Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-04-08
THE TITLE TO coNN's ISLAND.

THE TITLE TO CONN'S ISLAND.
VARIOUS CLAIMS UPON THE WATER PRIVILEGES
At THAT PoINT--wHAT THE ACTING ATTORNEY
GENERAL SAYS ABOUT THE NATTER.
Following Is the text of the reply Of Acting
Attorney General Phillips to the Senate resolu-
tion calling for Information as to the title to
Conns island and the land on which Ii Is pro-
posed to extend the dam at Great Falls, as well
as to the ownership Of the water privileges there's
mentioned in yesterdays STAR. The reply states
that "the records Of this department furnish
little Information on the subject, but find that
on the 11th Of July, 1854, Attorney General
Cushing certified that the deed before him,
from Mrs. Ann r. Green, would vest
In the United States valid title to Ger
tain land lying in the county Of Fairfax
and state of Virginia, at the Great Falls Of
Potomac, proposed to be purchased by the
United States for the Washington city aqueduct
Cities p. ~
This is the tract marked o. 8 in the map ac-
companying Senate report No. 242, 47th Con-
gress. LIST session.
On the 10th Of May and 7th of July. 1855, he
certified that proceedings in condemnation of a
tract of land in the state of Maryland called
lizard to come at" taken by the U. s. for the
use OF the aqueduct followed the process
prescribed by the state of Maryland, and that the
proceedings vested valid title thereto in
the United States, Cities, pages 81 and 98)
This Is the tract marked Hard to come at" on
the map, and is believed to include by resurvey
the entire tract marked 'Falls island" It would
seem that subsequently the U. s. took con-
veyance for one moiety Of this tract from
Cephas Willett and wife, who had not been par
ties to the condemnation proceedings. for Attor-
ney General Bates on the 9th November, 1861.
after expressing his concurrence in the opinion
OF; OF MI. Gushing Gust cited says: "In my opin-
ion the deed Of Cephas F. Wilett and wife con-
veys valid title to tho undivided half of the
land therein described (shard to come att, and
the United States as owner succeeds to the Ordi-
nary riparian rights which attach to the owner
snip OF lands adjoining streams not naviga-
Die. Critics. page 369.) There are other opin-
Ions upon titles of land acquired by the United
states either by purchase or condemnation for
the use of the Washington aQueduct but none
OF them, think. come within the resolution ex-
cept those of Mr.. Gushing of May IL. 1855. and
December Ii, 1856 in which he certifies that GER
tain condemnation proceedings against tract
OF land in Montgomery county, Md, called
'Crawfords Lodge" condemned for the use of
the aqueduct, vested valid title thereto in the
United States Cities, pages SO and 207.) This
Maryland shorel
AS to the lands claimed by individuals or cor
poratlons on either side of or in the river. the
records OF this department show only that suit
was commenced in 1858, by the Great Falls Man
ufacturing Company for the use of SO much of
Conn's island Claimed to be its property as is
occupied by the present dam. On the trial in
1881, the Attorney General disputed the claim
ants title to said island and also objected to the
jurisdiction of the court. In 16 Court of Claims
reports, at page 160 will be found the findings
OF the court and opinions. My predecessor
deemed it proper to appeal from the judgment
and the case is now pending in the Supreme
Court. am informed however that the Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal Company claim
to own certain portions of the
Virginia and Maryland shores and water privi-
eges within the limits described in the resolution
To investigate and report upon the rights of the
above named and other possible claimants would
involve not only an examination Of the records
OF Fairfax county, Va and Montgomery county,
Md, but also of papers and conveyances in the
hands of private parties and might necessi-
tate as to questions of nOn-user and prescription
the taking of testimony. without power to send
Tor books and papers, and to compel the attend
ance OF witnesses the investigation would be
fruitless, besides being open to the objection of
invading the proper province Of the courts.
So far as l can furnish information to the Sen
ate from the record Of this department.
will gladly do 80, but beyond this
| respectfully submit that the investi-
cation directed is not within the duties
of the Attorney General as prescribed by law.
That this has been the uniform construction of
my predecessors abundantly appears from the
published volumes of Their opinions. Mr.. Writ
q op:, ss5), Mr. Taney g OPP, 4ss). Mr.: Crit
Evarts az OPP, SD, Mr.. Williams "a Op II,
IT'D, and Mr. Derens 15 OPP, 47;9. were of opin-
lon that it is not competent for the Attorney
General, in the absence of statutory require
ment to give opinions concerning any matters
pending in Congress upon the request of either
OF the houses or of any committee; and in this
Judgment feel obliged to concur, in commu-
nication addressed by me to Hon. w. W. Grape,
chairman of committee on banking and cur
rency of House Of Representatives, on 18th of
January, ult.. regretting that l cannot further
facilitate the labors OF your honorable body by
the desired investigation and report"