{"1": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3572", "width": "2272", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3458", "width": "2121", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3463", "width": "2106", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3458", "width": "2121", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "BOUNDARY LINE\\nBETWEEN THE STATES OF\\nMARYLAND AND VIRGINIA,\\nBEFORE THE\\nHon. Jeremiah S. Black, Hon. Wm. A. Graham,\\nand Hon. Charles I. Jenkins,\\nArbitrators ttpon the Boundary Line between the States of Virs^inia aiiJ\\nAlaryland.\\nWIVI, J. ROBERTSON, R. T, DANIEL,\\nCounsel for the State of Virginia.\\nI", "height": "3448", "width": "2049", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3468", "width": "2085", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "BOUNDARY LINE\\nBETWEEN THE STATES OF\\nMARYLAND AND VIRGINIA,\\nBEFORE THE\\nHon. Jeremiah S. Black, Hon. Wm. A. Graham,\\nand Hon. Charles I. Jenkins,\\nArbitrators upon the Boundary Line between the States of Virgitiia and\\nAlarytand.\\nWl^, J, ROBERTSON, R. T. DANIEL,\\nCounsel for the State of Virginia.\\nRICHMOND\\nClemmitt JoNKs, Steam Book and Joi: Printers,\\n1875,", "height": "3448", "width": "2049", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "F7s7", "height": "3468", "width": "2065", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "BOUNDARY LINE\\nliETWEEN THE STATES OF\\nVirginia and Maryland.\\nTo t/ie Honorable Do i: d of Arbitralors, in the matter of contro-\\nversij relating to tf c JiriJing line between the States of Mary-\\nland and Virginia.\\nThe arbitrators are to ascertain and determine the true\\nline of boundary between tlie States of Maryland and Vir-\\nginia: provided, that neitlier of the said States, nor the\\ncitizens thereof, shall by the decision of the arbitrators be\\ndeprived of any of the rights and privileges enumerated\\nand set forth in the compact between them, entered into in\\nthe year 1785, but that the same shall remain to, and be\\nenjoyed by, the siiid States and the citizens thereof forever.\\nIt will be necessary, therefore, after the circumstances\\nwhich preceded this compact have been explained, to ascer-\\ntain what is settled by it, and what remains for adjustment.\\nBOUNDARY ON POTOMAC RIVER.\\nMaryland claims to oust Virginia from the southern side\\nof the Potomac, by making good her exclusive title to the\\nriver to low water mark on the southern shore down the\\nwhole course of the river (or so much of it as is left to\\nVirginia by her recent dismemberment), to Smith s Point,\\nwhich is its south point. The grounds of claim are two:\\n1st. That by her charter (20th June, 1632,) she is enti-\\ntled to a line: passing from the said bay called JJela-", "height": "3448", "width": "2049", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "ware hay, in a right line, by the degree aforesaid,\\n(40th,) unto the true meridian of the first fountain of tlie\\nriver of Paitomack; thence verging towards the south,\\nunto the further bank of the said river, and following the\\nsame on the west and south unto a certain place called Cin-\\nquack, situate near the mouth of the said river, where it\\ndisembogues into the aforesaid bay of Chesapeake. Eng-\\nlish translation in Bacon s Laws of Maryland. 2nd. That\\ntherefore, Maryland has the right to have the line, as she now\\nclaims it, adjudged to her.\\nAnd it is clear that unless this exclusive claim to the\\nriver be made good, Maryland cannot come to Smith s\\nPoint, and fails to establish it as the point from which her\\nline runs across the bay to its eastern shore.\\nVirginia on her part denies both of these propositions,\\nand insists that she is entitled under her charter of the year\\n1609, to the whole river Potomac to its low water murk on\\nits northern shore, down to Point Lookout, which is the\\nnorth point of the river, subject to the line of tiie new State\\nof West Virginia; or, that she is entitled to enjoy the river\\nto the middle of the stream, through its whole course be-\\ntween the two States.\\nTo repel the claim of Maryland, and in support of her\\nown, Virginia insists on the following propositions:\\n1. The Maryland charter is in its terms vague, obscure,\\nand open to several diflerent constructions, as will be shown.\\nIf the sense now assumed for it can be deduced from its\\nlanguage, it was not so understood by the king, the grantor;\\nand proceeding, as it does, on false suggestion or misinfor-\\nmation, that part of it is void. Blac. Com. B. 2,848; Penn\\nV. Baltimore, 1 Ves. Sr. 452. For, 1st. Such construction\\ncontradicts the declared intent that the newly-created pro-\\nvince shall not henceforth be held or reputed a member\\nor part of the land of Virginia, or of an} other colony\\nalready transported, or hereafter to be transported,\\nfrom which we do separate both the said province and", "height": "3478", "width": "2106", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "the inhabitants tliereof, and by these presents do will to\\nbe distinct. Sec. 21. 2n(l. It contradicts the purpose\\ndechired in the n^rant, to people and civilize a region\\nhitherto uncultivated in the parts of America, and partly\\noccupied by savages having no knowledge of the divine\\nbeing; a point urged with effect against this charter\\nby Penn in his controversy with Lord Baltimore about\\nthe country now the State of Delaware, but originally em-\\nbraced, as the latter contended, in his grant. 3rd. It was\\nplainly against the interest of the king s revenues Misccll,\\nJ). 1, No. 44, No. 46; p. 10, No. 33. 4th. It would have\\nbeen against those principles of reason, humanity and ne-\\ncessity which make public law. The river is the great\\nhighway which Providence has established along the terri-\\ntory on the southern bank, in its whole extent, for those\\nwho then held it, and the generations to follow; its use for\\nnavigation and access to the sea, for mill-sites, for manufac-\\ntories, for irrigation, for the sustenance of men and cattle,\\nand countless other necessary purposes, was indispensable\\nfor its enjoyment ^Hd sine qua res uti 7ion potuit.\\n2. Virginia was the elder colony. Her charter em-\\nbraced all the territory afterwards granted as Maryland,\\nincluding Chesapeake Bay and all its tributaries, the Po-\\ntomac included. 1 Hening s Statutes at Large, p. 88, 6.\\nThe grant by the sovereign proprietor of the whole terri-\\ntory, of the part on the northern shore of the river, retained\\nthe river itself as parcel of the reserved domain. The\\nriver thereby became, at low water mark, the boundary of\\nthe newly created State or, the operation of the grant was\\nto entitle the colony and the province to hold the river\\nad fibini medium aqua:. Hundley s Lessee v. Anthony,\\n5 Wheat, R. 374. Wheaton s Elements, (Lawrence,) 252.\\n3, Kent s Com., 547, (2d edit.)\\nUnder this interpretation Virginia retained the exclusive\\npossession and jurisdiction of the southern shore, which she\\nheld before Maryland was created, and which she has", "height": "3448", "width": "2049", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "t^Ctcf LOt^- Tf d-f\\n6\\nnotoriously held and exercised ever since, with the assent,\\napproval and acquiescence of the Crown, of the successive\\nproprietary governments of Maryland, and of Maryland\\nsince she has been a State, notwithstanding her paper\\nresolves to the contrary.\\n^^.-.^-^iW^t^^^^VA ;poj. proof as to the King: MiscelL, p. 49-52/ As to the\\nproprietary governments of Maryland, see the several laws\\nerecting her counties on the northern shore, bounding them\\nby the river. From and after the 23d of April, 1676, the\\nbounds of St. Mary s county shall begin at Point Lookout\\nand extend itself up Powtowmack River to the lower side\\nof Bird s Creek, c., and so as to other river counties.\\nBy the establishment of ports of entry on the Maryland\\nside, and the failure to establish them on the Virginia side.\\nBacon s Laws. On the Virginia side, Northumberland,\\nopposite St. Mary s, is mentioned in the Virginia laws\\nunder the name of Chicawane, alias Northumberhmd, as\\nhaving been settled, and as liable for taxes in arrear in\\n1646, and as entitled to representation in the Assembl}^ in\\n1648. 1 Hening, 337, 352. In 1653, Westmoreland was\\nlaid ofi above, from a named river, and so upwards to\\nthe falls of the great river of Potoraake. Id. 38L Staf-\\nford was laid oft above Westmoreland, on the river, some\\nyears later. 2. Id. 239. These are the three counties\\nlying along the shore of that river, mentioned in the re-\\nmonstrance to the King, (1684,) against Lord Baltimore s\\nalleged usurpations. Mis. p. 48.\\nIn 1661-2, Virginia passed a law against evasions of the\\ntobacco duty by the people of Northumberland and West-\\nmoreland, by reason of ships coming into the Potomac,\\nand anchoring in Lord Baltimore s dominions, whence\\nthey send their sloops and boats to fetch the tobacco made\\nin this country, without paying the said imposition. 2\\nHening, 132.\\nNo question is made that Virginia granted the lands on\\nthe southern shore of the river, as her settlements extended", "height": "3478", "width": "2106", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "upwards from the south point of the river where they com-\\nmenced. In 1650, (March 18,) Sir William Berkeley, the Gov-\\nernor of Virginia, granted Smith s Point, (529 acres,) the south\\npoint of the river, (which Maryland now claims to have\\nthen belonged to her up to high water mark,) to Samuel\\nSmith. Maryland statement, p. 59. There was no reserva-\\ntion or allusion to any supposed rights of Maryland. At\\nan early period it was declared to have been established as\\npart of the land law, that every man s right by virtue of\\nhis pattent extends into the rivers or creekes so farre as\\nlow water marke, and it is a priviledge granted him in and\\nby his pattent. 2 Hening, 456. (1679.) And this right\\nwas enjoyed by the riparian owners on the southern shore,\\nuniversally, and, as will be seen, is recognized as an exist-\\ning right in the compact of 1785.\\nVirginia, during the colonial period and afterwards, ex-\\nercised the right of establishing ferries over the Potomac\\nriver from shore to shore. See MacDonald s Report, in\\nReports Relative to the Boundary Line, pp. 39-43. It\\nappears that before the date of the compact of 1785, as\\nmany as twenty eight ferries, soms below, some above tide,\\nhad been established, by the exclusive authority of Vir-\\nginia, from her shore over the river, and none by Maryland;\\nand after the compact, the same exercise of jurisdiction\\nwas continued.\\nIn 1784, the Legislatures of the two States, by similar\\nlaws, conjointly incorporated the Potomac Company, to\\nimprove the river by the extension of the navigation from\\ntidewater to the highest place practicable in the North\\nBranch. The Virginia law is in 11 Hening, 510. It has\\nthe recital and whereas it may be necessary to cut canals\\nand erect locks and other works on both sides of the river,\\nand the Legislatures of Maryland and Virginia, impressed\\nwith the importance of the object, are desirous of encour-\\naging so useful an undertaking; and the enactments of\\nthe law conform with this avowed purpose. This was an", "height": "3448", "width": "2049", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "8\\nindependent act of legislation by Virginia, over the whole\\nsouthern shore, above the tide, without reference to any\\nsupposed right or interest of Maryland in it, and had her\\nsolemn assent.\\nIn 1802, (1 R. C, 1819, ch. 14, p. 49,) Virginia ceded to\\nthe United States jurisdiction over so much of the lands\\nlying on Smith s Point in Northumberland county, as might\\nbe necessary for the erection of a light-house and the ap-\\npurtenant buildings thereto on the said Point, which cession\\nwas accepted by the United States, and a light-house was\\nbuilt, and has been maintained at the Point by a public\\nappropriation. In 1828, (Session Acts p. 17,) she author-\\nized the United States to purchase from the proprietors of\\nthe land lying in or adjoining Smith s Point, so much land\\nas might be necessary for the purpose of rebuilding the\\nlight-house, altering the site thereof, and for the erection of\\nother necessary buildings. This was done, and paid for\\nby public appropriation no objection having been inter-\\nposed by Maryland on the ground of right of soil or juris-\\ndiction. And it was provided that should the light-house\\nbe discontinued, the jurisdiction thereby vested in the\\nUnited States should revert to Virginia.\\n3. Public History. Under this head may be mentioned\\nbooks and chronicles of public history, as partaking, in\\nsome degree, of the nature of public documents, and being\\nentitled, on the same principles, to a great degree of public\\ncredit. Any approved and general history, therefore, is\\nadmissible to prove ancient facts of a public nature, and the\\ngeneral usages and customs of a country. But in regard to\\nmatters not of a public and general nature, such as the cus-\\ntom of a particular town, a descent, the nature of a parti-\\ncular abbey, the boundaries of a county, and the like, they\\nare not admissible. Greenleaf on Evidence, S. 497; Mor-\\nriss V. Lessee of Harmer s Heirs, 7 Peters 558-9 J3everley s\\nHistory of Virginia, Book 1, 56-57 (p. 45), Book 2, 2\\n(p. 91) (1 edit. 1707); Histoire de la Virginie, A. Amsterdam", "height": "3478", "width": "2106", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "9\\n(1712)\u00e2\u0080\u0094 ch. 4, 3-5 (p. 72); The Trescnt State of Virginia,\\nby Hugh Jones, cliaplain of the honorable Assembly, and\\nlately minister of Jamestown in Virginia, (1724) p. 24\\n(Sabin s Reprints); The History of the British Plantations\\nin America, by Sir Wm. Keith, Bart., p. 142 (London,\\n1738); An Account of the European Settlements in Ame-\\nrica, ch. 18 (p. 2fi2); An Introduction to the History of the\\nRevolt of ilie American Colonies, Chalmers 1, p. 61, 62\\n(Sabin s Reprints) Marshall, American Colonies; Bancroft\\n1, 243; Graham IV. 302.\\n4. The grant by Charles the Second to Lord Hopton and\\nothers, made while an exile in the first year of his reign, as\\nhe counted it from his father s death, Jan. 30th, 1649. In May,\\n1667, after his restoration, that grant having been surrender-\\ned, that it might be renewed with alterations, Charles granted\\nthe same territor}^ to the Earl of St. Albans and others\\nall that entire tract, territory or parcel of land, situate\\nlying and being in America, and bounded within the head\\nof the rivers of Tappahanock, alias Rappahannock, and\\nQuiriough or Patlawemeck rivers, the courses of the said\\nrivers as they are commonly called or knowne by the inhab-\\nitants, and description of those parts and Chesapeqocke\\nbay, together with the rivers themselves, and all the islands\\nwithin the bankes of those rivers, and the rivers them-\\nselves. Afterwards, Thomas Lord Culpeper, having pur-\\nchased the territory, who was thereby become sole owner\\nand proprietor thereof in fee simple, James the Second by\\npatent confirmed the same to him in fee simple. But these\\npatents, though they gave ample use and enjoyment of the\\nterritor}^ and power to make grants of the same, reserved\\nto the Governor, Council, and Assembly of Virginia the\\nexclusive authority in all the military concerns of the\\ngranted territory, and the power to impose taxes on the\\npersons and property of its inhabitants for the public and\\ncommon defence of the colony, as well as a general juris-", "height": "3448", "width": "2049", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "10\\ndiction over them, their heirs and assigns, and all other in-\\nhabitants of the said territory.\\nThis great property came afterwards to Thomas Lord\\nFairfax, as heir of Lord Culpeper. In its upper parts, it\\nlong remained unexplored; but about 1736, disputes having\\narisen between ]jord Fairfax and the Colonial Government\\nconcerning the boundaries at the heads of the rivers, giving\\nrise to conflicting grants, a fruitless attempt was made to\\nsettle the matter by a boundary commission. But in 1745,\\nthe king in council, on the petition of Lord Fairfax, and\\nthe report of the Lords Commissioners of trade and planta-\\ntions, decided that the true boundary of Lord Fairfax s\\ngrant, according to the terms of his patent, began at the\\nheadspring of the south branch of the Rappahannock, which\\nis declared to be that branch of the Rapidan called the\\nConway; thence northwest in a straight line to the head-\\nspring of that branch of the Potomac called the Cohongo-\\nroota; the other boundaries being the rivers themselves, as\\nthey run to the Chesapeake. An act of the Virginia\\nAssembly was passed in 1748, reciting the adjustment of\\nthe boundary of the Northern Neck, confirming all previous\\ngrants and patents of the Crown within that territory, and\\ntransferring the quitrents and services to Lord Fairfax.\\nChancery Patent Roll 21, Car. IL (May 8, 1667); 1 Rev.\\nCode 1819, ch. 87, 243, (passed in 1736, in which the patents\\nare recited;) Id. 1 V. ch. 70, 349, (passed in 1748;) Id. Ap-\\npendix 2 V.344-5; Hunter v. Martin, 1 Wheat, 304, Misc.\\n57.\\nIn 1748, Lord Fairfax opened a land office in the North-\\nern Neck, and continued to grant lands in this territory\\nuntil his death in 1781 but at the revolution all quitrents\\nand services for the lands were abolished, and the records ot\\nhis office were transferred to the land office at the seat ot\\ngovernment. 1 R. C. c. 91, 350. He died seised of 300,000\\nacres ungranted, which he devised to an alien, whose capa-", "height": "3478", "width": "2106", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "11\\ncity to take was tlie qiiePtion in Hunter v. Martin but the\\ndispute was iinally coniiiosed according to the terms of an\\nact of Assembly. 1 R. C. ch. 92, 352. Thus title to this\\nterritory became revested in Virginia, and united with\\njurisdiction over it, which had never been parted with.\\nLord Baltimore submitted to the Ilopton Grant, and his\\nsuccessors have submitted to what has been done in pur-\\nsuance of it, without murmur or remonstrance. Maryland\\nStatement, p. 48. The conclusions to be drawn from these\\ntransactions are: 1. That the river did not pass, and was\\nnot meant to pass by the Maryland charter of 1632, but\\nremained part of the reserved domain of the king. 2. That\\neven if there be expressions in the charter to that effect, of\\nwhich the king was advised, the grant, under the facts and\\ncircumstances of the cai=e, as to that part of it, is without\\neffect.\\n5. The Maryland Charter. The discrepancies and obscu-\\nrities in the several editions, Latin and English, as to this\\npart of the line, will be seen on inspection. Lord Balti-\\nmore gave his translation of it, in his Relation, and has\\nmarked the line and its continuation he claimed from Cin-\\nquack across the bay, on the accompanying map. It was\\nthis line which had to be abandoned when the Calvert and\\nScarburg line, hereafter mentioned, was established, and\\nwhich, or something like it, Maryland seeks to restore.\\nBut how comes the line on the bank to Cinquack, thus\\nmapped, to be substituted now by the line of the low-water\\nmark to Smith s Point? In the Maryland Statement (48),\\nit is said that in the compact of 1785, Maryland yielded\\nthe line from Cinquack, and accepted Smith s Point (five\\nor six miles further north), as the starting of the line across\\nthe bay. But the compact, as will be seen, settled no\\nquestion of boundary or property, being on its face a pro-\\nvisional arrangement of navigation and jurisdiction. The\\nlanguage of the compact is: The citizens of each State\\nrespectively shall have full property in the shores of the", "height": "3448", "width": "2049", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "12\\nPotomac river adjoining their lands. Instead of a recog-\\nnition of property in Maryland, in the southern shore, she\\nguarantees the property of Virginia in that shore, and\\naccepts Virginia s guarantee of property in her own.\\nMaryland must stand on her charter or abandon it. No\\nmixed case can be made, of a call for the whole river under\\nthe stringent terms of her charter, and a change of claim of\\nthe southern bank down to Cinquack, for the low-water line\\nto Smith s Point, when the difficulty of maintaining the\\ncharter line is felt.\\nThe line in exposition of the charter is dotted on this\\nmap so as to include, not the river proper as now\\nclaimed, but one of its tributaries (the present Acquia\\ncreek), which Smith named Patomeck, and which may\\nhave been mistaken for the main river itself, which had\\nnot then been explored. The country through which, by\\nthe charter, the line was to verge south from the 40th\\ndegree in search of the further bank of the river\\nbeing unknown, the line as dotted, if continued, would\\nhave cut into the heart of the colony; so the protraction of\\nthe dotted, line from Cinquack across the bay to the sea,\\nevinces a like ambitious design to attach to the Maryland\\nprovince the wdiole river, including its mouth. Of a piece\\nwdth this was the proclamation of Harvey, Governor of\\nVirginia, in 1638, procured by Lord Baltimore, whose\\npartisan he was, describing the province as extending\\nnorthward from the river Wiconow, commonly called by\\nthe name of Ouancock, on the eastern side of the Grand\\nBay of Chesapeake, and northward from the river Chin-\\nquack, called Great Wicomico, on the western side of\\nthe said bay. Maryland Statement, 15; Instructions,\\nid. 19. Miscell. pp. 31-37. See Bosnian s History of\\nMaryland, 2 V. 73, note, from which it would appear that\\nthe line in this proclamation was under mistake supposed\\nto coincide with the 38th degree, which was assumed to be\\nthe boundary of Maryland on the bay, as well as on the", "height": "3478", "width": "2106", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "13\\nEastern Shore, anrl it is so marked on Lord Tialtimore s\\nmap. But it may be safely affirmed that not an incli of\\nthis dotted line was ever supported by occupation, or recog-\\nnition by royal or colonial authority.\\nTHE COMPACT OF 1785.\\nThis compact, in connection witli the supposed con-\\ncessions in the first Constitution of Virginia, is much\\nrelied on in support of the Maryland claim to the Potomac,\\nand especially to Smith s Point, as a point in her boundarj\\nit regulates, provisionally, and during joint pleasure of\\nthe States, navigation and jurisdiction, on the Potomac\\nriver and the waters of the Cheaspeake bay, and the\\nriver Pocomoke in the limits of Virginia, and no more.\\nThis appears from the terms of the compact, and the lan-\\nguage of the Maryland resolution appointing commission-\\ners to make it. Appendix Maryland Acts v. 7, Res. No. 1.\\nIts restricted character resulted naturally, from what had\\ngone before. The dismemberment of V^irginia by the\\nerection of the colonies Maryland, Pennsylvania, and\\nNorth and South Carolina, had been a ground of com-\\nplaint by the elder colony. At the outset of the struggle\\nfor independence, Virginia, as a peace oifering, and to\\nallay any possible apprehension of territorial claims on\\nher part against those States, released to them all rights\\nwhich might have been claimed by her to the terri-\\ntories which she had lost, stipulating, however, in the\\ncase of Maryland, with whom there were open ques-\\ntions on the subject, for the free navigation of the Poto-\\nmac and Pokomoke rivers, and her property in the shores\\nof those rivers. This oft er might have been accepted bj\\nMaryland, had it stood alone. But it was connected with a\\nreservation by Virginia of her western and northern extent,", "height": "3448", "width": "2049", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "14\\nas fixed by her charter, meaning her territory north west\\nof the Ohio. To this reservation Maryland never would\\naccede, but staid out of the confederation until the cession\\nof that territory to the United States was made. So she\\nrejected in resentful terms the overtures of Virginia.\\n(Resolutions of her Convention in 1776. Documents, p. 9\\nHening,vol. 10, 553-564. Maryland Bill of Rights, Nov.,\\n1776.)\\nBut the cession having been made, and the war success-\\nfully closed, this irritating subject could be approached in\\na more conciliatory spirit, and the compact which super-\\nseded all questions of boundary, and aimed only to secure\\nthe free and common use and navigation of these waters,\\nwas its fruit. It recognizes what was conceded to exist,\\nand waives or postpones what was questioned or disputed;\\nwhich is the key to its interpretation. The whole river\\nPotomac was in dispute. Maryland claimed under her\\ncharter the whole from its source to its mouth, including\\nthe soil and jurisdiction of its southern bank, and of the\\nVirginia shore in Northumberland county to Wiconioco\\nriver; while Virginia claimed the river to its northern shore\\ndown to Point Lookout, or to the middle of the stream;\\nand a line thence, across the bay, from one icrmimts or the\\nother. Maryland claimed to protract the line she claimed\\non the Potomac over the bay to Watkins Point. The\\nsouthern boundary of Maryland on the bay was in doubt.\\nA divisional line had been run by authority in 1668, from\\nWatkins Point to the ocean, over Pocomoke river, by which\\nall the river above the line was given to Maryland, and all\\nbelow it fell within the limits of Virginia; but the exact\\ncourse of this line was in doubt; and it thus appears that as\\nthe upper part of the river belonged to Maryland, and the\\nlower part communicating with the Chesapeake bay, (Po-\\ncomoke sound,) belonged to Virginia, it was important to\\nsecure to the upper inhabitants the navigation of the lower\\nwaters. All Chesapeake bay, from the capes to the south-", "height": "3463", "width": "2101", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "15\\nern boundary of Maryland on the bay, (wherever that\\nboundary niio;ht be,) belonged to Virginia.\\nThe compact adapts itself to this state of things; and a\\nstriking feature in it, is the way in which by its terms the\\nPotomac, which was disputed property, is discriminated\\nfrom the waters of Chesapeake bay, and tlie river Poco-\\nmoke within the limits of Virginia, conceded to be within\\nthe limits of Virginia. The first is the subject of mutual\\nstipulations for the benefit of both States, (and as to navi-\\ngation, for the benefit of the United States, and all in amity\\nwith them.) As to the latter, Virginia stipulates separately\\nfor the benefit of Maryland, receiving in return privileges\\nin other waters, the property of that State.\\nBy the fifth, sixth and seventh clauses, the two States\\nagree that the river Potomac shall be a common high-\\nway for the purpose of navigation to the citizens of Vir-\\nginia and Maryland, and of the United States, and to\\nall otlier persons in amity with the said States, trading to\\nor from Virginia or Maryland. The entrance and clear-\\nance of vessels are provided for at some naval office on the\\nriver, in one or both States according to the laws of the\\nState in which the entry shall be made. Property in the\\nshores of the river adjoining their lands, with certain de-\\nfined privileges in the river, is secured to the citizens of\\neach State, with the common right of fishery in the river\\nunder prescribed regulations.\\nPut by the first and second clauses, Virginia separately,\\nfor the benefit of Maryland, disclaims the right (it would\\nseem in accordance with the suggestion of the Maryland\\nConvention, Doc. p. 9), to impose duties on vessels sailing\\nthrough the capes to or from Maryland, and she agrees\\nthat the waters of Chesapeake bay and the river Poco-\\nmoke, within the limits of Virginia, be forever considered\\nas a common highway, free for the use and navigation of\\nany vessel belonging to the State of Maryland, or any of its\\ncitizens, or carrying on commerce to or from said State, or", "height": "3448", "width": "2049", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "16\\nwith any of its citizens. And for the benefit of the upper\\ninhabitants on the river Pocomoke, as for other citizens of\\nMaryland, she agrees that the before-mentioned parts of\\nChesapeake bay and Pocomoke river be forever considered\\nas a common highway, free for the navigation of vessels\\nfrom one part of the State of Maryland to another.\\nMaryland on her part agrees that vessels belonging to Vir-\\nginia or her citizens, or carrying on commerce to or from\\nthe State, or with any of its citizens, may freely enter the\\nrivers of Marjdand as a harbor, or for safety against an\\nenemy, without the payment of any port charge or other\\nduty; and Virginia in the iirst clause reciprocates this\\nprivilege. But Virginia extends nothing to Maryland in\\nthe waters of Chesapeake bay and Pocomoke river, within\\nthe limits of Virginia, beyond the right of navigation no\\nright of property in its shores; no right of lishery; no ex-\\nemption from port duties and other charges.\\nBy the tenth clause, jurisdiction is provided for over the\\nPotomac and the part of Chesapeake bay and Pocomoke\\nriver within the limits of Virginia; and as, according to\\nthe scheme of the compact, which pretermits the matter of\\nboundaries, it could not be assigned by territorial lines, re-\\nsort was had to the plan of giving jurisdiction over offences\\ncommitted in these waters, whether certain or doubtful as\\nto ownership, to each or both states, according to the citi-\\nzenship of the offender.\\nAn idea hiis been expressed, suggested it would seem\\nby a strained verbal criticism, that the framers of the com-\\npact, when the} speak in the tenth section of that part of\\nthe bay where the line of division from the south point of\\nPotomack river (now called Smith s Point), to Watkins\\nPoint may be doubtful, are not merely atfirmi ng that the\\npart of the bay crossed by this supposed line may be doubt-\\nful as to ownership, but mean by this language to substitute\\nSmith s Point for the Cinqimck named in tlie Maryland\\ncharter, and to fix Smith s Point irrevocably as a point in", "height": "3474", "width": "2070", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "17\\nthe Marjland line. But that would have been a departure\\nfrom the persistent purpose of the compact. They mean\\nonly to express the same doubt as to that part of the bay as\\nto its ownership, as they express in regard to that part of\\nPocomoke river where the line of division between the\\ntwo States upon the said river is doubtful. They declare\\nthat part of the bay doubtful, and could not mean that the\\nasserted line over it, cither as to terinini or direction, ap-\\npeared to be and was certain. They make no allusion to\\nCiiiquach, and merely speak of the north point of the river\\nby the name it had acquired now called Smith s Point.\\nConclusions: 1. That the property line on the Potomac,\\nand from its mouth to the Eastern shore, remains unad-\\njusted. 2. Part of the waters of Chesapeake bay, and part\\nof the Pokomoke river, are exclusively within the limits\\nof Virginia. 3. By the Calvert and Scarburg agreement,\\na divisional line between the States was run over Poko-\\nmoke river, but the line of division between the two\\nStates on that river, was treated as doubtful. (It is made\\nclear by Michler s Survey.)\\nBOUNDAPvY LINE ON THE EASTERN SHORE\\nAND CHESAPEAKE BAY.\\nVirginia claims by the line from Chesapeake bay to the\\nsea, as she insists it was established in 1668 by Calvert and\\nScarborough; and as it appears by the survey of Michler,\\nmade under the joint instructions of the commissioners of\\nthe two States, Lee and McDonald, in 1859. Michler s\\nReport and Survey; Calvert Scarborough Agreement\\n(Maryland statement, p. 37).\\nThe binding authority of this agreement has never been\\ndisputed, unless the present claim of Marylaiul is to be so\\ninterpreted: a line from the centre of Cedar straits, near\\n3", "height": "3464", "width": "2043", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "18\\nthe southern end of Watkin s point; thence by a right line\\nto the Atlantic ocean. The act of Maryland, however,\\nwhich invited this investigation (ch. 385, March 1860),\\nwhile it insists on an interpretation of the agreement which\\nVirginia contests, does not deny but distinctly asserts its\\nauthority. But the agreement was authorized and ratified\\nby both colonies and approved by the king.\\n1. The line as laid down by Michler and insisted on by\\nVirginia, conforms with the language of the agreement.\\nWatkin s Point being ascertained to be the point of land\\nmade by the north side of Pocomoke bay and south side ot\\nAnnamessex bay, the commissioners say: we have run\\nan east line agreeable with the extremest part of the west-\\nernmost angle of the said Watkin s Point over Poco-\\nmoke river, near Pobert Holston s, and ^^over Swansecute\\ncreek into the marsh of the seaside. Omitting from the\\npassage quoted the words descriptive of marking the line\\nnear Holston s house, and attending to the words descrip-\\ntive of running the line (the two have no necessary con-\\nnection), the sense is too plain to be obscured. They say,\\nthey have run a line an east line over Pocomoke river to\\nthe land near Robert Holston s, agreeable with, that is,\\nwhich agrees, concurs with, the extremest part of the\\nwesternmost angle. There could be no reason for this\\nparticular reference to the extremest part but to make\\nit the beginning point of the line which should divide the\\ndisputed terrritory. The line is declared to run through\\nthe whole, from the bay to the sea; and is to be received\\nas the bounds of Virginia and Mar3 land on the eastern\\nshore of Chesapeake bay. It is the marking of the line\\nwhich begins east of the river and is continued eastward.\\n2. No other construction is consistent with the object of\\nthe commission, which was to divide between the colonies\\nthe whole eastern shore territory lying between the bay\\nand the ocean. This territory, which had been the sole\\nproperty of Virginia, was to be divided, according to the", "height": "3463", "width": "2101", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "19\\nMaryland charter, b}^ u right line drawn from the promon-\\ntory or headlead called AVatkin s Point, beside the bay\\naforesaid on the west, as far as the great ocean on the\\neast; up to which line the colonies would thenceforth\\nhold respectively. A line through the whole territory was\\ntherefore indispensable. To have run it only from Poco-\\nmoke river eastward, would have left the territory be-\\ntween the river and the bay still in dispute, and have left\\nMaryland without any closing and initial point on the bay.\\n3. Had the line established by the agreement been an\\narbitrary one, yet as it was authorized and accepted by\\nboth colonies and approved bj the king, it would have\\nbeen conclusively binding. But it was not so. The south-\\nern boundary of Maryland, on the eastern shore, though\\nit is not so express- od in the charter was, and is, the thirty-\\neighth degree of north latitude. Letter from the King to\\nLord Baltimore, appended to Reports of 1872, p. 9o. So\\nit is described by Lord Baltimore on the map published\\nwith his Relation; and is indeed a settled point in geogra-\\nphy. The commissioners ran the line accordingly. Mich-\\nler s Report (see Reports, pp. 9, 13).\\n4. This construction is supported by the terms of the\\nCompact of 1785, which expressly recognizes part of the\\nPocomoke river as being within the limits of Virginia\\nthough the line of division between the two States upon\\nthe said river is doubtful. Section 10. The line here re-\\nferred to is the Calvert and Scarborough line, run over\\nPocomoke river; for there was no other.\\n5. The continuation of the line from the extremest\\npart of the westernmost angle of Watkin s I oint over\\nSmith s Island to the mouth of the Potomac, either to\\nPoint Lookout, or by the 38th parallel, is put beyond ques-\\ntion by the evidence, tliough its establishment by any for-\\nmal act of public authority cannot be proved. It is shown\\nby the evidence of tradition, popular usage, and public acts\\nof both sides in tljis controversy, such as grants of land by", "height": "3448", "width": "2049", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "20\\neach on the island recognizing the line of division between\\nthem, the collection of taxes by both, a commission under\\nthe election law of Maryland, by which an election district\\nwas laid off of so much of the island as lies in that State,\\nand judicial decisions of the courts of that State, in cases\\nof violation of her oyster laws, which recognize the di-\\nvisional line on Tangier Strait between Watkin s Point\\nand the island, to be as Virginia contends it is.\\n6. The line which Maryland claims seems to be unde-\\nfined and uncertain. In her act, ch. 60, (passed March 20th,\\n1852,) it is aiRrmed that it has, from lapse of time, be-\\ncome uncertain. In her act, ch. 385, (passed March I860,)\\nit is affirmed that the true divisional line across Chesa-\\npeake bay [a the soidhernmost (not the westernmost) angle\\nof the body of land defined by the aforesaid commissioners\\nas Watkin s Point. And now her pretension is, a right line\\nfrom Smith s Point to the centre of Cedar Straits, between\\nPocomoke sound and Tangier sound, near the southern end\\nof Watkin s Point, thence by a right line to the ocean.\\nThese lines are irreconcilable with each other. Both vio-\\nlate the agreement of 1668, in that neither of them pro-\\ntracted east to the ocean, would touch at any point the part\\nof the line east of Pocomoke river to the sea, which both\\nsides agree was established by that agreement; nor would\\na right line run east from the centre of Cedar Straits touch\\nPocomoke river, but would intersect the open Pocomoke\\nsound several miles below the mouth of the river. Either\\nline so protracted would unsettle and displace that part of\\nthe line which has, by concession of botli sides, been known\\nand respected as a fixed boundary between them for nearly\\ntwo centuries. Moreover, it would divide between the\\nStates, the waters of Chesapeake bay and the river Poco-\\nmoke within the limits of Virginia, admitted to be her\\nrightful possession, until questioned in this controversy.\\nThese lines are unsupported by any evidence of occupation,\\nor recoicuition or monuments.", "height": "3463", "width": "2101", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "21\\nSome criticism has been attempted upon the apparent\\nfailure of the commissioners in 1G68 to mark the line west\\nof Pocoraoke river. It is inferred, in the face of their plain\\nlanguage, and the object of their appointment to the con-\\ntrary, that they did not run the line from the extremest\\npart of the westermost angle at all, but only so much of\\nit as they marked with marked trees. The inference is illo-\\ngical. There may have been reasons for this omission,\\nwhich now can only be conjectured. The territory was\\nmarshy, difficult of access, probably bare of woods, and\\nthinly settled if at all. The extremest part of the cape\\nor headland was a plain and visible object, being then more\\nprominent than now a point running out from the high-\\nland of James Island and, agreeable with this, it\\nf was easy to run the line over Pocomoke river.", "height": "3448", "width": "2049", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "C6", "height": "3463", "width": "2101", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3463", "width": "2044", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3463", "width": "2101", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3448", "width": "2049", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3556", "width": "2236", "jp2-path": "boundarylinebetw00virg_0032.jp2"}}