The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1894-05-31
THE BOUNDARY.
The Story OF the Great Boundary Dis
pute Continued.

pute Continued.
I. Jay in Cumberland News.
! OAKLAND, MD, May 9, 1894.
| POSSESSION UNDER VIRGINIA PAT
ENTS.
The SAID Virginia patentees took
possession of and held the lands
granted to them respectively by
said State, claiming and holding up
to said Deakins' line from the date
of their respective patents up to the
present time. They acknowledged
allegiance to the governments Of
Virginia and West Virginia, paid
taxes on said land to said States
and voted for officers of the said
State governments. A large guam
tity of the lands lying Immediately
west of said Deaklns' line, have
been improved and settled upon by
the grantees of Virginia, in some
instances Tor nearly if not more
than one hundred years, and in
other instances for a less period of
time, but long beyond the period
of limitation, or prescription recog-
nized and enforced by laws of the
State of Maryland, Virginia or
West Virginia, and the State of
West Virginia respectfully submits
that it would be most inequitable
and unjust to now deprive them of
the property which has been so
long held by them as aforesaid,
upon mere claim that in running
said boundary line, Frances Dea,
kins, the agent of the State of Ma
ryland, made slight error in the
variation of the magnetic needle, or
that the surveying instrument of
said Deaklns was not as strictly ac
curate as the progress of modern
science enables us to make such in
struments now.
BOUNDARY DISPUTE ACT.
In the course of time the. marks
on Deakins' line became obliterated
and destroyed and the true location
vas lost and unknown in many
places, and the act of the Maryland
General Assembly passed May n,
1852, hereinbefore mentioned,
noticed this state of facts and pro-
vided for the retracing and mark
ing of said line.
The act then provides for the APP
pointment of commissions. This
shall cause said line to be accura-
tely surveyed, traced and marked
with suitable monuments, begin
ming therefore at the Fairfax stone.
The language of the Virginia
act of May 3, 1854, also above re-
cited, is exactly like that of the
said Maryland act in providing
that the commissioners shall cause
said line to be accordingly surveyed,
traced and marked with suitable
tronuments, etc.
OLD LINE WAS To BE RETRACED,
The State of West Virginia sub
mits that these acts did not CON
template that Il new line should be
run different from that which had
been formely run and adopted, but
that the former line. which said
act recited was the lost and
unknown, should be found. retra-
ced and marked with suitable mon
uments. If said old line could not
be found it was simply to be traced
and marked. 1t was believed to be
Fdue north line, and it was knowne
that it had been originally run as
such, hence the commissioners were
directed to run due north to the
IIne of the State of Pennsylvania
is being merely descriptive of
the old line. 1t was evidently not
intended that the line should be
changed, in case it was fonnd to
vary slightly from a due north
course by reason of a small varia-
ton in the compass or Sigh mac
cordance of instruments.
"DEAKINS' LINE THE TRUE BOUND
AIRY LINE.
Lieu. Michler found the termi-
Gus of the old line on the Pennsyl-
vania line, about three-quarters of
a mile east of the point where the
line run by him struck said Penn
sylvanla line. The duty of the
said commissioners under SAID acts
clearly was to have had said old
line retraced from the Fairfax
stone to the point where MichIer
found its terminus on the Pennsyl-
vania line. If this had been done
the great litigation which Michler
predicted would follow the adop-
ton of the meridian line run by
him, would have been adyoided,
and the intention of the legislatures
of both Maryland and Virginia
would have been carried out and
exact justice done in the premises.