Talk:Liberty Island

Liberty Island is considered to be in the waters of New Jersey, but New York has control over it.

DigiBullet 20:34, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Tweaks and a new section

I decided that extended details on the territorial relationships between Liberty Island and NY and NJ belongs here (rather than in Statue of Liberty), and that consequently details on the question of whether the island is "in" NJ also belongs here.

I tweaked the opening paragraphs to group facts about the names by which the island is known. In the process, I changed the language

Although the island is usually associated with New York, it is actually closer to the New Jersey side of New York Harbor, separted from the infill of Liberty State Park in Jersey City, by less than one-half mile (1 km), well within the New Jersey side of the border.

to read

Liberty Island is 2000 feet (600 meters) from Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey. By comparison it is 1-5/8 statute miles (2.6 kilometers) from Battery Park in Manhattan. Although it is not a part of New Jersey, it is situated on the New Jersey side of the boundary line between New Jersey and New York.

I wanted an explicit statement that it is "not a part of New Jersey," so that its location relative to the boundary line could not be taken to imply that it is legally part of New Jersey.

I then added a section on "relationship to New York and New Jersey" which contains a hedged, weaselly suggestion that perhaps it is "geographically" part of New Jersey.

I tried to clearly acknowledge the undisputed facts which are important to JerseyDevil, while still making clear that legally the (dry part of) the island is part of New York. Specifically, I say that

Perhaps a case can be made for language to the effect that Liberty Island is "geographically" within New Jersey's borders. But New Jersey has never claimed any legal rights to the dry land of Liberty Island.

The reason why I saw "perhaps" is that, simply, I really have no idea what it means to say that Liberty Island is "geographically" within New Jersey's borders. If the phrase "geographically within" actually has a well-understood meaning, and if someone who isn't a New Jersey booster and understands geography better than I do can says that it's true that Liberty Island is "geographically within" New Jersey, I'd be willing to accept it, but for now I feel happier weaseling. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More on NY/NJ question; charters; legalisms

Thank you for taking my complaints into consideration, but I don't like the word "perhaps". It's a FACT that the Statue of Liberty is in New Jersey's territorial waters. It's also a FACT that NJ prvides the electricity, water, sewage and all the other infastructure to BOTH Ellis Island and Liberty Island. That is why the Statue of Liberty remains lit, even while NY goes black from one of their many blackouts.

You bring up the 1664 charter - but you misread it. It says ALL lands west of manhattan island and Long island are given as part of NJ.

"James Duke of York, doth hereby acknowledge, and thereof doth acquit and discharge the said John Lord Berkley and Sir George Carteret forever by these presents hath granted, bargained, sold, released and confirmed, and by these presents doth grant, bargain, sell, release and confirm unto the said John Lord Berkley and Sir George Carteret, their heirs and assigns for ever, all that tract of land adjacent to New England, and lying and being to the westward of Long Island, and Manhitas Island and bounded on the east part by the main sea, and part by Hudson's river, and hath upon the west Delaware bay or river, and extendeth southward to the main ocean as far as Cape May at the mouth of the Delaware bay; and to the northward as far as the northermost branch of the said bay or river of Delaware, which is forty-one degrees and forty minutes of latitude, and crosseth over thence in a strait line to Hudson's river in forty-one degrees of latitude; which said tract of land is hereafter to be called by the name or names of New Caeserea or New Jersey: and also all rivers, mines, mineralls; woods, fishings, hawking, hunting, and fowling, and all other royalties, profits, commodities, and hereditaments whatever, to the said lands and premises belonging or in any wise appertaining;"

Even in the Supreme Court case of 1996 it declares tha these lands have been in contention between NJ and NY since colonial times. It also states that in the original charter to NJ these lands were given to New Jersey.

"...The States of New Jersey and New York have disputed their sovereign boundary in the vicinity of Ellis Island since colonial times. Their competing claims originally rested on the terms of a land grant from the Duke of York, proprietor of the Colony of New York, to Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, which created the Colony of New Jersey. The grant included lands west of Long Island and Manhattan Island, "bounded on the east part by the main sea, and part by Hudson's River."...'

Now where does the charter say anything about Low Water mark or the islands belonging to NY. The charter however DOES clearly state that the lands west of Manhattan and Long Island are granted to NJ. Both Ellis Island and Liberty Island are west of Manhattan and Long Island. The problem rests in the ambiguity of this text, which was often the case in the old charters. What is meant by west of Manhattan? If the grant was for the low water mark as you contend, then why would they say ALL lands west of Long Island. Going by the grant, Governors Island and Staten Island should also be New Jersey's, because they are BOTH west of Long Island. The grant basically demonstrates that the NJ/NY border should be just west of Manhattan Island and curve east between Governors Island and Long Island and continue south BETWEEN Long Island and Staten Island.

It was NOT in 1664 that NY laid claim to Liberty Island, but almost 200 years later. The problem is that NJ didn't fight it at the time, but just accepted it. And believe me - tourists would much rather have it in NJ than NY since they would only have to pay 6% sales tax (ZERO Percent on clothes) if it was in NJ - instead of the 8.5% sales tax that they currently have to pay.

--JerseyDevil 17:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the charter material was mostly written by User:Decumanus, maybe you should leave a note on his Talk page asking him to join in this discussion.

About that "perhaps." I assume you mean the sentence:

Perhaps a case can be made for language to the effect that Liberty Island is "geographically" within New Jersey's borders. But New Jersey has never claimed any legal rights to the dry land of Liberty Island.

If you want to remove the word "perhaps" so that it reads

A case can be made for language to the effect that Liberty Island is "geographically" within New Jersey's borders. But New Jersey has never claimed any legal rights to the dry land of Liberty Island.

I won't revert, as long as the sentence leaves some room for doubt.

Look. I don't believe there's any real, final, definitive answer to the question, because there's nothing real at issue here. Unless New York and New Jersey decide to take it to court nobody is going to know the answer.

Now, you say "It was NOT in 1664 that NY laid claim to Liberty Island, but almost 200 years later. The problem is that NJ didn't fight it at the time, but just accepted it." Well, if New Jersey "didn't fight it... but just accepted it," well, you know, under all sorts of law after a certain number of decades it would just be New York's under adverse possession or whatever.

I mean, we're getting into science-fiction parallel universe stuff here. If New Jersey had known that the Statue of Liberty would be built there a century later, maybe they would have fought and won. But on the other hand, raising the money for the statue was very difficult and for years it was never clear whether the statue would actually be erected. If the island was accepted as belonging to New Jersey, maybe Joseph Pulitzer would have been less enthusiastic about raising money and would have shrugged and said "Let Jersey City do it." Or perhaps he would have campaigned to put the statue somewhere else.

I personally am not enough of an historian or legal scholar to make sense out of century-old documents. I don't know what your credentials might be. Encyclopedias in general, and Wikipedia in particular, is a _secondary source._ Find some half-decent book that says the interpretation of the charter means thus-and-such, or that discusses these specific territorial details in depth. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

P. S. That sales tax remark is just silly. Yeah, and tourists would like it even better if it were in New Hampshire. What is there to buy on Liberty Island, anyway? I've never thought of it as a shopping mecca, exactly. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

First concerning the "perhaps" - it's not a perhaps issue as to whether Liberty Island is geographically within NJ - it is a fact it is. The border between NY and NJ is EAST of the islands. So both Ellis Island and LIBERTY Island are within NJ.

I am perfectly aware of the history of building the Statue of Liberty - I have been to both Ellis Island and Liberty Island hundreds of times, I was just there in June. Aas regards the comment on whether NY would support the building of the Statue of Liberty is it was in NY or NJ - I would say they would. They wouold still attempt to claim it though. NY raised the money to build Sandy Hook lighthouse in the 1700's. They later tried to claim Sandy Hook as their land - but lost that battle. They also repeatedly promote the Jets and Giants - even though they get nothing from them, they're both NJ teams who play in NJ. The only thing they have is NY on their uniforms.

I like your comment about Wi8kipedia being a secondary source, my argument is that the information is erroneous. But then again - much of the informatiohn concerning NJ is erroneous on Wikipedia (such as the state vegetable being the tomato). I know people who say "well wikipedia says...". The information concerning the charter is INCORRECT and should be removed. Do you deny that the charter says "all that tract of land adjacent to New England, and lying and being to the westward of Long Island, and Manhitas Island"? You say to quote a book that says that all the lands west of Manhattan and Long Island belonged to NJ - what makes a book more reliable than the ORIGINAL charter? Basically what it boils down to is that you don't want to face what the charter says.

Now onto the Sales Tax issue. It was not "just plain silly". YOu're comment about New Hamshire is sil;ly because the statue if no where near New Hamsphire. As for buying things there - maybe you haven't been to the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island - but it might amaze you that BOTH have HUGE souvenir shops - where people pay the 8.5% NY sales tax. So yes - tourists would probably be very happy to have the Statue of Liberty in NJ so they would only [pay 6% and zero percent on clothes.--JerseyDevil 19:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Associated with New York CIty"

I've now added a borderline-off-topic paragraph which tries to account for the feelings of New Jersey residents. In support of my statement that the Statue of Liberty is often associated with New York City, I offer: a photo service's stock photo of "the Statue of Liberty in New York City, New York, USA" [1] and list of the "modern Wonders of the World" [2] includes "The Statue of Liberty in New York City, USA;" such examples could be multiplied.