Evening star., 1934-09-05
BOUNDARYD|SPUTE
OVER SHORE AREA
INQUIRY IS OPENED
Government Brief Asserts
Virginia Side Lands Are
Inside District.
ATTORNEYS PACK ROOM
AS CASE is INITIATED
State Has Time to Answer Con.
tentiOns Touching Upon
Right of Taxation.

|
opened its fight before the Virginia.
District of Columbia Boundary Com
mission today to establish title and
Jurisdiction to thousands of dollars
worth Of property on the Virginia side
of the Potomac-an area including
approximately two-thirds of the
Washington Airport and a large part
Of Arlington County's industrial Sec
| ton.
In a s8-page brief filed with the
commission by Henry H. Classic and
Judge G. A. Iverson, special assist
ants to the Attorney General, the Gov
! ernment challenged the authority Of
the commission to alter the present
legal boundary" decreed by the Su-
| preme Court as the Potomac's high
| water line of 1871, and declared the
commissions function Is to mark this
boundary "as 1t exists In point of fact
and not as people would like to
have it,"
Lines Altered Since 1891.
Since 1871 the Virginia shore has
changed considerably. At some
points the Potomac has receded; at
/ others land has been made by filling
IN waterway areas, creating stretches
of land. the title and Jurisdiction
| over which has been in dispute for
more than 100 years.
At the very outset Of the hearing,
Classic and Judge Iverson renewed
the Governments protest against set
ting forth its case in advance of any
| statement by the Commonwealth Of
| Virginia or any other party showing
any ground or reason for departure
from the legal boundary as already
established by adjudication of the
Supreme Court Of the United States"
Virginia has three weeks in which
to file its answer to the Governments
contentious
The commission, composed of
Charles H. Brough, chairman; NAL
colin A. McConihe, representing the
District, and William G. Cloth, jr.,
representing Virginia, adjourned after
the Government rested its case. An
other hearing will be called when
virginia Is ready to reply.
Attorneys Crowd Conference.
The conference room of the National
Capital Park and Planning Commis-
sion, where the hearing was held. was
crowded with attorneys from the Dis
trict and Virginia. Some represented
private property owners In the dis
puted areas In Arlington County and
Alexandria. Others represented the
City Of Alexandria. Arlington County.
In which most of the property in con-
troversy Is located, was without repre-
sentation as result of the failure of
the County Board to employ q legal
representative.
In addition to the voluminous brief.
the Government filed with the conn
mission four maps, which, it claimed.
were four sources of evidence, which.
taken together. clearly and unequiv-
ocally establish the precise location of
the high water line from a point op-
posite Georgetown to the upper north.
ern limits Of the City of Alexandra.
These exhibits were the map of the
Territory of Columbia" made In 1893
by Andrew Elliott; the Maskell c.
Ewing map of 1887, map of the route
OF the Alexandria Canal Cod made In
Of the Alexandria Canal Co. made in
1863-64 by the United States Coast
Survey.
Major Government Contentious.
Among the major points made by
the Government in support of its
case were:
Until evidence has been SUBJ
mltted oy the Commonwealth of Vir-
ginia that the boundary runs other
wise than has been declared by the
supreme Court, the only question for
consideration by the commission Is
whether the boundary line as shown
on the map submitted represents in
point OF fact the boundary estab-
lished and called for by the con-
trolling adjudications.
There IS a total want Of power in
Congress, as well as in the Commits
sion, to change or modify the limits
OF the District of Columbia, established
as the permanent seat of government
OF the United States under article q
or the Constitution. Consequently.
there Is no power to alter the legal
boundary between the constitutional
District and the Commonwealth of
Virginia as that boundary has been
established by the adjudications of the
United States Supreme Court"
The brief pointed out: $50 far as
these representatives are advised. the
only parties setting up any dispute
with respect to that boundary are
certain private individuals and CORP
orations asserting ownership Of lands
made out OF the Potomac River below
the high water line as 1t existed at
the creation Of the District of Column
bia. So far as the Commonwealth of
Virginia Is concerned, the representa-
tives OF the United States before this
commission are placed by the commits
sion's ruling under the necessity of
making supposed claim on the part
OF the Commonwealth Of Virginia
which that Commonwealth has never
made or stated"
Later Changes Held Impossible.
The general position of the Gov
eminent Is that no private person by
any artificial operation can alter the
natural containing bank of a public
river to the prejudice Of the sovereign
State, which Is the owner of the bed
and shore, and vested with the control
and protection of the stream.
THE legal character of the soil un-
derlying the waters of a public river
is determined exclusively by the char
acter of the waters themselves the
brief declared I'VE, therefore SUBJ
NIT, that the apparent acquiescence
by Virginia in the alteration of the
bank by the owners of land within its
territorial jurisdiction, warrants the
United States In the assertion that
the right created by this excavation
should be deemed a part of the Po-
tomac River, and that the change In
the binding shore should be treated
as If It had occurred through the