Pawtucket tribune. (Pawtucket, R.I.) 1890-189?, 1893-03-07
MILLS WATER RIGHTS
Bench Decisions Affecting
Lowell Corporations.
TROUBLE OVER A CANAL.
The Wamesit Company Figures Prom
inently In the Tangle.

Bos1oN, March THE big suit 60 deter
mine the rights of LoWell's largest mi IS
10 draw water from the canal at Whipple's
falls on the Concord river has been decided
10y the full bench Of the supreme court.
The conclusion of the courts Is that when
the state of the water in the Concord river
Is such that the canal will carry 2sS cubic
feet per second or more, the Faulkner mills
may draw y cubic feet per second during
II Ia hours per day, six days in the week;
the Chase mills, IS cubic feet; the Sterling
mills, 80 cubic feet; the American Bolt
company, 36 cubic feet; the Belvidere mills,
"a cubic feet the Wood mill, II cubic feet;
the Lowell bleachery, 80 cubic feet; the
Wamesit Power company, 6s cubic feet,
and any surplus above 2ss cubic feet per
second That when the state of the water
In the river is such that less than 2SS cubic
feet per second flow in the canal, each OF
the parties shall draw its proportional
part only of the actual flow.
The Wameset Power company is per-
petually enjoined from drawing any water
from the canal otherwise than by drawing
its G6-2Ssth parts, and any surplus over the
2ss feet during IL IL hours per day for six
days in the week whenever the water is not
running To waste
Over the Dam and Flashboards.
The court does not pass upon the ques-
tion of the obligation of the Wameset com
pany TO enlarge the canal.
This company was given possession of
the canal dam and other property con-
tiguous thereto by intermediate deeds from
Olive NJ. Whipple These various deeds
"A IN ba off
grantor would enlarge the canal if neces-
sary.
The court withholds Its final decision un-
til certain other interested parties are
made parties to the suit 10y an amendment
to the bill.
The decision Of the court upon the suit
for the partition of the water power is
against the Wamesit company. This cor
poration claimed that the other mills were
entitled To draw less water than the
amount granted in the deeds under which
they hold their respective privileges. This
contention rested upon the taking of water
from the Sudbury river 10y the city Of
Boston and the adjustment and payment
to those mills 10y the city of their damages.
IL was therefore argued that they had
Sold or Parted with
this contention the court says:
The taking of the water of the Sudbury at
Framingham had no effect to qualify or To
diminish the rights of the respondents To any
water which comes I'm the Concord river 10 the
pond. The city OF Boston did not assume or
have the right TO take water In Lowell. It's
action in taking the water of the sudbury at
Framingham undoubtedly lessened the flow Of
water at Lowell, and so gave the respondents
valid claim for damages, but did not other
wise affect them. The legal measures and
qualities of their rights In tho actual flow re-
mained the same. So far as their easements
In the dam and canal at Whpple's Falls are
concerned, the transaction between the city
and the mill owners has not affected or al
tered the respective rights and obligations OF
the dominant or the servient lands. .
The rights and obligations OF the parties with
reference To the mill privileges at Lowell are
no more affected or varied by the action Of the
city of Boston than II the volume of the Sud
bury In birmingham had been dimin-
ished by local drought or by the
clearing OF forests or reclaiming of swamps
The parties who sold and purchased
these lands and water rights knew that the
Concord river was factor TO be affected by
many causes liable
To Swell or to Diminish Its Volume,
and which might affect It's flow by operating
upon the river self, or upon its tributarie..
utN BIhnleh ana tOOk water privileges or
rights In the volume or flow OF the Concord
river at the dam. There IL no ground
for the contention that the respondents have
sold one-ffth Of their right 10 draw water
from the canal AZ Whipple's falls. The trans
action was wholly different, and the water
rights To be now partitoned were not affected
In nature or In quality, but in value by the
taking of the water Of the sudbury and the
payment of compensation therefor.
The suit brought by l.. j. Faulkner
against the Wamesit company to compel
the enlargement of the canals Is not TO De
prejudiced by the decision in the partition
suit, the court saying the bill in equity
must be amended 30 IA TO make Interested
persons parties to the suit
The late General Butler together with
j. y. Marshall and Preutiss Webster, were
counsel for the Wamesit company. Sol in
coin for the Faulkner, Shattuck & Munroe
for the Sterling and Belvidere mills. and
J.. ID. Brandeis and w. II. Dunbar for the
Lowell bleachery.