| positions."9 As to the Potomac River, the Virginia Commissioners had insisted on a boundary
line on the north shore."' By contrast, the Maryland Commissioners proposed a boundary line at
the low-water mark on the Virginia shore, while recognizing Virginia's right to build wharves
and improvements from the shoreline.''' Their proposed boundary followed along the Virginia
shore "to all wharves and other improvements. now extending, or which may hereafter be
extended, by authority of Virginia," and then "around said wharves and other improvements to
low water-mark on the southwestern side thereof."'`'
The Commissioners were unable to resolve this or any of the other matters in dispute,
however, and the negotiations broke down.''' The Commissioners recommended that the
controversy be referred to the Governors of the two states, "with power to them, in case of
disagreement, to call in an umpire, whose decision shall be final." 121
Following through on that proposal, Virginia and Maryland in 1874 authorized the matter
of the "true line of boundary" to be submitted to binding arbitration, with the proviso that:
[N]either of the said states, nor the citizens thereof, shall, by the
decision of the said arbitrators, be deprived of any of the rights and
privileges enumerated and set forth in the compact between them
entered into in the year seventeen hundred and eighty-five, but that
"9 Id. at 35-43 (Abstract of the Maryland Statement), 63-141 (Statement of the Maryland
Case), 235-329 (Statement of the Virginia Case). The Commissioners had agreed to do this on
May 9, 1872. Id. at 48.
'=° Id. at 19, 329.
''' Id. at 53 (Journal of Proceedings for Oct. 4, 1872) (Statement of Isaac D. Jones,
Commissioner for Maryland)); see also id. at 42 (Abstract of the Maryland Statement), 140
(Statement of the Maryland Case).
'== Id. at 53.
1223 Id. at 60-62.
124 Id. at 34.
|
