THE INDIANA-MICHIGAN BOUNDARY
Progress of the Indiana/Michigan State Line Survey
The Quiet Boundary - Lost or Found?
(Should We Let It Remain Lost/Obliterated or Become Found?)
INTERNATIONAL RIGHT OF WAY ASSOCIATION
55TH ANNUAL MEETING
Ad-hoc Indiana-Michigan State Line Study Committee
Jack N. Owens, PS, Committee Chairman; 2002; revised and updated 2008, 2009
Additional material and research by Norman C. Caldwell, PS, Recording Secretary
Progress of the Indiana/Michigan State Line Survey
Course Objective: To advise attendees aware of history of line, how it relates to the current retracement (survey)
of line, and what is needed and planned to finish retracement (survey and monumentation) of State Line.
Course Outline:
Historical Background for Line
Northwest Territory
Ohio Statehood/Constitution
Indiana Statehood/Northern Boundary
1817 Harris Line
Indian Treaty Cessions
GLO Surveys
1827 North Line of Indiana by Kendrick
GLO Rectangular Townships – Indian & Michigan
Closing Corner Ties to Mile Posts
County Surveyor Recoveries
19th Century
20th Century
Rekindling of Interest
County Surveyor Efforts
Funding Capabilities of Abutting County Surveyors
Ad-hoc State Line Study Committee
Monument Recoveries and Status
Suggested Procedures for Mile Post Recoveries
Determination of Search Areas
Indiana & Michigan Legislative Actions
Suggested Legislation for Retracement/Remonumentation Survey
Status of legislation bill compilations
Figures, maps and tables accompanying this paper were used with the paper first presented on the status in 2002.
Not all those supporting documents were relevant and included with this document, but the numbering
sequences used in 2002 for the three types was retained. Hence some missing sequence numbers will be noted
when viewing the ones included in this presentation. Some new supporting documents were prepared for this
update of the progress of the State Line Survey.
Page 1 of 28
INTRODUCTION
The Indiana-Michigan boundary was surveyed in 1827 with wooden mile posts set along its entire 110-mile
length (104.5 miles on E-W portion). This was fully 11 years after the U.S. Congress approved the current
border as part of the enabling legislation for Indiana’s admission into the Union in 1816. As of 2008 much of it
remains not remonumented, not resurveyed or only partially resurveyed, yet nearly all the original controlling
wooden monumentation mile posts have decayed decades ago. The boundary remains definite and certain even
if much of its location is obscured, only apparently uncertain because the posts are not yet recovered, an
unknown number obliterated, or lost. We will review the current status of progress to have the original line
retraced and what is our role as surveyors.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND – Northwest Territory
Certain elements of British policy and governance were adopted and continued by the United States in the Great
Lakes area. In the first Treaty of Paris in 1763 France had ceded all their claims to Canada and the area west of
the Appalachians to the Mississippi to Great Britain. At one point Britain even considered formation of three
new colonies: one in the Illinois country, another around Detroit (now Michigan), and a third on the Ohio River
(around Vincennes, now Indiana). Wars in Europe and America had been successful but costly to Britain, and
they expected the colonists to defray the costs for keeping troops in the Colonies and in the “West.” For too
long the Colonies had been neglected by Britain, and they were now accustomed to managing their own affairs.
Parliament imposed one tax after another, never finding one the colonists would accept, and repealing all except
a small tax on tea to show their authority. Resentment only increased, resulting in the Boston Tea Party in 1773.
1, 2, 3
In retaliation, Parliament passed four acts disciplining the colonies by reducing political power, called “coercive
laws” and the Intolerable Acts by the colonists. In addition the French Canadian descendants living in the Great
lakes area, wanted civil government. The fifth law of 1774 was the Quebec Act. Meant for the French, the Act
extended the province of Quebec west to the Mississippi and south to the Ohio River. English criminal law
continued in force but French civil law was re-established; an appointed legislature was set up rather than an
elected one; and religious liberty was granted the Roman Catholics when little religious toleration existed in
England. The thirteen colonies associated the act with the other four as being a threat to their liberties, even
specifically citing parts of it as a part of the justification for their Declaration of Independence. 1, 2
In 1777 during the Revolutionary War the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the bond
of union forming the new country. It required unanimous approval, but Maryland would not ratify it unless the
eight landed states gave up their claims to the western territories so all could share in any future benefits of
development; five states had claims to parts of the western lands north of the Ohio River (see Map 2 1). The
Continental Congress approved an ingenious plan to break the deadlock in 1780 adopting one of the most
important policy decisions in American history. If ceded to the central government, the western lands would be
“formed into separate republican states, which shall become members of the federal union, and have the same
rights and sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other states.” In 1780 New York ceded their claims
and Pennsylvania agreed to a definite western boundary. Virginia ceded their overlapping claims in 1781 with
stipulations, followed by the cessions of Massachusetts in 1785 and Connecticut in 1786. The latter three
retained certain reservations, two affecting Ohio. 1
The second Treaty of Paris officially ended the Revolutionary War in 1783. The British picked the option of a
Canadian-U.S. boundary through the middle of the Great Lakes (see Map 3 1).1 The area north of the Ohio
quickly became known as the “Territory Northwest of the Ohio River,” more commonly as the Northwest
Territory, or the Old Northwest, being the northwesterly part of the “western lands” Britain surrendered to the
U.S. (see Map 4 2). The Continental Congress soon considered a plan for the disposal and governance of the
Page 2 of 28
area with Thomas Jefferson drafting a grandiose plan in 1784 reflecting Virginia’s 1780 stipulations, proposing
10 states for the area. 1, 4 It never went into effect; Congress concluded it was advisable to have larger
geographical units reflecting natural boundaries and better knowledge of the country. 4
Final Policies- Northwest Ordinance
The Continental Congress still needed to deal with two issues in the western lands - disposal and
governance. 1 The policy with respect to disposal was settled by the Act of May 20, 1785, “ An Ordinance for
Ascertaining the Mode of Disposing of Lands in the Western Territory,” better known as the Land Ordinance of
1785. 1, 5 The Ordinance carried over some provisions of the Ordinance of 1784 and provided for the orderly
sale of the Public Lands with fair treatment of the Indians and hopefully bringing in revenue to the empty
treasury depleted by the costly war of independence. 2 Only government agents could make treaties with the
Indians and purchase large areas. The land had to be surveyed into sectionalized townships prior to sale by
auction to the highest bidder. 2 The Ordinance provided that the public lands should be surveyed into 6-mile
square townships containing 36 mile-square sections in advance of sale; one section was reserved for education.
This act represented a compromise of the political milieu of opposing view points on land policy indiscriminate settlement vs. parcel survey (sometimes according to a set plan) in advance of sale; sale of only
large tracts to companies who then sold it to individuals vs. direct government sales to settlers; sale on easy
terms to promote settlement vs. sale primarily as resource for the income it would bring to the treasury. 1
The policy with respect to governance of the Territory was finalized by the Act of July 13, 1787, the Ordinance
of 1787, more commonly known as the Northwest Ordinance. It carried out the remaining provisions of the
1780 Continental Congress policy and the Ordinance of 1784, most importantly establishing an orderly means
for new states to develop. It defined the future divisions of the Northwest Territory, the three stages of passage
to statehood, and a statement of rights guaranteed to settlers of the region. 1 Future states were specifically
defined with a minimum of three states to be formed by two “direct line[s] drawn due North, to...Canada [from
the Wabash River at Post St. Vincent’s and from the mouth of the Great Miami River at the Ohio]...Provided,
however,...these three states shall be...altered...if Congress shall hereafter find it expedient, they shall have the
authority to form one or two States in that part of the said territory which lies North of an East and West line
drawn through the Southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan”. 4 Sheehan labels this as the Ordinance Line
for ease of discussion. 4 This line would come to control the Indiana- Michigan boundary. Also at this time, the
Constitutional Convention was framing the Constitution that was completed September 17, 1787, including
Article Four giving Congress sole power to form states and dispose of the Public Lands. 6 Congress must have
been aware this provision was being proposed even as it passed the Ordinance. 1
The right to statehood was guaranteed “whenever any of the said states shall have sixty thousand free
inhabitants therein,...” A state was at first governed by appointed officials, progressing to partial selfgovernment and non-voting Congressional representation when it had a population of 5,000 free, adult males.
The personal rights guaranteed were those traditionally held by Englishmen - including unlawful restraint by the
state, trial by jury, security of property, and religious freedom. Slavery was also prohibited. Education was
advocated [and tie-barred to the school section reservation of the Land Ordinance of 1785] in the statement and
admonition declaring “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the
happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” 1
The impetus for the Northwest Ordinance came from the Ohio Company, planned by General Rufus Putnam
[later appointed Surveyor General of the Northwest Territory], and formed (March 1, 1786) by himself and other
Massachusetts Revolutionary War veterans who wanted to buy a large tract in Ohio. Reverend Manasseh Cutler
was entrusted to arrange the purchase with Congress, and he negotiated a shady deal with William Duer, the
Congressional official handling land sales, that combined their request with the petition of the Scioto Company
(made up of Duer and several Congressmen) that sought an option to purchase an enormous tract of land. The
latter never was able to make the payments on its option. Beyond the purchase itself, Cutler also insisted that
Page 3 of 28
Congress provide government for their area and the Northwest Ordinance was the outgrowth of this demand.
Thus it appears to have been passed principally to facilitate Cutler and Duer’s deal by being hastily rushed
through Congress. A committee was formed July 9th, made its recommendations July 11th, and they were passed
by Congress July 13th. The Northwest Territory became operational once the national government was
inaugurated in 1789 after adoption of and under the provisions of the new Constitution. 1 Interestingly, when
Kentucky became the 15th State in 1792 its north boundary was defined as the north bank of the Ohio River,
rather than the centerline which is more common with water boundaries. This became the first border defined
by Congressional act involving the Northwest Territory and specified the entire south boundary. The Northwest
Ordinance had simply stated “... said territory shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and ... [the calls for
the remainder of the boundary limits],” and Congress decided the details as it would for the admission of other
states. 4
These three policies were among the most important policies in U.S. history, being the 1780 policy to assure
formation of separate sovereign equal states from the ceded western lands won from Great Britain, the Land
Ordinance of 1785, and the Ordinance of 1787. 1 They gave direction and form to the convictions that America
was the land of opportunity available for settlement and development and that states equal in rank and rights to
the original thirteen States would continue to develop out of the vast Public Domain in the expanding west.
Ohio Statehood/Constitution
Settlers began pushing into the Northwest Territory ignoring and over-running Indian treaty lines. The Indians
resisted and a series of fights and battles took place with two major defeats of American forces in western Ohio.
