Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-05-02
KIDWELL 1 MEADOWS
Mr.. Taggart Reait4s the History of
the Famous Claim.
OBTAINED, lie DECLARES: BY FRAUD
The Third Days. I6staIlment Of an
ExhaustNeA Argument.
COMBATING THE CLAIMANTS

In the Potomac flats case, Assistant Dis
trict Attorney Hugh T. Taggart this morn
ing entered upon the third day Of his ar
gument in opposition to the contentious of
those claiming under the >so-called Kid
well patent Of 1869. AS stated in The Star.
Mr.. Taggart yesterday afternoon took up
and discussed at great length the history
of the patent, and his argument today was
a resumption Of that subject.
Referring to the contention of the gov
eminent that the Kidwen patent is void
because it was, as the government alleges.
obtained by fraud, Mr.. Taggart declared
that the record in the present suit shows
that in the circumstances which led to its
issue there was a general disregard of the
requirements of the Maryland laws, Of the
regulations prevailing in that state, and Of
the rules and regulations promulgated by
the Secretary of the Treasury under the
joint resolution of 1889. and that the COM
missioner of the general land Office was
misled by deceptive afadavits as to the
actual condition of the land for which the
patent was granted.
The officers required to carry out the
regulations authorized by the law of 1889.
said Mr.. Taggart, had never been legally
appointed, and there was, he asserted,
failure to show that the Kidwell patent was
signed by any member of the District SUI
preme Court, the Maryland act of 1871 re-
Quiring that it should be presented ''to the
chancellor for his appreciation and attesta-
tion."
History of the Kidwell Claim.
The first application for the Kidwell pat
ent explained Mr.. Taggart, was made Sep
TENDER 3 1867. and ten days later the COM
missioner of the general land Office issued
a warrant of survey to the county surveyor
for 50 h. ~
same Is a firm land and not subject to tidal
overflow" The following month the sur
veyor returned survey Of the land, All
acres, which he called "Kidwen Meadows"
said Mr.. Taggart, beginning at cedar
post firmly planted at low water at
center of the dome Of the Capitol, and s.
43 degrees 80 minutes w. from the center Of
the dome of the observatory, and distant
about one-fourth of mile thence by COM
pass bearing"
One Stephen ]. Dallas of the general land
office, mistakenly and without authority, as
examiner general, examined the tract, as
he did another tract or Is IA acres adjoin-
ing the Long bridge (which Kidwell also
sought, and rejected both surveys because
the lands were submerged and subject to
tidal overflow. His report was approved
by the commissiHner,..34nd the application
for the two patents was rejected.
September II, 1859. explained Mr.. Tag
CART. Kidwell renewed his application for
patent for the All acres. submitting
affidavits of his attorney, John Wilson.
Henry Wells and Others, to the effect that
the land in question was firm, solid and
substantial. high and dry. Subsequently,
in the following December, a rehearing
having been granted, the patent was is
sued, because, said Mr. Taggart, of the
false statements contained in the affidavits.
The Land Frequently Submerged.
Mr. Taggart then proceeded to read the
oP S,,rr
eral others, to the effect that, in fact the
lands covered by the Kdwen patent were
not at the time high and dry, but were in
reality submerged by water for the greater
part of the time. From such a showing,
argued Mr.. Taggart, the presumption is
that the commissioner of the general land
office, had he been truthfully advised in the
aff1davits in support of KidwelPs rehear-
ing, and upon which the patent was based.
would have adhered to his original ruling,
disallowing the survey and rejecting the
application for the patent.
Mr.. Taggart also contended that Surveys Or
Carpenter never, in fact, did locate the
tract called for in the patent. and in sup
port of that assertion he read the testi-
mony Of Surveyor Forsyth. Chas. A. Schott
of the coast survey office and others. He
also contenled that at this late day those
claiming under the patent could not locate
the tract. declaring that under the bear
iEgs given in the patent several angles
could be located. For, said Mr.. Taggart,
through no means known to science can
the point from which Surveyor Carpenter
actually started his survey be now ex-
actly, and correctly located from his re-
turn of the survey. And, remarked Mr..
Taggart. the land located according to
the description given in the patent would
not be the land which was actually sur
veyed in 1857 and which it was intended to
include in the patent.
Mr.. Taggart had not concluded when this
report of the case closed.