aqueduct dam would inpair and make irregular the supply to the city through the aqueduct. To construct across the Virginia Channel a dam below the aqueduct dam would cost, say, $150,000.

The second supposed meaning being adjudged the true one, the word "secure" would simply have reference to the manner of drawing up the contract referred to in the section.

The closing words of section 2, viz, "and the value of any rights thus granted" to the owners of the land and water rights "shall be received in part payment of land and water rights taken as aforesaid," are difficult to understand. It requires a quantity to be deducted from another quantity less than itself.

The value to each of the owners of the water rights at Great Falls is the value of his share of the water of the river flowing at that point, and may be stated at a rate per 1,000,000 gallons per diem. The share may be used by its owner for a supply for domestic purposes, or for power, or for both, or he may sell it. The value of the land, apart from the value of the water rights, is its value for sites of manufactories below the falls; for sites of dwellings for workmen and others, and for the location of canals leading from the head of the falls to the works.

In the case supposed, the United States "takes" under the operation of section 1 of the bill, that is, secures a right to take, a water supply for a population of 1,000,000 inhabitants, say, 200,000,000 gallons per diem. This is the "water right taken." The United States also "takes" abont 21 acres of land, about one-half of it being in the bed of the Potomac and the other half being a rocky and uncultivable strip across Conns Island. This is the "land taken."

The words "rights thus granted," near the end of section 2, refer to the right to be secured to the owners of the land by the United States of using, as has just been explained, the remainder of the flow of the Potomac, say two-thirds of the lowwater flow and about 97 per cent of the average flow. The value of the water per 1,000,000 gallons per diem (whether it be the water to be taken by the United States, or the remainder to be secured to two of the owners of the falls-the third owner being the United States) should be same in each case, but in section 2 it is said "the value of any rights thus granted shall be received in part payment of the land and water rights taken." The value of the water "rights thus granted," is immensely superior to the value of the "water right taken," as may be seen by comparing the quantity of water "granted" with the quantity of water "taken," and the difficulty of understanding what is intended by requiring that the value of the former shall be received in part payment of the latter is not explained by the fact that in addition to the "water rights taken" there was "land taken," for, being above the falls, the land is not valuable for any of the purposes just mentioned, and apart from its water rights it is certainly not worth more than $1,000.

If, under the terms of the bill, all of the water rights at Great Falls, that is to say, the entire flow of the Potomac, could be "taken" by the United States-provision being made that all the water not required by the United States should be "granted" back to the owners of the water rights-the intention of section 2 would be apparent, but the bill gives authority to "take" only the quantity of water deemed necessary for the present and future supply of the District of Columbia, say 200,000,000 gallons per diem. The intention of the section would also be apparent if it should, in the opinion of the drawer of the bill, have been considered that the value per 1,000,000 gallons of the water to be " granted" back and secured to the owners of the land is exceedingly small as compared with the value per 1,000,000 gallons of the water to be "taken" by the United States.

If, as might be inferred from the bill, the coowners with the United States actually own all the remainder of the water that is not drawn from the river by the aqueduct, I do not see the necessity or, as there is a question as to this ownership, the propriety of confirming it by contracts. I think, therefore, that all of section 2 after the word "entitled" in line 7 and all of section 3 comprised between and including the word "and" in line 6 and the word "States" in line 9 should be stricken out of the bill.

(5) It will have been observed that provision was made in the act of 1882 and provision is made in this bill for the ascertainment and payment of damages. The damages referred to are damages to water rights; that is, the diversion of water from the river above the falls through the aqueduct to Washington. This is evidenced by the claims filed under the provisions of the act and by previous claims and by the suit of the Great Falls Manufacturing Company against the United States, to which reference has already been made. That caution should be observed in tho consideration of what the bill contains respecting these damages is made manifest: (A) By comparing the magnitude of the extravagant claims for damages already filed with the very small proportion of the water now diverted and of the water that can under the terms of the bill be diverted to Washington as compared with the total flow of the river, and by comparing also the amount of these claims with the amount ($45,000) that Congress in its act of 1882 deemed sufficient to pay for all the land and water rights at Great Falls that were to be taken under the act.