President Washington then appointed General Anthony Wayne to take command in 1792. He thoroughly
trained his army (mostly composed of militia) until peace efforts failed. The troops under Anthony fought and
decisively defeated the Indians in 1794 at the Battle of Fallen Timbers south of Ft. Miamis (near present-day
Toledo). The Indians ceded nearly all of Ohio to the United States in 1795 at the Treaty of Greenville. With no
barriers remaining settlers poured into Ohio and even beyond. Detroit’s population reached 500 by 1796 and
that of the Northwest Territory increased to well over 5,000 free adult males by 1798 (most in Ohio), making it
eligible for advancement to the second stage to statehood under the Northwest Ordinance. 1 Congress divided
the Northwest Territory by the Act of May 7, 1800 (2 Stat. 58). 7 The dividing line followed the Greenville
Treaty line to Ft. Recovery and then ran due North to Canada (see Map 6 1). The new area to the east continued
to be called the Northwest Territory while the area to the west was named the Indiana Territory. The Act also
provided that when a new State was erected, the final boundary would be changed to run due North from the
mouth of the Great Miami River, a.k.a. the Miami of the Ohio, adhering to the division line stipulated in the
Northwest Ordinance. 1, 7
With the Ohio area rapidly growing agitation for statehood developed resulting in the passage of the Ohio
Enabling Act on April 30, 1802 (2 Stat. 174 9) that authorized the people of Ohio to write a state constitution
and form a state government, citing the Northwest Ordinance for the boundaries. 1, 5, 9 Their new constitution
defined the State’s boundaries: the western boundary was to run from the mouth of the Great Miami River
(a.k.a. the Miami of the Ohio) at the Ohio on a line drawn due north to an east-west line drawn through the
southerly extreme of Lake Michigan which shall continue east [the Ordinance Line] ... “until it shall intersect
Lake Erie, or the territorial line [the international boundary with Canada in the midline of Lake Erie], and thence
with the same through Lake Erie [my emphasis] to the Pennsylvania line, aforesaid.” The eastern boundary was
the west line of Pennsylvania (see Map 7 1 and Map 8 2). 1, 4, 7 These boundaries adhered strictly to the
Northwest Ordinance. However, the intent and true meaning of this definition of the north line of Ohio, the
Ordinance Line, would cause contention and seemingly endless arguments until Michigan was admitted as a
State January 26, 1837. It almost certainly influenced the definition of the north boundary of Indiana when it
became a State in 1816 as the senator from Ohio personally shepherded the enabling act for Indiana through the
Senate and was chairman of the committee which changed the House’s amendment of the Ordinance Line as the
definition of the North line of Indiana. 4 The division lines as stipulated firmly committed the federal
Page 4 of 28
government to divide the Northwest Territory into more than three states. Ohio was admitted to statehood by the
Act of November 29, 1802 (2 Stat. 173). 8 Edward Tiffin, a medical doctor elected the first governor in 1803,
was to become Surveyor General of Ohio and the Territories of Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri in
1814. 7
During the constitutional convention, the delegates in Ohio were informed by an old trapper and hunter that the
mouth of the Maumee River (originally known as the Miami River of the Lake) was reported to be, according to
one citation, much further north than was thought 4, or in another that Lake Michigan was much further south 9
(see Map 9 9 and Map 10 9; clarification note: Map 9 is from Senate Documents from the XXIVth Cong., 1st
Sess.[1835] showing conditions being then debated in Congress as Michigan tried to gain statehood. Map 10
was produced in 1916 to show the true conditions for the lines. That area around Maumee Bay was considered
to be Ohio. Accordingly, the convention added a provision to the Ohio Constitution right after calling for the
Ordinance Line as the north line “... provided ... that if the southerly ... extreme of Lake Michigan should extend
so far south that ...[the Ordinance Line would] not intersect Lake Erie, or ... intersect east of the mouth of the
Miami River of the Lake, then ..., with the assent of the Congress ...the northerly boundary shall be established
by ...a direct line running from the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan to the most northerly cape of the Miami
Bay.” 4 I will refer to this line as the Boundary Proviso Line for ease of discussion. Congress did not object nor
assent to the provision since this was a fact not yet clearly ascertained and admitted Ohio as a state with an
indeterminate boundary, 3, 9 perhaps better described as inconclusive.
The Enabling Act for Ohio also separated the remaining northerly part of the Northwest Territory north of the
Ordinance Line and attached it to Indiana Territory which was the name given to all the remaining part of the
Old Northwest Territory. 1, 5 The Detroiters were not happy since they had not been consulted on this change.
Their capitol was now Vincennes, IN, located 600 miles distant from the northerly parts of the Territory (see
Map 4 2). 1 A bill was introduced proposing the formation of the Michigan Territory but not passed until
December, 1804. It was signed as the Act of January 11, 1805 (2 Stat. 309). In contrast to and in conflict with
the Boundary Proviso Line of Ohio, the south boundary was a specifically defined alignment - the Ordinance
Line. 3, 7, 9 (see Map 8 2, Map 9 9 and Map 10 9). It was not an oversight since an Ohio Senator was chairman of
the committee on establishing the Michigan Territory. From that date the boundary conflict festered for 30
years, blocking Michigan statehood. 3 Appointed Surveyor General in 1803, Jared Mansfield requested an
astronomical clock, transits, sextants, etc. 7 Ohio Congressional representatives introduced legislation in 1805,
also requested by the Ohio Legislature from 1807 to 1809, to survey their boundaries. Sextants were ordered
but by 1810 still had not arrived. 3 Also, on February 3, 1809, Illinois Territory was organized out of Indiana
Territory. 10 In 1811 the Indiana territorial Legislature petitioned Congress for statehood leading to a resolution
March 31, 1812, to do so when the population met the requirements. 4 Congress finally passed an act May 20,
1812, directing the Surveyor General to survey the western and northern boundary of Ohio, Indians permitting,
only to be delayed a month later by the War of 1812. 3, 7 The bill provided that the Ordinance Line be surveyed.
9
Indiana Statehood/Northern Boundary
Indiana conducted a census in 1815 which showed a population of 63,897 and presented a formal petition for
admission December 28th . 4 Additionally in 1815 President Monroe directed that the 1812 act for the survey of
western and northern boundaries of Ohio be completed. 9 January 2, 1816, the U.S. Senate assigns Indiana’s
petition to a newly appointed committee headed by Sen. Jeremiah Morrow of Ohio. On January 5, 1816, the
House committee headed by Rep. Jonathan Jennings of Indiana Territory reports an enabling bill for Indiana
with the north boundary line to be the Ordinance Line. A variety of amendments were added (probably on
March 29th) and agreed to and passed March 30th including the revision of the north boundary to “the 42nd
degree of north latitude.” The Senate sent the house bill to another committee on April 2nd but Sen. Morrow
introduced a motion to have it re-referred to his committee on April 3rd. It was reported out of his committee
April 4th with new amendments: the north boundary was defined as “an east and west line, drawn through a
point ten miles north of the southern extreme of lake Michigan...” The Enabling Act was passed as amended
Page 5 of 28
April 13th, sent to the House which concurred April 15th, and signed by the President April 19th 4 (see Map 8 2 ).
Meanwhile, the Appropriation Act of April 16, 1816 (3 Stat. 277) provided funds for the survey of the western
and northern boundaries of Ohio. 7
Rep. Jennings accepted the boundary change amendment to 42̊ North latitude (φ) since he would naturally seek
advantage for Indiana. Since maps of that day all showed the southern extreme of Lake Michigan north of 42̊,
Indiana would relinquish, not gain, land by the amendment (see Map 99, Map 14 9 and Map 15 9). However,
Rep. Jennings is believed to have had information from Ohioans as well as from trappers and hunters on the true
location of the south end of Lake Michigan. It is not known if Sen. Morrow did not think 42̊ was sufficiently
well determined to be safely relied upon or he was selfishly interested in making sure that the Ordinance Line
would be broken by Indiana’s admission so as to strengthen Ohio’s position against Michigan. It appears to be
personal interest in the Indiana Enabling Act since he shepherded the bill in the Senate. Rep. Jennings was
credited with responsibility for the change by Michigan officials. He wanted to be sure to secure the
advantageous position since the Act provides that the constitutional convention “shall ratify the boundaries
aforesaid, otherwise they shall be and remain as now prescribed by the [Northwest] [O]rdinance” and also that
the Indiana constitution shall be “not repugnant” to the Ordinance. The change aroused no comment favorable
or unfavorable on the part of Hoosiers in any contemporaneous records of the period. On June 22, 1816 the
Convention ratified the boundaries as established in the Act of Congress. The Territorial Council of Michigan
made a weak protest but the area was undeveloped and they had no territorial representative since they were still
in the first stage leading to statehood. The Act for Admission passed the Senate December 6th, the House on
December 9th, and was signed by the President Monroe December 11, 1816. Being careful to every detail, the
resolution declared that the people of Indiana had conformed with “the principle of the articles of [the Northwest
Ordinance].” 4
1817 Harris Lines
Coincidentally, on December 14, 1816, Tiffin contracts with William Harris, a Deputy Surveyor from Ohio, for
the survey of the western and northern boundaries of Ohio. 5 He begins June 1, 1817, at Mile Post 89 on the
Ohio-Indiana Border on the first Principal Meridian and runs due north to Mile Post 132 by June 20th, making
frequent Polaris observations to correct for magnetic variation of the compass. On June 24, 26, 27 & 30, 1817,
he is taking observations with a sextant for latitude at the southern extreme of Lake Michigan 130 miles to the
west, finding it to be 41̊ 38'58" N. latitude. 5 He runs a line due East and intersects Lake Erie at 7 miles 49
chains south of the most northerly cape of the Miami Bay.” 3 He sets mile posts along his random line according
to the 1827 records which include a copy of the first 40 miles of Harris’ survey of the Ordinance Line.13 This
line would become an Indian Treaty Boundary Line in four treaties parts of which are still monumented (with a
2008 latitude measured about 41°36’59” in St. Joseph Co., IN). He then runs back on a true line from the north
cape S.87° 42'W. toward the southern extreme of Lake Michigan, his course being a rhumb line which is a line
at a constant angle to the meridian, being a curving line as is a parallel (see Map 10 9). In this he was following
Tiffin’s instructions to mark the north line of Ohio by the Boundary Proviso Line of the Ohio constitution; the
line is often called the Harris line. His random line east from the southern extreme of Lake Michigan intersects
the west boundary of Ohio at 130 miles 71.42 chains east at a point 77.23 chains north of Mile Post 172. He
continued running the west boundary north to 178 miles 21.87 chains intersecting the north boundary at 33.92
chains West of Mile Post 71 as measured westerly from the northern cape, where he sets the Northwest corner of
Ohio, measuring the latitude at 41̊41'09" N. latitude 5 (41̊ 41'46.2" in 1916 retracement of the Ohio-Michigan
line 9 currently measured at 41° 41’46.053”).
Governor Cass of Michigan Territory protested vigorously. Tiffin wrote back stating, “Let the proper authority
say which shall govern.” 9 He believed the Harris Line (north line of Ohio) to be correct and having been their
first governor he watched out for Ohio’s interest. Even if he was prejudiced in this matter, Tiffin’s stewardship
of his office was that “of a doctor-turned-politician who was never a surveyor, but ... [one who] would prove to
be a superb Surveyor General, ... and the rectangular system of surveys would become quite fully developed
Page 6 of 28
during his tenure.” 7 In 1818 President Monroe ordered the Ordinance Line to be marked in Ohio (see Map 10
9
). However, Harris declined out of loyalty to Ohio, so Tiffin contracted with John A. Fulton, D.S.; the line was
soon designated the Fulton line. The Michigan surveys were ordered to close south on it. The area between the
two lines came to be called the Toledo Strip, amounting to 550 square miles. 3 On December 3, 1818, Illinois
became the 21st State (3 Stat. 536) 3, 5, 7, 9 (see Map 8 2 , Map 10A, and Map 11 2). Their northern boundary was
established at 60 miles north of the Ordinance Line, about at 42̊ 30' N. latitude, gaining 8,500 square miles for
the state. 4 Although across Lake Michigan from Michigan it further eroded their claim that the Ordinance Line
could not be broken. The Michigan territorial officials formally protested to Congress January 3, 1818. 4
Michigan partially reached the second stage of territorial government toward statehood with Congressional
approval to elect a Territorial Representative to Congress in 1819. Their population had grown from only 4,000
in 1810 to 8,765 in 1820. 1, 2
Indian Treaty Cessions
For ten years the boundary received no attention by either state. 4 However there was much activity in both
states to acquire additional lands from the various Indian tribes. The first Indian cession in Indiana was a
narrow strip in the southeast in the 1795 Treaty of Greenville. The next was the Treaty at Fort Wayne for the
Vincennes Tract in 1803 in southwest Indiana. From there the general pattern then followed settlement as it
moved northerly and easterly, reaching both sides of the Wabash River and to Fort Wayne in north-central
Indiana by 1818. Then two treaties in 1821 and 1826 (Chicago and Mississinewa) ceded the 10-mile strip
between the Ordinance Line and the North boundary of Indiana. This appears to have opened the way to allow
for the survey of the northern line of the state. The remainder of the northern portion of the state was obtained
through treaties from 1828 to 1840 (see Map 12 2 and Map 13 12; note: the caption for Map 13 certainly reflects
the common sentiment of settlers trying to obtain land in 1800's). Indian cessions in Michigan began with two
narrow strips, one along the water from the north end of Lake Erie northeasterly to Lake St. Clair, in the 1795
Treaty of Greenville. The major treaty that would begin the GLO surveys and allow settlers to obtain title was
the Treaty of Detroit in 1807. The general pattern then followed settlement as it moved west and north. The
same 1821 Treaty of Chicago affecting the Indiana boundary also extended into and covered nearly all the land
on the Michigan side of the boundary. The remainder of the small area in the southwest corner of the state was
obtained in 1828 and 1833 treaties (Carey Mission and a second Chicago Treaty). By 1836 the remainder of the
Lower Peninsula was acquired and by 1842 the rest of the Upper Peninsula had been ceded in treaties with the
tribes in that region. 2 Generally, the treaties for Michigan were larger and covered more territory than those in
Indiana (10 treaties vs. 15 treaties). Lewis Cass, the Governor of Michigan Territory from 1813-1831, strongly
pursued obtaining cessions of land during several treaties since he wanted Michigan opened to settlement. He
even was involved in the 1818 Treaty at St. Mary’s, the largest in Indiana that opened up all of central part of
the state to settlement. Judge Benjamin Parke of Indiana was also active in negotiating treaties with the Indians.
