Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-08-19
THE CITY LIMITS
They Extend to tie Opposite Shore of
Eastern Branch.
JUDICIAL &cgt6Ns 50 DECLARE
Mr.. Hugh T. Taggart's Formidable
Array Of Authorities.
DISTRICT OFFICIALS DIFFER

The question having been raised in con-
nection with the: authority granted the
Capital Railway Company yesterday by
the Commissioners to propel its cars by
means Of the trolley across the Navy Yard
bridge whether or not the bridge is within
the city limits, Star reporter today asked
the opinion Of several District officials on
the subject The reply, without hesitation
and unanimous, was that the bridge is
entirely in the county. That fact is plainly
set forth, so 1t was said, by the maps
showing the bounds Of the original city OF
Washington. 49,,
1t was explained by an official of the en-
gineer department that the case Of the troll
ley on the Navy Yard bridge Is precisely
similar to that Of the trolley Of the Wash
ington, Alexandria and Mount Vernon Rail-
way Company on the Long bridge. The
Long bridge is without the limits of the
city, and equally so, it was called to at
tention, IS the Navy Yard bridge.
An Unanswernble Demonstration.
In the opinion Of Assistant District At
torney Hugh T. Taggart, who Is probably
the best-informed man in the District on
the subject. the city limits extend to the
opposite shores Of the. Potomac; certainly,
he thinks. to the opposite shores of the
Eastern branch OF the river. In support of
his position. Mr.. Taggart geferFed to 1.-The
decision of the District Supreme Court In
General Term in the case of the United
States against Martin +. Morris and others,
commonly known as the Potomac flats
case.
This case was decided the 18th Of last
October, Judge Hagner delivering the
cistes in the case being Chief Justice Bing-
ham and Judge McCOmas The United
States was represented in the case by Mr..
Fa6gart, and among his contentious was
Of Washington include that tract of re-
claimed land In the Potomac known as the
kid& Eli +1naadews. That GOntentiSn,nMaB
sustained by the court, and. in referring to
repeated grants of jurisdiction by the
United States to the corporate authorities,
the judge says they are demOnstrative of
the belief of Congress that the waters Of
the Potomac in front of the city were I'M
doubtedly within its limits.
Unquestionable Authorities.
But" continues the court. this very
point has been the subject of judicial decis-
lon by the courts Of this District. In pur-
sIance' Of theT.powets cOnf1ded, to it by
these various laws. the corporation passed
the ordinance of February Z. 1852 (Webb's
Digest, 1863. providing, That it shall not be
lawful for any>boat or vessel propelled by
miles per hour, In approaching or leaving
the city. north Of the Washington arsenal,
ana imposing a penalty for it's violation.
Lhe corporation brought suit May -. 1852,
before a Justice of the peace against the
master of a. steamer to recover the pen
atty, charging him with the violation of the
ordinance. and recovered Judgment, which,
on appeal to the Circuit Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia. was affirmed. The court
decided the ordinance was valid police
regulation; and that the place where its in
traction occurred. being east and north Of
the main channel and north of the arsenal
was within the corporate limits of the CITY
which extended to the middle of the main
channel Of the river. Vol. 2. p. 531.''
Declarations Even MDfa~ DeHnffe.
But the. court goes further, for, after re<
ferrins to the acts CT Congress passed with
respect to bridge across the Potomac near
the location of the present Long bridge,
Judge Hagner says, speaking of course for
the Court in General Term: by the act
of March g. 1889, Oh. 229 Is Statutes, 800,
1t was enacted that the bounds of the city
of Washington and of the county of Wash
1hSton were extended SO as to comprehend
the causeway and bridge lately constructed
across the river Potomac to the opposite
shore; and the corporation was thereby EN-
powered to adopt and enforce necessary
rules and regulations for the safety AMI
security of persons and property passing
tIlc ChuSe"dy anu DTiQSo. Inc purpose oil
this act for the protection of the bridge
was to extend the jurisdiction of the city
beyond the middle Of the main channel, to
which it had previously been limited, and
not to confer jurisdiction over the waters
for the first time as was urged by John
Wilson IN his brief to the commissioner in
behalf Of the patent. 30 - -.,,,
Additional Proofs, Submitted.
by chapter %. 1871 6 Stat, 462)," fur
theF QYp1aipa the
priated sum Of money for the repair of
the Long bridge, to be expended by the
Engineer Corps; and by the act of 1852 CHI
1Os 40 Stat. 3d. another sum for the re-
pair OF the bridge over the Eastern branch:
and required that the bridges across the
Potomac. and Eastern branch thereof be
surrendered TO the authorities of the Dis
trict of Columbia"
Still another legislative declaration as to
the cltys limits is referred to by the court
In the following words: by the act of
18th of August 1856 al Stat, 12M. # was
declared that the bounds Of the cornora tio,,
OF Washington were extended so far as to
comprehend the lower Eastern branch or
Navy Yard bridge; and 1t was emnoWereI,
TO enact regulations respecting the safety
OF persons or property crossing it,"
IN concluding its reference to this phase
or the case, and in sustaining AR Tai
CARTS contention, the court said eft Is
not conceivable that a policy should then
have been inaugurated that would eir,um-
scribe the powers of the city within mar
rover limits than those alwiys comm;tta1
to ordinary municipalities slmilarlv ,ocatad
Inc presumption would rather have heen
that, within the just bounds Of frno ra'
publican government, Congress wn,,1d on
GOV. the capitar city with exceptional priv
1leges and powers p'''
Justice Story's Words.
Then the court quotes the words of Mr.
Justice Story in thegease of Van Ness VS..
the city of Washington
They Uhe original owners) must also
have contemplated that a municipal cor
poraticn must soon.fss created to manage
the concerns and police and public inter
ests of the city: and that such a CORPORA
ton would and 9ught,'ttp possess the ordinary
powers for municipal purposes which are
usually confided to such corporate bodies.
They might. and ipaeed must, also have
placed just confidence in the government.
that in founding trg city it would do TO-
act that would obstruct it's prosperity or
interfere with its great Fundamental OBJ
jects or interests. IT could never be sup
posed that Congress would seek to de-
stroy what its'5wn legislation had created
and fostered into being. On the other hand
it must have been obvious that, as Congress
must forever have an interest to protect
oil ba rit