FISHERIES, GAME AND FORESTS. 413 



miasmatic poisoning, which are taken into the system cither by breathing, or drinking the water; 

 that patients in a low state of health who would be apt to be sent to the Adirondacks, would be very 

 likely to take on the disease, and if a case of typhoid fever arose so that the emanations of a typhoid 

 patient were discharged in such a stream it would be a good culture bed for the germs. (In this 

 connection claimant calls attention to the epidemic of typhoid fever that has been existing in Water- 

 town and other places along the Black River.) 



Here is a locality where fever, agues and enteritis were unknown, and which was considered a fit 

 and proper place for physicians to send their patients. 



Since the building of the dam a certain well-defined disease has been prevalent and has continu- 

 ously existed. As shown by the President of the State Board of Health, the reservoir theoretically 

 would cause jusl such a disease as Drs. Tamblin, Candee, Von Zierolshofen, and Townsend found 

 so prevalent. There can be no disputing the fact that this unhealthy condition which exists, is 

 due to the reservoir, and extends on each side of the reservoir a considerable distance. 



(y. ) Effect of the reservoir upon claimanfs camp and lodge at Little Rapids. 



Prior to the raising of the reservoir the claimant built a cottage at Little Rapids, and in building 

 the same expended the sum of from $3,000 to $4,000. The pond and reservoir extends to the very 

 foot of the rapids, almost into the front dooryard of this cottage, and certainly the miasmatic poison- 

 ings and unhealthy condition above spoken of by the physicians extends to and affects the sanitary 

 conditions of this cottage. 



Moreover, the reservoir has destroyed the only meadow in connection with this camp and cottage. 

 Four acres of meadow — the only one existing in that locality — are entirely submerged and destroyed. 



Seven : D.am.^ges. 



The conditions out of which the damages originated have been to some extent indicated in the 

 above abstract, so that from the citations to the evidence and data given the amount of the resulting 

 damages can be fairly ascertained. 



The value of the whole tract of 65,836 acres, before and after the reservoir, was given by the 

 witnesses as follows : 



HON. M. W. VAN AMBER testified that with the tract in its original condition it would be 

 worth from $6 to $7 an acre ; with the reservoir, it is worth only $2.50 to $3 per acre. This was 

 from the standpoint of a lumberman. 



JOHN McFARLAND testified that with the tract in its original condition it would be worth $7 

 an acre ; that with the reservoir, the tract is worth only $3 an acre. 



HON. WESLEY BARNES testified that with the tract in its original condition, the timber alone 

 would be worth $5 an acre ; with the reservoir, the tract is worth about $2 an acre. 



HON. G. H. P. GOULD testified that the whole tract would, in its original condition, be worth 

 $5 an acre, and that with the reservoir there it is worth about $1 an acre, solely for lumbering 

 purposes. 



JAMES P. LEWIS figures the value from a standpoint of pulp wood to be $5 an acre, with the 

 tract in its original condition, and with the reservoir, to be worth $1.50 per acre. 



WILLIAM McECHRON testified that with the river in its original condition for lumbering 

 purposes solely, the land would be worth $5 an acre ; that as to that portion of the tract which was 

 set off by itself by the reservoir, and there was no way to get at it except to haul the timber a distance 

 of twelve miles, he should consider it worthless, and that the present value per acre, assuming that the 

 logs could be taken to the railroad at the same expense that they could be to the river, would be a 

 difference between freight and cost of driving. 



EDWARD M. BURNS testified that for all purposes the value of the tract, in its original 

 condition, before the river was dammed, would be $7 an acre, and with the reservoir, would be $3.50. 



In addition to these damages it is to be borne in mind that the claimant has expended a large 

 sum of money in attempting to collect his damages, which he offered to prove was of the amount at 

 least of $to,ooo, but which was rejected. 



