Opposition Brief — Barnes v. Maryland

Supreme Court brief1946

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

SEP 10 1946

CHARLES ELMORE

In THE

Supreme Court of the United

OcrTosEeR TERM, 1946

No. 390

Petitioner,

JACK LESTER BARNES,

vs.

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondent.

On PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF

APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND.

BRIEF AND APPENDIX FOR THE RESPONDENT IN

OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

| WILLIAM CURRAN,

Attorney General of Maryland,

HALL HAMMOND,

Deputy Attorney General

of Maryland,

J. EDGAR HARVEY,

Assistant Attorney General

of Maryland,

T. BARTON HARRINCUTON,

Assistant Attorney General

of Maryland,

Counsel for Respondent,

1901 Balto. Trust Building,

Baltimore 2, Maryland

The Daily Record Co., Baltimore 3, Md.

II.

III.

INDEX

A federal question was not raised in the

oc. ssh catasaninnsnudbpicigitnabenh tae

The construction of Article 10 of the Com-

pact of 1785 between the States of Maryland

and Virginia does not involve a federal

TIER ne cence cnnssink yswacehenhpccteasniucianediaaiocnsoennnoclen

Article 10 of the Compact is not in full force

and effect and it became inoperative by the

Award of the Arbitrators in 1877, which was

confirmed by the General Assemblies of

Maryland and Virginia, establishing the

boundary line between the two States at the

low-water mark on the southern or Virginia

shore of the Potomac River........................ :

CONCLUSION ............. RELATE RO ar Rs Ea eT ;

Table of Cases Cited

Anderson v. Commonwealth, 100 Va. 860, 42 S. E.

865

Benin: Wu ay AIO ois. onic haectide cerns

Binney’s case—2 Bland 99, 126...................ccceees

Biscoe v. Btnte, GB BEG. TOG ............c in nccnnie

Chastelton Corp. v. Sinclair, 264 U. S. 543, 68 L. ed.

Be I MI IIR iss ccsitisscortansinxansdincasastenanrastsanscepntatotans

1 RULES CP NERA ET

9-10

11-29

ONT TONER Gon -

PAGE

Commonwealth v. Gaines, 2 Va. Cas. 172..........0..0..... 27, 28

Bs Parte Marsh, S57 Fed. 710............................00006005 21, 24

Farewell v. Commonwealth, 167 Va. 475, 189 S. E.

RRTERSS ESERIES a ar aeRO ee eR 28

Great Northern Ry. Co. v. U. S., 315 U. S. 262, 86 L.

ee arene ee ere 27

Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheaton 1, 5 L. ed. 547.................... 9

Hamburg American S. S. Co. v. Grube, 196 U. S. 407,

On OE GR BP Gy Ge: ees... DA i. a. 9

Hendricks v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 934.................... 24

Hinderlider v. La Plata R. & Cherry Creek D. Co.,

304 U. S. 92, 82 L. ed. 1202, 58 S. Ct. 803................ 10

Marlatt v. Silk, 11 Pet. 1, 9 L. ed. 609.2000... 9

Marine R. & C. Co. v. U. S., 257 U. S. 47, 66 L. ed. 124 17

Maryland v. West Virginia, 217 U.S. 1, 54 L. ed. 645. 17

Maryland v. West Virginia, 217 U. S. 577, 54 L. ed.

a esa ckantnmciche 17

Middlekaufi v. Le Compte, 149 Md. 621........................ 20

Morris v. U. S., 174 U. S. 196, 43 L. ed. 946.00. 17

Nashville, etc., Ry. v. Walters, 294 U.S. 405, 79 L. ed.

ee csccmahatenhpninns 27

New York Central & Hudson R. R. R. Co. v. New

York, 186 U. S. 269, 46 L. ed. 1158, 22 S. Ct. 916.. 8

Strouther v. Commonwealth, 92 Va. 789, 22 S. E. 852,

A I I issn chien capuphtaanantinvininnsien 28

Thomas v. Iowa, 209 U. S_ 258, 52 L. ed. 782, 28 S. Ct.

ERCP AE. Sc SIREN BE ROR elitr Oo RI te tele ae 8

U. S. v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 82 L.

OR BI a I sess csesainesscccastschecserssvsinne 27

U. S. v. Morris, 23 Wash. Law Rep. 549......00.0000000.00.... 17

Washington Airport, Inc. v. Smoot Sand & Gravel

a: He IND COMI ss suchsc claret lsahs Kin ccesieansens 15, 17, 18

Wharton v. Wise, 153 U. S. 155, 38 L. ed. 669................ 23

Wilson v. Cook, ........ 4 See , 90 L. ed. (Adv. Sh.)

iii

Table of Statutes Cited

PAGE

Act or CONGRESS:

Act of March 3, Chapter 196, 20 Stat. at Large,

RIB RE Aa SP eR RTI OR VS 17

Acts oF GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND:

Acts of 1785:

Chapter I (Compact of 1785)..................... 10, 11, 17,

18, 25, 28

Seventh Article .......................06. 6, 9, 22, 23, 24

pe |. aero 6, 22, 23, 24

EM GMI ssscicsgwsesestininsnnnsnscinnin 4, 5, 10, 11, 17,

18, 20, 24, 25, 26, 29

Acts of 1874, Chapter 247................c:eeeeees 16

Acts of 1876, Chapter 198....................:es 16

Acts of 1878, Chapter 274.................:::c: cee 17

Acts of 1880, Chapter 485............0....ceeee: 24

Acts of 1908, Chapter 487.................... ces 24

Acts of 1929, Chapter 50...................:c ees 23

Acts of 1941, Chapter 26...................:::ccesseeeereeees 21

Acts of 1945, Chapter 929..................cc cee 23

Acts of 1945, Senate Joint Resolution No. 17...... 25

Acts oF GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA:

Acts of 1779, Chapter 26................:.:s ees 27

Acts of 1786, Chapter 18..................::es 12

Acts of 1874, Chapter 139...................cce ee 16

Acts of 1875—1876, Chapter 48................: 16

Acts of 1877—1878, Chapter 246...................605 17

Acts of 1928, Chapter 477.................:0::ceee ™ 23

ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND:

Article 27—

oon cin datnatenathnapsnansunransiannasodaneinciens 24

MIE, cs ccnanaasnasvuciidepiasiinnmntsomiehabacelbAieshith 21

oo cinnsiinnianaijaoakdeoniasbaneniononmmncigeand 21

NG TID oo. icnsisinvlnccanconeonmianevemiategacainaansnincbasssnn 21

anna Bere

PAGE

IN eo uinanamnibadeweked 23

Article 75—

SG AON ee OR ie eT ee 21

a ee aa 21

LEER eerie reer raceme Come 21

VIRGINIA Cope (1942):

Title 3, Chapter 3, Section 14.20.0000... 12

Title 27, Chapter 129, Sections 3299 to 3305(c)

(Potomac River Statutes) 00.00.0000. 24

MISCELLANEOUS

Sixth Amendment to Constitution of U.S............. 25

RR MOND GE... ncn cee ses ccsscssesccsssnsnns 27

SP NI CIID I nin csc Sasen ck ssoanesencccusioscsnncions 27

Texts

Bancroft’s History of Constitution of U. S.—Vol. 1,

ae arcs ee ann wea eng Hie ican todos 11

Henry’s Life of Patrick Henry—Vol. 2, p. 176.............. 11

The Maryland and Virginia Boundary Controversy—

MM Gi, II co, sites coe hac wid isu checetascckaveceteies 11

Report on the Location of the Boundary Line along

the Potomac River between Virginia and Mary-

land, in accordance with the Award of 1877—

Edward B. Mathews and Wilbur A. Nelson........ 11

Report on the Marking of the Boundary along the

Potomac River, in accordance with the Award

of 1877—Edward B. Mathews and Wilbur A.

ARERR EEE Ss eet en py ROAR OO RE HO 23

Rives’ Madison—Vol. 2, p. 58.0000000000.0....0cccccccceeeeeees 11

Scharf’s History of Maryland—Vol. 2, p. 528, et seq. 11

Miscellaneous

A MU oss sa Govsescne cdbcsacdnsmect linens 6, 16

Black-Jenkins Award ......................................5, 16, 17, 24, 29

= eC

a ——

PAGE

The Final Report of the Virginia Commissioners on

the Maryiand-Virginia Boundary—1874................ 19

Opinion and Award of Arbitrators of the Maryland

and Virginia Boundary Line—1877........................ 16

APPENDIX

App.

PAGE

Acts OF CONGRESS:

Acts of March 3, 1879, Chapter 196, 20 Stat. at

Taree, GBD ..........cscncscscvcrcsscccssesesssessovseennssnsassesenne 29

Acts or GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND:

ve 2: Be oe Rann annn 1

Acts of 1784, Chapter 247 ...............:cc:cccsseseteneeseiens 7

Acts of 1876, Chapter 198....................:: eee 8

Ante of WEG, Chapter BAG...............20.:0..00:000. cin 10

Acts of 1878, Chapter 374. ..............::cccceseeeeneenens 12

pe @ eR rerenerenrrrrenrnn 13

Acts of 1020, Chapter S0................:cccccccsscssessssees 14

Acts of 1945, Senate Joint Resolution No. 17...... 16

Acts oF GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA:

Acts of 1874, Chamber U2. ...............00.....00escececscrsssene 18

Acts of 1875—1876, Chapter 48....................: 20

Acts of 1876—1877, Chapter 247...................::005 22

Acts of 1877—1878, Chapter 246....................55 23

Dats of TGR, Commitee GIT................c0cccscccssseces.sceccisnee 24

AWARD OF THE ARBITRATORS, 1877.................:cc0005 sees 26

“oe :

ee ne ee ieee oe

? In THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OcroseR TERM, 1946

No. 390

JACK LESTER BARNES,

Petitioner,

VS.

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondent.

On PETITION FOR Writ OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF

APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND.

BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION TO

THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

OPINION BELOW.

The Opinion of the Court of Appeals of the State of

Maryland, (the highest Court of the State), has not yet

been officially reported but it is unofficially reported in 47

Atl. (2d) 50. The Opinion, judgment and sentence of the

Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, of the State of

Maryland (the trial court) are not reported but are set

forth in the R. Transcript pp. 217-232.

JURISDICTION.

It is respectfully contended by the Respondent, the State

of Maryland, that the Supreme Court of the United States

should not grant the review by Petition for Writ of Cer-

tiorari of the final judgment of the Court of Appeals of

Maryland, entered in this cause on the 11th day of April,

1946, affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince

George’s County, Maryland, for the reason that no federal

question is involved, and that the Petitioner did not, either

in the trial court or the Court of Appeals, assert any right

under the Constitution of the United States or allege that

he had been deprived of his liberty without due process of

law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Con-

stitution of the United States.

STATEMENT OF CASE.

On August 4, 1945, between 2:45 and 3:15 A. M., Lillian

Annettee Weade, age fifty-three, a citizen of the State of

Virginia, and the mother of four sons and a daughter, was

choked and raped in the lower berth of a stateroom on a

steamboat which on August 3, 1945, she had boarded at Old

Point Comfort, Virginia, as a passenger in company with

a companion, an elderly woman who shared her stateroom

and occupied the upper berth.

The attack took place while the steamboat was in the

Potomac River, entirely within the State of Maryland, off

Charles County, Maryland, en route from Norfolk, Vir-

ginia, to Washington, D. C. The Potomac River forms the

boundary between the States of Maryland and Virginia,

and the jurisdiction of the State of Maryland extends to

the low-water mark on the Virginia shore.

The petitioner, who claimed to be a resident and voter

of the State of Virginia, was employed as a cook on the

boat. The testimony showed that he gained entrance to

the stateroom, accomplished his purpose, and left by way

of the stateroom window. His finger prints were found on

the window frame and on a washstand in the room. He

was seen in the room by the elderly companion of the

victim.

At 3:40 A. M. the master of the boat was notified and

in company with other officers and members of the naval

shore patrol, he immediately went to the crew’s quarters,

and from the description furnished by the companion, he

took the petitioner into custody and confined him on the

boat until it reached Washington, at which point the Metro-

politan Police detained him.

