hahahahaaaa
what you mean us quimosabe
hahaha
& a river walk
hahaha
this is no river walk
this is a freakin boundary walk
& i never granted you any freakin boat
now you want to go change the deal again
ok be my guest
do it your way
do it any way
but do something already rather than just yak
it is still your point to make
> Thanks for the perspective on NY-NJ
you are welcome
it was fun
it was all fun
>
> As to the "river walk," I think a boat would help us get across
mouths of
> tributaries; there are many ways to follow the line. It is not
impossible;
> probably not even difficult.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@o...]
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 6:56 PM
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new njny
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
> <flynnk@r...> wrote:
> > Simply....
> >
> > The Compact delineates two separate rights... ownership of
> *and*
> > jurisdiction over. They mean two different things, and this to
me
> implies
> > heavily that Ellis, Bedloes and indeed the waters of NY Bay
and
> the Hudson
> > that lie west of the middle -- which the compact says are "in"
> NJ, are
> > nevertheless "ruled" by NY -- as the US has jurisdiction over
> Guantanamo
> > although it is "in" Cuba.
>
> ahh ok very good
> & there is other stuff in the compact that backs you up in this
> such as a provision that ny quarantine law apply all the way to
> the nj shore
> & another that nj fishery law apply on the nj side of the state
line
> provided there is no obstruction or hindrance to navigation
> an interest presumably maintained if not actually ruled by ny
> etc etc
>
> so a very impressive blindfolded sharpshooting exhibition by
you
> kevin
>
>
> & what can we conclude
>
> that as the price for a confirmed equidistance state line in 1834
> nj had to yield to ny 2 islands she had never ruled anyway
> but also some of her sovereign rights upon the river actualized
or
> potentiated by the compact itself
> yet only those rights which were already exercised by ny
anyway
> so it was evidently another small price to pay for such great
gain
> & a payment which by now has probably been fully discharged
> while all the formerly intrusive rights & functions of ny into nj
are
> by now very probably covered by the port of new york authority
> condominium
> so there isnt likely to be any hangover of ny sovereign sprawl
into
> nj territory
> but there evidently or certainly was considerable overreach in
> 1834
> just as you predicted
>
> does that fact diminish the fact of exclavity
>
> was that your question
>
> i dont believe that it does
>
> i think the state lines were still the state lines
> all 3 of them fully actualized since 1834
> despite certain anomalies of transborder sovereign rights
>
> & it is the lines of state that determine clavity
>
> a simple matter of topology i believe
>
> > And am I extremely puzzled that you appear to believe it's not
> possible to
> > walk a riverbank. My my, it seems such an easy thing to do!
>
> you wouldnt be puzzled if you had seen this riverbank
> say around aroktx
>
> we were talking about walking this state line along this
riverbank
>
> i would agree it is a very easy thing to imagine
> but it is frankly an impossible thing to do my friend
> even if you could walk across the tributary mouths
>
> so i will gladly spare you the rough & tumble of the experiment
> unless you insist on proving me wrong
> which is your right
> but you will have to put your body where your mouth is now
>
> again
> i am complete
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > 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,
> 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/