26	The Compact of 1785

Maryland against its own citizens, should be tried
by the courts of this State having jurisdiction over
such offenses. And it is well known that the county
courts of the several counties lying on the Potomac,
at that time exercised a common law jurisdiction over
offenses committed on its waters opposite such coun
ties. We have then by the Act of 1785, ch. 1 a recogni
tion of the jurisdiction of these counties over offenses
committed on the Potomac River, if any such recogni
tion be needed.

	The Court held, then, that the counties of Maryland
	adjacent to the Potomac River have a common law juris
	diction over offenses committed on the river opposite their
	shores, and that the Compact had confirmed this jurisdic
	tion.

	H. Ex parte Marsh et al (1893). Marsh, Wharton, and
	Nelson, all citizens of Maryland, were in this case in the
	Federal Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
	seeking by writ of habeas corpus to be discharged from
	the custody of Virginia officials (57 Fed. 719) . Wharton
	and Nelson had been taking oysters in Pocomoke Sound,
	within the limits of Virginia; they carried an appeal up
	to the Supreme Court (see Wharton v. Wise, which fol
	lows), so that the ruling of the lower court as to them
	need not be covered.

	Marsh had been dredging in Tangier Sound, also clearly
	within the limits of Virginia, in waters where the Virginia
	statutes permitted tonging only. He claimed to be entitled
	to be tried in a Maryland court, by virtue of Article 10 of
	the Compact.

	Article 10 had provided, among other things, for the
	punishment of "all piracies, crimes or offenses" committed
	on parts of the Chesapeake Bay or of the Pocomoke River,
	where the line of division between the two states "may
	be doubtful." Any such act, it said, "committed on the
	said parts of Chesapeake Bay and Pocomoke River, by
	any citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia, or of the