Publisher's Synopsis
Excerpt from Preservation of Niagara Falls (H. R. 18024): Hearings Before the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives of the United States, Fifty-Ninth Congress, First Session; 1906
Mr. Mccormick. Mr. Randolph and I came down here, Mr. Chair man, and Senator Cullom sent for us, explaining that this matter was coming up; that. The President had sent a message regarding it, and he thought we ought to present our case.
The report of the Government engineers, which you have read, r-commends that the Chicago Drainage Canal be limited to cabic feet of water per second; that the Niagara Power Company be given feet per second, and that another Niagara power company be given feet per second. Now, cubic feet per second is not enough to preserve the health of Chicago. The drainage canal, which has been built at a cost already of is the only means by which Chicago can be drained and the drinking water kept clean. It is planned to have an eventual ?ow of cubic feet per second. The rock section is cut for that ?ow, and when the other sections have been completed that ?ow will be accommodated in the channels.
There are two or three reasons why feet is the minimum. One is that we have to reverse the ?ow of the Chicago River and the Calumet Rive-r. They are considerable rivers, ?owing into Lake Michigan. It takes about cubic feet a second to reverse the Chicago River, and it will take cubic feet a second to reverse the Calumet. That makes the that the committee of engineers has spoken of. And then, to carry ofi' other sewage from different parts of the city to connect up the sewerage system will take an additional making feet a second.
This problem is not purely one which concerns Chicago. If we had our own way about it, we would send a solid stream of sewage down to Joliet, down the Illinois River and down the Mississippi River, because that would be the cheapest thing for us to do. But that would be evidently and eminently unfair to the other people. So the statute under which we operate provides that there must be a ?ow of cubic feet a second for every inhabitants of Chicago. That makes a fairly clear stream of water.
You know that the State of Missouri sued out a writ for an injunction in the Supreme Court, and the court dismissed the injunction because it held that Missouri had shown no damage, but stated that if in the future Missouri could Show that the flow of the drainage canal did do damage, they might then grant an injunction and close up the canal forever.
About the Publisher
Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com
This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
