there a headway of 12 feet for the street travel. A great reduction of curvature and grade could be made on the Cincinnati side by a slight change in location, but we have not done this, because we wished to avoid questions of purchase of property. The company, when raising the bridge, can make such changes in this respect as may be most advantageous to themselves.

According to the design upon which the bridge is building, the railroad track gets down to the grade of the Little Miami Railroad near the depot grounds. In the proposed modification the track at that point will be about 25 feet above the present one at the depot, but by building a new passenger depot with one front of it on Pearl street, the floor would be placed on a level with the track. The building of this depot will be supplying a want of the road, and is not properly chargeable to the bridge.

It only remains to be added that we have calculated the weight which the piers will have to stand, when raised, and find that it will not be one-tenth of the load required to crush the poorest stones employed in constructing them.

Our estimate of the amount of money required to make the proposed change is $288,695; the details are given further on. If the change should be delayed til the 400-foot span is erected, the cost would be somewhat increased. The bridge, when remodeled, will then have cost, all told, $1,109,089.

Had the high plan been adopted at first, the cost of the pivot-pier and all its appurtenances, the cost of part of the brick-work in the railroad approaches, the cost of the wooden trestle-work between Front street and Eggleton avenue, which we replace with iron trestles, and piers, and bridge, and, finally, the extra cost of raising the piers and trusses from one plan to the other, would have been saved. Taken all together the amount of money in this last estimate that might have been saved is about $132,000, so that the high bridge, if built at first, would have cost $977,089.

It cannot be claimed, however, that $1,109,089 is too much money to put in a bridge across the Ohio River. The suspension-bridge cost more than this, and so did the bridge at Louisville.

The work is progressing rapidly, and it would be safe to conclude that, before any action can be had by Congress, all the substructure will be finished, and the superstructure of three or four of the minor spans erected. The 400-foot span, however, cannot be finished, nor can the draw-span and the others, if erected subsequently, be raised without increased expense beyond what we have estimated for. The proper protection to the foundation of the piers, for which we have allowed in our estimate of the cost, remains to be made.

It seems called for, even in this special report, that we should give our opinion as to the kind of general legislation that should be had in regard to bridges across the Ohio River. The demand for these bridges is increasing, and Congress, for its own protection, ought now to finally dispose of the subject in such a way that the river interests should no longer be threatend with destruction, and that bridge companies might no longer hope for special favors, but be compelled to work on a well-understood and digested plan. The capabilities of engineering and the resources of the railroad corporations are ample to meet any just requirements of navigation.

It is not uncommon to hear the navigation of the Ohio disparaged; to hear repeated the false assertion that the river is dry one-half of the year, and frozen up the other half; and to be told that the interest at most is a local one.

In another part of this report is given a condensation of the official record of the river at Cincinnati for the last twelve years, which shows the average condition for each month. From this it can be seen that for three hundred and twenty-six days in each year the river is at least 5 feet above low-water; for two hundred and fifty-three days, at least 10 feet above; and for one hundred and ninety-one days, at least 15 feet above. This represents the condition of the river from as high up as Portsmouth, at the mouth of the Sciota River, down to Louisville. On this part of the river vessels are almost constantly running that are 300 feet long, and each one carries on an average 150 tons per day, or 4,500 tons per month. This is enough to show the capacity of the river, in the space considered, without taking into account the business of the coal and other barges moved by tugs. The statistics of commerce show the river business to be greatly increasing. The same advances which are seen in other great lines of transportation are seen here. Vessels are being built of increasing size and value, and the Government is removing great obstructions which have hitherto retarded devel opment. One can see the growth of the nation in contemplating our great river commerce as plainly exhibited as it is on our great inland lakes, in our coasting trade, or even in the railroad lines themselves, and no American can see it without being proud

of it.

The interest is anything but a local one, and while the bridge itself may be regarded as local, the principles involved in allowing it to be placed across a great navigable highway apply to every navigable stream in the country, and are worthy of the consideration of every man having a voice in the matter.

We think, if Congress should compel the alteration of the Newport and Cincinnati bridge, as we recommend, and should repeal or modify the joint resolution approve i

April 7, 1869, authorizing a bridge at Paducah, that this action would be acceptable to all the river interests. Then let a general law be passed that hereafter all bridges to be built across the Ohio River shall have at least one span giving a clear opening 400 feet wide, measured at right angles to the stream, as near as practicable, and that the headway under this span shall not be less than 100 feet from lowest water nor less than 40 feet from highest water. These two requirements about the height make the provision apply to all places. Where the river oscillates less than 60 feet between low and high water, 40 feet above high water is not enough, as it does not furnish sufficient headway for long-continued intermediate stages of the water.

In addition to the above requirements, all bridges below Cincinnati should have a draw-span, giving a clear passage-way, 160 feet wide, placed so as to be available in the highest stages of the river for the use of the large packet-steamers that cannot at that time pass under the bridge. This may be an important provision in case of a war requiring the transportation of large numbers of troops along the river.

There is already a draw in the Louisville bridge, half of which is over the canal, that will soon be made available for the river by altering a part of the canal-bank. We think it would have been advisable to have had draws in all the bridges above Cincinnati, but there are so many bridges already built there without them that it is too late to consider the subject.

It is further of the greatest importance that the law should specify some branch of the Government to supervise its execution. Special cases will arise at each locality that can hardly be foreseen and provided for in a general law. It is believed, however, that a general law can be passed that will sufficiently meet all cases without imposing any additional expense or delay upon bridge companies if its operations be put under the direction of some Government engineer.

The bridge companies have not generally shown a desire to have the advice of the Government officers in charge of the river improvements. These officers have in no case been consulted, though their advice, before commencing, would have cost nothing, and would greatly have strengthened the position of the bridge company.

Where bridge interests have needlessly obstructed navigation, they are without exeuse, and in correcting their mistakes there need be felt no apprehension of trespassing upon vested rights, as these rights were made conditional upon not obstructing navigation.

The following documents and maps accompany this report:
The acts of Congress under which this bridge is being built.

Map showing the location of the bridge in reference to the cities of Newport and Cincinnati, with recorded current observations and soundings. Also, on the same sheet, a map of eight miles of the river, showing its curvature above and below Cincinnati. Four photographs of the bridge, taken on the 26th and 27th of November, showing its condition at that time.

HISTORY OF THE LAWS UNDER WHICH THE NEWPORT AND CINCINNATI BRIDGE IS BEING BUILT.

This bridge has been designed under the law approved July 14, 1862, authorizing the building of bridges over the Ohio River, above the mouth of the Big Sandy River, modified by the joint resolution approved March 3, 1869, and under the alternative that permits of a bridge being built here with a span of 400 feet over the main navigable channel, with one of the adjoining spans, giving a clear opening of 220 feet at a height of 70 feet above low water, provided a draw is made at an accessible and navigable point, giving two clear openings of 100 feet each; and provided that the piers are parallel with the stream as near as practicable. There is no reason given in the debates in Congress for adopting this height of 70 feet above low water, nor for the width of draw of 100 feet. The chief river interests that opposed the original bill for erecting the Steubenville bridge, which proposed only spans of 200 feet, were those of the coal boats and rafts; but Mr. Willey, United States Senator from Virginia, and Mr. Wilkinson, United States Senator from Minnesota, protested then that the draw was inadequate for steamboats. The raft and coal-boat interests were most earnest in demanding a wide channel-span, but finally consented, through Senator Cowan, to a span of 300 feet. In the bill, as finally passed, the bridge-builders were allowed the option of building without a draw, provided that they raised the bottom chord of the 300-foot span to 90 feet above low water, and to 40 feet above high water, which thus made the law for the high bridge accommodate places where the range from high to Jow water differed from that at Steubenville. But, singularly enough, there was no such provision with regard to the alternative of the draw-bridge plan. On the latter plan the bridge was required to be but 70 feet above low water, but no provision was made in regard to the height above high water. The river rises at Steubenville from low water to highest water, 45 feet; consequently the draw-bridge plan, if adopted there, would have been 25 feet above high water. The rise from low to highest water at Cincinnati is 624 feet, so that the bridge, which is there 714 feet above low water,

is only 9 feet above the highest water, which is barely enough for its own safety. The fact that the original act was limited to the Ohio River above the Big Sandy, shows that its enactors never contemplated its being applied to points below. The debates in full will be found in parts three and four of the Congressional Globe, second session of the Thirty-seventh Congress, pages 2230, 2247, 2419, 2539, 2850, 3050, 3111, 3112, 3113, 3114, 3115, 3195, 3197, 3216.

