Should it be decided by the national authorities to proceed with this work, additional surveys will be necessary for the definitive determi nation of the location in detail. These surveys should be immediately undertaken, and a sum not less than $25,000 should be appropriated for them.

The following papers accompany this report:

1. Report of Mr. W. G. Turpin, dated December 28, 1870. 2. Report of Mr. Wm. R. Hutton, dated January 21, 1871.

3. Printed pamphlet on "Central Water-line," 1869, in duplicate, containing the interesting and instructive paper of Mr. E. Lorraine, the chief engineer of the James River and Kanawha Company. This paper contains an important letter from Mr. B. H. Latrobe, whose known ability and experience entitle his opinions about the long tunnel to the greatest weight. Mr. Lorraine's paper is prefaced by a very forcible argument to show the necessity of a central line of navigation directly eastward, from the Ohio River to the Chesapeake Bay.

4. Memorial (printed in duplicate, 1870) of the general assembly of Virginia to the Congress of the United States.

5. Printed report of the committee of National Board of Trade on the continuous water-line, in duplicate, 1869.

6. Printed remarks of T. M. Monroe, of Dubuque, before the National Board of Trade in December, 1868.

7. Printed memorial of delegates to the National Board of Trade, 1870, Cincinnati. In duplicate.

8. Printed report on physical survey of Virginia, by W. F. Maury, 1869.

9. Letter, printed, of Mr. Joseph Segar on the "Great thoroughfares and their national aspects," October 1, 1868.

10. Extract from letter of Mr. E. Lorraine, dated November 28, 1870Respectfully submitted.

Brigadier General A. A. HUMPHREYS,

WM. P. CRAIGHILL,
Major of Engineers.

Chief of Engineers, U. S. A., Washington, D. C.

Q 13, (2.)

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, January 21, 1871. SIR: I have the honor to submit the following preliminary report on the results of the examinations and surveys for the extension of the James River and Kanawha Canal, from the eastern base of the Alleghanies; together with an approximate estimate of the cost of the improvement.

The necessity imposed upon me by you to make report early in the present year, to enable Congress to take action upon the matter, has not allowed time for much careful preparation or detailed study; but no point of importance has been overlooked, and the estimate is believed to be sufficient to cover the cost.

The work was placed by you in my hands about the middle of August last, with instructions to determine "the best route for the canal itself, and the means of its ultimate connection with the Ohio River, so as to open a great central line of water communication for the West and Northwest with the East." The organization of a corps of assistants.

was immediately commenced, and by the 24th of August they were in the field.

The length of line covered by these instructions was two hundred and twenty-two miles. The amount appropriated to it being hardly sufficient to organize one party, it was evident that but a small portion of it could be actually surveyed. The late period of the season, as well as the smallness of the appropriation, rendered it necessary to make use of all available information from reliable sources, and to limit our own operations in the field to such points as had not been satisfactorily determined before.

With a view, therefore, first to decide as to the best crossing of the main Alleghany mountain, the survey was commenced at the mouth of Fork Run on Dunlap's creek, at the termination of the definitive location heretofore made for its works by the James River and Kanawha Company, and a line was thence traced to the Greenbrier River near the mouth of Howard's Creek.

These mountain surveys occupied more than a month, and it was not until the 6th of October that we were able to begin the examination and survey of the Greenbrier. This stream presented no difficulties of a formidable nature, while those at New River had been represented as "appalling" and "insurmountable."

Leaving, therefore, my assistants to continue the survey of the former stream, I made a personal reconnaissance of New River as far as Bowyer's Ferry, resulting in the abandonment of the Greenbrier survey and the transfer of the party to New River.

A fresh line was commenced just below Stretcher's Neck, (the level heights being kindly furnished by the engineers of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad,) and prosecuted until the 20th of November, when the low state of the funds rendered it necessary to disband the party at a point some three miles below Bowyer's Ferry. The remainder of the line was gone over by myself as far as the mouth of the Kanawha River.

OBJECT OF THE EXTENSION.

The enlargement and extension of the James River and Kanawha Canal, which is known to our commercial conventions and others by the title of the Virginia Water-line," is designed to connect the Ohio with the Atlantic, through the valleys of the Kanawha and the James and their tributaries, and to form an interior water-line for the transportation at low rates of heavy freight, from all parts of the West to the Atlantic, combining river, canal, and slack-water navigation.

The project looks to the enlargement of the present James River Canal, already completed to Buchanan, one hundred and ninety-one miles from Richmond, its continuation to and across the Alleghany summit to the Greenbrier River, and by the improvement of that and New River to the Ohio.

From Hampton Roads to Richmond, a distance of one hundred miles, the James River is navigable for vessels of one thousand tons. Thence to the Greenbrier River, the length of the proposed canal is 274.1 miles. The total length of Greenbrier and New Rivers to the foot of Lyken's shoals on the Kanawha 124.2, and thence to the Ohio, 85.1 miles; making the total distance from Hampton Roads to Mount Pleasant on the Ohio River, 609.7 miles.

SCALE.

The scale of the enlargement was not specified by the law making the appropriation, or in the formal instructions communicated to me.

The James River Company, by its chief engineer, Mr. Lorraine, recommends a prism nearly as large as the Erie Canal, of New York, with locks of somewhat greater capacity. These dimensions have been adopted or assumed by the States of Iowa, Virginia, and West Virginia, in their memorials to Congress on the subject, and by the National Board of Trade of 1869 in its resolutions and the reports of its committees. The Commercial Convention assembled in Cincinnati in October, 1870, recommended the construction of the work on a scale sufficient to pass boats of 500 tons burden. The following estimates have been based on dimensions nearly as proposed by Mr. Lorraine, to wit: width of prism at water-surface, 70 feet; at bottom, 56 feet; and 7 feet depth, with slope-walls on both sides; the locks to be 120 feet long between the gates and 20 feet wide at the lower water-line. These proportions are taken, chiefly, because they are the basis of all that has been written upon the subject, and particularly of the estimate for enlargement from Richmond to Fork Run.

Cheapness of transportation is the great object to be attained by the work under consideration, and this varies very nearly with the capacity of the boats used. A smaller canal could be built for less money, but the cost of transportation on it, and of management, would, per ton, be higher. I consider the dimensions adopted as the least that will properly carry out the objects in view.

On the other hand, any considerable enlargement of scale will increase the cost in a rapidly ascending ratio; the water-supply would become more uncertain or expensive, and, in view of the capability for enlargement of the locks proposed, any material change seems to me undesirable. Were the question entirely new, however, I would advise a somewhat wider lock on the canal, as tending to cheapen transportation and offering better facilities for future enlargement.

PREVIOUS SURVEYS.

In 1817-'19 surveys were made of Greenbrier and New Rivers, by 'Messrs. Moore and Briggs, with a view to their improvement by sluices for batteaux drawing from 1 to 2 feet of water only. Their report is valuable for the accurate description of the rivers, their fall, &c.

From Dunlap's Creek to the Greenbrier River full examinations and surveys for a canal were made in 1826-28 by Captain McNeil, United States Army, every route being examined which gave any promise, resulting in a location by way of Fork Run and Howard's Creek, which was adopted by the James River and Kanawha Company. Subsequent surveys by the engineers of the company have confirmed the superiority of this location.

In 1838 Ed. H. Gill made a minute and careful survey and report on the improvement of the Kanawha River, under the direction of Charles Ellet, jr., then chief engineer, recommending a system of locks from pool to pool, combined with wing-dams, for the purpose of obtaining a depth of 3 feet at low stages.

Mr. Gill made, in 1841, an examination of the Greenbrier and New Rivers, and recommended a plan for their improvement. He proposed for the former stream a mixed system of canal and slack-water, and for New River of locks and dams suitable for steamboat navigation. His plans are marked by good judgment and skill, although in some cases their boldness is rather to be admired than imitated. His report is approved in general terms by Benjamin Wright and Charles Ellet, and, with some reservations, by Charles B. Fisk, all eminent civil engineers.

Another survey and estimate for improving the Kanawha was made, under the direction of Mr. Fisk, in 1855, by John A. Byers, on the plan of sluice-dams, at short intervals, on the ripples, with a view to obtain 5 feet depth of water.

