The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1910-02-24
To FIX MARYLANO-WEST
VIRGINIA BOUNDARY LINE
Supreme Court Orders New Survey of
State Boundary.

NSSSNS A'iOiiNdJ hCNidCd SilC bloBulOu
boundary case between Maryland and
West Virginia which has been before
the Court since 1891 Justice Day read
the decision of the Court. The Court
holds in brief that the Deakins line,
while not an astronomically correct line,
has been for so many years regarded
by the people of both states as the
boundary line, and the State of Mary
land has acquiesced so long in the exer-
else of jurisdiction over the territory
that West Virginia's claim is superior.
Accordingly the two states are directed
to select three commissioners within the
next 40 days who shall relocate the old
/ Deakins lire, and make a report to the
Supreme Court. Should the tn 0 states
fail to agree on a commission within the
limit set by the Court, the Supreme
Court itself will appoint the commits
sioners.
West Virginia's claim to jurisdiction
over the Potomac river is fatty denied,
and previous decision of the Supreme
Court is cited, showing that the charter
of Maryland given to Lord Baltimore
by King Charles |, conveys to him the
Potomac river and the soil under it, and
the islands therein to high-water mark
on the Virginia shore.
The opinion is very lengthy. 1t points
out that the contention of the State of
Maryland is rested upon the construc-
ton of the charter granted by King
/ Charles |, on June 80, 1852, to Lord
Baltimore. A portion of the charter is
quoted, and the court points out that
there is some difference in the rec I'd
as to some Of the Latin text and the
translation. but that for its purposes it
is sufficient to consider the record as
presented by the State of Maryland. 1t
Is to be observed that the purpose Of its
part of the grant was to locate the
northern line Of the State of Maryland
from Delaware Bay to the true meridian
Of the first fountain of the River Poto-
mac; then tending downward toward
the south to the further part of said
river, and following it to where it faces
the western and southern asts as far
as to certain place called Choptank.
1t is the contention of Maryland that
the controversy between the two is mar
rowed down to the proper location Of
the true meridian from the first foun-
tain head of the Potomac river, which,
being located, would effectually settle
the boundary line in dispute.
The court then points out the lines
run, respectively, from the Fairfax
stone and the Potomac stone. 1t is in
sisted for the State of Maryland that
the spring at Potomac stone most near
ly fulfils the terms of the Lord Balti-
more charter. On the other hand,
West Virginia contends that the true
head of the Potomac river is at the
Fairfax stone. and that the boundary
should be located by a line from the
spring at that point. Such has long
been the recognized boundary line be-
tween Virginia, West Virginia and Ma
ryland. The distance from the Fairfax
meridian is about one and one-fourth
miles and the distance to the Pennsyl-
vania line is about 81 miles.
1t may be true, says the court, that
the meridian line from the Potomac
stone more fully answers the calls of
the original charter than does the
meridian line starting from.the Fairfax
stone. but it is to be remembered that
the grant to Lord Baltimore was made
when the region of the country intended
to be conveyed was little known was
wild and unlnhabited, had never been
surveyed or charted and the location of
the upper part Of the Potomac River
was largely matter of conjecture.
The so-called Potomac stone was
neither set nor located until 1897, six
years after the beginning of this suit,
when it was put in place by the survey
or on the part of Maryland. He desig-
mated monument set by him as the
Potomac stone and the so-called Poto-
mac meridian line was run by the same
engineer. The court then reviews in
great detail the history of the Fairfax
stone. Without stopping to mention the
cases in which Virginia has recognized
the Fairfax monument in creating coun-
ties and otherwise, it is to be noted that
the Fairfax stone was recognized as a
boundary point by the State of Mary
land in locating Garrett county, the
boundary between which and Preston
county, W. Va, it was the purpose of
the act of the legislature of Maryland
to Rave settled by the filing of the bill
and proceedings in the present case.
The court then comes to the Deakins
line and cites the legislative history of
Maryland providing for its survey.
! "The action of Deakins in adopting