Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-05-10
7 HE EASILY CLAIM
Another Case Reached in Potomac Flats
Arguments.
Owned Water Front Lot-Mnny Points
Covered by the Different Lawyers
That Intervening Street.

III lHe fOt0Eldc IdtS case, JOnn n
Cowan Of Baltimore, Nd, representing the
trustees Of the bondholdeus of the Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal Company, resumed
this morning the argument which the adj
journment of the court yesterday afternoon
Interrupted.
Concluding his reference to the conten-
lions of those claiming under the so-called
Kidwell patent of December 6, 1862 Mr..
Cowan today first addressed himself to the
contention of the government that what
ever riparian rights might be claimed by
the canal company are void for the reason
that a street interviewed between the land
and the river. At the outset Mr.. Cowan
highly complimented Assistant District At
torney Hugh T. Taggart for the great abil-
ity and learning displayed by him in the
case but insisted that Mr. Taggarts claim
of the existence of such an intervening
street is not sustained either by law or by
contemporaneouS testimony. II lad out at
ALL said Mr. Cowan, the street was laid out
| in the water. and its description was far
too indefinite to be sustained by court OF
law. The first plans and maps of the city,
he contended, were full of uncertainties,
and the certain words Of the certificates
given land owners by the city commission
ers in the early history of the places and
instance remarked Mr.. Cowan, two Water
streets were shown by the different early
plans and maps.
Riparian Rights.
In support of his assertion that the GER
tain boundaries of the disputed squares
fronting on the canal or river front given
| in the certificates of the city commission
ers cannot be disturbed Mr.. Cowan quoted
as his authority a decision of the United
States Supreme Court. In the allotment
| and assignment of such land by the Com
mssioners explained Mr.. Cowan, Congress
declared that the original proprietorS were
then to hold the same as in their former
estate, and that prior estate he stated, I'M
questionably gave the claimed riparian
rights. That is he said, to enjoy wharfins
privileges out to the naVigable waters OF
the river. There never was any Intention
declared Mr.. Ccwan. to cut off such water
lots from those privileges and rights.
Mr.. Cowan next asserted that by the doc
trne of adverse possession the canal COM
pany acquired such rights and privileges
when it was granted the land used in the
construction of the canal. This land, he
Ge clared, was granted to the company by
Congress absolutely in perpetuity, and to
the heirs and assigns of the company
The fact, explained Mr.. Cowan that con-
veyances to certain adjacent lots of land
stated expressly that the same should eX-
tend to the land held by the canal COM
pany was an express recognition of the
title of the company. The grant to the
caral company, he argued, was notice to
all others that it took the land in fee and
having held it undisturbed and unques-
toned for sixty years, it is row too late to
deny that the company succeeded to the
riparian rights and privileges attaching to
the land.
The Easily Claim.
Mr.. Cowan concluded his argument about
12:30. and Immediately after the midday
recess of the SQUIRT another branch of the
case taken up, when Mr. H. Randall
| Webb. representing Rose l.. and Fanny B.
| Easily, and William B. Webb, the repre-
sentatives of the estate of the late William
| Easily, and also Lyman A. Littlefield, ad-
| dressed the court.
The Easily estate, explained Mr.. Webb.
| claimed that being the owner of lots y. ,,
| +. .. IT, 4, and ., square 81; lots s. !, >. q
| and l. square 50; lot /, square 10 and lot
- square south of square Il, said lots
| fronting upon the Potomac river, all ac-
| cretioGs formed in front of them by the
| action Of the river or otherwise belong to
| the lots. and that, as they extend to the
| water thereby have riparian rights. Mr..
| Littleied. said Mr.. Webb, owning lot ),
| square -, made like claims
The squares, said Mr.. Webb, in which
these lots are situated We're, with the eX-
| ceptioh of square ~, bounded on the south
| by the river, and We're partially under
water. Square 22 ahutted upon the water
and, when first laid out, had nothing be-
tween 1t and the river but an imaginary
street He therefore contended that il was
originally intended that these lots should
have water privileges, and also that they
We're dedicated TO and. laid out for that
purpose.
The land which has since been added.
ard which has appeared on the south of
these lots since the founding of the city
has come, asserted Mr. Webb, from, allu-
vial deposits and from accretions gra.lu-
ally, and by imperceptible degrees The
sc-ca!led kidwell meadows, he declared.
was not an island but an accretion to the
mainland. and as such it belongs to The
property bordering on the river