Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-04-23
THE POTOMAC FLATS
Long-Pendng Cases Regarding Own
ership Begun Today.
PRELIMINARY ARGUMENTS BY COUNSEL
The Burden Of Proof Lies With
the Various Claimants.
MASS OF ESTIM ONY

The 1ong-standing case of the United
States against Martin f. Morris and
others was taken up today. when Chief
Justice Bingham and Justices Hagner and
McComas of the District Supreme Court
stated to the many counsel in the case that
the. court was ready to consider it. The
hearing took place in the old General Term
room of the city hall, and the court room
was crowded the counsel in the case form
ing no inconSiderable part of the throng
present.
e AS heretofore explained in The Star, the
case is one in which the United States
seeks, by a proceeding in equity, to quiet
the title of some two score or more claim
ants to the Potomac fats and the adjacent
river front from about Easby's Point to the
arsenal.
The proceeding was instituted November
2t, 1856, under an act of Congress approved
August >, 1885, entitled IAN act for pro-
tectinS the interests of the United States
in the Potomac river flats in the District
of Columbia" By that act the Attorney
Genera. was directed to institute suit
against all persons and corporations who
may have or pretend to have any right,
title, claim or interest in any part of the
land or water in the District of Columbia
within the limits of the city of Washing
ton or exterior to said limits and in front
thereof toward the channel of the Potomac
river. end composing any part of the land
or water affected by the improvements Of
the Potomac river or its fats in charge of
the Secretary of War; for the purpose of
establishing and making clear the right
of the United States thereto.
The case had not been heard when the
Court of Appeals was established, and it
was placed upon the docket of that court.
But doubt arose as to whether or not
that tribunal had Jurisdiction and conSs-
queatly 1t was never considered there. At
the last session of Congress. however, an
act was passed providing for the conSldera-
ton of the case by the District Supreme
Court. with the right of appeal from that
court direct to the United States Supreme
Court.
The Claimants.
The claimants whose titles the United
States now seek to quiet are divided into
four classes: First. those claiming under
the kidwell patent; second. the heirs of
James Marshall Of Virginia, brother of
Chief Justice Marshall who claim the bed
Of the Potomac river unGer the grants to
Lords Culpeper and Fairfax and Lord Bal
tiiaore: third. riparian proprietors of lands
above the Long bridge. claiming the chan
rel OF the Potomac river, and, fourth,
riparian propfietefs of lands below the
Long bridge. claiming wharfing privileges.
Mass of Testimony.
When Chief Justice Bingham announced
this morning that the court was ready to
proceed with the Assistant District
Attorney Taggart, Representing the United
States. stated that a great mass of testi-
mony, embracing seven volumes of several
hundred pages each, had been taken in the
case. which he laid before the court. Briefly
stating the nature of the several classes of
claimants. MI. Taggart suggested that the
claims of the Marshall heirs be first con-
sidered, then those of the kidwel heirs
and then those OF, the Chesapeake and Ohio
IT
in which Messrs. r., Byrd Lewis, Geo. T..
Hamilton. Calderon Carlisle, A. Leo Knott
and Natnanie! Wilson stated that they
thought the government should first state
It's case as to each claimant, Mr.. Taggart
Insisted that the government. being in pos
session. was entitled to have the several
claimants first state the grounds upon which
they respectively rely.
Burden of Proof.
The court retired to consider the matter
and upon it's return Chief Justice Bing-
ham announced that the court hold
ing that the government starts with
the presumption of title, saying to
the claimants that they must assert
title or stand foreclosed, it seemed that
the burden of asserting title is upon the
claimants. Therefore, said the chief JUS
tice. the court had decided that the claim
ants should open the case the government
to then reply, the claimants to close, and
presented by the several claimants, and so
far as possible, separately disposed of. 1t
was also decided that the claim of the
Marshall heirs should first be considered,
their case to be followed by the claim of
the Kidwell heirs.
Preliminary Statement.
Mr. Taggart then made a brief prelim-
irary statement in general of the whole
case, stating that he was quite confident
the court would finally hold that the
United States has a perfect title and right
to all of the various disputed tracts. Not
only, said Mr.. Taggart has the United
States never parted with the tracts, but it
has also expended about $2000,OG0 in i'm
proving the same On behalf of the Mar
shall heirs Mr.. r. Byrd Lewis then adj
dressed the court in support Of the claim
of his clients. =
The Marshall Claim.
The Marshall heirs, explained Mr.. Lewis,
claim under the grants to Lord Baltimore
and the one to Lord Culpeper from James
II, in 1858, which read: 1.-THE said rivers
themselves (the Potomac) and all the is
lands within the outermost banks thereof,
and the soil of all and singular the prem
ises, &c, and all manner of deodands,
goods of felons and fugitives, treasure
trove, waits, strays, fines forfeitures eS-
cheats, advowsons, royalties and heredita-
ments whatsoever which now are or at
any time or times hereafter shall be had
coming, being, arising, growing, renewing.
accrung found or taken within the bounds,
limits precincts or places aforesaid
The bid of the Potomac, said Mr.. Lewis
in this controversy embraces the land from
high water mark from shore to Shore and
therefore, the grant covered the bed of the
river by the grant of the soil thereof. The
Marshall heirs, stated Mr.. Lewis, claimed
as purchasers by and through the Lord
Baltimore patent or charter, and their
claim of title is unbroken. if the last lord
proprietary was not legally deprived OF his
title The last lord proprietary was Henry
Hartford, British subject, and the Mary
land act of confiscation, said Mr.. Lewis,
as it respected Mr.. Hartford, was contrary
to the Maryland bill of rights, and, there
fore, unconstitutional.
Mr.. Lewis admitted that this point had
rever been raised before but he declared
that it was fully sustained by law, and he
was confident that it would be confirmed
in the present case. If 1t should be, he
said, it would establish the claims of his
clients beyond all question.
Runaway.
This morning about 10 o'clock pair Of
horses attached to wagon belonging to
S. E. Ward of Prince Georges county ran