As I was researching information for the article that I was writing about the General Land Office surveys of Town and Village Lots (see post of April 10, 2012), I came across an interesting deposition given by Robert McCay of the Town of New Madrid, Missouri, and recorded by Theodore Hunt, the U. S. Recorder of Land Titles in Missouri, while hearing claims and testimony pertaining to Town and Village Lots in 1825. Spelling is as it appears in the minutes of Recorder Hunt. Source reference: Hunt's Minute Book #2, pages 154 and 155 (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Land Survey Repository microfiche location: 720/3198A1).
*************************************************************************
John La Valleé’s legal representatives claim a square in the Village of New Madrid containing Lots No. 98, 99, 100 & 101. Bounded South by St. Margarette Street, West by St. Pie Street, North by Street St. Joseph & East by St. Laurent Street, containing about three hundred & Sixty feet in front by three hundred and Sixty feet in depth.
Robert McCay, being duly sworn, says He knows the lot and square claimed, this deponent says that AD Seventeen hundred Eighty Six, He this deponent was on his way to New Orleans from Post St. Vincennes, and in the month of December of that year he stopped at the place where the village of New Madrid now stands, at which time, there was not any persons living there, it being a perfect wilderson. This deponent further says, that in the Spring of the following year, being AD One thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty seven, when He returned there was about twelve persons living on the spot where the village now stands, being employed in trading with the Indians. Among the number was Joseph Lesieur, this deponent further says that in seventeen hundred and Eighty nine, He was again at New Orleans, when the then Governor sent for Him & made enquirys as to the situation of the Place &c, and in the year of AD seventeen Hundred and ninety, Pierre Fouché arrived at this place and took command of the same, and named the village New Madrid, and then Built Fort Celeste, which was named thus, in compliment to the wife of Don Stephen Miro the Govr of Louisiana. From this time, this deponent has made the village of New Madrid his place of residence. This deponent further says that the place where Gov Morgan located himself AD Seventeen hundred and Eighty Eight, was below lake St. Ann being about One Mile below the sight of the present village of New Madrid and this deponent further says, that AD seventeen hundred and ninty four or five, the village of Little Prairie was settled by Francis Lesieur. AD 1793 Don Pierre Fouché was relieved by Don Thomas Portell as Commandant, AD 1796 Don T Portell was relieved as commandant by Don Carlos De hault Delassus, and AD 1798 Don C. D H Delassus was made Lieut Govr of Upper Louisiana and this deponent who commanded in the Spanish Naval service, remained in command of the Village until the arrival of Don _dré Pereux, who remained in command until a short time before the Country was ceded, when John B. La Valleé had command. And to the knowledge of this deponent, the Regulations of Moralles whas published about AD Eighteen hundred by the beat of the drum, reading it at the corners of the Streets, and afterwards putting up the order at some Public Place, as was allways done when Royal Orders where made public. This deponent furthers says that on the Morning of the seventeenth of December AD One thousand Eight hundred and Eleven the first Earthquake was felt, which was the one that destroyed the little prairie, but the one that did the material injury to the Village of New Madrid was not until the seventh of February following. This Deponent says that Earthquakes have continued from that time to this time, during the fall & winter. This deponent further says, that prior to, and on the twentieth of December Eighteen hundred & three, this square was possessed and occupied by John La Valleé, and that He occupied this same square until his death AD Eighteen hundred & nineteen.
Robert McCay
Sworn to before me
August 15, 1825
Theodore Hunt
Recorder L T
[Remark in Exhibit Private Claims for claim of John La Valleé, Hunt’s number 659 in the Surveyor General’s office: "In 1845 the Deputy Surveyor reported that this ground had been washed away by the Mississippi river."]
[For a copy of the Regulations of Morales referred to in this deposition, see American State Papers, Public Lands, Volume 3, page 432, No. 330. The American State Papers can be found by following the link to "U. S. Congressional Documents" under "Favorite Links" at right.]
