Calvin Brown Letter 4 March 1853
Navy Yard Gosport
March 4 1853
Sir,
In reference to the discrepancies existing between Mr. Young's plan of the Hospital Grounds and that made it by myself Dec 27, 1852. I have to make the following explanations catch.
Mr. Young has given a map of the whole of the land at “Windmill or Fort Point” as these grounds were called, while in the plan furnished by me I have only laid down the portion formally owned by Col Thomas Newton and Richard Nester as appears by Conner's survey.
Connors survey and description have been referenced to as authentic in the matter of these grounds, and is supposed to describe accurately the land owned by Col Newton and by him sold to the United States. Mr. Young professes to have given a “Plat of a Survey &c.” according to the title on his plan “Surveyed by Col Thomas Newton on March 6th 1787 by Charles Conner” and upon comparing this “Plat” with the original description, I find many mistakes both in courses and distances. I have herein included a statement of these errors: the bearings and distances of the various lines in black areas they are given in Conner’s description: the red description opposite this is according to Mr. Young’s map: they commence at the South East corner of the map and proceed around it to the left.
S.45° E. 6 poles S.45° W. 6 poles
N.51° W. 9 poles S.51° W. 9 poles
N.86° W. N.49° W. as drawn
N.80° W. 62 poles N.80°. 26 poles
N.81 1/2° E. 12 poles N.8 1/2° E. 12 poles
N.62 1/2°. 15 poles N.62° W. 15 poles
It will be observed that only the first four of the above lines come within Col Newton’s land: the fifth line is not a proper boundary of any fashion of the “Fort Point” land as then divided among the different owners, but simply none or part of Survey. The last course is a portion of the shoreline of the lot then owned according to Conner’s map and destion by “Mr. P. Bowdine” and now held by Mr. O’Neill.
Conner’s map and description give the boundaries of the whole of the land on Fort Point and also the boundaries and divisions of the lots owned by different individuals. At the time this land was surveyed by Conner, there appears to have been three different owners of it. viz: Col Thomas Newton, Mr. P. Bowdine, and Mr. Richard Nestor, the former of whom then held, according to Conner’s map 64 acres, and the ladder 28 acres. Mr. Bowdine’s portion was situated on the west of Col Newton’s land and is that portion or a part of it now held by O’Neill. The red line E. F. G. H. indicates the boundaries between Bowdine and Newton, and cuts off the land of the former from the limits of the plan I have given, while Mr. Young's map includes it.
There can be little doubt, that the line E. F. G. H. ought to be the western boundary of the United States property in this place, and I find no authority for assuming, as Mr. Young does, that the line marked on his plat as the U. States dividing line is the western limit of the Government land. By referring to the two plans it will be seen that the line in question correspond in bearing and distance from F. to H. while at the point F. they diverge and Mr. Young's takes a direction entirely unwarranted by the authority he professes to have followed, or by the deed on record. Mr. Young also appears to have taken no notice of the boundary line between Newton and Nestor, which is clearly described in the deed by which the administrators of Robert Tucker, who had previously owned this whole property, conveyed the portion which Newton had bought.
In September 1799 Col Newton sold to the U.S. Government 18 acres of land, where Fort Nelson was erected. On November 9th 1827 he sold an additional 61 acres adjoining his first convenience. In the deed conveying the latter portion there is given no more definite description than the “61 acres”, no line or bounds are mentioned, and were led to infer from the tenor of the deed that he meant to convey all the land he then owned in this vicinity. But we have seen or above that he originally phone only 64 acres, and these two conveniences of 18 and 61 acres make a sum of 79 acres. From this it would seem that subsequently to the date of Conner’s survey he had come in possession of the other 15 acres which constitutes this discrepancy; but a very careful examination of the records of deeds in the County Clerks Office shows no conveyance whatever to Newton, in this vicinity, nor does it appear that he ever added to his original purchase from Tucker’s administrators. Neither can I find that either Bowdine or Nestor after this date conveyed or sold any portion of their land to any other person. Both Nestor’s and Bowdine’s lands have been since claimed under patents by other parties. viz: Miles King and O’Neill. It is possible this discrepancy in the quantity of the land may have arisen from the assumption by different surveyors at the dates of 1787 and 1827, of different boundaries, and a high water line may have been taken in one instance, and a low water line or the channel of the creek on the south of these lands, or both may have been assumed in the other. It is very certain that Conner calculated his acres only to high water mark, which of course would give a lesser result. Whatever may be the fact in regard to the quantity of land owned by Col Newton, it does not appear that his boundaries were changed or extended after the date of Conner’s survey.
There is furthermore a proof of the authenticity of Conner’s survey in the determining the boundaries of the various lots of this land, in the deed on record, before alluded to, which conveys to Col Newton his portion thereof. In this record copy of the deed, the various lines description are exactly as laid down in Conner’s description and map, with the exception of the line B. C. a portion of the land boundary between Nestor and Newton. In the deed this line is given as S. 3° W. 35 parcels, while the map and description gives it S. 3° W. 85 parcels: the mistake being made in copying from the description where the reasonableness of the eights to threes is very apparent. It is to be further remarked in regard to this line that the “Note” in the plan where if laid down alludes to a probable error in Conner’s description of it, but this mistake is probably in the bearing of the line unless we suppose the true position of the line be where the point B is drawn, which indeed is its position on Conner’s map and thus disagrees with his description. But this hypothesis is not warranted by the argument in the description of Newton’s and Nestor’s portions and that of the whole land which in every other respect than that of this line are perfectly consistent. I am therefore of opinion that there is an error in the course of this line and that point C. & B. should determine its true position.
The original lines of this land on the Northerly side, it will be noticed are considerably beyond the present line of high water, while on the South side of the point they are within this line. This is accounted for by the evidence which can be readily seen, that the Northern shore has been washed away to a great extent from its former position, roots and stumps of trees yet remaining beyond low water the material thus is carried away from the Northern shore seems to have been deposited upon the South side of the point.
I am Very Respectfully,
your obedient servant,
Calvin Brown
Civil Engineer
Capt. Sam S Breese
Commanding Navy Yard
Gosport
Fort Norfolk Documents
1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, 1795, 1796, 1797, 1798, 1799,
1800, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, 1809,
1810, 1811, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1816, 1817, 1818, 1819
1820,
1840, 1841, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847, 1848, 1849,
1850, 1851, 1852, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859
1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1869
1870, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879
1880,
Source of Information
National Archives, Record Group 71 Bureau of Yards and Docks
Letters Recieved from Commandants of Navy Yards -- Norfolk
May 3 1852 - June 28 1853
Box No. 157, Entry 5