The morning times., 1896-12-30
Lines Did Not Meet.

Tie east and west lines coming out from
the State survey did not at all coincide with
the mile and half mile stones OF the State
line, 0nd a new stone had to be erected for
every one OF them.
Late: IL survey was made for division Of
the Kansas lands, and the lines in this
State, like those from Missouri, failed To
meet the boundary at the landmarks, and a
new set of stones had to be erected to fix
their intersections at the border. This made
three distinct set OF monuments along the
line, six corners to the mile.
There is another question in regard 10
the boundary says the report, that is OF
greater Importance than its present pres
ervation. There seem to be good reasons for
doubling that the present boundary exists in
location and direction as created by law.
By reference TO the act Of Congress Of May
20, 1920, you will find the middle OF the
mouth of the Kansas River is made theinitial
point, and the direction is south upon u
true meridian.
But comparison of tie north end and
the cightyeighJh milestone due east OF
Fort Scott, with the late surveys of the
United States coast and gcodetic survey
shows difference, or a swing westward
in the longitude OF the State line Of about
thirty seconds,
I'm 1854 the United States coast and
geodetic survey determined the longitude
of the State line at Il point Immediately
south of Kansas City to he "a degrees SO
minutes and 30.o7 seconds. In the same
year the geodetic surveyors established in
the present court house grounds at Fort
Scott an astronomical pier, and deter
mined its longitude to be "a degrees ~
minutes and 26.S5 seconds.
One of the Lines Wrong.
Now with the State line at the eighty
eighth milestone, in the same longitude
as it is IN at Kansas City, as it should he,
the distance between the two points should
be 2S 065 feet, while the actual distance
appears 10 be only 20, 1853, a difference of
2,346' feet.
This difference shows that either the
State line at the cighty-eigbth mile swings
TO the west 2, $40 feet nearly half a mile,
or the geodctic survey is III error with its
pier at Fort Scott more than % seconds.
Il would be sorry to be understood as
| defending or antagQnizing either of the
| surveyors. But it is not easy for any
one acquainted with the methods and the
| resulting high degree Of accuracy obtained
| in the geodetc department to believe their
| work i'll error, and to such a magnitude as
| it must be, if in error at ALL
The field notes OF the State line show
| that it was run by Joseph Brown under in
| StructionS from the surveyor general %
Illinois dated July %, 1923. The contract
record book OF the surveyor general for
| that year, however. shows no evidence Of a
| contract with Mr. Brown. But the files of
! the Interior Department here contain Mr.
| Brown notes, and the yrcmain unapproved
! although the law then, as now required
! that the survey be approved 10y the com
| missioner of the general land office before
| its acceptance by the government. The
| failure to approve may be because, upon
| examination, the work may have been found
| erroneous: oritmay Y be becauset there was no
| authority given for making the survey. Mr..
| Scott, in concluding, says:
From the regoing it would appear that
| there is at least some irregularity about the
| boundary, and l would suggest that an
| United States geodetic and coast survey
| orS, and if the line be found, as it appears
| to be- too far west, it is certainly open to
| correction, as that part of the law making
! the line n meridian is as binding now as
| it was when first enacted. The strip 2 ,346
| feet in width may seem to some a small
affair, yet thea area for Bourbon county alone
| would be more than Z 900 acres. or equiva-
| lent to more than forty average sized farms"