Major Miller moved that section 5 of Senate bill 275 be omitted in the recommendations of the Board. Adjourned at 4.30 p. m. to meet at 10 a. m. to-morrow. SAINT LOUIS., Mo., January 21, 1888. Board met at 10.20 a. m., pursuant to adjournment. Present, all the members and the recorder. Mr. John F. Dravo, representing the Pittsburgh Coal Exchange, then came before the Board to describe their necessities in the matter of bridges over the Mississippi River. He gave his reasons to show that the Lower Mississippi is absolutely needed for transportation of coal fleets in order to supply the Mississippi Valley with coal; says the railroads can not supply the demand. Asks a channel-way of 1,000 feet; says 800 feet is absolutely the least they can get along with. Mr. Dravo laid before the Board two diagrams of coal tows, one a tow of the steamer Jos. B. Williams:` Total length of tow, including tow-boat and her wheel..... Total width.... Total number of pieces in the tow. .feet.. ...do 1,032 256 39 bushels.. 821, 640 Cargo.... The other tow was of the steamer W. W. O'Neill, May 17, 1886: The sizes of tows have largely increased since 1882. He wants bridgepiers to be located by Government engineers. Mr. Dravo also submitted a table of heights of pilot-houses and chimneys of coal tow-boats; also left a newspaper cutting, hereto appended. He left at 11.10 a. m. [E. W. MacDonald, coal gauger; office 155 Third avenue, residence No. 523 West Chestnut street.] bushels. LOUISVILLE, KY., March 19, 1887. Measurement of Pittsburgh coal for Grand Lake Coal Company and others. Thirty boats and four barges lump coal and one barge nut coal No. Jos. B. Williams to New Orleans. per steamer [Newspaper cutting.] THURSDAY, January 19, 1888. Lake Erie Discrimination.-Report of the Commission favors the Railroad Company. The official report of the decision of the interstate Commerce Commission in the case of Riddle, Dean and Company vs. the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, deciding some very important and interesting points, and in favor of the railroad company, has just been published. Both shippers and railroad men have been awaiting the report with anxiety. The coal company complained first that the Lake Erie Railroad, in violation of section 3 of the act to regulate commerce, was guilty of giving unlawful preference to other coal miners along the Pittsburgh, McKeesport and Youghiogheny Railroad, by refusing to furnish their proportion of cars daily to the Rainbow Coal Company and the Lake Shore Gas Coal Company, for shipments of coal to Buffalo, N. Y.; second by giving unlawful preference to the coke trade; and third in failing to compel the various mills and furnaces located along its line to unload ore, limestone, and iron promptly from its cars, but allowed them to stand loaded for days at a time on their sidings, and thereby gave an unlawful preference in this matter to the undue and reasonable prejudice and disadvantage of the Rainbow Coal and the Lake Shore Gas Coal Company, and other mines represented by complainants. The commission finds that the Lake Erie, operating the Pittsburgh, McKeesport and Youghiogheny, is an independent line with close running arrangements and the exchange of business between the Atlantic and Great Western Railroad Company and the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railroad Company. These arrangements providing for the exchange of business do not contain any provision that is in conflict with the right of the connecting company to give directions as to the traffic in the handling of which their cars shall be used, when furnished by either of them to the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, to be loaded and returned to points on their respective lines. The bulk of the equipment of the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie is used for its local business between New Haven and Youngstown. At the time when this complaint was made, as stated in the opinion, there was a "car famine," and the road could only furnish about one-half the number of cars required for the transportation of coal and coke. There was a blockade at Buffalo, and cars carrying coal to that market were detained on the sidings there from ten days to two weeks. In consequence of this orders were issued by the connecting lines of the Lake Erie road against having any of their cars loaded for Buffalo, the object being to keep their cars at home along their own line in transporting coal and coke to Ashtabula and Cleveland. The evidence does not show that any other persons applied to the company for coal cars to Buffalo during this period, although it does show that the company refused to allow coal cars to go there for any shipper during this period on account of the reasons assigned. In conclusion the Commissioners say that they are unable to perceive by what construction the evidence could