be subject to a revaluation each ten years of the term created, and the income therefrom shall be paid into the treasury of the State. "Adopted by the Senate. October 16, 1907. "Concurred in by the House, October 16, 1907. This section as amended was proposed by joint resolution of the forty-fifth general assembly (Laws 19071908, p. 192), adopted by vote of the people on November 3, 1908, and proclaimed adopted November 24, 1908." The State of Illinois, through its public works department. being unable to agree with landowners for the purchase of certain land that is necessary in the construction of this waterway, filed a condemnation proceeding in the county court of La Salle County some time ago. The attorneys for the landowners contended that it was the plain intention of the legislature that this waterway should be built as a whole and that if a condition existed that prevented the construction of the whole canal that it was never the intention of the legislature that part of it could be constructed because unless the thing was finished it was of no value, and following out this line of argument they contended that the $20,000,000 authorized, which was all the money they could ever get without an amendment to the constitution, was sufficient to do this work. Therefore, a condition existed which made it impossible to construct the waterway and that there was no necessity then for the taking of their land. They also raised some other points and the lower court held that the State had no power to condemn, which if it is sound permanently puts the waterway out of business. That case has been appealed and is now before the Supreme Court. The firm of Woodward, Hibbs & Pool, attorneys at law, Ottawa, Ill., were the attorneys for certain landowners, and I would suggest that you write them for a copy of their brief and argument, which will give you the full data. The Government engineers can very readily advise you whether or not this $20,000,000 is sufficient to do this work. If it isn't, then, of course, people talking waterway are somewhat premature. I would like for you to advise me what the Government engineers have to say with reference to the cost of this proposed waterway so that I may combat the sanitary district propaganda being circulated in this community. Very truly yours, S. F. MCGRATH. Hon. JOHN C. KETCHAM, ST. JOSEPH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Member of Congress, Washington, D. C. DEAR FRIEND: Acknowledging your letter of March 13 relative to Chicago drainage canal hearings, this port, as well as every other port along the east coast of Lake Michigan, objects violently to the water being taken from Lake Michigan by the Chicago drainage canal and fears that an increase will very shortly show extensive damage to docks and piling, as well as affect the main channel in all harbors. It has not been possible here to even estimate the extent of the damage, for the reason that it takes a little time for water and air to get in their work. but we do know that the water in this harbor has been considerably lowered during the past three or four years. I would say from 12 to 18 inches. At the hearings named by you, no doubt Mr. Leckie, of Cleveland, will represent steamship interests of all the lakes, and he will naturally be in better position than the writer to give figures regarding damage. Wishing you the best of luck in combating this proposition. I am Cordially yours, ROY W. DAVIS, Secretary. WATERTOWN, N. Y., March 19, 1924. COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Directors Watertown Chamber of Commerce to-day passed resolution opposing any increase in legal amount of water diverted from Lake Michigan by city of Chicago by H. R. 5475 or similar bills. CLARENCE C. SMITH, Secretary. [Telegram] Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, MIAMI, FLA., March 16, 1924. Chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee, House of Representatives. SIR: Speaking for the large ship interest embraced in the membership of the Lake Carriers' Association, and in behalf of other owners, and for the general shipping and commerce on and over the Great Lakes, I respectfully call attention to the enormous importance to the country at large of conserving the national asset of this cheap waterway, already probably the greatest in the world in use and benefit, carrying more than 120,000,000 tons a year of home products, chiefly consumed or manufactured and used in this country, and would protest against the Hull bill or any other proposal authorizing or countenancing the increase or continuation of impairment of this waterway. WILLIAM LIVINGSTONE, President Lake Carriers' Association. PEKIN, ILL., April 4, 1924. Hon. S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, Chairman House Committee on Rivers and Harbors. DEAR SIR: Pursuant to permission given at the hearing held last month, I inclose herewith a copy of that section of the Chicago Sanitary District State statute, which relates to attorney fees. I would also cite the following cases decided by the Supreme Court of Illinois holding that the 5-year statute of limitations applies to claims for damages against the sanitary district, viz: Vette v. Sanitary District (260 Ill. 432), Brockschmidt v. Sanitary District (260 III. 502); Shaw v. Sanitary District (267 Ill. 216). The water was turned in in 1900 or 1901 in much smaller quantities than now; and very few, if any, of the valley landowners had any idea at that time what the effect would be of the increased diversion and what damage would be caused thereby; so that a real injustice has been done to proably 90 per cent of the damaged landowners. Yours very truly. FRANKLIN L. VELDE. Section 19 of an act of the Legislature of the State of Illinois, entitled “An act to create sanitary districts and to remove obstructions in the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers, approved May 29, 1889, and is as follows: "Every sanitary district shall be liable for all damages to real estate within or without such district which shall be overflowed or otherwise damaged by reason of the construction, enlargement, or use of any channel, ditch, drain, outlet, or other improvement under the provisions of this act; and actions to recover such damages may be brought in the county where such real estate is situate, or in the county where such sanitary district is located, at the option of the party claiming to be injured. And in case judgment is rendered against such district for damage the plaintiff shall also recover his reasonable attorney's fees, to be taxed as costs of suit: Provided, however, That it shall appear on the trial that the plaintiff notified the trustees of such district, in writing, at least 60 days before suit was commenced, by leaving a copy of such notice with some one of the trustees of such district stating that he claims damages to the amount of dollars, by reason of [here insert the cause of damage] and intends to sue for the same: And provided further, That the amount recovered shall be larger than the amount offered by said trustees if anything) as a compromise for damages sustained." By an amendment made in 1907 the italicized words "on the trial" were eliminated and the following words substituted in place thereof, viz, "on the hearing of plaintiff's motion to tax such attorney fees." The present statute can be found on page 825 of Smith-Hurd's Illinois Revised Statute for 1923. The original section on page 133 of the Illinois Session Laws for the year 1889. X OF WATER FROM LAKE MICHIGAN HEARINGS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ILLINOIS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, AND THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM LAKE MICHIGAN INTO THE ILLINOIS RIVER HELD BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS CONSISTING OF S. WALLACE DEMPSEY, New York, Chairman. RICHARD P. FREEMAN, Connecticut. WALTER F. LINEBERGER, California. JOSEPH J. MANSFIELD, Texas. JAMES O'CONNOR, Louisiana. |
