Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

property and rights of property in and to the line of water communication between the Wisconsin river and the mouth of Fox river, including its locks, dams, canals and franchises, saving and excepting therefrom, and reserving to the said company, the following described property rights and portion of franchises which, in the opinion of the Secretary of War and of Congress, are not needed for public use, to wit: First. All of the personal property of the said company, and particularly of all such property described in the list or schedule attached to the report of said arbitrators, and now on file in the office of the Secretary of War, to which reference is hereto made, whether or not such [63] property be appurtenant to said line of water communication. Second. Also all that part of the franchise of said company, viz., the water powers created by the dams and by the use of the surplus waters not required for the purpose of navigation, with the rights of protection and preservation appurtenant thereto, and the lots, pieces, or parcels of land necessary to the enjoyment of the same, and those acquired with reference to the same, all subject to the right to use the water for all purposes of navigation, as the same is reserved in leases heretofore made by said company, a blank form of which attached to the said report of said arbitrators is now on file in the office of the Secretary of War, and to which reference is here made, and subject also to all leases, grants, and assignments made by said company, the said leases et cet. being also reserved therefrom." The leases referred to, and reserved from the grant, were those granted by the company to third parties, in consideration of the payment of annual rents. The use of the surplus water began as early as 1861, and has extended until now from one quarter to one half of the flow of the river is utilized at points near the first lock. The company has caused to be erected, at this point, large and costly mills, and it was found by the trial court that the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company has leased all of the water power created by the dam and canal, or arm of the dam, to be used over the water lots abutting on the canal.

The cause having been submitted to the superior court of Milwaukee county, upon the pleadings and proofs, that court sustained the allegations contained in the crosscomplaint of the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company, and adjudged, among other things, that "the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company is the owner of and entitled as against all the parties to this action, and their successors, heirs, and assigns, to the full flow of the river, not necessary to navigation, and that all and singular the other parties to this action are hereby forever enjoined from interfering with the said Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company in so withdrawing and using such water; and it is further considered and adjudged and decreed as in favor of the Patten Paper Com[64] pany against all other defendants that all of the water of the river which is permitted by the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company to flow over the upper dam or into the river

above Island No. 4, so as to pass down the river, should be, and it is hereby, divided and apportioned between the plaintiffs and their successors and assigns, the Kaukauna Water Power Company, and its successors and assigns, and the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company, and its successors and assigns, between and to the south, middle, and north channels of the river in the following proportions, et cet."

The supreme court of Wisconsin reversed the judgment so rendered by the superior court, and remanded the case to the superior court with directions to enter judgment in accordance with its opinion. [93 Wis. 283.] That court, in obedience to the mandate of the supreme court, entered a final judgment in the case, as follows, omitting recitals:

"Upon motion of Hooper and Hooper, plaintiffs' attorneys, it is considered, adjudged, and decreed, as in favor of the Patten Paper Company, Union Pulp Company, and Fox River Pulp & Paper Company against all defendants, that all the water of the river except that required for purposes of navigation shall be and is hereby divided and apportioned between and to the south, middle, and north channels of the river, in the following proportions, that is to say: 43-200 thereof of right should flow down the south channel; 157-200 thereof should of right flow down the main channel of the river, north of Island No. 4, and that of the water so of right flowing down the main channel of the river, north of Island No. 4, and above the middle channel, 62-157 thereof should of right flow down the middle channel and south of Island No 3, and that of the water flowing down the north channel north of Island No. 4, and above Island No. 3, 95-157 part should of right flow down the north channel and north of Island No. 3; and each of the parties, to this action, their heirs, successors, and assigns, are forever enjoined from interfering with the waters of said river so as to prevent their flowing into said channels in the proportions aforesaid.

"And it is further adjudged by the court that said Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Com- [65] pany, its successors and assigns, shall so use the water, if at all, created by said dam, as that all the water used for water power or hydraulic purposes shall be returned to the stream in such a manner and at such a place as not to deprive the appellants or those claiming under or through them of its use as it had been accustomed to flow past the lands of the said appellants on said river and in the several channels of said river below said dam as it was accustomed to flow, and that said appellants shall have the right to use the water of said river, except such as is or may be necessary for navigation, as it was wont to run in a state of nature without material alteration or diminution."

From this judgment the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company, plaintiff in the cross bill, appealed to the supreme court of the state; and on January 10, 1896, the respondents, the present defendants in error, moved to dismiss said appeal for the reason that the judgment was in exact accord with the mandate and was in effect the judgment

of the supreme court. Upon this motion the supreme court dismissed the appeal, expressing itselt as follows:

"After careful consideration we are constrained to hold that the judgment entered is a substantial compliance with the mandate of this court. Certainly it would have been improper to allow any amendment to pleadings or new litigation. The mandate was not for a new trial, nor for further proceedings according to law, but with direction to enter judgment in accordance with the opinion, and the opinion left nothing undetermined. This left nothing for the trial court to do in the case except to enter judgment therein as directed."

By that appeal and its decision the jurisdiction of the state courts in the case was exhausted, and the judgment entered in the superior court became the final judgment of the highest court in the state in which a decision in the suit could be had. And on May 18, 1896, a writ of error to said judgment by the Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Company was taken to this court and allowed by the Chief Justice of the supreme court of Wisconsin.

Messrs. William F. Vilas, B. J. Stevens, and E Mariner, for plaintiff in

error:

The rights and privileges of the plaintiff are held under the statutes and authority of the United States, and the decision of the state court was against the rights and privileges so claimed and enjoyed.

The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443, 13 L. ed. 1058; The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 19 L. ed. 999; The Eagle, 8 Wall. 15, 19 L. ed. 365; Ex parte Boyer, 109 U. S. 629, 27 L. ed. 1056: Re Garnett, 141 U. S. 1, 35 L. ed. 631. All navigable waters are under the control of the United States for the purpose of regulating and improving navigation.

Wisconsin v. Duluth, 96 U. S. 387, 24 L. ed. 672; Northern Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635, 25 L. ed. 336; Eldridge v. Trezevant, 160 U. S. 452, 40 L. ed. 490; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23; Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. 227, 16 L. ed. 243; Foster v. Davenport, 22 How. 244, 16 L. ed. 248; Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 259, 23 L. ed. 543; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275, 22 L. ed. 550; New York v. Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 107 U. S. 59, 27 L. ed. 383; The Glide, 167 U. S. 606, 42 L. ed.

296.

Riparian ownership is subject to the obligation to suffer the consequences of the improvement of navigation in the exercise of the dominant right of the government in that regard.

Gibson v. United States, 166 U. S. 276, 41 L. ed. 1002; Northern Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 99 U. S. 635, 25 L. ed. 336; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. Coons, 6 Watts & S. 101, Wisconsin River Improv. Co. v. Lyons, 30 Wis. 65: Arimond v. Green Bay & M. Canal Co. 31 Wis. 338; Cohn v. Wausau Boom Co. 47 Wis. 322.

Messrs. George G. Greene, Alfred L. Cary, Moses Hooper, John T. Fish, and David S. Ordway, for defendants in error:

No right under the Federal Constitution was "specially set up or claimed" in the state

court.

Maxwell v. Newbold, 18 How. 511, 15 L. ed. 506; Brooks v. Missouri, 124 U. S. 394, 31 L. ed. 454; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462, 35 L. ed. 225; Schuyler Nat. Bank v. Bol long, 150 U. S. 85, 37 L. ed. 1008; Re Buchanan, 158 U. S. 31, 39 L. ed. 884; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Chicago, 164 U. S. 454, 41 L. ed. 511; Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648, 41 L. ed. 1149.

The burden is on the plaintiff in error to show that the claim was thus set up.

Marrow v. Brinkley, 129 U. S. 178, 32 L. ed. 654; Kansas Endowment Asso. v. Kansas, 120 U. S. 103, 30 L. ed. 593; Church v. Kelsey, 121 U. S. 282, 30 L. ed. 960.

Neither the Constitution nor any provision of it is mentioned in the printed record, save in the assignment of errors in this court.

Ansbro v. United States, 159 U. S. 695, 40 L. ed. 310; Butler v. Gage, 138 U. S. 52, 34 L. ed. 869.

Plaintiff in error has no right, as grantee of the state, to divert from the land or water powers of the defendants in error any of the water of the river for power.

Head v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co. 113 U. S. 9, 28 L. ed. 889; Garwood v. New York C. & H.

R. R. Co. 83 N. Y. 400, 38 Am. Rep. 452; Druley v. Adam, 102 Ill. 177; Emporia v. Soden, 25 Kan. 588, 37 Am. Rep. 265; Kimberly & C. Co. v. Hewitt, 79 Wis. 334; Smith v. Rochester, 92 N. Y. 463, 44 Am. Rep. 393; Halsey v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 45 N. J. L. 26; A. C. Conn Co. v. Little Suamico Lumber Mfg. Co. 74 Wis. 652; Grand Rapids v. Powers, 89 Mich. 94, 14 L. R. A. 498; Black River Improv. Co. v. La Crosse Boom Co. 54 Wis. 659; Brooks v. Cedar Brook & S. River Improv. Co. 82 Me. 17, 7 L. R. A. 460; Delaplaine v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 42 Wis. 214, 24 Am. Rep. 386.

The powers of eminent domain and taxation agree in that they can be exercised only for a public use.

Cole v. La Grange, 113 U. S. 1, 28 L. ed. 896: Atty. Gen. v. Eau Claire, 37 Wis. 400; Re Eureka Basin Warehouse & Mfg. Co. 93 N. Y. 42; Weismer v. Douglas, 64 Ñ. Y. 91, 21 Am. Rep. 586; Consolidated Channel Co. v. Central P. R. Co. 51 Cal. 269; Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige, 137, 28 Am. Dec. 417; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487, 27 L. ed. 238; Central Branch Union P. R. Co. ✔ Smith, 23 Kan. 745; Bissell v. Kankakee, 64 Ill. 249, 21 Am. Rep. 554; English v. People, 96 Ill. 566; Sholl v. German Coal Co. 118 Ill. 427, 59 Am. Rep. 379; Allen v. Jay, 60 Me. 124, 11 Am. Rep. 185; Newell v. Smith, 15 Wis. 102; Curtis v. Whipple, 24 Wis. 350, 1 Am. Rep. 187; Osborn v. Hart, 24 Wis. 89, 1 Am. Rep. 161.

The power incidental to the right to improve streams for navigation is only the power of the surplus water not used for navigation, at the improvement which intercepts the flow of the stream to raise a head for navigation.

Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige, 137, 28 Am. Dec. 417; Cooper v. Williams, 5 Ohio, 392, 24

Am. Dec. 299; Buckingham v. Smith, 10 Ohio, 288; Druley v. Adam, 102 Ill. 177; Kaukauna Water Power Co. v. Green Bay & M. Canal Co. 142 U. S. 254, 35 L. ed. 1004. Riparian property cannot be taken for any public use except navigation, until compensation is provided.

Janesville v. Carpenter, 77 Wis. 288, 8 L. R. A. 808; Halsey v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 45 N. J. L. 26; Lowell v. Boston, 111 Mass. 454, 15 Am. Rep. 39.

Plaintiff in error has no right as a riparian owner to divert water from complainants for power.

ed States, and that the right and title of the said canal company to the use of the water power so created arose under and by virtue of certain alleged and recited acts of Congress and acts of the legislature of the state of Wisconsin, relating to the improvement of Fox river as a public highway, and espe cially by virtue of an alleged contract between the United States and the canal company, whereby the use of the surplus water created by said dam and canal was granted and reserved to the canal company.

Assuming the truth of such allegations, it is plain that the *plaintiff in error asserted a [67] right and title and authority exercised under the United States.

Webb v. Portland Mfg. Co. 3 Sumn. 189; Pratt v. Lamson, 2 Allen, 275; Vandenbergh v. Van Bergen, 13 Johns. 212; It is, however, urged that, whatever may Harding v. Stamford Water Co. 41 Conn. have been the right, title, privilege, or au87; Parker v. Griswold, 17 Conn. 288, 42 thority possessed by the canal company and Am. Dec. 739; Blanchard v. Baker, 8 Mc. derived from the United States, such right, 253, 23 Am. Dec. 504; Moulton v. Newbury title, privilege, or authority was not specialport Water Co. 137 Mass. 163; Illinois & M.ly set up and claimed in the state courts at Canal Trustees v. Haven, 11 Ill. 554; Corn- a time and in a manner to give this court ing v. Troy Iron & Nail Factory, 40 N. Y. jurisdiction.

191.

Plaintiff in error has gained no right to convert the water for power, by prescription or estoppel.

Prentice v. Geiger, 74 N. Y. 341; Holsman v. Boiling Spring Bleaching Co. 14 N. J. Eq. 335; Norway Plains Co. v. Bradley, 52 N. H. 86; Carlisle v. Cooper, 21 N. J. Eq. 576.

There can be no estoppel to assert a legal right or title, by acquiescence, if the facts on which the right or title depends were equally known to both parties; nor unless the acquiescence was fraudulent.

Brant v. Virginia Coal & I. Co. 93 U. S. 326, 23 L. ed. 927; Kingman v. Graham, 5! Wis. 232; Canning v. Harlan, 50 Mich. 320; Robbins v. Potter, 98 Mass. 532; Steel v. St. Louis Smelting & Ref. Co. 106 U. S. 447, 27 L. ed. 226; Powell v. Rogers, 105 Ill. 318, Henshaw v. Bissell, 18 Wall. 255, 21 L. ed. 835; Williams v. Wadsworth, 51 Conn. 277.

[66] *Mr. Justice Shiras delivered the opinion of the court:

First for our consideration is the motion made by the defendants in error to dismiss the writ of error because the record does not disclose that any Federal question was involved in the controversy, and because no title, right, privilege, or immunity claimed under the Constitution of the United States, or any treaty or statute of, or commission held, or authority exercised under, the United States, was specifically set up or claimed in the trial court or in the supreme court of the state of Wisconsin by the plaintiff in error, nor was there any decision in either of said state courts against any such title, right, privilege, or immunity specially set up or claimed by the plaintiff in error.

This contention is based on the words in section 709 of the Revised Statutes, carried forward from the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of 1789, "specially set up or claimed;" and the effect to be given to those words has been frequently considered by this court.

There is a class of cases wherein it has been held and laid down as settled doctrine that "the revisory power of this court does not extend to rights denied by the final judgment of the highest court of a state, unless the party claiming such rights plainly and distinctly indicated, before the state court disposed of the case, that they were claimed under the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States; that if a party intends to invoke for the protection of his rights the Constitution of the United States, or some treaty, statute, commission, or authority of the United States, he must so declare; and unless he does so declare 'specially,' that is, unmistakably, this court is without authority to re-examine the final judgment of the state court; that this statutory requirement is not met if such declaration is so general in its character that the purpose of the party to assert a Federal right is left to mere inference."

The last elaborate discussion of this phase of the subject is found in the opinion of the court in Oxley Stave Company v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648 [41: 1149], delivered by Mr. Justice Harlan, in which many of the cases are reviewed and from which the preceding quotation is taken.

But no particular form of words or phrases has ever been declared necessary in which the claim of Federal rights must be asserted. It is sufficient if it appears from the record that such rights were specially set up or claimed in the state court in such manner [68] as to bring it to the attention of that court.

The contention that no Federal question is disclosed in the record is sufficiently disposed of, we think, by an inspection of the cross"The true and rational rule," this court complaint filed by the Green Bay & Missis- said in Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Land sippi Canal Company. It was therein & Improv. Co. 1 Wall. 143 [17: 576], "is that claimed that the water power in question was created by a dam, canal, and other improvements owned and operated by the Unit

the court must be able to see clearly, from the whole record, that a certain provision of the Constitution or act of Congress was re

decision on the ground that before the navi gation of the river was artificially improved there had been numerous obstructions to a continuous navigation, by reason of falls and rapids, and that, therefore, Fox river was not a navigable water of the United States. But this court reversed the judgment and held that Fox river is a stream of a national character, and that steamboats navigating its waters are subject to governmental regulations.

