LN asked:
> 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?
The minutes dealt with "monumentation" on the rebuilt bridges. In one case, it
was know that the former mounment had been located on the third pier from one
end, so that's where the new one was placed when the bridge was rebuilt on the
same piers. In the other case, there was uncertainty about excactly where the
monument was on the old bridge. The Mexican government came up with a diagram
that had been originally produced by the Americans showing the location of the
monument on the old bridge, so they put the new one in the same location.
He went on to write:
> 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 the old boundary marker is outdated by it's obsolete placement, but is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.
The monument is an official standard IBWC boundary monument. They are required
by the treaty on each bridge on the border. The modern ones are large bronze
plaques attached to the railings instead of obelisks. The railroad bridge in
question was built by the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway (private)
and the Ferrocarriles Nacionales de México (government). The US portion is now
Union Pacific. When the Mexican railways were privatized in the late 1990's,
the federal government retained title to the real property, but sold to the
private bidders the concessions to operate the railways for 50 years, renewable
for another 50. The private concessionaires have exclusive use of the
properties and are responsible for all maintenance and any necessary replacement
during their tenure. This Mexican route is part of Ferrocarril Mexicano, a
private enterprise more commonly known as "Ferromex." It was Ferromex that had
recently painted its part of the steel structure. It's a long bridge with five
steel truss spans (three Mexican and two American). Only one of the stone piers
stands in water, but not the one with the monument. By the way, Union Pacific
owns 26 percent of Ferromex stock.
> 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.
In the absence of explicit treaty provisions to that effect, I don't think so.
Besides, Mexico would never stand for that at those locations where the shoe is
on the other foot.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA