Calvert Coin with Map of Maryland
The Compact of 1785


by Carl Everstine (1946)
Maryland State Archives | Summary Description | Help | Search
MSA SC 5330-11-5, Page 34 View page image (42K) Jump to << PREVIOUSNEXT >>
34 	The Compact of 1785

statute against the use of fish pots. The injunction was
accordingly denied.

	The Middlekauff case therefore was a square affirmation
	of Binney's case. The Court went on to say that none of
	the other cases cited to it (including State v. Hoofman)
	appeared to have concerned the river above tidewater,
	and that they therefore were not determinative of the
	point here involved; this was to say, that is, that Binney's
	case and the Hoofman case were not inconsistent on the
	point of the Compact having reference only to tidewater.

	N. Washington Airport v. Smoot Sand Co. (1930). This
	case was decided in the Circuit Court of Appeals, 4th
	Circuit (44 Fed. (2d) 342) . It was a suit to enjoin a tres
	pass upon land located between the high and low water
	marks on the Virginia side of the Potomac, opposite the
	District of Columbia. The question was raised whether
	the Federal District Court in Virginia had jurisdiction ex
	tending to the low water mark; stated otherwise, the ques
	tion was as to where the boundary lay.

	In an opinion written by Judge Parker, the Court ruled
	that the jurisdiction of the Virginia court went to the low
	water mark (meaning, therefore, that the boundary line
	was at low water mark).

	The Court referred to Article 7 of the Compact, which
	gave to the citizens of each state "full property in the
	shores of the Potomac River adjoining their lands . . . and
	the privilege of making and carrying out wharves and other
	improvements." This article also gave fishing rights in
	common, except that citizens of one state were not to
	hinder or disturb the fisheries on the shore of the other.
	Article 7 of the Compact, said the Court, is

A clear recognition of the fact that the shores on the
Virginia side of the river were under the jurisdiction
of the State of Virginia. It would have been absurd
to have confirmed the right of property in the Virginia
shores to the citizens of Virginia and at the same
time to have reserved to the State of Maryland politi-



Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
MSA SC 5330-11-5, Page 34 View page image (42K) Jump to << PREVIOUSNEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An ecpCLIO electronic publication in the Archives of Maryland Series.
For information contact edp@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright July 24, 2013
Maryland State Archives