Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-05-13
POTOMAC FLATS CASES
Beginning of the Fourth Week of Argu.
ment.
Urging the Riparian Rights of Ger
tain SQuares-Mr. Webb's Argument
COncludcd-aIr. TasSart Replies.

Today's resumption Of the case Of the
United States against Martin F. Morris
and others. the long-pending Potomac
flats case. marked the beginning of the
fourth week of the trial of the case by the
Court in General Term, Chief Justice Bling
ham and Justices Hagner and McComas.
1t is expected that the hearing of the case
will be concluded some day during the
present week. but a decision by the court
is hardly expected short of month after
the present hearing is concluded.
When the hearing of the case was ad-
journed Friday afternoon Mr.. H. Randall
Webb. representing the Easily estate and
Lyman A. Littlefield, was In the midst of
his argument. They claim certain riparian
rights because of ownership in squares
g. 80, 129. south of square Il and %, ex-
tending to the waters of the Potomac.
Resuming his argument today, Mr.. Webb
said there can be no doubt that the origi-
nal proprietors OF the land bordering on
the Potomac river comprising the squares
in question possessed riparian rights be-
fore the founding Of the city and could
States Supreme Court explained Mr.. Webb,
in the case of the Potomac Steamboat
Company agt. the Upper Potomac Com
pany stated that Motley Young tac origi-
nal proprietor) prior to the founding Of the
city and the conveyance of his land for
that purpose. was entitled to enjoy his
riparian rights for his private uses and to
the exclusion of all the world besides.
The question was, therefore, said Mr.
Webb, did the original proprietors, the
United States having become the owner
Of the riparian rights. receive such rights
from the government when the land was
divided into squares and lots? He con-
tended that the question can be answered
In the affirmative in regard to the lots In
squares g. 50 and 49, contending that
when the Potomac was made the southern
boundary of squares g, 80 and 100, the
government contracted with the original
proprietors that riparian rights should be
appurtenant to the lots.
Mr.. Webb's Conclusions.
Referring to square south of 70 and
square %. Mr.. Webb stated that while
both are bounded on the south by Water
street. as recorded in the Register of
Squares. he submitted that when these
squares were originally laid out they &C.
tuslly bordered On the Potomac river, and
were intended to enjoy riparian rights
Mr.. Webb insisted that the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Company cannot claim ri
parian rights and the accretions in front
of squares g. 50 and 129, because the COM
pany never obtained any right from Mary
land to build a canal upon or through the
said square, and because the company
never condemned or occupied the said land
for the purpose of a canal Nor did the
company acquire title to the land BY any
act Of Congress.
Mr.. Webb concluded his argument short
~ before the midday recess of the court.
stating that he adopted as his own the con-
tentions Of the United States against the
validity Of the claims of the canal COM
papy, against those claiming under the So
called K1dwell patent, and against the Mar
shall heirs.
Mr.. Webb was followed by Assistant Dis
trict Attorney Hugh T. Taggart, who, in
answering the argument of Mr.. Webb
urged on behalf of the United States the
same general points asserted by him in
| al swering the contentious Of counsel for
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company.