CLUES TO THE LOST DUTCMAN MINE

[chlsbrns]

Taxes. 1877-1963 and 1972. 22.5 c.f. (75 volumes). Records include an index to tax deeds, 1877-1893; property sold for delinquent taxes, 1896-1900; poll taxes, 1878-1914; delinquent tax lists, 1878; road tax records, 1884-1886; taxes collected, 1886-1888; and special tax lists and taxes collected for District Three, 1887 and 1892. Taxes collected, 1886-1888, show "amount of taxes received." A daybook or journal with day by day lists of names of persons, companies, organizations and amounts of taxes collected from them. Notations, "balance or on account" and poll taxes collected for 1887-1888 are sometimes included. Also includes a record of property sold for delinquent taxes, 1896-1900. The delinquent tax list of 1878 has remarks that range from notes paid to judgments obtained. [At the time, the District Attorney was the delinquent tax collector.]

Collection Located At:
Arizona Cultural Inventory Project

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[roadrunner]

Roadrunner: Where did you get the sum of "$250" which you stated as being the price Waltz needed to pay for his property taxes and further stated that he did not pay this tax? Cordially, Gregory E. Davis

My mistake. His land was valued at $250.
So now he lost his land for $6 or $7 on back taxes.
All the gold he had was not worth that much.
Pretty pore ore if you ask me. I can find that much just in black sands.
Why did he not sell the gold ore that made the matchbox. That was rich enough to pay for his taxes for a few years or more.
Plus, only 1 horse. I know i read his mules where ran off. So he had only 1 horse to carry himself, and his gold.
I dont know, but how much weight can a horse carry in the supes, with a rider and gold.

 

[pippinwhitepaws]

quit posting facts matt..it confuses the issue.

 

[Cubfan64]

Greg or Garry,Do you know the story about why Waltz's land was sold in 1886 for non-payment of taxes and why he was allowed to remain on it? Is it a legitimate story, and if so what are the circumstances behind it?

Bump - Greg, Garry, Joe, anybody.... I know there is some story or reason related to that 1886 non-payment of taxes, but I just can't pinpoint it. Can anyone fill me/us in?Thanks

 

[Garry]

Bump - Greg, Garry, Joe, anybody.... I know there is some story or reason related to that 1886 non-payment of taxes, but I just can't pinpoint it. Can anyone fill me/us in?Thanks

Paul,

I don't believe it is quite that simple. Larry Hannah has done a lot of work on Waltz's Land and it would take a lot of effort to walk through everything.

My question for you would be: Did Waltz have land in 1886 to be sold for non-payment of taxes? He was paying taxes on some personal property but I'm not aware he was paying any taxes on real estate in 1886.

Take a look at the agreement between Waltz and Andrew Starr in 1878 and it appears to me that Waltz had relinquished any claim to the 160 acres in 1878.

There is obviously lots more to the research and Larry can probably straighten us all out but he may still be trying to tie up some loose ends.

Anyway go to the Maricopa Recorder's site and look up Book 3, Page 322 and let us know how you interpret the agreement.

Maybe we can proceed from there?

Garry

 

[Cubfan64]

Paul,

I don't believe it is quite that simple. Larry Hannah has done a lot of work on Waltz's Land and it would take a lot of effort to walk through everything.

My question for you would be: Did Waltz have land in 1886 to be sold for non-payment of taxes? He was paying taxes on some personal property but I'm not aware he was paying any taxes on real estate in 1886.

Take a look at the agreement between Waltz and Andrew Starr in 1878 and it appears to me that Waltz had relinquished any claim to the 160 acres in 1878.

There is obviously lots more to the research and Larry can probably straighten us all out but he may still be trying to tie up some loose ends.

Anyway go to the Maricopa Recorder's site and look up Book 3, Page 322 and let us know how you interpret the agreement.

Maybe we can proceed from there?

Garry

Will do - it may be that's what I recall prior discussions being about, that at that time Waltz was not responsible for paying taxes on that 160 acres, that it was Andrew Starrar's responsibility.

I'll look at it tonight and see how I interpret it and get back on here. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction as it's not really something I'm very familiar with.

 

[Cubfan64]

Will do - it may be that's what I recall prior discussions being about, that at that time Waltz was not responsible for paying taxes on that 160 acres, that it was Andrew Starrar's responsibility.

I'll look at it tonight and see how I interpret it and get back on here. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction as it's not really something I'm very familiar with.

Okay, my eyes are sufficiently bleeding after reading the Maricopa Recorder Book of Deeds #3, bottom of page 322 through top of page 324. Between trying to read/interpret the script handwriting which at times isn't easy, combined with "legaleeze" party of the 1st part... party of the 2nd part, etc... it certainly does appear to me that Jacob Waltz turned over just about everything he owned (including his property) to Andrew Starar on August 8, 1878.

