Texas Society of Professional Surveyors Presents HOW TEXAS ... · •The Treaty of Guadalupe...

• HOW TEXAS GOT ITS SHAPEA Historical Retrospective

• The Texas General Land OfficeOverview-History-Procedure

• Selected Case LawDeveloped by:

Michael Hoover, RPLS, LSLSDavid Klotz, RPLS, LSLS

Contributors:Chester Varner, RPLSCraig Alderman, RPLSJoe Breaux, RPLSPaul Carey, RPLS, LSLS

Texas Society of Professional Surveyors Presents

LogisticsBe sure to sign-in

At the end of the course you will be given a certificate for CEU’s

We will have scheduled breaks

Please silence your Cell Phone at this time

Location of Restrooms

How to Exit in case of Emergency

Activity 1Who’s Here & Why?

Name, City/ChapterCompany, PositionHow many Texas State lines have youcrossed?What do you expect to take away from thiscourse?

Explore the origin and unique characteristics of, and within, the boundaries of Texas

Discuss the disposition of Lands and the role of the General Land Office

Outline and discuss selected Texas Boundary Case Law

Course Goal / Objectives

DEVELOPMENT

HISTORY

ORIGINS

Insert graphic that represents course theme.

Course Agenda

DEVELOPMENT

HISTORY

ORIGINS

Chapter 1How we got here …

• Maps northern part and southern parts of America, from the mouth of the Saint Laurent River to the Island of Cayenne, with new discoveries of the Mississippi (or Colbert) River. • Map illustrates the expeditions of Father Marquette and L.

Jolliet (1673) and the Cavelier de la Salle expedition in the Mississippi valley.

• Shows three forts built between 1679 and 1680: • Conty fort (near Niagara Falls),

• Miamis Fort (south of Michigan lake), and • Crèvecœur Fort (Left bank of the Illinois River).

• Mississippi river course is only shown upstream of Ohio confluence. TERRES INCONNUES:TERRITORY UNKNOWN…

Claude BernouCarte de lAmerique Septentrionale, Circa 1681

Texas Under France1685-1690

• 1685- France plants its flag• Eastern Texas near the Gulf Coast. • Most of Texas had no Spanish presence• Nearest Spanish settlements hundreds of miles

distant. • Rene Robert Cavelier, Sieur de la Salle

founded a colony called Fort St. Louis • Effort doomed by a series of calamities:

shipwreck, disease, famine, hostile Indians, and internal strife

• La Salle murder by one of his own company. • France's claim evaporated by 1690• The French flag

• 1519- First to claim Texas• Cortez • Pineda maps coastline• Explorers: Nunez, Cabeza de Vaca,

Coronado• 1681: First Spanish Settlement

• Ysleta Mission near present day El Paso• Gradual expansion from Mexico

• Missions, Forts, Civil Settlements• Mexico throws off European rule in

1821• 1785 Spanish Flag

Texas Under Spain1519-1685; 1690-1821

• Pioneers from Hispanic south and Anglo north flow into Texas• Frontier region for both

• Divergent social and political attitudes alienate two cultures

• The Final Straw: Santa Anna scraps the Mexican Federal Constitution and declares himself dictator

• Texas wins independence at Battle of San Jacinto April 21, 1836

• The Mexican National Flag

Texas Under Mexico1821-1836

• Ten years of independence• Epidemics• Financial crises• Volatile clashes with Mexico

• Texas Heritage• Birthplace of American Cowboy• Texas Rangers first to use Colt Six-shooters• Sam Houston American ideal of individualism

• Texas joins the United States on December 29, 1845

• Texas flag is the same flag adopted by the Republic in 1839

Texas the Republic1836-1845

• The Civil War• General Sam Houston urges Texans to stay

aloof or re-establish a neutral Republic –driven from office

• Texas secedes • Devastation and economic collapse

• Two events • Texas troops on Texas soil win final battle of

Civil War• Great cattle trail drives

• The first Confederate flag flown in Texas

Texas in the Confederacy1861-1865

• Determined Self-Reliance• Shrugging aside defeat and bitter

reconstruction • The Texas Longhorn – providing beef for a

growing nation• Vast farm acreage

• The 20th Century• The discovery of oil – Spindletop near

Beaumont• Texas Industry and advanced technology

Texas in the USA1865-present

• 1803 Louisiana Purchase• Neutral Ground Agreement – Arroyo Hondo and the

Sabine• 1819 Adams Onis Treaty• 1836 Battle of San Jacinto – Republic of Texas• 1836 The Public and Secret Treaties of Velasco• 1845 Annexation of Texas into the United States• 1846-1848 Mexican-American War• 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo• 1850 Compromise of 1850• 1853 Gadsden Purchase

Extreme EventsAn Amazing 50 Years!

• France controlled Louisiana territory from 1699 to 1762 • Spain acquired from France in 1762, controlled it until 1800,

when Napoleon Bonaparte took it back in the hope of building an empire in North America

• New Orleans was the centerpiece – it controlled access to theMississippi River!

• The U.S. purchased in 1803, paying $15 m ($.03 per acre) ($230 in 2012 dollars, $.42 per acre) for about 828,000 square miles (529,920,000 acres)

• Effectively doubled the size of the U.S., encompassing all or partof 15 present U.S. states and two Canadian provinces

• Boundaries were vague, no survey was made • U.S. claimed the entire western portion of the Mississippi River

drainage basin to the crest of the Rocky Mountains and extending southeast to the Rio Grande & west Florida

Louisiana Purchase1803

• Spain insisted Louisiana comprised only the western bank of the Mississippi and the cities of New Orleans and St. Louis

• Jefferson commissioned 3 expeditions to explore and map the acquisition:

• Lewis and Clark (1804) traveled up the Missouri River; • Thomas Freeman & Peter Custis (1806) explored the Red River

Basin; • Zebulon Pike (1806) followed the Missouri to the north, then turned

south to the Arkansas River watershed• Domestic opposition –federalists considered the purchase

unconstitutional • Jefferson hung his hat on the Presidents authority to negotiate

treaties – both houses of Congress quickly ratified the treaty• The purchase is considered one of Jefferson’s greatest

contributions to the U.S.


Lewis & Clark1804-1806

Red River of the South

Map of the Red River Expedition1806

Zebulon Pike’s Expedition1806-1807

25

Neutral Ground Agreement1806

• After the Louisiana Purchase the United States and Spain were unable to agree on the boundary between Louisiana and Texas

• Military Commanders entered into an agreement in 1806• Disputed territory called the “Neutral Ground”• Arroyo Hondo on the east• Sabine River on the West• Ownership went to the United States by the Adams-Onis

Treaty in 1821


• Also known as the Transcontinental Treaty or the Florida Treaty• Ceded Florida to the US, set out a boundary between US and

Mexico• Negotiated by John Quincy Adams, the Secretary of State

under U.S. President James Monroe and Spanish Foreign Minister Luis de Onis

• Defined Borders: • Sabine River to the north from the Gulf of Mexico to the 32nd

Parallel north, then due north to the Red River, then west along the Red River to the 100th Meridian west, then due north to the Arkansas River, then west to its headwaters, then north to the 42nd parallel north, then westerly along the 42nd parallel to the Pacific Ocean.

• Solved the Neutral Ground Agreement• Ratified by Spain in 1820 and the U.S. in 1821 (during the

time of the Mexican struggle for independence from Spain)

Adams-Onis Treaty1819

Area in Dispute1816-1819

• After independence from Spain, Mexico ratified the treaty by agreeing to the 1828 Treaty of Limits with the U.S.

