Maryland State Archives

1) problems installing or using viewers such as kodakimg or wangimg; interference from Quicktime

[This grant contained language that asserted ownership of the whole of the Potomac River. It did not revoke prior grants, including the earlier grant to Lord Baltimore of June 1632 that also included the whole of the Potomac River. Defining the extent of the grant was a long process concluded by a decision by the Privy Council on April 11, 1745, in favor of Fairfax's claim as to the source of the Potowmac. That decision resulted in the map referred to by Cecilius Calvert (see detail from the ca. 1747 map). See Charles M. Andrews, The Colonial Period of American History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1936. Vol. II:234-238, for a discussion of the Fairfax grant. See also the minutes of the Privy Council relating to the mapping of Fairfax's boundaries. It is important to stress that the Privy Council explicitly did not address anything other than the location of the line from the headwaters of the Rappahanock to the headwaters of the Potomac. It did not address the meaning or application of any other language in the charter:

1745 6 April. [Committee: 14 present. The committee rehearse the case, and recommend that] the question being only concerning that Boundary which ought to be drawn from the first head or spring of the River Rappahannock to the first head or Spring of the River Pattawomeck alias Potowmack the committee do Agree humbly to Report to Your Majesty as their Opinion that within the words and meaning of the Letters Patent Granted by King James the second bearing date the 27th day of September in the fourth Year of his Reign the said Boundary ought to begin at the first Spring of the ... Rappahannock now called Rappidan ...in a Streight Line North West to ... where the River Patawomeck alias Potowmack ...first Arises the other Boundarys being the said Rivers themselves as they run from their said respective Heads till they fall into Chesapeyock alias Chesapeak Bay...]

According to Whealton, p. 20, "Charles, [5th] Lord Baltimore, was not represented and had no part in the work" of the Commission that mapped Fairfax's claim." The commission to map the area was the result of a 1733 petition to the king for a survey to have the bounds of the Fairfax grant determined. For much of 1733, Charles was in Maryland and may not have been aware of the petition that resulted in the commission, but as Cecil Calvert makes clear, Charles did know of the proceedings in 1745 and of the resulting map. That was the whole point of Cecilius's letter to Sharpe (MSA SC 5796-10-16). He was expressing shock and amazement that Charles did not join, nor contest the survey. According to Cecilius (Charles's brother) Charles was present at the 1745 Privy Council hearings held because Virginia and Fairfax could not agree on the location of Fairfax's boundary. Those hearings only dealt with the location of the fountainhead of the Potomac. They did not address the assertion in the language of the Fairfax grant that Fairfax owned the whole of the river Potomac. That assertion would be left to the Supreme Court to carefully review and reject many years later. As Justice Shiras decreed in Morris v. U.S. ( 174 U.S. 196):

we agree with the conclusion of the court below, that, upon all the evidence, the charter granted to Lord Baltimore, by Charles I, in 1632, of the territory known as the Province of Maryland, embraced the Potomac River and the soil under it, and the islands therein, to high-water mark on the southern or Virginia shore; that the territory and title thus [***49] granted to Lord Baltimore, his heirs and assigns, were never divested by any valid proceedings prior to the Revolution; nor was such grant affected by the subsequent grant to Lord Culpeper.

The record discloses no evidence that, at any time, any substantial claim was ever made by Lord Fairfax, heir at law of Lord Culpeper, or by his grantees, to property rights in the Potomac River or in the soil thereunder, nor does it appear that Virginia ever exercised the power to grant ownership in the islands or soil under the river to private persons. Her claim seems to have been that of political jurisdiction.

Without pursuing further this branch of the subject, and assuming that the heirs of John [**662] Marshall have become lawfully vested with the Fairfax title, we are of opinion that they have failed to show any right or title to the lands and promises involved in this litigation, and that the decree of the court below, so far as it affects them, is free from error.

Short version

Full footnoted version

draft review of Virginia's brief, prepared on 12/10/00

[The biggest problem in this whole case, as is the case of much of history, is proving that people are silent on a particular issue or definition simply because everyone at the time knows what it means so that explaining what is meant is not necessary. In my opinion, everyone at Mt. Vernon in 1785, Washington included, knew that the compact was intended for and designed only for administering jointly certain explcitly outlined issues related to the then navigable portions of the Potomac River (from ca. Georgetown to the the mouth) and that, Maryland and Virginia, having just resolved how they would handle the improvement of navigation above Tidewater through the establishment of a partially publicly funded, private corporation. It never entered into their minds that the Compact they would shortly negotiate and sign would ever apply to any portion of the river that they had just recently entrusted to the care of a corporation, including what ultimately was drafted as article 7. The wharves and other improvements mentioned there were focused on activities downstream from the falls in waters that in 1785 were navigable, not what might happen above the fall line at some future date. It is important to point out that both the Potomac Company charter and the navigation issues of the Bay and the Potomac below falls were considered and strategies ironed out for accomplishing each separately in the SAME LEGISLATIVE SESSION. After passing the legislation to deal with the Potomac above the falls, the Maryland Legislature turned to the second problem, navigation and fishing on the bay and its NAVIGABLE tributaries that bordered on Virginia:

Wednesday, 19 January 1785, the House and Senate elect commissioners and deliver instructions to them. "Resolved, that Thomas Johnson, Thomas Stone, Samuel Chase, and Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Esquires, be commissioners for this state to meet the commissioners appointed by the commonwealth of Virginia, for the purpose of settling the navigation of, and the jurisdiction over, that part of the bay of Chesapeake which lies within the limits of Virginia, and over the rivers Patowmack and Pocomoke; and that the said commissioners, or any two of them, have full power, in behalf of this state, to adjust and settle the jurisdiction to be exercised by the said states respectively, over the said waters and the navigation of the same, their proceedings to be laid before the general assembly of this state, and to be ratified or dissented to by the assembly; and that the said commissioners be directed to govern themselves in the execution of the trust reposed to them..." ecp 4/24/01]

Probate Records from the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria. Estate Number 13275

obituary from The Washington Post, 13 May 1988

1981-1982 correspondence between Frederick Tilp, Ed Papenfuse, and Louis Goldstein. Taken from: MARYLAND STATE ARCHIVES (Research Correspondence) 1939-1993, T200.

Writings concerning slot machines along the Potomac

Copies from Tilp Collection of research notes at Calvert Marine Museum, Solomons, MD.

Note: Assigned biographical PIN number MSA SC 3520-13714. Paper file stored at 2/11/11/59

Search for his papers:

X-Sender: karend@archive5.mdarchives.state.md.us
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:37:45 -0500
To: Ed
From: Karen Dunaway
Subject: Frederick Tilp Collection
Cc: Jen Hafner , Emily

Ed,

I spoke to Jennifer Pitt of the library of the College of Southern Maryland in LaPlata, Maryland (301-934-7765), who described the Frederick Tilp collection there. There is one legal-sized Hollinger box and one oversized box of material. She said there was only "2 or 3" photos, of the Port Tobacco Courthouse and of a boat. There are about 16 maps, about 10 of which are related to the Potomac River; ie. geological surveys and nautical charts from 1966 and 1973, labeled "U.S. Department of Commerce." There was also a highway map of Virginia from 1977.

Ms. Pitt seemed to think that Tilp's collection was split up, and that the College of Southern Maryland did not receive all of it. She believed that the Calvert Marine Museum received part of it according to his will (when I check the will, however, it looks to me like Tilp only gave the museum the copyright claim to one of his books if the first person he specified did not want it). She gave me the name and number of Paul Berry (410-326-2042, ext. 14) at the Calvert Marine Museum. I called his number and got voice mail; so I left a message explaining what I was looking for.

Lastly, I contacted the Loyola Retreat House in Faulkner, Maryland (301-870-3515), to whom was bequeathed all unsold books stored at Tilp's home at the time of his death in 1988. Once again I got voice mail, so I left a message explaining what I was looking for.

I will let you know if I hear back from the Calvert Marine Museum or the Loyola Retreat House .