-------------------------------
Transcribed by Steven E. Weible
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Deposition of Pierre Boyer, July 1825
As I was researching information for the article that I was writing about the General Land Office surveys of Town and Village Lots (see post of April 10, 2012), I came across an interesting deposition given by Pierre Boyer of Mine à Burton (present City of Potosi, Missouri) and recorded by Theodore Hunt, the U. S. Recorder of Land Titles in Missouri, while hearing claims and testimony pertaining to Town and Village Lots in 1825. Spelling is as it appears in the minutes of Recorder Hunt. Source reference: Hunt's Minute Book #2, pages 87 and 88 (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Land Survey Repository microfiche location: 720/3194B2).
***********************************************************************
Pierre Boyer being duly sworn says, that about forty five years ago this deponent was employed by Joseph Yaso Breton to assist him in hunting, who took this deponent to the present tract called mine à Burton which said Breton informed this deponent He had discovered the year before (while hunting) to contain quantities of Lead. Immediately after this there was some Cabbins built where the Village now is, and they commenced to dig mineral, and that He this deponent was one of the first that went to live there and this deponent further says, that from the time they first commenced living where the Village of Mine à Burton now is till the change of Government from France to the United States, they the Inhabitants suffered great inconvenience from the repeated inroads made by the Osage Indians on the said Inhabitants during the Spring of almost every year, when the Indians used to come and plunder the Cabins, steal their Horses and sometimes flog the Inhabitants, and He this deponent says He has been one of those Inhabitants that has suffered all these inconveniences above stated. This deponent says that said Breton was a Frenchman by birth and that He came to this country as a Seaman or Cannonier and afterwards became a Hunter.
Pierre (his X mark) Boyer
Sworn to before me
July 22nd 1825
Theodore Hunt
Charles Boyer being duly sworn says He has had the testimony of Pierre Boyer read to him, and of His knowledge He believe it to be true
Charles Bojeye
Sworn to before me
July 25, 1825
Theodore Hunt
Recorder L T
I James G. Soulard do solemnly declare I have truly translated the foregoing Testimony to each of the above named Persons to wit Pierre Boyer and Charles Boyer.
July 25, 1825
James G. Soulard
-------------------------------
Transcribed by Steven E. Weible
***********************************************************************
Pierre Boyer being duly sworn says, that about forty five years ago this deponent was employed by Joseph Yaso Breton to assist him in hunting, who took this deponent to the present tract called mine à Burton which said Breton informed this deponent He had discovered the year before (while hunting) to contain quantities of Lead. Immediately after this there was some Cabbins built where the Village now is, and they commenced to dig mineral, and that He this deponent was one of the first that went to live there and this deponent further says, that from the time they first commenced living where the Village of Mine à Burton now is till the change of Government from France to the United States, they the Inhabitants suffered great inconvenience from the repeated inroads made by the Osage Indians on the said Inhabitants during the Spring of almost every year, when the Indians used to come and plunder the Cabins, steal their Horses and sometimes flog the Inhabitants, and He this deponent says He has been one of those Inhabitants that has suffered all these inconveniences above stated. This deponent says that said Breton was a Frenchman by birth and that He came to this country as a Seaman or Cannonier and afterwards became a Hunter.
Pierre (his X mark) Boyer
Sworn to before me
July 22nd 1825
Theodore Hunt
Charles Boyer being duly sworn says He has had the testimony of Pierre Boyer read to him, and of His knowledge He believe it to be true
Charles Bojeye
Sworn to before me
July 25, 1825
Theodore Hunt
Recorder L T
I James G. Soulard do solemnly declare I have truly translated the foregoing Testimony to each of the above named Persons to wit Pierre Boyer and Charles Boyer.
July 25, 1825
James G. Soulard
-------------------------------
Transcribed by Steven E. Weible
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
GLO Surveys of Town and Village Lots
Since the late 1600s the French had claimed a vast territory in North America extending from the Appalachian Mountains on the East to the Rocky Mountains on the West and from the Gulf of Mexico north into Canada. As a result of the French and Indian War, however, the French relinquished this vast territory of Louisiana to Great Britain and Spain in 1763. Great Britain took possession of that portion lying East of the Mississippi River, while Spain took possession of that portion to the West.
From 1763 Spain controlled the development of the territory that would later become the State of Missouri. Lands were granted to settlers and towns were developed during this period, while the fledgling United States divested Great Britain of its holdings in North America and Napoleon Bonaparte rose to power in France. Napoleon persuaded Spain to return Louisiana and, as a result, on October 1, 1800 by the Treaty of San Ildefonso, the Louisiana territory west of the Mississippi River was retroceded to France.
Upon learning of the transfer to France, the United States took steps to negotiate for the acquisition of New Orleans to ensure the passage of trade through that corridor. As circumstances would have it, Napoleon offered up the whole of the Louisiana territory and a treaty was concluded on April 30, 1803, providing for the acquisition that we know today as the Louisiana Purchase.
The United States formally took possession of Lower Louisiana at New Orleans on December 20, 1803 and formally took possession of Upper Louisiana at Saint Louis on March 10, 1804.
Having taken possession of Louisiana, the United States was eager to offer lands for sale in order to raise money for the support of the government. Before that could be done, though, claims to land that had been granted by the Spanish and the French had to be addressed. The Act of March 2, 1805, chapter 26, (U. S. Statutes at Large, Volume 2, page 324) provided for the appointment of commissioners to examine and decide upon the validity of these claims.
At the conclusion of the proceedings this first Board of Commissioners presented a report to the United States House of Representatives on April 22, 1812, in which they characterized the claims in the Territory of Louisiana that had been brought before them (American State Papers, Public Lands, Volume 2, page 377, No. 200). The claims were segregated into various classes, one of which was town and village lots, out lots and common field lots that had been inhabited, possessed and cultivated prior to December 20, 1803, the date on which the United States began to formally take possession of the Louisiana territory. It was estimated by the Board that villages, commons and common fields comprised about one fourth of all of the claims examined. The Board of Commissioners, therefore, recommended that it would be best to make a general confirmation of these towns to the inhabitants and to grant the unclaimed lots to the towns for the support of public schools.
Congress, apparently, saw wisdom in the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners and passed the Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99 (U. S. Statutes at Large, Volume 2, page 748). This act confirmed those claims to town or village lots, out lots, common field lots and commons, which had been inhabited, cultivated or possessed prior to December 20, 1803. The towns and villages to which the act pertained were: Portage des Sioux, St. Charles, St. Louis, St. Ferdinand (present City of Florissant), Village à Robert (present location of Bridgeton), Carondelet, Ste. Genevieve, New Bourbon, New Madrid and Little Prairie. In each of these towns or villages the principal deputy surveyor was directed to survey and mark the out boundary lines and to prepare plats of the surveys. Those tracts lying within the limits of the towns surveyed, which were not claimed by any individual or the inhabitants in general, were reserved for the support of schools in the town or village in which they were located. The total amount of lands reserved for the support of schools could not exceed 1/20 of the total area enclosed by the general survey of the town or village.
Although this act confirmed the claims to town and village lots, out lots and common field lots, it did not make provision for the survey of the individual claims, only the out boundary was to be surveyed. As a result of this deficiency, Congress passed the supplementary Act of May 26, 1824, chapter 184 (U. S. Statutes at Large, Volume 4, page 65), requiring those claiming town or village lots, out lots and common field lots under the Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99, to file their claim with the recorder of land titles within eighteen months after the passage of the Act to enable the surveyor general to distinguish the claimed lots from the unclaimed lots. Each claimant was to designate the boundaries and extent of their claim and prove inhabitation, cultivation or possession prior to December 20, 1803. It also extended the Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99, to include the town of Mine à Burton (present City of Potosi).
As the word reached the towns and villages about the requirements of the Act, claimants began to make their way to St. Louis to file their claims with Theodore Hunt, the recorder of land titles. The first claim was filed on February 13, 1825 by Louis Lemonde for a lot in the City of St. Louis.
A conceptual map depicting the general layout of each town or village was prepared with numbered blocks and identified streets so that each claimant could identify the location of his claim. The claimant then had to identify the bounds of the tract claimed and provide a witness to testify that the requirements of the confirming Act had been met. This information was recorded by the recorder of land titles in a minute book and the name of each claimant was successively added to a numbered list, which came to be known as "Hunt's List of Proofs" or, simply, "Hunt's List."
The following is the "proof" of a claim made by William Clark for a tract located in the Town of Saint Louis and recorded in Minute Book 2 at page 32:
William Clark deriving title from Auguste Chouteau claims a lot in the Town of Saint Louis being part of square No. 12 containing one hundred and twenty feet in front by one hundred and fifty in depth; bounded East by Front Street, which separates it from the Mississippi; North by North E Street; West by Main Street and South by balance of same square.
Copy of deed from Chouteau to Clark left in this office.
Alexander Bellesime being duly sworn says he knows the lot claimed and that upwards of twenty three years ago this Lot was owned and occupied by Auguste Chouteau who owned and occupied the same until he sold this lot to William Clark who has occupied it ever since.
Alexander (his X mark) Bellesime
sworn to before me
June 15, 1825
Theodore Hunt, Recorder of Land Titles
In order to relinquish to the inhabitants of the several towns and villages all right, title and interest of the United States to the town or village lots, out lots, common field lots and commons of the respective towns or villages that were confirmed by the Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99, Congress passed the Act of January 27, 1831, chapter 12 (U. S. Statutes at Large, Volume 4, page 435). It also relinquished all right, title and interest of the United States to those unclaimed tracts within the respective towns or villages that were reserved for the support of schools.
The required surveys were begun when, in September of 1835, Surveyor of the public lands in Illinois and Missouri, Elias T. Langham, entered into a contract with Joseph C. Brown to survey the town lots, out lots and common fields of Saint Louis (MoDNR microfiche location: 720/3303A04). Brown was to deliver his field notes and a separate plat of each lot and block, showing the proper connection with the adjoining and adjacent lots and blocks. In return Brown was to be compensated at the rate of six dollars per day, from the time he commenced work until the surveys and returns were completed.
In the record book that Joseph C. Brown prepared for the surveys in St. Louis, he describes the field procedures used for surveying town and village lots (pages 339 and 340, MoDNR microfiche location: 724/0053A01):
"I have surveyed the lines of the streets with the theodolite and have measured the streets in all cases with 2 poles, each 20 english feet long, moving them alternately & putting their ends just in contact. Where obstructions have existed I have determined the lines by calculation and that has been very often except on the streets, where I have always measured. In surveying the blocks, local references as witnesses are given and such I have deemed entirely sufficient for the lots in the respective blocks and more truly to be depended upon than any that could be given for individual lots. The course of the lines are not so correctly given as are the measures. I have used a compass in taking the courses, and on intermediate lines which the measures on the different sides show to be not parallel I have calculated the courses. At the commencement of the work I gave notice thereof in all the papers there published in the City requesting information from the owners of lots that might enable me to survey them correctly, but the call was but little attended to. I have lost much time in endeavoring to obtain information as to the location of lots, but after all there are many lots of which I cannot learn the situation and that are not embraced in the foregoing work, and some that are so far located as to name the block are yet indefinite as to what part of the block. Many lots have been long occupied on the ground of which I cannot learn anything from the documents in my possession ... in certain cases the plat and descriptions of the survey of the lot does not agree in form and size to the grant of said lot, or to the claim and proof thereof before the recorder of land titles. These irregularities were imposed on me by the possessions on the ground, which possessions I considered as guaranteed by the law of Confirmation of town and village lots."
In the record of surveys in Ste. Genevieve and New Bourbon (page 279, MoDNR microfiche location: 724/0474A01), Mr. Brown goes on to describe the relationship of the conceptual maps with the actual facts on the ground:
"The other parts of the town of Ste. Genevieve which are not embraced by the blocks of the town already described by the foregoing numbers thereof from No. 1 to No. 30 are so different on the ground from the sketches (designed therefor) furnished me from the Surveyor General's office, as will appear by my connected map of the surveys thereof, that I shall no further attempt a description of blocks or streets according to those sketches but will describe the several individual lots as I have surveyed them aided by those sketches and by satisfactory information given me on the ground of the metes and bounds of the several lots by persons knowing the same."
In the record book of Brown's Surveys in and near St. Charles (page 24, MoDNR microfiche location: 724/0319A02), Mr. Brown describes how town and village lot corners were monumented:
"In all cases in setting stones for corners to town lots or blocks where precision is required I have had the stone set on the lot (not in the street) and so that a corner of the stone shall mark the exact corner of the lot or block, to wit at the NE corner of a lot or block the NE corner of the stone as set is the corner, at the SE the SE corner of the stone and in like manner at the other corners. Where a stone is set as common corner to two lots it is set so as to be on the line between the lots with the middle point of the outer edge of the stone at the corner and when common corner to more than two lots, the middle point on the stone is intended to be the place of corner."
Once the surveys for a town or village were completed, a drawing and description of each lot was set down in a record book for that particular town or village. At some later date, the Surveyor General, or a clerk in his office, assigned a number to each lot according to the order in which it appeared in the record book. Each town or village was numbered separately so that each constitutes its own series, except that Sainte Genevieve and New Bourbon were surveyed as one series. It is necessary, therefore, to make a distinction as to which series the survey belongs. As an example, Survey #1 in the City of Saint Louis would be referred to as "Survey #1 of the Saint Louis Series". Survey #1 in the City of Sainte Genevieve would be referred to as "Survey #1 of the Sainte Genevieve and New Bourbon Series."
It is important to note that those private claims that are typically referred to as "U. S. Surveys" actually constitute a series separate from the surveys of town and village lots. These include the claims approved by the first and second boards of commissioners, New Madrid claims and claims approved by other acts of Congress. The General Land Office referred to these surveys as belonging to the "General Series." Since a survey in any series may be referred to as a "U. S. Survey," it is entirely possible that more than one "U. S. Survey" of the same number, but of a different series, could occur within the same township or general locality. For instance, in Township 38 North, Range 9 East at Sainte Genevieve, both the General Series and the Ste. Genevieve and New Bourbon Series have Surveys numbered 96, 146 and 253. Town and village lot surveys are often intermingled with and adjoining surveys of the General Series, so it is important to recognize the different series and identify them appropriately.
----------------------------------------
Original composition by Steven E. Weible
From 1763 Spain controlled the development of the territory that would later become the State of Missouri. Lands were granted to settlers and towns were developed during this period, while the fledgling United States divested Great Britain of its holdings in North America and Napoleon Bonaparte rose to power in France. Napoleon persuaded Spain to return Louisiana and, as a result, on October 1, 1800 by the Treaty of San Ildefonso, the Louisiana territory west of the Mississippi River was retroceded to France.
Upon learning of the transfer to France, the United States took steps to negotiate for the acquisition of New Orleans to ensure the passage of trade through that corridor. As circumstances would have it, Napoleon offered up the whole of the Louisiana territory and a treaty was concluded on April 30, 1803, providing for the acquisition that we know today as the Louisiana Purchase.
The United States formally took possession of Lower Louisiana at New Orleans on December 20, 1803 and formally took possession of Upper Louisiana at Saint Louis on March 10, 1804.
Having taken possession of Louisiana, the United States was eager to offer lands for sale in order to raise money for the support of the government. Before that could be done, though, claims to land that had been granted by the Spanish and the French had to be addressed. The Act of March 2, 1805, chapter 26, (U. S. Statutes at Large, Volume 2, page 324) provided for the appointment of commissioners to examine and decide upon the validity of these claims.
At the conclusion of the proceedings this first Board of Commissioners presented a report to the United States House of Representatives on April 22, 1812, in which they characterized the claims in the Territory of Louisiana that had been brought before them (American State Papers, Public Lands, Volume 2, page 377, No. 200). The claims were segregated into various classes, one of which was town and village lots, out lots and common field lots that had been inhabited, possessed and cultivated prior to December 20, 1803, the date on which the United States began to formally take possession of the Louisiana territory. It was estimated by the Board that villages, commons and common fields comprised about one fourth of all of the claims examined. The Board of Commissioners, therefore, recommended that it would be best to make a general confirmation of these towns to the inhabitants and to grant the unclaimed lots to the towns for the support of public schools.
