Imatges de pÓgina
PDF
EPUB

E.

Compromise proposed to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company,

through John Marbury, Esq.

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

DEAR Sır: Although we despair coming to any compromise with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, yet, in evidence of the sincerity of our declarations, we avail ourselves of the intimation of Mr. Cor's letter to you of this date, and offer the following propositions, either of which, as they may prefer, you are authorized to accede to. First

, We will name one or two (as the Company may prefer) disinterested persons, and they shall name the like number, who, if they cannot agree,

shall call in a third or fisth person, (as the case may be) whose award shall be binding in reference to Colonel Binney's whole interest to be effected by the Canal, within the District of Columbia, as also without the District, jointly or separately, as may be most acceptable to the Company.

Second. We will name three disinterested persons, and the Company may select any two of them, and the Company may name three and we select two from their nomination, and the frur thus selected, if they cannot agree, shall call in a fifth person, whose award shall be binding as aforesaid.

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

In proposing a reference to a few in preference to a jury of twelve or more, we are influenced by the consideration that the subject can be more satisfactorily understood; as they can take their own time, examine more minutely into all the circumstances, when and how they please, and decide at their leisure. All we desire is, that the interests involved may be fully understood and impartially adjusted.

I am, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,

WM. STEUART, Agent

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

JOHN 'THRELKELD. Esq.
Judge SAMUEL CHASE,

WM. MARBURY, Esq. Nathan LUFFBOROUGH, Esq. WM. HAYMAN, Esq. Major John ADLUM,

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 make a joint property, upon the terms proposed between John K. Smith and Wm. Marbury, as President of the Potomac s'ompany, 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.

F. 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 damages, 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 sustain by cutting the said canal through the same, at the sum of

Which sum we assess as the damages of said Binney, without taking into consideration his loss of water power on his said land by the said Company's obtaining the right to sell the surplus water of the said canal, and so taking and selling the same; which, if obtained by the said Company, is to be 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 cutting the said canal through the same, at the sum of

and the further sum of -; which latter sum we assess as the damages sustained by the said Binney for the loss of his water rights on said land, in case the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company shall obtain the right to sell the surplus water of the canal carried through his said land, and all to be contin. gent upon the Company's obtaining such right, and not to be paid to him but on the Company's obtaining such right.

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

[ocr errors]

G.

Memorial to Congress, withdrawn.

GEORGETOWN, 21st February, 1825. General Cocke:

Sir: It was not until yesterday that a letter from my father reached me at Leesburg, Virginia, advising me of the probable effect the bill now before Congress, in relation to the Chesapeake and Ohio (anal, might have upon my interest in the District of Columbia; and I had consequently to encounter the storm of last evening from an apprehension that the bill would be taken up this morning.

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

I had the opinion that an amendment could have been made without materially affecting the bill; but, upon further consideration of the subject, I am satisfied that no amendment can be made that will not require the sanction of Virginia and Maryland; the consequent delay whereof, and the possible loss of the law entirely, present such disastrous consequences to the people of this District, that I should never cease to regret it if produced by any instrumentality of mine. I must, therefore, request the favor of you to withdraw the memorial you did me the honor to present, immediately upon the receipt hereof

I have the honor to be,
Very respectfully, your ob't serv't,

WM. M. STEUART. 1 The above letter was delivered to the Chairman of the committee to which had been referred the act of the General Assembly of Maryland, entitled “ An act to confirm an act of the General Assembly of Virginia, entitled • An act incorporating the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company;" who handed it to General Cocke: whereupon, the memorial was immediately withdrawn.

Ist Session.

NATHANIEL STANDISH.

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 sis 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 I 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 penon of eight dollars per month.

ME

T

« AnteriorContinua »