Legislative History	11

	There were a number of laws passed during this span
	of years which made no mention of the Compact and prob
	ably should have done so. Thus, in Maryland, ch. 87 of
	1829 and ch. 265 of 1832 concerned the locating and stak
	ing off of oyster beds, but they said nothing either of
	Virginia or of the Compact. Also in Maryland, ch. 249 of
	1831 and ch. 254 of 1833, concerning oysters, and ch. 279
	of 1831, which prohibited the use of gill nets for herring
	and shad in the Potomac River, from March 20 to May 20,
	made no reference to the Compact.

	In Virginia, ch. 17 of 1810, regulating the manner of
	taking oysters, ch. 192 of 1831, concerning oysters in the
	waters of Accomac County, and ch. 90 of 1842, regulating
	the use of seines in the Potomac from March to June, all
	made no mention of the Compact.

	The reason for not referring to the Compact in these
	and other laws passed in the two states is not clear, but
	the omissions were hardly serious enough to affect the
	general statement that both Maryland and Virginia have
	given due regard to the Compact in their legislative enact
	ments.

	In 1831 and 1832 the two states enacted what seems to
	have been the first piece of concurrent legislation for the
	Potomac River. The Virginia statute was ch. 80 of 1831,
	for the preservation of fish and wild fowl in the waters of
	the Potomac; it prohibited the obstruction of fisheries by
	certain nets and seines, and regulated the time and man
	ner of shooting wild water fowl. The final provision in the
	Virginia law was that it should become effective when
	Maryland assented thereto.

	In the next year, by ch. 134 of the Maryland Acts of
	1832, Maryland passed an identical law with respect to
	shooting water fowl, but omitted the part having to do
	with obstructing the fisheries. The preamble of Mary
	land's enactment recited that Virginia previously had
	passed such a statute and added that Maryland should