essential find & question
in the absence of any specific language that suspends the
normal regime of vertical continuity in favor of an exceptional
regime of continuity based only on the shape of the bridge
as suggested in my previous message
i think the ground that is meant is all the ground under the bridge
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
<lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> Article 4 of the US-Mex Treaty of Nov 12, 1884 reads:
>
> "If any international bridge have been or shall be built across
either
> rivers named [i.e., Rio Grande and Rio Colorado], the point on
such
> bridge exactly over the middle of the main channel as herein
> determined shall be marked by a suitable monument, which
shall denote
> the dividing line of all purposes of such bridge,
notwithstanding any
> change in the channel which may thereafter supervene.
Because of the
> frequent changes in the course of the rivers, any right other
than in
> the bridge itself and in the ground on which it shall be built
shall
> in the event of any subsequent change be determined in
accordance with
> the general provisions of this convention."
>
> So, what d'yall make a that?
>
> Point of ambiguity number 1: I wonder about "in the ground on
which
> it shall be built" - does that also include the ground over which
the
> built bridge hangs, or only the spot or spots of ground where
the
> structure touches the earth?
>
> LN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > 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