The Roanoke daily times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1895-1897, 1896-08-25
E@g DISPUTED STATE LINE.
a Geographical Jarndyce Case Before the
Supreme Court.

The United States supreme court will
soon after 1T reconvenes be called upon to
settle dispute between the States of
Maryland and West Virginia which grows
out OF an error committed by Lord Fair
fax when he laid out the boundary line
between Maryland and Virginia $50 wears
ago. The question is as to the ownership
OF strip of land three quarters of mile
wide at the widest part, thirty-seven
miles long and tapering to point, and
| now claimed as part of Garrett county.
Md
1t has truly been, as lawyers have
termed 1T "a long-drawn- out case" and
| ON account OF the length of time which
elapsed before Maryland undertook to as
sert her rights. Although it is claimed
there is no doubt of her right to the strip
OF land In question, the judgment of the
court may be against her. According to
the evidence gathered on the subject nv
the various attorneys general of Maryland
who have handled the case, the mistake
| appears to have arisen through the set
ting up of the Lord Fairfax stone in 1746
near the head of the North branch of the
Potomac river, instead of the South
branch, under the impression that the
former was the longer stream and proper
headwaters of the river, and without the
knowledge or assent of Lord Baltimore,
who subsequently protested against the
boundary line as thus established.
NO further action was, however taken
until l771 on account of the raging of the
French and Indian wars during the inter.
vening twenty-five years. In III the
governor of Maryland appointed a COM
! mission under which a survey was made
by Thomas Cresap, who found that the
| most westerly fountain of the Potomac
was the South branch. Another DELAY
hn
The State of Virginia then took posses
sion OF her territory and, as claimed,
ceded to Maryland all land under her
charter. Subsequently the controversy
was resumed between the two States, as
| appears by various resolutions of the leg
lslature OF Maryland and letters which
passed between the governors of the two
States between 1906 and 1926 Virginia
| also passed an act in 1888, having for its
object the settlement of the boundary line
and the appointment of the commission
ers, who were to meet similar commits
sioners on-the part of Maryland. In 1884
the State of Maryland filed q bill in the
United States supreme court against the
State of Virginia to settle the case, which.
however, in the belief that the question
could be amicably settled, was subse-
quently withdrawn. But no settlement
was reached and the question then Law
dormant for sixteen years, being revived
In 1904, when both States passed acts for
the appointment of commissioners to
have the line surveyed.
Nothing was done under these acts, and
In 1898 Virginia passed an act providing
10r joint commission to trace the SOUTH
ern boundary from Smiths Point to the
Atlantic ocean, and the western boundary
from "the Fairfax stone to the Pennsyi-
vania line" The Maryland act of 1852
provided only for the appointment of
joint commission to run line north from
the Fairfax stone, with the express pro-
vision that such line, ''when ratified by
both legislatures, - should be the bound
airy between the two States, but it con-
tanned no provision concerning the settle
ment of the southern boundary
Commissioner t. J. Lee. of MARYLAND.
| met Col. Angus w. Mcdonald, commits
sioner of Virginia, and proceed to carry
out instructions in reference to the west
ern boundary. The services of Lieut. n.
Michler. United States army, were OBJ
| tanned, and a line was run from Fairfax
stone to the Pennsylvania line about
| three-fourths of mile.west of the Dea-
kins line. This would give MARYLAND
| the wedge of land she now claims in the
| controversy. The legislature of Mary
land promptly ratified this line, but Vir-
| ginia did not, passing, instead, two reso-
| lutions, one to mark Michler's line, and
another to send an agent to Europe to
l collect documentary evidence Ito ascer-
/ tain and establish the true lines of bound
airy, etc." thus leaving the question still
open and, as the State of Maryland now
claims, leaving her clearly RENTED to her
original rights under her charter, and the
distinct recognition of her boundaries
Hereunder by the Virginia constitution
| of 1776.