The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-22
THE POTOMAC FLATS Case
Reopening of a Long Drawn Out
Legal Controversy.
Value of Wharf Property Along the
River Front to be Determined by
judicial Enquiry-Fourteen Years
of Litigation and How IL Arose.

The decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States in May. 1899, in what
Is generally known as the Potomac Flats
case, vesting the title to certain lands
along the Potomac River within the Dis
trict limits, in the Government. did not
finally dispose of the matter. The ques-
tion Of the ownership of property along
the river front has been a subject of liti-
cation for nearly fourteen years. 1t was
thought to have been finally settled by
the decision of the Supreme Court of the
! United States but the act of March ..
1891. makes It necessary that the case shall
be again reopened in order that the value
of the wharf property along the river
front shall be determined by judicial en-
quiry, and the amounts agreed upon dis
tributed to persons entitled 10 it.
Some time ago the United States Attor-
ney for the District sent out notices to
all persons who claimed ownership in any
wharf property and also to lessees. in
forming them of the action about to be
taken by the Government. The notice in
formed those having claims on the wharf
property that such a motion would be
filed in the District branch of the Su-
preme Court of the District April 3.
From time to time on account of the Ill
delayed. 1t was practically decided last
week by District Attorney Anderson that
the motion looking to the reopening of
the case should be made tomorrow in the
District Court. Since this date was de-
cided on, however, Mr.. Anderson has been
appointed member of the bench of the
Supreme Court of the District to succeed
Charles {. Cole, whose resignation an
associate justice goes into effect today.
In this connection it may b. stated that
in all probability former Justice Cole
will be appointed a special attorney to
conduct the Potomac Flats case, in the
interest of the Government.
The litigation for the reclamation of
the Potomac flats was instituted by the
Attorney General for the United States
in August 1856, under an act passed by
Congress for the protection of the in
terests of the United States in the Poto-
mac flats, in the District of Columbia
In the proceedings instituted, all persons
who set up any claim to ownership in the
property Immediately lying along the Po-
tomac River, within the District, were
made defendants. After years of litiga-
tion in the District courts and the Su-
preme Court of the United States, the de-
cision of the latter finally vested
erty ON the Potomac River front, from
Easby's wharf 10 the Arsenal, and from
beyond the Eastern Branch to Giesboro
Point. The act of March g. 1899, vested
in the District Commissioners complete
control and authority over the wharf
property in the District. Two years later
Congress passed another act which pro-
yides for the reimbursement to the own
ers of wharf structures. certain amounts
to be agreed on and determined by the
courts. for these Improvements. The
method of ascertaining the value of the
property will be the taking of testimony
before an examiner or examiners, which
will be appointed by the court.
For some time prior to 1852, when the
fact became known that claims would
be made by private parties to the land
which the Government proposed reclaim
ing along the river front, the matter was
made subject of legislative enquiry be-
fore Congress. Large amounts of money
had been appropriated by Congress an
nually for the purpose of reclaiming and
improving the flats. No excuses were
wanting by persons who claimed owner
ship in the lands reclaimed and i'm
proved by the Government at great cost.
The heirs OF Chief Justice John Marshall
filed claim to portion of the reclaimed
territory, claiming 1t to be part of a
grant made to Lord Culpeper, of Virginia,
which embraced tract of land lying be-
tween the Rappahannock and Potomac
rivers. They also based their claim on a
grant of land to Lord Baltimore, of Mary
land. They contended that the title
gained from the Culpeper grant gave
them ownership of not only the land
lying between the two rivers. but to the
rivers also, subject, however, to the
rights of navigation. The heirs of John
l.. Kidwell also set up claim to lands
lying both sides of the river front
from Easbys wharf to Giesboro Point
This claim was based on the patent
from the General Land Office, issued in
1863. vesting title to about forty-eight
acres Of land and water near the old
Observatory grounds. The Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Company, the heirs of
Robert Peter, and many others filed
claims to wharfage property on the river
front from Seventeenth Street to the
Long Bridge.
Under the terms of the act of Congress
of March last claimants will be entitled
to compensation for the parts of the