Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-10-07

were submerged or subject to tidal over
now, holding that they had been shown to
be such, and that the contention Of the
claimants that there was well-defined
channel between the fats and the city had
not been sustained. The court also found.
said Judge Hagner. that the government, in
permitting Kidwell or his grantees to oc-
cupy the lands, would have in effect, sQuan-
dered the birthrtght Of the city of WASH
ington for mere song, and the lands would
in time have become a serious obstruction to
the navigation of the river.
Judge Hagner next went on to state that
the court had found that the territory en-
braced within the Potomac hats, including,
of course. that embraced within the Kid
well patent, lie within the city limits. as
claimed by the governments counsel. and
that the lands were and are held by the
United States solely for public purposes.
Hence the court, he declared, had no diff
Guilty in arriving at decision adverse to
those claiming under the Kidwell patent
explaining that the rights of the people OF
the United States and of the District would
be violated should the court decide other
wise.
Canal Claims.
Upon the reconvening of the court after
recess, Judge Hagner proceeded to consider
the claim of the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal Company and its lessee. Henry H.
Dodge, to riparian rights from Easby's
Point to 18th street. The disposal, adverse
ly, of the claims of the Marshall heirs and
of those claiming under the Kidwell patent
had the effect Of greatly reducing the
throng in the court room. the greatest In
terest being manifested in those claims
and when the great majority Of those
present during the early part OF the day
realized that the court had decided as The
Star predicted months ago, very little fur
Their interest was manifested in the deci-
sion of the court.
The canal company, said Judge Hagner,
claimed riparian rights along its former
route, as incidents Of the grant made to 1t
for a right of way from about 9th to 18th
street. but the court held. he stated, that
the company never possessed any such
rights, and. as the canal company never
did, Its Lessee, Mr.. Dodge, could not have
possessed such rights. Therefore the court
had no hesitation In deciding against the
claims of both.
Lot Owners.
The next claims taken up by Judge Hag-
ner were those made by owners of lots in
squares along the river front from 18th to
9th streets, who claimed riparian rights
generally, ard, in some instances, that the
lines of their lots extended across the re-
claimed flats to the Virginia channel The
court. however, explained Judge Hagner,
had been unable to find that such lot own
ers. or any Of them, were entitled to any
riparian rights, and their claims were,
therefore. decided upon adversely.
The Same Fate.
The claim of the descendants Of Robert
Peter. an original proprietor of land in the
city, to certain ground near the old Naval
Observatory, was next discussed by Judge
Hagner, and in few words he explained
that the court had concluded that no valid
claim had been established to the land in
question, and that the courts decision was.
therefore. adverse to such alleged title.
The bext claims considered by Judge
Hasner were those made by lot owners in
the squares from square 25S to the arsenal
grounds, and he stated that on the reason
Ing of the United States Supreme Court in
the case of the steamboat companies
against the United States the court based
its decision against such claimants.
The last claims discussed by Judge Hag-
ner were those made by persons occupying
wharves under license from the chief Of
engineers, and the court. he stated, held
that the District government only and not
the chief of engineers, had authority
to grant such licenses, and that those &C.
cupying and holding wharves simply under
the authority of licenses given by tho
chief of engineers are doing SO without
proper. lawful authority.
The Damages.
Judge Hagner concluded the reading OF
the courts opinion at 2:1O. and in doing 30
he stated that while the court had decided
against those lot owners claiming riparian
rights from nth to 9th street, the court
had, nevertheless, found that the owners
o: lots in squares 49, 80, 129 and 14s were
entitled to damages, because OF the taking
by filling up of certain parts of those
squares. Hence the court, would at time
to be hereafter fixed provide for the hear
iEg Of testimony both as to the ownership
or the lots In question and as to the
apiornt of damages suffered.
Judge Hagner explained also that q de-
cree would be signed later by the court at
ter Interested parties had been given an OPP
portunity to inspect a draft of it, confirm
ing the right and title of the United States
to all the land In controversy. The judge
stated that the delay of the court in render
ing its decision had been due to the mag
hitude of the interests involved, and be-
cause the brilliant and learned arguments
madsrby the counsel in the cause deserved
that the court should give the very largest
and most careful consideration to the many
important points raised In the case.
An Appeal Probable.
When Judge Hagner concluded. Assistant
District Attorney Hugh T. Taggart, who
case, was warmly congratulated upon the
magnific fight which he had SO success
fully made.
The courts decision was. however. pre-
dicted weeks ago by The Star BY the pro-
visions of the act Of Congress authorizing
the institution Of the proceedings an ap-
peal from the courts decision Is allowed
direct to the United States Supreme Court,
and 1t Is understood that all of the claim
ants will unite in such an appeal BY the
provisions of the act the United States
Supreme Court Is also directed to advance
such appeal TO an early hearing, and 1t is
not improbable that the case will there be
heard before that court adjourns next
spring.