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

ALEXANDRIA Canal Company the sum OF six
hundred and fifty thousand dollars to help
to build il. Subsequently she sold to the
State of Virginia two thousand seven hun
dred and twenty shares Of the stock of the
company, which leaves three hundred and
scvcnty-cight thousand dollars rs the
amount actually expended by the city of
Alexandria on the canal. Besides this there
is q contingent liability upon the city Of
Alexandria. by reason of her guarantee of
the notes Of the Alexandria Canal Company.
This amount is part of her bonded debt to-
day. upon which she pays interest.
The city has received nothing for this
large outlay of money. Her stock in the
canal was transferred to the United States,
as required by the act of Congress appro-
priating three hundred thousand dollars to
the canal company. Tue city never has,
aud ii may be said she never expected to.
derive any benefit from the investment ex-
ccpt The incidental benefit from the trade of
the canal. The trade oftlie canal now is of
Importance to her, and /, for one, believe it
of vital moment for her interest 10 secure
the rermancncy Of the canal
The gentlemen who have represented the
Alexandria Canal since the close Of the war
| have, up to the present time, kept the canal
open. They have no other Interest in it
than any other citizen Of Alexandria, The
pcrmancncy of the canal has been, and is
now: assailcd The question is, shall the
city of Alexandria, without action on her
part, allow the canal to nc dcstroyedo The
Congress of the United States has the power
TO destroy it and may DO so if the present
| organization OF the Alcxantria Canal Com
pany, which is in the interest of the city of
Alexandria, should lie changed The Alex
andria Canal Company executed lease to
the Messrs. Quiglcy, DUNCAN and Wells of
all the property of the canal for the term of
nincty-ninc years. One Of the provisions in
said lease is that the canal company may
re.enter and possess themselves of all of
the said property for breach OF any one of
the covenants contained in the lease on the
part Of the lessecs. And the said lessees have
had possession OF the canal ever since For
! the past five or six years the question of a
free bridge over the aqueduct piers has been
agitatcd. AT the present time the citizens
OF Alexandria county, the city Of George
town, and the lcssecs Of the Alexandria
| Canal are urging the Congress of the United
States TO construct o free bridge on the
aqueduct piers over the Potomac river.
| The inducement on the part of the citizens
bridge from the State OF Virginia to the
District Of Columbia, and to be relived from
| paying toll over the aqueduct bridge The
nducemcnt on the part Of the city Of
Georgetown is to destroy the auueduct for
the purposes OF the canal and procure for
herself all the trade which heretofore went
10 the city Of Alexandria.
The city of Georgetown opposed the
construction Of the aquedct before the Con-
srcss Of the United States and was unsrlc-
| cessful. Daniel Webster denounced her op-
position then as Hn attempt to defeat lust
measure, simply because it was to benefit Il
neighbor." Thcreupon in 1886 the city of
Georgetown filed her bill in the Circuit Court
oil the United States to cnjoin and rcstrain
| further prosecution ofthc work unon the
aque'!nct. The SHIT was decided against
her by the Supreme Court of the L. s. and
the case will be found quoted in II Peters
page u. In April 1866 the city of George
town again lncmoriolncI I'onsrcn, to ,n.s
bill for the destruction of the aqueduct,
and sill later in the same year, she started
another project, whereby Congress was
again asked To destroy the a1ueduct. and
bill was introduced either for the purchase
OF the aqncduct, orif it could not be pur-
chased, for the condemnation and transfer
Both Of these measures failed. Again in the
fall of lSG. the city of Georgetown, using the
name and protesting to be for the interest
ofindividuals instituted two suits in theSu
preme Court Of the District Of Columbia, the
| object of which was to secure the dcstruc.
Ton o! The aqnednCt both of which proved
| unsuccessful. The same remorselcss enemy
al the a4ueduct,thc city ofGeorgctown, scil.
in" upon the machinery of the grand iurv of
the District of Columbia procured an indict
ment against the Iessees Of the canal FIR
maintaining the aqucduct, treating it as an
erection located and maintained in violation
| OF the law. But the court in an opinion
clear, learned, and exhaustive declared the
aqucduct to be lawful and the rights Of the
'essees under their lease 10 be invi olablc,
Again in the year 1873 another effort was
made before the Congress of the United
states BY the city of Georgetown for the
destruction OF the aQueduCt. 1t is worthy
10 DC noted mere that the iesSees resisted
this effort vigorously and it provcd success
ful. Again in 1879 bills were introduced in
both houses of Congress To authorize Inc
construction OLA bridge across the Potomac
| river at Or near the city OF Georgetown. and
they specially provided for the location
thereof upon the piers Of the auueduct
These bills were advocated by the citizens
of Alexandria county, the citizens of George
town, and to the surprise and establishment
of the city of Alexandria, also BIZ the lessces
of the Alexandria canal The city of Alley
andria, believing tina. although the object
OF the bills ostensiby for the free bridge
across the Potomac river, was, in point of
fact, but another effort lor the destruction OF
the aqueduct and thereby to lose her the
trade of the canal, opposed them and the
bills did not pass Then the Senate bill spo-
ken ofin the correspondence Of II. e. Wells
as the compromise bill" was introduced
and passed the Senate. The measure
having been referred by the House to the
District Committee. while pending before
them, the representatives ofthe Canal Com
pany and city of Alexandria, and also the
lessees of the canal, the representatives of
the citizens Of Alcxendria county and
Georgetown were givena hearing. 1t is as
serted that the measure was acceptable to
all parties except the city of Alexandria and
the canal company, and that those in control
of the Alexandria Canal Company not only
opposed its passage but secured its defeat
by the adoption and final passage of a much
less favorable bill. the act known as the law