Karen

X-Sender: karend@archive5.mdarchives.state.md.us
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:04:41 -0500
To: Ed
From: Karen Dunaway
Subject: Frederick Tilp research notes and photos
Cc: Jen Hafner ,
Emily


Ed,

Paul Berry (410-326-2042) of the Calvert Marine Museum just returned my call and told me that they have "very extensive" notes made by Frederick Tilp on his Potomac book--five large file drawers full. He also said that they have "a lot" of photos that were probably the ones that went into the book, although he could not specify how many. Richard Dodds (410-326-2042, ext. 31) is the Curator of Maritime History there and is also in charge of the photographs and is not in today, so he could not tell me exactly how many photos they had or confirm that these were indeed the photos that went into the book, although he thinks they are. He also told me that Mr. Tilp donated his negatives to the Mariner's Museum in Newport New, Virginia and that they now claim copyright to them. The photos at the Calvert Marine Museum are actually copy prints made from the negatives and are stamped by the Mariner's Museum of Newport News. The Calvert Marine Museum also has some of Tilp's slides of sea scouts on the Potomac River as well as notes of lectures on the Potomac River delivered by Mr. Tilp. If we want to make a trip down there we should call first and make an appointment either with Mr. Berry (who works MWF) or with Mr. Dodds. The museum is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and are about twenty miles south of Prince Frederick in Calvert County.

Let me know if you want me to do anything more with this.

Karen

Mr. Berry just called me back with the number of Tilp photographs in the collection at the Calvert Marine Museum: 1100 (eleven hundred). He also specified that they are marked with different photo credits, not all from the Mariner's Museum, and that they are (obviously) additional photos other than the ones used in his book(s).

X-Sender: karend@archive5.mdarchives.state.md.us
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 15:07:45 -0500
To: Ed
From: Karen Dunaway
Subject: Tilp photo inventories at Calvert Marine Museum
Cc: Jen Hafner


Ed,

Here are the inventories of Fred Tilp's photos. They were converted to Word documents from Dbase files that they have at the Calvert Marine Museum. The items listed in the first Word document look the most useful; there are references to many of the names and places Jen has been working on, such as the Colonial Beach gambling piers, the "Little Reno" and the "Starlight Pavilion."
Karen

From: "Berry, Paul L."
To: "'karend@mdarchives.state.md.us'"
Subject: Tilp photos at Calvert Marine Museum
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:53:36 -0500
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Karen,

These three attachments in Word format give our catalog number followed by a descriptive title of the some 1000 Tilp photos in our collections. Try this out to see if it is of use to you. (Just ignore the "record number" line.) The record for each photo is in a data base, with a paper copy.

Paul Berry
Calvert Marine Museum


tilp.doc

tilp2.doc

tilp3.doc

Received: from campus3.mdarchives.state.md.us (firewall-user@campus3 [172.16.1.93]) by archive5.mdarchives.state.md.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA12059 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:01:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by campus3.mdarchives.state.md.us; id AAA06496; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 00:01:19 -0500 Received: from unknown(172.16.4.39) by campus3.mdarchives.state.md.us via smap (V5.5) id xma006459; Fri, 7 Dec 01 00:00:53 -0500 Message-Id: <4.1.20011207000006.0091eba0@archive5.mdarchives.state.md.us> X-Sender: edp@archive5.mdarchives.state.md.us X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 00:00:25 +0800 To: edp@mdarchives.state.md.us From: Ed Papenfuse Subject: Fwd: Re: Maryland's brief Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: Z'R"!J>6!!:<`!!aLD!!

Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 22:50:49 +0800
To: "Andrew Baida"
From: Ed Papenfuse
Subject: Re: Maryland's brief
Bcc: chrisa@mdarchives.state.md.us


Andy:

Most impressive. You and the team have put together a lucid, compelling, well-documented argument. By all rights, you ought to win at this stage.
Minor point: page 8, 11: should read "Commissioner of Land Patents," not the "Commissioner of Land Records."
I look forward to reading the supporting documents.
Ed
At 04:30 PM 12/6/2001 -0500, you wrote:
Ed

Although you will be receiving a hard copy with exhibits, I thought you might be interested in an e-mail version of the brief that Maryland will be filing tomorrow with the Special Master. I know we've had our differences and some heated moments, but I very much appreciated the work that your office has done in connection with this case. Happy holidays.

Andy