Maryland State Archives

At the Library of Congress's Manuscript division we examined the papers of Benjamin Curtis, however, we found nothing to shed light on the arbitration proceedings (the papers focused on the Dred Scott opinion and his release of the dissenting opinion, his decision to leave the Supreme Court, his defense of Andrew Johnson in front of the Supreme Court during the impeachment and various court cases).

U.S. Attorney John Blair does not appear to be related to the St. Louis Blairs and there was no material in the Blair Family Papers relating to John.

We examined the papers of Montgomery Meigs, however, they focus on technical aspects of the dam and some of his early papers were indecipherable because they were written in 19th century short hand.

I examined many of the Papers of Benjamin Butler. I had some luck in his general correspondence but have not examined all of these (there are 170 boxes that range between 1865-1894). We examined the majority of the correspondence between 1884-1894.

From what we have found, it appears that Butler involvement with the company begins around 1885. Correspondence shows that Butler was contacted about his interest in the company at this time. It appears that there was an attempt to revoke the charter of the Great Falls Manufacturing Company because it offered to pay its Virginia taxes in coupons. In a letter dated December 10, 1885, from J. Bailey of the Virginia Office of the Attorney-General to Benjamin Butler, Bailey reasures Butler that the charter "...cannot be repealed." Further correspondence dated December 14, 1885, from John Cassells to Butler suggested that Butler contact Virginia Senator Mahone in regard to the repeal of the charter of the Great Fall's Manufacturing Company. While it is not clear whether Butler is interested in aquiring the company or owns an interest in the company and is offering to pay the taxes. An 1892 letter from Francis Mahun to Butler requests funds for the taxes owned by the GFMC. "The taxes for the Maryland property (Conn's Island) is $24 and for the VA property $241.40 making a total of $265.40"

In any event, by by the 1890's Ben Butler had become the majority stockholder of the GFMC and was actively trying to sell the company. Butler's law partner, O.D. Barrett, wrote to Butler about negotiations for the lands of the GFMC. On November 3, 1892, Barrett relates "I received last week, or rather last Monday, a letter from my promoter of the Great Falls scheme that his parties were ready to comply with my terms and that they would be here to see me very soon." Barrett also expresses his desire for rain because little precipitation had left the Potomac river very low and he felt that "...examination of the Falls at present would break up the negotiation." The GFMC's property was almost sold in 1892 but the prospective buyer, (Colonel Canaday was found murdered and the deal fell through).

By November of 1892, correspondence reveals that Butler was gathering stock in the GFMC (it is not clear why he is requesting the stock or who T.E. Major is, but the shares were probably being gathered for the sale of the company. The letter also mentions the inclusion of a copy of the "...statutes of Virginia and Kentucky fixing the boundary line.").

Possibly the most serious offer came from T.W. Tyrer a representative of the Washington and Chesapeake Beach Railway Company (later known as the Washington Railway and Electric Company, which became the principle share holder of the Great Falls Power Company around 1900 and also owned the Potomac Electric Power Company) December 20, 1892, T.W. Tyrer writes Butler to discuss aquiring the water rights of the GFMC. No price is mentioned and Tyrer tries to get Butler to sell the property for its value in stocks and bonds in the Washington and Great Falls Electric Railway Company . Ironically Tyrer writes... " There is no one knows better than you the importance of this whole undertaking, if it is carefully and thoroughly managed, and the power that has for so many years been idle may again become of some utility, and bring you some return for your money: and no one knows better than you, that unless some undertaking as the one we have in hand is carried out, Great Falls may lay for a generation yet, as unproductive as during the past two generations."

On December 26, 1892, Tyrer responds to Butlers offer to sell the GFMC. Butler's terms appear to be cash or 1/3 cash down with the remaining balance in three anual payments at 6% interest.

When Benjamin Butler dies in Washington D.C. on January 11, 1893, the proposed deal with Tyrer falls through.

Separate letters written by O. D. Barrett dated March 11, 1893 (Barrett was associated with the GFMC in an unknown capacity) and Thomas Tabb dated April 27, 1894 (Tabb appears to have been a lawyer handling some of the aspects of selling the property for Butler) to Ben Butler's son Paul after Ben's death relate information about previous attempts to sell the company. They also reveal that the question of title to land at the Great Falls had not been decided as late as 1893 (this reinforces my belief that the land of the GFMC was sold to the Great Falls Power Company without the issue of title and damages being settled).

In Barrett's letter dated March 27, 1893, he discusses the land effected by the Maryland Court of Appeal's case in 1864. Although it is not clear whether he is referring to Neilson's Desire or the Cyclades, I believe he is reffering to the Cyclades. Barrett discusses that the patent in question was disputed on many grounds during the Court of Appeals case, one basis for the dispute was that the US believed it been previously patented in 1799. This argument was used in the reasons given for a caveat against the Cyclades. Barrett's interpretation of the Appeals Court decision was that

"The Maryland Court holding that the legislative act of Maryland authorizing the United States to draw the water from the Great Falls for the District of Columbia, prevented the state of Maryland from granting the land to another, which the United States might want on which to build its dam, hence the patent was never issued, and so far as I know, the matter had dropped and nothing has been done about it from that day to this." Barrett also said he wanted authority to search the records of the Annapolis Land Office to try and clarify the decision." We are currently searching for any correspondence relating to this in the papers of the Maryland Land Office.

Unfortunately, there is little correspondence relating directly to any of the court cases that involved the GFMC. What has survived are letters from the clerk of the Supreme Court that relate costs of copies and receipt of transcripts from the US District Court in 1884.

While the Butler papers may yield more material, I feel it will be limited and will not shed any new light or change the over all argument (based on the court cases involving the GFMC) to date. I believe it will only strengthen the argument that Butler's involvement in the case was clearly based on his financial interests.