& why only historic

wouldnt actual navigation in the present be given more weight than
historic navigability if a question ever came up

--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
wrote:

> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <
> mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > In POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY (Second Edition) by Norman J. G. Pounds (New York:
> > McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972), which was one of my graduate school textbooks,
> > says on page 88:
> >
> > > It was decided in 1920 that in navigable rivers the
> > > boundary should follow the "principal channel"
> > > (thalweg) and in other cases the median line."
> >
> > Unfortunately, Dr. Pounds does not say by whom it was so decided.
>
> hahahahahah
> hahaha
>
> & i completely understand & agree with & thank you for this & all these
> comments
>
>
> any idea why only civilized
> & why only commerce
>
> how about navigation for noncommericial economic activity
>
> or how about rural or savage trade or service
>
> & what do you suppose is the minimum standard of commercial activity
>
> would a single individual trader or fisherman in a canoe qualify
>
> how about a pleasure cruise
>
> >
> > I can't cite a source, but it is my distinct impression that a stream is
> > officially considered navigable if there is any historic evidence of civilized
> > river-borne commerce upon it. Since the rivers were often the only realistic
> > routes into the interior of Africa, I would expect the vast majority of riverine
> > boundaries there to be considered navigable.
> >
> > Of course, the whole thing is moot if the states agree to a boundary of a
> > particular description in the stream.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA