APPENDIX F. LETTER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE EVANSVILLE, PADUCAH AND TENNESSEE RIVER PACKET COMPANY, TO LIEUTENANT-COLONEL J. W. BARLOW, CORPS OF ENGINEERS. EVANSVILLE, PADUCAH AND TENNESSEE RIVER PACKET COMPANY, Evansville, Ind., January 3, 1887. MY DEAR SIR: Yours 27th ultimo to Mr. James Montgomery, superintendent Evansville, Paducah and Tennessee River Packet Company, concerning bridges on Tennessee River, has been referred to me, as I have succeeded him in the office of superintendent. I cannot give you exact measurement, &c., but can give you a general idea of these bridges, based on an experience of eighteen years continuous service between Paducah, Ky., and Florence, Ala. The Chesapeake, Ohio and Southwestern Railroad Bridge, 20 miles above Paducah, is considered very dangerous by all Tennessee River steamboatmen, and more espe cially in high water, as it is not constructed at right angles with the current of the river. The upper rest-pier is almost exactly in the channel that a boat should run in order to keep straight with the current, which is very essential to safety. I here with inclose you a drawing* that will give you a better idea of the situation than I can describe in a letter. The Louisville and Nashville Railroad Bridge, 90 miles above Paducah, is not all that we desire in the way of construction, though it is so much better than the Chesapeake, Ohio and Southwestern, and also the Johnsonville Bridge, that we have no special complaint to make concerning it. The Johnsonville Bridge, which is 110 miles above Paducah, is the most difficult one we have to contend with, and is considered dangerous to steamboats both ascending and descending when being navigated by the most skillful pilots, either in daytime or at night, on account of the short span and a large gravel-bar, which has formed only a short distance below the bridge. I also inclose a drawing* of this bridge and bar, which is not according to exact measurements, but it is in the main correct. The bar spoken of is less than the length of a steamboat below the end of the draw when the draw is open for boats to pass. In consequence of this bar a pilot has to begin to make a turn when descending while the boat is yet between the piers, and in ascending the channel is so narrow and crooked it is impossible to get a straight run between the piers. I have often noticed that a boat 34 feet wide with a coal-boat 20 feet wide in tow, has barely room to pass through this bridge. Even then at a low stage of water the boat will rub on one side and the barge on the other against the riprap which has been thrown around the piers in order to support them. Some years ago Major Willard, who was then in charge of the work at Mussel Shoals, made a trip on one of our boats, and, if I am not mistaken, made a sketch of the Johnsonville Bridge and the bar below it. If I am correct about this statement concerning Major Willard, I think he could give you more accurate information than any one else. There are three regular weekly boats running in the Lower Tennessee all the year round, and a considerable portion of the time as many as six, in addition to tow boats that often make trips up the river for the purpose of bringing out barges loaded with staves, lumber, pig-iron, tan-bark, and timber. Some months ago we furnished your office, through Messrs. Fowler & Co., of Paducah, with an approximate statement of the business done on the Tennessee River between Paducah, Ky., and Florence, Ala. This statement, while it was not gotten up from actual statistics owing to the fact that no records have been kept of the amount of towing, we consider it as near accurate as it could have been made, as it was prepared by careful and experienced men who have been connected with the business for many years. If you now have this statement it would give you some idea of the importance of the commerce on the Lower Tennessee. We feel a great interest in these matters and will cheerfully give you all the information we can, and stand ready to render all the assistance in our power looking to the permanent improvement of this important stream. I shall endeavor to call on you soon if you so desire, in order that these matters may be fully discussed. Yours very truly, Col. J. W. BARLOW, R. D. MORROW, * Omitted. APPENDIX G. LETTER OF LIEUTENANT-COLONEL J. W. BARLOW, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, TO THE NEWPORT NEWS AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY COMPANY. ENGINEER OFFICE, U. S. ARMY, Chattanooga, Tenn., January 7, 1887. GENTLEMEN: In view of the recent national legislation bearing upon the subject of bridges and other structures that "do or will interfere with free and safe navigation," I have to respectfully call your attention to the draw-bridge crossing the Tennessee River at Gilbertsville, Ky., forming a part of the western division of your system, i. e. on the Chesapeake, Ohio and Southwestern Railway. This bridge forms a very serious obstruction to navigation and should be remedied with as little delay as possible.. Definite and well-sustained complaints have been made to my predecessor, Maj. W. R. King, and more recently to myself, by those interested in the commerce and navigation of the Tennessee, extending over a period of several years, against that bridge to a degree that implies a necessity for its modification or abatement. The obstruction chiefly consists in the fact that it is not constructed at right angles with the current of the river, and that its lower rest-pier has fallen in, and "the upper rest-pier is almost exactly in the channel that a boat should run in order to keep straight with the current, which is essential to safety." In view of these facts it is readily seen that the piers should be rebuilt, at the same time securing a draw-span of not less than 150 feet in the clear. It is respectfully desired that your company will favor me with an early reply, embodying its views upon this matter, with such suggestions as may be deemed pertinent thereto, and if any action has been taken or is likely to be taken in the near future having in view any modification of said bridge, that I may be informed officially of that fact so that I may be enabled to give it careful consideration and to submit "all information attainable" with my report to the War Department upon this subject of obstructions in the navigable waters of the engineer district in my charge. In this connection please read the following "Orders." [Here follows a copy of General Orders No.7, which may be found in Appendix A.] I am, gentlemen, very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. W. BARLOW, PRESIDENT, DIRECTORS, ET AL., APPENDIX H. LETTER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE NEWPORT NEWS AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY COMPANY TO LIEUTENANT-COLONEL J. W. BARLOW, CORPS OF ENGINEERS. NEWPORT NEWS AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY COMPANY, New York, January 12, 1887. DEAR SIR: I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 7th instant, calling my attention to a provision in the Army regulations requiring you to report to the Secretary of War whether any bridges, causeways, or structures do, or will, interfere with the free and safe navigation, and pointing out that there is a liability to an obstruction to navigation in the railroad bridge piers at Gilbertsville, Ky. This company has but recently taken charge of the division of road extending from Louisville to Memphis, and I am without specific information in regard to the condition of this bridge and the piers. I have requested General Echols, the vice-president, who is in immediate command, however, to cause an examination and report to be made to me as to the present dimensions and condition of that structure, so as to be able to comply with the reasonable requirements of the War Department as soon as the seasons and elements favor. When I obtain the views of the resident engineer I may have some plans and suggestions to submit for consideration on the subject in a further communication. Yours very respectfully, J. W. BARLOW, C. P. HUNTINGTON, President. Lieut. Col. of Engineers. LETTER OF LIEUTENANT-COLONEL J. W. BARLOW, CORPS OF ENGINEERS. ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, Chattanooga, Tenn., February 19, 1887. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith correspondence received from C. P. Huntington, president of the Newport News and Mississippi Valley Company, dated New York, February 7, 1887, furnishing additional information pertaining to the bridge of the Chesapeake, Ohio and Southwestern Railway over the Tennessee River at Gilbertsville (Eddyville), Ky., and request that this communication may be filed as supplementary to my report of January 26, 1887, on bridges obstructing navigation. The interests of commerce and navigation demand, in my judgment, that the two rest-piers be removed at once; therefore I respectfully recommend their removal under the provisions of the act of July 5, 1884, section 8, the cost being estimated as within the $15,000 annual limit. This action will give temporary, but not full relief, for the necessity of securing a wider draw-span would still remain; the draw should be widened to not less than 150 feet in the clear, as previously recommended by me. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, The CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. A. J. W. BARLOW, Lieut. Col. of Engineers. LETTER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE NEWPORT NEWS AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY COM PANY. NEWPORT NEWS AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY COMPANY, New York, February 7, 1887.* DEAR SIR: Referring to your letter of the 7th ultimo, already acknowledged, I have now to say, in further response thereto, that I have requested Vice-President Echols to give me a report upon the condition of the bridge across the Tennessee at Eddyville, and have the pleasure to inclose copy of his report relative thereto. It will be seen therefrom that the chief engineer does not regard the present condition of any of the piers as being an obstruction to navigation, but nevertheless, if upon an inspection and maturer judgment, the Secretary of War is of the contrary opinion, it will be practicable to remove the lower rest-pier. Respectfully submitted, C. P. HUNTINGTON, President. LETTER OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE NEWPORT NEWS AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY COMPANY. NEWPORT NEWS AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY COMPANY, MY DEAR SIR: On the 12th ultimo you wrote to me inclosing copy of a letter from Mr. J. W. Barlow, lieutenant-colonel of Engineers, United