The morning times., 1895-10-08

Der OF persons To any right or titl..in the
lands affected, and will probably decide
forever the much-disputed point as To the
title of the made lands of the Potomac ad-
joining this city.
Justice Hagner read the opinion which
was comprised in about 200 type written
pages, while Chief Justice Bingham and
Justice McComas, the other members of
the court, sat beside him on the bench
The scene presented in the courtroom was
remarkable and probably unprecedented.
There are in all some two score and ten
claimants represented in the large and
valuable territory under litigation, and
each claimant was represented by one or
more attorneys, until the room was filled
with an aggregation OF the best legal
talent of the Washington bar.
MARSHALL CASE FIRST.
Counsel filled every seat in the room. Mr.
Hugh Taggart, of the District attorneys
office, the sole prosecuting counsel of the
Government, entered the courtroom just
before the court arrived and seated him
self at a table
Judge Hagner began reading the opinion
at 10i15 O'Clock. The argument OF the
case consumed about seven weeks of the
term last spring.
II was the suit of the Government to de-
ttTIllHt anu pTOtttt It's fnttTt6t III tflt river
front, the river and the made" land ih
the Potomac from the G street wharf TO
the Arsenal.
This suit was brought in accordance with
an act of Congress OF August .. 1886, di-
recting the Attorney General to take such
necessary steps by institunng proceedings
in court to establish how much of the terri
tory belongs to the Government and how
much. II any, to the respective claimants.
After "A nr,.limin.ry .bear rea nj nf sh., ic-
tory OF the great case, Justice Hagner
took up and passed upon the merits OF the
respective claimants, dividing them into
seven general classes for convenience.
The first was the claim Of the Marshall
heirs. They claimed the river front the
islands that have since been built up. and
even the ground itself over W hich the Po-
tomac flows. They traced their ownership
back to grant made by j cha rter of King.
Charles III in 1919. -
TEXT OF THE RULING
After a long historical review OF the in
fricate grants and conveyances resulting
in the evolution of Maryland into "A
State and the disintegrationl the tract
composing the District of Columbia, Judge
Hagner read:
Therefore we decide that the Marshall
heirs have no rights, title or interest in
any land bordering upon or lying under the
waters of the Potomac"
Judge Hagner proceeded and took up the
claim OF the Kidwell heirs. who assert tit le
20 that portion Of the Potomac flats west
of Long Bridge by right of an alleged grant
made by the Government 10 john KidwelI
in 1863. The territory Is still known as
Kidwell's Island or better as the reclaimed
flats.
The Government claimed that the alleged
patent should be declared null and void be
cause of fraud and deception used in secur
ing it.
The King had a right over the water
ways, and the contention of the Govern
ment's attorney, the decision ran. that Con
gress. which governs the District of CO.
lumbia, has ne right to grant patents 10
the waterways, could not be sustained by
the court. The rights of the people are,
however, superior to those of individuals,
and when the Improvements of the latter
eHcroach upon the free circumlocution of
the body of the people the patent may be
annulled, revoked or circuinscribed.
At 1870 O'Clock, on the conclusion of
the ruling in the Kidwell case. and after
Judge Hagner's voice had grown hoarse
with the unbroken reading of two and
quarter hours. a~recess was taken until
1:15 O'Clock.
At 1:2O O'Clock the court resumed the
delivery of the opinion, passing on to the
third of the seven subdivisions, This dealt !
with the claim made by the Chesapeake X
Ohio Canal Company and its lessee, Henry
H. Dodge, to riparian rights from Easby's
Point to Seventeenth street.
CANAL CoMPANY'S CLAIM.
These rights, the canal company claimed
had fallen to them through various grants
from the States OF Virginia and Maryland.
beginning with a patent from the former
State in 1924. Certain accumulations of
soil and sediment have formed tangible
bodies of land in the water over which
the company claimed its early riparian
ownership.
Whatever rights the Chesapeake & Ohio
Canal Company had acquired in the riparian
property, read Judge Hagner, it got with
the full knowledge that il lay in the power
of Congress at any time 10 revoke that
right and the court therefore decided that
the canal compauy's claim was unfounded. ]
Since, said the court, the claim of Henry
II. Dodge as lessee, is wholly dependent
upon the right held by the company, it. too,
must expire upon the annihilation of the
conipany's claim, and the court SO adju-
dcated.
At the time OF the grant in 1869, the
court said, the Kidwen meadows were
completely under water, and were nothing
more or less than a marsh with wild
rice growing on them. Not particle of
soil came to the surface of the water.
Congress, of course. had right to issue
a patent, but it would have been breach
of the trust imposed in that body TO have
decided away property that mi gbt be avail
able in the future growth of the republics
Capital. ~. ..
The Commissioner of the Land Office had
no right to deliver the patent to the ter
ritOry for the reason that the land ceded
to the Government from Maryland was
for the use of the Government.
The decision was adverse to the Kid
well heirs and the pail that had pre-
viously fallen spread to the faces of other
lawyers.
The furth claimo was taken up and
passed upon. This, as the three preceding |
claims, was adjudged a victory for the |
The contestants, adverse to the republics |
rights, were the owners of lots in the |
squares along the river west of Seven |
Ieenth street. These squares were as fol- |
ows: Nos. %, 63. SO, 129 and 14S and |
square south of square 12. Riparian rights |
were here in controversy also.
of the late Robert Peter, an |
The fifth body of claimants Were the |
original proprietor of lands in Washington. |
They asserted ownership of the ground in |
the neighborhOod of the old observatory. |
The decision in this case followed prece-
dent, and the land that has been used for |
years by those in possession was declared
by the three judges to be in the ownership |
Of the United States
The claimants to land on the other side |
of the city, including the lots in the squares |
facing the river, from square 233 to the |
Arsenal, met the same fate and the title |
pressed by the Government was upheld. |
This was the sixth section
Tho lo.