Papers Of Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln to Robert A. Kinzie, 5 January 18581
Springfield, Illinois, Jan^y 5. 1858–Robert A. Kinzie, Esq[Esquire]Dear Sir:
I suppose you are aware that Johnson and Jones are at law about a portion of the made land attached to your addition to Chicago & and on the North side of the Harbor– I have been engaged, as an attorney on Jones' side; and if you have no objection to do so, I shall be obliged if you will answer the following questions–

1. Could you now certainly designate the point on ^when^ the North side of the North pier, and the Lake shore met, before the new land began to form?2

2. How long was it after the pier had reached that point, and continued Eastward into the Lake, before the made land had formed, and filled in Eastward, on the North side of the pier, as much as sixty feet?

3. Do you rember rember ^remember^ whether any new land had formed at the time you sold and gave a bond to Hibbard? and if any had then formed, how much?

4. Do you remember whether any new land had formed at the time you deeded to Johnson & if any, how much?

5. At the time you laid out the addition, how far was it from where the South side of Water-Street struck the Lake Shore, down Southward along the Lake shore to where the East line of Lot 35 struck it?

I shall be greatly obliged, if you will answer these questions–3
Your friendA. Lincoln–

1Abraham Lincoln wrote and signed this letter.

2The “new land” Lincoln references was created as a result of U.S. government improvements to the Chicago River in the 1830s. Between 1833 and 1835, U.S. government engineers cut a channel two hundred feet wide and three to seven feet deep across a sand bar at the mouth of the river that obstructed navigation. This gave Chicago a true harbor on Lake Michigan, permitting ships to navigate up the Chicago River, but sand accumulated continuously behind the river’s north pier. Over time, as a result of this sand accumulation, the north pier extended nearly three-quarters of a mile out into Lake Michigan, creating the new land Lincoln discusses in this letter.
William Cronon, Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991), 56.

3Robert A. Kinzie’s reply has not been located. Lincoln received at least five more letters related to this legal case.
Lincoln’s questions to Kinzie are related to the case Johnston v. Jones & Marsh, which was also known at the time as the “sand-bar case.” William S. Johnston owned a lakefront lot in Chicago adjoining a lakefront lot owned by William Jones and Sylvester Marsh. Both lots bordered Lake Michigan; neither bordered the Chicago River. After the U. S. government’s improvements to the Chicago River from 1833 to 1835 cut a channel across both lots, sand washed up against the new pier and old shoreline and created new land more than 1,000 feet wide. In July 1849, Johnston sued Jones and Marsh in the United States Circuit Court, District of Illinois an action of ejectment from six acres of the accreted land. In American law, “ejectment” relates to an action to recover land or other real property and to collect damages. Johnston claimed that after the U.S. government built the new channel, his property continued to border Lake Michigan, entitling him to the new land. Jones and Marsh claimed that Johnston no longer had a lakefront border and was not entitled to any of the new land. After multiple continuances and trials, a jury ruled in favor of Johnston. Jones and Marsh appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, and in January 1856, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the U.S. Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois.

Johnston continued the ejectment case, and both parties engaged new attorneys. Jones and Marsh retained Lincoln as one of their attorneys. In April 1860, a jury in the U.S. Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois ruled in favor of Jones and Marsh. In July 1860, Johnston appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, which, in February 1862, found no error and affirmed the lower court’s judgment in favor of Jones and Marsh. Ogden, Fleetwood and Company, which had some interest in the property, paid Lincoln $350 for his legal services in the case.
Samuel W. Fuller to Abraham Lincoln; Van H. Higgins to Abraham Lincoln; Van H. Higgins to Abraham Lincoln; Van H. Higgins to Abraham Lincoln; Van H. Higgins to Abraham Lincoln; Johnston v. Jones & Marsh, Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, 2d edition (Springfield: Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, 2009), http://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=137737; Engrossed Docket, Document ID: 66903; Opinion, Document ID: 66886, Jones & Marsh v. Johnston, Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, http://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=137739; Newspaper Report, Document ID: 132951; Receipt, Document ID: 66916, Johnston v. Jones & Marsh, Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, http://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=137738; Trial Transcript, Document ID: 66927; Judgment, Document ID: 66952; Opinion, Document ID: 66941, Johnston v. Jones & Marsh, Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, http://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=137740; “Ejectment,” Reference, Glossary, Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, http://www.lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Reference.aspx?ref=Reference%20html%20files/Glossary.html.