--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:

> Mike wrote:
>
> > again i am not arguing with you but just trying to complete your
> > flake off list & also to get into the mind of the interior

department

> > lawyers who really for some reason believed that the right to
> > recommend or request the division rested constitutionally with
> > congress
>
> I wonder how many lawyers the Geological Survey really has? I

somehow doubt

> that this was vetted by lawyers. I think lawyers usually consult

forensic

> geographers and historians on such matters, not the other way

around. For

> whatever it's worth, Van Zandt doesn't credit any lawyers or

legally-oriented

> agencies in his preface on page V of the 1976 edition.

i dont know how many lawyers
but vetting by legal expertise on retainer or on staff is common due
diligence in serious commercial publishing

& vetting by lawyers is common due diligence in all responsible
government too
wouldnt you say

indeed it sometimes seems government is
of the lawyers by the lawyers & for the lawyers
even without their having to send out for any others

but combine publishing with government
to get government publishing
& i think your doubts must be not only completely unsupportable
but in fact multi unsubstantiated

so congrats to us both on achieving this bp first

& i will continue with my detailed response as soon as possible
but must post this much now

>
> > i am still trying to guess why they believed this
>
> Editions of the BUS&SS were issued in 1885, 1900, 1923, 1930, 1964,

and

> 1976--the last two by Van Zandt. I have 1964, and several of us

have 1976.

> Both have the same statement about congressional instigation, but

the 1964

> edition has a footnote citing a 1930 speech in the House of

Representatives by

> John Nance Garner. The odd thing about the footnote is its

number: 62a. There

> are only six sublettered footnotes in the entire book, which

suggests the

> impromptu inclusion of the cited matter at some point.
>
> Being based on a 1930 speech, the statement about Texas must have

entered the

> BUS&SS in either the 1930 or 1964 issue. We know that Garner was a

great

> proponent of the division of Texas, but he was also a powerful

leader in the

> Congress. Perhaps he ascribed the power of instigation to the

Congress in order

> to enlarge his own power. I'd dearly love to have access to the

Garner speech,

> which is in the Congressional Record of June 17, 1930, page 11459.

It might

> settle something. Garner's papers would be of no help. His wife

burned them

> all!
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA