The original documents almost always clarify the commentaries.

The 1925 treaty details the situation remaining from 1908 in the segment east of
the Rockies, and the corrections being applied. Read Article II of the text at
http://tinyurl.com/5kjhj . It even goes so far as to state that the changing of
the boundary from the curvature of the parallel to straight lines between
established monuments will move the boundary only one-third of a foot between
the average monuments and in no case more than 1.8 feet.

Those interested in enclaves/exclaves will find that Article I of the same
treaty eliminated two enclaves of US waters, completely surrounded by Canadian
waters in the Lake of the Woods!

I have found a court case that tried Dave Patton's original question as to
whether there could be small slivers of US territory along the Canadian boundary
that are beyond the jurisdiction of the several states. In 2002, the Supreme
Court of the State of Washington considered the appeals of two defendants who
were charged with state crimes related to controlled substances and stolen
property after searches by US Customs at the established international boundary,
but north of the 49th parallel as measured with modern precision. Read the
decision at http://tinyurl.com/4dxhe . To summarize: Seven of the eight
justices didn't buy it, and the defendants stayed in the slammer.

Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 3:02 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have land in USA that isn't in a State?

> the bible also says the 1908 gbus treaty
> described caus in 8 sections & provided for the appointment of a
> joint commission to recover or restore previously established
> marks & to place new marks on unmarked sections
> & stated repeatedly for each section that
> the line so defined & laid down shall be taken & deemed to be
> the international boundary
>
> & the bible adds that these commissioners decided that this
> fixed the boundary in a definite position as marked
>
> so i think the 1925 treaty may already have been behind the
> curve in formalizing this fait accompli in any section
> & that someone merely supposed there may have been a loose
> end that may have needed tying down
> causing them to write it up just that way
>
> but it may just be that the 1908 treaty & commission had been so
> preoccupied with tightening up the spacing of the boundary
> markers west of the rockies that the 1925 treatymakers felt it
> necessary to explicitly extend this same level of diligence
> eastward from the rockies too
>
> i dont think there were actually ever 2 different regimes of the sort
> you envision
> or of any other sorts
> separated at the crest of the rockies
> tho this point has always been a critical interface of one sort or
> another since 1818 or earlier
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
> <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > Lowell-
> > Thanks for these quotes. I see what you say about
> > east of the Rockies. But then for the section west of
> > the Rockies: "The line so defined and laid down shall
> > be taken and deemed to be the international boundary."
> > Does this mean the '08 treaty had great circle arcs
> > for boundary segments west of the Rockies (while that
> > east of the rockies was the 49th, apperently even if
> > the markers weren't exacly on the 49th)?
> >
> > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> >
> > > BUS&SS says, of the "Treaty with Great Britain,
> > > 1925":
> > >
> > > "Article II of the treaty made the lines between
> > > monuments established under the
> > > treaty of 1908 on the 49th parallel east of the
> > > Rocky Mountains straight lines,
> > > not following the curve of the parallel. The United
> > > States gained between 30
> > > and 35 acres of land by this change."
> > >
> > > "Straight lines" are, by purest definition, arcs of
> > > the great circle. The idea
> > > here is line-of-sight between intervisible
> > > monuments, and those are indeed great
> > > circle arcs.
> > >
> > > The segment west of the Rocky Mountains had been
> > > furnished with intervisible
> > > monuments for the first time as of 1907, and the
> > > 1908 treaty said "The line so
> > > defined and laid down shall be taken and deemed to
> > > be the international
> > > boundary."
> > >
> > > Another quote from BUS&SS:
> > >
> > > "Boundary monuments along the 49th parallel may vary
> > > in latitude by as much as a
> > > second or more, because many of them were astronomic
> > > stations. It was not
> > > thought practical to move these to the true
> > > parallel, and the boundary is
> > > defined as the line joining successive stations."
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 8:31 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have
> > > land in USA that isn't in a
> > > State?
> > >
> > >
> > > > but is the boundary defined as straight line great
> > > > circle arcs or straight lines on flat maps. great
> > > > circle arcs mean the tripoint would be north of
> > > the
> > > > latitude of the 2 CA-US monuments. (and on a flat
> > > map
> > > > the border should arc up between each CA-US
> > > monument.)
> > > >
> > > > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > I agree that no non-state land was created when
> > > the
> > > > > CAUS boundary was moved from
> > > > > the theoretical 49th parallel to straight line
> > > > > segments between intervisible
> > > > > monuments. If the northern boundary of Idaho,
> > > for
> > > > > instance, had been specified
> > > > > as the parallel, then there might be a problem,
> > > but
> > > > > Idaho's northern boundary
> > > > > was specified upon its 1890 admission to the
> > > Union
> > > > > as "the boundary line between
> > > > > the United States and the British Possessions."
> > > > > Thus, if CAUS moves, so does
> > > > > the state boundary.
> > > > >
> > > > > The same is true along MXUS when the Rio Grande
> > > and
> > > > > the Colorado River accrete
> > > > > and avulse. If the US grows, so do the affected
> > > > > states.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 4:10 PM
> > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have
> > > land
> > > > > in USA that isn't in a State?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > very interesting
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i dont think any stateless land is actually
> > > > > created by it tho
> > > > > >
> > > > > > rather i believe idwa must continue
> > > effectively
> > > > > due north the extra
> > > > > > half inch or so beyond the 1909 terminal
> > > marker
> > > > > vertex
> > > > > > until it reaches the caus sight line at true
> > > > > bcidwa
> > > > > >
> > > > > > this point is reached probably while still on
> > > the
> > > > > marker disk
> > > > > > but just north of its center point
> > > > > > if i understand you correctly
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & if that is right
> > > > > > then you have made & reported here the first
> > > > > monumental class
> > > > > > b visit in history
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which is a curious contradiction in terms
> > > > > > since class b was invented for unmarked points
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but i believe your novel findings have
> > > > > demonstrated that true
> > > > > > bcidwa is indeed an unmarked point upon the
> > > idwa
> > > > > terminal
> > > > > > marker
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & have done so with almost acupunctural
> > > precision
> > > > > to boot
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Dave
> > > Patton
> > > > > [DCP]"
> > > > > > <dpatton@c...> wrote:
> > > > > > > This is a theoretical question, just out of
> > > > > curiosity,
> > > > > > > but may not be hypothetical.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By treaty, the Cananda/USA border along the
> > > 49th
> > > > > parallel
> > > > > > > is defined by straight lines between border
> > > > > monuments.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's my understanding that boundaries
> > > between US
> > > > > states,
> > > > > > > such as between Wahington and Idaho, are
> > > defined
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > the locations of monuments along those
> > > borders.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Apparently, the monument that defines the
> > > > > intersection
> > > > > > > of the Washington/Idaho border with the
> > > > > Canada/USA border
> > > > > > > was incorrectly placed by the USGS in 1909,
> > > > > because they
> > > > > > > placed in on the parallel, which is a line
> > > with
> > > > > a slight
> > > > > > > southward curve, rather than placing it on
> > > the
> > > > > straight
> > > > > > > line between the two adjacent Canada/USA
> > > border
> > > > > > monuments.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The difference is apparently very small -
> > > > > perhaps on the
> > > > > > > order of 1/2 an inch, but, at least
> > > > > theoretically, doesn't
> > > > > > > this create a small piece of land that is
> > > south
> > > > > of the
> > > > > > > Canada/USA border, and therefore is in the
> > > USA,
> > > > > but which
> > > > > > > is located north of both Washinton and
> > > Idaho?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Dave Patton
> > > > > > > Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence
> > > Project
> > > > > > > http://www.confluence.org/
> > > > > > > My website:
> > > http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
> > > >
> > >
> > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>