Taking a Stand

Discuss information about the Lost Dutchman Mine
Ozarker
Part Timer
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:12 pm

Taking a Stand

Post by Ozarker »

Hello All:

Two days ago, I responded to a Treasurenet thread started by Kraig Roberts, entitled "Jacob Waltz 160 acre 1/4 Section" (sic).

My post, which happened to be my first at that site in several years, was deleted almost immediately, but would have appeared as post number 48, immediately after Roberts posted his second attempt at copying the 1931 James M Barney map of early settlers in the Salt River Valley.

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/lost- ... on-4.html


According to Roberts, he had developed the map himself, after spending time in the Maricopa and Yavapai County tax and property records for the period 1868 to 1872. I'll let others judge that for themselves.

Below is my post, in its entirety, as it appeared on TreasureNet before being deleted. It is being posted here for research purposes, and to preserve the record for however long it lasts.



Today, 08:15 PM #48 ozarker2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 2013
1
All Types Of Treasure Hunting

Wow. Only 15 days to figure out your mistake of leaving out an entire line of settlers when copying the 1931 JM Barney map.

You know, if you're going to take shortcuts and then claim it as your own "research", you shouldn't make the mistake of copying other people's mistakes. It's a dead giveaway. For example, JM Barney's 1931 map made the mistake of placing a particular settler in the wrong quarter section, and the same exact mistake appears on your map - I'll let you figure out where the mistake occurred, since you have spent so much time in the "Yavapai and Maricopa County tax and property records for the time period 1868 - 1872", as stated in your original post. The only question I have, is why did you make the same mistake as Barney, if you were researching the actual records?

Also, trying to place George Roberts close to Waltz is just plain sad. The folks who have studied the land records extensively over the last decade can see the George Roberts error plain enough, but the folks who are reading this thread with little knowledge of those records could be led to believe that what you have posted is true. Well, it's not, and I fail to understand the point.

And by the way, for those that are interested, Waltz never formally laid claim to any of Section 16 T1N R3E. He settled on the land and had squatter's rights. That's it. End of story. There was no record filed in Florence by Waltz for ownership of the land. Period. I challenge anybody to disprove that statement (without the typical whining about being attacked - which is a load of rubbish).

Also, Waltz sold his squatter's rights to Andrew Starrar in 1878, in what many researchers refer to as the perpetual care agreement between Waltz and Andy Starrar. That is the reason why Waltz was no longer assessed property taxes associated with Section 16 after 1878. I challenge anyone to disprove that statement, too.

The taxes for "Waltz's land" were assessed to Andrew Starrar beginning in 1879 because of the transfer of rights to the land in the 1878 perpetual care agreement, and then to Jake Starrar beginning in 1884 after the death of Andrew Starrar. Waltz did continue to reside in the northeast quarter of Section 16, by the good graces of the Starrars, but he no longer had any claim to the land (and therefore, was not assessed taxes on that land) after 1878. Period. End of story.

Also, Andrew Starrar never had a claim on the northwest quarter of Section 16 (immediately west of Waltz). Ever. Period.

A Waltz and Starrar conspiracy to lay claim to what they thought might be the "future" Phoenix townsite? You gotta be pulling my leg. Waltz had bigger fish to fry, and besides, owning the land at that point would have netted him a total of $150. Big whoop.

The land for the actual Phoenix townsite was donated, and nobody pocketed anything in the deal. The money generated from selling town lots went to the further surveying and selling of more town lots. The original landowners realized nothing from this process, and neither would have Waltz or the Starrars if what has been claimed in this thread were true.

I don't see why it's necessary to invent or try to rewrite when the real history of Waltz, the Starrars, the other early homesteaders, as well as the origins of the Townsite of Phoenix is every bit as compelling and interesting.

Actually, I do have a second question. What are people going to think when they get linked to this thread, if the so-called "facts" presented here go unchallenged?

There are three or four threads started recently that all need to get addressed, and I see that some folks are asking questions (which is good), but the answers people are getting are only from the original poster, and alot of it is just plain bull.

And that's not only my opinion. It's a fact.

Larry



I've read my above response to Roberts several times now, and realize I might have been more diplomatic in my choice of words. But I've dealt with Roberts on this type of thing before, and my patience for all the nonsense has grown pretty thin. He continues to make claims concerning Waltz and other homesteaders that conflict with official records, while claiming that he has private information which allegedly proves what he is saying is true (but of course he can't share it). He has tried many times to rewrite elements of the history of the Salt River Valley and the Townsite of Phoenix, not to mention many of the early pioneers (including most recently, Matt Cavaness). He cannot or will not respond with substance when folks have the temerity to challenge him, but instead reverts to form by putting down others, all the while feigning insult to himself or his other personas whenever there is a counterpoint (supported by fact) which runs contrary to his new and unsupported versions of history.

I'll continue to play the whack-a-mole game with some of Roberts' more outlandish claims, but TreasureNet is not a level playing field so I'm not going to waste my time there. I don't know the politics of it - whether Roberts is a favorite son over there now or if it's just a case of the squeeky wheel getting the grease, but he continues to demean several posters at that site, has accused a specific individual by name of possible theft from his files, and accused others of threatening his family. Yet his posts are allowed to remain. But other individuals who directly challenge him are deleted at the drop of a hat - which suggests to me that TreasureNet is part of the problem and not the solution. As far as I'm concerned, that site will simply continue to degrade as a source for reliable information until they can find a moderator that understands the job - and their own rules, which they are quite fond of pointing (other) readers to, but apparently have not read recently for themselves.

Larry
Ozarker
Part Timer
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:12 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Ozarker »

Hello All:

Below is an excerpt from the actual 1931 James M Barney map. This excerpt is only of the section showing Township 1 North Range 3 East (T1N R3E), corresponding to the map that Roberts posted, and which includes the original Phoenix townsite and, more importantly, the nearby early homestead claims.

(I've inverted the colors of the JM Barney map to try to make it more readable, and apologize for the quality)

Image


James M Barney used a particular dataset to create this map, and that data is still available to researchers today. He made an error on his map, which also appears on the Roberts map over on TreasureNet, which indicates that the Barney map was simply copied, without taking the time to verify the actual records (let alone the transcript of records used by Barney in 1931).

On the Roberts map, you'll note that George Roberts was placed in the southeast quarter of Section 10, fairly close to Waltz (in a space that was conveniently left blank on the original 1931 Barney map). In short, George Roberts never claimed or lived on that quarter section. He did have a homestead claim to the east half of the southwest quarter of Section 3 T1N R3E (Homestead Certificate No. 56, Application No. 49), which he received a patent for on 4 May 1885 after proving up his claim.

It was claimed over on TNet that settlers were not limited to 160 acres for homestead - which is patently false - and that homesteaders were moving about willy-nilly, but that just plain isn't true, either. Several different official government records, maintained by separate government agencies - county, state and federal - give a consistent and clear picture of who claimed and owned the land at any particular time.

The homestead laws were restricitve and very clear on the point that claims for homestead were limited to no more than 160 acres, and that in order to receive an eventual patent to the land, the homesteader must physically live on and improve the land for a period of five years. At the end of the 5-year period, before he could receive a homestead patent, the settler had to attend a hearing to prove up his homestead claim, and had to produce at least two witnesses that could testify to the fact of whether the homesteader had lived continuously on the land. Notice of the hearing, including the names of the homesteader's witnesses, had to be published in the local newspaper, so that others would be aware of the claim and could attend the hearing to contest the claim if they knew for a fact that the homesteader had not been living on and working the land continuously as claimed. There was even a written procedure where the homesteader could request permission to leave the land temporarily (for example, to visit family out of area either on vacation or to attend a family emergency, or for other public or private business).

There are several more points I'd like to argue concerning the recent threads posted on the other site, but it'll probably take a little time and I'm in no particular rush. However, entire threads are already staring to disappear over there, so it may prove a little difficult to follow along. If folks are interested, they can get up to speed on the more recent threads (for their own research purposes) before they are deleted.

Larry
Ozarker
Part Timer
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:12 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Ozarker »

Hello:

In my previous post, I stated that George Roberts received his patent for homestead to the east half of the southwest quarter of Section 3 T1N R3E on 4 May 1885 after proving up his claim.

That was a poor choice of words on my part. The patent was indeed issued on 4 May 1885 as indicated, but George R Roberts did not personally receive the patent, having died on 27 September 1884 (his death occurred after proving up his claim, but before the official patent for homestead was signed in Washington, DC).

To be clear, George R Roberts filed for homestead on the above parcel of land on 30 March 1878, and was issued Application Number 49 as his receipt.

Roberts completed the five-year residency requirement and filed notice of his intent to make final proof on 25 April 1883. The required homestead notice was published in the Weekly Phoenix Herald for four consecutive weeks, with the first publication appearing two days later, on 27 April 1883.

Image


Roberts named four individuals as his witnesses in proving up his claim (William Everson, Clayton S Smith, John Averish, and Jeriah Wood). Clayton S Smith was Roberts' immediate neighbor to the west, while Jeriah Wood, who was also Roberts' son-in-law, was his immediate neighbor to the east.

Roberts was successful at the hearing in proving his homestead claim, and was issued Final Certificate No. 56 on 14 July 1883. (Final Certificates served as proof of a homesteader's successful claim while waiting for the official patent to issue).

Once Roberts had his Final Certificate, he had full legal right to the land in perpetuity. He sold the land to Herbert R Patrick on 10 March 1884 (Maricopa County Records, Deed Book 10, Page 193), which was still before the official patent document had issued out of Washington. Herbert R Patrick (the purchaser) then filed a copy of the Roberts homestead patent after it became available (Maricopa County Records, Deed Book 12 Page 532).

Larry
pippinwhitepaws
Expert
Posts: 831
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by pippinwhitepaws »

"which suggests to me that TreasureNet is part of the problem and not the solution. As far as I'm concerned, that site will simply continue to degrade as a source for reliable information until they can find a moderator that understands the job - and their own rules, which they are quite fond of pointing (other) readers to, but apparently have not read recently for themselves."


glad to hear someone else has defined the same issues i was addressing over there...
reduced to profanity, then banned is the outcome of questioning or demanding equality...
Deducer
Greenhorn
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 5:02 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Deducer »

Ozarker wrote:Hello:

In my previous post, I stated that George Roberts received his patent for homestead to the east half of the southwest quarter of Section 3 T1N R3E on 4 May 1885 after proving up his claim.

That was a poor choice of words on my part. The patent was indeed issued on 4 May 1885 as indicated, but George R Roberts did not personally receive the patent, having died on 27 September 1884 (his death occurred after proving up his claim, but before the official patent for homestead was signed in Washington, DC).

To be clear, George R Roberts filed for homestead on the above parcel of land on 30 March 1878, and was issued Application Number 49 as his receipt.

Roberts completed the five-year residency requirement and filed notice of his intent to make final proof on 25 April 1883. The required homestead notice was published in the Weekly Phoenix Herald for four consecutive weeks, with the first publication appearing two days later, on 27 April 1883.

Image


Roberts named four individuals as his witnesses in proving up his claim (William Everson, Clayton S Smith, John Averish, and Jeriah Wood). Clayton S Smith was Roberts' immediate neighbor to the west, while Jeriah Wood, who was also Roberts' son-in-law, was his immediate neighbor to the east.

Roberts was successful at the hearing in proving his homestead claim, and was issued Final Certificate No. 56 on 14 July 1883. (Final Certificates served as proof of a homesteader's successful claim while waiting for the official patent to issue).

Once Roberts had his Final Certificate, he had full legal right to the land in perpetuity. He sold the land to Herbert R Patrick on 10 March 1884 (Maricopa County Records, Deed Book 10, Page 193), which was still before the official patent document had issued out of Washington. Herbert R Patrick (the purchaser) then filed a copy of the Roberts homestead patent after it became available (Maricopa County Records, Deed Book 12 Page 532).

Larry
Larry,

I think your last two posts goes a long way to explain the situation as you saw it. In your first post in this thread, I think you answered your own question as to why your post was deleted.

I believe that if you were to repost just those two posts on TNET and let posters figure out for themselves what is going on, that would go a long way, rather than attacking the integrity of the poster.

I think it is critical that we take steps to ensure that the research presented is as factual and truthful as possible. That is only ethical and responsible.
novice
Expert
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Lake St. Louis, Missouri

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by novice »

I’m not sure why I’m responding to this post as I know it is futile but until people pick the bar up off the ground and raise it a foot or two and look at things with a critical eye they will remain stuck in a quagmire.

The integrity of the poster in this case is a major factor in sorting out the history and cannot be ignored if people have any hopes of finding the truth.

In addition they will have to do some of their own research to be able to contribute anything meaningful. Until then, they are spouting useless rhetoric. (My opinion!)

Larry has done the actual leg work and his post only addressed a very small segment of the poster’s agenda. I would not be overstating the situation if I said Larry could easily come up with 50 more examples of false history.

Just my 2 cents,

Garry
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

novice wrote:I’m not sure why I’m responding to this post as I know it is futile but until people pick the bar up off the ground and raise it a foot or two and look at things with a critical eye they will remain stuck in a quagmire.

The integrity of the poster in this case is a major factor in sorting out the history and cannot be ignored if people have any hopes of finding the truth.

In addition they will have to do some of their own research to be able to contribute anything meaningful. Until then, they are spouting useless rhetoric. (My opinion!)

Larry has done the actual leg work and his post only addressed a very small segment of the poster’s agenda. I would not be overstating the situation if I said Larry could easily come up with 50 more examples of false history.

Just my 2 cents,

Garry
Garry,

There are people who are willing to accept every utterance made by Kraig Roberts as gospel because of the items enumerated in Larry's first post. I used to be one of those people.

It would appear that TNet finally realized his MO and banned him and one of his identities. If the others keep posting, I believe they will also be shown the door. He will just have to get sneakier. I believe he is more than capable of achieving that higher/lower level.

Take care,

Joe
User avatar
Oroblanco
Part Timer
Posts: 418
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: Black Hills SD
Contact:

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Oroblanco »

Thanks Ozarker for saving your posts, I had read them on T-net but did not save copies as I did not expect it all to vanish.

One good thing of the downhill trend of T-net, is that has breathed new life into this forum; wish that we could get along a bit better though.
"We must find a way, or we will make one." --Hannibal Barca
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

Hi Roy,

Speaking only for myself, I have always been willing to "get along" with Kraig. As long as he continues to play his games, I will continue to call him out......where I can. His three Purple Hearts from his service in Viet Nam story goes beyond the pale. Pictures of those three certificates will bring a swift apology from me. In addition, I will never mention his name in public again. My source believes that will never happen.

I tried to "get along" with him over on TNet until he attacked me again.

Sorry Roger. I did not promise you I would be a doormat for Kraig to clean his shoes on. I doubt you expected me to do that.

If Kraig were to come back on this site, I would not attack him without direct provocation. As long as he did not resort to made-up history, which he does not need to do, I would just nod my head in agreement.

Personally, I prefer the LDM Forum and will post here as often as I can.

Look forward to seeing you and Beth soon.

Take care,

Joe
FEMF
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by FEMF »

Hello Joe
I'd say this is the venue, where we can speak our mine's! We all understand your responds to misplaced trust, when discovered, we all respond as you have. But, Robert's posts are a lot like Jacobs story, you have to weed out the crap, and you have helped us all by calling him out! Take care and be safe Joe.
FEMF
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

FEMF wrote:Hello Joe
I'd say this is the venue, where we can speak our mine's! We all understand your responds to misplaced trust, when discovered, we all respond as you have. But, Robert's posts are a lot like Jacobs story, you have to weed out the crap, and you have helped us all by calling him out! Take care and be safe Joe.
FEMF
FEMF,

In truth, if it weren't for friends, I would still be singing Kraig's praises. Since that first trickle of the truth, many people have added to the evidence. Many, like me, were good friends to the man. Many are well respected members of the Dutch Hunting Community.

No matter who comes to support him, he will remain a pariah to those who know of the trust he has betrayed. We exchanged gifts, in the Apache manner, a number of years ago. I recently mailed his back to him, only to have it opened, resealed and sent back to me. It now resides in the trash dump. That kind of dishonest gift will only bring bad medicine to the one who sent it.

I am through with his game. He will soon show up here with another phony name.

Thank you, and take care,

Joe Ribaudo
User avatar
Oroblanco
Part Timer
Posts: 418
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 11:31 pm
Location: Black Hills SD
Contact:

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Oroblanco »

Bump, and also has anyone found the actual document of Jacob Waltz claiming a homestead, in 1868? Thanks in advance.
"We must find a way, or we will make one." --Hannibal Barca
ThomasG
Part Timer
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:19 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by ThomasG »

I would like to tack a little bit onto Larry’s posts re: Waltz’s land —Section 16, T1N, R1E. Larry is absolutely correct. Anyone who claims to have seen any proof that Waltz filed on his land (Section 16) at the land office in Florence (or anywhere else) is incorrect, at best. It was an impossibility to do so.

First, in Waltz’s day there were two ways to claim government land: i) by preemption, or ii) by homesteading. Section 16, as school land, could not be claimed either by either preemption or homesteading. It all starts with the Land Ordinance Act passed by congress in 1785. That act provided for the cadastral survey system we use today consisting of an east-west baseline and an intersecting north-south meridian. Referenced to baseline and meridian the land was then divided into six mile square townships with each township divided into one mile square sections, then each section was quartered into four equal 160 acre parcels. The Land Ordinance Act also provided that in each township one section, Section 16, be set aside to support local schools. Upon the territorial organization of Oregon in 1848, a second section was added as “school land”, Section 36.
The purpose of the Land Ordinance Act was to raise money for a government poor in money, but rich in land. After several years of claiming one’s 160 acres and deriving income from the land one could then buy “their” 160 acres from the government. The difficulty with Section 16 was that if it was allowed to be preempted the monies would go to the federal government, not to the future state. Thus, the state would lose the monies from Section 16. Once a new state was formed Section 16 could then be sold. Arizona did not become a state until 1912. To reiterate: Only after a state was formed could “School Lands” be patented.

Circa 1800 the courts recognized what we would call “squatters rights”, which made preemption easier. One could “claim his 160 acres” legally by simple occupation. The Preemption Acts of 1830 and 1841 provided that settlers on government land after a period of time could buy that land for a $1.25 per acre, with a 160 acre maximum.

The Morrill or Homestead Act of 1862 allowed settlers to formally claim land and eventually patent it, that is obtain legal ownership, at no cost. (In actuality there were minimal costs, such as a filing fee, but for all practical purposes the land was free.) To obtain the patent, the settler had to meet specific requirements. Then, and only then did the settler actually own the land. The basic requirements were:

• Any person who was the head of a family, or 21 years of age, or had performed service in the army or navy and who was a citizen, or had filed a declaration to become one and who had never borne arms against the United States or given comfort to her enemies could as of Jan. 1, 1863 file a claim of one-quarter section of land, i.e., 160 acres.

• To make a claim, one had to file an affidavit in the government land office that the land was for the use of the person filing, not anyone else, and the land was to be used for settlement and cultivation.
• Further, no lands acquired under the act shall be liable to the satisfaction of debt(s) prior to the patent being issued.
• The land had to be occupied for five (5) years continuously; if abandoned for more than six (6) months, the land reverted to the government.
• Any person who filed under the Preemption Act prior to the passage of the Morrill Act was entitled to all the privileges of the Morrill Act.
• One could claim no more than 160 acres total.
• A patent on the land could be obtained either of two ways:
• If one met the requirements of age, citizenship, settlement, tenure, improvements, etc. of the Morrill Act, one could secure a patent on the land.
• Or, if one chose they could exercise the rights of the Preemption Act(s) and purchase the land for $1.25 per acre.
• Thus, one could claim land under one act, e.g., Homestead act and then apply for the patent under the other act, e.g., Preemption, or vise versa.

Again, the reason Section 16 could not be claimed under the Homestead Act is , while free land is great for settlers, it did not provide monies for schools. The difference: the Preemption Acts were designed to generate revenue from the sale of public lands for a government rich in land, but poor in income; while the Morrill Act was designed to provide free land for settlement to facilitate the settlement of the west.

The simple fact is there was no way to file a legal claim on section 16 at a land office in a Territory. All of which makes one wonder how anyone could have seen any such documentation. Or, why they would claim to have done so?
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

ThomasG wrote:I would like to tack a little bit onto Larry’s posts re: Waltz’s land —Section 16, T1N, R1E. Larry is absolutely correct. Anyone who claims to have seen any proof that Waltz filed on his land (Section 16) at the land office in Florence (or anywhere else) is incorrect, at best. It was an impossibility to do so.

First, in Waltz’s day there were two ways to claim government land: i) by preemption, or ii) by homesteading. Section 16, as school land, could not be claimed either by either preemption or homesteading. It all starts with the Land Ordinance Act passed by congress in 1785. That act provided for the cadastral survey system we use today consisting of an east-west baseline and an intersecting north-south meridian. Referenced to baseline and meridian the land was then divided into six mile square townships with each township divided into one mile square sections, then each section was quartered into four equal 160 acre parcels. The Land Ordinance Act also provided that in each township one section, Section 16, be set aside to support local schools. Upon the territorial organization of Oregon in 1848, a second section was added as “school land”, Section 36.
The purpose of the Land Ordinance Act was to raise money for a government poor in money, but rich in land. After several years of claiming one’s 160 acres and deriving income from the land one could then buy “their” 160 acres from the government. The difficulty with Section 16 was that if it was allowed to be preempted the monies would go to the federal government, not to the future state. Thus, the state would lose the monies from Section 16. Once a new state was formed Section 16 could then be sold. Arizona did not become a state until 1912. To reiterate: Only after a state was formed could “School Lands” be patented.

Circa 1800 the courts recognized what we would call “squatters rights”, which made preemption easier. One could “claim his 160 acres” legally by simple occupation. The Preemption Acts of 1830 and 1841 provided that settlers on government land after a period of time could buy that land for a $1.25 per acre, with a 160 acre maximum.

The Morrill or Homestead Act of 1862 allowed settlers to formally claim land and eventually patent it, that is obtain legal ownership, at no cost. (In actuality there were minimal costs, such as a filing fee, but for all practical purposes the land was free.) To obtain the patent, the settler had to meet specific requirements. Then, and only then did the settler actually own the land. The basic requirements were:

• Any person who was the head of a family, or 21 years of age, or had performed service in the army or navy and who was a citizen, or had filed a declaration to become one and who had never borne arms against the United States or given comfort to her enemies could as of Jan. 1, 1863 file a claim of one-quarter section of land, i.e., 160 acres.

• To make a claim, one had to file an affidavit in the government land office that the land was for the use of the person filing, not anyone else, and the land was to be used for settlement and cultivation.
• Further, no lands acquired under the act shall be liable to the satisfaction of debt(s) prior to the patent being issued.
• The land had to be occupied for five (5) years continuously; if abandoned for more than six (6) months, the land reverted to the government.
• Any person who filed under the Preemption Act prior to the passage of the Morrill Act was entitled to all the privileges of the Morrill Act.
• One could claim no more than 160 acres total.
• A patent on the land could be obtained either of two ways:
• If one met the requirements of age, citizenship, settlement, tenure, improvements, etc. of the Morrill Act, one could secure a patent on the land.
• Or, if one chose they could exercise the rights of the Preemption Act(s) and purchase the land for $1.25 per acre.
• Thus, one could claim land under one act, e.g., Homestead act and then apply for the patent under the other act, e.g., Preemption, or vise versa.

Again, the reason Section 16 could not be claimed under the Homestead Act is , while free land is great for settlers, it did not provide monies for schools. The difference: the Preemption Acts were designed to generate revenue from the sale of public lands for a government rich in land, but poor in income; while the Morrill Act was designed to provide free land for settlement to facilitate the settlement of the west.

The simple fact is there was no way to file a legal claim on section 16 at a land office in a Territory. All of which makes one wonder how anyone could have seen any such documentation. Or, why they would claim to have done so?
Thomas,

It was good to hear from you the other day.

Many of us believe we have seen something, when we have only heard about it from a trusted source. I lit into Larry once here, when he questioned the existence of Roberts alleged aunt's existence. (Bertie Roberts) Thought I had actually seen newspaper articles mentioning her. In reality, I had only heard of her through Matthew's posts and personal correspondence.

You ask "why they would claim to have done so? I have been told that Matthew is writing a book, which should have been done some time ago. He has been known to create evidence, pioneer diaries, receipts for gold shipment from Waltz and Ships manifests showing Waltz and his partner.....
to name a few. My guess is that he is creating NEW facts and an unknown local/Apache history for his book.

He is back posting on a regular basis now, so I suspect something is afoot. I hope that, should you publish another book, that Matthew Kraig Roberts will be left out as a source. Respect requires truth and honesty as main ingredient's for the mix. When I read one of your books, I know you believe any source that you use.

I am saddened by the loss of that friend, or what I thought was a friend.

Hope to see you and Carol again, soon. You know you are always welcome here.

Take care,

Joe
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

All,

Being honest means not telling lies. Being truthful means actively making known all the full truth of a matter.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo
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 G. wrote:
I would like to tack a little bit onto Larry’s posts re: Waltz’s land —Section 16, T1N, R1E. Larry is absolutely correct. Anyone who claims to have seen any proof that Waltz filed on his land (Section 16) at the land office in Florence (or anywhere else) is incorrect, at best. It was an impossibility to do so.

First, in Waltz’s day there were two ways to claim government land: i) by preemption, or ii) by homesteading. Section 16, as school land, could not be claimed either by either preemption or homesteading. It all starts with the Land Ordinance Act passed by congress in 1785. That act provided for the cadastral survey system we use today consisting of an east-west baseline and an intersecting north-south meridian. Referenced to baseline and meridian the land was then divided into six mile square townships with each township divided into one mile square sections, then each section was quartered into four equal 160 acre parcels. The Land Ordinance Act also provided that in each township one section, Section 16, be set aside to support local schools. Upon the territorial organization of Oregon in 1848, a second section was added as “school land”, Section 36.
The purpose of the Land Ordinance Act was to raise money for a government poor in money, but rich in land. After several years of claiming one’s 160 acres and deriving income from the land one could then buy “their” 160 acres from the government. The difficulty with Section 16 was that if it was allowed to be preempted the monies would go to the federal government, not to the future state. Thus, the state would lose the monies from Section 16. Once a new state was formed Section 16 could then be sold. Arizona did not become a state until 1912. To reiterate: Only after a state was formed could “School Lands” be patented.

Circa 1800 the courts recognized what we would call “squatters rights”, which made preemption easier. One could “claim his 160 acres” legally by simple occupation. The Preemption Acts of 1830 and 1841 provided that settlers on government land after a period of time could buy that land for a $1.25 per acre, with a 160 acre maximum.

The Morrill or Homestead Act of 1862 allowed settlers to formally claim land and eventually patent it, that is obtain legal ownership, at no cost. (In actuality there were minimal costs, such as a filing fee, but for all practical purposes the land was free.) To obtain the patent, the settler had to meet specific requirements. Then, and only then did the settler actually own the land. The basic requirements were:

• Any person who was the head of a family, or 21 years of age, or had performed service in the army or navy and who was a citizen, or had filed a declaration to become one and who had never borne arms against the United States or given comfort to her enemies could as of Jan. 1, 1863 file a claim of one-quarter section of land, i.e., 160 acres.

• To make a claim, one had to file an affidavit in the government land office that the land was for the use of the person filing, not anyone else, and the land was to be used for settlement and cultivation.
• Further, no lands acquired under the act shall be liable to the satisfaction of debt(s) prior to the patent being issued.
• The land had to be occupied for five (5) years continuously; if abandoned for more than six (6) months, the land reverted to the government.
• Any person who filed under the Preemption Act prior to the passage of the Morrill Act was entitled to all the privileges of the Morrill Act.
• One could claim no more than 160 acres total.
• A patent on the land could be obtained either of two ways:
• If one met the requirements of age, citizenship, settlement, tenure, improvements, etc. of the Morrill Act, one could secure a patent on the land.
• Or, if one chose they could exercise the rights of the Preemption Act(s) and purchase the land for $1.25 per acre.
• Thus, one could claim land under one act, e.g., Homestead act and then apply for the patent under the other act, e.g., Preemption, or vise versa.

Again, the reason Section 16 could not be claimed under the Homestead Act is , while free land is great for settlers, it did not provide monies for schools. The difference: the Preemption Acts were designed to generate revenue from the sale of public lands for a government rich in land, but poor in income; while the Morrill Act was designed to provide free land for settlement to facilitate the settlement of the west.

The simple fact is there was no way to file a legal claim on section 16 at a land office in a Territory. All of which makes one wonder how anyone could have seen any such documentation. Or, why they would claim to have done so?
Thomas, thanks for the info on homestead claims and the actual laws involved. I just received a copy of "Treasure Tales" from a nice lady in Prescott. Still reading and re-reading it, thank you. Seeing what you're working on above, I hope that's indicative that "Unravelling" is in the works.

The question at the end of your post may be rhetorical, but I think the only hope we have to prove that this tale is true, is first to locate the actual physical record it was claimed to be seen in, and verify that a page really has been torn out of it (your point above that it would have been impossible to file notwithstanding...I think that was the original story, that the page had been removed?? Might be wrong). Another route, was there some kind of accommodation made for folks occupying a piece of land that roughly the same time, or soon thereafter was surveyed, and wound up being a school section? It would seem pointless to kick someone off their homestead just due to a survey, especially if they planted their flag at the same time or before the survey. Another route, how could Waltz have paid taxes on that quarter section? In other words, why would the taxing authority accept property tax payments for land that it owned? Another thing I might be wrong about, perhaps he was only paying income tax, but I think he was assessed and paid for property taxes.

This is a very interesting subject, hope it continues...Best, Jim
Jim R.
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

Jim,

It seems that Dr. Glover is saying that no such record could exist, since it would contradict the laws in existence at the time. We have been down this road (I have seen it) any number of times. Usually it's someone else who's seen it, and put it in a book. I have a book, somewhere, on school lands and will have to dig it back out of the stacks.

Once Dr. Glover has given his own opinion on his own research, it's a done deal for me. He will usually let you know if there is any doubt about evidence presented in his books. Can't ask for more than that.

Take care,

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

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Potbelly Jim »

Sorry my friends, this is long....


Joe Wrote:
We have been down this road (I have seen it) any number of times.
I believe it. I would bet you have probably seen everything...twice. :wink:

Joe wrote:
Once Dr. Glover has given his own opinion on his own research, it's a done deal for me. He will usually let you know if there is any doubt about evidence presented in his books. Can't ask for more than that.
My sentiments as well.

Joe wrote:
It seems that Dr. Glover is saying that no such record could exist, since it would contradict the laws in existence at the time.
I understood that to be the case also. I look at it like this: When I design a circuit, before I have a PCB made, I send my design around to some friends who are also engineers to see what they think. Kind of an informal peer review. Most of my buddies usually will find some way to make me question what I'm doing (sometimes I do really dumb things in circuits but don't see it until it's pointed out). Most of the time they point out stuff that I've already considered but it might give me an idea that results in a better design. Even if they don't understand the circuit, they will usually make some type of suggestion. I still welcome that. The only real offense I could take would be silence from them.

So I wasn't trying to start a debate or argue that Dr. G. was wrong...if he takes the time to post his research, then I will make an effort, no matter how feeble, to give him some feedback. Who knows, it may give him an idea totally unrelated to what I was saying.

All that being said, I still believe it may be a mistake to say something's an impossibility based on one, two, or even 10 acts of Congress. There are remedies to acts of Congress. There could be case law or any number of things that affect those acts. We should keep in mind also, that many territories and states totally ignored school land allocations, as they had Indemnity in Lieu to fall back on.

My point is that school sections 16 and 36 were rarely held inviolate to raise funds because of this. I've heard a lot about sections 16 and 36 being school sections, but what about sections 2 and 32? Those were school sections in Arizona as well. There were usually already people in some or all of those sections if they were near a population center, so the state just took other federal lands by Indemnity to make up for it. It does seem to indicate that lots of settlers land would be in limbo until statehood, but I've never heard anything regarding settlers losing their land upon statehood because they were in section 16 or 32. So what records would they have to show they owned it? I don't know, but there had to be something.

As Dr. G. points out, though, he has probably hit on the very reason there's no Waltz homestead filing under those acts. It just couldn't be done, under those acts, during Waltz's lifetime. But was there some other record? Who knows. It seems, from evidence, he was taxed, was able to exchange the land for a care agreement, and if I remember correctly, one of the Starrars sold some of it to a local woman before statehood. If there was no record of Waltz owning or claiming the land, how does that occur? How does one pay taxes on, or transfer property, if there's no record of ownership? I don't know the answer to that.

I will admit I'm no lawyer, and may be way off base...I would imagine that Dr. G. has already considered these points, as he can't post everything he knows, but I offer them in good faith that they might be of some use.

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 »

Greetings to all,

Returning to the question of: Was it ever possible for a person to file on a Section 16? The answer is yes and no. There were two exceptions to the rule. If one settled the land before it was surveyed and accidently ended up on Section 16 one could go to the federal court and ask to be given legal title. The way it was done was that if the Federal government agreed to let the settler have the land there was a swap. That is, another section of land that was not normally school land was designated by the court as school land.

Sometimes the state applied to the government for a swap of school land sections. Why? The most common reason seems to have been if section 16 was on very poor land and/or in a very bad location the state could file – often successfully – to swap a less tenable section 16 for a better piece of land. i.e., more valuable land. The long and short of it was it was up to the federal government and the federal courts to agree to any swap. When such a swap was made it left a paper trail in the courts. I have seen such.

Take the section 16 that Waltz settled on. It was not a very good section for the state to have as school land, as much of it was untenable as farmland. The Salt River cut through the southern quarter-sections of Section 16. Hence, it was not worth as much as a might have been.

Now, we have two exceptions — one could only be done by the state to get better land or for some similar reason. This obviously does not apply to Waltz as, again, Arizona did not become a state until 1912. The other possibility is that Waltz settled on Section 16 before it was surveyed. The section lines for Section 16, T1N, R3E were completed in April of 1868. The location of Section 16 was known well before that date as the surveyors were on the ground laying out the survey markers. Further the surveyor notes from this initial survey are available at the BLM office in Phoenix on microfiche and they show no settlement on Section 16.

Was Waltz in the Salt River Valley in or by early 1868? The best evidence we have is he did not even arrive in the Salt River Valley anytime in 1868. He appears to have arrived in the summer of 1869. The documentation and analysis leading to that date I wish to keep to myself for the near future. It is all in Unraveling a Mystery.

If one wishes, however, to pursue the land issue there is definitive source — the federal land books. These are very helpful, as they no only list the initial owner/claimant of the land, but the initial subsequent owners of the land. Contact the National Archives, tell them you want to talk to someone familiar with the Federal Track Books, then tell that person what sections you want and for a fee they will copy the data and sent it to you. Back when I did this the fee was nominal, but that may no longer be the case. The good news is that the initial fee covers a minimum number of records to be copied, thus you can get a lot of good data for the fee.

Thomas
Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5453
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by Joe Ribaudo »

Thomas,

Hope all is well at the Glover Ranch.

I did, years ago, look into this subject but not nearly as closely as you have. The timeline for Waltz's entry into Phoenix is an important part of the story, considering the many other tales that have sprung up around the LDM. I have found it a bit maddening trying to wade through the ongoing stories that keep appearing each year. An accurate timeline for Waltz would be invaluable in separating the "facts".

Glad to see you are still trying to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Take care,

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

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by ThomasG »

Jim,

I have been posting these two times largely from memory. I have now looked in my files and I found—at long last—my copy of the government track book. My copy covers Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 for T1N, R3E.

It lists multiple entries, that is owners, for all the Sections, with one exception. For Section 16 it is blank, not one owner is listed, nada. The entry there is says: “See Sec. 1, Withdrawn July 2, 1902 — All” (640 acres). There are additional notes showing that the land did not go, i.e., that it was transferred or ready for transfer to the State of Arizona until 1934. A note in my files for the Arizona State Land Office shows it may not have been fully passed to Arizona until after 1960,

But, the long and short of it is there is no record of anyone owning any part of Section 16 in the government track books. Also when Waltz transferred his land to Andrew Starar in the 1878 agreement, he transferred only his "posery rights".

Jim thanks for getting me to dig deeper. I had thought the track book may have vanished when we moved from Oregon as I could not find it. But, I started a page by page search of files and Voila! it there. Such a wealth of information.

Joe, I did I mention that Waltz's great, great, great grand niece was here back in 2017? She came with friends I had met in Germany. Very nice people.

T
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 Thomas,

Glad you were able to re-locate your records on those sections! In your experience, (or from what you have seen in your research) is the fact that there seems to be a lack of urgency in the transfer of section 16, and the lack of any ownership records, an outlier? i.e. does it generally conform to what you would have expected…or was it unusual, a departure from the norm? Were you able to find whether or not the state eventually did use the land for its original purpose of generating school funds?

Also, I don’t want to press you (I can wait for “Unraveling” 8) ) but I will say I’m looking forward to seeing the new evidence you’ve found for Waltz’s timeline…his arriving in the SRV in the summer of ’69 is a departure from the timeline in “The Golden Dream”. (I would imagine you have significant cause, no need to address any evidence you found for it here).

It does blow up one of my theories, as I was keenly aware of the difficulties of the land survey in the SRV, and of the land/water speculation surrounding the survey…I believed there was a bit of a rush to get into the SRV (Swilling & Co.) while the survey was delayed due to Indian interference. It looked to me like Waltz got on section 16 just as the survey was being conducted (Apr 1868 was the date given for Waltz’s claim on 16 in The Golden Dream) so it fit my theory…I will gladly say goodbye to it though, as it was only a “if the shoe fits, wear it” kind of theory.

Very interested also to learn if you found anything that would indicate a motivator for Waltz relocating to the SRV. I’ve never really bought into the prevailing wisdom on that, or for his presence on section 16. It’s possible he had the means to purchase property, and may not have had a pressing financial need to homestead…I’ve often wondered if his presence there was about water rights. At any rate, I believe he had some purpose in moving there, that he at least initially had some kind of plan.

Hope we continue to hear from you here as you sort through your research for “Unraveling” (without giving too much away, of course!) :D 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 »

Jim,

Here is what I recall about why the delay in sorting out land issues with Section 16, T1N, R3E.

I talked with a gentleman at the AZ land office. Greg gave me the lead about contacting him for info. As I recall, he had been there quite awhile and was soon to retire. If I recall correctly it wasn’t just Section 16 that had an issue, it was several or many plots along the river. It seems that land usage was tied up in the courts and in the state land office as there were multiple issues – I think some were due to flooding along the river, some issues were usage. And such. Nothing to exotic. But it seems there were many cooks involved.

Consider there were multiple canal companies involved – they needed land or access to land. (The SRP wasn’t formed until 1903.) Then there were the property owners or settlers all along the river who had stake in land issues. Then there were federal agencies that may have been involved. Such as the US Geological Survey (1879) and the Bureau of Reclamation (1903)

Further the canal companies had been involved in court cases against each other and against settlers. The two big cases/decisions were the Kibbey and Kent decisions. These and other court cases would have been factors/issues too. Thus, there were State agencies (land and water), Federal agencies (land and water), plus the SRP involved after the early 1900s – plus legal/court decisions.

And just to make things interesting the Congress created two new ways for the public to claim land (besides the Pre-emption Act and the Homestead Act). In 1873 the Timber Culture Act was passed limited to a max of 160 acres. Then in 1877 the Desert Land Act was passed, limited to 320 acres or 640 acres for a couple. The Minor newspaper (6/15/1877) reported that in just two months “all available land for twelve miles around” (Phoenix) has been taken up (claimed). It was a land rush. And in some ways a mess.

So apparently it is/was nothing exotic that held up a final resolution of the land, simply a tangle of various agencies—federal, state and local, and land owners, and questions of the legality of some claims, plus court decisions all coupled to the question of: Was the Sat River a navigable river? It was determined it wasn’t. But until that was decided an entire set of additional regulations and possibilities hovered in the background.

And remember that Section 16 was not very good land in terms of value, since the two lower quarters were cut through by the Salt River. Saying that the southern quarter sections of Section 16 were cut through by the Salt River is a best-case description. Actually it was s slough off the river, and a slough is defined as: slow moving or stagnate water, swamp like, often muddy, marshy, a backwater.

It may have been OK (?) in Waltz’s day, i.e., when he arrived, but as the canal companies grew things likely changed. Recall that even in Waltz’s day the extensions of the southern ditches were working by the early-1870s at the latest (if I recall correctly). And one of these cut through Waltz’s land and the other (main) branch was the southern town ditch. Thus, Waltz’s land and the Starar bros. land and Schultes land had access to the canals.

T
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 Thomas,

While I’ve never looked into it myself, when I read what you had found about section 16 (that there was never any ownership records, and it took a LONG time for the land to be transferred to the state) I immediately suspected the Army Corps. Seen issues like that regarding river banks before, and from what you described it sounded familiar.

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I might have thought something weird was afoot. I didn’t…I was just wondering if it had something to do with the river, and it sounds like you have run that down, and then some. Thanks for sharing what you found out.

Back to the topic of Waltz’s claim, if there ever was such a thing, it makes sense to me that someone could have torn that page out of whatever book it was in. What I mean by making sense, is that someone thought there was something buried there, and didn’t want anyone else to find it before they did. I think that theory has been around much longer than I have :P …I can’t recall where I heard this particular story, so I’m going to have to go back and look.

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

Re: Taking a Stand

Post by novice »

Since some of the rest are going from memory :roll: I will add my uninformed 2 cents.

Larry Hannah (Ozarker) has done a lot of research following the deed records of Jacob Waltz's school land.

I believe that Jacob Waltz would be termed a "Squatter" and in some cases this term came with certain legal rights. As Jacob's 160 acres were soldoff, there are deeds transferring the property, similar to a normal property transfer.

Of course the actual "title" (Probably not the correct term) remained with the federal government but I believe it was taxed by the territorial county governments. I'm sure someone will straighten me out here but I believe Waltz paid real estate tax in addition to personal property tax???

The real mess begins when the school land was turned over to the State in 1912. There was a hugh uproar as these properties had improvements and people had paid someone for the rights to the property.

Again from memory, Henshaw "Owned the property west of Jacob and he eventually gained title but the proceedings may have extended into the 1950's and involved his heirs. I think he also had to pay the goverment for the land. I don't believe it was actual market value but a negociated price?

Now that I have confused everyone, including myself, I'll shutup.

Larry Hannah could straighten most of this out.

Garry
Post Reply