In answer to the questions regarding amount of freight and number of passengers carried, number of trips, and height of pilot-houses I would say. The Louisville mail-line steamers and Madison packets import to and export from Cincinnati 350 tons of freight daily, and their passenger list in and out of this port will approximate 200 daily. The Louisville boats each make one trip a day, and the Madison packets make three trips a week each. We have two Memphis boats in and out per week; they bring in and take out of Cincinnati 2,000 tons of freight per week and 300 passengers. The New Orleans boats bring to and take away from this port 2,500 tons of freight per week and 250 passengers. The height of the pilot-houses on our regular steamers is 53 feet. Of the New Orleans steamers 55 feet. At extreme high water, to carry on our business, we should have 53 feet space for our daily packets. The public landing place for steamers carrying on the river traffic of this port is bounded as follows: East by Broadway, west by Main street, north by Front street, and south by lowwater mark. This, constituting a space of 1,000 feet running parallel with the river, was set apart and has been held as a public steamboat wharf since the incorporation of Cincinnati as a city. This wharf is above the suspension bridge. When high water precludes the passage under the suspension bridge we then handle our traffic at Vine and Race streets immediately below (and above the proposed site of the proposed bridge), which is the only place below the suspension bridge that steamboat traffic can be handled at all. If the new bridge is built at the point contemplated by its projectors at the same height as the suspension bridge and without a draw it would simply mean that all steamboats plying between this port and points below would be absolutely shut out from this port during a stage of water in the Ohio River of 50 feet or over. There is no available landing at any point in the corporation of Cincinnati below the proposed bridge site where traffic and merchandise can be handled by our steamboats, for the reason that every bit of space is occupied by coal harbors and other private interests. To do a steamboat traffic at any point in the corporation of Cincinnati below this proposed bridge would be impracticable. The additional cost to each boat, properly manned with a full crew and with an ordinary trip of freight and passengers, by reason of their failure to pass under the proposed new bridge in time of high water, would be $200 per day for each boat while delayed in getting to the city wharf proper. At the time of the passage of the special act under which the Kentucky and Ohio Bridge Company propose building a bridge with height 13 feet less than is required by the general bridge law and without a draw, the interests I represent were not consulted, nor were any other steamboat interests at this port consulted. The present height of pilot-houses cannot be reduced for the reason that the main cabins of the steamers can not be lowered without detriment to the freight, stowage capacity on deck, and the officers' quarters, or texas, must be erected upon the main cabins, and upon that the pilot-house has to be built in order that the pilot may see fore and aft and abreast of him, which the demands of safe navigation require. All of which is respectfully submitted. C. M. HOLLOWAY, A. MACKENZIE, Major of Engineers. The Board is called upon by the supplemental instructions to state its views and recommendations in regard to the propriety of constructing a bridge upon the proposed plan, taking into consideration the magnitude of the interests involved. The questions which arise in the discussion of a proper method of bridging a river like the Ohio affect not only the parties directly concerned in the cost of building the bridge and those whose property is emperiled by it, but also the very large portion of the community which is interested in prices of products and merchandise, the delivery of which is made more difficult and therefore more costly by the existence of a bridge. These questions have been discussed for years, and one of the results was the framing and enacting by the national Congress of a general bridge law, which permitted the building of bridges over the Ohio River, but imposed certain conditions for the protection of the interests of river commerce. The provisions of this law appear to have been adopted as the best possible solution of the difficult problem of satisfying as far as possible all parties interested. The enactment of the Ohio River bridge law had the effect of producing a sense of security among those who were interested in the navigation of the river, and made them feel that there was a well-defined limit to the extent to which any future bridge would be allowed to obstruct their traffic. In the case of the proposed bridge now under consideration it ap pears a special act has been secured, which contemplates a release from certain restrictions of the general law. It is stated by the river in terests that they were not represented before Congress and had no knowledge of this special law until after its passage. The Board consider this special law to be permissive and not mandatory, giving the Secretary of War authority to allow a modification of the general law if he should consider the same proper. If the provisions of the general bridge law are such as to protect the interests of all parties, it would not seem expedient, excepting in the case of abundant proof being presented, to change the conditions for the benefit of one party and to the detriment of others. It does not appear to the Board on the evidence before it that in the present instance there is any other reason for the desired modification of the law than the wish of the company to decrease the cost of their bridge. If the general law is set aside in one case it could as easily be set aside in many others, and the general law itself would be an injury rather than a benefit, as it gives the river interests a sense of security which prevents them from taking active and timely measures for their own protection in special cases. The river at the site of the proposed bridge is now without obstruction of any kind. With a bridge of almost any description a danger to navigation will be created, more pronounced on account of the