Merion's Early Timeline

[TEPaul]

"The quote was from one of your posts, Tom."


Which one? Are you sure you quoted me correctly?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,  in post 501 I noted that the red area was not intended to be exact.  The west border is meant to trace the Johnson farm border up to the southern border of the golf course, extended.   But my point was illustrative, so I woudn't get too carried away measuring my red box."


Bryan Izatt:

Then don't use the illustration in post #501 for measurment purposes of the area between Club House Road and the western border of the old Johnson Farm.

David Moriarty;

Trace the border up to the southern border? Do you mean northern border. And you mentioned land west of College. You must mean land south of College.

[Mike_Cirba]

The 1910 Plan is not exact, the location of the road is approximate, and scale may be off.  But that doesn't mean that the plan has absolutely no value.  In Nov. 1910 MCC's board provided the map to the members to show where their golf course was to be be located, and so it gives us a general idea of the same.  In other words, it gives us a general idea of the location of the land upon which they were planning to lay out the course.  And at this point they appear to have been planning on using some of the land west of the college for the course.  Not only that, but they also appear to have been planning on giving up a substantial part of the Johnson farm to the west of the course.  I know this not only because of the map, but also because at this time they were only buying 117 acres.     

So no, I don't think it makes any sense at to throw out the entire plan just because it is not perfectly accurate.  I don't think it was ever meant to be perfectly accurate, and we can still learn a lot from it (and what else we know) even though it is not exact.   Don't get me wrong,  I am not saying that it is an absolute and undisputable fact that at that point they were planning on using land west of the College.  But I am saying that in my mind the 1910 plan and other factors indicate to me that they were, and so far as I know there is nothing I know about that calls this into question.   You can take it or leave it, accept it or don't.

It is not a hard fact that they were using the land, but it is a hard fact that the drawing includes land west of the College as part of the golf course.   

David,

I have no problem if you want to use the map that way, but I think frankly it hurts your cause.

If all of this activity...the land selection, the routing, the Francis Swap...down to actually buying "to the acre" the exact property dimensions of the newly laid out golf course...all most likely happening before summer 1910 came to a close, {although for some reason actual construction would not commence for what was likely at least 6-10 months later) then I really find it hard to imagine why a November 15th, 1910 surveyor's drawing of the newly designed golf course and real estate component sent to the Merion membership in what was essentially a prospectus would not have been much more precise.   

Couldn't they have just taken it right off the topo that was likely created by Francis that was used by Barker, or Macdonald or whoever designed the course??   Why the need for the third party of "Pugh & Hubbard" when Francis already surveyed the entire property in the process of designing the holes before then and apparently played a big personal role in solving the problems of the routing?

Just like my questions in the first post which you called "rhetorical", I'm pretty sure I'm not asking them rhetorically.

Although these are not "facts", they are the fact-based logical questions that arise from the close study of the facts, and although I do understand that you're focused on the puzzle of the land dimensions at present, I do think these questions need some reasonable or viable answers at some point for others to accept your larger premise.

Thanks for the discussion.   I am enjoying seeing where this might lead and I believe others are, as well.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

To answer your question to David about Cuyler's quote, in your post #492 you wrote;

"Certainly one of the points of Lloyd taking the entire 140 acre Johnson Farm into his own name in 1910 plus the Dallas estate (do you deny that?) was so that the designers had some latitude with land for routing and design. Cuylers said as much in his Dec. 21, 1910 letter to president Evans (viz. "It was found advisable that the Haverford Development Co. should take title in Mr. Lloyd's name, so that the lines be revised subsequently")."

Hope that helps...

[DMoriarty]

Yes, Cuyler's did recommend that HDC take title to the Johnson Farm and Dallas estate (140 acres + 21 acres=161acres) in Lloyd's (and wife's) name. Why do you suppose Cuyler's recommended that? First, the Johnson Farm at that time was not in HDC's name but Cuyler's was specific about why title to 161 acres should be taken in Lloyd's name. 

But this is much different than what you have been claiming for the past year.  Lloyd was NOT in control of the land.   He was a bridge; probably a guarantor, and was acting on behalf of one or both of the parties, and could NOT do what he wanted with the land.  He had legal obligations to one or both of the parties.   Again Tom, I explained this to Wayne over a year ago!   Yet for that year you have been tearing into my essay based on your mistaken belief that Lloyd controlled the property.   

The man's name who Lloyd transfered title to 120.1 acres to was Rothwell not Freeman. Rothwell did not transfer the title to MCC, he transfered title to the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association Corporation that Lloyd was the president of and Clymer Brooke was the secretary. I have no idea what Lloyd did with the remaining 40 acres that were not transfered to MCCGA Corp.

