Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1875-10-07
iHE eUISIIess OF TITLE 70 WHARF PROPERTY.
AMI eerestins and I'm portant Exhibit

the rlents OF the District and settling the
vexed questions so frequently rising In the
courts as TO the true ownership of riparian
rights on our river front
In the case Of the Potomac Steamboat
Company agt- the Upper Potomac Steam
boat Company, in the Equity Court, In their
answer recently submitted for defendants
an ella borate history OF
THE VARIOUS TITLES TO WHARFAGE
is set forth, synopsis of which is here an-
nexed:
The answer denies that the Potomac Steam
boat Company possesses the exclusive privi-
lege OF wharfing in the Potomac river oppo-
site any real estate which 1t may own on the
north side OF Water street as appurtenant TO
said real estate; claims that the United
states Is the exclusive owner of such privi-
lege on this river from the Tiber to the south
ern point of the Arsenal grounds by a double
title: First, as successor by right OF conquest
10 the sovereignty of the King OF Great Bril-
ain and Ireland TO the shores OF all nayieable
tlGC waters; second, as the fee 81 mple owner of
that part OF the bank OF the Potomac hy a ces-
sion nom tbeoriginal proprietor which under
the law OF Maryla conveyed all whaTfing
privileges as appurtenant to said hank sail
grlNileges being in fact appurtsnant 20
Water street as GeIineated on the plat of
me city; that the wharves erected Nv the
fotCnac steamboat company in front of a
public reservation at the intersection of 81
and Water streets, and almost wholly with
In me limits of a public dock are so built
wharf rented by ii 10 n. r. Eitzhugh. when
was built and occupied by the United States
government during the late civil war and
mat the plaintiff is a trespssser thereon.
benles mat any riparian privileges are ap-
Iurtenant 10 square 472 on the plan of the
city; claims that as a fact more than eighty
Years nave elapsed since the United States
entered into possession as owners of the
premises, that none of the plaintiffs had
ever exercised or even asserted any riparian
rIght on the premises occupied by defen-
dants' wharfduring the many years of their
alleged ownership of square 472; that
although plaintiffs have for several months
b9en aware of the progress OF defendants
wharf, they did not think defendant was
encrOaching upon any of their rights and
offered no opposition whatever to the work
but that instantly on the receipt of the notice
OF their attorney ordered
A HARRAsSING AND OPPRESSIVE LIrIGA-
TON
TO be begun against defendant; admits that
Gefendant relies for its right to erect its
wharf, upon license granted on the 18th day
OF March, 1915, by the government of the
United states through the engineer i'm chief
OF The army in charge of the public build
lngs and grounds; does not admit that
square iiZ ts possessed of any exclusive
rlght OF wharfage, or that any such
rights are contiguous to said SQUARE
but that they aojOin and are contigu,
Gus To Water street, to which street they are
eppnrtenant as the fee simple property of
Ihe united states, and are in charge of the
United States commissioners for the District
OF Columbia, and that they may be used by
me agents or licensees of the Unitei States
Admits that by virtue of a deed from NntIev
Young, the United States became the owner
IN Zee simple of all the public resery atfons
avenues and streets. including Water street:
denles that at the time square 472 was laid
out the commissioners allotted il 3I4 feet of
water 'front.', and entered the same upon their
official record. Declares that the cOpv of
such record as exhibited by plaintiffs is not
true copy, but that the true record OF such
allotment is TO be found in the prOceeding q of
the commissioners of the city of Washing
Ton. dated Oct. 18th, 1874, and that plaintiffs
copy is from
CERTAIN APoCRYPHAI, RooK
commonly called The book of Divisions"
which is reputed to have been Struggled a
rev years ago by some person unknown, into
the office of the Commissioner of Public
buildings and Grounds; that for several
ears and until few months ago, there was
appended 10, or written in said BOOK a certifi-
cate by b. b. French, then Commissioner of
Public Buildings and Grounds, To the effect
mat he had never before seen said book. and
MS certlfcate is conclusive that said pre-
tended Book of Divisions" had moi basn
long in the public archives. That il is
wholly unknown who was It's custodian for
more Than nifty years; that the handwriting
of the entry "3lI feet water front; is mn,
Bhown; and that 1t is not authenticated by
The signatures of the Commissioners of the
one, the entry comparatively a recent one
and made for the same designs, and proba-
Oily by The same persons who have defacei
me crlslnal Elliott plan of wharves and
DOCKS ON the Potomac with numerous entries
OF wharf rights and names of pretended own
erS OF Vharves. On the 18th of Octaber I7gt
Notiey Young, with tina full knowledge of
The existence OF Water ktreet signed the
agreement with the United States for square
4t2, IL being described bY the SQUARE feet
therein contained, and on the 9Th of March,
ltSo, The Commissioners granted him a Ii
cerse TO build a wharf on the Potomac and
It'll @
MATTER OF TRADITION
that Young did build a wharf by virtue of
sald license; that January II, 1895. Mr.. Young
d-c, with said commissioners, sign a plat of
square Az, in which Water street is written
FIN h. ff.aN
any deed after the 18th of October, 1894. in
which he proposed TO convey any wharf
Ilgnts whateveri admits the legislative act
by the state of Maryland, granting to pro-
pr1etors OF lots on the north side OF Water
street, Georgetown, the exclusive right of
ground and water on the south side OF said
wharves, and says that III a similar stature
had been passed by authorities in relation
10 Washington owners OF lots, similar
rights of wharfage would have been secured TO
them, but that the absence of such statute is
conclusive that the owners of lots ON the ctty
side OF water street, in Washington, had no
Commissioners TO license the
building Of private wbarves, and claims in
behalf of the United States the benefit OF the
principle that no license should be granted
to one to build a wharf before the land OF An.
other, and that no one shall be permitted,
without the consent of the United States to
is the property OF the government endorses
the views of the Commissioners expressed In
LETTER DATED JUNE Is, I79s
70 the Secretary OF State, which states that
no square OF the city OF Washington is en-
titled To any water privilege IL a street inter
veDes between 1t and the water. That in the
hrst plan OF Washington prepared by the
commissioners they had DOT only laid off
W alter street, but also building and wharf
squares between Water street and the chan
mel OF the river, covering not only the shore
but the ground under the water; this plan
was sent in 1871 to Philadelphia TO be en-
Rrsved, but IL could not be got out of .the
hands OF Major L'Enfant, the engineer, in
time to use for the sales OF October, 1872.
Il ad IL been received in time the intention of
the commissioners must be inferred to be To
have sold the squares south Of Water street
81 separately. That upon the refusal of Major !
l. Enfant to deliver up the first plan the com
missioners employed Major EQicott 10 pre-
pare the second plan, know as the Boston
engraved plan, in which, on account OF the
haste with which IL was prepared, owing 10
the necessity of having IL engraved and
ready for distribution before the sale, the
squares on the river side OF Water street |
were entirely omitted, and their extent and |
left open for decision as the laying |
on OF the city should progress and the de- |
nands OF commerce require. The first plan |
snowing the water squares was exhibited by /
Washington 10 the original pro- /
prietors OF lan4s at Georgetown April ~, /
1871, when be met them TO make the deeds of
the land. and on December following
n nm