No, your assumption is incorrect. Jurisdiction (in this case of NY over
Ellis and Bedloes/Liberty and the surface of the Hudson even on the NJ side
of the boundary, is *not* what makes something part of the state of NY.
That's what I've been trying to point out... If the islands are indeed a
part of NY state and not merely pockets of NY jurisdiction within NJ
territory then there must be some other instrument or mention of it as a
right of property.
A somewhat analogous situation: The city and county of Denver owns 14,000
+/- acres of land in its Mountain Parks System, all of it well outside the
city borders up in Jefferson County, Douglas County and elsewhere. It has
jurisdiction over this land but it is not part of Denver County.
-----Original Message-----
From: acroorca2002 [mailto:
orc@...]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 11:12 PM
To:
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: NYNJ - My take
bus&ss also indicates that the greater new york charter of 1897
placed ellis island under the jurisdiction of new york city by then
& that the original consolidation of the laws of new york state in
1909 placed ellis island under the jurisdiction of new york state
also
tho in both cases the original law of jurisdiction must have been
pursuant to the 1834 compact & thus may well have been much
earlier than the above earliest known codifications
but anyway granted there was once a wild scramble here
still arent jurisdiction rights rather than property rights what
actually determine which state a piece of territory is in
even if the state lines hadnt been clearly delimited in 1834
nor as clear as they are today
& it seems you are not really questioning the state lines of today
or are you
kevin
for i admit i have lost the boundary reasoning for this thread
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
<flynnk@r...> wrote:
> 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@y...]
> > 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/
> >
> >
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/