Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-03-10
WHO OWNS THE RIVER FRONT.
An Opinion OF the Attorney of the Dis
trict ON the Question.


TEE wHAnr SITES BELONG TO THE uxIrEr
STATES AND THE DISTRICT HAS DELEaATEI
RIGHT TO LEASE THEM-PorSrs RAISED ON Az
APPLICATION TO EXTEND A WHARF.
Several days ago Capt. Rossell referred 10 the
assistant attorney for the District the request
OF the Norfolk and Washington, DC, Steam
boat Company to extend its wharf. As the re-
quest involved some serious questions concern
ing the Districts rights in the premises il was
thought best to have an opinion from the Dis
tricts legal adviser on the subject The opinion
of the assistant attorney, which vas recently
transmitted. is quite interesting, as it covers
the whole subject of the rights Of the District
on the river front
He says: / return TO you herewith letter
from Capt. ". T. RosseIl. under date 26th in
slant. in regard 10 the application OF the Nor
folk and Washington Steamboat Company TO
extend the wharf now occupied by the Potomac
Steamboat Company toward the harbor line Of
the Potomac river or 70 said line as shown oil
the plat irclosed. suggesting that you desire
my opinion on the following questions: First.
whether the applicant should be allowed a per-
nit TO extend the wharf and what lines in
view of the Districts wharf property (meaning.
i take il. the Stephenson wharf, and. second
whether the tie to this wharf property is in
the D1Strlct OF IN anu
ing possession of ii. and. third. whether per-
NIT should be issued for any work or this wharf
SO long no lease Is taken from the District
The Norfolk and Washington Steamboat Com
pany, "a | understand il. have recently leased
TINS wharf from the Potomac Steamboat Com
pany and now ask permission to extend il fur
Their into the river toward the harbor line.
as shown on the inclosed plat. / do not think
the proposed extension should be permitted so
as 10 cut into the Stephenson wharf OF inter-
fars4 yr1th hot r. N
have IN the adjacent wharves Mr.. Clarke, the
president of tie company. informs me that he
would be satisfied TO extend this wharf Only
oat TO the dotted line. which, it is said. would
not interfere with the Stephenson wharf. i
see no objection to such an extension.
THE GENERAL. QUESTION OF WHARF RIGHTS.
The question whether the privilege of wharf
ing on Water street is appurtenant to private
property or whether it belongs to the United
States as the owners of the fee of the street was
long a vexed one. ard from the foundation of
the city until quite recently provoked much in
teresting discussion, but it may now be consid-
cred settled. ] think. In 1874 the Upper Poto-
mac Steamboat Company having obtained from
the Commissioners D license To build wharf,
began its construction, thereupon the Potomac
Steamboat Company and others, owning square
i12 clainlingthat riparian to their
land brought bill to restrain the construction
OF the wharf. The Supreme Court Of this District
sustained the permit granted by the Commits
sioaers and dismissed the bill. the complainant
appealed to the Supreme Court of the United
States and il was there held (l09 United States,
612.) that the riparian rights in controversy
belonged to the United States rs the owners of
the fee of Water street.
THE HISTORY OF THE MATTER.
The history of the right of wharfing in this
city may be briefly stated as follows: On the
10th of July, 1890. Congress, as is well known.
passed an act declaring that the seat of the
government should be transferred from Phila-
delphia to this District on the frs: Monday of
December, 1900 by section ~ OF the act of
December 10. 1871. Congress declared that the
federal commissioners, or any two of them
there being three. shall from time to time.
until Congress shall exercise jurisdiction and
government within said territory have power
to license the building of wharyes in the waters
of the Potomac and Eastern branch adjoining
said city. of the materials in the manner and of
the extent they may judge desirable. convenient
and agreeing with general order: but no license
shall be granted to one to build wharf before
the land Of another. nor shall any wharf be
built in said waters without license as afore-
said, and il any wharf shall be built without
such license. or different therefrOn. the same
is hereby declared a common nuisance" In
the case of the District vs. johnson 6 Mackey,
1881. which was an action to recover rent of the
wharf foot of 18th street. under an alleged
lease from the corporation OF Washington, il
was considered thai the above provision meant
no more than the power to issue licenses to
private persons to build wharves in front of
their own property, and that the power was a
temporary one until Congress shall exercise
jurisdiction and government within said terri
torv.'
Congress. on the Is. of May. 1902. abolished
the board of federal commissioners Gas they
were called. and transferred the affairs of the
city, which mad been under their charge, to a
superintendent 10 be appointed by the Presi-
dent The power of the federal commissioners
in respect TO wharyes, III the opinion of the
court in the case of the District agt. johnson,
supra.expired with their office and not trans
mitred 20 the superintendent. and from him.
on the adjustment of his Office in 1916 to the
commissioner Of public buildings AID grounds
and in 1867 by the adjustment of the latter
Office to the chief engineer of the army as con-
tended by the defendants in the above case
but that by virtue of the act of Congress of
1872. to amend the charter of Washington city.
In which, among other things. the erecting
and repairing of wharves" was provided for,
and the charter granted the city in 1870. confer
ring power upon the city TO preserve the
navigation of the Potomac and Anacostia river,
adjoining the city, to erect. repair and regulate
ps.bilc wharyes and to deepen creeks. docks and
basins, and TO regulate the manner of erecting
and the rate Of wharfing at private wharves,'
the city was empowered To license, erect and
repair public wharves. The defendants in the
ease of the District against johnson claimed AS
1856 obtained a license from the chief engineer
OF the army to build wharf at the foot OF 18th
street, which recited that il was granted by
virtue of the power vested in him by the act of
the assembly of Maryland passed December 10,
1lJl. 20 license the building of wharves in the
city OF Washington, IN the District of Columbia
and to regulate the manner and extent thereof
and the several acts of Congress OF the United
States subsequently passed and approved sub
satating the said chief of engineers in the place
and stead of the commissioners in said act of
assembly mentioned"
A RECENT DECISION.
Mr.. Justice Cox, in delivering the opinion Of
the court in the johnson case ID. 1871. oh.
served that even II the power Ito license the
erection Of wharves) was conferred on the
original commissioners, the &C: incorporating
the city transferred it to the authorities OF the
city o: Washington Therefore, in our iudg-
nient. tie engineer OF the army never had the
slightest power in the world to license the cree
ton Of wE&ryes on the Potomac and the East
ern branch, and for that reason we think it
Was c.rOr IN the court below to admit the
license IN evidence at al"
From the decision il these two cases. il re-
suits think. first that the site Of the wharf in
question belongs to the United States as incl
dent To their ownership OF Water street and not
10 tie Potomac Steamboat Company and sec
ond. that tbs Commissioners of the District O.
Columbia. as the successors Of the CORPORATION
O; Washington. under the power contained in
the az. CT $50 70 ''erect. repair and re0ulate