Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-10-03
The Georgetown water Question.
ANSWER OF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY BIRNEY
TO BILL FOR INIuNCTION.

town. against the District Commissioners
ard Wafer Registrar Lubey, the attorney
for fhe District, Mr.. William Birney. has.
for the defendant, filed an answer The hill
prsys for an II junction to prevent defend ants
from interfering with mplainant in bis
nEe of the Potomac water. and recttes what
be conceives to be his claims for perpetu al
free use OF said water. The answer Of Mr..
BiIney. after reserving to the defendants All
right OF exception to the bill, states thar de-
fen dants admit The matters set forth in the
further. that the act OF March Sd, 1859. inn,
poses upon the corporation of GEORGETOWN
rot only the restriction that "no expense
nan oevolve on the Upited States In conse-
quence OF the distribution" of Potomac wa
Ter, but also the further restriction that said
corporation shall by ordinance establish a
of water spportioned TO different classes of
ouildir gs In said city according to their size,
dimensions. assessed values, exposures to
bles, manufactures, or other purposes, num-
Der Of occupants or consumption of water.
measured by meter or otherwise, and to
such scale from time to time and to ex-
terd it to other descriptions of build
ines, &C.; TO collect such rents when so
fixed, IN advance or otherwise, through
such agents as they may authorizes,
from the owners or occupants OF all such
buildings who may use the water therein;
to stop the supply OF water TO any suci
dwelling upon q failure TO pay said rate,
charges or rent" that such annual rates TO
be paid by all who might use the water
provide sinking fund for the payment at
maturity Of the ten-yea bonds authorized
In the fourth section OF the act, and that
roration 10 pay the immediate expenses of
laying the wafer mains. Further, that by
tbe sixth section OF the act OF March 3, 1859,
Ii was provided that the cost OF laying main
water ply IS for the supply OF water to the
city OF &c orgetown should be paid by said
city; and the Urtted States engineer in
charge was prohibited from making any
contracts for said water mains and laying
the same unless the contracts should be APP
proved by said city, ard stipulated in the
should be mace BY the city of GeoreetoW ne
ard 1t was further decla red that the general
Cover nment should lay no water mains ex-
o s own Nv saS bsnpP and they
msje any promise, express or implied, 10
The complainant in consideration OF mis- pay
Ing any assessment or tax for the original
cost OF the water mains and laying them,
the United States would supply Complain
ant forever with water free OF cost.
~; TO this Paratraph DEFENDANTS answer
superintendent OF the water works OF the
United States at Georgetown, and that Au-
snst LIST, 1889, he was succeeded as such by
the 7th paragraph of the bill.
They admit that after the passage OF act
OF March 3, 1859 the corporation OF George
and estimates OF the cost OF distributing
Potomac water through Georgetown, (mean-
Ing thereby the cost of laying mains IN Ger
hydrants,) and that April llth, 1859, he esti-
mated at s56 COO, the cost OF distributing
water through all streets below Road street;
but they deny that said plans and estimates
included the cost OF supplying Individual
residents with water In their dwellings, and
say that they included only the cost Of six
e :.t forth xa On ' Ssss
18th, Of Meigs' report of February 9th, 1860;
and they further deny that Georgetown
water board it omitted certain streets on the t
plan and reduced the expenditure to about
S34 COO, aud did rot in 1889 and the early part
OF 1seo supply dwelling houses with water,
but limited their operations to laying mains
In the streets and establishing fire plugs as
guard against fires, and public hydrants
for the supply of citizens. except that under
The ordinance OF April sd, 1850, amended
August Goth, 1859, said corporation author
lied the tapping OF the water mains
for personal use OF the water On condi-
be subject to such lCater rates or tax as may
be hereafter imposed by this corporations,
and they say that defendants are advised
ordinances have never been repealed, but are
in force, and that the complainant, WEIGH,
and all other persons using the water In
Georgetown are by said ordln nc es, as well
as by law, subject 10 such water rates as
have been imposed by the law OF the
United States Of July 18th, 1876. They
admit that the corporation OF Georgetown
passed the resolutions and ordinances
men TONED In this paragraph OF complain
ants bill, (that they were ratified by Con-
eress as alleged,) but they say that one of
the ordinances so ratified, that OF April %,
1889, provided "that any person using the
water shall be subject to such water rates or
tax as may be hereafter imposed by this
not repealed; that section OF the U. 8. law
of March 8, 1859, authorizing the city OF
Georgetown to establish q scale OF annual
May 81, 1902, but that the powers conferred
by said last named act upon the corporation
OF GeOrgetown were cumulative And in addi-
ton to those conferred In the act of March
3, 1889; that under the act OF May 81, 1862, the
cost OF laying mains In front of lots In
Georgetown might be paid for by front foot
tax not exceeding 60 cents, or by an appro-
The laws and regulations for the distribution
Of water to individuals was to be made sub
Ject TO the restrictions OF both acts of May
p, 1852, and March 3, 1859.
10. Receiving to themselves all right OF ex-
ception TO incorrect statements, &c, OF this
paragraph, the defendants deny that said
the plans, &c, OF said engineer; they 'd deny
that the plars related to distribution OF
the water TO the dwellings, stores, stables,
DC, out say tney related TO laying the
They deny that the tax Of sixty cents front
foot afterwards proved TO be more than SUN.
cient 70 pay the whole cost of the work, but
say that the proceeds were not SUFFICIENT to
pay the costs. They deny that 1t was at that
time "clearly understood that no further
charge for the use OF water should at any
time thereafter be imposed on the owners OF
the property" and demand that fun and
clear proof shall be submitted by complain
ant OF the parties with whom he had such
understanding, Of the instrument Of writing,
If any, In which sucn Understanding was ex-
pressed, and II such understanding was by
parol, these defendants claim the benefs OF
The statute Of Limitation as II they had
specially pleaded the same. They deny that
N. Q. Meigs, at the date OF his report, Febru-
airy 10, 1860, was not on the part OF the United
States the engineer in charge of the Aque.
duct water works, which had ceased TO be
such August 4, 1859, as is shown by the bill,
and that bis remark as quoted In the bill
could not affect the liability Of the United
States in any manner; but that Meigs was
referring to the FIRST cost Of laying the mains
IN the streets, and meant no more than that
II Georgetown paid the cost of laying the
mains she would have no more bill to pay
on that account; brit that said Meigs did
not say or mean that Y the owner Of q
dwelling house In Georgetown, paid. DIP In
four years the cost of lay ing the street main
in front Of bis lot, that the United States
would be by that act bound to him in con-
tract tn ma v forou oil costa ~ etaon, fo~no