The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-03-05
THE COURTs.

General Wells begun his reply to the argu-
mcnts Of the prosecution, made yesterday,
The Court said that the arg Iments must be
restricted TO the fourth eoui OF the indictment,
which, as mentioned yeste dsj, charges the de-
PENDANTS with q nuisance IN altering the struc-
purpose. This Limitation OF the argument was
The aaueduSt as Il formerly existed or as mere mere
canal aqueduct, was not . \ iisance.
The, Argument being thus confined, the defend.
as not setting forth the alleged offence with suf
"G Mr.; Brent srsas3 tina. a. the defendant. had
lection TO the form Of this count. lie quoted
English presidents to show that In cases similar
to the present no greater particularly had been
den. Wells urged that the defendants were
called In this court to answer a charge of max
tions,n without any information as to what
specific additions and alterations were meant.
MI: Brent. Give US chance and Wen show
Gen. Wells. But suppose we plead guilty in
this solemn presence, what judgment can be
made We annolnce our willingness, to sbatc
How can the court determine what these altera.
lions and additions arel The indefinite nature
Of the Charge precludcd definite judgment
The Court gave Its judgment in substance as
This il an Indictment against the canal com.
pany for nuisance, wherein they are charged
with maintaining an obstruction In the Potomac
river, the indictment assuming that the aque-
Waving proof, the defendants move the Court
70 wrest the case from the jury on the ground
that the indictment charges no legal offence
This is equivalent to demurrer TO the indict-
ment, and raises the question: Is there a null
sAnce herci The indictment sets forth that the
aqueduct was constructed without authority, In
obstruction to navigation. and lie, therefore, a
nuisance.
The prosecution admit there was authority to
I,.aN I,,N ID. t.l.. tl.a .l.I.
structure Is made In excess Of such authority.
1t 10 settled that Congress has the power over
commerce even to the extent of obstructing a
navigable river. Now, Congress in 1880 author
lied the company to construct this work and all
others needed for the purpose at the discretion
else OF that discretion was subofdinated to the
rules OF legal proceedings among others that In
carrying out the grant they should inlet as lit
upon Iii: rule the question is, what depaftars
criminal prosecution: A asgitious departure
court to destroy a work costing vast sum OF
money, and which has outlived itself needing to
be r fsDnss nos PSw .eSn Il srmn.
ceeding, punishing severely and ending in the
destruction of the thing complained Of. The
see the offence without the aid Of glasses. The
law evidently, when this power was granted,
contemplated an obstruction OF some sort to nav.
igation, and the limits within which the canal
company was allowed to cross the river show
conclusively that a crossing over navigable
water was Intended BY the act of 1880
This is the last we hear of this structure until
1882, when we nnd law giving 100000 In con.
temptation Of this very structure, to be erected
At or r, near the city Of Ieorgetowh. This is an
tce, and il did not mean ths canal should no 70
up to the falls to cross, but that the aqueduct
should be made al or near Georgetown.
The next we hear OF this subject was in 1887,
falls, but at Georgetown, where In 1880 1t was con-
N m la N h. hail . ..s
time Congress gave $500 900 to carry on the work
there. The location at that time was not mere
conjecture; 4 was already made, the piers were
In part built, and the appropriation was made
upon that solid foundation. The structure was
then nearly ready to open up It's advantages to
despite its unfortunate experiences, will yet
pour upon this work; for, Ii this nation has 4
future, this canal has one.
proceeded to enact apenal code for the protec-
tion OF the completed aqueduct and forbid any
one oinjure or destroy 1t, under severe penal.
involved in the absurdity Of making the United
States complain Of nuisance which 1t had en-.
acted laws declaring It criminal 10 injure or de-
stroy. The history Of the work, the lapse Of
time since the erection of this structure, the
work OF a 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
case.
This was his view of the Grst three counts, but
the fourth count remained to be disposed OF.
That count charges the defendants sin making
additions and alterations" to the structure which
make nuisance. The idea involved In this
count 10 an indictable idea, and II 1t Is tangible
so that court and jury can handle II, there is
no power In the court to wrest II from the jury.
u is eontended that this allegation is sufficient
nrst read it appeared defective; 1t is nothing; il
Is net a. definite as a 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 aeorgetown or away from 1t. There is
1t does include. Laughter How could the
marshal execute judgment Of the court upon
ho should Abatc certain alterations and add.
tions," and when he called upon the court for
more specific directions the court would still be
obliged indefinitely to direct him to abate seer.
The Indictment would require decree for
specific performance, and 1t would be Impossible
Tor aJury to Ind verdict or a marshal to exc
cute a judgment on Its present count.
The Court is therefore compelled to announce
as Its judgment; That the aqueduct as completed
IN 1881, was legal structure, fortified BY more
legal sanctions than any corporate structure
that the Court had ever known before. This
must dismiss the fourth count as fatally defee'
tive. The motion Of the defendant for an In.
s.ruction to the jury that no offence was legally
charged against them must be granted.
The jury thereupon found verdict OF ac-
DIT. Brent entered an appeal to the court In
bdnc.
CALENDAR TODAY.
The following cases are fixed for trial to-day:
Henry Taylor, illegal yotingi Mary Wood, as.
sault and battery; Richard smith, assault; Jos.
NJ. Keller, ASSAULT Thomas II. Huies, larceny
Daniel KIeemer, larceny: L. W. Howard, alias
Edward Howard, passing counterfeit money;
Timothy Hurley, violating internal revende
laws; the same, removing spirits contrary to
law.
Adjourned.
CIRCUIT CouRr-Judgs Wgr.-This court i'm.
mediately upon opening took up the case left
over yesterday unfinished.
Owen Wilson vs. Brooke Mackall, IT,
Action for fees resisted on the ground that the
PLAINTIFF employed, not the firm, but one me ber
who was not now connected with the firm; that
the PLAINTIFF did not discharge their duty and
were dismissed by plaintiff. 1t appeared In evil
dence that the plaintiffs did draw many papers
and attended to the business for some time.
The Court instructed the jury that the plain
tiis as surviving partners were entitled to all
debts due the late firm; that although the de-
PENDANT employed Mr. Corwin, not now mem.
Der, yet IL the defendants business was con-
Quoted by the firm with the assent Of the de-
PENDANT he was responsible to them for fees; that
II there was a contract for fees contingent on
success, and the plaintiffs were dismissed before
Its conclusion, without their fault, the plaintiffs
were entitled to recover much their Sc ices
were reasonably worth.
The jury retired, and after remaining out some
time, returned verdict Of 1900 for tho plajRtils
1855. Schudhardt Il Webb vs.. Joseph Thornton
Cox; Kennedy and Webb. Action by endorseT