Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-10-28
THE HARpERs FERRY LAWSUIT.


The decision at Staunon Of the suit of Messrs Brown
BEcKHAM s. Co. against COL HUGER, representing the
United States has already been briefly ALLUDED this
paper full reference to it may not be without
interest Some Of the facts furnished by the Staun
ton Spectator and others by gentleman who was pre-
sent and heard the very able arguments ON the occasion
The claim, ii will be recolected set up by the
plaintiffs under Virginia land vacant
and This warrant laid upon portion Of the land
to the rivers Potomac and Shenandoah at Harpers
Ferry occupied by the United States for national
~. The following is the history Of the Governments
title, related by the Hon, JAMES NJ MASON:
This Harpers Ferry included in the large terri
oral grant made by the Crown Of Great Britain Lord
Fairfax hundred and twenty ago, and known
as the North Neck In the 1851 this tract of land was
granted to Robert Harper by patent Issued from the
prieary office Of Lord Fairfax, condition that ne should
pay said Fairfax at the feast of ST. Michael the Archan
GEL shilling sternga quit Upon this land Harper
resided from ISL until his death in October 1852 and by
his will he devised this and adjoining to his nephew
Griffith and his niece Sarah Harper who had ntermared
with John Wager senthe lower part of the being de-
vsed to the niece. The will of Harper however only
veyed Wager and wife life estate the land, with
thority give it by viii to such of their they
elect In 1875 Gen. Washington purchased the land for
the Of the United States from John Wager his only
John Wager L and his two daughters uniting with him
the deed the Government his wife Sarah Harper being
dead The counsel stated that from careful and thorough
examination of the deed he satisfied that it had been
wholly drawn by Gen. Washington that it characterized
by the practical of the Father his
Country rather than by the technical precision Of the legal
profession docs describe the by metes
and bounds but extending river to river The United
States take the ground that as the original patent called
for corners either in the river they not bound
from to by straight lines but may follow
the meanders of the stream and thus include all the land
that it evidently the design of the original paenee
take all the land included between the Shenandoah
Potomac at this point it much more valuable for III
waterpower and privileges than for the purpose OF cuva
| tion."
80 IL ryavi
dence and the paro testimony Of Messrs r. H. Williamson
John Pitcher and others familiar with the state of affairs
at Harpers Ferry for nearly fifty years, Mr. MILLER, Of
the United States counsel moved the Court Judge JoHS
W. BRocKESBRouoH presiding oinstruct the jury to
slider the Mr. Harpers boundary the
north and east Messrs STUART and NICHE counsel fol
the claimants opposed this instruction and argued the
with the closeness Of research and ability for which the
are distinguished They folowedb by Mr. MASON in
speech of great power occupying than four hours
in which he proved himself to be perfectly familiar will
all the facts and added greatly to his reputation as
close reasoner from the Law and facts. Mr. MASON re
lied much upon the old settlement law Of Virginia. under
which Mr.. Harper had held undisputed possession fol
thirty years and paid the taxes upon the land Ths
Government had acquired all the rights Of Mr. Harper
and his heirs, and had held undspued possession fol
Fifty eight years. until 1862, when the suit brought
| Judge BRocKEsBRouH gave long and learned opinion
Analysing the facts with great cearness and granting
the instruction prayed for the counsel for the claimants
made the usual exceptions, with view to an appeal
the Supreme Court Of the United States and the jury
thus instructed had difficulty in finding verdict fol
the defendant without leaving their box
| The case excited unusual degree of attention and
the settlement of it is most important to the United
States and to the public establishing principle and
precedent for future cases.