Congress, apparently, saw wisdom in the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners and passed the Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99 (U. S. Statutes at Large, Volume 2, page 748). This act confirmed those claims to town or village lots, out lots, common field lots and commons, which had been inhabited, cultivated or possessed prior to December 20, 1803. The towns and villages to which the act pertained were: Portage des Sioux, St. Charles, St. Louis, St. Ferdinand (present City of Florissant), Village à Robert (present location of Bridgeton), Carondelet, Ste. Genevieve, New Bourbon, New Madrid and Little Prairie. In each of these towns or villages the principal deputy surveyor was directed to survey and mark the out boundary lines and to prepare plats of the surveys. Those tracts lying within the limits of the towns surveyed, which were not claimed by any individual or the inhabitants in general, were reserved for the support of schools in the town or village in which they were located. The total amount of lands reserved for the support of schools could not exceed 1/20 of the total area enclosed by the general survey of the town or village.
Although this act confirmed the claims to town and village lots, out lots and common field lots, it did not make provision for the survey of the individual claims, only the out boundary was to be surveyed. As a result of this deficiency, Congress passed the supplementary Act of May 26, 1824, chapter 184 (U. S. Statutes at Large, Volume 4, page 65), requiring those claiming town or village lots, out lots and common field lots under the Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99, to file their claim with the recorder of land titles within eighteen months after the passage of the Act to enable the surveyor general to distinguish the claimed lots from the unclaimed lots. Each claimant was to designate the boundaries and extent of their claim and prove inhabitation, cultivation or possession prior to December 20, 1803. It also extended the Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99, to include the town of Mine à Burton (present City of Potosi).
As the word reached the towns and villages about the requirements of the Act, claimants began to make their way to St. Louis to file their claims with Theodore Hunt, the recorder of land titles. The first claim was filed on February 13, 1825 by Louis Lemonde for a lot in the City of St. Louis.
A conceptual map depicting the general layout of each town or village was prepared with numbered blocks and identified streets so that each claimant could identify the location of his claim. The claimant then had to identify the bounds of the tract claimed and provide a witness to testify that the requirements of the confirming Act had been met. This information was recorded by the recorder of land titles in a minute book and the name of each claimant was successively added to a numbered list, which came to be known as "Hunt's List of Proofs" or, simply, "Hunt's List."
The following is the "proof" of a claim made by William Clark for a tract located in the Town of Saint Louis and recorded in Minute Book 2 at page 32:
William Clark deriving title from Auguste Chouteau claims a lot in the Town of Saint Louis being part of square No. 12 containing one hundred and twenty feet in front by one hundred and fifty in depth; bounded East by Front Street, which separates it from the Mississippi; North by North E Street; West by Main Street and South by balance of same square.
Copy of deed from Chouteau to Clark left in this office.
Alexander Bellesime being duly sworn says he knows the lot claimed and that upwards of twenty three years ago this Lot was owned and occupied by Auguste Chouteau who owned and occupied the same until he sold this lot to William Clark who has occupied it ever since.
Alexander (his X mark) Bellesime
sworn to before me
June 15, 1825
Theodore Hunt, Recorder of Land Titles
In order to relinquish to the inhabitants of the several towns and villages all right, title and interest of the United States to the town or village lots, out lots, common field lots and commons of the respective towns or villages that were confirmed by the Act of June 13, 1812, chapter 99, Congress passed the Act of January 27, 1831, chapter 12 (U. S. Statutes at Large, Volume 4, page 435). It also relinquished all right, title and interest of the United States to those unclaimed tracts within the respective towns or villages that were reserved for the support of schools.
The required surveys were begun when, in September of 1835, Surveyor of the public lands in Illinois and Missouri, Elias T. Langham, entered into a contract with Joseph C. Brown to survey the town lots, out lots and common fields of Saint Louis (MoDNR microfiche location: 720/3303A04). Brown was to deliver his field notes and a separate plat of each lot and block, showing the proper connection with the adjoining and adjacent lots and blocks. In return Brown was to be compensated at the rate of six dollars per day, from the time he commenced work until the surveys and returns were completed.
In the record book that Joseph C. Brown prepared for the surveys in St. Louis, he describes the field procedures used for surveying town and village lots (pages 339 and 340, MoDNR microfiche location: 724/0053A01):
"I have surveyed the lines of the streets with the theodolite and have measured the streets in all cases with 2 poles, each 20 english feet long, moving them alternately & putting their ends just in contact. Where obstructions have existed I have determined the lines by calculation and that has been very often except on the streets, where I have always measured. In surveying the blocks, local references as witnesses are given and such I have deemed entirely sufficient for the lots in the respective blocks and more truly to be depended upon than any that could be given for individual lots. The course of the lines are not so correctly given as are the measures. I have used a compass in taking the courses, and on intermediate lines which the measures on the different sides show to be not parallel I have calculated the courses. At the commencement of the work I gave notice thereof in all the papers there published in the City requesting information from the owners of lots that might enable me to survey them correctly, but the call was but little attended to. I have lost much time in endeavoring to obtain information as to the location of lots, but after all there are many lots of which I cannot learn the situation and that are not embraced in the foregoing work, and some that are so far located as to name the block are yet indefinite as to what part of the block. Many lots have been long occupied on the ground of which I cannot learn anything from the documents in my possession ... in certain cases the plat and descriptions of the survey of the lot does not agree in form and size to the grant of said lot, or to the claim and proof thereof before the recorder of land titles. These irregularities were imposed on me by the possessions on the ground, which possessions I considered as guaranteed by the law of Confirmation of town and village lots."
In the record of surveys in Ste. Genevieve and New Bourbon (page 279, MoDNR microfiche location: 724/0474A01), Mr. Brown goes on to describe the relationship of the conceptual maps with the actual facts on the ground:
"The other parts of the town of Ste. Genevieve which are not embraced by the blocks of the town already described by the foregoing numbers thereof from No. 1 to No. 30 are so different on the ground from the sketches (designed therefor) furnished me from the Surveyor General's office, as will appear by my connected map of the surveys thereof, that I shall no further attempt a description of blocks or streets according to those sketches but will describe the several individual lots as I have surveyed them aided by those sketches and by satisfactory information given me on the ground of the metes and bounds of the several lots by persons knowing the same."
In the record book of Brown's Surveys in and near St. Charles (page 24, MoDNR microfiche location: 724/0319A02), Mr. Brown describes how town and village lot corners were monumented:
"In all cases in setting stones for corners to town lots or blocks where precision is required I have had the stone set on the lot (not in the street) and so that a corner of the stone shall mark the exact corner of the lot or block, to wit at the NE corner of a lot or block the NE corner of the stone as set is the corner, at the SE the SE corner of the stone and in like manner at the other corners. Where a stone is set as common corner to two lots it is set so as to be on the line between the lots with the middle point of the outer edge of the stone at the corner and when common corner to more than two lots, the middle point on the stone is intended to be the place of corner."
 |
| Joseph C. Brown's illustration of the manner of setting stones for corners of town lots. |
Once the surveys for a town or village were completed, a drawing and description of each lot was set down in a record book for that particular town or village. At some later date, the Surveyor General, or a clerk in his office, assigned a number to each lot according to the order in which it appeared in the record book. Each town or village was numbered separately so that each constitutes its own series, except that Sainte Genevieve and New Bourbon were surveyed as one series. It is necessary, therefore, to make a distinction as to which series the survey belongs. As an example, Survey #1 in the City of Saint Louis would be referred to as "Survey #1 of the Saint Louis Series". Survey #1 in the City of Sainte Genevieve would be referred to as "Survey #1 of the Sainte Genevieve and New Bourbon Series."
It is important to note that those private claims that are typically referred to as "U. S. Surveys" actually constitute a series separate from the surveys of town and village lots. These include the claims approved by the first and second boards of commissioners, New Madrid claims and claims approved by other acts of Congress. The General Land Office referred to these surveys as belonging to the "General Series." Since a survey in any series may be referred to as a "U. S. Survey," it is entirely possible that more than one "U. S. Survey" of the same number, but of a different series, could occur within the same township or general locality. For instance, in Township 38 North, Range 9 East at Sainte Genevieve, both the General Series and the Ste. Genevieve and New Bourbon Series have Surveys numbered 96, 146 and 253. Town and village lot surveys are often intermingled with and adjoining surveys of the General Series, so it is important to recognize the different series and identify them appropriately.
----------------------------------------
Original composition by Steven E. Weible
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)