Imatges de pàgina

to her assent to the charter, and become not only a party to the charter, but a liberal contributor to the enterprise. The memorialists further ask an explicit recognition of the power of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company to substitute boats for bridges, where the latter might be required on the anal. From the term “ recognition," as used in the memorial, it would ippear that they entertain the impression that they have the power, at least jy implication, of making such substitution. If, however, the power has lot been conceded, the inconveniencies of individuals whose lands may be ivided by the canal, which would necessarily result from the exercise of his power, seem to be of so paramount a character, as to justify the Legisiture in with holding it. But, to obviate in part those inconveniencies, they sk to be allowed to purchase or acquire the slip of land cut off from any irger tract by the canal; and afterwards to hold, sell, let, or otherwise disose of it for the benefit of the Company. The inconveniencies and losses , which an individual would of consequence be subjected, whose land might 3 divided by the canal, without the benefit of connexion of the two divi-, ons by means of a bridge, would be of so serious and 'aggravating a nature, to compel him, in almost every instance, to sell to the Company, and perlps upon such terms, from the peculiar circumstances in which he would · placed, as they might think proper to propose. The consequences would cessarily follow, that the Company would become possessed of real estate an extent far beyond what the policy of the State, in reference to corpoe privileges, would seem to indicate. In addition to the above, they ask rmission to " sell or let, for prescribed manufacturing uses, any surplus ter which they may conduct by feeders into the canal for that purpose.” ch an exercise of power, not only essential for the purposes of the assotion, but far beyond the pale of the object for which the Company was orporated, might also militate against individual rights. The right of perty in water power of the Potomac, and its tributary streams, is in ividuals, of which they cannot be justly divested, unless, indeed, called by the imperious necessity of the public weal. The Company have ady the right of the availment of any water power which may be neces

for the purposes of the canal, as also the power expressly granted by charter of disposing of, for machinery, all waste water which may be ntial for its security. No additional powers, therefore, upon this sub, appear to be necessary for the true objects of the corporation. nother privilege which they ask, is, permis.ion to sell or let, on the 7y embankments which they may find necessary to form for the moles viers adjacent to their basins, upon or at the termination of their canal, i for houses of any description. This power may be advantageously !, not only in reference to pecuniary profit, but also with a view of iming additional strength to the embankments themselves. A bill for this Jose will, therefore, be reported. Lastly, they ask such an amendment splanation of the laws of Maryland, relative to the use of Virginia slaves he Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, as should enable the contractors of the apeake and Ohio Canal Company to avail themselves of a privilege ted to the former. This subject having been brought to the view of the se from another quarter, it would perhaps be deemed out of place in ommittee to express any opinion in reference to it. spectfully submitted.


Compromise proposed to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company

through John Marbury, Esq.

GEORGETOWN, 1st Junuary, 1830. Mr. John MARBURY,

DEAR SIR: Although we despair coming to any comprowie w Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, yet, in evidence of the sinceri our declarations, we avail ourselves of the intimation of Mr. Cor. letter to you of this date, and offer the following propositioneu which, as they may prefer, you are authorized to accede to. !!! will name one or two (as the Company may prefer) disinterested and they shall name the like number, who, if they cannot agree, in a third or fifth person, (as the case may be) whose award shallo in reference to Colonel Binney's whole interest to be effected by the within the District of Columbia, as also without the District, joinupar rately, as may be most acceptable to the Company.

Second. We will name three disinterested persons, and the li may select any two of them, and the Company may name three 3 lect two from their nomination, and the four thus selected, if they agree, shall call in a fifth person, whose award shall be binding a 2

Third. We annex hereunto a list of fifteen names, from among t respectable citizens of the District, out of which the Company any two, and we will select the like number, who, in case they can shall call in a fifth, whose award shall be conclusive as aforesa party shall name an experienced United States' or Civil Enginee the District of Columbia, or elsewhere, in no manner connected party, who, if they cannot agree, shall call in a third person, shall be binding as aforesaid; and if they, or either of them, s without the District, we will defray all the expenses or changes a thereto.

In proposing a reference to a few in preference to a jury a more, we are influenced by the consideration that the subject ca satisfactorily understood; as they can take their own time, eta minutely into all the circumstances, when and how they please, a at their leisure. All we desire is, that the interests involved mi) understood and impartially adjusted.

I am, respectfully,

Your obedient servant,


onnected wit

erson, whar je "them, salle de " Chanus polseguen

O a jury of twelve ci

subject can be mer Ime, examine mer

please, and dead Polved may be by

[ocr errors]

List of fifteen names.
DANIL CARROLL, of Duddington, Thomas Law, Esq.
Commodore John RODGERS, THOMAS PETER, Esq.
General Daniel PARKER,



· DAVID ENGLISH, Esq. JAMES Gettys, Esq.

ABNER PIERCE, Esq. John Cox, Mayor of Georgetown.

In addition to the above, Mr. Marbury was verbally authorized to propose to take a joint property, upon the terms proposed between John K. Smith and Wm. Marbury, as President of the Potomac Company, which he did in writing on the same day on the delivery of the above, which was, for Binney to give up his lands and water rights to the Company, and for the Compay to sell out sites, and divide the proceeds of the sales, one half to each. All of which was rejected by the Company.

Compromise proposed by F. S. Key, Esq. as Counsel for Amos Binney,

to the Counsel of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, before the jury, February, 1830.

The jury having ascertained what is due on account of the land and house, &c. taken, and such other damages as are not contingent, it is agreed in this case, on the part of Amos Binney, that the jury shall give such damages as they think equal to the value of the whole water power on his land, which is to be taken by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company through his said land, and disposed of by them as they may please, as if they had already obtained the power of so disposing of the water they may so take; and that no part of such damagés, so to be awarded by the jury, is to be paid to said Binney until such power of disposition is granted to the Company. And if the Company shall fail to obtain such power, said Binney shall not receive said damages: and if the Company shall obtain such power, then they shall pay to said Binney, instead of said damages, onehalf of the proceeds of sales of water that they may make on or below his said land.

Proposition by F. S. Key, Esq. to be added by the Jury to the inquisi

tion, February, 1830. We value the said land, and all the damages the said Amos Binney shall ustain by cutting the said canal through the same, at the sum of

Which sum we assess as the damages of said Binney, without taking nto consideration his loss of water power on his said land by the said Comsany's obtaining the right to sell the surplus water of the said canal, and so aking and selling the same; which, if obtained by the said Company, is to le compensated for hereafter. Second proposition offered by F. S Key, Esq. to be added by the Jury

to the inquisition, February, 1830. We value the said land, and all damages said Amos Binney shall sustain by utting the said canal through the same, at the sum of — , and the furher sum of

which latter sum we assess as the damages sustained y the said Binney for the loss of his water rights on said land, in case the hesapeake and Ohio Canal Company shall obtain the right to sell the surlus water of the canal carried through his said land, and all to be contin ent upon the Company's obtaining such right, and not to be paid to him ut on the Company's obtaining such right.

This condition being herein inserted with the consent of said Binney's punşel.

[ocr errors]

Memorial to Congress, withdrawn.

GEORGETOWN, 21st February, General Cocke:

Sir: It was not until yesterday that: a letter from my father rea at Leesburg, Virginia, advising me of the probable effect the bill fore Congress, in relation to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, mig upon my interest in the District of Columbia; and I had consequi encounter the storm of last evening from an apprehension that would be taken up this morning.

Mr. Webster's engagements being such as to prevent his giving ti ject his attention, he politely introduced me to your acquaintanc when I left you to prepare an amendment to the bill, I was not aw your intention to present the papers which I understood had been left you for the purpose of making you acquainted with the facts upon ! the memorial I had intended to address to the Speaker, was predicated

I had the opinion that an amendment could have been made without terially affecting the bill; but, upon further consideration of the subjec am satisfied that no amendment can be made that will not require the si tion of Virginia and Maryland; the consequent delay whereof, and the sible loss of the law entirely, present such disastrous consequences to people of this District, that I should never cease to regret it it produce any instrumentality of mine. I must, therefore, request the favore to withdraw the memorial you did me the honor to present, ima upon the receipt hereof

I have the honor to be,

Very respectfully, your ob't serv't,

[ocr errors]

(P The above letter was delivered to the Chairman of the com to which had been referred the act of the General Assembly of entitled " An act to confirm an act of the General Assembly, on entitled “An act incorporating the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal who handed it to General Cocke: whereupon, the memorial ately withdrawn.

ral Assembly of Maryland

al Assembly of Virginia ake and Ohio Canal Company;

w the memorial was immed

Ist Session.


MAY 25, 1830.

Mr. Bates, from the Committee on Military Pensions, made the following

REPORT: The Committee on Military Pensions, to whom was referred the petition

of Nathaniel Standish, make the following report: The petitioner having applied, as appears to the committee, to the proper lepartment, to be enrolled on the pension list, under the law of 1818, for is Revolutionary services, and showed by admissible testimony that he had erved in the continental line for nine months, at one term, under a regular alistment; and in every respect his case was embraced by said law. But

appeared, from the time of his enlistment, it was not nine months to the lose of the war; consequently, his claim was rejected.

The committee are of opinion, that, inasmuch as it fully appears, from he papers accompanying his application, that he did serve nine months, as bove stated, and was regularly discharged; is old, infirm, and very poor, hat he is entitled to a pension; therefore, report a bill, granting him a penion of eight dollars per month.

« AnteriorContinua »