Judicial History	17

	The Court could have reached the same result without
	going to the extreme of declaring that the Compact related
	only to tidewater. Rather obviously, the Potomac above
	tidewater is not suitable for general navigation along its
	length, and this finding alone would have justified denying
	the injunction against the dam.

	On the other hand, navigation across the river is per
	fectly feasible at many points, and under the conditions
	existing in 1785, there being then no Federal Constitution,
	the Compact could have been highly useful in the regula
	tion of such cross traffic. Also, there seems to be no com
	pelling reason why several of the articles of the Compact
	could refer only to tidewater. Among such articles are
	the seventh, giving citizens of each state property rights
	in the shores, and defining fishing privileges in the river,
	the eighth, making further reference to fishing and to
	keeping open the channel, the tenth, concerning "crimes
	and offenses" (in addition to piracies), and the twelfth,
	permitting the free transportation of produce and per
	sonal effects.

	The finding of the Court was definite, however, that the
	Compact relates only to the tidewater portions of the Poto
	mac River.

	B. Negro Delilah et al v. Jacobs (1832). This case was
	brought in the United States Circuit Court for the District
	of Columbia (4 Cranch CC Reports 238) . It was a suit
	for freedom, on the part of Negro slaves who had been
	brought from Virginia to Maryland, by the defendant,
	a citizen and resident of Maryland, without giving any
	list of them to be recorded as required by Maryland
	statute.

	The defendant contended on the basis of Article 12 of
	the Compact that Maryland could not prohibit her citi
	zens from bringing their slaves from Virginia to Maryland.
	That Article reads