Subject: Re: new njny
Date: May 10, 2003 @ 01:18
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Thanks for the perspective on NY-NJyou are welcome
>mouths of
> As to the "river walk," I think a boat would help us get across
> tributaries; there are many ways to follow the line. It is notimpossible;
> probably not even difficult.me
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@o...]
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 6:56 PM
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new njny
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
> <flynnk@r...> wrote:
> > Simply....
> >
> > The Compact delineates two separate rights... ownership of
> *and*
> > jurisdiction over. They mean two different things, and this to
> impliesand
> > heavily that Ellis, Bedloes and indeed the waters of NY Bay
> the Hudsonline
> > that lie west of the middle -- which the compact says are "in"
> NJ, are
> > nevertheless "ruled" by NY -- as the US has jurisdiction over
> Guantanamo
> > although it is "in" Cuba.
>
> ahh ok very good
> & there is other stuff in the compact that backs you up in this
> such as a provision that ny quarantine law apply all the way to
> the nj shore
> & another that nj fishery law apply on the nj side of the state
> provided there is no obstruction or hindrance to navigationyou
> an interest presumably maintained if not actually ruled by ny
> etc etc
>
> so a very impressive blindfolded sharpshooting exhibition by
> kevinor
>
>
> & what can we conclude
>
> that as the price for a confirmed equidistance state line in 1834
> nj had to yield to ny 2 islands she had never ruled anyway
> but also some of her sovereign rights upon the river actualized
> potentiated by the compact itselfanyway
> yet only those rights which were already exercised by ny
> so it was evidently another small price to pay for such greatgain
> & a payment which by now has probably been fully dischargedare
> while all the formerly intrusive rights & functions of ny into nj
> by now very probably covered by the port of new york authorityinto
> condominium
> so there isnt likely to be any hangover of ny sovereign sprawl
> nj territoryriverbank
> but there evidently or certainly was considerable overreach in
> 1834
> just as you predicted
>
> does that fact diminish the fact of exclavity
>
> was that your question
>
> i dont believe that it does
>
> i think the state lines were still the state lines
> all 3 of them fully actualized since 1834
> despite certain anomalies of transborder sovereign rights
>
> & it is the lines of state that determine clavity
>
> a simple matter of topology i believe
>
> > And am I extremely puzzled that you appear to believe it's not
> possible to
> > walk a riverbank. My my, it seems such an easy thing to do!
>
> you wouldnt be puzzled if you had seen this riverbank
> say around aroktx
>
> we were talking about walking this state line along this
>(btw,
> i would agree it is a very easy thing to imagine
> but it is frankly an impossible thing to do my friend
> even if you could walk across the tributary mouths
>
> so i will gladly spare you the rough & tumble of the experiment
> unless you insist on proving me wrong
> which is your right
> but you will have to put your body where your mouth is now
>
> again
> i am complete
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@o...]
> > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 4:51 PM
> > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new njny
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
> > <flynnk@r...> wrote:
> > > Responding here to your inquiry over in the other thread
> Idone
> > didn't say
> > > I would actually walk OK-TX! I merely meant it could be
> > and in allcites
> > > likelihood, has)
> >
> > hahahahahahhh
> > hahaha
> > in your dreams baby
> > hahahaha
> >
> > & i am still trying to understand the rest of your unclarity here
> > below
> > & will report back if or when i do
> >
> > thanx
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Anyway, I still believe this is unclear. The 1834 compact
> > you postedit
> > > give specific reference to two levels of rights, a hierarchy as
> > seems.the
> > > One is an exclusive right of ownership (statehood, not fee
> > simple), the
> > > other is that of exclusive jurisdiction.
> > >
> > > I would maintain that the writers of the compact would not
> have
> > delineated
> > > these separate terms if they didn't mean separate things in
> the
> > first place.
> > > That's a fundamental principle in legal writing.
> > >
> > > The compact takes pains to prescribe the NJ-NY line as
> > middle of thegive
> > > river and bay, but then gives NY continuing and exclusive
> > jurisdiction over
> > > not only the surface of the river all the way to the NJ
> shoreline,
> > but the
> > > land the water flows over up to the low water level on the NJ
> > bank.
> > >
> > > If "exclusive jurisdiction over" is the same as statehood, as
> you
> > infer,
> > > then there would not have been a delineation of the NJ
> > boundary as the
> > > middle of the Hudson and NY Bay, for that would be an
> > irreconcilable
> > > conflict -- the same piece of land should not lie within two
> > states at once!
> > >
> > > A good analogous example (in practicality although not
> > analogous in legal
> > > instrumentation) is Guantanamo Bay in Cuba (the land
> > adjoining it, which is
> > > a US military base). It is Cuban territory for sure -- in no way
> is
> > it
> > > "part" of the US -- but the US has complete and exclusive
> > jurisdiction over
> > > it. That's what I am trying to figure out for NJ-NY and Ellis
> > Island.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@o...]
> > > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 9:19 AM
> > > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] new njny
> > >
> > >
> > > kevin
> > > much intertwingling again below
> > >
> > > > > Yes, I would like to read them. Can you post them or
> athat
> > > > link? Also, is
> > > > > there any written record of the practices prior to 1834
> > ledto
> > > to
> > > > the
> > > > > Compact having to be written? IIRC, the compact was
> > > > memorialize andof
> > > > > standardize a set of past practices and customs
> regarding
> > > the
> > > > islands in NY
> > > > > Bay.
> > > >
> > > > you are probably right
> > >
> > > indeed you are definitely right
> > >
> > > & i omitted something important
> > >
> > > from the good book p79
> > > as follows
> > > btw please see messages 6 & 7 for the full skinny on
> bus&ss
> > >
> > >
> > > tho the original grant of 1606 from the english sovereign
> > covered
> > > the territory forming the present state of nj
> > > the first grant that directly related to nj was given in 1664 to
> lord
> > > john berkeley & sir george carteret by the duke of york
> > > 2 months before the setting out of his expedition to take
> > > possession of ny
> > >
> > > the following extract from that grant defines the boundaries
> > njother
> > >
> > > all that tract of land adjacent to new england
> > > & lying & being to the westward of long island & manhitas
> > island
> > > & bounded on the east
> > > part by the main sea & part by hudsons river
> > >
> > > & hath upon the west delaware bay or river etc
> > >
> > > more below
> > >
> > > > abstracts from bus&ss 1976 pp76f
> > > >
> > > > njny was plainly stated in the grant by the duke of york to
> > > berkeley
> > > > & carteret in 1664
> > > >
> > > > the geodetic sector from njne to njnypa was run &
> confirmed
> > > > between 1719 & 1773
> > > >
> > > > in 1833 commissioners were appointed by ny & nj for the
> > > > settlement of the territorial limits & jurisdiction of the 2
> states
> > > >
> > > > agreement reached & ratified & confirmed 1834
> > > > provided as follows
> > > >
> > > > article first
> > > > the boundary line between the 2 states of ny & nj
> > > > from a point in the middle of hudson river opposite the
> point
> > on
> > > > the west shore thereof in the 41st degree of north latitude
> > > > as heretofore ascertained & marked
> > > > aka njne
> > > > to the main sea
> > > > shall be the middle
> > > > of the said river
> > > > of the bay of new york
> > > > of the waters between etc etc
> > > > except as hereinafter otherwise particularly mentioned
> > > >
> > > > article second
> > > > the state of ny shall retain its present jurisdiction of & over
> > > > bedloes & ellis islands
> > > > & shall also retain exclusive jurisdiction of & over the
> > > > islands lying in the waters abovementioned & now under&
> the
> > > > jurisdiction of that state
> > > >
> > > > article third
> > > > the state of ny shall have & enjoy exclusive jurisdiction of
> > overof
> > > > all the waters of the bay of new york
> > > > & of & over all the waters of hudson river lying west of
> > > manhattan
> > > > island & south of the mouth of spuyten duyvel
> > > > & of & over the lands covered by the said waters
> > > > to the low water mark on the westerly or nj side thereof
> > > > subject to the following rights of property & of jurisdiction
> > the&
> > > > state of nj
> > > > that is to say
> > > > 1
> > > > the state of nj shall have the exclusive right of property in
> toover
> > > the
> > > > land under the water lying west of the middle of the bay of
> > new
> > > > york
> > > > & west of the middle of that part of the hudson river which
> lies
> > > > between manhattan island & nj
> > > > 2
> > > > the state of nj shall have the exclusive jurisdiction of &
> > therights.
