Daily evening star. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1852-1854, 1854-06-19
VAsH1HeroH NEWS AND GOSSIP.

WAsHIeToH NEWS AND GOSSIP.
The wsshing.on Water Works some
weeks since, We promised to take up the points
made against the continuance of this improve.
| ment ~ Mr.. Stanton, of Kentucky. and 10 re-
flute them. We commence that task his after.
noon; as in three or four days, or perhaps .
week, the pending amendment to the general
appropriation bill, designed to enable the
Government to continue the work In question:
will be disposed of. As we remarked, long
| since, the task is very unsratefui one ~. We
have not the slightest desire to make in''oious
comments on the course and statements OF any
honorable member. However, it is we'll un-
dsrstood here til at the opposition of this gen.
| tlsmsn to the appropriation has so materially
zb .ken the confidence Of the House in the man
uer ard the plan on which it is being con.
du :ted a. to at least threaten its entire defeat
Knowing that he is wrong in every single
statement he has made to the House with refer
ence to 1t, and having 80 informed ourselves of
the facts as 10 be able easily to satisfy them Of
the truth Of what we here write, it is our duty
50 to do, regardless of motives Of delicacy to
Mr.. g. or any one else. Il.
With this introduction, we have respectfully
to ask the members to read series OF brief
articles on the subject, Of which this is the first
in which they will find the points sgail .. tie
work attempted to be made by Mr.. S. refuted
clearly and concisely disproved-with no
moro illusions to that gentlenan's course on
the subject than the ends Of public justice, in
connection with his course, has rendered ne
cessary. He pleads that he is not actuated by
hostility to tho improvement in question, but
merely seeks to divest military men of their
connection with Government improvements.
While We have no disposition to contend with
him upon his ostensible question, in common
with all interested in the prosperity of Wash
ington, We feel anything but thankful to him
for making the defeat Of the most important
work to US, (of the District of Columbia,) the
alternative result Of his labors in that connec-
ton. But to eronomize time and space, We
will proceed directly to his arguments
l. On the 2Sdof May, 1854, Mr. S. said that
the appropriation Of 100000 fcr the acque-
ducD was rejected by the House when first
proposed; when it came from the Senate as
an amendment, it was again rejected, and
only passed on q recommendation Of Com.
mittee of Conference to save the Till.
No single nsen,5sr, Continued Mr.. 81
dreamed that 1t was tho 6sgian,ng Of a work
70 cost millions 'e r-.g -.. Dion.
Again: on the 14th of June, 1854, he said
! that the plan of the squeduct was not before
the House, the report being communicated, but
net printed. That rot one in a hundred OF
the members dreamed it was 20 cost over 800,
000-he did not, DC.
Now for the facts as to this particular branch
of his statement TO the House: The report
was printed in the lnteIigenct, OF February
Il, 1858, and copy was laid upon the table Of
every member Of both Houses, describing fully
al three plans. The Senate On February %
1858, fully discussed the whole subject, and MIR.
Hunter distinctly described the diffs re n,
plans and their COST and the appropriation
as presented to the House was agreed to by a
majority of thirteen-sixty- eight members vot
ing for an appropriation of $3.50 900, Yet, in
II
one supposed it would cost over 500, 900
Subsequently it was lost on the vote in the
House on ag' eeing with the action of Com
mittee Of the whole but in Conference Com
mittes il was agreed to, reducing the amoun
from $l50, 900 to 500 O00
work, as be alleges, where was his recollec
ton Of his favorits project for the Rock creel
| scheme, on Col. Hughes estimate Of $500 600
and sslomon's Little Falls speculation o
81 ,OOO, 900.
1t will be observed by the critical, who hav,
uoticed the points sssayed by Mr.. S. in th'
course Of this controversy, that he seems Il
think well Of any plan or speculation that ma.
serve to DO put up in opposition to the on,
adopted by the War Department
2. On the 2sd of May, Mr.. S. said: eth,
project Is wild and visionary; no human pow
er could build dam at the point proposed, @
sufficient strength to resist the frsshets''
| Facts.-There is there now, a dam built il
Gen. Washing'on's time, by the Potoma.
Navigation Company, which is below the pro
Il f~e~S 1880 Ao1 sAAS o400uuCt, uCdI0I 10 tut
| crest Of the Falls, and most OF which has re-
sisted the frsshets for fifty years, and is still
in good condition. ..-. ........ 49,.
8. Mr.. Stanton, on the 23d of May also, sale
| that Rock creek would give 23l O00, 900 gal
Ions, and the Potomac only 80. OOO, 900 gallons
subsequently, when Mr.. Hamilton pointed Gu
the sbsurdi,y of this statement, he said b,
meant sin the reservoirs" and that Rocl
creek could furnish daily l9, OOO, 600 gallons
In both be Is wrong. The map and repor
| both state that the Great Fails aqueduct ano
reservoirs will furnish on an emergency ESQ
| 100000 gallons, and the ordinary daily sup
ply will be 81 100000 gallons.
The Rock Creek daily supply 10y building
| large reservoirs to hold 23l, 900 900 in stor.
| Tor emergencies SIRE to occur evsry vsay) ma,
be kept up to ten millions. not nineteen mi,
lions as stated-the creek itself sometimes
| giving less than fire millions.
In Mr. s.anton's advocacy Of the Rocl
Creek project, he uses Capt. Meig.'s quan,ities
IN reservoirs; puts the supply at double a.
much as that gentleman calculated, and ther
takes Col. Hughes's estimate Of $500 ,OO0, whic
only proposed to bring 10 four or FIVE million.
daily, to build reservoir Of half the size O
II ID