Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-09-04
.PERMIE:::TO BUILD DAM
y
Great FalIssPower Company's
Application Approved.
PENDING FOR YEARS
DIFFERENCES REGARDING. ENGI-
NEERING FEATURES SETTLED.
Work to Be Done Without Expense to
the United States Gov
eminent.


of the Great Falls Power Company for per-
mission to construct dam across the Po-
tomac river at Great Falls. to connect with
the government dam at that point near
the Maryland shore THIS application has
been pending before the War Department
for several years. The proposed dam Is
incidental to the development Of the plans
Of the Company In the establishment OF
large power plant at that point. Tho delay
In action was due mainly to difference OF
opinion as to the engineering feature Of the
work. such as the location of the dam with
reference to the government dam and the
effect Of its construction on the water sup
ply of the District.
These differences have all been satisfactor-
lily adjusted and Acting Secretary Oliver has
to build its dam under conditions designed
to fully safeguard the interests OF the
United States In the matter OF the water
supply of the District as well as against
any and all claims for howage on account
of the raising of the water bed as re-
suit o fthe new dam. and the proposed rails.
ing of the government DAM II is asreeu
that the latter work shall De zone Dy the
power company without expense to the
government and shall be subject to the In
spection and approval of the engineer OF
ffcer in charge Of the Washington aque-
duct. ~
AL 04O AASUA kSAOseS"
There Is an exceedingly interesting MS
tory behind this action of the War Depart
ment. The Great Falls Power Company
was incorporated in 1889. to use Tor manu-
featuring purposes the water power OF the
Great Falls of the Potomac. Soon after the
company acquired land for the purpose and
laid out the projected town OF South
Lowell Not until 1853, however, did the
project Of using the water for manufactur
ing purposes take shape In that year the
Maryland legisla eure passed an act au-
thorizng the president to purchase or con-
denim lands for the sole purpose of furnish
ing water to Washington and Georgetown,
in the same manner as prescribed IN the
case of the Chesapeake and Ohio canal
In 1858 the United States procured con-
demnation and "a sheriff's jury awarded
$15S,O0O to the Great Falls company. The
United States had the award set aside and
q new condemnation ordered, but did not
proceed Herewith Instead the government
went on and builb its aqueduct. spending
about 81, 800. 900 thereon In 1862 the United
States and the power company made an
agreement Of arbitration, known as the
Curtis arbitration The arbtrators were
Judge Curtis, !. l.. Williams of Indiana,
]. r. Swan of Ohio, Linus Child of Massa-
chusetts and George NJ Dallas of Pennsyl-
vania. In the following year AlonZo c.
Paige of New York was substituted for Mr.
Dallas, and it was agreed that the arbltra-
tors might award costs. This agreement
was signed by ]. p Usher, acting secretary
of the interior s,13 -
-Four Plans Submitted.
The United States submitted to the arbi-
traitors four plans of'tts operations and the
arbitrator awarded the Great Falls Power
Company damages as follows: Under dam
B, $4,000: under dam A. $50. 7e6; under dam
c. SIT 200. and under plan four SIS .692 They
also awarded costs. against the United
States to the amount of $12. 161. 81 The ar
bitrators decided that IL either dam A or
C. was adopted the Great Falls Company
should have a canal extending above the
government dam on the Virginia side so
| that it could use the water subject to the
superior right of the United States to take
all the water that could pass through a
nine foot conduit. The United States paid
the costs, but made no payment on account
of the award .
In 1867 the United States built a dam
from the Maryland shore one-third the DIS
lance across the Potomac to Conns Island,
owned by the company, which structure
was substantially the equivalent of plan
No l. The Great Falls Power Company
brought suit In the Court of Claims. The
right of the Secretary of the Interior to
make an arbitration was disputed. Other
objections were raised but the court de-
cided for the plaintiffs and awarded the
| sum of $15692. The case was taken to the
Supreme Court of the United States and the
same general defense made. but the court
affirmed the judgment for $lo.602 AMI that
amount was paid to the power company.
In 1882 Congress passed the new act for
the continuation of the government dam
across COINS Island and to the Virginia
shore at a height of 142 feet above tide
level. That act contained various pro-
visions for obtaining through appraisal titles
to lands and water rights. 1t was also pro-
vided that any person who should not be
rendered payment for his property taken or
who should refuse to accept 1t might bring
suit in the Court of Claims. No appraise-
ment was made and no money was ten
dered to the Great Falls Company. but the
dam was extended across the river and the
company in 1889 brought suit in the Court
of Claims for $500, 900 damages In March,
1895, Congress authorized the further rails
ing of the government dam, and 1t was
raised two and half feet.
Company Brings Suit.
For this raising the company sued the
United States in the Court of Claims for
S273, 600 This litigation ran along without
definite results until June, 1902. when. as
a result of many oral conferences between
the officers of the War Department and the
officers of the company, 1t was agreed that
all the claims Of the latter should be COM
promised by the payment of $63.766 In
consideration of this payment the company
agreed to convey and release to the United
States all the land and rights needed to
perfect titles to double the amount of
water now uSeQ III the washington aQue-
duct. The payment of this amount will
depend upon the action of Congress. but in
the meantime the company is authorized to
construct it's dam in accordance with the
reyocable ncense Issued by Acting Secre-
tary Oliver yesterday.
Pointsin the Compromise.
General Gillespie. chief of engineers. and
General Davisr, judge advocate general Of
the army, represented the War Depart
ment in the negotiations. and the Depart
ment of Justice was represented before
the Court of Claims by Judge l.. A. Pradt.
assistant attorney general. brief pre-
pared by Judge .yPradt sets out all the
salient points OF the case as compromised.
1t is, in part. as follows:
1.-The claimant ssis.- the successor of the
Great Falls Manufacturing Company and
the owner. as such successor. of all the
| property and assets of the Great Fails
Manufacturing company This last named
| company brought an action in 1889 in this
court Court of Clajms). No. 14446. in which
| damages in the sum of 5000 were claim
| ed against the United States for the occu-
patton of land belonging to said company
| in the vicinity of the Great Falls of the
l