The Washington times., 1911-01-28
LEGAL PUZZLES IN
GREAT FALLS PLAN
Obstacles, However, Are Not
So Great That They Can
not Be Overcome.
CONTINUED from First Page.)

| Continued from First Page.)
Into operation, would meet strenuous
opposition from the Washington Rail-
| way and Electric Company, which is
the parent company of the Potomac
lights the District, and of the Great
Falls Power Company, which owns
considerable real estate at the falls.
THE Great Falls Power Company
would, l feel sure, claim its water
rights were being taken, and would
put in a claim for heavy damages.
| There are two ways that the Gov
ernment could proceed. One would
| be for Congress to appropriate money
for the project and authorize the
President, the chief of engineers of
the army, or the District Commits
| SlonerS, to acquire the real estate OF
| adverse interests by condemnation.
| The other would be for Congress to
ment of the project and providing
that adverse interests could sue for
damages in the Court of Claims.
A Knotty Problem.
In either event, the question of the
Great Falls Power Company and of
| the company was entitled, would pre-
! sent a knotty problem. Mind, l do
/ not say an unsolvable problem, but
merely a difficult one.
1T has been contended that the
power company's damages would be
small. on the ground that it has been
q non-uSer of the power to which
it claims proprietorship, and that it's
predecessor, the Great Falls Manu-
featuring Company, forfeited any
just claim for the same reason. This
does not necessarily follow, in my
opinion.
The Great Falls Manufacturing
Company wa& organized in 1889 by
act of the Virginia Legislature. Its
charter contained no limitations, l
understand. as to when the company
should perform the acts which 1t was
authorized to perform, and no proVis-
ion for forfeiture of charter for fail
ure to perform any of those acts. AS
matter of fact. the company bought
real estate on the Virginia side at
above the falls, which land passed
to the Great Falls Power Company
when that concern bought out the
manufacturing company.
One of Functions Performed.
"The power company bought more
land, on the Maryland side, acquiring
an undivided one-half interest in 100
acres in which the Government held
the remaining one half interest. The
purchase of real estate was one of
the functions authorized by the char
ters of both companies, and although
the first company did not manufac-
ture anything and the second did not
make electricity, as empowered to do,
think it more than likely the court
would hesitate to declare either of
the charters void on the ground oil
non activity. and would decline TO
hold that, because these interests had
been nonusers of their water rights.
they mad forfeited them.
Another feature which l think makes
it probable the power company would
have a just claim to damages Is the
fact that the Government has previous
Iy recognized that both companies had
rights which must be respected. On
TWO occasions the Government has
paid damageS-onCe to the manutactur-
ing company and once to the power
company-fOr water rights which the
Government wanted, and ultimately took
and paid for, to obtain water supply
for Washington. The same arguments
which apply now against the right Of
the power company to damages from
the Government could have been made,
and may have been made, then, yet
the fact that certain rights existed, II
seems TO me, was established when the
Government recognized those rights to
the extent Of buying them. in one case
paying $l5,692 and in the other S63, I66.
OSlIlCluCHl NUl 1ulpUSSlUle.
This does not mean that at this
time, the damages to which the power
company is fairly entitled are so great
as to threaten the success of the power
project. l feel certain that a settle
ment of this question could be reached
on such a basis that the expense would
not be prOhibittVe, especially i'll view OF
the apparent economy with which the
Leighton plan can be worked out. 1t
margin of safety, and it might be pos
sible that the court or condemnation
jury would give more weight than l
anticipate to the failure of the manu-
featuring company and the power COM
pany to take advantage of their water
rights, a period of inactivity extending
over seventy-two years.
II present the difficulties in order that
we shall not rush into the campaign for
power development without full reali-
zatiOn of the opposition We are likely
to encounter. Optimism is a good thing,
but ii should not blind a man or a COM
munity to a realization of the serious
ness of obstacles to be overcome"
Chance to Show Progress.
In the development of the power
scheme by the Government and District,
the Washington Railway and Electric
Company has an oportunity to demon
strate that it is abreast of modern
times in its relations to the people, 1t
would be exceedingly gratifying to find
that this concern had learned the folly
of blind opposition to a reform so dis
tinctly in the public interest as the
Great Falls scheme.
The old dog-in-the-m manager policy of
operating public service corporations is
rapidly disappearing in this country. 1t
remains to be seen whether our local
electric railway and light company still
adheres to it."
That the members of the Senate are
taking an interest in the Great Falls
power project is indicated by the action
of the upper body yesterday in order
ing printed as a public document the
history of Great Falls, published in The
Washington Times Of last Sunday
Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska.
who always has been interested in
legislation affecting the District, and
has assisted frequently in advancing the
Districts interests in Congress, present.
ed The Times article to the Senate. and
asked to have 1t published as a Senate
document. Mr.. Brown said:
81 have in my hand an article giving
an interesting and valuable history Of
the Great Falls of the Potomac river.
1 move that it be printed as a docu-
ment.'
Senator Browns motion was unani-
mously agreed to, and the copy for the