1, 2, 4, 12
One text12 says Congress left the naming of the State of Indiana to its citizens in 1816 while another 10
says Congress coined the name (meaning Land of the Indians) when it formed the Territory in 1800.
GLO SURVEYS ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF INDIANA
North Boundary of Indiana by Kendrick - 1827
Congress passed an act to authorize the President “to ascertain and designate the northern boundary of Indiana.”
The Act of Mar 2, 1827 (4 Stat.236) authorized that the Surveyor General have the line surveyed. Surveyor
General Tiffin contracted with Eleazer P. Kendrick, as Deputy Surveyor, to perform the survey. 4, 7, 14 He had
been a clerk in Tiffin’s office for six years before being forced out to make room for Tiffin’s new son-in-law.
He returned to private surveys in Ohio upon completing the survey. 14 The Indiana boundary was surveyed and
marked in October, 1827 (See Table 1 26). 4, 7, 13, 14, 24
________________________________________________________________________
His field notes of the survey begin “Oct. 8, 1827. Commenced at the Southern extremity of Lake Michigan at a
Cor. established by Mr. Harris, in June 1817. which has its bearings [cites the two found bearing trees and
continues] ... The post which was set by Mr. Harris was entirely covered by the sand. I trace his line East to his
Page 7 of 28
1st & 2nd mile corners and found them correct. I then traverse the margin of the Lake to get 10 miles Northing
[my emphasis].” 13 He then gives his courses as he traverses along the lake shore, apparently electing to take the
easy survey route along the open beach, entering his courses in a table in which he also lists the latitudes and
departures for each course. His wording suggests he began his tabulation at the 2nd mile post on the Harris, or
Ordinance Line, and these are added to indicate this assumption. Part of this note format is reproduced as
follows for ease of reading and illustration (the beginning and the end parts of his traverse lines to reach ten
miles north):
Lat.
Dep.
Lat.
Dep.
Course Dist.
Course Dist.
[East
80.00]
[80.00]
.........
........
.........
.........
[East
80.00]
[80.00]
N 57 E
31.00
16.88
26.00
East
80.00
80.00
N 56 E
33.00
18.45
27.36
N80E
21.00
3.65
20.68
N 58 E
18.00
9.54
15.26
N87E
73.00
3.82
72.91
N58 ½ E 180.00
94.04
153.48
.......
.........
.........
..........
[Sums] 2200.50 800.32
------[2019.63]
Page 8 of 28
after which point in the notes he continues “which brings me 32 links too far N. Thence South 32
links on Beach to Commencement of the Line between Indiana and Michigan.
“The Lake coast so far as I traversed N. is a continual chain of hills formed of beautiful
white sand, in most places very high. And little or no vegetation. Back of these sand hills it is
generally swamp and marsh. Therefore, there are but few places that the Lake can be approached
without difficulty. No harbors or islands are to be seen.
“From Commencement at low water mark ran East 2.50 to a Pine 10 in. Dia. On the top
of 1st bank [Mile Post 0]. Which marked on N. side ‘M. L.’ and on South side ‘I. L.’ & from
which [gives four bearing trees in the usual GLO format. He then continues]
---------------------------------------------------“On the Evening of the 11th I found by observation the variation to be 6° 10' E. On the 12th I
commenced at the course before mentioned, and ran East, carefully observing my back sights.
[Note: The transcribed notes give some but not all dates for work; see Table 1. It appears that
he determined magnetic variation each day by observations on Polaris, weather permitting.]
________________________________________________________________________
“East on the 1st Mile [from Lake Michigan] ...
[He strikes three line trees in the first mile (and a total of 241 line trees in 105 miles, 6 falling at
mile posts and 12 line trees on the E. line in 10 miles, 5 on IN-MI stretch with 1 at a mile post).]
“80.00 Mile Post [this would be the Mile Post 1] from which [gives two bearing trees, the
standard number, in the usual GLO format. He then continues]
“East on the 2nd Mile [from Lake Michigan] ...
[He continues in similar format along entire line until he reaches the end which reads as follows]
“East on 105th Mile [from Lake Michigan]
...
“49.55 true NE corner of state for ??
...
“80.00 set 105th mile post from which [gives two bearing trees in the usual GLO format.]
[He ends with]
“True N. E. Corner of Indiana at 49.55 [chains] on 105th mile from Lake Michigan [this would be
from Mile Post 104]. For Bearings [i.e.- bearing trees] see end of E. Boundary [my emphasis] of
Indiana.” 13
[His East boundary notes begin…] [from 1817 Harris Line (Indiana), or Ordinance, Line]
“North 173d Mile … [from 1817 Harris survey of 1st Principal Meridian]
77.23 “Commenced at the N. W. Corner of Ohio (old Corner) which is a Post.”*
*Continued by E. P. Kendrick in 1827
“Commenced at the N. W. Corner of Ohio [old Corner] which is a Post from which
a W. Oak
20 in d.tr
N.45E. 71 lk dist &
a Do
8 “”
N.73W. 5 “ ”
Var. 4°35’E
Thence
[indicates a Polaris observation by Kendrick to determine variation. Interpreting
Harris’ variation for 1817 gives 4°22’E or 4°18’E.]
“North 1st Mile
(174th ) [on 1ST Principal Meridian] …
[He continues in similar format until he reaches the North Line which reads as follows]
“North 10th Mile.
(183d )
.90 a Y. Oak
20 in. d.
64.21 Intersected (N & W. (sic) lines) Northern Bdy of Indiana
on 105th Mile at 30 c. 45 l. W. of 105 Mile Post [my emphasis].
[at 104 miles + 49.55 chains (a calculation) on the North Boundary of Indiana]
[Note his tie to Mile Post 105. His distance from Mile Post 104 is a calculation only.]
Page 9 of 28
Establish N.E. Corner of Indiana, set
Post 6 in. square of W. Oak, from which
a W. Oak
16 in d.tr
South .
10
lk dist &
a Y. “
14 “ ”
N.83 1/2 W.
42
“ ”
a W. “
10 “ ”
S.78 1/3 E.
36 1/2 lk “ ”
a W. “
14 “ ”
N. 8 1/2 W.
37
“ ”
a W. Ash
16 “ ”
N.62 1/3 E.
25
“ ”
a W. Oak
14 “ ”
N.75 1/3 E.
30
“ ”
a Do
13 “ ”
S.62 2/3 E.
49
“ ”
a Do
8 “”
S.49 1/2 E.
4
“ ”
[Obviously he considered it an important corner as he describes it in detail and
lists 8 BTs, whereas for the other 109 Mile Posts he simply says ‘Mile Post.’ Also note
fraction of degree for bearings to seven of the eight Bearing Trees.]
Last 10 Miles surveyed by
E. P. Kendick D.S.”
[Note: E. Boundary ends at 4 miles 39.57 chains north of the NW Corner of Ohio.]” 23
________________________________________________________________________
Table 1 was compiled from the dates in Kendrick’s field notes 26. Most but not every date was
shown in the field notes (at the place the chaining for that day stopped), but by correlating his
location (by Mile Post stated) for the dates stated estimates of his progress in miles per day were
determined. Based upon these progress rates, the missing dates were determined. Those at the end
are estimates but seem reasonable for the amount of work left to do. It appears that Kendrick may
have worked straight through, seven days a week, to complete the survey. There would be the
additional time to walk from Marietta, Ohio and back, the location of Tiffin’s office.
Once his tabulation from Lake Michigan reached 800 chains total in latitude (the sum of the
north-south component of each of his courses determined from the bearing and distance of each
course of his traverse), he considered that he was 10 miles north of the Ordinance Line as directed
by Tiffin’s instructions. Note that he did not sum his departures which I added to see the total –
2019.63 chains, or 25 miles 19.63 chains east from the stake set at the southern extreme of Lake
Michigan at the beginning point of the Ordinance Line. He undoubtedly used a set of traverse
tables like those found in the B.L.M. ‘Standard Field Tables’ 11 which give the latitudes and
departures in 1/4 degree increments from 0̊ to 90̊ (corresponding to the horizontal circle quadrant
graduations of a surveyor’s compass and reflecting the accuracy level considered obtainable with
a compass, i.e.- 1/4 of a degree). His 1827 values are the same as found in the 1956 BLM Tables
(in checking all 35 courses only three varied by one link from these values). These types of tables
have been around since the 18th Century, tables to the tenth of a link are seen in Loves’ 1688
Geodaesia. The latitudes and departures were already calculated and tabulated for use,
eliminating the need to carry trig tables and calculate in the field by multiplication when addition
was all that was needed, (see Fig. 1 11, e.g.- N58 ½ E 180.00 chains for last course;
from Table 4 11 compute in two parts from table - for 100.00 chs. + 80.00 chs.= 52.25 + 41.80
chs.= 94.05 chs. for difference in latitude (Kendrick notes state 94.04 chs.).
Having been authorized by Congress “to ascertain and designate the northern boundary of the
State of Indiana,” the President reports back on the expenditure of funds appropriated to comply
with the act. This always results in a hodge-podge assembly of several volumes of reports,
charts, tabulations, maps, and many other miscellaneous documents that are published in book
form, already amounting to many volumes in 1827. Part of this was Document No. 187 shown in
total as Fig. 2 15. It includes Tiffin’s letter of November 24th to George Graham, Commissioner
of the General Land Office. He states he caused the survey to be made and transmits a copy of
the plat of the survey. Naturally, as a former governor and U. S. Senator, he reports that in the
Page 10 of 28
expenditure of funds he complied with the act and the surveyor did a good job. He states, “The
survey of this boundary line was commenced at a point ... by an accurate traverse of [the
southeast coast of Lake Michigan and] ... was found to be ten miles north [his emphasis], and
twenty-five miles nineteen chains and sixty-three links east of the most southerly extremity of the
lake.... the line was surveyed due east, by the true meridian: and at ... one hundred and four miles
forty-nine chains and fifty-five links, was intersected by a line run due north from the northwest
corner of the State of Ohio ... at nine miles sixty-four chains and twenty-one links.. The Surveyor
made frequent observations for the variation of the magnetic needle, which are marked on the
plat...” 15 The President, John Quincy Adams, also says the line was surveyed in conformity with
the act of Congress. 15 Also included was a very nice detailed map made from the GLO Plat of the
boundary line and printed by lithographic means, shown as Map 16 15, presented in four parts.
