DECREE
The joint motion for entry of a final decree is granted.
It Is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as Follows:
1. The Report of the Special Master is hereby approved, and the motion for entry of judgment by consent of plaintiff and defendant is granted.
2. This judgment determines the lateral marine boundary line between New Hampshire and Maine from the inner Portsmouth Harbor to the breakwater at the end of the inner Gosport Harbor in the Isles of Shoals.
3. The Order of the King in Council of April 9, 1740, in pertinent part, provided:
“And as to the Northern Boundary between the said Provinces, the Court Resolve and Determine, That the Dividing Line shall pass up thro the Mouth of Piscataqua Harbour and up the Middle of the River into the River of Newichwannock (part of which is now called Salmon Falls) and thro the Middle of the same to the furthest Head thereof and from thence North two Degrees Westerly until One Hundred and Twenty Miles be finished from the Mouth of Piscataqua Harbour aforesaid or until it meets with His Majestys other Governments And That the Dividing Line shall part the Isles of Shoals and run thro the Middle of the Harbour between the Islands to the Sea on the Southerly Side; and that the Southwesterly part of the said Islands shall lye in and be accounted part of the Province of New Hampshire And that the North Easterly part thereof shall lye in, and be accounted part of the Province of the Massachusets Bay and be held and enjoyed by the said Provinces respectively in the same manner as they now do and have heretofore held and enjoyed the same . . .
4. The terms “Middle of the River” and “Middle of the Harbour,” as used in the above-quoted Order, mean the middle of the main channel of navigation of the Piscataqua River and the middle of the main channel of navigation o-f Gosport Harbor.
5. The middle of the main channel of navigation of the Piscataqua River, commencing in the vicinity of Fort Point, New Hampshire, and Fishing Island, Maine, proceeding southward, is as indicated by the range lights located in the vicinity of Pepperrell Cove, Kittery Point, Maine, and it follows the range line as marked on the Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart 211, 8th Edition, Dec. 1, 1973.
6. The main channel of navigation of the Piscataqua River terminates at a point whose position is latitude 43°02/42.5// North and longitude 70°42/06// West. Said point has a computed bearing of 194°44'47.47" true and a computed distance of 1,554.45 metres (1,700 yards) from the Whaleback Lighthouse, No. 19, USCG-158, whose position is latitude 43°03'31.213" North and longitude 70°41/48.515// West (reference National Geodetic Survey).
7. The middle of the main channel of navigation of Gosport Harbor passes through a point indicated by the bottom of the BW “IS” Bell Buoy symbol as shown on Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart 211, 8th Edition, Dec. 1, 1973. The position of this point is latitude 42°58/51.6" North and longitude 70o37'17.5" West as scaled from the above-described chart.
8. The main channel of navigation of Gosport Harbor terminates at a point whose position is latitude 42°58/55" North and longitude 70°37/39.5" West. Said point has a computed bearing of 394°08/52.81" true and a computed distance of 1,674.39 metres (1,831 yards) from the Isles of Shoals Lighthouse, No. 20, USCG-158, whose position is latitude 42o58'01.710" North and longitude 70°37/25.590,/ West (reference National Geodetic Survey).
9. The lateral marine boundary between New Hampshire and Maine connecting the channel termination points described in paragraphs (6) and (8) above has been determined on the basis of the “special circumstances” exception to Article 12 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (15 U. S. Treaties 1608) and of the location of the Isles of Shoals which were divided between the two States in their colonial grants and charters.
10. The lateral marine boundary line between New Hampshire and Maine connecting the channel termination points described above is the arc of a great circle (appears as a straight line on a Mercator projection) whose computed length is 9,257.89 metres (10,124.53 yards).
11. The lateral marine boundary line between New Hampshire and Maine from the Piscataqua River channel termination point proceeds toward Gosport Harbor channel termination point on a computed bearing of 139°20/27.22" true.
12. The lateral marine boundary line between New Hampshire and Maine from the Gosport Harbor channel termination point proceeds toward Piscataqua River channel termination point on a computed bearing of 319°17'25.43" true.
13. All positions in the preceding paragraphs are referred to the North American Datum of 1927.
14. The boundary line delimited hereinabove is depicted by a heavy black line with the words “Maine” and “New Hampshire” above and below that line on the Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart 211, 8th Edition, Dec. 1, 1973, filed with the Motion for Entry of Judgment by Consent.
15. The State of Maine, its officers, agents, representatives and citizens, are perpetually enjoined from disputing the sovereignty, jurisdiction and dominion of New Hampshire over the area adjudged to her by this decree; and the State of New Hampshire, its officers, agents, representatives and citizens, are perpetually enjoined from disputing the sovereignty, jurisdiction and dominion of Maine over the area adjudged to her by this decree.
16. The costs of this action shall be equally divided between the two States, and this case is retained on the docket for further orders, in fulfillment of the provisions of this decree.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.