36 	The Compact of 1785

the State, Virginia has passed no acts claiming such juris
diction, while Maryland has passed such acts (Art. 27, sec.
631; Art. 75, sec. 161; 1939 Code).

	The Court of Appeals upheld the State's contention,
	saying that when the boundary disputes were finally set
	tled by the Award of 1877, "the reason for Virginia's having
	any criminal jurisdiction over the Potomac vanished, and
	with it went, by every intendment of common sense and
	legal reasoning, the jurisdiction itself." It noted further
	that under the statutes and decisions of Virginia, there is
	no longer any Virginia court with jurisdiction to try of
	fenses committed on the Potomac River, with the single
	exception of violations of the fishery laws. Hence,

If Maryland courts cannot try such offenders as the
appellant for acts committed within her boundaries,
and if Virginia courts have no such authority, then
the Potomac River becomes a highway for crime, a
water-way within the State of Maryland where the
criminals of Virginia, or those from elsewhere who
commit offenses against the citizens of Virginia, can
operate with immunity from punishment, and with
complete freedom from all fear of consequences. Such
a condition is unthinkable, and no court would be
justified in holding it exists ....

	Elsewhere in the opinion there is the flat assertion that
	"concurrent jurisdiction is not yielded over any waters
	admitted to belong to Maryland by the tenth section" of
	the Compact.

	The decision of the Court was that Maryland had juris
	diction to try Barnes, and the conviction by the trial court
	was affirmed. The holding was that Virginia's jurisdiction
	over the Potomac River extends only to the fishing laws.'

	P. Summary of Judicial Decisions. The numerous cases
	which have construed the Compact have set down several
	propositions which are important in any evaluation of its
	present status. Briefly, they may be summarized as fol
	lows

	I Certiorari denied b3• the Supreme Court, 329 U. S. 754.