Tiffin must have added the information from Harris’s 1817 survey of the Ordinance Line. Both
lines are shown; the Ordinance Line has every 10th mile post shown while the Indiana line had all
the mile posts shown and every 10th labeled. Without reading the field notes the plat could
incorrectly be interpreted to imply Kendrick measured ten miles north to the beginning point of
the line on Lake Michigan at the stated 25 miles 19.63 chains east from the point of beginning of
the Ordinance Line on the Lake. Also, the latitude for the Ordinance Line is that determined by
Harris in 1817 with a sextant, 41°38’58”N. The latitude for the Indiana line is determined by
calculation, not observation, as 41°47’43”N. The BLM Standard Field Tables has tables giving
the amount of arc of latitude subtended by one mile and six miles which varies by latitude due to
the shape of the earth (see Fig. 1, Table 11). 11 At that latitude the difference in latitude calculated
for 10 miles gives the latitude shown for the Indiana line within 3 seconds. Undoubtedly, they had
similar tables for such determinations which were used to calculate latitudes when needed. The
ends of the line have been found in our surveys to be nearly identical in latitude (only 39 feet
different) with a mean of 41°45'36.98”N., about two minutes less than stated. Since a sextant was
capable of determining latitude within 30”, Harris may have made a field observation error or a
computation error. His latitude at the Northwest corner of Ohio, noted above, is more typically
about 30” different from the modern value. Benjamin Hough, the Deputy Surveyor who laid out
the Michigan Meridian in 1815, also used the same sextant to determine the latitude of the North
Cape of the Maumee River on Lake Erie. He made a computation error by interpolating the
wrong value for the Sun’s declination from his ephemeris tables. An approximate value for the
southern extreme of Lake Michigan is the just-retraced Ordinance line in R2E, a mean of
41°36’59.31”N., likewise showing the approximate two minute difference.
Additionally, it is quite interesting to note that Tiffin, who was so partisan and defiant with
Governor Cass, was very circumspect here in reporting back to the Commissioner whom he knew
would report his statement to Congress. He called for the Northwest corner of Ohio to be as
defined in the Northwest Ordinance. He knew that Ohio’s North line was not yet settled whereas
citing the Indiana line, as long-approved by Congress at 10 miles north of the Ordinance Line,
would bolster Ohio’s position at a later time. He did want the measurement as a check of the
accuracy of the line. Being only 15.79 chains less than 10 miles after 105 miles was reasonable
for the procedures specified as acceptable for the time. It also verified Harris’s 1817 line which
would be expected to have some inaccuracy attributable to part of the 15.79 chain difference.
Since the Harris Line was used for Indian treaty boundaries (1821-1826), some monumentation of
it was retraced in 2008 in the stretch south of Mile Posts 25-31. As both lines have Closing
Corners positioned by GPS procedures, the distance between them was determined at three
sections lines, being 5.78, 5.10, and 6.15 chains less than 10 miles. It appears the lines are
reasonably close to being parallel as intended; both were run by identical procedures.
Almost overlooked, but equally important, is the fact that there is about a 4-mile 40-chain stretch
of the north-south Eastern Indiana border surveyed by Kendrick that is lumped in as a portion of
Page 11 of 28
the “northern boundary” of Indiana. The east and west boundaries were well defined and the east
boundary already surveyed, as noted above in the 1817 work by Harris which completed that line.
I quoted above from Kendrick’s notes which extended it north but would not call the extension
part of the 1st Principal Meridian. Those notes show that about 5 miles and 25 chains would
overlap Harris’s 1817 survey and that double marking of the line took place north from the
Ordinance Line to the Northwest Corner of Ohio. 5, 13 The two sets of mile posts would be
staggered by about three chains.
GLO Rectangular Township Surveys – Indiana and Michigan
Tiffin also added the status of the GLO surveys in Michigan to the map (Map 16) showing that
Ranges 3 through 17 West (of Town 7 South) were completed as were Town 8-10 South of
Range 3 West, Michigan Meridian, obviously in anticipation of the line being run upon which the
surveys of each State would close upon. He doesn’t show the Indiana surveys although the
transcribed notes contain entries for stationing for certain range lines (1 and 2 East and West and
the 2nd Principal Meridian) that had to have been added later. However, Tiffin was contracting
for the surveys in both states and knew their progress in detail. (Note that I have added all the
Michigan and Indiana G.L.O. townships to help relate it to current conditions.) This document
and map are in the Rare Book Collection at the Library of Michigan. A second copy of only the
map is in the Archives collection at that library. It is identical except for one feature. All the
Range lines for the Indiana GLO surveys have been added by hand drafting from the 1817 Harris
line extending north past the North boundary of Indiana to the south line of Town 7 South of the
Michigan surveys.
Immediately upon the establishment of the north boundary of Indiana the surveys in Michigan
and Indiana were contracted to close upon them. The Michigan surveys were contracted to close
upon the line starting in 1828. The Deputy Surveyors were instructed to survey fractional
Township 8 South south from the south line of Township 7 South, so that the sections would be
regular except for the fractional sections closing upon the State line. The tier of Sections 19-24
forms the fractional sections closing on the line. By 1829 the Michigan surveys had been
completed, except the small part dealing with the Carey Mission Treaty lands (See Table N2?).
The Deputy Surveyors were instructed to make note of and measure the falling distance of the
Range lines to the nearest Mile Post on the State line. 16 Their notes indicate they exactly
followed this and the interior section lines were typically closed upon the line with the statement
“intersected N. boundary of Indiana.” 17 Since the line had just been run one to two years earlier,
it was likely very evident and a “visual intersection” was the standard of practice, as it likely was
for closing corners on township lines under Tiffin’s 1815 Instructions. There were a few
stretches of prairie along the line so it is not clear how evident the line was for those areas or how
they determined its location without looking for corners. There is some published anecdotal
history in Michigan that persons other than surveyors could easily see the section lines when
looked for 20 to 30 years (1870s) after the GLO surveys were completed. The surveyors were to
brush the lines, blaze trees near the lines, and double notch the line trees (See Fig. 6 8). Such
records indicate the Deputy Surveyors fulfilled this requirement. Thus when the Deputy
Surveyors came to the blazed and marked line, they considered they had intersected the line and
made no further retracement unless required by contract. They were paid by the mile measured,
not offering many extra “free” measurements. Especially along the east half of the State line the
section lines intersected 20 to 30, even 40, chains from the Mile Posts and they weren’t going to
measure an extra 100 to 150 chains gratis per township, with only a few exceptions in the east
half (ties being noted to Mile Posts 95 to 104 and the NE Corner of Indiana). However, on the
west half the closing corners are close to the mile posts, being only 31 links east of the 1st Mile
Post (see Map 17A21), and nearly all these Mile Posts have ties from Closing Corners. There were
three Deputy Surveyors for Michigan - Lucius Lyon, Robert Clark, Jr., and William Brookfield,
Page 12 of 28
so the ties may have been more a result of the personal standard of practice of the individual
surveyor. Lyon and Brookfield, the two doing nearly every mile post tie from their closing
corners, are considered among the most thorough of the Deputy Surveyors in Michigan.
The Indiana surveys closed on the State line, extending just slightly later, from 1828 to 1831
(Table 2). They also contain the same visual intersection statement noted above and in many
areas are 15 to 30 chains from the Mile Posts. The tier of fractional sections closing on the N.
boundary is Sections 7-12 from Range 4 West to Range 13 East and Sections 13-18 in Ranges 14
and 15 East, 2ND P.M. Since the same Surveyor General was in charge of the surveys in Indiana,
he probably issued similar contracts. The Deputy Surveyors for Indiana were Thomas Henderson,
William Brookfield (the one duplicate from Michigan), Thomas Brown, Thomas Todd, and E. H.
Lytle. The notes indicate the Range lines were closed upon the State line and many of the
fallings to the nearest Mile Post measured and noted, especially for the west half. Even for the
east half, ties were made more often than in Michigan surveys. For example, Mile Post73 was
referenced in the Michigan G.L.O. surveys 17 and Mile Posts 72 and 75 in the Indiana G.L.O.
surveys 22 (see Map 18 21). Mile Post 72 scales (on a USGS Quad Map) more a mile from MP73
and more than three miles from MP75 while MP73 scales exactly two mile from MP75. Since
the difference from record is about 330 feet, it would appear there is a error in the transcription or
a field tie error of 1 tally (5 chains). Near the east end for Mile Posts 78 to 104 township notes
give the falling or tie for every section line, except one, (Ranges 11 to 15E) intersecting the State
line. Most likely these were by contract as these were the later surveys completed to the line. In
general the Closing Corners for both states are closer to each other than to the Mile Posts.
However, the Michigan notes contain no note of the Indiana Closing Corners since they were
done first. Near Mile Post 78 the Indiana GLO DS Brown made a tie from the Closing Corner for
Ranges 10 and 11E to the Michigan Closing Corner for Secs. 23 and 24, T8S-R9W near the east
end in 1831. A mile east a second GLO tie between Indiana and Michigan closing corners was
made.
Epilogue - Michigan Boundaries with Ohio, Indiana
Michigan began seeking admission to Statehood in 1833, always insisting on the Ordinance line
as its southern boundary. Without benefit of an enabling act from Congress Michigan called a
constitutional convention in 1835, passed a constitution, elected state officials, two U.S. Senators
and a Representative but Congress would not seat them. In addition she almost went to war with
Ohio over the Toledo Strip. Settlement of the northern boundary of Ohio and admission of
Michigan were inseparable questions. They were combined into a compromise enabling act on
June 16, 1836; Ohio got the Toledo Strip and Michigan the west three-fourths of the Upper
Peninsula. Michigan’s enabling act was a conditional admission – requiring passage of a
constitution accepting the northern boundaries of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. It reluctantly did so
and was admitted January 26, 1837 (5 Stat. 144). Michigan memorialized its hard feelings for all
time by adopting the State seal with the date 1835 on it, rather than 1837, the date of admission as
nearly every other state has done, saying it would never forget. 9
Arthur Schlesinger best explains the long and bitter argument over the Ohio border. John
Mitchell produced a detailed map that included the area of the Northwest Territory in 1755. In
1814 it was still regarded as the only authentic one. It contained errors on the location of the
south end of Lake Michigan which reflected the French maps upon which it was based. It was
used by Congress to draw up the Northwest Ordinance (1787) and by Ohio when writing its 1805
constitution. The intent and purpose in light of the geographical knowledge of the time was that
the Ordinance line would strike Lake Erie and continue to the 1783 international boundary in the
middle of the lake and follow it to the west line of Pennsylvania. Michigan stubbornly ignored
this aspect of the question, insisting that the boundary follow the latest and most accurate surveys.
Page 13 of 28
The Ordinance Line by survey would have cut off the Cleveland area of Ohio from the rest of the
state. 9 To whom that area would belong was not even considered, perhaps because it sounded so
foolish (compare Map 99 and Map 10A).
COUNTY SURVEYOR RECOVERIES OF MILE POSTS
19TH Century County Survey Records
To date, there appear to be not more than a dozen recovery records of Mile Posts in the county
surveyor records of the counties adjoining the State line. It does not seem to have been a high
priority of the county surveyors. This is likely due to two factors, one being the relatively few
surveys of record in general along the line. It is somewhat remote and not a lot of activity appears
to have taken place. The second factor is that surveys of the fractional sections adjoining the line
mainly required, in the views of the county surveyors, the section corners, including the closing
corners supposedly set on the line (not the Mile Posts). But the Mile Posts became important to
some for the surveys they were doing along the line; some clearly demonstrated they recognized
the importance of the senior controlling corners. The Closing Corners on the State Line, like the
closing corners on township lines, are the junior corners. In the BLM Manual, Section 5-35, pgs.
136-137, in Chapter 5 (Restoration of Lost or Obliterated Corners) focuses our attention on the
proper view of the three sets of corners along the line. As with a township line with double
corners (typical under Tiffin’s 1815 Instructions), “Where a single set of corners was established
in the survey of the line and closing corners were subsequently established at the intersection of
section lines … , the corners first established control both the alignment and the proportional
measurement along the line. …The line is regarded as having been fixed in position by the senior
survey unless that survey was officially superceded.” 8 This applies equally well to the State Line
where the senior corners are the Mile Posts. However, the BLM Manual makes two statements
restricting their authority which also applies to surveyors attempting to retrace the line which we
have been adhering to as well.
