The morning times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1897, 1895-11-07

WHAT TO DO WITH IT
Special Legislation Necessary TO Dis
pose OF the Land-Act for Relief of
FroEt Must Also Be Passed-Govern-
ment Title to Contiguous Property.

The future use of the property recovered
for the government by Assistant District
Attorney Hugh T. Taggart in the Potomac
| Flats suit is beginning 10 be generally dis
cussed. From Easily s z ONT 10 the Arsenal
there are in all about 760 acres within the
city limits involved in that suit. In
gliding warfage privileges 1t is worth
nearly S36. zoo 900. The case Will coon be
advanced on the United States Supreme
Court calendar. 1t is reasUnably sure the
Judgment of the court below viii be al
firmed. Then the question will be; What
Will the government do with its new terri
tory:
One OF Mr.. Taggarts contentious was that
the lands are within the city limits and the
decision establishcs this. Therefore, un-
der the act of l $50 no patents to the prop
erty can be made.
SPECIAL LEGISLATION REQUIRED.
1t will require a special act of Congress to
dispose OF the land in any way. twill also
require an act for the relief OF the owners
of wharyes along the river front from Long
Bridge 10 the Arsenal. Otherwise they will
lose their rights The measures may come
for consideration before the next Congress.
Another feature OF the great legal contra
versy is occupying the attention OF Mr.
\ TagEart Just at tins time. 1t Is The ques-
tion OF the value of lands bet ween a street
and the old water line in the neighbor-
hood OF Sixteenth, Seventeenth and
Eighteenth streets. In order to establish
the governments title TO the large tract
beyond A street Mr. Taggart was obliged
to maintain that there is an A street in this
| section, although 1T has not been laid out.
| The effect of this was to make private
Is.p
II reaching toward B street. As the Ques-
ton OF value OF such property WAS not con
sidered in the suit recently decided, the
court granted owners of these lands the
priyilegeto take testimony on that privilege.
The ground was under tide water at the
time the government began its reclamation.
Its value previous to that is being consid-
cred, but some OF the witnesses called give
figures, as If its present value were being
considered, and place them high even for
that.
VALUATION OF THE LAND
One witness said the ground is worth
81 80 to Sl-75 per square foot. He based
this value on the belief that ground nearer
the city is becoming so valuable that wood
and coal yards ana ice warehouses and the
ike cannot occupy it, They viii, therefore.
! be Obliged to go upon these reclaimed lots.
Another witness said lie thought the land
worth sl-oO 10 81 per square foot. This
was In square J. 4S. He was asked if he
did not own land In square l47 on the high
ground beyond b street. He said he did.
"What did you pay for it?'' asked Mr..
Taggart.
Must l answer that" he inquired.
Yes" was the reply. ..t
Thirteen cents per square foot he
said. Q.a .-- rrl
When the matter comes to final sd just
fnent, the government has on q escape from
eXtortionate prices. The land is properly
part of the lands recovered by the suit,
but the government can get along very well
without II. II it is worth 81 80 per
square foot, the private owners Will be
permitted to hold IT and see what use they
can make of 1t at that price.
The government contends that the ground
was under water and in that condition was
worth nothing At that price 1t is willing
to acquire title and Use the whole tract.