this location and of the width of the draw-span, only 38 feet, and the insufficient depth of water through it, this bridge is a great obstruction to navigation, but the State legislature, at its January session of 1883, enacted a law requiring the city of Providence to remove The stone and other materials deposited in the Seekonk River under and near Washington Bridge, so called, at India Point, in said city (Providence) from said river, and cause the channel thereof under and around said bridge to be dredged and cleared of all obstructions to the flow of the tides into and out of said river, to a depth of 15 feet at low water, and reconstruct said bridge with a swing-draw in the main channel of said river, with an opening on each side of said draw not less than 80 feet wide, for the safe and convenient passage of vessels navigating said river through the same, in such manner as the harbor commissioners shall approve The new bridge is now in process of construction, and it is expected that it will be completed and the old bridge and the obstructions at and about it will be removed by the 1st of May next. THE RAILROAD bridge. About 250 feet below the Washington Bridge is the railroad bridge of the Boston and Providence Railroad Company. I quote from the annual report of the late General Warren for 1874 the following description of this bridge and the present arrangements for the passage of vessels through its draw: This bridge is 3964 feet long, divided into three spans and a draw. Commencing on the west side, there is, first, a span of 113 feet; next, one of 103 feet; next is the draw, 154 feet, with openings of 60 feet in the clear; and last, a short span of 20 feet, one end of which rests on a stone pier, the only one in the bridge, the other end resting on the abutment. The superstructure is a Howe truss. *To facilitate the passage of vessels through this and Washington Bridge, double lines of piling have been put in between the draws of the two bridges. This piling has been extended about 300 feet above Washington Bridge, and one line has been extended about the same distance below the railroad bridge. The space between these lines of piles varies from 38 to 60 feet. Vessels going up the river enter this passage at an angle with the current, and pass the railroad bridge at an angle of 20 degrees with the axis of the piers. When they reach Washington Bridge, a turn must be made to the left of about 45 degrees. This turn has to be in the draw of the bridge, where the passage is only 38 feet wide. These vessels pass up the river at high water, when there is but little current. They can not tow through safely because of the sharp turn above alluded to, but have to warp through and make up the tow above. In descending they generally leave Pawtucket after the tide commences to run out, and reach these bridges when the current is very swift, often as much as 5 miles per hour. To break up a tow in a current like this, so as to enable the vessels to warp through, would be attended with great danger of being carried down onto the bridge to the west of the draw. Their only course is to be taken through by the tug, and this must be done at a speed greater than the current, in order to keep steerage-way. In making this passage they are very frequently damaged by coming in contact with the piling. Once in the passage there is no escape, except with the current at the lower end. The width of the draw-openings in the railroad bridge was directed by the act of the legislature which authorized the construction of the bridge. Their location was doubtless selected to suit, as far as possible, the location of the draw in the old Washington Bridge. The combined obstruction furnished by the Washington Bridge and the railroad bridge is a very serious one, as will be seen from the plat* herewith. It has for many years been the cause for much complaint by the citizens of the enterprising town of Pawtucket, which is situated about 4 miles above the bridges, and is extensively interested in manufactures which depend on water transportation, and it has delayed for years appropriations by the General Government for the improvement of Paw tucket River. Neither the location nor the plans of these bridges received the sanction of Congress, and I may also remark that this is the case also with the new bridge which is now building above the present site of the Washington Bridge. The location and the width of the draw-openings of the new bridge seem to be judiciously arranged, and when it is completed it is barely possible that the railroad company can, by dredging below its bridge, so as to carry the channel further to the eastward, and by a new arrangement of the guides to its western drawopening, facilitate sufficiently for the present the passage of vessels, but for the following reasons I do not deem this probable. The new highway bridge and the railroad bridge are only about 500 feet apart. There is only one available draw-opening in the railroad bridge. It is but 60 feet wide, and 15 feet of this width is taken up by the oblique guides through the draw. When the new highway bridge is completed and the guides at the railroad-bridge draw are newly arranged to suit the new location of the draw in the highway bridge, the available width of the draw-opening in the railroad bridge can be somewhat increased, but in any case it can not be made much more than 50 feet. The draw-openings in the new highway bridge are neither of them opposite the single available draw-opening in the railroad bridge. The western side of this opening is about 20 feet to the eastward of the western side of the eastern draw-opening in the new highway bridge, and just below the railroad bridge the river makes a sharp turn to the westward. To sum up: There is but one available draw-opening in the railroad bridge. It is too narrow, and there should be two. It is so far to the eastward that the passage of vessels through the bridges will be tortu. ous and, when the tide is running, dangerous. It will doubtless be found necessary to remove the draw-openings in this bridge to the westward, so that they will be opposite or nearly opposite the drawopenings in the new highway bridge, and to increase the width of the former to 80 feet, which is the width of the latter; but action by the General Government may be delayed in this case until the new highway bridge is finished and we can see the result of the change in location of its draw. This is in consideration of the possibility before mentioned, and of the fact that the legislature of Rhode Island, at its last session, enacted the following law looking to the modification of the draw of the railroad bridge by State direction, if it be found necessary after investigation by the committee provided for in the act: RESOLUTION appointing a joint special committee on the obstructions in the Seekonk River below the No. 4, passed May 29, 1884. site of the Providence Washington Bridge. Resolved, That a joint special committee consisting of Messrs. William W. Blodgett, of Pawtucket, William A. Harris, of Providence, and Ellery H. Wilson, of East Providence, on the part of the house of representatives, and Messrs. Henry B. Metcalf, of Pawtucket, John P. Gregory, of Lincoln, and Edward C. Dubois, of East Providence, on the part of the senate, be appointed to inquire into and report what obstructions to the navigation of the Seekonk River exist below the site of the present Providence Washington Bridge, and what, if anything, ought to be done to effect the removal of such obstructions; that said committee be authorized to sit during the recess, and be directed to report in print, by bill or otherwise, to the general assembly at the January session, A. D. 1885. With this report I submit copies of letters respecting the obstruction to navigation caused by the railroad bridge, which I have received from citizens of Pawtucket, and also a plat,* for which I am indebted to the courtesy of Capt. J. P. Cotton, one of the commissioners and the * Omitted. engineer of the new bridge, showing the present location of the Washington Highway Bridge, the new location of this bridge, and the location of the railroad bridge. GEORGE H. ELLIOT, Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Brig. Gen. JOHN NEWTON, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A. LETTER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF PAWTUCKET, RHODE ISLAND. PAWTUCKET, R. I., August 16, 1884. DEAR SIR: Yours of the 2d instant was duly received, but have delayed answering, as Mr. George E. Newell, who has been appointed by the governor as one of the commissioners to construct a new bridge in place of the Washington Bridge, has been out of the State. There are no causeways or structures now erected or in process of erection that will interfere with the free and safe navigation of the Pawtucket River, except the Washington Bridge and railroad bridge near its mouth. A new bridge is in process of erection in place of the Washington Bridge, with good and sufficient draw-openings. The railroad Bridge, with insufficient draw-openings, is a serious obstruction to navigation, and could be remedied by making a wider draw nearer the center of the river. It is an undisputed fact the railroad bridge is the only structure upon the river that is an obstruction to our river. Inclosed please find letters from some of our prominent citizens, giving their views. Should you wish further information, I shall be pleased to inform you to the best of my ability. Very respectfully, GEORGE H. ELLIOT, Esq., E. A. GROUT, President Town Council. Lieut. Col. of Engineers. LETTER OF MR. GEORGE E. NEWELL. PAWTUCKET, R. I., August 16, 1884. DEAR SIR: In reply to your communication in relation to the railroad bridge over Pawtucket River, I find it is an obstruction to the free navigation of the river. The draw is narrow, and it purports to be 60 feet; it is practically but 45 feet, or nearly that. It is a serious obstruction to the passage of large vessels and barges. It should be widened and located differently. This draw is in the bend of the river, which makes it more difficult for vessels to get through. In my opinion, it should be placed farther west, and have two openings of not less than 80 feet each in the clear. Respectfully, yours, Mr. E. A. GROUT, President of the Town Council, Town of Pawtucket, R. I. GEO. E. NEWELL. LETTER OF MR. L. D. HORTON. PAWTUCKET, R. I., August 15, 1884. SIR: Your inquiry in regard to the obstruction to navigation of the Pawtucket River is at hand. In answer would say that while the proposed removal of Washington Bridge ameliorates the condition of navigation, a very serious and important obstruction will remain in the railroad bridge just below, on account of its position, causing a crooked passage-way, its width of draw rendering it impossible for craft to pass and repass, being obliged to turn while passing. The only remedy is in constructing a draw of suitable width, 80 feet at least, in lieu of the present narrow one of 45 feet, farther to the westward, thereby straightening the passage-way for vessels. Yours, with respect, E. A. GROUT, President of Town Council, Pawtucket, R. I. L. D. HORTON. REPORT OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL WALTER M'FARLAND, CORPS OF ENGINEERS. ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, New Haven, Conn., January 14, 1885. GENERAL: Under section 2 of the act of Congress relating to rivers and harbors, approved July 5, 1884, I have the honor to report as follows upon bridges and other works which interfere with free and safe navigation, all in the engineer district of which I have charge, extending from the headwaters of the Hudson River to the eastern end of Long Island Sound. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Brig. Gen. JOHN NEWTON, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A. WALTER MCFARLAND, REPORT UPON BRIDGES, CAUSEWAYS, OR STRUCTURES WHICH INTERFERE WITH FREE AND SAFE NAVIGATION OCCURRING OR EXISTING IN THE ENGINEER DISTRICT EXTENDING FROM THE HEADWATERS OF THE HUDSON RIVER TO THE EASTERN END OF LONG ISLAND SOUND. ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, New Haven, Conn., December 31, 1884. The only instances of this kind which have come under my notice in this district are those which occur in streams flowing into Long Island Sound. Complaint has been made to me of the following bridges, namely: Those belonging to the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, (1) at Cos Cob, Conn.; (2) Bridgeport, Conn.; (3) the Housatonic River, Connecticut; (4) New Haven, on the Quinnipiac River, Connecticut; (5) Middletown, on the Connecticut River, Connecticut: (6) the city bridges at Bridgeport; (7, 8) the city and the Tomlinson Bridges, at New Haven, Conn. The complaints against the railroad bridges crossing the Housatonic and Connecticut rivers (3 and 5) are that the under-water part of the piers at the draws projects so far into the stream, and into what ap pears to be and ought to be a clear way, that the safety of vessels passing through the draw is endangered, and one or two vessels have already been seriously damaged by striking these hidden projections. The remedy for this is the breaking off of these projecting parts and the placing of fender-piles to prevent passing vessels from coming in contact with the piers. Any projection of this sort, or any batter to the faces of the draw-piers, causes a sensible reduction in the width of the draw-span, making it less than it appears and is presumed to be, and probably less than the law under which it was constructed requires it to be. The complaints against the railroad bridge and the city bridge at New Haven (4 and 7), crossing the Quinnipiac River, are that they are both without draws, and so prevent 6 miles of the Quinnipiac River which are navigable, and were formerly used, from being any longer used. The city bridge formerly existing there had a draw in it. The new one has not, nor has the railroad bridge, which crosses near it. It is evident that by these constructions the right of the property-owners above these bridges to the free navigation of this part of the Quinnipiac River has been violated. The remedy is to require the city of New Haven and the railroad company to put draws in these bridges, without which they are obstructions to the navigable waters of the United States, according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: The complaint against the Tomlinson Bridge (8), which crosses the mouth of the Quinnipiac, is that its draw is narrow and dangerous from the strong current through it, produced by the contraction of the natural water-way from 1,400 to 310 feet, caused by the construction of a solid causeway 920 feet long, and five clumsy piers, taking up 170 feet more. The effect of all this is exceedingly bad, as it prevents the free inflow and outflow of the tides, and nearly destroys the usefulness of the Quinnipiac River above the bridge as a tidal basin. The obstruction to the passage of the water is so great that the bottom between the piers has been scoured to a depth of 18 feet, where the normal depth should be but 9 feet, and I have seen the water on one side of the causeway standing a foot higher than it was on the other side at the same time. This bridge is owned by a bridge company, but is, I understand, now in the possession of or controlled by the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. On account of the difficulty of the passage of the draw, boats are every now and then capsized there, in consequence of being thrown against the piers by the violent current. The bridge is in a dilapidated condition, and ought to be removed and replaced by a more modern construction, which would permit the free passage of the tides, and which should be provided with a sufficient draw. It now constitutes an obstruction to a navigable channel of the United States, as defined in the decisions of the Supreme Court and in the act of Congress under which this report is being made. Its piers are three times as thick as they should be. The complaints against the railroad bridges at Cos Cob (1) and Bridgeport (2) are that the draws are managed in such a way that they practically close the streams which they cross to navigation. I inclose a copy of the complaint received concerning the Bridgeport Bridge, from which it appears that under the railroad regulations this bridge is kept closed about twelve hours out of the twenty-four, and about ten of these hours are between daylight and dark. The same complaint is made about the Cos Cob Bridge. Congress has repeatedly by law authorized the construction of drawbridges over the navigable waters of the United States, so that a draw-bridge is not to be regarded in itself as an obstruction to naviga tion in a legal sense; but it is evident that although its construction may be authorized by law, yet it may be so managed after construction as to impede navigation unnecessarily, and thus become such an ob |