The Steubenville Bridge Company accepted the alternative in the law which required the bridge, if without a draw, to be 90 feet above low water. This settled the longcontested point of ability to build railroad bridges with 300-foot spans. Incidentally it may be here said of this bridge, that it violates the requirements of the law in not having its piers parallel with the current as near as practicable; and, moreover, the defective foundations have compelled the use of riprap around the piers, so as to occupy about 40 feet of the space the law required to be left unobstructed. (See report of Senate Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads, No. 168, second session, Fortieth Congress, pages 5, 11, and 12.)

The bridging of the Ohio River was again introduced into Congress by House bill No. 384, second session, Fortieth Congress, (Congressional Globe, page 473.) A substitute to it was passed through the House February 27, 1868, after considerable debate. (See pages 1471, 1472, 1473.) This substitute authorized the building of a bridge at Paducah, under the provisions of the act approved July 25, 1866, for bridging the Mississippi River. On the same day the House passed House bill No. 755. (See Congressional Globe, page 1473.) The bill, as first introduced, extended the privileges of the act approved July 14, 1862, down as far as the mouth of the Licking River, so as to include the Newport and Cincinnati bridge; but, as finally passed, it was so amended that the bridge was required, if a high bridge, to be not less than 50 feet from the bottom chord to the level of high water, with a clear span of 250 feet; and, if a low bridge, it was to have a pivot-draw giving two clear openings of 160 feet each, so that its provisions were nearly the same as the bill for the bridge at Paducah, and for that at Quincy, Illinois, and at other points on the Mississippi River.

On the 22d of June, 1868, Mr. G. B. Raum, member from Illinois, introduced a joint resolution, No. 305, (see Globe, page 3364,) providing that hereafter all bridges building or to be built over the Ohio should have one span, giving an unobstructed width of 500 feet, and that the bottom chord should not be less than 50 feet above high water. This came up again in the order of business on July 6, (Globe, page 3760,) and was amended so as not to apply to the bridge at Louisville. In this shape it passed the House.

House bill No. 384 was referred to Senate Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads, March 4, 1868, (Globe, page 1658;) reported back with amendment, page 1863; motion made by Mr. Norton to recommit, page 2509; discussed, pages 2545, 2546, 2547, 2548; recommitted, page 2548; reconsidered and discussed, pages 2556, 2557, 2558, 2559. Many interesting facts relating to navigation, especially in regard to size of barges, coal-tows, &c., were produced in these last discussions. House bill No. 384, also No. 725, and several memorials on the subject of bridging the Ohio, were referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads in the Senate. This Senate Committee, on May 25, (Congressional Globe, page 2159,) made their report (Globe, page 4093) on the 16th of July, 1868. It is No. 168, second session, Fortieth Congress. It was accompanied by a general bill, No. 622, for bridging the Ohio River. This bill at first did not fix the width of greatest span required. It was recommitted July 17, (Globe, page 4145,) and reported back on the same day, (Globe, page 4146.)

As finally reported by the committee, it required one span, giving a headway of 40 feet above high water, and 500 feet clear width of passage-way.

The committee report, No. 168, is quite full upon the subject of bridging the Ohio, and presents all the main features of the case. It makes an unimportant error in stating, on page 2, that the object of House bill No. 725 was to extend the provisions of the act of July 14, 1862, down to the mouth of the Licking River. This was the effect of the bill as it was introduced, but, as passed in the House, it was so amended as to make the provisions of the bill for bridging the Mississippi, approved July 25, 1866, applicable to the Ohio, between the mouths of the Big Sandy and Licking Rivers.

The debates on the Senate bill No. 622, as finally reported by the Committee on PostOffices and Post-Roads, are found in the Congressional Globe, second session, Fortieth Congress, pages 4199, 4200, 4201, 4202, 4203, 4204, 4267, 4268, 4269, 4283, 4284, 4255, 4286, 4287, 4289, 4290, 4291, 4292.

The result of the debate in the Senate was to pass a substitute for the bill as first reported by the committee, which directed that the President should appoint a board of scientific engineers, not more than seven nor less than five in number, who should report to the next session of Congress the proper width of spans in railroad-bridges across the Ohio River, that they might be adapted to the wants of navigation on that river; and that, until Congress should, by law, take action upon said report, no bridge should be constructed over said river, &c. But this provision was not to apply to the bridge in process of construction over the Ohio, at Louisville.

On July 25, Mr. Hendricks submitted to the Senate another resolution to appoint a board of three engineers to make a survey of the Ohio River, where bridges were projected, and to report what length of span was necessary to meet the requirements of navigation and of the public interest, (Globe, page 4462.) No action was taken on this resolution.

Senate bill No. 622 was received in the House July 22, (Globe, page 4334,) but no action was taken upon it during this session.

In the third session of the Fortieth Congress, Senate bill No. 622 came up in the House on the 10th of December, and was referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals: Considerable debate attended this action. (See Globe, third session, Fortieth Congress, pages 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55.) On December 14, 1868, the House passed a resolution authorizing the committee to examine, under oath, skilled and scientific witnesses. (See Globe, page 75.) On March 1, Mr. Cook, of Illinois, introduced House bill No. 2014, which, in substance, was the same as Senate bill No. 622, in its modified form, and it was passed. (See Globe, page 1742.) It was referred, in the Senate, to the Committee on Commerce. (See page 1715.) No further action was taken, either upon Senate bill No. 622 or upon House bill No. 2014, and thus was presented the singular, spectacle of bills for the same object being passed in each House, under different titles, and, in both cases, perishing in the committee-rooms.

In the third session of the Fortieth Congress, (Congressional Globe, page 1028,) February 9, Mr. Sherman introduced joint resolution No. 219, giving assent to the construction of the Newport and Cincinnati bridge. At the same time Mr. Morton introduced joint resolution (Senate report, No. 220) to prevent the building of any bridges over the Ohio with a central span of less than 400 feet. Both resolutions were referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads. On February 11, joint resolution' No. 219 was reported, amended so as to require a span of 400 feet, and it was stated to be satisfactory to all parties. Mr. Morton added an amendment reserving the right to direct the necessary modifications and alterations of said bridge. The Senate then passed it, (Congressional Globe, page 1068.)

On March 2 the resolution was called up, by unanimous consent, by Mr. Cary, and passed without debate, (Globe, page 1809.) It is No. 21 of the joint resolutions which passed Congress at that session.

It is claimed, by those interested in the navigation of the Ohio River, and also by Representatives Moorhead, Eggleston, and Cary, who voted for the bill giving assent to the construction of the Newport and Cincinnati bridge, and to whom was specially intrusted the duty of preserving the free navigation of the Ohio River, that it was mutually agreed by all the parties in interest that the bridge should be as high as the Covington and Cincinnati suspension-bridge, viz: 103 feet above low water. As.the bridge companies at Steubenville, Bellaire, and Parkersburgh all decided to build high and not draw bridges, although they had the option to do either, the public came to regard that part of the law of July 14, 1862, as a dead letter; and even when revived and extended to Cincinnati, where it is yet more inapplicable, they did not dream that, in the face of direct assertions to the contrary, the bridge company would adopt so objectionable an alternative.

The following statements from Representatives Moorhead, Eggleston, and Cary are made part of this history, as also the statement of the committee of the Pittsburgh city councils and Coal Exchange, who went to see the authorities of the Pennsylvania Central Railroad Company, in Philadelphia, to remonstrate against the manner in which this bridge was being built. The latter document shows that the constructors of the bridge acknowledge that the matter of raising it presents no engineering difficulties, but is merely a question of cost.

Statement of Hon. James K. Moorhead.

I. James K. Moorhead, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, do state that I was a member of the Fortieth Congress from the twenty-second congressional district, Pennsylvania, and took a deep interest in the question of bridging the Ohio River; that the citizens of Pittsburgh and others, interested in the navigation of said river, did at different times send committees to Washington to represent the importance of maintaining the navigation of said river unimpaired and prevent obstruction to it by bridging the same; that, during the winter of 1868 and 1869, such committee was there, composed of R. C. Gray, Joseph Walton, J. A. Blackmore, William H. Browne, and W. Milnor Roberts, with whom I had frequent conferences on the subject, and I have read a statement, dated Pittsburgh, November 4, 1870, signed by the four first-named persons, which statement I attach hereto:

"PITTSBURGH, November 4, 1870. "We, the undersigned, hereby certify that we were a committee representing the river interests at Washington during the session of Congress, in 1863, and that our business there was to urge upon Congress the necessity for the passage of a general

law for the bridging of the Ohio River, in such manner as to leave the navigation of the river safe and unobstructed. We claim that all bridges should have a main span over the channel of 500 feet in length, and a height of 40 feet above extreme high water. At that time we were aware of the fact that two bridges, one at Bellaire, and one at Parkersburgh, were in course of construction, and that these bridges were to have main spans of only 300 feet, [since made 350 feet.-Ed., ] and elevation of 90 feet above low water. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company had representatives advocating these bridges. We met the late Judge Headington, of Cincinnati, who was there representing the Newport and Cincinnati Bridge Company, and he promised to us, on behalf of that company, that he would agree to make that bridge 400-foot span, and as high over the channel as the Cincinnati suspension-bridge, and that, if we would assent to this, we should have his influence and the influence of his company to aid us in having a general law passed to this effect. We were also to secure the influence of such members of Congress as we could control in favor of the passage of this law. Upon Judge Headington's repeated and solemn assurances, we called upon General J. K. Moorhead, the member from this district, and requested him to make no objection to the bill aforesaid. We did this only on the solemn promise of Judge Headington that the Newport bridge would be built with a 400-foot span, and as high as the suspensionbridge, and that the piers would be so located as to leave the navigation safe. Until recently we were of opinion and belief that this bridge was being built according to this agreement and understanding with Judge Headington. And we further state that the ridiculous proposition of a draw one hundred feet in width was never mentioned or referred to by Judge Headington or any one else.

"RICHARD C. GRAY. "JOSEPH WALTON. "J. A. BLACKMORE. "WM. H. BROWNE."

That I believe the same to be correct and true, and recollect distinctly of one or more of said committee informing me that they had compromised with the bridge company upon a span of four hundred feet in length across the main channel, and in other respects satisfactory to them, and they desired me to make no opposition to the resolution when it reached the House. But, before the bill was called up in the House by General Cary, I learned that the act of July 14, 1862, was made applicable to it ; and as this act permitted the alternative of a draw, and knowing, as I did, that a bridge constructed with a draw, and in other respects in compliance with that provision of the act, would be destructive to the interests of my constituents who were engaged in navigating the river, I determined to oppose it unless that part permitting a draw was stricken out. I made this known to General Cary, who assured me there was no intention of constructing the bridge with a draw; that the reference to the act of 1862 was to define the height; and, to give me assurance of this, he introduced me to a gentleman who represented the interests of the bridge company, Judge Headington, I believe it was, who assented fully to what General Cary had stated. I had no idea after that that a draw was contemplated by any person until I learned a few weeks since that one was actually being constructed.

Upon the assurances given me, I permitted the joint resolution to pass. It was called up on the 2d of March, 1869, (one day before close of the Fortieth Congress.) An objection or amendment offered at that time would have been fatal.

In further testimony as to the compromise made between the representatives of the bridge company and the committee from Pittsburgh, before referred to, I have a letter from Colonel W. Milnor Roberts, dated St. Louis, November 1, 1870, informing me that he was one of the committee who made the compromise; that they agreed to admit a span of 400 feet instead of 500, and were to have the aid and support of the bridge company or railroad men in establishing 400 feet as the minimum for the channel-span of all other Ohio River bridges.

That nothing was said about a draw; they all understood that it was to be the full height contemplated by the law for a bridge of continuous spans.

PITTSBURGH, November 19, 1870.

Statement of Hon. Benjamin Eggleston.

J. K. MOORHEAD.

I, Benjamin Eggleston, do state that I was a member of the Fortieth Congress, and took a deep interest in the question of bridging the Ohio River at and before the resolution of consent of Congress to the building the Cincinnati and Newport bridge; that I met Judge Headington there, who was representing the bridge company, and learned from him that a compromise had been effected satisfactory to the river interest, and that it had been agreed that the bridge should be built as high as the suspension-bridge at Cincinnati, with a span 400 feet long over the main channel. At his request I introduced him to the proper committee of the House, who were requested to report by him