location in a bend of the river, and in a harbor between two cities, and where the smoke from manufactories at times materially interferes with navigation. A clear water-way of 500 feet on a straight reach of river is considered reasonably safe; in a bend which requires the flanking posi tion of a tow, the navigators contend that a water-way of 600 feet would be required to afford the same degree of safety. With regard to the height of the bridge, it is to be observed that the distance of 53 feet above high water was fixed in the general law to simply leave room under continuous bridges for the pilot-houses of large steamers, the chimneys being lowered. The Board is informed that on some steamers the pilot-houses are 55 feet above the water. The usual landing place for the large packet-boats, which ordinarily do not ascend above Cincinnati, is just above the suspension bridge; but there is an entirely practicable and convenient landing just below the suspension bridge, and above the proposed location for the new bridge, which is used when the river is at such a stage as to prevent passing the suspension bridge. Below the site of the proposed bridge there is now no practicable landing, and if such landing could be prepared it is claimed that it would be inconvenient, expensive, and, in fact, impracticable for the business of freight and passenger steamboats. The boats which navigate the Ohio River above Cincinnati are generally of a smaller class and usually do not pass under the suspension bridge. A bridge is a permanent structure which must always be, to a greater or less extent, an obstruction to the free and untrammeled use of the river. The interests involved are therefore not only those of to-day, but those which may grow up in the future. There is no question of the fact that the present interests requiring the construction of a bridge across the river are large and should receive proper consideration, but it is believed that such interests received fair consideration when the general bridge law was enacted; and in the interest of all parties who are now or may hereafter be concerned in the bridging of the Ohio River, it would seem that the general law should be enforced until it can be shown that its provisions are not equitable, and then it should be repealed or changed for the good of the general public. A careful reconsideration of the question of the authority conferred on the Secretary of War by the act of February 14, 1883, to make changes in a bridge where the site is unfavorable, convinces the Board that a channel-span of more than 500 feet may be insisted upon. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Board is of the opinion that the location selected by the "Kentucky and Ohio Bridge Company" for a bridge over the Ohio between Covington and Cincinnati is an unfavorable one, and that the plans presented for consideration should not receive the approval of the Secretary of War. The Board knows of no circumstances connected with the construc tion of a bridge in the proposed location which warrant an exercise of the discretion given by the special act or any modification of the gen eral bridge law tending to lessen its requirements. If the proposed site is to be retained, one channel-span should, in the interest of the coal traffic, be provided giving a clear width of waterway at all stages of not less than 550 feet. In the event of the presentation of plans for a bridge on the proposed site with a channel-span giving a clear width of water-way at all stages of not less than 550 feet and leaving to the bridge company the alternative of a pivot-draw in a span next to main span in conformity with the general law, or, in lieu of the pivot-span, a high span giving head room of at least 53 feet at high water, it is recommended such plans be approved. The Board requests that there be appended to this report a copy of the letter of Col. Wm. E. Merrill, of February 20, 1882,* printed in Report No. 814, House of Representatives, Forty-seventh Congress, first session. This letter contains much important information and statistics and had very great weight in fixing the height for bridges over the Ohio River under existing laws. The letter is especially valuable, but the whole of the document might with propriety be made an appendix to this report. The following papers received by the Board are transmitted herewith: Letter from John A. Wood & Son, of Pittsburgh, Pa., giving certain statistics as to amount of coal, etc., passing Cincinnati by river annually. Protest from the "Steamboat Officers' Protection Association," of Pittsburgh, against the construction of the proposed bridge. Letters received through Mr. Randolph, chief engineer of the Bridge Company; from C. C. Waite and M. Ingalls, of the Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton, and Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis and Chicago Railway Companies; from Capt. W. Honshell; and from A. Petry, giving certain gauge-readings. Written communications giving statistics are expected from the Pittsburgh Coal Exchange and Cincinnati Board of Trade, and will *Report of Colonel Merrill's appended. For the report of the Committee on Commerce, see Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1882, pages 2001-2010. 8872 ENG 87--165 be forwarded as soon as received. This information was before the Board, but not in such form as to admit of being sent with report. It has not been deemed proper to delay the report for the papers expected, but they should properly be considered in connection with the question at issue. Respectfully submitted. The CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U. S. A. WM. P. CRAIGHILL, Major of Engineers. A. MACKENZIE, Major of Engineers. REPORT OF MAJOR WILLIAM E. MERRILL, CORPS OF ENGINEERS. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, GENERAL: I have the honor to submit the following report upon House bill No. 204, Forty-seventh Congress, first session, a copy of which was received at this office with department letter of the 2d instant. The law that now governs the construction of bridges across the Ohio River was passed December 17, 1872. The proposed act is supplementary and additional. It does not abolish the existing law, but merely adds to the present authorized structures two other styles of bridge. leaving to bridge-builders the privilege of choosing from among all the legalized styles that particular one which may best suit their convenience. To assist in comprehending the provisions of the existing bridge law, and the additions included in the proposed amendatory act, I have prepared the following tabular statement. It will be observed that the proposed act affects only such bridges as are now required to have high-water draws, which are those which cross the Ohio below the Cincinnati Suspension Bridge. The question of the kind of bridge that should be erected across the Ohio River has two sides, the commercial and the engineering, and an intelligent discussion of the proposed law requires that both of these sides should be fairly presented. Immediately, therefore, upon the receipt of the bill in question, I sent copies of the same to all the representative commercial bodies of the Ohio Valley, requesting an expression of opinion as to its provisions. I inclose herewith the replies received from the joint committee of the Chamber of Commerce and the Coal Exchange of Pittsburgh, from the Board of Trade of Gallipolis, from the Board of Trade of Cincinnati (concurred in by the Chamber of Commerce), and from the Louisville Board of Trade. The conclusions of these bodies may be concisely stated as follows: The river interests of Pittsburgh state that no form of low draw-bridge is admissible under any circumstances. They recommend that the present law be so changed as to require that all bridges shall have two clear openings of 500 feet each, and a height above high water of 45 feet. The river interests of Gallipolis wholly condemn low draw-bridges, but approve of the high bridge with 400-foot spans. The river interests of Cincinnati likewise unqualifiedly condemn the second alternative in the proposed act, the low draw-bridge, but approve the proposition to increase the height of bridges and to abandon the high-water draw, provided the channelopening be increased to 500 feet. They think, however, that a height of 62 feet above high water is unnecessary, and that a height of 53 feet would answer every need of navigation. The river interests of Louisville object to any change in the present law, and specially condemn the low draw-bridge. Before proceeding further it is advisable to give a brief description of the leading kinds of navigation on the Ohio, as the adaptability of any style of bridge to the wants of navigation can not be determined until the characteristics of that navigation are understood. Probably the most important river interest on the Ohio is the transportation of coal. Although the total value of the coal transported is small as compared with that of other shipments by river, this interest exceeds all others in importance, as cheap fuel is the foundation of all manufacturing prosperity, and the manufacturing interests of the Ohio Valley, which are already very large and are daily becoming more important, are wholly dependent upon the river for fuel. There are numerous railroads, in all directions, that pass through rich coal basins, but they never attempt to supply coal except during the occasional coal famines which succeed long periods of low water. They find it imposssble to compete with the river during a good boating season, and hence have not provided themselves with facilities for handling coal. It is, therefore, of national importance that no avoidable obstacle should be placed in the way of the cheap transportation of coal by water. The method of bringing coal from the mines on the Monongahela, the great Kanawha, and the Ohio itself, is to load the coal in barges, collect these barges into fleets, and push them down the river by large tow-boats. Above Louisville the fleets are usually composed of from six to sixteen barges, covering an area of from oue-half an acre to an acre and one third, with a width of from 75 to 100 feet, and a length of from 400 to 600 feet. An average fleet of ten barges brings to market 120,000 bushels or 4,500 tons of coal. Below Louisville the river is wider, and there are as yet no bridges; it is therefore the rule to double the size of the fleets which carry fuel from Louisville to New Orleans and other cities and towns on the Lower Mississippi. It is for this commerce that wide spans are needed. No special provision for height is required, as tow-boats are always lower than first-class passenger steam-boats. Whatever height will snit the latter will necessarily suit the former; and, conversely, the widths necessary for coal fleets will more than suffice for passenger and freight steamers. It is claimed that for safety coal fleets should have channel spans of 500 feet, and in this claim I fully agree. The necessity for such an increase in width on the river below Louisville, where coal tows are doubled, is too apparent to need much discussion. No bridge has thus far been built on this part of the river, although one has been authorized, and is now under construction, at Henderson. The projectors of this bridge, at the urgent request of the representatives of the Pittsburgh Coal Exchange, voluntarily agreed to increase the channel span so as to give a clear opening of 500 feet. Above Louisville the matter rests on different grounds. There is no difficulty for an upper river coal fleet to run during daylight the channel-span of any properly ocated bridge giving a clear opening of 400 feet, but it is not at all an easy matter to do so during the night. Under the present distribution of bridges across the upper Obio, coal shippers select such hours of starting and such rates of travel as will enable them to reach each bridge during daylight. A bridge has, however, just been authorized at the mouth of the Great Kanawha, which is at such a distance from the Lext bridge above (that at Parkersburg) that it will be almost impossible to avoid passing it at night unless the fleet is stopped to await daylight. But it is not an easy matter to land a coal fleet at any time, and suitable landings are not always available. Even should it be found practicable to make a landing the result would be a loss of twelve hours in passing the bridge. It is possible that the running of bridges at night may be facilitated by additional lights on the bridge and on the banks, but, even at the best, any bridge built in a section of the river that is now habitually run |