In Smith v. Maryland (1855) 59 U.S. 71, an act of the legislature of the State of Maryland was held valid which prohibited the taking of oysters with a scoop or drag and providing for a forfeiture of any vessel employed for that purpose. The Supreme Court said: "It is within the legislative power of the State to interrupt the voyage and inflict the forfeiture of a vessel enrolled and licensed under the laws of the United States, for a disobedience, by those on board, of the commands of such a law. To inflict a forfeiture of a vessel on account of the misconduct of those on board, - treating the thing as liable to forfeiture, because the instrument of the offence is within established principles of legislation, which have been applied by most civilized governments." The Supreme Court upheld a conservation law which limited the fishing implements that could be used by a federally licensed vessel to take oysters from state waters. The Court held that an "enrolment and license confer no immunity from the operation of valid laws of a State," (id., at 74), and that the law was valid because the State "may forbid all such acts as would render the public right of fishery less valuable, or destroy it altogether." (id., at 75.) At the same time, the Court explicitly reserved the question of the validity of a statute discriminating against nonresidents. Ibid. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of the states was recognized in Smith v. Maryland, where a Maryland statute regulating the harvesting of oysters in its waters was challenged on the grounds that it was repugnant to the commerce clause of the Constitution and conflicted with the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States. In upholding the statute, the Courtnoted that "whatever soil below low-water mark is the subject of exclusive propriety and ownership, belongs to the State on whose maritime border, and within whose territory it lies, subject to any lawful grants of that soil by the Stat." (Id., at 74.) On the question of admiralty jurisdiction the Court said: "But we consider it to have been settled by this court, in United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat 336 386, 4 L.Ed. 404, that this clause in the constitution did not affect the jurisdiction, nor the legislative power of the States, over so much of their territory as lies below high-water mark, save that they parted with the power so to legislate as to conflict with the admiralty jurisdiction or laws of the United States. As this law conflicts neither with the admiralty jurisdiction of any court of the United States conferred by congress, nor with any law of congress whatever, we are of opinion it is not repugnant to this clause of the constitution." (Id., at 76.) The Supreme Court ruled that the states could constitutionally regulate the taking of oysters from state waters and could impose those regulations upon enrolled and licensed vessels. The Smith Court held the question is whether or not the state had the power to enact the law. "This question must be decided, in each case, upon its own facts . . . but a state may make valid laws for the seizure of vessels of the United States. Such among others, are quarantine and health laws."