Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-05-03
HE HASI FINISHED
Mr.. Taggart's Comprehensive Ar
gument on Patamao Flats Case.
TALKING FOR FOUR DAYS
Mr.. Nathaniel Wilson Argues for
kidwe9 claimants.
THEIR CASE PRESENTED

The question Of fraud was again the sub
ject of Assistant District Attorney Hugh
T. Taggart's remarks when. this morning,
in the Potomac flats case. he entered upon
the fourth day of his argument in opposi-
ton to the contentious of those claiming
under the so-called Kidwen patent of De-
cember 6, 1863. The length Of Mr.. Tag
CARTS present argument has, it is said,
rarely, if ever, been exceeded in the his
tory Of the District courts. By those who
have listened to it, Including the attorneys
for the forty or more defendants In the
case, Mr.. Taggarts argument is spoken Of
as one of the ablest and most Interesting
ever made in a District court. The burden
of preparing the governments case has for
some seven OR eight years been borne prac-
tically alone by Mr.. Taggart, and when it
Is recalled that the testimony taken in the
case embraces seven volumes Of several
hundred pages each some idea of the i'm
mense amount of research and labor in
| volved can be had. Some idea, too. of Mr..
TaggGrt's responsibility can be had when
1t is stated that he assisted by Examiner
Albert Harper before the testimony was
taken. appears during the present hearing
of the case as the sole represen tative of
the vast interests Of the government.
Anidavits in the Case.
Upon resuming his argument this morn
ing Mr.. Taggart addressed himself to the
attdavits Of John Wilson and Henry Wells,
filed in support of a rehearing of his sp-
plication for a patent by DR.. kidwell. Will
son, explained Mr.. Taggart was Kidwells
attorney, and he and Wells not only swore
that the land was not subject to tidal over
flow, but also that neither of them had
any interest whatever in the matter. Yet
declared Mr.. Taggart, Kidwell on Nov en-
Der 9, 1869, conveyed to Wilson, the brother
then n he
land office, in fee three-eigaths undivided
interest in the lands mentioned in the pat
ent, and three days later Wilson conveyed
| in fee to Wells one-half of the interest re-
ceived by him from Kidwell. The patent
was not issued to Kidwell until about a
month later, said Mr.. Taggart, and was
based upon the deceptive character of the
two afdavits, as well as upon aff1davits
submitted by Wilson signed by John NJ
Beckett and by one Angefman of the
steamer Enterprise.
Remarkable Steamer.
This steamer, explained Mr.. Taggart
seemed to have closely resembled that
famous Mississippi river steamboat which
i enjoyed so light a draft that it could go
anywhere in heavy dew. 1t was claimed
stated Mr.. Taggart. that in February. 1862
this steamer sailed through the so-called
channel between the, Kidwell meadows
from 18th street to Easby's Point. The
boat, explained MIR. .Taggart, drew from
eighteen to twenty inches at the stem and
but from four to six inches at the bow,
and yet her captain, government Witness
swore that he had tried to make such
trip. but failed because of insufficient
water. From such testimony asserted Mr.
Tasgart he was confident that the court
would tiEd that the trip was never made
Wells. declared MIR. Taggart, was privy
to the steps taken in connection with the
renewal Of kidwells efforts for the patent
after its rejection, and the other claim
ants, 90
Morris. hold in Such privity with the
grantee as to be in no better position than
kdwell himself. .uJustice Morris, said Mr..
Taggart acquired his interest in settle
ment of an antecedent debt no new con-
sideraton passed him at the time, and it
would be proper to charge him with at
least constructive knowledge of the de-
fects and infirmities in the patent. There
fore, declared Mr.. Taggart no title vested
in Justice Morris.
Mr.. Taggnrt Concludes.
Mr.. Taggart, after speaking for four
days, concluded his argument at 1870 this
afternoon. and in conclusion he insisted
that the Kidwell patent is absolutely void
because, first, the land 1t attempted to
grant was part of the Potomac river, and
hence not the land the disposition of which
was contemplated by Congress in the joint
resolution of 1859: second, because it was
otherwise land set apart for public pur-
poses, as being originally included in the
city limits. and, if not so included as being
in 1867 and 1863 merely an accretion to the
mainland of the city.
Third. Because of the failure of the gov
eminent officers to comply with the regu-
lations and with the laws of Maryland, of
the examiner generals want of authority
and of the fact that the commissioner Of
the general land office was misled in
granting the patent by the untruthfulness
of the atiidavts Of Wilson, Wells and 9TH
erS.
And, fourth Because the land located
according TO the description given in the
patent would not now be that actually
surveyed in 1861, and which it was intend
ed to include in the patent. For such rea-
sons. said Mr.. Taggart, the government
now asked the court to vacate the patent
and declare it void.
MIR. Wilson's Argument.
Upon the conclusion of Mr. Taggart's
argument a recess was taken until 1
O'Clock, when Mr.. Nathaniel Wilson ad-
dressed the court on behalf of those claim
ing under the Kidwell patent.
Mr.. Wilson stated that he would not
now question the constitutionality of the
act of Congress authorizing the institution
of the suit, but would treat the suit as
proceedings taken to aiiirmatively deter
mine the title of the United States to the
land in controversy, as if the case was an
ordinary proceeding in equity.
At the outset, he said this question nat
urally arose. why had the kidwell patent
been permitted to remain in force from
1859 until 1856 unGuestoned? The govern
meEt had. he thought. slept too long on it's
alleged rights, and in justice at least to
those claiming under the patent the gov
errment should years ago have instituted
sc me proceedings to determine the rights
of the parties.
In 1891, said Mr.. Wilson, Congress passed
an act providing that all suits to cancel
patents for land should be filed within six
years. and that all suits to cancel patents
thereafter issued should be brought within
five years. Congress-, recognizing the in
justice OF allowing such suits to be brought
at any time, fixed the time during which a
proceeding to set aside or cancel one of its
own solemn acts might be brought. Hence
argued Mr.. Wilson. while the present pro-
ceeding might be constitutional one, the
claimants had been manifestly unjustly
trea ted by so long delaying the present
suit. r.