Eastern termination of their canal should be at a point a little below the present locks, would come to the determination that the Eastern section should terminate at that point, or at the old locks, where nature appears to have designated the spot, as by reference to the map marked F will be seen, and where their charter, in the opinion of many pure and first rate jurists, fixes it; but, to his utter astonishment, he observed their memorial as before mentioned, which if granted, would, materially, if not totally, destroy his rights. Whereupon, your memorialist proposed to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company to adjust the matter in an amicable manner, by leaving to the decision of four disinterested men, two to be chosen by each party, to say upon what terms your memorialist should be let into the free use and enjoyment of his rights, as secured by the charter of Maryland of 178 4to the Potomac Company, or for what sum he should relinquish all his rights to them: all of which they declined; preferring to press their aforesaid memorial upon Congress, rather than to meet an amicable adjustment, however liberal the proposition; and your memorialist has just been furnished with a copy of the bill [No. 370] reported by the honorable the Chairman of the Committee on Roads and Canals, entitled "a bill to amend the charter of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, and for other purposes," which, by its third section, if passed, must inevitably destroy the entire rights of your memorialist: for it will be observed by the map F, that he claims the whole of the land between the canal and the river, which commands the whole water power of the falls; and it was to secure those rights that the 13th section of the charter of the Potomac Company by Maryland in 1784 was intended, being only such situations as the then proprietors designed to improve. If, however, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company are permitted to extend their canal, with power to obtain the ground between the line of their canal extended and the river, they can, and will for a mere song, and without even the trouble of a jury, procure all such ground from the proprietors who possessed no water rights, and to whom the land will be totally useless, lying in detached pieces, cut off from their main land upon the river, of difficult access to them, and at all times unfit for cultivation; but affording sufficient depth for the erection of water works, for which the company can furnish water to any extent required, for manufacturing and other purposes, from their extended canal, which, to every man at all conversant in matters of this kind, must inevitably destroy the property of your memorialist above. To guard against this, it is, that he now comes before you for protection, in whom the power alone rests. He disclaims all intention to oppose the canal es first intended by its projectors; no man is a more zealous advocate of such improvements upon constitutional grounds; but he will ever be found on the side of the individual whose rights are attempted to be wrested from him, not for the public emergencies, but merely for the benefit of other individuals. His proposition to the Company to adjust the matter amicably, as before stated, is an evidence of his feelings on the subject; and though he conceives that his rights are secured to him under the charter of the State of Maryland to the Potomac Company of 1784, (being in fact a compact between the State of Maryland, the Potomac Company, and your memoralist,) in a manner not to be disturbed without his consent, in support of which he refers to the decision of Congress in 1815 and 1816, in the rejection of the petition of the Potomac Company, yet he is not inclined to oppose any unreasonable difficulty to the wishes of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company: all he asks is sheer justice: he solicits no new grant or privilege, ba

protection of rights long since conceded, and which circumstances not within his control alone have suspended the exercise of: all he requires is the worth of his property, independent of any advantages from their canal. He therefore prays that, before the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company are permitted to abstract the water from the present canal, or to obtain any portion of ground between the contemplated canal to Rock creek and the river Potomac, that they shall first acquire, by agreement with your memorialist, his rights to the surplus water as secured to him under the aforesaid act of Maryland of 1784, and so much of his land lying between the canal and the river Potomac as they the said company may desire: and in case your memorialist and the company shall not be able to agree upon terms, that then each party shall appoint two persons, no ways interested in the concerns of or with either party, or in the lands adjoining, with authority for them to call in a fifth person in case they cannot agree, whose award shall be binding and conclusive on both parties: to so reasonable a proposition, your memorialist hopes to find a corresponding feeling on your part. If the public safety or necessity required the sacrifice, and the individual was obstinately opposed to a reasonable compensation, then surely the usual alternative ought to be applied; but in this case there is no analogy; it is simply a combination of individuals, striving to wrest from a single individual his rights, for their own private emolument, by means the most likely to give them every possible advantage But can it be reasonable, just, or within the policy of a Government like ours, to sanction such proceedings? This company, by their own public declarations, and by universal understanding, was organized for the sole object of effecting a "connected navigation between the East"ern and Western waters, so as to extend and multiply the means and facili"ties of internal commerce and personal intercourse between the two great "sections of the United States; and to interweave more closely all the mutual "interests and affections that are calculated to consolidate and perpetuate the vi"tal principles of the Union:" not a word was said about surplus water for manufacturing and other purposes, but where the safety of the canal should require it; nor any thing about wharves, useful buildings, or lots, to be improved by them or retained, as they may deem proper; but, in the course of their operations, they discover certain individuals, possessed of property that will secure to them vast pecuniary emolument, and modestly ask Congress to permit them to take it from the individuals, if they will not let them have it at their price, by the operation of a jury, the effect of which most men understand, if they have not personally felt it. Admit that the proprieton and the Potomac Company had matured their negotiations in the year 1817. as hereinbefore stated, and the 20 sites had been improved by the establish ment of extensive manufactories, as then contemplated, could they be deprived of their water by any process whatever, by jury or otherwise, unless for the public sefety? Is not your memorialist in the same situation, or will it be contended that his not improving his property, though prevented by circumstances not within his control, is an alienation thereof? Surely

not.

In conclusion, your memorialist takes leave, respectfully, to state a case: When the watering company of Philadelphia, in 1818, were induced to inquire into a more economical means of furnishing the city with a supply ai ater than by the small and expensive supply by the steam engines then in use, it was found practicable by the erection of a dam and other works at Fair Mount, on the river Schuylkill, if permission could be had from the

Schuylkill Navigation Company, and if the right of White and Gillingham to a water power at the Falls, about five miles above the city (about the distance of the Little Falls of Potomac river from Georgetown) could be purchased. Both objects were obtained: the first, by an agreement with the Navigation Company to erect locks and a canal opposite Fair Mount at the expense of the city; the other, by a purchase of Messrs. White and Gillingham of their water power, for $150,000; and the watering company have erected an imperishable monument to their enterprise and wisdom; and this was done without the intervention of a jury; and may ever be done where liberality and mutual good feelings are reciprocated between man and man. But how stands the case with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company? Have they come forward and proposed terms to the proprietors for their water power? No: but, on the contrary, have refused to submit the matter to intelligent disinterested men, and are praying Congress for the power of wresting it from the proprietors, by the operation of a jury, composed but too often of men not at all conversant in matters of this kind, and whose only qualification is the absence of personal interest, and upon whom the immediate and ramified influences of powerful incorporated companies are but too well known.

With this statement of facts, which your memorialist is prepared to substantiate, he fearlessly approaches the Representatives of a free People, confiding in the justness of his claim, and the guardians of private as well as public rights.

( A. )

AMOS BINNEY.

GEORGETOWN, Junuary 15, 1829.

I do hereby certify that I was well acquainted with a certain John Ballendine, from about the year 1772 to about the year 1781; and that within that period he was occupied in cutting or making a canal or cut to convey the water from round the Little Falls of the River Potomac, for the purpose of erecting extensive water works thereon; that he went over to England for the express purpose, and brought with him to this country a number of workmen from the Duke of Bridgewater's works, as they all stated, among whom I well remember Robert Sutton and John Sutton; and that they were employed a considerable time on the said canal or cut, upon which he, the said Ballendine, expended considerable sums, having, among other expenditures, built a stone house for the accommodation of his aforesaid workmen, which was thrown down by the great ice freshet about the year 1784; and the principal cause of his abandoning his said operations was pecuniary embarrassments with certain persons in Virginia; that his right in carrying on the aforesaid works was never questioned, as to the land or water privileges; and that, soon after his operations ceased, certain persons, Way, Paxon, and Cloud, purchased the aforesaid property of the said Ballendine, for the purposes and views of establishing water works; that, when the said Way, Paxon, and Cloud, became the proprietors, a number of persons were actively engaged in arrangements for the improvement of the navigation of the river Potomac, among whom, Thomas Johnson, formerly Governor of Maryland, and the late William Deakins, were

the most active and influential in procuring the charter of the Potomac Company. I was at the place where the locks now are, when Cloud was arrang. ing with Thomas Johnson and William Deakins aforesaid, about a jury to value the land through which the Potomac Company's canal night pass. I observed to Mr. Cloud, "Give them the land for the use of the water." Mr. Johnson and Mr. Deakins thereupon observed, "The water was his, and they could not prevent him from it, on condition that he was not to use it so as to obstruct the navigation."

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and scal, the date above mentioned.

Witness-JOHN COX.

JOHN THRELKELD, [ L. s. ]

Personally appeared, this twenty-first day of January, 1829, the above named John Threlkeld, of the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia, before me, a Justice of the Peace for the county aforesaid, and, being duly sworn according to law, made oath that the facts and things stated in the above certificate, and signed by him, are strictly true, to the best of his knowledge and belief.

Sworn to before

JOHN COX, J. P.

(B.)

A statement of facts, showing why the bill reported by the District of Columbia committee in favor of the Potomac Company, touching and materially affecting their rights, should not be passed.

To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives:

The proprietors of certain lands adjoining the canal and locks of the Little Falls of Potomac river, ask leave respectfully to submit to the honorable the members of the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled, the following statement of facts, with a view to show that the bill reported by the Committee for the District of Colombia, granting certain privileges to the President and Directors of the Potomac Company, touching and materially affecting their rights, should not be passed.

Some years previous to the incorporation of the said Potomac Company, in the year 1784, the tract of land upon which the company erected their first locks was purchased by a Mr. Ballendine, who actually commenced a canal or cut, preparatory to the erection of an extensive mill. About this time, Messrs. Way, Paxton, and Cloud, entered into an agreement to pur chase sundry sites, in several of the United States, for the establishment of water works, among which were the three tracts laid down in the annexed plat. Subsequent to the said purchases, viz: about the year 1793, the Potomac Company, under their act of incorporation of 1784, proceeded to the condemnation of part of the aforesaid lands, in the manner directed by their said charter, in no place less than 180 feet in width, and in some full 200 feet, as they deemed most expedient, that being the extent of the law. The jury selected to assess the damages, merely estimated the soIL; and upon the parts thus condemned they completed their canal, erected and finished their toll-house, and FIRST set of locks, and have enjoyed the same, unmolest

ed, to this time. But, about four years past, the locks first èrected being much decayed, having been built of wood, it was agreed by the company, that a set of locks should be built of stone, and on a different site, so that they might continue to receive their tolls through the first set of locks, which, by occasional repairs, might be made to do until the second set could be completed. Upon investigating their powers under their charter, it was the opinion of a majority of the then directors, that they had no right to make any further condemnation of the same tracts of land, having availed themselves of all their right in the condemnation of 1793, as before mentioned. It was soon found that the old locks were unsafe, and that no repairs could be effectual. The loss that the company must necessarily incur from a total suspension of their tolls at this point, while rebuilding, which would require at least two years, was of too much importance not to induce every exertion of their ingenuity to find an alternative, which was accomplished in the manner following: By their charter they were authorized to condemn a certain quantity of ground for a toll-house, contiguous to such ground as they should condemn for locks, if it should be deemed expedient: and as by the condemnation in 1793, there had been no ground specially condemned for a toll-house, it was ingeniously discovered that they still had the right to make a further condemnation for that special purposes and that, when they had procured such condemnation, they could apply it to the erection of another set of locks; and they proceeded, under this forced construction of their charter, after more than twenty years' experience of its inexpediency. The ground first condemned, viz: in 1793, having been found fully adequate to all the purposes of canals, locks, and a toll-house, the second condemnation. was thus made and located, as best suited their designs, and they are now engaged in the erection thereon of a second set of locks; but the tollhouse erected on the ground condemned in 1793, and adjoining the first set of locks, has been continued as such to this time, and has lately been repaired and enlarged, even by the present directors, upon whose petition the bill now before your honorable body was predicated; from whence it irresistibly follows that the act of the directors, under whom this last condemnation was made, is not sanctioned by the letter or the spirit of their charter. At the time this second condemnation was made, the proprietors of the lands, for which they had paid a considerable price, from a conviction that they would be entitled to all the advantages of mill seats, &c. as contemplated by the original purchasers, and secured to them by the Legislature of Maryland in the aforesaid charter of 1784 to the Potomac Company, as will more fully appear by reference to the thirteenth section thereof, hereunto annexed, protested against their proceedings, upon the principle, that, as their charter expressly restricted them to 200 feet, and they had, by their condemnation in 1793, secured to themselves the full quantity, they had no right to make a second condemnation; they however proceeded, and the jury assessed $175 damages only, stating at the time that they merely valued the SOIL, as the company could not under their charter apply it to any other purposes than navigation, and the proprietors would still have sites sufficient for all the purposes of milling, &c. Here, then, the proprietors were disposed to flatter themselves that the company were fully satisfied, and that they would be permitted to enjoy their privileges so soon as they could make an arrangement among themselves to bring them into operation: but, much to their astonishment, they see that the company, not satisfied with this and various other encroachments, have petitioned Congress to grant to them a right ex