40 	The Compact of 1785

In the course of the opinion this was said:

	Clearly, the Legislature of Maryland might at any
	time repeal any legislation of this character without
	the consent of the State of Virginia and without re
	serving the right to do so. If this were not the case
	then every act passed by either State with the con
	sent of the other would ipso facto constitute a subse
	quent compact or modification of the existing compact
	between the states, and require the consent of Con
	gress before it would become effective. In order to
	avoid this palpable absurdity, it is necessary to hold
	that either state may at any time withdraw its consent
	to existing legislation. Thus it would seem that the
	time limit would make no substantial change in the
	actual effectiveness of the Maryland law. On the other
	hand, the passage by the State of Virginia of legisla
	tion closing the entire river by no means involves a
	consent to the closing of a part of the river with the
	potentialities of discrimination so plainly involved. (16
	Op. Atty. Gen. 76) .

	Here, then, was a clear and unqualified opinion that
	either state might at any time repeal a concurrent law
	without the consent of the other.

	By ch. 517 of 1931 Maryland then went ahead to prohibit
	dredging in the Potomac, and the act was the same as that
	passed by Virginia, not attempting to limit either the
	duration or the territorial extent of the ban on dredging.
	This law is still on the statute books (Art. 72, sec. 69,
	1939 Code; sec. 8f of ch. 929 of 1945) .

	In 1933, however, State Senator Joseph C. Webster of
	Calvert County raised a question about the possible repeal
	of ch. 517 of 1931. Specifically, he inquired, could a Mary
	land act to repeal the ban on dredging become effective
	at once, or must the repeal await concurrent action by the
	Virginia legislature. The opinion of the Attorney Gen
	eral's office was given on February 21, 1933, and was signed
	by Wm. L. Henderson, a then Assistant Attorney General.

	This second opinion cited the ruling made in the earlier
	one, that "the legislature of Maryland has the power at