• Controversy developed over the eastern boundary of Texas in connection with the mis-location on maps of the Sabine and Neches Rivers. As a result the eastern boundary of Texas was not settled until 1836. Finally agreed upon by the U.S. and Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848.

• The “Melish Map” of 1818 was used extensively in the negotiations and showed the 100th Meridian to be about 90 miles east of it’s true location. This resulted in a dispute after Texas joined the Union

• In 1860 Texas organized this area as Greer County. It was not settled until a U. S. Supreme Court Ruling in 1896 upheld Federal claims to the territory and after which it was added to the Oklahoma territory.


The Eagle Map1833

• John Melish (1771-1822) – Scottish merchant, traveler, author and biographer

• Author: A Geographical Description of the World, Intended as an Accompaniment to the Map of the World on Mercator's Projection (1818).

• Map utilized in the Adams-Onis Treaty• The 100th meridian as shown on the map was specified as

the boundary between the U.S. and Spain but was marked some 90 miles east of the true 100th meridian, and the Red River forked about 50 miles east of the 100th meridian. Texas claimed the land south of the North Fork, and the United States claimed the land north of the South Fork

The Melish Map1818

The Melish Map1823

• Land claimed by both Texas and the United States• After the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819 it was determined

that the Melish Map (which as used in the treaty) was in error. It had the 100th Meridian crossing the Red River at almost the 99th meridian, nearly 90 miles east of its actual location

• United States vs. State of Texas – 1896• Old Greer County divided into Greer, Jackson an part of

Beckham counties in the State of Oklahoma

Greer CountyThe Northeast Corner of Texas

Greer CountyThe Northeast Corner of Texas

• Concluding event of the Texas Revolution• General Sam Houston led the Texans• General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna led the Mexicans• The battle lasted about 18 minutes• Santa Anna captured and coerced into signing the Treaties of

Velasco• Measured by its results, San Jacinto was one of the decisive

battles of the western world. The freedom of Texas from Mexico won here led to annexation and to the Mexican War, resulting in the acquisition by the United States of the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Almost one-third of the present area of the American nation, nearly a million square miles of territory, changed sovereignty

Battle of San Jacinto1836

Battle of San Jacinto1836

• Two treaties signed by Burnett and Santa Anna May 14 1836

• Public Treaty published immediately – Ten Articles• Secret Treaty to be executed when the terms of the public

treaty had been fulfilled.• Treaties violated by both governments and honored by

neither• Together, the treaties somewhat loosely established Texas'

southern border at the Rio Grande River• Texas independence was not recognized by Mexico and

her boundary not determined until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848

Treaties of VelascoPublic and Secret, 1836

Public Treaty of VelascoMay 14, 1836

• Matter of international concern 1836-1845• 1837-1838, the U.S. refused to annex – fear of war

w/Mexico – Slavery…• Great Britain opposes western expansion of U.S. and

annexation of Texas Presidential election of 1844 – Polk elected – favored annexation

• Public opinion in Texas, fanned by special agents from the United States, demanded acceptance of the American offer to annex

• Terms of the annexation agreement were generous to the new state, with Texas retaining all of its public lands and the United States paying $5 million to ease its debts.

US Annexation of Texas1845

The Annexation

of TexasInto the United States

1845Disputed Areas

• Roots in the Annexation of Texas 1845• Mexico refuses to negotiate its boundaries• Combat operations last 1 and ½ years• American forces occupy New Mexico and California• Mexico City Captured• The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo• American Territorial Expansion

Mexican American War1846-1848

Mexican American War1846-1848

• Ended the Mexican American War• Recognized the annexation of Texas• Ceded almost all of the present American southwest

and upper California to the U.S.• Exact boundary to be surveyed within a year• Purchase price: $15 Million – half the Mexican demand

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo1848

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo1848

Mexican CessionGadsden Purchase

• The Results of the Mexican American War brought Texas into serious conflict with U.S. Government over Texas boundary claims

• Congress grappled with claims, & several proposals made dividing Texas into several states

• Senator James A. Pierce of Maryland introduced a bill that offered Texas $10 million in exchange for ceding to the national government all land north and west of a boundary beginning at the 100th meridian where it intersects the parallel of 36°30', then running west along that parallel to the 103d meridian, south to the 32d parallel, and from that point west to the Rio Grande

The Compromise of 18501850

The Compromise of 18501850

Senator Benton’s First

Proposal

Senator Benton’s

Second Proposal

Boundary Proposal from the

Committee of Thirteen

The final agreed

boundary line of the

Compromise of 1850

• 29,670 square miles region in what is now southwestern New Mexico and southern Arizona

• Last major territorial acquisition in the contiguous United States

• Largely for the purpose of the construction of a transcontinental railroad

• Reconcile outstanding Border issues with Mexico• $10 million ($260 million today) paid to Mexico ($0.33 per

acre)• Touches Texas at the Rio Grande at El Paso

Gadsden Purchase1853-1854

56


Case Law

Reading and interpreting Judicial Opinions Stafford v. King – the Granddaddy of them all –The

Dignity of Calls Blocks and Systems of Surveys

Turner v. Smith – Standefer v. Vaughn – Gulf v. Outlaw Riparian Law –The Gradient Boundary

Motl v. Boyd – Manry v. Robison The Submerged Land Cases and the SCOTUS Littoral Law - Texas Coastal Boundaries Rudder v. Ponder - Luttes v. State Passing calls as locative? Davenport v. Bass

Main Points

• The Caption: The caption is the title of a case such as Stafford v. King or State v. Post

• The Citation: The name of the court that decided the case, the law book in which the opinion was published and also the year in which the court decided the case

• 30 Texas 257 (1867) refers to a Texas Supreme Court Decision decided in 1867 that appears in Volume 30 on page 257 of the First Series of the Texas Reporter

Judicial OpinionsWhat’s in a Judicial Opinion

• The Author of the opinion: The name of the judge who authored the opinion

• The Headnotes: Points of law cited or explained in the case. They are summaries of the points of law covered in the case at the beginning of the case. These summaries are usually a paragraph long, and are called headnotes. The headnotes are arranged according to their topic and key number in multi-volume sets of books called Digests. Headnotes are merely editorial guides to the points of law discussed or used in the cases, and the headnotes themselves are not legal authority


• The Facts of the case: What happened? The “facts” of a case consist mostly of the events that occurred before the legal case was filed in court. Most opinions also include a section on the procedural history of the case: that is what happened after the case was filed in court, and usually consist of various motions, hearings, trials and proceedings.

• Parties to a case:• Plaintiff: the party bringing the lawsuit• Defendant: the party being sued• Appellant: the party that lost at the original court• Appellee: the party that won at the original court


• Petitioner: the party petitioning the higher court for relief; the party who lost at the lower court

• Respondent: the party who won at the lower court; the party who appears before the higher court to respond to the losing parties petition

• The Law of the Case: After the opinion has presented the facts, it will then discuss the law

• First: general principles of law • Second: Application of law to the facts of the case and the court’s

outcome


• The Disposition: The disposition usually appears at the end of the main opinion, and tells you what action the court is taking:

• Affirm: agreeing with and upholding lower court decision• Reverse: disagreeing with and overturning lower court decision• Remand: Sending it back to the lower court for further

proceedings


• Concurring and/or Dissenting Opinions: Opinions by judges who did not see entirely eye-to-eye with the other judges of the court. In most cases, dissenting opinions try to persuade the reader that the majority’s decision was simply incorrect

• These are usually important – when they are included it means that they offer valuable insights and raise important arguments which can sometimes influence later courts


This widely quoted court decision has clarified manyquestions in boundary location and is considered aclassic in its clarity. Decided by the Texas SupremeCourt in 1867, this case was set in Cherokee County onappeal from an 1852 decision for an action of trespassto try title. The decision was written by GeorgeWashington Smith, who was elected to the TexasSupreme Court in 1866. This was just after the CivilWar, however, and during reconstruction. In 1867Smith and his four colleagues were disqualified asformer confederates and removed from the Bench byGeneral Phillip H. Sheridan.

