Possibilities f or Unilateral Action	49

seems to be practically nothing left of the Compact today
except the provisions as to fisheries.

	The Compact may have a place in promoting the future
	amicable relations of Maryland and Virginia, but at the
	present time it is being used (in the opinion of Maryland
	officials) largely as a cloak to cover the illegal depletion
	of a valuable natural resource in the Potomac.

	As stated by one such official, the logic of Maryland's
	position is strong: Maryland owns the Potomac River.
	Virginia is given fishing rights therein by the Compact.
	Maryland gets no compensating return. On the contrary,
	Maryland is carrying the burden of enforcement and of
	conservation in the Potomac, while organized and sys
	tematic violations of the oyster laws are based upon the
	Virginia shore. Must Maryland continue such a one-sided
	arrangement?

	A. Unilateral enforcement of the laws. Conservation
	officials in Maryland are definitely convinced that if Mary
	land police officers could take Virginia violators into the
	Maryland courts, the problem of enforcement of the fish
	and oyster laws then could quickly be solved. The con
	fiscation of a few valuable boats, it is felt, would end
	most of the illegal and vastly destructive dredging opera
	tions in the Potomac area. The laws of both states already
	provide that boats "may" be confiscated, but since offenders
	from each state are turned over to the courts of their
	own state, this really drastic penalty is seldom if ever
	applied.

	Let it be emphasized at the outset that there is nothing
	in the Compact itself requiring that one who has violated
	a fishing law be tried in the courts of his own state. Article
	7 says that "the right of fishing in the river shall be com
	mon to and equally enjoyed by the citizens of both states .
	. . ." Article 8 says that "all laws and regulations which
	may be necessary for the preservation of fish . . . in the
	river Potomac . . . shall be made with the mutual consent