Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1882-10-06
THE ALEXANDRIA CANAL CASE
OPINION OF JUDGE HUGHES ADVERSE TO
THE CITY.


THE CITY.
Judge Robert w. Hughes. in the
United States Circuit Court this morn
ing, in the case of the United States against
the city of Alexandria and the Alexandria
Canal Company, delivered his opinion. de-
claring the United States entitled to the
stock held By the city in the Alexandria
Canal Company. The following is the
opinion: r..
Z. S. CIRCUIT Court, EASTERN DISTRICT
OF VIRGINIA, AT ALEXANDRIA. 6TH OCT.,
1882
The United States Il
VS..
The City Of Alexandria and the IN equity
Alexandria Canal Company
Opinion Of Judge HHghes
The cities Of Georgetown, Washington
and Alexandria united their corporate cred
1T and resources with the United States
Virginia and Maryland in the construction
of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. About
the year 1886, they had exhausted them
selves in this behalf, and the canal was ,m-
finished. They applied to Congress for re-
lief. The form in which this relief should
be given was not definitely settled upon in
the first instance. But it finally took the
form indicated in the 'act for the relief of
the several corporate cities of the District of
Columbia" passed May 20, 1856. ) Statutes
at Large %. The plan was, that the United
States should pay certain debts of the three
several cities, incurred on account of the
canal taking in lieu Of them the shares
pany. 1t was stated in argument at bar.
that the debts thus paid by the United
States in cash. amounted to about So cents
in the dollar of the par value of the stock
received in exchange
While this measure was pending before
Congress, the city Of Alexandria brought to
the attention of that body, by an elaborate
y drawn memorial, her embarrassment and
urgent need Of relief in respect to the Alex
andra Canal, which was an extension of
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal from
| Georgetown into her own corporate limits.
This memorial was presented in January
1886. 1t simply asked relief, and did not
suggest any form i'll which it should be Civ
Ell. In May the act for the relief Of the
three cities on account of the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal was passed; and in Deem
Der 1886, Alexandria filed an additional
memorial suggesting that the relief which
she separately asked should be in the form
in which the three cities had received il in
The act Of May preceding, in respect to their
Indebtedness Tor the main canal. Aryan-
dria's claim for reliefin respect to hcrbranch
canal, rested upon the same equities and
considerations OF public justice and policy
on which that of the three cities had rested
in respect to the main work
She then owned thirty five hundred shares
of the stock of the Alexandria Canal Com
pany, though it SCENT now that she had as
yet completed paying for only 1900 shares
| There is nothing to show that Congress
was informed at this time of the fact that
she had not yet paid up her subscription for
part of her shares in the stock of the branch
| canal, and could not deliver them. a.
Congress responded favorably to Alexan-
dria's separate and additional claim TO re-
lief in respect to her separate and branch
canal Congress voted $500, 600 out Of the
Treasury to Alexandria, which was almost
precisely So per cent of the par value Of her
5000 shares. Tho act by which this pay
ment was authorized Was passed on the 3tl
March 1887. See sect. I'd of chapter Al OF
the acts of 1867; 5 Statutes at Large 100.
That act simply repeated in respect te the
branch canal the policy and purpose Ut THE
act of the proceeding Ma already men
L
not entertain Il doubt that it was in the con-
temptation of Congress that all the $500
shares which Alexandria had thus subscrb-
ed to the stock Of the Alexandria Canal
Company, should be turned over TO the
Secretary ofthe Treasury OH his payment to
her of the 100000 of cash appropriated by
the act OF March Sd, 1887. TO contend
otherwise seems to me to be contrary to
reason and all probability.
Shortly after the act last mentioned, the
authorities OF Alexandria turned over to the
Secretary Of the Treasury, upon payment
then made by that officer Of part of the sum
that had been appropriated for the city, ff-
teen hundred shares of canal stock, which
was all that she could then deliver.
The Secretary went on at different times
to pay other instruments of the appropriated
$3OO, 900 until all was paid. With this mon
ey Alexandria presumably completed the
payment of her subscriptions on her remain
ing 1000 shares of stock but these shares
were never delivered to the Secretary ofthe
Treasury, nor never called for.
regard this omission as an act of sheer
inadvertencc. The stock became orhad be-
come absolutely valuecss in the market
and II never seems to have occurred to the
mind of any Secretary of the Treasury to
call upon Alexandria for the undclivered
1000 shares still due.
The city afterwards subscribed for 800
additional shares Of this stock in the Alex
andria Canal, making in all, with that de-
livered to the Secretary of the Treasury
5000 shares. Ten years after the act of
Congress which has been mentioned she
made an exchange Of 2,720 of her shares
with the State of Virginia for an equivalent
amount of State bonds 1T par value, and has
now only $50 left at her disposal.
The bill in this case is filed to require Il
specific performance by Alexandria of her
obligation under the act of Congress of
March Sd, 1887. l think that nothing could
we'll be more clear than the obligation Of
Alexandria to comply with the prayer ofthe
bill, by delivering to the Secretary of the
Treasury the 1000 additional shares of the
stock of the Alexandria Canal Company
still due.
1t is objected by her counsel that the lapse
of time has been so great, and the laches Of
the United States so signal, that it would be
in emit bla now fnr A lnyo n5rio tn ha ,,lI o5