yes right roger & there are indeed several more of the same style
due north of the tristate marker along the nmok state line
& yes this nmoktx marker & other nearby markers have been
perennial bp favorites
as is jacks entire expedition & prize photo of the dog
other entertaining messages about the neighborhood are 3724
& 3268 & 2908 as well as the second half of 2935
& our search engine is capable
but just extremely demanding
i would submit
as befits our especially exacting sort of multidimensional pursuit
& lowell
anyone having fun is not wasting time or breath
perhaps they are wasting money
but thats what politicians are paid to do anyway
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger_Rowlett"
<roger.rowlett@a...> wrote:
>
> Sorry for the correction, I meant to say there is benchmark
further
> east of the tristate marker and closer to the meridian.
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger_Rowlett"
> <roger.rowlett@a...> wrote:
> >
> > Kevin:
> > The Oklahoma panhandle is more or less the 103rd
meredian (although
> > the tristate marker is off by a few feet as Altheia noted). The
> > photos on my page are from a trip with Jack Parsell taken
during
> the
> > 2002 Highpointers Convention. There's a whole bunch of
benchmarks
> > nearby (including one I believe further west at the meredian).
I
> > should have taken more pictures but I didn't realize how
> interesting
> > this topic would become. This topic may have been
discussed in
> this
> > group earlier but I couldn't easily find it since Yahoo has
limited
> > the search capability.
> >
> > Roger.
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
<flynnk@r...>
> > wrote:
> > > The reason nmtx then turns east at the northern line of tx for
> > three miles
> > > until it reaches the ok n/s line is that north of tx, the 103rd
> > meridian is
> > > the ok panhandle west line. Yes?
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Lowell G. McManus [mailto:mcmanus71496@m...]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:31 PM
> > > > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: TX proposes "free-for-all
> brawl"
> > with
> > > > NM over land
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > By even considering any suit on this issue, New Mexico is
> > > > engaging in a total
> > > > waste of time, money, and breath. The reasons go far
beyond
> > > > the doctrine that
> > > > long-unchallenged boundaries usually stand.
> > > >
> > > > The State of Texas sold the land west and north of its
> > > > current boundaries to the
> > > > United States in 1850, and surveys were done by John H.
Clark
> > > > in 1859 and 1860.
> > > > His work was officially accepted by both Texas and the
feds.
> > > > Since that was
> > > > long before the existence of New Mexico, that settles it.
> > > > Furthermore, a joint
> > > > resolution of the Congress dated February 16, 1911,
> > > > proclaimed "these boundary
> > > > lines as run and marked by John H. Clark in 1859-60
shall
> > > > remain the true
> > > > boundary lines of Texas and New Mexico." Another joint
> > > > resolution of August 21,
> > > > 1911, required the proposed state of New Mexico to
accept these
> > Texas
> > > > boundaries. When New Mexico's statehood was effective
> > > > January 6, 1912, it got
> > > > the land to which it was entitled. The federal government
> > > > had no land east and
> > > > south of Clark's lines to give it.
> > > >
> > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Roger_Rowlett" <roger.rowlett@a...>
> > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:40 PM
> > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: TX proposes "free-for-all
brawl"
> > > > with NM over land
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have an article with several links on my americasroof
> > > > blog on this:
> > > > >
> > > >
http://americasroof.com/wp/archives/2005/03/13/new-mexico-su
es-
> > texas/
> > > > >
> > > > > The upshot is that New Mexico's own fiscal analysis of
this
> > bill to
> > > > > claim land 3 miles east of the current border to the
103rd
> > meridian
> > > > > would probably be considered frivolous since the
Courts have
> > ruled
> > > > > that if a state border goes unchallenged for "a long
course
> > > > of years"
> > > > > then it becomes the defacto border. Texas permitted
New
> Mexico
> > to
> > > > > enter the Union in 1912 on condition of dropping the
claim.
> > > > > Ironically though the Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas
tripoint
> > > > jogs in to
> > > > > the meridian.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
McManus"
> > > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > >> The Commissioner of the General Land Office of the
State of
> > Texas
> > > > > has proposed a
> > > > >> "free-for-all brawl" between the Senates of the two
states
> > over the
> > > > > lost land
> > > > >> that New Mexico is griping about.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> See the third of three subtopics in the article at
> > > > >> http://tinyurl.com/6mb7d .
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Lowell G. McManus
> > > > >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA