Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1882-11-16


i have the honor 70 acknowIedue
the receipt Of yonr letter al October
III. remember that Hendricks. !
citizen Of Maryland. was arrested s.
the police Of Virginia upon the charrs
Of unlawfnlly fishing il the Pofoznse.
river; that be was convicted Of the AZ
legged offence in Fairfax county coart
and that upon bis appeal 4, tie Court
Of Appeals Of Virginia, she judgment
Of the Fairfax county Court vas re-
Tersed on the ground that, under the
sempact Of 1885 between the states
q Virginia and Maryland, bis offence
was not cognizable il = criminal conrt
in the State Of Virginia. / know also
that certain citizens Of Virgins were
recently arrested by the State fishery
force Of Maryland. charged with m
lawfully fishing in the Potomac nv
err and weres upon examination OF the
czss by one Of the judges Of the Cir
cult Court Of the Seventh Judicial cir
cult Of this State, dischar 4 from Gus
tody upon tie groand, a. / understand.
that the MARY and act of 1882. chap
ter 30l. under which they were prna-
ecuted. had nor been enacted With the
mutual consent and appreciation Of
the State Of Virginia aud MARYLAND
~ required 10y the Germs ofsthe com.
pact Of l7S5. The compact Of 1895
was. therefore, enforced in each case
IN Virginia and in Maryland. This
compact was male before the adop-
ton Of the constitution Of the United
States. IL was modified to some ex-
tent BY the provisions of that instrn-
melt. The compact. rs thus modified.
has never been finally interpreted.
Virginia and Maryland, when they
agreed in 1874 to submit the detern-
Ination of the boundary line between
the two States to arbitration, left open
all other questions arising under the
compact of 1885, because each pro-
vides that neither Of the States. nor
the citizens thereof, should be depriv-
ed. by the decision Of the arbitrator,
OF any Of the rights or privileges emu
meraIed in the compact of 1885, but
that these should Be enjoyed by the
respective States. aud the citizens
thereof forever. Under these cireum-
stances, it seems to me that to prevent
an injurious conflict of authority in
the future. it is advisable that the ear
lest occasion shonld be avaiIed of TO
obtain the opinion Of the Supreme
Court of the United States upon the
present scope of the compact Of 1856.
| respectfully submit this suggestion
for your consideration. / avail nv
self Of this occasion to remind you Of
matter gerInane to the subject. The
award of the arbitra tors, determining
the trne boundary between Virginia
and Maryland, was made in 1877. It
has been ratified By the legislatures OF
the respective States. and the consent
Of the Congress Of the United States,
has been given to that award and to
the agreement expressed by its ratiii-
cation. 1t is now necessary that the
boundary defined by the award should
be surveyed and marked by the ncces-
sary durable monuments where it is
practicable TO erect them. l have, in
accordance with the terms of the Ma
rylansl act. Of 1882. chapter l59, re-
quested the Secretary of War. to de-
tail one or more engineer officers to
attend upon the commissioners APP
pointed by our respective States, and
to aid in making the survey and in
marking the new boundary line by
proper monuments. understand
from the Secretary Of War that pro-
per engineer officer will be detailed to
perform this duty, if yon will on the
part of the State of Virginia, unite in
the application. I beg leave to ex-
press the hope that you will do so. !"
In further illustration of this sub
ject, we give the letter Of Mr.. Charles
Z. Steuart. counsel for Hendricks, and
Edward Burke. counsel for the Com
monwealth in the Gaze, from which it
will seem, that both Gov. Cameron
and Gov. Hamilton are mistaken in
their facts when they assert. shat the
Supreme Court of Virginia reversed
the decision of the lower Court in the
case Of Hendricks. On the contrary,
they affirmed it. at least 40 state Messrs.
Steuart and Burke in the letter fol-
lowing -
I'VE have observed in the public
press communication dated October
"a. 1882. addressed BY his excellency
Gov. Cameron to his excellency Gov.
Hamilton in reference to the viola
ton of the laws against fishing in the
Potomac river, the following state
ment: II would instance the opin-
ion Of the Virginia Court Of Appeals,
Hendricks VS.. Commonwealth 1st
March. 1882, v. r. vol. rs, Matt. /,
page 934, under which citizen Of
Maryland found fishing ia Che Vir-
ginia waters Of the Potomac, and in
violation Of the compact between the
States Of Virginia and Maryland. was
held not liable to trial BY the courts
OF this Commonwealth. but could only
be tried in court of Maryland which
bad cogu:zance of such oEfenses.
We have also noticed the reply Of
his excellency Gov. Hamilton 10 the
same. in which the following occurs !:
q remember that Hendricks, citi-
gen Of Maryland. was arrested BY the
police Of Virginia upon the charge Of
unlawfnlly fishing in the Potomac
river; that lie Was convicted of the AZ
49, - 4. ~ 3 - 4.