimarron meridian and Macomb monument the line that had been surveyed in the year 1874 by John J. Major, astronomer and surveyor, under the direction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and ( the line extending westwardly from said Macomb monument to the intersection of said parallel of latitude with the one hundred and ninth meridian of west longitude, as the said line was surveyed and marked in the year 1868 by Ehud N. Darling, surveyor and astronomer, under the direction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office: Provided that, pursuant to the consent of the parties hereto, the line surveyed and marked in the year 1917 by Wm. C. Perkins, surveyor, under the direction of the Commissioner of the Land Office, as a restoration of the said Darling line between the 203d mile corner and astronomical monument No. 8 of the Darling survey, shall be taken and deemed to be the true location of the portion of the Darling line thus restored.

3. Arthur D. Kidder, cadastral engineer, is designated as a commissioner to run, locate, and mark the boundary between the two states as determined by this decree. In running the same the said Preston and Darling lines shall be retraced and restored in accordance with the marks of the original surveys upon the ground and the approved [268 U.S. 108, 110] field notes thereof on file in the General Land Office, copies of which are incorporated in the printed record in this cause, except that as to the portion of the said Darling line restored by said Perkins, the line marked by said Perkins shall be followed.

4. The boundary shall be market by establishing permanent monuments thereon, suitably marked and at appropriate distances. All corners and monuments established by said Darling that were destroyed or obliterated by Howard B. Carpenter, surveyor, in accordance with the direction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in making a survey of the boundary in the years 1902 and 1903, shall be restored, and all new corners and monuments that were established by said Carpenter on his survey shall be destroyed.

5. The commissioner shall include in his report a description of the monuments established by him and of the courses and distances between them. He shall file with his report the field notes of his survey and a map showing the boundary line as run and marked by him; also two copies of his report and map.

6. Before entering upon his work the commissioner shall take and subscribe an oath to perform his duties faithfully and impartially. He shall prosecute the work with diligence and dispatch, and shall have authority to employ such assistants as may be needed therein, and he shall include in his report a statement of the work done, the time employed, and the expenses incurred.

7. The work of the commissioner shall be subject in all its parts to the approval of the court. The copies of the commissioner's report and map shall be promptly transmitted by the clerk to the Governors of the two states, and exceptions or objections to the commissioner's report, if there be such, shall be presented to the court, or, if it be not in session, filed with the clerk, within 40 days after the report is filed. [268 U.S. 108, 111] 8. If, for any reason, there occurs a vacancy in the commissionership when the court is not in session, the same may be filled by the designation of a new commissioner by the Chief Justice.

9. All the costs of the cause, including the compensation and expenses of the commissioner, shall be borne in equal parts by the state of New Mexico and the state of Colorado.

I made it back to the law library today and looked up 364 US 296. The bound volumes don't have any more than the on-line stuff. This library, however, is an official repository and therefore has microfiche of the complete case files from the Supreme Court. The file on this one has all the stuff left over from 1925 in it, which is why I couldn't find anything before using the older case numbers.

The file is 19 cards of microfiche, which works out to something over 1700 pages of typeset documentation. Unfortunately a significant part of that seems to be a repeat of the 1868 and 1902 survey notes.

There is material gathered by Thoma to wrap up the report in 1960, supposedly in 3 parts that should be a full set of the 1925 and later retracement notes. However the part with mile 163 seemed to not have all been microfilmed. Sigh. It is worth another scan through the cards to verify that before giving up.

Here are some notes about what is on the cards, in case any of you can get to a repository library to read it.

Card 1

Bill of Complaint filed Oct 29, 1919

Dept. of Interiour General Land Office, Special Instructions for Resurvey of S. Bdy. of Colorado, 1903.

Letter instructing resurvey of Carpenter's astronomical monument #6, July 7, 1902

Report of 1902-1903 survey, notes to 79th mile.

Card 2

1902 resurvey to 169th mile.

Card 3

1902 resurvey to 267th mile

Card 4

1902 resurvey to end.

Veto by Theodore Roosevelt 1908 bill from Congress

1868 Field notes by Darling, to his 34th mile

Card 5

1868 notes to 215th mile

Card 6

1868 Darling field notes to end

MOTION

DEFENDENT'S BRIEF

Card 7

MOTION

1874 Notes of John Major retracement near Macomb's monument

1900 Notes of Preston, Macomb's Monument and Cimaron Meridian

BRIEF

DEFENDANT'S BRIEF

Card 8

conclusion of brief

PETITIONER'S BRIEF

DEFENDANT'S BRIEF

Stipulation for appointment of Commission (Kidder) 1924/1925

Card 9

SUPPLEMENTAL

1960 Report by Thoma.

Report of Boundary Commission Part 1 of 3 NE Corner NM to crest of Sangre De Cristo Range. Retracement through Darling's 121st mile

Part 2 of 3 Retracement Darling's 120th to 203rd miles

Part 3 of 3 Retracement Darling's 204th to end

Card 10

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD This is a lot of question and answer.