Yes, Rothwell.   Thanks for reminding me.  I explained Rothwell's role to Wayne as well, over a year ago.   He was often a middleman, or sort of escrow on these bigger land deals.   The land and money would go to him, then on to the real parties.     Yet you speculate that he may have been related to Wilson?  Based on what evidence?   What would that have to do with anything?

Also Tom, if you have no idea what Lloyd did with the remaining 40 acres, then why have you been indicating otherwise?

"Also, I think  you are mistaken that Lloyd controlled HDC.  He and others recapitalized the stock, but I do not think that he or they took a majority interest."

That's your opinion and not necessarily mine. 

Do you have any basis for your opinion?  Because I am unaware of anything that indicates that Lloyd took a majority interest in HDC.   
 

"By the way, what property, exactly, is the Cuylers letter referring to?  The Dallas Estate,  the HDC property, or both?   It could go either way."

It refers to the property that was transfered into Lloyd's name on Dec. 19, 1910.

Is this speculation on your part?  What exactly did the letter say about the property?

____________________________________

I have no problem if you want to use the map that way, but I think frankly it hurts your cause.

I try not to analyze facts based on whether or not it hurts my cause.  That being said, you make a number of assumptions that cannot be maintained.  But I'd rather wait to get into it.

[Bryan Izatt]

" You say it was 32 acres.  I've described how I got 18 acres.  How did you measure it at 32 acres?"

Bryan:

Where did you see me mention anything about 32 acres?

A dyslexic slip of the keyboard on my part.  It should be: You said 18, I said 32.  I described my methodology.  You haven't yet described your methodology. 

[Bryan Izatt]

"I think the location of the boundary is suspect on the 1910 map as I try to relate it to the current boundaries.  You tell me the 1913 map is suspect."


Bryan:

I know some of you guys don't trust the dimensions on the Nov. 15, 1910 particularly the "approximate road" so we don't need to use that one for measurements. I just wanted you to use the aerial on post #501 that shows the actual Club House Road, as built. But I guess I also need to know how I can be sure that red line in that aerial in post #501 actually represents where the western boundary at the top of the "L" of the old Johnson Farm was.  If you're not sure that the red line on the aerial in #501 is accurate, then you could overlay the 1908 RR map on it and check it out.

As far as the dimensions of the Eaton property on the 1913 PRR plat map, I explained not just that it's wrong but how it's wrong as well as how it probably got to be wrong. Did you understand that?  I read your explanation. I remain to be convinced.  Hard to believe the RR people could get it so wrong that time.  Can you provide the metes and bounds?   

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Since we're supposed to be trying to change the tone here, can I request we leave Wayne Morrison out of this.

Wayne has not been on this website for many months, and has no way to defend himself on this forum.

If this is about the search for the truth I fail to see the relevance of continually bringing up some conversation that allegedly took place between you and Wayne some years back. 

Thanks.

Tom Paul,

I would ask that we keep Tom MacWood out of this discussion too.   Let's move forward.   

I'm really not trying to act above the fray.   I just think all of us have beaten those issues to death and I want to help move this thing to some conclusion.

Thanks.

[TEPaul]

"If you're not sure that the red line on the aerial in #501 is accurate, then you could overlay the 1908 RR map on it and check it out."


Bryan:

Good idea but I'm not overlaying anything or measuring anything on this thread, I'm simply trying to figure out what boundary dimensions the Wilson Committee went into their design phase with and since it appears to have been 117 acres WHERE they picked up the additional three acres when the course (boundaries) where transfered over to them by Lloyd in July 1910. I think we all should recognize we may not have available to us exactly where those original 117 acres were on a survey when they began. There's no question in my mind though the the exact 117 acre dimensions must have been on the Wilson Committee's topographical survey map that Wilson mentions in a letter he was enclosing to Russell Oakley.




"I read your explanation. I remain to be convinced.  Hard to believe the RR people could get it so wrong that time.  Can you provide the metes and bounds?"   


I can provide the boundaries on two sides of both sections of the swap on the Eaton land off a blueprint survey Merion itself had done that matches the various little purchases and land swaps done later (after the July 1911 deed transfer and up until at least 1928).  It probably represents the details of the property's boundary history when they remortgaged the property. All the various land adjustments are lettered on the deed and they match the lettered sections on the property's land on a survey by Yerkes and Co. I see very little possibility they could be wrong or they would be picked up and corrected when all the residential areas around them were built out and separately surveyed onto deeds and recorded in the Recorder of Deeds at the County seat.

My methodology is not to measure anything particularly but to simply use the different totals on two deeds and back incremental adjustments in and out given the records reflecting them from MCC itself WITHIN a particular TIMELINE. Doing it this way I believe we can determine in which area it had to happen and then measure that area to see if it matches a particular incremental area. Doing it that way I believe we will find the area between what is now Club House Road and the old western boundary on the Johnson Farm on the top of the "L" was 21 acres when Wilson and Committee were designing (and before the Francis land swap idea) and it became 18 acres when they presented a final plan to the Board on April 19, 1910.

Of course one needs to understand they actually agreed to BUY three additional acres at that April 19, 1910 board meeting and that is reflected in the fact that the land was transfered over to MMCGA Co. with three more acres than MCC agreed to buy from HDC back in Nov. 1910. We even have the price they agreed to pay and isn't it interesting it exactly matches the per acre price the HDC residental development land was going for as agreed to by Connel and Lloyd when this entire 338 acres arrangment was proposed with the club and HDC?

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

Thanks for finding that for me. My mistake; I should have said Cuylers said so that the lines could be revised subsequently.

What I was intending to address by asking for my remark again as to what Cuylers said was this somewhat ludicrously speculative remark of David Moriarty's;

"At the time of the letter, they already needed to revise the "lines."      It wasn't a prospective safety devise, it was a retrospective cure." 

   
The words could be would seem to indicate something a whole lot less than a "retrospective cure" was going on between Dec. 19, 1910 and then April 19, 1911 and then July 21, 1911. The point is if the swap had been done well over a month previously it would have been reflected in the land dimensions Wilson and Committee were working with when they were creating "numerous different courses and plans" in the winter and spring of 1911 and there would have been no need at all for the board to consider and vote on an exchange and additional three acre purchase (the Francis land swap idea) on April 19, 1910. Why would they do that if it had already been done before Lloyd bought the land and the swap was already reflected on the topo survey plan of the boundaries the Wilson Committee were using in 1911 to design the course?

The point is the swap wasn't reflected on their working survey plans because it had not happened before Lloyd bought the land in Dec. 19, 1910; it happened after that when Lloyd had actually been put in the specific position to "move boundary lines around subsequently" as reflected in Cuyler's letter Dec. 21. 1910 letter to MCC president Evans. Obviously that is the very reason Francis knew to go to Lloyd in the middle of the night instead of someone else on the committee! 

Another thing we can certainly know is that when Francis went to Lloyd that dimensional boundary of Club House Road must have been set on their working topo survey maps or Francis never would have said there wasn't enough area to fit #15 green and #16 tee into where they are now.

[TEPaul]

"But this is much different than what you have been claiming for the past year.  Lloyd was NOT in control of the land.   He was a bridge; probably a guarantor, and was acting on behalf of one or both of the parties, and could NOT do what he wanted with the land.  He had legal obligations to one or both of the parties.   Again Tom, I explained this to Wayne over a year ago!   Yet for that year you have been tearing into my essay based on your mistaken belief that Lloyd controlled the property."


David Moriarty:

There is certainly no reason at all, at this point, to go back and iterate who knew what about something a year ago. The fact is there is a lot of additional information that came forth AFTER your essay and that makes this entire subject much more explainable and you didn't find any of it; Wayne Morrison did! For you at this point to start claiming you knew all that additional information existed at MCC is just a real lie; there is no question of that at all; there is no possible way you could've known that at that point because Merion G.C. and MCC didn't even know it was up there in an attic at MCC where no one had apparently looked at it for a century. I have no desire at all to call you a liar on here but with something like THIS you pretty much need to stop telling that LIE on here or just SAY NOW you were mistaken about what material and information is actually being talked about like the following.

1. The actual Macdonald letter to Lloyd in 1910
2. The "Wilson report" to the board on April 1911
3. The board meeting minutes of April 19, 1911
4. The Cuyler letter to MCC president Evans.

You knew of NONE of that material or information BEFORE Wayne found it last year because there is no conceivable way whatsoever that you could have KNOWN ABOUT IT since neither club KNEW ABOUT IT or realized it was up there where it had probably been for a century. 



You say Lloyd was a "bridge" a "guarantor" an "agent" or whatever and he wasn't in control of both sides of that property?! So what? All those are just mere words to try again to rationalize another fallacious point of yours. The fact is Lloyd was in the position to move boundary lines around between those two sections of that land and he did not need to get permission from anyone to do it. THAT for the purposes of this entire subject most certainly is CONTROL!!!

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm not sure if this news report bears on the discussion, because much of the ownership piece is very confusing to me, but in the November 24th, 1910 Philadephia Press article I found it stated;

"As one result of the recent deal involving $600,000 the Merion Cricket Club of Philadelphia is in the comparatively near future to have a new golf links, which will be the equal oaf any course in this country.  A syndicate, including among others W. W. Atterbury, a vice-president of the Pennsylvania Railroad; Horatio G. Lloyd, of Drexel and Company, Philadelphia; A.F. Huston, Rodney Griscom, and Robert W. Lesley have bought 330 acres of land adjoining Haverford College, 117 acres of which have been transferred to the Merion Club for golfing purposes."

"The location is about two miles from the present course.   Although the average price paid for the land was $1800 an acre, the 117 acres was sold to the cricket club fo r$725 an acre, or less than half of what they cost.   However, the Land Improvement Company, which is the name of the syndicate that succeeded another organization, expects to more than recoup itself by the enhanced value which the links will give the adjoining property."


This is the article that I originally discounted because it later goes on to describe that "Herbert H. Barker...has been secured to lay out the new course.."

I guess a few questions come to mind.

It seems if there is a question of whether Lloyd actually had control of both sides of the transaction, this article might shed some light.

Has anyone prior heard of the "Land Improvement Company" syndicate made up of the men described?

If Barker had been secured to lay out the course, and it was now November 24th, doesn't that by definition prove the course had not yet been laid out prior to the November 15th, 1910 land plan?   I'm quite sure Barker was not going to "construct" the golf course!

This seems fairly consistent with President Allen Evan's November 1910 letter to the membership, which the Land Plan in question was attached to, which stated;

"The Committee continued their efforts and reported on several properties.   The only property accessible to the main Club House, and at the same time, one that could be financed by the Club, was reported on by the Committee in July, and a copy of the report is attached hereto.  This property adjoins the grounds of Haverford College, between College Avenue and Ardmore Avenue, directly on the Philadelphia and Western Railway, with a station at either end of the property - a plan of the property is enclosed.  In the judgement of the Board, it is an unusual opportunity for the Club, and one that should have the cordial support of all the members."

"The Club has secured 117 acres at $726.50 an acre, or $85,000.   This is conceded to be an extremely low price, and was only made possible by the action of certain members of the Club, who, with others, not members of the Club, have aquired a tract of 338 acres, under the name of Haverford Development Co.  These gentlemen have sold the 117 acres at less than half the average cost to them of the whole tract. They feel that the proximiity of the Golf Course will so enhance the value of the remaining 221 acres as to more than offset the loss on the 117 acres secured by the Club."


Another question...were the Haverford Development Company and the Land Improvement Company the same entitty?

If Lloyd, Griscom, and Lesley were part of the syndicate owning the entire 338 acres, weren't they by definition all working both sides of any transaction between HDC and MCC?

[Mike_Cirba]

Another question that comes to mind is whether HDC first bought the Dallas Estate or whether that was a separate transaction between MCC and the owner of that estate?

I ask because a November 15th, 1950 HDC Stock Offering letter from H.G. Lloyd states the following;

"There will be aquired by the Company, five tracts of land, aggregating approximately 338 acres, so that after the sale of 117 acres for the Golf course, there will remain about 221 acres, some of which has been improved.   The average cost of the remaining land will be less than $2,500 per acre."

Do we know which 5 tracts made up the 338 total acres?

[TEPaul]

"Also Tom, if you have no idea what Lloyd did with the remaining 40 acres, then why have you been indicating otherwise?"


It does not matter at all what Lloyd did with the remaining 40 acres since it had nothing to do with the golf course when he passed the 120.1 acres over to MCCGA Corp in July 21, 1911. If anyone is actually interested in what happened to the title to that remaining 40 acres (of the old Johnson Farm) all I have to do is a title run on any or all of it. Matter of fact one young friend of mine just bought a house across Golf House Road whose land was probably contained in that section between Golf House Road and the old western boundary at the top of the "L" of the Johnson Farm. He has a title run on that property and checking it will show us what Lloyd did with the title to it at any particular time.

Again, it does not matter who knew what when and you should stop mentioning things like that on here as it's a complete waste of time and completely non-productive. All that matters is what we know NOW about what happened back THEN, WHEN and HOW!

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

Actually that Nov. 24, 1910 Philadelphia Press article you just produced probably does reflect somewhat about what position Lloyd and syndicate were in at a particular time. While I do not necessarily subscribe to the exact accuracy of some of those old newspaper accounts that one most certainly does indicate that Lloyd and syndicate did control that land back then. If it was completely the opposite and HDC still did control it all one would most certainly think that Connell and Nickolson and the partners of HDC who were not members of MCC would've had something to say about the accuracy of that newspaper article. I have no doubt at all, however, that David Moriarty will try, AGAIN,  somehow to just rationalize that INFORMATION away TOO!

Matter of fact, one should probably do a complete LIST of everything reported and recorded coming out of MCC, Merion and Philadelphia back then that he already has tried to rationalize away or has dismissed or ignored if it does not agree with and support his wholly fallacious contention that the Francis land swap happened BEFORE Nov. 15, 1911. THIS is the benefit and effective USE of a really good fact based TIMELINE-----eg it tends to completely undermine fallacious CONTENTIONS that do not support that timeline and that the timeline cannot and does not support!

[DMoriarty]

David,

Since we're supposed to be trying to change the tone here, can I request we leave Wayne Morrison out of this.

Sorry Mike, but no.  Wayne may be letting you guys do his talking for him but as far as I am concerned he is very much part of this conversation.  He is the source of all your information, and as recently as last week I was told that if I wanted my questions answered I needed to grovel before Wayne's good graces.  I bring him up to set the record straight.   My tone in doing so has not been hostile or insulting, although I do admit that I am perplexed that I have been attacked for a year using secret information, yet I explained all this to Wayne about a year ago.  And Mike, my dealings with Wayne in the past are not alleged.  Could you refrain from implying that Iam a liar unless you are going to back that up?   Thanks.

Mike Cirba:

Thanks for finding that for me. My mistake; I should have said Cuylers said so that the lines could be revised subsequently.

I am confused, what exactly did the quote say?

What I was intending to address by asking for my remark again as to what Cuylers said was this somewhat ludicrously speculative remark of David Moriarty's;

"At the time of the letter, they already needed to revise the "lines."      It wasn't a prospective safety devise, it was a retrospective cure." 

TEPaul, your insults remain so even when accompanied with an emoticon.

My "ludicrously speculative remark" was based upon the wording of a fragment from a letter that you apparently misquoted, although I am not sure I understand your correction, I don't see that it addresses my "ludicrously speculative remark" at all.    Cuylers seems to be addressing changes that had already been contemplated.  Now perhaps the more complete text of the letter would clarify.

As for the rest of your post, I don't think there is anything in there that is factual or supportable.  

Weren't you going to prove that my graphic in post 501 was incorrect, and weren't you going to use nothing but FACTS and with no speculation whatsoever?  

When is that process going to begin?

_________________

Tom, although he said he knew the records were at MCC, and he was likely overly broad in that statement, I think what he meant to say was that he had deduced to his logical satisfaction that that's where the records were - even if he didn't specifically know what was in them or where specifically at MCC they were. 

(after all, when you think about it, it makes perfect sense that the early records of a new club that was to be spun off from an old club would be at the old club if they aren't at the new club.  )

Shivas, you are correct of course that I didn't know EXACTLY what records were at MCC (besides the minutes), but it was more than just a logical deduction on my part that the old records were stored at MCC.  I confirmed this when I was trying to gain access to the records.

But TEPaul knows this, I have told him before.   He just wants to to call me a liar and distract attention from the fact that I explained all this property stuff to Wayne a year ago, and that they chose to ignore me and misread the information so they could try to use it to fit in with their preconceptions of what happened.  

[TEPaul]

Has anyone prior heard of the "Land Improvement Company" syndicate made up of the men described?

Mike Cirba:

Of course we have. The MCC original syndicate that became involved with HDC's 338 acres were the men from Merion mentioned in that article. We have the very same reflection in MCC's records.



"Another question...were the Haverford Development Company and the Land Improvement Company the same entitty?"


As it had to do with the 338 acres we are considering (which I believe was the entire assets of HDC) it is the very same thing as what Evans referred to as "the Land Improvement Company."



"If Lloyd, Griscom, and Lesley were part of the syndicate owning the entire 338 acres, weren't they by definition all working both sides of any transaction between HDC and MCC?"


Yes, they probably were but the fact, reflected in many MCC records, is that Lloyd was doing ALL the negotiations with HDC for them and for MCC. Even the MCC board meeting minutes mention that FACT. Then one needs to understand Lloyd himself, who he was and what-all he was doing in that area.

Would you like me to explain some of that to you because it most definitely DOES bear on our understanding of all this back then around Merion. I realize David Moriarty may pooh-pooh any of this related information because to defend his fallacious contentions on here, particularly the timing of the Francis land swap he necessarily has tried to keep the discussion extremely limited and has tried not to allow into the discussion related events and facts that help explain all of this and very likely WHY that swap did not happen when he says it did. He did the same thing with Francis's story. Didn't you notice HOW he tried to keep the discussion CONTAINED to JUST Francis's remark about the dimensions of that triangle and HIS INTERPRETATION of it? 