The petitioner was indicted by the Grand Jury for Prince

George’s County, Maryland, and upon his arraignment in

the Circuit Court for that County, he elected to be tried by

the Court without the intervention of a jury. The indict-

ment was returned in that County by virtue of Section 631

of Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (Flack’s

edition 1939). The trial was held on November 6, 1945,

before Judges Charles C. Marbury and John B. Gray, Jr.,

and resulted in the conviction of the petitioner on the first

count of the indictment, charging him with the crime of

rape.

The petitioner filed a special plea, termed plea to the

jurisdiction, alleging that he was a citizen of the State of

Virginia and that the indictment failed to allege that the

person upon whom the offense was committed was not a

citizen of the State of Virginia. The State interposed a

demurrer to the plea, which demurrer was sustained. The

docket entries and the record do not disclose that the peti-

tioner demurred to the indictment. A motion for a new

trial was denied and a motion in arrest of judgment was

overruled.

On November 16, 1945, the petitioner was sentenced to

death by hanging and on the same day noted an appeal to

the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland. |

On April 11, 1946, after argument and submission, the

Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Circuit

Court for Prince George’s County.

The petitioner contends that the Circuit Court for Prince

George’s County did not have jurisdiction to try him,

alleging that (although the offense was committed on the

Potomac River within the territorial limits of the State of

Maryland) he was entitled to be tried in a court of the

State of Virginia, by virtue of the Tenth Article of the

Compact of 1785 between Maryland and Virginia.

The Tenth Article of the Compact (entered into when

the boundary between Maryland and Virginia was in dis-

pute) related to piracies, crimes and offenses committed on

certain parts of the Chesapeake Bay and the Pocomoke

River and on the Potomac River. Jurisdiction of the courts

of either Maryland or Virginia was based upon the concept

of the citizenship of the offender and of the person upon

whom the offense was committed.

QUESTIONS IN CONTROVERSY.

) 4

Was a federal question raised in the State Courts?

Il.

Does the construction of Article 10 of the Compact of

1785 between the States of Maryland and Virginia involve

a federal question?

III

Is Article 10 of the Compact in full force and effect, or

did it become inoperative by the Award of the Arbitrators

in 1877, confirmed by the General Assemblies of Maryland

and Virginia, establishing the boundary line between the

States at the low-water mark on the southern or Virginia

shore of the Potomac River?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.

The transcript of the record in the trial court, the Cir-

cuit Court for Prince George’s County, fails to disclose that

the petitioner raised any Federal question. Likewise, the

petitioner did not raise any Federal question in the Court

of Appeals of Maryland. In particular, he did not allege

in the trial court or in the Court of Appeals that he had

been deprived of his liberty without due process of law

in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu-

tion of the United States.

Furthermore, the construction of Article 10 of the Com-

pact of 1785 between Maryland and Virginia, is not a fed-

eral question but is one for the determination of the State

courts.

The respondent contends also that by reason of the estab-

lishment of the boundary line between Maryland and Vir-

ginia in 1877 at the low-water mark on the southern or

Virginia bank of the Potomac River, with a straight line

drawn between headlands, any jurisdiction which. Virginia

may have had over offenses set forth in the Tenth Article

terminated and that, therefore, the Tenth Article became

inoperative. The boundary was determined by arbitrators

appointed by the legislatures of both states and their find-

ings are known as the Black-Jenkins Award of 1877.

ET AR OT TNT NE

The contention of the respondent is also based upon the

fact that immediately after the confirmation by Virginia of

the Award of the Arbitrators, Maryland in 1880, enacted

the statute relating to offenses committed on steamboats

passing through more than one county. (Chapter 485 of

the Acts of 1880—Article 27, Section 631 of the Annotated

Code of Maryland—Flack’s Edition, 1939). Chapter 487 of

the Acts of 1908 ( Article 75, Section 161 of the same Code)

provides that the jurisdiction of every county adjoining

neighboring states bounded by navigable waters “shall con-

tinue to the ultimate limits of the State at the place in ques-

tion”.

The respondent further contends that Virginia has no

jurisdiction over offenses committed in the territorial

waters of Maryland and has assumed no such jurisdiction

because it has passed no statutes providing for the trial and

punishment thereof. It is patent that Virginia has recog-

nized this lack of jurisdiction for it has, with Maryland,

passed many concurrent acts relating to fish and oysters,

which are covered by the Seventh and Eighth Articles of

the Compact.

ARGUMENT.

A FEDERAL QUESTION WAS NOT RAISED IN THE STATE COURTS.

Upon the return of the indictment of the petitioner by

the Grand Jury of the State of Maryland, in and for Prince

George’s County, he was arraigned and entered a plea of

“not guilty”. This plea was subsequently withdrawn and

a plea to the jurisdiction was filed. This plea recited

merely that the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County

was without jurisdiction because the petitioner was a citi-

zen of the State of Virginia, and the indictment failed to

allege that the person upon whom the offense was com-

mitted was not a citizen of that State. The State’s demur-

rer to the plea to the jurisdiction was sustained and a plea

of “not guilty” was re-entered. Following the rendition

of the verdict, but before judgment was pronounced, a

motion for a new trial was filed, in which the petitioner

alleged that the verdict was against the evidence, that the

evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, that the

Court was without jurisdiction, that the Court erred in per-

mitting an amendment of the indictment, and that the

State failed to prove that upon his arrest he was taken

before a Justice of the Peace in Prince George’s County.

Following the overruling by the trial court of the motion

for a new trial, the petitioner filed a motion in arrest of

judgment. That motion again challenged the jurisdiction

of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County; the con-

tention being that the Compact of 1785 entitled-him to be

tried in the State of Virginia. The further questions relat-

ing to the failure of proof that he was taken before a Jus-

tice of the Peace for Prince George’s County and the

amendment of the indictment were likewise raised. This

motion was overruled and subsequently sentence was im-

posed.

In none of the pleadings referred to did the petitioner

claim any right, privilege or immunity under the Consti-

tution or any statute of the United States; and it is respect-

fully contended that the petitioner’s failure to raise speci-

fically a federal question bars his right to a writ of cer-

tiorari to review the judgment of the State court.

It is well settled by the decisions of this Court that it

must be made to appear that a federal question was raised

in the State court in order to entitle the petitioner to a

review on certiorari, and that unless it does so appear that

such a federal question was raised in the State court the

rere

writ will be denied. New York Central and Hudson River

Railroad Company, et al., vs. New York, 186 U. S. 269, 22

S. Ct. 916, 46 L. Ed. 1158. In Thomas vs. Iowa, 209 U. S.

258, 28 S. Ct. 487, 52 L. Ed. 782, it was contended that an

instruction of the trial judge withdrew from the jury the

question and the degree of murder and to that extent

denied the plaintiff in error a trial by jury and denied him

due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment of the Constitution of the United States. This Court

observed that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Iowa

did not contain the slightest allusion to any federal ques-

tion, but that the Chief Justice of the State court signed a

bill of exceptions containing a statement that the question

made and discussed by counsel at the hearing in the State

Supreme Court, were that by reason of the errors above

pointed out, the petitioner was deprived of his liberty with-

out due process of law. Mr. Justice Moody, speaking for

this Court, said:

“The Federal question, if it can be found in the rec-

ord at all, must be found in this statement. It is too

late to raise it for the first time in the petition for a

writ of error from this court or in the assignments of

error here. Montana ex rel. Haire v. Rice, 204 U. S.

291, 51 L. ed. 490, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281. All that ap-

pears in the statement is that exceptions were taken

to certain parts of the charge to the jury, because they

‘in effect deprived the plaintiff in error of his liberty

without due process of law;’ and that the question

thus raised was discussed before the supreme court

of the state. But something more than this vague and

inferential suggestion of a right under the Constitu-

tion of the United States must be presented to the

state courts to give us the limited authority to review

‘their judgments which exist under the Constitution

and is regulated by Sec. 709 of the Revised Statutes

(U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 575). A mere claim in the

court below that there has been a denial of due pro-

cess of law does not of itself raise a Federal question

with sufficient distinctness to give us jurisdiction to

consider whether there has been a violation of the 14th

Amendment of the Constitution. See Clarke v. Mc-

Date, 165 U. S. 168, 172, 41 L. ed. 673, 674, 17 Sup. Ct.

Rep. 284; Miller v. Cornwall R. Co., 168 U. S. 131, 134,

42 L. ed. 409, 410, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 34; Harding v.

Illinois, 196 U. S. 78, 88, 49 L. ed. 394, 397, 25 Sup. Ct.

Rep. 176.”

See also Wilson v. Cook, ........ aa , Adv. Sh. 90 L.

Ed. 609. It is respectfully submitted, therefore, that the

failure of the petitioner to raise or even to allude to any

federal right or question in the State courts is sufficient to

deny him the right to a review in this Court.

Il.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE COMPACT OF 1785

BETWEEN THE STATES OF MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA

DOES NOT INVOLVE A FEDERAL QUESTION.

The petitioner in his brief cites the case of Marlatt vs.

Silk (1837) 11 Pet. 1, 9 L. Ed. 609, wherein it was held

that the rule of decision in that case was of an international

character; and there also was cited the case of Green vs.

Biddle, (1821) 8 Wheaton 1, 5 L. Ed. 547, to the effect that

certain acts of the State of Kentucky were a violation of

the Seventh Article of a Compact with the State of Virginia

and were, therefore, unconstitutional. Both of these cases

refer to private rights under land titles and are not ap-

plicable in the matter now pending before this Court.

In the case of Hamburg American Steamship Company

vs. Grube, 196 U. S. 407, 25 S. Ct. 352, 49 L. Ed. 529, which

was an action to recover damages for death occasioned by

HPAI ELBE NY DP DLIGIL! BO LABS,

a collision of two ships in waters off the coast of New

Jersey, Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, speaking for the Court,

said:

“As to the first ground, the contention is that the

Act of Congress of June 28, 1834, (4 Stat. at L. 708,

Chap. 126) giving consent to the agreement or com-

pact between the States of New Jersey and New York

in respect to their territorial limits and jurisdiction,

dated September 16, 1833, vested exclusive jurisdic-

tion in the Federal Government over the sea adjoining

the two States. But there is absolutely nothing in the

agreement and confirmatory statutes abdicating rights

in favor of the United States, and the transaction

simply amounted to fixing the boundaries between the

two States. N. Y. Laws 1834, p. 8, chap. 8; N. J. Laws

1834, p. 118. The first proposition raised no Federal

question.”

In a recent case involving the apportionment of the

waters of an inter-state stream, this Court, in Hinderlider

vs. La Plata River and Cherry Creek Ditch Company, 304

U.S. 92, 82 L. Ed. 1202, 58 S. Ct. 803, held that:

“The assent of Congress to the compact between

Colorado and New Mexico does not make it a ‘treaty

or statute of the United States’ within the meaning of

Section 237(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. A,

Section 344, and no question as to the validity of the

consent is presented.”

On the authorities here cited, the respondent respect-

fully contends that the construction of Article 10 of the

Compact of 1785 does not involve a Federal question.

—

——————

Il.

ARTICLE 10 OF THE COMPACT IS NOT IN FULL FORCE AND

EFFECT AND IT BECAME INOPERATIVE BY THE AWARD OF THE

ARBITRATORS IN 1877, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE GEN-

ERAL ASSEMBLIES OF MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA, ESTABLISH-

ING THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN THE TWO STATES AT THE

LOW-WATER MARK ON THE SOUTHERN OR VIRGINIA SHORE

OF THE POTOMAC RIVER.

In the event the court concludes that a Federal question

was properly raised in the State courts and that the con-

struction of Article 10 of the Compact of 1785, as applied

to the present case, involves a federal question, it is re-

spectfully contended that the decision of the Court of Ap-

peals, that the Article is now inoperative, was correct and

that the judgment should be affirmed.

A full discussion of the causes which led to the conven-

tion at which commissioners of Maryland and Virginia

met at Mt. Vernon, Virginia, on March 28, 1785, and pro-

posed a Compact, which was confirmed by the Legislatures

of both States, is set forth in Scharf’s History of Maryland,

Volume 2, pages 528, et seq.: Henry’s life of Patrick Henry,

Volume 2, page 176; Bancroft’s History of the Constitution

of the United States, Volume 1, page 151; and Rives’ Madi-

son, Volume 2, page 58. See also the Maryland and Vir-

ginia Boundary Controversy, by Louis N. Whealton, and

Report on the Location of the Boundary Line Along the

Potomac River between Virginia and Maryland In Accord-

ance with the Award of 1877, by Edward B. Mathews and

Wilbur A. Nelson. A brief summary of the events which

led up to the controversy and the efforts to bring about

its settlement is set forth below.

Due to the disputes between Maryland and Virginia re-

lating to the navigation of the bays and rivers in and ad-

joining their respective territories, the collection of custom

> ee —--

PERRET ITER LI IS J

duties and the exercise of fishing and riparian rights, and

to provide for jurisdiction of the courts of the two States

over offenses committed in the disputed areas, it was

deemed advisable that a convention be held at which dele-

gates of Maryland and Virginia would participate for the

purpose of adjusting their difficulties.

This was accordingly done and the Compact of 1785 was

the result of their work. By Chapter 1 of the Acts of 1785,

the Compact was approved by the General Assembly of

Maryland (Appendix p. 1). See also Chapter 18 of the

Acts of 1786, General Assembly of Virginia — Virginia

Code, 1942, Title 3, Chapter 3, Section 14. We are not con-

cerned here with the controversy between Maryland and

Virginia relating to the disputed line running from Smith’s

Point to Watkins’ Point, but only with that relating to the

Potomac River. Several attempts were made by joint

action of the States to settle their dispute and to determine

the boundaries, but it was not until 1877 that a common

boundary was established.

The history of Maryland and Virginia shows a long con-

tinuing series of disputes over the boundary lines between

the two States.

James I, in 1606, issued certain letters patent authorizing

The London Company to settle between the thirty-fourth

and forty-first degrees North latitude, and vested property

rights in that Company to the land extending along the

coast fifty statute miles on both sides of the first chosen

site, and reaching into the interior one hundred statute

miles. All lands within the area were to belong to The

London Company. Jamestown was settled in the year 1607

under this grant. These were the first boundary lines of

Virginia. In 1609, The London Company was issued a new

patent which granted to it “all those lands—in that part

of America called Virginia, from the point of land called

Cape or Point Comfort. All along the seacoast to the

northward two hundred miles; and from the said Cape or

Point Comfort all along the seacoast to the southward two

hundred miles; and all that space and circuit of land lying

from the seacoast of the precinct aforesaid, up into the

land from sea to sea, west and northwest; and also all the

highlands within one hundred miles along the coast of

both seas of the precinct aforesaid.”

It is to be noted that in the two documents mentioned

there was no boundary indicated by natural objects or defi-

nite land marks.

In the year 1688, King James II granted to Lord Cul-

peper what is now known as the Northern Neck of Vir-

ginia, which was described in the patent as follows: “All

that entire tract, territory or parcel of land situate, lying,

and being in Virginia in America and bounded by and

within the first heads or springs of the rivers of Tappahan-

nock, Rappahannock and Quiriough and Patawonuck

rivers, the courses of said rivers from their first heads or

springs as they are clearly called and known by the in-

habitants, and the description of those parts and the bay

of the Chesapeake, together with the said rivers them-

selves and all the highlands within the outermost banks

thereof, and the soil of all and singular the premises, and

all lands, woods, underwood, timber, and trees, wayes,

mountains, swamps, marshes, waters, rivers, ponds, pools,

lakes, water courses, fishings, streams, havens, ports, har-

bours, bays, creeks, ferries, with all sorts of fish as well as

whales, sturgeons and other royal fish—to have, hold and

enjoy all the said entire tract, territory or parcel of land

and every parts and parcels thereof—to the said Thomas,

Lord Culpeper, his heirs and assigns forever.”

CEE OLE EDIE DAIL ws,

In 1632, King Charles I made a grant to Lord Baltimore

including substantially what is now the State of Maryland,

in these words: “all that Part of the Peninsula, or cher-

sonese lying in the Parts of America, between the Ocean

on the East, and the bay of Chesapeake on the West, di-

vided from the Residue thereof by a Right Line drawn

from the Promontory, or Head Line, called Watkins’ Point,

situate upon the Bay aforesaid, near the river of Wighco,

on the West, unto the Main Ocean on the East; and be-

tween that Boundary on the South unto that Part of the

Bay of Delaware on the North, which lieth under the

Fortieth Degree of North Latitude from the Aequinoctial,

where New England is terminated; and all the Tract of

that Land within the Metes underwritten, (that is to say, )

passing from the said Bay, called Delaware Bay, in a right

line, by the degree aforesaid, unto the true Meridian of the

first Fountain of the River of Pattowmack, thence, verg-

ing toward the South, unto the further Bank of the said

River, and following the same on the West and South, unto

a certain place called Cinquack, situate near the Mouth of

the said River, where it disembogues into the aforesaid

Bay of Chesapeake, and thence by the shortest line unto

the aforesaid Promontory, or Place called Watkins’ Point

* * *

It is readily seen that the conflicting grants provided a

fertile field for controversy which inevitably resulted and

continued for generations. Virginia, by her first Consti-

tution adopted June 29, 1776, surrendered her claim to the

territory of Pennsylvania and Maryland, but definitely as-

serted her right to the free navigation and use of the

Potomac and Pocomoke Rivers, and to property on the

Virginia shores and strands thereof as follows: “the ter-

ritories, contained within the charter, erecting the colonies

of Maryland, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina are

“15

hereby ceded, released and forever confirmed to the people

of these colonies respectively, with all the rights of prop-

erty, jurisdiction and government and all other rights

whatsoever which might at any time heretofore have been

claimed by Virginia, excepting the free navigation and use

of the rivers Patomaque and Pokomoke, with the property

of the Virginia shores and strands bordering on either of

said rivers and all improvements, which have been or shall

be made thereon.” (See Washington Airport, Inc. v.

Smoot Sand & Gravel Corp., 44 F2, 342).

The three points in the resulting controversy were as

follows:

(1) Maryland claimed the entire Potomac River under

her charter, while Virginia also claimed the River on simi-

lar grounds.

(2) In the Charter to Lord Baltimore, granted in 1632,

“the first fountain of the Potomac was to be the western

boundary line of Maryland separating it from Virginia.”

The Potomac River has two branches, one called the North

Branch and one called the South Branch. Maryland

claimed that the South Branch was the first fountain, and

that all land between the two branches was possessed by

Maryland. Virginia, of course, disputed this and claimed

the North Branch to be the first source.

(3) The place where the boundary between Maryland

and Virginia met the shore on the easternmost side of the

Chesapeake Bay was called “Watkins’ Point” by the grant

to Lord Baltimore. The exact location of this Point was

in dispute for many years; Virginia claimed that it was

located farther North than the Point known today as “Wat-

kins’ Point”. Maryland insisted that it was at the Point

now known as “Watkins’ Point”.

By Chapter 247 of the Acts of 1874 (Appendix p. 7)

and Chapter 198 of the Acts of 1876 (Appendix p. 8)

of the General Assembly of Maryland, and by Chapter 135

of the Acts of 1874 (Appendix p. 18), and Chapter 48 of

the Acts of 1875—1876 (Appendix p. 20) of the General

Assembly of Virginia, both States provided for the appoint-

ment of arbitrators to fix the boundary lines, and inserted

the following provision in each of the Acts:

“* * * provided, however, that neither of the 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 1785, but that

the same shall remain to and be enjoyed by the said

states and the citizens thereof, forever.”

On January 16, 1877, an Opinion and Award of the Arbi-

trators, known as the “Black-Jenkins Award”, was made

(Appendix p. 26) whereby the boundary between the

two States was definitely established on the southern or

Virginia shore of the Potomac River, at low-water mark.

At page 6 of the publication known as “Opinion and

Award of Arbitrators of the Maryland and Virginia Bound-

ary Line”, published in 1877, is this statement:

“The State of Virginia, through her Commissioners

and other public authorities, adhered for many years

to her claim for a boundary on the left bank of the

Potomac, but the gentlemen who represented her be-

fore us expressed with great candor their own opinion

that a true interpretation of the King’s concession

would divide the river between the states by a line

running in the middle of it. This latter view they

urged upon us with all proper earnestness, and it was

opposed with equal zeal by the counsel for Maryland,

who contended that the whole river was within the

limits of the grant to Lord Baltimore.”

_ ——

= tt

The action of the arbitrators in making the award was

ratified and confirmed by Virginia by Chapter 246 of the

Acts of 1877-1878 (Appendix p. 23), and by Maryland,

by Chapter 274 of the Acts of 1878 (Appendix p. 10).

The United States gave its consent to this award as an

agreement or compact between the respective States by

the Act of March 3, 1879, Chapter 196, 20 Stat. at Large

481 (Appendix p. 29). It will thus be observed that as

result of this arbitration and award, there was given to

the State of Maryland exclusive jurisdiction and govern-

ment over the Potomac River, thereby confirming the call

in the Charter to Lord Baltimore for the further or south-

ern bank of said stream. Morris v. U. S., 174 U. S. 196, 43

L. ed. 946, affirming U. S. v. Morris, 23 Wash. Law Rep.

549: Maryland v. West Virginia, 217 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed. 645;

Maryland v. West Virginia, 217 U. S. 577, 54 L. ed. 888;

Marine R. & C. Co. v. U. S., 257 U. S. 47, 66 L. ed. 124;

Washington Airport Inc. v. Smoot Sand & Gravel Corp.,

44 F2 342.

Thus, the boundary dispute which had existed since

colonial times was finally concluded. There remained no

longer a doubtful line of division between Maryland and

Virginia. Hence, the basis for conferring jurisdiction upon

the courts of Maryland in certain cases, and upon the

courts of Virginia in other cases, as provided in the Tenth

Article, all as a result of the doubtful boundary, was ut-

terly destroyed by the award.

The State of Maryland contends that the Black-Jenkins

Award of 1877, by which the boundary between Maryland

and Virginia was established with certainty and precision,

rendered obsolete and ineffective so much of the Tenth

Article of the Compact of 1785 as attempted to provide

for the jurisdiction to be exercised by the courts of the

two States for the prosecution of offenses occurring in the

waters of the Chesapeake Bay, Pocomoke and Potomac

Rivers where the division line was doubtful. If this were

not so, the courts of Virginia would find themselves in the

very anomalous position of exercising jurisdiction over

persons, and the offenses committed by them, on the Poto-

mac River within the State of Maryland and entirely

beyond the limits of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In Washington Airport vs. Smoot Sand and Gravel

Corp., 44 F2 342, 344, Judge Parker said:

“It would have been absurd to have confirmed the

right of property in the Virginia shores to the citizens

of Virginia and at the same time to have reserved to

the State of Maryland political jurisdiction over those

shores, so that controversies over titles thereto would

be justiciable only in Maryland and crimes committed

thereon punishable only in Maryland Courts.”

To be sure, the framers of the Compact of 1785 did not

intend that great document to produce such absurd results.

So long as the douht as to the location of the true bound-

ary between the States existed—Maryland on the one hand

claiming to the South bank of the Potomac River, and

Virginia on the other hand claiming that its Common-

wealth extended to the North bank of the Potomac River—

it was imperative that means be provided whereby one or

the other of the States could prosecute persons charged

with offenses committed on those waters. The lack of

certainty of the true location of the boundary gave rise

to that portion of the Tenth Article of the Compact. It

would be strange indeed if the location of the true bound-

ary line between the States were of academic importance

only and thus necessitated resorting to an artificial expedi-

ent, namely, that of arbitrarily vesting jurisdiction in the

courts of one State or the other, without regard to the

er Oe ee

place where the offense was actually committed. In this

connection, it is worthy to note that in “The Final Report

of the Virginia Commissioners on the Maryland-Virginia

Boundary” in 1874, at page 29, the Commissioners made

this observation:

“They have omitted to notice what is called the

Compact between the two States in the year 1785,

because it was a joint Act which did not pretend even

to fix boundaries; because it expressly assumed certain

boundaries to be in dispute and unsettled; because it

was but a temporary expedient to regulate commerce

and navigation between the two States; and because

in that respect, if not in all respects, it has been super-

seded by the adoption of the Constitution of the United

States.”

