I witnessed the painting of the Mexican part of the bridge's steel structure
that is right up to the monument. It was done with brushes and buckets by men
that walked across the bridge from Mexico and worked without any safety
harnesses or nets.
Catching illegal immigrants is probably not an issue under the bridge, as the
area is within sight of the US Border Station at the end of one of the two
highway bridges in Eagle Pass/Piedras Negras.
Attached is a September 2000 photo of the railway bridge (before the painting)
taken from Piedras Negras, Coahuila, México. The boundary monument is not
visible, but it is located on the left side of the stone pier closest to the
water on the USA bank of the river. Since this picture, a swath of land under
the bridge on the USA side is kept clear of vegetation all the way to the river.
This clearing is done by Union Pacific Railroad, the owner of the American
segment of the bridge.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@comcast.net>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 11:18 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: MXUS Treaty 1970
> I think I agree - for this case only.
> I think however, the ambiguity in it all leaves the ground under the
> bridge subject to US sovereignty for all purposes other than the
> bridge... capturing wetbacks, for instance. When a purpose has
> something to do with the bridge, then Mexicans have sovereign rights
> to park their construction, inspection, repair or painting trucks
> under it without deference to the US. Would that make a condominium?
>
> Assuming Mexican crews lowered themselves from their half of the
> bridge to a spot on the ground under it, did they ever leave Mexico to
> take advantage of their sovereign right? The border has got to be
> somewhere, and I've yet to figure out where. Could it be in two
> places at once?
>
> LN
>
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>