which you may recall was also where we began
still wanting after witnessing many busted tries claims & hopes
to see hard evidence anywhere in the world today
delimiting any break whatsoever
in the vertical continuity of sovereign territory & space
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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@c...>
> 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/