be held to sustain the charge of "unlawful preference." The Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company was not permitting any of its cars to go to Buffalo for reasons which were sufficient. The report continues: "It is in no way in conflict with either the spirit or the letter of any of the provisions of the act to regulate commerce. These reasons were that on account of causes, for which it was in no way responsible, and for which in no way it could be justly blamed, the company then had more work than it could possibly do in transporting freights over its own line, and if it had permitted its coal cars to go to Buffalo with coal for these two mines it would have thereby rendered itself less able to serve all the business over its line. The company had its legal duty to perform. Its first and most paramount legal duty to the shipping public was to make its entire freight equipment do its utmost in serving the shippers along its own line." The minutes of yesterday's meeting were then read, amended, and approved. Major Mackenzie moved the following change in Senate bill No. 275: Section 4, line 13 (19 pencil corrected copy), after "water" add "and said draw opening shall be visible from all parts of the channel for a distance of not less than 1 mile above said opening; and wherever practicable, and in the interests of navigation, all bridges located in the vicinity of important landings shall be placed above rather than below said landings." Seconded by Major Miller. Carried. Moved by Major Mackenzie that in Section 12, line 18 (pencil copy), there be added after the word "traffic" the words "and a draw opening of low bridges shall, if practicable, be located next or near one shore." Section 12, line 7 (pencil copy), after word "water" add "and the clear headroom under other than channel-spans may be less than 55 feet, provided that no part of such superstructure shall give a less head-room than 10 feet at high water, and that the interests of navigation be not injured by such reduction in height of said fixed spans." Seconded by Major Miller. Carried. Section 4, line 20 (pencil copy), there be added after the words "channel-spans" the words "or draw-openings," and in section 4, line 22 (pencil copy), after the word "required" the words " as a part of the necessary accessory works provided for in this act," and in section 4, line 40 (pencil copy), to omit the word "require" and substitute "also require as a part of said necessary accessory works." Adopted. The following change was moved by Major Mackenzie: Section 4, line 8 (pencil copy), omit "and provided with such sheer-booms. guardfences, or other structures." Adopted. The following change was moved by Major Mackenzie: Section 20, line 55 (pencil copy), after the word "reports," add the words "that the bridge is not a public necessity or;" and add at the end of section 20, "that whenever the Secretary of War has good reason to believe that any of the provisions of sections 8, 9, and 25 of this act have not been complied with by any persons or company owning, controlling, or operating a bridge authorized under the provisions of said act, it shall be the duty of the Secretary, on satisfactory proof thereof, to require the said persons or company to comply with the provisions of said sections, and on failure of said persons or company to comply with the said requirements within a reasonable time, the Secretary of War shall proceed to cause the necessary work required by law, in the form of additions, alterations, repairs, or removal of obstructions to be made at the expense of the United States, and shall refer the matter without delay to the Attorney-General of the United States, whose duty it shall be to institute, in the name of United States, proceedings in any circuit court of the United States, in which such bridge, or any part thereof, is located, for the recovery of the cost thereof, and all moneys accruing from such proceedings shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States: "Provided, That, in the construction of additional accessory works not contemplated by the approved plan of bridge and accessory works, no greater sum than fifteen thousand dollars shall be required to be expended upon any one bridge in a single year: "Provided further, That such sum of money as may be necessary to execute the provisions of this section is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to be paid on the requisition of the Secretary of War." Adopted. The following change was moved by Major Mackenzie: Section 20, line 25 (pencil copy), for "one mile" substitute "three miles." The following was moved by Major Handbury: Resolved, That for section 7 of the pencil copy of Senate bill 275 before the Board the following be substituted: "SEC. 7. That in all high bridges authorized by this act, except as hereinafter provided (Sec. 12), every span over the water-way between the shore-lines of the river at high water shall give a clear head-room not less than that prescribed for those over channel-ways; also that in such high bridges one or more wide or channel-spans, of lengths to be hereinafter prescribed, shall be placed over the main channel or channels of the river; and in case the channel is variable the number of channel-spans shall be increased so that there may be a good navigable passage for all classes of boats under some part of the bridge at all stages of water." Adopted. At the request of Majors Mackenzie and Handbury, and in order to enable them to obtain further information upon matters before the Board which in their opinion is essential to a proper conclusion of its labors, the Board, at 1 p. m., adjourned to meet at 10 a. m. on Friday, January 27, 1888. SAINT LOUIS, Mo., January 27, 1888. Board met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment. Minutes of last meeting were read and approved. The following letter was laid before the Board: PITTSBURGH, PA., January 24, 1888. MY DEAR SIR: In answer to your inquiry as to the effect of large tows of coal on the cost of transportation, after dilligent search I beg to submit as follows: During the war, when the towing system was in process of development and steamtugs had not the capacity as now, 10 and sometimes 15 cents per bushel were paid for towing from Louisville to points below Cairo. After the war, when commercial and trade prices had assumed normal values, the price settled at about 6 cents from Louisville to points below. The history and experience of the Grand Lake Coal Company will furnish the most satisfactory answer to your inquiry. I received from the officers of the company the following statement: Commencing some time after the close of the war the steamer Grand Lake, with a towing capacity of ten boats, received 5 cents per bushel for towing from Louisville to New Orleans and intermediate points. The Grand Lake was succeeded by the Grand Lake No. 2, with a towing capacity of sixteen boats. Owing to the decline in transportation prices, the company sold No. 2, and built the present J. B. Williams, with a present known capacity of thirty boats and eight barges, and are now towing coal with some profit from Louisville to New Orleans at 2 cents per bushel. It is claimed by parties in the trade that if the river is not injured by artificial obstructions steamers will be constructed in the near future with a towing capacity of fifty boats, carrying 1,000,000 and over of bushels of coal. Our people claim that any channel-span at Memphis less than 1,000 feet will endanger the passage of large tows, as the river at that point has to be "flanked;" the tow, instead of being in a straight line, has to be placed almost at right angles with the river channel, and would have to pass sidewise-the steamer and tow. If the " 'gauge measure" of the Williams tow has not been mailed to me, please do so, as the paper is just now needed by the company. Yours, very truly, Colonel SUTER. JOHN F. DRAVO. The following report of the Mississippi River Commission on a proposed bridge at Memphis was then read: [Extract from the proceedings of the Mississippi River Commission at its session of May 9 to 14, 1884.J General Comstock, from the special committee on Memphis bridge, submitted as a report the draught of a letter, as follows: The CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY: MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION, SIR: I have the honor to return herewith House bill No. 2799, and the other papers relating to a bridge across the Mississippi River at Memphis, Tenn., sent me with your indorsement of February 13, 1884, and to submit the views of the Mississippi River Commission, which has duly considered the subject, in reference to such a bridge. The Commission has corresponded with the chambers of commerce at Pittsburgh and Cincinnati; with the president of the Saint Louis and New Orleans Anchor Line, and the Saint Louis and Mississippi Valley Transportation Company, and has obtained information from Maj. A. M. Miller, United States Engineer, who has observed the method followed by tows in passing Memphis. Major Miller states that large tows are 775 feet long by 192 feet wide. P. Follansbee, of the Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce, states that on February 27, 1884, the steamer W. W. O'Neil left Louisville with a tow of 38 pieces, carrying 700,294 bushels of coal, the length of the tow, including steamer, being 900 feet and its width 265 feet. When such a tow meets a bend in the river the steamer begins backing, to pull the upper end of the tow and the tow itself away from the concave bank. This operation is called flanking. In this way, in passing bends, the axis of the tow becomes inclined to the axis of the river, and in cases of sharp bends or swift currents may be |