concerning
> > http://hotwired.lycos.com/netizen/96/53/special4a.html
(My thought when I first read of the anomaly was that the US boundary is
"49th parallel as of 1846" and the Wa boundary is "49th parallel as of
1889". Seems I was almost on the right track.)
bjbutler@... wrote:
> The written description of the boundary does not matter once it is
> marked on the ground and agreed to by both parties. This is a basic
> tenet of boundaryhood,
...not consistently followed where rivers shift gradually.
Say, are there any prominent boundaries that have been kinked by
earthquakes?
> often overlooked by those unfamiliar with such
> issues, as apparently the lawyers and other combatants mentioned in
> the article are. The Canada/Washington boundary is coincident with
> the Canada/US boundary and whether this falls exactly on the 49th
> parallel is irrelevant.
Surely that depends on the wording of the laws/treaties.
If it was known early on (as the article says) that the US/Can boundary
is not accurately 49 degrees, then it's unreasonable to suppose that
when Washington's constitution forty years later said "49 degrees" it
really meant the other line. I'd have expected it to say explicitly
that Washington's line follows the 1846 line, but evidently it does not.
> Besides, 49th parallel according to what
> datum? Surely no one would expect boundaries to change just because
> the world's ellipsoid is refined.
Agreed, though it seems to me there might be some valid exceptions to
that doctrine.
--
Anton Sherwood