Information sought: fraudulent GLO surveys in California

[jrbouldin]

Hello All,

Just yesterday, I registered on this forum, primarily but not exclusively for the purpose of requesting information, as described below. I am not a land surveyor, but rather a vegetation ecologist, studying landscape to region-scale vegetation change.

You may or may not be aware that American ecologists have, for a century now, been using the vegetation data recorded by GLO surveyors to make estimates of large-scale vegetation conditions existing at survey time, more or less coinciding with Caucasian settlement and therefore representing pre-settlement veg conditions. In most cases, few if any other data exist for the time, and so the GLO data, though very imperfect, are highly valuable. The specific data of interest include bearing trees, line trees, and the brief veg/soils summaries at the end of each mile of line. A surprisingly large amount of these data have been databased (though not a lot in California). It is impossible to (honestly) take California data at face value for the reason that I'm sure needs no explanation here. This however hasn't stopped a number of people over the last two decades from blithely proceeding anyway.

The result of this situation is that I am now unexpectedly deep into the weeds of a study on the Benson Syndicate, which has in turn morphed into that of fraudulent surveys more generally, which includes the whole JR Hardenbergh episode (if true, wow!), and earlier things like, e.g., Fremont's Mariposa Grant boundary schemes, the Limantour scandal, etc. As for Benson, it's now clear to me that the whole story on him, and his many associates, has still not been fully told, even within his CA operations, let alone the other western states involved. As for Hardenbergh, almost nothing exists, and for three other S-G's, who were almost certainly instrumental in facilitating Benson's crimes (T Wagner, WH Brown, WS Green, at least), little to nothing is known beyond the scraps given in the GLO annual reports of the time, if that. All this, not to even mention the closely associated topic of land and timber acquisition frauds; the surveying fraud was clearly just a component of a larger--and very disturbing--set of problems in federal land disposal policies of the 19th century, not to mention human nature. The whole topic has definite book potential, but for now I'm focusing on papers on (1) the frauds themselves, and (2) the ecological ramifications.

I realize that I am speaking to a group with a very large amount of on-the-ground experience in dealing with all the problems resulting from fraudulent surveys of that era, especially, searching for original evidence. If you have any data, personal experiences, or references, that you would be willing to share along those lines, township specific or otherwise, I would very much appreciate hearing of them, by whatever method you prefer. Any publications that result from this work will of course include whatever acknowledgements and/or citations are in order.

I can also present here some of my findings to date, if there is an interest. This includes a series of geo-referenced plat map overlays onto actual (USGS) topographic and hydrologic layers, which are very enlightening (to me at least) in terms of survey quality in general. Newspaper searches over the last couple of weeks have also returned a surprisingly large amount of important information; it is clear that these were major stories of the time.

Thank you in advance for any information you may want to share on these topics and I would also add that I have enjoyed reading a number of posts and replies over the last day or so. [Not being a surveyor, I am sometimes puzzled by certain methods, tools and/or terminology of the field, which I might also have to ask about.]

Sincerely,
Jim Bouldin, Research Ecologist



,

[DWoolley]

Jim Bouldin, Research Ecologist

Jim Bouldin,

Welcome. Your post shows a level of care that’s rare when GLO survey data gets used outside the surveying profession. Many of us have spent years dealing with the real-world consequences of the kinds of survey problems you are digging into.

A bit of context that may help:

John A. Benson is the name most people recognize today because his operations were prosecuted and written about, but he was far from unique. The “Benson Syndicate” existed inside a much larger failure of 19th-century federal land policy, where survey fraud, timber and land grabs, railroads, and politics all overlapped. Benson is a favorite topic because his case is well documented, but he represents a system, not an outlier.

If you haven’t already, I recommend reading Looters of the Public Domain by S. A. D. Puter and Horace Stevens. A couple of cautions, and why it is still worth reading:

1. It’s opinionated and sometimes over the top- read the fine print. Also, fine print also means very small print. The book is a republication of the 1908 copy. The book has a lot of photos of these characters.

2. Puter was involved in the fraud he is describing, so take that into account.

That said, the book is contemporary, it was written at the time the frauds were happening. It is about as close to a firsthand account as you are going to get, and that makes it unusually valuable.

You are right that fraudulent surveys were just one part of a much bigger and uglier picture. From a surveyor’s point of view, the lasting damage comes from the fact that those plats—accurate or not—were later relied on, patented, subdivided, sold, and built on. That is why surveyors today still end up hunting for “original evidence” that was never actually set on the ground. My personal theory includes a lingering effect in today's practice - Benson has only been dead 116 years.

As for Benson himself: contemporary accounts suggest he was released from Alameda County jail, drove to his ranch the next day, and died shortly after in the yard. Given the scale of what he was involved in, it’s a pretty stark reminder of how little accountability there ultimately was - he was extradited from from Denmark after being on the lame, negotiated a deal with federal prosecutors that included completing some of his fraudulent surveys, which he never did. The Surveyors General who enabled or looked the other way are arguably the more important story. Their annual reports from that era are available online and worth reading.

Your overlays of plat maps on modern topography and hydrology are exactly the right way to approach this. Many of us have had the same experience—seeing lines run through impossible terrain or ignore drainage entirely, while still looking “clean” on paper.

If you enjoy historical side stories, you might also look into California’s first Surveyor General, Jack Hays. Before California, he was a Texas land surveyor and Texas Ranger, which gives some useful insight into how surveying, enforcement, and politics were tied together at the time. A quick look at Jack Hays and Enchanted Rock is an easy and interesting entry point.

If you want to share specific townships or areas you are working on, you’ll probably find people here willing to compare notes or point out things they have run into. And questions about old methods or terminology are always fair—some of them only make sense once you accept that, in many cases, the work described on paper was never done in the field.

Respectfully,

Dave Woolley

[jrbouldin]

Dave, thank you for your quick response. I didn't have time in the post to go into detail on what I've read and done to date so maybe I can fill that in some here.

Yes I've read much but not all of Puter's classic book, and everything in it involving the California stuff, which is 2-3 chapters worth. It is a great read but your cautions are well taken. One of the more interesting things in it comes right at the very beginning where he talks about how he got his start working for a surveyor named Foreman in the mid 1870s, near Arcata. I'm about 99% sure that this is SW Foreman, who did numerous questionable to fraudulent surveys in that area, and elsewhere. I have a number of Foreman's plats, geo-referenced and overlaid, along with some from one of his former crew (compassman?), John Haughn, and they are horrible. Another of Foreman's field crew was a guy named Charles Holcomb, who a few years later became one of Benson's key field pieces, and who is listed, along with Haughn, as being Syndicate members in the 1887 list generated by GLO Special Agent Charles Conrad. Inexplicably to me however, Foreman was left off that list, perhaps through oversight. From what I've read, Foreman's methods were very similar to the scheme that Benson later followed.

Chapter 6 of Bud Uzes book, "Fraudulent Surveys" along with GLO Commissioner William AJ Sparks' annual reports from 1885-1888 were my main sources for a long time--all are great reads. The work that Sparks did, and the roles of three GLO Special Agents, in breaking the Syndicate is a totally gripping read. Sparks alone deserves a book IMO--I've never read of a more interesting federal employee than him. Benson more than met his match in that guy, as he eventually found out.

Years ago I made trips to various National Archives facilities, and to the BLM Eastern States Field Office, and I photographed a bunch of primary, unpublished documents on Benson, including reports of special agents, letters, court proceedings and other stuff. Lots of interesting detail therein and I'm now very glad I did it. Most recently I spent some time searching three early SF newspapers--the Evening Bulletin, the Call, and the Chronicle--and was pleasantly surprised at the amount of stuff I found, including as relates to JR Hardenbergh, whom I now believe had a very definite and strong influence on Benson (including his original appointment). The longest of those articles, if true, show that there was clearly some very bad stuff going on at that time (1871-74), revolving around actual or attempted combinations of land survey and redwood timber acquisition fraud and serious bribery attempts on Hardenbergh, which he apparently resisted the worst of. Foreman was also involved in it, and a mysterious player named Chapman who apparently was attempting to completely take over the Surveyor-General's office, to his own ends. I'm not sure that this story has ever been told since these newspaper articles.

The part you mention about the so-called "Benson Compromise", from 1894-98 is just about the most disturbing part of the entire story, to me. Something very very wrong occurred, involving GLO Commissioner Lamoreaux, S-G WS Green and who knows who behind the scenes in Lamoreaux's blanket approval of many fraudulent surveys after all the work expended by Sparks and others, and many years after the surveys were contracted for. I have a long unpublished document from the National Archives summarizing that whole situation, written in 1898 by a GLO employee named Womack and it is deeply disturbing. This was full-on organized crime and any number of people should have gone to prison for it.

I will try to post some other relevant material I have. I don't know if images can be posted here; I have about 150 plat map overlays, mostly twps done by those on Sparks' list of Syndicate members, especially for SA Hanson, Glover, Perrin, GW Baker, Sawyer, Collins, Reilly, Berdan, and Holcomb. They range from bad to utterly outrageous, 100% fictitious over large areas. Years ago I also wrote the Wikipedia article on the Syndicate but I would have a lot more to add now...
Jim

[DWoolley]

Jim,

Thank you for this incredibly detailed and interesting follow-up. It is clear you have put years of serious work into digging through primary sources on this topic, and the level of detail you are bringing is outstanding. Your points about Puter's early time with Foreman near Arcata, the connections with Holcomb and Haughn moving over to Benson, and why Foreman might have been left off the 1887 list from Special Agent Charles Conrad are especially interesting. It is frustrating but makes sense how these groups kept going and growing, with some people like Foreman avoiding the spotlight even though their methods were similar.

I agree with you completely about Commissioner Sparks. The way he fought back against the syndicate, with help from those special agents, was one of the few real efforts to stop the corruption. He built up real pressure in the mid-1880s, so it is disappointing that things like the "Benson Compromise" (the 1895 proposal that led to questionable approvals under Commissioner Lamoreaux and Surveyor General Green) rolled back so much of the progress. That 1898 document you mentioned from the National Archives, written by GLO employee Womack, really shows how bad it got. It is a clear example of how people at the top could just undo the earlier cleanup work.

Your trips to the National Archives, the BLM Eastern States office, and going through those old San Francisco newspapers about Hardenbergh, Foreman, Chapman, and the bribery attempts from 1871-74 are impressive. You have found things that most secondary books skip over. No surprise you already helped with the Wikipedia article on the syndicate. With everything you have learned since then, that page could use a good update.

The 150+ plat overlays you have done (from people like Hanson, Glover, Perrin, Baker, Sawyer, Collins, Reilly, Berdan, Holcomb, and others) must be strong proof of how widespread the problems were—lines that ignore real terrain, whole fake townships over big areas. If the forum lets you post images (or you can link to them somewhere), even a few examples would be really helpful for people here to see. Just describing a couple would probably get good discussion going too.

To be honest, your knowledge about these surveyors, how the fraud actually worked, the people who helped it along, and what it means today is way more than what most land surveyors (including me) know. This is real specialist history that mixes surveying, public land rules, and straight-up organized wrongdoing. It is interesting stuff and matters a lot to our work, especially when we have to deal with boundaries based on these old, messed-up records.

That is why I would like to invite you: Would you consider doing a presentation on this during one of our Friday webinars? We usually give speakers 1 to 1.5 hours, which would let you cover the early days (Foreman and Hardenbergh), how the syndicate grew, Sparks' fight, what happened with the "Compromise" afterward, and your overlay work. The people who watch—working surveyors, and others interested in public lands—would be very interested. It would be a great chance to hear from someone who has done this much original research. No pressure at all, but we would be glad to have you.

One more question: Have you ever thought about writing a book on this? Putting together your archive finds, the newspaper stories, and the evidence from your plats could make a solid, up-to-date account—one that goes further than Puter, Uzes, or Sparks' reports, with new looks at what happened before Benson and after Sparks. It would be a real help to a lot of people in the field.

I look forward to hearing what you think, and please keep posting. I am really interested in learning more.

Best regards,
Dave

[DWoolley]

Jim,

One additional thought I had, if you have the time and interest: There is still a real need today for someone to step into a role like the one Commissioner Sparks played back then. We continue to see isolated but persistent pockets of questionable practices in the surveying and land records world—some of which seem to trace their roots, at least indirectly, to the patterns and tolerances that took hold during the Benson era.

The laws that came from that period, such as the 1891 Land Surveyors Act, remain relatively unchanged today. Yet we still have a portion of the professional community that does not fully comply with these laws when preparing site plans, ALTA surveys, right-of-way mapping, and similar work. That kind of clear-eyed, evidence-based scrutiny could make a meaningful difference in strengthening the integrity of the system going forward. You want to be the contemporary Sparks of 2026? Also, you might find it interesting to see how some County Surveyors view their roles and responsibilities from a historical perspective. We have folks that limit their duties to checking spelling, 1" margins and north arrows. Plenty of work to be done.

Just something to consider. No pressure, of course, but your depth of knowledge and the way you approach this material position you uniquely to contribute in that way if it ever appeals to you.

Best regards,
Dave

[hellsangle]

"Please have Jim write a book. Lord, hear our prayers."

Put me down for one, Jim!

And for my cousins the California Digital Newspaper Collection, (UC Riverside), it is a goldmine. (If you employ its contents, please make a donation!)

https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc

Crazy Phil - Sonoma