> > > > wharves docks improvements etc etc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > bedloes island & ellis island
> > > > tho on the nj side of the boundary
> > > > are under the jurisdiction of the state of ny
> > > > & are a part of greater new york city
> > > >
> > > > end of extracts
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But the heart of the question remains unanswered:
> > > >
> > > > The compact as cited above declares two separate
> > Thatto
> > > of exclusive
> > > > property and that of exclusive jurisdiction. It does not say
> that
> > > Bedloes
> > > > and Ellis islands are in the state of NY. It merely says NY
> has
> > > exclusive
> > > > jurisdiction over them... and that has been my question,
> > > determinecolonial
> > > > whether Ellis and bedloes can be considered a *part* of
> the
> > > state of NY, or
> > > > merely a part of the state of NJ over which NY from
> > > times bulliedstate
> > > > itself into having jurisdiction.
> > >
> > > well i think
> > > having exclusive property & exclusive jurisdiction rights over
> > any
> > > lands
> > > m e a n s
> > > these lands are in the state that has these rights
> > > & are certainly to be considered parts of it
> > > rather than of any neighboring or surrounding or distant
> > > or of no state at allRiver).
> > >
> > > bullying apart
> > > which is always a political fact
> > > how else could you construe it
> > >
> > > > I note that the compact as cited also gives NY jurisdiction
> > over
> > > the Hudson
> > > > River and lands underneath it all the way to the low water
> > mark
> > > on the NJ
> > > > side of the river from Spuyten Duyvel south (Harlem
> > >left
> > > here you have misconstrued this meaning from article third
> > > above
> > > for it is subject to enumerated restrictions which you have
> > outthe
> > >
> > > that is just the way they constructed the deal
> > >
> > > rather elegantly
> > > as follows
> > >
> > > ny owns it all
> > > except nj owns half
> > > except ny owns these 2 exclaves within nj
> > >
> > > given the new quote i added here at the top
> > > about nj being bounded on the east by hudsons river
> > > per the duke of york in 1664
> > > who had himself just been granted all of hudsons river
> > > including specifically
> > > everything between the connecticut & delaware rivers
> > > by charles ii
> > > earlier in the year 1664
> > > it isnt really surprising that
> > > by the time of the inevitable 1834 compact & clarification
> > > ny managed to keep all the islands
> > > but nj managed to get half of the river
> > >
> > > given the reality of political bullying on top of the
> documentation
> > > this was actually a big win for nj
> > >
> > > > Yet all maps
> > > > show the state boundary line going down the middle of
> > > Hudson west ofof
> > > > Manhattan Island.
> > >
> > > correct
> > >
> > > > So it seems evident though not clear to me that the intent
> > allhttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > this is
> > > > NOT to make Ellis and Bedloes a part of the state of NY,
> but
> > to
> > > memorialize
> > > > and formalize NY's historic dominance over all maritime
> > activity
> > > in the
> > > > waters of NY Bay -- all but the wharves and docks
> extending
> > > from above the
> > > > low water line on the NJ shore.
> > > >
> > > > Agree?
> > >
> > > no
> > > for as i think you may see clearly now
> > > the historic dominance was entirely legal
> > > bullying or no
> > > & i say this as a proud native underdog of nj
> > >
> > > & thanx for the many great questions
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to