Calvert Coin with Map of Maryland
The Compact of 1785

by Carl Everstine (1946)

Maryland State Archives | Summary Description | Help | Search

MSA SC 5330-11-5, Page 2 View page image (42K) Jump to << PREVIOUS NEXT >>
2 The Compact o f 1785
the fact of there being areas of uncertain jurisdiction was fully
recognized by it.'
 Each of the two states had a particular reason for wanting a
 compact. On the part of Virginia, it was "to adjust and confirm the
 rights of each to the use and navigation of, and jurisdiction over the
 Bay of the Chesapeake, and the rivers Potomac and Pocomoke . . .
 ." Such a statement was made by Virginia in 1777, in a call for
 Maryland to appoint commissioners to meet with others from
 Virginia.
 Maryland accepted this call for a meeting and appointed three
 commissioners. In the Instructions drafted for the commissioners,
 the main consideration for the proposed compact on the part of
 Maryland was stated as follows:
 You are to insist that the Commonwealth of Virginia shall
 expressly relinquish every claim to impose tolls on any vessels
 whatever sailing through the Capes of Chesapeake Bay to the
 State of Maryland or returning from this State through the said
 Capes, outward bound; this you are to insist upon as a
 condition sine qua non, and if not acquiesced in by the
 commissioners from the commonwealth of Virginia, you are to
 break up the conference ....
 The main consideration for the Compact were to be, then, that
 Virginia should relinquish her right to charge tolls for vessels going
 through the Virginia Capes, in return for rights of use, navigation
 and jurisdiction in the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and of the
 Potomac and Pocomoke rivers.
 The conference held pursuant to the call made in 1777 was not
 successful in reaching an agreement, but another was proposed in
 1784. It was originally scheduled to meet
 1 Historical accounts of the origins of the Compact may be found in Scharf's History of
 Maryland (1879). II. 528 et seq; in the opinion of Mr. Justice Field in Wharton v. Wise (153 U.S.
 155, 162) ; and in the opinion of Chief Judge Marbury in Barnes v. Maryland Daily Record, May 17,
 1946: 37 A. . 2d 50 ; 186 Md . . .). A summary of the several boundary disputes involving Maryland
 and Virginia is in Appendix A.





Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.

MSA SC 5330-11-5, Page 2 View page image (42K) Jump to << PREVIOUS NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An ecpCLIO electronic publication in the Archives of Maryland Series.
For information contact edp@mdarchives.state.md.us.
©CopyrightJuly 24, 2013
Maryland State Archives