53d Congress. 53d Congress, > SENATE. 2d Session. > SENATE. ( Report l No. 396. 4 2 *./ Lin 35w IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. May 11, 1894. — Ordered to be printed. Mr. Proctqr, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, sub- mitted the following REPORT: [To accompany S. 1359.] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1359) to amend an act approved July 15, 1882, entitled “An act to increase the water supply of the city of Washington, and for other purposes,” having carefully considered the same, beg leave to report as follows : There can be no question of greater importance to the people of any large city than that of securing a sufficient supply of water, pure in quality and with a reserve in quantity ample for the demands of the future. Here it is not merely a local question, but one of importance to the whole country as well. Washington is the temporary residence of thousands, and is visited annually by millions coming from all parts of the country. The United States owns a large share of the property. The public buildings, parks, and grounds, as a whole, are the finest in the world. The demand for new buildings and other improvements will be frequent and imperative, as the machinery of government must continually and steadily increase with the increase* of population of the whole country. Whatever concerns the welfare of this city, therefore, will become more and more of general interest. The present supply of water is not sufficient in quantity or force for present needs; some action must, therefore, be taken at once. The sit- uation is so fully stated in the able report of Col. Elliot, of the Corps of Engineers, who is now in local charge of the aqueduct and water supply, that little need be said in way of detail. The riparian and water rights at Great Falls are now owned by the Great Falls Manu- facturing Company, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, and the United States. The extent of the Government’s present interest is in dispute. The main question presenting itself to the committee is whether to recommend the taking, under the right of eminent domain, of a supply for ordinary purposes sufficient for many years to come, or whether to acquire at once all the rights to the water at that point, settle the existing differences and all danger of future controversies about title, and end forever any danger of a short supply and the con- tinual trouble and risk of a divided ownership. If an individual or a business corporation was in the precise situa- tion of the Government, owning a part of the water rights, under the 2 WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. necessity of adding thereto at once, and with the certainty of needing further additions from time to time, there can be no doubt that the party would seek, as a matter of prudence and common business fore- sight, to acquire the entire water right before extensive improvements were made by the other owners which would greatly enhance the cost. And in this case what would be good policy for an individual or private corporation would be the more so for the Government by reason of the certainty of continuing and increasing requirements. The supply, to be sure, is much larger than will be needed for aqueduct purposes, so far as can be foreseen, but even for this purpose alone your committee believe that it would be wise to control it all. But there is another point worthy of consideration, and that is the rapidly increasing tendency towards municipal control of certain mat- ters of public necessity and convenience in which the entire people, all classes and conditions, have substantially an equal interest. In our early history turnpikes, owned by private corporations, were common ; toll bridges the rule, and towns and cities often obtained their water supply from private companies. Now, turnpikes and toll bridges are relics of the past; the water supply in large towns is almost without exception now furnished by the municipality, and street lighting by the city is already being considered and adopted to quite an extent. Whether it is not feasible and economical for cities to generate and supply by electricity heat as well as light, is a question already mooted. If generally adopted within twenty-five years, it would be no stranger than the progress of the last quarter of a century. But laying this possibility aside, the matter of lighting is a present issue, and one of greater importance in this city than in any other on account of the large number of buildings to be lighted at public expense. Already several measures providing for Government ownership of a lighting plant have been proposed. All the area of more than 100 feet elevation above low water at the navy-yard is now supplied by pumping, and for want of sufficient pres- sure all above 75 feet will probably soon require it. The line of 100 feet elevation runs in the vicinity of Florida avenue, and of 75 feet in the vicinity of Massachusetts avenue, west of Eleventh street. The time can not be far distant when a large majority of the residences will be elevated above this line. The vicinity of Tenallytown has an eleva- tion of more than 400 feet above low tide. The pumping is now done at the pump house on U street, between Sixteenth and Seventeenth, at a large expense, and this expense will be constantly increasing as higher lands about the city are built up and higher buildings constructed. It might be done with great saving for the future by electricity generated by the water power at Great Falls. If the entire power at Great Falls is acquired, we believe it will be ample for electric lighting and pumping purposes for the city. The Great Falls Power Company have very recently obtained new charters from the legislatures of Virginia and Maryland. Their purpose is evi- dently to develop the power and supply it directly, or through other companies, to the city for lighting and other purposes. There are no improvements now at Great Falls, except the aqueduct dam, built and owned by the United States. If the Government is ever to acquire control it should be done before any outlay is made by the other owners. Such outlay must be to them a questionable invest- ment, in view of the fact that the Government is sure to require an increased supply from time to time in the future, thus endangering the business of the power company and destroying or greatly lesseniug the WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 3 value of their improvements, with the risk that they may not be suffi- ciently recompensed. Your committee are therefore of the opinion that all the water ancl riparian rights at Great Falls necessary for the con- trol and use of the entire power should be acquired at this time ; that it will be a wise economy to do so; that ownership in part by the United States and in part by private business corporations is a relation unwise and unsafe for the Government, and should be terminated at once; that the other owners can afford to surrender their rights now on much better terms for the Government than after they have made their improve- ments, and that no outlay of money can contribute more than this to the future welfare of the capital of the country. Office of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Washington , March 6 , 1894. Dear Sir: The Commissioners have the honor to return herewith Senate bill 1359, entitled a bill to amend an act approved July 15, 1882, entitled u An act to increase the water supply of the city of Washing- ton, and for other purposes,” and to respectfully suggest that as the Washington Aqueduct and the dam at Great Falls are under charge of the War Department, that the bill be referred to the honorable Sec- retary of War. The Commissioners remark that there is a present need of an increased supply of water for the District, and submit for the information of the committee the inclosed copies of reports from Mr. S. T. Thomas, attorney for the District, and from Captain Derby, Corps of Engineers, assistant to the Engineer Commissioner, in charge of the water department of the District. Yery respectfully, John W. Eoss, President Board of Commissioners , District Columbia . Hon. Isham G. Harris, Chairman Committee on the District Columbia , TJ. 8. Senate. ~ Washington, January 23, 1894. To the Hon. Comviissioners, etc.: Gentlemen : I have the honor to return to you herewith Senate hill 1359 (Fifty- third Congress, second session), to amend the act of July 15, 1882 providing for the increase of the water supply of this city, together with my views thereon agreeably to your reference of the 20th instant. In order to correctly understand the relation between the District and the United States in reference to the Washington Aque- duct, it is necessary to refer briefly to the legislation by Congress on the subject. As early as 1819 Congress appropriated money to u lay pipes to supply the Presi- dent’s house and the Executive Departments of the Government with water.” Many plans for a water supply had been proposed to Congress, but nothing of any consequence was accomplished until 1852 (10 Stat., 92). In that year the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill contained an item of $5,000, “ to enable the President of the United States to cause the necessary surveys, projects, and estimates to be made for determining the best means of affording the cities of Washington and Georgetown an unfailing supply of good and wholesome water, report thereof to be made to Congress at its next session.” This appropriation was the beginning of what has since become one of the greatest aqueducts of modern times. In execu- tion of the above clause of the appropriation bill President Fillmore transmitted to Congress the report of Gen. Totten, of the Corps of Engineers of the Army, recom- mended the construction of an aqueduct from the Great Falls of the Potomac to Washington. 4 WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. This appropriation was followed in 1853 by one of $150,000 “to be expended under the direction of the President of the United States for the purpose of bringing water into the city of Washington, upon such plans and upon such places as he may approve” (10 Stat.,206). With this money the Washington Aqueduct designed to supply the cities of Washington and Georgetown “with pure and wholesome water” was begun. Afterwards, by various acts of Congress extending down to and includ- ing an act approved June 25, 1860, the necessary money for acquiring land and the construction and completion of the aqueduct was appropriated. On March 3, 1863, Congress passed an act amendatory of its act of March 3, 1859, authorizing the cor- porations of Washington and Georgetown, to levy and collect a water tax on all real property which borders on an avenue or street through which a water main has been laid “for the purpose of paying for such mains.” Said tax to be collected in live installments, and to constitute a fund to be used “ exclusively to defray the cost of distribution of water, and other matters connected therewith.” By the same act the city of Washington was authorized to erect lire plugs and to collect a tax thereon. In virtue of this authority the city of Washington passed various ordinances on the subject (Webb’s Digest, 294-418). On July 12, 1876, Congress (19 Stat., 83) extended the laws and ordinances of the city of Washington relating to water taxes, water rents, and water main taxes over the entire District. On June 10, 1879 (21 Stat., 9), the water service of the District of Columbia was placed under the control of the Commissioners, excepting such powers and duties only as belong to the Chief Engineer of the Army. On July 1, 1882 (22 Stat., 135), the operations of the water department of the Dis- trict were placed under the direction of the engineer’s office of the District, subject to the control of the Commissioners. By act of Congress approved July 15, 1882, to increase the water supply of the city of Washington, the Secretary of War was required to cause a survey to be made, and a map of the land necessary to extend the aqueduct, and of the land necessary for a reservoir near Sixth street extended, and a like survey and map of land necessary for the dam across the river at Great Falls including the land now occupied by the dam and the land acquired in the extension of said dam across Conns Island to the Virginia shore, one-half the cost of said improvement to be charged to a “ capital account” on the books of the Treasury, and the surplus water rents paid into the Treasury, and credit to the account thus created until it is extinguished. And the Commissioners were authorized to regulate water rents from time to time so as to make them sufficient to pay the expense of maintaining the works and the interest on said “capital account” in accordance with the provisions of said act; that after the extinguishment of said account, and until further action by Congress, the surplus water rents were to be paid into the Treasury of the United States (22 Stat., 168). By act of Congress approved July 5, 1884, it is made the duty of the Commissioners to include in their annual estimates for the expenses of the water department, the estimate to be made by the Secretary of the Treasury of the amount necessary to refund one-half, in not less than twenty- five installments, of the expense of the water supply extension advanced by the United States under the act of July 15, 1882. By act of Congress approved June 17, 1889, the Commissioners were authorized to lay water mains and water pipes and to erect fire plugs and hydrants wherever the same might in their judgment be necessary (26 Stat., 159). It will thus be seen that the plant which supplies this city with water is the property of the United States. The legislation proposed by the present bill is a departure from the policy of the United States in regard to the Washington Aque- duct, maintained without interruption for more than forty years. With the excep- tion of the worthless “Lydecker Tunnel,” constructed under the act of July 15, 1882, this District has never been called upon to pay any part of the expense of con- structing the Washington Aqueduct. It can never use the water as a source of revenue, and its expenses so far, except in regard to the worthless tunnel, above referred to, have been limited to the cost of laying mains for the distribution of the water after it ip brought to the city. However, if the District is to be again charged with half the expense of enlarging the Washington Aqueduct at Great Falls, it seems to me that it would be eminently proper to amend the eighth section of the bill so as to enable its Commissioners to participate in deciding the question whether what is desired by the bill is necessary. At least two of the Commissioners should be added to the board provided for in section one. Of course with the growth of the city there is a demand for increased water supply, and the land and water rights proposed to be acquired by the present bill will at some time be necessary to increase that supply, if it is not now necessary, and the sooner, in point of economy it is acquired, the better. But it does seem to me in so important a matter as this, which involves a departure from a policy which has prevailed for nearly half a century, and a charge against the District of Columbia of one-half of the expense of enlarg- ing the aqueduct at Great Falls, it is manifestly proper that the Commissioners should be consulted. And then, too, as pointed out by Capt. Derby, the time, ninety WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 5 days, within which the Attorney-General and the Secretary of War shall specify the metes and bounds of the land required, is too short. It should be at least six months or one year. Very respectfully, S. T. Thomas, N Attorney, District Columbia. January 18, 1894. The question of what the District of Columbia has in the water rights at Great Falls on the Potomac is one on which the water department of the District is not informed, the supply of water-having heretofore been entirely furnished by the United States under the management of the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army. Doubt- less a copy of this bill has been sent to the Secretary of War for examination and report. There can be no doubt that the United States and the District of Columbia should own the rights to at least twice the amount of water that is now taken from the Potomac, say 3,000,000 gallons per day ; and that, if they do not now own these rights, it would be more economical to secure them now than later. As to whether it would be advantageous to the District and the United States to own more of these water rights than the amount above mentioned, would depend on how much water these is available and how much it would cost to get control of it. The bill provides (section 3) means of throwing light on these points, and this result, at least, is most desirable. The period of ninety days specified in section 1 is too short and should be increased to one year. As under section 8 the District is required to bear half of the expense of carrying out the act, the board provided for in section 1 should, in my judgment, be increased by the addition of two of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia; all parties concerned should certainty have a yoice in determining the important question as to whether the proposed purchase is worth the cost of it. G. McC. Derby, Captain, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army. Office of the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, Washington, D. C., March 24, 1S94. Sir: I have the honor to return herewith S. 1359 (Fifty-third Congress, second session), “A bill to amend an act approved July 15, 1882, entitled ‘An act to increase the water supply of the city of Washington, and for other purposes/” with letter of the Committee on the District of Columbia, U. S. Senate, of March 9, 1894, and other papers referred to this office therewith. Attention is invited to the remarks herewith of Col. G. H. Elliot, Corps of Engi- neers, in immediate charge of the Washington Aqueduct, and to the amendments of the bill recommended by that officer. Certain of these amendments are indicated in copy A of the bill, herewith. S' But Col. Elliot states that it is not apparent that the bill thus amended, having become a law, would authorize the use by the United States of water, acquired under the bill, for actuating hydraulic machinery (turbines) located below the falls, and also suggests additional amendments looking to the taking of all of the water flowing at Great Falls. These additional amendments are indicated on copy B of the bill, herewith. I concur in the recommendation that the bill be amended as indicated on copy B, and further recommend that, if the bill is to become a law, it shall be so worded as to enable the United States not only to acquire title to all lands and water rights at and in the vicinity of the Great Falls, but also to use the water so taken to actuate machinery located anywhere, in connection with the public service of the District of Columbia. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Thos. Lincoln Casey, Brigadier-General, Chief of Engineers. Hon. Daniel S. Lamont, Secretary of War. 6 WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. Office of the Washington Aqueduct, Washington, D. C., March 20, 1894. General: In respect of bill S. 1359, Fifty-third Congress, second session, “A bill to amend an act approved July 15, 1882, entitled, An act to increase the water sup- ply of the city of Washington, and for other purposes”, which you sent me on the 9th instant for report (E. D. 5250-1894), I beg to state as follows: The bill, it will have been observed, was introduced into the Senate “by request.” It relates exclusively to land and water rights at Great Falls, and, while it is in most respects an excellent bill, there are certain amendments that should be made in the interests of the United States and the District of Columbia, which is required to pay one-half of whatever sums are to be expended for the purchase of these land and water rights. The act of July 15, 1882, provided, among other things, for the acquisition by con- demnation of the outstanding title, if any, to the land necessary for a dam across the Potomac River at Great Falls, including the land then occupied by the dam, the land required for the extension of the dam across Conns Island to and upon the Virginia shore and the land on which the gate house stands. The act provided also for the acquisition of certain unspecified water rights, and contained an apjrro- priation, of $45,000 to pay for all of these lands (except the land occupied by the gate house, which was not provided for), and for the water rights in the following item: “To pay for water rights and land necessary to extend dam at Great Falls to the Virginia shore, forty-five thousand dollars.” The act also contained the following item : “For work and material to complete the dam at Great Falls to the level of one hundred and forty-eight feet above tide, and extend the same to the Virginia shore, one hundred and forty-five thousand one hundred and fifty-one dollars.” The proceedings to be had in condemnation were prescribed as follows : “'When the map and survey are completed, the Attorney- General shall proceed to ascertain the owners or claimants of the premises embraced in the survey, and shall cause to be published, for the space of thirty days, in one or more of the daily news- papers published in the District of Columbia, a description of the entire tract or tracts of laud embraced in the survey, with a notice that the same has been taken for the uses mentioned in this act, and notifying all claimants to any portion of said premises to file, within its period of publication, in the Department of Justice, a description of the tract or parcel claimed, and a statement of its value as estimated by the claimant. On application of the Attorney-General, the chief justice of the supreme court of the District of Columbia shall appoint three persons, not in the employ of the Government or related to the claimants, to act as appraisers, whose duty it shall be, upon receiving from the Attorney-General a description of any tract or parcel the ownership of which is claimed separately, to fairly and justly value the same and report such valuation to the Attorney-General, who thereupon shall upon being satisfied as to the title to the same, cause to be offered to the owner or owners the amount fixed by the appraisers as the value thereof; and if the offer be accepted then upon the execution of a deed to the United States in form satisfactory to the Attorney-General, the Secretary of War shall pay the amount to such owner or owners from the appropriation made therefor in this act. “In making the valuation the appraisers shall only consider the present value of the land without reference to its value for the uses for which it is taken uuder the provisions of this act. “ The appraisers shall each receive for their services $5 for each days 7 actual serv- ice in making the said appraisements. “ Any person or corporation having any estate or interest in any of the lands embraced in said survey and map who shall for any reason not have been tendered payment therefor as above provided or who shall have declined to accept the amount tendered therefor, and any person who, by reason of the taking of said land, or by the construction of the works hereinafter directed to be constructed, shall be directly injured in any property right, may, at anytime within one year from the publication of notice by the Attorney-General as above provided, file a petition in the Court of Claims of the United States setting forth bis right or title and the amount claimed by him as damage for the property taken or injury sustained; and the said court shall hear and adjudicate such claims in the same manner as other claims against the United States are now by law directed to be heard and adjudi- cated therein : Provided, That the court shall make such special rules in respect to such cases as shall secure their hearing and adjudicatio n with the least possible delay.” The act also contained the following requirements : “Judgment in favor of such claimants shall be paid as other judgments of said court are now directed to be paid; and any claimant to whom a tender shall have been made as hereinbefore authorized and who shall have declined to accept the WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 7 same, shall, unless he recover an amount greater than that so tendered, be taxed with the entire cost of the proceeding. All claims for value or damages on account of ownership of any interest in said premises, or on account of injury to a property right by the construction of said works, shall, unless a petition for the recovery thereof be filed within one year from the date of the first publication of notice by the Attorney-General as above directed, be forever barred: Provided, That owners or claimants laboring under any of the disabilities defined in the statute of limita- tions of the District of Columbia may file a petition at any time within one year from the removal of the disability. “ Upon^the publication of the notice as above directed, the Secretary of War may take possession of the premises embraced in the survey and map, and proceed with the constructions herein authorized; and upon payment being made therefor, or without payment, upon the expiration of the times above limited without the filing of a peti- tion, an absolute title to the premises shall vest in the United States.” The dam was extended and completed as specified in the years 1884-86 at a cost of about $140,000. I was not placed in charge of the aqueduct till several years afterwards, but it can be stated that neither the land occupied by the dam, which was taken by the right of eminent domain, nor the water rights have been paid for. The following claims for the land and water rights taken and the damages result- ing from the taking were filed : The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, by Lewis C. Smith, president, a claim for $600,900. The Great Falls Manufacturing Company, by Benjamin F. Butler, president. The claims of this company were stated in the following terms : “ If the condemnation be for all of its water rights, the company estimates its damage at $1,000,900 and claims this amount. “If the condemnation be for one-half of said rights, then the company claims $500,000. “ If the United States shall consent to let the company draw from the dam the sur- plus and unused water and shall provide the means for such drawing, a further reduction of the claim will be made.” 1 send herewith a plat explanatory of this report, in which I shall endeavor to draw attention to the great importance of a careful and cautious consideration of the bill. The plat shows Conn’s Island, the Maryland and Virginia channels separated by it, and the site of the dam, about 3,000 feet long, as it now exists, extending from shore to shore of the river. The dam as it was at the date of the passage of the act extended out from the Mary- land shore of the river above the falls and below the intake of the Washington Aque- duct, across the Maryland channel to the shore of Conn’s Island, and was 1,034 feet long. The necessity of the extension of the dam provided for in the act arose from the fact that by reason of its narrow width, shallow depth, and its obstructions, the Maryland channel was found to be inadequate to furnish to the aqueduct all the water required to meet the increasing demands upon it. The land taken under the act mainly consisted of a narrow strip Extending from the medium filum aquae of the Virginia channel to the western shore of Conn’s Island; thence across Conn’s Island to the eastern shore ; thence to the medium filum aquae of the Maryland channel. The strip did not extend from the medium filum aquae of the Virginia channel to the Virginia shore for the reason (see the plat) that the United States was already, from 1854, a ripaiian owner at the Virginia end of the proposed extention of dam. There was also included in the taking a small triangular portion of the bed of the Virginia channel between the medium filum aquae of the channel and the Virginia shore that was not covered by the riparian right of the United States as an owner on that shore, the lot on which the gatehouse stands, and also the land on the Mary- land shore below this lot, extending to the shore, and covering in addition that part of the river-bed site of the Maryland end of the old dam that was not already the property of the United States. The area of the land taken is in all about 21 acres. Of this about 8f acres are on Conn’s Island ; about 2\ acres are on the Maryland shore ; about 7 acres are on the bed of the Potomac, in the Virginia channel, and about 2f acres are on the bed of the Potomac, in the Maryland channel — in other words, about one-half of the entire area is covered by water. Great Falls is a series of rapids in the river, extending about one-half or three- fourths of a mile, in the course of which the river falls about 70 feet. It is about 16 miles above Washington. The eastern shore of the river is in Montgomery County, Md., and the jurisdition of Maryland extends to the western shore, which is in Fairfax County, Va. The three principal owners of the lands adjacent to Great Falls are the Great Falls Manufacturing Company, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, and the United States. A fairly good estimate mav*be formed of 8 WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. the extent of their respective ownerships by an inspection of the plat and compar- ing the lengths of the mainland and island shores owned hy them. The only existing improvement of water rights at the falls is the aqueduct dam built hy the United States. Conn’s Island is above the falls proper. It is about 3,500 feet long, about 1,000 feet wide at the widest place, and about 670 feet wide at the place near the foot of the island where it is crossed by the extension of the aqueduct dam. Its axis is about parallel with the thread of the current of the river, which at the falls runs about due south. The island is low and, where it is crossed by the extension of the dam, rocky. It is cut up by numerous channels, ancL the major part of the entire island is, during ordinary spring freshets, overflowed by the river. The island is unimproved and uninhabited. The land is of but little value, if any. As a riparian owner, the Great Falls Manufacturing Company claims an interest in the water that flows both in the Maryland and Virginia channels, and it is this ownership that has been the basis of litigation and of claims against the United States for thirty years. The United States is a riparian owner opposite Conn’s Island both on the Virginia and Maryland shores, and if the assumption that the proportion of right of control of the water flowing in an unnavigable channel, held by each of two opposite riparian owners, does not depend on the relative lengths of their shore lines be correct, then it would appear that the United States has as much of the right of control of the water flowing on each side of Conn’s Island as have the owners of the island. Land on the Maryland shore at Great Falls may be worth $200 an acre, but not more. I am told that land on the Virginia shore is worth from $20 to $30 an acre. I invite attention to the following important points in the act of July 15, 1882, and in Senate bill 1359. (1) The amount authorized by Congress to be expended under the act is, for land and water rights at Great Falls, limited to $45,000. The amount that, for the same object, may be expended under the provisions of the bill if enacted in its present form, and if the prices for the land and the water rights can be agreed on with the owners, is apparantly unlimited. In the cases where there be no agreement the owners may institute suits in the Court of Claims, and the judgments of the court are apparently to be paid without limit by the Treasury Department. (2) The act contains the following provision : “ In making the valuation the appraisers shall only considered the present value of the land without reference to its value for the uses for which it is taken Under the provisions of this act.” There is no such provision in the bill, but for the reason that the value of its water supply to Washington or any increase thereof is inestimable, there being no standard of values that can properly be applied to it, I think it important that a pro- vision similar to the foregoing should be applied to the water rights as well as the land at Great Falls to be taken under the terms of the bill. (3) The bill requires that the land and water rights at Great Falls are to be taken to the extent that may Y© deemed “ necessary for the present and future supply of said District of Columbia, the water so taken to be used for any and all purposes.” This is not contained in the act which the bill proposes to amend. The present sup- ply to the city is about 45,000,000 gallons per diem. If provision is to be made for future supply, either in t\us bill or elsewhere, the amount should, I think, be stated at 200,000,000 gallons per diem. This, for tlm reason that from computations that I made after the last census of Washington (1$90), I found the supply per diem per capita to be about 200 gallons, and I am of the opinion that if we are now to make arrangements for all time provision should be made for not less than 1,000,000 inhabitants. (4) The bill provides (section 2) that in cases of agreement with the owners as to the prices of land and water rights taken, and where there be disagreements in cases of judgments rendered by the Court of Claims, the officials specified in the bill “ shall have authority to enter into contracts with the owners of the land adjacent to the Great Falls, respectively, to secure to the latter the right to use, and facilities for using, so much of the water of the Potomac as may not be taken as aforesaid and used by the United States. And to this end they may authorize or permit such structures to be made as may be necessary and the value of any rights thus granted shall be received in part payment of the land and water rights taken as aforesaid.” There is nothing referring to these contracts in the act, and it is difficult to under- stand the full meaning and intention of this provision. Whatever they may be, it seems to be clear that the bill contemplates that the United States shall secure to the owners of land at Great Falls the facilities for using, as well as the right to use, all of the flow* of the Potomac that may not be taken and used by the United States. Let us suppose, for instance, that the United States, for itself and the District of Columbia, “lakes” under the provisions of the bill, that is to say, acquires by an WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 9 -exercise of -the right of eminent domain the right to take 200,000,000 gallons of water per diem. The quantity that may he “ taken and used 7 ’ is different. It is the quantity sent down and to he sent down to Washington through the Aqueduct and future additions to the Aqueduct. It will increase from year to year, and the hill contemplates Such increase without additional compensation to the owners of the land and water rights, up to the limit of the quantity “ taken.” I can hest explain the point I wish to make, in respect of this part of the hill, hy figures. In a suit against the United States for damages in the sum of $500,000 by the Great Falls Manufacturing Company, as owners of Conn’s Island (in which judgment was rendered in 1879 against the United States for $15,692), it was agreed on hy counsel and accepted hy the court, that the low- water flow of the Potomac should he stated at 1,065 cubic feet per second, say 700,000,000 gallons per diem. Excluding the times of freshets, the average flow may he said to he at least 6,500,000,000 gallons per diem. In times of very high water and freshets it is much greater, and in the flood of 1889 it was at the rate probably of not less than 305,650,000,000 gallons per diem.* Assuming, for illustration, that the quantity of water now “ taken and used” hy the United States is, say, 45,000,000 gallons per diem, and that the quantity to he “ taken” under the provisions of the hill he 200,000,000 gallons per diem, the hill would require that the United States shall secure to the owners of the lands adja- cent to the falls the facilities for using (and also the right to use) the following -quantities of water per diem : During low-water flow, say, 655,000.000 gallons now, decreasing to 500,000,000 gal- lons when the limit of the quantity “ taken,” say, 200,000,000 gallons per diem, shall he reached. During average flow (excluding freshets), say, 6,455,000,000 gallons now, decreasing to 6,300,000,000 gallons when the above-mentioned limit shall be reached. To these quantities should he added the constantly varying (decreasing) difference between the quantity of water “ taken” and the quantity of water “used,” the lat- ter quantity, as said before, being at this time, say, 45,000,000 gallons per diem. To “ secure” to the owners of the land and water rights at Great Falls the facili- ties for using the remainder of the flow of the Potomac (whether this remainder he, as it would he, more than two -thirds of the low- water flow and about 97 per cent •of the average flow), may mean either to provide these facilities and keep them in repair! or to make the facilities eertain. The explanatory words “ authorize and permit” in the next sentence seem to pre- clude the first of these meanings ; but if it should be held to be the true one, the United States would either be obliged to make a cut or cuts in the aqueduct dam through which this remainder could be drawn, or to construct a dam below the aqueduct dam to collect, and from behind which could be transmitted to the manu- factories and other works below the falls the water flowing over the aqueduct dam. The first of these would be inadmissible, for the reason that any cut or cuts in the aqueduct dam would impair and make irregular the supply to the city through the aqueduct. To construct across the Virginia channel a dam below the aqueduct dam would cost, say, $150,000. The second supposed meaning being adjudged the true one, the word “ secure ” would simply have reference to the manner of drawing up the contract referred to in the section. The closing words of section 2, viz, “and the value of any rights thus granted” to the owners of the land and water rights “shall be received in part pay me At of land and water rights taken as aforesaid,” are difficult to understand. It requires a quantity to be deducted from another quantity less than itself. The value to each of the owners of the water rights at Great Falls is the value of his share of the water of the river flowing at that point, and may be stated at a rate per 1,000,000 gallons per diem. The share may be used by its owner for a supply for domestic purposes, or for power, or for both, or he may sell it. The value of the ■ Prof. Babb, American Society Civil Engineers of the Geological Survey, in a paper on the Hydrography of the Potomac Basin (1891), gives the following averages of flow of the Potomac at Great Falls. His statements are in cubic feet, and I have reduced them to gallons : Average floiv of the Potomac at Great Falls, in gallons per diem. 1886 8,107,128,000 1887 7,698,240,000 1888 9,956,020,000 I 1889 21,327,624,000 1890 13,846,464,000 | 1891 17,449,344,000 t In the claim of the Great Falls Manufacturing Company (see ante) are the follow- ing words: “If the United States * * * shall provide the means for such •drawing.” 10 WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. land, apart from the value of the water rights, is its value for sites of manufactories below the falls; for sites of dwellings for workmen and others, and for the location of canals leading from the head of the falls to the works. In the case supposed, the United States “ takes ” under the operation of section 1 of the bill, that is, secures a right to take, a water supply for a population of 1,000,000 inhabitants, say, 200,000,000 gallons per diem. This is the “water right taken.” The United States also “takes” about 21 acres of land, about one-half of it being in the bed of the Potomac and the other half being a rocky and uncultivable strip across Conns Island. This is the “land taken.” The words “ rights thus granted,” near the end of section 2, refer to the right to be secured to the owners of the land by the United States of using, as has just been explained, the remainder of the flow of the Potomac, say two-thirds of the low- water flow and about 97 per cent of the average flow. The value of the water per 1,000,000 gallons per diem (whether it be the water to be taken by the United States, or the remainder to be secured to two of the owners of the falls — the third owner being the United States) should be the same in each case, but in section 2 it is said “ the value of any rights thus granted shall be received in part payment of the land and water rights taken.” The value of the water “ rights thus granted,” is immensely superior to the value of the “ water right taken,” as may be seen by com- paring the quantity of water “ granted” with the quantity of water “ taken,” and the difficulty of understanding what is intended by requiring that the value of the former shall be received in part payment of the latter is not explained by the fact that in addition to the “ water rights taken” there was “land taken,” for, being above the falls, the land is not valuable for any of the purposes just mentioned, and apart from its water rights it is certainly not worth more than $1,000. If, under the terms of the bill, all of the water rights at Great Falls, that is to say the entire flow of the Potomac, could be “taken” by the United States — provision being made that all the water not required by the United States should be “ granted ” back to the owners of the water rights — the intention of section 2 would be apparent, but the bill gives authority to “ take” only the quantity of water deemed necessary for the present and future supply of the District of Columbia, say 200,000,000 gallons per diem. The intention of the section would also be apparent if it should, in the opinion of the drawer of the bill, have been considered that the value per 1,000,000 gallons of the water to be “ granted” back and secured to the owners of the land, is exceedingly small as compared with the value per 1,000,000 gallons of the water to be “taken” by the United States. If, as might be inferred from the bill, the co-owneru with the United States actually own all the remainder of the water that is not drawn from the river by the Aqueduct, I do not see the necessity, or, as there is a question as to this ownership, the propriety of confirming it by contracts. I think, therefore, that all of section 2 after the word “entitled” in line 7 and all of section 3 comprised between and including the word “and” in line 6 and the word “States” in line 9 should be stricken out of the bill. (5) It will have been observed that provision was made in the act of 1882 and provision is made in this bill for the ascertainment and payment of damages. The damages referred to are damages to water rights, that is, the diversion of water from the river above the falls through the aqueduct to Washington. This is evidenced by the claims filed under the provisions of the act and by previous claims and by the suit of the Great Falls Manufacturing Company against the United States to which reference has already been made. That caution should be observed in the consideration of what the bill contains respecting these damages is made manifest: (A) By comparing the magnitude of the extravagant claims for damages already filed with the very small proportion of the water now diverted and of the water that can under the terms of the bill be diverted to Washington as compared with the total flow of the river, and by comparing also the amount of these claims with the amount ($45,000) that Congress in its act of 1882 deemed sufficient to pay for all the land and water rights at Great Falls that were to be taken under the act. (B) By an inspection of the plat entitled “ Great Falls of the Potomac and Vicin- ity” which accompanies this report it will be seen that, thanks to the wise foresight about forty years ago of the late Gen. Meigs, the United States is owner of a tract (of about 6 acres) at the Virginia end of the dam; that it is owner of a tract (of about 20 acres) called “Resurvey of Hard to come at,” that it is half owner of a tract (of about 99 acres) called “Resurvey on Hard to come at,” including Falls Island, and that it is owner of a lot (of about acres) on which stands the watchman gate- keeper’s house, being a part of a tract called Goose Pond. The total area of these lands is about 1304 acres, and their cost to the United States, including the cost of the water rights belonging to them, was $3,720. It is also owner of the right (conferred by the decision in 1879 in the case of the suit of the Great Falls Manufacturing Company against the United States) of main- WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 11 taining the clam across the Maryland channel at its present height of 148 feet above the height of low tide at the navy-yard at Washington. As the purchases of the land mentioned carried with them all the water rights belonging to them it would appear, and I have no doubt, although it has so far as I can discover not heretofore been stated or asserted that the United States is of right entitled to more than one-third of all the water rights at Great Falls, and is therefore entitled to more than one-third of all the water flowing there. For the reason that the 45,000,000 gallons per diem now diverted from the river for the supply of Wash- ington is, as has been before stated, but a small fraction of this proportional part of the water, and for the reason that even if there should be diverted the 200,000,000 gallons per diem required for a population of 1,000,000 of inhabitants, this propor- tional part would still not be nearly reached, I think it extremely doubtful if in respect of their water rights the other owners of land adjacent to the falls have ever been, or will ever be, damaged by the United States by the withdrawal from the river of the water supply of Washington. (C.) I find in the brief of special counsel for the United States in the suit of the Great Falls Manufacturing Company against the United States for damages to water rights of the former by the construction of the dam across the Maryland channel, which suit was decided in 1879, the following important statement respecting the Toulson tract owned by the Great Falls Manufacturing Company : “While we do not think the Toulson tract and the riparian rights appurtenant thereto have been invaded by the United States, and contend that they are not entitled to consideration in the present case we deem it proper, in view of the effect which the ascertainment of those rights by the court might have upon a future extension of the dam, to state distinctly our position. “(1) The court of appeals of Maryland, in a proceeding between the parties to the present suit, held that the State of "Maryland, by legislative grant, had conferred, in 1853, upon the United States the soil between the Virginia low- water mark and the medium filum aquce extending from a point above to a point below the falls (21 Md. Rep., p. 119, and pp. 375, 376, 377 record; Baltimore v. McKim, 3 BL, 453.) “ The riparian right appurtenant to the Toulson tract has thus become res judicata. “(2) The court of Maryland had juristiction of the res because it was included within the grant to Lord Baltimore in 1632 (see Bacon’s laws of Maryland, vol. — , p. — ) ; and because, further, no act of Maryland has ever ceded this jurisdiction, and there is nothing to show that Virginia ever claimed it.” If my inference drawn from this statement be the true one, then the Great Falls Manufacturing Company, apart from the rights conferred by its ownership of Conn’s Island above the Falls has no interest in the water rights (water) at Great Falls, and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company's land being cut off from the main channel of the river by the interposing land of the United States bordering on this channel, called “Hard to come at,” the United States owns of right by far the greater part of all the water rights at the Falls. Without regard to its water rights the Toulson tract is, however, the most valuable land at the Falls, it containing, as before stated, the best site for manufactories and other works below the Falls, and also the remains of the old Potomac canal constructed by General Washington in 1785, which is the best, if not the only, location practicable for a canal from the head of the Falls to these sites. For the reason that the two co-owners with the United States at Great Falls will no doubt employ, in the trials of the suits for damages that are to be had in the Court of Claims in case of failure of the United States to agree with these owners as to values, lawyers skilled in such cases, I think it most important that the sixth section of the bill be so amended as to authorize and direct the employment by the United States in these suits of special legal counsel conspicuous for known famil- iarity with and experience in the laws regulating riparian rights and in hydraulics. The eighth section of the bill also should be so amended as to provide for payment of this counsel and of witnesses on behalf of the Government. * * * The amendments that I have suggested, and a few others, the objects of which will be apparent, would, I believe, thoroughly guard the interests of the United States and the District of Columbia, and, for the reasons that follow, I think it of very great importance that, as amended, the bill be passed as soon as possible. The legislation provided for in the bill as amended, is, in my estimation, more important than any other that has been enacted since the construction of the aqueduct. (1) The decision of the Court of Claims of 1879 having been mainly in respect of the damage to the owners of Conn’s Island by reason of the abutting on that island of the dam across the Maryland channel (or rather by reason of an agreement as to this damage in 1862 between the Secretary of the Interior and the Great Falls Manufac- turing Company, which the United States, in the suit decided in 1879, claimed to have been illegal), there has not been since the extension of the dam to the Virginia shore, nor at any time, a judicial decision of the extent of the rights of the United States at Great Falls, and this bill furnishes an opportunity for such decision. When 12 WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. the decision has been made, it would operate for all time, and, when future additions to the Washington water supply have to be made from time to time, as the popula- tion increases, the required quantities can be taken from the river without further action of the courts and without further legislation of Congress except the making of the appropriations necessary for raising the dam and other works, if any, required for these additions. (2) The lands at Great Falls taken by the United States from the Great Falls Man- ufacturing Company under the operation of and by direction of the act of July, 1882, and seA^eral small parcels of land taken, also without payment, from the Chesa- peake and Ohio Canal Company, a portion under the operation of the act of July 15, 1882, and the remainder at previous times, have never been paid for. The lands taken from the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company are : The lot at Great Falls on which stands the gatehouse that regulates the supply of water through the aqueduct to Washington ; the land extending from this lot to the Mary- land bank of the river, including the right to pass the aqueduct under the canal; the land under which is the upper portion of tunnel No. 1, and the land occupied by The aqueduct between the gatehouse and the head of this tunnel; a parcel of parcel in Montgomery County, Md., occupied by a portion of the aqueduct, and a parcel of land in the District of Columbia occupied by the mains leading from the dis- tributing reservoir to the city. I am told that the charters of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, derived from the United States and from Maryland, provide that no adverse possession shall liold against any of its properties. If this be the case, an application of the statute of limitations, even if it should be deemed proper and advisable, could not be made to operate against these lands, some of which have been occupied by the works of the Washington Aqueduct for nearly forty years, and the bill should be so amended as to include these lands, to the end that their values may be judicially and fairly deter- mined and paid to the owners. (3) The question of what are the rights of the United States at Great Falls, how much of the water of the river it is entitled to, should be settled. The language of the bill seems to imply that these rights are very small in comparison with other rights; that the dra wing for the Washington supply of the small quanty of water heretofore used and now used (that is to say, small in comparison with future wants), has been, and is, an infringement on the rights of others, and that damage has been done to others. If this be the case, the facts should be known before any new obligations are created. The time has now come when the water supply of Washington must be increased. It is imperative that the present dam at Great Falls be raised through- out its entire length as soon as an appropriation can be obtained for this purpose, and it is my intention to submit an estimate for the work in my next annual esti- mates. The necessity for this arises from the fact that in summer during the low stages of the river I iind it impossible to keep the distributing reservoir up to the height of 146 feet above datum, which is required for the full service of the mains leading from the reservoir to the city. During these low stages of the river, the aqueduct at its intake lacks, in respect of its height, about 2£ feet of being full, and the dam must be raised accordingly. If the dam be raised 24 feet, not only would the aqueduct never fail to run full, but the “head” of water being raised at the intake, the velocity through the aqueduct w ould be very much increased. If the bill be passed before raising the dam, the right of the United States to draw the additional quantity of water from Great Falls will have been obtained by the exer- cise of the right of eminent domain provided for in the bill, and the work can go on without delay. Otherwise the work may be enjoined in the Maryland court and have to be suspended until the legal questions be decided. (4) It is desirable that all existing contentions and claims against the United States be settled judicially and fairly in the manner proposed in the bill as amended. The amendments that I would propose are as follows, and they will be found in the copy of the bill herewith, marked A : In section 1, line 13, insert after the word “all” the word “public,” and in the same line strike out the words “ninety days” and insert the words “six months,” and in line 30 insert after the word “amendment” the words “or otherwise.” In section 2 insert after the word “height ” in line 5 the words “ or by raising the dam to such height as may be necessary for the purpose of this act,” and strike out all of the section after the word “ entitled ” in line 7. In section 3, after the word “height” in line 6 insert the words “or by reason of raising the dam to such height as may be necessary for the purpose of this act. In making the valuations the appraisers shall only consider the present values of the land and water rights, without reference to their values for the uses for which they are taken under the provisions of this act.” And strike out all of the words from and including the word “ and ” in line 6 to and including the word “ States ” in line 9. In section 4, after the word “ height” in line 6 insert the words “or by reason of raising the dam to such height as may be necessary for the purpose of this act,” and WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. 13 ifter the word “ States ” in line 17 add the words “ Provided, that the United States hall be represented in snch suits by special legal counsel conspicuous for known amiliarity with and experience in the laws regulating riparian rights and in liydrau- ics.” In section 6, lines 2 and 3, strike out the words “ one or more ” and insert the word ‘ two.” In section 8, line 7, after the word “referees” insert the words “and of special louusel, and witnesses on behalf of the United States.” It will have been observed that the water to be “ taken” under the provisions of he bill is strictly for the supply of the District of Columbia, and that the words ‘ the water so taken to be used for any and all purposes,” in the twelfth and thir- :eenth lines of section 1, refer to use of the water in the District of Columbia. It is lot apparent that should the bill become a law the use of Potomac water would be sxtended to purposes other than the purposes of its present use, viz, domestic sup- ply, supply of the public buildings, street washings, and hydraulic power in the Dis- trict of Columbia. The use for hydraulic power in the District of Columbia must be very limited by reason of the capacity of the aqueduct and of any probable additions ;0 the aqueduct. Should it be desired to use turbines below the falls to operate slectric generators for transmitting electric power to Washington and lighting the public buildings, no portion of the water to be acquired under the bill could be used for these turbines. If Congress would authorize the taking, under the operation of the provisions of the bill, of all the water flowing at Great Falls, there would not Dnly be no limit to the quantity of water available for supply to the District, but there would doubtless be an abundance of water remaining for hydraulic machinery [turbines) below the falls, sufficient to operate a number of electric generators ade- quate not only for the lighting of the Capitol and all the other public buildings, the iighting of all of our streets, and possibly for the working of machinery for the rais- ing of water to the rapidly increasing portion of the District that is above the area that can be supplied by gravity. For these reasons I think it would be wise that the United States acquire now, under the exercise of the right of eminent domain provided for in the bill, all of the water and water rights at Great Falls, their owners to be paid the amounts to be ascertained in the fair and just manner described in the bill. For the reason that the capacity of a river for supply or power or both should probably be measured by its low-water flow, its greater flows being intermittent, the capacity of the Potomac at Great Falls may, according to the finding of the Court of Claims in 1879, be considered as J 00,000,000 gallons of water per diem. Deducting, say, 200,000,000 gallons for the supply of the Washington of the future, Lhere would never fail to remain for power to be used for the purposes suggested and any others that the public wants of the United States and the District of Colm- bia may develop, a daily supply of less than 500,000,000 gallons, say, 772 cubic feet per second. The fall is, as before stated, about 70 feet. In view of the foregoing I have prepared another copy of the bill (marked B), in which are the following suggested amendments : In section 1 strike out the words “ such land and” in line 9 and insert the words “ all the.” Strike out the word “above” in line 10 and insert the words “ in the vicinity of.” Strike out in lines 10, 11, and 12 the words “as they mav deem neces- sary for the present and future supply for said District of Columbia.” After the word “ all ” in line 13 insert the word “public.” After the word “ purposes ” in line 13 insert the words “and also such land as maybe necessary for these purposes.” Strike out the words “ ninety days” in line 13 and insert the words “ nine months.” Strike out in lines 17, 18, and 19 the words “and also the quantity of water per day necessary for the above purposes (in addition to the amount already appropriated jyif paid for),” and substitute therefor the words “excluding the lands already pur- chased by the United States and paid for,” and in line 30, after the word “amend- ment,” insert the words “or otherwise.” In section 2, after the word “height” in line 5, insert the words “or by raising the dam to any height that may be deemed necessary for the future supply of the Dis- trict of Columbia and other public, purposes,” aud strike out all of the section after the word “ entitled ” in line 7. In section 3, after the word “height” in line 6, insert the words “or by reason of raising the dam to such height as may be necessary for the purpose of this act. In making the valuations the appraisers shall only consider the present values of the land aaid water rights without reference to their values for the uses for which they are taken under the provisions of this act,” and strike out all of the words from and including the word “ and” in line 6 to aud including the word “States ” in line 9. In section 4, after the word “ height,” in line 6, insert the words “ or by reason of raising the dam to any height that may be deemed necessary for the future supply of the District of Columbia and other public purposes,” and after the word “States,” in line 17, add the words “ Provided, That the United States shall be represented in 14 WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON. such suits by special legal couhsel conspicuous for known familiarity with and experience in the laws regulating riparian rights, and in hydraulics.” In section 6, lines 2 and 3, strike out the words “ one or more” and insert the word “two.” In section 8, line 7, after the word' “ referees,” insert the words “and of special counsel and witnesses on behalf of the United States.” I should add that the lands and water rights at Great Falls appear to be unsettled in respect of their titles, and that I am informed that the claim of the Great Falls Manufacturing Company to the title of the Toulson tract, on the Virginia side of the river, is not acknowledged by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, which once owned, and still claims to own, the property. I should also add that it is well understood that the land and water rights of the Great Falls Manufacturing Company have been for some years for sale; also that there is now pending in the Maryland legislature a charter giving to a corporation entitled the Great Falls Power Company, authority to erect such dams or other structures in the Potomac River between the Great Falls and the United States aqueduct dam, as may he necessary for the objects ana purposes set forth in the charter, which include the selling and leasing of water power, the using of the same for manufacturing and other purposes, and for generating, transmitting, selling, or j leasing electricity, electric power and light, with the provision that nothing in the j act “ shall be construed to give said Great Falls Power Company authority to inter- fere with any existing rights of the United States.” In case of sale of the company's land and water rights there might be no result other than the succession of a new claimant and litigant against the United States to the Great Falls Manufacturing Company, but in case of the granting of the charter just mentioned by the State of Maryland (it has, as I understand, been already granted by the State of Virginia), I should say that if it be held or claimed that such increase is not covered by an exist- ing right, any attempt by the United States to increase the water supply of the Dis- trict of Columbia would, in the absence of legislation such as is proposed by Senate bill No. 1359, be very likely to lead to contention and litigation. * In conclusion I may remark that the legislation provided for in the bill as amended seems to me to be of the highest importance to the United States and the District of Columbia, and, in respect of the water supply of the District of Columbia, more important than any that has been enacted since the completion of the aqueduct thirty years ago. I have pointed out what appear to me to be the objectionable features of the bill, I have suggested additions that seem to me important, and I believe that the bill — if it be amended as proposed — will thoroughly guard the inter- ests both of the United States and the District of Columbia. I do not think the amendments that I have suggested can reasonably be opposed by either of the two coowners with the United States of the land and water rights at Great Falls, except perhaps in respect of the amendment of section 2 by striking out all of the section after the word “ entitled,” in line 7. The legislation proposed in this portion of the section would no doubt be of enormous advantage to these coowners, but in my judgment it would be in the highest degree inimical to the interests both of the United States and the District of Columbia, and it would be likely to lead to innumerable law suits. The papers are herewith returned. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, George H. Elliot, Colonel of Engineers. Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Casey, Chief of Engineers , U. S. Army, Washington, D. C. * I understand that the charter referred to has been granted, but that before th passage of the act the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company caused to be inserted in the charter a provision that no works shall be constructed by the Great Falls Power Company until the plans have been submitted to the trustees of the canal company , and to the Board of Public Works of Maryland, and approved by each. An agree- ment is then to be entered into and a bond filed. The United States, which has more at stake, is not thus protected. O mac i S Rept^ijf^-53 2 Gaylord Bros. Makers Syracuse, N. Y MJ.MIL 21, 1998