Imperial Valley press., 1909-07-31
LAND OFFICE DAGKS UP
Concludes Not to Endorse Erroneous
 Survey of School Sections.

An opinion from the General Land Office at Washington indicates that the Commission is still considering what will be for the best interests of the settlers, and what will be the best method of settling the now disputed location of the school sections in Imperial valley.
 The communication refers to entry No. 1885 (serial No. 03027,) made July 16. 1902, by Edgar D. Meisner, for the west half of section II, township IS south, range l5 east, S.B.M. containing 32O acres, and assigned on August 6, 1903. to Margaret M. Wickersham of No. 744 Beacon street, Los Angeles, who in turn assigned to Mary Hart, of Holtville, October 2S, 1907.
 The land is within a township of which a resurvey was ordered, and a plat of the resurvey was approved and filed in the Los Angeles Land Office February of this year.
 Upon this plat the land of entry ap- pears segregated as tract S7, containing 320 acres, and in partial conflict with tract 103, survey of alleged school sec tion Is, township 16 south range 15 east. containing 717.S2 acres, disap proved and not plated, but the loca- tion and area of which is shown on the plat in skeleton by dotted lines.
 The opinion of H. H. Schwartz, Act ing Assistant Commissioner of the General Land Office, cOncurred in by the Board of Law Review, says;
 "On the plat of resurvey appear no tations to the effect that the survey of tract 10S, State of California certifi- cate No. 15240, alleged section 16, township 16 south, range IS east, s. B. M, 717S2 acres is not plated, the location being erroneous, the area in excess of the grant, and conflicting with vested rights of settlers.
 This matter involves the question of the reestablishment of the school sections in these resurveyed town ships, of which numerous complaints have been made. It appears that sev- eral of the deputy surveyors pursued a method of locating sections 16 and 36 by means of lines connected with several points alleged to be places for corners of the original survey of 1856, and with that determination placed the school sections where they cover ex istiug entries, as in this case.
 However, when the surveys were best to reject said surveys of the school sections, and the plats were prepared so as to indicate by dotted lines the erroneous locations of the school sections, and the lands which had been located as school sections by the Imperial Valley company tor at least alleged to have been accepted by the entryrnen as the proper location of sections 16 and 36, were marked on the plat as reserved for the school sections, in order to give the State it's proper quota of land
 This was done, not as an 1ndorse- ment of the resuryey made by the I'm perial Valley Company. but as the lands were not covered by entries of record, this plan was decided to be the one which would work the least hardship to the various settlers and claimants.
 Subsequent investigation has sug- gested the wisdom of considering mod ifications in the proposed plans.
 However as has been held in sim liar cases (see letter e of May '. 1909, in case of Benjamin c. Shep- herd, desert land entry No. 1868, serial No O464) it is deemed wisest not to finally dispose of this matter of the conflict of the land of this entry with the rejected survey of the school sec tion 16 at this time, but to wait until the plat of resurvey of the township shall have been filed in your office for at least ninety days, and field reports submitted as to the facts in each case of conflict"