(B) By an inspection of the plat entitled "Great Falls of the Potomac and Vicinity," which accompanies this report, it will be seen that, thanks to the wise foresight, about forty years ago, of the late Gen. Meigs, the United States is owner of a tract (of about 6 acres) at the Virginia end of the dam; that it is owner of a tract (of about 20 acres) called "Resurvey of Hard to come at;" that it is half owner of a tract (of about 99 acres) called "Resurvey on Hard to come at;" including Falls Island, and that it is owner of a lot (of about 5 acres) on which stands the watchman gatekeeper's house, being a part of a tract called Goose Pond.

The total area of these lands is about 130 acres, and their cost to the United States, including the cost of the water rights belonging to them, was $3,720.

It is also owner of the right (conferred by the decision in 1879 in the case of the suit of the Great Falls Manufacturing Company against the United States) of maintaining the dam across the Maryland channel at its present height of 148 feet above the height of low tide at the navy-yard at Washington.

As the purchases of the land mentioned carried with them all the water rights belonging to them, it would appear, and I have no doubt, although it has so far as I can discover not heretofore been stated or asserted, that the United States is of right entitled to more than one-third of all the water rights at Great Falls, and is therefore entitled to more than one-third of all the water flowing there. For the reason that the 45,000,000 gallons per diem now diverted from the river for the supply of Washington is, as has been before stated, but a small fraction of this proportional part of the water, and for the reason that even if there should be diverted the 200,000,000 gallons per diem required for a population of 1,000,000 of inhabitants, this proportional part would still not be nearly reached. I think it extremely doubtful if in respect of their water rights the other owners of land adjacent to the falls have ever been, or will ever be, damaged by the United States by the withdrawal from the river of the water supply of Washington.

(C) I find in the brief of special counsel for the United States in the suit of the Great Falls Manufacturing Company.against the United States for damages to water rights of the former by the construction of the dam across the Maryland channel, which suit was decided in 1879, the following important statement respecting the Toulson tract owned by the Great Falls Manufacturing Company:

"While we do not think the Toulson tract and the riparian rights appurtenant thereto have been invaded by the United States, and contend that they are not entitled to consideration in the present case, we deem it proper, in view of the effect which the ascertainment of those rights by the court might have upon a future extension of the dam, to state distinctly our position.

"(1) The court of appeals of Maryland, in a proceeding between the parties to the present suit, held that the State of Maryland, by legislative grant, had conferred, in 1853, upon the United States the soil between the Virginia low-water mark and the medium filum aquæ extending from a point above to a point below the falls (21 Md. Rep., p. 119, and pp. 375, 376, 377, record; Baltimore r. Mckim, 3 Bl., 453).

The riparian right appurtenant to the Toulson tract has thus become res judicata. "(2) The court of Maryland had jurisdiction of the res because it was included within the grant to Lord Baltimore in 1632 (see Bacon's laws of Maryland, vol. — p.); and because, further, no act of Maryland has ever ceded this jurisdiction, and there is nothing to show that Virginia ever claimed it."

If my inference drawn from this statement be the true one, then the Great Falls Manufacturing Company, apart from the rights conferred by its ownership of Conns Island above the falls, has no interest in the water rights (water) at Great Falls, and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company's land being cut off from the main channel of the river by the interposing land of the United States bordering on this channel, called "Hard to come at," the United States owns of right by far the greater part of all the water rights at the falls. Without regard to its water rights the Toulson tract is, however, the most valuable land at the falls, it containing, as before stated, the best site for manufactories and other works below the falls, and also the remains of the old Potomac Canal constructed by Gen. Washington in 1785, which is the best, if not the only, location practicable for a canal from the head of the falls to these sites.

For the reason that the two coowners with the United States at Great Falls will no doubt employ, in the trials of the suits for damages that are to be had in the Court of Claims in case of failure of the United States to agree with these owners as to values, lawyers skilled in such cases, I think it most important that the sixth section of the bill be so amended as to authorize and direct the employment by the United States in these suits of special legal counsel conspicuous for known familiarity with and experience in the laws regulating riparian rights and in hydraulics. The eighth section of the bill, also, should be so amended as to provide for payment of this counsel and of witnesses on behalf of the Government.

#

The amendments that I have suggested, and a few others, the objects of which will be apparent, would, I believe, thoroughly guard the interests of the United States

and the District of Columbia, and, for the reasons that follow, I think it of very great importance that, as amended, the bill be passed as soon as possible. The legislation provided for in the bill as amended, is, in my estimation, more important than any other that has been enacted since the construction of the aqueduct.

(1) The decision of the Court of Claims of 1879 having been mainly in respect of the damage to the owners of Conn's Island by reason of the abutting on that island of the dam across the Maryland channel (or rather by reason of an agreement as to this damage in 1862 between the Secretary of the Interior and the Great Falls Manufacturing Company, which the United States, in the suit decided in 1879, claimed to have been illegal), there has not been since the extension of the dam to the Virginia shore, nor at any time, a judicial decision of the extent of the rights of the United States at Great Falls, and this bill furnishes an opportunity for such decision. When the decision has been made, it would operate for all time, and, when future additions to the Washington water supply have to be made from time to time, as the population increases, the required quantities can be taken from the river without further action of the courts and without further legislation of Congress, except the making of the appropriations necessary for raising the dam and other works, if any, required for these additions.

(2) The lands at Great Falls taken by the United States from the Great Falls Manufacturing Company under the operation of and by direction of the act of July, 1882, and several small parcels of land taken, also without payment, from the Chesa peake and Ohio Canal Company, a portion under the operation of the act of July 15, 1882, and the remainder at previous times, have never been paid for.

The lands taken from the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company are: The lot at Great Falls on which stands the gatehouse that regulates the supply of water through the aqueduct to Washington; the land extending from this lot to the Maryland bank of the river, including the right to pass the aqueduct under the canal; the land under which is the upper portion of tunnel No. 1, and the land occupied by the aqueduct between the gatehouse and the head of this tunnel; a parcel of land in Montgomery County, Md., occupied by a portion of the aqueduct, and a parcel of land in the District of Columbia occupied by the mains leading from the distributing reservoir to the city.

I am told that the charters of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, derived from the United States and from Maryland, provide that no adverse possession shall hold against any of its properties. If this be the case, an application of the statute of limitations, even if it should be deemed proper and advisable, could not be made to operate against these lands, some of which have been occupied by the works of the Washington Aqueduct for nearly forty years, and the bill should be so amended as to include these lands, to the end that their values may be judicially and fairly determined and paid to the owners.

(3) The question of what are the rights of the United States at Great Falls, how much of the water of the river it is entitled to, should be settled. The language of the bill seems to imply that these rights are very small in comparison with other rights; that the drawing for the Washington supply of the small quantity of water heretofore used and now used (that is to say, small in comparison with future wants) has been and is an infringement on the rights of others, and that damage has been done to others. If this be the case, the facts should be known before any new obligations are created. The time has now come when the water supply of Washington must be increased. It is imperative that the present dam at Great Falls be raised throughout its entire length as soon as an appropriation can be obtained for this purpose, and it is my intention to submit an estimate for the work in my next annual estimates. The necessity for this arises from the fact that in summer during the low stages of the river I find it impossible to keep the distributing reservoir up to the height of 146 feet above datum, which is required for the full service of the mains leading from the reservoir to the city. During these low stages of the river the aqueduct at its intake lacks, in respect of its height, about 24 feet of being full, and the dam must be raised accordingly. If the dam be raised 24 feet, not only would the aqueduct never fail to run full, but, the "head" of water being raised at the intake, the velocity through the aqueduct would be very much increased. If the bill be passed before raising the dam, the right of the United States to draw the additional quantity of water from Great Falls will have been obtained by the exercise of the right of eminent domain, provided for in the bill, and the work can go ou without delay. Otherwise the work may be enjoined in the Maryland court and have to be suspended until the legal questions be decided.

(4) It is desirable that all existing contentions and claims against the United States be settled judicially and fairly in the manner proposed in the bill as amended. The amendments that I would propose are as follows, and they will be found in the copy of the bill herewith, marked A:

In section 1, line 13, insert after the word "all" the word "public," and in the same line strike out the words "ninety days" and insert the words "six months," and in line 30 insert after the word "amendment" the words "or otherwise."

In section 2 insert after the word "height" in line 5 the words " or by raising the dam to such height as may be necessary for the purpose of this act," and strike out all of the section after the word "entitled" in line 7.

In section 3, after the word "height" in line 6, insert the words "or by reason of raising the dam to such height as may be necessary for the purpose of this act. In making the valuations the appraisers shall only consider the present values of the land and water rights, without reference to their values for the uses for which they are taken under the provisions of this act." And strike out all of the words from and including the word "and" in line 6 to and including the word "States" in line 9. In section 4, after the word "height" in line 6, insert the words "or by reason of raising the dam to such height as may be necessary for the purpose of this act," and after the word "States" in line 17 add the words "Provided, That the United States shall be represented in such suits by special legal counsel conspicuous for known familiarity with and experience in the laws regulating riparian rights and in hydraulics."

In section 6, lines 2 and 3, strike out the words "one or more" and insert the word "two."

In section 8, line 7, after the word "referees," insert the words "and of special counsel and witnesses on behalf of the United States."

It will have been observed that the water to be "taken" under the provisions of the bill is strictly for the supply of the District of Columbia, and that the words "the water so taken to be used for any and all purposes," in the twelfth and thirteenth lines of section 1, refer to use of the water in the District of Columbia. It is not apparent that should the bill become a law the use of Potomac water would be extended to purposes other than the purposes of its present use, viz, domestic supply, supply of the public buildings, street washings, and hydraulic power in the District of Columbia. The use for hydraulic power in the District of Columbia must be very limited by reason of the capacity of the aqueduct and of any probable additions to the aqueduct. Should it be desired to use turbines below the falls to operate electric generators for transmitting electric power to Washington and lighting the public buildings, no portion of the water to be acquired under the bill could be used for these turbines. If Congress would authorize the taking, under the operation of the provisions of the bill, of all the water flowing at Great Falls, there would not only be no limit to the quantity of water available for supply to the District, but there would doubtless be an abundance of water remaining for hydraulic machinery (turbines) below the falls, sufficient to operate a number of electric generators adequate not only for the lighting of the Capitol and all the other public buildings, the lighting of all of our streets, and possibly for the working of machinery for the raising of water to the rapidly increasing portion of the District that is above the area that can be supplied by gravity.

For these reasons I think it would be wise that the United States acquire now, under the exercise of the right of eminent domain provided for in the bill, all of the water and water rights at Great Falls, their owners to be paid the amounts to be ascertained in the fair and just manner described in the bill.

For the reason that the capacity of a river for supply or power or both should probably be measured by its low-water flow, its greater flows being intermittent, the capacity of the Potomac at Great Falls may, according to the finding of the Court of Claims in 1879, be considered as 700,000,000 gallons of water per diem. Deducting, say, 200,000,000 gallons for the supply of the Washington of the future, there would never fail to remain for power to be used for the purposes suggested and any others that the public wants of the United States and the District of Columbia may develop a daily supply of less than 500,000,000 gallons, say 772 cubic feet per second. The fall is, as before stated, about 70 feet.

In view of the foregoing I have prepared another copy of the bill (marked B), in which are the following suggested amendments:

In section 1 strike out the words "such land and" in line 9 and insert the words "all the." Strike out the word "above in line.10 and insert the words "in the vicinity of." Strike out, in lines 10, 11, and 12, the words "as they may deem necessary for the present and future supply for said District of Columbia." After the word "all," in line 13, insert the word "public." After the word "purposes," in line 13, insert the words "and also such land as may be necessary for these purposes.” Strike out the words "ninety days" in line 13 and insert the words "nine months." Strike out, in lines 17, 18, and 19, the words "and also the quantity of water per day necessary for the above purposes (in addition to the amount already appropriated and paid for)" and substitute therefor the words "excluding the lands already purchased by the United States and paid for," and in line 30, after the word "amendment," insert the words "or otherwise."

In section 2, after the word "height" in line 5, insert the words "or by raising the dam to any height that may be deemed necessary for the future supply of the District of Columbia, and other public purposes," and strike out all of the section after the word "entitled," in line 7.