Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1885-11-20
The Harper,s Ferry Water

Power.-The Washington correspond
ent of the Baltimore Sun makes the fol-
lowing statement in regard TO the dis
pute between the Chesapeake & Ohio
Canal Company and the purchasers OF
the Government property at Harper's
Ferry:
"Reports have been put in circulation
that the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal is
to be run high and dry because the pur-
chasers of the government property at
Harper's Ferry intend to shut of the
water from the canal. Several OF the
statements which have been made con-
corning this matter are rather sensa-
tional. The facts are understood to be
as follows: The purchasers of the Har-
per's Ferry property, who are said to
have abundant capital, have announced
the purpose to establish extensive mills
for the manufacture of wood pulp pa
per, and their operations, they say, will
be such as to require the use Of the en-
tire water power, which is said to be
equal, if not superior. to that at any
other available point in the United
States. When the government acquired
the Harper's Ferry property 1t built
dam which diverted the flow of water
to the Virginia side. The government
acquired the entire water power, and
has always claimed and exercised abso-
lutte control over it. When the recent
sale was made it was with the under
standing that the purchasers should
succeed to all the right and title of the
government. Some time since the new
owners made test of the flow of water
and ascertained that when the feeder OF
the canal was open the depth of water
on the Virginia side was lowered sew
eral feet-equal to a thousand-horse
power. They therefore notified the ca
nal company of their intention to exer-
else the right to control the entire wa
ter power. The canal company, through
its president, replied, denying the
right as claimed, and serving notice
that if the water was cut off from the
canal. or any attempt made to Interfere
with its flow through the canal feeder,
a suit for criminal damage would be in
stituted in the courts Of the United
Of n
Judge McCue, who acted as agent OF the
government in the sale OF the property,
said to-day there can be no question that
the canal company has heretofore only
used the water by sufferance OF lhe
government, and that it has no right to
the continued use except by the permis-
sion of the purchasers from the govern
ment. One of the statements made
about the matter is that the dispute is
now pending befors.the solicitor for de-
cision, but Judge McCue said this was
an error. The government has made
the sale and handed over possession
and title. When the owners are ready
10 begin operations, which il Is not sup
posed will be very soon, they Will, II
thew so choose, cut the water Oft from
the canal. Undoubtedly the canal COM
pany will have the right to appeal 10
the courts for a settlement OF the ques-
ton. But il decided against the canal,
as the solicitor seems 10 think there Is
no doubt will be the case, 1t does not
necessarily involve that the canal Will
have to put its boats on wheels, for 1t
has another feeder several miles
above Harper's Ferry, about which
there Is no dispute. 1t is sup
posed the canal will rest its
case upon the fact that the Maryland
line extends to the Virginia shore, Jnst
as the District of Columbia line does
opposite Washington, butRs the United
States held and exercised its right for
seventy years and more, this point
would not seem to be of much avail.