The first record is in the St. Joseph County Surveyor Records of a tie to the Closing Corner for
Indiana Range Line 1 and 2E from Mile Post 25 between 1830-1832 (which combines to give
close agreement in our retracement survey with the GLO tie from Mile Post 25 to the Michigan
Range Line 17 and 18W). Another 1832 County Record is the tie from Mile Post 30 to the
Indiana Range Line 2 and 3E. Between 1859-1861 St. Joseph County Surveyor Stokes made
surveys (the leader among the county surveyors with about seven) along the line. He notes
recovering so-called line trees (apparently by evidence of scars of axe marks 30 years after
Kendrick’s survey) which he identifies as line trees that don’t appear in the GLO record. Very
likely, he recovered blazed trees (single cut-away portions of bark) near the line, not lines trees
(double chops on each face along line) (See Fig. 6 8), apparently not knowing of the difference.
These are in the vicinity of Mile Posts 31-33. In the vicinity of Mile Posts 37 and 38 he finds
significant errors in GLO ties to Indiana Closing Corners (in range of 6 to 8 chains). In 1860
Stokes measures from a Closing Corner to Mile Post 39. In 1871 Hillsdale County Surveyor
Mark (who served for about 40 years) performs a retracement survey in Sec. 20, T8S-R4W,
Michigan P.M. in which he recovers original evidence for the NE Corner of Indiana and Closing
Corners for Sec. 20 on both the East and North Line of Indiana. In 1875 La Porte County
Surveyor Burner (who served for 40+ years) retraces the State line between Mile Posts 1 and 2 in
retracing, re-establishing corners, and subdividing Sec. 8, T38N-R3W, 2nd P.M. He recovers both
Mile Posts but misidentifies Mile Post 1 as the nearby Closing Corner for the Michigan Range
Line 21 and 22W. In 1884 County Surveyor Ward runs along line between Indiana Closing
Corners in Elkhart County in vicinity of Mile Posts 40 and 41 without noting them. In 1886
Berrien County Surveyor LaDrew recovers Mile Posts 16 and 18 and line tree, re-establishing
Mile Post 17 at proportionate position and proceeding to subdivide Section 22, T8S-R19W,
Michigan P.M. He calls line trees “station tree” and “Beech sight tree with hacks on each side”
Page 14 of 28
(latter agreeing with Kendrick record) In 1892 St. Joseph County Surveyor Alter surveys between
Mile Posts 16 and 17, perpetuating one and surveying part of Sec. 10, T38N-R1W, 2nd P.M.
In general the Indiana County Survey records from the 1800's indicate Indiana obviously has a
similar law to the one in Michigan stating that the lines would be retraced and the monument set
to perpetuate and/or re-establish the corners would be described along with the measurements of
the survey being recorded. They even have sworn chainmen making the measurements as do the
Michigan records, also very likely being the owners for whom the survey was being made or their
relatives. These retracement surveys seem to be closer in time to the original surveys, c. 1850's 1860's and 70's. Many of the similar Michigan County Surveyor records date from the 1860's 1880's. The Indiana County Surveyors seem to have perpetuated many corners with stones,
which should be recovered because of their close proximity to the original surveys (20 - 30
years), at least in some cases. Stones, of course, make very durable monuments for the corner
positions; they’re just hard to find. Locators don’t help; digging is the best method by far to find
them and verify more recent current monumentation for use in the retracement.
20TH Century County Survey Records
The surveys seem to taper off in the records. Some records for closing corners come shortly after
the turn of the century by the county surveyors already noted for the 19th Century. Others come in
the 1950s which note recoveries of stones and pipes. Stones began to be used to perpetuate and
monument sections corners in the Indiana county records in the 1850s and the 1860s in Michigan.
Such recoveries help confirm that sections corners have been long perpetuated. The use of pipes
for survey monumentation began in the 1890s. So these recoveries also support long perpetuation
of sections corners. Thus, any such monumentation found for closing corners along the line
indicate it is long term as well. The east half generally has much fewer records. This appears to be
because they are rural counties with lower populations with less need for surveys. There seems to
be few records for the century. I conclude it is because the evidence for the Mile Posts slowly
disappeared and surveyors did not search for them extensively. They likely began to use the
Closing Corners as de facto monumentation of the line since such corners were part of their
surveys; such a mindset precludes the need to search for the real controlling monumentation.
REKINDLING OF INTEREST IN THE STATE LINE LOCATION
County Surveyor Efforts
In contrast, St. Joseph County, Indiana has a large population centered in South Bend close to the
border. They also have a long-serving county surveyor with an interest in the line. He has been
running a program to recover/re-establish all the section corners which he has integrated as
control for their GIS program. The County Surveyor, John McNamara, obtained an old handtranscribed copy of Kendrick’s 1827 survey and proceeded to have it transcribed into a digital
format. He hoped to find a way to use it to help locate the Mile Posts and the line.
Funding Capabilities of Abutting County Surveyors
More recoveries and perpetuations of closing corners have taken place in the second half of the
century. Part stems from Indiana’s corner perpetuation act which is funded by a designated
surcharge fee on documents recorded at the registers of deed’s offices. Likewise, the Michigan
Remonumentation Program has generated the surge to recover and restore section corners, also
being based upon a statue-specified dedicated surcharge fee on recorded documents (which we
learned in painful shock in 2006 that the Governor and Legislature could raid with little regret).
The counties along the west half of the line began including the closing corners along the line.
Again, in the east half much less recovery and perpetuation is seen. For both states the reason is
the rural character and lower populations. These counties generate less recording fees to fund the
restoration of corners so fewer are done. Also, some of these counties concentrate their efforts on
Page 15 of 28
more populated areas where they feel there is more pressing need, not the low populated areas
along the State boundary.
AD-HOC STATE LINE STUDY COMMITTEE
When Norm Caldwell was appointed to the surveyors licensing board, I replaced him in assisting
in teaching a part of the long-running refresher course offered by the Michigan Society of
Professional Surveyors to candidates approved to take the licensure exam. Our subjects were
Original Government Surveys and Instructions, GLO Retracement Survey Methods, and the BLM
Manual and Subdivisions of Sections. I would note that the Michigan-Ohio boundary had been
resurveyed and remonumented in 1916 with granite posts and the Michigan-Wisconsin boundary
had been resurveyed and remonumented in 1927 with tapered concrete monuments; I did not
know the status of the Indiana line. Finally I checked with Maynard Dyer who ran the Survey
Section that oversaw the Remon Program (reporting, approving survey plans, approval of
dispersal of funds). He thought the monumentation would be the original – wood posts, like the
section corners.
To be a good instructor I decided to research the status of the Indiana-Michigan line which
resulted in presenting a paper on the subject at the 2002 MSPS Annual Meeting. Maynard was
correct; the line was surveyed in 1827 having wood stakes set for the mile posts. Although not
having any of the controversies of the other two lines, it is just as important in defining the
jurisdictions of the two adjoining states, but has done it quietly, almost benignly. The paper
suggested a retracement of the line and procedures that could be used. It noted an important
caveat. The BLM Manual 8 (pages 79 and 133) states they have no general authority to survey or
resurvey State boundaries. The original surveys were performed when specifically authorized by
an act of Congress under the power granted them in Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution
to form new states, dispose of the property of the United States and make needful regulations for
these actions. The resurvey of a State boundary may be made under the direction of the Supreme
Court (under Article 3, if there is a conflict). Or it may be authorized by the States involved
(which has occurred numerous times, twice with Michigan - 1916 Ohio border and 1927
Wisconsin border) under Article 4 and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Not other statute
is needed. It is just as proper for a surveyor to retrace a State boundary to recover boundary posts
as to retrace the Closing Corners along it. However, just as with the BLM, we have no authority,
as licensed surveyors, to re-establish any lost Mile Post corners unless authorized by both States.
When little response was noted over the next couple years to the suggested retracement, George
Warnke, Monroe County Surveyor, who was a member of the MSPS County Surveyors
Committee and had spurred the 1993 precise GPS positioning of the granite monuments on the
Ohio-Michigan boundary by a large contingent of surveyors in both states, called for a meeting of
interested parties to pursue action toward a resurvey. The first meeting took place October 28,
2004. Those present decided to form an ad hoc State Line Study Committee. Our main guidelines
agreed upon were that private sector surveyors have no authority to re-establish “lost” Mile Posts,
to proceed as a private-sector activity as long as possible (hopefully until all existent and
obliterate Mile Posts have been recovered), to make the public aware of our activity (in which
letters were sent to all local, county and State officials, press releases to the media, and meetings
with elected officials), and to encourage Indiana County Surveyors and the Michigan Remon
Program to search for Mile Posts.
Suggested Procedures for Mile Post Recoveries
All along we have been promoting the retracement of the original line as surveyed by Kendrick in
1827. Our basic search protocol adopted in 2005 included the following items. During a search,
by excavation or other techniques, a licensed Professional Surveyor from each State (Michigan
Page 16 of 28
and Indiana) shall be present to observe and/or actively participate in the action (A single dual
registrant is not recommended to represent both States). The two Licensed Surveyors present
during recovery of the monument shall be responsible for preparing appropriate records, selecting
appropriate references (bearing trees, etc.), and any other relevant issues. The two responsible
Licensed Surveyors shall prepare the Michigan Land Corner Recordation Certificate and the
appropriate Indiana Surveyors Report.
We also offered the following additional criteria early in 2008 which should be used in any
retracement activities of the line. Specifically they could be included as guidelines with any
contract for retracement surveys of the line:
The retracement surveyor must decide the status of a Mile Post so that the proper subsequent
actions can be determined. Adhering to the three long-used BLM/GLO categories of evidence (as
found in the 1973 BLM Manual) - >Existent,= >Obliterated,= or >Lost= - focuses attention on the
evidence. 8
Mile Post search positions will be determined through careful evaluation of recovered evidence
such as adjacent Mile Posts, Closing Corners of both the Michigan and Indiana Public Land
Surveys (PLSS), original Line Trees, County and private surveyors’ records, etc. For the west 50
miles nearly all specific search positions can probably be staked from recovered surveyed GLO
Closing Corners due to the numerous record GLO ties from PLSS Closing Corners (but not
nearly so extensive a record of available ties exists for the east 50 miles). To test this the ad hoc
Indiana/Michigan State Line Study Committee obtained survey quality positions (SPC) for
closing corners in the west 50 miles. We’ve had several sources for survey quality positions
(SPC) for closing corners, much appreciated by the Chairman and deserving recognition.
The long term efforts of the St. Joseph Co IN County Surveyor, John McNamara, who has tied in
both the IN as well as the MI Closing Corners.
LaPorte County, IN contracted with former Co.Sur. Jim Keil to provide SPC values on selected
positions.
IN/MI PS Chris Marbach volunteered services & provided GPS values on numerous IN
monuments and IN/MI PS Don Andrews provided numerous MI monument GPS positions. Don
Andrews also made a copy of his G&G CAD software license available for computations since it
works very well with SPCs.
The volunteer efforts of the SW Chapter to get known Closing Corners from MP 0 to 16 and MP
38 to MP55, organized by Art Brintnall: Assignments to: Brian Reynolds, Don Gilchrist, David
Gariepy, Jim Lietch, Brad Beal, Jim Wildrom, Art Brintnall.
Tom Stephenson has provided GPS values of positions he has occupied along southern boundary
of Cass Co., MI.
EXISTENT:
1) Recovery of original monument set for Mile Post.
(1973 BLM Manual – “Sec. 5-4. The terms Acorners= and Amonument@ are not
interchangeable.
A Acorner@ is a point [or position or specific location] determined by the surveying process.
A Amonument@ is the object or the physical structure which marks the corner point.” P 129 8)
E.g. – MP-52, NE Corner Indiana, both original Kendrick corners.
2) Recovery of accessory (all Mile Posts had two record bearing tree accessories) - must look.
(1973 BLM Manual – “The several classes of accessories, such as bearing trees, are aids in
Page 17 of 28
Identifying the corner position. In their broader significance the accessories are a part of the
corner monument.” Page 129 8)
E.g. – MP-86: Tree is at GLO record bearing and distance from a stone that, therefore, is
accepted as the perpetuated Mile Post. Tree age analysis shows correct age.
3) Recovery of a perpetuated monument at Mile Post.
Either by Co. Surveyor or private practitioner; either recorded or found preserved.
