sukvis* 
 
 ILLINOIS 
 
 Rivers and Lakes Commission 
 
 Bulletin No. 9. CHICAGO, ILL. July 31, 1912. 
 
 The Illinois 
 
 W ater-Power-W ater-Way 
 
 AN ATTACK BY 
 
 EBIN J. WARD 
 
 AND DEFENSE BY 
 
 ROBERT ISHAM RANDOLPH 
 
 ' 
 
 [S STATE WATER 
 LIBRARY COPY 
 
 TATE OF 
 
 Issued in Accordance with 
 Act of the General Assembly 
 Approved June 10, 1911. 
 
STATE OF ILLINOIS 
 
 Rivers and Lakes Commission 
 
 Bulletin No. 9. CHICAGO, ILL. July 31, 1912. 
 
 The Illinois 
 
 W ater-Power-W ater-W ay 
 
 AN ATTACK BY 
 
 EBIN J. WARD 
 
 AND DEFENSE BY 
 
 ROBERT ISHAM RANDOLPH 
 
 Issued in Accordance with 
 Act of the General Assembly 
 Approved June 10, 1911. 
 
 SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS: 
 
 Illinois State Journal Co., State Printers 
 1912. 
 
WATER-POWER-WATER-WAY. 
 
 Mr. Ebin J. Ward, of Marseilles, Illinois, has circulated a pamphlet 
 under date of January 15, 1912, entitled “The Illinois Water-Power- 
 Water-Way—If constructed can the promises made to the people he ful¬ 
 filled, and will its cost warrant the burden to the tax payers ?” 
 
 Mr. Ward’s attacks upon the State plan for the construction of a 
 waterway between Lockport, Illinois, and Utica, Illinois, and the con¬ 
 servation of the water power in the DesPlaines and Illinois rivers have 
 been numerous. To date no one has seen fit to challenge his statements, 
 and I would fain let him enjoy his controversy by himself; but at the 
 earnest solicitation of friends of the waterway, who imagine that his 
 criticisms carry weight, I have undertaken to answer his arguments. 
 
 Mr. Ward is a resident of Marseilles, and his attacks upon the State 
 waterway plan are not disinterested, as will appear from the following: 
 
 On March 9, 1867, the Legislature passed an Act to incorporate the 
 Marseilles Land and Water Power Company under which this company 
 was authorized to construct a dam not exceeding eight feet high above 
 low water. It is alleged that this Act gave the corporation perpetual 
 right to this privilege. In 1869 the Legislature amended this Act, and 
 the amendment was approved March 27, 1869, providing that when the 
 State shall take possession of the dam for navigation purposes the State 
 shall cause a reasonable compensation to be paid to said Land and 
 Water Power Company. At the time of the building of the dam the 
 Water Power Company entered into a contract with the owner of the 
 frontage on the south side of the river providing that in case the owner 
 on that side should so elect he could, at any time, take one-quarter of the 
 water in consideration of his frontage, the Water Power Company to 
 maintain the dam in consideration of the other quarter in addition to 
 their own half. The successor to the second party of this contract is 
 Ebin J. Ward. 
 
 While it is apparent that Mr. Ward has had the right to draw one- 
 quarter of the water and to use it for power purposes, he has not for 
 some forty years taken advantage of that right. The right apparently 
 did not seem to him a valuable one until it appeared that the State of 
 Illinois might condemn this right for the purposes of a waterway. 
 
 Immediately after the failure of the Legislature to pass a waterway 
 bill during the regular session of 1910, there was incorporated the Mar¬ 
 seilles Hydraulic Company, certificate of incorporation for ninety-nine 
 years issued on June 18, 1910. The object of the corporation is to “to 
 acquire by lease or purchase or by lease and purchase water power and 
 —2 R L 
 
4 
 
 water power rights; also to acquire by lease or purchase or by lease and 
 purchase such real estate as may be necessary to the development of 
 such water rights to be used in the development of hydro-electric power 
 plants, such hydro-electric power when so developed to be leased, sold 
 and distributed for lighting, heating and power purposes.” 
 
 On June 30, 1910, two days after the certificate of incorporation was 
 issued to the Marseilles Hydraulic Company, Ebin J. Ward, of Mar¬ 
 seilles, executed a lease to this company of his lands and water rights 
 in Marseilles, consisting of land lying south of the Illinois river at Mar¬ 
 seilles, together with alleged water power and riparian rights, for a term 
 of 99 years. Under the term of this lease, Ward is to receive rentals as 
 follows: 
 
 $1,000 for the first year; $2,000 for the second year; $3,000 for the 
 third year; $4,000 for the fourth year; $5,000 for the fifth year; $6,000 
 for the sixth year; and for each and every year thereafter $6,000 per 
 year. In Article 10 of this lease, the lessee is given an option to pur¬ 
 chase this property at any time within ten years for the sum of 
 $125,000.00. The lessee is also given the right to dig a channel and 
 erect a powerhouse on this property. 
 
 It will be seen, therefore, that certain alleged rights accruing to Mr. 
 Ward; but which he did not attempt to enjoy for something like forty 
 years, suddenly became immensely valuable. For some unaccountable 
 reason the potential water power that had been neglected for forty 
 years, one that is exceedingly difficult to develop on account of the neces¬ 
 sity of a head race through an elevated country, became suddenly so 
 valuable that Mr. Ward is enabled to sit back and draw a handsome in¬ 
 come from the property without turning a hand. It is apparent, there¬ 
 fore, that Mr. Ward’s attack upon the State plan for a waterway and the 
 conservation of water power is not entirely disinterested. These facts 
 must be kept in mind when regarding Mr. Ward’s animadversion on the 
 State plan. 
 
 I have outlined Mr. Ward’s interest in the matter—permit me to 
 explain my own. 
 
 I am the Secretary of the Rivers and Lakes Commission of Illinois. 
 This commission is charged with the duty of disseminating information 
 with regard to the waterways in the State, and with the further duty of 
 protecting the rights and interests of the public in these waterways. For 
 this employment. I receive what I believe to be a fair remuneration, and 
 I have, moreover, an abiding faith in the feasibility?', practicability and 
 public good of the State waterway and water power project. My interest 
 is tempered to some extent by the fact that I have an inherent distaste 
 for controversy. Be that as it may, it now becomes mv duty to defend 
 this project at the instance of its friends, who are of the people and 
 represent the people. 
 
 It has been charged that the so-called electric power trust has been 
 circulating Mr. Ward’s pamphlet and his arguments freely throughout 
 the State. This may or may not be true, but in order to give Mr. 
 Ward’s pamphlet the same degree of publicity as my reply, I present 
 herewith his attack and my defense in parallel columns: 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/illinoi s wate rpowOO ward 
 
View No. 410—This view was taken March 24. 1912, on which date the ice in the river^commenced j^j^ e t ‘ he ^Q r °i r oy® ( j Ice Tfhe ) ' , cofferdan'i S with- 
 
 is being- held back by the temporary cofferdam on the Iowa shore, the northeast corner of which is in the iore^rounu. 
 stood this enormous pressure without sustaining any damage. 
 
5 
 
 Income, and Values to State. 
 
 Prior to the election of Novem¬ 
 ber, 1908, when a majority of the 
 voter$ favored amending the State 
 Constitution so as to permit the is¬ 
 suing of $20,000,000 bonds for the 
 construction 6f a deep waterway 
 from Joliet to Utica, published 
 statements lead the people to be¬ 
 lieve that the State was asked 
 merely to lend its credit for a few 
 years when the total expenditure 
 would be returned to the treasury 
 from the enormous income that 
 would surely be derived from the 
 use by the State of what it was 
 claimed was in reality its own prop¬ 
 erty, but which designing, unscrup¬ 
 ulous men either had “grabbed” or 
 were about to “grab.” 
 
 One of these widely distributed 
 circulars states: “if the entire net 
 receipts, $3,500,000 are applied, the 
 bonds would be paid in eight years 
 and two months. * * * The sur¬ 
 
 plus earnings above that required to 
 pay the bonds will be paid into the 
 State Treasury to lessen the taxes 
 of the taxpayers of this State.” 
 Another leaflet, of which over half 
 a million were distributed by State 
 officials, says: “The annual net 
 
 revenue will, therefore, be $2,- 
 500,000. * * * The bonds will 
 
 be retired in fourteen years of op¬ 
 eration, and, as shown by the fore¬ 
 going summary, the entire issue 
 can be retired with a net profit to 
 the State of $2,355,694.85. This 
 presents the case in its most un¬ 
 favorable aspect; and this is not 
 all, for the property will continue 
 to yield its perpetual yearly revenue 
 of $2,500,000 * * * ” Other cir¬ 
 
 culars of similar import were sent 
 broadcast over the State and were 
 backed by verbal statements of even 
 tenor. In his message of November 
 6, 1907, Governor Deneen says: 
 “It is estimated that the four power 
 points between Joliet and Utica 
 would produce 130,000 effective H. 
 P. on the turbine shaft. The value 
 of this power as a going concern is 
 variously estimated at from $400 to 
 $500 per horse power, or an aggre¬ 
 gate of $52,000,000 to $65,000,000, 
 * * *.” The entire project is, 
 
 therefore, of such a character that 
 the cost of the works can be paid 
 
 I am constrained to amend Mr. 
 Ward’s statement as follows: 
 
 Prior to the election of Novem¬ 
 ber, 1908, when an overwhelming 
 majority of the voters favored 
 amending the State constitution. 
 The vote upon the constitutional 
 amendment was as follows: 675,- 
 898 For; 193,298 Against. It is 
 true that published statements led 
 the people to believe that the State 
 was merely asked to lend its cred¬ 
 it, not for a few years, but for 
 twenty years. If these statements 
 led the people to believe this, they 
 were successful in their mission, 
 for that is exactly what they were 
 designed to do, and that is all that 
 was asked of the people, all that 
 is expected of the people, in this 
 project, for we still believe and 
 maintain that the total expenditure 
 required to construct this water¬ 
 way and conserve this water power 
 will be returned to the treasury 
 and that the bonds will be retired 
 within twenty years. 
 
 We still maintain and affirm that 
 thfe potential water power in this 
 stretch of river between Lockport 
 and Utica is the State’s property. 
 The only thing that makes it a 
 water power is the artificial incre¬ 
 ment of flow from Lake Michigan 
 sent down the DesPlaines and Illi¬ 
 nois rivers through the Chicago 
 Drainage canal constructed at the 
 expense of the people. The state¬ 
 ment that men—I hesitate to call 
 them unscrupulous, but I do call 
 them designing—had grabbed or 
 were about to grab this water 
 power, has been confirmed in the 
 light of subsequent developments. 
 It is seen that Mr. Ward and his 
 lessees suddenly realized the enor¬ 
 mous value of the property that 
 had lain dormant for forty years 
 and proceeded to develop this 
 value. 
 
 The widely distributed circular 
 referred to, making the .wild state¬ 
 ment objected to is qualified with 
 an If. Unfortunately many wild 
 and extravagant statements in re¬ 
 gard to the proposed waterway and 
 water power plan were made. I, 
 personally, have heard spellbinders 
 navigate battleships through Illi- 
 
G 
 
 out of the revenue by the mere use 
 of the credit of the State and with¬ 
 out burden to the people.” It was 
 even claimed that all this in reality 
 belonged to the State at that time, 
 and that it was only necessary for 
 the Legislature to rub Aladdin’s 
 lamp and, lo! an annual income 
 variously estimated from $2,500,000 
 to $3,250,000 would perpetually flow 
 into the treasury to “lessen the 
 taxes of the tax payers of this State. 
 Had not Governor Deneen in his 
 message to the Legislature on Nov. 
 6, 1907, said: “The basis for the 
 proposal to submit to the people 
 this constitutional amendment was 
 the ascertained fact that the result¬ 
 ing water power would more than 
 repay the cost of construction of 
 the proposed waterway, provided 
 the State should preserve its un¬ 
 doubted right to the total water¬ 
 power available along the line of 
 the proposed waterway?” Comment¬ 
 ing on Attorney General Stead’s 
 opinion in the Dresden Heights 
 case, Governor Deneen in his mes¬ 
 sage of Nov. 26, 1907, says: “If 
 the State has no right to the water¬ 
 power to be developed it is mani¬ 
 fest that since the constitutional 
 amendment was submitted on the 
 assumption that the water-power 
 would pay for the waterway, the 
 invalidating of that assumption 
 would greatly imperil if it did not 
 entirely destroy the chance of its 
 approval by the voters.” With such 
 glittering generalities set before 
 them, no wonder the people sat up 
 and took notice! No wonder the 
 election was carried “for” the bond 
 issue. 
 
 nois cornfields, but I do not believe 
 that either Cicero’s advocacy or 
 Mr. Ward’s antagonism wholly 
 damn the project. 
 
 The leaflet, of which over half 
 a million copies were distributed, 
 is very familiar to me, as I wrote 
 it and distributed it. The state¬ 
 ments mafle therein are correct, 
 and I still believe that the prem¬ 
 ises were and are correct. The 
 only reservation I will make in re¬ 
 gard to this pamphlet is that it 
 presented the case in its most un¬ 
 favorable aspect—that it was too 
 conservative. 
 
 And that is not all, for the prop¬ 
 erty will continue to yield its per¬ 
 petual yearly revenue of $2,500,000 
 more or less. 
 
 That other circulars of similar 
 import were sent broadcast over 
 the State I was aware. I was not 
 aware that eight specially prepared 
 and signed circulars and printed 
 reports of many addresses were 
 widely distributed in LaSalle 
 county. I knew that the Hon. H. 
 W. Johnson, then a member of the 
 Internal Improvement Commission 
 was advocating the project in La¬ 
 Salle county, and I believed then 
 and believe now that his advocacy 
 was able. 
 
 It was claimed and it is claimed 
 that the water power—the only 
 constant and effective water power 
 —belongs to the State because it 
 was made possible by the constant 
 flow through the Chicago Drainage 
 Canal, which was built with the 
 people’s money. Reference to Alad¬ 
 din’s lamp suggests the remark 
 that Mr. Ward has found a way to 
 rub it so that it will produce a 
 handsome income from alleged ri¬ 
 parian rights that had produced 
 him nothing in forty years. 
 
 The statement that a yearly in¬ 
 come would perpetually flow into 
 the treasury and lessen the taxes 
 of the taxpayers of this State is 
 not complete. This project would 
 do more than that; its realization 
 would furnish cheap power to the 
 people of the Illinois valley who 
 are now at the mercy of the power 
 trust. 
 
 That the State should preserve 
 its undoubted right to the total 
 water power available along the 
 
7 
 
 Approval of 1 
 
 Since these power-sites belonged 
 to the State, and since the State 
 had the sole right to the use of the 
 water flowing in the DesPlaines 
 and the Illinois rivers, the State 
 should at once take possession of 
 its own and proceed to oust those 
 who were alleged to be wrongfully 
 trying to hold possession at Dres¬ 
 den Heights. Suit was started and 
 our Supreme Court handed down a 
 decision that the State does not 
 own the right to use the water at 
 Dresden. In this decision the court 
 holds: “But if this transition is to 
 occur—if the powerful hands of the 
 government are to lay hold of this 
 gigantic enterprise—they must do 
 so with due regard to the sacred 
 rights of every citizen, however 
 humble and insignificant those 
 rights may seem in contrast with 
 the great public consummation.” 
 
 Above the city of LaSalle, sec¬ 
 tions, townships and ranges cross 
 
 line of the proposed waterway 
 made available by the artificial in¬ 
 crement of flow through the Drain¬ 
 age Canal is still the contention 
 of the State, and we question Mr. 
 Ward’s right, or the right of any 
 riparian owner, to this benefit 
 which was created by the public. 
 
 The fact that the voters did ap¬ 
 prove the constitutional amendment 
 by an overwhelming majority is 
 only proof that the people them¬ 
 selves believed they had a right to 
 this by-product which they them¬ 
 selves had created. 
 
 That glittering generalities were 
 offered the public is true; that flag 
 waving and buncombe were gen¬ 
 eral is true; but this line of talk 
 was employed by both sides to the 
 controversy and the defense has 
 not yet discarded it. 
 
 It is in fact no wonder that the 
 people sat up and took notice—no 
 wonder that the election was car¬ 
 ried for the bond issue. “You can¬ 
 not fool all of the people all of the 
 time,” and when the great ma¬ 
 jority of them had sifted the truth 
 from the bunk they went to the 
 polls and protected their own in¬ 
 terests. 
 
 rs Imperiled. 
 
 Mr. Ward cites the decision of 
 the Supreme Court in the Dresden 
 Heights case to the effect that the 
 State does not own the right to 
 use water at Dresden. It may not 
 be generally known that this opin¬ 
 ion was dissented from, but such 
 is the case, and the suit has been 
 carried into the United States 
 courts. The Supreme Court of Illi¬ 
 nois is not infallible; its decisions 
 are not final and no man can say 
 what the rights of the people at 
 Dresden Heights are until the suit 
 has been taken to the Supreme 
 Court of the United States and a 
 final verdict rendered. 
 
 The sacred rights of every citi¬ 
 zen, upon which Mr. Ward dis¬ 
 courses, have not yet been deter¬ 
 mined. 
 
 It is true that above the city of 
 LaSalle sections, townships and 
 ranges cross the Illinois river and 
 that United States land patents 
 
s 
 
 the Illinois river and United States 
 land patents make the river the 
 monument. The river front at Mar¬ 
 seilles is on Section 24, T. 33 N., R. 
 4 E. of 3d P. M. and there are no 
 reservations in the land patents; 
 hence riparian owners take to the 
 center thread of the stream. That 
 the Illinois river above LaSalle is 
 not considered navigable by the 
 War Department and by Congress 
 is indicated by recent reports of 
 the former and by at least one re¬ 
 cent act of the latter. That the 
 perpetual charter granted by the 
 State to The Marseilles Land and 
 Water Power Company in 1867, as 
 amended in 1869, and under and 
 by virtue of which valuable prop¬ 
 erty rights have accrued partakes 
 of the nature of a contract between 
 the State and the parties to whom 
 the grant was made cannot be de¬ 
 nied; and that the State is prohib¬ 
 ited from passing a “law impairing 
 the obligation of contracts” is 
 equally clear. 
 
 Article 1, Sec. 10, Constitution of 
 the United States. 
 
 Story on Constitution, 4th Edi¬ 
 tion, from Sec. 1392 (p. 253) to 
 Sec. 1396. 
 
 Cooley on Constitutional Limita¬ 
 tions, 3d Edition, p. 279. 
 
 Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 
 4 Wheat., 518. 
 
 Therefore, it is absurd to suppose, 
 as has been frequently intimated is 
 intended, that the State can destroy 
 the dam and thq large manufactur¬ 
 ing interests at Marseilles, without 
 paying the value thereof. The de¬ 
 struction of that property will cost 
 the State millions of dollars. (See 
 cuts showing dam and factories at 
 Marseilles, pages 10-11.) According 
 to Governor Deneen these condi¬ 
 tions in conjunction with the above 
 mentioned Supreme Court decision, 
 greatly imperil if they do not en¬ 
 tirely destroy the chance of the ap¬ 
 proval of the waterway scheme by 
 the voters of the State, for the State 
 must purchase every water-power 
 site from Joliet to Utica. 
 
 made the river the monument. It 
 is also true that these United 
 States land patents made fractional 
 quarters the monument; that the 
 river was meandered, and that this 
 meander is a monument to its nav¬ 
 igability. 
 
 That the Illinois river above La¬ 
 Salle is not considered navigable 
 does not affect its navigability in 
 law or in fact. The Ordinance of 
 1787, Article IV, defined the naviga¬ 
 bility of the DesPlaines and Illi¬ 
 nois rivers thus: 
 
 “That the DesPlaines river, from 
 the point where it most nearly con¬ 
 nects itself with the Illinois and 
 Michigan Canal to its source with¬ 
 in the boundaries of this State, is 
 hereby declared a navigable stream, 
 and shall be deemed and held a 
 public highway and shall be and 
 remain free, open, and unob¬ 
 structed from the said point of 
 connection with the said canal to 
 its utmost limit within this State, 
 for the passage of all boats and 
 water-crafts of every description.” 
 
 The foregoing Ordinance was 
 recognized by all of the Acts of 
 Congress and all of the constitu¬ 
 tions of the State of Illinois. 
 
 In 1837 the General Assembly of 
 Illinois enacted a law declaring 
 the DesPlaines river navigable 
 from its source to its junction 
 with the Illinois and Michigan Ca¬ 
 nal. The navigability of the 
 stream at Marseilles is attested 
 further by the Act which permitted 
 the Marseilles Land and Water 
 Power ’ Company to build their 
 dam. The navigability of the river 
 in fact is attested by the fact that 
 in 1844 a big side-wheel steamer, 
 the “Superb” took .a full cargo of 
 produce from Moris, above Marseil¬ 
 les, to St. Louis, and it was gener¬ 
 ally understood that any boat 
 which could go over the Hennepin 
 Flats could come on to Marseilles 
 if it wanted so to do. 
 
 The alleged perpetual charter of 
 the Marseilles Land and Waterpow¬ 
 er Company expressly says that the 
 State may take possession of the 
 dam, or remove it at any time, for 
 improving the said Illinois river 
 for the purposes of navigation. How 
 this may affect the alleged right of 
 perpetuity in the charter, or 
 
9 
 
 Horse-Power to Yield $2 y 
 
 Bearing in mind the Governor’s 
 statement that the “constitutional 
 amendment was submitted on the 
 assumption that the water-power 
 would pay for the waterway,” and 
 that the “invaliding of that assump- 
 
 whether the Legislature had any 
 power to grant perpetual rights in 
 a navigable stream, is' immaterial, 
 because under the State plan for 
 a waterway we do not propose to 
 take the Marseilles dam for pur¬ 
 poses of navigation. We propose 
 to go around it entirely. It has no 
 function whatever in the develop¬ 
 ment of the waterway or water 
 power. The only way in which it 
 will be affected is that it will be 
 deprived of the artificial increment 
 of flow from the Drainage Canal 
 by the construction of another dam 
 above it. 
 
 Whether the people or the Mar¬ 
 seilles Land and Water Power Com¬ 
 pany and the Marseilles Hydraulic 
 Company own this artificial incre¬ 
 ment is still to be determined. 
 
 If the right of people to this ar¬ 
 tificial increment of flow is deter¬ 
 mined, reference to the law im¬ 
 pairing obligation of contracts is 
 immaterial, and other references to 
 the constitution, the Bill of Rights, 
 the Magna Charta or the Lord’s 
 Prayer are equally immaterial. 
 
 If it is determined that the water 
 power companies have any equity 
 whatever in the artificial increment 
 of flow from the Drainage Canal, it 
 is not beyond the range of possi¬ 
 bility that this equity can be trans¬ 
 ferred to the State plant at Bell’s 
 Island, and that the present opera¬ 
 tors of the plants at Marseilles 
 would be glad to abandon their 
 low head developments and receive 
 a compensating amount of power 
 from the State switchboard at 
 Bell’s Island. 
 
 That the State must purchase ev¬ 
 ery water power site from Joliet 
 to Utica, we do concede. We main¬ 
 tain that there are no water powers 
 between Joliet and Utica, that are 
 worth the building of a dam, if 
 they are deprived of the right of 
 using the artificial increment of 
 flow from Lake Michigan. 
 
 >,000 Annually to State. 
 
 We admit the statement that “the 
 constitutional amendment was sub¬ 
 mitted on the assumption that the 
 water power would pay for the 
 waterway.” Nay, more, we affirm 
 it. 
 
10 
 
 tion would greatly imperil, if it j 
 would not entirely destroy the 
 chance of its approval by the 
 voters,” let us inquire into the phy¬ 
 sical conditions existing in the val- j 
 ley and ascertain whether the pro¬ 
 posed State power-plants will pro¬ 
 duce sufficient electricity to annu¬ 
 ally bring to the State treasury the 
 $2,500,0u0 net the people were told 
 would be theirs. 
 
 Regarding the proposed hydro¬ 
 electrical development certain al¬ 
 leged facts have been officially pub¬ 
 lished on the correctness of which 
 rests the entire claim that even the 
 first cost of the waterway will ever 
 be returned to the State treasury. 
 
 In order to realize the annual net 
 revenue of not less than $2,500,000, 
 there must be, according to the re¬ 
 port of the Internal Improvement 
 Commission: 
 
 (a) A flow of 14,000 cubic feet 
 per second from Lake Michigan. 
 
 (b) The heads under which the 
 turbines are to work must be as 
 follows: 
 
 FEET. 
 
 Brandon’s Road, Plant No. 1... 24 
 
 Big Dresden Island, Plant No. 2 18 
 
 Bell’s Island, Plant No. 3. 26 
 
 Utica, Plant No. 4 . 20 
 
 Total . 88 
 
 (c) With the above attained it 
 is stated by the Internal Improve¬ 
 ment Commission that the water¬ 
 power in the water column will be 
 
 as follows. 
 
 H. P. 
 
 Brandon’s Road . 38,182 
 
 Big Dresden Island. 28,636 
 
 Bell’s Island . 41,364 
 
 Utica . 31,818 
 
 Total . 140,000 
 
 It is claimed that this will yield 
 100,000 electric horse-power on the 
 switchboards, and that this can be 
 leased at an annual profit to the 
 State of at least $2,500,000. 
 
 To determine the horse-power in 
 the water column we have the for¬ 
 mula: H. P.=cubic feet of flow per 
 second multiplied by the head in 
 feet multiplied by the decimal 
 0.11363. If in this formula 14,000 
 be substituted for “cubic feet of 
 flow per second” and the head cor- 
 
 Let us, therefore, inquire into 
 the physical conditions as they ex¬ 
 ist in the valley and ascertain 
 whether the proposed State power 
 plants will produce sufficient elec¬ 
 tricity to pay for the waterway. 
 
 The alleged facts, which have 
 been officially published on the cor¬ 
 rectness of which rest the entire 
 claim that even the first cost of the 
 waterway will ever be returned to 
 the treasury are easily verified. We 
 are willing to stand by the state¬ 
 ment and the tabulation of avail¬ 
 able heads and possible water 
 ’power developments quoted by Mr. 
 Ward. 
 
