kevin
much intertwingling again below
> > Yes, I would like to read them. Can you post them or give a
> link? Also, is
> > there any written record of the practices prior to 1834 that led
to
> the
> > Compact having to be written? IIRC, the compact was to
> memorialize and
> > 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 of nj
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 other
> 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 & over
> 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 of the
> state of nj
> that is to say
> 1
> the state of nj shall have the exclusive right of property in & to
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 & over the
> 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 rights. That
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, to
determine
> 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 colonial
times bullied
> 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 state
or of no state at all
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 River).
here you have misconstrued this meaning from article third
above
for it is subject to enumerated restrictions which you have left out
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 the
Hudson west of
> Manhattan Island.
correct
> So it seems evident though not clear to me that the intent of all
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