DOCSLIB.ORG

The Sovereignty of Guano Isl~S in the Caribbean

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

- '1,..u. a-\.,~ TM ENT OF ST ATE -~ ,- ~T l,.1E LEGAL ADVISER· /' ( THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GUANO ISL~S . • ·J· ··.(? '~ .. IN THE CARIBBEAN··SEA. .. ,/' ,'~/"·.• . .. ~ . .. >; . •, ·.. -~ ··, . September 30, 1932. Le:ESR:ECD:SS 36{; J-2- DEPARTMENT OF STATE THE LEGAL ADVISER Table of Contents Chapter Introduction .................................. 1 Part I. Islands to which the United states has a claim . 2 V I. Navassa Island 2 a. Geography 2 b. United States Claim under the Guano Act 2 c. Subsequent Acts of Recognition by the United States, Protests of Haiti 8 d. Occupation of Navassa, Attitude of the United States 19 e. Renewed Protests by Haiti 28 II~ Petrel Island (Ba jo Nuevo) . 32 a. Geography . .. 32 b. United States claim under the Guano Act . 32 c. Assignments 3? III. Manito {Monita} Island................. 38 a. Geography . ...................... 38 ~i b. United States claim under the Guano .Act .............................. 39 c. United States claim to Manito as Part of Puerto Rico 43 3fi7 -2- Part II. Islands to which the United states has no claim ...................... 45 ? I. Islands claimed by Venezuela •...• 45 1.--- , 1. Aves {Bird) Island .......... 45 a. Geography 45 b. Claim of Shelton et al. against Venezuela •.•....• 46 c. Claim of the Atlantic and Facific Guano co. against The Netherlands .•.•....... 51 d. Claim of the Aves Guano Co. under the Guano Act ...... 54 e. Arbitration between Venezuela and The Netherlands ....... 56 f. Assignments • • . • • . • . • . • 59 2. Los Monges (The Monks) •••••• 61 a. Geography . • • . • • • • . • • 61 b. Claim of Gowen and Copeland against Venezuela 61 3. Los Roques ..........••••..•..• 65 a. Geography ................ 65 b. United States Claim under the Guano Act . 66 3Gi! -3- II. Islands claimed by the Dominican Republic . 6? 1. Alta Vela (Alto Velo) Island 6? a. Geography . 6? b. Claim of W. T. Kendall under the Guano Act..... 68 c. Claim of Patterson and MC#rguiondo under the Guano ActJand for damages against the Dominican Republic 70 d. Claim of the Alta Vela Guano Company .................. 77 e. Summary of the United States claim under the Guano Act., 79 III. Islands claimed by Great Britain... 81 1. Key Verd (Cayo or Cay Verde) .• 81 a. Geography • . • . • . • . • • • • • 81 b. United States claim under the Guano Act . 81 c. The claim of Great Britain 83 2. Morant Keys . 87 a. Geography .. 87 b. United States claim under the Guano Act .............. 88 36!) -4- c. Basis of the claim of Great Britain ••.••..•.... 95 d. Assignments .. 97 {/ 3. Pedro Keys .. 99 a. Geography . .............. 99 b. The United States claim under the Guano .Act ..... 100 C • The claim of Great Britain 102 d. Assignments . 107 4. Sombrero Island . .. 108 a. Georgraphy . ............ 108 b. The United States claim under the Guano .Act ..... 108 C • The claim of Great Britain 110 IV. Islands claimed by Mexico ....... 117 1. The Triangles (El Triangulos), Alacrans Key (Chica, Perez, Pajaros) and Arenas Key •.•.•. 117 a. The Triangles (El Trian- gulos) . 117 1. Geography 117 2. United States claim under the Guano Act ... 117 370 -5- b. Alacrans Keys (Chica, Perez, Pajaras) • . • . • 119 1. Geography............... 119 2. United States claim under the Guano Act •......••. 120 c. Arenas Key . 121 1. Geography .............. 121 2. United States claim under the Guano Act • . • • . • . 121 d. The claim of Mexico to the Triangles, Alacrans Keys, and Arenas Key ••••.••.•..••.••• 125 e. Assignments •.•.••.••.•..••• 134 1. The Triangles •......... 134 2. Alacrans Keys 135 3. Arenas Key ............. 137 2. Areas Keys ••..•......•.......•• 140 a. Geography ••.......•••...... 140 b. United States claim under the Guano Act .................. 140 c. The claim of Mexico •....•..• 144 d. Assignments ................ 147 3. Great Island .. 152 a. Geography . 152 b. United States claim under the Guano Act .................. 152 37J -6- V. Islands claimed by Honduras and Nie aragua . 154 1. Vivaria (Vivorilla) ••.•..•... 154 a. Geography . 154 b. United States claim under the Guano Act ................ 154 2 • Go rd a Ke y • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • 16 O a. Geography . • . • • • • . • 160 b. United States claim under the Guano Act . .. 160 C • The claim of Honduras ..... 161 VI. Non-Existent Islands . 162 1. Geography of "Booby" and "Woody" Islands . 162 2. "Booby" Island • . • . • 162 a. United States claim under the Guano Act . 162 b. Assignments .............. 164 3. "Woody'' Island ......•.•...... 165 a. United States claim under the Guano Act ............ 165 b. Assignments .............. 166 37~: -7- Page Conclusions ........................... 167 I. Islands to which the United States has a claim . 167 1. Navassa Island . ........... 167 2. Petrel Island 167 3. Moni to Island 168 II. Islands to which the United states has no claim . 169 ' 1. Islands claimed by Venezuela: Aves, The Monks (Los ltonges), Los Roques . .. 169 2. Islands claimed by the Dominican Republic: Alta Vela 169 3. Islands claimed by Great Britain: Key Verd, Morant Keys, Pedro Keys, Sombrero Island .. 169 4. Islands claimed by Mexico: The Triangles, Alacrans (Chica, Perez, Pajaras), Arenas Key, Areas Keys, Great Islands ...•• 170 5. Islands claimed by Honduras and Nicaragua: Vivorilla Keys (Vivario), Gorda Key . 171 6. Non-Existent Islands: Booby, Woody ........................ 171 '7 '! 3 C L -8- Maps .. .. 172 I. Eastern Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico . .. .. 172 II. Western Caribbean Sea............ 173 III. Island of Haiti and Vicinity .... 174 Index of Islands . .. 175 37 .: DEPARTMENT OF STATE THE LEGAL ADVISER INTRODUCTION The islands included in this report, with the exception of The Monks, a.re those in the Caribbean Sea. named by Ameri­ can citizens applying for the recognition of those islands 1 by the United States under the Gua.no Act of August 18, 1856. The Monks were said to contain guano, and were occupied by American citizens, but before the passage of the Guano Act, and no claim was made to them under that Act. However, Judge Moore 11 sts them as guano isla.nds and for that reason Swal' a,-,d. they have been described herein. The~islande1 e4'~Roncador, Qui to Bueno, Serrana, and Serranttlla, which fa.11 within the scope of this report, are not included because their histories have been fully described in Ji sepa.ra te memorandim-. For the same rea.son a discussion of the Guano Act and 1 ts interpreta­ tion has been omitted. It is to be hoped that the information here set forth will enable the United States to determine the islands in the Caribbean Sea over which it now claims or may legally claim, sovereignty, and the ba.ses for such claims. § 5570 - 5578 Rev. Stat; 48 u.s.o.A. § 1411 - 1419. 7 ;.. 3 • • 1 -2- PART sI. ISLANDS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS A CLAIM. I. NAVASSA ISLAND !°i• Geography. Navassa Island, latitude 1so 24' N, longitude 75° 01' W., lies at the southern end of the Windward Passage. It is 36 miles west southwest of Cape Dame Marie, Haiti, and 74 miles east northeast of Morant Point, Jamaica. The Island is about a by 1 miles square, and from 130 to 250 V feet high. It is of volcanic origin, composed largely of limestone, lined with veins of iron pyrites, the crevasses between the rocks being filled up with guano, making the surface nearly level. The summit is covered with stunted palm trees and cactus and is inhabited by igua.nas ( tree lizards) and numerous sea birds. All sides of the Island are steeP-sloping, white cliffs, except for Lulu Bay, at a the southwest side, where small vessels may anchor. b! United states Olaim under the Guano Act. On December 3, 1857, a declaration of the -discovery of guano by Peter Dunca.n on Navassa. I eland was filed in the Department of state. Duncan's deposition, dated October 18, 1857, stated that the discovery was made on July 1, 1857, and that possession was taken September 29. He prayed that his a West Indies Pilot (Washington, 1927) Vol I, H. O. 128, ~---­ pages :§59 - 359. -3- 37fi hie rights under the Guano Act be recognized, and that the Island be considered as appertaining to the United States. An analysis of the guano found on the Island was enclosed, and showed that it consisted of a concentrated phosphatic 3 manure, 70.63 per cent bone phosphate of lime. On April 24, 1858, a "Certificate of Peaceable Possession" was forwarded to the Department. This consisted of the deposition of John L. Lewis, mariner, dated March 15, 1858, stating that Lewis, as Duncan's agent had been in peaceable, uninter- 4 rupted possession of Navassa since September 18, 1857. In December 1857, the Department received a deed of assign­ ment, dated November 18, 1857, from Peter Duncan to Edward O. Cooper of all the former's right, title, and interest in the 5 guano on Navassa Island. In June and July of 1858 one J. H. Whitehurst wrote the Secretary of State that he had discovered guano on Navassa in 1855; that he found the Island in the possession of Haiti; that he entered into negotiations with the Haitian Government 3. John H. Philip, Attorney for Duncan, to Lewis Cass, Secretary of State, December 3, 1857, and enclosures. Sen. Ex Doc. 37, 36 Cong, 1 Sees. page 2. 4. do. to do. April 24, 1858, and enclosure, Ibid page 6. 5. Deed filed in 5 MS Misol. Let. re Guano, Navassa; See R. W. Bliss, Ass. Sec.~ to staples, Cocke, and Hazlegrove, July 27, 1922 (811.0l41/32J. -4- 377 Government in the winter of 1855-56 for a lease, but that this was not completed. He concluded by protesting against the claim of others (not named), and against considering the Island as one which falls within the provisions of the 6 Guano Act. Apparently these protests were ignored, as no reply to them has been found. The United states first recognized and in fact approved Duncan's and Cooper's interest in Navassa Island in 1858.
Recommended publications
  • An Agricultural Law Research Article the Tenancy at Will in Iowa

    An Agricultural Law Research Article the Tenancy at Will in Iowa

    University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture [email protected] | (479) 575-7646 An Agricultural Law Research Article The Tenancy at Will in Iowa Originally published in DRAKE LAW REVIEW 2 DRAKE L. REV. 30 (1952) www.NationalAgLawCenter.org THE TENANCY AT WILL IN IOWA In Iowa a tenancy at will is presumed by statute to arise when a person is in possession of real estate with the assent of the owner. The statute also requires that a thirty-day notice in writing be • given to terminate the tenancy; if the interval between rent pay­ ments is less than thirty days, the notice need not be longer than that intervaLI Most tenancies at will arise either from an informal letting for an indefinite time at an agreed rental or by the tenant's holding­ over after the expiration of a term for years. There are numerous examples in the Iowa reports of hold-over tenants. In an early case a tenant for a term of years held over with the assent of the landlord and continued to pay rent according to the terms of the lease. The common law might have established a tenancy from year to year, but the Iowa statute was held to create a tenancy at will.z Although the landlord is under no obligation to accept the hold-over tenant as a tenant at will,3 if he allows him to remain in "peaceable possession" for thirty days,4 a tenancy at will is probably created, and the statutory notice is thereafter required in order to terminate the tenancy.
  • OGC-98-5 U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution

    OGC-98-5 U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution

    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, Committee on GAO Resources, House of Representatives November 1997 U.S. INSULAR AREAS Application of the U.S. Constitution GAO/OGC-98-5 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Office of the General Counsel B-271897 November 7, 1997 The Honorable Don Young Chairman Committee on Resources House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: More than 4 million U.S. citizens and nationals live in insular areas1 under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Territorial Clause of the Constitution authorizes the Congress to “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property” of the United States.2 Relying on the Territorial Clause, the Congress has enacted legislation making some provisions of the Constitution explicitly applicable in the insular areas. In addition to this congressional action, courts from time to time have ruled on the application of constitutional provisions to one or more of the insular areas. You asked us to update our 1991 report to you on the applicability of provisions of the Constitution to five insular areas: Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (the CNMI), American Samoa, and Guam. You asked specifically about significant judicial and legislative developments concerning the political or tax status of these areas, as well as court decisions since our earlier report involving the applicability of constitutional provisions to these areas. We have included this information in appendix I. 1As we did in our 1991 report on this issue, Applicability of Relevant Provisions of the U.S.
  • Agroforestry: Enhancing Resiliency in U.S

