The State Line Was Not as Solid as It Looked
A Newport property owner calls for a permanent survey of the Washington–Idaho boundary before confused surveys turn into an endless round of land litigation.
Newport, March 18.
Editor Miner—Noticing a good deal of comment lately on the prospect of changes in the location of the state line between Idaho and Washington, I assume that the general preference of those who own property adjoining the state line would be to have as little change in the line as possible. Such being the case, I would respectfully suggest that a petition be circulated for the signature of those most vitally interested in both states—petition to be presented to those authorities having the matter in charge—that a survey be made with the object of giving a straight line beginning at the original initial point at the junction of the Snake and Clearwater rivers—which point I understand is well marked and defined by a suitable monument—and that the said line be laid in a northerly direction, to deviate as much from astronomical north as may be found necessary to give each and all original mile posts their proper and proportionate interest in its final location as a permanent boundary. And further that the boundary, when settled upon, shall be marked with stone monuments at least six inches square and three feet long, and when the monuments fall in the public highway said monuments shall be of stone one foot square and four feet long, set two and one-half feet in the ground. Or that the line shall be monumented and protected in such manner as to make the location a matter of certainty and permanence indefinite.
It seems to me that, while it is not essential that the line shall run north and south, it is highly essential that it should be a straight line mathematically, and that every monument or post that has formerly been erected and accepted as permanent by adjacent property owners should be used as a factor in the final determination of the position of the line, in order that the property owners along the line may be disturbed as little as possible in the quiet and peaceable possession of property that the U.S. government has granted to them. Otherwise it would occur to me that there will be opened up an endless vista of litigation to determine the legal status of ownership of lands where the sectional surveys closed on the present state line.
J. R. Patterson.
“Otherwise it would occur to me that there will be opened up an endless vista of litigation to determine the legal status of ownership of lands where the sectional surveys closed on the present state line.”
Boundary lines still decide who owns what, who pays which taxes, and which government has jurisdiction. In an era of GPS and digital parcel maps, Patterson's plea is a reminder that a line on a map is only as good as the monuments and records behind it.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.