No, you misunderstood: In the Denver example, the city -- not the respective
counties -- has jurisdiction over its parkland which is well outside the
city in at least three other counties, not the other way around. That was
the analogy I was drawing. Denver has police and other governmental powers
outside its boundaries in mountain parks that are located in other counties.
This has been my difficulty with the NY-NJ situation.
The compact and everything derived from it establishes *two* levels of
interest, that of right of property (establishing which land is part of the
respective states -- not actually "ownership" of property) IN ADDITION TO
the right of exclusive jurisdiction, which seems to be something less. What
I am wondering is whether this right of jurisdiction leads one to say that
original Ellis -- while totally governed and maintained and ruled by NY, as
noted, from well established custom and practice even before 1834 -- is
simply a piece of NJ that is ruled by NY. This appears to be the simplest
explanation -- Occam's Razor.
That's because to simply say, no it's actually part of NY, flies in the face
of the other provisions of the compact with regard to property vs.
jurisdiction rights. To say the island is an actual part of NY state and not
just a "colony" outside NY boundaries sets up a contradiction that no one
here has been able to resolve.
To wit: Clearly, the boundary line between the two states is the middle of
the Hudson River and on out through the Bay (right of property). So
everything west of the line is NJ. HOWEVER: it is also stipulated that NY
has exclusive jurisdiction (note: the language in the compact is
jurisdiction, not property) *even west of the middle* -- in NJ -- over the
surface waters and the islands. In other words, when talking about the
surface waters, clearly the compact says NY has jurisdiction over NJ
territory!! This same language is used for the islands as well -- which to
me implies the same thing -- that the compact officially codified NY's
"jurisdiction" over pieces of NJ territory, without actually conveying the
"right of property" that would make the islands truly a part of NY state.
For if this language is taken to mean the islands are a literal (and
littoral in this case -- haha) part of NY state, then why should the same
language be construed as making the surface waters up to the NJ shoreline a
part of NY state too?
You see? If that were true, there would be no boundary line down the middle
of the river -- it's a contradiction.
Note that NJ maintains its jurisdiction over subsurface lands -- the
submerged land that later was filled to become the larger part of Ellis Is.
My point is, both cannot be true if we are to regard Ellis as part of NY
state and not merely a colony of sorts of NY within NJ. How can the boundary
be the middle of the river, yet NY has jurisdiction up to the NJ riverbank?
This makes no sense if, as you would have us, we read the rights of property
and the right of jurisdiction as meaning the same essential thing.
I maintain that they do not mean the same thing; if the writers meant the
same thing by the two terms, they would have used one single term.
So how can the water flowing down the west side of the Hudson be in NJ but
NY has jurisdiction over them, and this is completely understandable, yet
the same language is used regarding the islands in the bay but we hold them
to be part of NY state and not just a colony?
-----Original Message-----
From: acroorca2002 [mailto:
orc@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 2:46 PM
To:
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: NYNJ - My take
kevin i am again staggered by my incomprehension
assuming you are talking to me just below
if i may
then i still dont know what assumption you are talking about
nor do i follow your analogy
even allowing for its admitted somewhativity
the jurisdiction of the land denver owns out of county belongs to
the county in which it lies
as you recognize
the jurisdiction of the land new york has jurisdiction over beyond
the primary njny state line belongs to
new york
of course
& thus is separated from new jersey jurisdiction
obviously
by secondary njny state lines
topologically speaking
there is not 1 but 3 jurisdictional new yorks
just as there are 2 jurisdictional kentuckys
& jurisdictional new jersey has 2 jurisdictional holes in it
occupied by 2 of these jurisdictional new yorks rather than just by
new york property
so this isnt at all like denver
this is rather more like kentucky bend
except here the 2 exclaves are enclaves too
while the kentucky bend exclave isnt enclaved in anything
also
if not precisely these interstate boundaries then what interstate
boundaries were the supremes talking about
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Flynn, Kevin"
<flynnk@r...> wrote:
> 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@o...]
> 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/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/