Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1868-03-05
LOCAL. NEWS.
THURSDAY EVENING. MARCH 5.


the verdict Of the jury in this case, and to-day
republish from the Washington Republican
the proceedings which led to the result, and
which will doubtless be read with interest
General Wells began his reply to the arrgu-
mont az the persecution, made on the previous
day, when
The Court said that the arguments must be
restricted to the fourth count OF the indictment
which. ais mentioned yesterday, charges the de-
PENDANTS with nuisance in altering the struc-
-ture ofthe former aqueduct, to fit it tor anoth-
erEnurpose. This limitation of the argument
was an intimation that the Court was satisfied
that the auueduct as it formerly existed, or as
mere canal aqueduct, was not a nuisance.
The argument being thus confined, the de-
PENDANTS informally demurred to the fourth
count, as not setting forth the alleged offence
with sufficient particularly.
!. Mr. Brent argued that as the defendants, had
pleaded to the Indictment they had waved OBJ
lection to the form of this count.
b Gen. Wells urged that the defendants were
called in this court to answer a charge OF max
ing nuisance in certain additions ana aitera-
tons" without any information as TO Wnat spe-
cifc additions and alterations were meant.
Mr.. Brent. Give 1ls chance and vel show
that in evidence. ~,
Gen. Wells. But suppose we plead guilty IN
this solemn. presence, what judgment can be
made? We announce our willingness to aoate
the additions and alterations complained OF.
How can the court determine what these a!tera-
tions and additions are? The indefoite nature
Of the charge precluded definite judgment
thereon.
follows:
This.is an Indictment against the canal COM
many for nuisance, wherein they are charged
with maintaining an obstruction In the Toto
mac river, the Indictment assuming that the
aoueduc,, Tor want OF legality, constitutes
nuisance. Waving proof, the defendants move
the Court to wrest the case from the jury on
the ground that the Indictment charges no lc-
cal offence. This is equivalent to demurrer
TO the Indictment, and raises the question: Is
there nuisance here? The Indictment SETS
forth that the auueduct was constructed with
out authority, in obstruction to naV!gasioh' ana
is, therefore, nuisance.
The prosecution admit there was authority
to construct an aqueduct, but maintain that
this. STRUCTURE is made in excess OF SLch
authority. 1t is settled that Congress has the
nower over commerce even to the extent or
obstructipg nayigable river. Now, Congress
in 1880 authorized the company to construct
this work and all others needed for the purpose
at the discretion Of the directors OF the corpora
,ion, The exercise of that discretion was sub
ordinatcd to the rules of legal proceeding
among Others that in carrying out the grant
they should indict as little injury as possible
upon Others In acting upon, this rule the
question is, what departure therefrom would
subject the defendants to criminal prosecu-
: ton A Aagitious departure from this rule
should be shown to authorize acourt to DIES,
troy work costing vast sum OF money. and
which has outlived itself, needing to be re-
placed now by new structure.
This IS not civil action; tits criminal pro.
ceedipg, publishing severely and ending IN the
Obstruction of the thing complained of. The
law will visit no such punishment unless 1t can
see the offence without the aid OF glasses. The
law evidently, when this power was granted,
contemplated an obstruction Of some sort to
navigation, and the limits within which the
canal company was allowed to cross the river
show conclusively that crossing over navlga-
BILE water was intended by the act of 1880.
This is the last we hear Of this structure I'm
tillS32, when We find law giving 500, 1000 IN
contemplation of this very structure, to be
erected at or near the city Of Georgetown:
This is an act of which the Court is permitted
to take notice, and it did not mean that the
canal should 20 up to the falls to cross, but
that the auueduct should be made at or near
Georgetown. oa-
The next we hear Of this subject was in 1887,
when the aqueduct was in progress, not at the
falls, but at Georgetown, where In 1880 1T was
contemplated the work should be built AT
that ii ne Congress gave $500, 900 to carry on
the work there. The location at that time was
not mere conjecture it was already made,
the piers were in part built, and the appro.
priaiion was made upon that solid foundation
The structure was then nearly ready to open
ND its advantages to the great West, and re-
ceive that trade which, despite its unfortunate
experiences, will yet pour upon this work; Tor,
if this nation has future, this canal has one.
But as we proceed we find in 1914, Congress
proceeded to enact penal code Tor the protec-
ton of the completed aqueduct, and forbid
any one to ipiure or destroy it, under severe
penalties. Hence, in this case the court would
be involved in the sbsurdity OF making the
United States complain OF q nuisance which 1t
had enacted laws declaring it criminal to lnjure
or destroy. The history of the work, the laps:
oftime since the erection of this structure, the
work of century, all concur IN demonstrating
the legality of this work.
Although there was no statute OF limitations
for nuisance, yet the effect OF time added ITS
age to the security of vested right, and would
add additional strength to the defence in this
case.
This was his view OF the first three counts,
but the fourth count remained to be disposed
Of. That count charges the defendants 'n
making additions and alterations to the strpc-
ture which make nuisance The idea lnvov-
ed 10 this count is an indictable idea, and if It
is tangible 50 that a court and jury can handle
it, there is no power in the court to wrest 1t
from the jury. 1t is contended that this allie
cation is sufficient to charge crime. " hen
this Indictment was first read it appeared de-
fcctive; il is nothing; it is not as definite as
piece Of chalk there is nothing tangible about
it. These alterations may be thick or thin
wide or narrow, Of wood or iron, large or small,
looking up the river or down, towards George
town or aman from II There Is nothing that