Peninsula enterprise. [volume] (Accomac, Va.) 1881-1965, 1894-03-10
THE pocoMoKE QUESTION.
Argument Concluded in United States
Euprenne Court.

Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON, March 6.-Argument
in the contested fishery rights case
between the States of Maryland and
Virginia was concluded in the United
States Supreme Court today. When
the court convened Thomas S. Hold
son, of Maryland, resumed his argu-
ment begun yesterday, but spoke
only for few minutes. He was fol-
lowed by James H. Fletcher, com
monwealth's attorney of Accomac
county, Va, who discussed at some
length the jurisdiction of the Vir-
ginia court in which the decision now
questioned by the representatives of
Maryland was rendered.
Representatives W. A. Jones, of
Virginia, next addressed the court,
and, after describing the geographi
cal lines by which the boundaries of
the two States are alleged to have
heen determined, argued that POGO
moke sound and Pocomoke river are
separate bodies of water and could
not lie considered as forming together
the Pocomoke river described in the
compact made by the two States in
1885. He produced reports made by
the War Department, in which POGO
moke river and sound are separately
described, the one as small river
$50 feet wide and the other as Is miles
wide. He declared the contention of
the State of Maryland that the sound
and river are regarded in the COM
pact as one to be absurd, and attemp
ted to show that the sound is exclu-
sively within the jurisdiction of the
State of Virginia.
When Mr.. Jones concluded, Gen.
Bradley It. Johnson, of Baltimore,
spoke for the State of Maryland.
He explained to the court the history
of the controversy, showed the cir
cumstances which led to the compact
of 1885 and to the Blacksand Jenkins
award, and contended that the divid-
ing line between the States, if it
could be located, would show that
Maryland has natural concurrent
rights with Virginia in the waters of
the sound.
w. r. Staples, Of Virginia, spoke
next, and made an exhaustive argu-
ment in opposition to the Maryland
claims He explained to the court
that the line between the two States
was conceded by each to be doubtful,
and the controversy started back in
the last century eliminated for the
time in the compact between the
States in 1885. The commissioners
appointed to draw up the agreement
met at Mount Vernon at the invita-
ton of President Washington, and
the document which they prepared
was subsequently ratified by the two
States as sovereign States and has
been considered binding upon each
ever since. The only question in
dispute regarding it is simply one of
Interpretation. Mr. Staples then
went on to argue that the interpre-
tation accepted by the State of Vir-
GINA. that the dividing line is at
Watkins Point, at the mouth of the
present Pocomoke river, and not at
Watts Island, is the proper one. In
support OF this assertion, he said, the
court would find that all the legisla-
tive enactments of the State of Yir-
ginia, since the compact of 1885 was
signed, regard Pocomoke sound as
belonging absolutely to the State of
Virginia.
Argument was closed by R. Taylor
Scott, attorney general of Virginia,
and Acknowledgement Poe, of Mary
land. Each discussed the three
points at issue-the question of boun-
Diary line, the jurisdiction of Vir-
GINA court over citizens of Maryland
arrested upon the waters now in
dispute and the validity and inter
probation of the original compact.
Mr.. Poe spoke last. He declared
that if the court decided the compact
to be invalid, then the State of Ma
ryland has no case. The validity of
the document, however, leaves the
question of Interpretation to be de-
cided, and in this connection he made
a strong argument in favor of the
Interpretation accepted by Mary
land. but denied by Virginia. This
has been further strengthened by
the Black and Jenkins award, he de-
clared, and also by the decisions of
the judges of the lower court, which
affirm the right of the Maryland au-
thorities to punish offenders for of
lenses committed upon the waters in
dispute.
In reply to a question from Justice
Grey Mr.. Poe said in the case of
Wharton, now pending before the
court, an Indictment could have been
found by the grand jury of Somerset
county, Md, and there could have
been no question as to the jurisdic-
ton of the Maryland court to acquit
or convict. He said distinction was
made by the representatives of Vir-
ginia between an offense committed
against the State and one committed