different parties on the roads leading from one state into the other; but as the records of 1787 identified none of these points, and as there are no records which show that these points are authoritative or indeed that they mark the true line, no examination of them was made." Had the author of the above sentence but consulted the record of Wilson's survey of 1887 he would have found ample evidence that such marks are not on the state line. The local surveyors were undoubtedly using them as state line monuments. Any of them might have readily testified in court that these monuments and marks were on the state line. A lesson for all of us. It took at least 200 years of contention to fix upon the Connecticut line, and various other long periods of time to settle the other boundaries of New York state. Few of us have realized that the Connecticut line became fixed in 1860, the New Jersey line in 1774 but was permanently marked only in 1882, and the Pennsylvania line became well marked in 1886. The Vermont line was a fraud in the first place and never has been fixed. The Massachusetts line has been carefully lost in the 100 years since it was surveyed by two sets of jangling commissioners, the first set not being able to go on because of contention. It would seem as if this state had made experiments enough for the whole nation but it is very doubtful if this kind of history stops yet. Papers and reports relating to state boundary surveys contained in the transactions of the Michigan Engineering Society. Michigan and Ohio state line, 1881 p. 14. Monuments on the Pennsylvania and New York state lines, 1881, p. 16. State boundary, Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. Geo. E. Steele. 1893, p. 77. Report of committee on state boundary. 1888, p. 20. MR. SEARS: The question is, how to make an indestructible monument. MR. HODGMAN: Perhaps I don't grasp the matter fully, but there is just this point of interest to me in regard to the Wilson line. It is stated that Mr. Wilson took two known points on the boundary and projected from them a careful transit line for some fifty miles and at various points found what were said to be monuments for the state line, at various distances away from the line that he ran. This does not prove to my mind that those monuments were not on the state line. The original survey and the monuments then located it seems to me determine the location of the line, at least after it has been accepted and acquiesced in for many years, whether they were mathematically located where they ought to have been or not. PROF. DAVIS: Mr. Wilson first found two points and produced a line for the purpose of ascertaining where the others stood with reference to it. He understands that these monuments originally used, mark the line-but when I referred to the several monuments used by various persons, that were no where near the line of which he gave the record—his survey would show that these monuments were not on the line as originally marked down; yet surveyors are liable to use those monuments, calling them the line, supposing they were the line and testifying that they were, while not one was on the plat of the line. No official record or notice of them. In regard to the question asked by Mr. Sears: I think that iron is the best material, any of us could make a plan for the casting below ground, and the thing that covers the actual mark should have nothing to do with preserving the point. It simply makes it easier to find it. I have said in my paper that the marks should be six feet below the ground and the monument project four feet above, making a total of ten feet, and the state or the county, or the township even could afford to pay for a first class thing of that kind. Think what the people of the state of New York must have paid for the matter of some 500 or 600 monuments. MR. HODGMAN: It seems to me that if cast iron is used it must be used in sufficiently large pieces so that a man cannot carry it off for a hitching post. It must be sufficiently solid too, so that he cannot knock it to pieces. It strikes me that it is sensible to put something in that no one would ever be tempted to take away for any other purpose. STATE LINE BETWEEN OHIO AND MICHIGAN. JAMES BLAIR. Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Michigan Engineering Society: I believe, if I recollect rightly, that our society has had a committee on the state line boundary ever since its organization, and I have hoped that the legislatures of Ohio and Michigan might be induced to establish by an accurate survey the line between these two states, in accordance with the act of congress of June the 15th, 1836. The intention of that act was that the line should be straight. The line as it was surveyed in 1837, by Andrew Porter with his open-sighted compass and wire chain, is about as near straight as the average rail fence built in a hilly country; and I for one hope they will never try to retrace the old line, but will give us one that is accurate. far as actual monuments are concerned, they are very scarce. I see by reading the report of our committee as printed in the Michigan Annual for 1893, and also from a paper read before the Ohio Engineering Society last winter by Mr. Graham, it appears that Mr. Harris had doubts as to the accuracy of his own survey. Perhaps it might be well to recite the act of congress establishing the northern boundary line of the state of Ohio. Also a few examples of the field notes, selected and abridged from the original surveys, the survey of the state line by Andrew Porter in 1837, and later surveys by different county surveyors. I will place these field notes in three parallel columns, with the points which should agree with each other exactly opposite. So you may see at a glance how near the different surveys agree and how much reliance is to be placed on the records for finding the location of the state line from its intersection with the section and township lines, which it crosses. I will also give a little of my own experience. The act of congress referred to reads as follows. In congress June 15. 