Subject: as postulated or qed
Date: Jul 03, 2003 @ 17:28
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Eureka! I think L.N. has found it! Thank you!THE GROUND UNDER
>
> Yes! The old treaty actually codifies that BOTH the bridge AND
> IT (however unclearly defined the latter might be) have theirsovereignty
> permanently nailed down by the monument once establishedover the middle of the
> main channel, no matter where the river may meanderthereafter!
>no hinged
> Yeeee haaaa! There are no vertically differentiated contortions,
> planes, no extensions of sovereignty horizontally through thecage of steel
> trusses, or any other such flights of imagination. Thisboundary is the same
> invisible vertical wall that we have come to expect elsewhere.The
> Texas/Mexican border is part of Earth after all! (Please pardonthe excessive
> jubilation!)shall be built" to
>
> Obviously, I take the phrase "and in the ground on which it
> mean all of the land under the bridge, perhaps even to thepoint of including
> the parcel of land in the ownership of or under easement to thebridge owner (or
> the owner of whichever national segment). I go so far in thelatter
> interpretation because the intent seems to be to prevent lossof the private
> investment in the bridge, and that would include the value ofthe right-of-way
> upon which it is built.We shall
>
> It might be that the 1970 treaty further clarifies this last issue.
> see when it arrives in my mailbox (or whenever someone findsit elsewhere). Mr.
> Rubio of the IBWC e-mailed me yesterday that it was in themail. He certainly
> is efficient (even if he hasn't memorized all of the treatyprovisions).
>Part
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@c...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:44 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: The IBWC speaks!!! - Key Treaty
>either
>
> Article 4 of the US-Mex Treaty of Nov 12, 1884 reads:
>
> "If any international bridge have been or shall be built across
> rivers named [i.e., Rio Grande and Rio Colorado], the point onsuch
> bridge exactly over the middle of the main channel as hereinshall denote
> determined shall be marked by a suitable monument, which
> the dividing line of all purposes of such bridge,notwithstanding any
> change in the channel which may thereafter supervene.Because of the
> frequent changes in the course of the rivers, any right otherthan in
> the bridge itself and in the ground on which it shall be builtshall
> in the event of any subsequent change be determined inaccordance with
> the general provisions of this convention."which
>
> So, what d'yall make a that?
>
> Point of ambiguity number 1: I wonder about "in the ground on
> it shall be built" - does that also include the ground over whichthe
> built bridge hangs, or only the spot or spots of ground wherethe
> structure touches the earth?it written
>
> LN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > LN asked:
> >
> > > Did the minutes say "boundary on the rebuilt bridge" or was
> > > or to be possibly taken colloquially to be read "boundaryMARKER on
> > > the rebuilt bridge" was to be replaced where it was?bridges. In
> >
> > The minutes dealt with "monumentation" on the rebuilt
> one case, itthe third pier
> > was know that the former mounment had been located on
> from onebridge was
> > end, so that's where the new one was placed when the
> rebuilt on theexcactly
> > same piers. In the other case, there was uncertainty about
> where thecame up with
> > monument was on the old bridge. The Mexican government
> a diagramthe
> > that had been originally produced by the Americans showing
> location of thesame
> > monument on the old bridge, so they put the new one in the
> location.carrying
> >
> > He went on to write:
> >
> > > This whole thing could be attributed to the accreted river
> > > the border with it and only the state's private property rightsover
> > > the bridge remaining as they were. That would explain theMexicans
> > > painting their half of the bridge to the point where the US (orthe
> > > private railway) ownership starts. The pictured train maynot really
> > > be crossing the border at that point. The jointly ownedpillar with
> > > the old boundary marker is outdated by it's obsoleteplacement, but is
> > > presumably joint private property of each party. We'veassumed thus
> > > far that the marker is federal official. The railways involvedaren't
> > > state railways... the bridge itself may be private. Themarker could
> > > have been put there "unofficially" by the local jurisdiction orthe
> > > railway companies that built the bridge with no obligationimplied as
> > > to it's having been precisely placed. It's just less preciselyriver
> > > located now than it was when it was put there, because the
> moved.monument. They
> >
> > The monument is an official standard IBWC boundary
> are requiredare
> > by the treaty on each bridge on the border. The modern ones
> large bronzerailroad
> > plaques attached to the railings instead of obelisks. The
> bridge inAntonio
> > question was built by the Galveston, Harrisburg & San
> Railway (private)The US
> > and the Ferrocarriles Nacionales de México (government).
> portion is nowthe
> > Union Pacific. When the Mexican railways were privatized in
> late 1990's,sold
> > the federal government retained title to the real property, but
> to the50
> > private bidders the concessions to operate the railways for
> years, renewableuse of the
> > for another 50. The private concessionaires have exclusive
> > properties and are responsible for all maintenance and anynecessary
> replacementwas
> > during their tenure. This Mexican route is part of Ferrocarril
> Mexicano, a
> > private enterprise more commonly known as "Ferromex." It
> Ferromex that hadone of the
> > recently painted its part of the steel structure. It's a long
> bridge with five
> > steel truss spans (three Mexican and two American). Only
> stone piersway,
> > stands in water, but not the one with the monument. By the
> Union Pacificperhaps the
> > owns 26 percent of Ferromex stock.
> >
> > > Perhaps we're only dealing with extraterritoriality here -
> > > de facto and de jure situations are that the US has titularadministrative
> > > sovereignty and allows Mexico free exercise of it's
> > > functions "as though it were sovereign" (a la Canal Zone)over what
> > > amounts to an easement.where
> >
> > In the absence of explicit treaty provisions to that effect, I don't
> think so.
> > Besides, Mexico would never stand for that at those locations
> the shoe ishttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > on the other foot.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to