Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-05-06
The Potomac Flats Cases Were Con-
tinued Today.
KIDWELL CLAIMS The ISSU E
Lawyers Tell Of the First Intention
Regarding Streets.
LON G A r G q NJ E N 7 S

Inc Court IN General Term, CnleI Justice
Bingham and Justices Hagner and Nc
Comas. this morning entered upon the
third week of the consideration of the Po-
tomac flats case. in which the United
States seeks to quiet the claims of some
forty odd parties, who claim the flats and
the adjacent river front from about Eas-
by's Point to the arsenal. So far in the
case only the claims of the Marshall heirs
and those claiming under the so-called Kid
well patent of December 6, 1869, have been
presented. The former claim through pur-
chase from the grantees under colonial
grants the entire river bed from shore to
shore, and the latter claim All acres Of
the Potomac flats, from about 18th street
to a point just beyond Easby's Point. The
claims of the Marshall heirs have been
fully argued and submitted to the court
and this morning Mr.. Nathaniel Wilson
resumed his argument-the closing One-in
the matter of the Kidwell claims The
case will, 1t Is thought, consume at least
two weeks more of the courts attention
in Its presentation.
Argument Resumed.
When he resumed his argument this
morning Mr.. Wilson invited the courts at
tention to the different maps of the city
and of the flats. beginning with the Len
FAINT map. contending that the government
was a well-defned channel separating the
flats from the city and also wrong in stat
ing that the exact location of the land
covered by the Kidwell patent could not be
made. The maps. said Mr.. Wilson. clearly
showed that as early as 1791 and as late
as 1854, the channel in question was in
actual existence The depth of water in
this channel. asserted MIR. Wilson. ran from
three to eight feet. and he read the testi-
mony of several witnesses tending to show
such state of facts up to the time, at
least, of the date Of the Kidwell patent.
The Question stated.
In 1869, said Mr.. Wilson, it seemed to be
clearly established that the land in ques-
ton was there, and that it was separated
from the mainland by the channel re-
ferIe ed to. 1t was also clear, he stated,
that the United States at that time had an
indlsputable title to the land. Hence, the
fundamental question is, Was it such land
which the government, under the authority
of the joint resolution of 1889, could grant
under. its patent? That was the main ques-
ton to be considered by the court, and
if the question was answered in the af-
f1rmative the title of those claiming under
the Kidwell patent could not, insisted Mr.
Wilson, be disputed, and that grant should,
therefore, be affirmed: 1t W2s wholly COM
petent, thought Mr.. Wilson, for Congress to
authorize the granting of the land. and
entirely consistent with the doctrine laid
down by the United States Supreme Court
In the lake front case, as the granting of
the lard could in no way interfere with the
rights of the government in the matter
of either the improvements or navigation
of the river. 1t did not NATTER, he thought,
that part of the land might at times have
been submerged; the title of the govern
ment to the river bed, however obtained
was indispu;able, and was subject to
grants from the United States.
Not the First.
The Kidwell patent, stated Mr.. Wilson,
was not the first of its kind for in 1885,
he explained, President Pierce granted the
islands Just above the Aqueduct bridge
known as the Three Sisters to one John
Moore. That land, said Mr.. Wilson, was
granted under the authority of the law of
1899, showing that the government had
previously to the making of the kidwell
patent exercised the same right 1t e&er-
cised in the grant to Kidwell, and never
until in the present suit, he declared, had
this authority of the government been
questioned
The government, said Mr.. Wilson, con-
tended that the land covered by the Kid
well pa tent was and is within the city limits,
but he declared that not scintilla of evil
ience sustained that contention. 1t matter
ed not what had been the Intentions of the
founders of the city in extending the
streets out upon the land in question, for
it was nevertheless true that the streets
were never, in fact, so extended.
as there" Interrupted Mr.. Taggart.
anything to show that the streets did not
so eXtend?"
NO." answered Mr.. Wilson, land there
is nothing to show that they ever did"
Question of Fraud.
Referring to the contention of the gov
errment that fraud was practiced in OBJ
tanning the kidwell patent. Mr.. Wilson
said he wished to impress upon the court
the fact that after his first application for
the patent. DR.. kidwell. in applying the
second time, merely prayed for a re-exami-
nation of the land. All the officers of the
government he said, were sworn to prop
elry perform their various duties, and the
patent itself is evidence that the prelimi-
naries have been fully complied with and
all conditions duly performed. The United
States Supreme Court, said Mr.. Wilson,
h decided that the action of the land
ofAce is conclusive evidence everywhere,
except when rsconSidered in the office on
appeal, and that as to the facts upon which
their decision is based, in the absence of
fraud or mistake, that decision Is conclu-
sive, even in courts Of Justice, when the
title afterward comes into question. 1t was
seriously contended by Mr.. Taggart, said
Mr. Wilson, that the kidwell patent is
void because it was signed by the Presi-
dent. 1t was most extraordinary con-
tention, he remarked, but there Is nothing
in it, because the law required 1t to be so
signed.