Peninsula enterprise. [volume] (Accomac, Va.) 1881-1965, 1892-09-03
The oyster Question.
Review of the Claim of Maryland of
the right of her citizens to fish in
the waters OF Pocomoke Sound.

L
According to the speeches, as re-
ported in the Baltimore Sun, of the
Maryland members of the joint Leg
islative Committee appointed, re-
spectively, by the States of Md: and
Va, at their meeting held in July
1892 at Old Point. perfect unanimity
existed on the part of those members
as to the right of the citizens OF their
State to fish, in common with the
cit;zensof Va, in the Pocomoke River.
and also in Pocomoke Sound.
They base their right under the
Compact of 1875; stating that 1.-The
Pocomoke is embraced as one OF the
waters dividing Va: from Md: md in
the same category as the Potomac. y
In the statement of their case by
Senator Hayes, he sayG, 'if Va: has
the common right of oysterinr in the
Potomac under the COMPACT of 1875,
Md: ought to have, as Md: interp-ats
the Compact, has the same right in
the Pocomoke Sound or River Art:
9 of this Compact is the only part of
the instrument which ccnfars n con-
current right of fishing upon thu
citizens of both States; and this right
is expressly restricted to the waters
of the river Potomac. This article
provides, 1.-THE citizens of each State,
respectively, shall have full property
in the shores OF Potomack river I'D
joining their lands, with MI emoln-
ments and advantag IS thereunto be-
Ion yine. aud the privilege of making
and carrying out wiIarves and Other
improvements. SO as not TO obstruct
or injure the navigation of the river;
but the right of fishing in tie river
shall be common to. AMI equally en-
loved by the citizens of both States:
Provided, that sach common right
be not exercised by the citizens of
the one State to the hirdrance or
disturbance of the fisheries on the
shores of the other State; and that
the citizens of neither shall have q
right to fish with nets or seines on
the shores of the other This lam
guage is plain and u2a nbiguous; and
it is surprising that it shon,d be at
tempted to give to it a construction
which would confer right upon the
citizens of both States to fish in the
Poeomoke river, or the Sound, when
the only waters mentioned in the ar
ticle are those of the Potomac.
But it is claimed that Art: sho I'D
be read in connection with Art: S; and
being 50 read, that the contention on
the part OF Md: for the concurrent
right to fish in rocomoke river will
he sustain,d Art: reads, "All laws
and regulations which may be neces-
sary for the preservation of fish, or
for the performance of quarantine in
the river potomack,or for preserving
and keeping open the channel and
navig alton thereof [of tn Potnwackl,
or of the river Pocomoke, within the
limits of Va, by preventing the
throwing out ballast, or giving any
other obstruction thereto, shall be
u ade with the mutual consent and
appreciation of both Statos." This
Art: provides, first, that all laws
nece ssary for the preservation of fish
in the Potomac, the common right of
fishing in which was reserved to 10th
States by Art: Z, shall be made with
the mutual consent and appreciation
OF both States; secondly, that regu-
lations for the performance of quar-
ant ms IN the Potomac shall be
adopted in the sam way; and, third
ly. laws and regulations for preserv-
ing and keeping open the channel
and navigation of the Potomac. or of
the river Pocomoke, within the linn
it's of Va, by preventing the throw
ing out ballast, or giving a ny other
obstruction thereto, shall be enacted
concurre ntly by both Suites The
sole reference to the Pocomoke in
this Art, for joint legislation on the
part of both States, is for keeping
open its channel and, preserving the
navigation of SO mach of it as was
within the limits of Va Not the
first word is found in the whole Art:
as to any right of fishing in the POGO
moke By no correct rules of gram.
NAUTICAL construction placed on the
phraseology used in this Art: can a
right be claimed on the part of Md:
citizens to fish in the waters of the
Pocomoke.
But the Nd: members of the joint
committee refer to the decision of
the Va: Court of Appeals in the case
vi I1SEuIlChS vs. tlit OOul Wodltu', ~
Va: Reports, 934, as having settled
by adjudication the concurrent right
of the citizens of Md: to fish in the
Pocomoke. 1t is true that in an
nouncing the opinion of the Court in
that case, Anderson, j., said, by Art:
s OF the Compact of 1855, "all laws
and regulations, which my be neces-
sary for the PRESERVATION OF FISH
in the river Potomac or THE RIVER
Pocomoke, within THE LIMITS OF
VA. shall be mace with the mutual
consent and appreciation of both
States But with all due Difference
to this high tribunal, it is contended