Page images
PDF
EPUB

Reference is requested to the report of October 30, 1884, made in conlerable detail, which was printed and may be found in Senate Ex. Doc. . 12, Forty-ninth Congress, first session, and to the report of Mr. ott. See page 1599, Appendix CC, Annual Report of Chief of Enneers, 1886. The situation is much the same as then explained, with e following additions:

A new bridge has been built on the Elk River at Charleston, which s a height somewhat greater than the others. It was, like them, ilt under State law, and is too low in view of the possibilities of the ture increase of navigation, especially as the importance of that poron of Elk River has been enhanced by the greater depth of water used by the Dam No. 6, on the Great Kanawha below it. The bridges e not, however, obstructions to navigation at this time. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

[ocr errors][merged small]

WM. P. CRAIGHILL,
Lieut. Col. of Engineers.

REPORT OF MR. S. T. ABERT, UNITED STATES AGENT.

UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE,

Washington, D. C., December 28, 1886. GENERAL: In compliance with the instructions contained in General rders No. 7, Headquarters Corps of Engineers, United States Army, ted November 30, 1886, requiring me to report "whether any bridges, useways, or structures now erected or in process of erection do or will terfere with free and safe navigation," I have the honor to submit the llowing statement:

It is reported that the railroad bridge under the control of the Richond and Danville Railway Company, built across the Pamunky River, irginia, at White House, about 30 miles above West Point, interferes ith free and safe navigation. The complaint made is that the channel rough the draw is too narrow, and that the bridge is not perpendicur to the line of the current. The available width of opening is reported be 45 feet. Vessels passing through the draw are swept against one the other side of the opening, and are injured by the bolts and timers of the fenders.

A similar objection has been made to a bridge built by the Alexandria d Fredericksburg Railroad over the Neabsco Creek, Virginia. This eek enters the Potomac River about 28 miles below Washington, D. C. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, S. T. ABERT, United States Agent.

Brig. Gen. JAMES C. DUANE,

Chief of Engineers, U. S. A.

REPORT OF CAPTAIN F. A. HINMAN, CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, Norfolk, Va., January 24, 1887. GENERAL: In accordance with General Order No. 7, Headquarters orps of Engineers, United States Army, series 1886, relative to secon 4 of the river and harbor act of August 5, 1886, I have the honor

The report was occasioned by the reference to me of a letter from the Treasury Department.

I had previously called attention in annual reports to an injurio effects on the bar-channels of the net-fishing; and in the special repor referred to above I took occasion to say that

I have not seen any reason during the last two years to change my opinion of t injurious action of the fishing-nets on the channels; nor that the prevention of bar-fishing would not retard the salmon-canning interests of the Columbia River.

Pilots have filed written complaints in this office of fish-traps as structions to navigation in the Swinomish Slough, a passage of Pus Sound between Seattle and Whatcom, and of traps in the Lower Col bia River 1 mile below Astoria, and at Chinook Point, between Astr., and Fort Canby.

The fish-traps consist of a long lead running out from shore and large pen or trap at the outer end. Both parts are made of piling, a sometimes the lead, and always the trap, of a net-work of strong mai rials attached to the piling.

Many of these traps exist in the Lower Columbia River. Their us being introduced into other rivers of the Oregon and Washington coas A tracing is sent herewith showing in plan the fish-traps of Bake Bay, near the mouth of the Columbia, for furnishing a measure of the extent and agency in obstructing or filling up a channel-way.

The traps of Swinomish Slough and near Astoria should be remove In the special report of November 10 the fish-traps were descr as permeable dikes, which check the current and cause a fill behi them. The following remarks are quoted from that report:

These traps are coming into extended use in the Columbia River, from the m to near the Willamette River, about 100 miles distant. They have been genera located, so far, to the advantage of the main channel; but efforts have been made build traps where they would be detrimental to it and obstructive to passing vesse When requested, I have, as engineer in charge of the improvement of the Les Columbia River, recommended about the location of a fish-trap. Pilots have vented, I believe, the building of traps at places where they would encroach upo ship-channel by threats of the destruction of the traps.

No authority is exercised or delegated by the State in locating or limiting fish-tr They are built as a right of the land-owner, the same as a public wharf or land pier should be.

In order to preserve and maintain the ship-channel, the planting of fish-traps the building of other structures in the river, should be under active control of st authority fully advised of present and probable future improvements for navigate. of the river and in harmony with the work thereof.

LOG-BOOMS IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.

On the left bank of the Coquille River, Oregon, above Coquille City the piling of a log-boom has made an extensive shoaling at its site destroying a river landing and deflecting the current to the opposite shore, causing bank caving and an undesirable change of channel.

On the Willamette River, Oregon, at Portland, a pile log-boom, oc pying about one-third of the river's width, has aided in deflecting the river volume to a channel naturally inferior for harbor purposes and those of ship navigation, thereby causing public improvements to be made to this channel when a different one would otherwise have been more advantageous.

A pile-boom has been built across the mouth of the Dwamish River. Washington. An opening was left for steam-boats. The boom has now Tracing omitted.

u abandoned; some of the piles are broken at low water, and form tructions to navigation. This boom, as well as the one in the Willate River, should be wholly removed. The latter is now within the porate limits of Portland. A municipal ordinance requires the real of portions exterior to an established wharf-line within six years. DUMPING IN NAVIGABLE WATERS OR THEIR TRIBUTARIES.

t has been my observation that serious detriment to navigation and ch expense in improvements therefor have been caused by a dumpin the water-ways of this district of miscellaneous materials, from dust and sweepings to trees.

The Government is engaged in improvement by snagging operations six rivers of this engineer district. Most of the snags or pieces of ft-jams are trees washed out from banks or are saw-logs. It is not common, however, to find drifts made of tree trunks or stumps which ve been cut in two.

On the Coquille River are many bars formed by drift of myrtle, a od too heavy to float. I have noticed a very bad bar next above the id of present navigation, formed in this way.

Much earth and rock were dumped into Yaquina Bay and River by › railroad construction already referred to. This curtailed, to a small ent it is true, but injuriously, the tidal volume, and doubtless caused ne shoaling on the bars. This dumping was not only to make a raild grade, but sometimes a spoil-bank was formed in the water. Jnder date of June 17, 1884, Joseph Thompson, of Toledo, Oregon, ote me that

arties up the bay, where the channel is narrow, are complaining of the railroad pany for depositing so much dirt and rock in the river, and wished me to write to in regard to the matter.

On August 8, 1884, Mr. B. Morrison wrote me, from Pioneer, Oregon, follows:

am in the grocery business here and have a farm of land, and the Yaquina River s through my place. Officers of the O. P. R. R. and others are filling up the nnel of Yaquina River with rock and timber and obstructing the navigation reof. Steam-boats have run to my place, and now I can not receive goods with a 7-boat, and it costs me extra for teams and depreciates the value of my place $1,800. On August 6, 1884, Mr. George C. Boswell, of Elk City, Oregon, wrote > as follows:

wish to inform you that the O. P. R. R. is filling up the river above Elk, a navble river, meandered above where they are doing the damage, and it is impossible me to get out with my scow at present. There was a great travel on this part of river before they filled it with rock and timber.

f there is $40,000 appropriation for Yaquina Bay, why not keep the river open, we have a good sand-rock quarry here, and working men in it dressing stone, and pect to ship with scows to Yaquina schooners.

The wasting of sawdust in the Lower Willamette and Columbia ers has been quite common.

A written complaint was lately made by a vessel master of the inrious action in the channel of a sawdust dumping in the river at an storia mill. Near Portland some of the mills have erected frail bulkads behind which to place their sawdust.

There is an Oregon statute prohibiting the dumping of sawdust in rivers below the Cascades and the Willamette Falls, but practically e law is of little avail, if any at all.

Perhaps the most aggravated case of river dumping in this district is at Portland and East Portland. The worst bar of the river shipchannel is next below these cities. Dredging has been prosecuted here to a considerable extent. Cans, matting, shoes, ashes, and other refuse have been frequently found in the dredging.

Masters of steam-vessels have complained about floating harbor débri as endangering the wheels of their craft when passing.

It has been noticed when Portland wharves are rebuilt that a con siderable part of the old material is disposed of in the river, and that boxes, crates, packing material, etc., are sometimes thrown into the river or on the bank where high water will float them.

Reports have also been made of a deliberate dumping over op wharves from carts at night.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

TO THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. A.

CHAS. F. POWELL,
Captain of Engineers,

LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington City, February 24, 1887.

The Secretary of War has the honor to transmit to the United State Senate a letter of the 21st instant, from the Chief of Engineers, copies of correspondence relating to the bridge proposed to be built across t Hudson River at Poughkeepsie, and to the railroad bridge across th Mississippi River, at Saint Paul, together with copies of reports of o cers in charge of river and harbor districts, made to meet the requir ments of section 4 of the river and harbor act of August 5, 1886, th reports be made to Congress whether any bridges, causeways, or struc ures of any kind, now erected or in process of erection, do or will inter fere with free and safe navigation.

WM. C. ENDICOTT,
Secretary of Stor

The PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE UNITED STATES SENATE.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
UNITED STATES ARMY,
Washington, D. C., February 21, 1887.

SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith, in compliance with you' instructions of January 19, copies of correspondence relating to ti bridge proposed to be built across the Hudson River at Poughkeeps and to the railroad bridge across the Mississippi at Saint Paul. T report of the Board of Engineer Officers, constituted to consider the proposed construction of a bridge across the Willamette River at Port land, Oregon, has not as yet been received, but will be duly submitted. as required.

I have also the honor to submit, in further compliance with your in structions, copies of reports from officers in charge of river and harbor districts, made, under orders from this office, to meet the requirements of section 4 of the river and harbor act of August 5, 1886, that reports

be made to Congress whether any bridges, causeways, or structures of any kind now erected, or in process of erection, do or will interfere with free and safe navigation.

The instances herein enumerated of such interference are, with few exceptions, such as were not included in the communication of this office of December 12, 1885, made to comply with similar provisions of the river and harbor act of July 5, 1884, and which was transmitted to the Senate December 18, 1885, and printed as Senate Ex. Doc. No. 12, Forty-ninth Congress, first session.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Hon. WM. C. ENDICOTT,

J. C. DUANE,

Brig. Gen., Chief of Engineers.

Secretary of War.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK, AT POUGHKEEPSIE.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,

UNITED STATES ARMY, Washington, D. C., January 11, 1887.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the reference to this office of letters from Henry D. Moore, esq., of Leadville, Colo., dated October 30, 1886, and F. Vosburg, manager Schuyler's Steam Tow Boat Line, and W. W. Everett, president of People's Line Steamers, dated November 3, 1886, calling attention to a proposed bridge across the Hudson River, New York, at Poughkeepsie, and protesting against its construction, and, in connection with the subject, to invite attention to the accompanying letter from Lieut. Col. Walter McFarland, Corps of Engineers, and inclosed communication of the Chief Engineer of the bridge company, submitting plans for the bridge, &c.

In reply I beg to say that, so far as is known to this office, there is no authority of United States law for the erection of the bridge in question, and in the absence of such law the Executive branch of the Government is without power either to authorize or prevent its construction. There are several bridges constructed or in course of construction across navigable waters of the United States, notably one across the Mississippi River at Saint Paul, which was referred to in the Annual Report of the Secretary of War, dated November 30, 1885 (see page 29, Report of the Secretary of War, vol. 1, 1885), and one in course of construction across the Willamette River at Portland, Oreg. In regard to the former, upon proper representations that it would materially obstruct and impede navigation, request was made by the Secretary of War to the Attorney-General that proceedings be instituted in behalf of the United States with the view of preventing its construction; but upon examination the Attorney-General found that he was without power to intervene, and held "that, until Congress acts and by appropriate legislation assumes control of the subject, the power of the State over bridges across navigable streams within its limits is plenary; but that when this power is exercised so as to unnecessarily obstruct navigation, Congress may interfere and remove the obstruction." The opinion concludes as follows:

I am accordingly inclined to the conclusion that in the existing state of the law the facts of the present case (as they appear in the accompanying papers) afford no Omitted,

« PreviousContinue »