Stafford v. King30 Texas 257 (1867), Cherokee County

• Caroline Stafford, formerly Mobley Rhone, held a patent to 640 acres in Cherokee County

• The land, as described in the field notes, was held by Adam King

• Mrs. Stafford brought trespass to try title suit against Mr. King. The field notes in Mrs. Stafford’s patent started at the southeast corner of the John R. Taylor survey, which point was well established

• The first line called for was a directory call beginning at the Taylor corner and running east a distance of 3,160 varas to the Point of Beginning of the Stafford patent

• From the point of beginning, the field notes called for various natural objects, including two creeks which were crossed twice, a lake and a spring

Stafford v. KingBackground Information

When a survey was run, none of the objects called for in the field notes were found. However, it was ascertained by the court that another patent, just west of the Stafford patent, had been awarded to C. W. Franklin, which field notes had exactly the same calls as found in the Stafford field notes, with one exception: the directory call for the southeast corner of the Taylor Survey to the point of beginning of the Franklin Survey was 750 varas. In the surveyor’s testimony, he stated that if the directory call in Stafford’s field notes had been for 750 varas instead of 3160 varas, the re-survey would have followed as nearly perfect as any survey he had ever followed. The surveywould have followed in the footsteps of the original surveyor.


Key points:• It is the Duty of the Surveyor to run around the land

located• If there can be a defined beginning point, the boundaries

may be established by course and distance alone


• Natural objects are mountains, lakes, rivers, creeks, and the like, artificial objects are marked trees, stakes, mounds, etc…

• In all future controversies, these calls are to be searched for, and, if found, there can be little room for controversy…

• The general rules as to controlling calls are: 1. natural objects; 2. artificial objects; 3. course and distance.

• …that rule must be adopted which is the most consistent with the intention apparent upon the face of the patent, read in the light of the surrounding circumstances.


• The most material and certain calls shall control those which are less material and less certain. A call for a natural object, as a river, a know stream, a spring or even a marked tree, shall control course and distance

• Course and distance are the most unreliable calls, distance is less reliable than course because of the mistakes of the officers…under certain circumstances, course and distance may control, yet generally, they are but guides to the other calls.The actual identification of the survey, the footsteps of the surveyor on the ground, should always be followed, by whatever rule they may be traced.

• Calls are also divided into descriptive or directory and special locative calls…The former must yield to special locative calls, that is, particular objects on the corners or lines of the land.


• Commencing at a well known corner…at 3160 varas not one of the natural or artificial objects called for could be found… whereas if line stopped at 750 varas, every object called for was found…long distance disregarded, and in the light of the surrounding circumstances, the survey was made to stop at 750 varas• The Fact that the survey thus established had been patented to

another party does not disprove the identity.• as to the law governing the case, it was erroneous, the judgment

will be reversed


• …records not produced by the commissioner are higher evidence than the commissioner’s conclusions as to their contents.

• The object of a verdict is to respond to the issues…The judgment must be a conclusion of law from the facts found…

• …the verdict should find what the actual conflict is…the judgment should not rest upon a survey made upon a former trial.

• If a defendant proves 3 years continuous claim…he is entitled to the benefit of the 3 years statute of limitations.


Pay particular attention to this narrative:There is an intrinsic justice and propriety in this rule, for thereason that the applicant for land, however unlearned he maybe, needs no scientific education to identify and settle upon hisland, when the surveyor, who is the agent of the government,authoritatively announces to them that certain well known rivers,lakes, creeks, springs, marked corners, and lines constitute thescientific knowledge and skill to know that the courses anddistances called for are true and correct, and with the aid of thebest scientific skill mistakes and errors are often committed inrespect for the calls for course and distance in the patent. Theunskilled are unable to detect them, and the learned surveyor isoften much confused.


Turner v. Smith

Turner v. Smith122 TEX. 338, 61 S.W. 2d 792 (1933), Pecos County

• Yates Oil Field in Pecos County –May 1933

• Suppositious Calls will not prevail

• No authority to relocate original surveyors location

• Surveyor intention controls; but only by reading field notes

• Excess based upon found monuments and prorated equally

Texas General Land Office image of the Yates

Oil Field in Pecos County, Texas showing original Survey lines.

Yellow tracts delineate Relinquishment Act Land sold between 1885 and 1937; all surface rights

conveyed.

80

Turner v. Smith30 Texas 257 (1933)

map

Turner v.

Smith30 Texas

257 (1933)

Yates Oil Field in Pecos County November 2012Google Earth Image

• Suppositious Calls will not prevail – either by survey on the ground or office survey

• Surveyor has no authority to relocate original surveyors location

• Surveyor intention controls; but only by reading field notes

• Excess based upon found monuments and prorated equally

• Commissioner has no authority to increase acreage in sections of blocks based upon calculations

Turner v. Smith122 TEX. 338, 61 S.W. 2d 792 (1933), Pecos County

• Any marked corner or line must be considered forlocation

• Marked Lines or corners control over course ordistance

• Calls may be reversed• Call for adjoiner not controlling where shown to be a

mistake or made by conjecture• Lost lines & corners should be located from nearest

known corners• Field notes to evidence intention to tie blocks together• Until excess is lopped off, no right to purchase

Standefer v. Vaughn219 S.W. 484 (1920), Lynn County

• Boundary between two surveys was line common to both as a matter of law.

• Call for adjoiner holds over monuments• Calls for identical monuments and corners by same

surveyor on two sections shows no vacancy.

Gulf Oil Co. v. Outlaw-Ector County150 S.W. 2d 777 (1941)

• Adopted the gradient boundary as the methodology in Texas for marking the line between public and private ownership along streams, the beds of which are owned by the State (30-foot statute)

• Defined the “bed of a stream” according to Oklahoma v. Texas

• Defined the “bank of a stream” according to Oklahoma v. Texas

• Stream considered navigable if the average width is 30’, even if the water itself isn’t that wide

• Title to navigable waters is in the State in trust for the public

MOTL v. Boyd286 S.W. Reporter 458 (1926), Tom Green County

• Land added to banks by accretion belongs to riparian owners of land.

• Land lost by erosion becomes part of the stream, thus property of the State

• When a stream course changes, either by erosion of avulsion, the new bed is the State’s land and the old bed becomes the riparian owners land

• “We regard the question as settled that the rights of the riparian to alluvion by accretion and soil left bare by reliction are vested property rights.”

Manry v. Robison56 S.W. 2d 438 (1932), Fort Bend County

Manry v. Robison

56 S.W. 2d 438 (1932), Fort Bend County

The controlling question iswhether or not the abandonedbed of the river is the property ofthe state or the property of thepresent owners of the Williams,Little, Jones, and Allcornleagues. We have concludedthat it is the property of the last-named parties, and that the writsof mandamus should be refused.

