Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1866-12-04

The ALEXANDRIA CANAL AoUEDUCT. Eve
suppose the following article from a citizen Of
Georgetown, published in the Georgetown
Courier, must express the sentiments OF many
reasonable people in Georgetown, as it does Of
all reasonable people out Of that place:
q desire to say few words in reference to
the petition of several of our citizens, request
ing the Corporation of Georgetown, to vote an
appropriation OF money to fee Counsel in a
ridiculous law suit, to be commenced by them
against the Alexandria Canal Company, which
was chartered by Congress 26th day OF May,
| 1880. (see Statutes at Large, vol. 4 folio, and
amended by Congress 18th day Of May. 1914
The alueduct has bad chartered existence
Of Sc years; and the water was let into the
same on the 4th July, lS43, SO that the work
has been in use 90 years as a way tor the trans
porjaton of boats navigating the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Are not the parties COM
plainants precuded from remonstrance by the
statute Of limitation and long acquiescence in
the existence of this work without ever assert
ing their rights, if they ever had any? The
Law assists the vigilant, not the sleeping, is
the maxim. a gain, when the Aqueduct was
contemplated, its locality was agreed upon by
director, representing the citizens OF George
peake and Ohio Canal Company; and when
assistance was needed from Congress TO under.
take the work, Committee from Alexandria
met Committee Of our Corporation in our
old Council Chamber, when Alexandria pro-
posed to unite with us and ask donation
from Congress 10 erect the Aqueduct and
toll bridge, to which we objected. We desired
free bridge, by the side Of the Aqueduct.-
The Ferry was then owned by Alexandra,
having purchased it at public sale: while we
were sleeping, Tor the sum Of il recollect
right, 200 dollars Alexandra would not con-
sent to have free bridge, and our committee
would not consent 10 have toll bridge, so
they disagreed Alexandria went to Congress
singIe handed, and obtained S400,0O0 for the
construction OF their Aquedact. (See acts of
Congress June 25th, 1882, and March Sd, 1887.
If We had consented TO have toll bridge by
the side Of the AQueduct, it would have been
the part Of wisdom having obtained which
we could have successfully petitioned Congress
a few years afterwards to have declared it free,
as they did the Potomac and Little Falls
Bridges. When the Aqueduct was being con-
strutccd, many citizens Of our town considered
the work DETRIMENTAL to the navigation of The
Potomac river, aud then The Recorder was in
structed to lay an INDUCTION, and prevent The
CTeCItOu VI the WUIh. Lie COURT Ielu LudC the
Corporation Of G Georgetown could not maintain
this suit on behalf OF the citizens. 1t was not
like the case of creditors bill, where the per-
sons bringing the suit by name have an interest
in the subject matter, which enables them to
sue, and others are treated as coplaintiff with
those named. The appellants have no authori-
ty to vindicate in a court OF justice the rights
of the citizens of their town in the enjoyment
of their property" The court further said
that party may maintain private action for
special damages even in the case of public
nuisance, but the citizen in such case, to main
tain his action, must aver and prove special
injury. ~ Peters, page 9i.)
Let us look at the position Of affairs when
the Aque6uct was being constructed. The
late General Mason was then the owned of
Analostan Island, the ferry at the foot of
Frederick street, the land along the Virginia
shore reaching nearly to the Falls bridge, and
the Columbia Foundry, where he manufactur-
ed, guns, shells, and implements Of war for the
United States, and which were transported
down the river from his foundry in sailing
vessels When the Aqueduct was completed,
this mode of transportation ceased and if
General Mason could have seen how he could
have prevented the construction of the Aque-
duct he would have done So He was not
man to sumber over his rights''