Evening star., 1895-05-09
CLAIMS TO POTOMAC FLATS
Mr.. Taggart Argues Against O. and o.
Canal Contention.
Street Between Waterway and the
River In Original Plans
Mr.. COwan's Address.

This morning Assistant District Attorney
Taggart resumed in the Potomac flats case
his argument in, opposition to the claims of
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company
and those of Henry H. Dodge, who claims
| to be the lessee of the company.
The claims of both the company and
Mr.. Dodge. explained Mr.. Taggart, were
practically Identical both claiming ripar-
ian rights from the south line of the old
canal from 26th to 18th street out to the
nayigable waters of the Potomac river.
Ihe canal company, that is, the trustees
of the bondholders. said Mr.. Taggart, in
sisted that they were entitled to the rights
claimed by them because the United States
in granting the canal company the right of
way through the District granted it in fee
the land used in its construction of the ca
nal. Mr.. Tasgart, however, declared that
while such grant of right of way through
Maryland and Virginia might have given
the company land there absolutely, Con-
gresS never intended to and never did make
such right of property here in the COM
pany. But, said Mr.. Taggart, while such a
right might have been claimed here under
certain contingencies, he insisted that in
making the corceSsion to the canal COM
pany which it did, Congress required the
company to perform obligations on its part
Which, II ever attempted were never final
ly nor fully fulfilled. Therefore, he argued
the company was not entitled to hold the
land after the failure to utilize it for the
purpose for which it was granted, and the
company failing to hold it, Mr.. Dodge was
likewise affected.
Intervening Street.
But said Mr.. Taggart. besides all that,
the plan of the city submitted in evidence
by the canal company shows a street in
tervening between the land claimed by it
and the river front. the whole line of the
canal from 9th to 18th street This street
AL
whatever riparian rights attached to it
also belonged to the United States, urged
Mr.. TaSGart.
Other Claims.
1t is immateriaI, declared Mr.. Taggart,
that the towpath of the canal, an embank-
ment, was constructed in the waters of
the river between the streets named under
powers conferred by it's charter or by per-
mission Of the public authorities. The
company, he explained, constructed the
canal at this point with notice of the fact
and understanding that the plan of the
city provided ultimately for a street be-
tween 1t and the river. Therefore he
street being street in law. 1t is competent
for the United States to reclaim the land
fact, whenever the public necessities re-
Qure 1t. For such reason, concluded MIR.
Taggart, the claim of the canal company
to riparian rights along this portion of its
former route never had any foundation.
Mr.. Taggart concluded his argument
shortly after the midday recess of the
court. when he was followed by Mr.. John
x. Cowan of Baltimore. Md, who ad-
dressed the court on behalf of the claims
of the trustees Of the bond holders of the
canal company. Mr.. Cowan entered upon
an interesting and lengthy discussion of
the claims of those contending under the
so-called Kidwell patent, insisting that
under no circumstances could the claims
growing out of that patent be sustained.
He had not concluded his argument when
the court adjourned for the day.