Legislative History	9

importance to these several documents. Maryland has
never codified the Compact.

	While the two states have accepted the Compact as
	binding, they were slow to enact legislation under it. One
	reason doubtless was that the need for conserving the sup
	ply of fish and oysters was not so pressing in the early
	years as later, and legislative enactments for these gcncral
	purposes were accordingly less numerous than now.

	Another reason was that the adoption of the Federal
	Constitution in 1789 superseded a considerable part of the
	Compact. There is no precise adjudication upon the point,
	but those articles of the Compact having to do with inter
	state trade and with maritime matters concerned areas of
	jurisdiction which were given to the Federal government
	and thenceforth were beyond the competence of the states.

	Virginia since 1849 has recognized that part of the Com
	pact is superseded. In its Code of that year (which was
	adopted by the legislature), there is a recital in Title 1
	of the facts of the adoption and confirmation of the Com
	pact, and this further statement of legislative policy:

. . . it is hereby declared that the said compact remains
obligatory, except so far as it may have been super
seded by the provisions of the constitution since
formed for the United States; and it shall be faithfully
observed and kept by this government and all its
citizens, so far as may not be incompatible with the
said constitution. Amongst the articles of the said com
pact are the following:

Articles 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the Compact were set out there
after, and no others. All subsequent codifiers of Virginia
codes have continued this elimination of the other sections.
The four articles retained in the several Virginia codes
have concerned, respectively, property rights of lands
abutting the Potomac River, fishing laws in the Potomac
and Pocomoke rivers, the punishment of crimes committed
in certain parts of the Chesapeake Bay and on the Potomac