Did the minutes say "boundary on the rebuilt bridge" or was it written
or to be possibly taken colloquially to be read "boundary MARKER on
the rebuilt bridge" was to be replaced where it was?
This whole thing could be attributed to the accreted river carrying
the border with it and only the state's private property rights over
the bridge remaining as they were. That would explain the Mexicans
painting their half of the bridge to the point where the US (or the
private railway) ownership starts. The pictured train may not really
be crossing the border at that point. The jointly owned pillar with
the old boundary marker is outdated by it's obsolete placement, but is
presumably joint private property of each party. We've assumed thus
far that the marker is federal official. The railways involved aren't
state railways... the bridge itself may be private. The marker could
have been put there "unofficially" by the local jurisdiction or the
railway companies that built the bridge with no obligation implied as
to it's having been precisely placed. It's just less precisely
located now than it was when it was put there, because the river moved.
Perhaps we're only dealing with extraterritoriality here - perhaps the
de facto and de jure situations are that the US has titular
sovereignty and allows Mexico free exercise of it's administrative
functions "as though it were sovereign" (a la Canal Zone) over what
amounts to an easement. The US occasionally "violates" embassy
extraterritoriality here in DC in emergencies asn such, and could be
ready to exercize it's titular rights and pounce on wetbacks under the
bridge at any time. I'll bet that it has and does, too. If this were
the case, it explains the lack of concern on the US side of the
boundary commission.
Regards
LN
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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