    Agroforestry: Enhancing Resiliency in U.S

    Southeast and Caribbean Sarah Workman, Becky Barlow, and John Fike Sarah Workman is the associate director of the Highlands Biological Station, University of North Carolina; Becky Barlow is an associate professor, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University; John Fike is an associate professor, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Virginia Tech. Description of the Region (fig. A.15). All of these land uses provide significant produc- tivity and income. The Southeast encompasses physiographic Cropland and pastureland occupy significant portions of land provinces, or ecoregions (Wear and Greis 2012), that have area in the Southeastern United States. Forests occupy from 50 unique climate, fire history, and composition of vegetation. to 69 percent of the land within each State in the region From the physiographic province of the Appalachian Mountains Figure A.15. Acres of land­use categories of the 11 Southeastern States. (Map and table prepared by William M. Christie, Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC). Agroforestry: Enhancing Resiliency in U.S. Agricultural Landscapes Under Changing Conditions 189 to the alluvial plains of the Mis sissippi River Basin, within land use outside developed zones is perhaps best viewed in deciduous forests of Kentucky and Tennessee and the Interior terms of the nature of woody plant cover and whether animals Highlands of the Ozarks, to the Piedmont, Flatwoods, and are excluded or allowed access. Both Puerto Rico and the U.S. Coastal Plains, a large portion of the land area is appropriate Virgin Islands are experiencing a trend toward an increase in for implementing several types of agroforestry, integrating woody cover with the loss of agricultural land and pastureland either crops or livestock, or both, with trees and woody (Brandeis and Turner 2013a, 2013b; Brandeis et al.
  • Download Table 93

    Download Table 93

    National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics | NSF 21-329 TABLE 93 Federal obligations for R&D plant, by state or location and selected agency: FY 2019 (Dollars in thousands) State or location Total DHS DOC DOD DOE DOI DOT EPA HHS NASA NSF USDA All locations 4,329,453.9 1,306.0 464,332.3 609,655.9 2,245,499.5 4,646.5 39,261.0 4,695.0 243,000.0 35,925.4 652,140.0 28,992.4 Alabama 125,340.2 0.0 0.0 122,721.8 0.0 0.0 529.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,089.0 0.0 Alaska 6,648.3 0.0 6,287.0 54.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 306.4 0.0 Arizona 12,537.1 0.0 0.0 262.3 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 5,045.7 0.0 6,445.1 775.2 Arkansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 California 676,511.6 0.0 4,062.0 67,315.7 544,473.1 0.0 1,023.7 0.0 0.0 15,377.1 38,278.0 5,982.0 Colorado 365,052.1 0.0 17,195.1 34,880.0 305,460.0 0.0 1,679.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,115.1 1,722.2 Connecticut 1,481.4 1,306.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 175.4 0.0 Delaware 9,559.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9,559.9 0.0 District of Columbia 150,500.7 0.0 0.0 37,780.9 23,000.0 0.0 4,937.4 913.6 0.0 0.0 83,755.3 113.5 Florida 33,775.9 0.0 14,211.0 4,742.5 0.0 0.0 5.0 165.6 0.0 8,026.6 5,254.8 1,370.5 Georgia 6,592.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.3 0.0 0.0 2,681.6 3,798.6 Hawaii 24,289.5 0.0 4,276.0 7,437.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6,478.2 0.0 6,098.2 0.0 Idaho 3,395.0 0.0 0.0 2,590.0 400.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 405.0 0.0 Illinois 471,335.8 0.0 0.0 16,141.5 444,871.6 0.0 104.3 0.0 3,269.5 0.0 6,949.0 0.0 Indiana 8,852.3 0.0 0.0 2,550.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6,302.3 0.0 Iowa 2,081.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,000.0 0.0
  • Reasonable Force. How Far Will the Law Let You Go?

    Reasonable Force. How Far Will the Law Let You Go?

    2015 EDITION 15 INSIDE: Aron Salomon v A Salomon Ltd A Stern Result Reasonable Force? PG 1 PG 3 PG 6 The Disestablishment of the Kiwisaver Cluster A Lesson in Capital Maintenance Doctrine Bomb Litigation Risk PG 2 PG 5 PG 8 Reasonable Force. How far will the law let you go? 1 Waterline Edition 15, 2015 0800 CLOSED Aron Salomon v A Salomon Limited (in liquidation) The case of Salomon and Salomon has been passed down like an heirloom, with Aron Salomon A Salomon Limited each generation of law and commerce students understanding its significance less. It is hard, from this perspective of a century and a quarter, to appreciate Aron's wife, the case’s importance. After all, the daughter, decision was prosaic. A company and four was a separate legal entity from its sons shareholders. This is obvious, isn’t it? Aron Salomon So why was the case so important? The 1856 and 1862 Companies Acts The case needs to be seen in context of the slow emergence of shareholder’s limited liability. The Crown or Parliament restricted who could form a company as we might understand it today. Business was instead done through a complex form of partner- ship called a Deed of Settlement Company. The business was sold for £39,000; £29,000 and he isn’t liable for the losses of Being a partnership, any investor faced the in cash and £10,000 was vendor financed the business prospect of being held personally liable for secured by a floating charge over the busi- the entire losses of the enterprise.
  • ISO Country Codes

    ISO Country Codes

    COUNTRY SHORT NAME DESCRIPTION CODE AD Andorra Principality of Andorra AE United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates AF Afghanistan The Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan AG Antigua and Barbuda Antigua and Barbuda (includes Redonda Island) AI Anguilla Anguilla AL Albania Republic of Albania AM Armenia Republic of Armenia Netherlands Antilles (includes Bonaire, Curacao, AN Netherlands Antilles Saba, St. Eustatius, and Southern St. Martin) AO Angola Republic of Angola (includes Cabinda) AQ Antarctica Territory south of 60 degrees south latitude AR Argentina Argentine Republic America Samoa (principal island Tutuila and AS American Samoa includes Swain's Island) AT Austria Republic of Austria Australia (includes Lord Howe Island, Macquarie Islands, Ashmore Islands and Cartier Island, and Coral Sea Islands are Australian external AU Australia territories) AW Aruba Aruba AX Aland Islands Aland Islands AZ Azerbaijan Republic of Azerbaijan BA Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina BB Barbados Barbados BD Bangladesh People's Republic of Bangladesh BE Belgium Kingdom of Belgium BF Burkina Faso Burkina Faso BG Bulgaria Republic of Bulgaria BH Bahrain Kingdom of Bahrain BI Burundi Republic of Burundi BJ Benin Republic of Benin BL Saint Barthelemy Saint Barthelemy BM Bermuda Bermuda BN Brunei Darussalam Brunei Darussalam BO Bolivia Republic of Bolivia Federative Republic of Brazil (includes Fernando de Noronha Island, Martim Vaz Islands, and BR Brazil Trindade Island) BS Bahamas Commonwealth of the Bahamas BT Bhutan Kingdom of Bhutan
  • Part 8 Forcible Entry and Detainer

    Part 8 Forcible Entry and Detainer

    Utah Code Part 8 Forcible Entry and Detainer 78B-6-801 Definitions. (1) "Commercial tenant" means any tenant who may be a body politic and corporate, partnership, association, or company. (2) "Forcible detainer" means: (a) holding and keeping by force, or by menaces and threats of violence, the possession of any real property, whether acquired peaceably or otherwise; or (b) unlawfully entering real property during the absence of the occupants or at night, and, after demand is made for the surrender of the property, refusing for a period of three days to surrender the property to the former occupant. (3) "Forcible entry" means: (a) entering any real property by: (i) breaking open doors, windows, or other parts of a house; (ii) fraud, intimidation, or stealth; or (iii) any kind of violence or circumstances of terror; or (b) after entering peaceably upon real property, turning out by force, threats, or menacing conduct the party in actual possession. (4) "Occupant of real property" means one who within five days preceding an unlawful entry was in the peaceable and undisturbed possession of the property. (5) "Owner": (a) means the actual owner of the premises; (b) has the same meaning as landlord under common law and the statutes of this state; and (c) includes the owner's designated agent or successor to the estate. (6) (a) "Peaceable possession" means having a legal right to possession. (b) "Peaceable possession" does not include: (i) the occupation of premises by a trespasser; or (ii) continuing to occupy real property after being served with an order of restitution issued by a court of competent jurisdiction .
  • Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?

    Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?

    G THE B IN EN V C R H E S A N 8 8 D 8 B 1 AR SINCE WWW. NYLJ.COM VOLUME 262—NO. 24 FRIDAY, AUGUST 2, 2019 Outside Counsel Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? egal possession” is a term 72 (App. Term 1st Dept. 2010) (a right used by the landlord- to self-help specifically reserved in a tenant bar. We recently commercial lease may be utilized only came upon a settlement where it is effectuated “peaceably”). agreement which required In addition, RPAPL §853 provides: ‘Lthe tenant to deliver “broom-clean By And “If a person is disseized, ejected, or legal possession” to the landlord on Thomas C. Steven put out of real property in a forcible Lambert Shackman or before a date certain. In another or unlawful manner, or, after he has situation, a good guy guaranty lim- law. But either way, it is the physical been put out, is held and kept out by ited liability to obligations which fact, the fact of having or holding the force or by putting him in fear of per- accrue prior to the date the tenant property in one’s power and control, sonal violence or by unlawful means, delivers “legal possession” to the that constitutes possession. he is entitled to recover treble dam- landlord. What exactly is meant by Under New York law a person who ages in an action therefor against the “legal possession?” has been in peaceable possession for wrong-doer.” 30 consecutive days or longer may not In New York City, under §26-521 of Let’s Start With 'Possession' legally be removed by force, even if the NYC Administrative Code, it is a Possession of real property is a mat- that person’s possession was obtained misdemeanor to evict or attempt to ter of physical fact.
  • Guam Demographic Profile Summary File: Technical Documentation U.S

    Guam Demographic Profile Summary File: Technical Documentation U.S

    Guam Demographic Profile Summary File Issued March 2014 2010 Census of Population and Housing DPSFGU/10-3 (RV) Technical Documentation U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU For additional information concerning the files, contact the Customer Liaison and Marketing Services Office, Customer Services Center, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC 20233, or phone 301-763-INFO (4636). For additional information concerning the technical documentation, contact the Administrative and Customer Services Division, Electronic Products Development Branch, U.S. Census Bureau, Wash- ington, DC 20233, or phone 301-763-8004. Guam Demographic Profile Summary File Issued March 2014 2010 Census of Population and Housing DPSFGU/10-3 (RV) Technical Documentation U.S. Department of Commerce Penny Pritzker, Secretary Vacant, Deputy Secretary Economics and Statistics Administration Mark Doms, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs U.S. CENSUS BUREAU John H. Thompson, Director SUGGESTED CITATION 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Guam Demographic Profile Summary File: Technical Documentation U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 (RV). ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION Economics and Statistics Administration Mark Doms, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs U.S. CENSUS BUREAU John H. Thompson, Director Nancy A. Potok, Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer Frank A. Vitrano, Acting Associate Director for Decennial Census Enrique J. Lamas, Associate Director for Demographic Programs William W. Hatcher, Jr., Associate Director for Field Operations CONTENTS CHAPTERS 1. Abstract ............................................... 1-1 2. How to Use This Product ................................... 2-1 3. Subject Locator .......................................... 3-1 4. Summary Level Sequence Chart .............................. 4-1 5. List of Tables (Matrices) .................................... 5-1 6. Data Dictionary .......................................... 6-1 7.
  • Navassa National Wildlife Refuge

    Navassa National Wildlife Refuge

    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Navassa National Wildlife Refuge Photos (top to bottom): Refuge Objectives Navassa National Wildlife Refuge. ■ To preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems and the marine Navassa Lighthouse. environment. Red-footed Booby. ■ To restore and enhance native Endemic Navassa Anole. wildlife and plants. Refuge Facts ■ To provide opportunities for Discovered by Columbus in 1498 scientific research. and then rediscovered in the 1856 Management Tools photo: USFWS photo: Guano Rush. The guano deposits were ■ Wildlife monitoring. worked until the company failed in 1898. Navassa became an increased ■ Scientific research. hazard to shipping with the building of the Panama Canal. Consequently, ■ Coral reef monitoring. the U.S. Coast Guard built a 162 foot ■ Vegetation monitoring. lighthouse in 1917. In December 1999, jurisdiction was transferred to Questions and Answers the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Is the refuge open to public? (Service) to be managed as a National No. The refuge is closed to the public. Wildlife Refuge (NWR) for the Access is extremely hazardous. There purpose of protecting the unique are no beaches on Navassa. The island ecosystem of Navassa Island, the rises abruptly from the sea with cliffs photo: C. Lombard photo: adjacent coral reefs and marine reaching heights of 20 meters or waters. more. ■ Acres: The Island covers 1,344. What type of research has been The refuge includes a 12 nautical conducted at Navassa? mile radius of marine habitat. Since the refuge’s establishment, investigations and inventories have ■ Location: Navassa Island is located been conducted by personnel from 35 miles west of the Tiburon the Service, NOAA, Smithsonian, Peninsula of Haiti.
  • View the Slip Opinion(S)

    View the Slip Opinion(S)

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE VOTIV, INC., a Washington ) No. 78289-4-1 corporation, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) BAY VISTA OWNER LLC, a Delaware ) limited liability company; BAY VISTA ) BUILDING ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit ) association; BAY VISTA BUILDING, a ) Washington nonprofit corporation; BAY ) VISTA RESIDENTIAL TOWER ) ASSOCIATION, a Washington ) corporation, THE CWD GROUP, ) INCORPORATED, a Washington ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION corporation; and TATLEY-GRUND, ) INC., a Washington corporation, ) FILED: September 16, 2019 ) Respondents. ) ) VERELLEN, J. —A commercial landlord must fulfill its contractual duties of repair and maintenance in a reasonable manner. When a landlord fulfills its duties unreasonably and interferes with its tenant's use and enjoyment of its leasehold, then it can be liable for the tort of nuisance. If that unreasonable conduct also substantially deprives the tenant of the peaceable use and enjoyment of its leasehold, the landlord can be liable for breaching the covenant of quiet enjoyment as well. Votiv, Inc.'s, lease does not prevent it from suing landlord Bay Vista No. 78289-4-1/2 Owner LLC (BV0)for nuisance or breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Votiv presented sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on its nuisance and covenant of quiet enjoyment claims against BV0. But Votiv's claim of constructive eviction does not survive summary judgment because Votiv never abandoned its leasehold. Neither party is entitled to contractual attorney fees under the lease because, at this stage of the proceedings, neither is a "successful party," as required in the lease. And no other party can seek fees under the lease because the lease limits fee requests to the landlord and tenant.
  • Adverse Possession--Personal Property--Acquiring Title to Personal Property by Adverse Possession in West Virginia

    Adverse Possession--Personal Property--Acquiring Title to Personal Property by Adverse Possession in West Virginia

    Volume 75 Issue 3 Article 5 April 1972 Adverse Possession--Personal Property--Acquiring Title to Personal Property by Adverse Possession in West Virginia Claude A. Brown West Virginia University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Claude A. Brown, Adverse Possession--Personal Property--Acquiring Title to Personal Property by Adverse Possession in West Virginia, 75 W. Va. L. Rev. (1972). Available at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol75/iss3/5 This Student Note is brought to you for free and open access by the WVU College of Law at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Virginia Law Review by an authorized editor of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Brown: Adverse Possession--Personal Property--Acquiring Title to Persona STUDENT NOTES Adverse Possession - Personal Property - Acquiring Title to Personal Property by Adverse Possession in West Virginia The expression common to children, "finders, keepers; losers, weepers," is often sufficient to resolve a dispute over the ownership of some previously lost item of little value. When, however, the lost item is of substantial value, a question arises that may require claimants to resort to the courts for an answer. Frequently the question of owner- ship of property claimed by two people, one having possession and one asserting better title, can be resolved by looking to the statutes or the common law. This is especially true with real estate since the recording laws and the laws of adverse possession apply.