Talk:Executive Order 369-A

Information about this edition
Edition:
Source:	From Laws applicable to the United States Department of Agriculture, Revised 1912, Google Books scan, page 210.
Contributor(s):	George Orwell III, Carl Lindberg
Level of progress:	Proofread and corrected
Notes:
Proofreaders:

Date

The source gives the date as October 4, 1904, whereas the EO book listing gives November 11, 1905. This and this also give the same text, and date of October 4, 1904, and would appear to have been printed in early 1905, well before November 11. However, the order does look to be an exact match to the description in the EO book listing. Not sure what to think, but something is odd. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is a symptom of publication -- not authorship itself (the content was penned by the President in question and is correct in other words). I always suspected that putting too much faith into these secondary sources was going present problems, but in the absence of a definitive guide such as the introduction of the Federal Register or some other more recent compilation like the actual CIS index itself, the 1944 listing is the closest to either of those that we have to go by and I think we should try to follow it as much as it makes sense to (with the cavet of conforming any "grey areas" towards mirroring the current FED REG style guide if possible). George Orwell III (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that in late 1905, the Monthly Catalog starts to be useful as a cross-check... the November 1905 section does not mention this order at all. There is a reference to "Breton Island Reservation" much earlier, in January 1905, regarding trespassing, so it would seem as though the reservation existed by then. I think there was a published order in October 1904. It is also possible that the State Department itself made some mistakes, and the 1944 is just repeating them... maybe they had a copy with another date or something, dunno. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It definitely appears as though the 1904 and 1905 orders were separate, but obviously similar. They are both revoked by EO 7983 (archives.gov listing, text). Oddly archives.gov thinks the 1905 is also an unnumbered order, but that isn't correct. This DOI report lists both as forming the boundaries, and this modern FWS document on Breton Island says the refuge was Originally designated by an unnumbered Executive Order on October 4, 1904. Established as the Breton Island Reservation by Executive Order 369-A on November 11, 1905. Established as the Breton Bird Refuge by Executive Order 7983 on October 4, 1938. I just don't know if this is the 1904 order, or the consolidated one. Two sources for the exact 1904 order are here and here; they were printed in early 1905 (thus before 369-A). They are exactly identical to the current text except they say "Township 13 south", whereas this (and later) versions use "Township 18 south". I wonder if that was the reason for this 1905 order. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Good reaearch as always. I think that covers the discrepancy fairly well. If this project ever gets to including un-numbered EOs, I think the "Township" thing will be the reason to create the dated EO. I just hope one of us remembers to point back here. George Orwell III (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Other

There are other problems similar to the Date one above such as EO 379 vs EO 401 and possibly EO 400 vs some other EO of a later date that I haven't been able to include or exclude for sure yet. George Orwell III (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

And yes, the 379 vs 401 is very very odd as well.... 400/401 are particularly suspicious because they have no date apparently; maybe they were separate copies and nobody at the State Department noticed. I may at some point have to find a library with the CIS index to see what it has for these, or maybe the National Archives itself would have some info -- not sure how to see. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and 400 and 489 are almost definitely the same person (Florence Broady). The first one was an undated message to the Public Printer (probably why the Civil Service Commission had no copy and did not print it), which authorized temporary appointment. EO 489, July 30 1906, was for Florence E. Broady's permanent appointment and was a more normal order. The Civil Service report for 489 says that her husband died in the Philippines from cholera; the DVA locator says a Charles Broady was employed in the AGO's office in the Philippines, died on June 5, 1902, and was buried in the Philippines. 379 and 401 are weirder, but maybe that was a similar situation (temporary vs permanent), but less sure. EO 401 was also an undated one, apparently just an endorsement of a statement from the Treasury Department regarding Belden's services. The EO book listing's descriptions for the two look to be about identical, but presumably he could only have been employed in the Treasury Department as a result of the first order, so who knows. But, they apparently both got numbers. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)