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 |
||||
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.