| 11 |
| "...Mr. Gervais Lombard, a research engineer for the State Engineer's office was instructed to research the descriptions of all sixty-four parishes so that the boundaries of each parish could be shown correctly on the Official Map of Louisiana to be produced in the 1930's. We have found that Mr. Lombard made some assumptions in compiling his parish descriptions that may or may not be correct. Copies of Lombard's research files are on file in the State Land Office. Page 7, State Land Office Report, Lafayette and Vermilion Parish Boundary, Lombard Research |
| The Final Word ? Continued.7 |
|
| Exerpt of Lombard's Abstract describing the boundary from Parcperdue to Indian Bayou "....about midway between Parcperdu Bayou and the village of Parcperdu, as shown on the St. Martinsville quadrangle map; thence northwestwardly along a direct line that, on its way to the woods on Dalby's Coulee in the northeast quarter of Section 52 of T. 11 S., R. 4 S., as shown on the Milton quadrangle map; thence down Dalby's Coulee in a northwesterly direction to its junction with the Vermilion River in Section 50 of T. 11 S., R. 4 E; thence up the Vermilion River followinf the thread of its channel, in a northward direction, to its junction point with Granges Coulee (shown on the Lafayette quadrangle map as being at the eastern end of Section 83 of T. 10 S., R. 4 E.0 thence along said Granger's Coulee to a point in Section 2 of T. 11 S., R. 3 E., shown on the Leroy quadrangle as the point of departure of a stretch of direct line extending to a point on Indian Bayou in the southwest quarter of Section 30 of T. 10 S., R. 3 E. (as shown on the Duson quadrangle map); thence down Indian Bayou, following the sinuosity's of the thread of its channel, in a westwardly direction, to its confluence with Bayou Queue De Tortue in Section 29 of T. 10 S., Range 2 E.....". Copies of the Lombard Abstract can be located in the State Land Office, The Louisiana State Archives |
| Gervais Lombard's abstract and Bernard's Survey results both use the same quadrangle data and both come to the same incorrect conclusion, leaving out Coulee Isle des Cannes altogether in of their respective studies. It causes to question, did Bernard come to his conclusion on his own, or did he rely on the information provided by the Lombard abstract? Netiher engineer references empirical data, and both ignore an important part of the description in the Legislative Act of 1844 by removing Coulee Isle des Cannes from the description. Both Gervais Lombard and Merrill Bernard claim the point of departure to be in Section 2 of Township 11 South, Range 3 East, and both extend the line from Section 2, to an arbitrary point, in Section 30, Township 10 South, Range 4 East. The results from both engineers have compounded the question, but, had each surveyor ascribed to proper forensic research standards in their day, they may have come to the same conclusion as this researcher. We know Lombard was motivated to resolve descriptions for a State Map, hardly a major concern of the day, and Bernard was motivated to provide for his client, a product for which they would gladly pay. These results certainly benefited the Parish of Vermilion over Lafayette. However erroneous these results may be, they may only be resolved by forensic research which relies on information from time periods closest to the Legislative Act. With current knowledge, we cannot assume either man did this, because there exists no evidence of how their conclusions were reached. After researching the GLO Surveys, Surveyor Notes, Police Jury and Conveyance records from both Lafayette and Vermilion parishes, then comparing the findings to the Lafayette/Vermilion boundary as represented in the Confederate Map from the Louisiana State Archives, the 1879 GLO map and the reference maps found in private collections, the National Archives and other sources, this researcher is quite sure the aforementioned tools were not used by either Lombard or Bernard. Is it plausable these tools were not available to each man? The General Land Office was still operating out of Washington D. C. and at least one lawsuit found in Vermilion Parish sites General Land Office correspondence in a case that affected the Vermilion Police Jury, where Police Jury Minutes acknowledge Merrill Bernard being paid by the body to act as an expert witness on behalf of the Vermilion. It is noted that the Vermilion Jury was succesful in it's case. Lafayette Police Jury records to 1823 and Vermilion Parish Police Jury Records to 1885 were available to both Lombard and Bernard as a matter of public record, had either man chosen to research the information. Lombard had access to all the available information the State had in Baton Rouge at the time. No doubt, in his position he was aware of the General Land Office and had GLO maps in the State Office of Public Works. Lombard's work has been challenged before and it is noted in The State Land Office Report on the Boundary of Lafayette and Vermilion Parish, Page 7, his abstract is cited with the following disclaimer; ".....We have found that Mr. Lombard made some assumptions in compiling his parish descriptions that may or may not be correct." So why did the State Land Office, Vermilion and Lafayette rely on the Lombard's abstract at all? Perhaps because if the Lombard abstract is disccounted, then so must Bernard's survey be discounted? What would Lombard and Bernard have found had they studied the Police Jury Records from Lafayette and Vermilion Parishes? From Vermilion they would have found in Volume 1, on page 167, the minutes from the June 14, 1886 meeting, that Vermilion appointed a committee to "retrace and lay off the old public road from Abbeville, to the Parish of Lafayette, ....until it reaches the Coulee Noix, the dividing line of this parish (Vermilion) to the Parish of Lafayette." (Click Here to see exerpts from the 1886 Meeting) Or perhaps they would have come across the Vermilion Parish Police Jury Meeting held on Tuesday, November 13, 1888 where Vermilion authorized payment for one-half the cost of lumber for " a bridge over Coulee des Noix." The other half of course to be paid by the Parish of Lafayette. (Click Here to see exerpts from the 1888 Meeting) Thus proving that Vermilion Parish observed Coulee des Noix as the dividing line between Lafayette and Vermilion Parishes. Had Bernard and Lombard compared the General Land Office Survey of Township 11 South, Range 3 East by John Campbell from 1843, just one year before Legislative Act No. No. 81, they would have found that Coulee des Noix extended into Section 9, Township 11 South Range 3 East, just as is shown on the Confederate Map from the Louisiana State and National Archives. (Click Here to view the 1843 GLO Map with the Confederate Map) More than likely had either Lombard or Bernard studied the Lafayette Parish Police Jury records, he would have found a question existed regarding the line extended from Granger's Coulee to Indian Point, not Indian Bayou in 1854 and was discussed in the meeting held on December 4, 1854. This may have helped resolve the issue of the line which extended to Indian Point on the Township and Range line where Indian Bayou crosses and becomes Indian Point Coulee. (Click Here to view the 1854 Lafayette Parish Police Jury Meeting) Evidence was abailable to the enginners/surveyors from Lafayette Parish, Vermilion Parish and the State Land Office 1999, had they attempted the Forensic Research to resolve the southern boundary. But it is evident they did not. Vermilion, Lafayette and the State did not even use the same standards used in the study of the eastern boundary between Lafayette Parish and St. Martin Parish in their most recent study. Higher standards were employed to resolve the Eastern boundary. |