(1973 BLM Manual – “or located by an acceptable supplemental [subsequent] survey
record.” P 129 8)
E.g. – MP-17; recovered and matches 1886 Co Sur record of perpetuation, as do other
recovered survey points of the survey.
4) Recovery of Closing Corners within 6 chains of position for Mile Posts with GLO tie distance
(which matches the range of record distances to GLO BTs)
Therefore, likewise consider it as an acceptable accessory to Mile Post position.
E.g. – MP-49 - Will it be recovered? Placing it on line between MI Closing Corners of
Sec. 24, T8S-R14W at record GLO distance of 400.0’ W of SE CCor places it at 2553.8’
E of IN Closing Corner of R 5&6 E, vs record GLO distance of 2554.2’, only 0.4’ less.
Seems likely it could be recovered.
5) Use of GLO record topographic record features within 3 chains of position. But must define
one specific position.
(1973 BLM Manual – “Sec. 5-16. The proper use of topographic calls of the original field
notes may assist in recovering the locus of the original survey.” Page 131.
“(1)
The determination should result in a definite locus within a small area.” P 132 8)
(1973 BLM Manual – “Sec. 5-8. No decision should be made in regard to the restoration of a
corner until every means has been exercised that might aid in identifying its true original
position. The retracements will indicate the probable position and will show what
discrepancies are to be expected. Any supplemental survey record or testimony should then
be considered in the light of the facts thus developed.” P 129 8)
Ponder the above statement after the evidence has been developed and is being evaluated
against the record data.
Consideration of conditions implying existent or obliterated corner:
Found generally denotes or implies the object, the monument/accessories, which
therefore means the exact position of the corner,
Vs.
Recovered generally denotes the position, implying the monument may not have been
found, and, therefore, that the position so determined may not be as exact as that
signified by the monument set to mark the corner position. Can be applied to obliterated
corner.
OBLITERATED: (Requires restoration activities using collateral evidence)
1) Adjacent Closing Corner(s) with record GLO tie to Mile Post greater than 6 chains distant.
This distance to be prorated to State Line closing section line dimension recorded by
subdividing U.S. Deputy Surveyor.
A) Alignment for State Line as defined by Closing Corners. Must use in conjunction
with other evidence.
E.g. – Two Closing Corners recovered, one being an original, define a “near
alignment” of the State Line from which MP-52 is only 1.4’ S. Obviously this
second ‘level’ of evidence is reliable as this mile is one of the roughest, crossing
a lake, a ridge, and a large swamp; yet the evidence of the line to the DS
intersecting it was clear and shows the line was well run for alignment even
though its distance differs by -1.26 chains from record.
Page 18 of 28
2) County Surveyor tie(s) from adjacent monuments of record (unless substantiated by other
evidence)
E.g. – MP-38; what is the status of this retraced position? It is close to the average for 6
miles, being only 0.9’ W from 6-mile average. Since it is only 72.9’ from N1/4 Cor, Sec
8, T38sN-R4E, IN, should the mile post be recovered using the 1/4Cor as an accessory?
3) Monument recovered, not of record, but in close agreement with record data and positioning.
Assumption - set by a Surveyor.
E.g. – MP-19. Recovered RR rail is similar to one next to MP17 but no record stating
perpetuation or by whom; not agree with GLO tie distance to Closing Corner. Light 60#
rail, not the current heavier rails in use today, so likely quite old.
4) Parol evidence. This evidence must be in proper written affidavit form, with witnesses and
notary signature & seal. [ - must be recorded in certified form when obtained and reviewed.]
E.g. – Use Act 23, PA1915MI, Real Property Affidavits with LCRC Act 74, PA1970MI.
5) Original survey topographic call within 5 chains distance which position is not contradictory as
to interpretation. Must be used in conjunction with alignment as defined by Closing Corners.
(1973 BLM Manual – “Sec. 5-16. (continued)
(2) The evidence should not be susceptible of more than one reasonable
interpretation.
(3) The corner locus should not be contradicted by evidence of a higher class or by
other topographic notes.” P 132 8)
LOST: (Requires restoration activities based upon conclusions of retracement surveyor)
1) No evidence found which will meet the Existent or Obliterated criteria.
E.g. – Evidence of line is a found stone on Teale Rd betweenMP51-52, even if old; stone likely
c. 1860s-1880s. It is 4.5’ N of the line defined by the closing corners, one old, the other an
original GLO stake. No reason to be that far off line since MP52, an original Kendrick stake, is
only 1.4’ S of that line. Indicates surveyor who set stone likely did not retrace entire mile.
Also, Mile Post 0 has to be considered as lost but considerable evidence for its position.
2) Authorization of both the Indiana and Michigan Legislatures, through joint legislation, will be
required for a surveyor to install a lost Mile Post, i.e. - re-establish the position.
Monument Recoveries and Status
Over the next three years following the initial meeting of the Study Committee in 2004, the effort
to define Mile Post locations and the search for them has taken place on several levels of effort.
One of the first activities was a GPS reconnaissance survey along the entire North line with a
handheld GPS receiver by Norm Caldwell and John Quine, the Chairman of the MSPS County
Surveyors Committee and liaison to the MSPS Board of Directors. Following the apparent line as
shown on USGS Quad Maps they positioned recovered closing corners or occupation near such
corners after which they produced a map of the line(See Map 20 25). Unexpectedly, the alignment
was not a smoothly curving parallel of latitude but wandered several hundred feet (about 630
feet), up to about 140 feet north and about 490 feet south of the latitude of the apparent starting
point on Lake Michigan. Having been run with a Surveyors Compass corrected for magnetic
variation, there are at least two apparent large areas of magnetic attraction or influence that
caused a type of systematic local, but large-scale attraction and definite deflections in spite of
Kendrick’s frequent Polaris observations to determine magnetic variation. This further
emphasized why the survey should be a retracement survey to find evidence of the original
monuments and remonument the original location of the line. Likewise, it demonstrates why both
states need to authorize a resurvey to restore “lost” Mile Posts. It varies less than the Mason-
Page 19 of 28
Dixon Line (ranging about 1200 feet) run with different equipment and procedures but varying
for a different reason (deflection of the vertical).
Our first field investigation was to search for the Northeast Corner of Indiana in March 2005. It
was carefully noted in the original survey and one of the few posts that had a subsequent record
of recovery. We concluded the chance of recovery was good and the publicity value to our cause
would be high. After four hours we concluded it would take more than luck, rather a systematic,
thorough effort. Six more trips were needed to find it, several being to retrace Sec. 20, which
surrounds the corner, under the MI Remon Program that enabled us to use the excellent records of
Hillsdale County Surveyor Mark’s 1871 and 1905 surveys noting the recovery of the corner. We
would return a seventh time to remonument the position with a durable monument.
Our most recent search last June was for Mile Post 0 was unsuccessful in that we determined we
could not recover any original evidence. We did confirm we were searching the correct area but
that fairly recent construction of a catch basin in close-by Lake Shore Drive and the outlet storm
sewer onto the beach cut directly through the area destroying whatever evidence was still extant.
We do know the position as well as it is possible to define it (less than 10 links) from three good
pieces of evidence - Mile Post 1 and the Indian Closing Corner for Ranges 3 and 4 West which
correlate well with the GLO record and a long perpetuated subdivision or plat monument.
A private surveyor, Tom Stephen in Cass County, Michigan recovered the original post for Mile
Post 52 in 2004 in advance of the committee’s existence. He was performing a retracement
survey of a fractional closing section on the line and concluded the remonumented closing corner
did not agree with other evidence. To support his conclusion he decided to look for the Mile Post
referenced to it. As both fell in a large swamp/marsh, he found the bottom portion of both original
posts, in agreement with the record tie distance and not in agreement with the recent reestablished position. There have been some efforts to search for Mile Posts with limited success.
These all involve the same requirement – to narrowly define the search area.
Norm Caldwell, our recording secretary has summarized our success at recovering and tying in
the Closing Corners of both States along the line and a few Mile Posts in Tables 3A and 3B.
Rights of Way
We also note that public roads have been built along several stretches of the line, citing the
Michigan range first, approximate mileage and apparent jurisdiction, if known: R22W, R4W = 1
mile on line; R21W, R3W = 1/8 mile, uncertain; R20W, R2W = 0 mile; R19W, R1W = 1 mile in
Indiana; R18W, R1E = 1/8 mile in Michigan; R17W, R2E = 3 miles, 2 in Michigan, 1 in Indiana
R16W, R3E = 1 mile, 1/2 mile in Indiana, 1/2 mile in Michigan; R15W, R4E = 1/8 mile in
Michigan; R14W, R5E = 5 miles in Indiana; R13W, R6E = 1 mile, uncertain; R12W, R7E = 2
miles, uncertain; R11W, R8E = 1/2 mile, uncertain; R10W, R9E = 1/8 mile, uncertain; R9W,
R10E = 1.5 miles in Michigan; R8W, R11E = 3 miles, 2 in Michigan, 1 in Indiana; R7W, R12E =
1/8 mile in Indiana; R6W, R13E = 1/8 mile in Michigan; R5W, R14E = 4 miles in Michigan;
R4W, R15E = 1/4 mile in Michigan on E-W portion. The apparent jurisdiction is based upon the
recovered Closing Corners relative to the road surface. We don’t have records showing how such
roads were originally established. It appears some formal action proceeded road construction
since the right of way width seems to conform to statute specified widths for each state (which
vary from each other). One might expect to find better records by the controlling jurisdiction
along a state line but this is not the case.
There are numerous instances among these roads along the state line where the public road is
located in one state yet provides access to the adjoining properties along it which are in the
Page 20 of 28
adjoining state (See Map 24 27). The road is appurtenant to the enjoyment of the use of parcel
whose title is under the laws of the state in which the parcel is located yet the road is under the
jurisdiction of a county in the adjoining state. How are the property rights of the parcel protected?
It is not known if the county in the adjoining state where the parcel is located provides revenue
for joint maintenance to the cross-line county with jurisdiction over that stretch of road. A second
example is the house in Indiana whose access is a road on the Michigan side of the line (See Map
25 27). It is reasonably new (not mapped at time the quad map was made) and the only house
served by the road. What if the adjoiner in Michigan petitioned the Michigan county to vacate the
road since he would gain the use of the abandoned Michigan-only right of way? What status
would the owner of the Indiana parcel have in the hearing? Interestingly, there is one town
straddling the State line in Branch and Steuben Counties (originally established about 1875 by
recorded plats with specified rights of way for the road, differing in width in each state). Since it
is quite small, it is probably not an incorporated municipality. There is a report of the line cutting
through a building but it has not been identified for our records.
Even I-80, a toll road (the Indiana Toll Road), whose north boundary is the state line in at least
one location, did not survey that boundary. That is unusual as most limited access expressway
rights of way are surveyed by the entity with jurisdiction so as to mark their boundaries. There are
U.S. highways or interstate limited-access expressways crossing the state line near MPs 1, 4, 25,
29, 59 and 95. as well as highways that run to the line, typically connecting with a state highway
in the adjoining state, near MPs 5, 38, 44, 49, 54, 72 and 94. In all these cases right of way was
obtained but no effort was made to determine the location of the state line that defines the end of
jurisdiction for each state. Since the rights of way were obtained under the laws of both states, it
seems somewhat irresponsible not to retrace the state boundary in such cases when obtaining the
right of way according to the laws of a particular jurisdiction.
We also have obtained the valuation maps for the rail roads crossing near MPs 1, 2, 4, 18, 29, 36,
37, 58, 71 and 101. The rights of way for them were also obtained according to the applicable
laws of either Indiana or Michigan. Yet there was no apparent effort to locate the state line to
know when they crossed it and the laws governing their right of way acquisition changed. We
know of high voltage transmission lines with no ties to Mile Posts crossing near MPs 16, 18, 35
and 37 to 42, crosses into Indiana continuing to 46, 49 and 52. Likewise, there are several major
pipelines crossing the state line with even less effort made to determine its location as right of
way was obtained, crossing near MPs 6, 9, 25, 27, 49 and 58. (See Map 26 27).
Determination of Specific Search Areas
Using the survey quality ties obtained for points along the line, I have analyzed available State
Plane Coordinates of recovered survey controlling data, then calculated a search position
for some Mile Posts. This demonstrates the ready feasibility with which the above
suggested procedures can be applied to the retracement survey of the line.
E.g., Existent Corner – Recovered NE Corner Indiana, an original Kendrick corner.
One of our most successful recoveries is the NE Corner of Indiana. As already noted, it was
greatly aided by the subsequent recovery surveys of Hillsdale County Surveyor George Mark in
1871 and 1905. Current County Surveyor Mike Ludzinski included the Sec. 20, T8S-R4W
surrounding it in his Remon Program. This included recovering the Closing Corner for the Range
Line of 4 and 5 West which CS Mark had also measured to. With the data we finally determined
the specific search area and recovered the original 6-inch square post remnants for the corner only
about 0.2 of a foot from the proportionate position based upon Mark’s surveys. St. Joseph IN Co.
Sur. John McNamara generously agreed to purchase bronze monument caps of the design the
Page 21 of 28
committee adopted for the monument specified for the Mile Posts; the county purchased enough
for all the in-line posts with the expectation that they will be reimbursed as the Mile Posts are
recovered and restored. The design was selected to allow ready occupation by survey equipment.
This was the only special cap and was obtained from donations to the MSPS Foundation and
Berntsen’s generous reduction of their charge to the Foundation. I prepared Map 21 showing the
record and retraced measurements and Fig. 7 which gives part of the data on the MI Land Corner
Remonumentation Certificate recorded for it. Ross Ruckel prepared a Surveyors Report for
recording in Steuben County. It we had the quality of retracement records left by CS Mark for all
Mile Posts, our task would be simple one (See Map 21).
E.g., Existent Corner – MP-86: Recovered accessory and perpetuated monument
An interesting recovery is one of the original bearing trees for MP-86 and a large stone found
perpetuating the position for the Mile Post. Don Andrews with dual IN-MI licenses was
contracted to survey a parcel (aliquot part description) requiring subdividing Sec. 24, T8S-R8W,
Branch Co., MI, adjoining the State line. A significant issue was to recover closing corners on the
line. Since one of these was on the Range Line of 7 and 8 West, the GLO Plat gave the tie to MP86 which he decided to check as part of re-establishing the Closing Corner. He found a large
faceted stone in the vicinity as well as noting that a large live Hickory (26” DBH) was at the
proper bearing and distance westerly and near line. This helped confirm the evidence used to
restore the Closing Corner. Rex Pranger, Lagrange County Surveyor, has supplied the position of
the long perpetuated (now a Harrison marker) Closing Corner for the Range Line for 11 and 12
East, the Lagrange-Steuben County Line, IN. Using the GLO tie to determine a trial position for
MP-84 results in the two-mile measurement to MP-86 averaging 79.97 chains or 5278.38 feet.
The latter value divided by 80 chains (the GLO record) gives 65.98ft/ch, something I always
determine in GLO retracement surveys and a value typical of what I see for GLO work. It is
worth noting that the GLO tie from the range line to MP-86 is 40.89 ch. (2698 ft.) whereas the
measurement is 41.96 chains or 2769.64 feet. The latter value divided by the GLO record gives
67.73ft/ch., which is not close to what a chain measures and signals a likely blunder. I conclude
the Deputy Surveyor made a miscount of his full chain lengths and actually measured 41.89 ch.
(2765 ft.), resulting in a value of 66.12ft/ch which sounds like a real chain. I have noted several
instances of half and full chain miscounts in both Kendrick’s and the Deputy Surveyors’ work.
This is something the BLM Manual says must be considered in GLO retracement surveys. More
rarely one sees a full tally miscount. Kendrick, as did other Deputy Surveyors, was required to
use a half chain of 50 links but keep his notes in full chains. Using the required set of 11 pins to
keep his tally of chain lengths in the incremental process, his chainmen would measure 5 chains
with the set of pins before starting the next set of measurements. Miscounting a tally would result
in a 5-chain error in the segment being measured. Norm and I have identified two possible such
‘tally’ errors but do not have enough good data to substantiate whether they happened. The
retracement surveyors will have to investigate these two locations carefully. The committee also
consulted with Dr. Burton Barnes, co-author of Michigan Trees, on the age of the Hickory. Being
the densest hardwood in either state, we could only core sample just over an inch deep.
Extrapolating gave an age old enough to be the original bearing tree. He said to check the logged
off hickories just to the north and use them as an index along the line. The ring count on them
confirmed it definitely could be old enough to be the bearing tree. The collateral evidence
accumulated and helped confirm the recovery of the perpetuated Mile Post as an existent rather
than an obliterated corner, even though no entry about it exits in the survey records of either
adjoining county.
E.g., Existent Corner – MP-49: Possible recovery but existent due to close-by Closing Corner
There are two GLO ties from Closing Corners to MP-49, one from Indiana, one from Michigan.
Both are perpetuated and the distance between them at 44.752 chains or 2953.66 feet nearly
Page 22 of 28
matches the GLO record of 44.76 chains or 2954.2 feet. Since the distance from the MI Closing
Corner is only 6.06 chains or 400.0 feet east, it can be used as an accessory. We need only specify
the north-south location. In 2002 I postulated that, undoubtedly, the two sets of closing corners, if
the line between each set is held as the line without regard to the other set, will show two lines
close together but not exactly coinciding. The GPS data on the many closing corners has
confirmed that. Therefore, since they clearly show the Deputy Surveyors closing on the newly run
State line did well (mostly showing overlaps or gaps in the 3 to 6 foot range), the evidence of
these lines can also and should be considered an accessory because the band defined by the
closing corners is so narrow. Taking the midpoint between the two lines cuts the amount in half, a
value that applies to both existent and obliterated recoveries. The logical conclusion is to take the
mean position, whether gap or gore, which also seems to be the most equitable determination
from the evidence. The IN Closing Corner is 1.32 feet north, a gore, of the line between the MI
Closing Corners to either side while the MI Closing Corner is 3.13 feet south, also a gore, of the
line between the IN Closing Corners to either side. Therefore, MP-49 should be placed at the split
which is a 2.77 foot gore at that location. Once the final line is determined and defined by the
Mile Posts, the Closing Corners can be handled by the Amended Monument procedure in the
1973 BLM Manual since they were intended to be at the intersection of the closing section lines
with the State line.
One other evaluation of the lines defined by closing corners also serves to emphasize their value
as strong collateral evidence for the location of the State line. As noted earlier, Tom Stephenson
recovered the bottom of the original post set for MP-52 in a swamp and that for the next Closing
Corner to the east (about 800 feet) as well. The closing corner to the west is a perpetuated
position and seems old as well. The original recovered MP-52 is only 1.66 feet south of the line
between these two closing corners. This supports our conclusion that the visual intersections for
the closing corners ‘on the line’ by the Deputy Surveyors was a reasonably good determination
that we can use for an accessory. This is along a line over some of the roughest ground the State
line passes over, including a lake and steep cross ridge. Obviously Kendrick kept good line even
if his distance for this mile is off the mile record of 80 chains, only measuring 78.745 chains or
5197.16 feet. One thing became clear to Norm and I, Kendrick could not determine distances
across lakes with any facility, even if he was an engineer. His indirectly determined distances
across lakes are off from over 1 to over 7 chains, increasing with the size of the lake; some
Deputy Surveyors did much better at such procedures.
E.g., Obliterated Corner – MP-38: Use of Closing Corner Alignment and County Surveyor Tie
Determining the position for MP-38 pulls together several pieces of collateral evidence. The
closest Closing Corner is 13.62 chains, equivalent to 898.92 feet. I propose holding it as collateral
evidence supported by the following additional evidence. The IN Closing Corners are 4.08 and
5.94 feet north , both gores, of the line between the MI Closing Corners to either side while the
MI Closing Corners are 6.64 and 1.98 feet north, both gaps, of the line between the IN Closing
Corners to either side. Placing MP-49 the split between the two sets of lines is still the most
logical conclusion which is only a gap of 0.43 of a foot at that location. This is because Kendrick
made a Polaris observation at MP-37, adjusting the vernier of his compass for a different
magnetic variation to the east. Restoring the mile posts in the area using this same obliterated
corner procedure shows the bearings of the two miles coming into MP-37 are S89°00E and
S89°01’E while the next miles after the correction are S88°48’E and S88°28’E. The last evidence
is the County Surveyor record by Stokes, c. 1860, of a measurement from MP-38 to the IN
Closing Corner for Secs. 8 and 9, R4E, of 42.06 chains, or 2776.0 feet. The GLO tie seems
inexplicable at 48.36 chains, or 3192 feet. The calculated distance from the above-defined
location to the perpetuated Closing Corner is 41.986 chains, or 2771.07 feet, only 4.9 feet less
Page 23 of 28
than Stokes distance. We have a subsequent survey to support the one GLO tie. Hence, we could
hold the GLO tie as collateral evidence and restore the position as an obliterated corner.
Alternatively, we could take the mean position or a weighted position since Stokes’ distance is
three times further; both are reasonable. Lastly, we could also recover the next section corner out
from the Line and determine the closing distance to the Line. Then one can proportion the record
and measured values for that distance against the record tie distance to the Mile Post. This
indexing process, suggested in the 1973 BLM Manual, would likely change the position by a few
links, but require more extensive recovery efforts in these types of area. (See Map 22)
E.g., Lost Corner – MP-0
As also noted, I determined a position for Mile Post 0. To define the search area I applied the
mile measurement between MP-1 and 2. But Mile Post 1 was not yet recovered, only the nearby
MI Closing Corner for the Range Line for 21 and 22 W. With the GPS positionings we had good
information on controlling corners (both closing corners and some mile posts to MP-5) from
which to apply the record ties to Mile Posts. The distance between MP-2 and 3 seemed
reasonable, a little short of the GLO record 80.00 chains at 79.848 chains or 5269.94 feet,
amounting to 65.87ft/ch, a value also typical of what I see for GLO work. But calculating the
record MP-1 position west from the closing corner resulted in the ‘mile’ to MP-2 being 80.099
chains or 5286.53 feet, amounting to 66.08ft/ch. This value is within the range I typically see but
didn’t make sense compared to the next several miles east, all over similar terrain. I used the
distance from MP-2 to 3 applied westerly from MP-2 as a test. It gave a position about 4 feet west
of the “Closing Corner,” which strongly suggested it was actually the long perpetuated mile post
rather than the supposed closing corner. When I restored the closing corner at the GLO record 31
links (20.46 feet) east and held the so-called ‘closing corner’ as the position for MP-1, the
distance to MP-2 measures 79.780 chains or 5265.48 feet, amounting to 65.82ft/ch. This is in
close agreement with other Kendrick ‘mile’ measurements on the west end. I assume he started
with a new chain and typically Deputy Surveyors measure ‘short’ with a chain. (When the chain
shows wear from use, they tend to measure ‘long,’ as some data on the east ends is beginning to
show. There Kendrick’s ‘miles’ are approaching a true mile measurement as his chain is showing
signs of wear. From closing corner positions obtained by Duane Brown the computed positions
for MP-102 to 104 give ‘miles’ of 79.930 chains or 5275.38 feet, amounting to 65.94ft/ch.)
Applying the distance from MP-1 to 2 westerly seems the most logical and best evidence for reestablishing MP-0. About half way westerly is the perpetuated Closing Corner for Ranges 3 and 4
West, 2nd P.M. Only about 45 feet east of this proportionate MP-0 position is a long perpetuated
monument for the centerlines of Lake Shore Drive and Michiana Drive per the 1920 recorded
Michigan plat. While the recovery/establishment of this position is not explained on the plat,
holding it and MP-1 defines a straight line from which the intermediated Closing Corner is only
0.45 of a foot south. Since a parallel of latitude is a curved line which would bow out about 0.15
of a foot south for a line one mile long, a most reasonable conclusion would be to let the three
above-described points define the State line in the first mile. Also interesting is that Kendrick’s
location for the water (at 2.50 chains west) would be about elevation 590 feet according to a
survey provided by Abonmarche from the Berrien County Survey Records. The most recent high
stage for Lake Michigan is about 588 feet. The International Great Lakes Datum was adjusted
three times in the 20th Century because of the rebounding of the Great Lakes area from depression
during glaciation. Over two centuries the area could have rebounded well over a foot which could
indicate Kendrick surveyed during a period of high water. (See Map 23)
We have a number of positions specifically defined for searches for evidence of the original
posts. However, efforts have slowed to a trickle in 2008, most likely due to the slowing economy
and the discouraging and startling rise of gas; both made volunteering of services much more
difficult for private practitioners.
Page 24 of 28
INDIANA & MICHIGAN LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Suggested Legislation for Retracement/Remonumentation Survey of the State Line
Our objective is to retrace the original survey to reconfirm its original 1827 location and then
preserve that location with new monumentation that is much more imperishable than the old
wood posts.
We are only seeking legislation whereby the two states authorize and fund the
retracement survey to recover and remonument all recoverable mile posts and replace any
missing ones. When completed the two states can report their achievement to Congress
and get an additional confirmation of their efforts in preserving the line as originally
defined by Congress in 1827 ( and originally described in 1816).
A very common misconception we’ve heard several times is that Congress has to approve
everything. The U.S. Supreme Court has directed states seeking changes in their existing common
boundaries through the Court to instead go back to the authority which established the boundary,
i.e. – Congress, such as New York recently seeking to change its boundary with New Jersey
around the Statute of Liberty. Under the 4th Article of the Constitution (covering the Legislative
Branch) Congress was given authority to create additional states (including defining their
boundaries). Under Article 10 (the so-called Reserve Clause, or States’ Rights Clause) all rights
not specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the Federal Government are reserved for the
States. Thus two states may resurvey and remonument a common boundary on their own
initiative without any other approval, if they agree, by passing joint authorizing legislation. But
sometimes states have even sought resurveys of their common boundaries through the Supreme
Court. Even then the Supreme Court turns aside such attempts with no legal issues underlying
them, saying resurveys are a matter of survey, not a matter of law. Ohio and Kentucky attempted
to pursue the resurvey of the North bank of the Ohio River, their defined boundary, through the
Supreme Court. When they complained of the difficulty, due to several dams on the river with
locks for barge traffic which raised, overflowed and covered the North bank, the Court response
was that it might now be difficult, but it didn’t change that it was a matter of survey.
Status of legislation bill compilations
Even though strongly supported by Committee members, the present pace of recovery efforts by
private practitioners indicates it will take years to try and recover the Mile Posts. Consequently,
our Committee decided to go to the States and seek legislation to have them take over the
responsibility, which is theirs legally, to authorize and fund a retracement survey of the line. We
should not and cannot wait for years now that we have so fully explored the issue to understand
it. Our Committee looked at three possible forms or directions for legislation.
The one that seems best for this line is summarized below and shown as Table 4. The basic
premise is that, as with other similar legislation, the State grant the authority to resurvey the line
to a commission which contracts to have the survey done. We do not want someone like the
engineer that resurveyed the Ohio-Michigan line in 1916. He did not seem to recognize obvious
evidence, even when describing it in his procedures, seemingly intend on speed rather than
retracement. Making the County Surveyors for the 10 counties adjoining the line, 5 in each state,
the commissioners and authorizing them to contract for the retracement survey services seems
best. They are elected and would be answerable to the residents along the line, the ones most
intimately impacted by the retracement survey. They would give careful review of the survey
work being done to support the retracements. We feel the funding in Michigan should be separate
as the other 78 counties in Michigan will consider that we are using the statewide remon fees for
something other than section corners, specifically part of their money for section corners.
Page 25 of 28
John Kamer, Berrien County Surveyor, arranged a meeting with State Senator Ron Jelinek who
represents a district adjoining the line. He met with John, Roger Stephenson, Cass County
Surveyor, Norm and myself in late October 2008. After a thorough discussion he agreed to
sponsor the bill. He directed his staff to meet with us and then ask the Legislative Service Bureau,
who drafts legislation for the elected Senators and Representatives, to draft language for the
proposed bill to have the State of Michigan authorize and fund the retracement survey of the line.
We have lined up other senators who have agreed to be co-sponsors and are seeking more. The
bill was introduced as Senate Bill 374, with a companion funding bill – SB375. It passed the
Senate with no dissenting votes. It has been introduced in the House, been reviewed by a
committee which reported it to the full House with recommendation for passage. It should come
up for a vote very soon.
Concurrently, the ISPLS engaged their lobbyist to work on introducing similar legislation for this
2008 session, the first in the two-year cycle followed by Indiana for acting on legislation which
requires all bills for consideration be introduced during the first year. One challenge was for
members to provide him with enough information to more fully understand the issue of having
both states cosponsor and support the resurvey and remonumentation of the line. Rex Pranger,
Lagrange County Surveyor, met with State Senator Marlin Stutzman who represents his area. He
is agreed to sponsor the legislation to have the State Line resurveyed. It was introduced as Senate
Bill 530, passing both the Senate and House with no dissenting votes; the Governor has signed
the bill.
We have been asked the value of having the line retraced. It should seem obvious that both states
and the levels of government within each state along the line will know the exact limits of their
jurisdictions. Owners of land along the line will know the location of their title lines and, if they
think they have obtained unwritten title by adverse possession or acquiescence, they will know
which court (in which state) has jurisdiction and be able to pursue legal action in the correct
jurisdiction. There are disputes over title along the line but without the specific location identified
by survey there is no resolution possible. One cannot predict who will decide to make such claims
once the location is known. Such knowledge of the line’s location should also help the assessors
have more detailed data by which to assess the properties along the line. Legally, any criminal act
at the boundary within the area of unsureness, the 3-5 foot band (13 foot maximum), being
prosecuted could be challenged by an experienced attorney on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.
The attorney would have no trouble getting a number of surveyors to testify to the yet-to-bedetermined location of the State Line. It would be costly for a prosecutor to have a portion of the
line surveyed just for one case.
One specific law enforcement function that would be widely helped by the survey of the line is in
the enforcement of fishing and game laws. The north boundary of Indiana is defined in their
constitution as an east-west line 10 miles north of the Southern extreme of Lake Michigan.
Michigan had to acknowledge and adhere to that line in its constitution. That line was surveyed
on land; once it is retraced and remonumented the latitude will become precisely known at the
Lake Michigan shoreline. It is only logical for the line to be considered as (and defined in the
proposed legislation) a westerly extension of that particular latitude, in conformance with the
current long-held description. With the wide availability of handheld GPS receivers every
fisherman, boater and law enforcement can readily determine the line out into the lake within 10
feet; no more need to guesstimate about which jurisdiction one is fishing or waterfowling in since
it could be published with the current regulations each year.
Page 26 of 28
Contact information:
E-mail: [email protected]
Jack N. Owens, 20990 Waterloo Rd, Chelsea, MI 48118, Ph 810/869-0944
[email protected]
Norman C. Caldwell, 738 N. Park St, Owosso, MI 48867, Ph 989/723-6321
Sources:
1. Willis F. Dunbar, Michigan, A History of the Wolverine State, Revised Edition by George S. May,
William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1980.
2. F. Clever Bald, Michigan in Four Centuries, Harper & Brothers, Publishers, NY, 1961.
3. Alec R. Gilpin, The Territory of Michigan [1805-1837], Michigan State University Press, Lansing, MI,
1970.
4. Bess M. Sheehan, The Northern Boundary of Indiana, Indiana Historical Society Publications,
V. 8, No. 6, Indianapolis, The W. Mitchell Printing Co., Greenfield, IN, 1928.
[Note: Microfiche, Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International, 1992.
State Library of Michigan, Lansing (Genealogy and local history; LH8249.)]
5. C. Albert White, Initial Points of the Rectangular Survey System, Professional Land Surveyors of
Colorado, Inc., by The Publishing House, Div. of Colorado Word Works, Inc., Westminster, CO.,
1996.
6. Robert M. Hutchins, Editor in Chief, Great Books of the Western World, V. 43 (American State Papers,
The Federalist, J. S. Mill), The University of Chicago by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., Chicago,
1952.
7. C. Albert White, A History of the Rectangular Survey System, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1982.
8. Bureau of Land Management, Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of the United
States, 1973, Technical Bulletin 6, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973.
9. Michigan Geological and Biological Survey, The Biennial Report of the Director 1914-1916 and Report
on Retracement and Permanent Monumenting of the Michigan-Ohio Boundary, Pub. 22, Geol.
Series 18, W. H. Crawford Co., Lansing, MI, 1916, and
Annah May Soule, The Southern and Western Boundary of Michigan, A monograph for Studies in
Michigan History, The Michigan Political Science Association, Ann Arbor, MI, 1896. [Note:
Reprint by Michigan Society of Professional Surveyors, Lansing, MI, and Professional Land
Surveyors of Ohio, Columbus, OH, 1996].
10. John N. Kane, et. al., Editors, Facts About the States, The H. W. Wilson Company, New York, 1989.
11. Bureau of Land Management, Standard Field Tables and Trigonometric Formulas, 8th Ed., A
Supplement to the Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of the United States,
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 1956.
12. Logan Esary, History of Indiana from its Exploration to 1922, Vol. I, Dayton Historical Publishing Co.
Dayton, OH, 1922.
13. Eleazer P. Kendrick, Transcribed Original Field Notes of the North Boundary of Indiana, Archives,
Indiana State Library, Indianapolis, 1827 (date of transcription not given, c. probably 1870's).
14. Norman C. Caldwell, Surveyors of the Public Lands in Michigan 1808-2000, Norman C. Caldwell,
printed by Data Reproductions Corporation, Auburn Hills, MI, 2001.
Page 27 of 28
15. Executive Documents, No. 187, XXth Congress, 1st Session, Message from the President of the United
States with a Plat of the Survey of the Northern Boundary of the State of Indiana, Dec, 12, 1827,
printed by Gales & Seaton, Washington, 1828.
16. Prof. Ralph M. Berry, Special Instructions to Deputy Surveyors in Michigan 1804-1854, Norman C.
Caldwell, Editor, published by Michigan Society of Professional Surveyors, Lansing, MI, printed
by Flint Rotary Press, Flint, MI, 1990.
17. Various Deputy Surveyors, Transcribed Original Field Notes of Town 8 South, Range[s] 4-22 West,
Michigan Meridian, Archives, State Library of Michigan, Landing, MI, 1828-30 (date of
transcription 1890).
18. Keuffler & Esser Co., K & E Solar Ephemeris for 1973, Keuffle & Esser Co., Morristown, NJ, 1972.
19. R. Elgin, D. Knowles, J. Senne, 1993 Celestial Observation Handbook and Ephemeris, Elgin, Knowles
& Senne, Inc., Fayeetteville, AR, 1992.
20. Jerry L. Wahl, Double Proportion Made Complex, Bureau of Land Management.
21. DeLorme, Inc., Digital USGS Quad Maps, 2000.
22 Various Deputy Surveyors, Transcribed Original Field Notes of Town 38 North, Range[s] 1-15 East
and 1-4 West, 2nd Principal Meridian, Archives, Indiana State Library, Indianapolis, IN, 1828-32
(date of transcription 1870's).
23. Eleazer P. Kendrick, Transcribed Original Field Notes of the East Boundary of Indiana, Stueben
County Surveyor Records, Stueben County Building, Angola, Indiana, 1827 (date of transcription
not given, c. probably 1870's).
24. time and date.com, Calendar for year 1827 (USA),
http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/index.html?year=1827&country=1 2008.
25. Norman Caldwell and John Quine, Map of Indiana-Michigan State Line Showing Differences in
Latitude by Handheld GPS Receiver, 2005; redrawn in CAD by Jack Owens.
26. John McNamara, Transcribed Copy of Original Field Notes of North Boundary of Indiana, Office of
the St. Joseph County Surveyor, South Bend, IN, 1827 (date of transcription 1999).
27. TopoZone, Inc., Digital USGS Quad Maps, 2005, http//www.topozone.com.
Progress of the Indiana Line _Final
Page 28 of 28