In Binney’s Case, 2 Bland (Marylane) 99, 126, the Chan-

cellor said:

“The general scope and object of that compact was,

not to fix and give a legal character to any natural

subject whatever; in that respect it did not profess to

alter, or to stipulate for anything; throughout it speaks

of waters, which are by nature navigable; and regu-

lates the terms and manner in which the natural navi-

gation is to be conducted by the citizens of the con-

tracting parties. The first nine articles cannot possibly

be applied in any other way. The tenth establishes

certain regulations respecting piracies, crimes, and of-

fenses, and for any violence, injury, or trespass, to or

upon the property, or lands of the other adjacent to

the said bay or river, &c. Piracy is a name given to

no offence committed within the body of a county; but

only to crimes upon bays and rivers, or any tide-water,

considered as an arm of the sea, not within the body

of a county; but originally and properly within the

jurisdiction of the admiralty. This provision respect-

ing piracy, therefore, clearly confines the whole article

to acts done on tide-water, or abroad, and not within

the body of any county; and of which the Courts of

common law could not otherwise have jurisdiction.”

(Italics supplied).

See also Middlekauff v. LeCompte, 149 Md. 621.

In Biscoe v. State, 68 Md. 294, this Court held that the

Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County had jurisdiction over

an offense committed on the Potomac River, and referred

to the Virginia Compact of 1785 as recognizing the juris-

diction of the Circuit Court of the several Counties lying

on that River. Nowhere was the award of the arbitrators

mentioned, or the reasons underlying the Tenth Article of

the Compact. But the Court did say that

“the Potomac river being part of the State, and subject |

therefore to its jurisdiction, the Circuit Courts of the

several counties bordering on said river, as common

law courts, exercise criminal jurisdiction over offenses

committed on said river opposite such counties. And

the exercise of this jurisdiction was recognized by the

Legislature in ratifying the compact made with the

State of Virginia, for although jurisdiction was in a

certain class of offenses conceded to that State, yet it

provided that offenses committed by citizens of Mary-

land against its own citizens, should be tried by the

courts of this State having jurisdiction over such of-

fenses. And it is well known that the County Courts

of the several counties lying on the Potomac, at that

time exercised a common law jurisdiction over of-

fenses committed on its waters opposite such counties.

We have then by the Act of 1785, ch. 1, a recognition

of the jurisdiction of these counties over offenses com-

mitted on the Potomac river, if any such recognition

be needed.”

The jurisdiction referred to in the Biscoe case has now

been enlarged.

By Chapter 487 of the Acts of 1908 of the General As-

sembly of Maryland, codified as Article 27, Section 633,

and Article 75, Section 161 (Annotated Code of Maryland,

1939 ed.), it was provided that:

“The jurisdiction of every county bounded at any

point by navigable waters shall extend from the shore

to the inside of the channe: which shall be regarded to

be the center of said waters, except where said waters

adjoin neighboring States, in which case the jurisdic-

tion of the certain counties shall continue to the ulti-

mate limits of the state at the place in question; pro-

vided, however, that nothing in this Section or the

two following Sections shall be construed as chang-

ing such rights as the State of Maryland may have on

or under said waters.”

Section 633, together with Sections 634 and 635 of Arti-

cle 27, were removed from the Code by Chapter 26 of the

Acts of 1941 because they were duplications of Sections

161, 162 and 163 of Article 75 of the Code. Thus it is clear

that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Prince

George’s County extends into the Potomac River to the ulti-

mate limits of the State, which, in this instance, is the

low-water mark on the Virginia side of the Potomac River.

It is readily apparent, therefore, from the foregoing, that

the trial court had jurisdiction to hear, try and determine

the case on this record.

In the case of Ex Parte Marsh, 57 Fed. 719, three citi-

zens of Maryland were arrested for violating oyster laws

of Virginia. Wharton and Nelson were charged with of-

fenses committed in Pocomoke Sound in Virginia, and

Marsh was charged with an offense committed in Tangier

Sound in Virginia. They filed petitions for writs of habeas

corpus in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia. Wharton and Nelson contended that

Sc et A

they were citizens of Maryland and that the courts of

Virginia had no jurisdiction over them, while Marsh con-

tended that he was a citizen of Maryland and, as his of-

fense was committed near the doubtful boundary line,

the courts of Virginia were without jurisdiction. The court

held that the Seventh and Eighth Articles of the Compact |

of 1785 did not grant a common right of fishing to the citi- |

zens of Maryland in the Pocomoke River, and that there-

fore, the petitioners were subject to trial in a Virginia

court. At page 730, the court said:

“As a matter of historical fact, no part of the line

between Maryland and Virginia was at the date of the

Compact of 1785 more doubtful than the part between

Smith’s Point and Watkins’ Point and no law could

be more just and judicious than the 10th Section of

the Compact of 1785, containing the provisions relied

on. But, the able and distinguished Commissioners

appointed by the two States in 1877 had in charge the

very duty of making certain and determinate all

doubtful parts of the common boundary of the two

States. Accordingly, the Commission addressed itself

to the task of removing all doubt from this part of the

line, as well as others and accomplished its purpose

successfully. Probably no Section of a boundary line

was ever more clearly, precisely, minutely, definitely

or intelligibly laid down and defined than was the

portion of the Maryland and Virginia line between

Smith and Watkins’ Point, and which may be found

on pages 63, 64 of the Virginia Code, and page 482 of

the twentieth volume of the Statutes at Large of the

United States. It is useless, in this opinion, to set

out the careful language of the award in defining this

line. The duty of the arbitrators was to make it cease

to be doubtful, and to establish the line with precision

and certainty. They performed that duty, and ac-

complished that purpose. The line is no longer doubt-

ful, and the defense of the prisoner Marsh is inad-

missible. It was competent for the Virginia Court by

ee ER -BO FF e Bins ar A

Te are a eS

which he was convicted to try him and he must be re-

manded to the custody of the Sheriff of Accomack

County, Va.” (Italics supplied.)

See also Wharton v. Wise, 153 U. S. 155, 38 L. ed. 669.

It should be noted that Maryland, in conformity with

Chapter 50 of the Acts of 1929 of the General Assembly of

Maryland (See Appendix p. 14) and Virginia, by Chapter

477 of the Acts of 1928 of the General Assembly of that

State (See Appendix p. 24), caused the Potomac River

boundary line to be delineated accurately on charts and

physically marked by means of monuments or reference

points. (See “Report on the Marking of the Boundary

Line Along the Potomac River in Accordance with the

Award of 1877”, by Edward B. Mathews and Wilbur A.

Nelson.) (See also Appendix pages 12, 13 and 22).

The right of fishing in the Potomac River is common to

the citizens of both States according to the provisions of

the Seventh Article of the Compact of 1785. The Eighth

Article thereof provides that all laws and regulations

which may be necessary for the preservation of fish shall

be made with the mutual consent and approbation of both

States. Chapter 929 of the Acts of 1945 of the General

Assembly of Maryland repealed most of the provisions of

Article 72 of the Code of Maryland, relating to fish and

oysters and enacted a new Article. Section 8 of that Chap-

ter is entitled “Concurrent Laws on the Potomac River”,

and sub-section (j) reads as follows:

“Nothing in this section shall be construed in any

way to impair, alter or abridge any rights which either

State, or the citizens thereof, may be entitled to, either

by, through, under, or against the compact entered

into between the States of Maryland and Virginia on

the 28th day of March 1783.” (sic).

Violations of the fishing laws are prosecuted in accord-

ance with the provisions of the concurrent Acts of the

respective State. Such offenses would not be punishable

according to the terms of the Tenth Article of the Com-

pact for the reason that the offenses comprehended within

that Article are offenses against the citizen as distinguished

from offenses against the State. This was so held in Hen-

dricks vs. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 934 (1882), wherein a

citizen of Maryland was convicted in a Virginia Court on

a charge of violating the fishing laws of that State relating

to the Potomac River. (See also Ex Parte Marsh, 57 Fed.

719; Wharton vs. Wise, 153 U. S. 155, 38 L. Ed. 669).

The statutes of the state of Virginia do not make any

specific provision for the prosecution of those offenses set

forth in the Tenth Article; however laws relating to fish-

ing in the Potomac River (concurrent acts passed in con-

formity with the Seventh and Eighth Articles) are con-

tained in Chapter 129, Sections 3299 to 3305 (c), inclusive,

entitled “Potomac River Statutes”, of Title 27, Virginia

Code, 1942.

The Legislature of Maryland, by the passage of Chapter

485 of the Acts of 1880 (Article 27, Section 631) relating

to offenses on steamboats and by Chapter 487 of the Acts

of 1908 (Article 27, Sections 633, 634 and 635 and Article

75, Sections 161, 162 and 163) relating to boundaries and

jurisdictional matters, hereinbefore referred to, recognized

that the Black-Jenkins’ Award of 1877 set the exterior

limits of the State of Maryland along the Potomac River

at low-water mark on the Virginia shore. By such action,

the State of Maryland asserted complete and exclusive

jurisdiction over that river, save as limited by the Seventh

and Eighth Articles and the concurrent Acts relating to

fishing.

This is made more apparent by reference to Senate Joint

Resolution No. 17 (Appendix, page 16), adopted at the 1945

Session of the Maryland Legislature. This Resolution

authorized the Governor to appoint a Commission to con-

fer with a similar Commission from Virginia for the pur-

pose of studying the Compact of 1785 and the concurrent

legislation relating to fishing. The prosecution of offenses

under the Tenth Article is not mentioned in the Resolu-

tion. This amounts to further legislative recognition of the

fact that the Tenth Article is not applicable since the Black-

Jenkins’ Award.

The several Acts authorizing the appointment of the

arbitrators contained the provision, previously quoted, that

neither of the States, nor their citizens should, by the

decision of the arbitrators, be deprived of any of the rights

and privileges set forth in the Compact. It is manifest that

these provisions related to the rights and privileges of

property along the river bank, of fishing, and of naviga-

tion and of commerce. The lack of certainty as to the

definite boundary of each State gave rise to the temporary

expedient set forth in Article Ten. The designation of the

State wherein the offender was to be subjected to prosecu-

tion was not a right or privilege, conferred either upon

the States or the citizens, but was a matter of convenience

and necessity in furtherance of the proper administration

of justice, in order that prosecutions would not be defeated

on jurisdictional grounds.

The provisions in this Article, that the offender “shall be

tried in the court * * * which have legal cogriizance” of

the offense are not analagous to the provisions of the Sixth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, viz.

that:

“* * * the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy

and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and

District wherein the crime shall have been committed.”

st CRN LL IEEE MME LE IPS j

That amendment confers a vested, constitutional right,

upon the accused, to a trial in a Federal Court, which can

be neither abridged nor denied. The Tenth Article con-

ferred no such right or privilege on the accused, for it con-

sisted merely of an agreement between the two States as

to the place where the accused should be tried as a matter

of expediency.

As was very properly observed by the Court of Appeals

of Maryland (47 A 2d 50, 61):

“We find no intention on the part of either State in

the Tenth Section to barter away permanently such

jurisdiction, and need not inquire into the power of

either to do so. The Legislatures and the courts of

both States, as we have shown, have construed it to

mean that as soon as the boundary of Maryland was

established at the low-water mark on the Virginia

shore, the Virginia jurisdiction over offenses on the

Potomac River ceased by operation of law, and com-

plete jurisdiction remained in the Maryland courts be-

cause the river was determined to be within her terri-

torial limits.”

The Court said further that:

“* * * when the obvious reason for the agreement

has been done away with by the parties, that part of

the agreement affected falls with the subsequent

change in the circumstances.”

In Chastelton Corp. vs. Sinclair, 264 U. S. 543, 68 L. Ed.

841, 44 S. Ct. 405, Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for this

Court, said:

“A law depending upon the existence of an emer-

gency or other certain state of facts to uphold it may

cease to operate if the emergency ceases or the facts

change, even though valid when passed.”

In Great Northern Railway Co. vs. United States, 315

U. S. 262, 86 L. ed. 836, 62 S. Ct. 529, Mr. Justice Murphy,

speaking for this Court, said:

“But we are not limited to the lifeless words of the

statute and formalistic canons of construction in our

search for the intent of Congress. The Act was the

product of a period, and, ‘Courts, in construing a stat-

ute, may with propriety recur to the history of the

times when it was passed’.”

See also United States vs. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S.

144, 82 L. ed. 1234, 58 S. Ct. 778; and Nashville, etc,, Ry.

Co. vs. Walters, 294 U. S. 405, 79 L. Ed. 949, 55 S. Ct. 486.

When the Virginia courts were organized in 1776-1777,

the body of the original jurisdiction fell to the general

court (9 Hennings Statutes 401). In 1779, Chapter 26 was

adopted (10 Hennings Statutes 98) giving the court of

admiralty of Virginia jurisdiction over all maritime cases

“except those wherein any parties may be accused of capi-

tal offenses”. That State, in 1776, also passed a law which

was re-enacted in 1792 giving the General Court jurisdic-

tion to try offenses against the Commonwealth committed

by any citizens thereof “in any place out of the jurisdic-

tion of common law in this Commonwealth and all felonies

committed by citizens against citizens in any such place

other than the high seas”. This Act, which gave the Gen-

eral Court jurisdiction to try cases which might occur on

the Potomac River, was repealed in 1819. In that year,

however, and before that repeal became effective, the case

of Commonwealth vs. Gaines, 2 Va. Cas. 172, was decided.

The court, by majority opinion, held that the General Court

had power before the passage of the Act of 1786 to try

capital offenses excluded from the jurisdiction of the

admiralty court occurring on the Chesapeake Bay, and

such of its tributaries as were out of the jurisdiction of

ee ee

i at ale

the courts of common law. There was, in this case, a

strong minority opinion which held that the Act of 1786

was passed to provide a tribunal to try cases occurring

under the Compact of 1785 (the only reported Virginia

case dealing with the Tenth Article of the Compact) and

that the General Court had no such jurisdiction before the

Act of 1786. In 1895, the Supreme Court of Appeals of

Virginia adopted, in the case of Strouther vs. Common-

wealth, 92 Va. 789, 22 S. E. 852, 53 Am. St. Rep. 852, the

minority view in Commonwealth vs. Gaines. The court

stated that its opinion was based on the construction of a

statute “which disappeared from our laws in 1819, and it

may be fairly presumed and was repealed because the Leg-

islature preferred that the rule in Virginia should continue

as at common law.

It is the contention of the respondent that since 1819

Virginia has passed no law providing for the punishment

of extra-territorial offenses, save those offenses arising

under the concurrent Acts passed by Maryland and Vir-

ginia regulating fishing on the Potomac River, in conform-

ity with the Seventh and Eighth Articles of the Compact

of 1785.

The court held in Anderson vs. Commonwealth, 100 Va.

860, 42 S. E. 865, that the Virginia courts had no extra-

territorial jurisdiction. In the comparatively recent case

of Farewell vs. Commonwealth (1937), 167 Va. 475, 189

S. E. 321, the court held that:

“The venue is the element of territorial jurisdiction.

As in all criminal cases every crime to be punished in

Virginia must be committed in Virginia.

“So murder, rape or robbery must be committed

within the confines of this State to give jurisdiction

to its courts.”

—

;

“

It is respectfully contended, therefore, that the reasons

which gave rise to the incorporation in the Compact of the

Tenth Article thereof having ceased to exist upon the

ratification by Maryland and Virginia of the Black-Jenkins

Award of 1877, that provision of the Compact has lost its

force and vigor and may be disregarded.

CONCLUSION.

For the reasons heretofore assigned, it is respectfully

contended that the writ of certiorari should not be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM CURRAN,

Attorney General of Maryland,

HALL HAMMOND,

Deputy Attorney General

of Maryland,

J. EDGAR HARVEY,

Assistant Attorney General

of Maryland,

T. BARTON HARRINGTON,

Assistant Attorney General

of Maryland,

Counsel for Respondent.

1901 Balto. Trust Building,

Baltimore 2, Maryland

APPENDIX TO RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSI-

TION TO THE PETITION FOR A WRIT

OF CERTIORARI.

ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF

MARYLAND.

Cuaprer I.

Acts or 1785.

An ACT to approve, confirm and ratify, the compact made

by the commissioners appointed by the general assem-

bly of the commonwealth of Virginia, and the commis-

sioners appointed by this State, to regulate and settle

the jurisdiction and navigation of Patowmack and

Pocomoke rivers, and that part of Chesapeake bay

which lieth within the territory of Virginia.

WHEREAS, at a meeting of the commissioners appointed

by the general assemblies of the commonwealth of Virginia

and the State of Maryland for forming a compact between

the two States, to regulate and settle the jurisdiction and

navigation of Patowmack, Pocomoke rivers, and that part

of Chesapeake bay which lieth within the territory of Vir-

ginia, to wit, George Mason and Alexander Henderson,

Esquires, on the part of the commonwealth of Virginia,

and Daniel of Saint Thomas Jenifer, Thomas Stone, and

Samuel Chase, Esquires, on the part of the State of Mary-

land, at Mount Vernon in Virginia, on the twenty-eighth

day of March, in the year one thousand seven hundred and

eighty-five, the following compact was mutually agreed to

by the said commissioners.

FIRST, The Commonwealth of Virginia disclaims all

right to impose any toll, duty or charge, prohibition or

restraint, on any vessel whatever sailing through the capes

of Chesapeake bay to the State of Maryland, or from the

said State through the said capes outward bound, and

agrees that the waters of Chesapeake bay, and the river

Pocomoke, within the limits of Virginia, be forever con-

sidered as a common highway, free for the use and naviga-

tion of any vessel belonging to the said State of Maryland,

or any of its citizens, or carrying on commerce to or from

the said State, or with any of its citizens, and that such

vessel, inward or outward bound, may freely enter any of

the rivers within the commonwealth of Virginia as a har-

bour, or for safety against an enemy, without the payment

of port duties, or any other charge; and also that the before-

mentioned parts of Chesapeake bay and Pocomoke river

be free for the navigation of vessels from one part of the

State of Maryland to another.

SECOND, The State of Maryland agrees, that any vessel

belonging to the commonwealth of Virginia, or any of its

citizens, or carrying on commerce to or from the said com-

monwealth, or with any of its citizens, may freely enter

any of the rivers of the said State of Maryland as a har-

bour, or for safety against an enemy, without the payment

of any port duty, or any other charge.

THIRD, Vessels of war, the property of either State, shall

not be subject to the payment of any port duty, or other

charge.

FOURTH, Vessels not exceeding forty feet keel, nor fifty

tons burthen, the property of any citizen of Virginia or

Maryland, or of citizens of both States, trading from one

State to the other, only, and having on board only the

produce of the said States, may enter and trade in any

part of either State, with a permit from the naval officer

of the district from which such vessel departs with her

cargo, and shall be subject to no port charges.

FIFTH, All merchant vessels (except such as are des-

cribed in the fourth article) navigating the river Patow-

mack, shall enter and clear at some naval office on the said

river in one or both States, according to the laws of the

State in which the entry shall be made; and where any ves-

sel shall make an entry in both States, such vessel shall be

subject to tonnage in each state, only in proportion to the

commodities carried to or taken from such state.

SIXTH, The river Patowmack shall be considered as a

common highway for the purpose of navigation and com-

merce to the citizens of Virginia and Maryland, and of the

United States, and to all other persons in amity with the

said States trading to or from Virginia or Maryland.

SEVENTH, The citizens of each state respectively shall

have full property in the shores of Patowmack river adjoin-

ing their lands, with all emoluments and advantages there-

unto belonging, and the privilege of making and carrying

out wharfs and other improvements, so as not to obstruct

or injure the navigation of the river, but the right of fish-

ing in the river shall be common to and equally enjoyed

by, the citizens of both states; provided, that such common

rights be not exercised by the citizens of the one state to

the hinderance or disturbance of the fisheries on the shores

of the other state, and that the citizens of neither state

shall have a right to fish with nets or seans on the shores

of the other.

EIGHTH, All laws and regulations which may be neces-

sary for the preservation of fish, or for the performance

of quarantine in the river Patowmack, or for the preserv-

ing and keeping open the channel and navigation thereof,

or of the river Pocomoke within the limits of Virginia, by

preventing the throwing out ballast, or giving any other

obstruction thereto, shall be made with the mutual consent

and approbation of both states.

NINTH, Lighthouses, beacons, buoys, or other necessary

signals, shall be erected, fixed and maintained, upon Chesa-

peake bay, between the sea and the mouths of the rivers

Patowmack and Pocomoke and upon the river Patowmack

at the expense of both states; if upon Patowmack river, at

the joint and equal charge of both states, and if upon the

beforementioned part of Chesapeake bay, Virginia shall

defray five parts, and Maryland three parts, of such ex-

pense, and if this proportion shall in future times be found

unequal, the same shall be corrected. And for ascertaining

the proper places, mode and plans, for erecting and fixing

lighthouse, buoys, beacons, and other signals, as aforesaid,

both states shall, upon the application of either to the other,

appoint an equal number of commissioners, not less than

three or more than five from each state, to meet at such

times and places as the said commissioners, or a major part |

of them, shall judge fit, to fix upon the proper places, mode

and plans, for erecting and fixing such lighthouses, beacons, |

or other signals, and report the same, with an estimate of |

the expense, to the legislatures of both states, for their

approbation. |

TENTH, All piracies, crimes or offenses, committed on

that part of Chesapeake bay which lies within the liraits

of Virginia, or that part of the said bay where the line of

division from the south point of Patowmack river (now

called Smith’s Point) to Watkin’s Point, near the mouth

of Pocomoke river, may be doubtful, and on that part of

Pocomoke river within the limits of Virginia, or where the |

line of division between the two states upon the said river |

is doubtful, by any persons not citizens of the common-

wealth of Virginia, against the citizens of Maryland, shall

be tried in the court of the State of Maryland which hath

legal cognizance of such offences. And all piracies, crimes

and offences, committed on the before-mentioned parts of

Chesapeake bay and Pocomoke river, by any persons not

citizens of Maryland, against any citizen of Virginia, shall :

be tried in the court of the commonwealth of Virginia :

which hath legal cognizance of such offences. All piracies, [

crimes and offences, committed on the said parts of Chesa- |

peake bay, and Pocomoke river, by persons not citizens of

either State, against persons not citizens of either State, !

shall be tried in the court of the commonwealth of Virginia

having legal cognizance of such offences. And all piracies,

crimes and offences, committed on the said parts of Chesa-

peake bay and Pocomoke river, by any citizen of the com-

monwealth of Virginia, or of the State of Maryland, either

against the other, shall be tried in the court of that state

of which the offender is a citizen. The jurisdiction of each

state over the river Patowmack shall be exercised in the

same manner as is prescribed for the before-mentioned

parts of Chesapeake bay and Pocomoke river in every re-

spect, except in the case of piracies, crimes and offenses,

committed by persons not citizens of either state, upon per-

sons not citizens of either state, in which case the offen-

ders shall be tried by the court of the state to which they

shall first be brought; and if the inhabitants of either state

shall commit any violence, injury or trespass, to or upon

the property or lands of the other, adjacent to the said bay

or rivers, or to any person upon such lands, upon proof of

due notice to the offender to appear and answer, any court

of record, or civil magistrate, of the state where the offence

shall have been committed, having jurisdiction thereof,

may enter the appearance of such person, and proceed to

trial and judgment in the same manner as if legal process

had been served on such offender; and such judgment shall

be valid and effectual against the person and property of

such offender, both in the state where the offender shall

have been committed, and also in the state where the said

offender may reside, and execution may be issued by the

court, or magistrate, giving such judgment, in the same

manner as upon judgments given in other cases; or upon a

transcript of such judgment properly authenticated, being

produced to any court or magistrate of the state where such

offender may reside, having jurisdiction within the state,

or county where the offender may reside, in cases of a simi-

lar nature, such court or magistrate shall order execution

to issue upon such authenticated judgment, in the same

manner and to the same extent, as if the judgment had been

given by the court or magistrate to which such transcript

shall be exhibited.

ELEVENTH, Any vessel entering in any port on the river

Patowmack, may be libelled or attached for debt by pro-

cess from the state in which such vessel entered; and if

the commercial regulations of either state shall be violated

by any person carrying on commerce in Patowmack or

Pocomoke rivers, the vessel owned or commanded by the

person so offending, and the property on board, may be

seized by process from the state whose laws are offended,

in order for trial; and if any person shall fly from justice

in a civil or criminal case, or shall atempt to defraud credi-

tors, by removing his property, such person, or any prop-

erty so removed, may be taken on any part of Chesapeake

bay, or the rivers aforesaid, by process of the state from

“yy

which such person shall fly, or property be removed; and

process from the State of Virginia may be served on any

part of the said river upon any person, or property of any

person, not a citizen of Maryland, indebted to any citizen

of Virginia, or charged with injury having been by him

committed; and process from the state of Maryland may

be served on any part of the said rivers upon any person,

or property of any person, not a citizen of Virginia, in-

debted to a citizen of Maryland, or charged with injury

having been by him committed. And in all cases of trial

in pursuance of the jurisdiction settled by this compact,

citizens of either state shall attend as witnesses in the

other, upon a summons from any court or magistrate hav-

ing jurisdiction, being served by a proper officer of the

county where such citizen shall reside.

TWELFTH, The citizens of either state having lands in i

the other, shall have full liberty to transport to their own

state the produce of such lands, or to remove their effects,

free from any duty, tax, or charge whatsoever, for the ;

liberty to remove such produce or effects. :

THIRTEENTH, These articles shall be laid before the

legislatures of Virginia and Maryland, and their approba-

tion being obtained, shall be confirmed and ratified by a

law of each state, never to be repealed or altered by either

without the consent of the other. And whereas this gen-

eral assembly are of opinion, that the said compact is made

on just and mutuai principles, for the true interest of both

governments, and if executed with good faith, will per-

petuate harmony, friendship and good offices, between the ;

two states, so essential to the prosperity and happiness of

their people; |

II. BEIT ENACTED, by the General Assembly of Mary-

land, That the said compact is hereby approved, confirmed

and ratified, and that as soon as the said compact shall be

approved, confirmed and ratified, by the general assembly

of the commonwealth of Virginia, thereupon, and immedi-

ately thereafter, every article, clause, matter and thing, in

the same compact contained, shall be obligatory on this state

and the citizens thereof, and shall be for ever faithfully and

inviolably observed and kept by this government, and

all its citizens, according to the true intent and meaning of

the said compact; and the faith and honour of this State is

hereby solemnly pledged and engaged to the general as-

sembly of the commonwealth of Virginia, and the govern-

ment and citizens thereof, that this law shall never be re-

pealed or altered by the legislature of this government,

without the consent of the government of Virginia.

CHAPTER 247.

Acts or 1874.

-AN ACT to designate the arbitrators to ascertain and fix

the boundary between the States of Virginia and Mary-

land.

Whereas, a controversy exists as to the true line of the

boundary between the States of Virginia and Maryland;

and,

Whereas, the State of Virginia, by an act of its General

Assembly, entitled an act to designate the arbitrators to

ascertain and fix the boundary between the States of Mary-

land and Virginia, approved on the twenty-eighth day of

March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred

and seventy-four, has declared its willingness to submit

the said controversy to arbitration, and to accept as final

and conclusive, such award as may be made in the prem-

ises; therefore—

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of

Maryland, That the settlement and determination of the

true line of boundary between the States of Virginia and

Maryland, be referred to the Honorable Jeremiah S. Black,

of Pennsylvania, and the Honorable William A. Graham,

of North Carolina, and a third person to be selected by

them, who are hereby requested to act as arbitrators, and

to ascertain and determine the true line of boundary be-

tween the said States of Virginia and Maryland, and deliver

their award in writing, any two of them concurring there-

in. Each State shall have the right to be represented by

counsel before said arbitrators, subject to such regulations

as they may prescribe; and the State of Maryland hereby

pledges its faith to accept and abide by the award of said

arbitrators in the premises as final and conclusive; pro-

vided, however, that neither of the 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 the

same shall remain to and be enjoyed by the said States and

the citizens thereof, forever.

SECTION 2. And be it enacted, That until the final

adjustment and settlement of the said line of boundary, ;

the temporary line across the Chesapeake Bay, known as :

the Lovett-Davidson line, shall be faithfully observed by ;

the citizens of the said two States; and the Governor is :

hereby requested to forward a copy of this act to the

Governor of Virginia.

SECTION 3. And be it enacted, That this act shall be

in force from its passage.

Approved April 11th, 1874.

CHAPTER 198.

Acts or 1876.

AN ACT supplementary to an act to designate the arbitra-

tors to ascertain and fix the boundary between the

States of Virginia and Maryland, approved April the

eleventh, eighteen hundred and seventy-four.

WHEREAS, by an act of the General Assembly of Mary-

land, passed at the January session, eighteen hundred and

seventy-four, chapter two hundred and forty-seven, en-

titled “an act to designate the arbitrators to ascertain and

fix the boundary between the States of Virginia and Mary-

land;” it was provided, that the settlement and determina-

tion of the true line of boundary between the States of |

Virginia and Maryland, be referred to the Honorable Jere-

miah S. Black, of Pennsylvania, and the Honorable William

A. Graham, of North Carolina, and a third person to be

selected by them, and they did select accordingly as a third

person, the Honorable Charles A. Jenkins, of Georgia, but

the said William A. Graham has since departed this life;

now for filling the vacancy thereby created, and for carry-

ing out the purposes of the said act; therefore,

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of

Maryland, with the concurrence of the State of Virginia,

That the said Honorable Jeremiah S. Black, and the Honor-

able James B. Beck, of Kentucky, and the said Honorable

Charles A. Jenkins, do proceed to ascertain and determine

the true line of boundary between the States of Virginia

and Maryland, and do make and deliver their award in

writing, any two of them concurring therein. Each State

shall have the right to be represented by counsel before

the arbitrators under such regulations as they may pre-

scribe, and the State of Maryland hereby pledges its faith

to accept and abide by the award of the said arbitrators in

the premises, as final and conclusive; provided, however,

that neither 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 the same shall

remain to, and be enjoyed by the said States, and the

citizens thereof forever; and provided further, that the

landholders on either side of the line of boundary between

the said States as the same may be ascertained and deter-

mined by the said award, shall in no manner be disturbed

thereby in their title to and possession of their lands, as

they may be at the date of said award, but shall in any

case, hold and possess the same as if their said titles and

possession had been derived under the laws of the State,

in which, by the fixing of the said line by the terms of

the said award, they may be ascertained to be.

Sec. 2. And be it enacted, That until the final adjustment

and settlement of the said line of boundary, the temporary

line across the Chesapeake bay, known as the Lovett-

Davidson line, shall be faithfully observed by the citizens

of the said two States.

Sec. 3. And be it enacted, That if, in the recess of the

Legislature a vacancy shall occur by reason of the death,

resignation or refusal to act, of any of the persons here-

in appointed to settle and determine the said line of bound-

ary as aforesaid, a fit person or persons shall be appointed

by the concurrent action of the Governor of Maryland, and

the Governor of Virginia, or of the Legislature of the latter

State, as the case may be, who with those already ap-

pointed, and who may act in the premises, shall exercise

the powers and perform the duties defined and imposed

in the first section of this act.

Sec. 4. And be it enacted, That the Governor is hereby

requested to forward a copy of this act to the Governor

of Virginia, with a request that he present the same to the

General Assembly of that State, and that he communicate

to the Honorable James B. Beck, his appointment under

this act, and request his acceptance of the same.

Sec. 5. And be it enacted, That this act shall take effect

from the date of its passage.

Approved April 3, 1876.

TE eee

eee

CHAPTER 274.

Acts oF 1878.

AN ACT to approve, confirm and ratify the award made

by the Honorable Jeremiah S. Black, James B. Beck

and Charles A. Jenkins, arbitrators appointed to ascer-

tain and fix the boundary between the States of Vir-

ginia and Maryland.

WHEREAS, by an act of the General Assembly of Mary- _

land, passed at January session, eighteen hundred and >

seventy-six, chapter one hundred and ninety-eight, it was

provided that the settlement and determination of the true

line of boundary between the States of Virginia and Mary-

land should be referred to the Honorable Jeremiah S.

Black, of Pennsylvania, the Honorable James B. Beck, of

Kentucky, and the Honorable Charles A. Jenkins, of Geor-

gia, with power to make and deliver their award in writ-

ing, any two of them concurring therein, and did thereby

pledge the faith of this State to accept and abide by the

award of said arbitrators, as to said boundary line as final

and conclusive, with the proviso and saving clause, as to

private rights, as in the said act set forth; and, whereas

the said arbitrators did proceed in the premises to examine

into and ascertain the true line of said boundary, and did

award as to the same in words following, to wit:

Here follows text of award—see Appendix p. 26.

And which said award is now deposited with the map

accompanying the same in the Land Office of this State,

among the muniments of title; now, therefore,

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of

Maryland, That the said award is hereby approved, ac-

cepted, confirmed and ratified, and that as soon as the

same is also approved, accepted, confirmed and ratified by

the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, and by the

Congress of the United States, thereupon and immediately

thereafter the said award and survey matter and things

therein contained’ shall be obligatory on the State and the

citizens thereof, and shall be forever faithfully and in-

violably observed, and kept by this State and all its citizens,

according to the true intent and meaning of the same, and

to that end the faith of this State shall stand pledged.

Sec. 2. And be in enacted, That the Governor is hereby

requested to forward a copy of this act to the Governor

of Virginia, with a request that the General Assembly of

said State shall also enact a law in accordance herewith;

and, shall, also, forward a copy to our Senators and Repre-

sentatives in Congress, with a request that they procure

such legislation on the part of the United States as may be

needful in the premises for their assent to and ratification

of said award.

Approved April 4, 1878.

ee na

“12

CHAPTER 374.

Acts or 1878.

AN ACT to provide for surveying and marking the bound-

ary line between the States of Maryland and Virginia,

as ascertained and determined by the arbitrators here-

tofore appointed on the part of Maryland and Virginia

respectively.

Whereas, the arbitrators to whom were submitted the

controversies between the States of Maryland and Virginia,

concerning their territorial limits, have filed their award

determining and declaring the boundary line of the said

States, so far as they are conterminous; and whereas it is

necessary that said boundary line should be surveyed and

designated by monuments of a durable character, so that

its precise location may be readily ascertained by the citi-

zens of each of the aforesaid States; therefore—

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of

Maryland, That when the said award shall have been ac-

cepted by the State of Virginia, and shall have been rati-

fied by Congressional legislation, it shall then be the duty

of the Governor of this State to nominate and appoint a

commissioner, who, together with a commissioner or com-

missioners to be appointed by said State of Virginia, shall,

in concert with each other, have the said line surveyed, and

so far as practicable and necessary, shall have the same

defined and marked by suitable monuments; and to the

end that said line may be run by persons of the highest

skill, and as the same is a matter of federal concern, the

Governor is directed to solicit the War Department at

Washington to detail one or more of the topographical engi-

neers of the United States, who shall run, mark and bound

said line with such monuments to be placed therein, of the

kind, number and description that the said engineers shall

order and direct.

Approved April 1, 1878.

—_—

rar

‘agama

CHAPTER 451.

Acts or 1878.

AN ACT providing for copying and distributing the maps

accompanying the award of commissioners to settle

the boundary line between the State of Maryland and

Virginia, filed the nineteenth day of January, eighteen

hundred and seventy-seven.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of

Maryland, That the Commissioner of the Land Office be

and he is hereby authorized and directed to have made,

under his hand and seal, and under the hand and seal of

the Governor of Maryland, thirty copies of the map accom-

panying the award of commissioners to settle the bound-

ary line between the State of Maryland and Virginia, filed

the nineteenth day of January, eighteen hundred and

seventy-seven; provided the cost of the same shall not ex-

ceed the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars.

Sec. 2. And be it enacted, That one copy shall be sent

to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for each of the counties

of the State and Baltimore city, one copy to the Maryland

Historical Society, one copy to the Peabody Institute, one

copy to the Johns Hopkins University, and one copy to the

Library of Congress, and that the Comptroller of the State

be and he is hereby authorized to issue, upon the certificate

of the Commissioner of the Land Office, his warrant upon

the Treasurer for the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars.

Sec. 3. And be it enacted, That this act shall take effect

from the date of its passage.

Approved April 5, 1878.

CHAPTER 50.

Acts or 1929.

AN ACT to define, survey and mark the boundary of

Virginia and Maryland along the Potomac River as

laid down by the Award of 1877, and to authorize |

the expenditure necessary therefor, and such action |

as may be necessary to secure the approval by the ’

Congress of the United States of the line so surveyed |

and marked.

WHEREAS, the boundary line described in the Award |

of the Arbitrators authorized by the Acts of the General

Assemblies of Maryland and Virginia, which Award was

accepted by Maryland (Acts of Assembly, 1877-1878,

Chapter 247*), and by Virginia (Acts of Assembly, 1877-

1878, Chapter 246), and approved by Congress (March 3,

1879) has never been surveyed and monumented along

the Potomac River; and

WHEREAS, because of uncertainties as to the actual

position of such unmarked line, which was only partia'ly

represented on the map accompanying and made part

of the Award of 1877 above described, the Governors of

Virginia and Maryland have caused the entire line along

the Potomac River to be drawn on maps by Edward B.

Mathews, State Geologist of the State of Maryland, and

Wilbur A. Nelson, State Geologist of the State of Vir-

ginia, in accordance with their best judgment of the Award

of 1877, now therefore

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly

of Maryland, That the line laid down by Edward B.

Mathews and Wilbur A. Nelson be approved as a just

and fair expression of the Award of 1877, regarding the

boundary line along the Potomac River in so far as the

same was not represented on the map accompanying the |

Award of 1877, and that the said line be and is hereby

accepted and declared to be a true representation of part

* This is an error and should read 274.

;

REPL TAL TS A AT IONE SARTO RELATE TARR IEAR 246. Od HNO RS —

of the boundary line between Virginia and Maryland

already accepted by both states.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That when the

line shall have been ratified by both states the Governor

of Maryland be, and he is hereby authorized and directed

to co-operate with the Governor of Virginia in soliciting

the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey or other agency of the

Federal Government to supply the necessary skilled and

impartial engineers who shall survey said line and prop-

erly mark and document it on the ground with sufficient

points to insure that it may be readily recognized or re-

stored if destroyed. The work of the engineers shall also

include the preparation of a report giving an account of

their work, and a full description of each and every loca-

tion permanently marked by them.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the Governor

of Maryland be and he is hereby authorized and instructed

to enter into agreements or contracts in the name of the

State of Maryland, to pay the share of the expenses of such

surveying and marking of the line as above described as is

properly chargeable to the State of Maryland, and further

that he is hereby empowered to appoint, if he deems it

advisable so to do, a competent Commissioner on the part

of the State of Maryland, who shall represent the interests

of the State during the surveying and marking of said line.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That when the

said line is surveyed and marked upon the ground the

Governor of Maryland be and he is hereby authorized

and instructed to take such action in co-operation with

the Governor of Virginia as may be necessary to secure

the approval by the Congress of the United States of the

line so surveyed and marked in order that thereafter there

may not arise any question of controversy to disturb the

cumity and mutual good will so essential to the well being

of contiguous states.

Approved March 8, 1929.

— ee

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 17

Act> or 1945.

A Joint Resolution authoriing and directing the Governor

to appoint a Commission to confer and act jointly with

a similar Commission of Virginia for the purpose of

restudying the Compact of 1785 and the concurrent

legislation respecting the fisheries of the Potomac

River and Chesapeake Bay and to report as to the

need for additional legislation with respect thereto and

as to the desirability of creating a joint inter-State

authority to consider the problems in connection with

the fisheries of the Potomac River and the Chesapeake

Bay and to submit a report containing its conclusions

and recommendations.

WHEREAS, on the twenty-eighth day of March in the

year 1785 the states of Maryland and Virginia entered into

a compact to regulate and settle the jurisdiction and navi-

gation of the Potomac and the lower part of the Chesapeake

Bay; and

WHEREAS, That compact did establish that the right

of fishing in the river shall be common to, and equally

enjoyed by, the citizens of both states, and that all laws

and regulations which may be necessary for the preserva-

tion of fish shall be made with the mutual consent and

approbation of both states; and

WHEREAS, since that time the fisheries of the Potomac

River and Chesapeake Bay have greatly developed, in-

creased, and then declined with a corresponding and con-

tinuing increase in the problems having to do with the

regu.ation, conservation, and development of the fisheries;

and

WHEREAS, it is confidently believed that a better co-

ordination of legislation, regulations and law enforcement

by the two states will result in the conservation and res-

toration of the fisheries to the benefit of the seafood in-

dustry of the nation as well as to the states of Maryland

and Virginia; and

WHEREAS, such results can best be accomplished

through the cooperative efforts of the two states by or

through a joint or common agency; now therefore

Be it resolved by the General Assembly of Maryland,

That the Governor of Maryland be and he is hereby auth-

orized and directed to appoint a Commission of three citi-

zens of this State to serve without compensation and to

confer with a similar Commission of three citiens of the

Commonwealth of Virginia to be appointed by the Gov-

ernor of Virginia for the purposes hereinafter set forth:

(1) To restudy the compact of 1785 and the concurrent

legislation enacted thereunder with respect to the fisheries

of the Potomac river and Chesapeake Bay;

(2) To consult and advise with the pertinent State, in-

terstate and Federal agencies and citizens concerned there-

with;

(3) To determine whether improvements in the admin-

istration and enforcement of existing laws are needed,

or whether the concurrent laws of the two states need to

be amended, or whether the best interests of the fisheries

and of the people of the two states will be served by grant-

ing additional powers to existing State or interstate agen-

cies, or whether a new joint commission, or interstate au-

thority should be created by compact or reciprocal legisla-

tion between the two states and empowered to study, de-

termine policy and make and enforce regulations appli-

cable to the fisheries of the tidewaters of the Potomac

River and of the tidewaters of the Chesapeake Bay, within

the jurisdiction of the two states; ;

(4) To bring the problems and responsibilities facing

the two states to the attention of the public through the

press, radio, schools, civic organizations, and any other

means of disseminating information; and

Be it further resolved, That such Commission shall elect

from its members a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman and

shall present to the Governors of the two states from time

to time requests for such clerical and other assistance as

it may require and the Governor of Maryland is hereby

authorized to make available to the Commission such assist-

ance to the end that it may report its conclusions as to pol-

icy and its proposals as to legislation to the Governors and

legislatures of the two states not later than January 1,

1946; and

Be it further resolved, That in fitting commemoration

of the one hundred and sixtieth anniversary of the sign-

ing of the original Compact at Mount Vernon the organ-

ization meeting of the herein established joint interstate

Commission be held at Mount Vernon, Virginia, on the

28th day of March, 1945, and that the Governors of Mary-

land and Virginia be invited to acclaim this occasion by

proclamation and to arrange for the proper participation

of their states in this initial meeting of the joint Commis-

sion and in any other ceremonies marking the 160th anni-

versary of the signing of the Compact of 1785 between

Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Approved April 23, 1945.

ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA.

CHAPTER 135.

Acts oF 1874.

AN ACT to Designate the Arbitrators to Ascertain and

fix the Boundary between the States of Maryland and

Virginia. Approved March 28, 1874.

Whereas, a controversy exists as to the true line of

boundary between the states of Maryland and Virginia;

and whereas, the State of Maryland, by resolution of its

general assembly now in session, has declared its willing-

ness to submit the said controversy to arbitration, and to

ia ia os

—

accept as final and conclusive such award as may be made

in the premises: therefore.

1. Be it enacted by the general assembly of Virginia,

That the settlement and determination of the true line

of boundary between the states of Maryland and Vir-

ginia be referred to the Honorable Jeremiah S. Black of

| Pennsylvania, and the Honorable William A. Graham of

7 North Carolina, and a third person to be selected by them,

who are hereby requested to act as arbitrators, and to

ascertain and determine the true boundary between the

said states of Virginia and Maryland, and to make and

deliver their award in writing, any two of them concurring

therein. Each state shall have the right to be represented

by counsel before said arbitrators subject to such regula-

tions as they may prescribe. And the State of Virginia

hereby pledges its faith to accept and abide by the award

of said arbitrators in the premises, as final and conclusive;

provided, further, that neither 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 one thousand seven hundred and eighty-five,

but that the same shall remain to and be enjoyed by the

said states and the citizens thereof forever.

2. And be it further enacted, That until the final ad-

justment and settlement of the said line of boundary, the

temporary line across the Chesapeake Bay known as the

Lovell-Davidson line shall be faithfully observed by the

citizens of the said two states.

3. The governor is hereby requested to forward a copy

of this act to the governor of Maryland, with a request that

he present the same to the general assembly of that state

for their concurrent action in the premises.

4. This act shall be in force from its passage.

CHAPTER 48.

1875-1876.

AN ACT to amend and re-enact an act to designate the

Arbitrators to Ascertain and Fix the Boundary of the

States of Maryland and Virginia, approved March twenty-

eighth, eighteen hundred and seventy-four. Approved,

Feb. 10, 1876.

Whereas by the act of the general assembly, approved

March twenty-eighth, eighteen hundred and seventy-four

entitled an act to designate the arbitrators to ascertain

and fix the boundary between the states of Maryland

and Virginia, it was provided that the settlement and

determination of the true line of boundary between

the state of Maryland and Virginia be referred to the

Honorable Jeremiah S. Black of Pennsylvania, and the

Honorable William A. Graham of North Carolina, and a

third person, to be selected by them, and they did select

accordingly, as a third person, the Honorable Charles A.

Jenkins of Georgia, but the said William A. Graham has

since depart(ed) this life; now, for filling the vacancy

thereby created, and for carrying out the provisions of

this said act; therefore

1. Be it enacted, with the concurrence of the state of

Maryland, That the Honorable Jeremiah S. Black and

Honorable J. B. Beck of Kentucky, with the said Honor-

able Charles A. Jenkins, as arbitrators, do proceed to

ascertain and determine the true line of boundary be-

tween the said states of Maryland and Virginia, and to

make and deliver their award in writing, any two of

them concurring therein. Each state shall have the right

to be represented by counsel before the arbitrators, un-

der such regulations as they may prescribe. And the

state of Virginia hereby pledges its faith to accept and

abide by the award of the said arbitrators in the prem-

ises, as final and conclusive; provided however, that

neither 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 the same

shall remain to and be enjoyed by the said states and the

citizens thereof forever: and provided further, that the

landholders on either side of the line of boundary be-

tween the said states, as the same be ascertained and

determined by the said award, shall in no manner be

disturbed thereby in their title to and possession of their

lands, as they may be at the date of said award but shall

in any case hold and possess the same, as if their said

titles and possessions had been derived under the laws of

the state in which, by the fixing of the said line by the

terms of the said award, they may be ascertained to be.

2. And be it further enacted, That until the final ad-

justment and settlement of the said line of boundary,

the temporary line across the Chesapeake bay, known as

the Lovell-Davidson line, shall be faithfully observed by

the citizens of the said two states.

3. Be it further enacted, That if, in the recess of the

legislature, a vacancy shall occur by reason of the death,

resignation, or refusal to act of any of the persons herein

appointed to settle and determine the said line of bound-

ary as aforesaid, a fit person or persons shall be appointed

by the concurrent action of the governor of Virginia and

of the governor of Maryland, or of the legislature of the

latter state, as the case may be, who with those already

appointed and who may act in the premises, shall exer-

cise the powers and perform the duties defined and im-

posed in the first section of this act.

4. The governor is hereby request(ed) to forward a

copy of this act to the governor of Maryland, with the

request that he present the same to the general assembly

of that state for their concurrence in the premises, and

that he communicate to the Honorable James B. Beck his

appointment under this act and request his acceptance

of the same.

5. This act shall be in force from its passage.

CHAPTER 247.

Acts or 1876-1877.

AN ACT to authorize the secretary of the common-

wealth to furnish the clerks of the county seats of Acco-

mack, Northumberland, Westmoreland, King George,

Stafford, Prince William, Fairfax, Alexandria, Middlesex,

Mathews, Gloucester, and Loudoun, with copies of the map

returned by the commissioners to arbitrate the boundary

line between Virginia and Maryland. Approved March

29, 1877.

1. Be it enacted by the general assembly of Virginia,

That the secretary of the commonwealth be, and he is

hereby authorized and directed to have printed one hun-

dred photolithograph copies of the map returned by the

commissioners to arbitrate the boundary line between

the states of Maryland and Virginia, showing the true

boundary line between said states; and when so printed

and made out, the said secretary shall furnish each of

the clerks of the county courts of Accomack, Northum-

berland, Westmoreland, King George, Stafford, Prince

William, Fairfax, Alexandria, Middlesex, Mathews, Glou-

cester, and Loudoun with duplicate copies of the same

to be preserved by said clerks in their respective offices.

2. To defray the cost of expenses to printing said maps

the auditor of public accounts is hereby authorized and

directed to issue his warrant on the treasury for the sum

of two hundred dollars, to be paid out of any money in the

treasury not otherwise appropriated.

3. This act shall be in force from and after its passage.

CHAPTER 246.

Acts or 1877-1878.

AN ACT to approve, confirm, and ratify the award

made by the Arbitrators appointed to ascertain and fix

the boundary between the states of Virginia and Mary-

land, and procure the assent of the Congress of the United

States thereto. Approved March 14, 1878.

Whereas, by an act of the general assembly of Virginia,

approved March twenty-eighth, eighteen hundred and

seventy-four, and an act amendatory thereof approved

February tenth, eighteen hundred and seventy-six, it was

provided that the settlement and determination of the true

line of boundary between the states of Virginia and Mary-

land should be referred to the Honorable Jeremiah S.

Black of Pennsylvania, the Honorable James B. Beck of

Kentucky, and the Honorable Charles A. Jenkins of

Georgia, with power to make and deliver their award in

writing, any two of them concurring therein; and did

thereby pledge the faith of this state to accept and abide

by the award of said arbitrators, as to said boundary line,

as final and conclusive, with the proviso and saving clauses

as to private rights as in said acts set forth; and whereas

the said arbitrators did proceed in the premises to examine

into and ascertain the true line of said boundary, and did

award as to the same in words following, to wit

(Here follows text of award—See Appendix p. 26).

And which award is now deposited, with the map accom-

panying the same, in the office of the Secretary of the

Commonwealth; now, therefore,

1. Be it enacted by the general assembly of Virginia,

That the said award is hereby approved, accepted, con-

firmed and ratified, and that as soon as the same is also

approved, accepted, confirmed, and ratified by the general

assembly of the state of Maryland, and by the Congress

of the United States, thereupon and immediately there-

after the said award and survey, matter and thing therein

contained, shall be obligatory on the state and the citizens

thereof, and shall be forever faithfully and inviolably ob-

served and kept by this state and all its citizens, according

to the true intent and meaning of the same, and to that

end the faith of this state shall stand pledged.

2. The governor is hereby requested to forward a copy

of this act to the governor of Maryland, with a request

that the general assembly of said state shall also enact a

law in accordance herewith; and shall also forward a copy

to our senators and representatives in Congress, with the |

request that they procure such legislation on the part of ~

the United States as may be needful in the premises for

their assent to and ratification of said award.

3. This act shall be in force from its passage.

CHAPTER 477.

Acts oF 1928.

An Act to define and to provide for a survey and mark-

ing of the boundary of Virginia and Maryland along the

Potomac river as laid down by the award of 1877 and to

authorize the expenditure necessary therefor.

Approved March 26, 1928.

Whereas, the boundary line described in the award of

the arbitration authorized by the general assembly of

Maryland and Virginia, which award was accepted by

Maryland (acts of assembly eighteen hundred and sev-

enty-eight, chapter two hundred and forty-seven) ,* and

by Virginia (acts of assembly eighteen hundred and sev-

enty-seven and eighteen hundred and _ seventy-eight,

chapter two hundred and forty-six), and approved by con-

gress March third, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, has

never been surveyed and monumented along the Potomac

river.

* This is an error and should read two hundred and seventy-four.

RG STARR HEM ION Fi Ub GBPS NTR REG ——

Whereas, because of uncertainties as to the actual posi-

tion of such unmarked line, which was only partially rep-

resented on the map accompanying and made part of the

award of eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, above de-

scribed, the governors of Virginia and Maryland have

caused the entire line along the Potomac river to be drawn

on maps by Edward B. Mathews, geologist, State of Mary-

land, and by Wilbur A. Nelson, State geologist of Virginia,

in accordance with their best judgment of the award of

eighteen hundred and seventy-seven; now, therefore.

1. Be it enacted by the general assembly of Virginia

as follows:

Section 1. The line laid down by Edward B. Mathews

and Wilbur A. Nelson is hereby approved as a just and

fair expression of the award of eighteen hundred and

seventy-seven regarding the boundary line along the Po-

tomac river in so far as the same was not represented on

the map accompanying the award of eighteen hundred

and seventy-seven and the said line is hereby accepted and

declared to be a true representation of part of the boun-

dary line between Virginia and Maryland already accept-

ed by both States.

Section 2. If and when the aforesaid line shall have been

ratified by both States, the governor of Virginia is hereby

authorized and directed to co-operate with the governor

of Maryland in soliciting the United States coast and geo-

detic survey or other agencies of the federal government to

supply the necessary skill and impartial engineers who

shall survey said line and properly mark and document it

on the ground with sufficient points to insure that it may

be readily recognized or restored if destroyed. The work

of the engineers shall also include the presentation of a

report giving an account of their work and a full descrip-

tion of each and every location permanently marked by

them.

Section 3. The governor is hereby authorized and directed

to enter into an agreement or contract in the name of the

State of Virginia to pay such part of the expenses incur-

red in making said survey and marking the line thereof,

as above described, as are properly chargeable in the State

of Virginia, and the governor is further authorized, if he

deems it advisable to do so, to appoint a competent com-

missioner who shall represent the interest of the State of

Virginia during the survey and marking of said line. It is

expressly provided, however, that the expense incurred on

behalf of the State of Virginia, under the provisions of this

act, shall not exceed ten thousand dollars and shall be paid

upon the order of the governor out of the appropriation

herein made out of the game protection fund created under

the provisions of an act approved March twenty-fourth,

nineteen hundred and twenty-six (acts of assembly, nine-

teen hundred and twenty-six, chapter two hundred and

ninety-five, pages five hundred and eleven—five hundred

and fifteen).

Section 4. When the said line is surveyed and marked

upon the ground the governor is hereby authorized and

directed to take such action in co-operation with the gover-

nor of Maryland as may be nécessary to secure the approval

by congress of the line so surveyed and marked, in order

that thereafter there may not arise any question of con-

troversy to disturb the comity and mutual goodwill so

essential to the well being of contiguous States.

Section 5. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions

of this act there is hereby appropriated out of the afore-

said game protection fund the sum of ten thousand dollars,

or so much thereof as may be necessary.

AWARD OF THE ARBITRATORS, 1877.

And now, to wit, January 16, Anno Domini 1877, the

undersigned, being a majority of the arbitrators to whom

the States of Virginia and Maryland, by acts of their re

spective Legislatures, submitted the controversies concern-

ing their territorial limits, with authority to ascertain and

determine the true line of boundary between them, having

heard the allegations of the said States and examined the

proofs on both sides, do find, declare, award, ascertain,

and determine that the true line of boundary between the

said States, so far as they are conterminous with one an-

other, is as follows, to wit:

Beginning at the point on the Potomac river where the

line between Virginia and West Virginia strikes the said

river at low-water mark, and thence, following the mean-

derings of said river by the low-water mark, to Smith’s

Point, at or near the mouth of the Potomac, in latitude

37° 53’ 08” and longitude 76° 13’ 46””; thence crossing the

waters of the Chesapeake bay, by a line running north

65° 30’ east, about nine and a half nautical miles, to a point

on the western shore of Smith’s Island, at the north end

of Sassafras Hammock, in latitude 37° 57’ 13”, longitude

76° 02’ 52”; thence across Smith’s Island south 88° 30’ east

five thousand six hundred and twenty yards, to the center

of Horse Hammock, on the eastern shore of Smith’s Island,

in latitude 37° 57’ 08”, longitude 75° 59’ 20”; thence south

79° 30’ east four thousand eight hundred and eighty yards,

to a point marked “A” on the accompanying map, in the

middle of Tangier Sound, in latitude 37° 56’ 42”, longitude

75° 56’ 23”, said point bearing from Jane’s Island light

south 54° west, and distant from that light three thousand

five hundred and sixty yards; thence south 10° 30’ west

four thousand seven hundred and forty yards, by a line

dividing the waters of Tangier sound, to a point where it

intersects the straight line from Smith’s Point to Watkins’

Point, said point of intersection being in latitude 37° 54’

21”, longitude 75° 56’ 55”, bearing from Jane’s Island light

south 29° west, and from Horse Hammock south 34° 30’

east. This point of intersection is marked “B” on the

accompanying map. Thence north 85° 15’ six thousand

seven hundred and twenty yards along the line above men-

tioned, which runs from Smith’s Point to Watkins’ Point

until it reaches the latter spot, namely, Watkins’ Point,

which is in latitude 37° 54’ 38”, longitude 75° 52’ 44”.

From Watkins’ Point the boundary line runs due east seven

thousand eight hundred and eighty yards, to a point where

it meets a line running through the middle of Pocomoke

sound, which is marked “C” on the accompanying map,

and is in latitude 37° 54’ 38”, longitude 75° 47’ 50”; thence,

by a line dividing the waters of Pocomoke sound, north

47° 30’ east five thousand two hundred and twenty yards,

to a point in said sound marked “D” on the accompanying

map, in latitude 37° 56’ 25”, longitude 75° 45’ 26”; thence

following the middle of the Pocomoke river by a line of

irregular curves, as laid down on the accompanying map,

until it intersects the westward protraction of the boundary

line marked by Scarborough and Calvert May 28, 1668, at

a point in the middle of the Pocomoke river and in latitude

37° 59’ 37”, longitude 75° 37’ 04”; thence, by the Scarbor-

ough and Calvert line, which runs 5° 15’ north of east, to

the Atlantic ocean.

The latitudes, longitudes, courses, and distances here

given have been measured upon the Coast Chart No. 33 of

the United States Coast Survey, (sheet No. 3, Chesapeake

Bay) which is herewith filed as part of this award and

explanatory thereof. The original charter line is marked

upon the said map and shaded in blue. The present line of

boundary, as ascertained and determined, is also marked

and shaded in red, while the yellow indicates the line re-

ferred to in the compact of 1785 between Smith’s Point

and Watkins’ Point.

In further explanation of this award, the arbitrators

deem it proper to add that—

1. The measurements being taken and places fixed

according to the Coast Survey, we have come as near to

perfect mathematical accuracy as in the nature of things

is possible. But in case of any inaccuracy in the described

course of length of a line or in the latitude or longitude

of a place the natural objects called for must govern.

2. The middle thread of Pocomoke river is equidistant

as nearly as may be between the two shores without con-

sidering arms, inlets, creeks, or affluents as parts of the

river, but measuring the shore lines from headland to

headland.

3. The low-water mark on the Potomac, to which Vir-

ginia has a right in the soil, is to be measured by the same

rule, that is to say, from low-water mark at one headland

to low-water mark at another, without following indenta-

tions, bays, creeks, inlets, or affluent rivers.

4. Virginia is entitled not only to full dominion over the

soil to low-water mark on the south shore of the Potomac,

but has a right to such use of the river beyond the line

of low-water mark as may be necessary to the full enjoy-

ment of her riparian ownership, without impeding the

navigation or otherwise interfering-with the proper use of

it by Maryland, agreeably to the compact of 1785. ___

In testimony whereof we have here unto set our hands

the day and year above written.

J. S. BLACK,

Of Pennsylvania.

CHAS. J. JENKINS,

Of Georgia.

A. W. GRAHAM,

Secretary.

ACTS OF CONGRESS

ACT OF MARCH 3, 1879

CHAPTER 196, 20 Srart. at LARGE 481.

AN ACT giving the consent of Congress to an agreement

or compact entered into between the States of Virginia and

Maryland respecting the boundary between said States.

Whereas arbitrators duly appointed on the part of the

State of Virginia and on the part of the State of Maryland

for the purpose of ascertaining and fixing the boundary

between the States of Virginia and Maryland, did proceed

in the premises to examine into and ascertain the true

limits of said boundary, and did award as to the same in

words following to wit:

“Award. (See this appendix page 26)”.

And whereas the said award has been ratified and con-

firmed by the Legislature of the States of Virginia and

Maryland respectively:

Be it enacted by the Senate, and House of Representa-

tives of the United States of America in Congress assem-

bled, That the consent of the Congress of the United States

is hereby given to the said agreement or award, and to each

and every part and article thereof; Provided, that nothing

therein contained shall be construed to impair or in any

manner affect any right to jurisdiction of the United States

in and over the islands and waters which form the subject

of the said agreement or award.

Approved, March 3, 1879.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.