Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-12-05
ANOTHER DAY PUT In
On the Appeal of the United States
From the Appropriation
MADE BY THE BOARD OF VIEWERS
For the Purchase of Lock No. From the
Navigation Company.
THE NEWS OF ONE DAY IN TIE COURTS

which was argued Wednesday, was decided
Yesterday by Judge Acheson. His Honor
did not feel disposed to declare the section
of the act of Congress referred to as uncon-
stitutional, and he would continue to hear
testimony on the actual value of the prop
erty in question. leaving the case to go to
the Supreme Court, as it probably would,
without incumbrance.
Colonel T. P. Roberts was recalled, and
explained the figures submitted on Tuesday.
Colonel Roberts explained that the company
having done the work itself. saved fully
S11 900 or S12, 900 by reason Of its extensive
plant and facilities, and it was therefore
done considerably cheaper than it could be
done by contractors.
Jacob Wainwright, who was engineer and
contractor for Lock No. 8, had inspected
Lock and Dam No. Z. He stated that he
would not undertake to build the lock and
dam for the figure named as its cost. Wit
ness thought the dam was better and more
valuable to-day than when it was built.
Judge Acheson wanted TO know the actual
amount for which Mr.. Wainwright would
undertake to build the lock and dam. Wit
ness, after considerable figuring, stated that
he would not undertake it for less than
$685. 6SS, and this only included the actual
work done by the contractor, and was ex-
elusive of dredging and other work done by
the company.
THE COMPANY HAS AN OFFER.
Mr.. Shiras made an offer for the company.
He stated that the stock of the Monongahela
Navigation Company is divided into 32, ,639
shares, at the par value of $50 share, upon
which annual dividends of II per cent have
been paid. The actual tolls of the company
amount to S24O, 900 per annum. The actual
| tolls of lock No. Z amount to 81, 800 year,
with prospect of very large increase within
the next few years. The stock of the COM
pany has now a value abroad of 500, and
| the total property of tine company amounts
! to 81, 900, 000 1t should also be taken into
consideration that the Monongahela river
was not navigable stream to any extent
until the navigation company put in the
Improvements.
District Attorney Lyon objected to the
point about the river not being navigable,
until the improvements were made.
Captain Cowan was put ons the stand to
show that the river was not navigable. Wit
ness stated that he was in the employ of the
navigation company for many years and
/ lives at Lock No. 4. He remembered the
| river before the construction OF the dams.
The river was never navigable, except dur.
ing flood. 1t was a rare thing to see q
steamboat up the river, and people would
crowd down to the wharf to see one. In
those days keelboats were used almost alto
gether The keelboat was something like 9
canal boat. and had to be pulled by horses
On cross examination the witness stated
that prior to 1884, and'the building of Loci
No., no boats ran regularly above Browns
vile.
Mr.. Shiras renewed his offer of the point,
mentioned above. District Attorney Lyor
entered general objection, which was sus
tanned by the court, and exceptions taken by
Mr.. Shiras for the appellees, and thi:
closed this side of the case.
COLONEL MERRILL's OPINION.
District Attorney Ivon stated that b,
would make no formal opening, as the cour
was familiar with the case. Colonel William
Z. Merrill was then called to the stand. H.
stated that he was Lieutenant Colonel O.
the United States Engineer Corps. and haG
charge of the work on the Ohio and Monon
gahela rivers since 1870. He designed ant
built lock and dam No. s, and has under hi
charge at present ten dams, and has design
for two more. No. 8 dam, which was opened
for navigation about one year ago, is abou
three miles above No. 7. Witness had seer
lock No. every year, and also saw it durinl
the course of its construction. Witnes
then examined the estimate of the cost o
| No. Z, and said he thought it was a fai
price for it. Some figures, ne thought, wer
very high and others low. A fair price fo
the dam was what it cost notwithstandln,
the deterioration of time, its life havinj
been lessened by six years of service. Dam
do not improve with age, because the timbe
must in time decay. The settlement of filtl
above dam also has bad effect on it. Th
lock wall of the dam is in a very bad con
dition, and must be torn down and rebuilt
The cement in it was bad and is use
less 1t causes an internal sweliin,
in the walls, and while 1t doe
not seriously affect the condition of the lock
it is an unfortunate state Of affairs. Wit
ness did not think it would cost more +
build lock now than it did in 1884. II
thought more money was paid for the loci
than it was actually worth when it was built
and it is worth considerably less now tha
when it was built, the reason being that
would cost at least $40, 900 to put the wal
into proper condition.
On cross-examination witness stated tina
the cement used was Buffalo cement. Hi
examination of the lock was while on
steamboat and going through it. The wit
ness stated that so years ago the question Q
draining the Monongahela river was one o
serious doubt, but experience has taugh
that the work is not very difficult.
The case will 60 on, and will likely b
finished to-day.