I would like to sit down and try to transcribe the entire document in order to fully be able to read it without squinting, but probably won't get to that until after Christmas. If someone has a transcribed copy handy already and would like to post it, that would be greatly appreciated!!

If indeed that's the case that Waltz was no longer responsible for paying taxes on his land, it appears that Andrew Starar was responsible for NOT paying the taxes in 1886 and causing the land to be sold. Why Jacob Waltz was allowed to remain living there I'm not sure about, but he definitely shouldn't have been accountable for paying the taxes.

Thanks for pointing me there Garry - as I said, his property and all those facts are just something I've never put much time into.

 

[Garry]

Paul,

I certainly can sympathize with your difficulties in working with the deed record.

As I said previously it’s not a simple black and white story and I can get in over my head in a hurry. Larry may be gritting his teeth already. “But”

I assume this discussion was triggered by the SMJ article that was posted by “Goldmine”.

We see the following entry in regard to the Waltz and Andrew Starrar agreement: August 8, 1878. Book 3 pages 222, 223, and 224 of the Maricopa County Recorders Book of Deeds, records Jacob Waltz and his neighbor, Andrew Starrar as entering into an agreement whereby Andrew Starrar promises to take care of Waltz and see to his needs should Waltz become incapacitated and unable to care for himself. In return, should the time ever come, Waltz promises to relinquish to Starrar, all of his worldly possessions plus the sum of $50.

It appears to me that the author is suggesting that the agreement only goes into effect should the time ever come that Waltz became incapacitated. Did you find the word incapacitated anywhere in the deed record or something similar to support this angle? We can wait until you transcribe the document.

BTW it sounds like the author also has Waltz paying Andrew Starrar $50. Is that the way you interpret the document?

Paul, you wrote: If indeed that's the case that Waltz was no longer responsible for paying taxes on his land, it appears that Andrew Starar was responsible for NOT paying the taxes in 1886 and causing the land to be sold.

I want to make a couple of points that are taken from my understanding on the history of the Waltz land. I didn’t dig out the sources and I’m shooting from the hip but we are probably getting ahead of ourselves when we say that Andrew Starrar was responsible for the taxes on the land in 1886. I believe Andrew died in 1883 or 1884 and we now introduce his brother Jacob Starrar into the story.

Also it is my understanding that the land was not disposed of by the Starrars as a single 160 acre parcel. I believe the land was sold off piecemeal over a number of years.

A great supplement to the Starrar/Waltz agreement is the Magdeberg Will. I think someone mentioned Jabob’s horses that appear in the agreement. Waltz appears to have only had these animals in passing and they were part of the estate of Magdeberg which was passed on to Andrew Starrar by Waltz. It also talks about Magdeberg’s barley crop which also became Starrar's property.

Another entry in the SMJ article may also be misleading some people. The author wrote: May 1878. Jacob Waltz is recorded in the 1878 Maricopa County Tax Rolls as having personal property valued at $250 property described as 160 acres of land. Waltz is recorded as making a payment of $7.12

There is a difference in tax on personal property (a horse) and tax on real estate (plot of land). I don’t remember having seen the document that is being referred to but it makes no sense to me that the personal property of Waltz is described as 160 acres of land.

Maybe someone can post an image of the actual document since it seems to be the seed for much of the preceding discussion.

Enough already,

Garry

 

[Cubfan64]

Paul,

I certainly can sympathize with your difficulties in working with the deed record.

As I said previously it’s not a simple black and white story and I can get in over my head in a hurry. Larry may be gritting his teeth already. “But”

I assume this discussion was triggered by the SMJ article that was posted by “Goldmine”.

We see the following entry in regard to the Waltz and Andrew Starrar agreement: August 8, 1878. Book 3 pages 222, 223, and 224 of the Maricopa County Recorders Book of Deeds, records Jacob Waltz and his neighbor, Andrew Starrar as entering into an agreement whereby Andrew Starrar promises to take care of Waltz and see to his needs should Waltz become incapacitated and unable to care for himself. In return, should the time ever come, Waltz promises to relinquish to Starrar, all of his worldly possessions plus the sum of $50.

It appears to me that the author is suggesting that the agreement only goes into effect should the time ever come that Waltz became incapacitated. Did you find the word incapacitated anywhere in the deed record or something similar to support this angle? We can wait until you transcribe the document.

BTW it sounds like the author also has Waltz paying Andrew Starrar $50. Is that the way you interpret the document?

Paul, you wrote: If indeed that's the case that Waltz was no longer responsible for paying taxes on his land, it appears that Andrew Starar was responsible for NOT paying the taxes in 1886 and causing the land to be sold.

I want to make a couple of points that are taken from my understanding on the history of the Waltz land. I didn’t dig out the sources and I’m shooting from the hip but we are probably getting ahead of ourselves when we say that Andrew Starrar was responsible for the taxes on the land in 1886. I believe Andrew died in 1883 or 1884 and we now introduce his brother Jacob Starrar into the story.

Also it is my understanding that the land was not disposed of by the Starrars as a single 160 acre parcel. I believe the land was sold off piecemeal over a number of years.

A great supplement to the Starrar/Waltz agreement is the Magdeberg Will. I think someone mentioned Jabob’s horses that appear in the agreement. Waltz appears to have only had these animals in passing and they were part of the estate of Magdeberg which was passed on to Andrew Starrar by Waltz. It also talks about Magdeberg’s barley crop which also became Starrar's property.

Another entry in the SMJ article may also be misleading some people. The author wrote: May 1878. Jacob Waltz is recorded in the 1878 Maricopa County Tax Rolls as having personal property valued at $250 property described as 160 acres of land. Waltz is recorded as making a payment of $7.12

There is a difference in tax on personal property (a horse) and tax on real estate (plot of land). I don’t remember having seen the document that is being referred to but it makes no sense to me that the personal property of Waltz is described as 160 acres of land.

Maybe someone can post an image of the actual document since it seems to be the seed for much of the preceding discussion.

Enough already,

Garry

Whew, if you think you're in over your head, imagine how I feel as this really isn't something I've paid any attention to other than just in passing. When it comes to deed records and stuff, I tend to get overwhelmed pretty quickly, sometimes just in the lingo and legal wording.

I believe I'll stop making "assumptions" such as the one that Andrew Starar was responsible for the 1886 tax when it appears he may have been dead :P.

You're right that there's A LOT to just this little story that we're talking about now - just goes to show that reading a document alone and calling it "fact" isn't enough in many cases. One has to dig into it and pull all the threads out to really unravel the whole story.

I realize this may not be something most "dutchhunters" are interested in, but if enough people would like, I can start a separate thread something along the lines of "Unraveling the Jacob Waltz agreement with Andrew Starar" and we can keep it all in one place. I'll go by the number of "likes" I get to this post - if there are more than 3 or 4, I'll start a thread - if not, I'll probably just let this one die a natural death .

 

[chlsbrns]

Anyway go to the Maricopa Recorder's site and look up Book 3, Page 322 and let us know how you interpret the agreement.

Maricopa Recorder Book of Deeds #3, bottom of page 322 through top of page 324.

it certainly does appear to me that Jacob Waltz turned over just about everything he owned (including his property) to Andrew Starar on August 8, 1878.

August 8, 1878. Book 3 pages 222, 223, and 224

Start page = 222 or 322?

Did the records state that Waltz was a publisher?

The agreement would not take effect until after Waltz was incapacitated. He wasn't incapacitated until 1891 (years after the aleged tax sale) and then allegedly Thomas took care of him.

Starrar never lived up to the agreement. The property was already owned by someone other than Waltz when Waltz became incapacitated. That would mean that Starrar (Isn't in the directory) never owned the property & was never responsible for taxes.

If the agreement was with one of the Starrar brothers and that brother died the agreement would not pass to the surviving brother.

Waltz was the one responsible for taxes but must not have sold enough or made enough money from selling books to pay his taxes.

 

[Cubfan64]

Start page = 222 or 322?

Did the records state that Waltz was a publisher?

The agreement would not take effect until after Waltz was incapacitated. He wasn't incapacitated until 1891 (years after the aleged tax sale) and then allegedly Thomas took care of him.

Starrar never lived up to the agreement. The property was already owned by someone other than Waltz when Waltz became incapacitated. That would mean that Starrar (Isn't in the directory) never owned the property & was never responsible for taxes.

If the agreement was with one of the Starrar brothers and that brother died the agreement would not pass to the surviving brother.

Waltz was the one responsible for taxes but must not have sold enough or made enough money from selling books to pay his taxes.

I state that it was pages 322-324 and Garry also stated that it started with page 322. If you had read the posts correctly you would have noticed that the "pages 222, 223 and 224" quote was something that came out of a journal article and was clearly incorrect. As I try to always do, I put the source information in my post allowing you the opportunity to go to the Maricopa Recorder website anytime you like and look up the document and actually read what it says.

On the other hand, you're also perfectly welcome to not read it, not provide sources for your claims and draw whatever wild conclusions you like. I can certainly see how it's much more entertaining than digging through dusty old documents .

 

[chlsbrns]

Gezzz I only asked for a page number as I was going to look it up. I decided to not look it up as the terms of the agreement were not reached so the whole issue is pointless.

Did you find any mining claims? I did! Witnessed by Waltz. A quartz ledge of gold but the claim was not Waltz's claim Waltz just witnessed it.

Waltz couldn't possibly have gotten his gold at that claim as it would make Waltz a thief to have gotten his gold there.

 

[Garry]

I state that it was pages 322-324 and Garry also stated that it started with page 322. If you had read the posts correctly you would have noticed that the "pages 222, 223 and 224" quote was something that came out of a journal article and was clearly incorrect. As I try to always do, I put the source information in my post allowing you the opportunity to go to the Maricopa Recorder website anytime you like and look up the document and actually read what it says.

On the other hand, you're also perfectly welcome to not read it, not provide sources for your claims and draw whatever wild conclusions you like. I can certainly see how it's much more entertaining than digging through dusty old documents .

Paul,

I obviouly entered the wrong page number. Thanks for the sanity check. I apologize if anyone tried the incorrect reference.

I know the repository web site (Maricopa County Recorder) has been posted many time over the years, but I will go ahead and post the menu again to access the document.

Maricopa County Recorder Elections Department

Select the proper time period and enter the Recording number as Book No 3 and Page 322 and follow the directions. You should be able to access the actual document.

Garry

 

[Cubfan64]

Gezzz I only asked for a page number as I was going to look it up. I decided to not look it up as the terms of the agreement were not reached so the whole issue is pointless.

It's already been posted several times now that the original document is located at the Maricopa County Recorder site online, book 3, pages 322-324. Eventually I'll find time to transcribe it, so I'll post both the original and transcribed copies when I get that done if you want to wait until then.

I don't have the slightest idea how you could know what the terms of the agreement are without actually reading it, but if that makes it pointless to you, so be it.

Did you find any mining claims? I did! Witnessed by Waltz. A quartz ledge of gold but the claim was not Waltz's claim Waltz just witnessed it.

No, the only mining claims I've seen are the same ones we've always known about in the Prescott Area. If you're talking about him witnessing the transfer of Andrew Starar's mining claim in Pinal County to his brother Jacob on May 28, 1883 yes I know about that.

The other links you posted such as the Open Library link with the "clue" to read the law related documents I haven't done. I went to the link and found that the vast majority of them are not online. The few that I looked at refer to legal terminology and definitions for how to file mining claims, etc... Haven't finished looking through them, but not really a priority as I figured if there was something there, as a fellow researcher interested in unraveling the threads of history, you would have pointed to a specific document, book, page, etc...

Waltz couldn't possibly have gotten his gold at that claim as it would make Waltz a thief to have gotten his gold there

Waltz could have gotten his gold from anywhere. He could have stolen it, killed for it, purchased it, dug it, inherited it, etc... We'll likely never know - all any of us have are theories. That's what I've been trying to tell you all along.

 

[Springfield]

... Waltz could have gotten his gold from anywhere. He could have stolen it, killed for it, purchased it, dug it, inherited it, etc... We'll likely never know - all any of us have are theories. That's what I've been trying to tell you all along.

Apparently the recent direction of this thread - straining at minutia - is an attempt to establish that Waltz may have been indigent, or nearly so, the latter part of his life. That may or may not be so. As 393stroker recently observed, "Maybe he didn't want anybody to know that he had any money, he was trying to keep a low profile."

If Waltz did indeed possess gold, Cubbie accurately pointed out that it could have come from anywhere. However, starting with a blank sheet of paper, I would try to establish whether any credible witnesses saw and commented on Waltz's gold before the time of his demise. Who saw it, and when? What was its description? Was it common knowledge in Phoenix? I realize that it is alleged Waltz gave Julia Thomas gold, but I'm not sure how credible this account is.

 

[Cubfan64]

Those are good comments Springfield, and since your post is far more on topic to the original thread than all the Waltz/Starar documentation is, I'm going to go ahead and start a new thread. Folks can then visit whichever thread they find interesting and the discussions can branch off into the two different areas.

I know that Oroblanco has posted stories in the past about accounts of folks in Tucson, Florence, etc... who claimed to have seen Waltz purchasing things with gold.

I've never really delved into any of the pioneer diaries or stories, so hopefully Oro can provide some more information on those.

 

[Somero]

Moved this quote here to keep the other thread on track

waltz couldn't have been in his home when the flood hit if there was even a flood. No gold to be retrieved after the flood, ect.

There is more to be found in the docs but you guys will have to do your own due diligence!

Some due diligence The Flood Control District of Maricopa County - History of Maricopa County Flooding

 

[markmar]

Merry Christmas to all .

 

[roadrunner]

Merry Christmas to all .

Have a great holiday season. And thanks. New profile pic I assume?

 

[393stroker]

The Bible on the Lost Dutchman Gold Mine and Jacob Waltz: A Pioneer History ... - Helen Corbin - Google Books I like the German clues