Maryland State Archives

The cases relating to the Great Falls Manufacturing Company (GFMC) and the aqueduct are convoluted and may or may not be as helpful as we once thought. While the claims the GFMC is making in some ways support the argument we are making, they also do not (see information provided below). I believe the arbitration proceedings of 1862 and completed Feb. 1863 (Note, I am still looking for the arbitration relating to the Great Falls Dam) are critical for an understanding of the claims of the GFMC, but they may have less importance based upon how the GFMC's claim for damages was finally settled (a matter I am trying to discern now). I believe that the GFMC was claiming any rights it could in order to receive compensation from the Federal Government and this includes a claim of riparian water rights based on Virginian land.
 

• See below in reference to the Compact of 1785.
• Reverdy Johnson's pamphlet has not appeared in any proceedings to date.

1. The GFMC is clearly claiming water rights based on the ownership of land in Maryland and Virginia, [two tracts in Virginia (including the Toulson Tract), and Conn's Island in Maryland]. The arbitration proceedings (if found) may shed light on whether this claim is based upon the VA tracts bordering the Potomac or based upon the water flowing through the old Potomac Canal cut.

While the court cases and arbitration notes cited do not specifically mention the compact of 1785, the Supreme Court case petition of the GFMC makes clear reference to the fact that the river at this point is not navigable and above tidewater.

To quote from the petition: "That the said river Potomac at said locality is above where the tide ebbs and flows, and incapable of navigation;and that your petitioners, being the riparian proprietors on both banks of the river by reason of the ownership of said parcels of land at the Great Falls, are entitled by law as such riparian proprietors to the use of the water of said river at that locality, and to all the rights and privileges of such riparian proprietorship."

Part of their claim comes from Conn's Island "And your petitioners further show that as proprietors of Conn's Island, they are also proprietors of one-half of the bed of the river on each side of said river, as well on the side looking towards the State of Virginia as on that of the State of Maryland, and the river not being there navigable."

2. In a letter copied as evidence in the case dated November 27, 1866 from Henry Davis, President GFMC to C. Browning, Secretary of the Interior, the GFMC claims several points worth noting:
a. that they feel the government has taken Conn Island invading "...by force, the unquestioned and unquestionable proprietary rights of the company, in Conn's Island, and the channel and bed of the river, between Conn's Island and the Maryland bank of the Potomac."

b. the issue of the occupation of Conn's Island for the completion of the dam is "quite distinct from that of the water rights of the company as a riparian proprietor on the Virginia bank of the Potomac."

c. a separate distinct issue is also "...the matter litigated in the courts of Maryland, which related solely to the land warrant for Nelson's Desire, and not touch the question of the proprietary and riparian rights of the company as owners of land both in Virginia and Maryland. The directors of the more earnestly insist on this point for the reason that now, for the first time, have the rights of Maryland proprietors been disregarded in the construction of the Washington Aqueduct."