Evening star., 1941-07-19
Airport Jurisdiction


Wealth'S Attorney Lawrence w.
Douglas of Arlington County, Vir-
ginia, that county law enforcement
authorities will prosecute any one
attempting to sell liquor at the
Washington National Airport is the
latest chapter in a complicated and
long draWn-out boundary contro-
verSy for which King Charles I laid
the foundation in 1852 when he
granted Cecil Calvert, Baron of
Baltimore, title to the wilderness that
was to become the State of Mary
land. That ancient charter defined
the boundary of the grant as eX-
tending unto the true meridian of
the first fountain of the River Pot
towmack, thence verging toward the
South unto the further bank of the
said River, and following the same
on the West and South" The
Supreme Court on three occasions
has ruled that the wording of this
grant gave Maryland-and subSe-
quently that part of Maryland which
became the District of Columbia
jurisdiction of the river to the high
water mark on the Virginia shore.
Natural and artificial accretions to
the Virginia shore led to bitter dis
putes over Jurisdiction, which Con-
greSS sought to settle in 1884 by
creating the District of Columbia
Virginia Boundary Commission. After
lengthy hearings, the commission
recommended that a compromise"
boundary of convenience be drawn
along the Virginia shore at low
water mark and stretching from
headland to headland at certain
points. The Virginia Legislature ap-
proved this finding, but vigorous
opposition by the Federal Govern
ment led to pigeonholing of the plan.
The establishment by the Govern
ment of the Washington National
Airport, mostly on filled ground, re-
vived the juriSdictional dispute in
aggravated form. The main airport
buildings were erected on fast land"
which had been purchased from pri-
vate owners in Virginia by Federal
authorities, whereas the runWayS
were constructed on made land"
outside the original high-water mark
on the Virginia shore. According to
Thomas G. Settle, secretary of the
National Capital Park and Planning
Commission, and w. G. Hayward,
civil engineer for the National Park
Service, who surveyed the airport
property, the terminal building is
some 200 feet inside the former Vir-
ginia shore. Arlington County claims,
therefore, that the authority of Vir-
ginia law enforcement officers en-
compasSes the airport buildings.
The question of divided jurisdiction
came to a head when the Civil Aero
nautics Authority filed application
with the District Alcohol Beverage
Control Board for a license to permit
a conceSSionaire to dispense liquor
in the airport restaurant. The appli-
cation gave the location of the
restaurant as in the District Corpo-
ration Counsel Richmond B. Keech
ruled that AL or a substantial por-
ton" of the airport is in District
territory and that, therefore, the
District should assume jurisdiction
in all license and tax questions. 1t
is this ruling that Commonwealth
Attorney Douglas challenges, con-
tending that since the airport res
taurant was built on land inside the
original Virginia shore line, it is
subject to the laws of Virginia-in-
Guiding the State law against sale of
liquor in restaurants or bars. Past
experience indicates that court pro-
ceedings hold little hope for perma-
nent settlement of the veXatious
and perennial boundary dispute be-
tween the District and Virginia.
Special legislation by Congress, sub
ject to ratification by the State of
Virginia, seems to be the only perma-
nent solution. This matter is of
sufficient Importance to Justify care
ful copcidera tion nv ConprnSs with