Acroorca wrote:
> aha
> & doesnt this wording
> whether intended or not
> also establish a boundary point exactly under every such marker
> as long as that marker exists
> regardless of where the rest of international boundary may
> subsequently wander
I agree! Thus, it would be somewhat analogous to a monumented land boundary,
regardless of how poorly surveyed. In my perusal of the really old Minutes
(1920's, etc.), I found examples of the rebuilding of one bridge that had burned
and another that had washed away. In each case, they were rebuilt on the same
[stone?] piers, and in each case the Commission found that the boundary on the
rebuilt bridge should remain in exactly the same spot as on the old, without
regard to any accretions. This would lend credence to the theory that a
monument nails down the boundary to a point under it.
> aha
> i have seen these on bridge railings or edges
> & dont they then mark
> besides the path of the boundary across the bridge
> the paths of its lateral displacements from the living thalweg
> precisely along these railings or edges
I'm not positive that I follow you, but the monument on each railing would have
to be placed directly above the middle of the main channel as it passes at an
angle under the respective edge of the bridge (as it exists at the time of
construction).
Now, furthermore:
I have been thinking about the implications to private property of an accreting
ground boundary under a fixed bridge boundary. It was stated by Mr. Rubio that
the ground boundary accretes with the river, but
that the boundary on [within] the bridge structure above it stays put so as
(among other reasons) not to confuse ownership of the bridge. What, then, of
ownership of the underlying right-of-way? If Texas property law is like that of
Louisiana, accreted riparian land is the property of the riparian owner. If the
vertical differentiation theory were to obtain, then we would have a
still-Mexican-owned bridge above land that had been newly deposited in the
(expanding) USA and would belong to the connecting American railroad! Now, THAT
would create a confused situation! Who would pay the taxes then, and would the
landowner be entitled to be paid rent on his new land? This floppy boundary
can't be! I vote for the one that is nailed down by the monument(s) on the
bridge at all levels and creates a finger of sovereignty wide enough to contain
the pertinent segment of the bridge, even as the river accretes away.
If the theory of different boundaries on the ground and on the bridge structure
were real, then what of a case such as I depict at www.mexlist.com/mxus/ ?
Remember that the stone pier now stands on dry land, perhaps 50 feet from the
"American" bank of the river. If the accreted land under the manifestly Mexican
segment of the bridge were American, then Mexican sovereignty would extend out
horizontally from Mexico proper, caged-in by the freshly painted Mexican steel
truss, but it would taper down (with the truss) to the Mexican half of the stone
pier. (Oddly, the highest thing on the "bridge structure" at the monumented
boundary is the monument!) Now, follow me, here: If Mexican sovereignty were
conducted through the "bridge structure" above American land, the next place
that it would have to flow would be downward through the Mexican half of the
stone pier and deep into the soil of Texas until it reached whatever bedrock
foundation upon which the pier rests. Too bizarre for belief!
No, the only reasonable explanation is that the boundary is at all times
absolutely vertical, and that it deviates from the "living thalweg" to follow
the lateral margins of bridge structures to the point(s) previously fixed by
monuments on those bridges. Thus, the accreted land directly under the Mexican
portion of the bridge would have to be Mexico!
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA