The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1867-10-25

ITO regulate the manner Of erecting and the rate,
Of Wharfage st private whstycs. -
ITO regulate the stssionins, anchorage, and NOV.
And The following, In section S.
ard TO pass all laws which shall be deemed me-
cessary and proper for carrying into execution tho
powers vested By this act in said corporation or II.
We think II too plain for much argument, that the
powers In question are not to be found In either or
all Of these grants The charter contains other FRO.
visions Designating olsary what poWers over and
what subject Of sstisfsoton shall belong TO, the
corporation From and by these alone II must collect
the fuuds with which to carry on the city govern.
ment and discharge its duties TO the public. The
power 10 lay tag on commerce In the form Of a
duty tonnage has never been parted with By Con.
sLss., 70 .sy q the States. and We md no ground
the corporation Of Washington.
The fact that the tonnsae Of all vessels coming TO
this port imposed By this ordinance are iusgntcant
In amount In any one instance. and Ia called hsrbor
fees, can have no innueues whatever on the deci.
sion Of the question. The tar IL subs antialiy q
duty notwithstanding Il IL called BY a different
name aud n II is small at present, and the right be
sustained BY the court II may DO increased hereafter
to extent regulated only by the disere ion Of the
authorities Of the city The judgment Of the justice
must be reversed
AJAX rIrLx SET ASIDE.
john y. May vs.. Mary n sehonsd ct al. The oh.
Jeet Of this suit IL to obtain decree to quiet the title
OF the complalnaots to lot No. s. In square No 49,
and the facts were published In this Journal some
months since. The case had been submit ed on the
briefs o. counsel, and Mr. Justice wyis pronounced
the opinion OF the court He sad the court thought
that the tag title to the lot 10 controversy was In
the beginning, one Of connections gotten up for the
purpose Of creditors Of party iotercstod md that II
would amount TO an Insult to Justice to uphold the
eoutrivAnes by taking away from complain ut
property for which he has paid t13, 800, aud hand.
Ing 1t over to th- parties cla ming under the tax sale
made for per cent Of Its value At that time, aud
glazing with all the wontsd indicid Of fraud. Com.
plainant has shown his right to have the cloud
removed from his title, and decree will be entered
g. Mater Of J. o. Coz. Ruls to show cause dis.
missed BY consent Of Assistant District Attorney
Wilson.
ANOTHER TAX TITLE SET ASIDE.
ei2. PAMELA Baltimore VS. WIN. c. Johnson.
Swami or appellant; Davis for appellee
= This case 10 as follows Ia 1870 the property In
shoemaker to Phinsas Bradley, In trust for Pam.la
Baltimore and Thomas Baltimore, her brother, who
were then slaves PAMELA Baltimore ha, resided
In 1885, on the sdviee Of her counsel she allowed
II 10 be sold for taxes In order to ge the without
the trouble and expense Of getting the several heir.
sac she employed au agont II Turchae the lot for
her and see that proper conveyance was made by
the corporation to her. The appellant on the fore.
at tbs place Of sAle, aud Informed him that no would
attend to the matter for his mother aud that he the
agentl need not remain Ary 10 ger in attendance on
the sale; vhereupon he The agsnt) left
After short argument the Chief Justice delivered
the unanimous opinion Of the court He held that
the possession OF the LOT In question by PAMELA Ball
timoIs for nearly half century was proof Of title
Immaculate against all the world, except pefhaps.
her bro her In her desire to get proper title she
flowed her lot to be told for taxes, and her son,
Who, It 10 prob bic, made the purchase in good
faith at nrst being intended that the mother should
have the property 10 her own right, the son to take
II as her heir But the sons msrriAge, and the
mo hers anger tbeteat having intervsned, the son
took advantage Of his technical right to claim owner
ship against hi mother Its pr,eteIy to put an
end to e.ms Of this sort that Courts Of Flsity are
constituted. Even II there was no evidence to show
ina hdueIarv nbatacter in which tbe SON mr.
chased at The tax sale ,onity. nv ths bIsber
law would road trust Tor ne b.nc6t Of the n,Iber
in n. fact that he was a SON having his mother.