Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-03-24
MAINE LEGISLATURE
Continued From Page Four.)

tHere is tnere SaWmlll ana SflSt
mill. The present height of that dam
is about II feet. The power, as at pres
ent developed in that location. has not
proved profitable. The company has
got into difficulties financially; and, as
l understand it, it is practically in the
hands of the bondholders. The COM
pany had under consideration, and has
had since 1904, the further develop
ment of that power, both by raising
the height of their dam, which they
have right to do under their charter,
and by carrying a canal below their
dam, across strip of land which they
own, at a level of about 10 feet below
the present dam, there being that
amount of fall in the river, below their
dam.
This Canaan Power Co. originally
was a private corporation, but in 1907
it was granted right to sell or dis
tribute electricity in a certain area
Immediately surrounding their plant;
and they are now a quaSi-public cor
poratiOn. That is the situation on the
river at present. Now l ask your at
tentiOn briefly to the proposed change
The ShaWmut Manufacturing Co. ask
the privilege of raising it's dam seven
feet above the present level. That will
give them an increased horsepower
of about o0oH. the flow of the river OF
that plant being about 1000 cubic feet
per second 1t is proposed if this change
is made, to increase the plant and en-
gage in the manufacture of pulp and
paper on a larger scale. The effect
upon the river above, of course, will be
Of c
not flowed Elaborate plans were rep
resented before the committee as to
what the flowage would be, but they
did not in fact show precisely what
the flowage would be, because it APP
peared in evidence that those plans
had been made to show the level of
the proposed top of the new dam--the
exact level, but it appeared that the
actual foWage would be anywhere
from four to 10 feet above that level of
the dam, according to the height of
the water on the dam and the amount
of backwater that accumulated up the
river
Now it is not claimed-or this is not
denied by any5ody-that they had q
right, under the present mill acts. to
raise their present dam. The only pur-
,".se OF this cha Iter, SO far as eiv'Ig
them a right is concerned, would be
to fix the height of the dam, because
under the act. Il jury would have a
right to limit the height. The height
being considered in respect to the pro-
posed dam will flow a good deal of ter
ritory, flowing the County road, at some
seasons of the year to a depth of from
six to 10 feet. That is not in oontro-
versy in this particular matta", re-
cause that is taken care Of under the
general Jaw.
The proposed raising of this dam by
the Shawmut Co. will, however. flow
out the umdeveloped water privilege
and power privilege of the Canaan
Power Co.. that portion of it which
is below their present dam. 1t is on
that PORT that the committee divided;
and on that point / wish to submit
what the present law is, what the pres
ent rights are, and the question Of
whether or not the Legislature can
reasonably give to the Shawmut Manu-
featuring Co new rights. as against
the Canaan Power Co. That is the
only question in this case.
The law at present as outlined in
what is known as the mill act. CHAP
ter "a of the Revised Statutes, is very
plain on the question of the cCmpara-
tive rights of mill owners. IN the first
place. the right to flow lana will not
vest in any owner under the common
law below any land except his own,
but under the mill act. upon the theory
that it is for the public good that pow
or shall be developed, mill owners have
been given the right and do have it,
to place a dam across stream to
flow land not their own for the pur-
pose of manufacturing Or using the
water bower That right does not give
the mill owner any title to the land,
There is one important exception, how
ever. to that right, and that is that 1t
must be exercised subject to any other
rights existing on the same stream
And that has been very clearly out
lined in the decision of the court to
which 1 wish to call your attention.
With your permission, / will read
part Of the decision that applies to this
existing right. 1t is a decision given
by Chief Justice Emery in 1901 in the
case of the National Fibre Board Co.
vs.. the Lewiston & Auburn Electric
Light Co., 95 Me. 31S.
"At common law no person could
maintain a dam, even upon. his own
land. and thereby flow water back up
on the lands of riparian owners above
BY our mill Act f. S, CHI. s..
any person may build upon his own
land across non-navigable stream
a water-mill and dams to raise a head
of water for working it, and may
thereby flow back the water OF the
stream upon the lands above as high
and as far as he deems necessary for
the profitable working of his MILL sub
iect only to the conditions and re-
strictions named in the act itself. The
land owners must submit to the flow
age, and content themselves with the
pecuniary compensation to be obtained
through proceedings provided by the
statute. Such mill owner can also in
the same way increase the height of