ROUND 1:The Submerged Land Cases:

Litigation to establish one way or the other as to rights in the submerged lands underlying the ocean and outside of

the inland waters in the States of California, Louisiana, and Texas by the U.S. Supreme Court

1. United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19 (1947)

2. United States v. Louisiana, 339 U.S. 699 (1950)

3. United States v. Texas, 339, U.S. 707 (1950)

TEXAS COASTAL BOUNDARY

ROUND 2:The Submerged Land Act:

Public Law 31On May 22, 1953, H.R. 4198 of the 83rd Congress, 1st

Session, was signed into law, thus marking the culmination of earlier unsuccessful attempts at legislation dealing the

state and federal rights in submerged lands.Seaward Boundaries of Gulf States

• United States v. Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, 363 U.S. I, 121 (1960)

TEXAS COASTAL BOUNDARY

FINAL DETERMINATIONThe decision of May 31, 1960

In an elaborate opinion, delivered on May 31, 1960, the Supreme Court held that Texas and Florida are entitled to rights in the submerged lands extending for a distance in the Gulf of Mexico of 3 leagues (10.35 miles) from their coastlines, but that Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are entitled to rights extending no more than 3 geographic miles from their coastlines. For Texas, this meant about 2,440,650 acres of land!

TEXAS COASTAL BOUNDARY3 Marine Leagues for Texas and

Florida

Shore and Sea Boundaries by Aaron L. Shalowitz and Michael W. Reed

This three volume publication summarizes the technical and legal aspects of determining maritime boundaries in theU.S., particularly with respect to the use of data acquired by the Office of Coast Survey and its predecessors. VolumesOne and Two were published in 1962 and 1964, respectively, and are considered to be two of the most importantreferences available to the coastal and maritime community.

Volume One addresses boundary aspects of the Submerged Lands Cases, the subsequent Submerged Lands Acts of1953, and the maritime boundary developments of the U.N. Conferences on Law of the Sea.

Volume Two concerns the use and interpretation of Coast and Geodetic Survey data, particularly the early surveysand charts, with special emphasis on those features and aspects that have legal significance.

Volume Three, published in 2000, documents Supreme Court decisions and the resulting legal principles that haveoccurred since the publication of the earlier volumes.

Unfortunately, all three volumes are out of print. However, in response to the continued requests for copies, thecontents of all three volumes are available below for viewing using the Adobe Acrobat Reader.

For further information contact us.

http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/shalowitz.html

Shore and Sea BoundariesAaron Shalowitz &Michael W. Reed

US Coast & Geodetic Survey

Borax Consolidated Limitedv. Los Angeles

296 U.S. 10 (1935) U.S. Supreme Court

• Settled the common law boundary of ordinary high water by adopting the definition of mean high tide as given by the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey.

• The case that made the decision to use tide gauge determination for shoreline boundaries.

• Adopted the Borax decision when it located the boundary of the sea touching the William Steele Survey and fixing the shoreline of the common law grant at the line of mean high tide.

Rudder v. Ponder293 S.W. 2d 736, 737, 741 (1956)

• Shoreline Boundaries granted during civil law means use of Mean Higher High Water

• Shoreline Boundaries granted during common law means use of Mean High Water

• Civil law grants use tide gauges as method of determining boundaries adjusted to 19 year intervals

Luttes v. State159 Tex. 500 , 324 S.W. (2d) 167 (1958)

• The Courts weigh in on Passing Calls as locative.• Surveys called for a designated road on both boundary

lines tended to show that road was regarded as of considerable locative value.

• …that one will be adopted which most nearly conforms to the courses and distances as well as the quantity of land granted

Davenport v. Bass153 S.W. 2d 471 (1941), Starr County

Davenport v. Bass153 S.W. 2d 471 (1941), Starr County

How Texas got it’s Shape Attendee Guide

We have presented this course several times and I feel this has turned out to be a very good and informative course. Something you can take with you and use as a reference guide.

In a gathering such as this, with the many years of surveying experience in this room, I should be listening rather than talking.

In the limited time that we have I can only hope to scratch the surface in this field and by no means am I claiming a complete knowledge of the records of the General Land Office. However, I am hoping this may give you a familiarity with them.

The practice of surveying, the teaching of surveying and the professional standing of the surveyor are very closely joined. Raise the standard of one and all are elevated to that same standard accordingly. Unfortunately, this also works in the opposing direction.

I expect that most of those here are interested in making, and keeping, surveying a respected profession, otherwise you wouldn’t be attending today.

TSPS 20


Texas G

How many of you have been to the General Land Office in Austin?

Austin, TX – The Stephen F. Austin Building , 1974 – Present

The Texas General Land Office moved to its current location in January 1974.

Housed in a modern eleven-story building made of the same sunset red granite as the State Capitol.

The current home of the General Land Office protects the historic document and map collection of the General Land Office.

The Archives and Records of the Texas General Land Office can be easily accessed by visiting 1700 North Congress Avenue, just north of the State Capitol. Historic maps and documents can be viewed with assistance from General Land Office staff on the first floor on a walk-in basis or by appointment

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Armstrong. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 1, 1971 – January 1, 1983

Garry Mauro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 1, 1983 – January 1, 1999

David Dewhurst. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 1, 1999 – January 1, 2003

Jerry Patterson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .January 1, 2003 – January 1 2015

George P. Bush. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .January 1, 2015 – Present

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timeline continued, next page.


First we will talk about the Spanish period.

Spain had claimed Texas since 1519 and had controlled it since permanent occupation began in 1716, but the crown had never achieved extensive settlement of this large area.

The crown was successful in the adjoining province of Nuevo Santander, the northern part of which would eventually come south Texas.

Spain’s primary focus in Texas was preventing foreign encroachment by France and the United States because Texas served as a protective borderland of New Spain (Mexico).

TSPS 20


The French flag features a host of golden Fleurs-de-lis (" flower of the lily.“) emblazoned on a field of white.

During this time, there was no official French flag, so a number of different designs are used in displays of the "six flags".

This was actually the French royal ensign for ships and forts.

Note: An ensign is a national flag when used at sea

TSPS 20


After separation from Spain, Mexico continued making land grants in Texas to empresario.

Moses Austin was the original empresario of the Old Three Hundred and was succeeded by his son,Stephen F. Austin, after his untimely death.

Stephen F. Austin's grant was confirmed by a special act of the Mexican Congress in 1823, and otherimpresario grants were provided by Congress of the State of Coahuila and Texas, March 24, 1825.

The 1825 colonization law opened all vacant land in Texas to Mexicans and foreigners.

There was two exceptions:o Land within twenty leagues of the US boundary ando Land within ten leagues of the coast.

Notes:

The Old Three Hundred were the 297 grantees, made up of families and somepartnerships of unmarried men, who purchased 307 parcels of land from Stephen FAustin.

An empresario was a person who, in the early years of the settlement of Texas, hadbeen granted the right to settle on Mexican land in exchange for recruiting and takingresponsibility for new settlers. The word is Spanish for entrepreneur.

TSPS 20


US = $1.25 an acre.

Mexico = 12.5 cent and acres

US = $100 got you 80 acres.

Mexico = That same $100 got you 800 acres.

TSPS 20


The colonization law of March 24, 1825 provided for individuals to acquire vacant land in Texas by three methods.

1. direct purchase; 2. colonization contract through an empresario; and3. individuals might acquire public land through an empresario.

The amount of land received by each family settled by an empresario was determined by occupation.o Farming = one labor or 177 acreso Stock-raising = 4251 acreso Farming & Stock-raising = one square league, or sitio , or 4428.4 acres.o Single persons would receive only one-fourth of these amounts.

