COMPILATION OF SAID TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS, THE OPTICAL AND MECHANICAL DESIGN OF THE PHOTOGRAMMETRIC PLOTTING MACHINERY AND THE OPERATION OF OPTICAL AND MECHANICAL CONTROLS AND MECHANICAL TRACING DEVICES RENDERED UNNECESSARY THE CONVENTIONAL METHOD OF MEASURING LINES AND ANGLES AND OF APPLYING TRIGONOMETRIC PRINCIPLES.
. . . THE PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING REQUIRED UNDER SAID CONTRACT DID REQUIRE THE USE OF CONVENTIONAL LAND SURVEYING METHODS FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT OF "GROUND CONTROL" DATA, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH DATA IS FURNISHED BY OR IS AVAILABLE FROM PREVIOUS RECOGNIZED SURVEYS, SUCH AS THOSE MADE BY THE UNITED STATES COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY. AS REQUIRED BY SAID CONTRACT, DEFENDANT HYCON MANUFACTURING COMPANY ESTABLISHED CONTROL MONUMENTS AND BENCH MARKS BY CONVENTIONAL LAND SURVEYING METHODS AND PREPARED AND FURNISHED FIELD SURVEY NOTEBOOKS, CALCULATION AND TABULATION CONTROL DATA, AND CONTROL DIAGRAMS; BUT THE ACTIVITIES AND OPERATION OF HYCON MANUFACTURING COMPANY NECESSARY TO PERFORM SUCH WORK WERE AND ARE AN INTEGRAL AND NECESSARY PART OF THE "GROUND CONTROL" PHASE OF PREPARING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS THROUGH PHOTOGRAMMETRY; . . . ALL SUCH GROUND CONTROL WORK WAS EXCLUSIVELY FOR PHOTOGRAMMETRY AND DID NOT INVOLVE OR REQUIRE THE DETERMINATION OF ANY PROPERTY LINE. "326 P.2D AT 601.
THE HILL COURT THEN COMPARED THESE ACTIVITIES TO THE COMPONENTS OF THE PRACTICE OF LAND SURVEYING SET FORTH IN THE RELEVANT CALIFORNIA STATUTE. IT FOUND THAT THE ONLY ASPECT OF THE COMPANY'S ACTIVITIES THAT INVOLVED LAND SURVEYING, AS STATUTORILY DEFINED, WAS "GROUND CONTROL WORK" DONE AS PART OF THE PRODUCTION OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND PHOTOGRAMMETRY. THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE GROUND CONTROL WORK WAS COVERED BY AN EXCEPTION TO THE CALIFORNIA DEFINITION OF LAND SURVEYING, WHICH STATED:
"SURVEYS, MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR GEOLOGICAL OR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OR PHOTOGRAMMETRY AND NOT INVOLVING THE DETERMINATION OF ANY PROPERTY LINE, DO NOT CONSTITUTE SURVEYING WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS CHAPTER."
IN AERO SERVICE CORP. V. BENSON, 374 P.2D 277 (IDAHO 1962), THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO REACHED A SIMILAR CONCLUSION. IT FOUND THAT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND PHOTOGRAMMETRY DID NOT CONSTITUTE LAND SURVEYING, AND IT REACHED THIS CONCLUSION BY CONSIDERING THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEVANT IDAHO STATUTE. 374 P.2D AT 282. IN MY OPINION, HILL AND BENSON DEMONSTRATE THAT, IN ASSESSING LAND SURVEYING PRACTICES, ONE MUST CLOSELY SCRUTINIZE THE ACTIVITY IN QUESTION AND COMPARE IT TO EACH ASPECT OF THE LAND SURVEYING STATUTE AT ISSUE.
AS TO THE SECOND GENERAL PRINCIPLE (ALLOWING APPLICATION OF DEFINITIONS OF LAND SURVEYING TO NEW TECHNOLOGIES), A LINE OF FEDERAL CASES INVOLVING TARIFF LAWS IS ILLUSTRATIVE. FEDERAL LAWS PLACE HIGHER TARIFFS ON "SURVEYING INSTRUMENTS" THAN ON CERTAIN OTHER ARTICLES. AS A RESULT, A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES HAVE CHALLENGED PARTICULAR ASSESSMENTS, ARGUING THAT PARTICULAR ARTICLES WERE NOT SURVEYING INSTRUMENTS. COURTS CONSIDERING THESE CHALLENGES HAVE INTERPRETED THE TERM "SURVEYING" TO INCLUDE DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGIES.
FOR EXAMPLE, GEHRIQ. HOBAN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 293 F. SUPP. 433 (CUST.CT.1968), THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS COURT DETERMINED THAT AN INSTRUMENT KNOWN AS A "HYDRODIST" THAT UTILIZED RADIO MICROWAVES TO MEASURE DISTANCES AND THAT WAS DESIGNED