Evening star., 1915-10-20

proprietor. contended that by abandon
| ing the reservations the government
and that the title reverted to the origi-
nal owners But the court held that
! the absolute fee to the reservations and
| streets in the city of Washington was
the government could do what it
| pleased with them, saying:
Nov, upon such legal import. there
do not seem grounds for any reasonable
are declared to be conveyed for the
use of the United States forever These
are the very words which, by law, are
required to vest an absolute uncondf-
tional fee simple In the United states.
They are the appropriate terms of art,
II we may SO say, to express an un-
limited use in the government. II the
government were to purchase lot OF
the very words which the conveyance
would adopt, in order to grant an un-
limited fee to the use Of the govern
ment.
/ Opinion Of Court.
It has been suggested in debate in
Congress that what the Supreme Court
said on this subject in the Van Ness
case was modified by the language used
in Smith VS.. Corporation of Washing
ton, 20 How, 135, which was decided
at the December. 1857, term. But the
only thing decided in that case was
that Congress, acting through its
agent, the corporation of the city of
Washington, had the right to change
the grade of street in front of the
plaintiffs premises without compen-
sating him for the resulting injury to
his property. Mr.. Justice Grier. in de-
livering the opinion of the court. did
indeed refer to the streets of Wash
ington as having been dedicated to the
public and said that LAS in all other
cities and towns, the legal title to the
public streets is vested in the sover-
eign as trustee for the public" But
the case did not present the question
whether the streets In Washington
were dedicated to public use in the
usual manner or conveyed in fee SIM
pie. The Van Ness case was not re-
ferred to in the opinion. nor Is there
court intended to modify what it had
decided in that case. And. as we shall
now see, the Supreme Court since the
Smith case was decided has twice ex-
pressly affirmed its decision in the Van
Ness case.
In the case of Potomac Steamboat
Company against Upper Potomac
Steamboat, Company. 109 U. S.. 672.
which was before the Supreme Court
of the United States in 1884, there was
involved the question whether the
owners of lots fronting on Water
street along the Potomac river, in the
city of Washington owned the riparian
rights which ordinarily belong to own
ers of land bordering on a navigable
river. In opposition to this claim on
the part of the owners of the lots in
question, it was urged that the fee IN
Water street. which ran between these
lots and the river, was owned by the
United States. and that. therefore. the
riparian rights belonged to the gov
ernment and not to the land owners
This claim the Supreme Court sustain
ed. The court referred to and approved
the Van Ness case, and. speaking of
Water street, said:
q. S. Holds It's Title.
Motley Young 1.-THE original pro-
prietorl and the successor to his title
had no property in the street, not even
the right to insist that 1t should be
i maintained as SUCH"
The United States held its title to
the land over which 1t was laid out for
| its own use. and not in trust for any
person or for any purposes"
In 1889, in the case of Morris VS..
United States, commonly called THE
| Potomac Flats Case" ia U. s., 1916,
| this question of the ownership of the
| riparian rights, including the title to
accretions along the Potomac river
front of the city of Washington. was
again passed upon by the Supreme
Court.
Extensive fats. exposed when the tide
was out, had formed along the river
I front, and among other questions in
/ volved in the case was whether these
| flats and the wharfing privileges along
the river belonged to the owners of
land along the river front, or to the
United States. After very thorough
n m a
pertaining to the acquisition of the
District of Columbia and the laying
out of the city of Washington. the
court held that both the fats and the
riparian rights involved belonged to
the general government. The court in
its opinion again referred to and ap-
proved the Van Ness case.
The flats which were the subject Of
| controversy in that case now form a
! part of Potomac Park.
Thus the ownership of highways in
that part of the present city of Wash
ington which was included in the orig
inal plans is altogether different from
that interest which the public in other
cities acquires by the ordinary process
of condemnation or dedication to the
public use. In the language of dis
tinguished member of the House (Mr.
Garfield. on 18th of June. 1870:
Government Holds Streets.
"They (the fathers) went even fur
| ther. They went SO far as to arrange
| that the fee simple of the streets Of
| the federal city should be exclusively
and only in the government. And so
| far as know. it is the only city on the
globe that owns the fee simple to every
foot of the streets in 1t. We
| could build a block of buildings all the
way from the western front of our
Capitol to the Treasury. filing Penn
sylvania avenue from side to side. If we
chose to do so, because we own every
| foot of the ground"
In 1871 the legislative assembly of
the District Of Columbia passed an act
declaring judgments obtained in the
courts of this District liens on equi-
table interests of the judgement debtor
| in real estate in the District. Under
the laws of Maryland, which at that
| time governed the subject in this Dis
trict. a judgment bound the lands of
| the Judgment debtor only when he held
! an unincumbered interest therein.
In the case of Roach agt. Van Ris-
| wick (MacArthur and Mackey's re-
port. page 171) the Supreme Court Of
! tho District of Columbia. sitting in