Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1873-01-23
THE RIvER AND MARDoR IN.


The House committee on the District Of Co
lumbia met again tins morning, and resumed
the hearing Of the arguments Of the friends and
opponents of the proposed improvement Of the
r1ver and harbor at Washington. As ON yester-
day, the committee room was crowded, the
majority of those present being virtually opposed
to sne eonte mn by the bill;
interfere with certain alleged vested rights in
property, which they claim not only along the
river front, but also in the bed of the Potomac
itself.
AMONG THOSE PRESENT THIS MORNING
were Captain Carlisle Patterson, of the U. 8.
coast survey; General X. ID. Mussey, General G.
man, of the Chesapeake and Ohio canal, and
Messrs. X. NJ. Hall, Peter Campbell, Columbus
Alexander, Richard Harrington, r. A. Phillips,
J: F. Dexter, T. A; Lambert, T; j: Miller, John
Wilson, Edward Lynch, A. R. Shepherd, w.
III. Clagget, Z. l.. Hulse, j. G.. Berret, John f.
Cook, j. A. Magruder, and Governor Cooke.
MIR. T. A. Lambert first appeared
IN BEHALF OF CERTAIN OWNERS OF PROP
on the river bank within the corporate limits of
Washington. who feel very solicitious in regard
ington. since the contamination of the plan pro-
posed threatens, they say, tointerfere with their
individual rights. The owners Of this property
absolute; and second, that only the United
States has the right to use it for public pur-
poses The proprietors protest against the inn
T.
vey, on account of the difficulty and expense of
running sewers through the reclaimed lands to
the channel; the additional taxes which would
be imposed upon the people; and the injury
men along the present river front by the isola-
ton of their places of business from the new
river front which it proposes to make.
IN FAVOR OF THE IMPROVEMENT.
Gen. X. ID. Mussey appeared before the CON-
mittee ard made legal argument i'm favor of
the proposed improvement Of the river and
harbor.
General NJ. promised by saying that the land
which il proposed to reclaim in the Potomac
win be, If the plan be carried ont, the largest
reclamation of land ever made in the United
States. He detailed the reclamation of the
Back Bay lands, at Boston, some years ago,
showing that, notwithstanding the cost of filling
there was about sixty cents superficial foot, the
state would realize some 3 600 200 g, 500 900
net from it. He then said: As to the proposition
here, there are several opposing interests not to
the Improvement believe, but to the particular
portant first. That il, the state Of Virginia,
which was represented here as having claim
upon the Potomac river: 1t is rather late to
land, giving the Potomac to that state,
has been acquiesced in since IL was
granted, by all concerned. More than that,
the two states of Maryland and Virginia
had by solemn compact made in 1875, (which
may be found in kilty's Laws Of Maryland, and
the Virginia code. y recognized the Jurisdiction
of the two states, provided for it, Sc, and the
United States, which formed the county of
Washington, in the District of Columbia, out
of that part east Of the Potomac and the islands
in the river. And after the retrOcessiOn to Vir-
ginia of Alexandria, Congress had recognized
the police and municipal control of Washington
to the Long bridge; Think that question may
The second opposing interest is the Aaueduct
bridge. 1t will be time to consider that when it
is seriously threatened. The bills now consider
ed by the committee only 60 as far as 18th st.
Tha siraxr into io hat of he.
Chesapeake and Ohio canal company, which
claims peculiar rights between nth street and
Rock creek In the 10Th section of the act of
canal, ratified by Maryland and the United
States-it is provided that ''if after the compile
ton of the said canal and locks the president
pair for twelve months at any time. then, in like
manner the interest of the company in the nav
igation and tolls shall cease, and their charter
tanto this penalty attaches to that portion within
the District, and the United States may at any
time by scfre facias take advantage of this sec.
ton. The canal company admits that they have
not kept this in repair, and in fact We all know
il.
The fourth opposing interest is that OF wharf
owners or claimants Of wharf property on the
Potomac river. 1t seems a little singular to me
that those gentlemen who, as it appears to me,
have the cleanest title to wharf property in the
city of w Washington, viz: those on the AnacOstia
are not here opposing these propositions. The
opposition comes, as / hope to demonstrate,
from claimants whose title, to say the least, is.
clouded. Maryland as was shown yesterday to
the COMMITTEES. had as the sovereign the right
to wharf in the Potomac river. This sovereign
right she had frequently parted with.
In 17+5 she had allowed all owners of " alter
lots in Baltimore to wharf ont and improve. In
1853 a similar privilege was given to Long Point:
in 1854, to GeorgetOwn-the owners of lots on
the north side OF Water street were allowed to
wharf out on the south side. The 9Th section Of
the cOmpactoOf 1855, above referred to- provides
shall have full power on the shores Of the POtO-
mae river, with all emOluments and advantages
thereunto belonging, and the privilege of
improvements, 50 as not to obstruct or injure
the navigation Of the river"
Under this the owners of water lots can 60 out
with their wharves to the channel; and think
such owners have vested rights and private
property which cannot be taken away without
compensation made. In 1871 Maryland ratified
the cessiOn to the United States Of this District
and gave the federal commissioners" who laid
out the city authority to control wharving. The
commissioners issued building regulation No. 4,
Generals Of the United States subsequently held
to be in excess of their power. The power was
given to owners Of water lots Now MARYLAND
had defined what 'water lots" were. They are
lots adjoining the tcdter.
Gen. Mussey then, by reference to original
maps of the city, showed that many of the
wharves here represented were not continued
out from lots adjoining the water, but were
squares sold and the river, which strip of land
he contended belonged to the United States a.
the successor Of Maryland. He said no owner
OF land separated from the river had a right to
wharfage unless Especially granted; and such
wharfage privilege had, 80 Tar as the records
show, been conferred Oily IN one INSTANCE ny
express deed from the commissioners-in the
case Of Peters, he thought, on Rock Creek.
He referred to the Kidwell meadows the
last opposing interest, and said: i do not pro-
pose to discuss the validity Of that II acre pat
ent; but it is clear that only ~ acres are cover
ed by it. No 'accreti0n" on Ii s0uthwardy can
carry it over the Long bridge, which is or was,
when the patent issued, the property of the Uni
ted States. And as to the chocolate rights
acquired by kidwelrs application for the other
fats, 1T is enough to say that there are a half
dozen at least prior applications made under
that resolution of 1859. But no matter what the
right of Kidwell, of the canal company, or
wharf claimants, it is clear that the United
States, in its exercise OF eminent domain, can
take that property and extinguish those rights,
giving due compensation therefor. l believe
the improvement is a necessity, and submit
an amendment to the government BILL en-
bcdying measures of relief, copied from the act
of 1s22, under which The location Of the canal
in Washington was changed.
Mr.. Eldridge asked where he found the auth-
ority for the United States to take this land
improve il and sell it?
Gen. Mussey said the United States, as ex-
clusiye lepislatOr for the District had the right