Judicial History	35

cal jurisdiction over these shores, so that controversies
over titles thereto would be justiciable only in Mary
land and crimes committed thereon punishable only in
Maryland courts.

Accordingly, it was held, the Compact unquestionably set
tled Maryland's jurisdiction and the rights of its citizens
as extending only to the low water mark, and the Federal
District Court in Virginia had jurisdictional authority to
enjoin a trespass occurring between that line and the high
water mark on the Virginia shore.

	O. Barnes v. Maryland (1946). The appellant Barnes
	was convicted in Prince George's County, Maryland, of
	committing a rape on a citizen of Virginia. The crime
	occurred on the Potomac River, on a boat en route from
	Norfolk to Washington. Claiming to be a citizen of Vir
	ginia, he disputed the jurisdiction of a Maryland court
	to try him, on the basis of Article 10 of the Compact.

	That Article had provided that in certain parts of the
	Chesapeake Bay, and in the Pocomoke and Potomac rivers,
	where the line of division between the two states was then
	doubtful, there should be a concurrent jurisdiction over
	"piracies, crimes or offenses;" and that an offense com
	mitted by a citizen of one state against a citizen of the other
	should be tried in the courts of the state of which the
	offender was a citizen.

	The Maryland Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Chief
	Judge Marbury, sustained the conviction, ruling that Mary
	land did have criminal jurisdiction over such offenses com
	mitted on the Potomac River. Included in the opinion is
	an interesting account of the origins and background of
	the Compact (Daily Record, May 17, 1946; 47 A. 2d 50;
	186 Md. . .. . . ) .

	The State contended in the Barnes case that when the
	two states had accepted the Boundary Award of 1877, there
	was then no further uncertainty about the boundary along
	the Potomac River, and that the concurrent jurisdiction
	set up by Article 10 no longer prevailed. Further, said