Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-10-07
AGAINST CLAIMANTS
Courts Decision in the Potomac
Flats Case.
ADVERSE TO THE PETITIONERS
Marshall and kidwelI Claims Head
the List.
T II E HER CAS- SES
ADVERSE TO THE PETITIONERS
7 II E OF H ER ACES

AS the readers of The Star know, the case
was heard before the court Chief Justice
Bingham and Justices Hagner and Nc
Comas) last spring, the hearing continuing
somo seven weeks. The case is one In
which the court under authority of an act
of Congress passed in 1885, was directed to
ascertain and establish the title of the
United States to the Potomac flats and to
lands along the river front from about
Easby's Point to the arsenal grounds, some
fifty or more persons claiming title to lands
embraced within those boundaries Since
the conclusion of the hearing of the case
last June, the court has held it under ad-
visement. and the exclusive announcement
In The Star last week that the court would
today render its decision served to crowd
the court room to its fullest extent. The
decision OF the court was read by Judge
Hagner. He began reading the courts
opinion, consisting of more than 100 type
written pages, at fifteen minutes past 10
o'clock, and when the court took the usual
| midday recess at 1870 had not nearly con-
cluded. At that time the claims of the
Marshall heirs and those claimir g under the
so-called Kidwell patent of 1869 had been
disposed of, the decision being adverse TO
the claimants.
The Ownership.
Judge Hagner. after explaining that he
, had bsen requested by the court to deliver
the opinion OF the court in the case, re-
ferred to the provision in the Constitution
granting Congress exclusive Jurisdiction
over the District of Columbia, and to the
act of Maryland ceding to the general gov
ernment the territory now forming the Dis
trlct stating that when the territory be-
came the seat of the national government,
the District and the United States became
the owners OF the Potomac river within
the boundaries of the ceded territory. In
Coi6 1rrdfy 1n
priated a sum for the improvement OF the
navigation of the river. and some 1853 acres
In and along the river were converted into
land. This conversion. he explained. called
persons alleging title to the converted
lands. and in 1856 Congress authorized and
directed the Attorney General to institute
proceedings in the District Supreme Court
to establish and make clear the title of the
government to the land. Under that author
ity, the present suit was Instituted, said
the court, and the court had waived in the
hearing all technicalities that the rights OF
all parties might be clearly established
The claimants, more than fifty in number,
were classed. remarked Judge Hagner Un-
der seven different heads. as follows:
Seven Claims.
1. The claim made by the heirs of James
Marshall and those of his brother. the
late Chief Justice John Marshall, to the
ownership of the whole bed of the river
the crown of England to Lord culpeper
and others, for what is known as the
northern neck of Virginia, and under .
deed from the present legal Representatives
of Henry Hartford. the last proprietary OF
the province of Maryland.
2 The claims of ownership to a part Of
the reclaimed land made by certain de-
PENDANTS who assert title under a patent
issued by the United States to John L
kdwell in the year 1862.
ho o1ai nv "a a
and Ohio Canal Company and its lessee,
Henry H. Dodge, to riparian rights from
Easby's Point to 18th street.
4. The claims made by the owners of
lots in the squares along the river west Of
18th street west, namely, squares AS LID.
S9 63. q and south of square j..
5. The claim to certain ground Eear the
observatory made ny some of the de-
scendants Of Robert Peter, an original pro-
rrietor of lands in the city of Washing
ton.
g. The claims made by owners of lots In
the squares facing the river, beginning
with square 233 and extending to the line
of the Arsenal grounds.
Z. The claims made by certain persons
occupying wharves below the Long bridge
under licenses from the chief of engineers
of the United States army.
Baltimore Grants.
It was first necessary and proper. ex-
planned Judge Hagner, to examine the title
|
dicticn over the Potomac river. He then,
at great length. discussed the grants from
the English crown to Lord Baltimore. and
remarked that all decisions made in con-
troverses erising under such grants con-
fined the claim Of Maryland to the owner
ship and Jurisdiction in and over the river
to the further or Virginia bank Of the
river. The Judge next proceeded to a dis
cussion of the claims of the Marshall heirs.
under grants to Lords Fairfax and Cul.
peper. These grants, he explained sousht
to convey the bed of the river from shore
to shore. but it was clear. the court
thought that such grants could not I'M
terfere with the grants to Lord Baltimore
sent. 1t appeared. had never been given.
Hence as the grants to Lords Fairfax and
Culpeper were never. in intent or in fact.
an invasion of Lord Baltimore's rights the
lost.
Marylnnd's Claim.
The state of Maryland, Judge Hagner
then explained. succeeded to the rights and
title Of Lord Baltimore, although it waa
not obliged to rely for such on its acts Of
confiscation, but succeeded to Lord Balti-
more's right and title through the result Of
the war of the revolution. Maryland, said
Judge Hagner, never acknowledged any
claim of Virginia to the Potomac, and the
court held 1t to be clear that the Marshall
heirs have no right, title or interest in thu
river. its bed. or in the accretions thereon.
The Kidwell Claim.
The next claim discussed by Judge HagneI
was that made under the-alleged patent
granted by the government in 1869 to the
late DR.. John Kidwell to forty-eight acres
in the Potomac flats west Of the Lo'a
bridge. Despite the contention of the gov
ernment, said Judge Hagner. the court
thought the act of Congress Of 1899 author
lied such a grant as was made to DR.. Kid
well, provided such grant was not against
public policy, and the court found that two
grants had been made under the authority
OF the act, one for islands near the Three
Sisters, above the Aqueduct bridge, and the
other to DR.. kidwell. But many applicants
had been denied patents because they were
for lands which were at times submerged.
and Judge Hagner then addressed himself
to discussion Of the question whether the
grant to Kidwell was against public policy.
The property acquired by DR.. Kidwell was,
the judge thought, undoubtedly acquired for
speculative purposes, and for the govern
ment to Iart with its land to promote such
purposes was he said, against public policy.
He then discussed the claim Of the govern
bof bo Ia do tod IN Kidwen