Evening star., 1900-02-05
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DECIDE.
Question of Permit to Corporation to
Occupy Certain Space.


The question of the right of the American
Ice Company, successor Of the Great Falls
Ice Company to occupy certain space at
the foot of Georgia avenue southeast,
should the attorney of the District advises
the Commissioners, be referred to the Attor-
ney General, and the Commissioners have
so acted. The Commissioners legal adviser
is Of the opinion that the question involved
is an exceedingly important one, even more
difficulties existing than in the Potomac
flats cases. stating that it was impossible
for him. with the information at hand to
express safe opinion as to the rights of
the Commissioners or of the government in
the property.
originally there was about thirty-siX feet
of water in the Eastern branch, and the
vicinity of this property was regarded as
affordIng much better harbor than the
Potomac front. These considerations gave
the property along the Eastern branch sPe-
cial value at that time.
"One James Barry of Baltimore accord
ing to the account in the possession of the
United States attorney for the District of
Columbia at that time, actually spent S26.-
600 or thereabouts in wharves, and it is
said that the first boat to leave Washington
with a cargo for foreign port left Barry 5
wharf on the property now in question.
THE original plan of the city, as shown
on the Ellicott map of 1892, shows Water
street extended around the whole water
front. including the Eastern branch. At
that time, however, large part of the land
mentioned herein was under water and no
street was, in fact laid out
IF it could be maintained that all persons
acquiring and owning the property did so
subordinate to the original plan of the city,
and therefore subordinate to the plan to
run Water street along the Eastern branch
as in the case along the Potomac front it
would cut off from all owners of the land
the water privileges
The attorney explains that the original
commissioners of the city appear to have
given Barry the use of the property in ques-
ton, and in his opinion whether they could
so confer this right depends upon construc-
tion of the deed of trust made by the orig
inal proprietors, the powers of the Presi-
dent pursuant thereto, and the action Of the
commissioners Hereunder.
ut is clear he says, that this land to
high-water mark at that time was the prop
erty Of the United States, and it is very Ques-
tionable if the deed of trust or the Presi-
dent acting pursuant thereto, had authority
to divest the title Of the United States to
the land then under water. The present
occupants, however, are in possession under
Barry. and have erected extensive improve
ments. and 1t is difficult to see why the
same principle with respect to compensation
for improvements applied in the Potomac
flats case should not apply to those in pos
session Of this particular land inasmuch as
their right to possession was derived from
the commissioners, while the right to pos
session of persons occupying the Potomac
river front was derived from grants by the
old corporation, and by the various COM
missioners of public buildings and grounds.
By several acts of Congress the control of
the streets is vested in the Commissioners
of the District of Columbia
Assuming that the Commissioners have
the right to take action to remove the OBJ
structions upoHthis particular property at
one stage of the proceedings, they would be
required in effect to condemn the improve
ments and allow compensation therefor.
and this could not be done in the absence
of an express act of Congress"