--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
<flynnk@r...> wrote:
> Responding here to your inquiry over in the other thread (btw, I
didn't say
> I would actually walk OK-TX! I merely meant it could be done
and in all
> 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 cites
you posted
> give specific reference to two levels of rights, a hierarchy as it
seems.
> 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 the
middle of the
> 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 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
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/