lied on by the party who brings the writ of error, and that the right thus claimed by him was denied." In Roby v. Colehour, 146 U. S. 159 [36: 922], it was said that "our jurisdiction being invoked, upon the ground that a right or immunity, specially set up and claimed under the Constitution or authority of the United States, has been denied by the judgment sought to be reviewed, it must appear from the record of the case, either that the right, so set up and claimed, was expressly denied, or that such was the To aid in the improvement of the Fox and necessary effect in law of the judgment." Wisconsin rivers, and to connect the same by If it appear from the record, by clear and a canal, the United States, by the act of Aunecessary intendment, that the Federal ques-gust 8, 1846 (9 Stat. at L. 83, chap. 170), tion must have been directly involved, so granted a quantity of land on each side of that the state court could not have given Fox river, and the lakes through which it judgment without deciding it, that will be passes, from its mouth to the point where sufficient." Powell v. Brunswick County, the portage canal should enter the same, 150 U. S. 440 [37: 1137]; Sayward v. Den- and provided that, as soon as the Territory ny, 158 U. S. 180 [39: 941]; Chicago, Bur- of Wisconsin should be admitted as a state, lington, & Q. R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. all the lands granted by the act should be226 [41: 979]. come the property of said state "for the purpose contemplated by the act, and no other." it further enacted that the legislature should agree to accept said grant upon the terms specified in the act, and should have power to fix the price at which said lands should be sold, not less than one dollar and twenty-five cents *the acre; and to adopt such [70] kind and plan of improvement on said route as the said legislature shall from time to time determine for the best interest of said state; and provided, also, that the lands granted should not be conveyed or disposed of by said state, except as said improvements should progress-that is, the said state might sell so much of said lands as should produce the sum of twenty thousand dollars, and then the sales should cease until the governor of the state should certify the fact to the President of the United States that one half of said sum had been expended upon said improvements, when the said state might sell and dispose of a quantity of said lands sufficient to reimburse the amount expended; and that thus the sales should progress as the proceeds thereof should be expended, and the fact of such expenditure certified in the manner in the act mentioned. It further enacted that the said improvements should be commenced within three years after the said state should be admitted into the Union, and completed within twenty years, or the United States should be entitled to receive the amount for which any of said lands might have been sold by the state.

As then, in its cross-complaint, the canal company explicitly set up and claimed, as the foundation of its alleged rights, the acts of Congress and the transactions between the United States and the canal company, under which the United States became the owner of the dam, canal, and other improvements on the Fox river, and the canal company became vested with its rights in the surplus water power incidental to said works, and as, in the final judgment, the supreme court of Wisconsin necessarily held adversely to these claims of Federal right, we hold that the motion to dimiss for want of jurisdiction must be overruled, and that it is our duty to inspect the record in order to see whether there was error in the rulings of the court below.

Whether the water power, incidentally created by the erection and maintenance of the dam and canal for the purposes of navigation in Fox river, is subject to control and [69] appropriation *by the United States, owning and operating those public works, or by the state of Wisconsin, within whose limits Fox river lies, is the decisive question in this case. Upon the undisputed facts contained in the record we think it clear that the canal company is possessed of whatever rights to the use of this incidental water power that could be validly granted by the United States.

That Fox river is one of the navigable waters of the United States has been already decided by this court in the case of The Montello, 20 Wall. 430 [22: 391], upon the same facts, historical and legislative, that are now before us. That was the case of a libel filed by the Government in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Wisconsin against the steamer Montello, in admiralty, for noncompliance with acts of Congress making enrolment and license and certain provisions as to steam valves necessary for vessels like the Montello navigating the navigable waters of the United States. The court below dismissed the libel, resting its 172 U. S. U. S.. BOOK 43.

In February, 1848, the state of Wisconsin was created by the adoption of a Constitution, and the legislature of the new state, by an act passed August 8, 1848, accepted the grant from Congress made by the act of August 8, 1846, and organized a board of public works, and authorized the board, in the construction of such improvements, to "enter on, to take possession of, and use all lands, waters, and materials the appropriation of which for the use of such works of improvement should in their judgment be necessary. The act contained the following section: 24

369

"Sec. 16. When any lands, waters, or ma- | the rights of way, dams, locks, canals, water terials appropriated by the board to the use power, and other appurtenances of said of said improvements shall belong to the works; also all the right possessed by the state, such lands, waters, or materials, and state of demanding and receiving tolls and so much of the adjoining land as may be val- rents for the same, so far as the state posuable for hydraulic or commercial purposes, sesses or is authorized to grant the same, and shall be absolutely reserved to the state, and all privileges of constructing said works and whenever a water power shall be created by repairing the same, and all other rights and reason of any dam erected or other improve- privileges belonging to the improvement to [71] ments made on any of *said rivers, such the same extent and in the same manner water power shall belong to the state subject that the state now holds or may exercise such to future action of the legislature." rights by virtue of the acts above referred to in this section."

Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 provide for condemnation by the board of such lands, waters, and materials belonging to individuals, with whom the board could not agree, and for payment of damages out of the fund. By an act approved February 9, 1850, the legislature of Wisconsin enacted as follows: "The board of public works are hereby authorized and empowered in any future lettings of contracts for the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers to consider bids made by any person or persons for improvements which will create a water power, and when such person or persons offer to perform, or perform and maintain, the work in consideration of the granting by the state to him or them, his or their assigns, forever, the whole or a part of such water power: Provided, That before such bid is accepted and the contracts entered into it shall receive the approval of the governor.

"When lettings have been made for the improvement of said rivers, whereby a water power is created, the board of public works may relinquish to the person or persons who have performed the same all or a part of such power as a consideration in full or in part for such performance or maintenance of such improvement, or for both."

The eighth article of the Constitution of Wisconsin contained the following:

The Fox & Wisconsin Improvement Company, thus created and empowered, agreed to fully execute the trust, and forthwith undertook the work.

By an act, approved October 3, 1856, entitled "An Act to Secure the Enlargement and Immediate Completion of the Improvement of the Navigation of the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers," etc., it was enacted, by its second section, as follows:

"Sec. 2. To enable said company to make all the dams, locks, canals, feeders, and other structures, and to do all the dredging and other work, and furnish all materials necessary to complete the improvement of the navigation of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers and the canal connecting the same, all the lands now unsold, granted by Congress in aid of said improvement, as explained by the same body (which grants are hereby accepted), are hereby granted to the Fox & Wisconsin Improvement Company, subject, however, to the terms and conditions of said grants by Congress, and to the further terms and conditions following, that is to say: That within ninety days after the passage of this act, the said company shall make a deed of trust to three trustees to be appointed *as [78] hereinafter provided, including and conveying to said trustees and their successors all the unsold lands granted to the state of Wisconsin by the several acts and resolutions of Congress to aid in the improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers, and all the works of improvements constructed or to be constructed on said rivers, and all and singular the rights of way, dams, locks, canals, water powers, and other appurtenances of said works, and all rights, privileges, and franchises belonging to said improvement, and all property of said company, of whatever

"Sec. 10. The state shall never contract any debt for works of internal improvement or be a party carrying on such works; but whenever grants of land or other property shall have been made to the state, especially dedicated by the grant to particular works of internal improvement, the state may carry on such particular works, and shall devote thereto the avails of such grants, and may pledge or appropriate the revenues derived from such works in aid of their completion." By the act approved July 6, 1853, the leg-name and description." islature of Wisconsin created a corporation to supersede the board of public works in the construction and maintenance of the improvements on the Fox and Wisconsin rivers [72] under the name of *the "Fox and Wisconsin Improvement Company," and granted and surrendered to the said company "the works of improvement contemplated by the act entitled 'An Act to Provide for the Improvement of the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers and Connecting the Same by a Canal,' approved August 8, 1848, and by several acts supplemental thereto and amendatory thereof, and known as the 'Fox and Wisconsin rivers improvement,' together with all and singular 370

By the third section it was enacted that, for raising funds, from time to time, for the construction, enlargement, and completion of said works of improvement, and for the purchase of materials to be used therein, etc., said company might issue its bonds, to be countersigned by said trustees, in sums of not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars each, at rates of interest not exceeding ten per centum per annum, payable semi-annually, the principal of said bonds payable at a period to be therein named, not exceeding twenty years from their date, etc., and that the payment of said bonds should be secured by the deed of trust afore172 U. S.

« ForrigeFortsett »