My guess would be that all families and single persons became both farmers and stock-raisers.

TSPS 20


The files in the General Land Office are, generally speaking, arranged and filed in order of the authority in which they were granted and made.

Grants from the Spanish crown being the first, these grants are relatively small in number, but were very large in acreage. Most of these grants were located around Nacogdoches, San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley.

The General Land Office contains files on some 35 large Spanish land grants in the area between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande. Approximately sixty titles still remain of record from the 130-year span of Spain’s active occupation of Texas.

Note: The oldest surviving record of a Spanish land grant in Texas is the 1720 title to the San Jose Mission in San Antonio. This important document is housed in the Texas General Land Office.

TSPS 20


10


Texas parted with land in three ways. Some was given away to attract men into the armed forces of the Republic and to pension the veterans of the revolution and the disabled veterans of the Confederacy. Land was also given away to immigrants to foster rapid growth and settlement, and to provide homesteads. Secondly to aid improvement companies, some land was exchanged for services rendered. The third way was to sell the land.

In 1835, a provisional government set up by the Anglo inhabitants of Texas ordered all the land offices within Texas closed, and all land commissioners, empresarios and surveyors to cease operations. Land titles issued after November 13, 1835 would be invalid; there would be no more Mexican land grants in Texas.

On December 22, 1836, the Congress of the Republic passed an act establishing a general land office under the direction of a land commissioner who was to take charge of all land records. In June 1837, the Congress passed an act consolidating previous land legislation. It called for the General Land Office to open on October 1. All vacant land was the property of the Republic, and all land titles, surveys and documents were now public property and were to be given to the Land Commissioner.

The Republic of Texas had neither money nor population enough to defend itself against the Mexicans and the Indians. When the government was organized in 1836, it had only very little money (approximately $55.68) in the treasury. Land was the only resource Texas had, and it was used to reward soldiers, to promote settlement and to finance the operation of the government. Because Texas lacked the funds to provide pensions it resorted to its public land.

TSPS 20


While a bounty, as a recruiting device, promised land as compensation for service, granting land to veterans as a reward for military service rendered was known as a Donation.

In 1837, Donation grants of 640 acres were issued to soldiers (or their heirs) who fought at the Alamo, Goliad, San Jacinto or the Siege of Bexar, or who had guarded the baggage train at Harrisburg. Men who participated in more than one of these engagements were entitled to only one allotment of 640 acres.

Recipients of Donation grants were prohibited from selling the land, but this provision was later repealed.

Certificate: A document issued by the government of the Republic and State of Texas, usually by a County or District Board of Land Commissioners, the General Land Office, the Texas Court of Claims, the Adjutant General, or the Secretary of War, entitling a grantee to a certain number of acres of land in the unallocated public domain.

• These certificates could be sold or transferred. The rights passed to the assignee

For some types of grants two certificates were issued—a conditional and an unconditional.

• A conditional certificate was issued in order to give the grantee the right to occupy a portion of the public domain.

• The unconditional certificate was issued only after the completion of certain requirements. The land had to be lived on for three years, or a portion of the land had to be cultivated.

TSPS 20


Bounty grants were issued to soldiers according to the length of their service in the Army or Navy of the Republic.

The first bounty act was passed by the provisional government of Texas in November 1835; it promised 640 acres to those who served in the regular army for two years or throughout the war.

In December the amount was increased by 160 acres, for a total of 800 acres. A volunteer corps was also organized in December, and 640 acres was promised to men who served for the course of the war, and 320 acres to those who served only three months. If the volunteer died in service, the land would be given to his heirs, as would an additional 640 acres.

In December 1837, Congress passed a new bounty act providing soldiers with 320 acres for every three months of service (up to one year), for a limit of 1,280 acres per person. An honorable discharge from the Army or Navy entitled one to a “bounty warrant” which gave him the right to have surveyed the amount of land specified. The Veteran, as most did, were allowed to sell, convey and/or trade ownership.

After winning independence, the Republic of Texas still needed defense against Indians.

After winning independence Texas still needed protection against Indians. A bounty act was passed in 1840 to give men who served in frontier regiments 160 acres of land. This land was to be located near military posts on the frontier. Because there wasn't enough vacant land available near the forts, the men were instead granted 240 acres of vacant public domain anywhere within the Republic.

Notes:This 6 month entitlement of 640 acres was sold for or 100 dollars. A little over 15.5 cents per acre. The 640 acre tract is roughly 25 miles NE of downtown Dallas just off of Interstate 30.

TSPS 20


14


Texans felt that an increase in the population of Texas would raise land values, provide tax revenue and protect the frontier from Indian and Mexican raids. Therefore, the Republic used headrights and the empresario system to lure people to Texas.

First Class Headrights. by Constitution of 1836

To encourage established settlers to remain in Texas during this time of instability, the Constitution of 1836 established a first class headright act.

o Heads of household, male or female, living in Texas on March 2, 1836, would receive a league and a labor of land (4,605 acres),

o Single men at least 17 years old would be given a third of a league (1,476 acres).

The act excluded Indians, Blacks, anyone that left Texas to avoid military service, and anyone who had already received the same amount of land from Mexico. Those who had received a smaller amount from Mexico were entitled to the difference.

These were unconditional grants and carried no requirement as to settlement or improvements and grantees were not required to live on the land, as they had been under Mexico.

TSPS 20

•issuance of a certificate.•it was up to the grantee to have a survey made on vacant public land •The certificate and field notes were then delivered to the GLO for approval•The issuance of a patent, or final title, is the last step of the land grant process.


16


Second Class Headrights. by Legislation December 1837

To attract new settlers, In December 1837, a second class headrights act was granted.

o Heads of families who had settled in Texas between March 2, 1836 and October 1, 1837 received 1,280 acres of land

o Single men received 640 acres of land.

This was a conditional grant, as the grantee was required to remain in Texas for three years, perform duties of citizenship and pay surveying and other fees. Patents to this land were withheld until proof of three year residence was established.

TSPS 20


18


Third Class Headrights. by Legislation 1838

The legislature provided a third class headrights grant in 1838 reducing the amount of land to

o Heads of families who arrived in Texas between October 1, 1837 and January 1, 1840, received 640 acres of land

o Single men received 320 acres of land

Like the second class headrights this was a conditional grant and retained the 3-year residency requirement.

TSPS 20


Fourth Class Headrights. Authorized by Congress January, 1841

A fourth class headright grant, established in 1842, simply extended the provisions of the third class headrights act to January 1, 1842.

The conditions attached to these fourth class headrights weren't as liberal. In addition to the 3-year residency requirement, the condition of cultivating at least 10 acres before a final patent was issued .

Note:Fourth Class Headrights are filed as 3rd Class Headrights in the “Official Files” at the General Land Office.files. Apparently it was determined that the changes were so minor between the 3rd and 4th classes (10 acres to be cultivated) that a 4th Class file classification was not warranted.

TSPS 20


21


To bring more immigrants to the Republic of Texas, the old empresario system was adopted. The February 1841 law that created the Fourth Class Headrights also ended the policy of giving land to immigrants. By this law the president was allowed to contract with individuals and associations for the settlement of Texas. Four colonies were established under contracts with the Republic of Texas:

o Peters' Colony (1841);

o Fisher and Miller's Colony (1842);

o Castro's Colony (1842) and;

o Mercer Colony (1844).