1902 Filed notes to 93rd mile

Card 11

1902 field notes to 193rd mile

Card 12

1902 field notes to 320th mile

Card 13

1902 field notes to end, certifications 1904.

Darling's notes to 148th mile

Card 14

Darling's notes 149th mile to end.

ORDERS

Miscellaneous

Card 15

TRANSCRIPT RECORD Includes a sketch map of Carpenter's line

Card 16

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

Field notes, examination of 184th through 199th mile 1901

Card 17

Field notes, examination 212th-214th, 242nd-231st, 1905 on Carpenter's line. Mentions Darling's corners.

1917 General Land Office restoration, with illustration of brass caps on pipe.

Card 18

1917 retracement concluded

OPINION

Card 19

last 3 pages of opinion.

Here are some interesting items I noticed while going through all that stuff.

The 1902 survey party led by Carpenter had 22 other members. They included 1 Assistant Astronomer, 1 Transitman, 4 Chainmen, 3 Moundmen, 2 Axemen, 1 Rodman, 2 Flagmen, Master of Transportation, Photographer, Teamster, 2 Packers, 2 Cooks. The 1903 crew had 19 in similar roles.

The transit was made by Young & Sons, Philadelphia, and had horizontal graduations to 30' with vernier to 1 minute. This doesn't sound like anything special for 1902 from my vague knowledge of surveying history.

1868 Darling's notes 161 miles + 39.40 chains Road from Conejos Colo to Santa Fe north and south. Set volcanic stone 18x12x4 marked -C- -NM -1868- with pits and mound.

1868 Darling typical mile point: stone 8x6x4 marked 162M 3 1/2 feet in earth. Built conical mound of stone over it. Set volcanic stone 20x12x8 projecting 6 in above mound marked -C -NM-1868-162M. No natural objects near.

1902 Carpenter notes at 161 mi + 57.60 ch Wagon rd Antonito to Big Horn station NE and SW.

1902 Carpenter 162 miles + 57.90 chains center of D&R GRR tracks. It seems to say the line intersects the RR near the south end of a nearly NE-SW quarter mile stretch and it straightens out N-S beyond that.

Carpenter notes when he found Darling's monuments, and that he destroyed each one. I'm not sure, but it seems that he counts Darling's mileposts differently than Darling's notes. One I noted was 32.90 chains (0.41 mile) south of Carpenter's line. The 1925-1950 survey gives a summary of how many of Darling's monuments they found, in some sections most of them and in others perhaps 20%.

Both Carpenter and Darling make note of the corrections they make each mile to stay on a parallel of latitude instead of projecting a straight (tangent) line.

Kidder died June 1958 and on Jyly 2, 1958 the court appointed Thoma.

Field work had been interrupted (when?) and resumed in 1947. Work was completed Sept 11, 1950.

So I made progress today, but need to keep reading to see how much I can piece together and see if Kidder's 1925 (+) mile 163 can be found in the notes.

Interesting. Ahhh, ain't this benchmark hunting fantastic! Can you dig out history like this geocaching? The research is as much fun as the find. Thanks for the effort, Bill.

1902 Carpenter 162 miles + 57.90 chains center of D&R GRR tracks. It seems to say the line intersects the RR near the south end of a nearly NE-SW quarter mile stretch and it straightens out N-S beyond that.

That's what I observed of the very dim what-used-to-be right-of-way.

Edit: Can you explain the difference between 163+22 and the 162+57.9? The 1925 Supreme Court monument is west of the ROW, but not that far.

Carpenter's miles 1902 vs Kidder's miles 1925. I think that was typical of the accumulated discrepancy in taping.

That's why I was so disappointed that I couldn't find that mile in Kidder/Thoma's notes. I ran out of time before I got a sense I fully understood what was in those pages. There was some chart comparing a few of their measurements, but I didn't copy it hoping to find the descriptions for particular mile points.

Maybe I'll be back to the library again some month.

For those interested, NGS has posted my findings that USSC 163+22 GM0519 and USSC 163+22 GM0837 are one and the same.

Another clue was one was 68.3 feet west of the west rail and the other was 70 feet west of the centerline. Do I recall a picture of one mark on top of another? I don't think so in this case.

Ok,....here's the scoop.

Burt and I discussed the problem with GM0519 and GM0837 and

Feather???

Edit: Thanks to you all for the research and helping in correcting this (these) PIDs. It was a community effort!

God, I love you!!! I really do want to meet you wonderful people. Maybe we can plan a "reunion" for sometime in '05?

