There has been a lot of interest lately in the private land claim that was confirmed to Peter Delassus Deluzieres and which is now known as General Series Survey 2969 (also known as U. S. Survey 2969). It is located in Farmington, Missouri, and since there has been so much speculation, I thought it would be interesting to examine and compare the survey performed by Antoine Soulard in 1799 under the authority of the Spanish government and the survey performed by William Bartlett in 1835 under the authority of the United States General Land Office. I personally found the comparison to be very enlightening and instructive, so I thought I would share it.
To review the basic background information, in 1793, Peter Delassus Deluzieres had entered into a five year contract with the Spanish government to deliver thirty thousand pounds of lead. He, therefore, petitioned the lieutenant governor of Upper Louisiana on March 3, 1795 for a grant of land of one league square, being equal to 7056 arpents (French measure) or 6002.5 acres (English measure). On April 1, 1795, Lieutenant Governor Zenon Trudeau conceded the tract of one league square of land as had been requested (American State Papers, Public Lands, Vol. 6, pgs 809-812).
Antoine Soulard had been commissioned as Surveyor General of Upper Louisiana on February 3, 1795, but had not yet set up shop and begun work (Territorial Papers of the United States, Vol. 14, pg 30). As a result, a few years passed before a boundary survey of the Delassus concession could be performed. On November 29, 1799, Antoine Soulard was directed by Lieutenant Governor Charles Dehault Delassus (Peter's son) to perform the boundary survey.
On March 5, 1800, Soulard certified that he had performed the survey on December 14, 1799 and that all measurements had been made with the perch of Paris of 18 feet in length, agreeably to the custom adopted in the province of Louisiana. He subsequently recorded his plan and notes in the Registre d'Arpentage (Archive of Surveys) as shown here:
Let's take a closer look at the information that Soulard provided.
1. piquêt = stake or post
2. chêne blanc = white oak
3. noyer = hickory
4. frêne = ash tree
5. nogalon noyer, chêne Galleux, au lieu de noyer (I'm not sure on the translation for this) some kind of hickory, then some kind of oak in place of the hickory
It is noted that tous marqués DL = all the trees are marked DL
So, at this point I know what the circles mean and what the numbers stand for, but I'm not real sure what the circles and numbers together mean. Are the numbers indicating witness trees or are they part of the corner? Is it either a stone or a tree/post or both?
Okay, well, let's move on:
Next, we see that the tract is located 25 miles to the W. S. W. of the Village of New Bourbon and that tous les arbres de lignes sont plaqués = all the trees on the lines are marked.
Lastly, we see that the survey was performed on December 14, 1799 in virtue of the decree of the Lieutenant Governor Mr. Charles Dehault Delassus, dated November 29 of the same year. The certificate of survey was completed on March 5, 1800. Signed with the mark of Antoine Soulard.
So, there's the explanation for Soulard's survey. The information provided is brief and creates more questions than it provides answers. The drawing does also contain topographic features for reference, including a branch of the St. Francis River, creeks, hills and the location of the lead mine site (mine de plomb site), along with a statement that the land is generally good (terre generallement bonne).
After the United States took possession of the province of Louisiana, the process for confirmation of private land claims began. See my book, It was not Quick and It Was Not Simple: The Saga of Private Lands Claims in Missouri (go to book), for a more detailed description of that process. The Delassus claim was not confirmed until it was taken all the way to the United States Supreme Court (U. S. Reports, Vol. 34, pg 117). The Court confirmed the claim during the January term of 1835.
Under instructions from the Surveyor General of the United States for Illinois and Missouri, dated September 27, 1835, William Bartlett proceeded to make a boundary survey of the confirmed Delassus land claim, beginning on October 27, 1835 and ending on November 2, 1835 (Record of MO Private Surveys, Vol. 16, pgs 47-57).
He proceeded as follows (please, note that not all of the notes will be transcribed here, only those relevant to this discussion):
Compass adopted to the Variation of 7 1/2° East to conform to the original lines of Survey.
Examined for the North East Corner of Charles Dehault Delassus Survey and found a Hickory marked DL but no stone nor pieces of Iron Pot, therefore at the intersec[tion] of the North and East boundary lines of said Survey, set a post Corner from which a Hickory 12 inch Diam[eter] b[ear]s N43°W 55 Lks [36.3 feet] and a Black Oak 12 inch diam[eter] b[ear]s S78°W 108 Lks [71.3 feet]
Referring back to the Soulard survey, it notes a circle for a stone and a number "3," indicating a noyer or hickory marked DL. Marked hickory found, but no stone. Also noteworthy is that the intersection of boundary lines did not correspond with the location of the marked tree.
Thence N 82 1/2° W
[At a distance of] 0.71 [chains (46.9 feet) from the Northeast corner, found] Hickory 12 inch diam[eter] marked DL mentioned before
[At a distance of] 58.40 [chains (3854.4 feet) from the Northeast corner] Examined for witness as marked on plat A, but found none
This, then, would be the next circle on the Soulard survey, which is annotated with the number "3" for hickory. Nothing found, but what is the distance in arpents?
(58.40 chains)*(12 arpents/35 chains) = 20.0 arpents
Continuing:
[At a distance of] 175.20 [chains (11563.2 feet) from the Northeast corner] Examined for witness as pr Plat A, but found none
It appears that the second line marker was skipped, so this would be the third circle on the Soulard survey, which is annotated with the number "5." Nothing found, but what is the distance in arpents for this one?
(175.20 chains)*(12 arpents/35 chains) = 60.1 arpents
So, it's looking like the line markers a being set every 20 arpents.
Continuing:
[At a distance of] 233.60 [chains (15417.6 feet) from the Northeast corner] Examined for witness as pr plat A, but found none
the last mile of this line appears not to have been blazed
This would be the fourth line mark on the Soulard survey, which is annotated with the number "1" for stake or post. Nothing found, but what is the distance in arpents to this one?
(233.60 chains)*(12 arpents/35 chains) = 80.1 arpents
Again, it appears the line marks are being set every 20 arpents.
In regard to the lines not being blazed for the last mile, that part of the line would appear to correspond with the creek bottom where the quality of the trees may not have been as good.
Continuing:
[At a distance of] 245.00 [chains (16170.0 feet) from the Northeast corner] Examined for Corner, but found none, therefore set a Corner post [for Northwest corner] from which a Gum 14 inch diam[eter] b[ear]s N58°W 15 Lks [9.9 feet] & a Gum 14 inch diam[eter] b[ear]s N60°E 69 Lks [45.5 feet]
William Bartlett, therefore, did not find a Soulard stone at the Northwest corner, so he set a post.
Continuing:
Thence S 7 1/2° W
[At a distance of] 29.61 [chains (1954.3 feet) from the Northwest corner] A Black Oak 12 inch diam[eter] here we find that we are on the Old line
[At a distance of] 58.40 [chains (3854.4 feet or 20 arpents) from the Northwest corner] Examine for witness as pr Plat A, but found none
So far, William Bartlett has been following the old blazed line, but has only found one tree marked as called for by Soulard. We may also note here that the old blazed line reappeared once Bartlett left the creek bottom.
Continuing:
[At a distance of] 117.80 [chains (7774.8 feet) from the Northwest corner, found] A white Oak 18 inch diam[eter] marked DL but found no stone nor pieces of Iron pot
Okay, so this would be the second line mark on the Soulard survey south of the Northwest corner, which is annotated with the number "2," which indicates a white oak. White Oak marked DL found!, but no stone. What is the distance in arpents?
(117.80 chains)*(12 arpents/35 chains) = 40.4 arpents
Continuing:
[At a distance of] 175.20 [chains (11563.2 feet or 60.1 arpents) from the Northwest corner] Examined for witness as pr plat A, but found none
This would be the third line marker on the Soulard survey south from the Northwest corner, which is annotated with the number "5." Nothing found.
Continuing:
[At a distance of] 233.60 [chains (15417.6 feet or 80.1 arpents) from the Northwest corner] examined for witness as per plat A, but found none
[At a distance of] 244.96 [chains (16167.4 feet or 84 arpents) from the Northwest corner, found] A white Oak 16 inch diam[eter] marked DL with a stone placed at the root, we raised the stone but found no pieces of Iron pot, this tree is at the intersec[tion] of the West and South boundary lines of Survey therefore I established it for the Corner from which a white Oak 14 inch dia[meter] b[ear]s S63°E 62 Lks [40.9 feet] and a white Oak 14 inch diam[eter] b[ear]s S43°W 93 Lks [61.4 feet]
Finally, he found a stone! The Soulard survey indicated a white oak (number 2) here and that's what Bartlett found marked as expected. The interesting thing to note here is that the stone was placed at the root of the tree indicated. So, it would appear that the stone and tree together form the corner.
Continuing:
Thence S 82 1/2° E
[At a distance of] 58.40 [chains (3854.4 feet or 20 arpents) from the Southwest corner] Examined for witness as per plat A, but found none
[At a distance of] 116.41 [chains (7683.1 feet or 39.9 arpents) from the Southwest corner, found] A white Oak 20 inch diam[eter] marked DL with stone placed at the root
Nothing found at the first line mark, but the second line mark from the Soulard survey found as expected. Here again the stone is at the root of the tree.
Continuing:
[At a distance of] 233.60 [chains (15417.6 feet or 80.1 arpents) from the Southwest corner] Examined for witness as pr Plat A, but found none
[At a distance of] 245.00 [chains (16170.0 feet or 84 arpents) from the Southwest corner] Examined for Corner and found the East boundary line
[At a distance of] 245.65 [chains (16212.9 feet) from the Southwest corner] Set a Corner post at the intersec[tion] of the South and East boundary lines from which a white Oak 10 inch diam[eter] b[ear]s S53°E 29 Lks [19.1 feet] & a white Oak 24 inch diam[eter] b[ear]s S19°W 25 Lks [16.5 feet]
Thence N 7 1/2° E
[At a distance of] 0.45 [chains (29.7 feet) from the Southeast corner, found] A white Oak 20 inch diam[eter] with stone placed at the root
Now this is a little curious. Bartlett found the stone and white oak as expected, but not at the intersection of the boundary lines. He marked the actual intersection with a post.
Continuing:
[At a distance of] 58.76 [chains (3878.2 feet or 20.15 arpents) from the Southeast corner, found] A Hickory 14 inch diam[eter] marked DL
This would be the first line mark on the Soulard survey, where a hickory was found as expected. Apparently, no stone, though.
Continuing:
[At a distance of] 117.15 [chains (7731.9 feet or 40.2 arpents) from the Southeast corner, found] A Hickory 14 inch Diam[eter] with stone and Pieces of Iron Pot.
[At a distance of] 175.20 [chains (11563.2 feet or 60.1 arpents) from the Southeast corner] Examined for witness as pr plat A, but found none
[At a distance of] 233.60 [chains (15417.6 feet or 80.1 arpents) from the Southeast corner] Examined for witness as pr plat A, but found none
[At a distance of] 245.48 [chains (16201.7 feet) from the Southeast corner] Closed at the beginning Corner. November 2, 1835
A curious thing to note here is that the length of this east line is 48 links long and the distance from the intersection of boundary lines at the southeast corner to the found stone and tree is 45 links. The distance from the stone and tree at 45 links to the found tree at 58.76 chains from the intersection of boundary lines is 58.31 chains (58.76 - 0.45) or 20.0 arpents. The distance from the stone and tree at 45 links to the stone and tree at 117.15 chains from the intersection of boundary lines is 116.7 chains (117.15 - 0.45) or 40.0 arpents. Remember also that the tree found at the northeast corner did not correspond with the intersection of boundary lines. Why the discrepancy? Were the marked boundary lines not those of Soulard? If the marked boundary lines are those of Soulard, did he mark the nearest available tree when a tree did not coincide with the corner? We can't ask Soulard now, so I guess we're left to speculate.
So, out of a total of twenty (20) markers set by Soulard, each of which was supposed to be a stone with a tree or post, William Bartlett only recovered seven (7) trees and only four (4) of those had stones. It should be noted that only one corner, the southwest corner, was actually found marked. Many of the markers set by Soulard were likely destroyed, obliterated or lost to natural deterioration before Bartlett got there. And, I suppose, there is always the possibility that Bartlett just missed some of markers.
I hope you found this interesting and that it helped in your understanding of how Soulard actually conducted his surveys.
