Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new njny
Date: May 09, 2003 @ 23:14
Author: Flynn, Kevin ("Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Responding here to your inquiry over in the other thread (btw, Ididn't say
> I would actually walk OK-TX! I merely meant it could be doneand in all
> likelihood, has)hahahahahahhh
>you posted
> Anyway, I still believe this is unclear. The 1834 compact cites
> give specific reference to two levels of rights, a hierarchy as itseems.
> One is an exclusive right of ownership (statehood, not feesimple), the
> other is that of exclusive jurisdiction.delineated
>
> I would maintain that the writers of the compact would not have
> these separate terms if they didn't mean separate things in thefirst place.
> That's a fundamental principle in legal writing.middle of the
>
> The compact takes pains to prescribe the NJ-NY line as the
> river and bay, but then gives NY continuing and exclusivejurisdiction 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 NJbank.
>infer,
> If "exclusive jurisdiction over" is the same as statehood, as you
> then there would not have been a delineation of the NJboundary as the
> middle of the Hudson and NY Bay, for that would be anirreconcilable
> conflict -- the same piece of land should not lie within twostates at once!
>analogous in legal
> A good analogous example (in practicality although not
> instrumentation) is Guantanamo Bay in Cuba (the landadjoining it, which is
> a US military base). It is Cuban territory for sure -- in no way isit
> "part" of the US -- but the US has complete and exclusivejurisdiction over
> it. That's what I am trying to figure out for NJ-NY and EllisIsland.
>led
>
> -----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
> tocovered
> > 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
> the territory forming the present state of njnj
> 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
>island
> all that tract of land adjacent to new england
> & lying & being to the westward of long island & manhitas
> & bounded on the easton
> 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
> > the west shore thereof in the 41st degree of north latitudeover
> > 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 &
> > all the waters of the bay of new yorkthe
> > & 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
> > state of njnew
> > 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
> > yorkthe
> > & 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
> > wharves docks improvements etc etcThat
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> of exclusiveany
> > 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
> landsover
> 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
> the Hudsonmark
> > River and lands underneath it all the way to the low water
> on the NJout
> > 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
>all
> 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
> this isto
> > NOT to make Ellis and Bedloes a part of the state of NY, but
> memorializeactivity
> > and formalize NY's historic dominance over all maritime
> in thehttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > 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