
    FINELLA M. ALEXANDER ET. AL. v. THE UNITED STATES.
    (25 C. Cls. R., 329; 148 U. S. R., 186.)
    
      On the defendants’ Appeal.
    
    Congress authorize the construction of the Washington water tunnel, and provide a remedy in this court for persons whoj by the taking of their land “ or by the construction of the worhs hereinafter directed to be constructed shall be directly injured in any property right.” The construction of the tunnel at a great depth causes an unseen subsurface diversion of the water from wells in the neighborhood.
    The court below decides:
    1. In the Aot Ylth July, 1882 (22 Stat. L. p. 168), to increase the water supply of the city of Washington, the words “directly injured” are. used in contra distinction to remotely injured.
    2. Where a statute authorizes the construction of a public work and provides a remedy for persons who “shall be directly injured in tmy property right,” the intention is to legislate against damages not directly traceable to the construction of the work, but not against damages-consequent to and resulting therefrom:
    3. Where the court finds as a fact that the destruction of a well, though at some distance from the locus of a public well, a tunnel, is-directly traceable to it, the owner may recover.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
   Mr. Justice Shiras

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, March 6,1893.

In the case of George Truesdell, Mr. Justice Shiras delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the court below on the authority of the above case.  