BINNEY'S CASE. 137

If it is to be raised then, on reverting to the diagram, it will be
seen, that supposing the canal A B, to be the head race, it can
only be effected by a dam A 2, or an elongation of the canal to 1,
and in either case, the absolute right in the land itself, or the right to
flood the land A 2 1, must be acquired by the corporation. Again,
if it is to be deepened, then the excavation at A, must be such
as to draw off the water from the land A 2 1, to its prejudice; and
consequently, a right to do so, or a clear title to the land must be
acquired by the company. Every possible way then, of enlarging
the canal, after it has been once formed, necessarily implies a new
acquisition of property by the company. But the act of their incor-
poration, has given them no power whatever to purchase and hold,
much less any authority to take from others, and have condemned
to their use any property, or franchise whatever to be applied to
any such purpose, (w)

That this is the correct construction of this law is strongly sus-
tained by the express provisions of an act passed at the then next
preceding session of the General Assembly, upon a subject, in all
respects, precisely similar; which act after constituting certain
persons a body politic, by the name of The Proprietors of the Sus-
quehanna Canal, for the purpose of constructing a canal as described,
declares, that cit is necessary for the making the said canal, and
erecting grist-mills and other water-works thereon, that provision
should be made for condemning a quantity of land not exceeding
two hundred acres.' And it then proceeds to enact accordingly, (x)
But in this act incorporating The Potomac Company, no such pro-
vision has been made in any form. And it is also worthy of re-
mark, that the eleventh section of the act incorporating, The Poco-
moke Company, (y) appears to have been copied verbatim from the
thirteenth section of the act incorporating The Potomac Company,
neither of which contains any provision for erecting water-works
similar to that of the act incorporating The Proprietors of the Sus-
quehanna Canal.

Much has been said about the surplus water and the waste water
of the canals of The Potomac Company, as evidence of its being
the intention of this law, that the adjacent and riparian owners of
land should be allowed to draw such a quantity of water from it as
might be necessary for any mill they might wish to erect; and of

(u) Blakemore v. The Glamorganshire Canal Navigation, 6 Cond. Chan. Rep.
550.—(x) 1783, ch. 23, s. 6.—(y) 1796, ch. 17.