Judicial History	25

	The Supreme Court held that no wharfage rights re
	mained connected with the use and enjoyment of those
	lands. One argument had been that the seventh article
	of the Compact had guaranteed wharfage rights. That
	article reads

	The citizens of each state, respectively, shall have
	full property in the shores of the Potomac River ad
	joining their lands, with all emoluments and advan
	tages thereunto belonging, and the privilege of making
	and carrying out wharves and other improvements,
	so as not to obstruct or injure the navigation of the
	river ....

The Court held, however, that its decision denied no right
that could be claimed under the Compact, for the com
plainant here did not own the shore of the river, to which
wharfage rights might be appurtenant. Because of this
jurisdictional fact, therefore, the court gave no further
consideration to the Compact.

	G. Biscoe v. Maryland (1888). Biscoe was indicted in
	St. Mary's County, for a murder committed on the Potomac
	River opposite the county (68 Md. 294) . He raised the
	question whether St. Mary's County properly could have
	jurisdiction of the offense. He was citing an old act of
	1695 (ch. 13, May Session) which had declared the bound
	ary of St. Mary's County to run with the shore of the
	Potomac, but not to include any part of the river itself.

	The Court of Appeals ruled that St. Mary's County had
	jurisdiction to bring in the indictment. In its opinion it
	mentioned the grant of territory to Lord Baltimore, which
	included the entire river, and also that for two hundred
	years this county had taken jurisdiction over offenses com
	mitted on the river, with no objection having previously
	been raised. And, continued the Court,

The exercise of this jurisdiction was recognized by
the Legislature in ratifying the Compact made with
the State of Virginia, for although jurisdiction was
in a certain class of offenses conceded to that state,
yet it provided that offenses committed by citizens of