Judicial History	21

April, May, and June, with gill nets or seines of any kind,
subject to certain exceptions. Virginia had already passed
an act (ch. 90 of 1842) which was almost identical in lan
guage, but neither statute had mentioned the other state
or the Compact.

The Preamble to the Maryland act recited that

Whereas, it has been represented to this General As
sembly, that great injury and detriment is caused to
the fishing on the Potomac River and its tributaries,
by the extensive use of gill netting, preventing the
passage of fish up to the shoal waters to deposit their
spawn . . . .

	In this case, defendant Hoofman was indicted for fishing
	with gill nets in the Potomac, contrary to the provisions
	of the act of 1845. So far as the indictment showed, he
	was not a citizen of either state, and neither Virginia nor
	any Virginia citizen had intervened in the case (9 Md. 28) .

	In a very short opinion, the Court called attention to
	the eighth article of the Compact, providing that "all laws
	and regulations which may be necessary for the preserva
	tion of fish in the river Potomac shall be made with the
	mutual consent and approbation of both states." Accord
	ingly, said the Court, the Maryland act of 1845 could have
	no operation unless assented to as required by the Com
	pact. However, the indictment under which the defendant
	was prosecuted contained no averment that Virginia's
	assent had been secured. So, it was concluded, "as the
	Court must take notice of the Compact, as well as the
	Act of 1845, the indictment was defective, in not informing
	the Court that the assent of Virginia, of which they had
	no judicial knowledge, had been obtained." The defend
	ant's demurrer was sustained, and the indictment was
	quashed.

	The Court did not explain just what favored status the
	Compact enjoyed, that it should be able in this fashion to
	prevail over an act of the General Assembly. The effect