Evening star., 1931-12-27

linked in many early ventures in real estate
along the Potomac well in the older
portions Of Charles County fer in that re-
mote day the District Of Columbia formed part
Of the Province of Maryland which had been
named to honor the king who had granted
Lord Baltimore his chart-r. Gerard, however,
previous to his Potomac purchase had become
involved in the conspiracy of Gov. JoSiaS Fem
dali to proclaim the Little Republic of Mary
land and it seemed prudent to dispose of all
remote land holdings. Thompson took over his
associates interests and was apparently sole
proprietor when, in November, 1910, he sold
the Capitol Hill property, Duddington Manor
and Pasture, and New Troy. to Thomas Motley,
then attorney and general land agent for
Charles Calvert and afterward deputy gov
ernor of Maryland 1676-79. Motley filed the
deeds Of transfer on November 20, 1870 and
he relates their names given by Thompson
and Gerard. namely, the Duddingtons and
New Troy. This is strong piece of evidence
that the estate of Duddngton, an integral
portion of the National Capital, did not origi-
nate in the Carroll family, as the impression
universally prevails. 1t was famarly known
under the name of Dlddington from 1662-70.
and Charles Carroll, the immigrant and after
wards attorney general of the province, did
not land on the shores of Maryland until 1888.
26 years later
Thomas Motley paid 4G 900 pounds of tobacco
for the Duddington estate. few months after
the purchase, on March /, 1871, he petitoned
the provincial court to unite his three tracts
into one manorial holding. to be known as
Cerne Abbey Manor. The deeds for this grant,
as well as all subsequent ones may be found
in chronological order among the land war
rants issued from st. Marys City, Marylands
first capital, which are now reposing in the
State House at Annapolis Thompson, Gerard
and Motley may, therefore, be accorded the
honor Of being the first proprietors of Capitol
Hill under the provincial government Of Mary
land"
1T was Daniel Carroll of Duddington and not
! the commissioner, who caused President
Washington much trouble the erection
Of his mansion in the block between and F
streets, New Jersey avenue and Second street
southeast, and which terminated in Mai LEn-
FAINT quitting his position after having designed
the city.
The building which Mr.. Carroll was erect
ing extended seven feet too far into New Jersey
avenue, and the major, using the drastic but
sometimes necessary tactics later employed by
Alexander r. Shepherd. but without consulting
the Commissioners, pulled down the walls On
November II, 1871. MIR. Carroll took the matter
up direct with the President, who indicated his
displeasure over the locating of the structure,
but replied to the complaint in his customary
diplomatic way, saying:
your letter of the 21st came to my hands
on Thursday afternoon. BY the post of the
next morning I was unable to answer It. and
this is the first opportunity that has offered
since by which it could be done.
1T would have been better and given me
more satisfaction if you had made your appeal
to the commissioners. to whose hands all
matters respecting the Federal District and
City are now committed. but as you have made
it to me I must furnish you with nv opinion
and reasons for it.
First, then, permit me to regret, and I do
so sincerely, that the dispute between the pub
lie and yourself is brought to the point at which
it now stands. But what practical relief re-
mains for you? see none. You say yourself
If the house is nuisance you agree to its being
pulled down. simple fact decides the ques-
tion upon your principles viz: Is the whole
or part of 1t in the street? If the answer is in
the Affirmative it is unquestionably nuisance
First because the street is injured by it; sec
ondly because the regulations are infringed,
and thirdly. which, indeed may be considered
as the primary reason, because the original
compact is violated
You add that other houses have fallen in
the streets and are suffered to remain; but does
it follow from hence that they are to continue
in the streets? And is there not wide differ
ence between house built and a house build
ing? The first has already incurred all the
expense that is necessary to make it habitable:
therefore, the public will have no more, per-
haps not so much, to pay for it three five or
seven years hence as now, and the possessor
may enjoy the benefit Of it in the interim But
would that be the case with house not COW
cred in, and which. to make it habitable, win
require considerable additional expense?
Who is to bear the expense when the re-
moval (for it never will be suffered to obstruct
streeD takes place? Would you not complain
more five or seven years hence at being obliged
to pull down your new building after having
incurred Cat your own expense) large addi-
tional sum in the completion than to do it now
when the walls only up? The answer in my
opinion is plain But in the present state Of
the building-under the existing circumstances,
as there appears to have been some misconcep-
tlon between Maj. L'Enfant and you in this bus
1ness-1 am inclined, in behalf of the public to