The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-04-24

land and Virginia over the arrest OF
residents Of the former for taking oysters
ia the waters of the latter. was decided
in the United states supreme Court To-
day, Mr. Justice FIELD announcing the
opinion. which sustained the contention
OF Virginia on every material point OF
issue.
HISTORY OF gHE CASE.
The case at bar came up on appeal
from the judgment of the CIRCUIT oVui'
for the Eastern district Of Virginia roius-
3,~ "a discbarge Robt. l.. Wharton on
a urjt Of haboas corpus from the Gus
.toav of John H. Wise sheriff Of Accomac
county Va. Wharton was resident OF
AiaryIand and was arrested and convict
Cd of violating a law OF Virginia, Whlch
prohibits the taking Of oysters or oth,r
shell fish from the waters OF the STATE
bv any person other than resident OF
the state. in taking oysters from Pcco-
moke sound Wharton, on trial OF the
Indictment against him, pleaded want
OF jurisdiction hy the Virginia courts u
try him. because the act OF the LeGlsl2-
ture Of Virginia. under which the indlct-
menf was found. had not been adopted
or ratified 10y the Legislature OF Mary
land. and because by the compact OF
175 between those states, which was
still i'm force. the waters Of bocomoke
sound were a part Of the Pocomoke
river. which was mentioned in that com
pact The court held the plea 10 be IN
sufficient and fined Wharton 500 The
judgment OF the United States Circuit
Court refused 20 interfere and dismissed
the petition for the writ Of ha0eas cor
pus. From that judgment the petitioner
appealed to the United States Suprme
Court.
SUBSTANCE or THE OPINION.
In dsposing Of the appeal justice
lTcld reviewed at length the compact
made between the States Of Maryland anu
virginia in 1875. uDon the Interpretation
OF which the determination of the CON
rroversy depended That compact the
Justice said. grew out Of the inconven-
fences experienced by the citizens Of both
States from the want Of established ana
recognized regulations between them r.
specting the jurisdiction and navigation
of the Potomac. which formed bound
ary between them for hundred miles
or more II was drafted by commission
srs appointed by both states, VINO met
at Mount Vernon. ard was ratiiled ana
approved by the Legislature Of each. us
validity has often been questioned sano
ihe Justice. 50 far as its provisions were
Inconsistent with those of the Constitution
of the United States. and afterwards
adopted they were superseded by IL. But
ns an operative agreement binding the
action Of the two states upon the sub
iects embraced, when not inconsistent
with the Constitution. its validity has
often been recognized by their authorizes
AS stated by counsel, stipulations as 10
riparian nehts Of fishery and as 70 lu-
riedlction I'm and over waters lying ne
tween the two states renamed as 'ney
previously existed.
The contention made by counsel for
MARYLAND. ON behalf Of Wharton, was
that by a true construction OF sections
and Of the compact of 17s5; her citizens
were lawfully entitled 10 exercise com
mon right of fishery. including the right
10 catch and take oysters IN the foto-
mac river and the Pocomoke ilVei' m
cludiug POcomoke sound. which was al
leced 10 be part OF that river but mat
if they did not possess that right they
could not be subjected 10 trial IN the
courts Of Virginia for the offences
charged 10 have been committed in those
waters against the citizens Of that State.
MARYLAND nAs 40 RIGHTS.
After quoting the provisions Of the
section designated. Justice Field con-
ciufed that no clause in the compact gave
any right TO Maryland 70 fish in the POGO
noke river. and that Pocomoke river ana
InHUmOkf toulu uiiAH Ni.N -'t'-ri' "N''''''-
award. Of 1871" never lost their square
and distinct character and designation.
The objection 10 the jurisdiction Of the
courts of Virginia to try Wharton for
the offence charged. Justice Field said.
dii not find any support in the tenth sec
ton OF the compact. That section pro-
Vidod only for The trial of citizens Of
MARYLAND I'm that State where offences
were committed by them; in Virginia upon
citizens OF that State. The offence
charged against Wharton and for which
he was tried and convicted, was one
against the State Of Virginia. and not
one against any Of her individual citi-
zens. Upon these grounds the judgment
Of the Circuit Court I'm refusing to dis
charge Wharton must be affirmed.
RIsrH AND SOUND DISTINCT.
IN its opinion. the Court says:
The question whether Pocomoke sound
S. 20 be considered as part Of Pocomoke
river is immatcrial. IN view of the con-
ciusion we have stated. that the compact
gives no right 60 the citizens Of Mary
land 70 fish i'm the waters of that river.
and only refers 10 the river In providing
that legislation or regulations. preserving
and keeping open It's channel free from
distractions. shah be enacted by the
mutual consent and approval Of the two
states. lDNA ONli~ 10 lNt f.tl Ait"tA't"'
with which the identity Of the river and
sound has been pressed, IL is proper TO
state that. after careful examination
Of the documentary evidence offered on
the subject. we are clear that the river
and sound were az the time the compact
was made and for many years preceding
g. considered and designated as separate
and distinct bodies Of water. and after
that date. down TO what is termed the
"Black-Jenkins award Of 1871" they never
lost their separate and distinct character
ana designation. And We agree with the
statement Of the court below. In consid- |
eriug this subject, that there IS no map
Of these waters and no joint official |
document existing in relation TO them. |
which has cOnfounded the river with the |
sound or claimed that the nd Is the |
river " any part OF the river Poeomoke. |
The objection 10 the jurisdiction OF the |
courts of Virginia 10 try the appellant |
for the offence charged does not ind any |
support In the tenth section Of the com |
pact Of l75. That section only provides |
for the trial Of citizens Of Maryland IN |
that state where offences are ccmmitted |
by them IN Virginia upon citizens OF that
State Ii WAS so held by the Court OF /
Appeals OF Virginia IN Hendricks against
Commonwealth. above cited.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr.. Justice
Gray concurTed IN the result, with Mr..
Justin Field.
-.