The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[DMoriarty]

David,

The judicial decision looks interesting.  I'd like to look at it directly, but the link does not work.  Even copying it and removing CR's and repasting it doesn't work.  Can you fix it?  In these days of Tall Tales, I'd like to see the source.

We should all always insist on looking at the source which is what I have been telling people for years.  I think that was the point Tom MacWood was trying to make with the hoax.

As for the source, try . . .

http://books.google.com/books?id=zY47AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

The case beings on page 887.

I cannot place Canoe Place Creek on old maps, but it seems logical that it is the canal.  But then, why didn't they refer to the west boundary as the canal rather than calling it the creek.  The canal had been built for 20 years.  Odd.

   

I wondered about this as well.  The original deed to the parcel would have predated the canal, and the description of the border may have gone back to the original "deal" with the indians.  If the legal description was Canoe Place Creek, they may have just reported it that way. 

I think Mike has gone too far east towards Southampton.  If I ever get my main computer back together, I'll try to map out where 2700 acres would get you.  The north, south and west boundaries are pretty well defined.  Only the east requires playing with.

   

I am not so sure it was 2700 acres.  It may have been but I have also seen 3200 acres and other numbers.   Part of the confusion may be that the acreage apparently included 500 acres which was underwater.

[JESII]

David,

For what it's worth I was including Sebonak Neck in the area described in those articles, not excluding it as Mike would like to.

Also, the 1914 map Mike posted a couple pages ago shows a town "Canoe Place" immediately below the opening of the canal.

[Mike Cirba]

Wherever it was, I now believe that CBM personally wrote (or was quoted directly) the description of the area in the October 15th article.






Which makes it even more interesting that this piece surfaced in the NY Sun two weeks later on November 1st, 1906.





Or this on the same day in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, courtesy of David.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I'm not sure we agree on where those articles refer to.  

Perhaps we need some outside, independent definitions and please feel free to add your own.

I thought about this as I read your description of how you think the Sebonac Neck site that CBM eventually ended up with fit into the parameters described in the article.

I'm particularly interested in the fact that you believe the current course site, or the Sebonac Neck site, was somehow able to "skirt" the Long Island Railroad at any point, so let's start there.

skirt·ed, skirt·ing, skirts
v.tr.
1. To lie along or form the edge of; border: the creek that skirts our property.
2. To pass around rather than across or through: changed their course to skirt the storm.
3. To pass close to; miss narrowly: The bullet skirted an artery.
4. To evade, as by circumlocution: skirted the controversial issue.
v.intr.
To lie along, move along, or be an edge or a border.


The southern edge of NGLA today is about .35 mile from the Long Island Railroad.

I know you argued that the land could have been further south, but that really doesn't make sense as it would have had to include the Shinnecock Inn just a couple of hundred yards south, and any further than that it would have had to actually include land of the Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, land which actually DID "skirt" the Long Island Railroad.

Below on your original overlay I've approximated the location of Shinnecock Hills GC at that time in Yellow, indicated the LIRR in Purple, and the Shinnecock Inn in Blue.

I fail to see how any of the land of Sebonac Neck could have "skirted" the Long Island Railroad.   Actually, CBM sort of makes my point for me, as he tells us how the site he DID eventually purchase "skirted" Bulls Head Bay for a mile, which of course it does.

[Mike Cirba]

More definitions;

"Stretches Along", as in "stretches along Peconic Bay to the north".

stretch (strch)
v. stretched, stretch·ing, stretch·es

1. To become lengthened, widened, or distended.
2. To extend or reach over a distance or area or in a given direction: "On both sides of us stretched the wet plain" (Ernest Hemingway).
3. To lie down at full length: stretched out on the bed.
4. To extend one's muscles or limbs, as after prolonged sitting or on awakening

a·long (-lông, -lng)
prep.
1. Over the length of: walked along the path.
2. On a line or course parallel and close to; continuously beside: rowed along the shore; the trees along the avenue.
3. In accordance with: The committee split along party lines over the issue.

[Mike Cirba]

"Adjoin", as in, "its eastern limits adjoin the Shinnecock Hills course".

ad·join (-join)
v. ad·joined, ad·join·ing, ad·joins
v.tr.
1. To be next to; be contiguous to: property that adjoins ours.
2. To attach: "I do adjoin a copy of the letter that I have received" (John Fowles).
v.intr.
To be contiguous.


The western and northern boundaries of the Shinnecock Hills GC in 1906 are approximated in Yellow below with the location of the Shinnecock Inn indicated in Blue.

[JESII]

Mike,

I would agree that the specific Sebonak Neck site doesn't fit the description any better than your hypothetical site running east-west above the north highway...don't you agree? Your definitions kind of make that point inarguable...

[Mike Cirba]

And finally, "near", as in "the most westerly point is "near" the inlet between Good Ground and the Shinnecock Station."

near  (nîr)
adv. near·er, near·est
1. To, at, or within a short distance or interval in space or time.


On a related note, and perhaps more germane, I'm not sure that just because something has been formalized and constructed into a "canal" that it isn't still an "inlet".

In fact, the Shinnecock Canal is actually TWO inlets, one from Peconic Bay from the north and one from Shinnecock Bay on the south.

in·let  (nlt, -lt)
n.
1.
a. A recess, such as a bay or cove, along a coast.
b. A stream or bay leading inland, as from the ocean; an estuary.
c. A narrow passage of water, as between two islands.
d. A drainage passage, as to a culvert.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Actually, I think its highly possible that the land described includes all of the land of Shinnecock Hills north of the Railroad tracks EXCEPT the Sebonac Neck site.

In other words, I think you are VERY possibly correct that the inlet was the canal, especially given definition #3.

[JESII]

Why would you exclude the Sebonak Neck land?

[Mike Cirba]

Why would you exclude the Sebonak Neck land?

Because CBM sort of implies he found the Sebonac Neck site AFTER he was refused his offer for land closer to the canal, which seems still in play as of this date (as well as November 1st).

[JESII]

Still...why does the brief snippet from the October articles preclud the Sebonak Neck area?

You seem to be inserting your opinion that the canal offer was in late summer 1906, but that is still just an opinion, correct?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Because I think if he was talking about ALL of the land above the tracks that included Sebonac Neck, he would have indicated that the property skirted Bulls Head Bay for a mile on the east, just like he wrote in his book.   And yes, it's an opinion, but one I think that is supported by most of the facts we know.

He wouldn't have referenced BHB if he was still looking at land here, which is what the news articles in October & early November said.   He didn't...instead he talked about the property adjoining Shinnecock Hills to the east, which is surely a tremendous stretch given the 1906 dimensions of that course if he was talking about Sebonac Neck.




Also, more of the reason I think CBM would not have made an offer for any land prior to obtaining Topographical survey Maps of the great holes and features abroad;

[JESII]

What on earth could possibly flip you to believing the articles were in CBM pen?

[Mike Cirba]

Adjoins and skirted.

[JESII]

You're a piece of work...

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

When was the last time you used the word "skirted"?   

[DMoriarty]

I hope this is another April Fools joke.

Mike,
When will you address my questions and analysis about your "canal site" claim?  It has been months now.


Jim, 
I hope I get credit for calling it.  This has become so predictable that I think I could write out both sides of this "discussion" myself. 

[JESII]

Full credit for sure.


Now, back to our disagreement about the inlet...if we look at the description in total it would be really tough to argue that the author is describing Sebonak Neck, and only Sebonak Neck, due to the relationship to both the railroad and Shinnecock Hills GC. My view on your inlet versus my canal is that simple. For the inlet into Cold Spring Pond to have been the intention the author must have been describing exactly Sebonak Neck (just west of Southampton) so why wouldn't he have just said Sebonak Neck as opposed to this large, ambiguous area?

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

I don't think the article was describing "Sebonack Neck and just Sebonac Neck"  Why would it?  NGLA extends well off of Sebonac Neck.  As for the location of SHGC in relation to the property, Mike continues to misrepresent it.

We've got to keep this in perspective here.  This isn't a legal land description, it is a newspaper blurb. I don't think we can assume that author had any idea that the land out there was called Seconack Neck or that Cold Spring was called Cold Spring or whether it was a harbor, inlet, pond, swamp, or whatever.  He doesn't even get the name of the train station right.  He was either relaying what someone had told him (and who knows what that person knew) or he was providing a general location based on what he knew of the area.  It seems unreasonable to nitpick about whether a few hundred yards is "skirting" or whether enough of SHGC was east of the course when we know some of it was.

[JESII]

In general, I agree.

I think the key word in there is "secured" which is much less ambiguous than "skirted". The fact that nothing was actually secured until a month or two later doesn't matter to me when you consider exactly what CBM wrote in Scotlands gift. He clearly describes a three step process of identifying the general land, then finding the portion he wanted (and staking out the boundary), and then execute the transaction.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

It doesn't just say inlet. It say the inlet between Good Ground and Shinnecock station. This tells me it was the canal.

Jim, Bryan, David, Mike, et. al.,

I haven't been able to devote much time to reading threads in the last few days and hope to do so this weekend.

But, there's one thing I have to say.

Time and time again, newspaper articles have been seriously flawed.
Everyone has admitted or agreed that they're seriously flawed.

So why the undying allegiance to the validity of this particular one ?

Why are you granting this article infallibility ?

[JESII]

Pat,

The most important parts of that article for me are the date and the word "secured". I don't think it's infallible, hell it's not specific enough to become infallible but when it came fully true within two months I tend to think it's worth paying attention to. Just my opinion. Mike and David are trying to make it more specific than it could possibly be.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

You haven't missed much.  Mike is about to launch into his fourth or fifth Anything-But-Sebonack-Neck interpretation of that article and about to come up with his fourth or fifth alternative site.

The only thing I take from those articles is that by mid-October the Sebonac Neck property is in play.  Mike agreed with this until I pressed him to consider the consequences.   

And of course Mike is still yet to address my critique of his "canal site" theory.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just an opinion, but with no evidence of a third site, and the revelation that they did the sebonac pony ride in Sept., I keep thinking that the first offer was also made in Sept.  06. If he was quoting CBM in that article, CBM was probably just being mysterious, because both sites were still in play, or he just didn't want the press to know anymore than what they knew already - that he had narrowed the site effectively down to the Shinnecock Hills area.

For all we know, CBM expanded the description to keep the Shinny folks in the dark and not pissed off, or just was hesitant for some other reason to let out too many details, so his description to the reporter (or Whighams or maybe even the Peconic Bay folks, as we don't really know the source) described all possible properties under consideration.  Or maybe the news guy heard leaks about both areas and just decided to cover himself by describing it all.


Again, just my take.  All the stuff on roads, third sites, etc. probably is to no avail, IMHO.  This would be the simple explanation.