El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1901-02-08

With Regard to the Various Surveys
of the Sunset Heights Property, and
Action Will Be Taken at Once in
Order to Save More Complication
All aldermen were present at last
nights meeting except Badger and
Ogden. The mayor occupied his high
chair and the clerk read the minutes of
previous meetings up to date.
| The clerk presented the report of
the assessor and collector for January
showing s1.299.14 as a total.
! 1t went to the taxation committee.
| Conflict of City Maps.
The city engineer made a report on
the Sunset Heights addition, saying
there was a conflict of maps which
greatly complicated matters. Blocks 6.
8 and 10 according to the report had
been seriously affected by the tabula-
| ton, more than six feet difference re-
sulting.
The report in full follows:
Ell Paso. lex, Feb. Z. 1901.
To the Honorable Mayor and City
Council. Ell Paso, Texas:
Gentlemen-lt having come to my
knowledge that serious conflicts exist
Heights" addition and that of Satter-
| thwaite's No. Eat points where there
should be no disagreement | deem
it my duty to officially inform your
honorable body that the necessary
steps may be taken to bring about a
legal adjustment of the conflicting
maps.
The map of Satterthwaite's addition.
known as his No. 2 map. was duly
nd he Oft oil Il a,,I t0l
by the city of Ell Paso. Texas. in Sep
TENDER. 1884. and is the only recog-
nized official map of that addition. and
under which many parties have vest
ed rights.
The Ell Paso Commercial company,
through it's president, Jno. A. Merrill
presented to the city council early in
the year 1900. a map purporting to be
in no wise different from that of the
Satterthwaite addition map No. 2. at
points where no rights of purchasers
have interviewed.
In its petition to the city council
asking that the last mentioned map
be accepted, it is specifically stated
THAT this map is but the completion
and fulfilment of said Satterthwaite's
map No. 2, which was of necessity
left incomplete and uncertain in the
western part on account of the to-
biography of the country. and that the
rights of no third parties are affected
by the present proposed map"
1t develops that a material change
has been made at the intersection of
North Santa Fe street and Boulevard
avenue, affecting blocks 6 and s, by
which the course of the Boulevard
avenue could have legally been made
because of prior vested rights. as to
cut off more than six feet of the east
side of Boulevard avenue. thus throw
ing the west line of block practical
1y in the middle of a tar and gravel
sidewalk that has been laid and daily
used by the public for the past ten or
twelve years; and a street established
and graded in all probability more
than fifteen years ago, and laid out
in exact accordance with the official
map of Satterthwaite' addition. have
thoroughly investigated and tested
the lines as laid down in the Satter
thwaite may at this point and find that
the map is automatically correct,
and that of the Sunset Heights in
error. The official map. made by J.
l.. Campbell. ex-city engineer. and
adopted by the city council on the
10Th day of November, 1895. also cor
responds with Satterthwaite's map No.
at this point. In short, every map
of record is in perfect accord at this
point, with the single exception of the
Sunset Heights map. By actual
survey. made in my presence by
County Surveyor A. H. Parker, by
request of Mr.. J. J. Mundy. present
manager fthe Ell Paso Commercial
company, at the points in question. it
was demonstrated beyond the shadow
of a doubt that Boulevard avenue was
correctly laid out years ago in ac-
cordance with the official map No. 2
of Satterthwaite's addition, and that the
map of the Sunset Heights addition
attempts to change this avenue.
This error is carried forward from
this point into the lines of blocks
and 10, west of North Santa Fe
street in the map and survey of said
Sunset Heights" addition; and when
it reaches Prospect avenue, the first
street west of North Santa Fe street,
where parties also have intervening
rights. the discrepancy amounts to
more than nine feet.
Aside from the conflicts above men,
toned, there are numerous mathemat-
ical inaccuracies in the Sunset
Heights" map and survey, subdividing
other blocks into lots. varying from
a half foot to more than ten feet.
Upon thorough investigation it is
clear to my mind that the fault is
with the Sunset Heights" map. in
making changes in blocks 6, S and 10,
as above stated, where no changes
could have been made by the said Ell
Paso Commercial company. and where
parties have not only prior vested
rights under Map No. 2 of Satter-
thwaite's addition, but also where
streets have been graded and side
walks laid for twelve or fifteen years.