Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new njny
Date: May 10, 2003 @ 01:18
Author: Flynn, Kevin ("Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Simply....*and*
>
> The Compact delineates two separate rights... ownership of
> jurisdiction over. They mean two different things, and this to meimplies
> heavily that Ellis, Bedloes and indeed the waters of NY Bay andthe Hudson
> that lie west of the middle -- which the compact says are "in"NJ, are
> nevertheless "ruled" by NY -- as the US has jurisdiction overGuantanamo
> although it is "in" Cuba.ahh ok very good
> And am I extremely puzzled that you appear to believe it's notpossible to
> walk a riverbank. My my, it seems such an easy thing to do!you wouldnt be puzzled if you had seen this riverbank
> -----Original Message-----I
> 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 (btw,
> didn't sayhave
> > 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
> delineatedthe
> > these separate terms if they didn't mean separate things in
> first place.shoreline,
> > 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
> but theyou
> > 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
> infer,is
> > 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
> ita
> > "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
> > > link? Also, isregarding
> > > > 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
> > thebus&ss
> > > 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
> >lord
> >
> > 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
> > john berkeley & sir george carteret by the duke of yorkconfirmed
> > 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 &
> > > between 1719 & 1773states
> > >
> > > in 1833 commissioners were appointed by ny & nj for the
> > > settlement of the territorial limits & jurisdiction of the 2
> > >point
> > > 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
> onthe
> > > 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
> > > jurisdiction of that stateto
> > >
> > > 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 &
> > thelies
> > > 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
> > > between manhattan island & njthat
> > > 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
> > Bedloeshas
> > > and Ellis islands are in the state of NY. It merely says NY
> > exclusivethe
> > > jurisdiction over them... and that has been my question, to
> > determine
> > > whether Ellis and bedloes can be considered a *part* of
> > state of NY, ordocumentation
> > > 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
> > this was actually a big win for njbut
> >
> > > 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,
> toextending
> > memorialize
> > > and formalize NY's historic dominance over all maritime
> activity
> > in the
> > > waters of NY Bay -- all but the wharves and docks
> > from above thehttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > 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