again
in the absence of any wording that clearly establishes a
nonstandard regime by explicitly delineating a vertical
differentiation of some kind
& in view of the reiteration of the defining & standard provision
practically verbatim from 1884 to 1970
namely that
the monument shall denote the boundary or dividing line for all
the purposes of the bridge
it seems to me that nothing of any relevance to your question
has changed at all
moreover
among the purposes of a bridge
are
to rise above the ground it rests on
& to form a passageway across that ground
& even to occupy the ground &or the space above it
in order to maintain the special purposes & nature or treatment
of that ground itself
indeed to carry this line to its logical & necessary conclusion
without the special ground & markers there can be no bridges
& without the bridges & markers
there cant even be any specially treated ground
so it seems to me
both from what is actually said & from what is not
in every regard
the bridge includes or subsumes the land underneath it
&
in relation to our starting proposition
which is that boundaries are vertically continuous
unless otherwise specified
if indeed they are ever otherwise specified
well once again
as i see it
no news is no news
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> I have abstracted the entire 1970 treaty, and it contains some
fairly unorthodox
> provisions! My abstraction is attached in Word format. Yes, I
know, I went
> overboard, but I wanted y'all to appreciate the full thrust of the
treaty
> without my having to transcribe it verbatim.
>
> For those who don't care to read the attached, here is the
Article relative to
> bridges:
>
> "The boundary on international bridges which cross the Rio
Grande or the
> Colorado River shall be shown by an appropriate monument
exactly over the
> international boundary determined by this Treaty at the time of
demarcation.
> When in the judgment of the Commission the variations of the
international
> boundary should warrant that the monument on any bridge
should be relocated, it
> shall so recommend to the two Governments and with their
approval may proceed to
> the reinstallation. This monument shall denote the boundary
for all the
> purposes of such bridge. Any rights other than those relating
to the bridge
> itself shall be determined, in case later changes occur, in
accordance with the
> provisions of this Treaty."
>
> Compare that with the respective language from the
Convention of 1884 [as quoted
> by L.N.], which document is expressly terminated by the 1970
Treaty:
>
> "If any international bridge have been or shall be built across
either rivers
> named, 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."
>
> Note that the 1970 Treaty drops all reference to the ground on
which bridges are
> built.
>
> I think that we sorted out all relevant questions a few days ago
as they would
> have been under the 1884 Convention, but this 1970 Treaty
sends us back to the
> drawing board. I throw it out there you, and I await your
comments.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA