There are, of course two questions at issue between Delaware and New Jersey.
One is whether Delaware should or should not allow the construction of the pier
extending into its sovereign waters. New Jersey politicians can argue that one
to their heart's content, but it's still Delaware's decision to make. The other
question is whether the boundary should even be where it is. When New Jersey
politicians rant about that, they are in violation of the following 1935 US
Supreme Court injunction:
..the state of New Jersey, its officers, agents, and representatives,
sentatives, its citizens and all other persons are perpetually enjoined from
disputing the sovereignty, jurisdiction, and dominion of the state of Delaware
over the territory adjudged to the state of Delaware by this decree.
Such violation constitutes contempt under 21 USC 401, which the court may punish
"by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion." Yikes, indeed!
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:18 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] delaware fires back
>
> http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2005/02/15delawarefiresba.html
>
> yikes
> the 1934 & 1935 supreme court decisions are under
> review by nj now too
>
> wonder if they will button up when they find the
> mistake was in their favor
> hahaha
>
>
>
> & i also have to wonder
> did these decisions freeze the boundary in 1935
> or is it still subject to wander about with accretions
> to the mean low water line
> as one might otherwise expect
>
> for if you compare the present topos
> especially in the denjpa vicinity
> where the cumulative accretion of the mean low water
> line is most extreme
> as indicated by the dotted tidal flats here
> http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=18&n=4405613&e=464836
> to the pre1934 topos
> for example
> http://historical.maptech.com/getImage.cfm?fname=cstr98sw.jpg&state=PA
> you will see that the tidal flats have moved about
> quite a bit
> & have specifically advanced quite some distance
> toward denjpa from the arc terminus that was set at
> the mean low water mark in 1934 or 1935
> then only 450 feet from marker 1
> as compared to about 4 times that distance here on the
> latest topo
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>