OCR Text |
Show -7- providing that the citizens of the two States should have equal and common rights of fishery in the Delaware River; that the two States should have con- current jurisdiction of crimes and offenses committed upon its waters; that the river as a boundary water "in the whole length and breadth thereof, is, and shall continue to be and remain a public highway, equally free and open for the use, benefit and advantage of the said contracting parties"; and that the com- pact "shall be forever irrevocable except by mutual concurrence." __ Another was the treaty or compact of 1785 between Virginia and Maryland1-? negotiated by their commissioners under instructions ". . * to consider the most proper means to adjust and confirm the rights of each to the use and navigation, and jurisdiction over the bay of the Chesapeake, and the rivers Potomac and pocomoke, in order to prevent, any difference on these subjects which may interrupt that desirable harmony between the two countries, which is equally the interest of both to cultivate."13a The compact so negotiated covered freedom of navigation and exchange of commodities between the "two countries"; also tolls, port charges, shore rights, wharves, lighthouses, beacons, buoys, fisheries and criminal and admiralty jurisdiction in and over the waters mentioned* Still another was the Treaty of Hartford, made December 17, 1786, between Massachusetts and New York ,-^ relating chiefly to disputed territory ':. at pro- viding! that law applicable to the Delaware River and * its tributaries and controlling the diversion of waters for canal purposes. His conclusion is that neither of the riparian States need ask the other for permission to divert waters for public improvements if no injury to navigation results; but that no diversion causing such injury is permissible either from the Delaware River or its non-navigable tributary, the Lehigh River. The United States Supreme Court reached a like conclusion many years later. United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irr. Go,, 17h U. S.-690, 19 Sup. Ct. 77O-, Ltf L. Ed. II36 (I899). This compact of I783 is still in force except in so far as modified by the federal constitution* See Opinion of John C# Bell, Attorney 'General of Penn- sylvania, to Thomas J. Lynch, Secretary State Hater Supply Commission, dated July 26, 1911. 13 A very interesting history of this compact, and of a supplemental com- pact made about, the same time and ultimately contributing to the construction of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal many years later., is set forth by the Court1 of Appeals of Maryland in Middlekauff v. Le Comptu, ll+9 Md. 621, 13? £xl, U& (I926). The compact is still in force except as modified by the federal con- stitution. Wharton v. Wise, 153 U.S. 155, ii+ Sup. Ct. 783, 38 L. Ed. 669 (18*). 13a Italics added, HA. learned discussion of this treaty and its historical background ap- pears in a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, per Mr. Justice Stone, in the case of Massachusetts v. New York, S7I U« S. 65, l\6 Sup. Ct. 357* 70 L. Ed. 838 (1926). This treaty is still in force subject to the federal constitution. |