Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1886-02-05
That Re-Survey.

The INDEX recently published the
contents of a letter from the general
land office in which the communication
stated that the re-survey of range 10,
in Barber county, made in 1874. had
never been approved by that Office.
Since that time there has been con-
siderable discussion OF the suulec. w
interested land owners, who have been
i'll doubt as to which survey to recog-
nize. The Harper Graphic lately pub
lished TRADE directed against Com
missioner Sparks, for not approving the
re survey. L. w. Kline, the ex-county
surveyor of Harper county, answered
the Graphic, and from his letter we
make several extracts below: He says:
The editor of the Graphic says it is
well known that ranges s, 0 and 10 had
no government survey when first set
tied, and in 1884 one was made in order
to determine the lines i'll this and Bar
Der counties. Now if the Graphic editor
knows anything at all about it he knows
that ranges 8, 8 and 10 were surveyed by
the government in 1871. That the work
was actually done on the ground: that
the field notes of the survey were made
from measurements made on the
grounds, as there is plenty of evidence
to prove; that corners were made by
digging pits and throwing the dirt in
the center for the mound at point of
corners; and that although great
many of the corners then made have
since been destroyed, especially where
the soil is very loose and sandy there are
plenty of the corners of the survey of
1871 st:ll standing SO that that survey
can be retraced without much difficulty,
and the lines and corners replaced in
their original places. 1 know that such
are the facts from actual work on the
ground named. The survey Of 1884 was
not to be new survey, but was TO be a
retracing of the survey or 1871, for the
| purpose of restoring the corners and
lines of that survey when they were
lost. If the survey of 1884 had followed
the survey of 1871 there would have
been no trouble and all parties would
! have had set off the land they had
bought, paid for and improved. But it
would have taken little extra time
and care TO follow the original surrey,
so they made survey to suit them
| selves, paying no attention to the
original survey, but departing from it
in places as much as twenty-three rods,
and damaging parties who had bought
land and made their improvements ac-
cOrding to the original survey to the
extent of thousands of dollars.
Now, the land in ranges s, 9 and 10
was nearly all sold by the land Office
before the survey of 1884, and accord
ing to the survey of 1871, and the bal
ance has been since sold according to
the survey of 1871.
Now, will the Graphic editor, or any
one else pretend TO say that the land
Office has the right to step in and say
that they will change the survey of 1871
after the land has been sold according
TO 1t and the survey is made part of the
patent? The supreme court of Mississ-
/ ippi in the case of May VS. Baskins, de-
cided as follows: The original surveys
by which the government sold its land
and conveyed it to the purchaser estab-
lish the rights of the parties as to the
boundaries. No line which will vary
the rights thus acquired can afterwards
be established without the consent Of
the parties. interested" The same is
held by the supreme court of Alabama.
in the case Of BIllingsley VS.. Bates. Al
so Neff VS.. Paddock, supreme court of
Illinois, and every other supreme court
in the United States that the question
has been brought before has decided
that when there has been a survey made
and the land has been sold accordingly,
that the purchasers hold according to
the suryey Oh tbs ground.