He does not want the rest of Francis's story to be discussed and considered on here because if it is the rest of it essentially makes his contention make no real sense at all that the land swap happened BEFORE Nov. 15, 1910 and not AFTERWARDS!

And WHY did he feel the need to move Francis's land swap story back BEFORE Nov. 15 1910 even though there is not a single shred of evidence ANYWHERE to support that? Because if he didn't do that there would be no possible way at all for him to explain WHY that triangle shows up on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan, would there? 


I believe and I have believed for a year that the rest of the participants on here are not understanding this subject very well simply because they were not aware of and still apparently are not aware of the larger tapestry of events that were going on around the creation of Merion East that directly help explain EXACTLY what happened, WHEN, WHY, HOW and BY WHOM!!

As long as Moriarty tries to limit this overall understanding and dismiss or ignore or rationalize away the entirety of all this the longer it will take others who've not been familiar with it to understand what really did happen.

And of course the end of the tunnel on this is we will all learn that Macdonald and Whigam (or Barker ) did not route and design the holes of Merion East and they were NOT the 'driving force behind it' as his essay suggests and he keeps contending on here. We will see that Wilson and his committee did all that back then with some help and advice at first from Macdonald/Whigam for which they thanked them directly and refected that in their own records. But their records also reflect in much more detail what Wilson and Committee actually did in the winter and spring of 1911.

Amazingly that particular material information was in an attic at MCC apparently not looked at for a century and none of us knew it was there UNTIL after that essay came out on here!! What that additional information found at MCC less than a year ago effectively DOES is completely confirm what Merion's history has said all along about Wilson and his Committee and Merion East and West courses!

And why was that important material found at MCC still over there and not at Merion G.C. today or at any time? Obviously, because there never has been any REASON to question who originally designed and created Merion East! That was never before questioned BY ANYONE until two guys came along on THIS WEBSITE about 3-6 years ago and began questioning it off an article or two that happened to mention Macdonald/Whigam helped and advised MCC back then.

I guess they must have thought they discovered something noone knew, including Merion.

THEY DIDN'T and us here including Merion G.C. have always completely understood that!!

Merion always knew this and apparently the reason these two people thought they discovered something previously unknown is because those two people DID NOT KNOW MERION's history hardly at all back then (one of them actually called it all "a PUZZLE" ) so how could they have known Merion always knew this about Macdonald/Whigam's help and advice for four days over about a year back then and what the details of it were (and Merion's recorded history reflected it)? 

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan, 

Regarding the west property boundary of the college land, try this.   

Start at the center of of College avenue, and travel along the border of Golf House Road and the neighboring property to the east, heading S 24 degrees 06 min. E for 381.11 feet.  A surveyor stone was at this location.   Then, on the same heading (S 24 degrees 06 min. E) travel 602.37 ft.  This was the southwest corner of the college property. 

Hope this helps.

________________________________________

.............................

Thanks for the suggestion.  Can you tell us the source of these directions?  Do you have a survey map from that era?

The first part of the instruction is hard to do on the Google map since the border between the road and the property to the east is obscured for the most part by trees.  But it looks hard to follow the border on that heading.  A heading of 26 degrees 06 minutes looks to align with the property line. 

In any event here is the border according to your instruction.  It places the SW corner of the boundary at 40*00'21.82"N and 75*18'58.46"W.  Can anyone vet this placement of the boundary or the location of the SW corner?  David, I don't suppose your source has the coordinates of the starting point on College Ave or of the SW corner.

[TEPaul]

"Cuylers seems to be addressing changes that had already been contemplated."

No it does not. Cuyler's letter to MCC president Evans addresses changes to potential boundary lines in the future and after his Dec. 21 1910 letter to MCC president Evans. And that is why Cuyler's mentions to Evans that Lloyd has been put in a position to move boundary lines around SUBSEQUENTLY! Obvious "subsequently" (which means AFTER) refers to AFTER Dec. 19, 1910. If they had ALREADY HAPPENED why would Cuylers say such a thing to Evans???

And this is all totally confirmed when Cuylers asks Evans to inform HIM when the boundary lines HAVE BEEN definitely determined!! If he or they already knew that why in the world would he be asking Evans to tell him WHEN they happened? If it had HAPPENED before Dec. 21, 1910, Lloyd, Francis, Evans, Cuylers et al ALREADY WOULD HAVE KNOWN where the boundary lines were going to be regarding that Francis land swap idea, wouldn't they?

