but clearly
on piyu
either
usgs mapping in all 3 scales as recently as 1990 is wrong
or
the latest revision of the arizona revised statutes is wrong
but come to think of it
how could a statute be wrong
a statute cant be wrong
a statute can be dumb
but it cant be wrong
& a statute can be revised
but its job & virtue is to only be right
for as long as it exists
so i conclude
usgs is wrong
or is at least outdated & certainly trumped by the ars
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> In this business, any interpretation is tentative (to one degree
or another),
> pending the receipt of better data.
>
> Your conclusions regarding a virtual-only statutory northward
extension of
> Atwood's 1918 Maricopa-Yuma line are within the realm of
possibility. The
> Pima-Yuma line southward (if correctly depicted by the USGS),
however, is
> clearly out of agreement with the statutes. If there were never
any suit or
> survey, though, I'm wondering why the USGS puts the line where it
does. Since
> it's all federal land down there, not subject to local taxation,
it makes no
> practical difference. Pending the arrival of better data, I'm
willing to write
> it off as "just one of those things."
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 11:53 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: paleo lamaya initial monument &
mapiyu corner cases
> closed i think
>
>
> >
> >
> > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >