MSA SC 5796-3-1
|
1745
|
Original
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
Chapter 9. Allowing riparian owners in Baltimore to build piers and other structures; states "[t]hat all Improvements of what Kind soever, either Wharfs, Houses, or other
Buildings, that have, or shall be made out of the Water, or where it usually flows, shall as an
Encouragement to such Improvers, be fore ever deemed the Right, Title and Inheritance of such
Improver or Improvers, their Heirs and Assigns for ever." 50 Op. Atty. Gen. 452 states that the Baltimore Harbor cases are sui generis in that it was "clearly intended by its own terms to encourage the growth and commercial development of that harbor, and has been consistently so construed (e.g., B.&O. R.R. Co. v. Chase, 43 Md. 23, 36 [1875])." It was intended to develop the Baltimore Harbor into an international seaport capable of accommodating "vessels of the deepest draft." [as]
|
|
MSA SC 5796-3-2
|
1768
|
Original
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
Chapter 5. The Act is entitled "An Act to prevent any obstruction of the navigation in the river Patowmack." In the whereas clause, it states that it is a response to concern that "water carriage is greatly obstructed by erecting fish-dams above the falls in the river Patowmack, and also in Monocacy river." The law applies to the stretch of the Potomac between Great fish dams or "any heap of stones, or other erection whatsoever," allowing specifically for the construction of bridges across the Monocacy, provided that there issufficient provision for "boats and other vessels ofburthen" to make it through. [as]
Virginia exhibit 12
|
|
MSA SC 5796-3-3
|
1777/12
|
Original
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
Resolution passed on December 21, 1777 appointing
Commissioners to meet with Virginia re:
jurisdictional and navigational issues. See House of Delegates Journal entries:
On Saturday November 8, 1777, the House reiterated the position of the Convention the previous October with regard to its Charter derived rights on the rivers Potomac and Pocomoke and on the Chesapeake Bay, and resolved to send a letter to Virginia. See the text of the resolve on p. 8, of the orginal printed Journal of the House of Delegates found on line at the Archives of Maryland web site, http://www.archivesofmaryland.net. The proceedings with regard to the joint balloting for Commissioners is found in the House Journal at p.60. The instructions to the Commissioners begin on p. 64. [It is clear from the language of the instructions that the concern was solely with navigable parts of the two rivers and the bay and not the full course of the rivers. ecp 11/28/00]
The House also responded to a Nov. 22, 1777 recommendation from Congress that
Md., Va., and N.C. meet to discuss price regulation at Fredericksburg Virginia.
For the Senate's recording of the instructions, see below and the Senate Proceedings for the November-December 1777 session.
|
|
MSA SC 5796-3-4
|
1783
|
Original
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
Chapter 23. Entitled "An ACT for making the river Susquehana
navigable from the line of this stat to tide water," this
act incorporates a group of individuals who had
invested money in improving the Susquehana and
gives them condmenation powers, the "full power of
erecting grist mills, and other waterworks thereon."
The corporation is granted "full power and authority
to use the waters of the said river for the purpose of
supplying the said canal, and the waterworks aforesaid
erected thereon, with water" but "shall have no right
to the waters of the said river for any other purpose or
purposes whatsoever." Note also that the owners of
land through which the canal will be cut have the
right to become subscribers to the corporation.
|
|
MSA SC 5796-3-5
|
1784
|
Original
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
Chapter 15. Entitled "An ACT to prevent the
obstruction of navigation of the
eastern and north-west branches of
the river Patowmack." Concern is
which the "great numbers of wears and
hedges . . . erected in and upon the
eastern and north-west branches of
Patowmack river, near the town of
Bladensburg, to the great injury of the
navigation of the said river and of the
trade of the said town." Declares them
nuisances.
|
|
MSA SC 5796-3-6
|
1784
|
Original
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
Chapter 33. Entitled "An ACT for establishing a
company for opening and extending
the navigation of the river
Patowmack." [Designed to make it
navigable from "tide water to the
highest place practicable on the north
branch." Act notes that it will be
necessary to "erect locks and other
works on both sides of the river, and
the legislatures of Virginia and
Maryland, impressed with the
importance of the object, are desirous
of encouraging so useful an
undertaking." In Article IV, the Act
refers again to making the river
navigable from "tide water to the
highest part of the north branch to
which navigation can be extended."
Canals exempt from taxation; can
charge tolls. Article X declares that
"the said river, and the works to be
erected thereon in virtue of this act,
when completed, shall for ever
tereafter be esteemed and taken to be
navigabel as a public highway"
subject only to the tolls established in
the Act. No other tax or tolls "for the
use of the water of the said river, and
the works thereon erected, shall at any
time be imposed by both or either of
the said states," subject to concurrent
regulation re: toll evasion or prohibited
goods. Condemnation power. Article
XIII states that "it is the intention of
this act not to interfere with private
property, but for the purpose of
improving and perfecting the saide
navigation" and that the "water, or any
part thereof, conveyed through any
canal or cut . . . shall not be used for
any purpose but navigation, unless
the cosent of the proprietors of the
land through which the same shall be
led be first had." The Company is
directed to do their best to
accommodate other, private uses of
the water. Act not effective until
Virginia does the same. abstract, as 9/00]
[The evidence is compelling and complete that those who were engaged in the negotiations for the passage of this law and the subsequent meeting at Mt. Vernon the following Spring, considered the Potomac above tidwater to be a separate and distinct issue from tidwater Potomac. The Potomac Canal legislation addressed the Potomac above tidewater. The Compact of 1785 addressed the tidewater and the tidewater alone, having entrusted the navigation of the Potomac above tidewater to a company jointly supported and authorized by the legislatures of both Maryland and Virginia. George Washington actively presided over the first efforts to promote improvement of the navigation of the Potomac above tidewater. He nominally presided over the second,leaving it to his neighbor, George Mason and others to deal with the issues of trade and fishing on the already navigable parts of the river. As Washington explained to Lafayette, he found himself unexpectedly back in Annapolis in December 1784, where he presided over the commission that recommended the legislation subsequently passed, first by Maryland and then by Virginia. The proceedings of the meeting on the proposed Potomac Canal legislation, were printed in the Journal of the Maryland House of Delegates. It is clear from the proceedings (pp. 63-64) that passage was contingent upon Virginia repealing a law which had asserted her jurisdiction over the Potomac: "That it is the opinion of this conference, that an act of assembly of Virginia for opening and extending the navigation of the river Patowmack, from Fort Cumberland to the tide water, ought to be repealed." (V&P, p. 64).; Virginia did so and concurred with the recommendations of the conference by passing this act, already passed by Maryland. Once this act was passed, the issue of who had the right to manage the navigation and the use of the waters above tide water was resolved in favor of the Potomac Company and its successor, the C&O Canal, within the limits of the law,
and otherwise to the State of Maryland. There are a plethora of court cases that establish this fact indisputably. The Canal company, in turn, always sought relief and generally got it, in the Maryland Courts and through the Maryland land system. The company condemned all but the fast land above highwater mark on the Virginia shore in Maryland courts. The company always proceeded and succeeded on the assumption that any riparian rights in the River were vested in Maryland owners holding title under Maryland patents and patent law. There are countless patents in Maryland to land under the Potomac and the islands in the Potomac, all of which are amply documented on this site. There are none in Virginia that have been sustained by the courts in either state. The fact that all legal proceedings with regard to the management and ownership of the river (save arguments over the fast land on the Virginia shore above the high or low water marks) were solely within the jurisdiction of the Maryland Courts, subject of course, to appeal to Federal Courts when one party was the Federal Government,is made abundantly clear in a complex series of cases involving the whole of the river in and around great falls concerning the Great Falls Manufacturing Company and the water supply for the District of Columbia. The outcome of these cases which were argued from the middle of the nineteenth century until the near present has consistently been in favor of Maryland's ownership of the whole of the Potomac, and in favor of Maryland's right to regulate the waters of the Potomac. From 1785 to the advent of this case by the State of Virginia the
practical effect of this law has been that any relief with regard to purported
riparian rights of owners of land along the Potomac and the Potomac's north branch
have always been addressed in Maryland courts or referred to Maryland courts, and not
withstanding the dicta of the Arbitrators in the Black/Jenkins award and in the cases
involving Maryland's boundary with West Virginia, the Compact of 1785 (even as revised
in 1958) has no effect or bearing on the Potomac above tidewater. ecp 12/7/00]
Virginia exhibit 17
|
|
MSA SC 5796-3-7
|
1791
|
Original
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
Chapter 45. Maryland's conferral onto D.C. of the
power to regulate wharves
|
|
MSA SC 5796-3-8
|
1818
|
Original
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
Chapter 206. Maryland offers to appoint
commissioners to settle the border
dispute with Virginia.
|
|
|
MSA SC 5796-3-10
|
1825
|
Original
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
Chapter 195. Repeals 1818 appointment of commissioners.
|
|
MSA SC 5796-3-11
|
1831
|
Original
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
Chapter 26. Sets up a committee to look at
boundary issue and to determine
whether Virginia has ever recognized
Maryland's charter rights; committee
asked to prepare a report detailing the
history of the boundary dispute and
the efforts to resolve it.
|
|
MSA SC 5796-3-12
|
1831
|
Original
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
Resolution 128. Committee's Report; details the history
of the border dispute, going back to
the original charters; says that
Virginia's recognition of Maryland's
charter rights in the Virginia
Constitution was "fit and proper" but
that "her reservation in regard to the
use of the rivers Potomac and
Pocomoke, were wholly gratuitous;
and the two states afterwards, by
compact, on the twenty-eight day of
March, in the year of our lord one
thousand seven hundred and eighty
five regulated and settled the
jurisdiction and navigation of those
rivers, and that part of Chesapeake bay
within the territory of Virginia." Further
the report says that "if [Virginia] had
any possible imaginary right to any
territory within the limits of our charter,
it was all absolutely ceded and
relaeased by her constitution to
Maryland, although becoming subject
to the compact made afterwards in
seventeen hundred and eighty-five."
And further still: "The compact of
[1785], between the two states was
made to regulate and settle the
jurisdiction and navigation of the
Potomac, leaving the single question
of the first founation of that river open,
to be settled by some other
negotiation. It is indeed, matter of
great surprise to your committee, that
the Maryland commissioners, at the
time of that compact, did not make the
decision of that signle question
preliminary to every other
arrangement." Report indicates that
there was a correspondence between
Maryland and Virginia commissioners
in 1818 or so. [images are out of sequence; in process of being corrected. ecp 11/19/00]
|
|
MSA SC 5796-3-13
|
1833
|
Original
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
Resolution 80. Authorizes AG to initiate original
jurisdiction action against Virginia
over the boundary issue; decrying
Virginia's refusal to submit the matter
to binding arbitration; makes it clear
that Maryland agreed that the
boundary was not set until 1877.
|
|
MSA SC 5796-3-14
|
1834
|
Original
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
Resolution 99. Authorizes the
filing of a Complaint against Virginia in
the Supreme Court, filed October 20,
1834, eventually voluntarily dismissed
on January 25, 1836.A response to a Virginia Act passed
on March 5, 1833, reagrding the
southern and western boundaries of
Maryland. Maryland asserts here that
Virginia recognized Maryland's Charter
rights but that the two States disagree
on the interpretation of that Charter.
Letter from Governor of Virginia
indicates that Maryland's complaint
about the 1833 law is a
misunderstanding.
|
|
MSA SC 5796-3-15
|
1852
|
Original
|
Contact the Department of Special Collections for location.
|
Description
Chapter 275. Requesting Governor to open
correspondence with VA governor
toward appointing commissioners to
resolve western boundary
|
|