[Mike_Cirba]

"Cuylers seems to be addressing changes that had already been contemplated."

No it does not. Cuyler's letter to MCC president Evans addresses changes to potential boundary lines in the future and after his Dec. 21 1910 letter to MCC president Evans. And that is why Cuyler's mentions to Evans that Lloyd has been put in a position to move boundary lines around SUBSEQUENTLY! Obvious "subsequently" (which means AFTER) refers to AFTER Dec. 19, 1910. If they had ALREADY HAPPENED why would Cuylers say such a thing to Evans???

And this is all totally confirmed when Cuylers asks Evans to inform HIM when the boundary lines HAVE BEEN definitely determined!! If he or they already knew that why in the world would he be asking Evans to tell him WHEN they happened? If it had HAPPENED before Dec. 21, 1910, Lloyd, Francis, Evans, Cuylers et al ALREADY WOULD HAVE KNOWN where the boundary lines were going to be regarding that Francis land swap idea, wouldn't they?

This to me seems to be at the heart of it all.

Why would anyone need to move property lines already moved, already determined, solidified, and purchased supposedly before then?

If everything was rock-solid and ready for construction back in the summer, why is this still an issue in December 21, 1910

[TEPaul]

"In any event here is the border according to your instruction.  It places the SW corner of the boundary at 40*00'21.82"N and 75*18'58.46"W.  Can anyone vet this placement of the boundary or the location of the SW corner?  David, I don't suppose your source has the coordinates of the starting point on College Ave or of the SW corner."


Bryan:

Of course I can because I have everything I need to do it including the original metes and bounds of the old Johnson Farm AND the dimensions of the 1928 land swap with Haverford College off a professional survey from 1928. All the dimensions are on both and I can check them with complete accuracy BOTH WAYS!

Now try to measure the width between the end of your red line next to the 16th fairway to Club House Raod. If it isn't close to 130 yards something is wrong with your measurements and my blueprint survey from Merion itself used to add that land of Haverford College onto their property will show the total width today. The land at the base of the narrow triangle is a bit less than 25 yards wide but I will check the numbers on the blueprint survey map again.

[TEPaul]

"Why would that triangle show up on the Nov. 15 1910 land plan if the swap had NOT occurred pre-Nov 15 1910?  Who goes out selling a real estate syndicate deal or memberships in a club using a map representing land they don't have or at least plan to have?  In my world, that's called fraud.  So I have to ask the obvious question - what's your understanding of why that triangle actually would be there if the swap hadn't happened or at least been planned by Nov. 15, 1910?  I think that's the operative question, isn't it?"


Shivas:

You're damned RIGHT that is the operative question HERE. And it has been for about a year. It also shows EXACTLY WHY both Merion and we here are pretty annoyed or at least really perplexed about what Moriarty has done here and continues to do here.

Apparently even now and even YOU are ASSUMING that triangle that shows up on the Nov. 15, 1910 HAS TO BE the result of Francis's idea for a land swap or even any SWAP at all!!  WHY in the world are you ASSUMING THAT? Could it be because Moriarty keeps saying it and now you totally believe him and have taken that for some actual FACT??

That triangle on that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan DOES NOT HAVE to be part of any swap at all BEFORE NOV, 15, 1910. It was just there when Lloyd negotiated a 117 acres PROPOSED golf course with HDC, reflected it on the Nov. 15 1910 professionally drawn (by surveyors Pugh and Hubbard) and took the arrangement to the board in Nov with which they agreed to proceed but put Lloyd in a position to move boundaries around SUBSEQUENTLY! Obviously they did it that way because THERE WASN'T a golf course laid out on that proposed land at that time. ALL the actual and factual material from MCC itself reflects this. What they obviously knew at that time was that they very likely had enough land on which to do it but if various boundaries had to be revised SUBSEQUENTLY they were prepared aforethought to do EXACTLY that---AND THEY DID (the Francis land swap after the land had already been bought by Lloyd----and he had plenty of it (161 acres!) to move boundary lines around if need be against land he and his syndicate already controlled for that purpose anyway. What in the world is FRAUDULENT about THAT Shivas??   

As we have been saying for over a year that triangle was THERE from the beginning and it was just too narrow up where the 15th green and 16th tee are today. If you care to know how narrow I can give you that as well off the scale of that Nov. 15, 1910 land plan, that is if anyone even trusts the dimensions of that "approximate road" anymore or assumes that the dimensions and delineation of that "approximate road" was what was used to make the Wilson Committee's actual working topo counter survey maps off of that they used in those winter months to do "numerous different courses and plans" and eventually resolve the 15th green and 16th tee problem that Francis's story reflects.

