| 43
Virginia with the exception of one, namely, the fishery
rights of each State in the waters which were, according
to the award, their common boundary.88 The oyster
industry, more than any other was the particular fishery
which led to a dispute and open conflict, followed by a
decision of our highest judicial tribunal.
Virginia passed laws for the preservation and protec-
tion of the oyster interests as early as the beginning of
the nineteenth century. In i8ig all former acts were re-
duced to one, which provided for the preservation of oys-
ters within the commonwealth-49 In 1832 an act was
passed for the protection of the oysters in Accomack
and Northampton Counties.°° An act in 1864 for-
bade all persons other than actual residents and
inhabitants of Virginia to take oysters in the waters of
Accomack County, except in those parts known to be
common to Virginia and other states. The act
of 1852 prohibited citizens of Virginia from taking
oysters with dredges in Tangier and Pocomoke Sounds,
in the County of Accomack. In 1867 an act gave to Vir-
ginians the exclusive privilege of planting oysters in the
rivers of the state, or in the Pocomoke or Potomac.
On September 27, i87o, James Browne, the Virginia
Oyster Inspector of the Third District, seized ten Mary-
land vessels for the violation of the oyster laws. These
boats according to Browne's statement were found oyster-
itig in the Tangier Sound south of the divisional line
established by Messrs Davidson and Lovett in 1868.
Some correspondence followed between Governors
Bowie of Maryland and Walker of Virginia. Mary-
land's executive asked that the vessels be released and
The question of fishery rights might seem to be a distinct sub-
ject and not a part of the boundary controversy, but the act of the
Virginia Assembly in 1882 shows that indefiniteness in the boundary
award brought about a continuation of the old controversy in a new
form.
~9" Virginia Code," 1819, VOL 2, ch. 255.
1 11 Acts of Virginia Assembly," 1831-2, ch. 186.
|