 We accept the formula presented 
 by Mr. \Vard for figuring horse 
 power, and it is gratifying to have 
 him check our arithmetic. 
 
 It is true that if the head under 
 which the turbines work in any 
 power plant be less than that as¬ 
 sumed, the horse power in the 
 water column will be less than that 
 claimed, but it is true only for 
 short periods. It is furthermore 
 true that if a flow of 14,000 second 
 feet, upon which we base our es¬ 
 timates, is not available the net 
 annual revenue of $2,500,000 will 
 not materialize. It is also true 
 that if this volume of flow is re¬ 
 duced to the 10,000 feet per second, 
 which Mr. Ward seems to be will¬ 
 ing to concede to us, that in round 
 numbers 100,000 gross horse power 
 will be developed, which will pro¬ 
 duce 80,000 horse power net on the 
 switchboard and will return $2,000,- 
 000' in yearly revenue to the State. 
 
 Therefore we are still able to 
 show that the bonds will be retired 
 within the time limit and that a 
 net annual revenue of $2,000,000 
 a year will redound to the credit of 
 the State. 
 
11 
 
 responding to each of the above 
 power-plants, the horse-power 
 claimed by the Internal Improve¬ 
 ment Commission for each power- 
 site will be derived. From the 
 formula it is seen that if the con¬ 
 stant flow of water, actually ob¬ 
 tained, is less than 14,000 cubic feet 
 per second, or if the head under 
 which the turbines work at any 
 power plant be less than that as¬ 
 sumed, the horse-power in the water 
 column will be less than that 
 claimed and, therefore, the expected 
 net annual revenue of $2,500,000 
 will not materialize. 
 
 Requirements oe the United States. 
 
 As to the probability of obtaining 
 a constant flow from Lake Michigan 
 of ±4,000 second feet and, if ob¬ 
 tained, at what cost to the State, 
 may be seen from the following ex¬ 
 tracts from the report of the Special 
 Commission of U. S. Engineers of 
 which Brig. Gen. W. H. Bixby was 
 chairman. This report was sub¬ 
 mitted to Congress on February 9, 
 1911, and is the one which has been 
 widely spoken of as favoring the 
 deep waterway plans. 
 
 “A careful examination has been 
 made of the detailed estimates pre¬ 
 sented by the State of Illinois. So 
 far as concerns the engineering 
 features alone, such as excavation, 
 construction of dams, locks, power 
 plants, etc., the estimated cost is 
 reasonable. The State’s estimate, 
 however, includes nothing for flow- 
 age damages nor for the purchase 
 of water-power rights and fran¬ 
 chises, and should the outcome of 
 judicial proceedings now pending 
 cause these damages and rights to 
 assume great value, the State’s esti¬ 
 mate would then be insufficient. 
 
 “For purposes of navigation a di¬ 
 version from Lake Michigan of less 
 than 1,000 second feet of water is 
 all that will be necessary. For 
 purposes of sanitation the works of 
 the Sanitary District of Chicago 
 were designed to allow of 10,000 
 second feet and now contemplate a 
 total of 14,000 second feet, the ad¬ 
 ditional 4,000 second feet to be ob¬ 
 tained by the diversion of water 
 through the Calumet river and a 
 
 —3 R L 
 
 As to the probability of obtain¬ 
 ing a constant flow from Lake 
 Michigan of 14,000 second feet, the 
 probability or possibility is mere 
 conjecture. It seems to be conced¬ 
 ed by all parties to the controversy 
 that in any event the Sanitary 
 District will be allowed to use 
 10,000 second feet and even with 
 10,000 second feet the water power 
 proposition is feasible, practical, 
 and advisable. It is not to be as¬ 
 sumed that the Congress of the 
 United States, in which is vested 
 the final authority in this matter, 
 will permit the demands of special 
 interests to overshadow the claims 
 of two and one-quarter million peo¬ 
 ple who have spent $66,000,000 of 
 their own money, not for gain, but 
 for health and life. Moreover, if 
 the Congress of the United States 
 puts any restrictions on this flow 
 which reduces its quantity to less 
 than 10,000 second feet, then has 
 Mr. Ward handed his lessee, the 
 Marseilles Hydraulic Company, a 
 gold brick, for with the natural flow 
 of the river the water power at 
 Marseilles would not be worth de¬ 
 veloping. 
 
 Mr Ward quotes the report of a 
 Special Board of Army Engineers, 
 of which Brig. Gen. W. H. Bixby 
 was chairman, which was present¬ 
 ed to Congress February 9, 1911. 
 It is gratifying to note that this 
 Board of army experts, after a care¬ 
 ful examination of the waterway 
 estimates presented by the State of 
 Illinois, has found that the State’s 
 
12 
 
 connecting canal following the Sag 
 route. The War Department, while 
 awaiting the definite action of 
 Congress, has so far permitted the 
 diversion of 4,167 second feet and 
 the Sanitary District is understood 
 to be using 7,000 second feet. As 
 the water which is at present be¬ 
 ing diverted from the lake appears 
 to have already seriously affected 
 navigation in its harbors and con¬ 
 necting waterways, prompt congres¬ 
 sional action is recommended to 
 limit the diversion. 
 
 “While it appears to have been as¬ 
 sumed that the Sanitary District 
 may be allowed to divert 10,000 sec¬ 
 ond feet so long as actually neces¬ 
 sary for sanitary purposes, the di¬ 
 version of the waters of the Great 
 Lakes from their natural outlet for 
 power development alone is mad- 
 missable, under the recent treaty 
 between the United States and 
 Great Britain. The future diver¬ 
 sion of water from Lake Michigan 
 for any purpose is fraught with dif¬ 
 ficulties. Not only has Canada an 
 interest in the maintenance of lake 
 levels which the United States must 
 recognize, but every foot of water 
 flowing through the Chicago Drain¬ 
 age canal lessens the flow at Nia¬ 
 gara Falls and at the power sites 
 along the St. Lawrence river, where 
 due to the fall available, the same 
 amount of water will create about 
 four* times the power that can be 
 generated from it on the DesPlaines 
 and Illinois rivers. The treaty en¬ 
 ables riparian owners of Canada, as 
 well as of the United States, who 
 consider themselves injured by such 
 diversion, to bring suit in the 
 United States courts to protect their 
 interests. The claim that more 
 than 1,000 cubic feet per second is 
 required for purposes of navigation 
 cannot be maintained. The treaty, 
 however, recognizes as proper the 
 use of water for sanitary purposes, 
 and it is the opinion of the board 
 that only such water should be di¬ 
 verted from Lake Michigan as is 
 indispensable for sanitation, and 
 then only with a provision for 
 proper compensating works in the 
 outlets of the lakes to prevent a 
 lowering of their levels. Water thus 
 diverted may be used incidentally 
 
 estimate includes nothing for flow- 
 age damages. Moreover, it reverses 
 the Special Board of Army En¬ 
 gineers, which made a report upon 
 a waterway from Lockport to Utica 
 in 1905. This Board estimates the 
 flowage damages for such a water¬ 
 way at $340,000, and the State’s 
 estimate for a waterway between 
 Lockport and Utica contains the 
 same estimate of cost for flowage 
 damages. The State project will 
 flood approximately the same num¬ 
 ber of acres as the project of ihe 
 1905 Beard of Army Engineers. 
 The State’s estimate does not in¬ 
 clude anything for the purchase of 
 water power rights or franchises, 
 and neither did the estimate of the 
 1905 Board of Army Engineers. We 
 still maintain arid affirm that there 
 are no water power rights which 
 the State must Duy to accomplish 
 its project. 
 
 The statement of this special 
 Board of Engineers that a diver¬ 
 sion of less than 1,000 second feet 
 of water is all that will be neces¬ 
 sary for navigation purposes is dis¬ 
 ingenuous. This statement is made 
 on the assumption of a slack wat¬ 
 ered river and provides for only the 
 amount of water necessary to main¬ 
 tain lockage. It is pertinent to 
 inquire how Mr. Ward himself 
 would like to have the flow reduced 
 to the 1,000 feet per second sug¬ 
 gested by the Special Board of 
 Army Engineers. Does his contract 
 with the Marseilles Hydraulic Com¬ 
 pany insure his handsome income 
 to such an extent that he is care¬ 
 less of the amount of water which 
 it is permitted to use? 
 
 It is significant that this Special 
 Board of Army Engineers makes 
 the statement that the water, which 
 is at present being diverted from 
 the Lake, appears tp have already 
 seriously affected navigation in its 
 harbors and connecting waterways. 
 This insidious statement is made 
 time and again, and neither the 
 Army Board nor anybody else ap¬ 
 pears to come out and make the 
 flat statement, that the water di¬ 
 verted through the Drainage Canal 
 has seriously affected navigation. 
 Under the direction of the United 
 States Engineer Corps, and by or- 
 
13 
 
 for power purposes, but care must 
 be exercised in authorizing the di¬ 
 version of water for sanitary pur¬ 
 poses, to restrict it to the amount 
 necessary for those purposes alone. 
 
 “Until it obtains further data the 
 board defers its report upon the 
 measures required to properly pre¬ 
 serve the levels of the Great Lakes 
 and to compensate so far as prac¬ 
 ticable for the diminished level in 
 such lakes by reason of any diver¬ 
 sion of water from Lake Michigan 
 * * * >> 
 
 The above report of the special 
 board was submitted to the Board 
 of Engineers for Rivers and Har¬ 
 bors, as required by law, and the 
 report of this board contains, among 
 other things, the following: 
 
 “In conclusion it is recommended 
 that the work proposed by the 
 special board for the United States 
 in the Illinois river be not under¬ 
 taken until the Secretary of War 
 has received satisfactory assurance 
 from the State of Illinois that- the 
 State will build that portion of the 
 waterway from Lockport to Utica 
 without cost to the United States, 
 and in accordance with plans to be 
 approved by him; and, further, un¬ 
 til the interests of the United States 
 have been satisfactorily safeguarded 
 as indicated by the special board, 
 viz., that the State of Illinois or 
 its agencies shall assume entire re¬ 
 sponsibility in perpetuity for all 
 damages by changes in lake levels 
 incident to the work, including cost 
 of compensating works and for all 
 damages to riparian owners along 
 the proposed waterway from Lake 
 Michigan to the mouth of the Illi¬ 
 nois river, and that the State shall 
 transfer to the United States the 
 locks and the control of the new 
 waterway thus created so far as 
 needed for navigation, and the 
 locks and dams at Henry and Cop¬ 
 peras creek on the Illinois river.” 
 
 Our treaty with Great Britain 
 considers Lake Michigan an inter¬ 
 national body of water. In fixing 
 the uses of water which may be 
 drawn from the Great Lakes, this 
 treaty contains the following clause: 
 “The following order of precedence 
 shall be observed among the various 
 uses enumerated hereinafter for 
 
 der of Congress, work has been 
 done in the interlake channels 
 which has caused a reduction of 
 lake levels vastly greater than has 
 resulted, or ever can result, from 
 the work of the Sanitary District 
 of Chicago. Moreover, the treaty 
 with Great Britain sets forth in no 
 uncertain terms the use for which 
 water may be taken, and in giving 
 the order of precedence it presents, 
 first, the use for domestic purposes, 
 and after that the use for naviga¬ 
 tion. As the treaty gives preced¬ 
 ence to the requirements of the 
 Sanitary. District and as it is clear 
 that the increased flow caused by 
 deepening of interlake channels for 
 the benefit of navigation has not 
 the prior claim, it will not avail 
 the Army Board, or anybody else, 
 to cast the aspersion upon the 
 Chicago Drainage Canal that it has 
 lowered the lake levels. 
 
 The Army Board says: “While it 
 appears to have been assumed that 
 the Sanitary District may be allow¬ 
 ed to divert 10,000 second feet so 
 long as actually necessary for 
 sanitary purposes.” The assumption 
 seems to be borne out by the terms 
 of the treaty with Great Britain. 
 The Army Board says further 
 that the diversion of waters of the 
 Great Lakes from their natural 
 outlet for power development alone 
 is inadmissible under the treaty, 
 but the treaty allows 36,000 cubic 
 feet per second to be taken for 
 power purposes alone on the Can¬ 
 adian side, and 20,000 cubic feet 
 per second to be taken for power 
 purposes afone within the State of 
 New York. The use of lake water 
 for power and irrigation purposes 
 comes third in the order of preced¬ 
 ence defined in Article 8 of the 
 treaty. If, therefore, 86,000 cubic 
 feet per second of lake water is to 
 be allowed by the treaty for the 
 use in water power development 
 alone what power is there to deny 
 to the people of the commonwealth 
 of Illinois their primary right to 
 use 10,000 or even 14,000 cubic feet 
 a second for domestic purposes? 
 
 We will .quote from the report of 
 the Special Board of Army Engin¬ 
 eers to the effect that “every foot 
 of water flowing through the Chi- 
 
14 
 
 these waters, and no use shall be 
 permitted which tends materially 
 to conflict with or restrain any 
 other use which is given preference 
 over it in this order of precedence: 
 
 “1. Uses for domestic and sani¬ 
 tary purposes. 
 
 “2. Uses for navigation, includ¬ 
 ing the service of canals for the 
 purposes of navigation. 
 
 “3. Uses for power and for irri¬ 
 gation purposes.” 
 
 Now note what the government 
 engineers said: “For purposes of 
 navigation a diversion of less than 
 1,000 second feet of water is all that 
 will be necessary.” And again: 
 “The claim that more than 1,000 
 cubic feet per second is required for 
 purposes of navigation can not he 
 maintained.” Therefore, under the 
 treaty the amount of water that can 
 be used at the State’s power-plants 
 will be limited to that which is act¬ 
 ually necessary for sanitation. At 
 the present rate of flow through the 
 Sanitary Canal 14,000 second-feet 
 will not be needed for sanitation 
 until Chicago has a population of 
 nearly 5,000,000. 
 
 For the return to their treasury 
 of the $20,000,000 they are asked to 
 spend, are the people to depend on 
 a flow of 14,000 second feet from 
 Lake Michigan, that is so far in the 
 future, or, in order to assure that 
 flow at once, will the State assume 
 in perpetuity all the obligations re¬ 
 quired by the United States? The 
 treaty with Great Britain opens in¬ 
 ternational questions. Is it ex¬ 
 pected that Congress will require 
 less of Illinois than the War and 
 the State Departments maintain is 
 just and proper or less than will 
 constitute performance of our 
 treaty obligations? If it is shown 
 that the withdrawal of 14,000 sec¬ 
 ond feet from Lake Michigan af¬ 
 fects navigation in the harbors and 
 connecting waterways of the Great 
 Lakes (and the U. S. Engineers in¬ 
 dicate that even the present flow is 
 doing so) will not the Lake Car¬ 
 riers’ Association compel Illinois to 
 “do business” or shut off the flow? 
 Is Illinois ready to pay the price 
 (including the maintenance of lake 
 levels by the construction of com¬ 
 pensating works at Niagara and 
 
 cago Drainage Canal lessens the 
 flow at Niagara Falls at the power 
 sites along the St. Lawrence river.” 
 This is a most significant statement 
 —mark it well—for here is the 
 source of the strenuous opposition 
 to the Illinois Waterway Water 
 Power. This is "where the shoe 
 pinches the water power trust. Are 
 we to assume that the claims of 
 these vested interests are para¬ 
 mount to the claims of the com¬ 
 monwealth of Illinois and that por¬ 
 tion of her citizenship that must 
 purify its sewage and protect its 
 drinking water supply by an ade¬ 
 quate volume of flow through the 
 Chicago Drainage Canal? 
 
 Again we find the statement that 
 the “claim that more than 1,000 
 cubic feet per second is required for 
 purposes of navigation cannot be 
 maintained.” Again I say that the 
 statement is misleading—I would 
 hate to believe that it is purposely 
 misleading—but it should be qual¬ 
 ified by a statement of the fact that 
 here the Board of Army Engineers 
 means that 1,000 cubic feet of water 
 per second is all that is needed to 
 supply water for lockage in a slack 
 watered river between Lockport 
 and Utica. 
 
 Referring to the report of the 
 Special Board of Engineers on a 
 waterway from Lockport to St. 
 Louis, published in 1905, on Page 
 6 under the caption of “Vested 
 Rights,” I find that “The Board 
 does not condemn the present plan 
 of talcing 10,000 cubic feet per sec- 
 ond, believing as it does that some 
 such amount will be needed to pro¬ 
 tect the lives and health of the 
 people of a great city and of a 
 populous valley” 
 
 The Special Board of Army En¬ 
 gineers, which reported to Con¬ 
 gress on February 9, 1911, is doing 
 an unprecedented thing in repudi¬ 
 ating this part of the report of the 
 1905 Board. 
 
 It is comforting to note that the 
 treaty with Great Britain “recog¬ 
 nizes the proper use of water for 
 sanitary purposes. 1 ’ It would be 
 more enlightening, however, to 
 state the fact that Article VIII of 
 the treaty, which clearly defiines 
 the use for which water may be 
 

 
 
 
Illinois river at Bell’s Island—Site of a proposed State power-plant at a time when during nine consecutive weeks not one of 
 the total of 73,182 horse power, claimed as constant at Bell’s Island and Utica, would have been produced. 
 
 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT ATTACHED TO ABOVE PICTURE. 
 
 Marseilles, LaSalle County, Illinois. 
 
 June 12, 1911. 
 
 I hereby certify that on the fifth day of March, 1903, I personally, took the photograph to 
 which this affidavit is attached, that in the taking of said photograph my camera was leveled 
 with a spirit level, that the lense used was of normal focus, that the camera stood on the 
 left bank of the Illinois river opposite Bell’s Island, about two and one-half miles below the 
 highway bridge across said river at the city of Marseilles, LaSalle county, Illinois, that the 
 line of sight was in a direction north of westerly, that Bell’s Island may be seen in the picture 
 on the right and right-center and that the right bank of the Illinois river may be seen on the 
 extreme left of the picture. 
 
 (Signed) C. R. Arnold. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of June. A. D. 1911. 
 
 (Signed) W. A. Morey, Jr., 
 
 [notarial seal] Notary Public. 
 
15 
 
 near Detroit) in order to secure a 
 flow of 14,000 second feet from the 
 Great Lakes to power-plants along 
 the DesPlaines and Illinois rivers? 
 And yet, if ^the flow to the State’s 
 power-plants falls short of that 
 figure, the annual net revenue to 
 the State treasury will fall propor¬ 
 tionately below the $2,500,000 
 claimed. Were the voters of Illi¬ 
 nois fully cognizant of these con¬ 
 ditions when they voted “for” the 
 amendment of the Constitution on 
 November 3, 1908? 
 
 taken, gives in the order of pre¬ 
 cedence, first the use for domestic 
 purposes. It is deplorable that an 
 attempt should be made over and 
 over again by any governmental 
 authority to foist upon the Sani¬ 
 tary District of Chicago the obli¬ 
 gation to build “proper compen¬ 
 sating works in the outlets of the 
 lakes to prevent a lowering of 
 their levels.” I find no word to 
 characterize it when it is consid¬ 
 ered that the work done in the in¬ 
 terlake channels under the direc¬ 
 tion of the United States Engineer 
 Corps and by order of Congress has 
 caused a reduction of lake levels 
 vastly greater than has resulted, 
 or ever can result, from the work 
 of the Sanitary District of Chicago. 
 
 My ire is still further aroused 
 by the insidious repetition in this 
 paragraph of the same insinuation 
 in which the Board suggests reme¬ 
 dial works “for diminished level in 
 such lakes by reason of any di¬ 
 version of water from Lake Michi¬ 
 gan,” The Board nowhere makes 
 its acknowledgement of the fact 
 that the improvement of interlake 
 channels has affected lake levels, 
 and when it does not make the 
 open statement that the Sanitary 
 District is alone responsible for 
 diminished lake levels it makes the 
 same insidious insinuation. As a 
 matter of fact, the Board has not 
 yet successfully demonstrated that 
 there is any lowering of lake levels. 
 
 Here the Board reaches the cli¬ 
 max of its audacity when it makes 
 the statement that “the State of 
 Illinois, or its agencies, shall as¬ 
 sume entire responsibility in per¬ 
 petuity for all damages by changes 
 in lake levels incident to the work, 
 including the cost of compensating 
 works.” This is a culmination of 
 all the attempts to foist the results 
 of work on the interlake channels 
 upon the Sanitary District of Chi¬ 
 cago arid the State of Illinois. 
 
 Not only that, but here again 
 the attempt is made to saddle upon 
 the Sanitary District all claims for 
 damages by reason of overflow in 
 the Illinois river alleged to be 
 caused by the construction of this 
 waterway, notwithstanding the 
 fact that the construction of this 
 
16 
 
 waterway will not increase over¬ 
 flow damages to riparian owners 
 along the Illinois river one iota. 
 The slack watering of the Des 
 Plaines and Illinois rivers between 
 Lockport and Utica will not to 
 the slightest extent affect the vol¬ 
 ume of flow or the acreage of lands 
 overflowed in the lower Illinois. 
 The volume of flow will not be in¬ 
 creased one drop by constructing 
 locks and dams in the upper river, 
 and suits for alleged overflow dam¬ 
 ages have no more bearing upon 
 the construction of a waterway be¬ 
 tween Lockport and Utica than a 
 suit for the annulment of a mar¬ 
 riage decree in Reno. 
 
 The statement that “under the 
 treaty the amount of water that can 
 be used at the State’s power plants 
 will be limited to that which is 
 actually necessary for sanitation” 
 is one that is extremely gratifying 
 to us. The present flow through 
 the Chicago Drainage Canal is en¬ 
 tirely inadequate for the proper 
 dilution of the sewage that enters 
 it. In fact today an amount of 
 water something like 10,000 feet a 
 second is necessary to properly di¬ 
 lute the sewage that now goes into 
 the channel, and the time is not 
 far distant when the channel will 
 be taxed to its utmost capacity and 
 its ultimate flow of 14,000 feet a 
 second will be required to properly 
 dilute the sewage. The conditions 
 today are so bad that they are the 
 subject of complaint made to the 
 Rivers and Lakes Commission, and 
 the Rivers and Lakes Commission 
 is endeavoring to get the Sanitary 
 District of Chicago to install sew¬ 
 age purification works. 
 
 I take issue with the statement 
 that at the present rate of flow 
 through the Sanitary Canal 14,000 
 second feet will not be needed for 
 sanitation until Chicago has a popu¬ 
 lation of nearly 5,000,000. For 
 years the Calumet district, the vast 
 region south of Englewood, has 
 been calling for relief from the 
 intolerable condition of nuisance 
 that exists on account of its inade¬ 
 quate sewage disposal facilities. 
 The outlying districts north and 
 west or Chicago are even now suf¬ 
 fering from a condition of intoler¬ 
 able nuisance caused by their 
 
inadequate sewage disposal facil¬ 
 ities. Most of this territory is 
 not within the municipal limits 
 of the Sanitary District, but all 
 of it is tributary to the Sani¬ 
 tary District and these people have 
 a right to the relief that can be 
 afforded them uy the Sanitary Dis¬ 
 trict of Chicago. 
 
 The introduction of the Lake 
 Carriers’ Association into this argu¬ 
 ment presents another powerful 
 vested interest which is fighting the 
 public interests of the common¬ 
 wealth of Illinois. It cannot be 
 shown that the withdrawal of 14,- 
 000 second feet from Lake Michigan 
 affects navigation in the harbors 
 and connecting waterways on the 
 Great Lakes. This phase of the 
 discussion is ably discussed in Riv¬ 
 ers and Lakes Commission Bulletin 
 No. 6. I will not enlarge upon it 
 here for it is already in print. I 
 respectfully refer my readers to 
 this Bulletin. 
 
 Have things come to such a pass 
 that the desire of corporate greed 
 to secure a large interest on its in¬ 
 vestments is superior to the claims 
 that two and one quarter million 
 people have upon the use of their 
 investment of $66,000,000 made for 
 health and life? 
 
 Here again we find an attempt to 
 foist the cost of compensating 
 works required by the increased 
 flow through interlake channels 
 upon the Sanitary district of Chi¬ 
 cago, and I beg leave to quote just 
 one paragraph from Bulletin No. 6: 
 
 “But why discuss any such prop¬ 
 osition at all in view of the report 
 of the Board of Government En¬ 
 gineers that remedial works at the 
 east end of Lake Erie will restore 
 navigable depths at a cost of only 
 $796,923, and when it is further 
 demonstrable that a proper control 
 of the waters of Lake Superior by 
 works now installed will remedy 
 the whole evil? It may be urged 
 that the existing works are inade¬ 
 quate, but it cannot be denied that 
 they can be made adequate by a 
 very inconsiderable additional ex¬ 
 penditure. As to the propriety of 
 Canadian and United States gov¬ 
 ernmental advice to a city in any 
 state of this Union as to the man¬ 
 ner in which it shall dispose of its 
 
18 
 
 sewage and conduct its municipal 
 engineering, I must leave the peo¬ 
 ple of the several states to express 
 their opinions.” 
 
 Actual vs. Claimed Heads on Wheels. 
 
 Now as to the actual head that 
 will be obtained on the turbines at 
 the proposed State power plants. 
 For the time we will assume that 
 there is a flow of 14,000 second feet 
 from Lake Michigan and will con¬ 
 sider only the heads under which 
 the flow can be used. 
 