FYI: Gone to Texas, often abbreviated G.T.T. or GTT, was a phrase used by Americans immigrating to Texas in the mid-1800's. They moved to Texas for many reasons; often to escape debt, to start over again, begin for the first time, to get land or maybe looking for adventure as well as for new fortunes. Obtaining "land" seems to be the driving force for most of those who came to Texas. "Gone to Texas" or "G.T.T." was often written on the doors of abandoned houses or posted as a sign on fences.

TSPS 20


The first contract was with W.S. Peters to settle 600 colonists beyond the settled northern frontier.

To settle regions of North Texas the Peters Colonist had to meet the following conditions:

o All colonists were to come from outside the Republic;

o Heads of families would be entitled to 640 acres;

o single men to 320 acres; and

o Colonists had only to build houses and cultivate at least 15 acres.

Note: Colonists obtained the land almost without cost; the contractor received 10 sections of land per 100 families settled, and was allowed to withhold up to half the land granted to colonists as payment for surveying the land, applying for titles, and other services. Colonists had only to build houses and cultivate at least 15 acres on their grants.

A second contract with Peters raised the number of colonists to 800, and a third contract in 1842 provided additional territory. A fourth contract, made in 1843, postponed the deadline for filling the contract by three years and extended the colony's boundaries once again. The colony eventually extended from Dallas, Collin and Grayson counties on the east to Wilbarger, Baylor, Throckmorton and Shackelford counties on the west.

A major problem the Peters Colony faced was the entry of large numbers of unauthorized settlers into the colony, since Texans with headright, bounty, donation and land scrip certificates also wanted to locate in this area. Surveyors sympathized with these people and often allowed them to register their claims.

The resulting conflicts led the state of Texas to cancel the Peters Colony contracts in 1852 and grant the contractors land in the semi-arid Indian country of northwest Texas.

TSPS 20


In 1842, Henry Fisher and Burchard Miller obtained a contract to locate 600 families on three million acres of land between the Llano and Colorado Rivers; settlers were to come from Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

In 1844, the terms of the contract were altered to permit 6,000 families or single men to gain grants.

In the same year, Fisher sold his interest in the colony to the Adelsverein. The Adelsverein, or Society for the Protection of German Immigrants to Texas, was composed of a group of German noblemen who hoped to send settlers to Texas because their homeland was overpopulated.

The Fisher-Miller grant was situated far from the coast in Comanche territory.

o German families were to receive 320 acres; and

o single men 160 acres.

The Society eventually sent to Texas 7,380 immigrants who received 1,735,200 acres of land. Many of these people did not settle within the Fisher-Miller grant but instead located at Fredericksburg or New Braunfels, two settlements the Society established as way stations on land that it bought between the coast and the grant.

However, a few Germans did make a peace agreement with the Comanche’s and settled upon the dry and rocky soil within the Fisher-Miller grant.

TSPS 20


Henri Castro, a Frenchman born in Spain, secured a contract in February 1842 to settle 600 families or single men on 1.25 million acres of land west of San Antonio.

Like Austin, Castro established a successful colony at little profit to himself, using more than $200,000 of his own money to aid the colonists in any way he could.

Between 1843 and 1847, Castro chartered 27 ships to bring a total of 2,134 Alsatians from France, even though Texas harbors were unsafe during the Mexican War.

These German-speaking farmers and fruit growers agreed to give Castro half their land in payment for settling them, but when a commissioner arrived in 1850 to issue titles, the colonists refused to give Castro the land they had earlier promised.

Note: Alsatians are people from a region in eastern France which has passed between French and German control many times.

TSPS 20


In 1844 Charles Mercer received an empresario contract as a result of conflict between American and English stockholders.

This contract itself caused controversy because the grant was partly located in the Peters Colony and Mercer was unpopular,. He had a reputation as an abolitionist and a speculator.

In 1848, a judge ruled that the contract was invalid. The Texas legislature confirmed the colonists' claims to 691,840 acres of land, but Mercer was not able to gain any profits from the colony.

Because many Texans feared that foreigners were being given the best land, Texas repealed all the laws authorizing the president to form colonization contracts on January 30, 1844. All contracts not fully complied with were repealed and declared forfeited by this act.

TSPS 20


Land Scrip Certificates

Since land was the most important resource of Texas, the newly formed government sought loans, offering land as collateral.

One way the Republic financed the operation of its government was by authorizing agents to sell land scrip-certificates giving the owner the right to secure unappropriated land in Texas.

An Act of Congress of the Republic of Texas on December 10, 1836, empowered the President to issue scrip which could be traded for land. This scrip was to be sold by agents in the United States for a cost of not less than 50 cent an acre.

Thomas Toby of New Orleans was the most notable of these agents and land scrip he sold are classified in the General Land Office files as “Toby Scrip”.

December 14, 1837, Texas congress recognized the failure of the scrip policy to raise revenue and forbid any further sale of land scrip, and recalled the land agents that had been established in New Orleans.

An act passed in 1841 permitted creditors of the State holding demands against the Republic to exchange their land scrip at a rate of $2.00 per acre. Few creditors took advantage of this law and the law was repealed June, 1845.

TSPS 20


General Land Office Scrip

The commissioner of the Texas General Land Office was authorized to issue land scrip at $.50 per acre for the liquidation of the public debt of the late Republic of Texas.

The act of February 11, 1850, authorized the payment of the public debt in land scrip at the rate of 50 cents per acre, but most creditors refused to take advantage of the act.

TSPS 20


In 1844, Texas submitted a treaty of annexation to the United States Congress. Under its terms, Texas would have given 175,000,000 acres of public land to the United States government and the United States would have assumed Texas's debts of $10,000,000. The United States Congress rejected the treaty on grounds that the Texas public domain was not worth $10,000,000.

When Texas was annexed to the United States in 1845 by a joint resolution of Congress, Texas retained both its debt and its public land. Except for the original 13 colonies, Texas was the only state, to enter the Union with control over its public land.

The state Constitution of 1845 recognized all valid land titles that had been issued by Spain, Mexico and the Republic of Texas and made no changes in the administration of the public domain.

The state of Texas continued to use land as its primary resource. It conveyed titles to land in order to:

o Settle boundary disputes;

o attract settlers;

o encourage internal improvements;

o support public education; and

o reward settlers.

Texas also sold land at low prices to pay its debts. When all land had been disposed of, the state began to develop resources on land which had been appropriated for public schools.

TSPS 20


Preemption Grant

From 1845 to 1854, individuals could claim 320 acres of land from the unappropriated public domain.

The amount was reduced to 160 acres in 1854 and the grant program was cancelled in 1856.

Preemption grants of 160 acres were reinstituted in 1866 and continued until 1898. When the public domain was depleted.

To qualify for a preemption grant settlers were required to live on the land for three years and make improvements. More than 4,800,000 acres were granted through pre-emption acts.

TSPS 20


31


The most important of the grants for the internal improvements were those made to railroad companies.

Texans wanted a railroad system because they believed that it would speed development of the state and increase land values.

In 1852, the state legislature chartered eight railroad companies; each received eight sections of land for every mile of railroad track, but they also had to survey equal amounts of land.

The land granted to the railroad companies was to be sold by the end of 12 months.

TSPS 20


In 1854, the General Land Grant Law promised 16 sections-10,240 acres-for every mile of railroad track built. This land would not be granted until 25 miles of track had been laid. The companies were required to survey the land and would be given the odd-numbered sections, while the state would own the even-numbered sections. Thus, for each section it received, a railroad company had to survey an adjoining 640 acres for the state. By the time of the Civil War, only 492 miles of railroad had been completed; the Civil War delayed construction, and there were only 511 miles of track by 1870.

The Texas Constitution of 1869 prohibited land grants to railroads, but the Constitution of 1876 again authorized grants of 16 sections for every mile of track that was laid. The land grant law was repealed in 1882 and Texas did not again provide land as an incentive for building railroads.

By 1880, Texas had more than 3,000 miles of railroad track, an amount that doubled over the next decade. A total of 35,777,038 acres of land, mostly in West Texas, was granted to 43 railroad companies. Later resurveying showed that the companies had received excess land in the amount of 3,623,160 acres which reverted to the state. The railroads sold about 28,000,000 acres of their land, making profits of no more than $1.50 an acre. The profits weren't any higher than that because of the expense of surveying the land. Also, the railroads were required to sell their land and weren't able to wait for land prices to increase.

Legislators had hoped that the grants would promote settlement, increase tax revenue, give the state free surveying of its alternate sections, and raise the value of public land. They also wanted the public land, ultimately, to be owned by small landholders rather than speculators. The railroad system probably did increase tax revenue; and the state did receive free surveying of public land, but many of the surveys were so poorly made they had to be redone.

Due to being forced to sell the land shortly after it was granted, the railroad companies flooded the land market with millions of acres, which actually decreased the amount of money that the state could charge for public land. In addition, the railroad land and the state's alternate sections typically were not located along the railroad tracks because that land was already privately owned.

TSPS 20


34


NOPE. Not that 50 cent!

TSPS 20


The Republic began the practice of using land to fund public education in 1839, when it allotted three leagues of land to each county for public schools.

This was increased to four leagues in 1840.

These county school lands, which were not always located in the counties they benefited, were to be sold to settlers in 160-acre tracts and the money from the sales invested in bonds.

The interest earned from the bonds could then be spent on tuition for students. The State of Texas followed the example set by the Republic

Note: In 1854 the Texas legislature, in making grants to encourage railroad construction, provided that the railroads in surveying their lands should also survey alternate sections to be allotted to the public schools. The final grant to the schools from the public domain was made in the Constitution of 1876, which granted to the public schools one-half of the unappropriated public domain, including the alternate sections of the grants to railroads. In 1900 it was found that the state had disposed of slightly more than one-half the lands that were unappropriated in 1876, thus causing the Permanent School Fund to fall 17,180 acres short of its share. In settlement of the account the legislature transferred $17,180 from the general fund to the Permanent School Fund, thus balancing the account and recognizing the exhaustion of the unappropriated public domain.

See Hogue v Baker

TSPS 20


37


In 1854, the legislature established the Permanent School Fund (PSF) with $2 million left from the Compromise of 1850. Legislators intended for public school land to be sold and the revenue to be deposited into the PSF, which would create an inexhaustible source of revenue. Only interest income from the fund would be appropriated for the state's public schools.

The Constitution of 1866 added the state's alternate sections of land from the railroad and other internal improvement grants to the PSF. It also dedicated half of the proceeds from the sale of public land to the PSF. In 1873, the legislature appropriated half of the remaining public land to the schools.

Notes:1. The Texas Permanent School Fund is a “Sovereign Wealth Fund” (SWF) which serves to invest its

assets to provide a return for funding of public primary and secondary education in the State of Texas.[2] As of the end of fiscal 2012 (August 31), the Permanent School Fund has a balance in excess of $28 billion.

2. A sovereign wealth fund (SWF) is a state-owned investment fund investing in real and financial assets such as stocks, bonds, real estate, precious metals, or in alternative investments such as private equity fund or hedge funds.

TSPS 20


39


Permanent University Fund (PUF).

January 26, 1839, 50 leagues (approximately 220,000 acres) of land were set aside from the public domain by the Republic of Texas for the establishment and endowment of a university.

The Constitutional Convention of 1875 appropriated one million acres of land for the establishment of a permanent university fund ("PUF").

An additional one million acres was added to the PUF in 1883. In 1883, Texas and Pacific Railroad returned 1 million acres, deemed too worthless to survey, to the State Government, which turned the land over to the PUF.

All these lands constitute the bulk of what is commonly referred to as University Lands, now totaling 2.1 million acres and located in 24 counties.

All of this land was in West Texas, which didn't please supporters of the university, as they felt this land was worthless. Their criticism stopped with the discovery of oil in 1923. Today, revenues from university land are a major source of financial support for both the University of Texas system and the Texas A&M University system.

Notes:1. The Permanent University Fund (PUF) is a Sovereign Wealth Fund created by the State of Texas to

fund public higher education within the state.

2. The fund is distinct from the Permanent School Fund, because it funds most institutions in the University of Texas System and the Texas A&M University System, but no other public universities or schools in the state.

TSPS 20


Eleemosynary Schools

By an act of August 30, 1856, a land endowment of slightly more than 100,000 acres was given to each of four eleemosynary institutions for the blind, deaf, insane, and orphans. The acres actually surveyed totaled 410,600. These lands were sold on the same terms and conditions as the school lands, under the various sales acts from 1881 through 1897, at from $1.00 to $2.50 per acre.

1912, all land set aside to support the institutions had been sold and the revenues set up endowments for the institutions.

TSPS 20


42


After statehood, bounty warrants and donation certificates were issued to veterans of the Texas Revolution by the state Adjutant General until 1855. That year, a fire destroyed the records of warrant recipients and the muster rolls needed to prove the claims of soldiers and their heirs who had not yet received land. No more bounty or donation certificates were issued until 1857. A Court of Claims to check unpatented land certificates for fraud and to issue certificates was created. After the Court of Claims expired in 1861, no more headright, scrip, bounty or donation certificates were issued except by special act of the legislature.

On August 21, 1868, the Reconstruction government in Texas made bounty land donations available to Union soldiers. Union veterans were eligible for 80 to 320 acres, depending on how long they served. Studies of the Land Office files have concluded that NO Union veterans took advantage of the bounty land program in Texas.

In 1879, the legislature passed a 640-acre veteran donation act to give land to veterans or their widows. Applicants had to swear before a county judge that:

o they did not own $1000 in cash or property; and

o they were physically incapable of self-support.

Applications were sent to Austin, approved by the Comptroller and Veterans Board before the land commissioner could issue land certificates. In 1881, the donation was increased to 1,280 acres and the indigence requirement was dropped; applicants had only to furnish proof of three months' service to the Republic. Texas issued 1,278 veteran donation land certificates for 1,377,920 acres under the acts of 1879 and 1881, before the grant was repealed in 1887 due the near exhaustion of the public domain.

TSPS 20


The Constitution of 1876 authorized setting aside 3 million acres of land for a new capitol building. In 1879, the state legislature appropriated 3,050,000 acres and created a Capitol Building Board.

The Capitol Building Board consisted of the: Governor; Comptroller; Treasurer; attorney general; and land commissioner.

The Capitol Reservation land was located in Bailey, Castro, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Hartley, Hockley, Lamb, Oldham and Parmer counties. The Capitol Board was to contract for a survey, sell the extra 50,000 acres of land that had been set aside to pay for the survey, approve architectural plans for the building, and contract for construction.

Surveying was completed by 1880, and the land to pay for the survey was sold at $.55 an acre, for a total of $27,750. Half of this amount was used to pay the surveyor and half was deposited in the PSF. Only two contractors bid on the project and, in 1882, the Capitol Board contracted with Matthias Schnell of Illinois to build the capitol.

