--- 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).
yes
from the looks of this i believe you did follow
but i see i must be more careful to be perfectly clear
especially in such delicate circumstances
in the case just above here
perhaps i should have said
aha
& doesnt this pair of railing markers then establish the turn
points of all 3 of the horizontal boundary lines
& thus of all 3 of the corresponding vertical boundary planes
that interrupt the thalweg boundary line & its vertical plane
to form a simple & vertically continuous territorial proruption
along & between the railings of each of the bridges that have
been so marked
& btw in the case of your railroad bridge
i think there must originally have been a companion marker on
the opposite side of the stone pier
which would thus have completed & still implicitly completes the
demarcation of that particular proruption
more below
> 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!
yes indeed but maybe because the logic too has gone awry
& i too am not sure
but if i have followed you
your line of reasoning begins just below my previous insertion by
assuming a nonstandard regime of vertical differentiation
just for the sake of your ensuing argument
which then apparently proceeds to ignore that such an
assumption necessarily suspends the standard regime of
vertical boundary integration
so whether your direction of travel at that point is down to & into
the ground or up from the ground & into the bridge
& whether thru the stone pier or by any other means or route
the argument would appear to contradict itself
i also dont follow the tapering idea
which may only be incidental anyway
so perhaps no matter
but even allowing for oblique movement i still dont see how the
downward flow to the soil you are expecting would at all
necessarily occur once you have assumed the opposite
but anyway maybe its just that i have missed something
> 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
but i absolutely agree with & salute your conclusion