 The Internal Improvement Com¬ 
 mission says that the estimate of a 
 total head of 88 feet is the effective 
 head at low water. That is, it is 
 the greatest head to be obtained at 
 the power sites at low water 
 periods. If at any time the actual 
 heads obtained at the various power 
 sites are less than those assumed, 
 the net annual revenue will be pro¬ 
 portionately reduced, unless the de¬ 
 crease in head is compensated by 
 an increase in cubic feet of flow 
 per second. No increase in quan¬ 
 tity of water beyond 14,000 second 
 feet is expected from Lake Michi¬ 
 gan, hence it is only from the 
 water-shed that such increase can 
 ■come. That it is expected that flood 
 stages will affect injuriously the 
 head at Utica (and therefore the 
 power obtained) is admitted by the 
 Internal Improvement Commission 
 when it states: “The Utica power 
 will always be affected by flood 
 conditions in the river below, but 
 extreme floods are exceptional, and 
 radical improvement in the Lower 
 Illinois should better these condi¬ 
 tions. At low water the head will 
 he twenty feet, but this should be 
 increased by river improvement to 
 twenty-six feet.” To add at low 
 water stage, six feet of head at 
 Utica by “improvement in the 
 Lower Illinois,” where there is a 
 natural low water slope of less than 
 30 feet in 220 miles, would indeed 
 require “radical” work, and how 
 could that additional six feet of 
 head be maintained at all times 
 when at the mouth of the Illinois ! 
 the water of the Mississippi has 
 been known to rise to a height ex¬ 
 ceeding the total low water slope in 
 the Illinois from its mouth to La¬ 
 Salle, so that in the natural condi¬ 
 tion of the river the water of the 
 
 Mr. Ward states that the Inter¬ 
 nal Improvement Commission says 
 that an estimate of a total head of 
 88 feet is the effective head at low 
 water. It is gratifying to find the 
 Internal Improvement Commission 
 quoted correctly in this instance. 
 This estimate assumes that 10.4 
 feet out of a total head of 98.4 feet 
 will be consumed in slope, back 
 water and other impediments to 
 flow, and that the effective head 
 will be 88 feet at low water. 
 
 His statement that “if at any 
 time the actual heads obtained at 
 the various power sites are less 
 than those assumed, the net annual 
 revenue will be proportionately re¬ 
 duced unless the decrease in head 
 is compensated oy the increase in 
 cubic feet of flow per second.” This 
 is almost true. It is a fact that if 
 the heads are reduced by back 
 water, that the amount of power 
 available will be proportionately re- 
 uuced. Any increase m the flow, 
 however, would have the effect of 
 increasing back water conditions. 
 
 It is not claimed that the power 
 at Utica will not be drowned out 
 at times. 
 
 In fact the statement of Mr. Ly¬ 
 man E. Cooley, which Mr. Ward 
 quotes, to me effect that the power 
 plant at Utica will be drowned out 
 in flood and that at such times the 
 other three plants must be made to 
 carry the load of the Utica plant is 
 true. It is not true, however, un¬ 
 der the plan of the Internal Im¬ 
 provement Commission, that the 
 plant which is below Dresden 
 Heights will be drowned out in 
 flood. Under our plan the head 
 race is carried down stream in a 
 raised channel far enough to be be¬ 
 yond the effects of back water. 
 
 Referring to the photograph of 
 the ice gorge in the Illinois river 
 at Bell’s Island with the formid¬ 
 able affidavit attached thereto, I 
 remember that this same picture 
 and affidavit were exhibited at a 
 hearing before the Committee of 
 the‘Whole in tne House of Repre¬ 
 sentatives, and that the photograph 
 
19 
 
 Mississippi will materially affect 
 the elevation of the water surface 
 of the Illinois at Utica? Mr. Lyman 
 E. Cooley says: “The two sites at 
 Dresden and Utica will be practic¬ 
 ally drowned out in flood, and until 
 channels below are radically de¬ 
 veloped, the deficiency must be 
 made from Joliet and Ottawa, or by 
 steam auxiliaries.” That the State 
 will be powerless to install and op¬ 
 erate steam auxiliaries will scarcely 
 be denied. The above statements 
 admitting a loss of head, and there¬ 
 fore of power and revenue, which 
 even the added cubic feet of flow 
 per second from the watershed can¬ 
 not overcome, are based on the ef¬ 
 fect of flood waters, i. e., head 
 waters. During the winter months, 
 when the watershed is so frozen 
 that the “run off” is small, ice 
 gorges of greater or less height and 
 duration are not at all infrequent. 
 At such times the water shed will 
 yield little water to compensate for 
 the loss of head due to back water 
 on the wheels. The picture (see 
 cut, page 12, showing ice gorge) 
 shown of the Illinois river at Bell’s 
 Island, two and a .half miles below 
 Marseilles, was taken from the left 
 bank in 1903. The line of sight is 
 down stream. It is exactly at this 
 point that it is proposed to locate 
 one of the State’s power plants. 
 The particular “ice spell” shown in 
 the picture extended from LaSalle 
 to Marseilles and lasted for nine 
 consecutive weeks, during which 
 time not one of the claimed total of 
 73,182 horse power would have been 
 produced at the plants at Bell’s 
 Island or Utica. In May, 1911, Mr. 
 Isham Randolph stated before the 
 lower house of the Legislature that 
 eight feet of head is required on 
 turbines to properly produce elec¬ 
 trical power. Records of the United 
 States Engineers, of the Sanitary 
 District of Chicago, and other re¬ 
 liable authorities, show that for 
 varying periods the proposed plant 
 at Utica would have been absolutely 
 shut down from lack of head on its 
 wheels as follows: 1883, 1890, 1892, 
 1900, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1907, 1908, 
 1909 and 1910. At other times dur¬ 
 ing each of these years the head on 
 the wheels at Utica would have 
 varied from eight to ten feet for 
 periods ranging into weeks. The 
 
 and affidavit made a profound im¬ 
 pression on that body. I am free 
 to admit that the photograph was 
 probably taken at the place, at tne 
 time, and under the conditions as 
 set forth in the subscribed and 
 sworn statement. I deny that it 
 has any bearing whatever upon the 
 successful operation of the Bell’s 
 Island plant. Ice gorges form as 
 this one did in bends of the river 
 where the channel is shallow; the 
 heavy ice loages on the bottom and 
 forms a dam against which all of 
 the ice coming down the river 
 lodges. As this dam is built up the 
 river rises and more ice is piled up 
 on the dam with the final effect 
 that at times the channel is so 
 gorged that the Marseilles plants 
 suffer from back water. Now un¬ 
 der the State plan this condition 
 will not obtain, and if it did obtain 
 it would not hinder the operation 
 of the plant at Bell’s Island. It 
 might again, as it has done be- 
 for bacK up water'upon the Mar¬ 
 seilles plants and impair the opera¬ 
 tion of their wheels. Ice gorges 
 will not form, however, in a slack 
 watered channel. The hydro-elec¬ 
 tric plant of the Sanitary District 
 of Chicago at LocKport is typical 
 of the plant which will be installed 
 under the State plan at Bell’s Is¬ 
 land. The Sanitary District plant 
 has never suffered from ice gorges. 
 Ice gorges have not formed in the 
 channel below, and the channel 
 there is less than one-quarter as 
 wide as the cnannel in the river 
 at Bell’s Island. In the upper 
 basin at Joliet, before the channel 
 was dredged to its present depth, 
 ice gorges did form in the then 
 shallow water and from time to 
 time these had to be dynamited. 
 Since this channel in the upper 
 basin above dam No. 1 at Joliet 
 has been deepened, ice gorges have 
 never formed. Mr. Ward's photo¬ 
 graphic bugaboo may, therefore, 
 frighten those who know nothing of 
 the conditions; that it is a buga¬ 
 boo, the successful operation of the 
 Sanitary District power plant at 
 Lockport throughout five consecu¬ 
 tive winters will testify. 
 
 Mr. Ward’s photographic bugaboo 
 pales into insignificance when com¬ 
 pared with the photograph of an 
 ice gorge at the site of the Missis- 
 
20 
 
 dam at Delbridge Island is expected 
 to create 20 feet of head at the Utica 
 power house, and yet for varying 
 periods back water would have stood 
 even above the crest of this dam as 
 follows: In 1883, 1892, 1902, 1903, 
 1904, 1907 and 1909. During the 
 rise of 1904 the water would have 
 stood above the crest of that dam 
 for several consecutive weeks. Such 
 is the record at the power site 
 where it is claimed that under a 
 head of 20 feet, 31,818 horse power 
 will be constantly produced. 
 
 Now as to the head that may be 
 expected on the wheels at Bell’s 
 Island, where it is claimed that un¬ 
 der a head of 26 feet, 41,364 horse 
 power will be constantly produced. 
 The plant at this site would have 
 been shut down in 1883, 1903 and 
 1907. The records we have show 
 that in certain other years the 
 head would have been only 9.5 feet, 
 11.0 feet, 12.9 feet, 13.1 feet and 
 14.5 feet, instead of 26 feet, as 
 claimed. And according to Mr. 
 Randolph electrical power cannot 
 be properly produced with less 
 than eight feet of head. 
 
 It is greatly to be regretted that 
 the records of water elevations 
 over the stretch of river from 
 Joliet to Utica are so few and in¬ 
 complete. But certain it is that so 
 far as the proposed plants at Bell’s 
 Island and Utica are concerned, 
 only a fraction of the total claimed 
 head can be depended upon to pro¬ 
 duce anything like continuous 
 power. No more slope can be 
 made use of than nature has placed 
 in the stream. Only at points 
 where the slope is sufficiently con¬ 
 centrated is it profitable to produce 
 hydro-electric power. Excavation 
 in the river between Marseilles and 
 Utica will not lessen the ice gorge 
 nuisance, for ice gorges form first 
 below the Utica bridge and grad¬ 
 ually back up stream, constantly 
 increasing in height and extent. 
 Even an increase of flow from Lake 
 Michigan to 14,000 second feet will 
 not push out the ice for it is held 
 by ice at the toe of the slope near 
 the Utica bridge. The ice at this 
 toe can not be shoved down stream 
 for the river below that point has a 
 slope of- only about an inch and a 
 half per mile. 
 
 sippi River Power Company’s plant 
 at Keokuk, herewith presented. 
 This view shows an enormous ice 
 gorge on the very spot where thte 
 Mississippi River Power Company 
 is spending about twenty million 
 dollars in the construction of a hy¬ 
 dro-electric power plant to develop 
 two hundred thousand electrical 
 horse power. All of this ice hasn’t 
 cooled the ardor of the engineers 
 and capitalists who are back of 
 this project. 
 
 Mr. Ward’s assertion that in May, 
 1911, Mr. Isham Randolph stated be¬ 
 fore the lower House of the Legis¬ 
 lature that eight‘feet of head is re¬ 
 quired on turbines to properly pro¬ 
 duce electrical power is not entirely 
 correct. What Mr. Randolph did 
 state was that electric power can¬ 
 not be economically developed on 
 heads of much less than eight feet. 
 
 The records of the United States 
 and those of the Sanitary District 
 of Chicago, and other reliable 
 authorities, undoubtedly do show 
 flood heights for the years enum¬ 
 erated in Mr. Ward’s statement. 
 That they show that the proposed 
 plant at Utica would have been 
 absolutely shut down from lack of 
 head on its wheels on the dates 
 mentioned, I deny; and that the 
 same records show that the dam at 
 Delbridge Island would be drowned 
 out on the dates mentioned, I deny. 
 I will not deny the records of flood 
 heights in the river in its natural 
 state, but I do deny that they can 
 be twisted to show flood heights 
 under changed conditions in a slack 
 watered river. 
 
 I do not deny that the plant at 
 Utica will be drowned out under cer¬ 
 tain flood conditions. The report 
 of the Internal Improvement Com¬ 
 mission so states, and Mr. Ward 
 does well to quote Mr. Cooley who 
 wrote that report. This eminent 
 authority says: “The Utica power 
 will always be affected by flood con¬ 
 ditions in the river below. Such 
 floods as those of 1883, 1892, and 
 1904 would reduce the head to be¬ 
 tween 10 and 12 feet, but such 
 floods are exceptional. 
 
 Accepting Mr. Cooley as authori- 
 ty, as Mr. Ward, has done, and ad¬ 
 mitting Mr. Randolph’s statement 
 that electrical power cannot be de¬ 
 veloped economically at heads of 
 
21 
 
 It is not claimed that these ex¬ 
 treme conditions will occur each 
 and every consecutive year, but it 
 is insisted that they may obtain 
 any year and that the uncertainty 
 as to when they will occur and how 
 long they will last, together with 
 the probability that almost each and 
 every year the heads on the wheels 
 will be affected to a greater or less 
 extent, will render a large percent¬ 
 age of the claimed output intermit¬ 
 tent and therefore of very little or 
 no value. Only that portion of the 
 power that is constant can be dis¬ 
 posed of at a profitable price—the 
 rest will be of little use to anyone. 
 So far as the river between Mar¬ 
 seilles and Utica is concerned, the 
 power that can be depended upon 
 at the proposed State plants will 
 not exceed that which can be had 
 on the Grand Rapids of the Illinois 
 at Marseilles. And yet Mr. Cooley 
 states that the plant to be placed 
 between Marseilles and Ottawa and 
 which at times will fail to produce 
 the quota of power assigned to it, 
 must turn out not only its own full 
 quota but must make up a part of 
 the shortage to be expected at Dres¬ 
 den and Utica. With such known 
 physical conditions admitted by Mr. 
 Cooley and the Internal Improve¬ 
 ment Commission and more specific¬ 
 ally proven by authentic water rec¬ 
 ords, even with a flow of 14,000 
 second feet from Lake Michigan, 
 would the State be warranted in 
 guaranteeing to lessees, as constant, 
 100,000 horse power on the switch¬ 
 boards? And yet that is the amount 
 of power that will be needed to 
 keep faith with the people and re¬ 
 turn their money to the State treas¬ 
 ury. 
 
 If the State would build a dam at 
 Utica, 88 feet high, backing water 
 to the Sanitary District power 
 house, near the upper limits of 
 Joliet, the theoretical head between 
 those two points could be utilized 
 so fully as possible and a fine water 
 power would no doubt be created. 
 However, the people of the State 
 should have been told that this 
 same amount of power cannot be 
 produced when separated into four 
 plants down streams that have the 
 natural slopes of the DesPlaines 
 and Illinois rivers. The physical 
 
 less than eight feet, I submit that 
 the 10 to 12 feet of head which Mr. 
 Cooley says would still be available 
 at the Utica power even during 
 such floods as those of 1883, 1892, 
 and 1904 would still permit of a 
 considerable development of hydro¬ 
 electric power. 
 
 Mr. Ward makes the academic 
 statement that "no more slope can 
 be made use of than nature has 
 placed in the stream.” We will 
 have to admit this, but I maintain 
 that at Bell’s Island we have made 
 use of all of the smpe nature has 
 provided. To quote Mr. Cooley 
 again: “Modern practice erects 
 water power dams at the foot of 
 rapids rather than at the head, 
 and generally down stream as far as 
 possible in order to mask the effect 
 of floods.” This is exactly what we 
 have done in locating the State 
 power plant at Bell’s Island. The 
 present power plant installations 
 at Marseilles 'are at the head of 
 the rapids and do not avail them¬ 
 selves of all the slope that nature 
 has put in the stream and which 
 can be made use of. Even now in 
 an endeavor to increase the head 
 at Marseilles and to take advan¬ 
 tage of all the slope which nature 
 has put in the stream, the Mar¬ 
 seilles Land and Water Power Com¬ 
 pany and the Illinois Traction 
 Company, its lessees, are digging a 
 deeper tail race to discharge far 
 enough down stream to give them 
 the benefit of three feet additional 
 head. 
 
 I will admit for the sake of ar¬ 
 gument that “excavations in the 
 river between Marseilles and Utica 
 will not lessen the ice gorge nuis¬ 
 ance,” but slack watering this 
 stretch of the river and increas¬ 
 ing the depth thereby will elimin¬ 
 ate the ice gorge nuisance. 
 
 I again point to the successful 
 operation of the Sanitary District 
 plant at Lockport throughout five 
 successive winters with entire 
 freedom from “ice gorge nuisance” 
 as proof of what the changed con¬ 
 ditions created at Bell’s Island by 
 a slack watered river will produce. 
 
 It is comforting to note that Mr. 
 Ward does not claim “that these 
 extreme conditions will occur each 
 and every consecutive year.” 
 
22 
 
 conditions are against the proposi¬ 
 tion that even with a flow of 14,000 
 second feet from Lake Michigan, 
 the dream of a salable 100,000 
 horse power on the switchboards 
 will ever be realized. 
 
 I will admit that they may ob¬ 
 tain any year, but I will point out 
 that the uncertainty as to when 
 they will occur and how long they 
 will last does not seem to have 
 deterred Mr. Ward and his lessees, 
 the Marseilles Hydraulic Company, 
 from spending their stockholders’ 
 money in constructing a hydro¬ 
 electric plant at Marseilles. Neither 
 does it seem to have deterred the 
 Marseilles Land and Water Power 
 Company and its lessee, the Illi¬ 
 nois Traction Company, from mak¬ 
 ing extensive improvements in the 
 plant on the north bank of the 
 river. Fear of ice gorge nuisance 
 and of impediments from back 
 water does not seem to have deter¬ 
 red the Economy Light and Power 
 Company from developing power at 
 Joliet under a twenty year lease 
 from the State. Fear of ice gorges 
 and back water does not seem to 
 have deterred the Economy Light 
 and Power Company from attempt¬ 
 ing to build a dam for the develop¬ 
 ment of hydro-electric energy at 
 Dresden Heights. It appears to 
 me that there must be some very 
 peculiar condition in the laws of 
 nature governing the flow of water 
 in streams that makes it danger¬ 
 ous or impossible for the State to at¬ 
 tempt to build a waterpower plant 
 and sell electric energy when in 
 the same river and at practically 
 the same points a private enter¬ 
 prise seems to be able to build 
 dams and develop hydro-electric 
 energy for sale with impunity. Is 
 it a law of nature, or is it the 
 cupidity of human nature? 
 
 Mr. Ward states that “so far as 
 the river between Marseilles and 
 Utica is concerned, the power that 
 can be depended upon at the pro¬ 
 posed State plants will not exceed 
 that which can be had on the Grand 
 Rapids of the Illinois at Marseil¬ 
 les.” In the light of the fact that 
 the owners of the installations at 
 the head of the Grand Rapids of 
 the Illinois at Marseilles are bend¬ 
 ing every effort to increase the 
 heads at these installations by the 
 use of flash boards and by the ex¬ 
 pedient of extending the tail races, 
 this statement is exceedingly amus¬ 
 ing. 
 
23 
 
 It is more amusing still to find 
 Mr. Ward taking issue with Lyman 
 E. Cooley. I hold no brief for Mr. 
 Cooley, but I know that he has for¬ 
 gotten more about hydraulics than 
 a great many very good engineers 
 ever knew. Mr. Cooley’s statement 
 that the plant to be placed between 
 Marseilles and Ottawa must turn 
 out not only its own full quota but 
 must make up a part of the short¬ 
 age to be expected at Dresden and 
 Utica is a statement that cannot 
 be sucessfully questioned. The 
 power plants proposed in the State 
 plan are not separate and distinct 
 installations, but four component 
 parts of one installation. If one 
 wheel in any one installation 
 breaks down, the others carry the 
 load. Just so the big public ser¬ 
 vice corporations have numbers of 
 plants scattered over their terri¬ 
 tories that all pump electricity into 
 the trunk lines. No man can say 
 where the power from each sepa¬ 
 rate plant goes. Just so the four 
 State power plants will all pump 
 their juice into one line. When 
 one plant fails on account of high 
 water, back water, or ice condi¬ 
 tions, it is not reasonable to sup¬ 
 pose that all of the plants will fail 
 at the same time. When one plant 
 is out of commission for any one 
 of a number of causes, the others 
 collectively must supply the defi¬ 
 ciency. Neither is it reasonable 
 to suppose that all of these plants 
 will receive their peak loads at the 
 same moment. Anyone who knows 
 anything about power plant eco¬ 
 nomics knows that it is possible 
 to sell an amount of electricity 
 about fifty percent in excess of the 
 total rated horse power of each 
 plant simply for the reason that 
 the use of all its power is not co¬ 
 incident; that it is compensating; 
 that, for instance, when one man 
 is using it another is not, and 
 vice versa; that when two men 
 are using it, one or two others are 
 not, and vice versa. The same thing; 
 is true developed to the full ratio 
 of the entire complement of power 
 users of the plant. 
 
 Mr. Ward’s fear that the State 
 will not be able to deliver a con¬ 
 stant 100,000 horse power on the 
 switchboard and will not, there- 
 
V 
 
 24 
 
 State's Power More 
 
 The fact is that all the salable 
 power that can be produced on the 
 Illinois river between Morris and 
 LaSalle is concentrated at Mar¬ 
 seilles on the Grand Rapids of the 
 
 fore, be able to keep faith with the 
 people and return their money to 
 the State’s treasury, is touching. 
 If his interest in keeping profit for 
 himself were not so apparent, his 
 interest in keeping faith with the 
 people would be more plausible. 
 His seif-abnegation is commend¬ 
 able. 
 
 This paragraph provokes my 
 mirth. His statement that if the 
 State would build a dam at Utica 
 88 feet high, backing water to the 
 Sanitary District power house near 
 the upper limits of Joliet, the theo¬ 
 retical head between those two 
 points could be utilized so fully 
 as possible and a fine waterpower 
 w’ould no doubt be created. He 
 states, however, that this could not 
 be done; that the same amount of 
 power cannot be produced when 
 separated into four plants down 
 streams that have the natural 
 slopes of the DesPlaines and Illi¬ 
 nois rivers. The report of the 
 Internal Improvement Commission 
 expressly states that the total slope 
 between Lockport and Utica, 
 amounting to 10.4 feet had been 
 subtracted from the total head of 
 98.4, and that the effective head 
 will be 88 feet. 
 
 With Mr. Ward’s own arithmetic 
 I will deny him. On page 2 of the 
 pamphlet he says to determine the 
 horse power in the water column 
 we have the formula H.P.=cuDic 
 feet of flow per second. Multiplied 
 by the head in feet; multiplied by 
 the decimal 0.11363. If, in this 
 case, we take the head in feet at 
 88, as he states, and the flow at 
 14,000 second feet, as he states, and 
 substitute in the formula, we find 
 that the total horse power produced 
 is 139,992, which is 8 horse power 
 short of the amount produced as 
 figured in the four separate plants. 
 I would not trust my own arithme¬ 
 tic for this complicated computa¬ 
 tion, but I am satisfied that Mr. 
 Ward’s formula cannot be at fault. 
 
 >ENSIVE THAN STEAM. 
 
 Tne fact is not quite as Mr. Ward 
 states it. The fact is that all the 
 power that is developed at Mar¬ 
 seilles is salable and that it finds 
 a ready market within a stone’s 
 
25 
 
 Illinois. The constant power at 
 Dresden Island will, probably, not 
 exceed 75 per cent of that claimed, 
 and it is possible, though scarcely 
 probable, that the power at Bran¬ 
 don’s Road may be 100 per cent of 
 that claimed. It is highly improb¬ 
 able that the United States will per¬ 
 mit more than 10,000 second feet 
 to be drawn from Lake Michigan. 
 Taking these figures into considera¬ 
 tion, together with the heavy bur¬ 
 den of interest, and including the 
 expected “net profit of $25.00 per 
 horse power” the State’s proposed 
 electricity, when delivered to les¬ 
 sees on the switchboards will cost 
 per horse power such a sum that, 
 in this State, where fuel is so cheap 
 it can not compete with electric 
 power generated by steam in large 
 quantities. 
 
 throw. It would not be worth the 
 dam which the Marseilles Land and 
 Water Power Company built to de¬ 
 velop it if it was deprived of the 
 artificial increment of flow sent 
 down through the Sanitary District 
 canal by the expenditure of $66,000,- 
 000 of the people’s money. This spe¬ 
 cial privilege would not have de¬ 
 veloped a plant so expensive if it 
 were not enjoying this artificial 
 benefit which it paid not one dol¬ 
 lar to create. 
 
 Mr. Ward says that it is possible, 
 though hardly probable, that the 
 Brandon’s road power may be one 
 hundred per cent of that claimed. 
 This is merely Mr. Ward’s unsup¬ 
 ported opinion, and as such may 
 be taken for what it is worth. 
 
 His statement of the probability 
 of the amount of flow that would 
 be permitted to be withdrawn from 
 Lake Michigan bears the same 
 qualification. It is not subscribed 
 and sworn to, as is the photo¬ 
 graph. 
 
 Mr. Ward says that in this State 
 where fuel is so cheap the State 
 power plant cannot compete with 
 electric power generated by steam 
 in large quantities. I do not know 
 what special sources of information 
 Mr. Ward has with regard to the 
 development of electric power by 
 steam, but I do know that nowhere 
 can I find authentic figures of the 
 cost of generating electric power by 
 steam in large quantities cheaper 
 than the same comparative quan¬ 
 tities of electricity can be devel¬ 
 oped by hydraulic power. I shall 
 be glad to find some authentic 
 figures on the cost of steam elec¬ 
 tric production per kilowatt in 
 large quantities in this State. The 
 large public service companies are 
 not particularly anxious to have 
 such information made public. I 
 maintain that this hydro-electric 
 power, which it is proposed to de¬ 
 velop in the DesPlaines and Illinois 
 livers between Lockport and Utica 
 can compete with electric power 
 generated by steam, even with the 
 low' cost of Illinois coal. Moreover, 
 hydro-electric power is one of most 
 effective conservation measures. 
 Our supply of Illinois coal is not 
 everlasting, and the more power 
 
26 
 
 Approval by 1 
 
 It is true that the whole of the 
 $20,000,000 is not to he expended on 
 the development of water power, 
 yet whatever may be the amount 
 of water power produced it must 
 bear the full burden of paying the 
 entire bond issue and interest, and 
 after that has been done, turn into 
 the State treasury not less than $2,- 
 500,000 annually to “lessen the 
 taxes of the taxpayers of this 
 State.” Let us again refer to the 
 Governor’s statements that the 
 “constitutional amendment was 
 submitted on the assumption that 
 the water-power would pay for the 
 waterway” and that the “invalidat¬ 
 ing of that assumption would 
 greatly imperil, if it would not de¬ 
 stroy the chance of its approval by 
 the voters.” The failure to produce 
 a net annual revenue of $2,500,000 
 for the State treasury, either be¬ 
 cause of inability to secure the nec¬ 
 essary flow of 14,000 second feet 
 from Lake Michigan, or of the fail¬ 
 ure of the claimed 88 feet of total 
 available head to materialize, in¬ 
 validates the assumption on which 
 the constitutional amendment was 
 submitted to the voters, just as 
 truly as does the fact that the 
 State does not possess the “un¬ 
 doubted right to the total water 
 power available along the line of 
 the proposed waterway.” 
 
 developed by hydraulic energy the- 
 less coal used and the longer the 
 supply will be available. It will 
 take about five pounds of Illinois 
 coal to produce one horse power. 
 Tf all of the water power we esti¬ 
 mate available under the State plan 
 were used for twenty-four hours a 
 day 365 days in the year, there 
 would be 876,000,000, horsepower 
 units used. Multiplying this by 5 
 would give 4,380,000,000 pounds of 
 coal. Divide this result by 2,000, 
 and we have 2,190,000 tons. Esti¬ 
 mating this coal at $1.00 per ton, 
 shows an annual saving on coal of 
 $2,190,000 whicn appears to justify 
 tne project as a conservation meas¬ 
 ure alone. 
 
 rs Imperiled. 
 
 I admit freely that whatever the 
 amount of water power produced it 
 must bear the full burden of pay¬ 
 ing the entire bond issue and in¬ 
 terest. I admit further that the 
 amount of water power produced 
 depends almost entirely oh the vol¬ 
 ume of flow available. As this 
 volume is greater or less than the 
 amount estimated, the annual 
 revenue will be greater or less than 
 tue amount estimated. Neverthe¬ 
 less, it cannot be so much less 
 that the entire twenty million dol¬ 
 lar bond issue cannot be retireu 
 with interest within the twenty 
 years. 
 
 The failure to produce a net an¬ 
 nual revenue of $2,500,000 for the 
 State treasury on account of 
 either of the possible variations in 
 the conditions upon which the 
 original estimate was predicated 
 does not invalidate the assumption 
 on which the constitutional amend¬ 
 ment was submitted to the voters. 
 Even with as small a flow as 10,000 
 cubic feet per second, the four 
 plants can be made to pay an an¬ 
 nual net revenue of $2,000,000 and 
 w r ill retire the bonds with interest 
 within the twenty year period. 
 
 It is not a fact that, the State 
 does not possess the undoubted 
 right to the total water power 
 available along the line of the pro¬ 
 posed waterway. It has not been 
 established as a fact, and our con¬ 
 tention that the State owns the 
 
27 
 
 artificial increment of flow still 
 stands. Without this artificial in¬ 
 crement of flow there is no water 
 power of value, either to the State 
 or to vested interests. 
 
 Lessee Without Recourse. 
 
 When this waterway scheme was 
 in embryo, the framers decided to 
 limit the term of the power leases 
 to ten years. While theoretically 
 this may be a good idea, yet a pros¬ 
 pective lessee may look askance at 
 having the cost of his power re¬ 
 vamped every ten years by “the 
 boys.” Again, there is absolutely 
 no way for a lessee, be he a resi¬ 
 dent of this State or of another 
 state, to compel Illinois to fulfill the 
 covenants contained in a power 
 lease. Should the State, for any 
 reason whatever, fail to deliver the 
 amount of power called for in a 
 lease, the only recourse open to a 
 citizen of this State would be to se¬ 
 cure, if possible, an award for dam¬ 
 ages from our Court of Claims and, 
 if successful, he must then resort 
 to the uncertain method of lobby¬ 
 ing to secure a special legislative 
 appropriation to cover the award. 
 If the lessee be a citizen of another 
 state, perhaps in the Federal Courts 
 he might obtain a judgment for 
 damages against Illinois, but how 
 could he collect the amount 
 awarded? There is no authority 
 vested in the General Government 
 to enter a sovereign state and to 
 levy and collect taxes to meet a 
 judgment obtained for the failure 
 of said state to comply with the 
 terms of a water-power lease. Un¬ 
 der such circumstances would not 
 prospective bidders for electric 
 power be wary about dealing with 
 a party that could not be com¬ 
 pelled to keep the terms of its 
 agreement? ts it probable that 
 large sums of money would be in¬ 
 vested in manufacturing plants to 
 be operated under short term power 
 leases and with no security that 
 the State will supply the power 
 called for by the terms of the 
 lease? 
 
 Here Mr. Ward and I are in full 
 accord. Without discoursing upon 
 i the rights of the State’s lessees and 
 the protection; of those' rights, I 
 am firmly of the opinion that the 
 State should not lease any of this 
 water power to any middle man to 
 be retailed to the people for the 
 profit of the middle man. My opin¬ 
 ion is and always has been that 
 the State should do what some of 
 our opponents call going into the 
 water power business; that the 
 State should run these plants for 
 profit that we should have munici¬ 
 pal ownership of these plants, if 
 you will. I do not accept the doc¬ 
 trine of municipal ownership uni¬ 
 versally, but I believe that in this 
 instance State ownership and oper¬ 
 ation of these plants under the re¬ 
 strictions of the Civil Service Law 
 should obtain. I am upheld in this 
 belief by the successful operation 
 of the Sanitary District of Chi¬ 
 cago’s municipally owned plant, 
 and the large annual revenue 
 which it returns to that municipal- 
 i ity. 
 
28 
 
 Cost of Similar Works. 
 
 The first estimate of the cost of j 
 the Illinois and Michigan canal was 
 $600,000. It cost a.bout $8,000,000. 
 The first estimate of the cost of the 
 Hennepin canal was $4,500,000, and 
 it actually cost over $7,000,000. The 
 first estimate of the cost of the 
 Panama canal was $150,000,000, and 
 the last Act of Congress made avail¬ 
 able $5u0,000,000. The first esti¬ 
 mate of the cost of the Chicago 
 Drainage canal was about 
 $20,000,000; $65,000,000 have been 
 expended and the end is not yet. 
 The first estimate of the cost of 
 this proposed water-power water¬ 
 way is $20,000,000. Its ultimate 
 cost is problematical. 
 
 I do not know what the first 
 estimate of the Illinois and Michi¬ 
 gan Canal was. I believe it is safe 
 to assume that Mr. Ward is in er¬ 
 ror in his statement that the orig¬ 
 inal estimate of its cost was $600,- 
 000, because it is a fact that he is 
 in error when he states that its 
 final cost was $8,000,000. As a 
 matter of fact, the total amount 
 expended in the construction of 
 the Illinois and Michigan Canal 
 from its beginning in 1836 until the 
 deepening was completed, 1871, was 
 $9,869,981.85. The principal and 
 interest due to bond holders and 
 other evidences of canal indebted¬ 
 ness were extinguished on April 
 30, 1871. Instead of being a bur¬ 
 den upon the taxpayers of the 
 State, the canal paid its w r ay. After 
 its indebtedness was extinguished 
 the canal continued to operate prof¬ 
 itably and not until 1876 did the 
 gross expenses exceed the tolls. At 
 that time me business had out¬ 
 grown the capacity of the canal and 
 the railroads had waged relentless 
 war upon it until it was finally 
 forced out of business. For the 
 purposes of argument I will admit 
 that the first estimate of the cost 
 of the Hennepin Canal was $4,500,- 
 000 and that its actual cost was 
 largely in excess of this amount. 
 The canal was built at a cost of less 
 man $72,000 per mile, which is but 
 little more than the face value per 
 mile of the stocks and bonds of 
 the Rock Islanu Railway that par¬ 
 allels it. The canal is physically 
 capable of passing more freight per 
 day than this adjacent double-track 
 railway and passing it at a mater¬ 
 ially lower cost per ton mile. The 
 irouble with the Hennepin Canal, 
 as stated by an eminent authority, 
 is thai it “runs from the neck of 
 the woods to the forks of the creek. 
 It arrives nowhere, but untimately 
 as other waterway connections are 
 made, and especially an adequate 
 one from the Illinois river to Chie- 
 cago, and as our density of popu¬ 
 lation increases, the Hennepin 
 Canal will serve a useful purpose. 
 It is ahead of its time. If it served 
 no other purpose, it has been worth 
 
all that it cost and more in regu¬ 
 lating freight rates upon the Rock 
 Island and connecting railways.” 
 
 In referring to the Panama 
 Canal, Mr. Ward states that the 
 first estimate of cost was $150,- 
 000,000, and that something like 
 $500,000,000 has been appropriated 
 for it. The fact is that the esti¬ 
 mate of the advisory hoard of en¬ 
 gineers, which made the plans and 
 determined the type of canal, was 
 in round numbers $140,000,000. 
 Tnis applied to construction and 
 engineering only, and did not in¬ 
 clude the $40,000,000 paid the 
 French Company, the $10,000,000 
 paid to the government of Panama, 
 and tne enormous cost of sanita¬ 
 tion and zone government. This 
 estimate was for a cana4 of definite 
 dimensions and certain plans. 
 These plans have been altered and 
 the dimensions greatly enlarged. 
 For instance, the original plan 
 called for a width of 200 feet 
 through the great Culebra cut. 
 Tnat cut is being excavated to a 
 width of 300 feet. This is only one 
 of many changes which have been 
 made, every one of which is adding 
 to the cost of the work. The lock 
 dimensions have also been enlarged 
 and the cost consequently in¬ 
 creased. 
 
 Referring to the Chicago Drain¬ 
 age Canal, Mr. Ward states that 
 the first estimate of cost was about 
 $20,000,000. Mr. Ward was long 
 employed by the Sanitary District 
 of Chicago, and he should know 
 that there was no comprehensive 
 original estimate of the cost. Mr. 
 Isham Randolph, for fourteen years 
 Cnief Engineer of the work, those 
 fourteen years extending over the 
 entire period of its construction, 
 states that during his service as 
 Chief Enginer he failed to find a 
 comprehensive original estimate of 
 cost. There was a gross esti¬ 
 mate amounting to about $18,000.- 
 000, covering the construction cost 
 alone from Robey Street to LocK- 
 port only. This estimate did not 
 include the cost of railway changes, 
 cost of right-of-way, nor was there 
 any item for administration or in¬ 
 terest. The expenditures of the 
 Sanitary District of Chicago are to 
 
30 
 
 Each County's 
 
 The Internal Improvement Com¬ 
 mission has admitted that interest 
 to the amount of $4,800,000 will ac¬ 
 cumulate during the period of con¬ 
 struction. This will make the total 
 debt, at the close of construction 
 $24,800,000. Based on assessed 
 values for the year 1910, as fixed 
 by the State Board of Equalization 
 and assuming that the work can be 
 completed for a total of $24,800,000, 
 the following is the share of the 
 above named sum that must be paid 
 by the taxpayers of the counties 
 named: 
 
 date about $66,000,000. In this to- 
 lal is included right-of-way for the 
 main channel, right-of-way for the 
 north shore extension, part of the 
 right-of-way for the Calumet-Sag 
 extension, cost of railroad changes, 
 controlling works, the extension 
 irom the controlling works to 
 South Street in Joliet, water power 
 extension and development, tne 
 Chicago River improvement, cost¬ 
 ing some $10,000,000, cost of con¬ 
 structing the north shore channel, 
 twenty years administration and 
 interest bn bonded indebtedness 
 for a like period. The unit prices 
 used in the early estimates were 
 very nearly those obtained when 
 tne work was let. The partial es¬ 
 timate referred to was based upon 
 a channel 16 feet deep in the earth 
 end 18 feet in the rock. As built 
 the channel is 24 feet deep through¬ 
 out. Comparisons of the estimate 
 of cost of the proposed State water¬ 
 way with the estimate costs of the 
 other channels referred to are de¬ 
 signedly unfair. These compari¬ 
 sons do not go sufficiently into de¬ 
 tail and the detailed investigation 
 reveals the significant fact that in 
 the case of the Sanitary District 
 canal unit prices for which the 
 work was done were very nearly 
 equal the unit prices assumed in 
 the estimate, and in the case of the 
 Panama Canal the unit prices at 
 which the work was estimated are 
 far in excess of the actual unit 
 costs for wmch the work is being 
 done. 
 
 Share oe Cost. 
 
 I take issue with Mr. Ward’s 
 statement that the Internal Im¬ 
 provement Commission has admit¬ 
 ted that interest amounting to 
 $4,800,000 will accumulate during 
 the period of construction. The 
 statement referred to is contained 
 in the prospectus which we sent 
 out in the campaign for the bond 
 issue. The statement was written 
 by me and is as follows: 
 
 “Assuming that the entire issue 
 was sold at the start $800,000 per 
 annum must be paid for interest at 
 4 per cent * * *. On this basis 
 
31 
 
 Adams. 
 
 . . .. $ 251,242 
 
 Alexander . 
 
 62,683 
 
 Bond . 
 
 56,473 
 
 Boone .. 
 
 . 87,894 
 
 Brown . 
 
 40,380 
 
 Bureau . 
 
 250,802 
 
 Calhoun . 
 
 25,627 
 
 Carroll . 
 
 103,334 
 
 Cass . 
 
 96,809 
 
 Champaign .... 
 
 332,386 
 
 Christian . 
 
 192,581 
 
 Clark . 
 
 88,672 
 
 Clay . 
 
 53,115 
 
 Clinton . 
 
 64,092 
 
 Coles . 
 
 134,135 
 
 Cook . 
 
 ... . 10,321,787 
 
 Crawford . 
 
 96,809 
 
 Cumberland ... 
 
 56,834 
 
 DeKalb . 
 
 210,568 
 
 DeWitt . 
 
 .... 108,563 
 
 Douglas . 
 
 118,075 
 
 DuPage . 
 
 161,814 
 
 Edgar . 
 
 . .. . 175,676 
 
 Edwards . 
 
