Judicial History	33

certain species of fish "in any of the waters of this State
above a point where the tide ebbs and flows with . . . fish
pots..." The plaintiffs, some of whom lived in Washington
County and others in the State of West Virginia, sought
an injunction to restrain the enforcement of the law. They
contended that it could not be enforced, since it was con
ceded that Virginia had not concurred in the Maryland
act, and the eighth article of the Compact required that
"all laws and regulations which may be necessary for the
preservation of fish . . . in the river Potomac . . . shall
be made with the consent and approbation of both states.

	The Court reviewed at some length the background of
	the Compact and the attempts made before 1785 to settle
	the wide range of disputed questions between the two
	states. The Continental Congress in 1777 had recommended
	a conference among North Carolina, Virginia, and Mary
	land. Virginia and also Maryland in the same year had
	appointed commissioners to meet together on questions
	of navigation and commerce, but nothing came of that
	conference. Again in 1784 the two states provided for
	commissioners to meet, and the Compact of 1785 resulted.

	However, as the Court carefully pointed out, even the
	call to this latter conference mentioned only questions of
	jurisdiction and navigation in the waters of the Chesapeake
	Bay and in the Pocomoke and Potomac rivers; nothing
	was said in the preliminary resolution about the preserva
	tion of fish.

	The Court then proceeded to show that most of the
	articles in the Compact related to matters of navigation
	and maritime commerce, and quoted the arguments of
	Chancellor Bland in Binney's case.

	The decision was that the Compact did not relate to the
	river above tidewater and that the concurrence of Virginia
	therefore was not necessary to give effect to Maryland's