Bay in thick weather, by a route east or west of Block Island, will be but little less, if any, than that consumed in making Sandy Hook Bar by the direct ocean route. Four years have now elapsed since the question of using Fort Pond Bay as the western terminus of a new transatlantic route to New York City was first officially agitated, and the interval has been allowed to pass without any active steps resulting in the expenditure of money being taken to fit the site for any such occupancy. There is no evidence that the existing commercial condition of that harbor is soon to be changed, and until such evidence is given in a practical way, by the construction of steamers and by the extension of the existing railway system on Long Island to Fort Pond Bay, with capacious wharves to accommodate ocean steamers, it would seem premature to make surveys at this time with the view to the preparation of estimates of cost of construction of an adequate protecting breakwater. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Fort Pond Bay is not worthy of improvement in view of present or prospective demands of commerce. A small sketch, showing the location of and approaches to Fort Pond Bay, accompanies this report for its elucidation. * Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Brig. Gen. THOMAS L. CASEY, G. L. GILLESPIE, Lieutenant-Colonel of Engineers. Chief of Engineers, U. S. A. LETTER FROM MR. A. M. UNDERHILL, AGENT GUION LINE, LIVERPOOL STEAMERS. DEAR SIR: Yours of the 3d instant has attention. NEW YORK, August 4, 1892. The changes in transatlantic navigation simply confirm the views previously expressed. Yours, respectfully, Lieut. Col. G. L. GILLESPIE, A. M. UNDERHILL. Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. LETTER FROM MESSRS. OELRICHS & CO., AGENTS NORDDEUTSCHER LLOYD STEAMSHIP COMPANY. NEW YORK, August 4, 1892. DEAR SIR: In reply to your valued favor of 3d instant, we beg leave to inform you that nothing has transpired to lead us to change our views as expressed in our letter to Col. Houston November 15, 1888, with regard to the eligibility of Fort Poud Harbor as the terminus of a line of fast ocean steamers. Yours, very truly, Lieut. Col. G. L. GILLESPIE, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. OELRICHS & Co. Not reprinted; printed in Ilouse Ex. Doc. No. 110, Fifty-second Congress, second session. LETTER FROM MR. H. MAITLAND KERSEY, AGENT WHITE STAR LINE. SIR: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your favor of the 3d instant, to which absence from town has prevented an earlier reply. I have carefully read the letter of my predecessor, Mr. J. Bruce Ismay, dated November 27, 1888, and see no reason to differ in any particular from the views therein expressed. I am, sir, yours, respectfully, Lieut. Col. G. L. GILLESPIE, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. H. MAITLAND Kersey. LETTER FROM MR. JAMES A. WRIGHT, JR., SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT INTERNATIONAL NAVIGATION COMPANY. NEW YORK, August 26, 1892. DEAR SIR: I have to acknowledge receipt of your favor of August 3 regarding Fort Pond Bay, Long Island. There is nothing that occurs to us in addition to what is contained in our previous letter of November 3, 1888, addressed to Col. D C. Houston, and we have no reason to change the views as expressed by us in that letter. Very respectfully, Lieut. Col. G. L. GILLESPIE, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. JAMES A. WRIGHT, JR., LETTER FROM MR. VERNON H. BROWN, AGENT THE CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY. NEW YORK, October 17, 1892. DEAR SIR: I duly received your esteemed favor of August 3 asking if any circumstances had occurred to change the views expressed in my letter of October 31, 1888, in regard to the eligibility of Fort Pond Harbor as the western terminus of a line of ocean steamers. In reply I would say that I have carefully reread my letter above referred to, and beg to say that the situation is practically unchanged since the date of said letter. Very respectfully, yours, VERNON H. BROWN. Lieut. Col. G. L. GILLESPIE, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. LETTER FROM MR. D. A. NASH, SECRETARY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF PILOTS. NEW YORK, August 9, 1892. DEAR SIR: In reply to the inquiry contained in your favor of 3d instant I have to state that we have no records relative to the frequency or duration of fogs. I have, however, made inquiry amongst the pilots who cruise in the neighborhood of Nantucket, and they all say that the fogs are more frequent and more dense at the eastern end of Long Island than at the western. Pilot boat James Stafford No. 18 was built at Noank four years ago, and her captain, Pilot Joseph H. Nelson, was there during the months of May, June, July, and August, superintending her construction. He states that the fogs there are much more frequent than at New York. It was foggy there three out of five days. For the Board: Yours, very respectfully, Lieut. Col. G. L. GILLESPIE, D. A. NASH, Secretary. Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. E 15. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION FOR CHANNEL WEST OF ROBBINS REEF LIGHT-HOUSE TO CONNECT THE MOUTH OF ARTHUR KILL WITH NEW YORK HARBOR, NEW YORK. [Printed in House Ex. Doc. No. 77, Fifty-second Congress, second session.] OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith a copy of report, dated August 1, 1892, by Lieut. Col. G. L. Gillespie, Corps of Engineers, of the results of preliminary examination for channel west of Robbins Reef light-house to connect the mouth of Arthur Kill with New York Harbor, New York, made to comply with the provisions of the river and harbor act approved July 13, 1892. It is the opinion of Lieut. Col. Gillespie, concurred in by this office, that the proposed channel is not worthy of improvement by the General Government. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. S. B. ELKINS, THOS. LINCOLN CASEY, Brig. Gen., Chief of Engineers. Secretary of War. REPORT OF LIEUT. COL. G. L. GILLESPIE, CORPS OF ENGINEERS. ENGINEER OFFICE, U. S. ARMY, New York, August 1, 1892. GENERAL: In compliance with instructions contained in letter of Chief of Engineers, dated July 14, 1892, I have the honor to submit the following report in regard to preliminary examination, "for channel west of Robbins Reef light-house, to connect the mouth of Arthur Kill with New York Harbor, New York," for which provision is contained in section 6, river and harbor act July 13, 1892. For many years the towing companies interested in the navigation between the Raritan and Passaic rivers, and New York Harbor through Kill van Kull, have made efforts to secure appropriation from Congress for opening a short and sheltered interior channel across Jersey Flats. The river and harbor act March 3, 1881, provided for the survey of such a channel, 21 feet deep, mean low water, from Communipaw to Constable Hook, and the report thereon (Annual Report Chief of Engineers, 1882, Part I, p. 719) gives the estimated cost of the work, $7,000,000, the great cost being due to a reef of rock underlying the shoal to the eastward of Cavens Point. The channel now proposed to be surveyed is not definitely located by the act of July 13, 1892, but as I have before me a copy of the map accompanying the petition which was sent to Congress urging the survey, I am able to describe it very accurately. The wish of the projectors, as stated in their petition, is anchorage for vessels and tows on the southern edge of the flats immediately to the eastward of Constable Point, 2,000 feet wide, 2,500 feet long, and 15 feet deep, mean low water, from which a channel 300 feet wide and 15 feet deep shall lead in a straight line northeastward about 1 mile to the southward of Oyster Island, on the eastern margin of the shoal. The benefits to commerce which it is alleged will follow the opening of the channel are: (a) Shortening distance between Kill van Kull and New York City; (b) avoidance of strong tides which are encountered by tows making southern detour of Robbins Reef light-house, especially during stormy weather; (c) anchorage for tows awaiting tides. In regard to the first, it may be said that the distance around the light-house to outlet of channel is 23 miles, and that through the channel to westward of the light is 13 miles, a difference of two-fifths of a mile. As located, the proposed improvement will lie partly inside of the pier-head line established by the Secretary of War August 19, 1891, and if shifted farther to the eastward close up to Robbins Reef lighthouse, as will be necessary to avoid the harbor lines, the difference of distance in the two routes will be reduced to one-fourth of a mile. The "shortening of distance" is therefore of little value. The tugboats which will use this channel draw from 12 to 15 feet, and the barges about 10 feet. The width of waterway between established pier-head lines at the immediate entrance to the Kills westward of Robbins Reef light-house is 2,500 feet, affording ample anchorage for all classes of vessels and tows. No further anchorage is required. The other consideration of tides is of greater importance and has been weighed with care. The southern end of the flats at the turn of the tides is subject to tide rips, making the navigation past the lighthouse on either side somewhat difficult for tows or small vessels. The opening of the proposed channel will not modify tidal conditions, . but may give the tows slightly increased facilities of navigation in relation to direction of tidal flow, and will also enable them to enter the upper bay in a more direct way and less liable to collision with passing vessels or steamers on emerging from the Kills. The main advantage, it appears to me, that a new route will have, if any, over the existing this partial shelter which will be given to tows when passing over the southeastern point of the shoal for the short distance of 2 miles. At the eastern entrance to the Kills the Main Ship Channel through the lower bay is 5,800 feet wide between 24-foot contours. At Robbins Reef light-house it is 5,000 feet wide, and widens again at Oyster Island to 5,800 feet. All the shipping of the port by the southern entrance passes the Robbins Reef Light, and vessels or tows coming from or going to the Kills are exposed to collision with vessels or steamers passing through the Main Ship Channel in the vicinity of Robbins Reef Light. Such casualties, however, are not frequent, and the main benefit, as has been said, to be derived from a channel to the westward of the lighthouse lies in the fact that vessels and tows in going to and from New York will not be required to navigate the Main Ship Channel for so long a distance; that is, the period of exposure to collision will be shortened. The average depth of water in the area inclosed by the proposed anchorage is from 11 feet to 12 feet, and in the channel to the northward from 5 feet to 73 feet, mean low water. The material is believed to be sand alone. In my judgment the proposed channel west of Robbins Reef lighthouse to connect the mouth of Arthur Kill with New York Harbor is not worthy of improvement. The slight benefit to commerce which will follow the improvement will not justify the * work. cost of the A map of Jersey Flats accompanies this report, upon which the proposed channel is delineated in its relation to Kill van Kull, the harbor lines across Jersey Flats, and to upper New York Bay. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Brig. Gen. THOMAS L. CASEY, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A. G. L. GILLESPIE, Lieut. Col. of Engineers. E 16. ESTABLISHMENT OF HARBOR LINES IN NEW YORK HARBOR AND ADJACENT WATERS. a. MODIFCATION OF HARBOR LINES AROUND RIKERS ISLAND, EAST RIVER, NEW YORK. 61 BROADWAY, New York, September 22, 1892. SIR: In 1884, under chapter 262 of the laws of the State of New York for that year, I completed for my clients the sale of Rikers Island, containing 87 acres in Flushing Bay, to the city of New York, acting by the commissioners of public charities and corrections and for their use, for the sum of $180,000. Afterwards I procured to be made at the office of the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey a special chart or survey of the island and land under water out to the 12-foot contour line, and had specially indicated thereon, by courses and distances, said line, together with a computation of the number of acres of dry, or upland, and land under water within that curve, and what number of cubic yards of dirt would be required to fill it up so as to make it all dry land 3 feet above high-water mark. I append hereto a tracing † of the map of the island, together with a copy of the estimate of the number of cubic yards that will be required to fill up the land under water to 3 feet above high-water mark. Subsequently, in March, 1885, I drafted a bill, which was presented to the legislature, and passed and became a law June 9, 1885 (see chapter 469, laws of 1885 of the State of New York, a copy of which is hereto appendedf), whereby the State granted to the city of New York the land under water, as indicated on the Coast Survey map, out to the 12-foot contour line, with the right to crib in, fill up, and make additional dry land of nearly 400 acres of land now under water. The map referred to I subsequently presented, with my compliments, to the city of New York, and it is on file with the deed of the island in the comptroller's office. On the 31st day of October, 1885, I suggested to the board of esti mate and apportionment that the sum of $50,000 should be annually appropriated for cribbing the island on the 12-foot contour line until the same was completed. The first appropriation of that amount was made that year, but it has never been used for that purpose. † Omitted. *Not printed. |