The San Saba weekly news. (San Saba, Tex.) 18??-1???, 1891-11-06
4 Letter..

De thoughts presented that Will [
of interest to the public. As 1 81
a surveyor, nv subject will b
more or less connected with m
business.
1t is a fact we'll known that tn
original Iing done in thi
county was only about half done
and that part inlperfectly,
Hence, subsequent surveyor
have frequently differed widel.
in regard to the true position 9
original surveys. This has gen
orally been the result of diferen
methods or different understand
ing of the law regulating tn,
boundaries of land, &c. 1 am per
suaded that our legislature SHOULD
have prepared hand book O.
legal guide for tie use of survey
ors. This would no doubt proven
many disputes and lawsuits owe
disputed lines.
To illustrate this, certain sur
yeyor claimed a conflict between
the Perry Reese No. 16, on the
North bank of the San Saba rivel
and the f. & NJ. no. us. I made
a survey of said P. Reese survey
by beginning at its lower or S. E
corner; Thence up the river witt
its meanderings to point on bank
of the river $50 V west of the be.
ginning and cornered with the S
E. corner of next survey No. 81
as for field notes 1 then run north
1915 var. as per field notes. The
next surveyor begins at same cor
ner tHe .. Z. NO. ~. line neIu
notes read thence up the river with
its meanderings S AZ deg. W 1900
V. to S. E. corner No. 21,) He
the river and runs S AZ
deg. W. 1900 var, intersecting the
east line of No. 81 about $50 var.
from the river; Thence he runs
north the same dis lance l did 1915
making the west line of No. 20.
fo4J var. 1nsreau o. 4z40, Creating
a conflict with back surveys. Now
it is very plain that. one or the 9TH
sr has very seriously blundered.
According to my survey No. 20
has over 700 acres, and according
10 his it has over 300, while the
patent calls for 640acres.
Again, 1 claimed to have found
1 vacancy west of Richland
Springs of over GAG acres of land,
and parties believing me to be
correct in the matter, made pre-
smption files ON the same. Now,
comes another surveyor and says
no such vacancy ext SITS; and this is
not the worst of it; parties who in
some technical way set up a claim
to said vacancy have by threats
and intimidate prevented most of
the pre-emptors from carrying out
their intention. Now we hear that
said surveyor has discovered plan
Dr. method by which said vacancy
can be appropriated by the owners
Of adjoining surveys. Not only
this, but we have it from good au-
thority that certain person or per-
sons contemplate a friendly suit
by which they hope to close said
and to appropriate to
themselves not less han $40 acres
Of vacant land, including the pre-
emption. 1 will say right here
that there is not an adjoining sur
vey to said vacancy that does not
contain its full quota of land, and
that each, except No. Al, II. & T..
c. R. r., has 8 good corners. Now
to close said vacancy one or two
things must be done; either give
No. Al & AZ $50 acres each, or
move 10 or Is good surveys from
their original corners, made by
John Havy in 1847 and 1856.
] am an an adm.rer of doing
things in a friendly way when 1t
can be done without injuring 9TH
ers. But when it comes to taking
land from our school fund or from
those who need it, and without com
pensation / am not friendly to It.
Whenever you hear o., friendly suit
you may suspect that somebody
has an ak to grind. 1 Go not believe
it to beright for parties who bought
GAO acres of our school land under
the dollar act, to cla m and hold
$50 acres; thereby appropriating
800 acres of our school land for
nothing. In conclusion I wish to
say that 1 am not friendly to any
such suit, ard hope 10 be called
on to give my reason.
S. NJ. MOORE,
Surveyor San Saba County.