ING ee ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 IN THE . 
 
 Supreme Court of Illinois, 
 
 Aven Term, A.D. 1913. 
 
 
 
 LA SALLE COUNTY CARBON COAL bus ent 
 COMPANY, Circuit Court, 
 Appellee, La Salle County. 
 v8. ee 
 Honorable 
 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO, S. C. Stough, 
 Appe liane. Presiding Judge. 
 
 
 
 ABSTRACT OF RECORD. 
 
 EDMUND D. ADCOCK, 
 BURNET M. CHIPERFIELD, 
 Hie | ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT. 
 “CLAUDE E. CHIPERFIELD, 
 FRANK J. QUINN, 
 
 | or COUNSEL. 
 
 
 
 BARNARD & MILLER PRINT, CHICAGO. 
 
 s . . 
 bt SF ay 39 
 det tad 
 
 
 
 27°75 
 eee: 
 eH 
 
THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 From the library of 
 Harry Harkness Stoek 
 Professor of 
 Mining Engineering 
 1909-1923 
 Purchased 1923. 
 
 558.2 
 L352 
 
 
 
Digitized. by the Internet Archive 
 in 2021 with funding from 
 University of Illinois Uroana-Champaign 
 
 httos://archive.org/details/lasallecountycarOOunse 
 

 
 4 
 ‘ ( i 
 
 
 
 " 1 
 h 4 
 . 
 i 
 . 
 . 
 ‘ 
 bf 
 re 
 ‘ ” 
 1a 
 + 
 i 
 2. a 
 5 
 hep 
 emg 
 4 
 ; 
 ‘ 
 1 
 et 
 ‘ ’ 
 Vu al / u ; 
 tPAy) i; 
 ‘ly ey v A) 
 "4 , Pe. ed 
 At Ae te 
 vad o- Li ge 
 i Lr Pg é 
 
 zd Ae vy Fy # 
 ‘The Vis aT) 
 ied nae? : 
 
 . fi Ae ‘ ¢ 
 
 ity 
 
 a 
 i 
 
 * 
 
 
 
LQG 
 
 l 
 
 =\ 
 
 LY 
 
 4 
 
 { 
 63 
 Cp 
 
 L334 
 INDEX. 
 
 Page of 
 
 Record. 
 Pemameniata.deciaration (first) 2.4 so... 6. ob. ads cam ele 0 8 18 
 mmendment to declaration (second)..........0ds sees. cee yas 
 appearance of Chiperfield and Quinn.... 2.2... 6.0 cee wees 27 
 Appearance of all attorneys except Chiperfield and Quinn 
 
 ea ENCE VET een Us oa <a Wisi an eretotties Micnt s erate gs aden Riv ks a 28 
 
 Arguments, plaintiff’s opening (O’Conor)........80....6. 364 
 eteumoents, plaintiit’s closing (O’ Conor). . ois. 2.5. ee. ¥e- 4686 
 Mreuments, plaintiff’s closing (Butters)............-ece.« 4559 
 Arguments, defendant’s opening (Chiperfield)............. 325 
 Arguments, defendant’s closing (Chiperfield)............. 4601 
 Arguments in re attorneys’ fees (Chiperfield)............. 5025 
 Arguments in re attorneys’ fees (O’Donnell)............. 5034 
 ee NST OT is CMR OTT OLE. artis ope self efe)e se sles» 6 6 Satererk tin we 5050 
 Amendments (see orders of court). 
 Beat A PPOMSLC. COULG es 2s... ce ce ces oe once megieiers 111 5045 
 ete SLO SPAM (COULL e.. cisco sce ds oh ee Gee ew ewe 110 5045 
 ar noys? FOGGe MOUION. 10 TAX. 2 i oe el eaten edness 4813 
 Ball of exceptions, on change of venue..........c.eedenen- 46 
 SeOL IT CXCOMeUC PCOMOlAl uni as e's vases + oss oc cnieehinges « 113 
 ipillsor exceptions, time allowed... o46¢c.6. ccaawetweesuaes 111 
 Wonreaict, Duneam etal. with plaintiffs. .......c<esecses oe. 4870 
 RN eel (BRE, ON ihn anise id nilaiy « Sudwin a Hee He as > 417 
 eMC Peete DOSILAONS 6 cai. ek odoin do od +s eo vives Bivins dew bee 1237 
 PEER COR CUSHEAUO TING DS6 012 (0%0 51557 aid oe 0.6.4 0 o.6'aio win tev eae oes 2787 
 eee a omOie Cleric FO LOCOLG.. ace cele ews oti ay a Scones 8 5049 
 Condition of crops before 1885 evidence stricken.......... 1807 
 SmEPGLOl VOUGO, POLILION FOP. oc... soso + ois non wn ess siemmcsys 46 
 Shame of venue, motion overruled ....... 2. .eesaswcwentiens 44 
 Caapeomoreyenne, bill.of exceptions... 2... .ee.csv etwas 46 
 Demurrer to evidence, close plaintiff’s case................ 2646 
 Demurrer to evidence, close of all evidence............... 4553 
 Demurrer (see orders of court). 
 NRE, CMR TOMES diosa G9) e's Ginas is. oi vid sus) cisely: gh dw canis wen bg eg 4513 
 Seerieiner S850. Certam lan dsia. . «sei du qerde sim eine eek fs iccale 2583 
 SRE OG PORTE CALE TOs 2.1 aise o'r 252 vin Sa haVHs suginn'e gages since 1237 
 Depositions (see witnesses). 
 Deeds (see exhibits). 
 Deeds, objections to, stated..... iene tlelicdie iT ea eheia BS nee 529 
 
 Page of 
 Abstract. 
 
 10 
 18 
 11 
 
 11 
 25 
 1008 
 1008 
 26 
 1008 
 1134 
 1135 
 1137 
 
 23 
 22 
 1071 
 14 
 24 
 23 
 1109 
 32 
 257 
 600 
 1136 
 341 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 545-6 
 1004 
 
 966 
 
 503 
 257 
 
 87 
 
11 
 
 Exhibits—Plaintiff’s. 
 Pageof Page of 
 
 Deeds: Exhibit— Record. Abstract. 
 1. Young tol. CP CAOS CG. yen teas eho eens 440 43 
 ee Ban rn Oe 0 oer OR Oe en ern A A RS es iy 450 52 
 4; White:to 1) V2, C200, ae .ctra cane oe eae ieee ere ee 456 56 
 5. White. to ciavieC wont sn teaie ce seen ieee 2 eee 462 59 
 6. ..Wicker=tollVe COACOrameweas eh ccs sl ouiem whats pe 468 63 
 1. » Dolley tos ly oeGn Gott te 8 aa orate ee eee ee 472 66 
 8. Neustadt sto: sNeustadte... i <0e eee  ee ee 476 70 
 92): Neustadt tovlV; °C; (Cos. . 3c co ces fee ener repens 484 75 
 
 Pantenburg-to* Sale. 22 hc oa seer ee nei ee ree 2172 406 
 2: -Charter si. 8.10: Co Gy Co. as cence ee ence 417 32 
 10.0 sPhoto-sspull way i..f2 ee. satis tite wae ee eee eee 601 96 
 11.. Phototcontrolling: works ©. woe oe ee eee 602 98 
 12. Photo Jetterson:street: Dridve:) 3.5 es) ee eee 603 100 
 18. Photo drainage channel). .26 ee ee 2509 490 
 19.. “Photo Bears Trap  Damii¢-c2.. cnc e es eee 2510 490 
 20. sPhoto, Windage “basin 72) vate 2511 490 
 13. \Irwin’s mapoe ets oes coe oe, ee ee 818 184 
 14, Cooley’stabulationg: 222) tse 4 ec een ence 2252 427 
 15... Blue “print mine sissies. 5 oe et eee eee 2296 436 
 16): Blue print -uniongmines <2... ewer als ere 2297 436 
 17. , Blue. print) Rockwell mines. ee eee 2298 436 
 21.. Claim for damages... oa ay < ccc re eee 4843 1084 
 
 House document, 83 pages, 187-193...........:... 2270 432 
 
 Plat books pages 24% oc ses aan eee ene terete 2282 433 
 
 Book 300, miscellaneous records (Young’s will).. 2314 444 
 
 Tax; TOGELDES) c:iis. 5a nia e's ceee een ce opener eee alee ee 2302 439 
 
 Exhibits—Defendant’s. 
 Maps: Exhibit— 
 
 22:  MtaLan OL WIBCONSIN:. , wees eer eae weit eee 2790 598 
 Os? bale OL UNCIGN A at shoes cic eee ee ee 2791 598 
 Ae me LINTOUS yt Pea ois yee Oe > eI ate ae eee 2792 598 
 wo. Watershed’ ...°2000 52 cietitnseieies a he trometer nnieee 2793 600 
 262). Urainage: districts. "“i cece «= vise ie eee eee 2951 640 
 39, Hennepin drainage Wistrict.... vrs eee 3168 702 
 40° Partridge ‘drainaresdisiricis: vi ocr ec ere 3169 702 
 475 Bast: Peoria drainave districh, 72.4... ote. eee 3170 702 
 42, -Sprmo lake ‘drainage district...) <oms: ee ee 3171 702 
 43. lhacey. drainage: district io nics ..su sc eke haloes, ae 3172 702 
 44.- Coal Greek drainage istrict: iann se. weg ieee ae 3173 702 
 45°) Cran6.Creokwarainave, district, Vasc ee eee ee 3174 702 
 
46, 
 A”, 
 48, 
 49, 
 50. 
 51. 
 52. 
 53. 
 54, 
 55. 
 56. 
 57. 
 58. 
 
 280. 
 
 281. 
 282. 
 283. 
 284. 
 285. 
 286. 
 288. 
 289. 
 290, 
 
 Lisi 
 Exhibits—Defendant ’s—Continued. 
 
 McGee Creek drainage district.................. 
 NCObMCOUNGY OrainavG, CISlriCts «asia eines wis ides os 
 Bere riven ti, CIAINS OG" OISETICH cn. ni. eeReOn Eos fins a 5.0 00s 
 Prey ew, Urainage CIStliCh.en . sti 6G vA f.0S > oon 
 Prarie woll sOfagInave. CIStriCt.c cine sc mcr ss sins «ots 0 
 PN OA PABUGSIUR COM CISEINCL ate sy less baie 0 nie nas ¥ erm «u's 
 PITA] GraiNave OIStTICh vs sxc s ecient as ss dbs et e.s.0) 
 INGE WOOP AINA CGS GIStliGh. 5s veg ssid, chs aihataue & 
 Piette CVG Oral iStli@h «20 cls wis e's apse ecg oe 
 Seem cUme Cd rainNa ve Ost iGbs assem ces a.» kiss s Wi eee es 
 EO me TOC TArAIM AIG TCISLTICL. cscs aes ss oe cen Os 
 Oirera noon drainage. CIStTICh. . ced sre secs 6 ohn ees 
 Haren slough dramage. district. os... nna e sine 
 MEE SSE OLL SNAPS ate ae e te alan «Poe Sop we ates # ake 
 Paes EL AT Se ity el Sata wore s arele eia 8, Sin sp nicer spe shay tm 
 PU Gasper AA eC AT i yere ei ec Aefers ie. 6 soln alesse soe 2 
 Dil Pan etait ale ar ta ya. G20 «5's vs sare Sothink Se 
 
 ie POSS EROCEECIERUEEEC cen ee oe cco oars fayes, < wea veais's ss 
 Ons HOCKIOUs GLAU Leoginttihs «sds vale Sa sw Ae os ct. « 
 RIG FAG) aitinileg sap eh = Be 8S eae a oe 
 ESR AMUSO MISE Oe BUIV OY 1.584.520 bie ac sce 5 bie a eo ate 
 eG me ANOLON een file cin’ cfe tia isa es aa ss een ees 
 Mien oa SE CEC meee ted etewe, SAVE ICR wig tied ae hates @ Santos. « we 
 
 Photographs: Exhibit— 
 
 27. 
 28. 
 29. 
 30. 
 31. 
 32. 
 33. 
 34, 
 
 ee EMOMBIOIELEI Cl MN One Les che ea cise ee ue eee cab oe oso 
 Rie Pere ISP PVOL ON Oxia em i sh es ew siete 8 wlcavate wy iste dics 
 ree ASOP LCG ON Orie eta he's cial oc som okels cone eins tte 
 IOV sym POMO DIStTICLs 2 sate sie ie ate wath. ois wiesend ahs tree ws 
 Pee CEL CCL ULL CIh loc <trers sualtinions c's rnie «gee.e sjates, 3.5 
 Pa LOO POOLE CIS srerice areta 575. claer chauie is PRG IE ble 6 Hints ass 
 aeRO WUILC Ia tne Wate a aie arcu ores olka so ctoleic ca: oan’ 9S 
 Prreieed SGU we OitGHY irs oe seb lsatars 0 a's eles. 0/6 n'eerammre eels 
 
 eee | Seer HOTGS EDV ODONGCED a. one Gig <a 5 <.cce icin don aro 
 
 Rainfall data: 
 Pere CECA Ea xt e's aoe eg Hele ee Crea bls sos oaths a ats 
 REPT ea GE ike ALLO, Sere ee oe been ee cise Con nice oo oe ooo 
 MI ECS Lene aye cle sic ie cee Melon «cir eae sta cies scp p<» 
 
 River gauges: 
 BPMN EL OOS S EOL tn cs ics aisle és 6 Sass adie ois so) a tietaals “a 
 Braet Mier imme nn ee teen A ase es ona 
 House Document 83, pages 189-191......... See are eee 
 
 Pageof Page of 
 Record. Abstract. 
 3175 702 
 3176 702 
 3177 702 
 3178 702 
 3179 702 
 3180 702 
 3181 702 
 3182 702 
 3183 702 
 3184 702 
 3185 702 
 3186 702 
 3187 702 
 3727 825 
 4014 870 
 4424 953 
 4425 953 
 4433 956 
 4434 956 
 4445 956 
 4451 958 
 4452 958 
 4511 966 
 2983 650 
 2984 650 
 2987 652 
 2988 652 
 3010 658 
 3010 658 
 3014 660 
 3014 660 
 3647 817 
 2686 557 
 2701 566 
 3374 750-53 
 PES | 581 
 4084 882 
 4273 926 
 
iv 
 
 Exhibits—Defendant’s—Continued. 
 
 Government permits, etc.: Pageof Page of 
 
 Exhibit— Record. Abstract. 
 
 59. Permit irom Governor Tanner.) eee ee ee 3316 727 
 
 60. Permit-trom secretary, Ol, Wali sceee cui aie 3318 728 
 
 625.“ COnmmunica tion: La.j0r v Weare ene cree 3322 731 
 
 62.4, Communicatipn, “Secretary sh00U, tee ec es 3327 734 
 
 63... Order rerulaving Tow ele-b-Olis ecw ot Ree es oe ae 3330 736 
 
 64, Order-regulating Hows t-3 108s... dave cent 6 wie sek 3334 739 
 Financial statement (envelope), Exhibit 35........... woe, aoe 687 
 Finantial statement, Exhibite30 = .c 1.0. see cone eens 3129 687 
 Financial statement (letter), Exhibitea(v.> sn. = ace oe 3130 689 
 Financial statement (envelope), Exhibit 38............... 3132 690 
 Evidence as to condition of crops before 1885 stricken..... 1807 341 
 Finding: ontmotron to tax attorneys” fees... sna eee. se eth 5044 1135 
 Miles insevidence (see: pleadings)... :..2+ uss. 4 see 4995 1131 
 HOTS OLPVErdict ox Le. % + ais teie, ona ale-a). ctw slete alaios eeemeseg ene 4793 1052 
 Instructions, peremptory, end plaintiff’s case.............. 2646 545 
 Instructions, peremptory, end all evidence................ 4553 1004 
 Instructions, plaintiff’s given.............. cee 4747 1015 
 Jastruetions,..defendant’s - Pively, va. => gut. . cm eee 4756 1023 
 Instructions, -defendant’s ‘refused... 2... 0. ore ewe) toes eae 4771 1035 
 Jurors accepted: 
 
 Conlson, George: Ws vs -ate's<.b oarale cpanel inten Seer ee ares 291—296 
 
 Damnlap, ‘J ageieent .: s oes) heer t tia via eee: eee 224—254 
 
 PEW IV OT) 'a) o Wares a. oe .+aaore estos women eter Ge far ora Sete eee tee 174—204 
 
 eran ikon bwin) lis ete ee ete oat eee Pe eee 156—164 
 
 Gotch, THOSSS cise. nes cckec cts pets ee caine fete alee 341—347 
 
 GyBen, sd Asem sot Oa etek ths eis aoe Re ee ee 169—200 25 
 
 Latigan Mae ehetik ete eae teal eee eee ee 329—334 
 
 MeBlroy ss Wins eights sector a wae | ane cee ene eaee a ee 145—176 
 
 Sehrumpihy, CO. Cet eh id cae eerie eee ee eee ee 241—250 
 
 Voipund od. 25... tae Sta ee ee eS oye ee ee 308—324 
 
 WEE) AR BSN rr ars: Gas Pee TMi train iy feels nc. 219—258 
 
 W aber lin gy ABs) :o5 5 ae ee peeete oie erat naary aes eee 298—316 
 Jury sworn. 
 Judgment on {verdict (in record) .-an vnc sae oe ee ee 110 22 
 Judgment on verdict (in bill of exceptions)......:....... 5024 1134 
 Judgement on verdict, (exception: tO), i5.5.5--..-5. eee ere 5024 1134 
 
Pageof Page of 
 
 Motions: Record. Abstract. 
 Morieavawo tile ples, nul, tel, GOTD a vena casaccatare $2 116 24 
 Pec eroe Of VON. adnan lash. 89s 6980 Wer ladies vege 49 14 
 For a continuance (taxing attorneys’ fees)........... 4824 1074 
 For judgment non obstante veredicto................ 4808 1068 
 RUM BUEN Me eg win on Sh ilne win eg siete sky <iuie's bale BNA 4808 1068 
 EEL eMC Sale fons nls con sohce sive wie Co tales a ones 8 6 we hiss 4795 1055 
 To withdraw motion for new trial... .4.6..4..0++0.6.% 4808 1068 
 By plaintiff to assess attorneys’ fees................. 4813 1071 
 Moremore specitic bill of particulars: ?2:i73-2) 2526322: 4823 1074 
 DPC CAMARGO Ae fan aN eee cael cee Cannes Oe Need oe 4824 1074 
 Pomerat Miye (UOUTIONG yo. i se eas sete eke te eh eee es 6 oe 4831 ' 1079 
 PRUE OKDROLeteInonton ts net fe etc ree hee See esa. 4812 1070 
 omneriseeCOoley/6 .GPOSiLIONs .6. 6.05 cceseveoee ces 2235, 4552 422, 1003 
 To exclude all evidence as to overflow, 1900 to 1912.2601, 4516 513, 973 
 To exclude all evidence as to overflow each year from 
 
 MRL Leigh ee ia oS ain Pict a bash a eas Bd 2602, 4518 514, 974 
 To exclude all testimony as to quality of crops prior to 
 
 subsequent to filing declaration..........6..... 2606, 4521 516,07 
 To strike from declaration part Sec. 14 S. of Canal.. 2581 503 
 To strike from declarations Lots A, B, C, ete........ 2582 503 
 To strike certain descriptions from declaration... .2583, 4521 504, 977 
 mee GIUMe eCOLUHIN OXAIDIGI es eo Ds nie saw eden es 2594, 4512 509, 969 
 To exclude testimony of each witness as to overflow 
 
 SEA OCe FCM I te re once n 6 5, oho Sieh 's, os ne eas s 2599, 4521 512, 977 
 PovesuCassaiiendsitOn1 G00 ANG LI0G. ce sa eee cos 2599 512 
 Bere xCiINGe DALGUNG one WV. 14 PL os ice dees 2606, 4521 517, 978 
 Piece part W.55, 9. 1. 14, 24h. cease ees nese 2608 519 
 To exclude testimony of Means et al. as to values. .2609, 4522 519, 978 
 Mo exclude testimony as to Ogden Dam:........... 2645, 4551 544, 1002 
 To exclude testimony on plat 13 on account variance.2645, 4552 545, 1003 
 To exclude evidence end plaintiff’s case.............. 2646 B45 
 To exclude evidence end all evidence................. 4553 1004 
 
 Orders of court: 
 
 Sustaining demurrer to declaration............. Ae 17 10 
 Overruling motion for change of venue............... 44 14 
 Bre tarde erOUlLCAsOUM isa. .i0, wera. hee cares = ten ew te 62 15 
 Sustaining demurrer to fourth plea................... ie 18 
 Seaver LO yamesmh GCoclaration:. «0... .06e5. sss sss ¢evieess 74 18 
 
 Demurrer of plea of statute of limitations to amended 
 declaration sustained; defendant abides; leave to 
 file plea nul tiel corporation, denied; demurrer to 
 POUT eh eetIStALUO Gas sie t9OR Saks some Seed wh cre 85 20 
 
 Granting leave to re-file pleas, replications and rejoind- 
 SYS ape ee re aes Sat iets Simo so) ss grass < eie'b wis a toes 6% 85 20 
 
v1 
 
 Pageof Page of 
 Record. Abstract. 
 
 Calling for trial |, \.c2 awe aew mam vale Oates Riva isleme eats 87 
 
 Leave to withdraw motion for new trial; denying mo- 
 tion for judgment n. o. v.; denying motion for new 
 trial and }motion in Carrest-.5 1.5 ee ge ee 106 
 
 Rule to file bill of particulars on attorneys’ fees....... 109 
 Denying rule for more specific bill of particulars and 
 FOTSCONTANUANCE.. 2, am. ce iee Bat nee ere ene 110 
 
 For entry of judgment denied; protest by defendant 
 against proceeding; hearing on order fixing attor- 
 
 neyabsfebs ein hin on han.onies = teat una eerie 110 
 JUAPMONL SON VOLdiGhs 2 cirri da 4 ua se uteete ae eerste ere ele ee 111 
 Finding and order on motion to fix attorneys’ fees.... 110 
 Prayer for.appeal iictoes ate see ea eles nies ee 110 
 
 Plaintiff ‘rests “420,095 scene sete ese 2a Sete ats «i proline artes takers 2590 
 Photographs (see exhibits). 
 Placita, judgment term’. ven was bea acte Os lt ene ee 84 
 Points in support of motion for new trial................. 4796 
 Petition for change of yonue... iv... .. e+ «catamaran 46 
 Pleadings: 
 Leave to re-file pleas, replications, rejoinders, ete...... 85 
 Praecipe, 1:14:05 or5 siete ox ais sin = sien 9 0 Sclare ee. yen 1 
 Summons and -Teturn, io14-05 Jae s she. « cee erent 
 Declaration, 114-05. 1). xara «nso ee Capen ote eect 4 
 Demurrer,toxdeclaration,;3-15-05 7... wer ae eee eee 13 
 Amendment to declaration, 10-25-05... 9 eee 18 
 Demurrer to amended declaration, 12-30-08............ 29 
 Piga, generakaseue, 9-42-09 0 i. wie mews a oi Palas an se oe 37 
 Pies, statute ot limitations, 9-4-09.)). on. ola sss tales 38 
 Piea; non-gwuership, 94-09). cn oso sug sae nee eee 40 
 Replicatiqus gest 6-12 "cs ie aes wis arags Wes oan g ee 63 
 Rejoinder to replications, B=1-1 Bes Sela tenn: ee 66 
 HMourth ‘plea tita vires, 3-1-1250 25.92. cw sss 68 
 Demurrer-to courth plea; 3-11-12). a, ee ee 72 
 Amendment to declaration, 3-21-12................... 75 
 Defendant’s fourth: plea, 5-13-1233, Pees oe a ale 80 
 Signature of court to bill of exceptions (change of venue).. 55 
 Signature of court to bill of exceptions (general).......... 5048 
 Stipulations. to. depositions... ..7sescrtess eet ues 541, 1242 
 Tender, bill of exceptions (change of venue).............. ty 
 
 Tender, bill of exceptions (general) 70.4 2 a. seme cee es 5048 
 
 20 
 
 21 
 22 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 23 
 23 
 23 
 507 
 
 20 
 1055 
 14 
 
 1136 
 90, 258 
 14 
 1136 
 
Vii 
 
 Witnesses—Plaintiff’s. Page of Abstract. 
 Direct. Cross. 
 REY ge awe in SEN a ono sinina out meee eee Enis eles © or 372 375 
 NETO Gf Soa Sree ces fal dw ov, as nee WO SBR ST ig ae 8 te Se 341 344 
 
 Seneca PUGDOSIGION ir s.c0 «css cecsa 04 whee se ooh cere 254 
 eS aS re 2 ee Ghent eeae 498 499 
 NS sass ih fiage' of co gels <= dla vas alsa he Sis a wala ede 401 402 
 IE SE CEMOISI LEO Jorg ces ines Weiss s cindic's 2c eee sss ea ed 252 253 
 EME tee eR CLOUSTLLOT )/ ane <'s vie ao a'ele ow Wie vaj-sces ance e see elf a 8s 259 267 
 RRR UC DRTION oe ck sete st nies anew e 52 a os dels ‘ieee 275 276 
 a ES RRS ae oe ae ere ere eee 297 302 
 MR ER Ege clea a ob aisle Glos # Kio vie v5 ai nine Qa sgei ats 415 429 
 
 Poem CICE CCLCTVOBICION ). , tteie wwe sw cue a slvae nea wow Vovepin.’ 356 
 
 SEL MN He OODOSILION ) 4 ou. oc e isnle enw deme a sss bas ease 487 
 a TERESERS OT all SAM Rag MR AR a A a OE 309 oid 
 EE ISOM TLOUOLELION Vin. fa <s.cls.s seis acs cea 6.4.96 oie 4.6 8048 bie 90 95 
 ORNS OL PN Gn rene a Ete as oi cia wis ie eho lb st nieve eee 287 288 
 a CSN ee ee oe orc ete cc eee ry cecees 215 218 
 Se tS Woe eaten: Oo icy le ioeciclece. 333 334 
 ROG AL Oty oe reste es ssc o's oF ales 6s sais cee ese 30 (i 
 Mae mR ONrt S.C TOCANOL) cae eae s fc ccs de aes cece ueees 432 433 
 PTORC AT (sn TODULEAL etter elke cece dee ss aet 967 967 
 (TRO WGC, Sere Si har lt a lena a 398 401 
 SSSA SV atA CLOCIOG Vere econ esc cc ee cece aceeces 403 
 NE re eae aaa enies hrc s-nin bib |x vise Aaie pig bas = awe 290 291 
 DE LER Pacem es wie ests vic a se ws ss © em es Sa.8 508s 284 286 
 Serer als ( GOPOSILION) og ono cee dies cicye,e me's re sainiaveecwens 102 103 
 EE A laa en en cass vk oa vs wa say ees 183 186 
 MM ET SPC TOCRUCH) 4, 5 goin iy sh ww wale en aka ns ee ase an dass 360 
 EN TEE ee ag ao ka a a oy ain ook Me sw Oe ans Wass 370 371 
 ECM S ao. osm, S/d 4 aR A kas oe e kk eas oss ve Sy ks 307 308 
 Seema 10r ela COPOSILION ) . <<... 5 oe ew cee e nen en ene’ 174 177 
 Se ss ase Gin cw ea wh a ekg wa ats Sm a ane wae A 500 501 
 NN EM as Ss wn k's qo 8 Sad oh sheds wea 8 See eh as 391 392 
 NN RE EN Ps na ir Cine; toms ae Aas ee ae Ooms 336 338 
 RN ETP oy creo e a odes ot eater «, aks Seid is wD ea aie wes 403 405 
 EARS TM 0s a's. cc sling. ain) Se Wes Benes ESA gOS 5k gS 388 389 
 I eal ale 5 do ad git nis sigh OS nla MN aim an 4 Ale eo S's 381 383 
 IE hha ec ciate vi ott nd Soe Dg eins oe Ga ans ns 334 335 
 I AGG. Cts, | cla aiclate. « Cle'e a's Dang dis oa are we ae 334 336 
 TINUE: Jel aisle, cn aly iG sian was ao whe hans eg sa nals + 229 232 
 Aca aia eae eS aes cals Sane buen eee< ev ame ee Os 194 202 
 MS er ECC DOSITIOIE eo vce a cs ek lah hve ee Sd gtlny Os 168 169 
 
 © REN IIRE Wika? age og ge ih a Se hoe Aaa eS ee ee 315 316 
 
Vili 
 
 Witnesses—Plaintiff ’s—Continued. 
 Page of Abstract. 
 
 Direct. Cross. 
 Pyka, . Edward: co iistegis esc. a wh 5 ees cena reat ane ee neem 239 240 
 Randolph, Isham -Cdeposition)}.;. ns ese ee eee 471 
 Shannon, | Hdwardvien sacse: bs hss ate oes aes eee ee 221 
 Shannon, “Mdward 92% fests. oN tien eee eee eee 322 325 
 Smith: Rensda ae sake te ees Mile ee tea ayaa ey eee 502 502 
 BOB A LONI: ie. acta mins 6 0: siete dt path als oe aaa ase ia ae ee 221 223 
 Reed; ‘Rollinw1s.. (deposition) it ew. ccm, wow oo abe oke wee 109 167 
 hrar Grae cof eee So tajags a Nie iste «1 Sikes ee ee 365 366 
 UnZGK Or, ROD ORG ae. css velanase «a sels: dee aeedieg eee eee ce 272 273 
 Viorees, As). 207s )efels siete iets pay cocepe kal eee ne pnee voce aces Reale a eae eee 348 BDL 
 Vails: Wm... A. (deposition ) ee. ao. sete ee oe ete 470 . 
 Weetrans., Woeorenccpeet Baer av wk cr fare tren cinie eae ine ee 385 “386 
 
 Witnesses—Plaintiff’s—Attorneys’ Fees. 
 Brower, SU Wee Ss hed aie teow > 6 ek ee 1129 1130 
 Butters, cA. Bare cs. 6 veces Sincele hm arate ay ee ne ene 1123 1124 
 Dun dan, GV. lie Bhs d 5 v.03 6 eto Sia > a eke ee els teeane tee pee ee 1100 1107 
 Gaincoln, © B.\ Bjic ene nn dns pe + atte 6. tos Sea ene 1125 
 MeDougall, Digg cies cee tecie «trees oes he, sr nee eee Fare te 1126 1127 
 Q?Conor, Ai dae. so. - ova one CRT Tate Se 1119 1121 
 QlDonnell, oda Lins cs ccterien tees ei eee ie ye 1081 1091 
 Witnesses—Defendant’s. 
 
 Alger, “Lows Pitta ~, <<, sais sow ceo Paveretares havc aOR ea Neteller eee 641 644 
 Batry, W. Sse een eae eee ee OP Oe niin wt hdd A ai ee 860 861 
 Parlclor, Vern cis. acscsaves see eee eee eas abt 912 912 
 Bentley, Whe es denn tele core ce can oa eee eee ee 615 617 
 rent.) Ll, "Teese igs o de.ald x aie ane cared tat ah Nerd to A 786 
 BBTOCK WAL ECA fikvics aaaei shane <i tetugmecn Ua aa ean cee oc Ler 693 695 
 Garter wilt, CAVES. wist« tad een eae mee sarees ar St oiler shia dimen arreeaes 787 788 
 Genter <R sell eo. San ve 0 ee oe ee Lae 790 791 
 Carney x ODATIRS) oc st.peei sd ale ces ears Meee ko ak ee taser ane 855 ' 856 
 Caldwell, EH, (ae 2. i Rpse ees a) ale es oe ee ee 771 773 
 OW, MACHAGE ace vig wis o cuter Wee, algo we Opts eae ected Stee ee 703 705 
 Oox, iW. Mi): 285.0 22 5a ne > oda oe ee . 927 928 
 roster, -W. Esi sits ota vend d opnaye we Beale ove tees Ret ace 915 916 
 God ys) ON VEER we adie « cad PAAR as Aalndk nete ee ae 880 881 
 Cr Ptiss ly 2) steacsie ch adhe oe Soe adie a = stig ole oth ale aa aba al ea ee 954 
 Daowesre, Geos. ae ae am aad eviie wee as pee nia cee. 664 668 
 
 Bgan Di ie ates eaten too.0 twisted wie 0: alr ale aie git det aah or a noted 949 953 
 
ix 
 
 W itnesses—Defendant ’s—Continued. 
 Page of Abstract. 
 
 Direct. Cross. 
 GND Eig p yee Spek ooh epee ee rererreshdened se 6 920 
 MIP ORM CCG asso ete o nr rec rer erie kere tees epee 675 678 
 RNIN COMI ce, en gis pd koe a hele Giule pis Fire e ee 836 838 
 ee nS ee oy orgie eager ere reer ees fe 841 843 
 ESL SSE ae ar a a a 961 962 
 NERC ORM cette ele hoe Cone ore w gle nist yl ote ote ere peut ¢ PP 629 630 
 I NIL CGPMANR ats Eta ere oo Baa SFIS ae ogc es oe be Hass Fhe es 686 
 RRR EGER Meg reread Ape etre osn'e ose ips pe odie e Pek whe Pee 627 628 
 ERNE a een 5 OU oss ole ss pithe'> oy © ic our bible grees PAGO 638 641 
 IES MEE CRIMES tee ofsi a 5a )o cleo = one Fats o ge np steer ee Se 696 697 
 EE EOC os as Ss rp rhs pre's be oo vi Pole Ses oes 555 565 
 SE FR OEE Oeaoie' s We ices toe be ek feo 85 it nes Pee 941 942 
 RePeMOr SS OLLOG ewes ep ees rate es he has aussi he oe oi Pee ee. 932 
 ene Ee ATO rl cs oe sds regs doe R eR ea taeNs oes 8 830 833 
 eMC SUN Peis ea pins b= she lpg sien e bas oe > sao bs 618 622 
 NE RESTS lg ge idan NO SE are aia a 741 744 
 Hossack, H. bo Vie Seki ge eee ee 934 935 
 REE Pe M EE sete ce iteisile tad vga er 8 seas sig ts e'sivs owee ses 963 963 
 MMIC SIGN oN ey a tantey's 6 gr vc a o-y vince se ele v2 ees 6 2) 885 886 
 MOUEGOM EI Ge roar est esc tres thers reererersesvers 793 795 
 eR RSM feet oe ciel y visy ee ss ¥ 2 f tt V0-08 09 eo 0 04 0 EE 949 949 
 RT SUR attr fee os ie sce esate des tcunsss 857 858 
 Un CEC ere (gs ele d bp tse fot vs esp 4 69.0 4 olan «8 859 859 
 SRA URETIG ls cig chats pp ree et scr Pet tt es ee ated ta pane vies 866 868 
 NT ety clefting s overs fis vais 34 9 «.e'ly'n soa ee aka 720 722 
 RP ENV eet So's a esr se eie'c 4 ees + * Ont hae 623 624 
 ET ee hy ee ngs Pyle dead eg wedex tes 636 637 
 Oa A Basha snes mieceeun pie Le Ge ates 872 873 
 Leach, Warren W.......... an aeae Mae el 4: ates ee eee 663 664 
 SIE Srey e085 0% 20s. ov cos, e( ur ece, i dat v's BFE ae ee bate 882 883 
 McAndrews, John ....... iors uur eir tt Se oe eae ob re s 585 592 
 NPE PERSE) oe as 5 etn s op iba goss fos eS ase Che @ 905 906 
 SEs ae Tn ale eet souls ise es sas ea wate ek 936 937 
 MINERS RUM Seg erste et coe eGo cy oe eg > ele ees y's es Sha <> 09 8 791 
 NNER MPLA MULT tees is sons clin s Ask oes t Male sieiv e's a oak Vd dicta an 749 
 REPO Coys G0 - Givi Ss weg 0 81 geese share ehive ei puts a shew ard a Oe 943 944 
 MESES EE ast Spe hse 6S ob daca ade oak otis ten a see 875 876 
 MM cra telat, re o.0 5.0 ¥ vise aip'edees main s Voice simus hack > 645 653 
 fo. AE Sg Be eel Ie et en 5 Sete 895 897 
 NEM LIE eae eg rsa tie aiaisicls «ty Mitta ens aituu' sie Ue mutes 887 888 
 
 EMEC Let oO Seat nS oe ages ona. wine aha igie ¢ 4-8-9 esse phe se e's 653 661 
 
x 
 
 Witnesses—Defendant ’s—Continued. 
 Page of Abstract. 
 
 Direct. Cross. 
 Moynahan, Thos. 315.05 tx ss co% 20 tev qtt sees (siete eee noe 745 746 
 Mosier, -J. (ise ocr tate ood kins sa Sea ae a eee 822 827 
 Mossbatk, (Wien vs45 2 caine i500 5 ch thai Ses ooo Nee een ee ee 890 892 
 Nicolet, Chaswehi. oi... <05 3 Ce ie ds PS a 850 852 
 O7Conner, sCormelias. ys 4.05 tebe asus at FG Geen.) oonettet 747 748 
 P6beYSOT, seimeivies siete jee st Eee sere Oe eet yeti Reutoee 565 
 POWrIG; WWINY Sean att PER Eh ee ke coast cee ie Cpe ee 631 635 
 POWeTs We sie te Se as 2a 0 ae eee ee ee eee 819 819 
 Pusey, © Wm.) saat ob es be ee eee en ee eee 938 : 939 
 Quigley, Joe! 2.2 fers leans ose eee ee dae ee 879 880 
 Richards, I, Wisc. sina ieee pn eee es oes aye Se ee 722 724 
 Riggs, Grant, 5s .'ssheg see ee ties « ah oe keene tes eee 625 
 Rowe, Uhos.deca.nes PEUY Cay ae eer ee ee See tee iy ee 661 663 
 Salter, John 05. s.'s 0s. «ete gah aie als aos saree ae sane eee 848 849 
 Sargeant, C.GD?... sree ks 2 vie a at she nun + 3 attest ann eee 902 903 
 Pargeant, George «1.60.8 as eb ssa ov sce ce colts etoe samen’ 948 | 948 
 Strawn, Ws (Dig ea. ees aaa ane 8 os ween eo ae ae 945 945 
 Strauss, (Bertie tcc ce eas vend soa tbe t thd een hee eee 874 875 
 Shannon, Robert’. ve. 0-- 42 cas icee acer © pate ees 679 683 
 Stempfel, Emile? . 2. </rs avtewtady gous soe fae coed ate eee Cee eee 862 864 
 Shelley, M. Wik... 550.00 a ok evs peas Penne fare meine 749 
 Spear, Charles”... ise cedug few canna rned laa mae ree sete 776 778 
 Spencer,’ HB.  Busieate is vives ed ig ced aad 6h gt ee ea eee eae ioe 
 Schultz, Ottoman: «<5. \ tala tau «oe ee ea ae 876 878 
 Prey, (.. Witeeeerters cs oa dcacve'n Cope ra crete Wha Fae aoe ee eee Meee 782 786 
 Taylor, Bon jiges os livs< aes cos cous verte lacs oft ieee ae 846 847 
 Prat, ran kw eons 1 da se pete eae wee ce ay eee ‘ae sapna ae 601 603 
 Minieman, AGG. ts sss 6 sg.0 es 5 ole ets Bt a “einle "enighy eget ateteeette tte’. 922 926 
 Thesberg, Chasl (acco. bees ee ai ese eee 604 613 
 Jbl 6) 0]: FAS @Pial = Eo repr eran wr aririrare nce seers Oat Pc) 857 
 Wiillace, Wi cHawy. cahic oe sist te seu nis cde wed tela meta eee 712 715 
 Watzler, Ah eee Perr rare Ct ice a vue a ee ett 921 
 Weattiman, JONI. we cee ny dee rege d Lae pamt ete ce oer ae meee 908 909 
 
 Warrick, Robert. ic. .4saneshss ss she at pee eee tae ae eee 946 947 
 

 

 
IN THE 
 DEP REME COURT OF ILLINOIS, 
 
 APRIL TERM, A. D. 1913. 
 
 LA SALLE COUNTY CARBON COAL COMPANY, \ Appeal from 
 
 Appellee, Circuit Court, 
 mo Bi La Salle County. 
 
 
 
 Honorable 
 
 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO, S, E. Stough 
 . . 9 
 Appellant | Veresiding Judge: 
 
 ABSTRACT OF RECORD. 
 
 Page of 
 Record. 
 
 1 
 
 bo 
 
 Praecipe for summons in the case of the LaSalle 
 County Carbon Coal Company vs. Sanitary District of 
 Chicago, dated the 11th day of January, 1905. Filed in 
 the office of the clerk of the Cireuit Court of LaSalle 
 County, January 14, 1905. Action trespass on the case. 
 Damages claimed, $200,000.00. 
 
 Summons in the above entitled cause, dated January 
 14, 1905. 
 
 Return summons showing service upon the defendant 
 upon the 16th day of January, 1905, filed in the office 
 of the clerk of the Circuit Court of LaSalle County, Jan- 
 uary 23, 1905. 
 
 DECLARATION. 
 
 Be it further remembered, that afterwards, and on, to- 
 wit: the 14th day of January, A. D. 1905, there was filed 
 in said court in said cause a certain declaration in the 
 words and figures following, to-wit: 
 
co) | 
 
 SvaTe or ILLINots, ee 
 LaSauLe County. : 
 
 In THE Circuit Court, 
 
 To the March Term, A. D. 1905. 
 
 The LaSalle County Carbon Coal Company, by J. L. 
 O’Donnell, and Dunean, Doyle & O’Connor, its attorneys, 
 complains of the Sanitary District of Chicago, a corpo- 
 ration, defendant, summoned, etc., of a plea of trespass 
 on the case: 
 
 Fer that, whereas, on, to-wit: The 1st day of January, 
 A. D. 1904, the plaintiff was the owner and possessed of 
 certain lands and premises in the County of LaSalle and 
 State of Illinois, described as follows: ee. 
 
 The following lands in township thirty-three (33) 
 north and of range one (1) east of the 3rd principal 
 meridian; that part of the southwest quarter and the 
 southeast quarter of section fourteen (14) lying south 
 of the Illinois and Michigan Canal; lots A and B of Ca- 
 nal Commissioners’ subdivision of section fifteen (15) ; 
 that part of the northeast quarter of section twenty-one 
 (21) lying south of the Illinois and Michigan Canal and 
 east of the Illinois River, and that part of the north half 
 and the south half of said section twenty-one (21) lying 
 south of the [llmois River and east of the bayou; that 
 part of the southeast quarter of section twenty-two 
 (22) lying south of the Illinois River; the northeast quar- 
 ter of the southeast quarter, the northwest quarter of 
 the southwest quarter, the northwest quarter of the 
 southwest quarter: That part of the northeast quarter 
 of the southwest quarter lying west of the right of way 
 of the [llinois Central Railroad; that part of the south- 
 west quarter of the southwest quarter lying north of the 
 highway east and west across the same; that part of the 
 southeast quarter of the southwest quarter north of the 
 
3 
 
 highway across the same and west of the right of way 
 of the Illinois Central Railroad; the north four and one- 
 half (43) acres of the south half of the southeast quar- 
 ter, all in section twenty-three (23); that part of the 
 northwest quarter of said section twenty-three (23) ly- 
 ing south of the Illinois River and west of the right of 
 way of the Llinois Central Railroad; lot two (2) in the 
 west half of the southwest quarter of section twenty-four 
 (24) in said County and State, and on, to-wit: the day 
 and year last aforesaid, the defendant was a municipal 
 corporation, organized under and by virtue of the laws 
 of the State of Illinois, and invested with certain powers 
 and duties under and by virtue of the statute of the 
 State of Illinois, creating said Sanitary District, and 
 the various amendments thereto, and in and by the stat- 
 ute creating said Sanitary District it was, among other 
 things provided that said Sanitary District should be 
 liable for all damages to real estate without such district 
 which should be overflowed or otherwise damaged by 
 reason of the construction, enlargement or use of any 
 ehannel, ditch drain, outlet or other improvement, under 
 the provisions of said act creating said Sanitary Dis- 
 trict. 
 
 And plaintiff avers that on, to-wit: the Ist day of Jan- 
 uary, A. D. 1902, and on divers days prior thereto, the 
 defendant constructed channels, embankments and out- 
 lets in the counties of Cook, DuPage and Will, in the 
 State of Illinois, and by means thereof caused large bod- 
 ies of water to flow from Lake Michigan through said 
 channels into the Des Plaines River and by reason of 
 said embankments, channels and diversions, caused div- 
 ers other waters to flow into the Des Plaines River which 
 would not flow therein in a state of nature, and which 
 said waters were all conducted through said Des Plaines 
 River into the Illinois River. 
 
4 
 
 And the plaintiff avers that on, to-wit: the day and 
 year last aforesaid and on divers days prior thereto, 
 the said lands and premises of the plaintiff were over- 
 flowed, submerged and rendered wet and unprofitable by 
 reason of the construction and enlargement of channels, 
 ditch drains and other outlets by the defendant in the 
 Counties of Cook, DuPage and Will in said State of 
 Illinois, and by reason of the premises the lands of plain- 
 tiff aforesaid were diminished in value to the extent of 
 two hundred thousand dollars. 
 
 And for that, whereas, on, to-wit: the 1st day of 
 March, A. D. 1904, the plaintiff was the owner possessed 
 of certain lands and premises in the County of LaSalle 
 and State of Illinois and has been the owner of the 
 same for more than two years before the date last 
 aforesaid, which premises were described as follows, that 
 is to say: | 
 
 That part of the southwest quarter of the southeast 
 quarter of section fourteen (14), township thirty three 
 (33) north and of range one (1) east of the 3rd princi- 
 pal meridian, which lies south of the Illinois and Michi- 
 gan Canal; also lots A and B in Canal Commissioners’ 
 subdivision of section fifteen (15) in township thirty 
 three (33) north of Range one (1) east of the Third 
 Principal Meridian; also that part of the northeast quar- 
 ter of Section twenty-one (21) south of the Illinois & 
 Michigan Canal and east of the Illinois River, and that 
 part of the north half and the south half of said section 
 twenty one (21) south of the Illinois River and east of 
 the bayou, all being in township thirty three (33) north, 
 and of range one (1) east of the Third Principal Meri- 
 dian; also that part of the southeast quarter of section 
 twenty two (22) township thirty three (33) north and 
 of range one (1) east of the Third Principal Meridian, 
 which hes south of the Illinois River; also that part of 
 
5 
 
 the northwest quarter of section twenty-three (23) in 
 township thirty-three (33) north and of range one (1) 
 east of the Third Principal Meridian, which lies south 
 of the [lnois River and west of the right of way of the 
 Illinois Central Railroad; also the northeast quarter of 
 the southeast quarter, the northwest quarter of the 
 southeast quarter, the northwest quarter of the south- 
 west quarter; that part of the northeast quarter of the 
 southwest quarter lying west of the right of way of the 
 Illinois Central Railroad, that part of the southwest 
 quarter of the southwest quarter north of the high- 
 way east and west across the same; that part of the 
 southeast quarter of the southwest quarter north of the 
 highway east and west across the same and west of the 
 right of way of the Illinois Central Railroad, and the 
 north four and one-half (45) acres of the south half of 
 the southeast quarter, all in section twenty three (23), 
 township thirty three (33) north and of range one (1) 
 east of the Third Principal Meridian, except that portion 
 of the same occupied by the right of way of the Chi- 
 cago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad; also lot two (2) in 
 the west half of the southwest quarter of section twenty 
 four (24) in township thirty three (33) north and of 
 range one (1) east of the Third Principal Meridian. 
 
 And on, to-wit: the day and year last aforesaid, the 
 defendant was a municipal corporation, organized under 
 and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois, and in- 
 vested with certain powers and duties under and by vir- 
 tue of the statute of the State of Illinois, creating said 
 Sanitary District of Chicago, and the various amend- 
 ments thereto; and in and by the statutes and amend- 
 ments aforesaid, it was, among other things, provided 
 that said Sanitary District should be liable for all dam- 
 age to real estate outside of said Sanitary District, 
 which should be overflowed or otherwise damaged, by 
 
6 
 reason of the turning of the waters of Lake Michigan 
 into the channels, ditches, drains and outlets in carry- 
 ing out the purposes for which said Sanitary District 
 was created, together with the reasonable attorney’s 
 fees for the prosecution of suits for such overflow and 
 damages, to be taxed as costs of suit; and the plaintiff 
 avers that on, to-wit: the day and year last aforesaid, 
 and for a long time before that date, the defendant built 
 and constructed divers ditches, drains, channels and em- 
 bankments in the Counties of Cook, DuPage and Will, 
 in the said State of Illinois, for the purpose of causing 
 the waters of Lake Michigan to flow down the channel of 
 the Deg Plaines River, and also for the purpose of di- 
 verting certain waters of the Des Plaines River, which 
 were accustomed to flow towards Lake Michigan, and 
 other waters in the Counties of DuPage and Cook, which 
 were before that time, accustomed to flow into Lake 
 Michigan, down the channel of said Des Plaines River; 
 and said Sanitary District, for the purpose of carrying 
 out its plan and perfecting its system of drainage afore- 
 said, constructed certain gates on its main channel at 
 Lockport, Illinois; and on, to-wit: the date last afore- 
 said, turned into the Des Plaines River and through said 
 Des Plaines River into the Illinois River by means of 
 said gates, and also by means of a certain channel, known 
 as the river diversion, constructed by said Sanitary Dis- 
 trict, large quantities of water, which were before that 
 time not accustomed to flow in said Des Plaines River, 
 and by reason of the turning in of said large quantities : 
 of water, the lands and premises of the plaintiff herein 
 before described, were overflowed, submerged, and ren- 
 dered wet and unfit for use, and were, and have since re- 
 mained under water, so that the plaintiff was deprived 
 of the use of the same, and said lands became wet, sour, 
 cold and unfit for crops, and overgrown with rank vege- 
 
10 
 
 Ba 
 
 7 
 
 tation, to the permanent injury of the same, and were 
 diminished in value to the extent of two hundred thou- 
 sand dollars. 
 
 And for that, whereas, on, to-wit: the Ist day of Janu- 
 ary, A. D. 1902, the plaintiff was the owner and pos- 
 sessed of the premises in the aforesaid counts of its 
 declaration herein described, and then, for a long time 
 before that time, had used and enjoyed the same for 
 farming purposes; and said premises were adjacent to 
 the Illinois River, in said LaSalle County, and on, to- 
 wit: the date last aforesaid, the defendant was the owner 
 and possessed of certain channels, ditches, outlets, lev- 
 ees, drains and gates, by the defendant constructed, in 
 the Counties of Cook, DuPage and. Will in said state, 
 for the purpose of causing the waters of Lake Michigan 
 to flow into the Des Plaines River in large quantities 
 and through the said Des Plaines River into the Llinois 
 River, and the defendant before that time had cut and 
 removed earth and rock for the purpose of diverting the 
 waters of Lake Michigan towards and into said Des 
 Plaines River, where they had not before that time been 
 accustomed to flow, for the purpose of carrying out the 
 purposes for which the defendant was organized, and 
 on, to-wit: the date aforesaid, the defendant being so 
 possessed of said channel, ditches, embankments, levees, 
 drains and gates, caused large quantities of water to be 
 turned into the Des Plaines River, in the Township of 
 Lockport, in Will County, Illinois, and permitted the same 
 to flow in said Des Plaines River from thence hitherto; 
 and by means of the turning of said large quanti- 
 ties of water into the Des Plaines River, the premises 
 of plaintiff aforesaid, were submerged and overflowed 
 and rendered wet and unprofitable and unfit for farming 
 and other purposes, and certain tile ditches which the 
 plaintiff owned and used in said premises for the pur 
 
15 
 
 8 
 
 pose of draining said premises, were injured by said 
 overflow, and said premises were overgrown with rank 
 
 - vegetation and have so remained from thence hitherto, 
 
 and by reason of the flooding of the same, said premises 
 have been permanently injured and diminished in value 
 to the extent of two hundred thousand dollars; to the 
 damage of the plaintiff of two hundred thousand dol- 
 lars. 
 
 And therefore it brings suit. 
 
 THE LaSatte County Carson Coat Company. 
 By J. L. O’DonneE Lu, and 
 Duncan, Dovtze & O’Conor, 
 
 Its Attorneys. 
 J. L. O’DonNELL, and 
 
 Duncan, Dove & O’Conor, 
 Attorneys for Plaintiff. 
 
 Which said declaration is endorsed upon the back as 
 follows: 
 
 “14727 La Salle Co. Carbon Coal Co., vs. Sanitary 
 District. Narr. J. L. O’Donnell, and Duncan, Doyle & 
 O’Conor, Attys. for Complt.’’ 
 
 (Also) ‘‘Finep Jan 141905 J. L. Witzeman Clerk La 
 salle Cov Cirenite Court. 
 
 Be it further remembered, that afterwards, and on, 
 to-wit: the 15th day of March, A. D. 1905, there was filed 
 in said court in said cause a certain demurrer to Narr in 
 the words and figures following, to-wit: 
 
STATE OF ILLINOIS, 4 
 LaSaLLe County. 
 
 In THE CrrouIt CouRT. 
 March Term, A. D. 1909. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Co. 
 vs. 
 Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 
 No. 14727. 
 Case. 
 
 And the defendant Sanitary District of Chicago, by 
 James Todd, Frank J. Quinn, B. M. Chiperfield and Lin- 
 coln & Stead, its attorneys, comes and defends, etc., when, 
 ete., and says that the said declaration and each count 
 thereof and the matters therein contained, in manner and 
 form as the same are above set forth, are not sufficient 
 in law for the plaintiff to maintain his aforesaid action 
 and that the defendant is not bound by law to answer the 
 same; and this it is ready to verify; wherefore for want 
 of a sufficient declaration in this behalf, the defendant 
 prays judgment and that the plaintiff may be barred 
 from maintaining his aforesaid action, ete. 
 
 (Signed) 
 JAMES Topp, 
 Frank J. QUINN, 
 B. M. CHIPERFIELD, 
 Lincotn & StTsap, 
 Attorneys for Sanitary District 
 of Chicago, Defendants. 
 
 Which said remurrer to Narr is endorsed upon the 
 back as follows: 
 
 ‘*No. 14727. La Salle County Carbon Coal Co. vs. 
 Sanitary District of Chicago. Demurrer to Narr.’’ 
 
 (Also) ‘‘Finep Mar 15, 1905. J. L. Witzeman, Clerk, 
 La Salle Co. Cireuit Court.’’ 
 
16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 10 
 
 Placita Cireuit Court LaSalle County, October Term, 
 A. D. 1906. 
 
 Hearing on demurrer before the Circuit Court of La- 
 Salle County, October 17, A. D. 1900. 
 
 October 20, A. D. 1905, demurrer sustained and eee 
 granted to plaintiff to file an amendment to its declara- 
 tion within 10 days. 
 
 Amendment to declaration, as follows: 
 
 Be IT FURTHER REMEMBERED, that afterwards, and on, 
 to-wit: the 25th day of October, A. D. 1905, there was 
 filed in said court in said cause a certain amendment to 
 Narr in the words and figures following, to-wit: 
 
 STATE oF ILLINOIS, af 
 County or LASALLE. 
 
 In toe Crrcutrt Court or Satp County. 
 of the 
 Octoper Term, A. D. 1905. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company 
 vs. 
 Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 
 | Gen. No. 14727. 
 Case. 
 
 In pursuance of leave of court first had and obtained, 
 the plaintiff amends his declaration as follows, to-wit: 
 
 1. In place of the year of our Lord, ‘‘1902,’’ appear- 
 ing on the 13th line from the top of the third page of 
 the declaration aforesaid, substitute the year of our 
 Lord ‘‘1904’’, 
 
 2. Immediately before the word ‘‘flow’’ on the 13th 
 line from the bottom of page 6 of said declaration, in- 
 sert the words ‘‘and did naturally’’. 
 
 3. After the word ‘‘flow’’ in the 12th line from the 
 bottom of the 6th page of said declaration, insert the 
 words ‘‘and it did naturally flow’’. 
 
20 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 24 
 
 20 
 
 26 
 
 27 
 
 28 
 
 11 
 
 4. Before the word ‘‘flow”’ in the 4th line from the 
 bottom of said sixth page, insert the words ‘‘and did 
 not naturally’’. 
 
 5. Before the word ‘‘flow’”’ on the 12th line from the 
 bottom of the seventh page of said declaration, insert the 
 words ‘‘and did not naturally’’. 
 
 (Signed) J. L. O’DonneE Lt, and 
 Duncan, Doyitz & O’Conor, 
 Attorneys for Plamtiff. 
 
 Placita LaSalle County Circuit Court, March Term, 
 1906. 
 
 April 13, 1906, order continuing the case to the October 
 Term, 1906, by agreement. 
 
 Placita Cireuit Court of LaSalle County, October 
 Term, 1906. 
 
 October 8, 1906, stipulation between the plaintiff and 
 the defendant continuing the case until the October 
 Term, 1907, of the LaSalle County Circuit Court. 
 
 Order continuing the cause. 
 
 Placita Cireuit Court of LaSalle County, October 
 Term, 1907. 
 
 October 14, 1907, order continuing the cause by agree- 
 ment. 
 
 Placita Cireuit Court of LaSalle County, October 
 Term, 1908. 
 
 December 17, 1908, on the motion of B. M. Chiperfield 
 and I. J. Quinn the appearance of all other attorneys 
 for the defendant is hereby withdrawn. Appearance of 
 fF’. J. Quinn and B. M. Chiperfield entered as attorneys 
 for defendant. 
 
 Leave granted to defendant to plead by January 1, 
 A, D. 1909. 
 
12 
 
 29 December 30, 1908, demurrer to amended declaration 
 filed. 
 
 aaah Placita Circuit Court of LaSalle County, June Term, 
 ioe! 
 
 32 July 3, 1909, demurrer to declaration withdrawn. 
 
 Rule on the defendant to plead on or before August 
 Ths BEL 
 34-36 July 14, 1909, stipulation as to the order of trials of 
 cases against the Sanitary District in the Cireuit Court 
 of LaSalle County. 
 
 ot September 4, 1909, plea of the general issue filed, as 
 follows: 
 
 State oF ILLINots, 
 SS. 
 County oF LASALLE. 
 
 In tHE Circuit Court, 
 June Term, A. D. 1909. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company General Nana 
 
 Sanitary District of Chicago. eet 
 
 And the defendant, Sanitary District of Chicago, by 
 Frank J. Quinn and B. M. Chiperfield, its attorneys, 
 comes and defends the wrong and injury, when, ete., and 
 says that it is not guilty of the said supposed grievances 
 above laid to its charge, or any or either of them, in 
 manner and form as the plaintiff has above thereof com- 
 plained against it; and of this the defendant puts itself 
 upon the country, ete. 
 
 (Signed) Frank J. Quinn, 
 B. M. CHIPERFIELD, 
 Attorneys for Defendant. 
 
38 
 
 40) 
 
 13 
 
 September 4, 1909, plea of the statute of limitations as 
 follows: 
 Srate oF IuLinors, 
 LaSaLuEt County. 
 In THE Circuit Court, 
 June Term, A. D. 1909. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company 
 VS. 
 Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 
 General Num- 
 ber 14727. 
 
 And for a further plea in this behalf, the defendant 
 says that the plaintiff ought not to have its aforesaid 
 action against it, the defendant, because it says that the 
 several supposed causes of action, in the said amended 
 declaration mentioned did not, nor did any or either of 
 them, accrue to the plaintiff at any time within five 
 years, next before the commencement of this suit, in 
 manner and form as the plaintiff has above complained 
 against it, the defendant; and this the defendant is ready 
 to verify. Wherefore, it prays judgment if the plaintiff 
 ought to have its aforesaid action against it, ete. 
 
 (Signed) Frank J. Quinn, 
 B. M. CHIPERFIELD, 
 Attorneys for the Defendant. 
 
 September 4, 1909, plea of non-ownership filed as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 STATE oF ILLINOIS, “ 
 LaSaLite County. 
 
 In THE Circuit Court. 
 June Term, A. D. 1909. 
 
 LaSalle County Carbon Coal Company haat NEE 
 
 is ber 14727. 
 
 Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 And for a further plea in this behalf, the defendant 
 
43 
 
 44 
 
 45 
 
 14 
 
 says that the plaintiff ought not to have its aforesaid 
 action against it, the defendant, because, it says, that 
 the channel, ditch, drain and outlet of the defendant de- 
 scribed in the amended declaration herein was construct- 
 ed, erected and built under and by virtue of authority 
 of the laws of the State of Illinois, and in strict accord- 
 ance therewith and pursuant to said authority, was 
 opened on the 17th day of January, A. D. 1900, in aecord- 
 ance with the Jaws of the State of Illinois, and that the 
 same then was and from thence hitherto has been and 
 still is a lawful, permanent structure and improvement, 
 and that on said date the plaintiff was not the owner in 
 fee simple of the real estate described in said amended 
 declaration, or any part or portion thereof; and this the 
 defendant is ready to verify; wherefore it prays judg- 
 ment if the plaintiff ought to have its aforesaid action 
 against it, ete. 
 (Signed) Frank J. Quinn, 
 B. M. CHIPEerFIELp, 
 Attorneys for Defendant. 
 
 Placita LaSalle County Cireuit Court, October Term, 
 1909. 
 
 October 11, 1909, petition for a change of venue from 
 Judges Eldredge and Skinner. 
 
 October 12, 1909, motion for change of venue over- 
 ruled. Defendant excepts. 
 
 Order setting case for trial November 8, 1909. 
 
 46-55 Bill of exceptions filed in the Circuit Court of LaSalle 
 
 County on the 18th day of October, A. D. 1909, in the 
 above entitled cause, upon the motion for change of 
 venue and in relation to proceedings therein. 
 
 (This petition for change of venue is not abstracted 
 herein for the reason that it does not pertain in any way 
 to the appeal which is here prosecuted. 
 
15 
 56 Placita LaSalle County Circuit Court, January Term, 
 1910. 
 
 57-58 Stipulation of the parties continuing cause to Janu- 
 arent, Lol. 
 
 59-60 January 17, 1910, stipulation continuing causes. 
 
 61 Placita Cireuit Court of LaSalle County, January 
 Term, 1912. 
 
 62 February 16, 1912, rule upon the defendant to rejoin to 
 replications within ten days. 
 
 63-64 February 16, 1912, replication of plaintiff to certain 
 pleas of the defendant as follows: | 
 
 STATE oF ILLINoTs, 4 
 LaSaLuLe Country. 
 
 In THE Crrcuit Court oF THE JANUARY TERM, A. D. 1912. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, | 
 US. 14727. 
 Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 And the plaintiff as to the plea of the defendant first 
 above pleaded, wherein it puts itself upon the country, 
 doth the like. 
 
 And the plaintiff as to the plea of the defendant by it 
 secondly above pleaded says that it, the plaintiff, by rea- 
 son of anything in that plea alleged, ought not to be 
 barred from having its aforesaid action because it says 
 that the said several causes of action and each and every 
 of them did accrue to it within five years next before the 
 commencement of this suit, in manner and form as it 
 has above complained against the defendant; and this 
 the plaintiff prays may be inquired of by the country, ete. 
 
 And the plaintiff as to the plea of the defendant by it 
 thirdly above pleaded says that it, the plaintiff, by rea- 
 son of anything in that plea alleged, ought not to be 
 
69 
 
 66 
 
 16 
 barred from having its aforesaid action because it says 
 that it, the plaintiff, was, at the time and date in said 
 plea alleged, the owner of the premises described in its 
 
 declaration, and each and every part thereof, in manner 
 and form as in its declaration alleged. 
 
 And this the plaintiff prays may be inquired of by 
 the country, ete. 
 (Signed.) J. L. O’DoNNELL, and 
 Dunoan, Dovte & O’Connor, 
 Attorneys for Plantiff. 
 
 February 26, 1912, extension of rule to plead to 
 amended declaration of ten days. 
 
 March 1, 1912, rejoinder to plaintiff’s replication as 
 follows: 
 
 State oF ILurnots, 
 SS. 
 County oF La SALLE. 
 
 In THE Circuit Court, Marcu TERM, A. D. 1912. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, 
 US. 
 Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 
 And now comes the defendant, and for a rejoinder to 
 the replication of the plaintiff to the plea of the defend- 
 ant by it secondly above pleaded, wherein it puts itself 
 upon the country, doth the like. 
 
 And now comes the defendant, and for a rejoinder to 
 the replication of the plaintiff to the plea of the defend- 
 ant by it thirdly above pleaded, wherein the plaintiff puts 
 itself upon the country, doth the like. 
 
 (Signed.) B. M. CuHrIprrFie.p, 
 Frank J. QUINN, 
 Attorneys for Defendant, 
 
17 
 68-69 March 1, 1912, defendant’s fourth plea as follows: 
 State oF ILLINOIS, 
 La SALLE County. : 
 In THE Circuit Court, Marcu Term, A. D. 1912. 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, Goneral 
 
 Us. ai 
 Sanitary District of Chicago. No. 14,727. 
 
 And the said defendant, the Sanitary District of Chr- 
 eago, by B. M. Chiperfield and Frank J. Quinn, its at- 
 torneys, for a further plea in this behalf, says that the 
 plaintiff ought not to have and maintain its aforesaid 
 action against it, the said defendant, because it says that 
 it has not done any act, nor is it guilty of any grievance 
 as alleged in the plaintiff’s declaration, or any count 
 thereof, that has damaged or injured the said lands of the 
 said plaintiff, as described in the plaintiff’s declaration, 
 for any use to which, under the law of the State of IIli- 
 nois and by the articles of incorporation of the said plain- 
 tiff, or the powers and authority with which it, the plain- 
 tiff, the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, is by 
 law invested, or has the lawful power or authority to 
 own, hold, enjoy or use the said lands, namely, for the 
 purpose of mining, coking and selling coal, or any use 
 necessarily incident thereto, which the defendant avers 
 is the sole purpose for which the plaintiff has the right 
 to own, hold, use, employ or enjoy said lands, so des- 
 eribed in the said declaration; and this the defendant is 
 ready to verify, wherefore it prays judgment if the 
 plaintiff ought to have its aforesaid action against it, ete. 
 
 (Signed.) B. M. CHiprrFie.p, 
 FRANK J. QUINN, 
 
 Attorneys for Defendant. 
 70 March 8, 1912, demurrer by the plaintiff to the fourth 
 
 plea of the defendant. 
 
12 
 
 ~I 
 wo 
 
 74 
 
 79 
 
 76 
 
 77 
 
 78 
 
 18 
 
 Placita, Circuit Court of La Salle County, March Term, 
 1912. 
 
 March 13, 1912, order of the court sustaining demurrer 
 to the fourth plea of the defendant. The defendant ex- 
 cepts and abides it forth pleading. 
 
 March 21, 1912, the court grants leave to plaintiff to 
 amend declaration. Rule entered upon the defendant to 
 plead to declaration as amended within ten days. 
 
 Amendment to declaration, as follows: 
 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS, an 
 County or La Saute. | ~~ 
 
 In THE Circuit Court oF Samp County, Marcu Tro, A. 
 D192: 
 
 Gen. No. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, | Case. 
 14,727. 
 
 aes: 
 Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 
 In pursuance of leave of court first had and obtained, 
 the plaintiff amends its declaration as follows: 
 
 That the 10th line from the bottom of fifth page of 
 said declaration which now reads as follows: ‘‘the south- 
 west quarter of the southwest quarter north of the,’’ be 
 made to read in lieu thereof as follows: ‘‘the southeast 
 quarter of the southwest quarter north of the.’’ 
 
 (Signed.) J. L. O’DonNELL, and 
 Duncan, Doyte & O’Connor, 
 Attorneys for Plaintiff. 
 
 March 28, 1912, motion by the defendant for a con- 
 tinuance until the next term of court. 
 
 April 2, 1912, the court overruled motion for a con- 
 tinuance to the next term of court. 
 
 April 10, 1912, order setting case for trial April 15, 
 1912, at 1:30 P, M. 
 
168, 
 
 19 
 
 April 15, 1912, motion for a continuance. Motion al- 
 lowed. 
 
 80-81 May 18, 1912, defendant files plea as follows: 
 
 Stave oF ILLINoIs, ) 
 SS. 
 La Satie County. § 
 
 Iy tHe Circurr Court, Marcu Trrm, A. D. 1912. 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, “Abe 
 
 US. | 
 Sanitary District of Chicago. 14,727, 
 
 And the said defendant, the Sanitary District of Chi- 
 eago, by B. M. Chiperfield and Frank J. Quinn, its at- 
 torneys, for a further plea in this behalf, says that the 
 plaintiff ought not to have and maintain its aforesaid 
 action against it, the said defendant, because it says that 
 it had not done any act, nor is it guilty of any grievance 
 as alleged in the plaintiff’s amended declaration, or any 
 count thereof, that has damaged or injured the said 
 lands of the said plaintiff, as described in the plaintiff’s 
 amended declaration, for any use to which, under the 
 laws of the State of Ilhnois, and by the articles of in- 
 corporation of the said plaintiff, or the powers and au- 
 thority with which it, the plaintiff, the La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company, is by law invested, or has the 
 lawful power or authority to own, hold, enjoy, or use 
 the said lands, namely, for the purpose of mining, coking 
 and selling coal, or any use necessarily incident thereto, 
 which the defendant avers is the sole purpose for which 
 the plaintiff has the right to own, hold, use, employ or 
 enjoy said lands, so deseribed in the said amended dec- 
 laration. And this the defendant is ready to verify, 
 wherefore it prays judgment if the plaintiff ought to have 
 its aforesaid action against it, ete. 
 
 (Signed.) B. M. Cuiprrrrexp, 
 Frank J. Quinn, 
 Attorneys for Defendant. 
 
86 
 
 87 
 
 88 
 
 89 
 
 20 
 
 Placita, La Salle County Cireuit Court, June Term, 
 1912. 
 
 Order setting cause for trial November 6, 1912. 
 
 Placita, La Salle County Circuit Court, October Term, 
 19:12; 
 
 November 7, 1912, the court sustains demurrer of the 
 plaintiff to the defendant’s plea of the statute of limita- 
 tions to the declaration as amended. The defendant 
 abides its special plea of the statute of limitations to 
 the declaration as amended. 
 
 Defendant moves the court for leave to file a plea of 
 nul tiel corporation. 
 
 Plaintiff objects; objection sustained. 
 
 Defendant is granted leave to refile its pleas hereto- 
 fore, filed of the general issue, the statute of limitations 
 and non-ownership, and it is ordered by the court that 
 the same stand as pleas to the declaration as amended. 
 
 Plaintiff is granted leave to re-file its demurrer to the 
 defendant’s fourth plea. Demurrer sustained. Defend- 
 ant abides by its said fourth plea. 
 
 Leave granted to the plaintiff to re-file its replications 
 heretofore filed to the defendant’s first, second and third 
 pleas, and to the defendant to re-file its rejoinders here- 
 tofore filed herein to the replications of the plaintiff to 
 the defendant,’s first, second and third pleas. 
 
 November 11, 1912, case called for trial. Jury selected. 
 Adjourned until the following day. 
 
 November 12, 1912, hearing continued, adjournment 
 until the following day. 
 
 November 13, 1912, hearing continues, adjourns until 
 the following day. 
 
 November 14, 1912, hearing continues, adjourns until 
 the following day. 
 
a) 
 
 98 
 
 104 
 
 105 
 
 106 
 
 21 
 
 November 15, 1912, hearing continues, adjournment 
 until Monday morning next. 
 
 November 18, 1912, hearing continues, adjourned until 
 the following day. 
 
 November 19, 1912, hearing continues, adjourned until 
 the following day. 
 
 November 20, 1912, hearing continues, adjourned until 
 the following day. 
 
 November 21, 1912, hearing continues, adjourned until 
 the following day. 
 
 November 22, 1912, hearing continues, adjourned until 
 Monday morning next. 
 
 November 25, 1912, hearing continues, adjourned until 
 
 | the following day. 
 
 November 26, 1912, hearing continues, adjourned until 
 the following day. 
 
 November 27, 1912, hearing continues, adjournment 
 until Monday morning next. 
 
 December 2, 1912, hearing continues, adjourned until 
 the following day. 
 
 December 3, 1912, hearing continues, adjourned until 
 the following day. 
 
 December 4, 1912, hearing continues, adjourned until 
 following day. | 
 
 December 5, 1912, evidence concluded. Arguments of 
 counsel presented to the jury. Further hearing post- 
 poned until following morning. 
 
 December 6, 1912, argument continued. Jury instruct- 
 ed. Retired in charge of an officer. 
 
 December 7, 1912, verdict of jury returned into open 
 court as follows: ‘‘We, the jury, find the defendant 
 culty and assess the plaintiff’s damages at the sum of 
 $35,000. ”’ 
 
 December 11, 1912, the defendant, by its attorneys, 
 moves the court to set aside the verdict and for a new 
 trial herein. 
 
108 
 
 109 
 
 110 
 
 22 
 
 (Note. Motion for new trial set forth in bill of ex- 
 ceptions. ) 
 
 January 4, 1913, defendant moves the court for leave 
 to withdraw its motion to set aside verdict and for new 
 trial heretofore entered herein, and defendant’s points 
 in support thereof heretofore filed herein. Motion 
 granted by the court. 
 
 Defendant moves the court that judgment be rendered 
 herein for the defendant non obstante veredicto. 
 Motion overruled; defendant excepts to said ruling. 
 
 Defendant re-files and renews its motion to set aside 
 the verdict and for a new trial. 
 Motion overruled by the court; defendant excepts to 
 such ruling. 
 Motion by the defendant in arrest of judgment. 
 Motion overruled; defendant excepts to such ruling. 
 
 Plaintiff, by its attorneys, moves the court for an 
 order fixing attorneys’ fees and taxing same as costs. 
 
 Defendant moves the court for a rule on plaintiff to 
 file a bill of particulars on their claim for attorney’s fees. 
 Motion sustained and rule entered to file a bill of par- 
 ticulars on its claim for attorneys’ fees by Tuesday 
 morning next, and the hearing on said motion of plain- 
 tiff for an order fixing attorneys’ fees and taxing the 
 same as costs is postponed until Saturday morning next 
 at 10:30 o’clock a. M. 
 
 January 11, 1913, defendant moves the court for a rule 
 on plaintiff to file a more specific bill of particulars on 
 its claim for attorneys’ fees, and the defendant, by its 
 attorneys, protests against proceeding with the hearing. 
 on such claim until said bill of particulars is filed herein, 
 and moves the court for a continuance of said hearing, 
 
 Motion overruled; defendant excepts to such ruling, 
 
23 
 
 Defendant moves the court for an entry of judgment 
 herein. 
 Plaintiff objects; objection sustained; defendant ex- 
 cepts. 
 
 Thereupon the defendant, by its attorneys, enters a 
 protest against being required to appear upon the ques- 
 tion of taxation of any costs herein until judgment has 
 been entered herein against one of the parties to the suit. 
 
 Motion overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 111 +#Plaintiff’s motion for an order fixing its attorneys’ 
 fees and taxing same as costs comes on to be heard. The 
 court having heard all of the evidence submitted, the 
 plaintiff, by its attorney, moves the court for a judgment 
 on the verdict. 
 
 To which the defendant, by its attorney, objects; ob- 
 jection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 The court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff 
 for $35,000 and its costs and charges, by it, in its behalf, 
 expended and that it has execution therefor. 
 
 The defendant excepts. 
 
 The court hears arguments and suggestions of counsel 
 on plaintiff’s motion to assess plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees 
 and tax the same as costs. The court assesses said 
 plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees at $5,000. 
 
 And it is ordered by the court that $5,000 attorneys’ 
 fees be taxed herein as a part of the costs. 
 
 lixception by the defendant. 
 
 Defendant prays an appeal to the Supreme Court of 
 the State of [llinois. Appeal granted. Defendant al- 
 lowed sixty days in which to prepare and tender its bill 
 of exceptions. ° 
 
 Defendant, by its attorneys, prays an appeal to the 
 112 Appellate Court of the Second District of the State of 
 Illinois on the order of the court allowing attorneys’ fees 
 
113 
 
 114 
 115 
 116 
 
 117 
 
 24. 
 
 and taxing the same as costs. Appeal granted. Defend- 
 ant allowed thirty days in which to prepare and tender 
 its bill of exceptions. 
 
 Bill of exceptions in the above entitled cause filed .... 
 day“of at: aaert erie ue: , A. D. 19138, as follows: 
 
 November 7, 1912, cause comes on for trial. 
 Jury excused until Monday morning. 
 
 Defendant asks leave to file plea of nul tiel corpora- 
 tion as follows: 
 
 Strath oF ILLINoIs, 
 tee . SS. 
 County oF La Satie. 
 
 In tHE La Satie County Circuit Court, NovEMBER 
 Term, A. D. 1912. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, 
 ls: 
 Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 
 And for a further plea in its behalf the defendant says 
 that the plaintiff ought not to have its aforesaid action 
 against it, the defendant, because it says there is not, nor 
 was, at the time of the commencement of this suit any 
 such corporation as the La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company, as by the said declaration is above supposed; 
 and of this the defendant put itself upon the country, ete. 
 
 (Signed.) CHIPERFIELD & CHIPERFIELD, 
 Attorneys for the Sanitary 
 District of Chicago. 
 
 Objection by the plaintiff to the filing of such plea. 
 
 118-130 Argument of counsel upon the right to file the nul 
 
 tiel corporation. 
 
 130-131 Decision on motion by the court denying motion to 
 
 file plea of nul trel corporation. 
 Exception by the defendant. 
 
20 
 
 133-140 Order by the court and argument of counsel with 
 
 reference to the settling of pleadings as heretofore set 
 forth in the record. 
 
 141-350 November 11, 1912, examination of jury by counsel 
 
 for the respective parties, and replies of jurors thereto. 
 
 (This portion of the record is not abstracted for the 
 reason that no questions are raised in connection there- 
 with in any way that affects this appeal and no error is 
 assigned in connection with the examination and selection 
 of the jury herein.) ; 
 
 351-353 Admonition by the court to the jury. 
 
 354-363 Argument of counsel with reference to requiring 
 
 364 
 
 368 
 
 373 
 
 the plaintiff to produce certain books of account. 
 
 Commencement of opening statement for plaintiff by 
 Mr. O’Connor. 
 
 Extract from opening statement: 
 
 ‘‘There is no question in this case about the turning in 
 of the water. This defendant will admit that. They will 
 admit they have turned the water into this valley but 
 they enter a denial in toto that practically says they have 
 not damaged this land or any other land.’’ 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLp: We object to the statement concern- 
 ing any other land. 
 
 The Court: Well, I overrule the objection. 
 Kixception by the defendant. 
 
 Iixtract from opening statement of Mr. O’Conor: 
 
 “They will admit they have raised it some; how much 
 I don’t know. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: I object to the statement. We make 
 no such admission. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I am wrong about it. They won’t ad- 
 mit anything. 
 
379 
 
 ol 
 
 26 
 
 Mr..Cuiperrietp: I object to the statement of counsel 
 and ask for a ruling. | 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the objection. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted.’’ 
 
 Opening statement for the defendant by Mr. Chiper- 
 field. 
 
 Extract from opening statement by Mr. Chiperfield: 
 
 From the statement which was made here you would 
 get the idea that the plaintiff, the La Salle County Car- 
 bon Coal Company was a farmer, but I want to assure 
 you that the evidence in this case will show you no such 
 condition of affairs. The La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company is a coal mining corporation, capitalized at 
 one million dollars; a coal mining corporation whose sole 
 business is the business of digging, coking and selling 
 coal; all the rights it has under its charter; not a farmer 
 going around in overalls and top boots. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: We object to that statement, your 
 Honor. That has already been passed upon by the court 
 and is a matter of law. 
 
 The Court: I think I will sustain the objection. 
 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: 'l’o what part of my statement, your 
 Honor? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I think it ought to be sustained to all 
 of that, your Honor, that makes a reference to the of- 
 ficers of the company. 
 
 The Court: No, I will let that stand. 
 
 Mr. Curiperrietp: I want to conform to the ruling of 
 the court and I would like to know what part of my state- 
 ment the objection was sustained to. 
 
 The Court: JI think your statement as to who the 
 
279 
 
 27 
 
 officers were was all right, because I can see that might 
 have a bearing on the case. I don’t know. 
 
 Mr. CurperFieELD: Surely it is all right. 
 
 The Court: The fact it is a corporation that has no 
 business except coal mining and is not a farmer,—I don’t 
 think that is proper. 
 
 Mr. CureerrreLD: Isn’t it proper to say it is a cor- 
 poration when it is so stated in the declaration? 
 
 The Court: I sustained the objection. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: I want to conform to your Honor’s 
 ruling and I ask in all earnestness why it is not proper 
 for me to state— 
 
 The Court: The court has passed upon that question 
 and decided it is a matter of immateriality whether it is 
 a corporation for coal mining purposes or not. As I un- 
 derstand, this corporation has a right to hold this land 
 as a farmer, and you have no right to question that in 
 your case. 
 
 Mr. CurperFiIELp: No, that is not the purpose of my 
 statement, if your Honor please. My statement is as to 
 the form of organization as to this company, that it is 
 a corporation and it is embodied in this declaration, and 
 why cannot this jury be told it is a corporation? I want 
 to preserve this record and I want to do it in all fair- 
 ness, but does your Honor hold for a minute it is in- 
 competent to tell this jury it is a corporation, when they 
 sue as a corporation? 
 
 The Court: I have ruled on it and another court has 
 ruled on it and sustained it. 
 
 Mr. Cutprerrietp: I do not question your Honor’s 
 ruling and I do not care for the ruling of any other court, 
 but I do want to state to this Jury, your Honor, that this 
 is a corporation. 
 
ool 
 
 Se) 
 
 bo 
 
 28 
 The Court: I will let you state that. I don’t object to 
 that. 
 Extract from opening statement of Mr. Chiperfield: 
 
 ‘Tt will also be shown, gentlemen, that some of this 
 land has been used for agricultural purposes at different 
 times, and the proof will be that some of it, at different 
 times, has rented for a dollar an acre. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: ‘To which we object, your Honor. 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: We expect to prove it. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: You can’t prove it. 
 
 
 
 Mr. CuiperFiELD: I object to the conduct of counsel 
 as highly improper, interrupting my statement, and 
 making a statement which I make to the jury is not true 
 and cannot be proven. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Just a minute. I make an objection 
 and he turns to me and says, ‘We will prove it’ and I 
 say he can’t. 
 
 Mr. CuHIPERFIELD: I object to the statement of counsel 
 as improper and the conduct of counsel as improper. 
 
 The Court: I will sustain both of your objections. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: That is even. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Cuiprerrietp: I object to the last statement of 
 counsel as improper. 
 
 The Court: I think you have a right to address the 
 jury and I think he has a right to make an objection. I 
 would have overruled his objection if you had given me 
 time. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I think, your Honor, when counsel is 
 
 making a statement to the jury and the statement is 
 made that his statement is true, and counsel merely takes 
 
29 
 
 his seat, he treats it with more moderation than is usu- 
 383 ally given in a court of justice. If you had taken your 
 seat and given me a chance to say something— 
 
 Mr. Cureerrietp: I thought this was my statement, 
 my address to the jury. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: It is, Mr. Chiperfield. 
 Mr. Curperrirtp: Until I can be treated properly I 
 will wait. 
 Mr, O’Conor: I simply made an objection to the court. | 
 The Court: I have ruled on it. 
 Mr. O’Conor: Very good. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CurrPerFrietp: I want to object to the last conduct 
 of counsel as improper.’’ 
 
 392 Extract from the statement of Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 ‘¢And we will narrate and prove to you by witnesses 
 who will come here for that purpose that a vast number 
 of crops that can be successfully and profitably raised in 
 the State of Illinois, are not raised on this land simply 
 because they will not put it to that use until this law 
 suit 1s over. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I object to the fairness of that state- 
 ment. 
 
 The Court: Sustain the objection. 
 The defendant excepts.’’ 
 
 399 Extract from statement of Mr. Chiperfield: 
 
 ‘*And when these gentlemen pretend to say that the 
 Illinois River in times of low water is raised from four to 
 six feet in times of high water that it has raised from 
 four to six feet, we say from our knowledge of this sub- 
 ject that it is an absurdity, a silly statement; it is not 
 
407 
 
 408 
 
 409 
 
 410 
 
 30 
 
 correct. And we expect the evidence in the case will 
 demonstrate conclusively and plainly that it 1s not cor- 
 rect, that it is made simply for the purpose of enhancing 
 the damages in this case. It is not correct. I don’t care 
 who says it is correct, the evidence in this case will 
 demonstrate it 1s not. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Your Honor, we object to this argu- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: That is my statement. 
 
 The Court: I will sustain the objection to the last. 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: State facts, please. 
 
 Howarp S. Hazen, a witness for the plaintiff being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Butters. 
 
 My name is Howard 8S. Hazen. I live in La Salle. I 
 have lived there thirty-six years. I am in the coal min- 
 ing business for the La Salle County Carbon Coal Com- 
 pany. Iam general manager. Have been with that com- 
 pany since 1884. J was bookkeeper and pay roll clerk 
 from 1884 to 1890. The works of the La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company are located at La Salle and Peru. 
 The lands are located in 15 in La Salle and 16 in Peru 
 and 4 1n the Town of Eden. I first saw Exhibit 4 in the 
 manager’s office of the La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company in 1890, about fourteen years subsequent to the 
 date of the instrument; six years subsequent to the date 
 of recording; six years to the date of the deed. I sup- 
 pose Exhibit 1 has been kept in the manager’s office in 
 Chicago. I first found it there. 
 
 Supposition stricken out by the court. 
 
411 
 
 414 
 
 415 
 
 3] 
 
 I found it there in November, 1911. I found that deed 
 in the Illinois Trust & Savings Deposit box in Chicago. 
 This box was in the custody of F. O. Wyatt, general man- 
 ager of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. 
 
 Plaintiff offers in evidence Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 to- 
 gether with certificates of recording thereto attached and 
 the certificate of acknowledgement. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLD: * * * J would like to have the 
 opportunity of asking the witness a question out of the. 
 presence of the jury. 
 
 The jury retires. The testimony continued out of the 
 presence of the jury. 
 
 Mr. Curreerrietp: @. The La Salle County Carbon 
 Coal Company which is named as grantee in this deed 
 is the plaintiff in this case? 
 
 POY es Sir: 
 
 There has never been more than one La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company. I never knew of but one charter 
 dated 1883 or 1884. I don’t know of any other La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company except the La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company that was organized under this 
 eharter of 1883. It is still operating under that charter. 
 It is the plaintiff in this case. J have not the charter 
 with me. 
 
 Mr. CureerFieLtp: You were asked, gentlemen, to pro- 
 due that charter. Have you the charter available? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: We have it. 
 (Charter handed to the witness.) 
 
 The duration of the charter shall be fifty years. The 
 date of the charter is the 8th day of November, 1883. 
 There was a reorganization of this company in 1893, 
 where the capital stock was increased from $70,000 to 
 $75,000. It was reorganized, yes sir. There was another 
 
416 
 
 417 
 
 32 
 
 reorganization where the capital stock was increased to 
 $1,000,000. The same charter was continued. The ob- 
 ject for which this charter was taken out was for the 
 selling and mining of coal and coke. It is so stated. 
 
 Q. It is so limited by your charter, is it not? A. So 
 stated. I don’t know whether it is limited or not.’’ 
 
 I don’t know whether there is a limitation. 
 Objection by the plaintiff that the charter is the best 
 evidence; objection sustained; defendant excepts. 
 
 Mr. CuHIperFIeLD: Now, then, in connection with the 
 foundation which is being offered, and for the purpose 
 of having it solely before the court, I want to have the 
 charter incorporated in this examination. 
 
 Objection by plaintiff. 
 
 The Court: I will let it go in in the absence of the 
 jury. 
 
 Mr. CurperFIELpD: Simply for the foundation. 
 
 It is to lay the foundation for the admission of this 
 deed; it is for the record and not for the jury. 
 
 The charter of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Com- 
 
 pany was received in evidence by the court, marked Ex- 
 hibit 2 and is in words and figures following, to-wit: 
 
 EXHIBIT 2. 
 
 “STATE OF ILLINOIS, 
 DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 
 
 Henry D. Dement. Secretary of State. 
 T'o ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING: 
 Wuepreas, a statement, duly signed and acknowledged, 
 
 has been filed in the office of the Secretary of State, on 
 
 the 24th day of August, A. D. 1883, for the organization 
 of the La Sante County Carson Coat Company under and 
 in accordance with the provisions of ‘An Acr Concrrn- 
 
3a 
 
 ING CorporaTIONS,’ approved April 18, 1872, and in force 
 July 1, 1872, and all acts amendatory thereof, a copy of 
 which statement is hereto attached; 
 
 AND WHEREAS, a license has been issued to EXpmMonp D. 
 Taytor, Isaac W. Rocers and Winutam ‘W. Taytor, as 
 commissioners to open books for subscription to the 
 eapital stock of the said company ; 
 
 AND WHEREAS, the said commissioners have, on the 8th 
 
 418 day of November, A. D. 1883, filed in the office of the 
 Secretary of State a report of their proceedings under 
 said license, a copy of which report is hereto attached; 
 
 Now, THEREFORE, I, Henry D. Dement, Secretary of 
 State of the State of [llinois, by virtue of the powers vest- 
 ed in me by law, do hereby certify that the said La SALLE 
 County Carpon CoaL Company, is a legally organized 
 corporation under the laws of this state. 
 
 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I, here- 
 to set my hand and cause to be 
 affixed the great seal of State. 
 Done at the City of Spring- 
 ( Seal of the State ) field, this eighth day of Novem- 
 (of Illinois, August) ber, in the year of our Lord, 
 ( 26, 1818. ) one thousand eight hundred 
 eighty-three and of the inde- 
 pendence of the United States 
 
 the one hundred and eight. 
 
 Henry D. Dement, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 State or [LLINOIs, : 
 La Satie County. 
 PMTIOU Meal oy ee; «2 
 To Henry D. Dement, Secretary of State: 
 We, the undersigned Epmonp D. Taynor, Isaac W. 
 Rocers and Wriu1aAm W. Taytor, propose to form a cor- 
 
 poration under an act of the general assembly of the 
 419 State of Illinois, entitled ‘An act concerning corpora- 
 
420 
 
 34 
 
 tions.’ Approved April 18, 1872, and all acts amenda- 
 tory thereof; and, for the purpose of such organization, 
 we hereby state as follows, to-wit: 
 
 1. The name of said corporation is La Saute County 
 CaRBON CoaL COMPANY. 
 
 2. The object for which it is formed is mining, coking 
 and selling coal. 
 
 3. The capital stock shall be Fives Hunprep T'Housanp 
 DoLuars. 
 
 4. The amount of each share is ONE HunpDRED DoLuaRs. 
 5. The number of’shares Ftvzn THOUSAND. 
 
 6. The location of the principal office is in La Salle, in 
 the County of La Salle, State of Illinois. 
 
 7. The duration of the corporation shall be fifty (50) 
 years. 
 EK. D. Taytor, 
 I. W. Rogers, 
 Wituiam W. Tayuor. 
 
 STATE OF ILLINoTs, Hf 
 County or La SALe. 
 
 I, Cuarvtes L. Braprorp, a notary public, in and for the 
 county and state aforesaid, do hereby certify that on the 
 23d day of August, A. D. 1883, personally appeared be- 
 fore me 
 
 Kpmunp ID, Taytor, 
 
 Isaac W. Rocers, and 
 
 Wituiam W. Taytor, 
 to me personally known to be the same persons who ex- 
 ecuted the foregoing statement, and severally acknowl- 
 edged that they executed the same for the purposes 
 therein set. forth. 
 
35 
 
 In witness wHerxor, I have hereunto set my hand and 
 seal the day and year above written. 
 CuHarues L. BraDForp, 
 [ SEAL. ] Notary Public. 
 
 Full paid $500,000. 
 
 To Honorable Henry D. Dement, Secretary of State of 
 the State of Iilinois: 
 
 The commissioners duly authorized to open Books of 
 Subscription to the Capital Stock of the La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company pursuant to license heretofore 
 issued bearing date the 24th day of August, A. D. 1888, 
 do hereby report that they opened Books of Subscription 
 to the Capital Stock of said company, and that the said 
 stock was fully subscribed; that the following is a true 
 copy of such subscription, viz: We, the undersigned, 
 hereby severally subscribe for the number of shares set 
 opposite our respective names to the capital stock of the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, and we severally 
 agree to pay the said company, for each share, the sum of 
 One Hundred Dollars. 
 
 Names. Shares. Amount. 
 PRGA YY BIVOOET Sct. f-sn0 4996 $499,600 
 Heme el AVIOT. oem See. 1 100 
 eee Doolittle 4 ues * 1 100 
 JE UTNE SRG eh a ek ieee 1 100 
 James Goggin ....... aaah dice b 100 
 
 and they do further report, the organization of said com- 
 pany took place as follows, viz: 
 
 At a meeting of the subscribers to the capital stock of 
 the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, held at room 
 33 Howland Block, Chicago, November 7, 1883, the fol- 
 lowing named subscribers were present, viz: 
 
 Isaac W. Rogers, subscriber for 4,996 shares. 
 Hdmund D, Taylor, subscriber for 1 share. 
 
36 
 
 James F. Joy, subscriber for one share. 
 
 James Goggin, subscriber for one share. 
 
 James R. Doolittle, subscriber for one share. 
 Whereupon James F. Joy was unanimously chosen 
 chairman or president of said meeting, and James R. 
 Doolittle was unanimously chosen secretary. 
 
 Thereupon it was unanimously resolved that the above 
 named stockholders be elected directors of said company 
 for the ensuing year. It appearing that all of the sub- 
 seribers to the capital stock of said company were pres- 
 ent, and unanimously voted for the election of such di- 
 rectors, it was deemed unnecessary, for that reason, that 
 
 any notice of such election should be published. 
 
 On motion the meeting of stock holders was adjourned 
 sina die. 
 
 Immediately after the adjournment of the meeting of 
 the stockholders at the same place and on the same day, 
 there was held a meeting, being the first meeting of the 
 directors of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. 
 
 At such meeting, the following named persons, being 
 all of the directors of said company, to-wit: James F. 
 Joy, Edmund D. Taylor, James Goggins, Isaac 'W. Rog- 
 ers, and James R. Doolittle were present. 
 
 Whereupon said meeting being called to order, on mo- 
 tion it was resolved that James F. Joy be chosen presi- 
 dent of said meeting. 
 
 On motion, James R. Doolittle was appointed secre- 
 tary of this meeting. 
 
 On motion, it was resolved that James F. Joy, be 
 elected president of said company. 
 
 On motion, it was resolved that Jaspar Johnson be 
 elected secretary and treasurer of said company. 
 
 K. D. Taynor, 
 Isaac W. Rocers, 
 Wituiam W. Taytor. 
 
423 
 
 424 
 
 37 
 
 State oF ILLINots, 
 SS. 
 County or Cook. 
 
 Kdmund D. Taylor, and Isaae W. Rogers, being duly 
 sworn, say that they have read the above report sub- 
 scribed to by them as commissioners, and that the same 
 
 is in all respects true. 
 HK. D. Taytor, 
 
 Isaac W. Roaers. 
 
 Subseribed and sworn to béfore me this 7th day of 
 November, A. D. 1883. 
 Witness my hand and official seal. 
 Henry MocKey, 
 [ SEAL. | : Notary Public. 
 Cook County, Illinois. 
 (On the back of the foregoing instrument appears the 
 following endorsement) : 
 
 ‘‘Certificate of incorporation 
 of the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. 
 
 Nov. 8, ’83. 
 
 STATE oF ILLINOIs, 
 
 Ta Satie County. Site N Ov oli dae. 
 
 This instrument was filed for record this 10th day of 
 November, A. D. 1883, at 10 o’clock a. m. and is duly rec- 
 orded in book 241 of records, page 122. 
 
 STEPHEN ARNOLD, 
 Recorder.’’ 
 
 The Court: Well, you may call the jury back. You 
 
 are through. 
 
 Mr. CureerrieLp: Q. Well, let us see. You say, Mr. 
 Hazen, you are the general manager of this concern? 
 
 A Jey C8; SIT; 
 
426 
 
 427 
 
 428 
 
 38 
 
 In a general way my duties are looking after the min- 
 ing and selling of the coal and I have charge of the other 
 properties. I have charge of the company’s records. I 
 am secretary of the company. 
 
 The Courr: Let the record show that the jury is re- 
 called. 
 
 (Whereupon the jury resumed its place and the fol- 
 lowing proceedings were had in its presence.) 
 
 Mr. Burrers: Will you mark these documents Hx- 
 hibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9? 
 
 Q. Now, Mr. Hazen, you may look at the papers I now 
 show you marked Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and state 
 where you first saw those papers? 
 
 A. I saw those papers in 1884 in March, in the office of 
 the Illinois Valley Coal Company, at Oglesbee, Jonesville 
 near La Salle, in the manager’s office, secretary’s office. 
 
 (). Now, then, since you saw those papers, and the one 
 ineluded in the previous question, marked Exhibit 1, 
 what was done subsequent to that time with the lands 
 described in these several exhibits 1 to 9, I think, in- 
 elusive? A. Three to nine. One is the original. 
 
 Objection by the defendant, as being incompetent, 
 irrelevant and immaterial, and that no proper 
 foundation has been laid for the admission of the 
 testimony at this time; that it does not tend to 
 prove any of the issues of this case; that it tends 
 to create a variance between the allegation of the 
 plaintiff’s declaration, which alleges ownership, 
 and the testimony which is now being offered. 
 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 Objection by the defendant that the lands concern- 
 ing which the question is asked do not appear to 
 be the same lands embraced in the declaration. 
 
429 
 
 430 
 
 39 
 
 The Courr: I think I will let him answer the question. 
 Exception by the defendant. 
 
 A. Such part as was favorable for agricultural pur- 
 poses was operated that way. 
 Motion by the defendant to strike out the answer. 
 Motion overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: @. In whose possession were the lands 
 mentioned in the several deeds to which your attention 
 has been called and numbered Exhibits 1 and 2 to 9, 1n- 
 elusive? 
 
 Objection by the defendant. 
 
 The Court: I think I will let him answer. 
 Exception by the defendant. 
 
 Mr. CurperrieLD: Pardon me, I want to state my ob- 
 jection. I object to it for the reason it does not embrace 
 the land described in the plaintiff’s declaration; that it 
 embraces a large quantity of land other than the land 
 deseribed in the plaintiff’s declaration, thereby tending 
 to raise a collateral issue, not one which is involved in 
 this suit; and for the further reason that it is calling for 
 the conclusion of the witness. * * * The court ought 
 to be advised, if he is not, that there are many hundred 
 acres of land which are not embraced in this suit at all 
 described in those deeds. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Well, that is very true. 
 
 The Court: I think I will let him answer the question. 
 Exception by the defendant. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFietp: There are in these deeds a large 
 number of other tracts of land described other than those 
 that are involved in this suit. If they are offered and 
 received in evidence at all they are offered and received 
 in evidence because they are material to sustain the issue 
 in this case. It seems to me apparent at a glance that 
 
45 
 45 
 
 :; 
 5) 
 
 454 
 
 45 
 
 5 
 
 40) 
 
 those portions of land which are not involved in this 
 suit— 
 
 The Courr: Let me ask you a question. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Certainly. 
 
 The Court: Are there some deeds there that do not 
 include any portion of the land in controversy? 
 Argument upon objection. 
 
 The Court: I think I will let him answer. 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 A. In possession of the Illinois Valley Coal Com- 
 pany. 
 Answer stricken out by the court. 
 
 In March, 1884, the Illinois Valley Coal Company sold 
 their property to the owners of the La Salle County Car- 
 bon Coal Company, who operated the Illinois Valley Coal 
 property until 1892, under separate management. The 
 two properties were worked together under the same 
 management and consolidated in 1892 under the name of 
 the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. That is the 
 history of the operation, and when I saw those in 1884, 
 they were in the hands of the Illinois Valley Coal Com- 
 pany. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: Q. Now, then, look at exhibits num- 
 bered 1 and numbered 3, and state in whose possession 
 the lands therein described have been since the date of 
 those deeds and the delivery of them. 
 
 Objection by the defendant. 
 
 The Court: I think I will let him answer. 
 Exeeption by the defendant. 
 
 A. Number 1 has been in the possession of the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company since November, 1883, and 
 number 3 has been in the possession of the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company since October, 1892. 
 
436 
 
 437 
 
 4] 
 
 Mr. Burrers: Q. What if anything has been done by 
 the way of acts of possession of the lands, the surface of 
 these lands? 
 
 Mr. CurperFrietp: I object to that as incompetent, ir- 
 relevant and immaterial and not tending to prove any of 
 the issues in the case; and no proper foundation had been 
 laid. 
 
 The Court: I think I will let him answer. 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 A. It was in the possession of the La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company. 
 
 Answer stricken out by the court. Question re-read. 
 Defendant renews objections. 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 A. They have been under the management of the La 
 Salle County Carbon Coal Company. 
 
 Mr. Butters: That is all. Now, we want to offer in 
 evidence the deeds numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and 
 each of them, jointly and separately; also the acknowl- 
 edgements, certificate of acknowledgement and recording 
 thereto attached. 
 
 Mr. CuHIPERFIELD: I want to ask each and all of the 
 questions that have been previously asked of this witness 
 and to offer in connection with such questions the an- 
 swers previously made. 
 
 The Court: I will treat the record that way. 
 
 Mr. Currerriretp: Yes, I don’t want to make any fur- 
 ther offer. 
 
 The Court: I understand. I will treat the record as 
 made up that way. 
 
 Mr. Curperrretp: Well, then, what is the attitude of 
 the opposite side with reference to the offer? 
 
438 
 
 439 
 
 42 
 
 Mr. Burrers: Same objection. 
 
 The Court: You have objected and I sustained the 
 objection. { let it go in before the court. 
 
 Mr. CurperrieLp: Yes, I understand, but I want to 
 offer. I want to offer all of that now and I want to know 
 if it is objected to. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: Well, the same objections that were 
 made when the witness was— 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLp: Well, there is a portion of it that is 
 not objected to at all in the original. 
 
 The Court: The record may be repeated just as it 
 has been to each one of these instruments. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Yes. 
 The Court: The objections and everything else. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: J don’t make myself clear to the 
 court. Where there was no objection I want to now offer 
 that to the jury. 
 
 The.Courr: Oh, I see. 
 Mr. Cureerrietp: If there is no objection. 
 The Court: I did not understand that. 
 
 Mr. Burters: I understood that was offered for the 
 court. 
 
 Mr. CurperFiELp: I know, but now in the presence of 
 the jury I am offering it. | 
 
 Mr. Butrers: We object to it. 
 
 Mr. Curperrretp: That is what I want to know. I 
 want to know if it is objected to. ) 
 
 The Court: I sustain the objection. 
 The defendant excepts. 
 
440 
 
 43 
 
 EXXHIBIT 1. 
 
 THIS INDENTURE, made this eighth day of November, 
 in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and 
 eighty-three (A. D. 1883) between Henry L. Young, 
 James H. Young and Mason Young, as trustees under the 
 last will and testament of Henry Young, deceased, of the 
 City, County and State of New York, party of the first 
 part and the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, a 
 corporation created and organized under the laws of the. 
 State of Illinois, party of the second part. | 
 
 WirnesseEtu, that the said party of the first part for 
 and in consideration of the sum of three hundred thous- 
 sand dollars ($300,000) in hand paid by the said party of 
 the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowl- 
 edged have and by these presents do remise, release, 
 alien and convey unto the said party of the second part, 
 its successors and assigns FOREVER, all those certain 
 tracts, pieces or parcels of land situate in the County of 
 La Salle, and State of Illinois, known and described as 
 follows, to-wit: 
 
 All the east half (EK. 4) of section fourteen (14) in 
 township thirty-three (33) north range one (1) East of 
 the Third Principal Meridian, containing three hundred 
 and four and twenty-two one hundredths (304.22/100) 
 acres more or less together with the shaft located on 
 said east half (EH. 4) of said section fourteen (14) known 
 as ‘‘Carbon Shaft,’’ and all of the appurtenances to said 
 shaft meaning expressly to include as real estate in the 
 word ‘‘appurtenances”’ all buildings, steam engines, boil- 
 
 ers, shafting, belting and implements now standing or 
 
 44] 
 
 being in use at or in said shaft, all of which are de- 
 clared to be fixtures and part of the realty, excepting 
 and reserving the rights of way over said east half (KE. 
 4) acquired by the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad 
 
44 
 
 Company and the [llinois and Michigan Canal and also 
 excepting and reserving that part of said East half (1. 
 +) known and described as lot seven (7) in block twenty- 
 five (25), lots twelve (12), thirteen (13), sixteen (16), 
 and seventeen (17), in block forty-one (41), lot five (5), 
 and twenty-two (22) feet off of lot seventeen (17) in 
 block forty-three (48), lot two (2) in block forty-nine 
 (49), lots five (5) in block fifty (50), and lots one (1), 
 seven (7), twenty (20) and twenty-one (21) in block 
 fifty-two (52) in the Town of Rockwell, said lots con- 
 taining 1n all about two acres. 
 
 And all of the coal, together with the right to mine the 
 same, under the surface of the south fraction of the north- 
 east quarter (N. E. +) of section twenty-three (23), in the 
 township and range aforesaid, lying south of the Illinois 
 River and containing one hundred and thirteen and forty- 
 one hundredths (118 40/100) acres more or less. 
 
 And all of the coal, together with the right to mine the 
 same, under the surface of the northwest fraction of the 
 northwest quarter (N. W. 4+) of section twenty-four (24) 
 in the township and range aforesaid, containing fifty- 
 eight and ninety-five one hundredths (58 95/100) acres 
 more or less. 
 
 And all of the southeast quarter (S. E. 4+) of section 
 twenty-four (24) in the township and range aforesaid, 
 and of that part of section twenty-five (25) in the town- 
 ship and range aforesaid, described as follows, to-wit: 
 commencing at the northeast corner of the northwest 
 quarter of the southwest quarter of said section twenty- 
 five (25); thence northeast through the northeast corner 
 of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said 
 section twenty-five (25), a total distance of seventy and 
 seventy one hundredths (70 70/100) rods; thence south- 
 easterly at right angles with said last mentioned line four- 
 
13 
 
 11 
 
 45 
 
 teen and fourteen one hundredths (14 14/100) rods; 
 thence to northeast corner of said section twenty-five 
 (25); to thence west on the north line of said section 
 twenty-five (25) to the northwest corner of the northeast 
 quarter of the northwest quarter of said section twenty- 
 five (25); thence south to the place of beginning, contain- 
 ing one hundred and twenty (120) acres more or less. 
 
 And all of the northwest quarter (N. W. 4) of the south- 
 west quarter (S. W. +) of section nineteen (19), township. 
 thirty-three (33) north and range two (2) east of the 
 third principal meridian, and the west four and one- 
 quarter (44) acres of the south fraction of the northwest 
 quarter (N. W. 4) of said section nineteen (19) in the 
 township and range last aforesaid. 
 
 Also all of that portion of the east half (EH. 4) of the 
 southwest quarter (S. W. +) of section eleven (11) in 
 township thirty-three (33) north and range one (1) east of 
 the third principal meridian, lying north and west of the 
 bed of the Little Vermilion River, containing forty-five 
 (45) acres more or less, and all of that portion of the 
 southeast (S. E.) corner of the west half (W. 4) of said 
 southwest.quarter (S. W. +) of said section eleven (11) 
 described as follows, to wit: Beginning at the southeast 
 (S. E.) corner of the west half (W. 4) of the southwest 
 quarter (S. W. 4+) of section eleven (11) in township 
 thirty-three (33) north and range one (1) east of the 
 third principal meridian, running thence north seven and 
 one-half degrees (74 degrees) west, eight (8) chains and 
 ninety-eight (98) links to a point where said line inter- 
 sects the right of way of the Illinois Central Railroad 
 
 ‘Company; thence south on the east line of said right of 
 
 way with the curve of said railroad to the south line of 
 said southwest quarter; thence north eighty-two and one- 
 half degrees (824 degrees), east two (2) chains and 
 thirty-six (36) links to the place of beginning, containing 
 
11 
 
 46 
 
 sixty-six one hundredths (66/100) of an acre; together 
 with the shaft located on said southwest quarter (S. W. 4) 
 of said section eleven (11) known as ‘‘ Kentucky Shaft,”’ 
 and all of the appurtenances to said shaft, meaning ex- 
 pressly to include as real estate in the word ‘‘appur- 
 tenances’’ all buildings, steam engines, boilers, shafting, 
 belting and implements now standing or being in use at or 
 in said shaft, all of which are declared to be fixtures and 
 part of the realty. 
 
 And all of the coal, together with the right to mine the 
 same, under the surface of the southeast quarter (S. E. 
 1) and of the southwest quarter (S. W. +) and of the 
 west half of the northwest quarter (W. 4 of N. W. 4) of 
 said section eleven (11) in the township and range afore- 
 sald. 
 
 Also all of that portion of the southwest quarter of the 
 southeast quarter (S. W. 4 of S. HE. +) of section three 
 (3), in township thirty-three (33) north and range one (1) 
 east of the third principal meridian east of the right of 
 way of the Illinois Central Railroad Company, described 
 as follows, to wit: Beginning at the northeast (N. E.) 
 corner of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter 
 (S. W. 4 of S. E. 4) of section three (3) in township 
 thirty-three (33) north, and range one (1), east of the 
 third principal meridian; thence south eight degrees (8 
 
 ~ degrees), east twelve and ninety-one hundredths (12 
 
 90/100) chains; thence south eighty degrees (80 degrees), 
 west three and forty-two hundredths (3 42/100) chains 
 to the east line of said right of way; thence northwesterly 
 with the line of said right of way, to the north line of said 
 southwest quarter of southeast quarter (S. W. + of S. He 
 +); thence north eighty-two and one-half degrees (824 
 degrees), east nine and nineteen hundredths (9 19/100) 
 chains to the place of beginning, containing seven and 
 
10 
 
 47 
 
 seventy-four one hundredths (7 74/100) acres, and all of 
 that strip of ground in the northwest quarter of the south- 
 east quarter (N. W. + of S. E. 4) of section three (3) 
 aforesaid, to be used for a road twenty-four (24) feet 
 wide, running parallel with the east line of the right of 
 way of the Illinois Central Railroad Company, com- 
 mencing at the northwest corner of the above described 
 seven and seventy-four one hundredths (7 74/100) acres, 
 and running fifteen and fifty-nine one hundredths (15. 
 09/100) chains in a northwest direction to the center of 
 the La Salle and Homer road, containing fifty-six one 
 hundredths (56/100) acres. 
 
 And all of the coal, together with the right to mine the 
 same, tnder the surface of the southeast quarter (S. EH. 
 +) and of the south half of the northeast quarter (S. § of 
 N. E. 4), and of the northeast quarter of the southwest 
 quarter (N. E. + of S. W. +) and of the southeast quarter 
 of the northwest quarter (S. HE. 4 of N. W. +) of said 
 section three, in the township and range aforesaid. 
 
 And all of the coal, together with the right to mine the 
 same, under the surface of the west half of the east half 
 of the southeast quarter (W. 4 of E. 4 of S. KE. +) and of a 
 strip of land thirty-five (35) rods in width off the east 
 side of the west half of the southeast quarter (W. 4 of 
 S. E. +), containing seventy-five acres, and of the north- 
 east quarter (N. HE. +), except the southwest quarter of 
 the southwest quarter (S. W. + of S. W. +) thereof, con- 
 taining 150 acres, and of the north half (N.4) of the north- 
 west quarter (N. W. 4), and of the north twenty (20) 
 rods of the south half (S. 4) of the northwest quarter 
 (N. W. 4) of section ten (10), in township thirty-three 
 (33) north and range one (1) east of the third principal 
 meridian. 
 
 And also the shaft located on or near the southwest 
 
48 
 
 quarter (S. W. +) of section fourteen (14), in township 
 thirty-three (33) north, and range one (1) east of the 
 third principal meridian, known as ‘‘ La Salle Shaft,’’ and 
 all of the appurtenances to said shaft, meaning expressly 
 to include as real estate in the word ‘‘appurtenances”’ all 
 buildings, steam engines, boilers, shafting, belting and 
 implements now standing or being in use at or in said 
 shaft, all of which are declared to be fixtures, and part 
 of the realty. 
 
 And all of the east part of the northwest quarter (N. W. 
 1) of said section fourteen (14) in the township and range 
 aforesaid conveyed or intended so to be by Samuel B. 
 Carter to Edmund D. Taylor, by deed dated November 2, 
 1863, and recorded December 2, 1863, in La Salle County 
 records, in book 88, page 424, excepting and reserving 
 property conveyed by the Northern [llinois Coal and Iron 
 Company of La Salle, to the Town of La Salle, and to 
 school district No. 1, in town 33, range 1 east by deeds 
 recorded in La Salle County records, in book 149, page 
 455, and book 139, page 146. 
 
 And all of the coal, together with the right to mine the 
 same, under the surface of that part of the northwest 
 quarter (N. W. 4+) of said section fourteen (14) in the 
 township and range aforesaid, conveyed or intended so to 
 be by Daniel Evans, to the Northern Illinois Coal and 
 Iron Company of La Salle, by deed dated April 23, 1862, 
 and recorded May 5, 1862, in La Salle County records, in 
 book 82, page 108. 
 
 And all of the southwest fractional quarter (S. W. 
 Fr’1 4) of said section fourteen (14), in the township and 
 range aforesaid, containing one hundred and forty-seven 
 and thirty-one one hundredths (147 31/100) acres more 
 or less, excepting therefrom an undivided sixty of six 
 hundred and thirty-one (60-631) parts of lots described 
 
49 
 
 in a deed of the sheriff of La Salle County to Edmund D. 
 Taylor, dated the 2nd day of May, 1845, and recorded in 
 La Salle County records, in book 16, page 512, excepting 
 also tracts conveyed by Edmund D. Taylor or the North- 
 ern [llnois Coal and Iron Company of La Salle, prior to 
 March 1, 1873. 
 
 And the west seventy-five (75) feet of lots numbered 
 eleven (11), and twelve (12), in block number thirty (30) 
 Adams addition to La Salle, subject to the right of way of 
 the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, 
 and to the public hghway. 
 
 And the right to occupy and use the passageways, en- 
 tries, air courses and stables now constructed and exist- 
 ing under block number thirty (80) in Adams addition to 
 La Salle, or so much thereof as belongs to the Illinois 
 Central Railroad Company, and under the right of way of 
 said Illinois Central Railroad Company, east of and ad- 
 joining said block, in the City of La Salle, County of La 
 Salle, and State of Illinois, subject, however, to the pro- 
 visions and conditions of that certain Indenture executed 
 by said company to said Henry L. Young, James H. Young 
 and Mason Young, as trustees under the last will of Henry 
 Young, deceased, dated May 24, 1883, and recorded in La 
 Salle County records, in book 238, page 394. 
 
 And all of lots numbered one (1) and two (2) in block 
 one hundred and forty-seven (147) and lots numbered 
 one (1) and two (2), in block one hundred and forty-eight 
 (148), in the City of La Salle. 
 
 And all of the southeast fractional quarter (S. KE. Fr’! 
 1) and the southwest fractional quarter (8S. W. Fr’! +), 
 and the south fractional half (S. Fr’1 4) of the north half 
 (N. 4) and the north fractional half (N. Fr’l 4) of the 
 northeast quarter (N. EH. +) of section twenty-one (21), 
 in township thirty-three (33) north and range one (1) 
 east of the third principal meridian. 
 
00 
 
 Together with all and singular the tenements, heredita- 
 ments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in any: 
 wise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, re- 
 mainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof ; 
 and also the estate, right, title, interest, property, posses- 
 sion, claim and demand whatsoever, as well in law as in 
 equity of the said party of the first part, of, in, and to the 
 same, and every part and parcel thereof, with the appur- 
 tenances and fixtures, to have and to hold the said prem- 
 ises above described, with the appurtenances, unto the said 
 party of the second part, its successors and assigns for- 
 ever.— 
 
 And the said Henry L. Young, James H. Young and 
 Mason Young, as trustees under the last will and testa- 
 ment of Henry Young, deceased, for themselves, their 
 successors and assigns, do covenant, promise and agree 
 to and with said party of the second part, its successors 
 and assigns, that they have not done or suffered to be done 
 anything whereby the said premises above described are 
 or may be in any manner encumbered or charged, and 
 that the said premises against all persons lawfully claim- 
 ing or to claim the same, by, through, or under them they 
 will warrant and forever defend. 
 
 In Witness WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part 
 have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year 
 first above written. 
 
 Witness 
 
 Henry A. JAMEs. 
 Henry L. Youna, Trustee. [SHau.] 
 James H. Youne, Trustee. [SEAt.] 
 Mason Youne, Trustee. [SEAL] 
 
OL 
 
 Stave or New York, 
 County or New York, } Ss. 
 Ciry or New York. 
 
 I, Henry A. James, a notary public in and for the said 
 city and county, in the state aforesaid, do hereby certify 
 that Henry L. Young, James H. Young and Mason Young, 
 trustees under the last will and testament of Henry Young 
 deceased who are personally known to me to be the same 
 persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing 
 instrument, appeared before me this day in person and 
 acknowledged that they signed, sealed and delivered the 
 said instrument as their free and voluntary act as such 
 trustees for the uses and purposes therein set forth. 
 
 Given under my hand and notarial seal this sixteenth 
 day of November, A. D. 1883. 
 [ SEAL. | Henry A. JAMES, 
 Notary Public, 
 New York County. 
 
 Which said paper is endorsed upon the back thereof as 
 follows: 
 
 ‘“‘The trustees under the will of Henry Young to the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. Deed. Edward 
 C. Mason, Henry B. Mason, Alfred Bishop Mason, coun- 
 sellors-at- law, Chicago.’’ 
 
 (Auso) ‘*$300,000 November 8, ’83. State of [linois, 
 La Salle County, ss. No. 31524. This instrument was 
 filed for record this 5th day of December, A. D. 1883, at 
 34 o’clock p. m., and is duly recorded in book 229 of 
 records, page 61. Stephen Arnold, Recorder.’’ 
 
D2 
 
 EXHIBIT 3. 
 
 THis InpENTURE, made this Ist day of October, in the 
 year of our Lord One Thousand Hight Hundred and 
 Ninety-Two, between the Illinois Valley Coal Company 
 of La Salle County and State of Illinois party of the first 
 part, and The La Salle County Carbon Coal Company 
 party of the second part, Witnesseth, That the said 
 party of the first part, for and in consideration of the 
 sum of One Hundred and Forty-three Thousand 
 ($143,000.) Dollars and other valuable consideration to it 
 in hand paid, by the said party of the second part, the 
 receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, 
 has granted, bargained, sold, remised, released, aliened, 
 and confirmed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, 
 sell, remise, alien and confirm unto the party of the second 
 part, and to its successors and assigns, forever, all those 
 certain pieces or parcels of land, situate, lying and being 
 in the County of La Salle, State of linois, known and de- 
 scribed as follows to-wit: 
 
 All its real estate, lands, tenements and coal property 
 of every kind or sort, consisting of lands with coal under 
 them and of coal underlying other lands and coal shafts, 
 railway tracks thereon in the township numbered Thirty- 
 three (33) North of Range One (1) East of the Third 
 Principal Meridian in the State of Illinois, all of said 
 lands and coal being in the County of La Salle in the said 
 state, for a particular description of which reference is 
 made to the following described deeds conveying titles to 
 the said Illinois Valley Coal Company, viz.: a deed of 
 Charles G. Wicker and wife to said company dated March 
 27, A. D. 1870, and recorded the 30th day of April, A. D. 
 1870. Also a deed from said Wicker and wife to said com- 
 pany dated December 5, 1881, and recorded the 14th day of 
 same month. Also a deed from the said Wicker and wife 
 
D8 
 
 dated March 1, 1884, and recorded on the 28th day of the 
 same month, all in the records of the said La Salle County. 
 Also two deeds of Horace White and wife, each dated the 
 twentieth day of March, A. D. 1865, and both recorded in 
 said recorder’s office on the 13th day of May, A. D. 1865. 
 Also a deed of Margaret Evans, dated the 9th day of 
 June, A. D. 1884, and recorded on the 28th day of March, 
 A. D. 1885, in same office. 
 
 Also a deed of Henry C. Freeman and wife, dated No- 
 vember 16, A. D. 1871, and recorded on the 31st day of 
 May, A. D. 1872. A deed from Mary Ann Leonard, dated 
 April 25, A. D. 1870, and recorded June 20th, of same 
 year. 
 
 A deed of Morris Neustadt and wife, dated June 9, 
 1870, and recorded July 20th, of same year. A deed of 
 Lyne 8. Whitmore, dated March 1, 1872, and recorded 
 May 31st, same year. A deed of Lester Dolley and wife, 
 dated March 4, 1865, and recorded May 13th, same year. 
 Also a deed of Rachel Neustadt, Morris Neustadt, Byron 
 Watson and others, dated June 2, 1870, and recorded July 
 20th, same year. Also a deed of Hiram Holmes and wife 
 and Horace Holmes and others dated March 28, 1887, 
 and recorded April 14, 1890. Also a deed of Emeline E. 
 Snow and George W. Snow, dated July 7, 1870, and 
 recorded September 3, 1870. — 
 
 Also a deed of Wiliam Chumasero and Amos D. Brown, 
 executors, dated May 13, 1870, and recorded June 20, 1870. 
 
 All of said records being the records of La Salle County, 
 Illinois. Also a deed of J. D. Caton and his wife dated 
 June 10, 1892, and recorded August 23, 1892. 
 
 Also the Kast Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 
 Twenty-six (26) in the Township Thirty-three (33) North 
 of Range One (1) east of the Third. Principal Meridian, 
 
o4 
 
 State of Illinois, deed by certain heirs at law, each one- 
 tenth and recorded the 19th day of October, 1891. 
 
 And the said first party agrees also that if by possibility 
 there shall be any error or defect in the description of the 
 property hereby intended to be described and conveyed 
 which it is understood is all the property of every nature 
 and kind belonging to the said first party, in said town- 
 ship or said County of La Salle, it will at any time on re- 
 quest make the conveyance perfect and correct such error. 
 
 In Witness Wuereor, the Illinois Valley Coal Com- 
 pany has caused this deed to be executed by the proper 
 officers and the seal of the respective company to be here- 
 to affixed and attested. 
 
 (Signed.) ALLEN SHELDON, 
 Vice President Illinois Valley Coal Company. 
 
 WITNESS: 
 JAMES G. MILLER, 
 JAMES JOY. 
 
 [ SEAL. | 
 
 ATTEST: 
 F. O. Wyatt, 
 Secretary. 
 
 State oF MicHigan, 
 S 
 County oF WAYNE. 
 
 On this 14th day of October, A. D. 1892, before me, a 
 notary public in and for said county, personally came the 
 above named Allan Sheldon, vice president, known to me 
 to be the person named in and who executed the above 
 instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same 
 for the intents and purposes therein named. 
 
 (Signed.) James G. Minuer, 
 Notary Public in and for Wayne County, Michigan. 
 [ SEAL. | 
 
4}5) 
 
 (Attached to which is the following slip) : 
 
 State oF MicHican, 
 SS. 
 County oF WAYNE. 
 
 I, William May, clerk of said county, and clerk of the 
 Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, which is a court 
 of record, having a seal, do hereby certify, that James G. 
 Miller, whose name is subscribed to the certificate or proof 
 of acknowledgment of the annexed instrument and therein 
 written, was, at the time of taking such proof or acknew]l- 
 edgment, a notary public in and for said county, duly 
 commissioned and qualified, and duly authorized to take 
 the same. And further, that I am well acquainted with 
 the handwriting of such notary public, and verily believe 
 that the signature to the said certificate or proof of 
 acknowledgment is genuine. I further certify that said 
 instrument is executed and acknowledged according to 
 the laws of this state. 
 
 In Testrmony WuereoF, I have hereunto set my hand 
 and affixed the seal of said court and county, at Detroit, 
 this 14th day of October, A. D. 1892. 
 
 (Signed.) Wm. May, Clerk. 
 By Samvuget Steward, Deputy Clerk. 
 [ SEAL. | 
 (On the back appears the following) : 
 
 Illinois Valley Coal Company to La Salle County Car- 
 bon Coal Company. 
 
 $143,000. Oct. 1, 792. 
 
 A LLINOI , 
 Srigs OF TON, fg No. 4,810 
 Tuts Instrument was filed for record this 20th day of 
 October, A. D. 1892, at eight o’clock a. m., and is duly 
 recorded in book 306 of records, page 7. 
 STEPHEN ARNOLD, 
 Recorder. 
 
o6 
 
 EXHIBIT ‘‘4.”’ 
 
 ‘Tats InpentuRrE, made this twentieth day of March 
 in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred 
 and Sixty-five between Horace White & Martha H. White, 
 his wife, of the City of Chicago, County of Cook & State 
 of Illinois, party of the first part, and the Illinois Valley 
 Coal Company, a corporation created by an act of the 
 Legislature of the State of Illinois, approved February 
 15, 1865, party of the second part, 
 
 WirnessetH, That the said party of the first part, for 
 and in consideration of the sum of Hight Thousand 
 ($8,000) Dollars, in hand paid by the said party of the ~ 
 second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, 
 and the said party of the second part forever released 
 and discharged therefrom, have granted, bargained, sold, 
 remised, released, conveyed, aliened and confirmed, and 
 by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, remise, release, 
 ‘convey, alien and confirm unto the said party of the sec- 
 ond part, and to their heirs and assigns forever all the 
 following described lot, piece, or parcel of land, situate 
 in the County of La Salle and State of Illinois and known 
 and described as follows, to-wit: 
 
 An undivided one-half (4) of the Southwest quarter 
 (+) of Section number twenty-four (24) in Township 
 number thirty-three (33) of Range number one (1) East 
 of the Third (8rd) Principal Meridian, containing eighty 
 (80) acres of land more or less. TocrTHER with all and 
 singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto 
 belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion 
 and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues 
 and profits thereof: And all the estate, right, title, in- 
 terest, claim or demand whatsoever, of the said party of 
 the first part, either in law or equity, of, in and to the 
 above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and 
 
o7 
 
 appurtenances. To HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises 
 above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, 
 unto the said party of the second part, their heirs and 
 ASSIQNS FOREVER. 
 
 And the said Horace White & Martha H. White, party 
 of the first part, for their heirs, executors, and admin- 
 istrators, do covenant, grant, bargain and agree, to and 
 with the said party of the second part, their heirs and 
 assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivering 
 of these presents, they are well seized of the premises 
 above conveyed, as of a good, sure, perfect, absolute and 
 indefeasible estate of inheritance in law, in fee simple: 
 And have good right, full power, and lawful authority to 
 grant, bargain, sell and convey the same, in manner and 
 form aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear 
 from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, 
 taxes, assessments and incumbrances of what kind and 
 nature soever; and the above bargained premises, in the 
 quiet and peaceable possession of the said party of the 
 second part their heirs and assigns, against all and every 
 other person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim 
 the whole or any part thereof the said party of the first 
 part shall and will waRRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. 
 
 And the said Horace White & Martha H. White, party 
 of the first part, hereby expressly waive and release any 
 and all right, benefit, privilege, advantage and exemption 
 under or by virtue of any and all statutes of the State of 
 Illinois providing for the exemption of Homesteads from 
 sale on execution or otherwise, and especially under the 
 Act entitled, ‘‘An Act to Exempt Homesteads from sale 
 on execution, passed by the General Assembly of the 
 State of Illinois, A. D. 1851, and approved February 11, 
 A. D. 1851, and an Act entitled, ‘‘An Act to amend an Act 
 entitled, ‘An Act to Exempt Homesteads from sale on 
 
o8 
 
 execution’ ’’ passed by said Assembly, A. D. 1857, and 
 approved February 17, A. D. 1857. 
 
 In Wirness Wuereor, the said party of the first part 
 do hereunto set their hands and seals the day’ and year 
 
 first above written. 
 Horace WHITE, [ SEAL. | 
 
 MartHa H. Wuitr. [SBAL.] 
 Interlineation in third line made before execution. .- 
 
 J. Lewis Les, 
 Notary Publi. 
 
 (Revenue stamps).’’ 
 
 ‘‘Srate oF [nurwNots, 
 County oF Cook. | SS. 
 Ciry oF CHICAGO. 
 
 I, J. Lewis Lee, a notary public in and for the City of 
 Chicago in and for said county, in the State aforesaid, do 
 hereby certify, That Horace White and Martha H. White, 
 personally known to me to be the same persons whose 
 names are subscribed to the foregoing WARRANTY DEED, 
 appeared before me this day in person and acknowledged 
 that they signed, sealed and delivered the said instrument 
 of writing, as their free and voluntary act, for the uses 
 and purposes therein set forth. | 
 
 And the said Martha H. White, wife of the said Horace 
 White, having been by me examined separate and apart, 
 and out of the hearing of her husband, and the contents 
 and meaning of the said deed having been by me made 
 known and fully explained to her acknowledge that she 
 had freely and voluntarily executed the same, and re- 
 linquished her dower, and all right, title and interest te 
 the lands and tenements therein mentioned, and expressly 
 waived and released all right, claim, benefit, privilege, ad- 
 vantage and exemption under any and all. ‘Homestead 
 
a9 
 
 Exemption Laws,’ so called, without the compulsion of her 
 said husband, and that she does not wish to retract the 
 same. 
 
 Given under my hand and notarial seal this twentieth 
 
 day of March, A. D. 1865. 
 J. Lewis Len, 
 
 Notary Public.’’ 
 ( J. Lewis Les, ) 
 ( Notary Public, ) 
 ( City of Chicago. ) 
 
 On the back of the foregoing instrument appears the 
 
 following: 
 “WARRANTY DEED. 
 
 from 
 Horace White 
 & 
 Martha H. White 
 to 
 The Illinois Valley Coal Company. 
 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS, 
 La Saute County, Ny palettes 
 
 THis INstRUMENT was filed for record on the 13th day of 
 May, A. D. 1865, at the hour of 84 o’clock a. m. and duly 
 
 recorded in book 102 of deeds at page 215. 
 H. Sritver, 
 
 Clerk of Circuit Court and Ex-Officio Recorder.”’ 
 
 EXHIBIT 5. 
 
 (Warranty Deed.—Printed and for sale at Tribune 
 Office, 51 Clark Street, Chicago.) 
 
 Tis InpentuRE, Made this twentieth day of March in 
 the year of our Lord One Thousand Hight Hundred and 
 Sixty-five between Martha H. White, late Martha H. Root, 
 wife of Horace White, and Horace White, of the City of 
 
60 
 
 Chicago, County of Cook and State of Illinois, party of 
 the first part, & the Illinois Valley Coal Company, a cor- 
 poration created by act of the Legislature of the State of 
 Illinois approved February 15, 1865, party of the second 
 part, 
 
 WirnessETH, that the said party of the first part, for 
 and in consideration of the sum of eight thousand ($8,000) 
 dollars, in hand paid by the said party of the second part, 
 the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and the said 
 party of the second part forever released and discharged 
 therefrom, have granted, bargained, sold, remised, re- 
 leased, conveyed, aliened, and confirmed, and by these 
 presents do grant, bargain, sell, remise, release, convey, 
 alien and confirm unto the said party of the second part, 
 and to their heirs and assigns forever, all the following 
 described lot, piece, or parcel of land, situate in the 
 County of La Salle and State of Illinois, and known and 
 described as follows, to-wit: 
 
 An undivided one-half (4) of the Southwest Quarter (4) 
 of Section Number Twenty-four (24) in Township Num- 
 ber Thirty-three (33) of Range Number One (1) East of 
 the Third (3rd) Principal Meridian, containing eighty 
 (80) acres of land more or less. ; 
 
 ToGrTHER with all and singular the hereditaments and 
 appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any wise apper- 
 taining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and 
 remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and all the 
 estate, right, title, interest, claim or demand whatsoever, 
 of the said party of the first part, either in law or equity, 
 of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the 
 hereditaments and appurtenances. To HAVE AND TO HOLD 
 the said premises above bargained and described, with the 
 appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, 
 their heirs and assigns forever. 
 
61 
 
 And the said Martha H. White and Horace White, party 
 of the first part, for their heirs, executors and administra- 
 tors, do covenant, grant, bargain and agree, to and with 
 the said party of the second part, their heirs and assigns, 
 that at the time of the ensealing and delivering of these 
 presents, they are well seized of the premises above con- 
 veyed, as of a good, sure, perfect, absolute and inde- 
 feasible estate of inheritance in law, in fee simple: And 
 have good right, full power, and lawful authority to grant, 
 bargain, sell and convey the same, in manner and form 
 aforesaid; and that the same are free and clear from all 
 former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, 
 assessments and incumbrances of what kind and nature 
 soever; And the above bargained premises, in the quiet 
 and peaceable possession of the said party of the second 
 part, their heirs and assigns, against all and every other 
 person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the 
 whole or any part thereof the said party of the first part 
 shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND, 
 
 And the said Martha H. White and Horace White, party 
 of the first part, hereby expressly waive and release any 
 and all right, benefit, privilege, advantage and exemption 
 under or by virtue of any and all statutes of the State of 
 Illinois providing for the exemption of homesteads from 
 sale on execution or otherwise, and especially under the 
 act entitled, ‘‘An Act to exempt homesteads from sale on 
 execution,’’ passed by the General Assembly of the State 
 of Illinois, A. D. 1851, and approved February 11, A. D. 
 1851, and an act entitled, ‘‘An Act to amend an act en- 
 titled, ‘An Act to exempt homesteads from sale on execu- 
 tion,’’’ passed by said Assembly, A. D. 1857, and ap- 
 proved February 17, A. D. 1857. 
 
 In Witness WueEreor, the said party of the first part 
 
62 
 
 do hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year 
 
 above written. 
 MartrHa H. Waits, [SEBAL. | 
 
 Horace WHITE. [SEAL | 
 
 Interlineation in third line made before execution. 
 
 REVENUE STAMP. 
 
 
 
 Of Deed, Instrument or Writing whereby 
 lands, tenements, or other realty shall be 
 conveyed, the value of which does not ex- 
 
 ceed $500 otee te ee, ee $ .50 
 From’$500 to'$1 00002) Ate eee 1.00 
 Every additional $500 or fractional part... .50 
 (Revenue Stamps) 
 
 8e 
 
 (On the back appears the following) : 
 
 Stave oF ILLINOIS, 
 Cook County, ss. 
 City oF CHICAGO. 
 
 I, J. Lewis Lee, a notary public in and for the City of 
 Chicago in and for said county, in the State aforesaid, do 
 hereby certify, that Horace White and Martha H. White, 
 who are personally known to me to be the same persons 
 whose names are subscribed to the foregoing warranty 
 deed, appeared before me this day in person, and acknowl- 
 edged that they signed, sealed and delivered the said in- 
 strument of writing, as their free and voluntary act, for 
 the uses and purposes therein set forth. 
 
 And the said Martha H. White, wife of the said Horace 
 White, having been by me examined separate and apart, 
 and out of the hearing of her said husband, and the con- 
 tents and meaning of the said deed having been by me 
 made known and fully explained to her, acknowledged 
 that she had freely and voluntarily executed the same, and 
 
63 
 
 relinquished her dower, and all right, title and interest to 
 the lands and tenements therein mentioned, and expressly 
 waived and released all right, claim, benefit, privilege, ad- 
 vantage and exemption under any and all Homestead 
 Exemption Laws, so-called, without the compulsion of her 
 said husband, and that she does not wish to retract the 
 same. 
 
 Given under my hand and notarial seal this twentieth 
 
 day of March, A. D. 1865. 
 J. Lewis Luz, 
 
 [ SEAL. | Notary Publi. 
 
 WARRANTY DEED. 
 From 
 Martha H. White 
 and 
 Horace White 
 to 
 The Illinois Valley Coal Company. 
 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS, 
 La Sauue County. No. 1727 
 
 This instrument was filed for record on the 13th day of 
 May, A. D. 1865, at the hour of 84 o’clock a. m., and duly 
 recorded in book 103 of deeds, ete., at pages 8, 9 and 10. 
 
 H. Srzver, 
 Clerk of Circwt Court and ex-Officio Recorder. 
 
 EXHIBIT 6. 
 
 THis InpentuRE WitneEssetH That the Grantors, 
 Cuarues G. Wicker and EizasetH J. Wicker, his wife, 
 of the City of Chicago, in the County of Cook and State 
 of Illinois, for the consideration of Five Dollars, convey 
 and quitclaim to the Inurmnors VaLtuEy Coat Company, a 
 corporation organized and existing under and by virtue 
 
64 
 
 of the laws of the State of Illinois, all interest in the fol- 
 lowing described real estate, to-wit: the Southeast frac- 
 tional quarter of Section Twenty-two (22), Town. Thirty- 
 three (33) North, Range One (1) East of the Third Prin- 
 cipal Meridian, said quarter section including the Illinois 
 River passing through it, containing one hundred and 
 sixty acres, more or less. 
 
 Also, all of the West three-quarters of the Southwest 
 Quarter of Section T’'wenty-three (23) in said Town. 
 Thirty-three (33), containing one hundred and twenty 
 (120) acres, more or less; also, all the coal and coal mines 
 and all other mines and minerals which are situate on or 
 may be found in, under or upon the East Half of the 
 Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Sec- 
 tion Twenty-three (23), containing twenty (20) acres, 
 more or less, together with all mining rights and privi- 
 leges, necessary to mine, dig, raise and remove said coal 
 or other minerals from said premises and all the occupa- 
 tion and use of said premises convenient and necessary in 
 and while so doing and also all right to the surface of the 
 said premises except so far as the same has heretofore 
 been conveyed by Charles Todd to the [Illinois Central 
 Railroad; also, all that part of the Northwest Fractional 
 Quarter of said Section Twenty-three (23) situate south 
 of the [Illinois River and westerly of the line of the Illi- 
 nois Central Railroad, and containing about twenty acres 
 more or less, and including all privileges and mining 
 rights beneath said Illinois River and said Illinois Central 
 Railway pertaining or belonging thereto. 
 
 Also, all of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast 
 Quarter of Section Twenty-seven (27) in said Town. 
 Thirty-three (33), containing forty (40) acres more or 
 less; excepting and reserving nevertheless from this con- 
 veyance, the interest in that portion of the Southeast 
 
6d 
 
 Quarter of Section Twenty-two (22) lying northerly of 
 the [Illinois River heretofore conveyed by William B. 
 Ogden to Harriet Brown, hereby conveying to the said 
 Illinois Valley Coal Company all the rights and interests 
 therein not so conveyed by said Ogden to said Harriet 
 Brown, to-wit: the right to mine coal and other minerals 
 on and beneath said premises and to occupy the same as 
 may be necessary while so doing, all said real estate being 
 situated in the County of La Salle in the State of Ihnois, 
 hereby releasing and waiving all rights under and by 
 virtue of the Homestead Exemption Laws of this state. 
 
 Dated this first day of March, A. D. 1884. 
 
 (Signed.) CHaRLEs G. WICKER, [ SEAL. | 
 (Signed.) ExizaperH J. WICKER, [SEAL | 
 
 State oF ILuino!s, } 
 Ss. 
 County oF Cook. | 
 
 I, Frank J. Loesch, a notary public in and for said 
 county in the state aforesaid, do hereby certify that 
 Charles G. Wicker and Elizabeth J. Wicker, his wife, who 
 are personally known to me to be the same persons whose 
 names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument ap- 
 peared before me this day in person and acknowledged 
 that they signed, sealed and delivered the said instrument 
 as their free and voluntary act, for the uses and purposes 
 therein set forth, including the release and waiver of the 
 right of homestead. 
 
 Given under my hand and notarial seal this second day 
 
 of July, A. D. 1884. 
 Frank J. Lorscnu, 
 
 [SEAL. | ; Notary Public. 
 
66 
 
 (On the back appears the following) : 
 
 Rate SZ any ik ) 20a. pt N. W. fr 4 23, 
 a 8. es vee Hepsis will 
 4, N. BE. 4, 8. W. 4, 23, 33, 1 ) N. HE. 4, N. E. 4, 27, 
 3 
 
 ? 
 
 S. 
 We. 
 Ki. 
 
 QUITCLAIM DEED. 
 
 Charles G. Wicker and Wife 
 to 
 Illinois Valley Coal Company. 
 Mech. 1, 784. 
 $5. 
 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS, 
 La Saute County. t ss No. 1446 
 
 This instrument was filed for record this 28th day of 
 March, A. D. 1885, at 23 o’clock P. m., and is duly recorded 
 in book 246 of records, page 224. 
 
 STEPHEN ARNOLD, 
 Recorder. 
 
 BeOS esis 
 
 Tuis InpEntURE, Made this 4th day of March in the 
 year of our Lord One Thounsand Eight Hundred and 
 Sixty-five Between Lester Dolley and wife Sarah R. A. 
 Dolley, party of the first part, and the Illinois Valley Coal 
 Company, a corporation created by Act of the Legislature 
 of the State of Illinois approved February 15, 1865, party 
 of the second part, | 
 
 WirnessetH, That the said parties of the first part, for 
 and in consideration of the sum of Sixteen Thousand 
 Dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, 
 to them in hand paid by the said party of the second part, 
 at or before the ensealing and delivery of these presents, 
 the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have aliened, 
 
67 
 
 remised, released, conveyed and confirmed, and by these 
 presents, do alien, remise, release, convey and confirm 
 unto the said party of the second part, and their heirs and 
 assigns forever, all the Southeast quarter of Section 
 twenty-three (23), in Township Thirty-three (33) North 
 of Range No. One (1) East of the Third Principal 
 Meridian, (Excepting the right of way through said Sec- 
 tion previously conveyed to the Illinois Central Railroad 
 Company comprising about fifteen acres in the west part 
 of said quarter Section), and also, the right of way over 
 the North part of the West half of the Northeast quarter 
 of Section twenty-six, Town. thirty-three (33) north of 
 Range one East of 3rd Principal Meridian to connect said 
 tract with the Illinois Central Railroad, provided the land 
 occupied shall not be more than thirty feet in width, and 
 of a length sufficient to reach the railroad by the shortest 
 practicable route from the north line of said southeast 
 quarter of Section twenty-three (23) above described. 
 TocEetHeErR with all and singular the tenements, heredita- 
 ments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any- 
 wise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, re- 
 mainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, 
 and also all the estate, right, title, interest ...... prop- 
 erty, possession, claim and demand whatsoever, as well 
 in law as in equity, of the said parties of the first part, of, 
 in or to the above described premises, and every part and 
 pareel thereof, with the appurtenances, to have and to 
 hold all and singular the above mentioned and described 
 premises, together with the appurtenances, unto the said 
 party of the second part, their heirs and assigns forever. 
 
 And the said Lester Dolley and Sarah R. A. Dolley, for 
 their heirs, executors and administrators, do hereby 
 covenant, promise and agree, to and with the said party of 
 the second part, their heirs and assigns, that they have 
 not made. done, committed, executed or suffered any act 
 
68 
 
 or acts, thing or things whatsoever, whereby, or by means 
 whereof, the above mentioned and described premises, or 
 any part or parcel thereof, now are, or at any time here- 
 after shall or may be impeached, charged or incumbered, 
 im any manner, or way whatsoever, and that they are well 
 seized of the premises above conveyed, have good right 
 to sell and convey the same, that they are free from all 
 incumbrances, and that the above bargained premises, in 
 the quiet and peaceable possession of the second party, 
 their heirs and assigns, they will forever warrant and 
 
 defend. 
 
 In Wirness Wuereor, the said party of the first part 
 hereunto set their hand and seals the day and year first 
 above written. 
 
 Lester DOoLuey, [ SEAL. | 
 SaraH R. A. Dotury. [sHat.] 
 
 The words town thirty-three North of Range One Hast 
 of 3d Principal Meridian, above line No. 19 were inter- 
 lined before acknowledgment. 
 
 SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in presence of P. W. 
 Handy. . 
 ( U.S. Inter. Revenue Stamp, $10 ) 
 ( U.S. Inter. Revenue Stamp, $1 ) 
 ( U.S. Inter. Revenue Stamp, $5 ) 
 
 STATE OF NEw York, ne 
 Monroe County. 
 
 I, P. W. Handy, notary public in and for said county 
 in the state aforesaid, do hereby certify that Lester Dol- 
 ley and Sarah R. A. Dolley, personally known to me to 
 be the same persons whose names are subscribed to the 
 foregoing warranty deed, appeared before me this day 
 in person and acknowledged that they signed, sealed and 
 delivered the said instrument of writing as their free 
 
69 
 
 and voluntary act, for the uses and purposes therein set 
 forth. 
 
 And the said Sarah R. A. Dolley, wife of the said Les- 
 ter Dolley, having been by me examined separate and 
 apart, and out of the hearing of her husband, and the 
 contents and meaning of the said deed having been by 
 me made known and fully explained to her, acknow!l- 
 edged that she had freely and voluntarily executed the 
 same, and relinquished her dower, and all right, title and 
 interest to the lands and tenements therein mentioned, 
 and expressly waived and released all right, claim, ben- 
 efit, privilege, advantage and exemption under any and 
 all homestead exemption laws, so called, without the com- 
 pulsion of her said husband, and that she does not wish 
 to retract the same. 
 
 Given under my hand and notarial seal this eighth day 
 
 of March, A. D. 1865. 
 P. W. Hanpy, 
 
 [SEAL. | Notary Public. 
 (Inter. Revenue Stamp, 5c.) 
 
 Which said paper is endorsed upon the back thereof 
 as follows: 
 
 ‘“Warranty Deed. From Lester Dolley and wife Sarah 
 A. Dolley to Illinois Valley Coal Company. Use of.”’ 
 
 (Also) ‘‘State of Illinois, La Salle County. No. 1726. 
 This instrument was filed for Record on the 13th day of 
 May, A. D. 1865, at the hour of 83 o’clock a. m. and duly 
 recorded in Book 102 of Deeds at page 213. 4H. Silver, 
 Clerk of Cireuit Court and Ex-Officio Recorder.’’ 
 
 (Also) ‘‘Mail J. T. Ryerson Secty Ills Valley Coal Co. 
 Chicago.”’ 
 
 (Also) ‘‘Tribune Print, 51 Clark Street, Chicago.’’ 
 
70 
 
 476-483 Eixutipir ‘‘8,”’ 
 
 ‘‘This indenture, made the second day of June, in the 
 year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Sev- 
 enty between Rachel L. Neustadt, and Morris Neustadt 
 her husband, Byron Watson and Laura Watson, his wife, 
 Kmeline Snow, and George W. Snow her husband, party 
 of the first part, and the Illinois Valley Coal Company, 
 party of the second part, 
 
 Witnesseth, that the said party of the first part, for 
 and in consideration of Hight Hundred Dollars in hand 
 paid by said party of the second part, the receipt whereof 
 is hereby acknowledged, and the said party of the sec- 
 ond part forever released and discharged therefrom, have 
 Remised, Released, Sold, Conveyed and Quit-Claimed, 
 and by these presents do Remise, Release, Sell, Convey 
 and Quit-Claim, unto the said party of the second part, 
 their heirs and assigns forever, all the right, title, inter- 
 est, claim and demand which the said party of the first 
 part have in and to the following described Lot, piece or 
 parcel of land, to-wit: 
 
 The East half, of the Southeast quarter, of the South- 
 west quarter of Section numbered twenty-three (23), 
 Township thirty-three (33), Range No. one (1) Hast of 
 the Third Principal Meridian, containing twenty acres 
 more or less, subject to the right-of-way over the same, 
 of the [linois Central Railroad Company, as appears of 
 record heretofore granted. 
 
 The party of the first part reserve the right to quarry 
 stone, and remove the same, from said tract of land by 
 teams or otherwise, also the right to lay a track from 
 the Illinois Central Railroad track to the quarry, for the 
 removal of said stone. 
 
 These reservations are made for the benefit of George 
 W. Snow, Rachel L. Neustadt and Morris Neustadt, her 
 
71 
 
 husband, and Emeline E. Snow, wife of G. W. Snow, 
 and shall continue only during their lifetime. 
 
 To have and to hold the same, together with all and 
 singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto be- 
 longing, or in anywise thereunto appertaining; and all 
 the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatever of the 
 said party of the first part, either in law or equity, to 
 the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said party 
 of the second part, their heirs and assigns forever. 
 
 And the said Rachel L. Neustadt, formerly Rachel 
 Watson, Morris Neustadt, Byron and Laura Watson, 
 Emeline and George W. Snow, party of the first part, 
 hereby expressly waive, reseal and relinquish unto the 
 said party of the second part, their heirs, executors, ad- 
 ministrators and assigns, all right, title, claim, interest 
 and benefit whatever, in and to.the above demised prem- 
 ises, and each and every part thereof, which is given by 
 or results from all laws of this state pertaining to the 
 Exemption of Homesteads. 
 
 And the said party of the first part, for themselves 
 and their heirs, executors and administrators, do cov- 
 enant, promise and agree, to and with the said party of 
 the second part, their heirs, executors, administrators 
 and assigns, that they have not made, done, committed, 
 executed, or suffered any act or acts, thing or things, 
 whatsoever, whereby, or by means whereof, the above 
 mentioned and described premises, or any part or parcel 
 thereof, now are, or at any time hereafter shall or may 
 be impeached, charged or incumbered, in any way or man- 
 ner whatsoever other than described as above. 
 
 In witness whereof, the said party of the first part 
 hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year above 
 written. 
 
(2 
 
 Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of 
 Racuet L. Neustapt. [SEAL. | 
 
 EMELINE EK. Snow. [SBAL. | 
 Morris N&USTADT. [ SEAL. | 
 Byron Neustaprt. [ SEAL. | 
 Laura WATSON. [SEAL. | 
 Grorce W. Snow. [ SEAL. | 
 
 (Revenue Stamp.) 
 
 STATE oF ILLINOIS, ! = 
 La SALLE Country. eae 
 
 I, the undersigned, a Justice of the Peace in and for 
 said County, and the State aforesaid, do hereby certify 
 that Rachel Neustadt and Morris Neustadt her husband, 
 personally known to me to be the same persons whose 
 names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument of 
 writing, appeared before me this day, in person, and ac- 
 knowledged that he signed, sealed and delivered the said 
 instrument of writing as their free and voluntary act, 
 for the uses and purposes therein set forth. 
 
 And the said Rachel Neustadt, wife of the said Morris 
 Neustadt, having been by me examined separate and 
 apart, and out of the hearing of her husband, and the con- 
 tents and meaning of the said instrument of writing hav- 
 ing been by me fully made known and explained to her, 
 and she also by me being fully informed of her rights 
 under the Homestead Laws of this State, acknowledged 
 that she had freely and voluntarily executed the same, 
 and relinquished her dower to the lands and tenements 
 therein mentioned, and also all her rights and advan- 
 tages under and by virtue of all laws of this state re- 
 lating to the exemption of Homesteads, without the com- 
 pulsion of her said husband, and that she does not wish to 
 retract the same. 
 
73; 
 
 Mivarinuer my Nand and v.i.-. 2. 3 seal this 20th 
 
 day of June, A. D. 1870. 
 Joun Forristau, J. P.’’ 
 
 (Attached to the foregoing instrument are the follow- 
 ing documents :) 
 
 ‘‘Srate oF ILLINoIs, < 
 Wooprorp Country. 
 
 I, M. L. Newell, a Notary Public in and for said County, 
 in the State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Emeline E. 
 Snow and George W. Snow, her husband, who are per- 
 sonally known to me to be the same persons whose names 
 are subscribed to the annexed deed, appeared before me 
 this day, in person, and acknowledged that they had 
 signed, sealed, and delivered the said instrument of writ- 
 ing as their free act and deed for the uses and purposes 
 therein expressed. 
 
 Given under my hand and Notarial Seal this 21st day 
 of June, A. D. 1860. 
 
 M. L. NEwesE Lt, 
 Notary Public.’’ 
 (M. L. Newell, ) 
 (Notary ) 
 (Public, ) 
 (Minonk, Woodford Co. Ill.) 
 
 ‘‘StTate oF ILLINots, a2 
 Lee County. 
 
 I, Simon Badger, a Justice of the Peace, in and for 
 said County, and the State aforesaid, do hereby certify, 
 that Byron Watson and Laura B. Watson, personally 
 known to me as the same persons whose names are sub- 
 seribed to the foregoing instrument of writing, appeared 
 before me this day in person, and acknowledged that they 
 sioned, sealed and delivered the said instrument of writ- 
 
74 
 
 ing as their free and voluntary act, for the uses and pur- 
 poses therein set forth. 
 
 And the said Laura B. Watson, wife of the said Byron 
 Watson, having been by me examined separate and apart, 
 and out of hearing of her husband, and the contents and 
 meaning of the said instrument of writing having been 
 by me fully made known and explained to her and she 
 also by me being fully informed of her rights under the 
 Homestead Laws of this State, acknowledged that she 
 had freely and voluntarily executed the same, and re- 
 linquished her dower to the lands and tenements therein 
 mentioned, and also all her rights and advantages under 
 and by virtue of all laws of this State relating to the ex- 
 emption of Homesteads, without the compulsion of her 
 husband, and that she does not wish to retract the same. 
 
 Given under my hand and ...... wo. Seal this 20th 
 
 day of June, A. D. 1870. 
 Stmon Bancer, J. P. [SEAL] 
 
 ‘“Srate or Inninots, | ,. 
 Les County. Fea: 
 
 I, James M. Hawley, Clerk of the County Court of said 
 County, do hereby certify that Simon Badger, Esquire, 
 whose name is subscribed to the proof or acknowledg- 
 ment of the annexed instrument in writing, was, at the 
 time of making such proof or acknowledgment, a Justice 
 of the Peace in and for said County, duly commissioned, 
 sworn and acting as such, and authorized to make the 
 same; and further, that I am well acquainted with hand 
 writing, and verily believe that the signature to the said 
 proof or acknowledgment is genuine. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand 
 and affixed the seal of said Court. Done at my office, in 
 the City of Dixon, in said County, this 20th day of June, 
 
 A. D.-1870. 
 JAMES A. Hawtey, 
 
 Clerk County Court.’’ 
 
483 
 
 75 - 
 
 (On the back of the foregoing instrument appears the 
 following :) 
 ‘*Quit-Claim Deed. 
 Rachel L. Neustadt 
 Kimeline Snow and others 
 to 
 Illinois Valley Coal Co. 
 June 2, 1870. 
 
 State oF ILLINo!s, 
 La SALLE County. ss. 2176. 
 
 The within Deed was filed for record in the Recorder’s 
 office of La Salle County, on the 20th day of July, A. D. 
 1870, at 12 o’clock m., and duly recorded in Book 134 of 
 Deeds, on page 626. 
 
 Grete Hook, 
 Recorder of La Salle Cownty.’’ 
 
 FIXHIBIT 9. 
 
 This indenture, made the Ninth day of June in the year 
 of our Lord One Thousand Eight. Hundred and Seventy 
 between Morris Neustadt and Rachel L. Neustadt his 
 wife, party of the first part, and the Illinois Valley Coal 
 Company, party of the second part, witnesseth, that the 
 said party of the first part, for and in consideration of 
 Fifty Dollars, in hand paid by the said party of the sec- 
 ond part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, 
 and the said party of the second part forever released 
 and discharged therefrom, have remised, released, sold, 
 conveyed and quit-claimed, and by these premises do re- 
 mise, release, sell, convey and quit-claim unto the said 
 party of the second part, their heirs and assigns forever, 
 all the right, title, interest, claim and demand, which the 
 said party of the first part has in and to the following 
 described lot, piece or parcel of land, to-wit: 
 
76 
 
 The Kast half of North East Quarter of South West 
 Quarter of Section No. Twenty three (23) Township 
 Thirty three (33) Range One (1) East of the third prin- 
 cipal Meridian Containing Seventeen acres, more or less. 
 
 To have and to hold the same, together with all and 
 singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto be- 
 longing, or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all 
 the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatever, of 
 the said party of the first part, either in law or equity, — 
 to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said 
 party of the second part, their heirs and assigns forever. 
 
 In Witness Whereof, the said party of the first part 
 hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year above 
 written. 
 
 Signed, Sealed and Delivered in Presence of 
 
 Morris Npeustaprt. [ SEAL. | 
 Racuet L. Neustapt, [SEAL. ] 
 
 (Which said quit-claim deed is endorsed upon the face 
 thereof with a $.50 United States Inter. Revenue Stamp.) 
 
 (Which said quit-claim deed is endorsed upon the back 
 thereof as follows:) 
 
 ‘‘State oF ILLINots, be 
 La Saute County. ; 
 
 I, The undersigned, a Justice of the Peace in and for 
 said County, and the State aforesaid, do hereby certify, 
 that Morris Neustadt and Rachel Neustadt, his wife, are 
 personally known to me as the same persons whose names 
 subseribed to the foregoing instrument of writing, ap- 
 peared before me this day, in person, and acknowledged 
 that they signed, sealed and delivered the said instru- 
 ment of writing as their free and voluntary act, for the 
 uses and purposes therein set forth. 
 
 And the said Rachel Neustadt, wife of the said Morris 
 
487 
 
 te 
 
 Neustadt, having been by me examined separate and 
 apart and out of the hearing of her husband, and the con- 
 tents and meaning of the said instrument of writing hav- 
 ing been by me fully made known and explained to her 
 and she also by me being fully informed of her rights 
 under the Homestead Laws of this State, acknowledged 
 that she had freely and voluntarily executed the same, 
 and relinquished her dower to the lands and tenements 
 therein mentioned, and also all her rights and advan- 
 tages under and by virtue of all laws of this State re- 
 lating to the exemption of Homesteads, without the com- 
 pulsion of her said husband, and that she does not wish 
 to retract the same. 
 
 Sivensinder my: hand andig. 20 .cve seal this 9th 
 
 day of June, A. D. 1870. 
 JOHN FoRBISTAL, J. P.’’ 
 
 (Also) ‘‘C Quit-claim Deed. Morris Neustadt and wife 
 to Illinois Valley Coal Co. June 9, 1870.”’ 
 
 (Also, in pencil) ‘‘Mail Ill Valley Coal Co Oglesby 
 Ills’’ . 
 
 (Also) ‘‘State of Illinois La Salle County. No. 2175. 
 This instrument was filed for record on the 20th day of 
 July, A. D. 1870, at 12 0’clock m., and duly recorded in 
 Book 138 of Records at page 25. C. H. Hook, Clerk of 
 Circuit Court and Ex-Officio Recorder.’’ 
 
 (Also) ‘‘Culver, Page & Hoyne, Stationers, Chicago.”’ 
 
 Cross-Examination of the Witness Howard S. Hazen by 
 Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 IT am the general manager of the La Salle County Car-. 
 bon Coal Company. This company was organized in 
 1883, in November, under charter from the State of DIh- 
 nois. I have that charter at the present time. 
 
488 
 
 489 © 
 
 490 
 
 491 
 
 492 
 
 495 
 
 18 
 
 Mr. CureerFIELD: I will ask you to introduce it, if you 
 please, before the jury. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: You mean you want it? 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Yes, J want to offer it. I want to 
 offer this charter in evidence, if your Honor please, in 
 connection with the testimony of this witness. 
 
 Mr. Butrers: Well, I object to it. 
 
 The Court: I think I will sustain the objection. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Now, you have marked that as Eix- 
 hibit 2 for the purpose of identification. 
 
 Q. You are operating under this charter of which you 
 have spoken, marked Exhibit 2? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 The works are located in the vicinity of Peru and La 
 Salle, the coal mines. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: (). How many? 
 Objection by the plaintiff. 
 A. Four. 
 
 Mr. CuHIPperFIELD: Q. Describe the location, and as 
 
 you describe the location describe the designation of each. 
 
 Objected to by the plaintiff; objection sustained; 
 defendant excepts. 
 
 I am familiar with the lands described in the plain- 
 tiff’s declaration. JI know the lands we own. I have 
 never seen the declaration. I don’t know what lands are 
 included in the declaration. JI am familiar with the de- 
 scription of the lands. 
 
 With reference to the lands described in the declara- 
 tion, | am familiar with those descriptions. J recognize 
 the description of each one of them as you read them. 
 We have no works located on any of these lands. We 
 have no coal mines or shafts upon any of those lands. 
 
496 
 
 497 
 
 498 
 
 499 
 
 19 
 
 We have entries and roadways underneath these lands; 
 underneath the ground, we have. In the lands that you 
 read the description of there are entries and roadways. 
 We are working coal from some portions of these lands. 
 We are working coal in the southwest quarter of Section 
 23, a portion of it, and that portion of 21 of the north- 
 east quarter of 21 east of the Illinois Central Railroad. 
 
 We have removed portions of the coal but not in all 
 of it. We have removed coal under the southeast and 
 southwest quarters of 14; practically all of it except on 
 the east edge. I cannot give you the entire amount there. 
 A portion under the south half of 23; a small portion 
 under the part of 21 east of the Illinois Central Rail- 
 way, of the northeast quarter; that is all. The rest of 
 the coalis within the land. The La Salle County Carbon 
 Coal Company, the plaintiff in this case, has removed 
 that coal. We have removed about 1,300 acres of coal. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: @. In the description which I read 
 to you in this declaration, and which you said you rec- 
 ognized the land of which you had been in possession, 
 how many acres are described? 
 
 A. I heard you say this morning 900 to 1,000. 
 
 From the lands of which a description has been read 
 I should say we mined out in the south half of Section 
 23 probably twenty-five acres. I should judge twenty 
 five acres. And in that part of 21, the northeast quarter, 
 east of the Illinois Central, I should say probably fifteen 
 acres. 
 
 (. Then of this nine or ten hundred acres, whichever 
 it may transpire to be, you have taken out something like 
 about forty acres altogether; is that all? A. Well, I 
 would like to look at the map of the property before giv- 
 ing that answer. 
 
 D100 Mr. O’Conor: We have a map, Mr. Chiperfield, which 
 
o01 
 
 O02 
 
 003 
 
 O04 
 
 80 
 
 shows the coal mined, but it also shows a good many 
 other things. * * * For the purpose of answering 
 this question I can let Mr. Hazen take that and he can 
 describe to you just where that coal was taken from. 
 (Map is handed to the witness. ) 
 
 Mr. CuiperFigetp: Now, then, Mr. Hazen, so you may 
 understand my question, when you are looking at the 
 map, from the land that is involved in this suit, about 
 how much coal has been taken and where has it been 
 taken? Now, you may take all the time you want to an- 
 swer that. I mean how many acres? 
 
 A. I should say fifteen acres out of that piece. 
 
 Out of the portion of the northeast quarter east of the 
 Illinois River and north of the bayou; perhaps that would 
 be the description. None of the coal has been removed 
 on the balance of Section 21 across the river west. I 
 don’t know that any of the coal has been removed from 
 the lands on the bayou; between that and the river. On 
 Section 21 about fifteen acres has been removed, north 
 of the bayou. The thickness of the vein is three and a 
 half feet. I should say fifteen acres has been removed 
 out of the south half of Section 23. Out of the lands 
 involved in this suit about thirty acres have been mined 
 altogether; on 14, about 120 acres have been removed; 
 no other coal has been removed from the lands in con- 
 troversy in this suit. The map correctly portrays what 
 work has been carried on in this land. The land which 
 was described in Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were in the 
 possession of the Illinois Valley Coal Company from ’84 
 to 92. The La Salle County Carbon Coal Company did 
 not own the stock of the Illinois Valley Coal Company. 
 
 Q. Did the stockholders of the La Salle County Car- 
 bon Coal Company also own the stock of the Illinois Val- 
 ley Coal Company? A. Yes, sir. 
 
D059 
 
 906 
 
 Sl 
 Mr. O’Conor: Objected to as immaterial. 
 Objection sustained by the court; defendant excepts. 
 Mr. CuIPerFieLp: I want to offer to prove that from 
 84 to ’92 the stockholders of the La Salle County Carbon 
 Coal Company were the owners of the stock of the IIli- 
 nois Valley Coal Company, and that the management, 
 operation and control of the Illinois Valley Coal Com- 
 pany were the same as the management, operation and 
 control of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. 
 I think that is all. 
 Objected to by the plaintiff as immaterial; objection 
 sustained; defendant excepts. 
 
 Mr. CureerFieLtp: I[ want to ask this question: 
 
 . Were the officers of the Illinois Valley Coal Com- 
 pany and the officers of the La Salle County Carbon 
 Coal Company identical? 
 
 Plaintiff objects; objection sustained; defendant ex- 
 cepts. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: (). I want to ask you if you took the 
 lands which are described in the deeds which I have men- 
 tioned to you, the exhibits from 4 to 9, for any debt 
 which was due from the Illinois Coal Company to the La 
 Salle County Carbon Coal Company? 
 
 Objected to by the plaintiff; objection sustained; de- 
 fendant excepts. | 
 
 The jury is withdrawn from the court room. 
 
 Mr. CurperFiELpD: I want to offer to show that the La 
 Salle County Carbon Coal Company took the lands de- 
 seribed in the deeds, so far as the same pertain to this 
 suit, for an indebtedness which the Illinois Valley Coal 
 Company owed the La Salle County Carbon Coal Com- 
 payn. 
 
 Objection by the plaintiff; objection sustained; de- 
 fendant excepts. 
 
007 
 
 82 
 
 Mr. CuHIPerFIELD: There are two or three matters on 
 that proposition that can be disposed of while the jury 
 is absent. : 
 
 The Count: Very well. “ 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Q. Did the La Salle County Carbon 
 Coal Company require for its purpose of mining the » 
 surface of the lands which are described in the plain- 
 tiff’s declaration, all of the surface of the lands which 
 are described in the plaintiff’s declaration? 
 
 Objected to by the plaintiff as not a pertinent in- 
 quiry; objection sustained; defendant excepts. 
 
 908-510 Argument upon the question of the materiality of 
 
 oll 
 
 the testimony offered. 
 Mr. O’Conor: We object to it. 
 
 The Court: I think I will sustain the objection. 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Q. I want to inquire how much of 
 this land, or the surface of this land, is in fact oceupied 
 for any purpose in connection with the operation of the 
 mines of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company by 
 shafts, tipples or any other purpose whatsoever that is 
 necessarily connected with such use? 
 
 A. About twenty acres. 
 
 @. What is done with the rest of the land? A. 
 Farmed. 
 
 Q. So, aside from some twenty acres of land, the La 
 Salle Carbon Coal Company is and has been, since it ac- 
 quired these lands, engaged in the business of farming? 
 A. We farm the lands. 
 
 Q. I say, since it has acquired these lands, that has 
 been the use that has been made of it? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 (The jury returns to the jury box.) 
 
 The Illinois Valley Coal Company is not now in exist- 
 
o12 
 
 513 
 
 O14 
 
 O15 
 
 83 
 
 ence. It has been consolidated in 1892 with the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company. I first learned of Ex- 
 hibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 prior to 1884. I was connected 
 with the Illinois Valley Coal Company as chief clerk. I 
 worked for the Illinois Valley Coal Company from 1880 
 to 1884. I afterwards worked for the Illinois Valley Coal 
 Company as treasurer from ’84 to ’92. I was also con- 
 nected with the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company 
 at that time in the same position. 
 
 I was treasurer of both companies. I was familar 
 with the records of the Illinois Valley Coal Company. 
 These deeds constituted a portion of the records of the 
 Illinois Valley Coal Company. I was present when part 
 of the negotiations and I saw the deeds handled there 
 and handled them myself. I knew that Exhibit 9 was in 
 the office at that time. I knew nothing about. I am mis- 
 taken in saying I participated in the execution of these 
 deeds. No, I think they were executed prior to ’84. I 
 don’t know anything about the execution of any of these 
 deeds. All I know is that I found them in the office of 
 the Illinois Valley Coal Company. They did not continue 
 there. They went to Chicago, to the general manager’s 
 office. They went in 1884. They remained in the gen- 
 eral manager’s office until last November, a year ago, 
 November, 1911; the manager’s office of the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company or in the [llinois Trust 
 and Savings Bank deposit; one or the other. I had ac- 
 cess to the files of the general manager’s office in Chi- 
 eago. These deeds were kept in his office until the last 
 three or four years, and then were put over in the [lli- 
 nois Trust and Savings Bank in the eustody of Mr. 
 Wyatt. They were in the safety deposit box which the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company rented in the 
 name of Mr. Wyatt. Mr. Wyatt was the general man- 
 ager of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. He 
 
O16 
 
 d19 
 
 84 
 
 was my predecessor. He died last November, a year ago. 
 I succeeded to his duties at the same time. I got these 
 deeds in my possession April of this year. Between ’92, 
 down to the time I last saw these deeds, I had seen them 
 several times; three or four times; I can’t give you the 
 dates. Exhibit No. 3, deed from the Illinois Valley Coal 
 Company to the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, 
 was made in 1884, March. I was not present at the ex- 
 ecution of that deed and don’t know anything about it. 
 I first saw the deed some time subsequent to 1892. The 
 first time I could swear to it was last April. I have seen 
 it several times since, but I can’t give the dates. 
 
 (). Have you in your custody or possession any of the 
 records of the Illinois Valley Coal Company? 
 Objected to by the plaintiff; objection sustained; de- 
 fendant excepts. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether or not the premises which 
 are described in Exhibit 3 were taken for a debt by the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company due from the 
 Illinois Valley Coal Company? 
 
 Objected to by the plaintiff; objection sustained; de- 
 fendant excepts. 
 
 The lands conveyed by the deed of the Illinois Valley 
 Coal Company to the La Salle County Carbon Coal Com- 
 pany—that is the part described in this declaration— 
 that deed, as I remember, conveys the lands through for- 
 mer deeds, reciting the parties to the transaction and 
 the book in which they are filed. All of the lands em- 
 braced in this suit there was conveyed by the deed from 
 the [hnois Valley Coal Company to the La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company, the land in Section 23, about 
 thirty-five acres in 24, and seventy and 21/100 acres in 
 23; all the property of the Illinois Valley Coal Company. 
 There was a shaft embraced in that, and works. The 
 shaft and works are now located on Section 23, southern 
 
o21 
 
 O22 
 
 023 
 
 024 
 
 O20 
 
 85 
 
 edge. They are used in connection with these lands at 
 the present time. 
 
 Court adjourns until 1 o’clock p. m., November 12, 
 
 EOL. 
 
 Cross-Examination of Howard S. Hazen (Continued). 
 
 The officers of the La Salle Carbon Coal Company are 
 Richard P. Joy, president; Henry T’. Sheldon, vice-presi- 
 dent, and H. 8. Hazen, secretary and manager. The di- 
 rectors are Joy, Sheldon, Quirk, Dennis, Hazen, and I 
 think that is all. Mr. Quirk resides in Ipsilanti and the 
 rest of them in Detroit, except myself, and I live in La 
 Salle. The tracts of land which lie along the Illinois and 
 Michigan Canal, being the tract furthest north and fur- 
 thest east, that is involved in this suit, we have farmed 
 part of it and we have a rock dump on another portion 
 of it. It is from the Rockwell mine, the Rockwell shaft, 
 that the dump is being taken. That is located on Lots 
 1 and 2. It is located on an independent lock. We have 
 farmed a part of that land. I can’t tell how much with- 
 out seeing the map. We have rented it out. We claim to 
 have owned it since 1883. I don’t know who we rented 
 it to in ’83, in ’84, or in ’85, or in ’86. I don’t locate any 
 year. I don’t know in ’88 or in ’89 or in ’90 or in 
 ieee don't know in 792, in ’93, in 795, 1n “96, in ’97, in 
 98, in 799. I don’t know in 1900, in 1901, in 1902, in 1903, 
 in 1904, in 1905, in 1906, in 1907, in 1908, in 1910, in 
 1911, in 1912; I don’t know. 
 
 Q. How much did you get for the rental of that land 
 for any of those years? 
 
 Objected to by the plaintiff; objection sustained; de- 
 fendant excepts. 
 
 The rock dump on the land traversed by the right of 
 way of the C., B. & Q. would cover about fifteen acres. 
 
526 
 
 O27 
 
 528 
 
 86 
 
 It is about twenty feet high. The land which lies prac- 
 tically south of the tract which was first described and 
 which is traversed by the C., B. & Q Railroad and which 
 hes east of the Vermillion, being a part of the northeast 
 of 23, has been farmed by tenants. 
 
 @. Do you remember who have been the tenants of 
 those lands for any time since 1892? 
 Objected to by the plaintiff; objection sustained; de- 
 fendant excepts. 
 
 Charles Segart has farmed it this year. August La- 
 vins farmed it for 1911. August Lavins farmed it in 
 1910. He has farmed it for four years. Before that 
 Thomas Bowers for two years; before that George Simp- 
 son; I don’t know how long he farmed; a good many 
 years; several years; I don’t know. 
 
 Q. Do you know the rental which you got for the 
 
 use of those premises during any of those years? 
 Plaintiff objects; objection sustained; defendant ex- 
 cepts. 
 
 The land immediately west of the Illinois Central right 
 of way and south of the river, being a part of the south- 
 east quarter of Section 23, and a part of the southeast 
 quarter of Section 22, has been farmed. The 106 acre 
 tract south of the Illinois River, which is the southeast 
 of 23, being almost directly west of the first piece de- 
 scribed, has been farmed by Mike Charles this year and 
 last year. For the years 1909 and 1910 Charley Shepp 
 farmed it. For 1909 and for two or three years prior 
 to that time Tom Bowers farmer it. I can’t go back any 
 farther. The piece lying to the westward of the piece 
 in 22 and 23, going straight west, and lying along the 
 river and to the east of Huse’s Slough, having some- 
 thing like 400 acres in it, being a part of Section 21; that 
 part east of the Ilhnois River, of the northeast quarter, 
 
029 
 
 030 
 
 doL 
 
 87 
 
 was farmed for about three years, three or four years, 
 by Dooley. Prior to that for about twenty-five years it 
 was farmed by another Dooley, a brother to the first 
 man mentioned. These two men have farmed it during 
 the time we have owned it. The balance of the piece is 
 farmed this year by William Brannen, a man by the 
 name of Boers, and another by the name of Cosgrove. 
 The same parties farmed it this year and the year be- 
 fore. They have been there altogether three years. Be- 
 fore that there was a multitude of people there farming 
 the year before. I couldn’t tell you who they were. Five 
 years ago Charles Segart and a man by the name of 
 Guest farmed it. I have given you all the names I can 
 think of. The same people, I think, farmed it in 1905. 
 In 1908 Mrs. Waugh, and before that Mrs. Waugh. She 
 had it three years. Nobody farmed it in 1902. Back as 
 far as I know, Samuel Waugh, the husband of Mrs. 
 Waugh, farmed that land. She succeeded him. 
 
 Q. What rental did you obtain for those tracts which 
 
 I have last described to you? A. Two-fifths of the crop. 
 
 Objected to by the plaintiff; objection sustained; de- 
 _fendant excepts 
 
 Mr. CuHrIPerFIELD: Q. About how fast are you. mining 
 the coal on this land? 
 
 Objected to by the plaintiff; objection sustained; de-. 
 fendant excepts 
 
 There is timber around the edges of the stream. Some 
 large cottonwoods and some willows. That is merely a 
 fringe of timber along the edge of the stream. 
 
 Mr. CurpeerFrieLD: @. Is there any of this land which 
 rises high towards the bluffs? 
 
 Objected to by the plaintiff; objection sustained; de- 
 fendant excepts 
 
 There is about thirty acres of this land which is not 
 
On 
 CO 
 
 8S 
 
 bottom land. It lies in the southeast corner of 21. It 
 has been pasture. 
 
 (). Now, the land which is on the south side of the 
 land between—on 22 or 23—this triangular shaped piece 
 where you didn’t understand which piece I referred to, 
 which by way of identifying it is west of the Lllinois 
 Central, there is a road which runs from east to west 
 there, isn’t there? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 (). Does the land towards that road rise quite high? 
 Objected to by the plaintiff; objection sustained; the 
 defendant excepts. 
 
 The land next to the road on the north side is used for 
 pasture purposes. There is some small timber on that 
 land, serub timber; oak and everything. Right to the 
 east of the Illinois Central bridge, between that and the 
 Little Vermillion, no part of that land has been used 
 for a vegetable garden or the raising of millet. I believe 
 there is a small patch there that has been used by some 
 one for a garden patch. I don’t know anything about it. 
 I don’t know if any millet was raised there this year. 
 I believe there was none raised there this year. There 
 was a vegetable garden there. It was not a tenant of 
 ours. It was a squatter. 
 
 The works of mine No. 1 extend out under 23 and up 
 under 26. Twenty-three is involved in this suit. The 
 map is a correct representation of the workings of the 
 shaft at that time as far as they had extended into 23. 
 The Cedar Point mine has nothing to do with this suit. 
 Mine No. 5 is at Cedar Point. The Union mine is in the 
 edge of Peru. The Union mine has to do with the work- 
 ings upon lands involved in this suit; that part of the 
 northeast quarter of 21 east of the Illinois River. 
 
89 
 
 536 Re-direct Examination of the Witness Howard S. Hazen 
 
 OT 
 
 by Mr. Butters. 
 
 Q. Mr. Hazen, one question. Who has paid the taxes 
 that have been levied against this land during the times 
 that you have covered by your testimony? 
 
 Mr. CurperFretp: I object to it for the reason, if the 
 court please, the payment of taxes cannot be shown in 
 that manner. 
 
 The Court: I think I will let him answer. 
 The defendant excepts. 
 
 A. I have paid the taxes on all the lands since 1890, 
 as treasurer of the coal company. 
 
 Re-cross Exanunation of the Witness Howard 8S. Hazen 
 by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I have paid all of the taxes assessed against the prop- 
 erty that I have been charged with. I have the tax re- 
 eeipts. I don’t have them with me. I will produce them 
 for your inspection if necessary. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Well, let us then defer the further 
 cross-examination until he returns with the tax receipts. 
 
 The Court: Is there anything further? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: That is all. 
 
 Mr. CurIPerFIELD: But I want it understood that it is 
 with the understanding, your Honor, when the receipts 
 come in there may be further cross-examination with 
 reference to them. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Well, we won’t produce them, your 
 Honor, unless they want them. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Yes, we want them. We want to 
 examine with reference to them. 
 
 The Court: Call your next witness. 
 
90 
 
 540-558 Caption of depositions of Clarence O. Davis, Obe- 
 
 008 
 
 060 
 
 O61 
 
 062 
 
 063 
 
 O64 
 
 diah Hicks, Rollin L. Reed, T. E. Marsh, Thos. J. Kelly, 
 Homer R. Clark and F.. G. Blakeslee, taken in the above 
 entitled cause on the 13th and 16th days of April, 1905, 
 at the office of J. L. O’Donnell, Young Building, Joliet, 
 Illinois, and stipulations with reference thereto. 
 
 CLARENCE QO. Davis, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Curran. 
 (Deposition read by Mr. Butters.) 
 
 My name is Clarence O. Davis. I am twenty-nine years 
 old and live in Joliet, Illinois. Have lived there the last 
 fifteen years; am a photographer. Have been engaged 
 actively in that business about seven years. I went out 
 with Mr. Gale seven years ago this month and went in 
 for myself. It has been photography with me all my life 
 ever since I was a kid; three or four years, anyway. AI- 
 together probably ten years’ experience. I did viewing 
 on the ditch when they dug the big ditch down through 
 here. I took the negatives from which these photographs, 
 Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5, were made. The negative for Ex- 
 hibit 2 was made on March 2, 1905. I am acquainted with 
 the stream in the State of Illinois known as the Des- 
 plaines River, but not to any great extent. I have been 
 at the Town of Lyons in the County of Cook in the State 
 of Illinois. I have seen the masonry work that is called 
 the ‘‘Water Diversion at Lyons.’’ I have been there. 
 I was there last on March 2, 1905. I took a photograph 
 of that on March 2. I focused the camera when the neg- 
 ative was made. There was nobody present but myself 
 when this was done. I took charge of the negative after 
 the exposure was made. I brought it to Joliet. I kept 
 it in our studio at Joliet. I developed it and it: was 
 
565 
 
 067 
 
 068 
 
 569 
 
 91 
 
 printed under my direction. The proofs were mounted 
 in my studio under my direction. Exhibit 2 is one of 
 the prints and photographs made from the negative I 
 have mentioned. I don’t really know what it was put 
 there for. Well, I will have to change that. It has rela- 
 tion; that is what it is in there for. In making Exhibit 
 2 I photographed the spill-way. It is the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict’s spill-way. Near the Town of Lyons adjacent to 
 the spill-way. The camera stood about ten to twenty-five 
 feet from the masonry at the time the photograph, Ex- 
 hibit 2, was made. It was focused upon this spill-way. 
 It was photographed to the best of my ability. To the 
 best of my ability, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 is a correct pho- 
 graph of the spill-way and water diversion at that place. 
 I took the negative for Exhibit 3 on March 2, 1905. It 
 was the Desplaines River between the spill-way and Ly- 
 ons; probably about an eighth of a mile from the spill- 
 way; about a mile or a mile and a quarter from Lyons. 
 
 ~ Tam acquainted with the locality of the controlling works 
 
 070 
 
 O71 
 
 O12 
 
 and Bear T'rap Dam at Lockport. I don’t know how 
 far from the controlling works and Bear Trap Dam at 
 Lockport Exhibit 3 was taken. J don’t know the dis- 
 tance between here and Summit. It would be purely 
 ouesswork as to the distance where Exhibit 3 was taken 
 and Bear Trap Dam and the controlling works. Exhibit 
 3 was taken above the point where Bear Trap Dam is 
 located on the Desplaines River. I don’t know the di- 
 rections there except that I was told. I never was there 
 except that one time. The camera was located about 300 
 feet from the bed of the stream of the Desplaines River. 
 It was focused upon the Desplaines River. I made the 
 exposure. T'o the best of my ability it was properly done. 
 After the negative was made it remained in my charge. 
 I took it to Joliet to the Savory studio. It has been in 
 my charge from then until the present time. The nega- 
 
O73 
 
 Or 
 “< 
 D 
 
 od 
 
 078 
 
 fe 
 
 tive was finished and the prints made from it under my 
 direction. They were mounted and put in their present 
 form under my direction. There was nothing done in 
 the process of that work that was not properly done, ac- 
 cording to my judgment and experience as a photog- 
 rapher. Exhibit 3 is one of the photographs made by 
 me and under my direction from that negative. I have 
 been at the Bear Trap Dam and controlling works at 
 Lockport; been there three times. The controlling works 
 and Bear Trap Dam is about five miles from Joliet. I 
 was last there February 19, 1905. At the time I took 
 the photograph of the Bear Trap Dam and controlling 
 works there was nobody with me but a helper to carry 
 the camera that day. His name was James Hurley, I 
 believe. 
 
 When Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 was taken the camera was 
 located on the west bank of the drainage, focusing east. 
 I mean the Sanitary District Canal stream. I should 
 judge about 250 or 300 feet I foeused the camera. In 
 my judgment and experience as a photographer, it was 
 eorrectly done. I exposed the negative. I took charge 
 of it. It has been in my charge ever since. It has been 
 kept in the Savory studio, Joliet, Illinois. The negative 
 was developed and prints were made under my direction. 
 They were also mounted under my direction. It was 
 foeused on the controlling works as a whole with the 
 Bear Trap Dam as a center, because I tried to get one 
 of these up there (pointing to an object in the picture) ; 
 one of these flood gates. Water was running over the 
 Bear Trap Dam. All of the apron of that dam was un- 
 der water. It was not frozen; was running free. I took 
 the photograph about 11 o0’clock in the forenoon. I made 
 Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5. I am acquainted with the street 
 on which the bridge is located from which that picture 
 is taken. It is Jefferson street, Joliet. There is a bridge 
 
ov9 
 
 080 
 
 O81 
 
 582 
 
 083 
 
 084 
 
 93 
 
 over the Desplaines River on Jefferson street. I have 
 been acquainted with it ever since it was put in. The 
 camera was pointed north at the time of the making of 
 the photograph. The camera was situated on the north 
 portion of the north sidewalk at the time of the taking 
 of that photograph. There is a sidewalk on each side 
 and a roadway in the middle. It was west of the center 
 of the bridge, I should judge, about a dozen feet. It was 
 Just a few feet from the north edge of the bridge; 
 probably the middle of the walk. The walk is about 
 eight or ten feet wide at that place. I am not acquainted 
 with the artificial retaining walks, built along the Des- 
 plaines River at that point, but I know there are such. 
 I have seen them; not very frequently. They consist of 
 stone masonry about ten or twelve feet high. I focused 
 the camera when the photograph, Exhibit 5, was taken. 
 I made the exposure and took the negative. I have been 
 in charge of the negative from that time until the pres- 
 ent time. It has been kept in the Savory studio, Joliet. 
 The negative was developed, photograph printed and 
 mounted under my directions. The work was properly 
 done. I brought Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5 before the com- 
 missioner. They are in the same condition now they were 
 when completed, except the exhibit marks. The gallery 
 where I do work is operated under the name of the Sa- 
 vory studio. It is a sort of a trade mark. On the 2d of 
 March, 1905, when Plaintiff’s Exhibits 2 and 3 were 
 made, the condition of the weather was about freezing 
 point or slightly above. The weather was sort of cloudy, 
 too. At the time Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 was taken, on the 
 19th of February, 1905, it was below freezing point. It 
 was deuced cold at that time. Thirty below zero. The 
 mercury reached that point about Monday, the 13th of 
 February. It maintained that for about a little over 
 twenty-four hours, and then gradually came up. 
 
 7 
 
585 
 
 086 
 
 087 
 
 088 
 
 o89 
 
 94 
 
 At the time Exhibit 4 was taken the water was frozen 
 about and running water below the Bear Trap Dam. 
 When Exhibit 4 was taken the Bear Trap Dam was run- 
 ning water, running quite swiftly. From the 13th of Feb- 
 ruary, 1905, down to the 26th of February, 1905, the tem- 
 perature at Joliet was around freezing point and below 
 freezing point most of the time. On the 26th of Febru- 
 ary, 1905, the day I took Exhibit 5 from the Jefferson 
 street bridge, it was just about freezing point. The sun 
 was bright. No, there had been no breakup or thaw just 
 about that time. 
 
 At the time I took Exhibit 5 the Desplaines River was 
 running water, with some ice coming down with the 
 water. It was all open. The current was swift. Ex- 
 hibit 5 was taken about noon. There was bright sun- 
 shine that day. On that day I had normal vision. I saw 
 the current of the Desplaines River. The current was 
 quite swift. The Jefferson street bridge I mentioned is 
 not the only bridge across the Desplaines River in the 
 City of Joliet. Looking north from the Jefferson street 
 bridge it is four blocks to another bridge. That bridge 
 
 090 is called the Cass street bridge. That is the Cass street 
 
 O91 
 
 O92 
 
 bridge shown in the field of that picture across the Des- 
 plaines River. It is seven blocks from the Jefferson 
 street bridge to the Jackson street bridge. The Jackson 
 street bridge is north of the Cass street bridge. Ex- 
 hibit 5 was taken of the Desplaines River, what used to 
 be the Desplaines River, the bed of the Desplaines River. 
 The parallel objects extending north and south towards 
 the Cass street bridge from the right and left field of 
 that photograph are stone walls; the same stone walls. 
 
 Plaintiff offers in evidence Plaintiff’s Exhibits 2, 3, 4 
 and 5. 
 Objected to by defendant on the ground they are in- 
 competent, irrelevant and immaterial; objection 
 overruled; the defendant excepts. 
 
 , 
 
95 
 
 093 Cross-Examination. 
 
 099 Exhibit 2 admitted in evidence without objection. 
 Exhibit 10 admitted in evidence without objection. 
 
 600 Exhibit 4 admitted in evidence without objection. 
 
 Exhibit 5 admitted in evidence without objection. 
 
[3 
 = 
 
 > 
 ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 601 Exhibit 2 to the deposition 
 
 ins wi 
 
 case. 
 
 h 
 
 | 
 
 as 
 ra 
 
 a] 
 
 ol 
 bad : 
 ies A 
 
 virry 
 
 aos - 
 
 a 2 La - : 
 
 oe oi ns 2 - 
 2‘ = ar 
 
 pal =r yer. n 
 
 ° - ' cr a 7 as 
 
 7 - v a ra 2 
 
 giz? > 2 
 a a | > 
 
 , ae . ‘ Me 
 
 Len ee iW 
 ; Thee, 
 iy ita 
 
 . 
 
 ; iy sites 
 
 F 
 thy 
 3 
 * 
 % 
 i 
 P 
 a 
 a 
 i ee 
 *® 
 ~~ 
 +y 
 » 
 Pore : 
 f = 
 = 
 = ee 
 a 
 
 
 

 
ciliGts 
 
 a 
 
 
 
- 
 
 a 
 - 
 o« 
 
 
 
602 Exhibit 4 to the deposition marked Exhibit 
 case. . ae a! > “2 
 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
re ae 
 
 
 

 
 Hit pnaat 
 Gb Re. 
 UNIVERSITY. GF (LIONS 
 

 

 
 We ee 
 
 
 
 
 603 Exhibit 5 to the deposition marked Exhibit ; 
 ; cage. : 
 
 4 
 
 i ie 
 
Sr 
 
 
 

 
 me 
 rey 
 3 
 4 
 
 
 
 fii (uhaRY - 
 
 UF 
 
 ihe 
 
 URIVERSITY GF ILLINOIS 
 
 
 
604 
 
 605 
 
 606 
 
 607 
 
 608 
 
 609 
 
 LOL 
 
 Cross-Examimation of the Witness Clarence O. Davis by 
 Mr. Quinn. 
 
 (Deposition read by Mr. Chiperfield.) 
 
 I developed the plate in every instance that Exhibits 
 2, 3, 4 and 5 were made by the printer. They were all 
 done under my supervision. I was there at the time. The 
 printer would watch the frames and hand them to me 
 when they were done or sufficiently printed. I was told 
 to go to these points February 26, February 19 and 
 March 2, 1905, by J. L. O’Donnell. He was the same J. L. 
 O’Donnell in whose office we are now taking depositions. 
 He is an attorney in the City of Joliet and the 
 only one by that name in that city to my knowledge. They 
 were taken for him. I selected the points at which they 
 were to be taken. I was told to take these things from 
 points of view which practically I selected myself, but it 
 was done under their supervision. Mr. O’Donnell and 
 I had a conversation as to the general places I was to go. 
 For instance, he told me to take the spill-way. What I 
 mean by that, I mean he didn’t tell me any definite place; 
 just told me a general view and I went and made that of 
 these different things. There were four specific cases. 
 He told me to take the controlling works at Lockport. I 
 selected which side I should take. He showed me a little 
 print of the spill-way and told me to make something like 
 this and then went down here to the bridge and he says, 
 ‘¢‘ Just take the canal north from the bridge,’’ and I went 
 ahead and did it. I made four plates. No, I think I have 
 six or seven. I will not say exact. You have the plates 
 used on these oceasions. Yes, I did show Mr. O’Donnell 
 two of them. Mr, O’Donnell determined which should be 
 used for the purpose of making these pictures. I used 
 an 11x14 camera. There was no doctoring done whatever 
 of these pictures. For instance, ‘‘dodging’’ is retouch- 
 
6.L0 
 
 612 
 
 613 
 
 102 
 
 ing. I developed them. They went through our regular 
 form of developing. I was just engaged in this work 
 on two or three occasions, March 2d, February 19th and 
 February 26th. I was employed by Mr. O’Donnell to do 
 this work. I am not paid for it yet, but I look to Mr. 
 O’Donnell for the money. 
 
 (Signed) CrarEence O. Davis. 
 
 _ The plaintiff then offered in evidence the deposition of 
 
 OpepiaH Hicks: 
 
 Direct Examination Read by Mr. O’Connor. 
 
 My name is Obediah Hicks and I reside in Joliet; have 
 lived there since 1862. My business in 1862 was building 
 and repairing canal boats and dry dock. My dry dock 
 was in Joliet. My firm operated canal boats in the Illi- 
 nois and Michigan Canal and the Illinois River. Since I 
 lived in Joliet my residence has been on the west side of 
 the Desplaines River; have lived in Joliet all of the time 
 from 1862 to 1900. For a period of about ten years be- 
 fore the year 1900 I saw the Desplaines River every day. 
 The condition of the river during any of those years in 
 times of low water, particularly between Jefferson street 
 in the City of Joliet and what is known as the Rock Island 
 bridge south of Jefferson street, in the dryest times there 
 was practically no water. Oh, there was some in the 
 ponds, but no running water going over Maleolm’s dam 
 down to the Grist Mill. I knew the dam that was former- 
 ly on the Desplaines River near Jefferson street in the 
 City of Joliet. It was dam number 1. In times of low 
 water, during these years from 1862 until the Sanitary 
 District water was turned into the river, the condition 
 of the Jefferson street dam, prior to 1870 was dry very 
 often. After that it was not dry much. I know where 
 the race-way at Norton’s mill in Lockport is located. I 
 
614 
 
 615 
 
 616 
 
 617 
 
 103 
 
 know the surroundings. From 1870 up to 1900 water es- 
 eaped from the [llinois and Michigan Canal and flowed 
 into the Desplaines River near Norton’s mill. When I 
 say prior to 1870, that there was no water flowing over 
 the Jefferson street dam, I think in every summer, four 
 or five times during that period, probably I observed it. 
 At other times of low water about six inches flowed over 
 the dam. I was acquainted with the condition of the 
 Desplaines River before 1900, north of Ninth street, north 
 of the mill at Lockport. In times of low water it was dry. 
 There was no running-~water in the river. There was an 
 island in the river south of Jefferson street prior to the 
 making of the Sanitary District improvements; two, in 
 fact. On the north island near the Jefferson street bridge 
 there was timber. I don’t think I ever waded across the 
 river between Jefferson street and the Rock Island bridge. 
 I was acquainted before 1900 with the Illinois River be- 
 low Peru and La Salle. I observed the condition of the 
 river there in times of low water on one occasion. It 
 was ’65 or 766, I can’t remember which. It was at what 
 we call Tree Top Bar, at that time, a shallow place in 
 the river. The depth of the water in the Illinois River 
 there on that occasion was ten or twelve inches; some 
 places deeper and some shallower. I ascertained the 
 depth by wading in and seeing teams draw through it, 
 hauling boats up. The boats were towed from Tree Top 
 Bar to Peru. I should think about five or six inches, 
 somewhere about that. That was a flat bottom boat made 
 for lightening. 
 
 Cross-Examination of the Witness Obediah Hicks Read 
 by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 IT am seventy-five years and ten months old. I seen and 
 observed the Desplaines River during the time I have 
 lived in Joliet. Occasionally I have seen it very low. 
 
618 
 
 619 
 
 620 
 
 104 
 
 That was occasioned from the fact that no water was com- 
 ing down the river from the Desplaines River. The 
 Desplaines River rises somewhere in Wisconsin. I can’t 
 tell you the location exactly. I can’t tell you how many 
 square miles are contained in the water shed of the Des- 
 plaines River. At the time I refer to it was an extremely 
 dry season with no rainfall in or about the water shed. 
 The Desplaines River at the time I speak of was very 
 largely controlled, as to the volume or stage of water, 
 by the amount of rain that fell upon the country above 
 and upon its water shed. These times I have mentioned 
 are the extreme low periods of water; they are the ex- 
 ceptional cases. These times that I speak of occurred in 
 an extremely hot and extremely dry portion of the year. 
 There was some water coming down all the time. I have 
 seen great floods of water coming down the Desplaines 
 River in times of extreme rain, It overflowed the land 
 sometimes half a mile wide. The general depth would be 
 two or three feet. There would be places much deeper 
 than that. That was the general depth. There is a stream 
 known as Hickory Creek running through Joliet. That 
 stream at times rises very rapidly. That stream empties 
 into the Desplaines River. I have seen that stream pour- 
 ing a great flood into the Desplaines River. Under those 
 conditions, at the widest point, I have known the stream 
 to be 500 feet wide, and of a depth of three feet. It has 
 sometimes overflowed a large portion of the City of 
 Joliet. Sometimes caused considerable damage and great 
 inconvenience in the lower part of the city. In conjunc- 
 tion with the Desplaines River it would ultimately and 
 eventually reach the Illinois River. 
 
 In 1870 the canal was deepened above Lockport, the 
 Illinois and Michigan Canal. It brought a large quantity 
 of water from Chicago. It affected the Desplaines River 
 below Lockport, but not above, because there was an 
 
621 
 
 622 
 
 105 
 
 extra amount of water wasted or allowed to come from 
 the canal and go into the Desplaines River. That condi- 
 tion has been prevailing ever since the City of Chicago 
 has been discharging a considerable amount of water 
 into the Illinois and Michigan Canal for the purpose of 
 getting rid of their sewage, and that would be discharged 
 into the Desplaines River. That condition has continued 
 from 1870 until the Drainage District was formed. Since 
 that time those periods of low water have not existed in 
 the Desplaines River. They have not affected the river 
 in any way. The discharge of the Illinois and Michigan 
 Canal entered the Desplaines River, a portion of it at 
 Lockport; the other portion at Joliet. The Jef- 
 ferson street bridge is below Lockport. Malecolm’s 
 dam is below Lockport. Norton’s, sumill -yisiidiat 
 Lockport. Itis below the point of discharge. All of these 
 days that I have mentioned with reference to the low 
 water were changed by the operation of the Illinois and 
 Michigan Canal. The sum and substance of the whole 
 matter is that from 1862 to 1870, during dry seasons, the 
 Desplaines River was low. During the wet seasons it 
 would rise. The stage of the Desplaines River was regu- 
 lated by the amount of rainfall within the water shed of 
 the Desplaines River. Eighteen hundred and sixty-five 
 is known as one of the years of extreme low water upon 
 the Illinois River. I am not positive that I ever knew 
 the Illinois River to be lower than it was in 1865. It was 
 extreme low water. Tree T'op Bar was all under water, 
 but it was a very small amount of water over it. The bar 
 was probably half a mile wide. I suppose it is caused by 
 some action, by water flowing in from the side. I think 
 Bureau Creek comes in there somewhere in that vicinity. 
 I should say it was close in the vicinity. I never was 
 boating below Tree Top Bar. I have been at the towns, 
 but not on the river. J can’t tell you the shape of Tree 
 
624 
 
 626 
 
 627 
 
 106 
 
 Top Bar. I have driven our team about a hundred feet 
 from the bank of the river. Since the dams were con- 
 structed at Henry in 1872 there has been plenty of water 
 over it. The dam at Henry raised the depth of the water 
 at the bar seven feet. There would be about eight feet, 
 I would say, of water that would be due to the creation 
 of the added depth; among other things of the building 
 of the dam at Henry. I never personally observed an 
 extreme flood stage upon the Illinois River. I never seen 
 it at other times than I have mentioned. There was tim- 
 ber on the north island below Jefferson street bridge. 
 The first island was, say, thirty feet wide and fifty feet 
 high. The highest elevation was six feet wide when the 
 water was pretty low. The north point was the highest, 
 I think. There were some deep holes around the island. 
 The lowest condition that I have ever seen the highest 
 point of the island would be about six feet above low 
 water. The other island was about three-quarters of an 
 acre. It was pretty nearly two blocks from the first is- 
 land. It was oblong, rounded top, highest in the middle 
 and sloped down at the sides. It was about 200 feet long 
 and 100 feet wide in the widest place. It was about four 
 feet above the lowest stage of water I have ever seen. 
 That island has been removed. The second island was 
 removed. These two islands were both removed from 
 the river about five or six years ago. I saw them during 
 the progress of the work. Before that time I saw them 
 most every day, when I was crossing the river, I could see 
 them. They were always out of water except in a very 
 wet time they would be under water. Since 1870, when 
 the Illinois and Michigan Canal was turned in, the water 
 was raised generally. The first island would be more 
 than three or four feet out of the water and the second 
 island, call it a foot. 
 
629 
 
 633 
 
 634 
 
 107 
 
 Re-direct Examination of the Witness Obediah Hicks 
 Read by Mr. Butters. 
 
 The Illinois and Michigan Canal became separated 
 from the river again at the Jefferson street dam. There 
 was a lock there. The level of the Illinois and Michigan 
 Canal between Joliet and Channahan was called the 
 Channahan Level. Between 1870 to 1900, I have seen not 
 over six inches on the top of the dam. At the present 
 time there is a good deep stream running there all the 
 time. It is about 200 feet wide. It is probably going 
 about five miles an hour. The appearance of the water 
 is rough. It makes a noise when it meets any little ob- 
 
 2 struction. I have seen some floating ice, but no solid 
 
 ice since 1890. 
 
 Re-cross Examination of the Witness Obediah Hicks 
 Read by Mr. Chiperfeld. 
 
 When they took out these islands, that deepened the 
 stream. Some of the water from the [limois and Michi- 
 gan Canal didn’t get down as far as these islands. Some 
 of it was diverted to feed the Channahan Level of the 
 Illinois and Michigan Canal. If the canal was low and 
 the Desplaines River was higher, some of the water 
 would go in as a natural consequence. ‘There were gates 
 to gauge the amount of water that was let in here above 
 Jefferson street. I haven’t made any measurements to 
 ascertain the current in the Desplaines River at the pres- 
 ent time below Jefferson street. I am not an expert in 
 gauging the current of a stream. I simply speak as an 
 ordinary observer. I made no close or careful observa- 
 tion for determining the speed of the current. I don’t 
 want to be exact when I say that the current may be five 
 or six miles an hour. Very easily there might be a latitude 
 of several miles less per hour than I have made. It de- 
 
636 
 
 637 
 
 108 
 
 pends on the height of the water. It comes more rapidly 
 when there is a large body of water. When I speak of 
 five or six miles an hour I refer to the time when the 
 water is high; in spring, usually. It depends a great 
 deal on the rain and the breaking of the ice. When all of 
 these conditions are favorable there is a greater current 
 and during times of draught the current becomes much 
 less. At other times the current of the Desplaines River, 
 below Jefferson street, goes as low as two or three miles 
 an hour. There is very little difference in the width of 
 the stream, because the walls are almost perpendicular. 
 The width would be about the same. After the Illinois 
 and Michigan Canal had added this amount of water into 
 the Desplaines River, I have never seen it frozen across 
 below Jefferson street. Above Jefferson street there 
 would be floating ice in the stream. That continued after 
 the adding of this water by the Illinois and Michigan 
 Canal. It made quite a rapid current and within that cur- 
 rent the ice would not form. I think I have seen a skim 
 of ice across the upper basin. It would be a very thin 
 coating of ice and the running water would speedily break 
 it up. 
 
 Re-re-direct Examination of the Witness Obediah Hicks 
 Read by Mr. Butters. 
 
 I remember when the river was offensive here in Joliet 
 before 1893 or 794. There was some ice on the basin 
 every winter as to being frozen above Jefferson street 
 dam. It would be ice that would be formed for a very 
 short time and the rapidity of the current would soon 
 break it up. During the last five or six years there has 
 not been any offensive odor, not like there has been. 
 
 (Signed) Osrpian Hicks. 
 
638 
 
 639 
 
 640 
 
 109 
 
 Deposition of Rotuin L. Reep, offered in evidence by the 
 plaintiff : 
 
 Rouur L. Reep: 
 
 Direct Examination Read by Mr. Butters. 
 
 My name is Rollin L. Reed and I reside in Joliet. I 
 live on the east side of the city. 
 
 I have lived in Will County since ’44; have been in 
 the City of Joliet twenty-two or twenty-five years; have 
 not been in a regular business during that time in Joliet. 
 I was connected with the hardware business and real es- 
 tate business. Since 744 I have lived one year in Joliet 
 and for seventeen or eighteen years a mile west of Joliet, 
 on what was then known as the Troy road. I have been 
 familiar with the Desplaines River ever since I ean re- 
 member. I remember when the Jefferson street dam was 
 taken out and the improvement made in the river here 
 some years ago. At that time I paid considerable atten- 
 tion to it. I never studied engineering as a profession. 
 I have never practiced surveying or engineering. I ob- 
 served the Desplaines River in the City of Joliet in dry 
 seasons before the Sanitary District made their improve- 
 ments. I observed it at different points. South of Jef- 
 ferson street I seen it without any water except in pools, 
 and I have seen it with quite large amounts. In dry 
 times, before this Jefferson street dam was removed, I 
 have seen it without water there repeatedly in dry times. 
 I am acquainted with the Desplaines River above Lock- 
 port where it overflows at Norton’s mill. I have ob- 
 served it there at times of low water and in dry seasons. 
 I have seen it when there was no water running. I know 
 where the station and tracks of the Santa Fe Railroad 
 are in Lemont. The Desplaines River came a short dis- 
 tance from that point originally. The bed of the river 
 
641 
 
 643 
 
 644 
 
 645 
 
 646 
 
 110 
 
 was plainly visible from the tracks. I have observed the 
 condition of the river there in thé summer time, oppo- 
 site Lemont. It was bare of water except in small pools. 
 Opposite Lemont was rock, broken stone, presumed to 
 be sod of rock below. From Lemont to Joliet, by the 
 river, it is about sixteen or seventeen miles. By direct 
 route, about fourteen miles. From Lemont to Joliet, in 
 a state of nature, a great deal of it was a shallow chan- 
 nel. When the waters rose they spread out over the val- 
 ley very considerably. I recognize the stream purport- 
 ing to be shown in Exhibit 5. Prior to the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict work or change in the river at Joliet there was a 
 livery stable on the east bank of the river. The bank 
 was a loose, rock bank, laid up; part of it was a natural 
 bank. There was a warehouse there. These buildings 
 were taken away except one, the building standing at Jef- 
 ferson street now. That is not shown in this picture. 
 
 The present channel through Joliet is shown in Ex- 
 hibit 5 as approximately 250 feet wide; about 200 feet. I 
 frequently passed over this and other bridges in Joliet. 
 In this 200 foot channel the water has always been flow- 
 ing. Below Jefferson street it is more rapid than between 
 Jefferson street and Cass. Below Cass, I should say, 
 four miles an hour, and below Jefferson from four to six 
 miles an hour. The east bank is walled by loose stone em- 
 bankment from Jefferson street. The bank extends down 
 the river just above the mouth of Hickory Creek, be- 
 tween half and three-quarters of a mile. As it goes south, 
 it is lower. J don’t know its exact height. There were 
 no embankments or levees there before the change. There 
 were a number of people living along there. Before the 
 Jefferson street dam was taken out, I have skated on the 
 river many times. I have observed it frozen different 
 winters. I have seen it frozen down to the crest of the 
 dam. I don’t know how many, but a number of winters. 
 
647 
 
 648 
 
 650 
 
 651 
 
 Lil 
 
 The offensive odor of the stream called my attention to 
 it. I know the Ilinois and Michigan Canal about where it 
 enters the basin at Joliet; just above the dam, or at the 
 upper dam, what is known as the upper dam here, the — 
 north dam. The Illinois and Michigan Canal again leaves 
 the basin just above Jefferson street. It was supplied 
 with water between Jefferson street and the lock above it 
 through gates. The water supply was taken from the 
 basin. Between 1870 and the taking out of this dam, I 
 observed the condition of the water in the Illinois and 
 Michigan Canal several miles south; five miles south of 
 Jefferson street. The stage of the water was normal. I 
 have never seen the present channel of the Desplaines 
 River through the City of Joliet frozen. There is no rea- 
 son why it doesn’t freeze, except the current. I have 
 seen it frequently since the water was turned into the 
 channel at Joliet, the last five years, at various points. I 
 may have seen parts of it frozen during that time. Be- 
 tween Cass street and the Rock Island bridge I have seen 
 only small parts of it along the border; never seen it 
 frozen over any number of feet from the bank. I don’t 
 think I saw this channel in Joliet during the coldest 
 weather of February, 1905. I have seen the river in the 
 past five years in cold weather, during different winters. 
 
 It is three blocks from Jefferson street to this Cass 
 street bridge shown on Exhibit 5. This Cass street is 
 north from Jefferson street. Jefferson street bridge is 
 next north of Cass street. Jackson street is two blocks 
 north of Cass street on the west side and three on the 
 east side. The walls of this channel shown in Exhibit 5 
 between Jackson street and Jefferson street are composed 
 of stone, cement and sand. These walls were put in at 
 the time of the construction of the Sanitary District 
 channel. At the time of the change in the channel there 
 was a dam constructed about Jefferson street. Part of 
 
652 
 
 695 
 
 654 
 
 112 
 it is shown in Exhibit 5. The west end of the raceway 
 runs under the Jackson street bridge. There is a water 
 plant north of Jackson street. It extends about 300 feet 
 north of the street. I think that water power plant is 
 more than 300 feet; 450 feet, I believe. I have visited the 
 controlling works since the water was turned into the 
 channel. I have seen what is known as Bear Trap dam 
 at Lockport. I have seen the Desplaines River, in a gen- 
 eral way, between the controlling works and the mouth 
 of the Desplaines River, where it empties into the Ill- 
 nois, in many different places. The water that is not 
 taken by the canal to maintain the Channahan Level goes 
 through this channel in Joliet and through the Desplaines 
 River down into the Illinois River. The L[llinois and 
 Michigan Canal still enters the basin in Joliet, coming 
 from the north, and it is taken out in Joliet from the 
 Desplaines River, except what water is taken into the 
 Illinois and Michigan Canal at Joliet, all of the water 
 going over the Bear Trap dam passes down the Des- 
 plaines River. The Illinois and Michigan Canal runs 
 against the retaining wall in the city. The Illinois and 
 Michigan Canal between Cass street and McDonough 
 street is about seventy-five to ninety feet, I think. The 
 Illinois and Michigan Canal frequently is kept full of 
 water in the winter season. That is, part of it; not all of 
 it. Some levels are drawn out; others are retained. The 
 lever above here, between here and Lockport, was drawn 
 last winter. J should say the height of these retaining 
 walls in the channel between Jefferson street and Cass 
 street was from twelve to sixteen feet. There was con- 
 siderable excavation at the place between Jackson and 
 McDonough street, in the change of the river; and from 
 Jackson street north, taking the entire distance, it va- 
 ried from one to five feet. Silt and rock were taken out 
 of the channel. This levee or embankment from Jeffer- 
 
609 
 
 113 
 
 son street on the east bank of the river to Hickory Creek 
 was constructed at the same time the other work was 
 done. The channel of the Desplaines River was widened 
 in the City of Joliet between Jackson and McDonough 
 streets; I don’t know how much. From the Rock Island 
 Bridge south from Jefferson street, it is about three 
 blocks. The first street south of Jefferson street would 
 
 ) be Washington, then Marion and then Lafayette. From 
 
 the Rock Island bridge to McDonough is about five blocks. 
 There is a wagon bridge at McDonough street. I re- 
 member when the present channel received the water 
 from the Drainage Canal. It was about five years ago. 
 Since that time I have passed over it from six to eight 
 
 7 times a week. There was always water flowing. <As to 
 
 the current, it was always rapid. These concrete walls 
 were all done before the water was turned in. 
 
 The Court: Well, you will read the cross-examination 
 of that deposition. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: I think, if your Honor please, we 
 may perhaps be able to state some of the objections to 
 these deeds. However, whatever the court would prefer 
 to do, whether we do that now or later or go ahead with 
 the depositions 
 
 
 
 The Court: I haven’t any choice in the matter. 
 
 Mr, CurperFietp: All right. | 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: You want the jury here? 
 
 Mr. CureerrieLp: The jury won’t be interested in it. 
 
 It will take a few minutes. Perhaps they would prefer to 
 go to their jury room and take it easy. 
 
 The Court: Well, you may retire to the jury room, 
 gentlemen, for a few minutes. 
 
 (Whereupon the jury was withdrawn and the follow- 
 ing proceedings were had in their absence :) 
 
660 
 
 661 
 
 114 
 
 Mr. CuiperrieLp: Where are the Illinois Reports, your 
 Honor? I would like to have the 63d, 129, 181, 39, 235. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I would like the 69, 87 and 104. 
 
 Mr. CuHiprerFigeLtp: J want to state this objection to 
 each of these deeds, and I want it repeated as to each 
 Tixhibit.1, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8:and_ 9. 
 
 We object to the introduction of this Exhibit 1 because 
 no proper foundation has been laid for its introduction, 
 because, first, the grantors therein are not shown to pos- 
 sess the requisite qualifications and authority to execute 
 said deeds. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: Which deed is that? 
 Mr. CutreerFieLD: Each deed. 
 Mr. Butrrers: Oh, each deed. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: It is a general objection I am stat- 
 ing; then I will take it up separately. 
 
 Because the certificate of acknowledgment appended 
 thereto 1s not in due form of law or certified to by any 
 person recognized by law as possessing authority for 
 such purpose. 
 
 Third. Because the description contained in the deed 
 does not cover the premises described in the declaration. 
 
 Fourth. Because the description contained in said deed 
 covers other and different premises than those involved 
 in this suit. 
 
 Fifth. Because the premises described in the declara- 
 tion are not the same premises purported to be embraced 
 in the deeds offered. . 
 
 Sixth. Because the proof offered tends to create a 
 variance between the allegations of the declaration and 
 the deed offered. 
 
 Because the declaration alleges a fee simple title with- 
 out any exception, while the deed offered in evidence re- 
 
662 
 
 115 
 
 serves to others than the grantee certain estates as ap- 
 pears by an inspection of said deed, and, therefore, said 
 deed does not tend to prove an estate in fee simple in 
 the plaintiff in this case. 
 
 Because said deed does not purport to be acknowledged 
 in conformity with the law of the state wherein said 
 acknowledgment was taken, because the person signing 
 the deed as the grantor does not appear to have had au- 
 thority to execute the said deed of conveyance. 
 
 Because the said deed is incompetent, irrelevant and 
 immaterial, because no proper foundation has been laid 
 for its introduction, because it does not tend to prove any 
 of the issues in this case. 
 
 We object to the introduction of this Exhibit 3 because 
 no proper foundation has been laid for its introduction, 
 because, first, the grantors therein are not shown to pos- 
 sess the requisite qualifications and authority to execute 
 said deeds. 
 
 Because the certificate of acknowledgment appended 
 thereto is not in due form of law or certified to by any 
 person recognized by law as possessing authority for 
 such purpose. 
 
 Third. Because the deseription contained in the deed 
 does not cover the premises described in the declaration. 
 
 Fourth. Because the description contained in said deed 
 covers other and different premises than those involved 
 in this suit. 
 
 Fifth. Because the premises described in the declara- 
 tion are not the same premises purported to be embraced 
 in the deeds offered. 
 
 Siath. Because the proof offered tends to create a 
 variance between the allegations of the declaration and 
 the deed offered. 
 
663 
 
 116 
 
 Because the declaration alleges a fee simple title with- 
 out any exception, while the deed offered in evidence re- 
 serves to others than the grantee certain estates, as ap- 
 pears by an inspection of said deed, and, therefore, said 
 deed does not tend to prove an estate in fee simple in the 
 plaintiff in this case. 
 
 Because said deed does not purport to be acknowledged 
 in conformity with the law of the state wherein said ac- 
 knowledgment was taken, because the person signing the 
 deed as the grantor does not appear to have had author- 
 ity to execute the said deed of conveyance. 
 
 Beeause the said deed is incompetent, irrelevant and 
 immaterial, because no proper foundation has been laid 
 for its introduction, because it does not tend to prove any 
 of the issues in this case. 
 
 We object to the introduction of this Exhibit 4 because 
 no proper foundation has been laid for its introduction, 
 because, first, the grantors therein are not shown to pos- 
 sess the requisite qualifications and authority to execute 
 said deeds. 
 
 Because the certificate of acknowledgment appended 
 thereto is not in due form of law or certified to by any 
 persons recognized by law as possessing authority for - 
 such purpose. 
 
 Third. Because the description contained in the deed 
 does not cover the premises described in the declaration. 
 
 Fourth. Because the description contained in said deed 
 covers other and different premises than those involved 
 in this suit. 
 
 Fifth. Beeause the premises described in the declara- 
 tion are not the same premises purported to be embraced 
 in the deeds offered. 
 
 Sixth. Because the proof offered tends to create a va- 
 
664 
 
 665 
 
 117 
 
 riance between the allegations of the declaration and the 
 deed offered. 
 
 Because the declaration alleges a fee simple title with- 
 out any exception, while the deed offered in evidence re- 
 serves to others than the grantee certain estates, as ap- 
 pears by an inspection of said deed, and, therefore, said 
 deed does not tend to prove an estate in fee simple in the 
 plaintiff in this case. 
 
 Because said deed does not purport to be acknowledged 
 in conformity with the law of said wherein said acknowl- 
 edgment was taken, because the person signing the deed 
 as the grantor does not appear to have had authority 
 to execute the said deed of conveyance. 
 
 Because the said deed is incompetent, irrelevant and 
 immaterial, because no proper foundation has been laid 
 for its introduction, because it does not tend to prove any 
 of the issues in this case. 
 
 We object to the introduction of this Exhibit 5 because 
 no proper foundation has been laid for its introduction, 
 because, first, the grantors therem are not shown to pos- 
 sess the requisite qualifications and authority to execute 
 said deeds. 
 
 Because the certificate of acknowledgment appended 
 thereto is not in due form of law or certified to by any 
 person recognized by law as possessing authority for 
 such purpose. 
 
 Third. Because the description contained in the deed 
 does not cover the premises described in the declaration. 
 
 Fourth. Because the description contained in said deed 
 covers other and different premises than those involved 
 in this suit. 
 
 Fifth. Because the premises described in the declara- 
 tion are not the same premises purported to be embraced 
 in the deeds offered. 
 
606 
 
 118 
 
 Sixth. Because the proof offered tends to create a 
 variance between the allegations of the declaration and 
 the deed offered. 
 
 Because the declaration alleges a fee simple title with- 
 out any exception, while the deed offered in evidence re- 
 serves to others than the grantee certain estates as ap- 
 pears by an inspection of said deed, and, therefore, said 
 deed does not tend to prove an estate in fee simple in the 
 plaintiff in this case. 
 
 Because said deed does not purport to be acknowledged 
 in conformity with the law of the state wherein said ac- 
 knowledgment was taken, because the person signing the 
 deed as the grantor does not appear to have had author- 
 ity to execute the said deed of conveyance. 
 
 Because the said deed is incompetent, irrelevant and 
 immaterial, because no proper foundation has been laid 
 for its introduction, because it does not tend to prove any 
 of the issues in this case. 
 
 We object to the introduction of this exhibit 6 because 
 no proper foundation has been laid for its introduction, 
 because, first, the grantors therein are not shown to pos- 
 sess the requisite qualifications and authority to execute 
 said deeds. 
 
 Because the certificate of acknowledgment appended 
 thereto is not in due form of law or certified to by any 
 person recognized as possessing authority for such pur- 
 pose. 
 
 Third. Because the description contained in the deed 
 does not cover the premises described in the declaration. 
 
 Fourth. Because the description contained in said deed 
 covers other and different premises than those involved. 
 
 Fifth. Because the premises described in the declara- 
 
 tion are not the same premises purported to be embracea 
 in the deeds offered. 
 
668 
 
 119 
 
 Siath. Because the proof offered tends to create a va- 
 riance between the allegations of the declaration and the 
 
 deed offered. 
 
 Because the declaration alleges a fee simple title with- 
 out any exception, while the deed offered in evidence re- 
 serves to others than the grantee certain estates as ap- 
 pears by an inspection of said deed, and, therefore, said 
 deed does not tend to prove an estate in fee simple in the 
 plaintiff in this case. 
 
 Because said deed does not purport to be acknowledged 
 in conformity with the law of the state wherein said ac- 
 knowledgment was taken, because the person signing the 
 deed as the grantor does not appear to have had author- 
 ity to execute the said deed of conveyance. 
 
 Because the said deed is incompetent, irrelevant and 
 immaterial, because no proper foundation has been laid 
 for its introduction, because it does not intend to prove 
 any of the issues in this case. 
 
 We object to the introduction of this Exhibit 7 because 
 no proper foundation has been laid for its introduction, 
 because, first, the grantors therein are not shown to pos- 
 sess the requisite qualifications and authority to execute 
 said deeds. 
 
 Because the certificate of acknowledgment appended 
 thereto is not in due form of law or certified to by any 
 person recognized by law as possessing authority for 
 
 such purpose. 
 
 Third. Because the description contained in the deed 
 does not cover the premises described in the declaration. 
 
 Fourth. Because the description contained in said deed 
 eovers other and different premises than those involved 
 in this suit. - 
 
 Fifth. Because the premises described in the declara.- 
 
669 
 
 120 
 
 tion are not the same premises purported to be embraced 
 in the deeds offered. 
 
 Sixth. Because the proof offered tends to create a va- 
 riance between the allegations of the declaration and the 
 deed offered. 
 
 Because the declaration alleges a fee simple title with- 
 out any exception, while the deed offered in evidence re- 
 serves to others than the grantee certain estates, as ap- 
 pears by an inspection of said deed, and, therefore, said 
 deed does not tend to prove an estate in fee simple in the 
 plaintiff in this case. 
 
 Because said deed does not purport to be acknowledged 
 in conformity with the law of the state wherein said ac- 
 knowledgment was taken, because the person signing the 
 deed as the grantor does not appear to have had author- 
 ity to execute the said deed of conveyance. 
 
 Because the said deed is incompetent, irrelevant and 
 immaterial, because no proper foundation has been laid 
 for its introduction, because it does not tend to prove any 
 of the issues in this case. 
 
 We object to the introduction of this Exhibit 8 because 
 no proper foundation has been laid for its introduction, 
 because, first, the grantors therein are not shown to pos- 
 sess the requisite qualifications and authority to execute 
 said deeds. 
 
 Because the certificate of acknowledgment appended 
 thereto is not in due form of law or certified to by any 
 person recognized by law as possessing authority for 
 such purpose. 
 
 Third. Because the description contained in the deed 
 does not cover the premises described in the declaration. 
 
 Fourth. Because the description contained in said deed 
 eovers other and different premises than those involved 
 in this suit. 
 
670 
 
 671 
 
 121 
 
 Fifth. Because the premises described in the declara- 
 tion are not the same premises purported to be embraced 
 in the deeds offered. 
 
 Siath. Beeause the proof offered tends to create a va- 
 riance between the allegations of the declaration and the 
 deed offered. 
 
 Because the declaration alleges a fee simple title with- 
 out any exception, while the deed offered in evidence re- 
 serves to others than the grantee certain estates, as ap- 
 pears by an inspection of said deed, and, therefore, said 
 deed does not tend to prove an estate in fee simple in the 
 plaintiff in this case. 
 
 Because said deed does not purport to be acknowledged 
 in conformity with the law of the state wherein said ac- 
 knowledgment was taken, because the person signing the 
 deed as the grantor does not appear to have had author- 
 ity to execute the said deed of conveyance. 
 
 Because the said deed is incompetent, irrelevant and 
 immaterial, because no proper foundation has been laid 
 for its introduction, because it does not tend to prove any 
 of the issues in this case. 
 
 We object to the introduction of this Exhibit 9 because 
 no proper foundation has been laid for its introduction, 
 because, first, the grantors therein are not shown to pos- 
 sess the requisite qualifications and authority to execute 
 said deed. 
 
 Because the certificate of acknowledgment appended 
 thereto is not in due form of law or certified to by any 
 person recognized by law as possessing authority for such 
 purpose. 
 
 Third. Beeause the description contained in the deed 
 does not cover the premises described in the said declara- 
 tion. 
 
 Fourth. Because the description contained in said deed 
 
122 
 
 covers other and different premises than those involved 
 in this suit. 
 
 Fifth. Because the premises described in the declara- 
 tion are not the same premises purported to be embraced 
 in the deeds offered. 
 
 Sixth. Because the proof offered tends to create a va- 
 riance between the allegations of the declaration and the 
 deed offered. 
 
 Because the declaration alleges a fee simple title with- 
 out any exception, while the deed offered in evidence re- 
 serves to others than the grantee certain estates, as ap- 
 pears by an inspection of said deed, and, therefore, said 
 deed does not tend to prove an estate in fee simple in the 
 plaintiff in this case. 
 
 Because said deed does not purport to be acknowledged 
 in conformity with the law of the state wherein said ac- 
 knowledgment was taken, because the person signing the 
 deed as the grantor does not appear to have had author- 
 ity to execute the said deed of conveyance. 
 
 Because the said deed is incompetent, irrelevant and 
 immaterial, because no proper foundation has been laid 
 for its introduction, because it does not tend to prove any 
 of the issues in this case. 
 
 Mr. CuiprerFieLpD: Now, with reference to these deeds, 
 and there are eight of them, I don’t care to urge objection 
 to the execution of these deeds as are, at the date of the 
 offer, more than thirty years of age, with the exception 
 of Exhibits 1 and 3. But, aside from the simple fact of 
 conceding that ancient deeds of more than thirty years 
 at the time they are offered in evidence prove themselves 
 when attended by circumstances which show a fair pre- 
 sumption that they came from proper authority anda 
 proper custodian, I want to rely in every case on each 
 and every objection which I have made, The only point 
 
675 
 
 123 
 
 which I waive is, as I think the court plainly understands, 
 I don’t want to waste any time raising questions as to the 
 execution of deeds that are ancient, more than thirty 
 years of age, although the other defects contained in the 
 deeds I want to reserve the right to point out, but such 
 deeds without dispute, by the decision of our courts and 
 the court of many states, prove themselves. I will take 
 up these deeds in the order that they are named and ad- 
 vance my objection to them. 
 
 Now, Exhibit No. 1 purports to be made by Henry L. 
 Young, James H. Young and Mason Young, as trustees 
 under the last will and testament of Henry Young, de- 
 ceased, of the city, county and state of New York, party 
 of the first part, and it is signed by Henry L. Young, 
 James H. Young, Mason Young, with the word Trustee 
 appearing after each name. 
 
 It is acknowledged before a notary public in the State 
 of New York. And there is no certificate of conformity 
 attached to the deed. 
 
 Now, it is the law well settled that where a deed is 
 executed in a representative capacity that there must be 
 more authority than simply the fact of the deed being 
 made. The jurisdictional questions have got to appear. 
 And the power and the authority of the grantors have to 
 appear. It is not sufficient that they should merely come 
 in and say we are the trustees of a last will and testament 
 of a certain person without the production of last will 
 and testament, without production of their authority to 
 make and execute this deed, either from the terms of the 
 will itself or from the allegations of some proper court 
 proceedings having jurisdiction both of the subject mat- 
 ter and of the person. 
 
 The court has passed upon this in the case of Fell vs. 
 Young, 63 Ill. 106. ! 
 
674 
 
 Or 
 
 124 
 
 In this case a deed was introduced in evidence pur- 
 porting to have been executed by one William Dunley, 
 as administrator of James MeGoosh, which included the 
 premises in question in that section. MceGoosh was the 
 patentee from the United States. 
 
 The defendant objected to the introduction of this deed 
 on the ground, first, that no authority in the administra- 
 tor to execute it was shown; second, because it was not 
 properly acknowledged, and, third, because it did not 
 conform to the statute. 
 
 These objections were overruled and exceptions taken. 
 Whereupon the plaintiff offered in evidence a decree of 
 the McLean Circuit Court, purporting to have been en- 
 tered at the April term, 1835, of that court, on the peti- 
 tion of William Dunley, administrator of James Me- 
 Goosh, deceased to sell the land of his intestate to pay 
 his debts. 
 
 The defendant objected to the introduction of this evi- 
 dence and the court sustained the objection. 
 
 The case was put to the jury upon the naked deed of 
 the administrator, which does not show on its face any 
 authority to the administrator to execute it. 
 
 The deed recites the order of the court directing a sale 
 of decedent’s land, in which there is no recital, and it does 
 not appear that the notice required by law, or any notice 
 whatever, was given to the administrator of the time and 
 place of presenting the petition, or that the parties in- 
 terested in the land had any notice of the proceedings to 
 divest them of their title. Every person dying is pre- 
 sumed to leave heirs capable of inheritance, and before a 
 decree can pass against them to divest them of their title 
 to decedent’s property, the notice required by law must 
 be given them. In the absence of notice, the court will 
 have no jurisdiction of their persons. 
 
676 
 
 125 
 
 The law in force at the time this petition was filed, 
 required the administrator, who desired an order to sell 
 the land of his intestate to pay debts, to give at least 
 thirty days’ notice of the time and place of presenting 
 such petition, by serving a written notice of the same, to- 
 gether with a copy of the account and petition on each 
 of the heirs or their guardians or devisees of the testator 
 or intestate or by publishing a notice in the nearest news- 
 paper, ete. 
 
 Now I am not going to read all of it. 
 
 ‘‘But it is urged, if the acknowledgment was not in 
 conformity——’’ 
 
 They raised the question of acknowledgment, that the 
 acknowledgment was not in conformity in that it did not 
 state that the grantor was personally known. 
 
 ‘‘But, it is urged, if the acknowledgment was not in 
 conformity to the statute, the deed was properly admit- 
 ted as an ancient deed. So far as the fact of the execu- 
 tion of the deed is involved, this point is well taken, and 
 was it a deed from a party in his own right to another 
 party, it would prevail where possession had gone with 
 the deed. But this is the deed of one acting in a fidu- 
 elary character and from his position, having no power 
 in and of himself to sell and convey the land of his in- 
 testate. That this is an ancient deed, being more than 
 thirty years old, it cannot be denied, but we do not un- 
 derstand that the doctrine of the admissibility of such a 
 deed in evidence, without some proof of its connection or 
 of its acknowledgment in the mode required by law, to 
 20 so far as to dispense with proof of the authority of 
 the party to make the deed. Prima facie this administra- 
 tor had no power to make this deed, and until such au- 
 thority is shown, and by competent proof, the deed can 
 convey nothing, and is not admissible in evidence as a 
 muniment of title though it is thirty years old. 
 
677 
 
 678 
 
 126 
 
 ‘‘The doctrine that no proof of the execution of a deed 
 thirty years old is required, springs from the fact that 
 originally, by the common law and by the statute of most 
 of the states, one or more witnesses were required to 
 attest its execution, by whom its execution should be 
 proved. After the lapse of thirty years the presumption 
 obtains that the attesting witnesses are all dead. But no 
 presumption arises from lapse of time that the party 
 executing the deed has the power to convey the land. 
 
 ‘¢All that is shown in the case is the deed of an ad- 
 ministrator purporting to convey the land of his intes- 
 tate, reciting therein an order of court which does not 
 show that the court has jurisdiction to grant the order, 
 nor is any order of the court shown. 
 
 ‘‘Tt is well settled if a deed purports to have been exe- 
 cuted under a power, and is sought to be used in evidence, 
 the power must be shown. 
 
 ‘‘So as to deeds executed by executors or administra- 
 tors under an order or decree of court. And this power, 
 as the court has said, in the cases above cited, must ap- 
 pear on the face of the decree. Its jurisdiction to grant 
 the order or decree must be shown on the face of the 
 proceedings. 
 
 ‘This is the only point we have deemed it necessary 
 now to consider, and we are of the opinion, as no decree 
 of court having jurisdiction to grant the order of sale has 
 been shown, the deed of the administrator should not have 
 been admitted in evidence.’’ 
 
 IT want to call attention to the 181st Illinois on page 
 039. This was the ease of Reuter vs. Stuckart, where a 
 deed was purported to have been executed by an attor- 
 ney in fact. The deed was more than thirty years old. 
 
 Now, the court refers to this case of Fell vs. Young 
 and its says: 
 
679 
 
 127 
 
 ‘‘Counsel refer to the case of Fell vs. Young, 63d II. 
 106, as being opposed to the view above announced. In 
 that case an ancient deed was produced, which was made 
 by an administrator, and failed to show upon its face 
 that the court, which ordered the sale, had jurisdiction 
 over the parties to be affected by it. The rule there an- 
 nounced is correct, as to the power there apparent upon 
 the face of the deed was a public and statutory and not 
 a private power. Such cases as that of Fell vs. Young 
 involve the question of jurisdiction of the tribunal order- 
 ing the deed to be made, and in such cases the power 
 should be shown. But, in a case like the one at bar, the 
 proof of the power is only one of the facts to make out 
 a due execution of the deed, and the due execution of the 
 deed is presumed in the case of an ancient deed in view 
 of the great length of time which has elapsed and in view 
 of the possession taken, and other acts done under the 
 deed.”’ 
 
 Now, that presumption could not arise in this case un- 
 der any circumstances, for this deed is not yet thirty 
 years old, has not the thirty years to give it sanctity. 
 
 Now, here is a deed which purports to be made by cer- 
 tain people as trustees under the last will and testament. 
 Whether the man is dead, what the provision of his will 
 and testament was, whether or not there was any power 
 or authority in them in any shape, way or manner, to 
 execute this deed is absolutely, wholly and entirely silent. 
 
 Here in the 205 Illinois, in the case of Felix vs. Cald- 
 well, on page 159, they quote approvingly the case of 
 Fell vs. Young and it also quotes approvingly the doc- 
 trine sustained. I don’t mean that it 1s quoted approv- 
 ingly in each of these cases, but the doctrine is sustained 
 in Jones on Evidence, Section 312, first Greenleaf on Evi- 
 dence, 141—— 
 
 Mr. Burrers: Give me that again, 
 
680 
 
 128 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: Second Jones on Evidence, Section 
 312; Ist Greenleaf on Evidence, Section 141; Bradley vs. 
 Lighteap, 201 Ill. 511; 2d Phillips on Evidence, note 429, 
 page 396; Meegan vs. Boyle, 60 U.S. 130, and also—well, 
 I think that is a sufficient citation of authority on that 
 proposition. 
 
 Now, here is the situation. This deed comes into this 
 court. We don’t need to consider the doctrine of ancient 
 deed, because that don’t arise. It is not thirty years old 
 and it purports to be executed by some foreign trustees 
 who live in the City of New York. Their authority does 
 not appear in any way, shape or manner and involves 
 and embraces several of the tracts of ground described 
 in this petition. 
 
 Now, when you take the deed itself it should not be per- 
 mitted in evidence, because it tends to create a variance 
 between the allegations of the declaration as to owner- 
 ship and the proof which is offered. For instance, now, 
 when you come to the east half of Section 14, which they 
 describe that they own in fee simple, absolute- 
 ly fee simple, the deed recites as follows: ‘‘AIl of the 
 east half of section 14 in township thirty-three north 
 range one, east of the third principal meridian contain- 
 ing three hundred and four and twenty-two one-hun- 
 dredths (304.22) acres more or less together with the 
 shaft located on said east half of said section fourteen, 
 known as ‘Carbon Shaft,’ and all of the appurtenances 
 to said shaft meaning expressly to include as real estate 
 in the word ‘appurtenances’ all buildings, steam engines, 
 boilers, shafting, belting and implements now standing or 
 being in use at or in said shaft, all of which are declared 
 to be fixtures and part of the realty, excepting and re- 
 serving the rights of way over said east half acquired 
 by the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad Company and 
 the Illinois and Michigan Canal, and also excepting and 
 
681 
 
 129 
 
 reserving that part of said east half known and described 
 as lot seven,’’ and there follows a number of lots which 
 are not involved in this suit. 
 
 Now, it is a fixed principle of evidence, as I understand 
 it, your Honor, that if the evidence introduced tends to 
 create a variance between the allegations of the declara- 
 tions and the proof offered, that the proof will be re- 
 jected. Now, when you take the allegations of this dec- 
 laration with reference to Section 14, the exceptions which 
 are contained in this deed do not appear. Of course, it is 
 easy enough to say that these are things, perhaps, which 
 would only diminish the right of recovery. That is true. 
 There is more of this land that the deed purports to 
 convey, if it conveys anything. But, if your Honor 
 please, I do invoke this doctrine very earnestly that we 
 are entitled to the benefit of the rule of law which says 
 that where a variance is created in this manner, that 
 the proof shall be rejected. There is a way of curing it 
 which was well known to counsel, as well as to myself, 
 and [ don’t care to waste any time on that, because I 
 have no suggestion to make to anybody, as I stated once 
 before, I have got all I can do to run my own end of the 
 thing. But it does create a variance. 
 
 
 
 Now, when you come down to Section 
 
 The Court: Get me a piece of paper, won’t you, Mr. 
 Clerk, and give me a good lead pencil. 
 
 Mr. Cuirerrirerp: Is the northwest quarter of Section 
 14 in this? I forget. Do you remember? No, I don’t 
 remember. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: That is on the river, isn’t it? 
 
 Mr. CurpeerFietp: I couldn’t tell you. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Yes, 14 is practically on the river. No, 
 that is way north. 
 
 Mr. Cureerrietp: Well, the southwest is in. 
 
G8 
 
 130 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Southwest is in. 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLp: Yes. May I cite those authorities 
 again to the court or do you wish me to? 
 
 The Court: No, I was not taking them down. 
 
 Mr. CurperFietp: All right. Now, then, when we come 
 to the southwest fractional quarter of Section 14, which 
 they allege they have fee simple ownership of, it is de- 
 seribed in this purported deed conveyance as follows: 
 
 ‘‘ And all of the southwest fractional quarter of section 
 14, in the township and range aforesaid, containing one 
 hundred and forty-seven and thirty-one one-hundredths 
 (147.31) acres more or less, excepting therefrom an un- 
 divided sixty of six hundred and thirty-one (60-631) 
 parts of lots described in a deed of the sheriff of La 
 Salle County to Edmund D. Taylor, dated the 2d day of 
 May, 1845, and recorded in the La Salle County records 
 in book 16, page 512, excepting also tracts conveyed by 
 Kdmund D. Taylor or the Northern Illinois Coal and 
 Iron Company of La Salle, prior to March 1, 1873.”’ 
 
 Now, that don’t purport to convey fee simple title in 
 that property or any part of it, because that is an undivid- 
 ed portion and if it is reserved certain exceptions as to 
 property heretofore conveyed, it must appear from the 
 record what part is conveyed in fee simple. 
 
 Finally this particular deed was acknowledged before 
 a notary of the State of New York. The acknowledg- 
 ment is as follows: 
 
 ‘“‘T, Henry A. James, a notary public in and for the 
 said city and county in the state aforesaid, do hereby 
 certify that Henry L. Young, James H. Young and Ma- 
 son Young, trustees under the last will and testament of 
 Henry Young, deceased, who are personally known to me 
 to be the same persons whose names are subscribed to 
 the foregoing instrument, appeared before me this day 
 
684: 
 
 685 
 
 131 
 
 in person and acknowledged that they signed, sealed and 
 delivered the said instrument as their free and voluntary 
 act as said trustees for the uses and purposes therein set 
 forth. 
 
 Given under my hand and notarial seal this 16th day 
 
 of November, A. D. 1883. 
 Henry A. JAMEs, 
 
 Notary Public, 
 New York County.’’ 
 
 Now, there is no certificate of conformity to the laws of 
 the State of New York under the hand of the clerk of 
 eourt with the seal of the court attached appearing in 
 connection with this deed. Nor is it attempted to be 
 proved by the introduction of a statute of the State of 
 New York showing it has been executed in accordance 
 with the provisions of that state. It is not executed in 
 Illinois. It is executed in New York, and under those 
 circumstances there must be a certificate of conformity 
 or proof that it does conform to the laws of the State 
 of New York. 
 
 Now, I want to refer to the case of Egan vs. Connelly, 
 107 Ill. 462: 
 
 ‘‘Plaintiff gave in evidence, upon the trial, a patent 
 from the United States to Cosmore G. Bruce, a deed from 
 Bruce and wife to Ell N. Keys, and a deed from Keys and 
 wife to plaintiff, all embracing the land in controversy. 
 Defendant objected to the reading of these deeds in evi- 
 dence upon the ground that the acknowledgments do not 
 show that the grantors were personally known to the 
 officer taking the acknowledgment. Both deeds were exe- 
 euted and acknowledged in the State of Ohio and upon 
 this objection heing made plaintiff offered in evidence a 
 book the title page of which reads thus: ‘Statutes of 
 Ohio. By authority of the General Assembly. In force 
 
686 
 
 132 
 
 August 1, 1854, Published in pursuance to the act of the 
 General Assembly of April 18, 1854.’ And plaintiff then 
 also offered in evidence Chapter 34, page 309, thereof, re- 
 lating to the acknowledgment, etc., of conveyances. De- 
 fendant objected to this evidence, but the court overruled 
 the objection and permitted the statute to be read in evi- 
 dence; and the court also, after the reading of this evi- 
 dence, permitted the deeds to be read in evidence. HEx- 
 ception was taken to this ruling and it is now assigned for 
 error. No question is made but that the deeds were ac- 
 knowledged as required by the statute read in evidence 
 and it will therefore be unnecessary to compare the ac- 
 knowledgments with the requirements of the statutes. 
 We think the evidence was properly admitted.’’ 
 
 Then it cites a section of the statute providing that 
 statutes of other states may be introduced in evidence. 
 
 ‘‘And it is provided by Section 23, of Chapter 30, of 
 the Revised Statutes of 1874, page 277, that ‘all deeds, 
 conveyances and powers of attorney for the conveyance 
 of lands lying in this state, which have been or may be 
 acknowledged or proved in conformity with the laws of 
 any foreign state, shall be deemed as good and valid in 
 law as though acknowledged and proved in conformity 
 with the existing laws of this state.’ And Section 22 pro- 
 vides that ‘any legal mode of proving that the same is 
 executed in conformity with such foreign law may be 
 resorted to in any court in which the question of such 
 acknowledgment may arise.’ ’’ 
 
 I also cite the 39th Hlinois. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: That is an objection to ‘‘1”? now? 
 
 Mr, Cutperrietp: Well, I am referring now to the 
 deed No. 1 and each and every one of these deeds that 
 
 are executed in a foreign state, and I will point them out, 
 but what I am saying now applies to all of them. 
 
687 
 
 133 
 
 In the 29th Illinois, on page 484. Now, here is a deed 
 which is executed in the State of Virginia. 
 
 ‘Tt is insisted that the deed from Stephens, the pat- 
 entee, to Fulton, was not sufficiently authenticated to en- 
 title it to be read‘in evidence. There wag an attempt to 
 acknowledge this deed before the County Court of Jeffer- 
 son County in the State of Virginia on the 26th day of 
 April, 1829, to which the clerk of that court certifies on 
 the 28th day of September, in the same year. The pre- 
 siding justice of that court also certifies that the clerk 
 was duly elected and that his attestation is in form. 
 Moore, a clerk of the same court, on the 11th day of July, 
 1853, certifies to the official character of the former clerk, 
 on the 28th of September, 1819; and the presiding justice 
 on the same day certifies to Moore’s official character. 
 Then follows a certificate of conformity to the laws of 
 Virginia, in which Moore states the certificate of acknowl- 
 edgment of April 26, 1819, and of the 24th of April, 1820, 
 are in conformtiy to the laws of Virginia, as they existed 
 on the 1st day of December, 1818, the date of the deed, 
 and on the 20th day of April, 1819, and on the 24th day 
 of April, 1820, the dates of the acknowledgment. 
 
 ‘“‘This certificate of conformity is not under the seal 
 
 _ of the court, but a scroll is attached, which the clerk states 
 
 688 
 
 is used instead of the seal of the court, which had been 
 lost. The statute declares the seal to the certificate to 
 be an authentication sufficient to entitle the certificate to 
 be received. Having adopted this mode of authentication, 
 we must conclude that it was intended the seal of the 
 court must be attached, and that a scroll or private seal 
 of the clerk could not be substituted.’’ 
 
 I simply read it as to the point of the certificate of con- 
 formity. Now, I have, and your Honor has had, the ques- 
 tion in a great many cases of the execution of foreign 
 deeds, and where deeds are executed before a notary 
 
689 
 
 134 
 
 public there must be either a certificate of conformity 
 that these deeds are executed in conformity with the stat- 
 utes of Illinois, or there must be proof that these deeds 
 are so executed in conformity to the laws of that state. 
 It is not necessary—it does not necessarily need to be 
 certified, but there must be proof before they can be 
 received in evidence. Now, nothing of the sort appears 
 here and those are some of the objections which I urge 
 to that deed. 
 
 Now, I will take up Exhibit 3. Now, when we come to 
 Exhibit 3, if your Honor please, it was executed in 1892 
 and it purports on its face to be made between the [Illinois 
 Valley Coal Company of La Salle County and the State 
 of Illinois, party of the first part, and the La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company, party of the second part. I take 
 it that the recitation in the preamble to the deed, or the 
 clause which contains the name of the parties, does not 
 aid the deed because the deed might in that clause pur- 
 port to be executed by George Washington and signed 
 by Thomas Smith. The statement of his name would not 
 help it any. 
 
 Now, when we get down to the signature of the deed 
 we find that this deed is signed ‘‘Allen Sheldon, vice- 
 president Ulimois Valley Coal Company.’’? That is all 
 there is to it. If you will not deem it impertinent I would 
 like to pass it up so you may see the manner in which 
 the signature is made. (Handing paper to court.) 
 
 Mr. Burrers: What did you say the name was? 
 
 Mr. CuiperrreEtp: He signs himself on the deed 
 ‘* Allen Sheldon’? and follows by the words ‘‘vice-presi- 
 dent Illinois Valley Coal Company.’’ That is the entire 
 signature to your deed. 
 
 Now, would it require citation of authorities under the 
 long unbroken line with which your Honor is extremely 
 
690 
 
 691 
 
 135 
 
 familiar, that those words as descripto personna. There 
 is no question this deed does not purport to be executed 
 by the Illinois Valley Coal Company and the name Illi- 
 nois Valley Coal Company is not signed to this deed. And 
 when you come to this certificate of acknowledgment you 
 find that the certificate of acknowledgment is this: 
 
 ‘‘On this 14th day of October, A. D. 1892, before me, 
 a notary public in and for said county, personally came 
 the above named Allen Sheldon, Vice-Pres’dt. known to 
 me to be the person named in and who executed the above 
 instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the above 
 instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same 
 for the intents and purposes therein named.’’ 
 
 Now, that is your deed. That is all there is to it. He 
 personally acknowledges that he executed—not even re- 
 cites in the acknowledgment of what company he is vice- 
 president, but he acknowledges that he acknowledged it— 
 or that he acknowledged it for and on behalf of this com- 
 pany, but it is a personal acknowledgment and a personal 
 deed which is signed by himself. 
 
 Then this deed is acknowledged in Michigan in Wayne 
 County. There purports to be a certificate of conformity 
 as follows: Have you the original of it so I can see if 
 the seal is there? I have no doubt it is. I did not notice 
 at the time if the seal was attached or not. It is that 
 blue covered deed, Exhibit 3. 
 
 Yes, that is under seal of the clerk of the Circuit Court 
 of the County of Wayne and it has a certificate of con- 
 formity, so I raised no question to that as in connection 
 with this deed. It bears a certificate of conformity certi- 
 fied under his hand with the seal of the court. 
 
 The Court: Let me see that, please. That is the orig- 
 inal, is it? 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD : That is the original. I would be 
 
692 
 
 136 
 
 very pleased to have you see that signature and anything 
 else you may care to observe and look at. (Handing 
 paper to court.) 
 
 Now, here is another remarkable thing about this deed, 
 which in my Judgment precludes it from being received 
 in evidence as fee simple title. J don’t think your Honor 
 ever saw a deed like it. I know I never did, but then my 
 experience is confessedly limited and my observation per- 
 haps is not as broad as some others. But let me read how 
 they attempt to describe the lands in this deed: ‘‘ All of 
 said lands and coal being in the County of La Salle, in the 
 said state. for a particular description of which reference 
 is made to the following deseribed deeds conveying titles 
 to the said Illinois Valley Coal Company, viz.: a deed of 
 Charles G. Wicker and wife to the said company dated 
 March 27, A. D. 1870, and recorded the 30th day of April, 
 A. D. 1870. Also a deed from said Wicker and wife to 
 said company dated December 5, 1881, and recorded the 
 14th day of the same month. Also a deed from the said 
 Wicker and wife, dated March 1, 1884, and recorded on 
 the 28th day of the same month, all in the records of the 
 said La Salle County, Also two deeds of Horace White 
 and wife, each dated the 20th day of March, A. D. 1865, 
 and both recorded in said recorder’s office on the 13th day 
 of May, A. D. 1865.”’ 
 
 Right here let me call your attention to the fact that 
 is not true. In this case two deeds have been introduced 
 in evidence; one is from Horace White and wife and the 
 other is from Margaret White in her own right and Hor- 
 ace White, her husband. Assume, now, that those were 
 the deeds referred to and I am going to dwell upon that 
 in just a minute. I want to call attention while I am 
 passing, while it 1s in mind, that that recitation is not 
 true. 
 
 ‘“Also a deed of Margaret Evans, dated the 9th day of 
 
693 
 
 694 
 
 137 
 
 June, A. D. 1884, and recorded on the 28th day of March, 
 A. D. 1885, in the same office. 
 
 ‘‘Also a deed of Henry C. Freeman and wife, dated 
 November 16, A. D. 1871, and recorded on the 31st day 
 of May, A. D. 1872. A deed from Mary Ann Leonard, 
 dated April 25, A. D. 1870, and recorded June 20th of 
 the same year. A deed of Morris Neustadt and wife, 
 dated June 9, 1870, and recorded July 20th of the same 
 year. A deed of Lyne S. Whitmore, dated March 1, 1872, 
 and recorded May 31st of the same year. A deed of Les- 
 ter Dolley and wife, dated March 4, 1865, and recorded 
 May 138th of the same year. Also a deed of Racheal Neu- 
 stadt, Morris Neustadt, Byron Watson and others, dated 
 June 2, 1870, and recorded July 20th, same year. Also 
 a deed of Hiram Holmes and wife, and Horace Holmes 
 and others, dated March 28, 1887, and recorded April 14, 
 1890.’’ And it goes on. 
 
 Now, can this court say that any of these parties did 
 not make half a dozen deeds on that day? Can this court 
 say when the deeds were recorded? It may appear that 
 a deed has been introduced bearing the same date and 
 mark of recordation. But is there any evidence before 
 this court to show that was the only deed made on that 
 date and only time of recordation, and is this court going 
 to jump at a conclusion and adopt the novel course of 
 inserting the description, the legal description of prem- 
 ises in a deed by reference to some other deed which this 
 eourt knows nothing of. It, to my mind, is a very re- 
 markable thing. 
 
 Now, it will appear to this court, ‘‘ Attest: F. O. Wyatt, 
 Secretary,’’ if that is intended as one of the signatures 
 necessary to convey this title, then there is no acknowl- 
 edement of F. O. Wyatt; none whatever, His name does 
 not appear in the acknowledgment certificate and there is 
 absolutely nothing to show that he ever signed or exe- 
 
695 
 
 138 
 
 cuted this deed. Those are a few of the defects which 
 exist with reference to this deed. I think there are others 
 that could be pointed out. 
 
 Now, then, we come to Exhibit 4, this is a deed from 
 Horace White and Martha H. White, his wife. It is more 
 than thirty years of age, which I presume proves itself, 
 and if that be true there is no need wasting any time 
 upon that proposition. 
 
 Mr. Burrer: That is No. 4? 
 
 Mr. CuHIPERFIELD: No. 4. Now, No. 5, this is a deed 
 which was referred to in the other deed, which is between 
 Martha H. White, late Martha H. Root, wife of Horace 
 White, and that is in the same position, that it is more 
 than thirty years of age and I suppose is an ancient deed 
 under the authorities. 
 
 Now, in Exhibit 6, there is a serious objection which I 
 want to point out. Exhibit 6 purports to convey: ‘‘All 
 of the west three-quarters of the southwest quarter of 
 Section 23 in said Town 33, containing twenty acres, more 
 or less; also all the coal and coal mines and all other 
 mines and minerals which are situate on or may be found 
 in, under or upon the east half of the northeast quarter 
 of the southwest quarter of said Section Twenty-three 
 (23).”? 
 
 You will note, if your Honor please, that when it com- 
 mences to deseribe Section 23 it limits the estate that is 
 conveyed in this manner: ‘‘Also all the coals and coal 
 mines and all other mines and minerals which are situ- 
 ate on or may be found in, under or upon the east half 
 of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said 
 Section 23, containing twenty acres, more or less, together 
 with all mining rights and privileges, necessary to mine, 
 dig, raise and remove said coal or other minerals from 
 said premises, and all the occupation and use of said 
 
696 
 
 139 
 
 premises convenient and necessary in and while so doing 
 and also all right to the surface of said premises except 
 so far as the same has heretofore been conveyed by 
 Charles Todd to the Illinois Central Railroad.’’ 
 
 Now, there is an estate which is reserved and it is an 
 uncertain estate. They reserve the fee simple title to 
 this land and it shows merely an easement. It does not 
 show title to the entire estate. It shows an easement in 
 the right to use the coal under the surface of the ground. 
 It does not rise to the dignity of a fee simple title to the 
 land, but simply shows an easement. 
 
 Then going on: ‘‘Also all of the northeast quarter 
 of the northeast quarter of Section 27’’—that 27 is not in- 
 volved in this suit. And then conveying Section 22, and 
 they use this language: ‘‘Hxcepting and reserving, nev- 
 ertheless, from this conveyance, the interest in that por- 
 tion of the southeast quarter of Section 22 lying northerly 
 of the Illinois River.’’ Now, if I am not mistaken, all of 
 the southeast quarter of 21 is involved in this suit. 
 
 Mr. Butters: I think so. 
 Mr. O’Conor: AIL of it south of the river and east of 
 the river. 
 
 Mr. Currerrietp: But all of the southeast quarter 
 of 21. | 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: 21. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: And 22. Well, those reservations 
 are contained within this deed and it does not convey the 
 fee simple estate that is described in the plaintiff’s dec- 
 laration. 
 
 Now, when we come to the Dolley deed, which is Ex- 
 hibit 7; this is executed before a notary public in the 
 State of New York and there is no certificate of con- 
 formity. 
 
 Exhibit 8 is between Rachael L. Neustadt and Morris 
 
697 
 
 698 
 
 140 
 
 Neustadt, her husband, Byron Watson and Laura Wat- 
 son, his wife, Emeline Snow and George W. Snow, her 
 husband, and the Illinois Valley Coal Company. It is 
 executed on the part of the Neustadts—acknowledged by 
 them before a justice of the peace in La Salle County. I 
 take it perhaps that may be a sufficient acknowledgment 
 without a certificate, because it is in the county where 
 the land is located. Now, as to Mrs. Snow and husband, 
 it is executed in the County of Woodford, but it does not 
 contain the acknowledgment of Mr. and Mrs. Snow. It 
 does not contain the clause which was necessary to be con- 
 tained at that time, that there had been a separate exam- 
 ination of Mrs. Snow, and out of the presence of her 
 husband. 
 
 Mr. Butters: What is the date of that deed? 
 
 Mr. CuHrIperFIELD: The date of that deed is June 1, 
 1870. And, if I am not mistaken, the act changing a 
 married woman’s—the provisions fixing the rights of a 
 married woman and providing for a change in the cer- 
 tificate of acknowledgment did not go into effect until 
 1874. Do you remember, your Honor? 
 
 The Court: No, I do not. 
 
 Mr. CuriperFirtp: I do not, offhand. That is my 
 judgment about it, but I can easily be wrong. 
 
 Then the other acknowledgment seems to be in form. 
 Now, we come to the last deed, exhibit 9. 
 
 The Court: The last one I had was 7. 
 
 Mr. CureerFietp: This is 8, your Honor. The one I 
 have just referred to from New York. 
 
 The Court: That New York deed? 
 
 Mr. CureerFietp: Yes, sir. Just one minute. Six 
 was the deed from Wicker to the Hlinois Valley Coal 
 
 Company and No. 7, from Dolley and wife, was the New 
 York deed. 
 
699 
 
 141 
 
 The Court: And what was 8? 
 
 Mr. Cutperrretp: Hight was the deed of another, 
 Neustadt. I perhaps didn’t say. 
 
 The Court: You didn’t change the number. 
 
 Mr. Cureerrietp: Perhaps not. ‘The last one, the 
 only objection I am pointing out there— 
 
 The Court: No evidence of separate acknowledgment? 
 
 Mr. Cutpprrimip: No evidence as to separate ac- 
 knowledgment as to Mrs. Snow. 
 
 The Court: You did not change the number. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: No. Oh, yes, there is one thing fur- 
 ther I want to point out there. They purport here to 
 have a fee simple title to a part of Section 23 that is de- 
 scribed in this deed. Now, here is the reservation, in- 
 stead of a fee simple title in this deed. It 1s made sub- 
 ject to the right of way over the same of the Illinois 
 Central Railway Company, as heretofore granted. ‘‘And 
 then the party of the first part reserved the right to 
 quarry stone, and remove the same, from said tract of 
 land by teams or otherwise, also the right to lay a track 
 from the Illinois Central Railroad track to the quarry, 
 for the removal of said stone. These reservations are 
 made for the benefit of George W. Snow, Rachel L. Neu- 
 stadt and Morris Neustadt, her husband, and Emeline G. 
 Snow, wife of G. W. Snow, and shall continue only dur- 
 ing their lifetime.’’ 
 
 Now, then, we come to the last deed, Exhibit 9. This 
 is the deseription which we find—and I would like to have 
 any one tell me how he can locate this land—‘‘The east 
 half of the northeast quarter of southwest quarter of 
 Section No. 23, Township 33, Range 1, East of the Third 
 Principal Meridian, containing seventeen acres, more or 
 less.’’ It does not refer to La Salle County and it don’t 
 state whether it is north or south of the base line. There 
 
700 
 
 142 
 
 is no distinguishing characteristic here. It don’t even 
 state it is in the State of Illinois. The description, in my 
 judgement, is fatally defective. And this also is acknowl- 
 edged before a justice of the peace, but as the property 
 is located in the same county with the justice of the peace 
 I think perhaps that is sufficient. 
 
 Now, those, if your Honor please, are the objections 
 which we wish to point out, and we think those objections 
 are serious and that they are very, very far from prov- 
 ing the fee simple title it is alleged in this suit, and as 
 to the deeds which are executed in a representative of the 
 Tllinois Valley Coal Company, they entirely fail to convey 
 any estate whatsoever, in our judgment, and therefore 
 we urge these objections. 
 
 Mr. Butrers: If the court please, the objections are 
 quite technical and some of them, according to our view 
 of the matter, would have weight were this a different 
 kind of action. This is an action of trespass. Where the 
 question of title is indirectly involved— 
 
 Mr. CuiperFrieLpD: Would you object if I made one sug- 
 gestion? 
 
 Mr. Butters: No. 
 
 Mr. CuIPerFieLp: You must not lose sight of the fact 
 there is a plea in this case that directly attacks your 
 title. 
 
 Mr. Butters: I recognized that fact when I made that 
 statement. However, that plea is nothing more than a 
 plea of general issue and the Supreme Court in the Zin- 
 ser case so held, that it does not change the form of 
 action, nor make anything triable that would not be tri- 
 able if it was a general plea. Now, the rules of law that 
 apply where the deeds are attacked or where a record 
 is attacked collaterally are entirely different from where 
 they are brought in issue in a direct proceeding. There 
 
701 
 
 702 
 
 143 
 
 is a long line of decisions, and I say that because I have 
 them at the office and ean introduce them in evidence, but 
 it is an elementary proposition, as we understand it, that 
 when in a proceeding it beeomes—or a challenge is made 
 as to the sufficiency of a judicial record, or that an instru- 
 ment that is going to be attacked or disposed of directly, 
 in a direct proceeding, that the presumptions that pre- 
 vail are entirely different in one case than in the other. 
 
 Here in this case it is said we must produce as the 
 foundation for this Exhibit 1 the authority of the trustees 
 of the estate of one Young. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Pardon me, your Honor, while Mr. Chip- 
 erfield makes a suggestion, it probably would be a good 
 idea at the opening of court each morning and noon to 
 advise the witnesses. so that none of them will stay in 
 the room. 
 
 Mr. CurpeerFieLtp: I[ would suggest this, if Mr. Butters 
 will pardon me. I don’t think, if the witnesses are to be 
 excluded from the court room, it ought only to be con- 
 fined to the time the jurors are absent from the room. 
 If I wanted to do anything I would probably find a pre- 
 text to make an argument pretty clearly outlining some 
 of my views, even though the jury was not present. If 
 they are to be excluded from the room I think they ought 
 to be excluded and called when we want them. 
 
 The Court: J understand, 
 
 Mr. Burters: It is said that we must produce the 
 foundation of the authority of the trustees to execute 
 this deed. That would be so, probably, if it was an eject- 
 ment proceeding, where the title was directly in issue, and 
 was the issue that was being tried. The title here is only 
 indirectly involved. Possessive right is all that is neces- 
 sary to maintain this action. And while that would be 
 
 true, we could maintain it if we only owned a life estate. 
 
144 
 
 Of course, there would be a difference in that case, but 
 in a case of this kind, where the issue is solely—where the 
 sole issue is the damage to the entire estate. If in order 
 for the defendant to make any defense it will operate as 
 a defense to the action brought, the title must emanate 
 from the one that brings suit. In other words, I mean 
 this, the defendant cannot be heard to come in here and 
 introduce a deed unless it emanates from the source un- 
 der which we claim, and such as would divert and divest 
 his right of action. But there. is not a particle of that, 
 because the testimony shows he went into possession un- 
 der this deed. So there the same issue is not involved 
 here, the same character of proof. The same presump- 
 tion did not prevail as would if a direct attack was made 
 on the deeds. 
 
 Now, he makes several objections here. The first one 
 is, to Exhibit 1, and I will not take up all the objections 
 which were made, but just briefly refer to those objections 
 to which I think there is no great significance involved. 
 The objection to the Henry L. Young deed is the fact that 
 there was no authority showing the trustees were au- 
 thorized by the court to make this deed. I think that is 
 not available in this case on the ground that the pre- 
 sumption is, where the deed is not attacked directly, the 
 presumption is it was executed with authority. ‘The con- 
 trary would be true in a suit of ejectment such as the 
 ones that were cited where the authority must be shown. 
 It is further said, it lacks a certificate of conformity. Now, 
 our statute is clear on that subject, I think. No, the ob- 
 jection was, it was acknowledged before a notary public 
 in New York, and our statute makes the seal of a notary 
 publie prima facie evidence, without any certificate he has 
 authority to take acknowledgments. In an affidavit taken 
 in another state, if a notary public states in his certificate 
 
 he has authority to administer an oath, that is all that 
 
704 
 
 145 
 
 is required under our statute, and under our statute 
 the seal of a notary public in a foreign state, and certifi- 
 cate, is proper. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperriretp: Mr. Butters, unfortunately, I guess 
 I did not make myself plain. I am not questioning the 
 fact that he is a notary public. 
 
 Mr. Butters: What is your point? 
 
 Mr. CuHIPpERFIELD: My point is this, it is not certified 
 to be in conformity with a deed of the State of New York. 
 His official character will appear from his seal. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: The objection, as I understood it, was 
 that it being—the deed was, I think, an ancient deed, too. 
 
 Mr. CuHIPERFIELD: No, that was ’83. 
 Mr. O’Conor: It is twenty-nine vears old. 
 Mr. Criperristp: But it is not thirty. The law re- 
 
 quires thirty. Just as bad as a man one day too young 
 on the day of election. 
 
 Mr. Butters: There is no statute— 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: The rule is so well settled. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: It says ‘‘about thirty years.’’ 
 
 Mr. CureerFietp: No, it says thirty years. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Some of the decisions have said forty 
 years. | 
 
 Mr. Burters: If it conforms to the laws of this state, 
 certainly there can be no objection to it. Now, these cases 
 which Mr. Chiperfield read are all ejectment cases. That 
 is, all that I have seen. I know of no case he has read, 
 that is directly—where these questions have been raised 
 collaterally. 
 
 Now, that further objection that is made to Exhibit 1, 
 that the introduction of the deed in evidence will create— 
 that the proof will be different from the allegations in the 
 
706 
 
 146 
 
 declaration, in that there is other property described in 
 the deed from the property that is contained in the dec- 
 laration, there are certain reservations made in some of 
 the tracts. Now, we cannot prove all our case at once. 
 There is not any way I know of, that necessitates put- 
 ting in all the proof at one time. If it is true, there is 
 some piece of property on which we rely to recover dam- 
 ages that is not contained in this deed in full fee simple 
 title, but that there is some title conveyed by this deed, 
 it would be competent evidence and it would be competent 
 evidence anyway for the purpose of furnishing a descrip- 
 tion. The testimony here is that the Coal Company was 
 in possession of all this land described in the deeds, and 
 for that, reason it would be competent. But the mere 
 fact that it does not describe all of the property, or that 
 the deeds together might not describe all of the property, 
 that a certain acre here and there was reserved, on part 
 of the fee simple title, that would not be a reason why 
 the deeds would not be competent evidence to prove what- 
 ever title was conveyed. 
 
 Now, there is a certain mixture in Exhibit 4—no, Ex- 
 hibit 1, refers to certain property which is conveyed by 
 other deeds. Now, I don’t know whether the court— 
 
 Mr. CuiIPerFIeLD: Exhibit 3, Mr. Butters. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: Yes. To get this clear, the Illinois Val- 
 ley Coal Company received deeds for all this property 
 from various persons. It is embraced in seven deeds of 
 different dates. Now, then, when the first deed was made, 
 from the Illinois Valley Coal Company to the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company, it didn’t go— 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrretp: FEixcuse me, Mr. Butters. There are 
 only six deeds. 
 
 ‘Mr. Burrers: You are right, six deeds. Now, your 
 Honor, when the Hlinois Valley Coal Company conveyed 
 
707 
 
 147 
 
 to the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, in place of 
 writing out the description of all that property, as con- 
 veyed by the deed, they said such property, as conveyed 
 by such a deed, to the Illinois Valley Coal Company by 
 such persons. The only fly speck they have pointed out 
 in that deed along this line was that the name of Martha 
 White, in one of the deeds, is given ahead of her husband, 
 but it is nevertheless of those two people. I don’t know 
 whether there is any rule of law that would despoil the 
 instrument because they happened to use the wife’s name 
 first. That is the same thing and that is all the deed 
 said it was. It said the same property conveyed by Mar- 
 tha White and her husband and it turned out in the deed 
 Martha White’s name was second. It is not a require- 
 ment of law that the husband’s name come first, and at 
 any rate, it is a matter of defense which would not bar 
 the instrument in evidence here upon which to predicate 
 a title. 
 
 Now, suggestions were made that a lot of these deeds, 
 that they did not convey the entire fee. I don’t under- 
 stand that is an objection that has any weight at all, be- 
 cause we cannot try our lawsuit all in a minute, and if 
 they were true and if we saw fit in the end to abandon 
 a recovery for such titles as we didn’t have, that can be 
 the only penalty that would affect the plaintiff. Now, it 
 may be we have not any right to recover for the railroad 
 land. I do not understand we do have a right to, but that 
 does not affect the deed or its competency to sustain proof 
 as to the other portions of it. Now, the objection is made 
 there was no separate acknowledgment of the wife in the 
 deed of 1870. Now, that would be a good objection in an 
 ejectment suit, if it was not an ancient deed. I don’t 
 know but what it would be a good objection anyway. I 
 am not certain about that proposition. But that is an 
 ancient deed, The proof necessary to lay the foundation 
 
148 
 
 necessary to introduce ancient documents is, as Mr. Chip- 
 erfield has correctly stated, that it must be taken from 
 the archives where it is known to have been under the cus- 
 tody of the grantee. Possession of the same to a certain 
 extent shows it was an important paper. This is a deed 
 of 1870 and it is not important for us to show in an 
 ancient deed whether it was acknowledged at all or not. 
 It purports to bear the signature of the wife, so I don’t 
 understand there is anything in that objection. There 
 is no point made on the fact these deeds were acknowl- 
 edged before a justice of the peace and I don’t under- 
 stand there is any objection other than to the form of the 
 acknowledgment. 
 
 Mr. Cuieerrirtp: No, I am not raising any objection. 
 
 Mr. Burrrers: The form of the acknowledgment, as Mr. 
 O’Conor has just read, the acknowledgment is in accord- 
 ance with the law of this state. If it is in that form, then 
 it would be a foolish objection to say it was not acknowl- 
 edged in proper form. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I haven’t but a few words to say, your 
 Honor. Now, it seems to me this whole thing proceeds 
 upon an erroneous basis. This Sanitary District is in 
 this court as a trespasser and it is not the first case in 
 which a plea, such as has been filed here, has been filed 
 in cases of similar character. In fact, this plea has been 
 filed in all these cases, so far as I know. 
 
 Mr. CurperFistp: Let us try this case. I think that 
 is the real way. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Your Honor, I cannot make a sugges- 
 tion— 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrienp: What has been done in any other 
 case [ insist is not a precedent. All the way through in 
 this case we are hearing what has been done in other 
 eases, and I want to protest against it. 
 
709 
 
 710 
 
 149 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: You are very nervous for an old war- 
 rior. If we make any suggestion that he doesn’t know. 
 anything about it, he takes exception to it, but yet he tells 
 the court himself how little he knows and how little ex- 
 perience he has had. 
 
 Now, in the Zinser ease, this same plea was filed and 
 demurrer was interposed to it, and demurrer was sus- 
 tained. Appellant filed a plea denying ownership in ap- 
 pellee and a demurrer was sustained thereto. The plea 
 amounted only to the general issue and the demurrer 
 was properly sustained. The defendant in this case has 
 come into court and filed an issue of non-ownership and 
 issue has been joined upon it, but that does not raise a 
 thing for the consideration of the court other than what 
 would have been raised by a plea of general issue, and 
 if a demurrer had been raised to that plea it probably 
 would have been sustained. At any rate, it should have 
 been sustained. 
 
 Now, as I say, this District is in this court as a tres- 
 passer, and that is all. And I think it is the petition that 
 should first be considered when we come to decide the 
 question as to why these deeds are being offered, and as 
 to why they should be admitted. 
 
 Now, I want to eall the court’s attention to the case of 
 the City of Morrison vs. Horace Hinkson, in the 87th IIL, 
 at page 587. It is a short case: ‘‘This is an action 
 brought by appellee against appellant for injuries to his 
 residence, and operated by steam, water works for rais- 
 ing water for the use of the city, by which the use of the 
 property of plaintiff was rendered less valuable, and the 
 value of the property impaired. 
 
 ‘¢Appellee, being the owner of the ground adjoining 
 the street, built his residence thereon several years be- 
 fore the city commenced the construction of these works, 
 and occupied the same with his family, and still continues 
 
Vile 
 
 150 
 
 to live there. In 1873, the city erected in the street a 
 
 water tank thirty feet in diameter. This tank gave way 
 
 and did the plaintiff some damage which was adjusted 
 and paid by the city. In 1874 the city rebuilt the tank 
 and put in a steam engine and thereby operated a pump. 
 The works are located about forty feet from plaintiff’s 
 house and some fifteen to twenty feet from the line of 
 his ground. By the use of this engine (especially when 
 the wind is in the east) smoke and soot are passed in and 
 upon the residence to such a degree as to interfere seri- 
 ously and materially with the comfort of the occupants, 
 and so as to injure and impair the value of the property. 
 In the Cireuit Court the verdict and judgment were for 
 the plaintiff and defendant appeals.’’ 
 
 The court decided that adversely to the rights of the 
 city, saying it could use the streets for the ordinary pur- 
 pose of travel and purposes incidental thereto. 
 
 ‘Tt is insisted that the grievances must be redressed, 
 if grievance it be, by a public prosecution, and not by a 
 private action. If the sole cause of complaint consisted 
 in the obstruction of the highway, where the plaintiff had 
 suffered no special damages from the obstruction, this 
 doctrine might be invoked, but it has no application to 
 the case here presented.’’ 
 
 Now, this action in this case I have read from is sim- 
 ilar to the action instituted here, and all it is necessary 
 for the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company to do in 
 this case 1s simply what the court required in the other 
 ease. ‘‘Proof of possession claiming title in fee is prima 
 facie proof of such title.’’ 
 
 Now, there is no issue on the question of title here. 
 The Sanitary District has no right to question, if the 
 court please, the title of this plaintiff, or, rather, if ques- 
 tioned, as far as we have to go, is to prove we are in pos- 
 
712 
 
 7138 
 
 151 
 
 session and claim title in fee. Now, that is the whole 
 situation and it has been decided by our courts. I do not 
 presume it is entirely competent here to say to the court 
 what took place in the Zinzer case or what questions 
 were raised in the Zinzer case, except so far as they ap- 
 pear in the opinion. Now, then, your Honor, we offered 
 the deeds to this company. The first deed we offer is 
 from the trustees of the estate of Henry Young. Now, 
 this deed is not in issue. We offer this deed to show 
 whatever the deed is, whether it is a quit-claim deed or 
 otherwise, to show that we claim that described land, and 
 we will follow that up by proof that since the date of this 
 deed, the 8th of November, 1883, that we have been in 
 possession of the land and have been paying taxes upon 
 it.. Everything that is required under the law in an ac- 
 tion of this kind is that we prove we are in possession and 
 claim title in fee simple. We don’t have to prove a fee 
 simple title. Every case that Mr. Chiperfield called tc 
 the attention of the court was an ejectment, where the 
 issue was fee simple title to the land. The defendant is 
 standing in this court as a trespasser, and nothing better. 
 Now, Exhibit 3 is this deed from the Illinois Valley Coal 
 Company to the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. 
 That exhibit covers everything in so far as Section 21 is 
 concerned. [Hxhibit 3 covers everything else that is in- 
 volved in this lawsuit, but it does not refer to descriptions 
 
 ‘specifically. Consequently, it has been necessary to in- 
 
 troduce these deeds, not for the purpose of proving the 
 execution of the deeds. It would not make any differ- 
 ence how these deeds were executed. If these deeds were 
 simply signed by the grantors it would be sufficient for 
 the purpose of this lawsuit. They are simply being intro- 
 duced as a matter of identity and description. Simply to 
 give the description referred to in this deed, through 
 which the grantee, the [llinois Valley Coal Company, se- 
 
(14 
 
 152 
 
 eured title, which it afterwards conveyed to the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company. 
 
 These deeds referred to in Kixhibit 3—every one of 
 them except the deed from Wicker and wife. That is 
 dated 1885, but every other deed, your Honor, runs back 
 from 1865 to 1870. These cases Mr. Chiperfield has pre- 
 sented to the court are not new to us. They have been 
 considered by us just as thoroughly as they have been 
 by him in this and other cases along this same line, and 
 we simply introduce these deeds, if the court please, for 
 the purpose of showing that since the date of these deeds 
 we have been in possession of that land and claim to 
 own it in fee simple, and afterwards, and during that 
 time we have been paying taxes on the land. 
 
 Mr. CurprrFIrLp: Will vou exeuse me a minute? 
 Mr. O’Conor: Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Cutperrietp: If this is the only purpose for which 
 these deeds are offered, for the purpose of showing what 
 Mr. O’Conor has just said, and are not offered for the 
 purpose of proving fee simple title, I say our position is 
 wrong. I concede that. If that is the only purpose for 
 which these deeds are offered, then I don’t care to urge 
 these objections any further. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I won’t go that far. My position is 
 that is not the sole purpose for which these deeds are 
 introduced, nor would it be necessary to introduce the 
 deeds for that purpose. We are entitled to the admission 
 of these deeds for the purpose of description. These 
 deeds do cover land that is not involved in this suit, but 
 there is not a deed we offer that does not cover some of 
 the land that is in dispute. We will identify the property 
 that we claim has been damaged, and some part of that 
 property will be found to be described in some of the 
 deeds we have offered in evidence here. Now, these deeds 
 
715 
 
 153 
 
 are competent for that purpose. These deeds are com- 
 petent to show at what time this company claimed it be- 
 eame the owner of this land, since which time it has held 
 it, as it claims, in open and adverse possession, paid taxes 
 upon it, and I will submit to the court that under the 
 decisions, that is, as far as we have to go, and the deeds 
 are competent for that purpose. These deeds are all of 
 eolorable title. There cannot be any question about that. 
 So far as the execution of these deeds is concerned, it is 
 not a matter that would be sufficient legal objection to 
 keep these deeds from going into evidence for the pur- 
 poses for which we want them introduced. 
 
 Mr. Cutrerrirnp: May it please your Honor, I want 
 to make it very emphatic upon this record and at every 
 stage of this proceeding, that the question of title is in- 
 volved. We are disputing the title of the plaintiff to each 
 and every tract of land that is involved in this proceed- 
 ing. We assert that they have not title to that land. 
 
 I think it will not be a loss of time—and I often think 
 that we do seriously try the patience of the court by re- 
 ferring to things that have been stated before, but in 
 order to present the matter, I want to call the court’s at- 
 tention to this declaration. This declaration avers in 
 the first count that they were the owners and in posses- 
 sion of certain lands and premises in the County of La 
 Salle, State of Illinois, ‘‘described as follows.’’ 
 
 Now, it is true that possession is coupled with the own- 
 ership, but the larger averment is always the controlling 
 averment, and they aver that they are the owners of this 
 land. Then when we come to the concluding sentence of 
 the first count of the declaration, we find they make this 
 averment : 
 
 ‘‘And the plaintiff avers that on, to wit: the day and 
 year last aforesaid, and on divers dates prior thereto, 
 
FAW 
 
 154 
 
 the said lands and premises of the plaintiff were over- 
 flowed, submerged and rendered wet and unprofitable by 
 reason of the construction, enlargement of channels, ditch 
 drains and other outlets by the defendant in the Coun- 
 ties of Cook, Du Page and Will, in said State of Illinois, 
 and by reason of the premises the lands of plaintiff afore- 
 said were diminished in value to the extent of two hun- 
 dred thousand dollars.”’ 
 
 Now, the other counts are the same. I don’t mean the 
 language is precisely the same, but the theory is iden- 
 tical. It doesn’t require the faintest particle of argu- 
 ment, your Honor, to make very plain to your Honor 
 that this is a suit for injury, permanent injury to the 
 lands, and to recover the difference in their market value, 
 which can only be predicated upon ownership. I don’t 
 want to be misunderstood. I don’t mean to say if they 
 were a tenant they would not have any cause of action. 
 And I don’t mean to say if they were a life tenant they 
 would not have any cause of action, but the cause of ac- 
 tion in either of those two cases would be the injury to the 
 estate they owned and that would not have anything to 
 do with a permanent injury to the entire premises. They 
 could recover if they were injured. I don’t mean to be 
 heard to say they could not, but the only person who can 
 recover in a suit for all the damages to the premises is the 
 owner of the fee, and that is alleged in each and every - 
 eount of this declaration, and it 1s put in issue by the 
 general issue. 
 
 Now, in the Zinzer case, and so far as the trial of that 
 bill was concerned, I say the attorneys or the court were 
 extremely unfortunate. I had nothing to do with the case 
 and I knew nothing about it except what I read in the 
 opinion. I think my name is signed to the brief in the 
 Appellate Court. I am not sure but we wrote some of 
 the argument. I had nothing to do with the trial of 
 
155 
 
 the ease. It is a very unfortunate situation to be found 
 in any court cf the State of Illinois, but let us take this 
 opinion as it appears. Now, ali this opinion holds 1s this: 
 That the title was put in issue by the general issue. Why 
 is not that true? The general issue put in issue the tres- 
 pass on the case as a very material allegation. Every- 
 thing is traversed and denied by that general issue and 
 the plaintiff has to prove each and every fact. It has been 
 stated that in other cases other action was taken. I don’t 
 know as to that. I have a number of cases that I could 
 refer to, cases where things have gone against the plain- 
 tiff repeatedly. The question here is what has been de- 
 cided in the various courts in the state upon this point. 
 Now, there is a case here in. the 85th or 89th Illinois, 
 where a person was doing an unlawful act. Why, this is 
 not an unlawful act, your Honor, the overflowing of these 
 lands, not in any sense of the word. If there is any act 
 
 718 that has been held by the decisions in this class of cases 
 to be a trespass, and not an illegal act, it has been the 
 flowing of the water in the Illinois valley. I don’t mean 
 to say that if injury has been caused that there cannot 
 be damages recovered. That is a part of the act, but it 
 is one of those things which in law is regarded as lawful 
 and proper, as distinguished from a trespass. Now, 
 counsel has cited this case— 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: That was a municipal corporation. 
 
 Mr. CurperFietp: Why, yes, of course it was. A mu- 
 nicipal corporation doing a wrongful act that it had no 
 business to do. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Is it more wrongful to flood them with 
 soot and smoke than it is to flood them with water? It 
 was a permanent institution. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFietp: No, it was not anything of the kind. 
 It was not a permanent institution. So far as the conse- 
 quences are concerned—I want to be fair. It may be just 
 
156 
 
 as bad or worse, to put water on than soot; perhaps it 
 is worse. But one of these acts is regarded as lawful by 
 the State of Illinois and the other acts were done by a 
 municipal corporation without right and you could not 
 have had a recovery for permanent injury in that case, 
 because the injury would have to be recurrently sued for, 
 no matter whether it was done by an individual or by a 
 
 719 corporation. It would be regarded as a nuisance and 
 would be brought to an end. 
 
 Now, let us make this case as plain as possible, and I 
 don’t want to take any more time than is necessary on 
 this. There are two lines of authorities that hold this: 
 That where an act is done by a municipal corporation in 
 pursuance to direct authority, or by a corporation in 
 pursuance to a permanent plan of improvement, it is re- 
 garded as a permanent injury. And if it is within its 
 eharter right it is regarded as lawful, although the in- 
 jury may be permanent and there may be damages re- 
 covered. 
 
 The case of Wright vs. Centralia (?) in the 85th Illi- 
 nois, the case of Loeb vs. The Illinois Central in the 116th 
 or 118th Illinois. There is no need to cite those cases to 
 vour Honor, because you are thoroughly familiar with 
 them, but the Sanitary District cannot be regarded in 
 this case as a trespasser, because it is not. It is a sub- 
 division, a political subdivision, of the State of Illinois, 
 doing a government act, and in doing a government act, 
 by the authority of law, possibly inflicting damages. If 
 so, they are responsible and they must answer, but they 
 do not stand in the position of trespasser. They stand 
 in the position of one clothed with lawful authority, with 
 specific and direct authority from the State of Illinois. 
 So, it is not like a person who is an invader. That being 
 true, we put in issue the ownership of this property, and 
 
 720 we deny at each and every stage, from opening statement 
 
~l 
 
 157 
 
 to final argument, that these people own this land; that 
 they are the lawful owners and also that they have the 
 right to possession. 
 
 Counse! has stated that if they have the right to pos- 
 sess they have the right to recover. That is true. But 
 they cannot have the right to recover for permanent in- 
 jury to these lands. I don’t mean to quote his words ex- 
 actly, but the thought was they were entitled to such 
 damage as they could prove injury had been done to the 
 lands. They are entitled to recover for damages, if dam- 
 age has been done, but the permanent injury to those 
 lands can be recovered by reason of the fact they are the 
 owners in fee simple of those premises and not any other 
 ground whatsoever. It might have been an action in 
 some other form, but when they elect to take this form, 
 this is the form that must stand. 
 
 Now, we put in issue this ownership and then they say 
 all of these deeds, as the record will show, that they don’t 
 claim these deeds to prove ownership; ‘‘We don’t claim 
 they are good in themselves, but we do put them in to 
 show the time we took possession and the manner in which 
 we took possession, and we are in occupation now, claim- 
 ing ownership.’’ That does not rise to the dignity of an 
 allegation that is made in the declaration. They say that 
 those deeds are sufficient to establish title. We say they 
 are not, vour Honor. If title is proven, if it is neces- 
 sary to be proven, it must be proved in the regular way. 
 They say this is a collateral attack. Let us see, for a min- 
 ute, if it is a collateral attack. As the very basis, as the 
 foundation stone upon which they build their case, they 
 say: ‘‘We are the owners of the fee simple of these prem- 
 ises, and we are entitled to recover for all the damages.”’ 
 That is the very foundation stone upon which they build 
 their case. How can that be called collateral? If that is 
 not a direct attack upon their ownership. They come in 
 
158 
 
 and say to us: ‘‘You pay us the money. We claim we 
 are injured because we own these premises,’’ and we re- 
 ply: ‘‘We have not injured you and you do not own the 
 premises.’’? With that plea interposed and standing upon 
 the record in this ease, there can be no recovery until 
 their allegation is proved by a preponderance of the evi- 
 dence. If it is necessary to prove ownership, it must be 
 done according to the law. Hither itis necessary to prove 
 ownership, and if it is necessary to prove ownership, it 
 must be proved in one of the ways known to the law. 
 That is all there is to it. It either is necessary or it is 
 not necessary, and if it is necessary, less than legal proof 
 will not do. 
 
 It seems to me that is all I care to urge upon this propo- 
 sition. There is nothing to be indulged in by way of 
 presumption. There is nothing to be indulged in by way 
 of favor. When I say favor, I don’t mean favor extended 
 by the court, but there is nothing to be indulged in be- 
 cause this company is suing the Sanitary District. I say 
 that because I am in serious doubt—and I don’t mean 
 before your Honor, because that would not apply to vour 
 Honor, but I have often thought that every rule of law 
 was to be merely nominal, because it was the Sanitary 
 District of Chicago. It has not been so before your 
 Honor and we urge the right the law gives the defendant. 
 ‘‘Tf you are the owner of this you must prove it and if you 
 are required to prove it you must do it according to law.’’ 
 
 These objections we have advanced have not been ad- 
 vanced in a spirit of captiousness. Surely it is not cap- 
 tious to say when a man executes a deed without any au- 
 thority it is not good title. Surely it is not captious to 
 say when a corporation executes a deed descripto per- 
 sonnam, without any acknowledgment on the part of the 
 corporation, surely it is not too much to say that it is 
 not a valid deed. 
 
124 
 
 159 
 
 Now, the question of reservations in the deeds to these 
 lands, surety it is not too much to say they do not con- 
 vey the fee simple title. If they do not need to prove 
 title there has been a waste of time for which we ought 
 to beg the pardon of the court for not knowing the posi- 
 tion, but if they do, they have got to prove it and it is 
 not to be gnessed; it is not to be presumed; it is to be 
 proved in the ways known to the law. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I thought Mr. Chiperfield was going 
 to read this case. 
 
 Mr. CHtrPERFIELD: I will be glad to read it, if you want 
 me to. J was willing to take your statement as being 
 correct. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I thought you misunderstood the law, 
 what the law was in regard to the trespass cases. 
 
 Mr. CuHIPEeRFIELD: Here is the only way we misunder- 
 stand each other. I am not finding fault with you for 
 your opinion. We misunderstand each other as to what 
 is a matter of mght, rather than what is a matter of 
 wrong. I contend this case now comes under the class of 
 eases as the Beidler case, and a long line of cases. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: We are right with you on the Beidler 
 case, 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: All right. 
 
 The Court: You think this question is not one of per- 
 fect title, or the superiority of the title. They think the 
 question to be determined by an inquiry is as to whether 
 this defendant is a trespasser or not. No question but 
 some of these deeds are defective when standing by them- 
 selves. I think that ordinarily persons making a deed in 
 a representative capacity are obliged to prove the capac- 
 ity of the one executing it before it can be treated as 
 sufficient in law. It is very manifest, also, that the deed 
 from the Illinois Valley Coal Company 1s not in the usual 
 
~ 
 
 160 
 
 form and it is very questionable whether it is entitled to 
 be treated as the deed of that company, because of the 
 way it is executed. It may be there are others less mani- 
 fest, less decided imperfections, in some of these deeds; 
 likely there are. And it is likely, too, that if these deeds 
 were offered in and by themselves and standing alone, 
 that the objection would have to be sustained, or it would 
 be error not to. I really believe that is true, that if the 
 only proof offered by the plaintiff of its ownership or 
 title were those deeds, I doubt whether these deeds should 
 go to the jury. I think, however, they are evidence tend- 
 ing to prove the plaintiff’s case, the same as possession 
 is evidence tending to prove; the payment of taxes is ev1- 
 dence tending to prove, and I think that when all the 
 facts in support of this offer are taken together, then it 
 is a question for the court and jury to determine, whether 
 the ownership claimed in the declaration has been estab- 
 lished or not. Possession alone does not entitle a person 
 to recover for permanent damages. Possession must be 
 in good faith. I think these documents are evidence of 
 
 ‘the faith of the plaintiff’s claim. I think they are admis- 
 
 sible in connection with the claim of possession or claim 
 of the payment of taxes, and should go to the jury. And 
 then, when all of the evidence is in, it is for the jury to 
 determine whether title has been made out or not. It is 
 not a question of superior title. It is not a question of 
 defect in the evidence of title. That is not this question. 
 It is true that the plaintiff’s measure of damages and 
 right to recover is limited by the scope and extent of its 
 ownership. I think the exceptions and reservations in 
 these different deeds, to which the court’s attention has 
 been called, do not create a variance. They may create 
 an embarrassment on the part of the court in instructing 
 the jury on that subject, but I am not able to see that they 
 would create a variance. It may subtract that much, per- 
 
126 
 
 121 
 
 728 
 
 161 
 
 haps, from the plaintiff’s claim. It will operate, perhaps, to 
 exclude that part of the property or any claim on the part 
 of the plaintiff for damages. I rather encouraged this 
 discussion on these deeds for the reason that I wanted 
 information about them; not only because of my ruling 
 now, but I wanted to inform myself as to the balance 
 of the case. Ownership is one thing and title or evi- 
 dence of title may be another. The deeds may not be 
 complete in themselves, but any of them may tend to 
 prove the question, and I think it is plain, as far as what 
 I have to do now is concerned, that they do tend to prove 
 the plaintiff’s claim, and that ought to be sufficient for 
 the present for the court. 
 
 T think I will overrule the objections. Call the jury in, 
 Mr. Bailiff. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 (Whereupon the jurors resumed their places and the 
 following proceedings were had in their presence) : 
 
 Cross-Examination of the Witness Obediah Hicks read by 
 Mr. Sullivan (for Mr. Chiperfield). 
 
 There is no difference in the Desplaines River above 
 Norton’s mill now than from what there was from 1870 
 to 1890. The controlling works are a little above Nor- 
 ton’s mill. J have seen the bed of the Desplaines River 
 opposite Lemont. I can’t give the date now. I was pass- 
 ing through on the train. It was a short time after the 
 Santa Fe road was constructed. It would be over ten 
 years. I don’t think I observed it only once since then. 
 I passed there once since, driving. There was very little 
 water at that time. Some years ago there was two dams 
 here at Joliet. One at Jackson street, known as Dam No. 
 1 and another at Jefferson street, known as Dam No. 2. 
 
129 
 
 fal 
 
 162 
 
 The dams were just above where the bridges at Jackson 
 and Jefferson streets are now located, I don’t think any 
 point of them would exceed one hundred feet from the 
 dam. When I spoke of skating I meant between the 
 dams. These dams were taken out six or seven or eight 
 years ago. 
 
 Up to the time the dams were taken out ice would form 
 in the basin between the two bridges. There is no basin 
 there now to hold the water. I have been over the land 
 between Jackson street and the controlling works. In 
 my opinion the slope of the land between the controlling 
 works and Jefferson street bridge is something over forty 
 feet. Those dams at times held the water in pools. When 
 I spoke of the water being offensive, I meant there was a 
 stench. You didn’t have to get near them. It was no- 
 ticeable quite a distance away. When you got down to 
 the water itself you could notice it was foul water. It 
 could be detected by the color as well as the odor. It 
 has not entirely disappeared, but a great change came 
 when the water came from the improvements in the Sani- 
 tary District Canal. You could come within miles of it 
 now without detecting the odor, and when you come up 
 to it you notice a very decided change in the appearance 
 of the water. It is for the better. It is not pure. It has 
 the appearance of fairly pure water. It has the appear- 
 ance of fairly clean water. And that condition has ex- 
 isted since the time the Sanitary District turned the 
 water down this way. There was no current except at 
 times of high water between the bridges up to the time 
 the Sanitary District turned the water this way. The bed 
 of the river to the south of Dam No. 1 was very foul. Ice 
 did form there, but not to the extent it did before the foul 
 water came. When we had only the river then every 
 winter ice formed. I mean previous to the time water 
 came from the Illinois and Michigan Canal into the Des- 
 
~ 
 we) 
 bo 
 
 734 
 
 163 
 
 plaines River. When I speak of the river water, I mean 
 the Desplaines River water. In 1869 or thereabouts, the 
 only water at this point was the water of the Desplaines 
 River, until it reached the mouth of Hickory Creek. Be- 
 tween 1869 and ’72 the waters of the Illinois and Mich- 
 igan Canal were turned into the Desplaines River above 
 those two dams and the water coming down from the 
 Illinois and Michigan Canal is the water I designated as 
 foul water. The foul water was noticeable during the 
 time the Illinois and Michigan Canal was turned into the 
 Desplaines River, with the exception of one season. There 
 was one season previous to the time of the Chicago fire 
 when the water between those two dams was in good 
 condition, so we caught fish in there. After the Chi- 
 cago fire some two weeks, the first rain came 
 and flushed the sewers in Chicago into the Chicago 
 River. The Chicago River, at the time of the Chicago 
 fire, emptied into the Illinois and Michigan Canal. I 
 know it from current report and from the water we re- 
 ceived from there. Prior to the Chicago fire the Illinois 
 and Michigan Canal was deepened. The connection be- 
 tween the Illinois and Michigan Canal and the Chicago 
 River was made at Bridgeport. I saw it at Bridgeport. 
 The river didn’t have any current at that time. The cur- 
 rent in the Chicago River was away from the City of 
 Chicago and the sewerage would have been carried -to- 
 wards the lake instead of towards the _ Illinois 
 and Michigan Canal. It was merely a conclusion that 
 a couple of weeks after the fire, that the Chicago River 
 started to run toward the Illinois and Michigan Canal 
 rather than towards Lake Michigan. I cannot fix the 
 year as to the time at which the deepened channel failed 
 to supply sufficient water and pumping devices were re- 
 sorted to to draw water from the Chicago River, for the 
 purpose of supplying current to the Illinois and Mich- 
 
137 
 
 138 
 
 164 
 
 igan Canal. I think it is true they have been pumping 
 water from the Chicago River ever since shortly after 
 the Chicago fire, into the [llinois and Michigan Canal. 
 All the water that comes from Chicago into the Illinois 
 and Michigan Canal is turned into the Desplaines River 
 before reaching Jackson street in Joliet. Judging from 
 the water I think it is true that the water sent down 
 through the Ulinois and Michigan Canal is drawn from 
 a part of the Chicago River and has not been improved. 
 I can very slightly detect the same odor in the canal that 
 I could prior to the time the Sanitary District turned its 
 waters into the channel at Johet. The water that goes 
 through the Illinois and Michigan Canal is mingled with 
 the waters of the Desplaines River and the Chicago 
 Drainage Canal in the City of Johet. Above Lockport 
 there 1s no such mingling of the waters. Above Lock- 
 port the water that comes from the [linois and Michigan 
 
 / Canal is as foul as it was years ago. It was the last time 
 
 I saw it, a few weeks ago. The Sanitary District water 
 has not purified the waters that come through the Des- 
 plaines River. The water that comes through the Illinois 
 and Michigan Canal is very much improved. I can no- 
 tice the difference between the waters of the Illinois and 
 Michigan Canal above Lockport and the waters of the 
 same canal this side of Lockport. I noticed the waters 
 of the Drainage Canal before they mingled with the wa- 
 ters of the Illinois and Michigan Canal. There is some 
 odor to it. At sight, itis apparently all right. At Lock- 
 port, I speak about. The masonry walls were put in at 
 the time of the construction of the drainage channel. The 
 river is wider at Jackson street since the walls were put 
 up. J see the river very often south of the Jackson street 
 bridge, down as far as McDonough street. Its average 
 width is wider. The walls have not narrowed the river. 
 I think it would average between two and three feet 
 
139 
 
 740 
 
 741 
 
 165 
 
 deeper; that is, in addition to what loose stone there is 
 lying there on the channel. I have observed the elevation 
 of the water as I cross this bridge. I don’t think the 
 water surface is lower now than prior to the construc- 
 tion of the bridge. I think the water lever is very near 
 the same. I cannot judge absolutely for the reason that 
 the structure of the walls and the back filling has changed 
 the condition of sight there. My impression is that the 
 water is fully as high now in relation to adjacent prop- 
 erty as before the channel was deepened. The current 
 is much more rapid. I used my judgment as to the current 
 in miles per hour. Under the Jackson street bridge, I 
 ean’t say. JI think I was asked between Jackson and Mc- 
 Donough street and my answer was four to six miles an 
 hour. That has been since the water has been turned 
 through the Drainage Canal. Before that at times there 
 was no current. At times when there was a current it 
 would vary so much, from nothing to several miles an 
 hour; from two to four. When there was high water the 
 current between the bridges that were referred to as the 
 Jackson street and McDonough street bridges would go 
 as fast as four miles an hour. I know parties that are 
 interested in suits against the Sanitary District. I have 
 heard of claims now pending in Will County against the 
 Sanitary District of Chicago. I know parties to such 
 suits. I am not interested as much as you are in any 
 such suits or lands. I have been a witness in litigation 
 in which the Sanitary District of Chicago was a party; 
 in two instances for the Sanitary District; possibly three. 
 I never worked for the Sanitary District. I never was 
 employed by them except as a witness. At those times I 
 don’t know that I was called by Mr. O’Donnell. I have 
 not talked this matter as to damages over with Mr. 
 O’Donnell. Mr. O’Donnell asked me if I was familiar or 
 had been with the condition of the river and I told him 
 
744 
 
 745 
 
 166 
 
 I had, and that is all the information I have given Mr. 
 
 2 O’Donnell whatever, except what I have given here to- 
 
 day. I answered a question in the first part of my cross- 
 examination and in so doing stated that the slope of the 
 land from the controlling works south was in the neigh- 
 borhood of forty feet. It doesn’t terminate until it 
 reaches Jackson street. When I referred to a forty foot 
 slope I meant between Jackson street and the controlling 
 works. including the fall at Jackson street. There is a 
 decided fall between Jackson street and Lake Joliet. 
 Lake Joliet is two and a half miles south of the City of 
 Joliet. It is a wide place in the river southwest. There 
 is a pool formed southwest of Joliet that we call Lake 
 Johet; at that point the water assumes a practically 
 level condition. The land does not; on each side the land 
 varies; there is not a regular slope. At present there 
 is a current through that lake. The lake is about seven 
 miles north and south. I know the current is very rapid 
 down there; not rapid at the outside; the current is in 
 the channel; two or three miles, I should say, in the 
 lake. The widest point is between 160 and 200 rods. 
 The east, southeast bank curves gradually towards the 
 west, widens out towards the west at this point that I 
 speak of at the head of the lake and gradually widens 
 out to something about a mile below. I should say the 
 average width was a hundred rods. There is a part of 
 it very shallow. The current is mostly confined to the 
 channel at present. Formerly it was sixteen to twenty- 
 two feet deep in the channel. It is filled up with deposit 
 since the Sanitary District waters have been turned in. 
 I do not know that it is two or three miles an hour. T 
 think it is, but it is not easily judged. It is rapid op- 
 posite Rock Run. I would not say that the average cur- 
 rent of the lake was two or three miles an hour. TI ean- 
 not give a judgment as to the average width. T eannot 
 
167 
 
 746 give the average depth of the lake when the waters of 
 
 747 
 
 748 
 
 749 
 
 750 
 
 751 
 752 
 
 the Sanitary District were turned through the controll- 
 ing works. There was no perceptible current at that 
 time. I don’t know that there is any additional water- 
 shed under the Drainage Canal away off in the eastern 
 part of the county may be attached or may have been 
 turned into Hickory Creek. I don’t know that it has 
 been done but it may have been. If it is it is only a small 
 district up there. Hickory Creek has the same water- 
 shed now that it has always had. The Sanitary District 
 has added water to the mouth of Hickory Creek by back- 
 ing it up. Hickory Creek does not discharge any addi- 
 tional water. I believe it to be possible that waters from 
 the Sanitary District to the north and east of Joliet to 
 be let into Hickory Creek and from Hickory Creek into 
 the Desplaines River. I refer to the Drainage District 
 somewhere in the east part of the county. I never saw 
 it. [am not sure that it even exists. Perhaps water has 
 been backed from the Sanitary District in a northwest- 
 erly direction up that creek for thirty rods. The influ- 
 ence of the waters that I say come from the Sanitary 
 District are noticeable only about thirty rods. 
 
 Re-direct Examination of the Witness Rollin L. Reed. 
 (Read by Mr. O’Conor.) 
 
 The Chicago Drainage District or Drainage Board 
 turned the water into the Desplaines River at the Bear 
 Trap Dam between five and six years ago. It has been 
 running all the time so far as my knowledge goes. I 
 have not been fishing in Lake Joliet since the waters were 
 turned in. I ceased fishing in Lake Joliet because there 
 were no fish to catch. I know of the deposit being made 
 in Lake Joliet by the waters of the Sanitary District, by 
 realizing the difficulty of running the boat over it, wher- 
 
793 
 
 754 
 
 759 
 
 168 
 
 ever I attempted to navigate it, except in the channel. I 
 attempted to navigate perhaps the middle third of it. I 
 refer to Lake Joliet. JI don’t know how much deposit I 
 have discovered. 
 
 Re-cross Examination of the Witness Rollin L. Reed. 
 (Read by Mr. Sullivan.) 
 
 There was water enough in Lake Joliet for fish to swim 
 in after the deposit was made. I did navigate Lake Joliet 
 prior to the time the Sanitary District turned the waters 
 in over the Bear Trap Dam, parts of it, many times. I 
 say that I know the trustees of the Sanitary District 
 turned the water through the Bear Trap Dam five or six 
 years ago, by report, newspaper accounts and seeing the 
 water going over the dam; I knew it had been done; look- 
 ing at the water would not give me any information as 
 to who turned it in. My knowledge is based purely upon 
 
 hearsay evidence. 
 (Signed) Rotiiw L. Reep. 
 
 Adjournment until Friday morning at 10 o’clock. 
 
 The plaintiff offers in evidence the deposition of T. E. 
 Marsh, as follows: 
 
 T. EH. MarsH: 
 
 Direct Exammation of the Witness T. E. Marsh. 
 (Read by Mr. O’Conor.) 
 
 My name is T’. EK. Marsh. I reside in Joliet; have lived 
 there since 1849. At the present time I am in the shoe 
 business. I keep a stone on Chicago street. 
 
 I have resided on the west side since ’49. Since I was 
 old enough to observe it I have been familiar with the 
 
756 
 
 707 
 
 758 
 
 799 
 
 760 
 
 169 
 
 Desplaines River between Lockport and Lemont and 
 through the City of Joliet. In the year 1895 to 1900 I 
 was living on the west side, at 306 North Broadway. Be- 
 fore the recent changes were made in the river I have 
 observed its condition in the City of Joliet in dry times. 
 The condition of the river during the period prior to 
 1900, in dry seasons, both winter and summer, depended 
 on the pumping of water in Chicago. When they were 
 not pumping there was comparatively no water going 
 over the dam at Jefferson street in dry seasons. I ob- 
 served that condition prior to the deepening of the canal; 
 in 1871 the condition of the river at Jefferson dam, there 
 was the same uniform flow. I don’t know, during the 
 time subsequent to 1870 and ’71 about what depth of 
 water was in the river below Jefferson street dam in 
 dry times. It all depends upon the pumping. If they 
 were not pumping we had comparatively no water; if 
 they were we had water. I don’t know that I can tell 
 about how many inches of water was going over the dam 
 at that time; there was no great volume of water. I saw 
 the river above Lockport between 1870 and the time of 
 this new improvement. The condition of the river above 
 Lockport since the first deepening and until the second 
 improvement was made, in the driest times, was that a 
 person could walk across dry shod by stepping from 
 stone to stone. After the establishment of the Santa Fe 
 Railway I have noticed the condition of the river imme- 
 diately opposite the City of Lemont, in dry seasons. It 
 was like a small creek; no water there to speak of; noth- 
 ing to speak of. 
 
 Cross-Examination of the Witness T. E. Marsh. 
 * (Read by Mr. Sullivan.) 
 
 I am not in any way, directly or indirectly, interested 
 in any litigation against the Sanitary District; no inter- 
 
761 
 
 762 
 
 763 
 
 170 
 
 est whatever. J have been acquainted with the Des- 
 plaines River since I was old enough to know anything. 
 I was born in ’49 and have known it all my life. I have 
 known this stream since 1855. In dry seasons the Des- 
 plaines River would get very low, prior to 1870. I do not 
 know what constitutes the watershed of the Desplaines 
 River and what streams or rivers are tributary to it. 
 What I mean to say is that when there was no rainfall 
 in or upon the watershed of the Desplaines River, the 
 stream would get very low. I do not mean that the stream 
 ever got absolutely dry. There was always more or less 
 water. I don’t know whether it is true that the lowest 
 recorded flow of the Desplaines River, covering a period 
 of forty or fifty years, was fifty cubic feet of water per 
 minute. I don’t know that that statement is not cor- 
 rect. All that I mean to say is that during these dry 
 seasons the river would get very low. At times there 
 wasn’t hardly any current between Lockport and Le- 
 mont. I do not mean to say there has ever been a time 
 in my observation that there has been no current in the 
 stream. There was always more or less current. In 
 times of heavy rain or wet weather in the country above, 
 the stream would become at times a large and rapid 
 stream. The volume of the Desplaines River always 
 depended upon the amount of rainfall within the water- 
 shed of that stream. There is a portion of the Desplaines 
 River from Lockport to Joliet that was not entirely de- 
 pendent upon it. Above I think it was wholly dependent 
 upon that. In wet seasons the stream was practically 
 full; in dry seasons it was very low. 
 
 The change I spoke of in 1870 was known here as the 
 Deep Cut. It is an improvement made by the City of 
 Joliet to provide drainage for the city; deepening of the 
 Illinois and Michigan Canal. Into the Illinois and Mich- 
 igan Canal, from 1870 down to some time in 1900, the 
 
764 
 
 765 
 
 766 
 
 171 
 sewage of the City of Chicago was pumped. It flowed 
 down through the [llinois and Michigan Canal to a point 
 at or near Lockport. The excess of water above that 
 necessary for keeping the canal to a certain level was 
 discharged into the Desplaines River. It was a contin- 
 uous level, practically speaking, from Bridgeport to Lock- 
 port on the canal. This diluted sewage was turned into 
 the Desplaines River at Lockport and flowed through the 
 Desplaines River, some of it, into what is known 
 as the upper basin. It all came into the upper 
 basin. I don’t mean to say that all of this water 
 that was discharged at Lockport eventually got back into 
 the Channahon level of the Illinois and Michigan Canal. 
 It was all discharged through its outlet of the Desplaines 
 River. Some went into the canal and some went into 
 the river. All that didn’t go into the canal was discharged 
 into the Desplaines River. The sewage, prior to 1900, 
 was diluted by water of the Chicago River. In other 
 words, the sewage was discharged into the Chicago River 
 and pumped from the river into the [llmois and Mich- 
 igan Canal. I don’t know how much water during all of 
 that period of time was pumped per hour. The point of 
 discharge was at Norton’s Mill; the hydraulic basin they 
 used to eall it. Norton’ Mill is at Lockport. I am not 
 sure whether more of the waters were discharged at 
 Lockport than was needed for the mill or not; there was 
 a certain amount of water discharged there; how much, 
 I don’t know. I don’t know of any other connection be- 
 tween the Illinois and Michigan Canal and the Desplaines 
 River than I have mentioned. Below the point that I 
 have mentioned is a place of discharge from the Illinois 
 
 and Michigan Canal. I have known the stream to be 
 
 dry since 1870 or ’71, at times. That, of course, would 
 be when the canal was empty; when there was no dis- 
 charge from the canal. The substance that was dis- 
 
i 
 
 67 
 
 768 
 
 769 
 
 ~l 
 
 172 
 
 charged from the Illinois and Michigan Canal was very 
 foul in its condition, had a very offensive smell and odor. 
 It could be observed a very considerable distance in and 
 about Joliet. Since the Sanitary District channel has 
 been discharging its waters into the Desplaines River, it 
 has been very greatly improved. It has at times—there 
 are times when it is quite offensive even now. The water 
 that is in the Illinois and Michigan Canal above the point 
 of discharge is still foul and offensive. Whether the 
 waters of the Sanitary District, where it discharges into 
 the Desplaines River, is apparently pure and clean de- 
 pends on what you mean by pure and clean. I would not 
 eall it pure and clean from appearance. It has a muddy 
 appearance all the time. It is offensive in odor at times. 
 I have observed it many times when I cross the bridge 
 at night, when the atmosphere was heavy. This bridge 
 is located at Cass street; also at Jefferson street. The 
 water is apparently clean, from appearances, at the con- 
 trolling works. I have seen people step on stones and 
 thus cross the river at Lemont. I would not be able to 
 say whether it had been extremely dry or not. I have 
 seen them do it. The low condition of the river was 
 caused by the dry season; I don’t know whether it was 
 extremely dry; I can’t say as to that; I had no reason 
 for remembering. Between 1874 and 1882 I have no- 
 ticed it often. Of course it was a dry season, but whether 
 it was particularly dry or not, I cannot say. During a 
 season of average, or more than average rainfall, there 
 would be considerable water in the river at Lemont. I 
 ean’t say how dried I have seen this stream prior to 
 1900 because I never made any measurements. I told 
 you that I had seen people cross the river dry shod. 
 The widest I have ever seen it was in August of ’65, I 
 think, ’65 or ’66, when it was practically all over the 
 
 771 plain. Well, it was full from the Lllinois and Michigan 
 
(72 
 
 173 
 
 173 
 
 Canal to the bluff. I would say it was half or three-quar- 
 ters of a mile wide, but I may be away off. I never had 
 any oceasion to note the distance. It may have been 
 nearer a mile and a half. I have no means of knowing 
 the depth of the stream at this time. 
 
 Re-direct Examination of the Witness T. E. Marsh. 
 (Read by Mr. O’Conor.) 
 
 In the vicinity of Lemont and Romeoville, a distance 
 of three or four miles this side of Lemont, the natural 
 bed of the Desplaines River was shallow. I did not ob- 
 serve particularly opposite Lemont what the substance 
 was underlying the river. I know there was stones there. 
 I should say it was a limestone body generally down the 
 valley. I should say the whole valley here was lined 
 with limestone. High water appeared in the Desplaines 
 River, during the years I have spoken of, generally in 
 the spring of the year. In the Desplaines River there 
 was comparatively little water in the summer and fall 
 seasons. 
 
 Re-cross Examination of the Witness T. EH. Marsh. 
 (Read by Mr. Sullivan.) 
 
 Whenever considerable rainfall took place in the coun- 
 try above Lemnot, Riverside and Joliet, it was immedi- 
 ately followed by higher water in the river. So, if the 
 heavy rains did not take place at the times I have men- 
 tioned, the increase in the stage of the water would fol- 
 low then whenever they did take place. 
 
 (Signed)T. E. Marsu. 
 
(74 
 
 (17 
 
 174 
 
 Plaintiff offers in evidence the deposition of Thomas’ 
 J. Kelly. 
 
 THomas J. KELLY: 
 
 Direct Examination. 
 (Read by Mr. O’Conor.) 
 
 My name is Thomas J. Kelly. I reside in Joliet; have 
 resided in Will County ever since 1849; live about 275 
 feet from the Desplaines River. I am in the dry goods 
 business. My dry goods store and residence are lo- 
 cated in the same place. A part of the time I resided 
 on the west side in Joliet; west of the river, at Broadway. 
 That residence was a block and a half from the canal and 
 river, which were at that time both one. We owned some 
 property in the north end of this ward, corner of Ben- 
 ton and Joliet streets. My brothers and sisters have 
 been interested in farm lands in the town of Lockport 
 near the Desplaines River. That is on the west side. 
 Father bought that land in ’64. I have been Mayor of 
 Joliet. I was elected in ’83 first; then in ’85 and ’89; 
 have served three terms as Mayor. I had to cross the 
 Desplaines River frequently, during the time I have re- 
 sided in Joliet. I remember the improvement in the river 
 known as the Sanitary District work, occurring five or 
 six or more years ago. Prior to that time I noticed the 
 condition of the water in the river at different seasons 
 of the year. Prior to 1870, in Joliet, in dry seasons there 
 was very sligh flow of water, just sufficient to lock 
 the boats through and what was used by the Norton Mill 
 in Lockport. You could walk across the river below the 
 Jefferson street dam with an ordinary pair of shoes on, 
 without getting your feet wet. I remember the work 
 known as the deepening of the canal, which was sought 
 
778 
 
 ia 
 
 780 
 
 175 
 
 to be done in ’69 or ’70. When I speak of locking boats 
 through, I refer to the Illinois and Michigan Canal. In 
 1870 and after this new cut in the Illinois and Michigan 
 Canal, there was always a fairly good supply of water in 
 the Desplaines River in Joliet, at and below the Jefferson 
 street dam, in dry times. There was enough to make a 
 thin sheet over the dams; the dams were never dry. Be- 
 fore that cut, you could walk across the face of the lower 
 dam there. There was water escaping from the Illinois 
 and Michigan Canal at Lockport during those years. One 
 outlet is where the race-way, where the water came 
 through from Norton’s Mills and about a mile and a half 
 above Lockport; there is a waste weir on the Fitz Patrick 
 farm. North of Lockport was what was known as the 
 Fitz Patrick farm, occupying a cross section of the valley 
 from the Illinois and Michigan Canal to the west bluff, 
 prior to 18938. Before the sanitary work in the valley I 
 noticed the condition of the Desplaines River north of 
 Lockport in dry seasons, above where this water from the 
 Norton weir came in. I have seen it as dry as the surface 
 of our street before it would be sprinkled; absolutely dry. 
 In the summer there was generally a low stage after the 
 spring rains go out. I just looked at the condition of the 
 river immediately opposite Lemont, prior to 1893, from 
 the cars, going past; that is all. There is some place in 
 front of the depot, where the main channel would be en- 
 tirely dry; even above, where the Santa Fe crossed the 
 river, there would be only a little water there, but I gen- 
 erally went on the Rock Island, so I never noticed it many 
 times. Romeo is called four miles from Lemont. It is 
 actually about three miles from the north line of Lockport. 
 Romeoville is between Lemont and Joliet. From Lemont 
 to Lockport the general character of the natural bed of the 
 Desplaines River is pretty shallow, except in a few places 
 where there were pools. The substance underlying the 
 
781 
 
 183 
 
 784 
 
 785 
 
 786 
 
 176 
 
 river there was rock. For along way below Lemont, there 
 was a diversion channel made there to take the flow. The 
 highest water generally appeared in the Desplaines River 
 during the spring. I was familiar with the lands adjoin- 
 ing the river between Romeo and Joliet during those dif- 
 ferent years, before 1893. During the summer season, on 
 an average, after the Ist of May, I cannot give you any 
 guess as to how wide was the portion occupied by the Des- 
 plaines River in that valley. Lands were used for pasture 
 and meadow. I remember some islands in the City of 
 Joliet below the Jefferson street bridge; before 1893 and 
 after ’70, there might have been probably in some chan- 
 nels six or eight inches of water. There was a pool di- 
 rectly east of that island that was pretty deep; so deep 
 that a horse would have to swim init. Between the island 
 and the bridge there was about six or eight feet of water. 
 I ean show you a photograph of the water. It was taken . 
 on the day they commenced taking out that island. I 
 haven’t the photograph with me. It would show the stage 
 of the water. I observed the condition of the basin im- 
 mediately above the Jefferson street dam as to freezing 
 in the winter times before this change; if the winter was 
 eold enough it froze. Since the Sanitary District work, 
 and since the dam has been taken out, the river has never 
 frozen, so far as I have observed; not below the Jefferson 
 street dam. I know a road leading out of the Village of 
 Lockport called Ninth street. It runs a little north of 
 west. It crosses the Desplaines Valley. Since putting in 
 the controlling works and the change in the river there is a 
 bridge over the channel of the Desplaines River at Ninth 
 street. That bridge is about 100 rods to 110 from the econ- 
 trolling works. Since the turning in of the water in 1900, 
 under the Ninth street bridge, the width is about two 
 spans, 600 feet. On the east side the water does not ex- 
 tend east of the bridge; on the west side it does a little 
 
187 
 788 
 
 789 
 
 790 
 
 177 
 
 above and below. The width of the channel under this 
 Ninth street bridge is about the same as the width on the 
 Ninth street bridge up to the controlling works. It con- 
 tinues down to below the Sixteenth street bridge. I have 
 seen this water channel under the Ninth street bridge fre- 
 quently during the last five years. My relatives reside 
 
 -west of Lockport. Have seen it every time we go up to 
 
 see the folks, generally Sundays. The entire mouth of the 
 channel was occupied by water; the flow was quite rapid. 
 There is just a murmur that flowing water would have, as 
 it passes the pier or abuttments on the bridge. At the 
 times I have seen it, that was generally along in the fore- 
 noon and in the evening again, it was generally uniform. 
 I have never seen a greatly increased flow there but once. 
 The sound was as uniform as the water pouring over the 
 dam here in Joliet. It is one of those sounds that you 
 hardly notice until itis stopped. A boat coming from the 
 south, in order to pass through the City of Joliet, it would 
 look through what is known as the Jefferson street south 
 into the lower basin. From that it would enter the upper 
 basin from the lock at Jackson street. It would come out 
 of the upper basin a little below the penitentiary north 
 of the City of Joliet. It would then get into the canal 
 proper towards Lockport and Chicago. 
 
 Cross-Examimation of the Witness Thomas J. Kelly. 
 (Read by Mr. Sullivan.) 
 
 Prior to the removal of the dams at Jefferson street 
 and at Jackson street, the water in the basins above these 
 dams, in cold seasons, would freeze. Above each of these 
 dams there would be a natural water level extending 
 back for a considerable distance, and that would consti- 
 tute two practical slack water powers, except in times 
 of flood. Under ordinary conditions it would make and 
 
fou 
 
 +) 
 
 ~] 
 
 794 
 
 178 
 
 constitute two slack water powers. The natural contour 
 of the bed of the stream was a quite sharp descent. With 
 the removal of those dams the slack water powers were 
 destroyed and the river then occupied, unobstructed, its 
 natural bed and, of course, followed the general slope of 
 the ground. The current was a very small affair. There 
 was quite a flow to it, but not a large volume of -~water.. 
 It was an ordinary rapid stream. Well, there was about 
 a mile and a half south of town here, there was a small 
 shallow place in the river there and that used to freeze 
 in the winter. There was a decided change in the current 
 of this stream after the removal of the dams, where the 
 dams were. Low water in the Desplaines River would 
 prevail mostly along the latter part of the summer or 
 early fall. All seasons of course are not the same. I 
 never noticed the lowest stages of water during the driest 
 seasons especially. We have had some men that make 
 notes of those things every day. Naturally, during the 
 dry seasons, the river would be the lowest. I never re- 
 member except once that the Desplaines River got very 
 high. I think that was in ’65. I remember the May 
 floods in 1892, not the later ones. There was extremely 
 high water in the Desplaines River at that time. I went 
 up to Chicago the morning after the heavy rain. I went 
 to the Alton depot and there was no train and I had to 
 take an Alton train on the Rock Island. We came back 
 on the Alton, as the damages were repaired by that time. 
 It looked as though it was overflowed to the other side. 
 It would probably be a mile or a mile and a half. It was 
 
 ) not water to the Summit. I[ don’t know what the object 
 
 of the Ogden Ditch was. I suppose to work some of the 
 Chicago water down this way. I know there was water 
 enough there to flow towards the lake. During a dry sea- 
 son the Desplaines River would be low and during a wet 
 season it would be high. Prior to 1870, it would not be 
 
196 
 
 798 
 
 179 
 
 high in the summer season unless there were some un- 
 usual freshets. Prior to 1870 there were only natural 
 causes. In 1870 there was a change in the condition of 
 the Desplaines River in Joliet, by reason of water added 
 from the Illinois and Michigan Canal. I have heard the 
 eapacity of the pumps at Bridgeport, but I believe they 
 were not able to send down much more than one-third. I 
 think the usual amount sent down was about 30,000 to 
 30,000 cubic feet a minute. I have observed the condi- 
 tion of the waters of the Illinois and Michigan Canal. It 
 was by reason of its noisome stench it was forced upon 
 my attention. I was interested in having the sewage sur- 
 plus as much diluted as possible. JI had no personal ob- 
 servation; what I have on that question is all hearsay. I 
 know the water was coming down there. My judgment 
 wouldn’t be worth a cent. I didn’t measure the depth 
 or velocity. Aside from the information I have already 
 given, I have no further judgment upon the matter as 
 to the amount. It all entered in the upper basin. There 
 was only one point of entrance. There was one diversion 
 at the Norton Mill. Eventually all of the water that was 
 pumped in at the City of Chicago was merged into and 
 with the Desplaines River here. There was more than 
 was diverted. There was more diverted than was re- 
 quired for the purpose of feeding the Channahon level. 
 There was also water diverted as power for manufactur- 
 
 799 ing down the canal here. That refers to the several small 
 
 islands in the Desplaines River below where the Jeffer- 
 son street dam formerly was; one was a few rods below 
 the Jefferson street bridge; it might be 175 or 200 feet, 
 the rocky island that was with some trees. It was high, 
 considering the elevation of the banks everywhere else. 
 It might be eight or ten feet above the water; above the 
 low stage. The other was a low island near the Rock 
 
 800 Island. I never saw the upper one covered before 1900. 
 
805 
 
 804 
 
 180 
 
 I have seen the lower one entirely submerged every year 
 The water went up pretty well on the upper one; it was 
 not submerged. I have known this island to be submerged 
 so that not to exceed a couple of feet of it would be above 
 water. This condition would not prevail before 1900 in 
 ordinary water; they followed abnormal rainfalls. When- 
 ever those abnormal rainfalls took place the result was 
 apparent in the stream. The Norton Mill was there 
 about in the ’50’s, sometime. It was a water power mill. 
 I don’t know that it got its water from the Desplaines 
 River before that time. When there would be six or eight 
 inches of water adjacent to this island in the Desplaines 
 River below Jefferson street, that would be a low stage 
 of water. I do not wish to make it understood that it 
 was six or eight inches at all times. The bridge men- 
 tioned at Ninth street, which was 600 feet in length, cov- 
 ered the water that was spilled out from the controlling 
 works of the Sanitary District, and the water that came 
 down the Desplaines River also. Before the Sanitary 
 District discharged its water there was a bridge for use 
 between there and the town, a stone bridge. I couldn’t 
 tell you the width of that old bridge. I don’t know. It 
 was built in 768, I know. I have never given the matter 
 any thought even. I don’t like to guess at that I could 
 measure. My guess would not be worth anything. I 
 know about the width of this 600 foot bridge. I would 
 not like to give my judgment as to the length of this old 
 stone bridge. The water that came from the Desplaines 
 River and also the water weir north of Lockport used 
 to flow under that bridge. I have known conditions to 
 exist upon the Desplaines River during the time that 
 this old bridge stood there, where the old bridge acted as 
 a dam for the water and held the water up above and 
 backed it up over the country, for miles above it. There 
 didn’t seem to be any difference above or below the 
 
805 
 
 S06 
 
 807 
 
 808 
 
 809 
 
 810 
 
 181 
 
 bridge; it was all covered everywhere. The water flowed 
 out and around the bridge and across the road, and on 
 each side of the bridge. I think this bridge stood about 
 ten or twelve feet to the arches, above the bed of the 
 stream, at low water, and then the stone work above 
 that for the guards and everything. I could only fur- 
 nish an opinion as to the height of the water on this 
 bridge in extreme high water and it would be that. it 
 came up to the top of the arches. I couldn’t estimate 
 the exact depth of the water flowing under the present 
 bridge at Ninth street. It looks to be along three or four 
 feet. I think less than four and probably more than 
 three. The velocity is quite rapid. I am not able to give 
 an opinion as to the velocity of this stream. In 1892 
 and in 1865, and I can only remember two other occasions 
 between those years, when there were extreme freshets 
 in the Desplaines River at Joliet. I couldn’t tell you 
 the years. That is the only extreme freshets I recollect. 
 The river seemed to be practically what it would be in a 
 stream that wouldn’t have any bridge at all there, at the 
 old stone bridge. It was a rapid current above and be- 
 low. After the removal of dams number 1 and 2, the 
 natural deposit was taken out and a large amount of ex- 
 cavation was done at the sides and bottom. It varies in 
 width. That is about half way. between the Jefferson 
 street and Cass street bridges. There was none at the 
 west; and a gradual widening; excavation commenced at 
 the east side. I couldn’t tell what was the general depth 
 of the excavation. I couldn’t tell the natural declivity in 
 the changed channel of the Desplaines River, after the 
 removal of dams number 1 and 2. It was whatever the 
 drainage channel required for its construction. 
 
 Q. As a matter of fact there has been high water upon 
 different occasions nearly every year within your recol- 
 
182 
 
 lection? A. Not that done us any harm. It stayed in 
 the river channel. 
 Certainly there has been high water nearly every year 
 after the spring rains. 
 (Signed.) THomas J. KeEtty. 
 
811 
 
 813 
 
 814 
 
 816 
 
 183 
 
 Deposition of W. H. Irwin, offered in evidence on be- 
 half of the plaintiff. 
 
 W. H. Irwin: 
 
 Direct Examination. 
 (Read by Mr. Butters.) 
 
 My name is W. H. Irwin. I live in Ottawa, Illinois, and 
 have lived there since 1889. My business is civil engi- 
 neering and surveying. That has been my business, with 
 the exception of four years, since about 1880. I have been 
 county surveyor and civil engineer, Ottawa and Peru; 
 have been such ten to twelve years, probably. I have 
 made surveys of all parts of Sections 21, 22, 23 and 24. 
 That is in La Salle Township. I presume you refer to 
 the Town of Peru and La Salle. I would state that these 
 surveys were made at different times from 1890 to 1895 
 and then the last I was over there on the 8th of Novem- 
 ber, I was on part of that ground. Mr. Woods, a mining 
 engineer for the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company 
 was with me. I was doing work for the La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company on Sections 22 and 23, and north 
 of the river also on 14 and 22. On the south side of the 
 river I have been on section 21 for Mr. Wall, La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company. Also I did work on 21 
 for the Brown estate, who own a part of that, who at 
 that time owned the part west of MceCormick’s slough. 
 I made field notes and measurements. I simply brought 
 the times here. I have them in some six or eight differ- 
 ent books. I can produce them if they are needed but I 
 have made a map from those notes. I made a map of the 
 measurements and the property surveyed by me, in refer- 
 ence to which I have been interrogated. 
 
 Mr. CuiperrieLp: I stated that this map could be ad- 
 
817 
 
 184 
 
 mitted without further proof, reserving the right to cross- 
 examine as to the manner in which it was made, and as 
 to what appears on it. 
 
 The figures as given in each tract represent the num- 
 ber of acres in the tract as platted or as shown on the 
 plat. The different words that are there are sufficient 
 of themselves to show what they are to designate. That 
 is what they are put there for. 
 
 The Court: Q. Is it drawn to a scale, if so, what 
 scale? 
 A. 500 feet to the inch. 
 
 The top would be north, the right hand would be east, 
 the left hand west. : 
 
 Which said map is marked Exhibit 13 and is in the 
 words and figures following: 
 
W\\\ WO FS, “wyatt! Ra 
 s EE. “tS La t4 
 
 ‘ \\ } WON lis 
 
 
 
 
 
URIVE! SITY OF ios 
 
 af 
 
 y 
 % 
 { 
 : 
 
 ieee 
 
 pier 
 
 se 
 
 ge 
 
 oer —_ 
 
 S>. 
 Ps 
 
 Me . 
 ee See 
 
 Cvs a 
 
 et 
 
 Ct ae oe + ae hs ree memes iy gp ee Oo 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 Lawes wren ak o4, 
 
 eee 
 
 ee ee 
 
 
 
818 
 819 
 
 820 
 
 821 
 
 » 822 
 
 pa 
 
 823 
 
 185 
 
 Exuisit 13. 
 
 Copy of map. 
 
 The first time I surveyed there was in October, 1892. 
 On this land in section 21 there was mostly weeds and 
 willows, to my recollection. It was a very wet year. 
 Nearly everything was drowned out on the bottoms that 
 year. In June, 1895, was the next time in which I was 
 on 21 and at that time a large part of it was plowed and 
 some was planted. I couldn’t state just exactly how much 
 but there was quite a part. I may have seen part of sec- 
 tion 22 and 23 that year but I would not be positive as to 
 that. In February, 1893, and in April, 18938, I was doing 
 some work on sections 14 and 23; the southern part of 
 section 23 and the eastern part. We ran our lines over 
 north to the river. In February and April there was 
 growing. there nothing unless it was scattering weeds. 
 The last time I was on the land was the 8th of November. 
 I did some work on sections 23 and 26 July 16th to Aug- 
 ust 22, 1893, or 1890, I should say. At that time we ran 
 both lines, the east and west lines of section 23 north of 
 the river. We ran the section line. I ran lines at that 
 time on the whole of section 28. I made no note of what 
 was growing on the land in a general way. That was 
 July 16th to August 22d, we made quite an extensive sur- 
 vey of a great part of the bottom at that time and also 
 of section 26 south of it. I have no recollection on that 
 subject. J-observed what was growing on the land while 
 I worked there. Corn was growing at that time; corn 
 and along the edges in spots where we ran the meander 
 lines there were weeds and willows and all that growth 
 that you would usually see on bottom lands. 
 
824 
 
 826 
 
 186 
 
 Cross-Examnation of the Witness W. H. Irwin, by Mr. 
 Chiperfield. 
 
 I am usually called a civil engineer. I have been called 
 that by many people. I work at civil engineering and 
 surveying. The most of my work is done in La Salle 
 County, you might say, and adjoining counties. I have 
 worked a large part of my life. My work has been Mu- 
 nicipal work and some construction work on bridges and 
 foundations. It has been that scope or class of work 
 such as usually would be found in this and adjoining 
 counties. I commenced some work for the La Salle Coun- 
 ty Carbon Coal Company last Friday, the 8th of the 
 month. J was down there in their employ and I have 
 since then made this map. I presume I am appearing in 
 this case as a witness in their employ; they have sub- 
 poenaed me. What the exception of the meander of the 
 Illinois River east from the quarter section line of 21 
 and southeast of that section line I have run all the lines, 
 or assisted in doing it. The plat is my own work with 
 the exception of the lettering. That is put on by a young 
 man in my office, but the plat was made from surveys 
 made by me with just that one exception showing the 
 river line along the east half of the southeast quarter 
 of section 21. I ran the line, the section line north. I 
 surveyed the west edge of the Big Vermillion River. I 
 got the other outlines from measurements at the bridge. 
 I have measured the width of the river at the bridge 
 which crosses the Deer Park road. I have not surveyed 
 the east bank of the Vermillion River but I have meas- 
 ured the width of it at the bridge, and also at the quarter 
 section line about a mile north of it. The scale of this 
 map is 900 feet to an inch. I did not survey the east 
 bank. I measured the river, as I said, on the section 
 lines. That would be at two points; all the distance be- 
 tween those points, I just sketched it in; I assumed it. 
 
828 
 
 830 
 
 831 
 
 832 
 
 187 
 
 I made these two measurements. I sketched the other 
 thing from the lay of the land, from the eye. This is 
 merely a visual reproduction of the east bank, yes sir. 
 I did not survey the right of way of the C. B. & Q. Rail- 
 road which is on this plat. I got the points of their lo- 
 eation, the location of their center line I got from maps 
 in the recorder’s office platted the right of way; to that 
 extent I adopted that from a map not made from my 
 survey. I haven’t got the field notes for that survey, 
 except what I copied from the county records. I only 
 know that I have platted the line where that intersected 
 it and that I have drawn the railroad in from those notes 
 to those points. I don’t know whether those field notes 
 were correct or not, only as I know another man’s work. 
 If it will scale out pretty good on the map, we assume 
 it is correct. Any other man’s work is correct depend- 
 ing on whether he does it right or not. If you can check 
 up his work reasonably well then when you make a plat 
 you don’t investigate any further. I did not survey the 
 Ilinois Central Railroad only at points where we crossed 
 it. The two lines running parallel to the Illinois Central 
 Railroad, about an inch and a half apart, indicate the 
 right of way; I did not survey it. JI deducted it from 
 the total; went around the whole of it. As I say, I took 
 that from plats on file in the recorder’s office. This plat 
 is made from their maps to that extent. We assumed 
 the number of tracts that there are on this I. C. R. R. 
 right of way. We did not state them out. In running our 
 meander lines along the river we got into section points 
 at the south bank and took the angle of the bridge and 
 from that we have platted it. I don’t remember the 
 width. I think it is about an eighteen foot roadway. 
 That scaled out width there is probably exaggerated; it 
 will be exaggerated. We usually do that with bridges, 
 show them larger than they are. It may not be correct 
 
833 
 
 834 
 
 835 
 
 188 
 
 to scale. As I understand, from the descriptions, the 
 plat indicates the outlines of their property, of the prop- 
 erty of the plaintiff. I did not have it in mind that all 
 of the south half of section 23 is involved in this suit. 
 This plat shows all of section 23. I understand from the 
 attorneys that the parts where the acreage are shown are 
 involved in this suit. [I don’t know of my own knowledge 
 what is involved. The dotted line on section ... on the 
 south part of section 23, which is to indicate the south 
 line of the bottom lands, the north line of the south half 
 of section 23 east and west of the Illinois Central Rail- 
 road right of way, that part of section 24 north of this 
 dotted line and south line of the bottoms, and west of 
 the Vermillion River, and all of that part of section 21 
 and all of those tracts of section 21 where the acreage is 
 shown. I have been informed this plat is a plat of the 
 property involved in this suit. I don’t know; of my own 
 knowledge, I don’t know what are the boundaries of the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, only as I have 
 been informed. I have not attempted to ascertain them 
 for myself. 
 
 The dotted line along the south half of Sections 22 and 
 23 and running into 24, I mean by that it is the lands 
 that are subject to overflow; the bottom lands, as they 
 are usually called. It is my idea that is the high water 
 mark ordinarily. Some years it is higher than others. 
 I have put the mark where I found the drift-wood at 
 present to show it. I have no way of knowing exactly 
 where the high water mark is, only by observation of 
 drift-wood like that which I know are brought to certain 
 places by high water; it is approximately correct. It was 
 my: idea of the high water mark. I surveyed that line 
 last Wednesday, or last Friday, I spent a day over there. 
 It is 118 feet north of the center of the road on the east 
 line of Section 23. It is 290 feet northwesterly on the 
 
837 
 
 838 
 
 189 
 
 line of the Illinois Central. The interval between those 
 two points, we took the angle of the switch down there 
 and laid it out on the plat; on this spur, yes. JI made the 
 roadway of the Illinois Central Railroad 1,056 feet wide, 
 028 to the center. 
 
 (). Now, tell me, if you please, how much of that in 
 acres would there be coming out of Section 23? A. There 
 are about 103 acres. 
 
 In the south half of Section 23, about two-thirds of that 
 amount, judging roughly; the 5.75 acres indicated on Sec- 
 tion 24 is that part of Section 24 lying north of what 
 you might call the south—what 1s there called the south 
 line of the bottom lands between the Vermillion .River 
 and the west line of Section 24. I do not include any of 
 the C., B. & Q. right of way. 
 
 (). In the east half of the southeast quarter of Sec- 
 tion 23, you have indicated 39.62 acres, what do you 
 mean by that? A. The net area exclusive of the rail- 
 road’s right of way. 
 
 I made those land measurements myself in each in 
 stance. J ran the section line on the east and west bound- 
 aries; also the quarter section line of Section 23; also 
 the quarter section line north through the center of 
 Section 23, from which they are computed; to the quar- 
 ter section line across 23, the line was closed. I never 
 surveyed this entire 39.62 acres. J computed it from the 
 surveys on the whole quarter section. I surveyed above 
 the switch, surveyed on the north line of this tract, on 
 the east line and on the west line of the quarter section. 
 
 Q. But vou did not survey the half quarter section 
 line or the 80 acre line, did you? A. Only as I came 
 along with the survey of the switch. 
 
 I picked it up when I got there. I did not make any 
 survey. 
 
839 
 
 840 
 
 841 
 
 190 
 
 (). For instance, the west half of the southeast quarter 
 of Section 23, you figure there is 44.88 acres in that; 
 how do you determine that? A. In the same way as the 
 other. 
 
 Q@. And in the north, or in the southwest quarter of 
 Section 23, a little triangular piece just by the center of 
 the section and east of the right of way which you com- 
 pute as 1.10 acres? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. How did you get that? A. By the same survey 
 that I did the other. 
 
 I got the 18.41 acres on that same half of the south- 
 west quarter by the same survey. On the west half of 
 the southwest quarter of Section 23 I compute there is 
 60.51 acres. I made that by the same survey. Also as 
 to the 19.27 acres and 21.25 acres on the west half of the 
 northwest quarter of Section 23, I got that by a survey 
 which I made of the whole tract, by running these lines 
 which I have stated. I did not run the lines around 
 each of these tracts. I got the tract 35.95 acres in the 
 southwest quarter of Section 22 in the same way. I have 
 only computed the areas to the north slope of that switch. 
 The dotted line is practically the high water mark. There 
 was some low land a little south of the switch. That is 
 where I made my computation. The 52.54 acres in the 
 east half of the southeast quarter of Section 21 is the 
 area of the land between the west line of the tract and 
 the top angle of the bank of the river. If I recollect 
 rightly there is about twenty feet north and south in 
 the south quarter and thirty-six feet east and west, that 
 much of an excess; that is my recollection on it. In the 
 east half of the southwest quarter of 21 I compute there 
 is eighty-two acres. In the west half of the southwest 
 quarter of 21 I compute there is 52.63 acres. Those were 
 the results of actual measurements. With the exception 
 of the meanders of the Illinois River on the quarter sec- 
 
$42 
 
 843 
 
 844 
 
 S45 
 
 846 
 
 191 
 
 tion line east and west in Section 21 and southeasterly 
 to the east line of the section, that is an actual survey. 
 I got the line of the river from Mr. Woods’ notes. He is 
 now dead. He was mining engineer and in that work 
 surveyed for the Carbon Coal Company at that time. He 
 was not a public official that I know of. I have taken 
 his notes by his latitudes and closed his points and found 
 they are right; assumed them as mine. I would assume 
 the intermediate points were right. Yet, certainly it is 
 an assumption. I never heard of the slough being called 
 anything else but MeCormick’s slough. 'T’o my knowledge 
 it is the only slough on the west side of Section 21 of 
 any considerable size. [ did measure the meanders of the 
 east bank of it. I got the west bank from part of the 
 work I did for the Brown estate, at one time making a 
 survey for the Brown estate and Captain McCormick. 
 I got the west bank by meanders. I did not survey the 
 south bank or the west bank. That is probably sketched 
 in there. {I computed that there was in Sections 23, 22 
 and 21,676.73 acres of land. Those are the totals of the 
 parts contained on this plat; in Section 21, 446.03 acres. 
 
 Q. I wish you would give me your details, give me 
 the amounts and your descriptions of the land. A. The 
 west half, northwest quarter, 21, 10.38 acres; the east 
 half, northwest quarter, 64.74; west half of the north- 
 east quarter, 33 acres; east fraction of the northeast quar- 
 ter, 69.24 acres. It appears on this plat. JI have been 
 informed that those two tracts are involved in this suit. 
 I don’t know as they are. I am simply making the meas- 
 urements if they are. I make them 69.24 acres; the east 
 half of the southeast quarter, 52.54; west half of the 
 southeast quarter, 81.5 acres; east half of the southwest 
 quarter, 82 acres; west half southwest quarter, 52.63 
 acres; total, 446.08. Section 22, 39.95 acres; that is in the 
 eastern part, southeastern. There is not any more in 22 
 
84:7 
 
 848 
 
 &49 
 
 850 
 
 192 
 
 to my knowledge. The west half of the northwest quar- 
 ter of Section 23, 19.23 acres. The river is not contained 
 in the computation. J did not deduct the river, for I did 
 not compute it. I left out the river. I made no survey 
 of the water, only of the land to the water. That em- 
 braces so many acres. I was informed this land in ‘this 
 suit in Section 238, north of the river, was as I have shown 
 it. I have simply located it there and left that to be de- 
 termined, Another tract of 21.25 acres, a total in the 
 northwest quarter of 40.48 acres; the west half of the 
 southwest quarter, 18.41 acres and 1.10 acres, a total of 
 19.51 acres. That 1.10 acres is right by the center of 
 the section; west half of the southeast quarter, 44.88 
 acres; east half of the southeast quarter, 39.62 acres; in 
 Section 24, 5.75 acres, a total of 691.73 acres. I have not 
 computed the acreage of the bayou. 
 
 IT made a survey of the shore line of the bayou. My 
 field notes are at home. I made that survey in October, 
 1892. I did not run the lines along the north edge. I 
 got the point where it meandered. It is not a very ir- 
 regular line on the north shore. We sketched it; assumed 
 it that way from one point to the other. Did not take in 
 any of the Illinois and Michigan Canal as shown on this 
 map only in getting a start south from the section cor- 
 ner, which is in the canal, from a point north of the 
 canal. 
 
 There is none of the 17.74 acres of land in the north 
 part of the northeast quarter of Section 21 in the canal. 
 These parallel lines, about 125 feet, I would judge, or per- 
 haps 100 feet apart, adjacent to the canal and running 
 parallel with it, are supposed to be the ninety. foot lines. 
 I think they scale that. T surveyed the bridge and road 
 on the west part of Section 21 in making the survey for 
 Brown and Captain McCormick and just put it in the 
 map. I don’t know the width of the road. It may or 
 
0 8) 
 En 
 — 
 
 853 
 
 854 
 
 193 
 
 may not scale correctly, just merely the dotted lines. As 
 
 nearly as I could indicate it, the bridge at the north of 
 the road on the west sidé of Section 21 was sketched by 
 me. I did not measure the width of the bridge. I simply 
 got the length of it. I did not survey it. It is a 16 or 
 18 foot road, I don’t know which. I have not attempted 
 to show any elevations of any kind on this. There is 
 nothing shown or disclosed by this map other than the 
 Brown survey and some of the bridges which there ap- 
 
 2 pear. I don’t remember whether the government ever 
 
 meandered the McCormick slough, although in the gov- 
 ernment field notes the distance is given across the bayou. 
 It might and might not indicate a meandering. The dis- 
 tance is given, of course, but whether they have mean- 
 dered back or not, I don’t know. I don’t know, in the 
 original filed notes, whether they include or exclude the 
 bayou. The banks of the Illinois River have been mean- 
 dered. The bayou on the northeast quarter of Section 21 
 has not been meandered to my knowledge. It may have 
 been and may not. There has been filed notes excluding 
 from the field notes of this county the [linois and Michigan 
 Canal; that was at Lockport; not to my knowledge have 
 they been filed in this county; I never saw them. 
 The two circles appearing with marks such as 22, 23, 27 
 and 26 are the corners of the several sections. And where, 
 in the center, I have a central figure, such as 23, with a 
 circle around it, that indicates the center of the section. 
 In any of my computations [ have nothing for the 
 Tilinois River. Or on the [llinois and Michigan Canal, 
 or any of the bayous or sloughs, or the Illinois Central 
 Railroad right of way, nor the C., B. & Q. right of way, 
 nor anything south of what I have designated as the high 
 water mark. I found on these lands spoil banks. I did 
 not indicate them on the survey. I don’t recall but one. 
 That is at Jones’ shaft. I don’t know anything about the 
 
896 
 
 858 
 
 194 
 
 dimensions of them except from recollection. I have 
 made no measurements that would indicate to my mind 
 how much of this land was occupied by the spoil banks. 
 The early part of the year ’89 was wet. I made my first 
 survey in October, 1892. Then there was mostly weeds 
 and willows. It was a wet season. In 1895, part of it 
 was planted and a large part of it was plowed; that is my 
 recollection. I refer to the land lying between the Me- 
 Cormick slough and the Illinois River. I mean to the east 
 of McCormick slough, also west of it; west of it is the 
 Brown land, Right within the following day or day after 
 I made a survey for Brown. And the part between the 
 slough, going easterly towards the river, is the land that 
 was involved in this proceeding. At the time we were 
 there they were plowing and planting is my recollection. 
 July 16th and August 22d we were making quite an ex- 
 tensive survey there. We were on 23 and 26. The corn 
 was over north of there, over in the bottoms; just remem- 
 ber seeing corn generally in the bottoms. When I made 
 the survey on the 8th of November I found corn there. 
 My home is here in Ottawa and has been for a number 
 of years. When I would be down on this land it would 
 be in the pursuit of some business. This survey has been 
 
 made for the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. 
 The defendant objects to the admission of the plat 
 for the reason that no proper foundation has been 
 
 laid; objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 Witutram A. Means, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Kxamination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is William A. Means. I live in Peru. I am 
 forty-four years old, last May. Lived in Peru forty years. 
 J mean Peru, La Salle County, Illinois. My business is 
 
859 
 
 860 
 
 861 
 
 195 
 
 insurance and real estate; principally in life insurance. I 
 live on Center street at the present time. It is the first 
 street on top of the hill above the Peru depot. Water 
 street, from the May’s corner, May’s lumber yard corner, 
 down through the business district, is right on the edge 
 of the river. The C., B. & Q. is between the street and 
 the river. Center street was formerly my home. I lived 
 there a number of years, when I was a boy and at the 
 present time I room there. My home in the meantime 
 was on Second street, Peru. J have an acquaintance or 
 knowledge in relation to Section 21 that hes south of the 
 Illinois River. In relation to this part of Section 21, 
 shown on the map there, I was very well acquainted with 
 the land. The conditions of Section 21 from 1892 to 1904 
 and since that time have been more or less acquainted 
 with the condition of the land. In the year 1892 it was 
 worked hy my father-in-law, Samuel Waugh. He died in 
 1903. He worked the land over twenty-five vears, to my 
 knowledge. He had partners at times and various men 
 working for him. J was there as the boy. Grew up there 
 and we boated over there and going across the river I 
 was familiar with the land from the time I was ten or 
 twelve years old. We used to go there a great deal in the 
 summer time, swimming, as boys. I refer to Section 21 
 on the edge of the river by Peru. At times went in on 
 the section. And we would fish in that so-called Mud Cat 
 Pond. It is very rich farming land. That is, the rich, 
 black soil. My knowledge goes back in the ’80s as to the 
 uses to which this land was put. That land has been used 
 in raising corn. 
 
 Mr. Cuirerrretp: Wait a minute, if you please. I ob- 
 ject, if your Honor please, on the ground that the time 
 inquired about is too remote. 
 
 The Court: I think I will let him answer. 
 
863 
 
 865 
 
 196 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: JI will give you some limitation, Mr. 
 Means. 
 
 The Court: It was in the ’80s, I understood you to 
 say. 
 
 Mr. CuiverFienD: ‘That is the time I object to. 
 
 A. Back to the ’80s. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: All right, we will get down closer. 
 
 Q. Starting in the year 1890 down to the year 1900, 
 do you know to what use that land was put? A. To 
 raising corn. 
 
 Samuel Waugh worked the land through his son. His 
 son managed the property. Mr. Waugh was the lessee. 
 From, 1890 down to 1900—well, from 1890 to 1893, I was 
 over there occasionally each month. From 1892 to 1900 
 I was over there very frequently, with my wife and fam- 
 ily. She was over there a great deal. The folks went 
 back and forth constantly. I was over there nearly every 
 week from 1892 to 1903 and 1904, during the time my 
 brother-in-law was living there. From the year 1892 
 down to the vear 1900 this land was used for raising corn. 
 I think there was between 375 and 400 acres all told 
 and probably 85 per cent. of that land was cultivated 
 for corn. There is a piece of land east of that, a frac- 
 tional piece, south of the river and also a 40 west of sec- 
 tion 21, which was generally one piece. The corn was 
 planted at different times of course but it was one field 
 of corn. Why, the land produced at least 60 bushels to 
 the acre over there; 60 or 65 on most of the land. I would 
 not say I am enough of a farmer to make a close esti- 
 mate, but I ean tell a good field of corn when I see it. 
 
 S66 Yes, it was good corn. In 1892 the entire valley was 
 
 flooded, section 21 included. It was due to excessive rain- 
 fall during one night in May. There was not anything 
 raised that year on section 21; very little was raised on 
 
867 
 
 S68 
 
 869 
 
 870 
 
 197 
 
 the hill land, on account of the land being saturated. Rail- 
 road tracks washed out, and all that sort of thing. Sam- 
 uel Waugh continued to farm this land in section 21 
 within the limits I have mentioned, down to the time of 
 his death. He died in September, 1903. During all of 
 these years I have been familiar with the Illinois River. 
 I would see the [linois River in and about through there 
 almost daily; have fished in the Illinois River; used to 
 swim in it; boat ride around there. I remember the 
 announcement was made that the water of the Sanitary 
 District was turned in at Lockport and I remember there 
 was a slight raise in the river and we watched the effect 
 on the river at that time. Since the turning in of this 
 water the Illinois River has undergone changes. Accord- 
 ing to my best observation along the river, in that neigh- 
 borhood, I think the river is four or five feet, on an 
 average, higher at all seasons of the year than usual, 
 than it was before the water was turned in. It is pretty 
 hard to say how high the level of the land is above the 
 surface of the river. There are high spots and low spots 
 on section 21 and I don’t know exactly how to answer 
 that question. I am not a surveyor. Since 1900 I have 
 been over there or seen it either going along it or going 
 by it, or otherwise. I have been over there several 
 times a year during those years, at all seasons of the 
 year. 1900 down to the present time I have observed 
 the condition of section 21 with few exceptions. I have 
 been out west traveling around quite a bit, but as a 
 general thing I kept notice of the river in relation to 
 that land over on the south side. During those years 
 I have actually been on section 21, on an average a couple 
 of times during a year, during the entire time. Well, 
 since the year 1900 there has been a full crop of corn 
 raised on that portion of section 21. The river has raised 
 in the spring and water has laid on that land until it 
 was too late to plant a crop and portions of section 21 
 
S71 
 
 198 
 
 have been badly washed out by the current that runs 
 through from the river across to the so-called slough. 
 The river comes up over the bank. The main current is 
 through this way. A great portion of the high water 
 going around this way and a great portion of it going 
 to the old slough; makes a short cut; the old slough across 
 to the south bluff here. I think the river has been high 
 at times during the years ever since the year 1902; nearly 
 every year there has been a flood and that condition pre- 
 vailed over there on a portion of section 21. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Q. Now, tell the jury in your own way, 
 Mr. Means, what effect, if any, the increased flow on the 
 river that you have described, in all its detail, insofar as 
 you know it, has had upon section 21? 
 
 Objected to by the defendant as assuming’ there has 
 been testimony as to the increased flow of the river. 
 
 The Court: Let him answer the question. 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 A. It has been impossible to farm more than a few 
 spots here and there over that section 21. 
 
 Moved by the defendant to strike out the answer as 
 being a conclusion of the witness and not a de- 
 scription of the condition. Motion overruled. De- 
 fendant excepts. 
 
 Well, instead of there being an almost continuous field 
 of corn over there, the corn has been in patches and high 
 spots. The low ground has been uncultivated and cov- 
 ered with a dense growth of weeds and vegetation that 
 
 73 grow in water. I think there has been a difference in 
 
 that regard sav from the year 1902 down to the present 
 time. 
 
 Defendant objects to the comparison being made by 
 the witness. He can state conditions now and let 
 the jury draw the comparison. Objection over- 
 ruled. Defendant excepts. 
 
874 
 
 876 
 
 ies, 
 
 The water has laid on the land until it was too late 
 to plant a crop in most instances. 
 
 Motion by the defendant to strike the answer as not 
 being responsive to the question. Motion overruled. De- 
 fendant excepts. 
 
 Prior to the year 1900 section 21 was put to use dur- 
 ing the winter, grazing cattle and horses. From the year 
 1890 down, we will say, to the year 1902 this land was 
 generally used for grazing cattle and horses by my 
 father-in-law; the cattle grazed on corn stalks in the win- 
 ter time. As a rule, during the vear 1890 to 1900, it 
 was possible to leave the cattle out on section 21 to 
 eraze about the end of November; late in November until 
 early in the spring; when the spring snows would melt 
 away and the melting snow would make the ground 
 muddy and sticky it would make it necessary to guide the 
 horses and eattle off. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Q. Now, since the year 1902 down to 
 the present time, what has been the condition of that 
 land, if you know, during the winter time or winter 
 months, generally so-called? 
 
 A. Well, from 1893 until 1903 it was generally un- 
 safe to risk cattle or horses on the bottom lands on ac- 
 eount of the raise in the river. 
 
 Mr. Curperrretp: Move to strike it as being purely 
 the conclusion of the witness instead of a description of 
 facts from which the jury can draw the conclusion. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 The Court: It is not improper for a witness to use 
 that form of expression in a matter of common knowl- 
 edge about horses and cattle being pastured, if he sees 
 fit to use that. I think I will overrule the objection. 
 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
878 
 
 &79 
 
 880 
 
 200 
 
 From the year 1902 on down the water comes up over 
 section 21 during the winter. Last fall the river rose 
 suddenly and covered the land during the entire winter 
 until late in the spring. This winter, 1911—1912, it was. 
 I did not personally keep any record as to when the 
 river was over this land. 
 
 Q. Now, generally speaking, if that river overflows 
 this land in the fall months, or winter time, about when, 
 generally, does it come in over the land? 
 
 Mr. CurperFIELD: Object to it as argumentative and 
 suggestive. 
 Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. 
 A. Inthe years I mentioned in the preceding answer— 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: Move to strike the answer as not 
 responsive. 
 
 Motion overruled. Defendant excepts. 
 
 Q. 1890 to 1900. With reference to that period of 
 time, as to when the water came up and in relation to 
 the time, from the year 1902 down to the present time, 
 has there been any difference as to when the river actu- 
 ally came up and came over the land? A. There has. 
 
 Mr. Cureerrietp: I wish to object. The witness an- 
 swered before there was an opportunity to object. I 
 object to the witness being called upon to make a com- 
 parison or to give a conclusion. He can state conclusions 
 and the jury can conclude from that. 
 
 Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. 
 
 From .the year 1902 down to the present time I 
 don’t think this land has been generally used. 
 
 IT have seen this land during the winter months from 
 the year 1902 down to the present time. 
 
 The Court: Just wait a minute. It may be that the 
 statement of this witness that it was unsafe to feed the 
 
881 
 
 ) 
 
 201 
 
 horses and cattle, from some point of view, might be sub- 
 ject to criticism. I think I will exclude that. I will ex- 
 elude that statement. 
 
 Very generally it has been put to very little use dur- 
 ing the winter months from the year 1902 down to the 
 present time. 
 
 Mr. CureerFreELp: I object to it as being purely the 
 conclusion of the witness and not responsive to the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. 
 
 I think there was one year since 1902 there was cattle 
 in there quite a portion of the time during the winter. 
 I don’t recall what year it was. Nearly every winter, from 
 the year 1902 down to the present time, there has been 
 more or less water over the land. Since 1902 I have 
 noticed a different effect after a rainfall, in the actior 
 of the Illinois River, than I did prior to that time. The 
 river rises much quicker. That is, overflows its banks 
 much quicker than it did before the year 1900. The river 
 remains high enough to overflow the land for a longer 
 period of time than it did preceding 1900. The water 
 passes off now slower. I have been in the real estate 
 business since 1908. I was, in a general way, in the year 
 1900, acquainted with the fair, cash market eae of lands 
 in the vicinity of section 21. 
 
 Q. Now, what, in your opinion, was the market value, 
 fair cash market value, of section 21 so far as I have 
 referred to here and you have testified to it, in the year 
 1900 prior to the 17th day of January? 
 
 Mr. Cureerrretp: Objected to on the ground no proper 
 foundation has been laid for the expression of opinion 
 other than the mere conclusion of the witness that he 
 knows. 
 
 Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. 
 
886 
 
 887 
 
 202 
 
 A. I think that portion of section 21, judged by the 
 productiveness of the crops— 
 
 Mr. CurperrieLp: Wait a minute. Object to that. It 
 is not a question of judging by productiveness of crops. 
 It is a question of the fair cash market value, if Your 
 Honor please, that it would sell for in the market. He 
 may take that into consideration, but that is not the test. 
 
 The Court: I think I will let him finish his answer. 
 Defendant excepts. 
 A. $90 to $100 an aere. 
 
 Q. What would be the fair cash market value of that 
 land, Mr. Means, on the 18th day of January, 1900, after 
 
 5 the turning in of the Sanitary District water, taking into 
 
 consideration in giving your opinion all of the facts that 
 you know at this time? 
 
 Mr. CurprerrieLp: Object to it as being incompetent, 
 
 irrelevant and immaterial. 
 Objection overruled. Defendant excepts. 
 
 A. I should say $45 to $50 an acre. 
 
 Cross-Examination of the Witness Wiliam Means by 
 Mr. Chaper field. 
 
 I am 45 years old, the 25th of last May. I have been 
 with the Illinois Zine Company for 14 years. Previous 
 to that time I was in a bank in Chicago, when I was 
 a young fellow, but since that time, since 1904, I have 
 been a salesman on the road; real estate and insurance. 
 When I was with the Illinois Zine Company I was a 
 bookkeeper and assistant to the general manager for 
 the last six years I was with the company. I was the 
 general manager’s assistant. May, 1904, was my last 
 service to the Illinois Zinc Company. I commenced about 
 1890. After 1904 I traveled for my health. I was out 
 
&85 
 
 GH 
 ee 
 CO 
 
 890 
 
 891 
 
 892 
 
 203 
 
 two months; most of the time in the woods of Wisconsin. 
 I have been located at Peru since that time. I have sold 
 Portland Cement on the road about six months; that was 
 in 1908. I was traveling constantly during that time. 
 Would be away from home considerable then. I have 
 been in the land business. I was in a bank when I was 
 a youngster, in Chicago, from 1887 to 1890. Have been 
 engaged in the land business more or less since 1908. 
 In 1908 and 1909 I averaged a trip of about once a month. 
 1 don’t necessarily assume to be an expert in real estate 
 values. I would not say in giving my testimony that I 
 was an expert. My principal business has been insur- 
 ance business. I have not sold land in the vicinity of 
 Peru. I have not dealt in land in that vicinity only in 
 connection with my father-in-law and my mother. That 
 is all the transactions I have had down near Peru. I 
 have not had any real estate transactions in the vicinity 
 of Peru. A few years ago there was a fraction of section 
 21 sold at petition sale, you might say forced sale. Went 
 around $70 an acie. I think it was some 10 or 12 years 
 ago. | would not swear that the sale was conducted since 
 1900. I don’t know exactly whether it was before or 
 after 1900. In my expression of values I took into con- 
 sideration the values of land lying adjacent to that land, 
 that is farmable, that is subject to cultivation, to raise 
 crops. I can’t say that I am basing my opinion as to 
 the value of this land before 1900 upon any actual sale 
 or transaction. It is based on general information re- 
 garding relative values of land. I don’t know of any 
 actual transactions. I know of a refusal that was made 
 on a trade; not of my own knowledge I don’t know of 
 any actual sales. I don’t know of an actual sale. My opin- 
 ion, since 1900, is based on the same assumption as _ be- 
 fore; based on a refusal of a trade; not on an actual 
 transaction. I don’t take into consideration, in my ex- 
 
Bo3 
 
 S96 
 
 S97 
 
 204 
 
 pression as to values since 1900, any actual sale. This 
 land was untiled land. Pretty fair drainage over most 
 of it; natural drainage. ‘There was no tile in this land. 
 ‘There was never a foot of tile on this land. There was 
 no improvement on section 21. There was never a house 
 or shed or building of any kind on that portion of sec- 
 {ion 21. 
 
 Q. Was it ever possible at any time, during the 25 
 vears that your father-in law occupied this land, to build 
 a house upon those premises and have it remain there 
 from one season to another? A. Well, it would not re- 
 main permanently. It might remain from one season to 
 another durimg a period of four or five years, according 
 to the average floods over the land. 
 
 I think there was a number of seasons when the water 
 failed to get over that land during the winter months. 
 Generally there was a January thaw and February rains 
 in the river; sometimes it would come over the land 
 badly and other times not badly but it was an unsafe 
 proposition to put buildings on that land. It was the 
 kind of land on which buildings could not be built. 
 
 Q. Isn’t it true that back in 1890 that the prices of 
 the very best La Salle County lands, taking the best land 
 that you could find of all La Salle County, was not to 
 exceed $100 an acre? A. That was a fair average price 
 for the lands. 
 
 Q. Of all the lands of La Salle County, the best agri- 
 tural lands? <A. Yes, sir. 
 
 T don’t know of any lands in the vicinity of this land 
 during the time which I mentioned just prior to 1900 sell- 
 ing at from 20 to 30 and 40 dollars per acre. I could not 
 name the grantors or grantees or anything of that kind, 
 any of the details of the transaction. I did not take into 
 consideration in my statement that this land is worth 
 
898 
 
 899 
 
 900 
 
 205 
 
 from $45 to $50 per acre, the fact that it is underlaid in 
 its entirety with a fine vein of coal. The coal is not 
 taken into consideration at all, 
 
 (. Now, when you take into consideration the coal, 
 what would you place as the value of this land? A. I 
 have sold 200 acres of coal adjoining section 21 for $30 
 an acre for the coal land. 
 
 @. When? A. In 1894. 
 
 (. Oh, yes. What do you say is the value of the coal 
 per acre now? A. That particular coal is held for a cer- 
 tain purpose. 
 
 @. You will answer my question, please. A. Well, 
 I would not state that there is any—would not state from 
 my own knowledge there is any advance in the price. 
 
 Q.. Don’t you know, as a matter of fact, that coal lo- 
 cated as that coal is could not be bought for $100 an acre 
 today? A. I don’t know that of my own knowledge, no. 
 
 Q. Isn’t that your opinion as a man engaged in the 
 real estate business? A. Well, I would say that the par- 
 ticular piece I referred to could not be bought for any 
 price. 
 
 @. Iam not talking about back in 1894. I am asking 
 you if the coal located in this section at the time you 
 attempted to fix the value, taking into consideration all 
 that you know now? <A. Well, I suppose $100 would 
 be considered a low price for it. 
 
 Several hundred head of stock has pastured on that 
 ground at different times. I would not say they were 
 fattened, but they were fed on the land. They ranged the 
 land and got the corn stalks and were fed whatever it 
 was necessary. They were fed whatever it was neces- 
 sary to fatten and sustain them. They were allowed 
 to range the river bottoms. They were fed whatever 
 was necessary to fatten them. None of these cattle could 
 
901 
 
 903 
 
 904 
 
 905 
 906 
 907 
 
 206 
 
 be stabled or shedded on this land before 1900. They 
 were allowed to run wild down there. It was necessary 
 at different times during those winters, when the river 
 rose and would come on a part of this land, to drive 
 the cattle back to the high land; at those times the cattle 
 had to go. 
 
 Court adjourned to Thursday, November 14th, 1912, 
 al UO Ag Ms 
 
 November 14, 1912, 9 o’clock a. m. 
 
 Cross-Examination of the witness William A. Means Con- 
 tinued by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I was over there as a boy but after I was married I 
 was over there frequently with my father-in-law. In 
 a general way I knew the land for 25 years. My father- 
 in-law did not live upon these premises. He did not live 
 there in the true sense of the word. Well, they stayed 
 over there, the family did, after they came down from 
 Chicago in 1893. There was never a house on those prem- 
 ises. He did not live on section 21. Yes, there was a 
 road leading to section 21. Up to a few years ago there 
 was not a public road except along the south line of 
 section 21. There is a road now. There is a road that 
 leaves the public highway. It was established, as I un- 
 derstand it, by the Carbon Coal Company and Brown. 
 The public highway comes along the west side of the 
 Brown land. There has been a road established and my 
 understanding was that it was an open road; that it is 
 an open road now; about the line of that 80. It crosses 
 the slough. There is a culvert put in there. There is 
 not a public road leading to this land. We swam on the 
 bar in the upper part of the slough. I would judge the 
 water was four or five feet deep where the word ‘‘21”’ 
 in the circle is, before 1900. I should say it would be at 
 
908 
 
 909 
 
 910 
 
 911 
 
 912 
 
 913 
 
 207 
 
 least an average of 10 or 12 feet deep in there now. That 
 is my off-hand guess. I would not swear to it. It has 
 been thirty years, I guess, or 20, since I have been there. 
 I am simply testifying from judgment. It is just a guess. 
 I haven’t been over there. If it should transpire that 
 that slough was now about four or five feet deep my 
 guess would not be a good one. I think, say along about 
 1890 or thereabouts that I commenced to observe these 
 premises more closely. I knew these premises and the 
 crops that were raised there pretty well. In fixing the 
 value [I took into consideration all that I knew about 
 those premises, productivity and returns and the market 
 value and all those sort of things; rental and everything 
 of that sort. 
 
 Q. Your father-in-law, Mr. Waugh, paid $500 a year 
 for those 450 or 60 odd acres, didn’t he? 
 
 Objected to by the plaintiff; objection sustained; de- 
 fendant excepts. 
 
 In placing a value upon these premises I took into 
 consideration, to a certain extent, what they did rent 
 for. The rental was $500, cash rental per year; con- 
 tinued up to the year 1900. After 1900 he didn’t rent the 
 premises. He cropped it under another arrangement. 
 There was no fixed arrangement as to rents after that 
 year. He didn’t rent the premises regularly after 1900. 
 There was at least one year between 1900 and 1902 or 
 1903 that the entire bottoms were rented under the old 
 arrangement of $500-per year, and I think it was the 
 year 1901.- I think it was 1900 and 1901; for two years. 
 1902 was a very wet year. It was a flood year. Nothing 
 was raised on the bottoms. The water came up 
 to high water mark. During that flood year Mr. 
 Waugh was apprehensive regarding the conditions of the 
 land because of the flood that year, and it was apparent 
 that no crop could be planted, Then he died in 1903. 
 
914 
 
 915 
 
 916 
 
 Aly 
 
 sale 
 
 sabe 
 
 208 
 After he died Mrs. Waugh continued for a while. Before 
 
 1900 the river got very high at times. Peru sits on a 
 
 bench, or is high on the bluff. Water street 1s on a sort 
 of first bottom or bench along the river. I remember 
 one year when I was a small boy the water was over 
 the street. I have seen the water spread from bluff to 
 bluff at Peru. There would not be high water every year. 
 I mean high water upon the street. There were freshets 
 every year from melting snow and the spring rain and 
 the water got high every spring as a rule. It would 
 spread over the bottoms and would make a very wide 
 river. At such times the boats that pled around the 
 river there would go across the bottoms. 
 
 I have hunted ducks all over Section 21 in a boat. 
 Put decoys out there anywhere where there were clumps 
 of willows; and shot ducks practically all over the place. 
 I also have seen very low water in the river at that point. 
 I have seen the river when it was low and there was a 
 skum, sort of a plant, on the river. They were very com- 
 mon. At that time the current was very slow. Along 
 the borders of the river and in the ponds on Section 21 
 were favorite fishing places. When the river was high, 
 extending from bluff to bluff, it was probably a little un- 
 der a mile in width. Under ordinary conditions the river 
 is 250 or 300 feet wide at that point. There is a well 
 defined bank on the stream on the Peru side of the river. 
 There is a made bank just to the west of the point where 
 the word ‘‘Illinois”’ appears, the bank is quite high right 
 on the edge of the river. Opposite that point there was 
 a low road running to La Salle. There was an embank- 
 ment there at least 15 feet below the low water of the 
 river. That was the old Water street. When the water 
 would rise it would be up in Water street. The water 
 would be shunted or deflected over to the lower land on 
 the other side. There was a wash across this land. There 
 
921 
 
 922 
 
 209 
 
 has always been a wash across this land in high water, 
 it seemed to be through the old slough down towards the 
 end of the south bluff of the river. It went around 
 through an old channel there. As soon as the water got 
 high it swept across the field and started to cut in through 
 the other way. The current was slower in those days 
 than it has been since. Since 1900 the current is consid- 
 erably swifter than it used to be. The current is prob- 
 ably twice as swift as formerly. There is a constant 
 steady flow all the time. I wouldn’t say that the current 
 is twice as swift now under the old slough bridge, but it 
 is noticeably swifter. They rip-rapped the bottom road 
 to hold it. I think that before 1900 the crops would go 
 maybe 60 bushels an acre. I base that statement upon 
 the statistics given by Mr. Waugh in family councils, re- 
 garding conditions there. I never farmed bottoms my- 
 self and I am testifying nearly about what has been told 
 me in regard to it. I have no other knowledge on the 
 subject. I assumed that what was told me was true. 
 That is the sole basis of my information. I learned 
 through the newspapers and announcements made re- 
 garding the opening of the Sanitary District. There was 
 not any noticeable change in the river, not an immediate 
 change. During 1900 and 1901 the change was very 
 slight and in 1901 we had an extreemly dry year, dry hot 
 year, and the river was very low in the spring and sum- 
 mer of 1901. For the first two years after the Sanitary 
 District was opened there was a low condition of the 
 river; without reference to what was the cause, that is 
 the fact. J believed that from information I received 
 through newspaper rumors and other information that 
 eame from men who had inspected the controlling works, 
 that they did not have the full flow of water coming down 
 the river. I don’t know in actual cubic gallons or inches 
 what the flow coming down at that time was, I have no 
 
210 
 
 definite information on that subject. I only know that 
 there were rumors that they were not. allowing the full 
 legal flow to come down the river. It was common news- 
 paper report and common report from people who had 
 made a little investigation. It was common knowledge. 
 It is true that every time it rains they will say that they 
 are opening the Bear Trap Dam and I think they do. 
 That is my opinion, that every time there is a rain in 
 this valley or any raise in this river, that they open the 
 923 Bar Trap Dam. I am not guessing on that subject for 
 the benefit of this jury. [am basing my opinion on what 
 is actually flowed, from talking to people who have pre- 
 tended and claimed te be posted, who were reliable men. 
 The river is rising now. It is quite high at present. I 
 noticed it this morning. There has been a rain within 
 the past two days. I think that the opening of the Bear 
 Trap Dam and the rains within the past two or three 
 924. days accounts for the rise in the river. I couldn’t swear 
 positively that there has been any change in the flow on 
 the part of the Sanitary District. I remember that in 
 1901 the river was remarkably low. I couldn’t give the 
 absolute dates. There was no perceptible rise in the 
 925 river in the years 1900 and 1901; 1902 there was, because 
 of the great rains; 1903 there had been considerable snow 
 and in March it turned very warm. I remember that in 
 March that vear the roads were impassable over the bot- 
 toms. They were covered with water and we had to 
 drive away areund a very considerable way to get to the 
 farm house on the place south of Section 21; and the 
 spring months were quite wet that year, as | remember; 
 and when the heavy snows melted the river was very 
 high. I couldn’t say definitely after the water got set- 
 tled in May and June, 1903, that the river was higher 
 that year than in correspondng Mays of previous years. 
 ‘926 Taking the year 1904, I don’t think that the river was 
 
211 
 
 higher in May than in any previous corresponding May. 
 The bottoms were not overflowed during the summer 
 months. ‘They raised a crop on this land in 1904, a good 
 erop. | am not absolutely positive as to there being a 
 erop in 1905, There is a corn crop on the land this year, 
 927 I suppose. I should say that there is in the neighbor- 
 hood of 165 to 170 acres planted in corn this year. I 
 would say about 50 per cent. of the land is in corn this 
 year; not to exceed 50 per cent. I should say about 200 
 928 acres of this land is in corn this year. I don’t know the 
 exact acreage of Section 21. My estimate was that there 
 was 375 to 400 acres of land available for cultivation; 
 and I think one-half ef it is under crop this year. I have 
 not been there to examine it at all to tell whether it is a 
 good crop of corn or not. It looks like a good crop from 
 929 across the river. The corn seems to stand well. I don’t 
 think they are done picking the corn yet. I think they 
 are just about done. I have not seen any of the corn 
 raised there this year. They had a good crop in sight 
 last year on this land. It was mature. The river came 
 up and destroyed a great deal of it. I never saw them 
 pick corn in boats on this land. I saw them pick some 
 930 corn last year on the ice. I have heard of cattle being 
 drowned on Secticn 21 before 1900, and being caught 
 there in the slough and swamps. I think since 1900 the 
 river does not go down so quick. During some years 
 the water stays on the land pretty late in the summer. 
 There always has been and I presume always will be a 
 difference in years. Srnee 1900, generally speaking, the 
 931 water gets off the land before the 20th of June. It isa 
 very porous soil. When the river falls sufficiently the 
 land drains off very quickly. The land does not dry out 
 or bake like upland does. There is always sufficient wa- 
 ter by capillary attraction from the water under the land. 
 932 T never knew of a drought on this land. ‘The land seems 
 
934 
 
 936 
 
 938 
 
 212 
 
 to divest itself of the water very speedily. After the 
 water was off the land two or three days you could plow 
 it. I think there is some uncertainty in regard to using 
 that land for corn at the present time. I am not a 
 farmer. I am fairly well posted regarding farming con- 
 ditions. Corn is the crop that takes the most time to 
 raise, for the growing period, in this section of the coun- 
 try. It requires approximately 100 days for growing, in 
 a favorable season. In raising millet and small grain in 
 the bottoms, weeds grow there very profusely and the 
 grain crop would be smothered out by the weeds. You 
 will also have a great deal of trouble with weeds along 
 a river bank, which is against raising that kind of a crop. 
 I don’t know how long it takes to mature millet. I don’t 
 know anything about a crop of soy beans, nor millet, nor 
 sweet corn for canning purposes. That has been dis- 
 cussed in a general way, but I don’t know anything defi- 
 nite about it. They have raised some garden crops over 
 there in the bottoms and they grow all right. They have 
 raised pop corn over there and the land, the soil, would 
 he available for the raising of vegetables of all kinds. 
 They raised sunflowers over there for chicken feed. I 
 have observed this year that they are raising the corn 
 for silage purposes. It seems to be more and more of a 
 general proposition this year than ever before. I should 
 say that it takes 90 days to raise corn for silage pur- 
 poses. I should say it takes 90 days to raise corn for 
 that purpose. My answer is a pure guess. I don’t know 
 about it positively. There would be no trouble about 
 raising corn on this land and putting it in a silo. The 
 question would be to market the silo. There is nothing to 
 prevent anybody who has cattle from raising corn for 
 silage and feeding the silage to the cattle. There is a 
 ereat deal of that being done this year. I think this land 
 will raise turnips. If it was not for the overflow and the 
 
940 
 
 941 
 
 943 
 
 944 
 
 213 
 
 risk of destruction of the crops on the bottom land the 
 land would be very valuable for any otf these purposes. 
 IT don’t think there has been any serious overflow be- 
 tween July Ist and November Ist any year since 1902. I 
 don’t think that there has been any overflow during any 
 summer months. 
 
 (). I will ask you if it is not true that on the 18th of 
 February, 1911, that there was sold land similarly situ- 
 ated just across the river, land fully as low as the land 
 involved in this proceeding, 25 acres, for $2,556, and that 
 there was reserved from that sale all minerals and the 
 road and a pipe line and other reservations; that being 
 more than $100 an acre for land similar to this? 
 
 Objected to by the plaintiff; objection sustained; de- 
 fendant excepts. 
 
 Defendant offers to show by this witness that on the 
 18th day of February, 1911, there was sold land similarly 
 situated to the land in question, Section 21, and concern- 
 ing which the witness has expressed an opinion, twenty- 
 five and fifty-six hundredths acres of land for $2,556, and 
 that from such sale was reserved the minerals, the road, 
 and a right of way for a pipe line, which ran across the 
 same. 
 
 Deseription of the land read as being in Section 14, 
 township thirty-three, north of range 1, east of the Third 
 Principal Meridian. 
 
 Objected to by the plaintiff; objection sustained; de- 
 fendant excepts. 
 
 Re-direct Examination of the Witness William Means by 
 Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The place where Samuel Waugh lived was on Section 
 28 and was within about five hundred feet of Section 21. 
 When the river was low we would go on the bottom road 
 
949 
 
 946 
 
 O47 
 
 ~ 
 
 948 
 
 949 
 
 214 
 
 to Mr. Waugh’s place, crossing the bridge over the [lh- 
 nois River at Peru, following south along that road and 
 across the slough bridge. The house was located on a 
 bluff or a bench on the side of the bluff. Up to recent 
 years there was a heavy strip of timber along that slough 
 on the west side of the land. At one time, while Mr. 
 Waugh was renting this jand from the La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company, Gecrge Brown was in partner- 
 ship with him. That was about ’94, I think, and then 
 they dissolved. During the time that Brown and Waugh 
 rented the land they eut off the timber; principally in 
 the southeast corner. I don’t know how much timber 
 they cut off. There was a road built upon Section 21 
 since the year 1800. I am not positive of the vear, but 
 T think it was since 1900; entering across the pond to the 
 center of the land. The road was built from the turnpike 
 running south from Peru. I think it was pretty nearly 
 in the center of the section. There has always been a 
 broken, rough road there, There wasn’t any established 
 road; going in there from the south of Waugh’s place 
 the road was a beaten path. There was also a road built 
 in there about 1905. The Carbon Coal Company had 
 some grading done there and small trees were planted 
 along the east side, with the idea of holding the road. 
 
 Q. In giving your valuations on yesterday, Mr. 
 Means, if I understood you correctly, you said that the 
 land to-day was worth from $40 to $50; is that correct? 
 
 Objected to by the defendant as not being re-direct 
 examination; objection overruled; defendant ex- 
 cepts. 
 
 Q. * * * Yo what parts of the land did that valu- 
 ation apply? A. Why. to the land that is cultivatable. 
 That is above—on the high ground. * * * the land 
 that is overflowed is considered worthless, a lot of it. 
 
 Motion by the defendant to strike out what he con- 
 
 
 
991 
 
 215 
 
 siders worthless; motion overruled; defendant ex- 
 cepts. 
 
 Re-cross Hxamination of the Witness Wiliam Means by 
 Mr. Chiperfeld. 
 
 When I testified as to what the land was worth I left 
 out the coal. 
 Motien by defendant to strike the testimony of the 
 witness upon that point; motion overruled; de- 
 fendant excepts. 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLD: Your honor, I would lke to be 
 heard briefly upon that motion. * * * ‘There is only 
 one test of value, if your honor please. The test is what 
 was the fair, cash market value, before and after, includ- 
 ing the entire estate. A man cannot take the surface 
 and separate it from the rest and make a valuation on it 
 in this kind of a suit. J merely want to call your honor’s 
 attention, which doubtless you have already seen, as to 
 the point I have in mind. I want to be fair on the propo- 
 sition, but it cannot be possible to separate an estate and 
 fix valuation in that way. 
 
 The Court: I think I will adhere to my ruling. 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 JosEPH GREINER, a witness for the plaintiff, testifies as 
 follows: 
 
 Direct Examimation by Mr. Butters. 
 
 My name is Joseph Greiner. I live in Peru. I have 
 lived there 44 years. I have farmed the biggest part of 
 my time. I worked for a man by the name of Samuel 
 Waugh, who had possession of the land in Section 21 
 shown on this map. I moved from there 14 years ago. I 
 
955 
 996 
 
 957 
 
 960 
 
 961 
 
 965 
 
 216 
 
 worked there four years. I had my family and lived over 
 there up on the hill. 
 
 I lived about half a mile up from the bottoms, south 
 from the river, JI don’t know whether or not it was on 
 Section 21. There was a road in there where I lived; a 
 road past the house and running north and south for a 
 mile. There was a house and farm buildings there where 
 I lived. I think I was there about 1898. I think I com- 
 menced to work there in 1894, in January or February. I 
 think I moved there in February. The first work I did 
 that year was to haul crops out of the bottoms. J am 
 acquainted with MeCormick’s slough. It is on this land. 
 It was there at that time. There was corn raised on this 
 land at that time. They had raised a good crop the year 
 before, a crop of corn. We started in on the prairie first, 
 that year, planted the prairie first and then the bottoms. 
 J think that was about the latter part of May that we 
 plowed and got ready for planting. I think there was 
 about 300 acres of land worked and planted that spring 
 on Section 21. There igs pretty nearly 400 acres, I guess, 
 of land there. ‘here was corn raised on all of it that 
 year, except where there was timber. You could drive 
 from one end of the corn to the other. It was planted 
 in one piece and was cultivated to the river bank. The 
 longest rows were 120 rods and we planted from east to 
 west. The soil of the ground was in good shape the lat- 
 ter part of May. It is a good sandy loam. I know about 
 the productiveness of the soil from examining it. It was 
 
 ~ a good soil. I also have farmed upland. Bottom soil 
 
 964 
 
 will grow a crop quicker than prairie soil will. 
 Defendant objects to the comparison; objection over- 
 ruled; defendant excepts. 
 I had nothing to do with any of the land there except 
 the land in Section 21. We cultivated it three or four 
 times that year. There was no overflow from the river. 
 
965 
 
 966 
 
 968 
 
 969 
 
 970 
 
 217 
 
 We had a good crop that year. They had a good crop 
 each of the four years I lived over there. I mean by good 
 crop, we had a full crop of corn. The crop would aver- 
 age as high as 70 bushels an acre. We turned the cattle 
 into the stalks. Mr. Waugh turned them in. We finished 
 husking somewhere about Thanksgiving. The water 
 never interfered while I lived there, in the four years, 
 with this land. Cattle would remain there and feed all 
 winter. There was only one winter I remember towards 
 the spring that we drove them off. The water was ris- 
 ing and the bottoms were pretty well eat out and we 
 turned the cattle out onto the prairie. That was about 
 February. JI was born in this country. I have an opin- 
 ion as to what was the fair cash market value of this land 
 in Section 21 in the month of January, 1900, before the 
 Sanitary District of Chicago was opened. 
 
 Objected to by the defendant on the ground that the 
 witness does not show any acquaintance with the 
 land immediately prior to that time; objection 
 overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 IT think the land was worth at that time $100 an acre. 
 Since January 17, 1900, the river is higher. It is four 
 feet higher. I live nowin Peru. I have known this land 
 and what has been growing on it since 1900. They have 
 got half a crop of corn there. 
 
 (). Where is it with reference to where corn used to 
 be, used to grow there while you were there? A. There 
 used to be corn all over it, on every bit of it, when I lived 
 there. 
 
 Motion by the defendant to strike out the answer as 
 not being responsive; motion overruled; defendant 
 excepts. 
 
 The land is cultivated now in patches. I have not ex- 
 amined the corn that is there this year. I go into these 
 bottoms every fall. There is little good corn raised there 
 
co © 
 ——! 
 Co bo 
 
 974 
 
 979 
 
 977 
 
 978 
 
 218 
 
 since 1900. Most of it is soft on account of not getting 
 in there soon enough in the spring. I think that the fair 
 eash market value of the portions of land where they 
 have crops—where there is a crop this year on this land, 
 I think it is now $25 an acre. J don’t think that the land 
 upon which no corn is now raised, since January, 1900, is 
 worth a dollar. 
 
 Cross-Exammation of the Witness Joseph Gremer by 
 Mr, Chiperfield. 
 
 I have talked with the attorneys for the plaintiff in 
 this case about the case. I talked with them yesterday 
 about. 15 minutes and had spoken to them since the last 
 witness left the stand. I was not advised as to what 
 value the last witness fixed upon the land. I took into 
 consideration that this land, all of it, is underlaid with a 
 good vein of coal. I still think the land is worth nothing. 
 The coal land may be worth something; I don’t know 
 anything about coal lands. It is worth something if the 
 coal is there. JI don’t think that the land is valueless if 
 there is 3,500 to 5,000 tons of coal per acre under the 
 land. 
 
 Q. Don’t you know, as a matter of fact, that at no 
 time since 1906 could that land have been bought for $100 
 an acre? 
 
 Objected to by plaintiff; objection sustained; defend- 
 ant excepts. 
 
 Probably the market value of this coal for coal pur- 
 poses in 1900 was $100 an acre. I have given my opinion 
 about the price of the surface of this land only as a 
 farming proposition, and I did not take into considera- 
 tion whether there is coal there. I know that the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company is mining’ in that vicinity. 
 I know they have entries extending into this land, but I 
 
219 
 
 don’t consider the question of coal. I am talking about 
 it merely for one purpose, and that for an agricultural 
 purpose. I don’t take into consideration any other pur- 
 980 pose other than that simply for farming. I have not 
 seen them hauling corn this year. They can’t haul a very 
 big load. I know they have sideboards on the box for 
 throw boards. I have not seen this corn come out. All 
 I know is what I have been told. It is purely hearsay 
 981 with me as to what they are doing in there. I have been 
 982 over the bottoms this fall. I was there two weeks ago 
 Sunday. I was on Section 21. In 1894 we planted about 
 983 from 100 to 125 acres. There was somewhere close to 
 400 acres in it all told. Last year it was all planted. All 
 except a little timber land in there; I couldn’t say how 
 much timber was there. The slough wasn’t planted in 
 - 984 1894, nor the timber. The land down by the bend in the 
 river only was planted. We planted that year the latter 
 part of May and first of June. The water didn’t rise 
 986 on this land every year. There never was a corn crib 
 constructed on Section 21. JI don’t know why. There 
 was some building on that land. I would run a chance 
 of having a house erected on that land today. I think 
 987 they could have raised millet on that land this year. 
 Probably could have got it out. If millet would have 
 matured thirty days ago they could have got it out, of 
 988 course. It is now way past the time for cutting millet. 
 They could have cut it this year. I think they could 
 have got a crop out last year, of millet. I couldn’t say 
 989 about other years. Sugar cane is not worth anything 
 for feed, not that I know anything about. I don’t think 
 you could raise much garden truck there. It would cost 
 you more than the truck would be worth to keep the 
 990 weeds out of there. Certainly, it would grow. I don’t 
 know much about garden truck. I don’t know of any 
 transaction in that neighborhood where any land has 
 
991 
 
 993 
 
 994 
 
 995 
 
 996 
 998 
 
 220 
 
 changed hands for $25 an acre since 1900. I am merely 
 giving my own idea as to its worth. If I were to buy that 
 land J wouldn’t give any more than $25 an acre for it. 
 T am just talking about cultivating it. I am not talking 
 about what the coal is worth. I hauled crops from this 
 land in 1894 for Mr. Waugh, to the Carbon Coal Com- 
 pany. I think the river in an average season, is four 
 feet higher than it used to be before the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict channel was opened. *I don’t know whether there 
 is any gauge on the La Salle Dam on Lock 15. I have no 
 idea as to the depth of the water in the river at the pres- 
 ent time. It is within the banks. Opposite this land 
 about two feet below the land. It is not a time of low 
 water. There is a good medium stage of water in the 
 river. In the lowest water that I have ever known in the 
 Illinois River, before 1900, it was four feet lower than it 
 is now. I would say that the river was six feet at low 
 water, lower than at present. I know nothing about 
 gauge readings at La Salle at any time, nor what stage 
 the water stood on the gauge at La Salle. I think the 
 water stands four feet higher than it did before the year 
 around; at extreme high water it is four feet higher than 
 extreme high water was before the Sanitary District 
 was opened, the year around, and at low water is four 
 feet higher than it was before that time. I don’t remem- 
 ber whether the Illinois River, in 1901, during July and 
 August, was the lowest water ever known on the Illinois 
 River. That was nearly a year and a half after the Sani- 
 tary District was opened. I don’t know anything about 
 the high water of 1892. Since 1900 the water from the 
 river has got into Water street. Water street has been 
 raised maybe a foot or two feet. Since 1900, the river 
 has come within two feet of the present surface of Water 
 street. I did say that the river at high water, since 
 1900, has been four feet higher than the high water be- 
 
221 
 
 999 fore that year. I said it because I know it was that way. 
 The river at Water street has washed out the Q. tracks. 
 
 1000 I have not observed the current of the Illinois River. I 
 never did. I don’t know whether the stream is flowing 
 swifter since 1900 than formerly. We used to be able 
 to catch some fish down there. We are not able to now. 
 
 1001 They couldn’t live in the water. That is what they tell 
 me. 
 
 Q. Don’t you know as a matter of fact, that at the 
 present time the fishing industry of the Llinois River is 
 ereater than that of all the New England states put to- 
 gether? 
 
 Objected to by the plaintiff. 
 
 Mr. CureerFIELD: This man says that fish won’t live 
 in the water and I want to follow it up, or have it stricken 
 from the record, your Honor. 
 
 Objection sustained. 
 
 Mr. CurperrieLp: Then I move to strike out his state- 
 ment concerning fish. 
 Motion overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 1002 I don’t see where the fishing industry on the Illinois 
 River is greater than it ever was before. I can’t see that. 
 I have never seen any fish that have been killed by the 
 water. They don’t stay long enough to die. They don’t 
 stay up there long enough to die. I don’t know that the 
 
 1005 water of the Ulinois River is purer and less foul and 
 less odor than before 1900. I don’t say it ig not true. 
 
 1006 Henry Ream, a witness called by the plaintiff, testified 
 as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Henry Ream. [I live at Peru, Illinois. Have 
 lived there since 1852. My present occupation is bank- 
 
222 
 
 ing at the Peru National Bank; since 1883. The bank 
 does a general banking business. I am president of the 
 1007 bank. I have been president nine years; formerly was 
 cashier of the same bank; since 1888. The bank is lo- 
 cated on 4th street, on the bluff, on the hill in Peru, since 
 1904. During that time the bank was located on Water 
 street. Water street runs parallel with the Illinois 
 River, the entire length of the town, almost. Water street 
 1008 is possibly fifty feet from the river. I am acquainted 
 generally with the bottom lands that lie south of Peru. 
 The general level of the land in the bottoms is lower than 
 the level of Water street. I was acquainted with the 
 lands farmed there for a number of years south of Peru 
 1009 by Mr. Waugh. That land hes lower than the level of 
 Water street in Peru. Fourth street in the City of Peru 
 is higher than Water street; I should judge about 15 or 
 1010 16 feet. I live the first street on the bluff. I was ac- 
 quainted with the uses to which the land in Section 21 
 was put prior to the year 1900. You could see that land, 
 standing on Water street in Peru, and you could see it 
 gomg up the bluff from Water street to my home. You 
 could see all of it from the bluff. I think that all of the 
 land in Section 21 lying to the west of MeCormick’s 
 slough was in cultivation. Corn was growing on it. It 
 1911 was then under the care of Mr. Waugh. I was in the 
 habit, in my banking business, of making loans on land. 
 I was acquainted with the fair cash market value of lands 
 located in the vicinity of Peru, in the year 1900, prior to 
 1012 January 17th. I place a valuation on the land in See- 
 tion 21 at that time at $100 per acre. Ina general way 1 
 was acquainted with the condition of the Illinois River, 
 prior to the year 1900. I have not been acquainted with 
 1013 the condition of the Illinois River since 1900. I have 
 seen the lands in Section 21 since 1902, from the bluff, 
 and driven several times during the year past the lands 
 
992 
 
 a el 
 
 on what we call the Wall Road. The Wall Road is south 
 of the iands in Section 21. The road would take you on 
 the bluff on the south side of Section 21. I have noticed 
 the condition of the land as to crops. It was partly 
 1014 planted and partly in weeds. I think about one-third 
 of it was planted. It was planted in corn. I think it was 
 planted irregularly instead of being in square pieces. 
 
 1015 @. What, in your opinion, would be the fair cash 
 market value of that land in the year 1900, on the 48th 
 day of January, taking into consideration the facts in 
 relation to the Illinois River and the flow of the same, 
 as you know them at this time? 
 
 Objected to by the defendant; objection overruled; 
 defendant excepts. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: If you have an opinion; just add that. 
 Objection renewed; objection overruled; defendant 
 excepts. 
 
 1016 I think the value would be considerably less. I con- 
 sider that land worth about $25 or $30 an acre, now. I 
 refer to all of the lands in the bottoms, in placing that 
 valuation, located on Section 21. I have been across the 
 
 1017 lands and around the I[llnois River probably a dozen 
 times a year since 1900. I have noticed the changed con- 
 
 1018 dition of the river. The stage of water is higher. The 
 water being higher in the river, I think has the effect of 
 making the ground in the bottom lands appear to be full 
 of water, soggy. 
 
 Cross-Exammation of the Witness Henry Ream by Mr. 
 Chiperfield. 
 
 I have not been on the lands since 1900, for the pur- 
 pose of making any investigation. I simply passed by 
 them, seeing them as I passed by. I am judging of the 
 condition of the land from the appearance of it only. It 
 
224 
 
 1019 seems to have a wet appearance. Black soil has more of 
 a grayish appearance, I think, when it is dry. I think I 
 eould tell whether the soil is moist or not from the road, 
 
 from the road to the land, the west line of it, is some- 
 thing like four or five hundred feet. The Brown land les 
 in between. I should say that anywhere in the month of 
 September the ground looked dark and full of water. I 
 couldn’t tell how many times I have been over there 
 since 1900. I should say about a dozen times a year I 
 
 1020 go over there. Ihave fished a great deal overthere. I go 
 fishing in the fall in the slough and river, any time until 
 it freezes up. I think I was fishing there last year, about 
 the latter part of September. I-wasn’t particularly no- 
 ticing the land at that time, and did not make any par- 
 ticular observations. I don’t know that I ever made any 
 particular observations of this piece of land. I don’t 
 
 1021 know that they have been going in there with wagons 
 and taking out the corn since 1900. I presume they have, 
 though. I don’t know whether the wagons could go in 
 there and pick corn. I am not interested in any litiga- 
 tion against the Sanitary District, nor with the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company. I don’t loan bank funds 
 
 1022 on land. I loan private money. We have a few loans 
 as a national bank. We have taken some loans as late 
 as 1911 to secure a debt. I was not generally engaged 
 in the real estate business in about the year 1900. I own 
 
 1023 some real estate myself. J don’t own any farm lands 
 and did not in 1900. I cannot recall any farm lands 
 changing hands in the vicinity of Section 21. I took into 
 consideration, in fixing the value of the land at $100 an 
 acre, that, at the time the land was producing a sufficient 
 quantity of corn. That is, equal to the prairie land. For 
 that reason I believe it should be valued at about the 
 same. My opinion was fixed upon the basis of compari- 
 son. I could not name any tract of land on the prairie 
 
225 
 
 that in 1900 was worth $100 an acre, but I think 1t was. 
 I think it was selling for at least $100. I can’t recall 
 any land—upland—selling at that time, about 1900, for 
 about $100 an acre. I knew that this was bottom land. 
 There are no houses on Section 21. I don’t know whether 
 it would be washed away if one was built there or not. 
 I always knew that this land was submerged whenever 
 the river rose to any considerable extent, and, under 
 those conditions it would not be a very habitable place. 
 T eannot recall that there were any fences there. I can’t 
 recall of any other than a few corn cribs on the Waugh 
 farm, right near the bottom land. As far as I know there 
 1025 were never any buildings located upon Section 21. You 
 eould not keep stock there the year around. I cannot 
 recall of any cattle being drowned over there, but I have 
 heard of it. J cannot recall the facts. I should say that 
 with the conditions obtaining there that the selling mar- 
 ket value of lands in 1900, for the bottom lands, were 
 as good as the highlands. There was very little land 
 sold there. I don’t remember of any land being sold for 
 that price similarly situated and in the vicinity of Section 
 1026 21. JI don’t know anything about the land being un- 
 tiled. J had in mind the producing value of the land,. 
 which was equal to that of, perhaps a little bit better 
 than the high bluff land. I did not take into considera- 
 tion in placing the value at $100 an acre that the land 
 was underlaid with a high grade of coal. JI think that 
 1027 is the fact. Coal has been optioned all over this coun- 
 try for $10 an acre. I don’t know whether coal situated 
 as it was under this land, adjacent to the City of La Salle 
 was worth on the market, in 1900, the sum of $100 an 
 acre. I had no occasion at any time to figure out what 
 1028 an acre of coal is worth to anybody. I believe the thick- 
 ness of the coal vein in that vicinity is something like 
 three feet. It ranges from three and a half to five feet, 
 
226 
 
 the second vein does. There are two veins of coal on 
 this land. Taking the coal under an acre of land, it 
 certainly was worth more than $100 an acre, but whether 
 1029 it could be sold for that is a question I cannot answer 
 you. [am familiar with the coal industry in that vicinity 
 and it has reached a high stage of development and had 
 in 1900, and La Salle and Peru coal was much in demand 
 on the market. It was regarded as a high, splendid grade 
 of coal. There was a market for all that coal that could 
 1030 be mined and a demand for it. I never heard of $100 
 an acre being paid for coal and I don’t know whether 
 this land was worth $100 an acre for coal mining pur- 
 poses. I can’t answer that. It is something that doesn’t 
 come within my scope of knowledge to know whether that 
 coal under the land would make it worth $100. I will 
 say this, that I believe, taking out that vein of coal under 
 an acre of that land, that it is worth it, taking it out 
 and selling it. It would be worth a great deal more than 
 $100. I am not able to answer whether lying as this land 
 1031 does it would be worth that sum or not. I am not well 
 enough acquainted with the conditions of the coal. That 
 is the best answer I can make to that question. When I 
 placed my value of $25 to $30 an acre on this land I took 
 into consideration the agricultural prospects only. I 
 considered the land as an agricultural proposition. From 
 where I would observe the land on the bluff, from my 
 residence, would be about a half a mile from the land, 
 across the river bottom. My attention was not specific 
 ally and closely called to this Section 21. I don’t know, 
 from my house, or at the bank, where the boundaries of 
 1032 Section 21 commence and end. I could not tell you 
 now from this map where the outlines are. I could tell 
 how far south it ran from my house. T could tell from 
 the fact it runs up to the bluff, right to the bluff, and the 
 dwellings attached to that farm, to the Waugh farm, are 
 
227 
 
 on the bluff. They are up high. I could tell from my 
 1033 house that the vegetation seen there was corn. I think 
 it was corn every year. I cannot recall the crop of 1892. 
 I could not state whether there was any crop in 1902 or 
 whether there was any corn grown there in 1904. There 
 were several years, off and on, there was no corn raised, 
 on account of overflow, but I cannot recall the years. I 
 1034 remember the high water of 1893, and that the water 
 came up to where our bank was then located on Water 
 street. I could not say how many times I remember the 
 high water coming practically up to Water street before 
 1900. I should say that Water street was five or six 
 feet, maybe more, above this land. It might be 15 or 20 
 feet. I guess it is higher, come to think about it. I 
 would take the level of the street and compare it with 
 the water level. JI guess it is higher than five or six 
 1035 feet. I should say probably 10 or 12 feet. Of course, 
 this is all guess work with me, so far as measurements 
 are concerned. If the water was in Water street there 
 would be 10 or 12 feet of water over this land. I have 
 seen row boats plying over these bottoms outside of the 
 river channel. J] never saw steamers out of the channel 
 of the river that I can recall. I don’t know anything 
 about the high waters of 1883 or the high waters of 1892. 
 1036 I couldn’t say about the highest water before 1900, how 
 it compared with the high waters since that time. I am 
 1037 not posted on different heights of waters in different 
 years. I don’t know of a year when there was high water, 
 before 1900, but I remember there was high water years 
 before 1900, and I cannot recall any of the high waters 
 that came as high as since 1900. Never had occasion to 
 remember or kept any record of the low waters before 
 1900. I cannot answer any question on that subject. I 
 1038 don’t know anything about the low water of 1901. Gen- 
 erally speaking, I think the water is higher in the river 
 
228 
 
 at all times of the year. I know that the river is higher 
 than it was before the drainage canal came in, because I 
 am told so by the man that keeps the records over at the 
 river bridge. That is what I am basing my opinion on 
 as to the level of the water. JI compare the river with 
 1039 the years way back before the drainage canal came in. 
 Take any years previous to that. I couldn’t say whether 
 the river was lower during September, 1901, than in 
 1040 1893. I don’t know whether I am comparing stages of 
 water before the Henry dam was put in or not. I could 
 not say whether the dam was in or not. I don’t know 
 how many feet the Henry dam would raise it, but it 
 raised it some. I can’t say or pick out any time the 
 river was higher and compare it with a similar time in 
 any other year. I never tested the current of the river 
 to know whether it was. faster. I have not made very 
 much observation of river conditions, nor kept track of 
 the stages of the water. [I didn’t do that. I think before 
 the dams were put in the river was lower than it has 
 been since 1900. I refer to the Henry dam. I have not 
 1041 kept any record of those things. I merely expressed 
 my opinion when I was asked the question and thought I 
 was expressing it right. I have not an opinion as to 
 how much the river has raised. I really cannot say. I 
 only casually observed these conditions. As I said, 1 
 never kept any record and could not be accurate about 
 1042 it. Thev used to plant these bottom lands in the latter 
 part of May or beginning of June, I think. I imagine 
 that since 1900, the water gets off these lands about the 
 latter part of May or beginning of June. I am acquaint- 
 ed with the corn and other farm crops and the methods 
 of raising them. I have not farmed for a good many 
 years. I lived on a farm when I was young. I don’t 
 know that they have raised any other crop than corn 
 there, I don’t know whether the land would have a value 
 
229 
 
 of raising of crops that require a shorter time than corn. 
 1043 I don’t know whether other crops could be raised that 
 would mature between the Ist of July and the Ist of 
 October. I am not well enough acquainted with the dif- 
 ferent grades of crops that might be put in there and 
 mature. I always looked on it as corn land. I think 
 this land would have a value if it is possible to raise gar- 
 den crops or crops for forage purposes and if silage could 
 be raised on the land. Of course, those things would 
 1044 have to be proven to see that it could be done. I don’t 
 know that silage corn has been raised on land similarly 
 situated and just a short distance from that. I don’t 
 know of any silos on Mr. Dunecan’s land. If those things 
 eould be done the lands would be valuable for that pur- 
 pose and would indicate a greater value than [I men- 
 tioned. I have based my answer as to values upon the 
 impracticability of raising a fully matured crop of corn 
 on this land. I cannot recall at any time that these lands 
 were overflowed between the Ist of July and the Ist of 
 1045 November. It might be possible they have overflowed. 
 1046 I am not sure whether it might not. I have no recollec- 
 tion of this land being overflowed in any way between the 
 Ist of July and 15th of November. 
 
 1047 Henry Myer, a witness called by the plaintiff, testified 
 as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Butters: 
 
 My name is Henry Myer. I live in Peru. I am bridge 
 tender on the south side of the river bridge. That is 
 across the river just where section 21 in located. T have 
 been in that employment for six years. Prior to that I 
 
 1048 was on a farm, a mile and a half or two miles south. 
 I lived there two years. I lived there three years. That 
 
230 
 
 is three blocks up the hill over there. I lived on Sam 
 Waugh’s place. Waugh’s house, where I lived on his 
 place was up on top of the hill. I lived in that place 
 1049 three years. He had section 21 rented from the Car- 
 bon Coal Company. Prior to working for him I lived 
 in town. I knew this land before I worked for Waugh. I 
 have known this land since 1889. The first year I worked 
 for Waugh was in 1894. I don’t know exactly the acre- 
 age. There was some bush land besides the farm land 
 shown on section 21. I think there was from fifty to sev- 
 enty-five acres of timber. I was the hired man and did 
 the farm work. They raised corn on this land. The 
 corn was raised all over it. This land was all fit to 
 1051 raise corn and that is all that they did with it. . We 
 would go on the land to cultivate it about May. We 
 generally got through planting about the 1st of June. 
 1052 It was a black soil. They always raised good crops to 
 1894, when I worked for Waugh. The crops would run 
 from 60 to 80 bushels to the acre. The corn was of 
 good quality. I mean it was sound corn. I worked there 
 1053 all told seven years. I lived there in 1901. During the 
 years that I worked for Waugh we let the cattle go in the 
 stalks in the winter time. There was times when the 
 cattle were not in the stalks during the winter. I know 
 a couple of times; I don’t exactly know what years. The 
 water came up. That is the reason they were not turned 
 1054 in. That was around January, about Christmas, there 
 was a lot of cattle, 150 to 200. There were no fences 
 put up to keep them in during the winter on any part 
 of the land. After I left Waugh I worked at Kale’s 
 1055 place and went over past this land in section 21. Was 
 there about the year 1902. There was nothing raised 
 there at that time. Everything was overflowed there. 
 Since I left there the crops on the land some years were 
 pretty good, and some years not. I never worked on 
 
231 
 
 1056 this land after I left it. I saw it about every day. 
 I should say about one-third of it has been cropped since 
 T left there. The other two-thirds had overflowed. Only 
 weeds growing on it after the water went down. I don’t 
 1057, know how many acres of corn is there this year on sec- 
 tion 21. I should say about a hundred acres. I have 
 not examined any of the corn. I can see the corn field 
 from where [I live. I never was in it. I have a view from 
 my place of business at the river bridge over this land. 
 I don’t know exactly about the depth of the water in 
 1058 the river. The water is higher in the river since Jan- 
 uary, 1900, than it was before that time. I should say 
 from four to five feet about. I can tell by the piers on 
 the bridge and on the break water, on the ice breakwater. 
 The ice breakers are located on each end of the bridge. 
 On the east side there is a water gauge. There is marks 
 by the inch and by the foot. I saw that the water is not 
 1059 five or six feet higher than formerly. I don’t know 
 anything about it except what I have seen on the piers. I 
 think that this land in section 21 had a fair cash market 
 value of about $100 an acre inthe month of January, 1900, 
 1060 prior to the turning in of the water. I think that the 
 same land and the land that is in corn this year, upon 
 which corn was planted and raised this year, was worth 
 on that same day, after the water was turned in, about 
 one-third of that. Land in section 21 on which no corn 
 has been grown this year, I think the land is worth 
 1061 nothing. The water comes up over this land and has 
 come up over it since 1900. It comes up in the winter 
 and spring. It doesn’t go away like it used to. It stands 
 there. Before 1900 the river would go quicker down. I 
 1062 know the effect that had on the soil there on its pro- 
 ductiveness. Nothing will grow on the low ground. 
 
232 
 
 Cross-Examination of the Witness Henry Myer by 
 Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 IT am the bridge tender. I do not keep any gauge. I 
 no not keep any record at all. I tend the Peru river 
 bridge, wagon bridge. I think the bottom lands in sec- 
 tion 21 are practically worthless; not worth anything. 
 
 1063 I have some land rented there in the bottoms for Brown 
 for truck purposes right there at the bridge and I have 
 some rented for next year. I paid nothing for it this 
 year. If I raise a crop I pay rent and if I don’t I pay 
 
 1067 nothing. I have rented lands for cash rent in the im- 
 mediate vicinity of this land. That is, if I get a crop I 
 pay cash money, $6, an acre. I didn’t get any crop this 
 year. I raised very little in my garden this year. 
 I didn’t have enough for my own family. Of 
 course, I couldn’t get it in early enough and the ground 
 was no good. It wasn’t the water that killed it out; it 
 was dry. I asked Mr. Brown if he will give me a strip 
 for next year and he said he couldn’t tell. I have been 
 at the bridge six years. There is a gauge at the bridge. 
 
 _ I don’t read the gauge. I don’t know anything about the 
 zero of the gauge on the bridge. The gauge is nailed on 
 
 1070 the north side of the river and it sticks in the water. I 
 never took any notice of where the water stands on the 
 eauges at a low stage of water. I never marked it down. 
 I am not paid for taking care of it. The job of keeping 
 the gauge for the Sanitary District was never offered 
 
 1071 to me. JI told one man this summer that the job of 
 keeping the gauge ought to belong to the bridge tender. 
 That is what I meant a while ago when I told you to 
 ask the man whom the Sanitary District paid for watch- 
 ing the gauge. No sir, I am not a bit unfriendly because 
 the District didn’t employ me to keep the gauge. I have 
 no feeling in this case. Of course, if I would get paid for 
 
233 
 
 it by the Sanitary District I would mark it down, yes 
 sir. 
 
 1072, Q. Isn’t it true that you have made the statement at dif- 
 ferent times that you proposed to get even with the San- 
 itary District because they didn’t employ you to read 
 the gauge? A. Well, I didn’t say I wanted to get even 
 that way. 
 
 Q. Didn’t you say that in substance? A. I only said 
 that it belonged to me. 
 
 Q. But itis your opinion that the job does belong to 
 the bridge tender and you ought to have the money? A. 
 I ain’t particular on that. 
 
 1073 I have made a study and looked to see whether or not 
 there was a difference in the height of the water on ac- 
 count of the fishing business. I know where the river 
 stood before 1900. I was engaged in farming before 
 that. I used to drive over the bridge. JI made marks of 
 high and low water before 1900. While I was still work- 
 
 1074 ing on section 21. I could see how high and low the 
 water was the way the steamboats go. I made those 
 marks on the pier. I didn’t go down to the piers to 
 mark it. I could see how many rocks was on top of the 
 water. There was 15 on the south side pier. The last 
 pier. They are still standing there in the same condition. 
 I counted the number of rocks and saw there were 15 
 rocks above the water in that pier when it was in low 
 water, the very lowest water. I didn’t measure those 
 
 1075 rocks, exactly. I judged them about 15 or 16 inches; 
 and between the water and the bridge there were 15 of 
 them. I saw the low water of 1901, after the Sanitary 
 District was opened. 1901 was very low water, about as 
 low water as I have ever known on the river. There was 
 about that many rocks above the level of the water in 
 
 1076 1901. I have counted the very lowest water that I 
 
234 
 
 could find and found that there was 15 rocks above the 
 water. There was about 12 rocks above the water now 
 and this is a compartively medium stage of water. The 
 present stage of water in the river has been added to by 
 the fall rains and the water is moderately high at the 
 present time. I didn’t count those rocks this morning. 
 
 1077 I say that the land there where there is no corn this 
 year is worth nothing, has no market value, and that 
 nothing could be obtained for it on the market if it was 
 offered for sale. I don’t know if the coal is sold or not. I 
 don’t know whether that land is worth $100 an acre with 
 coal lying as it does, or not. 
 
 1079 CuHartes Mupas, a witness for the plaintiff, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Charles Mudge, I live four miles south of 
 Peru. Age 44. Occupation farmer. Been farming all 
 my life. 
 
 In traveling from Peru to my farm, I cross the Illinois 
 river bridge located west of the Waugh land. After 
 crossing the bridge going south across another bridge 
 over the McCormick Slough. 
 
 1080 Knew Sam Waugh in his lifetime. Waugh from 1890 
 down to 1900, lived in the city of Peru and was farming 
 land in section 21. The farm house and other buildings 
 
 1081 connected with the land were located 40 rods or more 
 from the farm land. | 
 
 During the years specified I knew those lands on sec- 
 
 1082 tion 21 to a certain extent. In 1893 and 1894 was there 
 one day in the week during May and June; other years 
 three or four times a year. I do not know the acreage 
 
235 
 
 but they were raising corn, no timber except small 
 1083 bunches. Soil black loam. 
 
 1084 During 1893 and 1894 I saw corn growing on this place. 
 
 1085. Outside of those years I was there three or four times 
 during the summer. 
 
 1086 During the years 1893 and 1894 practically all of this 
 eround was in corn. It appeared to be planted regularly. 
 
 1087 During those years it was good corn. 1892 was a wet 
 year, nothing raised on the bottoms. Between 1895 and 
 1900 practically all of the land in corn. After the corn 
 
 1088 was husked cattle were turned in. 
 
 Q. Now, Mr. Mudge, from your experience and knowl- 
 edge and your acquaintance with this land, I will ask 
 you to state what in your opinion was the fair cash mar- 
 ket value of the land in the year 1900 in the month of 
 January prior to the 17th day. 
 
 Objected to by defendant; objection sustained. 
 
 Q. If you know. 
 
 The Courr: I will let him answer it now. 
 
 A. $100 an acre practically. 
 
 Familiar in a general way with the condition of the 
 Illinois River at the time the Sanitary District water 
 was turned into the valley. The difference I have ob- 
 
 1089 served is that the banks are fuller of water, it comes 
 nearer to the top of the bank than it did prior to that. 
 Never took any measurements, simply my observation. 
 
 Since 1902, have been down to the house south of the 
 road. Drove along the road west of the land probably 
 twice a week. Observed crop conditions. Part of it now 
 
 1090 grown up in weeds and part of it under water. One- 
 1091' third in crop. The corn in small pieces, irregular. 
 
 1092 @. Have you an opinion Mr. Mudge as to what the 
 value of that land was during the month of January in 
 
236 
 
 the year 1900 after the 17th day, taking into considera- 
 tion what you now know concerning the flow and condi- 
 tion of the Illinois River? A. I don’t believe I just un- 
 derstand the question. 
 
 @. Have you an opinion as to the market value of 
 that land, the fair cash market value of that land subse- 
 quent to the 17th day of January, 1900, after turning in 
 the water of the Sanitary District, and taking into con- 
 sideration the facts which you now know? A. From a 
 farmer’s standpoint? 
 
 Q. Well, just have you an opinion? <A. Yes, I have. 
 Q. Whatis that opinion? A. I have, yes. 
 
 Q. Whatis that opinion? A. From a farming stand- 
 1093 point it would not be worth anything because the taxes 
 on the land and the expenses of farming that acreage 
 would be so much; the acreage that would be fit for farm- 
 
 ing purposes, would leave no profit. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 1094 I do not know whether that land has raised more than 
 5,000 bushels of corn this year. I do not mean that the 
 cost of raising 100 acres of corn is more than the price 
 the corn will come to. The cost of raising corn is about 
 30 cents a bushel. We sold corn one time for 25 or 26 
 
 1095 cents a bushel but don’t remember of selling any for 
 20 cents a bushel. The cost of raising 5,000 bushels of 
 eorn on that land this year would not exceed the price 
 they would get for the corn. Know many men are suc- 
 cessfully and profitably raising 20 to 40 acres of corn 
 
 1096 and up to 100. I do not say that the cost of raising this 
 100 acres of corn is more than it will come to. Don’t 
 
 1097 think land which will raise 50 to 60 bushels of corn to 
 the acre is worthless. 
 
237 
 
 I said that in fixing the value of the land at nothing 
 
 I took into consideration the taxes that a man would have 
 
 to pay. I don’t know what the taxes are. I do not know 
 
 that the day never existed when this land was taxed by 
 1098 the assessor at over $20 an acre. 
 
 1099 If it has been the practice to rent the land to tenants 
 in small patches, I would not assume that one man was 
 equipped to do the whole farming operation, and would 
 not say that the cost of the taxes would preclude success- 
 ful or profitable farming. The taxes would not exceed 
 
 1100 $1.00 per acre. I do not know what the taxes are on 
 this land. 
 
 When I took into consideration the $100 that I consid- 
 ered the value of the land, I did not consider what its 
 fair rental was after taking into consideration the crops 
 
 1101 raised on the land. [I do not know that Waugh paid 
 only $500 a year for the lands. 
 
 Mr. Cureerrretp: If it transpires as has been prov- 
 en in this case 
 
 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: To which we object. 
 
 The Court: I sustain the objection. 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Curperriretp: Well, I think I have the right to 
 ask the question. 
 
 The Courr: I don’t think you have the right to state 
 what has been proven by some other witness or what is 
 already testified to, Mr. Chiperfield. As to that feature 
 
 1102 of it, I sustain the objection. 
 Exception by defendant to the ruling and remark 
 of the court. 
 
 @. Upon a basis of $500 yearly rental for between 
 four and five hundred acres of land in section 21, and 
 
238 
 
 that rental existing from 1890 up to 1900, would you still 
 say that in your judgment the fair cash market value was 
 $100 an acre? 
 11038 Objected to by plaintiff; objection overruled. Eix- 
 ception by plaintiff. 
 
 1104 A. Yes. 
 
 In valuing the land J would not take the rental into 
 consideration. When I say the land is worthless, I con- 
 sider it merely as an agricultural proposition and exclude 
 every other consideration except as an agricultural prop- 
 osition, and confine my testimony purely to the possibil- 
 ity of raising corn upon this land and am not considering 
 1105 anything else except a corn raising proposition and am 
 
 ignoring the value of the property as a coal property 
 and for every other purpose except raising corn. | 
 
 TI never knew the full number of acres that was in corn 
 In any particular year between 1890 and 1900, but in my 
 1106 judgment I think there would be about 250. 
 
 I have seen 150 head of stock on the land. They could 
 sustain themselves 60 days off of 250 acres of stalks. 
 
 J107 The river has been higher since 1900. I do not know 
 that it is not true that the extreme high water was higher 
 before 1900 than since. Iremember the high water of 1892. 
 
 1108 Could not say whether it got as high as the high water 
 of 1893. Have seen the road which I traveled entirely over- 
 
 1109 flowed before 1900 as well as since. Sometimes as much 
 
 1110 as ten feet of water on the land. No buildings on the 
 land, no fences, stables, out buildings, corn eribs or any 
 tile or small buildings usually found around farms. Don’t 
 know of so much as a smoke house or any other kind of 
 a house being there. It would be flooded away if it was 
 there. 
 
 1111 When I said I was going through the corn field I was 
 going from my farm to Waugh’s and then over to Peru. 
 
239 
 
 1112 The road went practically straight north about through 
 the center of the section. It was a private road left for 
 1113 the convenience of those working the place. 
 
 1114 Epwarp. Pyka, a witness for the plaintiff, being swo1n, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Butters. 
 
 My name is Edward Pyka; I live at Cedar Point, five 
 miles south of Peru, for eight years. Farmer since 1893, 
 1115 in this and Bureau County. Known land on Section 21 
 for the last eight years. First saw it in 1893. Sam Waueh 
 was farming it then. Saw it about four times in 1893 and 
 1116 pretty nearly every year until 1901. Growing corn gen- 
 1117 erally when I first saw it. Saw the land pretty nearly 
 1118-9 every year and crops growing on it. In 1893 the corn 
 went better than 80 an acre. The stalks were big, high 
 1120 growth. The soil productive. There were 13 or 14 teams 
 working on the land. 
 
 Have an opinion as to the fair cash market value on 
 January 17, 1900. It was worth between 95 and 100 dol- 
 1121 lars. Have farmed land since then, farmed the east side 
 1122 of it, 80 acres on 21 somewhere near center of the tract. 
 Rented it in 1905. Got on the land that year the last of 
 1123 May and plowed 38 acres. The rest of it was wet, could 
 1124-5 not plow it. Got to the land on graded road up to it. 
 Weeds on the land not farmed. 
 
 1126 The Guest boys farmed 20 acres in 1905. Shank Cos- 
 1127 grove farmed some of the land, 12 or 14 acres. Another 
 fellow there out in the southwest section Gill MceCable had 
 1128 about four acres. No other agricultural operations con- 
 ducted on that land that year. Continued wet until July. 
 1129 1906 I had the same patch, got the same amount. The 
 eorn was soft in 1905; husked it the beginning of October. 
 
240 
 
 1130 In 1906 we had a pretty fair crop, raised about the same 
 quantity. Planted the rest of the land in June but the 
 corn did not mature. In 1906 got about 1,200 bushels for 
 
 1131 my share. It was good quality. Bottom lands are strong- 
 er and mature crops much quicker. 
 
 1132 In 1907 I rented 120 acres. Put about seven acres in 
 that year. Did not mature any of it, the water was too 
 high. 
 
 Judging from what I know would say the fair cash mar- 
 ket value of the land on the 17th day of January, 1900, 
 
 1133 after the water was turned in, was $30 an acre, I mean 
 
 1134 the landI farmed. The rest of it was worthless. 
 
 Mr. CuiprerFieLp: Your Honor, just so today may not 
 pass without a motion being entered, I want to make a mo- 
 tion to exclude the opinion of Mr. Mudge as to the value 
 of this land. He stated he simply regarded it for corn 
 raising purposes. 
 
 The Court: Motion overruled. 
 
 Exception by defendant. 
 ‘To which ruling of the court, the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Recess until November 15, 1912, at 9 o’clock a. m. 
 1185 November 15, 1912, 9 a. m. 
 
 Court reconvened. 
 
 Hpwarp Pyka, a witness for the plaintiff, recalled for fur- 
 ther examination, testified as follows: 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I am the farmer for the La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company on their land at Cedar Point. I rent the farm 
 1136 from them. I rented land on Section 21 from them. 
 
241 
 
 I was subpoenaed to come here. I know a man named 
 1137 McPhedron. Have talked with him. We associate to- 
 gether a great deal. 
 
 1138 Paid cash rent for part of my land and rent the balance 
 1159 on shares. Lease only runs this year. I was first ac- 
 quainted with the land in 1893. I traded cattle with 
 1140 Waugh and took our stallions down there. In 1894 don’t 
 know whether I was there after August but know I was 
 1141 there after October. In 1895 was there after August. 
 Used to change sheep and cattle with them every year. 
 For instance, take a ram we used one year and he would 
 use it the next so as not to interbreed. Would make the 
 1142 round trip in a day. 
 
 Corn grew better than it did on the prairie. There 
 
 were many acres where the corn would go better than 100 
 
 1143 bushels; some would go as high as 120. Did not see any 
 
 as high as 130 or 140, but half of the land down there went 
 
 120 bushels per acre and half of it just a little lower. The 
 
 half a little lower would average about 50 or 60 bushels, 
 
 1144 some of it 40 bushels. The 40 bushel corn grew on high 
 
 land. The difference in elevation between the high and 
 
 low pieces was two or three feet. I think that an elevation 
 
 of two feet in the field would make a difference between 
 
 the yield of 120 bushels an acre and 40 bushels an acre. 
 
 1145 It usually happened in order to make the corn grow fast 
 
 er the nearer it was to the water the better and the higher 
 
 the land got the poorer the crop it raised. The water 
 
 surface was never more than three feet below the lowest 
 part of the land that I regarded as tillable. 
 
 1146 Have seen the land during the past week. The stage of 
 water is comparatively a high stage. The water is not 
 over the part where the corn is planted. The river now is 
 at least three or four feet above low water conditions and 
 still it is not over the place where the corn is planted. 
 
242 
 
 1147. The place where the corn average 40 bushels was on 
 the ground a couple of feet higher in the north end of Sec- 
 tion 21 and along the south side of Section 21. The high- 
 est pieces constituted about one-third of the ground. 
 
 1148 Don’t know that the highest pieces of ground would 
 raise better crops and that there would not be a difference 
 of 80 bushels in land 24 inches higher and land 24 inchs 
 
 1149 lower. The grade of corn on the land raising 40 bushels 
 was just the same as on the land raising 120 bushels, but 
 the stalks and ears were not so large. The ears on the 
 
 1150 40 bushel corn would be about half as big as the ears on’ 
 the 120 bushel corn. 
 
 1151 Q. Don’t you know, as a matter of fact, that you never 
 in all your life on that piece of land within the time you 
 have mentioned from 1890 to 1900, saw any corn there that 
 would go 100 bushels to the acre? 
 
 Objection by plaintiff; objection sustained. To which 
 ruling of the court, the defendant by its counsel 
 then and there duly excepted. 
 
 @. Don’t you know that your statement that corn on 
 that land in any place would average 120 bushels to the 
 acre is not correct? A. Yes, sir, there was corn went bet- 
 ter than that. 
 
 Q. How much better did it go? A. 125 bushels. 
 
 I am sure about it as I was through the corn when they 
 1152 were picking it. I counted the rows, eight and a half 
 rows to the acre, one ear to the stalk, the ears from 10 to 
 13 inches long, the corn planted three foot six apart and 
 the rows three feet eight apart. 
 
 1153 I know that in that particular piece of ground the wild 
 cucumber, man vine, morning glory, grew but don’t know 
 that the corn was pulled down by the weeds. 
 
 1154 I counted the rows and estimated the size of the corn 
 just to see the difference between the bottom land and 
 
243 
 
 the top land. As a result of that I did not come to the 
 conclusion that bottom land where buildings could not be 
 erected, fences could not be built, houses could not stand, 
 were two or three times as valuable as the upland. 
 
 I was not on the land before 1890. Before 1900, started 
 
 1155 plowing in May or April. Don’t know that the water 
 was never off the land before May 15th. Knew about the 
 character of the lands before 1900, the kind and character 
 of property this was. Did not know that this property 
 owned or claimed by the La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company was a coal mining proposition. 
 
 1156 Q. Did you know that under the law of the State of 
 Illinois that they would have a right to own no land of 
 any kind except such as was necessary for the prosecution 
 of their business? 
 
 Mr. O’Connor: I object. 
 A. I don’t know anything about that. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Waita minute. Your Honor, we object 
 to the asking of that question as being highly improper. 
 
 The Court: I sustain the objection. 
 
 1157 To which ruling of the court, the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CurprerFietp: I specifically except to the ruling 
 of your Honor, and if you will allow me I want to be heard 
 on the proposition without the presence of the jury. 
 
 The Court: Well, I think I have heard that two or 
 three times this week. 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLtp: You haven’t heard a word from me 
 on that subject, have you? 
 
 The Court: Well, I think I have heard it in a general 
 way in the pleadings and all through the case. I don’t 
 think that I will let the jury retire to be heard on that. 
 
244 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLp: J ask the record to show that I re 
 quest of the court an opportunity to be heard 
 
 The Court: I overrule the request. 
 
 Mr. CurperFieELD: ——upon the ruling. 
 
 The Court: I overrule the request. 
 
 Mr. Cuirerrietp: I except. 
 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Cutperrretp: Did you know that this property was 
 connected with and used by the Carbon Coal Company 
 as a coal mining proposition? 
 
 A, No, sir, I did not. 
 
 . Did you regard it entirely and exclusively as an 
 agricultural proposition? A. I only considered the 
 
 1158 use of the land for farming purposes, took into consid- 
 eration no other use. Did not consider that the property 
 had any value for coal purposes and have left that en- 
 tirely out of my calculations. Took into consideration 
 what the rental value of the property would be prior to 
 1900. Did not know that the rental value of the property 
 for ten years before 1900 was $500 a year, for the tract, 
 whatever it was, between four and five hundred acres. 
 
 1159 Q. If the rental value of this land was, for the entire 
 tract, $500 a year, upon that rental value of one dollar 
 and some cents an acre, would you say that the value of 
 this property for agricultural purposes was $100 before 
 1900? <A. Yes, sir. 
 
 1160 Don’t know where Dennis Lynch’s property on Section 
 33 is that M. W. Duncan bought in 1898. 
 
 1161 Q. Well, then, I want to ask you if you know whether 
 or not that the east ten acres of the west one-half of the 
 southwest quarter—I should have said Section 13, of 
 Township 33 North, Range 1, east of the Fourth Princi- 
 pal Meridian, and also the east half of the east half of the 
 
 
 
245 
 
 southeast quarter of Section 13, Township 33 North, 
 Range 1, east of the Fourth Principal Meridian, consist- 
 ing of 50 acres of land sold on the 7th day of June, 1898, 
 at public sale to Mr. Nicholas W. Duncan for $348.87. 
 Mr. Butters: We object to that. 
 The Court: How far is that from this land, in miles? 
 Mr. Cureerrietp: From the land involved in this suit 
 it is perhaps within two and a half miles of this bottom. 
 
 1162 Objection sustained; to which ruling of the court, 
 the defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly 
 excepted. 
 
 Mr. CurperFreELp: We offer to show by this witness, 
 if your Honor please, that in the proceedings of William 
 P. Leaghy, assignee of Dennis Lynch, on the 7th day of 
 June, 1898, by authority of a decree of the County Court 
 of La Salle County, Illinois, at the May Term, 1898, in 
 the case of William P. Leaghy, assignee of Dennis Lynch, 
 against Dennis Lynch and others, that there was sold at 
 public auction to Nicholas W. Lynch the interest of Den- 
 nis Lynch in the Hast 10 acres of the West 4 of the South- 
 east Quarter of Section 13, Township 33 North, Range 1, 
 Hast of the Fourth Principal Meridian; also the Hast 
 half of the East half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 
 13, Township 33 North, Range 1, East of the Fourth 
 Principal Meridian, for $348.87, and that land is land 
 that is similarly located and within two and one-half 
 miles of the land in Section 21, and adjoining the land in 
 controversy in this suit, in Section 24, and adjoining the 
 
 - 1163 land described in the plaintiff’s declaration in Section 
 14, and within three-quarters of a mile East and a mile 
 North of the land described in the plaintiff’s declaration 
 in Section 15, the South line of the premises concerning 
 which the offer is made being the North line of Section 24 
 and of Section 23 and of Section 22 and of Section 21? 
 
 1164 Objection by plaintiff; objection sustained; to which 
 
246 
 
 ruling of the court, the defendant, by its counsel, 
 then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Curperrrip: Now, then, your Honor, I have a 
 number of other offers I want to make in connection with 
 the cross-examination of this witness. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: They ought to be made, Mr. Chiper- 
 field, out of the presence of the jury. 
 
 Mr. CurpeerrieLtp: I don’t care how they are made. I 
 simply want to make them, that is all. 
 
 1165 (The jury leaves the jury box.) 
 
 Mr. Cuiprerrietp: I want, if your Honor please, to 
 interrogate this witness and to ascertain his knowledge, 
 and if possible, to prove and show by this witness that 
 on the 9th day of February, 1899, that Michael Cummings 
 and wife, Bridget, conveyed the West 45 feet of Lot 3, in 
 Block 91; the South 100 feet of Lot 14, Block 95, La Salle. 
 Also, beginning at a point on the public highway 34.41 
 chains west of the Northeast corner of Section 22, Town- 
 ship 33 North, Range 1 Kast, running thence South of 
 the center of said road four degrees and fifteen minutes 
 Hast, 28.382 chains to a stone for a corner in the East line 
 of the right of way of the public road; then South four 
 degrees and fifteen minutes Kast, 11.68 chains to the half 
 section line; thence Kast 31.25 chains to the Illinois River; 
 
 1166 thence up the river 31 degrees and 15 minutes Hast, 
 14.83 chains to a stone at Duncan’s corner; thence West 
 30 chains to the beginning; the deed was acknowledged 
 before T. I. Doyle, notary public of La Salle County, 
 Illinois; and that the value of the premises in La Salle 
 was at least $1,750; that this land adjoins the land in 
 question in this suit and is similar land. 
 
 I also want to show that upon the 26th day of June, 
 1894, in connection with the cross-examination of this 
 witness, if possible, that John Stewart, widower, con- 
 
247 
 
 veyed to Edward Henry Cummings all that portion of the 
 North 30.25 acres in the Northeast corner of Section 22, 
 Township 33 North, Range 1, East, which hes Kast of 
 the road known as Shippingsport Road, and South of 
 the right of way of the I. V. & N. Railroad, and North 
 of the 57-acre tract formerly owned by N. Duncan, for a 
 consideration of $490; acknowledged before T. N. Has- 
 kins, notary public; and that this land adjoins the land 
 in question. 
 
 I want to show by this witness in connection with its 
 cross-examination, if possible, that on the 12th day of 
 March, 1894, for the sum of $450, the Utica Hydraulic 
 Cement Company conveyed to the La Salle County Car- 
 bon Coal Company the coal under the Northeast Quarter 
 of Section 23, North of the Llinois River, in Township 
 33 North, Range 1, for the sum of $450; acknowledged 
 before J. B. Condif, notary public, La Salle County, Ih- 
 nols. 
 
 I also want to show that on the 16th day of January, 
 1893, Jane R. Hubbard, widow, and sole executrix of 
 Henry Hubbard, deceased, conveyed to the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company for the consideration of 
 $788.50 all the coal and other mineral— 
 
 The Court: Don’t you think we had better dispose of 
 these one at a time? There will be so many that I won’t 
 recollect. 
 
 Mr. Curerrrietp: I will be glad to conform to what- 
 ever the court’s idea is. 
 
 The Court: How many more have you? 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: I think there are perhaps three or 
 four more. 
 
 The Court: I can’t recollect the dates or the names 
 of all of them. You may go ahead. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: I will do any way you say. I want 
 
248 
 
 to conform to the court’s ideas in any way just as far as 
 1168 I can consistently with the rights I represent. 
 Objection to first offer overruled. 
 1169 The Courr: What is the next one? 
 
 Mr. Cureerrietp: John Stewart to Hdward Henry 
 ‘ummings, conveying ‘‘certain premises in Section 22, 
 Township 33 North, Range 1, Hast, on June 26, 1894, for 
 $490.”? 
 
 1170 The Court: How far is that from this land? 
 
 Mr. CurperrreLp: It adjoins it. 
 
 Mr. Butrrers: Object to it on account of being too re- 
 mote in time. 
 
 The Court: 1894? °I think I will overrule the objec- 
 tion. Read your next one. 
 
 Mr. Curprrrietp: The next one was the Utica Hy- 
 draulic Cement Company to the La Salle County Carbon 
 Coal Company, conveying the coal under the Northeast 
 Quarter of Section 23, North of the Illinois River, in 
 Township 33, North of Range 1, for the sum of $450. 
 
 The Court: I recollect that. What do you say about 
 that? Do you object? 
 
 Mr. Burters: We do object, your Honor. 
 
 The Court: I sustain the objection. 
 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: The next one is Jane Hubbard to 
 the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, the 16th 
 day of January, 1893, conveying and confirming all the: 
 
 1171 coal and other minerals underlying the following frac- 
 tion: North of the Northeast Quarter South of the TIli- 
 nois River containing 30.85 acres, more or less. Also, 
 the South fractional one-half South of the— 
 
 The Court: That is the coal? 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: “Yes. 
 
 Mr. Butrrers: Object to it. 
 
249 
 
 The Court: Sustain the objection. 
 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant, by its 
 eounsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLp: The next one is Michael Brannan 
 to Ann Brannan, conveying and warranting the West 
 ten acres of parallel width North and South of the Kast 
 36.65 acres, of parallel width North and South of the 
 East one-half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, 
 excepting and reserving the coal, for $220, February 1, 
 1896. On Section 24, adjoining part of the land involved 
 in this proceeding. 
 
 1172 Objected to; objection overruled. 
 (The jury returns to the jury box.) 
 (Cross-examination of witness resumed.) 
 
 “I do not know of the sale and conveyance referred to 
 
 by you including lands in Block 91, La Salle, and a 
 part of Section 22, Township 33, North, Range 1, neither 
 
 do I know of the sale made by John Stewart in January, 
 1174 1894, to Edward Henry Cummins. If any sales of that 
 kind were made in the vicinity of land similarly situated 
 
 to those, that would not effect my idea of the market 
 value of those lands. I have not taken or attempted to 
 take into consideration any sales of any kind, but have 
 fixed my own idea of the value of this land as a corn 
 proposition, and have not taken into consideration its 
 use for any other purpose. If the land will not raise 
 1175 corn, but will raise other valuable annual products it 
 does have a value. Don’t think it would raise millet, it 
 
 is too rich. Did not hear of any millet being raised across 
 
 the river within a period of six weeks which was not 
 1176 planted before August Ist. Millet could be planted on 
 there and it would grow and the only risk I think would 
 
 be the risk of going down. I think vegetables would grow 
 1177 on the land; it would be a splendid vegetable garden. 
 Sweet corn, peas, beans, sugar beets, turnips, and all 
 
250 
 
 vegetable crops requiring a short period to mature would 
 
 erow on this land, although I don’t think they would 
 
 erow there as well since 1900, as before. Think it would 
 1178 be too wet. 
 
 I think in 1907, after the 15th of July, you could not 
 plow in there; 1907 was a very wet year with high water 
 practically all the year. It rained very heavy during 
 
 1179 the times we were putting in the crops. It was a very 
 wet cropping season. 
 
 Take the years when the water did not go down until 
 the 20th of June and where you getin a crop by the 15th 
 of July, none of the things you mentioned would grow 
 upon that land. If they would grow it would give this 
 
 1180 land a little value. The land that could be plowed, I 
 think, would be worth $30. 
 
 When my attention is called to the raising of these ad- 
 
 1181 ditional things, it does not change my idea as to the 
 value of the premises as expressed yesterday when I 
 stated that as a corn growing proposition the land would 
 
 be worth $30. The greatest amount of corn I ever saw 
 1182 growing on Section 21 was from 250 to 275 acres. In 
 1183 1897, think about 300 acres. It was all in corn except 
 patches in timber. Farmed land in 1905 and 1906. In 
 1184 1906, I was so favorably impressed with the land that 
 1185 I rented 120 acres instead of the amount I had the pre- 
 vious year, wanted more than I had in 1905 and 1906. 
 
 In 1900, there was a splendid full crop of corn raised on 
 1186 this land, and in 1901, there was a splendid crop of corn. 
 In 1902, there was a great flood, nothing was raised any- 
 where on the bottoms. Did not notice the water much in 
 1901, it was a dry year. I could not see much difference 
 1187 in the low water between 1890 and the present time. 
 Before 1900, the very lowest I ever saw the river below 
 
 the top of the bank next to Section 21 was four or five 
 
201 
 
 1188 feet. Now it is right up to the top. In low water in 
 the summers now the water is within a foot and a half 
 of the top. Don’t say that there is not a space between 
 the top of the bank now and the low water we have had 
 in the summer since 1900. Have not been down to the 
 river for the purpose of making any observation during 
 the low water. 
 
 1189 Last summer I ran a launch on the river. Did not 
 keep track of it in any month. Know that it has been 
 raining since August and that the river has been raising. 
 Have not observed a three-foot rise in the last 30 days, 
 
 1190 could not say whether it has or not. Don’t know any- 
 thing about the Fox River. Would say the [llinois River 
 in the last 30 days has raised a foot and a half to two 
 feet; would say two feet. 
 
 1191 When I placed the value of this land at nothing, since 
 1900, where I did not get a corn crop, I did not take into 
 consideration whether or not this land had underlying it 
 a high grade merchantable coal. If it is underlaid with 
 a high grade merchantable coal I would think the value 
 would be greater than I have stated. 
 
 Q. Do you think if it was underlaid with a high grade 
 merchantable coal, two veins, containing from 3,500 to 
 0,000 tons per acre, that the value of this land would 
 have been $100 an acre in 1900? A. Yes, sir, I think it 
 would be worth a great deal more. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr, Butters. 
 
 Q. Mr. Pyka, assuming that there was coal under this 
 land, as Mr. Chiperfield has implied in his question, that 
 coal being there on January 17, 1900, and assuming the 
 
 1192 land was worth a certain price prior to January 17, 
 1900, would it be worth any different price on January 
 18th, after the water was turned in? 
 
202 
 
 Objected to by defendant; objection overruled; to 
 which ruling of the court, the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 A. Couldn’t you make that any plainer? 
 
 Q. Yes, I think I can. If there was coal in this land 
 and there is now coal under this land, would it be any 
 different in price, would there be any difference in the 
 price of the land on the 17th of January, 1900, and the 
 18th of January, 1900; that is, before and after the turn- 
 ing in of the water of the Sanitary District of Chicago? 
 A. That is, the price of the coal? 
 
 Q. Yes. The land in relation to the coal; do you un- 
 derstand? Would there be any difference in the effect— 
 
 1193 The Court: Did the turning in of the water of the 
 Sanitary District change the value of the coal? 
 
 Mr, Buotrers:), Thatusat: 
 AitiNo, Wydonst, thinkat did 
 
 1194. Mr. Burrers: ‘I want to read the deposition of Homer 
 R. Clark. 
 
 Homer R. Cuarxk, a witness for the plaintiff, being sworn, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Donnell. 
 
 Name Homer R. Clark, resided in Lockport 38 years. 
 
 Real estate agent. Reside east of the Desplaines River 
 
 at the present time, although formerly lived west of the 
 river in Will County. Born on the Barrett B. Clark 
 1195 farm and lived there 21 years. Desplaines River was 
 1196 four miles distant; Lemont six miles and Lockport eight 
 miles. The market place for father’s farm was Lock- 
 port; necessary to cross the river going to market. I 
 lived on the farm until 1867 and since 1867 in Lockport 
 
203 
 
 within half a mile of the river. I saw the Desplaines 
 River frequently during these years. 
 
 1197 Between 1870 and the time of the Sanitary District 
 construction during the period of dry weather, the Des- 
 plaines River north of Main street in Lockport was often 
 nearly dry at a point near the bridge at Lockport. At 
 Romeo and Lockport I have observed it. At Lemont it 
 
 1198 was very nearly dry where the bridge crosses the river. 
 I have walked across the river at Lockport, not at other 
 places. I have seen the time I could walk across there 
 without getting my feet wet, occasionally driven across 
 ‘there. 
 
 1199 Observed same places in the river during times of high 
 water. High water generally in the spring, May and 
 June. The land adjacent was used for pasture and have 
 
 1200 known of grass being cut off of a portion of it. I know 
 where the bridge over the Sanitary District Channel at 
 9th street is, have been over it frequently. I have seen 
 
 1201 that water at said place, both high and low. I don’t 
 
 1202 know the exact width of the channel at that place. I 
 have seen it filled with water from the end of the abut- 
 ment to the other end of the bridge during the past five 
 years. During the past five years I have seen it very 
 
 1203 low and very high. I knew the natural channel, there 
 were quite deep places in the channel. Prior to the Sani- 
 tary District work it was rather shallow around near 
 Lemont, but there were deep places between Lockport 
 and Lemont. 
 
 Cross-Examination. 
 
 Would scarcely get my feet wet on account of running 
 or standing water when crossing the Desplaines River. 
 
204 
 
 1204 Deposition of F. G. BuaxnsLen, a witness for the plain- 
 tiff, being sworn, testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Donnell. 
 
 My name is F. G. Blakeslee, I live at Lockport, since 
 1205 1897. Am operator at the controlling works of the 
 Sanitary District and have been so engaged for four 
 years. I work eight hours, from seven o’clock until three 
 daily. My duties are to take care of the machinery in 
 connection with the controlling works, the reading of 
 gauges, transmitting of records to the office, making of 
 1206 records, and so forth. Other employes, whose duties 
 are similar to mine; houses and buildings around the 
 controlling works. The gauge that I refer to shows the 
 1207 elevation of the water in the main channel based on 
 Chicago City datum. The gauge directly on the Bear 
 Trap dam shows the amount of water in feet and inches 
 or feet and tenths, going over the dam. I read that every 
 half-hour and make a minute of the readings and the rec- 
 ord is sent to the Sanitary District office in Chicago 
 daily. 
 There are seven gates in the Bear Trap dam. Can 
 1208 determine the amount of water passing over the dam 
 by measurments taken by the engineers; also when the 
 gates are opened, the amount of water going through the 
 gates; also when the dam is raised so as to admit no 
 water and the gates are opened. 
 
 1209 During the four years I have been there the amount 
 of water has varied at different times. The quantity 
 of water to be let out is determined by the engineer or 
 president of the Sanitary District. Orders are trans- 
 mitted to me by telephone. Between the 15th of Sep- 
 tember, 1904, and the present time, I could not state how 
 much water daily was passing out of the basin. TI was 
 
259 
 
 last on duty in reading the gauge this morning; was 
 1210 there about two hours and a half. There was 3.9 feet 
 of water on the crest of the dam, which, according to 
 1211 computations by the engineers would indicate a flow of 
 250,000 cubie feet of water per minute. 
 
 1212 Before January 17, 1900, there was no water passing 
 over the Bear Trap dam, it was not opened. I think 
 1213 during the past year the highest water passing over the 
 Bear Trap dam was 4.5 feet. That would indicate about 
 1214 520,000 cubie feet of water per minute. The amount of 
 water that can be let over the Bear Trap dam when the 
 dam is lowered depends upon the elevation of water in 
 the main channel. As the water stood at nine o’clock 
 this morning when I was on duty, if the gates were low- 
 ered as low as could be, I think it would be possible to let 
 over about seven feet of water. It would, of course, well 
 1215 for instance, for the first few minutes, after that it 
 would materially lower the water in the basin which 
 would decrease the amount of water going over the dam. 
 
 I was on duty a portion of the month of March, 1905. 
 
 1216. I cannot tell how many cubic feet per minute seven 
 feet of water going over the crest of the dam would be 
 without looking at the table. I have a copy of it in my 
 
 1217 pocket. I have not any table which would show seven 
 
 1218 feet of water over the dam. I cannot tell how many 
 cubic feet of water is indicated by the discharge of one- 
 tenth feet of water over the crest of the dam without 
 looking at the table. One-tenth of a foot, 1,000 cubic 
 
 1219 feet. The table was furnished to me by the assistant 
 
 1220 engineer of the Sanitary District, Mr. Cooley, to whom 
 I daily transmit the records in cubic feet and tenths, of 
 the flow. | 
 
 1221 Iwas present when the water was turned into the chan- 
 nel over the Bear Trap dam on January 17, 1900. The 
 
206 
 
 act of turning the water in was performed by E. L. 
 
 1222 Cooley. I cannot tell what difference there has been 
 in the quantity of the water that they allowed to pass 
 over this dam in the summer and winter; there may not 
 have been any so far as I know. 
 
 1223 I cannot tell the greatest quantity of water from my 
 recollection which I have seen flowing over the dam at 
 any time during my service. I cannot tell the greatest 
 number of feet of water I have seen going over the dam. 
 
 1224 I have seen the dam down flat but at the same time 
 there was low water in the channel which would not 
 make any excessive flow. I cannot tell how long it re- 
 
 1225 mained flat. I think we have had the dam down at 
 times pretty near as far as it would go for two days; it 
 might have been during flood time, or it might have been 
 
 1226 at other times. 
 
 Usually put in eight hours out of the twenty-four at 
 
 1227 the controlling works each day. Since I have been em- 
 ployed at the controlling works water has been passing 
 over the dam most all the time. I do not know of any 
 time that there has not been water going over the dam 
 
 or through the gates except at times when we would have 
 
 to raise the dam for repairs, taking half an hour or more, 
 some short period. It has been in constant operation. I 
 1228 don’t remember any date when it was necessary or 
 when we did allow a greater quantity than usual to pass 
 
 out of the basin during times of high water or rain peri- 
 
 ods in the Desplaines Valley. I do remember the icr- 
 1229 cumstance on one occasion but don’t know the purpose. 
 
 The table I used to-day was one furnished me by the 
 engineers. It is used by me in making up my records 
 1230-31 and reports. I haven’t the table. I believe it is 
 1232 printed. The table was given back to me before my re- 
 fusal to let you see it. 
 
207 
 
 12338 The Sanitary District channel from the controlling 
 works to the 9th street bridge varies in width from three 
 
 1234 to six hundred feet. Aside from the water flowing from 
 the dam and through the gates the only water which es- 
 capes from the windage basin is water that goes through 
 two water wheels which we have for developing power 
 for heating and lighting the buildings and grounds. There 
 is a raceway east of the channel leading south from the 
 controlling works. The water in the raceway operates 
 the hghting plant. 
 
 1235 The mechanism that controls the dam and gates is 
 operated by different power; the dam by hydraulic 
 power, the gates by hand power. There are seven gates. 
 North of these there are places for eight more. I don’t 
 know whether there is any controlling works to regulate 
 the flow of the water between Lake Michigan and the 
 Bear Trap dam. 
 
 1236 The cause of the water being lower at one time than 
 another in the windage basin and channel is due largely 
 to the prevailing winds. <A north wind will raise the 
 water in the windage basin, while a south wind has a 
 tendency to drive it back. The windage basin is 505 
 feet wide at its south end and it narrows to a 160- 
 foot channel, which width is maintained during the Rock 
 channel, throughout the length of the rock channel. The 
 
 1237 windage basin is 35.2 feet deep. 
 
 I desire to offer the table enclosed in the envelope in 
 conformity with the offer and suggestion of the counsel 
 for defendant, and make the same a part of my evidence. 
 I will not give vou the table. 
 
 Certificate of commissioner taking depositions to depo- 
 
 1238-40 sitions of Clarence O. Davis, Obediah Hicks, Rollin 
 
 L. Reed, T. E. March, Thomas J. Kelly, Homer R. Clark 
 and I’, G. Blakeslee, 
 
208 
 
 1241 Mr. Burrers: We offer now in evidence the deposi- 
 tion of Zina R. Carter, taken March 25, 1906, together 
 with the stipulations and certificate of the commissioner 
 attached, which reads as follows: 
 
 Stipulation as to the taking of depusitions of Zina R. 
 Carter, EK. L. Cooley, William A. Vail, Isham Randolph 
 and William H. Christie, before Mary EK. Black, Commis- 
 sioner, on April 25th and 26th, 1905, entitled in the suit 
 of John Brannan vs. The Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 Signed by the attorneys for the respective parties, plain- 
 tiff and defendant. 
 
 1242-49 Stipulation relative to the taking of depositions, en- 
 titled in the case of John A. Shulte vs. The Sanitary Dis- 
 trict of Chicago, pending in the Circuit Court of Mason 
 County to the August term, A. D. 1905. 
 
 And other cases pending in all counties in the Illinois 
 River Valley in which suits are pending against the San- 
 
 1250-53 itary District of Chicago, except Grundy County, de- 
 fining the manner in which the said depositions shall be 
 taken and providing for their use as evidence under cer- 
 tain conditions upon the trial of various causes therein 
 mentioned and specified. 
 
 1254 Certificate of Mary EH. Black, Commissioner, to the tak- 
 ing of said depositions. 
 
 4255-57 Additional stipulation entitled in the same ease of 
 Shulte vs. The Sanitary District of Chicago, relating 
 to the taking and preservation and use of said deposition. 
 
209 
 
 1258 Deposition of Zina R. Carrer, a witness for the plaintiff, 
 being sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Curran. 
 
 My name is Zina R. Carter, age 58, and have resided 
 in Chicago for 33 years. Am trustee of the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict of Chicago, elected 1895 and have been President. of 
 
 1259 the Board of Trustees for something more than a year. 
 
 The Sanitary District has constructed a channel con- 
 necting the Chicago River with the Desplaines River. In 
 the state of nature the Chicago River flowed into Lake 
 Michigan. The channel of the defendant empties into 
 the Desplaines River near Lockport, in Will County. The 
 Desplaines River empties into the Illinois. By the junc- 
 tion of the Kankakee it forms the [linois River. 
 
 1260 The channel excavated by the defendant is 28 to 29 
 miles long and extends through clay, rock and glacial 
 1261 drift. The portion of the channel constructed through 
 rock is 162 feet wide and 26 feet below Chicago datum. 
 The width of the clay channel varies. I cannot state 
 1262 the width. It is wider and larger than the balance. The 
 slope is two to one I believe. I think the greatest width 
 at the top of the earth embankment would be a little 
 in excess of 300 feet. Other work, cross section of the 
 Chicago River, has been enlarged, and the work per- 
 formed necessary to carry the water through the city 
 1263 of Joliet. The average width of the widening of the 
 -1264 cross section of the Chicago River cannot be stated on 
 account of the irregular size originally of the Chicago 
 River. As far as the work has been performed the cross 
 section is 200 feet in width. Before it was widened the 
 Chicago River was very irregular. It is not complete, only 
 1265 about two-thirds of the distance between Lake street 
 and the junction of the Sanitary channel with the Chi- 
 
260 
 
 1266 cago River at Robey street. There is a distance of about 
 two and a half miles completed to the present time. The 
 1267 river has been deepened about eight feet. About one- 
 third of the distance of the work yet remains to be done. 
 
 1268 At Joliet the cross section of the Desplaines River was 
 increased through the city of Joliet, and change was 
 made in the same and the dams that existed were re- 
 
 1269 moved. That work was completed in about January, 
 1900. The cross section I think was increased for the 
 entire length through the city. Unable to say how much 
 it was increased in width or how much deepened. 
 
 1270 Dams number two, and Adams Dam sometimes called 
 Dam number one, were removed, and Dam number one 
 was reconstructed. I do not recall any other construction 
 through the city of Joliet. 
 
 1271 I think there were walls on one side at least construct- 
 ed along the river, perhaps on both sides. On the side 
 adjoining the I. & M. canal, a construction was performed 
 to protect that waterway, covering a distance between 
 Dam number one and Jefferson street. There was a 
 wall constructed of concrete. The levees were constructed 
 by the defendant at certain points between the Bear Trap 
 Dam and that part of the Desplaines River known as the 
 Upper Basin in Joliet, not, however, for the whole dis- 
 
 1272 tance. I cannot give the length of the levee. 
 
 I have seen the Desplaines River at Lyons. Near Lyons 
 a construction was made, what is known as the spillway, 
 which was to prevent water flowing through an old ditch 
 dug there in years past. Am unable to state how long 
 
 1273 it was in feet. I think the work is concrete although 
 the base may have been of stone. The work is located 
 near the Desplaines River and was completed by the de- 
 
 1274 fendant in 1893. It was built across the Ogden Ditch. 
 The Ogden Ditch carried water from the Desplaines River 
 
261 
 
 to the Chicago River and the south branch of the Chicago, 
 a distance of seven miles. 
 
 After the construction of the spillway any water that 
 1275 was stopped from flowing through the Ogden Ditch 
 flowed down the Desplaines River into the Illinois River. 
 Am unable to say how high the spillway was constructed 
 across the Ogden Ditch. J] haven’t any actual knowledge. 
 1276 The object was to prevent overflow in the Desplaines 
 River passing through the Ogden Ditch into the Chicago 
 River. 
 
 1277 At Dam number two, in the city of Joliet the bridges 
 
 1278 were changed. Entirely different type of bridges were 
 built. A stone bridge was constructed with piers of stone 
 construction. The piers were changed at Jefferson street 
 
 1279 over the Desplaines after the removal of the stone 
 bridges, there was a steel bridge placed there. It was a 
 
 1280 little longer than the bridge previously located at said 
 point. I have no independent recollection of the length 
 of the new bridge the defendant built at Cass street. 
 
 1281 I think the bridge was placed at a different grade, that 
 the elevation is greater than the old bridge. How much I 
 
 1282 am unable to state. The elevation was slight, I cannot 
 state the exact amount. ) 
 
 The connection between the channel I have described 
 constructed by the defendant and the Chicago River is at 
 Robey street. It was simply an opening in the clay. 
 There are no controlling works located at Robey street; 
 the controlling works are at Lockport. 
 
 1285 The channel constructed by the defendant at Lockport 
 meets the Desplaines River. The controlling works at 
 Lockport consists of a construction that absolutely con- 
 trols the flow of water, which is called the Bear Trap 
 Dam. The dam may be raised or lowered and thereby 
 increase or diminish the flow of the water. There are 
 
262 
 
 seven complete gates and seven gates yet to be installed 
 
 1284 if I recall correctly. The construction at that point was 
 made with a view to installing these gates if necessary, 
 seven additional gates. 
 
 1285 The construction I have described was for the purpose 
 of carrying sewage and water from the Chicago River 
 through the Desplaines and Illinois into the Mississippi 
 River. It is permanent in its character. The works I 
 have described were completed in 1899. They are under 
 
 1286 the control of the defendant, controlled by its engineer- 
 ing department. Isham Randolph is the head of the 
 
 1287 department, controlled by the entire board and engineer. 
 The construction, management, direction and use of this 
 work has for a period of five years since January 17, 
 1900, been under the control of the trustees of the de- 
 
 1288 fendant. Also the same control since January 17, 1905. 
 
 1289 The water from the Chicago River and Lake Michigan 
 was permitted to run into the channel I have described 
 at Robey street on January 2nd, 1900. On that day the 
 Bear Trap Dam and the gates I have mentioned were 
 closed and the dam was raised, which condition contin- 
 ued until the 17th of January, 1900. When the connec- 
 
 1290 nection at Robey street was made, the water flowed into 
 the channel from the Chicago River towards the Des- 
 plaines. It flowed until the channel was filled to the level 
 of the Chicago River. Through the Chicago River the 
 flow was from Lake Michigan to Robey street. Before 
 
 1291 that time a large part of the flow went through the IL. & 
 M. canal. In a state of nature it flowed towards Lake 
 
 1292 Michigan. The Chicago River did flow toward the I. 
 & M. canal and flowed up to where its pumps were located. 
 I could not answer correctly how much water had been 
 pumped into the I. & M. canal. 
 
 1293 It took the canal between Robey street and Lockport 
 
263 
 
 about six days to fill. I was present at the controlling 
 
 1294 works on January 17, 1900. The board of trustees were 
 also present, also three commissioners of the state of 
 
 1295 Illinois. On that date the dam at the controlling works 
 at Lockport was lowered by permission of the Govern- 
 ment of the State of Illinois. It was lowered early in 
 
 {296 the morning, I don’t recollect the hour. When it was 
 lowered the water flowed over the dam from the channel 
 into the Desplaines River and down the river, I don’t 
 know how much water was allowed to flow. 
 
 Since that time, up to January 19, 1905, I have been 
 there many times but not at regular intervals. On the 
 1297 occasions I have been there the water was flowing over 
 1298 the dam. To my knowledge the gates that I have men- 
 tioned, between the 17th of January, 1900, and the 17th 
 of January, 1905, during a very large part of the time 
 1299 have been closed. JI am unable to answer accurately 
 as to what part. My judgment on that subject is that the 
 gates have not been open at any time except for experi- 
 ment to ascertain the actual flow, or for temporary ad- 
 justment of the dam. When the gates have been open 
 the water was flowing through the rates rather than over 
 1300 the dam. I am unable to say how many have been open 
 at any one time. The gates have been open at various 
 times during those five years. I haven’t any knowledge 
 as to the capacity of the flow of the dam and gates on 
 those occasions. I know the water did flow over the 
 1301 dam and through the gates. 
 
 1302 Recess until 1:30 Pp. m. 
 1303 Court met pursuant to recess. 
 
 Mr. Butters continuing reading the deposition of Zina 
 R. Carter. 
 
 There has never been a time during those five years 
 
264 
 
 when I have been present at the works that water has 
 not been flowing over the dam or through the gates. The 
 controlling works are in charge of the engineering de- 
 partment. Mr. Randolph is in charge of that depart- 
 ment. 
 
 1304-5 I know Mr. Cooley. He is an engineer and employe 
 1306 of the Sanitary District. His duties are largely con- 
 nected with this office and his office is in this building. 
 
 1307 There have, since January, 1900, been six men in actual - 
 charge of the controlling works. The foreman’s name 
 is Blakeslee. Their duties are to carry out the orders of 
 
 1308 the chief engineer. I am not aware that they receive 
 orders. from the chief engineer. I cannot answer as to 
 whom Mr, Randolph issues his orders. I think Mr. Ran- 
 
 1309 dolph issues an order direct to any man in the depart- 
 
 1310 ment at Lockport. The engineering department com- 
 prises all the construction work of the Sanitary District 
 and all surveying of every character is conducted by that 
 department in obtaining data for the purpose of the 
 Sanitary District. 
 
 1312 There is a vast amount of investigation by means of 
 surveying necessary to establish routes, find good eleva- 
 tions, of given territory that we may desire to have 
 knowledge of, as for instance they have been working 
 
 1313 on the Calumet route. By the Calumet route I mean a 
 line of territory between Willow Springs and the Calu- 
 
 1314 met River. The survey of the Calumet route was for 
 the purpose of ascertaining the condition of that terri- 
 
 1315 tory with the expectation that a channel may be cut 
 
 1316 through that point some time from a point known as 
 Sag, a point of the present Sanitary Channel to the Cal- 
 umet River. The Calumet River flows into Lake Michigan. 
 When the proposed channel is cut it will empty into the 
 present Sanitary District channel. -It will increase the 
 
265 
 
 1317 drainage area of the Sanitary District. I am unable 
 
 1318 to state how much in square miles. The channel will 
 
 1319 be about 17 miles long. It is not determined how wide 
 
 1320 it will be. It is not contemplated to send down the flow 
 
 1321 of water, that is the surface water of the Calumet, but 
 the sewage for that section of the territory and sufficient 
 water for dilution. 
 
 1322 Relative to the present territory that is drained, it is 
 immediately south and consists of a part of the City of 
 Chicago, a large part which is now sparsely settled, 
 speaking from a standpoint of a city. The remainder 
 
 1323 of the territory has a larger population. There will be 
 
 1324 no increase in the capacity of the stone work in order 
 to make the connection by ‘the Calumet route. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: I want to now move to strike out 
 all of the evidence contained in this deposition with ref- 
 erence to the Calumet extension, for the reason that the 
 same is merely a projected enterprise, that it has not 
 been constructed to this date, and that the testimony 
 relative thereto does not tend to prove any of the issues 
 in this case, and is purely theoretical upon the part of 
 the plaintiff. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the objection. 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 eounsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 1325 Since the 17th day of January, 1900, the controlling 
 
 1326 works has been under the chief engineer. Since the 
 17th day of January, 1900, and during the last year, a 
 report was made direct to the president of the board 
 showing the flow during the period covered by the report 
 somewhat in excess of 250,000 cubic feet per minute. 
 
 Mr. CHIperFietp: We move to strike the answer as 
 not being responsive to the question. 
 
266 
 
 1327 Same objection to the question: Objection overruled: 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 1328 My recollection is that the report was handed to me 
 1329 by Mr. Cooley. No one has charge of the flow through 
 the controlling works except the chief engineer. 
 
 1330 My knowledge as to what officers or agents have, under 
 the direction of the board, taken gauge readings and 
 made reports is general and not specific. As a matter 
 of supposition Mr. Cooley has more to do with that than 
 any man in the engineering department. Mr. Cooley has 
 
 1331 occupied that same position in the engineering depart- 
 ment during the last five years. 
 
 I do not know how often the flow through the controll- 
 ing works is read and reported. My idea is there is no 
 reading except on occasion of a change of the gates. I 
 
 1332 think Mr. Cooley has more general knowledge of the 
 actual flow than any other man connected with the dis- 
 trict. When a change is made in the quantity of flow 
 from the Bear Trap Dam, it is directed by the chief engi- 
 neer. I think it is only on a very rare occasion that he 
 
 1333 has ever had any direction from an officer of this board. 
 There have been a small number of instances where I 
 
 1334 have advised with the chief engineer, regarding the flow 
 
 of water over the dam. They have occurred when there 
 was difficulty in navigating the Chicago River by reason 
 of low water. I could not give the date of it. My answer 
 
 1335 refers to the last year and a half. 
 
 The Sanitary District of Chicago has a clerk that keeps 
 the records of its proceedings as a corporate body. The 
 clerk is Stephen D. Griffin. The Sanitary District does 
 not make a record of its flow of water over the Bear Trap 
 Dam and through the controlling works, to my knowl- 
 
 1336 edge; no record kept unless it is in the engineering de- 
 
267 
 
 partment. I have never seen any such record. It would 
 
 1337 be under the direction of the chief engineer. I person- 
 ally have no knowledge of it or how often a report is 
 made to the chief office of the defendant in the engi- 
 neering department. 
 
 1838 Between Summit and the controlling works at Lockport 
 in the process of its werk to the Desplaines River, it 
 changed the course of the river there. I was not con- 
 
 1339 nected with the Sanitary District at the time that work 
 was performed. I never saw the river in its original 
 state, in its old bed; therefore I could not give an intel- 
 hgent answer to the question. 
 
 The waters of the Desplaines River flow towards Lock- 
 port from the spillway near Lyons or Summit. From 
 the spillway or the Santa Fe bridge near the spillway to 
 a point opposite the Bear Trap Dam, the waters of the 
 Desplaines River flow since the 17th of January, 1900, 
 
 1340 in an artificial channel from Joliet. Cannot state the 
 depth of the channel. All of the works and embankments 
 that I have referred to between the lake and the end of 
 the embankment at Joliet, constitute together what is 
 known as the Sanitary District work. 
 
 The paper shown me as Plaintiff’s Exhibit ‘‘7’’ has 
 my signature attached hereto. It was served on me Mon- 
 day of this week. I don’t remember the name of the 
 gentlemen who served it. 
 
 1341 Cross-Exanunation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I said in answer to the question that the purpose of 
 the construction of the Sanitary District channel was 
 to convey the sewage of the City of Chicago into the Des- 
 plaines River. That is not the only purpose of the con- 
 struction of the Sanitary District. That is the primary 
 purpose. A further purpose is that the channel was very 
 
268 
 
 largely increased in size for the purpose of making it a 
 navigable channel, a ship canal. The design of convey- 
 ing the sewage into the Desplaines River was to prevent 
 the flow of the sewage into Lake Michigan because the 
 
 1342 waters there were used for drinking by the people. of 
 Chicago. 
 
 There was a further purpose in the prevention in the 
 spread of disease produced by an impure supply of drink- 
 ing water. 
 
 I think there has been expended in the construction 
 of this improvement a little over $38,000,000. 
 
 1343 It is true and correct that the control of the dam is 
 under the direction of the chief engineer, except on the 
 occasion that some trustee or officer of this board, other 
 than the chief engineer, may have directed a temporary 
 raising of the Bear Trap Dam. The Chicago River is 
 under the control of the federal government. It is not 
 true that the Sanitary District is in charge of all the 
 works from Lake Michigan to the Desplaines River. The 
 
 1344 federal government has at no time ceased to assert and 
 assume the regulation or to direct the amount of flow 
 through the Sanitary District channel of the waters of 
 the Chicago River. At all times since the opening of the 
 
 1345. Sanitary District channel there has been supervision, 
 regulation and control of the trustees of the Sanitary 
 District by the federal government through the secretary 
 of war. 
 
 1346 It is not true that water has at all times flowed through 
 the gates in the controlling works at Lockport. There 
 are two methods of letting the water out of the channel 
 into the Desplaines River, one over the Bear Trap Dam 
 and the other under the gates when raised. There is 
 no necessity for putting water through the gates at any 
 time when the Bear Trap Dam is down or is in use, be- 
 
269 
 
 eause it may be put down sufficient for all purposes. When 
 the Bear Trap Dam is lowered to its full capacity so that 
 
 1347 the flow is at its maximum, the flow would be greater 
 than the secretary of war’s permit allows. 
 
 1348 Re-direct Examination. 
 (Read by Mr. O’Conor.) 
 
 There has been expended by the defendant in develop- 
 ing water power $500,000. That hasn’t anything to do 
 with the health of the citizens of the defendant district. 
 
 The restrictions mentioned exercised by the govern- 
 
 ment are active at all times; under the. permit of the 
 1349 secretary of war, the Sanitary District has no right to 
 turn in water in excess of 300,000 cubic feet per minute. 
 
 300 Navigation on the Chicago River usually closes in De- 
 cember, usually opens at any time from the first of April 
 to the 15th of May. The restriction of the war depart- 
 ment applies to the defendant corporation when naviga- 
 tion is closed. The permits are in writing. I have seen 
 
 1351 them. I am quite willing the permits should be exam- 
 ined by the attorneys and copies made. I am quite will- 
 ing to furnish any documents I am advised to by the 
 Sanitary District Attorney. 
 
 My understanding of the order of the Secretary of 
 
 War is that it fixes the maximum flow. The original per- 
 
 1352 mit granted the right to flow 300,000 cubic feet of water 
 
 through the Chicago River; afterwards an additional re- 
 
 striction was issued by the Secretary of War reducing 
 
 the flow to 250,000 cubic feet per minute. The original 
 
 permit covered the whole year. The restriction, I am not 
 
 1353 clear, just what the language is now. I would not like 
 to say. 
 
 The depositions are being taken in the Sanitary Dis- 
 
270 
 
 trict office in the City of Chicago. The orders of the Sec- 
 
 1354 retary of War to which I refer, are in the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict office, in the same building on the same floor, about 
 60 feet distant. They are in a vault eontrolled by the 
 elerk of the district. 
 
 1355 I am quite willing to have those papers produced here 
 if the attorneys for the District so advise. If I do not 
 produce them my refusa! so to do will be caused by the 
 advice of the attorneys. ) 
 
 The purpose of the widening of the Chicago River and 
 
 1356 increasing the cross section of the Chicago River is to 
 
 provide a cross section that will permit the flow of 300,- 
 
 000 eubic feet of water through it without interfering 
 with navigation. 
 
 Deposition signed and subseribed to before the Com- 
 missioner. 
 
 Mr. CurprrrizLp: Now, following is the permit of the 
 Secretary of War, which they have been calling for, which 
 is as follows: 
 
 Whereas, under date of May 8, 1899, the Secretary of 
 War granted permission unto the Sanitary District of 
 Chicago to open the artificial channel from Robey street, 
 Chicago, to Lockport, and caused the waters of Chicago 
 River to flow into the same, upon the following condi- 
 tions inter alia: | 
 
 Two: That if, at any time, it becomes apparent that 
 the current created by such drainage works in the south 
 and main branches of the Chicago River, are unreason- 
 ably obstructive to navigation or mjurious to property, 
 the Secretary of War reserves the right to close said dis- 
 
 1357 charge through said channel or to modify it to such ex- 
 tent as may be demanded by navigation and property in- 
 terests along said Chicago River and its south branch; 
 
 And whereas, the Seeretary of War subsequently di- 
 
271 
 
 rected said Sanitary District of Chicago to regulate the 
 discharge of water into the Chicago Drainage Canal so 
 that the maximum flew through the Chicago River shall 
 not exceed 200,000 cubic feet per minute, from midnight 
 to 4 ep. m., nor 300,000 cubic feet per minute, from 4 Pp. Mm. 
 to midnight ; 
 
 And whereas, said Sanitary District of Chicago has ap- 
 plied to the Secretary of War for permission to increase 
 the flow between midnight and 4 p. m. daily to 250,000 
 eubie feet per minute, and the chief of engineers has ree- 
 ommended that the increase applied for be granted, but 
 that the rate of flow from 4 Pp. m. to midnight be reduced 
 to 250,000 eubic feet per minute, so that the flow through 
 the Chicago River shall not exceed 250,000 cubie feet per 
 minute throughout the 24 hours of the day; 
 
 Now, therefore, this is to certify that in accordance 
 with the recommendations of the chief of engineers the 
 Secretary of War hereby gives unto said Sanitary Dis- 
 trict of Chicago permission to regulate said discharge so 
 that the maximum flow through the Chicago River shall 
 not exceed 250,000 cubie feet per minute throughout the 
 24 hours of the day, upon the following conditions: 
 
 1558 1. That this permission shall be in lieu of the present 
 authorized rates of flow as stated above. 
 
 2. That the permission herein given shall be subject 
 to such modification as in the opinion of the Secretary of 
 War the public interests may from time to time require. 
 
 3. That said Sanitary District of Chicago shall be re- 
 sponsible for all damages inflicted upon navigation inter- 
 ests by reason of the increase in flow herein authorized. 
 
 Witness my hand this 5th day of December, 1901. 
 
 (Signed) Wm. Cary SANGER, 
 Assistant Secretary of War. 
 
 Sad 
 
272 
 
 1359 Ropert UNzicKer, a witness for the plaintiff, 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Robert Unzicker, 64 years old; reside in 
 Peru; engaged in the drain tile business and have lived 
 1360 there 30 years. Formerly a brick manufacturer. 
 
 T know Water street in Peru. Was one time a grain 
 
 buver; elevator was located on Water street. I ran it 
 1361 about six years. 
 
 T knew Sam Waugh and know the land lying south of 
 Peru; have been over the land a couple of times. Sam 
 Waugh farmed the land between 1890 and 1900. I bought 
 
 1362 corn of him. Was in the grain business in Peru in 793 
 1363 and ’95. Could look over the lands from my place of 
 business in Peru from the elevator. The land was used 
 1364 for raising corn. J am referring to land in Section 21. 
 Pretty near all of it was in corn. During those years 
 I was not out on the land. JT was there afterwards in 
 1365 1900, 1901 and 1902. 
 
 T learned that the Sanitary District water was coming 
 
 into the valley in 1900. JI have ben familiar with the Ilh- 
 
 1366 nois River since 1900. Do not go on to the river much, 
 
 but go down to the bridge to watch the river. I have 
 noticed the difference in the water since 1902. 
 
 Q. Now, just describe to the jury in your own way 
 what conditions you have noticed? 
 
 Mr. Crrperrirtp: JI want, in order to preserve the 
 question, to object to anything that has happened subse- 
 quent to five years from the 17th of January, 1900. 
 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court the 
 defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. | 
 
273 
 
 A. Why, I noticed that the water, after the water 
 came in from the Drainage Canal it was a great deal 
 higher. We did not notice it so much the first year, but 
 the second and third year it got so we thought it was 
 from three to four feet higher than it used to be. 
 
 1567 It goes out quicker over the bottom lands than before. 
 Of course the water is so much higher all the time than 
 before after a rain. They don’t raise so much corn as 
 they used to. 
 
 Q. Take it in the year 1900 in the month of January, 
 1368 prior to the turning in of the water by the Sanitary 
 District, have you an opinion as to what the fair cash 
 market value of this land located in Section 21 was? A. 
 Well, I have an idea it was worth about $100 an acre 
 then. 
 Motion to strike the answer; motion sustained. 
 
 IT never gave it a thought then what it would be worth, 
 no, sir. ‘They raised number three or number two corn 
 during the two years I mentioned. We shipped some 
 
 1369 graded number three and some number two. The best 
 they raise is number two. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 The highest grade of corn I know of is number two. 
 1370 The general run ig about number three. There is a 
 ereat deal that goes lower, number four and below num- 
 
 ber four it is no grade. 
 
 I do not know where Section 21 is located. I never 
 
 1371 knew what section it was before. I could not tell how 
 
 much land Mr, Waugh farmed. I don’t know where his 
 
 lines were. I don’t know how much he had over there 
 aside from the fact he was raising corn. 
 
 1372 JI had observed the river for some time before the San- 
 itary District water was turned in, I have no record of 
 
274 
 
 what I observed. Before the Sanitary District channel 
 was opened the Iinois River was a sluggish stream and 
 for a short time in the summer months a foul odor would 
 arise from it. At the present time the current is very 
 much swifter, the stream is stronger and I think there is 
 more water. At Peru the stream is about 300 feet wide 
 and sometimes there is a pretty swift current there. The 
 
 1373 current is about three or four miles an hour, as fast as 
 aman would walk. Before the District water was turned 
 in there was no curernt. The river was sort of a stag- 
 nant pool. I have seen high water on the river before 
 1900. 
 
 1374 My place of business was on the hill, 125 yards higher 
 
 1375 than Water street. Prior to the building of the C., B. 
 & Q. water got into the cellars on Water street. I have 
 seen the water that high since 1900. The highest water 
 on the Illinois River came in the year 1883. I have seen 
 very low water in the Illinois River. I know about the 
 
 1376 gauge being on the bridge, but don’t know how low it 
 
 1377 got. I don’t remember that, The lowest water I ever 
 saw was in 1901. I could not tell you any month when 
 the river was higher since 1900 than it was for the same 
 month previous to 1900. 
 
 It is not fair to compare the river during a month like 
 August or July with a flood month like February or 
 March. My opinion is that it was higher since the water 
 
 1378 came in. I don’t remember any dates. I cannot remem- 
 ber June, 1892, or June, 1902. 
 
 I remember sometimes before the Sanitary District 
 water was turned in of the water being high when there 
 was nothing raised on the bottoms. At those times the 
 
 1379 river would extend from bluff to bluff, about a mile 
 wide. All of the land of Mr. Waugh would be overflowed 
 and the boats could go anywhere on the bottoms. 
 
219 
 
 1380 CHarLes Castenpyck, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testified as follows: : 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Charles Castendyck; have resided in Peru 
 
 30 years, and am in business selling farm machinery. 
 
 1381 Have been in business in Peru since 1878 on Water 
 
 street two blocks and a half east of where the bridge 
 
 crosses the Illinois River. Between 1880 and 1887 I was 
 
 in business right at the bridge, since then at the former 
 location, 
 
 1382 J reside on 2d street in Peru. That would be two blocks 
 north from Water street and about 100 feet higher from 
 Water street. 
 
 I know the land Sam Waugh was farming from 1890! 
 to 1900. It was south of the river and west of the branch 
 of the slough farthest east. The land lay east from the 
 bridge across the Illinois River at Peru. Between 1890 
 
 1385 and 1900 saw the land every day from Water street. It 
 
 1384 was farmed in corn. The whole piece was planted in 
 corn. During that time I was on the land a great many 
 times. The soil was sandy loam, rich, and could be eulti- 
 vated nicely. I was on the land when it was actually un- 
 der cultivation and saw the corn growing there. It was 
 just corn, very good crop usually. 
 
 1385 From 1890 to 1900, I was familiar with the flow of the 
 Illinois River around Peru near the land. I would see 
 the river probably twice a week. I knew since 1900 of the 
 fact that the Sanitary District sent water down through 
 this valley. The water in the river has been higher all 
 
 1386 the time. It don’t get as low any more as it used to and 
 it stays higher longer. It takes longer to fall, it is slower 
 falling. 
 
 T am acquainted with the uses made of this land since 
 
276 
 
 1902. Since that time I have been over it two or three 
 1387 times a year. I saw the land this year. There is corn 
 on part of it and the rest not. cultivated is in weeds. 
 
 1388 This year about half of the land is in corn. Last year 
 I should guess more than half. I never measured the 
 acreage on the bottoms either year. The corn this year 
 
 1389 is in patches, that is, there is a piece of corn and then 
 there is a piece of weeds. 
 
 Q. What, in your opinion, was the fair cash market 
 value of that land in the month of January prior to the 
 turning in of the Sanitary District water? 
 
 Mr. CurperFietp: Wait a minute, I object to the basis 
 of comparison. The question is what was the fair cash 
 market value of that land. 
 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court the 
 defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. 
 
 13890 A. Probably $90. 
 
 Q. What was the fair cash market value of that land 
 in 1900, after the drainage was turned in, considering 
 all of the facts that you now know in relation to the flow 
 of the Illinois River? 
 
 Mr. Criprrrietp: I want to object, if your honor 
 please, as being incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial 
 and no proper foundation has been laid, and that the 
 question does not embrace the correct test, but is asking’ 
 the witness to take into consideration matters which have 
 accrued since the commencement of this suit and matters 
 of which he and no other person could have had knowl- 
 edge upon the 18th day of January or approximately 
 about that time. 
 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court the 
 defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. 
 
277 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: @. Did you understand my question, 
 Mr. Castendyck? 
 
 A. Why, what was the value of the land after the wa- 
 
 ' ter was turned in? 
 
 Q. Inthe year 1900? A. In view of all— 
 
 Q. In the month of January subsequent to the turn- 
 ing in of the Sanitary District water, considering in mak- 
 ine your answer the conditions as you now know them, 
 taking them back in other words to that date? 
 
 1391 Mr. Currerririp: I want to renew the objection to 
 the question as re-stated. 
 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court the 
 defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. 
 
 A. Why, I should say it was worth less than half. 
 Mr. O’Conor: Q. What would the land be worth that 
 is not planted to anything? 
 A. That I would not think had any value from an 
 agricultural point of view. 
 Mr. CurrerFietp: I move to exclude the answer as no 
 eriterion of value in this case. 
 
 Motion denied; to which ruling of the court the de- 
 fendant, by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 If anybody in the month of December, 1899, had sug- 
 gested the fair cash market value of that land was $100 
 1392 an acre, I would not have been amazed at the sugges- 
 tion; $100 in 1900 and in 1899 was not considered a tre- 
 mendous price even for top lands or prairie lands. I 
 think I know of a piece of prairie Jand in La Salle County 
 without improvements that had sold for as much as $100 
 
 in December, 1899. I think there is a farm gold north of 
 town for about $100, the Winston farm. No, the Winston 
 
278 
 
 farm was sold after that. I do not definitely recall the 
 year. It was before 1899 or 1900, I think it was about 
 1393 in the early nineties. It was not unimproved land. 
 
 It is seldom that a piece of land is sold without any 
 buildings on it, very seldom. J understand the land in 
 this river bottoms had no buildings on it, no sheds, barns, 
 fences or improvements of any kind. The buildings Mr. 
 
 1394 Waugh occupied were at the foot of the hill. 
 
 1395 I do not mean to have the jury understand that any- 
 where on Section 21 there was a single building of any 
 kind. I don’t know where the section line runs. The 
 place Mr. Waugh occupied is on Section 28. The water 
 
 1396 sometimes gets up in the barn yard, but at that the 
 eround is three or four feet higher than the field. 
 
 I just told you I don’t know whether there were any 
 farm buildings on 21. I don’t know where that line runs. 
 There are buildings there, but whether on Section 21 or 
 the next section south, J don’t know. 
 
 I don’t know of any bottom lands which have changed 
 hands at any time for as much as $30 an acre before 
 1900. I take into consideration, among other things, the 
 rental value of this land prior to 1900. I have no idea 
 
 1397 what rent Waugh paid. I don’t know whether he paid 
 $500 a year. If it was rented for slightly in excess of 
 $1 an acre that would not be any return on an investment 
 of $100 after taxes were deducted. 
 
 Q. If the rental] value of this land was slightly in ex- 
 cess of $1 an acre you would then say that on that basis 
 the market value would be $100? A. I am basing my 
 valuation on what the land would produce. 
 
 Land that would not bring over $1 an acre certainly 
 
 1398 would not be worth $100 an acre. It would not bring 
 over $10 or $12 an acre. 
 
 Between January 17th and the 18th day of January, 
 
279 
 
 1900, there would be a change in the market value of this 
 land on account of the turning in of the water in view of 
 
 1399 the facts that we now know, although it was not under- 
 stood at that time. There was no change then. I qualify 
 my answer to the value of the land at this time by saying 
 as an agricultural matter. I do not see anything it is fit- 
 ted for except agriculture, 
 
 1400 I know it is underlaid with coal, but how much I do not 
 know. I haven’t any idea on that, I can only tell what 
 the surface is. If it is underlaid with a fine coal, a fine 
 vein of coal located where it is near La Salle and Peru on 
 lands that are at the edge of the field, the coal would 
 certainly have a large value in January, 1900. I do not 
 know that the value of the coal in January, 1900, was 
 $100 an acre. J haven’t any idea. I suppose it would 
 have a large and substantial value at that time. I exclude 
 that from my calculation because I know nothing about it. 
 
 During the time I lived in Peru I have had a general 
 knowledge that this land and all other lands similarly 
 1401 situated was underlaid with a splendid vein of coal that 
 was highly in demand when marketed. I exclude that 
 from my consideration because I do not know anything 
 about it. I do not know how much coal comes out of an 
 acre or the cost of getting it out and all those things. 
 
 T am not a coal operator or a coal miner. 
 
 Q. Then are you qualified to speak as to the value of 
 this land for a coal proposition? A. No. 
 
 Q. Upon the question of what this land is worth you 
 say you cannot put it for a coal proportion in January, 
 1900, you say vou cannot put it into figures? A. I know 
 nothing about that. 
 
 Q. Do you mean to say that if your advice had been 
 sought as te your opinion of the fair cash market value 
 along the latter part of January, 1900, of this land as a 
 
280 
 
 coal field, that you would not then have had some opinion 
 that you would have been willing to have stated at that 
 time? A. I don’t think I would. 
 
 Q. Would you have been forced to the conclusion at 
 that time that you have no opinion of any kind upon that 
 subject? A. Why, yes, I would not have had an opin- 
 ion because it was a thing I knew nothing about. 
 
 I know that this land is held by the La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company as a coal field, but exclude that 
 fact in estimating the value because I do not know what 
 the coal is worth. I understand even though I do not 
 know what it is worth that it adds a large value. 
 
 Q. Then why, Mr. Castendyck, do you limit your idea 
 of value of this land simply to the one purpose of raising 
 corn when you know of the use that it is valuable for coal 
 land in another particular? A. I said several times be- 
 cause I know nothing about that feature of it. 
 
 @. But you do know in fairness that it does have a 
 large value? A. It has a value, yes. 
 
 I don’t know that it has a value in excess of one-half 
 the price I named. I have never been engaged in the coal 
 business. I have had information as to the value of coal 
 
 1403 lands, but have no information that would enable me to 
 fix a value upon those lands as a coal field proposition 
 in January, 1900. 
 
 In observing the river I had no gauge. I noticed the 
 ice breaker on the bridge, on the upstream side of the 
 bridge. There is a gauge on the down stream side, I 
 
 1404 never made any observation of that. 
 
 I remember the high water of 1883. I think it has been 
 quite as high since, but do not recall just which year now. 
 T remember the high water of 1892. I don’t think the 
 high water of 1902, was not as high as the high water of 
 
281 
 
 1883 or 1892, by two feet. I would not think there would 
 be a foot difference. 
 
 1405 Before the Sanitary District channel was opened in a 
 general way I knew the lay of this land. I knew the bank 
 of the river over on that side and saw the river in ex- 
 tremely low water. In extreme low water in the summer 
 time before 1900, the water would be about 12 or 14 feet 
 below the banks. I mean the bank of the river along in 
 front of Water street, across the river immediately oppo- 
 
 1406 site Water street. The land on the north side of the 
 river opposite Waugh’s at that time was five or six feet 
 lower. Across the river to the land on the south side the 
 water would get 12 or 14 feet lower than that land, at its 
 lowest stage as I have seen it. I do not know that 12 or 
 14 feet lower than the top of that bank would be lower 
 than the bottom of the river. I do not know that the ele- 
 
 1407 vation of the bank of the river at this point is 135 feet 
 below Chicago datum and that the bottom of the river 
 with the fowing banks full is not over 10 feet deep. When 
 the bank is full the river is over 30 feet deep. 
 
 I don’t know how large the sand bank is in front of 
 1408 this land. I don’t know how deep the water on the bar 
 is. Water street is eight or ten feet above the Waugh 
 land. Low water at Water street is 20 feet below Water 
 street. When the water comes up as high as Water street 
 there would be a rise of 20 feet. I think there is a dif- 
 ference of 20 feet between high and low water on the Illi- 
 nois River; 25, I think, would be placing it high; 22 or 
 23 feet is the extreme. I have seen the water higher than 
 Water street. On the lowest place in the street there 
 was six or eight inches of water and from that point to 
 low water would be some 23 feet. 
 1409 I would not think that from the level of Water street 
 to the lowest water that has been known in the Illinois 
 River is less than 15 feet. I never made any measure- 
 
282 
 
 ments or saw any measurements made. I think the water 
 would be 12 feet lower than the Waugh land in low wa- 
 ter. If the level of the Illinois River at the Waugh land 
 at low water is 12 feet below the top of the bank to the 
 land, the addition of four feet of water would still leave 
 that water eight feet below the top of the bank, would 
 1410 still leave eight feet between the surface of the water 
 as it is added. Four feet of water above the lowest I 
 have seen would not get anywhere near Waugh’s land. 
 
 Prior to 1900, during the months of the summer, the 
 average stage of water would be about two feet above 
 low water; J think as much as from four to six feet. I 
 know that before that time the Illinois River always got 
 low during the summer, came within four or six feet of 
 
 1411 the lowest water. If four feet would be added to the 
 water then in its usual condition, that would still leave 
 the banks eight feet out, and if four feet more was added 
 tt would still leave the bank four feet out. 
 
 1412 The current in the Illinois River since the Sanitary 
 District water was turned in is very much stronger. 
 When it is high it is moving at a rate of about four miles 
 an hour, I think the water is high now. The water has 
 
 1413 been rising since the rains for some days. There has 
 been approximately a three foot rise in the water during 
 the past thirty days. At the present time the current is 
 
 1414 flowing three miles an hour. I have paid no attention 
 to the river in particular to get these things. 
 
 I saw the low water of 1901. I cannot recall definitely 
 1415 if there was low water in July and August of that year. 
 I think the water was very low that year. 
 1416 The court took a recess. 
 
 1417 There was only a few feet difference between the low 
 water of 1883 and the low water of 1901, would say three 
 or four or five feet; I would say there was a great deal 
 
283 
 
 more difference than nine inches. I would not say that 
 
 1418 the high water of 1883 was a foot higher than the high 
 water of 1892 or that the high water of 1883 was three 
 feet higher than the high water of 1894. 
 
 l mean there is a general higher stage of water now. 
 
 1419 I have not paid any attention to the rainfall or made 
 
 any measurements. I know when it rains heavily the 
 
 river rises, sometimes rises several feet. I do not know 
 
 the average stage of rainfall, average amount of rainfall. 
 
 I do not know whether last year there was 40 inches of 
 
 rainfall when the average is about 30. I don’t know 
 
 whether in 1907 there was 38.79 inches of rainfall or that 
 
 - in 1902 there was 46 inches of rainfall. JI don’t know 
 
 1420 what the rainfall of the various years was. When the 
 
 rainfall is heavy it has a corresponding effect on the 
 
 stream and when there is a deficiency it has a corre- 
 sponding effect of lowering the stream. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 It takes longer now for the river to fall than it for- 
 
 1421 merly did. I don’t think there is any difference in the 
 
 value of the coal on the 17th of January as compared 
 with the 18th. 
 
 Re-cross Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 Cannot give you any instances when the river has risen 
 
 1422 more rapidly. I know that there might be some differ- 
 
 ence with reference to the taking off of the timber and 
 
 tiling the land that effects the rapidity of the discharge 
 
 of the river. I think that will affect the flow in the river 
 some, naturally. 
 
284 
 
 1423 Orro Haun, a witness for the plaintiff, being sworn, tes- 
 tifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Butters. 
 
 My name is Otto Halm; IJ live three and a half miles 
 south of La Salle; age, 38 years. I lived in Section 21 
 before 1900. Worked for a Mr. Waugh husking corn 
 
 1424 there twice, I think it was in 1894 and 1898. I am farm- 
 ing now. 
 
 1425 JI husked one patch of 12 acres and the other patch was 
 20 acres that I worked in. There was timber on the land 
 in some places where there was no corn. Outside of the 
 timber it was all corn. The corn was planted in different 
 
 1426 pieces. 
 
 There was a lot of different farmers farming different 
 patches; all one field all the way through. There were 
 teamsters farming there from town. Mr. Waugh did not 
 farm it all. Some patches of 12 acres and some of 20 
 acres. The corn was a good stand and good yield. Some 
 
 1427 of the corn had weeds in it. I did not notice any place 
 where it had been drowned out. The corn yielded 60 to 
 80 bushels to the acre. I wag on the land once in a while 
 between 1890 and 1900. I used to drive through there 
 once a week or once or twice a month. Excepting 1892 
 the corn that was growing on the land was good. A good 
 
 1428 stand and good yield; jooked good, healthy and strong. 
 
 Since 1900, I have seen the land once or twice a year. 
 It looks about two-thirds in weeds and the other third in 
 eorn. This year about one-third in corn. The last few 
 
 1429 years the corn was soft. I don’t know how much it 
 
 1430 turned cut to the acre. The corn raised on the high 
 spots and weeds on the low spots. 
 
 1431 Have noticed the condition of the water in the river 
 
285 
 
 before 1900. The difference since is that it is higher up 
 in its banks and stays up longer. 
 
 1432 I have an opinion as to the fair cash market value of 
 the farm lands about the cities of Peru and La Salle in 
 this county during the year 1900. 
 
 1433 @. Have you an opinion as to what this land to which 
 your attention has been called, being the land in Section 
 21, east of McCormick Slough, south of the river, and 
 west of the river was worth? 
 
 1434 Mr, Currerrietp: Object on the ground no sufficient 
 foundation has been laid. : 
 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court the 
 defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. 
 
 A. From $90 to $100. 
 
 1435 Q. Now, have you an opinion, Mr. Halm, as to what 
 that land upon which crops were grown, as you saw it, 
 what that land, same Jand was worth subsequent to Janu- 
 ary 17, 1900, after the water was turned in? A. You 
 mean where crops grow now? 
 
 (. Where there was crops, where there was corn 
 erown on it; how much was that worth per acre, the fair 
 cash market value of it? 
 
 Mr, CuiPerFieLp: Object to it, no proper foundation 
 laid and it refers to matters that have occurred since 
 the commencement of this suit and does not embrace the 
 proper test of value of the land. 
 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court 
 the defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly 
 excepted. 
 
 A. About $40 to $50 an acre. 
 
 Q@. Now, how much was the portion of the land upon 
 which no crops have been grown or were growing when 
 you saw it, how much was that worth on January 17, 1900, 
 its fair cash market value? 
 
286 
 
 1436 Mr. Curprrrietp: J want the same objection to stand 
 to that question, if I may have it, 
 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court the 
 defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. | 
 
 A. Well, I don’t know. It ain’t worth nothing. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I don’t think it is worth anything for raising corn. 
 
 Q. You know the test is, as I. understand it, and at 
 least the one which I want you to adopt, is not for 
 any single purpose, but for every purpose, and the pur- 
 poses for which the land may he fitted. Now, if that is 
 the test and if this land is underlaid with a high grade 
 merchantable and marketable coal, it has a greater value 
 than that, hasn’tit? A. Twas figuring on raising crops. 
 
 Q. I know you were and I am asking you now to take 
 into consideration the value of this land as a coal prop- 
 erty. You know, don’t you, this land is owned by the La 
 Salle County Carbon Coal Company? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 @. And vou know they hold it as a coal property, 
 1437 don’t you? A. IT don’t know what they hold it for. 
 
 I know that this is a coal field in connection with the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. If it was under- 
 laid in 1900 with 3,500 to 5,000 tons of coal, to every acre, 
 it had a large value at that time for coal. I did not take 
 into consideration its use for coal purposes. I simply 
 took into consideration if a man wanted to raise corn, not 
 1438 its market value, but the return it might bring in. 
 IT know the Cox farm situated about two miles west of 
 Tonica, containing 160 acres, being sold for $125 an acre 
 1439 somewhere around 1901, 1902 or 1900. 
 
 1440 I have no connection with the plaintiff except selling 
 them a few props. 
 
287 
 
 The pieces that I husked in 1894 and 1898 were 20 acres 
 and 12 acres. The biggest part of the land was husked 
 by Waugh, but there were four or five other different 
 parties farming a part of it. 
 
 1441 JI think there is some change in the river now. The 
 current is swifter at times. There is a bank along the 
 
 1442 river by the Waugh land. I could not tell how high that 
 bank was above low water before 1900. My idea is four 
 or five feet, maybe six feet. I have not seen the river 
 lately. 
 
 Where I was husking in 1898 and 1894, I did not see 
 any corn that would go 120 or 125 bushels to the acre. 
 No places in the patch I worked where land two feet 
 higher than the rest where the corn would be poorer than 
 1443 the other corn, nor any place a couple of feet higher 
 where the corn would only average 40 bushels and a cou- 
 
 ple of feet lower 120 or 125 bushels. 
 
 Kpwarp Frtmmwatp, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Edward Friewald; I live about a mile and 
 1444 a half south of Water street in’Peru. Have lived there 
 27 years. 
 
 I know the land at one time farmed by Waugh. I don’t 
 1445 know what section the land is located in. I have been 
 1446 on the land that Waugh farmed and farmed a part of it 
 myself in 1906. In that year I rented 20 acres and planted 
 about half of it. The half I planted was planted the last 
 1447 of May and the first of June. In the fall I husked what 
 I planted, but never kept track of the character of the 
 corn. It was pretty fair. It was not as good as it ought 
 
 to be, though. 
 
288 
 
 In 1906, there was quite a bit out. The high spots were 
 
 1448 farmed. All the high spots were planted, but the low 
 ones they could not work. The year after I tried to farm 
 it, but I did not get it in, the water came up and drowned 
 us out in May. That was 1907. 
 
 1449 JI was not particularly acquainted with the Illinois 
 River before the Sanitary water was turned in. I would 
 see it a couple of times a month going to town. I noticed 
 a difference in the river and the river bottoms since 1900. 
 
 1450 The water is higher now than it used to be. In the 
 spring it would not dry off, it would stay up high enough 
 to keep the ground wet. I think more water comes in 
 some way and is held up. 
 
 1451 JI noticed the land this year. It is pretty hard to tell 
 how much of the land is in crop this year; they just 
 farmed the high spots. 
 
 1452-53 Discussion and recess of court until November 18, 
 1912, at ten a. M. 
 
 1454 November 18, 1912, 10:00 a. m, 
 
 Epwarp FrRinwaup, a witness for the plaintiff, recalled 
 for further examination, testifies as follows: 
 
 Cress-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I am 29 years old and wag raised on the farm. Since 
 
 that time I have been engaged more or less in farm work. 
 1455 Am working at home for my parents farming 80 acres. 
 1456 Our land is on the high land on top of the hills about 75 
 or 100 feet higher. I have known the high land in Sec- 
 1457 tion 21 since I was a kid. T recollect the bottoms be- 
 1458 tween 1890 and 1900. T don’t know much about the con- 
 ditions there before 1900. I don’t remember just what 
 age I started to work down there, just remember a little 
 1460 about it. Those years the Illinois River was pretty low. 
 
289 
 
 1461 I noticed the bank. The water would be three or four 
 1462 feet below the bank or a little better, possibly five or six 
 feet. I think it was four or five feet. 
 
 I know where Water street at Peru is. I never meas- 
 
 1463 ured it. The water is not overflowing the bend now. It 
 
 1464 is about a foot below. The water now is low, the river 
 
 is lower now than it was, you might say, for all summer. 
 
 It was once down a little bit lower, not a great deal. I 
 
 don’t know whether it has raised three feet in the last 
 
 1465 thirty days. Pretty hard to say whether it is an inch 
 
 or a foot. It raised a couple of feet, I guess. I expect it 
 raised three feet, 
 
 When I first knew the river in low water it used to be 
 
 four or five feet below the top of the bank. To-day it is 
 
 a foot below the top of the bank. In the last 30 days it 
 1466 has raised three feet. 
 
 In 1906, I had 20 acreg rented, a dry year. 1907 was 
 
 1467 a good year for good crops; 1907, could not get in there, 
 
 the water was high. It commenced to rain the latter part 
 
 of May; after that the water rose and came awful fast. 
 
 In 1906 got in about 20 acres. It was fair corn. I have 
 
 1468 no idea how much it went to the acre. I sold the corn. 
 
 T don’t remember how many loads. Shelled prairie corn 
 
 with it and mixed it so I eannot tell the difference. I 
 
 1469 don’t remember how the corn graded. At the elevator 
 they never said nothing about it. 
 
 IT observed the current in the river since 1900, I don’t 
 
 1470 know that it is flowing any faster. I talked with Mr. 
 
 McPhedren last week. Before 1900 did not pay much at- 
 
 tention to the current, not old enough to pay much atten- 
 tion to it. 
 
 1471 In 1906, a number of other fellows were farming’ 
 
 1472 patches of ground, may have been five. I don’t know 
 how much corn [ paid for rent. I put it in the crib at the 
 Waugh farm. 
 
290 
 
 THomas H. Hatsrnap, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Thomas Halstead; I live in Peru, 60 years 
 
 1473 old and J resided in Peru 26 years. Have been engineer 
 
 at the electric light and water works plant during the 
 
 past year. Before that I was threshing and shelling corn. 
 
 I owned part of the threshing outfit; in that business 
 about thirty-seven years. 
 
 1474 The past 23 years I lived on the hill in Peru. I know 
 the land that was farmed by Waugh. I have known it 
 for something like 20 years back. I have shelled corn 
 over there and have threshed on the hill, I cannot tell 
 
 1475 how long ago it was. It was fifteen years ago anyway. 
 I was there on more than one occasion. IJ think I was 
 
 1476 there within 10 or 12 years. Shelling outfit was located 
 next to the edge of the hill up on the high ground. 
 
 1477 Those years corn was raised there. It was all corn 
 outside of the timber land. Pretty good crops, maybe 90 
 bushels an acre. 
 
 1478 I did shredding just west of the Illinois Central tracks, 
 for the plaintiff. Took my outfit right in on the land. It 
 1479 consisted of a traction engine and a shredder. I think 
 it was about 13 years ago; it wag in the winter time. I 
 was there pretty near all winter, the outfit stayed there 
 1480 a month; that was before the Sanitary District water 
 1481 was turned in. That is the only occasion IT remember 
 that I had the outfit on that piece of land. I husked corn 
 1482 on the Waugh land, but I don’t remember the years. 
 I had noticed the difference in the condition of the river. 
 The water is considerably higher. There used to be no 
 1483 water around a lot of trees we used to fish around. 
 Afterwards there was. Other places covered with water. 
 
291 
 
 1484 I should think the difference in the water was about 
 three and a half to four feet. I fished from April to Sep- 
 
 1485-6 tember. I recail no differences other than I have 
 stated except there is more water. 
 
 1487 I don’t know how much timber there was, in acres. The 
 timber was soft maples and willows, grew along the bank 
 of the Illinois River. 
 
 1488 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 To a certain extent have been employed by the plain- 
 tiff. Before 1900 fished quite a number of years in the 
 1489 Illinois River. I have gone: back 30 years in my testi- 
 mony. I have fished right next to the Illinois River 
 1490 bridge and below and above. Fished down at the ‘‘Three 
 I’’ bridge down at Marquette. Have fished in DePue 
 Lake eight or nine miles down. I covered that in my tes- 
 timony. Also down at Sister Islands, which are seven 
 miles below Hennepin and about 28 miles below La Salle; 
 1491 also at Senachwine Lake, three miles below Sister Isl- 
 ands and above the Henry Dam. Senachwine Lake con- 
 1492 nects with the river. Its water comes from the Illinois 
 River. There is a difference in the level at Senachwine 
 1493 Lake and La Salle, but I don’t know how much. I have 
 covered all these matters in my testimony in answer to 
 Mr. O’Conor’s questions. 
 
 At all these places before 1900 there was both high and 
 1494 low water. In the spring the water would get high. I 
 do not remember the high water of 1888. I cannot refer 
 1495 to the year 1892. I cannot give you any specific year. 
 Sometimes the water would be higher and sometimes it 
 would be lower. 
 1496 J don’t remember the water coming up to Water street 
 and flooding the basements of the business places that 
 were located there. I have heard them talking about it. 
 
292 
 
 Water street is about ten feet higher than it was years 
 ago, than it was 29 years ago last May. I don’t know 
 
 1497 that Water street has not been raised by a foot and a 
 half. It has been raised, but I don’t know how much. 
 I don’t say. 
 
 1498 Along the bank buildings have been torn down. I only 
 know what I have heard about buildings being flooded. I 
 
 1499 could not say whether buildings have been raised or not. 
 T could not tell you. They are practically all stone build- 
 ines and brick buildings with basements. I don’t know 
 whether they are now in the same place or not. 
 
 I don’t know whether the high water has been as high | 
 since 1900 as it was before, cannot give you the years. I 
 don’t know of any year that the stage of the water in the 
 river is any higher now than it was before. 
 
 1500 Before 1900, if we got a big flood the river would go 
 up. I don’t know how much the greatest rise was in the 
 Illinois River. J don’t know whether it rose 15 feet or 
 23 feet. It rose as much as 12 feet; cannot say any more. 
 
 1501 I don’t know whether the river has had a rise of as 
 much as 22 feet. I don’t know what the maximum rise 
 
 1502 was in 1892 or 1883 or 1890, or between the years 1890 
 and the year 1900, or between 1900 andthe present time. 
 I don’t know whether the Illinois River since 1900 has 
 heen as high as it was before. When it is high it extends 
 from bluff to bluff, three-quarters of a mile wide, possi- 
 bly a mile. Have seen a vast river flowing through the 
 valley. 
 
 1504 Have known the pumping station about 20 years. I 
 haven’t got any idea before 1900 how high in feet the 
 pumping station would be above the level of the river 
 when it stood at its lowest point; I don’t know whether 
 it was 30, 40, 50, 100 or 500 feet. I am satisfied it was 
 
 1505 not 500 feet. I don’t know whether it was 20 or 25 feet. 
 Have no idea, I have seen the water pretty close to the 
 
293 
 
 road and have seen it low. I don’t know how far it would 
 
 be below the edge of the pumping station; the pumping 
 
 station is about nine feet from the river. I never watched 
 1506 the high water stage, how high it got. 
 
 1507 Reeess until 1:15 Pp. m. 
 1508 November 18, 1912, 1:15 p. m. 
 
 Court met pursuant to recess. 
 
 Tomas Hatstrap, a. witness for the plaintiff, recalled 
 for further examination, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination Continued by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 Did not do any hunting on this land last year. I did 
 
 1509 not see them husking on the land. They were husking 
 
 the corn and taking it out with boats. It was in the fall 
 
 1510 of the year, about husking time. Did not see more than 
 one boat. ‘The land was covered with water. 
 
 Cross-Exanunation by Mr, Chiperfield. 
 
 I guess they have husked corn a great many times in 
 boats on that land. I stated this morning that I had 
 marked different stages that | had observed for the pur- 
 pose of locating low water on the Illinois River; the 
 
 1511 marks were all along there where there was a tree or 
 anything like that, clear from Peru to Senachwine Lake, 
 a little over 30 miles. Before 1900, the trees there every 
 year would sometimes be in the water and sometimes out 
 of the water, but since 1900 they have been in the water. 
 1512 There are quite a few of them located where I could 
 show you. One right at the mouth of Huse and Loomis 
 Slough. J don’t know whether it was a soft maple or a 
 willow. It is only a stump now, it was atree. There are 
 quite a few trees near it. You could not distinguish the 
 
294 
 
 1513 tree unless you knew where the tree was. There is no 
 road there. 
 
 1514 The slough is located about a mile west of Peru and 
 connects with the river, a mile or a mile and a quarter 
 
 1515 from the bridge. I have told you where that slough was, 
 about a mile west of Peru and it connects with the river. 
 
 1516 The tree stands right in the water now probably three 
 or four hundred feet from the river bank. The tree is 
 
 1517 located on the edge of the slough. I would have to take 
 you out to show it to you, it is impossible for me to locate 
 
 1518 it. It was located along that slough just above the 
 mouth. It is not a very large tree. The standing water 
 
 1519 killed it. It did not stand in the water all the time, only 
 at certain times. At times of high water the water would 
 probably be 15 to 20 feet deep. It was a tree 25 to 30 
 feet high. At high water there would be some of it 
 sticking out. 
 
 1520 I know the condition of the river at the present time. 
 IT seen it this morning. With reference to the bank where 
 the river curves, the river is about bank full. My judg- 
 ment is the river has risen in the past 30 days three feet 
 
 1521 or more. Before the river commenced to rise the tree 
 would be standing in water about 34 or 4 feet. Before 
 1900 the river at a low stage would be 34 to 4 feet below 
 the bank. No water around the tree. There would be 
 water around the tree when the river is from 34 to 4 feet 
 
 1523 below the top of the bank. At certain times of the year 
 before 1900, there would be water around the tree. Be- 
 
 1524 fore 1900, when the river was at its low stage, the water 
 would be eight feet below the top of the bank. Before 
 
 1525 1900 the base of the tree would be about a foot and a 
 half out of the water, maybe two feet. 
 
 When the river started to rise this last time it would 
 be more than three feet below the top of the bank. Be- 
 1526 fore the river commenced to rise about 30 days ago, I did 
 
295 
 
 not pay any particular attention to it. I don’t know how 
 much water there was around the tree because I was not 
 down there. 
 
 1527 Another particular point is a big tree about three feet 
 through right across the slough. It is an elm tree. I 
 don’t know how much water was around it 30 days ago 
 or how much there is to-day. In dry seasons before 1900 
 it was out from 34 to 4 feet. I know there is water 
 around it as the river is just about medium stage, bank 
 
 1528 full. That stage is considerably more than a low stage. 
 IT don’t know how much above low water a medium stage 
 in the [hnois River is supposed to be. I did not say a mo- 
 ment ago that it was a medium stage. 
 
 I don’t rememebr the low water of 1901 or of 1893, 
 
 1529 or 1896, or when the lowest water was that I ever saw 
 before 1900. 
 
 Since 1900 I have not made any mark along the river 
 
 and I don’t know when the lowest water was since that 
 
 time. I don’t always go fishing at low water. I would 
 1530 fish in August for bass. 
 
 1531 At times in August and September, before 1900, the 
 water was up around that tree and has not been since. 
 It has been above them, but not below them. 
 
 1532 I have not observed the current of the river since 1900. 
 I don’t know how fast it runs. I don’t know whether it 
 is faster now than before. I have not made any close 
 observation of the Illinois River either before or since 
 
 1533 1900 outside of fishing. My reason for saying the wa- 
 ter is higher now is because I could not stand on the 
 ground where I used to fish, I would have to go into the 
 water and wade up to my knees. When the water was 
 low since 1900, there would be three or four feet of water 
 
 1534 around these trees. That means the river has risen 
 
 1535 about six feet. I say that the river is six feet higher 
 
296 
 
 now than before 1900 when I said on my direct examina- 
 tion it was 34 feet higher, because the river is pretty 
 1536 well up at the present time. The trees stood out 3} or 
 1537-8 4 feet. I noticed that fact during the years from 1891 to 
 1903; 1904, I did not observe the same thing exactly. LI 
 1539 last observed the trees were 34 or 4 feet out of the water 
 in 1900. 
 The first year after the Sanitary District channel was 
 opened J noticed the change I speak of. J don’t know 
 1540 how quick the rise was after the channel was opened. 
 It was shortly afterwards. It might have been the next 
 week or so. I was not fishing in January. It might have 
 1541 been a week, a month, or two months that I observed 
 more water. If there was a rise of 34 to 4 feet of water 
 from the condition that prevailed in 1901, the trees have 
 stood out of water 31 to 4 feet in low water, they would 
 be just into the water as I understand it. 
 
 Did shredding on this land 10 or 12 years ago; don’t 
 1542 know which itis. Did not keep any book or memoran- 
 dum by which I can tell. I have no accounts in existence 
 1543 from which I can tell. I know, because there was no 
 corn raised after the Sanitary District was opened. I do 
 not know that in 1900 and 1901, full crops of corn were 
 raised upon this ground. I know that there has been 
 corn raised on the ground, pieces of it, since 1902. Corn 
 raised there every year; there might be one year that 
 1544 there was not. I am not proposing to fix any date at 
 all; I cannot fix the dates. 
 
 Put the engine and shredder there before the ground 
 
 froze up, in November some time. It was probably frozen 
 
 a little. I don’t know how many acres of fodder we 
 1545 shredded there, but was there pretty near all winter. I 
 1546 don’t know the capacity of the machine. Probably three 
 or four acres, maybe five acres we could shred a day. I 
 don’t know how many acres of corn there was in there. 
 
297 
 
 1547 I don’t know when it was we did the shelling. In my 
 estimation it was about 10 or 12 vears ago, not 20. It 
 
 1548 was somewhere from 30 years to 10 years. The sheller 
 stood on the high land. The closest time I can fix it is 
 from 30 to 10 years ago. 
 
 1549 M. J. Cuartey, a witness for the plaintiff, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 ‘My name is M. J. Charley, I live in La Salle, am 55 
 years of age. J worked land belonging to the plaintiff. 
 1550 I first farmed land belonging to the plaintiff in 1887 or 
 1888. It was west of the Illinois Central and south and 
 east of the Illinois river. The land that lies west of the 
 1551 Illinois Central and south and east of the Illinois river 
 1552 is the land I farmed in 1887. I farmed 15 to 16 acres. I 
 farmed the land in 1898, say 20 acres. I planted corn. 
 
 1553 There were others farming land in that neighborhood. 
 All of it was farmed except the wooded land. It was 
 planted in May. Cultivated the crops with teams and 
 cultivators. Husked the corn. Husked the corn kind of 
 late, it was kind of a bad season. All of the land to the 
 best of my belief was cropped in 1898. The corn was 
 of good quality and it ran about 60 to 65 bushels. After 
 
 1554 1898 did not farm that land. 
 
 1555 Have been acquainted with the Illinois river and the 
 Illinois bottoms south of La Salle all of my life and since 
 the Sanitary District water was turned in. During the 
 last two years I have been over there very nearly every 
 day during the planting and cultivating seasons. 
 
 1556 Q. Referring to this piece of property, Mr. Charley, 
 that we have been talking about, which lies west of the 
 Illinois Central right-of-way and east and south of the 
 
298 
 
 Illinois river, do you know what the fair, cash market 
 value of that land was in the year 1900, before the turn- 
 ing in of the Sanitary District water, without stating 
 what it was, do you know? A. Why, between $95 and 
 $100, along in there. 
 
 Answer stricken. 
 
 (). First, whether or not you know. Answer it yes 
 orno? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 (. Now then, will you state what in your opinion was 
 the fair cash market value of that land that I just now 
 described to you? A. About $95. 
 
 (. In the year 1900? 
 
 Mr. CurprrFietp: Just a minute. I didn’t know his 
 question was complete. I want to object on the ground 
 that no proper foundation has been laid. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: My question was not complete. 
 
 Q. (Continuing): In thé year 1900, prior to the 
 turning in of the Sanitary District water? 
 
 The Court: Overrule the objection. 
 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 A. About $95. 
 
 Q. Do you know what the fair cash market value of 
 that land was in the year 1900, after the turning in of the 
 Sanitary District water, taking into consideration the 
 
 1558 facts that you now know in relation to the flow of the 
 
 Illinois River? 
 
 Same objection; objection overruled; to which rul- 
 ing of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then 
 and there duly excepted. 
 
 A. Why about $40 or $45. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Q. You will have to say yes or no 
 first. 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q@. Will you please state what in your opinion was 
 
299 
 
 the fair cash market value of that land in the year 1900, 
 after the Sanitary District water was turned in, in the 
 month of January, taking into consideration the facts 
 that you know at this time in relation to the flow of the 
 Illinois river? Now, you may make your answer. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrretp: Object unless it also includes the 
 condition of the land. I object on the ground it is incom- 
 petent, irrelevant and immaterial and no proper founda- 
 tion has been laid and that in asking a witness to take into 
 consideration all the things he now knows in reference to 
 the river, that it is an indefinite assumption that is only 
 known to the witness and not disclosed to the counsel 
 for either plaintiff or defendant, and now known to the 
 jury, and does not include the highest and best use that 
 ean be made of the land. 
 
 1559 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court, 
 the defendant by its counsel, then and there duly 
 excepted. 
 
 A. What was the question, what the value of the land 
 was that year; $95. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Q. No, that was the first question. 
 You will have to hear that question read, I guess. 
 
 (Question read.) 
 
 A. Why, about $54. 
 
 Prior to the Sanitary District water being turned into 
 the valley I was acquainted in a general way with the 
 flow of the Illinois river and have been acquainted with 
 its flow since. The difference I have noticed is that when 
 
 1560 I go down there in the spring time to put the crop in that 
 
 you could go right along with it and put it in previous to 
 the drainage water being turned in, and I know since 
 then that the level of the river—it is up and down so 
 that you don’t know where you might stand. Sometimes 
 go down there in the regular part of the season to put 
 your crop in and you cannot get it in and you have got to 
 
300 
 
 wait and put your crop in in sections. We had to run 
 along say ten or fifteen rods and plow and harrow it and 
 plant it, and then ten or twelve days go on and plow 
 
 1561 about the same thing again and connect up the planting. 
 About 10 or 12 days afterward we would do the same 
 thing and we got the land pretty well covered. 
 
 Motion to strike answer as not being responsive to 
 the question; motion overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court, the defendant by its counsel, then 
 and there duly excepted. 
 
 1562 I was going to say I was very much interested in the 
 putting in of crops down there. 
 
 Motion to strike by the defendant; motion over- 
 ruled; to which ruling of the court the defendant, 
 by its counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 A. And paid strict attention to it. 
 
 Motion to strike renewed; motion overruled; to 
 which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 (). Are you at the present time farming any lands 
 on the bottoms owned by the La Salle County Carbon 
 Coal Company? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. CurpPerFIELD: Object to it as calling for the con- 
 clusion of this witness as to the ownership of this land. 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court, 
 the defendant by its counsel, then and there duly 
 excepted. 
 Mr. Cutperrietp: More to strike the answer of this 
 1563 witness as to the ownership of the land on the ground 
 no foundation has been laid and that the record does 
 not disclose he has any knowledge upon this proposition 
 and the title cannot be established by parole. 
 Motion overruled; to which ruling of the court, the 
 defendant by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. 
 
301 
 
 Am renting land this year from the plaintiff. It is lo- 
 cated east of the Llinois Central, and the ‘‘Q’’ Road cuts 
 it up some, it goes right through it there. It is west of 
 the Big Vermillion. I don’t know what section it is 
 
 1564 located in. My knowledge is gained simply from look: 
 ing at the plat but it appears here on the plat as located 
 in the southwest quarter of section 23. A part of it 
 
 1565 overlaps the section and runs to section 24. 
 
 1566 I started to farm that land ten years ago, in 1911. I 
 never farmed it prior to last year or subsequent to 1900. 
 Last year we started to plant about the 11th of May. We 
 
 1567 started out and plowed the high ground so far as we 
 could go and then planted it. We had to let our six 
 teams lie idle for about ten days, could not do anything 
 after we got the high ground in. Then after the expir- 
 ation of ten days we went on and plowed another piece 
 and connected it up. And we done the same thing again 
 until we got done pretty well. 
 
 1568 In that piece there are about 69 or 79 acres, I am not 
 positive which it is; one or the other. The crop matured. 
 The corn grade number 4. This year we haven’t got 
 within 25 acres of what we had in crop a year ago. This 
 year we got on the ground early. We did not get to 
 plant all of the corn until about the 18th or 19th of May. 
 
 1569 We pursued the same methods of cropping this year 
 that we did last. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Q. Now, referring to this land located 
 east of the Illinois Central, section 23, some of it being 
 south of the right-of-way of the C. B. & Q. and some of 
 it north and a small piece of section 24 lying between the 
 
 1570 right-of-way of the C. B. & Q. and the Vermillion river, 
 state whether or not in the year 1900, in the month of 
 January, you were acquainted with the fair cash market 
 value of that land prior to the turning in of the district 
 water of Chicago? 
 
302 
 
 A. $95 an acre. 
 
 Q. State whether or not, Mr. Charley, you know what 
 the fair cash market value of that same land was in the 
 year 1900, January, subsequent to the turning in of the 
 Sanitary water, taking into consideration the facts that 
 you now know in relation to the location of the Illinois 
 River. | 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: Objected to as being incompetent, 
 irrelevant and immaterial, and for the further reason 
 that the answer called for is to be based upon facts which 
 are known only to the witness and are not disclosed to 
 the court, counsel or jury. It is calling for the conclusion 
 of the witness, and no proper foundation has been laid. 
 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court, 
 1571 the defendant by its counsel, then and there duly 
 | excepted. 
 
 A. About $45. 
 
 I am the owner of bottom land and have a suit at the 
 present time pending against the defendant. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 From the fact I have a suit pending against the de- 
 fendant I feel some interest in the outcome of this suit. 
 I am desirous of seeing the plaintiff succeed upon fair 
 means; | am desirous of seeing the plaintiff succeed in 
 this suit. 
 
 1572 My business at the present time is farming and con- 
 tracting. 
 
 I cannot state positively how much ground there is in 
 the piece that lies to the east of the Illinois Central Rail- 
 road. I cannot tell you. To the best of my recollection 
 
 1573 it is about 79 acres. Went across the main ‘‘Q”’ track 
 from one side to the other. Had nothing to do with the 
 small piece over in 24, that has not been included in my 
 
303 
 
 answers. In the year 1911, we had this all put in corn. 
 1574 I got in the neighborhood, off the entire piece, I think 
 about 9,000: bushels. I had 89 acres on the north; the 
 piece adjoins that. It was about the same kind of land. 
 And from the 150 acres I got 9,000 bushels of corn. That 
 would average about 60 bushels to the acre but some 
 places it would go more than that and graded number 4. 
 Number 4 is regarded as good corn. There is number 
 1575 3 and a little number 2 but considerable number 3. Num- 
 ber 2 does not apply to new corn, it applies to old corn. 
 On new corn there are simply two grades that are ap- 
 plicable to this section of the country and that is number 
 three and number four. The corn about Peru on the high 
 and low land taken to market grades three or four. It is 
 1576 divided between the two grades. 
 
 The difference in value in price of corn between three 
 and four last year was a cent or a cent and a quarter a 
 bushel. On the whole 9,000 bushels it would be something 
 like $90. I got 634 cents for my corn. 
 
 In 1912 we planted again. This year haven’t got all 
 my corn in, been picking a little over a week. I haven’t 
 got any of this big field in yet, none of the 79 acres, which 
 was put in later than the other, we did not feel like pick- 
 
 1577 ing it. The last of the field was planted the 18th of 
 June. 
 
 The 26 acres that we did not get in this year is north 
 of the waste pile. The waste pile is immediately north 
 of the switch, on the south line. It is quite a long piece 
 there to the west line and is closer to the east line. I don’t 
 
 1579 know how many acres there are in the dump. I never 
 gave it any thought, perhaps 24 or 3. There is an oc- 
 easional big’ rock runs down there when they dump the 
 ears off. 
 
 1580 It was wet around the dump this year when we went 
 
304 
 
 to put in our crop, the water came from the river, the 
 overflow from the Vermillion river or the Illinois. There 
 is a draw in there from the Vermillion. 
 
 1581 The land was planted in 1910 by a man named Shep- 
 pard, also planted each year between 1900 and 1909. 
 Aside from it being inconvenient for us to plant it all 
 at one time, in 1911, we did get the entire land in. 
 
 When I attempted to fix the values for this land I have 
 
 1582 taken into consideration the land as an agricultural 
 
 proportion. I took into consideration its worth for rental, 
 
 its worth for raising crops, its rental value and the use 
 
 that can be made of it, and the conditions have been about 
 
 the same from 1900 down to the present time; very little 
 
 variation, substantially the same. Since then if there was 
 
 1583 a heavy rain and the waters are raised and cover the 
 
 land, just as soon as it stops raining, in an hour after- 
 
 wards, it commences to recede and goes down very fast 
 
 and don’t delay at all only a matter of three or four days. 
 In.1911, it did not delay us after we got started. 
 
 The rental value for the land for the year 1911, was 
 two-fifths; this year it is the same. Other years I don’t 
 know. 
 
 In the year 1911, there was 4,500 bushels of corn raised 
 on this land. The share of the La Salle County Carbon 
 Coal Company would be 1,800 bushels or something like 
 
 1584 that and the selling price was 63} cents I think. I never 
 figured it up, I don’t know whether the rental value 
 would be $14 an acre. 
 
 1585 I cannot tell how many bushels of corn will be raised 
 on the land this year because it is moist and not dry; put 
 in later. I don’t know whether there was a great deal 
 more of corn that had to be re-planted this year. It is 
 true that if corn was not planted very early this year, 
 
305 
 
 there was a time when by reason of heavy rains it could 
 not be planted until quite late in the vicinity of this land. 
 
 It is my belief the corn this year will not grade. The 
 
 1586 ears are not well formed; the cob is pretty shaky, 
 I mean the cob is not firm. Some of the corn is well 
 dented and hard now. 
 
 Q. Mr. Charley, will you produce, if we pay you for 
 the corn, a bushel of that corn picked at random, in this 
 court room? Starting in and picking at random as a man 
 would pick any bushel of corn, to be admitted as evidence 
 in this case, if we will pay you for the corn? A. I don’t 
 know whether I want to go and do that work or not. 
 
 Q. Will you let us do it for the inspection of the jury? 
 A. Why yes, provided you do and do it under the super- 
 vision of myself or somebody in charge. 
 
 (. Will you go tomorrow morning under those con- 
 ditions and let us pick a bushel of corn to be used as 
 evidence in this case? A. No, sir, I won’t. 
 
 (. Under your own supervision? A. No, sir, I won’t 
 go tomorrow morning because I ought to be in bed this 
 afternoon? 
 
 @. Are you sick? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Will you send a man tomorrow morning? A. No 
 
 - 1587 sir, I would want to do that without being on the ground 
 myself. | 
 
 @. Will you fix the time when you will go? A. Some 
 time when I get in better shape, better condition, I will. 
 
 Q. Will you do it Tuesday? <A. It depends upon 
 what shape I am in. If I am in shape to go out I will. 
 
 I farmed land in this vicinity in 1887 or 1898, I am not 
 positive. 
 
 1588 In the piece west of the Illinois Central right-of-way, 
 there are 70 acres more or less. In 1887 I farmed 15 
 1589 acres. Last year it was all farmed. During all these 
 
306 
 
 years there was farming operations going on there. I 
 have not farmed any of the west piece since 1900. 
 
 1590 I took into consideration when I was asked about the 
 rental value, the value of the crop and the adaptability 
 and use and all those things in fixing the value of the land 
 before 1900. I don’t remember what rent I paid in 1898. 
 It was corn, but I don’t remember the proportion. I can- 
 not remember. 
 
 In a general way I am familiar with the coal business. 
 I know the location of the shafts around La Salle. I 
 know the quality of the coal, it is a high grade of steam 
 
 1581 coal. From my experience it is high grade. 
 
 (). Now when you gave your answers of $45 an acre 
 since 1900, as I understand you did not take into con- 
 sideration the fact that this land is underlaid with coal, 
 but testified simply as an agricultural proposition? A. 
 Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Now, if itis true—if that land is all underlaid with 
 coal, isn’t that a fact, Mr. Charley supposed to be? A. 
 Why it is supposed to: be. 
 
 Q). If it is true that this land is underlaid with a high 
 grade of merchantable—with steam coal that you have 
 spoken about, of course that would have added consider- 
 able to your answer as to the value as a coal mining prop- 
 osition, would it? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 @. Wouldn’t it be your judgment, Mr. Charley, that if 
 this land is underlaid with the grade of coal of which I 
 speak, that this land of which I speak would have been 
 worth $100 an acre as a coal mining proposition? A. 
 1592 Well, I would not say for sure, I do not know what 
 amount of coal there is to an acre so I cannot answer. 
 Q. If there be from 3,500 to 5,000: tons per acre? A. 
 Well, if there be, I presume it would be valuable, yes. 
 Q. Wouldn’t it in your judgment be worth $100 an 
 
307 
 
 acre at that time as a coal mining proposition? A. Per- 
 haps it would. 
 
 I don’t think I had anything to do with that piece in 
 section 24. I think it is the piece that lies south of that, 
 still [am not positive. This piece here lying immediately 
 
 1593 north of the switch going in there, and south of that 
 where I worked I didn’t work it. It is a piece of six or 
 1594 seven acres maybe. 
 
 Cuartes Kenckie, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Butters. 
 
 1595 My name is Charles Kenckie. I live at Oglesby, lived 
 there ten or eleven years. I lived within a mile of sec- 
 
 1596 tion 21, formerly farmed by Waugh. I lived there when 
 a boy; am 40 years old now. It was about 20 years ago 
 when I lived at that place. I remember Waugh was liv- 
 ing on that land. 
 
 Since then I have seen it about every year. Between 
 
 1892 and 1900, they tried to raise corn on it. Waugh and 
 
 1597 Braun were farming it. Corn was raised all over it ex- 
 eepting the timber. The timber was on the south side. 
 The corn was good corn. I could not tell exactly what 
 years I was on the land but I used to work for Waugh 
 
 1599 and Braun. I worked six years off and on about 22 or 3 
 years ago. I worked in the winter and fall cutting props 
 and choring. 
 
 I know when they had their stock turned in there. 
 When I worked there no water on the land to amount to 
 anything except in the low part. I was there two or three 
 
 1600 different seasons off and on. I have seen as high as 
 1601 25 or 30 head of cattle and horses turned in there, 
 
308 
 
 They started to plant corn about the first of May, 
 some of them. I can’t tell what years. The corn ran 
 1602 right up to the river bank. I was there sometimes husk- 
 ing. I heard about the Sanitary District water being 
 turned in. The year I husked the corn was matured. 
 I worked on no bottom land except the Waugh land. I 
 1603 cannot say whether I worked on this land subsequent 
 to 1900. Worked there two years ago. I had a little 
 piece rented there for myself. It was near the slough, 
 about 25 acres and I rented it from the plaintiff. It ran 
 1604 over the slough and ran east from there, quite a ways 
 from the river, but I don’t know just how far. It was 
 medium ground. I farmed it three years ago and farmed 
 the same two years ago and some three years ago. Not 
 1605 farming any this year. 
 
 The first of the two years I have mentioned I got start- 
 ed to planting corn along the Jatter part of June. I could 
 not do nothing with it hardly. I planted 25 acres as near 
 as I ean judge. I got soft corn. The next year I did not 
 
 1606 plant any until along the first of July. I did not plant 
 only a couple of acres. I did not get anything off of that 
 only a few stalks. I haven’t farmed any of it since. The 
 other land west of the river, north of the river and east 
 
 1607 of the slough was about the same. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 Twenty-three years ago I worked on and off for Sam 
 Waugh. I worked a couple of times during the summer, 
 just a few days, just helping out is all. 
 
 In the winter 30 or 35 head of stock there all the time, 
 running around eating the corn stalks. Sometimes in the 
 
 1608 spring of the year the cattle would have to be taken out 
 on account of high water. 
 
 I remember the bank of the river. Those days the 
 
309 
 
 river would be down three or four feet below the bank. 
 I have seen it as low as 10 or 20 feet in places where 
 the banks are high. It was not a high bank right at the 
 
 1609 curve. At the curve J have seen it three or four feet 
 below the bank. 
 
 Three or four years ago I had 25 acres of land and 
 only got five loads off of it. I picked them off the south 
 side. The rows were 80 or 90 rods long and about eight 
 rows to the load. I haven’t any idea how many such 
 
 1610 rows you have to have to make 25 acres. I threw the 
 corn out to the hogs and they wouldn’t eat it. The corn 
 molded on the stalks. It rained on it and the stalks did 
 
 1611 not dry out. The corn was three or four feet high. The 
 big stalks were five feet high. 
 
 Mr. MePhedron came to see me. I talked with him to- 
 day. I haven’t talked with him but saw him Friday. 
 
 1612 There was more than 50 bushels on the 25 acres but 
 could not tell exactly how much there was. 
 
 J am running a threshing machine now and doing one 
 1613 thing and another. Some seven or eight years ago I quit 
 farming and went into the threshing business. 
 
 1614 CuHaruns Dootry, a witness for the Lee being sworn, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Charles Dooley, I live in Peru Township, 
 45 years of age. I farmed land belonging to the La Salle 
 1615 County Carbon Coal Company. I don’t know what sec- 
 
 | tion it was in. I was on the north side of the river. 
 1616 I see the figure 21 on the map. It would be in the 
 1617 northeast quarter of that section. I farmed this land 
 from the year 1890 to 1900, about 20 acres. I continued 
 
 to farm it down to 1904. The corn we got from 1890 
 
310 
 
 to 1900 was solid. Before 1890 we used to get the crop 
 in about the 15th of May. 
 
 1618 The fair cash market value of the land I farmed in 
 Section 21, in 1900, in the month of January before the 
 Sanitary District water was turned in, was $65. 
 
 1902 was a flood year. 1903 had about 12 acres in crop. 
 
 1619 The corn was soft, sold it for 25 cents a bushel. In 1903, 
 
 planted up to the 27th of June. In 1904, I worked the 
 
 same place and got 14 acres in. Could not put any more 
 
 in because it was too wet. The corn I planted sold for 
 
 $5 an acre in the ground, for fodder, half of it, and 
 
 the other half I hauled home and picked it over. In 
 
 1904 had soft corn. I did not attempt to farm any more 
 after that time. 
 
 1620 Have known the Illinois River for a number of years. 
 I know generally when the Sanitary District water was 
 turned into the valley. It raised the water, it floods the 
 land so you cannot work it. We have not been able to 
 get on it at all to work it at all in the spring of the 
 
 1621 year. Before the water was turned in we worked two 
 teams down there. We husked corn in 1903. We waited 
 until it froze up a little, did not start to husk until No- 
 vember. My brother farmed the land in 1905 and 1906. 
 
 1622 In 1905 it was soft same as the previous year. In 1905 
 had 12 acres in and in 1906 did not get over seven or 
 eight acres. 
 
 Q. Now, I will ask you whether or not, Mr. Dooley, 
 you have an opinion as to the fair cash market value 
 of that land in the year 1900, in the month of January, 
 subsequent to the turning in of the District water, tak- 
 ing into consideration the facts that you now know in 
 relation to the flow of the Illinois River. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrretp: Objected to as being incompetent, 
 irrelevant and immaterial and no proper foundation laid 
 
dll 
 
 and including in the elements of the question facts which 
 are known only to the witness and which are not dis- 
 closed to the court, counsel or jury, and which do not 
 appear in this record.’’ 
 
 1623 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court, 
 the defendant by its counsel, then and there duly 
 excepted. 
 
 1624 A. Why I would say $10. 
 Q. Is it practicable to farm it at all at this time? A. 
 I haven’t been down there. 
 
 Q. I am talking of it in the years so far as you 
 know? A. No. 
 
 1625 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 It is too wet, you cannot get on it. During the four 
 or five years that I knew it the water would get off in 
 June in time to plant part of it. The rest of it would 
 2o off in a week or two. It would be all off by the 
 first of July and then it could be plowed, only it was 
 too late to raise corn. Sometimes if it wasn’t for the 
 fact it was too late, the land could have been worked 
 
 1626 after the first of July. There could be sorghum or 
 something put in; millet could be raised there; sugar cane 
 could be raised there. Turnips and cow peas could be 
 raised there. Any of the crops that could be raised in 
 from six to twelve weeks, could be raised there some 
 years. 
 
 1627 The corn that I saw there was soft; if it was cut it 
 probably could be used for silo purposes. The different 
 vegetable crops, such as tomatoes, cabbages and garden 
 erops, could be raised on this land if you got it in time. 
 You could raise anything. I don’t know anything about 
 such crops whatever. I haven’t taken that into consid- 
 eration. If the land would raise these different forage 
 crops and vegetable crops it still would not have any 
 
312 
 
 value for me. I would not want to raise them. It would 
 have some value if a man wanted it for that. I cannot 
 understand that if the land was suitable for these crops. 
 it would not have a value or that it would have a con- 
 
 1628 siderable value. If a man could raise such crops there 
 would be an additional value to the land but it would not 
 to me. I don’t want to raise them at all. I want to 
 raise the longest crop but it could be used for other 
 things. Because I could not raise corn it would not have 
 any value for me although it would successfully raise all 
 those other crops of which I spoke, still the land would 
 be worthless and that is the basis upon which I made 
 my answer in this case. 
 
 1629 I know this land had no houses or improvements of 
 any kind on it, never had and that nothing ever could 
 be on it. Fences would be washed away, also any im- 
 provements that would be put on it. In addition to that 
 it was down south of this slough and the slough is con- 
 nected with the Illinois River and as the river would 
 rise this slough would rise and back out over the field. 
 
 I was familiar with the banks of the Illinois River 
 
 along that piece to the west when I was down there. In 
 
 1630 low water the river was three or four feet below the bank 
 
 before the Sanitary District was opened. I have not 
 
 seen the river lately, not in two or three years. I think 
 
 it was last August I saw it the last time. I don’t know 
 how high the river is at the present time. 
 
 1631 I was farming the land in 1900. I got a good crop, 
 good solid crop, in 1900. The water did not get my crop 
 in 1900, I had a crop in 1900 and I had a good crop in 1901. 
 It was a dry year. In 1900, the water stood three or four 
 feet below the bank—TI think two or three feet. In 1901, it 
 1632 was lower than that. In 1901 it stood four feet below the 
 bank. I saw the river lower than that in 1888 and along 
 there. I have seen the river three or four feet lower 
 
313 
 
 than in 1901 as I recollect. I do not know that the water 
 of 1901 was the lowest recorded water in the river. 
 
 In 1902, I got no crop, it was a flood year. In 1902, 
 
 1633 I planted it and got a good crop. In 1904, I got 12 
 
 acres; I only husked a part of it and sold the other part 
 
 for $5 an acre. ‘The corn that I kept ran about 60 bushels 
 
 1634 to the acre, but it was soft. I picked it over and fed 
 
 it to the cattle and hogs. The other land ran about the 
 
 same; it was planted later and it was still. softer than 
 what I got. 
 
 My brother farmed it in 1905 and 1906. He had about 
 the same kind of luck I did; a little over half of it was 
 utilized in those years and the corn was softer than 
 
 1635 usual. I don’t know what the market price was that 
 year. I think it was around half a dollar as I remember 
 it. It was solid corn. In 1903 it was as high as I re- 
 member it. 
 
 I stated that in 1900, taking into consideration certain 
 things, that in my mind this land would be worth $65 
 an acre. I don’t know of any land situated similarly to 
 that which sold for anything like that before 1900. I 
 don’t know of any sales being made. I based my state- 
 ment as to the market value of the land before 1900, on 
 
 1636 the crops we used to raise. I do not fix it on any actual 
 transactions. I take into consideration the rental value 
 and crops that were raised and the use for which it was 
 adapted. 
 
 I paid from 1890 to 1900, $3 per acre cash. In 1900, 
 $3; 1901, $3; 1902 paid no rent; 1903 and 1904, $1. 
 
 1637 When I answered as to the value of the land since 
 1900, I was considering it only from the standpoint of 
 the corn raiser and excluded every other consideration 
 that would enter into the value of the land. If it has a 
 value for other things I have not considered them. 
 
314 
 
 Corn takes the longest to mature of any crop that I 
 know of. 
 
 I did not take into consideration since 1900 the value 
 of this land for coal. I know the La Salle County Car- 
 bon Coal Company who claims to own this land is a coal 
 
 1638 mining corporation and that this land has been gotten 
 together for the purpose of coal mining operations. 
 
 Q. Now, knowing that, Mr. Dooley, when you are 
 asked what you think is the fair cash market value of 
 this land, don’t you think you ought to take that into 
 consideration? A. Well, I wasn’t considering coal at all. 
 
 Q. But in fixing the fair cash market value of land, 
 as I understand the rule, it is the duty of the witness 
 to take into consideration the best and highest use for 
 which the land is fitted, and not only that, but every use 
 for which it is fitted. Now, if that be true and you are 
 called upon to take those things into consideration and 
 you do take into consideration the coal, you would say, 
 
 1639 wouldn’t you, that this land in 1900, had a very consid- 
 erable value for coal land, you would have to say that, 
 wouldn’t you, Mr. Dooley? A. Well, you know—they 
 could get the coal no matter how much water was there. 
 
 Q. That is true, but it is also a question of the entire 
 value of the land? A. Yes. 
 
 (). And when you take into consideration every use 
 or the uses for which the land is fitted and you know there 
 is coal, with the understanding that there is a coal field 
 of that kind, do you think you can fairly exclude that 
 coal? A. I would, yes. 
 
 @. You would not consider it? A. No. The water 
 would not effect the coal. 
 
 But in fixing the value of the fee simple estate the coal 
 goes with it under such circumstances. In fixing the 
 
 1640 value of the land you would have to add to the value 
 
d15 
 
 of the land as fixed for agricultural purposes whatever 
 the coal is worth. You have got to add a considerable 
 sum for the coal. 
 
 Q. Don’t you think, Mr. Dooley, under those circum- 
 stances, if it be true, that the land would be worth $60 
 or $65 an acre for the coal that is contained in it? A. 
 I don’t know anything about that. 
 
 Q. You are not able to fix a value on the coal? A. 
 No. 
 Q. But in your figures that you have submitted you 
 
 have attempted to fix no value whatever upon this coal? 
 A. No, I have not. 
 Since 1901, the water has been higher. In 1900, and 
 1641 1901, I saw not much difference. In 1902, it was awful 
 high. I don’t know how much water stood upon the land, 
 it stretched out from bluff to bluff. I don’t know how 
 much water there was. Would have had trouble to get 
 1642 down there in a boat, it was so wet. 
 In 1904, the water got about three feet I think below the 
 bank. 
 1643 Before 1900, we did not pay the $3 a year rent if we 
 did not get a crop. Outside of farming before 1900, I 
 used to team. My brother’s occupation was teaming. 
 
 I market the corn I did not feed. 
 
 1644 Samuet Prercs, a witness for the plaintiff, being sworn, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Samuel Pierce, by occupation miner; I 
 work in Number 1 mine for the plaintiff. I have lived 
 around La Salle 40 years. 
 
 I have seen the map marked Exhibit 13, before. IT 
 
316 
 
 1645 worked on the land that lies west of the Illinois Cen- 
 tral and south and east of the Illinois River about 20 
 years ago. I could not state what year. I was working 
 for Bert Pain. Pain lived on the top of the hill facing 
 the land, half or three-quarters of a mile away. He did 
 not farm all of the land, but farmed what he could. There 
 
 1646 was no one else in there farming any. There is quite 
 a lot of it in there. There is a slough and willows and 
 so on. The willows are next to the Illinois Central and on 
 the south road or near the south road. 
 
 I think I did farm work in there four years; I think 
 it would be since 1890. I plowed and cultivated corn. 
 _ 1647 Got in there to do plowing in May. I worked three 
 teams. Pain and his father worked with me. 
 
 I did not husk any of the corn during these years but 
 saw some of it. Pain hauled it to his place. They raised 
 good corn, a good crop, fully matured. I have farmed 
 none of the land since 1900. 
 
 1648 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I am working for the plaintiff as a track layer. Oglesby 
 is six miles from Perry. One of the shafts of the plain- 
 tiff is located there. 
 
 1650 I don’t know what rent Pain paid. I last worked there 
 14 or 16 years ago. Worked on the farm in slack times. 
 There were no houses, fences or buildings on the land, 
 nothing but the naked land. 
 
 1651 The water of the [Illinois River would overflow it at 
 times. I could not say how much, have no impression. 
 
 1652 I do not know the number of acres that were in crop. 
 I would say, though, as a guess, 30 to 40 acres. The 
 land lay in a three-cornered piece; one side was the 
 river, the other side was the Illinois Central and the river 
 and the Illinois Central came together like the apex of a 
 
>~ 
 
 317 
 
 triangle. The base of the triangle would be the high 
 road. 
 
 1653 Along south side of the piece there was quite a con- 
 siderable piece of timber and swamp. On the south there 
 
 1654 was a number of acres of timber, willows and other trees 
 which had not been cleared up, and on the river there 
 was a considerable fringe of timber. Then along the Ilh- 
 nois Central there was a considerable fringe. 
 
 1655 I told Mr. O’Conor there was a slough on the south 
 side of it between the bottom lands and the hill. The 
 slough was north of the road. It was right close to 
 the road, some of it, and it covered several acres of land. 
 Some of it was deep. At times it was connected with 
 
 1656 the river, in times of high water and when the water 
 would fall it would leave a slough standing on the land; 
 the outlet would be cut off. 
 
 No one lived on the land. No live stock was ever kept 
 there except for a season, just for a while after the 
 corn would be taken. When the water rose it would be 
 necessary to take the live stock off to the hills. 
 
 1657 Epywarp SHANNON, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 Witness excused. 
 
 Court adjourned to Tuesday, November 19, 1912, at 
 9 o’clock a. M. 
 
 1658 November 19, 1912, 9 a. m. 
 Court met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 The Court: You may call the jury. 
 
 Mr. CurpererrieLp: Before you call the jury I have a 
 
318 
 
 little motion I want to make in regard to some evi- 
 dence. 
 
 I move to strike from the consideration of the jury 
 in this case and to exclude therefrom upon the question 
 of area, injury and damages, that part of the northwest 
 quarter of Section 23 which lies north of the Illinois River 
 and which is designated on the plat by the figures 15.23 
 acres; also that portion of the east half of the south- 
 west quarter of Section 23, which hes east of the I]li- 
 nois Central Railroad; also that portion of the south 
 half of the southeast quarter of Section 23, which lies 
 south of 41 acres off the north end of the south half of 
 the southeast quarter of Section 23, all in Township 
 33 North, Range 1 East of the Third Principal Meridian. 
 
 Now, in doing so, I based my motion upon the fact that 
 none of this property is described in the plaintiff’s dec- 
 laration and as this is a matter which the court will have 
 to determine, will you lay your plat there so that the 
 court can follow me in my description as I have the exact 
 description. 
 
 The Court: If what you say is true, the court hasn’t 
 anything to decide. The court will not decide that if it 
 is not in the declaration. 
 
 1659 Mr. O’Conor: We are coming to that, your Honor. 
 
 The Court: Then as to the balance of the deseription 
 if that is true there won’t need to be any discussion 
 about it. 
 
 Mr. Curperrtetp: I thought the only chance for any 
 discussion might be as to what was embraced in the dec- 
 laration. We have heen over that very carefully and 
 we are firmly convinced that none of it is included in 
 the plaintiff’s declaration and on that contention, here 
 of course, as vou suggest, if that is so there is nothing 
 to argue. 
 
 The Court: If it is not in the declaration. 
 
319 
 
 Mr. CurprrFreLtp: I am not objecting to the plat now, 
 it shows the relative situations of the property, but it 
 is to these pieces. 
 
 The Court: lLet’s see what they say, if they say that 
 is not included in the declaration— 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: This part is not in, that was put on 
 this plat in error. 
 
 Mr. Cureerrrerp: All right. 
 
 The Courr: What is that, 19— 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: 19.23 acres which lies north and west 
 of the Illinois River. 
 
 The Court: That is excluded then by agreement. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Northwest quarter, Section 23. 
 
 The Courr: That goes out then by agreement. What 
 about the balance of it? Or you wanted until after din- 
 ner to look that over? 
 
 1660 Mr. O’Conor: No, I have checked this all up. 
 
 The Court: Very well, we will dispose of it now. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: My recollection at this time is, although 
 I would not want to consent to 1t going out right now— 
 
 The Court: Well then you better take until afternoon 
 to look it up. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: That acre and a tenth— 
 
 The Court: What is that? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: This acre and a tenth located in the 
 southwest quarter in Section 23, lying east of the right of 
 way of the Illinois Central, I don’t think is described. 
 
 Mr. Cureerrietp: I don’t think, Mr. O’Connor, if you 
 will permit, that anything around east of the Illinois Cen- 
 tral is included in the declaration. I have looked it over 
 with a great deal of care. I can be mistaken about these 
 things very easily, but that is our deduction. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Now, I am inclined to think that that 
 is right on that acre. Now, this piece here lying north— 
 
 The Court: Well, then, if it is you better let it go out. 
 
320 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: I will suggest this, if Mr. O’Connor 
 finds upon investigation that is in that 1t may be re- 
 submitted. 
 
 The Court: It goes out then by agreement, that part 
 does. What about the remaining part? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: That 44-acre piece I think is described 
 in the declaration. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: Yes, described in the declaration, but 
 
 1661 let me suggest, and I don’t want to interrupt your state- 
 ment in any way, but this south section line comes here 
 (indicating) there is your division of that section. Now, 
 the 44 acres would come about where I have suggested 
 and I have taken the liberty in sketching the plat to mark 
 it there, which I had no idea you would object to. 
 
 Now, this part east of the switch, this part here north 
 of the switch on each side of a line drawn across here, 
 is not included in your deseription. Your northeast, your 
 northwest quarters are within this 43 acres across here, 
 and everything south of that running down to the switch 
 is not included in your description. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: We are not claiming for it, your Honor. 
 
 Mr. CuHIpPerFIELD: Well — 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: We are claiming for the northeast quar- 
 ter and the northwest quarter of this quarter section 
 and we are claiming for the north 44 acres of the south 
 half, that north 44 acres of the south half would be the 
 41 acres in here (indicating), 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLp: Now, the only difference then is this, 
 that Mr. Irwin in making his computation has included 
 some eight acres more than is warranted by that descrip- 
 tion. He goes south of the northwest quarter—on the 
 northwest quarter there is no dispute as to that being 
 included in their description. JI don’t want, of course, 
 to concede anything concerning ownership, but in their 
 description it is included. It is the northwest. And 
 
d21 
 
 1662 the 44 acres across the north half end of the south half 
 of the southeast quarter is included and comes down to 
 the railroad here much further distance and includes some 
 eight odd acres in addition to the 8}. 
 
 The Court: I see. That is the only point then between 
 you really. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: Then as the figures of Mr. Irwin, I 
 saw Mr. Irwin this morning and he wanted to go out 
 in the country and I suggested to him, I inquired how 
 he got those figures and he explained very curteously 
 how he did. He will be in tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock 
 he said, and I would like to ask him a couple more ques- 
 tions on cross-examination as to the difference in the 
 areas beyond the 44 acres. 
 
 The Court: Well, I will let him correct it then. 
 
 Mr, Curperrigetp: Yes. And also Mr. Irwin has dis- 
 
 covered that he has made in these two pieces, Mr. 
 O’Conor, in his addition of these two pieces a mistake of 
 10 acres. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Where? 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: It was in setting down the figures, 
 it foots up 58 or 59 acres and he has set it down in his 
 total as 69 acres. These are the figures, are they not, 
 Mr. Heilbrom? 
 
 Mr. Hermprom: Yes, sir. , 
 
 Mr. Currerrietp: And as to the total he said 446, and 
 he ineluded 10 acres here and 19 there, and an acre there 
 and 8 acres there, that are all embraced within this 
 description. 
 
 The Court: I will allow you to recall Mr. Irwin and 
 correct what seems to be an error. 
 
 1663 Mr. Cureerrietp: He wants to make a correction any- 
 way. 
 
 The Court: That seems to be the only difference be- 
 tween you, 
 
322 
 
 Mr. CureerFieLp: He wants to make a correction as to 
 the error of 10 acres in his computation which was purely 
 an error of transcribing. 
 
 The Court: I will allow you to recall him for that 
 purpose. You may call in the jury. 
 
 Epwarp SHANNON, a witness for the plaintiff, recalled 
 for further examination, testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Exanunation by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Edward Shannon, I live at Shippingsport. 
 Shippingsport is located, with reference to the City of 
 1664 La Salle, about three-quarters of a mile south of the city 
 limits on the south bank of the river. JI know where 
 Shippingsport bridge is. I live about 220 feet east and 
 south. Shippingsport bridge crosses the Illinois River. 
 I have lived here about 16 or 17 years. Prior to that 
 time I lived in the City of La Salle. 
 
 1665 My business is fishing. I have been engaged in it ex- 
 clusively since 1905. I have been acquainted with the 
 Illinois River since 1880. I took up my residence south 
 of the river in 1895. During that time my occupation 
 
 1666 has been mining coal in the winter and some in the sum- 
 mer. Otherwise my occupation has been fishing. I live a 
 little over 300 feet from the river. I know the road that 
 runs east and west along the bluff, they call it the Deer 
 Park Road. I live north of the road. 
 
 1667 From 1895 down to the present time I would see the 
 Illinois River every day during the fishing season unless 
 I was ill. JI can see over the bottom lands from where 
 T live. I fish all the way from Rockwell shaft on the bot- 
 toms and then I would fish in the lake. 
 
 In a general way I know the condition of the Illinois 
 River as to levels prior to the turning in of the Sanitary 
 
323 
 
 District waters, and know it since in a general way. 
 
 1668 Gathered my information from taking observations. I 
 took notations for a while. I don’t know whether it was 
 for the defendant or the Washington Hydrographic Office. 
 I don’t remember what years. It was since the drain- 
 age water was turned in. 
 
 There has been a difference in the stage of the Illinois 
 River since the Sanitary District water was turned into 
 1669 the valley. The river is a good deal higher than it was 
 before the drainage was turned in; rising every year; it 
 is getting higher each year. In the last three years it 
 has raised each year, the low water stage is higher than 
 the preceding year. I have some permanent marks by 
 which I can determine the rise. There is a stone in front 
 of the south pier of the bridge that used to go bare 
 1670 prior to the turning in of the water and when I used to 
 take measurements I went to the rock to determine it. It 
 was right in front of the south pier of the Shippingsport 
 bridge. I found that this season the general average was 
 about 44 feet over that as compared with former years 
 prior to the drainage water coming in. At the bridge 
 there is also piling, the piling of the bridge, but there 
 never was any mark placed so that I could determine 
 exactly to estimate from the pilings. The pilings were 
 west of the Shippingsport bridge. I don’t know when 
 they were put in there originally, I was not there. 
 
 1671 Prior to the turning in of the water of the Sanitary 
 District I should say those piles on the west side of the 
 Shippingsport bridge could be seen every year in low 
 water. Some of them would project two feet above the 
 surface of the water. They were not uniform in height, 
 some of them would be five inches out, some six inches 
 and some two feet. I have not seen them over the water 
 since about three years after the water was turned in. 
 T did not keep any correct track but I think it is about 
 
o24 
 
 1672 three years. I have seen them under water, passing 
 over them with a boat in low water in the summer. It 
 is pretty hard to determine how far below the surface 
 those pilings would be in low water. I think the last 
 time I saw them they would be six or seven inches under 
 water at low water. 
 
 1673 Also in using my nets when I set them in low water 
 they would be in the path where formerly it was tramped 
 down hard. And I set four foot nets and it was covered 
 
 in low water. That is low water on the land formerly 
 along the river where there was a path. That was on 
 
 the south side where the path was. Where the path is 
 at the present time I set the nets and the water covers 
 the four-foot net. 
 
 1674 The water covers the outlet of the lake to the river. 
 The body of water which went down there, that lake out- 
 let, 1s located at the south of the canal and comes out 
 in the river about at the point where the canal comes into 
 the river. That is what I call the lake. Formerly I 
 used to have to get out in low water and push the boat 
 through. There would be just a little water running out 
 
 1675 of the lake that kept the mud wet and I would push it 
 through. Late years I row right through the water into 
 the lake with a seine boat. 
 
 During the summer I would spend two or three days 
 a week on the river. I fish in April and start in July, 
 August and September, and on until it freezes up. 
 
 The water falls slower, the flood water is slower going 
 down. I don’t think there is much difference in the rise 
 of the river, but if there comes a heavy rain, of course 
 
 1676 the harder it rains the quicker the river will rise. The 
 general level of the river is higher. 
 
325 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I was formerly engaged in mining coal until the win- 
 ter of 1895, since which I have been engaged in fishing. 
 1677 Formerly lived in the City of La Salle and moved over 
 to where I now live in 1895. It would be about 17 years 
 1678 ago. Seven years ago I was living in Shippingsport. 
 I was generally acquainted with the [llinois River. I 
 did not know the land Sam Waugh farmed at the time 
 
 he farmed it. 
 
 1679 That is the bayou which Mr. O’Conor called a lake on 
 the plat, which you have, and which empties in near the 
 Illinois and Michigan Canal. I am acquainted with that 
 locality. I live close to the Shippingsport bridge, about 
 
 1680 180 feet from the south end of it. Have been acquaint- 
 ed with the curve in the river since 1890. I don’t know 
 the height of the bank on the side of the river opposite 
 
 1681 Peru; on the lands Waugh was farming. As a guess I 
 would say that the bank in low water was ten feet above 
 low water. 
 
 1682 @. Then since 1900, when you say there was low 
 water on the river, about how low from the top of that 
 bank would low water be since 1900? A. Well, that 
 question is pretty hard. 
 
 Q. I wish, Mr. Shannon, if you can, you would an- 
 swer the question. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Will you read the answer, please? 
 
 (Answer read.) 
 
 1683 Objection by plaintiff; objection overruled. 
 
 1684 <A. Well, I couldn’t state the exact amount where it is 
 below the bank now. It might be five feet. 
 
 That is my best Judgment. When I say now, I mean 
 general low water. I am not testifying about it to-day. 
 The river has raised during the past 30 days 18 or 20 
 
 1685 inches. When it started to raise it was not the lowest 
 
326 
 
 1686 water I have seen since 1900. It would take some time 
 to answer that question. I could not testify under any 
 
 1687-9 circumstances to the lowest water I have seen since 
 1900. When I say there is a difference in the river since 
 
 1690 1900, I refer to low water. The lowest water I ever 
 saw in the river before 1900, was at the rock that I 
 swore to that I stood on and fished. At the present time 
 the level of the water is about seven feet higher more or 
 less. 
 
 In June or July this summer the river was about a 
 
 foot lower than it was before it commenced to rise. It 
 
 1691 might have been 14 inches. Altogether the river was 
 41 feet lower than it is now. 
 
 T only heard about the drainage being turned in some 
 1692 time in 1900. JI have previously testified as a witness 
 against the Sanitary District in former cases. At that 
 time I might have testified that the drainage canal was 
 opened in the summer of 1899, I think late in the sum- 
 1693 mer. I think that was my testimony. The Sanitary 
 District channel might have been permanently opened 
 on January 17, 1900, but it was opened and water turned 
 into the Illinois River before it was permanently opened, 
 1694 in the summer of 1899. I refer to July or August, I 
 eouldn’t say which. I don’t know what they did on the 
 17th day of January, 1900, or whether that was the first 
 1695 time the Bear Trap dam was lowered. The water could 
 not be turned into the Illinois River before it was in the 
 Sanitary District channel. 
 
 In the summer before when they turned it in, the 
 
 1696 water rose probably a foot. I could not say whether or 
 not on the second day of January, 1900, for the first time 
 
 in the history of the world, the water from the Chicago 
 River was turned into the Sanitary District channel, and 
 that on the 17th day of January the gates were opened 
 
327 
 
 1697 and the flow commenced. They turned on the water. 
 They may have shut it off that winter and turned it on 
 the following summer and then it would throw me off. 
 
 On the former trial I testified that before they turned 
 
 1698 the water permanently and kept it on, they had shut 
 
 it off. They turned it on in the middle of the summer 
 
 and raised the river and then shut it off and opened it 
 
 up again in the fall and it has remained at that ever 
 
 since, remained up. The summer before it was perma- 
 
 nently opened I noticed that the water came up in the 
 
 river. It came up a foot and I think it stayed up a cou- 
 
 ple of weeks, two or three weeks, and then it went down 
 1699 very low. That is the last time I saw the rock. 
 
 On the former trial I might have testified that I had 
 
 not seen the stone which I speak of for 10 or 12 years 
 
 1700 prior to the time, 1908. I may have testified that I said 
 
 I did not see the stone in 1906 and that it had been 10 
 
 or 12 years since I saw the stone. The last time I saw 
 
 1701 the stone might have been 1899, 1900 or 1901. During 
 
 the 25 years, I have known the rock, I have seen it prob- 
 
 ably a dozen times. I don’t know whether on the trial 
 
 in 1908, I testified that I had only seen the stone three 
 
 or four times. I cannot remember how many times. I 
 
 saw it five or six different times. The stone was located 
 
 in front of the south pier, the surface is about two feet 
 
 square, it rests on the crib, it is in the erib. The wood 
 
 1702 work on the outside stood two or three inches, maybe, 
 
 above the water. I would not swear whether the stone is 
 
 there now or not. I cannot remember the lowest water 
 1703 I ever saw in the river in comparison with that stone. 
 
 IT don’t remember whether I testified in 1908, but I 
 measured the water all over the stone since 1900. If I 
 1704 testified to it I done it. 
 
 I don’t remember whether I said in 1908: ‘‘T think the 
 
328 
 
 last season I saw that rock, I think it was a pretty dry 
 season, if I remember right; part of the season was dry 
 and very low water.’’ 
 
 1705 If I said at that time that the two foot measurement 
 which I took above that rock indicated the lowest water 
 I had known of in the [Illinois River since the Sanitary 
 District water was turned in, it is true. I don’t know 
 
 1706 how much lower the water has been on the rock than 
 two feet. J cannot remember. I cannot give any time 
 that would be anywhere near the time. 
 
 I may have testified that at one time I tested with my 
 
 oars as I went by the bridge and found the water was 
 
 1707 standing one foot on the rock. The water has not been 
 
 four or four and a half feet over the rock ever since the 
 water was turned in, but it has been this last year. 
 
 It would be absolutely impossible for me or any other 
 man‘to answer what has been the lowest water on this 
 rock that I have seen since the Sanitary District was 
 turned in. 
 
 1708 Now the water falls very slow, but the rise depends 
 on the rains. Here we get the result, if they lower that 
 dam for two hours; after the time they lower it there, it 
 will show here in about two hours. It might not be the 
 same two hours and it might be ten hours; the time will 
 correspond with the time there. I don’t remember that 
 I testified in 1908 that before 1900 the water used to fall 
 very fast. Before 1900 I have known it to fall a foot in 
 
 1709 24 hours. I have seen it fall 18 inches in 24 hours. 
 The reason I testify 12 inches now instead of 18 as I did 
 in the other trial is that I am a little more conservative 
 now. 
 
 JI don’t know whether I testified in 1908 that in my 
 judgment the Illinois River had raised from its usual 
 condition before 1900, 18 inches. It it was it was cor- 
 rect. 
 
329 
 
 1710 Q. I want you to answer my question. Didn’t you 
 say in 1908, that in your judgment the [llinois River had 
 raised over its usual condition 18 inches? Wasn’t that 
 your testimony in 1908? A. Well, if it was, I guess it 
 was. 
 
 (). J am not asking you if it was your guess it was. 
 I am asking you if it was? A. If it was my testimony 
 then, it was. I don’t remember now what it was. 
 
 1711 I think my testimony in the Brannan case was the gen- 
 eral average of the river at that time was about two feet 
 and eight or nine inches. If I testified it was two feet 
 and eight or nine inches, then I testify that it is 44 feet 
 now on a genered average because since last July its 
 general average has been 44 feet. I don’t know there has 
 been no change of flow of the Sanitary District channel 
 for more than 34 years. I know that the rise of the 
 water was 14 inches in July and it has maintained that 
 
 1712 average since. Since then it has raised 20 inches in the 
 last 30 days; 34 inches altogether. 
 
 1718 Before the water started to rise the 14 inches, in July, 
 it was probably close to four feet above the rock. I made 
 no measurements except in October months. 
 
 I understand the [linois River is influenced by rains 
 within its water shed and that its water shed extends 
 over into Indiana, also into Wisconsin, and that if there 
 
 1714 are rains in these points it raises the river. I know the 
 river rises according to the rainfall. Just as it did before 
 1900. | 
 
 1715 It is my opinion some parts of the bottom lands have 
 been raised by the overflow from the river. Down in the 
 timber along the river bank in the vicinity of Shippings- 
 
 1716 port bridge there is a rise probably of four or five feet. 
 The entire channel in the river is getting deeper all the 
 time; the river channel is wearing away. 
 
330 
 
 I did not say in the Brannan trial that the river chan- 
 1717 nel had worn away four or five feet. There is a differ- 
 ence in the change of the current as compared with 1900. 
 Before 1900, the current was not over a mile an hour, 
 since it is two miles. I said in the Brannan case I know 
 that the current runs stronger than it formerly did. IL 
 1718 might have said it runs twice as fast. I did not say it 
 runs three miles an hour. I said it may have gone as 
 fast as two and a half miles an hour. ‘The current is 
 faster in high water than in low water. 
 
 1720 Ata medium stage at Peru the current is faster in the 
 vicinity of the bridges than it is at high water. Some- 
 times the fall of the water increases the current when 
 it is falling. 
 
 1721 + I think the water was higher before 1900 than it has 
 been since. I saw it going over the protection bank at 
 Lock 15 near La Salle before, but never have since. There 
 
 1722 may have been two feet on the bank. It was in June of 
 the big flood year; I don’t know whether it was in the 
 eighties or nineties. The highest since then within a 
 foot or eighteen inches of the earlier high water mark. 
 
 1723 When the river extends from bluff to bluff the stream 
 would be a little over a mile in width, possibly a mile 
 and a quarter. In places it would be ten feet on the bot- 
 toms, some fifteen, some twenty. Between extreme low 
 and extreme high water the difference is 22 feet. 
 
 1724 I took the gauges on the Hlinois River correctly and 
 sent them in correctly after 1900. I don’t remember the 
 1725 lowest water I saw by the gauge readings. 
 
 1726 If I said that upon a former occasion upon one day 
 during the time I had this gauge established that I saw 
 the water fall 12 inches within 24 hours, I did, that is all. 
 I don’t know. I have seen a fall of 12 inches in 24 hours 
 since the drainage channel was opened. 
 
331 
 
 1727 @. Then what do you mean when you say that the 
 river falls as fast since as it did before? A. Why, the 
 water was shut off from the drainage. 
 
 Q. How do you know? A. Why, they shut off the 
 drainage, it dropped right down 12 inches. 
 
 1728 I assumed that they did so from the fact that the water 
 fell that way. When the river rises we say it 1s because 
 the Sanitary District is sending down more water, and 
 when it falls we say it is because they have shut the water 
 off. I do not know as a matter of fact that the flow of 
 the Sanitary District for the last three and a half years 
 
 1729 has been constant and continuous. I don’t believe it. 
 I am assuming from what I see on the river. I never 
 was at Lockport, never have seen the Drainage Works 
 and have no knowledge of the way they flow the water. I 
 simply mean when I say that the river fell 12 inches that 
 T concluded that the Sanitary District shut off the drain- 
 age water, since 1900. I have no knowledge about the 
 matter, just concluded it. 
 
 There was a path by the river side where I was form- 
 1730 erly in the habit of walking on the south bank of the 
 river, east of the Shippingsport bridge four or five hun- 
 dred yards. In low water before 1900 the path would be 
 three or four inches above water. Sometimes it was 
 less and sometimes level with the water. In the lowest 
 water before 1900, I could not tell you how far that path 
 1731 would be above the water; maybe three or four inches. 
 A rise of three or four inches would put the path out of 
 commission unless you wanted to get your feet wet. 
 
 1732 I fished during July. The water was not always the 
 same level. I cannot say how low I have seen the water 
 in relation to that path since 1900; I never took meas- 
 
 1733 urements. I set nets there on the path the last two 
 years. Think there have been times since 1900 when 
 
332 
 
 there was not four feet of water on the path. Cannot 
 say how deep it was. I don’t remember seeing the path 
 since 1900. | 
 I spoke about the piles below the Shippingsport bridge. 
 There was some old work there that had been connected 
 1734 with the bridge before. They stood two feet out of the 
 water, the highest of them, but not all of them. In the 
 lowest water I have seen on the Illinois River those piles 
 are two feet and a half above the water. That was before 
 1900. The piles are there now on the down stream side 
 1735 below the piers. JI have seen the piles since 1900, L 
 think it was the first year. I have no idea how much 
 1736 water is on the piles to-day. 
 
 I spoke about a lake where I used to pull my boat 
 through before 1900. I was fishing. Have been there 
 every year except the flood year. I now find water where 
 
 1737 I used to drag my boat, 18 to 20 inches of water in the 
 ditch this season. Three years ago I had to push my 
 boat through. I could not row through. There was not 
 more than a couple of inches of water. The lake is on 
 the same level as the Illinois River. When there was only 
 two inches of water in the lake, I could not say how 
 
 1738 much water there would be on the rock or the piling. 
 I pushed my boat through before and since 1900. The 
 difference between before 1900 and three years ago is 
 probably three feet. 
 
 I said the fish were killed by the Sanitary District’s 
 
 1739 water. I think the water dirtier this season than .it 
 
 ever was before; I don’t think the proper amount of 
 
 water necessary to dilute it is sent down. It is my 
 1740 guess. | 
 
 We conclude every time the river falls they are shut- 
 ting off the flow of water. The fish died in July. T think 
 the water dirtier, it was dirtier than it was before 1900. 
 
333 
 
 The first time they turned the water in it killed all the 
 
 1741 fish in the net. I do not know that the water since 
 1900 has been purer and freer from contamination than 
 it was before. 
 
 1742 There is no exact stage of water that corresponds with 
 the same period year after year. July may be a high 
 month one year and a low month another. The low 
 water month of one year 1s changing and varying. The 
 only way of getting at the stage of water in the Illinois 
 River is by taking the very lowest stages and compar- 
 ing them with the present; taking the two lowest stages 
 of water before and since. In order to make a fair com- 
 parison you have got to take corresponding stages of 
 
 1743 water, low water before 1900 and since 1900. I have 
 known the river to be high in January, February, March, 
 April and every month of the year. 
 
 IT am a tenant of the La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company. I have a piece of ground rented from them. 
 
 1744 B. W. Gostromsxki, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is B. W. Gostomski, I have lived at La’Salle 
 
 for 26 years. Forty-two years of age. My business is a 
 
 butcher. Have a slaughter house located south of the 
 
 Illinois River, half a mile west of the Shippingsport 
 
 1745 bridge, about a mile from the bridge that crosses Mc- 
 Cormick’s slough. 
 
 I knew Saw Waugh. I remember the land he farmed. 
 
 I don’t know the section that it was on. You showed 
 
 me a map over in the office. The land you showed me on 
 1746 the map is the land I refer to. I was on the land from 
 1893 until 1898. I was on in December and January, we 
 
304 
 
 had eattle on there. Some months we had 25 and some 
 months 80 feeding on the corn stalks. 
 
 1747 The land was planted to corn. I don’t know the num- 
 ber of acres. We let the cattle run there six weeks or two 
 months. I have never farmed the land myself. The 
 
 1748 land was dry at that time. 
 
 . Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I made the arrangement with Waugh. He got five 
 
 cents a head. He had some cattle and horses there, quite 
 
 1749 afew. We generally had about 25 or 30 head of cattle 
 
 there, not 80. They were fat cattle bought on the market. 
 
 We put them in there and used them as needed. When- 
 
 ever we had to kill one we would take it out. The cattle 
 would be out in January. 
 
 1750 Noan Mostouuer, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Butters. 
 
 My name is Noah Mostoller, 69 years of age, live south 
 1751 of La Salle and have lived there since the summer of 
 1891. 
 
 IT knew Mr. Waugh. I worked for Waugh on this land 
 
 1752 that you call my attention to west and south of the 
 
 river. I worked there in 1891, went there in July, and 
 
 1753 stayed until the spring following. I have continued to 
 work there ever since. 
 
 I have been over all this bottom land in Sections 21, 
 
 1754 22 and 23, between 1891 and 1903. Since that time I 
 have not paid much attention to the bottom lands at all. 
 
 I did different kinds of work there, cutting timber, cut- 
 
 ting it for the mines, husking corn, cutting brush and so 
 forth. | 
 
335. 
 
 A few years ago they raised corn all over the bottoms. 
 
 1755 Not very much but several chunks of timber in there. 
 
 I do not think there was any corn raised on the bottoms 
 
 in 1892; I cannot hardly tell because it has been such 
 
 1756 a long time; 1894 they had a good fair crop in corn. 
 
 The next year the corn was fair. Prior to 1900, I used 
 1757 to get some corn out of there that was pretty fair. 
 
 I husked there every year from 1891 to 1903 with the 
 exception of two years. The land seemed to be all right 
 during the winter, I cannot remember whether there was 
 
 1758 any water on it. The water used to come in the spring. 
 I never knew it to come in as much as I could remember 
 during the winter. 
 
 After 1903, I never touched any corn there. Since 
 1759 1903 not very good crops. 
 
 I lived over the bluff from the land. I could see down 
 on the bottoms if I went some distance. Not near the 
 crop this year that there used to be before 1900. Used 
 
 1760 to husk 60 bushels a day. Used to be able to pull out 
 1761 30 bushels of corn to the load. 
 
 Cross-Examimation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 1762 I live on Mrs. Waugh’s land at the present time. I 
 
 1763 was never around La Salle before 1891. For 18 years 
 I never was in the bottoms here through the spring of 
 the year, but I was here usually until March. I husked 
 
 1764 corn in the fall. Besides husking corn I cut out cap 
 pieces. I worked pretty near all over the piece the com- 
 
 1765 pany is supposed to own. There was some very good 
 
 1766 corn raised there during that time. I cannot say what 
 it would go to the acre, I never measured it. It would be 
 only guess work. 
 
 1767 . Between the McCormick slough and the Illinois River 
 from 1891 to 1903, I could not say how many acres of 
 
836 
 
 corn I saw there. I cut off lots of timber, it was found in 
 1768 two different bunches. The timber was located pretty 
 well in the middle of the land I worked on. 
 
 1769 1900 and 1901, there was a nice crop there. I think 
 they were good. 
 
 Reeess taken until 1:30 P. M. 
 
 1770 November 19, 1912, 1:30 P. m. 
 
 Court met pursuant to recess. 
 
 Owen O’Keere, a witness for the plaintiff, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Owen O’Keefe. I live in Peru Township, 
 am 54 years of age and have resided there since 1890. 
 
 I worked on a part of Section 21. I lived about half 
 
 1771 a mile south. Waugh’s residence was on higher ground. 
 
 1772 The land which lies south and west of the Lllinois River 
 
 and east of the McCormick slough is where I worked. 
 
 I worked there in 1891 and 1894; worked 60 acres. I 
 
 1773 used it for raising corn. I raised a good crop in 1891. 
 
 1774 Most of it ran about 75 bushels. After husking have 
 1775 seen stock turned in there. 
 
 1892 was a very wet year. A little was plowed in the 
 spring but nothing raised. In 1893, I did not farm the 
 land, but corn was raised there. In 1894 got a corn 
 
 1776 crop, I think about 45 acres. It went 75 bushels to the 
 acre. After husking, stock ran on the land. In 1895, 
 
 1777 there was a full crop of good corn. 
 
 1778 In 1896 T farmed the land across the road from 
 Waugh’s land. That year it was in corn, a good crop; . 
 the same in 1897, the same in 1898 and also in 1899. The 
 
 1779 corn ran 70 bushels to the acre. 
 
337 
 
 1780 In 1900, all of the land was put in corn. There was a 
 good crop. In 1901, all of the land was put in corn and 
 they raised a good crop. 1902, no crops were raised in 
 the bottoms. 1903, there was not much corn raised in 
 there, probably a third of it. 
 
 1781 I saw the land yesterday. This year probably a third 
 of it in crop. I drove through the land two or three 
 weeks ago. The corn is in pretty fair condition, what 
 there is of it. I saw some of it that was pretty fair corn. 
 I examined it in one place. 
 
 I am acquainted in a general way with the flow of the 
 Illinois River prior to the year 1902, and since 1890. 
 
 1782 Have been acquainted with it since 1902, down to the 
 present time. I observed that the water is higher since, 
 
 1783 always higher; not able to get on the land as early as 
 they used to. There is no difference between water con- 
 ditions in the fall than there was from the years 1891 to 
 1902. 
 
 1784 I was acquainted with the land that lies west of the 
 Illinois Central and south and east of the Illinois River; 
 also acquainted with the land that lies east of the Llh- 
 nois Central and west of the Big Vermillion. Never 
 farmed any of it. It was farmed during those years 
 from 1876 to 1885. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Take the land now that lies west of the 
 Illinois Central right of way and south and east? 
 
 AS 6Y GS, SIT: 
 
 Q. Of the [linois River, how long were you ac- 
 quainted with that land? A. Nine years. 
 
 1785 The Courr: What nine years are you inquiring for? 
 
 A. From 1876 until 1885. 
 
 The Court: Well, I think that is pretty remote. I 
 think if they object to it I will sustain the objection. 
 
 Mr. Cureerrietp: They have gone into it in connec- 
 tion with this land, 
 
338 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: No. 
 
 Mr. CuiperRFIELD: Oh, yes, you have. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: In connection with this land? 
 
 Mr. CHrpPErRFIELD: Section 23, and as long as he has 
 expressed his opinion I don’t think I would lke it to go 
 out to be left unexplained. 
 
 1786 Mr. O’Conor: To what use was that land put during 
 those years, Mr. O’Keefe? 
 
 They were raising full crops there except the two 
 years, 1876 and 1881. In 1876 I think about half a crop 
 and in 1881 there was a good erop raised but did not get 
 time to pick it; the flood came along and they lost it. 
 
 I was acquainted with the land that lies east of the 
 Illinois Central Railroad during those years. They 
 
 1787 raised the same character of crops with the exceptions 
 that I have already noted. 
 
 Cross-Examimation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 From 1876 to 1885 I lived across the river in La Salle 
 1788-9 Township, right alongside of these lands, right where 
 the Big Vermillion runs into the [llnois River, about 
 1790 half a mile from the lands east of the [linois Central 
 Railroad. I lived right where the Big Vermillion emp- 
 ties into the [llinois. 
 During that time there was high water there. My 
 house stood on the same level as the lands. It flooded 
 1791 my house and put the fire out. The bottom lands were 
 1792 flooded at the same time. I have never seen the water 
 as high as it was on the 18th of February, 1883, during 
 1793 those nine years. I don’t know whether the water the 
 last 15 years has been as high. I moved out in 1885 into 
 Dayton Township and moved back to Peru in 1890. 
 1794 I testified in 1908. 
 
 Q. I will ask you if this question was not asked by 
 
339 
 
 Mr. Wiley at that time, speaking of your house: ‘‘ How 
 long did it stay in that condition?’’ to which you made an- 
 swer, ‘‘In December, 1908, we were out of the house just 
 a week, from Sunday until Sunday.’’ A. We might be 
 out of the house. JI don’t remember whether I so answer- 
 ed but we were out of the house a number of days, maybe 
 a week. 
 
 1795 Q@. Then was the question asked you, ‘‘The high water 
 was up to your house during that time?’’ to which you an- 
 swered, ‘‘No, it was not, it went down Thursday or Fri- 
 day, it went down.’’ A. Somewhere along there. 
 
 (). Then was this question asked you, ‘‘When did it 
 come in?’’ and you answered ‘‘On Saturday evening.”’ 
 A. On Saturday some time. 
 
 Somewhere along there, I don’t remember that exactly ; 
 it was in there a few days. Of course we did not go back 
 in the house right away after it went down, had to wait a 
 day. I cannot tell whether the water in 1902 got as high 
 as it did in 1883. 
 
 1796 @. Then was this question asked you, ‘‘How was its 
 height as compared that year that you were flooded out, 
 what was the condition?’’ Was that question asked you? 
 A. The condition, I don’t remember. 
 
 (. Was this question asked you, ‘‘What was the con- 
 dition of the height of the water that rose in the river 
 those two years as compared with 1883?’’ ‘To which you 
 made the reply, ‘‘It has never—it must have been three 
 or four feet higher in 1883 than ever I have seen it?”’ A. 
 Yes. 
 
 1797 @. Then was this question asked you: ‘‘It never since 
 then has been as high as you saw it in 1883?’’ To which 
 you made the answer, ‘‘No, I don’t think it ever was.’’ 
 Did you make that answer? A. I presume I did say also 
 it was not in La Salle Township. 
 
 I don’t know how much of the lands east of the Illinois 
 
340) 
 
 River were farmed in any year before 1900. I don’t know 
 anything about it only from 1876 to 1880. Between those 
 years it was all farmed except those two years, 110 acres. 
 1798 @. .Why don’t you know there is only about 70 odd 
 acres in there? A. That is what they call it, 110 acres. 
 
 . I don’t care what they call it, don’t you know there 
 
 is only 70 odd acres in there? A. It was called 110 acres. 
 
 I never farmed the land any time. There was a corn 
 erib on the south side of it. The C. B. & Q. was not there 
 1799 then. The ‘‘Q’’ road runs through there now. The place 
 1800 where the crib stood was higher than where my house 
 1801 stood. The piece west of the Illinois River between 1876 
 and ’77 was farmed by Frank Canfeen. I had nothing 
 to do with it. They called it 85 acres. 
 . Why don’t you know there is more than 150 acres 
 in there? A. They called it 85 acres then. 
 
 I farmed some of the Waugh land right north and a 
 little west of the Waugh house, 60 acres one year, 1892. 
 1802 I tried to farm it and could not, that was the flood year. 
 
 I don’t remember in the Brannan case that I gave testi- 
 mony to the effect that there was no better corn land on 
 the Illinois bottoms than the Brannan land; I don’t re- 
 member saying that the Brannan land averages about 60 
 bushels to the acre. 
 
 Q. I will ask you if Mr. Duncan asked you this ques- 
 tion during that trial: ‘‘During the seven years when you 
 say the crops were not affected by water, you think there 
 were about how many bushels per acre?’’?’ To which you 
 made answer, ‘‘About 60 bushels, I think?’’ A. Yes, 
 probably, I meant that for the average of those seven 
 years. 
 
 1803 In 1898, the flood damaged a part of that land. The 
 
 damage was along the latter part of June after the crop 
 was in. I do not think they took a third off. The water 
 
341 
 
 stood on the land in low places for several days. I am 
 speaking of the Waugh land. 
 
 1804 I could not say how much difference in elevation there 
 is between the highest and lowest piece of the Waugh land. 
 I don’t think there is any place where the difference is as 
 much as five feet. 
 
 1805 ‘The flood in 1898 probably spoiled about 100 acres. I 
 don’t know how many acres were in crop on the Waugh 
 land except what I have heard. I think there was years 
 
 1806 when there was between three and four hundred acres, 
 
 along from 1893 to 1897. 
 
 1807 The Court: I want to strike from the record this wit- 
 ness’ testimony respecting the crops on this land prior to 
 the year 1885. It is my desire to confine the testimony, 
 so far as possible, on both sides, to the first fifteen years 
 next preceding the time when the Sanitary District water 
 was turned into the valley. I think that fifteen years 
 prior to that and twelve years hence then is a sufficient 
 range of time for both parties to present their proofs, 
 and it is not necessary to go back of that. Now, I have 
 made this motion of exclusion upon my own motion and 
 it may be that counsel on both sides feel like objecting to 
 it, and excepting, and I will not call upon them to state 
 their objections or exceptions, but I will concede each of 
 them an objection and exception to my ruling in this in- 
 stance, and to what I have said. 
 
 Wituiam Brannan, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 1808 My name is William Brannan, I live in La Salle since 
 1869. I farmed a part of the land on Section 21 south of 
 the river. I mean the land that lies south and west of the 
 
342 
 
 Illinois River and east of the McCormick Slough. This 
 
 1809 is the fourth year I have been farming it; started in 1909. 
 Prior to 1909 I never farmed that piece of land or worked 
 on it. In 1909 had about 30 acres rented. 
 
 Owen O’Kuzre, a witness for the plaintiff, being recalled 
 for further cross-examination by Mr. Chiperfield, testi- 
 fies as follows: 
 
 Q. During the years 1891, 18938 and 1894, what rent 
 did you pay for this land? A. ‘Two-fifths. Paid it to 
 1810 Waugh and Braun. They sub-rented to me. 
 
 Wintuiam Brannan, a witness for the plaintiff, recalled 
 for further examination, testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination Continued by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 It was located in the northwest part of the section. I 
 rented more but I did not get more in. I rented a couple 
 1811 of hundred acres. Besides myself there were others 
 that tried to farm the land. Got on the land that year 
 June 20th. There was water on a lot of it. The land is 
 
 not uniform although in places it might be six inches or a 
 foot higher than others. J intended to put in about 100 
 1812 acres and got in 380. I went in over the road, it was awful 
 wet. The road is on the level with the land. The road 
 had been graded up. When I got on the land that year, 
 
 the land that we put in crop was in good shape to work. 
 1813 From the 20th of June on it was dry until fall. Raised 
 good corn but the water rose on it in October. The corn 
 had matured. We got in on the ice and husked it about 
 
 the month of November. The corn that we got on top was 
 1814 dried out but what we got in and gathered after the 
 water went down on the ice, it rotted, was water-soaked. 
 
343 
 
 Mr. Cosgrove had 20 acres and Mr. Dierce had 20 acres 
 and two other men, 10 or 20 acres apiece, I don’t know 
 their names. Aside from that none of the land was crop- 
 ped. The pieces did not join, scattered. 
 
 1815 The water came up the latter part of the month. In the 
 year 1910, we worked a part of the land, started to plant 
 in June and got in 80 or 90 acres. Mr. Dierce had 20 
 acres and Mr. Cosgrove had 20 or 25 acres. They did not 
 join. There were three others there who were farming 
 but I don’t remember their names. They had 10 or 20 
 
 1816 acres apiece. We got in on the same road. The land 
 was dry that fall when we husked. The corn, a great deal 
 of it, was soft. We sold and shipped it but it did not 
 grade. I don’t know why it did not grade. There was a 
 good deal of milk in the corn when we husked it. Some 
 
 1817 of it had matured and some of it had not. 
 
 1911, we started to plant the 5th of May, had a dry 
 spring and the roads were dry and good. Got in 180 or 
 190 acres. The land all joins but the river at one end 
 cuts it off and the slough cuts it off at the other end. We 
 
 1818 started husking on the 5th of October. It was dry. The 
 condition of the corn was very good. The corn was good 
 but the water raised on it. The water started to come 
 up in September. In November and October most of the 
 corn had matured and was dry but there was so much of 
 the corn that had been in the moist that we put it all in 
 together and spoiled it. The ground was wet at that time. 
 
 1819 When the water came up we cut up the corn stalks and 
 piled them together and made a kind of corduroy road. 
 In the beginning we took out large loads and later on when 
 it got so soft we just made wire cribs and piled the corn 
 up any way we could. We had six horses hitched on some 
 of the wagons. 
 
 The water continued to rise and we lost quite a bit of 
 
344 
 
 the corn. We put up two temporary cribs, one near the 
 1820 river and the other near the cross road. We couldn’t get 
 
 out with the corn. We got the corn out after it froze, with 
 
 sleighs and wagons on the ice. The corn that we got in 
 
 the cribs that was not wet was good corn. What was 
 
 husked in the wet weather blackened the corn that was put 
 1821 in the cribs. We shipped it to Chicago. 
 
 This year we got on the land the first day of June. We 
 took the feed and tools in with the boat and the horses 
 and mules we got in through the mud with the wagons. 
 
 1822 The land was all muddy, you could not get in with a load. 
 The horses and mules got mired. 
 
 Put in 160 or 170 acres this year. A good deal of the 
 corn has got milk in it, soft, not matured. We are husking 
 it at the present time. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 During the time I have been working this land I have 
 become familiar with the surface of it. The land is pretty 
 level. Probably the difference in elevation between the 
 
 1823 high and low parts would be a foot to a foot and a half. 
 During the summer months the river would be five or six 
 feet below the bank along where there is a grove of trees. 
 
 1824 When the water is at the lowest level it is probably ten 
 feet below the level of the bank. 
 
 With the exception of the one time which I have told 
 you the water would stay down until the latter part of 
 October. Some parts of the ground might be a little wet 
 the latter part or middle of June. By July Ist, the land 
 is well out of water and the river would fall down and 
 stand there and we would go on cultivating. 
 
 1825 I don’t remember exactly how much corn we got in 1900, 
 I think two or three hundred bushels. When we got in 
 to husk the water rose and we could not get the rest. Be- 
 
345 
 
 fore the water rose it looked as if it would yield 90 bush- 
 els to the acre. 
 
 1909 was a wet season, a wet spring and a wet fall. I 
 don’t know that the rainfall was 40 inches that year. I 
 have no means of knowing about it. I don’t know that 23 
 1826 inches of rain fell between the first of April and the first 
 of October in 1908. I don’t remember what we did with 
 
 the corn. 
 
 1827 In 1909 Cosgrove and Dierce and several others had 
 pieces of corn in there. Altogether there was something 
 better than 100 acres of corn. 
 
 1910 started to plant early and including my corn we got 
 in about 150 acres. I think I got about 800 bushels off. 
 There was nothing to prevent my getting a crop off in 
 
 1828 1910. The corn ought to run between 50 and 60 bushels 
 
 1829 to the acre. I am not positive but I think I got 14 cents 
 at Chicago. I rented it on shares, two-fifths. I delivered 
 the landlord’s share to him. 
 
 I think I shipped seven cars of shelled corn, that year, 
 
 running about 700 bushels to the car. I shipped the land- 
 
 1830 lord’s share, too. That would be about 4,900 bushels of 
 shelled corn. Got 444 cents for it. 
 
 1911, got in 180 or 190 acres. Started in the 5th of May. 
 
 The corn was good that year. The water commenced to 
 
 come up in September. That year I got 7,800 and some 
 
 odd bushels of corn. I shipped it and got 56 and 58 cents 
 
 for it; 7,800 bushels was all of the corn, including the 
 1831 landlord’s share. I paid two-fifths rent that year. 
 
 This year got in 160 or 170 acres. It was not good corn. 
 
 I don’t know what date we started to put it in, probably 
 the 5th or 6th of June. The corn ran about 60 bushels. 
 The part that was planted first, the first week or two, 
 ' would dry if it was kept separate, the corn planted after 
 that is soft. The corn is not dented. When you squeeze 
 
346 
 
 it the milk will come out. That kind of corn in every one 
 of the fields. The corn planted the first two weeks has 
 turned yellow and matured. We are husking it. I am 
 putting the corn which I now say is milky in the crib with 
 the rest of the corn. The crib is on the Dierce farm ad- 
 joining it on the south. One is a double crib. They are 
 about 64 feet long and there is a single crib 64 feet long 
 and seven or eight feet wide, 10 or 12 feet high. We have 
 
 1833 all of those cribs filled now about four or five feet high. 
 I think we have got about 3,000 bushels of corn in there 
 
 1834 at the present time. I think they have husked between 
 50 and 60 acres. There is 100 or so yet to husk. The 
 corn won’t grade. I don’t suppose you could get over 25 
 cents a bushel for it. New corn is worth 40 cents. Alto- 
 
 1835 gether this field would probably yield nine or ten thou- 
 sand bushels. 
 
 Cosgrove has corn in there, about 25 acres, and his corn 
 will yield about the same as mine; will be something like 
 1,500 bushels more. Dierce has corn in there, about 15 
 
 1836 acres. His is poorer corn, runs about 35 or 40 bushels, 
 and that would be about 600 more. There is a Polish fel- 
 low has got 10 or 15 acres, which will run about 35 to 40 
 bushels, making about 600 more. No one else has any 
 more corn in there this year. 
 
 Q. So that would make 10,000 or 12,000 bushels, such 
 as itis, on that land? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Pay two-fifths rent to the plaintiff. When this land is 
 out of water it is quite fertile; seems to drain itself quite 
 1837 rapidly when the river goes down. Inside of a week or 
 so after the water goes down you can plow that field close 
 
 to the water’s edge as the water recedes. 
 Did not know the land before 1909. Have had experi- 
 ence in raising millet on other bottoms similarly situated 
 to these. It grows good, a couple of tons to the acre, 
 
347 
 
 1838 Have had experience with the raising of other crops 
 on this kind of land. Raised sugar cane. It takes about 
 60 days to mature the first crop and the second crop takes 
 about 90 days. It is a good forage food; the stock do 
 nicely on it. The two crops will go three or four tons to 
 the acre. 
 
 Q. There was a question I wanted to ask you. Now this 
 land you say les practically level with the exception 
 that there is some places it may be a foot higher than the 
 others? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 (. Well, isn’t it true that when the water is off this 
 land so you can plow one part that it is off so you can 
 plow practically the entire part of the cultivated portion? 
 A. Well, yes. 
 
 1839 Q. Now, at low water stage, during the years that you 
 farmed it, when the water was right at its lowest, about 
 how far below the general level of this land would it be? 
 I mean by that, Mr. Brannan, when the water was down 
 just as far as it would get, the lowest you knew it at any 
 time during the season, about how far would it be below 
 the general level of this land? A. Oh, seven feet. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 Paying five cents per bushel for husking when I fur- 
 nished the team and ten cents when they furnished the 
 team. 
 
 1840 Re-cross Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 Have no lease for the land. Got it as long as I want it. 
 I notified the superintendent that I would not work it any 
 more. 
 
348 
 
 ABRAHAM VoRHEES, a witness for the plaintiff, being sworn 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Exammation by Mr. Butters. 
 
 My name is Abraham Vorhees, I live south of La Salle 
 about two miles, within a stone’s throw of the Big Ver- 
 million River at the bridge crossing to Deer Park on the 
 west side of the river. 
 
 1841 I know the southeast quarter of Section 23 and south- 
 west quarter of Section 23 for 37 years and continuously 
 since 1890. On the northeast quarter of the southeast 
 quarter of Section 23 from 1890 to 1900, they raised corn 
 when they raised anything; raised it every year when the 
 
 1842 water did not interfere or flood it. 1892 was a wet year, 
 with nothing raised on the land; with that exception I 
 think there were nine years continuously of corn. The 
 average was good. 
 
 1842 I worked on the land every day in the summer time. We 
 had good average crops. 
 
 1844 The land on the south side of the C. B. & Q. and on the 
 southwest side of the C. B. & Q., in the same quarter sec- 
 tion, they raised the same number and kinds of crops as 
 on the other piece. 
 
 Mr. CurrerFretp: I just want to object for the pur- 
 pose of the record to any portion that is south of the 
 north 43 acres of the south half of the southeast quarter 
 of Section 23. 
 
 Objection sustained. 
 
 1846 On that land the quality of the corn was good; two- 
 thirds of it would mature. There was a part of it not ma- 
 tured along the central track, containing several acres. 
 On the west side of the Central Railroad I saw that land 
 but not intimately with the exception of the one year I 
 
 el tt ig 
 
349 
 
 was there and did work on it. That was 1887 I believe. 
 Between 1891 and 1900 I was not on it. I saw it but I 
 eould not say anything definite about it. 
 
 Between 1902 and the present time on the land east of 
 the Central right-of-way, and east of the C. B. & Q. Rail- 
 road track, with the exception of 1902, we had pretty 
 
 1848 fair crops as far as I can understand. In 1902, we had 
 nothing, and then two years we had a partial flood. Then 
 we had a good season and since then we have had pretty 
 fair crops on that one part. 
 
 They used the land between the C. B. & Q. tracks and 
 the Illinois Central tracks during the last seven years for 
 raising corn. They raised fair corn on it off the part 
 
 1849 which they did get any from. Part of it they could not 
 raise any on. ‘They raised corn on the 20 acres parallel 
 with the ‘‘Q’’ tracks, south of the ‘‘Q”’’ tracks. The corn 
 was pretty fair up at this end towards my place, around 
 the Vermillion. 
 
 On the north and east side of the ‘‘Q’’ track in the 
 northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, during the 
 past seven years, they had corn on that that was good. 
 There is a swale or gully running through there, possibly 
 a couple of acres that is easily flooded, consequently the 
 corn would be poor in through there, but the higher land 
 they had good crops of corn off there the last year and 
 this year also. All of it is in crop this year. That 30 
 
 1850 acres is good. That is the piece east of the railroad. 
 This year the land on the west side of the C. B. & Q. and 
 east of the Central is practically of no account. There is 
 possibly 10 acres of corn matured on the land that was” 
 planted this year. 
 
 Q. Now, then, Mr. Vorhees, are you familiar with what 
 was the fair cash market value of that farm land in the 
 vicinity of La Salle during the year 1900, we will say, dur- 
 
300 
 
 ing the month of January, 1900? A. Would I be allowed 
 
 1851 to answer that by saying what I would have given for it? 
 
 @. No, I asked you the question whether you were fa- 
 miliar with the market price, the fair cash market value 
 of farming lands in the vicinity generally speaking? A. 
 Previous to 1890? 
 
 Q. 1900? A. Well, previous to 1900? 
 
 The Court: In January, 1900, is what he is asking you 
 about. 
 
 A, All right. 
 
 (). You may answer that yes or no. The question is 
 whether you have an opinion or know the market value of 
 farm lands in that community there at that time? A. My 
 opinion, yes, sir. 
 
 1852. @. Now then have you an opinion as to what was the 
 fair cash market value of the land to which your attention 
 has been called in Section 23, on the 17th day of January, 
 1900, before the Sanitary District waters were turned into 
 the Illinois Valley? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Now I will ask you what in your opinoin was the 
 fair cash market value of those lands per acre at that 
 time? 
 
 Mr. CuiperFrietp: We object to it, no proper founda- 
 tion has been laid or established. 
 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court the 
 defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. 
 
 A. Anything over $100 would be reasonable. 
 
 Q. Now I will ask you if you have an opinion as to what 
 would be the fair cash market value of the lands, the same 
 lands upon which no crop has been raised since 1900, and 
 to which your attention has been called in that Section 23, 
 since January, I mean on January 17, 1900, after the wa- 
 
 1853 ter was turned into the Ilinois Valley from the Sanitary 
 District? 
 
ool 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Same objection. 
 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court, the 
 defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. 
 
 A. My opinion at the present time? 
 
 Q. Yes. The question I asked was how much per acre 
 would those lands have been worth on the 17th day of 
 January, 1900, after the water was turned in from the 
 
 1854 Sanitary District into the Illinois River? A. $100 at 
 least. 
 
 Q. No, after the water was turned in, after January 
 17th, or around January 17th, taking into consideration 
 what you know of these lands since? A. Did I not an- 
 swer that by saying $100 or over? 
 
 Q. Mr. Vorhees, you were asked what in your opinion 
 was the fair cash market value of that land after they 
 turned the water in on January 1, 1900, taking into con- 
 sideration the conditions of that land as you have ob- 
 served them to be from that time down to the present, 
 
 1855 how much was its fair cash market value at that time 
 under those circumstances? A. A great deal of it is 
 worth nothing. 
 
 Q. Now, then, that part of those lands upon which a 
 crop has been raised during those years, what in your 
 opinion was the fair cash market value of that portion on 
 January 17, 1900, taking into consideration the condition 
 since that time? A. $100. 
 
 1856 JI have no opinion what the land is worth now. 
 
 Cross-Exanunation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My age is 53, I have lived in the vicinity of these lands 
 
 since 1874. I lived between the C. B. & Q. switch and the 
 1857 road. Where my house is located it is not quite a bit 
 higher than on the bottom. The basement level of my 
 
352 
 
 house is not any higher than the bottoms. In 1902, there 
 was 18 inches of water in the house. That was extreme 
 high water. When ordinarily the bottom land is flooded 
 my house is not flooded to any great extent. The highest 
 
 1858 ground in the bottoms is on the same level as the high 
 ground on which my house is situated. The house is on 
 higher ground than the lowest bottom lands, possibly 
 three feet. 
 
 1859 Jama coal miner by occupation. I work for the plain- 
 tiff. The land where my house stands I lease from the 
 company. I am both employed by the company and a 
 tenant of the company since 1874. I do not know much 
 about the crops west of the Illinois Central Railroad. I 
 know that they have had good crops for I saw the prod- 
 
 1860 uct when it was cribbed. They cribbed it alongside of 
 the road. I haven’t intimate knowledge of all the crops 
 but some of the crops. I have considerable knowledge 
 of the land which lies east of the Illinois Central Railroad 
 and north of the switch and on both sides of the C. B. & 
 
 1861 @. Crops have been raised there. I have had a garden 
 on part of it. There was 69/100ths of an acre. Raised 
 all things constituting a garden, cabbage, carrots, beets, 
 onions, lettuce, sweet corn. All these products grow fine- 
 ly there with the exception when they are flooded. J have 
 good garden truck there, except when they are flooded. 
 
 I lease three and 69/100ths acres of ground. Three 
 acres is in corn and 69/100ths acres in garden. The corn 
 is right in that little point there north of the main line. 
 
 1863 I have been raising corn eleven years this summer. 
 Raise corn all the time with the exception of two seasons 
 I have got a fair crop of corn off those three acres; aver- 
 age something about 35 bushels to the acre and matured 
 nearly every year. I lost it in 1902 and in 1904. In 1904 
 the damage was done by water standing around the roots. 
 
_ 803 
 
 1864 All the land in there is not adapted for garden. It is 
 too low. Thirty acres on the north side would be adapted 
 to gardening if it was not overflowed. This piece lying 
 north of the C. B. & Q. is the tract I mean. That is what 
 
 1865 they call the 30 acres. It is the highest ground in the 
 entire bottoms there with the exception of the swale that 
 runs from the Vermillion River. On the south side of 
 the ‘‘Q’’ the ground is, with the exception I have stated 
 of 20 acres along the ‘‘Q”’ track, almost worthless be- 
 cause it is so low that the back water in the river when 
 the river rises a little comes in there, and while you can- 
 not see the water very often on the top of the surface of 
 the ground, it permeates the ground so close to the surface 
 that the corn will not mature. That is the land that Mr. 
 Charley had. 
 
 1866 I know that Mr. Charley got about 45 bushels of corn 
 to the acre last year. He had about 80 acres altogether. 
 I don’t know how much corn he raised. 
 
 During the years since 1900, on the land south of the 
 
 1867 C. B. and Q. with the exception of two years there has 
 
 been a partial crop raised. The land both north and 
 
 1868 south of the railroad since 1900, was farmed by a man 
 
 named Schepp, who worked it two seasons, and Mr. Char- 
 
 ley. I always understood there was 90 acres in there. 
 
 1869 I do not know that it 1s somewhere between 75 and 80 
 acres in the two tracts. 
 
 Thirty acres on the north is high land and on the south 
 
 side there is 20 acres of land which stands high. That I 
 
 consider good land, the balance of it is low. I think the 
 
 land might possibly have been worth $125 per acre before 
 
 1870 1900. I don’t own any real estate, never bought any or 
 sold any. 
 
 I know of some land being sold similar in character in 
 that vicinity. A man named Evans from La Salle sold 
 
do4 
 
 it to a lady named Vesper. I cannot tell just how long 
 ago it was or just how much was sold. Possibly would be 
 1871 about a 38-acre piece. Sold in February, 1902. It isa 
 little lower than this land, no buildings on it. I don’t 
 know what was paid for it. I have heard it was $76 an 
 acre, That was two years after the Sanitary District 
 1872 was opened. I never thought of that sale in fixing the 
 value of this land at $100. My statement as to what it 
 was worth was based upon the products you could get 
 on there from the amount that would be required on your 
 part to produce certain results; in other words a corn 
 raising proposition. I think it could be used profitably in 
 that way so as to make a return on that amount of money. 
 
 I don’t know of any land in all La Salle County befors 
 1900, selling for $100, unimproved without buildings. 
 From information I have I guess it is true that land had 
 been generally around $50 to $75, until the next year or 
 two when it commenced to advance, and that $100 was 
 considered a very high value for even the best of La Salle 
 County land in that vicinity at that time. 
 
 I have worked in the coal mine under this land 33 years; 
 worked in the third vein; it was three feet six inches 
 thick, 440 feet below the surface. There is a middle vein 
 on the premises 44 feet thick located 160 feet higher up 
 than the third vein. 
 
 1874 Among coal miners it is figured that there is about 1,000 
 tons of coal for every foot of thickness in a vein in an 
 acre. ‘There would be about 7,000 tons of coal in each 
 of these acres of ground. I considered the land as a coal 
 
 1875 proposition to mine coal in there. I understand that in 
 the fee simple ownership of land is included everything 
 as they say from the heavens above to the center of the 
 earth. This coal is down there all right. That land with 
 7,000 tons of coal in each and every acre of it as a coal 
 
300 
 
 mining proposition in 1900, would have a considerable 
 
 value. I think that the value of the coal, taking into con- | 
 
 sideration the value of the coal now, that the value of the 
 
 surface, taking the land in its entirety as a coal mining 
 
 proposition, would be worth $75 to $100 an acre at that 
 1876 time. 
 
 1877 I would say that the extreme difference of elevation 
 in this land is about six feet between the highest and 
 lowest. 
 
 I have known the Illinois River a great many years. The 
 
 1878 water is not at its lowest stage today. The Vermillion 
 
 and Illinois stand on substantially the same level. The 
 Vermillion is within 300 yards of the Lllinois River. 
 
 1879 There is from two to six feet of water in the Vermillion. 
 Previous to the drainage it used to be in the summer, it 
 was almost dry land. The surface of the country about 
 the Vermillion has been changed by stripping off the tim- 
 ber, generally speaking, all over the state. There has 
 been a great change in the country, all over the country, 
 by the use of tile draining. The water that used to stay 
 in the land is carried off in the tile drain or run off in the 
 tile drain to the stream. 
 
 1880 I do not know that streams entirely disconnected with 
 the Illinois River, by reason of the stripping off of that 
 timber and by the use of the tile system, stand higher 
 the year around now. My impression is not otherwise 
 but I don’t know. I don’t have any information on the 
 subject. As I say, we have sometimes from three to as 
 much as seven feet, but seven feet is unusual. We have 
 three and four feet of water in the Vermillion in the sum- 
 mer time, in the dry time, and as I said by comparison 
 before we had almost no water in it previous to that time. 
 
 ' 1881 We have quite an amount going down sometimes but no 
 
 great torrent or anything like that. I have not seen that 
 
306 
 
 overflowed from the Vermillion except back water from 
 the Illinois. The two rivers do not necessarily rise and 
 fall together. J saw the Illinois River on a stand and I 
 saw the Vermillion flow strong and float the ice clean over 
 to Rockwell when the Illinois River was perfectly solid 
 then. I account for that by the rainfall in the water shed 
 1882 of the Vermillion that did not apply to the Illinois River. 
 
 This land would be possibly five or six feet above the 
 Illinois River at its very lowest stage, or the Vermillion. 
 The Vermillion is not a very deep stream. It is 280 feet 
 wide when flowing very full. 
 
 From the number 1 mine there is a waste bank on this 
 piece of land. They are dumping rock down on that piece 
 of land. The dump is located pretty near over to the 
 bluff, the Central track; possibly it is 75 feet high. It 
 would cover maybe two acres possibly, pretty near, at 
 this time. The fire clay dissolves and then spreads out a 
 little distance and washes out over the land from this 
 dump. It is possibly carried out 20 feet. I never saw it 
 more than that. There are great rocks roll down. The 
 clay dissolves. They are constantly adding to this dump, 
 and it is growing all the time. That comes out from all 
 over the mines. This dump stands on the 90-acre piece 
 I spoke about, stands close to the bluff not far from the 
 bloff. 
 
 1884-5 Deposition or HE. L. Cootry, a witness for the plaintiff, 
 being sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Donnell. 
 
 1886 My name is EH. L. Cooley. I am a civil engineer em- 
 ployed by the Sanitary District of Chicago as one of its 
 assistant engineers; have been in its employ continuously 
 since May, 1894. 
 
307 
 
 Upon January 17, 1900, with two or three assistants, I 
 personally attended to the lowering of the Bear Trap Dam 
 at Lockport. To some extent since that time I have been 
 performing duties as assistant engineer in regard to the 
 flow of the water over the dam at Lockport. 
 
 1887 <A record has been kept of the flow of the water over 
 the dam or through the gates. The flow has been esti- 
 mated by the application of a certain formulae I have se- 
 lected for that purpose. Before and after the 17th of 
 
 1889 January, 1900, I personally operated the Bear Trap 
 Dam and the machinery controlling the same. I designed 
 
 1890 a considerable portion and got it into condition to oper- 
 ate at the finish. The act performed by the person or 
 persons in charge for the purpose of raising or lowering 
 the dam is they simply turn a wheel for both purposes; 
 one way in one case and the other way in the other. The 
 power that operates the dam is practically the head water 
 from the channel. The gates are raised or lowered north 
 
 1891 of the dam by hand gears. There are counter weights 
 
 1892 on these gates. The gates move up and down like a 
 window frame and there is a ratchet lever at each end 
 usually operated by one man at each end. 
 
 The basin which lies immediately back of the Bear Trap 
 Dam is called the tail-race, sometimes called the windage 
 basin. At its extremity it is about 500 feet wide and 35.1 
 feet deep. It only preserves the width of 500 feet for a 
 little ways north. The regular channel terminates in the 
 windage basin. Immediately under the Bear Trap Dam 
 
 1893 there is a chamber into which the water can be admitted 
 or discharged. Water can be admitted from the canal and 
 discharged into the tail-race. The tail-race runs south 
 from the Bear Trap Dam for a short distance; it runs 
 parallel with the river channel from the Bear Trap Dam. 
 They join about six or eight hundred feet below the dam. 
 
308 
 
 The Bear Trap Dam rests on a concrete structure. 
 From the bottom of the windage basin to the top of this 
 1894 concrete structure it is about 18 feet. The surface of 
 the water when the Bear Trap Dam is closed and the 
 windage basin is full varies within the level of the water 
 1895 in Lake Michigan, varies several feet. The highest ele- 
 vation I cannot give without a point of reference being 
 given to me.. The elevation of the masonry below the dam 
 is minus 13, Chicago city datum, and the bottom is minus 
 30, also Chicago city datum. With the same point of ref- 
 1896 erence the height of the water when it is at its highest 
 in the windage basin depends on the level of Lake Mich- 
 igan. I don’t distinctly recall the highest I ever observed 
 it. I have known it to be above Chicago city datum on 
 rare occasions. By Chicago city datum I mean what hap- 
 pened to coincide with the low water of 1847 as indicated 
 
 on the Milwaukee gauge. 
 
 Since January 17, 1900, there has been no dam between 
 the windage basin and Lake Michigan where the river 
 empties into the Chicago. 
 
 1897 Immediately west of the Bear Trap Dam and beneath 
 the dam there was an excavation made in the course of 
 the Sanitary District work. The excavation is the so- 
 ealled tail-race. They dug two or three feet through the 
 rock to a width of about 400 or 500 feet. The distance 
 from the Bear Trap Dam south to the bridge known as 
 the Ninth street bridge, west of the City of Lockport, is 
 about 1,700 feet, as I remember. I think it was about one 
 mile from the Ninth street bridge down to the Sixteenth 
 street bridge across the channel. 
 
 My recollection is not distinct as to the width of the 
 main tail-race from the Bear Trap Dam to the Sixteenth 
 street bridge. I think it was about 500 feet. I don’t 
 think it was 600 feet. I don’t know how many bridges 
 
309 
 
 there are over the channel at Sixteenth street. From the 
 1898 controlling works to Sixteenth street there was a levee 
 constructed by the defendant on the east bank of the 
 channel. It was constructed before the water was let 
 1899 in. I cannot state the height of the levee. It is com- 
 posed mostly of earth; there may be some rock in it, I 
 eouldn’t testify as to that fact. 
 
 The Desplaines River enters the main tail-race six or 
 
 eight hundred feet below the Bear Trap Dam on the west 
 
 1900 side of the tail-race. [I am only familiar in a general 
 
 way with the river diversion channel through the town- 
 ships of Lockport, DuPage and Lemont. 
 
 Since January 17, 1900, the controlling works have 
 been operated under the direction of the chief engineer. 
 Incidentally at times, I have had something to do with it 
 under his direction. I had nothing to do with it in con- 
 
 1901 nection with the quantity of the flow. I sometimes 
 transmitted orders concerning the flow. The transmission 
 of orders is not limited to one man. 
 
 The water was turned in about 11:15 a. mM. on January 
 
 1902 17, 1900. About a depth of two feet went over the crest 
 of the dam at that time. 
 
 The Courr: We will suspend here. 
 
 Whereupon the further hearing of the above entitled 
 
 matter was adjourned to nine o’clock Wednesday, Novem- 
 ber 20, 1912. 
 
1903 
 
 360 
 
 November 20, 1912, 9:00 a. m. 
 
 Court met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 W. H. Irwin, a witness for the plaintiff, recalled for 
 further examination, testifies as follows: 
 
 Cross-Exammation continued by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 Q. I will ask you to look at a copy, this is not the 
 original, bear in mind, it is a tracing which we have made 
 of your exhibit which is numbered ‘‘13’’ in this case. 
 Just glance at it a minute and satisfy yourself that it is a 
 substantial copy of yours. A. As near as I can tell 
 without comparing it is. 
 
 Q. Now, you gave the total number of acres in your 
 computation as you gave them to us, you noted the tract 
 which lies north and east of the Illinois River in section 
 21, as 69.24 acres if I remember correctly? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Iam informed by you that you wish to change that 
 total as there was an error in transcribing? A. There 
 was 09.24 acres, the figures show as they are on the map. 
 
 Q. The figures are all right on the map, but in the 
 
 1904 computation there was an error of ten acres? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Now in the tract which lies to the east of the Il- 
 nois Central Railroad, being the northeast quarter of the 
 southeast quarter and the northwest quarter of the south- 
 west quarter and 44 acres on the north side of the south 
 half of the southwest quarter, all in Section 23, there is 
 more than that included on your plat, and in the totals 
 which you gave, being 39.62 acres, being the northwest 
 quarter of the southeast quarter and 44.88 acres of Sec- 
 tion 23, there is more than that included in the total acre- 
 age than the description which I have given, being the 
 north half of Section 23, and the 44 acres off the north 
 end of the south half, is there not? <A. I believe the 
 
O61 
 
 north half of the southeast quarter of Section 23, 44 acres, 
 yes, there is. 
 
 Q. All I want you to do is to deduct from those totals 
 the amounts that should come out of the acreage, as being 
 not included in the declaration in this case. A. I have 
 made a computation of that. 
 
 Q. All right, sir, you may give it,if you please. A. I 
 prefer to give it in this way. 
 
 Q. Any way you want. A. In the northeast quarter 
 
 1905 of the southeast quarter of section 23, the acreage owned 
 by the Carbon Coal Company— 
 
 Q. Please leave out the word ‘‘owned.’’ A. The net 
 acreage claimed by the Carbon Coal Company— 
 
 Q. Yes. A. —is 34.36 acres. In the northwest quar- 
 ter of the southeast quarter the net acreage claimed by 
 the Carbon Coal Company is 38.38 acres, north 44 acres of 
 the south half of the southeast quarter, 4.5 acres. 
 
 (). And have you got the whole thing figured up? A. 
 No, but I can do it for you in a moment. 77.24 acres. 
 These areas are exclusive of railroad rights-of-way. 
 
 Deposition of E. L. Coonny, a witness recalled for the 
 plaintiff, further testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Butters. 
 
 1906 We got the gauges on the dam about two weeks after 
 that. The purpose of the gauges was so that we would 
 know when we moved the dam what the depth was over the 
 dam. When the water stands at a depth of two feet over 
 the dam the number of cubie feet was about 90,000 cubie 
 feet. I carry the formulae that we use in my mind. We 
 
 1907 get daily reports of those gauge readings. They are in 
 the files of the office of the Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 
 1908 They are not in my personal possession; they are in the 
 
362 
 
 files of the office. I have no authority to produce them 
 individually. Like all our records, they are in charge of 
 the chief engineer, Isham Randolph. I have not been for- 
 bidden to produce them by any one. I have access to 
 them when I want to consult them. I usually go where 
 they are filed and look at them. I have access to the files. 
 I cannot produce the records without the consent of the 
 1909 chief engineer. They are not directly in my custody. 
 | They are in the custody of a man who is not under my 
 direction. The man who used to have charge of the room 
 is gone now. I suppose the record clerk would have 
 charge of those records now. He is employed under the 
 direction of the chief engineer. His name is William 
 Trinkaus. 
 
 If I desire from day to day to know the quantity of 
 water that flows over the dam at any day during the past 
 five years, I have access to the records; whenever I wish 
 to consult the records I go there and do it. I usually 
 assume to go there without permission from any one when 
 I have any business so to do. JI am a sub-assistant en- 
 oineer. 
 
 1910 I have visited the controlling works frequently during 
 the last five years; sometimes once a day and laterally 
 once a month at least. I was there every day when some 
 work was going on as construction or repairs that in- 
 volved the operation of the controlling works. During 
 my various visits there I saw the dam. I saw the gates 
 
 1911 in operation, I mean raised frequently. The gates are 
 not used very often, only incidentally for the purpose of 
 
 1912 passing water into the tail-race. I think I have seen 
 four open about one foot each. There are seven gates. 
 The seven gates are in condition to be opened if necessary. 
 
 I could not very well answer the question as to the 
 greatest height of water I have seen passing over the 
 
363 
 
 dam. Normally I would say four feet. There may have been 
 
 1913 times when there has been temporarily a much greater 
 flow. I have known the dam to be put down flat for some 
 purpose for a few minutes. Aside from the times when 
 I say it is put down flat, the flow varies according to the 
 orders received from the chief engineer. JI think the 
 highest number of feet is four feet, that is four feet of 
 
 1914 water. With four feet of water there would be passing 
 over the dam, without stopping to figure it a little less 
 than 300,000 cubic feet. The formulae serves our purpose, 
 we regard 1t as competent. | 
 
 1915 We have in the office a formulae. It is in a book which 
 I can bring. There used to be a little paper with that 
 formulae at the head. I don’t know that I have got a 
 1916 copy of it. I think the last copy I BANG to Mr. Blakeslee. 
 (Witness produced book.) 
 
 There were four sets of measurements made by differ- 
 ent parties at various times which showed our formulae 
 to be fairly satisfactory. The width of the opening in 
 
 1917 which the Bear Trap Dam rests is 160 feet nominally. 
 I think it is a couple of inches more. The elevation of 
 the main tail-race beneath the dam where the water flows 
 over the dam is minus 15. The main tail-race is minus 16. 
 
 1918 The bottom of the windage basin is minus 30. Ata 
 distance of 75 feet from the foot of the dam, out 
 in the bottom of the tail-race, the elevation is minus 16, 
 a foot more than just below the dam. The bottom of the 
 tail-race was made of a uniform elevation. It is not so 
 now. It is considerably higher, about 14 feet higher than 
 the windage basin. 
 
 In case where there is no flow when the water is at its 
 
 1919 normal stage and the dam is raised, the water should 
 then be at the level of Lake Michigan. The bottom of the 
 tail-race always remains the same below the surface of 
 
364 
 
 the water. The surface of the water varies all the way 
 from two or three feet, something like that pending upon 
 the condition of the flow. At its highest stage it never 
 
 1920 gets very high because it goes swift there. In the neigh- 
 borhood of three or four feet is about as deep as it gets. 
 I mean the depth of the water in the tail-race. I should 
 say four feet of water. I say that reservedly because I 
 have no measurement. Itis simply my impression. There 
 is no occasion to measure the depth of the water at that 
 point. 
 
 1921 One winter I thought I saw on one of my visits five feet 
 going over the dam aside from the time when the dam 
 was laid down flat. That was the winter that Mr. Jones 
 was president. I don’t remember the year. When we had 
 about five feet there would be 350,000 cubic feet per 
 
 1922 minute over the dam. That flow continued for a number 
 of days during the winter; started in about Christmas 
 time and kept up for several days during the winter. 
 Might have been thirty or forty days, might have been 
 two months. In some cases, on occasions of heavy rain- 
 falls and floods in the valley of the Desplaines River in 
 the vicinity of Chicago, there has been an increase of flow 
 over the dam for a few hours to prevent the water going 
 out into the lake. It lowered the water so that the water 
 
 1923 ran that way instead of running out into the lake. 
 
 When the Bear Trap Dam is in operation so as to carry 
 anywhere from 250,000 to 350,000 cubic feet per minute, 
 there is a current in the Chicago River and it starts up at 
 the head of the so-called break-water where the inner 
 harbor terminates. The break-water is practically dug 
 
 -1924 out of the shore of the lake. 
 
 The earth section of the channel ceases and the rock 
 section of the channel commences at Willow Springs. Be- 
 tween Willow Springs and Robey street the width of the 
 
365 
 
 earth section top measurement is about 3800 feet, but 
 varies with the stage of the canal. Probably about 340 
 
 1925 feet when the height of the ground is plus 10 and the 
 depth of the channel is minus 25. The slope of the bank 
 is about one on two and the bottom width is approximately 
 200 feet. It varies some with the distance. 
 
 The greatest depth of the greatest depth of the rock 
 channel between Willow Springs and Lockport, beneath 
 or under the surface of the ground is probably thirty-five 
 feet. No change in the design of the channel or the size 
 of the channel between its connection with the Chicago 
 River and the Bear Trap Dam as to width or depth since 
 
 1927 1900. The main channel is substantially the same. There 
 has been no change in the openings or capacity of flow of 
 either the Bear Trap Dam or the gates since January 17, 
 1900, except the completion of some little details. 
 
 Gauge readings are taken every half hour. The Chi- 
 1928-9 cago River is usually able to take care of any rains or 
 floods due to the rain coming out of the north branch, 
 without any change in the flow. I say there have been a 
 number of times since the channel was opened when the 
 water did not go out into the lake from the north branch. 
 
 1931 Gus Turan, a witness for the plaintiff, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 1932 My name is Gus Thran. I have resided in Peru since 
 1853. Have been digging coal at Cahill’s. I live in the 
 southwestern part of Peru about four blocks above the 
 Rock Island bridge and west of the [llinois River bridge. 
 It is higher up on the bluff. 
 
 Am acquainted with the river from 1890. I have seen 
 1933 it most every summer every week, once or twice, when I 
 
366 
 
 would be fishing. I went fishing often during the summer 
 months. I have fished from the river bridge down. 
 
 Prior to 1900, I was acquainted with the river. I would 
 1934 be steamboating every year from 1872 in the spring of 
 the year for a few months. I have done no steamboating 
 1935 since 1890. The river has been higher since the Sanitary 
 District water was turned in. I know by the piles which 
 I used to tie my skiff to. Some of them would be on dry 
 land before, while now they are three or four feet under 
 water. The piles are located nearly one and a half miles 
 below the Illinois River bridge at Peru. I think there 
 would be a difference in the water there during low water. 
 1936 The difference since then in the summer has been about 
 four or five feet. The season I refer to now when they 
 1937 are under water is low water. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 Have done no steamboating since 1880. JI was a deck 
 
 1938 hand on a steamboat called the Beaver and the Joe 
 
 Fleming. One year on one and another year on the 
 
 1939 other. They’ were towing grain barges and ice barges. 
 
 The steamer, that I speak of that the piles were used 
 
 for the protection of would be about 200 feet long and 
 
 1940 belonged to the Bowers’. They have not been in busi- 
 ness since 1880. It was put in there in the seventies. 
 
 1941 The piles were 30 or 40 feet out in the stream and 
 closed up that much of the stream. They did not stand 
 very high at the shore end but they would go higher out 
 further. There are some standing 10 feet out of water 
 today. At the shore they would stand four to seven 
 feet. I guess there must have been 40 or 50 piles. Be- 
 fore the drainage water came in they were against the 
 shore. 
 
 I know there was a decided change in the Illinois River 
 
367 
 
 when the Henry dam was closed in 1879. The piles were 
 
 1942 built in the seventies, but I couldn’t state when. The 
 time they were built they were four or five feet above 
 low water, on the inside of them. There was some 20 
 
 1943 feet high before 1890. After 1900, they were four or 
 
 1944 five feet out of water. 
 
 1945-7 @. You can wait after all of these questions I am 
 about to ask to see if there is an objection before you 
 make reply. Was the low water of the Illinois River— 
 do you know what was the date of the closing of the 
 Henry dam at Henry, Illinois? A. I couldn’t tell you 
 
 1948 that. I know the Henry dam was in before 1879. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Your Honor, I don’t want any con- 
 fusion in the record on this witness. My idea as to the 
 ground covered in the testimony I thought was clear, 
 but apparently counsel on the other side don’t view it in 
 the same way I do. 
 
 Mr. Cuiprrrietp: I don’t believe we disagree about 
 the date, Mr, O’Conor. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: You mean about the closing of the 
 Henry dam. 
 
 Mr. CurperFrreLp: Well, his idea is different from 
 mine about that,,but I believe I won’t extend this exam- 
 ination, as conducted by you, any further than you in- 
 tended to extend it. I am not putting it on that ground. 
 
 Q. Do you know what was the date of the closing 
 of the Henry dam? A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Now, I will ask you if the low water of the Illinois 
 River was changed and altered after the closing of the 
 Henry dam? <A. Well, the Henry dam raised the river 
 some, yes. 
 
 Q. How much? A. Well, I couldn’t tell you that. 
 
 Q. I will ask you if it is not true the closing of 
 the Henry dam raised the level of the Illinois River at 
 
 1949 low water four or five feet? A. It raised it some, but I 
 don’t know how much. 
 
368 
 
 (). Now, if it is true, that when these piles were con- 
 structed in 1870, that the low water of the Illinois River 
 was different than it was after the construction of the 
 Henry dam, and if it was true that these piles only stood 
 out of water four or five feet at the shore line at the 
 time they were constructed, how much did the raising 
 of the low water on the river affect them? A. Oh, you 
 have got me. I don’t know what you are talking about. 
 
 Q. I am sorry and I will make myself just as plain 
 as I know how. A. You say the Henry dam was put in 
 in 1879? 
 
 @. That is what I say, yes sir. A. Well, the Henry 
 dam was put in before 1879. 
 
 Q. TI am not going to argue with you. It is just an- 
 other case of where two men think differently about some- 
 thing and it is for somebody else to decide. JI am not 
 going to argue with you about that. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I object to that, arguing with the wit- 
 ness. 
 
 Mr. CuHrIperFIELD: J am not arguing. There is a ques- 
 tion pending and he made a statement instead of answer- 
 ing the question. Read that question. 
 
 (Question read.) 
 
 1950 @. When the low water was changed where did it 
 then stand on these piles? A. Well, the low water was 
 changed before 1879. 
 
 Q. What? A. Well, the low water was changed be- 
 fore 1879, before the Henry dam. 
 
 I didn’t notice any of the piles before the Henry dam 
 raise came in. I don’t know when the Henry dam was 
 put in. [ could not answer how much the raise of the 
 low water affected the distances these piles stood out of 
 
 1951 the water. In 1890 at low water these piles stood out 
 four or five feet. I could not tell you whether it was just 
 the same distance as when they were constructed. At 
 
369 
 
 low water mark now they are four or five feet under 
 water. 
 
 (). So that the river has been raised, according to 
 your contention, from eight to ten feet? A. No, it has 
 just raised four or five feet from 1890. That is what I am 
 saying. 
 
 1952 @. ‘Then low water would be four or five feet below 
 the top of these piles before 1890. That is true, isn’t 
 it? A. Yes; sir, four or five feet. 
 
 @. Now, follow me. Now since 1890, you say the low 
 water is four or five feet on top of these piles, above the 
 top of these piles? A. No, I say the piles are level with 
 the top of the water now. I say it raised four or five 
 feet since 1890. 
 
 1953 I last investigated the condition of these pilings last 
 summer. They were just level with the water. They are 
 half a mile west from the Peru bridge down stream. 
 
 1954 I base my conclusion that the water is higher just 
 on those piles, that is my sole source of knowledge. The 
 
 1955 ice has never taken any of them away nor broken them 
 off, but they are bent over. When they are bent over 
 that would put them further under water. I don’t know 
 how much they have been bent, how much shorter they 
 would be I don’t know. The ones I say that were under 
 
 1956 water were never bent. It is the only lot of piles run- 
 ning out into the river at that point. I have not seen 
 the piles entirely under water at high water. 
 
 I think the Illinois River rises from low water to high 
 water as much as ten feet. I have seen water in Water 
 street, but it has been filled up since. Some of the base- 
 
 1957 ments on Water street have had a couple of feet of 
 cinders put in since that time. It is in Peter DeGroot’s 
 
 1958 house. DeGroot was not a steamboat man. The filling 
 of the cellar with cinders had nothing to do with raising 
 the water and the level of the river. 
 
370 
 
 Wittiam Jackson, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Haamination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is William Jackson. I reside at Peru between 
 the bridges. I will be 60 years old next April. I have 
 lived in Peru since 1890. Farmed the bottom lands 
 
 1960 ten years ago. Farmed ten acres of Waugh’s land. It 
 was in 1901. Although there was a flood that year I got 
 1961 in in the spring about May 38rd. The ground was in 
 fine condition. Husked a little late in the fall, but the 
 corn got ripe. In the neighborhood of 100 bushels to the 
 1962 acre. The ground was dry. Had good yellow corn. 
 I hauled it home and sold some of it and fed some of it. 
 1963 The year was a very dry year. I farmed some eight 
 years ago, ten acres. ‘The last farming I done was in 
 1964 1904. I got on the ground late in June. I could not get 
 1965 on earlier, the water was too high. The corn was soft, 
 1966 did not mature. Left it until the water commenced to 
 rise and then husked it. Husked it all. It was a good 
 1967 big crop but it didn’t get ripe; it was soft and milky. 
 Probably 200 bushels were rotted. Picked the corn and 
 took it home and sorted it. Picked out the softest and 
 threw it to one side. That winter it was not very cold 
 and in a month or two it commenced to heat and turn 
 black. We sorted it again and threw the corn on the out- 
 side of the erib. It lay there until towards spring when 
 1968 we fed what we could and burned the rest for fuel. It 
 made a fine fire, the finest in the world. 
 
 In 1904, there was a good deal around there that was 
 in crop. I guess probably there was two-thirds of it 
 farmed that year. 
 
371 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 In the year 1901, I farmed a ten-acre piece of this 
 land. It was the second year after the Sanitary District 
 was opened. Put in a nice crop and I got ripe corn and 
 took off a good yield; something like 60 to 70 bushels to 
 
 1970 the acre. I paid $5.00 an acre rent to Mr. Waugh. This 
 was the second year after the Sanitary District was 
 1971 opened. I don’t recall how it was in 1900. 
 
 Seven or eight years ago I had ten acres more. The 
 ten acres I farmed in 1901, was right by the slough, east 
 of the slough bridge higher than the land I farmed in 
 1904. JT couldn’t tell how much. I suppose from four to 
 five feet higher. 1904, did not get a crop in until late. 
 
 1972 The land was wet but not covered with water. I don’t 
 
 1973 know just what time it was, after the 15th of June, how- 
 ever. I planted the land right near the river, right on 
 the north end. I was cut off from the river by some tim- 
 
 1974 ber. My land was on top of the bank, I should say, two 
 or three feet above the level of the river at that time. We 
 got a crop in but it was soft. The land not in a satis- 
 factory condition, but the crop came nicely. I had a good 
 crop. The corn did not get ripe on account of it being 
 too late. 
 
 Never have had any experience with silos. The corn 
 
 was in the milk. JT raised seven or eight hundred bush- 
 
 1975 els on that tract. By rights it was not fit to feed, but 
 
 it was all we had, so we fed it. Some of it was unfit for 
 1976 feed, killed the chickens after we left it stand. 
 
 Frequently before corn ripens we cut the corn and 
 feed it to the stock, horses and cattle and when it is still 
 soft you feed it. We could not feed it quick enough to 
 
 1977 keep it from spoiling. If we had cut it and shocked it 
 you could leave it in the shock and it will fill out, it will 
 mature, but it won’t when the frost kills it on the stalk. 
 
ot2 
 
 We eut corn and shock it. It would stay green and nice 
 ordinarily until spring, but not in the erib. 
 
 I burned over 200 bushels of it. I picked some and 
 
 sold it when it froze, got about 15 or 16 cents a bushel. 
 
 1978 I sold it around to the Polish people. Worked it off 
 
 on them. I fed that one winter the best I could pick out. 
 
 I did not measure it, probably in the neighborhood of 
 two-thirds of it to the stock and horses. 
 
 The year 1904 was a very wet year. In 1907 and ’09, 
 
 1979 the water did not come up on the land after I planted it. 
 Paid $5.00 an acre to the plaintiff that year. The crop 
 was not destroyed by water, that was the contract. 
 
 I testified in the Brannan case. 
 
 Q. Do you know whether or not this question was 
 asked vou, ‘‘Have you ever done any other farming be- 
 sides working that land,’’ to which you replied, ‘‘ Yes, 
 sir? 72 A, oes, sein, did! 
 
 (). ‘‘T farmed twelve years on Mr. Duncan’s land just 
 south of La Salle on the bottom road farm land, for four 
 years’? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 1980 (). Then was this question asked you, ‘‘Did you raise 
 corn there,’’ to which you replied, ‘‘T did and it was not 
 worth anything and I quit it’’? A. Yes, sir, the price 
 was low. 
 
 The price was no good, 16 or 17 cents a bushel. That 
 was before 1900, about 17 years ago. 
 
 1981 Grorcr .W. Braun, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is George W. Braun. I have lived at Cedar 
 Point since 1853. ‘Was born there. After 1890, farmed 
 a part of Section 21, in 1894. Farmed none of that land 
 
dtd 
 
 1982 later. I farmed and had control of all that part of Sec- 
 tion 21, south of the Illinois River. I farmed it from 1890 
 until 1894; did not have it after that. In 1890 we had an 
 early spring, went in there and raised corn on all of it 
 
 19&38 which was not timber. I cannot say how much was in 
 eorn, but something like 320 or 350 acres. The corn was 
 
 1984 good. Went from 50 to 70 bushels per acre, some of it. 
 There was a difference in the average. It was all plant- 
 ed to corn that was tillable. Got in about the middle of 
 May and had a good crop running about 70 bushels to 
 the acre. 
 
 1985 After husking those two years they turned the stock 
 into the corn fields. The stock was_ practically 
 1986 there during the winter until along in February. 
 
 In the year 1892 high water and no crop. In 1893 we 
 had corn on this land. Got in in May and the crop ma- 
 1987 tured and got a crop about seventy bushels. 
 
 I lived there in the spring of 1894 but did not farm 
 
 that year. Sam Waugh farmed it. [I moved from there 
 1988 to Cedar Point where I now live. The buildings that 
 were used in farming this land there were on Section 28. 
 
 1989 I was in the vicinity of the land between 1894 and 
 1902. Pretty hard to tell how. often I saw them. The 
 1990 lands were cropped during those years always to corn 
 1991 down to 1901. They raised good corn crops. I was 
 actually on the land a part of the time; not until the 
 fall, along in October. Never did any husking there. 
 1992 The corn stood pretty fair in the field. After the corn 
 1993 was husked they pastured it. 
 
 I am acquainted in a general way with the river con- 
 ditions of the Illinois from 1890, down to 1901, and since 
 1902, up to the present time. There was a difference in 
 the years. 
 
 1994 Take it in 1908 and 1904, the low water stage was not 
 
374 
 
 as high then as now. In 1901, we hardly noticed any 
 
 water. I noticed there was dirty water coming down 
 
 there and quite a sudden rise all at once but it was not 
 
 so very much and after that from year to year it was ris- 
 
 ing, it was increasing. In the last five years it has come 
 1996 higher all the time. 
 
 The artificial construction which assists me in deter- 
 mining the condition of the level of the Illinois River 
 from 1890 down to say 1901, was a tile we put in in 1888. 
 We tiled some of the low land that I own and we extended 
 a big iron tube out to the bank where the water was to 
 run into the Llinois River. The bottom end of that tile 
 was put on a stone foundation, cement or sand. ‘Three 
 and one-half feet above the low water mark and at the 
 present time that tile, being a twelve inch flue, is under 
 
 1997 water. This summer I went down to find the tile and 
 {I found the location but could only find where it was, 
 where the water was shooting out by putting my foot 
 down and feeling the cold water. Last year it was cov- 
 ered. I did not measure it, it was covered. It was in 
 
 1998 water. In 1910, I never saw the top during that year. 
 1902 was a wet year, big flood. Noticed changed in 
 the flow of the river since 1902, both spring and fall. 
 In the spring the water don’t go down like it used to, 
 
 1999 holding the water up in its banks, which causes the land 
 to be filled with water. It stood higher in the ground 
 than it did in the river until the water in the river set- 
 tled down and gave it a chance to drain away. It keeps 
 
 2000 the land cold. 
 
 The roots of the corn go down four or five feet to dry 
 ground. If the ground is not at least four feet, if the 
 corn hasn’t at least four feet of dry ground in which to 
 go down it stops the growth; makes the ear grow smaller 
 and smaller and it does not ripen in time to harvest. 
 
 2001 Q. In the year 1900, in the month of January prior to 
 
379 
 
 the turning in of the Sanitary water, were you familiar 
 with the fair cash market value of this land in section 
 21, and other lands similarly situated? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. What in your opinion in the year 1900, in the month 
 of January prior to the turning in of the water, was the 
 fair cash market value of this land located in section 21, 
 that you have been speaking of? 
 
 Mr. CuiperFietp: Objected to as no proper founda- 
 tion has been laid. 
 
 Objection overruled. 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 A. When I consider everything, I consider the land 
 was worth at that time $150 an acre. 
 
 (). Have you an opinion what the fair cash market 
 value of that land was in the year 1900, in the month of 
 January after the turning in of the Sanitary water, con- 
 sidering the facts that you now know in relation to the 
 flow of the Illinois River since that time? 
 
 Mr. Curprrrierp: Object to it as no proper founda- 
 
 2002 tion has been laid and asking the witness to take into 
 consideration matters which may be known only to him- 
 self and not disclosed by the evidence in this ease. 
 
 Objection overruled. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 A. That means I have got to take into consideration 
 this water that is turned down into the river now. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Yes, sir. 
 
 A. Why it is worthless. 
 
 2003 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 IT am the owner of bottom lands and have a suit pend- 
 ing at this time against the Sanitary District. I am not 
 directly interested in the outcome of this suit. I suppose 
 
376 
 
 my ease would have to take care of itself. I don’t think I 
 am indirectly interested in the outcome of this suit. I 
 2004 don’t think [ ought to care which way it is decided, but 
 certainly [ would like to see them win. While I have 
 been subpoenaed as a witness I have been volunteering 
 my service and giving information, and have assisted 
 in suggesting witnesses and have made myself generally 
 pretty active. 
 I have never been at Lockport or seen the controlling 
 2005 works. I don’t know there is a Sanitary channel ex- 
 eept:as I have read about it. I know nothing about it 
 2006 of my own personal knowledge. 
 
 I do not know that the water shed of the Lllinois River 
 runs over into the State of Indiana or that it runs into 
 the State of Wisconsin. I don’t know anything about 
 
 2007 that. I don’t know anything about whether there are 
 changes that affect those two portions of the country or 
 change the conditions in the Illinois River. I don’t know 
 
 2008 whether there have been drainage districts constructed 
 within the last ten years that cut off the carrying capac- 
 ity of this stream over 100,000 acres where the former 
 bed of the stream used to be. I would not think these 
 
 2009 things would have any effect on the amount of water in 
 the river or the carrying capacity of the stream until 
 I seen them. I simply take it for granted from what I 
 have read that all of the increased water in the [Illinois 
 tiver comes from the Sanitary District. 
 
 2010 I don’t know whether the bottom of the river is rising 
 or the bottom lands are rising. I think the carrying ca- 
 
 2011 pacity of the river is decreased since 1900, because the 
 low water stage is so much higher. When the low water 
 stage was lower there was that much difference between 
 the prior low water stage and the present low water 
 stage, and that has been filled up. I mean the river is 
 more full of water. 
 
ol7 
 
 2012 I did not say the ground was soaked up and therefore 
 that interfered with the flow of the Illmois River. I 
 claim the ground is saturated from year to year and 
 does not dry out like it used to. The water always seeks 
 its level. When the water comes out over the banks it 
 is like the country used to be when the water would fill 
 the ponds and would not get away until the air and _ 
 natural condition would evaporate that water. ‘This is 
 the case right here in the bottom lands in some cases 
 where the surrounding banks are higher and the water 
 
 2013 can’t get out of there. The water has been four or five 
 feet higher. It depends upon the case of whether the 
 water runs back under the land a mile or two. The soil 
 
 2014-15 in the bottoms is entirely different than it is in the 
 bluffs. Can’t tell you a point where I can go back a 
 mile from the [Illinois River and find a river of water 
 
 2016-18 under section 21. I did not say that under the en- 
 tire section there stands a dead body of water four or 
 five feet higher. I said it was higher. 
 
 2019 I got the map I show you from the plaintiff. I think 
 
 2020 it was made in 1905. The pond I show you used to be 
 a very big pond before 1890; it contains now about twelve 
 acres. It used to be there before 1890, it was there every 
 year. The pond does not appear upon the survey that 
 
 2021 has been introduced in evidence. It leaves out a pond 
 of some twelve or thirteen acres. It was never tillable 
 in any year that I ever knew this land, nor were there 
 any crops raised on it. I have not been to the pond for 
 
 2022 several years. I don’t know how deep it was then. I 
 can’t tell you how deep it was because the depth varied. 
 
 2023 It was from six inches to something like two feet to the 
 best of my recollection. The pond is from eighty to 
 
 2024 sixty rods long. It source of supply is the water from 
 the bluffs and the river. When the river is lower than 
 the pond the river does not feed the pond. 
 
318 
 
 2025 I can point out the pond on the plat that has been in- 
 troduced in evidence. It is right in there. 
 
 2026 I know the Illinois River has a current swifter now 
 than before 1900. I don’t know how much, maybe twice. 
 2027 It runs a whole lot faster. 
 
 In giving my notion as to the value of the land, I took 
 into consideration all I knew about the land, the values 
 for different purposes for which it was adapted and the 
 rental and everything. I think it is worthless now. I 
 would not consider it worth anything after that although 
 they had some use of it. It could not be sold to anybody 
 that knew anything about the conditions. I don’t know 
 of anyone that would buy it. JI don’t know that you 
 
 2028 would have to pay somebody to take the land off your 
 hands. 
 
 2029 Mr. John Martins’ land in Eden Township, section 8, 
 sold for as much as $100 an acre before January, 1900. 
 Martins bought that of the Whittaker estate for $100 an 
 acre without the coal. I don’t know that that land was 
 bought in 1903. The land was improved. There were 
 some buildings on it, eighty acres. 
 
 2030 I don’t think I am influenced in my idea of values be- 
 fore and after 1900, by the fact that I have got some land 
 lying right next to this. I don’t think it influences me 
 a particle. 
 
 I understand that this land is all underlaid with a 
 
 2031 valuable vein of coal. I don’t know how much rental I 
 paid for the land the year I leased it. JI don’t know 
 
 2032 what I paid for the land in 1890, whether it was $1 an 
 
 9033 acre or not. In 1890 it was $500 cash for the land that 
 year. For the four years that we occupied the land be- 
 sides some improvements that were done every year, we 
 kept adding timber ground, the timber was grubbed out, 
 cleaned out and it made farming land of it. I mean we 
 
379 
 
 2034 paid $500 each year. The arrangement was not $1 per 
 acre. | 
 
 The timber we cut we hauled up to the Carbon Coal 
 Company and they paid us for hauling it up there and 
 paid for some of the chopping, but they did not pay for 
 grubbing the stumps. The props that we made out, of it 
 
 2035 we sold to the company. 
 
 There were between 300 and 370 acres that we had 
 
 from the company. I do not know that the plat shows 
 2036 over 400 acres. It may show it but I didn’t know it to 
 be there. 
 
 East of the slough the land belonged to the Braun 
 estate. In 1894, I guess I was the owner then. When 
 
 2037 we first went there we figured that at only about 260 
 acres that we had in cultivation. While we were there 
 we cleaned up about sixty acres, making about 320. 
 
 2038 There was about fifty acres west of the land covered by 
 pond I spoke of and the timber. 
 
 When I say that the land is worthless at the present 
 time I do not see that it could be used for any other 
 purpose only agriculture purposes. 
 
 I think that this field of coal underlying this land 
 could not be used by the plaintiff in this case. I don’t 
 think they are claiming any damages to the coal. I know 
 the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company is organized 
 for the purpose of mining coal. I know they are in the 
 
 2039 coal business, and they have a couple of mines right at 
 the edge of these lands. They have mines scattered all 
 around here. 
 
 Q. I am afraid the court will not let me enter into a 
 legal discussion with you over the subject. J asked you 
 the question if you did not know, if you wished to be 
 fair in this case, that they gathered this land together 
 for the purpose of mining coal. 
 
 Objection by plaintiff; objection sustained; to which 
 
380 
 
 ruling of the court the defendant by its counsel 
 then and there duly excepted. 
 
 2040 Mr. Curperrretp: When this witness volunteers a — 
 statement to the effect that the ownership of the surface 
 was not necessary for the ownership of the coal, isn’t 
 it a fair question then to follow to ask him if he does not 
 know, if he wishes to be fair about the matter, that this 
 land was gathered together for the purpose of coal min- 
 ing operations, I want to show the fact. 
 
 ‘he Court: I think I will sustain the objection to that 
 question. ; 
 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CuiperriEtp: It is to the entire question if your 
 Honor please? 
 
 The Court: Yes. 
 
 Mr. CuHiperrieLpD: Q. Don’t you know that the La 
 
 2041 Salle County Carbon Coal Company, the plaintiff in 
 this ease has gathered this land together for the purpose 
 of conducting coal mining operations and of removing 
 coal from the land? 
 
 Objection by plaintiff; objection sustained; to which 
 ruling of the court, the defendant by its counsel, 
 then and there duly excepted. — 
 
 2042. Mr. Cuiprerriztp: Q@. Did you take into consideration 
 in your replies as to the values of those lands every legiti- 
 mate and proper use of which this land was susceptible? . 
 
 A. Only for agricultural purposes. 
 
 Q. ‘Why did you exelude another use if you know of 
 any that this land has in making your reply? A. Be- 
 cause it is not affected by the drainage. 
 
 (). If you were to sell these lands-you understand do 
 you not, Mr. Braun, that you would sell the coal as well 
 as the surface? A. Probably, might not, they don’t do 
 it in general. 
 
381 
 
 (). Don’t you understand if you convey fee simple title 
 2043 to this land it conveys the coal and everything else con- 
 nected with it? A. It is not necessary to do that. 
 Q. I did not say it was necessary to do it. A. It is 
 not customary. 
 Mr. Cutperrietp: If your Honor please I want the 
 record to show I am unable to elicit answers from this 
 witness and I decline to cross-examine him any further. 
 
 2044 Wrep A. Mupex, a witness called for the plaintiff, tes- 
 tifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Kxamination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Fred A. Mudge. [I live three miles south 
 
 of Peru. I am about forty-eight years old. I am a 
 farmer. I never did anything else. J own some land; 
 about 460 acres. In going to Peru from my home I drive 
 across what is known as MceCormick’s slough; and drive 
 2045 across the bridge over the Illinois River. I was ac- 
 quainted with Mr. Waugh. I remember when he was farm- 
 
 ing land west of the road; east of that road. I used to 
 
 “vo down to Mr. Waugh’s place, from the year 1890 down 
 
 to the year 1900 occasionally; probably down there once 
 
 or twice or three times a year at his house; occasionally, 
 2046 but not very often, would go on his land. ‘The land was 
 used at that time altogether for corn. The year 1892 
 was a wet year, upland and bottom land. Outside of 
 1892 they had a corn crop on this land from the year 
 1890 up to 1902. I won’t say they had a full crop every 
 year but I know we used to speak about there was nine 
 years without a failure on the bottoms; something un- 
 usual. 1902 was a wet season also. I have not been upon 
 that land very much since 1902. I can see it as I cross the 
 slough bridge, look across and see the condition of the 
 9047 land. I have not been on it this year, but I can see it 
 
382 
 
 as I go over the bridge. All you can see there are the 
 weeds across the bottoms. 
 
 Q. Now, at any time in the year 1900, Mr. Mudge, 
 prior to the turning in the Sanitary water into this 
 valley, I will ask you whether or not you were acquainted 
 with the fair cash market value of this land and of land 
 similarly located in that vicinity, without stating what 
 it is at this time, were you familiar with the fair cash 
 market value? A. JI don’t know of any lands changing 
 hands on the bottoms at that time; I was not—I could 
 not say I was familiar with it, only I could judge what 
 it would be by the crops that were raised there, con- 
 sidering them with the same crops raised on the prairie 
 farms. | 
 
 2049 I would have an opinion as to what was the fair cash 
 
 market value of this land in the year 1900, prior to the 
 turning in of the Sanitary water into the valley. I think 
 
 2050 1t was $100 an acre. 
 
 2051 
 
 2053 
 
 (). Taking into consideration, Mr. Mudge, what you 
 know now at the present time in relation to the flow of 
 the Ulinois River, turning in of the water by the Sani- 
 tary District of Chicago, what was the fair cash markete 
 value of that land in the month of January, 1900, after 
 the water was turned in? 
 
 Objected to by defendant; objection overruled; de- 
 fendant excepts. 
 
 A. Well, if I was taking in consideration just now I 
 could say what I thought it was worth just now. 
 
 Q. Carrying conditions back to 1900 that you know 
 now is the idea? 
 
 Modification of question objected to; objection over- 
 ruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 A. I don’t consider it worth anything. 
 
 Motion by defendant to strike answer; motion over- 
 ruled; defendant excepts. 
 
383 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 In saying that this land was not worth anything I had 
 it in mind as I can see it on my way down. I have not 
 seen a crop on it for years. I cannot see that part where 
 the crop is growing this year as I go to town. I have 
 
 2054 not seen the crop this year. I am not answering as 
 to the whole. J am speaking simply of the land I can see 
 on my way to town. I tried to qualify my answer so 
 it would not refer to all the land and was not allowed. 
 I don’t say now that all of this section 21 is worth- 
 less. The land that I see that is not in crop, I haven’t 
 seen them in crop for several years. I am not speak- 
 ing of the coal. JI am simply speaking of the surface 
 of this land. I didn’t have coal in my mind at all in 
 fixing values. The coal has, I suppose, a very consider- 
 
 2056 able value. I am speaking simply of the surface. You 
 can’t say that the land is worthless if the coal is there 
 and considered, but I am simply taking it as a farming 
 proposition. That is all I was asked about. Coal has 
 a value. Coal always had a value in 1900 and since, 
 certainly, and if the coal is included in the land, the land 
 
 2057 cannot be considered worthless. I never knew much 
 about bottom lands changing hands; not interested in 
 bottom lands and never have been; never owned any; 
 never knew much about it in that way; never knew any- 
 thing about it changing hands; don’t know whether bot- 
 tom lands similarly situated to section 21, in the years 
 96, ’97, °98 and ’99, were exchanging hands at from $20 
 to $30 an acre. 
 
 (). Have you taken into consideration in your answer 
 anything as to the market value, when you say it is worth 
 about $100 an acre? A. I simply took into consideration, 
 as I said before, what the land would produce. 
 
 (). My question to you now is did you take into con- 
 
o84 
 
 sideration the market value based on what it would sell 
 for on the market? A. No, because I said I didn’t know 
 anything about that part at all. I don’t know anything 
 about that part. 
 Q@. Well, when you were asked if you had an opinion 
 as to the fair cash market value, you said you did. Did 
 you have at that time any opinion as to the fair cash 
 market value of this land? A. Well, I answered that 
 2058 question there simply basing my opinion on what the 
 farm land was worth on the prairie that produced about 
 the same kind of crop this did. 
 I based my answer solely upon its productiveness and 
 did not attempt to express any opinion as to the real 
 market value. That is all we take into consideration 
 when we buy land for farming purposes. I considered 
 nothing’ else. 
 (). And did you then consider it simply and only for 
 agricultural purposes? A. I never looked at it as a coal 
 2059 mining proposition owned by this plaintiff. I don’t 
 know what section this land is in. [ never looked it up. 
 I ecouldn’t say how many acres my opinion applied to. 
 I don’t know how much land is there that can be seen 
 from the road. I haven’t any idea. I know I ean see 
 quite a bit of land there that. has been in weeds for a 
 good many years. I never paid enough attention to tell 
 2060 how many acres were there but you can always see a 
 long strip without anything in it and further back you 
 ean see the corn. I cannot describe it by acres, nor about 
 how much there is of it. I can’t tell how long or how 
 2061 wide the strip is that I have in mind. There was cer- 
 tain lands between the Peru road and MeCormick’s 
 slough. I was speaking simply of the Coal Company’s 
 2062 land. I think the Braun land is further on. I don’t in- 
 clude as worthless the land where the corn is growing 
 this year. Where there may be 12,000 bushels of corn 
 
389 
 
 growing on the land there would be some value to that 
 land, and I have not expressed my opinion as to what 
 that would be. I remember of one transaction before 
 1900 in La Salle County, where land was sold for as much 
 as $100 an acre. It was right around 1902 it was sold for 
 
 2063 $100. That was an eighty acre piece. You could put 
 any kind of buildings on that land. If you were to build 
 anything on this land in section 21 you would have to 
 raise them up on account of the high water, I suppose. 
 I have seen this land covered with many feet of water 
 many times. I couldn’t say as to the depth; once or 
 twice since 1892 it has been over the Peru road. 
 
 2065 Witttam WryGanp, a witness called for the plaintiff, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is William Weygand. I live south of La 
 
 Salle about a mile. I am forty years old. Been living 
 
 in La Salle for the last eight years. At the present time 
 
 I am working for W. J. Brannen, south of La Salle. I 
 have been working for him three years the first of Mareh. 
 2066 I do farm work most of the time for him; have been 
 doing some farming for myself in the Peru bottoms. It 
 
 is south from Peru; land south right across from the zinc 
 works. It is the same land that was farmed by Sam 
 Waugh. I was farming that land this year, 1912, for 
 Brannen. It was pretty late when we got in this year. 
 2067 It was later than April; about the month of June. | 
 should say it was in the month of June when we finished 
 planting this year. We got our farming implements on 
 
 the land this year by loading them on a barge and we 
 drove the horses through by hand. We loaded the barge 
 
 at the La Salle bridge and went down with gasoline 
 2068 launches from there. The land is east of the Peru 
 
386 
 
 2069 bridge. When we got on the land it was pretty wet. 
 
 2070 We started to plow several days later. We would get 
 the highland ready first and then the low stuff; plant the 
 highland first and then afterwards get the lowlands 
 ready. We had to stop off pretty near a week apart on 
 the places, because it was too wet. This year we planted 
 about 150 acres. I have been husking some of that corn 
 this year. The corn this year is in bad shape, some of it; 
 soft and milky. I was working there last year, too. Last 
 
 2071 year we got in a little earlier than we did this year. 
 I think we had pretty near 200 acres in crop last year. 
 We got part of it and some of it was soft, last year. 
 There was quite a bit of it that was good. The water 
 came up and we had to leave some of it on the ends and 
 had to get it in on the ice later. The water came up in 
 husking time. We had fair corn last year except the first 
 plantings on the low ground was bad. The weather got 
 so bad we were unable to get out some of the corn last 
 
 2072 year. We couldn’t haul out over fifteen bushels on a 
 load and get it out. 
 
 Cross-Examimnation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I don’t know exactly how much corn was taken off that 
 
 land in 1911 but I should judge it would be about 9,000 
 bushels. Some of it was good and some of it was bad. 
 
 I don’t know whether we got around 60 cents a bushel 
 
 for it or not. I don’t know what he got for it. There 
 2075 ain’t very much corn in there this year. I don’t believe 
 we will get over 7,000 bushels probably. I have been 
 2074 doing the farming in there this year. Mr. Brannen 
 used to come down this year and see what work we were 
 doing. He has been there sometimes as high as once a 
 day. It was the land Mr. Brannen was farming. I don’t 
 think there will be 9,000 bushels of corn on this land this 
 year. Some of it will average thirty bushels, thirty-five 
 
387 
 
 bushels; the rest of it will average about forty. I don’t 
 know how much there is already hauled off. I am not 
 doing any weighing or anything of that kind. The south 
 fieldis husked. We have got about one-half. One-half of 
 2075 the field we have hauled out. I don’t know how much 
 has been taken over to the cribs because I didn’t measure 
 2077 the eribs.. I have no idea what corn is in the cribs nor 
 2078 how much has been already husked. I have been down 
 on that land two years now; two summers. I should 
 judge there is 150 acres in corn this year. I can’t figure 
 an acre and I have never measured it. I can just about 
 2079 tell the size of an acre. There is two other pieces of 
 this land in corn there this year; yes sir, there is three. 
 Bierce has got a piece in there and a Polish fellow has 
 got a piece in there and Cosgrove has a piece in there, be- 
 sides Brannen’s land on section 21. There is four pieces 
 2080 of corn all told besides what Brannen has planted there. 
 I ecouldn’t tell you the size of the Braun piece. Cosgrove 
 has about thirty-five acres planted; Bierce has about 
 thirty-five acres; a Polander has about thirty acres be- 
 low that. 
 
 @. Do you know all who have corn in there? A. 
 Bierce and this Polish fellow and Cosgrove and our- 
 selves. 
 
 (). That would make something over 600 acres of corn 
 in there this year, wouldn’t it? A. Yes. 
 
 2081 There was no overflow on that ground at all this year. 
 T couldn’t tell about the corn crop last year. We didn’t 
 sell it so I could know. My opinion is we have about 150 
 acres planted. That is my judgment. 
 
388 
 
 2082 Grorce Martens, a witness for the plaintiff testified as 
 follows: 
 
 Direct Hxamination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is George Martens. I live in Peru. I have 
 lived in Peru about thirty-five years. I am thirty-five 
 years old. I am at present working in the Peru Plow 
 and Wheel Company. I have farmed and know where the 
 land was located south of Peru, formerly worked by Sam 
 Waugh. I worked there. I worked there in 1895, ’96 
 
 2083 and ’97; for three years. I have done work there after, 
 besides 1899 and part of 1900. In the year 1895 we 
 started to work on the ground on the 17th of June. I 
 was working for Mr. Waugh. We had nothing but corn 
 growing at that time. I started to cultivate the corn 
 field in June, 1895. The corn had already been planted. 
 
 2084 The corn was then about thirty inches over the ground. 
 I worked for him all during that summer. Stayed there 
 in the winter; worked for him for three years consecu- 
 tively. JI stayed with him. According to my judgment 
 there would be about 300 acres in that bottom piece that 
 hes south of the river, in the whole piece. It was under 
 cultivation. At that time there was some timber on the 
 
 2085 land. We husked the corn that year about November. 
 The ground was dry when we went in there to husk; corn 
 averaged about sixty to seventy bushels an acre; corn had 
 matured but it was not very hard; not as hard as it was 
 supposed to be; not dried out. After the corn was husked 
 they run cattle and horses in it until about January. 
 
 2086 In 1896 we started to plant in May. We planted the 
 same as we did the first year; corn matured. We husked 
 the corn that year in November. That was kind of a dry 
 season. A man could’pull a good ordinary load; about 
 fifty bushels of corn per acre was raised that year. I 
 
d89 
 
 2087 am giving my estimate by weight. The land was put to 
 the same use that year as in 1895, after the husking was 
 over. ‘he three years I worked there were pretty nearly 
 in the same condition. In 1897 we planted in May. The 
 conditions in the three years were practically the same. 
 Il worked there again in 1899. I worked for Sam Waugh, 
 doing the same kind of work. We got the crop in that 
 
 2088 year in May. We got the crop in all right. They put 
 
 2089 in about 300 acres in 1899; crop matured that year. I 
 was there at the time it was husked. I think it was a 
 dry season the same way. I worked there until July in 
 1900. I was there during the planting season that year. 
 We got in on the land about May. I didn’t do the plant- 
 ing. I done the dragging work there and plowing. Since 
 1900 I have not worked on that land. 
 
 2090 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 They pastured some of this land. That is, they ran 
 their stock on there for feed. The only feed there was 
 stalks. After they took the corn off they let the cattle 
 go in the stalks. I stayed there during the winter. We 
 drove the cattle off after the high water would come off. 
 
 2091 They would drive them off to higher lands. JI was not 
 there in planting time in 1895. I think there was 300 
 acres planted that year. It would average about fifty 
 bushels to an acre. The corn dried out as far as a man 
 could see. The corn never dries out in the bottoms until 
 
 2092 a good frost hits it. I don’t mean the corn hadn’t got 
 its weight, the weight it had in January. They figure 
 eighty pounds to the bushel from October to the Ist of 
 January, but you can’t take Judgment on the corn as 
 you could do from January to March. Corn gets lighter 
 after that. That year it dried out the same as other 
 years. Take bottom corn, corn that was raised on these 
 bottom lands, and it don’t dry out as quick as it does on 
 
390 
 
 the prairie land. JI have observed that. It is a wetter 
 2093 place to raise it; that is why. It is not as dry as over 
 on the prairie. We put in the same amount in 1896, 
 2094 about 300 acres. The balance of the land not in crop 
 was in timber and rubbish. They had different places 
 in there. One part where they called it the road in there, 
 laid on both sides; it had timber in there and there was 
 2095 a slough. I couldn’t judge the area of the slough. There 
 were two sloughs at that time. The slough lying between 
 Waugh’s and the coal company’s land might have been 
 sixty rods long and about 200 feet wide. The other 
 slough was the McCormick slough. There two sloughs 
 were not farmed at all. There might have been two 
 2096 acres in the second slough. They had other different 
 spots where the ground was not used. T'hat would leave, 
 all told, about ninety acres slough and waste land. It 
 2097 would not be 320 rods; it would be about 280. There is 
 not any timber there now. I have never seen this map 
 before. I was over in Mr. Dunean’s office, but I didn’t 
 2098 examine the map. According to that direction it would 
 be right in here where the river bends. The big timber 
 laid right along here, the south part of the land. Well, 
 there is timber along the slough and then right in here 
 is the corn field and right in here was the timber land. 
 2099 There is corn right around here; right in through here. 
 Then on the south side there was a slough. In 1896, 1 
 think it would average about fifty bushels, and in 1897 
 that averaged about the same. That was about the aver- 
 age yield during the time I was there, fifty bushels. In 
 1900 I stayed until July. Well, as far as planting the 
 corn is concerned we got in a nice crop that year. The 
 stand was good, but I wasn’t there in the harvesting sea- 
 2100 son. It was not in husking time. It was in the spring. 
 In the spring after I had planted, it came up just even 
 with the embankment; she went down again. It didn’t 
 
391 
 
 get into the cultivated part of the field. It came into 
 some of the land that was prepared but not planted. It 
 didn’t cover very much of it. I think it was in 1897. 
 
 2101 Louis Lrmertu, called as a witness for the plaintiff, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Exammation by Mr. Butters. 
 
 My name is Louis Leidell. I live in Peru. I have 
 lived there fifty-three years. Have been commissioner of 
 highways. I know the land that was formerly occupied 
 and farmed by Mr. Waugh in section 21, south and west 
 of the river and east of MeCormick’s slough. Oh, I know 
 that land ever since I was a boy. I live in the western 
 
 2102 part of Peru. From 1891 down to the next ten years, 
 I saw the land every week a couple of times. They raised 
 eorn on it, as much as I know. I couldn’t tell the acres 
 but they farmed the whole piece there; I don’t know. 
 They raised very good corn on the bottoms all through 
 there. J was down there on the land while Mr. Waugh 
 farmed it. I was up where the corn was growing so I 
 saw the corn. Well, I couldn’t just say every year what 
 time they got crops in prior to 1900. They generally 
 would have it in there up to the 20th of May or so. They 
 
 2103 would husk the corn in November or something like that. 
 They had a lot of stock there all the time. In 1892, I 
 think that was the year they overflowed with water. I 
 ean’t be just positive. I am familiar with the fair cash 
 market value of that farming land in the vicinity of Peru 
 
 2104 and La Salle during the year 1900. Well, maybe—any 
 how at least $100 an acre. I have an opinion as to what 
 is the fair cash market value of those lands since the 
 turning in of the water January 17, 1900. After they 
 
 2105 turned the water in it was very little. I guess practi- 
 eally nothing. 
 
392 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Cliperfield. 
 
 My present business is nothing but commissioner of 
 highways. I can’t work. I ain’t able to work. I am 
 2106 one of the commissioners of highways in the town where 
 I live. I was a butcher before I became incapacitated for 
 active business. I pretty near worked in that business 
 all my life, outside of a little steam boating business 
 about thirty years ago on the [lnois River. I have not 
 been engaged in dealing in real estate very much. J] 
 don’t own any farm property. Never did own any more 
 than an acre and a half of land. That is all I owned. I 
 bought several lots and sold them. I never have been a 
 2107 farmer; not what you would call a farmer. I don’t 
 know of any sales of land of this kind being made in the 
 vicinity of the lands that are involved in this suit, out- 
 side of the Huse & Loomis Ice Company. That land 
 was located in the bottoms, west of the Waugh farm. It 
 was sold by the Huse & Loomis Company to a man by the 
 name of Krnart. He bought that from the Huse & 
 Loomis Ice and Transportation Company, it must have 
 some somewhere in 1898, or somewhere like that; I can’t 
 remember. I don’t know what the lands sold for. I did 
 know, but I forgot. No, I don’t know that land sold for 
 $40 an acre on the 26th of January, 1900. I know it was 
 2108 somewhere around that time. Well, I know there was 
 time and again we talked about that land, that you 
 eouldn’t buy it for $100 or anywhere near around that; 
 that is all I know. I don’t know that nobody would have 
 given $100 an acre for that or any land so located, along 
 about January, 1900. The upland was sold at that rate at 
 that time. Some land right north of Peru was bought at 
 $150 at that time. Plantenburg owned it at the time it was 
 sold. It was about two miles north of Peru. <A fellow 
 named Salle bought it. It was somewhere around 1900. 
 
393 
 
 2109 I don’t remember exactly. I don’t know the section. 
 It is in Peru Township. I say it sold for $150 an acre. 
 No, I don’t just say it was before 1900 but I think about 
 that time. I couldn’t swear whether that was before 
 1900. It might have been 1900 for all IT know. I don’t 
 
 2110 think it was quite as late as 1904. Salle owns it at the 
 present time. I know that this land is held and owned by 
 the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company as a coal 
 proposition. I didn’t know it then. I thought that Braun 
 and Waugh owned it. I know it now. I know that the La 
 Salle County Carbon Coal Company have a couple of 
 shafts near this land. I know they are engaged in the 
 business of mining coal. I took into consideration the 
 
 2111 value of this land for farming purposes, for the arising 
 of corn. I don’t know whether there was any coal there 
 or not. If this land is underlaid with coal averaging 
 7,000 tons to the acre, then it would have a very consid- 
 erable value as coal land at that time. I didn’t take that 
 into consideration when I made my answer. What I 
 mean was that the land was worth about that for farming 
 purposes. When I said that the land was practically 
 worthless, J meant for farming purposes. 
 
 Q. Now, if that section 21 raised 12,000 bushels of 
 corn this year and 9,000 bushels of corn in 1910 and 7,800 
 bushels of corn in 1911, would you say that that was 
 worth nothing? A. Well, of course, I don’t know how 
 
 2112 much they raised on it. 
 
 Q. If it did that, I ask you, would you say that the 
 land was worth nothing? <A. Well, if the corn is any 
 good. 
 
 Q. Well, if that land raised a full crop in 1900, and a 
 full crop in 1901 and no crop in 1902, because it was a 
 flood year, and raised a crop in 1908, 1904, 1905, and 1906 
 and the sized crops I told you of in the other years, do 
 you mean to say that the land was worth nothing? A. 
 
394 
 
 Well, that corn that would be raised on there is not worth 
 very much. 
 
 I don’t know what they used it for. It was not fit for 
 
 2113 much, I guess. .[t was not fit for horse feed, I say. 
 
 Q. If it would bring 56 and 58 cents on the market, 
 you would certainly think it was worth something 
 wouldn’t you? A. Well, it looks that way, it is worth 
 something. 
 
 Q@. <All I can tell you is what the witness who raised 
 it said and he said about sixty bushels to an acre. Now, 
 if it raises that quantity of a crop, even if it don’t grade 
 as high as it once did, it still is worth something, isn’t it? 
 A. Well, I don’t think it is. 
 
 2114 I saw some of the corn yesterday. I seen them driv- 
 ing out of there. Spoke to the teamster. I was talking 
 to him. He had on maybe twenty or twenty-five bushels. 
 I can deseribe that load because the end gate came 
 out and he lost quite a bit of it. It was poor corn; soft and 
 mushy. It was yellow corn; the ears were of good size. 
 
 2115 I wanted to use it for horse feed and it was no good. I 
 picked it up. It was soft and mouldy. I don’t know 
 what would make it mouldy, but it was mouldy. It was 
 
 2116 too soft and wet, not dry enough. J know the corn ain’t 
 dry. Yes sir, I looked at it. They didn’t show it to me, 
 no. I looked at it myself. I didn’t know anything about 
 coming up here at that time. I told you before that it 
 eame from there. I seen it. I was right on the road 
 when it came out; on the new road they built to come 
 
 2117 out with that corn. Certainly, I know where it was 
 picked. JI saw them in the field picking it. I see them 
 pick part of it. I didn’t see them pick the whole load of 
 corn. I told you I don’t know the name of the driver. I 
 believe there is three drivers there. I only know one of 
 them. He is a young man. I don’t remember what sort 
 of a team he drove. I don’t know what kind of a team. 
 
395 
 
 It wasn’t Weygand. I can’t give you any better des- 
 eription than what I told you. If he is here as a witness 
 he will tell you the same thing. I have seen something of 
 
 2118 this yield of corn before that time in the last three 
 years. I think they got a better kind last year than this 
 year. I can’t tell how much of a crop they got in 1910. 
 I can’t tell much about the crop they got in 1908. I see 
 it every day. I see it every year. All I know they got 
 poorer corn than they used to get. I told you what I 
 know about the corn on the bottoms. JI know about the 
 corn they got in 1907 just as I did last years’. I can’t 
 tell you any more about the corn they got in 1906. I know 
 I see the corn every year for the last twenty-five years 
 that they farmed there. I know the grade isn’t any more 
 what it used to be. I don’t know how large a crop they 
 
 2119 raised in 1906. I don’t know anything about it. I don’t 
 know anything about the size of the crop. All I know is 
 about the corn; the kind of corn they raised, and I don’t 
 know how much of a crop. I didn’t keep track of it. I 
 did answer you. [I don’t know anything about it. I don’t 
 know anything about the size of the crop in 1905. I know 
 it was poor corn. I see it every year. 
 
 Q. Where did you see any corn from that field in 1905 
 and under what circumstances did you see it? A. Well, 
 we drive through there time and again. 
 
 Q. Did you drive through in 1905? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 2120 I am positive that I drove through there dozens of 
 times every year for the last twenty years. I seen the 
 corn in 1905. I don’t know how many acres is in corn 
 ‘there now. J don’t know anything about it. I only know 
 the quality. I don’t know how many acres were in corn 
 in 1904. JI don’t know how many acres were in corn in 
 1903. I don’t know how many acres were in corn in 
 1902. 1902 was the flood. I don’t know how many acres 
 of corn was there in 1901. I don’t know whether there 
 
396 
 
 was a first class crop of corn raised there in 1901. I don’t 
 know how much corn was there in 1900. 
 
 (). Then if you don’t know any of these things, why 
 
 do you say this land was worthless after 1900? A. Well, 
 2121 I know the corn was better. 
 
 That is all I have got to answer here; that the corn was 
 better before the drainage district came in here than it 
 is now. That is as far as I go with the corn business. 
 
 (). Let us say the corn was better, if you want to tes- 
 tify to that fact, would that make the land worthless 
 now? A. Well, it would in my estimation. It wouldn’t 
 be worth much anyhow. I told you what I thought about 
 
 2122 it; what that land was worth. Well, of course, my own 
 opinion as to what it is worth at present and has been for 
 the last eight or ten years. 
 
 (). Well, if you don’t know the size of the crops that 
 have been raised, 1f you don’t know how many acres have 
 been in there, if you don’t know anything about these 
 things, how ean you testify as to the market value of that 
 land since 19002 A. Well, I give you my judgment. You 
 asked me and I told you what I thought it was worth. 
 
 Well, I certainly don’t know how much corn they raised 
 only I see what they are raising. 
 
 Q. If you don’t know any of those things, how can 
 you express an opinion as to its market value? A. Well, 
 I would lke to know why not. 
 
 I know I husked several acres of that corn myself be- 
 fore the Drainage District came in here. I helped husk 
 it in the ’90’s. I can’t tell you the year. I can’t give 
 
 2123 you an opinion at all as to the time. It was in the ’90’s; 
 I can’t tell you. I was husking for myself. I got an acre 
 from a man down there, from a fellow by the name of 
 KKounselman. I paid him just what he paid for it. I paid 
 rent; $5, I think it was. I had to pay for the plowing 
 and planting, too. I don’t remember how much I paid 
 
397 
 
 for that. I raised it myself. I hired a man to plant and 
 2124 plow. I don’t know how much he has got. 
 
 @. Do you know how much it brought an acre? A. 
 Well, I told you I thought about seventy-five or eighty 
 bushels to the acre. 
 
 Well, I didn’t measure other people’s corn, that is cer- 
 tain. I raised that much on my acre and mine was not 
 any better than the rest. That is the only time I ever 
 husked in there, two different times; an acre. Some- 
 
 2125 times you couldn’t hardly rent it. Them days you 
 eouldn’t hardly rent a piece of ground in them bottoms. 
 Now nobody wants it. 
 
 (). Before 1900, did you base your value on the fact 
 you had an acre of that corn two years? A. The value 
 of the land, do you mean if I base it? 
 
 Weeves. (A) Vos. do. 
 
 No, I don’t know what section the land is on, that I 
 mentioned as having sold for $150 an acre. It is on the 
 plank road, what is commonly known as the plank road, 
 in Peru township, about two miles from Peru. About 
 
 2126 two miles north from Peru; maybe a little more or less; 
 it is on the right hand side going out. I can’t fix the date 
 any closer than I have already said. I was subpoenaed 
 to appear as a witness here yesterday afternoon. I 
 didn’t know his name as McPhedron. I know a man 
 named Archie. We did have a few words. 
 
 2127 Q. When? A. Oh, I don’t know when it was. 
 Q. What? I don’t know when it was. 
 Q. About how long ago? A. Two or three weeks. 
 
 - He didn’t say that I was going to be a witness. He 
 didn’t say nothing to me. I have no relation at all with 
 the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company that I know 
 of. Have no business connections with them in any way. 
 
398 
 
 2128 Wititiam HassreLMan, called as a witness by the plain- 
 tiff, testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is William Hasselman. I live in LaSalle. 
 I am forty-three years old. I have just moved out there 
 this summer. My present occupation is teaming for 
 William Brannen. I have farmed some of the bottom 
 
 2129 lands located south of La Salle. ’93 was the first I 
 worked around the bottoms. I worked there up until 
 1902, started in 1893; worked there in 1894, 1895, ’96, ’97, 
 98, 799, 1900 and 1901. 1900 I quit. I was out for one 
 year and came back in 1901 again. I worked on the bot- 
 tom lands from 1893 all down to the year 1901 with the 
 exception of the year 1900. The land was located north 
 
 2130 of the Carbon Coal Company ground. 
 
 Q. This is Shippingsport road running south from 
 La Salle. This is Shippingsport bridge south of La Salle. 
 Now, where was the land located with reference to this 
 land that is shown on the plat here, lying east of the 
 Illinois Central right of way? A. It was right in here 
 (indicating on the map). 
 
 (. Would it be north of it? A. That would be north 
 of it, yes. 
 
 Q. Let me ask you whether or not at any time you 
 ever worked any of the land lying west of the Illinois 
 Central right of way and south of the center of the sec- 
 tion; any of the Carbon Coal Company’s land? A. Well, 
 I didn’t really work on it. I done some husking of corn 
 on it. 
 
 Q@. Did you ever work any of the land that lies west 
 of the Illinois Central right of way and south and east 
 of the Illinois River? A. No, but what is east of the 
 Central Railroad I have; I have worked in there. 
 
o99 
 
 Q. Abeut how often during those years did you go 
 
 2131 through this land here shown on the plat that les in 
 
 the southwest quarter of section 23? A. Oh, I passed 
 occasionally to see how it was, right all the time. 
 
 I did go through that land to go to the land I was work- 
 ing. The road ran right along the Vermillion River. 
 Joe Stricker was farming that land at that time. That 
 land was cropped to corn during those years. It always 
 done well. Pretty nearly every year between the year 
 1890 and the year 1901 I did husking in there. I couldn’t 
 
 2132 recall just exactly the time when I did husking. Pretty 
 nearly every fall I did some husking. I have husked for 
 Stricker. Well, I am sure I husked there in ’93, 794, ’95 
 and ’96, in those years. I didn’t husk any after that. 
 The last year was 796; generally would go in there to 
 husk about Christmas. That corn would run to, I should 
 say, from fifty to eighty bushels to the acre. It was good 
 eorn. It couldn’t be beat. It was as good corn as you 
 
 2133 could find. The corn did mature in there during all 
 those years. I never saw any soft corn. I lived right in 
 the bottoms on the Sullivan place; out on the bottoms along 
 the Vermillion River. I should judge about eighty rods 
 north of this land. There was a house and barn and 
 eorn cribs. In going to La Salle I traveled right along 
 the Vermillion until we got up to this road leading by 
 the shafts and then I went west along the bluff and over 
 the Shippingsport bridge into La Salle. 
 
 Q. Take that road that runs east and west along the 
 bluff, how far is it from the land that lies between the 
 Illinois Central right of way and the river? A. I 
 eouldn’t say exactly how far it is. 
 
 The land comes very near the bottom of the bluff. 
 Very near it on the south side. The Deer Park road, I 
 should judge, is about a half a mile from the bluff. I 
 
 2135 couldn’t say that the road is in the same place it was 
 
400 
 
 formerly. | ain’t been down there for ten years. The 
 present road is half a mile from the bottom land. There 
 is timber and such as that along the road. The road is 
 not a great way up on the bluff. It wouldn’t be over 
 twenty rods from the bottom of the bluff up to where the 
 road is. The bottom of the bluff wouldn’t be over forty 
 
 2136 rods from the south line of this bottom land. The Deer 
 Park road almost joins the south line of this bottom land 
 in there. You are up quite a bit driving along that road. 
 You are not up to the top of the bluff. This road is up 
 about the center of the bluff. From that road you can- 
 not look over the land very well on account of the timber. 
 In crossing the Shippingsport bridge you couldn’t get 
 a very good view from there. I have husked there and 
 we drive around it when it was dry, around the river to 
 make a short cut. Yes, I pass along the Llinois Central 
 
 2137 and the Q. both. Oh, I would come through there every 
 week or two weeks anyhow. Corn was growing there 
 during those years. I couldn’t say exactly how many 
 times I was in there for husking purposes. Pretty nearly 
 every fall all the way from those years. I should judge 
 the character of the corn was all right, what I could see 
 of it; good solid corn. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: Move to strike the answer as not 
 responsive. 
 The Court: I think I will let it stand. 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 2138 It was mature ripe. The condition of the ground when 
 I went in there those years was dry; froze over generally 
 at that time. I should judge all the land that lies west 
 of the Illinois Central and south and east of the river, 
 that corn run from fifty to eighty bushels all that time. 
 
 (). Now, during those times, you may say whether 
 there were any lost crops on account of flood conditions 
 or high water? A. No. 
 
401 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I husked corn in the land west of the Illinois Central 
 Railroad. 
 
 (Witness was taken ill at this point. Further examina- 
 tion will be found later in the abstract.) 
 
 2140 Louts Borrs, a witness called by the plaintiff, testified 
 as follows: 
 
 Trrect Kxamination by ‘Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Louis Boers. I live south of Peru. I wil! 
 
 be forty-three years old next month. I have lived there 
 2141 thirty-eight years. I am picking corn. I live two anda 
 half miles south of Peru. [I am farming some land there 
 this year. I am on section 28 and farm 21. I am farm- 
 
 ing some of the land formerly farmed by Sam Waugh; 
 
 the land that he farmed some years ago. That was the 
 land that les south and west of the [llinois River and 
 east of MceCormick’s slough. I rented a piece of that 
 land there this year; seventy acres; planted about twenty 
 2142 acres; couldn’t plant more than twenty acres; couldn’t 
 get it, it was too wet; got in there this year in June, I 
 think about the 15th. The land at that time was pretty 
 wet. Twenty acres was all the land I could get into crop. 
 
 We planted it to corn. The twenty acres I refer to is 
 about the center of the patch. I don’t know how many 
 acres they have got in there all told. The condition of the 
 corn this year is soft; it is in the milk. I am picking 
 2143 it now. I am feeding it to the cows and hogs. I farmed 
 part of section 21 last year. We had the same piece. We 
 
 eall it seventy acres. We farmed as much as we could 
 there. I think we got in about thirty acres last year; got 
 
 in a little earlier than we did this year; it was wet. ‘We 
 
402 
 
 always had to ford to get into it. The high water came 
 
 2144 up last year about September. The high water came 
 up and we couldn’t husk some of the corn last year. It 
 was a little better last year than this year. I don’t re- 
 member what time we got in to husk, but around October. 
 The ground was then wet. We had to drag out the corn 
 little by little. Farmed the same land in the year 1910; 
 had the same piece; seventy acres. In the year 1910 we 
 
 2145 didn’t get in much crop. I don’t think we got any crop 
 that year at all. We have had that piece of land all told 
 six years. The corn raised in 1910 was not much good. 
 
 2146 The corn we got off there was soft corn. During the 
 six years that I have been there none of the corn was 
 what you could call good corn. We got more last year 
 than in any other year. I think we got around forty 
 acres or something like that. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 Rented this land from the Carbon Coal Company; paid 
 
 2147 about two-fifths rents. I don’t know how many bushels 
 we gave them as rent in 1906; have no record that would 
 show. I didn’t keep track of it and had no record and 
 
 I have no idea. In 1906 we had a pretty fair crop. I 
 don’t know how many bushels. I didn’t keep any track 
 2148 of it. We were farming another piece of land, two other 
 pieces; farming what we call the home place. I didn’t 
 raise much corn in 1907; didn’t plant this land at all in 
 1907. It was a wet year. I don’t know how much we 
 raised in 1908. I didn’t keep track of it. I can’t give 
 you any information on that subject. I couldn’t state 
 2149 how much we raised in 1909. I couldn’t tell you how 
 much we had in 1910. I kept no record; no track of it. 
 We raised about a thousand bushels off this seventy 
 acres in 1911; we had in about forty acres. There is 
 about twenty acres this year. We raised about 400 bush- 
 
403 
 
 2150 els this year. My people have a suit pending against 
 the Sanitary District and I am interested in the outcome 
 of this suit. We didn’t keep track of any of the bushels 
 raised or anything like that. Some people put it down 
 in a book, but we never did. I haven’t even any recol- 
 
 2151 lection or any memorandum that I could give to the 
 
 yury. 
 
 Wituiam HassetMan, resumed: 
 
 Cross-Exanunation Continued by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 2152 I know the crops being raised east of the Illinois 
 Central Railroad. I don’t know how many acres in any 
 one year were planted in that one piece. I don’t know how 
 much ground there is in there. I never had any in there. 
 The land I farmed was north of that. I think the land 
 would raise fifty to eighty bushels. That is as close as 
 
 2153 I can estimate it. All I know about it is that I husked 
 some corn in there. I couldn’t say how many acres. It 
 was planted on both sides and there was quite a good 
 deal of waste ground; some ground that was in timber. 
 There was some ground higher than others and some 
 eround that could be planted to corn and some that could 
 
 2154 not be planted. JI don’t know how much there was in 
 timber and that sort of thing. | 
 
 ArtHur Morrison, a witness called by the plaintiff, testi- 
 fied as follows: 
 
 Direct Exammation by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Arthur Morrison. I live in Peru. I 
 
 am forty-three years old. I have lived in Peru 
 2155 all my life. I am a Jaborer. Since 1890 down to 
 the present time I have been acquainted with the Illi- 
 
404 
 
 nois River; have fished along the Illinois River; when not 
 working I was husking or fishing in season. I have 
 fished every summer. I have fished along the river and 
 through the bayous; fished all the way from Peru to the 
 Henry locks; fished in the bayous or slough across from 
 the town there, called the Huse & Loomis slough, where 
 2156 they cut ice. Huse & Loomis slough is about a mile 
 south of town; starts from the bridge; have fished in 
 there since 1900. I remember when the Sanitary water 
 was turned into the valley. I noticed a difference in the 
 level of the Illinois River since the turning in of that 
 water. I have some marks and objects at different places 
 that help me to determine the condition of the river as it 
 is now at low water and as it was before the District 
 2157 water was turned in. One of these marks is at the head 
 of the ice breaker, at the center of the river bridge, 
 right in front of Peru, in front of Water street. There 
 were three piles drove right close to the ice breaker, one 
 in front and two back about three feet, and in low water 
 before this drainage was turned in those pilings, you 
 could go out and sit on them and fish there on the nose 
 of the breaker, during the summer months. Since the 
 water was turned in you can’t see them at all. The pile 
 was probably four feet out of the water, before the turn- 
 2158 ing in of the District water. Another place is the banks 
 of what we call the lower slough, the north bank and the 
 south bank. Before the drainage was turned in I have 
 walked along that north bank with a spoon hook, casting 
 flies for bass, and used to have lots of lilies growing along 
 there. Now you can take a row boat and row along 
 there. The water is up with the timber all along there. 
 Another mark is at the point of the slough, where the 
 slough emptied into the river. There was a steamboat 
 sunk there some years ago, named the Belle of St. Louis, 
 and there used to be a part of the hull stuck out of the 
 
405 
 
 water; quite a bit of it; now, you can’t see any of it. It 
 would stick out of the water during the summer season 
 
 2159 and fall. At low water season now there is nothing 
 there at all, nothing but water. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield., 
 
 T am a laborer at odd jobs in Peru. I worked for the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company some years ago. 
 
 (). You said in speaking of some of these conditions 
 that now they were different than they were before 1900. 
 Do you think that now is a fair time to compare the river 
 
 2160 with low water conditions? A. Yes, I do. 
 
 This is not now a low water stage of water in the river. 
 
 (). Isn’t the [llmois River at the present time four 
 feet higher than it was last July? A. I don’t know 
 
 2163 whether it is or not. 
 
 I have measured the water quite often to see the rise 
 and fall of it. I often walk out and look at the water 
 gauge. I have never taken a measure, to go out and 
 measure it with a rule, but I have looked on the water 
 
 2164 gauge. There is a difference between the level of the 
 river now and what it was last July. I couldn’t tell how 
 much. I didn’t measure it. There hag been a raise in 
 the Illinois River in the last thirty days; I don’t know 
 
 2165 how much; I haven’t any idea. I couldn’t tell you 
 whether it 1s ag much as an inch or thirty-six inches. I 
 don’t know when the river commenced to rise lastly. I 
 think it was more than a week ago, about two weeks ago 
 since I noticed it. It might have been a little before that. 
 I looked at the river gauge during this summer and 
 spring. I didn’t read it in low water. It didn’t bother me 
 that the water was low. I only read the river gauge when 
 it bothers me, when I wanted to go fishing and the water 
 was up a little and I wouldn’t go fishing. 
 
406 
 
 2166 It got as low this year as it has been in the last five 
 or six or seven years, I guess. I don’t know what the 
 stage of the river is now. I have no interest in the out- 
 come of this suit. I think I could take measurements of 
 the river now and tell how much lower the river was dur- 
 ing the summer than it is now. I can’t give you any idea 
 of the difference without doing that. I can’t give you 
 
 2167 any other information than I have given. I know the 
 river is ligher than it was last July. 
 
 (Adjournment taken to November 21, 1912, at 9 o’clock 
 A, M.) 
 
 2169 November 21, 1912, 9 o’clock a. m. Court met pursu- 
 ant to adjournment. Present, as before. 
 
 Mr. CureerrieLp: JI would like either to have Mr. 
 Leidel recalled for further cross-examination or else have 
 the privilege, in connection with his testimony, of intro- 
 ducing the record of the recorder’s office of this county 
 showing the transfer to which he referred was made in 
 1905 instead of 1900. I want to do that in connection 
 with his testimony. 
 
 The Courr: If that is the fact, I suppose they will 
 admit that fact. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFretp: J want to bring the record and show 
 it the fact and have it be considered in connection with 
 his testimony. It is the fact, as we have investigated. 
 
 The Court: I will allow you to introduce that deed, 
 then. 
 
 2171 ‘‘This indenture, witnesseth, that the grantors, Peter 
 Pantenburg and Lizzie Pantenburg, his wife, of the Town 
 of Peru, in the County of La Salle, State of Illinois, for 
 and in consideration of the sum of sixteen thousand five 
 
 2172 hundred dollars ($16,500) in hand paid, convey and war- 
 rant to William Sale of the Town of Peru, County of 
 La Salle and State of Illinois, the following described 
 
407 
 
 real estate, to wit: All that portion of the northeast 
 quarter of Section 6, in Township 33 North, Range 1, 
 Kast of the Third Principal Meridian, lying east of the 
 center of the Peru and Grand De Tour plank road, but 
 excepting and reserving all bituminous stone and mineral 
 coal underlying said premises, with the right to mine and 
 remove the same without interference with the surface 
 thereof; containing 110 acres, more or less, situated in 
 the Town of Peru, in the County of La Salle, in the State 
 of Illinois, hereby releasing and waiving all rights under 
 and by virtue of the homestead exemption laws of this 
 state, grantors to pay the taxes for the year 1905. 
 Dated this 16th day of December, A. D. 1905. 
 
 PETER PANTENBURG. [ SEAL. | 
 Lizzie PANTENBURG. [ SEAL. | 
 
 STATE oF InLINots, or 
 La SaLLE County. : 
 
 I, F. E. Hoberg, a notary public in and for the county 
 and state aforesaid, do hereby certify that Peter Panten- 
 burg and Lizzie Pantenburg, his wife, personally known 
 to me to be the same persons whose names are subscribed 
 to the foregoing instrument, appeared before me this day 
 in person and acknowledged that they signed, sealed and 
 delivered the said instrument as their free and voluntary 
 act, for the uses and purposes therein set forth, including 
 the release and waiver of the right of homestead. 
 
 Given under my hand and notarial seal this 16th day 
 
 2173 of December, A. D. 1905. 
 I’. E. Hopera, 
 Notary Public.’’ 
 
 Filed for record on the 18th day of December, A. D. 
 
 1905, at 8 o’clock a. o. 
 
 And the seal of F. KE. Hoberg, Notary Public. Re- 
 corded on page 398 of warranty deed record, No. 352, 
 of La Salle County, Illinois. 
 
408 
 
 Artriuur Morrison, recalled: 
 
 2170 = Cross-Examination Continued by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 It is some time since I looked at the gauge on the river 
 bridge. I couldn’t recall, I couldn’t state what date it 
 was. I don’t believe I have examined that gauge since 
 last spring; probably in April. I don’t remember what 
 the gauge was at that time. My best recollection is that 
 
 2173 August was the low water of this year. I saw the river 
 yesterday from off the hill. I was not close to it. I live 
 on the hill, about 150 feet above the river, and I see it 
 
 2174 every day. I should judge it was about two and a half 
 or three feet higher yesterday than it was last August. 
 That is simply a guess. I know where Lock 15 at La 
 Salle is. I didn’t make any observation of this piling at 
 the river bridge during August of this year, when the 
 river was at its lowest stage. I crossed the river bridge 
 and was in the vieinity of them in a boat, but not where 
 I could see them. I didn’t make any observation to find 
 
 2175 out where these pilings were this year. I never looked. 
 I am pretty sure they are still there. I couldn’t say 
 whether the river was as low this August as it has been 
 since 1960. I couldn’t recollect that far back. It has 
 
 2176 been low season on the Illinois River; last season was 
 not. I mean 1911. The spring of 1910 the river was 
 very high; the fall was not. J account for the difference 
 in the stage of the river by the rainfall and probably 
 
 2177 the drainage. I don’t know whether the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict is steadily discharging about 350,000 cubie feet of 
 water a minute or not. If the discharge hag been a steady 
 and constant one there naturally would be some reason 
 for the fluctuation of the river. I know that the rainfall 
 since 1890 has varied a great deal from year to year, and 
 
 9178 they always did. TI know the rainfall in the watershed 
 
409 
 
 of the Illinois River affects the river stage since 1900, 
 just as it did before. I know that the stage of the river 
 is affected by the taking off of the forests and timbers 
 and the speedier discharge of waters to the river. If 
 the Sanitary District has maintained a steady flow of 
 390,000 cubic feet per minute for four or five years, the 
 sudden changes and rises in the Illinois River must be 
 due to some other cause than that. Before 1900 these 
 
 2179 piles stood out of the water, about three and a half or 
 
 four feet. I never measured it accurately. That was in 
 low water; in the lowest water when they stood out that 
 much. I have seen some piles covered with ten or twelve 
 feet of water before 1900, in the spring of the year. I 
 admit it would be unfair to compare the high river con- 
 
 2180 dition with the low river condition to get results. 
 
 To get a true and fair comparison you would 
 have to compare similar conditions of the river. I 
 have seen times when the Illinois River was a great 
 body of water; almost a sea of water; extending 
 elear from bluff to bluff, with a strong current, rapidly 
 flowing down stream, and before 1900; in the spring. I 
 
 9181 have seen it also since 1900. I think the water since 
 
 1900 was higher than it was before. In 1892, May, was 
 the highest water I have seen in the Illinois River; 1892 
 was before the Sanitary District was opened. There was 
 another year that was about the same stage of water. I 
 have not seen any higher water since. That is the highest 
 
 2182 water that I know of on the Illinois River. The high 
 
 water of 1892 reached the cog-wheels of the turning table 
 at the Peru bridge. They are located right on top of 
 the stone pier, the circular cogs. That would be twenty 
 to twenty-five feet higher above low water mark. I think 
 it was almost that high again in 1902, practically the same 
 as in 1892. Those were extreme high waters on the IIli- 
 
 2185 nois River. I don’t mean to be understood or to say that 
 
410 
 
 the river is four feet higher at high water than it used 
 to be. When the water comes it is not confined to the 
 channel. It spreads out all over the valley. I think when 
 the water is confined to a 350 or 400-foot channel that it 
 may be four feet higher than formerly. If you double 
 the channel, make it 800 feet, it would be about two feet 
 higher. If you increase it to 1,600 feet it would only be 
 a foot. If you increase it to 3,200 feet it would be six 
 2184 inches. If you could increase it to 6,400 feet it would 
 be three inches. I don’t say water from the Sanitary 
 District alone is raising the level of the river perhaps 
 four feet. The highest the river has raised is four feet. 
 That is, water from everywhere. The channel is only 
 2185 about 300 feet wide. If a stream is confined in banks 
 300 feet wide, if you move the other bank out 300 feet 
 further, so as to make it 600 feet wide, the water will be 
 only one-half as deep. If you move it out again double 
 the distance, or 1,200 feet, it would only be a quarter as 
 deep. If you move it out again for 2,400 feet it would 
 only be one-eighth as deep. If you move it out again 
 5,600 feet, it would only be one-sixteenth as deep. That 
 2186 overflow don’t make any difference in the stage of the 
 water from low water mark. If a channel is a foot wide 
 with a stream flowing a foot deep, if you widen the chan- 
 nel to two feet with the same amount of water, you de- 
 crease the depth of the stream to six inches. If you 
 2187 again double the distance you decrease it to an inch 
 and a half. You might get it out so there wouldn’t be 
 any water left. 
 
 Q. Now, when this water commences to flow over these 
 lands and extends back to the bluff a mile—it is a mile, 
 isn’t it, from one side to the other? A. Over a mile. 
 
 Q. When you get the water from bluff to bluff, do you 
 mean to say that the water which has been added to the 
 Illinois River, since 1900, by the Sanitary District or 
 
411 
 
 from any other source, then maintains itself at a stage 
 
 of four and a half feet higher? A. Four and a half feet 
 2188 higher from what? 
 
 _Q. Than what it was in previous years under similar 
 
 conditions. A. Yes, I do. 
 
 Q. The width don’t cut any figure? A. Well, it don’t 
 seem to. 
 
 @. You ean take the same amount of water that is 
 four feet higher when it is in a channel three hundred 
 feet wide and widen it to a mile and a quarter and it still 
 stays four feet higher all over that distance? A. It 
 keeps coming just the same. 
 
 @. There is nothing to dam the stream below, the 
 stream is not standing, but going on, isn’t it? A. You 
 bet it is. 
 
 ©. Pretty fast;-too, isn’t it? A. , A. rip-snorter. 
 
 Q. Goes on rapid all the time, doesn’t it? A. Yes. 
 
 (). Three or four miles an hour under those condi- 
 tions? A. Worse than that. 
 
 2189 Q. Five? A. I have seen it eight. 
 
 In low water, with the low water we have now it is go- 
 ing four miles an hour, pretty near. Before 1900 it was 
 sluggish. It didn’t go more than a mile an hour. If you 
 take a stream of water in the banks of the Illinois River, 
 that is flowing one mile an hour, it will carry a certain 
 amount of water, and if you increase that current in the 
 same channel to four miles an hour, I don’t know whether 
 it would carry four times as much water, but it will in- 
 crease the current. 
 
 Q. Why won’t it carry four times as much water if 
 it passes twice as fast? A. It might in some places, and 
 other places it backs up. 
 
 2190 J don’t want to change my answer that the current was 
 four miles an hour. 
 
 Q. All right, then, let us adhere to it and before you 
 
412 
 
 said it was sluggish, about a mile an hour. Now, if it 
 would flow four miles an hour now and one mile an hour 
 then, wouldn’t it carry four times as much water at the 
 same rate as it did before? If not, tell us why not? A.. 
 In some places it would. 
 
 2191 Below, but not above the bar, it is faster. Below it, 
 but not above it, the current 1s accelerated; below the 
 bars you will always find the swiftest current; above it 
 it don’t flow as fast. 
 
 (. Now, will vou please answer my question. Those 
 bars were in the river before 1900 and they are there 
 since? A. Yes, you bet they were. 
 
 (). And they obstructed the river just the same be- 
 fore 1900 as since 1906? A. Well, some of them have 
 been washed out. 
 
 Q. All right, then the current would be faster, 
 wouldn’t it? Now, then, tell me, if you please, and I 
 don’t want to have to ask the question again if you will 
 answer it, tell me, if you please, if the current would be 
 four times faster, 1f the water moves along four times - 
 as fast, why wouldn’t it carry four times as much water 
 at the same level as it would when it was only flowing’ 
 
 2192 one mile an hour? A. Certainly, it would. This steamer, 
 the Belle of St. Louis, was located at a point of the 
 bayou, lower slough, about two and a half miles down 
 stream, on the left hand side of the bank. There is an 
 iron rod there from the hull of the steamer. It must 
 be out about ten or twelve feet from the bank. The bank 
 
 2193 is very shallow there. T'he part of the steamer that 
 would show in low water, with reference to this iron rod, 
 was about fifty or sixty feet from where the iron rod 
 was; west. It was southwest a little, down stream. The 
 ice would never touch it. I don’t think it is now in the 
 same condition it was then. In the last ten or twelve 
 years practically nothing left of it. Yes, you could find 
 
413 
 
 2194 lots of it there. Yes, I think there is some of the ribs 
 of that boat there yet. This rod was up on the bank, it 
 was up on the bank. It might have been a couple of feet 
 above the surface at low water. It must have been six 
 
 2195 or seven feet from the river bank. I named the north 
 bank of the slough, besides the steamer and the piles. 
 That is about a half a mile up from where this boat was 
 sunk, on the north bank, up stream. The elm trees that 
 used to be there are all dead. now. There is one left up 
 there in that neighborhood, but it is dead and fallen down 
 to decay. There is no building or anything about there; 
 no buildings or anything about it. If compensated for 
 my services I will point out to-morrow to the engineers 
 
 2196 the location of this path. I could observe as to those 
 piles being out of the water three and a half to four feet 
 and this path by the bayou and this steamer also being 
 out of water practically every summer. The low water 
 has been in the summer time for years. I don’t know 
 Section 21 by number. I might know it. Yes, I know 
 
 2197 that bank. I have a distinct recollection of Water street 
 in Pern. At the time when I say this piling was three 
 and a half feet out of water at low water, Water street— 
 the level of Water street, the low water would be eighteen 
 or twenty feet below the level of Water street. I think 
 Water street is a little bit higher than the turn-table on 
 
 2198 the bridge. The water would be eight or ten feet below 
 the average point of the banks; probably about twelve 
 feet below the highest point. I think Water street ought 
 to be a little bit higher. I can’t name the year of lowest 
 water, but there was one year when the water was awful 
 
 2199 low. It was right in the summer time. I couldn’t say 
 positively the month. JI couldn’t give that. I don’t like 
 to answer that at all. I couldn’t answer whether that 
 
 2200 year was nearer 1890 than it was 1900. The lowest 
 water I have seen since 1900 was last August. 
 
414 
 
 2201 Mr. O’Conor: Before starting in with Mr. Cooley I 
 would like to offer in evidence House documents, Volume 
 8&3, No, 263, report upon the survey of the Desplaines and 
 Illinois River, and the title page thereof, the certificate 
 attached of the colonel of the corps of engineers, acting 
 chief of engineers of the United States, and certificate 
 and seal of Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War. Of 
 this document we wish to offer page 187, page 188, and so 
 much of page 189 as relates to the discharge measure- 
 ments of the Desplaines River and Illinois River, at Mor- 
 ris, Illmois, m the year 1900. 
 
 2202 And so much of page 190 as relates to the Illinois 
 River near Devine, Illinois. 
 
 And so much of page 191 as relates to the Illinois 
 
 River near Devine, Illinois, in the years 1903 and 1904. 
 It takes in about two-thirds of the page from the top 
 down. 
 
> 
 
 186 WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS, ETC. 
 
 ‘Discharge measurements of Illinois and Des Plaines rivers - Continued. 
 
 = 
 
 ILLINOIS RIVER AT PEORIA, ILL. ~ 
 
 [Survey of Illinois and Des Plaines rivers, 1902-1904. The gauge readings refer to gauge on Peoria and 
 Pekin Union Railway bridge. Elevation of zero=435.53, Memphis datum.) 
 
 
 
 taken from Peoria and 
 ekin Union Railway . 
 bridge). 
 
 a Mean | Dis- 
 : Area of |Maxi-  - at e8, 
 Date. Gauge cross |mum Width.) % eloc- charge Status of Remarks, 
 reading. section.|depth ity per| per river, 
 | fs : ; > second. second. 
 1904. Feet. | Sq.ft. | Feet. | Feet. |. Feet. | Cu. ft. 
 July 2 8.0 | 3,764] 13.0 460 1.77 | 6,672 | Stationary..} No wind (taken from cable 
 . “ue ae ; at mouth of Farm Creek). 
 July 11 8.2 | 3,708; 13.0 420 180 br G67 1.52060. sens Light upstream wind (taken 
 | . rom cable at mouth of 
 : Farm Creek). 
 June 18 | 9.9 | 4,676 | 15.0 460 | 1.94] 9,065 |..... pe ae No wind (taken from cable 
 : . : : at mouth of Farm Creek), 
 June 10 11.4 | 5,482] 16.6) 475 2.88 |} 12; 980 7. -... do...... Light downstream wind 
 , . (taken from cable at 
 A ; . mouth of Farm Creek). 
 May 27 11.9 6,018 | 17.2 475 | .2.44 | 14,662 |..... Eades Do. aan 
 May 13 13.8 | 6,683 | -19.2 BOO Ph 2078) AS Bae home oo ogee pie upstream wind (tak- 
 en from cable at mouth of 
 i ad ; Farm Creek). 
 Apr. 22 | 15.8 | 16,275! 23.8] 1,020 1.87 | 30,456 ' Falling..... Light upstream wind (taken 
 from Peoria and Pekin 
 — ; Union Railway bridge). | 
 Apr. 21 16.0 | 16,498 | 23.8] 1,020 2.02 | 38,306 J..... do......| Strong downstream wind 
 ; (taken from Peoria and 
 Pekin Union Railway 
 ; bridge). 
 Mar. 22; 18.8 | 17,916} 26.07} -1,020 3.21 | 57,588 | Rising...... Light downstream wind 
 ce (taken from Peoria. and . 
 Pekin Union Railway 
 bridge). 
 Ma . 23 19.3 | 17,819 | 26.0] 1,020; -3:33 | 59,333 |..... TO acon Strong downstream wind 
 
 i 
 
 NoTEe.—AIll but last four of above measurements are the means of 
 All were taken with a Price current meter, large size. 
 
 ILLINOIS RIVER AT PEORIA, ILL. 
 
 [Taken under the direction of the United States Geological Survey. The gauge réadings refer to 
 gauge at the Peoria and Pekin Union Railway bridge. Elevation of zero= 435.53, Memphis datum.] 
 
 
 
 two consecutive measurements. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NoTE.—All measurements were taken from the Peoria and 
 
 small Price current meter, 
 
 - 
 
 1903. he ty 
 Aug. 22 8.40} 7,218 |..... ae POE Ta Bc ak Hic God ie Ab ave coekeauwes 
 Nov.* 12 D1, O80 Ta cwcccctvcunwet’s Ride) Deka We aney ace umne we 
 July 5 ERA Se” Ff ERPGORE RET Fee es i ee Ee ee 
 Oct. 23] 10.10] 9,699 |.......]. valtde'sts UE OW Oe ea ae 
 Sept. 25] 11.92] 9,987 |.......|. hice CBP. (18, OA tee ee acy co 
 af | 
 May 13 BS. O04: 34, O78. bo wiies sé 947 1,39 | 15,358 | Stationary..; No wind. 
 May 18] 13.21 | 11,883 |...:... OE 21,43 | 1601S fo cscs 
 Mar. 3 14.94 | 18,297 |....... 953 1.75 | 23,285 | Rising...... 
 1903. 
 Apr. 8] 15.28} 18,718 |....... 951 1.88 | 25,840 |.....do...... Strong downstream wind. 
 1904. 
 _ Feb. 4 15. 42 | 18,689 |....... 933 1,20 | 16,305 | Stationary... Do. 
 1908. 
 Apr. 29 15.60 | 18,712 |....... 956 1,90 | 26,079 |.....do......| Strong upstream wind. 
 1904. . 
 Apr. 24 15.70 | 14,076 |....... 947 1.96 | 27 1 ream 
 May 1! 16.00 | 14) 460 |....... 952! 2.16 31318 aie ta INS Ss. ares at sea 
 ee: 30 16.33 | 14,876 |....... 943 | - 1.58") 21,124 | Falling..... Strong upstream wind. 
 eb. 14 16.33 | 14,815 |....... 955 1.50 | 21, 784 | Stationary..| Strong downstream wind. 
 1903. | 
 raat 18 17.58 | 15,738 |....... 966 2.62 | 41,219 | Rising...... Strong upstream wind. 
 1904. ; 
 
 Apr. 16 18.00 | 16,869 |....... 953 2.46 | 41,460 |........--+.--| Light downstream wind 
 Rabe 7 canes bape $08 | BE7 | BB RN7 |--+---0.-0----| Strong downstream wind, 
 Apr. 2) ©21.17 | 19,813. |.......| 968] 2.171 410041.............. St neaeaie wind 
 Mar. 31/ 21.48 | 20; De bee WOR COOP. ae wet. pede re ae 
 
 Mar. 28| 21.83 | 19,979 |....... 9538 | 2.98 | 58,370 |.............. 
 
 Pekin Union Railway bridge with a 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ae $s uae ai98 15 “ai Satay e asses 
 nae a Scone debe mom. wn Seah 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2, Y ° 
 ee Tie ei pry 
 P 
 
 ei F . “ By : 1 Broecaah 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4: dake Metal tail Owe ug 
 ti oe i ote wed ” Bede x tin ran as z 4" +3 ‘ . 
 2 eae Snes th pate Stoker Pas teres $ + 
 ee ee ‘ < eS: ' 
 iS a PEN 
 
 i Sond SAH we pes BOTY Be i rae en) ue 
 i‘ "th, ae +, Cae uh > came ee ; § 
 sa bd ape yee Fas? ae art saby Pes $ fs é: Rohe (Ne 
 2? See cites Vr Deus F ty? eh hy a by aE Le Ae 
 3 ith or Moerker ety Mae 2 ht eee 
 eas) Tee ee eae 
 ng Mae Ty “} gate Lyoasinage 5 
 ee Pea yf 
 - ei 3 aie eae. So oy ae . bone 
 mo ms rae ifr At at Res nad cages. 
 
 a 54 cs leet ioe 
 
 
 
 
 
 wf 
 es 
 
 
 
 
 v 
 ae Te awa 
 ~ 
 ow’? 
 . 
 x 
 2 
 Fit 
 a 
 a 
 ~ os 
 Ae as 
 ae i 
 os 
 os xs 
 Sat igs : ‘we 
 sf Fe 
 wee 
 Fe 
 
 
 
 
 fhe lngst Tig 
 ENR 5 Gait aR 
 
 ‘ig 7S GKaE ORE 
 ¥ Sie Vee eh paid 
 ie 13 1% ye vite) 
 
 ag wn OAH af 
 ile | Sa ED be 
 
 
 
 th ea Wee ee > oe eh BS. ae a io ie ot 
 fos ni a > + a "es 
 « ~ - . 
 
 ewig stad 
 ae ‘ Mr 
 Ui it Ped cree frat 
 
 : : ard et 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Le US Se 
 
 ae 0: o coy : 
 ; . tapi <% Ooi Ole 
 ay 3 i Sa Reese res ‘Arey tie 2 ei Ca: MSM aes 4 
 iiius) isaac: deen? cree ene etn OF eran 
 MOSS Borie Lie F “seh iad f FEC 
 ; ae {Oye t : i ays ae IOS ive 
 Mid eaAh D tad elie "ste hin ey Pe eae Terar eee wees ned ae Beate Ne ay loot, fo 3 ‘mie Vests aged 16 ots debi WN salen 
 
 rien ing he SANE OFT Vy Shstopereezn er sake OF tant an va) a 
 | pile AE SORE SEA st 6 RE rete 
 
 a bike Lies PA aoe TM AGET Beis) 
 
 
 
 ELL ET LET 
 ey 
 x ; Su 
 Xe 
 ous 
 oe 
 <7 
 & 
 a 
 7 
 ys 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ry : , ~ { ia Py te 
 PRs g wwetay: capiaey wt ganpnet Sa Sg A seas te? at} ie mebiineetio, cots 
 TeRG ND ehi's 03), 2S ty Ln COR ar Pen Yaw RH sie? Stash tie pera 
 “ Nia) eeihaees RAP illo =. Avila uchiha same cite a Ue mullet Wd pahedianc re tele moray Pi yesipdacc igh’ in either ere 
 ‘ ; 2 : : eee. ut t ‘ ‘ } & oe hee awe 
 | Soe ae o iad i 
 2 : Ve * oe , a 
 ¢ 4 a 7 ey a 7 a ; p- 
 s ee oh eek ‘eu Cee nag i AEE 
 Sg Senn hae ed ere Per twee ce a 
 Ls : 4 Oe oe he > Lane ee ee : G, ; bea e ree mee We, Oty of Be ¥ | 7g Fk ed 
 ‘ ‘ fe ae wee ~ae8 ver Rtas AS fp al pe **’ Sica. “es ‘$ ti.2 ; te pt fh 
 & tins ‘oR Ld » i t ti $ Mia aad * ee ral re Pes a of ae = 3 . M5 i 
 ‘ é; i roy ed, Lee Ie ow ines mee gum Sia sho ae al ~ ie oil ie ee 
 8. > selaod. 9 ’ :- . Parone BOR ahi ; sae i ant : Tle aes oF | Re ‘Lh : Te et 
 £2 6 400d Gere . nals = ; a) 4 3, an ]st mee i | ra Sk ¢ i= '9 B+ & 
 ’ L~ ing : . 
 i yer) one dl Ps Peis : ay Hs } Bagi bs A ae! ee ra 
 mo t ; +e | Wife Bene ; 
 B ; 2 ae wi ef oaae BLAIR ; ade ten ak ees | as fi, Mea a mt 138 | iad ay te sri BA ri 
 + : ee j 7 cp * ‘ vd 
 - ae 
 Loe ie (fez i ei : ; AR : : ie 
 s Eh ‘ ee Ste le Are j aye ba H Pe aay | 3 Bet ve ae an: x ‘eon rth ae : 
 : XA ; nk PIL ese ae f, Oe 
 B : : fa - _—_ by ete : - I thie” at ; Ah - fecal i : re Ge + . F 
 Pi Soot Sy Rs lr i 2 $j ’ Las ee fe v «se ce ren aes . ay aS § o “e 4 wa ieee i get at t det 67 
 ‘ ” . ae : iy “oy tee De Ale 
 Pal erent ei ged Ua giana sony mie e Ore ly Ae | fot mnie nl Wi 25. ai a 
 ¢ ‘ +? ers - se * i { ? : eta Vy! + een 
 q ae bi ‘ ve Pe eae ® ay Hy « je a Ai - te, a vag een SP BE | oe, “4 
 jenvw mssviotie Bits (os Gata 38k ET BE OE da 
 te of Riga ws emetils AL as ree. ) +. 2a Se t oe ° ‘ae re rye a i ae 
 t ‘ eo cs Vi Mit te 
 y beg ie 
 4 
 
 weed 
 
 
 
 x 
 & 
 * 
 
 
 
 3 Vee... preted © . ¢ ' 
 ski aN te Re a, ‘ Beat: oa « “” Je apenas ¢ oir a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 TU 
 ry 
 
 wit oe 
 Lf 
 soa) 
 ‘ STAN ily I tesatiet = Nae ce, ae 
 © Ss 
 nes 
 
 i) 
 
 + bes PD £ f : : , 1 7 
 ar” rey tah Ue ey: fe pik bei ee eee ee P a ke J are . 4 er 
 ays per ta wes me Te OPT te RT Si " gb 
 Piet FS De od iss ag a 44 oe 4 sypaiang “ie be «5+ i iz . we sat : 
 pee steae Rid WIE Ts can shat 4, sn oh ae § TE 2 Rox, ‘ of 
 
 5 a a ee deka ei ed a: ‘ AEP ae 
 
 Z a 
 me I t ; 4 ’ » DOLORES | Eyer 
 
 Lage. - thee Lanse nnrnn soma othe neti an whi t, Seen 
 
 
 
 ‘path we ily . ft < 
 oe he f J mt 4 * 
 ee a alba Os a al ai se ay, 
 
‘WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS, ETC. 187 
 
 Discharge measurements of Illinois and Des Plaines rivers—Continued. 
 ILLINOIS RIVER AT HENRY, ILL. 
 
 {Survey of Illinois and Des Plaines rivers, 1902-1904. The gauge readings refer to lower gauge at the 
 lock. Elevation of zero=436.64, Memphis datum. ] 
 
 
 
 ' Mean | Dis- 
 Area of} Maxi- 
 Gauge |". veloc- |charge| Status of 
 Date. reading, CtOss_ | mum Width. ity per| per river. - Remarks. 
 
 section./depth. second.| second. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1904. Feet. | Sq.ft. | Feet. | Feet. | Feet. | Cu. ft. - 
 Aug. 4; 8.0! 6,295} 20.9 520 1.13 | 7,134 | Stationary..| Light upstream wind (taken 
 : from cable about 1,000 feet 
 below bridge). 
 
 Jyly 5 8.5 | 6,348 | 21.5 520 -99 | 6,299 |..... do ......| No wind (taken from cable 
 : % . about 1,000 feet below 
 bridge). 
 June 11 11.0 | 8,356 | 24.7 7 76 Mee Bib | Gia OF > St a (se Do. 
 
 
 
 ILLINOIS RIVER AT LASALLE, ‘ILL. 
 
 {Taken under the direction of the United States Geological Survey. The gauge readings refer to 
 gauge at the highway bridge over river. Elevation of zero = 587.08, Memphis datum.] 
 
 1903. . 
 Aug. 23 —140. a, 152 eccceceleeeececes 1. 04 v2 448 eeteeereese eeee 
 aS Se Ga Ys a meni NE ee aR SNS 
 May 12 |—136.50 | 9,345 ]....... 657 1,18 | 11,111 | Stationary.. 
 Apr. 4 |—133.60 | 11,281 |....... - 690 1. 56 pe fa ONE No wind. 
 Apr. 28 |—132.55 | 11,805 |....... 658 | 1.61 | 17,884 |.....do...... Do. 
 ar. 17 |—129.74 | 14,187 |....... 692 2.26 | 32,006 | Falling..... Do 
 
 NoTEe.—All measurements were taken from highway bridge with a small Price current meter, 
 
 ILLINOIS RIVER AT OTTAWA, ILL. 
 
 [Taken under the direction of the United States Geological Survey. The gauge readings refer to 
 | ote e Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad bridge. Elevation of zero = 587.05, Memphis 
 um. . ip Be \ 
 
 
 
 1903. : 
 Aug. 28 |—129.57 | 2,924 |.......]........ RI CTT A ip. dndiesecanen 
 wee | hase. 04 | 2, 847 |... ole nnceees RO | Fan ns oh wkc asin 
 Nov. 12 |—129.00 | 3,090 |..... ‘Jd piwebwlaass BOB: Fs BAO io cd. cweccuce 
 May 12 |—128.42 | 3,511 |....... 545 3.32 | 11,616 | Rising......} Light downstream wind. 
 Beeeeae [= iee.85 | 8,466 |.......)......--| 3,86 | -21, 002 |... cence 
 1904. | S berga . Se 
 May ‘19 —128. 10 3, 583 ‘eseeeecesleosesn eecs 8. 29 ll, 754 eeeeeeebheeseee Downstream wind, 
 1908. | a 
 fame. oe taened. Oe.) S&S, 609 |....ccu]escadecs 8.75 13, 543 | EL Se 
 Apr. 5 |—126.25/| 4,738 |....... 599 3.71 | 17,573 | Rising...... Strong downstream wind. 
 Apr. 28 |—126.07 | 5,001 |....... 609 3.67 | 18,340 | Falling ..... Strong upstream wind. 
 ~ 1904. : i : 
 May 2 |—125.80| 4,775 |....... 609 OE A ee Light downstream wind. 
 Apr. 17 |—125.40 | 5,164 }....... 627 3.62 | 18,714 | Stationary..| Strong upstream wind. 
 Apr. 26 |—123.90 | 6,136 |....... 652 es oe ae ee Strong downstream wind. 
 1008. | ee 
 Mar. 18 |—122.98 } 6,818 |....... 651° 4.53 | 30,885 | Rising...... No wind. 
 Mar. 30 |—118.30 | 10,217 |....... 746 ee 8. Ce Strong downstream wind. 
 4. 96 | 54,473 | Stationary..| Light upstream wind. 
 
 Apr. 2 |—117.30 | 10,987 |....... 751 
 j | ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Nots.—All measurements were taken from Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad bridge with 
 
 a emall Prira enrrent meter 
 

 
 Bad ¥R ogee adit 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pe 
 
 ee ee ee a ee Rass roe seielir or990 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cog igen is £ Bs 
 i TG. one 3 
 ; F 
 ; 
 “ mo age vo -e ~ ted ir an - on : 
 * i : 
 Ae ‘ 43 
 bs z ai <P ~* ‘ee 8 ease ; at eS ach 
 ape é 2 
 iS Pe yi, . 
 Git at bs ta ie : 
 v fod fie wads ye 7a * 2 x 
 e bn t LY i “5 
 WH. oa A> : 
 ; . } 
 4 
 rn 
 ee ee Ape ntitainggteoeatiactar tm ~ din ate 
 
 OT sole eh he 
 
 5 se wee koma 
 
 
 
 xk wae oF 
 
 
 
 ros 
 a 
 Ea ok 
 
 - 
 ¥ 
 ‘a 
 ; - 
 pe . 
 eee neha Mag 
 i. 
 ” a9 OS dem ay 
 e 
 eerie oi beens ‘does ti ree “sy Pe aa avons 
 <r ur . 
 
 ots ae # re te pee 1 i 
 
 ‘ 
 oa 
 
 ase} sieea nan ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : ; LPS sits 5 ny ae o im Hee ei er onigoh melt ee pois ¥ 
 oy Die tae ve. Ve poe pa dn iene : ite i ata stiaa poor 
 ’ AS os 2 Ais at "4 ie, a kl sh bd sx padi ¥. oe sage fe ay liad 
 a a Se ° Li ¢ orehe yh bee a, 
 ; ee Salt omens eee rays ea wee 
 | peter ee i> ad . ty ra anes i e. ; : ; Fi 
 - “ publ st. te Abbas 2 BAS GS ae c 
 ; oy awe ia For Bas » ehaeanae? tp +a a 
 DES yeep WINE gO BETS kek | 
 . Lskt bs me, v1 AGN n> po} yeh 5 xe le 
 tity q 4 t A 
 Er 2 +? « ¥ oF ee }* z 
 e ree ; “ayerges ee yn ; ae Af 
 mA a - n H hk - 5 
 | aah eons Oe eT Sek, teed 
 Ae - mA ; 
 f : a wee eee er PAY FS. seGers % ~~ apes - we all re pet neta lee rte Rat 
 ee he + -” pa ae cy by * 
 pts. is 4 ASD Bias a are Hy oar ‘ pow aiie A we eS hat cunt igh ite ee 
 ' “a 5 AES Hite ‘i os ae MEA, Brae Aa sy tk EE S 
 ae 3 Shalini darn ware re fei asap eal ane Me whidosaiti : 
 OF Yel en a cet Beam ae ie - outs 
 REN 0b Fe: «O88 a, BREE RRS AE nies vik scones hades. ange yatinget 
 Pra: oh ais as ” = apt ie pebahie der aaa ir et aie og ~byinicoeaere mt _ he Ag “er * naa + dane. 
 , ot pr Cy See j wtp 4 
 Ps iad dah i as ea Coe i mee Ae - iy *% seh oo 
 hia acy a no dre oh eh aoe a 
 ' ~ >See aw? ¥ r : . a ' 
 | : ee Sate Sere yy eet e 
 rs a itil yh dv at th of ‘ary af Mey % caave 
 é My * > “iF we? \ wi. rick 4 ’ ah i indady 5s page * BM aS? eh’ BP i ‘* éuaaw ve a St ye 
 cf - “a 4 : ol tras. e's = as iF vs a peels ++ A Des 
 , Pgh a . 4 
 “o 1p ae | 
 ' 7 . ¢ ; F F A; ; ° ‘ 
 t cre iy Sag rh : ett ght Ny ; ss , sete aD ie em me 8 ew Qe 
 | | . es De Fe om 
 ; <4 b hy : i re Hy 
 King a ae 14 A ME 
 Kaibep stiuapsiay sed Sten eh be ce Dane Lees 4 
 ast : f F 
 . Srithes ae ee NLS 1, ee an ie 
 if ‘ e : : ' 
 eter sae a le fn ae res ot M 
 ate ees e BOs :. Renate + REY ¥ 
 » Baader assoreere ihr IE, h. wantp pane ee a tt 
 ¢ : Laie: ¢ ce 
 ; J wy #3 
 ; ; Y, A 
 . s * ee 
 Saiieody 4 te sees bot : 
 ¢ i ’ ‘ er 
 Ress DEMS is ale at Bul hon F Mee ferea vy gl > $ 
 ae fui ADOT? 3 Salen + A oes oi : ott 
 i Op ty oma ke want ms adil ‘eon gest 9? (ute rs si ee wes web a aanad Dain pe Pere “ ed weagiewi 
 ‘ o Sa a 
 ae 4 ot a 7 
 “4 out etait 4 a 
 5 yh eagle bees kag, és baad Bisse: iis 
 M “opts eeu L 
 
188 WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS, ETC. 
 
 Discharge measurements of Illinois and Des Plaines vivers—Continued. 
 ILLINOIS RIVER AT OTTAWA, ILL. 
 
 [survey ot Illinois and Des Plaines rivers, 1899-1900. The gauge readings refer to gauge on highway 
 bridge. Elevation of zero=454.74, Memphis datum. ] 
 
 
 
 ; . Mean Dis- 
 
 Area of | Maxi- . , 
 
 Date. |, G828e | cross | mum | Width. 1° a “per | river. a ee 
 section. depth. second. second, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1900. Feet. | Sq. y Feet. | Feet. Feet. | Cu. ft. 
 8 4,22 g, 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ma os Met & . & Saas eee 2.09 | &, 805 ae Sawa 
 Do. ne 3.38 4, 196 SSIES NEMS EGS SF fe has ac AO Fe aes 
 May 12 a ® 7 a 2.17 | 9,415 ‘Biationary.. 
 May 9 SORT S410 |i. 22-00). nceccce 2.29 T 9, BB0 ne. 2A oud ken 
 May 11 RS 20S RR Sea ie 9.21 | 9,955 |..... ae 
 Apr. 16 he Be RR, Sara 2.39 | 11,745 |..... GY cutee 
 Apr. 12 See) RETR Wi ckadcales segues 2:90 1 13,802] ...5. ee 
 Apr. 25 ee Be Be loateny cle eaw sues OGY TS OES fice sk 4 fa SEP Riad 
 Do... Ate). AOS len dase sheswenash 2.67 | 13,348.) <<: = ss swe 
 Apr. 23 4.63 SMa Gibhsn'p ha won 2.57 | 18,133 | Falling ..... 
 Apr. 17 | SAB Ree eaerener 2.61 | 18,172 | Rising ...... 
 Apr. 12 Ce Re eee, eee 2. Gi 15, Gib teres. Gh naa 
 Apr. 18 er i ees ely are sue Oe 206-1 14:20 hw nn he an 
 Apr. 21 5.20 t ‘6,482 |....2.. Did wane 2.74 | 14,992 | Falling..... 
 Apr. 11 6.90 | 5,682 |....... ria ech 2.67 | 14,614 ec ee 
 SRT? Raa eS Bk a iE 2.88 | 16,599 | Rising....-. 
 Apr. 20 5.00 1) 6, B08 fo cennes has akewe’ 2.86 | 16,585 |..... QO He tess 
 Apr. 9Y G. 22 b: G, 147 |. ncsees baidasies'ss 2.97 | 18,243 | Falling ..... 
 Apr. 7 he ee See Fant ing 3.09 | 20, te 8 eee O0:.< hows 
 Apr. 6 7.25 | 6,681 [iicies: Jesseeees 3.13 | 21,505 |..... A0x 2c. 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 NoTe.—All measurements were taken from the highway bridge with a large Price current meter. 
 
 Discharge measurements of Fox River: 
 AT OTTAWA, ILL. 
 
 [Survey of Illinois ana Des Plaines rivers, 1899-1900. The gauge readings refer to gauge at. Decnaree 
 section. Elevation of zero=456.33, Memphis datum.) 
 
 
 
 | Mean | Dis- 
 
 Area of | Maxi-| 
 De : veloc- |charge; Status of 
 cross mum | Width. ity per| per river. Remarks. 
 
 ection. se ay ‘second. se cond. | 
 
 Gauge 
 Date reading . 
 
 | 
 1900 Feet. | Sq. ft. | Feet. | Feet | Feet | Cu. ft. 
 
 Apr. 18 Ge se Oe es [ede eeeee 1. RSL AS QE cenicws ‘ewanties Water backing up from Illi- 
 nois River. 
 
 Apr. 12 Ey Nes Es at ee Tht arias Tei eee oo ve ne ee Meter out of order. 
 
 May 9 Ne Be SR 99) L, POs one ve seduade Do. 
 
 May 10 Sp EC" S ey Renata HA A OMEIRES nicica'sbinds Do. 
 
 Apr. 23 Se a eS ae Be ihge ais A eR) ea 
 
 Mayet} 8.981 1,88%).....:. Baka naes . 65 | Bie suceccahics 
 
 Apr. 21 Ty a ie aa [oanes ess pe ELS a Re” |), Sen ea Water backing up from Illi- 
 / ) is River. 
 
 Apr. 20 8 4 ee | Seb eae | 1. 28 | oo A Sik ie 
 
 Apr. 19 4.02} 1,692 |....... he baad 1.31 | 2,280 |......... piles Do. 
 
 Apr. 9 re ae eT Bs Wan 1.208, BBB ga sendie ss 
 
 Apr. 7 5.45 | 2,003 | saver | Lea 1 AE hs SSR i sienna 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NoTE.—All measurements taken from Main Street Bridge with a large Price current meter. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 risk 
 on a Ld 
 
 — a! on 
 
 : 
 A 
 ni ee 
 
 2 Wik rhe? bai ta 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 eI ee oa Wl ee ee Oe es Sal ee Le, bay a ae Pete Cy Fa 
 A ee ! ‘ = ; Y 
 es A j x j % a y ty 1 
 
 rs ee oe Re MEME Bg roy ee oe 7 
 | agains ee Soa Ny Bim St Laila ws 
 
 ee ht ae ¥- 7 ee es 
 
 Sy ae age y ald . da * . 
 
 ‘ 
 
 oe ae 
 
 aud aiktenadaee i ve! stele a a lias pens J» | frye leagnhe ait gag Batt 
 _- re 
 
 7 : Nie 
 3 pale i . oye t agi y 
 £2 ca 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ aby 
 ‘ <a" & 
 i Sst pws y 
 id a . Ms 444 nee nt 24% 4 
 . K Ps ) 
 4 
 
 Ad te Pee ies ne oe 
 * ‘ ¢ ) - 
 4 ba SPW Taee te * ee 
 
 ‘ 
 Ba ahdd | rom ae 
 
 
 
 Sg pe, tee 
 
 z 
 - 
 ed 
 ¢ 
 vn 
 ; 
 = 
 = ee 
 % 
 ¥ 
 y 
 -— 
 > 
 4 
 . 
 ba 
 : oe hi a 
 
 \ BPA | és 
 but Ad. J Rs ea 
 
 a 
 Wat Re See 
 
 eee 
 
 > 
 es 
 
 
 
 + ajek 
 ‘ 7 ‘ , ie ; x r 
 Bins Wl Tt hae t ae 4 : aa ‘ fiat a fe * a & oa 
 4 eh yee ae 7 a 7 oy 
 uss ie aera a iSr MAE ' We tah ae tee a. Ue: 
 e + SP ta r “eo rf 5 ‘ 4 
 ney oe cart “Rh, te *) « ha me ee a if at 
 
 Tent 
 
 ve f : ; Z ; 
 Dari Re. tae eb ene tnee a te pee LR ag nd™ pas Liuleuh ie etal Vealinndlfls sa ge cota ite i eh Pe 
 
 U 
 
 Rane ewe 496T deel ss eile ee. teh aid wave te: pe Noes? gas mn, LTR sepia lr 
 MIveMstcy OF LUNGS 
 
 PET a Bas elt ed oa BRYA 8. ay “yh ate lcea bape a 
 7 aldl 2 en tele Ge . Se Cael ae 
 P : ee 1 ha vee drab ne ee ‘ y ii of 
 
 mips be kg Dot ea ey YORE BRT). CE I tet ay wep me cht fon tot 
 
 aermides geeky stew. aru a Peace Be PON. cao ad hatched 
 
 hetero Ly eabier< “end ee ee re * hae ee lew ey runes es. eo pv bes ae ae nee we oe ar i 
 
 pl ot ee a pte ae rere eee id & ne 
 ay pos se TaN Reetas, st 
 
 | iA Be RET eee a cei ditied Bi f 
 
 5 
 
 Redes ede: honk ee 2” ot ee 
 S . ‘bey Cz vg! ¥e Meier " 3 Leyt See? A tg 
 
 
 
 > 4 
 ee Fe 6 404 Aa pm imbue ap petnl dame © oes ony bine pape eed niche tia | 3 digitink ot dogo chek wi ee ee oe Pag va se he gr 2 arvit Sae Wya f a 
 ‘ ; ‘ e ; 
 ,* 5 an ; ¥ “ 4 ig) 
 ; eorcs 4 Gus oe re een * a 
 
 ; a eas aid a eae. eR Je 
 
 ie ce a ead eh pitare Wals ae 
 bod te < ; , : S. 
 ee “we arr a tz be al Hy 5-6 erbie apeUE WA te ot RBI EG RMA Ran + See Le ' 
 Ph mi a ; : ‘ ‘ 
 
 raf 
 
 * 
 of 
 
 ~ 
 eS 
 ~ 
 . 
 . 
 
 4x 
 
 poet 
 
 ~ ™ 
 
 >. 
 ‘ 
 e 
 
 x 
 
 ae 
 
 » 
 
 « 
 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 e 
 « 
 ie 
 ny 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 + 
 eo§ 
 - 
 
 * 
 ot 
 - 
 
 . : iy li t 
 Seat OR gee ele ee coe ee 5 A oe ee Rt Oe 
 sale say oe pee pave mp ben nt EE a Rate | RS ia nee 
 uals are tb * Lim we ee: Dg ie Oe a os et ae ey, Bae, b 
 rat 
 
 é 
 . 
 af 
 ED 
 4 
 OS eat 
 
 a 
 
 c ~ 
 : ; . on ae a Pe Bie ae a ea! ee ee) 
 " ; Ade ee 7 PORT e i a” * h ; 
 ve Fs UN” Pea wit Janel se Pa ‘pet © ius iin oo) Tee?) * # ‘ egy ty ; en ne a ei pig bee A? ae ts a 
 
 SACL * or wa§ 
 : ; see Haas 2 " 
 4 . hee es a, i 
 
 . ’ . ye \ 
 tt ade aw a 4 . ¥ (ae he 
 
 we. .s Ph se, ws 2s 
 ee f. ee 60 icicle Lert gh ep = « Brite 
 
 
 
 ¥ 
 
 53 
 eee Ss _—w 
 ae 
 
 he * A : 
 le ot 4 © Ww Byes oy al ie Say "lh AUN my bee: 
 oe ekis ach ; itil ee we ee a pians paged ne 
 1 ‘ 
 ite % Ms a ‘ ( 
 eee inset ~ akcahanee Na nin = ace i tans <ithaies Ws oy aaa Sane Seri Det ‘ 
 
 
 
 
 
 i Sit 6: 2.4) 
 
WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS, ETC. 189 
 
 ILLINOIS RIVER AT MORRIS, ILL. 
 
 [Taken under the direction of the Sanitary District of Chicago. The gauge readings refer to gauge at 
 the highway bridge. Elevation of zero= 487.95, Memphis datum. } 
 
 
 
 $.02 | 4,624 |....... | MBE 1.67 | re EEC 
 MR MOET ee do Ulu ee a ey Maa ae 
 Oe OS aa RE T0600 9781... 0... 
 Ty Ser Reais tes seaeepemE ne 
 OE OUR Frew shecuis ke OS ae a 
 kD ear Aeris pagan a Sag a teas i einaaan 
 BON 2 206 fo ckcelewccecce oe le RRR anegRS 
 28 AU S Deieaas pene 2.00 | 10,560 |......... iat) 
 es 7 i S00 PAN OON |. vaca. «cz 
 SUE oS? Saas eRaCsete et Sie a ~ ene 
 UN, ES ae eRe Ae Pe eee 
 29) BOO Foc ics clacendee S08 4:90 OOP hs pices an uas cc. 
 a Ree Se ee Me OTE Ee a Raeeeeprerenanes 
 Reet ee. te SER ey. 2 Re 
 Qa” OF a See ee EE ss Ys 
 ae EREANT foe eee ESB a sD ED 
 EOE Oe aes aren eS Te 8 aan nO 
 Ee Rae ay TO Bp as Birr Se ERGY 4 oe bina 
 ET EE St ai ca inet Ee" RE 7 ie ia a 
 6.05 | 6,485 |....... PAC ey: “EES Gy SE Riel ae 
 6.12 | 6,481 |....... Re ee 2.30 14, 890 hess gcc tacts Ce 
 8. aa 7 Ria Bee ee "9,30 | 15,079 |.......0s.00 
 RA Ihe i ass ac 0. OF i OL. sn 
 mi “7S re Rare Nea od SEARO icici ccc ake 
 ea ne Baer Be Re WE Ee a ie 
 Yigg BRR pip: $a tte iL... 
 CT a Tt RN Bree Be LY TOO) 1G WOR Hie cot occccns 
 Ee BASH RES 2461 V7. BAB |e ncacessocce ee 
 4 O81) F896 2. caboc cs eee % BE CIRO as luc tactocs 
 YB Whe pe apa Bane HR a SoC OR SRR 
 8.984 8 GBT Lica ice tad dae oc eh a ee ae 
 eo TD RN Ree aw 2 
 a6 bs 8.487 a taslin caedes RB ae bbe 
 ae re BRE PNB es a i eae 
 ae 12°, BOS 1c Jase bees oes EER ) ea 
 a6 1 6 GO8 1, Seuilecesukse SRR YR eae 
 Bat 8 OD4 |, 5 .ien[.eee eas MOR, 8. oem See 
 OG 1) BIB Toon le celeaean PM PER Et ibe a, 
 8.66 | 8.668 |....coclsocooscs SOLS? 5 PRO 
 apt Be gy aaa MLE a 2:78 | 28.744 |..:... cular De 
 eo Re oe ee i eae 2.78 | 24,275 |... cccccces ei 
 MSD BWA lee, dss ae Di Be ee eae aaia . 
 BOS) B PIR ob addin canes 2.41 1 98 O70... 
 & 80 | 8.916 |sc..s0<lesucer <A. (268 Peed ie 
 6001.8, MOL. och a ccekee EOE WE pepe eee 
 9.33) F000 1... 20.0 |Neeases 0.97 F96.906 Lc tise ness’. 
 9.40.1 9, 282. }onsobacloenvabes 9,90 1 Si BAS 1... saved, on 
 Saal 9. Tis. xc decalaue cael 9.90 } GA FAB 1c. conc. soatne 
 O57.) DDT .sccksekeabeue ES ERTS RRR 
 9.66.| 9,230 |...scnaleescsece B96 IB, SAL ose anne tene 
 es) DS 406). uc sbakcodan a Me yy nee 
 
 
 
7 , 
 ae Re w 
 
 oe ee se | aoe ahs 
 = . Fy 
 
 ‘ ei P 
 ae oe ow « 
 
 . ee 
 ath ee ne ewegeat 
 
 ae pal Bee: 
 
 ea. ieee he) 
 4 a rks 
 
 tee te 
 ciel 
 
 ager ge ee Oe * 
 3 Lat wae 
 
 rae 
 : 
 
 Ae 
 
 hua: 
 
 ‘ 
 
 I 
 
 ee 
 
 v 
 
 ’ 
 ¢ 
 
 ” 
 
 ON AOL Ee em 
 
 eb 
 
 oar 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 ~ a 
 
 eae & 
 ne eae 
 
 Se eo 
 
 . ; a 
 ee. ee ee 
 1 - 
 
 Ci Sheed & met 
 
 i a ae ORS are 
 ‘ 
 
 FREE MOS + a4 3 
 
 oh te mba gs 
 > oe Tet 4}° 
 
 i & 
 13 Pe cate 9 die epnpal em a 
 
 ee 
 
 owt re ey 
 sey e 
 ee ee 
 a 
 er are 
 
 ~“a) a 
 
 sf 
 
 ke Meet 
 
 —— 
 * 
 
 ro] 
 ” ce 
 F 
 
 =, 
 « 
 
 ide 
 
 ~ Sm 
 > 
 
 2% 
 
 cintimd swith othe 
 
 2¥i7 
 ‘3 
 far 
 a 
 
 = 
 - nate aoe 
 PEAK eEs 
 
 a & wre he & Lewes 
 ae 
 
 wi Bowy is we Cae ax 
 ~ 
 
 mig 
 
 hohe om 
 
 el Ks 
 Pare te 
 ~ oe 2e 
 
 bs hehe ru dfiodeesint Tie 
 Wu nineties Nast 
 een tee Poh eas 
 es 4 + as: 
 ee fe al 
 
 See eee ) 
 
 4 
 
 ag 
 te, 
 > 
 
 fs 
 + ‘ei 
 
 re, are a A 4 z 
 r surat ngs ilad ad! Be & 
 
 . pad 
 ee osu Svtew saa MEE, tae 
 
 eres rains es apt ct 
 
 4 . 
 re 
 ‘ 
 an. 
 3: 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 epee, Ake Rai 
 $35 
 
 : oe 
 
 = hieesoct Pe ne ee vay ss uel prep 
 . : 4% . 
 BSS: 
 
 ae? 
 
 ee 
 
 - 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 he} 
 : 
 
 +2 
 a 
 i) 
 ae minim mo ye wey 
 
 ag 
 & 
 
 co 
 « 
 ae 
 
 we 
 “Be 
 
 eras 
 SS ay Fon 
 + ie 24 
 
 “4 
 
 ESR 
 Sp ka Aa foe nite 
 OF ys. ; 
 
 # 
 
 “as 
 oA? 
 
 = 
 ane 
 
 £ 
 
 2% 
 Os ty Airtel 
 
 “ 
 0 
 
 et ee 
 74, 
 = 
 + 
 
 .* 
 Af 
 
 Se € 
 
 = ere 
 
 ee 
 con 
 
 68 
 ye 
 
 * 
 ad 
 “ee 
 
 a 
 
 => 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 2% 
 
 ER 
 Sane eek te | ae 
 
 Seger s 
 ee a 
 
 2 
 
 —s 
 
 eee 
 
 
 
190 WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS, ETC. 
 
 Discharge measurements of Illinois and Des Plaines rivers—Continued. 
 
 ILLINOIS RIVER AT MORRIS, ILL.—Continued. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 G “Maxi relod: finaree | Latitas ot 
 , auge ; : veloc- | charge us O 
 Date. reading.| CTOss | mum Width. ity per| per Svar. Remarks. 
 
 section. depth. second. second. 
 
 
 
 
 
 | a a a ———— —s SS en 
 1892. | Feet. |Sq..feet.| Feet. | Feet.'| Feet. r Ou; ft. 
 May 10 OST BONG bode hos eee he | ey 
 Oh ad 961 9400 be ae dees het, Re ee 
 Do... ee BS oe Pear oe eb See ee 23 cubic feet of total dis- 
 | / Re | charge was over bottom. 
 Boss} = Ioe } 9. B87 1). tee ae. 4 ae oe 27 cubic feet of total . dis 
 . ; charge was over bottom. 
 Do...| 10.05.| 9,583 |.:.....1. ee OG ON AE Tel ok 52 cubie feet of total dis. 
 charge was over bottom. 
 BGC.) ME MAGEE Icocochekevareeesl ) bl OL. to a eee, lawakemeus -----| 58 cubic feet of total dis- 
 charge was over bottom. 
 May 9 DOO) - 2, Ae thon tac tlcwmakies ST RR OCREI Cs da knew ene i 113 cubic feet of total dis- 
 aA charge was over bottom. 
 Do...| 11.21 | 10, 265 |.......]...2..-.| 2.98 | 30, 166 |.............. 122 cubie feet of total dis- 
 ; ; | charge was over bottom. 
 Baars BA. OL) A OPA lone wkenloucowd pe} 804 | 31,500 |. ccewceesss 128 cubic feet of total dis- 
 a) charge was over bottom. 
 Diccl - Bac O.) BO GEO Bic ceesel.s ee S02) SE OO lisae vane scons 148 cubic feet of total dis- 
 "ta charge was over bottom. 
 July 3 LL. 76} ORT ines. Fd ae adh: Ree LEI Dab alee an la prbioniew , 
 May 9 | 911.90 | 10,768 |.......)..... Sen 1 cain a Tt ae Pe Ch antoh cic wake 158 cubic feet of total dis- 
 | ; , charge was over botiom. 
 July 8 VE pe i Es 8.90 1 BBB7O 1G ceticewacwese 
 DG .uc) © 2287 1 PGR I. nnccns|- las a inated DO Ree ha soe aoas 
 July 4 BAe EGMECTAD  Racueuecivass<>0s S18: 1 BOG foc uast eck pa 
 July 3 NG Og ee ee ER AD AT A Lilac wie wrevdlies . 
 July 4]: 12,90 | 10,861 |....<..|..... PN hey At + Be a Sais ; 
 May 9 ir Reon | a Se * 3.15 | 34,935 |..............|-181 cubic feet of total dis- 
 f ' charge was over bottom. 
 May 8 RR PD ia wow slodescccs eK ge a ee 773 cubic feet of total dis- 
 : charge was over. bottom. 
 oe ee 0S) et 8 eee eee BS 1 SEG lin chkeccvcesces 1,377 cubic feet of total dis- 
 ; | charge was over bottom. 
 DOuFsl A MRE fod xccice le cee ccas O34} OB Se ies oc wtacaveat 3,414 eubie feet of total dis- 
 . "s \ ; a ; - @harge was over bottom. 
 Do...| - 15.15 | 18,078 |....... ERE 8.25°| 47,291 |,......- see ,| 4,796 cubie feet of total dis- 
 . | charge was over bottom. - 
 May 7 Ae FN es ee o-| - 2.97 | OO, 304 je... hip alte an 16,743 cubic feet of total dis- 
 : “ae. : charge was over bottom. 
 Do... 17.75 | 14, 870 eeeeeesleeeecccs 3. 07 62, 313 eee eeeeesesces Do. : 
 UT i RR ce rao ORE ee 20,997 cubic feet of total dis- 
 a ie say . charge was over bottom. 
 - May 6 REE BEG To nscccelpdveccgsl:) We Me [GFP Gee ledenesss nee -Do. 
 cant EVE EM OED bececccelecvodcee, 8.06 |} TE, FOO denecenie «-+---| 24,614 cubic feet of total dis- - 
 
 charge was over bottom. 
 
 
 
 -_ NoTr.—Where a discharge over the bottom is shown, the areas and velocities given are for main 
 channel only. f 
 
 a= - 
 
 ILLINOIS RIVER NEAR DIVINE, ILL. 
 
 . (Survey of Illinois and fa Rai ry be 8, 1902-1904. The gauge readi refer to gauge on Elgin, 
 - Joliet and Eastern Railroad ridge. Elevation of zero=587. 20, Memphis datum.] 
 
 
 
 June 15 —94.6| 4,318 9.8 565}. 1.23.| 5,300 Stationary. No wind (taken om cable 
 a ‘he Ve | about 600 feet below Elgin, 
 j . ‘ - Joliet-and Eastern Rail- 
 road bridge). 
 July 23) —94.5| 4,353] 9.7 575 1.22 | 5,304 /..... Os anane ht o> a wind 
 : taken from cable about 
 feet below Elgin, Joliet 
 ; and ‘ata Railroad 
 bridge). 
 July 8) —94.3| 4,337] 9.7 560 | 1.86] 5,910 ].....do...... joy 2 LE wind (taken 
 cable about 600 feet 
 : ioe Elgin, Joliet and 
 Eastern Railroad bridge). 
 
 
 
 NoTE.—Each of the above measurements is the mean of two consecutive meéeasuremen All 
 taken with a Price current meter, large size: " wes 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : ‘ te pees os % Vit 
 eee Re pee te R eee ROS a UR 
 ~l * yee “ke ae , + ars, 
 niet ere ates aan edad kpke ph daaaesieaires 
 .’ ee te eee et = 2p him - ; Sa aK “a . ‘ “F 
 a ‘ ray s Pr da ae ne bu* »: 
 P 4 1 74 aa | 4 Osh set 5 m yee 2 : ene rh, . 
 be a : iit 
 «5% "y ae ' Pa xy ¥4i, 7 od og“t » 
 « | aia , t ei 3 way aires 
 < SS: - r bp ae Phas > 7) Bryer 
 hee | : 
 3 ir Ln te ms - age i 
 > asi - 7 stecnifienn : 
 P o— ~ ~ * » 
 i . 
 ; +, 
 «< ot Py . Aas 
 toy ediats ee 
 ws 3 ‘ ae t. 
 . t Bee 
 ¥ “3 4 . b tig ‘ Pa 7 co + eB 
 : : ” , Pe ae | oo bee Owe te NP 
 : He - ; ; ; 
 : i : : Te 
 Q E: i ' No ~~ a Yay 4 
 % ; ty Y Pe ras Pp; Cee ol ee ae ee pel 5 oR Ae 
 - f ft 5 “g Aa => : ~ ' ‘ j > j 
 i . 1 
 : yy - ' > [ * 4 . ” 
 }. , £. ae 2 - ry Ton te 
 q - * . ot “de a% .& * phi ee a oo mE y 
 t eI i Pe 
 : 
 cf as ; i ; 4 ue, nt . 
 x e « a" A. « 
 ud k + r * see ts . hf P ; i a qe res , ae ou ry 
 ; | i * 7 
 ; ‘ai } ye a ‘ ie” a5 i f 
 yi g x ie re s* ¥ ic = ‘ a iio See ‘= at ‘ a i 
 $2 rl est ; y - ‘ 
 : : ' } : Ar ey 
 ‘ : x , 
 j “4 - ns ‘ ess ¥ rs > ’ : 4; 4 fe? ‘25 ok ‘ Per 
 / . ' ° « et ¥ * we ol ~ vio “ + .” * Fal ; . 
 vad ’, A) 4 ; ; 8 
 Ny Fe : n a, 
 be w - ib ‘ es OS | ‘ 2S ¥ rr 
 : Al > ae af oo 4 ey ere Sad 'S Fas GE toa 
 r mad oy r 4 : ri 
 - yy ah ; B. : ter, “2S 
 ‘ ™ , - : * as rs; > ame ‘ ae 
 wEsheie ; : “ee 4 fs aa) We ae Pe te 
 to cine ‘ 4 y * i es 7 Z 
 5 : ; : O.4e ae a } - 
 : f . pr » é 
 | ; ‘ Kee a wo i ee on ae ah © h os ee ee SS ) nt oy A R Pe ae : = 
 | ’ . i ; 4 . a i 
 | | 7 4 Pekar dy pea ie 
 +3 > ° » i a aid P| Ps Cs ca . ws 
 4 mM “ fy ae? ae ae ee A ere ee eee eet oak 5 , ey Me act 
 a IAT, vis a a” Th 2 p 
 oe , r eee ee eee a4 ey " BS, eee (i 
 $ - ” ‘ - r ; Poe ts 2 > be ‘ 
 e : er we ee te or “oie Al 4S ~% 
 é ; a & way " Cre oo UT = 
 a ‘ WK “ Pe et ms aS ee Ris ol Kinet : 
 | ; . & 2 Be 3 
 iow as ; S ae oe 
 > ot em i Ly 3 ee Mt ‘. q 
 Bh wee +: * } ’ 5 $} Bias, | 
 zs = 4 i J ; eos ; 
 ee , bie ‘i ie: ee ee i 
 : r : ; B HES j «% ie eS 
 “Y*. » awe 4 * : , 
 a ‘Rios , Hiarters Sir ng vy ae ‘. re ik 
 s - " ne, ; . ioe ¥ Dates ‘ ui iL jose ¢ Se 3 
 "Pe “ ty 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ tte 
 yet 4: oi*a : . 
 é ; 
 .y4 “$ i 
 : a i 
 5S ~~ a j 
 “ ‘ 
 2 b, i t 
 poy * 
 aug. ghatl 
 es ans ty * pepe gt ; 
 x a oe 6 ick ah oe se Se 2 ae ol 
 : A Pies 
 2 ° ff > 
 , t ; 
 F Fog 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 een 2p or eee awe 
 
 bey ne Set Wt aa rll 
 mee * _ ue a : 
 
 re 
 
 ai cage? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ¢ Wee 
 
 
 
 Cte 
 
 z es Ae * out t % i A 
 
 
 
 pear tater mewy ks & ey apd E tise hai 
 nea a gees Sars met ie 
 
 Pah brit 
 hast 
 
 An 
 eas 
 
 j ‘gag ie 
 ae - oe os, sclharrell 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 whe § 
 
 : riges - aa ot ne 
 a Ree oe 
 
 é fs x 
 
 
 
WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS, ETC. 191 
 
 DES PLAINES RIVER AT THE KANKAKEE CUT-OFF. 
 
 [Taken under the direction of the United States Geolagical Survey. The gauge readings refer to 
 , gauge at discharge section. Elevation of zero=5s7. 16, Memphis datum.] 
 
 
 
 l 
 eee 
 Nov. 26 86.95 a ee eee ee 1.30 | 5,138 | Stationary.. 
 May 9/| —86.93 | 3,920 |....... 307 | 1.30] 5,078 |.....do...... 
 Aug. 30 | —86.75| 4,029 |....... $73 | 1.43 | 5,758"|...-. Bi omnes 
 July 11 | —86.75 | 3,968 |....... $37} 1.4456, 718 b.: “ORE da 
 ‘ee, 96} — 86,90.) 4,083 |. ......)ccecccee 1.44 LED sd. Oita det he 
 Apr. 9, —86.61 | 4,091 |...---- 370 1.43 | 6,483 | Rising ....- -.| Strong upstream wind. 
 Bept. 26 | —86.55 | 3,845 |.-.....|.---=->- 1.46 | 5,621 | Stationary .. 
 Apr. 26 | —86.10| 4,284'|....... 372 | 1.48| 6,189 |..... aS ale t 
 Dec. 17 | Or eG ae >t aeenene 322 | 1.54| 6,956 |..... ee Ice on both shores. 
 - Mar. 15 | —$3.59 | 5,199 |....... 382 | 1.66| 8,646 | Falling..... No wind. 
 
 
 
 ay 
 Nore.—All the measurements were taken from a cable with a small Price current meter. 
 
 me 
 
 My / 
 
. z= Le 
 eve w, tA > 
 
 a9} Toe ey oa on acre wiped 
 sess ard oh id? yo ae 
 
 i shy ‘ 5 : wv 
 *y : Me 
 
 ba 
 fave f cite ‘ 
 ie re il 8 pe nO am mynd  aRpve pee U pmo 9 Ape AP nine TR te Petheet ng a ag amore 
 s y * ‘ : ‘ 7 
 
 » 
 
 fe 2 ee 
 
 ye’, wtwy 
 
 ye * 
 
 ine 
 
 ¢ Madsen 
 ere 
 ee 4 
 ye? 
 pohly 
 aes 
 4 whee seh 
 
 2 
 
 arose 
 
 + 
 
 - 
 
 woe 1 pa), 
 
 
 
415 
 
 9903. Mr. CuiperFIELD: I want to object, first, that no proper 
 foundation is laid first for the admission of the book. 
 92905 Mr. Curperrietp: Well, I simply object that it is in- 
 competent, irrelevant and immaterial, and I think I will 
 
 let it go at that. 
 The Courr: I.think I will let it go in. 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 HK. L. Coonry, a witness called by the plaintiff, testified 
 as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor, 
 
 My name is E. L. Cooley. I live in Chicago. I ama 
 civil engineer for the Sanitary District; have been con- 
 nected with the Sanitary District of Chicago since 1904, 
 
 2207 in May. I am here in answer to a subpoena served on 
 
 me yesterday. I received the subpoena and I assumed 
 
 I had no volition in the matter—I had to come. I. was 
 
 not able to consider it in any other way. I naturally am 
 
 not in sympathy with suits against the Sanitary District, 
 
 but I didn’t suppose I had any choice about it, so I came 
 
 2208 along. I checked up the data that appears on the sub- 
 
 poena that was given me yesterday. There are two small 
 
 corrections there, only a few feet. They don’t amount to 
 
 anything. I don’t have the flow measurements of the 
 
 2209 District from the year 1908, including that year, 
 
 down to the present time, 1912, inclusive. I couldn’t 
 
 bring them. The observations have not been worked up. 
 
 There is a great deal of labor in working up these exhib- 
 
 its. There are readings in various places and I used, in 
 
 the four or five years I worked it up, it took.me over a 
 
 - 2210 month a year to work it up, The readings for the year 
 1908 have not been worked up so far as I know. 
 
 Q. If they were worked up who, in the employ of the 
 
 District, did the work? A. Why, this is turned over to 
 
416 
 
 the electrical department. They opened their plant in 
 1908 and those gate readings and that class of work is 
 now under that department, so I have little or nothing 
 to do with it. 
 
 When it was under my direction we took readings 
 every half hour, forty-eight readings per day, and the 
 average was worked up for those forty-eight readings. 
 The average is shown on the data attached to the sub- 
 poena. They simply show the average flow during the 
 quarter. ‘T’hey don’t show the daily flow or just how 
 
 2211 much ig flowed on any day. The data does not show 
 
 2212 the flow on any day. No, it goes by quarters. The 
 data doesn’t show for any one month. The data for the 
 year 1909 has not been made up at this time. We have 
 
 2213 no tabulations since 1907. Nobody has worked it up. 
 I used to do that, but I have been doing other work. That 
 is in the electrical department and they have not worked 
 it up. There is nobody there that has the duty of tabu- 
 latutg the flow and working it up into an average. That 
 was one of my regular duties up to the year 1904 and 
 then I got busy at other work and these reading came 
 in and nobody worked them up. In 1905, 1906 and 1907, 
 they were worked up by another man, who had some 
 help, that was available to do it. Since then there has 
 been no record worked up that I know of, no continuous 
 record. 
 
 (. Now, do you know when they first commenced to 
 use the gates at Lockport for the purpose of letting the 
 water out of the channel? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. When? 
 
 Mr. Cuiprerrietp: Now, if your Honor please, I object 
 to this line of examination for the reason the deposition 
 
 2214 of this witness was taken and IJ insist they cannot use 
 both his deposition and his oral testimony, concerning 
 the same subject-matter. 
 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
417 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Q. In the year 1905 was your deposi- 
 tion taken, Mr. Cooley? 
 
 Mr. Curerrrittp: Then, if your Honor please, I de- 
 sire now at the first opportunity to move to strike the 
 deposition of K. L. Cooley upon all the matters concern- 
 ing which he is orally interrogated concerning at this 
 time. 
 
 2215 The gates located at Lockport may have been used for 
 the purpose of letting the water out of the District chan- 
 nel. J don’t remember. Yes, J have been there since 
 1905. I don’t go there very often; once or twice in the 
 past year or two. They don’t use the gates as a rule. 
 They most always use the bear trap dam and since the 
 water power has come into use it is usually taken at the 
 side of the water power, going through the wheels on the 
 water power and over the dams at that place. 
 
 Q. Have you any additional gates there that you 
 didn’t have when your deposition was taken in the year 
 2216 1905? A. J don’t remember that deposition of 1905. 
 
 Yes, there are two gates down at the water power 
 which went into use in 1908. They are about two miles 
 below bear trap dam. 
 
 Q. Now, since the year 1905, has the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict of Chicago constructed a channel along Thirty-ninth 
 street in the City of Chicago? A. That, I believe, was 
 done by the City of Chicago. 
 
 Q. Is it a part of the Sanitary District? A. No, no. 
 
 It begins in the lake and discharges into the Halsted 
 street slip, or sometimes called the stock yards slip, which 
 is a slip on the south branch of the Chicago River. That 
 
 2217 fork joins in near Ashland avenue, which is east of 
 Robey street, about half a mile; about half a mile up 
 stream from Robey. 
 
418 
 
 Q. What is the capacity of that channel or conduit, as 
 you eall it? | 
 Objected to by the defendant; objection overruled; 
 defendant excepts. 
 
 2218 Ultimately that water flows through that Thirty-ninth 
 street conduit into the Sanitary District channel. 
 
 (). Ultimately, yes; and doesn’t it go into the channel 
 at a point in the river where it won’t affect the shipping 
 in the river itself? 
 
 Defendant objects as immaterial; objection over- 
 ruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 (). Doesn’t that come into the channel or come into 
 the Chicago River at a point where it won’t affect the 
 shipping in the river? 
 
 2219 Defendant objects as immaterial; objection over- 
 ruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 A. Qh, it doesn’t affect the shipping. The velocities in 
 that branch are very low. It doesn’t affect navigation. 
 
 (). What is the capacity of that Thirty-ninth street 
 conduit? 
 
 Objected to as being incompetent. (Argument on 
 
 22:20 the objection.) 
 
 21 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 2222 A. Why, by gravity, with the usual difference added 
 between Lake Michigan and the outflow, it may be forty 
 or fifty thousand. It might be nothing, depending on the 
 flow in the river. If there is no flow in the river there is 
 no flow in the conduit. 
 
 Q. I am asking you what is its capacity? 
 
 Objected to by the defendant. 
 
 A. Capacity depends on the slope through the econ- 
 duit and the stage of the river and the stage of the lake 
 determines the flow, by gravity through the conduit. 
 
 (. What is the ultimate capacity or maximum capac- 
 ity through the conduit? 
 
419 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: If your Honor please, I object to it. 
 
 The Court: He may answer the question. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: May I be heard very briefly? 
 
 The Court: If there is anything new. 
 
 Mr. Curperrieyp: There is something new. 
 
 The Court: That is, anything additional. I don’t 
 eare to hear what you have already said, Mr. Chiperfield, 
 but if there is anything new, I will hear it. 
 
 Mr. Cutrperrietp: Your Honor, I don’t usually indulge 
 
 2223 in remarks just for the sake of exercise. I get plenty 
 of that during the day, and, your Honor, it is a matter 
 of right for counsel to be respectfully heard by the court; 
 it is not a matter of favor. 
 
 Here is a conduit running from the lake down to the 
 Chicago River. The size of the conduit is not, as I re- 
 member, in the evidence. 
 
 The Courr: He hasn’t had a chance to testify to very 
 much about it, yet. 
 
 Mr. CurperFretp: He is not going to testify very much 
 about it unless it is over my objection, 
 
 The Court: You have a right to object, but he may 
 have a chance to answer without so much argument. I 
 don’t say he will have a right to answer the questions 
 without your objections, but I do say he may have a 
 right to answer the questions without so much argument 
 each time. 
 
 Mr. Cureerrretp: I object to the remarks of the court, 
 and, if your Honor please, I refer you to the case of Cur- 
 ran against the Sanitary District, where the court says 
 it is the absolute right of counsel to respectfully present 
 their objections and to present arguments to the court. 
 
 The Court: If you have anything to say on the ques- 
 tion, you may say it, but I don’t care to hear anything 
 further said by you as to the propriety of the counsel 
 and the court. 
 
420 
 
 9994 Mr. Cuiperrirtp: I want to present that authority. 
 May I present that authority? 
 
 The Court: No, sir; you may address yourself to the 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: I ask leave to present that authority 
 to the court. 
 
 The Court: I overrule your motion. 
 
 Defendant excepts. 
 The Courr: I still think you may answer the question. 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 2225 There is no fixed capacity to that conduit. It varies 
 with the hydraulic conditions. It has been estimated and 
 I have not followed it since, that by gravity it would take 
 a flow of forty to sixty thousand cubic feet per minute 
 from Lake Michigan into the stock yards slip. That all 
 depends on the slope through the conduit. It is about 
 two miles long. 
 
 Q. Now, since you testified in 1905, at the time the 
 depositions were taken, has the District widened the Chi- — 
 cago River? A. There has been widening in places. 
 
 Mr. CuHIperRFIELD: J want to make the same objection, 
 if your Honor please, and I want to be briefly heard on it. 
 
 The Courr: I deny the request to be heard. I over- 
 rule the objection. You may answer the question. 
 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 A. There has been widening in places going on quite 
 a number of places, almost continuously since the work 
 
 2226 was begun. 
 
 (). Since the year 1905, how much has the Chicago 
 River been widened? 
 
 Mr. CuiperFIeELD: If your Honor please, I desire to ob- 
 ject as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and I 
 desire to be briefly heard on the objection. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion and 
 request. 
 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
421 
 
 A. I don’t know specifically. The work is not in my 
 charge. I have just common knowledge that work is go- 
 ing on here and there, but I don’t keep track of it. 
 
 Q. Now, why, Mr. Cooley, has the District been wid- 
 ening the Chicago River since that time? 
 
 Mr. CurrerFietp: I object to it as incompetent, irrele- 
 vant and immaterial, and I desire to be briefly heard on 
 the objection. 
 
 The Courr: The witness may answer the question. 
 
 Defendant excepts. 
 Mr. CurreerFietp: Is my request to be heard denied? 
 The Court: Yes, sir. 
 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 2227 A. My understanding is there were some bad points 
 in the Chicago River which were obstructions to naviga- 
 tion and it was largely on that account. | 
 
 Q. Now, since the year 1905 has the Sanitary District 
 constructed any other channel for the purpose of bring- 
 ing into the Chicago River, or the channel proper, any 
 additional sewage? 
 
 Mr. Cutprrrietp: I desire to object, if your Honor 
 please, on the ground that the contemplated work is not 
 embraced within the declaration or the pleadings of this 
 ease and I desire to be briefly heard upon the proposi- 
 tion. 
 
 The Court: Well, if you have anything in addition to 
 what you have already said to the court, I will be very 
 glad to hear you, but I don’t care to have a repetition of 
 what you have already said. I will hear you for a few 
 minutes, 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLp: ‘T’'wo minutes to present this dec- 
 laration. 
 
 The Court: I didn’t say two minutes, sir. I said a 
 few minutes. Everybody understood me, I think, eae 
 you, as to what I said: 
 
422 
 
 Mr: Cu1rPerFieLD: I except to the remark of the court. 
 228 Defendant excepts. 
 229-2230 (Argument on objection.) 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 2232 Mr. O’Conor: Q.- Have you constructed, since 1905, 
 what is known as the Evanston channel? 
 
 A. Itis called the North Shore channel. 
 
 Q. Where does that—through what territory does that 
 run? A. Why, it starts from Lake Michigan, in the 
 southeast quarter of Wilmette— 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Just a minute before you go ahead, 
 please. I want to make the same objection to this line 
 of inquiry, if your Honor please. 
 
 The Court: [I will let him answer the question. 
 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 A. It starts from Lake Michigan, in the southeast 
 quarter of Wilmette, and passes through the northwest 
 quarter of Evanston and south on the west side of Hiv- 
 anston into the Chicago at Lawrence avenue, where it 
 joins the north branch of the Chicago River. 
 
 Q. What, if anything, has the District constructed at 
 Ogden? Have you constructed a dam at Ogden? 
 
 Defendant objects. 
 
 A. A dam where? 
 
 (). At what is known as the Ogden ditch. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: If your Honor please, I object to 
 that on the ground, further, that the witness has testi- 
 
 2233 fied concerning these things in his deposition. 
 
 The Court: J don’t recollect whether it is in the depo- 
 sition or not. 
 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 Mr. Cutprrrrep: I want to make one more motion. 
 If your Honor please, I move to strike the entire deposi- 
 tion in this case, for the reason that the deposition and 
 the oral testimony of a witness cannot both be used im 
 
 my 
 D) 
 
423 
 
 2234 a suit. I move to strike the deposition of HK. L. Cooley, 
 as heretofore read in this case, and exclude same from 
 the consideration of the jury. 
 
 Motion overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Q. Have you constructed a dam at the 
 Ogden ditch, Mr. Cooley, that throws the water this way 
 that formerly went towards Lake Michigan? 
 
 Mr. CuIPERFIELD: Same objection. 
 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 A. Why, we have constructed no dam on what is called 
 the Ogden ditch. 
 
 Q. Well, what have you constructed there? A. In 
 
 2235 the old days the water sometimes, during high water in 
 the spring, did flow east from Summit into the Ogden 
 ditch, into the south branch of the Chicago River, and 
 then they afterwards built a spillway as a substitute for 
 the Ogden ditch below Riverside, and that spillway has 
 since been leveled off. The right of way of the Sani- 
 tary District below the bear trap dam in the bottom of 
 the Desplaines has no specific width. It varies with the 
 
 2236 tract of land and converges; I could not say. I don’t 
 know the width of it. I have no particular recollection 
 of it. There are no fences there to show. I never looked 
 it up to my knowledge. I don’t remember of ever testify- 
 ing as to the width of the right of way. I have no recol- 
 lection of any such testimony in the Smith case concluded 
 
 2237 in Bureau County this week. I know at the south end 
 of it there is a strip, but I don’t know the exact width. 
 I couldn’t tell until I looked on the right of way map. I 
 don’t know whether it is more or less than a thousand 
 feet. Everything is supposed to be included in the esti- 
 
 2238 mate of the flow. At the time I made the tabulations 
 there were no wheel pits there. I don’t know specifically 
 
 _ just how.they do it down there this year. It is in charge 
 of the electrical department. J don’t know any of the 
 
424 
 
 details since the year 1907, just how the measurements 
 are taken there now. It is the intention, I suppose, to 
 
 2239 include everything. No, I don’t know the total amount 
 of water that was flowing in the Illinois River at Henry 
 in the year 1904, April 4th, July 5th, and June 11th. I 
 have none of those records in my mind and I have not 
 made a special study of the Illinois River. I am not 
 qualified as an expert on that part of the river, and my 
 knowledge of that part of the river is general. My work 
 has not required me to make a study of that. 
 
 2241 This exhibit reads August 4th. It is one day, as far as 
 IT ean judge. Our exhibit is for the whole quarter, in- 
 eluding three months. I could not make a true compari- 
 son between those two exhibits. The data is not given 
 here and it is not given in the exhibit. It is given here 
 
 2242 for this one day, but it is not given in the exhibit for 
 one day. The figures on my data are supposed to be 
 the precise average of the twenty-four hours. The flow 
 varied under conditions. Ordinarily the flow was fairly 
 continuous. There might be conditions under which it 
 would change. The flow has been worked out in the form 
 of an average. It would run along day after day where 
 the variations were slight. Of course, the fluctuations of 
 the lake would affect it from day to day and from hour 
 to hour. The flow was never exactly constant. The fig- 
 ures in the averages that I had are a fair average of the 
 
 2243 daily flow, during the period under which I super- 
 vised it. 
 
 (). If you take the figures that you had during the 
 quarter that included any day of the month that is given 
 in this government report, and figure the amount of 
 water that was actually flowing through the river as 
 shown by the government report, and then take and de- 
 duct from that the amount of flow for the period shown 
 on the subpoena and on the data, you would have a fair 
 
425 
 
 idea, at least, of the quantity of natural water and the 
 quantity of Sanitary water, wouldn’t you? 
 
 Mr. Curreerrretp: I object to the argumentative form 
 of the question. 
 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 A. Why, the difference between this flow and the 
 quantity delivered by the Sanitary District, I assume, is 
 what you want? 
 
 @. Yes. A. Why, the exhibit which you have does 
 not contain data by which you can figure the flow on 
 August 4th; it is the average of about ninety days and 
 there might have been extensive variations in the ninety 
 days; I could not say at this time. I do not charge my 
 memory on those things. 
 
 2244 ~=Ag a rule they will flow about a certain amount. The 
 average that is shown on this data is the average for 
 the period. As a rule they will flow about the same 
 amount without there was some reason for changing’ it 
 from year to year. I don’t remember those things. I 
 would have to look it up. 
 
 Q). I -will put it this way. During any quarter would 
 there be any great variation? A. There might; might 
 be some reason for it which did not appear in the record. 
 
 2245 If there was no reason for it I would not expect it. 
 There might be conditions where they would reduce the 
 flow for a period or might increase it for a period. There 
 is no fixed rule about that. Sometimes it was the word, 
 of the president. The president of the District would 
 say do so, change it, without any engineering reason. If 
 you take the difference during the months of July and 
 August in the year 1904 of the water flowing into the 
 Illinois River, and then having deducted the average 
 from July 2d to October 1st from the gross quantity of 
 water, you would get a fair approximation of the quan- 
 tity of natural water that was flowing, and the quantity 
 
426 
 
 of Sanitary District water; but they would have to be 
 the same period. I wouldn’t say you could take one pe- 
 2246 riod and compare it with another period. You have to 
 cover the exact interval. I could not say you could com- 
 pare two intervals, not the same, and get a fair approxi- 
 mate difference, because during one interval, different 
 from any other interval, conditions might have been rad- 
 ically different. The question is too general to be an- 
 2247 swered in any other way. 
 
 Q. If we take the flow as shown on the government’s 
 survey on the 4th of April, 28th of April, 12th of May, 
 and 7th of July, and then take your data as to the flow 
 of the river during the months of March, April, May, 
 June, July and September, couldn’t we approximately 
 determine the natural water and the amount of Sani- 
 tary water? A. I would not say that you could from 
 those differences get a fairly accurate flow, average flow 
 on the given day, because we don’t know what the flow 
 on that day was through the district. Your record may 
 show what it was in the river at that time, but we did 
 have considerable variations of flow at times. 
 
 2248 For some years the president of the Board would 
 sometimes direct the flow that we should flow. He had 
 his reasons, which were not always engineering reasons, 
 and I could not say what his reasons were at that time; 
 it has passed; it is a past event and there was nothing to 
 fix itin my mind. There might be a period of a year or 
 two when the variations were slight. On the other hand, 
 there might be considerable variation, for some reason, 
 which did not appear in the record. At the present time 
 
 2249 J assume they are maintaining an average ina way. I 
 am not keeping track of them. Some matters of detail 
 are somewhat different at the present time than from 
 the years 1903 down to the year 1907. Under present 
 conditions the flow is not uniform for twenty-four hours. 
 
427 
 
 They take more at some times than others, because they 
 are using a lot of water through the wheels for water 
 power and that makes a variation in itself. Now, whether 
 they so manipulate the dam so as to make the flow uni- 
 form for the twenty-four hours, that is what I am not 
 prepared to state. At certain times water would go 
 through the wheels and at other times they could flow 
 water over the dam which they could very well maintain 
 a fairly uniform fiow, but whether they do or not I am 
 2250 not prepared to say. Well, yes, I will leave the sub- 
 2251 poena with the court reporter. 
 
 2252 Subpoena from the Circuit Court of La Salle County 
 commanding HK. L. Cooley to appear in said cause on the 
 21st day of November, 1912, and to bring with him cer- 
 tain tabulations of flow. Subpoena dated November 19, 
 1912, 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Well, I will have this marked as an 
 exhibit. 
 
 Whereupon said document was introduced in evidence 
 by the plaintiff and marked Exhibit 14 and is in words 
 and figures following: 
 
 2254 ‘Tabulations of flow, showing flow of the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict by quarters from 1900 to the end of 1907. 
 
428 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EXHIBIT 14. 
 
 Average 
 PERIOD. Discharge. 
 C, Fa 
 1900—10 Weeks January 17th to March 31st 144266 
 2nd Quarter April ist to June 30th 183729 
 3rd Quarter July ist to September 29th 184406 
 4th Quarter September 30th to December 29th 230020 
 Yearly January 17th to December 29th 188136 
 
 49 Wks. 
 1901—1st Quarter December 30th to March 30th 303667 
 2nd Quarter March 31st to June 29th 210574 
 3rd Quarter June 30th to September 28th 218560 
 4th Quarter September 29th to December 28th 236490 
 52 Wks. Year 242323 
 1902—1st Quarter December 29th to March 29th 252592 
 2nd Quarter March 30th to June 28th 248078 
 3rd Quarter June 29th to September 27th 256122 
 4th Quarter September 28th to December 27th 271232 
 52 Wks. Year 257006 
 1903—I1st Quarter December 28th to March 28th 344890 
 2nd Quarter March 29th to June 27th 280495 
 3rd Quarter June 28th to September 26th 276194 
 4th Quarter September 27th to January 2nd ~ 295881 
 53 Wks. Year 299299 
 1904—1st Quarter January 3rd to March 25th 323536 
 2nd Quarter April 3rd to July 2nd 289475 
 3rd Quarter July 2nd to October ist 265289 
 4th Quarter October 2nd to December 31st 270841 
 51 Wks. Year 287285 
 1905—1st Quarter January 1st to April 1st 324724 
 2nd Quarter April 2nd to July ist 258537 
 3rd Quarter July 2nd to September 30th 255058 
 4th Quarter October 1st to December 30th 236495 
 52 Wks. Year 268703 
 1906—1st Quarter December 31st to March 31st 268899 
 2nd Quarter April ist to June 30th 274245 
 3rd Quarter July ist to September 29th 221310 
 4th Quarter September 30th to December 29th 306112 
 52 Wks. Year 267641 
 1907—1st Quarter December 30th to March 30th 314951 
 2nd Quarter March 31st to June 29th 310096 
 3rd Quarter June 30th to September 28th 333503 
 4th Quarter September 29th to December 28th 270195 
 
 52 Wks. Year. 307186 
 
 
 
429 
 
 2255 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I am the same KE. L. Cooley who gave my deposition 
 in the case of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company 
 against the Sanitary District of Chicago, taken on the 
 
 2256 25th day of April, 1905. These averages in Exhibit 14, 
 which I have introduced at the request of counsel for the 
 plaintiff, show all the water passing through the con- 
 trolling works at Lockport. That is, all that passes from 
 Chicago has to go that way. The Sanitary District dis- 
 charges are included. I do not have charge of this de- 
 
 2257 partment at the present time. The address of the man 
 who does have charge of that department is Edward B. 
 Elheott. He lives in Chicago. I think he came in about 
 1908. He has been continuously and openly a resident 
 of Chicago since that time. He has an office in the Dis- 
 trict, on the fifteenth floor of the American Trust Build- 
 ing. He has had his office there ever since they moved 
 from the Security Building. Asa rule, he is there habitu- 
 
 2258 ally, every day. I cannot say specifically that I have 
 very much knowledge except as a matter of information. 
 I assume they are running about a certain flow. I couldn’t 
 testify to that. 
 
 Q. What is that flow? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I object to the question; not gone into 
 on direct examination. 
 
 Objection sustained; defendant excepts. 
 
 2259 I entered the service of the Sanitary District in May, 
 1894. Have been there since then. The channel was not 
 built at that time. 
 
 Q. Mr. Cooley, prior to the opening of the channel 
 on the 17th day of January, you may state if there was 
 any connection of this channel with the Chicago River? 
 A. Why, except that a week before the 17th of January 
 they opened a connection to fill the channel, which was 
 empty. 
 
430 
 
 Before that time there had been nothing in the channel 
 except rain water. There was no flow from the Sanitary 
 District channel into the Illinois River in the summer pre- 
 ceding the 17th day of January. The channel was empty 
 except for rainwater. It was not done; there were places 
 
 2260 in the channel that were not dug out. The channel was 
 shut off at the Pan Handle bridge and there was a diver- 
 sion channel made from the corner of that cut up by the 
 Bridewell, west of the Pan Handle, and that had been 
 made, all except about fifty feet, more or less, and they 
 cut a trench and built a flume around that thing, I should 
 judge about two weeks before the 17th of January. Be- 
 fore that time there had been no connection of the Sani- 
 tary District with the Chicago River or Lake Michigan. 
 The channel was empty at that time except from the rain- 
 water. This Thirty-ninth street conduit which the City 
 of Chicago discharges into the stock yards slip at Thirty 
 ninth and Halsted street, that slip connects with the south 
 fork of the south branch of the Chicago River, which 
 joins it up near Thirty-first street. It directly discharges 
 
 2261 into the south fork of the south branch of the Chicago 
 River. It is about one mile from where the Chicago 
 River connects with the Sanitary District channel. No 
 water is discharged from this Thirty-ninth street conduit 
 into the Illinois River, except as it passes through and 
 over the controlling works. This Thirty-ninth street con- 
 
 2262 duit is merely tributary to the Chicago River. This dis- 
 charge goes over the controlling works. I don’t know 
 that after the Thirty-ninth street conduit was opened 
 into the Sanitary District that the flow would be any 
 greater, by reason of that fact, than it was before. The 
 flow from the conduit never has been very large. It is 
 intended for the relief of certain sewage on the south 
 side. The widening of the Chicago River has increased 
 the flow of the Sanitary District to some extent. For- 
 
431 
 
 merly, on the velocity and stage the Secretary of War 
 had ruled, on the question of navigation, and as these 
 bends were trimmed away and the river straightened, 
 why, we could increase the flow. <All the flow 1s meas- 
 ured over the dam. 
 
 Q. Is there any flow, except seepage or leakage, that is 
 not measured on the bear trap dam or at the controlling 
 works? A. Why, that covers everything, including the 
 Desplaines River. 
 
 2263 The North Shore channel is simply a loop from the 
 lake at one point to the Chicago River, about a mile from 
 the lake at another point. It does not flow directly into 
 the Sanitary District channel. It flows into the north 
 branch of the Chicago River. It must be nearly ten miles 
 from the place where the Chicago River is connected with 
 the Sanitary District channel. It flows into the north 
 branch of the Chicago River. The main channel of the 
 
 2264 Sanitary District begins about Thirty-first and Ashland 
 or Robey. That is on the south branch. This Thirty- 
 ninth street conduit was connected two or three years 
 ago, after we opened our channel. I should think it was 
 before 1905. I don’t recall the date. This North Shore 
 channel has been opened since January 14, 1905. This 
 Ogden diteh was constructed away back in the ’60s or 
 70s. Forty years ago, more or less; the Ogden ditch 
 was not constructed by the Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 They did not have anything to do with it, in any way. 
 
 2265 The dam which I spoke of, that was constructed in the 
 fall and winter of 793. J think it was finished that winter. 
 One of the first works I did after I entered the employ 
 of the Sanitary District in 1894 was to repair the dam. 
 It was practically completed and finished and in use be- 
 fore I went to the Sanitary District in 1894. In the 
 spring of 1894 we put a facing of Portland cement on it. 
 It did not change the hydraulic condition at all. Two or 
 
432 
 
 three years ago we leveled off that spillway and made a 
 2°66 new spillway. I don’t think that there was any change 
 in it before I came. 
 
 2267 Q. I wish you would answer my question, please. 
 From January 14, 1895, down to June 14, 1900, was there 
 any change of any kind in the Ogden dam, in its character 
 or its use? A. No. 
 
 Q. My question was, was there any change in the 
 
 construction of the Ogden ditch from 1895 to 1900? Was 
 
 it completed during that period? You went there im 
 2268 1894? A. No, there was no change. 
 
 The City of Chicago built that conduit out of the water 
 funds, as I understand it. It was built by the City of 
 2269 Chicago. 
 (Mr. O’Conor reads to the jury from House Docu- 
 ments, Volume 83, No. 263.) 
 2270-2279 Tabulations from said documents. 
 
 2280: Howarp §. Hazen, a witness called by the plaintiff, re- 
 sumed the stand: 
 
 Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Butters. 
 
 The La Salle County Carbon Coal Company has not 
 in its possession or under its control the plat, a copy of 
 which is reported on page 24 of this record. I have made 
 search to ascertain that fact so I can swear positively 
 
 2281 on the subject. The La Salle County Carbon Coal Com- 
 pany has not in its possession the record appearing in 
 book 300 of the recorder’s office of La Salle County, com- 
 mencing on page 920, about the middle of the page, and 
 purporting to be proceedings in reference to the will of 
 Henry Young; commencing at that point and continuing 
 on pages 921 to 540. I have carefully looked over the 
 archives. 
 

 

 
433 
 
 Mr. Burrers: Now, we offer in evidence the plat on 
 page 24 of plat book E of the recorder’s office of La Salle 
 County. 
 
 2283 Surveyor’s certificate to plat, dated July 1, 1887. Ac- 
 knowledgment of plat by the Illinois Valley Coal Com- 
 pany, by I’. O. Wyatt, manager. 
 
 2284 Certificate of acknowledgment. 
 
 2285 Mr. Burrers: And we also offer in evidence the pages 
 commencing, as I stated in my question, on page 520 of 
 book 300, miscellaneous records, in the office of the re- 
 corder of deeds in La Salle County, to page 450, inclu- 
 sive. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 This is a plat appearing in the plat book that has been 
 referred to, of certain lands which were subdivided by 
 the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. I have 
 
 2286 searched all of our records for it. I personally con- 
 ducted the search. We keep records in one place. We 
 have no Chicago office. Our records are in the La Salle 
 National Bank, most of them. I have not been able to 
 find this plat. I don’t know whether or not the plat is in 
 existence. J don’t know what has become of it. I made 
 search for this plat yesterday and Sunday. I don’t know 
 how recently, if ever, I had it in my possession. I never 
 
 2287 had in my possession, so far as I know, the copy of the 
 last will of Henry Young. I don’t know that I ever had 
 it in my possession. JI don’t know whether I ever had 
 this plat in my possession. I have no knowledge on either 
 of these points. Further thought would not add anything 
 to that reply. I don’t recollect ever having had either of 
 these things in my possession. Hither the plat that has 
 been referred to or the last will and testament of Henry 
 Young and the proceedings attending the probating and 
 appointments of executors. 
 
434 
 
 The plat is objected to by the defendant for the rea- 
 son that no proper or sufficient foundations has 
 been laid; objection ‘overruled ; defendant excepts. 
 
 Mr. Cutrperrretp: There is another branch on which I 
 can examine him while we are waiting. 
 
 The Court: About the payment of taxes? 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Yes. 
 
 The Court: I am satisfied. 
 
 2290 I am familiar with the La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 ‘Company’s mine No. 1, That mine is now in operation. 
 This mine map which is now handed me shows correctly 
 the workings of mine No. 1, so far as Section 23 is con- 
 cerned. We stopped mining there in 1894, from the north. 
 The mine is still working south. It is not working in 
 Section 23. The coal that is shown to have been taken 
 out in Section 23 was taken out prior to 1894. The lines 
 upon this plat, for instance, May, 1907, November, 1907, 
 June, 1908, December, 1908, May, 1909, December, 1909; 
 each one represents a survey; represents the face of the 
 
 2291 coal on those dates. We have done no mining in 24 from 
 May, 1894. There might have been some in there on 
 Section 23. I don’t know about that; I can’t tell you. I 
 
 2292 am familiar with the mine that is known as the Union 
 mine, The map which you hand me is a correct map for 
 1910, up until July, 1910. I don’t see any lines there 
 
 2293 showing Section 21. Those are the workings upon Sec- 
 tions 21 and 22 at that time. Those workings have been 
 extended maybe 300 feet since. The coal in 21 and 23 
 has been taken out within the last five years, I should say. 
 I know the mine of the La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company known as the Rockwell mine. The Rockwell 
 
 2294 mine has been mining coal from Sections 23 and 24. I 
 could not make an estimate of how much has been taken 
 out on 24, nor on 23, either. I don’t know how much has 
 been taken out. This map has been corrected up until 
 
435 
 
 May, 1911. Some of the workings have been advanced 
 
 2295 150 feet. That map is correct as to Section 24. As you 
 get over on the Illinois River, on 23, they have been ex- 
 tended. 
 
436 
 
 Mr. CuiperFreLtp: JI desire to offer, in connection with 
 the evidence of Mr. Hazen, to offer in evidence the ex- 
 hibits which have been marked for identification 15, 16 
 and 17, as illustrative of his testimony. 
 
wag 
 Ang oe ome 
 OE MENTE LRG, FE rn many pany 
 VX) 1=002 ARIS 
 <fore 
 Sif 2) apes > nye ey 
 ; 
 
 tehy. 2% Ww 
 "OD IWODNOEHYD A LNAOTD 2 TIVSV 7] 
 
 Be ~ 
 SOU (af Off PUPOLD A/D 
 
 L, 
 dVVI 
 
 i 
 Lit 
 
 Rircverwntd 
 
 — ee atone 
 Les 
 
 ~ 
 
 . 
 
 bea 
 
 4 
 
 cg 
 
 \ in ibe ne 
 
 
 

 
 Ne ina) 
 
 i mi pee 3 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
see emient trem vere stanton 
 
 Meee OTe es 
 
 epee. wea 
 
 ou, sow 
 o> soon weg yi, LL PORY ipa 
 do 
 
 ‘. Bs- 
 at 
 
 
 

 
 to eee Pe af 
 4 reve “Sig 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 “a, a 
 Ore ae 
 
 
 
* : : ~ oo 
 : ae Nis Atom HE ae 
 wate coonmnien Fier OS 
 * s » i 5 9 
 
 . 
 
 tie ie ny 
 
 
 
c Ps ” aa¥ 
 ae hag wT 
 
 TA 
 
 
 
437 
 2296 Exhibit 15, blue print of mine No. 1. 
 2297 Exhibit 16, blue print Union mine. 
 2298 Exhibit 17, blue print Rockwell mine. 
 
 2299 Mr. Cuiperrietp: Q@. Mr. Hazen, you say you have 
 paid taxes upon the property in. question? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Since 1890, twenty-two years. In the tax receipts which 
 I have taken are included other lands than the lands in 
 question. The tax receipts which I have in court pertain 
 to various tracts of land that are included in this suit, to- 
 gether with other lands. They are the original tax re- 
 ceipts. 
 
 Mr. CurperFIELD: [| desire, if your Honor please, to 
 offer so much of the tax receipts as pertain to the land 
 in question, in evidence, in connection with the testimony 
 of Mr. Hazen. No other portion; simply those that per- 
 tain to the land in question, and let them be transcribed 
 in the record and returned to Mr. Hazen. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: We object to them for any other pur- 
 pose than showing title. 
 
 Mr. CuriPrrFIELD: It is certainly upon the question of 
 showing title. We are contesting that; and any other 
 proper purpose they may be used for. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: We object for any other purpose. 
 
 Objection overruled. 
 2301 Mr. Cutperrienp: May we regard these as being read, 
 or shall we read them? 
 
 The Court: You may consider them read, as far as 
 the court is concerned. 
 
2302 
 
 438 
 
 TABULATION OF Tax RECEIPTS, 
 
 above referred to, produced by the plaintiff and offered 
 in evidence by the defendant, said tabulation showing: 
 
 Ist. The description of the several tracts of land upon 
 which the taxes were paid as said eee) 4080 appear 
 in said tax receipts. 
 
 2d. The number of acres embraced in each description 
 as stated in said tax receipts. 
 
 ad. The assessed valuation of said several tracts, as 
 shown by said tax receipts. 
 
 4th. The amount of taxes paid by the defendant on 
 said several tracts as described therein in each of said 
 several years. 
 
 Where the above data is not given, the receipts for said 
 several years were not among the tax receipts produced. 
 
 Where the assessed valuations are not given and the 
 amount of taxes paid is given, the valuations were not 
 carried out by the collector in the receipts for such years 
 so omitted. 
 
 Where a number of acres different from the number 
 given in the column headed ‘‘ Acres,’’ appears in brackets 
 in any given year, it indicates that the number of acres 
 so inserted is given in the receipt for that particular year 
 as the number of acres of land embraced in said tract, 
 instead of the number given in the column headed 
 ‘¢ Acres.’? 
 
439 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TABULATION. 
 2303 
 1885. 1886. 
 
 ‘Assessed Taxes Assessed Taxes 
 Description. Acres. Value. Paid. Value. Paid. 
 W. 48.75 a 
 S. of river 
 N. W. 4, 23 48.75 $ 400.00 $30.40 $ 400.00 $ 27.64 
 Except R. RB. 
 Ss. W. 4, Pom lar.30 2,000.00 149.80 1,500.00 104.19 
 Except R. R. (160-a) (160-a) 
 S. E. Y, 23 152.68 6,000.00 449.38 5,500.00 376.82 
 Exeept R. R. 
 WwW. %S. W. (35-a) (35-a) 
 yy, 24. 27.76 3,500.00 262.17 3,000.00 206.41 
 S. frac. S. E. 1H 
 4, 22 70.21 700.00 28.60 500.00 aL.20 
 N. of river 
 S. of canal, 2176.60 1,514.00 65.70 892.00 STAY 
 S. frac. of 
 N. 1, 21 99.00 1,957.00 73.78 1,802.00 52.83 
 S. W. frae. 
 y,, 21 131.00 2,609.00 98.37 2,403.00 70.45 
 Frac. S. of 
 river, 
 S. E. 4, Sal alee 2,609.00 98.37 2,403.00 70.45 
 2304 
 
 1888. 1889. 
 W. 48.75 a 
 S. of river 
 N.. W. 4, PSMA Ome weer cere 21.80 400.00 20.25 
 Except R. R. 
 S. W. 14, 23 ey me Re cet onus 81.64 1,500.00 75.97 
 Except R. R. (160-a) 
 S. E. 4, Bie bie Re ae 299.34 5,400.00 273.47 
 Except R. R. 
 W. %, S. W. (31.50-a) (27.66-a) 
 4, 24 Pike OMe ee 163.25 2,900.00 146.87 
 S. frac. S. E. 
 y,, 22 Ure LOLS cee 14.28 500.00 11.96 
 N. of river 
 S. of canal, 
 21 POOLS Neiereta eS (nl ea ie Td hae auth 
 S. frac. of 
 N. 44, 21 OU cic. ses sale oc keke 
 S. W. frac. 
 yy, 21 PE POUMMION Nn 28h wes ies a oa eek 
 Frac. 8. of 
 river S. E. 
 LJ Looe oe, 
 
 Y,, 21 
 
 ee @ oe 
 
 1887. 
 Assessed Taxes 
 Value. Paid. 
 
 $ 400.00 $ 30.60 
 
 1,500.00 112.61 
 (160-a) 
 5,500.00 412.73 
 (35-a) 
 3,000.00 225.20 
 500.00 17.75 
 1890. 
 ee tanny 20.36 
 Shee 76.29 
 eee 274.53 
 (27.66-a) 
 hecapetere 147.45 
 ey ee 13.27 
 803.00 21.15 
 1,622.00 42.68 
 2,162.00 56.89 
 2,162.00 56.89 
 

 
 
 
 Description. Acres. 
 W. 48.75 a 
 
 S. of river 
 
 N. W. 4, 23. 48.75 
 Except R. R. 
 
 S. W. 4, 23 132.30 
 Except R. R. 
 S. BH. a, 23 
 Except R. R. 
 W.%S. W. 
 hy, 24 
 Satrati. be 
 yy, 22 
 
 N. of river 
 S. of canal, 
 21 
 
 SB. frat.or 
 N. %, 21 
 
 S. W. frac. 
 iY, 21 
 
 Frac. S. of 
 river 8S. E. 
 DS OS 
 
 152.68 
 
 27.76 
 
 70.21 
 
 76.60 
 99.00 
 
 131.90 
 
 131.52 
 
 2306 
 
 W. 4857308 
 S. of river 
 N. W. 14, 23 48.75 
 Except R. R. 
 
 S. W. 4, 23 132.30 
 Except R. R. 
 S. E. 4, 23 
 Except R. R. 
 W.%,S. W. 
 WY, 24 
 
 S: frac. S. HE: 
 iy, 22 
 
 N. of river 
 
 S. of canal, 
 oat 
 
 S. frac. of 
 
 N. %, 21 
 
 S. W. frac. 
 yy, 21 
 
 Frac. S. of 
 river S. E. 
 Y4, 21 
 
 152.68 
 
 27.76 
 
 70.21 
 
 76.60 
 99.00 
 
 131.90 
 
 131.52 
 
 440 
 
 
 
 1891. 
 
 Assessed Taxes 
 
 Value. Paid. 
 care ghee 22.54 
 as 84.52 
 rare 304.24 
 
 (27.66-a) 
 erin 163.38 
 ee es 13:38 
 800.00 30.24 
 1,617.00 42.55 
 2,154.00 56.66 
 2,154.00 56.66 
 1894. 
 887.00 40.21 
 1,822.00 66.17 
 2,406.00 87.35 
 2,406.00 87.35 
 
 
 
 1892. 
 Assessed Taxes 
 
 Value. Paid. 
 825.00 33.68 
 1,697.00 62.47 
 2,238.00 §2.38 
 2,238.00 82.38 
 1895. 
 Saree ceeo 21.30 
 Apis Ocak 79.74 
 Sp eel? 286.99 
 Mein g sy: a bs 
 Be jtipete 15.07 
 887.00 36.93 
 1,822.00 53.42 
 2,406.00 70.52 
 2,406.00 70.52 
 
 1893. 
 
 Assessed Taxes 
 Value. Paid. 
 
 905.00 36.12 
 1,859.00 54.69 
 2,454.00 72.17 
 2,454.00 oe 
 
 1896. 
 318.00 34.29 
 ‘1,191.00 128.41 
 4,287.00 462.16 
 2,302.00 248.19 
 397.00 25.99 
 826.00 48.68 
 1,697.00 75.55 
 2,240.00 99.69 
 2,240.00 99.69 
 

 
 
 
 44] 
 
 
 
 
 
 2307 
 1897. 1898. 
 
 Assessed Taxes Assessed Taxes 
 Deseription. <Aeres. Value. Paid. Value. Paid. 
 W. 48.75 a 
 S. of river 
 N. W. 4, BoM Eae. to 326.00 27.70 324.00 31.86 
 Except R. R. 
 S. W. 4, Use SPS U 1,222.00 103.77 1,215.00 119.46 
 Except R. R. 
 S. E. 4, Dame Lo2.08 4,400.00 Die O 4,374.00 429.99 
 Exeept R. R. 
 W. %4,S. W. 
 4, 24 27.76 2,363.00 200.64 2,349.00 220.92 
 eae a: ee lO 
 ¥,, 22 70.21 407.00 18.82 405.00 23.83 
 N. of river 
 S. of canal 
 21 76.60 832.00 47.29 802.00 57.61 
 S. frae. of 
 N, %, 21 99.00 1,707.00 70.18 1,636.00 89.67 
 S. W. frac. 
 4, Pal 131.90 2,292.00 92.56 2,171.00 118.99 
 Frae. 8S. of 
 river S. E. 
 4, Pal 131.52 2,252.00 92.56 2,171.00 118.99 
 2308 
 
 1900. 1901. 
 
 W. 48.75 a 
 S. of river 
 NoeW. y, COASTS 360.00 26.00 360.00 29.60 
 Except R. R. 
 S. W. 14, 23 132.30 1,350.00 97.38 1,350.00 110.98 
 Except R. R. 
 S. E. 4, Jan el52.68 4,860.00 350.42 4,860.00 399.50 
 Except R. R. 
 W. 4, S. W. (27.66-a) (27.66-a) 
 4, 24 27.76 2,700.00 194.67 2,700.00 221.94 
 S. trac. 8. E. 70.21 450.00 14.98 450.00 19.95 
 N. of river 
 S. of canal, 
 aL 76.60 632.00 38.32 749.00 40.34 
 S. frac. of 
 N. 1%, 21 99.00 802.00 32.18 950.00 3.05 
 S. W. frac. 
 4, 21 131.90 1,061.00 42.57 1,258.00 50.20 
 Frac. S. of 
 river S. E. 
 %, 21 Tbs ihe 1,061.00 42.57 1,258.00 50.20 
 
 1899. 
 Assessed Taxes 
 Value. Paid. 
 349.00 27.84 
 1,310.00 104.43 
 4,714.00 375.73 
 2,619.00 208.76 
 437.00 18.99 
 757.00 44.31 
 960.00 41.01 
 1,271.00 54.30 
 1,271.00 54.30 
 1902. 
 360.00 PAP af (ine 
 1,350.00 103.96 
 4,860.00 374.22 
 (24.25-a) 
 2,700.00 207.90 
 450.00 20.94 
 780.00 42.75 
 990.00 47.34 
 1,310.00 62.62 
 1,310.00 62.62 
 
2309 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Description. Acres. 
 W. 48.75 a 
 
 S. of river 
 
 N. W. 4, 23 48.75 
 Except R. R. 
 
 S. W. 14, 23 132.30 
 Except R. R. 
 S. EB. 44, 23 
 Except R. R. 
 W. 14, S. W. 
 WY, 24 
 
 S. trac. 8. E. 
 FA OY 
 
 N. of river 
 S. of canal, 
 21 76.60 
 S. frac. of 
 N, %, 21 
 So enrac: 
 Yy, 21 
 Frac. S. of 
 river, S. E. 
 YY, 21 
 
 152.68 
 
 27.76 
 
 70.21 
 
 99.00 
 
 131.90 
 
 131.52 
 
 2310 
 
 W. 48.75 a 
 
 S. of river 
 N. W. 14, 23 
 Except R. R. 
 DS." Weg, eo 
 Except R. R. 
 S. E. \4, 23 
 Except R. R. 
 W. 4, S. W. 
 y4, 24 
 S.ffrac. 5S. 2 
 Vy, 22 
 
 N. of river 
 
 S. of canal, 
 21 76.60 
 S. frac. of 
 N. 4, 21 
 S. W. frac. 
 Yy, 21 
 Frac. S. of 
 river, S. E. 
 WY, 21 
 
 48.75 
 
 132.30 
 
 152.68 
 
 27.76 
 
 70.21 
 
 99.00 
 
 131.90 
 
 131.52 
 
 1903. 
 
 Assessed Taxes 
 Value. Paid. 
 
 eee ees 
 oe ew oe 
 
 (eq! bm, 6. © 
 
 eee eee 
 
 564.00 39.59 
 
 732.00 40.71 
 
 976.00 54.27 
 
 976.00 54.27 
 
 1906. 
 
 361.00 28.84 
 
 1,354.00 108.07 
 
 5,073.00 404.85 
 
 2,707.00 216.04 
 
 451.00 20.63 
 
 564.00 37.51 
 
 732.00 31.77 
 
 976.00 42.36 
 
 976.00 42.36 
 
 
 
 1904. 
 Assessed Taxes 
 
 Value. Paid. 
 361.00 33.26 
 1,354.00 124.72 
 5,073.00 467.25 
 2,707.00 249.34 
 451.00 22.66 
 564.00 38.08 
 732.00 33.39 
 976.00 44,51 
 976.00 44.51 
 1907. 
 
 40.00 S215 
 1,720.00 135.20 
 5,080.00 399.29 
 2,700.00 212.02 
 
 450.00 21.56 
 532.00 34.59 
 693.00 eA 
 
 922.00 41.78 
 
 922.00 41.78 
 
 1905. 
 Assessed Taxes 
 
 Value. Paid. 
 361.00 34.08 
 
 1,354.00 12777 
 
 5,073.00 478.66 
 
 2,707.00 255.44 
 451.00 21.83 
 564.00 38.92 
 732.00 33.68 
 976.00 44,90 
 976.00 44,90 
 
 1908. 
 
 40.00 3.30 
 1,720.00 141.57 
 5,080.00 418.09 
 2,700.00 222.21 
 
 450.00 21.30 
 532.00 33.85 
 693.00 30.92 
 922.00 41.14 
 922.00 41.14 
 
443 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2311 
 1909. 1910. 1911. 
 
 Assessed ‘Taxes Assessed Taxes Assessed ‘Taxes 
 Description. Acres. Value. Paid. Value. Paid. Value. Paid. 
 W. 48.75 a 
 S. of river 
 N. W. 4, 23 48.75 67.00 3.47 67.00 eae 67.00 rye ike) 
 Except R. R. 
 S. W. 14, 23 132.30 2,867.00 147.39 2,867.00 141.09 2,825.00 149.61 
 Except R. R. 
 S. E. 4, 23 §©6©152.68 8,467.00 435.23 8,467.00 416.61 7,933.00 420.08 
 Except R. R. 
 W. 4, 8S. W. (24.25-a) (24.25-a) (24.25-a) 
 Y4, 24 gyda) 4,500.00 231.30 4,500.00 221.40 4,295.00 226.38 
 S. frac. S. E. 
 4, 22 70.21 750.00 20.20 750.00 18.54 743.00 24.20 
 N. of river 
 S. of canal, 
 21 76.60 887.00 34.93 887.00 B20Do 578.00 24.08 
 S. frac. of 
 N. 1, 21 99.00 1,155.00 31.61 1,155.00 28.50 743.00 25.80 
 S. W. frae. 
 4, 21 131.90 1,537.00 42.05 1,537.00 37.91 990.00 BL Poy’ 
 Frac. S. of 
 river, S. E. 
 4, Pai | 131.50 1,537.00 42.05 1,537.00 37.91 990.00 34.37 
 
 
 
 
 
 2312 With reference to the record as found in Volume 300, 
 pages 520 to 540, inclusive, the defendant objects for the 
 reason it is not one of the classes of instruments con- 
 cerning which proof of loss can be made in Section 36 
 of Chapter 30 of the Revised Statutes of Illinois. Also, 
 that no proper foundation has been laid; that nothing 
 contained in the offer, to wit: pages 520 to 540, inclusive, 
 tends to lay any foundation for the Exhibit 1 which has 
 heretofore been introduced in this case, for the reason 
 that in Exhibit 1 Henry L. Young, James H. Young and 
 Mason Young are described as trustees under the last 
 will and testament of Henry Young, deceased, and in the 
 order of appointment of these three gentlemen, as made 
 in the Surrogate Court, Westchester County, New York, 
 they are appointed ag the executors of the last will and 
 testament, and that the paper offered does not tend tc 
 
444 
 
 support or give authority to the persons named as trus 
 tees of the last will and testament of Henry Young. There 
 are some twenty pages of this exhibit. 
 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 2313 Said exhibit, pages 520 to 540 of said miscellaneous 
 records, Volume 300, was then read to the jury, as fol- 
 
 lows: 
 2314 Will of Westchester County 
 Henry Young. | Surrogate Court. 
 
 In the Matter of Proving the last Will and Testament 
 and Codicil of Henry Young, deceased. 
 
 Be it remembered that heretofore, to-wit, on the 23rd 
 day of October in the year one thousand eight hundred 
 and seventy four Mason Young, one of the executors 
 named in the last Will and Testament of Henry Young 
 late of the Town of Ossining, County of Westchester ap- 
 peared in open court before the Surrogate of the West- 
 chester and made application to have the said last Will 
 and ‘Testament and Codicil which relates to both real 
 and personal estate proved and on such application the 
 Surrogate having ascertained by satisfactory evidence 
 who were the widow, heirs at law and next of kin of the 
 said testator, and their respective residences, did issue a 
 citation in due form of law, directed to the said widow, 
 heirs at law and next of kin by their respective names, 
 stating their respective places of residence, requiring 
 them to appear before said Surrogate at his office in the 
 Town of Cortlandt in said County of Westchester on the 
 31st day of October One thousand eight hundred and 
 seventy-four to attend the probate of the said will and 
 eodicil. 
 
 And afterwards, to-wit, on the said 31st day of Octo- 
 ber, 1874, satisfactory evidence, by affidavit, having been 
 produced and presented to said Surrogate of the service 
 
445 
 
 of the said citation in the mode prescribed by law, on all 
 the parties named therein, and that none of said heirs 
 at law and next kin were minors, and that the said execu- 
 tor having attended in person and no one appearing’ to 
 oppose the probate of said will and codicil, such proceed- 
 ings were thereupon had afterwards that the Surrogate 
 took the proof of said will and codicil hereinafter set 
 forth upon this 31st day of October in the year One thou- 
 sand eight hundred and seventy-four and he adjudged 
 the said will and codicil to be a valid will and codicil of 
 real estate and personal estate, and the proof thereof to 
 be sufficient; which said last Will and Testament and 
 Codicil and proofs are as follows, that is to say : 
 
 The Last Will and Testament of Henry Young of 
 Ossining Westchester County State of New York. 
 
 I, Henry Young residing in Ossining in the County of 
 Westchester and State of New York do make publish 
 and declare this my last Will and Testament. 
 
 First. I direct that my executors pay all my Just 
 debts, and the expenses of my funeral out of my estate 
 as soon as conveniently may be after my decease. 
 
 2315 Second. I give devise and bequeath to my beloved wife 
 Anne M. Young my county seat comprising my dwelling 
 house with the lands farm and premises adjacent thereto, 
 including the plot on the corner of the Post road and the 
 road leading to said country seat in the Town of Ossin- 
 ing in the County of Westchester and State of New York 
 containing between fifty-five and sixty acres more or less. 
 To have and to hold the same to her her heirs and as- 
 signs forever and I also give and bequeath to my said 
 wife all my household furniture beds bedding plate pic- 
 tures printed books and engravings, horses carriages 
 harness cattle farming utensils growing crops provisions 
 and supplies for family use which shall be in or upon 
 said country seat dwelling house and premises at the 
 
446 
 
 time of my decease and in any other dwelling house 
 stable and premises which shall be occupied or used as 
 or for our residence and accommodation at or immedi- 
 ately before the time of my decease. To have and to 
 hold the same to her and her executors, adminstrators 
 and assigns forever. 
 
 Third. J give and bequeath to my said wife an annuity 
 or annual! sum of twenty thousand dollars to be paid to 
 her yearly and every year during her natural life in 
 equal quarterly yearly payments from time of my dc- 
 cease. 
 
 Fourth. I give and bequeath to my niece Alby I’. Har- 
 
 2316 rington, an annuity or yearly sum of five hundred dol- 
 lars to be paid to her yearly and every year during her 
 natural life in equal quarter yearly payments from the 
 time of my decease. 
 
 Fifth. I give and bequeath to my niece Isabella G. Hyde 
 an annuity or yearly sum of five hundred dollars to be 
 paid to her yearly and every year during her natural life 
 in equal quarterly yearly payments from the time of 
 my decease. 
 
 Siath. To provide for the payment of each of the sev- 
 eral annuities or yearly sums of money hereinbefore 
 given and bequeathed it is my will and I do hereby devise — 
 order and direct that my executors hereinafter named 
 select take and set apart from and out of my estate such 
 real property or such personal property money and se- 
 curities for money, or both real and personal property, 
 as in their judgment shal! be sufficient to produce an an- 
 nual interest or income sufficient to pay and satisfy such 
 annuity and in case they shall deem it necessary to change 
 the investment of either such trust fund or any part 
 thereof that they invest the same or the proceeds thereof 
 from time to time in their own name as trustees, in bonds 
 secured by mortgages upon productive real estate in the 
 
447 
 
 City of New York or Brooklyn or in public stocks or 
 
 9317 debt of the United States or of the State or City of New 
 York keeping such fund separate from the other and with 
 and out of the interest and income arising therefrom that 
 they pay the said several annuities and yearly sums of 
 money and each and every of them from time to time as 
 they shall become due and payable until snch annuities 
 respectively shall cease and if in any year the interest 
 or income arising and realized from said securities money 
 and property so set apart and held and retained for that 
 purpose or from the securities and property in which the 
 same shall be invested shall be insufficient I authorize 
 them to supply such deficiency out of my residuary estate 
 and if the same shall be more than sufficient to pay such 
 annuities or yearly sums as shall remain and continue to 
 be payable then it is my will and I devise, order and di- 
 rect that the expense of said interest and income over 
 and above the amount necessary to pay said annuities 
 in any year be distributed and paid as hereinafter pro- 
 vided for the distribution of surplus income of my re- 
 siduary estate and that the said securities, money and 
 property selected set apart and held as aforesaid to pro- 
 vide for either of said annuities if so set apart and held, 
 shall whenever such annuity shall have ceased to be pay- 
 able be disposed of distributed and paid in like manner 
 as provided hereinafter for distribution and payment of 
 
 2318 the surplus income of my residuary estate and until 
 property shall he set apart as herein authorized by my 
 executors for each such fund, I direct that each such 
 annuity for which no fund is set apart shall be a charge 
 upon my whole estate. 
 
 Seventh, All the rest residue and remainder of my 
 estate real and personal property, rights of property of 
 every kind and description whatsoever and wheresoever 
 which I shall own or possess or to which I shall be enti- 
 
 4 
 
448 
 
 tled at the time of my death I give devise and bequeath 
 to my sons Henry L. Young, James H. Young and Mason 
 Young hereinafter also appointed the executors of this 
 my will, the survivors and last survivor of them, his or 
 their suecessors heirs and assigns, to have and to hold 
 the same unto them my said sons Henry L. Young James 
 H. Young and Mason Young the survivors and last sur- 
 vivor of them and his or their successors heirs and as- 
 signs as joint tenants and not as tenants in common for- 
 ever upon trust nevertheless and to and for the uses 
 and purposes following, that is to say, in trust to secure, 
 take and hold the said rest residue and remainder of my 
 estate property and rights of property and the proceeds 
 of any portion thereof which may be sold during the nat- 
 ural lives of my daughters Martha A Leavitt and Joseph- 
 ine Y. Churchill and to longest liver of them with power 
 2319 to invest the said personal property and every or any 
 part thereof and also the proceeds of real property as 
 the same may be realized from time to time, as may be 
 necessary or expedient in their discretion, having always 
 due regard to the security of the investment in bonds and 
 mortgages upon productive real estate situated in cities 
 of the United States containing by the census of the 
 United States over one hundred thousand inhabitants or 
 in public stocks or debt of the United States or of the 
 State or City of New York or in such other securities or 
 property including stock and bonds of incorporated com- 
 pany as they may deem entirely safe to collect get in and 
 receive the rents, interest, income dividends and profits 
 arising or accruing from or upon such rest residue and 
 remainder of my estate property and rights of property 
 and the proceeds thereof and all bonds, mortgages stocks 
 securities and property in which the same or any part 
 thereof shall be at any time invested and the income aris- 
 ing therefrom after paying all taxes and assessments of 
 
449 
 
 every kind and description which may be levied or as- 
 sessed upon any property belonging to my estate, or any 
 part thereof, and all necessary and proper costs charges 
 and expenses of or attending the care and management 
 of my estate including such office rent and clerk hire as 
 they may deem necessary and expenses of insuring’ 
 against fire and of maintaining and keeping in thorough 
 2320 repair all buildings belonging to my estate or in which 
 my estate may have an interest and after making the pay- 
 ments which my said executors and trustees are herein- 
 after empowered to make, in their discretion to divide at 
 the end of each year all of the net income from my estate 
 in equal shares among my children who may be then 
 surviving and the issues of any deceased child or chil- 
 dren during their respective lives, such issue to take per 
 stirpes and not per capita, and I further devise and 
 direct that upon the death of the survivor of my said 
 daughters Martha A Leavitt and Josephine Y Churchill, 
 or upon the other determination of this trust the whole of 
 my residuary estate real and persona! of every kind and 
 description shall be divided by my said executors in equal 
 shares among my children who may be then surviving and 
 the issue of any deceased child or children such issue to 
 take per stirpes and not per capita and I authorize my 
 executors aforesaid to advance money from time to time 
 to each of my said children and to the issue of any de- 
 ceased child, such issue to take per stirpes and not per 
 capita during each year such advances not to exceed to 
 each child the sum of two thousand dollars in any one 
 year, in anticipation of the division to be made at the 
 end of the year, such advances not to bear interest. 
 In the management of my estate I authorize and em- 
 2521 power my executors out of any moneys in their hands 
 to apply such sums as they in their discretion may deem 
 advisable in putting in proper condition for the purposes 
 
450 
 
 of sale my real estate or any part or parts thereof, but 
 not for the erection of any buildings thereon except to 
 replace buildings which may be destroyed, and for the 
 care and protection of any property of the estate which 
 in their judgment may be in any way jeopardized or im- 
 perilled and as a large amount of my property is in 
 railroad bonds, and other railroad securities I expressly 
 authorize and empower my executors appointed by this 
 my Will to apply any moneys in their hands whenever 
 they shall deem it necessary in order to preserve, protect 
 from sacrifice or make available any railroad bonds, or 
 other railroad securities or property held by me in such 
 manner as they may judge expedient to secure or pro- 
 tect from sacrifice or make available such railroad bonds 
 securities or railroad property and to enter into any 
 agreement in relation thereto for the reorganization of 
 railroad companies whose bonds, securities or stocks they 
 may hold as such exeeutors and to enter into any agree- 
 ment which they may consider advantageous for the sub- 
 stitution of other bonds stocks or securities for those held 
 by me or by my estate, and if they shall deem it neces- 
 sarv I authorize them to borrow moneys for any purpose 
 
 2322 above mentioned and all such payments of money or 
 money advances shall be made if possible out of the in- 
 come of my estate before any division of income shall 
 take place beyond the sum of two thousand dollars here- 
 inbefore authorized to be advanced annually to each of 
 my children, and if such advances cannot be made out 
 of the income then they shall apply so much of the prin- 
 cipal of my estate thereto as may be necessary. 
 
 I have heretofore given to and distributed among my 
 children from time to time portions of my property 
 valued by me at the time of such distribution, and amount- 
 ing upon such valuation at the date of this my will as 
 follows: Tio my son Henry L. Young, $201533.93; To 
 
451 
 
 my daughter Mary C. Barnes, $200495.17, To my son 
 James H. Young $201600.00, To my daughter Martha A. 
 Leavitt $200882.77, to my son Mason Young, $206576.30, 
 To my daughter Alice Eaton $201119.31, To my daughter 
 Josephine Churchill $200411.14, making an aggregate of 
 gone million four hundred and twelve thousand five hun- 
 dred and fifty-eight dollars and sixty-two cents, and I 
 direct that my executors and trustees herein named in 
 making the division of the principal of my residuary es- 
 tate as herein directed shall make such division so that 
 the amounts received by each child or the representatives 
 of each child per stirpes added to the sums previously 
 distributed by me as hereinbefore stated to each child 
 2323 shall be equal. The accounts of moneys distributed to 
 my children are kept in a ledger in my own handwriting 
 marked ledger D and any amount hereinafter advanced 
 or paid by me to either of my children and debited in 
 such ledger to each child shall be considered an advanced 
 payment or distribution upon account of amounts to be 
 received by such child from my estate under this my will 
 but no interest shall be charged upon any such advance. 
 In the event that my daughters Martha A. Leavitt and 
 Josephine Y Churchill, or either of them, shall live for 
 ten years from the date of my death I direct that the 
 division of my residuary estate among my children here- 
 inbefore provided shall be made at the expiration of such 
 ten years from my death notwithstanding my said 
 daughters or either of them shall then be. surviving such 
 division to be then made among my children who may 
 be then surviving and the issue of any deceased child or 
 children in equal shares such issue to take per stirpes 
 and not per capita. 
 I give to my executors and trustees full power and au- 
 thority to sell either at public er private sale at such time 
 or times, for such prices and upon such terms as to credit 
 
452 
 
 as they may deem advisable all or any portion of my 
 real estate and J] give them power to mortgage my real 
 
 2324 estate or any portion thereof as security for any moneys 
 which they may borrow for the purposes hereinbefore 
 named for which authority to borrow money is given and 
 to enter into agreements for the actual partition of any 
 lands or interest in lands or under rights which I may 
 hold in common with any other person or persons and to 
 carry such partition or partitions into effect, to lease any 
 or all of my real estate at such rents and for such terms 
 of years as they may deem advisable and I give them 
 full power to make execute acknowledge and deliver all 
 such deeds, mortgages leases and other instruments as 
 may be requisite or necessary to enable them to execute 
 the powers or any of them hereby conferred upon them, 
 and I further authorize them to compromise settle and 
 adjust upon terms which may seem to them equitable any 
 debts due to my estate and full releases and acquittances 
 to give therefor. 
 
 In ease it shall at any time be deemed advisable by my 
 executors for the purpose of straightening boundaries or 
 obtaining the whole of blocks or parcels of land of which 
 parts may belong to my estate, or of obtaining direct 
 access to navigable waters or to secure water fronts and 
 rights necessary to make any of my property available 
 for manufacturing or commercial purposes to purchase 
 lands and premises lying adjacent to any improved por- 
 tion of my estate I authorize said executors from time to 
 
 2325 time to make such purchases and to pay therefor out of 
 the property hereby given to them in trust and to exer- 
 cise as to lands so purchased all the powers given to 
 them herein with reference to my estate. 
 
 All powers granted in this will to the executors and 
 trustees herein named shall be deemed and taken to be 
 exercised by and in the discretion of the survivors and 
 
453 
 
 last survivor of such executors and trustees in like man- 
 ner as if in each case the said powers had been given 
 and the said discretion had been directed to be exercised 
 by the survivors and last survivor of them. 
 
 I nominate and appoint my sons Henry L. Young, 
 James H. Young and Mason Young executors of this my 
 last will and testament and I direct that neither of said 
 executors shall be required to give bonds or other secur- 
 ity in any state as executor or trustee under this my will 
 nor shall either be lable for the acts of the other, 
 
 I hereby revoke all former and other wills by me made. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
 seal this 10th day of August in the year One thousand 
 eight hundred and seventy-four. 
 
 Henry Youne [t.s.] 
 
 Signed sealed published and declared by the said Henry 
 Young to be his last will and testament in the presence 
 of us and of each of us who in the presence of each other 
 and of the testator and at his request have signed our 
 names as witnesses. 
 
 EKvuene Smith No 23 Hast 44th St New York City 
 
 THEopoRE RK Sunar No 314 West 28th St New York City 
 
 JOHN Ki Curran No 19 East 46th St New York City 
 
 I Henry Young do make publish and declare this Codicil 
 to my last Will and Testament. 
 
 I give to the Presbyterian Church of Sing Sing of 
 which the Reverend Wilson Phraner is pastor the note of 
 said church for five thousand dollars held by me, and the 
 sum of five thousand dollars which last named amount I 
 authorize and direct the executors and trustees named in 
 my will to pay to the proper officer of said church at such 
 times during the continuance of the trust created by said 
 will and in such amounts as they may deem most con- 
 
 venient. 
 Henry Youne [tu s.] 
 
454: 
 
 Signed published and declared by the said Henry 
 Young as and for Codicil to his last will and testament 
 this 17th day of October, A. D. 1874 in the presence of 
 us who in his presence and in the presence of each other 
 and at his request have hereunto subscribed our names 
 
 as witnesses. 
 Henry S Leavirr New York City 
 
 R. C. Courcuitt New York City 
 
 Westchester County, Surrogate Court. 
 To Owrn T. Coortn, 
 Surrogate of the County of Westchester. 
 
 The petition of Mason Young of the City of New York 
 in said county, respectfully showeth, that Henry Young, 
 late of the Town of Ossining in said Westchester County, 
 departed this life in said Westchester County on the 21st 
 day of October in the year one thousand eight hundred and 
 seventy-four having previously, as your petition is in- 
 formed and believés, duly made and executed his last will 
 and testament and codicil; that your petitioner is one of 
 the executors named in the said will, that the said deceased 
 was a citizen of the United States; that he was at or im- 
 mediately previous to his death an inhabitant of the 
 County of Westchester; and that his last will and testa- 
 ment and codicil relates to both real and personal estate, 
 the value of which in the opinion of your petition will not 
 exceed the sum of two million dollars. 
 
 Your petition further shows that the said Henry Young 
 left him surviving Anne Mason Young, his widow, who 
 resides at the said Town of Ossining, and James H. 
 Young, Mary L., wife of Henry W. Barnes, Martha A., 
 wife of Henry S. Leavitt, Josephine Y., wife of Richard 
 C. Churchill, and your petitioner severally residing at the 
 City of New York, Henry L. Young residing in the City 
 of Pokeepsie, Dutchess County, N. Y., and Alice, wife of 
 
455 
 
 D. Cady Eaton, who resides at the City of New Haven, 
 Conn., his only children, heirs at law and next of kin, 
 all of whom are of full age. 
 
 Your petitioner further shows, that he is informed and 
 believes that the Surrogate of the County of Westchester 
 has jurisdiction to take the proof of the said last will and 
 testament, and over the executors thereof and the power 
 of granting letters testamentary thereof, with all powers 
 incidental thereto, and that he desires that such proof 
 should be taken and such letters granted, and that such 
 further or other proceedings in the premises should be 
 had as may be legal and proper. 
 
 Your petitioner therefore prays that a citation may 
 issue out of and under the seal of this court to be directed 
 to the proper persons pursuant to the statute in such case 
 made and provided, requiring them and each of them at 
 such time and place as shall be in said citation mentioned 
 to appear and attend the probate of said will and last 
 testament and codicil and that such further or other pro- 
 ceedings in the premises should be duly had as may be 
 requisite to the proving and recording of the said last 
 will and testament and the granting probate and letters 
 testamentary thereof. And your petitioner will ever pray, 
 ete. 
 
 Dated this twenty-third day of October, 1874. 
 
 Mason Youna. 
 State oF New York, 
 County oF WESTCHESTER. 
 
 I, Mason Young, the petitioner named in the foregoing 
 petition, being duly sworn say that I have heard the fore- 
 going petition to which I have subscribed my name read 
 and know the contents thereof, and the same are true of 
 my own knowledge, except as to such matters as are stated 
 therein upon my information and belief, and as to those 
 
 matters I believe it to be true. 
 Mason Youna. 
 
456 
 
 Sworn and subscribed to before me this twenty-third 
 
 day of October, 1874. 
 Owen T. Corry, 
 
 Surrogate. 
 
 At a surrogate’s court, held in and for the County of 
 Westchester at the surrogate’s office in the town of White 
 Plains, on the twenty-third day of October in the year one 
 thousand eight hundred and seventy-four,— 
 
 Present: Owen T. Coffin, Surrogate. 
 
 In the matter of proving the last will and testament 
 and codicil thereto of Henry Young deceased. 
 
 On reading and filing the petition of Mason Young, 
 executor, &, propounding the last will and testament and 
 eodicil of Henry Young, late of the Town of Ossining in 
 the County of Westchester, deceased, for probate. 
 
 It is ordered that a citation issue to the proper persons, 
 pursuant to the prayer of the said petition, requiring 
 them to appear in this court on the thirty-first day of 
 October, 1874, at 9 o’clock in the forenoon of that day, at 
 the surrogate’s office in the Town of Cortlandt, to attend 
 the probate of the said will and codicil. 
 
 Owen T. Corry, 
 Surrogate. 
 
457 
 
 The People of the State of New York 
 
 By the grace of God, free and independent 
 To 
 
 Anne Mason Young, residing at the Town of Ossining, 
 Westchester County, N. Y. 
 
 James H. Young, Mary C. Barnes, Martha A. Leavitt 
 and Josephine Y. Churchill, severally residing at the City 
 of New York. 
 
 Henry L. Young, residing at the City of Pokeepsie, 
 Dutchess County, N. Y. 
 
 Alice Eaton, residing at New Haven, Connecticut. 
 
 Send Greeting. 
 
 Whereas, Mason Young of the City of New York has 
 lately applied to our surrogate of the County of West- 
 chester, to have a certain instrument in writing, bearing 
 date the 10th day of August, 1874, and the 17th day of 
 October, 1874, respectively purporting to dispose of both 
 real and personal estate, duly proved as the last will and 
 testament and codicil of Henry Young, late of the Town 
 of Ossining in said county, deceased, in pursuance of the 
 statute in such case made and provided; you and each of 
 you are cited and required personally to be and appear 
 before our said surrogate at his office in the Town of 
 Cortlandt in the said county on the thirty-first day of Oc- 
 tober, 1874, at nine o’clock in the forenoon of that day, 
 then and there to attend to the probate of said last will 
 and testament and codicil. | 
 
 Witness Owen T. Coffin, surrogate of said county at the 
 Town of White Plains, the 23rd day of October in the year 
 of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four. 
 
 W. M. SHINNER, 
 Clerk to the Surrogate’s Court. 
 Cr-ey.,) 
 
 We admit due personal service upon us this day of the 
 
 within citation and we consent that the probate of the 
 
458 
 
 will and codicil therein mentioned be proceeded with at 
 the time and place in said citation named. 
 Dated Ossining, October 23, 1874. 
 
 ANNE M. Young, 
 
 Henry L. Youne, 
 
 Mary C. Barns, 
 MartHa A. Leavitt, 
 Auice Youne Harton, 
 JOSEPHINE Y. CHURCHILL, 
 
 James H, Youna. 
 Signed in presence of 
 
 JoHN GIBNEY. 
 
 Strate oF New York, : 
 County or WESTCHESTER, 
 
 On the 23rd day of October in the year one thousand 
 eight hundred and seventy-four before me personally ap- 
 peared Anne M. Young, Henry L. Young, Mary C. Barnes, 
 Martha A. Leavitt, Alice Young Eaton and Josephine Y. 
 Churchill and on the 26th day in the month and year 
 aforesaid before me also personally appeared James H. 
 Young, all of whom are known to me to be the individuals 
 described in the within citation, and in the foregoing in- 
 strument and who executed said instrument and they then 
 severally acknowledged, that they executed said instru- 
 
 ment. 
 JOHN GIBNEY, 
 
 Notary Public Westchester County. 
 Westchester County. Surrogate’s Court. 
 
 In the matter of proving the last will and testament of 
 Henry Young, deceased. 
 
459 
 
 Srate or New York, 5 
 County or WESTCHESTER, 
 
 Theodore R. Shear of the City of New York, being duly 
 sworn and examined before the surrogate of said County 
 of Westchester, doth depose and say that he was well 
 acquainted with Henry Young, late of the Town of Os- 
 sining in said County of Westchester, deceased, that he 
 was present as a witness and did see the said Henry 
 Young, deceased, subscribe his name at the end of the 
 instrument in writing now produced, as shown to this 
 deponent, bearing date the 10th day of August in the year 
 of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, 
 purporting to be the last will and testament of the said 
 Henry Young, deceased. That the said Henry Young at 
 the time of making the said subscription declared the said 
 instrument to be his last will and testament, and requested 
 this deponent to sign his name as a witness thereto. 
 Thereupon this deponent did accordingly sign his name 
 as a witness at the end of the said instrument in the pres- 
 ence of the said Henry Young, deceased, and in the pres- 
 ence of HKugene Smith and John EH. Curran, severally of 
 the City of New York, the other subscribing witnesses to 
 the said instrument. This deponent further sayeth that 
 the said Henry Young, deceased, at the time he so ex- 
 ecuted the said instrument was a citizen of the United 
 States, of full age, sound mind and memory in all respects 
 competent to devise real estate and not under restraint; 
 and that this deponent saw the said Hugene Smith and 
 John HK. Curran sign the said instrument at the end there- 
 of as witnesses thereto in the presence of said Henry 
 Young, deceased, and at his request. 
 
 THEODORE R. SHEAR. 
 
460 
 
 Sworn, examined and subscribed before me, this 31st 
 
 day of October, A. D. 1874. 
 Owen T. CoFFIn, 
 
 Surrogate. 
 
 Westchester County. - Surrogate’s Court. 
 
 In the matter of proving the last will and testament of 
 Henry Young, deceased. 
 
 Strate oF New York, x 
 County oF WESTCHESTER, 
 
 John E. Curran of the City of New York, being duly 
 sworn and examined before the surrogate of said County 
 of Westchester, doth depose and say that he was well 
 acquainted with Henry Young, late of the Town of Os- 
 sining,, in said County of Westchester, deceased. That he 
 was present as a witness and did see the said Henry 
 Young, deceased, subscribe his name at the end of the 
 instrument in writing now produced and shown to this 
 deponent, bearing date the 10th day of August in the year 
 of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, 
 purporting to be the last will and testament of the said 
 Henry Young, deceased. That the said Henry Young, at 
 the time of making the said subscription, declared the 
 said instrument to be his last will and testament and re- 
 quested this deponent to sign his name as a witness 
 thereto. 
 
 Thereupon this deponent did accordingly sign his name 
 as a witness at the end of the said instrument in the pres- 
 ence of the said Henry Young, deceased, and in the pres- 
 ence of HKugene Smith and Theodore R. Shear of the City 
 of New York, the other subscribing witnesses to the said 
 instrument. This deponent further sayeth that the said 
 Henry Young, deceased, at the time he so executed the 
 said instrument was a citizen of the United States, of full 
 
461 
 
 age, sound mind and memory in all respects competent to 
 devise real estate and not under restraint and that this 
 deponent saw the said Kugene Smith and Theodore R. 
 Shear sign the said instrument at the end thereof as wit- 
 nesses thereto in the presence of said Henry Young, de- 
 
 ceased, and at his request. 
 JOHN EH. Curran. 
 
 Sworn, examined and subseribed before me this 31st day 
 
 of October, A. D. 1874. 
 Owen T. CoFrrin, 
 
 Surrogate. 
 
 Westchester County. Surrogate’s Court. 
 
 In the matter of proving of the last will and testament 
 of Henry Young, deceased. 
 
 Strate oF New York, 
 Ss. 
 County or WESTCHESTER, | 
 
 Kugene Smith of. the City of New York being duly 
 sworn and examined before the surrogate of said County 
 of Westchester, doth depose and say that he is well ac- 
 quainted with Henry Young, late of the Town of Ossining 
 in said County of Westchester, deceased. That he was 
 present as a witness and did see the said Henry Young, 
 deceased, subscribe his name at the end of the instrument 
 in writing now produced and shown to this deponent 
 bearing date the 10th day of August in the year of our 
 Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, pur- 
 porting to be the last will and testament of the said Henry 
 Young, deceased. That the said Henry Young at the time 
 of making the said subscription declared the said instru- 
 ment to be his last will and testament and requested this 
 deponent to sign his name as a witness thereto. There- 
 upon this deponent did accordingly sign his name as a 
 
462 
 
 witness at the end of the said instrument in the presence 
 of the said Henry Young, deceased, and in the presence 
 of Theodore R. Shear and John EK. Curran severally of 
 the City of New York, the other subscribing witnesses to 
 the said instrument. This deponent further sayeth that 
 the said Henry Young, deceased, at the time he so ex- 
 ecuted the said instrument was a citizen of the United 
 States, of full age, sound mind and memory in all respect 
 competent to devise real estate and not under restraint 
 and that this deponent saw the said Theodore R. Shear 
 and John E. Curran sign the said instrument at the end 
 thereof as witnesses thereto in the presence of said Henry 
 
 Young, deceased, and at his request. 
 KuGENE SMITH. 
 
 Sworn, examined and subscribed before me this 31st 
 
 day of October, A. D. 1874. 
 Owen T. Corry, 
 
 Surrogate. 
 
 Westchester County, Surrogate’s Court. 
 
 In the matter of proving the codicil to the last will and 
 testament of Henry Young, deceased. 
 
 Strate oF New York, 5 
 County or WESTCHESTER, 
 
 Richard C. Churchill, of the City of New York, being 
 duly sworn and examined before the surrogate of said 
 Westchester County, doth depose and say that he was 
 well acquainted with Henry Young, late of the Town of 
 Ossining in said Westchester County, deceased. That he 
 was present as a witness and did see the said Henry 
 Young, deceased, subscribe his name at the end of the 
 instrument in writing now produced and shown to this 
 deponent bearing date the 17th day of October in the year 
 of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, 
 
463 
 
 purporting to be a codicil to the last will and testament of 
 the said Henry Young, deceased. That the said Henry 
 Young at the time of making the said subscription, de- 
 clared the said instrument to be a codicil to his last will 
 and testament and requested this deponent to sign his 
 name as a witness thereto. Thereupon this deponent did 
 accordingly sign his name as a witness at the end of the 
 said instrument in the presence of the said Henry Young, 
 deceased, and in the presence of Henry L. Leavitt of the 
 City of New York, the other subscribing witness to the 
 said instrument. This deponent further sayeth that the 
 said Henry Young, deceased, at the time he so executed 
 the said instrument was a citizen of the United States, of 
 full age, sound mind and memory, in all respects com- 
 petent to devise real estate and not under restraint and 
 that this deponent saw the said Henry L. Leavitt sign the 
 said instrument at the end thereof as a witness thereto 
 in the presence of said Henry Young, deceased, and at 
 his request. 
 RicHarp ©, CHURCHILL. 
 
 Sworn, examined and subscribed before me this 31st 
 
 day of October, A. D. 1874. 
 Owen T. Corry, 
 
 Surrogate. 
 Westchester County, Surrogate’s Court. | 
 In the matter of proving the codicil to the last will and 
 testament of Henry Young, deceased. 
 
 State oF New York, : 
 County oF WESTCHESTER, 
 
 Henry S. Leavitt of the City of New York, being duly 
 sworn and examined before the surrogate of said County 
 of Westchester, doth depose and say that he was well 
 acquainted with Henry Young, late of the Town of Os- 
 sining, in said County of Westchester, deceased. That 
 
464. 
 
 he was present as a witness and did see the said Henry 
 Young, deceased, subscribe his name at the end of the in- 
 strument in writing now produced and shown to this 
 deponent, bearing date the 17th day of October in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy- 
 four, purporting to be a codicil to the last will and testa- 
 ment of the said Henry Young, deceased. That the said 
 Henry Young at the time of making the said subscription 
 declared the said instrument to be a codicil to his last will 
 and testament and requested this deponent to sign his 
 name as a witness thereto. Thereupon this deponent did 
 accordingly sign his name as a witness at the end of the 
 said instrument in the presence of the said Henry Young, 
 deceased, and in the presence of Richard C. Churchill of 
 the City of New York, the other subscribing witness to the 
 said instrument. This deponent further sayeth that the 
 said Henry Young, deceased, at the time he so executed 
 the said instrument was a citizen of the United States, of 
 full age, sound mind and memory, in all respects comn- 
 petent to devise real estate and not under restraint and 
 that this deponent saw the said Richard Churchill sign 
 the said instrument at the end thereof as a witness thereto 
 in the presence of said Herny Young, deceased, and at his 
 request. 
 
 Sworn, examined and subscribed before me this 31st day 
 
 of October, A. D. 1874. 
 Owen T. CoFFrn, 
 
 Surrogate. 
 
 At a surrogate’s court held in and for the County of 
 Westchester at the surrogate’s office in the Town of Court- 
 land on the 31st day of October, A. D. 1874. 
 
 Present 
 Owen T. Corrin, 
 
 Surrogate. 
 
465 
 
 In the matter of proving the last will and testament and 
 codicil of Henry Young, deceased. 
 
 The proofs in this matter being deemed sufficient it is 
 ordered that the said will and codicil be admitted to 
 probate and that the usual decretal order be entered. 
 
 : Owen T. Corrin, 
 Surrogate. 
 
 At a surrogate’s court held in and for the County of 
 Westchester at the surrogate’s office in the Town of 
 Courtland on the 31st day of October, 1874. 
 
 Present 
 Owen T. Corrtn, 
 
 Surrogate. 
 
 In the matter of proving the last will and testament and 
 codicil of Henry Young, deceased. 
 
 Satisfactory proof having been made of the due service 
 of the citation heretofore issued in this matter requiring 
 the proper persons to appear in this court on the 31st 
 day of October, 1874, and attend the probate of the last 
 will and testament and codicil of Henry Young, late of 
 the Town of Ossining, deceased, and Mason Young, an 
 executor named in the said last will and testament, having 
 appeared in person in support of the proof of the same, 
 and no other parties or persons having appeared in the 
 said matter and after hearing the proofs and allegations 
 of the said executor and due deliberation being thereon 
 had, on motion of said executor it is adjudged and de- 
 creed, and the surrogate of the County of Westchester, by 
 virtue of the power and authority in him vested doth 
 adjudge and decree that the said last will and testament 
 and codicil was duly executed, that the same is genuine 
 and valid, and that the said Henry Young at the time of 
 
466 
 
 executing the same was in all respects competent to de- 
 vise real estate and not under restraint. 
 
 And this court doth further order and decree that the 
 said last will and testament and codicil, and the proofs 
 and examinations taken in respect to the same be recorded 
 and that the said last will and testament and codicil be 
 admitted to probate and that the same be and hereby is 
 established as a will and codicil of real and personal 
 
 estate. 
 Owern T’. CorFrin, 
 
 Surrogate. 
 
 Westchester County, Surrogate’s Court. 
 
 In the matter of proving the last will and testament and 
 codicil of Henry Young, deceased. 
 
 WESTCHESTER COUNTY: SS. 
 
 I, Henry L. Young, an executor named in the last will 
 and testament of Henry Young, late of the Town of Os- 
 sining in the said county, deceased, being duly sworn, do 
 depose and declare that I reside in the City of Pokeeme, 
 in the County of Dutchess, and that I will well, faithfully 
 and honestly discharge the duties of executor of the said 
 last will and testament according to law. | 
 
 Henry L. Youne. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed before me this 31st day of Oc- 
 tober, A. D. 1874. 
 Owen T. Corrin, 
 
 Surrogate. 
 Westchester County. Surrogate’s Court. 
 
 In the matter of proving the last will and testament and 
 codicil of Henry Young, deceased. 
 
467 
 
 WESTCHESTER COUNTY: SS. 
 
 I, James H. Young, an executor named in the last will 
 and testament of Henry Young, late of the Town of Os- 
 sining in the said county, deceased, being duly sworn, do 
 depose and declare that I reside in the City of New York, 
 in the County of New York, and that I will well, faithfully 
 and honestly discharge the duties of executor of the said 
 last will and testament according to law . 
 
 Mason Youne. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed before me this 31st day of Oc- 
 
 tober, A. D. 1874. 
 Owen T. CoFFIn, 
 
 Surrogate. 
 
 At a surrogate’s court held in and for the County of 
 Westchester, at the surrogate’s office, in the Town of 
 Courtlandt, on the thirty-first day. of October, A. D. 1874. 
 
 Present 
 Owen T. CoFFIn, 
 
 Surrogate. 
 
 In the matter of proving the last will and testament and 
 codicil of Henry Young, deceased. 
 
 At the time and place aforesaid Henry L. Young, James 
 H. Young and Mason Young, the executors named in the 
 last will and testament of Henry Young, late of the Town 
 of Ossining in said county, deceased, appeared in open 
 court and took the oath required by law to qualify them 
 as such executors, whereupon it was ordered that letters 
 testamentary of the estate of the said deceased be and 
 they are hereby granted to Henry L. Young, James H. 
 Young and Mason Young, executors as aforesaid. 
 
 Owen T. Corrin, 
 Surrogate, 
 
468 
 
 The people of the State of New York: 
 By the grace of God, free and independent. 
 
 To all to whom these presents shall come or may 
 concern send greeting: 
 
 Know ye, That at the County of Westchester on the 
 thirty-first day of October, in the year of our Lord one 
 thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, before Owen T’. 
 Coffin, surrogate of our said county, the last will and 
 testament and codicil thereto of Henry Young, late of the 
 Town of Ossining, said county, deceased, was proved and 
 is now approved and allowed by us, and the said Henry 
 Young, having been at or immediately previous to his 
 death an inhabitant of the County of Westchester, by. 
 reason whereof the proving and registering of said will 
 and codicil and the granting administration of all and 
 singular the goods, chattels and credits of the said tes- 
 tator, and also the auditing allowing and final discharging 
 the account thereof, doth belong unto us, the administra- 
 tion of all and singular the goods, chattels and credits of 
 the said deceased, and any way concerning his will and 
 codicil is granted unto Mason Young, James H. Young 
 and Henry L. Young, the executors in the said will named, 
 they being first duly sworn faithfully and honestly to 
 discharge the duties of such executors according to law. 
 
 In testimony whereof we have caused the seal of office 
 of our said surrogate to be hereunto annexed. 
 
 Witness Owen T. Coffin, surrogate of our said county, 
 the 2nd day of November, in the year of our Lord one 
 thousand eight hundred and seventy-four. 
 
 Owen T. Corry, 
 
 (L.8.) Surrogate. 
 
469 
 
 WESTCHESTER COUNTY, Hy 
 SURROGATE’S OFFICE, 
 
 Recorded the within letters testamentary in Liber K. 
 of Letters testamentary, page 498, the 2nd day of No- 
 
 vember, 1874. 
 W. M. SKINNER, 
 
 Clerk Surrogate Court. 
 
 Strate oF New York, 
 County oF WESTCHESTER, } SS. 
 SuRROGATE’S OFFICE, 
 
 I, William M. Skinner, clerk to the Surrogate’s Court 
 of said county, do hereby certify that I have compared the 
 foregoing copy of preamble will and testament and codicil 
 thereto petition order for citation and the citation issued 
 on such order the proof of service thereof depositions of 
 witnesses to will and codicil order of probate oaths of 
 executors order for letters testamentary and the letters 
 testamentary issued thereunder with the original record 
 thereof now remaining in this office and have found the 
 same to be a correct transcript therefrom, and of the 
 whole of such original. 
 
 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and 
 affixed the seal of office of the surrogate of said county 
 this 12th day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand 
 
 eight hundred and seventy-seven. 
 Wo. M. SKINNER. 
 
 [SEAL. | Clerk to the Surrogate’s Court. 
 Stare or New York, 
 Country or Westcuester, § © 
 
 I, Owen T. Coffin, surrogate of said county and presid- 
 _ ing magistrate of the surrogate’s court, do hereby certify 
 that the foregoing authentication and attestation of the 
 preamble, will and testament and codicil thereto petition 
 
470 
 
 order for citation and the citation issued on such order, 
 the proof of service thereof, depositions of witnesses to 
 will and codicil, order of probate, oaths of executors, 
 order for letters testamentary and the letters testamen- 
 tary issued on such order is on due form. That the said 
 copies of said will and codicil are certified, exemplified 
 and attested to be true copies in the manner in which 
 copies of such instruments are usually exemplified and 
 attested in the State of New York, and that the said 
 copies would be received in evidence in the courts of the 
 said State of New York and that William M. Skinner is 
 the clerk of the surrogate’s court of Westchester County 
 and his signature to the certificate is genuine. 
 
 In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and 
 affixed my official seal this twelfth day of May, A. D. 1877. 
 
 Owen T. Corry, 
 [ SEAL. | Surrogate. 
 
 Filed June 23, 1893, at 14 o’clock P. m. 
 2346-2347 Extract from last will and testament. 
 
 2349 Deposition of Wiuu1am A. Vat offered by the plaintiff: 
 
 Direct Examination read by Mr. Butters. 
 
 My name is William A. Vail. I live at Lockport, Will 
 County, Illinois. I am in the employ of the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict of Chicago. I am termed on the pay roll as an 
 operator. My duties are performed at the controlling 
 works at Lockport. There are other employes at the con- 
 trolling works besides myself. I have been operator at 
 
 2350 the controlling works since October 1, 1903. I was for 
 2351 a year and a half a policeman for the Sanitary District. 
 My duties are from seven in the morning till three in the 
 afternoon, every day in the week. I read the gauge every 
 
471 
 
 2352 half hour. I have seen the water above the crest of the 
 
 2358 dam at the controlling works at Lockport but never to 
 
 2360 exceed 3.2 feet. I have seen the gates down seven feet 
 for a very short time, which meant a gauge reading of 
 
 2361 seven feet. I have lowered it that way for visitors and 
 then brought it right up again. 
 
 2362 Deposition of Isham RanpotrH offered by the plaintiff: 
 
 Direct Exanunation read by Mr. Butters. 
 
 My name is Isham Randolph. I am fifty-seven years of 
 age. I live in Riverside, Cook County, Illinois. My pro- 
 fession is civil engineer. In that profession since 1868. 
 I am chief engineer for the Sanitary District of Chicago; 
 have been for twelve years. I think the district was or- 
 ganized in 1899, in November or December of that year. 
 I am acquainted with the scope embodied in that district. 
 
 2363 Lake Michigan is the eastern boundary of the Sanitary 
 District. Highty-seventh street is the south boundary. 
 2364 The west boundary is a very irregular one. The north 
 limit of the City of Chicago is the northern boundary of 
 the original district. 
 2366 I have lived in the city and its immediate suburbs for 
 twenty-five years. The Chicago River has four branches. 
 2369 Each, in a state of nature, emptied into Lake Michigan. 
 My acquaintance with them extends over thirty-three 
 2370 years. The levels of the original Sanitary District were 
 run from the bench mark known as the Chicago City 
 datum. My own knowledge of its use extends back to 
 2371 1880. Chicago City datum has been used since 1836. Chi- 
 cago City datum is a plane of reference assumed by the 
 builders of the [llinois and Michigan Canal. It so hap- 
 2374 pened that it coincided with the low water of 1847. I 
 have never taken the elevations of the surface of the water 
 
472 
 
 at Lake Joliet with reference to Chicago City datum. I 
 have seen the report of elevations several times. It has 
 been ascertained under my direction. Speaking from 
 recollection, the elevation is about seventy-two feet below 
 2375 Chicago datum. As chief engineer, I had general super- 
 vision of the engineering department for the Sanitary 
 District. There were four or five chief engineers prior 
 to my coming into office. I have had charge of it prac- 
 2376 tically for twelve years. The channel was connected 
 with the west fork of the south branch of the Chicago 
 River at Robey street in the City of Chicago. It extended 
 in a southwesterly direction to Lockport, where its con- 
 tents were discharged into the Desplaines River. The 
 artificial channel was 28.05 miles long. It extended from 
 Robey street in the City of Chicago to Lockport, in the 
 County of Will. Roundly speaking, the junction at Robey 
 street 1s six miles back from the lake. 14.95 miles was 
 2377 partially or entirely through rock section. 14.10 miles 
 was through other substance. The channel in the rock is 
 162 feet wide on top. It is a fraction under thirtv-six feet 
 deep throughout the rock cuts. It is 160 feet at the bottom 
 2378 through the rock. The channel does not cut through the 
 lowest part in the divide between the water sheds. The 
 general assumption is, however, that the divide is at the 
 township line near Summit, in section G. At that point 
 the excavation was thirty-eight feet. The summit through 
 which the cut was made is about thirteen feet above Chi- 
 cago datum. It would be about thirteen feet above the 
 lake waters. The crest or summit that I have described 
 is beyond the boundaries of the original district. There 
 are many locations higher than the crest, within the drain- 
 age district. They are ten or twelve or more feet higher. 
 2379 The width at the surface in the earth portions of the 
 canal are four times the depth plus the bottom width. I 
 can give it to you at a place thirteen feet above datum. 
 
473 
 
 At that point it is 262 feet across from slope stake to slope 
 stake. At the bottom it is 110 feet wide. From the sum- 
 mit to Willow Springs the bottom of the channel is 202 
 
 2380 feet wide. Assume a case where it is forty feet deep, 
 that would be 362 feet wide at the slope stakes. I forget 
 whether the deepest place is on section C or on section 14. 
 My recollection is it was about fifty-six feet. The slopes 
 in the earth are one foot vertical, two feet horizontal. In 
 the rock the cutting is vertical with two off sets on each 
 side of six inches each. 
 
 @. You may state what the carrying capacity of this 
 canal in the rock portion to convey water is, in cubic feet 
 per minute, pasta given point? 
 
 Objected to by the defendant; objection overruled; de- 
 
 fendant excepts. 
 
 2381 Itis designed for a flow of 600,000 cubic feet per minute, 
 or 10,000 per second. 
 
 Q. At what current? A. A mile and nine-tenths per 
 hour. 
 
 (). You may tell the court whether or not the rock por- 
 tions of the drainage canal will bear more or a greater 
 current than that. If so, how much? 
 
 Objected to by the defendant; objection overruled; 
 defendant excepts. 
 
 2382 There is no physical reason which would prohibit a very 
 much higher velocity in the rock channel, because it is not 
 subject to erosion. If it is possible to put it through 
 there it would not make any difference if you put it 
 twenty-five feet—let me see, twenty-five feet a second. 
 
 2384 Such a velocity as that would involve a very preciptious 
 slope. The slope at which the channel was built, you 
 could not get any such velocity in it and you would have 
 to go to work and figure a new slope in that channel. 
 The new slope, you could use the cross section, of course, 
 before starting—say you start here at twenty-two feet, 
 
474. 
 
 and you want to get such a velocity, have a slope which is 
 constantly approaching the bottom of the channel, and 
 you are reducing its cross-section capacity. So it takes 
 an elaborate computation to arrive at what you want. The 
 slope of the rock section is one foot fall in 20,000 feet of 
 
 2385 length. It falls away from the Chicago River southwest. 
 I will simply state that a volume of water which can be 
 gotten through here depends upon the height at which 
 Lake Michigan stands. Our computations are based upon 
 a mean depth of twenty-two feet, and at that depth, we 
 have figured out that the channel will carry 600,000 cubie 
 feet of water per minute. If the lake falls the capacity 
 is diminished. If the lake rises the capacity is increased. 
 
 2386 The lake has a fluctuation, a variation of four and four 
 and one-half feet above and below its mean stage. 
 
 Q. When the lake is piled up by natural methods to an 
 altitude of two and one-half feet, how much water will go 
 through the rock portions of this canal? A. It never 
 does pile up to that, though. 
 
 (). Suppose it does, then how much water will go 
 through that? 
 
 Objected to by the defendant as assuming a hy- 
 pothesis or condition of affairs not proved by the 
 evidence in this case. 
 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 2387 A. I don’t know. 
 
 I don’t know what was the highest water in the lake on 
 the shore within this district. I don’t know whether it was 
 in the year 1886. I cannot fix the date. I think I have 
 known it to be three feet above datum. Three feet is, I 
 think, the highest I have personally known of it. That 
 
 2388 would make about twenty-five feet. At twenty-five feet, 
 unless there was a corresponding adjustment of the gates . 
 at the other end, it would increase the volume of water 
 which would flow through. I don’t know how much it 
 
475 
 
 would increase it. I have not figured it up at all. If it 
 2389 is the thing which I must do, I will; otherwise I will not. 
 2390 There are no means provided at Robey street where the 
 channel connects with the Chicago River to govern the 
 flow into the channel at that point. There has been a 
 turning basin dug out there, a windage basin. I don’t 
 recollect the size of the windage basin at that point, but 
 I think it is 400 feet across. It is very nearly square. 
 2391 Oh, it goes down in depth to minus 24.48, I think. The 
 eross-section of the drainage district, where it connects 
 with the windage basin, at that point, is 110 feet at the 
 bottom width side slopes of one vertical to two horizontal. 
 208 feet across. A series of lifting gates and a movable 
 dam are provided for controlling the flow of water out of 
 the channel. There are seven gates. hey have an open- 
 ing each of thirty-two feet. The sill of the gate is fifteen 
 feet below Chicago datum. They are of uniform size. 
 2392 Masonry was put in in such shape that if at any time it 
 was considered desirable to put in additional gates, the 
 masonry could be removed and gates put in. I think there 
 are eight blanks. The gates will be the same size as those 
 already installed. The length of the crest of the dam be- 
 2893 tween bulk heads is 160 feet. Friction has something to 
 do with the quantity of water that will run over the crest 
 of the dam. Increasing the friction reduces the efficiency 
 of the channel. The crest is formed by two steel leaves 
 coming together at an oblique angle. Friction comes into 
 2394 play for the entire width of the crest, whatever that may 
 be. I don’t remember what itis. The width of the crest 
 2395 of the dam is nearly two feet. At the end of the channel 
 there is a bulk-head and operating house between the 
 gates and the Bear Trap Dam and, also, a small house 
 with stairway leading up to the towers above the gates. 
 They are simply adjuncts to the controlling works. There 
 is one windage basin constructed at the entrance and one 
 
476 
 
 at Lockport. The windage basin at Lockport is at the con- 
 trolling works. The windage basin is a fan shaped basin 
 gradually widening from 160 to 500 feet. The widest 
 point of the windage basin is at the south end of the Bear 
 Trap Dam. When the Bear Trap Dam is open the waters 
 flow immediately out of this basin. The slope in the bot- 
 2396 tom of the windage basin is one foot in 20,000. Rock 
 and concrete walls surround the windage basin. I think 
 the original excavation was in rock. If the dam has been 
 closed for some time and then suddenly opened, it would 
 2397 have a capacity equal to the flow of the channel. At 
 least 600,000 cubie feet a minute, but after the dam had 
 been lowered and the slopes adjusted themselves to a 
 steady flow that is reduced very materially and I do not 
 now recall what is the limit under the extreme slope. If 
 2398 you could maintain a depth to get you 600,000 feet flow, 
 it would flow 600,000 eubie feet right along, if you had the 
 depth. The quantity of water passing over the crest of 
 the dam depends upon the height. As the dam is lowered 
 its resistance to the flow increases, because it presents a 
 2399 broad flattening surface, rather than a sharp crest. It 
 increases the friction. If the dam were raised up and 
 2400 closed it would shut off the flow entirely. The difference 
 2401 between the height of the dam when it is lowered as 
 low as it can be, and the height of the crest when it is 
 raised as it can be, is fifteen feet. It will hold the water 
 up to the level of Lake Michigan, whatever that may hap- 
 pen to be, provided it does not rise above plus 5; plus 5, 
 2402 it would flow over the walls. With the lake at datum and 
 the gates closed, the depth of the water in the windage 
 basin would be about thirty feet. If the dam is closed 
 and one of the gates that I have mentioned is raised to 
 flow its full capacity, I don’t know how much water will 
 pass that gate per minute, in cubic feet. I never figured 
 2403 it out. The work was done under my supervision as 
 
477 
 
 chief engineer. Abeut five per cent. of the work was con- 
 structed at the time I commenced as chief engineer. Work 
 was done in @ small way at various points between Willow 
 2404 Springs “nd Lockport. No work was done on the con- 
 trolling works and windage basin at Lockport. The con- 
 trolling works at Lockport were completed some time 
 prior to the completion of the channel. I don’t recall now 
 the dates. The channel was practically completed in De- 
 cember, 1899. The portion between Summit and Willow 
 Springs is about 5.3 miles long. It is excavated through 
 glacial drift. The cross-section of the channel is 202 feet 
 wide on the bottom; the side slopes are two feet horizontal 
 to one foot vertical. The slope at the bottom at that point 
 is one foot to forty thousand. It is designed for a flow 
 of 600,000 cubic feet of water per minute, of a velocity of 
 a mile and a quarter an hour. All of the matters I have 
 2405 mentioned and described there comprise what is known 
 as the controlling works. I was present at the controlling 
 works on the 17th day of January, 1900. The president 
 of the board and his associate, trustees, engineers, and 
 the clerk of the district were present at the controlling 
 2406 works on the 17th day of January, 1900. I recall the 
 presence of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Cooley, engineers at that 
 time. Prior to that time nothing but the leakage had been 
 allowed to run through this channel and along through 
 the controlling works. Colonel Taylor, as representing the 
 governor of the state, formally authorized the opening of 
 2407 this canal in the name of the State of Illinois. I am 
 unable to answer who opened the canal. There was such 
 a scramble for the honor that I don’t know who really 
 2408 deserved it. The president of the board said, ‘‘ Let her 
 go,’’ and then the valves were opened and the dam was 
 lowered. When the dam was lowered the waters of the 
 channel began to seek their level, going west as hard as 
 they could towards St. Louis. They flowed to the Des- 
 
478 
 
 2409 plaines. Well, following the natural law, they flowed 
 into the Illinois River and from the Illinois River into the 
 Mississippi River. If they do not evaporate before they 
 get there they get into the Gulf of Mexico. 
 
 Mr. Curran: @. Where did these waters come from? 
 
 2410 A. JI think they were condensed vapors. 
 
 I think they started near the eastern boundary of the 
 State of Illinois, in Lake Michigan, and out of Lake Mich- 
 igan into the Chicago River, and from the Chicago River 
 into the Sanitary and Ship Canal. On the 2nd day of 
 
 2411 January, 1900, the channel was empty and was being 
 filled from Lake Michigan. The defendant corporation 
 did it. The first actual flow upstream in the south branch 
 of the Chicago River and down stream in the channel that 
 that I have described, into the Desplaines River, was on 
 the 17th of January, 1900. I know the Town of Lyons. 
 I have been there very often. I did construct some work 
 along or adjacent to the Desplaines River at the township 
 
 2412 of Lyons. It consisted of levees and concrete embank- 
 ments. The levees were a mile or two long. They ex- 
 tended beyond the township of Lyons several miles. The 
 total length of these levees was nineteen miles. I don’t 
 know the width of the bottom. They vary. I don’t know 
 about the height, either. They varied in height. I sup- 
 pose an average height of eight feet or so. They were 
 constructed of the soil adjacent to the point, adjacent 
 
 2413 to the places at which they were built. My recollection 
 is they were about twenty feet wide on top and on the side 
 slopes one and a half to one. The length of the stone 
 and concrete work between the bulk-heads was 398 feet. 
 The height of the concrete work was about seven feet 
 The width was four feet wide, on top, and I don’t re- 
 member the width at the bottom. There was a slight de- 
 pression below the general surface of the valley at the 
 point where the stone work was constructed. The levees 
 
479 
 
 that I have described at that point connected with the 
 stone and conerete work at each end. The stone work 
 2414 and levees ran in a southwesterly direction. A very 
 large part of it was at the southerly end of the stone 
 work; only a small amount was at the north end. It 1s 
 about six miles from Robey street to the lake at the 
 2415 south branch of the Chicago River. The Sanitary Dis- 
 trict has built a number of bascule bridges. It has wid- 
 ened and deepened the river; built a very large amount of 
 docking. I think it began in the fall of 1899, or spring of 
 1899, to widen the river; I don’t recollect which. The 
 2416 river was widened a uniform width of 200 feet. Exca- 
 vation is confined to the south branch of the Chicago 
 River. We did not go into the main river at all. About 
 2418 85 per cent. of that distance had to be worked upon. We 
 deepened about eight feet. That was true for about five 
 miles. The work has not ceased yet. We are still en- 
 gaged init. [ have never computed what was the flowage 
 capacity from Lake Michigan to the canal at Robey street, 
 before that work was commenced. I have a knowledge of 
 statements made by others which I think are reasonably 
 2419 correct. I mean engineers under my supervision and 
 direction. I think the report was made to me by Mr. T. T. 
 Johnson, although the work was not done by him. I don’t 
 recall now who the work was done by. We had several 
 parties engaged in work of that kind. The flow to the 
 westward, so far as I am advised, did not exceed at any 
 time 60,000 cubic feet of water per minute, which was what 
 was pumped into the Illinois and Michigan Canal. That 
 was prior to the opening of the Sanitary District. Since 
 2420 the opening of the Sanitary District channel and since 
 the widening and deepening of the Chicago River, the 
 flow has varied at times. The Secretary of War assumed 
 control of the flow in the Chicago River and dictates what 
 shall be allowed to flow, so as not to interfere with naviga- 
 
480 
 
 2491 tion. The widening is not completed, you remember. At 
 the present time it could safely flow 300,000 cubic feet. 
 It is being improved with a view to flowing 480,000 cubic 
 2422 feet of water through it per minute. The water will flow 
 into the Sanitary and Ship Canal. All of the bridges be- 
 tween Lake Michigan and Robey street, with three ex- 
 ceptions, had center piers. It tended to decrease the flow 
 2423 of the water. The bridges since constructed by the de- 
 fendant corporation are bascule bridges and have no cen- 
 ter piers. It facilitates flow, increases capacity. The 
 2424 flow in the stretch indicated is one and one-quarter miles 
 2425 per hour. The slope in the Chicago River, since it was 
 deepened, is to the westward and something in the neigh- 
 borhood of two feet in the six miles. Before that time, it 
 is very hard to tell which way the slope was. I have seen 
 the water going down stream and then I have seen it 
 going up stream. A by-pass has been constructed be- 
 tween Adams street and Van Buren street on the west 
 2426 side of the river. I think it was commenced in the spring 
 of 1899 and finished in 1900, with a capacity of about 
 90,000 eubie feet per minute. It empties into the Des- 
 2427-plaines River through the Sanitary District Canal. It 
 2428 is a part of the flow of the Chicago River, which I have 
 been deseribing. It adds nothing to the volume which I 
 have heretofore mentioned. The channel through Joliet 
 was enlarged in the Desplaines River to a width of 200 
 feet, and deepened, and the concrete walls built. The 
 upper basin was dredged to a depth, I think it is minus 
 2429 51. A new channel was cut from the controlling works 
 through to the wire mills road, about a mile, diverting the 
 old Desplaines River channel. Dam number 2, at Joliet, 
 Adams Dam, were removed. The stone arch bridge was 
 removed and replaced by steel structure on Jefferson 
 street. There is a pier in the center of the stream of con- 
 crete. The concrete retaining walls are four feet wide on 
 
481 
 
 top and at every part of their height. I am acquainted 
 with the locality of Sixteenth street at Lockport. The 
 2430 tail-race from the dam to Sixteenth street was exca- 
 vated 600 feet wide. I don’t know how deep. I think it 
 gives a flow of about four feet of water. The tail-race 
 leads from the discharge to the Bear Trap Dam. It is 
 2431 designed for a capacity of one million five hundred thou- 
 sand cubic feet of water per minute. The defendant cor- 
 poration did not construct a continuous artificial channel 
 from the Summit or Lyons spill-way to a point opposite 
 the Bear Trap Dam. We corrected the course of the 
 Desplaines River and wherever the old channel could be 
 made available, it was so made, but we made thirteen 
 miles of new channel in that district. A part of it was 
 through glacial drift and part of it was through rock. It 
 was 200 feet wide. The depth varied considerably. Prob- 
 2432 ably the average depth was four feet. I do not think 
 the average depth will exceed three feet. Let me think. 
 There was 19 miles of levees and 13 miles of new channel. 
 I can’t answer the question as to the capacity of the new 
 or artificial channel. The slope of the channel is to the 
 westward. I don’t remember the rate of grade. It emp- 
 ties into the old channel at Romeo. Of course, that is not 
 a continuous artificial channel. There are parts of the old 
 2433 channel that come into play there. I am acquainted with 
 a stream known as the Calumet River. It rises in the 
 State of Indiana. It has two branches; both rise in the 
 State of Indiana; flowing in a westerly, southwesterly di- 
 rection, then curving to the north and changing to a north- 
 easterly direction and emptying into Lake Michigan at 
 2434 South Chicago. About 12 or 13 miles south of the point 
 where the south branch of the Chicago River enters Lake 
 Michigan. 
 
 @. You may state to the court what work, if any, the 
 
2439 
 
 2436 
 2437 
 2438 
 2439 
 2440 
 2441 
 
 482 
 
 defendant corporation has projected relative to the dis- 
 trict in which the Calumet River is located. 
 
 Mr. CurPerFIELD: ‘The defendant objects on the ground 
 that the same is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial 
 and not tending to prove any of the causes of action raised 
 in the plaintiff’s declaration and for the further reason 
 that the question refers to a time more than five years sub- 
 sequent to the 17th day of January, 1900, when, if ever, 
 the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued in this cause, and 
 at a time that would be barred by the statute of limita- 
 tions of the State of Lllinois.’’ 
 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 Mr. CurperFIeLD: And for the further reason that the 
 evidence sought to be elicited is not the best evidence, 
 but that the proposed structures, improvements and cre- 
 ations of the Sanitary District, under and by authority 
 vested in it, by the legislature of the State of Illinois, is 
 better proved by the records, ordinances, orders and reso- 
 lutions of the Sanitary District. 
 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 It is proposed to make a channel at a point near Blue 
 Island, extending southwesterly, through what is known 
 as the Sag Valley, to a junction with the Sanitary and 
 Ship Canal at Sag Station, on the line of the Alton Rail- 
 
 road. It is hard to say under whose direction it will be 
 
 done. Itis proposed to be done under my direction. The 
 
 channel will be about 17 miles long. Its cross-section 
 
 has not been adopted. I don’t know approximately 
 
 what it will be. It has taken no steps to acquire the right 
 
 of way other than to have the property appraised. The 
 purpose of the proposed channel is to reverse the flow of 
 the Calumet River. 
 
 @. From what to what will that proposed channel 
 cause the water of the Calumet River to flow? 
 
483 
 
 Mr. CureerFtetp: The defendant objects on the ground 
 that the same is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, 
 and not tending to prove any of the causes of action raised 
 in the plaintiff’s declaration; and for the further reason 
 that the question refers to a time more than five years 
 subsequent to the 17th day of January, 1900, when, if 
 ever, the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued in this cause, 
 and at a time that would be barred by the statutes of lim- 
 itations of the State of Illinois; and for the further reason 
 that the evidence sought to be elicited is not the best evi- 
 dence, but that the proposed structures, improvements 
 and creations of the Sanitary District, under and by au- 
 
 2442 thority vested in it by the Legislature of the State of 
 Illinois, is better proved by the records, ordinances, or- 
 ders and resolutions of the Sanitary District. 
 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 It will cause them to flow in a southwesterly direction, 
 away from Lake Michigan; discharge them into the chan- 
 nel already built by the Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 
 How much water will it be necessary for that proposed 
 channel to carry in cubic feet, per second, in order to 
 accomplish the purposes of the defendant corporation? 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLtp: The defendant objects on the ground 
 that the same is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, 
 and not tending to prove any of the causes of action 
 raised in the plaintiff’s declaration; and for the further 
 reason that the question refers to a time more than five 
 years subsequent to the 17th day of January, 1900, when, 
 
 2443 if ever, the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued in this 
 case and at a time that would be barred by the statutes 
 of limitations of the State of Illinois; and for the further 
 reason that the evidence sought to be elicited is not the 
 best evidence, but that the proposed structures, improve- 
 ments and creations of the Sanitary District, under and 
 by authority vested in it by the Legislature of the State 
 
484 
 
 of Illnois, is better proved by the records, ordinances, 
 orders and resolutions of the Sanitary District; for the 
 further objection that the question assumes a hypothe- 
 sis not proved by the evidence in the case, and that there 
 has been no sufficient foundation laid for the answer to 
 the question. 
 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 A. There has been no estimate made yet. 
 
 2446 @. What will be the effect if that channel is construct- 
 ed upon the waters in the main channel of the Sanitary 
 District below Sag, to increase or decrease them? 
 
 Mr. Cuiprerrisyp: I object to the question as leading 
 and suggestive, as referring to improvements to be con- 
 structed in the future at a time more than five years sub-. 
 sequent to the 17th day of January, 1900; as calling for 
 the conclusion of the witness upon a hypothesis not sup- 
 ported by the evidence in the case; and as a plain attempt 
 of counsel to prejudice the cause of the defendant by re- 
 ferring to matters and things that are improper for coun- 
 
 2447 sel to refer to in this proceeding. 
 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 A. That will result in the mingling of waters flowing 
 from the Chicago River and the waters flowing from the 
 Calumet River. 
 
 Q. How, if any, will it increase the water in the San- 
 itary District channel below the Sag? 
 
 Mr. CureerFIELp: I object to the question as leading 
 and suggestive; as referring to improvements to be con- 
 structed in the future, at a time more than five years sub- 
 sequent to the 17th day of January, 1900; as calling for 
 the conclusion of the witness upon a hypothesis not sup- 
 ported by the evidence in the case; and as a plain attempt 
 of counsel to prejudice the cause of the defendant by re- 
 ferring to matters.and things that are improper for 
 
 2448 counsel to refer to in this proceeding. 
 
 Objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
485 
 
 A. That is a matter which is under the control of the 
 Sanitary District, and I am unable to say that it would 
 increase it at all. 
 
 2449 JI have no opinion as to what people not now in office 
 will do when they come in office. None of the territory 
 between Blue Island and the Sag was in the original area 
 of the Sanitary District, as first organized. 
 
 2453 It is not within my knowledge at the present time how 
 much additional territory to be drained under the super- 
 vision of the Sanitary District of Chicago is proposed to be 
 taken in by the proposed channel in the Calumet River; 
 something over ninety square miles has been added to the 
 original territory of the Sanitary District of Chicago in 
 
 2454 the Calumet district. It was authorized at the session 
 of the Legislature two years ago. My recollection is the 
 bill became a law about the 15th of June, two years ago. 
 The bottom of the channel at Robey street is 24.48 feet 
 
 2455 below said dam. The memorial now shown me, marked 
 Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9, was prepared by some one other 
 than myself and was not submitted to me before it was 
 
 2456 published. I did not compile the memorial. I was not 
 asked to furnish the data for it, nor was the memorial 
 
 2457 submitted to me when it was published for revision. It 
 has a fimiliar look, but I was not called upon for any of 
 the engineering data contained in Exhibit 9. I take it 
 
 2458 for granted that the cross sections of noted canals, ap- 
 pearing on the second page of Exhibit 9, came from the 
 drafting department of the Sanitary District. They look 
 like productions of the large sheets which we have, illus- 
 
 2459 trating those canals. The drafting department is a 
 part of the engineering department of which I am chief. 
 The cross section of noted canals, including the Chicago 
 Sanitary and Ship Canal, appearing upon the page 
 
 2460 shown, are correct. I believe that the sheet attached to 
 and a part of Exhibit 9, which has been shown me, was 
 
486 
 
 prepared under the direction of Mr. E. L. Cooley, during 
 his term as a member of the Sanitary Board. He was at 
 one time the chief engineer of this board and was very 
 well up in all this sort of thing, and I think it was com- 
 2461 piled under his direction. I am not acquainted with the 
 Illinois River at a point at or near Lake Joliet, to its 
 confluence with the Mississippi River. I am acquainted 
 with portions of it. I am acquainted with the portions 
 near Desplaines, near Marseilles and a portion near Ot- 
 tawa; a portion near Utica, a portion near La Salle, and 
 I have several times made the trip from La Salle to the 
 2462 mouth of the river, going all the distance by boat. On 
 one occasion measurements were made of the current 
 along the Illinois River under my direction; on one oc- 
 casion the measurements were followed through to the 
 mouth of the river; on one occasion that I know of, by 
 2463 means of floats; I was not with the party; I did not see 
 them put in. A report was made to me by the men who 
 did follow the floats. Mr. KE. H. Heilbron was in charge 
 of the party. I don’t recall the names of all the men 
 who were with him at the time. A man named Smith 
 was with him. JI am not sure whether Atkinson was with 
 him or not. I think he was. I do not recall now who the 
 2464 other men were, but I think those two were with him. 
 Mr. EK. H. Heilbron is a civil engineer. He was in charge 
 of the party. My recollection is it was in June, 1903. No 
 other or different measurement by float has ever been 
 made under the management and direction of my depart- 
 ment by the defendant. The reports of the result ascer- 
 tained by that measurement were in writing. They are 
 2465 somewhere in my files. The reports were made at the 
 end of the trip, in one report. The right of way of the 
 defendant corporation, the Sanitary District of Chicago, 
 from Robey street, Chicago, to Hickory Creek on the 
 south limits of the City of Joliet, is very irregular in its 
 
487 
 
 width. It is probably about a quarter of a mile, the av- 
 
 erage width. At the widest point, 2,200 feet; at the nar- 
 2466 rowest point, 800 feet; through Joliet we have not a 
 
 width of 800 feet; there is simply the width of the stream, 
 
 a little over 200 feet. The Sanitary District of Chicago 
 
 is in possession of the right of way I have described be- 
 
 tween Robey street, Chicago, and Hickory Creek, on the 
 
 south limits of the City of Chicago. 
 
 Cross-examination waived. 
 (Signed) IsHam RanpoupH. 
 
 2467 Wituiam M. Curistiz, deposition offered by the plain- 
 aie 
 Direct Examination Read by Mr. Butters. 
 
 My name is William M. Christie. I am forty-one years 
 of age. I reside in La Grange, Illinois. I am a photog- 
 rapher; about seven or eight years. I make a specialty 
 
 2468 of engineering photography; since 1898 I have been 
 working for the Sanitary District. I was in their employ 
 from August, 1898, to April, 1901, in photographic work. 
 I made probably a thousand negatives during that pe- 
 
 2469 riod. I photographed Exhibit 12 shown me. It was 
 taken on the north side of the canal, what is known as 
 Section 2 of the Drainage Canal, July, 1896. I set the 
 camera, focused it and made the exposure. The picture 
 is correct. J retained the custody of the negatives from 
 
 2471 that time until the present time. I did the developing; 
 
 2472 used the rectilinear lens in making the picture. The 
 
 2475 excavation where the picture was taken was partly rock 
 and partly earth. I don’t know exactly the depth of the 
 
 2476 canal at that point. I should say approximately thirty- 
 
 2477 five feet. It was 160 or 162 feet wide at the bottom. I 
 have been in possession of the exhibit and it correctly 
 shows the situation at that point. I made the picture 
 
488 
 
 2478 marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 13. It shows that portion 
 of the Sanitary District channel known as the controlling 
 2479 works and Bear Trap Dam near Lockport. I have been 
 acquainted with the situation there since 1898; possibly 
 before that some. I remember the occasion of the turn- 
 ing in of the water over the Bear Trap Dam on the 17th 
 2480 of January, 1900. I was there after the water was 
 turned in. After the dam was opened the water was 
 flowing over the dam. The negative for Exhibit 13 was 
 2481 taken on the 27th day of January, 1900. The camera 
 was placed below the dam on a table or platform formed 
 by the concrete in the construction of the dam; no bridge 
 had been constructed at that time. I think that seven- 
 eighths of the field of the dam was within the lens of the 
 482 machine. I refer to the crest of the dam. The water 
 Y483 was running over the dam at the time the photograph 
 was taken. There was a gauge there at that time indi- 
 eating the amount of water flowing over the dam. I was 
 able to read the gauge. It showed 2.7 feet. I made a 
 2484 memorandum at the time. This forms a part of the pho- 
 2485 tograph by being written on the photograph. I placed 
 the negative number on the photograph and the descrip- 
 2487 tive matter. The work of taking the picture was correctly 
 done. The picture correctly and truly represents that 
 portion of the controlling works within the field of the 
 lens. JI am acquainted with that part of the Sanitary 
 District channel was just above the controlling works. 
 2488 It was called the windage basin. I think it is something 
 over 400 feet wide. It connects with the main drainage 
 2489 channel. There are seven sluice gates there through 
 2490 which the water passes. That is in addition to the Bear 
 Trap Dam. There are eight blind gates filled with con- 
 crete bulkheads. I took a picture of the windage basin 
 and controlling works and lower end of the canal. It is 
 marked as Exhibit14. Atthe time that picture was taken 
 
489 
 
 the camera was on the bank of the canal at the end of 
 2491 the controlling works, at the end of the windage basin, 
 about twenty feet from the edge of the canal. I took 
 three negatives. I focused, set and made the exposure. 
 The work was correctly and properly done. The nega- 
 2492 tive on the right was made first, marked 14 A. The one 
 forming the center of the panorama was made second, 
 2493 marked 14 B. The portion marked 14 C was taken last. 
 This kind of a view is known as a panoramic view. I 
 2494 developed the negatives and they have been in my pos- 
 2497 session since they were made. The windage basin is 
 bound by a concrete retaining wall, approximately 
 eighteen feet high and four feet wide on top. I have 
 been acquainted with the wall since ’96. There is a rail- 
 2499 ing or fence with iron bars on top of the two walls I 
 2500 have deseribed; about thirty inches high. The upstream 
 portion of the controlling works is shown in Plaintiff’s 
 2501 Exhibit 14. The Bear Trap Dam is not shown. That is, 
 2502 the opening is shown. The buildings in connection with 
 the Bear Trap Dam and what is known as the tower house 
 
 in connection with the sluice gates and the upper works - 
 2503 of the sluice gates are shown. The operating house of 
 the dam is also shown. No portion of the dam proper is 
 shown. As I said before, the upper works of the sluice 
 gates and the building in which the machinery operating 
 2504 the dam is housed or located is shown. At the places 
 referred to in Exhibit 14 marked 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are 
 what is known as the blind gates, blind sluice gates, or 
 those not in use. There are no gates there, but they are 
 2505 called blind gates. The dam is not shown because of 
 the water flowing over it, it does not show. A bridge 
 has been erected across the opening in front of the dam 
 
 _ and building or buildings have been erected over the ma- 
 2506 chinery and counterweights at one side of the dam. I 
 have seen, since the bridge was constructed, the Bear 
 
2907 
 
 2508 
 
 2509 
 2010 
 2511 
 
 490 
 
 Trap Dam of the defendant corporation in operation five 
 or six times a year; possibly more; sometimes oftener 
 
 than that. The flow of the water over the Bear Trap 
 Dam is not as wide as the span of the bridge. The bridge 
 is approximately fifteen feet longer than the dam. At 
 the time of the taking of the negative for the panoramic 
 view, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 14, I didn’t notice the water 
 gauge on the dam. The water was running over the dam. 
 
 Plaintiff offers in evidence Plaintiff’s Exhibits 12, 13 
 and 14. 
 
 The defendant objects to the same and to each of the 
 same for the reason that each photograph is in- 
 competent, irrelevant and immaterial and does not 
 tend to prove any of the plaintiff’s causes of ac- 
 tion, and for the further reason that no proper or 
 sufficient foundation has been laid for the admis- 
 sion of either or any or all of said photographs; 
 objection overruled; defendant excepts. 
 
 Cross-examination waived. 
 
 (Signed) Wriiram M. Curistts. 
 Exhibit 18. 
 Exhibit 19. 
 
 Exhibit 20. 
 

 
 | 
 
 ck a Xex XK CEM TAR, 
 
 ae 
 
 bef 
 
 
 
| ae 
 
 
 
. > < 
 SerGcs.:? € 
 se » ot ee 
 SS NE 
 
 
 

 
 ART 
 
 } 
 
 ' 
 
 iF Lents 
 
 
 
 ‘Ty 
 ' 
 
 ch 
 
491 
 
 2514-2518 Argument of Mr. O’Conor on the admissibility 
 of tax receipts. 
 
 2520-2527 Argument of Mr. Chiperfield on the admissibility 
 of tax receipts. 
 
 2528-2530 Argument of Mr. Butters on admissibility of tax 
 receipts. 
 
 2530-2540 Statement by the court with reference to the ad- 
 missibility of testimony, as follows: 
 
 The Court: This very situation was foreseen by me 
 the very minute, | may say, the very second, that the 
 first question was asked Mr. Hazen about the payment 
 of taxes. The very minute, I think I am literally accn- 
 rate when I say the very second the first question was 
 asked, the whole situation dawned before me just like a 
 flash. 
 
 I am in the situation that Mr. Chiperfield said he was 
 when Mr. O’Conor proposed to bring this motion before 
 the court. JI am hardly ready to express myself, not so 
 much because my mind is not pretty well settled on this 
 subject, but because of my inability to select just the 
 right words to present conspicuously the view I have of 
 the matter. Apologizing in advance for what might be 
 imperfections in my expression and inviting you to the 
 central thought of what I say, I will state what I think 
 about this matter. The measure of damages and the 
 course of proof to establish it as a rule is plain and I 
 think is conceded by both sides. Notwithstanding that 
 general proposition, I think it is true that if the land for 
 any purpose has been depreciated in its market value, 
 the plaintiff is entitled to the damage resulting there- 
 from, although for many other purposes the land in value 
 may remain the same. 
 
 When the cross-examination of the first couple of wit- 
 nesses began in this case, on the question of the market 
 value of the land, and the plaintiff’s alleged damages, I 
 
4912) 
 
 was nearly driven from my propriety by the objections — 
 to the questions on the cross-examination when the wit- 
 nesses were asked if it was not worth something for coal: 
 purposes, if it was not worth something for gardening 
 purposes; a long line of objections were imposed and my 
 compliments in the judgment of plaintiff’s attorney on 
 the subject nearly drove me from what I am now satis- 
 fied was the right view of the situation, and I many times 
 since congratulated myself that I overruled those objec- 
 tions. | 
 
 The same is true as to the question as to the rental 
 value. J am confident that it was admissible on cross- 
 examination and that it would not have only been error 
 for me to have sustained those objections, but I think it 
 would have been unjust to the defendant to have ex- 
 eluded those matters from the Jury and the court. 
 
 I sustained an objection to a question, perhaps more 
 than one, as to the assessed valuation of the land, as to 
 what the land was taxed at, and I think rightly. If the 
 defendant had offered these tax receipts I should have 
 excluded them. If they should offer to prove on direct 
 examination, when it comes to their case, what the land. 
 was worth for coal purposes, I will exclude that, because 
 that is not the measure of damages; that is in considera- 
 tion affecting the testimony of the witnesses and their 
 opinions, which I concede was a proper matter for in- 
 quiry on cross-examination. 
 
 But that these tax receipts were admissible on eross- 
 examination I think is hardly subject to debate. 
 
 The question that is now in my mind and has been in 
 my mind from the beginning as to whether they are ad- 
 missible for all purposes for which I can well foresee 
 they may be used by the defense. If it is true, as sug- 
 gested by Mr. O’Conor, that this whole question of title 
 is not for the jury, they have nothing to do with it, then 
 
495 
 
 I think his view of the matter is right; but, if the ques- 
 tion of title is a matter for the jury, as well as other 
 questions, then I am in doubt what limitation, if any, I 
 should put on those tax receipts. I am under the im- 
 pression that it 1s proper for me to state to the jury 
 that the assessed values have nothing to do with the mar- 
 ket values of this property and is not a matter for their 
 consideration. But, as to the amount of taxes that were 
 actually paid, I have grave doubts about that. It seems 
 that proof of elements like renting value, coal value, gar- 
 dening susceptibilities and all those things are elements 
 to be considered; that is the way I view it now. I know 
 that the valuation put on this property does not tend to 
 prove its market value legitimately in law as well as in 
 principal, and I repeat that the first question had not 
 been answered before I foresaw this whole situation just 
 as I see it now, just exactly. J haven’t been on the bench 
 so long but what I know what lawyers like to do. 
 
 If this whole question of title is to be excluded from 
 the jury then I will, without question, have no hesitancy 
 in excluding these receipts from them; but I think that 
 the amounts actually paid, like rental value and such 
 thinks like that, I am free to say about that, I am in 
 doubt as to that subject a little. But as I am advised at 
 present, I think I am willing to take a positive stand in 
 any event against the assessed valuations of the land 
 and the tax receipts being used by the jury for any pur- 
 pose. It is simply a question if a witness says it is not 
 worth the taxes and the labor, it seems to me they have 
 the right to ask him how much the taxes are. Of course, 
 that is a question independent of the assessed valuation. 
 
 I have expressed no opinion about the question of title; 
 I haven’t any very settled opinion about that, but I sup- 
 pose that question does not need to arise just now, any- 
 way. 
 
494. 
 
 If a witness on the stand should state, as some of them 
 have, that the taxes and the labor of cultivation exceeded 
 the value of the land, I would have to forbid the question, 
 on cross-examination, what is the expense of the cultiva- 
 tion of that land; what is the labor; what is the amount 
 of taxes. I would feel as if it would be error; I feel it 
 would be an unjust limitation on the right of cross-ex- 
 ination. It may be a question so close that the higher 
 court will say it is not reversible error. There is so much 
 in this case that would not reverse the case because of 
 that ruling on that subject. I believe that is all., I think 
 that is the most that could be said in favor of that ruling 
 on my part that way. 
 
 I know what I have stated is not very satisfactory to 
 either side, because it still leaves them in doubt, but the 
 reason for that is that is the position of the court. The 
 jury is not here. I do not say anything on the subject. 
 I will not make any final ruling until I am called upon 
 to. I doubt whether there is much of anything either of 
 you can say on the subject that would change my mind, 
 because my opinion arises from the consideration of the 
 whole situation of the case. The plaintiff’s lawyers 
 know, as well as I do, if they had offered these tax re- 
 ceipts or offered to prove the assessed valuation, that I 
 would rule it out. I have already done that. So I agree 
 with you on the subject, on the main question, that it is 
 not substantive, independent original evidence with them. 
 I think it is legitimate and proper because it is inti- 
 mately associated with, connected with the cross-exam- 
 ination, and I state again T have many times since con- 
 eratulated myself to think I allowed Mr. Chiperfield to 
 ask the witnesses if there was not coal on the land that 
 was valuable, when they said it was worthless. He asked 
 them what the rental value was. JI am sure that was 
 proper, as I see it. Of course, that is as far as I can 
 
495 
 
 go and I might be wrong from the beginning, but if I 
 feel right here, that is satisfactory to me, and I do feel 
 right about that. 
 
 Now, any time you want to take up this question of 
 title, [ will hear you. If you are right on that, of course, 
 this evidence as presented by you and cross-examined by 
 the defendant on the question of title, is that is confined 
 to the court, that is a different proposition. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: May I suggest, your Honor— 
 
 The Court: Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFietp: Your Honor, this is informal before 
 the court and I think it better not go in the record at all. 
 
 The Court: Well, I went into the record. 
 
 Mr. Cutrerrietp: All right, I am perfectly willing for 
 this to go into the record. 
 
 The Court: Let it all go. 
 
 Mr. CuHIPerFIELD: I was simply making it now for the 
 convenience of all concerned in the case. I understood 
 your Honor to say in the opinion that if independent 
 proof was offered as to the value of this land, as a coal 
 proposition, it would be rejected? 
 
 The Court: I don’t think on the market value—I 
 agree with you it must be the market value for all pur- 
 poses. 
 
 Mr. CuiprerFietp: Just let me inquire this, because I 
 want to get this in in the shortest possible shape when 
 we get to our case. I am really inquiring more for in- 
 formation than for any other purposes, so we can frame 
 up our case in such form as to accelerate this case. Let 
 me suggest, your Honor, merely that I want to show this 
 upon the question of value. 
 
 The Court: I think I will let you prove that. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Sir? 
 
 The Court: I think I will let you prove that; they 
 have gone into the market value of the land. 
 
496 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Yes. 
 
 The Court: You can make the same proof. I don’t 
 know what is in the mind of the witness. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: I see the point. I see the point. It 
 is their responsibility. 
 
 The Court: Yes, sir; not mine. 
 
 Mr. CHIPerRFIELD: I get the point. Now, while we are 
 here without anything to divert our minds on the matter 
 and without the jury— 
 
 The Court: I think it would have been error to have 
 let Mr. O’Conor say, ‘‘ What is the market value of that 
 land for agricultural purposes?’’ Iam not sure of that, 
 and I think the same thing applies to the market value of 
 the land for coal purposes. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: Would it be well for us to take up 
 at this time the production of those documents? 
 
 The Court: Better wait until you get through with 
 the plaintiff’s case, hadn’t you? 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: I am agreeable. Anything the court 
 wishes is agreeable to counsel. 
 
 The Court: This is a quit claim opinion I am giving 
 and I am not bound by these individual separated state- 
 ments. I have been talking with perfect freedom here and 
 there may have been a great many things I have said 
 that, when I review it, will not correctly and accurately 
 reflect my views, but you have my central idea of the sit- 
 uation. 
 
 Mr. CurperFietp: I appreciate the frankness with 
 which the court has made his statement, and in the mak- 
 ing up of the record, if your Honor wants any part of it 
 expunged, I am perfectly willing. 
 
 The Court: No, the record may stand. You may think 
 some of my rulings are in conflict with what I have said, 
 but you cannot use my statements for an authority for 
 any proposition, that is what I mean. 
 
497 
 
 Mr. CureerFieLp: No, we will not, at any stage of the 
 proceedings. 
 
 The Courr: I wasn’t considering it that way. I was 
 trying to tell you the best I could just how I view it. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperristp: And I regard the idea of the court 
 as very helpful all around and we will conform to the 
 ideas of the court as far as we can. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: May I make a suggestion? While the 
 court was talking an idea occurred to me that I want to 
 express. Any proof as to the products that have been 
 raised on this land subsequent to 1900, the amount and 
 actual realization from them, that, as I understand it, is 
 not really to be considered at all. My view of it was that 
 that has been with the idea, if it was after 1900, it was 
 purely an evidentiary matter, that the amount of corn 
 raised on the land for one or more years could not be 
 figured up for the purpose of obtaining a set off of that 
 amount against the taxes, or anything of that kind, or 
 determine a eredit or anything that the witness might 
 mentally subtract to ascertain what the value was in 
 1900, but simply the market value determined as if the 
 jury had in their possession on January 17, 1900, all the 
 facts that so and so—that have been since seen to be 
 true. 
 
 Mr. CurpeerFretp: In other words, foresight? 
 
 Mr. Burrers: Yes, but that they would not have the 
 right to make a computation of the earnings, receipts, 
 ete. 
 
 The Courr: Oh, no, there is nothing of that kind in 
 the case. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: That is why I think the tax receipts— 
 
 The Court: Oh, no, we can’t do that, it 1s only admis- 
 sible as— 
 
 Mr. Burrers: Evidentiary matters. 
 
 The Court: They are corroborative. 
 
498 
 
 Mr. Burrers: And on that view I couldn’t see why it 
 would be material to put in evidence as an issue how 
 much the receipts were over the expenditures, any more 
 than to give the witness the general view as to his testi- 
 mony. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: We are entitled to know the basis, 
 and when we have that we are entitled to know anything 
 else, so that we have all of this basis. 
 
 The Court: Call the jury. 
 
 (Jury returns to the jury box.) 
 
 2541 Nick Buscarn, a witness called by the plaintiff, testified 
 as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Nick Busgen. I live three and a half miles 
 south of La Salle. I am twenty-two years old. I ama 
 gardener. I farm land lying west of the [Illinois Central 
 and south and east of the Illinois River; rent it from the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company; from 1905 to 
 1910. My uncle and myself farmed the first year in part- 
 
 2542 nership. JI had it four years alone. We started to 
 plant in 1905 in May, early in May. Got the second part 
 of the crop in the latter part of May or about the first 
 of June. Supposed to be eighty acres in the piece I had 
 rented. I got forty to forty-five acres in crop. During 
 
 2543 that year we got soft corn. That is, it didn’t get ripe. 
 There was worms in the corn that year, too. I worked 
 the same piece during the year 1906. It was a good 
 year; fine year; had a good crop in that year and had 
 all of the land planted. We had seventy-five acres plant- 
 
 2544 ed in corn. It was pretty fair, pretty good corn that 
 year. We had the same piece of land in 1907; got in on 
 it to plant about the last of May. It was then wet and 
 boggy. Planted about thirty-five to forty acres. The 
 
499 
 
 eorn didn’t mature that year. It was soft. Took the 
 corn off about the last part of October. The ground was 
 wet when we were husking. I had the same corn during 
 
 2045 the year 1908. We got in on corn that year around 
 June. We planted about forty acres in that year to 
 corn. It didn’t mature; we got a soft corn; picked the 
 corn off about the first of November. I had the same 
 piece during the year 1909. We didn’t get in on the 
 
 2546 ground until the first of June. Got about thirty-five 
 acres planted that year. The corn didn’t mature. The 
 eround was soft and wet. The corn was soft to husk. 
 I was there also in the year 1910. Worked that same 
 ground that les west of the Central and south of the 
 river; got in there about the last part of May; planted 
 
 2547 about forty acres. The corn was soft that year. We 
 started to husk about the first week in November. The 
 ground was wet. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 We farmed that land last in 1910. We planted about 
 
 forty acres in 1910. There wasn’t over twenty-five bush- 
 2548 els of corn. The corn we got, we took part of it home 
 and some of it, the company’s share, we took to their 
 place. Their share was one-third. I think we got 25 
 cents a bushel for it that year, in 1910. In 1909 we got 
 2549 in about forty acres. We didn’t get much corn that 
 year, either; had poor corn. I guess we got about thirty 
 bushels to an acre. We took our share home 
 and sold it. I think we got 30 cents a bushel for 
 
 it. In 1908 we got in thirty-five acres; yes, forty acres. 
 
 In 1907 we had thirty-five acres. The yield ran about 
 2550 the same as it did in 1909. We sold our share of the 
 eorn. In 1906 we got on the land early. The water had 
 come up in the spring and went down and we got on 
 
 the land early to plant. The land was dry and we got 
 
O00 
 
 2551 it all planted. I have seen the water lower than it was 
 during 1906. I think the water, during 1906, got down 
 to within four or five inches. That was as low water as 
 I have ever seen on the Illinois River. 1906 was a dry 
 
 2552 year. 1907 was a wet year. There was some trouble 
 
 2553 getting in crops on the upland. In 1906 we raised about - 
 sixty bushels of corn to the acre. We got 37 cents a 
 bushel for it. The corn in 1905 was drowned out in 
 May. Some places the water was three feet deep on 
 the land and other places it was only a foot. The land 
 
 2000 we had was between the @. and the Central, right east 
 of the Central. We had about a sixty acre patch. We 
 also had thirty acres on the north side of the C., B. & Q. 
 
 2556 We called it thirty acres. The land north of the C., B.& Q. 
 is high. It is affected by the high waters. It is higher 
 than the land on the south side of the Q. railroad. About 
 four feet higher than the rest of the land. The corn 
 
 2557 was pretty fair in that piece; better than on the south 
 side. We could get in three or four days before we 
 could get in the other piece. Bottom corn does not ripen 
 as fast as it would on top land. I think it takes longer. 
 
 2558 The bottom lands take a longer time and the corn don’t 
 harden up like top lands, prairie lands. I paid one-third 
 
 2561 rent for the use of this land. We cultivated right up. 
 to the waste bank off the mine. I think that bank was 
 there since 1907. 
 
 2562 Aucust Lavens, a witness called by the plaintiff, testi- 
 fied as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is August Lavens. I live four and a half 
 miles south of La Salle. I am a farmer; forty-two years 
 old, and have lived in this country twenty years next 
 spring; farmed land belonging to the La Salle County 
 
o01 
 
 2563 Carbon Coal Company. I am a Belgian. The land I 
 farmed would be west of the Illinois Central right of 
 way and south and east of the river. I started farming 
 that in 1906. I farmed it six years straight. I quit last 
 year. I think I planted about sixty acres in 1906. I got 
 in on the ground about May. It was a dry year; got a 
 pretty good crop; corn matured and got good corn. I 
 
 2065 was there in 1907. After the first year I got in pretty 
 late every year. I got about the same amount of land 
 into crop. After the first year I wasn’t able to get as 
 much land planted. I had one pretty bad year in there. 
 
 2566 I had only about thirty acres in there one year. I am 
 not sure if it was the second or third. I planted pretty 
 near the same amount every year except the first year. 
 The last five years I raised poor corn. It was soft corn; 
 eorn that would not keep in the crib. We got off the 
 corn pretty early last year on account of the water com- 
 
 2567 ing up. I got all the help I could and got it out. I think 
 the water came up in November. I didn’t farm it this 
 year. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfeld. 
 
 2568 In 1906 I think I raised around 3,300 bushels on about 
 sixty acres. I kept the corn until it froze up and shelled 
 it when it was froze up. I shipped it. I don’t remember 
 the price I got for it. I think the bad year I had was 
 the second or third year. I think it was 1907. It was a 
 very wet year; got in about thirty acres that year. I 
 
 2569 got about 1,800 bushels of corn off the thirty acres. 
 We shipped the corn that year. We got about forty to 
 forty-five acres in 1908 and in the other years that I was 
 there. I got a couple of times about 2,500 or 3,000 bush-. 
 els from the forty-five acres planted. I shipped it every 
 
 2570 year. Mr. Caskert shipped it for us. He said it didn’t 
 gerade at all. We got around 50 cents a bushel for it. 
 We started to work on there about the 15th of June in 
 
502 
 
 every year. The water was off by the first of June. The 
 
 water never came up before the first of November. Yes, 
 
 we could cultivate it all right. I don’t think that corn 
 2571 ripens quicker on the bottoms than it does on top lands. 
 
 I was farming right along the Illinois River. I think 
 
 the river was maybe six or eight feet below this tand. 
 2572 That is, the low water in the summer time. 
 
 Rena SmitH, a witness called for the plaintiff, testified 
 
 as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Rena Smith. I am thirty-eight years old. 
 I have lived in this country about twenty-three years. 
 2573 I live on the coal company’s place across the river. I 
 am farming some land this year on the bottoms for 
 them. It is on the west side of the Illinois Central. I 
 never saw Exhibit 13 before. The land I am farming 
 is south from the river and west from the Central. I 
 have husked corn in on this land before this year; never 
 actually farmed it. This year I have plowed the land 
 in spots; got in on the land about the first of June. There 
 2974 was water in places. It took me about three weeks to 
 2575 do my plowing. Got in about forty-three acres; planted 
 it to corn. I husked some of that corn this year. The 
 condition of it is soft. It can’t get ripe, you know. I 
 had to plant some of my corn over on account of the 
 worms eating it; about half of the corn is soft. I planted 
 2076 the corn late. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 2577 Those worms I mentioned were copper worms. I think 
 that the water brings the worms there. I think 
 the water produces the worms. On the high spots there 
 is no worms; just where the water stayed long. I haven’t 
 
503 
 
 2578 all my corn husked yet this year. I think I will have 
 about 1,800 bushels when I get it. I haven’t hauled any 
 of it to market as yet. The company have to come and 
 measure the crop. I have about 700 bushels picked; pay 
 one-third rent to the coal company. No water came up 
 on the corn in June this year after the land was planted. 
 
 20/9 There is no water there now. It was a late spring for 
 planting corn on the top land. I think that it takes 
 
 2580 about the same time to raise a crop on the bottoms that 
 it does on the uplands. 
 
 2581 ‘The following proceedings were had out of the presence 
 of the jury: 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: We wish to strike from the declaration 
 concerning which no proof has been offered in this case, 
 that part of the southwest quarter and the southeast 
 quarter of Section 14, lying south of the Illinois and 
 Michigan Canal. Also Lots A and B of Canal Com- 
 
 2582 missioners’ Subdivision of Section 15, and in each 
 eount they are out. 
 
 Motion granted. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I don’t want any mistake as to Exhibit 
 13. We would like the record to show that the 19.25 
 acres lying north and west of the Illinois River, in Sev- 
 tion 23, are not included in the declaration and are not 
 owned by the plaintiff and appear on the exhibit inad- 
 vertently. | 
 
 Mr. CuiperFIELD: We understand that is so, so there 
 is no question about that. 
 
 9583 The Court: Well, that is disposed of, then. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I also wish to strike from the declara- 
 tion the north 17.74 acres as shown on Exhibit 13 lo- 
 eated north of the bayou in the northeast quarter of 
 Section 21 and south of the Illinois and Michigan Canal. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: No objection to that. 
 
 The Court: Motion granted. 
 
504 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: In order that there may be no mistake 
 about it, | wish the record to show that we are claiming 
 no damage and have made no proof in relation to the 
 1.10 acres appearing on Exhibit 13 and located in the 
 southwest quarter of Section 23, east of the Illinois Cen- 
 tral right of way. | 
 
 I wish the record to show we are making no claim and 
 have offered no proof in relation to any part of the south 
 half of the southeast quarter of section 23, except the 
 north four and one-half acres of the south half of the 
 southeast quarter. 
 
 I simply want to introduce in evidence at this time 
 offer simply to be filed in the case order served on the 
 district by Mr. O’Donnell. I presume I can do it at this 
 time as well as at a later date. I think the statute, as 
 
 2584 it is now, provides that you can file the notice at the 
 time motion is made for allowance of attorney’s fees 
 under the statute. Mr. O’Donnell is not here. His cer- 
 tificate appears here. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Well, now, we have certain notices 
 which were served. I have them all in my possession 
 and I will have Mr. Hawthorne compare, if you will let 
 him take your notice, will have him compare them with 
 ours and, if in accord with what we have, we will admit 
 it without formal proof. 
 
 Whereupon said paper was marked for identification 
 Exhibit 21. 
 
 2585 Mr. O’Conor: And we are introducing this simply to 
 have it for use at a later date. 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLp: Until the comparison is made, 1 
 would like to reserve the right to make objections, with 
 the understanding the objections shall be made as of this 
 time. 3 
 
 The Court: Very well. 
 
505 
 
 Mr. Curperrretp: I would like to have a chance to in- 
 spect it. 
 
 The Court: All right. 
 
 Mr. Curperrirtp: There are certain things I want to 
 use there a minute when you are through. Where do 
 you get title, gentlemen, as far as papers are concerned, 
 to anything north of the north half of this piece of ground 
 extending from here to the bayou, of the northwest quar- 
 ter of 212 We have looked through your deeds with great 
 care— 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I have looked that up. 
 
 2586 Mr. Curpsrrirtp: We cannot find any title at all of 
 any kind for anything north of the half line there. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I checked that up with the deeds and 
 find that the deeds themselves do not cover that by des- 
 eription. The deeds were made in the year 1883 and we 
 elaim under the proof in this case, possession has been 
 established since that date, the year 1883; adverse pos- 
 session and the payment of taxes all the way from that 
 date down to this. 
 
 Mr. Cureerrretp: You see the title was not in you 
 until after— 
 
 The Court: No sir. 
 
 Mr. CurprerFIeLD: The title would not ripen until after 
 the cause of action accrued as to that, even on the theory 
 of adverse possession. It would be an acquisition of 
 title after, and even on that theory in 1903— 
 
 The Court: Isn’t it described in any of your deeds? 
 
 Mr. CurpeerFieitp: It is not. 
 
 The Court: No color of title to it? 
 
 “Mr. O’Conor: Ag a matter of record? 
 
 The Court: Yes, is there any paper? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: No paper title. | 
 
 The Court: Of any kind; no color of title? 
 
 Mr. Curprerrretp: No, absolutely none, unless we are 
 
506 
 
 totally wrong in our inspection of these deeds. There 
 2587 is no titie in this record that can be pointed out to that 
 
 piece of ground. 
 
 The Court: How many acres? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: The deeds don’t cover that on our 
 checking? 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLD: They don’t on ours. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: That piece that lies up here in this 
 north half of 21. 
 
 The Court: How many acres are there in there? 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Somewhere around eighteen or 
 twenty. I would not pretend to say exactly, but that is 
 our figure on it. 
 
 The Court: Do you claim adverse possession, pay- 
 ment of taxes since 1883? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: 1883, yes. 
 
 The Court:. Yes, to— 
 
 Mr. Cuiperriretp: This would be 1903. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Up to the present date. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: We claim possession under claim of 
 ownership. ; 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Even that would not ripen until 
 after. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: The cases all hold that where there is 
 a continuity of possession for the twenty years, it makes 
 a good title. 
 
 Mr. CuiperrieLtp: It makes a good title but you get 
 your title to this after the cause of action has accrued, 
 
 2588 and that is held to be at the opening of the district, and 
 
 title acquired after that would not be the basis of the 
 suit. | 
 
 Mr. Burrers: I can own land and get title to it by 
 verbal contract, without any writing at all, and maintain 
 a trespass for damages to it. 
 
 Mr. CurperFIELD: Well, that is not the question. 
 
507 
 
 Mr. Burtrers: The 6th Appellate holds that. 
 
 The Court: Well, that is— 
 
 Mr. CuriperFirytp: The question that we have got to 
 settle here— 
 
 The Court: I see what the point is. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: I have a motion that. I just wanted 
 to inquire for their position, if their position was any 
 different from ours. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: You mean as to whether or not it is cov- 
 ered by the deeds? 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Yes. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: No, it is not. 
 
 Mr. CureerFietp: Well, that is understood then. I just 
 wanted to see if there was any difference in the fact, be- 
 fore we go to the question of law. 
 
 2589 The Courr: I think the pleas remain unaffective, the 
 pleadings, on a motion to strike out. 
 2590 Mr. Burrers: We want to introduce the notice. 
 
 Mr. CuHrPerFIELD: Oh, yes, but I want to check it up 
 and put in the objections. It is understood it would be 
 put in as of this date. 
 
 Mr. Butters: You don’t object to the service? 
 
 Mr. CuHIPerFIELD: We have to get the originals. 
 
 The arrangement was this, we have the originals in 
 our possession, a copy was served and Mr. Hawthorne 
 is going to compare it with yours, as to the service, so 
 that we will have the same rights as we would have as 
 
 2591 of this time. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: Now, I have some motions, your 
 Honor, while the jury is out that I would like to have 
 appear to be made after these deeds are read, but it 
 will save time, we can save time by taking that up now. 
 
 The Court: Very well. 
 
 Mr. CurperrieLp: But I want them considered as com. 
 ing at the end of all the evidence. 
 
508 
 
 The Court: Very well. 
 
 Mr. CHIPpERFIELD: Now I want to move to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury Exhibit 1, for the reason 
 that the same does not tend to prove the plaintiff’s cause 
 of action; that the said exhibit creates a variance be- 
 tween the allegations of the declaration and the proof 
 offered; for the further reason that there is no proper 
 foundation appearing in this record for the admission 
 of said exhibit; because the same does not relate to the 
 premises described in plaintiff’s declaration; because the 
 same does not tend to establish ownership in the plain- 
 tiff; because there is no sufficient proof of the execution 
 of the same; because the same is not properly acknowl- 
 edged. 
 
 Exhibit 3, is that the deed from the Illinois Valley - 
 Company? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Yes. 
 
 Mr. CureerFietp: All right I want the same objection 
 to stand, and you will write it, Mr. Reporter, with the 
 
 2592 permission of the court, write up the record as to Ex- 
 hibits 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, 8 and 9, have the objection re- 
 stated to each of these exhibits. And also restated as 
 to Exhibit 3, with the further addition, that Exhibit 3 
 does not purport to contain a description of the prem- 
 ises but refers to other deeds therein named which have 
 not been properly or sufficiently identified as connected 
 with the premises involved in this proceeding. 
 
 2593 Mr. CurprerFirtp: I think I had better state all the 
 motions at onee while I am about it. 
 
 The Courr: No, I think we had better take them one 
 at a time. I will overrule that motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant uae its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I understand Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,°8 
 and 9 are admitted in evidence by the court. | 
 
509 
 
 The Court: Those are the ones that have been ad- 
 mitted, as I understand it. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: Mr. Reporter, in your record put 
 in 8. I don’t think I had it in my typed copy here. I 
 want it to state as to 8, too. What was Exhibit 2? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: The charter of incorporation. 
 
 Mr. CuIperrietp: Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Do I understand these are in evidence? 
 
 The Courr: The deeds? I ruled before that the deeds 
 went in. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: This is a motion to exclude on the 
 theory they are in. 
 
 The Court: Yes, I understand. I think I will over- 
 rule the motion. 7 
 
 Mr. CuIPERFIELD: As to each? - 
 
 The Court: Ags to each of them: Repeat the motion 
 to each and repeat the ruling to each motion. 
 
 2594 Mr. Curperrirtp: We move to exclude from the con- 
 sideration of the jury Exhibit 3 for the reason that it 
 does not tend to prove plaintiff’s cause of action, that 
 it creates a variance between the allegations of the deec- 
 laration and the proof offered; because there is no proper 
 
 ' foundation appearing in this record for the admission of 
 said exhibit; because it does not relate to the premises 
 deseribed in plaintiff’s declaration; because the same 
 does not tend to establish ownership in the plaintiff; be- 
 cause there is no sufficient proof of the execution of same; 
 because same is not properly acknowledged; that said 
 exhibit does not purport to contain description of the 
 premises but refers to other deeds therein named which 
 have not been properly or sufficiently identified as con- 
 nected with the premises involved in this proceeding. 
 
 The Court: I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel’then and there duly excepted. 
 
510 
 
 Mr. CuIPeRFIELD: We move to exclude from the con- 
 sideration of the jury Exhibit 4 for the reason it does not 
 tend to prove plaintiff’s cause of action; that it creates 
 
 2595 a variance between the allegations of the declaration 
 and the proof offered; because there is no proper founda- 
 tion appearing in this record for the admission of said 
 exhibit; because it does not relate to the premises des- 
 eribed in plaintiff’s declaration; because the same does 
 not tend to establish ownership in the plaintiff; because 
 there is no sufficient proof of the execution of the same; 
 because same is not properly acknowledged. 
 
 The Court: I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: We move to exclude from the con- 
 sideration of the jury Exhibit 5 for the reason that it 
 does not tend to prove plaintiff’s cause of action; that it 
 creates a variance between the allegations of the dec- 
 laration and the proof offered; because there 1s no proper 
 foundation appearing in this record for the admission 
 
 2596 of said exhibit; because it does not relate to the prem- 
 ises described in plaintiff’s declaration; because the same 
 does not tend to establish ownership in the plaintiff; be- - 
 eause there is no sufficient proof of the execution of the 
 same; because same is not properly acknowledged. 
 
 The Court: I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 eounsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CurperrieLp: We move to exclude from the con- 
 sideration of the jury Exhibit 7 for the reason that it 
 
 2597 does not tend to prove plaintiff’s cause of action; that 
 it creates a variance between the allegations of the dec- 
 laration and the proof offered; because there is no proper 
 foundation in this record for the admission of said ex- 
 hibit; because it does not relate to the premises des- 
 
511 
 
 eribed in plaintiff’s declaration; because the same does 
 not tend to establish ownership in the plaintiff; because 
 there is no sufficient proof of the execution of the same; 
 because same is not properly acknowledged. 
 
 The Court: I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: We move to exclude from the con- 
 sideration of the jury Exhibit 8 for the reason that it 
 
 -does not tend to prove plaintiff’s cause of action; that it 
 ereates a variance between the allegations of the dec- 
 laration and the proof offered; because there is no pro- 
 per foundation appearing in this record for the admis- 
 sion of said exhibit; because it does not relate to the 
 premises described in plaintiff’s declaration; because the 
 same does not tend to establish ownership in the plain- 
 tiff; because there is no sufficient proof of the execution 
 of the same; because same is not properly acknowledged. 
 
 2598 The Court: I will overrule the motion. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CuipPerFieLD: We move to exclude from the con- 
 sideration of the jury Exhibit 9 for the reason that it 
 does not tend to prove plaintiff’s cause of action; that 
 it creates a variance between the allegations of the dec- 
 laration and the proof offered; because there is no pro- 
 per foundation appearing in this record for the admission 
 of said exhibit; because it does not relate to the prem- 
 ises described in plaintiff’s declaration; because the 
 same does not tend to establish ownership in the plain- 
 tiff; because there is no sufficient proof of the execution 
 of the same; because same is not properly acknowledged. 
 
 The Court: I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted, 
 
912 
 
 2599 Mr. CHIPeRFIELD: We desire to move to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury the testimony of each and 
 every witness upon the part of the plaintiff, with refer- 
 ence to the overflow of plaintiff’s premises or to the in- 
 jury of any crop, or of the condition of any crop, or of 
 the value of any crop, or of the use to which plaintiff 
 might have put such premises since the 17th day of Janu- 
 ary, 1900. 
 
 The theory on which this motion is made is that the 
 eause of action of the plaintiff became completed upon 
 putting into operation the permanent use of the improve- 
 ment authorized by the statute. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule that motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CuIPerFIELD: Now, I wish to move to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury the testimony of each and 
 every witness upon the part of the plaintiff, with refer- 
 ence to the overflow of the plaintiff’s premises or to the 
 injury to any crop, or of the condition of any crop, or 
 the value of any crop, or of the use to which plaintiff 
 might have put such premises since the lst day of July, 
 1902. 
 
 The theory on which this motion is made is that prior 
 
 2600 to the Ist day of July, 1902, the operation of the dis- 
 trict was such that the effect of the use of the improve- 
 ment was plainly perceptible. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Cuiprerrigetp: Now, we desire to move to exclude 
 from the consideration of the jury the testimony of every 
 witness upon the part of the plaintiff with reference to 
 the overflow of plaintiff’s premises, or to the injury of 
 any crop, or of the condition of any crop, or of the value 
 
O13 
 
 of any crop, or of the use to which the plaintiff might 
 have put such premises 
 
 
 
 What is the date of the praecipe in this case? Isn’t it 
 the 11th? The summons is dated the 14th. —since the 
 14th day of January, 1905. 
 
 The theory on which this motion is made is that the 
 cause of action at that time became complete and that if 
 there is a recovery by the plaintiff it must be upon those 
 causes of action which had accrued and those injuries 
 which had been done prior to the date of the issuance of 
 the summons In this ease. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule that motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CureerFieLtp: Now, we desire to move to strike out 
 and exclude from the consideration of the jury any and 
 all evidence with reference to all overflow of the land in 
 controversy in this case, for the reason that it 1s not 
 shown by the evidence upon the part of the plaintiff 
 what part, if any, of this overflow the defendant in this 
 ‘ease is responsible for, but puts the burden of proof upon 
 the defendant in this case to show what the quantity of 
 overflow. was and to determine where the responsibility 
 for such overflow rested. 
 
 The Court: J think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 ''o which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CurperrieLD: We desire to move to exclude all 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference to 
 injury to any crops upon the premises in question for 
 the years 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 
 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911 and 1912. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: Read that to me, please. 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLp: We desire to move to exclude all the 
 evidence of each and every witness with reference to in- 
 
014 
 
 Jury to any crops upon the premises in question for the 
 years 1900, 1901, 1902 and then down to and including 
 1912: 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 2602 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CuIPerRFIELD: Now, then I want to restate that 
 motion separately for each year. 
 
 The Court: Very well. 
 
 Mr. CureerFietp: That will be restated as many times 
 as there are years from 1900 to 1912, inclusive. 
 
 The Court: And you may repeat my ruling. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: We desire to move to exclude all of 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference 
 to injury to any crops upon the premises in question, for 
 the year 1900. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: We desire to move to exclude all of 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference 
 to injury to any crops upon the premises in question, 
 for the year 1901. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: We desire to move to exclude all of 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference to 
 injury to any crops upon the premises in question, for 
 the year 1902. 
 
 2603. The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Curprerrigtp: We desire to move to exclude all of 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference to 
 
o15 
 
 injury to any crops upon the premises in question, for 
 the year 1903. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: We desire to move to exclude all 
 of the evidence of each and every witness with reference 
 to injury to any crops upon the premises in question, for 
 the year 1904. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Curpsrrie.p: We desire to move to exclude all of 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference 
 to injury to any crops upon the premises in question, for 
 the year 1905. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: We desire to move to exclude all 
 
 2604 of the evidence of each and every witness with reference 
 to injury to any crops upon the premises in question, for 
 the years 1906. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: We desire to move to exclude all 
 of the evidence of each and every witness with reference 
 to injury to any crops upon the premises in question, for 
 the year 1907. 
 
 The Court: J think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: We desire to move to exclude all 
 of the evidence of each and every witness with reference 
 
516 
 
 to injury to any crops upon the premises in question, for 
 the year 1908. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 T'o which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLp: We desire to move to exclude all 
 of the evidence of each and every witness with reference 
 to injury to any crops upon the premises in question, for 
 the year 1909. 
 
 2605 the Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: We desire to move to exclude all 
 of the evidence of each and every witness with reference 
 to injury to any crops upon the premises in question, for 
 the year 1910. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CurpErRFIELD: We desire to move to exelude all 
 of the evidence of each and every witness with reference 
 to injury to any crops upon the premises in question, for 
 the year 1911. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CHIpErRFIELD: We desire to move to exclude all 
 of the evidence of each and every witness with reference 
 to injury to any crops upon the premises in question, for 
 the year 1912. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 2606 Mr. Curprerrretp: We also desire to move to exclude 
 from the consideration of the jury all of the testimony 
 
O17 
 
 in reference to the quality of crops raised upon the lands 
 in controversy at any time either prior to or subsequent 
 to the filing of the declaration in this suit, for the reason 
 that the same is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, 
 and does not tend to establish any of the issues in this 
 case. 
 
 The Courr: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFIeLD: We move to exclude from the con- 
 sideration of the jury all of the following described prem- 
 ses: 
 
 All of the north half— 
 
 The Court: Let me see what this is. 
 
 Mr. Cmperrrietp: That is this piece where there is no 
 title. 
 
 The Court: I see. 
 
 Mr. Cuipsrrisytp: All of the north half of the north- 
 west quarter of section 21, township 33 north, range 1 
 east of the 3d principal meridian, lying south of the [- 
 linois River and east of the bayou, as the same appears 
 upon Exhibit 13. 
 
 Now, in that matter if your Honor meas I don’t care 
 to argue it because the matters are known to the court 
 
 2607 and the court is as well advised without any argument 
 from us as it would be with it. That is a part where 
 there is absolutely no record of title in this case. We 
 are denying especially ownership. 
 
 The Courr: That is the case where if they have any 
 title by adverse possession it matured subsequent to the 
 commencement of this suit? 
 
 Mr. CureeRFIELD: Yes, sir. 
 
 The Court: Subsequent to the— 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLD: Seventeenth day of January, 1903. 
 
 The Court: I think I understand it. 
 
518 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLtp: All right. 
 
 The Court: I am inclined to think I ought to over- 
 rule that motion, although I am not as well advised on 
 the proposition as I ought to be, but I will allow the mo- 
 tion to stand as overruled for the present. If I conclude 
 hereafter to reverse that I will notify both sides to that 
 effect. . 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: I also want to move to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury the following described 
 premises: 
 
 Lot 2 in the west half of the southwest quarter of Sec- 
 tion 24, Township 33 North, Range 4, east of the Third 
 Principal Meridian, La Salle County, Illinois, for the 
 
 2608 reason that no proof has been offered in this case to 
 sustain the allegations of the declaration with reference 
 thereto. 
 
 That is this little piece down here by the river and 
 lying east of the C., B & Q. Railroad. 
 
 The Courr: No proof has been offered touching that? 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: There has been no proof offered 
 upon that land. 
 
 The Court: I am not prepared to speak with confi- 
 dence in that matter. I must necessarily trust the judg- 
 ment and advice of plaintiff’s lawyers on that subject. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: If there is any doubt on that I want that 
 witness to come back, your Honor. 
 
 Mr. CurperFIeLpD: I have no objection to that. 
 
 The Courr: Well, the record will show, if you want 
 the record written up. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I beg pardon. 
 
 The Court: The record will show if you want the rec- 
 ord written up. You can see it. 
 
O19 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: He will get away at ten minutes to 
 twelve. 
 
 And the court sustained said objection and excluded 
 from the consideration of the jury the evidence as 
 to lot 2 in the west half of the southwest quarter 
 of Section 24, Township 33 North, Range 1 east 
 of the Third Principal Meridian, La Salle County, 
 Illinois. 
 
 2609 Mr. Curprrrietp: We move to exclude from the testi- 
 money in this case the testimony of W. A. Means upon 
 the question of the value of the premises described in 
 the plaintiff’s declaration for the following reason: 
 
 Furst. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness for the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 Second. That said witness in the giving of said testi- 
 mony has shown no such acquaintance with the premises 
 and values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify 
 him for the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 Third. That said witness in his expression of opinion 
 did not state, or attempt to state, the fair cash market 
 value of the premises involved. 
 
 Fourth. That in the expression of such opinion said 
 witness adopted an wunproper basis; that is to say, that 
 said witness expressed an opinion as to the value of said 
 land merely from the standpoint of what the said land 
 would produce for agricultural purposes, without refer- 
 ence to its real or actual fair cash market value. 
 
 Fifth. That the said witness did not include in the 
 
 2610 estimation of the value of said premises the coal con- 
 tained therein, but did exclude the same from his opinion 
 and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 Siath. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in said deeds which 
 
520 
 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case, for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a 
 value on said premises without regard to said exceptions 
 or reservations as therein contained. 
 
 Seventh. That said witness refused to consider the 
 fair eash market value of said premises from the stand- 
 point of the highest and best use that could be made 
 thereof, 
 
 Eighth. That said witness in the expression of an opin- 
 ion as to the values given by him merely took into con- 
 sideration the value of said premises from the stand- 
 point of the use and adaptability of said premises for 
 the purpose of raising corn. 
 
 Ninth. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises until 
 the date of the giving of his testimony with reference 
 to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis thereof 
 to the court, the jury or counsel, but was permitted and 
 
 2611 required to state an opinion upon the basis of matters 
 which were known only to himself and not disclosed upon 
 this hearing. 
 
 Tenth, That said witness in the expression of his 
 opinion was permitted to take into consideration the con- 
 dition of said premises subsequent to the date of the fil- 
 ing of the declaration herein, to-wit, the 14th day of Jan- 
 uary, 1905, and up to and including the time of the giv- 
 ing of his testimony. 
 
 Eleventh. That the said witness in the expression of 
 his opinion as to the injury of the premises involved here- 
 in was required to take into consideration all overflow of 
 the premises described in the plaintiff’s declaration with- 
 out reference to whether or not such overflow was caused 
 by acts under the discretion and control of the defendant 
 to this suit, but was permitted to assume that all the in- 
 
O21 
 
 jury which they claim had occurred to the said premises 
 was caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: Whose testimony is that? 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLpD: That is W. A. Means. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule that motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CurperFicLtp: I want to repeat that same motion 
 
 2612 to Joseph Grainer, Henry Ream, Henry Myer, Charles 
 Mudge, Ed. Pyka, Charles Castendyck, Otto Halm, George 
 W. Brown, Fred A. Mudge, M. J. Charley, Abraham 
 Voorhees, Charles Dooley—what was the name of that 
 Mudge who was on the stand later? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Fred Mudge. 
 
 Mr. CutreerFieLp: Oh, yes, I have got the other Mudge 
 in there. That is all right. 1 want to repeat that, the 
 full motion, in reference to each and every one of those 
 witnesses, so you will please repeat it each time. 
 
 The Court: And you will repeat my ruling. 
 
 Mr. CurprrFieELD: We move to exclude from the testi- 
 mony in this case the testimony of Joseph Grainer upon 
 the question of the value of the premises described in 
 the plaintiff’s declaration, for the following reasons: 
 
 First. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness for the expression of opin- 
 ion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 Second. That said witness in the giving of said testi- 
 mony has shown no such acquaintance with the premises 
 and values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify 
 him for the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 Third. That said witness in his expression of opinion 
 did not state or attempt to state the fair cash market 
 value of the premises involved. 
 
 2613 Fourth. That in the expression of such opinion said 
 witness adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 
522 
 
 said witness expressed an opinion as to the value of 
 said land merely from the standpoint of what the said 
 land would produce for agricultural purposes without 
 reference to its real or actual fair cash market value. 
 
 Fifth. That the said witness did not include in the es- 
 timation of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 Siath. That said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various exceptions 
 and reservations contained in the said deeds which had 
 been introduced by the plaintiff in this case, for the pur- 
 pose of attempting to prove title, but did place a value 
 on said premises without regard to said exceptions or 
 reservations as therein contained 
 
 Seventh. That said witness refused to consider the 
 fair cash market value of said premises from the stand- 
 point of the highest and best use that could be made 
 thereof. 
 
 Eighth. That said witness in the expression of opinion 
 as to values given by him merely took into consideration 
 the value of said premises from the standpoint of the 
 
 2614 use and adaptability for the purpose of raising corn. 
 
 Ninth. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 the values said witness was permitted to take into con- 
 sideration everything which he knew about said premises 
 until the date of the giving of his said testimony with 
 reference to the value thereof, without disclosing the 
 basis therefor to the court or jury or counsel; but was 
 permitted and required to state an opinion upon the basis 
 of matters which were known only to himself and not 
 disclosed upon this hearing. 
 
 Tenth. That said witness in the expression of his 
 opinion was permitted to take into consideration the con- 
 dition of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 
523 
 
 of the declaration therein, to wit, the 14th day of Jan- 
 uary, 1905, and up to and including the time of the giving 
 of his testimony. 
 
 Eleventh. That the said witness in the expression of 
 his opinion as to the injury to the premises involved here- 
 in was required to take into consideration the overflow 
 of the premises described in the plaintiff’s declaration, 
 without reference to whether or not such overflow was 
 caused by acts under the discretion and control of the 
 defendant to this suit, but was permitted to assume that 
 all the injury which they claim had occurred to said 
 premises was caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule that motion. 
 
 2615 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CuHiperFiceLD: We move to exclude from the testi- 
 money in this case the testimony of Henry Ream upon 
 the question of values of the premises described in the 
 plaintiff’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 
 First. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of opin- 
 ion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 Second. That said witness in the giving of said testi- 
 mony has shown no such acquaintance with the premises 
 and value of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify 
 him for the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 Third. That said witness in his expression of opinion 
 did not state or attempt to state the fair cash market 
 value of the premises involved. 
 
 Fourth. That in the expression of such opinion said 
 witness adopted an improper basis; that 1s to say, that 
 said witness expressed an opinion as to the value of said 
 land merely from the standpoint of what the said land 
 would produce for agricultural purposes, without refer- 
 ence to its real or actual fair cash market value. 
 
024 
 
 Fifth. That said witness did not include in the estima- 
 tion of the value of said premises the coal that was cons 
 tained therein, but did exclude the same from this opin. 
 
 2616 ion and refuse to consider the value thereof, 
 
 Sixth. That the said witness did not exclude from 
 the fair cash market value of said land the various ex- 
 ceptions and reservations contained in the said deeds 
 which have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case 
 for the purpose of attempting to prove title, but did 
 ‘place a value on said premises without regard to said 
 exceptions or reservations therein contained. | 
 
 Seventh. That said witness refused to consider the 
 fair eash market value of said premises from the stand- 
 point of the highest and best use that could be made 
 thereof. 
 
 Eighth. That said witness in the expression of opinion 
 as to the value given by him merely took into considera- 
 tion the value of said premises from the standpoint of the 
 use and adaptability of said premises for the purpose 
 of raising corn. 
 
 Ninth. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises until 
 the date of the giving of his said testimony with refer- 
 ence to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis 
 therefor to the court or Jury or counsel, but was permitted 
 and required to state an opinion upon the basis of mat- 
 ters which were known only to himself and not disclosed 
 
 2617 upon this hearing. 
 
 Tenth. That said witness in the expression of his opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to wit, the 14th day of Jan- 
 uary, 1905, and up to and including the time of the giving 
 of his testimony. 
 
525 
 
 Eleventh. 'That the said witness in the expression of 
 his opmion as to the injury to the premises involved 
 herein was required to take into consideration the over- 
 flow of the premises described in the plaintiff’s declara- 
 tion, without reference to whether or not such overflow 
 was caused by acts under the discretion and control of 
 the defendant to this suit, but was permitted to assume 
 that all of the injury which they claim had occurred to 
 said premises was caused by the act of the defendant 
 herein. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule that motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CureperFIELD: We move to exclude from the testi- 
 mony in this case the testimony of Henry Myer upon the 
 question of values of the premises described in the plain- 
 tiff’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 
 First. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of the 
 
 2618 opinion as to the fair eash market value. 
 
 Second. That said witness in the giving of said testi- 
 mony has shown no acquaintance with the premises and 
 values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him 
 for the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 Third. That said witness in his expression of opinion 
 did not state or attempt to state the fair cash market 
 value of the premises involved. 
 
 Fourth. That in the expression of such opinion said 
 witness adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 said witness expressed an opinion as to the value of 
 said land merely from the standpoint of what the said 
 land would produce for agricultural purposes, without 
 reference to its real, actual fair cash market value. 
 
 Fifth. That said witness did not include in the assump- 
 tion of the value of said premises the coal that was con- 
 
526 
 
 tained therein, but did exclude the same from his opin- 
 ion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 Sixth. That said witness did not exclude from the fair 
 cash market value of said lands the various exceptions 
 and reservations contained in the said deeds which have 
 been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for the pur- 
 pose of attempting to prove title, but did place a value 
 on said premises without regard to said exceptions or 
 reservations as therein contained. 
 
 2619 Seventh. That said witness refused to consider the 
 fair cash market value of said premises from the stand- 
 point of the highest and best use that could be made 
 thereof. 
 
 Eighth. That said witness in the expression of opin- 
 ion as to the values given by him merely took into con- 
 sideration the value of said premises from the standpoint 
 of the use and adaptability of said premises for the pur- 
 pose of raising corn. 
 
 Ninth. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises un- 
 til the date of the giving of his said testimony, with ref- 
 erence to the value thereof without disclosing the basis 
 therefor to the court or jury or counsel, but was permitted 
 and required to state an opinion which was based on 
 matters which were known only to himself and not dis- 
 closed upon this hearing. 
 
 Tenth. That said witness in the expression of his opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to wit, on the 14th day of Jan- 
 uary, 1905, and up to and including the time of the giving 
 of his testimony. 
 
 Eleventh. That the said witness in the expression of 
 
 2620 his opinion as to the injury to the premises involved 
 
527 
 
 herein was required to take into consideration the over- 
 flow of the premises described in plaintiff’s declaration, 
 without reference to whether or not such overflow was 
 eaused by acts under the discretion and control of the 
 defendant to this suit, but was permitted to assume that 
 all of the injury which they claim had occurred to said 
 premises was caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the objection. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Cureerristp: We move to exclude from the testi- 
 mony in this case the testimony of Charles Mudge upon 
 the question of the value of the premises described in 
 the plaintiff’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 
 First. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of the 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 Second. That said witness in the giving of said testi- 
 mony has shown no such acquaintance with the premises 
 and values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify 
 him for the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 Third, That said witness in his expression of opinion 
 
 2621 did not state or attempt to state the fair cash market 
 value of the premises involved. 
 
 Fourth. That in the expression of such opinion said 
 witness adopted an improper basis. That is to say, that 
 such witness expressed an opinion as to the value of said 
 land merely from the standpoint of what the said land 
 would produce for agricultural purposes, without refer- 
 ence to its real or actual fair cash market value. 
 
 Fifth. That the said witness did not include in the 
 assumption of the value of said premises the coal that 
 was contained therein, but did exclude the same from 
 his opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 Siath. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 
528 
 
 fair cash market value of said lands the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a value 
 on said premises without regard to said exceptions or 
 reservations therein contained. 
 
 Seventh. That said witness refused to consider the 
 fair cash market value of said premises from the stand- 
 point of the highest and best use that could be made 
 thereof. 
 
 Eighth. That said witness in the expression of opinion 
 
 2622 as to the values given by him merely took into considera- 
 tion the value of said premises from the standpoint of 
 the use and adaptability of said premises for the purpose 
 of raising corn. 
 
 Ninth. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values, said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises until 
 the date of the giving of his said testimony, with refer- 
 ence to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis 
 therefor to the court or jury or counsel, but was permit- 
 ted and required to state an opinion upon the basis of 
 matters which were known only to himself and not dis- 
 closed upon his hearing. 
 
 Tenth. That said witness in the expression of his opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to wit, the 14th day of Jan- 
 uary, 1905, and up to and including the time of the giving 
 of his testimony. 
 
 Eleventh. That the said witness in the expression of 
 his opinion as to the injury to the premises involved 
 herein was required to take into consideration the over- 
 flow of the premises described in plaintiff’s declaration 
 without reference to whether or not such overflow was 
 
529 
 
 eaused by acts under the discretion and control of the 
 2623 defendant in this suit, but was permitted to assume that 
 all the injury which they claim had occurred to said 
 premises was caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Cuiprerrigtp: We move to exclude from the testi- 
 mony in this case the testimony of Ed Pyka upon the 
 question of values of the premises described in the plain- 
 tiff’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 
 Furst. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 Second. That said witness in the giving of said testi- 
 mony has shown no such acquaintance with the premises 
 and values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify 
 him for the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 Third. That said witness in his expression of opinion 
 did not state or attempt to state the fair cash market 
 value of the premises involved. 
 
 Fourth. That in the expression of such opinion said 
 witness adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 said witness expressed an opinion as to the value of said 
 land merely from the standpoint of what the said land 
 
 2624 would produce for agricultural purposes without refer- 
 ence to its real or actual fair cash market value. 
 
 Fifth. That the said witness did not include in the 
 assumption of the value of said premises the coal that 
 was contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 Sixth. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for the 
 
530 
 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a value 
 on said premises without regard to said exceptions or 
 reservations therein contained. 
 
 Seventh. That said witness refused to consider the 
 fair cash market value of said premises from the stand- 
 point of the highest and best use that could be made 
 
 , thereof, 
 
 Eighth. That said witness in the expression of opinion 
 as to the values given by him merely took into considera- 
 tion the value of said premises from the standpoint of 
 the use and adaptability of said premises for the purpose 
 of raising corn. 
 
 Ninth. That in the expression of. said opinion as to 
 values said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises until 
 
 2625 the date of the giving of his said testimony with refer- 
 ence to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis 
 therefor to the court or Jury or counsel, but was permit- 
 ted and required to state an opinion upon the basis of 
 matters which were known only to himself and not dis- 
 closed upon this hearing. 
 
 Tenth, That said witness in the expression of his opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to wit, the 14th day of Jan- 
 uary, 1905, and up to and including the time of the giving 
 of his testimony. . 
 
 Eleventh. That the said witness in the expression of 
 his opinion as to the injury to the premises involved 
 herein was required to take into consideration the over- 
 flow of the premises described in the plaintiff’s declara- 
 tion, without reference to whether or not such overflow 
 was caused by acts under the discretion and control of 
 the defendant to this suit, but was permitted to assume 
 that all of the injury which they claim had occurred to 
 
531 
 
 said premises was caused by the act of the defendant 
 herein. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule that motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 2625 Mr. CurprrrieLD; We move to exclude from the testi- 
 mony in this case the testimony of Charles Castendyck 
 upon the question of values of the premises described in 
 the plaintiff’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 
 First. That no sufficiént foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of the 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 Second, That said witness in the giving of said testi- 
 mony has shown no such acquaintance with the premises 
 and values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify 
 him for the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 Third. That said witness in his expression of opinion 
 did not state or attempt to state the fair cash market 
 value of the premises involved. 
 
 Fourth. That in the expression of such opinion said 
 witness adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 such witness expressed an opinion as to the value of said 
 land merely from the standpoint of what the said lands 
 would produce for agricultural purposes without refer- 
 ence to its real or actual fair cash market value. 
 
 Fifth. That the said witness did not include in the as- 
 sumption of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 
 ' opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 Sixth. That the said witness did not exclude from 
 the fair cash market value of said land the various ex- 
 ceptions and reservations contained in the said deeds 
 which have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case 
 for the purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place 
 a value on said premises without regard to said excep- 
 tions or reservations therein contained. 
 
532 
 
 Seventh. That said witness refused to consider the 
 fair cash market value of said premises from the stand- 
 point of the highest and best use that could be made 
 thereof. 
 
 Highth. That said witness in the expression of opinion 
 as to the values given by him merely took into considera- 
 tion the value of said premises from the standpoint of 
 the use and adaptability of said premises for the purpose 
 of raising corn. 
 
 Ninth. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises until 
 the date of the giving of his said testimony with refer- 
 ence to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis 
 therefor to the court or jury or counsel, but was permit- 
 ted and required to state an opinion upon the basis of 
 
 2628 matters which were known only to himself and not dis- 
 closed upon this hearing. 
 
 Tenth. That said witness in the expression of his opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to wit, the 14th day of Jan- 
 uary, 1905, and up to and including the time of the giving 
 of his testimony. 
 
 Eleventh. That the said witness in the expression of 
 his opinion as to the injury in the premises involved 
 herein was required to take into consideration the over- 
 flow of the premises described in the plaintiff’s declara- 
 tion, without reference to whether or not such overflow 
 was caused by acts under the discretion and the control 
 of the defendant to this suit, but was permitted to as- 
 sume that all of the injury which they say had occurred 
 to said premises was caused by the act of the defendant 
 herein. 
 
533 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule that motion. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Curperrigtp: We move to exclude from the testi- 
 mony in this case the testimony of Otto Halm upon the 
 question of values of the premises described in the plain- 
 tiff’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 
 2629 First. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression oe an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 Second. That said witness in the giving of said testi- 
 mony has shown no such acquaintance with the premises 
 and values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him 
 for the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 Third. That the said witness in his expression of opin- 
 ion did not state or attempt to state the fair cash market 
 value of the premises involved. 
 
 Fourth. That in the expression of such opinion said 
 witness adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 such witness expressed an opinion as to the value of said 
 land merely from the standpoint of what the said land 
 would produce for agricultural purposes, without refer- 
 ence to its real or actual fair cash market value. 
 
 Fifth. That the said witness would not include in the 
 assumption of the value of said premises the coal that 
 was contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof, 
 
 Siath. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various exceptions 
 and reservations contained in the said deeds which have 
 been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for the pur- 
 
 2630 pose of attempting to prove title, but did place a value 
 on said premises without regard to said exceptions or 
 reservations therein contained. 
 
 Seventh. That said witness refused to consider the 
 
534 
 
 fair cash market value of said premises from the stand- 
 point of the highest and best use that could be made 
 thereof. 
 
 Eighth. That said witness in the expression of opin- 
 ion as to the values given by him merely took into con- 
 sideration the value of said premises from the stand- 
 point of the use and adaptability of said premises for the 
 purpose of raising corn. 
 
 Ninth. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 value ‘said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises until ~ 
 the date of the giving of his said testimony with reference 
 to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis therefor 
 to the court or jury or counsel, but was permitted and 
 required to state an opinion upon the basis of matters 
 which were known only to himself and not disclosed upon 
 this hearing. 
 
 Tenth. That said witness in the expression of his opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 
 2631 of the declaration herein, to wit, the 14th day of Jan- 
 uary, 1905, and up to and including the time of the giving 
 of his testimony. 
 
 Eleventh. That the said witness in the expression of 
 his opinion as to the injury to the premises involved 
 herein was required to take into consideration the over- 
 flow of the premises deseribed in plaintiff’s declaration 
 without reference to whether or not such overflow was 
 eaused by acts under the discretion and control of the 
 defendant to this suit, but was permitted to assume that 
 all of the injury which they claim had occurred to said 
 premises was caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule that motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
535 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: We move to exclude from the testi- 
 mony in this case the testimony of George W. Brown, 
 upon the question of values of the premises described in 
 the plaintiff’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 
 First. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 Second. That said witness in the giving of said testi- 
 
 2632 mony has shown no such acquaintance with the premises 
 and value of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him 
 for the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 Third. That said witness in his expression of opinion 
 did not state or attempt to state the fair cash market 
 value of the premises involved. 
 
 Fourth. That in the expression of such opinion said 
 witness adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 said witness expressed an opinion as to the value of said 
 land merely from the standpoint of what the said land 
 would produce for agricultural purposes, without refer- 
 ence to its real or actual fair cash market value. 
 
 Fifth. That the said witness did not include in the as- 
 sumption of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his opin- 
 ion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 Sixth. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a 
 value on said premises without regard to said exceptions 
 or reservations therein contained. 
 
 2633 Seventh. That said witness refused to consider the fair 
 eash market value of said premises from the standpoint 
 of the highest and best use that could be made thereof. 
 
 Exghth. That said witness in the expression of opin- 
 
536 
 
 ion as to the values given by him merely took into consid- 
 eration the value of said premises from the standpoint of 
 the use and adaptability of the said premises for the 
 purpose of raising corns 
 
 Ninth. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values, said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises until 
 the date of the giving of his said testimony with reference 
 to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis there- 
 for to the court or jury or counsel, but was permitted 
 and required to state an opinion upon the basis of mat- 
 ters which were known only to himself and not disclosed 
 upon this hearing. 
 
 Tenth. That said witness in the expression of his opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to wit, the 14th day of Jan- 
 uary, 1905, and up to and including the time of the giving 
 of his testimony. 
 Eleventh. That the said witness in the expression of 
 his opinion as to the injury to the premises involved here- 
 2634 in was required to take into consideration the overflow 
 of the premises described in plaintiff’s declaration with- 
 out reference to whether or not such overflow was caused 
 by acts under the discretion or control of the defendant 
 to this suit, but was permitted to assume that all of the 
 injury which they claim had occurred to said premises 
 was caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 The Courr: I think I will overrule that motion. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLp: We move to exclude from the testi- 
 mony in this case the testimony of Fred A. Mudge upon 
 the question of the value of the premises described in 
 the plaintiff’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 
. 037 
 
 First. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 Second. That said witness in the giving of said testi- 
 mony has shown no such acquaintance with the premises 
 and values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him 
 for the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 Third, That said witness in his expression of opinion 
 did not state or attempt to state the fair cash market, 
 value of the premises involved. 
 
 Fourth. That in the expression of said opinion said 
 
 2635 witness adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 
 said witness expressed an opinion as to the value of said, 
 
 land merely from the standpoint of what the said land 
 
 would produce for agricultural purposes, without refer- 
 ence to its real or actual fair cash market value. 
 
 Fifth. That the said witness did not inelude in the as- 
 sumption of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 Sixth. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a value 
 on said premises without regard to said exceptions or 
 reservations therein contained. 
 
 Seventh. That said witness refused to consider the 
 fair cash market value of said premises from the stand- 
 point of the highest and best use that could be made 
 thereof. 
 
 Eighth. That said witness in the expression of opin- 
 ion as to the values given by him merely took into con- 
 sideration the value of said premises from the standpoint 
 
038 
 
 of the use and adaptability of said premises for the pur- 
 2636 pose of raising corn. 
 
 Ninth. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises until 
 the date of the giving of his said testimony with refer- 
 ence to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis 
 therefor to the court or jury or counsel, but was permit- 
 ted and required to state an opinion upon the basis of mat- 
 ters which were known only to himself and not disclosed 
 upon this hearing. 
 
 Tenth. hat said witness in the expression of his 
 opinion was permitted to take into consideration the con- 
 dition of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to wit, the 14th day of Jan- 
 uary, 1905, and up to and including the time of the‘giving 
 of his testimony. 
 
 Eleventh. That the said witness in the expression of 
 his opinion as to the injury to the premises involved 
 herein was required to take into consideration the over- 
 flow of the premises described in plaintiff’s declaration 
 without reference to whether or not such overflow was 
 eaused by acts under the discretion and control of the de- 
 fendant to this suit, but was permitted to assume that all 
 of the injury which they claim had occurred to said prem- 
 ises was caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 
 °637 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Curperrrenp: We move to exclude from the testi- 
 mony in this case the testimony of M. J. Charley, upon 
 the question of value of the premises deseribed in the 
 plaintiff’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 
 Furst. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 
539 
 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 Second, That said witness in the giving of said testi- 
 mony has shown no such acquaintance with the premises 
 and values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him 
 for the expression of an opinion thereof. 
 
 Third. That said witness in his expression of opinion 
 did not state or attempt to state the fair cash market 
 value of the premises involved, 
 
 Fourth. That in the expression of such opinion said 
 witness adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 said witness expressed an opinion as to the value of said 
 land merely from the standpoint of what the said land 
 would produce for agricultural purposes, without refer- 
 ence to its real or actual fair cash market value. 
 
 Iafth. That said witness did not inelude in the assump- 
 tion of the value of said premises the coal that was con- 
 tained therein, but did exclude the same from his opinion 
 
 2635 and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 Siath. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a value 
 on said premises without regard to said exceptions or 
 reservations therein contained. | 
 
 Seventh. That said witness refused to consider the 
 fair cash market value of said premises from the stand- 
 point of the highest and best use that could be made 
 thereof. 
 
 Eighth. That said witness in the expression of opinion 
 as to the values given by him merely took into considera- 
 tion the value of said premises from the standpoint of 
 the use and adaptability of said premises for the purpose 
 of raising corn. 
 
540 
 
 Ninth. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises until 
 the date of the giving of his said testimony with reference 
 to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis therefor, 
 to the court or jury or counsel, but was permitted and 
 required to state an opinion upon the basis of matters 
 which were known only to himself and not disclosed upon 
 this hearing. 
 
 2639 Tenth. That said witness in the expression of his opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to wit, the 14th day of Jan- 
 uary, 1905, and up to and including the time of the giving 
 of his testimnoy. 
 
 Eleventh, That said witness in the expression of his 
 opinion as to the injury to the premises involved herein 
 was required to take into consideration the overflow of 
 the premises described in the plaintiff’s declaration witlt 
 out reference to whether or not such overflow was caused 
 by acts under the discretion and control of the defendant 
 to this suit, but was permitted to assume that all of the 
 injury which they claim had occurred to said premises 
 was caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule that motion. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CutperFiIELD: We move to exclude from the testi- 
 mony in this ease the testimony of Abraham Voorhees 
 upon the question of values of the premises described in 
 the plaintiff’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 
 First. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 2640 Second. That said witness in the giving of said testi- 
 
041 
 
 mony has shown no such acquaintance with the premises 
 and values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify 
 him for the expression of an opinion thereon. ; 
 
 Third. That said witness in his expression of opinion 
 did not state or attempt to state the fair cash market 
 value of the premises involved. 
 
 Fourth. That in the expression of such opinion said 
 witness adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 such witness expressed an opinion as to the value of said 
 land merely from the standpoint of what the said land 
 would produce for agricultural purposes, without refer- 
 ence to its real or actual cash market value. 
 
 Fifth. That the said witness did not include in the as- 
 sumption of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 Siath. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various exceptions 
 and reservations contained in the said deeds which have 
 been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for the pur- 
 pose of attempting to prove title, but did place a value 
 on said premises without regard to said exceptions or 
 reservations therein contained. 
 
 Seventh. That said witness refused to consider the 
 fair cash market value of said premises from the stand- 
 
 2641 point of the highest and best use that could be made 
 thereof. 
 
 Eighth. hat said witness in the expression of opin- 
 ion as to the values given by him merely took into con- 
 sideration the value of said premises from the stand- 
 point of the use and adaptability of said premises for 
 the purpose of raising corn. 
 
 Ninth. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew of said premises until the 
 
542 
 
 date of the giving of his said testimony with reference to 
 the values thereof, without disclosing the basis there- 
 for to the court or counsel or Jury, but was permitted 
 and required to state an opinion upon the basis of mat- 
 ters which were known only to himself and not disclosed 
 upon this hearing. 
 
 Tenth. That said witness in the expression of his 
 opinion was permitted to take into consideration the con- 
 dition of said premises subsequent to the date of the 
 filing of the declaration herein, to-wit, the 14th day of 
 January, 1905, up to and including the time of the giving 
 of his testimony. 
 
 Eleventh. That the said witness in the expression of 
 his opinion as to the injury to the premises involved 
 herein was required to take into consideration the over- 
 flow of the premises described in plaintiff’s declaration 
 without reference to whether or not such overflow was 
 
 2642 caused by acts under the discretion and control of the 
 defendant to this suit, but was permitted to assume that 
 all of the injury which they claim had occurred to said 
 premises was caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule that motion. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Cureerriretp: We move to exclude from the tes- 
 timony in this case the testimony of Charles Dooley upon 
 the question of values of the premises described in the 
 plaintifft’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 
 First. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 Second. That said witness in the giving of said testi- 
 mony has shown no such acquaintance with the premises 
 and value of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him 
 for the expression of an opinion thereof. 
 
543 
 
 Third. That said witness in his expression of opinion 
 did not state or attempt to state the fair cash market 
 value of the premises involved. 
 
 Fourth. That in the expression of such opinion said 
 witness adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 said witness expressed an opinion as to the value of said 
 land merely from the standpoint of what the said land 
 
 2643 would produce for agricultural purposes, without ref- 
 erence to its real or actual fair cash market value. 
 
 Fifth. That the said witness did not include in the as- 
 sumption of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 Siath. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a value 
 on said premises without regard to said exceptions or 
 reservations therein contained. 
 
 Seventh. That said witness refused to consider the 
 fair cash market value of said premises from the stand- 
 point of the highest and best use that could be made 
 thereof. 
 
 Eighth. That said witness in the expression of opinion 
 as to the values given by him merely took into considera- 
 tion the value of said premises from the standpoint of the 
 use and adaptability of said premises for the purpose of 
 raising corn. 
 
 Ninth. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values, said witness was permitted to take into consid- 
 eration everything which he knew about said premises 
 until the date of the giving of his said testimony with 
 
 9644 reference to the value there, without disclosing the basis 
 therefor to the court or jury or counsel, but was per- 
 
044 
 
 mitted and required to state an opinion upon the basis of 
 matters which were known only to himself and not dis- 
 closed upon this hearing. 
 
 Tenth. That said witness in the expression of his 
 opinion was permitted to take into consideration the con- 
 dition of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to-wit, the 14th day of January, 
 1905, and up to and including the time of the giving of his 
 testimony. 
 
 Eleventh. That the said witness in the expression of 
 his opinion as to the injury to the premises involved herein 
 was required to take into consideration the overflow of 
 the premises described in the plaintiff’s declaration with- 
 out reference to whether or not such overflow was caused 
 by acts under the discretion and control of the defendant 
 to this suit, but was permitted to assume that all of the 
 injury which they claim had occurred to said premises was 
 caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule that motion. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 2645 Mr. Cuipgerrietp: Now, we desire to move to exclude 
 from the consideration of the jury all evidence with ref- 
 erence to the construction of the Ogden Dam or ditch, or 
 other improvements therewith connected, including the 
 spillway, on the theory that the evidence in this case 
 shows that the construction thereof was completed before 
 the year 1893 and that any cause of action thereby accru- 
 ing would be barred by the statute of limitations and that 
 the evidence shows the same to be and constitute an inde- 
 pendent and separate work. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
049 
 
 Mr. CuteerrteLtp: Now, I wish to move to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury the testimony of each of 
 said witnesses and also to exclude from the consideration 
 of the jury plat 13 and all the deeds that have been offered 
 in evidence, for the reason that the same and each of the 
 same tend to create a variance between the allegations of 
 the declaration and the proof offered in this case; that 
 there is not excluded from the description contained in the 
 declaration in'this case the right of way of the Illinois 
 Central Railroad or the C. B. & Q. Railroad, but that the 
 said declaration alleges ownership of the entire premises 
 without reference to said rights of way. 
 
 2646 Mr. Burtrers: May I have that read, please? 
 
 Mr. CuriperFiztp: Yes, as far as I am concerned. 
 
 (Motion read.) 
 
 Mr. Burrers: We have offered no proof as to the right 
 of way of the Illinois 
 
 The Courr: I think I will overrule that motion. That 
 may be a question for consideration in some phase of the 
 ease but I hardly think this motion reaches it. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CuriperFIELD: Now, I have a motion to instruct the 
 jury to find a verdict for the defendant at the conclusion 
 of the plaintiff’s testimony under the first count of the 
 declaration. | 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Cutreerrietp: Also under the second count of the 
 declaration. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 
 
046 
 
 Mr. CureerFietp: Also under the third count of the 
 
 declaration. 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the objection. 
 2647 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 Mr. CurperFieLtp: And then also a general instruction 
 as to the entire declaration. 
 The Courr: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 The Court: Have you got an instruction you want 
 marked now? 
 Mr. CuHIPpERFIELD: Yes, I have four instructions. 
 
 Whereupon the defendant, by its attorney, moved the 
 court in writing as follows: 
 
 Stave oF ILuINois, ea 
 County or La Satie. f°" 
 
 In THE Crrcutr Court or La Saute County. 
 October Term, A. D. 1912. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, 
 a Corporation, 
 Us. 
 The Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 
 Case. 
 
 Now comes the defendant, the Sanitary District of Chi- 
 eago, at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence on 
 behalf of the plaintiff, in the above entitled cause, and 
 
 2648 moves the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict 
 : of not guilty in favor of the defendant, the Sanitary Dis- 
 
 trict of Chicago. 
 B. M. CHIPERFIELD, 
 
 Attorney for Defendant. 
 
047 
 
 And ask the court to read and give to the jury the fol- 
 lowing written instruction: 
 
 The jury are instructed that, under the law and the 
 evidence in this case, it would be your duty to return a 
 verdict finding the defendant not guilty, and the form of 
 your verdict will be as follows: 
 
 We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty. 
 
 Which motion the court then and there overruled. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 And the court then and there refused to give to the jury 
 said above mentioned instruction asked by the defendant 
 and marked the same refused. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Thereupon the defendant, by its attorney, moved the 
 court in writing as follows: 
 
 2649 Srate oF Inuinots, —) 
 
 Country or La Satin. { ** 
 
 In THE Crirourr Court or La SaLue County. 
 
 October Term, A. D. 1912. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, 
 a Corporation, 
 vs. 
 The Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 
 Case. 
 
 Now comes the defendant, the Sanitary District of Chi- 
 cago, at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence upon 
 behalf of the plaintiff in the above entitled cause, and 
 moves the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict of 
 
048 
 
 not guilty in favor of the defendant, the Sanitary District 
 of Chicago, under the first count of the declaration. 
 B. M. CHIPERFIELD, 
 Attorney for Defendant. 
 
 And ask the court to read and give to the jury the fol. 
 lowing written instruction : 
 
 The jury are instructed that, under the law and the evi- 
 dence in this case, it will be your duty under the first count 
 of the declaration, to return a verdict in favor of the de- 
 fendant, and that the form of your verdict will be as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 2650 We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty under the 
 
 first count of the declaration. 
 
 Which motion the court then and there overruled. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 And the court then and there refused to give to the jury 
 said above mentioned instruction asked by the defendant 
 and marked the same refused. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Thereupon the defendant, by its attorney, moved the 
 court in writing as follows: 
 
 Strate oF ILLINot!s, 
 ; Ss. 
 County oF La Sane. 
 
 In tee Crrcurr Court or La SALLE County. 
 October Term, A. D. 1912. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, 
 a Corporation, (yee 
 
 eS 
 The Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 
 Now comes the defendant, the Sanitary District of Chi- 
 cago, at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence upon — 
 
049 
 
 behalf of the plaintiff, in the above entitled cause and 
 2651 moves the court to instruct the jury to return a veridct 
 of not guilty in favor of the defendant, the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict of Chicago, under the second count of the declaration. 
 B. M. CHIPERFIELD, 
 Attorney for Defendant. 
 
 And ask the court to read and give to the jury the fol- 
 lowing written instruction: 
 
 The jury are instructed that under the law and the evi- 
 dence in this case, it will be your duty under the second 
 eount of the declaration to return a verdict finding the 
 defendant not guilty and the form of your verdict will be 
 as follows: 
 
 We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty under the 
 second count of the declaration. 
 
 Which motion the court then and there overruled. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 And the court then and there refused to give to the jury 
 said above mentioned instruction asked by the defendant 
 and marked the same refused. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Thereupon the defendant, by its attorney, moved the 
 court in writing as follows: 
 
550 
 
 2652 Strate oF [LLINo!s, 
 
 SS. 
 County oF La SALLE. 
 
 In tHE Crrcutr Court oF La SALLE County. 
 October Term, A. D. 1912. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, 
 a Corporation, 
 vs. 
 The Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 
 Case. 
 
 Now comes the defendant, the Sanitary District of Chi- 
 cago, at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence upon 
 behalf of the plaintiff, in the above entitled cause, and 
 moves the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict of 
 not guilty in favor of the defendant, the Sanitary District 
 of Chicago, under the third count of the declaration. 
 
 B. M. CHIPERFIELD, 
 Attorney for Defendant. 
 
 And ask the court to read and give to the jury the fol- 
 lowing written instruction: 
 
 The jury are instructed that, under the law and evi- 
 dence in this case, it will be your duty under the third 
 count of the declaration to return a verdict in favor of 
 the defendant, and that the form of your verdict will be 
 as follows: 
 
 We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty under the 
 
 2653 third count of the declaration. 
 
 Which motion the court then and there overruled. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 And the court then and there refused to give to the jury 
 said above mentioned instruction asked by the defendant 
 and marked the same refused. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
ool 
 
 Mr. Currrerriztp: Before we get to this motion let the 
 record show also a motion to exclude the deposition of HE. 
 L. Cooley, for the reason that EK. L. Cooley was called in 
 person by the plaintiff and gave testimony in this cause 
 upon the hearing of the case. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 2564-2663 Argument by counsel as to the necessity for the 
 reading of the deeds to the jury and as to whether or not 
 title of the plaintiff is a question for the court or for the 
 jury. 
 
Ki Liban 
 
 OF Tih 
 UNIVERSITY OF Ibs 
 
 
 
b 
 
 mt 
 te 
 
 
 

 
ee lal penal 
 
 Toy) OLE 
 PerrReEME COURT OF ILLINOIS, 
 
 APRIE “TERM, A.D. 1913: 
 
 LA SALLE COUNTY CARBON COAL COMPANY, \ Appeal from 
 Appellee Circuit Court, 
 
 vs. La Salle County. 
 
 
 
 Honorable 
 
 SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO, S. E. Stough 
 ° ° ’ 
 
 Appellant Presiding Judge. 
 
 
 
 ABSTRACT OF RECORD. 
 
 Page of 
 Record. 
 
 2664 November 22, 1912, 1:30 Pp. m. 
 
 TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT. 
 
 Mr. Curperrignp: I desire, if your Honor please, to 
 offer in evidence, from the record of House Document 
 No. 263, now in evidence as an exhibit by the plaintiff, 
 pages 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 494, 
 455, being the gauge reading at La Salle, [linois, at Lock 
 15, showing the stage of the Illinois River for the years 
 1867, 1868, 1869, 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, 
 1877, 1883, 1893, 1894, 1897, 1898, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903 
 and 1904.~* * * I want to offer it for all of those years. 
 
 2665 Mr. O’Conor: We object to your reading it back any 
 farther than the year 1885. 
 
 The Court: I sustain the objection. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 
 
004 
 
 Said pages 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 
 453, 454, 455 of said House Document No. 263 are in the 
 words and figures following, to-wit: 
 

 
 | GAUGE READINGS, ILLINOIS AND DES PLAINES RIVERS, ILLINOIS. 
 (29) LASALLE GAUGE AT LOCK NO. 15, ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL. 
 
 | This gauge was located at the lower end of Lock No. 15 of the Hlinois and Michigan 
 ; Canal. It was established by the United States Engineer Department in 1867, under the 
 direction of which readings were taken from January 1, 1867, to December 30, 1868. From 
 April 1, 1869, to November 30, 1877, readings were ‘taken under the direction of the Illinois 
 canal commissioners. For the period from December 1,1878, to June 19, 1893, it has been 
 mpossible to find any records pertaining to this gauge, except for three months in 1883, 
 which were taken by the United States Engineer Department during the survey of that 
 From June 19, 1893, to December 31, 1904, readings were again taken under the 
 Bastion of the Illinois canal commissioners. The readings taken under the direction of 
 _ the Illinois canal commissioners are not continuous, but as a rule. cover only the navigation 
 season of each year. 
 _ As established in 1867, the zero of this gauge co nded to the low water of 1867. This 
 has been determined indirectly from elevations of the water surface of the river in that 
 ‘icinity, as shown by the level notes of the survey of the Des Plaines and Illinois rivers, 
 in 1867, in dort riction with a study of the readings which were taken on an old gauge 
 , the lock during the time of that survey. These observations indicate that the low 
 of 1867 was 3.88 feet above the lower miter sill of that lock. 
 . to the survey of the Illinois and Des Plaines rivers made in 1902-1904, the 
 the lower miter sill is 435.36 feet, Memphis datum, making the elevation of the 
 hee 439.24 feet, Memphis datum. The gauge remained at this elevation until 
 
 whieh were taken by the United States Engineer Department in 1883 
 Aug the survey of that year, which extended from Joliet 
 1e levels of ene ay ents at Oe 
 
 by, ‘unt ee ed Mae |): | . ‘9 Ps , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tayi ie 
 
LUE A ; te 
 i Nh a ei vS i) i 
 
 ‘ yiiy ema 
 Mein ie 
 ee VE RS a 
 fis ul if ui ve i‘ 
 
 Dy ah 
 ‘ ut al 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 bi-t WATERAIV AY: “LOOKRPOR? TO REABROTIS, ETC. 
 
 a bench mark on the coping of the lock wall. -According to the survey of the Hlinois andy 
 Des Plaines rivers made in 1902-1904, the elevation of that beneli iiark is 455.42 feer, 
 Memphis data making the elevation of the zero of the gauge of ISS3 equal to 443.°5 J 
 feet, Memphis datuan. ot, a 
 
 The readings taken at Lock No. 15 from June 19, 1893, to December 31, 1904, indicate, + 
 depths of water on tops of the lower miter sill, the elevation of which is 485.36 feet, Memphis ~ 
 datum, aceording to the survey of 1902-1964. -These readings were obtamed by placing «| 
 sounding pole on top of the lower miter sill, | 7; 
 
 An inspection of the map will show that the readings taken at Lock No. 15 indicate the 7 
 stage ol the river at the lower end ofthe poel which leads from Lock No, 15 into the river, 
 
 Gauge readings, Minois and Tks Plames rivers, [llinois. 
 ILIANQIS AND MICIHGAN CANAL, LASALLE, TL. 
 : . ING7. 
 [Location uf gauge, | ock 25: in charge of United States Engineer Department; time of day, not given: y 
 
 elevation of rorn, 459.24; gauge reader, not given; copied by F. B. Duis, from Mlinois cutial commis 
 =~ sioners’ report for IS77-7s.] : 
 
 Day Jan. Feb. Mar>)| Apr { May. June. ~July. \ug. Sept. Oct. Nov. | Dee: 
 
 Fi. in. Ft. in. Ft. in. Ft.in. Ft. in. Ft. in. Ft. in, Ft. in.. Ft. in.) Ft, in. Ft. in, Ft. in 
 ‘ - 4 4 \ f { : 4 
 
 he s 10 ult Go PRES 2S PPS eee Ww | 12.5 Hot a4 0 6 0 2 D0) Toa eee 
 oo.7 Soe 3 8 | eu et SPD SS. 8 i 6. O40 aes 6 9 O ese 
 Fe RE oe | Clay. alee Ser O43) BBs 5 8 Pele (iy 5 2 an 
 
 ee ie ge: eas a aaa oe ie Se) & Si 11 5 2 réa ee 
 St. T O ee 1h eee “71 Se a 9 8S 1210 5 2 10 ti 3 6 Vue 
 
 S..|° € 6 2. Ges yok i’ “eae 10° 6) 1969 6 2 9 5 4 $e 
 Gon «Oo i ee | eee te ee ee 62 ‘.® i 4 ia 
 
 ae ee as | tt he rece Sn an 1 es Ae oe S 5 3 te ae ney, 
 G..| 5 10 Ey ap An 2 CE 10 Bho 5g Ss FF t) Ss 
 
 i SS ae Rt A POPS iP Pea 8 5 0 i 4 fj 7 
 
 ee 5 5 ne | le ee ee 14 4 9 7 ll 0 410 7 hi iB O a ee 
 et, eo Va eee 7 rs (ee TM vais ¢ ame 4.3 7 4 5: yates 
 ue: 8 Ae le, hw. 15 7 9 1. 10 6 4 0 7. Re 2 ort ae 
 $6404 Oa ier hs A 1B 4 OM 30: 4 3S ri 5 RAS 0 Fee ee 
 a Se ae eer te ee, 54 Oe  IOIO 3.7 a ve 1 Tien , 
 ON TE He % eae Toe Nes is at an Lie Bs a 6 4 L: Fee 
 “CRE Sam Ves 2 RES rn LAP A Ty See ae Raa caw 6 4 3 ‘ee 
 Dh ab On ead Pe cy Me Bag o | 2 49 6 es 3 7 house 
 ht A a Bi aS a De aa ae “Ad. 2 a ae ey 5° 3 4 ee 
 st RS ae eae ws 13°11 ee g 4 2 6 6 4 4 Pes anaee 
 eR een ag go A ae ee pee 13 4 oO 8 ae 24 5 4 ‘4 Haas Cpa 
 2. OS 9 en ER Re | 1210 ° 11 10 Pe We ae 3 3 By ails ee he ae 
 23. ee Be es 12: 6 33.3 rey ee | . 4 ME Lae mene A | 
 24. “Ti ee Se See te iG: | 8241 yaa rit: 3 7s 4 10:,). Seals 
 eh ea eee ee ee ee Piet PSS Be Rat to eo 3 , 5 hee 
 US ae Sa: Shee We 1130 © 12)-7 7 9 TS 4 5 6 10 hice 
 27 . Ot i pees ates eee Er: Rae tsi f 76 Liew: | 3 6 107) UG ee 
 RD Sree eds} aeies 1010 12.7 ie: Bee We 4 3 6 Oar 
 20. a eo ea ed Peet eee ht be ea eM T.4 ar. | 4 3 Ee ou ee 
 ee en aOR ho coe te, 10 032". 6 6 10 3° 5 3 B yenh  o  ee 
 el. Why a eee ee eee be Paka 0) eee Oey a "ARF Se age RES arity Fe 8 oe 
 
 a 
 1 
 
At thi tis 
 t j 7 r ~ i iy 
 ay) : ; = ‘ yes 
 % i ba | 
 DREN, Fare 
 tale tuk Re 
 BOUL EIS. GL. 
 
 4 
 
 wa Pia 
 Lin Y Thee 
 re , : ’ ! 
 
 ee 
 ar / 
 Wan 
 
 i ‘ i vie 
 
 | FNS 
 UNIVERSITY BE Vimar 
 
 
 
’ 
 
 WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST, LOUIS, ETC. 
 
 445. 
 
 Gauge readings, IUinois and Des Plaines rivers, Ilinois—Continued. 
 ‘ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL, LASALLE, ILL.—Continued. 
 
 1868. 
 {Location of gauge, Lock 15; in charge of United States 
 elevation of zero, 439.24; gauge reader, not given; cop 
 
 sioners’ report for 1877-78. 
 
 ri Sag eae 
 ied by F. B. D 
 
 ment; time of day, not given; 
 uis from Illinois canal commis- 
 
 ' 
 
 2 a a a a” 2 ene ene \seeres een lene 
 Day Jan. Feb. | Mar. | Apr. | May. | June. | July. | Aug. Sept. Oct. | Nov. Dec. 
 “ pa" = .% an. OP Sa ae eres “ oe NS eee “4 ies peg ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ft. in.| Ft. in.| Ft. in.| Ft. in.| Ft. in.| Ft. in. 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ft. in.| Ft. in. | Ft, tn | Ft. tn. | Ft. im. (Ft. in. 
 07; 3) 
 
 
 
 ETF SE PDE EMER: FREE | 7 O° SB ia vegies 7 6 AE DS ay ke SRN 
 Bidens tome |eeeseees RR 8 aS SCA. SSIS 6 | RM ES ee Re ee 
 Biid n+ eels FREESE NPP SS) OO Oh has 5 ig De, NS “I 
 ra SS ea ¥ won rs e403] eM ede go ak aman 
 Fe Be * Rie the REM: S97 10 6F “OE Cee § | SAAS Ci CE GAS 
 Ree” | Pas, nin See O36} 2155 T I ORE 5 | Fe AEN EY ah ORS 
 AR Re SRS ee RBS et ws PA ees. | 7 | A NRE aa 2 RI 
 Bi... een aiaws dacs S31) Wart WM GAgas: | 7 LER ECES SRN (aI 
 FE AR Neat RE ee) Wisi oO RE, 6 PAL, . cu eiladee we aah tede li - 
 ed BRB i wT RT cae HS Ried Ieee Ow Me toe | 4 Odie... debian» 
 Bh Ak xs wechh a bawbns Gt 37 Oi OS BOak, 4 OO tae eee . . at Alpin 
 PPR ne SPR AB rer 7 6 16 11 | B.. Bit sie ose 6. BE pak bebo slss cesnanfecesbes 
 ape pene 4 SEES BNE my ee Se eS ee Oe CY Are ee le Ee, eS ReeG 
 thon sie SUC ahi nG inate os a oe oe ee ee | 5 YG Mee 
 Th...) <. <da ah we BSae O.75.596 BET BK gee | 5 SR RERACE RS, FAIRE SS NI 
 te Reape Fahne 2 | ae anes 1011} 14 1) 7 2]..--..5. | 5 a SS pel eaery 2? babe ns 
 TR > RTS 1 a a ae TR a op SOE | Gace : 3 eas aa EEN 
 FE ol. ..s eee es fo ee a ee dee 2 (Ga Calis 5s nas ae lovaiias« 
 BR Ree RAS HR OU 2S Oi: a Okie 6 CORES KOC yas ear 
 gn MRR PES Oo ESE 7] 13:2) SO ere 6 EB ST aR So AEN 
 S..|. . > -nisihiainenieelan« [O28 Se pe ae eae eee 6. Wash s siduatre poate Ree 
 IG MR ee ec rE O41) At 8 1) (BaE Woe. 5 BP SIDE CATO eee 
 7 FM Sat 204 te Bias. a! 4 ~ "9 PES SRNR EAS 
 r . a RR ES SERPS oe el 8 0) 10 4| 5 6|........ | 3 1 TRIS EIA Ps 
 25... .|... dup Gepuntanbieons + Bie SMT. Ss oe 2 ve aN SP fecha « 
 26. .|.-.:.c0 saver Bove « i a ey ae) | ) 1 Cg A SRS CARON 
 r+ ed ee TL boxe 7 ae Sia wy er wy 2 | i LY SRR eZ ERE 
 GB 1. we ocd cakaphue Sen ee 7, OL eee eens... .. 0 Stat 65 Aaecinds cee 
 @D..|...'- <tindinae aio ekanbtie nas i San Be. ee | 1 ah Ee yeaa 
 BO... . 0 docket a aie alias # Pie toe Be Bese oo / 2 We Joga ds eno a> NOR 
 rs Pe eS SERA 9 as a BGR tency ercere. Ao ond | 3 |p: +--+. Jnecteeee|eseenees |oneeeee 
 a Probably in error; should be 8 feet 1 inch. ? , 
 1869. 
 
 [Location of gauge, Lock 15; in charge of Illinois canal commissioners; = day, not given; ele- 
 vation of zero, 439.24; reader, not given; copied by F. B. Duis from I is canal commissioners’ 
 
 report of Decemer 1, 1870, in the office of the secretary of state at Springfield, Ill., except for months 
 of April and May, which were copied from said commissioners’ report for the year 1877-78} 
 
 [The figures show the height of water in feet and inches above low-water plane of 1867.} 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Day) Jan. | Feb. | Mar. | Apr. | May. | June. | July. | Aug. | Sept. | Oct. | Nov. | Dec. 
 A a - oaety Leeman ten J -- J -- 
 Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Pt.in.,| Ft.in.' Ft.in. Ft.in.| Ft.tn. 
 Nae Meee Ceram Cth ty ae B] wale} 37 T| Mt 7| We B48 S). 2.4) 1 4) 5 3 
 ¢_ A. .-a uy aleainecea i ae /-16-3| 12 7|.17 4! 2 7|~15 1 83) 24) 14] 59 
 FP OA Soe PAE EE, (346-3199 2] 16°90 | 2.8), 1e LET) 2 4] 1 4) 6 
 4.2). ..cicwchiwesiahtee. Oe ET 2) FPS IS Pee OR et 4 6 1 
 5.4. «> dhe vafasabsreataiens Lane ST Ree? 1 Oh 80-6) S82) 17 Bt. 58] 1 4) 88 
 6. .|...ckeiclooupepeeneusians | M6 2] 4 6) 14-5) 2 5) 1210) *7 1) 2:6] 13) 5 8% 
 ee EER Ns Forte MOP ADL) 487 | Bee ae 8. 6 8 2 4| ae Nope FS 
 8. .|...cuct-lice iin ie ei ce OMe ee seek Ae St 1 SE ee 
 Fe ae eee ET eT ae ee ae ee ee ee ee 
 WO. :|..... qx. ofadume sae mua 830) oe BY meer ae ee 6-8) 62 1) 1 6k ee Y 
 11 ...|....asdulo deimsade nena B1 0:7 | 22 Shee Rae OPO 8B} 2.1) 1 6). 6s 
 12...|... :ikakslohs ace a S68) 3) 4) 18 RE Oe Oe at a 8 8 2 0) 1:6) OORT 
 13. |. . .cidesd lec nana 2. 811 9-3 a a aT ba] 2 0 | 1 ¢/ f210 
 14. .|. «sch al ewe vSRinDEARnNE 1511} 10 7| 12 3) 18 9) 1040) 410) LiL) 17) 
 1B . |. ccna dalaunne donde aaa 1. 2:1).12 10) 19 S42 bw 7) 490) «2110| +t 7) 28 
 16. |... als eee 18 9] 149] 11 7}.18 5} 10-4] 49 1 10 | I ors 
 17 . a}.acdosabdscwpicebeneuneeee ve Jr Se ee eee ae Tt 1 ot 1 Ot 396 
 ‘18. 1. casa ake amines 2 1| 11 4] 1011] 21 1) 921} 42) 19] 1/}.12 4 
 19. |. . tas ch oe SURE Oe (B«1| 0 9 0: 8)-m 7) Oe} 3u| 1 8 g1 12 2 
 20. .}. . wile ames cian ‘setts bt ow 9! 10 5] 11 1) 24) 9 7) 311] 1 8 4| 13 1 
 21. .|: cian cee she gun me 8).00:0) se oP ee a) ee et 8 6 1 8] 28 7h Bs 
 22. |. ahalihens somata eee 9.6710 7) 1.0) Bil) isi} 322) 12) 2 6) 13:7 
 23. .|... 0s deeoub aaa. ie 16.3)..910) 18.4) 19 9) 12 1| 3 2| 4.7} 21] 25 
 2A. 1. «ike spl sie SARE Fie ob ee de Ot} | 3 1) 7) Sa Ba 
 25. .|. «caida aeaniainad wef 16.2) 20 0} 12 8). 17 me, Silt £8) 2 ee eee 
 26. .|. chide ee oe ee Ore eee weet 2 Ol 2] Ra: sey 
 27... wos ERE t 5 ee }-18 97° 810] 22 8) 15 9) 911; 27) 17/811} 12.7 
 98 «Link aed PR ST Ry OS ge 8 ae Be oN 271.34). O90 333 
 9. J nuoiee ahs tha seseseesl 1210] 18.9] 24 11 15 6) 9 O9| 26] 1 5|~4 7] 11 5 
 20..| ccenseestee ee ee eee +) 8 LP ay 8s) 26) 1 4) BRN 1 
 3].. eee ew eee dh ab wee mse eel ee eeeeee 19 1 ee (15. 3 8 9 ee 1 4 -s*ee eee 10 7 
 
ee 
 
 oes 
 
 as 
 
 — 
 
 ; 
 Ay 
 ¥ 
 Pit 
 
 Oe 
 
 -_, 
 
 "ars 
 
 ee ee ee 
 
 “ 
 
 iw. 
 
 ey 
 ee ke 
 he eB tin Ped 
 
 em} 
 
 
 
—<— 
 
 447 
 
 
 
 iven; elevation 
 sioners’ report 
 
 8 
 
 TC. 
 is 
 
 ” 
 
 ‘i. LOUIS, E 
 
 4 
 
 B. Duis from Llinois canal comm 
 
 IS72. 
 
 ; in charge of Illinois canal commissioners; time of day, not 
 not given; copied by F. 
 
 a, 
 
 .24; gauge reader, 
 
 WATERWAY, LOCKPORT ‘ic. 
 {Loeation of gauge, Lock L 
 
 ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL, LASALLE, ILL.—Continued. 
 
 Gauge readings, Illinois and Des Plaines rivers, Illinois—Continued. 
 
 of zero, 439 
 
 for 1877-78.] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ie pe “eth <P a a ; " Se —_ 
 —— 
 oe (abe te tee abn elias et ne eS ae ef ES EES Cy aa eee 
 . "oe. -¥ 2 0 a \ i Set fb. ER OO ae eee ee ee . , . ’ ' ’ _ ’ . ’ . . . . 
 by { ee ee So ¢ “thn ie aan ; : | poe § = oe 42s Cee eT oe Nee Ss es SF «© 4 6 Oe Se ee 
 Q js ‘ , ‘ . ‘ ’ ‘ ‘ ' 7 ‘ ' as a fe, ' — _ go €- 8-2 +O ’ ’ — ‘ ‘ . ' _ ’ ' , * ' . . . _ > ‘ 
 _ ; 12° BD vi Ba eee ie a a. «Te . Te oe, eo e060 mee ee, et ee pel ee, er ee ’ ' ’ — , ’ ’ ‘ ' ' ’ ' _ . ’ . . 
 ; & ee Oe e | > ie age ee ls ee ek ae en oe; ee Fem a ee ee ee ee ee 
 ee eR ae 2 <<<. f ee ee 8 On ke 8 — ee ag eee eee ‘3 SA eo 
 aud ges Be Ch oh ot) 5 Ee ENO 09. ON Em Bot Rs ESE © : e : | EeCsoe Sig ees Oy eo eee 33). eee 
 pst fat Rte ‘ eg ee ele ad Ee ee ee negits 
 | ‘=o oe j 7 ee es So ee, ee es ee a 4.8 F 2.. t. Be =e ™ , 
 s eo ee ee Sg S 2 ees ae ee eI Serene tia ae ee 
 es So | 2 Es = ARaeRe te ewe ee 
 | SHMANAINAROTANNAS SON SMOOROOORRRE i 2 F iptedebetetns whetete teeta sctelaceeetrse f 
 ~ =— ~ 
 a PSS. 6 ae St eS ee | =I & Leeeteeee ner 
 ”~ 
 | al 
 ana etinehy aan ——-} m 2 
 > Sgt ae an a ee Ser ae z Ee ee ee aa : 
 el se NES Te ee ee Sm HOSS MONTH ODHHOnKNSeNA | ° . SOCCONNKEKKKEOCOSCSSCOSCSOSCOSSSSOSCOOSD . 
 a ee een Fe = 1% ; 
 a at a Soe gig nd gs STUD UD OUD UD AD UD UD HR Stet ot et sft ett tet et a ® BS SRT EEE ER ER tt a nt at * 
 ~ SS Soe a eee LP an | : 
 . = e 
 - —— — SS ee ee ane oe ee en ee ee eee . LLL ALLL LO Ae 
 P SON CMOS SUM MOSS NSH HOMNHCOMONHS } nO - SAH GOSSHOMNEKEE COSCON HKHOSSSOSOOSSSOOOS 
 bp | P= an ‘ores : ; 
 a oe ee ee ee naa g be £o EES Se 8 wt ae 
 yy ; n 
 oa 
 aS. Fe es a See a a = — er ne Le ee ae Ne 
 ged 
 ROAOADMOSOS Oooorcrocriocscr~wene eR OOSOOSO Drs be SSSR ORN AR OWNS INN eEh OAM NOnATeaee 
 a < > eR | 1 = 
 3 Soe SY ee at setts SA IS A i I li a i i i i li = La 2 Ro Tre < ee eee 
 ar = ee | > - . 
 — ad ; 
 — —~— ———_—_ —— —-—— ——— } e © ——_—— = iy 
 ,  SHHMNGHOMTHOMHOMMNOSSOMOAGAaMaaae | & GP : goerr ot goamrsSweuen weno NeSeS : 
 3 5 = Na | re g ¢ i ee ' 
 =| yy 5 ' 
 | = er zs 33 ron] ES*WODrrooCOCOH HUSH ony Heo eS ere : 
 _ | * ; Laan . . . 
 nO, ‘ . 
 ‘ _ = = a _ = = : —< 
 = ——-———_—— ! oOo _i— -RRRREREERE uate = 
 _ EAN DAI~ hy SOMANOM ASS ADOBDRADOKRNRIM MRK Ch - SAE MN THOSE MANA WOAHANAMSUMHMOOMAOON 
 3s Cone ovcooMnnMnN4ns ID ID IDO + =] S ; _ 
 3 > cD OoD MAME. OND DS WOO NOD ID ID UD WO 19 19 16 ae = (RASSSanneaags mMmeSeeeeemonAnnnsee 
 a °o 
 a es = ee : encores eke Sg ee ee ee : S - ara Se SS 6 oS fee ee : 
 3 gocahnennessenwnne aie i Babette F be ; Sliiiiitiitisd 1 Peqeeosts neces 
 > — peren Le 6- & fai? 2 dim, £. ew oS , ' ’ : ‘ ‘ 
 a BER ER ESE PAS ee a een ere ‘| ae 2 22 eee oe Toot t Holo MAAR HS ; 
 : | o> ae | . 
 . } gS ‘ 
 o> 5 & . 9 Our: 2 22,29 ee. “sk 2. eS -Se ShcA UR eS 7 ‘ _ ’ : L » ’ , ‘ 7 i a - as ie ’ ' i ill 
 ~4 a EM Cee Te 2a oe. 2 ee eS Cee. Se we ; ‘ . ; ‘ ; ‘ . ce ~ * «<<a. 8 wae @ *-° se VOD of BB Oe Se oD te DS OSes : - ‘ : ~ 3 5 ’ ’ . ’ 
 —_ § = @r ev bb @ # DHSe8 7. Ce Otek fer ee kk Ce See He _ ‘ . . _ . 1 2 (ee DP ee * 
 3 “3 je @ © ps 2 &. ecm We) hy me pee oe. le 1 be Cee Be eee ‘ “a ss ; SA «3 whee eh ae ‘ re. ¥ 
 es gf + 8-4. @°e *W Ss 614s. pp El UL ULL Ee 6 Se Se ee : ‘ _ ‘ ' ' ’ ‘ 
 = Ry Ss vr. pe 2 eS Bee 8 ee. On Se So eee . . so ad : ‘ ‘ , J . : ; ; or. + : H : 
 ee a a oe ee | a ee ee, ae ee . 4 ‘ . ¥ ‘ . , . . » s alia | ' . ‘ ' , . 
 ce" & ££ Wr K& § - Se '¢ ete’ 6 See A 2 Ue ee ee — _ . . ‘ ’ ’ . . s # @ e s , ’ . ‘ ’ 
 _ -£ Ss & £2. b eee ek oe eo a Cee +. we + sh "i Wat” f ceo i, i oe ee 
 er 2 OE 6 8 es. 6 RO ke me 6 OP ee 4 8 eee 8 ee ey eo a 4 en ae ee > v FG @ 
 2 ~ 3 . . ’ - , : : 7 ; : ; , . Oe ee Caen eee eee hee | + woe . ‘ > ‘ ’ 
 @ “ae ae ee oe ee Oe ee eee er ee ee Se We ae ae, M “et Oe 
 fx, & ‘a a oe oe ee Se oe a ee he re ae a t oe. he Ae | a i sb Onoda bale ‘ ; ; y ; 
 eke ee ee ee Ne ee ee ee ee ee a ee ee, ee pee UY ee NS ee a) 6-76 Ses 
 —_ - - ne a ’ ss a ae +s Ce A. HS. SS, Ag oS 2S le *. oF ee OL ee —_ nie & @ 4 ~ . “ 
 iy (ay SPE Se EF ETE BOCs ee SO OP ae ee a rae a 
 geveonsnos fii iiiiiigiriiir piri evs SOD ri henge 2 8 ttt 
 Gd i= < e Eeats seh e ees he ee go eS rea ee 
 a wii IMM st tl lhl le eee ee ae i ee ee Wee e ; eMC ORR as s 3 >. es 8 6 - 
 - R, ae ee oe oo oe ee ae Pe, es ae “al ae? : ‘ - : ek “a | ‘ ee § * ¢ 
 ae oe hee ee ee a eat eee ae ee SO oe a lk fo) ‘ ‘ J , . . ’ 
 — i os aoe aaa a cae ee aoe ’ ' >» lee Oa! 8) asd ‘ ’ ’ ' ’ ~ ’ ~ a . . Coe 
 be» Ae AY a a et ay ma ¢ “5 es ~ ef 8-3 8 Gee iris ak -me © er wa Se mb . a oe oe Salsas BS i. «2 
 ~ (Meow ON OESuAMT ISSN MOOSHAMSMEShesSeH | eZ Z| ‘ + wn Gen alee MgShassr as i Oe ee 
 ~ —_ 9 oO _ 1 — ne S| 
 
 
 

 
 ) 
 ) 
 : 
 * 
 es 
 : 
 i, , 
 - 
 k : 
 e , 
 me 
 ; i 
 ‘) ( 
 a 
 i: 
 ' Vox A 
 ‘ 
 . | 
 \ 
 “i had 
 v j 
 Pay 
 ig y ») 
 ( . » ry vi 4 
 i : . 
 Dy ae ; 
 vu) i leg , 
 Me \ < 
 uy tae nA 
 - > } ‘ 
 si ae i 
 a. 4 ; 7 
 
 J i i 
 i (a, Le | 
 
 sf th ae | la 
 vii Pu v a 
 
 
 
 y Oe B TPLares 
 ups eo We ss Ve a 
 rae Me are me 4 at Me qi 
 
 Aa pieanbs i sf Wipes ass Ba RAMA fe 
 
 
 
 ‘ ai OR A ay 
 
 ad 
 
 uy Ci aa es 
 “oaenst ‘we hatiand 
 
 
 
448 - WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS. ETC, 
 (rauge readings, IHinois and Des Plaines rivers, llinois--Continued. 
 IMLINOTS AND M ICHIGAN CANAL, LASALLE, ILL.- Continued. 
 
 IS7-4. 
 
 [Location of gauge, Lock 15; in,chargeé of Illinois canal commissioners: time of day, uot given 
 
 
 
 : 1875. 
 
 [Location of gauge, Lock 15; in charge of Illinois canal commissioners; time of day, not given 
 
 : elevas 
 
 r eleva- 
 
 ‘> 
 
 tion of zero, 439.24; copied by F. B. Duis from Iltinois canal commissioners’ report for 1877-78.] 
 | | . 
 Day Jan. Fe}, Mar. - Apr.” May. } June, July. Aug, § Sept. Oct Noy. Dee. ve 
 . 7 
 Rin.) Ft. in.) Ptein, -Fi.ine Ft.m.\ tm Ftta.. Fine Ft tne: Fin.) Feta) Pin 
 ir Se SRS. ST EE Ca s ey Ue a 49 Or 2 AS Say 64. SE ET eS 
 awh uk eaetlyaWwarwalyens. HRS fis yaa © BL er SQ 4.9 4.5 1.5 4° GA ® 45 
 af AEE BSP Lene ce eee es ao 7 8 os 4°85 1 4 45 4 6 4 6 4 # 
 eee eho y SE GaN le <i, ye «sateen a 411 410" 44 4.4 4 5 4 6 4 §- 
 Oe ORES Bae Ser eee ee a 0 Te wee ae 1.5 4 0 4 35 4-6)" 4.3 
 ARES ide Ss Ga baggue khan reg «wie S 4 1 ae J 4 4 105 4 5 4 6 43 
 tS Pee Se rss er en ee ee Bia a4 4.6 1 6 4°35 $55 4 6 44 
 |B ITE er ers Br ee eee ee 1-6 is-D 467 ae ae, Mae. 4 5 4 6 446 
 RN Se wae et Py oe te ee See oe 6 0 4 8 44 $58 oS mae 4 Bs 
 BRE: BE a OR ar oe Me Ee, se alae ae kee Ne | 4S 15 4efSh) Ae) 1 
 ME aehcunie Hae te ERUE atime u else > + «345 Nee ae 47 4 00 4.5 3 4 6 44 
 EN et epee Pehabseee #05 Uo hip oe : 7 il 4 6 Hig 45¢ 4 5 4 6 44 
 + ea EXE rie GEOR ENS 4 Foy a aa ieee 6 3 6 6 4 6)" 4 6 4 5 4 9 4 6 4% 
 Thee Gay ek Ok Best Rep ae ere bo «3 6 0 ro | i 6 4.35 4°5 4 5 4 4 
 | Sl gee OSs Ree Sea ee Bk eek 6 1 5 9 4.8 45 4.5 4 6 45) 44 
 AA 9 5 SO a et SS ene a a2) .o9 4.7 4 5 45 4 6 4 5 4 4 
 Racdigta s Sek Meals Char wha Wadley ola ss nanan 6 3 a9 4 6 4 5 Cpt 48 4 5 4 3% 
 SRR eS ost u We el ab bien wets. oe os § 2% 6°} 4 t- 4.5 4.5 4 6 4°6). £38 
 | BS ASE GE TSS 0 28 es ee ee Gra Site kg oy 4-5 SSP 4 ea” £8645 4 
 Dead a Pema ces iieah is oxide ees 3K 5s ns - hs ates Die’ 4 6 4 5 4 6 4 °5 4 8 4 3° 
 es SIRE BRE SU ERS Eee Fe OM EE ee Re a ee feat gee aS, Mae ee ee a 
 Ae, is Pearle tc sutek «oso hs aa Gere es | 4 6 4 4 467 4 5 4 9 4 3. 
 BO SR aon Maa ge SCC Se a 5 8 5 0 4 6 44 4 6 4 5 4 10 4 3 
 OR aceon beatae «ke Perak he Saha eoh-w wenn > 5 7 » 0 4 5 4 4 OR 4H o 1 43, 
 PO ECR SS DRA Bae ic ariia ec 5 9 411 4°6 4 4 4.5 4 5 49 4 37 
 Pe PEE SS BETTS ys RR ee SAMO ere 3) 6 411 4 6 4 4 4°59 47 4 7. 4 3 
 PRAT uh Mh eEES 1h GoaURa AN cI oe ie «vs 5 4 411 4 4 4.05 4 8 48 45 4 3 
 BOG ADEN, EE ated Docs ya en 5 3 4-11 4 5 1 5 4 6 4 10 4 6 4 3h 
 OS Pea SPOR CAY eerste, Se 5.95 4 ll 45 4 5 47 4 10 4 9 4 3 
 I il > pres wats Lape ier ge atte tiinweced. <1 1.0.3 410 _4 5 Ds oo By 4 9 4 5 4 3 
 Ob Lites bis mepets Onvaates Ha Cae eee ME hehe) eles h aca 4° 6 "OLS Panueyoows EE eS ip CR Pee 
 
 tion of zero, 439.24; gauge reader, not given: copied by F. B. Duis from Illinois canal commissioners’ — 
 
 report for 1877-78.] 
 
 
 
 Day Jan. Feb. “Mar. |*Apr. | May. June. July. Aug. . Sept. | Oct. | Nov. 
 
 ‘tne \ ¢ 
 
 ay ) ES . ’ . ‘ 
 
 Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in.|.Ftin.' Ft.in. Ft.in. Ft.in. Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in., Ft. in. 
 Oe. ae 4 8 DTT Rye alk Gey axa BPR Gal a eta ee ane ew ab tes eS Gee ge ( 
 RD be Ad acss Sclidubes dattoweds ks SS) HMO 2 0-440 fA T SoSh beat Pat 
 eae! Mh: AE Men'g's aks 331 5 One gain o> 64 S77 5 10 Sarit \laws SOD be FS 
 NT ee TR RRS AR ELL NR ie? ee See BO eco SOM PT Re ere Lae oy 
 SUM at” tp ORME 8 ESCM os RRR ee ae PB O82 BO Tea ONES dB ae Saw 
 EES GO Oh RB ate Oe.) Ba PO BB eT a Ra BR Br Oe Qld 
 7A IRE OY \y STERN SEE, CSET a Ce Ses Bay CAH te OT aE ae BOs €5/8 
 Wee EY, Oa. coeis melwatate Ses, in BRA? BR po We Rk Ah ekg, eS 
 IEE RCS RRS Fa PR ae ee DS 0 ORNS BOE Pee BS BO 8 PB Bd B58 
 BS aR URE ie Sea aaae fe Ri ad Ga Sa Se tae 2O eS Cots SEO ASO 
 ERODE eS Mena Caos Sead, S064) 48) 48000) 86a). 7 90 8H 
 “EE CO GED: REET Re ek BAO TP S259. B49 1b 19e8 7 Boat FF ORL 
 | SE URS hs CRIES Pa HR Soo 810-4" 6464) 4.0) 4852 Sie Ohl te 
 DCE TRS SER “SPP RES Mara Cyr bata wo eae oes Gk Oba 
 RE cB Ns tumuinghbiedecsingath aes ye aay BES) 49.15 Ts 8 0 6:6) 5 10 
 A Ses DE 2 POR RIN Daa Sen Cals Bie eee) DE eae 6. Grad. GS 
 tS Be Gee ae oe Ree 1 6.0). 5 8} < 410/10 9/5 73). 62) 6 0 
 Se a: Vee eo ae UL BON OOe Gwe ea Tes 6 OL Se 
 Pe Ger Be 3S es RESO Ree ee 5 11 5 + Cengee sere wali 6. 01° 8°30 
 PO RS ee PONG RUA RS RRO Sy a BO Bid 6 Ik) 6.8 
 | ae ee eee EFAS, 1e64-2.0 508 Seles (8.45 8 6°84 | 6-10 8.) 7 
 NR Baye eB Le ee RSS NY Otis W040. 82 Ob re es 8 BG Se BL 7 
 23% ey S Rees eee o. 74 35-10 5 0 7 A 7 ll Bo 5 8 5 6 
 Ae Lt eo Ae cee ae 89), 8304-5 O06 On. F775 C8 651 SS 
 25. MGS laihccune Aaa ae Pe Oi24- 8209 S204 B204- 755 B90) S.2da\ £4 
 rg Riser Peer 7) aS baiceSins ok eer 6.108 Cale, Bl Fok 6 G8 BeBe 8 
 ak ee We Safire Pee RTA SO) (S00! 4984 6.65 6505 56.5) 5-87 S28 
 O05 5 id hidese ee a hoapahiais See ere ARI Toe Oo ad S44 BMS eee 
 “MANA, Olin iekeastginaaie 68). 5.9) 40 8 8) 6 2 6°63). Tae se 
 ROR aa er Yea Oe fees ok Sah AS BRE. OS 8 oa S50 ta ear I St Sa oe ee 
 31. ta Bs mune PEE [iseeees SUE Seep a ess Wee | ee. pa ee Dee y Eon” Be VERA 
 
 | | | } f \ 
 
 Dec. 
 
 ljeasenvere 
 lewessce 
 leinis o@ = ¢ 
 
 wow rere 
 ee 
 eeeeere 
 ee 
 eeersece 
 ee ecoage 
 oweoeeee 
 ee 
 aeoeeeee 
 eoeercere 
 ee 
 cooeees® 
 eee ete 
 eceeer* 
 
 ix 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ 4 » : ; ¥ wW . oar hole 
 - Payensiny OPA 
 > [ : ¥ xa 
 , oS p ec? md on 
 P i a, Wey ~~ 7 > 
 it 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 as 
 ty a“ . " ae , 4 
 4 * ene f 
 68 ‘vol, ; 7 ey 
 H we £ ahs 9 toed OF Vk? ; 
 » Wee x J 4% b> ent wee ii a ik 
 “) : * f a: i ‘ ‘ ‘| 
 : ; By (RU ase Rr pet 
 ; ; ' iy { ys 
 yl 1 « : © ta te 4 bid a : 
 mt ; J ‘ k 
 aw ar . , _ 4 
 \ fae é w i n Pate. 
 4 y oe ‘ * ‘ ate se ho 
 ey ee PY { ra s a 4 ~~ Pee Ny ’ eo ee eee a, 
 ‘fae 4 s WI id » 
 ; , ae s My ke EG 
 ae : : ie tr 173. . 5 han Nate me Rk hee we 
 : - ry , uy bs Ji ene ° 
 + Tae % r ae ; C Fee S| G ; , Reale. rae A eee at E 
 ; ~ ‘ " “ ‘ : 5 i at's ve ee nf a 
 : y ¢ 1 * 7 x . ? > Saale Pr lhe ial ea oy TT PY 
 ‘ s er J i ‘ : i Tee 
 v4 ot ee 4 oes ee be 
 < = x as t é- 4; hd 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 oh ge] ) Fs 5 ; Pica | 
 o% * A ae 
 ; y ’ a os 
 ; s z. . ae a 
 ; ae : ; s} Gy Fe. 
 5 i 
 . i" - éy i“ a. 
 - - : t f f * a Ja * = : roa { , 
 ” , ‘ 4 my i” ¥ « w 
 +> a i ’ : i & <0 ts i- ase TK. eak Pee os ie a | 
 : j ‘ he $ a6. 228 - ‘ee “> 
 * > s ¢; 4 Z > ‘ te ASAP <a é q <i NLS ih oh 
 4“ p * h : 
 ae 2 4 é ’ 4 f ‘ ¥ ae ee 
 ry ‘ 4 ca 
 4 ~ . ' 2. ‘* ‘t hy 
 
 
 
 . 
 ie 
 . 
 ™~ 
 
 
 
 ~~ 
 Bens 
 
 ; 
 2 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
* 
 : 
 
 44\ 
 
 rs; time of day, not given; eleva 
 
 . B. Duis from Illinois canal commissioner: . 
 
 ied by F 
 
 gauge reader, not given; cop: 
 
 1876. 
 
 in charge of Illinois canal 
 
 and Des Plaines rivers, Winois—Continued. 
 
 ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL, LASALLE, ILL.—Continued. 
 
 ANOS 
 
 Mi 
 
 WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS, ETC. 
 
 , Lock 15 
 -24; 
 
 Gauge readings, 
 430.2 
 
 Location of ga 
 tion of zero, 
 report for 1877-78.] 
 
 [ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H. Doc. 263, 59-1 
 
 oe ee ivan hegre mere or se am ee ee ee ee ee ek fc 8 8 se ee 8 oe 
 tit. on ee a re! ee ee ere ee ee es oe ee b> § 7 23.4 Bee 6. 2 -O £-ws. 4.3 F o- 8. # et a et 
 3 . . ’ . . . ’ * . , . ; ‘ , . . ; : * . : . - . ’ zs . e 2 o 3 < ; r4 ; M ; : . “ n “ , : . y : - : . ’ , ’ . . : . > ; . ’ ; > 
 & ; ; ; ; 2 : : ; . ; . , ‘ ‘ ; , , . . ; ; M ; . ; : . . Zo Q x , . > * te . ’ ’ ] * . Y . ’ . ’ . ahaa ; a ; ’ ; : ; * , ; 
 — . J J e ES ae +9 ’ . oe Res ‘ ’ ’ | 8 ke . J +=" Paes s ,. . . MS ES a SR Ae ie. , ‘ ’ . . ptt , .f - *s. = 
 RS SHOAINAAA HO rINeDODEDEDOD FF | ae eee a aS x SOO GOSCHANHHRORHMOOOSW WME ONMMMAOM ; 
 ted . 4 ; ; : : : : > ae ; 
 , , . ' ' 
 ; . e . ‘ ,. » ‘ x ‘ 
 is —_ ee ——— o°e ; aS a ee needa ase 
 Z | $20.00 00) 0 EO A LO tt et tt tt td AS ~ ~ SYOSOOSOAAAT MAMMA HMDS HH HMw 
 _ ~~ = ~ ‘= 
 Lie 
 - 
 Ne ae a a re ee = = = ae Se acm pecans — et at a 
 ’ °o 4 : 
 re ee cations aeebeenaemeemeane eaeiee : ~ 3 {oeoerroene conser sonanseeaeas | : 
 ‘ ak 
 e on” a 
 ESS GES +. ae Be ee et eee eles =i Pe A ES EDS NRE Pee oe OR ims Pe 
 . s HOA OSOORE EDSON HOCSGR ONE tORAAAM te) . ; $2 SSIS. .00 00 00 00 00 00 0 G0 00 90.40 00.90 GO I Be Pe Be Be RS a 
 » | § a 2 wo | gaa J 
 = \ ee ee eS oa E- TS ggg tt EERE gt gt gt ge 
 Tan) Ry 
 n 
 . eee renee ne eee 88 wa ee M31 Ot OE Mt OO HOR Wry 00.69 00.0010 ge Pas ePIS CHDOMMOBHORHONMMMHMSSSSOSOSS 
 3 ; : ao 
 2 eatsass2sssan BA SSSSAAAWDHMENOOO o E eo B= © OO 00 00 00 00 00 00. he Be Be 0 60 10 19 19 1010 19 19 1D ESE tt \ 
 mb , : 
 : eR eee oy TENE — . Be eS ee te 
 a C= be ROSCMSAMMBHSHARMOOHNNOOSMAMHENS ’ a a3 ¢ gather ee rir be Seer ee : 
 . o's em 
 ® . sa} Lar) Z~ 
 . a ’ ‘ 
 : AMA HOM GOOCH TH HOOHHOGHOMBONMS # . tH - es 
 > s pec a tee ae Ae i s bath Recta: ~ coeliac tiene” pila tliat nathan elect 
 re Ry 
 Fit iS ears ° ie ae cane ae 
 a ae Te Ve oe . Bo . J ’ ‘ . J , . ' 
 5 SARA: nw aS en la ne au OES ae” Tae Re ed te taal lh ead — heath Patt heath 
 MOO srr eras Origin : Ot HOD OANA RA : o a eis tp OU ee. ee : 
 a, REE SS Seas As sate Seer ; 
 - na : : : - : : , : : a : : ; : 4 2 . : : ’ : 2 z . , . . . 4 . me . . . ’ . . . + ’ ‘ ’ ’ ’ ’ . ’ ’ ‘ . . ‘ ’ ’ ‘ ’ — 
 Ke OR ay ee ee ee eae ee Se Sr en ae . ere =2 es s : te pi Lena TaTN acts MARLEE Ss LeeLee Ee pee! eee 
 : a an ae on- S SS! BAe Ge a ea ; : ; ' ; ; 5 ; 4 3 a s 2 3 ee ne ee ee ee DS ee Aces ; Coe ca ae Sa i 2 ie ee - 
 vs SSR SEES Se Se ooo eee eee 8 bo oie dee SESRREBSP ERS RGhs SRSEMS OF. 
 » ‘ ’ aoe {Se - aw eee CO YE & OF? eS eee ee ee) |e ‘ ' ' ' ‘ ‘ ’ ‘ ' ‘ ‘ aA oe , ‘ ’ ‘ . ' ‘ : >. 2...) hh. @- &£ 7 , . ‘ ’ , . ’ . 
 oe a as ee Sk eR UP Ue eS 7.3. S88 = J ’ ’ ’ J ’ ’ ’ ' , amt . , ’ J ’ J . ‘ ; ’ - ; ; — : 
 SD CS SESE SER ee oar gS Ee et See aaa a ee ea ay ee 
 nt ee cod. 4S Seba eg rato tase a 2 Ok caruies tn Seti g | at: Pee cere See eee SS alee, Cee 
 : : : : : : : : r . . A : : : : . , : ‘ : i , ° ‘ ’ r § 5 Ry, , ‘ ’ ’ ‘ ’ ’ ‘ . ‘ . * : , , . ‘ ‘ ’ , , ’ ‘ 
 | we. EOS Sa MNS Me IE. s e : . ’ 7% d ‘ . eal ge a ees Fee oe ee ee ‘ . , e . -. «£5 (FP wee SS oe OF 
 Po: Cs RE RRS PSS ES Se eS et eB ee ee re ee ets A Sb ee se ve 8 ee ens a ars a 
 a = eee x oe 8 wa ‘"a~s'-t Bp Be ‘ aR Ma patie” Bg cia ee ° e eS a = coh ea Be ae ie 2 ee ee o @.0.-6 -¢ eRe 
 = ‘ ° 4 Se eal Ge es Oe ee ee . 49> 07-33-44" « Re eek ea : 
 ee ie FA PS DOORN, BRS ee Ss hte eee 8 i: Peed q et) i a a i oe oe Sn Pe om “it ee” Tay te ok G £ oe ee ee 
 = : &, ; . 4 : ’ : : : - : : : : ; - - = o%, ee eee o ’ . . Sot | Lar) : +S : ; . : . B |< ; : ; F ; ; , : ; : “ : ; - ; ; : ; ; : | 3 ; 
 Se? Se Re Se a ae a-oe Berta ee esas ott se fe Ae eee de Ae ees 
 > EA eth, Saal state Fre ei gee) FP] ice eo ee koe SBS Pe CERES aS 
 HOCH ORDOCHAMHHOR DOO on itmiba cet” 4) Sl ad we Unease eee he Le Pi : . ' : , a, ; ote a9 os - 
 = rT im "SSS eesn es. A ANOCBOM OSSIAN MIONOGS IAS MEEK ESS 
 
 29 
 

 
 _* ? ‘ 
 ‘ » 
 
 OS SF. : 
 <9 ee ot ys 
 . uf ae 
 
 Syl ease 
 a %, 
 
 bores 
 
 Sh es 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 eee ce 
 | 
 
 La > 
 " age tay She 
 "tes as 
 Pa ie) d kee 
 aD | Y: i 
 v ad “ my 
 4 fet Libre 
 oS ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 é > ' 4 - et 
 a ; . 7 i ae 4 
 > ; : ¢ , = a aie wat ; f | ; 
 . - - “a Pa ? ws ‘s ve. A»! a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iMickeoe 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 one ba aa é 
 
 
 
 
 
 ra. 
 
 
 
 
 i il 
 a”, 
 ih 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ Wop | oA Mina Mule Nh ee a i able: pe ee 
 : . ¥ ‘ - ‘at +) c ¢ a. ye ‘<! p An 5 dif ard 
 | AOS Aer a UNE oe eG 
 4 fs 
 : ¢ ee: ; Ce et ak pe bags |) A tee : es at 
 r uo ‘ ba * am , - ’ = 
 ; ,, 4d iW 
 < exeicey A Fuse ix 
 iy 1 « ; & a4 Ce ake he 4 ’ 
 P ee ‘ Bm) dg! 
 | es 2 
 ‘ \ Sma i ol Ar 
 OR is al aby G Loner 
 q 
 ) 4 , ae 3 ie iy ye ) a? 
 a cit . . * tr d bop } 
 | : as" 2 RY 
 4 ; . ¥ re : 
 + f 1 
 5 » r v. $ at 5 + 
 . A ; hh: ; is : ; 7 Wy 4 .. 
 >. ‘ +' a * 1 : ae Mae 
 mt ‘ < Va 
 j eee Mie . . 
 1 e a ' 
 i “ ; 
 = x j ., 
 : ; \ i ‘ ‘ * ) ib ae 5 
 : ” (2% ihe (fess aithn cote 
 © ] ; i 5 4 ; 
 A -" P 4 ak ce td : HT. pry 
 Fp ; car . ie! 3 i as 
 ee echgee 7 ee Wty Boh ye 
 4. a, -¢ ; 7 ed ¢ "| Seam ty 
 a P t ne ar , a> Coes 
 ‘ * w ’ 4 *. ie it ; ove Piet . "id: eae 
 ‘ . é y ‘ 1 ale er 4 ‘Sf : 
 wy be Ee FAL i Mee fn nTe: aa gD 8 
 aD Lee - a ee n 
 4 5 M - lp ve, » “3 ni; : ; i bat 4 - 
 , . = ° 4 o Sta . 
 iy * " . o 4 7 y ¥ ge ay e * * 
 . a = vie Lode Re fet Ro 
 ’ im) LU rf i. : - St Oe, a i 4 “sf 
 ha? ge Veg , 2 a A th. bh 4 - Ss isf3 
 . * 7 — , Vy 17 if ? 
 ew 4 y : ’ ’ Pet j att 1 gna ae? ease” an 
 my hey ee ane cee, Ga pir ede vies oe 
 a ee ae ee > ENT £ ee te Lalas x 
 * ; elt Maer ae DE ctkthenc, aasiakenaneeral 
 ‘ 4 * ai ey O& ale en baie hess IGP A Lara eee 
 al i ee, yr ae Peo Gee aoe “ps de) 
 Sl BE Ral age Me « ae Sdite Bee et a al 
 rae Jame vl d , MIF Mek + wet 
 a rg ood tree dbs oe re) Cent 
 ’ by J : = 3 eyed ’ ty be aw 
 ; Bi WR: Oe Baa 
 . . iJ = te y 
 7 oe % ae 3 ral 
 . he 2 r r 
 guy ¥ ; '* 
 mtg) '¢ Vi ‘ Se, ker ee 
 RS : f = bo Pre, Pe 
 . m4 a "sg Ye Sa 
 ; , war) sate © aS 
 * Se fu 7 
 , ‘aie 
 ‘ ior Ol 
 " iy 
 
 
 
 * Ae it . 
 
 
 
ee 3 
 
 qu WATERWAY, 
 
 (revit readings, Mlinois and Des Plaines rivers, Ilingis Continued. 
 
 ILiLINOTs 
 
 * 
 
 Lock 14: 
 
 AND MICHIGAN 
 
 LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS, ETC. 
 
 ‘ANAL. DABADILE, 128A: 
 
 ISS. 
 
 —Continued. 
 
 d 
 
 [Lecaution of gauge, in charge of United States Engineer “ ‘partment; time of day, 7. mi. 
 : level Ole oTo, 443.907 gunge reader, Lowis Cook: c@pied by F. B. Duis from cards in U nited one 
 C1ge raion at Citeags, Il.) 
 : 
 ‘ - a. 
 Lu by Mar. \pr. May. June: | Jay. Allg. | Bépt. Oct. Novy. Dee, @ 
 . ¢ 
 OP. GEM Fh Ohne, oF eA es > ake abba SN aUe ao Ati oe ai ga 4.8 OS 0.9 Ree | 
 BE hata Ho dasa x Vase goths pn ¥aiex af Ode WO ah daw Apis RE eek ME ceed 3.1 By 1.0 A kets ed : 
 La SID ads peed ee) RU ee | Um Pe) ceReA SS Parte MENS Ney oy Me AC bay 3.4 65. 1.2 ye att AF a 
 EES CORE iy | © Ry enue arta aeyaen (0 ee NY vertices ONL 5.0 6 Rr aes AP eid keke | 
 ‘ MBG CEs boc SO eE is oul did eun. | Like ieee eee eels RUE A oy ak a LY2) hace ont owen 
 ty Bxih sD Le Eh catgh athens ot we 
 ‘ RAE SONG Eka Hpters ons fe bs eh RG Mice ee es: yy ] .&- .4 Lie ides cealeeee: 
 Mh ate Teil to i GET Die hae Al 4 ale ov Sek ally a Sky Voie tata Eee aS oot L.6 ae Yet (Bate SLs cin Hote e al 
 ORR NATE UST ie nate nM es Sia A CE ee l.4 25 ep ONCE 
 ee IN SP pe LIESSE! Dan JERE i Be TH Oe UR FR ay: ue VOR eo ee oy on ie 
 el RN Ph eRe Re 1.0 3 OS VN ah oan 
 EGO (ODE ENE AP TaD I Riaee ‘aie ey nie a Lb Og PR hea CN bee 
 NE eI RRO Seon 6. Sula gh Gita - and ne ae denna 8 D ® A ee ee 
 CM UR eee Gee |, Ae) eel ce, Men ia gs Oh) cae TES Mapas E00 4 
 BGR) ins Deutaa ws obs Mua ee ELON bids x) coylide wdaretuietehs <qth ad Sake Ce tae ae a ie = ene ee 
 It. a he es ee ee a en ee Loki dtd wih dl gah d's Lu id? Bh EE ee ao Peay « . 
 0 ETD BOR ELS GRE Say! FO DACA Re Dane = 5) ie, 1.1 3 Ee eS epee ee ee i 
 UO hs eer . Pe ag 1, Bi piee 6% he een A 
 AN Sn No eet Bho ec rah ae yic'e Gh bis dh a Re Male ah abe ee oe 9 eee 1.0 MG et: bP ee eee Fon oe 
 NA as nO ee i NE gr cc dns atclula 04 08} Se sd ow » 1.0 AD 1, oP eo vets grade | 
 RE ARE Dern da Sie, 5450 ab ci p i Aine dekh wens | bere ed “9 x Lie As tines 5 tapes aed 
 re eae ye alts Weg oh, adie o's a lve of phe bids SEPIA Nao ak We bas Li 4 I Ne FS et nae 
 eo. Pr, yee oe OE Cee Oe ahs seas Boe ci) eee ater a 6 Ly Boi cn ox) x 
 eG ii eee ee eo Sh ak aes tat cbaw ea by 8 .8 US i Bere ee 
 Be Be ea eR IE Werte ig wn noe walwin eed a 9 AW, Vow doin ant as 
 26... ES BEE er dae Senn | en ees | nee Pe ee a | 8 L. 4 fo. cee eee 
 Reet Os, pe Ne as Ses sb isin aa pace women pee edie e 6 8 A es ee A oe 
 Pe SNe a SD LG cde as Valdes, a wih thihe «alia h] eiWulgtnlatn 6 8. Pel tidatat deta 
 ER eee a a oa ae ee A Oe | cme whee SR 9 :8 (a RSPR Beh Ok 
 is. 1 bah Re EEN On ais le had dibs st awtad > Shaw daens gions’: aa O45 8 REL A whe cdi's tele Rants 
 ets go eee Ri, STE a Ss i Peal Mee ys athe exe o4 On RS Fal hada ea ae eee 
 1893. 
 
 
 
 (1. ocution of gauge, Lock 15; in charge of Illinois canal commissioners; time of day, noon; elevation 0 
 ‘ero, 435.36; gauge reader, John Corrigan; copied by O. W. Boers from records in Illinois canal com 
 Missi oners’ office at Lockport, IIl.] 
 
 
 
 Day Jan. .\. Feb. Mar. Apr. | May. | Jume. | July. | Aug. |: Sept. -| Oct, | Nov. | Dec 
 » i 
 Ft. in.’ Ft. in. Ft.in. |) Ft.in. | Ft.in. | Ft. im. | Ft. in. | Ft.in. | Ftin. | Flin. | Ft.in. t Ft. z 
 Lo. Ph PRR, er alge 6. oF. selina de Oui een woe 4 A Oe poe cae ti O PIT Wao ; 
 Fe PASTE 8 airy gd URS Se TERRA A ROR, aS BLES Dp Sa ee Ge ee 1D | OEE Wee 
 3. 2 Reape, ies eMart RY At Bae A a WES) 1h) 0 eee hie (Bie Bat | Meee 
 CR PRES ee) PINT ES, OE AY FRR aR a ee eh ee AUR ID fii sGs. 1 eae Ween ae 8 a Ph 
 RR RE A PES RP a aE oS 10 10 hy Pe SA re: 
 SA Tae Sig ar dre 7S ly Tia Pi RL Be CLE 10 9 BM ee. ae pe an es. © 1) Rea 
 Ek SIN, HCAS AMER lig Shap) POL! Shih TAR A ay Re ie eae 
 - 10 8 He CB pie ase Fw OB LG) POS 
 “he GRR en Sei ipa. ATER, AMET 1! AND 24 CCRT YT Mi eet ee 1D: bedi oh eee Gian eb Ge 
 “RAL RSE 1 Tee ne Me OES, SAARI 0 IR 10 6 IE PE PS ND 12 SAI BP : 
 (ep Eee SRR eS Eo: 2 10 5 Oy 2 tent. oe: is Eo ee 8 ge 0S ae 
 Bs ieee Reems a es ti Beh me een os ees WP i ae 12) Le Te 
 TUS iae ea Sa ORR nie me SS ¥ lalla Fas 8S 10 8 ee ee iy ie fed Oy © 3 py Ae eee 
 i Ae: Yee a 10 2 se BR le: SA Th ke oe oO: a ee 
 Sf PN PTET eae CERES ORCA dG DR BURR?" 10433 “AP in a ya eas Bi i 
 lt Se es eA LE Tit So ROR FORE OP he 9277 1 Re Rr ye 12s hve Be ese 
 SL TE, (SR Be Oe Cr eres Deane (Oly A ke Dh he ee 1 ODT Pie 
 “VR RR TORN RES, ic MARE s (Pe a CAS Ye sana pT Ab @IOY 10" 0 2)... pO Baie Wa Pes BOG 3 pt elie 
 “NE ROR ate f ie Ra ASE ae Petes 12 8 GES ATC IO. Cer tis es AL 72, SU 1740 Ba... y 
 m4) TD eee Oa Ge 1D. Bi eR Re A teed TE Lie tte ee, 
 1 ae eR het Pai Oe Dy) Me a Baap oe a NT A eB lees kk 13 1 
 ? ES ee), BR tp RENT ORE RCH, TE oR ie SS Sa, Be eae Wi CR aa (RGA 
 23. iS a BR to 8E OB eae ie ed, | Fe Sea ee ee 
 Na RE) UR © ae Oe ES NORE, 2 1 ee 2 Ae a ag ee Ye Re a A 
 TS ied Pe Saat SARE, Rie Ee: 2 0 SE ae ee ee eee 11 11 
 GUS ALESIS Sol Oanes PCE Sagem Foe sre 1 11 Ue ae eg a 1A is... 
 27 Hi pian F Ae 11 9 Bay Tider Ge etOlw yay St Bes 
 CE ES ets Set SL CRS Spa fi a eee Bi ay Ce (ge a pe SRE Be 
 ”y 11 6 BRET CER) Ua ase, ae 1 
 ‘) 11 4 § 10) 10.4 1! 11 i" 
 S 9: 10 3 oa Malone 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 nit i . tne OF itis 
 
 ne | URTVERSITY Gi Wlektien om 
 \ ah ) * ay ' y ‘e 
 ' ' 2 ' Vana Nn PVN Ae 3 43 ‘ay ma, F ee), ae 
 i , u 4 ' Dane 3 » j 
 
 area 
 ian ; 1 iy 
 ie 
 
 
 

 
 WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS, ETO. 
 
 Gauge readings, Illinois and Des Plaines rivers, Iinois—Continued. 
 
 ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL, LASALLE, ILL.—Continued. 
 
 | Location of gauge, Lock 15; in charge of Illinois canal commissioners; time of day, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1894. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 noon; elevation ot 
 
 
 
 zero, 435.36; gauge reader, John i iairre copied by O. W. Boers from records 1 [llinois canal com-' 
 missioners’ otlice at Lockport, Il.] ifs 
 | | | rf 
 Day Jan. | Feb. _ Mar. | Apr. | May. | June. | July. | Aug. | Sept. | Oct. | Nov. ) Dec, ’ 
 hie! a COLCIER | freee — eS 
 Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft. in. Ft. in. |Ft.in. j 
 He Rae Ey ie RES RATA) yo | 122) 1 3} 10 2) 10 2) 1 7 ).,...ge 
 FESR Sa AR Rome" ; 14 0 | ie ee | 12 1) 11 4} 10 2) 10 2 i 3 DF lise: fe 
 Tae OR Tees Le caaeekMianaes ES ere 3 6 41 5.45 eS st. 1 we i... 4 io, 
 OB eet Ea FARSI TRE a Bai te a eS eee | Ce oe ae Be ae eae ie ee ee es ee ee 
 ) 2 SRY TRIED Ses ae da 2, ee 12 0} 11 7/ 10 2} 11 0] 1 1] 10 8B)...... 
 Bie le pad ne oth ot ka ne ea | 49 0) 107 4 10. 94 ee Oe I: Ae 
 FM id gies Oaths 3 4s oes 5 ee Mek OO Zhe TT oe ae © ae boa 4 
 BEEN Pee Be gi. ee ah oh ama at 12°30) Th 8) 1003712 37 We wae. 
 ROT CRT AE ROR MS STN Uae he eee ee LOL S41 10 84012 71 aT We 0)... oo 
 
 OE EES RRA ERNE DAR Cie SE gt, RSE 11 8| 11 0] 10 4/ 13 6] 1010} 1010).... 
 i, aeartils gine eee ee hee La 6. 8 20°9] 13°1) 0) BR ae 3 
 © UR ATS Pate Dee ieee We eae 7h RE ek a Mae a sk ee | a 4 
 MS Hy a AS IAN ee aa he Re Mey: | 11 3}. 10 6|g10 5] 12 1] 10 8] lt 2}...... | 
 RS ia Se el Serial? OO te | 12 8}-.....2. | 3 6 OOO Be Te TEP ee y 
 
 Wh TS OS Sea eo. Oy Seas ML 40. 6] 10. 6. A Be FPR BL 
 ya bi a ie ae AC CTE ae es: ll 1| 10 6; 10 4] 11°88; 10 7| 11 3|....Ame 
 Cgah Se AAS RES Rah PERE Te cs RRR 1 11 1| 10 6| 10 3] 11 9 | 10 7]. 11 3 ).....B8 
 1 LSE SIS Seed, Naa ee oe oe ee ie | ie ie eo ie ee ae ee ee ed et ee 
 DE PER SY Sa cies [AB Tales denelng hae OY es aaa | Oi Wen as 6 Sey PC | eee oC | Mee SNe? a 
 ps DRE ony ORE Ae as ere BS. eo a) Oo) We a 6; 10 8 iit ar biden ale x 
 gad BRS aS Fae ieee sey SU aca 9.4 48 5 8 oe SY Bee cia E 
 ROWS “tae ee ka aete a" aE ey ol a BT a bE a eich : 
 BS oioacnttes nthwsgen ais Leo woken Ui Be af ea 32 6 a Ba ee <7 
 SN, NALS ake TEs eats ee a 11° 94-10 A) ES 6 0 Be 
 Sal ny 8 Se RLS a8 eo 4 1) Bie WO Le ae Ol eco a noe, ee 
 RE ea Te ORS SERS fail 1 Retin M2 10 3 10.1 od) Se Fe ee ; 
 Pik RI ae RARE Pee 1 1 Sy tea 11.3 {10 2140 11 1 4M BE ao ¥ 
 RE PRTG, AES AE Seca OS 1 eae MS}. 10. 2 0) Pe Pe ne oo , 
 ee REPRESS ees WSS pa ay Oe San es ie i ae 10 1| 11 41 0 8 Sime RR . 
 ON GR Reais Feces © A RO? Be Ee i AS Se a) tile Bc Coe ee ae re Ee a pe 8 aR AF ‘ 
 > a ar ek Lag cas SPDR > AP MS be ICE at 2a Tle | Ss 6 Oia eee 
 } / aE a ee +t as 
 1897. } 
 
 [L pace 3 . ae one Lock 15; in charge of Illinois canal commissioners; time of day, noon; elevation o/ 
 
 zero, 435 
 
 missioners’ ‘office at Lockport, Ill.] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Day, Jan. ; Feb. | Mar Apr. | May. 
 
 | : j 
 
 Ft in.| Ft.in:| Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft. in. | 
 Sas PROGR, RIC a Paaees 2 OF 46.84 
 ee Pie ites pt i | 21 0|] 15 6 
 Ue, SPIRO SES ooo ae pees |} 211] 15 5 
 She, as ee Ue Orie ah 2010|} 15 4 
 ES Be aes fat 20 9! 1411! 
 SR eae Fea 20 8| 14 7 
 i ieh a ves ier abt Pog ae eol 20 6] 14 4 
 oP Ore eee Sach ea 20 4) 14 0 
 02" Rin BO ae. Spanos ee OP ss Serj bea OA Stags i= SOAR 
 ES ESET Sees ees. Ri ati Sa 19:10} 18°3 
 (OR SE VEEN ae eee 19 71 13 Bh 
 a BES era Se re ah ae. 
 he Te Ee tom Cages bap ies ee 
 | Fee Se Bierce ase 1810! 12 4 
 ON? 5 eae TC AE Oe See yf A Be Shy be | 
 “Be OE BSS ee 18 3]| 11 9 
 vet UES TASS Cerne IS: OO 4T. S| 
 TS REY FREES Deere iv O4: Uh 5:3 
 aS eee, 1 Te Rae aes 17 6} 11 5 
 ee ees ARI 2k SOP Se iT 2 ws 
 ee Ea SRS OS 16 93} 3 
 EE ae Ee Tn eee 145 0! 10 10 
 ro, oe een Rear ORT a PP 147] 10 9 
 TOS Res aa SSE ES gee nye a 71's 
 5 SR SE SLE Mass 15 0} 10 9 
 NR? TE Pe Ee he 15 6| 10 8 
 ES eS ECs ee | 15 6]. 10 7} 
 ERS ER Aa SRI ga (eae eae 5 7| 10 6) 
 “TE PS eel aes pee | 15 7| 10 4 
 1S LS So eS (ee ee ht id: & 10 3 
 ESR hee 2 SR Pe js =~ see 10 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 | | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | June. | July | Aug. | Sept. | Oct. 
 (eee ee es ” =o onan 
 Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in. | Ft.in. 
 3 Oe. O15, Bi ee 
 ae hy bat) 9 9 9 6 9 5 
 Ce Of Peak 98 a Bee bee 
 DO AB a ere ee ee 
 OTe a ST He OP 
 OOF TP hl Oe eae 
 Ob Ww) eee Bie OR er Ue 6 
 Nas, pg Wey Chery oe Ge a” PR an) ce 
 o 7:20 26) 8 khoe Ss 
 7 a Fh Oe OG abe os 
 9 7 10 5 | 8.61.0 81° @:5 
 OS a Bek Pe ee be he cae ieee See 
 | 9 6 i) SiC e es BL eS 
 See eS ae oe ee ee 
 | 910 0 3) 9 619 6] 96 
 1 0 90 a Oa ee gg 
 | 10 6| 10 2} 9 41 9 6] 9 6 
 1010; 10 2} & 4 9 6 9 6 
 To6 eo Ew O TO °8 
 2 OL FT Se Sl RS. os 
 ) 1 Sp ty ay. 8 8) 8 by 8 6 
 3 7) 1b 2t 8 6). 9 6] 9.6 
 1 5{ 10010; 9 5| 9 4] 9 6 
 1510} 0 7) 9 6 941 9 6 
 15 2) 10 4 a 6) > oS LS OG 
 MS 3: 6) BT Sb T? O48 
 13.11 [2:10 9) O68}. 9 8] 98 6 
 }.13 5] 911} 9 6] 9 5| 9 6 
 1210; 9211! 9 6] 9 5| 9 6 
 22) 910!) 9 6 9 5 9 6 
 BRT | find a eee ak 
 ~ ’ 
 
 Nov. 
 
 
 
 auge reader, James Ross; nopiee by O. W. Boers from records in Illinois canal com 
 
 Dec. 
 
 
 
 | Ft. in. rin. : 
 
 
 
 9 6 halle “ 
 D6 |. eae 
 9 8 | 5 dni 
 Cae Re hae a 
 9 30 fo ee 
 9 0 \ie oe 
 9 9 |e P 
 9 91/2, 
 9 1042.43 _” 
 910 fi .ug . 
 S107, 22 
 “© 101. .coeee 
 9 10'}...6:2 
 A ee ee 
 O30) 2. 
 Ue iy eee age 
 10) EN oes 
 1G 3. ee 
 101 |-o.e j 
 1G" 3d toa : 
 10 2) ..6. ae: b 
 Ts 4 
 Jes Schone eae " 
 ae See ‘ 
 ~ee ewe mw ele ed 
 emaeel 
 weed eee bio 
 ) eel «0% oe 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * a7 
 «.) Wea f 
 x vy a, s 
 ‘ 
 ‘* h | ie 
 ANY = 
 > te 
 y ’ 
 
 Ra 
 ay 
 
 , f se ee 
 ; bie buy eee Le 
 II EE ROB To 7 as Bios yes 
 
 + ite *9 
 
 ane 
 
 oS 4. 
 ¥ 
 a3 
 
 aor 5 
 
 ie 
 
 . s* 
 
 uA 
 ree 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ~ / i 7 
 , : Xn , th J a 
 _~ , a ; oo ; 
 4 , a,4 a : 3 yf i n Vy i 
 “a M t ps +. ae 7, 
 . k > ond . 7 
 4 ey yi x ae ey, GR AaS Dien 8 wR 4 Pe ol fi sy a a 
 es ng) cate aaa tere Lae. i ‘ey 4 ; “h) 
 } i 
 - in 
 oh eget 
 > Ly Js 
 ; F i ‘* Ae j » 3 A 
 4 ny “2 + 408 : ye = 
 ‘ » : . 
 ‘ i . ¥ le ri +7 
 Pr ‘ . 
 s ¥ 
 ts ea ‘ t <a ay seh ‘ ss vi aa 
 ee cee iia San & se 
 re a ¥ i A 2 oy te re 
 Pry et : ra nets #¥ ea | =i = mopticton ole Hy oid 
 kl ae rad : r. ah worry ¥ ee to we Oe 
 ves , ; , Ce - © Nie Ay ane bbe yn he OR Lae 
 eas ag! ae ee ee a) aan a ee: 
 . : ey 4 
 : “4 s & » ‘ 1 
 + «J ay = ° ‘ v as 7 a ‘ Varad ck rwd 4 -¢ 
 * " 4 4 , 2 * . vt i >% 4 4 ty : e k é » ¢ 
 q x 2 ry 4 is Fh “> 
 7 * fe ¥: 4 4 + - % i eens > ar rf vf , ¥ 
 i ; r : ? ae ae ‘ coe nus 
 a i A a = : : « 
 ‘ ¥s ot > ; 4 a. 
 . " ps 4 a a J Z i pis * + * is a ad 
 es at, a Aa OMe. ee ena ae | 
 ; me poly bs ee RS PS oan ; 
 3 ef , ee (ene ks on ap we pa 
 a at , y i Ey he 2 ‘ 5 
 . * \ oh 5 : ‘ 4 is Se = 
 ; a. a 
 mn 4 % c a \ . e _ 
 4 . ey ‘ 4 3 4 a sb i i ay 2 ; * 
 . ¥ kh oe a 
 ’ ‘9 ‘ - ee «pd 
 i ‘ A ¥ we ¢ r, 
 ’. e - 4 d m4 s Aree 4 \! 
 1 5 & ‘ Pe : ty 1 wha she 
 D ni ; ¥ 
 r : ‘ “4 A . ‘ : Lt 
 es 43 ro . ah j “ 
 a ‘ t °°? i ag 4 s° 
 ' mo : id - 
 : j é , 
 * - te 7 4 WIP oe =“ , 
 ‘ ’ . Fi na * 4 
 on af) ae G4, at : +5 i 4 
 oe . s ™ bl » inh ‘ vik 
 4 ” Pe Bi iy Me nat cs ae Wi “43 
 - 5 : By: : Tay M as 
 > 0 phe: é 2 iS * f é aoe if 1 
 ‘ ‘ . ¥ 
 é F% at ian ~ * 
 | By a "RIVER IY BP ite r 
 . VERS RITY BE MAseE. So cera ee 
 | ae 4 . } Pr * hal . oles . 
 . 4 4 * z * < 
 + > + a4 R44, 7 
 v 
 5 | eS | 
 . i ‘ ‘ ; c ) * 
 eT eee Goer ate inside. AMES LB Be igce DADE Sie idl eae 
 vy Get se a - cx * se ; Ye a ¥ 7. fe MEE “ws 1 Monte. h/t ant fr, a thn 
 j Eh Vdd Pea CRD ES ee 
 4 ‘ . " - ¢ ¥ >> te fata vin es ge! Fog 
 ‘4 = - 
 q ¥ war rity f1s*3 gan Ee bate inh 
 7 *s 
 <3 as. 
 
 
 
 har 
 . > r, i “> 
 , ee al iy ee ee at, pie Soh RAs Te frat 4. Ge cate 
 2 f. i727 ; 2 Ge Ve ee : , 
 : ; , on 
 a ; ae OE oe 7 ‘ 
 ‘ | ree ee de ie ; 
 7 . ‘ sis a Fake i i‘ <s ‘ - y 
 oe te a “ ‘ 
 we ico ha) erode Wien al 
 . ‘ * 4> 2) A ‘ : 
 ’ bs ws 4 + ay eee ee PP .* ie 
 ‘ : ; 4 ee ee Se See STE Sa AEE A MEDI 8 eS 
 A * ‘ * *. os Ws <p ae As 7 
 a 3 Q { ' * toe Li fay Ce oy Were "hes +; 'a.e 1s 
 ad tee ° e ne } : nna 
 ; 5 = y Ving 1s ; avin 
 . » +a am er ae a iy 14 
 - | Sr) ee a ee ) aie ‘ G. 
 
 ¢ 6° M805 9 aes es ee #j ite smelt 
 
 p , . Sf = * < A RE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 “ 
 ae, 
 
 * 
 w YS 
 
 ee el 
 
 a ne 
 Cae ed a, - 
 ae ~~ o- 
 a 
 
 a 
 bei tan oP 
 5, emg 
 
 on OX 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 as 
 
 lice. 
 t=, ww \“ 
 + an 
 te 
 
 
 
 
 
 pa te 
 Ay 
 
 
 
 ein © 
 
 BBP R 
 
 
 
 
 Wea teat 
 
 2 
 
 CE eo #2 
 
 ee 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — i 
 Pa 
 
 ere at 2 eile Hl. ‘J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mar. Agr May. 
 t 
 Ft. in. Ft.in. Ft.in. Ft.in. 
 » ee CS es Se ed 12 10 
 ial cial. Sots bn I AS 12.9 
 Sees ee ah tyaiey APG pelea ‘12 6 
 wan edocs “eee eee | ¥ (SCREAM TEESE SCARY CSP 12 0 
 ark exe’ eee twee [Aa eaten ws, oeeee 7 ll di 
 ahate baie Dales wena stiwgsch osha 2 
 ue ied aoe 12 2 
 [eecee ese 18 9; 12 3 
 <r Luts pend ee BA 38 oh | 
 : eee Ot ade YT 
 i ed See ew eee | were - 7 6 ie 9 
 eseeee - ee ee 16 ll ’ ll eh 
 - owen weee a aes alah wae! aged 16 7 ‘ ll 4 
 ; eee to Sol adieticl odes Syeees3> ier 8 aed ] 
 Rte tee etl ee eee ee ae Ave bw 16 7 Bet 5 
 be ewe eet eleoe rene wlio en wees \ 16 § Py. 4 ‘ 
 die a rib oh scamfvecdeoneslesoereces Ei} li : 13 5 
 Meal tt A G13 8 
 4 Bailie Rares pa 4) 14 6 
 Sis, 3 15 1 if ae 
 Aes Th Pe 14.8| 17 8 
 14 6; 18 11 
 ee pe ens 14 +} 19 5 
 Mm O; 19.0 
 A ey 1310. 18 +4 
 biietannt 1310. 17 11 
 3 9 iy See's 
 i 6). 17 4 
 13 3. 16 1 
 12 11 16 5 
 CPS +116 
 
 
 
 Feb. ‘Mar. | ai 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LOCKPORT TO sT. LOUIS, ‘ETC. 
 
 “189s, | 
 
 June. 
 
 Fi, in. 
 15 “Ss 
 1 4 
 15 0 
 14° 5. 
 
 18 10 
 13,3 
 i3-1 
 7 11 
 12 10 
 13.3 
 13  6- 
 13.8 
 13 11 
 6 11, 
 
 ISD®9. 
 
 > 
 
 July. 
 Ft. in. 
 11 1 
 lI 7 ee 
 li 3} 
 10 11 
 10.5 
 10 0 
 9. 11 4 
 9 8 
 9 7 
 9 3 
 92 
 a | 
 8 ll 
 9 0 
 9 0 
 eae 
 9 6 
 9 8 
 9 10 
 9 10 
 9 8 
 9 7 
 9° 7 
 9.7 
 9. 7 
 oa y 
 ee 
 WF 
 Ns 
 a a 
 9 7 
 
 F 
 
 — ee 
 
 Sept. Oct. 
 
 Aug. 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 woopoowo> 
 
 ~ 
 ~ 
 
 Ce nmrwmnwnw eux Sv asPndsi nts ass 
 
 — 
 Ss 
 
 9 Ww 
 
 10 
 10 
 
 } 
 \ 
 } 
 
 Ft. in Ft.in. 
 9 9 o. 8:4. 
 “9 8) 9 8 
 a a 9 9 
 9 8. 910 
 9.8) 911 
 10 5) 911 
 10 6). 810 
 10 4; 910 
 10. 3 1%, 920 
 10:,2'|_ eo 
 OY Ya. tas 
 1053 9 11. 
 10 3 9 11! 
 10-3) FO a 
 10 2 911 
 10. 2) a Se 
 Pi he 1s; 3 
 9 11 10 4 
 910 ~10 6 
 9 9 10 6 
 10.3 .10 8 
 10 6 10 9 
 10° 8). aS 
 10 4. SRW 
 10.0. 22° 8 
 910 211 
 910 “Tie 
 9-9: Wet 
 0.84 ee 
 re ee <}) SORE 
 
 ra — Gauge readings, Illinois and Des Plaines rivers, YitolseCoetinved. 
 WS hege IELINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL, LASALLE, ILL,—Continued. 
 
 gauge, tote 14; in charge of Iinois cena! commissioners; time of day, noon; elevation o 
 uge reader, James Ress; copied by Q. W, Boers from records in IUinois canal com 
 
 
 
 eee eee 
 
 meee 
 
 eee ee ee ee 
 
 , Lock 15; in me of Uinois canal commissioner ‘s; time of day, noon: elevation of 
 Fe reader, ga toss; copied by O. W. Boers from records in Hlinois canal com- q 
 3” t Lockport, Lil. 
 
 ee 
 
 ee ee 
 
 eee eee eee 
 . s 
 
 
 
 
 May. June. July... Aug. Sept. | Oct. | Nov. |: Dec : 
 2 ' > 
 . . ; I. > | ; , ® 
 Ft.in.| Ft.in.| Ft.in. Ft.in. Ft.in. Ft.in. Ft. in. Ft. in. Ft.in. Ft.in | Ft.in. 
 wee Sietaede wecreses: | oneennece il 1 11 11 9 s 9 5 9 3 } 9 5 : 9. 10 | 10 
 : GMs. whew e'cS 5 ving 1010 12.2 0°99; °9 5 9 3)... 41.99.10) 10-0 
 Tulitas dante 1 A aa PA tie sl: OLB). 43.81 Se Fe Ore, 3 PORE 8s 16 8 
 hr 10: 9:| 212-6 9 11 9 5 o 2 ind 5+ 932} 10 2 
 etegetee|erec sees are ie Bato ha 182 9 5 o 2). 9°64 ot 10°23 
 wee teetclessseees Sa MOS 131-12 5.90 8 9 8 9-2) 9 6+ 911] 0 2 
 tn 2 | Ve Saar SA ORE Fay 9 4 92 fo CYS t Woe 
 es ee AS 4 dd Be 2S Bb ES, 3 9 BT Oe? O48 1 10° Se 
 2 es EE aoe SO 44 rte Ps Ba Se oN 4 ORM AE Ped 4 
 1 CEES SUN tices 10-64 10.7 ©1060 9 4 6) 5 [Se GE Be Ts. 
 es ae Clase &. tanks 7-13 Sie, Bol ik SE Ge 9 5 O° Sete Ot cas. 5S 
 ERM 106 wet ceclarens-.- 3 11 Fi 10.3 9 11 Q 4 9 4 O: Baia St. 2: ~:; 
 Biwes. =,|..:-...-|.. Res NT Ge Pree CIO BS ea Be Balm Ook I OUR eM Sh. . t 
 ceo Coen Poe VA ciate eae ee ae elem ee Ge ee og ese DS eee , 
 a Se eS ee 3094-49133) Bf) 20.20. 21S 9 | POU Se Sate Gta tig a eae Me 
 Ss Ck a 149 1110 9:11) (44 <6 G3 9 4 ee es ee ; 
 |. RSG KAR 1445. 12 4 910° Le o 0 B.S 0-8 1 a Bees 
 ab. Se oS, ee ar as 12 8) 8. Soe Ss 9 0 9 5 ie er ey i 
 ates Be eee BE Ble Dia ae Lo Be C8. Be Oy Bak TO Oe bea oe 
 eC sare let thes 9. 6) 16:1 ee ae ge eae a at ee we Re (3 
 | Se is 22k F @: 5 ele se 9 3 ie aes ih) ay Se ae 
 : IEEE dig wan civ'ola'e wa eas 12 11 11'S Gb 13 a: 2 9 & pe he ORS 3S ee 
 OS) ee DORR Lt a 7 tik 3 9 FE 102 9 4 9 & Or BP t0 ad tes cans 
 pa Ne ae Paas 1B 3) 0 OY 10 0 o Bir oO 6 Gy 8 RY OR BRE a 
 ; Geen oak oes 8)! OLE RIO OB ied: 6} 8. BPM Bd. 
 SS (Ot CS 12 4 10 6 8 1] g 9 a 6 o 5 9° 8 1 he 1S ee p 
 es Pee Ra weg has + Sy 1 4 9 0 9 9 0 5 9 6 9... 0/1 Ra ed nea 
 OF Ss ae we, Faas 111 WW 3 Q@ 4 Q 8 o 2 208 9 11 Woe Ass. 
 | Witpe 8 agg | bay ‘She | Xe Saw Sl AMA See pn Beery 0 4 9 Foo UW |) “aoa... 
 es AU SES An Jat ASG 2 thi @ ee a Te 9 4 9 6 wise 5 oa 
 MS EONS SSS Fee Pites CS Sa 6) 9 3 Pere Bo ee 
 te 0 ae ee += a _— “er * 
 A NN SENN ARS REA RA RAR e 
 

 

 
 WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO 8ST. LOUIS, ETO. 453) 
 
 iy 
 
 Gauge readings, Illinois and Des Plaines rivers, {ilinois—Continued. | 
 ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL, LASALLE, ILL.—Continued. 
 1900. | 
 [Location ——-. Lock 15; in charge of Illinois canal commiystoners, time of day, noon; elevation 
 
 »40f zero, uge reader, James Ross; copied by O. W. Boers from records in Illinois canal 
 commissioners’ office at Lockport, Ill . 
 
 nn ee — 
 
 | : : | ‘a | ; : 
 Day Jan. | Feb. Mar. Apr. May. | June. | July. | Aug. | Sept. | Oct. _ Nov. | Dec. 
 
 a ae | a, OS eee 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 cm | | a ree 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Fi.te.| Fein. Fein. Ft.in. Ft.in.| Ft.in. Ft.in. Ft.in.| Ft.in. Ft.in.) Ft.in.| Ft. in.) 
 Gl is oS aS Ebb 81. 1908) ome | WR 8) ae tT) WO 7 | 90790 |....... 
 ee ee fod nthe late dares iB cis 12 9} 13-9} 10°7) 112) 11 11) 1010) 10 °7)....... 
 A eae ates dd xi Meet 1823) 122°9; 109} 1010} 11130} 1010; 10 6)....... : 
 Beh. . oat cat Whee! SRO" Gia He 1210} 12°9| 1011) 10 7| 11:97} 1011| 10 6)....... f 
 SS Ee |nsaseeerlntonmenb|nancakes 12 9] 12 6) 1011) 10-7)| 11 4; 1011!) 10 6)....... 
 re aia gile Wpisibeet | 5 dia | 19-7) 8) 10) WO OL ON |. | 7 ).......] 
 ee aE GED } 900 oT 19S) IO EE 10. 8 0-8 {11 0} 0 8 }....... 
 Bi cadhtae bata roa) wiaaiben 20 6) 18 1] 12-6) 10 8+ 10 9) 10 4) 11 0; 10 9|....... 
 ER MARIO NY A BAK He | 3) ASc8 bh Sy 068' | 10-81 10°73) 11 0) 2 }....... 
 OS Seibert acess codec abe Perr ie le ae ee le) 10.2) 1640); 11-0 |......- 
 YA man eeu Rp EaGe | 18 1) 13 2] 11:9; 10 6 10 7} 10 6} 10 5| Nl O}....... 
 SRE Dadkstielin Me ids. 3 are bP ase. Ie Ie Ol yee wee: Woe AER OL... 
 Bly Stl d oie sc De ase ee 17 4) 13-0} 11.27 10 6| 1010| 910) 10 2) 11 O1....... 
 ERS aes Seana Rigsaess 170} 1210; 106.10) 10°68) 10104 9 8) 10.27) 0 0|....... 
 MU cas EOE: 0. < pits clade cy ni 16) 9.4 33. OPO 7 (1 Bal 4 oe 8 10-7... 
 sad cal nce: seat intadesta 16 apes 0 61:10 8) 11.47 90 81 21 10. 6 |......- 
 es hb ce divase~ nbs a caets 16 5/| 12 1; 1010] 10 6! 11 4. 1010] 10 2) 10 8 | Re 
 6S ae ORS Sheena 16°64 32 0 |. 1bid} 10°86) 11. 8) 1s S490. 2PM Of... | 
 oe Ry ee fewer Rp 1610; 11 9 1010) 106 1 2) 9 8! 10 2) 1 2) er Tay ’ 
 ek RR Re aaa 1d i BW 18 2 1 BE Oleh MR ae ay... f 
 TE nbs Ssaplest a NaOH Leonia 1G OLS |. 208 4 20. OP 1 Bt 8 Se we 4 f....... 
 TE eens il ich 4) 18) Ft 7 | 10 10 fF EST 88 b A006) 38: 8h... 4 
 aceon <4 Ahegeatae Seats 16°2|} 18 2) 10 7f 10 8] 12) 9 Ob 7) 38-0 ).000... 
 Mane ih OE aS 1511| 12 4) 11 2| 10 6| li 2 9 6| 10 7 aS aaa 
 i Ree Sg Aa eRe 16S ide 2 dk | 106 WI 40 2p Ore 2... 
 8 Ea i eR fccuecet Le Ol i AT) 10 6 1 10 80 S| IO Oy Ae AL... 
 Ba eto AREER | Etistie =e 15 2} 11 9) 11 7| 10 7; 11 4) 1010) 10 5) 14 | ae 
 Ap staal Oe ONE SAL Soe Ol A ae bs a AO BAe OT... 
 Fae ae Ea aah eee toRhee Pak? [IE 8 1 EE) eR Se 88 AT flee... | 
 Wesid i hain RFs SEE 39} 11.7) 1 2) 1111] 12 3) 10 4) 10 8} 1310)....... J 
 Sra rt... ebenass Es Ses eee SEU ie Ear 12.15 IO an. | 10 8.22... Bee a, i 
 ' | 
 
 of zero, 435 uge reader, James Ross, copied by O. W. Boers from records in Illinois canal com~ 
 
 [Location of gauge, Lock 15; in charge of Illinois canal commissioners; time of ag 3 noon; elevation | 
 36; ga 
 missioners’ office at Lockport, Ill.] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Day| Jan. Feb. | Mar. | Apr. | May. ‘June. July. ) Aug. | Sept. | Oct Nov Dee 
 ae 4 ERAS SRS ES as Be: CS 
 Ft. in. Pia: Ft. in.| Ft. in.| Ft. in. Ft. in.| Ft. in.' Ft. in.) Ft. in.| Ft. in.| Ft. in. Ft. in 
 O34, 3 ae Lidetescieswcrtal (1S OO 2 Te O16 BL WOE MO BL... 
 OY 2 SS Ee ee Pay cera | 18 3] 10 -8| 11 0} 10 6/ 10 5} 10 6} 10 8}....... 
 OLIN 8 GIES OES IR ae |-12 11 | 10 7] 10:20) 10 5| 10 5) 10 6| 10 8}....... 
 0 i pikreleaetaaastearenntat ete O20. 61 ROR 47 10 BIO 64 IGOR |... 
 BEDS i RR Tee aN be ie | 12 7) 10 6) 10 8 EER ae ie ae er Oe | 
 a sot Sie | 20 4). 12 6; 10 8|-10 8; 10 3; 10 5| W 2} 10  & 
 hee ad ae RRNgS sae SS OO BL 18 8 20 3h 10 5) 0.3} Oe. . 
 » FAR Sine RR oP mece a9) 4 161 10cR se 10 FO Be) 0 8 E10. 10 7 ne 
 RR oe Soe co Wctnes | 19 3) 12 3; 10 7} 1010) 10 4; 10 4) 10 7] 10 7|....... 
 TH et ae 1810} 12 1|-10 7] 10 8} 10°5| 10-4! 10 6} 10 7|....... 
 UB Ge ei aa Jerannnn 6:3) 12, 2) 10 RE 40.8 | 1004) 104) 908.130 67 |... 
 ft ats Reheat ae BE GT ee Se ae eee es a 
 Ae ai Ses SOR Reyes | 17 8| 12.0; 10:7) 10 4| 10 4) 10 8| 10 6} 10 8|....... 
 RR See | a ghee | 17 5) 11 8) 10 7) 10 3) 10 oe 40 8.20 Fe WOO i. . 
 Oa, AES RSS mee ae hl At) 8 1 tO 10.8 420 ee ID S41 10 “74 90.7105... | 
 | EOS LR | 16 9| 11 6| 10 6) 10 2] 10° 4{ 10 9| 10 7] 10 7),...... 
 ee RR ERS 16 7/| 11 4) 10 6] 10.2) 10 4) 10 8| 10 7| 10 6}....... ’ 
 NS Gah, ha yaol eaten nnats 164) 11.4] 10.6) 10,0} 10 4) 10 7/1 10 7] 10° 6)....... 
 SE ee Pedtes ot fai Sh We 1008 We 6) 10 7!) 10. 730 Bn 
 SORE tala ii EPR Abe te Sh 10,8) 48 aa 20 81 10-71 107} RO Ohi 
 i ES a RS ey i 8a) WR O10. 6) 10 T | 10 81 aes 
 ESS, EN RRS ope 0448 2.00 eee OB 10° 7 T9081 lis de 
 i i-taipells Hasta wi -ict ne Ba cok | oer Lt) ye eer ee 10 ThE Bs 
 Whack, eter est co enad. os alate Peete, Oe Owe, 8008 {90 FSR eo, 
 %..\.<5 ee GRR tees es Pe 2 toe ae Be OO. TON e fb 10°F I OR Gocco ah ood ® 
 a Rt LE ead ais s er. ee ti 2Ol eh SO IO RE IOP Se eo la 
 WE ode doesiack aad iss ee ilece? Wee. S00 Tei et IO. 20 6 | 10S Lao a 
 SE EEE: Faaaiiyia eee Peon 20LOe 10 oe 108 110 B10 6120 Bi. eee . 
 ie YSIS S Ap Sate Li 1310! 10 8! 10 5| 11 0 46-5 AO Bhs. Scan oe | 
 34 oS A acer) ae 8) 30 8) TO OO NOUR 208) 20 Oe ale apna | 
 Ts BE SF Tea Mapa bacuecy., 19: Pied, «gas | 10 8) 10 5 1) Seat ee sare: Ce | 
 { | 
 
 4 
 
 7 
 

 
454 | WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS, ETC. 
 
 Gauge readings, IWingis and Des Plaines rivers, IMinois—Continued. 
 ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL, LASALLE, ILL.—Cgntinued. 
 | 1902. 
 [Location of uge, Lock 15; in-charge of Illinois canal Gap rere ee time of a, noon; elevatio 
 
 of zero, 435.36; ga reader, J cow Ross; copied by 0. W / poers from records in Illinois canal com- 
 missioners’ office a Lockport. I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Day; Jan. | Feb. Mar. | Apr. | May. | June. i, | Say. | Aug. z. | Sept. Oct. | Nov. | Dec 
 —_—— ao = : -|}—— Eee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ft. in. Fv. in. Ft. in. Ft. in.| Ft. in. “Fy. in.| Ft. in. Ft. in.| Ft. in. Ft. in.| Fi. in. Ft. in. 
 pe RD BGR ag ee SRE 165] 12 4| 15 0} 25 0) 19 Gt $298 thse 
 IE ein icths shes cabate decal 6)7).18 Few tw Oy 1810) 18 2) 18 9) Wah... g 
 I i idl ek a 16 8| 12 7| 16 0} 2511| 18 roms 18 6; 1410]......; 
 oe Bg Ad Ras eae Seale 9.13 71) S04 oe 8 4 12:21 | 18 1) 14 -84......) 
 Oe RRS INRA Si aleipee? 1510| 13 4 2 20} 25-8) 18 2 A o) ear 1. ‘ 
 SE BR Dee. UEP ah 15 6| 13 6| 2-3 2 0) 18 1 12 6 BST Bn tat 
 TS Het ea REED, Bee, 16 3] 13.7|.20 0} 262/17 9) 12 3) 1811) 18 8]...... 
 NE ais ie taser nls atin 15 1| 14 2 mo 7| 8 $| 47 1/ 12 2| 18 7| 18 6 a 
 A EES ee 1411 | 1310} 20 4; 23 2) 16 8| 12 4) 18 4) 18 4)....... 
 iL RRA Rais me Re pea 14°9| 13-7|°1910| 23 4) 1610] 12 3] 1711! 18 1\|...... ; 
 
 CS Reve: Be ee 147) 13-6) 19 3} 28°0) 17 1} 12 2| 7 re Be fi V he ROPE : 
 
 AY SES RRR SS Rae' 4S) 13 1) 04) BS) 6.0} 12 2) 17 2 18 OF. 
 
 eS a . aed oe Oe) 30) S00 ae 6 40 28 117 10) 07 Bes 
 
 oS De ait eee CREE 3 6] 13°2) @ 2} Wil) 17 8) 1110) 18 5| 17 8}...:..4 
 
 | ee TGS RIES: &? puke 13 5| 13 3| 20 6) 2 4 7 5) 11 9| 18 4) WW 5 RENES 
 
 A IR Ra bE A ye mea ie ot a) 4h IF 1) 74 17) 2 Be 
 
 AR EIEN SEARS. Mab Te 13 1 meee | Or 36 9) 2261-97 6) 1 84 
 
 ER Ris Gin ay, Fre rep 211) 13 0| 20 1| 2 8! 16 7] 11 8| 17 5) IF 4 fl 
 
 FN dle a Giinsdiin duodenal anak 12 7 oi we 26: me SOF) EE De IF Sy 12 See 
 
 SE SERRE aS SECS) ae ee at 19 8 i ENS 36 Of. 8 1 17. 24 YP aa 
 
 OR i Gear: cp ae an ae a2 9) 18 10). 26°27 36 6) 11 10) 17 0 Fes ech a : 
 
 EF RR SE ae ae 12 3}; 13 3| 18 6| 25 S46 3) TE OH: ABW cc caaks eae r 
 
 ORR NR! RY 12-2| 1311/ 1s OF 264) 1831) 1 Bl WP ah eel , 
 
 BS sick lod dls @ Sade ceanewot eee SA 108 17° 6) BB Re SB 88 FT a Oi. nce deee : 
 
 SS eae BF dan oa aM og L 12 0} 16 8}.17 3) 2 7.15 0} 16 3/.16 4 Tey neteeee | 
 
 Boschi nn fpscceoceavines 12 4 is 3] 16 9! 2-9) 16 81 16°O}.36 24... Wee 
 
 : abo GaN 2 AL VOSS - 1210. 18 1/ 16 6) 211) 14 5/ 16 5) 16 0 - aie aoe a 
 
 ae geil ERS. atts te Art. 17°41 :17-6| 90°61 34 31°48 61° Sia. doe 
 
 BE sas i 0's apd» <.i.4 pace metab 0) 16 6) 10 8) 20.2) 21) ee Ot 6h... ai a 
 
 | me PENS RA, Sik a wt is 9) 2291 19911 Wed WY 21-48 4... | 
 
 he nse ct- -gadod- peace fii cde Bie ) ems cf WD! WB Beco ckes By eee Bein | 
 1903. 
 
 [Location of of = Lock 15; in charge of Illinois canal commissioners; time of day, noon; elevation 
 of zero, 435 reader, James Ross; copied by O. W. Boers from records in lilinois canal com: 
 missioners’ ‘ofthe a Lockport, Ill., for May, une, July, and August, and from. weekly gauge reports — 
 filed at United States e r office, Peoria, Ill., for oh ig eo December. Readings for Novem- _ 
 ber and December were taken at 7 a. m., and were copied by R. L. Hauser.] : 
 
 a ———— rr a ap a —_ 
 
 Day’ Jan. | Feb. Mar. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Apr. May | June. | July. Aug. | Set | Oct. | Nov. | Dec 
 
 Por Peers en, eee -; _ accra Pee ee Leen ~ 
 
 | Ft. ‘in. Ft. in.| Ft. in.| Ft. in. Ft.in.| Ft. in. Ft. in. Ft. in. Ft. in. Ft. in. Ft. in., Ft. in. 
 7 alec: Malian Ba Kapri RE eg Be 8 a ead ee 13 2/13 8 
 ONE MRS NE cata, Rid a ee es ee eee meme ree) 
 _ eRe PRS TE hy Cad LE GR BS a ae Pe ee a a See ae 13 1/13 6° 
 SR Sere eee eee eee Aw ON RRM AR UL tess wedge opbonn 1211 | 13 6 
 SE RECt Ree: aceon | 17 2/- 15 10) 12 3) 12 | nico steaw aeebe 1210 13 0 
 a aa ERR Reanbae 2 oa Pee ee) 16081 9858 Rad. SiR 12 8) 1211. 
 Ot SET ERR Rey ER ee WAALS Te OP Od OR to eae... 12 8/13 6 
 ERT A NASBE 5) me NERO BCS ROY ie | SS ae ieee ema 12 8/13 8 
 RT ie Ne oes Laan Lda wh ehc nah ci 8 Te a” Re aie: Rae Sa Te a 12 8/13 8 
 NY Nie REASON TREE: Jas sens Sp ae ae BE cers Sp ACE a enn 12 7) 13 7 
 om Aid eae aa irae Ser edeal at 0 ee ee eck s - 42 7118 3 
 RRste ch cet tick aks Miaredhiocohuctcais's «4 eee ae Re a ae, 5 Oe eee 12 8/120 
 : Sa | alsa ee LP a | a ae Eee eet! 2 RO. eR aes Rk Gt Re Ee se 12 7 | 12 10 
 CEE pei eae Tg GaN: AS Se TR id lo day i PN 12 7/12 4 
 eS AS mapas ale RIN ‘4S 340) wea Poe 6 sl. .ae | 12 5| 12 8 
 SERRE RRA aay Rae 14 -5| 14 5} 1110] 12 3 | SiGe NERS: | 12 2}13 3 
 8 RRA Tg iii BRE RET RPE Pe Re Ok ee Me A OCs Cul onhanias oe ' 12 4/13 4 
 SEIS RCO SPIT REA | 140 140 12 9 12 | heed ra tat 12 4/13 4 
 RMS died xc na'cets ay tan bate bie cei xs Ce eae ay Lae oe Se: Ot | ee Fee 12 2/13 0 
 SMEG vals Chu adipt xibea hie siEs K Rep e's 3 1 38 8 a 0 es AR 12 1/13 3 
 | SEIS Ree Seas’, Rae ae a Oe 8D OU Ue Oi 92 0:1... ks ctee 12 1/13 9 
 OS TACT RRP, SORE: Poe ee See ee ee ee te: ee CSE 12 2/14 2 
 SESS RARORES 6 EPR, NNER BS eG oe be eee We oe | Op eae eat Sa 12 8/14 4 
 ES Se MS IRS DS ae! <a See eT a eo ae eh ee eee 12 9/14 6 
 ORL EEE Ra Oe dol ena PIB) 13 6) Zh} 1304. nee 12 9] 14 7. 
 _ Sa ME RD + A 5.423} AS 4 ITS 1S Occ ORR 12 2) 14 6 
 __ es ES ae Joverecetferee esse Saban eS ee oe ee eo eigeae eer 12 3/14 % 
 28..|........ NORRESL SEER TEI ae RE 1S OY IE ROT IO Ls een 12 5) 14 2 
 | Lt RIT RENE SARC SPO “BRAIN eet 39° Oe AL A, SOS orc swt. as 12 4/14 2 
 _ Le es Siena Ear: REO Ve Le eae TC ete Oe SMe eet aR 12 1/14 0 
 ae Mebrtye SS sate SCAT Te ee a2 28 Oca. he cee ee | 13 11 
 
¥ 
 
 - “ 
 
 TS 
 uy 
 
 grassuer nce 
 eo a9 7 
 
 Sida) 2 
 
 4h t ._ 
 
 
 
WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS, ETC. 455 
 
 Gauge readings, Illinois and Des Plaines rivers, Illinois—Continued. 
 ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN CANAL, LASALLE, I[LL.—Continued 
 1904. 
 
 {Location of gauge, Lock 15; in charge of Illinois canal commissioners; time of day, 7 a. m., elevation 
 of zero, 435.36, gauge, reader, James Ross; copied by R. L. Hauser from weekly gauge reports filed 
 at United States engineer office, Peoria, I11.] 
 
 —a — ve — oa _ —_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Day Jan. Feb. Mar. | Apr. | May. | June. | July. | Aug. | Sept. Oct. Nov. | Dec. 
 ) | 
 Ft.in.| Ft. in. Ft. in.| Ft. in.| Ft. in.| Ft. in.| Ft. in.) Ft. in.| Ftvin.| Ft. in. Ft. in.) Ft. in, 
 108 16 114; 21°6; 27 1) 1912), 1410) TW oh 10) 1 8 Set Ute 2 
 2 imo 81 a8 7 SRO ee. 4a Oe 1 Ws 4 SE 10) ee 13 2 in ah 8) TL. 2 
 ; l4 0/ 18 2) 24 6| 27 0] 1811) 14 8) 4] 19) U7) Wu) i 4 ll 2 
 4 2G 17 10s) S41 | 1 Se ee ee ae) 1 Ba ed 
 5 3h) 2708) 26.8) SSO) AB eee ee ae 7 Pe ed BTR ay Th 2 
 bj S10} 18 2) 2 1b) Oh G17 We 1G. Beak By 6) i ao 12 6). 4d 2 
 7.. 13°103} 20 5| 23 9] 2410| 17 7) 1410] 11 5| 12 4| IF 3! 12 3) 11 3) 1 2 
 Bete 10.8 22 Bt Se Be eae ae ee er RE Ae Bir ae kT ke Pe 2 
 Bia 8 208 3218) 2658) Be Si rat ey 3403: OR Ae Beaty Sb te. Oi) AL a. mh 2 
 W0.. 1310] 22 1) 25 6) 24 O| 17 4/ 13811; It A ee AS yA EL ale gay A Ue eb B 
 1l.. 1310), 21 9, 2410; 2310) 17:2) 138 7). 111] 11 3] -11 1 ae CN Me eB eb ae 
 es 1G Se hy Se a Bes TA Ea 1222) 1k 3) 1 0} nn) 3; ll 1 
 I3.. 14 1| 2011 | 2311:| 2210) 17 0] 13 1) 12 3) 11 2] 11.0) 11.10; lL 3] li 2 
 14.. 1310} © 8] 23 5 22 5 17. Sea 2. ee a a ee ee Th? 
 B..; 13 &) 1911 | B OF 22 0) 16 6). 13 7): 2) th 2 Ris ey eee Ae 
 Ment le See 20) oo) Sas ek Pi ae te dee ik ae a ae ks OEE et Its |] 1 
 Me). 13080 Te 1) 1.2 ee ea aS 1S ee? On IP Ey. be Ot) IT 10 7. Tk 5| 11 0 
 2..| 13 61_18 8) 23) Bho Bee ae ee 2 1 10) UP 2 Tk On 11 | 14,6} 11.0 
 19..| 13 6| 18 3 | Tdi) Oe eee a eae ae) a 8 te Ba Ie. al a) 8 
 S.. 14°39 1-38 0 | 94 A 19 10) 1 B18: 81 1 8) De Ura 10 | 18 0 
 Sct 17 Mee Wee) BS ie Ae: Bae a TD a 7 a Boe 10 | TS ae ) a | 
 Rael) 2h OP ae Boe ee Ce te ee 18 10 ft ee ae) Ty ee ee 2 6 | ta 
 23..| 23 24 2 8) 2) 18 7) 18 sy 8) a a) aed) sy 7) 4 Risk 
 4.4) 23 a, eee ee a 16 9) 16 2) 1-8 L.A Sar Ae ey il ee a. 6): 11. 2 
 oS.) 22 Oe eee ora 06 Ss) 1410 1 6 ee Beas Oe ib 8) 11s 
 o..) 2. Gils eo gece) oe 8) 1410) 1 6 i TL ee ea Be Me era 8 On 4 
 ot 2A 9 ae ee eee S| 14 8) 1) 24 2a abs Oi OT a be 6 1 6 
 23... 208) al toe Ores 8114.6) 21 a Se a ey) hn 4st As 
 29..; 20 Sb 17 8) me ie 90 7). 4 4] 1 2). 87] 22 9) 1 6) nN 38nd 
 30. .) 1D. vane 27.6) 2 3; 14 4] 1 3) tl 6) 1 6) 13.6) 8} ll 2; 2 5 
 sie, 1G) 315 Bice ye eh ee 2 LE By Deen Bat SET sa kon dies! | 12 6 
 S 
 % 
 ‘5 "s 
 
: i 
 vt vA 
 ni ile Biv i atk 
 
 HTe 
 
 
 

 

 
000 
 
 2678 W. I. Harris, called as a witness by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is W. I. Harris. I reside at Ottawa, Illinois. 
 I am in the real estate and insurance business. I have 
 been connected for some years with an observation sta- 
 2679 tion of the United States signal office at Ottawa. I have 
 been connected with that station fifteen years or more. 
 When I was first connected with that station my father 
 was the observer. His name is Dr. J. L. Harris. He is 
 dead. The present observer is my sister, Maude M. Har- 
 ris. She is living. I have been assistant in these ob- 
 servations all the time. This office is in the signal serv- 
 ice of the United States, making regular daily reports. 
 IT have with me the records of the office showing the 
 rainfall for the City of Ottawa, La Salle County. We 
 have had a continuous record, I think, since the organ- 
 2680 ization of the bureau. I couldn’t give you the exact 
 date. It has been operating over fifteen years, I think. 
 I have the record, yes, sir, but they are not entirely 
 complete. Whatever they are, I have them. They be- 
 gin in the year 1904. I have also records prior to that 
 time. The records begin with 1887. This is a copy of 
 the record. The record comes from the office of the ob- 
 server. It remains on file there now. These are copies 
 of the observations that remain on file in the office of. 
 2681 the United States Signal Observer. 
 Mr. CurrPerFIeLp: You may commence and give all the 
 precipitations. 
 Mr. O’Conor: I would like to ask a few questions as 
 to how the records are made. 
 The Witness: The records are made daily. 
 I live here in Ottawa. My office is on the southwest 
 
006 
 
 2682 corner of La Salle and Main streets. The observations 
 are made at the house. The precipitations were inva- 
 riably made at the house. I think they started originally 
 in the morning, but of late years they have been made 
 in the evening about 6:30. I spend most of the time in 
 the office. JI didn’t actually make all of them. I made 
 a number of them. I made them just as occasion re- 
 quired. Yes, my father was the regular observer, but 
 frequently required me to assist him in making those 
 records, and I have done so whenever occasion required 
 
 2683 in that way. I have an instrument at home. It con- 
 sists of a funnel shaped tube with a funnel graduated 
 to the size of the cylinder, also an inner cylinder in 
 which the actual rainfall is deposited; the outer cylinder 
 being merely to collect the rain which is afterwards run 
 to the inner cylinder and measured from that. If there 
 was a rainfall the night before it will be shown on the 
 instrument, the amount would show. I don’t think a 
 heavy dew would show. I think these figures are invaria- 
 bly correct. I was not there at all times when they were 
 
 2684 made. These records do not appear in my handwrit- 
 ing. I could not say what portion of them appear in my 
 handwriting, because I made them, as I said before, 
 whenever occasion required, and it would be almost im- 
 possible for me to say what portion of them were made 
 by me. The instrument is kept in a clear space on our 
 premises at home, and I should say between sixty or 
 seventy feet from the house, and probably not over 
 thirty feet from any other building. The government 
 requires it to be kept in a clear space. It is about two 
 feet and a half, possibly more or less, up from the 
 ground. I have an elder sister who has sometimes made 
 
 2685 these records, but very seldom. The book does not 
 show notations made by myself, and notations, if any, 
 made by others. That book is not in typewriting. The 
 
007 
 
 copies I have here are printed. This is not the original, 
 it is a copy. I could not tell from looking at the book 
 how much of it I actually made myself and how much 
 of it was made by some one else, but all of it was either 
 made by myself or some member of my family. 
 2686 A. For February the precipitation for the month was 
 
 3.20. 
 
 For January, 
 For February, 
 For March, 
 For April, 
 
 For May, 
 
 For June, 
 
 For July, 
 
 For August, 
 For September, 
 For October, 
 For November, 
 For December, 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: 
 itation per years? 
 
 A. The total precipitation for the year is 23.60. 
 
 (In Red 
 Inches. Pencil.) 
 2.81 1.82 
 spl Wi AS) 
 1 0.64 
 62 0.39 
 1.69 1.08 
 1.96 WS Be 
 aly 
 3.06 
 De 
 2.80 
 Dil. ( 
 Brot 
 
 Q. Have you got the total precip- 
 
 @. You may proceed with the next one, for the next 
 year. A. For 1888 the precipitation: 
 
 For January, 
 For February, 
 For March, 
 For April, 
 For May, 
 
 For June, 
 
 Total for the year, 31.27. 
 
 (). The next year, if you please, in like manner. 
 1889 the precipitation was: 
 
 1.80 
 1.88 
 3.70 
 1.23 
 D.09 
 2.01 
 
 For July, 
 
 For August, 
 For September, 
 For October, 
 For November, 
 For December, 
 
 The following year— 
 
 3.08 
 iki) 
 0.60 
 2.41 
 3.38 
 2.22 
 
 AL, 
 
558 
 
 For January, 1.91 For July, 0.67 
 For February, 1.16 For August, 2.00 
 For March, tlrere For September, 3.92 
 For April, 2.44 For October, 1.51 
 For May, 4.36 For November, 3.12 
 For June, 4.61 For December, 1.80 
 
 A total of 34.27. For the year 1890— 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Pardon me, will you give me that gen- 
 eral result again, 34 what? 
 
 A. 34.27 for 1889. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: All right. 
 
 A. For 1890: 
 For January, 1.94 For July, 34 
 For February, 1.40 For August, 2.72 
 For March, 3.00 For September, 2.48 
 For April, healt For October, 3.89 
 For May, 3.99 For November, 2.06 
 For June 6.87 For December, pH | 
 A total for the year of 31.16. 1891: 
 For January, 2.86 
 For February, 1.25 
 For March, 0.30 
 
 In April there is some slight trace, but was not enough 
 to measure; there was some precipitation. 
 
 For May, None 
 
 For June, Nothing 
 For July, Nothing 
 For August, Nothing 
 
 Oh, I beg your pardon, I am on the wrong column. 
 May I correct that, please? 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Yes, certainly. 
 2688 A. Commencing with March the precipitation was—I 
 see I have that wrong, I will have to correct that. 
 Q. You better start in again at the first of the year, 
 A. Starting again: 
 
d09 
 
 1891. 1892. 
 For January, 2.86 For January, 1.45 
 For February, 2.28 For February, 1.52 
 For March, 2.56 For March, 2.70 
 For April, 3.96 For April, 3.06 
 For May, 1.84 For May, 13.25 
 For June, 3.99 For June, 9.80 
 For July, 4.45 For July, 4.92 
 For August, o.11 For August, 81 
 For September, 1:27 For September, 2.56 
 For October, 6 For October, 63 
 For November, 4.75 For November, 2.48 
 For December, 1.74 For December, 1.84 
 Antotal! of: 35.37. A total of 45.52. 
 Mr. O’Conor: 43 what? 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: 46. 
 A. 46.12. 
 Mr. CuiprrFristp: That was the flood year. 
 Mr. O’Conor: Thank you. 
 ieein L893: 
 2689 1898. 1894. 
 For January, 2.20 For January, 2.38 
 For February, 3.03 For February, 1.58 
 For March, 3.30 ‘For March, 2.01 
 For April, o.23 For April, L5l 
 For May, 1,95 For May, OL 
 For June 2.49 . For June, 3.03 
 For July, 1.02 For July, — 80 
 For August, Shi, For August, 1.75 
 For September, 2.29 For September, 7.18 
 For October, 1.10 For October, 1.63 
 For November, 2.18 For November, 2.09 
 For December, 2.16 For December, ule) ES 
 A total of 27.72. A total of 29.72. 
 
 Mr. Butters: Twenty-five what? 
 Mr. CureerFIELD: Twenty-nine. 
 
 A. 29.70. 
 
2690 
 
 2691 
 
 For 1895. 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 
 June, 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 AstOtalieorest D0: 
 
 1897. 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 
 June, 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, . 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 A total of 34.12. 
 
 L899. 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 June, 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 A total of 30.83. 
 
 1.22 
 
 82 
 2.02 
 1.06 
 1.02 
 4.79 
 2.26 
 1.47 
 1.16 
 O21 
 O.0¢ 
 
 0.98 
 1.71 
 
 - 4,47 
 
 1.88 
 Uo 
 6.90 
 2.99 
 of 
 1.59 
 46 
 4.37 
 1.74 
 
 63 
 2.10 
 BPI 
 1.50 
 0.08 
 1.42 
 0.10 
 3.02 
 2.19 
 2.03 
 1.46 
 2.03 
 
 060 
 
 1896. 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 
 June, 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 A total of 38.50. 
 
 1898. 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 June, 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 A total of 49.01. 
 
 1900. 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 June, 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 A total ot sien 
 
 1.37 
 1.65 
 1.32 
 3.08 
 4.24 
 2.22 
 8.63 
 2.43 
 9.38 
 
 1.60 
 4.53 
 2.91 
 1.53 
 0.60 
 1.96 
 4.53 
 7.24 
 2.26 
 2.24 
 3.15 
 
 ol 
 
2692 
 
 1901. 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 
 June, 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 A total of 26.77. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: 
 
 1903. 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 
 June, 
 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 1.76 
 2.10 
 3.01 
 
 61 
 2.15 
 2.67 
 O.47 
 
 81 
 3.20 
 
 AGRE 
 1.49 
 2.09 
 
 061 
 
 1902. 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 June, 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 A total of 55.45. 
 
 @. How much? 
 A. 90.44 that is, 1902. 
 
 1.13 
 2.30 
 3.10 
 0.08 
 4.19 
 3.18 
 1.94 
 4.90 
 6.03 
 1.43 
 
 46 
 ro 
 
 A total of 36.30. 
 
 1904. 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 
 June, | 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 
 December, 
 A total of 32.22. 
 
 63 
 1.41 
 4.89 
 2.00 
 0.64 
 
 10.51 
 10.49 
 4.40 
 6.76 
 1.87 
 4.29 
 2.01 
 
 2.04 
 1.80 
 4.87 
 3.93 
 3.00 
 So 
 0.14 
 3.08 
 a.2¢ 
 
 .26 
 
 08 
 1.86 
 
 That was as far as the record goes in this book. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: 
 
 @. Now you have it in other tabu- 
 lar form? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Let us ask you a question that occurs to my mind. 
 Are these instruments that you are speaking of furnished 
 by the Government of the United States? A. They are, 
 
 yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Are all these blanks that you are now reading from 
 2693 furnished in a like way? 
 
562 
 
 Q. Are those totals, Mr. Harris? A. I beg pardon? 
 
 @. Are those totals? A. Yes, these are the totals of 
 each day. 
 
 @. You may give them when you are ready. A. They 
 are written in pencil there. I was just looking at the fig- 
 ures, for the month of January, 11.75 inches 
 
 Q@. Now, what year is this, please? A. 1905. 
 
 Q. Go ahead, please. A. For February, 12.26 inches. 
 No, I beg pardon. It should be 1.30 for January. I had 
 the amount of snowfall in that. The total of February, 
 1.93 inches. March (2.09)—I don’t seem to have March 
 here. 
 
 Q. Well, proceed with April (5.15) then. A. I don’t 
 find April. I have May. 
 
 
 
 Inches. 
 May, 3.68 
 June, 3.09 
 July, 1.68 
 August, 4.12 
 September, 2.13 
 October, 1.87 
 November, 2.01 
 December, 1.70 
 
 Mr. Burrers: May I see those, please? 
 
 Mr. CuiperFIELD: Now, take 1906, please. Have you 
 any objection to me taking the next year and putting 
 them in order for you? 
 
 A. I would be very glad to have you. 
 
 1906. Inches. 
 January, 2.07 — 
 
 2694 No, 1.95. Four inches was the amount of snowfall. 
 1.95 was the amount of actual precipitation for the 
 
 month. 
 February, 2.26 
 March, 7.02 
 
 April, 1.63 
 
No, I beg pardon. 
 
 563 
 
 There seems to be, the months of 
 March and April seem to be missing. 
 
 Mr. CuHIPERFIELD: Give what you have there. 
 
 A. This would be: 
 
 May, 
 
 June, 
 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 1907. 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 
 2.37 
 2.64 
 1.45 
 4.57 
 0.09 
 1.23 
 2.63 
 1.22 
 
 Inches. 
 
 0.20 
 15 
 
 No, there seems to have been none in February, that 
 
 _ was the amount of snowfall. 
 
 ruary. 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 June, 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 Q. What year is that? A. That is 1907. 
 
 2696 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 June, 
 
 .86 
 1.53 
 3.87 
 3.48 
 8.17 
 Ne, 
 
 1908. 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 No precipitation in Feb- 
 
 2.99 
 2.69 
 4.84 
 2.50 
 6.92 
 4.49 
 4.94 
 1.00 
 P96 
 Lia 
 
 Now, 1908: 
 
 3.05 
 2.03 
 0.35 
 .69 
 hye, 
 foe) 
 
064 
 
 (). All right, now for the year 1909, if you please. A. 
 
 Logs 
 
 1909. 
 January, 98 July, 
 February, 3.60 August, 
 March, 1.64 September, 
 April, 5.19 October, 
 May, 2.01 November, 
 June, 3.69 December, 
 
 Q. Now, 1910, please. A. 1910: 
 
 LO: 
 January, 2.78 July, 
 February, .98 August, 
 March, 2 September, 
 April, 3.28 October, 
 May, 0.28 November, 
 June, 1.25 December, 
 
 2697 Q. Now, for 1911, please. A. 1911: 
 
 19tte 
 January, 1.80 July, 
 February, 2.13 August, 
 March, 1.80 September, 
 April, ayal October, 
 May, _ 2,64 November, 
 June, ga! December, 
 
 2.90 
 3.09 
 4.08 
 Esa 
 2.070 
 3.02 
 
 67 
 3.91 
 6.23 
 1.25 
 
 74 
 
 98 
 
 1.60 
 6.28 
 6.88 
 2.61 
 2.28 
 2.10 
 
 Q. Now, Mr. Harris, have you got for this year, so 
 
 far? <A. I think so, yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Just produce that and then we will be through with 
 
 this. A. 1912: 
 
 T9LD: 
 January, it June, 
 February, 1.14 July, 
 March, ELT. August, 
 April, 3.30 September, 
 May, 7.13 October, 
 
 Mr. CurperFrieLp: That is all, Mr. Harris. 
 have some questions to ask you, Mr. Harris. 
 
 Pale) 
 2.28 
 9.08 
 2.82 
 0.24 
 
 They may 
 
565 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 @. Mr. Harris, the rainfall there is taken by months, 
 as I understand you? A. The rainfall is taken daily. 
 
 Q. I understand, but the figures you have given here 
 are not the daily figures. 
 
 2697 Cross-Examination of the Witness W. I. Harris by Mr. 
 | O’Conor. 
 
 The rainfall is taken daily. The figures I have given 
 
 2698 are the monthly figures. We might have half an inch 
 of rain today and two or three days later have some more 
 rain and four or five days later, or a week later, have 
 some more rain. That is, it is spread all over the month. 
 That shows the amount of rainfall at that given point. 
 
 Re-direct Examination of the Witness W. I. Harris by 
 Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 The gauge is subdivided into hundredth of an inch. 
 
 2699 8. P. Perrerson, called as a witness by the defendant, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is S. P. Peterson. I reside at La Salle, Ili- 
 nois. JI am an observer in the United States Weather 
 Bureau. I am a regular observer. That station is lo- 
 eated in La Salle, Illinois. I make weather observations 
 for the United States Government. 
 
 I have all the records with me here. They are the 
 records of my office. The precipitation data begins in 
 November, 1904, from the beginning of the month. That 
 record is kept by days and months. I am able to give 
 
 2700 the daily precipitation as well as the monthly total. I 
 
566 
 
 also keep in my office a record of the river gauge. That 
 gauge is kept, as shown by my records, from May 20, 
 1905, up to date. The United States weather observer 
 makes these observations. J have been there for about a 
 year and a half. During the time I have been there I 
 have made these observations. The book is the original 
 record and it is in my charge and custody, as being the 
 person in charge of the station. 
 
 2701 In 1904, November the total amount was 0.03 of an 
 
 2702 
 
 inch. December, the total amount, 1.65 inches. 
 
 1905. 
 January, 90 July, 1.49 
 February, 1.09 August, 3.19 
 March, 1.83 September, 3.15 
 April, d.A1 October, 1.86 
 May, D.0 1 November, 1.93 
 June, 4.43 December, 1.28 
 
 Q. Give the total for the year, if you please. A. The 
 total for the year is 30.37 inches. 
 
 (). Now you may proceed in like manner for the next 
 year. A.: 
 
 1906. 1907. 
 
 January, 2.15 January, 4.46 
 February, 2.01 February, .O9 
 March, 2.08 March, 2.03 
 April, 1.16 April, 2.30 
 May, 1.85 May, 3.09 
 June, 3.00 June, 3.45 
 July, 2.62 AK TERS 5.94 
 August, 7.29 August, 4,29 
 September, 4.89 September, 4.99 
 October, ELD October, 87 
 November, 1.98 November, 1,55 
 December, 2.14 December, 1.56 
 
 Annual 32.20 Annual, 34.98 
 
 Mr. Butters: Q. What was that total? A. The to- 
 tal of 1907? 
 ().0) VG8. An 34,98: 
 
1908. 
 
 January, 
 Iebruary, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 June, 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 Annual 
 
 96 
 2.76 
 3.07 
 2.89 
 6.69 
 2.68 
 3.12 
 1.82 
 1-09 
 
 Al 
 1.62 
 
 83 
 
 nr 
 
 28.54 
 
 567 
 
 1909. 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 Apru, 
 May, 
 June, 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 Total, 
 
 1.28 
 3.06 
 1.40 
 0.93 
 3.09 
 2.33 
 2.92 
 4.00 
 3.10 
 1.53 
 3.02 
 3.64 
 
 30.71 
 
 2703 Mr. CuiperrreLp: Now, you may proceed, if you please, 
 
 and give the river gauges from the time you have them 
 
 until the present time. 
 
 I believe you said 1905. 
 
 A. The elevation of the zero is 434.3. That is referred 
 The observation is taken at seven 
 o’clock every morning. 
 
 to Memphis datum. 
 
 19 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 June, 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 Annual, 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 
 1.93 
 ely 
 a 
 3.18 
 6.02 
 89 
 4) 
 3.74 
 0.09 
 1.03 
 AY) 
 Held 
 
 26.51 
 
 1.03 
 
 13 
 1.47 
 2.98 
 3.13 
 
 1911. 
 
 January, 
 February, 
 March, 
 April, 
 May, 
 June, 
 July, 
 
 ' August, 
 
 September, 
 October, 
 November, 
 December, 
 
 Annual, 
 
 oh 
 
 June, 
 
 July, 
 August, 
 September, 
 October, 
 
 1.78 
 2.16 
 1.31 
 J.00 
 eos 
 D020 
 3.16 
 6.45 
 7.42 
 2.40 
 2.26 
 2.04 
 
 37.64 
 
 2.07 
 2.40 
 4.35 
 2.54 
 4.62 
 
2704 
 
 23, 
 24. 
 25, 
 26, 
 oT 
 28, 
 29, 
 30, 
 31, 
 
 May, 1905. 
 IAS, 
 19.4 
 19.0 
 18.6 
 18.5 
 18.4 
 18.1 
 18.1 
 18.2 
 
 “ “ 
 
 “ 
 
 OWE NOME NCSU NCO NCO No 
 
 26, 
 
 068 
 
 June, 1905. 
 18.1 
 17.8 
 17.3 
 vat 
 17.4 
 17.9 
 17.2 
 16.7 
 16.3 
 16.5 
 17.0 
 18.0 
 18.0 
 17.6 
 172 
 16.8 
 16.4 
 16.1 
 16.3 
 16.4 
 16.2 
 16.0 
 15.8 
 15.6 
 16.5 
 15.2 
 14.9 
 14.7 
 14.4 
 14.2 
 
 July, 1905. 
 Az 14.2 
 nn 13.9 
 ay 13.8 
 4, 137 
 D, Meh) 
 6, 13.5 
 ie 1333 
 8, 122 
 9, ibsy 
 10, Loar 
 11, 13.1 
 1 Lot 
 13. 132 
 14, 15.) 
 15, 13.0 
 16, 12.9 
 abe 12.8 
 bay 124 
 19, 12.5 
 20, 12:3 
 ZAP 1a 
 22, 12.0 
 ray 11.8 
 24, 1a 
 25, 11.8 
 26, Lazy 
 27, Lie? 
 28, tial 
 ras 11:8 
 30, 129 
 Bit 11.9 
 
2707 August, 190d. 
 
 2708 
 
 1, 
 
 “ “ ~ 
 
 ~ 
 
 “ ~~ 
 
 OMA ANIE wp 
 
 Co ee ee 
 FSS DANAE WNH OS 
 
 22, 
 23, 
 24. 
 25, 
 26, 
 27, 
 28, 
 29, 
 30, 
 a1, 
 
 12.0 
 12.0 
 12.0 
 eg 
 11.9 
 11.8 
 List 
 Vays 
 11.6 
 11.6 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 1G 
 11.8 
 ied) 
 Lie 
 Le) 
 11.3 
 iY 
 11.9 
 11.8 
 ee 
 ee? 
 TAA, 
 leo 
 9 
 VAS 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 
 069 
 
 September, 1905. 
 
 bam 
 ~~ “ ~~ ~~ 
 
 “ 
 
 ~ “ 
 
 Oo OND oP wD 
 
 aod 
 
 12; 
 
 DD DOD DOH eH HB He eS Ee 
 
 24. 
 
 (SG) Teed) nop UNSy Mey PR 
 SD ADND OX 
 
 11.8 
 12.2 
 14.1 
 14.7 
 14.5 
 14.4 
 14.3 
 13.9 
 13.6 
 13.4 
 13.4 
 13.2 
 13.0 
 13.0 
 13.1 
 13.0 
 12.8 
 12:2 
 123 
 12.6 
 12.9 
 12.4 
 12.3 
 12.2 
 12.1 
 12.1 
 12.0 
 12.0 
 Leo 
 11.8 
 
 October, 1905. 
 
 “ “ “ 
 
 ™ 
 
 ~~ “ ~~ 
 
 CMDMHNAAIOTFWDNY 
 
 CW WK WO LW BD KW DW PO DO PO DO DD BK KE BK BK BB eH OH ee 
 FSD DAGON FP WN HS © OANANIFWNH OS Ss 
 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 via berg 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 ES 
 11.4 
 11.4 
 11.4 
 te 
 Wiehe 
 11.4 
 11.4 
 ila 
 11.4 
 11.5 
 1AeO 
 11.5 
 11.6 
 aS, 
 12.0 
 12.1 
 12.0 
 
November, 1905. 
 
 2709 1, 11.8 
 2, 11.5 
 3, 11.5 
 4, 11.4 
 5, 143 
 6, 11.7 
 ‘a 12.0 
 8, 12.1 
 9, 12.1 
 
 10, 12.0 
 11, 11.9 
 12, 11.8 
 13, Tie] 
 14, 11.7 
 15, 11.8 
 16, 11.8 
 ye 11.3 
 18, 11.2 
 19, 11.1 
 20, 11.2 
 21, 11.2 
 22. 11.2 
 23. 11.1 
 24. 11.5 
 25, 11.1 
 26, inp 
 27, 11.1 
 28. 11.5 
 29, 12.1 
 30, 12.1 
 
 9710. 
 
 
 
 “The river on that same date rose about that—the wa- 
 ter between the readings on the 5th and 6th, the regular 
 readings, rose to 14.4 feet at some time. The time wasn’t 
 
 obtained. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD : 
 
 570 
 
 December, 1905. 
 
 (). That ends the year, doesn’t it? 
 
 12.0 
 12.0 
 12.4 
 
 12 Ona 
 
 13.7 
 13.6 
 12.8 
 12.2 
 12.2 
 12.2 
 1S 
 1221, 
 {2.0 
 12.1 
 12.2 
 12.0 
 12.6 
 12.9 
 12.4 
 12.1 
 12.0 
 12.3 
 12.1 
 Dey 
 Iti hey/ 
 12.4 
 13.2 
 13.4 
 13.1 
 12.7 
 12.3 
 
 A. That ends the year, yes, sir. 
 
2711 January, 1906. 
 
 2712 
 
 1, 
 
 “ 2 
 
 “ 
 
 “ “ Me 
 
 CO ONDA OE & do 
 
 DD pd PSD PO DD OH Me He eo oe ee pe Es pe 
 
 31, 
 
 
 
 12.9 
 13.3 
 13.2 
 13.9 
 13.6 
 13.3 
 16.0 
 16.0 
 15.2 
 15.2 
 16.0 
 16.4 
 16.5 
 16.1 
 16.2 
 16.3 
 15.5 
 15.4 
 15.5 
 15.8 
 17.1 
 16.6 
 18.2 
 19.0 
 19.2 
 19.2 
 19.0 
 19.0 
 18.7 
 18.8 
 19.4 
 
 571 
 
 February, 1906. 
 
 “ “ 
 
 “ 
 
 NO 
 FPOSODDABDMUPWNH OHO DNAOKR WD HE 
 
 29,* 
 23, 
 
 19,4 
 18.6 
 17.8 
 18.7 
 19.0 
 19.4 
 19.0 
 18.8 
 18.6 
 18.4 
 Ligh 
 17.5 
 18 
 18.8 
 19.0 
 17.8 
 17.4 
 17.4 
 17.5 
 17.3 
 18.4 
 19.9 
 18.6 
 18.4 
 20.2 
 20.9 
 20.3 
 19.8 
 
 March, 1906. 
 
 “ “se “ 
 
 “ 
 
 “Ne “ “ 
 
 OMON AOR wd 
 
 Do pS PO DD DO OH He Be eS ee eS pe ep 
 
 25, 
 
 CORCO OS mato mat 
 POS DAS 
 
 19.4 
 19eh 
 19.5 
 20.3 
 20.4 
 20.4 
 20.1 
 hee 
 1g39 
 20. 
 
 199 
 19.6 
 19.0 
 18.8 
 18.3 
 18.1 
 18.1 
 18.8 
 19.0 
 18.5 
 18.2 
 17.5 
 19S 
 16.8 
 16.3 
 16.4 
 18.9 
 20.2 
 20.5 
 20.1 
 20. 
 
 *Then there is a note saying ‘‘Some time between yes- 
 
 terday and today stage of 20.1 was reached.’’ 
 
bo 
 ~ 
 i 
 eS) 
 
 2714 
 
 April, 1906. 
 il 19.7 
 2. 19.3 
 By 19.0 
 4, 18.7 
 5, 18.5 
 6, 18.3 
 7, 18.2 
 8, 18.1 
 9, 18.3 
 10, 19.2 
 11, 19.7 
 12, 19.7 
 13, 19.6 
 14, 19.4 
 15, 19.1 
 17, 18.6 
 18, 18.4 
 19, 18.1 
 20, 17.9 
 1, 17.5 
 22, 172 
 23, 17.0 
 24, 16.8 
 25, 16.6 
 26, 16.4 
 ay 16.1 
 28, 15.8 
 29, 15.6 
 30, 15.5 
 
 cal 
 
 OE NOME NOME NORE Co OS 
 aoe WN SD ADNHAAPFWN RSH RH 
 
 PSS AND 
 
 May, 1906. 
 
 15.3 
 15.2 
 15.2 
 15.1 
 14.9 
 14.7 
 14.5, 
 14.4 
 14.2 
 14.1 
 13.9 
 13.8 
 13.8 
 13.6 
 13.9 
 
 o4 
 13.3 
 13.2 
 13.1 
 128 
 LL, 
 12.6 
 12.6 
 1230 
 i 
 12.7 
 12.7 
 We /, 
 12.0 
 12.7 
 12.7 
 
 S e Wild 
 
 “ 
 
  ] 
 
 CO OND MN 
 
 —_ — 
 
 12, 
 
 WMINNNNNNNMNDND HH KPH HH He 
 
 June, 1906. 
 
 12.6 
 12.5 
 12.4 
 
 9 
 Pas) 
 
 12:3 
 12.2 
 12.3 
 12.2 
 12.2 
 12.4 
 12.6 
 12.6 
 12.9 
 12.3 
 12.3 
 12.2 
 12.1 
 12.0 
 Ta 
 12.0 
 12.0 
 120 
 12.0 
 12 
 BP btm, 
 OP ka) 
 11.3 
 a hs 
 ab Isis 
 Likz 
 
2715 
 
 2716 
 
 “ 
 
 “ 
 
 WWNNNNNNNNNYDHEPHEPH HER HEE ee 
 FODDAMNAE WDNR SMO DANAMNRWNH SO « 
 
 July, 1906. 
 11.3 
 11.2 
 11.0 
 10.9 
 10.9 
 10.7 
 10.7 
 10.7 
 10.7 
 10.6 
 10.6 
 10.7 
 10.7 
 10.7 
 10.7 
 16.6 
 10.6 
 10.6 
 10.6 
 10.7 
 10.7 
 10.8 
 10.9 
 11.0 
 10.7 
 10.7 
 10.8 
 igeal 
 11.4 
 11.2 
 
 073 
 
 August, 1966. 
 
 “~ 
 
 “ 
 
 ee dll andl all a 
 ONANP wWNWEH OO 
 
 “ 
 
 19, 
 
 11.2 
 11.2 
 Like 
 11.3 
 11.3 
 Le 
 nM ep 
 a) 
 11.3 
 11.4 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.4 
 11.4 
 11.3 
 11.3 
 11.3 
 11.4 
 11.5 
 11.6 
 11.6 
 UUs 
 11.8 
 12.7 
 12.9 
 12.4 
 12.4 
 12.4 
 12.4 
 12.4 
 
 September, 1906. 
 
 1, 
 
 “ ~ “ 
 
 “ 
 
 “ “ 
 
 CO COND OP ow pw 
 
 “ 
 
 DO DO RR ops 
 
 29, 
 
 wnmnnnpmny bhp 
 
 12.3 
 12.3 
 12.3 
 12.3 
 12.3 
 12.2 
 LY, 
 11.7 
 11.6 
 11.6 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.4 
 11.3 
 11.3 
 11.2 
 Li 
 1 Pep 
 11.2 
 11.5 
 11.6 
 11.€ 
 11.5 
 11.4 
 11.4 
 11.4 
 11.4 
 11.6 
 12.6 
 
2717 October, 1906. 
 
 2718 
 
 1, 
 
 bo 
 “ “ “ 
 
 “ 
 
 “— “ 
 
 re 
 
 12, 
 
 MmrmonwmwderERRPHE RPE 
 
 25, 
 
 ho 
 DD 
 
 Oo DNMD OP H 
 
 13.1 
 13.2 
 12.8 
 12.6 
 12.9 
 12.4 
 12.3 
 12.2 
 12,2 
 12.1 
 12.0 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 Ls 
 ie byé 
 Lge 
 1h Y 
 ae ey 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 12.0 
 12.1 
 12.1 
 12.0 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 12.0 
 
 November, 1906. 
 
 i} 
 
 9 
 
 “ 
 
 “ 
 
 Cc CO NI o> Or 
 
 ~~ 
 
 TY 
 IDs: 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 11.9 
 Lh 
 ay 
 11.9 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 ity 
 188 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 11.8 
 11.9 
 19 
 11.9 
 11.9 
 TIES 
 12.6 
 14.5 
 15.1 
 15.5 
 15.6 
 15.6 
 15.5 
 15.3 
 15.2 
 
 December, 1906. 
 
 fh fk fk ek eh pe 
 
 19, 
 
 15.1 
 14.8 
 14.6 
 14.4 
 14.1 
 14.8 
 16.4 
 17.0 
 17.4 
 17.4 
 17.4 
 17.2 
 Lk 
 17e0 
 16.9 
 16.8 
 16.6 
 16.6 
 16.4 
 16.3 
 16.2 
 15.9 
 15.8 
 16.2 
 16.2) 
 16.5 
 16.7 
 16.8 
 16.9 
 16.8 
 Li 
 
2719 
 
 579 
 
 January, 1907. February, 1907. March, 1907. 
 ip 16.5 1 22.7 if ines. 
 2, 16.8 2, . 22.4 Pi 16.8 
 3, Lye D, 22.0 3, Teel 
 4, 17.3 4, 20.5 4, 16.9 
 D; 17.5 D, Lose D, 16.8 
 - 6, 17.6 Gi" 19.8 6, 16.7 
 ts iTS PLN Toe fi 16.4 
 8, {heel oa iss 19.4 8, 16.3 
 th ILE yes aati b Sp 19.4 uf 16.1 
 10, asta 2: Tee Ls 15.9 
 11, i ee, bias) 9 AD 15.8 
 12, 194 22, To eee on 15.8 
 13, lee Zoe TS. on eels 16.1 
 14, 18.8 = 24, 13:5 ~ 14, 17.0 
 15, WG. ieee 20; liepy _eila 18.0 
 16, 18.6 26, 18.0 16, 18.4 
 ine One 215 ified, onal Big 18.6 
 ile 184 28; LW GAY ea lies 18.5 
 ike 19.4 1: 18.3 
 20, 20.2 20, 18.1 
 21, 23.6 21, 15.0 
 22, 27.6 22, ino 
 23, 26.8 23, Wied 
 24, 26.5 24, Weep 
 20; 26.3 20, 17.3 
 26, 26.0 26, 17.3 
 at, 25.2 21, 17.2 
 28, 24.2 28, Evel 
 oo, 24,2 29, 17.9 
 30, Zouk 30, 1S 
 31, 23.2 ail. 20.4 
 
 
 
 
 
 *Then from the 7th to the 16th, inclusive, the river was 
 frozen over so that no readings were made. 
 
2720 
 
 2721 
 
 April, 1907. 
 13 20.4 
 7. 20.2 
 3; 20.0° 
 4, 19.6 
 D, 19.2 
 6, 18.9 
 (f 18.6 
 8, 18.6 
 9, 18.6 
 10, 18.5 
 11, 18.4 
 12, 18.0 
 13; Li 
 
 14, 17.8 
 15, 17.6 
 LG Lie 
 ibe: 17.3 
 ep iPAl, 
 19; LG 
 20, 16.7 
 PAL. 16.5 
 29 16.3 
 23, ose 
 2A, for 
 25, 15.8 
 26, 15.7 
 28, 15.3 
 29, 15.3 
 30, 15.4 
 
 576 
 May, 1907. 
 
 “ 
 
 “ 
 
 “~ 
 
 BNA PWwWN 
 
 pad 
 
 NO Oe ee 
 
 22, 
 
 bo bo 
 
 25, 
 26, 
 oT, 
 28, 
 29, 
 30, 
 31, 
 
 16.2 
 17.6 
 18.1 
 18.2 
 18.1 
 17.8 
 17.6 
 17.4 
 17.3 
 est 
 16.9 
 16.7 
 16.6 
 16.4 
 16.4 
 16.4 
 16.4 
 16.3 
 16.2 
 16.0 
 15.8 
 15.6 
 15.6 
 16.2 
 19722 
 18.0 
 18.3 
 18.6 
 18.5 
 18.3 
 18.1 
 
 June, 1907. 
 ib 18.8 
 2, 17.6 
 3, 17.4 
 4, 17.5 
 D, Lies 
 6, 18.0 
 7, Ley 
 8, Las 
 a VES 
 10, 17.8 
 Lil’ 179 
 12, 17.8 
 13, 17.7 
 14, 17.6 
 15, 17.4 
 16, 17.2 
 17, 16.9 
 18, 16.7 
 19. 16.6 
 20, 16.4 
 21, 16.2 
 Vp 16.1 
 23, 16.1 
 24, 16.2 
 25, 16.4 
 26, 16.5 
 27, 16.4 
 28, 16.2 
 oo 15.9 
 30, 15.7 
 
2722 
 
 2723 
 
 bd ek 
 
 12, 
 
 diye OUT. 
 
 15.5 
 15.4 
 15.2 
 15.1 
 14.8 
 14.8 
 14.8 
 15.0 
 16.6 
 17.2 
 18.4 
 1:9 
 20.4. 
 19:7 
 19.3 
 19,2 
 19.0 
 19.0 
 18.7 
 18.6 
 18.3 
 18.1 
 18.1 
 18.0 
 17.8 
 Ay 
 17.4 
 Lil 
 16.9 
 16.7 
 16.4 
 
 August, 1907. 
 
 “ 
 
 ~~ 
 
 29, 
 
 oo ww 
 
 16.1 
 16.0 
 15.8 
 15.6 
 15.6 
 15.5 
 15-5 
 15.6 
 15.7 
 15.7 
 15.8 
 15.5 
 15.7 
 15.8 
 15.6 
 15.6 
 16.4 
 16.4 
 16.0 
 162 
 ied 
 LOS 
 16.9 
 10:7 
 16.4 
 16.1 
 15.9 
 15.6 
 15.3 
 15.3 
 15.8 
 
 September, 1907. 
 
 1, 
 
 CO No oe ne ee ee oe 
 
 22, 
 
 wrod © ww PY Pw 
 
 16.0 
 16.0 
 16.8 
 15.6 
 15.2 
 15.0 
 14.8 
 15.0 
 15.3 
 15.9 
 15.6 
 15.9 
 13.2 
 14.9 
 14.7 
 14.6 
 14.4 
 14.5 
 14.6 
 THe. 
 16.3 
 16.4 
 16.2 
 16.0 
 15.9 
 15.7 
 Hayy 
 17.2 
 19.0 
 19.4 
 
2724 October, 1907. 
 
 2725 
 
 1, 
 
 “ “ “ 
 
 “ 
 
 “ee Ne 
 
 CO OND oF wD 
 
 ee ed a ee 
 
 20, 
 
 ho bw 
 
 23, 
 OA. 
 25, 
 26, 
 o7, 
 28, 
 29, 
 30, 
 31, 
 
 Lhe 
 18.9 
 18.6 
 18.8 
 18.7 
 18.2 
 to 
 17.6 
 17.4 
 14.0 
 16.9 
 16.6 
 16.3 
 16.0 
 15.8 
 15.7 
 15.5 
 15.4 
 15.3 
 15.0 
 14.8 
 14.7 
 14.5 
 14.4 
 14.3 
 14.1 
 14.0 
 13.9 
 13.1 
 13.8 
 13.7 
 
 November, 1907. 
 
 “ “ “ 
 
 “e 
 
 “ 
 
 ~— 
 
 CON A OF WD re 
 
 “ 
 
 29, 
 
 28, 
 
 13.6 
 13.7 
 13.8 
 13.9 
 14.0 
 14,2 
 14.2 
 14.1 
 14.1 
 13.9 
 13.8 
 13.7 
 13.7 
 13.6 
 13.5 
 13.5 
 13.4 
 13.3 
 13.3 
 13.3 
 
 13.8 
 
 14.5 
 14.6 
 14.6 
 14.6 
 14.5 
 14.6 
 14.5 
 14.5 
 14.5 
 
 December, 1907. 
 
 1, 
 
 “ 
 
 “ 
 
 CO ONAN 
 
 DD wo HW PPO WH YWNWND BH BB BH HHH He HY 
 SD ae = Se ad dm & b coe LS So Ree) os SP aN a LY te lee LS i) 
 
 30, 
 
 31, 
 
 14.4 
 14.2 
 14.0 
 
 13.9 
 
 13.8 
 13.6 
 13.5 
 13.7 
 13.7 
 13.9 
 15.0 
 15.7 
 15.8 
 15.8 
 15.7 
 15.6 
 15.7 
 15.6 
 15.4 
 15.3 
 15.1 
 15.1 
 15.2 
 15.5 
 16.6 
 17.5 
 ice 
 19.0 
 20.6 
 21.3 
 21.5 
 
2726 January, 1908. 
 
 2727 
 
 iH 21.4 
 
 2, 21.1 
 
 3, 20.8 
 
 4, 20.4 
 
 5, 20.1 
 
 6, 19.8 
 
 7, 19.6 
 
 8, 19.5 
 
 9, 19.1 
 10, 18.6 
 11, 18.5 
 12, 18.3 
 13, 18.3 
 14, 17.8 
 15, 17.7 
 16, 19.2 
 17, 19.7 
 18, 19.3 
 19, 19.1 
 20, 19.2 
 21, 19.2 
 22, 19.4 
 93, 18.5 
 24, 18.2 
 25, 17.9 
 26, 18.0 
 27, 18.5 
 28, 17.9 
 29, 17.5 
 30, 17.0 
 31, 16.7 
 
 079 
 
 February, 1908. 
 
 18, 
 
 _ 17.0 
 
 16.8 
 15.6 
 20.0 
 22.1 
 23.7 
 20.2 
 24.7 
 23.7 
 23.4 
 22.6 
 21.9 
 21.4 
 21.1 
 21.3 
 21.4 
 22.9 
 23.1 
 22.8 
 22.9 
 
 March, 1908. 
 L, 22.3 
 2, 23.0 
 3, 23.9 
 4, 23.7 
 D, 23.9 
 6, 26.0 
 1, 28.4 
 8, 28.8 
 9, 28.4 
 10, 28.0 
 HH, 27.9 
 12, 27.0 
 13, 26.6 
 14, 26.1 
 15, 20.0 
 16, 25.2 
 17, 24.8 
 18, 24.3 
 Loy 24.2 
 20, 24.4 
 21, 24.4 
 22, 24.2 
 23, 23.0 
 24, 23.4 
 20, - 22.7 
 26, 22.1 
 at, 21.9 
 28, 21.6 
 29, PART | 
 30, 21.5 
 dl, 2160 
 
 *Then the river was frozen from the 4th to the 12th, in 
 elusive, and no readings were made. 
 
2728 April, 1908. 
 
 le SY & 
 
 “ 
 
 “ “ 
 
 (OND OP oo 
 
 ONMWONMONYP NWN NMWDND HD FF KF BF BF He eH 
 
 ) 
 
 we) 
 — 
 
 21.0 
 20.9 
 20.6 
 20.3 
 20.2 
 Loi 
 19.6 
 19.6 
 19.8 
 19.9 
 1s, 
 19.8 
 19.5 
 19.1 
 (Pets, 
 18.5 
 18.5 
 18.7 
 18.6 
 18.4 
 18.2 
 18.0 
 17.8 
 17.8 
 18.3 
 19.1 
 19.4 
 20.5 
 20.7 
 20.6 
 
 580 
 
 May, 1908. 
 1 20.3 
 2, 20.1 
 3. 19.7 
 4, 19.4 
 5, 19.3 
 6, 20.2 
 i 20.8 
 8, 214 
 9, 22.6 
 10, 23.2 
 ih 23.2 
 12, 23.3 
 13, 23.4 
 14, 24.6 
 15, 26.1 
 16, 26.6 
 17: 26.5 
 18, 26.2 
 19, 26.0 
 20, 26.0 
 1, 25.8 
 29, 25.6 
 93, 25.0 
 24. 24.4 
 25, 23.9 
 26, 23.4 
 oF, 22.7 
 28, 29,2 
 29, 29.9 
 30, 22.7 
 
 OO 
 tae 
 
 22.5 
 
2729 
 
 2730 
 
 o81 
 
 The court adjourned court until Monday, November — 
 25, 1912, at 10:30. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: 
 
 I understand that this copy may go 
 
 into the record as a continuation of the examination of 
 Mr. Peterson. 
 
 The Court: 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: 
 
 The Court: 
 
 That was the agreement. 
 Was that the understanding? 
 
 That was the understanding and if any- 
 
 2731 thing is wrong before the case goes to the jury you may 
 eall attention to it and it shall be modified accordingly. 
 
 2731 
 
 River staceés av La Sauue, ILuiNols, at 7 0’CLOCK A. M. AS 
 SHOWN BY THE RECORDS IN THE UNITED Nrates WEATHER 
 BureEAvu OFFICE. 
 
 OANA KwWNHrH 
 
 1908. 
 
 Jan. Feb. Mch. Apr. May June 
 
 22.1 
 oil 
 21.3 
 20.8 
 20.4 
 20.0 
 19.6 
 19.3 
 19:0 
 18.6 
 18.2 
 17.9 
 i ay 
 18.1 
 18.2 
 18.0 
 Eire 
 17.5 
 17.4 
 ae 
 16.9 
 16.6 
 
 12.8 
 12.8 
 12.7 
 12.7 
 12.6 
 
 13.0 
 12.8 
 12.7 
 12.5 
 
 12.4 
 12.1 
 12.0 
 12.0 
 oa 
 By) 
 Pho 
 11.8 
 
 Sep. Oct. 
 
 11.8 
 Dat 
 Lise 
 Li 
 pos 
 117 
 Li 
 
 11.5 
 11.4 
 11.4 
 11.4 
 11.4 
 11.4 
 11.5 
 11.6 
 E.G 
 a Bs) 
 EGO. 
 ss) 
 11.4 
 11.4 
 11.4 
 11.4 
 11.5 
 11.6 
 11.4 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.6 
 11.6 
 11.6 
 11.6 
 
 11.6 
 11.6 
 
 Nov. 
 
 11.6 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.6 
 11.6 
 11.6 
 11.6 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.5 
 11.6 
 11.6 
 11.6 
 11.6 
 11.6 
 11.8 
 a 
 11.8 
 11.9 
 LUD 
 12.0 
 12.3 
 12.4 
 12.1 
 12.2 
 12.3 
 
2733 
 
 082 
 
 RIVER STAGES AT LA SALLE, ILLINOIS, AT SEVEN O’CLOCK A. 
 M., AS SHOWN BY THE RECORDS IN THE UNITED STATES 
 WEATHER BUREAU OFFICE. 
 
 1909. 
 
 ODVATMTRWWH 
 
 Oonnorwnre 
 
 Jan. 
 
 13.6 
 14.0 
 14.8 
 15.2 
 14.4 
 12.9 
 12.4 
 12.2 
 13.0 
 13.3 
 
 * 
 
 koE * KK KR KK 
 
 Jan. 
 
 kK KOR OK KK HK KK OK KK X 
 
 Feb. 
 
 * KK KKK KK K KH KK OK 
 
 Meh. 
 
 20.1 
 20.5 
 20.8 
 21.2 
 22.0 
 24.9 
 22.2 
 22.0 
 22.3 
 22.0 
 21.8 
 21.6 
 21.5 
 21.4 
 
 Apr. 
 
 16.7 
 16.6 
 16.5 
 16.3 
 16.1 
 16.1 
 16.5 
 iy ge 
 17.2 
 17.3 
 17.3 
 17.2 
 1 fs 
 18.7 
 19.5 
 19.6 
 
 19.5 
 20.2 
 21.4 
 21.4 
 21.9 
 22.4 
 22.2 
 22.0 
 
 21. 2 
 20.7 
 20.2 
 21.1 
 
 Apr. 
 
 17.4 
 AT AL 
 16.9 
 16.7 
 16.7 
 16.7 
 16.5 
 16.4 
 16.2 
 16.0 
 15.8 
 15.6 
 15.5 
 15.3 
 
 May 
 
 22.3 
 22.7 
 22.6 
 22.3 
 21.9 
 21.4 
 21.1 
 20.8 
 20.2 
 20.4 
 20.1 
 19.9 
 19.8 
 19.6 
 19.4 
 19.3 
 18.9 
 18.6 
 18.2 
 17.9 
 1250 
 17.4 
 brew t 
 16.8 
 16.5 
 16.5 
 16.8 
 16.8 
 16.7 
 16.7 
 16.6 
 
 June 
 
 16.5 
 16.3 
 16.2 
 17.0 
 17.5 
 17.6 
 17.3 
 legit 
 18.1 
 18.9 
 18.8 
 18.7 
 18.7 
 18.4 
 18.1 
 17.8 
 17.6 
 17.3 
 o77 
 16.9 
 16.7 
 16.5 
 16.5 
 
 16.5 | 
 
 16.5 
 17.0 
 A be ys 
 Wag 
 17.6 
 ae (er 
 
 1910. 
 
 May 
 
 ay 
 18.0 
 20.4 
 21.0 
 20.7 
 20.2 
 19.5 
 19.3 
 19.4 
 18.9 
 18.6 
 18.4 
 18.2 
 17.9 
 
 *River frozen; no reading made, 
 
 July Aug. 
 
 16.9 
 16.5 
 16.3 
 LS.g 
 AB 
 15.7 
 15.9 
 16.1 
 15.9 
 15.8 
 15.8 
 15.7 
 15.5 
 15.3 
 15.3 
 15.4 
 15.4 
 15.3 
 15.0 
 14.8 
 14.7 
 14.6 
 14.5 
 14.4 
 14.3 
 14.1 
 14.0 
 13.9 
 13.8 
 13.8 
 13.7 
 
 13.6 
 13.5 
 13.5 
 13.5 
 13.5 
 13.4 
 13.3 
 13.3 
 13.2 
 13.2 
 13.1 
 13.1 
 13.1 
 14.3 
 15.4 
 1Get 
 16.2 
 16.0 
 15.7 
 15.5 
 1.1 
 14.8 
 14.6 
 14.4 
 14.3 
 14.2 
 14.1 
 14.0 
 14.0 
 13.9 
 13.8 
 
 July Aug. 
 
 13.8 
 13.7 
 13.5 
 13.3 
 13.1 
 13.1 
 11.9 
 12.9 
 12.8 
 12.8 
 12.7 
 12.7 
 12.6 
 12.6 
 
 12.3 
 12.2 
 12.2 
 12.2 
 12.1 
 12.0 
 12.9 
 a9 
 12.0 
 r.9 
 a1.9 
 11.9 
 19 
 11.8 
 
 Sep. 
 
 Love 
 
 13. ‘4 
 13.4 
 13.3 
 
 Sep. 
 
 12.2 
 12.2 
 12.2 
 12.3 
 12.3 
 13.0 
 13.0 
 13.1 
 13.5 
 
 13.0 
 12.8 
 13.0 
 12.8 
 
 Oct. 
 
 13.1 
 13.1 
 13.0 
 12.9 
 12.9 
 12.9 
 12.9 
 12.8 
 12.8 
 13.0 
 13.0 
 13.0 
 12.9 
 12.7 
 12.7 
 12.6 
 12.6 
 12.6 
 12.5 
 12.6 
 
 12. 8 
 12.9 
 13.0 
 13.3 
 15.5 
 13.8 
 13.8 
 13.7 
 13.7 
 13.6 
 
 Nov. 
 
 13.5 
 13.6 
 13.6 
 13.6 
 13.6 
 13.6 
 13.5 
 13.7 
 13.8 
 14.4 
 14.4 
 14.6 
 14.5 
 14.5 
 14.6 
 14.6 
 15.0 
 15.8 
 16.1 
 16.2 
 16.3 
 16.1 
 17.0 
 IS 
 18.9 
 18.8 
 BB Pry 
 18.4 
 18 
 17.9 
 
 Nov. 
 
 12.4 
 12.4 
 12.5 
 12.5 
 12.5 
 12.4 
 12.3 
 12.3 
 12.4 
 12.5 
 12.5 
 12.5 
 12.5 
 12.4 
 
 kk OK RK KK KK RK KE KK K HS 
 
2734 
 
 2735 
 
 083 
 
 RIVER STAGES AT LA SALLE, ILLINOIS, AT SEVEN O’CLOCK A. 
 M., AS SHOWN BY THE RECORDS IN THE UNITED STATES 
 WEATHER BUREAU OFFICE. 
 
 1910. 
 
 Jan. Feb. 
 
 a 
 a 
 ris) 
 fod 
 © 
 ee We nae Se we we rk a Ser ee 
 
 Jan. Feb. 
 
 OMONDAhWDWEH 
 
 * * * * *F K KF K K KOK K 
 jak 
 Or 
 Or 
 
 Lf * 19.4 
 18 Pere LO 
 aH, ie Hs 
 20 eg EPs 
 21 19.3 
 22 ao 18.9 
 23 oo 8.5 
 24 oe lS. 
 25  toel 
 26 a EY 
 27 alt, t 
 28 ee (0 
 29 18.6 
 
 Meh. 
 
 14.5 
 
 Apr. May 
 
 15.8 
 15.7 
 
 i Wy EY § 
 17.5 
 17.4 
 17.4 
 uhrge 
 16.9 
 16.7 
 17.0 
 17.0 
 17.4 
 17.8 
 18.2 
 18.4 
 18.2 
 18.2 
 18.2 
 18.4 
 
 June 
 
 15.8 
 15.5 
 15.4 
 15.3 
 15.1 
 14.9 
 14.7 
 14.3 
 14.3 
 14.2 
 14.0 
 13.8 
 13.7 
 13.8 
 13.7 
 13.8 
 
 OL 
 
 13.2 
 
 *River frozen; no reading made. 
 
 July Aug. 
 
 12.6 
 12.6 
 12.6 
 12.9 
 13.1 
 13.2 
 13.2 
 12.8 
 12.8 
 129 
 12.8 
 12.6 
 12.4 
 12.4 
 12.4 
 12.4 
 12.3 
 
 11.8 
 12.4 
 12.4 
 
 12.1 
 1231 
 12.1 
 12.1 
 12.1 
 12.1 
 12.5 
 12.4 
 12.3 
 12.3 
 12.2 
 12.3 
 12.3 
 
 July Aug. 
 
 13.0 
 12.9 
 12.9 
 12.9 
 12.8 
 12.7 
 12.8 
 12.9 
 12.9 
 19 
 13.0 
 12.8 
 NPY ¢ 
 12.8 
 12.7 
 127 
 
 12.7 
 12.7 
 12.5 
 12.4 
 12.4 
 12.4 
 12.4 
 12.6 
 12.4 
 
 Oct. 
 
 17.3 
 17.6 
 18.3 
 18.9 
 19.2 
 19.0 
 
 18.5 
 18.3 
 18.2 
 18.0 
 17.8 
 17.6 
 
 “17.5 
 
 17.3 
 17.2 
 17.4 
 iNeed 
 tA tee 
 17.5 
 
 17.3 
 17.5 
 18.0 
 18.0 
 gra 
 L733 
 
 17.4 
 
 Nov. 
 
 17.0 
 16.9 
 16.8 
 16.6 
 16.5 
 16.4 
 16.6 
 16.6 
 16.5 
 16.5 
 16.5 
 17.4 
 18.6 
 19.0 
 18.8 
 18.8 
 18.6 
 19.3 
 20.5 
 20.5 
 20.5 
 20.2 
 20.0 
 19.6 
 19.6 
 19.4 
 Lot 
 19.0 
 19.0 
 
2736 
 
 2737 
 
 2738 
 
 084 
 
 RIVER STAGES AT LA SALLE, ILLINOIS, AT SEVEN O’CLOCK A. 
 M., AS SHOWN BY THE RECORDS IN THE UNITED STATES 
 WEATHER BUREAU OFFICE. 
 
 30 
 31 
 
 © CO FD Ot He GD DO ft 
 
 Jan. 
 
 18.4 
 17.9 
 
 Jan. 
 
 RR A SR OR UR. PES To ae ele Rk TK) OR Sk ok OH Oe ce Re SRY UE eR) SR Pe ag 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 * F K K K KR KK KK KK KK KK KK KK KK KOK KK OK K KR 
 
 Meh. 
 
 14.5 
 14.4 
 
 5 
 =) 
 
 * FR KK KF KK K KK K KK K H F 
 
 24.3 
 
 Apr. 
 
 15.7 
 
 May 
 
 14.3 
 14.3 
 
 17.7 
 
 a911: 
 
 June 
 13.0 
 
 1912. 
 
 June 
 
 17.6 
 17.5 
 17.2 
 Leal 
 16.9 
 16.8 
 16.5 
 16.2 
 16.0 
 15.8 
 15.7 
 15.5 
 15.2 
 15.2 
 15.6 
 15.9 
 15.9 
 15.8 
 15.8 
 15.8 
 15.7 
 15.5 
 15.3 
 15.1 
 14.9 
 14.7 
 14.5 
 14.3 
 14.2 
 14.2 
 
 *River frozen; no reading made. 
 
 July Aug. 
 
 12.4 12.4 
 12.4 12.4 
 
 July Aug. 
 14.5 14.8 
 14.4 14.9 
 14.2 14.5 
 14.1 14.5 
 14.0 14.4 
 13.9'- 14.3 
 13.3: 14,2 
 13.7 14.2 
 14.0 14.2 
 14.0 14.3 
 14.0 14.3 
 14.0 14.2 
 14.1 14.3 
 14.1 14.3 
 14.0 14.2 
 13.8 14.2 
 14.0 14.5 
 14.3 14.4 
 14.2 14.5 
 14.1 15.6 
 14.3 15.4 
 14.3 15.8 
 14.4 16.3 
 1430 0500.0 
 14.5 16.1 
 14.5 15.7 
 14.5 15.3 
 14.5 15.1 
 nC: Sy gies ee!) 
 14.6 14.7 
 14.6 14.6 
 
 Sep. 
 
 17.2 
 
 Sep. 
 
 14.5 
 14.4 
 14.3 
 14.3 
 14.3 
 
 14.2 
 14.1 
 14.0 
 13.9 
 
 13.7 
 13.7 
 13.5 
 
 13.7 
 13.6 
 13.5 
 
 13.4 
 13.6 
 13.6 
 13.5 
 
 13.5 
 13.5 
 13.4 
 
 13.3 
 13.3 
 
 Oct. 
 
 0 
 17.0 
 
 Oct. 
 
 13.3 
 13.4 
 13.5 
 13.5 
 13.4 
 
 13.3 
 13.3 
 13.4 
 
 13.5 
 13.9 
 14.3 
 14.3 
 14.4 
 14.6 
 14.6 
 14.6 
 
 14.4 
 14.3 
 14.6 
 14.8 
 
 14.8 
 14.8 
 14.7 
 
 14.7 
 14.7 
 14.5 
 
 Nov. 
 18.9 
 
 Nov. 
 
 14.7 
 14.9 
 14.9 
 15.0 
 15.0 
 15.1 
 15.5 
 16.0 
 16.4 
 16.5 
 16.5 
 16.4 
 16.3 
 16.5 
 16.6 
 16.6 
 16.7 
 16.5 
 16.5 
 16.3 
 16.3 
 16.1 
 
 Dee. 
 
 20.5 
 21.2 
 
 Dee. 
 
585 
 
 2739 Joun McAnprews, a witness called for the defendant, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is John McAndrews. I reside at Bradley, 
 Illinois. My business is drainage. I have been engaged 
 
 in that business for twenty years. During that time I 
 have operated in the Kankakee Valley in Indiana. The 
 2740 name of the ditching firm with which I have been con- 
 nected is McAndrews & Bradley. We have been engaged 
 
 in these operations. I have been engaged in Laporte 
 County, Laporte. The county next to Laporte is Knox. 
 Those counties are on the Kankakee River. I commenced 
 2741 operations there about fourteen years ago. The Kanka- 
 kee River was kind of a low valley, not really a ditch. It 
 was just kind of a dredge in places, filled up with a great 
 deal of filth and rushes and bars; not a very good water 
 course. It did not flow very good unless the water was 
 high. If there was high water it run pretty well. There 
 were obstructions in the Kankakee River. They consisted 
 
 of sand bars, rushes and willows, sunken logs; princip- 
 ally bars, sand bars. The size and character of those sand 
 bars, I would say, was from three and a half to four feet 
 
 in places. This is the same Kankakee River that con- 
 nects with the Desplaines River and forms part of the 
 Illinois. It was about sixty-five miles above Kankakee, 
 2642 where the river I speak of was in this obstructed con- 
 dition. It was about twenty or twenty-five miles from 
 Laporte, southwest. The river in high water would be 
 probably 300 or 400 feet wide in places; in low water 
 would be about 150 feet, probably. The character of the 
 land lying on each side of the river at that time was not 
 very good. It was marshy and wet and filled with rushes. 
 
 It extended a good ways back. That extended pretty 
 
086 
 
 near up to Hanna. Hanna is about fifteen miles from 
 Laporte; a little southwest of Laporte; that would be 
 on the right hand side as you go down steam, or on the 
 north. On the left hand side it was more hilly and val- 
 leys in between those hills and where those valleys or 
 ravines run back, they would run back probably six or 
 ten miles; low swampy ground. But the whole Kanka- 
 kee Valley was pretty much of a swamp; must be 500,000 
 acres or more of swampy condition extending over the 
 entire valley of the Kankakee. There was not much of 
 anything growing in those swamps only rushes and pond 
 lilies and things of that kind. There was very little 
 timber in those swamps; along the edge of the Kankakee 
 there was some timber. In this entire 500,000 acres there 
 was a little farming on the high places, on the knolls. In 
 2744 the swamps themselves there was no farming. That 
 extended up and down stream for about 100 miles. In 
 those swamps at that time there was water. That water 
 would be very deep. It would be so deep you would get 
 2745 wet with waders on, high rubbers. Well, about two feet 
 and a half deep. That condition extended over probably 
 000,000 acres of that country. Water would stand upon 
 this land. There was not much chance for the water to 
 get away before the ditches were made. I started in to 
 perform changing operations with reference to the Kan- 
 kakee River. ‘Well, we started out near that little Kan- 
 kakee, at the upper end of the Kankakee River, and we 
 carried that down to the B. & O. Rairoad track. We put 
 a ditch in about eight feet deep and fifty feet wide; dug 
 2746 it out with a steam dredge. That ditch was six and a 
 half miles long. Below there a firm by the name of 
 Pollard & Goff got it from below there. They carried 
 the Kankakee on down I think about ten miles and a half. 
 Their ditch was about sixty feet on top; about eight or 
 ten feet deep. Then the Pontiac Syndicate, they formed 
 
087 
 
 a drainage district and carried it on down about seven- 
 teen miles from there. Their ditch was from seventy-five 
 to 100 feet wide; ten or twelve feet deep; seventeen miles 
 long. I think the Pollard ditch was about ten and a half 
 miles; probably a little bit more than that. We stopped 
 at the state line. I think that brings it somewhere about 
 2747 sixty miles to Momence. There was not anything done 
 from Kankakee to Momence any more than to take out 
 the rock at Momence. I think somewhere about 60,000 
 yards was taken out. That was at the place known as 
 the ledge of rocks. There was a ledge of rock running 
 right across the channel. In fact runs across the two 
 channels. There is a double channel at Momence, one on 
 the south side and the other running around on the north 
 side. The north side one is the one they took the rock out 
 of and the south side one is in its natural condition yet. 
 The ledge of rocks came above the water. The south side 
 channel would take more water in low water—the north 
 side channel would take more water in low water than 
 2748 the south side would but in high water the water seemed 
 to go around the south channel more. I think the ledge 
 of rocks extended about eighteen inches to two feet. above 
 the surface of the water before the change was made. 
 After the change was made it done a great deal better but 
 not enough out of it yet. I commenced my first section 
 on the Kankakee about ten years ago. I know where 
 English Lake is located. Well, English Lake was a bit 
 of water with about twenty-five to thirty acres in it. It 
 run from six inches to six feet. English Lake at that 
 time had a communication with the Kankakee River. 
 
 2749 The Kankakee River run right through the edge of 
 English Lake. The condition of the stream before I com- 
 menced work on it was not very good. The lake wound 
 off to the south and throwed up a bar across the Kanka- 
 kee here and there and there was a little neck that run 
 
088 
 
 out where the overflow went; probably fifty feet wide; 
 that carried the water from the Kankakee River and also 
 from English Lake. There was no other outlet except this 
 little outlet unless it was in high water. In high water 
 the water went over this little neck altogether. [English 
 Lake did not drain any of this country. There were trib- 
 utaries coming into Hnglish Lake at that time. They 
 2750 came from the northeast. I know where the Yellow 
 River was. The Yellow River is a river about forty or 
 fifty feet wide and carries a great deal of water, and the 
 length of it I don’t know just how long it is. It comes 
 from the south. I think it is about thirty-five miles long. 
 Work was done on the Yellow River. J am familiar with 
 the work that was done there. The Yellow River was 
 improved for about ten miles and a half, up its channel, 
 southeast. It came into the Kankakee about three miles 
 above English Lake. The work that was done on the 
 Yellow River, I think the bottom was forty feet by ten 
 2751 to sixteen feet on top. The Yellow River was always 
 a pretty good stream because it had washed out; it had 
 made itself, I suppose, from the looks of it, and in case 
 of high water it carried a good bit of water. The bottom 
 of it was a little bit higher than the bottom of the Kan- 
 kakee and it poured an awful lot of water into the Kan- 
 kakee. These ten miles and a half I have spoken of began 
 at the Ikankakee River and extended to the Yellow River. 
 We built a boat in English Lake, a dredge boat, and we 
 dug a mile and a half up through English Lake to the 
 boundary line of our work. This work was all laid from 
 where Pollard & Goff quit; ten and a half miles below the 
 B. & O. Road. They got a portion of the Kankakee River 
 the same time we did. I dug upstream and through Eng- 
 hsh Lake a mile and a half and then I turned the boat 
 2702 around in English Lake and came on down through the 
 Kankakee River. I dug down then six miles and a half; 
 
089 
 
 all of it was in the Kankakee River. I dug right through 
 English Lake 106 feet wide and about twelve feet deep. 
 That connected with the Kankakee River. After those 
 improvements and the excavations were made in the Kan- 
 kakee River the Mockler ditch was made and the Place 
 2753 ditch. I know the location of a ditch known as the Box 
 ditch. That comes from the south. The Mockler and 
 Place ditches come from the north, the northeast. Well, 
 for about 16,000 acres on the north side, I think there is 
 a ditch on every section; over thirty miles of ditch in 
 them 16,000 acres. I have told about the improvements 
 on the main stream down to the Illinois line. Since that 
 2754 time ditches have been constructed on both sides of this 
 main improvement. There is one ditch coming from the 
 north that connects pretty near direct with the Yellow 
 River. They both enter the Kankakee along on one side 
 of the Kankakee. The Yellow River on the south side 
 and about ten miles and a half, the ditch enters on the 
 south side, both going into the Kankakee about the same 
 place but one on each side of the ditch. There are ditches 
 down to the Illinois line on either side. A great many 
 ditches, tributaries. From these ditches that extend off 
 north and south there are laterals. There are lateral 
 2755 drains extending into these ditches. Before I com- 
 menced work there was no tile used in that 500,000 acres 
 of land. I can’t say how extensively tile has been used 
 since but a great deal of tile has been put in. These ditches 
 all go to the Kankakee and take water there. The Mock- 
 ler ditch has a base of forty feet on the bottom and is 
 about ten feet deep. The Yellow River must be about 
 sixty feet wide on top. The ditch put through English 
 Lake was 106 feet. The Box ditch is about thirty feet 
 2756 on top. The Place ditch is, I think, about the same size 
 as the Mockler, about forty feet. The main ditches run 
 from about twenty-five to thirty feet; forty feet bottom. 
 
090 
 
 Before the time I commenced operations the rainfall that 
 fell on that 500,000 acres just absorbed and soaked away. 
 Now, it runs down to the Kankakee. This 500,000 acres 
 now is good farming land, pretty much along the entire 
 2757 length of which I spoke annual crops are now being 
 raised there. They are selling that land now, I under- 
 stand, for $125 an acre. On that 500,000 acres, where 
 there was a swampy condition; there is no water stand- 
 ing in that condition now. J have known the Kankakee 
 River 16 years. Since the completion of this improve- 
 ment I think the water is a little higher than it used to 
 be in the Kankakee River at Kankakee. In times of or- 
 dinary water I would say it was from four to five feet 
 higher near the bridge at Kankakee. I am acquainted 
 2758 with the Vermillion country, the Vermillion River. I 
 did drainage operations above the Vermillion River in 
 Ford County, Illinois. JI knew the Vermillion before I 
 commenced operations there. That is, the Big Vermil- 
 lion. It is the same Big Vermillion that empties into 
 the Illinois River just above La Salle. That river was 
 something like the Kankakee before I commenced opera- 
 tions. A little sluggish and not very deep; middling 
 wide. There was some obstructions in it, but not as bad 
 as the Kankakee. I didn’t do much work on the Ver- 
 million. JI did my work above the Vermillion. I com- 
 2759 menced my work above the Vermillion in ’86. Well, 
 that would be 26 years ago. We started very close to 
 the Kankakee line in Ford County, a distance of about 
 seven miles and a half, and we brought a ditch down to 
 the Vermillion; a pretty good sized ditch, I think, if I 
 remember right, about thirty feet top and fourteen foot 
 bottom. The depth of that ditch was from seven and a 
 half to eight feet. It passed through a pretty good coun- 
 try, but swampy and marsh. I presume there were 
 200,000 acres of swamps there before I commenced op- 
 
O91 
 
 erations. I made a ditch seven miles and a half long 
 there, the main ditch. There were lateral ditches made 
 in each direction. There was one started up pretty near 
 2760 at the head of the main ditch, only about five miles 
 south, and run down and connected with the main ditch 
 about a mile and a half above the Vermillion; and then 
 there was. another ditch started lower down and also 
 connected with the main ditch that went into the Ver- 
 million River; and then there were four ditches on the 
 south side that came from the southwest of Piper City 
 and also went into the Vermillion and that went down 
 the Vermillion about a quarter of a mile to get to those 
 ditches below and into Livingston County, and we 
 stopped there. At the time I commenced operations in 
 the Vermillion country there was no improvement at 
 all, or tile used in that 200,000 acres of land. After the 
 improvement was completed the country was used for 
 farming. It is today all farm land; the best farm lands. 
 2761 Seven years ago there was a channel put from the head 
 of the Vermillion River to the railroad—I think the Illi- 
 nois Central—a distance probably of seven miles and a 
 half, maybe more. I wouldn’t be sure about the dis- . 
 tance. That channel was seven and a half miles long 
 and I think something over 100 feet top. It was about 
 8 to 10 feet deep. Before these operations were per- 
 formed that transformed this country from swamp to 
 farm lands, the rain that fell on that country just laid 
 there. Since, the ditches and the tile take it away. They 
 convey it practically to the Vermillion River and the 
 Vermillion River emonties into the Illinois River. I have 
 2768 done drainage operations on the Iroquois. I dug a 
 ditch in Iroquois. I think it was about ten miles and a 
 half long; I think somewhere about 15 or 16 years ago. 
 The country was a little swampy, of course; not as bad 
 as the others. I think there was somewhere about 10,000 
 
592 
 
 2763 acres in the district. We dug this ditch and run it into 
 the Iroquois River. The Iroquois River empties into 
 the Illinois River. There was other work done in the 
 same vicinity by others. I think about 200 to 250,000 
 acres of land was drained by others than myself. Below 
 
 2764 the point where I left off with my drainage operations 
 the swamps ceased on the Kankakee. Below where the 
 work ceased on the Ikankakee was a flat country. On 
 the Vermillion below there was a pretty good fall. I 
 have been engaged in other drainage work on the water 
 shed of the Illinois. I done some work in Livingston 
 
 County on a ditch known as the Oliver ditch. That coun- 
 
 2765 try was more of lakes and ponds, swampy. ‘There were 
 
 2766 big bodies of water, probably five to seven acres in 
 them, and then there would be a neck running from one 
 to the other; a little channel running down and they 
 would run away, soak away. Those lakes extended over 
 probably five miles. We dredged there at the upper end 
 and came down through those lakes, a distance of about 
 12 or 124 miles. We connected that ditch with the river. 
 1 forget the name of the river it went into. It went into 
 a little river or creek down below Chatsworth. It finally 
 goes to the Illinois. I think there were about 12,000 
 acres in those operations. J think the ditch was six foot 
 
 2767 bottom and about seven and one-half feet deep. I con- 
 structed that ditch about 12 years ago. After that ditch 
 was constructed there was an increase in the use of tile. 
 Today it is pretty good land. It is used for farming. 
 Before that time it had not been very much use for farm- 
 ing—pasture principally. 
 
 Cross-Hxamination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The last work I testified to was located down near 
 Chatsworth. Chatsworth is about forty miles from La 
 2768 Salle. I think it would be a little southwest. All the 
 
593 
 
 work that I did in constructing what is known as the 
 Oliver ditch was completed about 12 years ago. I know 
 pretty near where Henry is. I know that is a dam at 
 Henry. I don’t know whether Chatsworth is further 
 2769 down the river than Henry. La Salle might be more 
 than 25 miles from Henry; I don’t know. No, sir, l 
 don’t know where Lake Senatchwine is. I am not very 
 well acquainted on the Illinois. That work I did on the 
 Iroquois was all completed 15 or 16 years ago. The 
 water that came into the Iroquois on account of any 
 drainage I put there some 15 or 16 years ago was com- 
 2770 ing into the [linois prior to the year 1903. We did 
 not change the natural flow of the water around Chats- 
 worth. We followed the water. We did the same thing 
 up in Iroquois. The first work I did along the Vermil- 
 lion was in the year 1886. In that year put in a drainage 
 system to drain some 200,000 acres of land. I never was 
 along on the Vermillion running from a point somewhat 
 east of the [linois Central right of way at La Salle, ex- 
 tending as far as Streator, Illinois, subsequent to the 
 2771 year 1886, except on the train, as I went through on the 
 train. You can see some from the train. I have been 
 on the Vermillion River, from the Illinois Central to the 
 head of the Vermillion, along the ditch. The land 1 
 drained in the year 1886 was in the natural water shed 
 of the Vermillion. I don’t know much about the Ver- 
 million River anywhere in or about La Salle, subsequent 
 to the year 1886. J walked over that work with a view 
 of taking it. That part of the river I am pretty well 
 2772 acquainted with. It was nine or ten years ago that I 
 started that work on the Kankakee. I know a man by 
 the name of Tuesberg.. I have known him for 14 years. 
 He did some of the work I mentioned down in the Kan- 
 kakee. I have not testified to any work done any place 
 that did not come under my own personal observation. J 
 
094 
 
 done the most of the work on the Kankakee myself. I 
 2773 have been along the Vermillion in the past ten years; 
 about seven years ago. ‘The boat was there to work 
 there on the Vermillion River. I was there afterwards. 
 2774 I am acquainted with the condition of the Kankakee 
 River at Momence during the summer time. I think it is 
 higher now than it was during the ’90’s. I have actually 
 observed it. I think it is higher now in the summer time. 
 I think it is probably from three and a half feet to four 
 feet higher. There is no doubt about it in my mind 
 2779 that it is higher. I think we did put water into the 
 Kankakee River where the natural water shed was not 
 in that direction. Well, we done it this side of Knglish 
 Lake where the oil pipe crosses the Kankakee. I pre- 
 2776 sume it was the natural water shed. They have brought 
 no water to the Kankakee where the level of the ground 
 or the incline of the ground was not in that direction. 
 There is a difference today in all that land down there 
 as to the level of the water; J think about four and a 
 2777 half feet. Most of the sub-soil is sand and gravel. A 
 heavy rain would affect the tile drains and ditches. If 
 the ground absorbs the rainfall, it would naturally go 
 to the tile and from the tile to the ditch. It takes a 
 2778 pretty good rainfall to put the water on the surface of 
 the ground. It would take a pretty good rainfall to get 
 those ditches in working order. There don’t a great 
 2779 deal of water stay in the ditches. When English Lake 
 was drained the water ran off a good deal of it. I know 
 the condition of the Kankakee River at Momence during 
 the summer time. I was there last summer. I think I 
 saw it; about July or August I was there. The Kankakee 
 River during those months was about 150 feet wide, I 
 would think. 
 
 2781 Mr. Curperrienp: There are a couple of questions, 
 Mr. O’Conor, that I overlooked. I didn’t have a chance 
 
095 
 
 to go over it with Mr. McAndrews. We both just got in 
 town. I will ask them now, if it is agreeable. 
 The Courr: Yes. 
 
 Direct Examination (continued) by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 Before I commenced work on the Kankakee River there 
 were bends in the river. The biggest bend was located 
 below English Lake, right where the oil pipe crosses the 
 Kankakee. That is what they call the Ox Bow Bend. 
 
 2782 It was three and a half miles around that bend. It was 
 about half a mile or less across. In the Kankakee River, 
 where I ceased my work, or thereabouts, there has been 
 a difference in the water stage of the Kankakee River 
 of about three and a half to four feet. Close to the end 
 there, at the county line, the proposition was that the 
 Kankakee would be carried to Momence, and the syndi- 
 cate—Mr. Tuesberg and the rest of them—advised me 
 to leave the boat there with the prospect of continuing 
 the work. I took the machine off the boat and bored a 
 hole in her and sunk her; let her sink, filled her with 
 water, for the purpose of preserving the lumber from 
 the sun and rain and so on. And of course I would go 
 there once in a while to see how that boat was, with a 
 view of raising her, taking her out and putting her some- 
 
 2783 where else, but the water has been so high that I would 
 have to build a place at the side, put a dam around her 
 and pump the water out to get her up, and I have been 
 waiting for the water to go down and it hasn’t gone 
 down so I could get at her. That is the reason I know 
 the water is higher than before we straightened the 
 Kankakee. 
 
 Cross-Exammation (continued) by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I think I noticed the water at Momence in the Kanka- 
 kee in 1910. I have not noticed the water at Wilmington. 
 
096 
 
 2784 Yes, all of this water passes by Wilmington. The Kan- 
 kakee comes into the Illinois River, I can’t just recall the 
 name of that town now. I practically know where Mor- 
 ris is. I have been in it, but I didn’t pay much attention 
 to it. I don’t know exactly where the Kankakee comes 
 into the Illinois. I have been through there, but I never 
 took any particular notice of it. I know where Devine, 
 Illinois, is located. JI couldn’t say whether Devine is 
 
 2785 east or west of the point where the Kankakee comes 
 into the [lhnois. I came to Ottawa yesterday; have 
 been here ever since. I am not getting anything by way 
 of compensation. I never asked the company for a cent. 
 It is not understood that I will be paid anything by the 
 Sanitary District in here. I came here on notice from 
 Mr. Beebe. 
 
 Mr. CuriperFIeELD: Now, if your Honor please, I want 
 to introduce in evidence a certified copy of a map of 
 the State of Wisconsin, showing the water shed of the 
 
 2786 Fox and Desplaines River, and I want to ask leave to 
 withdraw the original upon filing a compared copy. 
 
 The Court: I grant that. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: JI want to ask leave to introduce 
 and I offer in evidence a map of the State of Indiana, 
 showing the water shed of the Kankakee River, a certi- 
 fied copy, and I desire to ask leave to withdraw the orig- 
 inal upon the filing of a compared and precise copy. 
 
 The Court: I grant that. 
 
 Mr. CurpeerFietp: I also want to ask leave to intro- 
 duce a map of the State of Illinois showing the water 
 shed of the Illinois River and its tributaries within the 
 State of Illinois and desire to have leave to withdraw 
 the original, so certified, upon the filing of a compared 
 and precise copy. 
 
 The Court: I grant that. 
 
> 
 ty 
 ’ 
 € 
 € 
 i- v 2 ; ‘= 
 na | > ‘ 
 i - 
 7 
 soi . ne 
 » 
 - 
 ‘ 
 Pia 
 i 
 a 
 - 
 . 
 | 
 ‘ 
 ‘ 
 . 
 \ 
 . 
 i] 
 ‘ 
 . » . 
 * 
 \ . . 
 > 
 ¢ ~~ 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
598 
 
 2787 Whereupon precise copies of said maps were substi- 
 tuted and marked Exhibits 22, 23 and 24. 
 
VEPMITIMESS OF Pik INTE io 
 
 GEN TICAL DASE OFPECE 
 
 Hos SOW. LAMORE UN COMMISSIONIN 
 
 SPATE 
 
 MALP..-74 
 
 or aw 
 
 or WIS 
 
 CONS 
 
 Vetrtited brome: fhe ety al Me orth of Une Carmarre! Land Otfiew end athe wourres 
 
 sunider the direction of 
 
 HARICY KING, CK, 
 Chetof Drefind Drrena La 
 
 TOG, 
 
 Henle PE Miles tab yet 
 
 i N % fa 
 
 “Se 
 
 A eaatibe 
 
 ‘Ku s uA RAY bh 
 
 fete. 
 
 gris Ries seed 
 ree sisere : 
 
 Hoboed | 
 
 + spe 
 £ Steen 
 
 MAR QUE TTE “GREE N. 
 
 LEGEND. 
 
 @ Shand Uiiers 
 Melt Mis Csapheled ET cca Fire 
 FS Heal Hoey Vreguased I ie GS — aS SEP eer somes 
 
 © Light Houses r Petille° r a ) " : Te ees : ih lee + 
 
 “Ess hile Susiny Stations > ir : ae on an Aone 
 © County Seats : ; 
 
 Ned homo 
 tod 
 poses | “if 
 
 a c 
 5e eS oe a ec os he 
 
 ne a cage om EBAGOP 
 
 iter 
 Se WARHING TONS 
 
 a 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 5 See 
 » ine pr iwiy? 
 eae Ler 
 
 é 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ 
 b 
 ft 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 } 
 : ’ 
 ; 
 I 
 
 i 
 ot 
 | 
 
 eat 
 i 
 
 | 
 ‘ 
 ; 
 
 EB) eee 
 Tat 
 
 ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 | RD A es 3 
 : 
 | pe i 
 ; eet 2 | 
 ae | | 
 & | 
 | ) 
 
 th te pee 
 > i: So 
 ; , 
 
 i 
 
 iH 
 
 @: 
 
 Se 
 
 DEPANTMENT OF THE INTRELOE 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE 
 
 WY A. JI. SPARKS, COMMISSIONER 
 
 £ STATE0rFIN DIANA 
 
 Seated inch - 12 Miles. 
 ” - ~ 
 
 1886, 
 
 
 
 Compiled from the afficial Records of the General Land Office aad other sources by 
 
 Chief of Deaughtng Der GLO 
 ' 
 
 ’ 
 
 ! 
 {i 
 | | 
 , GEO U MAYO. ; | 4 
 
 
 
 en ee nme oe Aer 
 

 
 . 
 ‘5 
 “1 , 
 pyy 
 ‘4 
 : 
 : 
 ‘ 
 . 
 i] 
 " 
 y 
 lg 
 : 
 y 
 . ‘ay 
 We 
 ay, 
 f : 
 ew. ¢ 
 ay , 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 Ts 
 j 
 
 Ny 
 -™, 
 we 
 : 
 : 
 | 
 
 ei artes 
 
 
 
 
 
 } 
 
 ‘ 
 
 Ee 
 
 as 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERTOK rae ik 
 
 GENERAL LAND OFFICE Pie) 
 
 _ J. SPARKS. COMMISSIONEN x ha. 
 
 ; ‘ ay bay he 
 
 ; 7 pilbat i , ’ 
 : . =i: Cory 
 
 Of PEAS TINOS oe 
 : A 4 a - » . 
 
 Seale Vb Miles to b inek 
 se 7 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - ; h ; 4 
 : = a Shige cone Bie a 
 BBS i it r 
 ‘oe ; ; a he on ; 
 the lfc) Mevacd of ther Gnrwral Loved Oftire and wther saree mee AE, eee . if 
 ul hy : - Leen 
 eae Yi. apie Scent 2 ™ ; x aN ' > ae Rye | 
 Pp or STIRIM, Dmefentfrevimboomen bite * . L 4 Paring Ave a antl 5 
 4 or. ae ' « : AD \ “iy wae 
 ee Habe hep se 
 3. ae Panetta EY 2) + ley 
 
 
 
fed 
 
 "Walsh et Q 
 MM iif DOORS | Wea 
 
 y 
 ae 
 
 rw 
 
 
 
a 
 ’ 
 
 Pm 
 4 
 
 3 Mf 
 wire 
 
 63 
 ae 
 
 yg 
 
 B pececel aan 
 
 a7 
 + »@e 
 ad 
 
 i “ir 
 
 mt 
 
 
 
 
 
are 
 
 - 
 
 600 
 
 2788-2789 Certificates accompanying said maps, being certi- 
 fied by the Department of the Interior of the United 
 States. 7 
 
 2792 Exureir 25. 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
im 
 it D MILWAUKEE 
 
 + he 
 , oe ! ) 
 Os Di ; , Nal SF 
 
 NS CNA eal —+ 1 im 
 i PP RTP OeLAvan 
 e 
 
 ae 
 
 t KENOSHA 
 
 th 
 
 
 
 BELVIDERE J oo ne) | 
 
 s € Fonest 
 <—+ a 
 a 
 
 ~ ¥ i wy eeeminan 
 
 ; a 
 Ens Ae 
 las 
 
 \ 
 
 ih MT. CARROLL 
 . ify 
 
 y 
 
 | \ reegepe 
 \ 
 
 he 
 
 
 
 re t teh Tis 
 ee Y|@e-comnoron 
 
 a 
 
 gpa 
 ® 
 
 i 
 
 ——_ 
 
 URBANA 
 
 a ee 
 SANITARY DISTRICT OF GHICAGG: 
 
 MAP OF ) 
 ILLINOIS RIVER 
 
 WATEKSHED. | 
 
 SCALE. 
 FOUR MILES TO ONE INCH. 
 
 6 i el ae eee — a. 
 
 
 
 res all i (ce bee) ad ca : sh : i CHICAGO, NOV. 1903. 
 PD a "A ALY i 4 i: o flu ‘ ' % 
 
 Ceroner 1910 Tw SUPPLEMENTARY DATA APPEARING ON THIS MAP HAVE BEEN SECURED UNGER THE DIRECTION OF EMNEILBRON, OVMON ENGINEER, 
 
 Tit GED DISKS INDICATE PRECIPITATION STATIONS OF THE US Weatner Bureau, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
601 
 
 2794 Frank J. Traut, a witness for the defendant, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Exammation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Frank J. Traut. I reside at Beardstown, 
 
 2795 Illinois. I am an engineer and contractor. I have re- 
 
 sided in Beardstown 18 years. I know the Llinois River 
 
 from the Henry dam down to the mouth of the stream. 
 
 I am familiar with the river from Hennepin down. I 
 
 am acquainted with the drainage districts that have been 
 
 constructed in that river. I have constructed some of 
 
 those districts. I have been connected with the construc- 
 
 tion of drainage districts in the valley of the Illinois 
 for 18 years. 
 
 The drainage districts that have been constructed in 
 the valley of the Illinois, and the areas of the same which 
 are known to me starting at Hennepin, are as follows: 
 
 2796 Hennepin District, on the east side of the river, 3,000 
 acres. Hast Peoria District, 800 acres. Iamarsh Dis- 
 trict, near Pekin, on the west side of the river, 2,500 
 acres. Spring Lake District, on the east side of the 
 river, 14,000 acres. Lacey District, opposite Havanna, 
 
 2797 about 5,500. acres. Otter Creek District, on the west 
 side of the river, 3,000 acres. Coal Creek District, oppo- 
 site Beardstown, on the west side of the river, 7,000 
 acres. Crane Creek District, on the west side of the 
 river, just below Coal Creek District, 5,500 acres. Merido- 
 sia Lake District, on the east side of the river, 5,000 acres. 
 McGee Creek District, opposite Meridosia, on the west 
 side of. the river, 12,000 acres. Big Swan District, on 
 the east side of the river, opposite Florence, 14,000 acres. 
 Hill View District, on the east side of the river, 13,000 
 acres. The Roberts District, Kaiser District and Hart- 
 well District, which have, combined, contained 12,000 
 
Lo 
 
 602 
 
 798 acres. The Keetch District, sometimes called the Fair- 
 
 banks District, 10,000 acres. The li!dred District, 10,000 
 acres. The Nutwood District, 11,000 acres. 
 
 There are a number of proposed districts, some of 
 them under way and some which have not yet been com- 
 pleted. The aggregate acreage of these districts is about 
 150,000 acres. 
 
 The levees constructed by these districts on the river- 
 side average from 12 to 20 feet in height above the 
 ground on which they were built. The first district was 
 constructed in 1890, a small district. Most of them have 
 
 2799 been constructed in the last 10 or 12 years. From the 
 
 map Exhibit 25, I have located La Salle. (And the wit- 
 ness then proceeded to point out on the map the location 
 
 2800 of the various drainage districts deseribed by him.) 
 
 2801 
 
 2802 
 
 I was connected as engineer or contractor with nine or 
 ten of these districts. 
 
 In Hennépin District the length of the levee along the 
 
 river is about 4 miles; Hast Peoria, 14 miles; Lamarsh, 
 4 miles; Spring Lake, 16 miles; Lacey, 4 miles; Otter 
 Creek, 14 miles; Coal Creek, 8 miles; Crane Creek, 2 
 miles; Meridosia, 7 miles; McGee, 9 miles; Big Swan, 10 
 miles; Hillview, 8 miles; Hartwell, 10 miles; Fairbanks, 
 8 miles; Eldred, 10 miles; Nutwood, 10 miles. Some of 
 these districts are pretty close to the river and some of 
 them are less than 100 feet from the edge of the river 
 bank, extending back to 400 feet. 
 
 The Hennepin District will average 100 feet from 
 the river. Hast Peoria is less than that. Lamarsh from 
 90 to 100 feet from the river. Spring Lake was 100 feet 
 at one place to about 600 feet. Lacey is 100 feet from 
 the river bank. Otter Creek half a mile from the river 
 bank. Coal Creek 100 feet from the bank. Crane Creek 
 100 feet. Meridosia is 250 feet from the bank of Meri- 
 dosia Lake. MeGee 100 to 300 feet from the bank of the 
 
603 
 
 river. Big Swan from 200 to 400 feet from the bank. 
 Hill View from 200 to 400 feet from the bank. Hartwell 
 
 2803 from 100 to 300 feet from the bank. Fairbanks from 100 
 to 300 feet from the bank. Eldred from 200 to 400 
 feet from the bank. Notwood from 200 to 400 feet 
 from the bank. 
 
 Before the levees were constructed the Illinois River 
 in times of high water covered practically all of the lands | 
 enclosed by the levee districts. In the instance of the 
 Meridosia Lake and the McGee Creek levee, they are 
 opposite each other for a distance of about four miles. 
 I have personally been in each of these levee districts 
 many times and the information which I am giving the 
 jury is based upon personal observation. 
 
 In the vicinity of Peoria before these levee districts 
 were constructed, in times of extreme high water the 
 
 2804 river would be four miles in width; at Havanna about 
 4 miles; Beardstown 4 to 6 miles; Meridosia 5 to 6 miles; 
 Kampsville 4 miles. I cannot state how wide it is at 
 the mouth of the river, but it gets very wide. I have ob- 
 
 2805 served the Mississippi’River in times of high water. 
 In the Mississippi River during high water during 1903, 
 we had dead water back in the Illinois up to one mile 
 below Beardstown, 88 miles from the mouth of the river. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 Never have been in the employ of the defendant. Not 
 
 9806 in their employ except in the sense I have been called 
 to testify in this case. 
 
 29807 I mean to give the exact acreage in these various dis- 
 tricts from my personal knowledge acquired from the 
 reports of the engineers in making their reports for the 
 commissioners, which were filed in the County Court giv- 
 ing the acreage as to the acreage in the 40 tracts. My 
 testimony as to areas is based upon something that some- 
 
604 
 
 body else did. J never measured up the acreage in the 
 district. I would know it just as well as anyone else 
 knows it. ‘he commissioners of the district never meas- 
 ure it up, but they take the engineer’s measurements and 
 figure up the assessments. I can judge somewhere near 
 
 2808 the acreage in the district by looking at it and going 
 through it. 
 
 2809 All the levees I refer to are farther down the river 
 than the dam at Henry, except the Hennepin. 
 
 2810 CHarutes H. Tunsperc, a witness for the defendant, be- 
 ing sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Charles H. Tuesberg, I live at LaCrosse, 
 LaPorte County, Indiana. My business is managing 
 lands. I have been so engaged for 12 years. I am ac- 
 quainted with the larger portion of the Kankakee River 
 in Indiana and the lands adjacent thereto. Before the 
 reclamation was commenced I was acquainted with the 
 entire valley. I first went through it some 15 or 16 years 
 
 2811 ago; it was a swampy country. There was no artificial 
 drainage except a little in Lake County. 
 
 The valley of the Kankakee extends from near South 
 Bend in Indiana to the state line, about 80 or 90 miles 
 straightened. The valley embraces in the neighborhood 
 of a million acres; with the exception of sand ridges the 
 probability is three-fourths of the valley was low, wet 
 swampy land. The valley, a large portion of it at least, 
 has only about a foot of fall to the mile. So it lays very 
 level in there and was in a very swampy condition on 
 account of having no drainage. 
 
 2812 Before the reclamation operations were commenced, 
 the swamps consisted of level pieces of land covered by 
 
605 
 
 marsh hay, cat tails and rice straw. In the spring of the 
 year there would be water in the marsh. The marsh 
 east of LaCrosse would be two or three or four miles in 
 width and probably from six inches to two feet in depth. 
 Before there was artificial drainage the water accruing 
 from rainfall in that section of the country remained 
 largely on the land in the low places until it was absorbed 
 by atmospheric conditions. After the June freshets, 
 when the warm weather came and the weather was drier, 
 the water would be absorbed, both sink away into the 
 ground and being taken up into the atmosphere. 
 
 The river is very crooked and very sluggish. In its 
 natural state it has about 4$ to 5 inches of fall to the 
 2813 mile. It is very crooked. 
 
 By reference to Exhibit 25, it appears that the upper 
 ond of the valley, the City of South Bend on the St. Joe 
 River, is located at the head of the valley. The valley is, 
 perhaps, between South Bend and the head waters of 
 the Kankakee, is only two or three miles on the divide. 
 It is a marshy country, all of this territory. Very much 
 of that was covered with muck land. It extends from 
 South Bend or near South Bend to a point near the 
 town of Momence, about seven miles in Illinois from the 
 state line. The heavy mark on the map indicates the 
 Kankakee River proper. 
 
 I am familiar with the tributaries of the Kankakee 
 
 2814 River in Indiana, the largest of which is the Yellow 
 
 2815 River. Some portions of the valley are wider than oth- 
 
 ers. It probably extended ten or eleven miles and some 
 
 places a little wider than that before the reclamation was 
 commenced. 
 
 I knew English Lake before reclamation proceedings 
 
 were commenced. It was a low flat marsh, the water re- 
 
 mained on usually from six inches to a foot in. depth. 
 
606 
 
 Some seasons it would dry up but mostly water was 
 there. It covered six to eight square miles. A number 
 
 2816 of small creeks and sloughs flow into it. English Lake 
 is connected with the Ullnois River through the natural 
 channel of the Kankakee. 
 
 The Kankakee River in the state of nature at its upper 
 end was known as the Kankakee swamps. This terri- 
 tory had a large number of muck lands composed of veg- 
 etation that during the centuries had grown and filled up 
 the smaller lakes. Some of these lakes were ten to thirty 
 feet in depth. They generally filled with what is known 
 as muck which made it dangerous for animals to cross. 
 
 2817 In that territory there was a large number of those 
 parts that had been formerly lakes, that is one of the 
 reasons it held the water as it did, there wasn’t enough 
 natural drains. 
 
 With reference to these the river lies in the lowest por- 
 tion of course, and formed the only drainage there was 
 for these bogs and swamps and other low places. The 
 river only averaged a fall of a foot to the mile. 
 
 In crossing and cutting from the Baltimore & Ohio run- 
 ning down 22 miles and a quarter on a survey we cut 
 across the river 70 times, so you can see how crooked the 
 
 2818 stream was. The upper portion was probably 20 to 30 
 feet in width and from three to four feet in depth and as 
 you come down it gets wider. There are a great many 
 bends in the river. Some of them were very abrupt and 
 in traveling in a skiff you would go back almost to the 
 point of starting in going, for instance, a distance of a 
 quarter of a mile you would have to go around islands. 
 
 2819 Down towards the Momence line the river was prob- 
 ably 70 or 80 feet in width and shallow. 
 
 About 1901 reclamation proceedings commenced. The 
 
 valley on the north side of the river from South Bend 
 
607 
 
 to Momence is a strip of clean prairie with very little 
 timber. On the south side itis very different. The terri- 
 tory is interspersed with sand dunes, serub oak, timber, 
 sloughs and swales, and is very much more difficult to 
 drain, and the river is so sluggish that the land was never 
 cultivated. The land which I have just described was 
 embraced within the description of the swamps which I 
 gave a short time ago. 
 
 2820 In improving the river the river proper was com- 
 menced at the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. That is the 
 eastern portion of LaPorte County, about the center. It 
 is directly west of Walkertown. The work was executed 
 by a powerful dredge. The bottom of the ditch was 
 started 40 feet in width, the top 56 feet, with an average 
 of 8 feet in depth. That was known as the Place Ditch. 
 It ran down nearly ten miles. It cut through the bends 
 
 2821 at the most advantageous points. 
 
 In connection with the Plate Ditch, there were 18 miles 
 of laterals between Walkertown and the river. The lat- 
 erals were made 18 to 22 feet in width and from 5 to 6 
 feet in depth, with branches. Some of them extended 
 back 8 or 10 or 12 miles into the country. They followed 
 th contour of the low land, some of them farther apart 
 than others. 
 
 In connection with the branches that extended from 
 the laterals, tile has been used in carrying on the recla- 
 mation work. 
 
 98922 There were swamps on either side of the Plate Ditch 
 then. Now there are farm lands well developed and 
 drained. Then there were only cabins and shack houses 
 on the sand dunes, now the farms are well improved. 
 
 The next section of work done on the river commenced 
 a little south of the Fort Wayne Railroad, east of Hanna, 
 extending on the west line of LaPorte County, 17 miles. 
 
608 
 
 The ditch bottom was widened to 45 or 50 feet and the 
 average depth was 8 feet. The width at the top at the 
 widest part was 70 feet. It was cut through the bends of 
 
 2823 the old channel at the most advantageous points, and 
 many points where it could it would strike from one point 
 in the river and follow the channel perhaps 20 to 30 rods 
 in a general way, coincide with the old channel. 
 
 During the 10 or 12 years in which we have been oper- 
 ating there have been 40 or 50 drainage systems cut into 
 the Kankakee River. In this reclamation project that 
 we are speaking of there were a great many laterals put 
 in, I think between 20 and 30. They were mostly 20 
 feet in width and 5 feet in depth, in addition to which 
 there are drainage ditches and laterals. 
 
 2824 The Robbins Ditch is 14 miles in length, about 20 feet 
 in width to 40 feet in width, 8 feet deep. In places there 
 were tile used in connection with the laterals. 
 
 The next stage of the river development was that each 
 district in the neighborhood vied with the other to get 
 dredged ditches in as rapidly as possible, so we had six 
 or eight dredges at a time for several years. The recla- 
 mation work was finished in 1906. About 46 miles of the 
 river channel was deepened and straightened out alto- 
 gether. 
 
 2825 I know the larger portion of the ditches which enter 
 the river; commencing at the northern end I will give 
 you their length, width and estimated flow. We com- 
 menced with the work at the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad 
 about four miles south of South Bend and extended to 
 19 miles. The average width was 30 to 35 feet and seven 
 to eight feet in depth. Then the Place ditch which I 
 have described. The Robbins ditch was 14 miles in 
 length, 30 to 40 feet in width and the flow was three or 
 four miles an hour. 
 
609 
 
 2826 The Bliss ditch was five miles long, 18 feet wide, five 
 feet deep and flowed three miles an hour. 
 
 The Hamlet ditch was six miles in length, 20 feet wide 
 and six feet deep and flowed three miles an hour. 
 
 The Jaine ditch was six miles in length, 18 feet wide, 
 five feet deep and flowed three miles an hour. 
 
 The Long ditch, five miles in length, 18 feet wide, five 
 feet deep and flowed about three miles an hour. 
 
 The Whittem ditch was about seven miles in length, 
 20 feet wide, six feet deep and flowed four miles an 
 hour. 
 
 The Salisbury ditch was five miles long, 20 feet wide, 
 six feet deep and flowed three miles an hour. 
 
 The Hanna ditch was 10 miles long, 20 feet wide, five 
 feet deep and flowed three miles an hour. 
 
 The Davidson ditch, 12 miles long, 20 feet wide, six 
 feet deep and flowed three miles an hour. 
 
 The Box ditch eight miles long, 20 feet wide, 12 feet 
 deep, flowed two miles an hour. 
 
 The MeLaughlin ditch 15 miles long, 20 feet wide, five 
 feet deep and flowed two miles an hour. 
 
 The Bergland ditch four miles long, 20 feet wide, four 
 feet deep and flowed two miles an hour. 
 
 The Hayville ditch two miles long, 20 feet wide, five 
 feet deep and flowed two miles an hour. 
 
 2827 The Myers ditch five miles long, 20 feet wide, five feet 
 deep with a two-mile flow. 
 
 The Tuesberg Land Company ditch, six miles long, 
 20 feet wide, five to six feet in depth and about a two 
 mile flow. 
 
 The Neuston ditch, five miles long, 18 feet wide, and 
 five feet deep, with about a two-mile flow. 
 
 The Larimore ditch, six miles long, 20 feet wide and 
 six feet deep, flowed two miles an hour. 
 
610 
 
 The Yellow River is from 30 to 40 feet in width. It 
 has about four feet fall to the mile. 
 
 The Williams ditch is about 14 miles long, six feet 
 deep and 25 feet wide, with a flow of four miles. 
 
 The Jordan ditch four miles long, 20 feet wide and five 
 feet deep and flows four miles. 
 
 2828 The Elsby ditch is 14 miles long, 20 feet wide, six 
 feet deep and about four miles flow. 
 
 The Mockler ditch 12 miles long, 30 feet wide, and 10 
 feet deep, with three miles flow. 
 
 The Wanata ditch, eight miles in length, 20 feet wide 
 and six feet deep with about a three-mile flow. 
 
 Hog Creek ditch, 10 miles long, 20 feet wide, six feet 
 deep and about four miles flow. Some of that territory 
 has a six or seven mile flow, so it makes it a greater 
 current. 
 
 Haskell’s ditch is 10 miles long, 20 feet wide, six feet 
 deep and about 10 miles flow. 
 
 Reeve’s ditch is 12 miles long, 25 feet wide, and six 
 feet deep with about three miles flow. 
 
 The Lyon’s ditch 4 miles long, 16 feet wide, 5 feet deep 
 and about 2 miles flow. 
 
 The Cook ditch, 10 miles in length, 30 feet wide, six 
 feet deep and about three miles flow. 
 
 The Cook Arm three miles long, 20 feet wide, six feet 
 deep and about a four-mile flow. That has a ten-foot . 
 fall in three miles. 
 
 Crooked Creek, 14 miles long, 20 feet wide, six feet 
 deep and four miles flow. 
 
 2829 Befogle ditch, 10 miles long, 18 feet wide, five feet deep 
 and three miles flow. 
 
 The Whitfield ditch, 12 miles long, 20 feet wide, five 
 feet deep and two miles flow. 
 
 The Hodge ditch, 10 miles long, 25 feet in width, six 
 feet deep and about two miles flow. _ 
 
611 
 
 The Otis Arm ditch, 12 miles long, 18 feet wide, five 
 feet deep and about two miles flow. 
 
 The Moffett ditch, 12 miles long, 18 feet wide, five feet 
 deep and about two miles flow. 
 
 The Singleton ditch, 16 miles long, 30 feet wide, six feet 
 deep and two miles flow. 
 
 The Brown ditch, 13 miles long, 25 faet wide, six feet 
 dece and two miles flow. 
 
 The Ackerman ditch, seven miles long, 18 feet wide, 
 five feet deep and two miles flow. 
 
 The Sherron ditch, six miles long, 18 feet wide, five feet 
 deer and three miles flow. 
 
 Then there are 17 miles of the river work known as 
 the Reclamation Company’s ditch. That was the river 
 proper. These are the principal ditches. 
 
 2830 The total length of these ditches is over 400 miles 
 extending on either side of the river. I have not named 
 all of them. There are a great many more that have 
 been made since, in the last three or four years, many 
 of them, whose length would aggregate 75 to 100 miles 
 and whose width is from 25 to 30 feet. 
 
 2831 In addition to the million acres of the Kankakee River 
 watershed there has been about 400,000 acres of the Yel- 
 low River watershed throughout Indiana reclaimed. The 
 water passing through these ditches gets away very rap- 
 
 2832 idly now in the new channel of the river. It goes down 
 in the Kankakee River. 
 
 Of my own knowledge I know the Kankakee River 
 empties near Wilmington, just below Wilmington, into 
 the Illinois River. I was familiar with the Illinois River 
 
 2833 before the reclamation project was carried into effect 
 below that point and have been familiar with it since 
 the drainage proceedings were completed. It is higher 
 now below the point where the reclamation project dis- 
 charges its flow of water. In the spring the water comes 
 
612 
 
 off very rapidly. It would probably be two or three feet 
 higher. The stream is two or three miles wide in places 
 and in the summer when most of our laterals runs dry 
 
 2834 the rain that is not absorbed or required by the country 
 passes away down the channel into the Kankakee River. 
 Since the reclamation project the Kankakee River car- 
 ries off more water than it did before. 
 
 I am familiar with the point known as the ledge of 
 rock at Momence. JI have seen and observed it. I 
 know about the removal of that ledge of rocks. The state 
 of Indiana appropriated $40,000 for removing it for the 
 benefit of Indiana years ago and the commissioners 
 commenced at the upper end of an island in the river 
 just south of Momence and removed the dam which low- 
 
 2835 ered the water at that point probably five feet, at the 
 high point, the apex of the ledge of rocks there is a seven- 
 foot fall, but these people did not succeed in benefiting 
 the state of Indiana by the removal of that because they 
 commenced too low. The removal of the stone never 
 affected the drainage of Indiana because it was too low 
 down below the high point. The water which flows upon 
 that country is more quickly removed than it was before 
 these drainage operations were commenced, and it is 
 removed six to eight times as fast. It has three times 
 the natural fall and only one-third the distance to go to 
 get to the channel. In times of heavy rainfall the water 
 
 2836 over a large area fills the channel of the Kankakee 
 River, the new channel and the old channel also; takes 
 it into the old chanel and it is held there until it passes 
 down on into the [llinois River. The reservoir at the 
 point where it starts out in time of extreme high water, 
 would be about three or four miles wide, 10 or 11 miles 
 in length and six inches to three feet in depth. It passes 
 over the rock ledge very much more rapidly than it would 
 otherwise. Usually it would stand after a time of high 
 
613 
 
 2837 water in the country for a period of two or three weeks. 
 The country which I have been speaking about is all per- 
 sonally known to me and the matters testified to have all 
 come under my own observation. All the territory cov- 
 ered by that river project has come under my observa- 
 tion; I have personally seen and observed all of these 
 ditches except possibly a half a dozen. Prior to 1900 
 there has been no drainage work at all done in this coun- 
 try with the exception of a few ditches which I men- 
 tioned. And practically all of this work has been done 
 
 2838 since that time. 
 
 2839 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I have a notation and paper here. It is simply an 
 estimate in my judgment of the quantity of flow. Down 
 at the mouth of the Kankake River there has been no 
 enlargement at all; the enlargement has been farther 
 back at the upper end. 
 
 There is a dam located at the City of Kankakee. The 
 dam may have been raised three feet this year, I don’t 
 
 2840 know it. There is adam at Wilmington. That dam was 
 not raised this year so far as I know. 
 
 I am able to state, if I know the fall in the territory 
 through which it passes, how fast a stieiaae is flowing. I 
 ean form a judgment of it. 
 
 I got the figures as to the fall from the levels of the 
 engineers in charge. I know the fall from the north. 
 Much of that territory comes down from five to six feet 
 fall. Of course the water pushes down rapidly. <As to 
 the specific information as to the fall, I got that from 
 the engineers that were doing our work. It was work 
 I was supervising and had connection with, helping to 
 put it in. Some of the figures are from work that I 
 did not do personally but it was work I was supervis- 
 
614 
 
 ing. I got the acreage figures from the Government 
 report, also from the engineer’s statement, the Govern- 
 
 2842 ment engineer that did the work. My testimony on 
 the question of acreage is not based upon information 
 which I secured myself. 
 
 I have testified in a similar case within a month at 
 Princeton; twice within six weeks. I am not here in an- 
 swer to a subpoena. I am only receiving my expenses 
 from the Sanitary District and whatever they see fit to 
 give me for my time. I am not under pay as a salaried 
 person or anything of that kind. There has been no ar- 
 rangement for my time or what they would pay for my 
 time. 
 
 2843 The drainage system that I have talked about lowered 
 the water level of the land about five feet. It takes quite 
 a heavy rain to show a little water in the ditches because 
 the ground is dried out. It would have to be a pretty 
 heavy rain to show very much after the spring rains 
 when the ground is full of water. In the summer time, 
 during the farming season, the drains are practically 
 dry. 
 
 The Kankakee River was not dry over the rock ledge 
 at Momence this year but it was so you could see a 
 
 2844 ripple and there was probably a foot of water. It was 
 very low for this stage. It was about 100 feet in width. 
 I have seen the Kankakee River during the summer time 
 at Wilmington since this drainage system was put in, 
 and the river there is so dry you could see the round 
 stones all over the bottom of the river. 
 
 2845 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 In the spring when the ground is full of water the 
 ditches fill up and sometimes overflow in the low places 
 for a time, but the water is carried off into the old river 
 bed and the new channel goes away very rapidly. 
 
615 
 
 Re-Cross Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 After the ground is full of water in the spring the 
 ground is full of water. Now the water that goes into 
 the ditch when the ground is fuil of water would overflow 
 if there was no ditch there, and would find its way into 
 the Kankakee River. 
 
 2846 Re-re-direct Hxamination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I do not mean to say it would find its way into the 
 Kankakee just the same as though no ditch was there. 
 It would find its way into the Kankakee River more 
 slowly. It would not have found its way to the Kan- 
 kakee River from the 750,000 acres of marsh land; it 
 would stay in that territory. 
 
 W. H. Benttey, a witness for the defendant, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is W. H. Bentley; I reside in Pontiac, [li- 
 2847 nois, Livingston County, since 1867. I am overseeing 
 some lands in Livingston County; haven’t any other 
 business. Have been a farmer nearly all my life. I know 
 the little and big Vermillion Rivers. The Vermillion 
 River flows right through our town. Pontiac is there 
 on the map; with reference to the figure ‘‘1294’’ it ap- 
 pears just below and to the right. The Big Vermillion 
 River runs [| think through the town and the Little Ver- 
 2848 million branches off up here. The Little Vermillion 
 comes into the Big Vermillion. I know the Big Ver- 
 million for 50 miles. 
 The Iroquois River also flows in that part of the state. 
 It is east of us. 
 
616 
 
 During the last three or four years there has been a 
 large dredged ditch started in the Iroquois County near 
 LaHogue running in a northeasterly direction and then 
 turning to a northwesterly direction through a part of 
 Fort County and down through Livingston County and 
 coming into the Vermillion River below Wing, Illinois: 
 
 2849 When they constructed that Vermillion River up near 
 the head, it was very crooked and grown up with willows. 
 It was a flat, swampy country there and they had a 
 dredge boat in there and they dredged that out and 
 straightened the river and tock those willows and every- 
 thing out. There was about 40 to 50,000 acres of low, 
 swampy country where it was overflowed in times of 
 high water at that place in the eastern part of Living- 
 ston and the western part of Ford County. The land 
 before it was reclaimed was only good for short crops | 
 if we had a very favorable year and a great deal of it 
 not then. In the wetter years the water would stand 
 over nearly all of it all summer in some places. 
 
 2850 In the construction work they dredged a ditch there 
 in the neighborhood of 25 miles long, 20 to 25 feet wide 
 with an average depth of seven feet and about an eight- 
 foot bottom. They constructed some laterals from this 
 ditch. Before this construction in the Vermillion country 
 the water that fell in times of heavy rain would just 
 soak away and gradually go away by evaporation and 
 some of it of course would go down the slough as it was 
 then. Since the construction the water goes into the 
 
 2851 ditch immediately and into the Vermillion River. The 
 Vermillion River empties into the Illinois River near 
 La Salle, Tllinois. | 
 
 Where these swamps were before this work was done 
 the land is all farms now, all under cultivation. The 
 work was all done and completed in 1910. The water 
 that falls in that country is now carried off very much 
 
617 
 
 more rapidly than before. Before the ditch was made 
 and the river dredged the water would stand practically 
 all summer. Now it don’t stay. They farm the land 
 now. That is true throughout the entire length of the 
 territory that I have mentioned. 
 
 In the last 10 or 12 years there has been a great dif- 
 2852 ference in the use of tile drains within Livingston 
 County, nearly every township. Up to about six years 
 ago, during the last 10 or 12 years there was a great 
 deal of tiling done in our county. All the outlets were 
 in small open ditches, only a few of course would go 
 to the larger streams, but in the last six or seven years 
 they have been putting large tile in these open ditches, 
 say from 16 to 22-inch tiling and connecting the branch 
 ditches up with them and making a new complete system 
 of the whole thing, nearly all over our county. And 
 they have deepened the tiling in the county and have re- 
 duced the water level from one to two or three feet. It 
 earries off the surplus water very rapidly and in large 
 2853-4 volumes, and the flow is continuous during all the time 
 when there is wet weather in the country. The water 
 goes into the Vermillion River and its tributaries. The 
 Vermillion River in wet times rises much more rapidly 
 than it did in former years and stays up longer. We 
 have more water now that gets into the river than there 
 used to be. This has been true during the last six to 
 eight years. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The water is now being carried into the Vermillion 
 by these ditches that flow that way in the state of nature. 
 The ditches that were put in there, the lay of the land 
 is that way. 
 
618 
 
 2855 C, J. Hopes, a witness for the defendant, being sworn 
 J b] >] 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr, Chiperfield. 
 
 2856 My name is C. J. Hobbs. I reside at Kersey, Indiana, 
 in Jasper County, 18 miles from Rensselaer, the county 
 seat. I am a civil engineer and surveyor and have been 
 for 11 years, during which time I have given my atten- 
 tion to drainage engineering. 
 
 I have been associated with B. J. Gifford, a gentleman 
 who formerly resided at Kankakee, and who owned a 
 large amount of land in Indiana, and who also owned 
 a short line of railroad called the Chicago & Wabash 
 
 2857 Valley. I have been engaged in the reclamation work 
 11 years in reclaiming Indiana lands by ditches, dredg- 
 ing and tiling. I have been connected with Mr. Gifford’s 
 jands. They are located in Jasper and Lake Counties, 
 Indiana. In Jasper County they are northeast of Rens- 
 selaer, the southeast corner of Lake County. 
 
 2858 The Iroquois River has its source partially in Jasper 
 County, practically all of it, and empties into Kankakee 
 a few miles east of Kankakee. I know the Iroquois 
 
 2859 River from its source down to about eight miles from 
 the Illinois state line. I am acquainted with that por- 
 tion of the Kankakee River which runs through or be- 
 tween Jasper and Porter Counties and between Lake and 
 Jasper and Lake and Newton Counties. I have surveyed 
 generally in this country for 14 years. I am familiar 
 
 2860 with the drainage operations that have been conducted. 
 They consist of dredged ditches, tiling, some ditching 
 done with teams and open ditches. The dredged ditches 
 are located in Jasper, Porter and Lake Counties. Some 
 of them I laid out and measured. 
 
 The first ditch T laid out was one of Mr. Gifford’s 
 
619 
 
 ditches, his main outlet in fact. It was partially built 
 before I was employed there. We lowered the bottom 
 of it about four feet and cleaned it out for about five 
 miles down there and cleaned it out to a uniform fall 
 
 2861 of a foot and a half a mile. The ditch commences in 
 the center of Mr. Gifford’s lands and runs _ south- 
 west towards the Iroquois River. It is five miles long. 
 We built a new ditch in connection with it and parallel 
 to it. These ditches drained 30 or 35,000 acres. Before 
 the ditches were completed the lands were covered with 
 an average of a foot to a foot and a half of water in 
 the spring and during the freshets it was probably 
 higher; possibly may be a little lower than that in dry 
 
 2862 season. These ditches were constructed within the last 
 fifteen years, and the ditch was deepened between 1902 
 and 1903. 
 
 Connected with the 35,000 acres of land there was 
 about 150 miles of dredged ditches. The last ditch con- 
 structed was constructed about two years ago. There 
 is a ditch in the north part of the county running into 
 the Kankakee River. They carry water from the higher 
 land down to the Kankakee River. There is approxi- 
 
 2863 mately 6,000 or 8,000 acres. Before the ditch was con- 
 structed it was usually wet land, not much grown on 
 it but wild hay and some places the water stood on the 
 land. The dredged ditch would be about 35 feet in width 
 at the top and six or seven feet deep. They were mostly 
 constructed during the last six or seven years. 
 
 9864 In Lake and Porter Counties, about 10,000 acres have 
 been drained. 
 
 I know a ditch by the name of the R. EK. Davis ditch. 
 That ditch starts in the east part of Jasper County and 
 runs northwest towards the river about eight miles of 
 main ditch and about eight miles of laterals. It drains 
 
 2865 about 1,000 acres. 
 
620 
 
 I know a ditch called the Akers ditch located just west 
 of the Davis ditch. It is about six miles long, 30 feet 
 wide at the surface and six or seven feet deep and 
 drains about eight sections of land. 
 
 — I know the Smith ditch located west of the Akers ditch. 
 It runs south into Jasper and starts about eight miles 
 south of Whitfield and then empties into what is known 
 as the Hodge ditch, which empties into the river. The 
 
 2866 Smith ditch is about 12 miles long, averages about 395 
 feet wide and is six or seven feet deep. 
 
 The Tanner ditch is located east of DeMott in Jasper 
 County. It is about eight miles long, 30 feet wide and 
 four feet deep, I think; six or seven sections of land 
 
 2867 are drained by this ditch. 
 
 I know the Tyler ditch. 
 
 2868 The Delahanty ditch starts southwest of Wheatfield, 
 about three miles and runs north and then northwest and 
 empties into the Hanna ditch. It drains about five or six 
 sections. 
 
 The Evers ditch rises about two miles south of DeMott 
 and empties into the Morris ditch. It is a ditch that 
 parallels the river and crosses part of the river and 
 empties into the river. It drains six sections. 
 
 The Dreuth ditch is located on the marsh and crosses 
 part of the river. I don’t think it drains into any of 
 these ditches that had been dug. 
 
 The Moffet ditch rises southwest of Winamac, Indiana, 
 and flows nearly to Lake Village and then empties into - 
 
 2869 the river. It drains about 10,000 acres. It is about 18 
 miles long, 40 feet wide and seven feet deep. 
 
 All of these ditches have been constructed since I have 
 been associated with Mr. Gifford in this work. 
 
 In the Beaver Lake District about 10,000 acres were 
 drained by drainage operations there. Since the recla- 
 
 2870 mation work land which was practically worthless or 
 
621 
 
 seemed to be worthless for farming, has been farmed to 
 a great extent. It has not been entirely reclaimed. I 
 expect 20 per cent. of the land is tiled and the tiling emp- 
 ties into the drainage ditches, the dredged ditches. 
 2871 In Lake County there was the Brown and McWilliams 
 levee. It extends from a point on the river marsh three 
 miles south of Hedron, Indiana, to the state line. It was 
 constructed for the purpose of keeping the flood water 
 from the Kankakee River running out over the low land. 
 The levee is 20 or 25 miles long. The McWilliams levee 
 is about 10 miles long. They have the effect of tending 
 to raise the water in the Kankakee River a little higher. 
 
 I knew the Kankakee River and the Iroquois River be- 
 fore these levees were constructed. The drainage sys- 
 tems and construction of levees and other works which 
 I have mentioned has caused the water from the Iro- 
 quois River every year to run over the rock. It used 
 
 2872 to be in dry seasons that there was but very little water 
 that would run over, but now there is a continuous stream 
 running down this stream all the time since it has been 
 straightened and deepened. Ordinary times it would 
 be two feet deep, I guess, and about 40 feet wide at the 
 bottom. 
 
 The Kankakee River east and north of Jasper County 
 was high. Since the water has been going down there it 
 seems to have more current than it did at that time. 
 Ordinarily the stage of current is about 24 to 3 miles an 
 
 9873 hour. Before it did not seem to have any current at 
 all. And the Iroquois River before these operations 
 seemed to have no current; it has got a current now, I 
 think of 5 or 6 miles an hour in places. Some places it 
 is a little greater. I expect at Renssalaer it goes 8 or 10 
 miles an hour. 
 
 Before these drainage districts were constructed the 
 water used to lay on the marsh until it evaporated or 
 
622 
 
 soaked into the soil. Now it practically all goes into the 
 ditches, runs off more rapidly than before. Since the 
 construction of the drainage work, these streams rise 
 more rapidly, especially the Iroquois. There seems to 
 
 2874 be much more water passing, it runs much swifter. 
 ‘When I first came to the Kankakee River, or in that 
 vicinity the river would many times be down below the 
 banks, but it has not been since the operation of the 
 dredging has been going on above. They carry more 
 water than formerly. 
 
 2879 Cross-Exammation by Mr. Butters. 
 
 They apparently carry more water than formerly. The 
 water runs much swifter when the water is high and 
 the river does not seem to get as low as it did in former 
 times. I have not seen it higher in my time. I have 
 kept a sort of a record of the water in a way as to the 
 height it has been at different times, and at a time be- 
 fore the Lake County levees were built the water was 
 not as high as it has been since. Now prior to that time 
 I don’t know much about it. 
 
 2876 When the Kankakee River is high it goes through 
 faster, that is because there is a vast area or territory, 
 all of which goes into the Kankakee River and the river 
 has its level depending upon the streams that flowed into 
 it at that time. The drainage has not tended to decrease 
 the level of the water. 
 
 2877 Mr. Gifford’s land is about seven miles from the Iro- 
 quois and there was no connection between the land and 
 
 2878 the Iroquois before we put in the ditch at that point. 
 The excess water went in a different way, which Mr. Gif- 
 ford drained. It went into the Iroquois River. Now the 
 entire amount of water would practically go in that 
 would fall. The ground takes care of some of it. 
 
 2879 Mr. Gifford’s main ditch has not ceased running, I 
 
623 
 
 don’t think in five years. It has been running for five 
 years or more. I don’t think there would be just as 
 much water before that ditch was put in going into the 
 Iroquois River as it does now in the case of a spring 
 freshet. Now there is a small lateral ditch to carry the 
 water into the main ditch and before it lay on the ground 
 in these low places where there is little ponds and one 
 place and another. It was not a little amount of water, 
 it was the whole country. I do not claim that the tile 
 ditch makes any more water. 
 
 2880 The land is all practically level; the water won’t run 
 off without there is a ditch. Before the tile ditch will 
 start to run the land must be saturated with water; the 
 water must come into the ditch. It don’t stop running 
 when the ground above will be wet. The earth retains 
 a certain quantity of moisture. If there is a slope to 
 the ground it runs on top of the ground, depending on 
 the soil and the slope. 
 
 9881 I have not seen the Kankakee River: except between 
 Momence and the Illinois in the last four or five years, 
 or examined the flow of the water before 1900 at any 
 season of the year. There was water running down 
 there before 1900. 
 
 2882 J. W. Kennupy, a witness for the defendant, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is J. W. Kennedy, I reside at Watseka, Illi- 
 nois. J have been a farmer all my life. 
 
 I have been a commissioner of a drainage district 
 ealled number two Martindon. I know the location of a 
 stream called Pike Creek. I know the drainage opera- 
 tions that have been conducted along this creek. The 
 
 2883 ditch is 8 feet deep, 32 feet to 33 feet wide on an average 
 
624 
 
 and is about 12 miles long. There are between 17 and 
 20,000 acres drained by it. Our ditch empties into num- 
 
 3) 
 
 ber 3 drainage and number 3 empties into the Iroquois. 
 Number 3 is located about two miles north of our ditch. 
 I could not say how long it is. It is a big district. I 
 suppose they have got 25 or 30 miles. I cannot say ex- 
 
 2884 actly how much land is drained by that district. I think 
 it is as big again as our district, may be more. 
 
 Before this 20,000 acres I speak of was drained the 
 land was pretty wet. It stood in places until it dried 
 up. It had a natural discharge but it was not good. 
 Part of the land was farmed before that. Since the ditch 
 was dug it is a great deal better. The water went quicker 
 and eventually discharged into the Iroquois River. 
 
 2885 The sub-soil is mainly clay. The water would not soak 
 into the clay. 
 
 After the construction of the ditch the water ran off 
 a good deal quicker. The water in the Iroquois River 
 rises a good deal quicker than it used to in flood times. 
 It takes longer to get away. They took out a dam at 
 Sugar Island which, I guess, did some good in the Iro- 
 
 2886 quois River. It helped to let the water away a little 
 faster. In times of flood the water in the ditch is from 
 four to six feet. The ditch enters the Iroquois River 
 west of Wilmington. There is dredging all over the 
 country there now. In this district we put in something 
 like 15 or 20 miles of tile from eight inches up to 30 
 
 2887 inches. It has been universally used throughout the 
 districts. 
 
 Cross-Examimation by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 That opened up the natural drain but the water did 
 not all go through in a state of nature. It would not all 
 pass out of the land. It is the way the water would flow. 
 The drain that is put in is the same system that has been 
 
625 
 
 going on in different parts of the country. It takes the 
 
 2888 water off a little faster in the spring. The Illinois rises 
 quicker than it used to. The water in the Iroquois will 
 come up faster in view of the fact the drainage will carry 
 the water quicker to the river than it did formerly. The 
 eurrent I presume flows faster, I don’t know. I think so. 
 I would think so if there was more water there. 
 
 After the spring freshets have been actually drained 
 out of the land the river I presume goes back after a 
 little while to its old level but not the level that was main- 
 tained prior to the construction of these drainage sys- 
 tems. 
 
 2889 In the early days the river went almost dry, but it 
 never does any more. There is more water in the Iro- 
 quois River in the summer months all the time. I could 
 not say how much. I haven’t much familiarity with the 
 Kankakee at Wilmington or Momence. 
 
 2890 Grant Ricas, a witness for the defendant, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Exammation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Grant Riggs, I live in Romeo Township, 
 Kankakee County; engaged in the business of farming 
 and drainage. I have been engaged in the business of 
 drainage engineering for 29 years. I have done some 
 of the engineering work on the drainage districts. 
 
 There is a stream in our county known as Claussen’s 
 Creek, upon which there has been drainage work done. 
 
 2891 The stream was dredged out six years ago for about 
 seven miles; there are three branches. Before it was 
 dredged the land on either side was wet, so wet they 
 eould hardly farm it at all. The water stood on it. The 
 seven miles of construction work includes the laterals 
 
626 
 
 and into the laterals a tiling system has been instituted. 
 
 Claussen’s Creek empties into Spring Creek, which, in 
 turn, empties into the Kankakee River. 
 
 There is a creek in that vicinity known as Minnum, 
 about four miles from Claussen’s. Drainage operations 
 
 2892 on that creek. It was cleaned out and deepened, lL 
 should say, for a distance of four miles. I could not 
 tell the acreage that was definitely drained by this im- 
 provement. 
 
 I know of drainage operations in the vicinity of Snake 
 and Gar Creeks. Gar Creek has been in a drainage sys- 
 tem I think for 28 years, but they are working on it yet, 
 cleaning it and extending it. It was partly deepened 
 and dredged last year. They are working on it yet. 
 
 Snake Creek is one of the drainage districts that is 
 west and the other is east of me. Snake Creek was a new 
 drainage district. It was dredged out entirely about 
 
 2893 four years ago. I know of the drainage districts drains 
 and improvements that have been made in the vicinity 
 of Chebanse, I should say 10 to 15,000 acres have been 
 affected by it. Since the drainage operations of which 
 I speak have been carried on, the excess of water goes 
 into the river. Some of it into the lroquois and some of 
 it into the Kankakee. It eventually goes into the Kan- 
 kakee. It is discharged a great deal quicker in times of 
 freshets. | 
 
 2894 The Kankakee and Iroquois Rivers get a good deal 
 higher at times than they did before and carry more 
 water apparently than they did. The drainage opera- 
 tions I speak of are conducted in Kankakee County in 
 the southeastern part, on the south side. I own the land 
 where the Iroquois empties into the Kankakee and by 
 reason of my residence have had an opportunity to ob- 
 serve both of those streams. 
 
 Tile is used for drainage purposes more extensively 
 
627 
 
 during the last six or eight years. Twice as many tile 
 
 used. They cannot get tilers enough there; they are 
 
 advertising for them and there are tiling operations be- 
 
 ing conducted generally throughout the county. The land 
 
 which has been reclaimed during the last eight years is 
 
 used for farm land. Formerly the water stood on it. 
 No cross-examination. 
 
 1896 THomas Hatoran, a witness for the defendant, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr, Chiperfeld. 
 
 My name is Thomas Haloran, I live at Ottawa, La 
 Salle County. I formerly resided in Ford County. I 
 know the township known as Wallace Township in La 
 Salle County. The soil in La Salle County is a black 
 soil with a clay sub-soil. Up to eight or ten years ago 
 it was pretty wet. I have been engaged in the business of 
 tiling in La Salle County. During the last twelve years 
 2897 I have put in from 20 to 30 miles of tile, mostly through 
 Wallace, Waltham and Freedom. Most places I have 
 taken up tile and reset them and others have tiled out 
 thoroughly. It has made considerable change with ref- 
 erence to the wetness of the land. About 30 per cent. 
 2898 more is thoroughly drained than ten years ago. The 
 land I tiled discharges into the Illinois and Fox Rivers. 
 I had similar experience in Ford County, but the last 
 ten years of my experience has been confined to La Salle 
 2899 and Woodford Counties. I know that tiling operations 
 have made some difference in the Fox River, probably 
 five per cent. difference. I am still engaged in the work. 
 The tiles latterly which is used is much larger, we used 
 to use threes and fours and now we use eights and tens. 
 
628 
 
 Cross-Exanunation by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 On the land I tiled around here I never ran a tile di- 
 rectly into the Fox River. I have noticed a difference 
 in the Fox River in the spring. I cannot name a single 
 time when I noticed a difference, but using my judgment 
 about the drains that I know of, that would make a dif- 
 
 2901 ference. The Fox River in the summer does not have 
 a great deal of water in it. Not a great deal of water 
 drains into the Fox through the tile in the summer. I 
 could not say how many tiles drain into the Fox River. 
 I put in some myself. J know there is an awful lot of 
 tiling done up there in the north. In the spring the 
 
 2902 high water has been carried off faster than it used to. 
 I have no basis upon which I can state the amount of 
 water that goes into the Fox River. It appears to me 
 that the Fox River is held up higher than it used to be. 
 I know that some years ago it was a difficult matter to 
 
 2903 get from the Fox River out into the Illinois; since that 
 time the water is higher at times. I could not say whether 
 it backs up into the Fox River but the drainage might 
 
 2904 have had some effect in raising it, too. If the water is 
 higher it would naturally have to back from the Illinois 
 into the Fox River. That is the condition today. 
 
 According to my notion the draining by the farmers 
 made a perceptible increase in the flow of the Fox River. 
 I would put it at about five per cent., five per cent. more 
 
 2905 water in the last eight or ten years than previous to 
 that. I come to the conclusion from the greater drain- 
 ing that it drained out than before. They have made 
 more thorough draining. I don’t know how much water 
 there was in the Fox River. I am figuring there would 
 be quite a bit go into it on account of the drain tile. I 
 judge it to be five per cent., basing my judgment on the 
 amount of draining, the amount of tiling, better tiling. 
 
629 
 
 To the best of my judgment I saw five per cent. My judg- 
 
 2906 ment is based on the tiling that was put in. There were 
 some big ponds, you might call them, and they drained 
 several of them. When they were drained off they 
 stayed off. Of course, big rains would come and they 
 would carry the water to the river naturally. There 
 have been some of these drained off quite a number of 
 years ago, through tile. They wasn’t much good. I 
 took out one ditch up there that came down, a 15-inch tile 
 drain at a place called White Horse Pond. I re-set it. 
 Something was wrong with the drain and I fixed it up. 
 That is one place that I worked on which would affect the 
 flow in the Illinois River. I don’t know how much water 
 there was in the river that went into it on account of the 
 drains. I just figured the same as if I had a big tile in 
 
 2908 there, it would make a difference in the tile. I could 
 pretty near tell by figuring the capacity of the tile, the 
 only basis I would have to work on. 
 
 I am not in the employ of the Sanitary District. I 
 was subpoenaed. I don’t know what they are paying 
 me. I don’t know whether they are paying me anything 
 or not. 
 
 2909 Grorce W. GRAHAM, a witness for the defendant, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is George W. Graham, I reside at Streator; 
 
 IT am in the grain business and have been engaged in the 
 business of farming. I know about the use of tile in La 
 Salle County the last eight or ten years as to whether 
 
 it has been increased. It has been very much. I am 
 familiar with the southeastern part of La Salle County, 
 2910 Bruce, Otter Creek and Farm Ridge Townships. I think 
 
2 630 
 
 it has been increased 40 per cent. probably in the last ten 
 years. ‘They are all putting in larger tile and a great 
 many small tile are being taken out. A great many have 
 not taken them out, they are ignoring them and running 
 alongside with larger tile. There has been about eight 
 carloads of from 12 to 16 inch tile unloaded at Richards 
 
 2911 this fall. That is where I am in the grain business. 
 During the last six or eight years the farmers have been 
 putting in large tile, from eights up to twelves mostly. 
 And the land that is already tiled they are running new 
 laterals with four-inch tile and they are putting those 
 about ten rods apart. 
 
 There is a big change in the surface of the county in 
 my vicinity with reference to water being removed by 
 the use of tile in the last eight or ten years. The change 
 is for the better by putting in large tile and draining out 
 these mud holes. The point of discharge for these tiles 
 in Wolf Creek and Otter Creek, and they in turn dis- 
 charge into the Vermillion which discharges into the IIli- 
 nois River. 
 
 2912 The condition which J have described with reference 
 to the use of tile in my portion of the county, is general 
 throughout the county. 
 
 Cross-Examniation by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 Not putting in tile to dry out my land. Put the tile 
 down generally about four feet; sometimes you have to 
 oo eight or ten feet in order to get over a knoll. They 
 put in 4-inch tile as close as three feet to four feet. It is 
 a general movement on the part of the farmers to better 
 their lands and has been going on for twenty years. 
 
2913 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 Within the last ten years it has very much increased. 
 
 Adjournment to Tuesday, November 26, 1912. 
 
 2914 November 26, 1912, 10:00 a. m. 
 
 Court met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 Wititiam Powrin, a witness for the defendant, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is William Powrie. I live in Waukesha, Wis- 
 consin, business civil engineer. I have been engaged in 
 drainage operations. JI am acquainted with the water- 
 shed of the Llinois River as it lies in Wisconsin. JI am 
 familiar with drainage operations in and about Racine, 
 Waukesha and Walworth Counties in Wisconsin. I have 
 
 2915 been connected with them. 
 
 T know a drainage district called the Wind Lake Drain- 
 age District. It is called the Norway and Dover Drain- 
 age District now. The Wind Lake Canal starts from 
 Muskego Lake, a lake a mile and a quarter north of the 
 county line between Waukesha and Racine Counties and 
 goes through into the next section south of that which 
 is called Wind Lake. Then it flows down where it comes 
 into the Fox River at Rochester, Racine County. Then 
 it flows around down where it comes into the Fox River 
 at Rochester. About three miles out from Rochester 
 there is another branch that is about two miles farther 
 east, two and a half miles, that runs up along here and 
 touches the edge of the watershed and the county line of 
 Waukesha County, as shown on the map marked Ex- 
 hibit 25. 
 
632 
 
 2916 Iam familiar with the counties lying down through— 
 I take it this is Kenosha. I have conducted drainage all 
 through this part of it here, laying west of Racine, clear 
 over to Burlington and then west of Burlington to Hk 
 Horn and Delevan, Wisconsin, as appears on the map. 
 
 The eanal in connection with this drainage district 
 was first commenced in 1890 to be utilized. A Chicago 
 Company dug the canal from Rochester to the north end 
 
 2917 of Muskego deeper, about five feet clear through; 
 started in ’92 and completed in ’93. I am not positive as 
 to the time. The canal came out of Muskego Lake, was 
 18 feet on the bottom and the one that went down into 
 the Fox River was 25 feet on the bottom. Originally it 
 was four feet deep at Wind Lake and they practically 
 dug or deepened it five feet more, making nine feet when 
 they got through. I think it was completed in 793. 
 
 Before that the surface of the country was covered 
 
 2918 with water to a large extent. There are about 11,000 
 acres drained by these operations. The outlet of this 
 drainage canal is into the Fox River at Rochester. The 
 discharge of this ditch in 1906 was on April 2nd, 217 
 cubie feet a second, which would be 13,000 cubic feet a 
 minute. When the drainage is completed the total water- 
 shed is about 50,000 acres. 
 
 2919 There is an old mill about 3,000 feet ine the point — 
 of discharge in the Fox River. It is operated with the 
 water that comes from the drainage canal and also from 
 the Fox River. The Fox River below the dam meas- 
 ures 123 feet wide. 
 
 In 1908 we took gaugings and on May 17th, there was 
 83,280 cubic feet a minute going over the dam. The ex- 
 treme high water. 
 
 In Racine County there have been drainage operations. 
 I know a ditch known as the Dover Town Ditch. It was 
 laid out by the town to drain about a thousand acres of 
 
635 
 
 land, which emptied into Hagle Creek, which also dis- 
 2920 charges into the Fox River about two miles below Roch- 
 ester. It was constructed in 1906. 
 I know a ditch known as the Hoozier Creek District. 
 That is a recent district. I don’t know whether it is 
 entirely completed or not, but it was in operation. The 
 creek ran down there and drained the land in a slipshod 
 way and then they organized this district two years ago 
 to drain that out. The project will drain about 10,000 
 acres altogether. 
 There is another drainage district called the Turtle 
 2921 Creek Drainage District in Walworth County. The 
 watershed contains 20,000 acres. The discharge of the 
 Turtle Creek District is estimated at about 245 cubic 
 feet a second which would be 14,000 eubic feet a minute. 
 
 I know a district called the East Troy District, but 
 had no connection with it. I know of the project although 
 I was not connected with it. I know it is a very large 
 marsh, but the number of acres I do not know. 
 
 In the Hoozier Creek District I do not know what the 
 discharge from the outlet is. I think it is ten feet deep 
 at the outlet. 
 
 In a general way prior to the putting in operation of 
 these districts, the land was overflowed most of the time. 
 Some of it was adjacent to marshes and they were af- 
 fected by the water standing back from the marshes, and 
 in that Norway Marsh it is almost entirely wet land. 
 The rain that well on that country would run off to a 
 certain extent before the ditches were constructed and 
 the rest of it would lay there and be evaporated by the 
 sun. Since the construction of these ditches they are 
 planting corn and potatoes in the land along the Norway 
 Ditch. The surplus water now escapes and I think it 
 g2oes in a more uniform manner than it did before the 
 2923 drainage. If the ground is frozen now I think it will 
 
 bo 
 
 Os 
 
 bo 
 bo 
 
634 
 
 discharge faster; if the ground is not frozen, not sat- 
 urated it will discharge slower because with the drainage 
 the sub-soil is drained down, we will say, about two feet 
 and that permits taking up quite a rainfall before you 
 have any run off. In times of heavy rains, of course, it 
 increases the run-off very much. The last two or three 
 seasons with reference to rainfall in Wisconsin were 
 wet springs and summers and from June on were very 
 dry until perhaps along in September. This year it 
 was wet during all the spring and then dry. During 
 2924 the times of rains in the early parts of the year, the 
 ditches are full of water and they flow into the Fox River. 
 I have seen the Fox River and observed it. I have 
 observed a more uniform stage of water down there. 
 The Fox River is high the year around and certainly 
 carries more water since these drainage operations. With 
 reference to its standing higher, the seasons have been 
 so variable there that you would hav to fix your ques- 
 tion to a particular time. Now, a year ago, it was so 
 dry there was very little water flowing there during 
 the year, a year ago in the late summer. But in the 
 1925 early spring the water was quite high, much higher than 
 usual. I think the water is higher in extreme high water 
 due to more opportunity to run off. Laterals have been 
 constructed over all of these districts. 
 2926 I think there will be 50 miles of laterals, something 
 like that in the Norway and Dover District all told. 
 There was a ditch dug out of Camp Lake in 1906 which 
 2927 was closed in 1910. I never estimated the amount of 
 discharge but it had about a ten-foot fall in two miles 
 and it measured nine feet wide on top. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The first district I spoke of was originally completed 
 in 1890 and there were afterwards improvements added 
 
635 
 
 about 1893. The object was to take the water out of the 
 land. 
 
 I said if it was frozen the water would run off faster 
 
 2928 than it would before, if the ground was frozen. I have 
 seen an inch of rainfall on the ground and no run-off 
 when it was real dry. 
 
 Summer before last the Fox River was very dry, the 
 summer of 1911. I did not see it in September. I never 
 knew it to be dry down there. I said during the dry 
 
 2929 times not much run-off at that time. In the summer of 
 1911, all of the rivers were low, and the high land ad- 
 joining the marsh was effected. It prevented the drain- 
 age of the high land. 
 
 The high land around Muskoge Lake is very little 
 higher than the marsh or lake level; until they drained it 
 down they couldn’t drain the land. 
 
 The water level of the land would be some higher, of 
 course, than the water level of the water surrounding the 
 2930 land. It depends on the character of the soil. You 
 ean run back from the lake a couple of miles and the 
 eround might be three or four feet higher and still be 
 wet. If you would want to put in a ditch that would 
 lower the water in that land, say three feet, you could 
 not do it if the water was up in the lake. The higher the 
 water stands around the land, the higher the water level 
 is going to be in the land. The farther back you go from 
 9931 the water level the less drainage there would be and 
 the farther back you go the higher the water would be 
 standing on the land itself. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 In a porous and loose soil the water would not stand 
 9932 very high in that kind of soil. When the soil is loose 
 and porous of course the water is more nearly uniform. 
 
636 
 
 I am talking about the water in the land itself, that is 
 naturally found there. 
 The Rochester Dam on the Fox River is 250 feet wide. 
 Just below I measured it at 128. I cannot tell exactly 
 2035 how far above Rochester the river rises. The head 
 waters are between Waukesha and Washington Counties, 
 something like 30 miles. I think about 1,000 square miles 
 of watershed of the Fox River lies in Wisconsin. 
 
 Re-cross Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 It always lay there, probably will. 
 
 2934 I took the gauge readings because we contemplated 
 removing the dam in our new improvements. We ran 
 up against so much trouble and the Supreme Court had 
 decided that we could not remove the dam in some other 
 cases, so we wanted to devise some means of going on 
 with our undertaking, and we took a set of gauge read- 
 ings to determine the flow and to give us an idea how 
 large to construct our channel and how much to enlarge 
 it; 1908, I took those gauge readings. The other meas- 
 urements I made by measuring the velocity of the water 
 in the channel and computing the discharge by the ve- 
 locity. 
 
 The Dover Ditch was a town ditch and drained about 
 1,000 acres. That is my estimate of the land at the time 
 
 2039 we did the work. I did the work. No acreage given 
 
 that is based upon records that I saw. 
 
 J. R. Kine, a witness called by defendant, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is J. R. King, I reside in Winchester, Scott 
 County, Illinois. J am county clerk of the county. There 
 
2937 
 
 2938 
 
 2939 
 
 637 
 
 are drainage districts located there. I have been over 
 them. There is one called the Big Swan, Hill View, 
 Mauvaise Terre, Scott County, and one called Coon Rod. 
 I can point to the districts which are shown on Exhibit 
 26. ‘There are three of them marked on the exhibit, 
 Scott County, Big Swan and Hill View. They are in 
 Scott County right below Naples. The North District 
 in that territory is Mauvaise Terre. It is about six or 
 seven miles south of the north line of Scott County. 
 
 - The next district is Big Swan. 
 
 The next district is Hill View. 
 
 The next district is North Star. 
 
 In Mauvaise Terre, there are 1,874 acres. 
 
 In the Scott County District there are 9,467 acres. 
 
 In the Hill View there are 14,350 acres. 
 
 In the Coon Rod District nearly 2,000 acres. 
 
 The river side of these districts is in some places a 
 quarter of a mile from the river, other places probably 
 half a mile from the river. Prior to their construction 
 the Illinois River overflowed all these districts. They 
 have all been constructed between 1903 and 1907. Before 
 their construction the Illinois River was at high water 
 from four to six miles wide. The banks of some of these 
 levees are 20 feet, some 25. In times of high water at 
 
 2940 the present time the Lllinois River is probably a mile 
 
 wide. 3 
 
 Across the river from.these districts there are high 
 bluffs, 20 to 60 feet high. The plat so far as Scott 
 County is concerned, correctly outlines the location of 
 these districts, all except the Hill View District, a part 
 of which is in Seott County. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 IT have been county clerk ten years. I have been over 
 
 9941 this ground myself at different times. The Big Swan 
 
638 
 
 Drainage District I have been over. I have been over 
 the upper part of the Hill View. 
 As I remember the Big Swan was constructed in 1904. 
 I had no connection with it except officially. 
 In the Hill View District there were 14,000 acres. I 
 got those figures, a part of them, off the record and a 
 part of them from the clerk of Green County. They 
 2942 are not my own figures. The other figures are copied 
 off the assessment roll of the Drainage District in my 
 office. [I had nothing to do with the operations and deter- 
 mining the acreage. I copied them from my record. 
 Winchester is 30 miles south of Beardstown, ten miles 
 from the Ulinois River. I don’t know how far Winches- 
 2943 ter is from La Salle. I would say Winchester is 70 
 miles from the mouth of the Illinois River. I don’t know 
 how far it is from the Campsville Dam or the Henry Dam. 
 1 don’t know how far Winchester is from Peoria. 
 
 2944 Jacop A. Harmon, a witness for the defendant, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Jacob A. Harmon, I reside in Peoria. I 
 am a civil engineer largely devoted to drainage. I am 
 familiar with the location of the drainage districts along 
 the Illinois River. 
 
 Starting at Hennepin the locations and names of the 
 various drainage districts that are found, proceeding 
 down the river, are as follows: 
 
 Near Hennepin there is a district, the official title of 
 which I don’t know. I know it as the Hennepin District. 
 
 Next below is the Partridge District, opposite Chilli- 
 cothe. 
 
 Opposite Peoria is the East Peoria District. 
 
 Opposite Pekin is the Pekin and LaMarsh District. 
 
639 
 
 Below Pekin in Tazewell County on the east and south 
 side of the river is the Spring Lake District. 
 
 Across from the river and the Spring Lake District is 
 the Banner District. 
 
 At Havanna is the Lacey District. 
 
 Immediately below the Lacey District is the Langilier 
 District. 
 
 Just below the Lacey District is a small district back 
 from the river front, the name of which I do not know. 
 
 Opposite Beardstown is the Coal Creek District. 
 
 Immediately below the Coal Creek District is the Crane 
 Creek District. 
 
 Above Beardstown on the north side of the river is a 
 new district, the name of which I do not know. 
 
 Opposite Meridosia is the McGee Creek District. 
 
 A little below Meridosia is the Meridosia District. 
 
 2946 Beginning at Naples on the east side of the river and 
 extending within 8 or 10 miles of the mouth are a series 
 of districts which adjoin each other. The first one of 
 these districts beginning at Naples is the Scott County 
 District; the next is the Big Swan, then the Hill View, 
 then the Hartwell, then the Keetch, then the Eldred and 
 then the Nutwood District. That carries you down to 
 the Mississippi River. 
 
 2947 The total area of acreage drained by these districts 
 is approximately 100,000 acres. The levees are built 
 from 200 to 400 feet back from the river, some places a 
 little closer. 
 
 I have been connected with about half of these districts 
 
 2948 in an engineering capacity. Most of these districts 
 have been constructed within the last ten years, since 
 1902 high waters, but some of them were constructed 
 prior to that time and have been re-constructed since. 
 All but one of them, I think, that were constructed before 
 1902, broke at that flood. The levees are. about 12 feet 
 in height above the natural bank. 
 
640 
 
 The river varies in width from about three miles at 
 Peoria to about four miles at Havanna in high water. 
 2949 At Beardstown three miles. Meridosia a little wider, 
 three or four miles. The average is the same from 
 Beardstown down. There is some local variation. 
 
 The map marked Defendant’s Exhibit 26, approxi- 
 mately shows the location of the drainage districts which 
 I have spoken of and in a way the locations on the plat 
 are substantially correct. The distance shown on the 
 plat is substantially correct, according to my own obser- 
 vation and knowledge of the location of the county lines. 
 2950 Mr. Cureerrietp: I want to offer this plat in evidence 
 and that concludes the examination of Mr. Harmon on 
 this subject. 
 2951 Which said plat was marked Exhibit ‘‘26’’, and is in 
 the words and figures following, to-wit: 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 QGueAtAY Ge 
 
 - 4 Fe rs 
 
 1, V SULEY 
 
 ands S$ RIVER 
 "SHOWING 
 
 
 
 7 
 J 
 = 
 
 J STARS HALL CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ 
 i 
 ' , 
 ad i_-" 
 plecer i a —- 
 ” A OMe: f peers. wee 
 
 
 
 o Jf Jour he : 
 
 f 
 yw WooprorD Co. 
 
 a 
 
 Seer Fore 
 st, 750 “Fe. 
 
 las 
 
 Puezewsliz Ca. 
 
 a® 
 
 open mtn SF ~ 
 
 . a P : veo, | ‘ is : 
 . ee ’, 
 “Yors6an Co & ' seed 
 
 ee 4 PS 
 
 
 
 A. 
 
 ' nat 
 
 
 
 Startwell Lrsr / 
 fReoe We , 
 
 Grttenve Co. ; 5 
 Cocer es 
 
 “ae. , 4 soece 
 :> 
 aed oY 
 . Veoeo He. : 
 
 
 
 MVerweed List 
 S7ODo He 
 
 
 
 
 ae a Fee, 
 — ~ = 
 
 7} » rer 
 “+ Ptrasisapp Phver 
 4 : 
 
 
 
 
 
ob 
 * 
 
 La eM Le Sth iat 
 < 2 = ce Lid » ¢ 
 
 . i 
 
 Seti Bie 
 
 ~ os neeaelatp sing eh 9 eh ete Se 
 a Lae a% +4 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 641 
 
 The figures on here ‘‘210’’? mean 210 miles from the 
 Mississippi River and all the way down that is the same. 
 They represent the distances by 10-mile intervals. 
 
 Winchester is in Scott County, about opposite the line 
 between the Scott County District and the Big Swan 
 District. That would be about 60 miles from the Mis- 
 Sissippl. 
 
 2953 Louris 8. AtrEeR, a witness for the defendant, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Louis 8. Alter. I reside near Goodland, 
 Jasper County, Indiana. I am a surveyor and civil engi- 
 neer. I am in a general way familiar with the drainage 
 operations conducted in my section of the country. The 
 drainage along the Kankakee consists mostly of large 
 open ditches generally constructed with a dredge. We 
 
 2954 call them dredged ditches. There is probably 100 square 
 miles of Jasper County drained by dredged ditches and 
 probably the same in Newton County. I knew the coun- 
 try before these operations were commenced. In Jasper 
 and Newton Counties before the drainage operations, it 
 was a level flat country covered with water from a few 
 inches up to 24 or 3 feet deep. On these marshes there 
 was growing grasses and rushes, cane and water-docks. 
 
 I also have some acquaintance with St. Joe County. 
 There are extensive operations conducted in that county. 
 There was as much land drained as in Jasper and Newton 
 Counties. 
 
 2955 'The surface of the land before these drainage opera- 
 tions were commenced was mostly swampy, either tam- 
 erack or open swamps, some cranberry swamps huckle- 
 berry swamps, covered that way from a few inches up 
 to two or three feet deep. 
 
642 
 
 Before the drainage operations were completed the 
 water of these three counties would in dry times, a large 
 portion of it, run off, but in wet times it would lay there 
 until it would evaporate or be soaked up. St. Joe County 
 encloses the head waters of the Kankakee River, is nearly 
 square and the west half and the south part is drained 
 by the Kankakee and Yellow River's, the Yellow River be- 
 ing a tributary of the Kankakee. 
 
 2956 Newton County is about 14 miles wide, extends from 
 the Kankakee River south about 28 miles in a straight 
 line. 
 
 Jasper County joins it on the east and extends from 
 the Kankakee River. It is south of Newton County. It 
 is 36 miles long and 18 miles wide. 
 
 I was very well acquainted with the Kankakee River 
 but not so very well with the Yellow River. The Kan- 
 kakee River as it existed before any improvement of the 
 stream was made consisted of a rather narrow shallow 
 channel with a wide marsh on one or both sides of it, 
 generally rather narrow on one side of the channel, and 
 very wide, extending back three or four, or sometimes 
 five miles on the other side. The channel is shallow and 
 very crooked and at places the trees would fall in and 
 
 2957 would reach almost across the channel. The channel 
 was from 60 to 140 feet wide. The land which I speak 
 of as being swampy before these ditches were construct- 
 ed, since they were constructed the water has been most- 
 ly removed and a large portion of those marshes have 
 been drained sufficiently for farm lands. The water 
 which falls on these lands in the shape of rain or snow 
 now goes off a great deal faster and more of it is re- 
 moved from the land. 
 
 Tile is pretty extensively used now, but before the time 
 of the improvements very little tile was used and that 
 was on the high ground only. 
 
643 
 
 2958 To some extent since the improvements I have ob- 
 served the Kankakee River and compared its condition 
 before drainage “operations and after it was put into 
 effect. The Kankakee River probably reaches a little 
 higher stage of water a little quicker than it did before. 
 To the best of my observation there is considerably 
 more water passes down a given point near the state line 
 than there was before. 
 
 In times of excessive rainfall the ditches, so far as 
 they have an outlet, flow rapidly and carry the water 
 
 2959 off much more quickly than they did before. Before 
 the drainage operations the water simply flowed over 
 the land to the river. There were old ditches that were 
 constructed on the higher ground and that simply ran 
 out and struck the marsh, ran out the ditch on the ground ~ 
 and quit. It discharged into the marshes for a mile or 
 two miles to three miles away from the channel of the 
 river. That water could get to the river by simply soak- 
 ing through the grass and over the country, that is the 
 only way it had of getting there. 
 
 Most of the river improvements and the drainage op- 
 erations have been constructed within the last six or 
 eight years. I have lived in that vicinity 61 years. 
 
 2960 ‘The tile takes more water off the country, but it dis- 
 tributes it out a little longer. It lessens the flood of 
 water in the smaller streams, but has a tendency to in- 
 crease the flood of water in the larger streams. For in- 
 stance, the creek that goes through my place formerly 
 would get high and remain at a high stage of water for 
 three or four hours and then fall rapidly. Now, it doesn’t 
 get so high, but it maintains that height for four or five 
 times as long, and that has a tendency in the larger 
 streams where it empties, of raising them up higher con- 
 tinuously at a moderately high stage for a longer time. ; 
 There certainly has been more water discharged from 
 
644 
 
 the surface of the country than was formerly carried 
 off, since the construction of this work. 
 
 2961 I have been engaged in the business of- engineering 
 and surveying for 34 years and have conducted surveys 
 in this country of which I have spoken, for 33 years. So 
 far as this improvement is concerned, I mean the entire 
 watershed of the Kankakee River is affected. I do not 
 know what its area is, but practically the entire water- 
 
 2962 shed has come under my observation. 
 
 Similar drainage operations as those which I have de- 
 scribed in St. Joe, Newton and Jasper Counties have 
 been carried on over the entire watershed and that con- 
 dition is substantially true of all the watershed of the 
 Kankakee in Indiana. 
 
 Cross-Examimation by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The watershed that I refer to has always been the 
 watershed of the Kankakee River and always will be so 
 2963 far as I know. 
 
 Prior to the improvement mostly timber was growing 
 in the marshes. The grass that grew where the water 
 was shallow, near the edge of the water. In dry times 
 
 2964 there was no water and it gave the grass a chance to 
 crow. For agricultural purposes the land was practic- 
 ally valueless before the installation of the drainage, 
 but they used it for hay. They cultivated some of the 
 
 2965 high land. I don’t know what proportion but there was 
 considerable. They cultivated none of the land that was 
 very wet. 
 
 IT have only carried my observations of the Kankakee 
 River to the Indiana line. I did some work at Momence 
 when they were taking out the rock there. 
 
645 
 
 2966 W. Ki. Mituer, a witness for the defendant, being sworn, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is W. E. Miller, I reside at Libertyville, Ili- 
 nois. [I am a farmer located in Lake County. I have to 
 do with the organization of drainage districts in Lake 
 County. I have lived there since 1871. I know every foot 
 of Lake County. 
 
 The drainage districts that have been organized in 
 
 2967 Lake County in the last eight or ten years are the Ver- 
 non District, Vernon No. 2, Seavey Slough District, Big 
 Sag Ditch. In the Vernon District there are about 8,000 
 acres. There is only six miles of ditch; the ditch is 23 
 feet wide on top, and 6 feet deep. The Vernon District 
 hes along the east side of the Desplaines River. 
 
 2968 The Seavey Slough commences about a mile south of 
 the Village of Libertyville, and comes down into Indian 
 Creek. 
 
 Vernon District No. 2 commences south of Indian 
 Creek and runs down into this little creek shown on the 
 map. 
 
 The Big Sag lays right up in there. 
 
 Libertyville is about 15 miles from the north line of 
 Illinois. The Big Sag District is about 10 miles from 
 the state line. The district to the south is 36 miles south 
 of the state line, and about eight miles from Lake Michi- 
 
 2969 gan. The nearest one to Lake Michigan is about 14 
 miles. 
 
 The soil of the Vernon District before any drainage 
 was done was a black mucky soil. There was water stand- 
 ing on it in times of heavy rains all the way from three to 
 four feet deep. As a result of these drainage operations 
 that is changed, it is now in a high state of cultivation. 
 
646 
 
 The outlet of the Vernon District discharges into the 
 Desplaines River. There are tile laterals connected with 
 the main ditch. There were no tiles used in this slough 
 
 2970 before then. They are using from 6 to 8-inch tile. 
 
 Vernon District No. 2 drains about 9,000 acres, I mean 
 the ditch, the watershed would be about 9,000 acres into 
 that ditch from watershed to watershed. It goes through 
 a low flat swampy country, the same kind of surface as 
 deseribed in the Vernon District. It is tillable land at 
 the present time. It discharges into the Desplaines River 
 through a little creek. 
 
 2971 The Seavey District drains about 12,000 acres. There 
 
 is around five miles of ditch, which is 23 feet wide and 7 
 feet deep. On two farms in the Seavey Slough District 
 there are 12 miles of tile. J should say in the whole ter- 
 ritory there is in the whole neighborhood of 25 miles of 
 tile, 6, 8 and 10-inch tile. The Seavey Slough District 
 discharges into Indian Creek and into the Desplaines 
 
 River. 
 
 2972 The Big Sag District drains about 20,000 acres. There 
 
 are seven miles of main ditch and there are tile laterals. 
 The ditch is 6 feet wide and 7 or 8 feet deep. It dis- 
 charges into the Fox River. 
 
 There are drainage districts opening in Fox and Long 
 Lakes. It is about 4 miles; they dug a channel there 
 about 30 feet wide and 6 or 7 feet deep. There is in the 
 
 2973 neighborhood of 25 miles of dredged ditches put in 
 
 through the swamps around Long Lake and Fox Lake. 
 Before these ditch laterals were put in it was a regular 
 swamp, water on it the year around, practically. A per- 
 son could not walk on it except in some places. I should 
 say 15 to 20,000 acres were drained by those operations. 
 
 2974 The water from the drainage eventually gets into the 
 
 Fox River. 
 The head waters of the Desplaines originate in Keno- 
 
647 
 
 sha County, a very little bit runs up into the edge of Mc- 
 Henry County, but not much. 
 
 There was a big marsh located in and about the head 
 waters of the Desplaines River. I could not say how 
 many acres there are init. I should say there was in the 
 neighborhood of 6 or 7 square miles. There is more than 
 seven sections of land in there. There was drainage op- 
 erations carried along the head waters of the Desplaines 
 by what is called plow ditches. By that I mean a big 
 
 2975 plow that is drawn by a capstan which digs a ditch 6 
 feet wide and 4 feet deep and rolls the dirt out and throws 
 it out about 3 or 4 feet from the bank of the ditch. It is 
 ealled a bull plow ditch. In Lake County we have about 
 150 miles of these ditches. They empty into the Des- 
 plaines River and several of them into small lakes which 
 drain into either the Desplaines or the Fox River. 
 
 I know the eastern edge of McHenry County. There 
 
 are swamps located there which have been drained into 
 2976 the Fox River. The biggest part of them were drained 
 by these plow ditches. There is one dredged ditch put 
 
 in there about nine or ten years ago. All of these opera- 
 tions have been put into effect during the last ten years. 
 
 I know the Desplaines River and the Fox River since 
 the fall of ’71. Before the construction of these opera- 
 tions the Fox River in the northern portion of Lake 
 County was real high and would keep the water back in 
 the sloughs until a time when the dam at McHenry went 
 out, and also down below; 1t was about six miles farther 
 down, another dam used for a grist mill. Those old dams 
 went out and then the lake got down so low that they 
 went to McHenry and put in another dam just south of 
 McHenry village, about three feet high. That raised the 
 water about a foot or foot and a half in Fox Lake. 
 
 2977 In its original condition the width of the river was 
 
648 
 
 about 200 or maybe 300 feet wide. In extreme dry times 
 before these drainage operations it would be very low. 
 
 The Desplaines River as a rule is a low sluggish river 
 in our county. During times I have stepped across the 
 channel and not got my feet wet walking across. In 
 places in dry times it would be two rods in deep holes and 
 then in other places it would not be three feet. Since the 
 drainage operations have been completed, the Desplaines 
 River in its lowest places has water at least two feet 
 deep, in the shallowest places in the river since that time, 
 and all the way from three to four or five rods across. 
 The Desplaines River carries more water since. The Fox 
 River carries more water since. The water from the 
 sloughs and surrounding country gets into the rivers 
 quicker and faster than it did before. The rain falling 
 on the country is carried off by the tiles to the ditches 
 and by the ditches to the river. 
 
 2979 Ihave some pictures which I now show you. The first 
 picture which is marked No. 1 with the name H. L. Hay- 
 mer, I recognize, and the place that the photograph pur- 
 ports to be a reproduction of. That picture was taken 
 in Vernon District No. 1, after a rain in the spring and 
 shows the condition of the lands. The photograph truly, 
 
 2980 faithfully and correctly reproduces the scene which then 
 and there existed. The water that is displayed in the 
 picture lies along the land on the line of that ditch we 
 put in there and the depth of the water in the picture is 
 in the neighborhood of a foot or a foot and a half. The 
 strip of land that is seen is about thirty to forty rods 
 
 2981 wide and about ninety rods long. The date the picture 
 was taken is April 30, 1900. I was there when the pic- 
 ture was taken and saw it taken. That is the things re- 
 produced by the picture. It truly, accurately and cor- 
 rectly portrays the conditions that then and there ex- 
 isted as known to me. 
 
649 
 
 Mr. Curprerrietp: I desire to offer this picture in evi- 
 dence as illustrative of the scene which there existed. 
 Objection by plaintiff; objection overruled. 
 Whereupon said photograph was received in evidence 
 by the court and marked Exhibit 27. 
 
 2982 I recognize the picture which is marked No. 2, H. L. 
 Haymer. I was there when that picture was taken and 
 am familiar with the scene which that picture pretends to 
 reproduce. The picture truly, accurately and correctly 
 reproduces the scene which there existed. The depth of 
 the water shown in that picture is from a foot to three 
 feet, and the place that is purported to be reproduced by 
 the picture is thirty rods wide and it narrows down. The 
 picture is a true representation of the scene that existed 
 on that day and at the time it was taken. 
 
 Mr. CuHIPERFIELD: I desire to offer No. 2. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Same objection. 
 2983-4 Objection overruled. 
 
650 
 
 Whereupon said photographs marked Exhibits 27 and 
 28, respectively, are admitted in evidence, and are as 
 follows: 
 
No.Z 
 
 
 
 
 
 No.2, 
 
 27 Vernon district. 
 
 
 
 5 Bubs ae 
 
 28 Vernon district. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 eo 
 
 As prieiiy 
 
 i. 
 S Ew eS, 
 ‘sath eS See 
 
 “ 
 
 ~ 
 
 > 
 5S Se Se 
 Sis 
 y es 
 ¢ 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PCL ADOT ITI 
 

 
bol 
 
 2985 Now the picture which is marked No. 3, H. L. Haymer, 
 I know. It was taken April 30, 1909, on the same day. 
 I was present at the time the picture was taken. The 
 picture truly, faithfully, accurately and correctly repro- 
 duces the scene which there existed. The water portrayed 
 in the picture is a foot or a foot and a half deep. The 
 scene represented is a strip of water about twenty rods 
 wide. It is a true, accurate and correct representation 
 of the thing as it then existed at that time. 
 
 Mr. CurperFretp: I desire to offer the picture in evi- 
 dence. 
 Mr. O’Conor: Same objection. 
 Objection overruled. 
 
 2986 The picture marked No. 4 was taken on the same day, 
 April 30, 1909. It is a true, accurate and correct re- 
 production of the scene there sought to be presented, 
 which was presented at the time. I was present. The 
 water that is shown there is a part of this picture—we 
 took a boat and went out and measured the water and it 
 was four feet deep. This picture does not show the 
 width of the water clear across. As produced here it 
 is about 100 rods wide. The scene is in the Seavey Slough 
 District. The other three pictures are in the Vernon Dis- 
 trict. We took the pictures of both districts on the same 
 day. The water shown in these pictures is being carried 
 off through these ditches. The condition of overflow 
 shown in the Vernon District extended over the entire 
 
 2987 length of it. The condition which is reproduced in No. 
 4, there was about four miles of it. 
 
 2988-89 Mr. Curperrietp: I desire to offer the picture in 
 evidence. 
 Mr. O’Conor: Same objection. 
 Objection overruled. 
 

 
 "Which said photographs, marked Exhibi 
 respectively, are in words and figures follc 
 
 p * b 
 Seeker) | ee es 
 
 7 
 a 
 i 
 - 
 r 
 . 
 ‘ 
 2 
 ’ 
 : 
 - > Fs 
 . 
 
 a 
 a) 
 
 ? ? ? > \ 
 
 x - 
 - 
 . 
 * 
 > + 
 

 
 No.4. 
 
 
 
 30 Seavey slough district. 
 
 29 Vernon district. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
653 
 
 2990 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The photographs show unusual conditions in the 
 spring, but there was water in that marsh all the year 
 2991 around more or less. The natural water-shed was in 
 the same direction that the water is now carried in the 
 ditches. 
 
 A. C. Morrtson, a witness for the defendant, being sworn, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Exanunation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 . My name is A. C. Morrison, I reside in Martinton, 
 2992 Iroquois County, Illinois. I am a drainage contractor. 
 Martinton is located in the north center of Iroquois 
 County. It is almost due north of Watseka. It is south 
 2993 and some east of Kankakee and almost due west of 
 Rensselaer and is 6 miles from the Iroquois River. 
 
 The principal smaller streams located closer to us are 
 the Beaver Creek and Pike Creek. Beaver Creek starts 
 over in Indiana and runs in a westerly direction and 
 empties into the Iroquois River. 
 
 2994 J have been a drainage commissioner for 22 years of 
 Martinton Drainage District No. 3. There is 60,000 acres 
 drained by it. There are 36 miles of open ditches in No. 
 3. They are scraper and dredge ditches. From these 
 
 2995 ditches there are laterals. The main ditch runs 30 feet 
 wide and 7 feet deep and empties into the Iroquois River 
 direct. In Martinton No. 1 there are 6,000 acres, 6 miles 
 in ditches, and it empties into the Iroquois River. Its 
 ditches are 20 feet wide and 5.5 feet deep. 
 
 2996 Martinton No. 2 drains 20,000 acres, 12 miles of 
 ditches 30 feet wide and 8 feet deep and empties into the 
 Iroquois River. 
 
654 
 
 No. 3 has 23,000 acres in it, 36 miles of ditches, 30 feet 
 wide, 7 feet deep and empties into the Iroquois River. 
 
 No. 4 has 3,500 acres, 6 miles of ditches, 25 feet wide 
 and 5 feet deep, and empties into the Iroquois River. 
 
 Papineau & Martinton No. 1, 6,000 acres, 5 miles of 
 ditches, 25 feet wide and 5 feet deep, and empties into 
 the Iroquois River. 
 
 The Big Beaver has 8,000 acres, 8 miles of ditches, 30 
 feet wide and 6 feet deep and empties into the Iroquois 
 River. 
 
 Little Beaver has 4 miles of ditches, 6,000 acres, the 
 ditches are 25 feet wide and 25 feet deep, and empties 
 into Beaver Creek. 
 
 Beaver No. 1 has 6,000 acres, 12 miles of ditches, 30 
 feet wide and 5.5 feet deep and empties into Martinton 
 No. 3. 
 
 2997 Beaver No. 2 has 5,500 acres, 18 miles of ditches 30 
 feet wide and 6 feet deep and empties into Martinton 
 No. 3. 
 
 Wichard Drainage District, 8,000 acres, 6 miles of 
 ditches, 25 feet wide and 6 feet deep, and empties into 
 the Kankakee River. 
 
 Concord & Sheldon, 10,000 acres, 9 miles of ditches 30 
 feet wide and 7 feet deep and empties into the Iroquois 
 River. | 
 
 Blackstone Drainage District has 7,000 acres, 4 miles 
 of ditches 25 feet wide and 6 feet deep and empties into 
 the Iroquois River. 
 
 Middleport & Martinton has 12,000 acres, 10 miles of 
 ditches 25 feet wide and 6 feet deep and empties into the 
 Iroquois River. 
 
 Crescent & Iroquois has 8,000 acres, 5 miles of ditches 
 25 feet wide and 6 feet deep, and empties into Spring 
 Creek, which flows into the Iroquois River. 
 
695 
 
 Iroquois & Crescent No. 2 has 4,000 acres, 8 miles of 
 ditches 30 feet wide and 5.5 feet deep, and empties into 
 Sugar Creek. 
 
 LaHogue Drainage District has 17,000 acres, 22 miles 
 of ditches 28 feet wide and 5.5 feet deep and empties into 
 the Vermillion River. 
 
 2998 Oliver Drainage District in Livingston County has 12,- 
 000 acres, 14 miles of ditches 25 feet wide and 7 feet 
 deep and empties into the Vermillion. 
 
 Danforth & Ashkum Drainage District has 22,000 acres, 
 20 miles of ditches 30 feet wide and 6 feet deep and emp- 
 ties into the Iroquois River. 
 
 Ashkum No. 1 has 10,000 acres, 5 miles of ditches 22 
 feet wide and 5 feet deep, and empties into the Iroquois 
 River. 
 
 Possum Trot Drainage District has 17,000 acres, 12 
 miles of ditches 25 feet wide and 7 feet deep and empties 
 into Sugar Creek, which empties into the Iroquois River. 
 
 Artesia No. 4 has 6,000 acres, 7 miles of ditches 25 feet 
 wide and 5.5 feet deep, and empties into Spring Creek, 
 which empties into the Iroquois River. 
 
 Milk’s Grove Drainage District has 6,000 acres, 20 
 miles of ditches 30 feet wide and 10 feet deep on the 
 average, and empties into Langham’s Creek, which emp- 
 ties into the Iroquois River. 
 
 Crescent Drainage District No. 1 ne 4,000 acres, 95 
 miles of ditches 30 feet wide and 10 feet deep and empties 
 into Spring Creek. 
 
 2999 Ash Grove Mutual has 8,000 acres, 7 miles of ditches 
 25 feet wide and 7 feet deep and empties into Sugar 
 Creek, which empties into the Iroquois River. 
 
 Middleport No. 1 has 8,000 acres, 7 miles of ditches 
 25 feet wide and 5 feet deep and empties into the Iroquois 
 River. 
 
 Milford & Ash Grove, 12,000 acres, 6 miles of ditches 
 
696 
 
 20 feet wide and 6 feet deep, and empties into Sugar 
 Creek, 
 
 That makes a total of 255,000 acres drawed and a to- 
 tal length of ditches of 274 miles. 
 
 3000 I am personally familiar with the land composing the 
 drainage districts, a list of which I have given. They 
 have all been constructed in the last ten or eleven years. 
 Before the construction the surface of the land in the 
 districts was low and wet. They were only farming the 
 
 3001 highest lands. The water would just simply stand in 
 the low parts at various depths, some 5 or even 6 feet in 
 depth. Since the construction of these districts the sur- 
 face of the land is all farmed. It is carried off in tile 
 through these drainage districts. There has been thou- 
 sands of miles of tile put in since the construction in these 
 districts. Very little tile before the districts were con- 
 structed. I think there are very close to 300,000 acres 
 
 3002 drained by the 57 drainage districts in Iroquois County. 
 All of these districts discharge into the Iroquois River. 
 
 Before the completion of these districts the Iroquois 
 River was fordable at low water times at at least three 
 different places in our county. 
 
 3003 The sub-soil under most of these lands varies from 
 lake sand, in some places, to joint clay, blue clay, and 
 hard pan. Where there is hard pan and blue clay the 
 water does not sink into the ground, but to some extent 
 it ean sink through the joint clay. Where there is blue 
 clay and hard pan it stays on top. 
 
 Since the construction of these districts we have been 
 unable to ford the Iroquois River. The water is higher 
 
 3004 I think at least two feet. The river carries more water 
 and there is always more current in it. It is a faster 
 stream than it used to be. 
 
 I know something about the drainage operations in 
 Kankakee County. From Kankakee up the river there 
 
657 
 
 has been quite a number of districts constructed during 
 the last eight or ten years. They drain into the Kanka- 
 kee. Before the ditches were constructed that was a big 
 swamp, probably a hundred thousand acres. There was 
 water standing in the swamp nearly all the year through. 
 
 3005 It was not so awful deep, 1t was more of a level low 
 piece of ground. There were no farming operations in 
 the swamps. At the edge of the swamps they did a little 
 farming. Improvements have been made in the last ten 
 years, since which the land that I speak of is cultivated, 
 most of it. Some of it isn’t good enough to cultivate. 
 The water now leaves the surface more rapidly than it 
 used to. 
 
 3006 The tiles are running the year through. The ditches 
 are running. 
 
 I believe I have some pictures of the typical changes 
 in the condition of the country before and after the drain- 
 age, | 
 
 (Photographs handed to the reporter and marked Eix- 
 hibits 31, 32, 33 and 34 for identification. ) 
 
 3007 Exhibit 31 is an old ditch, where the dredgers have 
 been run up there. It shows the deepening of an old 
 ditch. That was done in Martinton No. 3, I think, about 
 four years ago, along in August, and it correctly por- 
 trays the conditions that are presented, to my personal 
 knowledge. 
 
 Hxhibit 32 is a photograph of the same locality. I was 
 there at the time it was taken, but the conditions are 
 changed from those shown in the other exhibit. It truly, 
 
 3008 correctly, accurately portrays the scene there present- 
 ed. The body of water in Exhibit 32 is from eight to 
 ten feet deep and from 32 to 34 feet wide; 32 was taken 
 a couple or three months after 31. It was before the 
 completion of the whole ditch, but at that point it had 
 
 3009 been completed. 
 
698 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: I desire, if your Honor please, to 
 offer in evidence Exhibits 31 and 32. 
 Objection by plaintiff; objection overruled. 
 
 Which said documents were thereupon marked Defend- 
 ant’s Exhibits 31 and 32, respectively, and are in words 
 and figures as follows: 
 
 3010 Exhibit 31. 
 
 3011 Exhibit 32. 
 
‘pe bpespas —ie\n\ suyuow Bird (oie SOA meh @, IWNS ae PAO AOTN Wor a ll ss YAP pebpos el Te 
 
 ~ 
 ve 
 
 
 
659 ‘ 
 
 3012 Exhibit 33 is the same ditch only in a different position 
 and represents another section of the field, truly, cor- 
 rectly and accurately. JI was present at the time it was 
 taken. 
 
 Exhibit 34 is the same ditch, not exactly the same 
 point. It is farther down the stream, half a mile far- 
 ther. The water shown in the picture is about 10 feet 
 
 3013 deep. The width of the ditch is between 30 and 40 feet 
 and is one of the ditches I testified about that drains that 
 district. It is Martinton Number 3, and was made the 
 same time in September and correctly shows the scene 
 there presented. 
 
 Mr. CurprerFretp: I desire to offer Exhibits 33 and 34 
 in evidence. 
 
 Objection by plaintiff; objection overruled. 
 
660 
 
 Thereupon said documents were so marked and are in 
 the words and figures following: 
 3014 Exhibits 33 and 34. 
 

 
 ‘pebpeipei— 4ayn) Sujyow jorerss CE SO PWOG He ‘Ey Plsysi 
 
 — = 
 
 UO\UIOYW 4 Yop pebpoaicy c¢ 
 
 rs 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
661 
 
 3015 I have lived in that neighborhood about 37 years but 
 during the 24 or 25 years I have been a drainage con- 
 tractor and have constructed 30 per cent. of the work in 
 the districts I have testified to. 
 
 I am acquainted with the Oliver Ditch in Livingston 
 County. Itis a large ditch that was constructed to carry 
 water from the south side of the T. P. & W. Railroad. 
 It lies south of Chatsworth and runs in a northerly and 
 westerly direction into the Vermillion River. It drains 
 
 3016 about 10,000 or 12,000 acres. Was constructed about 
 seven years ago. After heavy rains on these lands it 
 goes into the ditches and then into the rea eans and of 
 course to the river. 
 
 Cross-Examimation by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The water I speak of in Iroquois County is carried 
 along in the natural water shed, 
 
 3017 Tuomas Rowen, a witness for defendant, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Thomas Rowe. I live in Essex, Kankakee 
 County. I am connected with the Essex and Kankakee 
 Drainage District in the Town of Essex and Kankakee 
 County and the Town of Ritchie, Will County. The dis- 
 trict contains 3,300 acres partly in Will and partly in 
 
 3018 Kankakee Counties. 
 
 When they commenced operations the territory con- 
 sisted of ridges and sloughs. Two-thirds or better of the 
 property was covered with water all the way from two 
 inches to two feet. We constructed five miles and a half 
 of ditches with a 12-foot finish and increased or dimin- 
 ished as we went up one foot to the mile. The water 
 
662 
 
 stood on the land from the first of November until the 
 first of July. The land is perfectly dry now. The ditch 
 3019 was completed July 20th last. The outlet is Horse 
 Creek, which empties into the Kankakee River. Accord- 
 ing to the season sometimes Horse Creek will rise ten 
 to twelve feet in a day. 
 3020 The district ditches are very nearly full; sometimes 
 they overflow. No water on the land where the ditches 
 3021 have been constructed. 
 There are other districts that I know of. One is in the 
 Township of Pilot in Kankakee. Possibly 10,000 to 15,000 
 3022 acres drained by it. Since the improvement the water 
 comes quicker in wet times. ‘The stream carries it 
 quicker. 
 There is another district in the Township of Sumner 
 on the eastern part of Kankakee County. The ditches 
 3023 are about four miles long, ten to twelve feet wide on 
 the bottom. It drains nearly a whole township. The 
 ditch is used for the tile as laterals. In every one of the 
 districts there is used a great deal of tile. Some of the 
 districts have as high as 200 carloads of tile from 18 
 inches to 10 inches. The tile certainly drains it very 
 much quicker than if it had to soak through the land. 
 3024 I don’t think there was a drainage district in Kanka- 
 kee County twelve years ago. I know all of the country 
 north of the City of Kankakee clear to the county line. 
 A few years ago it was nearly all covered with water. 
 Since that time they have dug private ditches and put in 
 tile. HEvery acre of that country you mentioned has got 
 tile and it has nine-tenths of it been done in the last 
 twelve years. This section of country out past the asy- 
 lum farm was not capable of being cultivated before it 
 was tiled. Two-thirds of the county has been changed by 
 tiling. The water discharges into the Kankakee River. 
 3025 Since these operations the Kankakee River seems to 
 
663 
 
 have washed out a great deal and got deeper and wider. 
 The effect is that there is more water in the wet times 
 
 3026 and less water in dry times in the river. The greatest 
 quantity goes towards the river in the spring when the 
 frost is going out and the snow is melting, that cannot 
 oo through the tile, and in carrying the water off now it 
 takes days where it used to take weeks. 
 
 3027 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The water always comes to the Kankakee but it would 
 take longer. It had to go there, there was no other way 
 to get away. In dry times the Kankakee is lower than 
 it was before. There isn’t as much water in it now as 
 formerly. In olden times the lands were wet and when 
 the rain came it overflowed. 
 
 3028 Warren W. Leacu, a witness for the defendant, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Warren W. Leach. I reside in Rushville, 
 Schuyler County, Illinois. I have lived there 52 years. 
 3029 During that length of time I have been thoroughly fa- 
 miliar with the [llinois River. Have been boating on the 
 river all my life since I was 13 years old. 
 
 I am acquainted with the drainage districts located in 
 Schuyler County. There are two completed districts 
 and one that is formed but the work is not any more than 
 commenced. The completed districts are the Coal Creek 
 District and the Crane District. The Coal Creek District 
 embraces 6,711 acres and the Crane District 5,094 acres. 
 I spread the assessments on all of them. Coal Creek 
 District is about four miles long; Crane Creek District 
 is something like a mile or a little better. 
 
664 
 
 The walls of the levees would be ten or twelve and I 
 think fourteen feet in some places. They stand back 
 from the river close to 100 yards. Before the levees 
 
 3031 were constructed the [llinois flowed out of its channel 
 
 and across and came up over the bank and went over the 
 surrounding districts in times of high water, all over the 
 low ground. It flowed over the ground that is now occu- 
 pied by these districts. It stood in the neighborhood of 
 a mile or a mile and a half wide and it would run on the 
 other side of the river from four to six miles in width. 
 The river was anywhere from five miles to several more 
 
 3032 in width. Very nearly seven miles or a little more in 
 
 width before the construction of the levee district and it 
 would occupy the entire bottom. Since they have com- 
 pleted them they are a success and have shut the water 
 out of there. 
 
 The district now being constructed is the Big Lake 
 Drainage and Levee District. 
 
 The Coal Creek District was constructed between 1895 
 
 38033 and 1900. I don’t remember the year it was finished. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 Those I speak of were completed some time about 1900. 
 I don’t know how far down the river we are from Henry 
 or how far from Grafton at the mouth of the river. 
 
 Coal Creek District is practically right west of Beards- 
 town. 
 
 3035 Grorce T. Dowsn, a witness for the defendant, being 
 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is George T. Dowse. I reside in Lockport 
 and have lived there 54 years. My business is dredg- 
 ing, steam shovel work. 
 
665 
 
 I have been acquainted with the Desplaines River above 
 the point where the Sanitary District channel flows in all 
 my life. The Desplaines River before the Sanitary Dis- 
 
 3036 trict channel emptiesin hes west of the Sanitary District 
 channel above Joliet at the upper basin, down on the east 
 side of the old canal and on down the line. It runs all 
 the way from 500 feet to a mile at places from the Sani- 
 tary Canal. Before the Sanitary District channel was 
 constructed the Desplaines River in dry seasons of the 
 year was very shallow; in wet seasons the same as this 
 it was very high. The condition of the Desplaines River 
 above the point where the Sanitary District canal enters 
 
 - it in the last eight or ten years would probably be a foot 
 deep, from that to two feet. Most of the time a stream 
 of water has been flowing in the Desplaines River. 
 
 I know where the Sanitary District canal empties into 
 the Desplaines River. 
 
 3037 I have seen the Bear Trap Dam two or three times a 
 year. I often go there. When I have seen the Bear Trap 
 Dam I should judge there was about a foot of water 
 flowing over the dam. It empties into the Desplaines 
 River at Lockport. The Desplaines River at the point 
 where the Sanitary District canal empties into it car- 
 ries all the water that is naturally found in the Desplaines 
 River. After the Sanitary District water enters the Des- 
 plaines River it runs south down to and by the coke ovens 
 of the new gas plant in Joliet into what is called the upper 
 basin at the Robey street bridge. Running down from 
 the upper basin over the Jackson street dam and on 
 down through in this direction. 
 
 3038 The Sanitary Canal and the Desplaines River come in 
 together into the old canal at the upper basin at Joliet. 
 The Desplaines River does not run into the Sanitary 
 Canal anywhere. The Sanitary Canal runs into the Des- 
 plaines River. 
 
666 
 
 In the upper basin at Joliet, the stream is about 400 
 feet wide below the Jackson Street Dam on down all the 
 way up to 250 feet, maybe wider. I don’t know exactly. 
 
 3039 The Bear Trap Dam at Lockport is 160 feet wide. 
 Where the water goes through Joliet the banks of the 
 stream are not built up with any permanent work except 
 on the east side of the river at the Sanitary Canal where 
 there are walls of concrete and clay. Where the river 
 is confined by these walls at Ninth street, it is about 400 
 feet wide. It varies from 200 to 500 feet. The narrow 
 
 3040 points between Sixteenth and Ninth streets in Lock- 
 port and from Sixteenth street down to the K. J. & EH. 
 bridge is a very wide part. From the E. J. & E. bridge 
 down to the Robey street bridge it is narrow. At that 
 point the Desplaines River flowing all of the water that 
 is found in the river naturally and all of the water that 
 comes from the Sanitary Canal is not over two feet 
 deep. 
 
 At Ninth street I should judge the current is running 
 at the rate of three miles an hour. At these narrow 
 points where the river is narrowed down to 200 feet, 
 
 3041 the water is two or two and one-half feet, | should judge, 
 and flowing at the rate of three miles an hour, which 
 carries all the water of every kind that comes from the 
 Sanitary District. Where the river spreads out and is 
 from 500 to 1,000 feet wide it would range in depth from 
 two feet to six inches deep. J should think taking it in 
 its deepest part it is flowing probably two and one-half 
 or three miles an hour; in the shallow part about three 
 to three and one-third miles an hour. 
 
 There is no water that is discharged by the Sanitary 
 District at Lockport that is not carried in that stream 
 in that way. That condition that I have described has 
 not changed during all the time that the Sanitary District 
 channel has been operated, 
 
667 
 
 3042 [know Hickory Creek and Spring Creek. Under ordi- 
 nary conditions Hickory Creek is a very fierce little 
 
 3043 stream. Spring Creek is southeast four or five miles 
 below where the Sanitary District water enters the Des- 
 plaines River. Hickory Creek also enters the Desplaines 
 River below the place where the Sanitary District water 
 comes in, something like two and one-half miles. Neither 
 Hickory or Spring Creek are fed in any way by waters 
 from the Sanitary District. 
 
 8044 Six or seven years ago we had quite a freshet on Hick- 
 ory and Spring Creeks. At that time both creeks were 
 overflowed and ran over the Rock Island tracks east of 
 Joliet, down over Eastern avenue and Jefferson street 
 and at that time there were two or three lives lost. Down 
 through that part of the city Hickory and Spring Creeks 
 made a stream a mile wide. 
 
 Right along on Chicago street and on Jefferson street 
 
 3045 there was about eighteen inches of water. They are a 
 little lower streets than other portions of the city. Where 
 the people were drowned the stream got so deep that 
 they could go around in boats and did go around in boats 
 getting the people out of the houses. That condition con- 
 tinued probably twelve hours or such a matter. 
 
 Spring and Hickory Creeks run back east quite a ways 
 into the country. J think Hickory Creek runs back in 
 the Calumet region. I have known floods like this to 
 occur twice. The last one was after the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict channel was opened. The Sanitary District did not 
 add any water to that creek. 
 
 3046 Iam acquainted with the Illinois River and have been 
 since 1880. I have been engaged in dredging at La Salle, 
 Henry, Copperas Creek and Peoria. I have had about 
 fifteen years dredging experience on the Illinois River. 
 I knew it before the Sanitary District channel was opened 
 and had an opportunity to see and observe the stages 
 of the Illinois River since. 
 
668 
 
 3047 I think since the Sanitary District was opened as com- 
 pared with the stages before the Sanitary District was 
 turned into the Desplaines River, there is probably eight 
 to twelve inches difference. I have seen the Kankakee 
 above the point where the Sanitary District waters and 
 the Desplaines enter it. You can see it for a couple 
 of miles. I have seen it at a point below where the Llli- 
 
 3048 nois River is formed. Where the two streams connect 
 the river always looked a little wider and deeper than 
 other places on it. With the exception of being a little 
 wider and somewhat deeper, there is no difference. 
 
 I should judge probably the Illinois River below the 
 junction of the Desplaines and Kankakee was 500 feet, 
 maybe a little wider. I have seen it when at lots of 
 places you could see the rock since the Sanitary District 
 channel was opened. 
 
 When I say there has been a difference of eight to 
 twelve inches in the stage of water, I refer to the low 
 water. 
 
 3049 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I am not in the employ of the Sanitary District, have 
 never been in their employ, have never done any work 
 for them. I was a witness for them once in Chicago, 
 not in the same kind of a case, about seven or eight years 
 ago. : 
 
 I was never engaged to do any work for them at Lock- 
 port. I never took any measurements of the water there 
 but just read the gauge there sometimes when I would be 
 there. I have read the gauge at Lockport when a foot 
 of water was going over the dam. I haven’t any judg- 
 
 3090 ment as to the number of cubic feet flowing over the 
 dam. I could not say as to whether I ever saw more 
 than one foot of water flowing over the dam at Lockport. 
 I saw the dam last summer. It might have been July or 
 August. I looked at the dam to see how much water 
 
669 
 
 3051 was going over. There might have been a foot or more, 
 Il don’t exactly know. 
 
 [ cannot say when I saw the dam before. I would go 
 over there two or three times a year; somebody would 
 come to Lockport and we would walk over to see the 
 controlling works. Just take our friends along, did not 
 go to make any notations of the flow. 
 
 There is an opening there other than the dam where 
 they run their power with. It is on the south end of the 
 dam. I cannot say this summer whether it was in July, 
 August or September. It might have been May. I can’t 
 recollect who was visiting me. It was on Sunday. It 
 was between Labor Day and the Fourth of July. 
 
 3053 My judgment as to the width of the dam is based 
 upon what I heard the builders say in 1893 or 1894. I 
 do not know that I am unable to figure cubic feet. I 
 don’t know how fast the water would flow over the dam. 
 
 3054 It was going a good deal faster than it was coming down 
 the Desplaines River. 
 
 I have seen the dam when there was a foot of water 
 flowing over it; also seen the Desplaines River when 
 there was a foot of water flowing in it. I could not say 
 how much more water was going over the dam per minute 
 than was going past a given point in the Desplaines. If 
 there was a foot of water coming over the dam and a 
 foot of water in the Desplaines River there would be 
 more water in the Sanitary Canal. If the water had a 
 chance to spread and was coming three times as fast 
 as the river is flowing there would not be three times 
 as much. ‘The water would spread out to where they 
 were together. 
 
 3055 The Desplaines River at Ninth street is 350 to 400 
 feet wide. I could not say when I have seen the Des- 
 plaines River at Ninth street during the dry weather sea- 
 son. I have seen it in the summer time when I would 
 
670 
 
 3056 go across that bridge. I have seen a foot of water 
 there this summer during the summer months. The Des- 
 plaines River has run a foot higher during the summer 
 along there than it has been in two years. I have seen 
 the Desplaines all summer, it was a foot deep. 
 
 I would not know the amount of water flowing over the 
 Bear Trap Dam if it was two and one-half feet deep or 
 the speed at which it flows. 
 
 I know the territory that belongs to the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict that lies below the dam in the Desplaines Valley 
 there. They own probably three-quarters of a mile wide 
 
 3057 for a distance of two miles and a half. 
 
 After we get down the river three miles there is a big 
 marsh; the river spreads over the marsh. 
 
 3058 I think the Sanitary District has added from the con- 
 trolling works about a foot where the two streams come 
 together. The water of the Desplaines River flows faster 
 or slower depending upon the season. If it is a dry 
 season there isn’t much water running in the Desplaines 
 
 3059 River. In dry season the Sanitary District has in- 
 creased the flow both in quantity and in velocity some- 
 what; not very much. Probably would put a foot more 
 water in there. 
 
 3060 The lowest water I ever saw going over the dam may 
 have been two feet during some of the time. There 
 would be about a foot of water out of the dam. I think 
 in the summer time there is less water flowing over the 
 dam than in the winter time. The government won’t 
 
 3061 allow them to draw so much water in the summer time 
 as in the winter owing to the shipping in Chicago. The 
 shipping season opens about the Ist of April. I never 
 remember being there in the winter time. 
 
 I have not dredged any at La Salle since six years 
 ago this summer. I was dredging at La Salle in Sep- 
 tember and October six years ago, in the La Salle basin 
 
671 
 
 at the point where the canal runs into the Illinois River, 
 
 just at the point down below the zine works. Before that 
 3062 I dredged the year previous, in 1905. I was there four 
 
 different times before 1905, the first time in 1884. 
 
 I determined that the river had been raised there, I 
 think, eight to twelve inches in the different times I 
 have been on the river working. In 1894 there was 
 some difference. If we had a little rain up north we 
 would get a little rise in the river. I done work there in 
 1905 and 1906, or 1906 and 1907. There was a little 
 difference I noticed in 1905 as compared with the year 
 
 3064 1894. There was a little rise. I think 1t was 1906 and 
 ’07; I was there only twice. It was two of the three 
 years, 1905, 1906 or 1907. I got there on the 9th day of 
 September the first year. The water was probably then 
 
 3065 about a foot higher than it would be in real dry sea- 
 sons. It was over the mitre sill of the lock. I don’t 
 know what put it there unless it was the rain. I did not 
 
 3066 make my conclusion that the level of the Lllinois River 
 was eight to twelve inches higher than it had been prior 
 to that time at that time. I noticed it at different times 
 prior down the river, down at Henry and Copperas 
 Creek. I would see more water flowing over the dam 
 than when I was first down there in 1897. 
 
 In 1897 I put flash boards on the dam at Henry. If I 
 remember rightly, they were twelve or fourteen inches 
 
 3067 high. The last time I was at Henry there were no flash 
 boards on the dam. I should judge there was ten or 
 twelve inches of water going over the dam without any 
 flash boards. We put flash boards on because the water 
 
 38068 was so shallow in the river at those places we dredged 
 out so that the boats could go through. The boats did 
 not go over the dam in 1906 while I was there. They do 
 so every spring. J don’t know the gross quantity of 
 water flowed in the Illinois River during any month of 
 
672 
 
 the summer, or how much of that water in the Illinois 
 River comes from the Sanitary District or from other 
 places. 
 
 3069 The point I have in mind as a matter of conclusion 
 that leads me to say the river has increased in height 
 from eight to twelve inches in I have noted the dam in 
 dry seasons when I was down there four or five years 
 ago, The water was running over the dam in the month 
 of September when I was there and before in the month 
 of September it was not running over before the Sani- 
 tary District water was turned into the river. 
 
 3070 The mitre sill that I have formerly referred to is in 
 the bottom of the lock at La Salle, lock 15. It might be 
 about twelve feet below the top of the lock. By the use 
 of the mitre sill is the only way we had of telling about 
 the water. We would go over and look at the gauge and 
 the gauge of that water and we were able to tell the 
 height of the water on the mitre sill, so we could see 
 about the boats goimg over. The water backed up in 
 this from the river. If the river backed up over this 
 
 3071 sill we could tell by that. We would know just about 
 the condition of the water on the mitre sill. That gauge 
 was there to explain to the lock tender what water he had 
 over his mitre sill. It is not true that the condition of 
 the mitre sill depended on the water in the canal from 
 the lock on down to the river, because below there where 
 the stream has come from Joliet it is shallower than up 
 this way. 
 
 There is no other spot that I have made a conclusion 
 that the water has increased eight to twelve inches only 
 I had been down on the canal and I heard people at Ot- 
 tawa and down the river say that the water is higher in . 
 the river than before the District turned it in, but I 
 couldn’t see it that way. I never could see it, because I 
 never thought the amount of water that went over the 
 
 3072 Bear Trap Dam could raise the water that high. 
 
673 
 
 I believe about 200,000 cubie feet of water goes over 
 the dam. I noticed down this way that the river is higher 
 than it used to be. I should say 10 or 12 inches. Here at 
 Ottawa I have a general recollection of what it used to be 
 and I think it is about ten inches higher than it used to be. 
 
 3073 I noticed coming down on the train this morning that 
 the Fox River was up a little bit, but you could see the 
 sand piles, coming across the Rock Island you could see 
 the sand ridges. They were on the south side of the Rock 
 Island bridge. The sand piles probably changed every 
 year. 
 
 I think I first noticed the river was ten inches higher at 
 Ottawa the first time I came down here after the water 
 
 3074 was turned in. That was in 1902. I have been over here 
 on the bridge across the Illinois River on La Salle street. 
 The river looked a little higher. I had no object by which 
 I made measurements or calculations, just looked at it. 
 That is not the way I made all my observations, just by 
 
 3075 looking at it, but by the height of the water flowing over 
 the Henry Dam and Copperas Creek. I know the water 
 is from 8 to 12 inches higher in dry seasons going over 
 those two places than it was before the Sanitary District 
 turned the water into the canal. That is going over the 
 dam at Henry or Copperas Creek. 
 
 In 1906 or 1907 I noticed the water in La Salle was 
 probably a foot higher. It would not be as high here as 
 it would be at Ottawa. I made the determination at La 
 
 3076 Salle in 1906 or 1907 by taking that point from a place 
 down opposite the zinc works where we tied up our boats. 
 I know that was in 1897 before the water was turned in. 
 Then I went back again and I noticed on the crib at the 
 zinc works, I noticed the water was a foot higher than it 
 was when I was there before. It was about the same sea- 
 son of the year. | 
 
 I don’t know the amount of rainfall that had taken place 
 
674 
 
 prior to both observations but it is my conclusion the 
 water had been raised about a foot. It was the same in 
 1906 as in 1907. It is higher now than it would be in a 
 
 3077 drier season. The only thing I can judge it from is 
 where I am working, the Desplaines River is higher than 
 it has been for three years. I have not seen the Illinois 
 River since 1907. 
 
 I first knew I was going to testify in this case last Sat- 
 
 3078 urday. A man by the name of Delaney called me up and 
 said Mr. Nadelhofer wanted me as a witness down at Ot- 
 tawa. Mr. Nadelhofer is employed by the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict. I have not made any observations along here for 
 the purpose of testifying. I do not think the [llinois 
 River was two or three feet higher in 1906 than it was 
 when I last saw it. The last time I saw the river was 
 four years ago. I did not make any calculations at that 
 time. 
 
 3079 Q. I am talking now about this one foot calculation 
 you made. Are you willing to be bound by the statement 
 it was one foot or might it not have been two feet or 
 three feet? 
 
 Mr. CuIPeRFIELD: I object to the part of the question 
 that requires the witness to be bound by the statement, 
 That is on the same line as ‘‘Are you willing to swear,’’ 
 and so and so. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the objection. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 A. Why, at the time I was there I would be willing to 
 bind myself it was about a foot, but of course after 1 went 
 away from there there might have been heavy rains or 
 something that would raise it higher. 
 
 There isn’t anything else that would raise it besides 
 heavy rains that I know of. I have not observed the trees 
 three or fours years ago along the banks of the Illinois 
 
675 
 
 River or whether they are standing out in the water now. 
 
 3080 I did not have any reason to make observation going 
 down the river at that time. I did not. Whether or not 
 the trees along the bank of the river during the summer 
 months are now standing out in the water or whether lots 
 of them are dead, I do not know. 
 
 3081 Joun Donovan, a witness for the defendant, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is John Donovan, residence Chicago. I am 
 a steamboat captain. J have a contract with the City 
 of Chicago. I have been in the boat business all my life. 
 I have been boating between Peoria, Pekin, Havanna and 
 Chicago and been engaged in the business 23 or 24 years. 
 I am now engaged in Chicago running a canal boat. 
 
 3082 I am acquainted at Lockport and a little in Joliet, also 
 with the Desplaines River. I have lived very close to it 
 for a while. I lived in Lockport. I live in Lockport and 
 when I ain’t working in Chicago. I have known the Des- 
 plaines River for 25 years. I know how it used to be in 
 times of low water. It was very low. 
 
 During the last eight or ten years above where the 
 Sanitary District channel comes into the Desplaines 
 River, I have observed the Desplaines River with ref- 
 erence to the amount of water it carries. It is over the 
 bank there sometimes. I believe the Desplaines River 
 
 3083 carries more water in the last eight or ten years than 
 it did previously. It does at Lockport where it enters 
 into the drainage. 
 
 I have seen the controlling works and drainage canal a 
 good many times and been acquainted with them since . 
 the Sanitary District channel was opened, and have seen 
 
676 
 
 the water flowing over the bear trap dam. At times I 
 have seen the water flow over the bear trap dam when it 
 did not appear as if there was more than six or seven 
 inches going over. I have observed it from the bridge 
 running across the channel at that point. 
 
 3084 From the point where the junction is made by the wat- 
 ers from the Desplaines River and the Sanitary District, 
 the water keeps on going down through the Desplaines 
 River through Joliet. I have seen it in Joliet. In the 
 
 3085 narrow portions in the town the river is about 150 feet 
 wide. There is a concrete wall on one side or both sides. 
 It is not any wider now than it was before the Sanitary 
 District was opened. After the Sanitary District was 
 opened it don’t look to me as though there was more 
 than four or five feet of water at that place. There is 
 
 3086 no way for the Sanitary District water to be carried off 
 except through the Desplaines River as it flows through 
 Joliet. The current at that place is about three miles. 
 After that it goes south and finally joins the Kankakee 
 River. Before it reaches the Kankakee River, Spring 
 Creek and Hickory Creek flow into it. 
 
 I know Hickory Creek, but I am not very well acquaint- 
 
 3087 ed with Spring Creek. I think in 1882 Hickory Creek 
 drowned out everything there. JI was going from Chi- 
 eago to Lockport that morning and we couldn’t go up on 
 the C. & A. and we went down to Joliet to get the Rock 
 Island and she went up to Hickory Creek and stopped 
 there. The stream was all over the country there. Cov- 
 ered a block or two where the train was stalled. I could 
 not get to the station at Lockport on account of the water 
 being headed off there at the penitentiary. The water 
 eame down through there by the penitentiary. 
 
 T have seen Hickory Creek in times of high water once 
 _ before that. There has been high water in Hickory Creek 
 from time to time during the time I have known it. 
 
677 
 
 3080 I have done boating on. the Illinois River and have 
 been up the old canal as close as I could get to it where 
 the Desplaines flows into the Kankakee and forms the 
 Illinois. Since 1900, I have seen where the Desplaines 
 flows into the Kankakee. I have never been able to see 
 any difference. I could see the cattle ford the river just 
 the same, standing out there in the water and walking 
 back and forth since 1900. The stream could not be any 
 
 3089 wider. It would be probably a couple of blocks or may- 
 be 400 feet. 
 
 I have boated on the Illinois River as far as Pekin, 
 Peoria, Havanna, Chillicothe and along there and up 
 this way as far as Shippingsport. During the years I 
 was on the Illinois River I had an opportunity to observe 
 the stages of the water before the Sanitary District was 
 opened and had an opportunity to observe the stages of 
 the water since the Sanitary District was opened. 
 
 3090 When I navigated the river down there in low water 
 when I would leave La Salle, I used to have landmarks 
 away down to those bridges, I would have marks. The 
 reason I have those landmarks is because it used to give 
 me kind of an idea how close I wouffl have to run for 
 the channel in low water. In low water we had to have 
 those marks. I had them before the Sanitary District 
 run through there and [I had them afterwards in low 
 water. : 
 
 The first time I was down there after it was opened up 
 in July, the only difference I could see was that there 
 Was six or seven inches, maybe, in 1901. 
 
 3091 Based upon my knowledge of the Illinois River up to 
 the present time in low water, I would say that there 
 is a little difference. I would put it at a foot. In high 
 water you could not get at the difference at all. If it 
 was high water it was done by the rain and such as that. 
 I know the high water on the Illinois River before 1900. 
 
678 
 
 I have seen the water on the Rock Island tracks from 
 Peru, 21-foot rise. I don’t believe I have ever seen it 
 as high since. 
 
 3092 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I was on the Illinois River last, maybe four years ago 
 this summer, August or September. There was a good 
 fair stage of water. It was not low or high. Since the 
 district was turned in [ have noticed just a little differ- 
 ence. 
 
 T said the low water you could notice a little difference, 
 about 12 inches. The stream travels faster, more cur- 
 rent at the wider places. I don’t remember whether 1900 
 was adry year. I was in Henry July, 1901, I never took 
 any gauges or measurements in order to ascertain how 
 much of the water that passes was actually natural water 
 and how much of it was Sanitary water. I have never 
 been down at the Bear Trap Dam when there was more 
 than six or seven inches flowing over it. The flow over 
 the Bear Trap Dam was much faster than the Desplaines 
 River was flowing, It had about a 12-foot fall there, I 
 couldn’t say how fast. The Desplaines was going three 
 miles, I mean at Joliet in the summer time. That is 
 where they have confined the stream down there. I don’t 
 know how much water flows over the Bear Trap Dam in 
 the last seven years. I would not have any means of 
 judging how many cubic feet pass over the dam when 
 they have a 6-foot flow. The way I could tell I looked 
 at the dam and you could see about six inches of water 
 flowing there. I couldn’t tell how far down it was at 
 the present time or anything about it or how wide the 
 dam was. 
 
 I believe in 1902 we had a cloud burst in the vicinity 
 
 3095 of Joliet. That was the time the city was flooded down- 
 town. I don’t remember a cloud burst, I don’t remem- 
 
679 
 
 ber whether it was a cloud burst or not. The flood was 
 brought on by heavy rains. There have been several 
 floods there. Spring Creek is higher in the spring than 
 at other times. It is higher now at all times because 
 they have got more water coming in at different places. 
 They have got that all dug out and have sewers coming 
 into it from all over, big tiles into it. They tell me there 
 is more water in it now than ever. I last saw it three 
 months ago. I think there was more water in it than 
 formerly. I have seen it when there was no water in it. 
 I have not seen it during the last ten years when there 
 was no water in it. 
 
 3096 I never did any work for the Sanitary District. At 
 low water since 1900, I have noticed an increase in the 
 level of the Illinois River about a foot over what it was 
 prior to that time. I couldn’t say definitely it was one 
 foot, that is what I judged it raised, eight inches or a 
 
 3097 foot, or ten inches. Somewhere in that neighborhood. 
 
 Rosert SHANNON, a witness for the defendant, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Robert Shannon. I reside at Joliet. I 
 am a dredging contractor and have been engaged in 
 business in Will and Kankakee Counties. Have been 
 dredging farm drains. 
 
 Among the work which I have done in those counties, I 
 dug Spring Creek in the City of Joliet, 80,000 yards, and 
 
 3098 from there | moved over to Kendall County and dug 
 five miles, for farm drainage purposes. I could not tell 
 the acreage that was drained but the land was drained 
 for a mile on each side of the operations and some places 
 less. It drained into the Fox River. 
 
680 
 
 In Kankakee County I dug the Raymond Drainage 
 Ditch, seven miles, located eight miles west of Kankakee, 
 or near the central part of the county. It was 30 feet 
 on top and 12 feet on the bottom, and an average depth 
 of 6 feet. 
 
 The Kendall County Ditch was 25 feet on top and 10 
 feet at the bottom. The Spring Creek improvement was 
 
 3099 40 feet on top and 9 feet cut, 9 feet deep. Spring Creek 
 empties into the Desplaines River. The Kendall County 
 improvement empties into the Fox River. The Kankakee 
 County improvement empties into the Kankakee River. 
 
 I am now digging four miles in Will County, a ditch 
 four miles long, which empties into Spring Creek, and 
 from there into the Desplaines River. That improve- 
 ment is 20 miles away from the previous improvement in 
 Spring Creek. Spring Creek, as far as I have done it, 
 starts up in Green Garden Township and runs down 
 through Joliet Township and empties into the Desplaines 
 River south of the City of Joliet. Before I commenced 
 to improve it Spring Creek at times was a good sized 
 river; other times it was not so large. I say it was as 
 
 3100 large as a good sized river, it was 20 or 25 feet across, 
 3 to 5 feet deep. 
 
 This improvement in Spring Creek was conducted four 
 years ago; Kendall County three years ago; the Will 
 County work last season and the Kankakee County work 
 last season. The condition of the country in the vicinity 
 of these ditches before I commenced to work was all 
 water; afterwards it drained into the ditch and then into 
 the rivers I mentioned. 
 
 IT am acquainted with Hickory Creek. It is a part of 
 Spring Creek, the two of them forms one at the lower 
 
 3101 end. I have known of high water on that country at 
 times of rain in Hickory Creek. I have known it to 
 flood the whole section of the country there, a section a 
 
681 
 
 mile square. I should say eight to ten feet it would rise. 
 I know of casualties happening there; at McDonough 
 street they were driving across and two girls were 
 drowned by the creek. The rise was so sudden; that was 
 in June, 92. I know of people being imprisoned in the 
 
 3102 houses there at the same time. I helped them out. The 
 house was along Joliet street, Desplaines street, Water 
 street and up as far as Chicago street. The country was 
 covered with water at a depth of from three to eight 
 feet. We went about in boats in the public streets. That 
 condition prevailed for three days. The Sanitary Dis- 
 trict does not flow into Hickory Creek. The Sanitary 
 District in no way feeds Hickory Creek. 
 
 I know where the Desplaines River is located, have 
 
 3103 known it for 40 years. Before the Sanitary District 
 was opened in low water there was always water there. 
 Sometimes in different places two feet or three feet. I 
 know certain places where there was 20 feet. During the 
 last six or eight years since these drainage operations 
 have been carried on, there is a difference in the amount 
 of water that the Desplaines River carries above the 
 point where it joins with the Sanitary District water. 
 The river is higher above where the Sanitary District — 
 comes in on account of the tiles and drainage flowing in 
 there. It carries more water. 
 
 3104 TI have seen the place where the Sanitary District dis- 
 charges into the Desplaines River. It is about 500 feet 
 above Robey street in Joliet. The Desplaines River and 
 Sanitary District current come together. I have seen the 
 Bear Trap Dam. I have seen it every Sunday pretty 
 near, used to go fishing up there on the Desplaines River. 
 I have observed the water coming over the Bear Trap Dam. 
 I have noticed it as much as four inches coming over 
 the dam and as much as 10 to 12 inches coming over the 
 
 3105 dam. I don’t think I have seen more than 10 or 12 
 
682 
 
 inches. There is no water of any kind coming from the 
 Sanitary District channel discharged at the controlling 
 works that does not enter the Desplaines River. The 
 Desplaines River flows through the City of Joliet. In 
 passing the portion of the city in the most thickly popu- 
 
 3106 lated portion it is about 320 feet wide; in the narrower 
 portions it is about 220 feet. 
 
 All the water that comes from the Desplaines River 
 and all the water that comes from the Sanitary District 
 flows between two walls constructed there. I should say 
 at Jefferson street it was three feet six or four feet deep; 
 the current 1s about two and one-half miles. 
 
 I know where the Desplaines goes down and joins the 
 Kankakee; I have fished there hundreds of times since 
 
 3107 1900. Below that point the river would be perhaps six 
 
 3108 feet deep. The water is deeper and swifter on the 
 Illinois than it is on the Desplaines. At that point the 
 Illinois River would be about two feet deeper than it 
 was before the junction was made by the Desplaines and 
 Kankakee where the two streams unite. 
 
 The Kankakee River at its mouth is about three feet 
 deep. Then after the Desplaines River would flow into it 
 it would raise the Illinois about two feet. I should judge 
 
 3109 that the current there is running about four miles an 
 hour. There is a tolerably steep slope at that point. 
 
 I have been acquainted with the Illinois River below 
 these points down as far as DePue Lake. That is located 
 
 3110 near Bureau Junction. I have been acquainted with 
 the river since the opening of the Sanitary District chan- 
 nel. I observed the river before the opening of the chan- 
 nel. I was hunting on Dresden Islands for a good many 
 years before the Sanitary District water was turned in 
 there and afterwards. Since the Sanitary District was 
 opened you could see something of a change in the level 
 
 3111 of the stream. On the point of the island I should judge 
 
683 
 
 they raised the water from eight to ten inches since it 
 was turned in. The river in ordinary stages is about 500 
 feet wide. It parts at the island, 250 feet on each side. 
 
 Cross-Examimation by Mr, Butters. 
 
 In order to tell the difference in the depth of the Lli- 
 nois River you would have to know the conditions, all 
 the conditions for a period of time before you attempted 
 to give the measurement on that part of the Llinois 
 
 3112 around Dresden. I never measured it, but I have hunted 
 there when I drew my boat up and we had a blind built 
 there and the water has never raised into that blind yet, 
 into the blind where we shoot ducks. That is about 12 
 
 ‘ inches above the water there. 
 
 I could not tell where the average low water stage 
 
 was. The average I was giving was on the water as I 
 
 have seen it at times. I don’t know what the conditions 
 
 were existing for a month or three or four weeks before 
 
 those dates. I don’t think it would necessarily depend 
 
 upon what the conditions were for a period of time be- 
 
 fore | took my measurements in order to get the same 
 
 period of time of the succeeding year and like conditions, 
 
 to tell the conditions. If I was down on the shore to hunt 
 
 3113 or fish there, I could tell whether it was higher or lower 
 
 3114 at that point. If I was wading across, going there to a 
 
 certain portion of it to hunt ducks, I would know whether 
 
 it was high or low. I think I would know the compara- 
 
 tive stages of water at that time. I don’t think a person 
 
 who lived on the bank of the river or near to it and sees 
 
 it from day to day would have a better opportunity than 
 
 one who saw it but once every year or so. He may not 
 observe it the same way. 
 
 T am familiar with the Desplaines River just below 
 Lyons. I know the spillway built there by the Sanitary 
 
684. 
 
 3115 District. It is alongside of the river. I knew that be- 
 fore that was put in a part of the water that flowed in the 
 Desplaines went into the Chicago and into Lake Michi- 
 gan. It turns that part of the water that used to run 
 into Lake Michigan this way. I don’t know how large 
 a part is drained by this structure. There must be some 
 
 3116 because it forced them to put it there. I don’t know 
 what the area was. 
 
 I am practically familiar with the Illinois River from 
 Joliet to La Salle in places. I could not say to La Salle, 
 just down to Starved Rock. 
 
 Q. Have you observed in your travels down there the 
 trees that are dead now, standing out in the water per- 
 petually from January Ist, one year to January Ist, the . 
 next year, have you observed that? 
 
 Mr. Cureerrienp: I object, assuming that is true. 
 
 a Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court, 
 the defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly 
 excepted. 
 
 A. There are dead trees there. 
 
 I know some trees grow in water, some that don’t. I 
 don’t know they used to be on dry land. I don’t know 
 whether they were ever on dry land. 
 
 Q. Isn’t it a fact that the water there, we will say, 
 since 1900, probably since 1902, has been many feet deep 
 around those trees and they are dead from the effects of 
 water? 
 
 Mr. CHIpeRFIELD: I object, if your Honor please. 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court, 
 the defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly 
 excepted. 
 3118 <A. TI could not say there was a foot deep or two inches 
 deep or anything. I know there are dead trees there and 
 that is all I do know about it. 
 
685 
 
 I don’t know those trees did not have their birth in 
 the water. 
 
 I have seen the water on the Bear Trap Dam four inches, 
 perhaps a foot deep going overthe Bear Trap Dam. The 
 Bear Trap Dam is something like the leaves of a book. 
 The open side would be down stream. When the dam is 
 clear up there is no water coming over. As they let it 
 down this way, the flow increases; tends to lower the 
 water in the channel, as they lower it more water comes 
 over. I could not tell what stage the water was when I 
 
 3119 saw the dam. I know the Sanitary District officials can 
 tell the number of cubic feet passing over the dam. The 
 
 3120 dam looks to be 150 to 200 feet wide. When they raise 
 
 the dam the tendency is to check the water, that is, it 
 
 runs faster and goes over in a thinner sheet. I pretend 
 to say that I could stand on the bridge looking down and 
 form a correct idea of the number of inches of that sheet 
 of water. I did not put a stick init. I can look down 
 
 3121 and I ean see the dam. It might have been 9 o’clock, 
 noon, or 4 o’clock in the afternoon when I was coming 
 back. I don’t think I ever saw two feet and a half or 
 three feet of water on the dam. I did not or I would have 
 told you. 
 
 The channel at Jefferson street is 220 feet wide. The 
 water was about 3 feet 6 to 4 feet deep, running about 2 
 to 24 miles an hour. I never measured it. I base my 
 judgment on an inspection of it. I never followed floats 
 
 3122 down there,: but I have followed blocks down there. The 
 Illinois flows about four miles an hour and about six 
 feet deep for about a mile from its source. I do not 
 know what portion in the Lllinois River in July, 1904, was 
 Sanitary water. I don’t know whether the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict engineers can tell how much water in the Illinois 
 is Sanitary District water. 
 
686 
 
 3123 Grorcre W. Guertin, a witness for the defendant, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is George W. Guertin. I reside in Chicago. 
 IT am connected with R. G. Dun & Company as chief clerk. 
 The business of R. G. Dun & Company consists of gath- 
 ering and distributing information for the benefit of 
 their subscribers to enable them to determine credit risks. 
 I believe the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company 
 is one of our subscribers. We have never had a very 
 3124 complete statement from the company. Without refer- 
 ence to whether it is a complete statement or not, we 
 have a statement from the La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company with reference to their financial condition. One 
 statement was received September 24, 1908, and another 
 one October 26, 1909. These are the only two statements 
 that we find. 
 Referring to the statement of October 28 or 26, 1909, 
 I have the envelope in which it was received. That state- 
 ment was received in due course of business by R. G. 
 Dun & Company and purports to be signed by H. S. Ha- 
 3125 zen, treasurer. It was received by R. G. Dun & Com- 
 pany October 29, 1909, and ever since that date it has 
 been in our files. It was received in an envelope ad- 
 dressed to W. A. Douglass, manager. It was one of the 
 printed envelopes and forms which is used by R. G. Dun 
 & Company. I am familiar with those facts. 
 The statement of September 24, 1908, was received 
 September 26, 1908. I have the envelope in which that 
 3126 statement was received. The statement purports to be 
 signed by H. 8. Hazen, treasurer. It appears to be on 
 the letterhead of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Com- 
 pany, and the envelope bears the stamp of the La Salle 
 
687 
 
 County Carbon Coal Company and postmarked La Salle, 
 Illinois. That was received by us in due course of busi- 
 ness. It has remained ever since in the files of R. G. 
 Dun & Company. The offices of R. G. Dun & Company 
 are located in the New York Life Building, Chicago, Ill- 
 nois. As chief clerk, as a part of the business which 
 I supervise, I have knowledge and custody of these pa- 
 pers. 
 
 3127 Mr. CurperFrELD: Now I desire, if your Honor please, 
 and we will not take them, they will be restored to you 
 in any event—lI desire to have the envelope addressed to 
 W. A. Douglass, manager, marked as an exhibit for 
 identification. 
 
 Whereupon said envelope was marked Exhibit ‘‘35.’’ 
 Mr. Curperrietp: I desire to have the statement ac- 
 companying the envelope which is dated October 26, 1909, 
 marked an appropriate number. 
 Whereupon said document was marked Exhibit ‘‘36.’’ 
 Mr. CuiperrieLtp: I desire to have the letter of Sep- 
 tember 24, 1908, marked as an exhibit for identification. 
 Whereupon said document was marked Exhibit ‘‘37.”’ 
 Mr. CuHrPerFieELD: I desire to have the envelope ac- 
 companying that marked as an exhibit for identification. 
 Whereupon said document was marked Exhibit ‘‘38.’’ 
 pieore Which said marked exhibits ‘°35,?? 36,77'“‘37’’ and 
 ‘¢38,’’ are in the words and figures, respectively, as fol- 
 lows: 
 Hxuteir ‘£35,’? 
 
 aL29 Exxutsit ‘‘36.’’ 
 Statement as a Basis for Credit 
 made to 
 Tue Mercantite Acrency, R. G. Dun & Co. 
 For the use of its subscribers only. 
 DS cele i et el ear et as OT uaa As: ogee 
 Engaged in the Coal business at .............. Co. of 
 
os 8 8 8s 6 6 & # 6 8 6 8 um, 6 8 6 oe 6 he Oe! 6 6 6. ere e eb 8 (eee, 6 Ce) a 5e eee ele 0 ee eee 
 
 Succeeding 5.54 is SE SA ee 
 Authorized capital $1,000,000. Number of shares 10, 000 
 Par: Values S243 ee eee 
 
 Amount of stock subscribed $........... Amount paid 
 in (in cash) $900,000. 
 Amount paid in otherwise than cash, aA how $:." see 
 
 10,000 not issued. 
 Limit of debt allowed? $ None How many acres coal 
 do you own? 23400 A 
 How many acres surface land do you own? 2100. What 
 is its value per acre? $100 to 250 per A. 
 How much (if any) is it encumbered? $ None How 
 many acres do you lease? None. 
 How much royalty do you pay? $ None How many 
 shafts do you operate 5 
 How much have you invested in engines and hoisting 
 machinery Pit eae ee eee 
 How much invested in tracks and tools? $.....:.79)%% 
 How much invested in coal cars? $ None Are ee 
 owned ‘or leased?” een 
 How many miner’s houses do you own? 179 What is 
 the value of each? $ Av 600 
 Kneumbrance, (if any) on same? $ None If machinery 
 is mortgaged, how muchw$, None. ..: 22.4.2 ee 
 What is the capacity of your mine? Your average daily 
 output? 
 What is the amount of good accounts? $ All good. 
 Amount of good notes? None—Cash only. 
 Amount of cash on hand or in’ bank @S. -..... | eee 
 Amount of bonded indebtedness $ None 
 
689 
 
 meeting asthe same secured? $...s 0. 0S. oi vege es atyy, 
 How much is the floating indebtedness? $ None. 
 Do you own a supply store in connection? No How 
 Meminave you invested therem?) $.. 0.005000. 0 eee. 
 Memmeetny fire Shy lets. Lor Pum ees BBO CO aes Beles eae et 
 Bers er TOS, 4.2! aclet et ee oe VE Rros mec nye tue 8 
 ee ate kon, eae AOE he NT CARR Sree... eke. ase 
 ee MD 2am feiss) Ate edt thats og sa Die 
 Sign a full name, La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company. 
 Signed by H. S. Hazen, Treas. 
 References: All bills of every kind are Audited and 
 paid the 20th of each month .......... No indebtedness 
 Perrier iow ber tidis date: seas) <2). c0d Pale hla ees 
 This information for your use only and Not to be given 
 to Public. 
 We don’t ask much Cr. and feel like Vanderbilt on a 
 certain occasion. 
 Remarks: 
 
 3130 Tipit "3 (.°° 
 ‘*La Sauxe, Lll., September 24, 1908. 
 R. G. Dun & Co., 
 Chicago. 
 GENTLEMEN : 
 
 Have yours of the 23rd inst., with request for state- 
 ment of finances of this company, and beg’ to say for 
 the reason that there is no probability of our company 
 ever being called upon to issue bonds, or ask large or 
 extensive credits, we do not think it necessary that the 
 financial standing of the company should become com- 
 mon property of every Tom, Dick and Harry, who wants 
 a report. The Company’s assets figure very largely over 
 a $1,000,000,000.00 and we have no encumbrances on the 
 
690 
 
 property, no bonds, and no debts of any kind, except such 
 as are carried by the stockholders themselves. 
 
 Our liabilities consist of small merchandise bills, and 
 bills for repairs to machinery. Outside of this, we incur 
 no indebtedness, except occasionally to buy an engine, 
 or something of that kind. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 (Signed) H.S. Hazen, 
 
 Treasurer.”’ 
 
 SIS Hib ecco 
 3132 Mr. CuyiperrieLtp: I desire to offer in evidence Ex- 
 hibits 35, being the envelope addressed to W. A. Doug- 
 lass, 36, being the statement made by Howard S. Hazen, 
 treasurer, the letter of September 24, 1908, marked Ex- 
 hibit ‘‘37,’’ and the letter accompanying the same marked 
 Exhibit ‘‘38.’’ I desire to offer the same and each of 
 
 them in evidence. 
 
 Objection by plaintiff; objection sustained; to which 
 ruling of the court the defendant by its counsel 
 then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CurperrieLp: Your Honor, this is a very import- 
 ant matter and before the court passes on it I want to be 
 heard briefly. 
 
 The Courr: Well, I will hear you. You want to be 
 heard now or let them take out the original. 
 
 Mr. CuIperFIELD: Well, this witness is here now, and 
 if it is anything that goes to other than the materiality 
 or other than the foundation— 
 
 3133 Mr. O’Conor: We don’t care to cross-examine. 
 
 Mr. Butters: We don’t object to the foundation. 
 
 The Courr: Well, I think I will overrule the objection 
 on Mr. Butters’ statement.’ I overrule the objection. 
 
 Mr. Butters: We want to be heard on the materiality. 
 
 The Court: I will hear you then. I will hear you 
 now. 
 
691 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: We would like to take it up out of the 
 hearing of the jury. 
 
 The Courr: I will hear you. You may retire for a 
 few minutes, gentlemen. 
 
 (Jury retires.) 
 
 The Wirness: Will you keep the papers here? 
 
 Mr. Cutrperrietp: At the appropriate time I will ask 
 to have compared copies substituted. 
 
 The Court: I will hear what you have to say now. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Let me read the letter first. 
 
 The Court: I don’t know what is in the letter. I am 
 assuming there is a statement there relative to the value 
 of the land. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: There is. 
 
 The Court: So far as that is concerned, the other 
 part of it is not proper. 
 
 3134 Mr. Cuiperrietp: That is all we are concerned in. I 
 don’t know whether there is a statement in the letter in 
 relation to the land. 
 
 The Court: If there is I will exclude it. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: The only thing is they figure the assets 
 the same as subsequently figured on it, that is the whole 
 statement. The materiality of it I object to, and every- 
 thing else in this statement except the value of this land. 
 
 The Court: Anything else I will exclude. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Yes, that is all we are thinking our- 
 selves incompetent. 
 
 The Court: Yes. And of this exhibit that has no bear- 
 ing, contains no statement with reference to the value of 
 the land, I would exclude without any further discus- 
 sion. 
 
 3135 Mr. O’Conor: Now the date of this Exhibit ‘‘36’’ is 
 October 26, 1909. Now this is the way it reads, ‘‘How 
 many acres of coal do you own? A. 23,400 acres. How 
 many acres of surface land do you know? 2100.’ 
 
692 
 
 The Court: Well, that is irrelevant. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: ‘‘What is its value per acre? One 
 hundred to 250 per A.’’? Now our contention in regard 
 to this is it was made on October 26, 1909, and it is too 
 remote. Simply a general statement here without any 
 reference to any land and is made some years, some nine 
 years almost— 
 
 The Court: You cannot raise that question in view of 
 Mr. Butters’ statement that it does not concern this land. 
 I have admitted the proof because he said he made no 
 objection to the foundation. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: No, no. 
 
 The Courr: Just ran to the competency of it. 
 
 Mr. Burtrrers: That is all that I wanted to assert to 
 the court. 
 
 The Court: The materiality of it. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: Simply in that connection I made the 
 objection, there is no reason why it should not be sus- 
 tained. ‘There isn’t any authority in this wide world 
 that would let us prove the value of the land nine years 
 afterwards, and if there isn’t there isn’t any authority 
 to allow them to disprove it. My objection—probably I 
 
 3136 ought to let somebody else object. 
 
 Mr. O’Connor:. I didn’t understand Mr. Butters’ ob- 
 jection in that spirit, your Honor. 
 
 The Court: Sir? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I didn’t understand the objection in the 
 same light the court did. 
 
 The Court: Well, the record shows what he said. 
 
 Mr. Butters: What does it show I said? 
 
 The Court: You may proceed with your argument. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Well, that is all there is to it so far as 
 J am concerned. 
 
 The Court: Objection overruled. Call in your jury. 
 The statement with reference to the land you may read. 
 the balance I will exclude. 
 
3137 
 
 693 
 
 Mr. CuiperrieLtp: Very good. I may read the date? 
 The Courr: Yes, you may read the date. 
 
 Mr. Curperrretp: And I suppose the signature? 
 The Courr: Yes, sir. 
 
 (Whereupon the jurors resumed their places.) 
 Mr. O’Conor: What exhibit is that? 
 
 Mr. CureerFiretp: Exhibit ‘‘36.’’ 
 
 La Sats, Iniivors, October 26, 1909. 
 @. How many acres of surface land do you own? A. 
 2100. 
 Q. What is its value per acre? A. $100 to $250 per 
 
 acre, 
 La Saute County Carson CoaL Company, 
 
 By H. 8. Hazzn, 
 Treasurer.’’ 
 
 Amos R. Brockway, a witness for defendant, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Amos R. Brockway. I live in, Joliet and 
 have resided there 35 years. Am engaged in the livery 
 business. I live on Hurtmore street. I reside four miles 
 
 3138 from the controlling works of the Sanitary District. I 
 
 have been acquainted with the Desplaines River all my 
 life. Am 55 years of age. Before the year 1900, you 
 could walk across the Desplaines River in lots of places. 
 I could not state positively its width but below the old 
 dams that used to be there it would be 250 feet, some- 
 where along there, below Jefferson street. 
 
 Q. I don’t want to get into the city yet, I want to 
 keep up above where the Sanitary District went in. A. 
 All right. 
 
 At the point that is called the basin it would probably 
 
s 
 
 694 
 
 be 300 feet wide. At that point before the Sanitary Dis- 
 
 3139 trict was opened the Desplaines River was not over 150 
 feet long. In dry weather it was very low. During the 
 last eight or ten years with reference to the stream car- 
 rying more or less water there isn’t any material differ- 
 ence. It might be a few inches. I don’t think there is 
 any material difference. I understand you refer to the 
 old river above the point where the Sanitary District 
 
 3140 channel comes in. I know where the Sanitary District 
 channel comes into the Desplaines River. It is at the 
 Lockport controlling works. I have seen them from 
 time to time. 
 
 The most water I ever saw going over the Bear Trap 
 dam was eight or ten inches. All the water that comes 
 through the controlling works enters into the Desplaines 
 River basin. It then flows through Joliet and is found 
 at Robey street bridge. Below that point the river nar- 
 rows a little over 200 feet wide. There are concrete walls 
 
 3141 on each side and between those walls the river flows. I 
 see it almost every day. As the water flows in the chan- 
 nel containing the Desplaines River and the Sanitary 
 District waters it is not over two and one-half to three 
 
 3142 feet deep. It does not flow over two miles and one- 
 half an hour. At that point all the water which is 
 discharged from the Sanitary District channel and all 
 the water which is contained in the Desplaines River 
 flows through. From that point it goes on down to the 
 Desplaines. 
 
 I have been to the point where the Desplaines and Kan- 
 kakee unite since 1900 on several occasions. I have seen 
 the Kankakee River just above where it unites. The 
 Kankakee River is the largest stream. Just below the 
 point where they come in, the Illinois River is from 
 three to five feet deep and maybe 500 feet wide. Just be- 
 
 3143 low the point of junction since 1900, there has been a 
 
695 
 
 difference of between seven and eight inches in the Ih- 
 nois River. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor,. 
 
 Where the river has been restricted from 400 feet to 
 3144 250 feet at Joliet it has not deepened the water there. 
 It runs through faster. It has not deepened it two to 
 four inches. There is two or three inches difference 
 from what there was in former years. I don’t know 
 3145 how much water is turned down into the Desplaines 
 by the Sanitary District of Chicago on account of the 
 spillway at Lyons, or how much of that water goes into 
 the Kankakee at or near its mouth. I could not deter- 
 mine how much water there is in the Sanitary District 
 by taking gauge readings at the Sanitary District dam 
 and taking gauge readings at the Desplaines River. You 
 might know how much water goes over the bear trap 
 dam but you wouldn’t know how much water came into 
 the river below, you couldn’t measure that. It does not 
 3146 flow regular every day. I never measured the water 
 flowing over the Bear Trap Dam. I know it is measured. 
 If you take and measure the flow over the Bear Trap 
 Dam and the flow of the Desplaines River, you would not 
 know the difference in the aggregate flow by simply 
 adding the figures together at that point. If you knew 
 3147 the flow of the Desplaines over the Bear Trap Dam, by 
 deducting the Desplaines flow from the total flow you 
 would know what was coming from the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict. 
 Below the Bear Trap Dam the valey at places is quite 
 wide and others it runs very narrow. 
 I never testified for the Sanitary District before. I 
 3148 have no feeling in this law suit. I came to Ottawa last 
 night. I went to the Clifton House and met a whole 
 lot of people I didn’t know. I went to room 214. There 
 
696 
 
 wasn’t any maps or plats in that room. I have no objec- 
 3149 tion to answering your questions. 
 The flow of the Desplaines has increased during the 
 last ten years. I couldn’t tell how much. I know that a 
 tremendous lot of territory has been drained into it. 
 3150 Through Joliet it has increased two to three inches; it 
 3151 is not as wide as it used to be. The Desplaines flows 
 in about 18 miles below Joliet. The water from the dam 
 goes into the Desplaines a short distance below the dam. 
 I go down to the river there at the bridge at Joliet. 
 I said the increase had been about two or three inches 
 3152 and the places I mean where it goes faster is where 
 the stream itself has been narrowed. A lot of places 
 where it has not been deepened, where they had dredged 
 if sous. 
 
 Frep Hawtey, a witness for the defendant, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Fred Hawley, I reside at Pekin, Illinois. 
 I am a licensed engineer and river pilot. Age 37. £ 
 was born between Hennepin and Peru on a canal boat. 
 I have been on the river ever since. I have been boat- 
 ing between Chicago and Grafton; done most of it on the 
 Mississippi and done some of it on the Illinois. I have 
 boated on the Illinois and Michigan Canal. 
 
 In a general way I have boated on the Jack Robin- 
 
 3154 son, City of Henry, Peerless, Niagara and Joliet. It 
 
 would take quite a while to name them all. I have been 
 on most of the river boats around here. The William 
 Wallace of Joliet. 
 
 I know the Illinois River in the vicinity of La Salle. 
 I know where the coal lands are just at the edge of 
 La Salle. 
 

 

 
697 
 
 [I knew the high water in the Llinois. River in 1900 
 and the bottoms opposite Peru and La Salle. I have seen 
 the lands when they were overflowed opposite Peru. Dur- 
 
 3155 ing the last eight or ten years I have worked on the 
 river as pilot and engineer. I know a boat by the name 
 of City of Henry. I ran that boat in 1906 and 1907. 
 I know the bars in the Illinois River above the Henry 
 3156 lock. Six years ago in August I was aground there 
 and lay there 26 hours. Captain Swain came up with a 
 erew and helped put the barge off and came up after- 
 wards with a steam boat and helped pull it off with a 
 line. The pilot of the boat was Mark Houston. 
 
 I was boating there then. Our boat drew four feet 
 eight at the stern and four feet. at the bow. 
 
 I have observed the current in the Illinois River since 
 
 3157 1900. The current is about three miles an hour. Before 
 that there wasn’t any current at all. Since 1900, I have 
 had an opportunity to observe the stages of water in 
 the Illinois River and compare it with the stage of water 
 before that time. Since that time there has been a differ- 
 ence of about a foot of water. I go by the Henry Dam. 
 Twelve inches is my opinion. I had an opportunity to 
 observe the rainfall during the last ten years. 
 
 3158 —  Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 Prior to 1900, the water flowed over the Henry Dam 
 in low water. Five years ago I was in Henry laying 
 there and the water was about the same. I should judge 
 a foot of a fall there. Before 1900, they put flash boards 
 on the dam. I saw them before 1900. Put there to hold 
 the water up. I should judge there would be about a 
 foot of difference in the fall of the water. The flash 
 boards were about 12 inches. They have not been used 
 
 3159 at the Henry Dam in the last six or eight years. 
 
698 
 
 I could not. tell how much water is going over the 
 Henry Dam at the present time. About five years ago 
 there was about a foot difference, a foot in the fall. I 
 was not there in the summer. In 1911, there was a fall 
 there at that time but I don’t remember just how much 
 it was. I know we had to lock through, everything had 
 to lock through. My judgment is as to how much the 
 Illinois River has been raised in the last ten years is 
 based on my experience at the Henry Dam. I was not 
 there last year; I was there the year before. I cannot 
 
 3160 say how much we had to lock through. 
 
 I should judge the Henry Dam is about 12 feet wide. 
 I don’t know how wide the bridge is at Peru or the river 
 
 3161 at La Salle. J should judge it was 400 feet wide. 
 
 3162 Mr. Cureerrretp: I want to offer in evidence a certi- 
 fied copy of the map of the Partridge Drainage and Levee 
 District of Woodstock County, certified by the clerk of 
 the County Court of Woodstock County, with the seal of 
 the court attached and I will ask to have it marked as 
 an exhibit. 
 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘40.’’) 
 
 Mr. Cuieerriztp: I was to offer in evidence a certified 
 copy of a map of the East Peoria Drainage and Levee 
 District in Tazewell County, certified to by the county 
 clerk of Tazewell County, with the seal of the court at- 
 tached thereto, and I will ask to have it marked as an 
 exhibit. 
 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘41.’’) 
 
 Mr. CuHiperrirtp: I want to offer in evidence a certi- 
 fied copy of the map of the Spring Lake Drainage and 
 Levee District in Tazewell County certified to by the 
 county clerk of Tazewell County with the seal of the court 
 attached thereto and I ask to have it marked as an ex- 
 hibit 
 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘42.’’) 
 
699 
 
 Mr. Curprerrirtp: I want to offer in evidence a cer- 
 tified copy of the map of the Lacey Levee and Drain- 
 age District in Fulton County, certified to by Austin 
 
 3163 Onion, clerk of the County Court of Fulton County, with 
 the seal of the court attached thereto, and I will ask to 
 have it marked as an exhibit. 
 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘43.’’) 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: I want to offer in evidence the cer- 
 tified copy of the plat of the Coal Creek Levee and Drain- 
 age District in Schuyler County, certified to by the county 
 clerk, Isaac C, Lewis, with the seal of the court attached 
 thereto, and I will ask to have it marked as an exhibit. 
 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘44.’’) 
 
 Mr. CuHriprerFieLp: I want to offer in evidence the cer- 
 tified copy of the plat or the map of the Crane Creek 
 Drainage and Levee District of Schuyler County, Illi- 
 nois, certified to by Isaac Lewis, clerk of the County 
 Court, with the seal of the court attached thereto, and 
 I will ask to have it marked as an exhibit. 
 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘45.’’) 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLD: I want to offer in evidence the cer- 
 tified copy of the map of the Magee Creek Levee and 
 Drainage District of Pike County, Pike and Brown Coun- 
 ties, certified to by William 8. Binns, clerk of the County 
 Court, and the seal of the court attached thereto and I 
 will ask to have it marked as an exhibit. 
 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘46.’’) 
 
 3164 Mr. Curprrrirtp: JI want to offer in evidence a cer- 
 tified copy of the map of the Scott County Drainage 
 District in Scott County, Illinois, certified to by J. R. 
 King, clerk of the County Court of Scott County, with 
 the seal of the court attached thereto, and I will ask to 
 have it marked as an exhibit. 
 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘47.’’) 
 
 Mr. Currerrietp: I want to offer in evidence a cer- 
 
700 
 
 tified copy of a map of the Big Swan Drainage and 
 Levee District in Scott County, Illinois, certified to by 
 J. R. King, clerk of the County Court of Scott County, 
 with the seal of the court attached thereto, and I will 
 ask to haye it marked as an exhibit. 
 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘48.’’) 
 
 Mr. Curperrretp: I want to offer in evidence certi- 
 fied copy of the plat of the Hill View Drainage and 
 Levee District of Green County, [linois, certified to by 
 Thomas D. Doyle, county clerk of the County Court of 
 Green County, with the seal of the court attached thereto 
 and I will ask to have it marked as an exhibit. 
 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘49.’’) 
 
 Mr. Curperrretp: I want to offer in evidence certi- 
 fied copy of a map of the Hartwell Drainage and Levee 
 District, in Green County, certified to by Thomas D. 
 
 3165 Doyle, clerk of the County Court of Green County, with 
 
 the seal of the court attached thereto, and I will ask to 
 have it marked as an exhibit. 
 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘50.’’) 
 
 Mr. CurprrFreLtp: I want to offer in evidence certi- 
 fied copy of the map of the Keats Drainage and Levee 
 District of Green County, Illinois, certified to by Thomas 
 D. Doyle, clerk of the County Court of Green County, 
 with the seal of the court attached thereto, and I will 
 ask to have it marked as an exhibit. 
 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘51.’’) 
 
 Mr. CurrerrireLp: I want to offer in evidence certi- 
 fied copy of a map of the Eldred Drainage and Levee 
 District in Green County, Illinois, certified to by Thomas 
 D. Doyle, clerk of the County Court of Green County, 
 with the seal of the court attached thereto, and I will ask 
 to have it marked as an exhibit. 
 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘52.’’) 
 
 Mr. CurperFreLp: [I want to offer in evidence certi- 
 
701 
 
 fied copy of a map of the Nutwood Drainage and Levee 
 District in Jersey County, Lllinois, certified to by John 
 C. McGrath, clerk of the County Court of Jersey County, 
 with the seal of the court attached thereto and I will 
 ask to have it marked as an exhibit. 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘53.’’) 
 3166 Mr. Curprrrigrtp: I want to offer in evidence certi- 
 fied copy of a map of the Mauvaise Terre Drainage and 
 Levee District of Scott County, Illinois, certified to by 
 J. RK. King, clerk of the County Court of Scott County, 
 with the seal of the court attached thereto, and I will 
 ask to have it marked as an exhibit. 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘54.’’) 
 Mr. CuiperrigeLp: I want to offer in evidence certified 
 copy of the map of the Coon Rod Drainage and Levee 
 District in Morgan County, Illinois, certified to by C. A. 
 Bowen, clerk of.the County Court of Morgan County, 
 with the seal of the court attached thereto, and I will 
 ask to have it marked as an exhibit. 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘55.’’) 
 Mr. CuirerrieLtp: I also want to offer in evidence cer- 
 tified copy of the plat of Coal Creek Drainage District 
 of Marshall County, Illinois, certified to by Thomas A. 
 Connell, clerk of the County Court of Marshall County, 
 with the seal of the court attached thereto, and I wry 
 ask to have it marked as an exhibit. _ 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘56.’’) 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: I want to offer in evidence certified 
 copy of the plat of the Otter Creek Drainage District, 
 in Fulton County, Illinois, certified to by Austin Onion, 
 3167 clerk of the County Court of Fulton County, with the 
 seal of the court attached thereto, and I will ask to 
 have it marked as an exhibit. 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘57.’’) 
 Mr. Curreerrietp: And finally I want to offer in evi- 
 
3168 
 3169 
 ol70 
 HOA 
 dl72 
 3173 
 o174 
 d175 
 3176 
 177 
 3178 
 oLl79 
 5180 
 0181 
 3182 
 0183 
 3184 
 3185 
 3185 
 0187 
 
 702 
 
 dence certified copy of the plat of Hagar Slough and 
 Drainage District, in Cass County, Llinois, certified to by 
 Leo Schyles, clerk of the County Court of Cass County, 
 with the seal of the court attached thereto, and I will ask 
 to have it marked as an exhibit. 
 
 (Said document was thereupon marked Exhibit ‘‘58.’’) 
 
 Mr. Curpsrrietp: Each of these certified copies of 
 maps I offer in evidence in connection with the testimony 
 of the witnesses. 
 
 Which said maps marked Exhrbits ‘‘39”’ to ‘58,’ 
 both inclusive, are in the words, figures and characters 
 following, viz.: 
 
 EXHIBIT °°39.7? 
 Hixutsit ‘‘40.’’ 
 Eixutrsit ‘*41,’’ 
 Hixursir ‘‘42,’’ 
 Exxurpit ‘*43.’’ 
 Eixuterr '°44,’? 
 HXHTBIT) -°40. 
 Eixurpit ‘‘46.’’ 
 ~ Exuterr ‘‘47.”? 
 Exursit ‘48.’ 
 Exxuisir ‘‘49,’? 
 Exxursir ‘‘50.’’ 
 Bixatrerr “51,7? 
 HixXHIsrr so2e 
 Eixutsit '°53.? 
 Hixuretrt -‘'54,??’ 
 Hxieriscda. 2 
 Eixuisit ‘‘56.”’ 
 Exuisir ‘‘57.’? 
 jib@en asian “A5}ey 4 
 
vre . 
 Site ae 
 a ¢ 
 2 RG 
 Ahisa Seaton 
 
 VO Male +r 
 a) 3 
 
 og 
 
 ve 
 
 va 
 
 a7 
 
 st 4z 
 
 Aes 2 A Stwady rial 
 » 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 e 
 * 
 
 r19 
 ba § 
 2. ~ : ° 
 
 EL pn ty 
 
 y 
 z 
 
 aR 
 
 If } N/ TE LT Af sn iwcutsaceie 
 
 DRAINMACE ANP LEVEE : ; 
 
 | 
 |. » PAST RICE 
 a 
 
 ‘ 
 
 Dheciley een 
 y Panel 
 4 , De nt A RR ET 
 | mm 
 . Pan ies rhe Ba umdy Sovak : 
 : hnnnns, Pomandy 7 Chane ad 
 | Via P A tase af Gomwnsnmnge «or 
 © tas Cw eeanar,, 
 
 Clark of the Aine by Park 
 
 mp 229 
 
 Ps 
 Sey 
 
 *. 
 ~5 
 
 
 

 
“ 
 
 
 
 TAINAGE ANDO LEVEE DISTRICT 
 
 WoeearlORD COUNT) LLINOIS 
 
 7a? 
 
 ' fA 
 
 Pians Foe Lavht3 ano Direnhs Te Accompany 
 MEP ORT On SAME 
 ar : 
 
 CoS A Denn Everntee 
 
 Peoria / 
 
 on 
 - 
 » 
 : 
 : 
 = 
 i 
 : 
 v 
 — 
 - 
 at 
 3 
 33 
 Sax 
 in 
 aN 
 
 Beate / mcr~ bee feet 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tectia 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wo00fokRO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mantz 
 oo" 
 in 
 
 ee ys 
 
 Neri — 
 eet Peeen wit 
 es 
 
 Lif 
 
St y3 ee 
 BP ton 
 
 “_ 
 
 ys RG 
 
 Foe ta 
 EE OP a Sa 
 
 
 
“Tél s2ens5s0 
 2 swe 
 
 = ae ee isn@isNosD 3a ol Gasodoag 
 > ore & "Sanz ce) gO WalisiGg 459 aYW 
 a | “SiONIn IT 
 
 yo Si Vig Fi NT 
 ALNASD WISKMsaZzZv7L 
 
 wt 
 
 ZsAaq GNYyY sovNivag anv Srisas 
 
 HLA OM C2 SIHCNMOL 
 HLAON #2 S/HENMOL 
 
 Pele? Perea Ae oxen DISz70 
 
 ae Fee /YO ate SIM OL‘*D ~! MA 
 Nr Ie FeniswwO 3. s7H>2L'C 
 Mite Anestag - SIH24'C 
 
 : 
 | 
 
 ae 
 
 MONM a Ey 
 : 
 : 
 
 4 
 
 . 
 - 
 * 
 CN Ot te ere 8 ee ne 
 
 y 
 a ao 
 “i 
 
 
 

 
Fxh.43 
 
 slioloog = lui >1>@ 
 
 ig FERRE OSS Se ee 
 
 
 
 2aAa7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘y og2 
 yap abuoy ow 
 
 
 
 BGS Rag FB be 0G gd wo See Chom og Te 
 
 1owisid ASAT] AgOVI 
 “IWNIDINO 40 d¥W 
 
 vor? 
 
 Z 
 
 ya [jabuoy oy 
 
 
 
 
 
 yore a 
 1914/9 GUO 7 eA 
 
 
 
 yor o€ 
 
 yay /abuor ef 
 
 
 
 usez 76 sobveg 
 Yeon pee sdiysuere, 
 Jez 6139 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ye 
 s2pouy 
 
 
 
 yo2e - 
 sepoyy AA “4°S 
 
 TNT 10/4°7 
 
 
 
 
 
 ¥26 $¢/ 
 sepeyy H +4leM 
 
 
 
 VOW 
 smn lif WY 
 
 
 
 YULIF (PAOLO7 
 
 
 
 N 
 ’ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 vos Vos 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ¥ ov 
 Feo ‘oy Ylagez/7 
 
 
 
 s9poyy M vyor 
 
 YNvAVE 
 
 
 
 v oy iat gl 3 
 dds wa | 12d FF 3 
 
 
 
 shed 
 
 
 
 ab 
 lina 
 
 Nv 
 
 / 
 
 / iff 
 ff 
 
i 
 
 
 
 {Tey 
 
 =. 
 
 Pa 
 
 ee 
 7 ay 
 ~ .* 
 
 ead ai? 
 + 
 ; 
 a ; IS 
 py ee 
 a 
 ¥ 
 4 
 
 
 
 poe oan 
 
 oko 
 
 - ~ 5 
 Sas 
 
 + 
 
 o 
 . 
 hy, 
 
 oil 
 Meth 
 oe Ae 
 
 . 
 
 ee tee 
 4a eh, 4 
 
 ra 
 
 ¢ ‘ 2 
 oes pe 
 4 < , 
 om. 
 = 
 
 
 
 mee 
 
 i 
 
 Fess 
 4 
 
 ‘x 
 w 
 
 thoy tei apeorit 
 wr ee: allel 
 
 
 
 recs 
 ~~ gt RY ; ps 
 PR ee a 
 
 
 
 
 
 : 
 ata 
 koa 
 
 = 
 
 bas 
 
 iid 
 
 <; 
 
 Cs 
 
 34 
 
 Pan. Tee yw ae tates 
 
 pon ad 
 
 - 
 . } 
 
 é >. 
 £ 
 ;* 
 > Saal 
 ; 
 7 
 7+ 
 % 
 
 A. 
 —. 
 - 
 . 
 io 
 
 i 
 t v 4} 
 
 ‘ *. " 2s a 
 Zs 
 
 , sin terete ee ht a aad 
 
 a le s* ee 
 

 
 
 
 
 Se Baar 6 
 COAL CREEK . 5 ae 
 
 DRAINAGE 2LEVEE DISTRICT : 7 
 SCHUY. ay ia rs ‘soe 
 LLLINOLS . BR yg Ee am 
 PLAT,PLANS << PROFILES <= IMPROVEMENTS | 
 
 a’ 
 Fock 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LAAM a Eaaue—} LIST RAS Me TIE PO ae 
 Tress 5 MOMs SO 
 
 ee ee 
 
 = * ofA t Ly i4 eS C.7 TS fae tant Lined = seen eth 
 Sie LP ROS” br SMe eT oi” gt A 
 
 = = gh fe ~- 
 te. Jaz rz af-PA0rines __ > __fierias ht re 
 
 Z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 + ton. : 
 SS ee eee 
 
 
 
 \ 
 — 
 -\ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 \ 
 — 
 
 
 
aha, 
 
 i a a Fac 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 4 
 >= 
 5 
 
 u 
 
 Wn 
 IN 
 
 MOIS 
 CMLL S A BROS 
 
 > 
 Xn 
 T 
 L 
 ° 
 
 ‘ 
 ihe) 
 
 ‘ 
 dis g 
 zs 
 : . 
 q : 
 i « 
 ts 
 “ 
 > 
 2 's 
 bd 
 %) 
 
 CRANE CREEK 
 Schuyler County Ill 
 
 Commissvorners 
 
 
 
 LEVEE & DRAIN 
 
 
 

 
 So 7 ue . Ath 
 i ° A * e * 
 ss hd ‘ j 
 ? ‘ + 4 ¥ ; 
 *\) . ae 
 on lk 
 a .. 
 
 ote 
 
 f 
 
 eee a 
 es. 
 ie 
 
 - ‘ oa 
 : daa 
 >" * vw, Pi * 
 ~*~ i 
 ve my ¢ oF % 
 q aon 
 M a ; 
 nae) x 4 i” i 
 a ‘ * 
 
 oy 
 = *,. 
 
 ms i a ; a Pao? 
 % en Vay Pong ine Bs 
 " ’ * » ee ¥ & oh 
 ee F Bere of fod 
 , ¥ a t « ¥ 
 ; , S is ae ee 3 
 < i yo b oe & 
 i : %, 
 x 4 Le Ld %, Ss 
 4 a 4 b Fig . 7 a wv 
 * < e ‘ 4% -" : 
 Pi ‘ be Chee ONS im m 
 5 et 4 bat t iB? ste 
 Z ae ts «te r ” 4 
 z *a Ea a Pe 4 se +e i 
 ‘ A y ; ‘ 
 L ~ ae +¢ / 
 he Be te cdi as 
 ; Werte. oe ‘ 
 i a sewn ' 
 ‘ r Pere Tew ‘ A % 
 t ohn ; 
 nae a 1 
 Yee oy 
 a a 
 Ce 
 
 Li 
 5 , 
 ; 
 rn 
 Oy 
 Vig 
 x 
 ° 
 £ 
 ak 
 
 
 
 
MCGEE CREEK LEVEE : 
 ORAINAGE DISTRICT 
 Beown & 
 PIKE COUNTY 
 Scale 3 mile to inch 
 
 LELEMME Se 
 
 
 
>i y 
 
 a 
 
 - 
 
 pers 14 ew” 
 
 : , Fa 
 4 2 m 
 oe 
 p44 
 ie ee te Pgh 
 1) he 
 a cy 18H 
 . pea 
 Hf Fees 2 
 iit ae 
 a { ' a 
 Fig 
 . oe 
 
 >i 
 2 
 . 
 
 
 
SEG D | Sase 
 
 . POA. 
 
 POA, t 
 4 
 
 GL” SOW RD & SOW 
 ry 
 
 pai 
 
 Am 3a aan 
 ay SIRS Mn, 
 - TH 
 
 ome 
 
 £. RENNERER 
 
 errepe eet 
 
 tise 
 
 ste, 
 
 sen 
 
 AWARD CONTRF ORD 
 
 Fernie 
 
 Wiehe ig 
 
 we 
 
 ow 
 
 to WL 
 
 ed 
 
 HAL BROWN DO ALAN 
 
 OA 
 
 é 
 z 
 z 
 4 
 ? 
 . 
 
 i 
 
 ee 
 CM. SIMMONS 
 
 “—o" 
 
 t 
 3 . aa 
 hal 
 
 PON 
 
 Ai Fh ee 
 
 + 
 
 0a 
 SLINER 
 
 ©. BEARD 
 
 fda , 
 tha/s¥~ 
 
 nae 
 
 wean 
 
 Ap HESS 
 
 ana 
 
 Panne 
 Men 
 
 ud 
 
 in dng ate, 
 
 L.OMESS 
 
 “aa. 
 
 Wail 
 SCOTT COUNTY | ae 
 DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRI CT 
 
 Scott County Illinois, 
 onic cme s “a 
 
 Mh Mareh 
 COMNAIIONERE | 
 
 MAMMOTT Fei 
 
 Pe worTh 
 aN 
 
 6 NTON INTE AI NORTH 
 
 smearr 
 
 N 
 
 WR LEADS 
 
 Bie hae 
 
 en 
 
 ¢ 
 AP MARSH 
 
 LAULY 
 
 MELLEN WODAAND 
 “aa ~~ ow 
 
 STAN F ORIG LENMAN 
 
 ve 
 
 aae 
 
 a 
 OW HUGHES 
 
 CARRAT EC WAAs 
 
 FOL ANCE 
 > 
 — 
 
  pererneg 
 7 
 : 
 
 PAM 
 = 
 
 PECL 
 
 * 
 
 is-" 
 
 ad ad 
 
 oe 
 
 14.4 
 
 2 
 
 Sl LOHREA 
 
 HORT ER 
 
 Mery 
 Mi connst 4 
 weenars 
 
 . 
 MENRY 
 
 FP ROULITR 
 " e 
 
 WORMALL 
 
 “ue 
 
 MME UE 
 
 1A 
 
 
 

 
f . 
 Cr pow 28 ow 
 ps et ~~» 
 
 _- 
 
 ’ 
 : 
 
 7 a 5, ; 
 Ay hig 
 ‘ z : 
 MELON OF MLE MO BL 
 MAMON CF ABMO NSA 
 } = 
 - : : > 
 . 
 
 # 
 oe eee 
 
 | 
 | 
 
 i cle: 
 ee ie 
 
 ME a ta 6 
 
 oo ote eaen 
 
 rate fe 
 
 oe Oe ow sere 
 OF 8 Pe Se” awe 
 ope 
 
 - 
 
 —_— 
 
 I] Ajunog 1,09¢ 
 nr) t= A ny (6 GRC IC BANC 1 Ge? ee iS NIVUd 
 NVMS OIG 
 
 AO 
 
 dvViw 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 Exh, £F% 
 
 SHEET N@./. 
 
 HILLVIEW DRAINAGE & LEVEE DISTRICT 
 /N 
 GREENE Co. &€ SCOTT Co /LINOIS. 
 
 JSOEL A. CUNNING HAM. 
 COMMISSIONE 2S. LOUIS LOWENSTEIN. 
 - ££. Warr. 
 
 ci are J. G@ MELLUISH 
 Civi, ENGINEER | 
 
 BLoomneron /LL. 
 MARCH 1906. 
 
 Sease 2im= ton, 
 
 + Be. btneras, Oaainaet Lor 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 bet /5 ™ 
 fe =) ' 
 a. | 
 = 
 
 Va. /< 
 
‘ a 
 
 
 
w= 
 
 f: 
 
 Se ; — ; wa ; Sec BO SHe 2g 
 a FO . : © $ec3/ Ser 3a 
 ye? . / 7 
 
 Nh i eteconan 
 
 —_ 
 
 tam S- -, Se 
 
 \ 
 
 Seca Sek x2 
 Sec b Seed \ " 
 | ‘ 
 
 Sel Seco f Sec.3 Sec & 
 
 Sea s/ASec 7 WOT $e0.8 See 
 
 i 
 3 
 : 
 j 
 % 
 \ 
 
 Sena sre 7 
 Sel Src lb 
 
 gectecspreaRirtascensintdy eet 
 
 f 
 
 \ 
 
 2 
 SOCLI FS 0 16 Bea lE Ser LF 
 SEC RSAC SLA 7 SCA BY EO. 
 
 a 
 
 sereeces Santieee ee? 
 
 Sea A SeOLF 
 
 HARTWELL. 
 DRAINAGE ¢eLEVER DISTRICT 
 
 6 2 
 (ireene County Il. 
 CHAS W BRON CHO SA LOGIN OER SACHA BOM> 420, Pad’ 
 
 Bos Lwmyphsve 
 POSER OAOL A (ASB COC 
 
 (foward Cor rer 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 eet tal > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ : at Ved som 
 J 4 be 4 s u 4 
 7 
 ” ¢ 
 * be 1 . 4 * . ¢ 5 
 a " >! 
 ‘ ey +s 
 2 a : ° 
 ae , we Tork ‘ 
 ‘ ~~ i 
 Sep titles 
 ee TAL: 5 aR 
 - le . 
 ! * 
 . - et 
 ‘ ok 
 . : i 
 Py Ls \ 
 7 
 ‘ 
 j 
 i “ ot 
 oF 
 7% 
 : eet - 
 f 2 >t 
 ’ ‘ 
 A ht x | 
 " Oe 
 ‘ 
 ’ 
 , As 
 od eat 
 : Xe ' 
 o, AR eaves 
 Ki ayy q 
 f ¥ 4 * 
 che Ne e dal Dek ch oa , } 
 ng Es Arter vines age ) io 4 
 e? ' = 7 Un 
 _ As a» " A Sa 3 . py 
 oe Pe «! 4 : i - ea. } Bik ae 
 > : AO Bs y ‘ 
 ; ' Ms oy eee ‘ Poss | 
 ; aan | ‘ he iis ‘ 
 ‘ eet . S Ly Ay 
 * Hades i , 
 + , te 
 i Es ma 
 ath eee 
 - hy Ae » ve 
 ~ “ * 
 5 if 2 ‘ ? 
 + ( si y + ‘es 
 otha ; at Sa 
 ¢ Gah in Ne Seiad 
 ‘ : ay he 
 \ ) e * ‘ee 
 Fada : ; fe A eee 
 e f : 
 7 
 , ; “ 
 ’ r 
 a aege “> 
 ¥ be ‘ “ t 
 , 7) / ’ . 
 > re , é 
 } Fae ‘ 
 ‘ t fy Pa } 
 id cS y ¥ ¢ 
 ° : * ° 
 ; 4 — A 
 4s i Aa 
 a ay S ¥ ~ %, oo 
 , . 
 . ? r Ny Ps 
 ; “5M és 
 4 7 4 
 E ¥ 
 . fe 
 4 : fonky 4 
 a , 
 4 ‘ F 7 ; 
 : s ¥ 
 » ws a ax 
 4 : J 
 > P Pe 
 : ‘ ghd 
 ‘ z i ‘ 
 ‘ ¢ ” q 
 , hes WE 7 ; i 
 ‘ 4 > ee ‘ 
 ey U ‘ 
 cy “vy ‘3 ‘ 
 ; ; 
 z z 
 iy . . sal ' 
 <iWwe : ; et 
 ie eG iWer : 
 
 
 
woke al 
 
 owen 
 eecuP mea 
 
 P 
 Lol 
 ai 
 
 MOVOWLUVT'D ie 
 
 | 
 
 LN = ; 
 . aes 
 
 ee 
 
 \ { ia 0.0 BAATHOL ONE W/ /Gsrorr 
 
 \ Wrens . 
 
 V0 Of 
 
 a 
 
 Arenhn Ganncy ri 
 
 r Zz el 
 ferret T S AVSHMELL 
 Pom 
 
 AST OAVIOS a 
 
 
 
 DOUGLAS +7087 § 
 
 cf 
 
 Ne 
 ALVIY BUSANELL 
 
 iva 
 
 a MONTH ZF P 13 haa 
 
 GO.40A-* 
 Pt ay 
 
 ALSTRA 8B. \HOOTS 
 
 (47h 5 BUSHES 
 
 next 
 J 10T7\ Ee A6POTT 
 : f 1 } séon 
 fo Bea : 
 
 (eh ALL LPLGILLY IG: Go 
 Cerin aoe LT crttbicns. LLU 
 bY ieee Ct obsdahs ig q 
 
 geen Swen : ‘ 
 TR TERROR OE ALVER ATONE 
 QE LMCOIED CMAUIOE YATRIET, 
 PRR LACIES 8 OSHA BE bt NP 
 DEAL... hornets. 2h 
 oF" Ganteatan eee 
 
 — bier AN ppp: 
 t 
 
 « 
 heme i 
 
 
 
t 
 
 a 
 
 
 
OUNTY, /LLINO/S, 
 
 xe 
 
 ? 
 
 Corems 
 
 (AMULN f? 
 
 2. 
 
 £1 
 
 eres a 
 We.” ae Tare 
 
 7" 
 
 -/ 
 aie 
 
 | 
 ; 
 : 
 
 : 
 
 C8 Ab bh NR, 
 
 "3 
 
 AMR LARD! 
 
 $e lal 
 
 nalts 
 
 Maale. 
 
 tA 
 
 - 
 
 
 
a We 
 
 e 
 
 Pe en a 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 COOLS "PIS FAME EY Ob 
 
 eae ae ae 22> PM MIP MID ie TILA MAS 
 
 a a ee ae ‘SAO NS TRS Mt MOF A £2 
 Pe en ed FIC 7 we a ad ees se Fe AF Se FOVNIY AS 
 
 SPIN O’ SS SIAIOD ew MAPLES A 74 eds 
 
 PAPO PEO” Spray mee: ee 
 4 
 - 
 ‘ 
 i 
 
 : 
 i 
 
 t 
 
 i 
 
 : 
 
 Sd tht, St oP 
 
 svopry ae 
 a 2 he 
 
 —— 
 
 Sy 
 t 
 3 
 & 
 > 
 Y 
 y 
 N 
 
 1 
 - 
 . rere ' 
 - 
 t 
 
 aw, anf 
 
 svete ~~ 
 
 - 
 
 A SOLAS OF . 
 
 ‘ 
 x 
 
 408 7 | wear OH). 
 
 eBay | 8/7? | 
 | 
 
 2 ata | vain T - 
 : 
 
 Sigh Wer ur > sree Bo S¥O QD 44K ew 
 Ad wate : 
 
 
 
 
 
 ed 4 L on oe: . 
 
 Z umal 
 = a 
 
 
 

 
L*+h, SG 
 
 A/ | 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 ce) 4199¢ 
 
 
 
 aury P4eP4YHs 
 
 auss. Azure 
 
 02 Wv9%0p1 
 
 
 
 eu7y 2b “oy 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 vis A wsop7lip wt 1 242 GE > 9/025 
 
 wap had {sS Asap 
 
 Saptiars §1usut oD { G72) 41 4 
 f/austag HI 
 
 
 
 Siouyyy SIUC? 4{402G puo vobsop/ 
 LAIA LENG FOVNIVAD GIFATT 
 MIA NOOO? 
 
 JO avYW 
 
 
 
 
 
 PE VW 
 
 a es oe. ees 
 

 
 
 
 
 a Ea be 7) XS: 
 
 <= 
 
 i re | 
 
 oJ 
 7 
 aa 
 i 
 
 ~ 
 * 
 
 + 
 WERE He 8 eee 
 Sen i 
 
 * 
 
 t 
 
 s 
 
 ¥ 
 
 ' 
 
 t t 4 ; ae 
 + H Fs 
 ~~ wt Tate kum Eee ¢ aD ot 
 ; the ees: 
 f ; ; # 
 } Mr 3 
 J uh he 
 
 « 
 mr 
 aye 
 sae 
 wa Set 
 
 
 
 vs hwnecihect > 
 ‘ ‘ a . $ ‘ 
 > a ee 
 
 5 5 eat 
 ee ae ore 2? 4 , Lice t 
 
 x . ete 
 ol “ght 7 Me . ; 
 | : a ets ee 
 
 ad x d m 
 
 
 
 - 
 a 
 ‘ 
 ~ 
 « 
 - e % 
 2 
 ‘ 
 ——— 
 , 
 “o> 
 
 ° 
 k 7 Lé 
 4 ae - * , it 4 mn 
 F ‘ ; 4 
 ; ’ 
 7 ° a” a r } -s 
 . eae » ; 
 4 ; if _ 4 y 1 
 8 a f - wa a oP Sa ptt of in Cokin Ls 5 
 + F ‘ f; = 
 ; : ( ie N as ie 
 me ii lige: Bia si iae 5 ialeatinine oh 4M ‘ at ¥ iN, } 
 ‘ 4 s = , 4 fi . ; 
 o 
 
 pares CS ri ee urged “teas aninenes die ge STE TE RATT ee ees igi biinas 
 : ; PAR ER mee atnlial mine eats an nina eo 
 
 ¥ 4 Sie 4. os 
 VN 4 - } Pi ‘ 
 ps ' , M | war ws ee aie 
 : fol : aa ys ithe om) bien ee eae ane) Noe pet rerpwe) irs Ph ae 
 yf , 
 ' ' x 4 , oe 
 
 
 
 
 4 2 
 
 4 ’ yet Ow =r ~ 
 
 
 
 
 

 
,. 
 , sch. a rs ” - 
 2 A. q.' 
 
 ; de! ile : < ee el 
 7 sae athe, re hr, nln ~— —- 
 
 ~ 
 
 menage a ms tel a—- 
 iy Dee > me CA rt mona en Pipe ow gee 
 
 wenn 
 a 
 ae 
 
 . 
 fe, OP ae 
 = 
 dt 
 ee 
 —t ae 
 
 7 
 
 eit 
 
 rit 
 ‘es 
 
 s 
 % 
 “—’r 
 
 We 
 
 ~ 
 
 ot 
 sity a 
 
 IVER 
 
 A 
 n 
 
 ob 
 
 bi 
 
 
 
Giprire me ¢ 
 
 TOWNSHIPS 3% 4 NORTH 
 
 Seo le 
 
 JAMES STERLING 
 CHARLES BORGELT 
 WILLIAM R FULLERTON 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Js 
 
 5 = (000 feet 
 
 
 
 paar oF 
 REE DRAINAGE DISTRICT E x h p 5 7 
 RANGE S £AST FULTON COUNTY 4LLInors 
 RH BOND ENGR, 
 33 oe — 
 
 } COMMISSIONERS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 WE SEC.28 
 
 5 
 \ 
 ye 
 
 \ 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 W223 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i ‘ Bie 
 
 ' , a ae : 
 
 stew etm atin eRe ad gprs pApuanstsen tng tabs) | Pn 
 ~ \ ng 
 
 ‘ 
 } 
 
 ee 
 
 eg NAIA, GOA PELE 
 ” oo 
 - te 
 % 
 * 
 Og 
 en 
 
 : 
 ; 
 4‘ 
 : 
 Aus 
 b 
 de — 
 5 
 ; 
 > 
 ; 
 *e 
 : 
 ’ 
 Lae. ia gee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; a ; _ : 
 : oe Ne 
 ry “Phe: % 
 
 
 
 “ tan ; 4 4 ‘ 
 
 ee Jf is cera hy 4 
 
 gee Aan oe Ae tL Pk We 5 
 
 We en) ere | Ny suomi Egat ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 5 
 : ; f weave j ' 
 1% be ; : 
 ¥ * : 4 ] 
 ] ¢ ¥ 1 | 
 i 5 \ 4 iq 
 J ¥ i 
 ; ; i ; 5 
 Pe! : ats 
 b Be ; 
 wd . ; 
 
 
 
 : Y re 
 hares 
 Fo : 
 
 i 
 
 . 
 
 « 
 
 Mae Poe 4 Batra 
 
 é 
 
 j 
 
 . 
 
 % 
 
 ~ 
 ‘ 
 ‘ 
 
 : a 
 i Bs, a 
 } Sh, a f \: gume 
 ; on ae om 
 
 H bad ¥ a 4 ri 
 
 } “ue } ; 2 
 
 ‘ 4 J 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 ee te am Oe RE, tm erly 
 i 
 | 
 ¥ 6t 
 ’ 
 } 
 - 
 P 
 | 
 - 
 * 
 s 
 ‘ 
 7 
 r 
 ¢ 
 ; 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 | 
 
 Rede eee bain. 
 
 : ¥ \ pp # 
 
 P ; ag j } 
 
 r ‘ 
 
 a ‘ 2 a 
 
 ie 5 3 M f 
 
 ‘A : we ; 
 
 f 4 =. ait es ‘ 
 a’ ddl ~ peti © ye bad : , eae! es a 
 
 A r a 
 Bolt Sat oe 
 
 i 3B Ss Foe, F tee A | oe 
 

 
 Exif 5 q 
 
 Mop of the boundaries ond Location oy Uhe apn diteh yn tae Hager Sloogh™ Specia/ 
 “Se. 
 
 Drainege = District. 4, 
 
 Dramage Com missioners 
 
 ye 
 
 plenary Gar m 
 
 G ea. A. Beerd Hager Hovg h Drein age District ~< 
 
 mey e/ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ean HO | sasopl OM 
 
 Frederick 
 
 yy 87 
 
 
 
 stron hone 
 
 “Lac 
 
 
 
 Ches B/oom 
 
 forts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 
 0. wagn er 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 i e M a ae 
 ’ i deh hg Wilccee i: | a | - 
 c Ri aas ee ater SR ee meen 2 } ay ae 
 q > = 
 
 i oot 
 Me Ae Uk 
 
 
 
 s A ' 7 4 } vy : ‘ 
 eee ; ‘ ban 
 See Sodomy welts i tyne ~~ wresk. 
 eae A if, 7 4 ' - 
 #3 ‘ B ; 
 i en merenent ened aa enema reenter tens Sen Pa en een era 
 ‘ ¥ lf is ‘ >. eo j i , 4 : . ® =) _ 
 5 : f/ , oa! 7 Mery r 4 ’ ’ 
 . . ‘ Pi I 
 
 
 
 
 
 > " 
 r - ‘ we + a aa 
 OF rs 
 : 
 . 
 P a] 
 5 4 
 » ‘ 
 . ‘ ss 4 
 . 7 
 eo Sem ba wd}. 
 ¢ >. 
 ' r > be 
 r ' > | } 
 ‘ ; 
 ‘ a} 
 , . 
 F . > ‘ } 
 ‘ a“ 
 a 5 
 Yr 4 
 pe ty oa hd ie on aie A “ats Py 
 ‘ . 
 J 5) * € 
 . he . , 
 - DER chee my Siete > synthe . : ae. 
 4 * a 
 a a 
 ~ tee nae % 7 ° ‘ 
 ’ 7 
 — 
 b ~ 
 { g's 
 . 
 ts sae ‘ 
 i o4 é & ‘ oe ee eh 
 S ‘ od) 
 ‘ 
 ‘ = 
 Me i¢ ~ ontingt Ade eae - 
 * 7 1 
 ° m ' J 
 e 
 : } -~ 
 | a 4 t 
 ~ e ae 
 7 i , é ; 
 i" - + my how +. 4 “<< 
 ; 
 4 " 
 j “> 
 1 
 . % 
 we 
 wa 
 & 
 - ¢~ 
 * ms 
 : ‘ 
 y 1 
 j ‘ 
 } ' 
 ‘ 
 ; ! t 
 4 ° 
 7 duos fart te © re aged tee 
 Mi ‘ 
 ‘ Z * 
 4 y S * « * ' 
 ; " > is t Ti SS) ~ or" <)> 
 aie a J 
 : 
 x 
 > Sa g 7 
 it 
 ‘ - 
 4 i 
 ° 
 : > . = -_- 
 . 
 ’ “ 
 y 
 < 
 , one ‘ 
 Fane 
 ie ¥ 
 H / 
 > he 
 3 =, 
 fe & 
 ah 5 
 ew. : a 
 ee bed 
 | hid anid F~ ital rg’ vl tert < * 7 ~ 
 b ’ ; 
 Up « ‘ 
 . ; 4 
 7. ; 
 i i 
 + ae oi. 
 ’ » Wee 
 Rs 4 s ee 
 ; i rime’ & pay c Sng ES 
 yt } ; 
 } | 
 : ‘ 
 4 } t 
 vo 3 : r “ 
 \ shat ae 
 a a owe - ie — oe poged , yp hee nse A 
 
 
 
 
 
703 
 3188 Mr. O’Conor: We object to that. 
 
 The Courr: I think-I will overrule the objection. 
 
 Whereupon an adjournment was taken to nine o’clock 
 November 27, 1912. 
 
 3189 November 27, 1912, 9:00 a. m. 
 
 Court met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 MicHaEL Cowan, a witness for the defendant, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Michael Cowan, I live in Joliet. I formerly 
 was a boat man. I have had about four years experience 
 on the Illinois River between St. Louis and Chicago in the 
 
 3190 position of Captain. In a general way the boats which I 
 have run on the Illinois River have been the Canal Steam- 
 er Niagara, the Peerless and the Imperial. 
 
 I am familiar with the whole stream and am acquainted 
 a little around Lockport. I know the Bear Trap Dam 
 and I am acquainted with the Desplaines River above 
 that point about as far as Willow Springs, 16 miles above 
 Lockport. Before 1900, the Desplaines River, I have seen 
 it so you could walk across it in places in Lemont there. 
 In some places it would be seven or eight feet deep and 
 some places would be a foot of water and some places you 
 3191 could walk across, maybe six inches of water. In the 
 last eight or ten years I have seen the same stretch above 
 the Sanitary District Dam and there has been somewhere 
 in the neighborhood of about two feet of water on account 
 of the drainage around there through the country putting 
 it into the river, digging ditches and one thing and an- 
 other and draining most of it. 
 
704 
 
 The Sanitary District water enters the Desplaines Riv- 
 er at Joliet and then the Desplaines River flows through 
 the City of Joliet. Before the opening of the Sanitary 
 District channel the Desplaines River where it flows 
 through the City of Joliet, I should judge was 350 or 375 
 
 3192 feet wide. It is not that wide now. They have built a 
 wall between the river and the canal and that leaves the 
 Desplaines River in the narrower portions of Joliet 220 
 or 225 feet wide. The walls are 15 or 16 feet high. The 
 
 3193 river passes between the walls carrying the natural flow 
 and the water from the drainage. 
 
 3194 I know the controlling works, have been over there six 
 or seven times since they were opened. There was water 
 flowing over the dam. The last time I was there it looked 
 to me to be only four or five inches going over, something 
 like that. 
 
 3195 In the narrow places in the river which I have deseribed 
 there is maybe two feet or a foot and a half of water. The 
 current is about a mile to two miles an hour. The water 
 runs right down through the Desplaines River into the 
 Illinois River. The Illinois River is formed by the Des- 
 plaines, the Kankakee and the Du Page. The Du Page 
 comes in about a couple of miles below Channahon, a cou- 
 ple of miles between that and the Kankakee. The Du 
 Page River empties into the Desplaines and then goes 
 into the Illinois River. The Du Page empties into the 
 Desplaines River I should say about two miles and a half 
 this side of the head of the Illinois River. They all go 
 into the Illinois River there. 
 
 Where I have seen the Du Page River, it is quite a large 
 river, that is through Channahon; a couple of feet wide 
 in some places and others it ain’t over 75 or 50 feet. 
 
 I have seen where the Desplaines and Kankakee unite. 
 
 3197 The Kankakee is a very large river, measures about 
 four or five hundred feet wide at the head of the Illinois 
 
705 
 
 River. The Kankakee River is a good deal larger than 
 the Desplaines River and the two rivers where they come 
 into the head of the Illinois River, they narrow up pretty 
 narrow; I don’t believe they are over 150 feet wide. I 
 couldn’t tell how deep they are at that point, looks to be 
 ‘ four or five feet deep along there. Just below where the 
 Illinois River is formed at times it is two or three feet 
 deep in places. 
 3198 When the Sanitary District was opened I was down at 
 Henry, Illinois. I looked to see if I could see the Chicago 
 3199 water in there. I continued to look for months after but 
 did not observe a particle of difference whatsoever. No 
 change in the river. 
 I have known the Illinois River before 1900 and since. 
 The following day after they let the water in I noticed 
 the Illinois River cleaner and clearer than any time be- 
 fore or since. That is I could see down in the water far- 
 ther. Before 1900, at a low stage I noticed, two or three 
 3200 years before they let the drainage in, that the Illinois 
 River had a little more water in it. Since 1900, with ref- 
 erence to the level of the river at low water, as compared 
 with it before I have noticed a difference of about five or 
 six inches. I notice there is more current now than at the 
 time before the drainage was in. I should judge present 
 current at medium stage of water is a half or three-quar- 
 ters of a mile or a mile an hour. It is a mile faster now. 
 3201 The current now is maybe a mile and a half or two miles 
 an hour. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I think the water is running about twice as fast as it did 
 prior to 1900. The way I look at it they have got it diked 
 up and narrowed up and the railroads have filled it in 
 here and there and caused this current to be stronger and 
 more water going in from the drainage all along down the 
 
706 
 
 Illinois River. I should think the drainage down south of 
 
 3202 the Henry Dam, farther down than the Henry Dam, 
 would affect the Illinois River at La Salle some. The 
 Henry Dam I think is seven or eight feet high. There is 
 another dam about Copperas Creek that holds the water 
 back so there isn’t seven or eight feet fall. | 
 
 3203 Henry Dam from the bottom to the top on the lower side 
 I should judge is six or seven feet, somewhere in there. 
 I am giving my best judgment. The width of the crest of 
 
 3204 the dam is five or six hundred feet. 
 
 I am acquainted with Captain Donovan. I have known 
 him 25 or 30 years. 
 
 With reference to my testimony in this law suit my 
 attention was first called to these matters yesterday. They 
 
 3205 asked me what I knew and I told them as near as I could, 
 but yesterday was the first time that anything was ever 
 said to me that would require me to fix anything in detail 
 as to what I have testified. We talked it over among our- 
 selves. 
 
 Lemont is the first place I ever walked across the Des- 
 plaines River. It is about 13 miles from Joliet. I was 
 up the Desplaines River about a year ago, it was along in 
 the fall. The water was higher then than in the summer 
 time. 
 
 3206 I have seen the ditches dug out there that they are put- 
 ting in around there. Nothing was said to me yesterday 
 on the subject of drainage ditches. 
 
 I have seen the water low at Lemont in 1903, but not as 
 
 3207 low as I had seen it before that. At Lemont the river is 
 about 150 feet wide. J have seen it after that. I have 
 seen it here last summer around Lockport. Last summer 
 was not an extra dry summer. Some places we had as 
 much rain as we ordinarily do and some places we did 
 
 3208 not. I think the water was about the same last year dur- 
 ing the dry months that it has been this year or in the 
 
107 
 
 years 1909 or 1910. I think the Desplaines River is a 
 foot and a half to two feet higher at a low water stage. 
 3209 I don’t know whether prior to that time I testified about 
 there was a rain. I noticed that there was more water 
 in the river than at any time I had seen it before. The 
 Sanitary District people narrowed the river through Jol- 
 iet for about half a mile. Before that time it was 350 or 
 360 feet wide. After they got through it was 220 to 225 
 3210-13 feet wide. Where the Sanitary District constructed 
 these retaining walls it is not as deep now. The stream 
 3214 was deeper. He asked me how much water there was 
 in the drainage ditch and I told him two feet or two feet 
 and a half. There is more water coming down the Des- 
 plaines River, I think there is more water coming down 
 3215 the river now than there was before. 
 3216 I never took any measurements of the Sanitary District 
 at Lockport. The Bear Trap Dam might be 100 feet or 
 3217 200 feet, I am simply giving my estimate. I would not 
 want to bind myself within 50 feet. The last time I saw 
 it was two or three years ago. I don’t remember the 
 3218 month. I was over there several times after it was in 
 operation to see it running and look around up there. The 
 largest amount of water I ever saw flowing over that dam 
 was in the neighborhood of six or seven inches of water, 
 3219 along in there. I don’t know the number of cubic feet. 
 I don’t know the number of cubic feet that two and a half 
 feet of water passing over would be. I don’t think I ever 
 saw a foot of water flowing over the dam. I have seen 
 water leaving the Sanitary District at the power house, 
 but I think that was about two years ago. 
 Where the Sanitary District water and the Desplaines 
 flow together about a mile below the power house, the 
 3220 width of the stream is about 300 to 350 feet. I don’t 
 3221 know the quantity of water flowing over the dam or the 
 amount of water flowing in the Desplaines River. I think 
 
708 
 
 the Desplaines River is flowing pretty near as much as 
 the drainage is, that is flowing as much water. That is 
 
 3222 my best judgment. I never took any gauge measure- 
 ments to determine that or determine whether the Kanka- 
 kee has increased over the flow prior to 1900. 
 
 At the junction of the Kankakee River and Desplaines 
 the river is four or five hundred feet wide. I saw it last 
 summer in July. At that time I don’t know how much 
 
 3223 water was going over the Bear Trap Dam. 
 
 At Henry I have noticed a difference of four or five 
 inches. There has not been much of an increase. I no- 
 ticed the river as I said two or three years before the 
 drainage was let in and we had a little more water. There 
 was maybe three or four inches more water then. 
 
 3224 I will tell you how I used to do this in low water. We 
 used to load those boats with what we could get down the 
 river safely with and not get aground, and the place we 
 used to load, as Henry or Chillicothe, or anywhere we 
 loaded, we used to mark on the spiles to keep tab on the 
 water, to see if it was raising or falling, to see how much 
 water was on the bars and how we could load for it. If 
 there was five feet of water we would load four feet and 
 a half or four feet eight; have two or three inches to spare. 
 And in doing that we noticed we could load two or three 
 inches deeper before the drainage was let in, on account 
 of the river holding up and of course we didn’t know ex- 
 actly what done it at the time, but it was on account of this 
 drainage coming in. We loaded the barges at Henry, 
 Peru, Lacon and Hennepin. We loaded about the same 
 
 3225 since 1900 as before. Before 1900, we used to load our 
 boats and go over those bars in water two or three inches 
 deeper, but since the drainage is in I should say we have 
 got maybe four or five inches more. There is a difference 
 of a few inches. I judge by the bars at Henry, Pekin, and 
 along down that way. The bars are not located at any 
 
709 
 
 one certain place. There is very little change in them. 
 They are sand bars. High water does not affect them. 
 
 3226 The increased current I suppose in the last few years 
 has kept them out a little bit more. It keeps the channel 
 cleaned out more. We can tell whether the increase in the 
 water is due to the fact these sandbars are swept away 
 because when we get down to a certain stage we measure, 
 going across these bars, take a stick and go along and 
 measure; have marks up to six feet. I have done that. 
 From my observation during all the time from 1900, 
 I have noticed an increase in the general stand of the 
 
 3227 river; I should say about six or seven inches, something 
 like that. | 
 
 I don’t know when I first noticed the Chicago water 
 after the drainage was turned in. The way I know the 
 water was turned in there was some fellow there in Hen- 
 ry showing people down there about the Chicago water, 
 24 hours after it was turned in, and I went up on the 
 bridge where they were talking and this fellow was preach- 
 ing that you could see the Chicago water and I said how 
 long since it was put in and he said 24 hours, and I said 
 the water couldn’t get down there that quick. After the 
 Chicago water was turned in I was waiting to see it and 
 it was two or three months, along in the summer, before 
 I noticed it. I could tell it was Chicago water because it 
 
 3228 cleared the river up. Prior to that time the river was 
 dirty. Maybe it was along in May or June. It was turned 
 im in January. 
 
 The man that I was talking about was talking in Jan- 
 uary at Henry. I noticed the effect some time in June or 
 July. 
 
 3229 The way I looked at it there, I had some wires in a 
 wheel, the propeller wheel, between the bearing and the 
 wheel, and it binds the engine. And I says to the engi- 
 neer I had better get a skiff and we will go down there 
 
710 
 
 and see if we can pull that wire out of there. And going 
 down the river, something I never seen since the drainage 
 was in or before, I could see the shaft about 18 inches in 
 water and this wire in there and we took it out and I said, 
 ‘<T here is the Chicago water. There is the lake water for 
 you. It is clear.’’ I knew it was Lake Michigan water. 
 
 The point where our boat was standing in the river was 
 
 3230 about eight feet deep. I could not tell you what percent- 
 
 age of the water was Chicago water. I could not tell you 
 
 what percentage of Lake Michigan water it takes when 
 
 you put it in the Illinois River to make the water look like 
 
 Lake Michigan. I could not say whether it would be 10 or 
 
 20 or 50 per cent. I could not tell you whether the change 
 
 3231 in condition was confined to the point where I made the 
 
 observation. I could not tell you whether it was peculiar 
 
 to the ten square feet of water I saw. I would not say it 
 
 was. I would think that was a general condition existing. 
 
 3232 I cannot answer the question how much percentage it 
 would take. 
 
 3233 I don’t know anything about the spillway at Lyons ex- 
 3234 cept what I have heard. Not knowing anything about 
 the spillway at Lyons only just what I see around Lemont 
 and Lockport, those ditches going in there, I should judge 
 maybe cause that Desplaines River and the water to be a 
 foot and a half or two feet. I don’t know anything about 
 3235 the amount of water coming from the spillway and only 
 know what is carried in by the tile drains as I look at the 
 river. I don’t know the percentage of increase. I am only 
 in a position to say where the increase of the Desplaines 
 3236 River comes from as I have seen the river. I had no 
 percentages. I know it is two feet or two and a half more 
 water init during low water. I don’t know where it comes 
 from, only some of those ditches along there. I think 
 there is two feet or two and a half feet more water in the 
 
711 
 
 Desplaines River today at low water mark than there was 
 during the year 1900, at low water. I don’t mean inches. 
 
 They used to run boats years ago on the Desplaines to 
 Joliet. They do it now on part of it. 
 
 3237 Prior to the turning in of the water from the Sanitary 
 District the speed of the river was about a mile an hour 
 in low water. I should judge now it is two miles. I sup- 
 pose narrowing it and everything like that gives it more 
 current, being so much stronger would flow through with 
 a strong current, and those ditches, and narrowing it. 
 
 3238 The fact the channel is narrow at Peru would tend to 
 back the water up along that land here, along that land 
 that lies above Peru. The river has been narrow at Peru 
 
 3239 within the past ten or twelve years. The ‘‘Q”’’ railroad 
 put in a lot of stuff there. I could not tell when. I have 
 seen them putting dirt in there. About eight or nine 
 
 3240 years ago I seen them putting it in. Put it all along 
 shore, put the dirt out in the river, dumped it down in 
 the river. I couldn’t tell you exactly how much the river 
 was narrowed at Peru eight or nine years ago, exactly 
 how much it was, but I have seen the stuff rolled down the 
 river there. I have been unloading lumber there just 
 above the bridge. 
 
 Where the bridge crosses the river it is 300, maybe 400 
 feet wide. Where the Shippingsport bridge crosses the 
 river in low water I should judge it is four or five hundred 
 
 3241 feet wide. I don’t remember the old bridge that crossed 
 the Illinois River at Shippingsport. The bridge at the 
 present time I know, I put stone around the abutments 
 there where it was washed out; it was 16 or 17 years ago, 
 
 3242 during low water. I don’t remember the piling along 
 there that used to stick up above the surface of the water 
 a foot or two feet and a half. I went up there with a boat 
 and I was notified to keep away from some piling that 
 was in there. I have a canal boat. At the time they put 
 
Le 
 
 the bridge across there for the ‘‘Q’’ I boated some lumber 
 from Chicago up there. I never was up around that way 
 with a boat, with a big boat before, and a man came to me 
 and told me which way to go. Of course I had an idea 
 anyhow from the water, but he told me where to keep 
 away, to keep over on, I believe the right hand side, what 
 
 3243 we call the starboard side going up. I did not observe 
 any piling sticking above the surface of the water prior to 
 1900. 
 
 I made my calculations as to the velocity up the river at 
 places there at Peru. Peru and anywhere that the river 
 is narrowed up to have more current. J made observa- 
 tions at Peru, Illinois, and anywhere along down near the 
 mouth of the Illinois River. I should say there is more 
 
 3244 current. There is a greater body of water. My opinion 
 is the current in the Illinois River at Peru is greater than 
 it was before 1900 and other places where it is narrowed 
 up the same way. Where the width is about the same the 
 conditions generally are about the same. 
 
 Caprain WituiaAmM H. Watuacz, a witness for the defend- 
 ant, being sworn, testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is William H. Wallace. I reside at Henry, 
 Illinois. My business is boating, managing a line of boats 
 on the Chicago River, Illinois and Michigan Canal, Ili- 
 nois River and Mississippi River. Have been engaged in 
 the boating business since I was old enough to work. I 
 am now 54 years old. I have been a master since 1880. I 
 have seen a good deal of the Illinois River in that length 
 of time. 
 
 I am acquainted at Lockport. I have known the Des- 
 

 

 
713 
 
 plaines River at Lockport for a considerable time. I 
 
 3246 know the location of the Sanitary District works. 
 
 Prior to 1900 in the Desplaines River in the summer 
 there was not very much water in it, very shallow. At 
 the same point there has been a difference since 1900, 
 there is more water up there. I never measured it, but 
 looking at it I should judge it is two feet higher. 
 
 3247 When I have seen the Bear Trap Dam there would be 
 four or five inches, sometimes a very little going over, 
 and some going out of the gates. It went into the Des- 
 plaines River, I saw where it entered. It goes down to 
 Joliet and into the Desplaines River. 
 
 3248 Ihave seen the Desplaines River in the narrow sections 
 in Joliet. Before 1900 the Desplaines River was where 
 the Illinois and Michigan Canal is. The Canal Company 
 put in dams and made pools. That was in part of their 
 canal through Joliet, they flowed together. The canal and 
 river were afterwards separated by a coffer dam or crib. 
 After they were separated it left the Desplaines River 
 about 200 feet or a little better, wide in Johet. Since that 
 time I have seen the Sanitary District’s water and the 
 natural water of the Desplaines flowing through that chan- 
 nel through Joliet in those narrow portions. It is not 
 very deep, probably two or three feet. It is very shallow, 
 you can see it jumping over the rocks. Couple of miles 
 an hour flow. | 
 
 3249 They meet the waters in the Kankakee 16 miles below 
 Joliet and that forms the Illinois. I have been at the 
 meeting place since 1900. The Kankakee is a good big 
 wide stream, 200 or maybe 300 feet wide, before it comes 
 in to form the Illinois. The Desplaines is about half the 
 width of the Kankakee. When they come together they 
 make a stream of four or five or six hundred feet, I don’t 
 
 3250 know how deep the water is in the Illinois across the 
 stream just below where they come together. 
 
714 
 
 I have sailed the Chicago and Illinois Rivers, the I. & M. 
 Canal, the Hennepin Canal and the Mississippi River. I 
 have sailed on the [Illinois River from La Salle to the 
 mouth. Made two or three hundred trips. I observed 
 the Illinois River before 1900 and since. 
 
 I heard of the opening of the Sanitary District. The 
 night the water was turned in, I was in Joliet. I remained 
 there for four or five days and then went to Henry and 
 
 3251 observed the [llinois River upon that occasion at Henry. 
 I had a number of boats lying at Henry loading with grain 
 and I went down after four or five days to see how they 
 were getting along. I looked around to see how much the 
 water was raised. I couldn’t notice anything to speak of. 
 
 Since 1900 I have seen the water lower in the lower end 
 3252 of the Illinois River than I did in the last 25 years. I 
 have observed in the upper portion of the river that there 
 is a great deal more current than there used to be. It is 
 probably twice as fast as it used to be, or faster. The cur- 
 rent was not searcely any current in the olden times in 
 the pools above the two dams, the Copperas Creek and the 
 Henry. We eall the pools of the two dams where the 
 water is backed up by the Copperas Creek and the Henry 
 Dam. Since then there has been a great deal more cur- . 
 rent, a mile an hour. There was scarcely any before. The 
 water was backed up and almost stand. In the narrower 
 3253 portions of the stream where the banks came closer to- 
 gether, there is more current now than there was before. © 
 At the Peoria narrows, the Peoria bridge probably a mile 
 and a half. I have noticed that at low water stages since 
 1900 there is a little more water. In very low times there 
 
 is I should judge about a foot. 
 3254 Ihave had an opportunity to observe the effect of high 
 water in the Mississippi River upon the Illinois River. 
 I have seen the water backed to Havana. Havana is 180 
 
715 
 
 miles above the mouth of the Illinois River where it emp- 
 ties into the Mississippi. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 _ There has always been high water on the Mississippi 
 River at different seasons, different years. My acquaint- 
 8299 ance with the Illinois River is somewhat intimate and 
 springs from years of contact with the river in and around 
 La Salle. I have never been above the bridge in the river 
 3206 at La Salle. I never saw the Fred Swain come from La 
 Salle to Ottawa, running excursions up and down the river 
 prior to 1900. I never knew that. I used to be acquainted 
 3207 with the Fred Swain, but she is burned up. There isn’t 
 any now. I knew the Fred Swain before it was burned. 
 3208 I rode on it probably 15 or 20 times a year. The Swains 
 had two or three boats that were sister boats to the Fred 
 Swain. The names of those boats were Fred Swain, 
 Percy, Verne and Borealis Rex. The Borealis Rex used 
 to run between La Salle and Peoria. The boats were of 
 3259 similar construction, some side-wheelers and some stern- 
 wheelers. Practically all the same size within a few tons. 
 The smokestack of the Fred Swain projected higher than 
 the top of the pilot box four or five feet. I don’t know 
 that the Fred Swain came up the Illinois River prior to 
 the year 1900 in the summer time under the ‘‘Q’’ bridge. 
 3260 She could not do it unless the water was pretty low. In 
 order to come under the bridge without taking the smoke- 
 stack down the water would have to be awful low for it 
 to go under any time. I don’t know whether they could 
 without taking the smokestack down. I don’t know wheth- 
 er they could then or not. Since 1901 the Fred Swain 
 could not get under the ‘‘Q’’ bridge even by taking down 
 the smokestack during low water. The bridge is too low. 
 It is not any lower now than 1900. I never knew the bridge 
 3261 to be lowered or any change in it. 
 
716 
 
 You understood me to say just a moment before this 
 last question that from my knowledge of the river and 
 of the ‘‘Q”’ bridge crossing the [llinois River south of La 
 Salle that the Fred Swain with the funnels down could not 
 pass under the bridge because the bridge is too low. I 
 
 3262 said the bridge had not been lowered. Could not pass 
 
 under the bridge because it was not built high enough. 
 
 3263 I did not say how much higher the Llinois River is in 
 
 and along La Salle and along that bridge than it was prior 
 to 1900. I don’t know. I have an opinion. I base my 
 measurements on the Henry Dam where I lived, about a 
 foot at Henry, would think about a foot difference in ele- 
 
 3264 vation at the bridge in the Lllinois River near La Salle. 
 
 I came to that conclusion because it was a foot higher at 
 Henry. | 
 
 The river at the ‘‘Q”’ bridge is about the same width as 
 itis at Henry, 700 or 800 feet. The increase in the rise of 
 the river would be about the same in amount at Henry 
 as it is at La Salle along the ‘‘Q”’’ bridge. 
 
 3265 I have taken no part in any movement of boatmen to 
 
 compel the ‘‘Q’’ railroad to put in a turn bridge there. I 
 have heard of it. 
 
 I was at Joliet when the water was turned in. The 
 
 3266 Sanitary District channel in 1900 was just like it is now. 
 
 They have cleaned out a few bridge piers and a few little 
 obstructions. I am pretty familiar with what they have 
 done. They have cleaned out the bridge piers so we could 
 navigate the channel at Joliet and a few other little things 
 of that kind. 
 
 The flow varied in 1900. It was on and off until the gov- 
 
 3267 ernment took hold and made them put the current 
 
 through the Chicago River at a mile and a quarter an 
 hour. I do not know that the flow in 1900 in view of the 
 fact the Sanitary District was not completed was some- 
 times on and off. 
 
717 
 
 Four or five days after the channel was opened I went 
 to Henry. I had some boats loading there. The river 
 at Henry was higher than the low water; there was prob- 
 ably two or three feet rise January, 1900. I could not 
 notice any change while I was waiting ten days. ‘There 
 
 3268 might have been three or four inches change. There was 
 a little change. I didn’t see any difference in the color of 
 
 3269 the water at that time. I noticed it the next year. The 
 condition of the water was that there was about a three 
 foot rise and there was four or five inches after the water 
 was turned in. It was the latter part of February, 1900, 
 that I noticed by looking at the river, I could see it was 
 cleaner, cleared up by the Lake Michigan water. 
 
 The river was inside its banks. It might have been up 
 
 38270 towards the edge. The river was full. I first noticed 
 it myself at Pekin. I don’t know how deep the river was, 
 my best judgment is ten feet. I thought it had been 
 
 32/1 cleared up, I thought it looked kind of blue. I don’t 
 know Lake Michigan water always when I see it. I know 
 when the Illinois River is flowing Lake Michigan water 
 in such quantities it looks blue, that the water comes from 
 the Sanitary District. At Pekin the river is probably 
 1,500 feet wide. You could just see a blue cast on top, 
 You could not look into it at all. I cannot tell what per- 
 
 3272 centage of Lake Michigan water it would take. It was a 
 mathematical problem. How am I going to tell whether 
 it was 20 per cent. or not. I haven’t any idea. 
 
 Pekin is about 145 miles from the Bear Trap Dam. The 
 water would have to travel that far. I noticed that blue 
 cast was all gone shortly after I first noticed it, I can’t 
 tell the number of days. It might have been a week or two 
 
 3274 weeks. The blue water disappeared just as soon as it 
 commenced to run. It will disappear in twenty minutes 
 after a rain storm without any rise in the river. The rain 
 will wash the yellow clay off the hills and the water will 
 
718 
 
 change its color. Never noticed how long before it gets 
 back to blue. Saw the blue of the lake at subsequent times. 
 
 3275 Often saw it before rain storms when it has time to settle 
 and clear up. I don’t think I noticed it this year. We 
 have had a good many rains. I saw it in the Drainage 
 Canal Sunday. I last noticed it in the Illinois River last 
 
 3276 winter, about February, 1912, at Henry. The river is 
 12 feet deep and seven to eight hundred feet wide. The 
 water looked blue on top. 
 
 The waters from Lake Michigan and the Kankakee and 
 Desplaines Rivers come together. They all get stirred 
 
 3277 up together. If the larger amount of water is dirty 
 water the whole stream is going to show dirty. It will 
 for a while but the water will purify itself running. I 
 have no idea of the percentage. I don’t know how much 
 water comes into this valley from the mouth of the Kan- 
 
 3278 kakee. The Kankakee water is not dirty in dry times. 
 It is clear in February if there hasn’t been any storms. 
 We used to fill our water barrel out of the Kankakee River 
 for drinking purposes about 30 years ago in the summer 
 
 3279 time. We did not fill it out of the Kankakee River in 
 February because we did not do any boating in February. 
 We used to go up the Kankakee feeder. The Kankakee 
 river is a clear stream. It is clear outside of flood times. 
 February, 1912, it was a moderate height, it rose some. 
 The Desplaines River is not clear water where it mingles 
 with the Sanitary District water. Before it is clear. The 
 
 3280 Chicago sewage dirties it up. The Chicago water at the 
 Bear Trap Dam discolors the Desplaines River, it is a 
 different color. 
 
 3281 I never saw a foot and a half of water going over the 
 Bear Trap Dam. The most I ever saw was four or five 
 inches. You could see the crest through the water. I 
 never saw more than four or five inches. I never was at 
 
 3282 the dam more than two or three times. I saw it shortly 
 
719 
 
 after 1900. I cannot tell just when, within a year or two. 
 
 3283 Always saw the crest of the dam. There isn’t any water 
 flowing over the dam at the present time, they let it out 
 at the power house. 
 
 I had no knowledge as to whether measurements are 
 taken of the flow at the power house. Exhibit ‘‘20’’ is 
 the controlling works. I know there was no water com- 
 ing over the dam. I went by there on Sunday and the 
 dam was up over the water. They were letting the water 
 out at the power house 12 miles below the controlling 
 works. They don’t use those gates at all. They let the 
 water out of this channel at the power house. 
 
 3284-86 In my judgment the width of the Bear Trap Dam 
 is 300 feet. If there was a dam 300 feet wide and there 
 was a foot and seven inches of water flowing over it at 
 the rate of three miles the hour, I would not want to un- 
 dertake to figure the number of cubic feet passing over 
 the dam a minute. 
 
 3287 I have no idea how much is coming out of the Sanitary 
 District at the present time. I always understood there 
 was a means of measuring it at these different power 
 houses to determine that fact. I made my calculations 
 
 3288 as to the increased height of the river by certain points 
 where our boats run. The increase has been uniform. I 
 should say the rise in the level of the Illinois River has 
 been practically uniform. 
 
 The river rises faster where it 1s narrower, where it 
 is dammed up. There is more current since 1900, twice 
 as much as there used to be. I should say there was 
 
 3289 twice as much current at the Peru bridge. I think the 
 bridge is about 300 feet wide. The current depends on 
 the width a great deal. If the width is approximately the 
 same it would flow just the same one place as another. 
 The zig-zag irregular condition of the stream would not 
 have anything to do with it if it is as wide. The banks 
 
720 
 
 wash out and would send the water around twice as fast, 
 wouldn’t it? The edge of the stream would have to run 
 against the bank and come back in that fashion. The 
 edge would be all that would touch the bank. The water 
 might back the other water up a little, not much. Would 
 not think that would have much effect on the actual veloc- 
 ity of current itself. 
 
 3291 Went through Lockport last Sunday because I am op- 
 erating boats between Chicago and Davenport. I took 
 a boat from Joliet to Chicago last Sunday. I never 
 worked for the Sanitary District at Lockport taking any 
 measurements of the flow or anything of that kind. 
 
 JHARLES KerCHEVAL, a witness for defendant, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Charles EH. Kercheval. I reside in Joliet. 
 I am a contractor at the present time. I have been en- 
 gaged in the building business about two years. Before 
 that I was employed by the Economy Light and Power 
 Company for three and one-half years, securing right 
 of way. 
 
 During the time I have lived in Joliet I have become 
 acquainted with the Desplaines River. I knew it before 
 the Sanitary District was opened for five or six miles 
 above the controlling works on the west side most of the 
 way from Willow Springs. I think the channel of the 
 Desplaines River then is where the Sanitary District 
 channel is now. There is a diversion of the river there. 
 
 During eight or ten years before the Sanitary District 
 
 3293 was opened there was always quite an amount of water 
 flowing through the Desplaines River, but not as much 
 as there is at present. Since the Sanitary District has 
 
721 
 
 been opened the Desplaines River varies somewhat. I 
 think there is more water than there was a few years 
 ago. I don’t know as I could state exactly. My judg- 
 ment is from six inches to a foot more water than was 
 flowing before. 
 
 The Desplaines River flows through Joliet. I am ac- 
 quainted with the narrower portions of the stream. The 
 Illinois and Michigan Canal before the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict work was completed was in the west part of the 
 basin. Now the Desplaines River does not flow with the 
 Illinois and Michigan Canal; it is divided by a retaining 
 
 3294 wall on the east side of the canal bank. The distance 
 between the retaining walls of the channel proper is in 
 the neighborhood of 200 feet, perhaps a little more. The 
 Desplaines River and the Sanitary District water flows 
 through that channel. The water on an average is in 
 the neighhorhood of three feet deep at that point at or- 
 dinary low stages. I cannot say how fast it flows. I 
 
 3295 should say two miles to two and a half an hour. I know 
 where the Desplaines unites with the Kankakee near 
 Dresden Heights; we have been there a good many times 
 since 1900. I have seen the Kankakee River as the Des- 
 plaines joins it. The Kankakee River is about the same 
 width as the [llinois River; I couldn’t state how wide 
 The Kankakee was. the largest stream as it and the Des- 
 plaines came together, I should say twice as large. 
 
 3296 There is a place in the Illinois River just below where 
 it is formed by the Kankakee, Desplaines and DuPage, 
 where it is not very deep, places where it is not more 
 than four or five feet deep. I have not observed any 
 difference in the level of the Illinois River at that point 
 since 1900. I am only acquainted with the Illinois River 
 from Morris north towards Joliet. 
 
3297 
 
 722 
 
 Cross-Exammation by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I possibly know that there has been millions of acres 
 drained in Indiana and up in Wisconsin that have been 
 brought down through the Iroquois River, the Kanka- 
 kee and the Desplaines, that have increased the height 
 of the river there below Kankakee. JI never made any no- 
 tation as to the increase or rise. I have been able to 
 make an estimate of the increase in the Desplaines River 
 along Joliet, the past ten years. There is more water 
 flowing there than there was. In all seasons of the year 
 there is more water. The only reason I could give for 
 that was on account of the farmers drainage that has 
 been going on, that flows into the tributaries of the 
 Desplaines River. 
 
 3298 I know about the spillway. I have been there but I 
 
 d299 
 
 don’t know where it goes. I don’t know what it was 
 built for. 
 
 J. W. Ricuarps, a witness for defendant, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is I. W. Richards. I reside at Joliet. I have 
 no business, I am retired. I was a farmer up to about 
 ten years ago, and have resided in Joliet ten years. Be- 
 fore that time my home was just outside of the city. 
 
 J have been acquainted with the Desplaines River for 
 some years. Since 1866. 
 
 ' I know where the controlling works of the Sanitary 
 
 District are. I know where Spring and Hickory Creeks 
 are. In 1902, I saw high water in Hickory and Spring 
 Creeks. That high water was in the month of June, 1902. 
 It was so high and it came down with such a body that it 
 ran right down through a part of the City of Joliet. It 
 
723 
 
 ran south of the high school building which is on fairly 
 high ground, and the current was so swift there a man 
 could not walk through simply to cross from the high 
 school building to the south. And just below there on 
 the corner there was a water tank that stood up high 
 enough that a horse could drink out of it without being 
 unchecked, and it took that tank away and also took the 
 
 3300 stone sidewalk away, carried it right away. There were 
 two horses drowned. I saw the flood in the afternoon and 
 in crossing on Cass street in a buggy you had to lift 
 your feet up to cross the Alton Railroad in the afternoon 
 on that day. That flood came up during the night. There 
 was no water in the streets the night before and the next 
 morning it was there. J don’t think there were any 
 street cars run across that crossing that day, probably 
 not for two days, I don’t remember exactly. 
 
 3301 The water came from Hickory and Spring Creeks from 
 the east. Above the point where the water came from 
 there was no connection with the Sanitary District. 
 
 The Desplaines River for ten years before the Sanitary 
 District channel was opened a part of the time was a 
 very sluggish and slow stream before the river was di- 
 verged, and in places where it was diverged for the chan- 
 nel, but since then it seems there is more water coming 
 down than there was before. I would think there was 
 twice as much water. I used to cross that stream in 
 
 3302 1883, ’84 and ’85, about three or four times a day. 
 Since then I think it has doubled. 
 
 I have observed the Bear Trap Dam. I have seen it 
 on an average twice a year. The last time I saw the 
 Bear Trap Dam there wasn’t an ounce going over but 
 before that I should judge a foot, probably about a foot 
 of water. After it flowed over the dam it went into the 
 basin which was connected with the Desplaines River. 
 
 The Desplaines River flows through Joliet. It flows 
 
724 
 
 3303 between the retaining walls. The Desplaines River at 
 the Jefferson street bridge would be about 200 feet wide. 
 The waters which go through there are the waters of the 
 Desplaines, the tributaries of the Desplaines and the 
 Chicago drainage. I never measured the water. I cross 
 the Jefferson street bridge there probably four times a 
 day the year around and there are certain marks that I 
 am going by. I should think it was an average of three 
 feet and a half. The current flows about four miles an 
 hour in my judgment. It is quite rapid. 
 
 3304 The Illinois River is formed at Dresden Islands. I 
 have been there probably not more than half a dozen 
 times. J have seen the Kankakee and Desplaines Rivers 
 flowing into it since 1900. I have seen where the Kan- 
 kakee and Desplaines Rivers come together. At the 
 mouth of the Kankakee I have seen what would appear 
 to be more water coming from the Kankakee than that 
 which went down the Desplaines. After they come to- 
 gether since 1900, I have not noticed any difference in 
 
 3305 the level of the Ilhnois River than it was before 1900. 
 I don’t know how deep it is. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I cannot answer the question why it does not show at 
 the Kankakee that the Desplaines is flowing twice as 
 much water as it did before 1900, but you can go down 
 to Dresden Heights and watch either one of these streams 
 and the Ikankakee seems to be two inches higher, so 
 much so that it drives the other back. It drives the 
 Desplaines River right to one side, so much difference. 
 The Kankakee comes into the Illinois quite a way out- 
 
 3306 side of Joliet. If the flow in the Desplaines River is 
 doubled it would naturally seem there ought to be some 
 increase. You would have to make some displacement in 
 
120 
 
 the water if it was doubled. It would naturally make a 
 larger body of water if the Desplaines flowed twice the 
 amount of water that it did prior to 1909 and you add to 
 that flow the water from the Sanitary District. 
 
 3307 I would think that the Desplaines, DuPage and their 
 tributaries, with Hickory Creek and Spring Creek, with 
 all the other small runs that come in from Lemont, would 
 furnish at least half the flow that comes down the chan- 
 nel at the present time. If the flow doubled it might have 
 some effect upon the Kankakee River, but to watch it 
 
 3308 closely when you are down at Dresden Heights the 
 Kankakee seems higher, so much so that it drives the 
 other flow to one side down there where they join to 
 make the Illinois. I don’t know how much higher. It 
 looks now as if it must be two or three or four inches 
 higher. I did not measure the Kankakee. I am not com- 
 petent to say. I could not say whether there is four feet 
 
 3309 of water in it or not. If there were three feet of water 
 in it then and it was four feet higher than the water 
 coming from the Desplaines at that point, then there 
 would be two feet eight inches in the Desplaines. I don’t 
 know how wide the Desplaines River is where it meets 
 the Kankakee or how wide both rivers are after they 
 come together. If the channel of the Illinois was the 
 same size as the charinel of the Desplaines and the chan- 
 nel of the Kankakee, and the Kankakee was flowing three 
 feet of water and the Desplaines was flowing two feet 
 
 3310 eight inches of water, it would not show in the [llinois 
 River if it widened out at the mouth. If it was narrow 
 it would show. The Illinois River did not appear to be 
 narrower. I think it was a little wider after they come 
 
 3311 together. It was not very much wider than the Kan- 
 kakee. 
 
 I don’t know how deep the water is in the Illinois 
 River after these two rivers come together. I worked 
 
726 
 
 for the Sanitary District when they put their channel 
 down through Joliet. I was on the witness stand two 
 or three times. IJ also placed values on the property that 
 3312 they were in litigation about. Testified for them two 
 or three times before. Never did any physical labor 
 for them. I never took any readings at Lockport. The 
 greatest amount of water I ever saw going over the Bear 
 Trap Dam was a foot or two feet. I saw a foot at dif- 
 ferent times, two or three times. I have not been there 
 very many times. I did not go over there for that pur- 
 pose, I went there with some friends simply to show the 
 3313 dam and did not make any notations. I could see the 
 erest of the dam through the water. You could stand 
 right up close to it and see the dam through the water. 
 
 In the Desplaines at low water to-day as compared 
 
 3314 with the vesplaines prior to 1900, I think there is a 
 difference of over a few inches. It is simply a matter 
 of observation. Never made any record as to the flowage 
 of the Bear Trap Dam. 
 
 Where the Desplaines joins the Kankakee it runs a 
 little to the southwest and the Kankakee comes in from 
 the southeast. It might strike it at about a right angle; 
 I couldn’t be positive as to that. There might be a slight 
 bend just before it enters the Kankakee. 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLtp: Now, I desire to offer in evidence a 
 certified copy by the Secretary of State of the State of 
 Illinois of an order from the governor, John R. Tanner, 
 to the Board of Sanitary Trustees of Chicago, dated 
 January 17, 1900, permitting the opening of this channel. 
 
 Whereupon said document was received in evidence by 
 the court, marked Exhibit ‘£59’ and is in words and fig- 
 ures following, to-wit: 
 
3316 
 
 3317 
 
 (27 
 
 Bixee 6259; 7? 
 
 ‘‘Srate oF ILuinots, 
 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
 
 James A. Rose SECRETARY OF STATE 
 To All Whom These Presents Shall Come, Greeting: 
 
 I, James A. Rose, Secretary of State, of the State of 
 Illinois, do hereby certify that the following and hereto 
 attached is a true copy of a letterpress copy of a commu- 
 nication from John R. Tanner, Governor, to the Board 
 of Sanitary Trustees, Chicago Illinois, dated January 17, 
 1900, the original of which is now on file and a matter of 
 record in this office. 
 
 InN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereto set my hand and 
 cause to be affixed the great seal of state. 
 
 Done at the City of Springfield, this 2nd day of De- 
 
 eember, A. D. 1908. 
 (Signed) James A. Ross, 
 
 [SEAL] Secretary of State. 
 
 (OrFiciraL Lerrers No. 5) 
 
 January 17th, 1900. 
 
 To the Board of Samtary Trustees, 
 Chicago, Ill. 
 (Confirming telegram of this date) 
 GENTLEMEN: 
 
 The Board of Commissioners heretofore appointed by 
 the undersigned to make an examination and survey of 
 the Chicago River, and of the Chicago Drainage chan- 
 
 nel, to determine whether the said channel has been 
 completed in accordance with the requirements of Sec- 
 tion 23 of the Act entitled, ‘An Act to create Sanitary 
 Districts, and to remove obstructions in the Desplaines 
 
728 
 
 and Illinois Rivers,’ approved May 29, 1889, in force 
 July 1, 1889, having certified to me that said channel has 
 been and is now completed in accordance with the law 
 creating said Sanitary Districts. 
 
 Now THEREFORE I, Joun R. Tanner, GOVERNOR OF THE — 
 State oF Iuutnors, do hereby authorize and direct you, 
 the said Board of Sanitary Trustees, to open and let 
 into the said channel, the waters of Lake Michigan and of 
 the Chicago River, and the sewerage of said Sanitary 
 District, and to use and employ said channel for all the 
 uses and purposes for which said channel was con- 
 structed. 
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 
 seal, this Seventeenth Day of January, A. D. Nineteen 
 
 Hundred. 
 JOHN RK. TANNER, 
 
 Governor.’’ 
 
 3318 Mr. CurperFieLp: I desire to offer in evidence a per- 
 mit issued by the Honorable Russell A. Alger, Secretary 
 of War, approved by General John M. Wilson, Brigadier 
 General Chief Engineers United States Army, dated 
 May 8, 1899, authorizing the opening of the Sanitary 
 Canal and regulating the amount that might be flowed. 
 And in that same condition I desire to take leave to with- 
 draw the original on substituting a compared copy. 
 
 Whereupon said document was received in evidence by 
 the court, marked Exhibit ‘‘60’’ and is in words and fig- 
 ures following, to-wit: 
 
 3319 Eixutsit ‘‘60.’’ 
 
 Wueresas, by Section 10, of an Act of Congress, ap- 
 proved March 3, 1899, entitled ‘‘An Act making Appro- 
 priations for the construction, repair and preservation 
 of certain public works, on rivers and harbors, and for 
 
729 
 
 other purposes,’’ it is provided that it shall not be law- 
 ful to alter or modify the course, location, condition or 
 eapacity of the channel of any navigable water of the 
 United States, unless the work has been recommended 
 by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secre- 
 tary of War prior to beginning the same; 
 
 AND wHEREAS, the Sanitary District of Chicago, a Mu- 
 nicipal Corporation, organized under the laws of the 
 State of Illinois, has constructed an artificial channel 
 from Robey Street, Chicago, to Lockport, and has been 
 heretofore granted permission by the Secretary of War 
 to make certain improvements in the Chicago River, for 
 the purpose of correcting and regulating the cross sec- 
 tion of the river so as to secure a flowage capacity of 
 300,000 eubie feet per minute with a velocity of one and 
 one quarter miles an hour, it being intended to connect 
 the said artificial channel with the west fork of the south 
 branch of Chicago river at Robey Street in the said city 
 of Chicago; 
 
 AND wHeEREAS, the said Sanitary District of Chicago 
 has now applied to the Secretary of War for permission 
 to divert the waters of the said Chicago River and cause 
 them to flow into the said artificial channel at Robey 
 Street as aforesaid; 
 
 AND WHEREAS, the said Sanitary District of Chicago 
 
 3320 represents that such movable dams and sluice gates as 
 are necessary to, at all times, secure absolute and com- 
 plete contro] of the volume and velocity of flow through 
 the Chicago River heve been constructed ; 
 
 Now THEREFORE, the Chief of Engineers having con- 
 sented thereto, this is to certify that the Secretary of 
 War hereby gives permission to the said Sanitary Dis- 
 trict of Chicago to open the channel constructed and 
 cause the waters of Chicago River to flow into the same 
 subject to the following conditions: 
 
730 
 
 1. That it be distinctly understood that it is the in- 
 tention of the Secretary of War to submit the questions 
 connected with the work of the Sanitary District of Chi- 
 cago to Congress for consideration and final action, and 
 that this permit shall be subject to such action as may 
 be taken by Congress. 
 
 2. That if, at any time, it becomes apparent that the 
 current created by such drainage works in the south and 
 main branches of Chicago River, be unreasonably ob- 
 structive to navigation or injurious to property, the Sec- 
 retary of ‘War reserves the right to close said discharge 
 through said channel or to modify it to such extent as 
 may be demanded by navigation and property interests 
 along said Chicago River and its south branch. 
 
 3. That the Sanitary District of Chicago must assume 
 all responsibility for the damages to property and navi- 
 gation interests by reason of the introduction of a ecur- 
 rent in Chicago River. 
 
 3321 Witness my hand this 8th day of May, 1899. 
 (Signed) R. A. AuecrEr, 
 [SEAL | Secretary of War. 
 (Signed) Joun M. Witson, 
 Brig. Gen’l Chf. of Engs. 
 USA es 
 
 3322 Mr. Cuiperrietp: I also desire to offer in evidence a 
 communication from Major J. H. Willard, corps of en- 
 gineers, United States Army, transmitting an order of 
 the secretary of war of the United States modifying the 
 permit given the Sanitary District of Chicago to open 
 the artificial channel from Robey street, Chicago, to 
 Lockport, Illinois, and causing the waters of the Chi- 
 cago River to flow into the same, dated May 8, 1899. The 
 order being the 9th day of April, 1901. 
 
 Whereupon said document was received in evidence by 
 
731 
 
 the court, marked Exhibit 61, and is in words and fig- 
 ures following, to-wit: 
 
 Bolo esr 61. 
 
 Alex J. Jones, President Fred M. Blount, Treasurer 
 William H. Baker, Vice President A. R. Porter, Clerk 
 James Todd, Attorney 
 
 Isham Randolph, Chief Engineer 
 
 Board of Trustees. 
 
 THE William H. Baker 
 SANITARY DISTRICT Joseph C. Braden 
 OF CHICAGO Zina R. Carter 
 Security Building. Frank X. Cloidt 
 
 Alex J. Jones 
 William Legner 
 Thomas A. Smyth 
 Thomas J. Webb 
 Frank Wenter 
 
 Cuicaco, April 22, 1901. 
 
 To the Honorable, the Board of Trustees of the Samtary 
 
 Mstrict of Chicago: 
 
 GENTLEMEN : 
 
 I have the honor to transmit herewith a communica- 
 tion of Major J. H. Willard, Corps of Engineers, U. 8. 
 A., transmitting an order of the Secretary of War dated 
 Apru 9, 1901, modifying and regulating the discharge 
 of water from the Chicago River into the Drainage Canal 
 so that the maximum flow shall not exceed 200,000 cubic 
 feet of water per minute. 
 
 The order of the Secretary of War was received at 
 nine o’clock a. m., Saturday, April 20, 1901, and I im- 
 mediately instructed the Engineering Department of the 
 District to comply with said order. I recommend that 
 the correspondence and order herewith submitted, be 
 printed in the Proceedings of the Board, and placed on 
 
732 
 
 file as a part of the permanent records of the Sanitary 
 District of Chicago. 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 (Signed.) Arex J. JONES, 
 
 President. 
 3324 SUBJECT: 
 
 Chicago and Calumet Harbors, 
 Illinois and Calumet Rwers, 
 Iilinois and Mississippi Canal. 
 
 UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, 
 1637 Indiana Avenue, P. O. Drawer 132. 
 Cuicaco, Ill., Apr. 19, 1902. 
 Alex J. Jones, President, 
 Board of Trustees, Sanitary District of Chicago, 
 Security Building, Chicago, Lil. 
 Sir: 
 
 I have the honor to enclose herewith, by order of the 
 War Department, an order from the Secretary of ‘War 
 modifying the permit granted to the Sanitary District of 
 Chicago to open an artificial channel from Robey street, 
 Chicago, to Lockport, Ill., and cause the waters of Chi- 
 cago River to flow into the same, dated May 8, 1899, and 
 to respectfully request that receipt of same be acknowl- 
 edged. 
 
 Very Respectfully, 
 (Signed.) J. H. Wrwarp, 
 
 Major, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. 
 (1 encl.) 
 
 Chicago River. 
 J AT Ges 
 (6353) 
 
 332) Wuernas, Under date of May 8, 1899, the secretary of 
 war granted permission unto the Sanitary District of 
 Chicago to open the artificial channel from Robey street, 
 Chicago, to Lockport, and cause the waters of Chicago 
 
733 
 
 River to flow into the same, upon the following condi- 
 tion, inter alia: 
 
 ‘o. That if, at any time, it becomes apparent that 
 the current created by such drainage works in the South 
 and Main Branches of Chicago River, be unreasonably 
 obstructive to navigation or injurious to property, the 
 secretary of war reserves the right to close said dis- 
 eharge through said channel or to modify it to such ex- 
 tent as may be demanded by navigation and property i1n- 
 terests along said Chicago River and its South branch”’’: 
 
 AND WHEREAS, it is alleged by various commercial and 
 navigation interests that the present discharge from the 
 river into the Drainage Canal sometimes exceeds three 
 hundred thousand (300,000) cubic feet per minute, caus- 
 ing a velocity of nearly three (3) miles per hour, which 
 ereatly endangers navigation, in the present condition 
 of the river; . 
 
 Now THEREFORE, This is to certify that the secretary 
 of war upon the recommendation of the chief of engi- 
 neers, hereby directs said Sanitary District to regulate 
 the discharge from the river into the Drainage Canal so 
 that the maximum flow through the Chicago River and its 
 South Branch shall not exceed two hundred thousand 
 (200,000) eubie feet per minute. 
 
 3325 Wirness my hand this 9th day of April, 1901. 
 (Signed.) Enravu Root, 
 [ SEAL. | Secretary of War. 
 
 Which said order is endorsed upon the back as fol- 
 - lows: 
 BO 3930.7? 
 (Also): ‘‘Office of the Secretary War DerparTMENt, 
 Apr. 6, 1901, 2560 of 1900/34.’ 
 (Also): ‘‘Office, Chief of Engineers War DspaRTMENT, 
 Apr. 18, 1901, 35242/54.”’ 
 
734 
 
 (Also): ‘‘U. S. Ene’r Orrice, Chicago, Ill. Received 
 Pe OU Lee 
 (Also): ‘Order of Secretary of War directing Dis- 
 trict to regulate flow of water from Chicago River into 
 the Drainage Canal, presented to Board of Trustees re- 
 ceived, printed and filed April 22, 1901. 
 A. R. Porter, 
 Clerk.,’’ 
 
 Which said Exhibit 61 is endorsed upon the back as 
 follows: } 
 
 “Box ‘A’ Fine No. 5. Order from the Secretary of 
 War regulating the flow of water in the Main Channel, 
 dated April 9, 1901. Printed and Filed April 22, 1901. 
 Page 7157 of the Proceedings.’’ 
 
 3327 Mr. CurperrieLp: I algo desire leave to offer in evi- 
 dence a communication dated July 23, 1901, from Hon. 
 Elihu Root, secretary of war, United States, regulating 
 the flow of the Sanitary District Channel. 
 
 Whereupon said document was received in evidence 
 by the court, marked Exhibit 62, and is in words and 
 figures following, to-wit: 
 
 3328 EXxXHIBit 62. 
 WAR DEPARTMENT, 
 Washington, 
 File No. 2,560 of 1900. July 23, 1901. 
 Sir: 
 
 Referring to War Department order of April 9th last, 
 restricting the flow of water through the Chicago River 
 under War Department permit of May 8, 1899 to 200,000 
 cubic feet per minute, and replying to your letter of 15th 
 instant, in which you request, for reasons stated, that 
 the said order be amended to permit a flow of 300,000 
 cubic feet per minute between the hours of 4 p. m. and 
 
735 
 
 twelve o’clock midnight, I beg to inform you that I have 
 this day approved the modification last referred to, 
 which approval will be subject to revocation by the De- 
 partment in case the increase shall prove to be dangerous 
 
 to navigation. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 (Signed.) Exravu Root, 
 
 Secretary of War. 
 Mr. Alexander J. Jones, 
 
 President. Santary District of Chicago, 
 Chicago, Illinois. 
 
 (Endorsed upon the back as follows): 
 
 ‘¢Box ‘A’ Fine No. 6. AMENDED orDER from the SEcRE- 
 TARY OF War in reference to the flow of water through the 
 Main Channel, dated July 23, 1901. Printed and Filed 
 August 14, 1901. Page 7372 of the Proceedings.’’ 
 
 3329 Said order bears upon the back thereof the following 
 endorsement: 
 
 ‘‘War Department. Amended Order permitting a flow 
 
 of 300,000 cubic feet per minute through Chicago River. 
 
 Presented to Board of Trustees, received, printed and 
 
 filed, August 14, 1901. 
 : L. C. Leaner, 
 
 Acting Clerk.’’ 
 
 3330 Mr. CuiperrreLp: I also desire to offer in evidence a 
 communication from William Cary Sanger, acting secre- 
 tary of war of the United States, dated December 6, 
 1901, transmitting an order dated December 5, 1901, regu- 
 lating the flow of the Sanitary District Channel. 
 
 Whereupon said document was received in evidence by 
 the court, marked Exhibit 63, and is in words and figures 
 following, to-wit: 
 
odd 
 
 736 
 
 ExuHisit 63. 
 WAR DEPARTMENT, 
 Washington. 
 File No. 2,560 of 1900. December 6, 1901. 
 
 GENTLEMEN: 
 
 Referring to your letter of 16th ultimo, requesting, on 
 behalf of the Sanitary District of Chicago, permission 
 to increase the flow of water in the Chicago River from 
 200,000 eubie feet to 250,000 cubic feet per minute, from 
 midnight to 4:00 p. m. daily, under authority previously 
 granted by this Department, I have the honor to trans- 
 mit herewith, for retention, an instrument granting the 
 said Sanitary District of Chicago permission to regu- 
 late the discharge of water into the canal so that the 
 maximum flow through the river shall not exceed 250,000 
 cubie feet per minute throughout the twenty-four hours 
 of the day, subject to the conditions set forth in the said 
 
 instrument. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 (Signed.) Wm. Cary SANGER, 
 Assistant Secretary of War. 
 
 THe Boarp or TRUSTEES OF THE 
 Sanitary Districr or CuHrcago, 
 Security Building, 
 
 Chicago, Illinois. 
 
 (Inclosure: 2560-44 of 1900.) 
 J. A. Gl: 
 
 3332 (6353) 
 
 Wuereas, under date of May 8, 1899, the Secretary of 
 War granted permission unto the Sanitary District of 
 Chicago to open the artificial channel from Robey street, 
 Chicago, to Lockport, and cause the waters of Chicago 
 River to flow into the same, upon the following condi- 
 tion, ter alia: 
 
737 
 
 ‘co. That if, at any time it becomes apparent that 
 the current created by such drainage works in the South 
 and Main Branches of Chicago River, be unreasonably 
 obstructive to navigation or injurious to property, the 
 Secretary of War reserves the right to close said dis- 
 charge through said channel or to modify it to such ex- 
 tent as may be demanded by navigation and property in- 
 terests along said Chicago River and its South Branch’’; 
 
 AND wHEREAS, the Secretary of War subsequently di- 
 rected said Sanitary District of Chicago, to regulate the 
 discharge of water into the Chicago Drainage Canal so 
 that the maximum flow through the Chicago River shall 
 not exceed 200,000 cubie feet per minute from midnight 
 to 4 Pp. m., nor 300,000 cubic feet per minute from 4 Pp. Mm. 
 to midnight ; 
 
 AND WHEREAS, said Sanitary District of Chicago has 
 applied to the Secretary of War for permission to in- 
 crease the flow between midnight and 4 p. m. daily, to 
 250,000 cubic feet per minute; and the Chief of Engi- 
 neers has recommended that the increase applied for be 
 granted, but that the rate of flow from 4 p. m. to mid- 
 night be reduced to 250,000 cubic feet per minute so that 
 the flow through the Chicago River shall not exceed 250,- 
 000 cubic feet per minute throughout the 24 hours of the 
 day ; 
 
 Now THEREFORE, This is to certify that, in accordance 
 with the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, the 
 Secretary of War hereby gives unto said Sanitary Dis- 
 trict of Chicago permission to regulate said discharge so 
 that the maximum flow through the Chicago River shall 
 not exceed 250,000 cubie feet per minute throughout the 
 24 hours of the day, upon the following conditions: 
 
 1. That this permission shall be in lieu of the present 
 authorized rates of flow as stated above. 
 
 2. That the permission herein given shall be subject 
 
738 
 
 to such modification as in the opinion of the Secretary of 
 War the public interests may from time to time require. 
 
 3. That said Sanitary District of Chicago shall be re- 
 sponsible for all damages inflicted upon navigation in- 
 terests by reason of the increase in flow herein author- 
 
 ~ ized. 
 
 Witness, my hand this 5th day of December, 1901. 
 
 (Signed.) ‘Wm. Cary SANGER, 
 Assistant Secretary of War. 
 
 Which said order is endorsed upon the back as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 ‘‘Office of the Secretary War Department, Dec. 5, 
 1901, 2560 of 1900/44.’’ 
 
 3333 Endorsed upon the back as follows: 
 
 ‘‘Box ‘A’ Fiuz No. 7. Permit from the SECRETARY OF 
 War regulating the flow of water in the river to 250,000 
 cubic feet per minute throughout the 24 hours of the day, 
 dated December 5, 1901. Printed and filed December 11, 
 1901. Page 7521 of the Proceedings.”’ 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: I also desire to offer in evidence a 
 3334 communication dated July 31, 1908, by Robert Shaw 
 Oliver, acting secretary of war of the United States, 
 transmitting an order dated May 8, 1899, on the part of 
 Russell A. Alger, secretary of war, and approved by 
 John M. Wilson, Brig. Genl. chief of engineers, United 
 States Army, regulating the flow of the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict of Chicago. 
 Whereupon said document was received in evidence 
 by the court, marked Exhibit 64, and is in words and 
 figures following, to-wit: 
 
3330 
 
 739 
 
 Eixurpit 64. 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 WAR DEPARTMENT. 
 Wasuineton, July 31, 1908. 
 
 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached paper is a true copy 
 of the original on file in the office of the Chief of Engi- 
 neers, U. 8. Army. 
 
 (Signed.) E. Evetera WInstow, 
 Acting Cluef of Engwmeers. 
 
 Br 1r KNown that KH. Eveleth Winslow, who signed the 
 foregoing certificate, is the acting chief of engineers, and 
 that to his attestation as such full faith and credit are 
 and ought to be given. 
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand, and 
 caused the seal of the War Department to be affixed on 
 this first day of August one thousand nine hundred and 
 eight. 
 
 [ SEAL. | (Signed) Roperr SHAw OLIVER, 
 Acting Secretary of War. 
 
 ‘WHEREAS, By Section 10 of an Act of Congress ap- 
 proved March 3, 1899, entitled ‘An Act Making appro- 
 priations for the construction, repair and preservation of 
 certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
 purposes,’ it is provided that it shall not be lawful to 
 alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capa- 
 eity of the channel of any navigable water of the United 
 States unless the work has been recommended by the 
 Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of 
 War prior to beginning the same; 
 
 Anp wHekreEas, the Sanitary District of Chicago, a mun- 
 icipal corporation organized under the laws of the State 
 of Illinois, has constructed an artificial channel from 
 Robey street, Chicago, to Lockport, and has been hereto- 
 
740 
 
 for granted permission by the Secretary of War to make 
 certain improvements in the Chicago River for the pur- 
 pose of correcting and regulating the cross section of the 
 river so as to secure a flowage capacity of 300,000 cubic 
 feet per minute with a velocity of one and one-quarter 
 miles an hour, it being intended to connect the said arti- 
 ficial channel with the west fork of the South Branch of 
 Chicago River at Robey street in the said City of Chi- 
 cago; | 
 
 AND WHEREAS, the said Sanitary District of Chicago 
 has now applied to the Secretary of War for permission 
 to divert the waters of the said Chicago River and cause 
 them to flow into the said artificial channel at Robey 
 street as aforesaid; 
 
 AND wHEREAS, the said Sanitary District of Chicago 
 represents that such movable dams and sluice gates as: 
 are necessary to, at all times, secure absolute and com- 
 plete control of the volume and velocity of flow through 
 the Chicago River have been constructed ; 
 
 Now THEREFORE, the Chief of Engineers having con- 
 sented thereto, this is to certify that the Secretary of 
 War hereby gives permission to the said Sanitary Dis- 
 
 3337 trict of Chicago to open the channel constructed and 
 cause the waters of Chicago River to flow into the same 
 subject to the following conditions: 
 
 1. That it be distinctly understood that it is the in- 
 tention of the Secretary of War to submit the questions 
 
 3337 connected with the work of the Sanitary District of Chi- 
 cago to Congress for consideration and final action, and 
 that this permit shall be subject to such action as may be 
 taken by Congress. 
 
 2. That if, at any time, it become apparent that the - 
 eurrent created by such drainage works in the South and 
 Main Branches of Chicago River, be unreasonably ob- 
 structive to navigation or injurious to property, the Sec- 
 
741 
 
 retary of War reserves the right to close said discharge 
 through said channel or to modify it to such extent as 
 may be demanded by navigation and property interests 
 along said Chicago River and its South Branch. 
 
 3. That the Sanitary District of Chicago must assume 
 all responsibility for damages to property and naviga- 
 tion interests by reason of the introduction of a current 
 in Chicago River. 
 
 Witness my hand this 8th day of May, 1899. 
 
 R. A. ALGER, 
 
 Secretary of War. 
 JoHN M. WItson, 
 
 Brig. Genl. Chf. of Engs. U.S. A. 
 [ SEAL, | 
 
 3008 Appearing on the back of which in pencil is the fol- 
 lowing: 
 ‘26384. Printed in proceedings of May 10, 1899, pgs. 
 0675 & 76.’’ 
 
 3009 Recess taken to 1:15 p. M., same day. 
 3340 | November 27, 1912, 1:15 p. m. 
 
 Martin J. Hogan, a witness for defendant, being sworn 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Martin J. Hogan. I reside at Chicago, [li- 
 nois. I ama police officer and pilot on a police boat. 
 The police boat is a life saving boat for the purpose of | 
 rescue and protection of life and property on the Chi- 
 cago River. I have been connected with the police de- 
 
 3341 partment of the City of Chicago about fifteen years. I 
 have been master of the present boat three years. J am 
 a regularly licensed master. Before I went with the City 
 
742 
 
 of Chicago I was pilot on a boat for the Chicago Edisort 
 Company, Commonwealth Edison Company for a few 
 years, and for the Fisher Coal Company, a tug boat. I 
 ran the tug boat Robert A. Dunham. I ran the steamer 
 Imperial and I ran other boats and have lived on boats 
 in former years; raised on boats along the canal and 
 river, 
 
 I am perfectly familiar with the Chicago River. There 
 is a north and south branch and then there is what we 
 call the west fork of the south branch and a channel lead- 
 ing from the south branch to the entrance of the Drain- 
 age Canal. That is located at Robey street. It would be 
 about Thirty-first street and Robey. The entrance to the 
 canal is on the south branch. 
 
 3342 Iam familiar with the point where the Chicago River 
 and Lake Michigan meet. The river is approximately 
 500 feet wide at that point. The current is less than half 
 a mile, it is hardly perceptible. I know where the Rush 
 street bridge is located. It is very close to 200 feet wide 
 and the current of the river at that point is very nearly 
 a mile an hour. 
 
 IT am acquainted with the Lake street bridge. I should 
 judge that the width of the Chicago River at that point 
 between the center pier on each side and the banks of the 
 stream would be 50 feet, making 100 foot span. The 
 
 3343 current is close to a mile and a half at Lake street. 
 There is a bend at that point of the river and there is 
 also an additional flow comes from the north branch. 
 The north branch enters about, 1,000 feet to the north of 
 Lake street. 
 
 I am acquainted with the north branch as far up as 
 Irving Park boulevard and up to Winnetka. Up at Irv-. 
 ing Park the channel is very narrow, about 80 feet. There 
 is very little current in the north branch. It is sluggish 
 along there and the wind sometimes causes floating ob- 
 
743 
 
 jects to go a little faster than ordinary, but on a calm 
 day you wouldn’t hardly notice any current. 
 
 3344 The south branch swings in and joins the river at Lake 
 street. The east branch of the south branch flows into 
 Lake street and becomes the south branch of the river. 
 
 I know where the Jackson street bridge is. The south 
 branch of the Chicago River at Jackson street is about 
 125 feet wide. The current may go a little better than a 
 mile and a half, maybe a mile and three-quarters. 
 
 I know where the Fort Wayne bridge is at Stewart 
 avenue. I reckoned about four miles from the mouth of 
 the river. The flowing section of the stream at Stewart 
 avenue is probably 50 foot channel on each side. The 
 current is about a mile and three-quarters, sometimes 
 
 3345 two miles at that point. 
 
 I know the river at Halsted street. There is quite a 
 current at that point caused by the narrow space. The 
 abutments are built ont there and there is an angle in 
 the river. Just before you get to Halsted street the river 
 is close to 200 feet wide. It narrows down right in the 
 draw of the bridge. This is a lift bridge and the abut- 
 ments are built right up square. Its maximum current 
 is two miles. 
 
 I am acquainted with the Chicago River at Robey 
 street and know where the entrance to the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict canal is located. The width of the entrance of the 
 
 3346 Sanitary District canal is about 300 feet wide. The cur- 
 rent isn’t as strong as it would be in a narrow place. The 
 current may be about half a mile. It isn’t so perceptible 
 to us in handling boats. We don’t pay much attention to 
 it. At that point the current is a mile and a half easy. 
 
 3347 The wind blowing off the lake from the northwest or 
 northeast raises the water level in the river and it rushes 
 in for a little while and then when the wind dies down it 
 kind of backs out again. Whenever there is a big storm 
 
744 
 
 or big blow comes in the lake the water raises and falls 
 alternately every 20 minutes; sometimes flows right out 
 into the lake again. The level goes down two or three 
 feet and we know there is a storm coming when we see 
 that. Something in the nature of a tidal wave back and 
 forth. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The Chicago River in a general direction flows south- 
 
 west. I have seen it flow out into the lake prior to 1900. 
 3348 It was probably stagnant before that time. 
 
 The mouth of the Chicago River was considered about 
 where the light house is out in Lake Michigan. The water 
 apparently comes from Lake Michigan and some from 
 the tributary streams. - 
 
 This head of the Chicago River now is at Robey street. 
 
 3349 Before that it was somewhere out on the northwest side 
 
 towards Galena. We are on the western slope of the 
 
 watershed and the water flows sometimes from that direc- 
 
 tion and sometimes from the Desplaines River on the 
 
 south. The water does not come from the Desplaines 
 now. 
 
 The Chicago River is about 22 feet deep at its present 
 mouth. The water all through the Chicago River is 
 3300 about 21 feet in the channel. 
 
 3351 I haven’t noticed any difference in the flow between 
 winter and summer. The lake shipping is practically 
 over on the first of September; commences about the first 
 of April. The flow is apparently the same the year 
 around. 
 
 I never took any measurements to determine the 
 velocity. I simply judged from objects I have seen float- 
 ing from where we meet them in the river. It is a mat- 
 ter of judgment on my part. I have seen the depth meas- 
 
 3352 ured by engineers who were preparing to sink a tunnel. 
 
740 
 
 I imagine the depth of the river as I have given it is ap- 
 proximately correct. On the velocity I have given my 
 best judgment. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 The depth I spoke about was 21 or 22 feet at Loomis 
 street. I should judge, at least 15 or 20 feet from the 
 dock on each side. As the stream approaches the dock 
 
 3303 it runs to about 18 feet, the deepest part is in the cen- 
 ter. 
 
 Re-cross Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 In order to accomodate a boat that is drawing 19 feet 
 of water you would not have to have 19 feet 
 of water along the docks, because the boats that are built 
 for lake travel are not built on square or box type. They 
 are bevelled and cut down so when the side of the boat 
 rests against the dock at low water, the bottom of the boat 
 may be eight or nine feet from the dock. 
 
 3354 The Chicago River in my best judgment all the way 
 along runs from 18 to 20 feet. 
 
 THomas Moynawan, a witness for defendant, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Exammation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Thomas Moynahan. I reside at Chicago. 
 
 I have been harbor master of the City of Chicago since 
 
 June, 1911. I have been acquainted with the Chicago 
 
 River for some years, 42 years I would say. I was a 
 
 3350 bridge tender for many years, tending the bridge at 
 State street. 
 
 As harbor master of the City of Chicago I have no- 
 ticed the current. and width of the Chicago River. At 
 
746 
 
 the harbor entrance and down to Lake street it is about 
 200 to 250 feet wide. South of Lake street it is about 200 
 from there to the Drainage Canal I would judge; some 
 parts of it is a little narrower. Around Halsted street it 
 might be about 100 feet in the draw, and between Van 
 Buren and Jackson streets it might be 100 feet there, 
 not quite 100. At the narrow points the bridges obstruct 
 the river. 
 
 3306 I know where the Pennsylvania crosses. I should 
 judge that it is about 60 feet or somewhere about that 
 wide at that point. 
 
 I know the Jackson street bridge. The river would be 
 about 95 to 100 feet wide there. 
 
 At State street between the piers of the bape it is 
 140 feet wide. 
 
 The current of the river as I have observed it is about 
 a mile and a half, take it from the north of the river 
 down to Lake street. Where the north branch comes in. 
 And it runs down to a mile and a quarter south of there. 
 
 3357 The north branch has only enough current so you can 
 barely observe it. The south fork of the south branch 
 has very little current. 
 
 From Lake street south to the Drainage Canal the cur- 
 rent is a mile or a mile and a quarter. 
 
 3358 I have been acquainted with Chicago River 42 years. 
 
 Cross-Exammation by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I gave a mile and a half as the speed of the river at 
 Lake street. I am simply giving you my best judgment 
 in all of these matters. They are not based upon meas- 
 urements or readings actually taken. This is the first 
 time I have been called on a case of this sort and about 
 
 the third time I have ever been in a court room. 
 3309 Where the Chicago River meets Lake Michigan it 
 would be about three or four hundred feet wide. 
 
747 
 
 It is the same width. The Sanitary District has not 
 widened the Chicago River to my knowledge; they 
 have dredged the river but not widened it. At 
 the mouth of the harbor the current may be two 
 miles, I would not say for sure. I would think it 
 2260 is 26 to 28 feet deep. At Rush street bridge it is about 
 24 to 26 feet deep. It is about a uniform depth pretty 
 near to Lake street, then-it is 21 feet outside of that. 
 There is about 15 feet left at the side of the docks to 
 keep the docks from falling in. If they dredged a uni- 
 form level at the bottom it would be injurious to the 
 docks. Maybe it is ten feet from the top of the surface 
 3361 of the water there. It is my best judgment down as 
 far as Lake street that it runs from 16 to 15 feet near 
 the docks out to 24 to 26 feet in the center. 
 At the Rush street bridge it may be flowing a mile and 
 a half. It does not flow as fast there as it does at the 
 mouth. More space at the mouth. I judge the water is 
 flowing faster there. About at Lake street the velocity is 
 a mile and a half or a mile and a quarter, not flowing as 
 3362 fast as it does at Rush street. 
 
 3363 CorNELIUs O’Connor, a witness for defendant, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Cornelius O’Connor. I reside in Chicago. 
 
 I am a rod man working for the City of Chicago in the 
 
 3364 harbor division. I am familiar with the river and have 
 
 been for eight or ten years. I know where Lake Mich- 
 
 igan and the Chicago River join. The width of the 
 
 stream at that point is 290 to 300 feet. The current is 
 about a mile an hour. 
 
 At Rush street the width is 280 to 290 feet. At Lake 
 
 street the same. Jackson street 95 to 100, At the Penn- 
 
748 
 
 sylvania bridge 110 feet. At Loomis street 140 feet.. At 
 Taylor street 150 to 160 feet in the draw of the bridge. 
 At Halsted street about 85 to 100 feet. 
 
 The velocity of the stream in the main river is about a 
 mile an hour; in the south branch about a mile and a 
 quarter to a mileandahalf. No noticeable current in the 
 north branch of the Chicago River. There is very little 
 in the south fork of the south branch. 
 
 I know where the entrance of the Sanitary District 
 Canalis. The width in the entrance is about 180 feet and 
 the current at that place about a mile anda half. I have 
 
 3366 been observing the Chicago River for eight years. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I have never taken any measurements on the Chicago 
 River at the entrance to Lake Michigan. I am giving 
 you my best judgment. Might be slightly wider or nar- 
 rower. Some of the widths I have given are well known. 
 The river is 21 to 22 feet deep where it connects with 
 Lake Michigan; about the same at Rush street. It is 
 
 3367 supposed to be that to Robey street. It is shallower to- 
 wards the wharves. A boat drawing 18 feet six can 
 come into the Chicago River. 
 
 The velocity where it comes from the lake is about a 
 mile an hour. It does not increase when it gets to Rush 
 street. The only increase is where the draw bridges are 
 narrow. 
 
 3368-69 The current in Bubbly Creek, otherwise known as 
 
 the south fork of the south branch is about a mile an 
 hour. 
 
749 
 
 3370 RicHarp Mauer, a witness for defendant, being sworn 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Richard Maher. I reside in Chicago. I 
 am a hoisting engineer at the Throop street bridge. The 
 Throop Street bridge crosses the drainage canal. Il 
 
 3371 crosses the Chicago River. The canal and the river are 
 the same there. Where the river enters the Drainage 
 Canal I should judge it is about 200 feet wide outside of 
 the bridge. Inside of the bridge it is much narrower, 
 about 160 feet I should judge. 
 
 The current of the river at that point is about a mile 
 or amile and a quarter. I don’t think there is much dif- 
 ference at Robey street. 
 
 3372 M. W. SHELLy, a witness for defendant, being sworn tes- 
 tifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Hxammation by Mr. Chiperfeld. 
 
 My name is M. W. Shelly. I reside in Chicago. I am 
 bridge tender for the Pennsylvania Company. My bridge 
 is located at 20th and Stewart avenue. 
 
 The width of the river at that point is something like 
 100 feet. The current is about two miles an hour in the 
 center of the draw. The river is 100 feet wide taking 
 
 3373 both sides of the river, the bridge is in between. In ad- 
 dition to the bridge obstruction, there are obstructions 
 presented by piers built for the new bridge to be put in; 
 probably takes up about 15 feet more, making a total 
 width of the river at that point not over 85 feet. The 
 current is two miles an hour in my judgment. 
 
 3374. Mr. Cureerrrenp: May we regard the exhibits which 
 I introduced this forenoon as having been read? 
 
790 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Yes. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLD: I desire to offer in evidence the 
 rainfall data since the year 1893 at Antioch, in the State 
 of [llnois, certified to by the Secretary of Agriculture. 
 I will put them all in in one list and save time. 
 
 I ask to have that marked as Exhibit ‘‘65.”’ 
 
 Also for the same period at Chicago, Cook County, Ili- 
 nois, from 1893 down and ask that the same be marked 
 
 3375 Exhibit ‘‘66.’’ 
 
 Also for the same period of time at Chicago Heights, 
 Illinois and ask the same to be marked Exhibit 67. 
 
 Also for the same period at Fort Sheridan and ask 
 that the same be marked 68. 
 
 Also for the same period at the City of Joliet and ask 
 that the same be marked Exhibit 69. 
 
 Also for the same period at LaGrange and ask the 
 same be marked Exhibit 70. 
 
 Also for the same period at Lake Forest and ask the 
 same be marked Exhibit 71. | 
 
 Also for the same period at Lake Villa, and ask the 
 same be marked Exhibit 72. 
 
 Also for the same period at Morgan Park and ask the 
 same be marked Exhibit 73. 
 
 Also for the same period at Racine, Wisconsin, and 
 ask the same be marked Exhibit 74. 
 
 Also for the same period at Wheaton, Du Page Coun- 
 ty, Illinois, and ask the same be marked Exhibit 75. - 
 
 Also for the same period at Collegeville, Jasper Coun- 
 ty, Indiana, and ask the same be marked Exhibit 76. 
 
 3376 Also for the same period at Gilman, Iroquois County, 
 Illinois, and ask the same be marked Exhibit 77. 
 
 Also for the same period for Hoopeston, and ask the 
 same be marked Exhibit 78. 
 
 Also for the same period for Kankakee, and ask the | 
 same be marked Exhibit 79. 
 
Tol 
 
 Also for the same period for Knox, Starke County, 
 Indiana, and ask the same be marked Exhibit 80. 
 
 Also for the same period for LaPorte, Indiana, and 
 ask the same be marked Exhibit 81. 
 
 Also for the same period for Martinton, Lllinois, and 
 ask the same be marked Exhibit 82. 
 
 Also for the same period for Plymouth, Indiana, and 
 ask that the same be marked Exhibit 83. 
 
 Also for the same period for Rensselaer and ask the 
 same be marked Exhibit 84. 
 
 Also for the same period for South Bend, Indiana, 
 and ask the same be marked Exhibit 85. 
 
 Also for the same period at Syracuse, Indiana, and 
 ask the same be marked Exhibit 86. 
 
 Also for the same period for Valparaiso, and ask the 
 same be marked Exhibit 87. 
 
 Also for the same period for Watseko, Iroquois Coun- 
 
 | ty, Illinois, and ask the same be marked Exhibit 88. 
 3377 Also for the same period for Wellington, [linois, and 
 
 ask the same be marked Exhibit 89. 
 
 Also for the same period for Winamac, Indiana, and 
 ask the same be marked Exhibit 90. 
 
 Also for the same period at Aurora, Kane County, 
 Illinois, and ask the same be marked Exhibit 91. 
 
 Also for the same period for Chemung, McHenry Coun- 
 ty, Illinois, and ask that the same be marked Exhibit 92. 
 
 Also for the same period for Delavan, Wisconsin and 
 ask the same be marked Exhibit 93. 
 
 Also for the same period for Dwight, Illinois, and ask 
 the same be marked Exhibit 94. 
 
 Also for the same period for Elgin, [linois, and ask 
 the same be marked Exhibit 95. 
 
 Also for the same period for Oswego, Illinois, and ask 
 the same be marked Exhibit 96. 
 
 Also for the same period for Riley, McHenry County, 
 Illinois, and ask the same be marked Exhibit 97. 
 
752 
 
 Also for the same period for St. Charles, Kane Coun- 
 ty, Illinois, and ask the same be marked Exhibit 98. 
 
 Also for the same period for Sandwich, Illinois, and 
 ask the same be marked Exhibit 99. 
 
 Also for the same period for Sharon, Wisconsin, and 
 ask the same be marked Exhibit 100. 
 
 Also for the same period for Sycamore, Illinois, and 
 ask the same be marked Exhibit 101. 
 
 Also for the same period for Waukesha, Wisconsin, 
 and ask the same be marked Exhibit 102. 
 
 Also for the same period for Woodstock, McHenry 
 County, Illinois, and ask the same be marked Exhibit 
 103. 
 
 Also for the same period for Yorkville, Illinois, and 
 ask the same be marked Exhibit 104. 
 
 Also for the same period for Forrest, Illinois, and ask 
 the same be marked Exhibit 105. 
 
 Also for the same period for Lexington, Illinois, and 
 ask the same be marked Exhibit 106. 
 
 Also for the same period for Minonk, Illinois, and ask 
 the same be marked Exhibit 107. 
 
 Also for the same period for Pontiac, Illinois, and ask 
 the same be marked Exhibit 108. 
 
 Also for the same period for Strawn, Illinois, and ask 
 the same be marked Exhibit 109. 
 
 Also for the same period for Streator, Illinois, and 
 ask the same be marked Exhibit 110. 
 
 Also I want to introduce a certified copy of report of 
 the climatological service department of the United States 
 
 3379 under the hand of the secretary, the acting secretary 
 of the department with the seal of the department of 
 agriculture of the United States Government attached 
 thereto and ask to have it marked Exhibit 111. 
 
 Whereupon said documents were received in evidence 
 by the court, marked respectively Exhibits ‘‘65’’ to 
 
753 
 
 ‘*111’? both inclusive, and are in words and figures fol- 
 lowing, to-wit: 
 
 (Said Exhibits 66 to 111, being certified in the same 
 manner as Exhibit Number 65.) 
 
 3380 Exxuisit ‘°65.’’ 
 
 ‘UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.. 
 WasHineton, D. C. 
 November 12, 1910. 
 Pursuant to section 882 Revised Statutes, I hereby 
 
 certify that it appears from the records of The United 
 States Weather Bureau, Washington, D. C., that the at- 
 tached statement showing the monthly and annual 
 amounts of precipitation at 
 
 Antioch, Lake County, Lllinois, 
 is a true copy of the official records on file in the Weather 
 
 Bureau. 
 (Signed) H. EK. Wrttiams, 
 
 Acting Clef, U. S. Weather Bureau. 
 
 Be it known that H. I. Williams, who signed the fore- 
 going certificate, is the Acting Chief U. S. Weather 
 Bureau, and that to his attestation full faith and credit 
 are and ought to be given. 
 
 In witness whereof, I have hereunto signed my hand 
 and cause the seal of the department of agriculture ‘to be 
 affixed on this 12th day of November, 1910. 
 
 (Signed) W. N. Hays, 
 Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
154 
 
 3380-3479 EXHIBIT 65. ANTIOCH, ILL. LAKE Co. 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 IDOL .cvac Sees, bevn. Sue MUS Shag, erSou Leal) 197 -0.61) yng 
 1902 0.45 1.40 1.95 1.30 7.45 5.90 6.25 ..55 7.35 3.67 F.80 > S70Gee77 
 1903 0.35. 0.60 2.60 2.55 3.65. 2.90 6.60 7.95 6.35 0.80 0:70) 12g 
 1904 0.55 1.10 5.20 2.20 1.90 1.39 4.41 2:20 4.55 1.20 0.75 so ages 
 1905 1.00 2:05 2:65. ..%. 4.45°°2.95° 5.80" 5-20 2.80 = 1 70 ee 
 1906 3.20 2.40 0.60 1.95 2.10 2.95 1.65 5.33° 5:87 2.25) d1s0 epee 
 1907 3.80 0.30 1.65 0.95: 5.29 °4:80 2:02 3.96. 5.43° 1:05 “Si 2ntGeee ee 
 1908 2.55 2.20 3.35 4:85 5.26 3.60 4.29 1.57 1.00 1.15 “2770 seit 
 1909 2.20 1.60 0.60 8.68 °-1.05 2.00 1215 6.55 .3.62:20/61 “3723 "eee 
 1910 2.20. 0.65 0.05 2.94. 4.94 1.30 0.838°3.61 2.80 2.379)2.00 3 
 EXHIBIT 66. CuHIcaGo, ILL. CooK Co. 
 
 1871 4.13 1.45. 2.66 3.70 3.90 5.56 2.52 2.01. 0.74 1.88 3.62 )o4eeeaoeon 
 1872 0.68 0.84 3.79, 3.03 3.24 3.45 3.09 2.59 6.43 0.65 1.06 0.22 29.07 
 1873. 2.56 0.47..0.89 6.22 7.20 1.44 4.04 1.58 3.53 2.43 1.61 4.44 36.41 
 1874 3.47 1.51 2.15 2.67 2.08 3.25 0.58 3.15 3.76 2.55 2.83 0.63° 28763 
 1875 0.96 1.99. 1.43 2.382 3.64 5.17 °7.18 93.297 '4:39 4132 ©0. 7a ear eee 
 1876 3.22 3.90. 4.04 2.07 1.85 5.96 3.11 3.66 3.74 1.20 3.25 0.48 36.48 
 1877 1.91 0.06 5.37° 2/42 1.81 6.04 2.98 3.06 2:02 6.51 6.08 92. 75eeaeieos 
 1878 1.31. -2.12 4.39- 5.57, 5.22 3.02 6.09 3.66 1:99 5.17, 0.83.0 22bseeaiegs 
 1879 0.54 1.47 2.37 1.93 3.89 3.18 5.58 0.45 1.18 2.72: 4.93 247 30.71 
 1880 3.53 2.91 2.25 5.20 4.97 3.50 3.07 4:47- 2.25 3.19 0°87) Teileegaeas 
 1881 0.87 5.98 2.99 1.84 1.85 5.93 4.31 0.54 4.34 6.89 5.97 2.67 44018 
 1882 1.55 2.24 3.43 6.72 5.52 5.71 3.43 4.96 0.91 3.40 1.48 1.99 41.34 
 1883 «1.74 4.74 0.42 .3.72 7.32 5.61 6:53..1,21 . 1:36: 7.36, 5.20 9 5 SOReaa ae 
 1884 1.39 3.27 5.16 3.05 1.53 2.11 3.71 2.50 2.29 -3:59 9 1.80 4e2 
 1885 3.18 2.01 °0.57 4.00 3.17. 5.20/2.44.11°28 2.97 3.8% 2.353 7ob eee 
 1886 93.56 1.51 1.79 1.29 1.00 0:94 -1.53°°3:38 6:93) 1742 ' 1 GO Rios 
 1887 3.13 5.10 0.89 0.46 1.38 1.63 1.05 3.35 4.03 2.03 2.41 3.67 29.13 
 1888 1:56 1.51 2.99 2.13 6.22. 1.66: 3.93 2.10 0.98 ° 2.95) 2.89) igaeesGess 
 1889 1.64 1.31 1.43 2.35 5.38 2.938- 9.56 0,39 2.75 1.82 3.49°0 2 OUmegaags 
 1890 2.98 2.42 2.10 3.23 5.13 3.25 2.57 2.58 1.39 4.20 1.59 1.25 32.69 
 1891 1.99 1.95 2.13 3.14 2.09 2.42 2.47 4.52 0.32 0.36 3.83 1/32 526054 
 1892 1.99 1.57 2.21 2.17 6.77 10.58 2.23, 1.85 1.34 1.54 2°63 Seg seen 
 1893 2.08 2.44 1.69 -4.16 1.93 3.59 3.08 0.18 1.98 1.75 2.45 "2. Tas D7ea7 
 1894 1,55 2.13 2.66 2.65 3.35 1.96 0.60 0.60 8.28 0.84 1.18 1.66 27.46 
 1895 2.15 1.60 1.32 0:86 1.99 1.79 ©2:42° 6.49" 0.89" 0.51 * 5°60 Gs ieee 
 1896 1.12 3.48. 1.26 2.79 4.16 2.82 3.61 3.52 6.70 1.36 2.16 Oc; lGmogen 
 1897 4.53 2.22 3.56 2.23 0.84 3.60 1.47 1.70 0.84 0.18 3.06  T°G2eeearRs 
 1898 3.54 2.59 4.60 0.76 2.23 5.380 1.94 3.03 3:16 3.26 2.25 1.11 33:77 
 1899 0.58 1.60 2.11. 0.14 4.35 2.71. 6.66. 0:91 2.39 2.09: 1s 14S 
 1900 1.21 3.52 1.58 1.02 3.59 2.06 4.64 4.24 1.56 1.35 3.30 0°58) 23765 
 1901 1.15 2.05 3.38 0.33 2.18 2.42 4:25 2.00. 2.92 1.29 OSS yee 
 1902 0.66 1.53- 4.16 2.26 5.08 6.45 5.78 1.44 4.83 1.45 2.03 L903 7e57 
 1903 1.09 3.03 1.67 3.77 0.93 1.62 4.78 3.49 4.00 1.09 0.34 2.28 28.09 
 1904 2.25 1.71 4.57 3.01 1.54,  .55..2.76 4.00. 2:65 1.53" Sie ee 
 1905 1.33 1.95: 2.438 3.03 5.14 3.27 5.02 4.46 4.18 1:82 2.05° 0368ma5asG 
 1906 «1.67 2:37 1.61 1.86 2.09 1.87 4.84 1.43 5:54 2:05 3.03 =2e4Geeagees 
 1907 4.21 1.00 2.94 2.37 3.50 3.64 3.15 4.22 4.49 0.93 1.92 2.73 35.10 
 1908 2.05 3.72 3.48 2.81 6:74 1.48 1.45 6.35 2.09 .81 2.67 SURI Seeeaeee 
 1909 1:96 3.84 1.63 7.73 2.18 5.09 1.77-6:20 3.60 1.20 oS S40 aei pee 
 1910 3.07 0.89 0.29. 3.84 4:67 0.91 -1.79 3:08 3.90 1.79 Ti3l lp a2eeGeee 
 
759 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EXHIBIT 67. CuicaGco HEIGuHTs, ILL. CooK Co. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 rn ee tLe sua 252% OUR AGO kee 
 Dnlee.4s U.o5 4.54 2.0] 4.04 13:24 §.40 1.78 5.55 1.88 2.37 1.55 43.62 
 reine 2.02 2.04 4.42 3.56 1,91 5.50 4.59 5.40 1°26 0:68 2.07 35.37 
 ES is ad 8. iy) PURSES ae ON) tain MAS gh s bse fees 
 EXHIBIT 68. FORT SHERIDAN, ILL. LAKE Co. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 eens 4 onl 400° 2°80; 3.20, 4.10 3,17 0.31 2.20 0.75 0,659 4.75 1... 
 1890 2.68 1.84 2.33 4.82 5.25 7.77 1.25 2.47 1.32 6.02 0.92 2.27 38.94 
 Peete lets, 2.25°°2,56 4,33 2.25' 5.69 1.94 3.75 0.48 1.55 4.09 0.90 31.50 
 age 0,48 (1.81 0:95 3.57 6.51 10.19 2.54 0.86 -1.67 0.00 1.78 2.60 32.96 
 ted 1) 91595 5.87 2.07 3:62) 3.77 0.10 3.62 1.19 2.87 1.61 29.79 
 wg04" 2.94 1.45 2.01 4.70 4.01 0.51 -T 0.27 6.56 2.49 1.64 1.26 27.84 
 Pee 10.32 0.45 2.50 3.70 2.600 3.30 3.81 4.88 0.41 2.14 220. cau. 
 Pecpeeent OG aa.5d sacls 2.00 1.00 3.80 1.79 5.60 0.97 2.80 0.65 27.25 
 ee eae lied Ue hablo k 4) 134 1.52. 2110000 25 3.53 1.51. 26.82 
 Pee oon Dien lowi.oo. 2:430:2.50. b.65- 2.86 2.48.753210 1.44. 0.91° 27.41 
 309) 0-52) 1.26 2247 0227 6:04 2.53 2.91 2:05 2:76 1.85 2.40. 1.31 26.38 
 Dale te erent Pima Seles ees at ees rere ye i, 
 EXHIBIT 69. JOLIET, ILL. WILL Co. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 een te er eee ee 982,00 2.47% 2.71 2.96 22.99 1.85 3217... :. 
 eee SOU bomee yh ieee OU e110 0500 6.00. 0.905.308 on eo cnt ce are os 
 ee ee ee Pe ee ass Vets es 187-1257, «.... 
 ipg4eeloiGe Jo) 2:87 2.23 3.69 2.84 0.46 0.85 5.99 1.18 1.68 1.00 25.26 
 teugeeene 0.07 «1.04 1.92 1.95 1.26 4.32 2.96 0.93. 0.67 2.90 6.62. 27.06 
 Devoe wae 2 Ui 1 1b oe2.G2> 5.20 3:89 4,97 <2.75 .6.69.10.86. 2.96 0.36 .-34-94 
 Pereeeedieelso4er3 . S0rr2.07 shi2o, 5719. 1.59 0.55) 0,632.0.445°4:42. 1.68. 30.93 
 £805— 4-05 52.28- 6.12 1.42. 3.82 7.89-.1.59 4.69 3.20 4.53 2.61 2.15 .44.35 
 ee o2 0). 68 2.23 - 0:35 4:69. 2.17 .-5.26..1,.74. 2.442.39. 1.15. 1.70- 26.62 
 Pie eos 4229 2-24 0.79 §4:27 1.80 .5.08 5774) 2:05 »1.61 3:10 0.53 33.08 
 Pomeeless el 626 3002 0256 ~0)8ie-3.14--5.42 -2.84--2255--0..85--1.63— 2.36~..27.28 
 Pee eoo 1.437 52510 2°36) 7248°12.86. 9:38..3:.15 6:28 2:44 2.99 1.68 56.11 
 1903 1.05 2.92 2.22 3.62 2.49 1.68 4.46 4.77 4.98 1.40 0.86 2.18 32.63 
 feast lid 4.97. 3,01 3.19 0.940 2,.971.03.19 4.95 1.44 0.10, 1.63...31.36 
 eiometetow 1 .43.°2,29 4.13) 5.42 5.10 4.18 4.29 3.63 3.57 2.66 1.46 39.34 
 mgmeyooees OO — 126) 1.67 2:00° 1.85 32.5 4.00 5.68 92-76:.2.63. 3.13. 32.37 
 Peer Uroe o.00 20.28.3132, 71270 5.38 4.66 6213 .0.66 1.86 3.07 38.08 
 Demeter ieea,G0 74.50 -Os02 © 6.95, 91-30 0.19 3.80" 1.32~'0 82) 2:77 ~-1-30- - 33-13 
 1909 -1:12 °3.38 -1.56 6.60 3.46 .3.80 1.69 .2.95 3.09 1.68 °4.55 3.50 37.38 
 Pmeeaeoe et.) 0.24 13:81 94.90 0.8) “1,46 3.17 2775 91.68 70.62 01.12° 24.29 
 
 
 
 Remarks: From Noy. 1893 to April, 1895, inclusive, the values are for Braidwood, 19 
 miles distant. 
 
Apr. 
 
 orb. . 
 fo in 
 Ge % 
 
 WOON Nr WNWrRCCOOFrW He - 
 SPN PorPOonworOWr ObNFr:- 
 IDF OUOrR NR ONTOORP Ors: 
 
 Apr. 
 iN) 
 
 Apr. 
 
 EXHIBIT 70. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. 
 1890 cay See 
 1891 shi ey 
 1892: sce e835 (2520 
 1893 -1.91 91.7980 2315 
 1894.) 04 sLei2. eee 
 1895 1.64 0.45 0.85 
 1896 > 6 2539) 1204 
 1897 6.09 1.83 4.00 
 1898 4.30 2.60 5.87 
 1899 "0537. #8) S206 
 1900 Sl oe osm coe 
 1901 eel 40d eee 
 1902 0.53 1.34 3.19 
 1903 0.86 2.90 2.51 
 1904 1.65 1.56 5.30 
 1905-0272 =1806 S1258 
 1906> “1261 925502250 
 1907, S277 0.40 227) 
 1908 2 24)- S340" 3520 
 1909 -<CG8= 3273: 1342 
 1910. 22350283 0.05 
 EXHIBIT 71. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar 
 USRG Ree tae eee 
 1887 3.84 5.43 1.06 
 Toss. “15¢0a B0scac56 
 TBS. gh Geet, lene 
 A800, 2.7608 ad weeo 
 BX HIBET 72. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. ~ 
 1900 00 
 EXHIBIT 73. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. 
 1900 1.41 3.45 pt ee 
 1901 0.70 1.45 3.98 0.69 
 
 1902 0.45 1.14 4.76 2.89 
 
 756 
 
 LA GRANGE, ILL. Cook Co. 
 
 May June July Aug. Sept. 
 
 — 
 
 ON ONN OF KF ODOWOWrFR PNW WNWC. . 
 Reo Dr OGInNPrR ONTO nwOonnworeNWOC. 
 WHEDON ATNTODWOWOUWKH ONO. . 
 
 Awe 
 
 oo 
 
 oo 
 
 LAKE ForREST, ILL. 
 
 May June 
 4.05 
 2.01 
 4.29 
 4.60 
 5.08 
 
 2.27 
 1.00 
 2.68 
 4.21 
 5.29 
 
 LAKE VILLA, ILL. 
 
 May 
 
 MORGAN PARK, ILL. 
 
 2.96 
 
 Cr OO DONC: : 
 
 Pw PNW WWH- NAWOONWh-: 
 
 bo Ot Or OO. 
 CO eB O&O or. 
 
 July 
 
 0.54 
 1.55 
 1.89 
 4.77 
 
 June July Aug. 
 S118 
 
 0.23 
 5.69 
 1.57 
 4.59 
 2.18 
 4.81 
 2.00 
 2.08 
 3.06 
 2.65 
 5.53 
 4.28 
 PYRG 
 6.45 
 
 BW OOM RP WOTOTW Rr WOOF CObDre. .- 
 WOnwP ATR NDWOOoodsIOOWr COs: 
 OMDONVCOOCKHKOOIwtovunooenfo: 
 
 Aug. Sept. 
 
 6.65 
 3.63 
 3.46 
 OTE 
 
 4.88 
 4.47 
 1.50 
 2.22 
 
 Sept. 
 1.86 
 
 Oct. 
 
 KS ORM NRK NKR NHR OCOFC?C: 
 EFWWOONOAINMODBDHOnwwonrooc: 
 EPP OCINTLOOOON Rr WONTRDNF: - 
 
 LAKE Co. 
 
 Oct. 
 
 1.37 
 2.97 
 2.57 
 2.40 
 
 LAKE Co. 
 
 Oct. 
 
 CooK Co. 
 
 May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. 
 
 0.85 3.35 
 7.84 10.70 
 
 5.71 
 6.58 
 
 1.24 3.68 
 2.47 
 
 1.35 
 
 Nov. 
 
 CONF WrRNOWWwWorFNWh- 
 
 NORE ONNWROWUNMAwWoOOAND: 
 
 Woo ueo sl 
 
 “OPW WONWOCOD FS: 
 
 ee bor db bo 
 
 Nov. 
 
 1.47 
 2.10 
 2.86 
 2.45 
 
 Nov. 
 
 Nov. 
 
 1.42 
 
 Dec. 
 
 KS Re NOOCONNRK ORFF OOONF - 
 Dr WOW KhDOWWWOUWreE ONCOL: 
 CODD PK DRDO WOKrWNWNWHDMORKr OW: 
 
 Dec. 
 
 vay 
 4.04 
 1.69 
 2.66 
 
 Dec. 
 
 Yearly 
 
 Oe Bee 
 PY ge ae et 
 
 se eee 
 eee 
 
 oe oe Dn 
 
 eee ee 
 
 eee ae 
 
 
 
797 
 
 EXHIBIT 74. RACINE, WIS. RACINE Co. 
 
 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 
 
 Pe en gen. 0.0L Jen Ave 1.02 0.22 7c7) -1.80'° .64 °..... 
 Pipe e) oe. oe 4.01 3.96. .87 3.4) (1.93- 2.47 1.29 6 1.92 1.35 25.86 
 Siesta oooh oto 1.04 1.8L 27484 (3.24 9720 (2.90 3.13 91:29 —.53 29.11 
 foro.) (16690) CSL 4289 Slt 64:26 31.08 <4.25 “1.394 (2.17 2.04 25.55 
 Papeete eed) 1.20 483 1.75) 2.21 (6:66 .5.65 1:82 1.87 4:19 ~ .34 31.18 
 Meeeeees ii.oe 3.49  .so 2,09 2.25, 286 (1:41 3.82 86° 187° 1.29 20.00 
 Pelee era 2.0) 92 5:77 5.40 6.8/7 | 245. 6.80 1:39 2.19 2:20 36.06 
 Drees elolt) 2.1). 2.10 .2.99 3.0) 3.23 4.76 4.20 (1°39 273 * .76 28.88 
 pee e425) Li) loo 2.00 d.00 2:02 2.89 1.47 (17 1:80 25.27 
 1905 .93 .85 1.96 4.05 4.49 3.74 3.45 5.56 2.37 3.48 2.02 1.15 34.00 
 1906 2.46 1.94 1.59 1.61 1.50 2.46 1.04 3.85 7.30 2.25 2.92 1.44 30.36 
 1907 2.99 0.57 2.98 2.53 4.29 4.45 4.79 4.06 4.87 1.02 1.24 1.75 35.54 
 te ele4s 2.99 .2.48 4:13 5.29 2.68 9:52 1.80 1.22 1.30 2.15, 0.90 29.54 
 1909 2.50 2.24 0.60 7.82 0.83 2.42 2.34 2.90 3.48 0.67 3.00 3.50 32.30 
 ieee O.g0 Uc72 2.66" 3.18 0:90 0.45 2.246 147 2:18) 1.77-..0.26° 17.75 
 
 
 
 EXHIBIT 75. WHEATON, ILL. Dv Pace Co. 
 
 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 Secgmeee eee ee eee 2.09 6139 3.47 4299 21.52 61516 1.5500 5:78 
 
 Pappa 09 2200 2.11 94.50 07 «2283. 5.14 2.48 9.09 9.53 3:78 9 255 941.47 
 Peeree ect 62.21 (o.40 4260 91°02" 4.22 3:09 91.11 1.105 .49 2.97.99 33.66 
 1898 3.67 2.20 6.04 1.31 4.20 6.03 1.90 5.69 4.65 5.13 2.34 1.86 45.02 
 e000). 74 91278 2.36" Al 97-15 1.39 6.66 1.96. 2.21 92.12 1.41 1.86 30.05 
 1900 1.43 4.09 1.66 .93 3.33 2.84 3.97 3.53 2.39 2.29 2.77. .60 29.83 
 1901 1.42 1 es ee, SR sd eS PA es. | AR 
 
 
 
 EXHIBIT 76. COLLEGEVILLE, IND. JASPER Co. 
 
 
 
 “Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 ree ee eee theo 2.00 2s] 4 erese, 
 tse er. 07) 3.00 3.92. 3.66 8-91) 1.90 3.63. .2.66. 1-37 . 0.82. 2.61 . 1.62 °35.17 
 1909 2.29-7.16 2.77 5.76 3.38. 5.42.5.02 6.97 4.26. 2.62. 4.20 3.21 53.06 
 1910 2.85 2.45-0.98 2.98 6.40 0.96 4.95 5.40 5.03 2.35 1.19 1.75 37.29 
 
 
 
 EXHIBIT 77. GILMAN, ILL. IRoQuols Co. 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 nM Oe ee OR ie ee od) oo mes eee a Ol IB val 
 Jn Ge Bie ied POS aes Udi Lo heel ced 00.01) 03 mio 740 etl el (eo 280.1791 + 29.43 
 eC rere OS SO Gre. Me ES. AS. cles RE aes Se whw Plans NOS oe 
 
 
 
 
 
708 
 
 EXHIBIT 78. HOoPESTON, ILL. VERMILION Co. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 1902) al cee Bee pee pe ee 14.37 4585912580 25,01 100-2 oes 
 1903 1.94 3.03 0.64 6.45 3:77 1.84 3.85 5.78 1.64 1:92 1-80 (2=ayeeaaeee 
 1904 5.20 2.16. 7.36 2.61 2.35 1.87 4.36 2.81 3.91 0/38 "O.08 toes 
 1905 61.76 2.77 1.24 3.91 4.53 2.15 3.81 3.75 5.00. 2°82 22eae5 et eee 
 1906 2.52 1.52 4.46 1.84 3.58 L.57 2.34 7-87 2°31 31.50 95.05.9507 eee 
 1907 5.89 0.22 4.26 2.90 3.28 5.34 6.48 2.08 5.09 0.94 2.27 3°88 saga 
 1908 1.41 6.23 3.64 4.45 8.07 0.86 2:19 1.11 1°79 0°33 (278) Sree 
 1909 2.87 6.88 1.76 -.45 4.24 4.18 6.07 5.28 2.33 2.10 “S247 (37pieeeoeee 
 1910 2:99: 1.86 -Q:46 2.46 .5.38. 1.73 (4.66 2:23 5212 (02) (O78 0e27 
 
 EXHIBIT 79. HOSPITAL, ILL. KANKAKEE Co. 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 1886. ..24\0 sa%Ge aes cuieen NOMA cEegies shang ate ete 00 easgte ee ieee nn 
 1887 1.45 4.50 0.68 0.90 1,93 1.75 1.10 2.65 .... 1.20) (]o eee 
 3 <t En eee mmr bell by Brg. tees ERA Sr Oy at woo SL DO eee 
 1889 1.54 1.02 elie és soe ee aL, 
 1890 ee S. week ilies _. ; sr! 3! gees 
 er ete ee cee rees ee a 
 ~ 1892 ce ee Cnet Sate 10.0994. 67992251 92924-52203 0.86. 2295 
 1893--- 1.00-0.38.~.1.1380 .5.45...4,.83. 1.28... T) 20255. — 1.69 “1°70 
 1894 2.35 1.67 2.04 3.54 3.29 1.11 0.85 1.30 “8,44 10.50 92.20 02 Ueeeeee 
 1895 1.00 0.19 1.02 “2.81 2.64 1.11 °2.53.°2.61 "1,79 91.52. 33 0200. 6 eee 
 1896 1.09 2.00 “0.53 1.93 5.53 5.64 97.31 94.99 5.82 -0.48 1:95 902h7 eee 
 1897. 3.23 1.07 3.09 1.99 1.51 93.32 2.15 0:26 0.20 91.60 33:03 ee 
 1898 .... .«:. (7,69 1.81 °5.66 1,72 91.69 4.20 5,80 34.18 62.3300 2) ee 
 1899 1.20 . etd 0741093590 251)" 3118 Seem ene 2.00: “ucks see 
 1900 =. 2 ae fonee ya : oe 
 EXHIBIT 80. KNox, IND. STARKE Co. 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. -~Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 
 
 1897 ws eee aes. 1.90 82.20 94530: 92.509 1-80 9. oe. 1 180 930 ee 
 1898 2:70) sew Hees 1.309200 0 aes aks 25 00 We 
 1.) er ew Me ee ee 
 he Soe nr ame ee 
 A) rahe mm oe oe Ee 
 1902 secs cea Meds, eects Bites gM Gites “See betas) pie iene 
 1903) vs Ase tel Ae eS Bis eetoaoeeee Jvc) Osis > ee en 
 LL er kn Re Me 
 905° ek Sars “ape Gee ee re 20 ae 
 1906 3.57 1.16 .2.81 2.69 2.45 3.94 2.34 3.18 1:51 2.70 4.78) S4eldieaoes 
 1907 4.17 0.23 5.47 3.57 3.02 4.20 5.37 ° 4.22 4.34- 1:87 2:37 BS 00eas cas 
 1908 1.75 5.57 3.87 3.42 6.94 1.65 3.10 3.42 1.19.0.34 3.16 eb2oeeaaees 
 1909 5.01 6.57 2.15 6.00 3.26 4.44 4.01 5.70 3.41 2.61 4.44 2.93 50.53 
 1910 - 3.07 -1.61 0.51 4.73 5.07 0.56 3.00 6.19. 4.17 2:78 “1320 ieAgeeaead 
 
EXHIBIT 8&1. 
 
 LA PoRTE, IND. 
 
 799 
 
 LA PorRTE Co. 
 
 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 ee 
 
 3.34 2.51 3.43 
 2.69 3.64 2.01 
 
 1897 
 1898 
 1899 
 1900 
 1901 
 1902 
 1903 
 1904 
 1905 
 1906 
 1907 
 1908 
 1909 
 1910 
 
 EXHIBIT 82. 
 
 Year 
 
 1896 
 1897 
 1898 
 1899 
 1900 
 1901 
 1902 
 1903 
 1904 
 1905 
 1906 
 1907 
 1908 
 1909 
 1910 
 
 3.53 
 2.06 
 bal 
 2.75 
 
 . 96 
 1.58 
 2.66 
 2.09 
 2.66 
 3.60 
 2.29 
 2.15 
 1.84 
 
 Jan 
 
 FE RWONrFOFrOrWWwW: 
 Iowmoonwuosnwko- 
 COON Dre NOOWOR NAT eer: 
 
 bo bo 
 or oo 
 (>) San) 
 
 Remarks 
 
 mOrRDrFDOrF KER OFF - 
 
 bo WwW COR RR WW DmOwWre bh: 
 orRWOsTIANNOFKR ONC OI}: 
 NOON COCO K NOON N Fr: 
 Orr KR NW NWKHR RHR NWH- 
 mOoOorhw RATAN Owsi- 
 oonorr-ocrnwNocn”nror80: 
 
 Feb 
 
 S 
 
 SCHWUNSCBOMWUMWOW-: 
 NROTINOSHOSoOOH: 
 CON NOW PEP RWN RW: 
 ROUND MNNIONMHOMHWweo: 
 NOOHDRODORAONKROSD: 
 
 eS 
 Sow 
 ~I co 
 
 2.35 
 1.12 
 
 83 
 1.29 
 1.34 
 2.25 
 5.30 
 1.37 
 3.04 
 Lote 
 4.01 
 2.98 
 5.39 
 3.48 
 
 Poa 
 — 
 — 
 
 NP PWD WWATWrr Orb: 
 NOW MNOONKFE WWWHY Oh: 
 SOOT AWDnwooartir Ooo: 
 
 4.47 
 2.14 
 
 MARTINTON, ILL. 
 
 1.78 
 5.66 
 4.02 
 4.22 
 2.19 
 4.51 
 4.67 
 3.92 
 8.93 
 4.25 
 2.86 
 9.95 
 2.95 
 4.47 
 
 . 60 
 1.82 
 2.49 
 8.68 
 2.06 
 1.25 
 Dall 
 3.46 
 3.78 
 1.96 
 5.52 
 
 4.44 
 2.65 
 2.22 
 2.33 
 4.76 
 12.53 
 3.33 
 1.68 
 4.38 
 3.17 
 4.04 
 1.65 
 4.27 
 1.25 
 
 3.35 
 5.47 
 3.36 
 5.01 
 5.73 
 
 94 
 4.01 
 3.51 
 4.49 
 2.62 
 2.79 
 0.88 
 
 1.67 
 eel 
 2.99 
 4.34 
 1.85 
 6.29 
 4.34 
 2.03 
 2.68 
 6.02 
 5.65 
 1.24 
 2.45 
 4.36 
 
 56 
 3.10 
 1.07 
 5.51 
 3.71 
 2.40 
 4.05 
 3.04 
 3.20 
 4.65 
 3.13 
 2.92 
 3.32 
 3.53 
 
 3d 
 2.56 
 2.76 
 1.63 
 2.82 
 5.26 
 4.79 
 3.10 
 4.92 
 2.26 
 6.60 
 1.44 
 2.24 
 3.63 
 
 ; : ‘ . May June July Aug. Sept. ; ; ; 
 
 3.25* 4.42 7.02 
 
 3.62 
 1.28 
 4.03 
 2.19 
 5.10 
 3.15 
 2.37 
 3.88 
 3.24 
 4.91 
 fa19 
 6.62 
 2.86 
 7.31 
 5.80 
 
 5.50 
 0.29 
 DaLe 
 2.30 
 2.09 
 1.82 
 6.84 
 2.40 
 4.81 
 yar 
 4.59 
 4.17 
 2.60 
 3.82 
 4.50 
 
 6.95 
 42 
 .84 
 19 
 38 
 90 
 22 
 27 
 56 
 .90 
 .86 
 1.40 
 2.54 
 
 Re OR Re eS eS Re OO 
 
 TROQUOIS Co. 
 
 Oct 
 
 0.25 
 0.61 
 4.36 
 old 
 1.82 
 2.90 
 ary. 
 2.54 
 1.23 
 2.10 
 1.80 
 0.65 
 0.67 
 3.35 
 2.87 
 
 Nov 
 
 t.98 
 5.71 
 2.81 
 1.84 
 5.78 
 1.10 
 3.37 
 0.79 
 
 .09 
 2.68 
 3.25 
 2.70 
 1.58 
 5.53 
 0.26 
 
 o 
 3 
 
 FPDP ORR ODWOWF hb © 
 HEHrROMRODONWOKRGMHODH 
 DODWBDOOMNOKFONK COW 
 
 Yearly 
 
 ©) Oiler a) .0 
 
 : *15 to 31 only. 
 
 EXHIBIT 83. 
 
 Year 
 
 1894 
 1895 
 1905 
 1906 
 1907 
 1908 
 1909 
 1910 
 
 Jan. 
 2.14 
 2.57 
 3.13 
 1.24 
 
 3.25 
 1.66 
 
 Apr. 
 
 2.23 
 2.30 
 2.30 
 3.38 
 3.29 
 
 4.94 
 4.22 
 
 PLYMOUTH, IND. 
 
 May June July 
 
 6.07 
 1.43 
 2.75 
 2.74 
 7.41 
 
 3.05 
 
 4.54 
 
 1.82 
 1.81 
 5.07 
 4.40 
 2.06 
 
 4.49 
 0.76 
 
 3.50 
 
 MARSHALL Co. 
 
 
 
 Aug. 
 P26 
 
 Sept. 
 
 6.43 
 
 Oct. 
 1.34 
 
 wOnmnor thd: 
 ebro b we: 
 bP OOnmn: 
 
 2.32 
 3.32 
 se 
 
 Dec. 
 Shays 
 1.95 
 Ben 
 4.60 
 1.74 
 
 3.28 
 1.99 
 
 Pier ee 
 
 oe 0 6 6 
 

 
 760 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EXHIBIT 84. RENSSELAER, IND. JASPAR Co. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 1808 eres aoe aoe 1:90? "1250" Sete 
 1895 1.85 i on ro ram Se 
 1900 ops .:.. 4,05 4.40 °3.80 2.50.°1:30 _.70 4:00 0 ee 
 1901 2.10 1.27 4.02 1.30 .... .:.. 2:40 .... 1:75 4.38 1990s 
 1902 1.03 1.81 3.23. 1.93. 2.81 18.90 6.47 1.56 4:20 1.52 32067 2o7o eae 
 1903 1.09 3.49 1.30 5.94 2.69 2.34 4.85 5.11 2.73 2.46 1.13 2.81 35.94 
 1904 4.22 2.33 5.91 4.25 3.14 0.52 3.28 2.97 3.65 1.14 0.29 2.39 34.09 
 1905 2.10 2.10 1.59 3.86 7.93 2.77 3.80 3.00 3.69 2.36 2.51 “1i4e ae 
 1906 2.35 1.22 2.98 1.85 1.95 1.76 3.97 5.80 2.80 1.79 4.30 4.06 34.83 
 1907 4.83 ..08 6.37 3.42 4.40 3:75 5.50 4.18 3.10 0.73" G0 eee 
 
 Remarks: 19 days only —P; 22 days only —* * 28 days only. 
 
 EXHIBIT 85. SoutH BrenpD, Inp. St. JosEPH Co. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 1874 .... 2.88 3.58 1.35 2.04 4.50 92710 
 1875 2.20 3.00 2.00 2.10 3.65 1.92 1.50 .... 1.05 3.10 1.10 3.00 ..... 
 18762 622) ee ee xs Pima .. 0. oe 
 1803 eee es ve ceeds) Rhee — Warten, ale wins” By ng, eyelets pan 
 1894 1.68 2.08 2.49 3.57 6.15 1.92 1.66 0.51 4.88 1.80 2.80 1.09 30.63 
 1895 3.77 0.82 0:75 1.06 1.30 1:48 1.59 -2:35 1.22 1:49 3°84 spe2ieeeaeee 
 1896 1.04 1.77 2.28 2.35 3.01 3.81 7.45 4.79 4.92 0.98 2.69 0.37 35.46 
 1897 5.53 1.79 -3.31 2.52 53.09. 1.65 1.75° 3.65- 0.23 (0.71 4.609 acon 
 1898 03.52 2.66 4.47 1.01 2.97 3.41 1.94 4.11 91.81 ©6.56 Vo: Gl ze zoe 
 1899 2.01 2.18 3.81 0.80 4.52 1.63 2.64 0.66 4.05 3:70 1.5494 2o eae 
 1900 0.87 3.97 2.46 1.17 1.74 2.66 5.81 96.43 92.25 1.31 95.2030 G2 
 1901 2.51 1.88 4.32 1.67 1.96 3.01 2.25 2.46 1.42 3.95 2:00 SocoGseaee. 
 1902 1.16 1.45 3.85 2.38 6.94 97.39 4.16 °1.58 (4.50 91.46 "O. 3596s. peers 
 1903 2.91 3.33 1.86 4.89 1.25 5.52 6.43 5.21 3.72 247 1.43 33 .200azese 
 1904 3.76 2.40 5.51 2.92 3.95 1.16 “2:38 ~3.00 92.11 72:12 9073 7 
 1905 2.85 1.61 2.59 3.99 6.46 2.44 5.47 4.96 3.93 1.25 2.22 1.50 39.27 
 1906 2.42 1.28 2.98 2.08-2.21 4:36 3.56 4:08 91.13 "3.77 “Ssb/ Ogee 
 1907 3.42 0.42 3.91 3.76 4.13 4.83 5.10 3.48 4.82 2.48 2.36 4.92 43.58 
 1908 1.54 5.51 3.74 3.38 7:17 2.74 1,96 1.68 91.15 0.33 92220 nu 
 1909 4.46 4.64 1.66 4.96 3.34 4.59 3.23 3.68 3.00 2.12 4.68 3.40 43.76 
 1910 2.91 1.89 0.43 2.97 4.33 1.42 1.53 2.82 6.31 4.66 “1225 @2253eeeeeee 
 
 EXHIBIT 86. SYRACUSE, IND. Kosciusko Co. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 LSODn iets nee seen weed ghee cweee) wey en 58" 91.50 47 
 1896. 1.35 1.55 .... 2.51. 3.43. 2:04 8.83. 5.19 4.54. .59 02 49 eae 
 1897 4.56 1.57 4.38 2.28 3.56 3.58 1.47 4.30 .20 2.81 5.26 2.30 (36:27 
 1898 3.48 2.60 6.33 1.16 4.79 2.98 4.48 3.02 2.75 5.30 4.21 2.20 43.30 
 1899 2.67 2.85 4.06 1.62 5.42 1.98 4.32 1.89 2.71 4.60 2.40 3.47 38.05 
 1900 .79 4.61 2.90 1.83 2.58 3.70 4.90 4.20 2.04 4.05 6.68 .76 39.04 
 1901 3.39 2.68 4.41 2.34 2:10 2.16 2.70 1.05. .77 6.85 1.59°> aap eaaoe 
 1902 1.08 2.37 3.34 1.74 4.50 8.76 6.27 2.70 6.30. 1.61 SA8M3elteeeeeue 
 1903 1.51 3.99 1.69 -4.94 1.73 3.24. 4.80 4.83 3.81 3.13 91. 860eseU2eeaeeee 
 1904 5.46 3.70 6.57 3.76 4.09 1.26 2.13. 6.79 3.34 2.51. OD 1etsIgeeee 
 1905 2.28 2.00 2.32 4.93 6.29 5.11 4.25 .5.24 3.88 4.04 2.82 2.21 45.37 
 1906. 3.57 1.12 3.43 3.26 1.51 5.81 3.77. 2.04 4.12 2.64 s3.7aeo erm 
 1907." 4.98 _ OT. 33,623. Gaede Oana eee, PPh es 
 
 Remarks: * 14 days only. 
 
761 
 
 
 
 
 
 EXHIBIT 87. VALPARAISO, IND. PORTER Co. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 te mee 05 4.00 witli) eeu LeD0 bee O00 deol L.Od basse 
 1891 72.09 1.95 1.97 2.78 2.00 2.42* 2.47 4.50 0.34 0.39 .4,14-2.41 27.46 
 eet 90 1,06. 2.02 §2.05 ~5.70 10.73. 2.38 1.90 °2.00° 1.00 3.00 2.00 «36:74 
 15 2-00 3.00 2.25 4.16 3.00. 0.20°0.81 0.20 2.68 3.45 1.45 1.80 25:00 
 0471.70 1.90 2.60 2.70 6.60 2.70 2.00 1.30 8.70 1.24 2.93 1.80 35.67 
 3951.95 1.30 0.30 1.95 1.91 -2.30:4.71 3.32 - 1.99 - 0.53. 2.55 7.66 30-47 
 1896 1.15 2.75 2.45 3.34 6.42 4.34 7.56 6.40 4.95 1.17 -3.34 0.44 44:31 
 Saoree 0, eos a.00 2250 5.15 -3.95 1.10 2.10: T 2.00 3.16 .0.61 30:46 
 eet 2 1.20 © 5.409 1.0t 3.60" 3.55 3.00 4.00 2.51 -7.00 0.60 0.60 34:38 
 eee ee55 0-50" 0-95 40-30 3.80 3:00: 1.50 —T. 1.50 3.55 0.85 - 1.60 . 18:10 
 eee et 5, 1200 1.00 @4.00 ~ 3.00 “4.50 -6.00  T 0.50 ° 0.80 0.20 24.05 
 ponies 70 eosl0 4:25. 2.00 -2.00 .2.42 1.49 1.06 1.76 3:38 0.86 1.84 23.86 
 Roeser Gs 8.83 °2:79-°1.61 9:50 5.007 5.51 3:77 5.17 1.56 3.06 1.96 41.64 
 Pie ete) © 2.74 +182 §4:50 2.43 1.32 8.46 °3.95 4.00 1710 1.68 2.56 35.67 
 ma 2-48 1,70 4.98 4.67 4,45 1.71 1.86 2.80 $3.19 =1.12 0.53 1.43 30.92 
 Petee eos 4, 263i 8342 97.38. 0.72 4.85 2.95 3.978 92.00 1.13 1.68 39.33 
 Mage -o254 91:82-:2.59 2.09. 2.37 -..:. ca a ela FP ae Bd 
 EXHIBIT 88. WATSEKA, ILL. IROQUOIS Co. 
 
 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 
 
 
 
 eee Bee ee, eee roel 3.70 \2.11 4.45 6.65 «1.36 44.02 22... 
 feng 00 81-75 92:04 «2.305 15.38—3.40 3.06 .3.75 5.23 0.62 1.49 1.42 32.58 
 eee es Be Uses ls ee.) 22.05 92.12 53.37 ° 2.74 1.652.590 -4.11 30.32 
 iene ee 61.50 62.50 2.41 94.96 4.43 2,49 0.61 0.50 2.36 3.20 1.92 29.43 
 Pegeieso1 70 1.6500.28 6.40 -5.65 6.54 2.01 2.71 -2.68 3.15 1.53 36.69 
 Set 70M) 017) 85.05 00.60 aD.ot 0.1, 1-01 ¥2.10 2:08 98.73 81.56 es. eee.. 
 ESOT daca: Ed re ee ee ee er 
 ee eee O60, 87.5380 .4)) 20.98 boo 2.42 62.51 20.52.1.95 1.44 «2... 
 er eee OOS AR BL .AO. ten kd Pods atin Bi aSedtie. Wade, Soses- 
 (COS (a aoe Ry. RAY FS ahh See. Ras) ofS ot. 
 EXHIBIT 89. WELLINGTON, ILL. IRoQuors Co. 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 Seemeeereeeer. -4.i2-7 iso) 81.20 — 2:92 1:99 3.56 ~SF4l ~ 2.80 1-06 ©2113: .... 
 » 1902 0.80 0.57 1.88 1.027 4.71°10.49°°2.44° 1.90 3.53 1.55 1.94 .... 
 
 oe eae 
 
 EXHIBIT 90. WINAMAC, IND. PULASKI Co. 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 1898 3.45 1.79 1.82 5.19 3.48 3.44 4.84 3.53 6.17 4.13 .82 43.66 
 
 5.00 
 feces 64.56 0.59 5.05 2.97 3.15 0.57 2:46 3.16° 2.01 2.40 ..... 
 1900 .07 2.45 0.74 1.40 3.74 3.75 6.58 3.06 2.09 2.02 5.58 .01 31.49 
 boot 1.4/7 1.65 2.48 2.04 1.16 2.41 .50 3.29 1.08 6.06 .85 4.76 27.75 
 eee es... «83-89 «1.04 5.67 10.94 5.59 1.49 3.65 2.60 3.87 .... ..... 
 Meee 0.00 1.15 6.52 3.26 4.24 4.18. 3.76 4.55 4.02 1.05 1... ..... 
 eee 3... 2.2. .4.68° 4.23 0.88 1.80 2.64 5.13 SEMEN, | 5 oe 
 
 Se, 8.53 7 5G 4.46 9.32 9.12 3076 2.72 2... oc... on. 
 
 re O16 © 
 
 
 
EXHIBIT 91 
 Year Jan. 
 185 ]* pe ce 
 1858 2.19 
 1859 1.82 
 1 S607 ge oe: 
 1861 1.05 
 1865 1.20 
 1866 1.97 
 1867 2.45 
 1868 0.90 
 1860 ‘32 )'r-. 
 1870 5.48 
 1871 £. 
 1872 ° 0.35 
 
 BA873 5.34 
 1887 4.36 
 1888 1.40 
 1889 2.06 
 1890 3.24 
 1891 2.35 
 1892 1.53 
 1Saeec cor 
 1894 2.96 
 1895 1.53 
 1896 1.21 
 1897 6.93 
 1898 5.17 
 1899 0.55 
 1900 1.68 
 1901 1.39 
 1902 0.47 
 1903 0.83 
 1904 2.12 
 1905 0.93 
 1906 3.10 
 1907 3.69 
 1908 0.81 
 1909 1.43 
 1910 se4.00 
 
 Feb. Mar. 
 
 05 6.86 
 5 1.92 
 0 3.04 
 5 
 7 
 
 re bo 
 on 
 Oo 
 
 — 
 bo 
 
 NOW W PRN NOR FPR WWNNNRWe.- 
 
 COOrR KF NODONRrRrWNODRRrOC-:- 
 
 De PR WD COTO BAT OON KR ATO: 
 
 Ou 
 
 bo 
 Ww bo 
 mee OO 
 “I bo CO 
 
 80 3.58 
 57 1.34 
 "82 0.36 
 
 Apr. 
 5.19 
 2.28 
 
 1.58 
 2.33 
 3.93 
 0.82 
 2.08 
 2.63 
 2.17 
 3.94 
 3.59 
 5.81 
 2.49 
 1.48 
 4.17 
 2.88 
 1.49 
 0.49 
 0.78 
 0.39 
 2.16 
 4.23 
 4.21 
 3.85 
 1.57 
 2.00 
 3.10 
 8.38 
 3.96 
 
 762 
 
 Aurora (No. 1), ILL. 
 
 May 
 
 6.83 
 2.69 
 4.57 
 
 June 
 
 2.32 
 3.41 
 3.00 
 1.63 
 4.75 
 2.20 
 0.58 
 0.98 
 4.38 
 6.97 
 3.24 
 12.83 
 3.64 
 1.87 
 1.66 
 2.62 
 5.30 
 5.86 
 1.59 
 2.94 
 1.81 
 13.19 
 4.09 
 1.96 
 6.16 
 1.67 
 3.70 
 1.43 
 4.71 
 0.50 
 
 July 
 
 5.69 
 2.02 
 6.10 
 
 3.21 
 2.98 
 2.28 
 
 1.75 
 
 82 
 
 3.81 
 2.72 
 
 5.51 
 4.50 
 0.48 
 1.66 
 
 Aug. Sept. 
 
 3.84 
 2.52 
 1.67 
 
 KANE Co. 
 
 WODWONONNANNORNHPONRFNNNORr WE 
 bo 
 eo 
 
 Oct. 
 
 4.40 
 3.91 
 1.53 
 
 2.50 
 1.21 
 2.07 
 4.63 
 3.41 
 
 0.90 
 2.50 
 
 KS CORN DI RFNWNRFNMWNOOOCOFR KF WrORF WW: 
 (Sw) 
 (=) 
 
 Nov. 
 2.01 
 
 HWORNDE HEHEHE HOHE HOMOHNH 
 
 Al 
 
 se @ ee 
 
 s+ eae 
 
 4 a O\e, © 
 
 se eee 
 
763 
 
 EXHIBIT 91. AuRORA (No. 2), ILL. KANE Co. 
 
 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. - Yearly 
 ee fe er ee oe. Uso 06 S16) 240.4017 IR70° 2:2... 
 1880 4.08 3.55 2.25 4.36 6.10 3.91 5.63 7.46 3.22 2.14 1.03 0.76 44.49 
 Peoeeetets 3.00 5.00 1.08 2.61 5.80 3:19 0.73 93.24 7.15 4.97 8.27 45.75 
 1882 1.14 2.95 2.83 5.98 5.04 7.83 3.89 4.70 1.39 3.21 2.10 2.47 43.03 
 Pram toe 7,2) 0.61 3.75 7523 3.50 4.44 0.95 1.57 “6:34 5.65 2.61 . 46.51 
 1884 1.24 3.74 2.30 2.66 2.26 2.18 6.38 2.48 2.42 4.61 1.90 4.59 36.76 
 Peso, 2-01 2.09 0:98 3:31 3.16 5:07 2:59 7.72 4.04 3.74 2.04 3.05 39.50 
 1886 3.63 1.76 3.00 4.24 5.39 1.27 0.36 2.97 5.60 1.80 1.26 1.18 32.46 
 
 oe eae 
 
 1896 1.21 1.93 1.71 4.17 6.99 2.62 5.60 2.68 7.56 0.36 4.10 0.32 39.25 
 
 EXHIBIT 92. CHEMUNG, ILL. McHenry Co. 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 Pee eee al .oe 5.04 48.02°.9.06 «76 1:28 8.83 A.87'°2.27 ..60 s.. 
 Peete. 2.18, 2.52 4.96. 2.11 °2.91. 3.06. 4.74 ©.66-.2.10 2.59. 30.25 
 396, «90 :«1.93 3.48 6.78 4.18 3.18 5.10 2.27 8.56 1.06 2.52 .77 40.82 
 Beep 2.00 1.7% 5.25 4.66 1.67 6.36 4.73 2.00 1.18 .84 2.37 1.40 37.29 
 1308 2.89 2.73 4.25 2.20 3.71 5.97 2.54 5.66 2.72 3.41 2.09 .89 . 39.06 
 bee fo 7b. 62 1.94 71209 5.612.227 4.95 3.05 2.29 1.44 2.71 1.98 °°29.71 
 Pees. (3 1.49 1.96..1.78-.2.11 .4.73. 6.96- 4.67 2:57. 3.838. .95. 34.67 
 W901 1.43 1.27 4.54 .A7 1.77 3.56 2.45 2:28 2.95 .66 .94 1.73 24.05 
 ee OU Sota, 0. S0n 20> 6.54 1,06. 5.44 nsec es 
 
 
 
 EXHIBIT 93 DELAVAN, WIS. WALWORTH Co. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 arn ree eee cry. 66570 7.40 -2:79 92:70 1.19 1:36 “2...? 
 1887 4.05 5.34 1.85 .88 3.11 .51 3.83 3.63 4.29 2.47 1.21 4.60 35.77 
 Beceem) 00240 4,505.04 2.25 2.25 Te eee. ad. GE. a. 
 Seema ie earveo 1,50 82.00. 0620 “3:21 34.. 223. seen 314 1.69 2:09 2... 
 Pogue ote 1.05 ¥.457'2.30 4.09 fol... RR AL es ae 
 ee OL S09 2000 ee. Ue. was Tape tee. 3215 2.24... 
 Seeemeee to io) 6woe 64,02 (7.20 4.83 5.41 3.35 1.97 0.84 1.60 1.16 ..... 
 1895 1.26 .66 2.31 4.79 1:66 5.03 3.49 1.43 2.60 2.68 1.17 ~.84 27.92 
 Pam 09 9-46 2.70 3.79 °3.86 2.92 1.13 .50 6.44 2.11 2.13 .40 27.53 
 Revo ).00 140 1.27 1.09 3.54 2.63 5.33 4.12 2.938 .40 1.938 2:23 26.87 
 Pee od © 659 1.51 3.75 «2244 “3101 8:30 1.44 82:79 79 1.42 .60 33.53 
 Eeemeeesoy 1:00 2.97 4.87 1.02" 4°85° 2:32 1.53 1.11 (95 1.74 1.35 26.30 
 See oe ett 5.03 "1.96 “2777 6:21 -2:59° 34:58 §2:80 4:55 1:11’ ..80 33.76 
 Peyote. cil! t.o0 5.10 ~2:52 92:98 2.52 2.75 1:24 3.05 1:48 ...... 
 etnasemiess std) i018 ~ 3712-059. 5.. “2:75 2-47. 3°98 273 07... 
 ES OM OSre er ee ee i, eee mee 40) L600 ssp 
 rene erst e290. So. 02) 12519 257 24236 26 ee OL laws 
 ere al a. 320) 1544 °4576 § 6:49 95233) “S513 Seen oS cows 
 natn gets apes Bag A trey reed DA fa aa Bn <a a a 
 1905 : Ger heey ae ee 
 a ere ce ee sy, Uhgtia eh eM nega” lew as “ge ph) cues 
 Te oP ea ees ay ae od 4.00" Uoe f. G0) 123 o.... 
 1908 0.80 1.75 2.55 3.75 6.22 3.67 3.17 1.97 0.84 1.08 2.22 0.94 28.96 
 1909 1.83 1.54 0.73 7.60 3.42 3.50 1.94 9.80 3.58 1.05 2.95 3.45 41.39 
 1910 1.19 0.41 0.12 3.24 4.07 1.24 0.92 4.17 1.62 1.27 1.96 0.39 20.60 
 
 rr 
 
764 
 
 EXHIBIT 94. DWIGHT, ILL. LIVINGSTON Co. 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 1888 1.03 1.43 3.10 1.42 4.46 2.10 2.44 2.27 .40 3.26 2.53 2.53 26.97 
 1889 1.47 2.82 2.23 2.12 4.24 6.34 6.12 0.89 2.92 1.79 3.10 «l./O0seanee 
 1890 4.59 1.45 3.37 3.95 5.08 7.28  .°90 92.05 11.30 912. (og) eee 
 1896 ..«» 0-13 4.61 2.61 45.09 0.64 3°54 SCR ee 
 
 1897 5.384 1.46 3.57 2.74 1.81 5.25 2.50 1.60 .81 99.44 Sasi 7s 
 1898 3.80 2.07 6.64 2.95 6.12 3.79 0.29 3.35 4.86 4.42 2.50 1.26) 142705 
 1899 =.80 2.13 1.76 .70 2.08 5.07 4.73 2.29 2.57 2.31 92ig eee 
 1900 1.76 4.50 2:87 1:09 3.72 2.99 4.49 5.03 1.99 1:69 3:55 9 0eeeaeee 
 1901 1.60 1:03. 3.17 ..50 1.93 3.71 2.00 1.67 2.05 1.44 014g Zope 
 1902 :44 1.48 3.82 2.10 5.72 11:53 7.52 3.62 5.36 2.09 “SEL eee 
 1903 1.55 3.17 2.50 5.14 3.24)92.37 4..0. sce ees ee 
 1905 ns. 0 aie. UD eee epi eh 
 1906 2.99 1.76 2.15 2.06 2.07 2.49 4.84 1.85 3.80 1.54 2.80 2/64 "30°09 
 1907 5.88 0.14 2.22° 2.56 3.13 2.88 8.85 7.30 6.34 0.45 2.02" 3°00 s4geaas 
 1908 1.06 3:41 3:27 3.89 6:79 0.97 (2:61 “1.09 -1.22 “0161 "2203 see 
 1909 1.73 4.29 1.79 7.13° 2.48 6.06 1.50 3.53 2.34 2.38 4.24 (2.06 s40cas 
 1910 2.37 1.05 0.52 3.84 5:11 3:00 1:86 4.66 5.738 1144 (0226) 0e2ameeee 
 EXHIBIT 95. ELGIN, ILL. KANE Co. 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 1898 3.85 2.44 5.08 1.40 4.24 8.23 0.75 6.43 4.40 4.76 2.22 1.25 45.05 
 1899 0.57 1.60 2.72 0.68 5.28 1.89 4.31 1.89 2.28 2.39 1°38 “1.G9eego7Ge 
 1900 1.77 3.41 1:58 1.387 2:08 2.72 4.55 S215 92:35 ©2.80 9) 
 
 
 
 
 
 190; “3 ee te ORT : : ; : : : » lon ee 
 1902 duns Gaits. Ayecles qa oiic em eyestrain 
 1903) nts ges segs tele Sellae Ghee ede 2 ee 
 W904 on cc adn. ese ces» cunts Tau) sabe atetel Beg where mle ollgpwrp rege albanien a 
 1905 0... fdas. Ovee. Ge SR GPee. See 8 OR ee 
 1906 on... Had Sih GE. Be Revd! Gye. POR eis 
 1907 4.49 0.72 2.57 2.21 wavw Seeds leek. Gal Qe 
 1910 Ale. Gee Bee yee 3.14 2.87 2.97 1:21 M.15 Wet 
 EXHIBIT 96. OsweEGo, ILL. KENDALL Co. 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 W887 ness was ge. coe te Sue ge Wes eat pee. G16 Q] «2,90 22.29 62°03 9 51 eee 
 1888 1.46 1.54 2.77 1.59 4.67 1.29 3.58 1.09 1.22 2.73 “S\2h eee 
 1889 1.57 1.03 1.28 2.23 3.12 4.98 4.44 .75 3.44 1.00 52.83 eee 
 1890 2.44 1.30 2.89 2.58 5.27 6.98 1.19 2.65 2.17 4.60 1.89 Se7oeeeeess 
 1891 2.71 2.32 2.33 3.97 1.97. 2.93 13.07 -4.36 1.20 .64 4/4300 SOs eee 
 1892 1.74 1.17 2.32 3.45 8.05 10.51 4.71 1.71 2.32 0.96 2710s eS eee 
 1893 1.85 3.16 2.68 4.80 2.59 3.27 1.99 .22 2.88 2.28 2°25 0sespeeueee 
 1894. 2.31 1.10 2.68 2.82 2.82 2.20 0.50 1.49- 7.35 1.34” [°79eOe7geeeeee 
 1895 1.33 0.38 1.35 1.56 3.27 1.64 3.61 5.00 0.59 1.05 4.55 sG.ieueee 
 1896 1.09 1.90 1.71 3.48 7.52 1.275 5.32 4.03 7.51 0.30 “2.3000s ies 
 1897 6.06 1.60 3.56 2.36 1.19 5.19 3.63 1.77 0.86 0.15 .3071 Seen 
 1898 3.86 2.59 4.11 1.48 5.50 4.51 2.23 3.75 3.81 4.32 2.81 Sie 2eedGeae 
 
 OQ. 13° oh.67 7.28 sses este pede ee 
 
 1899 2.70 0.46 1.50 4.83 2.27 
 
 
 
EXHIBIT 97. 
 Year Jan. 
 1874 3.76 
 1876). 1:38 
 1876 3.01 
 iste. 72 
 1878 0.85 
 1879 0.85 
 1880 4.14 
 1881 1.54 
 1882 1.57 
 1883 2.18 
 1884 0.80 
 1885 2.32 
 1886 3.60 
 1887 3.59 
 1888 1.24 
 1889 1.86 
 1890 2.65 
 $891, 2.22 
 1g92. 1.73 
 Lees, 1257 
 1894 2.24 
 1895 2.09 
 1896 0.61 
 1897 4.45 
 1898 3.89 
 1899 0.44 
 1900 1.48 
 1901 1.38 
 1902 0.55 
 1903 0.80 
 1904 1.79 
 1905 0.82 
 1906 2.73 
 1907 3.67 
 1908 0.77 
 1909 2.50 
 1910 2.23 
 
 Feb. Mar. 
 0.95 1.93 
 19h 1401 
 Bole cas 
 N03 5.53 
 Lesa, 2°72 
 54 2215 
 1.62 1.40 
 5.28 6.48 
 2.15 4.58 
 4.61 0.89 
 we20, » Lebk 
 1.92 0.29 
 1.61 3.68 
 4.82 1.01 
 Melt) 204 
 Le? eek ob 
 hoe 314 
 1.65: 1.64 
 baa" 1.49 
 poo? 1.82 
 bepoe ate 
 0246) 1-32 
 edo Pat sS8h 
 1.49 3.87 
 ae0se 4276 
 P2912 65 
 S12 vie35 
 1,69° 3.38 
 1243) 72231 
 233. 3347 
 1.43 3.98 
 1469 2273 
 1.96 1.94 
 0.38 1.68 
 2.63 4.66 
 2,58. -¥E19 
 0255 °0.24 
 
 Apr. 
 
 2.02 
 2.33 
 2.09 
 2.81 
 2.89 
 2.30 
 3.10 
 0.98 
 3.29 
 2.00 
 2.85 
 3.97 
 3.76 
 1.55 
 2.16 
 2.48 
 2.88 
 4.05 
 2.83 
 3.71 
 2.62 
 1.81 
 2.97 
 2.59 
 190 
 
 0.76 
 
 1.36 
 0.26 
 1.31 
 3.36 
 2.27 
 3.31 
 1.20 
 3.09 
 4.05 
 1310 
 3.32 
 
 May 
 
 2.04 
 3.28 
 3.76 
 0.93 
 4.25 
 4.97 
 2.68 
 3.10 
 3.59 
 6.18 
 2.56 
 1.72 
 3.13 
 0.95 
 4.48 
 4.09 
 4.33 
 4.38 
 11.05 
 2.99 
 3.62 
 2.91 
 
 769 | 
 
 RILEY, ILL. 
 
 June 
 
 2.96 
 5.26 
 4.57 
 4.83 
 2.46 
 4.81 
 5.28 
 5.62 
 4.42 
 3.92 
 4.22 
 5.80 
 ede 
 1.23 
 0.81 
 3.25 
 9.64 
 5.06 
 LaeZ 
 5.13 
 1.22 
 1.68 
 3.02 
 3.23 
 7.74 
 2.56 
 2.43 
 2.37 
 6.83 
 1.65 
 1.52 
 6.32 
 
 July 
 
 1.09 
 4.24 
 7.64 
 1.96 
 4.73 
 5.68 
 2.68 
 5.88 
 3.63 
 2.94 
 4.19 
 2.07 
 0.81 
 2.70 
 3.44 
 3.44 
 0.53 
 2.40 
 3.76 
 2.32 
 0.31 
 3.43 
 3.29 
 1by 
 2.27 
 4.04 
 6.03 
 3.23 
 7.78 
 4.61 
 3.35 
 3.30 
 1.25 
 4.92 
 2.68 
 0.63 
 1.09 
 
 McHenry Co. 
 
 Aug. Sept. 
 
 15 
 14 
 02 
 60 
 52 
 96 
 24 
 OL 
 .08 
 aly 
 36 
 .80 
 85 
 85 
 23 
 By 
 .83 
 95 
 42 
 45 
 00 
 94 
 15 
 24 
 39 
 36 
 09 
 Ane 
 .00 
 92 
 32 
 85 
 .90 
 3.55 
 2.21 
 6.25 
 3.68 
 
 BOTW DRA PRN WrORRF WOR PROUD WH DF RR Ww We Dd bo 
 
 2.58 
 (hye 
 4.70 
 0.21 
 1.46 
 1.20 
 4.02 
 5.47 
 2.36 
 2.04 
 4.34 
 3.86 
 
 Oct. 
 
 EPWOCTOCrFNORFROOrPNNNWHRHEONH KOO bb 
 a] 
 or 
 
 Nov. 
 1.48 
 
 67 
 90 
 06 
 30 
 OL 
 06 
 52 
 03 
 
 09 
 98 
 87 
 
 4 
 74 
 15 
 
 34 
 .06 
 
 Vig! 
 52 
 64 
 
 .00 
 05 
 
 82 
 15 
 57 
 52 
 20 
 . 66 
 
 KWH HS DOrFOODFNFKENFD DNF WKN KON REN OF DW 
 
 27 
 
 Dec. 
 
 0.48 
 2.32 
 ere 
 
 46 
 AT 
 15 
 
 .00 
 67 
 28 
 37 
 13 
 31 
 87 
 44 
 13 
 16 
 71 
 42 
 44 
 00 
 43 
 50 
 76 
 56 
 42 
 22 
 30 
 
 00 
 40 
 47 
 .16 
 
 eS SE OR Or OF ON OR RENO RRR WR NWR DD Or bo 
 
 5.05 
 0.80 
 
766 
 
 
 
 EXHIBIT 98. St. CHARLES, ILL. KANE Co. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 1S0RP ns aes) wae eeee 2044 80" 2°55 4°35 2.02 0 
 1896° 1.05 2.20 2.46 4.11 5.77 2.52 6.07 2.61 14.44 0.40 3.00: 0:61 45724 
 1897 6.04° 1.99 4.37 3.47 1.41 2.69 3.41 1.67 0:60 0.28 3:36 [fae seaeess 
 1898 3.73 2.89 5.29 1.03 4.07 4.55 1.74 5:73 3.87 5°74 1598" Ie Oieeiaeee 
 1899 0.85 2.12 2.68 0.58 5.62 0.92 6.00 2.10 3.10 2:20 1.31 1.93 20041 
 1900 2.12 4.67 .... ...% 3:27 4:58 3.72 2.2. 2:15" 2°36) decree ee 
 1901 1.53 0.88 2.76 .... 1.51 2.32 4.72 1.01 2°38 [csi ioe gee 
 1902 0.83 2.08 .... 2.11 7.90 7.36 6.85 2°67 6.65° 2.19 2°08) eae 
 1903 0.54 2.55 5.17 4.04 3.71 3.08 6.89 4.83 6.60 1.39 1.06 1.94 41.80 
 1904. 2.30 2.07-° 5.42 2.92 2.07 1.76 5.82 7.02 4.42 1.86 0.0 222besofe02 
 1905 0.99 2.78 2.73 3.59 7.80 3.46 2.70, 4.25 3.23 5.66 2.42 I°74.0388g5 
 1906 2.27 2.92 3:21 1.67 2.59 2.59 0.74°3.55 7.47 2.46 S710) Zeca aee 
 1907 4.17 0.70 2:94 2:16 4.15 4.90 5.45 4.12 6.49 1°53" see 
 1908 0.77 4.00 4.01 3.19 6.47 1.73 4.45 5.89 0.88 1.36 2.52 0.96 36.23 
 1909 1.38 2.74 1.32 7.14 2.46 5.50 0:33 6.58 3.59 0°99 5°27” Soe 
 1910 2.25. 0.90 0.35 3.81 6:43 0.74 I-77 2.99 2.88 1:10° 1740) Qos 
 
 EXHIBIT 99. SANDWICH, ILL. D&E KALB Co. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 1874 5.385 3625> 32380 Sli 623886215) 0002 Salome eee sed SR ee 
 1875. 1.65 2:20 3.07 5:20 3.94 2:08) 8:68 540° 3265 1.07 45307 
 1876 5.92 6:63 8.77 5.26 8:17 22.) Tel6 68 E78 19" 320i cee 
 1877 1.53 .... 3.86 1,78 IT.381 4:24 2:23 ©2380 $26 3232) 2:09 eee 
 1878 670. VAT, 118 ech 1686. B.S 2810 ee ee 
 1884. 1.45 3.48 2.08 .... 2.10 3:24 7.06 1.93 2:52 4395 1/46) 52350 
 1885 2:85 3.05 (62 2.46 1.30 2.94 2.53 6:99 3:58 2:14 89  SeUseeagane 
 1886. 4.17  .77 2.45 1.35 3206 1928 2.03 3:02 5:13 1°65. To4ee eee 
 1887 4.55 5.4) 1.24 9.57 1688 1:77 4:74 3.79 3.62° 2:95, 20358 Scaeeoeeee 
 1888 1.45 2:59 3.20 1:70 5:14 2:76 4.68 3.83 1.26 “2°95 3233) 2e3G eon 
 1889 2.27 2.88 .87 3.15 3.08 5.40 3°67) 0:79. 3:12 1:47 2303) Deseo 
 1890 2.59 1.62 32... St ee 754 6b 32> 2215 416" ia 
 1891 2.52 4:13 3.80 4.70 Bib? 3:34 3218 3087 °1:62. 39 407bee2es eee 
 1897" 168s i2575 fee ee Baran eral act 0 TP 
 
 EXHIBIT 100. SHARON, WIS. WALWORTH Co. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 1892) we. eee ess «©2296 TAL 7-91 8:31 2:46° 2.23 1.81% OF8a eo eee 
 1893. 1.71 1.94 2.39 5.99; 1.69- 4.22) 3.02 1.20 1.66 3.90 223hesieS2meee 
 1894. 1.97 1.95. 3.65 2.734.538 G:117> .80' .80 7.12) 1:63) 2:38eeie eee 
 1895 1.20 1.27 1.34 2.13 3:86) 3:15 4.07° 3:49 3:85 .72 3(68eegeseueaceum 
 1896. .75 1.58 1.73 3.64° 3:42 3.09 7:50 1.07 9.58  .74 2° 4000sseeQmeooee 
 1897 4.11 1.55 3.86 4.49° 1:57 5.38 1.96 ..... 1.14 .79 1(54= 00; 
 1898 2.48 2.26 2.96 2.24 2.41 8.37 2:66 .... 2.12 2.94 “(928 2 4Gpeee 
 1899 0.28 1.13 1.65 0.62 5.54 1:61 2:99 1.93 2.10 1.16 3.64:00edseegtege 
 1900 1.61 2.42 1:48 2:94 1.84) 1584° 5:6P 20.07 us... 2, > 25 
 
 
 
EXHIBIT 101. 
 
 Year 
 
 1881 
 1882 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887 
 1888 
 1889 
 1890 
 1891 
 1892 
 1893 
 1894 
 1895 
 1896 
 1897 
 1898 
 1899 
 1900 
 1901 
 1902 
 1903 
 1904 
 1905 
 1906 
 1907 
 1908 
 1909 
 1910 
 
 Jan. 
 
 1.31 
 2.15 
 0.71 
 2.66 
 4.10 
 3.93 
 O1 
 .13 
 64 
 91 
 13 
 83 
 50 
 39 
 50 
 64 
 28 
 37 
 .63 
 27 
 70 
 
 HOW NORP HOFF OW ROR NRHP RP Hee 
 
 1.25 
 
 Feb. 
 
 WNP OrORrWNFrNHY KH RENOWN OR RWO- 
 fe ° ° . 
 co 
 
 nor 
 > 00 
 lores) 
 
 4.60 
 10.09 
 3.78 
 
 767 
 
 SYCAMORE, ILL. 
 
 May June July 
 
 3.50 
 3.80 
 8.55 
 3.18 
 1.65 
 4.24 
 0.95 
 5.50 
 5.17 
 87 
 79 
 wit 
 25 
 90 
 52 
 .80 
 .10 
 20 
 2 
 .83 
 63 
 -97 
 .16 
 3.51 
 6.59 
 4.40 
 4.59 
 7.01 
 2.97 
 4.81 
 
 “Tr bo OR WDD WD De Ob ee 
 
 w 
 
 11.40 
 7.90 
 5.85 
 4.53 
 7.04 
 2.27 
 1.12 
 1.27 
 1.50 
 7.98 
 3.55 
 
 11.23 
 5.04 
 1.79 
 2.20 
 1.59 
 6.04 
 3.47 
 1.19 
 2.22 
 1.88 
 9.00 
 2.70 
 2.57 
 4.30 
 3.17 
 4.57 
 4.12 
 3.27 
 0.78 
 
 7.05 
 4.35 
 5.50 
 8.84 
 4.98 
 0.67 
 3.12 
 3.10 
 4.48 
 0.42 
 2.00 
 2.56 
 3.65 
 0.78 
 3.10 
 3.60 
 3.03 
 1.22 
 4.04 
 5.60 
 4.51 
 7.83 
 7.14 
 4.04 
 3.20 
 1.36 
 4.99 
 3.06 
 0.62 
 1.50 
 
 DEKALB Co. 
 Aug. Sept. Oct. 
 0.80 5.10 8.20 
 2.34 1.94 4.55 
 1.95, 2.93, 6.48 
 3.43. 3.46, 5.76 
 9.90 6.10 4.65 
 Bee ae Boe dp 20 
 9 os ey pe A 
 4°03, 1.097 2.37 
 0.86 1.93 0.85 
 Bit le cee Oso 
 ze, 0.01, 0.89 
 3.56 1.62 0.95 
 Oran ano, ioie 
 GO. oor eld t. 
 3.06, 0:75. 0.55 
 0.58 8.39 0.26 
 1.06 0.44 0.38 
 6.47, dull) 4.51 
 1.39. 1.738. 2.44 
 
 18 ee Gris ei 
 WOGe2 13 0e1 
 Dat A220 eaal0 
 54 685s od 
 6.49 5.24 0.84 
 6.52 1.06 4.61 
 3,04 620954202 
 iy tod er hoe 9 Wea 6 
 3.46 1.00 0.86 
 7.08 3.95 1.19 
 4,22 1.80 2.04 
 
 Nov. Dee. 
 
 3.60 3.75 
 2.25 2.25 
 6.63 1.86 
 2.48 4.14 
 2.06 3.05 
 0.96 1254 
 130% 0.02 
 1.80 
 1.80 
 ay) 
 4.21 
 y Ae} 
 2.74 
 1.96 
 3.71 
 1.88 
 3.38 
 1.76 
 1.33 
 2.23 
 1.32 
 2.95 
 0.97 
 0.03 
 2.20 
 3.40 
 1.42 
 2.05 
 5.42 5.27 
 1.10 0.63 
 
 Bee ee NNN HOF OO OC WO bo bo Dore bo 
 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . 
 co 
 — 
 
EXHIBIT 102. 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. 
 LOO ees. or chee aes 
 T8027) 2000 led5ull a7 
 INOS 5 “1542 e leolaeceon 
 1894 1.34 0.81 2.49 
 1895. 1.55. 0.42 0.53 
 1896 0.43 0.89 1.82 
 1897.4. 2:73» -1.03> 3.28 
 1898: = 2.345 1.50. 3.24 
 1899 0.64 0.77 1.47 
 T9005 41543) te Sir Oce4 
 190th. 1e02) 1232 2.05 
 19025 .0;29-) 12392-1433 
 1903 0.48 0.72 2.86 
 1904 0.81 0.86 3.54 
 1905 0.86 1.21 2.50 
 1906... 3354) 1223-2125) 
 190 221 be 0e lie 2 
 1908 0g ariacoy esol 
 1909 2.44 0.93 0.75 
 1910] 2.375 0,755 0214 
 
 EXHIBIT 102. 
 Years Jan: 
 190 Tes 3. Sees 
 1908 0.89 
 1909 1.40 
 
 EXHIBIT 103. 
 
 Year Jan. 
 
 1887 3.71 eid 1.01 72,11 
 
 1888 1.32 
 1889 2.25 
 1890 3.07 
 
 Feb. Mar. 
 
 1.77 3.16 
 
 Feb. Mar. 
 
 2.65 3.23 
 
 > 
 1S, 
 Be 
 
 Oot wwe Orr A100 ObD- 
 NR Or OOOCr CORR WwW. 
 
 mS 
 Oo co 
 
 WOoORNDHEHEHENDHONHE NAKHON OID. 
 CO bD Ht : 
 i 
 
 ive) 
 — 
 
 Apr. 
 
 768 
 
 WAUKESHA, WIS. 
 
 = 
 & 
 
 June July 
 
 8.53 
 4.32 
 22 
 29 
 59 
 14 
 54 
 99 
 21 
 
 DWNWONONNUMSCMONDDOHOOHR. 
 NOBNOHONGMOENNHEDH OMS. 
 Re bo tO O1 WD Ob WW BRR Oe CO DD DD bOD 
 
 yt 
 HOR ORNWOONNTNNWNHHWeH. 
 PROWNNTHOWDOOHONMAMIHOS. 
 ih > ONO AIO ORM OOOSRe. 
 
 DPRHORROWNW 
 
 WNPWNOWHROR Rr WHERE POW D AT. 
 COW rR WwATONTOWO 
 
 WAUKESHA, WIS. 
 
 May June July 
 
 (No. 1) WAUKESHA Co. 
 
 Aug. 
 
 3.07 
 2.61 
 2.67 
 4.08 
 2.50 
 5.67 
 
 0.64 
 
 4.33 
 4.07 
 
 3.73 
 2.80 
 
 Sept. 
 
 0.58 
 2.45 
 2.87 
 4.55 
 1.56 
 5.71 
 1.35 
 1.55 
 3.18 
 2.02 
 2.67 
 3.95 
 5.04 
 4.33 
 1.44 
 2.84 
 5.21 
 0.81 
 3.32 
 2.29 
 
 Oct. 
 
 1.46 
 0.78 
 2.41 
 2.37 
 0.67 
 0.68 
 eye 
 4.10 
 1.21 
 2.34 
 1.00 
 1.73 
 2.50 
 3.28 
 3.19 
 2.36 
 1.25 
 0.82 
 0.48 
 1.13 
 
 Nov. 
 
 3.21 
 1.49 
 1.47 
 2.08 
 2.11 
 2.05 
 1.25 
 0.98 
 2.20 
 1.86 
 0.58 
 2.39 
 1.01 
 
 22 
 2.19 
 2.54 
 1.26 
 2.03 
 ase 
 2.87 
 
 (No. 2) WAUKESHA Co. 
 
 Aug. Sept. Oct. 
 
 Lilie. 
 
 Nov. 
 1.48 
 
 1.64. 0.68 1313 1.12 
 3.43 3.14 0.62 3.01 3.95 
 
 WoopstTock, ILL. McHenry Co. 
 
 May June July Aug. Sept. 
 
 4.40 
 
 1.48 2.09 3.34 
 
 4.31 
 0.82 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Dec. 
 
 2.08 
 1.95 
 
 eeeee 
 
 - 
 
 Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 2.88 
 
 2.55 
 2.20 
 
 ee nee 
 
 ereee 
 
 Sees 
 
 
 
EXHIBIT 104. 
 
 Year 
 
 1900 
 1901 
 1902 
 1903 
 1904 
 1905 
 1906 
 1907 
 1908 
 1909 
 1910 
 
 Remarks: 
 
 EXHIBIT 105. 
 
 Year 
 
 1897 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Hee OW ON OCOOF: 
 m= OATS OS © OCF: 
 OOwWoWaorLwWwoocogmn: 
 
 Jan. 
 
 Feb. Mar. 
 
 LiferelsG 
 1.26 
 2.05 
 1.78 
 1.74 
 2.12 
 0.83 
 0.17 
 2.10 
 1.70 
 0.46 
 
 4.05 
 2.70 
 3.23 
 4.96 
 2.38 
 1.31 
 2.58 
 2.20 
 0.85 
 0.07 
 
 Apr. 
 
 0.79 
 0.31 
 1.15 
 3.14 
 5.23 
 4.04 
 1.97 
 1.55 
 8.41 
 4.16 
 
 * 11 days only. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 Mar. 
 
 Apr. 
 
 769 
 
 YORKVILLE, ILL. KENDALL Co. 
 
 May June 
 
 4 ATs 2.14 
 UBT TY eat Tea a 
 7.06 14.44 
 3.01 4.72 
 y Ma He Pa Ht 
 5.96 4.62 
 5.09 2.20 
 4.60 5.22 
 6.18 1.65 
 2.21 5.21 
 4.49 1.02 
 
 July 
 
 3.84 
 3.34 
 (ee!) 
 5.07 
 3.88 
 3.90 
 1.61 
 6.23 
 3.96 
 2.24 
 Looe 
 
 FORREST, ILL. 
 
 Aug. Sept. Oct. 
 
 4.23 2.53 2.83 
 0.80 3.36 1.08 
 2.96 8.23 1.80 
 5.15 6.76 2.40 
 4.21 3.82 1.44 
 ue oheeiy 1.08 
 3.90 10.25 2 
 iad (ae aden keh 
 o.90e- 0.95 (. 
 2.09 3.32 1 
 3.90 5.58 1 
 
 LIVINGSTON Co. 
 
 
 
 May June 
 
 July 
 
 Aug. Sept. Oct. 
 
 Nov. 
 4.56 
 
 o 
 & 
 
 SCrFPOCHHENHRRFrO 
 COP “IC COR HE MONrH 
 SOaAnNwnrewaownoww 
 
 re oo ee ee es 6 Shae res See Shete. | aha Se ae oun ear” SC eORINE © sp CB «8 6 © 
 
 EXHIBIT 106. 
 
 Year 
 
 1895 
 1896 
 1897 
 1898 
 1899 
 
 Remarks: 
 
 Jan. 
 
 1.23 
 
 Feb. 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 00) 1.87 
 5.67 2.51 
 4.62 2.11 
 op AAC, coca 
 
 * 92 
 
 Mar. 
 
 1.06 
 
 93 
 4.01 
 5.17 
 
 Apr. 
 
 3.42 
 3.62 
 2.70 
 2.13 
 
 occurred in 
 
 LEXINGTON, ILL. McLEAN Co. 
 
 May June 
 
 1.23 2.29 
 6.22 4.58 
 1.68 1.59 
 6.09 2.21 
 
 July 
 
 9.16 
 7.18 
 6.38 
 
 1.32 
 
 Aug. Sept. Oct. 
 
 4.89. 5.87 2216 
 Oe, (alee a 2 
 
 Geers 
 2.44 5.23 4.06 
 
 
 
 Nov. 
 2.80 
 4.19 
 2.09 
 
 Dec. 
 
 6.83 
 0.15 
 1.47 
 1.18 
 
 23 days. Total fall for month estimated 1.00. 
 
 EXHIBIT 107. 
 
 Year 
 
 Jan 
 
 hey 
 @O 
 = 
 
 5 
 
 Apr 
 
 WoopForD Co. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Nov 
 
 : . Mar. : Aug. Sept. Oct. : : ; 
 
 1895 - 
 
 1896 
 1897 
 1898 
 1899 
 1900 
 1901 
 1902 
 1903 
 1904 
 1905 
 1906 
 1907 
 1908 
 1909 
 1910 
 
 
 
 1.26 
 5.14 
 4.21 
 
 50 
 1.30 
 1.49 
 
 48 
 0.71 
 2.51 
 1.16 
 1.89 
 3.99 
 
 .80 
 1.62 
 1.45 
 
 Sethe he ee 
 CMM OROR HE PW PIAA: 
 
 Re OO OO 
 
 WOWAWAWOMDRROOO OP: 
 
 OK NOR RRP WNWMNWWWNHOLWF- .- 
 SCmPRUIDODODWBDRONSOHS. 
 WCONWMNWONTOHNOOON KH OOO: 
 
 3.64 
 2.93 
 2.87 
 1.58 
 1.16 
 
 2.23 
 4.65 
 2.75 
 3.88 
 
 92 
 2.59 
 4.06 
 5.62 
 3.63 
 
 MINONEK, ILL. 
 May June July 
 iti Weis Neey Bae Das! 
 $205 22257,53-93 
 6.84 2.92 .58 
 BeOS. bathe 
 3.09 1.40 2.21 
 2.41 2.50 2.40 
 2:43 9.Al 7.76 
 3.23 4.12 6.24 
 gel) 1eH 623 
 4.54 3.35 2.07 
 1.62 2.46 1.66 
 4.14 4.19 5.72 
 Si ieal. 2h 1.88 
 DU OTOL A UO 
 452° 4507) 1.31 
 
 Le & Soe Se 
 2.67 4.53 0.20 
 
 1029 0 ae LS 
 4.76 5.47 3.86 
 1.74 4.20 3.47 
 6.43 2.54 2.24 
 
 BY fi et OS rey ti 
 8.56 4.59 1.59 
 4.49 7.14 2.23 
 2.69 4.14 0.17 
 2.59 2.64 2.10 
 2.51 4.37 1.50 
 3:91 3.82 .44 
 1.62, .0.99,.0.69 
 3.32 1.98 2.43 
 2.46 3.91 0.93 
 
 4.03 
 2.32 
 0.92 
 2.13 
 
 95 
 2.66 
 
 78 
 3.15 
 0.92 
 
 1.68 
 2.04 
 1.89 
 1.60 
 3.83 
 0.33 
 
(70 
 EXHIBIT 108. PontTaic, ILL. LivINGsTon Co. 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 ia regan Rp yon’ wees mina, ven,» 4090s O00 pe og toe 
 
 > 
 Ss 
 oe 
 
 1886 0.75 .... 2.50 1.90 2.99 1.28-0.82 0.80 4.28 0.382 U;63 00 5ae 
 1887 0.92 3.85 1.11 1.20 1.15 0.28 0.13 1.600 1.01~ 0.93) Ul a7 eo, cee 
 1888 1.40 1.48 2.38 0.90 5.70 3.85 4.32 0.65 0.47 2.35 1.37 Li20e2oue 
 1889 1.39 0.97 1.58 1.35 5.50 2.42 4.65 0.11 3.80) 162° Sou0 eee 
 1890 4.18 1.20 $8.58 4.157 3.65. 5.10 0.75 1.95 0135" 2.61 ape ee 
 1891 0.95 2.45 2.88 3.45 0.47 6.07 2.65 3.95 0.20 1.40 4.70 2.40 31.57 
 1903 0.80 3.23 2.54 4.94 4.36 1.39 6.35 2.60 3.62 2.76 1O0G@))1 OR ao 
 1904 3.92 1.84 5.73. 3.63 2.67 1.95 5.37 2.45 5.79 O17 0.00) Zola 
 1905. 1.80. 1:89 2.17 3.45: 6.33° 1.70 1:78. 1.82 2.26 2.55 9222000 tag cee 
 1906 3.07 1.78 3.28 2.18 1.77 2.35 2.39 0.80 3:56 1.6] 2,550 oq eee 
 1907 5.62 0.15 2.74 3.09 3.28 3.00 5.66 4.47 4.59 0.61 2.04 3.05 38.30 
 1908 1.01 4.52 °2.90 4.83 8.72 1.65 2.35 1.251.530.9220) eee 
 1909 2.58 4.30 1.81 5.96 3.05 2.90 2.29 3.75 2.15 2.33 4.00 S3coeueeee 
 1910 1.78 0.97 0.20 4.07 5.04 2.14 -1.25° 4.39 4.10 1.69 0.82 S0e/aieeie 
 EXHIBIT 109. STRAWN, IuL. LIVINGSTON Co. 
 
 
 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 
 1899 .... (.... .s.0 1.04 6841 4.07 1.80 74 3.79 2.60 1.78 Bae 
 1900 0.95 3.76 2.11 1.12, 3.76 .... 2.65 5.94 1.50) 1.645 )4)52 ee 
 1901 1.46 1.18 3.59 1.07 2.77 4.22 2.37 3:00 2.52 3.22 1.00 2:64 929704 
 1902: .97 1:70 3755 2039 3259.14.00 .... [205 5167 2a ee 
 EXHIBIT 110. STREATOR, ILL. LA SALLE Co. 
 Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Yearly 
 1893. .... sees «se 6.17 9.21 0.96 2.4. 122. 3.00) 22 er 
 1894 1.90 0.44 2.95 1.038 3.62 2.53 °.... S..2) (20. gape ecu 
 1895 1.55 0.30 1.40 0.41 0.80 -.... 6.00, 2.60 1.90 1.00 4.54 OS (80se 
 1896 1.30 1.15 0.65 2.63 5.98 3.27 5.75 1.52 3:44 0.05 2 O07 SQ sO 
 1897 5.65 1.55 4.08 1.88: 21:18" 6.70-2.71 1.077 1.10 0.23 “4,270 espa 
 1898 3.43 1.62 6.93 3.00 6.00 3.24 0.62 2.96 4.20 2.99 2.47 0.77 38.23 
 1899. 1.28°-1.82° 2... 0.45°°2750° 1,825.22 1569°°2273" 2:47 1.23) 
 1900 1.49 3.54 2.85 1.24 2.44 1.63 3.13 7.13 2.56 2.18 2.57 Oioaeegeeee 
 1901 1.42 1.40.3.49 0.75 1.24 2.85 3.02 2.56 2.20 0.63 1.38 245 23709 
 1902 0.79 1.32 4.66 2.17 4.37 10.64 8.59 7.11 5.26 3.24 3:48 IO74 oacay 
 1903. 0.90 2.52 3.79. 4.81 2.48 2.07 2:43 4.04 7.60 1:02 0.78 Deyeeesaeee 
 1904 2.23 1.55 5.76 3.91 4.46 2.11 4.60 2:39 4.15 0.20 TO Seb7ueagees 
 1905 1.07 1.88 2:20 4:22 4.77 3.01. 4:10 2:15 2.39 2.64 InfS Sean 
 1906 2.26 1.99 2.77 1.40 1.79 9:10 1:39 2:25 4:25 1.64 2575 Soe0Geeceeen 
 1907 5.64 0.10 3.02 2.92 3.70 3.95 7.61 5.08- 5.58. 0.51 2:06 [yaleeaiees 
 1908 0.59 3.73 2.53 4.15 7.16 1.69 3.62 0.41 0.39 0.68 2.36 O.;022eeee 
 1909 1.37 3.45 1.81 6.61 2.76 4.79 2.60 3.31 2.74 2:21 S327 2eppeeeeee 
 1910 2.25 1.03 0.41 4.20 5.13 2.98 0.81 5.38 .4.59 1.43 0.43 1-81 30745 
 
 
 
 3480 Order adjourning court until Monday, December 2, 
 1912, at’ 11 o’clock. 
 
771 
 
 3481 December 2, 1912, 11 a. m. 
 
 Court met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 F. EK. Caupwett, a witness for defendant, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is F. EK. Caldwell. I reside at Havanna, Ih- 
 nois. I am fish commissioner of the State of [llinois. 
 I have resided at Havanna 50 years. Am acquainted 
 with the Illinois River, particularly from La Salle to 
 Grafton. 
 
 3482 The State of Illinois has a steamer which is used in 
 the prosecution of its fish preservation work, the name 
 of which is ‘‘The Illinois.’’ It is 139 feet long, 28 feet 
 wide. It is a hght draft boat, about 30 inches, but it 
 takes more water of course to run it. 
 
 I have been chief warden of the state for seven years, 
 but I have been connected with the service for twelve 
 years. 
 
 I have been acquainted with the Illinois practically 
 all my life. I was raised on it. I have known the river 
 
 3483 probably intimately for 16 years. Since 1900, when the 
 Sanitary District channel was opened I have noticed 
 some little difference in the Illinois River. In my judg- 
 ment and opinion the difference, comparing the low water 
 period with low water period the height of the water 
 is from 10 to 14 inches. It would vary a great deal ac- 
 cording to the rainfall, but in a general way I would say 
 about 12 inches. 
 
 I have noticed the tributary streams of the Illinois 
 River. The tributary streams of the Illinois River carry 
 
 3484 considerably more water now on account of the drain- 
 age than they did ten or twelve years ago. 
 
172 
 
 I am familiar with the levee conditions in the vicinity 
 of Havanna. I constructed the largest one down there, 
 the Lacey levee. There are three levee districts imme- 
 diately adjacent to Havanna, the Lacey, the Langilier 
 and the Otter Creek Districts. The Lacey and Langilier 
 districts extend about three and four-fifths miles along 
 the river. The Otter Creek District does not touch the 
 river. It lies right back of the Langilier District. Before 
 
 3485 the Langilier and Lacey Districts were put in near Ha- 
 
 vanna the width of the river was about seven and one- 
 half miles straight across from bluff to bluff. In high 
 water the river is 5,600 feet wide. 
 
 I know the high water of 1892. I have not seen any 
 high water in the river as high as the July water of 
 1892. 
 
 3486 I have been over the Illinois River many times between 
 
 La Salle and Grafton. The Illinois River as it was in 
 times of high water before the drainage systems were 
 put in, was more of a sluggish nature, did not rise as 
 quick nor it did not fall as rapidly. Now it seems that 
 the river will commence rising and it will rise very rap- 
 idly and unless the Mississippi is very high it will fall 
 about as rapidly as it rises. 
 
 3487 I have known of back water in the Illinois River on 
 
 account of the Mississippi River to come up to the Camps- 
 ville Dam. That would be about 41 miles. 
 
 I know about the drainage districts in my vicinity 
 and up and down the river. They all have pumping sta- 
 tions in connection with them that I know of. I do not 
 
 3488 know what quantities of water the districts will dis- 
 
 charge into the river but it is an enormous amount. The 
 drainage districts in the Illinois River have been con- 
 structed within the last 15 years, most of them within 
 the last six years. 
 
 T am acquainted with the stretch of river above the 
 
173 
 
 Henry Dam. The steamer Illinois is in commission from 
 3489 April 1st to November 15th as a rule. During the four 
 years I was with it practically all the time; the last 
 three years I have only been with it occasionally. Now, 
 probably once or possibly twice a week for the last three 
 years. Captain Spear had charge of the steamer at such 
 times as I was with him. He was master and the en- 
 gineer was William McKinly. They have been with the 
 steamer all the time I have been connected with it. 
 
 3490 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I have never had any connection with the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict of Chicago. I have not been in La Salle during low 
 water since last June, July and August, I mean this year. 
 When I speak of La Salle I mean Peru. 
 
 3491 I shonld judge the river at Peru is about 650 feet wide. 
 I would imagine the depth of the water is 11 or 12 
 3492 feet. I made no soundings to ascertain its depth. I 
 don’t think I know any day in the last summer, in the 
 year 1912, when I can tell how deep the water was, how 
 much water there was at the Peru bridge either in the 
 month of July or the month of August. I cannot tell 
 you any specific day in any vear. I have formed my 
 idea from the observation of the nets that are fishing 
 3493 illegally in the river. For instance you take a net this 
 year that is fishing at a certain time, in certain water, 
 and it is a five-foot net with the hoops half way out. 
 The next year you will find the same place, the same 
 sized net is entirely submerged. Those are the things 
 I formed my opinion on. I recall years when IT saw 
 them out of water and years when in the summer time 
 I would see them completely submerged in substantially 
 3494 the same place. It was along the east shore or the 
 opposite shore along Peru there, commencing just at the 
 bend and going south half a mile down the river, just 
 
(74 
 
 around the bend probably 500 feet I would imagine. 
 I saw it submerged between the 15th day of April and 
 the first day of May five years ago, and three years 
 ago if I remember distinctly. 
 
 At Peru I have noticed the water is more of a bluish 
 
 3495 color than it was before the Sanitary District water 
 was turned in. Prior to that time the water was some- 
 what sluggish and dirty. Very little current along the 
 side, the current was out in the center if it was any 
 place. 
 
 3496 We had no trouble bringing our boat up there prior 
 to the year 1900. We go up the channel on the north 
 side where the bank is steep. We dock there by keeping 
 close to the north bank where the old dredge used to 
 come in. 
 
 I don’t know how much blue water it would take to 
 give a stream a blue appearance. I think it would de- 
 
 3497 pend a whole lot on the condition of the water before 
 it was mixed. Where a clear fresh stream comes into 
 a mucky river, you will notice there is a difference in 
 the clearness of the water for a certain distance around 
 the point where the two streams come together. I did 
 
 3498 not have in mind a clear stream running into a larger 
 stream of dirty water. I had in mind a stream coming 
 down off the bluff and that muddy water you will see 
 
 3499 for miles. down the river, that is at the side that it 
 comes in. You will see a perfect stream all the way 
 down for miles on that side. 
 
 3500 The Sanitary District water I think it carried about 
 38 miles befere it reaches Peru. I have not noticed 
 the same bluish condition at a point farther down stream 
 unless it is in the summer time when there is no rain. 
 I don’t know that I ever noticed it at Henry. I am fa- 
 miliar with the character of water that comes from the 
 Kankakee at Kankakee and at Wilmington. 
 
775 
 
 3501 I don’t recollect having made any observations as to 
 whether the combined waters of the Sanitary District 
 and the Desplaines River are greater or less in quantity 
 than the Kankakee River at the point where these two 
 streams come together. It has been 90 days since [ last 
 saw the rivers at said point. I did not see them with any 
 purpose in view except in the line of by business. 
 
 3002 The highest water was in 1892. It was a flood year. 
 Prior to that in 1883, another flood year. It was higher 
 than the water of 1892. 
 
 Our boat draws 30 inches of water when it is stand- 
 
 3502 ing still. Running 18 miles an hour you ought to have 
 15 feet of water for good navigation. Need lots of 
 water. Have always had high water on the Mississippi 
 River. The level of the Mississippi water got higher 
 than the level of the Illinois water, it backs the Illinois 
 up. I have noticed a change in the Spoon River; the 
 
 3504 others I have not noticed. I have noticed that the Mack- 
 inaw below Pekin, comes out with greater force and more 
 rapidly and comes in a volume. 
 
 The Illinois River is the largest stream and its tribu- 
 taries for the most part are small creeks. 
 This diking I spoke of was done to reclaim bottom 
 
 8005 lands. These lands were always submerged. The work 
 has been going on for 15 years. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 The nets I spoke of I saw three years ago when they 
 
 were about half in the water. And five years ago when 
 
 3006 they were entirely submerged. I would imagine the 
 
 current in the Illinois River is between three and four 
 miles an hour. 
 
776 
 
 Re-Cross Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 Right now at this time. I would take it from the point 
 Tam most familiar with at Havanna or Peoria. It would 
 not be quite as much at Peoria, I don’t think, as it would 
 where the river is narrower. It was five years ago when 
 3907 I saw the net in a certain place submerged and about 
 three years ago in the same place the net was half sub- 
 merged. The general inference I drew was that there 
 had been a rise in the river of about one foot. Five 
 3508 years ago there was a difference of two and one-half 
 feet of water, compared with where the nets were three 
 years ago and that was the only incident I had in mind 
 on which I based my conclusion that the river has in- 
 creased from 10 to 14 inches. I said half way. It might 
 3509 have been. It might have been less and and it might 
 have been more. It was simply an illustration. That 
 3010 would just be one of the instances that would show a 
 person that there was a difference in the water. 
 
 CuHarLEs Sprar, a witness for defendant, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Charlie Spear, I reside at Havanna. I 
 am 46 years of age. I am a captain, pilot and general 
 river man. JT am captain and pilot of the Illinois. I 
 
 3511 have been following the river since 1881. I have been 
 on all the boats that Captain Sibley ever owned and 
 on the steamer Eleanora, for seven years, and been on 
 the Illinois for four vears. The Sibley line has head- 
 aquarters at Peoria and Havanna. They had six or seven 
 boats. JT have been a licensed.master and pilot every 
 since IT was 21 years old. I have been over the entire 
 Illinois River but T could not say how many times. I 
 
177 
 
 3512 know the whole stream. I have acted as pilot over the 
 entire stream. I knew the Illinois River before 1900 
 and since. 
 
 I think there is a difference since the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict of Chicago was opened January 17, 1900, in the 
 low water of the Illinois River as compared with the 
 low water before that time. My best judgment is it 
 would be 10 or 12 inches. 
 
 3513 I have noticed the tributary streams as they come 
 into the Illinois River as compared with eight or ten 
 years ago. They used to go dry. [J haven’t noticed any 
 of the creeks dry lately. 
 
 I know the location of the Henry Dam and about the 
 river filling up above the dam. It has been. about five 
 years ago we boated the timber off on a point of land 
 just above the dam there about Beardstown, and we 
 loaded our barges there drawing four feet. I had a dou- 
 ble trip to get into the lock and shove the barges through 
 the mud to get back into the lock just above the Henry 
 Dam. That has been five or six years ago. 
 
 I don’t know the width exactly at the Henry Dam. I 
 think it is about six or seven hundred feet. 
 
 3014 Before 1900, in low water there was hardly any cur- 
 rent; now there is about three miles of current most 
 every place. 
 
 I am familiar with the levee and drainage districts 
 along the Illinois River. Before the construction of 
 these levee and drainage districts, along the Illinois River, 
 from Pekin down, in times of extreme high water it ex- 
 tended from bluff to bluff. I think the greatest width 
 is about three miles at Havanna. I think it was 1902 it 
 took out all the roads across from Havanna and shut off 
 navigation there on the bridge. I took a flat boat and 
 boated some fellows across the river, ferried them across 
 the river and I landed here against the bluff at Sepo. I 
 
178 
 
 think the bluff from the Mason County side over there 
 was three miles. With these drainage districts, in times 
 of high water, the river is a whole lot narrower. 
 
 3515 I have observed the high water on the Illinois River. 
 The highest water I ever personally observed I believe 
 was in 1892 andit might have been six or eight feet higher 
 than any other high waters we have had since. 
 
 The steamer Illinois is the steamer with which Mr. 
 Caldwell and Mr. McKinley are connected. My territory 
 as master and pilot covers the Illinois River and tribu- 
 taries from St. Louis to Keokuk on the Mississippl. 
 
 3516 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I think the high water was in 1892. Nothing has been 
 said to my mind that recalls the year. That has not been 
 
 3517 talked over between me and anybody else. 
 
 The river is from 10 to 12 inches higher; that is getting 
 down pretty close. I did not measure it. I have not 
 talked the proposition over within the last week. Steam- 
 boat men are always talking over the river, whether it 
 is rising or falling. 
 
 3518 I first knew I was going to be a witness when I was 
 called a day or two ago, when I was asked about the rise 
 in the river, I was asked about the difference and I put 
 it from 10 to 12 inches. I never made any measurements 
 with a rule. I have put lots of barges over the dam 
 and we watch that very close, you know in putting barges 
 over the Henry Dam. I have measured the water lots 
 of times with a rule when the water would rise. We are 
 interested in that and I put out a mark and I kept it 
 from time to time, whether it raised a foot or two feet. 
 But when this water was turned in I wasn’t watching 
 that very close. : 
 
 3019 I remember when it was turned in. It was turned in 
 in January, I don’t know exactly what year. I don’t 
 
119 
 
 know how long afterward I first noticed any change in the 
 river. I was fishing in the vicinity of Havanna. A part 
 of the time it was frozen over at Havanna. 
 
 The first time we noticed any rise in the river we 
 3520 did not notice over a foot of rise. 
 
 Recess taken to 1:15 p. m. same day. 
 
 3521 December 2, 1912, 1:15 P. m. 
 
 Court met pursuant to adjournment. 
 
 CHarLin Spear, a witness for the defendant, being re- 
 called for further cross-examination by Mr. O’Conor, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 In the month of January when I say there was a rise 
 in the river after the opening of the Sanitary District 
 channel, it was just the ordinary stage of water. I 
 could not state the stage. My best recollection is it was 
 1900. It was not a very low stage. I have seen the 
 
 3022 water very low in winter. Ordinarily there 1s a pretty 
 good flow of water in the river during the month of Jan- 
 uary. I next noticed an effect when it would rain; the 
 river would rise. That water did not come from the 
 district channel. That water has always showed its 
 
 3523 effect on the Illinois River. Then I noticed the water 
 in the summer time did not get as low as it usually 
 did. When it would rain the water would become muddy. 
 Before 1900 the river always cleared up during the win- 
 ter and was dirty during the rainy season. When the 
 water was low it was sluggish during the summer months. 
 I was acquainted with the river at Peru. I never floated 
 any rafts or anything around Peru, but I know that 
 
 3024 the current was very slow before 1900. There is more 
 current since the water was turned in there. The ap- 
 
780 
 
 pearance of the water is a little clearer, always clearer 
 when it is high. 
 
 I never sounded the water at the Peru bridge before 
 1900. It was always deep there. I had no occasion to 
 sound the water. I have no marks or anything of that 
 
 3525 kind in my mind that enable me to determine the rise in 
 the level of the river since the year 1900, has been from 
 10 to 12 inches, only the river is always a little higher, 
 always more water in the river. The dams for one thing 
 at Copperas Creek and at Henry. I noticed we could go 
 over the dam at Copperas Creek longer than we used to 
 with a steamboat drawing from 24 feet to 32 inches. We 
 would go over Copperas Creek sometimes when we were 
 
 3026 dragging a little drawing 30 inches. By dragging I 
 mean scraping the bottom. The difference I have no- 
 ticed 1s we used to get down until there would be possibly 
 a foot or a foot and a half of water going over the dam, 
 and now it is three feet or more at a longer time during 
 the year. Of course it would be just enough to make the 
 difference. I could not say just exactly what the differ- 
 ence in the rise of the river would be. Probably a foot 
 or a little more. 
 
 3027 I should judge the river where it crosses over Copperas : 
 Creek Dam is about the same width as at Henry, six or 
 seven hundred feet. And before it comes to the dam 
 there is a considerable flow along in a straight direction. 
 I think the increase would be approximately the same as 
 it would be at a point further up the river, although 
 where it is narrower it ought to raise the water a little 
 more. 
 
 3028 The Henry Dam is upstream from the Copperas Creek 
 Dam a little over 50 miles. I have not run over the Hen- 
 ry Dam very much or through the locks. I boated timber 
 through there about five years ago. We ran over the 
 Henry Dam some this year. Almost every month during 
 
781 
 
 the summer of this year with the Illinois, which draws 30 
 inches. When the boat is coaled down it draws 30 inches. 
 We always slow down very slow in going over either dam, 
 less than four miles an hour. We dragged once crossing 
 the dam this summer. I could not mention the month ex- 
 3529 actly, I could tell by looking at my log what month. 
 
 I don’t know about the flash boards being used at 
 Henry. The increase in the rise of the river is simply 
 given from general observation. The flow of the river is 
 now I think three miles an hour at all times. Of course 
 when the water is high in the spring it is more than that. 
 It is less than three miles an hour in some of the deep 
 
 3530 water. When the river is higher the speed is faster. I 
 have no notion as to the speed of the river prior to 1900. 
 I have tried to float a pan of fish from Liverpool down. 
 I know it would take a whole day, eight miles, practically 
 no current, and I think now it is three miles an hour. 
 
 They have been constructing levees down there for some 
 time. 
 3031 JI remember all the high water ever since I came on 
 
 the river but I don’t remember the year. J remember 
 there was high water in 1883 and 1892 and 1902. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 The first levee I remember being constructed was con- 
 structed about fifteen years ago. The District was start- 
 ed, the Lowe and McGinnis levee across from Beards- 
 
 3532 town, or the Christian Lowe. There was no levee con- 
 structed at the high water of 1892. Mr. Traut was engi- 
 neer of the district. 
 
 I have seen more than three feet of water on the dam 
 since 1900, and have seen less. 
 
782 
 
 3533 GLEN W. TRAER, a witness for defendant, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Glen W. Traer. I reside in Chicago. I 
 am a coal operator. At the present time I am interested 
 only in the operation of mines at Danville, [llinois. I 
 have been interested in several of the districts in the 
 state in the past. In times past I have been interested in 
 the La Salle District. 
 
 I am acquainted with the coal proposition throughout 
 the La Salle District, something more than twenty years. 
 
 3534 I am acquainted in a general way with the region in 
 which are situated the lands claimed by the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company which lie across the river 
 from Peru and La Salle. I don’t know their property 
 individually. I observed the property which was pointed 
 out on the map this noon. | 
 
 Q. Now, I will ask you to state in a general way if 
 you have an opinion as to the fair cash market value of 
 that property after January, 1900? A. As a coal prop- 
 erty, yes. | 
 
 (). You may state what in your judgment and opinion 
 was the fair cash market value of that property? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: We object, your Honor, unless the whole 
 property is included. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLD: Well, we are including the property. 
 
 The Court: I think I will let him answer. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: You may state, Mr. Traer. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Pardon me. Is the time fixed? 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I thought you said simply after 1900. 
 
 The Court: Well, the question is perhaps objection- 
 able, that feature of it. 
 
783 
 
 Mr. CurperFietpD: Well, the theory on which I am pro- 
 ceeding is this, if your Honor please. I want to show the 
 3535 value of that property after that date up to and includ- 
 ing this, and if your Honor please, unless the court is fa- 
 miliar with a couple of decisions, | want to call your Hon- 
 or’s attention that we have the right to show up to that 
 time as bearing on the question of its value. I have the 
 opinions here. I laid them out, thinking perhaps the court 
 might wish me to produce them, and I have them there 
 
 if there be any question about it. 
 
 The Court: If I understand your question to include 
 asking for an opinion of the witness as to the value of 
 that property, the market value of the property at the 
 present time—— 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: No, it is not that. 
 
 The Courr: If you do, I will sustain the objection. 
 
 Mr. CureerFIELD: No, it is not that. It is the value 
 of the property shortly after 1900. 
 
 The Court: Well 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: We object, unless it is confined to the 
 proper period of time, your Honor, to the same limits we 
 were confined to. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrisetp: May I produce an authority, your 
 Honor? 
 
 The Court: Yes. 
 
 Mr. CurPerFIELD: Now, in the case of Springer against 
 the City of Chicago, 135 IIl., page 552, the court uses this 
 language: 
 
 
 
 3036 ‘‘Kividence of the value of the property at the time of 
 the trial is competent, as having a bearing on the value 
 of the property. Evidence of the value before and after 
 the time when the damages are alleged to have been sus- 
 taind is admissible.’’ 
 
 3037 @. You may state, Mr. Traer, what in your judgment 
 
784. 
 
 and opinion was the value of this property shortly after 
 1900? 
 
 The Court: There is no objection to that. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I don’t know what the questioner’s 
 idea of shortly is, your Honor. 
 
 The Court: You know’as much as I do. 
 
 Mr. Curperrirtp: They may find out on cross-exami- 
 nation what that is. 
 
 The Court: You know as much about it as I do. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: We object unless he states some definite 
 time. 
 
 The Court: I think I will sustain the objection to it. 
 
 3038 To which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLD: Very good. Now, I can make things 
 pretty short. I want to offer to prove by this witness that 
 the value of the coal rights, shortly after January, 1900, 
 in and to all the property described in plaintiff’s declara- 
 tion was $50 an acre, for coal purposes. 
 
 The Court: I think this. I think you are entitled to 
 
 3039 prove the general condition of the property at the pres- 
 ent time, the physical condition, the circumstances and 
 situation and all those things, but I doubt whether you 
 are entitled to prove the market value at the present time. 
 
 3040 I think if it is restricted to the time of the alleged injury 
 or alleged damage, I will allow you to do it. I feel as if 
 
 3041 I ought not to allow you to take an opinion of the wit- 
 ness as to the present fair cash market value of the land 
 if they object to it. If they don’t object to it I will allow 
 you to do it. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: The Sica so far was to the form of 
 the question that he put. I don’t know what he means by 
 shortly. 
 
 Mr. Curprrrietp: That is for the witness to say and 
 for you to find out, and I don’t mean that as a short 
 
785 
 
 answer. It is for you to find out on cross-examination 
 what the witness means. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: That is not the policy we were forced to 
 pursue, your Honor. 
 
 The Courr: Well, that is the question here now. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: I want the record clear as to what our 
 objection is made to, not as to the proof but as to the form 
 
 3542 in which it is sought to be produced. 
 
 The Court: You have objected and I have sustained 
 the objection. 
 
 Mr. CuipgerFieLtp: All right. I will ask you to state, 
 Mr. Traer, what in your opinion was the fair cash market 
 value of this property in 1900? 
 
 A. In my opinion the property in 1900, was worth 
 about $35 or $40, its cash market value as a coal property, 
 plus whatever value the surface of the land may have 
 added and that I do not know. I do not know what the 
 value was or Is. 
 
 Q. Iwill ask you to state in your judgment and opinion 
 what was and is the fair cash market value during the 
 year 1912 prior to the date of giving your testimony in 
 this cause. 
 
 Objection by plaintiff; objection sustained; to which 
 ruling of the court, the defendant by its counsel, 
 then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLtp: ). I will ask you to state, Mr. Traer, 
 
 3543 what in your opinion and judgment, was the fair cash 
 market value of this property in the year 1905? 
 
 Objection by plaintiff; objection sustained; to which 
 ruling of the court, the defendant by its counsel, 
 then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CHrIPERFIELD: @. You may state, Mr. Traer, what 
 in your judgment and opinion was the fair cash market 
 value of this property in the year 1904. 
 
 Objection by plaintiff; objection sustained; to which 
 
786 
 
 ruling of the court, the defendant by its counsel, 
 then and there duly excepted. 
 
 3544 Q. Iwill ask you to state what was the fair cash mar- 
 ket value of this property in the year 1903? A. In my 
 opinion it was worth $50 an acre as a coal property in 
 1903 plus whatever the value of the surface may have 
 been. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I have answered questions only in relation to the coal 
 
 that underlay the ground. My answers are directed sim- 
 
 3045. ply as to the value of the coal. Taking the coal prop- 
 
 erty alone, thinking of it alone, I don’t think turning the 
 
 water into the [llinois River would increase or diminish 
 
 the value. The river would have no effect upon its value. 
 
 3546. The flooding of land underlaid with coal would not in- 
 crease the value of the coal. 
 
 3047 Epwarp T. Bent, a witness for defendant, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Exammation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Edward T. Bent. I reside in the City of 
 Chicago. Am engaged in the coal mining business at 
 Oglesby, just south of La Salle and at Rutland. Oglesby 
 is 24 miles by rail and about four miles by wagon road 
 from La Salle. I am acquainted with the premises of the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company lying east of the 
 Peru road on the south side of the river, also lying east 
 and west of the Illinois Central right of way and east 
 and west of the C., B. & Q. right of way across from Peru 
 and La Salle. 
 
 I am 50 years old and have been engaged in the coal 
 mining business at Oglesby all my life. Our mine is lo- 
 
 3048 cated less than two miles from the lands you described. 
 
787 
 
 I have an opinion as to the fair cash market value of 
 those lands after 1900. 
 
 @. You may state what, in your opinion, was the fair 
 cash market value of the land which I have described to 
 you, I will say shortly after January, 1900? 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: We object to that. 
 
 Objection sustained; to which ruling of the court the 
 defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Q. You may state, Mr. Bent, what . 
 in your judgment and opinion was the fair cash market 
 value of those lands, say, in January, 1900? 
 
 A. About $50 an acre, exclusive of the surface for 
 other purposes than coal mining. 
 
 3549 R. A. Carrer, a witness for defendant, being sworn, tes- 
 tifies as follows: : 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 ‘My name is R. A. Carter. I reside at Ottawa. I am 
 engaged in the grain business; have been all my life. I 
 have given attention to the grading of corn and am fa- 
 miliar with the grades of corn as established by the in- 
 
 3550 spection department of the State of Illinois. The grades 
 are No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and sample. Sample is the 
 gerade they used to call no grade, anything under No. 4. 
 No. 4 corn is anything that will test under 22, I mean 22 
 per cent. in moisture. 
 
 _ | have examined the corn in the cribs on the land occu- 
 pied by the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. The 
 eribs are down near La Salle and Peru. There was one 
 long erib south of the river and west of the Illinois Cen- 
 tral. I made an examination of that corn. That corn 
 
 3551 was a pretty poor grade of corn, it would not go better 
 
 than sample grade. I should say there was around 1,000 
 
788 
 
 to 1,200 bushels there. The corn was green. ‘T'o the best 
 
 3002 of my knowledge I should say the corn was worth about 
 30 cents. No. 4 corn varies from 35 to 40. 
 
 I have had an opportunity to see and inspect high land 
 corn this year, A large per cent. of that will grade No. 
 4 and the remainder, a small per cent. of it going sam- 
 
 3553 ple grade and a small per cent. is going No. 3. The ma- 
 jority of the corn that is raised this year or that I have 
 seen this year is grading below 22. I think there was 26 
 or 27 per cent. moisture in the corn that I say was sample 
 erade. No. 4 is under 22 and sample grade anything’ 
 above that. 
 
 3054 I saw another erib there which we examined up near 
 the shaft. It was right in there by their cars. Went 
 right up where they had their props. It was a good sized 
 
 3005 crib; there was some old corn and some new corn. The 
 new corn in the crib would grade No. 4. To the best of 
 my knowledge its market value would be 35 or 36 cents. 
 
 We found also another crib which was south of the 
 river and across the river from Peru. The corn in that 
 crib was sample grade and in my opinion was worth 30 
 cents per bushel. There were three cribs there, a double 
 crib and a single crib there together, that was all the 
 eribs. In that erib I did not figure it up, but I would 
 
 3556 estimate that there was at least 3,000 bushels there in 
 the double erib and single crib together. I would figure 
 that there was 3,000 bushels of corn. The ears were an 
 average size. It was mixed as to color, part white and 
 part yellow. 
 
 3557 +The two cribs I said would grade No. 4, was fairly well 
 matured. The other cribs were green. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 T live in East Ottawa; moved there about July Ist. I 
 went to examine this corn on the 30th of November, three 
 
789 
 
 3005 days ago. The first crib we examined was over south of 
 the river and west of the Illinois Central. I don’t know 
 whether that wag the crib of Michael Charley of La Salle 
 or not. I don’t know whether that is the crib in which 
 he put the corn he raised on the bottom, the portion that 
 he farmed this year. That corn was sample grade. It 
 was too wet and too green to grade. 
 
 ‘There isn’t any No. 1 grade corn, nor hasn’t been any 
 
 3009 No. 2 new corn onthe market. No. 2, without reference to 
 whether it is old or new, would be worth about 50 cents 
 in the country. No. 3 is about 41; sample, about 30. It 
 depends whether the price of corn is increased somewhat 
 during the past ten years. Corn is about as low now as 
 it has been in ten years. 
 
 I don’t know anything about the expense of raising 
 the crop. 
 
 The next crib that we saw was a crib up near the shaft, 
 
 3060 over across the river. There was 800 to 1,000 bushels 
 of new corn. We estimated that that corn would grade 
 No. 4. That is not the lowest grade; sample grade is the 
 lowest. 
 
 The other cribs were located south of Peru, two double 
 cribs and one single crib and contained about 3,000 bush- 
 els, 
 
 3561 R. A. Center was with me. Mr. Malone was with me. 
 
 3562 I did not notice any worms in the corn. We examined it 
 very carefully, took it out, broke the ear and dug down 
 into the cribs. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Cliperfield. 
 
 Number 3 corn has to test under 194 per cent. of 
 moisture. I cannot tell offhand what No. 2 is, there is 
 so little No. 2, we don’t figure on it. 
 
790 
 
 3063 R. A. Center, a witness for defendant, being sworn, tes- 
 tifies as follows: | 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is R. A. Center, I live in Fall River Town- 
 ship La Salle County. Business, farming. I have made 
 a study of the grading of corn. I have been in the grain 
 business five years and have been farming all my life the 
 rest of the time. 
 
 Saturday last I made an inspection of corn on the 
 premises of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. 
 The ribs were located, two of them south of La Salle 
 and one south of Peru. Mr. Carter was with me. We 
 
 3564 inspected the cribs together. The first crib we visited 
 the corn was what we would call sample grade. That is, 
 corn that won’t grade. No. 4, is the next grade above 
 that. The corn that was in that crib was worth about 30 
 cents a bushel. I could not tell the number of bushels be- 
 cause I did not take that in view at all. 
 
 3065 The next crib we inspected was a double crib by the 
 coal shaft. It was part old corn and the other half was 
 new yellow corn that would grade No. 4. The corn was 
 worth five cents a bushel more than the other. I cannot 
 state how much there was in the crib. 
 
 The other crib was a double crib and a single crib south 
 of Peru. Big white and yellow corn that would go sample 
 grade. It was worth about 30 cents a bushel. I did not 
 estimate the number of bushels. 
 
 Q. Now, have you seen or observed the corn that is 
 raised this year on the uplands? A. Only my own. 
 
 Q. Was that upland corn? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. What did that corn grade? 
 
 Objection by plaintiff; objection sustained; to which 
 
 3566 ruling of the court, the defendant by its counsel, 
 
 then and there duly excepted. | 
 
791 
 
 The sample grade corn that I saw was what I would 
 term large ear corn; the No. 4 is not. I don’t know 
 whether corn on the uplands this year is grading better 
 than No. 4. The corn was partly dented, a portion of it 
 
 3567 was glazed and a portion was not. I should judge about 
 half of it was dented and about half of it was glazed. Mr. 
 Carter and I were together. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 3068 ‘There were two large cribs and a single erib that would 
 not grade. One double crib would grade. One placé 
 south of Peru there was a double crib and a single erib. 
 Another place a single crib and another place a double 
 crib. Those were all the cribs we examined. The other 
 cribs were farther east, probably about south of La Salle 
 
 3069 near the coal mine at Jones. The corn south of Peru 
 would not grade. 
 
 Wituim V. McKrnuey, a witness for defendant, being 
 sworn, testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 3570 My name is William V. McKinley. I reside at Havana, 
 Illinois. I am a marine engineer. Chief engineer of the 
 steamer Illinois. I have been in the service of the state 
 about twenty years. I have been connected with the 
 Illinois eleven years; prior to that time I was chief en- 
 gineer on the Reindeer. It was a state boat. I have 
 held a license as an engineer on the Illinois River for 
 twenty-six years. Before that I was a pilot on the Ha- 
 vana and several other boats, I don’t know just what 
 
 3571 they were now. I was not a licensed pilot at that time. 
 
 I am acquainted with the [linois River and have known 
 it all my life. I am forty-seven years old. I was ac- 
 
792 
 
 quainted with it before 1900 from one end of the 
 stream to the other. Since 1900 there has been a small 
 change in the level of the river at low water mark. There 
 
 3072 has been an increase in the water about twelve or fif- 
 teen inches at low water, as near as I can recall. 
 
 The highest water I ever knew was in 1892. I have 
 not known it to be as high since that time. I have had 
 a chance to see and observe the tributary streams of the 
 Illinois as they flow in. During the last eight or ten 
 years there have been more freshets in them; that is, 
 when a rain would fall it would raise them quicker. 
 Since 1900 the current of the river has increased. Be- 
 fore 1900, I suppose it was a mile and a half. Since 
 that time it is three miles and a half an hour. 
 
 3573 As engineer I kept the log of the boat. It gives me 
 a chance to tell how much better time we make up the 
 river at different times at different stages of water. I 
 note on the log the time it takes to traverse certain dis- 
 tances. The difference in our time down the river and 
 up the river is about three miles an hour as a general 
 thing. 
 
 Before any of the drainage districts were put in the 
 Illinois River was in places three or four miles wide. 
 
 3574 Since the districts have gone in the width of those places 
 is not over half a mile. The place at Havana. It is also 
 true at Beardstown for quite a distance. 
 
 IT recall about the time of the opening of the district 
 channel. I made no observation concerning it, as I was 
 on the Mississippi River at that time. 
 
 3575 No cross-examination. 
 
198 
 
 Martin Houston, a witness for defendant, being sworn, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Martin Houston. I reside at Pekin, [li- 
 nois. I am a pilot on the Illinois River; forty-three 
 years of age. I have been a pilot for twenty-three years. 
 The last seven years I have been with the Swain people. 
 Tam now with the steamer Percy Swain. The headquar- 
 ters of the Swains are at Peru or La Salle, rather in the 
 basin. We run from La Salle to Peoria. I have put in 
 ten years on that run; not steady, but off and on. Seven 
 years steady. Make the round trip every other day from 
 the first of April until the 25th of November, with the 
 exception of two months, then every day during the sum- 
 mer season. 
 
 When our boat is lying at La Salle it is lying at the 
 Peru dock. They are about two blocks above the Peru 
 
 3577 bridge, I should judge a mile and a quarter from lock 15. 
 
 I am familiar with the Illinois River from Grafton 
 to La Salle, the head of navigation as they claim. I 
 have never been above La Salle with a steamer. Have 
 been up with a gasoline boat. I have run the Fred 
 Swain, the Davis Swain and the Perey Swain, the City 
 of Peoria, steamer Isabelle, G. M. Sidley and Speed. I 
 
 3578 have been up and down the Illinois River between La 
 Salle and Peoria every season within seventeen years. 
 3579 Hard to say how many times I have made the trip. 
 During July and August every day, and every other 
 day from April 1st until the 20th or 25th of November. 
 I have observed the high and low water. I remember the 
 high water. of ’92. I was at Pekin at that time. There 
 was a hard rainfall raised the river very rapidly and 
 broke in through some of the levees. The water came 
 
194 
 
 down with such a rush it couldn’t get through those 
 narrow places. The levees being along the river it would 
 make narrow places and wouldn’t let it back water as it 
 used to and it had to go somewhere. Since 1892 I have 
 
 3080 not seen as high water to my knowledge. 
 
 Since 1900 I have observed a difference in the L[llinois 
 River between that time and the time since, so far as low 
 water is concerned. The water does not get down quite 
 as low. It is about the same in low water season. It is 
 according to the wet weather and dry weather as we 
 have it. There isn’t very much difference to be noticea- 
 ble. In dry weather the water gets down so we have 
 to use the locks at Henry when we are going through. 
 In high water we can go over the dam. 
 
 I know a boat man by the name of Hawley. I know 
 his boat. I remember at one time he was stuck at a bar 
 right above the Henry locks. We had to pull him off. 
 I cannot say how long ago that was. It was in the neigh- 
 borhood of six years. 
 
 3081 Before 1900 the water got very stagnant. There 
 wasn’t much of a current. There wasn’t any to speak 
 of at all. Perhaps a quarter of a mile to the hour. Since 
 1900 there is at low water, I should judge, three miles | 
 an hour. As a pilot we notice the current of the stream 
 
 3982 to a great extent as we go through it. It is at low water 
 I would judge something in the neighborhood of twelve 
 to thirteen or fourteen inches since 1900. I haven’t taken 
 very particular pains to notice only running the dam 
 and such as that, and landmarks along the river where 
 we land. I know by that. 
 
 I have seen the bottom lands across the river from 
 Peru overflowed in times of high water. Seemed to be 
 seven or eight feet of water. The river spreads out 
 over the low land. It rises quick and goes down quick. 
 A narrow stream and can’t go through it as it should 
 and makes an overflow, 
 
795 
 
 I have noticed the tributaries along the Illinois River 
 
 in the last eight or ten years. he creeks that used to be 
 
 30983 dry are running water the year around nowadays. Most 
 
 of them full of water, running water; that is, not full, but 
 
 there is running water; they don’t go dry. The higher 
 
 the water increases the current is pretty swift. I should 
 
 judge since 1900 there has been a current of six or seven 
 
 miles an hour in high water. I think the current is 
 swifter now than before. 
 
 3084 I know the river is filling up so that in a good stage 
 of water it is difficult to get through above the dam at 
 Henry. I have observed that for five or six hundred 
 yards. Our boat draws thirty inches. 
 
 I have noticed the drainage districts down the river. 
 They narrow the channel to a great extent. 
 
 3085 I have never done any boating on the Mississippi. I 
 am engaged in the freight and passenger business from 
 Peoria to Peru and La Salle. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The stuff settling in the river back of the Henry dam 
 is sand and mud brought in there from the creeks and 
 the drainage of land which washes in and the farm lands 
 being tiled. I know of farm lands back which have more 
 or less been tiled and ditched out to dispose of the high 
 water and rainfalls. I have seen where they were tiling 
 and seen the creeks as they flowed into the [linois River. 
 They make sand bars which the government is taking 
 
 3086 out. That has been going on for the last seven or eight 
 years as I remember; had not been so much before. I 
 cannot say how much land above the Henry dam has 
 been drained into the Illinois River in the last seven 
 years. I have been hunting over it. 
 
 3087 The spring freshets take more land than they leave. 
 They bring more land to the river than they did before 
 
796 
 
 the land was tiled. I think most of the soil comes from 
 the surface of the lands. 
 
 0088 I have seen rainfalls when the water would run two 
 feet from the banks of the river for a quarter of a mile. 
 That washes in and fills up a bar. They did not do that 
 to a great extent before the timber was cut off, which 
 gives it a chance. 
 
 I notice a difference in the color of the water itself. 
 It is purer and cleaner. I have seen it when it was filthy ; 
 3589 you couldn’t stand it to eat a meal along the Illinois 
 River. That was around Lacon and Havana. The fish 
 all died. We never see any more of this and don’t have 
 
 the stagnant odor. 
 
 3090 Have noticed the water at Peru since the Sanitary 
 Distrist water was turned in. As a rule there has been 
 eight to twelve feet of water there. The Peru bridge, I 
 should say, is five or six hundred feet wide. There has - 
 been a change in the speed of the river as much as at 
 other places. There was always a little more current 
 there. I should judge the current is two and a half miles 
 during the summer months along there. 
 
 3091 I have noticed the water is clear all along from Peru 
 to Peoria. We have several bars from Peoria to Peru 
 that gets very shoal on us during low water. 
 
 The levees I speak of was the Pekin levee as being 
 
 affected in 1892. I remember the high water of 1902. 
 
 I couldn’t tell the difference between the two by the 
 
 3092 gauge. Before 1892 the high water was in ’83 or ’84. 
 
 In high water the river is swifter now than it used to be. 
 
 I could not say, but I know we have a good current. It 
 
 35993 is faster to my best judgment. I know it makes more 
 
 speed that it did before. In high water it runs off faster. 
 
 3094 Cannot judge the speed of high water as well as when 
 the water is down in its banks. 
 
OT 
 
 3595 KE. B. Spencer, a witness for defendant, being sworn, 
 testified as follows: | 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is I. B. Spencer. I reside in Chicago. I am 
 in the employ of the Sanitary District as photographer. 
 I have been engaged in the business of photography 
 thirty-five or forty years. I understand the science of 
 making and developing pictures and have been familiar 
 with this work forty years. I make pictures for the 
 Sanitary District. J use a camera with a regular stand- 
 ard lens. When I say regular standard lens I mean a 
 
 3596 regular rectilinear lens. I mean a corrected lens. The 
 pictures are 5x8. The pictures I make are correct re- 
 productions of the objects photographed, and show the 
 objects in their true proportion to each other. No ex- 
 aggeration or distortion. 
 
 In the pictures concerning which you are about to ask 
 me I used this lens in all cases. Concerning the develop; 
 ment of these pictures, I went into the field and made 
 
 3097 the exposure and brought them home and went into 
 the dark room and developed them. As a result of the 
 development process which I used nothing appears in 
 the picture which did not appear in the negative, except 
 the number. They were in no way manipulated or 
 changed. The number on the picture with a pen is put 
 on backwards so as to appear correctly on the photo- 
 graph. The numbers are put on for a file number and 
 the date and year they were taken. The pictures have 
 
 3098 not been retouched or anything. They each truly, cor- 
 rectly and accurately reproduce the scene that was taken 
 by me. 
 
 I have a number of these pictures. I believe there 
 are two or three of them not numbered. 
 
798 
 
 I have a view of the Chicago harbor. 
 
 Photograph produced and marked Exhibit 112. 
 
 That is the entrance to the Chicago River from Lake 
 Michigan. The building on the right is the government 
 life saving station. he tower in the distance is the 
 government light. There is a breakwater shown on the 
 
 30999 picture. This is the entrance of the Chicago River from 
 the lake. 
 
 3600 I have a view of the entrance of the Chicago harbor 
 and Chicago River showing a boat leaving the Chicago 
 River and entering the harbor outward bound. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 113. 
 
 I have a picture bearing the number 2287 containing a 
 view of the Chicago River at the State street bridge, the 
 bridge in the distance being the Dearborn street bridge. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 114. 
 
 3601 I have a picture bearing number 3916 which is a view 
 of the Metropolitan bridge over the Chicago River just 
 north of Van Buren street, showing the channel of the 
 Chicago River at that point. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 115. 
 
 I have a picture numbered 3918, being a view of the 
 Van Buren street bridge open and the Metropolitan 
 bridge in the distance closed. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 116. 
 
 T have a picture, No. 3934, a view of the Chicago River 
 at Polk street, looking north, showing the Polk street 
 bridge under construction. 
 
 3602 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 117. 
 
 Picture No. 3933 is a view of the Chicago River at 
 Fourteenth street. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 118. 
 
 I have a view of the main channel of the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict of Chicago at Willow Springs. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 119. 
 
799 
 
 I have a view of the great curve on the drainage chan- 
 nel at Romeo, looking upstream. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 120. 
 
 Photograph No. 1593 is a view of the Bear Trap Dam 
 showing a discharge at the time of the taking of the view 
 of 300,000 cubie feet per minute. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 121. 
 
 I have a view of the windage basin at Lockport, Illi- 
 nois, No. 1378. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 122. 
 
 I have a view of the tailrace of the Sanitary District 
 of Chicago immediately below the Bear Trap Dam which 
 eonnects the main channel of the Sanitary District with 
 the Desplaines River, made at a time when the Bear 
 Trap Dam was closed and no discharge entering the tail- 
 race. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 123. 
 
 I have a view from the same point, the only difference 
 being the discharge is 300,000 cubic feet per minute pass- 
 ing over the Bear Trap Dam into the tailrace. My num- 
 ber is 3280. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 124. 
 
 Photograph No. 327 is a view of the junction of the 
 Sanitary District tailrace and the Desplaines River a 
 short distance below the Bear Trap Dam, taken at a 
 time when the Bear Trap Dam was closed and no water 
 discharged from the main channel of the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 125. 
 
 Photograph 3281 shows the same view as the last 
 stated with the addition of 300,000 cubic feet per minute 
 flowing from the main channel of the Sanitary District. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 126. 
 
 3604 Photograph 158 shows a view of the Desplaines River 
 
800 
 
 looking northeast upstream from the Summit highway 
 bridge 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 127. 
 
 The photograph 169 shows a view of the Desplaines 
 River looking downstream from the Summit highway 
 bridge. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 128. 
 
 Photograph 170 is a view of the Desplaines River look- 
 ing upstream from the Willow Springs highway bridge. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 129. 
 
 Photograph 171 is a view of the Desplaines River look- 
 ing downstream from the Willow Springs highway 
 bridge. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 130. 
 
 Photograph No. 172 shows a view of the Desplaines 
 River looking upstream from Lemont highway bridge, 
 the bridge in the foreground being the Santa Fe Rail- 
 road bridge. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 131. 
 
 Photograph No. 173 is a view of the Desplaines River 
 looking downstream from the Lemont highway bridge. 
 
 3605 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 132. 
 
 When there appears to be a date on these photographs 
 it means the picture was taken on that date. 
 
 Photograph No. 793 is a view of the Desplaines River 
 at Riverside showing flood conditions. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 133. 
 
 Photograph No. 794 is a view of the dam across the 
 Desplaines River at Riverside. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 134. 
 
 Photograph No. 4104 is a view of the Atchison, To- 
 peka & Santa Fe tracks between McCook, Illinois, and the 
 Desplaines River bridge near Lyons, Illinois, showing 
 the main line of tracks of the Santa Fe Railroad. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 135, 
 
801 
 
 3606 Photograph No. 4103 shows the territory north of the 
 
 Desplaines River at Summit, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 136. 
 
 Photograph 4100 shows the highway north of the Des- 
 plaines River between Summit and Lyons, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 137. 
 
 Photograph 2707 is a view at Romeo on the Desplaines 
 River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 138. 
 
 Photograph 2706 is a view of the Romeo highway a 
 short. distance from the Desplaines River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 139. 
 
 Photograph 2704 is a view of the east branch of the 
 Desplaines River between Romeo Island and the main 
 channel of the Sanitary District, the spoil banks of which 
 are shown in the distance, together with the view over 
 the main channel leading to the Village of Romeo. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 140. 
 
 I have a photograph No. 2705, being a view of a branch 
 of the Desplaines River along the east side of Romeo 
 
 3608 Island, highway shown running east across the main 
 
 channel of the Sanitary District. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 141. 
 
 Photograph No. 2701 is a view of the highway bridge 
 at Lemont, Illinois, a portion of which was destroyed in 
 the Desplaines River flood of March, 1904. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 142. 
 
 Photograph No. 810 is a view of the west dam across 
 the Du Page River at Channahan, Illinois, the east dam 
 being about 500 feet east of the end of the dam in this 
 view. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 148. 
 
 Photograph No. 812 is a view of the Du Page River 
 near Smith’s bridge, showing the mouth of the Du Page 
 River where it enters the Desplaines River, looking down- 
 stream. 
 
802 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 144. 
 
 Photograph No. 657 is a view of the bridge over tha 
 Yellow River at Knox, Indiana. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 145. 
 
 Photograph No. 650 is a view of bridge over ditch 
 about a mile and a half north of Knox, Indiana; bridge 
 shown in picture is one which is being erected to replace 
 one washed out. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 146. 
 
 View No. 651 shows the new Kankakee River looking 
 downstream from bridge near Jackson Island Club, In- 
 diana. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 147. 
 
 Photograph No. 652 shows the new Kankakee River 
 looking upstream from bridge near Jackson Island Club, 
 Indiana. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 148. 
 
 Photograph No. 653 is a view of the old Kankakee 
 River, about a quarter of a mile from the bridge near 
 Jackson Island Club, Indiana, looking downstream. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 149. 
 
 Photograph No. 655 is a view of a drainage ditch about 
 a quarter of a mile from the old Kankakee River near 
 Jackson Island Club, Indiana. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 150. 
 
 Photograph No. 658 is a picture of the bridge over 
 the old Kankakee River between San Pierre and Wilders, — 
 Indiana. 
 
 3609 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 151. 
 
 Photograph 656 is a view of the drainage ditch about 
 one mile from the old Kankakee River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 152. 
 
 Photograph 659 shows a view of the new Kankakee 
 River between San Pierre and Wilders, Indiana. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 153. 
 
803 
 
 View No. 660 shows the Mockler ditch near Wilders, 
 Indiana, looking upstream. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 154. 
 
 View No. 661 shows the Mockler ditch near Wilders, 
 Indiana, looking downstream. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 155. 
 
 View No. 798 shows a dam in the Kankakee River at 
 Waldron, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 156. 
 
 3610 View No. 797 shows the Kankakee River and bridge at 
 Waldron, Illinois. | 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 157. 
 
 View No. 795 shows the [Iroquois River looking towards 
 the Kankakee River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 158. 
 
 View No. 796 shows the Iroquois River looking up- 
 stream from the Kankakee River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 159. 
 
 View No. 1334 shows the dam in the Kankakee River 
 at Wilmington. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 160. 
 
 View No. 1335 shows the Kankakee River at Wilming- 
 ton, Illinois, showing the highway bridge looking down- 
 stream. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 161. 
 
 View 1336 shows the bridge over the creek at Wilming- 
 ton, Illinois, which empties into the Kankakee River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 162. 
 
 3611 View 702 shows the mouth of the Kankakee River at 
 Dresden Heights and the mouth of the Desplaines River 
 shown near the bank of crushed stone near right of the 
 picture. View shows portion of cofferdam in place about 
 half way across Desplaines River. Illinois River begins 
 at this point and runs south, parallel to Illinois and Mich- 
 igan Canal. Dresden Heights Bluffs are shown in the 
 
804 
 
 distance. The Kankakee River at this point being nearly 
 1,000 feet, Kankakee being shown at the right of the pic- 
 ture, and the point projecting into the river immedi- 
 ately in the foreground at left of the picture. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 163. 
 
 View 2660 shows an ice gorge in the Desplaines River 
 looking upstream from a point near the mouth of the 
 Desplaines and Kankakee Rivers. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 164. 
 
 View 2663 shows a view of an ice gorge in the Illinois 
 River, the mouth of the Kankakee River being shown 
 at the right of picture and the mouth of the Desplaines 
 River at the extreme left. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 165. 
 
 3612 View No. 1056 is a view of the E. J. & E. bridge over 
 the Illinois River at Divine looking upstream. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 166. 
 
 View 809 is a view of the bridge over the Aux Sable 
 River, about ten miles above Morris, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 167. 
 
 View 707 shows the mouth of the Aux Sable in the dis- 
 tance, looking towards the Illinois River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 168. 
 
 View 1310 shows a view of stone bridge over the Aux 
 Sable River just above the mouth of the Illinois River 
 and near the Aux Sable locks on the Illinois and Michi- 
 gan Canal. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 169. 
 
 3613 This picture shows a view of the Aux Sable River 
 just north of the stone highway bridge above the mouth 
 of the Aux Sable River and near the Aux Sable locks 
 about eight miles above Morris, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 170. 
 
 View 1331 shows the Mazon River looking upstream 
 three miles southeast of Morris, Illinois, showing new 
 bridge over river. 
 
805 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 171. 
 
 View 1332 shows the Mazon River looking upstream 
 about three miles southeast of Morris. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 172. 
 
 View 1333 is a view of the junction of the Mazon and 
 Illinois Rivers about 1,000 feet above Morris highway 
 bridge over the Illinois River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 173. 
 
 3614 View 1059 is a view of the Morris highway bridge over 
 the Illinois River looking downstream from a point near 
 the mouth of the Mazon River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 174. 
 
 View 1063 is a view of the Kankakee and Seneca Rail- 
 road bridge over the Illinois River looking upstream one 
 mile east at Seneca, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 175. 
 
 3615 View 806 is of the Mazon River near the Pleasure Club 
 House, southeast of Morris and about three miles above 
 its junction with the Illinois River, looking downstream. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 176. 
 
 View 807 is a view of the Mazon River looking up- 
 stream from the same point as shown in picture 806. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 177. 
 
 View No. 142 is a view of the Marseilles dam across 
 the [llmois River, looking north, showing the gates at 
 head-race at right of picture, view taken looking north. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 178. 
 
 3616 View 1007 is a view of the Illinois River with the Mar- 
 seilles dam drowned out by an ice gorge, view shown 
 looking southeast. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 179. 
 
 View 1009 is a view of the Illinois River and the Mar- 
 seilles highway bridge taken from the north end of the 
 Marseilles dam. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 180. 
 
806 
 
 View 784 is a view of the junction of the Fox and 
 Honey Rivers at Burlington, Wisconsin. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 181. 
 
 View 785 is the bridge over the Fox River at Burling- 
 ton, Wisconsin. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 182. 
 
 3617 View No. 780 shows the dam in the Fox River at Elgin. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 183. 
 
 View 781 is a view of the Fox River at Elgin, taken 
 at the watch factory. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 184. 
 
 View 782 is a view of the watch factory bridge over 
 the Fox River at Elgin. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 185. 
 
 View 778 is the west dam in the Fox River at Aurora, 
 Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 186. 
 
 View 1337 is the Fox River at Aurora, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 187. 
 
 3618 View 623 is of the Fox River looking upstream from 
 Dayton highway bridge four miles above Ottawa. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 188. 
 
 View 800 is the Fox River taken from the Dayton high- 
 way bridge, looking upstream. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 189. 
 
 View No. 624 is a view of the Fox River a short dis- 
 tance above Dayton highway bridge, four miles above 
 Ottawa. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 190. 
 
 T also have another view of the Fox River taken at the 
 same point. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 191. 
 
 View 625 is a view of the Fox River bridge at Dayton, 
 looking downstream. | 
 ~ Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 192. 
 

 
 807 
 
 3619 View 801 is of the Dayton highway bridge from the 
 Fox River, looking upstream. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 193. 
 
 View 803 shows the Main street bridge over the Fox 
 River at Ottawa, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 194. 
 
 View 802 shows the mouth of the Fox River where it 
 enters the Fox River at Ottawa. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 195. 
 
 View 1068 is a view of the Illinois River showing the 
 Ottawa highway bridge, view taken from the C. B. & Q. 
 Railway bridge at Ottawa, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 196. 
 
 3620 View No. 804 is a view of the Vermillion River, looking 
 downstream, at Streator, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit.197. 
 
 View 805 is a view of the Vermillion River, looking up- 
 stream from the same position from which Exhibit 197 
 was taken. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 198. 
 
 View 1323 is a view of the Vermillion River, looking 
 downstream at the highway bridge at Streator, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 199. 
 
 View 1325 is the Vermillion River at Streator, Illinois, 
 looking downstream. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 200. 
 
 3621 View 1326 shows the dam across the Vermillion River 
 about two miles above Streator, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 201. 
 
 View 1329 is Bailey’s falls in the Vermillion River 
 about four miles above the mouth of the Vermillion 
 River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 202. 
 
 View 1330 is a view of the rapids in the river near 
 Bailey’s falls, about four miles above the mouth of the 
 river. 
 
808 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 203. 
 
 View 90 is a view of the Illinois River taken below the 
 Shippingsport bridge at La Salle, [llinois, looking north- 
 west, the plant in the distance being the zine works at 
 Peru; the land claimed by the Carbon Coal Company be- 
 ing on both sides of the river. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 204. 
 
 View 91 is a view of the Carbon Coal Company’s al- 
 leged lands opposite the mouth of the Illinois and Mich- 
 
 3622 igan Canal, Peru being shown at the right hand of the 
 picture. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 205. 
 
 View 98 is a view looking north from Mr. Boers’ resi- 
 dence in Section 28, Peru being shown in the distance, 
 the land claimed by the La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company in the center of the picture. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 206. 
 
 View 93 is of the south side of the Illinois River just 
 east of the south end of the Peru highway bridge, the 
 zine works being shown in the distance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 207. 
 
 View No. 92 is a view of the south end of the Peru 
 highway bridge from the south end of the Peru highway 
 
 3623 over the Illinois River, looking southwest. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 208. 
 
 View No. 87 is of the land on the north side of the 
 river, between the Illinois Central and C. B. & Q. Rail- 
 ways. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 209. 
 
 View No. 74 is looking south from the Illinois and 
 Michigan Canal opposite the electric light works at La 
 Salle, showing Huse’ slough in the distance and Ship- 
 pingsport belong Huse’ Lake. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 210. 
 
 View 75 shows lands along the south side of the Ili- 
 
809 
 
 nois and Michigan Canal at the basin opposite La Salle 
 and north of Huse’ Lake looking west. 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 211. 
 
 3624 View No. 199 is taken from the Riddle Rock looking 
 
 northwest, showing the south side of the river and Car- 
 bon Coal waste bank and the City of La Salle in the dis- 
 tance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 212. 
 
 View 207 is the Illinois River taken from the south 
 side of the river, showing the C. B. & Q. and Illinois 
 Central Railroad bridges, looking north on the lands in 
 question in this case. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 213. 
 
 View 235 is the spoil bank of the mine just east of La 
 Salle, looking southeast towards the mouth of the Ver- 
 million River, showing the land claimed by the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company on the north side of the 
 river. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 214. 
 
 View No. 226 is taken from the south end of the Peru 
 highway bridge, looking west, along the south bank of 
 the Illinois River. 
 
 3625 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 215. 
 
 View 227 is a view looking east from the Peru highway 
 bridge, showing corn field on the south side of the Illinois 
 River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 216. 
 
 View 225 is a view of Section 21 in the southwest quar- 
 ter of Section 21, near McCormick’s slough. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 217. 
 
 View 214 is a view of a portion of Section 21 looking 
 north, Peru being shown at the left hand of the picture 
 and La Salle at the right hand of the picture is the dis- 
 tance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 218. 
 
810 
 
 View 213 is looking northeast along the north bank of 
 the Illinois River from the La Salle highway bridge over 
 the Illinois River. 
 
 3626 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 219. 
 
 View 210 is looking south from the Illinois and Mich- 
 igan Canal basin opposite the electric light works at La 
 Salle, showing a portion of Section 22. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 220. 
 
 View 209 is taken from the south side of the Illinois 
 and Michigan Canal basin opposite the electric light 
 works in La Salle, looking west, showing a portion of 
 Section 21. 
 
 ’ Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 221. 
 
 View 206 is taken on the south side of the Illinois River 
 looking southwest from the south end of the Illinois 
 Central Railway bridge. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 222. 
 
 View 205 is a view of a field west of the C. B. & Q. 
 Railroad and the north bank of the Illinois River, taken 
 from the Illinois Central Railroad bridge. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 223. 
 
 3627 View 204 is a view taken from the Illinois Central Rail- 
 road bridge looking northwest towards La Salle, show- 
 ing corn field between the Illinois Central and C. B. & Q. 
 Railroads, and the spoil bank of the: La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company being shown at the right of the 
 picture. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 224. 
 
 View 203 shows the field south of the [linois River, 
 taken from the top of the Illinois Central Railroad bridge 
 at the north bank of the river, looking southeast, Oglesby 
 being shown in the distance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 225. 
 
 3628 View 202 is taken from the Illinois Central Railroad 
 bridge looking east, showing a field along the south side 
 
811 
 
 of the river in the foreground, the La Salle County Car- 
 bon Coal Company’s waste bank at the left of picture in 
 the distance, corn growing on the La Salle County Car- 
 bon Coal Company’s land on the north side of the river. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 226. 
 
 View 529 is of the Illinois Valley bottoms looking north 
 towards Peru, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 227. 
 
 View 531 is the Llinois Valley bottoms looking north 
 below Peru, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 228. 
 
 View 535 is of the field just west of the Peru high- 
 way, south of the Illinois River, McCormick’s slough be- 
 ing shown at left of picture. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 229. 
 
 3629 View 539, taken from the Illinois Central Railroad 
 bridge looking northwest, showing corn field along bank 
 of the river, La Salle, Illinois, being shown in the dis- 
 tance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 230. 
 
 View 540 is a field on the north bank of the [linois 
 River between the La Salle highway and the C. B. & Q. 
 Railway bridge, La Salle being shown in the distance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 231. 
 
 View 541 is looking west from the La Salle highway 
 across the lands in Section 22 involved in this suit. 
 3630 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 232. 
 View 773 is of the Illinois bottoms in Sections 21 and 
 22 involved in this suit, taken from a point along the 
 Illinois and Michigan Canal basin opposite the electric 
 light works in La Salle, Illinois. 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 233. 
 
 View 774 is a view of the corn fields between the La 
 Salle highway at the north end of the highway bridge 
 
812 
 
 over the river and the C. B. & Q. Railroad, looking north- 
 east. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 234. 
 
 View 935 is a view of the [llinois Valley bottoms from 
 the south bluff looking northeast towards Peru. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 255. 
 
 View 932 is of the corn field east of the Peru highway 
 and near McCormick’s slough. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 236. 
 
 3631 View 931 is the corn field along the south bank of the 
 Illinois River taken from the Peru highway just south of 
 the river bridge. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 237. 
 
 View 930 is of the corn along the north bank. of the 
 Illinois River near the mouth of Huse’s Lake. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 238. 
 
 View 939 is the corn field from the south bluff of the 
 Illinois Valley in Section 20 and shows lands adjoining 
 the lands involved in this suit, looking north towards La 
 Salle, Illinois. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 239. 
 
 3632 View 928 is the corn field along the south bank of the 
 Illinois River looking southwest from the south end of 
 the Illinois Central Railroad bridge. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 240. 
 
 View 926 is the south bank of the [llnois River, show- 
 ing corn field east of the south end of the Illinois Cen- 
 tral Railroad bridge over the Lllinois River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 241. 
 
 View 1087 is the Illinois River looking upstream from 
 a point on the south bank of the Illinois River about 
 1,000 feet below the Peru highway bridge. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 242. 
 
 3633 View 1086 is a view of a corn field of the north bank 
 of the Illinois River looking east from the north end 
 
813 
 
 of the La Salle highway bridge, showing the C. B. & Q. 
 and [Illinois Central Railroad bridges in the distance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 243. 
 
 View 1085 is a view of the Illinois River looking north 
 at a point just west of the south end of the C. B. & Q. 
 and the I. C. Railroad bridges over the Illinois River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 244. 
 
 View 1153 shows the corn between the C. B. & Q. Rail- 
 road and the Vermillion River on the La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company’s alleged lands in Section 23. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 245. 
 
 View 1155 is a view of the corn west of the C. B. & Q. 
 Railroad in Section 23 on property claimed by the Car- 
 bon Coal Company. 
 
 3634 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 246. 
 
 View 1157 is a view of the corn west of the C. B. & Q: 
 Railroad in Section 23 on property claimed by the La 
 Salle County Carbon Coal Company. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 247. 
 
 View 1158 is a view of corn field along the south bank, 
 of the Illinois River west of the Illinois Central bridge 
 and the La Salle highway bridge over the Illinois River 
 and Shippingsport being shown in the distance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 248. 
 
 View 1159 is a view of corn south of Huse’s Lake in 
 the southeast quarter of Section 21 on the property 
 claimed by the plaintiff. | 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 249. 
 
 3635 View No. 1160 is a view of corn west of the Illinois 
 Central Railroad bridge and east of the C. B. & Q. bridge 
 north of the [Illinois River, view taken from the Illinois 
 and Michigan Canal bank looking southeast. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 250. 
 
 View 1161 is of corn south of the [linois and Mich- 
 igan Canal towpath, between the Illinois Central and C. 
 B. & Q. Railroads north of the Illinois River. 
 
814 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 251. 
 
 View 1162 is a view of corn on the north side of the 
 Illinois River east of the Illinois Central bridge, view 
 looking southeast. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 252. 
 
 View 1173 showing corn, potatoes and cabbage, east 
 of the Illinois Central Railway, north of the Illinois 
 River and west of the Little Vermillion River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 253. 
 
 3636 View 1164 is a view of corn field east of the Peru high- 
 way in the northwest quarter of Section 21 involved in 
 this suit. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 254. 
 
 View 1165 is of corn east of the Peru highway in the 
 northwest quarter of Section 21 involved in this suit. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 255. 
 
 View 1208 is a view of the Illinois River bottoms, 
 north of the [llnois River, northeast of the mouth of 
 the Vermillion River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 256. 
 
 View 1212 is a view of corn in Section 24 involved in 
 this suit, along the Vermillion River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 257. 
 
 3637 View 1213 is a view of corn between the Vermillion 
 River and the C. B. & Q. Railroad in Section 23, involved 
 in this suit. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 258. 
 
 View 1214 is of the property claimed by the plaintiff 
 north of the Illinois River, taken from the Illinois Cen- 
 tral Railroad bridge, showing La Salle in the distance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 259. 
 
 View 1217 is taken from the Illinois Central Railroad 
 bridge looking northwest, showing corn field north of 
 the Illinois River, and La Salle and Peru in the distance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 260. 
 
815 
 
 View 1219 is of corn field north of Illinois River from 
 a point at the north end of the La Salle highway bridge, 
 showing the C. B. & Q. and I. C. Railroad bridges in the 
 distance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 261. 
 
 38638 View 1220 is of corn on the north side of the Illinois 
 River between the La Salle highway and the C. B. & Q. 
 Railroad bridge. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 262. 
 
 View 1221 is of corn field west of the La Salle high- 
 way in Section 22, looking west. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 263. 
 
 View 1222 1s of the corn field looking southwest in 
 Section 22. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 264. 
 
 View 1224 is of corn along the south side of the I[li- 
 nois River just west of the Peru highway bridge. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 265. 
 
 3639 View 1225 is of corn in field south of the Illinois River 
 just west of the Peru highway bridge. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 266. 
 
 View 1226 is of corn on Section 21 involved in this suit, 
 east of the Peru road, south of the Illinois River. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 267. 
 
 View 1227 is of corn south of the Illinois River and 
 east of the Peru highway in Section 21. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 268. 
 
 View 1229 is a view of the Illinois River bottoms look- 
 ing north from the south bluff, Peru being shown in the 
 distance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 269. 
 
 3640 View No. 1231 is a view of the Illinois River looking 
 north from the south bluff, showing Peru is the distance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 270. 
 
 View 1320 is of corn west of the C. B. & Q. Railroad in 
 Section 23 on lands claimed by the plaintiff. 
 
816 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 271. 
 
 View 1707 is a view of corn field on the south side of 
 the Illinois River, west of the I. C. Railroad bridge, the 
 La Salle highway bridge being shown in the distance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 272. 
 
 View 1701 is a corn field involved in this suit on Section 
 21, taken near the center of the section east of Peru look- 
 ing east. : 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 273. 
 
 3641 View No. 1702 shows a sample of corn growing in the 
 field shown in Exhibit 273. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 274. 
 
 View 1700 is of the Llinois River bottoms, looking 
 northeast from the south bluff, showing the Cities of 
 Peru and La Salle in the distance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 275. 
 
 View 1705 is of corn field north of the Illinois River 
 and west of the I. C. bridge and east of the C. B. & Q. 
 Railroad and south of the IL. & M. Canal. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 276. 
 
 I have a view of the Illinois River bottoms looking 
 north from the south bluff, showing the City of Peru in 
 the distance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 277. 
 
 3642 View 1704 is of the Illinois River bottoms looking 
 northwest from the south bluff at a point just west of 
 the C. B. & Q. Railroad, showing lands of the plaintiff 
 and claimed by them and the Illinois Central bridge over 
 the Illinois River in the distance. 
 
 Which said photograph was marked Exhibit 278. 
 
 Wherever the date appears on these pictures it is the 
 date when the same were made. The list of descriptions 
 in connection with these pictures as stated by you to me 
 in these questions is a true and correct description of 
 what the pictures purport to portray, and the scene 
 
817 
 
 which the picture purports to portray in each of the ex- 
 hibits which have been marked by the reporter is true, 
 
 3643 faithful, correct and accurate. The distances are cor. 
 rectly shown and appear in the pictures. None of the 
 scenes have been magnified or distorted out of their true 
 proportion. Each of the same is true, accurate and cor- 
 rect. 
 
 3644-3647 Exhibits 112 to 278, both inclusive, offered in evi- 
 dence. 
 Objection by plaintiff; objection overruled. 
 
 Each of said exhibits received in evidence. 
 

 
 3648-3672 Photographs. = 
 
 ee iw Pe | Vl ae - 
 
 ) pra so Spy ap oe Op a> ee 
 
 4 . i * 2 . ay : 
 inna : f e <3) b A4OTH F sg ddike. Dé 
 . : “ 4% 7 M * a oe he 
 B ) Pou ee FIAT wie eed it iv 
 
 Sioa 4 Lira + ts Lae 
 
 - 
 
 rs a - ry ‘ 
 | 3s) ay ipa ep age 
 
 wre i soe ae | 
 
 
 

 
 144 State street bridge - Cl AQO river Kir west 115 WNletr politan bridae -Chicaaqgo river ooking north 
 
 
 
 2934-11-3-1G08 
 
 116 Van Buren street bridge ~Chicago river looking north 117 Chicaqo river at Polk street, looking north 
 
 $933.11 .&-1Goa 
 
 
 
 Wé Chicago river at 34th street Lie Drainage Cana\ near Willow Springs 
 
 Mw. 
 

 
 
 

 
 ry ie . 
 i2O i raynaqge Lana ay Romeo 
 
 
 
 122 Drainage Canal : windage basin and bear trap dam 
 
 
 
 124 lail race with Drainage Canal discharging 300,000 CEM 
 
 3281. 1/-48-1G05 
 
 §6 Junction MainChannel and DesPlaines river, 300,000C FM {rom Drainage Canal. 
 
 T 
 
 my i | raynaqe Canal discharging 
 
 i ee Main channel Tail race with 3 
 
 cub 
 
 e 
 
 izS ier a MainChannel and DesPlaines river, zero Flow 
 
 (ba 4-713% (G06 
 
 e| per minute 
 
 2E TO Flow from Drainage £ anal 
 
 from Drainage Canal. 
 
 
 
 127 DesPlaines river,up stream from Summit highway Sbridc: 
 

 

 
 ! \ / ( GO \ 
 - De : nes rier Gdowr ream (ror mt ; wa Tek. La + riaines river uf ream from Vi w Oprings highway bridge 
 
 
 
 is 
 
 (1+ 4 JEAGO 
 
 
 
 nD} 
 me nt 
 
 _~ atl 
 
 { WwW Ss 14 a ; ae at ~ k 
 oO Destiawmes river, down stream |rom Willow Springs hianway oridae i Vesliaines rwer up stream \rorr 1s 
 
 
 
 hianway bridas 
 
 
 
 /73- 4-12 G08 
 
 
 
 : - \ | = - = D - . ' 
 (3%, Des? aines river down stream irom lL.emenT niqhnway bridge i132 DesPlaines fiver a Riverside below dam 
 
 $104 -5-1£190q 
 
 
 
 - cS ms 2 ‘ ert | od by D Plaines river 
 194 Des Plaines river dam at Riverside 135 . Janta Fe tracks near Lyon , overs lowed y We fi 
 
2 
 
 = 
 
 - - 
 pi eae eae 8 a) 
 
 . 
 
 eee! © a | 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tae 
 : ,2 
 = = 
 ’ 7 a +2 , rs 
 iJ i] 
 - “ ~ 
 - ae I 
 all 4 i ' 
 * ” 
 i 4 3 2 ‘. » 
 Pa» Soi 4 ‘ y ~~ 
 f—- ‘ : ; 
 : = ea 
 we 
 » 
 % 
 . 
 3 
 - 
 , 
 § 
 4 
 ’ 
 * 
 ' 
 * 
 w 
 -s 
 * 
 - 
 ‘ “+ 
 . 
 ‘ 
 ’ 
 s 
 
#\ 
 
 ‘II 
 " 3 
 
 | 
 ) 
 
 
 
 P\ et Island 
 > \ DiI - Ss 1esS at <omec sianc 
 120 Romec hiqahway bridge ovetctinwed by Des Plaines river 141 East branch Des Vlaines river i > 
 
 
 
 TT - i ) . 
 a ‘ : \ fz e > NO not 
 142 Migqhway bridae ver Des Plaines river at Lemont 143 West darn ia Du Page river at Channe ) 
 
* 
 
 
 
i | T t 
 amalion avwen - es n rn Wnoex inaiana 
 
 
 
 > 
 o 
 4, 
 e 
 
 w Kankakee river,up stream near Jackson Island Club, Indiana {49 Old Kankakee river down stream near Jackson Island Club, Indiana 
 
 655- 7-30-sg0 twa i * 
 = 56-7- 30-/908 
 
 
 
 150 D. b aan 1K é : 
 Ov Ginage artch about & mile from Old Kankakee river near 151 Drainage ditch about one mile from old Kankakee river 
 Jackson island Club Indiana 
 
 
 

 
 pe 
 
 
 
 is ; < 
 eX - 
 te ala 
 bi, tan 
 2 rh 
 aan 
 . ; 
 ir) te 
 rn 
 a, 
 s & 
 = e 
 a 
 ¢ 
 b 
 ‘ 
 . te 
 fac iif ORY 
 lay 7 
 we TE, 
 PA GOryss =o yj seh 
 280 ee eR 
 ' 
 i] 
 i] 
 
 
 

 
 T » 
 
 \ ) 
 
 if 1” | | ca 1 ; j T ‘ 
 iNew I\ankKakee river belween Oantierre and Wilders indiana 
 
 o : 
 
 “7 a K L ) E A \ ee 
 (ia i\anKanKee between Yan rierre ana Wilders Indjana 
 
 ; 
 “ 
 Ps 
 
 (60: 7,2/ 21908 
 
 
 
 154Mfoxler ditch near Wilders, Indiana - Up stream 155 Moxler ditch near Wilders, Indiana — down stream 
 
 797- 5-4-1909 
 
 
 
 156 Dam in. Kankakee river at Waldron , \\\inois. 1is7T Kankakee river ot Waldron, \linois 
 
 
 
 158 Mouth of Iroquois river_ down stream 159 Mouth of lroquois rivex up stream 
 

 
 
 
 bak Lib aay 
 UF tuk 
 
 Core? ex 
 
 ~ Wide 
 
 Gis 
 
 wed = er 4 tL sek DA 
 1 
 ' 
 “~~ 
 7 e Le | 
 al 
 a 
 Pe As 
 ‘ te + 
 : . 7 » x 
 Eat ola 
 ory (ae 
 
 
 
yv 
 
 
 
 ‘ \A Ix ee ii \ , 
 O Dan in INanKakKee river at YWilminaton illir oi WankKakee river ai Wilminator Lilinoi: down stream 
 
 
 
 
 
 64 Ice gorge near mouth DesPlaines river 
 
 809- 5-6-/909 
 
 
 
 166 Hlincis fiver at EIGER RR. bridge Devine - up stream 1671 Pou Sable river, ten miles east of Morris, Wlinois 
 

 

 
 a Th \ y ‘ pe ~ t > t | 
 a) FiO Urn) ¢ rAUX Wadi TAN L& IAUX Va € rivey\ apoul 2 yyw L\bEYV il mouln 
 
 (33l- 10-6-190 
 
 -« 
 
 
 
 + ae | ‘_ , - ! | 
 t7o Aux Sable FIVN€T~up stream \rom Stone bridae Th Mazon YING ip stream 3 miles southeast of Morris, il} 
 
 , gy 
 
 1332-10-6- ign. = mM fee: 
 
 
 
 112 Mazon river -up stream 3 mies southeast of Morris. he (Fe Mouth of Mazon GIVec 
 
 
 
 14 \linois river — down stream at Morris. iS Llinois river —up stream at KAS RR bridae 
 

 
 
 
 —* 
 
 
 

 
 Aaz0n rivet Cow' “Tream near riecasure \ lub Hou ) VLCHAOFT rivet i \reay near Plea ure aH r | 
 ar ery | , 4 “OAS = up IOUS 
 
 
 
 118 \\\inois river — Marseilles dam , looking north TTS Marseilles dam drowned out by ice gorge. 
 
 
 
 180 \\\inois river at Marseilles —down stream 161 Sunckoe Fox and Honey rivers Burlington Wisconsin. 
 
 
 
 182 box river at Burlington Wisconsin. 183 Tox river at Elain, \ilinois 
 
= tat 
 
 Vs 
 
 & imo} 
 
 at 
 
 OTe: 
 
 
 
 aay 
 

 
 1 7 7 
 34 Fox river at Elgin 185 E ox river at Elgin 
 
 778. (- 26-/90G th ot rr Se so /327-10- 
 
 
 
 186 Fox river at Aurora — west dam ‘ 187 Fox river at Aurora. 
 
 800-5-5-/909 
 
 
 
 188 Fox river at Day ton SUP Siream: 189 ‘ox river at Dayton —~up stream 
 
 ee: 
 24-2-26-1908 
 
 
 
 i> }... river at Dayton ~— up streamat rapids 191 fox river at Dayton ~ up stream at rapids 
 

 

 
 : rene iver at Day tor down rream 1 ; ox TiIVver at Dayton-up stream 
 fa ‘ i Y i) 
 
 
 
 194 tox river at OfTawa- up stream 195 Mouth of Fox river at Ottawa. 
 
 /068- 8-4-1910 
 
 
 
 {96 Llinois river at Ottawa up strean 
 
 
 
 7 
 ; 4 ot 
 i198 Vermillion river al treater up stream 
 

 
2q -/0-5- III 
 
 
 
 — : = 7 1 
 -6e Bailey talls A miileS above m« uth Vermillix Nn river BO Ver mil lic 0 EINGee rapids near Bailey Valls. 
 
 
 
 Me lilincis civer—down stream below La Dalle highway bridge. 205 A\inois river. from mouth of 1.&M.Canal. 
 
 
 
 206 North toward Peru from Boers residence in section 28. 207 East from south end Peru Mahway bridge. 
 

 

 
 | | 1 _ c ’ | L 
 212 Northwest from k \ddie Kocr Piet cS Ch ee AL Tne distanc 
 
 213 North from south side 
 
 
 
 a UWhinois river —- C.Ba&Q. and LOR PR bridges. 
 
 
 
 fs 
 a 
 =_—- 
 a 
 
 4) 
 
 
 
 aig 
 PL S 
 
P| 
 
 Sfauae 
 
 a 
 ~ 
 i 
 ee 
 
 sera Perey 
 eet” eo 
 
 »* | 
 a 
 
 tan * 
 
 Lie: > 
 
 
 

 
 { sor WT \ re « 
 Oo if ro ry ba ie Y iWw Driacn 1 IN Ler ANY orymicf Siouan : utThwesl quarter seclic I? Za 
 
 
 
 SEO Peci\ion 22 ‘ t { | at ( ot at 4 ’ n 
 

 
 es 
 Ny 
 _ i 
 Wait” VBR ARY 
 , : \ 
 ra ik 
 in rome ity am 
 tat, biwt 2g ~~ urea? S 
 i 
 -?* * 
 
 . “ 
 
 
 
206 - B -4tFOR 
 
 
 
 
 
 = 
 
 “a a - - it - \ ~ 
 ae Seuthwest from South end ILCRR brida 223 We. - | 
 
 204.2-4-1906 
 
 
 
 224 Northwest from Rito ae le bridge. 
 
 B25 Southeast Vroom norin ena river soan te RR brid 
 } 
 
 202-3-4-/906 
 
 
 
 L226 East along south bank Yenrnss Ae bridge. 
 
 ’ 
 
 
 
 ZT Look ing north Foward Peru from south bluff. 
 

 
 nang : 
 ae . 
 = ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 > pe’ g a 
 
 a imine! 
 
 
 

 
 230 Northwest Trom Cee R bridqe 23. Nocthe ast from vow alle highw avy bt 1dq 
 
 
 
 Mee Ceclion 22. West from ba Salle highway. 224 Sections Zioand 22 from -L&Ni. Canal embankment 
 
 Simic en ee eee 
 
 
 
 A234 Northeastecly {rom north end LaSalle hiqhway bridaé 
 ) 
 
_ 
 
 
 
 ry 
 
 4A 
 
 ro~we 
 
 - 
 - 
 
 int ei vig _ 
 
 ad @ 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 2 ores ) | i 
 « bast ¢ reru mqnway 
 
 931- 7-29-1909 
 
 Peru 
 
 re -7 West from near south 
 
 Frenn south blu Ff toward 
 
 « 
 2 
 
 Illinois valley bottom 
 
 c 
 BP: 
 
 £2 
 
 
 
 238 Zight bank Utnois T\ 
 
 Near 
 
 ena Pe 
 
 » ~~ | 
 Lee Mil ety) oo ough 
 
 AC | 
 
 
 
 rau highway brida: 
 
 
 
 T 
 ver south of Huse Lak: 
 
~ 
 
 
 
 ‘ 
 af 
 
 
 
MiD@ ILS dn bur yoo, - ADA\4 hhcons 
 
 
 
 AAS 
 
 im c¢ Liliness 
 
 bar 
 
 241 Douth 
 
 a) 
 
 ung UNIS Meee sobpisgq aatralcon pun TORUS ES: VvZ 
 
 
 
 
 
 UALBANN 
 
 YY Ts 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 T 
 
 Tiwer —up stream al 
 
 Ss 
 
 
 
 
 
 242 \\\inoi 
 
 } i ih) 
 
 Wd he 
 Ai 
 
 
 
 nasterly 
 
 br idqe 
 
 highway 
 
 Ve 
 
 & 
 L.aQda 
 
 rom north end 
 
 f 
 
 3 3 
 
 24 
 

 
 wae ee 
 
 
 

 
 AG Spa-t 2 ee : . Cee t \ 
 245 Declion 2 Delween CBAQ RR. and Vermillion river 
 
 . 2 tony Fs 
 Se ee 
 we ae ee See ‘remem a 
 
 WATT a 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 241 Corn in Section 23 west of CB&QRR. 248 South bankx [linois river west ci LORK 
 
 
 
 £49 Northeast quarter seclhion Z\ south of Huse Loke 
 

 
 =~ 
 - 
 = 
 
 i 
 ree 
 
 153 
 
 v4 
 Ame Br 
 
 * 
 
 aay ys: 
 we @ ® 
 
 rn 
 
 ’ 
 
 a 
 
 “3 
 

 
 >a’ y ouTn of 1,Q\N) Nal velweer DGGianad 1LU KES BSE ok ina out on north ide Llinois river east of We RR 
 
 
 
 ca I “ \ . t 
 S53 Nortn side l\linois rier east of 
 
 
 
 255 Corn east of Peru highway in northwest quarter section 21. 
 
 
 
 2 St TW waues valley oPpp< Ve Peat of Ver mi\lion CVE 
 
c= 
 
 ty Weaciyy OF LLINGiE 
 
 fit Lishak? 
 OF lhe 
 
 = x i 
 as 
 a 
 « 
 vi 
 oo @ 
 
 
 
pa 
 rs | nie z 
 
 & Thad ts & 
 
 TA ees SINAN. 
 
 WAS VARI 
 
 * 
 
 ——, 
 
 a ee | 
 
 Yrom i.C.KIX priaas 
 
 
 
 
 ~ 
 > 
 uM 
 ia 
 Q 
 & 
 m 
 = 
 u 
 ~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 THe iiGRAH? 
 OF ti 
 
 pyroeoeny OF ILLNOW 
 
 ‘ 
 
 
 

 
 261 South side of [linois rier in section 21 east 
 
 of Peru road. 
 
 268 Corn in section 21 east 
 
 of Peru road. 
 
 ZGE orn, south side A|lineis river west of Peru highway. 
 
 
 
 1227-8-18-/Fil 
 
 
 
 269 \inois va\ley frow south bluff t< wara yera 
 
of 
 " 
 ~ 
 
 
 
 + 
 
 rae 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ws 
 
 
 
/231- 8-18-1911 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 = ATs aS . ees pee , ; 7 ‘ —— 
 mi Corn. i eclion Z3 west ol C. DBOoOwW Kk 5 Zale South Si are | \\iinois river west o} ere Re | 
 
 
 
 LAST trom center of Section Zi east of Peru road : 214 Corn near center of section 21 
 
 
 
 TAG eS Ulinois valley from south blu FF northeast tow | { Peru 
 
—— a 
 
 » eM rv, 
 ie 4b ‘Snail 
 
 af it 
 
 
 
 od 
 = 
 = 
 — 
 a 
 = 
 
 = ~~ 
 enHAtys/) Bh 
 s: ia Le I 
 sais 
 
Sg le. 6 U 
 
 
 
 \ 
 is 
 
 fool ie) LWinois valley north from south bluff toward Peru 
 
 ‘7 704-9-27-(Gik 
 
 
 
 278 \\linois va\ley Betnceet Goad. Saale and vera trem south blab, 
 
iu bibiaht 
 “— OF ih 
 HMIEASITY GY (LitHOIS 
 
 
 
 
 
819 
 8673 December 3, 1912, 9 a. m. 
 
 W. J. Pownrs, a witness called by the defendant, testified 
 as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is W. J. Powers. I am a civil engineer em- 
 ployed by the Sanitary District. I know the premises 
 involved in this suit. I was upon those premises yester- 
 day and saw and observed them. I observed them yester- 
 day with reference to overflow. I observed the condi- 
 
 3674 tion of the land there, such as crops and so forth, go- 
 ing through, and in the sloughs and water courses. I ob- 
 served the stage in the Illinois River with reference to 
 the land there, and the land with reference to the Illi- 
 
 3675 nois River. There was no water on the land yesterday, 
 not any that I could see, outside of the slough. 
 
 I was in company with Professor Fraser and Heg- 
 nauer at the time. 
 
 Cross-Exanunation by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 3676 I have been on the land several times before yester- 
 day, two or three times during the last week. The first 
 time was in 1906 or 1907. I have been there at different 
 
 3677 times since 1906 up to the present time. I have been 
 connected with the Sanitary District for twelve years. 
 
 3678 Yesterday the land that we first visited was in Section 
 21. I know where Section 21 is from the government 
 maps and the Sanitary District maps; also the section 
 corner, the southwest corner stone at Section 21. I prac- 
 tically covered the whole tract of 21 yesterday. I did 
 not make any estimate as to the number of acres. J had 
 
 3679 no. occasion to compute the number of acres. IJ should 
 judge there are from 367 to 370 acres. They were lo- 
 
820 
 
 cated in the fractional northeast quarter, northwest quar- 
 ter, southeast quarter and southwest quarter of Section 
 21. The acreage lay south and west of the Illinois River 
 and east of the slough known as McCormick slough. — 
 
 3680 I was also over in Sections 22 and 23. I was not on 
 the little portion over there in the southwest corner of 
 Section 21 that lies east of the Illinois River yesterday. 
 We got on Section 21 by going down to Peru and fol- 
 lowing the road over the bridge and over east and west 
 of the center line through Section 21. The road goes 
 
 3682 through the entire section. Portions of it are elevated 
 through the slough known as McCormick slough and por- 
 tions of it is level. In addition to McCormick slough 
 there is sort of a swale there. I should think the road 
 is maybe a foot or so above the swale. 
 
 I saw the corn stalks but did not make any computa- 
 tion as to the number of acres. The corn stalks were 
 3683 irregular, not in a regular shape. 
 
 3684 I went down there under Mr. Chiperfield’s instructions 
 to take these gentlemen down to show them this land. I 
 did not make any tests to determine where the water 
 3686 stood under the land, only observed the surface of it. I 
 3687 was about where you have your finger when I made 
 the observation. I did not select any particular point 
 3688 for the purpose of making the observation. There 
 would be very little difference between the level of the 
 water in the Illinois River and in McCormick slough. 
 3689 I observed the bank of the Illinois River. It is not of 
 3690 a uniform height. The bank along the river here on 
 the north is possibly four feet higher than it is on the east 
 part of Section 21. 
 3691 I have made a contour map of that particular piece. 
 3692 I did not see any water on the land. Did not make any 
 3693 examination of the land for the purpose of ascertaining 
 
821 
 
 3694 where the water table was; there probably is one. The 
 
 3695 water table is a little higher at the slough. I was out 
 
 3696-3711 on the land. The condition of the slough there 
 was about as it was in Section 21. 
 
 3/12 Iwas over on 23. My judgment is that the land is three 
 or four feet right in there above the level of the water 
 
 3713 in the river. Where you are pointing is one of the low 
 points in there. J never made any survey in through 
 there. 
 
