|
•• And the defendants offered in evidence by the same witness, that, in his
opinion, it was impracticable, although not absolutely impossible, but inex-
pedient, to carry the water from Ann street into Harris's creek; and that, in
the year 1817, an abutment was erected on Gough street near County street
divert the water which passed from the northeast into the harbor, as
delineated by the small blue line at G, into County street, for the purpose
of relieving, in a degree, the- property of the plaintiffs, and diverting the
water from Washington street, and in order to prevent too much water from
entering the basin at one point; that he thought the public convenience re-
quired the diversion of the water to the east, which tended west, as it injur-
ed the navigation. If Market street had been raised and paved, it might
have sent the waters into different directions, but this was not done. As to
the tunnel at Harris's creek, it was impracticable, as the distance was per-
haps a half mile or more, and through high grounds, and the commission-
ers, one of whom he was, had several reasons for seeking for an eastern di-
rection for the waters, which were principally four: first, because it would
require a change in the grade of a point in Dulany street, on the east of
Market street; secondly, because Ann street must have been raised 4 feeV
and Dulany street depressed 4 feet, or, what would have been equivalent,
Dulany street must have been raised & feet to carry off the water from Ann
'and Washington streets to Harford run; and thirdly, because Harford run,
in his opinion, was not sufficient to carry off the waters; and fourthly, be-
..cause the navigation must have suffered; that all of these measures for turn-
:ing the waters into the eastern cove were recommended by the witness to
.the city council, particularly the diversion of the waters down Ann street >
And the defendants further offered in evidence by Nathaniel Hynson, a
.witness sworn at the bar, that he was one of the city commissioners from _
the year 1818 to the year 1819, both inclusive; that the said witness con-
x;urred with Henry Stouffer and James Martin, the other commissioners,
that it would be inexpedient and productive of great evil to carry the wash
from the ravine north of Dulany street into Harlord run, and thence into
the western cove; that, in his opinion, Harford run was insufficient to re-
ceive the same; and that the introduction of said wash into Harford run
would have been highly injurious to the western navigation, and would have
tended, in conjunction with other causes, as stated by Henry Stouffer, t»*
destroy the said navigation; and that, in his judgment, having regard to the
best interest of the city at large, the best disposition which could be made-
of the said wash from Dulany street was the introduction of it into the east-
ern cove, thereby keeping the same out of the heart of the navigation, and
carrying it where it would do least injury.
And the said witness further gave in evidence, that after the said
was diverted into Market street, and before Ann and Gough streets
opened, that part of said wash which came down the east gutter of Market^
street passed through Fleet and Alisanna streets into the east cove, near '
property of the plaintiffs.
And the witness further offered in evidence, that what was called the toi
interest was for diverting the water east, but the Point interest was for
running west; and, in order to divide responsibility, the city commission*"^
united with the port wardens, and agreed upon the erection of mounds,
the purpose of giving the waters an eastern direction, as the western dir
t.ion would require a very inconvenient grade. That Harford street itseU
would not have been sufficient, but if the run had been enlarged the
"
could have been discharged, unless in case of such a freshet as occurred in
August, 1817; that the said disposition of the waters was made after much
deliberation, and after taking then what he considered the best advice.
And the defendants further offered in evidence to the jury, by William
McDonald, a witness sworn at the bar, that he was one of the port wardens
from the years 1813 to 1819, inclusive; that the dams at the intersection of
Dulany and Ann streets, and the dam at the intersection of Smith
and Ann streets, were erected in the year 1813; that the whole of
the work done under the direction of the port wardens was done with a
view to preserve the navigation of the harbor; that the wash which collect-
ed in Dulany street, at its intersection with Ann street, did great injury to
the navigation of the harbor whenever it met the tide; and that when the
said wash was diverted into Market street, a pen was erected at the end of
the said street to prevent the said wash from going into the navigation; that
the dam at N, across Ann street, was erected to intercept the wash which
came down the ravine at the intersection of Dulany street and Ann street,
and to prevent it from passing into the harbor. And also offered evidence
by the same witness, that the grounds eastward, from Ann street to County
atreet, rise to a great elevation, and are very much broken and gullied, and
% have been a good deal dug for pebble ballast, and that these causes have
' increased the washings from the hills, and that in his judgment it was of
treat importance to the general interests of the city to divert the washings
from Ann street from the western navigation; that the washing from the
•hills to the east of Ann street were in his opinion very detrimental, and that
the interests of the city required their diversion from the western navigation;
that his motive for uniting in this order was the existence of a deep hole
dug in the high bank on the side of George or Smith street, by the city and
Others, for procuring paving sand, and that the waters carried much of these
loosened sands into the western cove, whereby the navigation was suffering:
his opinion was, that if the waters had been divided and diffused, instead of
being united either into eastern or a western direction, the evil would have
been inconsiderable; that their general duties as wardens extended to the
protection of the whole navigation, but in the particular alteration made
they thought the water would be diffused, and would not do injury any
where; the eastern navigation did not occur to them, or that any injury
could be there done; that he now thinks that the dam above, referred to, and
made, independent of any alterations subsequently made, nor have caused
^jury to the navigation any where.
' - ^"e defendants further offered in evidence by witnesses sworn at the bar,
•that they and each of them have been for many years residents of Baltimore,
•M are acquainted with the progressive improvements in the different parts
a city, and with the opening of Ann street, Gough street, Washington
Wilk's street, County street, and Castle alley; that they are well ac-
*"' with the nature of the wash which collects at the intersection of Du-
3 Ann streets, and, in their judgment, the said wash should have
* if*"^6^ ^nto ^e eas^ern cove in preference to the western cove, and
the same, having regard to the general interest and prosperity of the
"» properly carried there.
ick Schaeffer, one of the said witnesses, said that he is not much
_e, but supposes that if the v/ater from Dulany street had been ear-
to Harlord run, that it would have injured the western navigation,
defendant then offo.-etl in evidence uy David WHIiamson, that the
marked on the plat from H to E was generally a dry cr.e in the sum-
|
