Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-11-17
THE CANAL AND TIE CREEK.
;'aai Company Acquired It's Fights
Along the Creek.

: ;1aai Company Acquired Its Fights
Along the Creek.
his 20. in which it is held. as stated
>rAn, that the only rights the
,-. aud Ohio Canal Company has over
l;ora creek are those OF a riparian owner. the
attorney for the District reviews tho history OF
the canal ne states that the Chesapeake and
Ohio Canal Company had its origin in the Po-
tonac Company, which was chartered by Nir-
glnia and Maryland for the purpose of improving
the navigation o: the Potomac river from tide
water TO the highest point OH the North
branch. President Washington appears to have
taken considerable interest in this enterprise as
one of national Importance. The Potomac
COMPANY made the river nayigable for long.
nat-bottomed boats, called 'gondolas. by
means OF canals around the falls and rapids (its
canal at Great Falls being on the Virginia side
IA far ~ seneca. These gondolas made only
one trip. They were sold as old lumber at this
end of the canal. In ls22 the Potomac Com
any suspended operations and its property and
franchises subsequently passed into the hands
OF the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company.
The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal COMPANY was
chartered by the legislature of Virginia in 1925,
and afterward. in the same year, by the legis-
latare Of Maryland. The act of Virginia was
ratified add confirmed by the Congress of the
United States in March. 1926 4 Stat. 10D. so
TO carry into effect the provisions of its charter
in the District Of Columbia. The charter of
the company empowered 1t to- agree with the
owners Of any land through which the said
canal was intended to pass for the purchase,
Use and occupation thereof, and in case of dis
agreement TO apply to a justice of the peace for
a variant OF inguisition. to be directed TO the
',hcTIds of the several counties of MARYLAND
through which the canal should pass. The sheriff
vas to return the inquisition to the clerk of
In county court. and unless good cause was
-hOwu against it by u limited time II was 10 be
confirmed by the court. In 1880 the Chesa-
pcake and Ohio Canal Company acquired BY
purchase and condo mnatiOn the land on both
sides OF Rock creek in Washington and GeOrr e.
."wn necessary for the uses and purposes OF
n" canal As TO several of the parcels of land
taken, u VIII be noticed. the condemnations
extend to the channel of Rock creek The plat
book IN the assessor Office entitled Squares of
GeTgetown. fohos ], 2. 3, % and "a. shows
the lines OF the canal company property abut-
ting or the west side of Rock creek. On the
east slie Of the creek the lines of the canal
company Land il shown page 2 OF the latest
edition Of the Hopkins map Of Washington In
ls3l some question having arisen % to the
valllIty Of these COMBINATIONS. the proceed
ing having been conducted b. the United
States marshal for the District. whereas BY the
charter ther were to be conducted BY the
sherif- u the reverBl counties of Maryland
thrcGgh which the canal iasrod. Congress ell
acted 9Th stat. lg7l that all formations of
land in The District of Columbia for the canal
COMPANY made by the marshal any lawful
deputy marshal should be valid AZ though
1s-@e in MARYLAND through he agency of the
Sd IFS OF the several counties of that state
through which the canal passed.
The fc" simple in the land acquired by the
canal company was apparently taken. The
owners. n would seem from the proceeding.
were paid the entire value Of their lands in
clGding water privileges" But no authority
appears to haze been given the canal company
by congress to interfere with Rock creek i'll
any manner. and 1t would seem that the only
rights Of The canal company in Rock creek are
those Of q ny afian owner. The rights Of such
al owner neither he owns to the center of the
stream or to its banks IL that of access to the
naylGablc part in front of his lot the right to
fsh ~ She stream. the right to make landing,
wharf OF pier FOR his own or the use of the
public under proper regulations. He also owns
the accrctions to the soil. He is entitled to the
customary flow of water ANY diversion of the
wate- supply Is damage requiring compensa-
ton.
The canal company apparently supposed that
US riparian owner on both sides OF the creek
Its II de would include the rich right to the
stream. This Is TO be inferred. l think from
the fact That it acquired the land on both banks
for "A considerable distance above the mouth of
the creek. and the creek not being navigable it
erected a Dam to raise the water to make il nav
ISiD-t iOt maj OOdLs- II NOC!Q seem. tler,
that any ciair. the canal company may have 10
Rock creek Is limited to water privileges"
Rock creek at this point was tidewater of the
Potomac and the canal company had the right
TO lock its boats into the river BY way Of the
creek. II this be the extent OF the canal COM
Iany's claim then the arching OF the creek rs
proposed would entitle il to compensation ii its
water privileges were impaired or DESTROYED.
The Canal company would also be entitled 70
perhaps. for so much of its land
n might be taken for the abu;ments Of the pro-
posed arch and for the Use of its land during
the time employed in making the Improvement
In view OF the fact-aud l am informed il is
a fact that Rock creek is no longer used by the
canal company for canal purposes it might be
assumed chat the company would cooperate il
this great improvement. Especially is this SO
II. - understand II. il Is only necessary since
the erection of the outlet lock above George
town. fox the canal company to keep up the
Rock creek end Of the canal in order TO fulfill
its obligations 20 certain mill owners in George
town. since provision could be made for an out
let or waste way for the canal into the proposed
sewer II necessary. Ii seems to me the canal
company would view with grea. favor "a propo-
sitIon 10 arch Rock creek. considering the great
benefits that would result to it by the enhance
Inent Of Its property abutting thereon.