Ok reading your and Dave's responses, I realize I may
not have been clear.

I completely agree with the fact that the 1925 treaty
changed the Eastern section from the 49th parallel to
great circle arcs. This really can't be reasonably
questioned. But my question is only about the area
West of the Rockies, and whether or not this was great
circle arcs as of 1908 (we are all assuming it was).

In the 1908 treaty, the border is defined as "the line
so laid down" on the charts. It is here where there
is no mention of the word straight. A line doesn't
necessarily have to be straight - look at the language
IBC uses in the quote Dave just brought up:
"...changed from a slightly curved line between
monuments to a series of straight lines." (This talks
of the Eastern section, but my use of the quote is
just to show "line" can mean curved line.)

Also - if the difference is indistinguishable on the
charts of the sections west of the Rockies, then we
would not know if the line was meant to be curved
following the 49th or straight. I mean if you Meant
to draw a line following the curve, it would appear
straight.

Now to me, the biggest piece of evidence that the 1908
west of the Rockies section DID consist of great
circle arcs is that the 1925 treaty changed Only the
eastern section saying that following the curve of the
parallel was impractical. Ok, so obviously we should
then assume that since only the Eastern part was
changed to something better, the Western part must
already have been that same something better,
otherwise it would have changed too. This is a very
reasonable assumption but the way I see it it is only
circumstantial evidence.

And though circumstantial evidence is good, absolute
certainty is always much better.

--- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...> wrote:

> It is the 1925 treaty that specifies "a series of
> right or straight lines
> joining adjacent monuments ... in lieu of the
> definition ... quoted in Article
> VI of the said Treaty of 1908, that in the intervals
> between the monuments the
> line has the curvature of the parallel of 49� north
> latitude."
>
> I don't know what kind of maps they used, but the
> lines were straight on the
> ground, whereas the 49th parallel would sag
> southward between monuments. If the
> maximum sag was 1.8 feet, as the 1925 treaty says,
> then the difference would
> have been indistinguishable on any map showing the
> intervisible monuments.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have
> land in USA that isn't in a
> State?
>
>
> > The "line so laid down" has to do with what is
> marked
> > on the charts and agreed to by the commissioners.
> Ok,
> > borderline nitpicking here but it never says
> "straight
> > lines." (though I don't see why they would draw
> them
> > any other way) And even assuming straight lines,
> if
> > these charts are of Mercator-type, then straight
> lines
> > would follow the curve of the 49th. Don't know
> what
> > the standards of a century ago were in terms of
> what
> > type of map projection the commisioners used, but
> that
> > fact would seem to be vital to the determination
> of
> > the boundary.
> >
> > Article VII
> >
>

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/cus.1908.299.en.html

> >
> > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I have found the 1908 treaty since writing my
> > > message below. It is at
> > >
> >
>

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/cus.1908.299.en.html

> > > .
> > >
> > > All "Canado-american" boundary treaties are
> on-line
> > > at
> > > http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/s_13_en.html
> .
> > > All agreements on "boundary waters" are at
> > > http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/s_6_en.html
> .
> > >
> > > Enjoy!
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 8:46 PM
> > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have
> land
> > > in USA that isn't in a State?
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other
> providers!
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail