struction to the navigable water which it crosses as to demand its abatement. The traffic over the railroad to which this bridge belongs is very large, from sixty to seventy passenger trains passing it every twenty four hours, while the number of vessels which have to pass through the draw daily is quite small. It is plain that the larger interest can not give way to the lesser one, and the only point that needs to be determined here, then, is whether the larger interest shows due respect to the lesser and does what it can to avoid obstructing it, or whether, secure in its power, this wealthy railroad corporation disregards its obligations towards its weaker competitor, a part of whose rights it has already taken away under the protection of the law and obstructs its operations. Most of those engaged in navigation at Cos Cob and Bridgeport, whose vessels must pass these draws, are men of humble means, who must make their living out of these vessels, and who can not defend themselves against a rich corporation like this if it chooses to oppress them, which it may readily do by omitting to take the means necessary for facilitating the passage of their vessels through the draw. The accompanying copy of the complaint from Bridgeport shows what difficulties are encountered by tows attempting to pass the draws there. The complaint makes no mention, however, of another source of trouble that is felt particularly at Cos Cob. Here there is so little water that unless a vessel goes through at a high tide she can not go at all, and if when high tide occurs the bridge is closed, the vessel must often wait for the next high tide, and if this occurs after dark, she must wait again for the next one oecurring in daylight or take the chance of grounding in the dark, and so it may be delayed twenty-four hours, and if the cargo consists of garden produce, as is often the case, intended for the New York market, it is often rendered unsalable by the delay, and the owner and carrier suffer the loss. This is, of course, no reason why the operation of a great line of travel should be obstructed or interfered with, but it is a very good reason why the corporation that manages it in their own interest should pay for the damage which the pursuit of their own interests causes to those who originally had a right to the free and unobstructed use of these waters. The remedy for this difficulty is this: The draws should be of the most approved form, to be quickly opened and closed by steam-power. The regulations requiring them to be closed ten minutes before a train is due should be rescinded, and such signals should be established as would indicate to an approaching train, day or night, whether the draw is open or not, as is done on other railroads. The vessels should have the prior right of passage, as trains would seldom be delayed by them, and when delayed the time lost would commonly be made up, while with the incessant passage of trains the vessels must be delayed hours, and may be delayed a day, time which they can not make up, and which must prove a serious loss to men who are not able commonly to bear it. In being permitted to construct bridges across navigable streams, railroad companies acquire valuable rights, which materially increase their revenues, while shippers suffer a corresponding loss. It is only fair that this loss should be borne by those who reap the benefit, which might be done by requiring the company to pay the owners of vessels at established rates for all delays caused by the non-opening of their draws when required, or by requiring them to keep tugs at hand to help these vessels through the draws. The real question here is whether the law will compel a rich and powerful corporation to deal fairly and justly with those who have already been by law compelled to surrender to it a part of their rights, ostensibly for the public good but practically for the good of the corporation only. The complaint against the city bridges at Bridgeport (6) is the same as that against the railroad bridge there. The only difference here is that the city corporation takes the place of the railroad corporation in the preceding case. It may be left to the city of Bridgeport to decide what is best for their city interests; but if for the good of their community they find it expedient to obstruct the navigable waters of the United States, they should pay for the damage that they do to those who are entitled to the unobstructed use of those waters, and they should, moreover, provide every facility for passing vessels through the draws with as little delay as possible. I submit herewith copies of the written complaints against the Bridgeport and New Haven city and railroad bridges, and the railroad bridge across the Connecticut at Middletown. Respectfully submitted. WALTER MCFARLAND, COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BRIDGE AT bridgeport, CONNECTICUT. BRIDGEPORT, CONN., August 21, 1884. SIR: In response to your circular asking for information concerning bridges, causeways, or structures that are an obstruction to navigation, we wish to write you in behalf of the Messrs. Beardsley, who do an extensive towing business in this vicinity. On May 17, 1884, we wrote the honorable Secretary of War upon this same subject. Whether this letter was referred to you or not we do not know, but take the liberty of giving several extracts from said letter, as the troubles and dangers complained of therein still exist and flourish in all their original vigor. "The common council of Bridgeport has passed an ordinance relative to draw-bridges by which all the four draws are closed from 6.40 to 7 a. m., from 12 to 12.20 p. m., from 12.40 to 1 p. m., and 6 to 6.20 p. m. Under the city's orders, the draws are closed one hour and twenty minutes during the busiest portions of the day, when boats wish to be placed at their docks to be unloaded. Between 12 and 1 o'clock the draws can be opened for the benefit of navigation only twenty minutes, and, inasmuch as a tow after passing through the first bridge could not reach the last before the twenty minutes of grace has expired, it is an actual obstruction for the whole hour. * "Tho New York and New Haven Railroad has also given to the draw-tender the following order, to wit, being number 49 of special instructions: 'No draw shall be opened within ten minutes of the time that a train is due, nor when a train is in sight or within hearing.' This draw-bridge is used both by the New York and New Haven Railroad and the Naugatuck Railroad, and about seventy trains cross it daily, so that the draw is closed by the railroad company eleven hours and forty minutes during the twenty-four hours of the day, which, with the time it is kept closed by the city, makes thirteen hours' time during which no tow nor boat can pass through the bridge. This is computed for the whole twenty-four hours, and most of the eleven hours left come in the night time, when the trains are much less frequent and when no towing is required. "Between 6 o'clock in the morning and 6 in the afternoon fully fifty trains cross the bridge at short intervals, keeping the draw closed eight hours and twenty minutes, and, adding the time it is kept closed by the city, we find that it is closed nearly ten hours out of the twelve. Of course, if a train is late, the draw is kept closed until it is past. "The two hours left during which the draws may be opened is scattered through the twelve hours in such small portions that it is almost impossible to make a continuous trip. If there were but one draw, there would be but little trouble, as a tug with a tow could time its start so as to get through without having to wait; but passing through one bridge, and having nearly reached the next, it may have become within ten minutes of the time when a train is due or the city's order may interpose, and the draw, after having been opened, is quickly shut and passage is barred. Then the trouble begins. The tug, of course, can stop and control itself, but a heavily-loaded schooner or barge acquires a momentum which makes it exceed ingly difficult to stop it when the draw is suddenly closed against its passage. It is only by the most strenuous exertions that the tugs prevent their tows from either crushing into themselves or dashing into the bridges, and hardly a day passes without a narrow escape from a serious and perhaps fatal accident, the bowsprits of sloops and schooners having several times nearly pierced the pilot-houses of the tugs, which have been unable either to get out of the way themselves or to stop their tows. But if they succeed in stopping the craft in tow without loss of life, limb, or property, they have to wait from ten minutes to half an hour for the draw to reopen. In the mean time they are drifting about in the narrow channel or get aground on the shallow mud flats, and by the time they get straightened out and get under headway again the chances are that either the bridge they have been trying to get through, or at the best the next one, will be closed; so that in this way, independently of the danger incurred, it requires two or three hours to do what could otherwise be done in half an hour." For the past week the draw of the bridge over the Housatonic River has been kept closed, to the great detriment of those engaged in the towing business, as well as consignees and ship-owners. The bridge contractors keep the draw closed not because it can not be opened, but because it is a little more convenient for them in the prosecution of their work. There is also a very dangerous obstruction to navigation at the east pier of stonework supporting the draw to the center bridge. Messrs. Beardsley had heretofore, in going through the draw, injured and nearly sunk one boat loaded with coal, and roughly scraped several others, upon an unknown object. They then employed Captain Scott, the diver, to examine the pier and see what caused the trouble. He went down in his diving armor, and found that the lower part of one of the corners projected out into the channel 2 or 3 feet beyond the upper portion. Evidently the brilliant genius who planned the work found that if the pier should be carried up as started it would encroach too far into the channel, so he merely dropped back with the upper part and left this sharp triangular projection to tear open the sides of any boats coming in contact with it. We understand that this corner is visible only at an unusually low tide, and, as no towing can be done then, its presence there was not suspected till the diver made his report. Any one going through would be justified in supposing he could run close to the pier, whereas he really can not go within 3 feet of it without wrecking or injuring his boat. The city authorities have been notified of this obstruction, and have been requested to remove it, but although the diver says it can be easily and cheaply blown off, nothing has been done to remove it. This projecting corner, and especially the trouble and delay experienced in getting through the draws, are a source of great vexation to both those who do the towing and consignees, who are delayed in getting their boats to their docks. Any relief that can be granted by the Government authorities will be duly appreciated. Very respectfully, yours, HOLLISTER & KELSEY, Attorneys. COMPLAINT AGAINST THE RAILROAD AND CITY BRIDGES AT NEW HAVEN, AND OTHER BRIDGES CROSSING THE QUINNIPIAC RIVER, CONNECTICUT, NEW HAVEN, CONN., August 20, 1884. DEAR SIR: Having noticed in the New Haven Evening Register of a recent date that you desire information, among other instances, as to whether any bridges, etc., now erected or in process of erection do or will interfere with free and safe navigation, and, if so, a report of the best mode of altering such bridges so as to prevent such obstructions, we desire to call your attention to the bridge crossing the Quinnipiac River at Grand street; to the New London Railroad bridge, located a few rods north of it, and to other bridges on said river, a mile or so still further north. Those structures form a total obstruction to navigation north of Grand street for sailing-vessels and steamers, and it is our opinion that they, or at least the first two mentioned, should be provided with suitable draws without delay. Quinnipiac is a navigable river for 6 miles or more north of Grand street. The Grand Street Bridge was formerly a draw-bridge, and was used as such for many years, about half the vessels coming into the river passing through the draw up to the time when it was closed. It was an unwieldy affair, and was closed by the town of New Haven about sixty years since, when it was understood that a good draw would be put in soon. Ever since that time the town has persistently refused to construct a draw, although often requested to do so. In 1851, when the New London Railroad Company were about to build their bridge, their president received written notice that steps were about to be taken for a draw in the Grand Street Bridge, and that the people residing north of that point would expect and insist upon a draw in the railroad bridge; yet it was built without a draw, and up to this date the public have been deprived of the use of this arm of the sea, in defiance of the laws of the United States. We respectfully request you, as a representative of the General Government, to give this matter a personal examination at your convenience, and make such report thereof as in your judgment may seem proper. Should you desire any further information, a line addressed to J. H. Goodsell, 332 North Front street, New Haven, Conn., will receive prompt attention. Hoping the action you may be pleased to take will have a tendency towards the reopening of this public highway, we subscribe ourselves, Very respectfully, yours, JAMES H. GOODSELL. COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BRIDGE ACROSS THE CONNECTICUT RIVER AT MIDDLETOWN, CONNECTICUT. [Hartford and New York Transportation Company.] E. H. WILLIAMS, President. } HARTFORD, CONN., August 13, 1884. DEAR SIR: In accordance with your published card, I desire to have your engineers view the bridge-pier of the air-line bridge at Middletown, on Connecticut River. The unprotected abutments below the line of low water are such as to crush in the hull of a loaded vessel or barge before her guard-streaks can reach within 2 to 7 feet of the guard piling or pier itself. These points of contact are from 6 to 8 feet under water at low water. The schooner Rebecca, drawing 8 feet, had whole bilge forward crushed, and sunk soon after, and is now on the ways at Gildersleeve's ship-yard, at Portland, Conn., with over $1,000 damage bill. This schooner's rail was 3 feet clear of the pier or piling when she struck. The barge Grace Hills, loaded, was similarly sunk six years ago, with like bill. The railroads claim that their draw-opening is the number of feet required by law, hence they are not obliged to protect these points, and navigation must look out and keep far enough away from the piers so as not to hit these sunken projections. I try to draw for you the shape of this dangerous work. Water Line. 8 Feet below Water Line. All the piers are more or less like this, and at none of them can you (with a loaded craft) get near enough to reach pier or piling abreast the piers without striking the rock foundation, while the vessel would apparently be still from 2 to 6 feet away from possible harm. If you will examine here and at Lyme, and cause to be properly protected, you will earn the gratitude and good will of every vessel-owner on this river. Yours, truly, Col. WALTER MCFARLAND, United States Engineer. C. C. GOODRICH, General Agent. REPORT OF MR. WM. F. SMITH, UNITED STATES AGENT. UNITED STATES ENGINEER Office, Wilmington, Del., January 19, 1885. GENERAL: I have the honor to make the following report, as called for by section 2 of the river and harbor act approved July 5, 1884: 1. In the harbor of Wilmington are the remains of two wharves in front of the light-house lot, and under the control of the Light-House Board. These wharves are built on piles, and though not within the present channel, are yet an obstacle to the free passage of the flood-tides, and should be removed. I find that their removal had been determined upon by my predecessor in charge of this harbor, but as I have not been able to find any authority from the Light-House Board for their removal, it was not included in the project for the improvement of this harbor. The cost of removing them would be about $500. In the same harbor and on the other side of the Christiana River, about half a mile higher up, is a detached sunken pier, about 20 feet square, and below high-water mark. Like the light-house piers, this is not in the main channel, but is near enough to be dangerous at high water, and is an obstruction to the free passage of the tides, and should be removed. It was placed by private enterprise. The cost would be about $300. I inclose herewith a letter referring to this subject, received from the port wardens of the harbor of Wilmington. Tracings* of both obstructions are also inclosed. The draw-bridge situated at the foot of Third street is worked by hand, and so slowly as to impede navigation. The city should be compelled to put in machinery to work the draw by steam or other mechanical force. 2. On the Saint Jones River are two draw-bridges for county roads. I have been waiting till work should be commenced on the river to have accurate surveys made for a detailed report. I can state now that the lower bridge at Florence has machinery for working by hand, but no employé to do the work. The upper bridge at Lebanon has its turning gear out of order, and has to be worked by crews of vessels when desiring to pass. In addi tion to this, a false abutment was put in, to compensate for a draw too short for the original plan, and the water-way on the site of the main opening is thus narrowed, to the prejudice of the free passage of the current. The survey will be made of both bridges as soon as the work on the river begins, when a more detailed report will be made on this subject. The best plan of remedying these evils will be to have good turning. machinery put in both bridges, and a man employed to work it when necessary. *Tracings omitted. |