enormous burden of silt, and to what extent this would be deposited in the channel can not be predicted on the basis of any information now available, and for this reason it is not practicable to estimate with any certainty the annual cost of maintenance. It has been stated that light draft vessels can handle all the business now offering at Georgetown, and that, in fact, there is not enough business to warrant maintaining a separate service for this port. The business is now handled by steamship companies making the city a port of call for vessels designed primarily for the deeper harbors to the north and south, and occasionally these vessels are obliged to wait for the tides in order to enter or depart from Winyah Bay. So far as known, only two vessels now in this service are so affected, viz, the Matilda Weems, of the Baltimore & Carolina Steamship Co., and the Richmond, of the Atlantic Coast Lumber Corporation, but the indications are that complaints on this score will become more and more frequent as the older and lighter-draft vessels become obsolete and are retired from service. It is not improbable, therefore, that at some future date, if the channel be not deepened, Georgetown will become dependent for service on lighterdraft ships, such, for instance, as are now contemplated for war service. If present plans are carried out, some of these at least will be available for service after the war, and will be forced to seek the business offering at the shallower ports of this or other countries. It is not expected, however, that these will have a long life, and with the indubitable trend to larger vessels, it seems inevitable that the entrance to Georgetown harbor must be deepened at some time in the more or less distant future. However, under existing commercial conditions, the present project, if maintained to full dimensions, is considered ample for the commerce of the port as it now is, and for any immediate prospective increase as well. The inconvenience to vessels now in the service is occasional only, and not serious, and the need for improvement is not therefore especially urgent at this moment. 14. Conclusion and recommendation.-In view of the uncertainty as to future commercial developments, the comparatively great cost of further enlarging the existing channel, and the comparatively small amount of commerce to be immediately benefited thereby, it is my opinion, and I so report, that the Federal Government is not justified in adopting at this time any new project with a view to securing a channel of increased depth or greater width than that now authorized by law, from a point on the Sampit River, 1 mile above the limits of the city of Georgetown, to the entrance of Winyah Bay. G. A. YOUNGBERG, Major, Corps of Engineers. [First indorsement.] OFFICE DIVISION ENGINEER, SOUTHEAST DIVISION, To the CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY. 1. Forwarded. I concur in the conclusions of the district engineer officer to the extent that the improvement contemplated in the law directing the examination is not worthy of being undertaken by the Federal Government at the present time. Special attention is invited to subparagraph (c) of paragraph 9 and to paragraph 13 of the above report. JOHN MILLIS, Colonel, Corps of Engineers. [Fifth indorsement.] UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, To the CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY. 1. Returned. 2. In compliance with instructions contained in preceding indorsement,1 a circular letter 1 was dispatched to all known interested parties on August 18, 1917, requesting that, if possible, the further data desired to be submitted be presented by September 18, 1917. By request, this date was extended to October 30, 1917. On October 10, 1917, Congressman Ragsdale addressed a letter to the Chief of Engineers requesting further postponement to April 30, 1918. His request was granted, and interested parties so notified. On April 10, 1918, Congressman Ragsdale again requested postponement to September 30, 1918, which was done. This date passed without anyone appearing at this office, or addressing any communication to the office relative to the matter. On October 4, 1918, a letter was addressed to Congressman Ragsdale, at whose request the report was referred back for consideration of additional matter which he wished to present, calling his attention to the fact that he had failed to submit the additional matter by the date which he had selected. No reply has been received to this letter. On August 2, 1918, the Chief of Engineers was advised of the status of this case, in indorsement on his inquiry of July 30, 1918, E. D. 7833. 3. In the meantime, the commerce of Georgetown has materially decreased, as is shown by the following table covering the two years since the submission of the foregoing report, and the last year for which the figures are included in the report: 4. Conversation had before the signing of the armistice by my predecessor with Mr. W. D. Morgan, Chairman of the River and Harbor Committee of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce, indicated that local interests were not disposed to push this matter at that time, as they realized that the then existing and immediately 1 Not printed. prospective commerce of Georgetown did not justify any increase in project dimensions. The Baltimore & Carolina Steamship Co. has recently withdrawn its service from both Georgetown and Charleston, and the Atlantic Coast Lumber Corporation, the largest exporter at Georgetown, has recently closed its plant temporarily. 5. In view of the failure of local interests to submit the further data which they alleged they possessed; of the decline of commerce at the port of Georgetown; and of the statement of Mr. Morgan above-mentioned, this office, adhering to its recommendations contained in preliminary report above, recommends that no further delay be permitted for the submission of data by interested parties. G. R. LUKESH, Colonel, Corps of Engineers. [For report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, see p. 2.] CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. DO 27 } BAYOU TEXAR, FLA. LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF WAR, TRANSMITTING WITH A LETTER FROM THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS REPORT ON PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF BAYOU TEXAR, FLA., INCLUDING ENTRANCE FROM PENSACOLA BAY. OCTOBER 24, 1919.-Referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors and ordered to be printed. WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, October 22, 1919. The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, of 20th instant, together with report of Col. W. D. A. Anderson, Engineers, dated May 24, 1919, on a preliminary examination of Bayou Texar, including entrance from Pensacola Bay, Fla., authorized by the river and harbor act approved March 2, 1919. Very respectfully, NEWTON D. BAKER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, October 20, 1919. From: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army. Subject: Preliminary examination of Bayou Texar, Fla. 1. There is submitted herewith, for transmission to Congress, report dated May 24, 1919, by Col. W. D. A. Anderson, Engineers, on preliminary examination authorized by the river and harbor act approved March 2, 1919, of Bayou Texar, including entrance from Pensacola Bay, Fla. 2. Bayou Texar is an arm of Pensacola Bay, extending northerly from the easterly end of the city of Pensacola for a distance of 3 miles. At the mouth of the bayou there is an old timber jetty constructed by a local company. Alongside of this jetty the controlling depth is 2.1 feet at low tide, but greater depths exist above. No improvement of this locality has ever been made by the United States, and there have been no previous examinations with this object in view. There is no commerce on the bayou, and the district engineer states that its improvement would develop none except the removal of timber, which can now be floated out in small rafts. Improvement of the bayou as a harbor of refuge is advocated by the Pensacola Yacht Club, which offers to pay part of the cost, but in view of the proximity of Bayou Chico, which affords good shelter from storms, the district engineer states that the necessity for an additional facility of this nature is not apparent. He expresses the opinion, in which the division engineer concurs, that Bayou Texar is not worthy of improvement by the United States at the present time. 3. This report has been referred, as required by law, to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and attention is invited to its report herewith, dated July 15, 1919, concurring in the unfavorable views of the district and division engineers. 4. After due consideration of the above-mentioned reports, I concur in the views of the district engineer, the division engineer, and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and therefore report that the improvement by the United States of Bayou Texar, including entrance from Pensacola Bay, Fla., is not deemed advisable at the present time. W. M. BLACK, REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS. [4th indorsement]. THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS, To the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army. July 15, 1919. 1. The following is in review of the district engineer's report authorized by the river and harbor act of March 2, 1919, on preliminary examination of Bayou Texar including entrance to Pensacola Bay, Fla. 2. Bayou Texar is an arm of Pensacola Bay, 3 miles in length, the entrance being at the eastern edge of the city of Pensacola. The mean range of tides is 1.4 feet. The controlling depth through the entrance is 2.1 feet, deeper water being found above. There is no commerce on the bayou at present, and improvement would develop none, but would facilitate the removal of timber which can now be floated out in small rafts. The local vacht club advocates the improvement of the bayou for use as a "harbor of safety," and offers to pay part of the cost. The district engineer states that good shelter is now afforded at Bayou Chico, 3 miles distant from Bayou Texar, and the necessity for the development of an additional facility of this nature is not apparent. He is of opinion, concurred in by the division engineer, that at present Bayou Texar is not worthy of improvement by the United States. 3. Interested parties were informed of the tenor of the district engineer's report and invited to submit statements and arguments to the board, but no communications on the subject have been received. |