I disagree only to the point that you belive treaty writers might use
different terms to mean the same things; my experience is precisely the
opposite. They only use different terms precisely when they intend to denote
different things. The definitions in a statute, document or treaty are sharp
and clear. The exclusive right of jurisdiction by NY over some of the same
physical territory that is clearly also defined as part of the exclusive
right of property on the part of NJ sets up a strange situation that can't
be answered by just saying,"well it's NY" or even "Well, it's NJ." The
surface of the Hudson River, for example, west of the middle line (the
stated state boundary) is subsequently stated as being under NY
jurisdiction. Therefore, they muyst mean different things. Otherwise, your
position is that the surface of the river west of the boundary is both NY
state and NJ state.
> ----------
> From: Arif Samad[SMTP:fHoiberg@...]
> Reply To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 5:55 PM
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] NYNJ - My take
>
> I considered writing this message just to Kevin, but I
> thought members of the group might support or oppose
> my viewpoint to educate me more.
> I totally understand how you think that Ellis Island
> is a NJ area with NY jurisdiction and obviously I
> can't (and I am not) excluding the possibility that it
> is such a case. There is also nothing to exclude the
> possibility that it is a true state line. However
> much you adhere to your reading of the 1834 treaty, it
> does not exclude the second possibility even though it
> might discount it. I haven't found a passage that
> specifically says that the boundary is not a true
> state boundary (I probably haven't looked at it as
> carefully as you, so you might educate me on that).
> What I don't understand is how you harp on the fact
> the similar, but not same, languages used for two
> different items has to mean two different positions.
> Treaty-makers are known for persnicketyness and they
> write way more than they need to and that looks to be
> the case here. I mean, Versailles Treaty could have
> just said that Germany lost and has to give everything
> up, but no, they have to write millions of words.
> The way I look at it, there are too many maps, too
> many magazines and too many sentences in the goverment
> documents to make the possibility of a true state line
> much higher. Even the supreme court uses the word
> sovereignty on the subject of Ellis Island. There are
> many trials where a criminal was convicted with less
> circumstantial evidence. If you ever find a map or
> magazine that supports your position, let me know.
>
> About your comment on magazines, I have read too many
> magazines to know that you are right about questioning
> a magzine. But in the same breath, I can't also
> assume you are right over what looks like a geography
> magazine and many other documents.
> Arif
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>