 34,891 
 
 Effingham . 
 
 69,682 
 
 Fayette . 
 
 99,435 
 
 Ford . 
 
 147,659 
 
 Franklin. 
 
 60,734 
 
 Fulton . 
 
 183,227. 
 
 Gallatin . 
 
 31,747 
 
 Greene . 
 
 . . . . 100,291 
 
 Grundy .. 
 
 132,061 
 
 Hamilton . 
 
 42,127 
 
 Hancock . 
 
 160,698 
 
 Hardin . 
 
 10,109 
 
 Henderson . 
 
 - 76,365 
 
 Henry . 
 
 226,267 
 
 Iroquois . 
 
 296,367 
 
 Jackson . 
 
 72,556 
 
 Jasper . 
 
 59,809 
 
 Jefferson . 
 
 64,024 
 
 Jersey . 
 
 51,323 
 
 JoDaviess . 
 
 116,779 
 
 Johnson . 
 
 32,266 
 
 Kane . 
 
 382,098 
 
 Kankakee . 
 
 169,782 
 
 Kendall . 
 
 74,911 
 
 Knox . 
 
 226,650 
 
 Lake . 
 
 215,504 
 
 LaSalle . 
 
 431,122 
 
 Lawrence . 
 
 83,814 
 
 Lee . 
 
 203,536 
 
 Livingston . 
 
 324,677 
 
 Logan . 
 
 190,902 
 
 Macon . 
 
 236,162 
 
 Macoupin . 
 
 168,328 
 
 Madison . 
 
 311,976 
 
 Marion . 
 
 77,875 
 
 Marshall . 
 
 105,960 
 
 Mason . 
 
 83,645 
 
 there would be advanced by the 
 State in the six years before the 
 plants began to show earnings $4,- 
 800,00 on the bonds * * *. This 
 
 presents the case in its most un¬ 
 favorable aspect.” 
 
 This ridiculous assumption was 
 made with the express purpose of 
 presenting the case in its most 
 unfavorable aspect, in order to pre¬ 
 sent it to the voters in its most 
 conservative light. Anyone who 
 assumes that the entire issue of 
 bonds would actually be sold at the 
 cutset does so either through dens¬ 
 est ignorance or through a deliber¬ 
 ate intention to misrepresent the 
 facts. The facts are that the bonds 
 will not be sol'd in a lump when 
 their issuance is authorized, but 
 that they will be issued from 
 time to time as the money is 
 needed. The major expenditure 
 will come in the last three years 
 and at the close of the work. The 
 net interest account, therefore, 
 based on the probable distribution 
 of expenditures during the six 
 years of construction would be be¬ 
 tween $1,600,000 and $1,700,000. It 
 will be practical to complete one 
 or two of the power plants and 
 begin selling power before the 
 
 whole work is completed. It also 
 
 will be practicable to defer part of 
 the cost of constructing the locks 
 until after the earnings have be¬ 
 gun. It will then be seen that any 
 contingency which might affect the 
 cost of the work may be met with¬ 
 out increasing the bond issue 
 authorized. 
 
 Mr. Ward’s tabulation of the 
 
 amount that must be paid by the 
 taxpayers of each of the counties 
 in the State, based upon his wil¬ 
 fully distorted statement of the 
 
 total indebtedness, is not at all 
 
 germain to the discussion. The 
 people of the State and of each 
 county are merely asked to lend 
 their credit for three or four years 
 of the period of construction. In 
 three years after, the work is 
 started it will begin to return 
 revenue and before it is completed 
 the revenue from the power plants 
 alone will take care of the interest 
 on the bonds and provide for their 
 amortization. 
 
 11 
 
 74 
 
 97 
 
 73 
 
 41 
 
 58 
 
 98 
 
 63 
 
 30 
 
 11 
 
 76 
 
 36 
 
 51 
 
 49 
 
 54 
 
 28 
 
 30 
 
 61 
 
 68 
 
 91 
 
 09 
 
 66 
 
 76 
 
 92 
 
 41 
 
 21 
 
 54 
 
 03 
 
 65 
 
 59 
 
 73 
 
 86 
 
 26 
 
 93 
 
 19 
 
 52 
 
 79 
 
 19 
 
 26 
 
 89 
 
 87 
 
 58 
 
 74 
 
 01 
 
 08 
 
 55 
 
 69 
 
 97 
 
 94 
 
 58 
 
 99 
 
 20 
 
 43 
 
 53 
 
 85 
 
 72 
 
 14 
 
 70 
 
 54 
 
 94 
 
32 
 
 Massac. 
 
 . ... $ 31,364 
 
 41 
 
 McDonough . .. 
 
 154,939 
 
 96 
 
 McHenry . 
 
 178,821 
 
 09 
 
 McLean . 
 
 . 445,638 
 
 34 
 
 Menard . 
 
 79,847 
 
 95 
 
 Mercer . 
 
 .. .. 123,958 
 
 73 
 
 Monroe . 
 
 51,582 
 
 79 
 
 Montgomerv . .. 
 
 .. . . 159,628 
 
 28 
 
 Morgan . 
 
 183,633 
 
 38 
 
 Moultrie . 
 
 ... . 81,189 
 
 08 
 
 Ogle . 
 
 . .. . 208,483 
 
 73 
 
 Peoria . 
 
 404,018 
 
 23 
 
 Perry . 
 
 . ... 51,470 
 
 09 
 
 Piatt . 
 
 . . . . 130,326 
 
 28 
 
 Pike . 
 
 . .. . 110,603 
 
 78 
 
 Pope . 
 
 20,409 
 
 97 
 
 Pulaski . 
 
 . .. . 26,473 
 
 23 
 
 Putnam . 
 
 34,643 
 
 98 
 
 Randolph . 
 
 79,633 
 
 82 
 
 Richland . 
 
 49,418 
 
 95 
 
 Rock Island ... 
 
 216,237 
 
 49 
 
 Saline . 
 
 57,240 
 
 33 
 
 Sangamon . 
 
 439,755 
 
 40 
 
 Schuyler . 
 
 60,012 
 
 75 
 
 Scott . 
 
 52,991 
 
 54 
 
 Shelby . 
 
 156,427 
 
 60 
 
 Stark . 
 
 ... . 73,345 
 
 16 
 
 St. Clair . 
 
 ... . 373,251 
 
 13 
 
 Stevenson . 
 
 . . . . 175,079 
 
 45 
 
 Tazewell . 
 
 194,869 
 
 57 
 
 Union . 
 
 46,161 
 
 92 
 
 Vermilion . 
 
 385,197 
 
 33 
 
 Wabash . 
 
 47,998 
 
 93 
 
 Warren . 
 
 . ... 162,930 
 
 39 
 
 Washington .... 
 
 53,960 
 
 76 
 
 Wayne . 
 
 73,153 
 
 57 
 
 White ‘. 
 
 62,897 
 
 87 
 
 Whiteside . 
 
 188,456 
 
 94 
 
 Will .. 
 
 339,970 
 
 82 
 
 Williamson .... 
 
 . . . . 110,265 
 
 68 
 
 Winnebago . 
 
 ... . 324,936 
 
 64 
 
 Woodford . 
 
 144,357 
 
 43 
 
 Total . 
 
 . .. . $24,791,329 
 
 00 
 
 Financial Problem Confronting People. 
 
 The problem that now actually 
 confronts the people of Illinois is 
 the purchase of all water-power 
 rights. Those at Dresden, owned 
 by the Economy Light & Power 
 Company, are estimated by the In¬ 
 ternal Improvement Commissioners 
 to be over 28,000 horse-power, and 
 the holdings of the same company 
 at Hickory Creek are about 14,000 
 horse power. In his message of 
 November 6, 1907, Governor De- 
 neen says: “The value of this 
 
 Mr. Ward states that the prob¬ 
 lem now actually confronting the 
 people is the purchase of all the 
 water power rights along the river. 
 This is not true. Considering the 
 alleged water power rights referred 
 to seriatim: we do not believe that 
 the Economy Light and Power 
 Company has a water power at 
 Dresden Heights. Even if it was 
 entitled to the artificial increment 
 of flow from the Drainage Canal, 
 there are lands within the pool 
 
33 
 
 power is variously estimated at 
 from $400 to $500 per horse power.” 
 Therefore, the Economy Light & 
 Power Company’s holdings must be 
 worth from $16,800,000 to $21,000,- 
 000. The power at Marseilles 
 should be valued on a basis of 
 24,900 horse power (see page 51 of 
 report of Internal Improvement 
 Commission, 1909, in connection 
 with page 3 of the Governor's 
 message of November 6, 1907). 
 
 Applying the values per horse¬ 
 power stated above, this property 
 must be worth from $9,960,000 to 
 $12,450,000 and the total value of 
 these two properties, according to 
 the eminent authorities quoted, 
 must be from $26,760,000 to $33,- 
 450,000. 
 
 It is inconceivable that a jury 
 -could be found which would give 
 the riparian owners a verdict for 
 a smaller sum than values tne 
 State authorities have themselves 
 placed upon the property. No one 
 would contend that the State could 
 take private property, which priv¬ 
 ate individuals are using in their 
 private business, for the purpose 
 of conducting that same business 
 with tnat same property, without 
 the private owners receiving from 
 the State full value therefor. 
 
 which will be formed by the com¬ 
 pany’s dam at this point and which 
 will be flooded, which do not belong 
 to the company. It cannot flood 
 these lands if it does not possess 
 tnem, it has no power of condemna¬ 
 tion and, therefore, cannot acquire 
 them. Mr. Ward’s assertion that 
 the Internal Improvement Com¬ 
 mission estimated that the Econ¬ 
 omy Light and Power Company 
 owned over 28,000 horse power at 
 this point is a deliberate misstate¬ 
 ment. The Internal Improvement 
 Commission never estimated what 
 amount of power was owned or 
 claimed to be owned by the Econ¬ 
 omy Light and Power Company at 
 this point. Our estimates for power 
 development at Dresden Heights 
 were based upon a much higher 
 head than the dam which is pro¬ 
 posed by the Economy Light & 
 Power Company, and the State dam 
 is to be located about a mile down 
 stream beyond the designated lo 
 cation of the Economy Light & 
 Power Company dam. 
 
 The alleged water power rights 
 of the same Company at Hickory 
 Creek, which Mr. Ward states 
 amounts to 14,000 horse power, are 
 not so well established. The com¬ 
 pany has no water power and can¬ 
 not have any water power at this 
 point without joining its dam 
 onto - the banks and land of the 
 Illinois and Michigan Canal. It 
 has not been granted any right by 
 the Canal Commission to connect 
 its dam to these lands. It cannot 
 acquire the right to do this for a 
 period of more than twenty years. 
 Asuming that it could complete the 
 dam by reason of consummating 
 some such agreement with the 
 Canal Commission, it still could 
 not fill the pool created by the dam 
 because that would flood land 
 which does not belong to the com¬ 
 pany and which it cannot acquire 
 because it has not the right of 
 eminent domain. 
 
 When Governor Deneen stated 
 that “the value of this power is 
 variously estimated at $400 to $500 
 per horse power, he made the state¬ 
 ment upon the advice of the In¬ 
 ternal Improvement Commission. 
 T believe now that these values are 
 
34 
 
 too low; that in the light of the 
 cases referred to by Mr. Ward in 
 this footnote and in the light of 
 values revealed for other water 
 power plants that complete hydro¬ 
 electric developments in this sec¬ 
 tion of the river as going concerns 
 have a value more nearly approach¬ 
 ing $1,000 per horse power. Mr. 
 Ward’s reflections upon jury 
 awards are immaterial. He cannot 
 succeed in giving fictitious values 
 to water power right that do not 
 exist. 
 
 Conclusion'. 
 
 The inevitable conclusion follows 
 that, if the State takes possession 
 of the water power rights of pri¬ 
 vate individuals, nothing can be 
 accomplished with the $20,000,000 
 toward the construction of the 
 waterway. However, for the $20,- 
 000,000 a waterway, after the plans 
 of the United States engineers can 
 be built from Joliet to Utica, pro¬ 
 vided the State leaves private 
 owners in possession of their pri¬ 
 vate property, as do the plans of 
 the United States for a waterway 
 down the valley. The idea of the 
 government or of the State develop¬ 
 ing and distributing hydro-electric 
 energy is so foreign to the uni¬ 
 versal conception of the proper 
 functions of government that the 
 inability to do so should be re¬ 
 garded as fortunate. The State 
 should confine the use of its powers 
 to governmental purposes. 
 
 Ebin J. Ward. 
 
 The inevitable conclusion follows 
 that if the State takes possession of 
 the water power that is hers by 
 right of having bought and paid for 
 it with her people’s money; and if 
 vested interests do not succeed in 
 filching from the State the water 
 power paid for with the people’s 
 money, the waterway from Lock- 
 port to Utica will be built, an 
 enormous carrying trade will be 
 developed through the waterway, a 
 thriving industrial territory will 
 spring up by reason of the water¬ 
 way, and cheap power; the cost of 
 the waterway will be paid back 
 from the proceeds of the water 
 power, and the State will reap the 
 benefit of a perpetual annual 
 revenue. 
 
 Robert Isham Randolph. 
 
 t 
 

r ri: 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 3 0112112905465