Martinsburg gazette. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1833-1855, 1847-08-12
Communications.
FoR THE MARrIssBrRG GAZETTE.
FERRY CASE.
THE ToMAC RIVER.

I The writer OF this had the Pleasure lew
weeks ago, OF hearing a case Of much mpor-
lance argued before the Court of Washington
County, Nd, and having seen no notice Of IT,
he thought that the statements he would
make, though imperfect, would not be unnier-
esting to the readers of the Gazette, and Viz
ginians generally along the Potomac.
/ Washington County, Md, granted TO one
Of her citizens the right of Ferry. or to es-
tablish Ferry, across the Potomac river al
Hancock.
Morgan County, Va, granted the right TO
one Of her citizens, TO carry passengers from
his own land, across the river 10 Hancock, on
the opposite bank.
The Marylander claimed all right to the
profits arising from passengers and freight
carried from Hancock to Virginia, and from
Virginia to Hancock His counsel consisted
OF Messrs. Titball and Harlyne, Hagerstown,
Md. Their principal arguments were found
ed,
Firsi,-On the original Charter between
Maryland and Virginia, which gave to Mary
land the whole of the river Potomac. Sc =
cond The whole river Potomac belonging to
Maryland, then Maryland had the RICH, TO es-
tablish franchise as far as that river would
extend over Virginia. This involved critical
analysis OF the words ripa (bank) and Titus
(shore,) which was ably made by Mr.. Har-
lyme. He desired to prove that ripa had at all
times special reference TO the bounds Of rivers
above their navigable point, or above the flow
of the tide. That Titus was only applied to
the bounds Of tide water. This argument
arose, if we recollect rightly, from the last
compact between the States and the object of
| the counsel was TO maintain that possession Of
the whole river granted by the original char
ter; or, to prove that the meaning of the char
ter and of the compact were the same.
Third, > That public way terminated in
Virginia at the river, opposite to Hancock.
and therefore that their client had the right TO
carry passengers and freight from his own
land to this terminus of public road, and
from that road to his own land.
These, 10 the best OF writers recollection,
were the principal arguments used by Mary
land
The counsel for the Virginian consisted Of
Messrs. Price, of Cumberland, Md, and Chas.
J. Faulkner, Of Martinsburg, Va.
Mr. Price opened the case in a learned and
able manner; and Mr.. Faulkner replied to the
arguments of his opponents.
Mr.. Faulkner took hold of the minor con-
siderations first; and in the course pursued by
him, appeared to US as well-trained boxer
handling himself in great composure, to gain
activity, and strength for the blows that would
decide the case.
With respect TO the third argument of the
counsel Of Maryland, he showed that the road
which terminated al the river was road es-
tablished by Morgan County Court-,hat it
passed through the lands of his client; that
it was made for purposes, as all roads are,
separate from Ferry purposes that any
advantages arising from the said road indie
pendent of the purpose for which it was es-
tablished, were invested by right, and by the
law of Virginia in him, through whose lands
the road passed, and over whom Virginia alone
exercised jurisdiction that the same power
which established the road, could whenever it
pleased close it up; and consequently that the
whole argument of Maryland, on that point
amounted TO nothing, unless the sovereignty
of Maryland was superior to that Of Virginia,
and had the power to make encroachments on
it,
With respect to the second argument, foun-
ded on the critique on the words Titus and ri
pa, we were almost sorry to see it so soon set
aside by Mr., Faulkner, after being treated at
such length in an able and learned manner
In a very few words Mr.. F. proved that in
law, Titus and rpa were used as synonymous
terms.
But it was on the first argument that Mr..
f. exerted his whole strength.
He clearly proved that he was complete
master of the charter. its history, and its SEN
timents that out Of that very charter origna-
ted necessity for the compact between the
States that that compact being once estab-
lished, the charter became null and void that
the compact involved the case in question,
dby thecompactthe decision was to be made;
that by it the river did not belong to Mary
land, neither did it belong to Virginia; it was
public property, and common to all; that the
shores, or the banks, on the Virginia side be-
longed to Virginia; and that the shores or
the banks on the Maryland side belonged to
MARYLAND; that these shores, or banks, extern
ded down TO low water mark, TO which point
each State exercised their respective sovereign
ties.
He then took hold of the word Ferry, anal
yzed it, showed in what it consisted, proved it
TO be franchise in the gift of none save indie
pendent sovereignty. He proved that being a
sovereign franchise. its tern,iai must belong TO
the sovereignty that makes it Here Mr. Faulk
ner became very eloquent; he stood on the
sovereignty of Virginia, as the genius OF her
law, and the champion of that sovereignty
He stood entirely on the defensive, battling a
sovereignty that aimed at making eDcroach-
ments. He argued that in the present case,