Eureka! I think L.N. has found it! Thank you!
Yes! The old treaty actually codifies that BOTH the bridge AND THE GROUND UNDER
IT (however unclearly defined the latter might be) have their sovereignty
permanently nailed down by the monument once established over the middle of the
main channel, no matter where the river may meander thereafter!
Yeeee haaaa! There are no vertically differentiated contortions, no hinged
planes, no extensions of sovereignty horizontally through the cage of steel
trusses, or any other such flights of imagination. This boundary is the same
invisible vertical wall that we have come to expect elsewhere. The
Texas/Mexican border is part of Earth after all! (Please pardon the excessive
jubilation!)
Obviously, I take the phrase "and in the ground on which it shall be built" to
mean all of the land under the bridge, perhaps even to the point of including
the parcel of land in the ownership of or under easement to the bridge owner (or
the owner of whichever national segment). I go so far in the latter
interpretation because the intent seems to be to prevent loss of the private
investment in the bridge, and that would include the value of the right-of-way
upon which it is built.
It might be that the 1970 treaty further clarifies this last issue. We shall
see when it arrives in my mailbox (or whenever someone finds it elsewhere). Mr.
Rubio of the IBWC e-mailed me yesterday that it was in the mail. He certainly
is efficient (even if he hasn't memorized all of the treaty provisions).
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:44 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: The IBWC speaks!!! - Key Treaty Part
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
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/