tioned. They can undoubtedly be built, and at a cost, in the judgment of the majority, much less than that of certain other bridges now in operation. (5) From the fact that the great coal-shipping interest did not formally protest before the Board against the 700 foot channel-way provided as a minimum in the law, the minority concludes that that interest considers the 700-foot space sufficient. The evidence of the two pilots engaged in the coal business has already been referred to. They stated that 700 feet was not sufficient, and that they needed 1,000 feet. That the owners did not formally appear before the Board was a matter of surprise. It was explained by the statement that an unexpected rise in the Ohio River had brought upon them a sudden rush of business. But whether they remained absent from good reasons or no reasons, it is not a fair assumption that they are content with 700 feet. They are merely the temporary users of a great public highway which is under the guardianship of the Government, and they might fairly presume that the War Department would protect that highway and would not accord to the opposing interest everything that was not prohibited by law. At all events the Government is not protecting merely the interests of those now engaged in river traffic. It is protecting the highway itself for the use of future generations as well as the present. The neglect or indifference of the present coal operators is not good reasons for depriving posterity of the free use of a great river. (6) The minority thinks that the Mississippi Valley Transportation Company exaggerates the difficulties and dangers of passing bridges because it operates a route which has heretofore been free of them. The able manager and the experienced navigators of that company, and those who know them, will be surprised to hear that they do not understand what their business requires. But the majority can judge for themselves in this matter. There are the tows of a given size approaching a given site in a given way. They are immense unwieldy masses, floating down an inclined surface in a current of 84 miles per hour. How much space do they require to pass safely under the bridge? A short trip upon one of the tows will enable any intelligent person to form an opinion upon the subject. In conclusion, the majority reiterate their opinion that bad as the approaches to the proposed site of the bridge are now, they are likely to become worse, and can not become better, and that the clear width of channel-way required to prevent the bridge from being an unneces sary obstruction to navigation is 1,000 feet. Very respectfully, your obedient servants, O. H. ERNST, Major of Engineers. DAN. C. KINGMAN, Captain of Engineers. The CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. A. LETTER FROM MESSRS. MORISON & CORTHELL. WASHINGTON, August 3, 1888. SIR: On the 5th of May, 1888, in accordance with the request of Mr. George H. Nettleton, president of the Kansas City and Memphis Railway and Bridge Company, we presented to you at the hands of our Mr. Corthell, for your approval, the maps, plans, and papers relating to the proposed bridge over the Mississippi River at Memphis, Tenn. In conformity with the indorsement dated July 10, 1888, made by you on the report of the Board of Engineers, provided for in the act of Congress approved April 24, 1888, we now, by the hands of our Mr. Morison, present to you for approval a new plan, elevation, and sec tion in duplicate, in conformity with the requirements of your indorsement of July 10. We understand that all other papers are complete and meet with your approval. We believe that this plan has been made in strict conformity with your opinion, and in behalf of the Kansas City and Memphis Railway and Bridge Company would request that an approval of this revised plan and of the location already made be given as early as is consistent with the rules of your Department. We are, very respectfully, yours, MORISON & CORTHELL. WAR DEPARTMENT, August 7, 1888. Respectfully referred to the Acting Judge-Advocate-General to prepare the formal approval of plans submitted August 3, with the condition that the passage of wagons and vehicles of all kinds be provided for, as proposed by Mr. Morison in his letter of August 4. The right to require changes in said structure, if the public interest demands them, being reserved to the Secretary of War in section 9 of said act. By order of the Secretary of War. SAM'L HODGKINS, Acting Chief Clerk. [Second indorsement.] WAR DEPARTMENT, JUDGE-ADVOCATE-GENERAL'S OFFICE, Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War, with draught of an instrument for his approval of the plans and map of location of a proposed bridge across the Mississippi River, containing conditions as directed in the preceding indorsement. G. NORMAN LIEBER, Acting Judge-Advocate-General. W W 23. REPORTS RESPECTING INTERFERENCES WITH NAVIGATION BY BRIDGES, CAUSEWAYS, and other STRUCTURES. LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR. WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington City, December 18, 1885. The Secretary of War has the honor to transmit to the United States Senate, in compliance with section 2 of the river and harbor act of July 5, 1884, a letter from the Chief of Engineers, dated the 12th instant, and its accompanying copies of reports from officers of the Corps of Engineers, relating to bridges, causeways, or structures now erected or in process of erection which do or will interfere with free and safe navigation. WILLIAM C. ENDICOTT, Secretary of War. The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. LETTER OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY, Washington, D. C., December 12, 1885. SIR: Section 2 of the river and harbor act of July 5, 1884, requires of the Secretary of War that He shall also report [to Congress] whether any bridges, causeways, or structures now erected or in process of erection do or will interfere with free and safe navigation, and if they do or will so interfere, to report the best mode of altering or constructing such bridges or causeways so as to prevent any such obstructions. With the view of supplying the information desired, officers under the direction of this office were instructed to submit reports covering all facts necessary to enable the Secretary of War to comply with the terms of the extract above quoted. Reports have been received from officers in charge of river and harbor districts, and I have the honor to submit herewith copies of such of them as report instances of bridges, causeways, or structures now erected or in process of erection that do or will interfere with free and safe navigation, with recommendations as to the best mode of altering or constructing them as will prevent any such ob structions. All other officers report that there are no instances in their respective districts of interference with free and safe navigation from the above-mentioned causes. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, JOHN NEWTON, REPORT OF MAJOR CHARLES W. RAYMOND, CORPS OF ENGINEERS. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, Boston, Mass., January 27, 1885. GENERAL: In compliance with instructions contained in General Orders, No. 13, Headquarters Corps of Engineers, dated July 23, 1884, I have the honor to submit the following report with reference to obstructions to navigation in the district under my charge, as specified in sections 2 and 8 of the river and harbor act of July 5, 1884. * A sketch map showing the location of bridges referred to in the report is also respectfully transmitted herewith. A careful study has been made of all the bridges in the district. Those which interfere with free and safe navigation cross either the Fort Point Channel or Charles River (which enter the upper harbor of Boston), and are as follows: (1) FORT POINT CHANNEL. a. The New York and New England Railroad Bridge interferes with free and safe navigation. This arises from three causes. (a) Its draw-openings are too narrow. The bridge is situated between the Congress Street and Mount Washington Avenue bridges (A and C on plan), being 500 feet from the first and 1,100 feet from the second. (See B on plan.) Its draw-openings are 40 feet 7 inches wide, being about 1 foot 7 inches narrower than those of bridge C, and nearly 3 feet narrower than those of bridge A. Some vessels drawing from 20 to 22 feet, which could pass bridges A and C at average height water, can not pass this bridge; hence, the sugar refineries using wharves located above bridge C are prevented from employing such vessels. The best mode of altering this bridge so as to prevent this obstruction is to widen the draw-openings to a least width of 42 feet. The cost of this alteration would probably not exceed $3,000. It would require the suspension of travel across the bridge for several days. (b) The direction of the draw-pier does not conform with those of the piers of the neighboring bridges; consequently, vessels having passed at ebb-tide through the draw-opening on the Boston side (where at present the water is deepest) are in danger of colliding with the upper end of the draw-pier of the Congress Street Bridge. The best mode of altering this bridge so as to prevent this obstruc tion is to reconstruct the lower part of the draw-pier so as to align it with those of the neighboring bridges. This would cost about $5,000, and can be done without stopping travel across the bridge. (c) Complaints have been made that vessels are often delayed be cause the draws of this bridge are not promptly opened. This is due to the many trains which pass the bridge in quick succession. Under the law of the State of Massachusetts, a railroad train is allowed fifteen minutes before and after its tabular time, and any approaching train further reasonable time for crossing a draw-bridge; hence, where many trains are run at short intervals, the draw may be continuously closed for many hours. No alteration of the bridge can overcome this difficulty. The inconvenience might, perhaps, be somewhat lessened by a change in the State law. If the project for deepening the Fort Point Channel to 23 feet at mean low water is carried out, as recommended in my report dated January 27, 1885, more extensive changes than those above indicated must be made in this bridge, since its piles extend only to 22 feet below mean low water. It does not, therefore, seem desirable to urge immediate action. b. The Old Colony Railroad Bridge interferes with free navigation on account of the delay in opening its draws, due to the great number of trains passing over it. No alteration in the bridge is necessary. * Omitted. (2) CHARLES RIVER. The seven draw-bridges situated between the river's mouth and East Cambridge (marked D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K on map*) interfere with free navigation, owing to their proximity to each other. Although the problem of re-arranging and modifying these bridges has been often and thoroughly investigated, no practical plan consistent with the necessities of the railroad and city travel has been developed. The most serious obstructions to the navigation of the river are the railroad bridges (marked F, G, H, I, J on map*). The frequent passing of trains renders delays in opening the draws unavoidable. The inconvenience is greatest in connection with the Boston and Maine Railroad Bridge (marked G on map*) and the consolidated bridge of the Eastern and Boston and Lowell railroads (marked H, I on map), which has two independent draw-sections. These bridges are so near together that it is necessary for the passage of a vessel of the larger class navigating the river to have the three draws open at the same time. The time-tables of the three railways not being arranged with a view to facilitate navigation, this coincidence of openings is often impossible, and long delays occur. It is almost a rule for the draws of the Eastern Railroad Bridge to be closed from four to five hours at a time in the morning, and about as many hours in the afternoon. Instances have been reported where as many as twenty-two vessels have been thus detained for many hours. These difficulties can not be obviated by any practicable alteration of the bridges. Some improvement could be obtained by introducing steam-power for moving the draw-sections, but the benefit would be comparatively so slight that it does not appear to justify the trouble and expense. The obstruction to navigation arising from the bridges crossing the Fort Point Channel and the Charles River, above specified, can not be removed or diminished by the construction of booms, dikes, piers, or any other structures for the guiding of vessels. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, The CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. A. CHAS. W. RAYMOND, REPORT OF LIEUTENANT-COLONEL GEORGE H. ELLIOT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS. ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, Newport, R. I., December 8, 1884. GENERAL: Referring to General Orders, No. 13, Headquarters Corps of Engineers, current series, respecting the interference with free and safe navigation of bridges and other structures within my district, I have to state I have visited Pawtucket (Seekonk) River, and submit the following report concerning the two bridges which cross that river just above its confluence with Providence River. THE WASHINGTON BRIDGE. This highway bridge, originally built in 1793, was rebuilt in 1815, with a draw, opening close to the eastern end of the bridge. By reason of * Omitted. |