The indorsements by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of War, transmitting Senate bill 275, December 12, 1887, were then read: [First indorsement.] OFFICE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY, Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War. The within bill, S. 275, " to authorize the construction of bridges across the Missouri River, between its mouth and the mouth of the Dakota or James River, and across the Mississippi River, between the port of Saint Paul, in the State of Minnesota, and the port of Natchez, in the State of Mississippi, and across the Illinois River, between its mouth and La Salle, in the State of Illinois, and to prescribe the character, location, and dimensions of the same," has been received, and after careful examination, it has been found that the interests involved in the provisions are so important that before expressing the opinion of this office it is deemed advisable that it be considered by a Board of Engineer Officers, whose large experience has rendered them familiar with the navigation of the rivers and the requirements of commerce affected by the bill. It is accordingly recommended that the bill be referred to a Board of Officers of the Corps of Engineers, to consist of Lieut. Col. Charles R. Suter and Majs. Alexander Mac kenzie, A. M. Miller, and Thomas H. Handbury, with Lieut. T. A. Bingham, recorder. The Board to meet at Saint Louis, Mo., as soon as practicable, to report upon the provisions of the bill in question. If approved by the Secretary it is further recommended that the order convening the Board be issued from this office. Have written you to-day about Vest's bill for bridging Western rivers; please do not decide until you receive letter. Col. CHAS. R. SUTER. E. L. CORTHELL, Senate bill 275 was then read and discussed. SAINT LOUIS, Mo., January 17, 1888. Board met at 10 a. m. pursuant to adjournment. Present all the members and the recorder. Minutes of yesterday's meeting were read and approved. Major Mackenzie offered the following resolution: Resolved, That in the opinion of this Board the following should be added to Senate bill 275, December 12, 1887, as a new paragraph: That all former laws or parts of laws authorizing the construction of bridges over the Missouri, Mississippi, or Illinois Rivers in conflict with this act and under the authority of which actual construction has not yet been commenced, are hereby repealed. Seconded by Major Miller. Carried. Discussion of Senate bill 275 was then begun by sections. Title. No changes recommended. Section 1. No changes recommended. Section 2. Section 2 is general, and should be included in the list of sections designated as general. Line 9, strike out words " title of the" so as to read "covered by the sections enumerated." Section 3, line 6, change to read Clear height measured from the water surface to the lowest part of the superstructure in any span. Line 10, change to read Measured at right angles to the faces of the piers at the elevation of low water. Line 15, change to read Of which fixed spans over navigable channels are high enough to permit the pas sage of boats under them at all stages of water. Moved for adoption by Major Handbury; seconded by Major Mac kenzie. Carried. Line 17, change to read Having an opening or openings through which boats can pass at all stages of water. Moved for adoption by Major Mackenzie; seconded by Major Handbury. Carried. Section 4, line 1, change to read That all low bridges authorized under this act shall be, etc. DUBUQUE, IOWA, January 17, 1888. River interest protest against low-bridge clause, section fourteen, Senate bill two hundred and seventy-five. It means low bridge near Saint Louis. J. H. STOUT. An identical telegram was received by Major Miller. At this point discussion of section 4 involved discussion of section 20, and of a substitute for section 20, suggested by Major Mackenzie. The following letter was received and laid before the Board by Colonel Suter: NEW YORK, January 14, 1888. DEAR SIR: I called on the Chief of Engineers yesterday in reference to Senate bill No. 275, introduced by Mr. Vest, December 12, to authorize the construction of bridges across the Missouri, Mississippi, and Illinois rivers; the object of the bill being to provide a general law for these rivers. I was informed by General Duane that you were chairman of a board which is instructed to examine and report on this bill. There are, in my opinion, several serious defects and some impracticable provisions in the bill, as follows: Section 3, line 3. High-water mark is here held to mean the local highest water. I think there should be exceptions to this. As an illustration, take the proposed bridge at Alton, Ill., where the high water of 1844 is 4.2 feet above that of 1858, the next highest water. The 1844 water was produced by a conjunction of causes which never has happened before or since, and the Secretary of War very properly approved plans based on the high water of 1858. On the Missouri River, at extreme highest water, should it ever occur again, no boats would be able to navigate the river, and it does not seem just to compel the transportation lines of the country to build their bridges 4 or 5 and perhaps 6 feet higher than is necessary for navigation, or to haul their freight and passengers to this unnecessary height. Section 4, line 20. There may be many cases where a protection pier 1,000 feet in length would be impracticable and entirely unnecessary. Section 7, line 3. Are there not many cases likely to occur where all of the spans of a high bridge need not be high spans, but where some of them might, without injury to navigation, be deck-spans? Section 10, line 7. Wherever high water and low water are used together it is impracticable to meet the requirements of the head-roon at high water and above low water at the same time. In nearly all cases mentioned in the bill the difference between high and low water does not agree with the provisions given. Section 13, line 11, and section 14, line 13. The openings prescribed for drawbridges in these instances are really beyond a practicable limit, if not in construction, certainly in operation. It would be well to ask the author of this bill to show how he proposes to make a clear opening of 400 feet in a draw-bridge. Section 16, line 8. Sixty feet of clear height above high water for bridges within 8 miles of the Eads bridge at Saint Louis is 10 feet more than there is, practically, at the present bridge, and also at the Merchants' bridge, according to the latter's charter. There seems to be no necessity for this additional height. The two bridges, one built and the other to be built, should determine the clear head-room. Section 16, line 11. The requirement for a draw or pivot span on the Lower Mississippi is entirely uncalled for, in my opinion, and would entail a very great expense on any company building a bridge, for the reason that spans of from 500 to 600 feet are the economical spans. If draw-spans are built, it brings three piers, and one of them a very large one, near together. The deep foundations required for these piers also increases the expense very largely. I most earnestly hope that you will strike these requirements out of the bill. Section 20, lines 40 to 50 inclusive. Do you consider that this clause allows the Secretary of War, through the Chief of Engineers, to modify any of the terms and requirements of this bill? If so, we, as bridge engineers, would be perfectly willing to leave the requirements in case to the Secretary of War. I hope you will consider this subject very carefully, as I have no doubt you will, for there are important transportation interests involved, not only now but in all the future, that have a right to be heard in this matter. I believe that a general law could be enacted which would be much better than the irregular methods of legislation now practiced, and in this connection wish to suggest that a fixed grade line for certain stretches of the Missouri and possibly of the Mississippi River might be determined by the Chief of Engineers which should be the basis for all bridges built in such stretches, and that this grade line should not be the local highest water, but the average of the high waters as shown by the water-marks or by the height of the alluvial banks along each reach. Yours, very truly, Col. CHARLES R. SUTER. Section 4-continued. Line 15, change to read Clear channel-way authorized by this act. Line 16, change to read E. L. CORTHELL There may be required one or more protection piers of masonry crib-work or piling as may be directed by the Secretary of War. Line 17, change to read Extending from the end or ends of the draw opening or openings. Line 20, change to read One thousand feet or less from the center line of the bridge. Line 21, change to read With ring-bolts, cavils, snubbing posts, or similar accessories and fender planking. Line 26, change to read When a draw opening is near shore that the end of the opening be connected with the shore. Line 29, change to read— To the said draw opening. Line 32, change to read The draw openings next shore becomes. Line 36, change to read Then the bridge company shall, by purchase or otherwise, extinguish the right to obstruct the entrance to the draw opening for a distance of at least 700 feet above and 700 feet below the bridge. Section 5, line 1, change to read Draw openings are required. Further consideration of this section was postponed. The following telegram was sent at 4 p. m.: A Board of Engineer Officers is in session at No. 1415 Washington avenue, Saint Louis, to consider a general law for bridges over the Lower Mississippi. If your body desires to be heard on this subject the Board request early attendance. soon you can be expected. PRESIDENT COAL EXCHANGE, Pittsburgh, Pa. Answer how SUTER, Engineers. Adjourned at 4.15 p. m. to meet at 10 a. m. to-morrow. SAINT LOUIS, Mo., January 18, 1888. Board met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment. Present all the members and the recorder. Minutes of last meeting were read and approved. The following letters were laid before the Board by Major Mackenzie: DEAR SIR: Your favor of the 13th to hand and noted. Replying will say, we consider your suggestions very good, and nothing more than just. You will, no doubt, suggest that good and sufficient approaches be required. For your many courtesies you have our thanks. Truly and very respectfully, Maj. A. MACKENZIE, U. S. A. [Huse & Loomis Ice and Transportation Company.] G. W. HILL SAINT LOUIS, January 14, 1888. DEAR SIR: Yours 13th just at hand. We thank you for thus giving us the opportunity of expressing our views upon the bridge question. We think there can be little doubt that no low bridges ought to be allowed over the shifting channel of the Mississippi below the mouth Missouri River. That question was pretty well settled two years ago, and the report by the Board of United States Engineers, yourself, and others, if we remember correctly, was full, and covered the whole matter thoroughly. We will always probably have the cheaper low bridges over the Mississippi above mouth Missouri; but we think the bridges to be built as new ones and to replace old ones worn out should be erected with more care and with more regard to the interest of navigation than in the past. Wo think any bridges to be built in future between mouth Missouri River to mouth Illinois River should be of wider span and better protections than those higher up Mississippi. As the Illinois is a great feeder to Mississippi, the current is stronger below than above it, and the volume of business also increased. Hence we think bridges over this portion of the Mississippi should have draws 30 to 40 feet wider than those above it. Being free from bridges at present, this can be done. In our opinion no bridges over the Mississippi at any point should have draws less than 200 to 225 feet clear space for steamers to pass, and between mouth Missouri, Illinois, not less than 250 feet. The advancement in bridge building makes these spane perfectly easy to bridge builders. And another point seems to us quite as important to the navigation interest as the width of the spans. All bridges should have a long protection of spiling and timber reaching at least 300 to 400 feet above the pivot or center pier of the draw, constructed straight with the current and planked or timbered smoothly, so barges and steam-boats could drop through in windy weather without injury by ragged bolts, etc. The main object of this protection would be for tow and raft boats, in approaching the draw in windy weather, have something to back up against and take out lines to snub through safely. Good snub bing posts should be placed in end of this pier or protection. Such a protection as this would decrease the danger to tow and raft boats as well as passenger steamers, as many windy days they have to lay up, fearing to try to enter a narrow span draw out in the river where there is no place to run a line to steady them. With such a protection tow-boats could drop in carefully against the protection, take out a line and drop through safely, when without it they would be in danger of missing the draw and be drawn under the low superstructure. Each side of the draws such a protection would be comparatively inexpensive to the railroad or bridge company, costing probably $8,000 to $10,000, and act as a rest for their draw and ice-breaker also. They usually erect short ones, say 100 to 150 feet long; but these are so short there is not room for a tow, often 300 to 400 feet long, to get any assistance from them, as more than half the weight of the tow would overlap these short protections and the tow likely to double around them in trying to use them as a guide or to drop through by. These protections are not needed at the lower side, as an up-stream tow failing to enter the draw can drop back and make the second or third effort without danger, which can not be done with the down-stream tow, tow boats usually taking more than they are able to back up out of a draw if they make any mistake in entering. All reasonable security to life and property should be given, and a little additional cost or expense should not be an excuse for neglecting necessary measures. Each bridge erected is an additional tax and expense to all steam-boat navigation. Hence, the corporation or company erecting these obstructions to navigation should make them as safe as possible, even at an additional expense to make them so. Bridges are necessary to the commerce of the country, and must be built to meet that need; but more care is necessary than has been used in the past to see the bridges are as little of an obstruction as possible, and still be economical. Yours, very truly, HUSE & LOOMIS ICE AND TRANSPORtation ComPANY, A. MACKENZIE, Major United States Engineers. President. The following telegram was sent at 10.25 a. m. : Your telegrams of 17th to Majors Mackenzie and Miller were received and laid before the Board. J. H. STOUT, Dubuque, Iowa. SUTER, The following letter was sent : SAINT LOUIS, January 18, 1888. DEAR SIR: Your letter of January 14 was received and laid before the Board. E. L. CORTHELL, C. E., 35 Wall Street, New York. CHAS. R. SUTER, Lieut. Col. of Engineers. The following letters were sent: SAINT LOUIS, Mo., January 18, 1888. SIR: I have the honor to inform you that there is now a Board of Engineer Officers in session at 1415 Washington avenue, which has under consideration a general bridge law covering the Mississippi River below the Eads bridge. The Board would be glad to hear your views on the subject. They will be in session to-day and to-morrow from 10 a. m. to 4 p. m. If you are not able to attend in person, the Board would like to receive a table giving the lengths, the breadths over all, the heights to top of pilot-house, and the heights to top of chimneys of all of your company's largest steamers. Very respectfully, your obedient seryant, Mr. JOHN A. SCUDDER, CHAS. R. SUTER, Lieut. Col. of Engineers, U. S. A. President Saint Louis and New Orleans Anchor Line. SAINT LOUIS, Mo., January 18, 1833. SIR: I have the honor to inform you that there is now a Board of Engineer Officers in session at 1415 Washington evenue, which has under consideration a general bridge law covering the Mississippi River below the Eads bridge. |