Taking a Stand

Discuss information about the Lost Dutchman Mine
User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Potbelly Jim »

Hi Garry,

Guilty as charged. :oops:

Re: Chuning/Bark thread, Paul directed me over to that discussion you guys had years ago... I would imagine a lot of you guys that have been doing this for awhile get a little tired of seeing the same stuff rehashed when all we have to do is LOOK...I thought I had, but I hadn't...

Your contribution to this effort hasn't confused me, ever. Looking forward to your site being back up. Best Regards, Jim
Jim R.
ThomasG
Part Timer
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:19 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by ThomasG »

Garry,

Couldn’t agree more. When I was talking to the gentleman at the AZ land office I mentioned squatters rights. He took exception!!!! I was informed there was on such thing!! I was referring to the 19th century. I could tell he was thinking in 20th century terms. I didn’t pursue the matter. But circa 1800 the courts upheld squatter’s rights. For one thing, without squatters rights there could be no functional Preemption claims. After all, until the person bought the land they were “squatting” on and on which they were making improvements the land wasn’t theirs – it belonged to the government.

In the case of people making improvements on School Land before 1912 one can understand that people would not be happy for the new state to try and take away “their” land. There was at least one remedy, beside the person paying the state for the land on which they had settled. The state could ask the U. S. government for a land swap. Section 16 could be swapped for another quarter section and that “new” quarter section would become School Land.

Or the person who had settled on land before it was surveyed, and they had ended up on section 16 by accident could go the federal court and ask for the court to designate another section for school land – and they could keep “their “ land.

Sometimes, the state would ask for such a swap, especially if section 16 was in a bad location, if it wasn’t worth much. The section 16 Waltz was on was such a section, since the southern half was mostly useless.

A good guess is that the section 16 on which Waltz settled was complicated by the length of time Arizona remained a territory. His section 16 was sold—preemption/squatters rights – not ownership)—and resold, and resold by 1912. Th the best of my knowedge the only thing one had were possessory rights. Note Waltz's agreement with Andrew Starar.

All of which must have added layers of difficulties when the Arizona State land office took control.

And yes, the county assessor taxed Waltz on his land, improvement and possessions—the same as everyone else—.

I’d like to know more about the “Henshaw issue".

A final note/opinion: If Arizona had not sold off its school lands, which were a minimum of two 160 sections (16, and as I recall section 32 (?)) out of ever 36 sections for each township and range would there be any issues today about school funding? Would Arizona be in a much better fiscal state/position? After all, we are talking about hundreds and hundreds of acres of land from which the state could have derived ongoing fees/money.

This is from memory—take it for what it is worth…or otherwise.

Thomas
ThomasG
Part Timer
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:19 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by ThomasG »

Oops, correction .... last paragraph, first line should read: two 160 acre sections (16, and as I recall ...


Thomas
novice
Expert
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by novice »

Thomas,

I'm probably in over my head!

WE NEED LARRY TO CHIME IN!!!

I know Larry did a lot of work on the Henshaw claim. He also spent a lot of time trying to follow what transpired with Waltz's original 160 acres.

Section 16 may have been partially in the flood plain but it was on the outskirts of Phoenix in 1912 and I suspect it was becoming very valuable land.

Also, I suspect that when Waltz settled on his quarter section he and the Starr's were well aware that it was school land. :)

I'm glad to see you posting.

Garry
User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Potbelly Jim »

I’m probably going to confuse the issue even more. Sorry. I have some county land records that show there was a whole bunch of people living all over Section 16 from just before the time of statehood on…it must have been a terrible mess!

Just as an aside, one of those people was Frank Luke…I wonder if our local Medal of Honor winning, WWI fighter ace lived on section 16 as a teenager?
I remember what that section looked like in the 1970’s. I had no idea it was connected to Jacob Waltz back then. My Dad grew up on E. Watkins street, and he used to take me down in the river bed to hunt dove and target shoot, as he played in there as a kid. It was down there by where the 7th street bridge is. They eventually moved my Grandmother out of there, as they gobbled up all the land where the National Guard Armory was, to expand the airport.

Anyway, I digress…Thomas, you have probably seen all those records…but if you haven't, and you’re interested in looking at them, let me know. From what I can tell, they don't have anything regarding JW, just shows where people settled after his time.

Best regards, Jim
Jim R.
User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Potbelly Jim »

Well I just dug out a purchase agreement between the State and Frank Luke for 88 acres of T1N R3E section 16, it was dated 1917...so it would appear that Frank Luke Jr. probably didn't ever live on section 16. But like you guys have been saying, people were paying REAL money for that land, it was becoming very expensive, so I would imagine there was quite the fisticuffs if the Feds were trying to interfere with land ownership there.

I also saw where the City of Phoenix began annexing land in that section to add to the tax base...a well established pattern of land grabbing by that particular taxing authority...my step-dad spent his life moving farther and farther north to get away from them. He would move north of the city limits, they would annex the area, so he would pick up and move again, only to be annexed again...

Plat records, however, show Luke was there on Section 16 T1N R3E a few years before 1917, so I have no idea what's going on. It does look like Luke was involved in large numbers of real estate transactions, from what I can see. It might have just been investment property.
Jim R.
User avatar
Potbelly Jim
Part Timer
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:13 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Potbelly Jim »

Thomas, regarding your comment on the condition of school finances: I took a look at the current status of state school lands. It looks like about 85% of the original State Trust lands are still owned by the state (about 8.5 million acres). They say every acre of that land is under one or more leases (grazing, etc.) of which 90% of the revenues still go to the public education trust. So it appears they are still generating funds with the land, still own all the mineral rights, etc. and have no intention of selling any large portions of it.

The school taxes on my land and cabin in AZ are WAY lower than my school taxes in PA. I pay about $2800 in school taxes alone, per year, on a house and 3 acres in PA.

The school taxes on my cabin and 40 acres in AZ are about $350 per year.

I don’t know what’s going on in AZ when it comes to school funding, it sounds like from your comments that something has gone terribly wrong. But here in PA, it’s not just terribly wrong, it’s FUBAR’d.

Anyway, the subject of school land and the history of Waltz’s section 16 after his time is of interest to me, but is probably of no interest whatsoever to others. So unless I run across something really important, I will quit harping on it. Best regards, Jim
Jim R.
Post Reply