The times., 1898-10-04

case, WIncn involves the rlSnt ana tltle
to all property within the corporate
limits of the District of Columbia bor-
dering on the Potomac River.
The ease has been in litigation some
years. The question of the rights and
titles 10 the property is raised by the
original suit of the United States Gov
ernment against the heirs of James Mar
shall and those of his brother, the late
Chief Justice John Marshall, and others.
The Governments claim began with
and is based upon the act of Congress of
August 2, 1882, which authorized an APP
preparation of four hundred thousand
dollars for improving the Potomac River,
with reference to facilitating navigation,
establishing harbor lines, and raising the
flats. under the direction of the Secretary
of War.
The same act made it the duty of the
Attorney General TO examine all claims
of title TO the premises concerned and to
institute suits in equity against all
claimants of title under any patent,
which, in his opinion, was by mistake or
improperly or Illegally issued for any
part of the marshes or flats within the
limits of the proposed Improvement"
BY other acts of Congress other appro-
priations were made for continuing the
improvements, aggregating upwards of
1,750, 600.
Still another enactment of August 8,
1885, made ii the further duty of the At
torney General Ito institute in the Su-
preme Court of the District of Columbia
a suit against all persons or 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
Washington, or exterior to said limits.
and in front thereof towards the channel
of the Potomac River, and composing
any part of the land or water affected
by the Improvement OF the Potomac
River or its flats, in charge of the Sec
retary of War, for the purpose OF estab-
fishing and making clear the right of the
United States thereto"
The act also required all persons inter-
ested in the subject matter of the suit,
or in the land or water mentioned, to ap-
pear and answer the bill and set forth
and maintain any right, title, interest or
claim that they might have in the prem
ises.
The lands thus reclaimed under the leg
islation of Congress comprise total area
of nearly $50 acres, and claims and pre-
tentions of various kinds have been set
up by those who claimed title or interest
in the property.
Claims of Marshall Heirs.
The claims made by the Marshall heirs
is to the ownership of the whole bed of
the river from shore to shore under
grant from the crown of England to Lord
Culpeper and others, for what is known
as the Northern Neck of Virginia, and
under deed from the present legal rep
resentatives of Henry Hartford, the last
proprietor of the Province of Maryland.
The Marshall heirs claim absolute pos
session of the land in controversy in this
suit. alleging that il Is the waste and
unappropriated lands of the Northern
Neck. They aver that Lord Culpeper be-
came the owner by grants from King
Charles II and King James II, and that
his title passed to Lord Fairfax, who, by
will dated March, 1772, bequeathed the
property TO his nephew, Denny Martin,
who added Fairfax TO his name and
whose title was confirmed by the Su-
preme Court of the United States. Denny
Martin Fairfax, by indenture, dated Au-
gust 80, 1877, conveyed TO James Marshall,
the ancestor of some of the defendants,
all the property mentioned.
The claim of the Marshall heirs also
brings into the controversy the differ
ences between Maryland and Virginia az
to the boundary line between those
| States. 1t is asserted by the heirs that
from the time of the grant of the North
ern Neck, which in express terms en-
braced the Potomac River, there had
been continual disputes and controversies
between those with claims under the Bal
fillmore patent and those with claims
under the Culpeper patent with respect
to the ownership of the said river. There
fore they went to work TO discover the
heirs of Henry Hartford, who was lord
proprietary of Maryland at the COM
mencement of the Revolutionary War, In
order that a compromise and adjustment
might be made which would settle the
disputed title to the said river, the title
TO the Potomac River and the soil and
water thereof ito the farther bank"
having been asserted and claimed by Ce-
cilus Calvert, lord of Baltimore, and
| those who succeeded him as lords pro-
prietor of Maryland under and by virtue
of the patent of King Charles I, of Great
! Britain, and having decended TO Henry
| Hartford. the heirs allege that they OBJ
tanned from Frederick Henry Hartford,
/ descendant of Henry Hartford a deed,
| dated June 3. 1883, by which he conveyed
to the Marshall heirs all right, title and
| interest, both at law and in equity, which
he or any person or persons might claim
! through the patents of Lord Baltimore,
! and to any portion of the land and water
embraced in the act of Congress and in
! this suit
The Governments Claim.
The Governments claim is based on
! the fact that Henry Hartford, who died
! in England In 1884, was British subject,
and the property was confiscated in 17St
to the use of the State of Maryland and
in 17sf was ceded by Maryland to the
United States.
! The Marshall heirs deny this claim on
the ground that after the passage of the
| confiscation acts by the State of Mary
! land in 17S0, a preliminary treaty OF
! peace between the United States and
! Great Britain was proclaimed by Con-
gress on April II, 1883, by which it was
! agreed that Congress should earnestly
recommend to the legislatures of the re-
| spective States the restitution of all the
| estates, rights, and property which had
been confscated from British subjects.
and that there should be no fur
ther confiscation of Britishr pfoperty
and that British subjects might grant,
sell and devise lands held by them to
whomsoever they pleased.
1t is further declared that after the
! treaty of peace the United States OBJ
tanned from Maryland the cession of the