When and Where.

I would like to meet you all as well.

Hopefully in a Centralized area where the BM are rich and the hunters haven't looked yet.

Let's start planning now for spring,I do want to get out to NM and Colo again too soon.

I do want to get out to NM and Colo again too soon.

The old D&RG narrow gauge still has plenty of unfound BMs between the two states. We could meet in Santa Fe and work north to Alamosa. Also could look for more of the Supreme Court markers.

Sounds like fun.

Any chance me and the little miss could come along?

Any chance me and the little miss could come along?

All are welcome as far as I am concerened.

Been talking with TIGGR and we will be through NM around Thanksgiving but do not really have enough time to have a quality time visit and BM hunt.

She said why don't we have an event this Spring for Benchmark Hunters/geocachers in or around that area.

I thought that might be a good idea to give everyone enough time to get things a little more organized.

Thought I would note that there is in fact more than the 5.x miles of convergency for a figure of that size.

I didn't get a sense of what the real issue was.

On another note, I work for Cadastral Survey BLM, and may have a copy of the Kidder notes for part of the line you are discussing. (The supreme court stuff) in the office.

There is a story that because he was not paid, he did not release his work. The Government negotiated with his widow to get the returns which were not finalized (possibly by Thoma) until the late 60's.

The state lines in that area are pretty interesting, and there are in fact nice monuments along part of the line marked for the state line, that are not the state line..

Anyway when I get time to go back through this and try to find what corners you were interested in, I will try to see if we have records for them. Otherwise feel free to email me.

- Jerry Wahl

I verified just now that I do have those notes. I may scan a few pages of interest regarding the mile 163+22 post etc.

If you really want to look them up on the microfiche, you had one listing that corresponds to the volume that contains these notes.

The notes are entitled after a citation to the case

"Report of the Boundary Commissioner

Part Two of Three

From Sangre De Cristo Range

To Continental Divide"

"Darling's 160th mile corner to Darling's 168th Mile Corner"

Those correspond to some of the microfilm notations [card 9?]you indicated previously.

The area of concern, the re-establishment of the 163rd mile is on pages 60-62.

If I scan this, does this site have a place to post them, or do I put them somewhere and place a link here in a message. I am not familiar with how this forum handles such things.

- Jerry Wahl

Edited by jwahl

Jerry,

While you are in the reply mode here on the board, just above the space you type into there is a bunch of code buttons which are html tags and such. You will want to select the one labeled "IMG" to upload a picture. Just remember to close the tag when you are done. There is a test area here in the general area on the board to fool with the learning process without interfering with the other threads.

Rob

If I scan this, does this site have a place to post them, or do I put them somewhere and place a link here in a message.  I am not familiar with how this forum handles such things.

- Jerry Wahl

You have to host the photo somplace else and then use the IMG tag to show them on the forum (or else it just becomes a link that someone needs to click on).

If you need space to place photos or any other files for forum use, please let me know and I can set you up with FTP access to my server. This goes for anyone else that needs space.

Edited by Muzikman

Here is a link to a document which has excerpts from the Supreme Court boundary commissioner's field notes, volume 2. There is a link on there to a PDF, but I decided it might be to large for some people, so built a html page also.

Excerpts of Vol 2 Field Notes NM vs CO boundary

Kidder is one of our hero's, so we are always interested in his stuff.

- jerry wahl

Ahhh, finally we get to see the authentic notes! Thank you. I'll still have to go back to the library some day and see why I couldn't find these pages.

On page 62 it describes the Mile 163+22 ch marker that has 2 PIDs, GM0519 and GM0837.

I still haven't figured out the 6 foot stone. On p. 61 it describes a sandstone monument as being the railroad's state line marker at 163 mi+20.35 ch. along the line (on the east side of the track) and 9 1/2 links north. So from the 163+22 mark that would put the sandstone 108.9 feet east and 6.27 feet north. The description for GM0519 puts the post 43.6 feet east (or maybe 43.15 ft east and 6.27 north, for 43.6 diagonal close enough to east?) or at 21.34 to 21.35 chains. Does this mean that there was a post on each side of the RR and Kidder described one of them but the other one survives? Or that the old one got removed and somebody put up one on the other side? How wide was the RR right of way? These two spots are almost exactly 1 chain apart, so 66 ft ROW would make sense here like a lot of roads (RR at 20.93 would then be 8 links or 5 ft west of middle) Or how else can someone explain the post?

In case someone is having trouble backtracking this discussion and wants to see some beautiful pictures of the location and sandstone monument, go to Where the discussion started.

From the picture for GM0519 S view, it is clear that the tall monument (looks like concrete to me) is very close, I would eyeball 50 feet or less? and certainly on the west side of the railroad which is not evident in that picture.

