For decades, New Hampshire and Maine have fought over ownership of the Portsmouth Shipyard. Now they've had their say in front of the country's highest court. Judith Smelser reports.
SOUND OF MAP DISCUSSION
Outside the Supreme Court, New Hampshire's Assistant Attorney General
Leslie Ludtke pointed to a map and tried to explain once again where she
thinks Maine ends and New Hampshire begins. Her supporters squinted at the
dots and dashes, just as America's highest judges had done not long before.
SOUND UP
The question is whether Portsmouth Shipyard is in New Hampshire or Maine.
New Hampshire has been pouring over historical documents - and last March
the state filed a lawsuit asserting its claim to the island. Now, the
Supreme Court is considering a motion by Maine to dismiss the whole case.
Maine's Deputy Attorney General Paul Stern pleaded his state's case.
PAUL STERN (104)
Based upon what we've seen, all of NH's historical documents lead to dead
ends. And we could, if the court denies our motion, we could have 3 or 4
years of litigation that would end up concluding that all those historical
documents and historical arguments are dead ends. Of course it would end
up costing the taxpayers of the state of NH and the taxpayers of the state
of ME millions of dollars to litigate that. But at the end we'd be back
where we started, with the boundary being in the middle of the river.
That phrase - the middle of the river - was like a mantra in the courtroom.
A 1740 decree by King George the Second placed the boundary in the middle
of the Piscataqua River (HELP WITH PRON!!) - if applied today, that
principle would put Porstmouth Shipyard squarely in Maine's territory. But
New Hampshire says historical evidence places the border along the Maine
shoreline - putting the shipyard in New Hampshire.
The "main" question - no pun intended - is whether the Supreme Court has
already ruled on the boundary issue. Back in 1976, the two states asked
the court to decide the question, and the court signed off on the 'middle
of the river' phrase. But New Hampshire attorney Leslie Ludtke says the
justices were ruling on a different border altogether.
LESLIE LUDTKE
222
It wasn't litigated in 1976. In 1976 the case involved the boundary that
ran between the mouth of Portsmouth Harbour and Gosport Harbor. It didn't
involve the inland water boundary. Period. That's clear.
The current Justices didn't seem convinced, though - they interrupted
Ludtke's arguments numerous times with probing questions.
But that didn't concern New Hampshire Congressman John Sununu - Portsmouth
Shipyard is in his district, and he says the current situation is not fair
to his constitutents who work there.
JOHN SUNUNU
048
They work on a federal facility but they're subject to taxes from the state
of Maine. I think that would frustrate anyone and peo9ple would identify
immediately with the phrase taxation without representation. // There's a
lot of frustration and certainly it means some revenue to the state of
Maine. But I think in the end, fairness and the principle of no taxation
without representation should drive the decision.
Pointing to another case now in the New Hampshire court system, state attorney
Leslie Ludtke agrees that the boundary dispute is about much
more than a line in the water.
LESLIE LUDTKE
242
It affects people very greatly - I mean we have Mr. Goby down in Portsmouth
District court waiting to be tried for boating while intoxicated because he
says he was in Maine and not in NH when he was arrested // it's resource
protction, fishing, hazardous waste, everything that involves a bounjdary.
People like to know where they live, it's important to people.
And a sizeable contingent of Granite Staters came down to
Washington to show just how important it is to them. They won't get a
quick answer though - the Court's not expeceted to decide whether to hear
the case until June.
For NHPR news, this is Judith Smelser at the Supreme Court in Washington.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo