Virginia's Brief In Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
msa_sc_5330_15_2
, Image No.: 47
   Enlarge and print image (43K)          << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space


 

Virginia's Brief In Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
msa_sc_5330_15_2
, Image No.: 47
   Enlarge and print image (43K)          << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
fishing in Article VII], that it was intended to place the two States and their citizens upon a footing of entire and perfect equality as to the right of fishing in the river. "` Maryland explained that the Compact was negotiated at a time when the boundary between the States was disputed, so that the fact that the boundary was later resolved by arbitration did not alter the States' respective rights and obligations under Article VII: To construe the compact correctly we must go back to the time when it was made. Then the boundary between the two States was unsettled and in dispute, and the claims of the State[s] were widely divergent. Therefore, the compact as to this right of fishery was not, by its terms, a grant of right by Maryland to Virginia, or by Virginia to Maryland, but an agreement by which common and equal rights of fishery were given and secured as well to Maryland as to Virginia. Could Maryland, at that time, while the territorial limits and jurisdiction of the two States were unsettled, and controverted, have reasonably claimed in the face of this language of the compact that she had a wider and more comprehensive right of fishing in the river than Virginia had? And if she could not then have fairly and properly made such claim, she cannot make it now, although her boundary is now settled, and the bed of the Potomac is now decided to be within her 143 territory. Maryland v. West Virginia West Virginia became a State out of a portion of the territory of Virginia on June 20, 1863. See generally Virginia v. West Virginia, 220 U.S. 1, 26 (1911) and Virginia v. West Virginia, 206 U.S. 290, 315 (1907) (providing history of the formation of the State of West Virginia). West Virginia was not a party to the arbitration resulting in the Black-Jenkins Award ~~` Attorney General of Maryland, Brief of Appellant at 23, Wharton v. Wise, No. 1054 (U.S. 1893). This portion of Maryland's brief was quoted verbatim from a legal opinion given in December 1885 by I. Nevett Steele, Esq., to Governor Lloyd of Maryland. Id. at 5. 113 Id. at 23-24. 36