Subject: Re: The IBWC speaks!!! - Key Treaty Part
Date: Jul 03, 2003 @ 14:44
Author: L. A. Nadybal ("L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> LN asked:one case, it
>
> > 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
> was know that the former mounment had been located on the third pierfrom one
> end, so that's where the new one was placed when the bridge wasrebuilt on the
> same piers. In the other case, there was uncertainty about excactlywhere the
> monument was on the old bridge. The Mexican government came up witha diagram
> that had been originally produced by the Americans showing thelocation of the
> monument on the old bridge, so they put the new one in the samelocation.
>moved.
> 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 the old boundary marker is outdated by it's obsolete placement, but is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
>are required
> The monument is an official standard IBWC boundary monument. They
> by the treaty on each bridge on the border. The modern ones arelarge bronze
> plaques attached to the railings instead of obelisks. The railroadbridge in
> question was built by the Galveston, Harrisburg & San AntonioRailway (private)
> and the Ferrocarriles Nacionales de México (government). The USportion is now
> Union Pacific. When the Mexican railways were privatized in thelate 1990's,
> the federal government retained title to the real property, but soldto the
> private bidders the concessions to operate the railways for 50years, renewable
> for another 50. The private concessionaires have exclusive use of thereplacement
> properties and are responsible for all maintenance and any necessary
> during their tenure. This Mexican route is part of FerrocarrilMexicano, a
> private enterprise more commonly known as "Ferromex." It wasFerromex that had
> recently painted its part of the steel structure. It's a longbridge with five
> steel truss spans (three Mexican and two American). Only one of thestone piers
> stands in water, but not the one with the monument. By the way,Union Pacific
> owns 26 percent of Ferromex stock.think so.
>
> > 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
> Besides, Mexico would never stand for that at those locations wherethe shoe is
> on the other foot.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA