Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1882-12-22

louSSl1Cut was ISIl W llu luC blStilCe SUlN-
mittec. The bill was not acted upon by the
House, and the canal company never had
an opportunity to accept it, Whether or
not the canal company would consent to
convey the fee.simple title in the piers to the
Government cannot say, but in my opin
ion the company would do So Whether or
not The canal company would consent that
the hundred thousand dollars, the consdera-
ton for the title TO the piers, should be paid
to The lcssees | cannot say, but, in my opin
lon she would not, for the following lca.
sons
According TO the report of the lcssces to
the canal company. they have expended
more than two hundred thousand dollars in
putting the canal in navigable condition un-
der the lease, and they have expended an
nually about eleven thousand dollars to keep
it in condition The revenue from bridge
tolls annually is about ten thousands dollars
and from canal tolls annually about thirty
five hundred dollars according to the re-
| ports of the lessees to the Alexandria Canal
Company. Under the lease the lessees can
cease to hold the canal property at any
time, and the canal Company can
re-enter and reposess the property, and
should the bill pass and the hundred thou
sand dollars be paid to the lcssecs, and there
by the tolls from the bridge, amounting to
ten thousand dollars per annum, be taken
from the receipts, the revenues from the ca
nal would only be thirty-fve hundred dol
lars, which would be insufficient to pay the
annual expenses of the canal, which have
been eleven thousand dollars per annum,
and would be about eight thousand dollars
ifthe Government paid for keeping up the
structure upon which the trough or trunk
would rest, as is proposed to do by the said
BILL Consequently the receipts per annum
would be about forty-fve hundred dollars
less than the expenses per annum. What
would be the inducement for the lessees to
hold the canal property after the acceptance
Of the said bill, in view of an annual loss of
forty-five hundred dollars? 1t may be de-
clared to be an absolute certainly that they
would abandon the canal property and cease
10 hold it under their lease: and, should
they do so, the canal company would re-en-
ter and repossess the said property, the an
nual receipts from which would not pay
the annual expenses by forty-ive hum
drcd dollars. The proposition of the canal
company always has been and is that the
consideration, the hundred thousand dollars
the price to be paid for the piers should not
be paid to the lessees but only the interest
thereon so long rs they held under The lease
which would be in lieu Of the tolls recei, cd
from the bridge, and when they ceased TO
hold under the lease. and the canal COM
! pany repossessed itself of the canal property
that the hundred thousand dollars should
be paid to it. Another proposition of the
canal company was that the Government,
a. the consideration for the fee-simp!e title
to the piers, should pay certain sum annu-
ally for ever to be received by the lcssees as
long rs they hold under the lease, and,
when they cease to so hold and the canal
company reposess the property, to be
received by it which it could Use to
keep. up the trough or trunk, and
which would be in lieu Of the tolls
from the aqueduct bridge. Neither of these
propositions was acceptable to the lcssees.
The bill passed by Congress in 1881 was not
acceptable to the canal company, or to the
city of Alexandria, although acceptable to
the lessccs, and the city of Georgetown and
tie citizens Of Alexandria county, and
Was formally declined the rpr. o+ tho Al
cNandrla Canal Company for the following
rrasons:
The bill provided the Secretary of War
might, in his discretion, purchase the aque-
duct bridge, provided it could be purchased
for il sum not exceeding cighty-five thou
sand dollars, and ifa fee-simple title could
be secured to the United States and it fur.
thcr provided that the canal company or its
lessecs should have the right to maintain.
at its own expense, the canal aquetluct and
to attach it or suspend it from the said
bridge and it further provided that if the
canal company or its lessees, at any time
for the space of six months should fail TO
use such aqueduct forthc purposes Of the ca
nal, or fail to keep tht same in good condition
or repair or shall use it for other than the canal
purposes, then all rights Of the said canal COM
pany, its lesseee assigns, in the said bridge and
| property should cease and determine 1t will b,
seen that by this bill the lcssecs get cighty.fye
thousand dollars and have the power to destroy
the canal. The city of Georgetown is in favor Sf
this bill because it would destroy the canal The
cssecs are i'll favor Of the bill because it nuts
| 'lghtS-ivc thousand dollars in their pockets. and
the citizens of Alexandria county are in favor of
IL because it secures them free bridge. But the
city OF Alexandria is not i'll favor of it becau &c it
destroys the canal which would take away the
tradc thereon from her The present organi2a-
ton of the canal company are opposed to it be-
cause II would injurc the interests of the CITY of
Alexandria. 1 will state that Mr.. II. H. Wells an.
pa&rcu before the board of directors and advocated
the said bill and argued to persuade them to &C.
gGpt II, but they very respectfully declined
linen suit Is Instituted in the United States
Court by the United States against the city OF
Alexandria and canal company the object being to
change the present organization Of the canal COM
Pohs ~ outaiulHS ulJorltS OI the stock and
organizc it in the interest Of those who are in
! favor of the bill of 1881, or some other bill
equally as injurious to the city of Alexandria, so
that it would receive the consent of the canal
company, which is required by the lease in which
suit Mr.. II. II. Wells appeared as special coun-
sci for the Government to accomplish the said OBJ
iect. 1t appears from the card of Mr. H. II Wells
that if the existing legislation will not accomplish
the object of the cssees, the city of Georgetown
and the citizens of Alexandria county then the
said lessees willing assist in procuring the
passage of what is known as the condemnation
1ll which is now pending before the House of
Representatives, and which is more unfavorable
to the canal company or Alexandria, The arcu-
meat OF Mr.. Wells, in answer to the question of
the canal company, what guarantee would the
company have for the perpetuty of the canal if |
the bill of 1881 was accepted was simply that the
peraonal covenant of the essees to keep in renair
and operate the canal, contained in the lease was
the protection therefor. The canal company did |
not consider that said covenant was of any value
and consequently, by unanimous vote Of the |
board OF directors, rejected the measure: and !
believe that the canal company in such action is
sustained by the citizens of the city of Alexandria
whose interest was desired to be protected The |
long and the short of the matter that the cssees
mol nnc