Evening star., 1899-05-01
THE POTOMAC FLATS
Case Decided by the Q. S. Supreme
Court.
DECISION BY JUSTICE SHIRAS
Two Of the Judges Dissented From
the Conclusions.
FURTHER TRIAL ORDERED

Decision in the Potomac flats case was
reached by the United States Supreme
| Court today, and Mr.. Justice Shiras de-
| livered the opinion of the court. The case
is entitled Martin f. Morris ct al, appel
lants. agt. the United States; on appeal
from the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia.
The concluding paragraph of the opinion
states the gist of the decision, and is as
follows:
While, therefore. we affirm the decree
of the court below as to the claims of the
Marshall heirs, and as to the kidwell
| patent, and as to the several claims 10
riparian rights as aDpurtenant to lots
bounded on the south by Water street we
| remand the case to the court below for
| further proceedings in accordance with this
| opinion: and it is 50 ordered
Mr.. Justice White and Mr.. Justice Peck
| ham dissented. Mr.. Justice Gray and Mr..
| justice Mckenna were not present at the
| argument and took no part in the decision.
The Heirs of John Marshall
After reciting the history of the case be-
! fore the court below and classifying the
various appellants and the nature of their
| appeal, Mr.. Justice Shiras in his opinion
| goes to state:
! Assuming that the heirs of John Mar
| snail nave become ldWIuIly vested with the
| Fairfax title are of opinion that they
| have failed to show any right or title to
| the lands and premises involved in this
| litigation, and that the decree Of the court
| below, 50 far it affects them, is free
| from error
Considering the claim of the heirs of
James NJ. Marshall alleged successors to
the title of Lord Baltimore to the river Po-
| tomac and the soil hereunder part and
parcel of the grant to him by the patent of
| Charles [ in 1852 the opinion states:
| Briefly expressed the appellants conten-
ton is that the propriety in the soil under
| the river Potomac passed to Lord Balt-
| more and his grantees, and that it passed,
not as one of the regalia of the crown or as
concomitant of government, but an
| absolute proprietary interest, subject 10
! every lawful public use but not the less on
| that account. a hereditament, and the sub
| ject of lawful: ownership and of the right
of full and unqualified possession when
| that public use shall have ceased.
| I'VE need not enter into Il discussion of
| this proposition. because the doctrine on
which it is based has been heretofore ad-
| versely decided by this court in several
! leading and well considered cases.
| 1t cannot be maintained with any show
| of plausibility that Congress intended by
| the act under which these proceedings are
| had that the Supreme Court of the District
| of Columbia, or that this court on appeal
! should have the right to overturn, after
| the lapse of a century, rights originating
in statutes of Maryland and of the United
| States, sustained as valid by their courts.
/. without Right or Title.
| I'VE affirm therefore, the decree of the
| court below, in respect to the Marshall
| heirs, that, in the words of the act of 1885,
| they-have no right title or interest in any
| part of the land water composing any
| part of the Potomac river. or its fats, in
| charge of the Secretary of War"
| The opinion takes up next the claim
| founded the land office patent issued to
| John l.. kidwell. and states:
| we conclude this branch of the case by
| affirming the decision of the court below.
| that the proceedings of Kidwell, under the
resolution of 1899, to obtain a patent for
| the ''kidwel Meadows and the issue of
the patentee or his assigns any title or inter-
| the pantee or his assigns any title or inter-
est in the property within its limits. ad-
verse to the complete and paramount right
| therein of the United States
| 1T is urged On behalf of those claiming
under the Kidwel patent that court of
| equity will not set aside the patent at the
suit of the United States Unless on an offer
| by the latter to return the purchase money;
| that in granting the relief the court will
| impose such terms and qualifications
| shall meet the just equities of the opposing
| party.
AS the invalidity of the patent in the
| present was not apparent on its face,
/ but was proved by eXtrinSc evidence, and
| as the controversy respecting the title was
not abandoned by the defendants. they
| We're not, we think, entitled to decree for
| a return of the purchase money or for
| costs.
The River boundary.
| Before considering the remaining claims
| the opinion disposcs of the question of the
! river boundary of the city of Washington.
| Ii recites the history Of the Dermott and
| Elliott maps of the city and then concludes
without protracting the discussion,
| think, considering the reasonable proba-
| b.lity that 4 public street or IhorOughfare
| WDnli he intErDDSpd between the lois and
| squares and the naVigaDle river, the Ian
| gEage and history of tke acts of Maryland
| referred to, the agreements between the
! original proprietors the deeds to the
| trustees, the subsequent transactions be-
| tween the property holders and the Com
miSSiOnerS, the regulation affecting the use
| of WharVes and docks, published by the
| Commissioners, the several acts of Con-
| gress comforting jurisdiction upon the city
| over the adjacent waters, the several city
| maps and plans, beginning with that of
| l. Enfant, sent by President Washington to
Congress in 1871 and ending with that of
| Elliott approved by President Van Buren
| in 1899, and the views expressed on the
| subject in previous decisions of this court,
| that the conclusion is warranted that from
| the first conception of the federal city, the
| establishment of a public street, bounding
| the city the south, and to be known
| Water street, was intended, and that such
| intention has never been departed from.
The Dissenting Opinion.
The dissenting opinion holds that from
the records it appears that it was under
stood and agreed that riparian rights
should attach to the lots fronting on the
river. To disregard these. the opinion
states. will be equivalent to confiscation
and in reason it cannot be done without
imputing bad faith the illustrious men
who nobly conceived and admirab bly, eX-
ecuted the foundation of the federal city
BALTIMORE CITY ELECTION
Both Sides Claim Victory Tomorrow