Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1884-02-14
THE CANAL.


Seeing in the GAZETTE OF Saturday your
comments in reference to the pending Dill
for free bridge across the Potomac, coup
led with suggestion that the city of Alex
andria and the Alexandria Canal Company
should do something toward shaving thel nm
terests protected, / beg leave to suggest lor
YOUR consideration whether it Is not at this
time apparent that the interests OF the city
of Alexandria and of the Canal Company,
which are all vitality involved, may not be
protected efficiently by consentiDg to the
use of the piers under the provisions of the
act of 1881.
We have all gotten beyond the period
where we can afford to indulge in prejudice
or animosity, and where our Interests re-
| uure that we should look the real facts
plainly 10 the face. The lessees are willing
TO accept the terms of the bill without any
condition whatever. The United States is
declared to he the lawful owner of $500
shares of the stock of the Canal Company.
About that there need be no question. Every
| man can decide for himself by examining
! the final DEGREES already entered in the case
in the United States Court.
tits true that only 22SO shares have been
actually delivered, but in the opinion deliv-
cred by Judge Hughes last week he said
that while he would not, owing to the lapse
of lime, require the State of Virginia to de.
liver to the United States the remaining
1920 shares of stock, it was proper for
the United States to have made the
application in order TO the establishment OF
its right to receive compensation prayed for
| l.:l 10 "a ~ far
| the 1920 shares thus withheld, and that the
Court was then and is now ready TO proceed
| in the matter of u decree for such compen-
sation, aud the last clause of the decree re-
served the case for that very proceeding.
All Of which means simply this, that the
United States and those acting in harmony
with it hold and can produce more than u
majority of all of the stock, the certificates
| for which are now in existence.
| In the next place there are to-day about
$35 900 ofjudgments against the canal COM
pany which nobody will advance the money
to pay, and it is idle TO conceal the fact that
the canal is in momentary danger of being
swept out of existence By sale under these
judgements The first Of $4,000 is owned
by Isaacs, Taylor and Williams, of Rich
mond and the second BY the lessees.
And in the next place it is as idle to deny
the fact not only that the United States has
the right is recover the compensation above,
but that the settled law is that where trust
property has been actually sold, the meas
ure Of damages which the beneficiary is
entitled to therefor, is if he chooses to accept
it, the price at which the stock was sold,
with interest at per cent. from the day Of
such sale until paid to-wit S122, ZOO, with
interest from 1917, which amounts together
to 1892, $40.
Looking, then, facts in the face, is it not
wise to avert, if possible, sale of the canal
under decree in equity? Next, is it not
wise, if possible, to preserve the canal as q
canal, which is done by the bill of 1880?
In the next place, is it not wise, il posi-
BILE, to prevent the recovery Of such a
ruinous or any judgment against the city OF
| Alexandria as is mentioned above?
IF the pending bill should be passed for
free bridge at the Sisters" it would there.
fore be utterly impossible to save the canal
from sale under the DEGREES referred to- 1t
would also be greatly more difficult to main
tain the canal for canal purposes, for that
bill furnishing, as it does permanent foun-
dation for the trough OF the canal removes
the great obstacle that has always stood in
the way of maintaining it as a canal.
And the refusal by the Alexandria Canal
Company acting through the citizens OF the
| city of Alexandria, to accept the terms of
the bill of 1881, would be a very persuasive
reason why the United States should claim
| the judgment which it is entitled to, and
thereby make good the loss which it incurs
| in being compelled by that refusal to build
| the bridge at much increased expense, for
the judgment which it would receive against
Alexandria would more than pay the cost of
free bridge at the "Three Sisters"
Can any one doubt that it would be in the
power Of your Senators and Representatives
to obtain from Congress release of this
claim against Alexandria on condition that
the right was surrendered to the United
States to use the piers for free bridge!
And is it not certain that the friends Of
free bridge everywhere would be satisfied,
inasmuch as the right to use the bridge
could be vested absolutely in the United
States within ten days after the consent was
given!
W. w. DUNCAN, for Lessees.
p. S.-The bridge bill of 1881 is found at
page 32S Revised Statutes of 1S79-1SSl, vol.
81.
All that Alexandria wants in the prem
ises, and for which she will most strenuous
ly contend, is that her canal trade shall not
be interfered with and that the Aqueduct
and canal shall be kept in thorough repair
all the time, as expressed in the lease to
Qnigley, Wells aud DUNCAN. If the Gov
eminent wants the use Of the piers of the
Aqueduct it should be granted upon such
conditions as will insure the perpetuity and
keeping in repair of the structure, and upon
no others, and we feel sure that any other
proposition will be rejected As to
judgment being obtained against the city