 After we went on the land we went east of the Illinois 
 Central right of way. I was over to the bank of the Ver- 
 million River. The level of the water in the Vermillion 
 River was from nine to ten feet below the surface of the 
 
 38715 soil. There was water in the slough along the east side 
 of the Illinois Central. The water backs in from the 
 
 3716 river, I suppose. I have been all over the land. I did 
 
 3717 not go down to that particular spot yesterday. I saw 
 it there yesterday and at different times before yester- 
 day. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 If I responded in answer to an inquiry of counsel that 
 the water level in Section 23 stood with reference to the 
 Illinois River four or five feet above the river, I mis- 
 understood the question. I don’t know anything about 
 the water level in this land. I don’t mean to say that 
 it stood four or five feet above the water in the river. 
 
 3718 I took samples of the soil from forty acres of this 
 land. I have those samples and will bring them to court 
 and produce them for the inspection of the jury. 
 
822 
 
 3719 J. G. Mosier, a witness for the defendant, being sworn, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examniation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is J. G. Mosier. I live at Urbana, Illinois. 
 I am a teacher in the College of Agriculture and soil in- 
 vestigator in the agricultural experiment station of the 
 University of Illinois. My chair of instruction in the 
 University of Illinois is soil physies and also in the in- 
 vestigation in the experiment station, all along the same 
 line. I have had direct charge of the detail soil survey 
 as made by the state. I have made a soil survey of La 
 Salle County and have a map of the survey and have pro- 
 
 3720 duced it for identification. 
 
 Which said map was marked Exhibit 280. 
 
 That map truly, accurately and correctly represents 
 the different types of soil found in La Salle County. That 
 is the entire map of four sheets. 
 
 Four sheets were thereupon all marked for identifica- 
 tion as Exhibit 280. , 
 
 I have been on the land opposite Peru and La Salle 
 within the last few hours. The type of soil found in the 
 sections mentioned is brown silt loam, bottom land. That 
 is the part included between the bluffs. A brown silt 
 
 3721 loam is a soil that is made up largely of particles of 
 intermediate sizes. We have soils made up of four dif- 
 ferent constituents in regard to size of the particles. 
 The finest is clay, the next size is what we call silt and 
 the next is sand, and then the fourth gravel. Silt loam 
 is made up largely of the constituent soil. Then in ad- 
 dition to those there is a varying amount of organic mat- 
 ter mixed in with this constituent. Understand me now, 
 it is not made up entirely, but largely, of this constit- 
 
Se ie 
 
 823 
 
 uent. In addition to that we may have either the clay 
 or we may have some clay and some sand with it. 
 
 The land I saw yesterday I would denominate first 
 
 bottom land. By first bottom land I mean land that over- 
 
 3722 flows, is subject to overflow. The soil is what we eall 
 a porous soil, a soil that will drain very well. 
 
 This soil would be a fairly early soil and yet not as 
 quick as would be the case with a larger amount of sand 
 in it. 
 
 In the agricultural department we have made a study 
 of the raising of crops. I have had a practical farming 
 experience in addition. I was raised on a farm and have 
 a farm that I have managed for the last fourteen years. 
 
 3/23 As to the crops which could be grown on this land 
 from the 20th of June to the lst day of November I 
 would say corn, probably one of the principal crops that 
 would be grown on there; soy beans is another crop re- 
 quiring a slightly shorter season, possibly, than corn; 
 millet and sorghum would he another crop that could be 
 grown there. By sorghum I mean cane. 
 
 Millet is planted in the spring, say from the middle to 
 the last of June. Millet that was grown here possibly 
 would not need to mature, but if it was simply sown for 
 hay it would not need to mature before it was cut. I 
 don’t think I could exactly state the time it would take, 
 but I am positive that it would have time to mature from 
 
 3724 the first of July until September, until the frost came. 
 
 For hay it is cut before the seed begins to harden, 
 when it is hardly in the milk yet. 
 
 Cane is used in connection with farming; not for sor- 
 ghum or sugar; it is a forage crop. By forage crop I 
 mean a crop that you use in the same way as hay. An 
 ordinary yield of millet is two and a half to three tons 
 on good strong land, 
 
824 
 
 When I speak of corn that could be raised on this land 
 I mean rather an early maturing variety. There are such 
 ' varieties maturing from ninety to one hundred days. 
 0/25 I have never had much experience in the use of en- 
 silage or silos. I could not say anything as to the root 
 crops which could be raised on this land. 
 
 Soy beans can be planted about the same time that the 
 corn is planted. We usually plant it just after corn 
 planting time. To mature it would take from 90 to 100 
 or 110 days. 
 
 Soy beans are used for hay, and the seed crop is ob- 
 tained from them. The ordinary yield from an acre or soy 
 beans is fifteen to twenty bushels per acre, and in addi- 
 tion to that there would be about from a ton and a half 
 
 3726 to two and a half tons per acre for hay. 
 
 Q. I will ask you to state, professor, if you have an 
 opinion as to the present value of land situated as yout 
 saw the land in controversy situated yesterday, for the 
 purpose of raising the crops which you have mentioned? 
 A. Under the conditions that the land is in? 
 
 Q. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: We object, your Honor, unless some 
 time is fixed. 
 
 Mr. CurrPerFIELD: I am fixing the present time. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: We object to it. 
 
 The Court: I will let him answer. 
 
 Mr. Curperrretp: The first question, professor, is, 
 have you an opinion on that subject? 
 
 A. JI have merely an opinion. 
 
 Q. That is what I am inquiring, if you have an opin- 
 ion as to the value of the lands so situated, for the pur- 
 pose of raising the crops you have spoken of. That can 
 be answer yes or no first. A. Yes. 
 
 
 
~ 
 
 . 
 7 
 4 
 fa 
 t 
 
 § 7a 
 
 
 

 
825 
 
 Q. What is that opinion? A. Taking the land as it 
 3727 now, subject to overflow as this is, I should say from 
 $125 to $150 an acre. 
 Mr. Cureerrietp: In connection with Professor Mo- 
 sier’s testimony I want to introduce in evidence the Hix- 
 hibit 280, being the soil survey map. 
 
826 
 
 Which exhibit was thereupon admitted in evidence, and 
 is in words and figures following, to-wit: 
 
 3728-30 Soil survey map. 
 
c 
 v 
 
 LAND PRAIRIE SOILS 
 
 Brown silt loam 
 
 OB ie (ie) ( ) 
 
 =a) Brown silt loam on til! 
 Black clay loam 
 Black silt loam 
 
 Brown sandy loam 
 
 v 
 
 UPLAND TIMBER SOILS 
 
 tema) Y Cllow-gray stit loam 
 
 Yellow silt loam 
 
 Rock outcrop 
 
 Se ie 
 
 LEGE 
 TE 
 Brown silt loam 
 bse 
 S 
 i 
 
 ND 
 RRACE SOILS 
 
 Brown silt loam 
 on gravel 
 
 Brown silt loam 
 on rock 
 
 Brown silt loam 
 Sy over grave! 
 
 Yellow - gray silt loam 
 z on gravel 
 
 
 
 Yellow-gray silt loam 
 over gravel 
 
 
 
 Brown sandy loam 
 
 Brown sandy loam 
 on gravel 
 
 Brown sandy joan 
 on rock 
 
 seg) Brown sandy loam 
 Over gravel 
 
 zMiles 
 
 SOIL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pe | 
 
 R22 
 
 SURVEY MAP OF LASALLE COUNT 
 
 oS a a 
 ‘Rutland | | 
 | 17 16 f 
 7 7 
 & ie spew. ul 
 ! 
 ° + 2! 
 * 
 + ~4 Sat) th 
 5 a 
 29 a 28 
 jee 
 ei oes spore te cj 
 32 33 
 é 
 
 20 
 
 29 
 
 2 ' 
 } 
 +~ a 
 } j 
 il i i2 
 - 7 
 + . = - 
 14 13 
 
 
 
 si 
 
 PC Lee IN LAT 
 
 zZ 
 
 }q0.) 
 
 dae 
 
 2 
 m 
 ag 
 hs 
 2 
 ra 
 « 
 
 Y 
 
 T 
 
 is 14 
 Ranson 
 as 2 
 
 22 e3 
 » i 
 
 27 . 
 & a 
 
 34 45 
 
 | ioe “sand 
 
 SWAMP AND BOTTOM 
 svty LAND SOILS 
 
 EB Deep brown silt ‘oarr 
 
 , 
 
 Deep peat 
 
 Medium peat on cla 
 
 VAL SOILS 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
 An. 5 £ 
 4 . 
 1864) Ye, Ows-gray sant an 
 ne : 
 
 SER | 
 tone | Mixed loam ‘emali streams 
 29! i = 
 
 
 
 
 att Re Se Re ee SS en ee ee 
 a COUNTY 
 
 eit 
 
 ASAT Ns 
 
 loo 
 
 Pkitns 
 
Ls 
 
 i ai ¢ wee pon 
 
 x Bi i 
 
 eee er ME © 
 
 ae oat oe 
 
 ae aoe’ 
 > 
 * 
 a a 
 
 eh said edad <a tote Ge aoe. oaiee Cae ets i le Nira 
 
 ? 
 
 if 
 
 orm. ~ 
 
 =e ahi EO OL 9+ OM me 
 : 
 
 or Po vat eal 
 
 ee ee a 
 
 satiate ae S 
 rs oe i 
 
 ‘- 
 
 -.- 
 ey Fee en i 
 
 os ai a 
 on he, ~~ oe > hep 
 
 « 
 ee 
 
 et . 
 
 
 

 
 
 R44 E& 
 
 DEKALB COUNTS 
 
 
 
 
 
 —————— 
 
 Ex h. ? RO 
 
 : - a 
 a : ononank a oe 
 
 ALN oO TIVUNYY 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 RAT OUCY ACL IN Lek? 
 z& 
 
 UPLAND PRAIRIE SOILS 
 
 [2s] 
 lrr26| Brown silt foam 
 
 
 
 P| Brown sandy loam 
 
 UPLAND TIMBER SOILS 
 
 Yellow-gray silt loam 
 
 4 Yellow siit loam 
 
 Rock outcrop 
 
 Seale 
 o % %2 i 
 —_— oe 
 
 SOIL SURVEY MAP OF LASALLE COUNTY 
 
 e Miles 
 
 LEGEND 
 TERRACE SOILS 
 
 = 
 = 
 = 
 # 
 = 
 
 Brown silt loam 
 Brown silt loam on gravel 
 Brown silt loam on rock 
 
 ‘ 
 Brown silt loam over gravel 
 Yellow -gray silt loam on gravel 
 
 Yellow-gray silt ioem over grave! 
 
 Bw} 
 
 1636 
 
 
 
 Brown sandy loam 
 
 Brown sandy loam on gravel 
 
 Brown sandy loam on ‘ock 
 
 reise 
 
 Brown sendy loam over grave 
 
 C= 
 | 
 i 
 
 cnr] 
 — Yeliow-gray sandy oam 
 
 a Dune sand 
 BR 
 *% Gravelly loam 
 
 SWAMP AND BOTTOM 
 gecy LAND SOILS 
 
 8 Deep brown «11! loam 
 
 
 
 Mee Mixed loam\smali streams 
 
 
 
 +01; Deep peat 
 
 Medium peat on clay 
 
 RESIDUAL SOILS 
 
 a Brown sandy foam on rock 
 
 083 Residua! sand 
 
 Morainal Ridge Types 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
4 ; 
 n Jt pnnearenbdyidannn oe bee mente WR et te Ree 
 
 : 
 Gin 
 
 Apirionn tty 
 is 
 
 ‘ee 
 sided sop ie: 
 
 —g 
 
 the sp ne ome oe sony 
 
 BN me 
 
 i 
 
 -s 
 
 —t 
 
 gh ner 
 ms 9 
 
 nae 
 
 ; 
 
 Se 
 i 
 
 +5 
 ext 
 
 oe 
 
 Xai 
 
 + 
 
 euitee Goh 
 
 “et |» oeere 
 
 ~ pet *e apg d ‘ ae P 
 
 a iny tesco.) the! opel 
 
 iy ap ne OF NE 
 
 te <0 OP ety ese 
 vow! dome Regie 
 
 a. 
 
 saan Sg ca ine Fa ad 
 
 L Soqyewm. He shee sage, 4 
 af. Ee sich i ada 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
827 
 
 3731 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I did not make the map. The lght green color desig- 
 nates the brown silt loam on the bottom land. That 
 takes in practically all the valley that hes between the 
 bluffs that 1s overflowed. The map was made by the party 
 
 3732 out in the field doing the work during the soil survey, 
 working here in this county. There were four men in 
 the party. In giving the valuations which I have today, 
 I have not taken into consideration the value of the coal 
 lying under the surface. I confined my testimony purely 
 to the surface of the land. My testimony took in all of 
 
 3733 Section 21. I don’t know how many acres. I cannot 
 give the acreage, but from the map I have an idea of 
 how much in the section is involved. 
 
 I have been through Section 23 south of La Salle; 
 through there two years ago. From what I have seen of 
 the map I have an idea where the land of the plaintiff 
 is located over there. I was never there for the purpose 
 of making an examination of the land. That is the land 
 
 3734 in Sections 22 and 23. I do not know how much of the 
 land overflows or how long the water stays on it or how 
 much has been raised on it during the last ten years, ex- 
 cept I might say that as this is mapped bottom land on 
 our soil survey as brown silt loam, I know that the land 
 overflows, but just how much it overflows in a certain 
 stage of the river, I don’t know. It overflows at a cer- 
 tain time of the year and has been doing that for cen- 
 turies. 
 
 3735 It would not be possible for me to tell the land over- 
 flowed simply by an examination of the soil. I would 
 first have to know where it came from. I don’t think 
 any man could determine that it came from the bottoms. 
 
 3736 There is nothing in bottom lands that you do not find in 
 uplands. 
 
 ——s ——s 
 
 a ee i at cee te A ett 
 
 <> —s 2 
 
828 
 
 The bottom land is rich in the qualities of productivity 
 By the use of the term ‘‘under conditions existing’’ I 
 mean subject to overflow, I mean danger of overflow at 
 any time, the occasional overflow that occurs. If the 
 land was not subject to overflow it would probable be 
 worth double. 
 
 3737 I cannot answer as to how many acres in Section 21 
 could be used for the purposes I say. It is pretty hard to 
 answer the question definitely, but in a general way, just 
 from my observation yesterday afternoon, I should say 
 nearly all of that could be used in this way. The condi- 
 tion of the land where the weeds were growing was it 
 was simply full of weeds. The condition of the soil was 
 just as good as it was any other place. 
 
 I don’t know how long the water stays up on the land 
 in the spring or summer. That would influence my an- 
 swer if the water did not get off there in time to put a 
 crop in; it certainly would; but judging from the topog- 
 
 3738 raphy of the land I passed over, there didn’t seem to 
 be very much difference in the height of the land that 
 was cropped and that that was not. It seemed to be 
 about level. The corn was pretty generally in one large 
 area there. Of course, there were one or two places 
 where there was no corn. The corn looked practically 
 uniform to me. 
 
 I saw the stalks there. Made no examination of the 
 corn itself. I did not examine any of Section 21 east of 
 the Illinois River; I was not there. I don’t know whether 
 that is practically the same as this part of Section 21 
 
 3739 lying south and west of the river, except from the soil 
 survey. All my knowledge as to the land in Sections 
 22, 23 and 24 is based on the survey. In my estimate of 
 the values I had reference to the bottom land that is 
 mapped, brown silt loam on the soil survey. 
 
 I have had practical experience in the raising of the 
 
829 
 
 different things I have mentioned. I testified in a case 
 like this before. I don’t remember the year. It was in 
 
 3740 Fulton County four or five years ago, I don’t remember 
 exactly. I don’t know how much land was involved in 
 that case. 
 
 Another case I was in was at Peoria some three or 
 four years ago. In that case there were 1,800 or 2,000 
 acres, I couldn’t say positively. 
 
 3741 It is not my idea that all the land should be planted 
 in soy beans or millet. It would all depend on the kind 
 of a farm I was running. If I was running a dairy farm 
 or raising hogs then the amount of soy beans I would 
 put in would be different from what it would be if I 
 was running a grain farm. 
 
 3742 Jam sure soy beans will grow on that land. Of course 
 if it flooded they would not grow. If I planted soy beans 
 
 3743 I would use part of it for hay as a forage crop, other- 
 wise I would sell them or feed them to the cattle or 
 
 3744 hogs, or thresh them for seed and then sell the seed to 
 anybody that wanted to buy them. There is getting to 
 be quite a demand for soy bean seed, and I should dispose 
 of those just as I could best. In the last four or five 
 years there has been an increasing demand for soy bean 
 seeds in the state. 
 
 3745 If I was raising millet I would put in enough to sup- 
 ply me with hay and possibly some for sale. It would 
 depend upon the amount of stock I had. The balance I 
 would put in some other crop, corn for one thing. How 
 much I would put in corn is the old question again. If 
 
 3746 I had 200 head of cattle then I would want considera- 
 ble of it to soy beans and millet and the balance in corn, 
 and if I didn’t have any cattle then I would put it largely 
 in corn or some crop of that kind. _ 
 
 3747 I don’t know from the analyses we have made about 
 the quality of the land for raising corn. I have no defi- 
 
830 
 
 3748 nite knowledge as to the quantity of corn it would raise, 
 or as to what it has actually produced, or as to the con- 
 ditions that existed in this specific locality for the last 
 ten or fifteen years. 
 
 3749 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I do not want the jury to understand that I would 
 plant all the land to any one of these crops in any one 
 year. If I were conducting a farm here I would divide 
 the farm proportionate to the different crops that would 
 best serve my purpose for that kind of crop. Soy beans 
 
 3750 are actively upon the market and bring from $1.50 to 
 $2.50 a bushel. 
 
 3751 Lronarp Hranaver, a witness for defendant, being 
 sworn, testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Leonard Hegnauer. I reside at Urbana, 
 Illinois. JI am professor of crop production in the Uni- 
 versity of Illinois. 
 
 3752 The work I do is two-fold. In the first place I am re- 
 sponsible for the instruction in the university that is 
 given on crops, and in the second place, I have charge 
 of all the experimental work that is done in crop pro- 
 duction. Now that means about this, in crop production 
 we investigate different crops that are grown in this 
 state, the soils to which they are adapted and the cli- 
 matic conditions under which they grow. So in short 
 we take that work today, that is, we look after the crop 
 interests of the state. I have been connected with the 
 
 3753 University of Illinois since 1903, excepting June, 1910, 
 when I went with the State College in Kastern Wash- 
 ington. I was there until September 1, 1911, when I was 
 
831 
 
 asked to come back and occupy the position which I now 
 have. 
 
 In connection with the university we have an experi- 
 mental farm at Urbana which is a very large farm, and 
 then we have a field at DeKalb, Illinois, and one at Fair- 
 field, Illinois. I have charge of those. I have men help- 
 ing me, of course. We issue bulletins concerning our ob- 
 servations and experiments from time to time. 
 
 I have seen the land in controversy in this case, and 
 was on the land yesterday. I believe that there could 
 
 3754 be raised on this land between the 20th of June and the 
 time of killing frost, Indian corn. I believe Indian corn 
 could be cultivated successfully. I would take the va- 
 riety that would mature first and sow it and use it as 
 
 3755 mature corn. Then we could use the corn for silos as 
 ensilage. We cold cut the corn and put it into shock 
 and use it as fodder. Dry corn. 
 
 Another crop that would grow on that land is sweet 
 corn. Of course, sweet corn can be used for canning 
 purposes and could be used for feed. Sweet corn could 
 also be used in silos as ensilage. 
 
 Then we could grow on that land millet. Millet would 
 be used entirely as hay for feed, or we might produce 
 the seed and sell the seed off of it. 
 
 Then we could grow soy beans, which is a good crop 
 to grow in any kind of land where the crop will grow 
 for the purpose of soil improvement and for the pur- 
 pose of feed. The soy bean crop can be harvested as 
 hay and fed as hay, or we can wait until the seed ma- 
 tures and thresh the seed and sell the seed and feed 
 the hay. 
 
 Another crop that could be grown there is the cow 
 pea crop. Cow peas can be used for fertilizer purposes 
 and for hay purposes. If we had a very early variety 
 of cow peas we might make seed there, but we could use 
 it as feed. ) 
 
832 
 
 3756 Another crop that would grow on there would be the 
 potato crop. The potato crop is handled simply for the 
 tubers. 
 
 Another crop is the sorghum crop simply for feeding 
 purposes. That is what most people would eall cane; 
 we generally speak of it as sorghum to distinguish be- 
 tween that and the real sugar cane which is grown in 
 the south. The sorghum crop could be used in two ways; 
 cut it down and dry it and cure it up like you would any 
 other hay and use it as hay, or we might use it as a soil- 
 ing crop. By soiling crop I mean we let the crop grow 
 up and cut it down, say this morning for today’s feeding, 
 feed it green. It is used in place of pasture crops. Cut- 
 ting each day what is required for that day’s feeding 
 and then the next day cutting another portion and feed- 
 ing it, and so on. And in the case of sorghum we can 
 cut the piece over, beginning at one end and cut it over 
 and then start at the beginning again and cut it once 
 more. That is the way that is generally handled. 
 
 3757 Now, another crop we could produce is the rape crop. 
 It is a crop that is similar to the cabbage, produces no 
 head whatever, but it produces leaves similar to the 
 cabbage and is used as a green food crop. They some- 
 times feed it to sheep, and very frequently it is pastured 
 with calves and young stock of some sort. 
 
 Then there are two other crops that I am not so pos- 
 itive about, but I believe, have every reason to believe, 
 would grow. The reason I don’t know that they would 
 is that I haven’t seen them in this section growing. They 
 are the kafir corn and milo maize. 
 
 The Indian corn I have in mind is what the farmer 
 ordinarily calls corn. It is the dented variety and I 
 would limit to the ninety day corn. 
 
 3758 In regard to the use of corn for ensilage, the usage 
 varies a little bit. All people do not exactly agree on the 
 
833 
 
 stage of maturity as to when it should be cut. Most of 
 them want it in the glazed condition, that is, it is past the 
 roasting ear stage and is beginning to get hard. The 
 leaves are still green, the husks are probably turning 
 shghtly brown. Now that is one stage in which they cut 
 it. Another stage is just a little bit farther on, when the 
 ears have become quite brown and the lower leaves are 
 beginning to dry, but it is not ripe; we don’t let it get 
 ripe for that purpose. Now between those we find them 
 cutting it and using it. 
 
 3759 The ensilage is stored in what we eall silos, kind of 
 air tight structure. Just cut up and put in there tight 
 so the air cannot get at it and cause decay. 
 
 I would judge an average yield of soy beans under © 
 the conditions such as these, I would say would be from 
 fifteen to twenty bushels of seed to the acre. The or- 
 
 3760 dinary market price for soy beans would be from $1.50 
 to $2 per bushel. 
 
 The average yield of millet I should say would be 
 from three to five tons an acre. And the average yield 
 if milo maize and kafir corn would be four or five tons. 
 
 3761 The average yield of cow peas would be about three 
 and a half to four tons. Soy beans I would put a little 
 lower than cow peas, say about two tons. 
 
 It is my judgment that all the crops which I have 
 mentioned would mature between the 20th of June and 
 the 1st of November. | 
 
 3762 Cross-Examination by Mr. Butters. 
 
 I have farmed myself. I was on the farm until I was 
 twenty-three years of age. I am now forty. 
 
 The very earliest varieties of Indian corn would ma- 
 ture just about like the soy beans. We plant the Indian 
 corn first and just as soon as we get through with that 
 we plant the beans. 
 
834 
 
 3763 We have ninety day corn, and our earliest soy beans 
 would take just about ninety days. I say for the earliest 
 varieties about ninety days. I should not make a great 
 deal of difference as to which is adapted to damp soil, 
 corn or soy beans. 
 
 3764 I don’t know how many acres there are in Section 21. 
 I should think in the neighborhood of 400. I don’t know 
 how many silos it would take for ensilage on that amount 
 of ground, or how many tons a silo holds. J will say we 
 
 3765 have a silo that will hold 250 tons, and the ensilage 
 runs about ten to twelve tons to the acre. I cannot give 
 you the dimensions of the silo holding 250 tons; might 
 
 3766 be about thirty feet high. 
 
 If the corn was not in the glazed condition it would 
 make ensilage all right, I think, but not quite as good. I 
 don’t know it would be unsafe to put it in a silo if it had 
 
 3767 not reached that stage of maturity. I don’t know that 
 it is futile to put it in at that time. 
 
 3768 My answers are not all based on the fact in this case 
 that the land can be tilled from and after the 20th of 
 June continuously to the first day of November. I sim- 
 ply based my answers on this ground, that I have in- 
 cluded crops there which would not necessarily require 
 all of the time that is involved between those two points. 
 For example, we have there at least 110 days, and these 
 crops would mature some of them in ninety days, so that 
 we would have there a leeway of twenty days. If you 
 get on the land the first of July it would make good en- 
 silage corn and would be in the glazed condition before 
 
 3769 November. If it would not mature the corn so it would 
 arrive at the glazed period it would not be good for soy 
 beans except as a green food, but I would not attempt to 
 say that we could mature the seed. 
 
 You cannot feed a crop unless you have got animals 
 to feed it to. I do not know what the ordinary trade 
 
835 
 
 silo costs. JI never constructed one myself. I am not 
 
 3770 sure as to whether a cement costs about $1,000. 
 
 I would not say that I have named all the crops to 
 Mr. Chiperfield that could be raised upon this land with 
 any degree of profit. J presume garden truck would 
 
 3771 grow, but I would not answer because I do not know; I 
 never had any experience in that line. 
 
 When I was on the land yesterday I noticed the part 
 that had been in corn and the part that was not in corn. 
 I did not distinguish any difference between them as to 
 the character or fertility of the soil. 
 
 3772 Iwas not over on that part of the land you are show- 
 ing me. I saw some corn that was immature. I did not 
 see any difference in the soil there. The question would 
 
 3773 be whether the water stays off long enough. Of course 
 if the water comes in while the crop is out there it won’t 
 
 3774 grow. I would not care to estimate how much land I 
 saw that did not have a crop on it in Section 21. If you 
 could not plant until the first day of July it would not 
 
 3775 have as great a value for corn, but it would have a 
 value. If in addition to that the condition of the surface 
 became so wet that it was impossible to get upon it to 
 
 3776 harvest the corn, it would have a value as ensilage or 
 fodder. 
 
 We have grown cow peas in southern Illinois and on 
 our farm at Urbana and in some portions in the western 
 part of the state. I have not done any experimenting in 
 this vicinity practically within a radius of fifty miles. 
 
 3777 I do not know that this climate is not conducive to the 
 profitable production of cow peas. I know what thé soil 
 is. I don’t pretend to say anything about the analysis. 
 
 3778 In order to raise cow peas it requires a soil having or- 
 ganic matter in it and soils that have mineral substances 
 in them. This soil I suppose is classified as brown silt 
 loam. 
 
836 
 
 3779 I don’t know from actual experience what the interval 
 is between the spring and fall overflows on this land. 
 If you could get on the land in May it was fit to till 
 during the entire summer and turn stock in upon it in the 
 winter, it would produce all the crops that I have testified 
 to and its value, I think, would be considerably more. 
 
 3780 Grorce DEGROooT, a witness for defendant, being sworn, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is George DeGroot. I live at Peru. I have 
 a fish market and have known the Illinois River about 
 twenty-five years. ‘T'wenty-five years ago the river was 
 cleaner than it has been a year or two before the drain- 
 age came in. For a year or two:before that time it was 
 3781 pretty bad. There was lots of moss, dead water, had 
 no chance to get out; not so very much of a current; 
 would take a long time for the water to flow away. I 
 could not tell how fast the current was at that time. 
 After the Sanitary District was opened there was a 
 change in the current. I don’t know exactly what the 
 current is now because the current is changeable. I 
 would say about three miles an hour. 
 3782 I know the land in this suit across from Peru, the 
 land of the plaintiff. I know McCormick slough. I know 
 3783 the creek known as Cedar Creek. Cedar Creek comes 
 out of the country down from the hills. It runs a long 
 ways back from this land, thirty or forty miles. When 
 Cedar Creek is in flow I have seen it all the way from 
 four to six feet of water coming down. It empties down 
 between what they call the Huse and Loomis and McCor- 
 mick slough a half mile below the bridge. If there is a 
 3784 real heavy rain it flows into the McCormick slough. 
 This creek has formed a great big bar. That bar runs 
 
837 
 
 clear across the slough; that used to be all one slough. 
 The bar runs across where the creek comes in. The 
 water from Cedar Creek empties into the slough. There 
 are a lot of willow trees growing on this bar and they 
 throw the water in every direction. There is a big em- 
 bankment that makes the bottom land higher than it 
 really is. I should judge McCormick slough, figuring in 
 the narrow ends of it, is about a mile long. It is twenty- 
 five feet deep in places in high water. When the slough 
 is filled with high water the land on the east side of the 
 
 3785-86 slough is the highest. Some places it is ten feet 
 higher. The effect which the slough has upon the seep- 
 ing out into the land is different. It cuts and runs through 
 here and this slough runs back upon it, little low places. 
 There is a little small creek that runs through and backs 
 up on this ground. In fact, there is a pond, and this 
 water is shut off by this big bar down below which holds 
 
 3787 this water two or three feet higher than this other 
 slough that is connected with the river. This water can- 
 not get out any way at all. It is all grown up with wil- 
 lows and banked up there, and it all stands there about 
 a foot higher than the main channel is. There have been — 
 pues of driftwood and refuse drifted in there to build up 
 the bar. The water in this slough has no other means 
 of escape except seeping through the land. That is the 
 only way it could get out and it seems to me it don’t 
 even seep out. It stays right there. 
 
 When the draws which I spoke of become filled with 
 water it backs up on this. The bar is on Ernat’s land. 
 In order to get ride of the flow a man named McCaleb, 
 who had some land connected to McCormick’s slough on 
 the south side, went down there and cut a great big strip 
 of willows, about a half a block wide and a block and a 
 half long, and then Ernat stopped him. The company 
 hasn’t done anything towards draining this slough, but 
 
838 
 
 the renters have. They went down there and tried to 
 dig through with spades, through that driftwood, and 
 gave it up as a bad job. 
 
 When the river goes down in the spring the bar holds 
 the water up in the slough. The slough is about a mile 
 long and it is several blocks wide in places. Of course, 
 it runs uneven; some places it isn’t over fifty feet up in 
 the end. The level of this slough is two feet higher than 
 it is when the river is low. There is no connection what- 
 ever between the river and the slough. 
 
 3789 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I last saw McCormick slough yesterday. Also saw the 
 Illinois River vesterday. A man by the name of Powers 
 was not with me. I am not acquainted with Mr. Powers 
 
 3790-92 of the Sanitary District. JI did not make any ob- 
 servations yesterday; just looked at it the same as I 
 would every day; that is my business on the river. The 
 
 3793 water yesterday was moving in the slough. 'TChe wind 
 was ruffling the water. The water in the slough was 
 “standing. It was about three inches above the level of 
 the water in the Illinois River, three to five inches. Of 
 course it has been falling right along. I know because I 
 pulled through the place that holds the water in the 
 slough. I told you it was from three to five inches lower. 
 Know it was four or five inches lower by riding this 
 slough connected with the upper slough and by pulling 
 
 3795 through. I did not make any measurements, that is 
 just from my judgment. The river does not affect it by 
 seepage back over the land; McCormick slough does. It 
 
 3796 only does to the low ground. I would judge 70 to 75 
 per cent. of the ground is low and the balance of the low 
 eround would be affected by McCormick slough. None 
 of the low ground is affected by the river at all. It can- 
 not get out because there is a big high bank all the way 
 
839 
 
 around the bend, I would judge about ten feet high. Not 
 just all the way but clear up to the land. 
 
 3797 ‘There isn’t any water from the Illinois River comes in 
 on this land, none at all. I have never thought that there 
 was any seepage held back in the land, or water held back 
 in the land from the Illinois River on account of the clay 
 ground. There is a sub-soil there. There is a big high 
 bank there right across from the mouth of the river. I 
 don’t know whether there is a clay sub-soil underlaying 
 this ground. The clay I spoke of is up on the bank, and 
 down. 
 
 I have been in a position to observe the river for 
 twenty years or longer. I am pretty intimate with it. 
 
 3798 I never done any work for the Sanitary District of 
 Chicago. I don’t know that my father has. I don’t pay 
 any attention to my father’s business. I don’t know 
 whether he is doing any work for the Sanitary District 
 or not, except he has been keeping tab on a little water, 
 but that hasn’t got anything to do with me. Father has 
 
 3799 been taking gauges the same as anybody else does that 
 has got any interest. In fact I do, the first thing in the 
 morning I run over to see whether the water has raised 
 or lowered. I don’t know what connection my father has 
 with the Sanitary District. 
 
 I remember when the Sanitary District opened, but 
 not exactly. It was quite a few years ago. We did not 
 
 3800 pay any attention to it, just figured it was running on 
 and off. I knew it was being run into the river, as I 
 read the papers and looked things over. We kind of fig- 
 ured when they were turning it in. I didn’t think it came 
 from there at that time. At times I don’t think any of it 
 
 3801 comes from there. I have figured it, in my opinion, be- 
 cause the water was down so low we did not think there 
 was any coming in at all. Saw it in the Chicago papers 
 about its being turned in. I saw a difference in the 
 
840 
 
 color of the water; it used to be roily and dirty. The 
 
 3802 water was soggy and heavy and muddy, and it seems 
 when the drainage was turned in we had nice clear water. 
 I didn’t pay any attention to it. I suppose it took sev- 
 eral days to get where we lived. I haven’t kept any 
 track as to the year when I did notice it. When I no- 
 
 3803 ticed it it was at Peru. I don’t know how much water 
 there was at Peru at that time. It is a good many years 
 back and I never knew I would be a witness in this case, 
 because if I ever dreamed anything like that I would 
 be here to hand it to you good and plenty. We have to 
 take human life as we find it, you know, and I am just 
 giving you my best judgment, and that is the best you 
 can expect. 
 
 3804 When I first noticed the water it was eight feet in 
 some places and some places forty feet, and we have 
 places that fifteen years ago it was twelve feet of water 
 and now itis dry land. I couldn’t tell how deep the water 
 was when I first noticed the water from Lake Michigan. 
 
 3805 I think I saw a change in the color of the water since, 
 the last time this morning. I think it was lake water 
 the same as it looked up at Chicago. I was up in Chi- 
 cago a week ago and it looked the same, and that is what 
 you go by. I was standing on the middle of the Illinois 
 River bridge at Ottawa. The river is 1,000 feet wide and 
 the current is an ordinary current. I guess we had a 
 
 3806 four mile current. I couldn’t tell how deep the water 
 was. | 
 
 It was not a general condition. The Fox River has 
 got a different color passing through. I could not tell 
 from the Illinois River that the whole surface was af- 
 fected by the water from Lake Michigan. I don’t know 
 anything about the water of the Kankakee and Des- 
 plaines Rivers. | 
 
 3807 Prior to the turning in of the Sanitary District water, 
 
841 
 
 the stream at Peru had ordinarily no current at low 
 3808 water. It was dead water, that is what we call it, and 
 there was a growth in the river along there. Since the 
 Sanitary District water is turned in the speed of the 
 water at Peru is about three miles an hour at low water. 
 That is my best judgment. I cannot see that it 1s Lake 
 Michigan water by looking into it. It is pretty fair. 
 3809 I don’t remember how deep the stream at Peru was 
 before 1900. No judgment on it. I was there a great 
 deal but I paid no attention to it. I haven’t any opinion 
 about that. I would run down and look at the gauge 
 and paid no attention to it after that only how the water 
 was the day before, and how it was different. I would 
 judge the water is nearly a foot higher in real low water. 
 3810 There is about thirty-five or forty feet of water at Peru. 
 The river at that time was about 110 feet wide. The 
 banks are about the same as they always are. The river 
 was not filled across. I have observed the condition in 
 3811 Peru for twenty years, probably back farther. I know 
 them pretty well. 
 
 3812 W. J. Frazer, called as a witness by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Exammation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is W. J. Frazier. I live at Champaign, Tli- 
 nois. I am professor of dairy husbandry in the Uni- 
 versity of Illinois; have been since 1893. I was born 
 and raised on a farm. Worked on a farm until I was 
 
 3813 twenty-three and owned a farm for eight years. I was 
 on the land in controversy in this suit yesterday. Pro- 
 fessor Hegnauer of the university was with me. In my 
 judgment corn, a rather early variety, cow peas, soy 
 beans and millet would be good crops to raise on the 
 land in controversy. They could be raised and harvested 
 
842 
 
 between the 20th of June and the first day of November. 
 3814 I have had experience with ensilage and silos. In 
 silos the corn should be put when it is about three-fourths 
 dented and one-fourth still in the milk or dull; depend- 
 ing somewhat on the variety of corn; the corn should 
 be from 105 to 125 days old, from the time of planting 
 3815 until it is put in the silo. An early variety of corn ma- 
 tures in considerably less time. I would say fifteen or 
 twenty days earlier, anyway. I have planted corn this 
 year, on my own farm, on the 3d of July. It got ripe 
 enough for the silo. I think that probably ninety days 
 would be a sufficient length of time in which to raise a 
 3816 crop of soy beans. I think they will yield from fifteen 
 to twenty bushels to an acre. Prices vary. I should 
 say about $1.50 a bushel is about the value. The hay 
 from soy beans, if cut at the proper time, retains the 
 leaves and has a good deal of food value. It ought to 
 run on good soil a ton and a half to an acre. It should 
 be as nutritious as clover. Soy beans have about the 
 same composition as oil meal. I would rather feed mil- 
 let than timothy hay, and that is what the dairymen in 
 the dairy region of northern Illinois feed. It has more 
 3817 protein in it than timothy hay. I think millet would 
 be from 10 to 25 per cent. better than timothy hay in 
 food values per ton. We feed the hay from cow peas. 
 It is about the same as alfalfa and is considerably more 
 valuable than clover and richer in protein than clover. 
 Our plan is to plant corn for silos the same as for an 
 3818 ordinary crop. Probably the entire crop will be used 
 in silos. A very few stubs remain occasionally, prac- 
 3819 tically none. I am familiar with a crop known as man- 
 gel-wertzel, and it is a crop that could be raised on the 
 land in question. They are used for feeding purposes. 
 They should be stored where it is cool and rather damp. 
 Cattle of any kind and hogs will eat them. I think it 
 
843 
 
 takes about ninety to one hundred days to mature. The 
 
 3820 average yield is twelve to twenty, sometimes twenty- 
 five tons per acre. In England they raise enormous 
 crops. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I think that this land is pretty valuable land. I be- 
 heve you could raise rape on it. The silos at the univer- 
 sity vary from ten feet in diameter to thirty feet. Ca- 
 pacity from 25 to 330 tons. Some are made of wood 
 
 3821 and some of cement. The cost varies, depending on the 
 size. <A silo of average size will cost about $2 a ton 
 capacity. | 
 
 3822 I looked at this land with a view of using it for a dairy- 
 ing proposition and with a view to raising crops for the 
 purpose of feeding cattle, cows. I think probably a 300- 
 ton silo would cost $600 and the same silo in cement would 
 
 3823 probably cost $800. An acre of land where corn would 
 run from seventy-five to eighty bushels an acre would 
 make about twelve to fourteen tons cut at the proper stage 
 for silo. An ordinary silo would hold the crop from 
 
 3824 fifteen to twelve acres of land. I don’t think a man 
 would put a crop from 150 acres into a silo. He would 
 probably feed it in some other way besides the silo. I 
 cannot conceive of a man using 150 acres, all for ensi- 
 lage. It is true it would take ten silos to handle a crop 
 from 150 acres and twenty silos for 300 acres. A man 
 
 3825 ought to have forty tons of feed in silos for 200 days, 
 
 3826 counting one-tenth for waste. I think feeding five tons 
 to an animal for a season would feed about thirty-three 
 head from 165 tons of ensilage, assuming that to be the 
 
 3827 crop from fifteen acres. I don’t know what that land 
 has ever produced, except what I saw on it yesterday. 
 
 3828 I don’t know when the water comes on that land in the 
 fall nor when it comes on it in the spring. I noticed the 
 corn in the cornstalks; on the land yesterday I saw the 
 
844 
 
 corn which came off of there; some of it was in a wagon 
 3829 and some of it was still standing on the stalks. They 
 were in there with wagons yesterday when I was there. 
 It was on Section 21. There was corn in it. J examined 
 the corn that was in the wagon. My associate with me 
 3830 also examined the corn. It was not the best corn be- 
 cause that corn was the youngest in the field they were 
 husking; the last planted. It was rather immature; the 
 stalks were about one-half or one-third ag high as on the 
 majority of that land. I saw there ears that were found 
 standing on the stalks, that had been missed. We both 
 3831 examined that. We drove along the C., B. & Q. Railroad 
 on the other land. We passed by that land and saw the 
 corn there, but did not go into the land. That is the land 
 3832 that hes west of the Illinois Central and south and east 
 of the river; other than to drive along by it.. We drove 
 on the road or highway; not down across the land on the 
 3833 bottoms at that point. I think I can form some judg- 
 ment as to the kind of corn that was raised there, from 
 looking at the stalks and examining them. We went over 
 3834 a good part of Section 21. If I was going to run Sec- 
 tion 21 as a dairying proposition I would put in about 
 one-fourth or one-fifth of it into cow peas. The land is 
 too large to run singly. It ought to be divided into sev- 
 3839 eral farms; might put in about one-fifth of it into millet; 
 about one-half of it into corn. You couldn’t run all of 
 that land for the purpose of operating one dairy. No 
 man can run a dairy of 120 cows and do it successfully. 
 3836 They have got to divide it into several. If I were run- 
 ning a dairy and using the land for that purpose, the 
 silos would necessarily have to be built on the bluff, or 
 high land, where it didn’t overflow. I expect you would 
 have to get some land back from the bottoms on which 
 3837 to build your silos. There seemed to be quite a lot of 
 corn growing on the piece of land that lies west of the 
 
845 
 
 Illinois Central and south of the river. I don’t know how 
 3838 many acres were in it. On Section 21, divided properly, 
 you would have two dairy farms, roughly speaking, each 
 of 200 acres. I would have a silo on each place enough 
 to hold the crop from fifty acres. It would be about 550 
 3839 tons of ensilage. Would probably put about one-fifth of 
 the land into millet and about 50 per cent., or half of it, 
 into corn. Half of the corn would be used in the silo 
 3841 and the other half in shock. You could feed to the 
 3842 cattle during the whole season. Hach place would sup- 
 3844 port about fifty or fifty-five cows. I would not put any 
 mature corn into the silo. This is not too far north to 
 raise soy beans. I don’t know whether they have tried to 
 raise them and failed. J know they have raised them up 
 3845 this way and succeeded. I have seen this land several 
 times before yesterday. I have ridden past it. Never 
 was on the land; have ridden through both on the Rock 
 Island and Illinois Central and Burlington; I can’t just 
 3846 say when. The corn growing on Section 21 was pretty 
 largely in one field. There were some strips running 
 through it where there was no corn. I have had some 
 experience in raising corn. Our land at the university 
 3847 is for experimental purposes and practical purposes 
 also. The land in Section 21 is soft ground; land that 
 drains itself easily; is of a highly porous substance; a 
 good deal of clay in the ground. I think that corn would 
 3848 penetrate the ground from three to five feet. If the corn 
 roots struck water at three to five feet down, if it was held 
 there continuously, I think you could raise a very excel- 
 lent crop of corn. I am sure you could, because I have 
 done it. I don’t say it is an ideal condition for raising 
 corn, but you could get a good crop. I don’t see why it 
 should make the corn soft or milky. 
 
- 846 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 There is no reason why this land should all be main- 
 tained as one farm. 
 
 3849 Benzamin T'aytor, a witness called by the defendant, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Benjamin Taylor. I live at South Barton- 
 
 3850 ville. I am head gardener at the Peoria State Hospital. 
 The garden and farm of the Peoria State Hospital is lo- 
 cated in the bottoms, east of the hospital. I have been 
 engaged in gardening river bottom lands for the last 
 twelve years. For the last eight years in the service of 
 
 the State of Illinois. The land is located in the Illinois 
 River bottoms. It is eight feet above the low water stage 
 
 of the river. The farm is about three-quarters of a mile 
 from the river and the biggest part of it is overflow land. 
 3851 The land does not all lie on the same level. Itis sloping. 
 T have seen the land in controversy in this case, last Sun- 
 day. JI have had a long experience, about twelve years, 
 
 in the raising of market garden products. I was garden- 
 
 ing before I went with the state institution at Barton- 
 ville, on bottom lands. Assuming that you can get on 
 the lands in controversy in this case between the 20th day 
 
 of June and the Ist day of July and have until the 1st day 
 3852 of November for the purpose of farming, you can raise 
 cabbage, tomatoes, cucumbers, hubbard squash and sweet 
 corn. You can raise a late crop of beets; cauliflowers, 
 onions can be raised; parsley can be raised; millet can 
 
 be raised; also endive; carrots would not make a crop; 
 late crop; I mentioned sweet corn. Sweet corn takes 
 from sixty to ninety days to mature; tomatoes mature in 
 ninety days; cabbage about the same; squash about the 
 
847 
 
 same; carrots from sixty to seventy days; cucumbers 
 about sixty days; beets take sixty to ninety days; cauli- 
 
 3853 flower the same; lettuce six to eight weeks; radishes the 
 same; turnips about sixty days and endive about sixty 
 days; millet takes from four to six weeks. I have had ex- 
 perience in the raising of all of these crops and have had 
 an opportunity to see and observe the profit which is 
 derived from the raising of them, extending over an ex- 
 
 3804 perience of twelve years. I have an opinion, based upon 
 my knowledge of the condition of this land, and based 
 upon the possibility of raising these crops and the re- 
 turns which are made from them, as to the fair cash 
 market value of this land at the present time, for market 
 geardening. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Butters. 
 
 We have from twenty-five to seventy-five or eighty 
 acres used for gardening purposes used at Bartonville, 
 3855 and raise all of the things mentioned. We have from fifteen 
 to twenty-five insane patients that I work there. I raise 
 very little millet. We never plant it except as a very late 
 crop; unless we can’t get on the ground to get anything 
 else in there. If we can’t get on the ground until the 
 
 Ist of August, then we will plant a crop of millet, because 
 
 it is too late for anything else. It is fed to the cattle. 
 We plant our sweet corn at different times. We plant, 
 
 if possible, along about the Ist of May. Cabbage we set 
 out, an early crop, along the early part of May. We set 
 3856 out some in July; about the 10th of July we plant it, 
 the second crop. We also wait until July before we plant — 
 squash. We have from one to three acres. As far as I 
 
 ean see the soil down here in Section 21 is just the same 
 
 as we have down in Bartonville. I don’t pretend that that 
 3857 is true chemically. I never heard there was a certain 
 salt in the soil on the north side of the river that was 
 
848 
 
 not in the soil on the south side of the river in the Illinois 
 valley. I never heard that. I don’t know whether squash 
 can be raised up here in this country or not. They can 
 be raised where [ am. By looking at this land I should 
 
 3859 judge you could raise most anything. JI would want to 
 make full investigation into this land before I embarked 
 in the raising of those things; raising of the articles I 
 have mentioned requires lots of help. JI am sure that I 
 could raise all of the crops that J have mentioned and get 
 
 3860 them in by the 10th day of June. I know nothing about 
 the conditions of this land as to when you can get on 
 there in the spring. We can get on the highest of our 
 ground in May. We have a kind of a basin there, low 
 spot, where we can’t get on until June. We have no 
 levees on this land. 
 
 3861 JoHn SALTER, a witness called by the defendant, testi- 
 fied as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is John Salter. I reside in the south part of 
 Peoria County. I am a gardener; engaged for the last 
 fifteen years; about a mile and a half west of the Mli- 
 
 3862 nois River, or a mile and a quarter. J know of gardens 
 in the bottom lands in that vicinty and have gardened 
 the lands which were subject to overflow. I am farming 
 overflow land. JI have seen the lands in controversy in 
 
 3863 this suit. I think that, assuming you could get on this 
 
 ' land from the 20th of June and have until the 1st of No- 
 vember, in each year, in which to cultivate and raise a 
 crop, that you could raise almost every kind of a vege- 
 table except potatoes. You couldn’t raise celery, I don’t 
 suppose, but you could raise tomatoes, cabbage, endive, 
 parsley, cauliflower and turnips could all be raised. I 
 saw some corn that had been raised there this year and 
 
849 
 
 have generally observed the corn which has been raised 
 
 3864 this year on uplands; also that raised on bottom lands. 
 The most of the corn that I have seen this year is soft. 
 I have observed the profits that have been and can be 
 derived from the market gardening business, and based 
 upon my observations of this kind and my knowledge and 
 experience in that business, I have an opinion as to the 
 fair cash market value of this land at the present time. 
 I should judge this land would be worth $75 to $100 an 
 acre. It takes about three months to mature sweet corn. 
 
 3865, About three months to mature tomatoes and cabbage 
 and carrots; nine weeks matures cucumbers; beets can be 
 raised in two months; turnips in about five or six weeks; 
 it takes about nine weeks to get a good ordinary endive 
 
 3866 for the market, I have seen millet planted in the last 
 of June make a good crop. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 T had not seen this land in question before Sunday. We 
 
 spent maybe an hour on the land. We went down to 
 3867 Peru and crossed the river bridge and walked south. 
 We went in on the land with Mr. Hawthorne. We went 
 
 on the land that lies east of McCormick’s slough. I 
 3868 wouldn’t say that we walked over all the land, but we 
 went over the biggest part where there was corn. We 
 walked over some of the land where no corn was growing. 
 
 I don’t know how much land was in crop. We crossed 
 3869 the [llinois River. I know the land and I was over 
 the land located near the Illinois Central Railroad tracks 
 3870 and C., B. & Q. tracks. We went down on that land. 
 I remember going.in on the land west of the C., B. & Q. 
 and south and east of the Illinois Central. We walked 
 3871 from the railroad. We were there about an hour; looked — 
 like tolerably good soil to me. It looks like a good place 
 
 to raise corn, That is true of all the land in controversy 
 
850 
 
 that I examined. I think there was eighty or ninety 
 acres in the first piece we examined. That was in corn. 
 
 3873 I doing my gardening, myself and my boy attend to 
 about twenty acres. We farm some and garden some. 
 We raise twelve or fourteen acres in corn and the rest 
 is garden. It would take a good many men to operate a 
 400-acre piece of land used as a truck garden. After 
 
 3876 we had examined Section 21 we got on the car and rode 
 up to La Salle. 
 
 3879 We examined the land south of La Salle. The land 
 there was about the same in general character; appar- 
 ently some higher. It didn’t look very much different to 
 me. I couldn’t say how much land we looked at alto- 
 gether. It would be a hard proposition to truck garden 
 150 acres, or a tract as large as that. 
 
 3884 CHarLEes H. Nico.et, a witness called by the defendant, 
 testified as follows: | 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Cluperfield. 
 
 My name is Charles H. Nicolet. I am by profession a 
 civil engineer; was city engineer for the City of La 
 Salle; have been engineer for Matthiesen and Hegeler 
 Coal Mining Company located in the City of La Salle. In 
 1892 I established some bench marks in the vicinity of 
 the City of La Salle at various street corners. I think in 
 
 3885 the neighborhood of twenty-five or thirty bench marks 
 were established. They were north of the Rock Island 
 right of wav. They vary from 100 yards to six or eight 
 hundred yards; possibly half a mile from the Rock Island 
 tracks. I know. where the Union shaft of the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company is located. I know the 
 vein of coal there worked under the City of La Salle 
 at the present time. Their work in that mine has ex- 
 tended from the north, to the north line of Fifth street, 
 
851 
 
 which is about a quarter of a mile north of the shaft. 
 After I had established these bench marks in the City 
 of La Salle, by subsequent checkings, I observed a subsi- 
 dence in that city. I observed a subsidence of about one 
 foot in 1895 and ’96, at the corner of Third street and 
 38886 Bucklin. A year or two later I checked up again for 
 the purpose of making observations of this subsidence. 
 My recollection is it had gone down a total of 1.6 feet. 
 Since that time I have not made any further observa- 
 tion to see whether there is any further subsidence. I 
 mean observation with an instrument. Ordinary observa- 
 tion would not detect any subsidence or settlement. I 
 observed it at more than this one point. That is, the 
 subsidence. It was not uniform at the different bench 
 marks or check marks. When I found there was a sub- 
 sidence at this corner mentioned I ran levels over the 
 streets in order to determine whether the subsidence of 
 3887 the earth had extended extensively, and at that. time it 
 had extended just about a block each way from this bench 
 mark. I did not afterwards determine whether the area 
 had spread. There is a heavy limestone strata immedi- 
 ately under the streets, for seventy or eighty feet below 
 the surface, and then a succession of shales, sand stone 
 and limestone in thin layers. I have noticed the cross- 
 section of this same deposit from the river side. It 
 breaks off at the south line of Canal street, or Just north, 
 at a variable distance from the river, because of the bend 
 3888 in the river at that point. At one time there was an. 
 immense stream down through this valley and the ages 
 eut the rock out to a considerable depth below the river 
 bottom and this was afterwards filled up with drift, gla- 
 cial drift; by erosion presumably. From the time that 
 I established bench marks to the time when I checked up 
 and found that there had been a subsidence of 1.6 foot 
 over the ground where the La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 
852 
 
 Company was mining, I should say roughly was about 
 from four to five years. The amount of drift is variable. 
 In a general way I am familiar with the geological for- 
 
 3889 mation of the various strata down to the coal. The 
 third vein of coal at that point is about 350 feet below 
 the bottom. The second vein is 200 feet down and is 
 about five feet in thickness. The third vein is three or 
 three and a quarter feet thick. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I was city engineer of La Salle from 1893 to 1896; then 
 with the M. & H. for sixteen years. The M. & H. Com- 
 pany own about one-half of the coal underlying La Salle. 
 
 3890 The M. & H. Company own practically everything of the 
 coal that lies east of the west line of Joliet street in the 
 City of La Salle. ‘The coal that lies west of the east line 
 of Joliet street in La Salle is owned by the Carbon Coal 
 Company. 'They have mined out a portion of the second 
 vein underlying La Salle. It is located contiguous to the 
 shaft of the Carbon Coal Company. Judging from their 
 own maps, I should say it extends something like half a 
 mile in a cirele from the Union shaft. That would ex- 
 tend their workings approximately to Joliet street. I 
 
 3891 don’t know how much coal was taken out in the second 
 vein. They work the second vein in what they call room 
 and pillar work. I have never been in the second vein of 
 the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company mine. I 
 
 3892 don’t know how much coal was taken out. I can’t say 
 there has been a subsidence in the City of La Salle due to 
 the taking out of coal. My judgment would be that the 
 subsidence was due to that. That is, to the taking out 
 
 3893 of coal. The subsidence, as I said, was 1.6 of a foot. I 
 am not familiar with subsidence from actual experience 
 IT am not sure that the mining of coal would show any 
 effect on the surface at different times, but I am sure 
 
893 
 
 there is an effect to be noticed in the Cities of La Salle 
 and Peru, on the surface, from the taking out of either 
 3894 the second or third vein of coal. I don’t know it was 
 from the effect of mining the coal or taking out the coal, 
 3899 but my judgment is it was due to that. My judgment is 
 based on common sense, If there has been a subsidence 
 of this surface and there has been an excavation below, 
 it is a natural conclusion or inference that it is due to 
 3896 that excavation. J don’t know when the process of sub- 
 sidence begins nor progresses. I first made bench marks 
 3397 in the City of La Salle in 1893 or 794. I was city engi- 
 neer at that time and it was a matter of convenience for 
 the city. JI cannot at this time state in detail each one 
 of the places where bench marks were made. I remember 
 this one at Third and Bucklin street. JI remember one 
 also at Ninth and Sterling’ street, and at Crosat and Sixth 
 street, and at Fifth and Tonti, and Fourth and Hennepin 
 streets. I don’t recall any others definitely. I cannot 
 locate any bench marks definitely on First street. Third 
 and Bucklin is the only one I distinctly remember. I 
 3898 can’t say as to whether the subsidence would be wuni- 
 form in character. They have paved the City of La 
 Salle on First street; in 1891 or 1892. They have paved 
 Seventh street, but I can’t give the date; also Buck- 
 lin street. Hiram Holmes was street commissioner when 
 IT was city engineer. The street cars were running on 
 Third and turning south on Bucklin street in the year 
 1892. They had been running there for some years prior 
 3899 to that. I put bench marks in the northeast corner of 
 the street; put it on a large tree near the base of the tree. 
 It was a spike driven in the tree. I don’t know who the 
 owner of the lot was. The lot is now vacant. J think the 
 tree is still standing. I have not looked for that bench 
 mark of late. It was a railroad spike that I used; an 
 ordinary railroad spike. It was put in the base as close 
 
854 
 
 to the bottom as possible. I should say six inches, maybe, 
 3900 from the surface. The tree was probably fourteen 
 inches in diameter. That tree has grown since that time. 
 The spike was placed there in ’93 or 794. I was giving 
 grades for a sidewalk when I first determined that there 
 had been a subsidence and it started from a known bench 
 in the east part of town. JI don’t remember which one, 
 but it is a matter of record in the city engineer’s office. 
 After I had finished staking out the sidewalk I carried 
 my levels over to the bench to check my work. This sec- 
 ond bench was the bench I marked at Third and Bucklin. 
 I found that bench was apparently a foot lower than the 
 3901 record. Those notes are in existence at La Salle. It is 
 twenty years since I have seen them. I didn’t look them 
 up as a matter of refreshing my memory at this time for 
 this case. My recollection is that the survey was made 
 two years later, about 795, so that in the two years in 
 that mark there was a difference of about a foot. Third 
 street was not paved at that time. The street cars were 
 running at that time. I discovered that the street had 
 gone down about a block each way; about a block north 
 and two blocks south. That would take it practically 
 to Main street. JI don’t think I run any levels on Main 
 street. It was not paved there at that time. On Third 
 street it went to Berlin street, a block west. I am not at- 
 tempting to account for it. There was no jump-off on the 
 3903 street car tracks. It run down to zero at Third street, 
 practically zero, and there was no settlement at Fourth 
 and Bucklin, and there was practically no settlement at 
 Wright and Third, that is one block east, and there was 
 practically no settlement beyond Berlin, that is one block 
 west. ‘The settlement extended down to First street. I 
 don’t remember just how much it was at First street, but 
 3904 it extended down to the Rock Island depot, down that 
 street. As I remember, it was about a year and a half 
 
895 
 
 or two years afterwards, along about ’96 or ’97, that L 
 next examined it. I ceased to be city engineer in 1896. 
 The zero that | figured from was the canal lock. I think 
 3905 Ed Noonan was my assistant. I think probably that 
 3906 that railroad spike was sticking out of the tree an inch. 
 3907 I have lived in La Salle a good many years. I think 
 there is a two-story frame house on that corner. I don’t 
 know that the sidewalks had been affected. I didn’t ob- 
 3908 serve that. I couldn’t say as to the street; nor as to 
 the houses; or the brick buildings. I didn’t notice any 
 effect along the street at all. 
 
 3920 CHarLEs Carney, a witness called by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by. Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Charles Carney. I reside in La Salle. I 
 am supervisor of track on the division of the Illinois 
 Central Railroad located at La Salle. I have been super- 
 visor of that division for five years last March. I know 
 where the Illinois Central bridge is located over the [li- 
 nois River and a point six or seven hundred feet south 
 of the Illinois Central bridge over the river. I have no- 
 ticed a sinking in the tracks of the Illinois Central Rail- 
 road at that point. They have sunk maybe fourteen 
 inches; usually in the spring and in the summer months. 
 It is sinking continuously. I think the cause of the sink- 
 ing was the taking out from under the roadbed of the coal 
 at that point, I notified the roadmaster that the sinking 
 
 3923 was occurring right along. I don’t know that the bill 
 for raising the tracks and maintaining it was paid by the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, for the repair of 
 these tracks. I reported and gave the cost for it to the 
 superior officer and as far as the company’s paying the 
 bill, IT don’t know, I have not seen much sinking at that 
 
856 
 
 3924 point in the last year; in the summer months of the last 
 four years, that is prior to last year, I have noticed the 
 sinking; this sinking of fourteen inches has occurred dur- 
 ing the time I have been supervisor of tracks. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 3925 I couldn’t locate the sections. The sinking was about 
 900 feet south of the bridge. I refer to the Illinois Cen- 
 tral bridge. I think there are about twenty piers run- 
 ning across the bottoms of the Illinois Central bridge. 
 
 3926 They are large rock piers, about ten feet wide, I should 
 judge. They are about forty feet long. The bridge is in 
 the neighborhood of fifty-five feet high. At present it 
 is a steel structure. It has been for the past ten years. 
 It was a wooden structure prior to that time. After you 
 eross the river at La Salle the track runs on a large fill, 
 about thirty-five, maybe forty, feet high. There has been 
 an increase in the height of the road, by repairs, gravel, 
 
 3927 and so forth, in recent years. The ground underneath 
 the Illinois Central right of way would not be soft ground 
 at this time. They have been running on that fifty-five 
 or sixty years and it is hard down to the rock. I should 
 say that the sinking seemed to show for about 100 feet 
 and then it ceased. The track would go down, go out 
 of line. We had to keep the track lined up there. The 
 settling of fourteen inches extended over a period of 
 four years, I should judge. I didn’t notice much sinking 
 in the last year. In the winter months it would be frozen, 
 packed, and it would naturally hold the travel without 
 
 3929 settling. We ran large freight trains over there. It is 
 a single track. The tracks would be repaired generally 
 in the summer time. Our track men worked there all the 
 
 3930 time. I don’t know what caused the sinkage. I don’t 
 know of my own knowledge whether coal has been taken 
 out of there. I said J thought it was. I don’t know of my 
 
807 
 
 own knowledge. I don’t know what became of the bills 
 that were sent to the La Salle County Carbon Coal Com- 
 pany for repairs. I have had tracks settle out in the 
 country at other places, at mines. 
 
 3932 C. H. Tipss, called as a witness by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is C. H. Tibbs. I live at South Bartonville, 
 near Peoria. I am helping the gardener at the asylum 
 farm; raising vegetables, on some overflow land, some- 
 thing like a mile from the river. I have seen and exam- 
 ined the lands involved in this suit, located in the local- 
 
 3933 ity of Peru and La Salle. I was over on the land near 
 Peru last Sunday. In color the soil is about the same as 
 the land in the bottoms I am familiar with down the 
 river. Between the 20th day of June and the 1st day of 
 November, vegetables could be raised on there. 
 
 3936 CHarues Krause, called as a witness by the defendant, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Charles Krause. [I live in Peoria, Ilinois. 
 
 IT am a garden trucker, J have been one all my life. I 
 
 am forty-two years old. The operations are carried on 
 
 in the south part of Peru. We are within the city limits. 
 3937 The land ts partly bottom and partly upland. The bot- 
 tom land overflows. I have examined the land in contro- 
 versy in this suit yesterday afternoon and observed, in a 
 general way, the kind of soil and surroundings of the 
 land. Between the 20th day of June and the Ist day of 
 November they could raise almost anything there in the 
 
858 
 
 truck line, vegetables, except possibly onions. That 1S, 
 seed onions. Potatoes is not a good paying crop for 
 bottom land soil. I have had experience in it. Except 
 
 3938 potatoes, they could raise almost anything, sweet 
 corn, tomatoes, cabbage, beans, lettuce, radishes and nu- 
 merous other things; turnips, cauliflower, endive, cab- 
 
 3939 bage; all kinds of truck or garden products. I prac- 
 tically raise everything in the market gardener’s line. I 
 have had an opportunity to see and observe the profits to 
 be derived from raising vegetables of that kind; the cost 
 of raising it and so forth. Based upon my experience and 
 knowledge, I have an opinion ag to the value of this land 
 in question in this suit for the purpose of raising these 
 crops. I think it would be worth $100 an acre for that 
 purpose, at least. 
 
 3940 Cross-Examination by Mr, Butters. 
 
 In appearance the soil is very rich soil. I don’t know 
 the chemical constituents and have not had it analyzed. 
 It would be very valuable land if the crops were not in- 
 3942 terfered with by the overflow. Sometimes you will 
 strike a good market in the middle of the season. Some- 
 times early in the season. It is a speculative business 
 with me, with all trucking. We find a market always for 
 everything that we raise. Our main market is Peoria. 
 The value of land for this purpose depends somewhat 
 upon the market available. I know nothing about the 
 market value of lands in this vicinity generally. I know 
 what the market value of corn land or any other good 
 3843 land is in the State of Illinois. I would say that $100 
 an acre was, if anything, too low a value for this land. I 
 would not say that it was worth $500. We usually use 
 lime to sweeten sour land, 
 
859 
 
 3945 Frep Krauss, a witness called by the defendant, testi- 
 fied as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Fred Krause, Jr. I live in Peoria, 615 
 Griswold street. I ama gardener, I have been engaged 
 in that line of work since J have been able to work. My 
 age is thirty-eight years. We have forty-five acres of 
 overflow land. We have a vegetable garden. I have seen 
 the land involved in this suit. I have observed the char- 
 
 3946 acter of the soil. I am familiar with overflow lands in 
 the Illinois bottoms. Between the 20th day of June and 
 the 1st day of November, I think most any kind of a veg- 
 etable, except those that need the winter moisture, could 
 be raised. Everything except possibly onions and pota- 
 
 toes would do well. I think beans, sweet corn, tomatoes, 
 squash, anything in the rough feed for stock, could be 
 
 3947 grown and raised on the land. I have an opinion, based 
 on what I saw and observed and my knowledge of the 
 gardening business, as to the fair cash market value of 
 that land at the present time. I think it would be worth 
 somewhere around $75 per acre. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 Good corn land is selling from two to two and a half. 
 If you could put corn in at the proper season and have 
 it mature and yield a crop that would run from seventy 
 to ninety bushels an acre, I would say that the land would 
 be worth as much as good prairie land. I know nothing 
 about the history of this land. I know the history of 
 our bottom lands, and I think it is the same here. [ 
 think that we saw nearly the whole patch of land. I don’t 
 know how many acres. We drove over there in a hack and 
 went down on the land near Peru. We didn’t take up 
 
&60 
 
 any of the soil, but we pulled out weeds and saw what 
 3949 it was. We didn’t go all through the field, but we also 
 saw the lands lying south of La Salle. We drove there 
 3950 from Peru. We saw corn stalks on this land. We merely 
 looked at the land that was shown to us as being the land 
 that was involved in this suit. » 
 
 3952 Wituram Barry, a witness called by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follow: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is William Barry. I reside at Streator, Ih- 
 nois. I am yard foreman and track foreman on the C. 
 B. & Q. I live at 212 East Broadway. I have been road- 
 master before I became master of the yards there up un- 
 til seven years ago; was roadmaster between four and 
 five years; from 1905 to 1910. I am acquainted with the 
 lands of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company in- 
 volved in this suit. The C. B. & Q. tracks run across that 
 
 3953 land. We call the tracks east and west. It is that way 
 - on the time card. I know the place known as Jones 
 Crossing. It is just east of the north river bridge. The 
 Vermillian River runs parallel with it. At a point about 
 1,500 feet southeast from the Illinois River and from 
 thence running towards Jones Crossing, during the time 
 
 I was roadmaster, I have observed a sinking of the 
 tracks. It was different in different years. It would 
 sink more at some places. We would have to go over it 
 
 a few times more at some places. About a thousand feet 
 
 or close to it anyway was the distance that it was sink- 
 3954 ing. In the winter time we noticed it especially when 
 the track would go each way out of line and then settle 
 down about six inches, in the winter time, and get out 
 
 of line say about four inches each way. It must have 
 been during the time I was roadmaster, two feet or more. 
 
861 
 
 Taking coal out of the Carbon Coal Company’s mine, 
 from under the track, was supposed to be the cause of 
 the sinking. It would get a little further under the track 
 each year. As the work progressed it would travel along 
 the tracks. It just went down gradually; about a thou- 
 sand feet altogether was covered by the sinking; perhaps 
 
 3856 a little more. I left the job in the winter time. The 
 sinking was most noticeable in the winter time because 
 you couldn’t get the track in line then on account of the 
 frost. It would be about eight inches out of line. Before 
 the sinking commenced in different places in the road- 
 bed the condition of the track was in good shape. It 
 only sunk at the places along there where the coal had 
 been mined. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I know where the coal was taken out. J was never 
 
 3957 down in the mine. I have been down at Kangley down 
 there where the coal was taken out, the same way our 
 track would sink, the track settled and as soon as they 
 stopped taking the coal, why, there was no more trouble 
 3959 with the track. Kangley is near Streator. The land I 
 3960 have in mind and refer to is east of the river bridge. I 
 know the coal had been taken out by the settling of the 
 track. That is why I know it. I didn’t see it taken out. 
 
 I wasn’t down in there. Each year, as they have taken 
 
 out the coal the settling kept going towards the east. 
 That is east on our tracks, going from La Salle. I know 
 where the dump is located on this land. That is what we 
 3961 call the Jonesville mine. I think the coal has been taken 
 out a couple of thousand feet or more east from the 
 dump. I believe, from the fact that we had repairing to 
 
 do to the tracks on account of the settling; it settled 
 there every year. I have not noticed it this year. I am 
 
 not on the job any longer. I noticed it the year before 
 
862 
 
 3962 last. That would be the year 1910. I have been three 
 years off the job. I know where the land involved in this 
 case is. I know it myself from personal experience. 
 
 3964 Emin STEMPFEL, a witness called by the defendant tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Emil Stempfel. I live in Peru, Illinois. 
 
 I have lived there about 54 years. My business years 
 ago was boating. I was formerly employed by the Huse 
 & Loomis Company, Ice and Transportation Company. 
 3965 I was mate of the boat. My business now is carpenter 
 for the Illinois Zine Company in the rolling mills. I own 
 a small boat now, a launch, 26 feet long and about 6 
 feet wide. I am familiar with the Illinois River. I re- 
 member the time of the closing of the Henry Dam, but 
 don’t exactly remember the year. I know that raised the 
 water at Peru; I should judge about five to five and a 
 half feet; something in that neighborhood. I noticed the 
 Illinois River up until the time that the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict channel was opened. There wasn’t very much cur- 
 rent in the river up until that time. I should say about 
 two miles an hour. I have observed the current in the 
 Illinois River since that time. It has more current. I 
 should judge that at low water now the current is about 
 two miles and a half. I know Cedar Creek. Cedar Creek 
 is on the south side of the bayou or slough, out of which 
 we used to cut ice. It was called the Boland slough or 
 3967 Huse & Loomis slough. I have seen Cedar Creek in 
 high water. During floods or freshets I have seen it six 
 feet high and 30 feet wide. Cedar Creek empties into the 
 line of the Boland or Huse & McCormick’s slough. There 
 is a bar that has been formed there where Cedar Creek 
 came in. It comes in right from the south and when it 
 
863 
 
 gets to the mouth of this slough it used to run up in 
 3968 this MeCormick’s slough. The only way, when we used 
 to go there with a skiff or anything, we used to have to 
 go down through the willows and around on the other 
 side. There was drift wood lying there over which the 
 bar has now formed. The water now in the sloughs, 
 MeCormick’s slough, is higher than it is below; by below 
 I mean in the Illinois River. It might be a foot or 18 
 inches or something like that. I haven’t been down 
 there these last two years. I think the water is held up 
 3969 in this slough higher than it is down below. I have 
 known this land claimed by the La Salle County Carbon 
 Coal Company and the land that Fox had and the land 
 that Waugh used to farm. I know about the high waters 
 of the Illinois River. I think in 1892 we had extreme 
 3970 high water. I was sent across to a shop on the slough 
 at one time, to get some tools, just before husking time 
 and the water had come up and we rowed over in a boat 
 and could just see the tassels of the corn sticking out of 
 the water. I don’t remember the year. I know they 
 3971 raised corn on this land before 1900. I don’t know how 
 much or anything like that. I used to see it and was ac- 
 quainted with it. I have an opinion as to what was the 
 fair cash market value of that land just before 1900. If 
 the coal was sold it was worth about $50 per acre. I 
 3972 think that the tiling and water pouring in all at once 
 into this river and the streams after a rain, is filling this 
 river up. Tiling has had a big effect on the Illinois River. 
 I know that after a rain the waters all rush in at once 
 and the river is filled up. I remember in the old days 
 when I was boating. There is some difference in the way 
 the river rises and the way it used to when I knew it. 
 3973 I think since the drainage district water has come in 
 and the way we used to figure the stage of the river, that 
 the river has been raised about 10 inches; probably a 
 
864 
 
 little more. Probably a little less. We used to Judge it 
 
 3974 by the height of the river at Tree Top Bar. Formerly 
 the bottom of the river, we used to find sand, and since 
 the tiling and drainage operations have been carried on 
 of late years, we find two feet of mud on the bottom of 
 the river. Down at the place we call Riverside Park 
 there was nothing but a gravel bank for a mile. Today 
 you will find three or four feet of mud. That is where 
 the river is wide and it is shallower and forms there 
 
 3976 quicker than it would in the channel. At the present 
 time, without the coal, I think that that land is worth $50 
 per acre; including the coal it is worth a little more. I 
 would say it is worth about $75 per acre. 
 
 ao7T7 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I am 61 years old. I think the [linois River, before 
 the Sanitary District water was turned in, had a current 
 of two miles an hour at the bridge at Peru. It would 
 run faster where the river is narrower. The wider the 
 river the less the current. I think the turning in of the 
 
 3978 water of the Sanitary District has increased the current 
 half a mile an hour. When the river is high it would be 
 greater. I think that would be the current in low water 
 during the summer months. Up near Peru, the river is 
 
 3979 narrow and there was always a good current there. 
 There used to be a green growth, a skum on the river. It 
 has not been there for years. It has not been there late- 
 
 3980 ly. I think the Sanitary District water was turned in 
 10 or 12 years ago. I noticed a little effect on the river 
 from the turning in of the water. I noticed it the first 
 year. I learned from the papers that the waters had 
 
 3981 been turned in. I don’t know as it made any change 
 in the color of the water. I drink the water now when 
 IT am dry. -I drank it a year ago right out of the river. 
 
 3982 I have not noticed any difference in the water. I re- 
 
865 
 
 member when Mr. Waugh had the coal company land. 
 There was a good deal of timber on Waugh’s place over 
 there that he was farming. I don’t know how much 
 timber he cut off. I don’t think it was any 70 or 80 acres 
 I don’t know how much land was fit for cultivation in the 
 3983 year 1900. I don’t know how much corn was raised on 
 the land for the 10 years preceding 1900. I farmed some 
 of that myself once. That was about 40 years ago. I 
 have not farmed it since. I base my valuation on what 
 they are getting for it now and one thing and another, 
 3984 and from being on the ground. Fifty dollars is what 
 I would give for it in 1900. That don’t include the coal. 
 That was for the surface. Sometimes men will go in 
 there to cultivate all of it in the spring and they never 
 get it out, all of it. Basing my opinion on what I have 
 seen, the crops I have seen hauled off, there was one year 
 3985 that they lost the crop. I don’t remember the year. I 
 don’t know what Braun paid for his land. They have 
 3986 been getting crops off the land since the district water 
 was turned in, off and on. They had a good crop last 
 year and they have one this year, some of those people. 
 I don’t know how many acres were planted nor I don’t 
 know how many acres were planted last year. I don’t 
 know how much corn they have in there nor how much 
 it is possible to plant, when the water is off. There is 
 3987 some corn being hauled over there now, being brought 
 from those bottoms into the cribs at Peru, and there was 
 3988 last year. I think it is Brannen’s corn. I don’t know 
 how many acres there are in that piece today that can be 
 cultivated I was considering it merely as a piece of corn 
 3990 land. They tried to raise oats on it once, I know, and 
 ecouldn’t. JI have often been on this land. It lies close to 
 Peru. I don’t know what it 1s worth for raising pota- 
 3991 toes or other things. Corn is the only thing I have seen 
 them raise on it. I was not considering that trucking in 
 
866 
 
 3992 fixing my value. It might be just as valuable for those 
 purposes today as it was in 1900, and it might have in- 
 creased in value since 1900. Land in this neighborhood 
 has increased a good deal out on the prairie, but I don’t 
 think this has increased any in the bottoms. There was 
 40 acres sold there right below Peru for $130, about a 
 year ago. Nobody would bid on it and it was good 
 ground, too. 
 
 2996 Epwarp J. Keuiy, a witness called by the defendant, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Edward J. Kelly. I reside in Chicago, 
 Illinois. I am a civil engineer. Have been for 18 years. 
 I am in the employ of the Sanitary District of Chicago 
 for 18 years. I had charge of the concrete construction 
 at Lockport, Illinois, from 1894 to 1897. From 1897 to 
 
 3997 1900 I was with the United States Government, in charge 
 of the topographical surveys in New York and Canada. 
 From that time until the present time I have been with 
 the Sanitary District, five years in charge of the stadia 
 work and surveys in the Illinois Valley. The balance of 
 the time in charge of the North Shore Channel and gen- 
 eral construction work in Chicago. I am familiar with 
 the lands involved in this suit and made a survey of those 
 lands in June, 1905, I think it was October, 1906, and in 
 
 3998 November, 1907. Made what is known as a stadia sur- 
 vey. In the first place, the azmuth was taken from the 
 United States Government azmuth and established in 
 this vicinity and carried on in our surveys. Al] the phys- 
 ical conditions are shown in this survey on those lands, 
 the different lines, river lines, different elevations and 
 the ground, houses, fences, ditches, anything that could 
 be seen with the naked eye is practically shown in the 
 
867 
 
 survey. This was done by tying these points in stadia 
 boards and transit and getting the distance and the angle 
 of the azmuth, what we call the vertical angle. In mak- 
 ing the survey we made observations with reference to 
 the elevations of the different portions of the lands in- 
 volved. We observed the crops there growing. We made 
 observations with reference to the timber, the spoil bank, 
 the waste lands, anything and everything that was on the 
 land was observed and a record made of the same. From 
 
 3999 the field notes then taken I constructed map of these 
 premises and the premises adjacent thereto. This map is 
 a true, accurate and correct representation of these prem- 
 ises and their elevations and the natural objects there > 
 found. (The plat referred to is marked Defendant’s Ex- 
 hibit 281.) | 
 
 The outlines marked in deeper red and shaded a red- 
 dish color is the Carbon Coal Company’s lands in ques- 
 tion in this suit. I have compared the tracts thus out- 
 lined on the map with the description in the plaintiff’s 
 
 4000 declaration. The premises are truly, accurately and 
 correctly outlined on this plat so far as the lines of sur- 
 vey are concerned. 
 
 The waving irregular line traced in blue indicates the 
 elevations. Every part covered by that line shows the 
 same relative elevation. By the use of this plat I can 
 tell with accuracy the elevation of the different portions 
 of the premises. In a portion where the elevation is 130, 
 from there to the line marked 131, there is a slope of one 
 foot. It raises one foot between the lines given. Those 
 irregular lines are called contour lines. In connection 
 
 4001 with the contour lines there are figures employed. Where 
 the figure 130 appears, in connection with the contour 
 lines, that shows it is 130 feet below Chicago datum. 
 Where the figure 135 appears, that means it is 135 feet 
 below Chicago datum. The 130 is the higher elevation of 
 
868 
 
 the land, compared with 135. It would be 5 feet higher 
 and that is true wherever these contour lines appear and 
 where these elevations are shown. I made this survey 
 myself. That is, with my party. That is a true, correct 
 and accurate plat of that survey. 
 
 4002 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The government notes that I used in making this plat 
 
 were the government lines, the triangulation lines, a 
 starting point, we used, which we checked up afterwards 
 
 by sighting on Polaris, the north star. It doesn’t show 
 4003 the acreage. It shows the height of the bank by the 
 ‘river; also running along the east side of Section 21, 
 along south of the river. It does not show the height of 
 
 the bank insofar as the level of the water at any particu: 
 
 lar time is concerned. Just shows the top of the ground 
 
 at the time the survey was made. It shows the bank. It 
 shows the elevation of the water and the bank at the time 
 
 the survey was made. The survey was first started in 
 June, 1905. Part of it was made in 1906. Part, down 
 4004 what is known as McCormick’s slough, was made in 
 1906. That was made in October, 1906. I don’t remem- 
 
 ber what the stage of the river was then compared to 
 1905. I think I could tell by examining the plat. The 
 elevation of the water here was 137.8. The elevation of 
 4005 the water in the river was 140.0. I determined the 
 height of the land and the elevation to compare with the 
 height of the water in the river at that time by using the 
 transit. Where the contour line shows and is marked 
 142, compared to the point, minus 135, it shows where 
 4006 there was some sort of a depression. The bank there is 
 practically uniform. It does not vary, one place above 
 4007 the other. The figures are correct along the bank. 1} 
 know that at the time the survey was made that the fig- 
 ures placed on the plat and the plat was correct. I don’t 
 
869 
 
 think there has been any change down there iu the con- 
 ditions of the bank of the river. Some might happen but 
 I don’t know. I think probably I was over that ground 
 twenty-five times and observed the bank of the river. I 
 think it is about the same height in the middle of the sec- 
 tion as it is opposite the City of Peru. I don’t think 
 there is a variation of five or six feet in the height of the 
 4008 bank. The survey or the making of the plat took all 
 told about five months. That is, in the different years; 
 the last of the work being the 5th of November, 1907. 
 4009 Nothing on the plat to show the last day we worked. 
 4010 The plat was actually made by another man under my 
 direction; under my personal supervision here in Ot- 
 tawa. I did not figure up the acreage on it. I was in- 
 structed to make a general stadia survey, and went out 
 on the ground myself and made the survey. I ran the 
 instrument and I made part of the figures. I was out 
 4011 there with my crew and made the survey as surveys are 
 ordinarily made, under conditions of that kind. I was in 
 charge of the work. I had to rely on my recorder, Mr. 
 T. H. Harrington, for the figures or conclusions which 
 were given to me. The plat also shows the relative ele- 
 vation of the land lying along the Illinois River near the 
 Illinois Central Railroad, compared to the east and north 
 4012 bank of Section 21. The bank is lower, five feet lower. 
 The bank along the east of the land that lies west of the 
 Illinois Central Railroad, to the south and east of the 
 river, within a foot or so, is uniform in height. We took 
 a shot every 200 feet unless the surface changed. By 
 4013 taking a shot, I mean a man goes along the bank of the 
 river with the stadia board and the man at the instru- 
 ment sights and takes a shot every 200 feet along there. 
 If he sees a difference in the elevation he gets an inter- 
 mediate shot in there. We took the gauge readings every 
 day. The bank line is not the water line. I think there 
 
870 
 
 4014 is a difference between the elevation of the land in Sec- 
 tion 21 compared to Section 22 and 23, of about five feet. 
 
 The map was received in evidence, marked Defend- 
 ant’s Exhibit 281. 
 

 
 Je ea 22> | 
 
LAN 
 rt 
 1 (Wee 
 
 
 
 
 
 EPIN 
 phi 
 STER! 
 
 TE 
 
 
 
 ie 
 STREET 
 
 
 
 
 
 eed 
 MARQUET 
 
 
 
 r he eet 
 WENN! 
 
 CHAMBERS 
 sT LOUIS 
 ORLEANS 
 I 
 i 
 SS 
 _—— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 STREET 
 
 
 
 STREET 
 
 
 
 
 
 cof ste 
 - ~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tee 
 
 - \ : : 
 ae j sf we - - 
 Pata e COUNTY “Ae 
 S. *4 fee 
 
 A 
 ~~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SURVEY OF THE 
 
 ILLINOIS RIVER VALLEY 
 
 sc. a 28 Se ~ > na 2 a sh 7 la: 4 } ee AN, ‘ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
871 
 
 4016 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 The mark ‘‘elevation of water surface, October 30, 
 1906, 140’’ means that the water is 140 feet below Chi- 
 cago datum, at the time it was taken in November, 1906. 
 4017 Whenever these dates appear in connection with the 
 water surface, giving the date and elevation, it means 
 that readings were taken at that time in the river to de- 
 4018 termine the elevation. In making the comparison a 
 little while ago, between relative elevations the land 137.8 
 is higher than 140, by 2.2 feet. The map is drawn to a 
 scale, about 200 feet to an inch. The outlines of the tim- 
 ber and crops and other objects upon this land are 
 shown and depicted truly, correctly and accurately, as 
 4019 recorded in the field notes. The survey was made in 
 connection with the general survey from Joliet to Graf- 
 ton. I don’t know that it was made to be used in con- 
 nection with any particular law suit but it was not 
 changed nor magnified and no fact disclosed by the 
 eround or water surface was in any way changed in the 
 making of this survey, and each of the recorded objects 
 upon this plat appeared in the natural physical condition; _ 
 appeared as recorded here upon this plat. When I was 
 4020 making this plat for the purpose of depicting physical 
 conditions, I did not know on whose land I was making 
 the survey. I may have had an idea it was that of the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company but the plat was 
 not in any way, shape or manner changed from the 
 actual, physical conditions, for the purpose of this law- 
 suit. The heavy red line appearing on the plat around 
 the tracks that are numbered 2, 5 and 4 indicate the land 
 in question in this suit. That is the boundary of the 
 land, the outline of the land. 
 
87/2 
 
 Re-cross Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 4023 In making the survey along the river bank you don’t 
 shift your instrument every two or three feet until you 
 reach the brow of the hill. You try to get a uniform ele- 
 vation along there such as the natural eye would see, and 
 when you get to a point where you actually carry your 
 level, the land, taken as a whole, is practically level. 
 
 Re-re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 4024 Where the contour line, marked 135, shows it indicates 
 that the hand was five feet higher back there than the 
 back. That would be back probably about 15 or 20 feet. 
 
 Re-re-cross Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 4026 I never happened out there on that land prior to the 
 year 1905. I don’t know what its condition was in the 
 year 1900. I don’t know whether the bank of the river 
 was the same in 1905 as 1t was in the year 1900, or 
 whether the condition of the land itself was the same. 
 I don’t know a thing about it up until 1905. I don’t know 
 what changes might have taken place between the year 
 1900 and down to the year 1908. 
 
 4028 Jon Kominsxy, a witness called by the defendant, testi- 
 fied as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Joe Kominsky. I work for the C. B. & Q. 
 Railroad for over four years on the section. The sec- 
 tion is two miles east from the plow factory and four 
 miles and 1,500 feet west from the plow factory. I don’t 
 
 4029 go to Vermillion River. I go across the Illinois River. 
 I go about a mile and three-quarters. I had some trouble 
 
873 
 
 south of the Illinois River with my tracks. It would 
 slide. I have to raise them up; about five or six hundred 
 feet from the bridge; sometimes raise him about twelve 
 inches; sometimes fourteen inches. It would sometimes 
 show a hump and I have to raise the track to make him 
 4030 twelve inches; sometimes 14. Sometimes about five or 
 six months after will have to raise it again. I don’t know 
 how many times altogether, nor how much altogether I 
 had to raise the track; four or five times in the year. I 
 don’t know what makes the track sink. On either side 
 of this place where the sliding and sinking occurred the 
 4031 track didn’t sink there. It would show for eight or 
 nine or ten rail lengths. The rails are 28 and 30 feet 
 long. Up along the Vermillion it didn’t sink any more. 
 The track was right in that place, about eight rail lengths. 
 4032 The road bed is made of gravel and sand and cinders. 
 As you go near to the river it was made of the same 
 thing. 
 4033 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 Looking at Exhibit 18.° There is the C. B. & Q. Rail- 
 
 way running across the bottoms, or part of the bottoms. 
 
 ’ Here is the right of way of the Illinois Central. There 
 
 is what we call Jones’ Crossing. Here is the bridge 
 4034 across the Vermillion River. I don’t go within half a 
 4035 mile of Jones’ Crossing. The sinking of the track was 
 on the north side of Jones’ Crossing. It was on the east 
 side of the Illinois Central right of way, probably five or 
 
 six hundred feet, and extends for a distance of eight or 
 nine lengths of rails. The sliding of the track was, it 
 4036 just went down. That don’t happen along every place 
 there. It happened four or five times last year. It hap- 
 pened four or five times this year. I worked in charge of 
 that section for two years up from La Salle. I formerly 
 lived in Peru and had charge of the section in Peru. T 
 know that this place is sinking. I haven’t noticed any 
 
874 
 
 4037 of the piers in the river sinking. Nor any sinking along 
 the embankment. The embankment on the north side of 
 the river is the same height; just as high as the embank- 
 ment here. Hasn’t been any change in conditions there 
 at all. In the past two years I should say that all told 
 the track sank twelve to fourteen inches in each year. It 
 would make about twenty-four inches sinking since I 
 
 4040 have been there. I noticed the track sinking at other 
 
 4041 places along the road. It is sinking on the west from 
 Peru. It is about a mile and a half this side of Spring 
 Valley, it also is sinking; on the east side of Spring Val- 
 ley. I cover all told six miles and 1,500 feet. 
 
 4044 Brrr Srrauss, a witness called by the defendant, testi- 
 field as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Bert Strauss. I live in La Salle, [linois. 
 
 I am on a section of the Illinois Central. My section 
 runs from the north end of the Illinois River bridge to a 
 mile anda quarer south of Oglesbee. I know Jones’ Cross- 
 ing. Between the river and that crossing I have noticed 
 
 a sinking in the [llinois Central tracks. It has settled, 
 4045 I should judge,—I wouldn’t say positively the distance 
 but I would say about 200 feet south of the river bridge. 
 
 It is anywhere from two to four inches, I should judge. 
 Once a week or something like that I notice it. I raised 
 
 the track twice since I have been there since October 1st, 
 this last October. It needs levelling up now about four 
 inches. Including the four inches it needs raising now 
 and the two times I have fixed it since October, I would 
 
 say ithas sunk about fourteen inches. That has been since 
 4046 October. October 5th, I commenced to work for the Ili- 
 nois Central and it has been since then; October 5, 1912. 
 
879 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 It has been continually sinking in the same spot. In 
 that particular spot it has sunk twelve inches since the 
 oth of October of this year. IJ would say five or six rail 
 lengths that it gradually goes down. But there is about 
 three rail lengths that is the worst, I should say about 
 200 feet south of the Illinois Central Bridge, south of 
 
 4047 the river. That is the only bad spot that I have no- 
 
 4048 ticed. I don’t know how many piers there are on the 
 Illinois Central bridge, nor how wide the piers are, nor 
 how long. I couldn’t answer those questions. I don’t 
 know how high the Illinois Central bridge is nor how 
 high is the grade nor the embankment on which the rail- 
 road runs. I should judge from the bottom to the top it 
 is twenty feet; maybe more than that. JI am not sure. 
 
 4049 There are depressions at other places on the track but 
 this is the one place where it is worst. I have not been 
 acquainted with the Illinois Central for many years.. I 
 have lived in and around La Salle since the 1st of Octo- 
 
 4050 ber, 1912. I don’t know what causes the sinking or de- 
 pressions. 
 
 Joun Marrno, a witness called by the defendant, testified 
 as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is John Marino. I live in La Salle. I work 
 
 4051 for the Illinois Central. I work for the Illinois Central 
 from the river. I see the track go down. It goes down 
 4052 near Jones, north depot; about a mile and three-quar- 
 ters south of the Illinois Central bridge the track sinks 
 Sometimes a foot, sometimes four inches, sometimes six 
 inches. I have seen it sink two or three times. I have 
 been there three years, The track has been sinking all 
 
876 
 
 -the time. About forty rail lengths, more or less, we have 
 trouble with the track. There are other places that sink 
 only a little. 
 
 4054 Cross-Examination by Mr, O’Conor. 
 
 I know the bridge across the Illinois River. The place 
 I speak of the sinking is about a mile south of that. I 
 refer to the depot in Oglesbee. There are two depots in 
 Oglesbee. The old one and the new one; the north depot 
 and the south depot. The sinking was about one-sixth 
 4055 of a mile further south than the south depot. It might 
 have been more. The track has been sinking at that 
 point for the past three years; going down three or four 
 times; sometimes we go in there once a week, sometimes 
 4056 two. Sometimes the track sinks three inches, four or 
 five. That has been going on for three years at this 
 place. 
 
 4057 Otro Scuututz, called as a witness by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Otto Schultz. I reside in Peru. My busi- 
 ness is coal mining. I work in the mines of the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company and I am familiar with 
 the system of mining known as the long wall system. I 
 have worked at it for about 35 vears; several years in 
 iren mines and about thirty years in coal mines. I know 
 the third vein of coal in the La Salle field, and it goes 
 about three feet; sometimes a little more, three feet and 
 a half. 
 
 4058 They dig under the coal. That is what they call min- 
 ing. Sometimes they have two feet mining; sometimes 
 they have four or five; sometimes have two and a half 
 
877 
 
 feet mining; in the La Salle County Carbon Coal Com- 
 pany mining they undermine it sometimes two feet; 
 sometimes three feet. If the coal don’t break they mine 
 four feet. They put the dirt back that they take out. 
 4059 That is what they call the gob. After the coal is taken 
 out they have to put up props and they generally have 
 the coal props, they leave the props in there; sometimes 
 the props will stand for two or three months and won’t 
 break; some other places if you put them in to-day, to- 
 morrow when you come in again it is broke. The weight 
 comes on them. The prop has to break, that is all. Of 
 course, the earth settles and comes down. It don’t settle 
 very fast. Sometimes it settles pretty fast and some- 
 places it comes down about an inch and a half and some- 
 times two inches, befere you take the coal down, where 
 4060 the prop is down already. I have worked in places 
 where we took the coal out and the top was heavy and 
 ame down about two or three inches. Some places has 
 more weight on top than some other places. Sometimes 
 4061 it comes down very sudden. Other places it takes some 
 time. As the earth settles they have to brush the entries, 
 what they call brush; take some of them back; take two 
 feet of rock and brush off the inside, because the earth 
 settles there; sometimes about a foot; sometimes six 
 inches. That rock is brushed off to give the mule a chance 
 to travel, to get the coal out. It settles right along. It 
 settles gradually and I couldn’t tell exactly how much. 
 Some places, after a couple of years or so, the top and 
 the bottom might be together and there wouldn’t be any 
 gob left and then it is a squeeze right there; sometimes 
 there is a foot or so between. I have seen the gob 
 squeezed foot; sometimes it is narrower than that. It 
 4062 depends on just how the weight is. Some places there 
 is more weight than at others. The weight comes from 
 the top. It couldn’t come from below. All the coal is 
 
878 
 
 taken out in the long wall system of mining. They don’t 
 leave any pillars there except where there is maybe a 
 bridge or something like that where they have to leave 
 the coal. Otherwise, in the long wall, the coal is all taken 
 out. The coal is not taken out by the La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company under the Illinois Central bridge 
 at La Salle. 
 
 4063 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I was working in the La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company mine in 1881. There is a man here who was 
 mining coal there and they let the coal right there under 
 the Illinois Central bridge. It was not taken out from 
 under the railroad at that time. The Central was already 
 there and the land owned by the Central. I am living at 
 Peru now. I am doing outside work. Prior to that I was 
 working in No. 3 shaft in Spring Valley. It is about two. 
 
 4064 years since I worked, since I worked for the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company. I worked at that time at 
 the La Salle shaft That was at the depot near the 
 hinois Central. I worked there in ’81. I don’t think 
 they have mined underneath the City of La Salle from 
 that shaft. The work all went to one side. The other 
 side is not worked at all. I worked in the Union shaft, 
 
 4066 about 10 or 12 years ago. The workings of the Union 
 mine run south. J couldn’t tell how far south they run. 
 It is 10 or 12 years since I was working there. The Union 
 mine is located on the east line of Peru and their work- 
 ings run mostly east, up under La Salle and run north 
 and west under the City of Peru. They seem to work 
 steady in that mine. I couldn’t tell you where the south 
 
 4067 line of their workings now is. I don’t know whether 
 they are under the Rock Island Railroad there or not. 
 The C., B. & Q. and the Illinois and Michigan Canal are 
 both south of the Union mine at Peru. When I worked 
 
879 
 
 4069 in the La Salle shaft I worked on the east side, on three 
 south. I was driving in there. I think it was about a 
 
 4070 mile into the workings from the shaft. I don’t know 
 whether it was south from the Illinois River. Jn mining 
 with the long wall mining of coal, sometimes you use a 
 
 4071 sprag. Put a sprag in to hold back the coal. That is 
 the safest way. After you take the coal out the coal will 
 break down. The brushing is done by the coal company’s 
 men. The company has to keep that open. They keep 
 
 4072 the entry way at a certain height. The settling may 
 start in one day. It may start at once. It doesn’t, as a 
 
 4073 rule, take a week. When you are a mile away with the 
 work, the settling process where the coal is first gotten 
 out is settling. The earth settles right along. It may 
 
 4074 take quite a number of years before it is completed. I 
 don’t know what happens above. I know what happens 
 below. I can see where it settles, but what happens above 
 IT couldn’t tell you. I couldn’t tell from looking at the 
 top there if it had settled. I have lived in Peru and La 
 Salle a long time. 
 
 4075 JosEPH QUIGLEY, a witness called by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Joseph Quigley. I am general mine super- 
 intendent for the Walsh Brothers’ mine located at Mar- 
 4076 quette, Illinois. Marquette is four and a half miles from 
 Peru. I have been located and engaged at that mine 
 4076 about five years. In a general way I know the lands of 
 the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company, lying across 
 from Peru and east and west of the Illinois Central 
 tracks across from La Salle. I have looked them over. 
 
 T have been acquainted with the La Salle coal field for the 
 past five years. I have been engaged in the coal business 
 
880 
 
 all my life, since I was 11 years of age. JI am acquainted 
 with the vein of coal that was found in ‘the La Salle field 
 and I am familiar with the practical operation of those 
 mines. I have been engaged ag mining superintendent 
 for about 15 years. I have an opinion as to the fair 
 cash market value of these lands of the La Salle County 
 
 4077 Carbon Coal Company shortly after the 17th day of 
 January, 1900. I think the land is worth $150 per acre, 
 or two and one-half cents per ton. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 Yes, sir, I say that coal in the vicinity of La Salle was 
 
 worth $150 an acre in the year 1900, as far as my knowl- 
 
 4078 edge goes, because the field is practically unbroken. It 
 
 is practically the same class of coal as we are mining at 
 
 Marquette, the same thickness. J had no connection with 
 
 the purchase of coal lands in 1900 or in 1908. I did not 
 
 consider, in fixing my valuation, the surface of the land 
 
 at all. I considered the coal only. I would think that 
 
 the coal was worth the same just after 1900 as it was be- 
 fore 1900. 
 
 4079 Joun Copy, a witness called by the defendant, testified 
 as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is John Cody. I reside in La Salle, Illinois. 
 IT am a mine superintendent at Marquette, the third vein 
 coal mining company. The mine is located at Marquette, 
 Illinois. I am familiar with the location of the land of 
 the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company across the 
 river from Peru and La Salle and east and west of the 
 Illinois Central and C., B. & Q., in a general way. I have 
 been engaged in the. business of mining about 18 years. 
 
881 
 
 IT am working in the third vein at Marquette. We call it 
 
 4080 the third vein. I have been engaged in working the 
 third vein at Marquette about 15 years. I have an opin- 
 ion as to the fair cash market value of this property of 
 the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company shortly after 
 the 17th day of January, 1900. The coal rights would be 
 worth about $75. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 Coal always has been worth about $75 around La Salle. 
 
 I don’t know of any coal that was bought in the year 1900 
 
 4081 for $75 an acre. I don’t know that coal was bought at 
 
 that time not to exceed $30 an acre. Charley Devlin 
 
 opened up the property that the Walsh Brothers now 
 
 operate. J don’t know what Devlin paid for that coal 
 
 land down there per acre. It is not a fact he did not pay 
 
 to exceed $30 an acre for any of that coal in the year 
 
 1900. I am confining my answer strictly to the coal. I 
 
 am not testifying in regard to the surface at all. In my 
 
 4082 opinion coal would be worth the same price at any time. 
 It doesn’t make any difference when or where. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 Q. Referring to this land adjacent to Spring Valley, 
 the Marquette Company’s mine, do you know whether 
 vour management has offered $100 an acre for that coal 
 since— | 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: To which we object. 
 
 The Court: JI sustain the objection. 
 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 Re-cross Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 Q. Did Mr. Chiperfield represent the Walsh Broth- 
 ers? A. He does not, sir, I don’t think so. 
 Mr. O’Conor: That is all. 
 
882 
 
 4083 Apert LINDNER, a witness called by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Albert Lindner. I reside at Joliet. I took 
 gaugings on the Desplaines River during the months of 
 September and October, 1911. The gauge was located at 
 Brannan’s Bridge. I have got the records of the river 
 stages at those points. 
 
 Q. JI will ask you to produce them, if you please. 
 Now, I will ask you to commence with the Ist day of Sep- 
 tember and give the stage of water each day, and like- 
 wise for the month of October? 
 
 The first day of September, this is 6 4. m., 1.5 and in 
 the afternoon, 6 Pp. m., 1.95. On the 2nd, 1.6 in the a. m. 
 and 1,f in the p, m. ‘The 3rd, 1.5 in the A. mM, ands oem 
 
 4084 the p. m.; 1.6 in the a. m. on the 4th and 1.7 in the Pp. M. 
 On the 5th, 1.7 a4. m. and 1.55, p. m. The 6th, 1.65 a. m. 
 and 1.9p.m. The 7th,1.8 4. m.and1.8p.m. The 8th, 1.7 
 A.M. and1.8P.m. The 9th, 1.75 a. mM. and 1./5 P.M. “he 
 10th, 1.64. ™., 1.75. m. The 11th, 1.65 a. mw. and 1.65 p. mu. 
 The 12th, 1.75 a. m. and 1.75 p.m. The 13th, 1.7 a. m. and 
 1.65 p.m. The 14th, 2.05 a. m. and 2.2 p.m. The 15th, 1.9 
 A. M. and 1.85 p. Mm. The 16th, 1.85 a. m. and 1.8 Pp. Mo. 
 The 17th, 1.65 a. Mm. and 1.85 p. m. The 18th, 3.15 a, M. 
 2.75 p. mM. The 19th; 2.1 a. vw. and 1-9 p.m. The 20th 
 A. M, and 2.1 p.m. The 21st, 1:5 a. m. and 2. Pp. mM. ie 
 22d, 1.85 4.M.and15P.m. The 23d, 1.7 a. Mm. and 1ifoF 
 mM. The 23d, 1.75 4. mM. and 1.8 p.m. The 25th, Sagan 
 and 2.p.mM. The 26th, 1.85 a.m. and 2.05 p.m. ‘T'he 27th, 
 184.mM.and1.9pPr.m. The 28th, 2. a.m. and 1.7 p.m. The 
 29th, 1.8 4. m.and1.85 p.m. The 30th, 1.84. m. and 1.8 
 P. M. 
 
 October 1st, 1.6 a.m. and 1.9 ~.m. The 2d, 2. a. m. and 
 
883 
 
 4085 2.p.m. The 3d, 1.9 a.m. and 1.95 p.m. The 4th, 2.1 
 A.M. and 1.95 p.m. The 5th, 2.05 a. m. and 2. p.m. The 
 6th, 1.95 a. m. and 1.95 p. m. The 7th, 1.9 a. m. and 1.8 
 p.M. The 8th, 1.64. mM. and 2.p.m. The 9th, 2. a. m. and 
 2.2Pp.mM. The 10th, 1.9 a. m. and 2.05 p.m. The 11th, 1.7 
 A.M, and 1.95 p.m. The 12th, 1.9 a. m. and 2. p.m. The 
 13th, 1.85 a.m. and 19p.m. The 14th, 1.8 a. m., 1.85 
 p.M. The 15th, 1.6 4. m.,1.9 p.m. The 16th, 2. a. m., 2.1 
 p.M. The 17th, 2.05 a. m., 2. e..m. The 18th, 1.9 a. m., 2 
 Pee, the 19th, 2. a. mw., 1:95 Pp; ™: 
 
 This is where we change right here and we will say at 
 7 o’clock a mM. and 4:30 Pp. M. now. 
 
 The VO0th, 1:9 a. mi, 1.8 Pp. Mm. The 21st, 22. a, m.; 1585 
 Beem. The 22d, 2.05 4. mu., 2~/ um The 230,21 4. u., 1.79 
 p.M. The 24th, 2.4. m.,1.85 p.m. The 20th, 2.-a. m., 1.9 
 P.M. The 26th, 2.05 a. w., 1.95 p.m. The 27th, 2. a.m., 
 Porm. The 28th, 2.4. mio1-7 Pp. wm (he 29th, 1.9 a. 
 M., 1.60 P.M. The 30th, 1.9 4a. u., 1.85 p.m. The 31st, 2. 
 
 4086 a. M., 1.95 P. Mm. 
 
 When I use the expression 1.95 Pp, m. it means one foot 
 and ninety-five hundredths of a foot in the afternoon. 
 That gauge is nailed to a telegraph pole. It stands on 
 the southwest corner of Brannan’s Bridge. The tele- 
 graph pole is in the water. 
 
 4087 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 4088 My age is 40. I have lived in Joliet about eight years. 
 During that eight years my occupaton has been watching 
 on the I. & M. ©. Company. I watch the bank. I started 
 to work for the Sanitary District in March, 1908. I have 
 been reading the gauge for the District at Brannan’s 
 Bridge on the southwest side of the river. It is about 
 two miles from the court house in Joliet, west. It is not 
 
 4089 located right in the city. It spans the Desplaines River 
 and the drainage. There are three spans in Brannan’s 
 
884 
 
 4090 Bridge. JI should judge about 450 to 475 feet long. I 
 ‘wouldn’t swear how wide the stream is at that point, — 
 about 300, 350, 400 feet, I couldn’t tell you. This tele- 
 graph pole is on the southwest corner of the bridge. It 
 was an old telegraph pole, in the water there. There is 
 about two feet of water there now or three feet. That is 
 right along the edge of the stream. I couldn’t tell how 
 
 4091 much it is out in the center. JI never measured it. I 
 couldn’t tell you. It might be two feet, three feet; I 
 
 4092 don’t know, four feet or five, I couldn’t tell you. I take 
 the gauge readings only on the board. I don’t know who 
 put the board on the telegraph pole on the southwest cor- 
 ner of Brannan’s bridge. There was a board there be- 
 fore; somebody else had put the board there. ‘These 
 pages that I used as a memorandum, that is the original. 
 It put it down there first and then I copied the card every 
 Saturday afternoon. After I copied the card I mailed it 
 to Mr. Heilbron at Chillicothe. I just cut those pages out 
 
 4093 of the book. I looked at the gauge first and then go back 
 home and note it in the book. My home is about five or 
 six blocks from the bridge. JI would go down there and 
 read the gauge and then go back home and put it down 
 in the book and I have been doing that since 1908. On 
 page 19 I used these figures in testifying. I didn’t use 
 
 4094 November. It is all out of the book. I have it all from 
 1908 somewhere. I have got the others here somewhere 
 
 4095 in my book. On that mornng, September Ist, when I 
 went there at 6 o’clock there was 1.5. When I got back 
 
 4096 that afternoon at 6 o’clock it was 1.9. There was a half 
 a foot difference between six o’clock in the morning and 
 six o’clock in the evening of September 1st. On the even- 
 ing of September 13th there was only 1.65 of a foot of 
 water. On the morning of the 14th it was 2.05 of a foot. 
 On the night of September 19th at 6 o’clock there was 
 1.85 of a foot. In the morning at 6 o’clock there was 3.15 
 
585 
 
 of a foot. On the 20th of September there was 1.7 of a 
 foot at 6 o’clock in the morning. At 6 o’clock that same 
 evening there was 2.1 feet. On the 21st of September in 
 
 4098 the morning there was 1.5 feet. In the evening there 
 was 2. feet. There was a difference of six inches. 
 
 4099 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I read the gauge for the Sanitary District. I don’t 
 work for them in any other way. That is my full employ- 
 ment for the Sanitary District. I work for the I. & M. C. 
 I have been taking those gauges from that time down to 
 this. 
 
 4100 Crartes HorescH, a witness called by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Charles Hoesch. I reside in Peru, Illinois. 
 
 I have been in the saloon business for a while. I have 
 been a coal miner at one time. It is 11 years since I have 
 been a coal miner. I worked in the mines of the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company. I know the third vein of 
 coal to a certain extent. JI know the method of long wall 
 mining. Ccal is removed in long wall mining by under- 
 4101 mining the coal. Ordinarily the coal taken out varies 
 from six inches to two or three or four feet, according 
 to the way the coal breaks. In the place where I worked, 
 between 12 and 18 inches was taken away. Then the coal 
 is removed. By taking the coal away from under the roof 
 the roof naturally settles and it breaks before you can 
 take her away most of the time. Props are put under 
 the roof. When the weight comes down sometimes they 
 break and sometimes they don’t with the weight. The 
 distance that the roof comes down depends on just what 
 
886 
 
 4102 weight is on top of it. It settles from 16 to 18 inches 
 in the course of time. The dirt that is taken out in under- 
 mining is naturally throwed backwards into the empty 
 spaces. As the roof comes down it would naturally 
 squeeze together. Sometimes it settles quick and then 
 again the bottom raises up and covers so that you can’t 
 tell which way it settles. As far as I have seen the thick- 
 ness of the dirt, when the roof and the bottom are to- 
 gether, 1s 18 or 20 inches; 12 to 18 inches of the dirt is 
 
 4103 taken ont. Sometimes you don’t take no dirt out at all 
 when you mine the coal. Ordinarily you take out as 
 much as I said before. That is thrown back. It stands 
 there just as it was thrown out until the roof starts to 
 come down and when the roof starts to come down in time 
 
 4104 it is squeezed together. T have seen the entries. After 
 they have driven an entry and after the work moves for- 
 ward it is necessary to brush it out; you have to take 
 down some rock. I haven’t any observation of it myself, 
 not exactly. They take off 10 to 12 inches, and then they 
 have to take off more afterwards. They take off after- 
 
 4105 wards 10 or 14 inches. It 1s according to the entries, if 
 they have te take off any more as it settles. Afterwards 
 they take off about the same. I can’t tell you whether 
 they take off any more than 24 to 28 inches. According 
 to the way the roof settles, sometimes it is stationary 
 for a long time and then the bottom raises or the roof 
 squeezes down. They have to take off more than 18 to 
 20 inches in the brushing of the roof. I can’t tell you 
 how much more. 
 
 4106 Cross-Exanunation by Mr. Butters. 
 
 In my estimation the distance up that the earth is af- 
 fected by the coming together of the roof and the floor 
 depends upon the slate. There is a slate roof over there 
 and from there soapstone up to the roof and that settles, 
 
887 
 
 and further up to the sandstone, and how far up that is, I 
 
 couldn’t tell you. The break is according to the progress 
 
 of the mine. I couldn’t tell you whether it is ever more 
 
 than fifty or sixty feet above. As the particles break 
 
 loose it takes more to fill, more space. As it breaks it 
 4107 takes a different formation. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I didn’t see any illustration that it occupies more space 
 as the weight comes down from above. The rock packs 
 again, crosses each other. The roof comes down and it 
 comes down because there is some tremendous weight 
 above pressing it down. 
 
 4108 Witi1am Miter, a witness called by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is William Miller. I reside in Peru. At pres- 
 ent my business is that of a painter. I have been engaged 
 in the business of mining. I have been a miner 26 years. 
 I have worked in the shafts of the La Salle County Car- 
 bon Coal Company. I know the third vein of coal that is 
 mined in those shafts. That coal 1s mined by the long 
 wall system of mining. In the long wall system of min- 
 ing you get the coal out by undermining it and then it 
 
 4109 breaks from the top. The amount they have to under- 
 mine it depends on how the weight comes. They gener- 
 ally undermine it a foot or two or probably three feet 
 and then the coal has got to be wedged down. The vein 
 of coal is from a foot to three feet thick. If they need it 
 they put props in them. The roof settles down after the 
 coal is taken out. The roof comes down to the packing. 
 
 Q. Does it at any time squeeze or press that packing 
 together? <A. Yes, sir. 
 
888 
 
 4110 It comes down until everything that is packed under it 
 gets into a solid mass. I have known the roof to come 
 down probably 20 feet. From the top to the bottom I 
 mean, 20 feet. If these props are not taken out they 
 break. I have observed the entries and roadways of the 
 mines. After the work has advanced it is necessary to 
 brush these entries. In the course of four or five years, 
 as the work advances, they take off probably three or 
 
 4111 four feet. It depends on what direction it is. Ordina- 
 rily it is three or four feet. They don’t brush that off 
 all at once. They brush it just the way it settles down. 
 The idea of brushing is to keep the road high enough to 
 take the coal out. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I live in Peru. I am 44 years old. I have lived in 
 Peru over 30 vears. The last work I done for the la 
 Salle County Carbon Coal Company was a little over two 
 
 4112 years ago. J sav that I have noticed the effect from the 
 roof coming down, coming up into the earth 20 feet; that 
 is right in front. Living in Peru for the last 30 years I 
 have been over the streets a good deal and up and down 
 the hills there. 
 
 (. Have you ever noticed any effect down in the City 
 of Peru, anywhere, either on top of the bluff or below the 
 bluff, or any part of the bluff, cement sidewalks, paving, 
 street car tracks or anywhere else, or in any of the build- 
 ings, on the surface of the earth from the mining of the 
 eoal in that region? 
 
 Objected to by the defendant as not proper cross- 
 examination. 
 
 The Court: T think J will let him answer. 
 
 Defendant excepts. 
 4113. A. Yes, sir 
 
 a 
 
889 
 
 I have seen it down on Water street in a building in 
 Peru. It ain’t occupied now. It is empty. Used to be a 
 saloon in there kept by a fellow named Mackey. I don’t 
 know how it came to affect that one building particularly. 
 I don’t knew what did that. I haven’t noticed any effect 
 on the paving in Peru. I haven’t noticed any effect on 
 the cement sidewalks. I haven’t noticed any effect on 
 the street car tracks. 
 
 4114 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfeld. 
 
 In that building I seen the front settled down on it, 
 
 eracked. I know where Split Rock is located. I have 
 
 4115 been down to the river. From the river towards the town 
 
 there is a big ledge of rock. I don’t know that it is 70 or 
 
 80 feet in thickness. Where the Rock Island Railroad is 
 
 at La Salle there is still a high ledge of rock above the 
 
 top of that railroad station. That ledge of rock isn’t 
 found down on the bottom at all. 
 
 Re-cross Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I have noticed at Split Rock the dip that it takes down 
 into the earth. It is down beneath that that we find the 
 coal. I think the coal peters out in there. 
 
 4116 Re-direct Examination by Mr, Chiperfield. 
 
 There is a layer of sand rock above the slate and the 
 
 slate is right above the soapstone, and the coal is right 
 4117 under the soapstone. The soapstone is the roof. Of 
 that soapstone there was at least from three to four feet. 
 
 Re-re-cross Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 Above the coal we find the soapstone. The coal lies 
 right next to the soapstone and then the next strata is 
 slate and then we come to the soapstone. 
 
89U 
 
 4118 Further Re-direct Examination by Mr. Cliperfield. 
 
 The slate is different. I have seen it as thick as one, 
 two or three feet. 
 
 4119 Juttus Mossspacu, a witness called by the defendant, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr, Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Julius Mossbach. I reside in Peru. My 
 business has been in the lumber yard, May’s Lumber 
 Yard. I have been engaged in the lumber business since 
 
 4120 1858. Why naturally I would observe the high water 
 in the Llinois River. I did. Before the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict was opened in 1900 I observed lots of high water 
 there. Well, generally it would come up in the spring 
 and there was off years it would come up during the 
 summer; different ways. If it is a kind of a wet season 
 we had it would bring the river up. In 15 years before 
 the Sanitary District was opened I did note the high 
 water on the river. I observed just as high water as 
 
 4121 I ever had. The water came up into my lumber yard. 
 I fell in there one time, about up to here, in the yard. 
 I fell in between two rafts. When the high water came 
 up we had the lumber lying down there, a couple of boat 
 loads of lumber and the high water came up and floated 
 them all off and we went up as far as where the ice 
 works is now and I had to boom it to keep it in. I was 
 in there after it and I went down with it one Sunday. I 
 had two rafts and the first thing that happened I was in 
 it, away up on high ground; no bottom. That was just 
 where the office of the coal shaft stands, about two rods 
 west. There was a bottom there but it was not in my 
 
 4122 reach. It didn’t do-me much good. The place where I 
 went down is about three rods north of Water street, 
 
891 
 
 north; up close to the Rock Island track. That is where 
 
 I went in. I had a raft there keeping it in the water. 
 
 It filled up, took it up there; after the water went out 
 
 we piled it up again. I know where a certain culvert 
 
 in Peru is located. That was after the ice came in 
 there and I had to run for my life there. It drove me 
 back; big cakes of ice that went up on this side and on 
 
 the other side and I tried to hold some of the ice back 
 below and I had to run because it flopped over. This 
 4123 culvert is there yet. It is on Water street. It is about 
 five rods this side of the office. I know where that row 
 
 of stone and brick buildings is in Water street in Peru, 
 those buildings that face Water street. I know where 
 
 the entrances and door and thresholds of those build- 
 ings are. There hasn’t been any change in the level of 
 those doors and thresholds but in the road. I think the 
 4124 road is about two feet higher. That culvert is there 
 yet on the level of Water street. I know section 21 
 right across from Peru. I have observed the ice on 
 section 21. Section 21 was all covered many times. I 
 have observed it before the Sanitary District was opened, 
 within 15 years before the Sanitary District was opened, 
 4125 I have observed the ice going across section 21. Right 
 here is the bend (illustrating on map) in through here. 
 
 It comes up through here, the bend. The river makes 
 
 a big bend and comes down by Shippingsport and then 
 strikes the bottom below this point and runs right over 
 into Peru.. When the ice came it went through here 
 ~with a boom and struck right over here in this slough, 
 MecCormick’s slough. It came across the land. It eut off 
 
 the top of a big elm tree in here. It must be 14 feet 
 above the ground where the ice had eut that tree off. 
 4126 That was located south from there, near the Waugh 
 farm. On the map there is Water street (indicating). 
 
 It is close to 14 feet, above the ground. <A big elm tree 
 
892 
 
 and that was done in the ice of 1858. In 1858 that was 
 
 4127 done, but you could see it 15 years afterwards. I saw 
 the people who farmed that land. They husked corn 
 right below it on the other side of the slough with skiffs. 
 I saw them up there with skiffs. I couldn’t see any- 
 thing there but right across from Peru, below there, 
 that round piece in there, why I saw them husking corn 
 and they did husk corn in skiffs. There is a bridge in 
 the Peru road where it crosses the Huse slough. There 
 is a road across there containing a bridge. I know of 
 
 4128 their constructing work with reference to that bridge 
 for the purpose of protecting it from the ice that came 
 across the land. Some years ago we had to go over 
 there when the bridge company was there, and May was 
 one of the company and Huse and others and we went 
 over there one time and we put in big elm trees, so 
 if the ice should come above the bridge it would slide up 
 on them and save the bridge. I have seen it over these 
 bottoms 10 feet deep for that matter. I ain’t seen no 
 boats in the bottoms; I haven’t. This water was about 
 10 feet deep when the ice goes; that is generally when 
 the ice goes out. We rafted the lumber and held it there 
 until the water got away and then we separated it. We 
 
 4129 put cedar poles around it, the boom that we put around 
 it was cedar poles; cedar poles and then lashed them 
 together right there in Water street. Why one Sunday 
 morning we went down there and I had to get $75 worth 
 of ropes to hold the boom and bring the rope clear up 
 t the Rock Island to bold them. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 4130 [I am 78 years old. Yes, Il am going back to 1858. The 
 ice | speak of was there in 1858 and the year the tree 
 was cut. J don’t remember when we had the last high 
 water in Peru. High water comes there now. I don’t 
 
893 
 
 think it is anything different than it used to be. I can’t 
 4131 tell the year, but I remember one year in the month 
 of May, it may have been 1892, yes, I think we had tre- 
 mendous high water in 1883. The year we lost the lum- 
 ber was before that. We didn’t lose any lumber, we 
 ketched it. I never kept any track of the years. It 1s 
 a few years before 1880. I have been with the Mays 
 4132 ever since I started. I think it was around 1876 when 
 the high water affected the lumber. I think that section 
 21 is the piece of land there in the lower bottom. I 
 didn’t try to buy any of the land there before 1900 but 
 4133 Mr. May did; 100 acres. I didn’t put any value on this 
 land but May told me if we could buy that land over 
 there it would probably be worth something. That was 
 the time there was some good crops on there, three 
 years succeeding, good crops. I don’t remember what 
 vear that was. That land was all in corn at that time. 
 4134 Mr. May had rented that and we put some stock down 
 there and we put some fences in there to keep the cattle 
 in. We put on temporary fences. It was not necessary 
 to take them down, when the water came, it took them 
 along. J had a few acres myself planted in there. I 
 don’t remember the year. It was considered good corn 
 land; raised good crops. When the water kept away it 
 was good. We had a big crop of corn down there. Yes, 
 we could get good corn there when the water kept away. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 We figured upon getting four or five years out of ten 
 upon that land. I had a friend down there working 
 and I helped him financially and he had at least two 
 years when he was drowned out. He came to me and 
 said, ‘‘Give me a hundred dollars and I will try it again.’’ 
 I said, ‘‘You better not try it any more.’’ Well, he 
 went on and he failed again; he lost everything he put 
 
894 
 
 in. That was three years straight and after that three 
 years, the fourth year he got a good crop again. 
 
 Re-cross Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I remember the crops that were raised on this land 
 in 1893. Just as quick as the Chicago lumber ceased 
 and we had nothing more to do in the river with sorting 
 and piling of lumber, down at the water’s edge, why I 
 had no further interest in it. I didn’t care whether the 
 
 4136 bottoms were up or down. I paid no attention to it. Mr. 
 Waugh pastured some cattle on that piece. I don’t know 
 anything about that. I have not farmed any of that 
 land in the last thirty years. I don’t know what was 
 raised on it between 1890 and 1902. I was where I could 
 see the crops. Some nice corn over there and I have 
 seen some poor corn. Some nice corn generally when 
 they had no water and the crop would not get wet. It 
 
 4137 would run all the way from 70 to 80 bushels of corn. 
 I think the story of their getting 100 bushels to an acre 
 is all talk. When you get 60 to 80 bushels of corn 
 you can be satisfied. That is a big yield. Sometimes 
 they got 60 to 80 bushels; sometimes they didn’t. There 
 is pieces over there, that is high pieces, where they got 
 good corn; very seldom that the ice is over there. Sec- 
 tion 21 is as good land as you could find anywhere in 
 the neighborhood. 
 
 Re-re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I have no recollection of any cattle being drowned 
 
 there by high waters coming up on the bottoms. I re- 
 
 4138 member of them having to take cattle out of there. They 
 
 put fences there temporarily. We had a bridge across 
 
 there. That land was always regarded as a gamble, 
 whether you could get a crop out of it or not. 
 
895 
 
 4139 Joun J. Miter, a witness called by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as folows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is John J. Miller. I reside at Peru, Illinois. 
 
 I have been stationary engineer for a good many years; 
 also superintendent of the water light plant; four years 
 street superintendent. I am now employed at a place 
 ealled the American Hlectrie Light Company. I was for- 
 merly employed by the Heins Lumber Company. I started 
 
 to work for them in 1873 and continued until about 1900. 
 The mill was moved from the south side of what we 
 eall Water street to the north side and then about 300 
 feet to the east, in 1887, in the fall of the year. After 
 4140 we moved the mill we had some very high water in 
 the ’80’s, in the late ’80’s. The first high water I re- 
 member was in 1892. That was very high. At the place 
 where the mill is now it did not damage it any there. 
 One time they had an overflow before we moved. That 
 was prior to 1887; I couldn’t state exactly the year; it 
 was in the ’80’s. It came almost up to our grates in 
 
 the boilers. They were perhaps something like two feet 
 
 or two and a half lower than the level of the street. 
 4141 The boilers were in the south side of the building. The 
 building was standing on the south side of Water street, 
 practically overhanging the river. I would judge it was 
 
 22 or 24 feet above the level of the river in low water. 
 
 I haven’t the exact measurements. The water at that 
 time was in the cellars along Water street, across the 
 street. The thresholds of the stores and doors and cellars 
 
 in those old buildings stand today just as they were at 
 that time. The level of Water street has not been changed 
 
 at all; not to my knowledge. There may have been a 
 4142 trifle when they brick the road. The thresholds and 
 
896 
 
 doors and cellars of the buildings, with one or two ex- 
 ceptions, are just the same as they were then. I re- 
 member the current of the Illinois River before the Sani- 
 tary District waters were turned into the valley. I 
 eouldn’t make any statement of how much at low water 
 but there wasn’t hardly any. Many times we. had a 
 green scum over there and it stayed for weeks in the 
 summer. There was very little current. Since the Sani- 
 tary District water went in there there is a difference 
 in the current. I couldn’t answer exactly, but it has a 
 4143 pretty fair current there now. There is a little differ- 
 ence in the stage of the river in low water now than 
 from what it was then. It is a litle higher in low water. 
 We had marks on the stones and on those buildings. I 
 don’t think it was a foot. I think it was between six 
 inches and a foot.: I know Henry Meyers, the bridge 
 tender. I know the bottom, lands immediately in the 
 vicinity of his place over there. I have seen them every 
 day for forty years. Henry Meyers, in the last two or 
 three years, has raised garden truck over there; all kinds 
 of small stuff to sell; bring it around peddling it around 
 places. I guess it made a pretty fair crop, so far as I 
 know. I know the lands of the La Salle County Carbon 
 Coal Company across the Illinois River in section 21 
 4144 and also east and west of the Illinois Central Railroad. 
 I am acquainted and have an opinion as to the value of 
 the Jands mentioned, shortly after the Sanitary District 
 was opened. Lands were sold right there for $45. I 
 4145 never was in the land business and I didn’t buy any. I 
 should say that that land was worth in the neighborhood 
 of $45 to $50. I know of transfers that were made in 
 that neighborhood. I know of a sale to McCaleb from 
 Mr. McCormick. The land was located just south of Water 
 street, Just where the road bends to the southwest. There 
 was a portion of it lying on the west side of the other 
 
897 
 
 portion to the southeast, across the river road. It was 
 close to this land. The sale was made, I should judge, 
 along about 1896 or 1897. To the best of my knowledge 
 I worked close to the man who bought it; I think it 
 
 4146 was $45 per acre. I know of the sale of the Huse & 
 Loomis land to Ernat Brothers. The Huse & Loomis 
 Company had a representative there who used to live in 
 Peru. His name was Herman Bent. He came up and 
 made the deal. We were neighbors and friends. He 
 lived in the same place I did and he came up and made 
 a deal. To the best of my knowledge it was about 1899 
 to 1901; along in there somewhere. There was some- 
 thing like 250 acres and the consideration was in the 
 neighborhood of $45 per acre. I understood from him 
 that the coal was not sold at that time but was included 
 
 4147 in the sale. The Ernats bought the coal along with 
 the land. They afterwards sold the coal. 
 
 Jross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I think the Sanitary District water was turned in about 
 
 1900. I couldn’t tell you how many acres are in section 
 
 21 lying south and west of the river and east of McCor- 
 4148 mick’s slough. I know where section 21 is located. I 
 don’t know how much was in cultivation in the year 1900. 
 That would have nothing to do with my placing a value 
 
 on the land. I was figuring on all of it. There was 
 some of it that was poor, slough, and so forth. I don’t 
 know how much of it was under cultivation. I know 
 they raised corn there. I saw Mr. Waugh when he 
 was farming it. He had it rented out many times. The 
 4149 transactions on the land were made in that neighbor- 
 hood and about that time. In making my estimate I cer- 
 tainly included the coal, only some of it was not sold. 
 4150 I don’t know what they paid for the coal in the year 
 1900. I think that the coal was valued something like 
 
898 
 
 $12 or $15 up to $20 an acre. I didn’t hear of any one 
 giving $75 an acre for coal about the year 1900. I don’t 
 know anything about the value of coal in the year 1900, 
 not taking the coal alone. I didn’t hear what the peo- 
 ple were getting for it. I understood they were getting 
 4151 from $15 to $25 per acre. That is what it was sold for 
 at that time, so far as I know. In placing a valuation 
 upon the surface of the land, in the neighborhood of $35 
 or $40 an acre, I didn’t keep the dates but it was in 
 the neighborhood of 1900, a year or so before and a 
 year or a short time afterwards, the land was worth, 
 4152 the surface was worth in the neighborhood of $25 to $35 
 an acre. I knew the condition of the land from the 
 year 1893 down to the year 1901. I don’t know who was 
 farming it during that period. I don’t know how many 
 acres were in crop. I know that some of the years 
 they raised good corn there. I know of my own knowl- 
 edge and I was over the ground during some of thosé 
 4153 years. I didn’t farm any of it during those years; 
 never farmed any of it in my life. I don’t know how 
 much that land would run in bushels. If the water didn’t 
 catch it it was good corn land. I remember the high 
 water of 1892. The bottoms were flooded that year. I 
 remember the high waters of 1883. I think that was be- 
 fore we moved our business. Those two years stand out 
 prominently as years of high water. A good many acres 
 of it was in cultivation during the years 1883 down 
 to 1892; | don’t know the number of acres; never farmed 
 any bottoms anywhere; never had any experience in 
 farming bottom lands; never farmed any land anywhere. 
 TI owned some land. I own some land today. I own some 
 4154 land in Nebraska. I never owned any land in Illinois. 
 IT had in mind, in placing my valuation, the use that the 
 land could be put to. It could be used the same as before 
 if the water didn’t—I had in mind to raise corn whenever 
 
899 
 
 4155 the water didn’t get them. That is what I had in mind 
 at that time. I didn’t particularly consider the land as 
 desirable or didn’t think of it for truck gardening pur- 
 poses. They might have raised cabbages and carrots 
 and spinach and lettuce. They could have raised some 
 millet. I guess they could have raised cow peas. I don’t 
 know what it would have been worth for that purpose. 
 
 4156 I didn’t pay any attention to the land any more than I 
 know about these other sales. That 1s what I base my 
 judgment on. I don’t know how many acres were in 
 McCormick’s piece. McCormick had quite a tract there. 
 It was divided by the river. That is further down west. 
 Some of the McCormick land was lower than section 21. 
 The Braun place was considered as good as the Waugh 
 
 4157 place. I think they farmed their land together. I never 
 bought or sold any bottom lands myself. I took into 
 consideration, in fixing the valuation, the productivity of 
 the land, what the land produces. I answered in view 
 of what I knew from the time I started to work up there. 
 
 4158 I have seen where they planted the corn many times 
 in the spring and then again in June, when it was up 
 perhaps a foot high and in a day or two the water was 
 over it. Sometimes they went to work and replanted 
 it again and then it was a failure. Those years I am 
 speaking of was exactly before 1900. There was one 
 year, it was in 1898, that year I remember. 1898, yes, I 
 remember that year. A flood came when the corn was up 
 quite high and in 24 hours afterwards no one could get 
 in with a plow. If I had money I would not invest it 
 in no bottom land. I don’t know exactly when the Sani- 
 tary water was turned in but I think it was in 1898. The 
 water came up on the land in the summer or in the 
 
 4159 spring, after the planting of the corn. I remember 
 Mr. Waugh’s farm was rented out, and Braun’s. There - 
 were quite a few of the teamsters farming in there. I 
 
900 
 
 don’t know whether Ed Pyka was in there. I don’t know 
 whether Joe Greiner was in there that year: Some of 
 them farmed that land. If they replanted it in 1898 they 
 might have got some good corn yet in some of the higher 
 4160 places. I remember the year 1898 when the corn was 
 that high and they couldn’t get in. It might have been 
 replanted and they got some off of the high land; that 
 might have been. I don’t remember exactly how it was 
 in 1897. I can’t say for sure about them years but there 
 was several times; yes, sir, a good many times. I remem- 
 ber the year 1892. I told you about the high water in 
 1893. J couldn’t answer you that question as to whether 
 ' the erop planted in the years 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896 and 
 4161 1897 was disturbed at all. The crop was lost in the 
 flood of 1883. Several times between the year 1883 down 
 to the year 1892 the water came up on the land and af- 
 fected the crops. I couldn’t mention just what years. I 
 should judge every fourth year, or something like that. 
 
 Q. Does the water come up there today as much as it 
 did before? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Not much difference though, is there? A. Oh, I 
 don’t know, there is some, perhaps. 
 
 There is a couple of places there that they don’t farm 
 as much later years as they did before. The low places, 
 of course, it might have been a little more. There are 
 low spots in that piece; pieces that are not as high as 
 others. It is not uniform in height. I told you before I 
 don’t know how much of it is not planted today that was 
 
 4163 planted before 1900. I don’t know if it is a fact that not 
 half as much is planted today as was before 1900. It 
 may be. In the last eight or nine years some mighty 
 good corn was raised there; I have seen some of it, yes. 
 I haven’t seen any of it this year. I saw some of it 
 last year that was mighty good; when they hauled some 
 across the bridge. Maybe the water did get up on the 
 
901 
 
 land in some places last year in September and flooded 
 the crop; it might have been on some places, I don’t 
 know. I didn’t see it there in 1911. I told you where 
 4164 I lived before. I didn’t change my place; was where 
 I could see the river every day. I have no recollection 
 as to the time the water came up and covered section 
 21 last year. I couldn’t tell you what time it was last 
 year that I met a wagon of mighty good corn coming 
 across the Peru bridge. I don’t know whether it was 
 4165 in October or November. I don’t know what the condi- 
 tion of the weather was at that time. Do you think I[ 
 know all them people that drive wagons? I don’t know 
 the name of the driver of that wagon. I don’t know 
 whether it is any of your business whether I was rid- 
 4166 ing or walking or what I was doing. Maybe I was sit- 
 ting down. I did answer that question. I told you I 
 was down on Water street and saw them come across 
 there. Now, was I walking or standing still or driving, 
 I don’t know that that makes any difference to 
 you. I didn’t meet the wagon on the bridge. I 
 told you I saw the wagon coming across the bridge. I 
 was east of the bridge when I met the wagon. The 
 4167 man drove east. I don’t know who the man was. There 
 are some cribs located west of the road on Water street. 
 They were not hauling that corn to the cribs. I was on 
 the sidewalk at the time I met the corn. The wagon 
 4168 was on the street going east; that is what I told you. 
 To be sure I stopped when I seen the wagon; stand- 
 ing there watching them drive east. To be sure I could 
 see the corn in the wagon from the sidewalk. It was 
 4169 just a common box wagon with a top on. I don’t know 
 about what the height of a double wagon box is. To be 
 sure the corn was up above the top. I know the color 
 4170 of the corn. The color was like any other corn we bring 
 4171 in at that time of the year. It was like any other corn 
 
902 
 
 4172 they bring out of the bottoms. J told you it was like 
 any other corn they bring out of the bottoms, any other 
 corn they haul in there. It was yellow. 
 
 Cuunton D. Sargeant, a witness called by the defendant, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Clinton D. Sargeant. I reside in Utica. I 
 work for the Utica Farmers’ Klevator Company at the 
 present time. I own a farm in Waltham township. I 
 know of the drainage operations in Waltham and Wallace 
 townships. ‘Those drainage operations are a drainage 
 ditch about six miles long, the main chanel. It is sup- 
 posed to be six-foot bottom and twelve-foot top, but we 
 don’t run that way according to the grade. According 
 to the grade, vou know, the ditch is in some places ten 
 feet deep and some places six. There must be about 
 3,000 acres in there. It discharges into the Pecum- 
 Sauggam Creek. I can’t tell you just exactly the sec- 
 tion. It empties back seven miles from the river. The 
 
 4174 Peceumsauggam creek empties into the Illinois River. 
 Yes, I know the drainage district that drains into Indian 
 or Buck creek. That is known as the Freedom Drainage 
 Ditch. I don’t know how much land is drained by that. 
 Previous to the draining of this territory in Waltham 
 and Wallace townships the land was swampy, practic- 
 ally, swamps, and since it is the finest in the country. 
 Our land was sold out on the 20th of September, 1899. 
 It is upland, well improved, ves, sir. My business has 
 been farming. J have been engaged in the oovernment 
 service, in the capacity of railway mail service clerk. I 
 
 4175 am now supervisor of Utica Township. I know the land 
 across from Peru and La Salle, east of the Peru road 
 and east and west of the Illinois Central right of way 
 
903 
 
 elaimed by the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. 
 I know them, yes, sir. In my judgment and opinion 
 that land, just before January 17, 1900, was worth from 
 $30 to $50. ) 
 
 Cross-Examimation by Mr, Butters. 
 
 4176 The basis for estimating the value of land is improve- 
 ments, and so forth. The productivity has something 
 to do with it. The question of fertilizing has not en- 
 tered into the question with farmers until the last few 
 years. It has something to do with it. Those drainage 
 districts were in Wallace and Waltham Townships. It 
 was finished about 1900; it was started out 1886 and fin- 
 ished later. I wouldn’t be positive as to whether it 
 opened into the Peccumsauggam creek in 1896, in the 
 spring. Yes, I know something about it. I hauled the 
 stuff away from it. I had a contract to haul the dredge 
 to Utica. I wouldn’t say positively that was the spring 
 
 4177 of 1896. It was along about 1900 it was finished; from 
 1896 to 1900 it was finished. It took them quite a while 
 to put that through. They commenced down at the bot- 
 tom end, what we eall the Probst farm. The overflow 
 always did go into the Peccumsauggam creek. That is 
 the only outlet it had. I am familiar with the land on 
 either side of the Illinois Central, on section 23, to the 
 extent of being over it and seeing it. IJ used to haul 
 brick off of some of it. I have seen something growing 
 on it before 1900. I have seen it when there wasn’t a 
 
 4178 good crop on it between 1893 and 1900. I can’t say to 
 give positive years, but we used to figure four crops out 
 of five: four crops out of five. It is commonly under- 
 stood by those who are familiar with bottom lands, if they 
 get four crops out of five, it will produce more than up- 
 
 4179 land. That is what I have heard. Yes, that is what 
 
904 
 
 we have always been led to understand. I don’t know 
 how much that land has been running an acre. No, sir, I 
 never saw any corn come off that land. I don’t know 
 anything about it. Yes, sir, I have farmed bottom lands 
 further up east; worked on it. I would not change my 
 opinion whatever, if this land, from the year 1893 down, 
 to the year 1900 produced nine consecutive crops aver- 
 aging from 50 to 60 bushels an acre; simply because it 
 is never considered sure. Yes, the uplands, that is tile 
 drained, there is a partial failure there once about every 
 eight or nine years; that is all true. Yes, you run a 
 4180 chance, certainly. I am not prejudiced against bottom 
 lands so that I would deprive them of their value. Up- 
 land was worth in 1900 about $75. No, I am not getting 
 that low. Ours sold on the 20th for $75 to $/7.50se8 
 4181 don’t know that lots of lands, farms, in this country, 
 were sold for $100 or thereabouts, from $90 to $100 in 
 the year 1898. I don’t know that. I say that it is the 
 fact and ours was sold at auction. Yes, ours was a pub- 
 lic sale and that is why I base my opinion on that. I 
 should say it was worth only $30 to $50 because there is 
 no improvement on it and you can’t keep a fence or any- 
 thing else on it. I consider improvement on a farm of 
 some value. I took into consideration the fact you are 
 never required to seed it down with clover or use other 
 4182 fertilizer. You have got to have somebody work there 
 that depends on something else for a living. I am aware 
 of the fact that building sites ean be had in close proxim- 
 ity to this land in the City of Peru. I discount it that 
 way. It is simply my notion of it, my opinion, yes, sir. 
 T base my opinion on the risk. I discount it on the risk 
 and the value of improvements and so forth. The ex- 
 treme productiveness of the land is an unknown quantity. 
 
905 
 
 4183 Owen McDermott, a witness called by the defendant, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfild. 
 
 My name is Owen McDermott. I reside on Ninth street, 
 
 La Salle. My business has been teaming for the last 
 
 25 years. I know Charles Dooley. He is farming Carbon 
 Coal Company land north of La Salle. He is farming. 
 
 I guess he gets a share. I have known the bottoms down 
 
 on the Ilinois River about as long as I can remember. 
 4184 My age is 68 years. I know a man by the name of 
 Clark and Rockwell. I think they were ‘the first that 
 broke it up. That is east of the Central bridge. I was 
 away from here for twelve vears during the ’70’s, up to 
 "1882, and from 1870 to 1882, I was at Livingston, so I 
 couldn’t tell what the high water was on the Illinois River 
 during that time. I returned in 1882 and since that time 
 
 I have lived right over there in La Salle. I have had 
 
 an opportunity since I came back to observe the high 
 waters of the Illinois River and the bottoms across the 
 river don’t overflow quite as quick as they do on this 
 side. I didn’t observe the bottoms over there a great 
 deal. My work never took me over there. I have been 
 4185 acquainted with them for a considerable time. TI don’t 
 really know what they are valued at since, but in the ’60’s 
 they were selling at from $30 to $35. Well, I couldn’t 
 
 tell what they are worth since. I couldn’t tell you what 
 4186 they have been worth since. T couldn’t tell you the value 
 of these lands just before 1900. I can’t express an opin- 
 ion, not to say what they were worth. TI never heard of 
 
 but one piece heing sold down on the bottoms. I wouldn’t 
 
 say it was since 1900; one piece sold there. I couldn’t say 
 4186 as I have an opinion as to the market value of this land 
 just before 1900. I know of the land being overflowed 
 
906 
 
 from time to time. In 1882 I think they were overflowed. 
 The rise came on very sudden, I think. In the fall they 
 were overflowed and some corn was taken away in the 
 fall of 1882 and there was some of it under water in 
 June. I think the last two or three years they have been 
 under water pretty late in the spring. The last two or 
 three years have been pretty wet years. There was 
 
 4187 some of it pretty wet for a while. Taking into con- 
 sideration all I know or have seen and observed about 
 these lands I should say they were worth about $35, be- 
 fore 1900. 
 
 Cross-Examimation by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 It was in 1862, maybe in 1863, along in there, that 
 this land was worth from $30 to $35 an acre. It was. 
 my opinion they were worth $30 to $35 an acre in 1862. 
 That is about 40 years before 1900. They might have in- 
 creased a little in value during that 40 years. I think 
 they have decreased lately, in the last eight or nine 
 years. In 1860 or 1862 it was worth from $30 to $35 
 4188 an acre. I couldn’t say that it increased in value any 
 after the year 1900. That particular land hasn’t in- 
 creased in value. There is no improvements down there, 
 you know, to raise the value. I wouldn’t think the land 
 4189 itself went up in value. There is some pretty good crops 
 some years; very good. I had 15 or 20 acres on it along 
 about 1900. That was the only time from about 1873 
 until 1900 that I ever farmed any on it. I ecouldn’t say 
 as I do really know the number of acres that were actu- 
 ally in cultivation on any of these pieces owned by the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company from the year 
 1895 down to the year 1900. I don’t just recall where 
 their land is. They owned some up east of the Central. 
 That is about all I know of their land except what is 
 4190 down by Peru. 
 
907 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Q. (Referring to the map.) Can you 
 see this from there? 
 A. No, I can’t see very well without glasses. 
 I don’t know how many acres there were under cul- 
 tivation along by the Illinois Central and further east. 
 4191 I couldn’t tell about how much they had down west 
 of the Central bridge and south of the river. I wasn’t 
 acquainted with this land down south of Peru. I had 
 no acquaintance with that at all. I couldn’t tell you 
 nothing about.the land on the south side there. No, not 
 how many acres they have or what it will produce. I 
 have been over there once in a while. I have been along 
 4192 the railroad there. I simply observed it casually; $30 
 to $35 was a fair opinion of what it was worth in 1860 
 or 1862. It is not excessive. It is not low. It is about 
 right. The value of the land did not go up in the 38 
 years down to the year 1900. The price of that land 
 4193 stayed just where it was. They used to raise some very 
 fine corn crops. I raised some pretty fine corn crops 
 on there. I didn’t have in mind at the time I placed my 
 valuation upon this land, in the year 1900, that it was a 
 corn raising proposition. I didn’t consider it near as 
 good as it was in 1860. It was not as productive. It 
 seemed as if it was getting wore out or something. It 
 didn’t raise as good crops. It is getting pretty foul. Tt 
 4194 has been that way now for 25 years or more; bottom 
 lands. T don’t know anything abéut the coal now. T 
 didn’t place a valuation on this particular land that you 
 pointed out there to me. I didn’t take no interest in it. 
 IT made no reference at all and had no knowledge in 
 relation to section 21 south of Pern. T know about where 
 the land is that Waugh used to farm. I have never been 
 on the place. I did help the fellows there one year, Cos- 
 4195 grove and Parsons. I didn’t have that land in mind 
 at the time IT made my answer. 
 
908 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 In fixing my valuation on this land of the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company across the river, I had ref- 
 erence to the land that is off to the east; that land is 
 a little lower, I think, than the land over by the river. 
 I couldn’t tell as to the value of the land that I helped 
 to plow shortly before 1900. I never paid any attention 
 to it. 
 
 JoHn WatTMAN, a witness called by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is John Wattman. I reside in Ottawa. I am 
 
 a farmer and in the real estate business to some extent. 
 4197 I have been engaged in the real estate business six or 
 seven years. My age is 44. [I am an owner of land in 
 La Salle County. My land is located in Dayton Town- 
 ship, also in Ottawa Township. I know about a drain- 
 age ditch emptying into Buck Creek. I know the ditches 
 to a certain extent. The ditch in Freedom, it was opened 
 between two and three miles long. The ditch was con- 
 structed about three years ago, I think. Several sections 
 of land are drained by that ditch. It empties into Buck 
 Creek. Buek Creek empties into the Fox River. I know 
 4198 about the use of tile in that section, in the section empty- 
 ing into that ditch. I couldn’t say positively what size 
 it was but between 14 and 18-inch tile in different 
 branches. I know about other ditches that empty into 
 the same channel, Buck Creek. There is another ditch, 
 a larger ditch, in Wallace, that also comes into the same 
 creek. I couldn’t say how much that drains. That is a 
 larger territory and larger ditch. I am generally ac- 
 quainted throughout this land. I know where the lands 
 
909 
 
 of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company are lo- 
 cated across the river from Peru and La Salle. I recently 
 made an examination of those lands. I have resided in 
 
 4199 this county about 26 or 27 vears. I have an opinion 
 as to what was the fair cash market value of those lands 
 shortly before 1900. In my opinion they were worth 
 about $40 an acre. I have an opinion as to the value 
 of those lands at the present time. In my judgment they 
 would be worth anyhow $100. I know the Huse slough. 
 I have examined it somewhat, yes. I know about the lia- 
 bility of Huse’s slough to saturate the land that hes 
 close to it. That kind of helps to make the land wet 
 around there. 
 
 4200 Cross-Exammation by Mr. Butters. 
 
 I had reference to the big slough here (indicating on 
 the map). That is the one I have in mind. I first had 
 my attention called to this land about three weeks ago. 
 
 4201 I had seen it before. About twenty years ago. I didn’t 
 look at it for the purpose of finding out what it was 
 worth years ago. I was on the land three weeks ago. 
 T eouldn’t say what day of the month it was. I was there 
 twice. The first time I didn’t spend very much time on 
 it. I didn’t go over it the first time; just went to it. 
 The second time, I should judge, I spent a couple of 
 hours. When I saw it years ago, as I said, I was just 
 traveling along on the railroad, the Rock Island road. 
 
 4202 I am sure I saw it from the Rock Island road. I am 
 not mistaken when I say I saw it from the Rock Island 
 road. I have seen that road for the last 15 or 20 years; 
 the bottom lands. When I placed my valuation on that 
 land at $40 an acre, in 1900, I assumed that the land was 
 practically in the same condition it is now. I don’t see 
 
 4203 much change in the condition of the land in regard to 
 water conditions. I didn’t look at this land at any time 
 
910 
 
 before three weeks ago for the purpose of determining 
 the market value. I did not assume this land was bet- 
 4204 ter in 1900 than it is now, when I say it was worth $40 
 an acre. It would be worth as much in 1885, in my esti- 
 mation. J am not taking into consideration the fluctua- 
 tion of the market value of the land. There has been 
 an appreciation from 50 to 75 per cent. on the uplands, 
 ' 4205 since 1900. There wasn’t any farm worth $150 an acre 
 at that time. There are some lands selling for close to 
 $300 now. As far as I can remember the highest price 
 that was paid was around about $90, in 1900. There has 
 been more of an increase than 75 to 100 per cent. Well, 
 with the exceptions it has been 200 per cent. I just 
 4206 took a general average. I don’t know as I took into 
 consideration that before 1900, from the year 1893 down 
 to 1900, that it raised from 60 to 80 bushels to an acre. 
 If that is so, that all this land is colored here, colored 
 red or pink, in the portions three, two, five and four on 
 this map, exhibit 281, if it raised from 60 bushels to the 
 acre during the years 1893, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, 
 1899 and 1900, it would be worth more. I don’t think 
 it would be worth $100 an acre. If it produced that 
 amount of crops it would be worth $90 in 1900. I econ- 
 4207 sider that land is quick soil. In going over the country 
 and looking for farms I take into consideration their 
 fertilitv. A farm that is sterile and washed out will not 
 bring as much as one that has good black loam. Build- 
 ings are a minor and secondary consideration; it depends 
 somewhat. You can put the soil on a farm too, now. 
 4208 It is more expensive to take a sterile farm that is foul 
 and sterile, a clay soil, and fertilize it, than to put build- 
 ings on it. 
 
911 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 It is true that land commenced to appreciate some few 
 years ago. That appreciation commenced along about 
 1897 or 1898. It is true that before that time land was 
 substantially at a level price, with few acres changing 
 hands. I don’t know of any land in La Salle County 
 that sold as high as for $75 an acre in 1897 or 1898. 
 The appreciation has been steady and continuous ever 
 since that time. I took the general average of all that 
 
 4309 land, to which Mr. Butters referred. I did not, when 
 I set the price of $40 there, I didn’t say for just the 
 cultivated land. I meant the whole tract. My idea of 
 the value would be affected by the fact that you could 
 never raise any annual pasture on this land. My idea 
 of the value would be affected by the fact you could have 
 no buildings on this land. My idea of the value would 
 be affected by the fact that you could never even have 
 a well on the land. My idea of the value would be 
 affected by the fact you couldn’t even have as much as 
 
 4210 a pig sty on the land. I don’t think fences could be 
 erected on this land. That would have something to do 
 with lessening the value. When I spoke of the $90 land, 
 I took into consideration that this land was not subject 
 to overflow. If, from the evidence, this land was subject 
 to overflow, that would then affect my notion of the value. 
 It was taken into consideration the location of all of 
 this land that I have mentioned, that caused me to fix 
 the price at $35 to $40 an acre. 
 
 Re-cross Examination by ‘Mr. Butters. 
 
 In fixing the value at $100 an acre now, I don’t mean 
 that each acre would be worth $100 of the land that is not 
 in corn this year. I am speaking about the land that 
 would raise that much corn, as I understood you. I said . 
 
912 
 
 4211 it was probably worth $100 an acre now. ‘That was an 
 estimate. J didn’t say I would pay that for it, but I 
 think probably it would bring it. If it was all as good 
 as that is in corn this year and was all of that character 
 and bore good crops in 1900, my answer would be dif- 
 ferent from what I gave it, $35 to $40 an acre. 
 
 4913 VeRNE BATCHELLER, a witness called by the defendant, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Verne Batcheller. I reside in Peru. My 
 business is farming and dairy. I conduct a dairy farm. 
 My farm is located two and a half miles northwest of 
 Peru. In feeding my dairy I use ensilage. I have about 
 35 head of cows. I have 2 silos; one is 12 by 30 and one 
 is 14 by 40. I have raised some corn down there on the 
 bottom lands off and on. I know the kind of corn that is 
 
 4214 used for silage. When the ears begin to harden you use 
 this corn. In my judgment and opinion there can be 
 raised on this bottom land ensilage corn between the 20th 
 day of June and the middle of October, to a sufficient 
 stage of development to be fed for silo corn; just as good 
 corn as any for silo. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I farm about 20 acres; some of it is rented land. All 
 together, I have a farm of about 100 acres. I put about 
 4215 40 acres of that 100 acres into. corn. I have about as 
 much as I can get into the silos. Sometimes, if it is 
 heavy corn, it won’t go into the silos. I have two silos; 
 
 the smaller is 12 by 30; 12 feet in diameter by 30 feet 
 high. The larger is 14 by 40. The smaller one is of 
 wood staves and the larger one of concrete staves. It 
 
913 
 
 eost me $300 to build the smaller one and the larger one 
 cost about $400. They claim the small one will hold 90 
 
 4916 tons. It won’t hold that much. I put about five acres 
 in it last year. The larger one has a supposed capacity 
 of 120 ton. I have filled it. I filled the both of them with 
 about 16 acres. We put 16 acres of corn into the two 
 silos. That would make about 11 acres in the larger one. 
 Well, they put up larger ones. I have seen larger ones 
 in this neighborhood. I expect to feed about thirty cows 
 until the grass comes, about the middle of May. Once in 
 a while I feed them mature corn. 
 
 4917 I raise that myself. I could let the corn go on and 
 mature and husk it. I could let some of the corn I 
 raise now mature and husk it and put it in cribs. The 
 eorn I put in the silos, I could let that mature. The corn 
 I put in the silos I cut that at an early stage, before it 
 matures. If I didn’t have the silos I could let that go 
 on and mature. A little less than half of my 40 acres of 
 
 4218 corn I put into silos. I farm a little on the bottom 
 lands. I have been down there farming this year. I 
 have seen the land that Waugh used to farm. I should 
 say they cut some of the crop that was raised there this 
 year for the silos. Well, Tiernann lives there. I think 
 that is the Waugh farm. I have not been on the land 
 
 4219 you indicate on the map this year. I don’t know any- 
 thing about the kind of corn that was raised on that land 
 this year. You would have to have a good many silos 
 to contain all the corn raised on that land. I don’t 
 know just where that land involved in this litigation is. 
 I was not down there this summer for the purpose of 
 seeing any land that is south of the river, to the south 
 of La Salle. I don’t know anything about the crops that 
 have been raised on that land in the past ten years. I 
 don’t know how much it was in acreage. I don’t know 
 whether there is any corn there at all or not. JI never no- 
 
914 
 
 4220 ticed. You can put immature corn into the silos. We 
 
 planted the corn all together, the 40-acre piece. I could 
 mature it all, if I wanted to, but since I am in the dairy 
 business and want to feed. some of it to my 30 cows lL 
 cut some of it and put it into the silos before it matures. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I have no idea that any man who is farming a piece 
 of ground would raise it all for the purpose of silage 
 eorn. He would diversify his crop. 
 
 4221 Re-cross Exanunation by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 If he had a large farm he would plant some oats if it 
 would grow oats; put some in corn and put some in oats 
 and some in wheat. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 He might not want any oats and would raise millet and 
 other variety of crops; that might be, too. 
 
 Re-re-cross Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 And he probably could raise cabbage and cow peas and 
 carrots, if he was in the farming business, for his own 
 use. 
 
 Re-re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 Land that can be divided up and put to market garden- 
 ing purposes and successfully raise all kind of vegetables 
 is good valuable land. 
 
915 
 
 4293 W. A. Croster, a witness called by the defendant, testi- 
 fied as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is W. A. Crosier. I live in Utica Township. 
 
 Lam a farmer and dairyman. I am engaged in the dairy 
 business in a small way. I have nine cows for mulk- 
 ing. I don’t know as I know Mr. Batcheller, who just 
 left the witness stand. I use the silo. We generally 
 
 eut corn for the silo as it is just hardening; after it 
 passes the milk stage; from the 15th of September until 
 4223 the 5th of October. Silage corn can be raised between 
 the 20th of June and the 15th of October, in an ordinary 
 year. ‘The silage is good to feed to anything that I ever 
 
 fed it to—cattle, horses, hogs and chickens. We did 
 raise some millet in that vicinity. I live in the southwest 
 quarter of Section 1, Utica Township. The latest I ever 
 planted millet was something between the 4th and 10th 
 
 of July; got a nice crop. It takes between that and the 
 4225 Ist of October to mature. It went about two and a 
 half tons to the acre, I think; about three tons. That is 
 good to feed the cattle. You don’t want to let the seed 
 
 get ripe, not perfectly ripe. If it is cut before the seed 
 forms they feed it to horses. I have had experience in 
 
 the raising of sweet corn. I think that was in ’97, the 
 time the hail storm went through. I planted it after the 
 hail storm. It was after the 4th of July. Yes, sir, I got 
 
 a nice crop. It went into the silo. Sweet corn makes 
 good silage. Up to 19 years ago I lived two and a half 
 miles northwest of Utica, two miles northwest of Utica. 
 4226 Well, that is four miles from La Salle. We done most 
 of our trading in La Salle. My father lived down at 
 Granville. I passed the Peru bridge. I know where the 
 
 Q. bridge is built. I know where the Illinois Central 
 
916 
 
 bridge is built. I have a knowledge of farm lands in the 
 vicinity of La Salle, a general knowledge. I know where 
 the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company land is locat- 
 ed right there by the Illinois Central. I don’t know 
 
 4227 just exactly where the boundary lines are. I know the 
 general location of those lands. The land would be worth 
 about $35 to $40 an acre, something like that, as an in-~ 
 vestment, shortly before 1900. JI never had any experi- 
 ence in the raising of cow peas or soy beans. I never 
 fed neither one of those. I have had experience in the 
 raising of kaffir corn 12 or 13 years ago. I didn’t raise 
 it myself but I seen some of my neighbors have some. 
 They claim that makes a good silage crop. I didn’t see 
 
 4228 it myself when it came out. I have lived in La Salle 
 County 47 years. The ensilage corn would make about 
 one-third more food value from an acre, by putting it 
 into a silo, than from the other way. I never fed any 
 millet. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The land that is owned by the La Salle County Carbon 
 Coal Company that I know about is right near the Illinois 
 Central bridge, right under it, along through there was 
 where I have always understood their land was. I 
 ecouldn’t tell you how many acres there was in there. It 
 was on the north side of the river, away from the Lli- 
 4230 nois River to the bluff. That is the land I know 
 about there. I did not testify to land about which I had 
 no knowledge. That is the land I know about. I have 
 testified before in cases of the Sanitary District; not 
 more than once. I never assisted in getting witnesses to 
 testify. I done no work along that line at all. I live 
 about three miles right straight down from the river. I 
 have been to Granville since I went to see my grand- 
 father. I cannot answer that question as to how long 
 it is since I have been to Granville. I have been there 
 
917 
 
 4231 since ten years; about seven or eight years. Gran- 
 ville lies southeast of Peru. I don’t know just where in 
 reference to Spring Valley. In going to Granville you 
 eross the bridge at Peru. I noticed all the land. I al- 
 ways do that. Yes, that is a part of my business; always 
 look for what is going on in the country. That is the 
 
 4232 way we learn. It is the way most people ought to learn. 
 I noticed the land on the west side of the road. I could 
 see that from the highway. I saw the land on the east 
 side of the road. I didn’t notice a slough on the west 
 side of the road. It is good farm land. There isn’t a 
 slough right close to Peru, but there is when you get up 
 further, about a mile and a half out there, or very close 
 to it, I think. Yes, I mean about a mile and a half from 
 the bridge across the river at Peru. There was corn 
 standing there on the east side, as I remember. I can’t 
 
 4235 remember everything for eight years. I always take 
 particular notice of everything I go over. I was taking 
 notice. I have crossed that Shippingsport bridge prob- 
 ably two or three times during my life. It has been 
 longer than 16 years, I think, since I have been across 
 the Shippingsport bridge the last time. During the past 
 16 years I have no knowledge as to the number of acres 
 that were being farmed south of the Illinois River and 
 
 4234 east of the Shippingsport bridge. I don’t know the 
 number of bushels per acre they have raised. I have 
 no knowledge whatever on the subject. I can place a 
 valuation only on bottom land that overflows, such land 
 as I know about. The crop raised on this land would 
 cut any figure with me in the placing of valuation. The 
 number of acres that would be put into crop in certain 
 places continuously would cut a figure. It would make 
 a difference if I had to plant it irregularly and in spots, 
 
 4235 rather than in one big field. The difficulty of getting 
 in and getting implements down there on the ground and 
 
918 
 
 working there would cut a figure. The fact I would have 
 to fertilize the ground or might have to fertilize it would 
 eut a figure. These things would all have to be consid- 
 ered, in placing my value which was $35 to $40. I said 
 somewhere from $35 to $40 as an investment. I mean 
 4236 by what it would pay interest on. Any land ought to 
 pay five per cent. interest. Five per cent. interest on 
 50 or five per cent. interest on $100 are two different 
 things. In figuring my valuation I figured it as an in- 
 vestment proposition. Five per cent. on $100 is not as 
 4237 much as five per cent. on $50. The land where I fixed 
 the value at $35 to $40 an acre, I would expect to get 
 £1.75 to $2.00 an acre. The land that is worth $40 an 
 acre, I would expect to get $2.00 off of that. If I was 
 getting off the land a revenue or income that was equal 
 to five per cent. on $100, I would consider it $100 land. 
 If I was getting a revenue off the land that amounted to 
 $10 an acre, I would consider it $200 land. That is the 
 way I fixed the valuation. I don’t know what the in- 
 come was that was produced from this land here at any 
 time, lying south of the river and east of the Shippings- 
 4238 port bridge, within the past 16 years. I don’t know 
 the income that was ever produced off of it in dollars and 
 cents, only as a general thing on the bottoms. I don’t 
 know in dollars and cents what this land, which lies to 
 the east of the highway along which I drove to Granville 
 produced. I have an opinion as to what it produced. My 
 notion is this, that land in there is all overflow land. 
 The land throughout the bottoms is now being rented 
 for $2.00 an acre at any time, and take your chances 
 on getting a crop. I know it, not from personal experi- 
 ence, but from general knowledge of what a man learns 
 in coming in contact with these people. I don’t know 
 49239 just how many crops were raised on this land lying 
 south of Peru from ’93 down to 1900. JI don’t know the 
 
919 
 
 number of acres that were in corn. I don’t know the 
 number of bushels per acre it raised. I don’t know how 
 much the corn sold for. That same condition exists as 
 to this land that lies south of the river and east of the 
 Shippingsport bridge. No, I am not living north of 
 Peru now. You go up on the brewery hill road just 
 five miles north of Ottawa, or six. Nineteen years ago 
 we lived in Utica Township, northwest of Utica. I am 
 living in Utica Township now. I eall it five miles from 
 the City of Ottawa, five miles and a half. Some call it 
 five miles and some says six. I go straight west from 
 4240 the Rock Island Railroad to my place. I only put in 
 six acres of corn in my silo yet. I generally put in about 
 eight or nine, according to how much stock I have got. 
 My silo holds 157 tons. That is located on the land. I 
 don’t think you could let the corn that would be planted 
 for the purpose of putting into a silo go on and mature; 
 not if I wanted to, because I use corn that would not 
 mature and if it did mature I don’t think I would have 
 any sale for it, generally. Most usually when I can it 
 I use the Brazilian flour corn. If I planted the ordinary 
 4241 corn, such as is usually planted around here. I could let 
 it mature if I wanted to. I have got a special brand of 
 corn and plant it for my silo. This year I have put some 
 of the other crop into the silo. I feed all my young stock. 
 4249 That silo would feed about 30 head during the winter— 
 30, maybe. I never heard of the coal land there and know 
 nothing of its value. They generally pay about $12. 
 
920 
 
 4244 Junttan Dyckman, a witness called by the defendant, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 - My name is Julian Dyckman. [I reside at Peru, Hh- 
 nois. I am section foreman for the Rock Island Rail- 
 road. I have been with that road about 18 years. I 
 run for about a mile west through Peru and about a 
 mile east of La Salle. I know where the Rockwell mine 
 4245 of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company is located. 
 We had some cases of sinking of the roadbed in that vi- 
 cinity. There was a sag in the track; probably a thou- 
 sand feet east of the mine. It settled on an average 
 about twelve inches ina year. The sinking has been go- 
 ing on for the past 15 or 16 years. There is no grade on 
 the road there. The road is built along the hillside. 
 That is the only place in particular where sinking has 
 occurred. The place is some three or four hundred feet 
 long. There is a place west of Peru about three miles 
 where we have another ease of track settling and settling 
 4246 of a stone culvert there. They have settled at that 
 point about fourteen inches. The sinking seems to move 
 east until the last year or two and since then it has not 
 moved. About 14 years ago it was 3,000 feet west, I 
 should judge, from where it is now. It has extended 
 towards the east that distance in that length of time. We 
 had to put in filling over that entire surface. It takes 
 about two or three hundred feet and requires filling at 
 the time and then it keeps moving along; about two or 
 three hundred feet in a year. From the time that the 
 4247 track commences to settle until it finally comes to rest, 
 we have to raise it and fill it in and then the next year it 
 will have settled again about 12 inches and it is good 
 again for about another year. We have to repeat the 
 
921 
 
 process each year; haven’t noticed any in the last two 
 or three years; not to speak of; not more than two or 
 three inches. The settling seems to have stopped and 
 the ground seems to be at rest now. 
 
 4248 (Cross-examination waived.) 
 
 WiuuraAm WatTz.LeEr, a witness called by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is William Watzler. I reside in Peru, Illi- 
 nois. I am section foreman for the C. R. I. & P. Rail 
 road. I have been section foreman for the past six years. 
 My section starts a mile out east of La Salle, and goes 
 
 4249 a mile west of Utica. I have seen sinking in the Rock 
 Island tracks in the vicinity of the La Salle County Car- 
 bon Coal Company’s mine; it 1s about 600 feet east of 
 the Rockwell shaft. I think the place of sinking was 
 about 300 feet long. It would sink an inch or an inch 
 
 4250 and a half at a time; twice in a season. That has been 
 kept up for three or four seasons. It has sunk about 
 eight inches all told. It would not remain in the same 
 locality. It would show about 300 feet in length at a 
 time. It would take about two months before it would be 
 
 4251 noticeable again after it was fixed. About every two 
 months for about three years it would require repairing. 
 It would sink about six to nine inches in a year; for 
 about three years; sinking would be from 18 to 27 inches. 
 
 (Cross-examination waived.) 
 
922 
 
 ALEXANDER THIEMAN, a witness called by the defendant, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Alexander Thieman; I reside south of 
 
 4252 Peru on the Waugh farm, adjoining Section 21. T'wenty- 
 eight is my section. My business is farming. I know 
 where the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company’s lands, 
 which they claim they own, are located in Section 21. 
 
 I don’t know the lands located west of the track, the 
 Illinois Central track. I know the land which lies west 
 4253 of the Ulinois Central and between that and the river. 
 I know the land which hes east to the north of the coal 
 dump and east and west of the C., B. & Q. right of way 
 and north of the switch track, where their land is located. 
 
 I am engaged in farming and selling milk; in the dairy 
 business. I have been acquainted with Section 21 about 
 
 25 years. 1 howed corn there for Waugh. They have 
 lost crops there once in a while over there on that land. 
 
 * 4254 I have known before 1900 that there was soft corn 
 grown on that land and harvested there. Generally all 
 
 the low land would produce soft corn. I know that of my 
 own personal knowledge. The western part of that land 
 
 is low land. There was some timber on this piece of 
 Section 21 before 1900; the southwest corner there is 
 about 40 acres. I don’t know exactly how much of the 
 376-acre piece they had in corn, before 1900. My best 
 4255 judgment would be that there was about 75 to 80 acres 
 of that land that never has been in cultivation, of the . 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company’s land. On Sec- 
 tion 21, on the southwest corner, it is all in stumps now 
 where the timber has been cut off. There is a patch of 
 timber in the southeast corner of that land now. I know 
 Mud Lake. Sometimes it is called McCormick’s slough. 
 
923 
 
 It runs into MeCormick’s slough and into the river by 
 May’s lumber yard. I know the ground was planted on 
 4256 this Section 21 in 1911. About 300 acres were planted. 
 They had a good crop. My land adjoins it. My land 
 kind of slopes from the hillside, but still I have lower 
 land than they have on theirs. I have about eight acres 
 of bottom land that is lower than their land. During the 
 last five years I have farmed this bottom land of mine 
 4257 which adjoins Section 21. (Indicating on the map.) 
 Here is Cedar Creek. Here is the slough. I raised corn 
 right there on the low land and this year I have put 
 4258 sugar cane and millet in there. I raised regular prairie 
 eorn, white corn. I got a good crop. I have used my 
 corn for ensilage; used it last year and also this year, 
 but at the same time it would have made hard corn; put 
 in lots of it into ensilage this year. J have raised millet 
 on this same land. You can put millet in in August and 
 get a fair crop uf you get the weather. I planted sugar 
 eane there. You can plant sugar cane the last of July 
 or first part of August. I use sugar cane for cattle 
 4259 feed—cows. Just cut it down, dry it and put itup. You 
 cut it when it is pretty high, three or four feet; gener- 
 ally get one crop. I know about the corn that was raised 
 on this land by Shang Cosgrove. I know where that corn 
 was raised last year. It was raised right east of mine 
 on Section 21. Cosgrove lost some of his corn. It must 
 have been some time in November. He didn’t make a 
 4299 very hard effort to get it. I offered him assistance. 
 That land has been used for a crop this year. Shang 
 Cosgrove farmed it again. I know about Brannen hav- 
 ing corn planted in there. J have seen some of it. There 
 was some of it that was a little soft. Some of it was 
 4261 fair corn. Some of it would grade all right, I think. I 
 should judge there is about 200 acres planted in corn 
 this year. I know Cedar Creek. It comes from up above 
 
924 © 
 
 the hills there, from away up around Cedar Point. I 
 was out in the country Sunday and saw it five miles 
 back. In high water times it is a very heavy stream. It 
 discharges into the slough, west of the slough bridge, into 
 4962 MeCormick’s slough. There is a sandbar being formed 
 there; gravel filled in by the creek. There is willows 
 there and trees, willows and brush get in there in the 
 spring of the year and settle there. The wash comes 
 then from the creek. .During low water it holds the 
 slough up to a certain extent. I was down there once 
 this summer and it looked to me about a foot or two feet 
 that it held the water up there; the upper side of the 
 slough. It is a pretty big slough. I should say 120 to 
 130 rods long. The widest part is about 40 or 50 rods, I 
 4262 guess. Brannen planted some spring wheat on part 
 of this land; put that in last spring a year ago. The 
 weeds got ahead of it and he didn’t get nothing out of it. 
 He planted some oats there a year ago this spring. The 
 same thing happened to them. All the seed didn’t come 
 up. He got in there early enough to plant spring wheat 
 and to plant oats. Waugh cut some timber out there 
 three years ago. I couldn’t exactly say how much be- 
 cause they cut lots of timber there this year. They cut 
 some of it off for props. They have been cutting off this 
 4264 last year yet. I don’t know exactly how much. The stumps 
 were left there when Waugh cut the timber off. That 
 land where the timber was cut had never been cultivated — 
 yet. Some fellows from town worked an acre or two in 
 between the stumps once in a while, but the land gener- 
 ally has not been cultivated. I observed this land both 
 before 1900 and since 1900, and I don’t notice any dif- 
 ference in the general cropping condition of this land 
 since 1900 than it was before 1900. I haven’t paid much 
 attention to the last crops. I have noticed that they 
 would lose a crop once in a while. My father used to 
 
925 
 
 farm some of this land on the bottoms. All of the land 
 4265 in Section 21 is not exactly on the same level. There 
 is parts of Section 21 where they did not plant any this 
 year. It is on the lowest spots, on the west side. There 
 is a low place there. They tried to drain a part of the 
 surface of this land last year by opening ditches. It was 
 a diteh about five feet wide and about three or four feet 
 deep to drain the slough. With the exception of that 
 slough there has been no other attempt made to drain the 
 surface of this land. When the water is down in the 
 river in the summer time, I would judge it is about five 
 feet below the surface of this land. There has been no 
 attempt, as far as I know, to drain this land into the 
 4266 river when the water was low. In my judgment, of the 
 375 acres in Section 21, south of the river, I should judge 
 there is about 100 acres that has never been cultivated 
 at any time, around the edges and in the sloughs, wet 
 places, timber and in waste land. I have an opinion as 
 to the fair cash market value of this land shortly before 
 1900. JI think it was probably worth $100 an acre. I 
 4267 include the coal in that. The land was worth probably 
 _ 4268 for agricultural purposes about $75. I think that shortly 
 after 1900, after the Sanitary District water was turned 
 in, and, at the present time, that the land would be worth 
 $75, or the same amount for agricultural purposes; the 
 same as it was before. My idea is it was worth the same. 
 I feed my ensilage corn to the cattle. It makes good 
 green food in the winter, the same as krout. It agrees 
 4269 with the stock very well. They do well on it. The sugar 
 eane that I planted, I let it lay until it dries. The weather 
 cures it some; just as you would hay. We stack it up 
 the same as hay in stacks. It will keep probably a cou- 
 ple of years. I haven’t ever kept it that long. I never 
 have enough to keep that long. It will keep as well as 
 hay. I regard cane as better than hay, better than timo- 
 
926: 2 
 
 thy hay, for feeding purposes. It is about the same as 
 clover hay. I have noticed the current of the Illinois 
 River before 1900; I have also noticed it since 1900. 
 There is a little more current now than there was then. 
 I eouldn’t say what is the difference. It is some faster. 
 That is all I have been noticing. It seems to float things 
 faster. I can’t exactly tell how fast. I can’t give a bet- 
 ter estimate. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 This land was worth $75 at any time before 1900. It 
 
 was worth that much in 1898; hasn’t changed much in 
 
 4271 several years. I think it would be worth the same to- 
 
 day. I think that taking the coal land it is worth $25 an 
 acre. 
 
 4273-74-79 House Document. 
 
 au 
 
WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS, ETC. 189° 
 
 Discharge measurements of Illinois and Des Plaines rivers. 
 
 ILLINOIS RIVER AT MORRIS, ILL. 
 
 (Survey of Illinois and Des Plaines rivers, 1899-1900. The gauge readings refer to gauge at the high- 
 way bridge. Elev ation of zero=486.01, Memphis datum. } 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mean | Dis- | 
 Area of | Maxi- — 
 Date, |. G8U8e | cross | mum | Width.| Vee: ca Status of Witete vin. 
 reading. section.jaenth ity per) per river. 
 ‘| ey second. . Sec ond. 
 SS Pe Ra POS 
 1900. | Feet. |Sq.feet.| Feet. | Feet. | Feet. | Cu. ft. 
 May 3 SUR (co Re ene =. 1.26 | 4,264 Falling..... Light upstream wind, 
 Apr. 29 Me © ee lannnsn clang nseeh® 1.41} 4,850 |..... (10 |. Senn 
 May 2 ot i SRE Pee 1.44 5, eo ye ee 
 Apr. 80 O00) S788 fish ulesncnane 1.67! 6,322 | Rising ...... 
 May 5 SS Oa eee eee 1.60 6,109) Falling, 
 May 2 BNE 17, O99 be exc te cdiccaaeee 1.47| 5, 664 | estat 7 eae ‘| Strong upstream wind. 
 Apr. 30 4.304 BOGE Ye aor Ree > 1.78 | 7,213 | Rising ...... . 
 May 4 ae ye LIS fis np Pare aes | ye ie hs ea ee a 
 Do... et OW OTe eran Poe mel i, Be oO 2 ee rae 
 May 1 2.647? 14,1991. aie, 1.88 | 7,684 ]..... poe 
 Apr. 28 S| Pe Sk ae fvae wa ome 1.98 9,200) Stationary.. 
 Apr. 27 SEs o. B A480 (leks imdb one 2.08 9,636 | Falling ..... 
 Apr. 26 5. 64 | Ye... Seay Reena 2.13 | Ue «> 2 GOi<...ane Very windy. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NotTe.—All measurements were taken from the highway bridge with a large Price current meter. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ay Ge anti Ae 
 oun: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 od ty Ja a eties oF iby? yi ithe rye ak ide: mas 
 Sake! was de eatery of oily? epreitioce eyed it LON) RS airy Derg tine 
 aie abag AVM OME ORONO tS te) Mee ln. | See 
 ete A ’ “ 
 = an =" aa; a” «bie Re: Paka rp: nally yoevad <aphods py ing os heats —— a 
 : Pi 4 ‘ ets “#4 ; 
 . > a “At 2 
 1. ee , : iv rir 4 : 2 wt ie 5 aK, aks: P : 7 
 weet »* why of sry | Cx tri. a? tl ty bait o t un ciate +s 7 
 . oe tw ad ‘ ; a ’ hes i MaaE, Fe | AYERS HE - ey Prey 
 aan! ee } t Tiel Gogh. 4s iy oa 
 : a “Af aars ras ’ Pee, 
 hy ; ¥ a0 
 Sk hee ene. a + woe en oo) ; 
 , ; a> 
 Td . agit oa y $ 
 : (ys } 
 “tw & ' SIXES S walle & ok tua 
 ; : 7 
 y : ‘A 
 ~ 4 i ; cg a ; 
 ‘ , be no ? ( : 
 ; : | | 
 5 n i ¢ 4 iy 
 Pi . 4 Ocak \ 
 ‘ tots 2 pay ' ms ae 
 Fc Aa . 6 
 ~ ‘ ms. ‘ M iS , ; 
 tei ; ‘ 4 
 “ ; 
 ua ; 4 ; 
 / boys 2 
 ; ; ie Abs, Yi 
 4 + ‘ , eh : 5 
 a 4 , 
 . . oat batten ¢ - P< . oeytt w(t) swee? gee aled sty ay sarc 2 is fi hy NOR 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a aa aut isa ‘scien ta 
 
 
 
190 WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS, ETC. 
 
 Discharge measurements of Illinois and Des Plaines rivers—Continued. 
 
 ILLINOIS RIVER AT MORRIS, ILL.—Continued. 
 
 
 
 charge was over bottom. 
 
 : Mean | Dis- 
 Areaof | Maxi- : 
 Date. eons cross | mum | Width. veloc: | charge Status of Remarks. 
 reading. |. ction.| depth ity per| per river. 
 ; at second. ‘second. 
 [" : 
 1892. | Feet. |Sq..feet.| Feet. | Feet.| Feet. " Cu. ft. 
 May 10 See Wee fe oh wne clwagkaab Bee DE AGEs lenkwadaden sone 
 DO. <s 5 SS 8. Ree oe ee “78 | ALE Viseundehoo sues 
 IS Se eh a Preenre LT POE Lekinenaccceanss 23 eubie feet of total dis- 
 2 i re c charge was over bottom. 
 Oss) MOD | -O,BB7 |... 222 ofc cacenns a ete 27 cubic feet of total . dis- 
 ; . & charge was over bottom. 
 Do...) -.10.06.; 9,583 |.......}. OES: Se BO) 52 cubic feet of total dis. 
 ta . charge was over bottom. 
 etal) (eee BL OEP Tenceisbcseeuasl.  & OL) 28, O29 |}... .-s00 -----| 58 cubic feet of total dis- 
 . a ae | charge was over bottom. 
 May 9 ERGO 1-30, TOG hace ck) caets. OE” MO | CIT IME Mctiwewewweess 113 cubic feet of total dis- 
 ; “, a | charge was over bottom. 
 ach)! SEER eh 2, SOP lantetedaeedcces! 2.98 | OO fa 122 cubie feet of total dis- 
 ) charge was ovcr bottom. 
 Pe OE ge BO ee ee w-| 804 AsO xanivewenneu ce 128 eubie feet of total dis- 
 fan charge was over bottom. 
 Do...| 11.68 | 10,555 |..,....].. Whe. 3.07 | TRE oc, 148 cubic feet of total dis- 
 i ee ie , charge was over bottom. 
 July 38 ey See 2 Saas Tech Dead REO aso cact Sse r ens ; 
 May 9 | 911.90 | 10,768 |.......|..... SE es | ee 158 cubic feet of total dis- 
 A . ety F charge was Over bottom. - 
 July 8 12.05 | 10,278 |:......].. eee Ae Md ee ne 
 DG ant RBI Wa csennelceceus>s eee NA 
 July 4 oA LE 4 ee ee DA TRIOLOUY Selenite e xo ns 
 July 3 pe -£R Le ee Oe. Sc Weare 
 ‘July 4): 12,90 | 10,861 }.......)..... Pee Ream % 8 eX) 1 py Oem ers ; 
 May 9] . 12.82.| 11,085 |.......)........ ' 3.16 | 34,935 |..............]-181 cubic feet of total dis- 
 “8a . ; charge was over bottom. 
 May 8 pS LD Oe ee SF S41 OG isos eecks cess 773 cubic feet of total dis- 
 . ' charge was over. bottom, 
 Do...) 34.12 | 12,889 |.......|........ ee eek canis 1,377 cubic feet of total dis- 
 Le Ge aa ji , charge was over bottom. 
 Do.z.| 14.77 | 12,682 |.:.....|.. eats ae a Oe Es acwikd otic ocak 3,414 cubic feet of total dis- 
 bo) oo oa ; a) - charge was over bottom. 
 Do...| ~ 16.15 | 13,078 |.......)... dase SE i. Ree ene ,| 4,796 cubie feet of total dis- 
 . charge was over bottom. ° 
 May 7 BUG 144, 677 j... 0200). 0000s wel » 297 | OO, 304 |e..... oo 16,743 cubic feet of total dis- 
 pee ry re, nye } charge was over bottom. 
 DOuis 17.76 | 14, 870 eeeecorlerceoseos 8.07 62, 313 eee ceweeseeees Do. 
 ge Sk go | RS Sa 5 OG % tee 20,997 cubic feet of total dis- 
 ~*~ aie Ane . charge was over bottom. 
 : May 6 18.56 | 16,449 |.......|.c..000. tO. 1 GPO loovencunceeses -Do. 
 ' Do...| 19.55 | 16,079 |.......|. ‘eeosseet 38.06 | 73,730 |..............| 24,614 cubic feet of total dis- - 
 
 
 
 . . Nore.—Where a discharge over the bottom is shown, the areas and velocities given are for main 
 hanne!l only. 
 
 ILLINOIS RIVER NEAR DIVINE, ILL. 
 
 _ [Survey of Illinois and Sia A pe wi ri ers, 1902-1904. The gauge readings refer to gauge on Elgin, 
 ' _ Joliet and Eastern Railroad bridge. Elevation of zero=587.20, Memphis datum.] 
 
 
 
 
 o wind (taken from cable 
 
 1904, 
 - June 15 
 about 600 feet below Elgin, 
 
 —94.6 | 4,318 9.8 565 |. 1.23.| 5,300 | Stationary..| N 
 . : Joliet. and Eastern Rail- 
 road bridge). 
 —94.5 | 4,363 / 9.7 575 |. 1.22] 5,804]..... BO uatan Light downstream wind 
 - (taken from cable about 
 600 feet below Elgin, Jolict 
 and Eastern Railroad 
 bridge). 
 —94.3 | 4,337 9.7 560 1.36 | 5,910 |..... do ......| Light upstream wind (taken 
 rom cable about 600 feet 
 _below Elgin, Joliet and 
 Eastern Railroad bridge). 
 
 NotTe.—Each of the above measurements is the mean of two consecutive measurements. Al! were 
 taken with a Price current meter, large size: 
 
 July 23 
 
 July 8: 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 reashee 4 Ag we) crn 
 
 Se ee dl a — ot iin te poi tap ts me Rta NR et wate ere “penn a means se 
 g ° ‘ # . 
 : J : 
 4 
 
 
 
 ee alld Bye nee ee. Mii tesa 2 Ae Lee ey 
 aa We i dry ‘ , 7 Tag * ee | = 
 
 ek wet lktec taeda t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 a See oe ee er ota a) Poe ae eo et ae enh y ajo wiliten teats 
 * « t7° 7 
 : A ik! Soabity 
 } : we n) $v) . wath Pion oe m3 
 ke eC See a, ; 7 is Ae ha 
 : ‘ we : Fi hn. Abs? rae ee, ago aH Wee v - ay ho a 
 : bo Oest * : ¥ F i ' a a 
 t vl +t Og pee ek ath. Ye Aaa oe aes ies A pa 
 ‘ J i Digee aly ¥ ‘ahs ty 
 my ‘ $ e¥ Sa ha) Ss M + + |<" “ 4 bet 4e~ hea: opta", ‘Seong ay, ¥ ie oh 2: PJ 
 + J + F 7 aL? 
 a OI Shu 4a : : t “+e ; . 
 . A aap “es i 
 Wis Y J das recy te t d card oy ** = ro 
 7 < 
 aa ties ? a Se?’ - ae | 
 - 4 w\ qr? 
 nee j et avy y as} , . » atte a Ds) aa .¢ fi £\ woh bite: Ad 
 as “07 ; . 4 ; 
 a ae b nee die he 
 . * is 4 re a 
 ‘ ‘1 Ye Be } ee we het ' oe’ Sara ti tad ose atta 
 f é 
 is ee aT: , t 
 , ; PU eee ks 
 re 3 ey PIAA 2 ty a'e bei ee ae t 
 -_ * 7c tive al Posty + ee 
 ‘ 
 - ts ‘ash > ww 
 4 Ld 9 . ‘outs “ . 7 «? 7 * \ * ve t sere a 
 r ‘ 
 x “at ‘ tal! s j a 
 : pF \ » . ce Py ; 4 
 we Ae : : Sy Mek Pind ahwab cen ntRA, 54 oie wad ae ee 
 ar ay : pty" ij é ; : _ 
 
 gd 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; 
 ‘ * ~ S M4 
 : re Org at. oe 
 a OTs & y . 45,0 - é uo AW nt fo Se 
 ; t x 
 ; : ae § } 
 ( eee « oa anh Ny ed open een, 0 | 
 ¢ 2 4 . Pe ° ae 
 : ee irae ae P isi 4 
 ove | ~ ae ee | oe “ger neon ty See e ey 
 : y ; 
 , f i Sl hoe 
 ‘ cy Fs / PP aay ay! ' i. ¢ 
 Thi!) ue > ‘pet od ee ee Buk Leet eed ee 
 : i ‘ x te ' aoe : Py = 
 ele aS rm Pass : ‘ ' ie 4 
 ; : Va a 
 aiiteaaal aan a het se bet ha eT RSS nee rene i ee en Ba a bead tei me scans COR. epee soy ¢ ? 
 a " iad pr ae re a eer | ” tiie ad ; Yap set 
 hee! + Sed tee ae Apa ay arbi! Maree Fue ee Se OTe, suid \F aseay ‘th ns 
 oe wy ; 
 me ot he é ; é ny ; ‘eer 
 
 YO. FRIRE BOM AAT Sarat 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 a sh < eae me  eieeing 
 AERA He chee A eathet anda ake hoe RE MOT? eR tT hit a 2 a Gees 
 + prene ee tee y iz yh Bie wera, PO Saas sie Bi stale if pte I irs iccaadiied oie eae & ‘gia 3 
 es. aneret® oF pH ao we inp -sntsinthey e aaa a” a wie oy ; * ee ait sm’ ements mwee ayer a 
 
 , , a. 
 
 s 
 « 
 By 
 
 ~¢ 3 ‘ i ; . Pa er, ao) Ag : iy * 
 AIG: he 3 By Bn Serv? 3 a : a SOMES, d a A %.' Be shy one 
 % ie ” 3 : ae 
 ai ayes fea Fan ths, ; ae r 
 iy r + Fe ‘ _ 5 ’ 
 eee Le Tre, CRA | © ae a ‘ ‘& NM 
 (Mets Wit o sleet + 7 } * 
 
 ca Fy puaytaat mvt cnsghalt 
 eli RG ABO BNE 
 Meeks: eg Shi Soir Be PR Sep 
 
 z 
 é . rn Z : a 
 beni? ae vigeag %, eh 
 
 . 
 * 
 ¥ 
 ie 
 ¥ 
 . 
 ‘ 
 ¢ 
 $ 
 —— 
 >> 
 » 
 eo om 
 me 
 eat 
 sige Spe ne pe 
 -— 
 
 are 
 
 
 
 B. He sie i 
 
 aed Dem OeER TE oe? 
 
 1s stomapirecs abttrseyeals a need sort Beano meee Se pena he ps 
 es 4 P ; j nee ae, . : 
 
 ~~ 
 
 ae, ee ee re tee i a OM 
 
 = 
 — 
 > 
 SNS 
 pw 
 
 wy 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
‘WATERWAY, LOCKPORT TO ST. LOUIS, ETC. 191 
 
 Discharge measurements of Illinois and Des Plaines rivers—Continued. 
 
 ILLINOIS RIVER NEAR DIVINE, ‘ILL. 
 
 (Taken under the direction of the United States Geological Survey. The gauge readings refer to 
 gauge on Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railroad bridge. Elevation of zero=587.20, M ne pa Ps 
 
 
 
 
 
 | M . 
 Areaof Maxi- Mean | Dis- 
 Gauge | cros W veloci-| charge! Status of 
 Date. ‘reading. eee fhe Width. ty-par| per cam Woketads 
 ‘| second. second. 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 1903. Feet. Sq.ft. Feet. | Feet. | Feet. eu 
 
 
 
 
 
 Nov. 11 | —#4.15 4,40) ....... Les a eS Oe ee ee 
 May 10 | —3.10) 4,898 ....... | 553 1.69 8,39 | Stationary...) Light downstream wind. 
 t. 26) —94.10 4,199 \,...... | wed anti he 1,75 | 7,319 | Falling ..... 
 Re ah 0 | 4817 |... loca CRUE, DAGON 1a lass wie so y's 
 Aug. 31 | —93.99 | 3,556 .......]...... .-| 1.83 7,044 | Falling..... 
 July 12| —93.83) 4,556.2... sen. 1.64) 7,406 |.2...do...... 
 1904. | | | | 
 . May 19 | —93.00. 5,139 | boy aks 565 oh A et) Stn Strong downstream wind. 
 
 1903. | 
 
 Apr. 9 —91.12 6,606 | Kins, eget 594 2.04 | 13,482 | Falling.-..- Do. 
 / 
 
 1904. 
 
 ‘May 2 -—9.51 6,454 ....... 560 B06 | LORD hss oe dat sendin, Light downstream wind, 
 Apr. 17 | —89.63 6,987 °....... 581 2. 44 | 16, 927 |. cecccccceeses Conditions good. ; 
 Apr. 26 | —8.15 7,740 ....... 585 (7 oe SE eee Do. 
 
 1903. es 
 Mar. 15 | —86.84 -9,182 ..... as 630 2.80 | 25,689 | Falling.....| Strong downstream wind. 
 1904. | | | | | 
 
 eee S| —82.40 | 13,281 |....... 623 3.30 | 37,118 |..............| Conditions good. 
 * Mar. 27 | —79.98 12,975 |....... 683 8.85 | 50,920 |...:..........) Riveroverflowed right bank 
 ) : 1 foot deep for 250 feet; no 
 ; : current. 
 Mar. 26 —78. 47 14, 800 le wkbien's 949 3. 86 57, 097 sadest ct hachadnc| eeeeee 
 
 
 
 _ Nore.—Measurements in 1903 were taken from a cable about 40 feet above bridge. Those in 1904 
 were taken from the bridge. A1l were taken with a small Price current meter. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 7 
 ? 
 
 ; ? ia she , a rei be: 
 a is a ae REINS HAE eat aorta 
 a a ST " tye cee) Ashi gad a CES Lobe Ry) OES Te ts wit Bish jolie nits abs 
 
 ‘ % . c a a “ nt 
 Ph portiat hostage AS) CAR usm anlar Bl oe eee ee, Coe eet 
 
 we 
 
 vs ri 74 > 4 
 i = < eu a » 
 a. ee ee sent hei stpival neat mimi wh Kaplan 2 +! wi pthonny Numalesi en Sel yiiylinn tee iE sre BS WF oh yeaa 
 y A re S " 
 Bie i er ‘ Qt : i > ‘ 
 ae : i ys ; < PRA obs ee hae 1 aad, 
 ‘3 ¥ fea guald ; sa tach she tante ates eS Cate bert |S . 
 
 
 
 - . er ’ 
 4 ‘hs ‘Sere, dere 
 a 4 2 ; 44x39 7 4 
 4 A . r ' 
 Shae cayenne meshed dh st rn aes anemia erga eta 
 > ‘ 
 ray d 1.2 : 
 i be : - - ‘ vl ‘anti 
 é= > oe + bi ye } va ¥ ytd . ae 
 be | ee ee ie NS Ee, 
 a 4 ” ~ ' ae ‘ a 
 . bd sa¢ * = r 7 a? eo 4 all nts le » * “ +e — 4 By t . ns 
 \ F: M a7 : 
 ¢ 5 “s b-" A - , co i? Ge 
 ties O27 ee ae nena ef thie 
 . . ah oft ao ~ ; 5 ; 
 he's é , ye 3 Foe ee gin or ale > he at & a 
 é om. | ae 
 . arta é 4 at ee Va pe eer ee «eee. 
 7 = =: 1 « 
 hey: < <*> at 999% " ut H Boye ee Fe me's eee 
 tee, pa fd * ; « 7 - a % ’ ~ 
 it d urs he a oe rU 3 i ae aa vA Ms dit 
 Cie . 7 
 ced ; ; : > Ye 
 4 . ; - » 
 : 7 Wate? an 4 bes Fane ap Ana a fx .§ > ie 9 mt a a 
 4 7) a] qe we ken ae | hiv} a ¥ s* ‘ Car R ial a A a oo . . ia A A ave ” 
 ? 
 
 % > 
 % 
 aw, * ~ a * , A af ' ’ 4 vo * 
 ont Pits opeoveswok iiehy a dK , aaa A. 
 “ - ‘ 3 e a , 
 tae Be 5 Lae WE. 5 3 wdesin we a Mii § albania’ hi AA 
 > 5 = " a pil. vy, ¢ 
 ral ow . ) ae Ae 3 cm ie a.) ee ed if a~ 
 ‘at . 
 ra ; ; * 
 3 - Lk ¥ t ‘ 
 ‘ . * Poet a dm ; ae > - 
 ;, are Louie er fi acaede ft, ie . Yea R. Ut erste tis paid oy eee ee Re 
 \ J 
 - , H 5A 
 y3 : : bs i } 
 ; re vk due a f Ba 4 } Ape etey : ae h 
 < aey : silo wate tase nectullal Paik os EET at eee oS ee? 
 , ~ % , Than ee i wee i Beemer 3! i P . a 
 . a 5 z >- v ou ph ADS nah. | eae. 4 ; a ed ain oir .% ‘stk eS Eee 
 . . : ‘ } 
 a) <i ‘ ‘ } A * i 
 ’ tft - ; i r £ ‘ 
 ; aan : état Cs ae wy 
 v ! , ~% : _" rye Se wee f Sian Lathe le eee Ri ea, S +e 7% 
 ; : 
 
 deve be WE « 
 
 
 
 ead 
 
927 
 
 4280 Hrnest M. Cox, a witness called by the defendant, testi- 
 fied as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Ernest M. Cox. I reside at Peoria, [lli- 
 nois. I am a steamboat man. I have been engaged in 
 boating since 1894. I am a master; been licensed by the 
 United States government as a master eleven years last 
 June. I am familiar with the Lllinois River and have 
 been since the spring of 1895. I have sailed the Rein- 
 
 4281 deer, which was the old government boat, state fish com- 
 mission boat; the City of Peoria, the Susan, the Beeder, 
 the City of Henry and several other small boats. I sailed 
 the City of Peoria for eight years; it was an excursion 
 boat; I am acquainted with the Illinois River from La 
 Salle to its mouth. I have observed its tributaries, the 
 streams running into the L[llinois River in the last eight 
 or ten years. The rainfall since 1900, from the tribu- 
 taries to the Illinois, has been greater than it was before, 
 
 4282 to my recollection. According to my idea, on account 
 of the levying of these districts, from one end of the river 
 to the other, confining the river to its river bed, makes a 
 greater current and thereby a greater stream coming out 
 of these tributaries; it is bound to. I haven’t noticed 
 any material change or difference in the river after the 
 year 1900. I should think not more than 12 or 13 inches. 
 I don’t think it would make over a foot of difference at 
 low water. I know some of the levees down stream be- 
 
 4283 tween La Salle and the mouth of the river, in a general 
 way; know of their being there. The stream is not as 
 wide in high water now as it was before the construction 
 of these levees. It has confined the river to its bank, the 
 side where there is a levee, so they have not the overflow 
 where the levees are. Of course, it pushes the water in 
 
928 
 
 the river bed and causes a bigger current. At the present 
 time I should think the current in there was about three 
 miles or three miles and a half. I am taking that as an 
 average from the source to its mouth. I know previous 
 
 4284 to the drainage going in, previous to the levying dis- 
 trict along the river, from one end to the other, we called 
 it virtually then dead water. I have observed high wa- 
 ters on the river since 795, 794 and ’95, along in there. 
 The high waters of the river since 1900 are not as high. 
 I have been sailing excursion business exclusively for the 
 past six or eight years, on all parts of the river from its 
 source to its mouth. There is a fill in the river above the 
 dam at Henry and has been for the last six or seven years, 
 to my knowledge. The fill, according to my estimation, 
 when you get over with your steamboat, running from 
 the City of Henry to Hennepin, when you get your boat 
 over the dam, your boat will labor and that will show you 
 are in shoal water. 
 
 4285 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The steamboat season is now over. I operated a boat 
 on the river this season, the steamer Beeder. She is a 
 small tow boat. I think she is 97 feet long; run from 
 Peoria to Chillicothe. That is a distance of 92 miles. I 
 4286 have operated a buffet in Peoria since May of this year. 
 I wouldn’t boat in the winter time. The levees I referred 
 to are the levees below Henry. I think by confining the 
 river to its natural bed, it makes a swifter current. It 
 increased the current in the river. The water travels 
 faster that way than it did before. That is on account of 
 
 its being confined to a narrower channel. 
 4287 I say that previous to 1900 we had higher water than 
 we have had since, outside of 1902. I didn’t say that be- 
 fore. That is both in the tributaries and in the main 
 
929 
 
 stream of the river proper. I say that the rainfall has 
 been greater since 1900, I think, than previous to that, 
 from my experience. The rainfall has been greater dur- 
 4288 ing the past ten years than at any time that I know of. 
 I know that during the last ten years the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict has turned water into the valley; I don’t know how 
 much. I can’t specially give the rainfall. Notwithstand- 
 ing the fact that the Sanitary District water is coming 
 into the valley, I think I have seen higher water before 
 1900 than I have seen since that time. Prior to 1900 I 
 have seen the water every year and since then we have a 
 better stage of water, as far as that goes, because we have 
 had a better body of water for navigation, on account of 
 confining the river into its banks. That is the only way 
 I can go by. I think that at certain times of the year I 
 4289 have seen it higher previous than I have since. I don’t 
 remember the high water of 1883. I was not in the neigh- 
 borhood at that time. I don’t remember the high water 
 of 1892. I think it was in 1895 or ’96 I remember high 
 water. I have seen the Illinois River since 1894. I was 
 4290 living at Meridosia at that time. That was in the spring 
 of the year. I couldn’t.tell you exactly how long it stayed 
 up. I think that year it lasted quite a long time, longer 
 than usual. I remember other years. I think it was in 
 1899. That was another year of high water. I couldn’t 
 tell you what was the high mark it reached. I think that 
 4291 was the year before I came to Peoria. I think it was 
 1899. There has been a number of levees constructed 
 down the stream in the past seven or eight years that 
 would tend to increase the current of the river and the 
 height of the river. They clarified the river; gave us a 
 better current and swifter current. That current is 
 4292 greater and it clears the water out. It isn’t the same 
 water. I think that the stage of high water was greater 
 before 1900 than it has been since, largely on account of 
 
930 
 
 the fact that the rainfall was greater than it was prior 
 to 1900. I don’t account for it. We have never had occa- 
 4293 sion to stop navigation on account of anything in the 
 river except on account of ice. I suppose that it might 
 have affected the river about a foot, I should think. It 
 4294 largely affected the velocity of the current. I haven’t 
 noticed the water at Peru very much during the last ten 
 years. I have been up there but didn’t notice the water 
 very much; sometimes made the trip; made it the year 
 before last during the summer months. I didn’t take 
 4295 any particular notice of the condition of the river at that 
 time because we got in late at mght and pulled out next 
 morning on an excursion. That is the only time I was 
 there last summer. In ten years I should say I had been 
 to Peru ten times during the summer months. The ques- 
 tion as to whether or not there is any change in the con- 
 dition of the water at Peru since 1900, over what it was 
 prior to 1900, was not in my mind. I don’t know anything 
 4296 about it. I have noticed there is a better current. Take 
 the current at Peru, any place between Peoria and Pekin. 
 I can’t give you the width of the river prior to the turning 
 in of the Sanitary water. I can’t come within 200 feet 
 of its width. At Peoria it is probably 8,000 feet wide, or 
 4297 more. There is a swifter current in the river. I know 
 4298 what the current was in the river at Peoria. It was 
 practically dead water, practically dead water prior to 
 1900. I couldn’t tell you the depth of the river, but in 
 4299 Peoria Bay it was dead water. The Illinois River is 
 called a bay at Peoria. That is what we call Peoria Bay; 
 4300 it is the Lllinois River proper. It is where there is a 
 widening of the river. I was familiar with the channel 
 4301 prior to the year 1900. It is still about as wide as ever 
 and the stream seems to be as dead as it ever was. There 
 is no difference that I know of. Right below the Free 
 bridge and the P. & P. U. bridge it has been levied since 
 
931 
 
 1900, and there is a difference in the current; sometimes 
 it is levied on one side of the stream and is opened on the 
 other and then you would have the back overflow on one 
 4302 side and the levee on the other. I think that.in the past 
 ten years, on the upper stream, from Hennepin upstream, 
 it is clearer. I haven’t noticed any difference in the cur- 
 rent of the Illinois River upstream near Hennepin since 
 that time. I have not had any experience up there. I 
 haven’t had occasion to notice it. There are lots of places 
 along the river where we have to make minute observa- 
 tions and where they have a heavier current now than 
 4303 years ago. That has been down where the levees are. I 
 4304 simply had the common observation of a steamboat man 
 and would notice a difference in the current when you get 
 into a narrow place. That is all there is to it. That is 
 the extent of my observing it. On an average, yes, I think 
 the current was three miles an hour. It runs faster in 
 some places. Thatis at alow water stage. The wider the 
 4305 river is the smaller the current. The wider the river the 
 less the velocity. 
 
 Orto Herzner, a witness called by the defendant, testified 
 as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Otto Hetzner. I live in South Ottawa. I 
 am engaged in the stock business, buying and shipping 
 stock; for about thirty-five years; been acquainted with 
 the value of lands in La Salle County; with the [llinois 
 River bottoms. I bring cattle across the bridge at Peru 
 
 4307 and cross the bottoms there; did some years ago; 195 
 years ago. It was just alongside of Huse slough, I think. 
 I observed some high water in there at that time. We 
 were driving cattle through there and they got scattered 
 
932 
 
 out and they ran in there and we had an awful time get- 
 ting them out of there. There was no fences or anything 
 there. It was very low, swampy kind of land. That was 
 more than 13 years ago. I know the land claimed by the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company opposite Peru 
 and La Salle and south of the river. I have known it I 
 guess for 35 years. I was over on that land recently. I 
 saw some corn on that land. There must have been 250 
 acres in corn, planted in corn; something like that. That 
 was in a piece across from Peru, there was 250 acres. I 
 noticed the quality of the corn. It was a pretty fair qual- 
 ity of corn in there. I should judge it would run 35 to 40 
 bushels to the acre. I think that would be about the aver- 
 age. The best of it might have gone about 65, I thought. 
 It ranged from that down below. I know the piece of 
 land of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company south 
 of the river and west of the Illinois Central and also the 
 land east of the Illinois Central and on both sides of the 
 
 4309 C. B. & Q. I have an opinion as to the fair cash market 
 value of that land shortly after January 17, 1900. The 
 way that the lands were selling, I think that land ought 
 to be worth $35 to $40. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Butters. 
 
 I said before 1900. I didn’t give the value after 1900, 
 
 4310 but I don’t think there is any difference. I don’t think 
 there is any difference in the value in 1900 and in 1901. 
 
 IT know about the Sanitary District and I think I know 
 when the water was turned in; not the exact date. I have 
 traveled there and noticed the effect of the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict water on the land along the river. Pursuant to my 
 4311 business I go everywhere; haven’t any way of fixing the 
 date when I was over there. I think I was driving ten 
 
 or twelve head of cattle. I have not been thinking this 
 
933 
 
 matter over very much before I took the witness stand. 
 I knew I was going to be asked about these matters. I 
 talked with Mr. Beebe some. I never talked to Mr. Chip- 
 4312 erfield; about 15 years ago is as near as I can come to 
 fixing the date when I drove over there. We were going 
 north at the time. I have seen the map of this land at 
 4313 the Clifton Hotel. I think a man by the name of Strauss 
 4314 was with me at that time. The two of us were driving 
 eattle. It was about 10 or 11 o’clock in the morning. We 
 must have spent three or four hours before we got the 
 cattle on the bridge. They went over on the land, this 
 4315 coal company land. I think it was in May or April some- 
 time, somewhere along there. I think there was corn in 
 there then. There were a great many weeds in there, too. 
 I remember that. I saw a man working in the corn field. 
 I couldn’t tell you how much corn there was. I am sure 
 it was in Section 21. It was right east of the bridge at 
 4317 the present time and the bridge is there now. I have 
 gone past the land on both sides of the Illinois Central, 
 many times. About a week ago is when I went over the 
 last time. I have been down there several times off and 
 4318 on two or three years ago. I don’t think that this land 
 would be worth any more money than I have said. I base 
 my judgment on what uplands were selling for at that 
 time. Upland was selling at that time along about $85 
 to $100. I don’t think on upland a man is running the 
 same risk he does on that bottom land. I am not inter- 
 4319 ested in this case. I am not getting anything today 
 while I am here in attendance. I own a farm myself; 
 have an interest in a farm out here in Grand Ridge; 120 
 acres. The title is in my wife, my second wife. The 
 4320 sheriff ordered me to come here. I think I have been 
 twice in the Clifton House in regard to my testimony. I 
 was up there 15 or 20 minutes. I have not been promised 
 anything for testifying in this case. I have never been 
 
934 
 
 in this court house as a witness before in the last ten 
 
 4321 years. Never bought any land myself; never sold any. 
 Don’t know of anybody selling any bottom land or buy- 
 ing any. I base my opinion on what land was selling for 
 at that time. I know what upland was selling for at that 
 time. 
 
 4322 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I took into consideration the fact that no buildings, 
 no fences and no permanent improvements could be put 
 on that land in fixing my value. 
 
 Henry L. Hossack, a witness called by the defendant, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Henry L. Hossack. I reside at Ottawa. I 
 
 4323 am looking after my daughter’s property and my wife’s 
 and my own. I have been a contractor until the last two 
 
 or three years; have owned real estate. Have owned dur- 
 
 ing my life time 60,000 acres of land in several different 
 states ; have been in the real estate business; two or three 
 years here in Ottawa and three years in Nebraska. Have 
 had some experience on the Illinois River in boating; 
 4324 that was in ’82 and ’83. I was at that time running a 
 steamboat.’ It was a 12 foot beam and 60 feet long. I 
 have carried 140 people. It was the Belle of Ottawa. I 
 have been along the river near Peru and during high wa- 
 
 ter I was not necessarily confined to the channel. I have 
 been across the Shippingsport bridge at La Salle many 
 times. My uncle built the piers for the Illinois Central 
 bridge. I was acquainted with that locality at that time. 
 
 I have been acquainted with the locality more or less. I 
 4325 am familiar with high waters in Ottawa here from the 
 
935 
 
 Illinois River before 1900; on Main street and Shabbona 
 street, which is the first street across the Fox River 
 bridge. I have seen it run over the street there. I think 
 it was about 12 or 15 feet above the level of the Fox River 
 as it exists today. I have seen the high waters of the 
 Illinois River. I have seen the Illinois River to run over 
 the streets of the flats in West Ottawa. I rode over there 
 in a steamboat. I have been across the Peru bridge a 
 number of times. I know the land which lies east of the 
 Peru bridge, between that and the bend of the river, and 
 I know the land which hes west of the Illinois Central, 
 
 4326 which is south of the river. I know the land which les 
 east of the C. B. & Q. a short distance from Oglesby. 
 I have an opinion as to the fair cash market value of 
 those lands shortly before 1900. I should say it was 
 about $40 an acre. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Butters. 
 
 I said I had seen the water from the Fox River run- 
 ning over Main street. I have seen a map of these lands 
 before. I know where the lands are. I have seen them 
 from the river and from the road; seen them from the 
 Peru bridge and Shippingsport bridge and from the Illi- 
 nois Central bridge. I seen them 55 years ago and from 
 that on probably every three or four years. I was gen- 
 erally in some kind of a conveyance going through that 
 country. I was on the road down by them where I could 
 see them in the last few days. I was on the Peru bridge 
 and the Shippingsport bridge and walked across the Illi- 
 
 4328 nois Central bridge. Assuming there was about 375 
 acres of tillable land in section 21 and assuming that from 
 ’93 down to and including 1900 that land raised a crop 
 of upwards 60 bushels to the acre, good sound marketable 
 corn, the lands would be worth a great deal more than I 
 
936 
 
 said, if that was the fact. The land is more fertile than 
 upland. Of course, you can’t make a home on it. If the 
 land didn’t overflow of course it would be more valuable. 
 I think they could afford to lose two out of every ten 
 crops and still regard it as valuable. 
 
 4329 Re-direct Exanunation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I consider the constant risk there would be of the water 
 coming down at any time and overwhelming the land, and 
 that was considered by me in fixing my value of $40, and 
 that was based on my experience and observation, and 
 the fact that no buildings could be erected on the land. 
 
 4330 Joun McBripz, a witness called by the defendant, testi- 
 fied as follows: 
 
 Direct Exanunation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is John McBride. I reside in Ottawa. My 
 business is that of a carpenter. I have lived in Ottawa 
 40 or 45 years. I have husked on this land down by the 
 Illinois Central bridge and I am pretty familiar with the 
 lands by husking’ through them; have seen the lands that 
 are involved in this suit, lying across from Peru; east 
 of the Peru road; a tract of probably 375 acres. And 
 also the land which lies to the west of the Illinois Central 
 and south of the Illinois River and on each side of the 
 
 4331 C. B. & Q. I have seen all of these lands. I have seen 
 them several times and been on them. I have not done 
 any husking there in thirty years. I know from my pre- 
 vious experience of the general lay and character of the 
 land. I have an opinion as to the value of those lands 
 shortly before 1900. I think the lands would be worth 
 $25 an acre. 
 
937 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I am 60 years old. I have lived in Ottawa about 40 
 
 or 45 years; La Salle County about the same. It is 
 4332 thirty years since I did any husking down in the bot- 
 toms. It has probably been three weeks since I was in 
 
 La Salle or Peru. I went down and looked at this land 
 
 at that time. Prior to that had not been down there in 
 seven or eight years; went down the river at that time. 
 4333 We first looked at that land south of Peru. We went 
 down in an automobile from La Salle. Mr. Hossack of 
 4336 Ottawa was with me at the time. There is a growth of 
 trees on this land south of Peru. There isa slough along 
 there. There were willow trees there. We examined 
 4337 maybe eighty acres. You couldn’t tell from where we 
 were what the condition of the soil was. You could see 
 
 the corn stalks. I think there were some bare spots in 
 
 the field. We stopped there at the Peru bridge maybe 
 4339 five minutes. I never owned any bottom land. I have 
 owned up hill land. I own some on the north bluff. I 
 don’t do much farming; never farmed any bottom. land 
 
 at all; I don’t know how much of this land was in crop 
 before 1900. The only time I saw it prior to that it was 
 covered with water, the whole of it. I can’t tell you the 
 4340 date. I don’t know how much it was possible to crop in 
 1900. I think all the land would be good for would be 
 
 for the coal that was under it. The value I placed upon 
 
 it was largely for the value of the coal. That was about 
 4341 all that I would ever want to put init. I think the coal 
 was worth $25 an acre in 1900, yes. The coal and the land 
 together. The land I don’t consider worth much of any- 
 thing, not the surface itself is not worth much more than 
 4343 $5 an acre. I had in mind its condition about 1900 or 
 before in fixing its value. I have been on that land from 
 1900 down to this time, JI have heen by it; between 1890 
 
— 938 
 
 and 1900 I have been on it. I can’t tell you when. I was 
 in there hunting. We passed by there. J have been in 
 4344 there hunting within ten years. I was never on this land 
 4345 when it was dry. I don’t remember when the bridge 
 was changed across the river. I don’t think that bridge 
 was there. I don’t think the Q. bridge was there. I saw 
 4349 the land that lies west of the Illinois Central. We looked 
 at that from the embankment of the [Illinois Central. I 
 was viewing the premises at that time involved in this 
 litigation. I understood that. I couldn’t state how many 
 acres there were in that piece. There were trees on the 
 4350 piece adjoining the Illinois Central, between where we 
 4351 stood and this land. The land south of Peru and also 
 that south of La Salle looked pretty much alike to me. I 
 don’t think there would be much of any difference in the 
 price. I would place the same value on the land near the 
 Illinois Central in 1900, $25 an acre. My opinion is if 
 4352 there is coal under it that is about all it is worth any- 
 thing for; that is my opinion. 
 
 4304 Wituram B. Pussy, a witness called by the defendant, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is William B. Pusey. I reside in Ottawa. 
 Business, real estate and insurance. I have been engaged 
 in that business in Ottawa for seven or eight years. Prior 
 
 4395 to that I was teaching school. I am acquainted with La 
 Salle and Peru. I know the lands across the river from 
 Peru, east of the Peru turnpike or dike and the land be- 
 tween that and the river, and the land east and west of 
 the Illinois Central opposite La Salle. I am acquainted 
 with all those lands, being lands claimed by the La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company; have seen them many 
 
939 
 
 times. I don’t know how many times nor for how many 
 years, but especially since 1890. I have an opinion as to 
 what was the fair cash market value of those lands short- 
 ly before 1900. Comparing it with other land about it I 
 would say between $25 and $30 an acre. 
 
 4356 Cross-Examimation by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I don’t personally own any farm lands now; never did; 
 used to own land in Fall River Township; have been in 
 the real estate business in Ottawa seven or eight years; 
 formerly taught school. I have handled city property in 
 
 4357 Ottawa and also country property. I taught school in 
 Fall River Township and in the vicinity of La Salle and 
 Peru. I think the land in question, mentioned by me, is 
 known as Section 21. It lies south of Peru. I went out 
 on the land. I saw three or four different pieces of land. 
 (Witness indicates tracts on the map.) I crossed this 
 
 4358 bridge a great many times but especially recently from 
 down here and after we crossed the bridge we drove in 
 here until we got to the bayou, and we looked over the 
 
 4359 land and didn’t think it necessary to go any further. I 
 then came across the Central bridge and went down the 
 bluff. I went over on this land a little ways and walked 
 to the bluff and looked down at the land; looked at the 
 piece marked number 2 and number 3, divided apparently 
 by the railroad. I crossed the bridge there on a bicycle 
 a number of times and have walked out on the land, too; 
 was down in the vicinity of that land a good many times 
 prior to the year 1900. In 1890 I crossed the Central 
 bridge going to Normal. I have been down in the vicinity 
 
 4360 of this land that lies south of Peru. They seemed to 
 have corn on it when I passed there in 1898. There was 
 some corn and some weeds; plenty of weeds; in spots 
 
 the corn seemed to be good; only on the edges were 
 
940 
 
 4361 weeds, big high weeds. Well, they were thick. It was 
 just like a cane break. The weeds I should say were 
 seven or eight feet high. You could see them from the 
 dike and from the bridge. They were both there about 
 on a level. I was not considering, in placing my value 
 on this land, any value on the coal. I was not consider- 
 ing that at all. I don’t know anything about the value 
 
 4362 of coal lands. I don’t know the number of crops that 
 were taken off Section 21 from the year 1890 to 1900. I 
 don’t know the number of acres in cultivation or the 
 bushels per acre that the corn ran or the character of 
 the corn raised. I took those things into consideration. 
 I knew something about it. I lived on a farm twenty 
 years and I can judge pretty well. It was a very regular 
 
 4363 piece of land. I never measured it. I couldn’t say ex- 
 
 4364 actly, but I can estimate and that is all. I think there is 
 something over 300 acres. There is spots where they 
 eouldn’t cultivate. It is too wet, with water standing 
 there. It is only from hearsay that I know anything 
 about the acres that are there or the bushels raised per 
 
 4366 acre. I have seen the crops all spoiled there in the 
 
 4367 month of June. I know that I have seen some crops 
 destroyed. Never kept an accurate account and don’t 
 know how many crops were destroyed in the space of 20 
 or 10 years. The June that the crop was destroyed was 
 
 4368 in 1892. That was a flood year. I know of two other 
 years. I am talking about that piece up there close to 
 the Central Railroad. The water had receded off the 
 
 4370 corn when I saw it. You could see these grounds from 
 the train on the Illinois Central over the embankment 
 without putting your head out of the window. You can 
 
 4371 see the crops growing over there. In placing my value 
 upon this land, I spoke in a general way, including the 
 whole thing, the whole bottom. That is, these pieces that . 
 are in controversy here. 
 
941 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 4372 In the spring of the year of 1897 and 1898 I saw the 
 crops destroyed on this land; in the spring of ’97 and 
 also the spring of ’98 the whole bottoms there were under 
 water. When I say the whole bottoms I am speaking 
 in a general way; all the low land was under water. 
 
 Re-cross Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I saw in the year 1907 the bottoms under water for 
 more than a month. I think it was in the latter part of 
 March and April and May. I would go beyond the first 
 of May, I don’t know what amount of this land was 
 eropped in 1897. I saw the water on this land in the 
 spring in 1898, during March and April. I don’t know 
 
 4374 how long it stayed on there. 
 
 Orson Hatuert, a witness called by the defendant, testi- 
 fied as follows: 
 
 Direct Exanunation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Orson Hallett. I reside in Utica. I have 
 
 quit farming. Formerly my business was that of a farm- 
 4375 er. I was engaged in farming in La Salle County all 
 . my life until this spring. I lived in Utica Township over 
 50 years; about five miles from La Salle and Peru. I 
 have been to Peru and La Salle from time to time, I sup- 
 pose for over 45 years. I knew the Shippingsport bridge. 
 
 I never used it very much but I have been across it. I 
 have been across the road leading to Deer Park and 
 Oglesby. I have been there a good many years ago. I 
 know where the []linois River bridge is. I have not been 
 4376 across the river on that bridge. I am acquainted in a 
 general way with the lands that lie south from Peru and 
 
942 
 
 east from the wagon road, between that and the river, in- 
 cluding a strip here called the Braun land, and also the 
 land lying east and west of the Illinois Central. I know 
 all of that land. JI have known that land for about 45 
 years. I have an opinion as to its fair cash market value 
 shortly before 1900 and comparing that with other lands, 
 I would not consider that worth over half as much as 
 
 4377 good prairie land. There is some land along there by 
 the Vermillion River that is pretty good land. I suppose 
 thirty to thirty-five dollars would be about what it is 
 worth. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I saw this land about a week or ten days ago. I was 
 
 asked to go down there and look at it. I went down there 
 4378 and looked. I saw the land lying south of Peru. I have 
 seen all this land I suppose dozens and dozens of times. 
 
 I can’t tell you just when. I have seen it since the year 
 1890 from this side of the river, from the north side. I 
 4379 had no occasion to go over there. J have been down 
 in a boat several times. I saw it a week ago from pretty 
 nearly all sides. I was over on the land. I don’t know 
 what that particular piece of land raised from 1890 down 
 
 to the year 1900. I only know what I observed there now. 
 
 I have seen the land lots of times by going down the river 
 
 in a boat. I don’t know the actual number of acres that 
 were in crop from 1890 to 1900. I don’t know the actual 
 4380 number of crops produced on that tract during those 
 years. I don’t know the character of the crops taken 
 from the land during those years. I had no occasion to 
 eare. I don’t know the number of bushels per acre that 
 
 the land yielded. JI have no knowledge now on that sub- 
 ject. I am very well acquainted with bottom lands and 
 
 it makes a lot of difference what kind of land it is. That 
 4381 is pretty low soggy land, I think. There is a good deal 
 
943 
 
 of that land that slopes to the south. J think that bay 
 
 up here is not very well drained. It was wet when I saw 
 
 it a week ago. I did not take into consideration, in fix- 
 
 ing my value, the coal that underlaid this land. I did not 
 
 consider that at all. I don’t know about the crops that 
 
 were raised on that land since 1902 down to the present 
 
 time, nor about the acreage, or the character of the crop, 
 
 or the amount of it. I know the land near the Central. 
 
 I don’t know how many acres out there were actually in 
 
 crop, nor how the crop matured, nor when they could put 
 
 the crops in, prior to 1900. Now, if they can crop-it at 
 
 4382 all they can crop it right along. They always could. 
 
 They can put corn in year after year. You can’t do that 
 
 on up hill land. You have got to use different tactics al- 
 together. 
 
 Defendant offers in evidence the charter of the La 
 
 Salle County Carbon Coal Company, as part of its case. 
 
 4383 Plaintiff objects; offer is overruled; defendant ex- 
 
 cepts. 
 
 Grorcre Mason, a witness called by the defendant, testified 
 as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is George Mason. I live at Dalzell, Tlinois. 
 
 It is about four miles northwest of Peru. I am acquaint- 
 4384 ed with Peru and La Salle. I have lived in that vicinity 
 about 28 years. My first business was mining. In recent 
 years I have been farming; for the last 17 years. I have 
 been acquainted with the land lying in Section 21, south 
 
 of Peru and east of the Peru road, down across the Peru 
 bridge going south, and also the land which lies east and 
 west of the Illinois Central Railroad, claimed by the La 
 Salle County Carbon Coal Company. I have been ac- 
 
944 
 
 quainted with those lands for about 25 years. I have an 
 opinion as to the value of those lands shortly before 1900. 
 I should judge, to the best of my ability, between $35 and 
 $40 an acre. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 4385 Dalzell is four miles from Peru; say four and a quar- 
 ter; somewhere along in there. I have seen the lands in 
 question here not over a week ago. I did not go down 
 there for the purpose of seeing them. I saw the lands 
 at that time lying on each side of what is known as the > 
 Ducksberry Road; that is from La Salle towards Ogles- 
 by and Portland. I saw the land lying on both sides of 
 the road along there. I make it my business to go over 
 there quite frequently. My father-in-law lives right there 
 on the bottoms east of the Vermillion River. I have seen 
 
 4386 the land lying south of Peru right recently. I saw the 
 lands lying south of Peru some time this spring, on both 
 sides of the road. I saw the lands along in there between 
 
 4387 1890 up to 1900. I knew the land that Waugh used to 
 farm; I can’t tell exactly how many acres of that land 
 were in crop from the year 1890 down to the year 1900; 
 I don’t know how many acres were raised of that land 
 from the year 1885 down to 1900. I don’t know how many 
 bushels per acre that land yielded during that period, nor 
 the character of the corn. I don’t take into considera- 
 
 4388 tion, in placing my valuation, any of the coal underly- 
 ing the surface. I don’t know what the lands raised that 
 lie south of the Illinois River and east and west of the 
 Illinois Central right of way. I don’t know how many 
 acres in that particular piece were under cultivation, nor 
 the character of the crops that grew there. 
 
945 
 
 4389 Wautrrer D. Strawn, a witness called by the defendant, 
 testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Walter D. Strawn. I reside at 72 Chapel 
 street, Ottawa. I am a retired farmer and have lived 
 in Ottawa since the 22nd of last November. I was born 
 in La Salle County but I lived out of it for 18 years. The 
 balance of the time I lived in Ottawa. I have an ac- 
 quaintance with La Salle and Peru by traveling through 
 there. I know both places. My attention has been called 
 to the lands claimed by the La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company south of Peru and east of the road running 
 south from Peru. Also land lying east and west of the 
 
 4390 Illinois Central. I have an opinion as to the fair cash 
 market value of that land shortly before 1900, from ob- 
 servation and knowing what the land was selling for. I 
 think it is worth about $50 an acre. 
 
 4391 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I looked at those lands especially with a view of ascer- 
 taining their quality. I think it was a week ago Sunday 
 and a week before that I was down there. I was down 
 there twice. I went down there to ascertain the condition 
 and the quality of the land. The only way I knew them 
 was by driving along the roads or riding over the IIli- 
 
 4392 nois Central. My opinion as to what they were worth 
 in 1900 is derived largely from the conditions of the land 
 as I saw them the other day, and I assume they were 
 in the same condition in 1900 and prior to that time that 
 they are today. I think they were probably in about the 
 same condition. We took a team and went all over the 
 land; Dan McCarthy and myself were down there. We 
 
946 
 
 4393 drove across the middle road down there. We drove 
 around at different places. I should say, from the naked 
 eye, there would be no way of draining that land. ‘Take 
 it up in the main body of that land the corn is principally 
 on the east side of it. On the west side it was all grown 
 up with weeds; there is some little corn on the west but 
 not so good as on the east. I think the corn averaged a 
 little better on that further patch than it did on the oth- 
 
 4394 ers. J never owned any bottom lands. If during the 
 years from 1895 to 1900 the corn averaged 60 bushels to 
 the acre, my value was low, but according to the way I 
 know the land was selling and that there was a more 
 hazardous condition in these lands down there and no 
 improvements on it whatever, my judgment is that that 
 land would always be about the same that it is now. 
 
 4395 I didn’t make any careful examination of that land prior 
 
 4396 to 1900. I would be surprised to know that it raised 
 nine consecutive crops prior to the year 1901 but I would 
 not think that I had placed too low a value on it from 
 the way that lands were selling. There was plenty of 
 land sold before 1900 for $60 up to say $85, from 1890 to 
 
 4397 1900. I don’t remember any particular piece that sold 
 around January, 1900, for as much as $100 an acre. 
 
 Ropert Warrick, a witness called by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Exanunation by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 4398 My name is Robert Warrick. I reside in Utica. I am 
 a farmer. I have lived in Utica Township over 40 years; 
 about five or six miles from Peru and La Salle. I go to 
 Peru through La Salle. I am acquainted with the lands 
 claimed by the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company 
 located south of the Illinois River across from Peru and 
 
947 
 
 east from the Illinois River bridge and also with the 
 lands east and west of the Illinois Central. I have been 
 
 4399 acquainted with them in a general way for about 32 or 
 33 years. I have an opinion as to the fair cash market 
 value of those lands shortly before 1900. They were 
 worth $25 an acre. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I did not include the coal. I would see these lands 
 4000 every few weeks or month. I saw the lands in June of 
 4401 this year. The land I saw lies on both sides of the dike 
 as you cross the bridge. I have been across there most 
 every year two or three times a year. I know the place 
 where Waugh lived. I was not personally acquainted 
 4402 with him but I know all the land that he farmed. I 
 don’t know how much in bushels per acre it raised. I 
 saw the corn growing on it. I should judge corn was re- 
 peated there year after year; always was in corn when 
 4403 I saw it. I have traveled over the Illinois Central road 
 from La Salle. I don’t know the number of acres lying 
 on the land on the east side of the Illinois Central that 
 was in crop from the year 1885 down to 1900. I only 
 know of the character of the crop raised on it from ob- 
 servation. I wasn’t on the ground during any of those 
 years. I didn’t go into the field. I don’t know the num- 
 4404 ber of acres west of the Central that were under culti- 
 vation during those years, nor the yield per acre, nor the 
 yield per acre in bushels, nor the character of the corn. I 
 never farmed any bottom lands myself. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I knew some land in the bottoms that was for sale by 
 D. B. Gates at that time. It was situated close to the land 
 in question. 
 
948 
 
 4405 GrorGE SARGEANT, a witness called by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is George Sargeant. I reside in Deer Park 
 4406 Township. That is southeast of La Salle. Pretty near 
 seven miles from La Salle. My business is that of a 
 farmer. I have been engaged in that all my life. I have 
 lived in La Salle County 54 years. I am acquainted with 
 the Illinois Central bridge where it crosses the river. I 
 am acquainted with that portion of it south of the river. 
 I know the land claimed by the La Salle County Carbon 
 Coal Company lying east and west of the Illinois Central 
 bridge. I know the land east, not west. I have an opin- 
 ion as to the fair cash market value of that land shortly 
 ‘before 1900. I should say it wasn’t worth over $30 or $35 
 an acre. 
 
 4407 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I have never farmed any bottom lands. In 1900 I lived 
 in Deer Park. I drove to La Salle on the road from Jones 
 along the bluff. I don’t know the number of acres act- 
 ually in crop on that particular piece. I was not down 
 in that field of corn. I observed it as I was passing along 
 
 4408 the dike there. I saw a stand of corn. I should say that 
 the corn ran 25 bushels to the acre this year by the looks 
 of the stalks; 25, possibly 30. 
 
 My valuation does not include the coal underlying the 
 
 ground. 
 
949 
 
 4409 JosepH Kinzer, a witness called by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Joseph Kinzer. I am a farmer. I reside 
 in Utica Township. I live about seven miles from La 
 Salle and Peru. I have lived there about 35 years; have 
 been engaged in farming about 40 years. I know the 
 Illinois Central river bridge where it crosses the river 
 and runs south from La Salle. I know the lands claimed 
 by the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company on the 
 other side of the river. JI have an opinion as to the fair 
 cash market value of that land shortly before 1900. In 
 my opinion it was worth about $25 an acre. 
 
 4410 Cross-Exammation by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The lands were good for farming, corn farming. I 
 
 couldn’t say how many crops they raised prior to 1900, 
 
 nor how many crops they lost from 1885 down to 1900. 
 
 I couldn’t tell how many acres were in crop. I don’t 
 
 know whether the corn matured every year or not. I 
 
 know they had crops there every year, but I couldn’t say 
 
 4411 for sure as to that. I don’t know how many bushels 
 
 it run per acre. I did not take into consideration the coal 
 underlying the land. 
 
 4412 [D. H. Duaan, called as a witness by the defendant, testi- 
 fied as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is D. H. Dugan. I reside at Chillicothe, Tli- 
 nois. I am connected with the Sanitary District of Chi- 
 cago as assistant engineer. J have been with the Dis- 
 
950 
 
 trict about six years; have had 12 years’ experience as 
 an engineer. Three years with the Chicago, Milwaukee 
 & St. Paul Railroad Company, and two years with the 
 4413 United States Geological Survey in Wisconsin. At va- 
 rious times I was employed by private concerns, and 
 spent several months with Professor Mead of the Univer- 
 sity of Wisconsin, both in the location of water power 
 sites and for several months was employed by him in con- 
 nection with the reconstruction of the water works sys- 
 tem of Decatur, Tlinois. I began with the District about 
 Six years ago as instrument man in charge of a party 
 making topographic surveys in the Illinois Valley and I 
 have been promoted from time to time. I am now assist- 
 ant engineer. I have made a computation of the rainfall 
 data which was introduced and admitted in evidence in 
 this case as to the average totals shown for the different 
 vears from 1892 down to date. The totals are: 1898, 
 4414 29,22 inches; 1894, 29.71 mehes; 1895, 29.34 inches; 1896, 
 30.08 inches; 1897, 30.18 inches; 1898, 39.21 inches; 1899, 
 27.03 inches; 1900, 32.18 inches; 1901, 24.95 inches; 1902, 
 46.32 inches; 1903, 36.55 inches; 1904, 31.31 inches; 1905, ~ 
 30.86 inches; 1906, 33.3 inches; 1907, 38.79 inches; 1908, 
 32.11 inches; 1909, 40.06 inches; 1910, 27.36 inches. The 
 computation of rainfall during the planting and growing 
 season for the same years, that is, April, May, June, July, 
 August and September, inclusive, for 1893, 16.83; 1894, 
 4416 18.9 inches: 1895, 15.97 inches; 1896, 27.5 inches; 1897, 
 13.91 inches; 1898, 20.25 inches; 1899, 16.41 inches; 1900, 
 19.47 inches; 1901, 12.87 inches; 1902, 13.42 inches; 1903, 
 25.63 inches; 1904, 18.91 inches; 1905, 24.43 inches; 1906, 
 18.54 inches; 1907, 25.71 inches; 1908, 19.77 inches; 1909, 
 23.82 inches, and 1910, 19.43 inches. The rainfall for Au- 
 4417 gust, 1894, was 1.12; August, 1897, 1.6 inches; July, 1898, 
 1.95 inches; June, 1899, 2.31 inches; September, 1900, 2.13 
 inches; July, 1901, 3.09 inches; September, 1902, 5.58 
 
951 
 
 4418 inches; July, 5.22 inches, 1903; September, 1904, 4.04 
 inches; November, 1905, 2.22 inches; July, 1906, 2.62 
 inches; September, 1907, 5.16 inches; October, 1907, 1.08 
 inches; September, 1908, 1.12 inches; January, 1909, 2.12 
 inches; August, 1910, 3.8 inches, The amount for August, 
 1893, is .57 inches. The rainfall applies to the area 
 drained by the Illinois River above the City of La Salle. 
 IT have made a tabulation or illustration showing a compar- 
 ison of the precipitations for the periods or period from 
 1893 to 1901 and from 1902 to 1910. 
 
 (The chart of said comparative annual precipitation , 
 was marked Exhibits 282, 283.) 
 
 J will explam. On the left side of the plat appears the 
 figures 46, 44, 42, 40, 38, 36, 34, 32, 30, 28, 26, 24, 22, 20, 
 10 and zero. ‘Those figures represent the scale to which 
 the chart is drawn and represent the rainfall in inches. 
 At the left is a vertical green column with the figures 
 
 442() 46.32 and the figure 1902 underneath. That column rep- 
 resents the annual rainfall over the watershed of the I]li- 
 nois River for the year indicated—1902. In the next col- 
 umn appears the figures, 40.06 with the figure 1909; that 
 column represents the annual rainfall above the City of 
 La Salle for the year 1909, drawn to the scale shown at 
 the left of the chart. These figures are based upon the 
 certified rainfall introduced in this case and admitted as 
 evidence in the case. The next column appears the fig- 
 ures 38.79 and 1907; that indicates the annual rainfall 
 above La Salle for the year 1907 drawn to the scale indi- 
 eated at the left of the chart. So on for the other col- 
 umns and for the years named, to wit: the years 1906, 
 
 4491 1908, 1904 and 1910. The green columns are arranged 
 in their order of greatest magnitude. The column on the 
 left represents the year of greatest rainfall and the col- 
 umn immediately to the right of that is the year of next 
 greatest rainfall; the column to the right of that is the 
 
952 
 
 year of next greatest rainfall and soon down to the low- 
 est rainfall that is represented in the column to the right, 
 4422 the extreme right of the chart. The green columns indi- 
 eate the annual rainfall above the City of La Salle for 
 each of the years 1902 to 1910, inclusive. The red col- 
 umns are arranged in like manner to represent the an- 
 nual rainfall above the City of La Salle for each of the 
 years from 1893 to 1901, inclusive. Across the plat ap- 
 pears a green line and above it is written the words 
 ‘average 1902 to 1910, 35.74 inches’’; that represents the 
 . amount of average annual rainfall above the City of La 
 Salle for the years 1902 to 1910, inclusive, for each year. 
 The red line appearing upon the plat below the green line 
 with the words ‘‘average 1893 to 1901, 30.88 inches,’’ that 
 is the average annual amount of rainfall above the City 
 ° 4493 of La Salle for the years 1893 to 1901, inclusive. From 
 the years 1893 to 1901 the total amount of rain which fell 
 was about 277.9 inches. Between 1902 and 1910, inclu- 
 sive, the total amount of rain was about 321.6 inches; a 
 total difference of 43.7 inches. In the next chart, No. 
 283, there is a plat showing the precipitations from April 
 to September, 1893, 1901, 1902 and 1910. That plat is 
 constructed in a similar manner as the one just described, 
 but it is restricted to those periods, limited to the months 
 of April to September of each year. The green column 
 represents the rainfall above the City of La Salle, April 
 to September of each year from 1902 to 1910. The red 
 columns indicate the rainfall above La Salle for each of 
 the years in the months of April to September for the 
 years 1893 to 1901. 
 Which said comparative annual precipitation charts, 
 marked Exhibits 282 and 283. respectively, are in the 
 words, figures and characters following, to wit: 
 

 

 
 Vale? ie ea | ee 2 
 F b sete ii, 3 % task >t. oF of a . 
 
 ° a 
 ( : . # a : 
 
 
 
: ity, ef 
 
 
 
 ‘SPE. 
 
 a 
 
 INE 
 
 o> 
 
 - 
 
 $s; 
 ; 
 ’ 
 
 “2 
 
 — 
 
 Oe eee ge 3 
 f a wee 
 
 nai 
 
 Te 
 
 tag ae 
 
TA 
 
 oe a" 
 
 
 
Mr. CHIPERFIELD: I desire to offer in evidence Eix- 
 hibits 282 and 283 on behalf of the defendant. 
 
 Mr. O’Connor: Plaintiff objects. 
 
 The Court: Objection sustained. 
 
 Mr. CuHIpEeRFIELD: Defendant excepts. 
 
 
 

 
953 
 
 4497 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 So far as the rainfall computation is concerned, I have 
 taken all the rainfall during a certain period. I don’t 
 44928 know what the record shows, from memory. 
 
954 
 
 4430 Horace J. Curtis, a witness called by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is Horace J. Curtis. I reside in Dowagiac, 
 Michigan. I am a civil engineer and draftsman. I 
 worked for the Illinois Steel Company in their drafting 
 department in Chicago for about a year and a half; about 
 six months with the Link Belt Machinery Company as 
 draftsman and about eight years with John S. Metcalf 
 Company, engineers, in Chicago, drafting, and in August, 
 1905, I came with the Sanitary District on their surveys 
 in the Illinois Valley and I have been with them most of 
 the time since then with the exception of three and a half 
 vears in the Philippine Islands as assistant engineer in 
 the engineering department. I was working for the Phil- 
 ippine Government. I was assistant engineer in the bu- 
 reau of public works. JI am familiar with the making of 
 topographical surveys. While I was working with the 
 Philippine government I did survey work in connection 
 with irrigation projects, locating locks and construction, 
 building construction, bridge construction and office work 
 in connection with the same; designing, and so forth. I 
 was employed by the Sanitary District in the survey on 
 which this map is based, Exhibit 281. On this particular 
 land shown on that map IT was recorder. The recorder 
 takes down all the notes that are given to him by» the 
 instrument man and makes sketches of the conditions as 
 
 4432 he finds them on the land, so as to facilitate the platting 
 of the maps. We just call the notes topographical notes; 
 sometimes they are called field notes. I know that the 
 field notes and the maps in this case, which have been in- 
 troduced in evidence are correct, of my own personal 
 knowledge, as one who participated in the survey. I have 
 
959 
 
 constructed from those field notes and map a chart show- 
 ing the relative elevations of the land in question. I have 
 constructed one of tract 3 which is shown here, starting 
 with the Illinois Central, central of the Illinois Central, 
 running across parallel to the north line of the track, 
 about 225, feet south, and running across the Vermillion 
 4433 River. The second one starts at the road, the east and 
 - west road on the bluff there in tract 2 and rung across 
 here to the Illinois River. The third tract, tract 4, starts 
 back here on the bluff and runs across that tract to the 
 river. 
 Said plats are marked Exhibits 284, 285 and 286. 
 These plats correctly show the surface of this land at 
 the points that I have indicated. This black line that 
 runs across in an irregular manner on the plat which is 
 marked four, is a line representing the surface of the 
 ground, as it would be if that section were cut with a 
 gigantic knife and shows actually the elevation of the 
 ground across the line. This shows the level of the dif- 
 ferent pieces or the different parts of the tract clear 
 across the tract. It is based upon the survey which was 
 4434 made by our party. That is true of the other plats of 
 the other tracts. On the tract marked tract 4, there are 
 also three lines above the irregular line, which are marked 
 ‘‘high waters 1892 and 1904’? and also ‘‘high water, 
 1883’’ and also ‘‘high water, 1902.’’ They indicate the 
 elevation that the high waters of those years stood over 
 that ground. The line appearing at the right marked ‘‘L. 
 W., 1901,’ that indicates the surface of the low water of 
 the year 1901 in the river opposite the tract. The plat is 
 drawn to a scale, vertical scale of one inch to five feet and 
 a horizontal scale of one inch to 100 feet. The plat is 
 referred to the datum plane of the City of Chicago. Chi- 
 4435 cago city datum has reference to a plane assumed by en- 
 gineers in the city and was taken from the low water of 
 
996 
 
 1847 in Lake Michigan. Memphis datum is an imagin- 
 ary plane referred to the elevation of the water in the 
 Gulf of Mexico. I am not certain whether it was in low 
 water. I think it was a certain distance below the low 
 water. The difference between Chicago city datum and 
 Memphis datum is 587.04 feet. On the cross section of 
 tract No. 3 there appears a line as high water of 1883, 
 high water of 1892, high water of 1904; that indicates the 
 elevations that the high waters of those years stood over 
 this tract. That plat is also drawn to the same scale. On 
 the cross section of tract No. 2 there appears high water 
 1883, 1892, 1904; that indicates the elevation of water, 
 the high water of those years on that tract. And there 
 also appears low water of 1901; that 1s the low water of 
 
 4436 that year opposite that tract. The distance shown be- 
 
 4437 
 
 4446 
 
 4448 
 4449 
 
 tween the low water of 1901 on tract No. 4 and the crest 
 of the bank is about 12.3 feet. The water surfaces are 
 based upon a profile made during the government sur- 
 vey of the river by Mr. Woermann in 1900 and 1904. I 
 have a certified copy of the profile made of the Woer- 
 mann survey. 
 
 Offered in evidence. Offer rejected. 
 
 Defendant excepts. 
 
 EixHrBir 284, 
 
 EXHisir 285. 
 
 EXHIBIT 286. 
 
 ExHIBit 287 
 
exh 284 
 
 ee ae 
 
 7 ¥ 
 ar: ar oa ae TTT @ 
 SRPBBNL bY S46 08 SSR RUE RT SE See eee 
 2B Pes sae eee a PTT? 
 PPE) oe ay (2Gase 
 ; ae 
 caus Ae 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -—— 
 
 
 
 eae 
 
 
 
 4 es 
 i - 
 
 
 
 cet i a! ia ie 
 Sasseeceeoa Gk 
 
 
 
ty 
 
 ee ae 
 wre 
 tee Hee 
 
 ee eae b en | 
 
 ARE ay 
 ~~ 
 
 
 
ete. : TERT 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 4 aan 33 
 oe , a 
 oes = 
 . 
 . ‘ 3 ‘ a 4 ~ i . 
 < " = . “ r f * 
 . 
 ' sd . 
 . ‘ F + ‘ ~ . ‘ \ 
 ’ - . a F : 
 — o ae o ae Se re ee ee — ee pearance 
 4 . . (a ‘ ‘ 
 
 
 

 
| 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 so hd deme 
 Var io ie es 
 BPRS, ghd 
 ridin MBN iy Faas 
 ~ 4 “ah 
 
 a 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 ¥ 
 . : 7 
 aS se 
 ua 
 ™ 
 - f 
 s 
 zs . é ‘ i 
 . rs 
 i > i > ¥ 
 ; a sm 
 + pe! By 
 or ’ ae 
 4 e ‘ AM 
 aes f 
 . * i i 
 4, * ry . d 7 
 § 
 fol Ps 
 7 on “oe 
 + ‘ ek, /£ en, 
 ry ee th ae + P 
 mid ¢ 
 "4 1 
 ¥ . 
 athe EY) 4 yt + 
 7 a 3 
 : <7 
 , 5 ’ det, 
 f PoP os ro e 
 
 ~ 
 ~ 
 : 
 P 
 uf 
 : 
 — 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 * 
 as a ee 
 - ae, * ‘ 
 
 2 
 
957 
 
 4451 Ihave a plat of the water surfaces at Brandon’s bridge 
 at Joliet for the menths of September and October, 1911, 
 and also the water surface of the Illinois River at La 
 Salle for the year 1911. 
 
958 
 
 (The said documents were marked Exhibits 288 and 
 289 and are in words, characters and figures following, 
 to-wit) : 
 
 4453 Across Exhibit 288 is an irregular line above a heavy 
 line, marked September and a lighter line marked Octo- 
 ber. The irregular line represents the water surface of 
 different days from September to October 1, 1911, as it 
 appears from the guage readings of those days, platted 
 to a scale showing the actual representation of the water, 
 between September 1st and October 31, 1911. It is 
 based upon gauge readings which are in evidence in this 
 ease, given at Brandon’s bridge, by Albert Lindner. The - 
 upper plat, the scale is one inch to a foot, vertical scale 
 
 4454 and the horizontal scale is three inches to one month, or 
 one-tenth of an inch to one day. The scale of the lower 
 
 4455 plat is the same as the other. The plat depicts the wa- 
 ter surface at Lock 15, La Salle, from September Ist to 
 April 31, 1911. It is based upon the gauge readings of 
 the weather bureau at La Salle, admitted in evidence in 
 this case. (Hach of the plats offered in evidence by the 
 defendant.) 
 
 Plaintiff objects; objection sustained; defendant ex- 
 cents. 
 
ig: | 
 
 3 eee aper - 4 Ts 
 : t : : } 
 i : . 
 j : ; ; 
 | j ; ; : 
 } / i ' : 
 +: <2 FP oe OO Te ae CELE SS ret rye AA ’ 
 ; | 
 ; : 
 } : 
 | 
 hee ; ved ——— ~ 2p —— —+—- — 4+ anne MES S245 90s 
 : } 
 ' t | 
 
 bd | 
 LS pt ee AR Ra oe tee 
 ) ) | 
 ee ke 
 cr me eos ag ara 
 AS Set Se +++ — 
 ) | . 
 Aaa Ecc gps Seer GRE 
 t | ) | ) 
 ea es Ta a EE | 
 5 ; / 
 i | | 
 | 3 : 
 ee) So Sen ieee eee eee, ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CCeP Roo 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 ¥ 
 
 o ote tee 
 
 AO ty, me 
 
 *% 
 . 
 $e 
 : 
 7 
 ’ . 
 “s 
 * F vd 
 f ur . 
 ’ + ~ 
 io) 
 as 
 +a 
 ‘ 
 ‘ 
 : 
 hom as 
 tin 4 
 t 
 5 
 { 
 A 
 ‘ 
 ". 
 we He Phe 
 ‘ 
 
 ' 
 %» 
 * 
 L 
 % 
 e 
 ‘e 
 8 
 
 t 
 
 7h Ue 
 
 
 
 . , a 
 
 ‘ ot ree 
 & ont Oh =’ . 
 Sey ax Casita 
 ys ? 
 
 Neo 
 
 " ‘ 
 me oho 
 ~. 
 
 ( 
 , ek 
 we 
 
 ire 
 
 atpet Be 
 
 - ‘i P hepute hen! i] ng! 
 As a aces aE AS sdk 
 
 a 
 
 . ' + * * 
 Li A RS AT 
 ‘ 4 * 
 = Ce a ia 
 ; 
 “trp ey ots bey, ey ¥ " 
 ze ¢ » ; 4 ns ¥ aby 
 ary i 
 és on ith 49 bah fae 
 -g th . aa al < 
 * 7 
 ST atical Get lee ce 4 Se 7 Te oz 
 fle tal elk, ' 
 ’ 
 * 
 F , * a9 
 nts ‘ : yi Ware 
 ee a 24 yy, ei 
 “J y “9 ac 
 = 5 OPP ey yr ‘t 
 ia! e Pe 4 t ay 
 Sy s ee de 
 . ne rie Oy orto r 
 ee ee jis Poot tage’ cabbies 
 " * 
 Pe s% st ; 
 , f a ke ah AAG 
 ee fan) \ ee at a Bey 
 a he *» ‘ 
 Ae) i : 4 Ts 7 
 i: Gee Ate iw, Jas 
 A fet ‘"« ‘ ar ’ 
 Pend o ‘Be «ths abe ~e Y aes 
 
 
 
 2 ROH neers 
 4’ yaa 
 ‘ " 
 o> eg id 
 Sere Pe 
 ff geod ogee i 
 4 >! ogi Minar ancy te 
 q a his ee, i s cdi 
 ee Se “ae 
 A 4 oo y 
 i] , 
 
 HER aad Hee hye sath) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bins ee pte ay. Saas To Be Ag 
 ts i Ae 
 
 oa ia 
 =" 
 b, Sor@a ees *e) 
 ; Stak ol >. 
 Ri yads 4 ‘hue he 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 Rett d 
 ete 
 
 
 
 
 
 is 
 z , @ 
 wa , 
 ‘ ’ d - 
 }. : patie pedi ihatect 1% 
 baie ‘ A hig os t- * 
 th Ay ebay Fire = 
 ! * ; 
 § ” 
 
= 
 
 / if / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TO UU GE 7 
 | a | 
 e 
 
 
 
 Viti fivtigii| 
 
 Ps 
 * 
 
 ‘i 
 
 Gf 4297 ye 2609 
 | / 
 
 Viv 
 
 | 
 
 
 
 Bs ass 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' | Ears | | | | = ~ 99670 
 
 
 
 nig PT TTT 
 
 
 
 puv vequejd 'S 
 
 te eS Bae err aa PST STON OT Se “Bh HERE OEE MEET eo. 
 
 
 
 Hee See Se ae L 
 Bae te aa me 
 own freee = Fa eet 
 
 | i 
 . ~ aoe 6S St Pe wo 
 ; 
 ; : | 
 , ‘i 4 
 } ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i svat YaLLVM\ 40 LaVHo | 
 
 gape i icid =a E + Fs ETE 
 
 
 
 LRG! MOITI22 AOR GRAGMATE 
 Aor we «OmSEE 4 
 ' 
 

 
 
 
 
 ee ; ‘ 
 
 ‘ 
 ‘an Sse , e ah Now hd ee s 
 rea . > ar A te ee gg yd. te »'g 
 a 4 ae ' : _ : sce ‘ - ° pied At i Vek Meme ot ad IE fins gt jo Th hg 
 ’ . } tf J q cry 4 ‘ % =a K ( 
 Bs <1. es oe y 7 “ iy 4 
 ‘ 4 ‘ 
 
 ij 4 tee : 
 
 zt * ss /T) oe ‘ ; F , 
 
 4 * : é J i) ’ 
 
 bs 4 4 p F , ‘ 
 
 * i. 
 ‘ 
 - * 7 < i] ] 
 . 4 
 . m4 : 
 5.4 
 i 
 F b ‘ 
 i » 
 ’ 
 ‘ 
 4 
 ”~ 
 é 
 ; 
 ‘ 
 4 
 1a 
 ri 
 d 
 + 2h ; i 
 7 
 } ~~ ' 
 
 . Tak LORE 
 
 As Hit “Sadan 
 
 Oe fhe 
 
 Sahat § Ae 
 
 * 
 ~ 
 
 . 
 
 rie 
 sri te 
 
 fis 
 
 ‘4 
 
 ae | 
 
 Sia pad 
 
 rh 
 
 ae | 
 
 a, 
 
 =* 
 
 ee 
 ’ 
 
 vas 
 
 of) 
 
 >» 
 ‘ 
 > 
 
 Co EMS IP Tae eet napa ee 
 < _ 
 
 ot 
 
 . 
 ° MME the, Coit Ae Hp 
 
959 
 
 4456 On the tract of land in Section 22 I have a notation as 
 to what was growing on this land when this survey was 
 made in 1906, at which time the different area of crops, 
 timber, weeds or anything in physical characteristics of 
 the land at that time were noted. On tract 2, being in 
 Section 22, there was 79.67 acres of corn; there was 38.17 
 acres timber; 14.80 acres timber and weeds and 3.48 acres 
 
 4457 brush and weeds. On tract No. 3 there was 73.51 acres 
 of corn and 8.29 acres of timber. On tract 4, being a por- 
 tion of Section 21 south of the river and east of the 
 slough, there was 297.47 acres of corn, 33.86 acres of 
 weeds, 16.88 acres of meadow, 2.41 acres of timber, 13.55 
 acres timber and brush, 30.83 acres timber and weeds. In 
 tract 19.53 acres corn, 5 acres weeds, .54 meadow, .71 mil- 
 let, 15.72 acres timber and weeds. I have aggregated the 
 
 4458 totals of the different physical objects that we found 
 upon the entire tracts. In the four tracts there was in 
 corn 452.18 acres; in weeds, 38.86 acres; in meadow, 17.22 
 acres; in millet, .71 acres; timber, 48.86; timber and 
 brush, 13.55 and timber and weeds, 61.35 acres; brush, 
 3.48 acres. T'ract No. 3, the portion crossed by the C., B. 
 & Q., is 81.80 acres; tract No. 2, the portion west of the 
 Ilhnois Central and east of the Shippingsport bridge, 
 136.12 acres. Tract 4, the portion of Section 21, south 
 of the Illinois River, and east of the bayou is 376.70 
 acres; tract 5, the northeast quarter of Section 21, south 
 of Huse Lake and east of the Illinois River is 41.50 acres. 
 The aggregate of all those figures is 636.21 acres. The 
 water surface in MeCormick’s slough during the survey 
 in 1906 was secured. The elevation of the water surface 
 at that time was minus 137.8 Chicago datum, taken No- 
 vember 3, 1906. In the gauge reading at Lock 15, on that 
 date, shown by the evidence of Mr. Peterson, of the 
 weather bureau, it is given as 11.8 feet. Taking the zero 
 
 4460 of the gauge and computing the water surface of the 
 
960 - 
 
 river at that date, you would make an elevation of 446.1 
 Memphis datum, and subtract that from 587.04, which is 
 the difference between Memphis and Chicago datum of 
 100, minus 141.4. The difference between the surface of 
 the Illinois River and the water surface of MceCormick’s 
 slough, from this computation shows as 3.14 feet. The 
 elevation of the bottom of MeCormick’s slough, referred 
 to Chicago datum, is minus 137.5. The Illinois River was 
 lower on November 3, 1906, than the bottom of McCor- 
 mick’s slough by 3.44 feet. The river on that same day 
 4461 was 2.14 feet lower than the surface of the pond. The 
 water surface of the pond on the southwest portion of 
 tract No. 2 south of the Illinois River. The difference 
 between the elevation of the bottom of the slough in tract 
 No. 3, being east of the Illinois Central right of way, and 
 the surface of the Illinois River, at the time of the sur- 
 vey, was 2.84 feet. The difference between the highest 
 and the lowest point of cultivation as found by our sur- 
 4462 vey, was 11.5 feet. The lowest point of land in tract 
 No. 3, outside of the Vermillion River, is found along 
 the slough. The lowest point of cultivated land in tract 
 2,is minus 137. The lowest point I suppose is in the bot- 
 tom of the river. The highest point is back on the bluff 
 just north of the road; a difference between this highest 
 point and lewest point on the bank of 32 feet. The high- 
 est point of tract 5 is the southeast corner of the section 
 and the lowest point of cultivated area minus—42 feet 
 4463 difference. The difference between the highest and low- 
 est part of tract 5, of the cultivated area is 54 feet. The 
 average elevation on the piece of land east of the C., B. & 
 4464 Q.is 130. Tract 3 is slightly higher than tract 2. Tract 
 38 is higher than tract 4. Tract 3 is higher than tract 5. 
 Tract 3 is about five feet above the elevation of the bank 
 of the river. The elevation of Water street is minus 120. 
 That would be 15 feet above this bank (indicating). 
 
961 
 
 4465 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 The survey in 1906 was made in the latter part of Oc- 
 tober and fore part of November, When I compare high- 
 est and lowest points of piece of land, I take the lowest 
 point outside of the river, the average bank of the river. 
 A man looking at the ground down there, the ground looks 
 to be about level. If you are looking for a difference of 
 elevation, though, you can see it readily enough. 
 
 4466 D. B. Fox, a witness called by the defendant, testified 
 as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is D. B. Fox. I reside in Peru. I am ac- 
 4467 quainted with the land in Section 21 south of the Illinois 
 River and east of the Peru road. JI farmed that land sev- 
 eral years ago. In 1880 TI paid half of a thousand dollars 
 a year. 
 4468 The Court: I will let you show the extent of his ac- 
 quaintance with it im general, but I don’t think I can per- 
 mit you to show particular dealings with it prior to 1885. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 eounsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 I farmed this land for seven years. I did not have it 
 after 1895. JI commenced with it in 1887 under Waugh. 
 4469 I had it for seven years. ] commenced with it in 1887. 
 I mean 1877. 
 Q. Iwill ask you what rental you paid for this land in 
 the year 1884? 
 Plaintiff objects; objection sustained; defendant ex- 
 cepts. 
 Q. During the time you were there did you raise any 
 erops on this land? 
 Plaintiff objects; objection sustained; defendant ex- 
 cepts. 
 
962 
 
 4470 I knew at the time when Waugh was farming this land. 
 
 4472 T knew from hearsay from the Waugh family how much 
 rent they paid for the land. JI have been acquainted with 
 this land a good many years; J should say for 40 years. 
 T am acquainted with the land west of the Illinois Central 
 track and also lying east and west of the C., B. & Q. I 
 have known them for a long time. I have an opinion as 
 to what was the fair cash market value of that land 
 shortly before January, 1900. I think the value of that 
 land was $40 an acre, $40. 
 
 4473 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I was pretty well acquainted with what that land did 
 
 from 1885 to 1900, during the time that Waugh had it. I 
 have no feeling in this case. I think most of this land 
 was in crop during those years. I think betwixt two and 
 three hundred acres below the Illinois River there, west, 
 down to the Peru road, running near the pond and all 
 down through the road, betwixt two and three hundred 
 4474 acres of farm land. In the year 1895, down to the year 
 1900, there was about 40 acres of that land that was 
 cleaned off. None of the land has been grubbed out across 
 
 the river. J don’t think there was any of them crops lost 
 4475 down to 1900, except the year 1892. I don’t know how 
 much corn was raised there in 1899, nor what kind of 
 corn it was, nor how much it ran to the acre. I don’t 
 think the yield there exceeded 40 to 50 bushels an acre. I 
 4476 think that was a fair average. It would not raise as 
 much corn per acre as uplands, not with me. The land is 
 productive, but not as productive as up-hill land; never 
 was considered as productive. I don’t think that four 
 crops in bottom lands would be as good as five crops on 
 4477 uplands, nothing like that. J have known very few acres 
 of this land to grow more than 40 or 50 bushels to an acre, 
 very few. I think the yield this year wouldn’t be over 
 
963 
 
 25 bushels to the acre. I should say that last year was 
 4478 about the same thing. J haven’t examined the land this 
 year. I think the corn on that ground last year and this 
 4479 year would grade, That is my judgment of it. I exam- 
 4480 ined this land from the bluff last week. The time I 
 placed my valuation on this land I took into considera- 
 tion the coal underlying the surface. J included the coal, 
 4481 whatever rights they have to it. The way they are buy- 
 ing this coal it is worth about $15 an acre. I think it was 
 worth $15 an acre in 1900. I allowed about $25 for the 
 land and $15 for the coal. J saw it in 1900. I think the 
 surface was worth about $25 an acre and the coal worth 
 $15 an acre. 
 
 4482 W. K. Hoaciunp, a witness called by the defendant, tes- 
 tified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 My name is W. K. Hoaglund. I live in Peru, Illinois. 
 My business has been manufacturing agricultural imple- 
 ments. I have lived in Peru since 1882. Before that 
 time I lived in Council Bluffs, Iowa. I am acquainted 
 with the land claimed by the La Salle County Carbon 
 Coal Company, on Section 21 and across the river, and 
 the land which lies west of the Illinois Central and east 
 and west of the C., B. & Q. I have an opinion as to the 
 fair cash market value of that land shortly before 1900. 
 T think it was worth about $50 an acre. 
 
 4483 Cross-Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 I am 76 years old. JI am around considerable. In a 
 general way I have been familiar with the lands 10 years, 
 with the lands that Waugh used to farm. I have not been 
 
 4484 down to make any particular inspection of it. I am 
 
964 
 
 down in the river bottoms almost daily, surely once a 
 week. Just walk around there. I have no particular 
 knowledge as to how many acres were raised from 1890 
 4485 to 1900. In making my valuation I included the coal. I 
 would put a valuation on the coal of from $30 to $35, 
 and a valuation on the surface of the land at about $15 
 4486 to $20. I think that is a good fair price for the year 
 1900. I think maybe it was worth more to a man engaged 
 in mining. I am talking of the fair cash market value. 
 The valuation also applies to the land that lies south and 
 west of the river. I saw that land a short time ago. I 
 seen it perhaps two or three or four times a year. Some 
 of it is good corn raising land. I don’t know how much 
 of it. I don’t know the acreage planted to corn at any 
 4487 time. The uplands in 1900, good corn land, was worth 
 4488 from $75 to $150. I don’t think that four crops on the 
 bottoms is as good as five crops on the upland and I 
 don’t think eight crops from the bottom lands would 
 4489 equal ten crops on the uplands. If the crops were as 
 good for a term of years on the bottoms as on the up- 
 land, I would not place the valuation the same, because 
 of the risk. Locking ahead you wouldn’t see, you don’t 
 4490 know anything about it. It is hard for me to assume 
 that this land, from 1885 to the year 1900, produced crops 
 that ran in corn from 60 to 8 bushels an acre and the 
 only year that the crop was lost was the flood year of 
 4491 1892, because I lived there and I don’t think that is a 
 4492 fact. I did not work the land. I would not swear it was 
 not the fact. I get my idea of values there on the gen- 
 eral proposition there among the farms and the people 
 there that they would rely on two crops sure and pretty 
 near three out of five. Now, that is the way I base my 
 4493 opinion of its value. I don’t know the bushels raised 
 and I don’t know the years. I don’t know how many 
 erops it actually raised. 
 
969 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I don’t know of a single farm sold as early as 1900 for 
 $150 an acre. 
 

 
 
 a. eae 7 Nis esa bs 
 ae Defendant rests. 
 
 a eis eee 7 oe. 
 ar! POs ey SUTAD mh iy 
 
 - 
 
Exh. 290. 
 
oF 
 cL ARES BS Pod H 
 
 it 
 il 
 
 i 
 
 c= woh 
 
 
 
967 
 
 4495 Howarp 8. Hazen, called as a witness in rebuttal by the 
 plaintiff, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 My name is Howard S. Hazen. I have already testified 
 in this case. I am secretary and general manager of the 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. In the year 
 1909 I made a commercial report to the R. G. Dunn Com- 
 pany, Chicago, and in that report I placed a valuation 
 upon the various lands we own generally. I included the 
 
 4496 land involved in this suit. I placed a valuation of $100. 
 
 Q. In making up that valuation what did you figure 
 in it, Mr Hazen? 
 
 Objected to by the defendant. 
 
 The Court: Itis in the nature of an admission and I 
 suppose both sides have a right to give their version of 
 it. I think J will let him answer this question. 
 
 A. The basis of valuation included our claim against 
 the Sanitary District for damages. 
 
 4498 Cross-Examination by Mr, Chiperfield. 
 
 This is not an after-thought. That is a forethought. 
 I did put in the coal rights in the same statement. I 
 didn’t put them in at any value. I did not put in 21,000 
 acres of coal rights at more than $1,000,000. I did not 
 
 4500 take any copy of the statement. I don’t remember what 
 
 the entire assets of the company were figured at. I was 
 not asked the question as to the value of this property 
 when I was testifying on the stand. I did not attempt to 
 testify to it at that time. 
 
 (Statement to R. G. Dunn Company read to the wit- 
 ness.) 
 
 Q. Did you make that statement? A. I presume I 
 did. My signature is there. 
 
968 
 
 4504 Q. I will ask you whether when you got done with the 
 report didn’t you add this as a postscript: 
 
 ‘*All bills of every kind are audited and paid about 
 the 20th of each month. No indebtedness of any kind 
 after that date. This information is for your use only 
 and not to be given to the public. We don’t ask much 
 credit and feel like Vanderbilt on a certain occasion.”’ 
 
 Q. Did you write that? A. I imagine T did. 
 
 The number of shares of our company is 10,000. 
 
 4505 @. Now, did you state at that time in this statement 
 that you were relying on recovery from the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict? <A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. How much did you have in mind, $200,000, that 
 you were suing for? A. I told you in 1888 what I had 
 in mind. 
 
 4506 Q@. You stated to me in 1898? A. During the Braun 
 trial, when I said this case would never be settled out of 
 court. 
 
 @. Didn’t vou say you would be glad to settle for the 
 $20 an acre that was claimed in the case? A. I told you 
 we would never settle this case outside of court for less 
 than that. 
 
 Q. Didn’t you say, Mr. Hazen, you would be glad to 
 settle it? A. No. 
 
 4507 Q. You say you included your claim against the Sani- 
 tary District? A. Why, I expect to get $100 an acre 
 out of it before we get through with it. 
 
 @. You are doomed to a big disappointment? A. I 
 am willing to take my chances. 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: Well, we will take our chance. 
 
 Mr. CurperrieLp: Q. Now, how much did you figure 
 the coal rights were worth when you made that state- 
 ment? 
 
 A. I didn’t figure it. 
 
 Q. I ask you now how much you figured it, if you were 
 
969 
 
 making a mental reservation, how much you figured the 
 coal rights were worth? A. I didn’t give any value on 
 the coal rights whatever. 
 
 @. I am asking you how much you figured the coal 
 rights were worth at that time? <A. I can’t tell you. 
 
 Q. You won’t answer? A. No, sir. . 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLp: That is all, Mr. Hazen. 
 
 4509 Mr. O’Conor: In the deed from Rachel L. Neustadt 
 and Morris Neustadt, to the Illinois Valley Coal Com- 
 pany, which was marked Exhibit 8, there is the following 
 reservation: 
 
 The party of the first part reserves the right to quar- 
 ry stone and remove the same from said track of land by 
 team or otherwise, also the right to lay a track from the 
 Illinois Central Railroad track to the quarry for the re- 
 moval of said stone. 
 
 These reservations are made for the benefit of George 
 W. Snow, Rachael L. Neustadt and Morris Neustadt, her 
 husband, and Emiline E. Snow, wife of G. G. Snow, and 
 shall continue only during their life time. 
 
 The deed was made in the year 1870 and relates to 
 some quarry rock that is not down on the bottom. 
 
 The above and foregoing is all of the evidence offered 
 and introduced by either party to said cause upon the 
 trial thereof. | 
 
 And thereupon the defendant, by its attorney, moves 
 the court in writing as follows: 
 
 4512 Whereupon the defendant, by its counsel, moved the 
 court to exclude from the consideration of the jury Ex- 
 hibit 1 for the reason that the same does not tend to 
 prove the plaintiff’s cause of action; that the said exhibit 
 creates a variance between the allegations of the declara- 
 tion and the proof offered; for the further reason that 
 there is no proper foundation appearing in this record 
 for the admission of said exhibit; because the same does 
 
970 
 
 not relate to the premises described in plaintiff’s declar- 
 ation; because the same does not tend to establish own- 
 ership in the plaintiff; because there is no sufficient proof 
 of the execution of the same; because the same is not 
 properly acknowledged. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury Exhibit 3 for the reason 
 that it does not tend to prove plaintiff’s cause of action; 
 that it creates a variance between the allegations of the 
 declaration and the proof offered; because there is no 
 proper foundation appearing in this record for the ad- 
 mission of said exhibit; because it does not relate to the 
 premises described in plaintiff’s declaration; because the 
 same does not tend to establish ownership in the plain- 
 tiff; because there is no sufficient proof of the execution 
 of the same; because same is not properly acknowledged ; 
 that said exhibit does not purport to contain description 
 
 4513 of the premises, but refers to other deeds therein named 
 which have not been properly or sufficiently identified as 
 connected with the premises involved in this proceeding. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel then and 
 there excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel moved to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury Exhibit 4 for the reason it 
 does not tend to prove plaintiff’s cause of action; that 
 it creates a variance between the allegations of the dec- 
 Jaration and the proof offered; because there is no 
 proper foundation appearing in this record for the ad- 
 mission of said exhibit; because it does not relate to the 
 premises described in plaintiff’s declaration; because the 
 same does not tend to establish ownership in the plain- 
 
971 
 
 tiff; because there is no sufficient proof of the execution 
 of the same; because the same is not properly acknowl- 
 edged, 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury Exhibit 5 for the reason 
 that it does not tend to prove plaintiff’s cause of 
 action; that it creates a variance between the allegations 
 of the declaration and the proof offered; because there is 
 
 4514 no proper foundation appearing in this record for the 
 admission of said exhibit; because it does not relate to 
 the premises described in plaintiff’s declaration; be- 
 cause the same does not tend to establish ownership in 
 the plaintiff; because there is no sufficient proof of the 
 execution of the same; because same is not properly 
 acknowledged. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury Exhibit 6 for the reason 
 that it does not tend to prove plaintiff’s cause of ation; 
 that it creates a variance between the allegations of the 
 declaration and the proof offered; because there is no 
 proper foundation appearing in this record for the ad- 
 mission of said exhibit; because it does not relate to the 
 premises described in plaintiff’s declaration; because the 
 same does not tend to establish ownership in the plain- 
 tiff ; because there is no sufficient proof of the execution 
 of the same; because same is not properly acknowleged. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then 
 and there duly excepted, 
 
972 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury Exhibit 7 for the reason 
 that it does not tend to prove plaintiff’s cause of action; 
 that it creates a variance between the allegations of the 
 declaration and the proof offered; because there is no 
 
 4515 proper foundation appearing in this record for the ad- 
 mission of said exhibit; because it does not relate to the 
 premises described in plaintiff’s declaration; because the 
 same does not tend to establish ownership in the plain- 
 tiff ; because there is no sufficient proof of the execution 
 of the same; because same is not properly acknowledged. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then 
 and there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury Exhibit 8 for the reason 
 that it does not tend to prove plaintiff’s cause of action; 
 that it creates a variance between the allegations of the 
 declaration and the proof offered; because there is no 
 proper foundation appearing in this record for the ad- 
 mission of said exhibit; because it does not relate to the 
 premises described in plaintiff’s declaration; because the 
 same does not tend to establish ownership in the plain- 
 tiff; because there is no sufficient proof of the execution 
 of the same; because same is not properly acknowledged. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury Exhibit 9 for the reason that 
 it does not tend to prove plaintiff’s cause of action; that 
 it creates a variance between the allegations of the dec- 
 
 4516 laration and the proof offered; because there is no 
 proper foundation appearing in this record for the ad- 
 mission of said exhibit; because it does not relate to the 
 
973 
 
 premises deseribed in plaintiff’s declaration; because the 
 same does not tend to establish ownership in the plain- 
 tiff; because there is no sufficient proof of the execution 
 of the same; because same is not properly acknowledged. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury the testimony of each and 
 every witness upon the part of the plaintiff with refer- 
 ence to the overflow of plaintiff’s premises, or to the in- 
 jury of any crop, or of the condition of any crop, or of 
 the value of any crop, or of the use to which plaintiff 
 might have put such premises since the 17th day of Janu- 
 ary, 1900. The theory on which this motion is made is 
 that the cause of action of the plaintiff became completed 
 upon putting into operation the permanent use of the im- 
 provement authorized by the statute. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, then and there moved to 
 exclude from the consideration of the jury the testimony 
 of each and every witness upon the part of the plaintiff 
 with reference to the overflow of the plaintiff’s prem- 
 
 4517 ises, or to the injury of any crop, or of the condition of 
 any crop, or of the value of any crop, or of the use to 
 which plaintiff might have put such premises since the 
 first day of July, 1902. The theory upon which this mo- 
 tion is made is that prior to the 1st day of July, 1902, the 
 operation of the District was such that the effect of the 
 use of the improvement was plainly perceptible. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then 
 and there duly excepted. 
 
974 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury the testimony of every wit- 
 ness upon the part of the plaintiff with reference to the 
 overflow of plaintiff’s premises, or to the injury of any 
 crop, or of the condition of any crop, or of the value of 
 any crop, or of the use to which the plaintiff might have 
 put such premises since the 14th day of January, 1905. 
 The theory on which this motion is made is that the cause 
 of action at that time became complete and that if there 
 is a recovery by the plaintiff it must be upon those causes 
 of action which had accrued and those injuries which had 
 been done prior to the date of the issuance of the sum- 
 mons in this case. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 ‘there duly excepted. } 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, then and there moved to 
 strike out and exclude from the consideration of the jury 
 any and all evidence with reference to all overflow of 
 
 4518 the land in controversy in this case, for the reason that 
 it is not shown by the evidence upon the part of the 
 plaintiff what part, if any, of this overflow the defendant 
 in this case is responsible for, but puts the burden of 
 proof upon the defendant in this case to show what the 
 quantity of overflow was and to determine where the re- 
 sponsibility of such overflow rested. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel then 
 and there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury all of the evidence of each 
 and every witness with reference to injury to any crops 
 upon the premises in question for the years 1900, 1901, 
 1902, 1908, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911 
 and 1912. 
 
975 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude all the 
 evidence of each and every witness with reference to in- 
 Jury to any crops upon the premises in question for the 
 year 1900. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court, the defendant, by its counsel, then 
 and there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude all of 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference to 
 injury to any crops upon the premises in question for the 
 year 1901. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 
 4519 of the court the defendant, by his counsel, then 
 
 and there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude all 
 of the evidence of each and every witness with reference 
 to injury to any crops upon the premises in question for 
 the year 1902. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court, the defendant, by its counsel, then 
 and there duly excepted. 1 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude all of 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference to 
 injury to any crops upon the premises in question for the 
 year 1903. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moves to exclude all of 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference to 
 
976 
 
 injury to any crops upon the premises in question for 
 the year 1904. 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moves to exclude all of 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference to 
 injury to any crops upon the premises in question for the 
 year 1905. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude all of 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference to 
 4520 injury to any crops upon the premises in question for 
 the year 1906. 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude all of 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference to 
 injury to any crops upon the premises in question for the 
 year 1907. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude all of 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference to 
 injury to any crops upon the premises in question for the 
 year 1908. } j 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude all of 
 
Dit 
 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference to 
 injury to any crops upon the premises in question for the 
 year 1909. 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude all of 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference to 
 injury to any crops upon the premises in question for the 
 year 1910. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 4521 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude all 
 of the evidence of each and every witness with reference 
 to injury to any crops upon the premises in question for 
 the year 1911. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude all of 
 the evidence of each and every witness with reference to 
 injury to any crops upon the premises in question for the 
 year 1912. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 the defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly 
 excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury all of the testimony in ref- 
 erence to the quality of crops raised upon the lands in 
 controversy at any time either prior to or subsequent to 
 the filing of the declaration in this suit, for the reason 
 that the same is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial 
 
978 
 
 and does not tend to establish any of the issues in this 
 case. 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury all of the following de- 
 scribed premises, the North half of the Northwest quar- 
 ter of Section 21, Township 33 North, range 1 east of the 
 
 . 8rd Principal Meridian, lying south of the Illinois and 
 east of the bayou, as the same appears upon Exhibit 13. . 
 4522 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the testimony in this case the testimony of W. A. Means 
 upon the question of the value of the premises described 
 in the plaintiff’s declaration for the following reasons? 
 
 Ist. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness, and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 2nd. That said witness in the giving of said testimony 
 has shown no such acquaintances with the premises and 
 values of real estate in that vicinity as to quality him 
 
 | for the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 3rd. That said witness did not in his expression of 
 opinion state or attempt to state the fair market value of 
 the premises involved. 
 
 4th. That in the expression of such opinion said wit- 
 ness has adopted an improper basis; that 1s to say, that 
 said witness has expressed an opinion as to the value of 
 said premises merely from the standpoint of what the 
 said land would produce for agricultural purposes with- 
 out reference to the real or actual market value. 
 
 5th. That the said witness did not include in the esti- 
 
979 
 
 mation of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 4523 6th. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a 
 value on said premises without regard to said exceptions 
 or reservations as therein contained. 
 
 7th. That said witness refused to consider the fair 
 cash market value of said premises from the standpoint 
 of the highest and best use that could be made thereof. 
 
 8th. That said witness in the expression of opinion as 
 to values given by him merely took into consideration 
 the value of said premises from the standpoint of the use 
 and adaptability of said premises for the purpose of 
 raising corn. 
 
 9th. That in the expression of said opinion as to value 
 said witness was permitted to take into consideration 
 everything which he knew about said premises until the 
 date of the giving of said testimony with reference to the 
 value thereof, without disclosing the basis therefor to 
 the court, the jury, or counsel; but was permitted and 
 required to state an opinion upon the basis of matters 
 which were known only to himself and not disclosed upon 
 this hearing. 
 
 10th. That said witness in the expression of an opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to-wit: the 14th day of January, 
 1905, and up to and including the giving of his testimony. 
 
 11th. That said witness in the expression of the opin- 
 ion as to injury of premises involved herein was required 
 
 4524 to take into consideration all overflow of premises de- 
 
980 
 
 scribed in the plaintiff’s declaration, without reference 
 to whether or not such overflow was caused by acts under 
 the direction and control of the defendant to this suit; 
 but were permitted to assume that all the injury which 
 he claims occurred to said premises was caused by the 
 act of the defendant herein. — 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the testimony in this case the testimony of Joseph 
 Greiner upon the question of the value of the premises 
 described in the plaintiff’s declaration for the following 
 reasons: | 
 
 1st. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness, and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 2nd. That said witness in the giving of said testimony 
 has shown no such acquaintance with the premises and 
 values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him for 
 the expression of an opinion thereof. 
 
 3rd. That said witness did not in his expression of 
 opinion, state or attempt to state, the fair market value 
 of the premises involved. 
 
 4th. That in the expression of such opinion said wit- 
 ness has adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 said witness has expressed an opinion as to the value of 
 said premises merely from the standpoint of what the 
 
 4525 said land would produce for agricultural purposes, 
 
 without reference to its real or actual market value. 
 5th. That the said witness did not include in the esti- 
 mation of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. | 
 6th. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 
981 
 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case, for the 
 purpose of atempting to prove title, but did place a value 
 on said premises without regard to said exceptions or 
 reservations as therein contained. 
 7th. That said witness refused to consider the fair 
 cash market value of said premises from the standpoint 
 of the highest and best use that could be made thereof. 
 
 8th. That said witness in the expression of opinion 
 as to values given by him merely took into consideration 
 the value of said premises from the standpoint of the 
 use and adaptability of said premises for the purpose of 
 raising corn. 
 
 9th. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values said witness was permitted to take into consider- 
 ation everything which he knew about said premises un- 
 til the date of the giving of said testimony with reference 
 to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis there- 
 for to the court, the jury, or counsel; but was permitted 
 and required to state an opinion upon the basis of mat- 
 ters which were known only to himself and not disclosed 
 upon this hearing. 
 
 4526 10th. That said witness in the expression of an opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the con- 
 dition of said premises subsequent to the date of the 
 filing of the declaration herein, to-wit: the 14th day of 
 January, 1905, and up to and including the giving of his 
 testimony. 
 
 11th. That the said witness in the expression of the 
 opinion as to injury of premises involved herein was re- 
 quired to take into consideration all overflow of premises 
 described in the plaintiff’s declaration, without refer- 
 ence to whether or not such overflow was caused by acts 
 under the direction and control of the defendant to this 
 
982 
 
 suit; but were permitted to assume that all the injury 
 which he claims had occurred to said premises was caused 
 by the act of the defendant herein. 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the testimony in this case the testimony of Henry Ream — 
 upon the question of the value of the premises described 
 in the plaintiff’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 
 Ist. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 2nd. That said witness in the giving of said testimony 
 has shown no such acquaintance with the premises and 
 values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him for 
 
 4527 the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 3rd. That said witness did not in his expression of 
 opinion, state or attempt to. state, the fair market value 
 of the premises involved. 
 
 4th. That in the expression of such opinion said wit- 
 ness has adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 said witness has expressed an opinion as to the value of 
 said premises merely from the standpoint of what the 
 said land would produce for agricultural purpose, with- 
 out reference to its real or actual market value. 
 
 5th. That the said witness did not include in the esti- 
 mation of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did not exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 6th. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case, for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but place a value 
 
983 
 
 on said premises without regard to said exceptions or 
 reservations as therein contained. 
 7th. That said witness refused to consider the faiy 
 cash market value of said premises from the standpoint 
 of the highest and best use that could be made thereof. 
 8th. That said witness in the expression of opinion as 
 to values given by him merely took into consideration 
 the value of said premises from the standpoint of the use 
 4528 and adaptability of said premises for the purpose of 
 raising corn. 
 9th. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values said witness was permitted to take into consider- 
 ation everything which he knew about said premises un- 
 til the date of the giving of said testimony with refer- 
 ence to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis 
 therefor to the court, the jury, or counsel; but was per- 
 mitted and required to state an opinion upon the basis 
 of matters which were known only to himself and not 
 disclosed upon this hearing. 
 10th. That said witness in the expression of an opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to-wit: the 14th day of January, 
 1905, and up to and including the giving of his testimony. 
 1ith. That the said witness in the expression of the 
 opinion as to injury of premises involved herein was re- 
 quired to take into consideration all overflow of premises 
 described in the plaintiff’s declaration, without reference 
 to whether or not such overflow was caused by acts un- 
 der the direction and control of the defendant to this 
 suit; but were permitted to assume that all the injury 
 which he claims had occurred to said premises was 
 caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
984 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 
 the testimony in this case the testimony of Henry Myer 
 4529 upon the question of value of the premises described in 
 
 the plaintiff’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 
 1st. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness, and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 2nd. That said witness in the giving of said testimony 
 has shown no such acquaintance with the premises and 
 values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him for 
 the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 3rd. That said witness did not in his expression of 
 opinion state or attempt to state the fair market value 
 of the premises involved. 
 
 4th. That in the expression of such opinion said wit- 
 ness has adopted an improper basis, that is to say, that 
 said witness has expressed an opinion as to the value of 
 said premises merely from the standpoint of what the 
 said land would produce for agricultural purposes, with- 
 out reference to its real or actual market value. 
 
 5th. That the said witness did not include in the esti- 
 mation of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 6th. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a 
 
 4530 value on said premises without regard to said excep- 
 
 tions or reservations as therein contained. 
 
 7th. That said witness refused to consider the fair 
 eash market value of said premises from the standpoint 
 of the highest and best use that could be made thereof. 
 
 8th. That said witness in the expression of opinion as 
 
985 
 
 to values given by him merely took into consideration the 
 value of said premises from the standpoint of the use 
 and adaptability of said premises for the purpose of rais- 
 ing corn. 
 
 9th. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises un- 
 til the date of the giving of said testimony with reference 
 to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis therefor 
 to the court, the jury, or counsel; but was permitted and 
 required to state an opinion upon the basis of matters 
 which were known only to himself and not disclosed upon 
 this hearing. 
 
 10th. That said witness in the expression of an opin- 
 10n was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to-wit: the 14th day of Janu- 
 ary, 1905, and up to and including the giving of his tes- 
 timony. 
 
 11th. That the said witness in the expression of the 
 Opinion as to injury of premises involved herein was re- 
 quired to take into consideration all overflow of prem- 
 ises described in the plaintiff’s declaration without ref- 
 erence to whether or not such overflow was caused by 
 acts under the direction and control of the defendant to 
 
 4531 this suit but was permitted to assume that all the injury 
 which he claims had occurred to said premises was 
 caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then 
 and there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the testimony in this case the testimony of Charles 
 Mudge upon the question of values of the premises de- 
 seribed in the plaintiff’s declaration for the following 
 reasons: 
 
986 
 
 Ist. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness, and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 2nd. That said witness in the giving of said testimony 
 has shown no such acquaintance with the premises and 
 values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him 
 for the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 ard. That said witness did not in his expression of 
 opinion, state or attempt to state the fair market value 
 of the premises involved. 
 
 4th. That in the expression of said opinion said wit- 
 ness adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that said 
 witness has expressed an opinion as to the values of said 
 premises merely from the standpoint of what the said 
 land would produce for agricultural purposes, without 
 reference to its real or actual market value. 
 
 Sth. That the said witness did not include in the esti- 
 mation of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 
 4532 contained therein, but did.exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 6th. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a 
 value on said premises without regard to said excep- 
 tions or reservations as therein contained. 
 
 7th. That said witness refused to consider the fair 
 cash market value of said premises from the standpoint 
 of the highest and best use that could be made thereof. 
 
 8th. That said witness in the expression of opinion 
 as to values given by him merely took into consideration 
 the value of said premises from the standpoint of the 
 use and adaptability of said premises for the purpose 
 of raising corn. 
 
987 
 
 9th. That in the expression of said opinion as to val- 
 ues said witness was permitted to take into consideration 
 everything which he knew about said premises until the 
 date of the giving of said testimony with reference to 
 the value thereof, without disclosing the basis therefor 
 to the court, the Jury or counsel; but was permitted and 
 required to state an opinion upon the basis of matter 
 which were known only to himself and not disclosed upon 
 this hearing. 
 10th. That said witness in the expression of an opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of filing of 
 4533 the declaration herein, to-wit: the 14th day of January, 
 1905, and up to and including the giving of his testi- 
 mony. 
 11th. That the said witness in the expression of the 
 opinion as to injury of premises involved herein was 
 required to take into consideration all overflow of prem- 
 ises described in the plaintiff’s declaration without refer- 
 ence to whether or not such overflow was caused by acts 
 under the direction and control of the defendant to this 
 suit, but was permitted to assume that all the injury 
 which he claims had occurred to said premises was caused 
 by the act of the defendant herein. 
 Which motion the court overruled; to Saat ruling of 
 the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the testimony in this case the testimony of Ed Pyka upon 
 the question of values of the premises described in the 
 plaintiff’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 
 Ist. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 2nd. That said witness in the giving of said testimony 
 
988 
 
 has shown no such acquaintance with the premises and 
 values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him 
 for the expression of an opinion thereof. 
 
 3rd. That said witness did not in his expression of 
 opinion state or attempt to state the fair market value of 
 the premises involved. 
 
 4th. That in the expression of such opinion said wit- 
 
 4534 ness has adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 said witness had expressed an opinion as to the value of 
 said premises merely from the standpoint of what the 
 said land would produce for agricultural purposes, with- 
 out reference to its real or actual market value. 
 
 Sth. That the said witness did not include in the es- 
 timation of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his opin- - 
 ion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 6th. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for 
 the purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a 
 value on said premises without regard to said exceptions 
 or reservations as therein contained. 
 
 7th. That said witness refused to consider the fair 
 cash market value of said premises from the standpoint 
 of the highest and best use that could be made thereof. 
 
 Sth. That said witness in the expression of opinion 
 as to values given by him merely took into consideration 
 the value of said premises from the standpoint of the 
 use and adaptability of said premises for the purpose of 
 raising corn. 
 
 9th. That in the expression of said opinioin as to val- 
 ues said witness was permitted to take into consideration 
 everything which he knew about said premises until the 
 date of the giving of said testimony with reference to the 
 
989 
 
 value thereof, without disclosing the basis therefor to 
 the court, the jury or counsel; but was permitted and re- 
 quired to state an opinion upon the basis of matters 
 4535 which were known only to himself and not disclosed 
 upon this hearing. 
 10th. ‘That said witness in the expression of an opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to-wit: the 14th day of Janu- 
 ary, 1905, and up to and including the giving of his testi- 
 mony. 
 1ith. That the said witness in the expression of the 
 opinion as to injury of premises involved herein was 
 required to take into consideration all overflow of prem- 
 ises described in the plaintiff’s declaration without ref- 
 erence to whether or not such overflow was caused by 
 acts under the direction and control of the defendant to 
 this suit; but was permitted to assume that all the injury 
 which he claims had occurred to said premises was caused 
 by the act of the defendant herein. 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the testimony in this case the testimony of Charles Cas- 
 tendyck upon the question of values of the premises de- 
 seribed in the plaintiff’s declaration for the following 
 reasons: 
 
 1st. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 2nd. That said witness in the giving of said testi- 
 mony has shown no such acquaintance with the prem- 
 ises and values of real estate in that vicinity as to qual- 
 
 4536 ify him for the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
990 
 
 38rd. That said witness did not in his expression of 
 opinion, state or attempt to state, the fair market value 
 of the premises involved. 
 
 4th. That in the expression of such opinion said wit- 
 ness has adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 said witness has expressed an opinion as to the value 
 of said premises merely from the standpoint of what 
 said lands would produce for agricultural purposes, with- 
 out reference to its real or actual market value. 
 
 Sth. That the said witness did not include in the esti- 
 mation of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 6th. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 has been introduced by the plaintiff in this case, for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a 
 value on said premises without regard to said exceptions 
 or reservations as therein contained. 
 
 7th. That said witness refused to consider the fair 
 cash market value of said premises from the standpoint 
 of the highest and best use that could be made thereof. 
 
 Sth. That said witness in the expression of opinon as 
 to values given by him merely took into consideration the 
 value of said premises from the standpoint of the use 
 
 4537 and adaptability of said premises for the purpose of 
 raising corn. 
 
 9th. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises until 
 the date of the giving of said testimony with reference 
 to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis therefor 
 to the court, the jury, or counsel; but was permitted and 
 required to state an opinion upon the basis of matters 
 
991 
 
 which were known only to himself and not disclosed upon 
 this hearing. 
 10th. That said witness in the expression of an opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to-wit, the 14th day of January, 
 1905, and up to and ineluding the giving of his testimony. 
 11th. That the said witness in the expression of the 
 opinion as to injury of premises involved herein was 
 required to take into consideration all overflow of prem- 
 ises described in the plaintiff’s declaration without ref- 
 erence as to whether or not such overflow was caused by 
 acts under the direction and control of the defendant to 
 this suit; but was permitted to assume that all the in- 
 jury which he claims had occurred to said premises was 
 eaused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the testimony in this case the testimony of Otto Halm 
 upon the question of values of the premises described in 
 
 4538 the plaintiff’s declaration for the following reasons: 
 1st. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for the 
 testimony of said witness, and the expression of an opin- 
 ion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 2nd. That said witness in the giving of said testimony 
 has shown no such acquaintance with the premises and 
 values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him for 
 the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 3rd. That said witness did not in his expression of 
 opinion state or attempt to state the fair market value of 
 the premises involved. 
 
 4th. That in the expression of such opinion said wit- 
 ness has adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 
992 
 
 said witness has expressed an opinion as to the value of 
 said premises merely from the standpoint of what the 
 said land would produce for agricultural purposes with- 
 out reference to its real or actual market value. 
 
 Sth. That the said witness did not include in the esti- 
 mation of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 6th. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case, for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a value 
 on said premises without regard to said exceptions or 
 
 4539 reservations as therein contained. 
 
 7th. That said witness refused to consider the fair 
 cash market value of said premises from the standpoint 
 of the highest and best use that could be made thereof. 
 
 Sth. That said witness in the expression of opinion as 
 to values given by him merely took into consideration the 
 value of said premises from the standpoint of the use 
 and adaptability of said premises for the purpose of rais- 
 ing corn. 
 
 9th. That in the expression of said opinion as toe 
 values said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises until 
 the date of the giving of said testimony with reference 
 to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis therefor 
 to the court, the jury, or counsel; but was permitted and 
 required to state an opinion upon the basis of matters 
 which were known only to himself and not disclosed upon 
 this hearing. 
 
 10th. That said witness in the expression of an opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 
993 
 
 of the declaration herein, to-wit, the 14th day of Janu- 
 ary, 1905, and up to and including the giving of his tes- 
 timony. 
 11th. That the said witness in the expression of the 
 opinion as to injury of premises involved herein was re- 
 quired to take into consideration all overflow of premises 
 deseribed in the plaintiff’s declaration without reference 
 as to whether or not such overflow was caused by act 
 under the direction and control of the defendant to this 
 4540 suit; but was permitted to assume that all the injury 
 which he claims had occurred to said premises was 
 
 caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the testimony in this case the testimony of George W. 
 Braun upon the question of values of the premises de- 
 seribed in the plaintiff’s declaration for the following 
 reasons: 
 
 Ist. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 2nd. That said witness in the giving of said testimony 
 has shown no such acquaintance with the premises and 
 values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him 
 for the expression of an opinion thereof. 
 
 3rd. That said witness did not in his expression of 
 opinion state or attempt to state the fair market value of 
 the premises involved. 
 
 4th. That in the expression of such opinion said wit- 
 ness has adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 said witness had expressed an opinion as to the value of 
 said premises merely from the standpoint of what the 
 said land would produce for agricultural purposes, with 
 reference to its real or actual market value. 
 
994 
 
 oth. That the said witness did not include in the esti- 
 
 mation of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 4541 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 6th. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this ease for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a 
 value on said premises without regard to said exceptions 
 or reservations as therein contained. 
 
 7th. That said witness refused to consider the fair 
 cash market value of said premises from the standpoint 
 of the highest and best use that could be made thereof. 
 
 8th. That said witness in the expression of opinion 
 as to values given by him merely took into consideration 
 the value of said premises from the standpoint of the 
 use and adaptability of said premises for the purpose of 
 raising corn. 
 
 9th. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises until 
 the date of the giving of said testimony with reference 
 to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis therefor 
 to the court, the jury, or counsel; but was permitted and 
 required to state an opinion upon the basis of matters 
 which were known only to himself and not disclosed upon 
 this hearing. 
 
 10th. That said witness in the expression of an opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 
 4542 of the declaration herein, to-wit, the 14th day of Janu- 
 
 ary, 1905, and up to and including the giving of his tes- 
 timony. 
 
 11th. That the said witness in the expression of the 
 
995 
 
 opinion as to injury of premises involved herein was re- 
 quired to take into consideration all overflow of premises 
 described in the plaintiff’s declaration, without refer- 
 ence as to whether or not such overflow was caused by 
 acts under the direction and control of the defendant to 
 this suit; but was permitted to assume that all the injury 
 which he claims had occurred to said premises was 
 caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the testimony in this case the testimony of Fred A. 
 Mudge, upon the question of values of the premises de- 
 scribed in the plaintiff’s declaration, for the following 
 reasons: 
 
 1st. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 2nd. That said witness in the giving of said testimony 
 has shown no such acquaintance with the premises and 
 values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him 
 for the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 3rd. That said witness did not in his expression of 
 opinion, state or attempt to state the fair market value 
 
 4543 of the premises involved. | 
 
 4th. That in the expression of such opinion said wit- 
 ness had adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 said witness has expressed an opinion as to the value 
 of said premises merely from the standpoint of what the 
 said land would produce for agricultural purposes, with- 
 out reference to its real or actual market value. 
 
 5th. That the said witness did not include in the esti- 
 mation of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his opin- 
 ion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
996 
 
 6th. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- ° 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for 
 the purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a 
 value on said premises without regard to said exceptions 
 or reservations as therein contained. 
 
 7th. That said witness refused to consider the fair 
 cash market value of said premises from the standpoint 
 of the highest and best use that could be made thereof. 
 
 Sth. That said witness in the expression of opinion as 
 to values given by him merely took into consideration 
 the value of said premises from the standpoint of the use 
 and adaptability of said premises for the purpose of 
 raising corn. 
 
 9th. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values, said witness was permitted to take into consid- 
 eration everything which he knew about said premises 
 until the date of the giving of said testimony with refer- 
 
 4544 ence to the value thereof, without disclosing the basis 
 
 therefor to the court, the jury, or counsel; but was per- 
 mitted and required to state an opinion upon the basis of 
 matters which were known only to himself and not dis- 
 closed upon this hearing. 
 
 10th. That said witness in the expresion of an opinion 
 was permitted to take into consideration the condition of 
 said premises subsequent to the date of the filing of the 
 declaration herein, to-wit, the 14th day of January, 1905, 
 and up to and including the giving of his testimony. 
 
 11th. That the said witness in the expression of the 
 opinion as to injury of premises involved herein was 
 required to take into consideration all overflow of prem- 
 ises described in the plaintiff’s declaration, without ref- 
 erence to whether or not such overflow was caused by 
 acts under the direction and control of the defendant to 
 
997 
 
 this suit; but was permitted to assume that all the injury 
 which he claims had occurred to said premises was 
 caused by the act of the defendant herein. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the testimony in this case the testimony of M. J. Charley, 
 upon the question of values of the premises described in 
 the plaintiff’s declaration, for the following reasons: 
 
 Ist. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 4545 2nd. That said witness in the giving of said testimony 
 has shown no such acquaintance with the premises and 
 values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him for 
 the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 3rd. That said witness did not in his expression of 
 opinion, state or attempt to state the fair market value of 
 the premises involved. 
 
 4th. That in the expression of such opinion said wit- 
 ness has adopted an improper bases; that is to say, that 
 said witness has expressed an opinion as to the value 
 of said premises merely from the standpoint of what 
 the said land would produce for agricultural purposes, 
 without reference to its real or actual market value. 
 
 5th. That the said witness did not include in the esti- 
 mation of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 6th. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a 
 
998 
 
 value on said premises without regard to said exceptions 
 or reservations as therein contained. 
 7th. That said witness refused to consider the fair 
 cash market value of said premises from the standpoint 
 4546 of the highest and best use that could be made thereof. 
 8th. That said witness in the expression of opinion as 
 to value given by him merely took into consideration the 
 value of said premises from the standpoint of the use and 
 adaptability of said premises for the purpose of rais- 
 ing corn. 
 9th. That in the expression of said opinion as to 
 values said witness was permitted to take into considera- 
 tion everything which he knew about said premises until 
 the date of the giving of said testimony with reference to 
 the value thereof, without disclosing the basis therefor 
 to the court, the jury, or counsel; but was permitted and 
 required to state an opinion upon the basis of matters 
 which were known only to himself and not disclosed upon 
 this hearing. 
 10th. That said witness in the expression of an opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to-wit, the 14th day of Janu- 
 ary, 1905, and up to and including the giving of his tes- 
 timony. 
 11th. That the said witness in the expression of the 
 opinion as to injury of premises involved herein was re- 
 quired to take into consideration all overflow of premises 
 described in plaintiff’s declaration, without reference as 
 to whether or not such overflow was caused by acts under 
 the direction and control of the defendant to this suit; 
 but was permitted to assume that all the injury which he 
 claims had occurred to said premises was caused by the 
 act of the defendant herein. 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 
999 
 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel then and 
 4547 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the testimony in this case the testimony of Abraham 
 Voorhees upon the question of values of the premsies de- 
 seribed in the plaintiff’s declaration, for the following 
 reasons: 
 
 Ist. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for the 
 testimony of said witness and the expression of an opin- 
 ion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 2nd. That said witness in the giving of said testimony 
 has shown no such acquaintance with the premises and 
 values of real estate in the vicinity as to qualify him for 
 the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 3rd. That said witness did not, in his expression of 
 opinion, state or attempt to state the fair market value 
 of the premises involved. , 
 
 4th. That in the expression of such opinion said wit- 
 ness has adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 said witness has expressed an opinion as to the value of 
 said premises merely from the standpoint of what the 
 said land weuld produce for agricultural purposes, with- 
 out reference to its real or actual market value. 
 
 doth. That the said witness did not include in the esti- 
 mation of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his opin- 
 ion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 6th. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair market value of said land the various exceptions and 
 reservations contained in the said deeds which have been 
 introduced by the plaintiff in this case, for the purpose 
 
 4548 of attempting to prove title, but did place a value on 
 said premises without regard to said exceptions or reser- 
 vations as therein contained. 
 
 7th. That said witness refused to consider the fair 
 
1000 
 
 cash market value of said premises from the standpoint 
 of the highest and best use that could be made thereof. 
 Sth. That said witness in the expression of opinion as 
 to values given by him, merely took into consideration 
 the value of said premises from the standpoint of the use 
 and adaptability of said premises for the purpose of rais- 
 ing corn. 
 9th. That in the expression of said opinion as to val- 
 ues said witness was permitted to take into consideration 
 everything which he knew about said premises until the 
 date of the giving of said testimony with reference to the 
 value thereof, without disclosing the basis therefor to the 
 court, the jury or counsel; but was permitted and re- 
 quired to state an opinion upon the basis of matters 
 which were known only to himself and not disclosed upon 
 this hearing. 
 10th. That said witness in the expression of an opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to wit: the 14th day of Janu- 
 ary, 1905, and up to and including the giving of his tes- 
 timony. 
 1ith. That the said witness in the expression of the 
 opinion as to injury of premises involved herein was re- 
 quired to take into consideration all overflow of premises 
 described in the plaintiff’s declaration, without reference 
 to whether or not such overflow was caused by acts under 
 4549 the direction and control of the defendant to this suit; 
 but was permitted to assume that all the injury which he 
 claims had occurred to said premises was caused by the 
 act of the defendant herein. 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 
1001 
 
 the testimony in this case the testimony of Charles 
 Dooley upon the question of values of the premises de- 
 scribed in the plaintiff’s declaration, for the following 
 reasons: 
 
 Ist. That no sufficient foundation has been laid for 
 the testimony of said witness, and the expression of an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value. 
 
 2nd. That said witness in the giving of said testimony 
 has shown no such aequaintance with the premises and 
 values of real estate in that vicinity as to qualify him for 
 the expression of an opinion thereon. 
 
 drd. That said witness did not in his expression of 
 opinion state or attempt to state, the fair cash market 
 value of the premises involved. 
 
 4th. That in the expression of such opinion said wit- 
 ness has adopted an improper basis; that is to say, that 
 said witness has expressed an opinion as to the value of 
 said premises merely from the standpoint of what the 
 said land would produce for agricultural purposes, with- 
 out reference to its real or actual market value. 
 
 4550 Sth. That the said witness did not include in the esti- 
 mation of the value of said premises the coal that was 
 contained therein, but did exclude the same from his 
 opinion and refused to consider the value thereof. 
 
 6th. That the said witness did not exclude from the 
 fair cash market value of said land the various excep- 
 tions and reservations contained in the said deeds which 
 have been introduced by the plaintiff in this case for the 
 purpose of attempting to prove title, but did place a value 
 on said premises without regard to said exceptions or 
 reservations therein contained. 
 
 7th. That said witness refused to consider the fair 
 eash market value of said premises from the standpoint 
 of the highest and best use that could be made thereof. 
 
 8th. That said witness in the expression of opinion 
 
1002 
 
 as to values given by him, merely took into consideration 
 the value of said premises from the standpoint of the use 
 and adaptability of said premises for the purpose of rais- 
 ing corn. 
 
 Sth. That in the expression of said opinion as to val- 
 ues said witness was permitted to take into consideration 
 everything which he knew about said premises until the 
 date of the giving of said testimony with reference to the 
 value thereof, without disclosing the basis therefor to 
 the court, jury or counsel; but was permitted and re- 
 quired to state an opinion upon the basis of matters which 
 were known only to himself and not disclosed upon this 
 hearing. 
 
 10th. That said witness in the expression of an opin- 
 ion was permitted to take into consideration the condi- 
 
 4551 tion of said premises subsequent to the date of the filing 
 of the declaration herein, to wit: the 14th day of Janu- 
 ary, 1905, and up to and including the giving of his tes- 
 timony. 
 
 11th. ‘That the said witness in the expression of the 
 opinion as to injury of premises involved herein was re- 
 quired to take into consideration all overflow of prem- 
 ises described in the plaintiff’s declaration without refer- 
 ence to whether or not such overflow was caused by acts 
 under the direction and control of the defendant to this 
 suit, but was permitted to assume that all the injury 
 which he claims had occurred to said premises was caused 
 by the act of the defendant herein. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved the court to ex- 
 clude from the consideration of the jury all evidence 
 with reference to the construction of the Ogden dam or 
 ditch, or other improvements therewith connected, includ- 
 
1008 
 
 ing the spillway on the theory that the evidence in this 
 ease shows that the construction thereof was completed 
 before the year 1893 and that any cause of action thereby 
 aceruing would be barred by the statute of limitations 
 and that the evidence shows the same to be and constitute 
 an independent and separate work. 
 Which objection the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then 
 and there duly excepted. 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved to exclude from 
 the consideration of the jury the testimony of each of 
 4552 said witnesses, and also to exclude from the considera- 
 tion of the jury plat 13, and all the deeds that have been 
 offered in evidence, for the reason that the same and 
 each of the same tend to create a variance between the 
 allegations of the declaration and the proof offered in 
 this ease; that there is not excluded from the descrip- 
 tions contained in the declaration in this case the right of 
 way of the Illinois Central Railroad or the C., B. & Q. 
 Railroad, but that the said declaration alleges ownership 
 of the entire premises without reference to said rights 
 of way. | 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court-the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 
 there duly excepted. | 
 
 The defendant, by its counsel, moved the court to ex- 
 clude the deposition of E. L. Cooley for the reason that 
 EK. L. Cooley was called in person by the plaintiff and 
 gave testimony in this cause upon the hearing of the 
 case. 
 
 Which motion the court overruled; to which ruling 
 of the court the defendant, by its counsel, then 
 and there duly excepted. 
 
 4553 And thereupon the defendant, by its attorney, moved 
 the court in writing as follows: 
 
1004 
 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS, 
 N SS. 
 County or La SAtLte. 
 
 In THE Crrourr Court oF La SaLLe County. 
 October Term, A. D. 1912. 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Co. | 
 
 : Us. Gen. No. 
 
 The Sanitary District of Chicago. ) Term No. 
 Now comes the defendant, The Sanitary District of 
 ' Chicago, at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence 
 from the trial of the above entitled cause, and moves the 
 court, under the first count of the declaration herein, to 
 instruct the jury to return a verdict finding the defend- 
 ant not guilty, and in connection herewith submits a form 
 
 of instruction to be given to the jury. 
 THE Sanitary District of CHIcAGo, 
 
 By B. M. CHIpPERFIELD, 
 
 Its Attorney. 
 
 And the defendant, by its attorney, presented to and 
 asked the court to read and give to the jury the follow- 
 ing written instruction: 
 
 The jury are instructed that under the law and the evi- 
 
 dence it will he your duty, under the first count of the 
 
 4504 declaration, to return a verdict finding the defendant 
 not guilty. » 
 
 Which said motion the court then and there over- 
 ruled and denied; to which ruling of the court 
 in overruling and denying said motion the defend- 
 ant, by its counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 And the court then and there refused to read and give 
 to the jury said instruction, and marked the same ‘‘ Re- 
 fused.’’ 
 
 To which ruling and decision of the court in refusing 
 to read and give to the jury said written instruc- 
 tion, and in marking the same ‘‘Refused,’’ the de- 
 fendant, by its attorney, then and there excepted. 
 
1005 
 
 And thereupon the defendant, by its attorney, moved 
 the court in writing as follows: 
 
 STATE OF ILLINo!s, ie 
 County or La Satie. 
 
 In THE Circuit Court or La Satue County. 
 October Term, A. D. 1912. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Co. 
 Vs. Gen. No. 
 The Sanitary District of Chicago. ) Term No. 
 
 Now. comes the defendant, The Sanitary District of 
 Chicago, at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence 
 from the trial of the above entitled cause, and moves the 
 court, under the second count of the declaration herein, 
 to instruct the jury to return a verdict finding the de- 
 fendant not guilty, and in connection herewith submits 
 
 4550 a form of instruction to be given to the jury. 
 THe Sanitary Districr of CHrcaco, 
 By B. M. Curperrie.p, 
 Its Attorney. 
 
 And the defendant, by its attorney, presented to and 
 asked the court to read and give to the jury the follow- 
 ing written instruction: 
 
 ‘The jury are instructed that under the law and the 
 evidence it will be your duty, under the second count of 
 the declaration, to return a verdict finding the defend- 
 ant not guilty.”’ 
 
 Which motion the court then and there overruled 
 and denied; to which ruling of the court in over- 
 ruling and denying’ said motion the defendant, by 
 its attorney, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 And the court then and there refused to read and give 
 
1006 
 
 to the jury said instruction, and marked the same ‘‘Re- 
 fused.”’ 
 
 To which ruling and decision of the court in refusing 
 to read and give to the jury said written instruc- 
 tion, and in marking the same ‘‘Refused,’’ the de- 
 fendant, by its attorney, then and there excepted. 
 
 And thereupon the defendant, by its attorney, moved 
 the court in writing as follows: 
 
 STATE OF [LLINOTS, Pee 
 4556 County or La Satine. f°” 
 
 In THE Crrcuir Court or La SAaLue County. 
 October Term, A. D. 1912. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Co. Canna 
 
 The Sanitary District of Chicago. qo 
 
 Now comes the defendant, The Sanitary District of 
 Chicago, at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence 
 from the trial of the above entitled cause, and moves the 
 court, under the third count of the declaration herein, 
 to instruct the jury to return a verdict finding the de- 
 fendant not guilty, and in connection therewith submits 
 a form of instruction to be given to the jury. 
 
 Tur Sanirary Districr or Curcaco, 
 By B. M. CurrerFietp, 
 Its Attorney. 
 
 And the defendant, by its attorney, presented to and. 
 asked the court to read and give to the jury the follow- 
 ing written instruction: 
 
 ‘The jury are instructed that under the law and the 
 evidence it will be your duty, under the third count of 
 the declaration, to return a verdict finding the defendant 
 not guilty.’ 
 
 Which motion the court then and there overruled and 
 
1007 
 
 denied; to which ruling of the court in overruling 
 and denying said motion the defendant, by its at- 
 4557 torney, then and there excepted. 
 
 And the court then and there refused to read and give 
 to the jury said instruction, and marked the same ‘‘Re- 
 fused.’’ 
 
 To which ruling and decision of the court in refusing 
 to read and give to the jury said written instruc- 
 tion, and in marking the same ‘‘Refused,’’ the de- 
 fendant, by its attorney, then and there excepted. 
 
 And thereupon the defendant, by. its attorney, moved 
 the court in writing as follows: 
 
 STATE oF ILLINOIS, 
 ; SS. 
 County oF La SALLe. 
 
 In THE Crrcutr Court or La SALLe County. 
 October Term, A. D. 1912. 
 
 Gen. No. 
 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Co. 
 Term No. 
 
 VS. 
 The Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 
 Now comes the defendant, The Sanitary District of 
 Chicago, at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence 
 on the trial of the above entitled cause, and moves the 
 court to instruct the jury to find the defendant not guilty, 
 and in connection herewith submits a form of instruction 
 to be given to the jury. 
 
 THe Sanitary Districr or CHIcaco, 
 By B. M. CuHirerrtietp, 
 Its Attorney. 
 
 And the defendant, by its attorney, presented to and 
 asked the court to read and give to the jury the following 
 written instruction: 
 
 4558 ‘‘The jury are instructed that under the law and the 
 
1008 
 
 evidence it will be your duty to return a verdict finding 
 the defendant not guilty.’’ 
 
 Which motion the court then and there overruled 
 and denied; to which ruling of the court in over- 
 ruling and denying said motion the defendant, by 
 its attorney, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 And the court then and there refused to read and give 
 to the jury said instruction, and marked the same ‘‘ Re- 
 fused.’’ 
 
 To which ruling and decision of the court in refusing 
 to read and give to the jury said written instruc- 
 tion, and in marking the same ‘‘Refused,’’ the de- 
 fendant, by its attorney, then and there excepted. 
 
 4559-4600 Argument of Mr. Butters. 
 4601-4685 Argument of Mr. Chiperfield. 
 4686 Extract from argument of Mr. O’Conor. 
 
 ‘“‘T am not going to try to kiss a verdict from you, 
 
 gentlemen. J am not going to try and love one away 
 
 4687 from you. I don’t believe there is anybody either here 
 or elsewhere that can kiss this case out of court, that 
 can love itioutjor court. W) jee 
 
 When a man stands up here before this jury and seeks 
 to point to the fact that this case is being tried for the 
 recovery of $200,000, he knows better, and he is simply 
 trying to put the plaintiff in a false light upon false 
 
 4688 facts. * * * 
 
 Why it appears in this case that counsel for defend- 
 ant represents the Marquette Coal Company. Can you 
 imagine him raising his voice in this court room for a 
 fair trial upon any issue here involving the Marquette 
 Coal Company? * * * 
 
 4689 Now, I don’t believe that when this case is over there 
 is going to be any whispering on the streets of Ottawa, 
 La Salle or Peru, ‘Well, if it was a farmer it would 
 have been different; if it was not a coal company they 
 
1009 
 
 would have got what they were entitled to; they would 
 have given them what the law and the evidence would 
 sustain. But that man from Canton showed to the jury 
 that some of the stockholders did not live in the State 
 of Illinois and he prejudiced the jury against the rights 
 of the plaintiff. He further told the jury that it was a 
 coal company,’ as though it hurt his throat when he was 
 telling it to you, although he has clients that are in the 
 coal business, that are coal companies, and then have 
 people say that if it was not for these facts, if it was 
 not for those circumstances and these tactics, this plain- 
 tiff would have received a fair trial. * * * 
 
 4692 The issue is plain. It is clear cut and we want you 
 to accept it. If you believe in the case, as we present 
 it to you, find with us, and give us what we ask for. If 
 you believe in the case as presented here by this defend- 
 
 4693 ant, you find for the defendant and don’t give us a 
 nickel. Don’t give us a nickel. Don’t mess this case up. 
 If you find for us, give us what we want, if you believe 
 us. If you find a verdict of not guilty, wait and learn 
 then what some people think about it.’’ 
 
 Mr. CuiperFietp: I object to such a statement, if your 
 honor please. 
 The Court: I sustain the objection. 
 
 4697 Mr. O’Conor: I am never ashamed of any case, gen- 
 tlemen, where the defendant has to cover two or three 
 states to bring carloads of witnesses, to go from the 
 place where the thing actually happened to get them. 
 T am never afraid of that kind of a case and never have 
 to apologize for it. I might remark generally that when 
 you go to the asylum at Bartonville, to prove the market 
 value of farm land as a gardening proposition, I say, 
 T have the right to say, why don’t you get the garden- 
 ers at Peru, the men who knew the land? * * * 
 
 4703 I knew that they would alibi this defense on every 
 
 * * * 
 
1010 
 
 proposition they could and I knew they would keep their 
 own closet shut and keep its secrets from the jury. I 
 knew it then and I knew when I came to close this case 
 I was going to put it to you as fair men, that when 
 counsel stands here and talks about fair play, when coun- 
 sel stands here and talks about a fair deal, I say where 
 are theirerécordséat 0) eae 
 
 4705 They take photographs of streams, because when you 
 photograph a stream there isn’t anybody that can take 
 the photograph and say whether it is a foot deep or 
 twenty feet. He said he couldn’t produce the witnesses. 
 I know he couldn’t. They were forced to use photo- 
 graphs. You were forced to surveys. You were forced 
 to pictures because there wasn’t anybody that could come 
 in and say what the measurements were, the depth and 
 the width, without blowing these photographs and _ pic- 
 tures into a million pieces. * * ™ Why did he resort 
 
 4706 to a photograph of the Desplaines River? Draw your 
 own conclusions. It is an index to this defense and shows 
 its general character and you will see why he didn’t pro- 
 duce the living witnesses, because they wouldn’t have 
 been alive when they left the stand and they knew that, 
 LOO, pa 
 
 4707 Do you remember DeGroot here, who testified and who 
 laughed on the stand like a laughing hyena; one of those 
 smart witnesses; you remember him. He first said he 
 didn’t know what papa was doing, although he was living 
 with papa; that he didn’t know that papa was working 
 for the Sanitary District, although he was living with 
 papa. That is what he first said, but he was finally forced 
 to admit that papa was taking gauge readings at the 
 DTP era tomer ee es ee 
 
 4711 Because Captain Cox, coming around the bend, ‘‘steam- 
 boat Bill,’’ yesterday morning the last question I asked 
 him, ‘‘Did it increase the rise of the river?’’ Answer: 
 da GregshxehaiQyige?) le? 
 
1011 
 
 4715 * * * We took plain men. We took men who lived 
 there. They didn’t. They couldn’t get them. The only 
 men they could preduce they didn’t produce. They didn’t 
 produce men in their employ at the City of Peru and I 
 aekeeyouwhy, *~ * * 
 
 4723 * * * J am amazed because they have brought in 
 so much deception. I am amazed because they have kept 
 their own records so secret. J am amazed that in all 
 La Salle and Peru and the surrounding country they 
 could not get one or two reputable men to come here and 
 sustain them. ‘That 1s what [ am amazed about. 
 
 Let me remark that you have been advised that the 
 Sanitary District of Chicago is not an institution for 
 profit. I ask you in the first place what of it? Counsel 
 has told you it is a great institution, it is a great work, 
 and a monument to the industry of the great metropolis 
 of the middle West, and I grant it. It clears their drink- 
 
 4724 ing water, he says, takes the sewage from the streets 
 and buildings down here and plants it down here. I 
 grant it. 
 
 * * * TIT cannot imagine the people of the City of 
 Chicago, in the purification of their own works, in the 
 building up of their own sanitation, are so niggardly, so 
 miserly as not to be willing to pay the damage. Suppose 
 that your children and yourselves were living there and 
 this great and grand improvement was made, would you 
 be unwilling to do what the law says you should do in 
 fairness and honesty? That is not the spirit of the City 
 of Chicago. That is not the spirit that made it great; 
 that is the spirit that lives further south, not at the head 
 waters of the river. 
 
 4725 It is not an institution for profit, neither is the west 
 side sewer. It is not an institution for profit and neither 
 are the sewer systems of La Salle. * * * The sewer 
 system of the City of La Salle is not for profit, either, 
 
1012 
 
 and if they empty their sewage upon your premises, do 
 you think it would be a defense that would sound manly 
 to have counsel representing the city to come in and 
 say, ‘‘Yes, we took your property by way of damage, 
 we empty our sewage upon it, but in doing so we were 
 doing good to the City of La Salle.’? I know La Salle 
 too well, so far as that is concerned, when you take the 
 
 4726 things specifically, concretely and simply, to think that 
 the citizens there would stand for such a plea, and I 
 know that the people of Chicago would not and do not 
 know it is being made. ‘They are more honorable; they 
 are more manly. It is not made for the public, this de- 
 fense. Figure it if you can as a financial proposition 
 and then conclude whether the Sanitary District of Chi- 
 cago is pecuniary institution being operated for profit. 
 The fact about it is they are selling their water power, 
 selling their water power, deriving an income. That is 
 the fact about it. But I simply take his argument as 
 it was, admitting it is true, and I tell you men that it 
 is inherently vicious and aimed at the prejudice of the 
 jury. I know Chicago too well. I know the character 
 of its citizens too well to believe that any such plea as 
 that has their sanction or their knowledge. * * * 
 
 4731 We will take the difference between what the land 
 produced by way of revenue since 1900 and what that 
 land. would have produced by way of revenue since 1900, 
 if this water from Chicago was not there. That would 
 amount to $100,000 easily. I will take his own figure 
 from that and accept from you men three timés the 
 amount that | am going to ask you for in this ease. 
 
 4732 * * * Mike Charley might not suit the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict of Chicago, but he suits the citizens of La Salle 
 mighty well. They elected him as their mayor; he might 
 not suit the Sanitary District of Chicago, but he suits 
 us in this case as a witness and we take his valuation, 
 
1013 
 
 not based on what some one told him, not based on 
 facts that are not within his own knowledge, but based 
 on his own experience with the land. We are willing to 
 accept it. We are willing to take that testimony of Braun 
 and Means, of Unzicker, of the bridge tender, of the old 
 man Meyers, whom they tried to tmpeach because he 
 said, ‘‘Didn’t you want to take our readings down there 
 at the Peru bridge?’’ We are willing to take that kind 
 of proof in this case and be bound by it and I lay it to 
 you, as a proposition in this case, that when you have to 
 go to Utica for a Billie Crosier, who has no knowledge 
 in relation to this land, did not even see it, and who 
 4733 put it north of the river, when you have got to take 
 men like Pusey here at Ottawa that didn’t know any 
 more about that land than I did in those days, and rely 
 on that kind of proof in the face of what we produced, 
 you are not in a position to come into this court room 
 and tell us we have a worthless proposition. * * * 
 They produced one man and I want to call your atten- 
 tion to him. This man Miller, who said he saw the corn 
 there last year. Mr. Chiperfield says that he does not 
 want to stand with Ed Pyka. I don’t want him to. I 
 want to stand with Hd Pyka and Mike Charley, I want 
 to stand with Unzicker and Meyer, Means and Ream; I 
 want him to stand with Miller. I want him to stand with 
 DaGroot, I want him to stand with Lindner and T will 
 take my chances against his. He had Miller upon the 
 stand and he placed his valuation and he had to see the 
 corn, he had to see it. So where did he see it last year? 
 He saw it in a wagon going along Water street in Peru. 
 Do you remember that? He told me it was none of my 
 business and eventually the court told me he would get 
 the answer for me and I got the answer from him. He 
 4734 says the corn he saw was in a wagon going along Water 
 street, driving east, when as a matter of fact the corn 
 
1014 
 
 did not come half way up on the bluff. He is one of the 
 men they bring here who claims to have seen the crops, 
 the only man who claims to have seen the crops in the 
 past twenty-five years. And he was caught red fisted, red 
 fisted, and you men know it. And I want this defense to 
 
 4735 stand with Miller and not to stand with our witnesses. 
 * * * He did not offer any apologies for Miller, caught 
 red handed here in court during the trial. He did not 
 offer any explanation for Pusey, who looked over the 
 mountain of weeds that were not in existence at the time 
 he made his sight, his view of the land, when he esti- 
 mated its value. 
 
 4739 * * * When their witnesses come in here and place 
 a valuation at from $5 to $15 for the surface, I tell you 
 it is rotten. That is all there is to it. They are not 
 worthy of belief, and these men admitted it, that they 
 didn’t know anything about it. * * * We didn’t have 
 to scurry around over the State of Illinois and take 
 
 4740 haphazard men who didn’t know but who would hazard 
 an expert opinion. For what? What are experts paid 
 to testify for? Do you know what expert testimony is 
 in a lawsuit? It is the life preserver. Any time that 
 the ship starts to go down the call is sent out for expert 
 testimony. The life preservers are put on by the attor- 
 neys; the ship is foundering; they need help; the police 
 boat. When they go to Champagne to these experts on 
 the question of what you can do on the land and get 
 expert real estate men who don’t know the condition and 
 pay them, I suppose, a specified amount, they are putting 
 on the life preservers, because there is nothing left. That 
 is the fact in this case. It is the fact in all these cases 
 and you men know it, that if this defense was on the 
 square, that they would have had people down there 
 come in to sustain all of the facts presented here. 
 
 4742 * * * JT will submit it to this jury as the fairest 
 
1015 
 
 proposition that was ever in court, the fairest proposi- 
 tion that we have produced the biggest line of disinter- 
 ested witnesses that have ever appeared in a case of 
 woeekind 
 
 4744 * * * Jf you believe in our position you give us 
 what we are asking for upon the proof and I will sub- 
 mit it to you as a conservative proposition that $45,000 
 in damages in this case, and anything else is a defeat. 
 Anything less than that is a defeat in this lawsuit and 
 we don’t want you men here to take and mess up this 
 ease. If you don’t believe the way we do about it, you 
 say so, and we will abide by the results and take our 
 ehances in the future. * * * 
 
 4745 I am going to submit this case to you gentlemen with 
 simply this, that that is the spirit of the age. That is 
 the spirit that permeates court rooms today, fair deal- 
 ing, honest dealing, and I ask you men along that line 
 to join in with that spirit and make this case either one 
 thing or another. Hither make it a lawsuit or tear it 
 up. Don’t stand on any middle ground and we will abide 
 by the result. I do ask you and I am candid and frank 
 in saying I am interested in the result because it is a 
 long case and a big case and I want to say to you men 
 so conduct vourselves from now on and so consider the 
 proof in this case that when it is all over there will be 
 no whispers or any suggestions or anything along the line 
 
 4746 that if other things had been done the result might have 
 been different. 
 
 TI thank you for your kindness to me throughout this 
 long trial and I trust to meet all of you at some later 
 date. 
 
 4747 Whereupon the court, at the request of the plaintiff, 
 read and gave to the jury the following written instruc- 
 tions: 
 
 (1) The jury are instructed that by the law under 
 
1016 
 
 which the defendant is organized, it is provided, that if 
 any channel is constructed by means of which any of 
 the waters of Lake Michigan shall be caused to pass into 
 the Desplaines or Illinois Rivers, such channel shall be 
 constructed of sufficient size and capacity to produce and 
 maintain at all times, a continuous flow of not less than 
 300,000 cubic feet of water per minute, and to be of a 
 depth of not less than fourteen feet, and a current not 
 exceeding three miles per hour; and if any portion of 
 any such channel shall be cut through a territory with a 
 rocky stratum where such rocky stratum is above a grade 
 sufficient to produce the depth of the water from Lake 
 Michigan, of not less than eighteen feet, such portion of 
 said channel shall have double the flowing capacity above 
 provided for, and a width of not less than 160 feet at 
 the bottom, capable of producing a depth of not less than 
 eighteen feet of water. If the population of the district 
 draining into such channel shall at any time exceed 
 1,500,000, such channel shall be made and kept of such 
 size and in such condition that it will produce and main- 
 tain at all times a continuous flow of not less than 20,000 
 eubie feet of water per minute for each 100,000 of the 
 population of such district at a current of not more than 
 three miles per hour. ((Given.) 
 (2) While the plaintiff must prove by a preponder- 
 4708 ance of the evidence in this ease that it had the legal 
 title to the land in question, yet you are charged that if 
 the plaintiff has proven by the greater weight of all the 
 evidence in this case that it was in the open, peaceable, 
 notorious and exclusive possession either by itself or ten- 
 ant, of the real estate described in the declaration in 
 this case on and prior to the 17th day of January, 1900, 
 and up to and including the time of the trial of this suit 
 and during that time paid all taxes due thereon, then 
 there is sufficient proof of its title for the purposes of 
 
1017 
 
 this suit in the absence of evidence tending to show that 
 it does not have the legal title to said land. (Given.) 
 
 (3) The jury are instructed that it is their duty to 
 consider this case in all its bearings the same as they 
 would a case between two private citizens instead of a 
 case in which the plaintiff is a coal company. Coal com- 
 panies are entitled to the same fair and unprejudiced 
 treatment in courts of law as individuals would be under 
 like circumstances. In considering and deciding this case 
 the jury should look solely to the evidence for the facts 
 and to the instructions of the court for the law of this 
 ease and find their verdict accordingly without any refer- 
 ence as to who is plaintiff or who is defendant. You 
 are instructed that the instructions given to you in this 
 case are the instructions of the court and the law of the 
 ease which must govern you. (Guiven.) 
 
 4749 (4) You are instructed that by the constitution of this 
 state it is provided that private property shall not be 
 taken or damaged for public use without just compensa- 
 tion, and in this case if you believe from the evidence 
 that the defendant, The Sanitary District of Chicago, has 
 raised the level of the water in the Illinois River, and 
 on any of the lands of the plaintiff, as charged in some 
 count of the plaintiff’s declaration in any amount; and 
 further believe from the evidence that the plaintiff has 
 been damaged thereby as charged in the declaration or 
 some count thereof; then, in that state of the proof, you 
 should find the defendant guilty and assess plaintiff’s 
 damages at such sum as you believe from the evidence 
 plaintiff has sustained by reason of the said acts of the 
 defendant, if proven as charged in the declaration. 
 (Given.) } 
 
 (5) The jury are instructed as a matter of law that 
 the defendant, The Sanitary District of Chicago, under 
 the statutes of the State of Illinois, is liable for all dam- 
 
1018 
 
 ages to real estate within or without such district which 
 shall be overflowed or otherwise damaged, by reason of 
 the construction, enlargement or use of any channel, 
 ditch, drain, outlet or other improvement by said Sani- 
 tary District. (Given.) 
 
 (6) You are instructed that in determining the weight 
 to be given to the evidence of the different witnesses in 
 this case, the jury are authorized to consider the connec- 
 tion or relationship of the several witnesses to the par- 
 ties if the same is proved by the evidence, their interest, 
 if any is shown by the evidence in the result of the suit, 
 
 4750 their temper, feeling or bias, if any has been shown by 
 them on the trial, their demeanor while testifying, their 
 apparent intelligence and their means of knowledge as 
 shown by the evidence, their apparent judgment so far as 
 the same is shown by the evidence, and to give such credit 
 to the testimony of each witness as under all the evidence 
 and circumstances in the case such witness or witnesses 
 are entitled to. (Given.) 
 
 (7) The jury are instructed that the fact that the 
 number of witnesses testifying on one side is larger than 
 the number testifying on the other side does not neces- 
 sarily determine that the preponderance of evidence is on 
 the side for which the larger number testified. (Given.) 
 
 (8) The jury are instructed, as a matter of law, that 
 while it is true that the channel and the controlling works 
 and Bear Trap Dam of the Sanitary District. of Chicago 
 is a lawful structure and that under the law creating said 
 District the said District has the right by law to turn its 
 sewage and waters from Lake Michigan down the I[llinois 
 valley and into the Illinois River, yet it is further the 
 law that when the said Sanitary District does so turn the 
 said waters down the Illinois valley, it becomes liable 
 for any and all damages to real estate occasioned by the 
 said waters or sewage. (Guiven.) 
 
1019 
 
 (9) You are instructed that in considering and weigh- 
 ing the evidence of any witness or witnesses, that has 
 been read to you from depositions, you should give such 
 evidence the same weight and effect that you would if 
 
 4751 such witnesses had been personally present and testified 
 from the stand in open court in this case. (Given.) 
 
 (10) The court instructs the jury that you are not re- 
 quired to believe any statement to be a fact simply be- 
 cause any witness or witnesses has or have sworn it to 
 be a fact, 1f you believe from the evidence that such wit- 
 ness or witnesess has or have wilfully and knowingly 
 sworn falsely to such alleged fact, even if such witness 
 or witnesses be not directly contradicted with respect 
 to such matter by some other testimony. In considering 
 this case and in passing upon your verdict you are not 
 required to set aside your own common observation and 
 experience as men in the affairs of life, but, on the other 
 hand, you have the right, in considering the testimony 
 of this case, to call to your aid your common observation 
 and experience as men in the affairs of life, and you have 
 the right, upon consideration of all the evidence in this 
 case, in the light of your own common observation and 
 experience as men in the affairs of life, to say where 
 the truth lies upon any material fact in the case. (Given.) 
 
 (11) You are instructed that if you believe from the 
 evidence the defendant constructed a channel and through 
 such channel caused the waters from the Chicago River 
 and Lake Michigan to flow into the Desplaines River and 
 thence into the Illinois River and past and upon the lands 
 of the plaintiff described in the declaration or some part 
 
 4752 thereof, and that by reason of such act of the defendant 
 | such lands, or any part thereof, have been depreciated 
 in their market value or damaged in such value to any 
 extent whatsoever as charged in the declaration or some 
 count thereof, then your duty is to find the defendant 
 
1020 
 
 guilty, and return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. 
 (Given.) 
 
 (12) The jury are instructed that in making up their 
 verdict in this ease they should disregard all evidence 
 and testimony which has been offered during the trial 
 of this cause, and to which the court has sustained ob- 
 jections, and also all testimony and evidence which has 
 been admitted upon the trial of this cause and which 
 has been ordered stricken out of the record by the court. 
 (Given.) 
 
 (13) The fact that the defendant built its channel and 
 structures under authority of the legislature is no de- 
 fense in this case to the claim of plaintiff. The act cre- 
 ating the Sanitary District of Chicago makes it liable 
 for all damages to adjacent lands by overflow or other- 
 wise by the waters of said District, and said District had 
 no right to cause to flow on plaintiff’s land any water that 
 would not flow thereon in a state of nature. (Given.) 
 
 (14) In assessing the plaintiff’s damages, if you find 
 it is entitled to recover, you will regard the channel and 
 structures of the defendant shown by the evidence as 
 permanent structures, and you may consider what effect, 
 if any, such channels and structures will have upon the 
 
 4753 plaintiff’s land in the future. And in awarding dam- 
 ages, if you find for the plaintiff, you should award it all 
 damages, present, past and future, which you believe from 
 the evidence will be occasioned or have been occasioned 
 to the fair cash market value of the lands deseribed in 
 the declaration. (Given.) 
 
 (15) You are instructed that the defendant, the San- 
 itary District of Chicago, is hable for damages if any is 
 shown by the evidence to real estate of the plaintiff, which 
 is overflowed or otherwise damaged, by reason of the con- 
 struction or enlargement of any channel, outlet, ditch, 
 drain or other improvement by said Sanitary District; 
 
1021 
 
 and if you believe from the evidence that the real estate 
 described in the declaration or any part of it was owned 
 by the plaintiff January 17, 1900, and that on that day, 
 the defendant turned a volume of water into the Des- 
 plaines River, and that such water flowed then into the 
 Illinois River as alleged in plaintiff’s declaration, and 
 that defendant thereby overflowed and damaged plain- 
 tiff’s land as alleged in its declaration, then you will find 
 the defendant guilty. (Given.) 
 
 (16) You are further instructed that in exercising 
 the rights and powers granted to it, the defendant, the 
 Sanitary District of Chicago, was bound to take into con- 
 sideration the natural flow of water in the Desplaines 
 and Illinois Rivers, and if you believe from the evidence | 
 that plaintiff’s lands or any part of them, described in 
 the declaration, have been damaged and injured by any 
 increased flow in the Illinois River, due to waters from 
 
 4754 the Sanitary Canal, then the defendant is liable for such 
 damages. (Given.) 
 
 (17) The court instructs the jury that even though 
 they should believe from the evidence that any veins of 
 coal lying underneath the surface of the land described 
 in the declaration were worth, after the Sanitary District 
 waters were turned into the Illinois River, as much as or 
 more than they were worth before that was done, that 
 fact will not deprive the owner of said land from collect- 
 ing in this cause full compensation for any damages 
 which may have been done to the market value of such 
 land by the waters of the Sanitary District if any such 
 
 - damage was done, as elsewhere explained in these in- 
 structions. 
 
 (18) The court by any instruction given you in this 
 ease does not assume to tell you how much damage, 
 if any, plaintiff is entitled to recover, but the question 
 of the amount of plaintiff’s damages is left entirely to 
 
1022 
 
 you under the evidence for your consideration. (Given.) 
 
 (19) In making up your minds as to the damages, if 
 any, plaintiff has sustained by reason of the turning in 
 of said water as mentioned in other instructions you may 
 consider all the facts and circumstances in evidence, and 
 you should take into consideration the fact that the wa- 
 ters of the Sanitary District of Chicago will continue to 
 flow on plaintiff’s land in the Illinois River perpetually. 
 (Gwen.) 
 
 4755 (20) The jury are instructed that the measure of 
 damages in this class of cases is the difference between 
 the fair cash market value of the lands in dispute before 
 and after the injury complained of in the declaration. 
 And if the jury believe from the evidence that prior to the 
 turning in of the waters of the Sanitary District January 
 17, 1900, the lands in question had a fair cash market 
 value, and if you further believe from the evidence that 
 the waters of the Chicago River and of Lake Michigan 
 on January 17, 1900, permitted by the defendant to flow 
 through its channel and controlling works from the Chi- 
 eago River and Lake Michigan into the Desplaines River 
 and that said waters would not have flowed into the said 
 Desplaines River in a state of nature, and that said wa- 
 ters flowed from the Desplaines River into the Illinois 
 River and down said Illinois River and in part, upon, 
 over or onto the lands in question in this case, and that 
 the amount of water turned from the Chicago River and 
 Lake Michigan into the Desplaines River was gradually 
 increased subsequent to January 17, 1900, and that the 
 amount of said water continued in an increasing’ amount 
 to flow into, upon and over and to saturate and flood the 
 lands described in the declaration, then you are instruct- 
 ed that the measure of damages in this ease is the differ- 
 ence between the fair cash market value of the land in 
 question just before January 17, 1900, and the fair cash 
 
1023 
 
 market value thereof just after that date, as the same 
 is shown by the evidence; and in estimating from the evi- 
 
 4756 dence the fair cash market value of the lands in question 
 just after January 17, 1900, the jury should take into 
 consideration all the circumstances and conditions of said 
 land, and effect of said waters upon said land created by 
 the said waters from the Chicago River and Lake Mich- 
 igan as shown by the evidence, from January 17, 1900, 
 down to this date. (Given.) 
 
 To which ruling of the court in reading and giving 
 to the jury said above mentioned instructions, 
 numbered 1 to 20, both inclusive, asked by the 
 plaintiff, and each and every thereof, at the time 
 they, and each of them, were so read and given to 
 the jury, the defendant, by its counsel, then and 
 there duly excepted. 
 
 And the defendant, by its attorney, asked the court 
 to read and give to the jury the following written in- 
 structions: 
 
 (21) The jury are instructed that you cannot legally 
 find a verdict for the plaintiff, merely because you may 
 believe from the evidence that the real estate described 
 in the declaration has been overflowed by water from the 
 Illinois River. 
 
 The defendant in this case is not responsible for any 
 injury done to said real estate, or any part thereof, by 
 any water from the Illinois River which in a state of 
 nature would overflow the same. 
 
 4757 If the jury find from the evidence that the water which 
 has overflowed the real estate claimed by the plaintiff is 
 due to excessive and continued rainfall within the water- 
 shed of the Illinois River and its tributaries, above said 
 real estate, naturally forming a part of said river, and 
 not by any act of the defendant, or from any cause under 
 
1024 
 
 its control, then the plaintiff cannot recover, and you will 
 find a verdict for the defendant. (Given.) 
 
 (22) The jury are instructed that in considering the 
 question of damage, if any, sustained by the real estate 
 described in the declaration herein, on and shortly after 
 January 17, 1900, due to any alleged act of the defendant, 
 
 or any alleged cause under its control, you should de- 
 termine from the evidence what was the fair cash market 
 value of said real estate on and immediately prior to Jan- 
 uary 17, 1900, as compared with its fair cash market value 
 shortly after said date, as affected, if at all, by the act 
 of the defendant, or any cause under its control. 
 
 You are further instructed that in determining the 
 question of the fair cash market value of said real estate, 
 as aforesaid, you are not to consider the price which said 
 real estate will sell for under special or extraordinary 
 circumstances, but you should consider its fair cash mar- 
 ket value. If sold in the open market under ordinary 
 circumstances for cash, and not on time, assuming that 
 the owner thereof is willing to sell for cash and the pur- 
 
 4758 chaser thereof is willing to buy for cash. (Given.) 
 
 (23) The jury are instructed that in this case the 
 burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show by a pre- 
 ponderance of the evidence that the defendant by the con- 
 struction of its drainage channel and by causing certain 
 of the waters of Lake Michigan to flow through the same 
 into the Desplaines and Illinois Rivers, has caused injury 
 and damage to the fair cash market value of the real es- 
 tate described in the declaration, and to what extent, if 
 at all, the real estate described in plaintiff’s declaration 
 has been by reason thereof depreciated in its fair cash 
 market value. 
 
 The jury are further instructed that if any such injury 
 and damage was occasioned by the act of the defendant, 
 or by any cause solely under its control, to the fair cash 
 
1025 
 
 market value of the realestate described in the declaration 
 such damage was caused in contemplation of law and the 
 plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on the 17th day of 
 January, A. D. 1900, and that such damage, if any, is 
 to be determined by the fair cash market value of said 
 real estate on January 17, 1900, as compared with its fair 
 cash market value affected thereby shortly after January 
 17,1900. (Given.) 
 
 (24) The jury are instructed that under the law the 
 plaintiff cannot recover damages for an alleged injury 
 to the fair cash market value of the real estate described 
 in the declaration, or any count thereof, unless the jury 
 first believe from a preponderance of all the evidence in 
 
 4759 the case that the plaintiff on the 17th day of January, 
 A. D. 1900, had title thereto. 
 
 If the plaintiff has failed to show by a preponderance 
 of all the evidence in the case that it had title to the real 
 estate described in its declaration on the 17th day of Jan- 
 uary, A. D. 1900, or to any part thereof, then as to such 
 real estate, if any, the jury should entirely disregard the 
 same in deliberating upon your verdict, and should, in 
 such case, only consider the evidence with reference to 
 such real estate, if any, as the plaintiff has shown by a 
 preponderance of the evidence it had title to on the 17th 
 day of January, A. D. 1900. (Guiven.) hate 
 
 (25) The jury are instructed that of the lands claim- 
 ed by plaintiff in its declaration as originally filed in this 
 cause, there has been withdrawn and eliminated there- 
 from 314.81 acres, and that there only remains in the 
 case to be considered by you 630.46 acres of the lands de- 
 scribed in the declaration. (Guiven.) 
 
 (26) The jury are instructed that by the term ‘‘pre- 
 ponderance of the evidence’’ is meant the greater weight 
 of the evidence in the case, and you are further instruct- 
 ed that in every case, where a fact is asserted on one side, 
 
1026 
 
 and denied on the other side, the party holding the affir- 
 mative is required to prove such fact by a preponderance 
 of the evidence. 
 
 This rule of law is one which has always been enforced 
 and recognized by the courts in this state, as regulating 
 the decision of the jury in all controverted cases of a civil 
 
 4760 nature, and the jury should carefully observe and follow 
 such rule, in arriving at a verdict in the present case, 
 and if from a consideration of all the evidence in the case, 
 you do not find that the plaintiff has proved by a prepon- 
 derance of the evidence the cause of action set forth in 
 its declaration, or some one count thereof, then the plain- 
 tiff has failed to conform to the requirements of said 
 rule of law, and has failed to make out its case as re- 
 quired by law, and under such circumstances, your ver- 
 dict should be for the defendant. (Given.) 
 
 (27) The jury are instructed that the same consider- 
 ations are to be regarded in determining the fair cash 
 market value of the real estate claimed by the plaintiff, 
 as far as the same are shown by the evidence, as in the 
 sale of property between private parties, the inquiry in 
 each case being: What is the property worth on the mar- 
 ket, viewed not merely with reference to the use to which 
 it is at the time applied, but with reference to the use to 
 which it is peculiarly adapted—that is to say, what is it 
 worth at the time? its availability for valuable uses being 
 considered. (Guiven.) 
 
 (26) The jury are instructed that if it appears from 
 the evidence that since January 17, 1900, by reason of 
 an additional flow of water in the Illinois River, above 
 and adjacent to the real estate claimed by the plaintiff, 
 by reason of the conditions surrounding’ said real estate, 
 it has become impracticable to raise field corn on said 
 real estate, but that by reason of the intrinsic character 
 
 4761 of the said real estate and its natural surroundings it 
 
1027 
 
 is impracticable to successfully raise some other crop, or 
 crops, thereon, then the law is that it is the duty of the 
 plaintiff to devote said real estate to the best use for 
 which it is adapted, and in determining the fair cash mar- 
 ket value of the said real estate, it is the duty of the jury 
 to consider, if the same is shown by the evidence, the 
 highest and best use to which the same is shown by the 
 evidence to be adapted. (Given.) 
 
 (29) The jury are instructed that the plaintiff in this 
 ease has the burden of showing by the greater weight of 
 the evidence that the defendant has caused an injury and 
 damage to the fair cash market value of the real estate 
 described in the declaration by water flowing from Lake 
 Michigan through its artificial channel into the Llinois 
 River. Before the plaintiff can recover, it must show that 
 such act of the defendant was the direct and proximate 
 cause of the alleged injury and damage to the fair cash 
 market value of the real estate described in the declara- 
 tion, or some part thereof, and if in this case the condi- 
 tion of the proof is such that you have to resort entirely 
 to speculation or conjecture for the purpose of determin- 
 ing whether the injury and damage to said real estate, if 
 any is shown by the evidence, resulted from the act of 
 the defendant, or from some cause under its control, or 
 was occasioned by some cause entirely independent, since 
 the law gives you no right to indulge in mere speculation 
 
 4762 or conjecture in determining the cause of any injury 
 to the real estate described in the plaintiff’s declaration, 
 or to what extent, if any, said real estate has been dam- 
 aged in its fair cash market value. (Given.) 
 
 (30) The jury are instructed that you are the sole 
 judges of the credibility of the witnesses and of the 
 weight to be given to their testimony, and while in the 
 present case it is competent for the witnesses to give an 
 opinion as to the fair cash market value of the real estate 
 
1028 
 
 described in the plaintiff’s declaration on January 17, 
 1900, as compared with the fair cash market value of said 
 real estate shortly after said date, and while it is your 
 duty to consider all of such testimony in connection with 
 all the other facts and circumstances in evidence, you are 
 further instructed that you are only required to give such 
 testimony such weight as you believe it is entitled to and 
 you are not bound to take the opinion of any of the wit- 
 nesses upon the question of the fair cash market value 
 of said real estate as absolutely controlling, merely be- 
 cause said witnesses have testified thereto, but you have 
 the right to exercise your own judgment in determining 
 from such evidence and all the other facts and circum- 
 stances in proof before you, the degree of credit and 
 weight to be given such testimony. (Given.) 
 
 (31) The jury are instructed that the burden of the 
 proof in this case is not on the defendant, Sanitary Dis- 
 trict of Chicago, to show from the evidence that the in- 
 jury and damage complained of in the plaintiff’s declara- 
 tion to the real estate described therein, is not due to 
 
 4763 some cause under its control, or to some act for which 
 it is responsible, but that the burden of the proof, on the 
 contrary, is upon the plaintiff in this case to show by a 
 preponderance of the evidence that the alleged injury 
 and damage to the real estate described in the plaintiff’s 
 declaration, is caused solely by the act of the defendant, 
 or is a result of some cause under its control. (Given.) 
 
 (32) The jury are instructed that it is your duty to 
 decide this case upon a consideration of all the evidence, 
 the legitimate arguments of counsel applicable thereto, 
 and the instructions given to you by the court as to the 
 law. 
 
 If you have any prejudice or bias against, or in favor of, 
 either the plaintiff or the defendant, that may in any way 
 affect your verdict, it is your duty in considering this 
 
1029 
 
 case and deliberating upon your verdict, to lay any such 
 prejudice or bias aside, and not to permit the same, should 
 it exist, to affect or influence your verdict in any manner 
 or way whatsoever. 
 
 It is your duty to lay aside any preconceived notions 
 you may have formed, not arising from the evidence in 
 the case, concerning either the rights of the plaintiff or 
 the defendant, and to decide this case solely from a con- 
 sideration of the testimony you have heard in open court, 
 the arguments of counsel and the instructions as to the 
 law given by the court. 
 
 4764 It is your duty to use your best endeavors to do full 
 and complete justice between the plaintiff and the de- 
 fendant under the evidence and in accordance with the in- 
 structions of the court. (Given.) 
 
 (33) The jury are instructed that in determining the 
 questions involved in the present case, it is your duty 
 to confine yourselves solely to a consideration of the evi- 
 dence in the case and such inferences as are naturally, 
 reasonably and legitimately to be drawn therefrom. 
 
 The jury have no right and should not arbitrarily dis- 
 regard any of the credible evidence in the case in arriv- 
 ing at a verdict. 
 
 It is the duty of the jury to consider all the evidence 
 introduced by the plaintiff in connection with all the evi- 
 dence introduced by the defendant, as applied to the con- 
 tention of the plaintiff, that the real estate described in 
 the declaration has been injured and damaged in manner 
 and form as charged in the declaration, or some count 
 thereof, by reason of the acts of the defendant, and the 
 contention of the defendant that said real estate has not 
 been damaged by reason of any act for which it is hable 
 to respond in damages, together with the arguments sub- 
 mitted by the respective counsel for the parties, in so 
 far as they are applicable to the evidence and the instruc- 
 
1030 
 
 tions given to you by the court, and if upon a consid- 
 eration thereof the jury find the plaintiff has failed to 
 prove the allegations of its declaration, or some count 
 thereof, by the greater weight of the evidence, then the 
 4725 jury should return a verdict for the defendant. (Given.) 
 (34) The jury are instructed that by the term ‘‘fair 
 cash market value,’’ applied to the real estate described 
 in the plaintiff’s declaration, as used in these instruc- 
 tions, is meant the sum of money which a person desir- 
 ous, but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing, but 
 not obliged to sell, would agree on as a price to be given 
 and received therefor. (Given.) 
 
 (35) The jury are instructed that under the law the 
 burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show that the 
 injury to the fair cash market value of the real estate 
 described in its declaration is the result of some cause 
 under the control of the defendant, and for which it is 
 responsible, and when such proof is sought to be made 
 by evidence of circumstances, the circumstances must be 
 such that the inference sought to be drawn therefrom is 
 one which can be fairly and reasonably drawn from the 
 circumstances in evidence, and if in the present case it 
 does not appear from the evidence that the injury to the 
 fair cash market value of the real estate described in 
 the declaration, in manner and form as alleged therein, 
 was caused solely as the result of some cause under the 
 control of the defendant, as explained in these instruc- 
 tions, then the defendant would not be liable for all dam- 
 ages sustained thereto. (Given.) 
 
 (36) The jury are instructed that in determining 
 whether the real estate claimed by the plaintiff has been 
 4766 permanently injured and damaged in its fair cash mar- 
 ket value by reason of causes under the control of the 
 defendant, in manner and form as alleged in the declara- 
 tion, or some count thereof, you are not permitted to 
 
1031 
 
 indulge in any conjecture or speculation as to future 
 possibilities affecting said real estate, or to draw any 
 inference concerning future conditions upon said real 
 estate unfavorable to the defendant, unless the same 
 are based upon a preponderance of all the evidence in 
 the case. If the future condition of said real estate, as 
 affected by causes under the control of the defendant, as 
 distinguished from any effect which other causes, whether 
 natural or artificial, may in the future have therein, is not 
 shown by a preponderance of all of the evidence in the 
 case, or cannot be reasonably gathered therefrom, then 
 the jury should not consider said matter as affecting to 
 any extent your verdict in case you should return a 
 verdict in favor of the plaintiff. (Given.) 
 
 (37) The jury are instructed that if it appears from 
 the evidence that all of the injury and damage alleged 
 to have been sustained to the real estate claimed by the 
 plaintiff, since January 17, 1900, would have been sus- 
 tained if the water of the Sanitary District had not been 
 added to the [linois River because of the increased flow 
 in said river due to the added quantities of water depos- 
 ited in said river as a result of drainage operations on 
 said river and its tributaries and above said lands, since 
 January 17, 1900, then you will find the defendant not 
 ouilty. (Given.) 
 
 4767 (38) The jury are instructed that among the alle- 
 gations of the declaration in this case, which it is incum- 
 bent upon the plaintiff to support, by a preponderance 
 of all of the evidence, is the one charging the defendant 
 with turning and discharging or causing to be turned 
 through and from its said drainage channel or canal into 
 the Desplaines River, at or near the Village of Lockport, 
 ereat quantities of water, to wit: 300,000 cubic feet per 
 minute, more or less, in addition to the water naturally 
 flowing into said river and from thence into the L[llinois 
 
1032 
 
 River, thereby overflowing, permanently injuring and 
 damaging the real estate claimed by the plaintiff, during 
 the times referred to in said declaration, in its fair cash 
 market value, and that the discharge of said water from 
 the channel of the defendant, and its flowing from thence 
 through the Desplaines River into the Illinois River, has 
 been the cause of the alleged permanent injury and dam- 
 age to the fair cash market value of the real estate claimed 
 by the plaintiff. 
 
 The jury are further instructed that in determining 
 whether or not the defendant has turned and discharged 
 the water aforesaid into the Illinois River as aforesaid, 
 the jury should have regard solely to the evidence in the 
 case bearing upon said matters, and should not indulge 
 in any conjecture or speculation not based on the evi- 
 dence in the case with reference thereto, and if it does not 
 appear from a preponderance of the evidence in the case 
 that the defendant has thereby caused injury and damage 
 
 4768 to the fair cash market value of the real estate of the 
 plaintiff, then the jury should find the defendant not 
 guilty. (Given.) | 
 
 (39) The jury are instructed that the damages which 
 in any event can be recovered by the plaintiff in this 
 action, in the event that you find from a preponderance 
 of the evidence the plaintiff has proven the allegations of 
 its declaration so as to entitle it to recover damages, is 
 such sum only as will compensate the plaintiff for the 
 actual loss sustained in the fair cash market value of the 
 real estate which it has shown title to by reason of any 
 permanent injury inflicted thereon solely by reason of 
 the act of the defendant, or some cause under its control. 
 
 The jury are further instructed that such damages, if 
 any have been shown by a preponderance of the evidence, 
 should in no event be greater than an amount which will 
 fairly compensate the plaintiff for any permanent injury 
 
1033 
 
 and damage, which is by a preponderance of the evidence 
 shown to have been sustained in the fair cash market 
 value of said real estate since January 17, 1900, by reason 
 of some act of the defendant, or some cause under its con- 
 trol. (Given.) 
 
 (40) The jury are instructed that in the present case 
 the only damage which you are authorized to consider 
 is the damage, if any, which the plaintiff by a preponder- 
 ance of the evidence has shown was sustained to the fair 
 cash market value of the real estate described in the dec- 
 laration, by reason of the acts of the defendant, or on 
 account of causes solely under its control, on and shortly 
 
 4769 after the 17th day of January, A. D. 1900, and any loss 
 which the plaintiff may have sustained to any crop or 
 crops on said premises by reason of high water in the 
 Illinois River is not a proper element of damage for 
 which there can be a recovery in the present case. (Given.) 
 
 (41) The jury are instructed that if you believe from 
 the evidence that during the years 1900 and 1901 no dam- 
 age was occasioned to the fair cash market value of the 
 real estate described in the declaration by reason of the 
 turning into the Desplaines and Illinois Rivers on Janu- 
 ary 17, 1900, of the water of the defendant, or from any 
 other act of the defendant, or cause under its control, 
 then the law is that the plaintiff cannot recover in this 
 action any amount as damages, and your verdict will be 
 for the defendant. (Given.) 
 
 (42) The jury are instructed that the Illinois River is 
 the natural recipient of all of the rainfall within the 
 limits of the territory of its watershed and the watershed 
 comprising its tributaries situate above the real estate 
 deseribed in plaintiff’s declaration. The jury are fur- 
 ther instructed that the defendant in this case is not 
 responsible for any injury to, or damage accruing to the 
 real estate described in the declaration herein, caused by 
 
10354 
 
 any of the water flowing in the Illinois River adjacent to 
 said real estate, which is the result of rainfall, or comes 
 from any of the tributaries flowing into said river, or 
 from any other natural source or sources whatsoever, 
 
 4770 above the real estate described in plaintiff’s declara- 
 tion not within or under the control of the defendant. 
 The jury are further instructed that although you may 
 believe from the evidence that the real estate claimed by 
 the plaintiff has been injured by overflow from the I[li- 
 nois River, and that damage to its fair cash market value 
 has resulted by reason thereof, yet you would not be au- 
 thorized in returning a verdict against the defendant for 
 such damage, unless you further believe from a prepon- 
 derance of all the evidence in the case that such overflow 
 was caused by the defendant. (Guwven.) 
 
 (43) The jury are instructed that if you believe from 
 the evidence that all or any portion of the real estate 
 claimed by plaintiff is, by reason of its surroundings, 
 its natural advantages or its intrinsic character, adapted 
 to some other use than the use to which the plaintiff has 
 employed it, and that if used by the plaintiff for such 
 other use the fair cash market value of said real estate, 
 or the portion thereof shown to be so adapted, would 
 shortly after January 17, 1900, be fully as great as shortly 
 before said date, then the jury are instructed that as to 
 said particular portions of such real estate the jury 
 should find that no damage has been sustained thereto 
 by the plaintiff. (Given.) 
 
 (44) The jury are instructed that the verdict in this 
 case will not in any manner invest the defendant with 
 title to any portion of the premises described in the dee- 
 laration, or divest the plaintiff of any title which it has 
 thereto, and in the event you find from a preponderance 
 
 4771 of the evidence that said premises have been perma- 
 nently injured and damaged, as alleged in the declara- 
 
tion, by reason of some act of the defendant, or from 
 some cause under its control, the jury should not disre- 
 gard the fact that after the termination of this trial such 
 title of the plaintiff in and to said real estate will not 
 be divested by your verdict. (Given.) 
 
 (45) The jury are instructed that although you may 
 believe from the evidence that plaintiff has sustained in- 
 jury and damage to the fair cash market value of the real 
 estate described in its declaration from the combined 
 effects of the waters of the Illinois River in a state of 
 nature and the water added thereto by the defendant, 
 still such proof would not authorize you in returning a 
 verdict against the defendant for all of such damages. 
 Before the jury would be authorized in returning a ver- 
 dict for the plaintiff because of any injury or damage oc- 
 easioned for the plaintiff because of any injury or damage 
 occasioned to the fair cash market value of the real estate 
 claimed by it, it must appear from a preponderance of 
 the evidence what part of the total damage sustained 
 thereto, if any was sustained, is attributable to the acts of 
 the defendant, or chargeable to causes solely under the 
 control of the defendant, to the exclusion of all other 
 causes whatsoever. (Refused.) 
 
 (46) The jury are instructed that if you believe from 
 the evidence that floods and freshets in the Illinois River 
 have injured and damaged the real estate claimed by the 
 plaintiff, in its fair cash market value, to the full extent 
 
 4772 described in the declaration herein, and that the injury 
 and damage so sustained was not caused by any act of 
 the defendant, or from any cause under its control, then 
 such injury and damage, if any has been shown, creates 
 no liability on the part of the defendant in this case to 
 compensate the plaintiff for any loss occasioned thereby, 
 and the jury will not be authorized under any such cir- 
 cumstances in finding a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, 
 
1036 
 
 but it will be your duty to return a verdict for the de- 
 fendant. (Refused.) 
 
 (47) The jury are instructed that in case you should 
 determine from the evidence to return a verdict in favor 
 of the plaintiff, then in determining the difference, if any, 
 in the fair cash market value of the premises described 
 in the plaintiff’s declaration shortly after January 17, 
 1900, as compared with the fair cash market value there- 
 of, it will be proper for you to take into consideration, if 
 the same is disclosed by the evidence, to what extent, if 
 at all, the fair cash market value of said real estate will 
 be depreciated: by reason of any mining operations rea- 
 sonably to be anticipated of the plaintiff to be conducted 
 beneath the surface of said real estate, and whether or 
 not the mining and removal of coal from said premises 
 by the plaintiff will have a tendency to cause the surface 
 of said premises to subside so as to cause the surface 
 thereof to become less valuable for any purpose which it 
 is by the evidence shown to be adapted. (Re/used.) 
 
 (48) The jury are instructed that in determining the 
 fair cash market value of the real estate claimed by the 
 
 4773 plaintiff, on or about January 17, 1900, as affected by 
 the acts of the defendant or some cause under its control, 
 the jury should consider, if the same appears from the 
 evidence, whether or not by reason of mining operations 
 conducted beneath the surface of said premises, there 
 has been thereby occasioned any surface subsidence, and 
 if the jury find from the evidence that the surface of said 
 real estate has subsided because of said mining opera- 
 tions, then the jury should determine to what extent, i 
 at all, the fair cash market value of said real estate on 
 said date had been depreciated by reason thereof, and in 
 determining what, if any, injury and damage has been 
 inflicted upon said real estate by the defendant as alleged 
 in the plaintiff’s declaration, the jury should be careful 
 
1037 
 
 to distinguish between the damage, if any, caused by the 
 surface subsidence of said real estate, provided you find 
 from the evidence that the surface of said real estate has 
 subsided, by reason of any of the matters aforesaid, and 
 any injury occasioned to said real estate by the act of 
 the defendant, or from some cause under its control, as 
 the defendant in this suit is only Hable to respond in dam- 
 ages for injury inflicted as a result of its own act, or some 
 eause under its control. (Refused.) 
 
 (49) The jury are instructed that the question of 
 injury to, or loss of crops, pasture, rents, issues and 
 profits, of the real estate described in the declaration, is 
 not before you for your consideration, and it will there- 
 
 4774 fore be improper for you to consider any of said ques- 
 tions in deliberating upon your verdict in this case. The 
 plaintiff in this action can recover, if at all, only for a 
 permanent injury and damage to the fair cash market 
 value of the real estate described in the plaintiff’s dec- 
 laration, which it is shown to have been the owner of, on 
 the 17th day of January, 1900, arising from some act of 
 the defendant, and not for an injury to the mere pos- 
 session of said real estate. (Refused.) 
 
 (50) ‘The jury are instructed that the damages alleged 
 to have been sustained to the fair cash market value of 
 the real estate described in the plaintiff’s declaration, 
 solely. by reason of the acts of the defendant, or from 
 eauses under its control, on or about January 17, 1900, 
 cannot be increased nor diminished in amount by evi- 
 dence of any act or acts after the lapse of a short time 
 subsequent thereto, and if there has been admitted in evi- 
 dence any testimony which shows, or tends to show, that 
 the alleged damage sustained by the plaintiff to the fair 
 eash market value of said real estate on January 17; 
 1900, are due to the inability since said time to plant, 
 cultivate or harvest crops on said real estate, the jury 
 
1038 
 
 should entirely disregard said testimony for the purpose 
 of enhancing or aggravating the amount of damages al- 
 leged to have been sustained by plaintiff, to the fair 
 cash market value of said real estate on January 17, 1900. 
 (Refused.) 
 (51) The jury are instructed that where an action is 
 4775 brought to recover damages for an alleged permanent 
 injury to real estate by reason of the construction of a 
 public improvement, where none of said real estate has 
 been actually taken, the law is that a recovery cannot be 
 had unless the real estate claimed to have been damaged 
 has become depreciated in value by the construction of 
 said public improvement, and if the fair cash market 
 value of the real estate is as much shortly after the con- 
 struction of the improvement as it was before such im- 
 provement was constructed, then the law is that no dam- 
 age has been sustained and no recovery can be had. If 
 in the present case it appears from the evidence that on 
 January 17, 1900, the defendant had completed its chan- 
 nel and commenced to discharge therefrom into the Des- 
 plaines River, and from thence into the Illinois River, 
 water therefrom, and that the said channel of the de- 
 fendant was of a permanent character, and is a lawful 
 structure as explained in these instructions, and that by 
 the use and operation thereof the real estate described in 
 the plaintiff’s declaration sustained no injury and was 
 not damaged in its fair cash market value by reason 
 thereof, from said date down to the commencement of 
 this suit, then the law is there could be no recovery in 
 the present case against the defendant. (Refused.) 
 
 (52) The jury are instructed that the defendant is 
 not. liable for and cannot be held responsible for any in- 
 jury and damage inflicted upon the real estate claimed by 
 the plaintiff by the water from the Illinois River, or its 
 tributaries, which was not added thereto and placed there- 
 
1039 
 
 4776 in by the defendant, and although you may believe from 
 a preponderance of the evidence that the water of the 
 Illinois River has been increased to some extent in vol- 
 ume, depth or width, as a result of the acts of the de- 
 fendant, nevertheless, you would not be authorized in 
 returning a verdict against the defendant because there- 
 of, unless it further appears from a preponderance of 
 all the evidence in the case to what extent, if any, and 
 how much, if at all, said river is so increased in depth, 
 width or volume, by reason of such increased flow, and 
 that the real estate claimed by the plaintiff has been 
 damaged in its fair cash market value by reason of water 
 added to said river by the acts of the defendant, and in 
 deciding these questions you have no right to guess at 
 the result, to speculate upon the probabilities of the case, 
 nor to draw any inference concerning the same, not sup- 
 ported by the evidence in the case, but you must confine 
 yourselves solely to the evidence in the case and to the 
 legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom, in reaching 
 a verdict, and if after a careful consideration thereof 
 it does not appear from a preponderance of all the evi- 
 dence in the case to what extent, if any, and how much, 
 if at all, the real estate claimed by the plaintiff has been 
 injured and damaged by reason of the acts of the de- 
 fendant, or from causes under its control, you will find 
 the defendant not guilty. (Refused.) , 
 
 (53) The jury are instructed that the defendant is 
 not liable for any alleged injury to the real estate claimed 
 by the plaintiff, unless it first appears from a prepon- 
 
 4777 derance of all the evidence in the case that the real estate 
 described in the plaintiff’s declaration has been depreci- 
 ated in its fair cash market value, as alleged in the dec- 
 laration, as a result of some cause shown to be under the 
 eontrol of the defendant. If the evidence in the case dis- 
 closes both injury and damage to the real estate described 
 
1040 
 
 in the declaration produced by causes not shown to be 
 under the control of the defendant, or if the evidence 
 upon the question as to what it was, if anything, that has 
 caused the injury and damage alleged to have been sus- 
 tained as to the fair cash market value of the real estate 
 claimed by the plaintiff, is in such a condition that there 
 is Just as much evidence tending to show that the alleged 
 injury and damage was produced by causes not under the 
 control of the defendant, as there is evidence tending to 
 show that such injury and damage was occasioned by the 
 defendant, then, in that state of the proof, the plaintiff 
 has failed to make out its case by a preponderance of all 
 the evidence, as required by law, and in either event your 
 verdict should be for the defendant. (Refused.) 
 
 (54) The jury are instructed that in determining 
 whether the plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of 
 all the evidence in the case that the real estate described 
 in its declaration has been injured and damaged in its 
 fair cash market value, as alleged in said declaration, by 
 reason of the acts of the defendant, or from causes under 
 its control, you should take into consideration, if such 
 fact is shown by the evidence in the case, in connection 
 
 4778 with all the other evidence, facts and circumstances, 
 all evidence relating to the effect of the water in the Illi- 
 nois River at all stages of water upon the real estate 
 claimed by the plaintiff, and if you believe from the evi- 
 dence in the ease that the elevation of the surface of the 
 real estate claimed by the plaintiff was such prior to 
 January 17, 1900, and before the addition of any water 
 to said river by the defendant, the real estate claimed by 
 the plaintiff was as frequently overflowed and as contin- 
 uously submerged by the waters of the Illinois River as 
 they have been at any time since said date, and that none 
 of the causes under the control of the defendant, or any 
 act of the defendant, has caused any additional injury 
 
1041 
 
 or damage to the fair cash market value of said real estate 
 since said date, by overflowing the same, then the plain- 
 tiff cannot recover, and you will find a verdict for the 
 defendant. (Refused.) 
 
 (55) The jury are instructed that the defendant is 
 only required to respond in damages for injuries inflicted 
 by acts performed by it, or from causes under its con- 
 trol; therefore, in the present case, if it is not shown by 
 a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has 
 eaused the injury and damage, or some part thereof, to 
 the real estate claimed by plaintiff, in manner and form 
 as alleged in the declaration, by reason of its own act, or 
 from causes under its control, then the law requires you 
 to return a verdict for the defendant, and it makes no 
 difference whether you believe from the evidence in this 
 
 4779 case that the real estate claimed by the plaintiff, or some 
 part thereof, has or has not been injured and damaged in 
 its fair cash market value by some independent act or 
 cause under the control of the defendant, such as rainfall 
 on the watershed of the Illinois River and its tributaries 
 above said real estate, or the prosecution of drainage op- 
 erations upon lands within the watershed of the Illinois 
 River, or its tributaries, above said real estate, affecting 
 the discharge of surface water into any thereof, or from 
 any other natural or artificial cause whatsoever, as the 
 law does not require the defendant to respond in damages 
 by reason thereof, but only holds it responsible for dam- 
 age occasioned by its own acts, or from causes under its 
 control. (Refused.) 
 
 (56) The jury are instructed that if it appears from 
 the evidence that the plaintiff has at any time since Jan- 
 uary 17, 1900, made any statement or declaration as to 
 the value of the real estate described in the real estate, 
 or any part thereof, then the jury are instructed that you 
 have a right to regard such statement or declaration as 
 
1042 
 
 binding upon the plaintiff in determining the fair cash 
 market value of the deal estate claimed by the plaintiff. 
 (Refused.) 
 
 (57) The jury are instructed that in determining the 
 fair cash market value of the real estate claimed by the 
 plaintiff, immediately before and shortly after January 
 17, 1900, that you should disregard all testimony, if any 
 there be, as to the fair cash market value of said prem- 
 ises at either of said times, based upon what the witnesses 
 testifying said he would personally give or be unwilling 
 to give for said premises, or any part thereof. (Re- 
 fused.) 
 
 (58) The jury are instructed that real estate is 
 not to be deemed worthless because the owner allows 
 it to go to waste or to be regarded as valueless because 
 he is unable to put it to any use. : Its availability for 
 valuable uses and not its present employment is the eri- 
 terion from which its fair cash market value is to be 
 determined. (Refused.) 7 
 
 (59) The jury are instructed that the defendant has 
 the right under the laws of ‘the State of Illinois to cause 
 an additional flow of water in the Illinois River, by dis- 
 charging water from its channel into the Desplaines River 
 and that in the exercise of such rights no presumption 
 should be indulged in by the jury that by reason thereof 
 such act has caused any of the damage alleged in the 
 plaintiff’s declaration, unless it first appears from a pre- 
 ponderance of all the evidence in the case that such is 
 the fact. The defendant under the law is liable only for 
 its own act, and is responsible only for any damage occa- 
 sioned by the water added by it, to the water already in 
 the [lhnois River, no matter from what source it came, 
 and in determining to what extent (if at all) the pre- 
 ponderance of the evidence discloses that the real estate 
 described in the plaintiff’s declaration has been injured 
 
1045 
 
 and damagedinits fair cash market value, the jury should 
 distinguish between the damage (if any) inflicted by the 
 water in the Illinois River in a state of nature, and the 
 
 4781 damage (if any) occasioned by the water added to said 
 river by the defendant, if the amount of water added to 
 the river by the defendant is shown by a preponderance 
 of all of the evidence in the case, and if the jury from 
 the evidence are unable to say from a preponderance 
 thereof that the defendant has caused injury and damage 
 to the fair cash market value of the real estate described 
 in the declaration, then the plaintiff cannot recover in 
 this action, and the jury should find a verdict for the 
 defendant. (Refused.) 
 
 (60) The jury are instructed that the defendant has 
 the legal right to discharge through the Desplaines River 
 into the Illinois River all of the water which it is shown 
 by the evidence it has discharged, and that none of the 
 acts of the defendant in this respect are wrongful, ille- 
 gal, unjust, wilful, negligent, or in violation of any duty 
 owing by it to the plaintiff, and that the jury have no 
 right to return a verdict against the defendant in the 
 present case merely because you may believe that the 
 acts of the defendant complained of are either wrongful, 
 illegal, unjust, wilful, neghgent, or in disregard of the 
 rights of the plaintiff. (Refused.) 
 
 (61) The jury are instructed that it is your duty to 
 consider whether the injury complained of in the plain- 
 tiff’s declaration is or was occasioned by the waters con- 
 tained in the Illinois River in a state of nature, no mat- 
 ter whether the same were there deposited as a result of 
 
 4782 rainfall upon the watershed of said Illinois River and its 
 tributaries, or as a result of drainage operations con- 
 ducted in, along, or upon any or either of the same, pro- 
 vided such facts are disclosed by the evidence, and if it 
 appears from the evidence that all of the damage to the 
 
1044 
 
 real estate described in the plaintiff’s declaration was 
 occasioned by the water contained in said Illinois River 
 in a state of nature, as distinguished from any waters 
 placed therein by the defendant, then the law is that the 
 defendant is not required in this action to respond in 
 damages for any injury or damage to the fair cash mar- 
 ket value of the real estate described in the plaintiff’s 
 declaration. (Refused.) 
 
 (62) The jury are instructed that in determining the 
 fair cash market value of the real estate described in the 
 plaintiff’s declaration on and shortly before January 17, 
 1900, as compared with the fair cash market value there- 
 of after January 17, 1900, you should take into consid- 
 eration all of the uses of which the said real estate is 
 susceptible, provided the same are shown by the evidence 
 in the case; and if it appears from the evidence in the 
 ease that the said real estate is underlaid with one or 
 more veins of bituminous coal of the same kind as are now 
 being mined in the vicinity of the said real estate by the 
 plaintiff, and that said real estate is so situated with 
 reference to the mines of the plaintiff as to render thé 
 mining and removing of said coal from said mine of the 
 plaintiff practicable, and that the plaintiff has the right 
 
 4783 to mine and remove said coal, such matters would be 
 proper for you to consider in connection with all the 
 other evidence in the case, in determining therefrom 
 what was and is the fair cash market value of said real 
 estate. (Refused.) 
 
 (63) The jury are instructed that in case you should 
 determine from the evidence to return a verdict in favor 
 of the plaintiff, then in determining the difference, if any, 
 in the fair cash market value of the premises described 
 in the plaintiff’s declaration, shortly after January 17, 
 1900, as compared with the fair cash market value there- 
 of on and shortly prior to said date, it will be proper for 
 
1045 
 
 you to take into consideration, if the same is disclosed 
 by the evidence, to what extent, if at all, the fair cash 
 market value of said real estate has been depreciated by 
 reason of any mining operations of the plaintiff, con- 
 ducted beneath the surface of said real estate, and 
 whether or not the mining of coal from said premises has 
 a tendency to cause the surface of said premises to sub- 
 side, so as to cause the surface thereof to become less 
 valuable for any purpose which it is shown by the evi- 
 dence of the same is adapted. (Refused.) 
 
 (64) The jury are instructed that in determining the 
 fair cash market value of the real estate described in 
 the plaintiff’s declaration, it is proper for you to take 
 into consideration, in connection with all the other evi- 
 dence in the ease, all of the testimony, if any there be, 
 showing sales of similar lands similarly situated on or 
 about January 17, 1900, and you should give such evi- 
 
 4784 dence, if any there be, such weight as you deem it fairly 
 to be entitled to, in determining the question as to what 
 the fair cash market value of the real estate involved 
 herein on January 17, 1900, actually was. (Refused.) 
 
 (65) The jury are instructed that in determining the 
 fair cash market value of the premises claimed by the 
 plaintiff on January 17, 1900, or shortly before or shortly 
 after said date, you should disregard all testimony in the 
 record, if any there be, which rests solely upon the size 
 of the crops raised at any given period on said land, un- 
 less from such testimony or from other credible evidence 
 or facts and circumstances in evidence it appears what 
 were all of the conditions surrounding said premises at 
 said time, with respect to all such matters as within the 
 experience of the jury are known to influence the raising 
 of crops on the lands in question. (Refused.) 
 
 (66) The jury are instructed that unless it appears 
 from a preponderance of all the evidence in the case that 
 
1046 
 
 the water under the control of the defendant, when added 
 to the waters of the Illinois River, has inflicted all of the 
 injury and damage to the fair cash market value of the 
 real estate described in the declaration, then the plaintiff 
 cannot recover of the defendant for all of such injury 
 and damage, even although the evidence may disclose 
 and the jury may believe that the defendant is in part 
 responsible therefor. 
 
 The jury are further instructed that in no event can 
 the plaintiff recover damages from the defendant unless 
 
 4785 it is first shown by a preponderance of the evidence 
 what part of such damage, if any, is due to or arises from 
 the acts of the defendant, or from causes under its con- 
 trol, and if it does not appear by a preponderance of all 
 the evidence in the case to what extent (if at all) the acts 
 of the defendant, or causes under its control, have pro- 
 duced the alleged damage of which the plaintiff com- 
 plains, then and in that state of the proof the plaintiff 
 cannot recover, and the jury should find the defendant 
 not guilty. (Refused.) 
 
 (67) ‘The jury are instructed that if it appears from 
 the evidence that any of the injury alleged to have been 
 caused to the real estate claimed by the plaintiff since 
 January 17, 1900, has been occasioned by drainage opera- 
 tions upon the watershed of the Illinois River, and that as 
 a result thereof the rainfall within the territory compris- 
 ing the watershed of the Illinois River is more rapidly 
 collected and conveyed into the tributaries of said river 
 above the point where the real estate claimed by the 
 plaintiff is located, so that the same when emptied into 
 the said Illinois River is with greater rapidity carried 
 down said river to a point opposite the real estate claimed 
 by the plaintiff, causing the waters in said river to rise 
 and overflow said real estate independent of any act of 
 the defendant, or any cause under its control, then the 
 
1047 
 
 law is if you find the facts aforesaid from the evidence 
 in this ease, that the defendant would not be liable to 
 respond in damages to the plaintiff for any injury or 
 damage occasioned thereby. (Refused.) 
 
 (68) The jury are instructed that under the law and 
 
 4786 the evidence you will find the defendant not guilty un- 
 der the first count of the declaration. (Refused.) 
 
 (69) The jury are instructed that under the law and 
 the evidence you will find the defendant not guilty under 
 the second count of the declaration. (Refused.) 
 
 (70) The jury are instructed that under the law and 
 the evidence you will find the defendant not guilty under 
 the third count of the declaration. (Refused.) 
 
 (71) The jury are instructed that if you believe from 
 a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff has 
 sustained injury and damage to the fair cash market 
 value of the real estate described in the declaration 
 caused solely by the acts of the defendant, or by causes 
 under its control, then, in determining the amount of any 
 such damage, or the extent thereof, if the same is shown 
 by a preponderance of the evidence, the jury are. in- 
 structed that the plaintiff would only be entitled to re- 
 cover as damages the difference between the fair cash 
 market value of said real estate just before the 17th day 
 of January, 1900, as compared with the fair cash market 
 value of said real estate just after said date. (Refused.) 
 
 (72) ‘The jury are instructed that under the law the 
 defendant is only required to respond in damages for 
 its own act, or because of some cause under its control, 
 and the defendant is entitled, in the consideration of the 
 
 4787 evidence in this case, in case the jury find from the 
 | evidence that the fair cash market value of the real estate 
 claimed by the plaintiff is depreciated in value, as com- 
 pared with its fair cash market value on the 17th day of 
 January, 1900, to the benefit of all such depreciation 
 
1048 
 
 shown by the evidence to have been caused by any act, 
 series of acts, cause or combination of causes, independ- 
 ent of any act of the defendant, or cause under its con- 
 trol, and is entitled to have all of said matters, if any 
 are disclosed by the evidence, ascertained, and the fair 
 cash market value of said real estate, as affected thereby, 
 determined, before the jury will be authorized to con- 
 sider what additional damage, if any, has been occasioned 
 thereto by reason of any act of the defendant, or from 
 any cause under its control. (Refused.) 
 
 (73) The jury are instructed that if you believe from 
 the evidence that by reason of mining operations under 
 the surface of the real estate described in the plaintiff’s 
 declaration the surface of said real estate has subsided 
 and fallen, and been lowered in elevation to a point where 
 under ordinary conditions in the Illinois River, without 
 the addition of any water thereto, placed therein by rea- 
 son of any act of the defendant, or cause under its con- 
 trol, all, or some part thereof, has since January 17, 1900, 
 become submerged and permanently injured and dam- 
 aged, and thereby rendered unfit for the purpose of rais- 
 ing crops thereon, then the jury are instructed, if you 
 find the facts aforesaid from the evidence, there could 
 
 4788 be no recovery in the present case against the defendant 
 by reason of any damage sustained on account of over- 
 flow of said real estate by the waters of the Illinois 
 River. (Refused.) 
 
 (74) The jury are instructed that the present suit 
 was commenced on January 14, 1905, to recover for an 
 alleged permanent injury and damage to the real estate 
 described in the plaintiff’s declaration, in manner and 
 form as alleged therein, and that under the law the 
 jury will have no right to consider the question of any 
 permanent injury or damage to the market value of said 
 real estate since the date of the commencement of said 
 suit. (Refused.) 
 
1049 
 
 (75) The jury are instructed that if it appears from 
 the evidence, or from a lack of evidence, that any portion 
 of the real estate described in the plaintiff’s declaration 
 was not injured and damaged in its fair cash market 
 value on or shortly after January 17, 1900, by reason of 
 any act of the defendant, or from any cause under its 
 control, that you should, in deliberating upon your ver= 
 dict in this case, carefully exclude from your considera- 
 tion such portion of said real estate as is not shown by 
 a preponderance of the evidence to have been damaged in 
 its fair cash market value as aforesaid, in determining 
 to what extent (if at all) the remaining portion (if any) 
 of said real estate was injured and damaged in its fair 
 cash market value on or shortly after January 17, 1900, 
 
 4789 solely by reason of some act of the defendant, or some 
 cause under its control, if the same appears from a pre- 
 ponderance of the evidence to have been injured and dam- 
 aged in its fair cash market value on or shortly after 
 January 17, 1900, as alleged in the plaintiff’s declaration, 
 in estimating the amount of damages (if any) to which 
 plaintiff is entitled. (Refused.) 
 
 (76) The jury are instructed that if you believe from 
 the evidence that on January 17, 1900, or any date since 
 said date, the defendant has discharged a quantity of 
 water into the Illinois River, and that the water so dis- 
 charged into the Illinois River by the defendant has oc- 
 easioned no injury or damage to the fair cash market 
 value of the real estate claimed by the plaintiff, but that 
 by reason of rainfall within the watershed of the Illinois 
 River, or within the watershed of its tributaries above 
 said real estate, or from any other natural causes, said 
 real estate was thereby overflowed and damage was there- 
 by inflicted to the fair cash market value thereof, to the 
 extent shown by the proof in the present case, then the 
 jury are instructed that the defendant is not liable there- 
 
1050 
 
 for, and you would not be authorized in returning a ver- 
 dict assessing damages against the defendant. (Re- 
 fused.) 
 
 77. The jury are instructed that proof of the fair cash 
 market value of the real estate described in the plain- 
 tiff’s declaration shortly before the 17th day of Janu- 
 ary, 1900, and proof that the fair cash market value 
 thereof has depreciated since the 17th day of January, 
 1900, does not in and of itself constitute proof of any 
 
 4790 damage to said real estate on account of any act of the 
 defendant, or by reason of any cause under its control, 
 and uniess the jury are able to determine from a pre- 
 ponderance of the evidence that any depreciation in the 
 fair cash market value of the real estate of the plaintiff 
 has been caused by some act of the defendant, or some 
 cause under its control, since the 17th day of January, 
 A. D. 1900, it will be your duty to return a verdict in 
 favor of the defendant. (Refused.) 
 
 (78) The jury are instructed that in determining 
 whether the plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of all 
 the evidence that it has sustained the injury and dam- 
 age to the fair cash market value of the real estate de- 
 scribed in its declaration, or some part thereof, as al- 
 leged therein, as a result of the acts of the defendant, 
 or from causes under its control, it will be proper for 
 you to take into consideration, in connection with all the 
 other evidence in the case, the evidence, if any there be, 
 relating to the condition of the real estate claimed by 
 the plaintiff prior to January 17, 1900, and if you believe 
 from. such evidence, if any there be, in connection with 
 all the other credible evidence, facts and circumstances 
 in the case, that said real estate had always in times of 
 high water in the Illinois River prior to January 17, 1900, 
 and without the addition to said river of any water added 
 thereto by the defendant, been subject to overflow and was 
 
1051 
 
 overflowed, and since January 17, 1900, that the water 
 under the control of the defendant, when added to the 
 water otherwise in said river, is not by a preponderance 
 
 4791 of the evidence shown to have caused any additional 
 injury or damage to said real estate, then the plaintiff 
 cannot recover in this action, and the jury will return a 
 verdict for the defendant. (Refused.) 
 
 (79) The jury are instructed that of the lands claimed 
 by plaintiff in its declaration as originally filed in this 
 cause there have been withdrawn and eliminated there- 
 from 309.06 acres, and that there only remains to be con- 
 sidered by you 636.21 acres of the lands described in the 
 declaration. (Refused.) 
 
 (80) The jury are instructed that in determining the 
 question whether the plaintiff has shown by a prepon- 
 derance of the evidence that it has sustained injury and 
 damage, as alleged in its declaration, to the fair cash 
 market value of the real estate described therein, or some 
 part thereof, by reason of some act of the defendant, or 
 from some cause under its control, you should take into 
 consideration, if you find it is disclosed by the testimony, 
 all evidence relating to the condition of the real estate 
 described in the declaration shortly prior to January 17, 
 1900, in connection with all the other facts and circum- 
 stances disclosed by the proof, and if you believe there- 
 from that all of the injury and damage to the fair cash 
 market value of said real estate since said date was 
 caused by natural causes, independent of any water added 
 to said river by the defendant, such as rainfall in the 
 territory drained by the Illinois River and its tributar- 
 
 4792 ies, above said real estate, causing and producing con- 
 tinued high water in said river, and consequent overflow 
 of the real estate claimed by plaintiff, independent of any 
 act of the defendant, or any cause under its control, 
 thereby producing all the injury and damage of which 
 
1052 
 
 the plaintiff complains in its declaration, or if the evi- 
 dence with reference to the causes which have produced 
 the injury and damage of which the plaintiff complains 
 is so evenly balanced that you cannot say therefrom that 
 the plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of all the 
 evidence in the case that the injury and damage com- 
 plained of to the fair cash market value of said real 
 estate, or some part thereof, is due to the act of the de- 
 fendant, or to some cause under its control, then the 
 plaintiff cannot recover and you will find the defendant 
 not guilty. (Refused.) 
 
 Whereupon the court, at the request of the defendant, 
 read and gave to the jury said above mentioned instruc- 
 tions numbered, respectively, 21 to 44, both inclusive, 
 and each and every thereof, as asked by the defendant. 
 
 But the court then and there refused to read and give 
 to the jury said above mentioned instructions asked by 
 the defendant and numbered, respectively, 45 to 80, both 
 inclusive, and each and every thereof, and wrote on the 
 margin thereof the word ‘‘ Refused’’ and additional words 
 as above indicated. | 
 
 To which ruling of the court in refusing to read and 
 give to the jury said instructions above mentioned, num- 
 bered, respectively, 45 to 80, both inclusive, and each and 
 
 4793 every thereof, asked by the defendant, and in marking 
 upon the margin of each thereof the word ‘‘ Refused,’’ 
 and the additional words above shown, the defendant, by 
 its counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Thereupon the court read and gave to the jury the 
 following forms of verdict: 
 
 The Court: As to forms of verdict. If the jury find 
 the defendant guilty, the form of your verdict may be as 
 follows: 
 
 ‘We, the jury, find the defendant guilty, and assess 
 
1053 
 
 plaintiff’s damages at the sum of (here insert such sum 
 as you may find from the evidence).”’ 
 
 If the jury find the defendant not guilty, the form of 
 your verdict may be as follows: 
 
 ‘‘We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty.’’ 
 
 Write out your verdict on a separate sheet of paper and 
 each sign it. 
 
 To which ruling and decision of the court in reading 
 and giving to the jury the above mentioned forms of ver- 
 dict, and each and every thereof, the defendant, by its 
 attorney, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 The Court: The court has prepared two separate 
 forms of verdict for you and they are on this buff or 
 yellow paper attached to the instruction as to the form 
 of your verdict. After you have agreed among yourselves 
 on the verdict that you wish to return you may then use 
 one of these forms on this yellow paper that corresponds 
 
 4794:-to your finding. That will save you writing out the 
 form of your verdict yourself. You are at liberty to use 
 one of the forms written out by the court and furnished 
 you, the one that agrees with your finding. 
 
 When you have agreed upon your verdict, if the court 
 happens to be in session at the time, you may return it 
 into open court. If you agree upon a verdict when the 
 court is not in session you may seal it up in an envelope 
 that will be delivered to you by your bailiff and all sign 
 it and then meet the court in the morning at 9 o’clock, 
 when your verdict will be opened and read in your pres- 
 ence. All be there. 
 
 It may be that I will not be present when you shall 
 have agreed upon your verdict; in that case Judge Hl- 
 dredge will receive your verdict and discharge you. I 
 will take this occasion, therefore, of saying good-by to 
 you again; it may be the last farewell I will extend to you 
 during this trial. In case that is so, I wish to express my 
 
1054 
 
 thanks to you and my good wishes for your future happi- 
 ness and your families. I feel as if it was more than a 
 mere acquaintance between court and jury on account 
 of being together so long; there is a sort of feeling, on 
 my part at least, of friendship and I want to express 
 that feeling to you. T hope I will meet you all some time 
 again after the case is over. 
 
 I will say good-night to you again once more; it is per- 
 haps the last time in this trial. You may go now with 
 the officer. 
 
 4795 Thereupon the jury retired to consider of their ver- 
 dict, and after deliberation thereon had, returned into 
 court their verdict as follows: 
 
 ‘‘We, the jury, find the defendant guilty, and assess 
 plaintiff’s damages at the sum of thirty-five thousand 
 
 dollars. 
 (Signed) Wm. McExroy, 
 Foreman; 
 EK. J. Laniaan, 
 
 JoHN L. Dwyer, 
 THomas GoTcH, 
 
 JAMES GREEN, 
 
 JAMES DuNLAP, 
 
 GEORGE COULSON, 
 JoHN WALZER, 
 
 JOHN L. FRANGENBERG, 
 Curist SCHRUMPH, 
 FreD WEBERLING, 
 JoHN VoIPpuND.”’ 
 
 And afterwards, to wit: upon the 11th day of Decem- 
 ber, A. D. 1912 (the same being one of the days of the 
 said October term of said court for the year aforesaid), 
 the defendant, by its attorney, moved the court to set 
 aside the verdict of the jury in said cause and for a new 
 trial, and afterwards, to wit: upon the 12th day of De- 
 
1059 
 
 cember, A. D. 1912, filed in said court in said cause its 
 written motion for a new trial and its points in writing, 
 particularly specifying the grounds of such motion in 
 the words and figures following, to wit: 
 
 4796 Strate or ILuinois, nie 7 
 County or La SALLe. 
 
 In THE Circuit Court. 
 
 October Term, A. D. 1912: 
 
 The La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company, a corporation, 
 Plaintiff, 
 VS. Case. 
 The Sanitary District of Chicago, 
 a municipal corporation, 
 Defendant. 
 
 Now comes the defendant, The Sanitary District of 
 Chicago, by Chiperfield & Chiperfield, its attorneys, and 
 moves the court to set aside the verdict of the jury ren- 
 dered herein, and to grant a new trial of the above enti- 
 tled cause, for the reasons following, viz.: 
 
 ib 
 
 The court erred in sustaining plaintiff’s demurrer to 
 defendant’s fourth plea. 
 
 1b. 
 The court erred in refusing leave to the defendant to 
 file a plea of nul trel corporation herein. 
 inal 
 
 The court admitted on the trial improper evidence, 
 over the objection of the defendant. 
 
The court refused to admit upon the trial proper docu- 
 mentary evidence offered by the defendant. 
 
 V. 
 
 The court refused to admit upon the trial proper oral 
 testimony offered by the defendant. 
 
 VI. 
 
 The court erred in admitting as evidence upon the trial 
 Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,3) 97°10, 11, 12, 13; 145 oS ieee 
 18, 19, 20 and 21 (both inclusive), offered by the plain- 
 tiff, over the objection of the defendant. 
 
 VIL. 
 
 The court erred in improperly restricting the cross- 
 examination by defendant of the witnesses who testified 
 on behalf of the plaintiff. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 The court erred in not properly restricting the cross- 
 examination by the plaintiff of the witnesses who testi- 
 fied upon behalf of the defendant. 
 
 DX 
 
 The court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to 
 make proof of facts specified in certain offers appearing 
 in the record, after sustaining objection of plaintiff to 
 questions having for their purpose the eliciting of such 
 testimony. oe 
 
The court erred in refusing to exclude from the evi- 
 dence in this case Defendant’s Exhibit 1, as requested by 
 defendant in its motion at the conclusion of the taking’ 
 of evidence upon behalf of the plaintiff. 
 
 4798 XL. 
 
 The court erred in refusing to exclude from the evi- 
 dence in this case Defendant’s Exhibit 2, as requested by 
 defendant in its motion at the conclusion of the taking of 
 evidence upon behalf of the plaintiff. 
 
 > AE 
 
 The court erred in refusing to exclude from the evi- 
 dence in this case Defendant’s Exhibit 3, as requested by 
 defendant in its motion at the conclusion of the taking of 
 evidence upon behalf of the plaintiff. 
 
 Sl 
 
 The court erred in refusing to exclude from the evi- 
 dence in this case Defendant’s Exhibit 4, as requested by 
 the defendant in its motion at the conclusion of the tak- 
 ing of evidence upon behalf of the plaintiff. 
 
 DESL. 
 
 The court erred in refusing to exclude from the evi- 
 dence in this case Defendant’s Exhibit 5, as requested by 
 the defendant in its motion at the conclusion of the tak- 
 ing of testimony upon behalf of the plaintiff. 
 
XV. 
 
 The court erred in refusing to exclude from the evi- 
 dence in this case Defendant’s Exhibit 6, as requested by 
 defendant in its motion at the conclusion of the taking of 
 evidence upon behalf of the plaintiff. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 The court erred in refusing to exclude from the evi- 
 
 4799 dence in this case Defendant’s Exhibit 7, as requested 
 
 by the defendant in its motion at the conclusion of the 
 taking of evidence upon behalf of the plaintiff. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 The court erred in refusing to exclude from the evi- 
 dence in this case Defendant’s Exhibit 8, as requested 
 by the defendant in its motion at the conclusion of the 
 taking of evidence upon behalf of the plaintiff. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 The court erred in refusing to exclude from the evi- 
 dence in this case Defendant’s Exhibit 9, as requested 
 by the defendant in its motion at the conclusion of the 
 taking of evidence upon behalf of the plaintiff. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 The court erred in refusing at the close of plaintiff’s 
 ease to grant the several motions made by defendant to 
 exclude the testimony specified from the consideration 
 of the jury. 
 
1059 
 
 XX, 
 
 The court erred in denying the motion of the defend- 
 ant at the close of the plaintiff’s case, to strike from 
 the record the testimony of the following witnesses, viz. : 
 Joseph Grainer, Henry Rean, Henry Myer, Charles 
 Mudge, Ed Pyka, Charles Castendyck, Otto Halm, Fred 
 A. Mudge, M. J. Charlies, Abram Voorhees and Charles 
 Dooly. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 The court erred in denying the motion of the defend- 
 ant made at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, to strike 
 4800 from the record the testimony of the various witnesses 
 specified, with reference to the overflow of plaintiff’s 
 premises, injury to, condition of, or value of crops there- 
 on, or to the use said premises were put since January 
 
 17, 1900. 
 
 XXIT. 
 
 The court erred in denying the motion of the defend- 
 ant at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, to strike from 
 the record the testimony of the various witnesses speci- 
 fied, with reference to any injury to crops upon the prem- 
 ises claimed by plaintiff for the years 1902 to 1912 (both 
 inclusive). 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 The court erred in granting the motion of plaintiff 
 to strike from the declaration certain lands specified m 
 said motion, without requiring amendment of the dec- 
 laration to correspond accordingly. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 The court erred in permitting plaintiff to enter a dis- 
 claimer as to certain lands described in the plaintiff’s 
 declaration. 
 
1060 
 
 XXV. 
 
 The court erred in denying the motion of defendant to 
 exclude at the close of plaintiff’s case the testimony of 
 certain witnesses specified therein, for the reason that 
 the same constituted a variance between the allegations 
 of the declaration and the proof. 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 The court erred in submitting to the jury the issues 
 in the case without requiring plaintiff to amend the dec- 
 4801 laration and eliminate therefrom the real estate which 
 was excluded by the court from the consideration of the 
 jury, or by the voluntary act of the plaintiff is disclaim- 
 
 ing as to said real estate. 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 The court erred at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s 
 case in denying the motion of the defendant to instruct 
 the jury to find the defendant not guilty, under the first 
 count of the declaration. 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 The court erred at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s 
 case in denying the motion of the defendant to instruct 
 the jury to find the defendant not guilty under the sec- 
 ond count of the declaration. 
 
 X XIX. 
 
 The court erred at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case 
 in denying the motion of the defendant to instruct the 
 jury to find the defendant not guilty under the third 
 count of the declaration. 
 
The court erred at the conelusion of the taking of tes- 
 timony upen behalf of the plaintiff, in denyng the mo- 
 tion of the defendant to instruct the jury to return a 
 verdict finding the defendant not guilty. 
 
 XXXII. 
 
 The court erred in refusing to sustain objections of the 
 defendant to improper remarks of counsel for plaintiff 
 made in its opening statement, to the refusal of which 
 the defendant duly excepted. 
 
 4802 XXXII. 
 
 The court erred in sustaining objections of the plain- 
 tiff to certain parts of the opening statement made by 
 counsel for the defendant. 
 
 XXXITT. 
 
 The court erred in failing to sustain the objection of 
 defendant to the improper conduct of plaintiff’s counsel 
 while defendant’s opening statement was being made to 
 the jury. 
 
 XXXIV, 
 
 The conduct of counsel for plaintiff in the hearing and 
 presence of the jury was improper and duly excepted to 
 by the defendant. 
 
 XXXV. 
 
 The counsel for plaintiff made improper remarks dur- 
 ing the trial in the presence of the jury, which was duly | 
 objected to by the defendant. 
 
1062 
 
 XXXVI. 
 
 The closing argument of counsel for the plaintiff was 
 improper, in the particulars objected to by defendant. 
 
 XXXVII. 
 
 The conduct of plaintiff’s counsel, with reference to 
 the jury, was improper. 
 
 NED. HAL 
 
 The conduct of the jury was improper. 
 
 OOS, 
 
 The court erred in refusing to hear the reasonable ar- 
 eument of counsel for the defendant upon matters of 
 law involved in the suit, when requested by counsel to 
 
 4803 do so, and in arbitrarily refusing leave to counsel for 
 the defendant to present such argument. 
 
 XL. 
 
 The court erred in refusing to allow proof of the sev- 
 eral offers of proof made by the defendant upon the 
 trial. 
 
 las 
 The court erred in refusing to sustain objections inter- 
 
 posed by defendant to questions and answers specified 
 in the depositions read on the trial. 
 
 SAAB ARE 
 
 The court erred in admitting in evidence, over the ob- 
 jection of defendant, the various exhibits referred to in 
 the depositions read on the trial. 
 
4804 
 
 1063 
 
 DOS Le 
 
 The court erred in striking from the record, over the 
 objection of defendant, portions of the testimony con- 
 tained in the answer of witnesses being examined by the 
 defendant. 
 
 Olay. 
 
 The court erred in refusing to grant the motions of 
 the defendant to strike from the record certain portions 
 of the answers of witnesses being examined by the plain- 
 tiff. 
 
 XLV. 
 
 The court erred in adopting on the trial an improper 
 rule as to measure of damages, over the objection of the 
 defendant. 
 
 XLVI. 
 The court erred in restricting proof as to conditions 
 
 affecting lands described in declaration to period sub- 
 sequent to January 1, 1883, of its own motion. 
 
 XLVILI. 
 
 The court erred in denying to the defendant the right 
 to prove the fair cash market value of the premises de- 
 seribed in the declaration at the time of the trial. 
 
 XLVI. 
 
 The court erred in refusing to admit as evidence the 
 eharter of the plaintiff corporation, offered by the de- 
 fendant. 
 
1064 
 
 XLIx. 
 
 The court erred in allowing the witness Hazen, over 
 the objection of the defendant, to testify as to his mental 
 processes in reaching a conclusion as to the value of the 
 lands referred to in the statement made to R. G. Dun & 
 Company by the witness. 
 
 1G; 
 
 The court erred in allowing the witnesses for the plain- 
 tiff, in giving an opinion as to the fair cash market value 
 of the real estate described in the declaration, to take 
 into consideration matters known only to themselves, ex- 
 isting up to the time of the trial, and concerning which 
 there was no testimony in the record. 
 
 LI. 
 
 The plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the real 
 estate described in its declaration. 
 
 LIT. 
 
 The court erred at the conclusion of the taking of tes- 
 timony on the trial, in denying the motion of the defend- 
 ant to instruct the jury under the first count of the dec- 
 laration to return a verdict of not guilty. 
 
 LIL. 
 
 The court erred at the conclusion of the taking of tes- 
 
 4805 timony on the trial, in denying the motion of the de- 
 
 fendant to instruct the jury under the second count of 
 the declaration to return a verdict of not guilty. 
 
1065 
 
 LIV. 
 
 The court erred at the conclusion of the taking of tes- 
 timony on the trial, in denying the motion of the defend- 
 ant to instruct the jury under the third count of the dec- 
 laration to return a verdict of not guilty. 
 
 LV. 
 
 The court erred at the conclusion of the taking of tes- 
 mony on the trial, in denying the motion of the defend- 
 ant to instruct the jury to return a verdict finding the 
 defendant not guilty. 
 
 LVI. 
 The court erred in giving to the jury instructions num- 
 
 bered 1 to 20 (both inclusive), requested on the part of 
 the plaintiff. 
 
 LVI. 
 
 The court erred in refusing to give to the jury instruc- 
 tions numbered 45 to 80 (both inclusive), requested on 
 behalf of the defendant. 
 
 LVIII. 
 
 The damages awarded by the jury are excessive, and 
 a result of passion and prejudice upon the part of the 
 
 jury. 
 LIX. 
 
 The verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and the 
 evidence. 
 
 LX. 
 
 The verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence. 
 
 LXI. 
 The verdict of the jury is contrary to the law. 
 
1066 
 
 1b P.G bt: 
 
 The court erred in improperly instructing the jury as 
 to the form of a verdict finding for the plaintiff. 
 
 LXIIl. 
 
 Improper remarks made by the court during the trial 
 and in the presence and hearing of the jury and duly ex- 
 cepted to by the defendant. 
 
 LXIV. 
 
 The court erred in denying the motion of the defend- 
 ant to exclude the deposition of the witness E. L. Cooley. 
 
 LXV. 
 
 The court erred in overruling the motion of the de- 
 fendant to strike from the record the testimony of the 
 witness, Ii. L. Cooley, respecting matters covered by his 
 deposition read upon the trial. 
 
 LXVI. 
 
 The court erred in overruling the motion of defendant 
 to exclude from the consideration of the jury various 
 tracts of real estate claimed by the plaintiff and specified 
 in said motion. 
 
 LXVII. 
 The jury were improperly allowed to separate after 
 
 the cause was submitted to them for decision and before 
 the verdict herein was presented to the court, 
 
1067 
 
 4807 LXVITI. 
 
 The court improperly permitted the witness, Hazen, 
 to alter and change the effect of the statement made by 
 him on behalf of the plaintiff in this ease to R. G. Dun & 
 Company by stating to the jury what was his secret in- 
 tention and undisclosed meaning at the time he so made 
 said statement, thus changing the effect of said statement 
 by the undisclosed mental reservation of said Hazen at 
 said time. 
 
 LXIX. 
 
 The court erred in allowing the several witnesses for 
 plaintiff to testify over the objection of the defendant to 
 the fair cash market value of the surface only of the real 
 estate claimed by plaintiff, instead of stating an opinion 
 as to the fair cash market value of the entire estate de- 
 seribed in plaintiff’s declaration. 
 
 THE Santrary District or CuHicaco, 
 By CHIPERFIELD & CHIPERFIELD, 
 Its Attorneys. 
 Endorsed upon the back as follows: 
 
 BEN ORE Pe Common Law Chancery. State of Illi- 
 nois, La Salle County. In Circuit Court. October Term, 
 A. D. 1912. La Salle County Carbon Coal Company vs. 
 The Sanitary District of Chicago. Motion of defendant 
 for a new trial. Chiperfield & Chiperfield, Attorneys at 
 Law and Solicitors:in Chancery, Canton, Fulton County, 
 Illinois. For Defendant.’’ 
 
 Bull of exceptions. 
 
 Proceedings had in said court on January 4, 1913, in 
 the cause of La Salle County Carbon Coal Company vs. 
 Sanitary District of Chicago, before the Honorable Sam- 
 uel C, Stough, judge of said court. 
 
1068-69-70-71 
 
 4808 Motion by defendant for leave to withdraw motion for 
 new trial in order to enter a motion for judgment non 
 obstanti veridicto. Motion allowed. 
 
 Motion by defendant for judgment notwithstanding 
 the verdict in the case. Motion overruled by the court. 
 To which ruling the defendant then and there. excepted. 
 
 Motion to set aside verdict in said cause and for a 
 new trial. 
 
 The Courr: The motion for a new trial is overruled. 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 attorney, then and there duly excepted. 
 Motion in arrest of judgment. 
 Motion in arrest of judgment overruled, to which rul- 
 4813 ing the defendant then and there excepted. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: At the trial we introduced a notice 
 served upon the District as a foundation for a claim on 
 the part of the plaintiff for attorneys’ fees. We desire 
 to have that disposed of before the order for appeal is 
 entered. ‘ 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLp: As I told you, Mr. Duncan, in the 
 other room, the first suggestion I have had that a ques- 
 tion of that sort would come up was perhaps ten minutes 
 ago. We are not prepared. It may be set down and we 
 will come here at that time and dispose of this motion. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: I would like to have the matter set for 
 some day next week. 
 
 The Court: Does it have to be disposed of before the 
 appeal is heard? 
 
 Mr. Duncan: I think, your Honor, it ought to be a 
 part of the same judgment. 
 
 4814 Mr. Currrrriryp: It is entirely separate and distinct 
 and so held that they are not related and that an appeal 
 may be taken from one without the other. 
 
1072 
 
 Mr. Duncan: I think that is true. The language of 
 the statute upon that subject is in these words, ‘‘ And in 
 case judgment is rendered against such District for dam- 
 age, the plaintiff shall also recover his reasonable attor- 
 neys’ fees to be taxed as costs of suit.”’ 
 
 Mr. O’Conor: It is customary to take it up at this 
 time. 
 
 Mr. O’Donnett: If your Honor please, attorneys’ fees 
 are taxed as costs by the court on the hearing of the 
 motion. The rule is invariable that an appeal, if per- | 
 fected, takes up the case, and takes it entirely out of this 
 court and into the Supreme Court. As soon as the ap- 
 peal is perfected, the case is then out of this court, and, 
 therefore, before the appeal is even allowed the attor- 
 neys’ fees should be taxed. 
 
 Mr. Currerrietp: I do not care whether judgment is 
 entered today or not, but we are certainly not ready to 
 take up the question of the taxation of attorneys’ fees 
 
 4815 without having some notice of that matter. We want to 
 have a reasonable time in which to prepare. I don’t 
 know what these gentlemen ask in the way of attorneys’ 
 fees, but we anticipate it will be a sufficient amount to re- 
 quire some preparation. 
 
 The Courr: I will enter our motion to tax the attor- 
 neys’ fees. I will set it for Saturday morning at ten 
 o’clock. 
 
 e Mr. Curperrietp: I want the record to show that the 
 judgment is entered now. 
 
 The Court: I will enter judgment if there is no ob- 
 jection to it. I am not informed as to the procedure in 
 the taxation of attorneys’ fees. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: In order that there may be no question 
 here, I think the entry of judgment should wait until the 
 
 4816 matter of attorneys’ fees is settled. 
 
 The Court: The motion for a new trial will be over- 
 
1073 
 
 ruled, and the motion in arrest of judgment overruled. I 
 will let it stand that way. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperriryp: We want the record to show, which 
 I think it does already, that we preserve an exception to 
 the overruling of the motion to enter a judgment, not- 
 withstanding the verdict, for the defendant. 
 
 The Court: Yes. 
 
 Mr. CuriperFrieLp: I want the record also to show that 
 we now except to the ruling of the court in overruling the 
 motion for a new trial and also to the ruling of the court 
 in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment. 
 
 The Court: Yes. : 
 
 4817 Motion by defendant for rule on the plaintiff to furnish 
 a bill of particulars as to the amounts and items which 
 compose application for taxation of solicitors’ fees. 
 
 4818 The Courr: I think I will enter a rule on the plain- 
 tiff to file a bill of particulars. 
 
 4819 Plaintiff ruled to file bill of particulars by Tuesday 
 morning next. 
 
 Further proceedings postponed until Saturday morn- 
 ing, January 11; 1913. 
 
 4820 Hearing on motion of plaintiff for allowance of at- 
 torneys’ fees and taxation of the same as costs in said 
 court, before the Honorable Samuel C. Stough, judge of 
 said court, in which the following proceedings were had. 
 
 4821 Mr. Curprrriztp: Now in this matter a purported bill 
 of particulars has been filed which is as limited in details 
 as it is large in assurance of the amount of fees demand- 
 ed. We know what work was done in court and there is 
 a trifle of $7,000 demanded in the way of fees. It may 
 be an insignificant item as compared with the ad damnum 
 in the main case. In a very general way a statement is 
 made of what work was done outside of court. JI am not 
 prepared to go into the hearing in this case or to pro- 
 duce our proofs until a bill of particulars is filed that 
 
1074 
 
 will show the number of days that it is contended was 
 occupied out of court, and the kind of work that was 
 done on those days, and the days that were devoted to the 
 preparation of this case. If this were a bill that was sub- 
 mitted to an ordinary client by his own counsel he would 
 be entitled to at least that much, and how much more 
 true is it when it is a bill submitted to an adverse party 
 on which they are called to come into court to make their 
 defense and show why the compensation demanded should 
 not be allowed. And it gives us absolutely no basis to 
 prepare for this hearing and we are not ready until a 
 more specific bill of particulars is filed, and we wish to 
 make a motion to require the plaintiff to file a more par- 
 ticular bill of particulars, a more specific bill of particu- 
 lars setting forth the services that were rendered in de- 
 tail instead of in a general manner. 
 
 4822 And in that same connection we wish to enter a mo- 
 tion for a continuance in this hearing until such specific 
 statement is made and time given us to prepare to meet 
 it. Here is a general shot gun charge filed in this case 
 in what is the center of attraction for the opposition, 
 $7,000, saying that they have filed a declaration. We 
 know they did. Saying that they interviewed witnesses; 
 we presume that is true. Saying that they prepared for 
 trial; possibly that may be so. But the time 
 that is employed in the preparation for trial, these other 
 matters in detail or any detail, anything that approaches 
 detail is not given, and I submit to your Honor how is it 
 possible for the defendant in this case to prepare for a 
 hearing without having some basis on which to prepare. 
 And so‘we wish to submit both of those motions. 
 
 Mr. O’Donnett: If the court please, as I understand 
 Mr. Chiperfield he concedes that the character of the 
 work performed is fully set forth in the bill. 
 
 Mr. CurperrieLp: What is that? 
 
1075 
 
 Mr. O’Donnetu: Is fully set forth in the bill of par- 
 ticulars. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFIELD: Then I fail to make myself under- 
 stood. 
 
 Mr. O’DonnetL: Well, I understand and we will 
 
 4823 Mr. Cuiperristp: I don’t care how counsel under- 
 stood me, all I want is that I make my meaning plain to 
 the court. 
 
 Mr. O’Donneti: I understood you to say that it set 
 forth the preparation of the case, filing of the declaration, 
 interviewing of witnesses, preparing for trial and you 
 had a suspicion that we might have prepared for trial, 
 and the work done in court and that that was very forci- 
 bly set forth. No greater particularity can be obtained 
 in this case unless in the language of the authors you 
 ‘‘nlead your evidence.’’ The work necessarily does not 
 depend upon the actual number of days that were de- 
 voted to the proof or what kind of work was done, and if 
 the bill of particulars is to be more specific than the one 
 on file here it will have to specify the number of hours 
 devoted to each witness, the number of witnesses inter- 
 viewed, and the places we walked about the land and the 
 importance of the issues that we were handling and the 
 questions of law pertaining to them. This would be a 
 perfectly good bill of particulars if rendered to a client, 
 and if it is good enough for a client it is good enough 
 for the purpose of this motion. 
 
 There is no lack of particularity in it that would de- 
 ceive a lawyer or the Sanitary District, which is the great- 
 est machine in IJlinois, to prepare for trial; it knows some- 
 thing about the case. We have devoted time to the prep- 
 aration of the case and Mr. Chiperfield has, and we have 
 done the best we could. 
 
 4824 Mr. CurperrreLpD: You haven’t done very much. 
 Mr. O’Donnett: We have set out the facts as well as 
 
 
 
1076 
 
 we could and that is all that could be done in the case. 
 I doubt whether a bill of particulars was necessary. It 
 is not a matter of right in this case to have a bill of par- 
 ticulars at all. The court entered the rule in its discre- 
 tion in order to aid in the investigation of the matter. 
 Now Mr. Chiperfield in his address to the court has not 
 said one word pointing out—has not advanced one point 
 wherein he could not prepare for trial on this bill of par- 
 ticulars. We would have to prove the preparation, we 
 weuld have to prove the filing of papers, we would have 
 to prove the argument of demurrers, we would have to 
 prove the argument of defenses alleged and the defenses 
 claimed, we would have to prove the amendments, we 
 would have to prove the interviewing of witnesses, but it 
 would be hardly expected that we would hold a watch on 
 ourselves, and aside from the itemization of hours and 
 minutes the bill of particulars in my judgment is par- 
 ticularly sufficient in this case. | 
 
 Mr. CurperFIELD: I want to call your Honor’s atten- 
 tion to the bill of particulars that has been filed. There 
 isn’t a thing in this bill of particulars that adds one sin- 
 
 _ gle scintilla of information to the general charge that these 
 gentlemen, some of them coming in at the division of the 
 raiment, these gentlemen have furnished such valuable 
 
 4825 service that they appear only when the raiment is to be 
 torn up. They are all here, And there is nothing in the 
 bill of particulars that in any way affords us any light 
 on this subject. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: I don’t think, if the court please, that 
 we, who have lived here all our lives are compelled to 
 sit silent under the imputations brought forth here by. 
 this stranger that comes to us 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLD: You have an advantage perhaps over 
 the stranger. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: No, we haven’t any advantage. 
 
 
 
1077 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLp: Haven’t you? 
 
 Mr. Duncan: We are here to protect the interests of 
 our client—— 
 
 Mr. CxHiperFigeLp: You haven’t shown much interest 
 in it until now. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: Now we are not going to sit here and 
 listen to the abuse of this man in the presence of the 
 court, or otherwise. We are not here for the purpose of 
 attending the division of the spoils; we have a client in 
 this case, if the court please, that is amply responsible 
 and who is required to pay us our fees, from whom we 
 will collect our fees whether the court allows us any- 
 thing—allows us anything in this motion or not. We are 
 not looking to Mr. Chiperfield nor to this organization 
 that he represents in Chicago for our money. We have 
 
 4728 earned our money, we have earned it with good hard 
 work and we expect the client to pay us. We are not 
 here expecting any charity at his hand or at his client’s 
 hand. Nor does the sneering of the gentleman, if he can 
 be so called, add anything to the force of what he says. 
 
 Mr. CurperrieLp: The recent convert is always the 
 most enthusiastic. This is the important gentleman’s 
 first appearance in the case. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: I have been in this case from its incep- 
 tion and he knows it. 
 
 Mr. CurperrieLp: He was a stranger to the court room 
 and all that transpired. 
 
 The Court: I wish you would read this to me. I start- 
 ed to read it a number of times here, but I did not get 
 very far. 
 
 Mr. CurprerFretp (reading): ‘‘The plaintiff claims at- 
 torneys’ fees for services performed by attorneys em- 
 ployed by it, at, in and about the preparation and trial 
 of said cause, to-wit: The attorneys employed by the 
 plaintiff were Duncan, Doyle & O’Conor, J. L. O’Donnell 
 
1078 
 
 and A. K. Butters, and the services performed by them 
 were consultations with officers of the plaintiff; prepara- 
 tion and service of notice under Section 19, or the Sani- 
 tary District Act upon one of the trustees of the defend- 
 ant; preparation of declaration and commencing of suit; 
 services in court in and about argument of demurrers, 
 
 4789 motions for continuance, motion for change of venue 
 and attention to the case in the Circuit Court of La Salle 
 County from 1905 to the date of trial; services of attor- 
 neys in examining the lands described in the declaration 
 and preparing the evidence and consulting with wit- 
 nesses; and examination of all questions of law arising 
 before and during the trial and for trial of the cause 
 in the Cireuit Court of La Salle County before the court 
 and a jury, and preparing for and attending the hearing 
 on motion for new trial, $7,000.’’ 
 
 That is 20 per cent. 
 
 The Court: It states about everything that is usually 
 charged for in a law suit, but it is unlike the usual bill 
 in having the price attached to each item. Otherwise I 
 don’t know but what it is sufficient to notify the other 
 side what services they rendered about a law suit. Or- 
 dinarily they would state examining the law so much, so 
 many days in court so much. The only variance that I 
 see from the ordinary bill of particulars for lawyers’ 
 fees is the separate charge for different services. 
 
 4830 Mr. Currerrietp: Yes, your Honor. It is quite a con- 
 siderable amount. It is about once and a half as much 
 as the niggardly State of Illinois gives to the circuit 
 judge sitting a whole year. It is not a mere bag-a-telle, 
 it is rather a decent amount. 
 
 The Court: Well, I am not certain that a bill of par- 
 ticulars is required, but I thought it was fair that they 
 should state what their services were in a general way, 
 
1079 
 
 so I ordered it. But I think I will overrule your motion 
 
 and give you one more exception before the case is over. 
 
 4831 To which ruling of the court the defendant duly 
 excepted. 
 
 Mr. CuiperrreLp: Before we proceed—that also ap- 
 plies to the motion for a continuance? 
 
 The Court: Yes, your motion. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: And also an exception to that. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Cureerrietp: Before we proceed any further in 
 the matter of the taxation of the attorneys’ fees, we want 
 to have judgment entered in this case as the next step 
 that is taken. Until judgment is entered, this and no 
 other court has any right to determine upon the ques- 
 tion of fees. 
 
 The Court: I will pass that question up to the at- 
 torneys on the other side. I haven’t considered it. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: The hearing on the question or motion 
 for the fixing of attorneys’ fees, it seems to us, should be 
 had so the court may enter the judgment against the de- 
 fendant for the amount of the verdict and enter his judg- 
 
 4832 ment as to the cost, fixing the amount of the attorneys’ 
 fees as costs. 
 
 The Courr: Do you object to the entry of judgment 
 before the evidence for attorneys’ fees is heard? 
 
 Mr. Duncan: Yes, your Honor. 
 
 The Courr: Well, I will sustain the objection and ex- 
 ception by defendant. 
 
 Mr. Cutprrrretp: And we except. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Cureerrietp: Now, if your Honor please, we pro- 
 test against being required to appear upon the question 
 of the taxation of any costs in this case until a judgment 
 
1080 
 
 has been entered against one of the parties to this suit 
 upon which costs can be predicated. Your Honor knows 
 absolutely that costs can only be predicated upon a judg- 
 ment and that it is a step that is taken after judgment 
 only when it is against the unsuccessful party. And the 
 statute in this case, Section 19, specifically requires the 
 judgment to precede the taxation of the costs. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: Representing the plaintiff, if the court 
 please, we feel that it is immaterial insofar as whether 
 or not the judgment on the verdict is entered before the 
 
 4833 amount of attorneys’ fees is fixed. The statute reads 
 that in the event that the plaintiff secures a judgment 
 for damages, the court shall enter judgment for the attor- 
 neys’ fees for plaintiff. 
 
 Mr. Currrrrimetp: The statute does not so read. The 
 statute reads: ‘‘And in case judgment is rendered 
 against such District for damage, the plaintiff shall also 
 recover his reasonable fees to be taxed as costs of suit.’’ 
 The condition precedent is the rendition of judgment. 
 
 The Court: Do you want to proceed with the hearing 
 of the evidence respecting the attorneys’ fees now or 
 after judgment is rendered? 
 
 Mr. O’Donnett: We would think the proper way 
 would be to hear the evidence on the question of the 
 attorneys’ fees and then after that is done the court 
 can—— : 
 
 The Courr: Well, Mr. Chiperfield’s objection is over- 
 ruled. Call your witnesses. 
 
 4834 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 
 | counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CureerFietp: Let me suggest, your Honor, that we 
 want to make a separate bill of exceptions in this mat- 
 ter. At least we are going to tender a separate bill, and 
 so there may be no question as to the chronology of 
 things we want it to appear that this hearing is held be- 
 
1081 
 
 fore the entry of judgment in this case, and that the de- 
 fendant protests against being required to proceed with 
 the hearing in this case until judgment has been rendered, 
 and only proceeds in this hearing because required so to 
 do by the court. 
 
 The Courr: The record may show that. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: All right. 
 
 (Thereupon seven witnesses were sworn.) 
 
 4835 James L. O’DonNELL, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination. 
 
 My name is James L. O’Donnell; I reside in Joliet, 
 Will County, Illinois. I am sixty-three years old. Law- 
 yer by profession and have been practicing continuously 
 since 1874. Have lived continuously in Joliet since said 
 time. Have been engaged in the general practice of law, 
 4836 but not in La Salle County to any great extent. Have 
 attended to a few matters, equity matters and one or two 
 common law cases only. During a portion of the time 
 Will and La Salle Counties were in the same judicial 
 district, but am unable to say how long. 
 Am acquainted with the officers of the plaintiff; was 
 employed in this suit by its president in 1904, in re- 
 4837 sponse to a letter from Mr. Wyeth requesting me to 
 call upon him. 
 Mr. CurprrFieLtp: I object, the letter will be the best 
 evidence. 
 The Court: I will let that stand. 
 4838 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 4839 Mr. Cuiperriexp: Will your Honor rule concerning 
 exceptions that they apply to each and all, that the ex- 
 
1082 
 
 ceptions apply to all objections if desired? May that be 
 understood? 
 
 The Court: Every adverse ruling will have its ex- 
 ception. 
 
 The Witness (continuing): I went to Chicago and 
 spent the afternoon with Mr. Wyeth consulting with him 
 about the question of recovery of damages in behalf of 
 the plaintiff for overflow of lands described in the decla- 
 ration in this case. <A short time after that I met Mr. 
 Wyeth and other persons connected with the plaintiff 
 in Chicago and got the special descriptions, spent the 
 afternoon in consulting with them and arranging for the 
 commencement of the suit, discussing the question of 
 what attorneys they desired to have in the case. After 
 consultation with the firm of Duncan, Doyle & O’Conor, 
 and getting the descriptions from the company, we pre- 
 pared a notice and served upon the Sanitary District of 
 Chicago demanding a settlement of the damages. That 
 notice I think I prepared in my office in Joliet after con- 
 sultation at Ottawa. 
 
 Mr. Curperrretp: I move to strike from the statement 
 of the witness anything as to the contents of the notice 
 
 4840 on the ground the notice itself would be the best evi- 
 dence. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion. 
 
 Hixception by defendant. ; 
 
 The Wirness: The exhibit marked ‘‘21’’ in this suit 
 
 is the notice to which I refer. After the preparation of 
 the notice I went to the offices of the Sanitary District 
 of Chicago 
 
 Mr. CurrerrieLD: Wait a minute, I object to it, incom- 
 petent, immaterial and irrelevant. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the objection. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 
 
1083 
 
 4841 The Witness: And delivered a copy of the witness to 
 William H. Baker 
 Mr. Curprerrietp: I object to the proof of service of 
 notice at this time; the statute requires the proof be made 
 
 on the trial. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the objection. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 The Witness: —one of the trustees of the Sanitary 
 District of Chicago a copy of this original and brought 
 it home and kept it in custody until recently when I de- 
 livered it to Duncan & O’Conor, at Ottawa. 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: If the court please, I move to strike 
 from the record the statement of the witness concerning’ 
 the service of this notice, as the statute requires that the 
 proof shall be made upon the trial and not upon the 
 hearing 
 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court the 
 defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. 
 
 The Wrirness: The date of the service on Mr. Baker 
 was October 25, 1904. 
 
 4842 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Same objection, same motion. 
 
 The Court: I will overrule the motion. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: I now offer the document, which is spo- 
 ken of as the notice marked in this case as Exhibit ‘‘21,”’ 
 in evidence, 
 
 Mr. Currerrrrtp: If your Honor please, I object to it 
 on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immate- 
 rial. 
 
 Mr. Burters: It was introduced on the hearing. 
 
 Mr. CurperrieLp: No, it was not. 
 
 Mr. Burtrsers: Yes, it was, 
 
 
 
 
 
. 1084 
 
 Mr. Curerrrirtp: Read the record, that will speak. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: You stated at the time it was intro- 
 duced if you had any further objection to it— 
 
 Mr. Curprrrietp: You better read the record. 
 
 Mr. Burrers: —that you would make it known at that 
 time, otherwise it could be considered in. 
 
 Mr. CureerFieLp: That is not true. 
 
 Mr. Burters: That is true. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFIeLD: Now, I have got the record and I 
 know what it states, I know what it states and I know 
 that is not correct. The record will show. I looked it 
 up within the last twenty-four hours. The objection is 
 this, that it is Incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial 
 and that the statute requires that the proof shall be made 
 
 4843 upon the trial of the service of this notice, and that 
 
 has not been done, and we object to it being patched up 
 at this time. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule that objection. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: ‘This is marked Exhibit ‘‘21.”’ 
 
 Mr. CuiperFietp: I want that introduced as an exhibit 
 on this hearing as we are taking a separate bill of excep- 
 tions on appeal on this question of attorneys’ fees. 
 
 Whereupon said document was marked Plaintiff’s Ex- 
 hibit ‘£1’? and is in words and figures following, to-wit : 
 
 PLAINTIFF’s Eixutrpit 1. 
 
 (Exhibit 21.) 
 
 “‘lo the Sanitary District of Chicago: 
 
 Take notice that I am the owner of and claim damages 
 to the following lands in Township thirty-three (33) 
 North, and of Range One (1) East of the Third (3rd) 
 Principal Meridian’’; 
 
1085 
 
 Being a part of the same lands described in the plain- 
 tiff’s declaration, 
 
 4845 ‘To the amount of One Hundred and Ninety-two Thou- 
 sand and Seven Hundred ($192,700.00) Dollars, which 
 damages to said premises are caused by overflow of the 
 Illinois River upon said premises by reason of the dis- 
 charge into that river through the Desplaines River in 
 the State of [llinois, of a volume of water by the Sani- 
 tary District of Chicago by channels and outlets con- 
 structed by said Sanitary District to conduct the waters 
 of Lake Michigan and other waters into said Desplaines 
 River, and also by other embankments, channels and 
 outlets in the Counties of Cook, Du Page and Will, in 
 the State of Illinois, constructed by said Sanitary Dis- 
 trict to increase the flow of water in said Desplaines 
 River and thereby carry the same into the Illinois River; 
 which channels, embankments and outlets were con- 
 structed and are permanently maintained by said Sani- 
 tary District of Chicago, and that I intend to sue for said 
 damages. 
 
 Dated this 25th day of Oct., A. D. 1904. 
 
 La Saute County Carson Coat Co., 
 F. O. Wratn, 
 (SEAL. ) Secretary. 
 Delivered copy to Wm. H. Baker, trustee, October 25, 
 
 1904. 
 JL. O2DONNEEEE 
 
 4846 ‘‘To the Sanitary District of Chicago: 
 
 Similar notice applying to other lands described in 
 plaintiff’s declaration claiming damage for the sum of 
 Ten Thousand and Two Hundred ($10,200.00) Dollars. 
 Dated the 25th day of October, A. D. 1904, and signed 
 La Salle County Carbon Coal Co., F. O. Wyatt, Secre- 
 tary. (Seal.) 
 
1086 
 
 Delivered a copy of above to Wm. H. Baker, trustee, 
 
 Oct. 25, 1904. 
 cele DON WN Bia: 
 
 4847 Similar notice describing part of the lands contained 
 in plaintiff’s declaration alleging damage in the sum of 
 One Thousand ($1,000) Dollars thereto, and dated this 
 25th day of October, A. D. 1904. Signed, ‘‘La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Co. F. O. Wyatt, Secretary.”’ 
 (Seal.) 
 
 Endorsed, ‘‘ Delivered a copy to Wm. H. Baker, trus- 
 
 tee, Oct. 25, 1904. 
 J. L. O’DoNnNELL.?’’ 
 
 4848 Similar notice covering a portion of the lands described 
 in plaintiff’s declaration alleging damage in the sum of 
 Forty Thousand ($40,000) Dollars, dated ‘‘This 25th 
 day of October, A. D. 1904.’’ Signed ‘‘La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Co., F. O. Wyatt, Secretary.’’ (Seal.) 
 
 4849 Endorsed ‘‘Delivered a copy to Wm. H. Baker, trus- 
 
 tee, Oct. 25, 1904. 
 J. L. O’DoNnNELL.?’’ 
 
 A similar notice describing part of the lands described 
 in plaintiff’s declaration alleging damage in the sum of 
 Three Thousand ($3,000) Dollars. ‘‘Dated this 25th day 
 of October, A. D. 1904.’’ Signed ‘‘La Salle County Car- 
 bon Coal Co., F. O. Wyatt, Secretary.’’ (Seal.) 
 
 4850 Endorsed, ‘‘Delivered copy to Wm. H. Baker, trus- 
 tee, Oct. 25, 1904. 
 J. L. O’DoNNELL.’’ 
 
 A similar notice describing a portion of the lands de- 
 scribed in the plaintiff’s declaration, alleging damage in 
 the sum of Twenty-five Hundred ($2,500) Dollars. 
 ‘‘Dated this 25th day of October, A. D. 1904.’’ Signed 
 ‘‘La Salle County Carbon Coal Co., F. O. Wyatt, Secre- 
 tary.’’ (Seal.) 
 
1087 
 
 4851 Endorsed, ‘‘ Delivered a copy to Wm. H. Baker, trus- 
 tee, Oct. 25, 1904. 
 J. L. O’DoNNELL.”’ 
 Similar notice describing a part of lands contained in 
 plaintiff’s declaration, alleging damage in the sum of 
 One Hundred and Thirty-five Thousand ($135,000) Dol- 
 lars. ‘‘Dated this 25th day of October, A. D. 1904. La- 
 4852 Salle County Carbon Coal Co., F. O. Wyatt, Secretary.”’ 
 (Seal.) 
 Endorsed, ‘‘Delivered copy to Wm. H. Baker, trus- 
 
 tee, Oct. 25, 1904. 
 J. L. O’DoNNELL.’’ 
 
 Similar notice describing part of lands contained in 
 plaintiff’s declaration claiming damage in the sum of 
 One Thousand ($1,000) Dollars. : 
 
 4853 ‘‘Dated this 25th day of October, A. D. 1904. La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Co., F. O. Wyatt, Secretary.”’ 
 (Seal. ) 
 
 Endorsed, ‘‘ Delivered a copy to Wm. H. Baker, trus- 
 
 tee, Oct. 25, 1904. 
 J. L. O’DonneELL.?’’ 
 
 4854 Mr. Duncan: Marked in this hearing now as Plain- 
 tiff’s Exhibit ‘‘1,’’ and I understand the court admits it 
 in evidence. 
 
 The Court: Yes. 
 
 The Witness (continuing): Then I afterwards pre- 
 pared the declaration in this case and brought it to Ot- 
 tawa and went over the declaration with Duncan, Doyle 
 & O’Conor, and we commenced suit, I think, on the same 
 day the declaration was completed. The formal parts of 
 the declaration were prepared, reduced to printing, pre- 
 pared and printed and used in this case together with 
 other cases against the same defendant, all excepting the 
 description of the real estate. 
 
1088 
 
 I then assisted in preparing for the taking of deposi- 
 tions to apply to all cases pending in this and other 
 counties and in getting witnesses in Joliet as to the local 
 condition of the river, being witnesses whose depositions 
 I presume are on file in this case. I interviewed these 
 witnesses. I got a photographer to make pictures in the 
 City of Joliet and directed how to make them, or rather 
 where to make them. And I got a photographer to make 
 
 4854 pictures farther up the channel. I called at the offices 
 of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company in Chi- 
 cago and arranged to have consultations about the mat- 
 ter with Mr. Hazen in La Salle and Mr. Duncan in Ot- 
 tawa. I was present at the taking of all those deposi- 
 tions which were common to all cases, and before doing 
 that I interviewed the witnesses, all except the presi- 
 dent, chief engineer and E. L. Cooley. I interviewed all 
 the other witnesses and interviewed some of the witnesses 
 at the Bear Trap Dam before that time, some of them 
 with whom I was acquainted. I attended in this court 
 on the hearing of argument of some demurrers and mo- 
 tions for continuance, motion for change of venue, and 
 Mr. Duncan and I argued some demurrers, and upon 
 pleas being filed we met here counsel for the opposite 
 side on various occasions. 
 
 I went to La Salle twice, accompanied by Mr. Duncan, 
 and went over the matters of the witnesses and the de- 
 scriptions of the land and the character of the land, in 
 the offices of the plaintiff at La Salle. Then about a 
 year ago I went over the portion of the land south of 
 Peru, accompanied by Mr. Duncan and Mr. Hazen. After 
 that, as the trial was approaching, I spent a day in La 
 Salle with Mr. Hazen interviewing witnesses. In mak- 
 ing our preparation for the case we had in view the fact 
 
 4856 of the character of the defenses that probably would 
 be introduced and the scope of the inquiry. The San- 
 
1089 
 
 itary District cases involved the question of the turning 
 in of the waters of the Sanitary District from Lake Mich- 
 igan and from the four branches of the Chicago River 
 into the Desplaines River, thence into the Illinois River, 
 and the injuries complained of were said to result from 
 the turning in of these waters. They also involved the 
 question of the Thirty-ninth street channel which was 
 afterwards constructed, its effect upon the case, and also 
 the proposed work in the Calumet region. It also in- 
 volved the question of the quantity of the flow at va- 
 rious times. 
 The waters were formally turned in on the 17th day 
 of January, 1900. Up to 1907 the quantity of water 
 turned into the [llinois River by the defendant was reg- 
 ulated by what was known as the Bear Trap Dam and 
 seven gates adjacent thereto. Subsequent to 1907 the 
 water was also let out at the power house about three 
 miles farther down the channel. The power house about 
 1907 was completed and the channel extended from the 
 Lockport basin down to that and the water was let out 
 there. — | 
 We examined very carefully the reports of the Sani- 
 tary District of Chicago. There was nothing published 
 that we could use as evidence as to the quantity of the 
 flow, and we were obliged to go out and make prepara- 
 4857 tions to prove the quantity of flow if possible. The San- 
 itary District, while a municipal corporation, was kept 
 in such a way that we did not have access to its records, 
 and could not examine the records, and with difficulty 
 obtained the evidence. We found some difficulty also in 
 the taking of depositions on that score. It involved the 
 question of the relative quantity of water which nat- 
 urally flowed in the Illinois River and the quantity that 
 was turned in artificially by the defendant. We talked 
 with persons down the river in regard to the changed 
 
1090 
 
 appearance of the river and as to any marks we could 
 secure for elevations of the water. As to the main issue, 
 not having engineering testimony at hand, we were 
 obliged to prepare ourselves as well as we could to show 
 the actual condition of the land before the turning in of 
 the Sanitary District water and its condition afterwards. 
 That was as far as my services were concerned in inter- 
 viewing the witnesses and consulting with Mr. Hazen and 
 Mr. Duncan, as well as by writing letters very frequently 
 to Messrs. Duncan and Hazen in the way of preparation. 
 
 I think I spent in all about sixteen days from the time 
 of my interview up to the trial, in and about the matter 
 of the case. 
 
 4858 The work done in regard to preparing, or consultations 
 regarded as necessary to the preparation of the evidence 
 I will say was done generally; in regard to the condition 
 of the water as to its elevation at different places, each 
 piece of land in a general way had a characteristic of 
 its own. Some land lay low where the water would come 
 in directly over the flats, and some land was claimed to 
 be affected by bayous and creeks backing up into it; 
 some land lay high at the river, sloped back from the 
 river. 
 
 The lands of the La Salle County Carbon Coal Com- 
 pany were different in formation than most of the other 
 pieces and they required some examination different 
 from the others, but the general preparation for the 
 
 4859 proof of the flow of the water applied to all and the 
 general preparation in regard to the attempt to compare 
 the volume of the water of the Sanitary District with 
 the volume of the natural water applied to all. 
 
 The labor performed in taking depositions at Joliet 
 and Chicago applied to all the cases, did not apply to this 
 particular case. 
 
 IT think I appear as attorney for plaintiff in about 
 
LOUIE 
 
 ninety cases in Bureau, La Salle and Grundy Counties. 
 I did not engage in the trial of the present case. 
 
 Q. How did that come? A. At the time the trial 
 commenced— 
 
 4860 Mr. Curperrietp: That is objected to as being imma- 
 terial. The fact is he was not here. 
 
 The Court: I think I will let him answer. 
 
 Mr. CuIperFIELD: All right. 
 
 To which ruling of the court the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 A. At the time the trial commenced I was engaged 
 in actually trying a case in Bureau County, Illinois, which 
 continued for some time after the trial of this case com- 
 menced. : 
 
 During the recesses of the trial that I was engaged in 
 in Bureau County I had some conferences with the at- 
 torneys engaged in the trial of this case, in reference 
 to it. I kept up a correspondence with them quite ex- 
 
 4861 tensively, and I came here one day for the purpose of 
 consulting Mr. Duncan and Mr. O’Conor and Mr. But- 
 ters, and stayed over night and until noon the next day 
 for the purpose of rendering what assistance I could in 
 the matter during the trial. 
 
 Cross-Examination of the Witness James L. O’Donnell. 
 
 I and my associates had a contract or agreement with 
 the plaintiff relative to our compensation in the event 
 of a recovery in this case. I do not know where the 
 agreement is. I do not know that I ever saw it. We had 
 
 4862 two agreements; which one do you mean? The last 
 agreement was a verbal agreement between us and the 
 superintendent in regard to the cases, made at the office 
 in La Salle. The written agreement is not in my pos- 
 session. I do not know where it is. If it is in existence 
 at all it is in either the possession of Mr. Hazen, of the 
 
1092 
 
 plaintiff or Mr. Duncan. It was a contract in favor of 
 us as attorneys. I told you I don’t know where it is. 
 
 Mr. CureerFieLtp: Then I want to call at this time, so 
 that I may more intelligently conduct this case, I call 
 upon opposite counsel to produce the agreement that I 
 may question this witness further. 
 
 4863 Mr. Duncan: There isn’t any written agreement in 
 force.and has not been for a long time. 
 
 Mr. CurPerFirtp: I don’t care whether it is in force 
 or not. I want the written agreement that was entered 
 into concerning the fees of these attorneys, if-it is in 
 existence; if not, then I will make secondary proof of it. 
 We will see whether it is in force or not. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: You may make all the proof you are 
 permitted to. 
 
 Mr. CuHIPerFIELD: It is not to make the proof, I want 
 to cross-examine this witness now. Surely it is nothing 
 remarkable I should ask, if there was a contract, that 
 that contract be exhibited. 
 
 The Witness: I haven’t got it. 
 
 Mr. CurpeerFieLp: You understand I am addressing 
 my remarks to the court. 
 
 The Witness: Never had it. 
 
 Mr. CurIPerFieLD: I am not addressing my remarks to 
 the witness, and I want opposite counsel at this time to 
 produce that contract so that I may interrogate the wit- 
 ness concerning it, that is all. 
 
 The Court: If they have it, I think they ought to 
 produce it. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: We haven’t got it here, your Honor, 
 and I don’t know that we have it. 
 
 Mr. CureerFieLp: Well— 
 
 4864 Mr. Duncan: I am not sure about that. It is years 
 and years that these cases have been pending— 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Seven years. 
 
1093 
 
 Mr. Duncan: Eight years now, nearly. 
 
 Mr. CuriperFieLD: Now, if your Honor please— 
 Mr. Dunoan: Following the— 
 
 Mr. Cuiperrietp: If your Honor please— 
 
 Mr. Duncan: And that contract was made in writing 
 about the time that the suit was begun. Some time after- 
 wards and a long time before this case was tried and 
 before most of the work that was done in it was done, 
 the written contract was abrogated absolutely and the 
 agreement made with the client as to the attorneys’ fees 
 verbally. 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLtp: I want the written contract as far 
 as it was in force. The written contract speaks accu- 
 rately. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: Well, I speak accurately, if the court 
 please, on the general proposition. 
 
 Mr. CureerFrieLtp: If your Honor please, I want them 
 to produce the written contract. 
 
 ‘The Court: Well, he says he doesn’t have it. I can’t 
 rule him to produce something he hasn’t got. 
 
 Mr. CurPerFIELD: As to his knowelge, I don’t know. I 
 think the court should instruct him to make an effort 
 to produce it when it is called for. The fact that he 
 
 3865 says, if your Honor will indulge me just a moment, that 
 he don’t know, implies that it may be in their possession. 
 Why should we not— 
 
 The Court: I have already said if they have it they 
 should produce it. 
 
 Mr. CurIPerFIELD: I know, but we have— 
 
 Mr. Duncan: If the court please, we have had no no- 
 tice until this moment. I state honestly to the court that 
 we may have it and we may not. It is a paper of abso- 
 lutely no use of any kind at the present time and has 
 not been for a long time. Now these gentlemen knew, 
 they knew as far ago as the trial of the Brennan ease, 
 
 
 
1094. 
 
 that there was a contract of that kind entered into be- 
 tween us, Mr. O’Donnell and others, with reference to 
 all of the plaintiffs, or nearly all of them, at the time 
 that these suits were begun. There has been no notice 
 served upon us to produce this old contract. We haven’t 
 attempted to locate it and I don’t know whether we have 
 got it or not. They knew we had it and if they wanted 
 it—they knew at least in the Brennan ease that the con- 
 tract had been subrogated a long time before that time, 
 so if they wanted to have that old contract under those 
 circumstances notice should have been served in the 
 matter. 
 
 Mr. CurpeerFIEtp: I want to take sharp issue with you 
 when you say we knew of the contract in this case. We 
 
 4866 knew nothing about this case at all, although we had a 
 suspicion there might be. So far as its being abrogated 
 is concerned we don’t know it, and don’t think it is the 
 ease. ; 
 
 (Examination continued. ) 
 
 Q. Now, you say there was some verbal agreement 
 afterwards? A. Why, Mr. Hazen, representing the Coal 
 Company and Mr. Duncan and myself had an agreement 
 in the office in La Salle. I cannot fix the date. I know 
 Mr. Wyeth died only a short time ago. It was before his 
 death, how long I do not know. The contract was that 
 we were to have reasonable compensation for all our 
 services. That contract was made after the declaration 
 had been filed and after we had entered upon the prep- 
 aration of this case. I do not remember what the written 
 contract contained. At the present time I do not know 
 
 4867 what the contents of the other contract were. I knew 
 it at the time we modified it. I don’t know how I hap- 
 pened to forget it in the meantime. I have never seen 
 the contract; I might have signed it; I don’t know 
 whether I did, but I have never seen the contract. The 
 
1099 
 
 contract has always been down in this part of the coun- 
 try, the written contract I mean. I don’t know the con- 
 tents of that contract. I simply do not remember, my 
 memory does not recall. I cannot say when I forgot. 
 We had different contracts providing for different 
 amounts of compensation with different clients. I would 
 
 4868 not want to tell you that I know the amount of this 
 compensation. I simply don’t know. I knew it at the 
 time we modified the contract, but I suppose the lapse of 
 time has caused me to forget it. I do not remember any 
 of the provisions of the contract at this moment. I 
 think I was a party to it; suppose I would have had the 
 right to its possession. I never had possession of it for 
 one moment. I am willing and anxious it should be pro- 
 duced, that is all I can say. I don’t know whether I will 
 make an effort to produce it or not. 
 
 4869 I was employed in a large number of cases against, 
 the Sanitary District involving the question of overflow 
 of lands in the Illinois Valley. My notion was that there 
 were between 90 and 110, but I never counted them. [ 
 remember once I estimated 110, but I am not sure about 
 that. I presume I am employed in about forty cases in 
 La Salle County. I don’t know that I am employed in 
 
 4870 fifteen cases in Grundy County. I have, within the last 
 two years, been employed in the Johnson case; before 
 that I commenced a couple of cases, or three cases up 
 near the mouth of the river, but I never had any other 
 cases in Grundy County. 
 
 T don’t remember that I am employed in twenty-one 
 cases in Putnam County. I am not employed with Mr. 
 Trimble and Mr. Duncan in some eases there. 
 
 IT was employed in Bureau County in thirty-three or 
 thirty-four cases, all the Sanitary District cases in the 
 county. 
 
 4871 JI was employed in several cases in Marshall County. 
 
1096 
 
 I do not know that I was employed in 125 cases. The 
 record shows it. JI think I was employed in as many 
 as 110 cases altogether. 
 
 When I secured these employments I commenced to 
 prepare a general form of declaration to be used, which 
 would contain all the allegations that I considered neces- 
 sary, and provided for the insertion of the description 
 of the property, and had a large number of copies print- 
 ed. The labor in preparing this case involved all the 
 cases in which I was employed. I cannot tell you how 
 long I was engaged, the number of days, in preparing the 
 declaration in this case. 
 
 4872 ©. You were just long enough employed to fill in the 
 descriptions, wasn’t you, a mere clerk’s work, wasn’t it? 
 A. Ipresume that is so, as far as making the declaration 
 is concerned, yes. 
 
 I appeared upon the taking of the depositions. The 
 depositions were taken in substantially all the counties 
 with the exception of Grundy County in which I was 
 employed. Other counsel appeared upon the taking of 
 these depositions, Judge Curran, and Timothy Beach of 
 Lincoln, and a number of other interested counsel. Very 
 
 much of the work connected with the taking of these 
 depositions was performed by these gentlemen that I 
 have mentioned. | 
 
 4873 After the depositions were taken they were printed 
 by wholesale and copies sent around in boxes to the dif- 
 ferent counties. The labor which I performed in that 
 behalf extended equally to all cases in which I was then 
 interested, which by stipulation the depositions were to 
 apply to. 
 
 Q. How many times do you charge for the taking of 
 those depositions? A. Why, I haven’t made any esti- 
 mate of the time as applied to this case; it should bear its 
 proportion of the cost simply, should bear its propor- 
 tion in this case. 
 
1097 
 
 I did no particular work in this case in reference to 
 the taking of depositions; it was simply done in refer- 
 ence to the scores of cases which were then pending. I 
 tried to make an investigation of the flow of the Sanitary 
 
 4874 District water and of the water originally in the Illinois 
 River through the agents of the Sanitary District; talked 
 to them. 
 
 Q. With the exception of the particular questions in- 
 volved in this suit, that is, the contour of the land and 
 the effect of the water on this particular piece of land, 
 these other questions had been well determined, had be- 
 come familiar to you by reason of your trial of other 
 eases, had they not? A. Yes, and as the time progressed 
 and other cases were tried, we had to meet again and had 
 interviews because of the defenses the Sanitary District 
 introduced, and we were learning more from time to time. 
 
 I have tried a number of cases against the Sanitary 
 District, and during the time that this trial was going on 
 I was trying two cases during practically all the time 
 in Bureau County. I am making claims for fees for the 
 trial of those cases. 
 
 4875 (. And in your statement of fees in those cases will 
 you make claim for the same labor that you have de- 
 scribed, the preparation of the declaration and the taking 
 of the depositions, and pile it up a number of times in 
 the different cases, or do you exclude that in those other 
 cases; in other words, is this the only case wherein you 
 present a claim for that? A. I have made my state- 
 ment of what I did in the preparation according to the 
 facts I have just stated. What I did I have stated. What 
 I did for all the cases I have stated. How you character- 
 ize it I do not know. I did it, that is all. You partici- 
 pated in the depositions and you are familiar with it. 
 
 Q. In the Smith case and the Albert Miller case in 
 Bureau County, settlement has been arrived at in which 
 
1098 
 
 you received compensation from these clients on the the- 
 ory of work you had done which was done for all the 
 cases, did you not? 
 
 Objected to by plaintiff. 
 
 Mr. CuriPEerFIELD: My point is this, your Honor, if you 
 will allow me, please. Here there is a recitation of gen- 
 eral work, and any one hearing this for the first time 
 would suppose that all this work had all been done in 
 this case and therefore should be charged for. It was 
 
 4875 not done in this case; it was done in the other cases, and 
 today in Bureau County there are two cases pending 
 wherein there is a claim for these services which will be 
 made here, and it has been made in the other cases, and 
 we ought to come to a point sometime where the bill is 
 paid. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: I don’t care to have a misunderstanding 
 here on the part of counsel. The witness testified very 
 clearly that certain of his work, such as looking up the 
 Sanitary District channel, the Chicago River, the taking 
 of depositions, and so forth, was done in behalf of all 
 these cases; and certain other work was done in behalf 
 of this case particularly and applies to no other. The 
 witness has not said, nor does counsel for the plaintiff 
 say, nor does the plaintiff itself expect to be paid any part 
 of the work excepting what in the judgment of the court 
 would particularly apply to this particular case, but this 
 case should stand its proportion of it, and that is all any 
 other case has been asked to do. 
 
 The Court: Read the question. If it refers to the 
 cases that the witness says he was trying while this case 
 
 4876 was being tried, I will let him answer; otherwise not. 
 
 Mr. Curperrietp: There are three of those cases that 
 were tried down there? 
 
 The Witness: In Bureau County. There were three 
 of the cases up to the time covered by this trial where 
 
1099 
 
 a claim for attorneys’ fees was pending and undisposed 
 of before that court. On two days that there was a hear- 
 ing in connection with this trial, court had adjourned 
 down there, but I was engaged in the trial of the cases 
 down there with the exception of those two days all the 
 time this case was on trial. 
 
 In Bureau County I was assisted by Mr. Trimble of 
 Princeton and Mr. Doyle of La Salle. Mr. Doyle is a 
 member of the firm of Duncan, Doyle & O’Conor. I was 
 not present in the court room for so much as a single 
 hour during the trial of this case, and so far as the court 
 room work is concerned did not participate at all. 
 
 The sixteen days I have mentioned were all for matters 
 pertaining to this particular case, except allowing a day 
 or two for the declaration and commencing the suit in 
 connection with other suits down here and for the depo- 
 sitions. Prior to the commencement of this suit I did 
 not particularly discuss this case other than the descrip- 
 tions, at the time of making the declaration. I cannot 
 give you the date of those sixteen days. I spent a day 
 
 4879 with Mr. Wyeth. That interview was had before any 
 contract was made. There were three days, the one with 
 Mr. Wyeth at his home, one at the general offices and one 
 at the office of Duncan & O’Conor at Ottawa which I 
 charged for. This contract was made and after the con- 
 tract was abrogated I met Mr. Duncan and we spent a 
 day at the offices in La Salle. Then I met Mr. Hazen at 
 Mr. Duncan’s office another day, three of them altogether, 
 one day spent down in La Salle. That was long after the 
 filing of the declaration and before the written contract 
 was abrogated. J cannot say accurately how long before 
 the actual trial the contract was abrogated; it may have 
 been three or four years; it may have been three or four 
 years after the filing of the declaration. 
 
 Q. Now, isn’t it true that the only reason which you 
 
1100 
 
 had for abrogating this contract was for fear if there 
 was a special contract there could be no claim under the 
 statute, and isn’t it true that your understanding re- 
 mains the same as to compensation with the coal com- 
 pany? A. No, our understanding is different. 
 
 The reasons you have stated did not cause the abro- 
 gation of the contract. The reason the contract was ab- 
 rogated is that the suits became more and more trouble- 
 some by reason of delays, the death of many witnesses 
 and the lapse of time, and we had a talk with Mr. Hazen 
 and made a new contract with him. No specific sum was 
 discussed. 
 
 4882 I have not been in court since the commencement of 
 this trial until the question of attorneys’ fees came up. 
 
 4883 Mr. Duncan examined me in chief while upon the wit- 
 ness stand. He is the same Mr. Duncan who is entered 
 of record as counsel in this case. 
 
 4884 Vincent J. Duncan, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Donnell. 
 
 My name is Vincent J. Duncan; practiced law in Ot- 
 
 tawa, Illinois, since June 1, 1893. In 1904 and 1905 was a 
 
 4885 member of the firm of Duncan, Doyle & O’Conor. Know 
 
 Mr. Wyeth; he resided in Chicago in 1904, secretary of 
 
 the La Salle County Carbon Coal Company. Its coal 
 
 mines were located in the Township of La Salle, La Salle 
 
 4886 County. Knew Mr. Hazen. In October, 1904, he was 
 treasurer and assistant manager to Mr. Wyeth. 
 
 Our firm was employed in this matter in the fall of 
 
 1904, and individually I performed certain services for 
 
 the plaintiff concerning this suit before the commence- 
 
 ment of the suit. The first service I rendered was at a 
 
 conference with Mr. Hazen which lasted nearly half a 
 
1101 
 
 day going over the lands with him, which was prior to the 
 
 4887 conference subsequently had with you a few days after. 
 Some time before suits were begun you came down to 
 Ottawa in reference to this suit and a number of other 
 suits in which yourself and our firm were engaged as 
 attorneys, and brought a pencil draft of a proposed dec- 
 laration with you to fit the suits in which the Sanitary 
 District was to be defendant and the land owners plain- 
 tiffs. We conferred over the declaration, prepared it for 
 printing, it was printed and I looked after the proof and 
 proper arrangement of it, whatever little work there was 
 connected with that. Afterwards the printed forms were 
 completed and delivered to us, and with you helping we 
 prepared the declaration in this case together with the 
 declarations in a number of other eases. The declara- 
 tion in this case consisted simply in using the printed 
 form provided as I have described and inserting in them 
 the descriptions of the land, which in some instances were 
 not easy to secure, signing the declaration and filing it. 
 
 4888 We used the descriptions in the declaration that were 
 also used in the notice. Subsequently my appearance was 
 entered for the plaintiff and has continued on the records 
 since that time. I have been in court on every occasion 
 when a settlement of the pleadings took place or a court 
 order entered down to the time the trial began. Since 
 the commencement of the suit I have had at least a dozen 
 conferences with Mr. Wyeth and Mr. Hazen, and I went 
 to La Salle for the special purpose of working on this 
 case about seven or eight days. 
 
 4889 James L. O’Donnewtu, a witness for the plaintiff, re- 
 ealled for further cross-examination, testifies as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Q. Mr. O’Donnell, do you mean to state that on the 
 demurrers there was any special argument in this case, 
 
1102 
 
 or on the declaration generally, or didn’t the arguments 
 apply to all the cases? A. Why my recollection is it 
 applied to more than one case. How many I could not 
 say. 
 
 Q. Don’t you know as a matter of fact and recollection 
 that the orders were general to all the cases in La Salle 
 
 4890 County upon one argument and on presentation? A. [ 
 
 should say not. | 
 
 Q. Don’t you know the only demurrer that ever was 
 argued in La Salle County in connection with any of 
 these cases was a demurrer that was argued before Judge 
 Blanchard, before his death, and upon his ruling pleas 
 were filed in 1905 and have never been changed or 
 amended since with the exception of the special plea in 
 this case that was submitted to the court without argu- 
 ment? A. That may be true, I would not swear to all 
 the cases. I know there was more than one case involved 
 in the argument, but I don’t know just how many. 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. Duncan. 
 
 I consider the services rendered in this case as being 
 necessary to the interests of the plaintiff in this suit. 
 
 Whereupon a recess was taken until one o’clock P. mM 
 January 11, 1913, 1:00 Pp. m. 
 
 4891 Vincent J. Duncan, a witness for the plaintiff, recalled 
 for further direct examination, testifies as follows: 
 
 Before adjournment I spoke about conferences had by 
 
 Mr. Hazen and Mr. Wyeth with me in Ottawa, in our 
 office and also my visits to La Salle. There were a num- 
 
 ber of pleas filed in this case that were similar to the 
 4892 pleas filed in the other cases here, and in connection 
 
1103 
 
 with all of the cases here in this county against the Sani- 
 tary District we came into court on a number of different 
 days. The orders entered and the record in this case 
 would show the number of days. 
 
 This case we feel should be charged with its pro- 
 portion of those services. ‘There is one plea however, 
 in this case that did not appear in any other case, and 
 that was the special plea filed denying, as I recall it now, 
 the right of the plaintiff to own the surface of any land 
 but that which was necessary for the purposes of its 
 incorporation, and that it could not claim damages to any 
 such real estate which it had no right to own. We pre- 
 pared and filed a demurrer to that plea and we prepared 
 and argued the demurrer and came into court and had 
 the demurrer sustained. How much time was spent in 
 court at that time I cannot now recall, but I remember 
 very clearly of spending some little time in the prepara- 
 tion of the case and the finding of authorities on that 
 question. 
 
 I believe however that the question raised by the de- 
 murrer was submitted to the court without much argu- 
 ment. I think that counsel for the defendant attended 
 
 4893 the day of the hearing of the demurrer. 
 
 From the time of the commencement of this suit until 
 the present time, there were a number of orders for con- 
 tinuances from term to term. The main ground was the 
 absence of one or the other of the counsel representing 
 the defendant, in the active attendance on the Legisla- 
 ture. We tried to procure a trial in the spring or early 
 summer of last year, had the case set for trial and mo- 
 tion was made for continuance supported by affidavits. 
 There was an extended hearing and some attorney from 
 Chicago representing the district came down and took 
 charge of the motion, presented it to the court, and the 
 court sustained the motion and granted the postpone- 
 ment. 
 
1104 
 
 4894 With reference to the motion for continuance we were 
 here in court quite a little time and we prepared and I 
 think spent the larger part of the day on the question 
 that was raised by that motion. 
 
 I visited the offices of the La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company at La Salle in connection with this case at least 
 twice with you, and on this case especially looked over 
 the deeds and maps and records of the La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company, and conferred with Mr. Hazen as 
 to the past history of the land and checking up the des- 
 eriptions that we had in our declaration with the records 
 
 4895 that they had there in their office, and conferred gen- 
 erally about the work necessary to the preparation for 
 the trial. There were half a dozen witnesses or so pres- 
 ent. At a time in addition to the two conferences at 
 Hazen’s office, I went over the land on three occasions; 
 twice with Mr. O’Donnell and Mr. Hazen. The other 
 
 4896 time I was accompanied by Mr. Butters, Mr. Hazen and 
 Mr. Swift. 
 
 I never visited any of the land in Section 14. When 
 Mr. O’Donnell and Mr. Hazen was with me we went over 
 Sections 21, 22 and 23, and a small part of 24. 
 
 In addition to what I have already testified, all the 
 usual work done in preparation for a trial was engaged 
 in by me to a more or less extent. When the cause was 
 
 4897 finally called for trial, I was home. On September 23, 
 1912, I started in the trial of a case called in Bureau 
 County of Reinke vs. The Sanitary District. We con- 
 tinued the trial during the week beginning September 
 23d, and I returned there on the week beginning Septem- 
 ber 380th, and continued in the trial all of that day, and 
 on that night I was taken sick, and all of Tuesday. I 
 entered court on Wednesday and in the afternoon of that 
 day was unable to continue. The doctor diagnosed my 
 illness as pneumonia and sent me home. I was at home 
 
1105 
 
 for quite a little while. The attack was not very severe 
 but under instructions from the doctor I could not enter 
 any place where there were many other people and there- 
 fore could not engage in a trial at the time. 
 
 I was at the office a great deal of the time but at home 
 steadily for two or three weeks. 
 
 4898 Not being able to engage in the case myself and on ac- 
 eount of your attendance at Princeton being still con- 
 tinued in the trial there, it made it necessary to have 
 Mr. O’Conor and Mr. Butters take charge of it. Before 
 they entered upon the preparation of the case, I con- 
 ferred with Mr. O’Conor a number of times, also with 
 Mr. Butters. Mr. Butters and I visited La Salle together, 
 we took an automobile and went over the ground with Mr. 
 Hazen and Mr. Swift. 
 
 At the time the trial began my physician advised me 
 it would not be safe for me to go into the trial of a law 
 
 4899 suit at that time. The trial continued from November 
 7th, until the first Saturday in December, when the jury 
 returned its verdict. The case was submitted to the jury 
 the first Friday of December. 
 
 I worked with Mr. Butters and Mr. O’Conor every 
 Saturday and some of the Sundays during the trial. I 
 
 4900 prepared many of the instructions and helped in the 
 preparation of all of them. Mr. Butters and Mr. O’Conor 
 worked evenings during the trial. JI have been engaged 
 in the general practice of both law and equity. 
 
 4901 Q. What in your opinion were the services of Mr. 
 Butters and Mr. O’Conor reasonably worth according 
 to the usual and customary fees at this bar for the time 
 actually spent in the trial of this case? 
 
 Mr. CuyrpereIELD: I object to that as incompetent, 
 irrelevant and immaterial, not the proper test to govern 
 the assessment of fees. 
 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling to the court, 
 
1106 
 
 the defendant by its counsel then and there duly 
 excepted. 
 
 A. Well, I would find it easier and more in accord- 
 ance with the exercise of my judgment on the basis which 
 you have mentioned, and other matters, to give an opin- 
 ion as to the value of the services rendered by—of all 
 of the services rendered on behalf of the plaintiff in the 
 case. 
 
 Before that question is put I would like to make a sug- 
 gestion that there was other services rendered by me 
 that I have not testified to. During the trial there were 
 a great many witnesses here on behalf of the plaintiff and 
 it occurred quite frequently that witnesses were examined 
 
 4902 by me in the office and their knowledge of the land as- 
 certained, and the result of such examination was given 
 to the attorneys engaged in the trial. There were a 
 great number of witnesses examined nearly every day. 
 I was not here but I knew what was going on. I assisted 
 in that line of work. Many of the witnesses resided out 
 
 4903 of the City of Ottawa. Court began at nine o’clock in 
 the morning and ran until twelve, beginning again at one 
 fifteen and continued until five. In a general way I was 
 acquainted with the questions that arose both of law 
 and fact. 
 
 Q. Now you may state whether or not from your 
 knowledge of the case and your observation of the case, 
 the services rendered by yourself, Mr. O’Donnell, Mr. 
 Butters and Mr. O’Conor were necessary to the proper 
 trial of the case. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLtp: I object to that as calling for the 
 
 4904 conclusion of the witness upon a matter which the court 
 would have to determine from the evidence in the case. 
 Objection overruled. 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
1107 
 
 A. I think they were. 
 
 Q. Now, what in your opinion were the services of 
 the four attorneys whom I have named throughout the 
 case, reasonably worth according to the usual and cus- 
 tomary fees for like services at the La Salle County bar 
 at that time? 
 
 Mr. CuiprerFIELp: I object to that as incompetent, ir- 
 relevant and immaterial, no proper foundation has been 
 laid, not the proper test to be adopted for the assess- 
 ment or determination for the value of attorneys’ fees. 
 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court, 
 the defendant by its counsel, then and there duly 
 excepted. 
 
 A. In my judgment they were worth $6,000 at least. 
 
 At the time the case was tried the contract in existence 
 
 4905 with plaintiff was that its attorneys should receive rea- 
 sonable compensation for services rendered. I was au- 
 thorized by the plaintiff to employ Mr. Butters. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 At the time Mr. Butters was employed I told him 
 4906 that he should receive reasonable compensation for his 
 services, such. proportion as he earned. That was to 
 be determined by him and his client. 
 I have found the original contract and will show it to 
 the court. 
 Mr. CurperrieLp: I ask for it to be produced, if the 
 court please, in the record. 
 ~Mr. O’DonneELL: Not as a witness, he hasn’t a right to 
 make the witness do that. 
 Mr. Curprrristp: I don’t care whether he is a witness 
 or whether— 
 Mr. O’Donneti: Mr. Duncan is a witness and he ean- 
 4907 not be compelled to do anything with the reporter at all 
 Mr. CurpPerFieLtp: Is that all? 
 
1108 
 
 Mr. O’DonneLtt: But whether Mr. Chiperfield is go- 
 ing to—if he asks him to produce it that is one thing, 
 but Mr. Dunean is not his servant just now. 
 
 Mr. CurperrieLp: Jam very glad of that, but my ques- 
 tion is this, if he will do that. If that is not a proper 
 question objection will lie, but I don’t care to be lectured 
 by the gentlemen who so recently arrived. If he had 
 been here longer I might submit to it. Now my question 
 is if he will hand it to the reporter and have it marked 
 with an appropriate exhibit number. I want to offer it 
 in the record. If I cannot get it in the record I cannot. 
 
 The Courr: I think I will let him answer the question. 
 
 The Wirness: If the court please, the contract in 
 question was signed by this plaintiff and a number of 
 others. Who else signed this contract in our judgment, 
 we submit to the court, has no business in this hearing, 
 nor has it any business as a part of this record. 
 
 Mr. CuirrerFieLp: I object to this statement by the wit- 
 ness unless he is making it as counsel. There is a ques- 
 tion pending and counsel here representing him. 
 
 The Wirness: I am answering that question to the 
 eourt, and I presume that my remarks are addressed to 
 the court. 
 
 4908 Mr. Cureerrietp: I am objecting to the statement, if 
 your Honor please. 
 
 The Court: I will let him finish his answer. 
 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 The Witness: I would have no objection whatever to 
 counsel on the opposite side seeing the body of the con- 
 tract or the signature of this plaintiff to the contract. 
 Farther than that counsel in this case has no interest 
 whatever in this contract, and that or any other part of 
 the contract has no business in this case as we under- 
 stand it, and we submit that question to the court. 
 
1109 
 
 Mr. Cureerrietp: Mr. Sheriff, will you please ask the 
 clerk to come in. 
 
 The Court: Let me see the contract. 
 
 (Witness thereupon handed document to the court.) 
 
 The Court: I will order the contract produced for 
 the benefit of counsel on the other side in the record, and 
 the signature of Mr. O’Donnell and Mr. Dunean and the 
 signature of the plaintiff in this case, but I will sustain 
 the objection to the exhibition of the signatures of other 
 plaintiffs or persons interested in suits against the Dis- 
 trict, as I aim not able to see the relevancy of that, and 
 
 4909 I am not able to see that it is of any consequence to the 
 defendant in this case. 
 
 Mr. CuHIPerFIELD: Who the others may be? 
 
 The Court: Yes. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLp: I am not at this time trying to pry 
 into anything except that which affects these parties, that 
 is all. 
 
 The Court: You may have the contract and you may 
 have the signature of James L. O’Donnell and Vincent 
 J. Dunean, and the signature of the La Salle County Car- 
 bon Coal Company by H. 8S. Hazen, treasurer. That in- 
 eludes everything connected with this contract except a 
 multitude of other signatures, and so far as I can see the 
 defendant is not interested in that and it will not benefit 
 
 4910 them any. You may look at the body of the document. 
 You can read that part. Read it. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD (reading): This agreement made 
 this Third day of October, A. D. 1904, between James L. 
 O’Donnell, and Vincent J. Dunean, parties of the first 
 part, and the undersigned owners of land, parties of the 
 second part; witnesseth, 
 
 That the parties of the first part hereby agree to pre- 
 pare and prosecute in the Circuit Courts of the counties 
 in which the land involved is situated, suits in behalf of 
 
1110 
 
 each of the undersigned property owners to recover dam- 
 ages to said lands against the Sanitary District of Chi- 
 cago, and to conduct said cases to final judgment if neces- 
 sary, and to argue the same in the Appellate and Su- 
 preme Courts of the State of Illinois, in case it shall be 
 necessary, in consideration of the following compensa- 
 tion: Such sum of money as may be allowed in any or 
 either of said cases by the trial court as courts under 
 the law, and in addition ten per cent. in each ease of the 
 amount recovered to be paid to the different property 
 owners, and in case said claims for damages, or any or 
 either of them, are settled and adjusted, ten per cent. of 
 the amount paid in such settlement or adjustment. 
 
 The parties of the second part in consideration of the 
 
 4911 premises severally agree to pay to parties of the first 
 part traveling expenses, and necessary cash outlay in the 
 preparation and conduct of such suits to procure the at- 
 tendance of necessary witnesses, including surveyor or 
 civil engineer, if required, for the trial of said cases, to 
 advance necessary fees of court officers and fees for 
 for printing if necessary in the Appellate or Supreme 
 Court, and to pay the above compensation to the party 
 of the first part in case of recovery or settlement. 
 
 It is further agreed between the parties hereto that 
 in either case should there be no recovery upon final trial 
 no compensation will be paid in such case to parties of 
 the first part for their services. Should either land 
 owner decline to prosecute his suit to final judgment or 
 settlement, then he shall pay to the parties of the first 
 part reasonable compensation for services. rendered. 
 
 Witness our hands this Third day of October, A. D. 
 
 1904. 
 James L. O’DoNNELL, 
 
 Vincent J. DuNcAN. 
 
 ~ And among other signatures is the ‘‘La Salle County 
 4912 Carbon Coal Company, By H. S. Hazen, Treas.’’ 
 
TELL 
 
 I cannot state how long it was before the contract was 
 abrogated but it is in the neighborhood of three or four 
 years ago. At the time this case was being tried and dur- 
 ing all the time that this case was being tried, certain 
 cases in Bureau County were being tried in which my 
 firm was engaged as counsel. Several members of our 
 firm participated in the trial in Bureau County. I began 
 it and stayed there from September 23d until October 3d, 
 and Mr. Doyle my partner took my place and remained 
 until the conclusion of the trial work in Bureau County, 
 some time in the middle or latter part of December 
 Thereafter and until practically the present time I was 
 advised by my physician not to enter a court room for 
 
 4913 a period of probably eight weeks after October 3d. Dur- 
 ing the trial of this case I did not feel as if I could safely 
 engage in trial work in the court room. Prior to that 
 time it was my intention to try the case if I had been at 
 liberty to do so. 
 
 I and my firm are claiming for services during the 
 same time this case was pending in Bureau County. I 
 do not understand when a firm is employed that it is in 
 contemplation of law the members of the firm. 
 
 4914 Mr. Cuirperrietp: @. I will ask you to state what has 
 been the annual receipts of your firm for the years 1909, 
 10°11 and 7122 | 
 
 Mr. O’Donnetu: To which I object as immaterial. 
 
 4915-16-17 Argument and sustaining of objection. 
 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 counsel then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Q. When you say that a fair fee 
 in this case would be $6,000, what have you allowed per 
 day for court work? 
 
 4918 A. I did not take into consideration in estimating the 
 value of the services rendered any particular items. 
 
 If they were to be paid only for the days work in court, 
 
1112 
 
 ~E should say that they earned at least $75 a day each. 
 We have been general counsel for the La Salle County 
 Carbon Coal Company the last year or two. If you strip 
 the balance of the services off of the case, I think the 
 trial of the case was worth $150 a day. I think the actual 
 4919 trial work was something like twenty-two or twenty- 
 _ three days including the day of the reception of the ver- 
 
 4920 dict. I helped on the outside. I do not know that there 
 was not a single question asked of any witness in this 
 ease, so far as the court room work was concerned, on 
 behalf of the defendant except by myself. JI was not in 
 
 4921-22 the court room at any time. I-do not know whether 
 as a matter of fact the statement in this case was made by 
 yourself, that every witness examined by the defense was 
 examined by yourself, that every witness cross-examined 
 was examined by yourself, and that the argument was 
 made by you. I took no part in the trial of the case what- 
 ever in the court room. This was my first arrival here 
 in the matter of costs. I have already answered to the 
 
 4923 effect that insofar as anything done in the court room 
 is concerned I don’t know a thing about it. 
 
 4924-25 I will be unable to give you exact answer as to the 
 number of days I put in on the pleadings in this case, but 
 in my best judgment the work incident to the pleadings 
 in this case, would make, so far as my services are con- 
 cerned, five or six days. The filling in of the description 
 was not the only thing necessary. The declaration 
 
 4926 is there and it shows how much space the description 
 takes up. I cannot answer that with exactitude. We had 
 the descriptions for the notice. The length of time taken 
 to fill in the descriptions I could not tell. It would be 
 purely clerical aside from supervision to see it was done 
 right. 
 
 4927 The pleadings in this case were not argued particularly, 
 they were argued generally. I think this case should 
 
1113 
 
 bear its proportion of the services insofar as that fea- 
 ture of the work done is concerned. Regarding the plea 
 that the corporation did not have the right to own prop- 
 erty in this case, I am not sure you were here. I think 
 there was some counsel that was here. I know there was 
 somebody here. 
 
 (). There was absolutely no one in case appeared on 
 that plea. 
 
 Mr. CurrerFreLp: I sent that plea to Judge Eldridge 
 with a letter stating that we filed the plea and that it 
 would come up in the usual way and that we did not care 
 to appear. 
 
 4928 Mr. O’DonneLL: I guess you are right about that. 
 
 The Witness: I think there was somebody here just 
 the same. My recollection is there was one of the at- 
 torneys here. There was no argument produced by any- 
 one and the plea upon the demurrer being filed was held 
 
 4929 bad by the court without argument. In general all the 
 pleadings were settled with reference to these cases. 
 There were like pleas in the balance of the cases and 
 they followed the ruling in that case. | 
 
 T lived in La Salle all my life up to ’93, knew the land, 
 knew the river and there was nothing new to me about 
 this proposition up to the time I moved to Ottawa. I 
 
 4930 knew the physical condition in a general way. Up to 
 the time this case was commenced I had tried one case 
 against the Sanitary District and had assisted in the 
 trial of one case and had begun the trial of the second 
 case, and in those cases had become familiar with and 
 had investigated the questions that arose except those 
 that were peculiarly incident to this land. 
 
 I spoke about preparing instructions. I had to draw 
 some of them, they were not simply the same instructions 
 that may have been used in other cases; some of them 
 were and some of them were not. 
 
1114 
 
 4931 Q. It is also true that the preparation which you have 
 made in this case and the facts which you have gained 
 knowledge of or elicited, you expect to use and are using 
 in other cases which you are trying against the Sanitary 
 District, isn’t that true? A. No, except insofar as I 
 have testified. 
 
 I think you are mistaken about my being engaged in 
 over 100 cases against the defendant at the present time 
 involving the question of the overflow of the Illinois 
 River. I should say at the present time there are pend- 
 ing not over ninety. I think there are somewhere in the 
 neighborhood of ninety still pending. In connection with 
 some of those cases I have made an investigation of the 
 physical conditions. 
 
 4932 I was present in Chicago when the depositions were 
 taken but not at Joliet. I did not ask any questions 
 whatever upon that occasion, although I conferred with 
 other attorneys who were conducting the examination, 
 other attorneys who were concerned in a similar man- 
 ner. 
 
 Q. ‘When you say that a fair and reasonable charge 
 was $150 a day which should be made for the trial of 
 this case, you would bring the balance of the amount up 
 to $6,000, what would you fix per day for the work up to 
 that time? You have testified to perhaps a dozen days 
 and Mr. O’Donnell has testified to about sixteen. A. I 
 have testified that in my judgment the usual and ordi- 
 nary fees for services rendered in this case, as a whole, 
 
 4933 in my judgment, taking every item into consideration 
 that is usually taken into consideration on such questions, 
 is worth $6,000. 
 
 Q. What do you charge for the work out of court per 
 day? A. I would charge $6,000 for the whole work. 
 
 Q. Is that the best answer you can make? A. That 
 is the answer that I give. 
 
1115 
 
 Q. Is that the best answer you can give? A. The 
 best answer that I can give, and I want it distinctly un- 
 derstood that in making that, giving that conclusion, that 
 I have personal knowledge of every single bit of work 
 done, and based upon my experience of matters of that 
 kind that is a reasonable and ordinary charge for the. 
 character of work, considering the amount involved, the 
 character of the case and the character of the work and 
 the results obtained. 
 
 Q. Now, to make up your $6,000 on the basis which 
 you have fixed for the trial, it would require $2,750 for 
 the work that was done outside. Do you think that the 
 investigations that were made, the three or four times 
 conferring, the preparation of this notice, the filing of 
 the stock declaration, and the taking of depositions and . 
 the other work which was divided among a large number 
 of cases, was worth in this case $2,750? <A. I think that 
 all the work that was done in:this case is worth $6,000. 
 
 4930. Q. Now, answer my question, Mr. Duncan. A. I 
 have answered it as well as I know how. 
 
 Q. Now, if you will please answer my question, will 
 you please answer my question? A. I have answered 
 it, if your Honor please, I think. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: I insist now on an answer to the 
 question that I asked. The question he answered was an- - 
 other question. J think I am entitled to an answer to 
 this question. 
 
 The Court: Well, he says he has answered it as well 
 
 as he can. I don’t know as I ought to say he can answer 
 it better. 
 
 Mr. CuiperrieLtp: I want to make every effort that I 
 ean to get an answer, that is all I can do, and then I will 
 proceed to something else. 
 
 The Court: I will give you an exception. 
 
1116 
 
 Mr. Cuiprerrretp: All right. 
 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 4935 There was only one contest made on a motion for a 
 continuance based upon the ground that the attorney for 
 the defendant was in attendance on the legislature, but 
 in the estimate which I have made that matter does not 
 figure appreciably in the estimate which I have placed 
 on the value of our services. 
 
 (). Now, you have spoken about your services in con- 
 ferring with Mr. Butters and Mr. O’Conor when you be- 
 eame ill? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Do you think the Sanitary District should be called 
 upon to make any compensation for the fact that you 
 were called out of the case, for consultations that were 
 necessary on that account? A. Jam not asking for any 
 
 4936 compensation for services either for ourselves or Mr. 
 Butters or Mr. O’Conor for acquainting them with the 
 results of the work or the time necessary to do it. 
 
 @. When did they first have any acquaintance with 
 this case? A. Well, it was not very long after I first 
 got home. When it appeared that the Sanitary District 
 cases in Bureau County were going to be for trial and 
 would be continued in their trial during the fall, and I 
 was at home not well, and that it would be necessary to 
 have this case prepared for trial and to try it, arrange- 
 ments were then made. J should say that would be along 
 about the middle of October or earlier than that. 
 
 Q. If the firm of Duncan, Doyle & O’Conor had been 
 able to attend to this case, would it have been necessary 
 to have two attorneys engaged? 
 
 Mr. O’DonneEtu: I object to that, your Honor, not 
 calling for any fact. 
 
 The Court: I think I will sustain the objection. 
 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant, by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
1117 
 
 In the settlement of the pleadings in this case, this 
 ease should be charged with its proportionate share. In 
 figuring its proportionate share I should say this case 
 was more important three times over than any of the 
 others. When I say it is important I mean the amount 
 involved which should require it to bear a proportionate 
 amount of the time and services rendered in that respect 
 and the proportion should be based upon its relation to 
 other cases. I am not figuring on the financial ad damnum 
 of $200,000 as originally made. There is considerably more 
 care taken in settling the pleadings in a $100,000 case 
 than there is in a $100 case as a rule. 
 
 4938 I do not know that the record will show that every 
 amendment in this case that has been made has been 
 made because of mistakes of the firm of Duncan, Doyle 
 & O’Conor. I do not remember that on the 10th day of 
 September, 1905, we amended our declaration. I think 
 there was a slight amendment made on the 31st day of 
 
 4939 March, 1912. I don’t remember whether we have 
 amended our declaration no less than four times to give 
 us an opportunity to linger around the court. 
 
 4940 For services outside of the court room I have made no 
 specific charge. 
 
 4941 Q@. I ask you to do so now? A. I have not testified 
 as to the value of my services except in connection with 
 the services of all the others engaged in this case and ex- 
 cept in their connection as a whole proposition. 
 
 Q. Now, will you please answer what you have there 
 in your estimate of $6,000 for the services which you ren- 
 dered outside of the court room, what the charge per day 
 was? A. Well, I have answered that question. 
 
 4942 (). I ask you now if you have not fixed a fee of $3,250 
 for the actual trial of the case? A. I did with the modi- 
 fications mentioned at that time. 
 
 Q. No, without any modifications. What do you charge 
 
1118 
 
 per day for services outside of the court room, how do 
 you arrive at that? A. In the modification I spoke of 
 there is no such contemplation had. | 
 
 Q. Now, why do you contemplate a different standard 
 for the services? A. I have said what the services out- 
 side the court room are worth. 
 
 Mr. CurperFietp: If your Honor please, I submit the 
 witness has not stated, that is not true. I am asking him 
 to state and I want to know as to the fact of the matter 
 and we are entitled to it. 
 
 The Wirness: I told you that the services rendered 
 outside of the case together with the services rendered 
 in the court room when I arrived at them generally and 
 as an entirety are reasonably worth $6,000. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFIELD: I move to strike the answer as not 
 responsive to the question. 
 
 ‘<The Court: IJ sustain the motion. 
 
 ‘Mr. CHIPERFIELD: @. Now, I ask you again if you 
 please, to state in your estimate what you have charged 
 
 4943 for the services outside of the court room per day? 
 
 A. Well, considered in connection with the whole case 
 I should say that they and the other services together 
 would be worth $6,000. 
 
 (). In order not to prolong the matter or to enlarge 
 the record, I ask you finally for the last time, I ask you 
 again if you will state now in your computation what you 
 have charged and what you think would be fair and rea- 
 sonable for the services outside of the court room per 
 day? A. I have not, in giving my estimate of the serv- 
 ices rendered in this case, separated any items, or put 
 in any items of that kind. 
 
 Q. Will you now do so? A. No, 
 
 % 
 
CEES 
 
 Re-direct Examination by Mr. O’Donnell. 
 
 The Witness: I have got a statement to make if your 
 Honor please. 
 
 4944 Mr. O’DonneLL: You may make any explanation that 
 you desire. 
 
 The Witness: One statement I desire to make, and 
 that is in my testimony on direct examination the ques- 
 tion was asked of me which included the services, the 
 value of all the services rendered on behalf of the plain- 
 tiff in reference to this case, and there was no subdivision 
 into items of any kind and I estimated only the value of 
 all the services as a whole. 
 
 ANDREW J. O’Conor, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testified as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Donnell. 
 
 My name is Andrew J. O’Conor; I am a lawyer, resid- 
 
 4945 ing in LaSalle County. Practiced ten years in Ottawa, 
 engaged in general practice. I am one of the attorneys 
 
 for plaintiff. I was engaged in the actual trial in this 
 case nineteen days. The case was called for trial on the 
 
 Sth of November when we had some discussion in rela- 
 tion to the pleadings, which took up part of the afternoon, 
 
 and the case then went over until the following Monday 
 morning. My connection with the case started about two 
 weeks before that. I familiarized myself with the case 
 4946 more or less in a general way. I went to LaSalle I think 
 on four or five different occasions before the case was 
 actually called. I think two of the occasions however 
 were subsequent to November 7th after it was passed 
 temporarily. Went down and went over the land. We 
 made preparation for proof of title by getting the deeds 
 4947 and looking up the abstracts and made some investiga- 
 
1120 
 
 tion in the recorder’s office, and looked up the law on 
 that question. There was a plea filed denying title. 
 
 From the time the jury was selected until the case was 
 submitted to the jury, I participated in the trial. The 
 first day I think we started in at ten o’clock, and I think 
 that was true of each Monday that the court would ad- 
 Journ over from Friday until Monday morning at ten 
 0’clock, or about ten thirty. Other days the court started 
 at nine in the morning and ran until five o’clock in the 
 afternoon. Some days court adjourned at a quarter to 
 
 4948 five and one or two days we ran until five-thirty. 
 
 The plaintiff, I think, called thirty-eight witnesses in 
 addition to the testimony of the witnesses who appeared 
 in the depositions. The defendant, I think, called ninety- 
 four witnesses. 
 
 4949 On the trial one of the main issues upon which testi- 
 mony was taken was the value of the land and as to the 
 condition of the land before and after the turning in of 
 the Sanitary District water. The scope of the examina- 
 tion comprehended men who were actually on the land 
 and worked it and the testimony introduced by the de- 
 fendant included testimony of witnesses from up in Wis- 
 consin in relation to the condition of the Desplaines and 
 Fox, Rivers, and witnesses from Chicago in relation to 
 the condition of the Chieago River and its branches. 
 
 4950 There were a number of witnesses brought in from Iro- 
 quois and Ford Counties. They also had some expert 
 witnesses from the University of Illinois in relation to 
 the growing of crops; a number of river men from Henry 
 and Peoria and farther down in relation to the condition 
 of the river prior to the construction of the levees. 
 
 There were quite a few maps introduced and 281 pho- 
 tographs. 7 
 
 4951 My preparation was confined to the land on Sections 
 21, 22 and 23, and a small part of 24. During the trial 
 
1121 
 
 it was necessary to see the witnesses and we interviewed 
 a great number of them, sometimes in the morning hav- 
 ing them come in on one of the earlier cars and talking 
 with them briefly before going into court. Also during 
 the noon hour. J worked prior to nine o’clock in the 
 
 4952 morning and also Mr. Butters and I worked in the even- 
 ing ordinarily until ten o’clock and sometimes a little 
 later, other nights not so late. During the trial I spent 
 two Saturdays and Sunday at La Salle. I spent one Sun- 
 
 4953 day afternoon at La Salle with Mr. Hazen going through 
 the records seeking to produce papers asked for by sub- 
 poena duces tecum. I did some work during the trial on 
 the preparation of the instructions, but most of the work 
 along that line was taken care of by Messrs. Dunean and 
 Butters. 
 
 It is hard to say how much time I spent in prepara- 
 tion before the trial, but I should say two weeks, more 
 or less. ‘Towards the latter part, I will say the last week, 
 I presume it took all of my time. During the trial we 
 were quite busy both during our presentation and during 
 
 4954 the presentation of the defense, with questions that were 
 arising’ during the trial of the case, and figuring out just 
 exactly how different things should be met, whether it 
 would be necessary to bring in evidence in rebuttal. And 
 there were questions as to competency of exhibits, maps, 
 plats and diagrams and things of that kind, and ques- 
 tions of law. It was a case during the trial of which you 
 
 4955 could hardly afford to devote any time to anything else. 
 
 The record consists of 4,261 typewritten pages, of which 
 326 or 327 pages were depositions. In addition to which 
 there were a great many exhibits. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 The record also included the examination of the jury, 
 4956 the statement of counsel in the argument and the remarks 
 
1122 
 
 of the court, and all the proceedings that occurred on the 
 trial. 
 I was conversant with the situation and general layout 
 
 4957 of the land in a general way. I had no detailed knowl- 
 edge in relation to what the land did or its characteris- 
 tics prior to my connection with the suit. Prior to the 
 trial I made myself familiar with the facts that Mr, Dun- 
 ean had previously prepared, in addition to going to 
 work to get ready for trial. I could not go into the trial 
 as it was a new matter comparatively to me, without 
 preparation as I had expected Mr. Duncan to try the 
 ease. My connection before that time with the case was 
 of a very general character. The other attorneys had 
 seen some of the witnesses and I had a list of them, over 
 
 4958 100 witnesses, and before the trial actually started it 
 was my business to see many of the witnesses that had 
 not been interviewed before. Mr. Butters was with me 
 and there was another voung man by the name of Mcked- 
 dron, who was in the employ of the plaintiff. He was 
 well acquainted with the men who had knowledge as to 
 the eonditions and he suggested names of those who 
 might be acquainted with said conditions. Aside from 
 the work which I undertook in the way of familiarizing 
 myself with -the case, all the other work was work in 
 which I participated in the court room, and sometimes 
 T worked late at night. 
 
 4959 It is customary for a lawyer to try his case in court 
 and do what he ean with reference to it before and after 
 the trial. JT had very little to do with the instructions. 
 
 4960 During the time I was engaged in the trial my partner, 
 Mr. Doyle, was engaged in the trial of other cases against 
 the defendant. While I did not see him I hope to have 
 some substantial evidence of that presently. There are 
 motions for the allowance of attorneys’ fees in those 
 cases, as a member of our firm, for the services of our 
 firm at that time. 
 
1123 
 
 4961 This case commenced on Monday of the week after 
 election and continued until the first Friday in Decem- 
 ber. There were no sessions on Saturday and the only 
 thing done on the last Saturday was the reception of the 
 verdict. The first week there were five days of court. 
 The next week there were five days, the next week there 
 were three days and the next week there were five days 
 
 4962 of court unless we include the time of the reception of 
 the verdict, which would make it six days. The number 
 of days that we were actually engaged in the trial of the 
 case from its commencement to the termination was 18 
 days, excluding the day the jury returned its verdict. 
 
 A. EK, Burrers, a witness for the plaintiff, being sworn, 
 testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by M r, O’Donnell, 
 
 4963 My name is A. Ki. Butters; have been a member of the 
 La Salle County bar since 1889; first connected with this 
 case in March or April, 1912. I spent about two days 
 prior to coming into court on the day it was set for trial. 
 It was the day it was continued for the term. The first 
 
 4964 day I visited La Salle with Mr. Duncan; this was about 
 ten days before the case was set for trial. I knew J was 
 going to be in the case, however, several weeks before 
 that and talked with Mr. Duncan on two or three occa- 
 sions when he reviewed the case to me. Immediately be- 
 fore the trial of the case I put in about five days’ time 
 and afterwards participated in the trial with Mr. 
 
 4965 O’Conor. Know what attorneys were present on the 
 part of the defendant on the trial; Mr. Chiperfield, his 
 brother, Mr. Beebe, Mr. Hawthorne and Mr. Malone were 
 
 4966 there. 
 
1124 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I could not say that as to Mr. Malone he had as much 
 as a word with you during the trial. I knew he was do- 
 ing work on the case. I assume that it was largely see- 
 
 4967 ing witnesses. I know so far as the trial was concerned 
 that the entire work of the trial, except as I have sug- 
 gested for a few hours during the reading of the deposi- 
 tions, was conducted entirely by you so far as the court 
 room work was concerned. Your brother was present a 
 small portion of the time, not a large portion. I know 
 Mr. Beebe was present a part of the time, but I did not 
 
 4968 keep track of that. So far as the trial of this case was 
 concerned, it was conducted or the part of the defendant 
 by yourself. You made the opening statement in the 
 case, you examined all the witnesses and you argued the 
 ease finally to the jury. 
 
 The work I did in the spring of 1912 was caused by 
 the incapacity of Mr. O’Donnell by sickness. I did not 
 expect to further continue in the case until Mr. Dunean’s 
 illness. I participated in the trial of the case the num- 
 - 4969 ber of days that Mr. O’Conor has testified to. 
 
 It is customary with any attorney who has the inter- 
 ests of his case and of his client at heart, to prepare both 
 before and after the court room work, and this case pre- 
 sented unusual features in many respects, although my 
 experience as an attorney has demonstrated that much 
 
 4970 of the real work of counsel comes in a case both before 
 and after the court room work, and of the two the court 
 room work is the easiest work. 
 
4971 
 
 4972 
 
 1125 
 
 Bengamin F, Lincoxn, a witness for the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr, O’Donnell. 
 
 My name is Benjamin F. Lincoln; been a practicing 
 lawyer since 1873, one time judge of the County Court, 
 La Salle County. I! practice in this county. My practice 
 
 has been of a general nature. I believe I am familiar 
 with the usual and customary fees of lawyers in the trial 
 and preparation of cases in this county. I heard all the 
 testimony of Mr. O’Donnell, Mr. Duncan and Mr. 
 O’Conor, but [ did not hear quite all the testimony of Mr. 
 Butters. 
 
 Q. Assuming that the services were performed for 
 the claimant with the understanding that he was to pay 
 what the services were reasonably worth, what, in your 
 opinion, were the services so rendered reasonably worth, 
 according to the usual and customary fees in this county 
 at that time? 
 
 Mr. CurpPerFieLD: Objected to, incompetent, irrelevant 
 and immaterial; no proper foundation has been laid and 
 that it does not appear—it is not the proper test to be 
 employed in the expression of opinion as to the fees. 
 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court the 
 defendant, by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. 
 
 A. I am aceustomed to estimating services generally 
 by the day, and in my judgment the services of the attor- 
 neys in this ease would be worth from $50 to $75 per day, 
 dependent upon whether they were employed at night. 
 If they were employed at night to any extent, my judg- 
 ment. would be their services were reasonably worth $75 
 per day for such time. 
 
 Q. In a case of this character what in your opinion 
 
1126 
 
 would be the reasonable value of the services of an attor- 
 ney per day in the preparation of the case, necessary 
 preparation of the case. | 
 Same objection; same ruling; to which ruling of the 
 4973 court, the defendant by its counsel, then and there 
 duly excepted. 
 
 A. I make no distinction between the preparation of 
 the case and trial of the case. I believe the services of 
 an attorney are worth just as much in the preparation of 
 the case, during the time he is employed in such prepara- 
 tion, as in the actual trial in court. 
 
 Mr. CuriperFieLp: The defendant, because of the fact 
 no proper foundation has been laid and the proper test 
 has not been employed, declines to cross-examine. 
 
 Duncan MacDoveatu, a witness for the plaintiff being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Donnell. 
 
 My name is Duncan MacDougall. I am a member of 
 the firm of MacDougall & Chapman; been practicing in 
 La Salle County continuously since 1873, engaged in 
 4974 general practice. 
 Heard testimony of O’Donnell, Duncan, O’Conor and 
 Butters. 
 
 Q. What in your opinion would be a fair, reasonable 
 compensation for the entire work performed in the case, 
 assuming such testimony to be true, in this La Salle 
 County Carbon Coal Company case vs. The Sanitary Dis- 
 trict, the preparation and trial of it? 
 
 ‘Mr. Cuiperrienp: The same objection. I may have 
 the benefit of it without a re-statement, or shall I re-state 
 it? 
 
1127 
 
 Mr. O’Donnett: I am willing the objection be under- 
 stood. 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court, 
 the defendant by its counsel, then and there duly 
 excepted. 
 
 A. Assuming the service to have been performed that 
 the witnesses testified was performed in the case and ap- 
 4975 portioning so much of it to this case as ought to be 
 that they prepared in part on this case and other cases 
 as stated by the witnesses, and eliminating such work as 
 was shown to have been duplicated on account of the 
 illness of the attorneys, in my judgment a reasonable, 
 usual and customary fee for the services necessarily ren- 
 dered in this particular case and a fee fixed by contract 
 between parties competent to contract in this county, 
 taking into account the issues and the importance of the 
 suit, would be $6,000. ? 
 Mr. CurperFieLD: We move to strike the answer, be- 
 cause it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and 
 does not adopt the correct test or mode of ascertaining 
 or fixing the fees to be allowed. 
 Motion overruled; to which ruling of the court, the 
 defendant by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. | 
 
 4976 My experience and I think the general rule here is dif- 
 ferent from the one stated by Judge Lincoln. I rarely 
 charge by the day and I think the bar here generally as 
 a rule don’t charge by the day. Take into account when 
 a law suit is finished the importance of the litigation, the 
 time taken, the result of the litigation, and character of 
 the defense you had to go up against and all those ques- 
 tions, and then fix a gross sum which ought in fairness 
 between you and the client to be the compensation 
 
1128 
 
 charged. I have made this fee on that basis. For the 
 services which were rendered in the active trial of this 
 case | would say $65 to $100 a day for each lawyer. For 
 the preparation of the case a higher compensation should 
 4977 be allowed. It is customary to charge about the same. 
 For the argument of a demurrer and the preparation of 
 the declaration and of notices and all work applicable to 
 many cases, I know of no rule that would entitle a person 
 to multiply the total number of days, but I think more 
 than 1/35th would be charged ordinarily by the lawyers 
 according to the established usage of this bar where 
 there were thirty-five cases. Where the same questions 
 are presented there should be an apportionment, but 
 4978 there should be more charged in view of the fact that a 
 larger interest is involved in the particular law suit. 
 Where a man prepared to try 100 cases and the main 
 facts would be the same, the information which he has 
 gained and elicited upon the investigation would be equal- 
 ly applicable to ninety-nine others as well as the one in 
 particular and in fixing the compensation where there 
 has been a general preparation of that sort, the fact that 
 there are other cases pending should also be taken into 
 consideration. I would not undertake to fix the specific 
 charge for the work of examining and going into court 
 and arguing a demurrer because there are so many ele- 
 ments that go into that matter, that I doubt whether any- 
 body except the lawyer who actually performs the service 
 could tell what that service was worth. I do not think 
 there is any established custom with reference to a charge 
 for services of that kind. Where the work takes two or 
 three days I would say it was the same per day as the 
 time for the trial of the case. Would think a fair per 
 4980 diem for that work would be from $50 to $100 a day. 
 4981 If a stock declaration is prepared and printed it 
 thereafter becomes a question of merely filling in a de- 
 
1129 
 
 scription. It might take a day or two but the work re- 
 quired is almost purely clerical. The same with the 
 notices except that each notice would require special at- 
 4982 tention. Like the declaration, after you prepared a 
 form that is good, the work is clerical. 
 I am interested in two cases against the Sanitary Dis- 
 trict. It is matter of complete indifference to me as to 
 4983 what fee shall be allowed here. My firm was interested 
 4984 in the case of Gentlemen vs. The Sanitary District which 
 was tried six or eight months ago. I did not participate 
 in the trial personally. No attorneys’ fees were fixed by 
 the court, I think they have been fixed by agreement. 
 4985 The other case that I referred to is the Utica Hydraulic 
 Cement Company case and the land lies in the vicinity of 
 the Village of Utica. 
 
 L. W. Brewer, a witness called by the plaintiff, being 
 sworn, testifies as follows: 
 
 Direct Examination by Mr. O’Donnell. 
 
 My name is L. W. Brewer, a member of the La Salle 
 
 4987 County bar. Practiced since 1871. Am familiar with 
 
 the usual and customary fees of attorneys for services in 
 
 La Salle County. I heard the testimony as to fees in 
 this hearing. 
 
 (). Have you an opinion, Mr. Brewer, as to what would 
 be the fair and reasonable fee according to the customary 
 fees prevailing at this bar in the matter in hearing, as- 
 suming that the services testified to by those four wit- 
 nesses were rendered, and were necessary to the case? 
 A. I think I have. 
 
 @. What in your opinion would be such reasonable 
 fee? 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: We object to that on the ground it 
 is Incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. No proper 
 
1130 
 
 foundation has been laid, that it is not the proper test 
 to apply in the ascertainment of the fees in this matter.’’ 
 Objection overruled; to which ruling of the court, the 
 defendant by its counsel, then and there duly ex- 
 cepted. 
 
 4988 A. Considering the importance of this case and the 
 able and vigorous manner in which it was defended, as 
 well as the able manner in which it was tried on the part 
 of the plaintiff, and looking at the result and the time 
 consumed in the trial, the number of witnesses, the num- 
 ber of exhibits, maps, plats and photographs, I think that 
 $6,000 is a very moderate fee indeed. 
 
 Cross-Examination by Mr. Chiperfield. 
 
 I think that would be a reasonable fee for the reasons 
 testified to. I think $100 a day would be a moderate fee 
 4989 for each attorney. I heard a part of the trial but am 
 basing my testimony upon the testimony of the witnesses. 
 4990 A reasonable fee for the argument of a demurrer that 
 would require several days for preparation and a day 
 
 in which to present it, which was applicable to some 
 thirty or forty cases, the number of cases would make no 
 difference. If a man hired me to defend him for mur- 
 
 der today I would charge for that, and if I was hired by 
 another man tomorrow I am not going to work for the 
 second man for nothing because I had charged the first 
 man. If I had forty clients or if I had one client with one 
 case that I had to defend, or if I have forty different 
 clients in forty different cases and forty different ques- 
 tions, I would not work for thirty-nine for nothing be- 
 eause I had charged one with what would be the reason- 
 able service in that case. Where there is a declaration 
 filed, a stock form printed declaration applying to a lot 
 
 of litigation, my idea is for the day taken to file those 
 4991 forty declarations there should be forty times the charge 
 
1131 
 
 for filing one declaration. My idea is where a man comes 
 in and argues a demurrer and it takes a day, and it is 
 applicable to 40 cases, that he should charge each and 
 every client for the day. I would charge each client for 
 
 4992 the service that I rendered, one man as much as the 
 other. ; 
 
 4993 Mr. O’DonneLtLt: We desire to offer the files in the 
 case In evidence, your Honor, including the verdict of the 
 jury. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: We object to that as being incom- 
 petent, irrelevant and immaterial. 
 
 “Mr. O’Donnett: And that will close our evidence. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: We also want the record to show that 
 the motion for new trial has been overruled; that the mo- 
 tion in arrest of judmgent has been overruled and that 
 judgment on the verdict— 
 
 The Court: Let me take up this one motion first. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: Very well your Honor. 
 
 Mr. CuHriperFIELD: When they get through with their 
 case, I suppose somewhere—somewhere along the way 
 we may put in something. 
 
 Mr. Duncan: We are simply closing our part of the 
 case, that is all. I am not closing yours. 
 
 4994 The Court: I think I will overrule your objection, Mr. 
 Chiperfield. | 
 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. ) 
 
 4995 Praecipe filed in this case January 14, 1905. 
 
 4996 Summons in cause dated January 14, 1905, with return 
 of service showing service on defendant. 
 
 4997 Summons filed January 23, 1903. 
 
 4998-5005 Declaration in said cause filed January 14, 1905. 
 
 5006 Demurrer to declaration. 
 
 5007 Filed in said cause March 15, 1905. 
 
 5008 Amendment to declaration filed October 25, 1905. 
 
1132 
 
 9009 Demurrer to amended declaration filed December 30, 
 1908. 
 
 D010 Plea general issue filed November 7, 1912. 
 
 0011 Plea, statute of limitations filed November 7, 1912. 
 
 0012-13 Plea, non-ownership, filed November 7, 1912. 
 
 5014 Replications to pleas, filed November 7, 1912. 
 
 9015 Rejoinder to plaintiff’s replications, filed November 
 fir BACAR 
 
 0016 Defendant’s fourth plea, filed November 7, 1912. 
 
 9017 Demurrer to defendant’s fourth plea, filed November 
 fee O12. 
 
 5019 Amendment to declaration. Filed March 21, 1912. 
 
 0020-21 Verdict of jury assessing plaintiff’s damages at 
 the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars, filed December 7, 
 1912. 
 
 5022 The Court: That lets everything in the pleadings go 
 in evidence. Now is there anything further? 
 
 Mr. Duncan: Motion for new trial and the order over- 
 ruling the same; motion in arrest of judgment and the 
 order overruling the same; and the judgment itself when 
 rendered by the court. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Oh, well, now, we are not up to any 
 judgment. Now there is the very place where we part 
 the ways. Whenever they get through getting in these 
 other matters we want to take up— 
 
 The Court: Have you closed? 
 
 Mr. O’Donnetu: Yes, your Honor, we close with those 
 files. 
 
 Mr. CureerFietp: If your Honor please— 
 
 Mr. O’DonneELL: Just a minute. We rest your Honor. 
 
 Mr. CurperFieLD: Now if your Honor please I want 
 the record to show that no judgment having been ren- 
 dered in this case as the basis for the assessment of any 
 costs at the time of the introduction of this proof and 
 at the time that we are called upon to put in our opposi- 
 
1133 
 
 tion to this proof, that the defendant respectfully de- 
 5023 clines to offer any testimony, and protests against any 
 further hearing on the proof that has been offered. 
 
 The Court: I think I will overrule the motion for a 
 new trial and exception. 
 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Will you excuse me just a minute, 
 your Honor. 
 
 The Court: Yes. 
 
 Mr. CurperFieELp: Before we get away from this mat- 
 ter. Before we get away from this matter I want to 
 complete whatever there is of it. I don’t know what 
 there is, it has been a question in my mind ever since it 
 began, and I want to be briefly heard upon the questions 
 involved. 
 
 The Court: Attorneys’ fees? 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Yes. 
 
 The Court: I will give you an opportunity as to 
 that. 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Yes, but 1 want, your Honor, this 
 record to stand in the same condition when that time 
 comes that it stands at this moment. I don’t believe your 
 Honor wants to alter the situation here. 
 
 The Court: No, sir. 
 
 ‘‘Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Yes. They insisted they wanted to 
 
 5024 go ahead at this time and insisted that this was the time 
 for the disposition of this matter. I don’t know what it 
 is. I have listened to the testimony but I don’t know 
 what itis. At least I am not advised from anything that 
 I have seen or heard and I don’t want a different status 
 of affairs to prevail when this matter is concluded than 
 prevailed when it started. I think that we ought to dis- 
 pose of this now, whatever it is. 
 
1134 
 
 The Court: I think I will—do you care to say any- 
 thing on the motion for a new trial now at this time? 
 
 Mr. CuiperrieLp: Your Honor did overrule the mo- 
 tion for a new trial the other day, did you not? 
 
 The Court: I don’t know what the record shows. 
 
 Mr. CurrerFIELD: Now, let us see, I have got the whole 
 record here. 
 
 “The Court: Read it Mr. Hull. 
 
 Mr. O’Donneui: My recollection is everything was 
 done except the entry of the final judgment. The motion 
 in arrest was continued. 
 
 ‘‘Mr. CurperFietp: Mr. O’Donnell is correct, every- 
 thing was done except the entry of the judgment upon the 
 verdict. 
 
 The Court: Motion for new trial was overruled and 
 motion in arrest of judgment. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLp: ‘That was my notion. 
 
 5025 The Court: I presume that is so, that is my recollec- 
 tion now but let us see what Mr. Hull has got. 
 
 Mr. Hutu: Motion to set aside the verdict and mo- 
 tion for new trial overruled. 
 
 Mr. CuHIPerFIELD: Here is something that comes up 
 before we get a judgment and I think it ought to be dis- 
 posed of. 
 
 The Court: You move for judgment? 
 
 Mr. O’DonneEwL: Yes, I move for judgment. 
 The Court: Yes, I move for judgment. 
 
 “<The Court: You object to the motion? 
 
 Mr. CurprerrietD: As much as we possibly can. 
 
 The Court: Objection overruled. Judgment on the 
 verdict, $35,000 and costs. 
 
1135 
 
 Mr. CHIPERFIELD: Now we except to the judgment. 
 
 The Court: And exception by the defendant. 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 0026-33 Oral argument on behalf of defendant on question 
 of assessment of attorneys’ fees as costs. 
 
 5034-40 Oral argument on behalf of plaintiff on mec eres of 
 taxing attorneys’ fees as costs. 
 
 5041 Mr. Duncan: I want to call the attention of the court 
 to the fact that on Saturday a week ago the minute book 
 shows motion by plaintiff for an order fixing plaintiff’s 
 attorneys’ fees and taxing same as costs. Motion by de- 
 fendant for rule on plaintiff to file a bill of particulars on 
 their claim for attorneys’ fees. Motion allowed and 
 plaintiff ruled to file said bill of particulars by Tuesday 
 next. Hearing of motion wm re attorneys’ fees set for 
 Saturday morning commencing at 10:30. 
 
 Mr. CuiperFieLp: If your Honor please, if judgment 
 has been entered, before anything further is done we now 
 desire to pray an appeal to the Supreme Court of the 
 State of Illinois. 
 
 The Court: I will dispose of this other matter first. 
 
 5042 Whilst the verdict is large and finds warrant perhaps 
 in only a favorable view of the evidence for the plain- 
 tiff, it seems as though I ought not to put the limit on 
 this end of the trial for attorney’s fees. I believe that 
 the services in this case are worth anywhere from $3,500 
 to $5,000. That appeals to my conscience, to my view of 
 fair dealing as.a lawyer and as a judge, but anything be- 
 low that or anything above that seems out of proportion 
 to my view of things. 
 
 I believe that the price of things in this state with 
 which attorney’s fees can be compared and contrasted, 
 
1136 
 
 warrant that, and even on that basis anything above 
 $5,000 is an extreme view of the situation under this tes- 
 timony. I am afraid that anything more than $5,000 is 
 not warranted and I would feel as if I had not the cour- 
 age to state what I think about this trial. I know that 
 in the course I am about to take, and what I have said, 
 that I subject myself to criticism of everybody present 
 to the effect that ‘‘Your Honor knows you have no evi- 
 dence to justify it.’’ I understand that and that is what 
 causes me to hesitate. I know it is my duty as a judge 
 to follow the evidence. But I fix these attorney’s fees 
 at $5,000 and they may be taxed as a part of the costs 
 against the defendant, and exception by the defendant. 
 Order of court fixing attorneys’ fees of plaintiff at $5,000, 
 to be taxed as costs. 
 To which ruling of the court, the defendant by its 
 counsel, then and there duly excepted. 
 
 0045 Prayer for appeal to the Supreme Court of the State 
 of Illinois by defendant. Motion granted. Bill of excep- 
 tions to be filed in 60 days. Separate bill of exceptions 
 allowed upon matter of attorneys’ fees to be filed within 
 30 days. Prayer for appeal to the Appellate Court from 
 the order granting attorneys’ fees. Motion granted. 
 
 5046-7 Discussion as to requiring defendant to give bond on 
 appeal, resulting in the conclusion being reached that no 
 bond would be required. 
 
 5048 Signature S. C. Stough, judge of the 13th Judicial Cir- 
 euit, State of [llinois, to the bill of exceptions herein this 
 18th day of January, A. D. 1913. 
 
 Certificate of S. C. Stough, judge, of the tendering of 
 
 bill of exceptions to him on the 18th day of January, 1913. 
 
 5049 Certificate of authentication, clerk of the Circuit Court, 
 La Salle County, to record. 
 
 5050 Assignment of errors. 
 
1137 
 
 STATE OF ILLINOIS IN THE SUPREME CouRT. 
 
 April Term, A. D. 1913. 
 
 The La Salle County Carbon Coal 
 Company, a Corporation, 
 Appellee. 
 
 US. 
 g Case. 
 
 A Municipal Corporation, 
 
 The Sanitary District of Chicago, | 
 Appellant. 
 
 ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. 
 
 And now comes the Sanitary District of Chicago, a 
 municipal corporation, appellant herein, and shows to the 
 court that there is manifest error in the record herein in 
 this viz: 
 
 1. The lower court erred in sustaining the plaintiff’s de- 
 murrer to defendant’s fourth plea. 
 
 2. The lower court erred in refusing leave to the defend- 
 ant to file a plea of nul tiel corporation. 
 
 3. The lower court erred in admitting on the trial im- 
 proper and incompetent evidence over the objection of 
 the defendant. 
 
 4. The lower court erred in refusing to admit upon the 
 trial proper and competent documentary evidence 
 offered by the defendant. 
 
 5. The lower court erred in refusing to admit upon the 
 trial proper and competent oral testimony offered by 
 the defendant. 
 
 6. The lower court erred in admitting as evidence upon 
 the trial Exhibits 1, 3,-4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1353145 
 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, offered by the plaintiff over 
 the objection of the defendant. 
 
e 
 
 1138 
 
 7. The lower court erred in improperly restricting the 
 eross-examination by defendant of the witnesses who 
 testified on behalf of the plaintiff. 
 
 8. The lower court erred in not properly restricting the 
 cross-examination by the plaintiff of the witnesses who 
 testified upon behalf of the defendant. 
 
 9. The lower court erred in refusing to allow the de- 
 fendant to make proper proof of facts specified in cer- 
 tain offers appearing in the record after sustaining an 
 objection by plaintiff to questions having for their pur- 
 pose eliciting of such testimony. 
 
 10. The lower court erred in refusing to exclude from 
 the evidence in this case plaintiff’s Exhibit 1, as re- 
 quested by the defendant in its motion at the conclu- 
 sion of evidence upon behalf of the plaintiff. 
 
 11. The lower court erred in refusing to exclude from 
 the evidence in this case plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, as re- 
 quested by defendant in its motion at the conclusion 
 of taking of evidence upon behalf of the plaintiff. 
 
 12. The lower court erred in refusing to exclude from 
 the evidence in this case Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, as re- 
 quested by defendant in its motion at the conclusion 
 of taking of evidence upon behalf of the plaintiff. 
 
 13. The lower court erred in refusing to exclude from 
 the evidence in this ease Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4, as re- 
 quested by the defendant in its motion at the conclu- 
 sion of the taking of evidence upon behalf of the plain- 
 tiff. 
 
 14. The lower court erred in refusing to exclude from 
 the evidence in this case Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5, as re- 
 quested by the defendant in its motion at the conclu- 
 sion of the taking of evidence upon behalf of the plain- 
 tiff. 
 
1139 
 
 15. The lower court erred in refusing to exclude from 
 the evidence in this case Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6, as re- 
 quested by the defendant in its motion at the conclu- 
 sion of the taking of evidence upon behalf of the plain- 
 tiff. 
 
 16. The lower court erred in refusing to exclude from 
 the evidence in this case Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7, as re- 
 quested by the defendant in its motion at the conclu- 
 sion of the taking of evidence upon behalf of the plain- 
 tiff. 
 
 17. The lower court erred in refusing to exclude from 
 the evidence in this case Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8, as re- 
 quested by the defendant in its motion at the conclu- 
 sion of the taking of evidence upon behalf of the plain- 
 tiff. 
 
 18. The lower court erred in refusing to exclude from 
 the evidence in this case Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9, as re- 
 quested by the defendant in its motion at the conclu- 
 sion of the taking of evidence upon behalf of the plain- 
 tiff. 
 
 19. The lower court erred in refusing at the conclusion 
 of the plaintiff’s case to grant the several motions 
 made by defendant to exclude the testimony specified 
 therein from the consideration of the jury. 
 
 20. The lower court erred in denying the motion of the 
 defendant at the close of plaintiff’s case to strike from 
 the record the testimony of the following witnesses, 
 viz: Joseph Greiner, Henry Ream, Henry Meyer, 
 Charles Mudge, Edward Pyka, Charles Castendyck, 
 Otto Halm, Fred A. Mudge, M. J. Charley, Abram Vor- 
 hees and Charles Dooley. 
 
 21. The lower court erred in denying the motion of the 
 defendant made at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case to 
 strike from the record the testimony of the various 
 
1140 
 
 witnesses specified with reference to the overflow of 
 plaintiff’s premises, injury to, condition of, or values 
 of crops thereon, or the use to which said premises 
 were put since January 17, 1900. 
 
 22. The lower court erred in denying the motion of the 
 defendant at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case to strike 
 from the record testimony of various witnesses speci- 
 fied with reference to any injury to crops upon the 
 premises claimed by plaintiff for the years 1902 to 
 1912, both inclusive. 
 
 23. The lower court erred in granting the motion of the 
 plaintiff to strike from the declaration certain lands 
 specified in said motion without requiring an amend- 
 ment of the declaration. 
 
 24, The lower court erred in permitting plaintiff to en. 
 ter a disclaimer as to certain lands described in plain- 
 tiff’s declaration. 
 
 25. The lower court erred in denying the motion of 
 the defendant to exclude, at the close of plaintiff’s case, 
 the testimony of certain witnesses specified therein for 
 the reason that said testimony constituted a variance 
 between the allegations of the declaration and the proof. 
 
 26. The lower court erred in submitting to the jury the 
 issues in the case without requiring plaintiff to amend 
 the declaration and to eliminate therefrom the real es- 
 tate which was excluded by the court from the con- 
 sideration of the jury or by the voluntary act of the 
 plaintiff in disclaiming as to such real estate. 
 
 27. The lower court erred in denying the motion of the 
 defendant at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case to in- 
 struct the jury to find the defendant not guilty under 
 the first count of the declaration. 
 
 28. The lower court erred in denying the motion of the 
 defendant at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case to in- 
 
1141 
 
 struct the jury to find the defendant not guilty under 
 the second count of the declaration. 
 
 29. The lower court erred in denying the motion of the 
 defendant at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case to in- 
 struct the jury to find the defendant not guilty under 
 the third count of the declaration. 
 
 30. The lower court erred in denying the motion of the 
 defendant at the conclusion of the taking of testimony 
 upon behalf of the plaintiff to instruct the jury -to 
 return a verdict finding the defendant not guilty. 
 
 31. The lower court erred in refusing to sustain objec- 
 tions of the defendant to improper remarks of counsel 
 for plaintiff made in his opening statement to the jury, 
 to the refusal of which the defendant duly excepted. 
 
 32. The lower court erred in sustaining objections of 
 the plaintiff to certain parts of the opening statement 
 made by counsel for the defendant. 
 
 33. The lower court erred in failing to sustain the ob- 
 jection of defendant to the improper conduct of plain- 
 tiff’s counsel while plaintiff’s opening statement was 
 being made to the jury. 
 
 34. The conduct of counsel for plaintiff on the hearing 
 
 in the presence of the Jury was improper and duly ex- 
 cepted to by the defendant. 
 
 35. Counsel for plaintiff made improper remarks dur- 
 ing the trial in the presence of the jury which were 
 duly objected to by the defendant. 
 
 36. The closing argument of counsel for plaintiff was 
 improper in the particular objected to by the defend- 
 ant. | 
 
 37. The conduct of plaintiff’s counsel in reference to 
 the Jury was improper. 
 
 38. The lower court erred in refusing to hear the rea 
 
1142 
 
 sonable argument of counsel for defendant upon mat- 
 ters of law involved in the suit when requested so to 
 do by said counsel and in arbitrarily refusing oppor- 
 tunity to counsel for defendant to present such argu- 
 ment. 
 
 39, The lower court erred in refusing to allow proof of 
 the several offers of proof made by the defendant upon 
 the trial. 
 
 40. The lower court erred in refusing to sustain the 
 objections interposed by defendant to questions and 
 answers specified in the depositions read on the trial. 
 
 41. The lower court erred in admitting in evidence over 
 the objection of defendant the various exhibits referred 
 to in the depositions read on trial. 
 
 42. The lower court erred in striking from the record 
 over the objection of defendant portions of the testi- 
 mony contained in answers of the witnesses being exam- 
 ined by the defendant. 
 
 43. The lower court erred in refusing to grant motions 
 of the defendant to strike from the record certain 
 portions of answers of witnesses being examined by 
 the plaintiff. 
 
 44. The lower court erred in adopting on the trial an 
 improper rule as to the measure of damage, over the 
 objection of defendant. 
 
 45. The lower court erred in restricting proof as to the 
 eondition of lands described in the declaration to a 
 period subsequent to January 1, 1883, of its own mo- 
 tion. 
 
 46. The lower court erred in denying to the defendant 
 the right to prove the fair cash market value of the 
 premises deseribed in the declaration at the time of 
 the trial. 
 
1145 
 
 47. The lower court erred in refusing to admit as evi- 
 dence the charter of the plaintiff corporation offered in 
 evidence by the defendant. 
 
 48. The lower court erred in allowing the witness Hazen, 
 over the objection of defendant, to testify as to his 
 mental processes in reaching a conclusion as to the 
 value referred to in the statement made to R. G. Dun 
 & Company by the witness and introduced in evidence 
 by the defendant. 
 
 49. The lower court erred in allowing witnesses for the 
 plaintiff in giving an opinion as to the fair cash mar- 
 ket value of real estate described in the declaration, to 
 take into consideration matters known only to them- 
 selves, existing up to the time of the trial, and con- 
 cerning which there was no testimony in the record, 
 over the objection of defendant. 
 
 50. The plaintiff on the trial failed to prove ownership 
 of the real estate described in its declaration. 
 
 51. The lower court erred in denying the motion of de- 
 fendant at the conclusion of the taking of testimony 
 to instruct the jury under the first count of the dec- 
 laration to return a verdict of not guilty. 
 
 52. The lower court erred in denying the motion of de- 
 fendant at the conclusion of the taking of testimony on 
 the trial to instruct the jury under the second count 
 of the declaration to return a verdict of not guily. 
 
 53. The lower court erred in denying the motion of de- 
 fendant at the conclusion of the taking of testimony 
 on the trial to instruct the jury under the third count 
 of the declaration to return a verdict of not guilty. 
 
 04. The lower court erred in denying the motion of de- 
 fendant at the conclusion of the taking of testimony 
 on the trial to instruct the jury to return a verdict 
 finding the defendant not guilty. 
 
1144 
 
 do. The lower court erred in giving to the jury instruc- 
 tions 1 to 20, both inclusive, requested on the part of 
 the plaintiff. 
 
 56. The lower court erred in refusing to give to the jury 
 instructions numbered 45 to 80, both inclusive, re- 
 quested on behalf of the defendant. 
 
 o7. The damages awarded by the jury are excessive and 
 the result of passion, prejudice and mistake upon the 
 part of the jury. 
 
 58. The verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and 
 the evidence. 
 
 d9. The verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence. 
 60. The verdict of the jury is contrary to the law. 
 
 61. The lower court erred in improperly instructing the 
 jury as to the form of a verdict finding for the plain- 
 tiff. 
 
 62. The lower court erred in making improper remarks 
 during the trial in the presence and hearing of the jury, 
 which remarks were duly excepted to by the defendant. 
 
 63. The lower court erred in denying the motion of de- 
 fendant to exclude the deposition of the witness E. L. 
 Cooley. 
 
 64. The lower court erred in overruling the motion of 
 the defendant to strike from the record the testimony 
 of the witness EK. L. Cooley respecting matters covered 
 by his deposition read upon the trial. 
 
 65. The lower court erred in overruling the motion of 
 defendant to exclude from the consideration of the jury 
 various portions of the real estate claimed by the de- 
 fendant as specified in its said motion. 
 
 66. The lower court erred in improperly permitting the 
 witness Hazen to alter and change the effect of the 
 statement made by him on behalf of the plaintiff in 
 
1145 
 
 this case to Rk. G. Dun & Company by stating to the 
 jury what was his secret intention and _ undisclosed 
 meaning at the time he so made said statement, thus 
 changing the effect of said statement by undisclosed 
 mental reservations of said Hazen at said time. 
 
 67. 'The lower court erred in allowing several witnesses 
 for plaintiff to testify over objection of the defendant 
 to the fair cash market value of the surface only of 
 the real estate claimed by the plaintiff instead of stat- 
 ing an opinion as to the fair cash market value of the 
 entire real estate described in plaintiff’s declaration. 
 
 68. The lower court erred in overruling the motion by 
 the defendant for judgment non obstanti veredicto. 
 
 69. The lower court erred in refusing to set aside the 
 verdict of the jury and to grant unto the defendant 
 a new trial. 
 
 70. The lower court erred in overruling the motion of 
 the defendant in arrest of judgment. 
 
 71. The lower court erred in entering judgment on the 
 verdict against the defendant for $35,000 and costs of 
 suit. 
 
 72. The lower court erred in entertaining the motion of 
 the plaintiff to tax as costs and attorney’s fee in said 
 suit and to proceed to a hearing upon said motion be- 
 fore the entry of judgment in said cause on the ver- 
 dict against the defendant. 
 
 73. The lower court erred in denying the motion of the 
 defendant upon the hearing of the motion to tax an 
 attorney’s fee for plaintiff as costs in said suit to re- 
 quire the plaintiff to file a more specific bill of par- 
 ticulars and to grant unto the defendant a continuance 
 upon the hearing of said motion until such more spe- 
 cific bill of particulars had been filed. 
 
 74. The lower court erred in overruling the protest of 
 
1146 
 
 the defendant against being compelled to take up the 
 motion of plaintiff for the taxation of an attorney’s 
 fee for the plaintiff as costs before the entry of judg- 
 ment in said cause upon the verdict of the jury. 
 
 75. The lower court erred upon the hearing upon the 
 question of the taxation of an attorney’s fee for plain- 
 tiff as costs in admitting in evidence plaintiff’s Ex- 
 hibit 1, on said hearing in the absence of a showing 
 that proof had been made on the trial that plaintiff 
 notified the trustees of the defendant in writing at 
 least 60 days before suit was commenced, by leaving a 
 copy of such notice with some one of the trustees of 
 such district, stating the amount claimed as damages, 
 and so forth, over the objection of the defendant. 
 
 76. The lower court erred in admitting incompetent and 
 improper evidence at the hearing before the court on 
 the motion for the allowance of an attorney’s fee for — 
 plaintiff to be taxed as costs over the objection of the 
 defendant. 
 
 77. The lower court erred in excluding competent testi- 
 mony sought to be introduced by the defendant at the 
 hearing before the court on a motion for an allowance 
 of an attorney’s fee to be taxed as costs. 
 
 78. The lower court erred in refusing to strike from 
 the record the improper evidence upon the motion of 
 the defendant upon the hearing of plaintiff’s motion 
 to tax an attorney’s fee as costs. 
 
 70. The lower court erred on the hearing before the 
 court on the motion of plaintiff to tax an attorney’s 
 fee as costs in permitting the witnesses over the ob- 
 jection of the defendant to adopt an improper stand- 
 ard and test in estimating the value of the services 
 of plaintiff’s attorneys. 
 
1147 
 
 80. The lower court erred in taxing as costs any amount 
 as an attorney’s fee for the plaintiff’s attorney. 
 
 81. The order of the lower court taxing as costs an 
 attorney’s fee for plaintiff’s attorneys is contrary 
 to the law. 
 
 82. The order of the lower court taxing as costs an at- 
 torney’s fee for plaintiff’s attorneys is contrary to the 
 evidence. 
 
 83. The order of the lower court in taxing as costs an 
 attorney’s fee for plaintiff’s attorneys is manifestly a 
 result of prejudice upon the part of the presiding judge 
 and is and was excessive in amount. 
 
 84. The lower court erred in refusing to entertain the 
 prayer of the defendant for an appeal to this court 
 from the judgment entered in the trial court before 
 -ordering the taxation of costs as an attorney’s fee for 
 plaintiff’s attorneys. 
 
 89. That part of Section 19 of ‘‘An Act to Create Sani- 
 tary Districts and to remove obstructions in the Des- 
 plaines and Illinois Rivers,’’ approved May 29, 1888, 
 in force July 1, 1889, laws 1889, page 126, as amended 
 by ‘‘An Act to Amend Sections 4, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 19, of 
 An Act to Create Sanitary Districts and to remove 
 obstructions in the Desplaines and Illinois Rivers,’’ ap- 
 proved May 25, 1907, in force July 1, 1907, laws 1907, 
 pages 284-287, providing that in case judgment is ren- 
 dered against any such district for damages the plain- 
 tiff shall also recover his reasonable attorney’s fee 
 to be taxed as costs of suit, is repugnant to Section 1, 
 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the 
 United States. 
 
 86. . That part of Section 19 of ‘‘An Act to Create Sani- 
 tary Districts and to remove obstructions in the Des- 
 plaines and Illinois Rivers,’’ approved May 29, 1889, 
 
1148 
 
 in force July 1, 1889, laws 1889, page 126, as amended 
 by ‘‘An Act to amend Sections 4, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 19 of 
 An Act to Create Sanitary Districts and to remove ob- 
 structions in the Desplaines and Illinois Rivers,’’ ap- 
 proved May 25, 1907, in force July 1, 1907, laws 1907, 
 pages 284-287, providing that in case judgment is ren- 
 dered against any such district for damages, the plain- 
 tiff shall also recover his reasonable attorney’s fee to 
 be taxed as costs of suit, is repugnant to section 2, of 
 Article 2, of the Constitution of the State of Illinois. 
 
 87. That part of Section 19 of ‘‘An Act to Create Sani- 
 tary Districts and to remove obstructions in the Des- 
 plaines and Illinois Rivers,’’ approved May 29, 1889, 
 in force July 1, 1889, laws 1889, page 126, as amended 
 by ‘‘An Act to amend Sections 4, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 19, of 
 An Act to Creat Sanitary Districts and remove ob- 
 structions in the Desplaines and Illinois Rivers,’’ ap- 
 proved May 25, 1907, in force July 1, 1907, laws 1907, 
 pages 284-287, providing that in case Judgment is ren- 
 dered against any such district for damages, the plain- 
 tiff shall also recover his reasonable attorney’s fee 
 to be taxed as costs of suit, is repugnant to Section 
 22 fo Article 4, of the Constitution of the State of 
 Illinois. 
 
 88. That part of Section 19, of ‘‘An Act to Create Sani- 
 tary Districts and remove obstructions in the Des- 
 plaines and Illinois Rivers,’’ approved May 29, 1889, 
 in force July 1, 1889, laws 1889, page 126, as amended 
 by ‘‘An Act to amend Sections 4, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 19, of 
 an Act to Creat Sanitary Districts and to remove ob- 
 structions in the Desplaines and Illinois Rivers,’’ ap- 
 proved May 25, 1907, in force July 1, 1907, laws 1907, 
 pages 284-287, providing that in-case judgment is ren- 
 dered against any such district for damages, the plain- 
 tiff shall recover his reasonable attorney’s fees to be 
 
1149 
 
 taxed as costs of suit, is repugnant to the Fifth Amend- 
 ment of the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 89. The lower court erred in awarding plaintiff execu- 
 tion on the judgment entered against the defendant, a 
 municipal corporation. 
 
 Wherefore for the reasons above set forth, which the 
 record will sustain, the judgment of said court ought to 
 be reversed and said cause remanded. 
 
 Epmunp D. Apcock, 
 Burnet M. CHIPERFIELD, 
 
 Attorneys for Appellant. 
 Frank J. Quinn, 
 
 CLAuDE I). CHIPERFIELD, 
 Of Counsel for Appellant. 
 

 

 

 
 
 - - : 2 “ f H 
 a ; Bn Me a | . 
 : ali Cet ities MN het ty Ay 
 ree fey va # a aR hie , e CTI ISNS ae 
 ae ARS Sea oi ys . De ae? 
 ey a i i (, Mt e7. ; mm ; 
 a ne us 
 hal © ‘- - t 
 . ii 7 : i@ CR at : 
 r is 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 id if 
 A 
 / 
 
i ae an 
 ‘ aT Y 
 
 
 

 
Sete 
 oy 
 
 gm mye Aree 
 PASCAL cea 9 
 Poe a 
 
 S nl tpmed ear ee 
 
 i) 
 
 i) 
 
 UNIVERSITY O 
 
 - Si Ge i ee. 
 Satna 
 ee gt et ef 
 
 = 
 “€ 
 
 hh 
 
 : ; : ae one ey 
 Eg! sS 7 cc 
 Ten oaths 
 os Rl Cn Song ae 
 - phar a ~ b oo 7 oe eae) “S45 
 Pr, Bape 
 
 WW 
 
 ase 
 Settee ors eka hee 
 or 3 peat a ee. ona Poway 
 
 oan ~ 
 ‘ eee 
 . pn er aa 4 er, : D aoe 
 Lae ye ip te Es NE Si<srg 
 OO AR ee CEE TN tp eee Tiga, Slims 
 a R er ey eee ee Z eo Sete bree jae 
 
 5 Se Ce os - c 
 
 Tate Pe at 
 -* =s; — 
 
 Berea Fe 
 paced sors i: 
 PSOE 20 
 oO FMR i ch ol gi 
 
 <9 oe soe Sa ahr O35 859, i <=. 
 Caserta Seen : 
 : am : - ot at83 a ‘ 
 Rare eat een ee PFT anes Secs 
 ox obra Sotetint id es sere tana 
 ret ones ~ a 
 s &, : ner ; 
 
 pe 
 gn OE 
 ee 
 BED para" Ona se 8, a= 
 ie Ot 
 a ge 5) ‘4 
 ~ oe: wn 
 , c Le a 
 3 = Pn = LS r Lt ES ag nem 
 . n a actngr aoe gt A ean ran ove tp neon 
 . righ nce bh wr -— lee oun ee Cer 
 Be Mints wie innate eee tp ren ore 
 ee Csr ye ices 95 gee eo ad Png A tore 
 ed en Eg pee pe teas nat eer: ad ys 
 AATF net eed Sie cole Fin pert Care res 
 nr =. a Ae i sie roe a As 
 
 Pere clase ss 
 . i a . . a ye : ee 4 
 ree Ns “ = A eo x ey 
 hs Se ig oa eo ES eae hee ea oe RT Cn Tin 
 ‘ mit nos En ea EB ag gay agit : 
 Thm 8 eit ey : Wwe ere Sao ee Liga tread 
 o~* elec trea aR nod oe tnt tka abide is pas aie 
 nat Semper open ye eee etna BIRR Sesase orotic 
 eee Gey ae Poder es . Shen Tae 
 aS ee Peae ee Lom Gn gk Pe ig EE a See ta we en enm to 
 seek Tak =! ‘ peor te ees sak 
 ea penne Or ges. Pie Lgl Ban % ant X Cen ae nes 
 “5 e ~ -. ee s F é : teres 
 
 
 
 : Sate eee 
 PENS: Pern ais eI 
 See ee