The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-02-02
POTOMAC FRONT PROPERTY.
Report on the Bill for Protection of
Government Rights.

Mr. Jenkins. OF the House District Com
mittee, has submitted TO the House the
report on the bill relative to the suit in
stituted for the protection of the inter
ests Of the United States in the Potomac
Flats He includes in his report the fol-
lowing letter from Thomas H. Anderson,
United States Attorney fer the District OF
Columbia:
Sir: In a letter to you, of which
copy is enclosed | stated that there was
a question in the minds of the judges of
the Supreme Court of the District of Co
lumbia whether. in the present condition
of the legislation on the subject, they
should grant the motion which had been
made to them on behalf Of the United
States for the passage of such further or
der as might be necessary to carry into
effect the requirements of the mandate
of the Supreme Court of the United States
in the Potomac Flats case.
las explained in that letter, and as may
be here briefly stated, the doubt arose
under the following state of facts: The
Jurisdiction of the court below under the
act OF 1856 was limited to the investiga-
ton and determination OF claims OF In
terests adverse to the United states in any
portion of the land and water within the
limits of the improvements of the Poto-
mae River and its fats in charge of the
Secretary of War The claims made by
certain of the defendants to the suit to
riparian rights south of Water Street
were held by the decree of the court be-
low to be invalid, and it was further held
that such rights belonged TO the United
States. This decree was confirmed on ap-
peal to the Supreme Court of the United
States. which held, however. that the
owners Of the wharf structures proper
and Of the buildings used in connection
with them were entitled to compensation
for such structures and buildings.
THE jurisdiction of the court below
TO do this as to the wharf structures and
as to the buildings which are wholly in
and over the waters of the Potomac River
was clear. Whether in a case where the
buildings were partly in and over the
water and extended partly beyond the
shore line and over and upon the firm
land adjoining, belonging to the United
States, the court had jurisdiction as to
such extension to ascertain and deter
mine values in like manner became
question.
while strong ground in reason exists
TO support the contention that the court.
under the circumstances. is invested with
Jurisdiction to ascertain and determine
the values of such wharf structures and
buildings is one property entirety, never
theless, In view of large interests involv-
ed it is the part of prudence to place the
matter beyond the possibility of debate by
affirmative legislation, enlarging in terms
the jurisdiction of the court.
Il, therefore, respectfully suggest the
propriety of a recommendation by the
Attorney General to the Judiciary Com
mittee Of the two houses of Congress for
the Enactment Of such legislation, and
transmit herewith the draft of an act
which, if passed, will. in my opinion, re-
lieve the situation of any legal difficulty.
Il learn from expressions which have
fallen from the judges that they are in
favor of legislation of the character in
dicate1"