Subject: Re: more ctri background<br/>
Date: Jul 10, 2003 @ 23:25<br/>
Author: bjbutlerus (&quot;bjbutlerus&quot; &lt;bjbutler@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="10936.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="10945.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic10936.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="10943.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="10945.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1200144037">One tweak: sometimes stone monuments don&#39;t predate ratification of a<br/>
boundary - remember the 1853 marker remnant at MASW, or should I say<br/>
MSSW? It marked a boundary change not ratified by the US Congress<br/>
until 1855, although Massachusetts and New York ratified it in 1853.<br/>
<br/>
BJB<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> --- In <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>, &quot;m donner&quot; &lt;maxivan82@h...&gt; wrote:<br/>
&gt; <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tinyurl.com/gjlz">http://tinyurl.com/gjlz</a><br/>
&gt; fresh news account based on old boundary book traces ctri ruckus all<br/>
the way <br/>
&gt; back to pequot war of 1638<br/>
&gt; so my earlier characterization of it as a tercentenary renewal was<br/>
actually <br/>
&gt; 65 years understated<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; & a recent topozone search turned up 7 intermediate border markers<br/>
including <br/>
&gt; 5 roadstones within the 1840 bounds that define the primary dispute area<br/>
&gt; namely the 6 miles of state line between hopkinton & north stonington<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; & since intermediate marks tend to reduce the breadth of the area of <br/>
&gt; potential disagreement<br/>
&gt; it seems at first sight that the 22 acres in dispute could be<br/>
substantially <br/>
&gt; reduced or completely eliminated if these auxiliary points are allowed<br/>
<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; but they raise many questions i cant answer<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; my guess is they are authentic bilateral installations<br/>
&gt; & of post 1840 but pre 1935 vintage<br/>
&gt; so unlikely to be disallowed<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; at the same time<br/>
&gt; i have also seen late 20th century roadstones on ctri<br/>
&gt; which are probably bilateral replacements of earlier damaged bilateral <br/>
&gt; intermediate markers<br/>
&gt; so stone dates alone dont necessarily suffice to determine their<br/>
validity<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; but it is my belief that the unratified survey of 1935 thru 1941 is<br/>
marked <br/>
&gt; only by humble copper discs & no standing stones at all<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; the standing stones would have followed its ratification rather than <br/>
&gt; preceded it<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; so the more i look at this whole mess<br/>
&gt; the more the present dispute seems like just a bunch of naive <br/>
&gt; misunderstandings about common border law by public officials on<br/>
both sides<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; gis tech is not going to override the locations of historic compact & <br/>
&gt; intermediate markers<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; but from where else than such a blunder could those 22 acres have come<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; so maybe i should just ask the officials which of all these markers<br/>
they are <br/>
&gt; using for their tax maps<br/>
&gt; & go take a look for myself<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; _________________________________________________________________<br/>
&gt; The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  <br/>
&gt; <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail">http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail</a> </span></blockquote></div>