I would thus speculate that it was set at a different time, probably much later, and is not the monument called out by Kidder on the east side.

The kidder called RR state line sandstone is about 38.8 feet distant from and perp to the c/l of the RR, so the ROW could be anything, as it is not necessarily on the ROW line, but probably within it.

Anyway at this point I would not consider any evidence that we are talking about the same monument.

- jlw

Ted, apologies for adding confusion earlier when I quoted the Carpenter notes about a road and railroad at his mile 161 and 162. I see now those are not near the location you were investigating. Carpenter was numbering W to E and Darling/Kidder from E to W so the numbers were close only by accident, and I hadn't properly digested the situation. Those locations are 5 miles or more to the west of supreme court 163+22, on the other side of Los Pinos.

In case someone is having trouble backtracking this discussion and wants to see some beautiful pictures of the location and sandstone monument, go to Where the discussion started.
Thanks for the compliment. Yes, the post is concrete. I'll repost the picture here. The sign in the background is the Welcome To New Mexico marker on US 285:

No problem, Bill. Comes spring, I'll return to the site and try hiking a mile east and west and see what else I can find plus take more pictures and measurements.

Am hoping we can make this part of the Santa Fe get-together. Noone has mentioned a date, yet??? May? Memorial Day weekend?

Jerry,

Interesting reading, but for some reason, page 7 and on did not display on my screen. I was able to cut and paste page 6 into the address block, then changed it to 7 and 57 so I could see them, but none of the rest of the pages would display using the same technique. Now where do I find this PDF file?

Ted

C-Papa

May works for me.

mrh

Of possibly tangential interest to MRH - terre haute. Arthur D. Kidder's home town was Terre Haute, IN.

- jerry

jwahl

I picked that up while reading some of the prior posts on this topic. I asked my mother if she had heard the name and she didn't recognize it. I had hoped that since her father had worked for USC&GS in the 1930s that maybe the Kidders were family friends.

mrh

Disregard the previous post. Apparently the subject has not been resolved, yet.
Ted,....I need to consult with Burt who's been out of the office all

week due to a family problem.  I'm going to be out until 10/26 but will

get this resolved shortly thereafter.

deb

Case is now closed. NGS has dropped GM0837 from their database. Only GM0519 is listed.

The dismantled railroad is that of the Santa Fe branch of the Denver and Rio Grande Western narrow gauge, known as the Chile Line. It was dismantled in 1941. In 1933 it appears Hwy 285 did not exist yet and the railroad was the transportation corridor in this neck of the woods. NGS (USCGS?) placed benchmarks every two miles along the old railroad bed. A lot of these are still in place.
Am curious where you found this info. I'd like to locate a map of the route.

Hi Ted,

I did a quick Google Search of the Chile Line. You can access that narrowed search of about 90 links Here; posted as such because it does not seem to want to hyperlink correctly in the usual way.

This site, linked Here, has listed some early maps of Colorado Railroads which may be of use for hunting down this old right of way. If JB's information is telling, then there may be some Bench Marks to hunt up the old ROW, and since they are likely Scaled Horizontally, it may lend clues as to where they are. It is likely these maps have no datum, so a compass and a USGS Quad for the area to compare may help a lot. I used this method to find a lot of old Northwest Logging Railroad Grades back in the 80's Prior to GPS and it worked well. I know you don't have heavy tree canopy to deal with so the GPS may be ok, yet I like a Compass better when I am standing still and dealing with a map. Sometimes you can see the old grade as it slices through a topo. Fun Stuff!

Another fun aspect is that railroads were known for casting off, and abandoning artifacts in place, old trestle pilings, and if you find really old railroad ties, many had a Date Nail in them that indicated when the tie was made or placed. Finding them is kinda cool, I have found a few on old abandoned sections of Great Northern and Northern Pacific ROW in these parts, but the practice is long since abandoned and many hunter gatherers have already been there. If you should find any, they will take tools to remove if someone hasn't beat you to it. That article explains the best methods for removing them in tact, so it could be a cool treasure hunt on the side.

Another resource which may or may not pan out is a discussion forum which seems to discuss Narrow Gauge railroading, and since we are looking for Survey along an abandoned Narrow Gauge line, they may be able to shed some light on further resources, so maybe give This Link a look.

Maybe JB will see all this and reveal more clues as well.

Rob

Wow, Rob, you lead me into a great discussion group about the Chili Line. One of the best items is a list of all the satellite photos of the DRG&W Antonito-Santa Fe "Chili Line" (Abandoned) from Antonito to Santa Fe. With these photos, and my experience that the BMs are exactly at the scaled coordinates, it should be fairly easy to walk right up to each BM along the route.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.