1836: 66 Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the United States of America in congress assem bled; that the northern boundary line of the state of Ohio shall be established at, and shall be a direct line drawn from the southern extremity of Lake Michigan to the most northerly cape of the Maumee (Miami) bay, after that line so drawn shall intersect the eastern boundary line of the state of Indiana, and from the said north cape of the said bay, northeast to the boundary line between the United States and the province of Upper Canada in Lake Erie; and thence with the said last mentioned line to its intersection with the western line of the state of Pennsylvania." It seems a contract was entered into between Robert T. Lytle, surveyor general of the United States for the states of Ohio, Indiana and Michigan and the territory of Wisconsin of the first part and Andrew Porter deputy surveyor, of the second part on the 4th day of May, 1837, for the survey of the aforesaid state line, and the said Andrew Porter certifies to having completed said survey through the following townships on the dates set opposite as follows: Town 9 south, range 5 east, June 10, 1837. Town 9 south, range 4 east, June 14, 1837. Town 9 south, range 3 east, June 16, 1837. From June 10 to June 19 gives eight working days, during which they surveyed at least twenty-four miles of the state line, but that was not all. Every time they crossed a section or township line running north and south, they were supposed to go to the nearest section corner south from the state line and re-survey said section or township line for a distance of a mile, showing in their field notes streams of water, line trees, swamps and other objects and the point of intersection with the state line and the section corner. This would make twentyfour miles more of surveying and twenty-four miles returning over their lines or seventy-two miles in eight days, or an average of nine miles per day. In the original surveys, such rapid work was sometimes done, but Mr. Porter discounts this heavily. On the 17th day of June, 1837, he surveyed the state line across town nine south, range two east, or six miles besides traveling twelve miles further on the north and south section lines or eighteen miles in all. Were these north and south lines resurveyed? I claim they were not, at least in a great many instances, but were copied from the original notes, varying the distances slightly and writing up some new line trees, so as to look reasonable. My reasons for so thinking are as follows: If you should re-measure those lines and find that there was a miscount of say two or three chains in the original survey, you will find the same miscount in the state line survey by Mr. Porter. In the spring of 1891, I was called on to retrace the state line through section four, town nine south, range five east. Charles Ford an old settler having died and deeded what land he owned in Michigan to George F. Ford and what he owned in Ohio to L. L. Ford; both sons of the old gentleman. I found the southeast corner of the section and the eastpost and measured the distance carefully with a steel tape and found it fell short 1.063 chains from the notes according to Mr. Porter. I proposed to divide this shortage proportionally and did so, but that was the commencement of the most infernal jangle I ever listened to, L. L. Ford insisting he should have the full distance called for on the Ohio side of the line, and the other brother, George F. Ford, being satisfied with my work. I also found the west post to the section and going south I found a compromise corner which had been set about thirty-three years before, the parties not being able to find the original corner. I measured north from said compromise corner and keeping track of Ten Mile creek as I crossed it, kept on to the section corner, 38.59 chs. From the location of the creek I made up my mind that the original section corner was formerly situated about 1.41 chs., south from the compromise corner. I therefore measured south 8.00 chs., from the west post for the state line and drove down a steel bar for a corner, I then caused corners to be placed at suitable intervals across the section and in a straight line between the two monuments which I had placed on the section lines, but they disappeared soon after and a wire fence was built about six rods north from my line. This last was a little more than George F. Ford was willing to stand, so he sold a part of the land to his brother Eugene F. Ford, and after a long time the three brothers signed a paper agreeing to leave the whole matter to the county surveyor of Lucas county and myself. We met March 30, 1893, |