Evening star., 1895-04-26
THE MARSHALL CLAIM
Arguments Continued in Potomac
Flats Case Today.
OWNERSHIP OF THE RIVER BED
MIR. Knott Argues for the Claim
During the Morning.
THE EARLY GRANTS

THE RLY GRANT
The claims of the Marshall heirs, who
contend that the Potomac riverand it's bed
from shore to shore belongs to them
through purchase from the grantees of
Lords Culpeper, Fairfax and Baltimore,
who derived their title from the English
crown, were again discussed today in the
case of the United States against Martin F.
Morris and some forty other defendants.
This case which has been pending since
November 26, 1856, is proving to be one of
the most interesting ever tried in the Dis
trct, and in the efforts of the government
to quiet the alleged titles of the many
claimants to the Potomac river. and the
adjacent river front, 1t is said that more
interesting points of law have arisen and
w4n pioLauiy yet alise IN lIe case Than IN
any other in the history of the District
courts.
Chief Justice Bingham and Justices Hag-
rer and McComas, who constitute the court
before v hom the case is being heard. were
somewhat tardy in taking their seats this
morning, and when the court was declared
open Mr.. A. Leo Knott, representing the
Marshall heirs, resumed his argument in
support Of their claims. The contention of
counsel for the government (Mr. TaggarD,
said Mr.. Knott. was somewhat unique in
nous Irish historian, who. devoting a chap
ter to snakes in Ireland, disposed of the
matter by stating in that chapter that
there are no snakes in Ireland.
Mr.. Taggart, said Mr.. Knott, contended
that the government derived title from the
English crowns jura legalia, and then
solemnly declared there was no jura re-
gala in the crown. Either horn Of the di-
vay mo Nlyx.l ~
able to him. for. he asserted. at all times in
the history of Maryland title to navigable
waters had been recognized and enforced.
Certainly up to 1862. stated Mr.. Knott.
ard when Maryland ceded it's part OF the
District to the United States. the govern
n ent accepted the grant with such q con-
sidera ton In force.
The legal consequence of such prin-
ciple, argued Mr.. Knott, Is that when, by
any natural or artificial cause or agency.
these lands cease to be covered by water
and become fast or dry lands. such dry or
fast lands become at once the right and
time. Such a principle or doctrine said
Mr.. Knott. the Maryland bill of rights af-
firmed. and the Maryland court of appeals
has so held.
The Original Grants.
The charter of the province CT Maryland,
contended Mr.. Knott, granted to Cecilius
Calvert the second Lord Baltimore. and the
first lord proprietary of the province, con-
ferred on him a title to the lands lying
under the navigable rivers and waters
within the limits of his grant.
Those limits, explained MIR. Knott en-
braced the whole of the Potomac river and
the lands under it from its source to its
mouth, from shore to shore, to high water
mark on the Virginia shore. Therefore,
declared he, the Potomac flats were in
cluded although he did not deny that the
grant to Lord Baltimore was subject to
the public rights of fishing commerce and
navigation.
1t is true. said Mr.. Knott, that Lord Bal
timore had the right to grant out such
lands. subject always to such public rights
and o tbs nhayncs and
state of Maryland, remarked Mr..
Knott, show that the lord proprietary did
make such grants, which grants have al
war of the revolution he explained. closed
the government of the lord proprietary
and since that event the state of Mary
land has, contended Mr. Knott, uniformly
claimed and exercised this right until the
legislature by the act of 1862 prohibited the
making of such grants in the future. But
the revolution. argued Mr.. Knott. did not
deprive the proprietor of his rights, of pri-
vate rights, for changes of government,
whether by peaceful or violent means do
not affect private rights.
Private Rights.
United States, continued Mr.. Knott. that
the confication acts of Maryland of 17SO di-
vested the right and title of Henry Har-
ford. who held the right and title of Lord
Baltimore. Such a contention, thought Mr..
Knott, could not be sustained, for the Mary
land bill of rights and constitution of 1776
declared and proclaimed that the inhab-
ftants Of the state were entitled to the COM
mon law Of England, and were entitled, too,
n n
der the charter granted by Charles to the
first Lord Baltimore. Hence. said Mr.
Knott, the confiscation of Harford's private
property was in 1erogation Of that COM
mon law and of that charter. and it cannot
be denied, he thought, that the state, like
an individual. is cstopped from claiming
under grant and repudiatins it at the
same time.
When the treaty of peace of 1873 between
the United States and Great Britain was
executed. by the sixth section of which,
said Mr.. Knott, it was agreed there should
be no confiscation of property in the
future, the proceedings under the Mary
land confiscation acts had not been COM
pleted and perfected so far as the lands
in question were concerned. Therefore, as
serted Mr.. Knott title in these lands was
not in the state of Maryland al the time of
the cession of the territory of the District
of Columbia to the United States. and
hence no title thereto passed to the United
States by the act of cession.
But, said Mr.. Knott, admitting the con-
of the acts of confscation.
admitting that the proceedings under them
were sufficiently valid. complete and effect
ual to divest title. and even admitting that
the title was then in Maryland and was
transferred to the United States, he con-
tended that the lands in question were af
fected by the fifth article of the treaty of
1888 and the ninth article of the treaty of
1894. with such trust or equity in favor
of Hartford, his heirs and assigns, that his
title thereto was restored. That title so re-
md vafy tod
has come by a series of devises and con-
veyances to his clients, the Marshall heirs.
Question of Time.
The counsel for the United States. how
ever, stated Mr.. Knott, has contended that
the Marshall heirs have slept too long on
their rights and that 1t is now too late to
assert title to the lands in question. But
Mr. Knott denied that the title of his cli-
ents, SO restored and refrigerated, has been
divested or affected by operation of the
statute of limitations. Neither the statute