Schnell then sold 75 percent of his interest in the contract to a Chicago syndicate of investors. Payment of the 3 million acres was made to the contractors in installments as the building progressed through 19 stages.

Note: Construction was completed in April 1888; at that time, it was the seventh largest building in the world. Built of pink granite from Burnet County, it was 309 feet tall, seven feet taller than the dome of the national capitol, contained 409 rooms and 924 windows. It had cost the builders $3,744,630, or about a dollar for every acre they received. Because land in the Panhandle was worth about $.50 an acre, the syndicate didn't profit from the enterprise; the state, on the other hand, received a grand statehouse without paying a penny. The syndicate established the XIT Ranch on the 3 million acres it was given. The XIT, though, was not a financial success and by the end of the century it was subdivided and sold to farmers

TSPS 20


45


In 1898, the State realized that it had appropriated more land than it possessed. The Land Office discovered that the Permanent School Fund had not been given all its half of the land granted since 1876. Land commissioner A.J. Baker refused to issue any more patents to land until the PSF was made whole. In the landmark decision, Hogue vs. Baker, 92 Tex. 58, 45 S.W. 1004 (1898) the Texas Supreme Court upheld Baker's action and declared that there was no more unappropriated land in Texas.

The state owed the schools 5,902,076.67 acres. However, the state possessed only 5,884,896.40 acres of unappropriated land. In 1900, this land was given to the school fund, leaving it short 17,180.27 acres. The legislature appropriated $17,180.27, estimating the land's value at $1 an acre, to the fund to balance it. With this final appropriation, the Texas land grant policy came to an end. In 62 years, Texas, as a republic and a state, had disposed of 216,314,560 acres of land.

TSPS 20


47


Time Lapse

48


At this time I would like to add to this presentation a refresher on a product that is available from the General Land Office.

Many surveyors will acquire a copy of an “Official County Map” from the GLO and then continue to use it for years. This is a bad idea. These maps are what we at the GLO refer to as “a living reference.” Some of the Official County Maps change frequently and others may never change.

Most of the changes that I have seen made on these maps are from call in questions. However, at times we get internal questions or we will find something hidden in a file that enlightens us to make these changes.

TSPS 20


The most practical references to the General Land Office (GLO) records for the surveyor, or anyone outside of the GLO proper, are these “Official County Maps.” Copies of these maps are available from the GLO for a nominal fee. These County maps are compiled in the GLO from available records, and show virtually every survey in any particular County.

On the face of these county maps, regarding Republic and State surveys, you may find all, or a portion, of the following:

o Abstract Number - a unique number within the county assigned to the survey by the GLO. Each County has its own set of Abstract Numbers beginning with number one.

o Survey Numbers – The survey number as recorded on the surveyor’s fieldnotes on file at the GLO;

o Grantee/Purchaser – The name as it appears on the certificate or application by virtue of which the survey was made. The final title (patent) may or may not be issued in this name.

o File Numbers (with prefix) – Documents related to the survey are in this file.

o Certificate numbers – The certificate number as it appears on the certificate by virtue of which the survey was made. (usually only on scrip files)

o ** ptd – The abbreviation for “patented.”

Note: A patent is legal evidence that all conditions of the grant have been fulfilled and that all claims by the State on that particular tract of land have passed to the individual.

TSPS 20


In addition to the above, the following information regarding Spanish and Mexican “Title” surveys you may find:

o Abstract Number - a unique number within the county assigned to the survey by the GLO.

o Survey Numbers – The survey number as recorded on the surveyor’s fieldnotes on file at the GLO. May not be available for all surveys.

o “Tract Name” – Spanish and Mexican grants in counties south of the Nueces River are identified by a tract name. (e.g. “El Perdido,” “Laguna Larga,” etc…)

o Grantee – The name of the original titleholder as found in the title or in the English fieldnotes.

o Title Date – date of the title

o Volume and Page – Prior to 1985, the Spanish and Mexican titles were arranged in bound volumes and were located by volume and page reference. The collection has since been rearranged in acid-free boxes and folders, but the volume and page reference can still be used to help locate a document.

o File Number - Documents related to the survey are in this file.

o English fieldnotes – Location reference for field notes in English. These were translated to Spanish for the official title. Not available for all surveys.

The GLO file numbers on these maps are codified with letters (prefixes) preceding the file numbers and these normally designate the following:

o F or nothing - indicates that it is school land;

o SF - indicates Scrap File, otherwise known as a Vacancy Award;

o S - indicates Scrip file, meaning the survey was done for a railroad or individual. Not the PSF;

o B or D - indicate bounty or donation award; and

o T - indicates that the survey is either a Spanish or Mexican grant, titled prior to 1836.

o M - All mineral files are preceded with the letter M. Mineral files are only labeled on the County maps if the survey was made by virtue of a mineral application.

TSPS 20


Only a small amount of orientation is necessary to use these maps.

All of the recent field notes filed in the GLO give the course and distance, in a straight line, from the county seat, making it very easy to locate the surveys on the county maps.

Note: If applicable show on the foam-board map how this information is extracted

In addition, this course and distance information extracted from the County Maps can, and will, be used as a cross reference to our index system.

Note: If Applicable, show on the foam-board map how this information is extracted.

TSPS 20


Yes, the GLO still uses this “not so high-tech” index system. “Sometimes the old way is still the best and easiest way.”

As you can see from that photo, there is “Indexed” information that would be very helpful in assisting a surveyor working in that area of the county. Most helpful would be the Sketch Files and the Rolled Sketch files.

Sketch File No 5 has a sketch and an explanation in it.

Sketch Files – are early sketches by surveyors, early office sketches, early and current surveyor’s reports to accompany “Rolled Sketches,” letters, court decrees, etc…from the 1840’s to present day.

Rolled Sketches - Sketches by surveyors including original surveys of areas, but mostly re-surveys incorporating original monuments as background to current monuments and surveying data. These are mostly from the 1870’s to present. These are called “Rolled Sketches” because they were originally rolled up and put in a file draw. Some are placed flat in a map file, and the index card would be noted with “flattened rolled sketch”

These indexes would tell us where in the Archive vault, and in what particular filing system, we would find the sketch files and/or rolled sketches.

TSPS 20


Each county also has a hard copy of a “Working Sketch” index map. These maps show the working sketch number and the out-boundary for the limits of that working sketch highlighted in colored pencil.

Working Sketch – a draftsman’s interpretation of surveys compiled from field notes filed in the GLO files and other information. Most of these are from 1900 to present. The older, or earlier, versions called office sketches are filed as “Sketch Files.”

I don’t want to sound like a salesman for the GLO Survey Department, but I would highly recommend having the General Land Office compile your working sketch for you. Especially those of you that are not in close proximity to the Land Office. The GLO only charges fifty dollars ($40.00) for each survey that is included in the working sketch. This is rather cheap when considering the overall cost of traveling to the Land Office, researching at the Land Office and buying copies of all the pertinent data in the file and any associated maps/sketches. Not to mention that you then have to read the deeds, create and plot the drawing. It’s a good experience and possibly a little fun the first time, but after that it’s no Buenos. Any of you guys and gals out there that have ever put one of these working sketches together can confirm that.

TSPS 20

Texas Society of Professional Surveyors Presents HOW TEXAS ... · •The Treaty of Guadalupe...

Documents

Transcript of Texas Society of Professional Surveyors Presents HOW TEXAS ... · •The Treaty of Guadalupe...