12 	The Compact o f 1785

do the same "in order to give full effect to the aforesaid
law of the Commonwealth of Virginia, so far as it regards
the shooting of wild fowl . . . ."

	Thereafter, the adoption of similar and concurrent laws
	became the usual practice. When Maryland adopted its
	Code of 1860, the article "Fish and Fisheries" contained a
	number of sections regulating fisheries in the Potomac
	(Code of 1860, Art. 41, secs. 12-21) . One of them was as
	follows:

	The provisions of this article in relation to fishing
	on the Potomac River shall be of no force or validity
	unless the same shall have been or shall hereafter
	be adopted by the State of Virginia, or similar laws
	be passed by that State in relation to said river.

	Shortly afterwards, by ch. 280 of 1859-60, Virginia also
	passed an act which contained four sections (12, 14, 15,
	16) of the Maryland act. The preamble of the Virginia
	act said that

Whereas, the legislature of Maryland, at its present
session, have passed an act to change the times of
fishing in the Potomac river, to prohibit persons from
fishing with seines or gill nets opposite the shores of
the owner or occupier of any fishery, and to define
the rights of bona fide citizens of the counties bor
dering on said river:

And whereas it is desirable that our laws upon the
subject should conform to the legislation of Mary
land ....

	The four sections which Virginia adopted therefore be
	came law in both states, with the others in the Maryland
	act presumably having no effectiveness.

	A notable example of concurrent legislative recognition
	of the Compact occurred in 1874, when the two states
	designated arbitrators to fix the disputed boundary line.
	In the Maryland act (ch. 247 of 1874) , it was stated that

neither of the states, nor the citizens thereof, shall,
by the decision of the said arbitrators, be deprived of