jgo REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF 



Q. Allowing the stream to be a free stream, with a dam built across it like that, would it be 

 feasible and possible to drive logs across it? — A. It would require the successful operating of such a 

 stream to have a sluiced dam in order to float logs down it. 



Mr. McEchron also testified that without a chute or apron, even if there were water enough 

 running over the dam, that the logs as they fell over the dam would soon block up the stream and 

 back right up over the dam. 



MR. GEORGE T. CRAWFORD testified that it was not feasible to get logs through the dam, 

 without chutes or aprons. 



MR. ERASTUS DARLING testified that the only feasible way was to put a sluice and 

 apron in. 



HON. WESLEY BARNES testified upon cross-examination as follows : O. What expedient 

 would you suggest as to getting the logs through this dam, and what would be necessary to do? — 

 A. I should cut down the dam in the center about eight feet and put in a sluice; put a twenty-five 

 foot apron on it, and sluice my logs through it. 



JAMES COSGROVE, when being examined with reference to the difficulties of lumbering with 

 the dam and reservoir in its present condition, testified ; O. Then you would have to fix over the 

 dam, and put in sluices? — A. Oh, certainly. 



WILLIAM HARRIS testified, that logs would float over the dam only in the highest freshets. 



HON. M. W. VAN AMBER testifies that if you got there with your logs at just the right time 

 in extremely high water logs would float over. 



A mere inspection of the dam shows that to drive an ordinary cut of eight or len million feet of 

 logs over the dam, even assuming that it could be done, would destroy the dam. 



The impracticability of floating logs over the dam became so apparent that the learned Attorney- 

 General evidently abandoned that position, for upon subsequent cross-examinations of claimant's 

 witnesses he assumed the position that the dam might be fixed over. 



(6. ) Fixing over the dam. 



It was suggested by the learned Attorney-General that the dam might be altered at a comparatively 

 slight expense. Perhaps it might be ; but is the claimant obliged to have his claim for damages 

 deferred or reduced on the theory that something might hereafter be done by the Legislature, 

 authorizing the dam to be re-constructed and used for lumbering purposes ? This case must be 

 determined upon the facts as they now exist. There is no authority given to any public officer to 

 change the character of the dam or reservoir, and the claimant's rights can not be disposed of upon 

 the assumption of any future legislative action. 



Let us examine, however, the evidence. Changing the dam would not solve the difificulty. 

 Clearly, the dam can not be used for the double purpose of driving logs and storage purposes. The 

 two uses are incompatible, even when the dam is altered ; and if the two uses are compatible there 

 remains the brush and tangle, which will have to be cleared out, channels to be cut to tow the logs in, 

 logs to be towed instead of driving, all of which is very much more expensive. 



Regard the case as if the dam were changed. Even then the claimant could not use the same for 

 lumbering. 



(7.) Incompatibility 0/ uses. 



A complete answer, however, to the learned Attorney-General's suggestion of what might be done 

 is found in the fact that if it were done, and the dam rebuilt, its use by the State for storage purposes 

 would be wholly incompatible with its use by log drivers for logging purposes. The State puts down 

 the gate and holds the water during the spring floods and freshets, and the water is held in the 

 reservoir until the dry weather in the summer, when it is gradually let out to keep up the supply of 

 the Black River. A lumberman would want to let the water out at just the time the State was 

 holding it. 



HON. G. H. P. GOULD testified on cross-examination: Q. What would be the objection on the 

 part of the Watertown people to having this dam regulated during the logging season ; closed during 

 the rafting time? — A. Because it would draw the water down ; it would take the water entirely out of 

 the reser\'oir at a time when it ought to be full. 