If you don't completely understand what I just said give me a call and I can explain the whole thing to you. I'm getting really tired of trying to bring everyone on here up to speed about the details of the things we here have known for about a year now.

Matter of fact, where in the world does Moriarty even get off bringing FRANCIS himself back many months INTO 1910 and particularly BEFORE Nov, 1910 and before he was EVEN APPOINTED to any committee by Merion and not Hugh Wilson, the man who would be the chairman of that committee?? Why don't you ASK Moriaty THAT when there is not a scintilla of evidence to do THAT with FRANCIS?? I'll tell you where the evidence for that is---it's NOWHERE, it never was and never will be because it just didn't happen the way Moriarty has been constantly contending.

Just ask yourself that and consider how illogical THAT is too, Shivas.

I mean I understand all these factual details in this entire tapestry between the same people on opposite sides of the fence (Lloyd et al) may be hard for some previously unfamiliar with it all to understand but it can't be THIS hard to understand.

If you cannot possibly understand HOW that triangle could've been there BEFORE that Francis land swap idea or even BEFORE Francis became involved with this project in the first place then I've got to tell you, Shiv, there is something seriously wrong with your logic and your ability to deduce a number of interrelated recorded events and circumstances!  And it also shows how easily even YOU have taken a fallacious point and a fallacious contention and ASSUMED it MUST BE A FACT!!   

[Bryan Izatt]

"In any event here is the border according to your instruction.  It places the SW corner of the boundary at 40*00'21.82"N and 75*18'58.46"W.  Can anyone vet this placement of the boundary or the location of the SW corner?  David, I don't suppose your source has the coordinates of the starting point on College Ave or of the SW corner."


Bryan:

Of course I can because I have everything I need to do it including the original metes and bounds of the old Johnson Farm AND the dimensions of the 1928 land swap with Haverford College off a professional survey from 1928. All the dimensions are on both and I can check them with complete accuracy BOTH WAYS!  I know you can, but are you going to? 

Now try to measure the width between the end of your red line next to the 16th fairway to Club House Raod. If it isn't close to 130 yards something is wrong with your measurements and my blueprint survey from Merion itself used to add that land of Haverford College onto their property will show the total width today. The land at the base of the narrow triangle is a bit less than 25 yards wide but I will check the numbers on the blueprint surve map again.  I'd rather not do it by deduction.  If you have the survey map, why not just tell us what the coordinates are or what the headings and distances are from College and Haverford and Golf House Road?  Better yet, FAX me the blueprint and I can read it myself.

[TEPaul]

"Weren't you going to prove that my graphic in post 501 was incorrect, and weren't you going to use nothing but FACTS and with no speculation whatsoever? 

When is that process going to begin?"


I see no reason to use that "illustrative" aerial in post #501 because noone could possibly be sure that your red line on the western side of the top of the "L" reflects where that line was on the old Johnson Farm property.

But that's no problem because if I had to I could simply take the old Johnson Farm deeds (with metes and bounds on them) and the metes and bounds on Club House Rd (from a Yerkes survey) and just get him to connect them up and this will show the total area between Club House Road and the old Johnson Farm western border on the top of the "L"

[JESII]

Apparently even now and even YOU are ASSUMING that triangle that shows up on the Nov. 15, 1910 HAS TO BE the result of Francis's idea for a land swap or even any SWAP at all!!  WHY in the world are you ASSUMING THAT? Could it be because Moriarty keeps saying it and now you totally believe him and have taken that for some actual FACT??

Nope, it's because Francis said so to the extent that his contribution resulted in the location of the 15th green and 16th tee...which freed up the entire upper 5 holes.

Tom and Mike,

There may well be other facts to come forward, but your stranglehold on the "APPROXIMATE ROAD LOCATION" for width measurement purposes is astounding. I guess there are some inaccuracies of scale on that 11/15/1910 land plan, but the fact that the road drawn clearly says "approximate" should be your clearest clue to not use it to measure the width of that area...You have based your entire argument against the timing of the Francis deal on the width of the "APPROXIMATE ROAD"...how is that possible?

You guys have speculated alot on here about alot of things, so speculate for me why in the world this group of very smart guys would waste 3 acres in a proposed purchase on an area unusable for golf (because it was to narrow)? They wouldn't. theyknew they wanted to put the 15th green and 16th tee up in that corner when they hired the surveyors to draw up the plan for the membership...there is absolutely no other logical sequence of events...