Opinions o f the Attorneys General 39

V. OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL

 A number of opinions have been given by the Attorneys
 General of Maryland and Virginia, involving different
 aspects of the Compact.

 A. Maryland. Of some eight or nine official opinions of
 the Attorney General of Maryland,' concerning the Com
 pact, two are of particular interest in the present report.
 As it happens, they were given on questions arising from
 the same law, which serves to complicate the apparent
 inconsistency between them.

 In 1931 the Virginia legislature passed an act prohibit
 ing dredging and scraping oysters in the Potomac, with
 the proviso that the act should not become effective until
 a similar one had been passed by Maryland. There was
 some thought in Maryland of placing restrictions upon
 any such act, so that it might automatically expire after
 a stated period and also that the ban on dredging might
 apply to certain areas only.

 Accordingly, Swepson Earle, Conservation Commis
 sioner, asked the Attorney General's office whether the
 Virginia statute was a sufficient "consent and approbation"
 (as required by the Compact) of a proposed Maryland
 statute, the latter being limited as to duration and terri
 torial application.

 The opinion of the Attorney General was that the Vir
 ginia statute could be considered as a consent to a Mary
 land act prohibiting dredging for a specified period of
 time, but that a Maryland law limited in effect to certain
 portions of the Potomac River would not be a valid enact
 ment. This opinion was given on March 6, 1931, being
 signed by Wm. Preston Lane, Jr., the then Attorney
 General.

 1see the following references in the Official 0pinioir.s of the Attorney
Gc)wral of Marl/laid: vol. `.:. 1). S-1; vol. 7, p. 61; vol. 7, p. 73; vol. 11, p. 50;
vol. 12. p. 55 ; vol. 12, p. 69 ; v ol. 16, p. 7 6 ; vol. 16. p. SO: vol. 17, p. 89 ;
vol. 18, p. 214.