32 	The Compact of 1785

boundary open to long continued disputes. It may be
laid on one side even if it was ever in force in the
District of Columbia ....

	The Compact thus was held not to have affected bound
	ary questions along this portion of the river. Further than
	this, Mr. Justice Holmes' opinion is interesting for the as
	sumption it made in the excerpt above, that the workings
	of the Compact were not intended to be restricted to tide
	water. This finding, although probably dicta in the present
	case, was contrary to the opinion of the Maryland Court
	of Appeals in Binney's case and in Middlekauff v. Le
	Compte.

	L. Herald v. United States (1922). This case was decided
	in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia (284
	Fed. 927) . Herald had been convicted of unlawfully fish
	ing in the Potomac River, within the District of Columbia.
	He had stood on rocks projecting from the Virginia shore
	and operated a dip net, thus being between the high and
	low water marks. The question was, then, as to the juris
	diction of the District of Columbia court, and as to the
	location of the boundary.

	This Court held that the boundary between the District
	of Columbia and the State of Virginia was at the high
	water mark on the Virginia shore. A previous holding to
	that effect had been in Evans v. United States, 31 App.
	D. C. 544, and in the Marine Railway Co. case, 257 U. S. 47.

	Without discussing the possible effect of the Compact
	on the Maryland-Virginia boundary, the Court ruled that,
	as between the District of Columbia and the State of Vir
	ginia, the Compact had been abrogated by the cession of
	that portion of the original District which had been con
	veyed by Virginia, and by the re-cession of this same area
	by the United States to Virginia.

	M. Middlekauil v. LeCompte (1926). The Middlekauff
	case (149 Md. 621) arose in the enforcement of ch. 340
	of the Maryland Acts of 1924, prohibiting the taking of