thanx tho thats why i say
as has been widely presumed
for all the statutes you keep citing actually say is
113d20m as defined by the atwood survey etc
which doesnt at all necessarily mean that atwood reached & marked
the points you all have been assuming he reached & marked
&or in their case only implying he may have reached & marked
but his court ordered survey of 113d20m along mayu alone is still
sufficient for the wordings in the statutes to be intelligible &
even technically correct
provided all the mentioned meridional boundaries simply remain to be
projected from existing 1908 & atwood mayu markers but are otherwise
unmarked
which is in fact my conclusion to date
as always
subject to better data of course
it is your insistence on your interpretation of these data
albeit now only a tentative insistence
that is still not supported by any facts yet
also
ironically
the piyu line appears to be not at all as stated in the statute
but as i believe is clear from the topos
actually cleaves not to atwood at all
for that is what the jog is about
but to the public land survey grid
probably of slightly earlier date
& another reason why atwood didnt have to go south from mapiyu
& laya for her part
in the absence of any known lawsuit & survey &or connectivity with
the public land grid
may also simply consist of nothing but the great circle arc that
links the southernmost monument on the 1908 sector of the 113d20m
line with the northernmost atwood 113d20m marker
wherever it lies
in any case
these 2 bridge markers btw being probably at least a few deciseconds
off the true meridian & off of each other
given their vintage
but modern gis tech can infer every point on that line anyone may
ever wish to know
so the statutes are technically ok on laya
albeit slightly bogus on piyu
& there never was & still isnt & may never be any need to waste
money etc suing over & marking those particular deserts
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Great digging, Mike! I agree with almost all of your conclusions,
particularly
> your new interpretation of the "Initial Monument" having been
Atwood's--in light
> of the fact that his work seems to have been driven by a Yuma v.
Maricopa suit
> in the same year.
>
> Your only conclusion with which I tentatively disagree is that the
Atwood survey
> never extended north or south of the then Maricopa-Yuma segment.
My belief
> otherwise is based on the statutory description of the boundaries
of La Paz (
> http://tinyurl.com/6bkg9 ), modern Yuma (
http://tinyurl.com/4fqxh ), and Pima
> ( http://tinyurl.com/52mbm toward the end) counties. Atwood
probably set his 52
> monuments pursuant to order of the Arizona Supremes, but unless
the legislature
> knows not whereof it speaks, he does seem to have surveyed farther
both
> northward and southward.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 3:35 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] paleo lamaya initial monument & mapiyu
corner cases
> closed i think
>
>
> >
> >
> > aha
> > it turns out there actually was a yuma county vs maricopa county
> > 1918 border suit
> > so the accumulated puzzle pieces now strongly suggest
> > that it was the arizona supreme court that directed the atwood
> > survey to do whatever it did in 1918
> >
> >
> > & that this survey concerned naturally mayu & mayu only
> > rather than everything south of the santa maria river & north of
> > mexico
> > as has been widely presumed
> >
> >
> > & if this is true then atwood must have had to use his own
original
> > determinations for the mapiyu & mayayu tripoints for his mayu
> > terminal points
> >
> >
> > & so the mystery initial monument near lamaya must have been his
own
> > initial as well as terminal monument
> > & thus actually the 52nd marker in his continuous series
> >
> >
> > & this was presumably done without prejudice as to the actual
> > position of either tripoint since it was only a mayu thing
> >
> > in the case of mapiyu i surmise the original atwood position
stuck &
> > never moved because it was based in the public land grid
> >
> > which btw on further examination also seems to be the cause of
the
> > jog & yaw beginning at mapiyu too & continuing southward to
mexico
> >
> > but in the case of mayayu aka lamaya
> > thompson evidently was empowered by the supreme court to
establish
> > the tripoint in 1924
> > leaving atwoods 1918 initial & terminal rock 50 yards off
> > & just an oddball & technically unauthorized yet duly marked
point
> > on laya
> > indeed possibly the only monumented point on laya
> > if only it still existed
> >
> >
> > so
> > just wanted to get that much off my chest
> > tho there are more new details perhaps best left unreported too
> > & tho it doesnt bag us a rock solid arizona tricounty point yet
> > but it has been an education & a trip & possibly even a help
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >