--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> The original documents almost always clarify the
commentaries.
good point
& why consult the bible if you can read god
so can you dish up the 1908 text like that too
> 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 .
or message 7427
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@y...>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >