18	The Compact of 1785

	The citizens of either state having lands in the
	other, shall have full liberty to transport to their own
	state the produce of such lands, or to remove their
	effects, free from any duty, tax, or charge whatsoever,
	for the liberty to remove such produce or effects.

	The Defendant here was claiming, of course, that the
	slaves were "effects." The Court held against the defend
	ant's contention, saying that

The compact only prohibited the imposition of duties
by Maryland, on the goods of citizens of Virginia,
brought from Virginia, or vice versa, but did not pro
hibit Maryland from prohibiting her own citizens
from importing slaves, or any other property, belong
ing to them.

	C. Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Company (1838).
	This case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United
	States (12 Pet. 95) . It was brought by the Mayor and
	Aldermen of Georgetown, D. C., against a canal company
	which had been authorized by Congress to construct a
	canal between the C. & O. Canal (which lay on the Mary
	land side of the river) and the town of Alexandria, in
	Virginia. The authorization was to construct a canal and
	such other "works" as might be necessary for that purpose.
	The Canal company began the construction of an aque
	duct, to cross the Potomac River and to serve as the canal.
	The plaintiffs charged that in the construction work, and
	by the aqueduct itself, the navigability of the river was
	being impaired, and they sought an injunction. Among
	other arguments, they cited the Compact of 1785, and
	claimed that it had secured to all persons residing thereon
	the free use of the river for navigation.

	On the applicability of the Compact to this situation,
	the Supreme Court said

The Compact made in the year 1785, between Mary
land and Virginia, was made by the two states, in
their character as states. The citizens, individually,
of both commonwealths, were subject to all the obliga
tions imposed, and entitled to all the benefits con-