The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1909-11-11


rooms. Plush ropes are hung across
the corridor and no one may pass from
the Senate to the House end of the Cap
itOl until the members of the court have
crossed the corridors.
Attaches recall time when Mr..
Cleveland was arguing an important
case when , O'Clock arrived and he had
not finished. He could have finish. d
within 10 minutes and said: II shall
keep your Honors only few more min
utes
The court takes its recess at the
hour of , o'clock" was the response
that Mr.. Cleveland received
The argument today was the first APP
pearance of Mr.. Straus in a lengthy
argument before the court. He has
appeared there often before with mo-
tons and shorter arguments, but this
was the first big argument that he had
made, and he was in excellent trim,
presenting Maryland 5 case with mas
terry of all its details and with great
force. At the conclusion of his argu-
ment there were audible comments of
approval from members of the court.
"A fine argument, exclaimed Justice
Harlan quite audibly and the lawyers
who had assembled in the courtroom to
hear the case congratulated Mr.. ,Straus
at the end of his argument.
The case is one Of the most important
that has been argued before the court
for some time. The record is volum-
inous, consisting of 1000 closely printed
pages, and embraces rare historical
documents connected with phases of the
controversy from the time of Charles |
and the first Lord Baltimore down to
the present. The argument was opened
for Maryland on Tuesday with an hour
argument from Mr. Edward H. Sincell.
Mr.. George E. Price, one of the leaders
of the bar of West Virginia, occupied
most of the day yesterday, and Attor-
ney-General Straus' argument, which
began at noon and closed at 2:l8, closed
the case tor Maryland.~ The court has
taken the case under consideration, and
its decision will be awaited with inter
est.
Attorney-General Straus began his
argument today with a detailed consid-
Grafton of the grants in the charter of
King Charles | to the first Lord Balti-
more. The main point of inquiry in the
case is as to the exact location of the
first fountain of the Potomac river.
Mr.. Straus argued that according to
the construction of the Charter, the
first fountain of the Potomac river was
itself point within the boundary of
Maryland, and was the common ter
minus of both the western and southern
boundaries of the State. He cited au-
thorities, both legal and historical. to
sustain this view He proceeded to
show that if such was the true con-
struction of the Charter of Lord Balti-
more. it negatived the claim of West
Virginia that the spring where the
Fairfax stone is located is the first
fountain of the river West Virginia
claims that Fairfax stone marks the
first fountain of the river, and at the
same time that the boundaries of Mary
land do not even extend that far. This
position the Attorney-General vigorous
ly combatted showing that it was in
conflict with the calls for the bound
aries of the State. Mr.. Straus con-
tended that the first fountain of the
river is at the Potomac Spring, about
mile and half west of Fairfax Spring.
A strong feature of his argument
was his construction of the effect OF the
proceedings between the commissioners
of Lord Fairfax in England and the
commissioners representing the colony
of Virginia in l745, whereby the spring
at the Fairfax stone was fixed as the
fountain, or source, of the Potomac,
Mr.. Straus contending for Maryland
that those proceeding did not bind Lord
Baltimore, and West Virginia having
contended that they did bind him and
Maryland as his successor in title. An
other important feature of Mr.. Straus'
argument was his construction IN court
of the charter granted by Charles | in
1882 to the first Lord Baltimore.
The Attorney. General then addressed
himself to the most difficult part of the
case, from the standpoint of Maryland's
claim, wherein West Virginia set up
the old Deakins line as marking
boundary up to which Virginia and
West Virginia, as her successor, have
been in possession for more than 100
years. Mr.. Straus contended that the
peakins line had no real existence, that
it never was actually run by Francis
Deakins, its reputed surveyor, and that
the case furnished no evidence which
could afford a basis upon which the
court could adopt the Deakins line as a
boundary between the two States. He
argued that the act of the General As
sembly of Maryland of 1887, under
which Deakins laid out the military lots