States Army, in charge of improvement of the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers, calling your attention to what he thought was an obstruction of navigation by our bridge-piers in the Tennessee River. I have referred the matter to our engineers, and they have returned to me a tra cing showing the location of the piers at our Tennessee River bridge, which tracing I inclose to you herewith. They report that there are clear draw-spans on each side of the round pier of 123 feet each, which is ample for larger boats than are run on the Tennessee River. The bridge-piers are placed so nearly parallel with the current, that there can be no reasonable objection on that score. The rest-piers, however, being at right angles to the line of the bridge, might be objected to as being in a measure in the way of entering the draw-spans with the current. The lower rest-pier has fallen down, and I do not think it is in the way; but if it is, what is left of it can be removed. The upper rest-pier is a very good thing to have, though not a necessity; and if the Government insists upon it, this pier can be taken down; and with these two piers out of the way no reasonable objection can be found to this bridge by the river interests. My understanding is that this bridge was approved, at the time of its erection, by the Government, and I think that the cost of any change which they may now insist upon should be paid by the Government; but I really think when Colonel Barlow comes to look into the matter further he will be satisfied that no change is necessary. Yours, very truly, JOHN ECHOLS, Third Vice-President. REPORT OF MAJOR AMOS STICKNEY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, GENERAL: I have the honor to submit herewith the reports of my assistant, Mr. O. L. Petitdidier, upon the bridges across the navigable portions of the Wabash River and White River, Indiana, and concur in his recommendations. Of the twenty-two bridges across the Wabash, all but three are more or less obstructions to the free and safe navigation of the river at certain stages of the water. In the present condition of the navigation interests, however, these obstructions are not of so much importance as they might become after a thorough improvement of the river. On the White River two bridges are obstructions, and the one near Hazleton should certainly be changed, if the improvement of the river is to be continued, as it absolutely stops the passage of boats.t There are no other known obstructions, caused by the erection of structures, in the district in my charge. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, The CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. A. AMOS STICKNEY, REPORT OF MR. O. L. PETITDIDIER, ASSISTANT ENGINEER. LOUISVILLE, KY., February 8, 1887. MAJOR: I have the honor to submit my report on the examination of Wabash River bridges, made between January 12 and January 21, 1887. The total number of bridges between Lafayette and the mouth of the river is 22, of which 8 have no draw and are total obstructions at the highest stages of river, except for very small boats; 11 are provided with a draw but no guiding-dikes, and are only partial obstructions; and 3 are provided with both draws and dikes, and are no obstructions. * Omitted. The two bridges on White River above referred to were reported to the Senate, and report printed in Senate Ex. Doc. No. 12, Forty-ninth Congress, first session, page 31. The bridges having no draw and which are total obstructions at high stages, are as follows: NOTE.-Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 reported to the Senate and report printed in Senate Ex. Doc. No. 12, Forty ninth Congress, first session, page 33. The clearance or clear space under bridges, as shown in the above table, was obtained when the stage of water was lower than at previous examinations, and it is believed to be very nearly.correct. The two sets of figures in the column of clearance, refer, the upper one to the clearance at low water, the lower one to the clearance at highest water; the difference in height between highest and low water having been assumed, the same as at Terre Haute, viz, 26 feet. Major Miller, in his report of September 30, 1884, in regard to the bridges, writes as follows: "These bridges require, to render them no obstruction to free navigation, to be eupplied with draw-spans placed over the channel, having a width in the clear of at least 60 feet, arranged to be maneuvered with facility and rapidity with proper guide dikes or guard piers." The radical modifications to all these bridges which Major Miller recommends, seem to me to be beyond the requirements of present or future navigation on the river between Lafayette and Terre Haute, and I would recommend that it might be made optional with the various bridge owners as to whether a draw and guard pier should be built, or their bridges raised high enough to obtain a clearance between bottom of lower chord and highest water mark of not less than 20 feet or more. In my opinion, high bridges, with such a clearance as just described, would be much less objectionable than bridges provided with draws, which are generally too narrow to be passed through without some danger and which always occasion some loss of time. Respectfully submitted. Maj. AMOS STICKNEY, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. O. L. PETITDIDIER. |