A third project was submitted to the directors of the Kanawha improvement, in 1860, by Charles Ellet, jr., their engineer at that time, who proposed, after clearing out the sluices and confining the water to the channel, to supply from reservoirs the quantity needed for purposes of navigation beyond the natural flow of the stream.

LOCATION ACROSS THE ALLEGHANY SUMMIT.

The first point in my instructions was to determine the best route for the canal from the termination of the definitive location made. As before stated, the line selected by Captain McNeil in 1828 had been adopted as the best that could be found. Other routes have been brought forward by local advocates, none more prominently than that by way of Craig's Creek, connecting it with Sinking or Poverty Creeks, (more southern branches of New River.) This line was examined by Captain McNeil, and more recently by other engineers, all of whom have declared it to possess no claims to attention. Under the circumstances, and in view of the little time at my disposal, I have made no further investigations into the merits of this route.

While the line adopted by Captain McNeil has not been improved as to its general location, an important modification of it has been recommended and urged by Mr. Ed. Lorraine, chief engineer of the James River Company. McNeil's line ascended the valley of Fork Run to an elevation of 1,916 feet above tide, and there pierced the ridge with a tunnel of two and five-eighths miles in length, whence it descended the valley of Howard's Creek to the Greenbrier. Mr. Lorraine proposes "to establish the summit at a level 1,700 feet above tide, or twenty feet above the level of Greenbrier River, at the mouth of Howard's Creek, and pass through the Alleghany Mountain by a tunnel about nine miles long." This, then, was the real question as to the route across the Alleghany summit.

The line now recommended for the canal, from the mouth of Fork Run, ascends the valley of that stream to an elevation of 1,700 feet above tide, then passes through the Alleghany Mountain by a tunnel 7.8 miles in length, crossing also under the summits of Tuckahoe and Kate's Mountain, and, emerging in the valley of Howard's Creek, follows it to the Greenbrier River. The whole distance is 12.6 miles. The ascent on the eastern slope is 72 feet, overcome by six locks of 12 feet lift, and the descent westerly from the summit-level, which is 10.55 miles in length, is by three locks of 10 feet lift to the river.

The supply of water will be taken from the Greenbrier River; but as this does not at all times furnish a sufficient quantity, recourse must be had to reservoirs to meet the deficiency. These may be constructed on the river itself, but the very competent surveys made by Mr. Lorraine for a reservoir on Anthony's Creek, one of its tributaries, show that site to be a desirable one, both as to cost and efficiency.

The alternate route for the passage of the main divide continues up Fork Run to an elevation 216 feet above the first-described line; the tunnel is two and five-eighths miles long, and the whole number of locks, ascending and descending, is forty-six.

The tunnel on this route can be worked with any desired number of shafts, and lying principally in the slate and shaly sandstones, the esti mate has been made to cover the cost of arching the whole tunnel.

The supply of water will in this case, also, be obtained from a reservoir, to be constructed on Anthony's Creek, a tributary of the Greenbrier, whence it will pass through a tunnel two and one-half miles long, and a feeder-canal of six and one-half miles to the summit-level.

The distinguishing features of the low level is the long tunnel, longer even than that of Mount Cenis, just now reaching completion; differing from that work, however, in one important particular, that while the Mount Cenis Tunnel was excavated exclusively from the two ends, the one now in consideration can be worked from six shafts as well as from the ends, forming fourteen faces upon which simultaneous progress can be made.

The section recommended and adopted for the estimate is 52 feet wide and 34 feet high, the water-way being 7 by 46 feet, with a tow-path of 6 feet and semicircular roof. I have no doubt that steam in some form will be used as the motive power in this tunnel, but have thought it necessary to provide a narrow tow-path, rather as an assistance in case of accident, than as an auxiliary to navigation. This narrow tow-path is extended through the rock-cuttings of the approaches to the tunnel, in which also the width at water-surface is somewhat reduced, while retaining an equal section.

The extreme length of tunnel is 40,380 feet, and, for the purpose of diminishing the depth of shafts, has been located upon a curve of nearly thirty miles radius, although in construction the tunnel would be made straight from shaft to shaft. The shafts vary in depth from 333 to 693 feet, and the greatest distance between any two of them is 7,500 feet.

The cost of the tunnel varies with its width. Being of great length, it must afford room for the passage of loaded boats moving in opposite directions, and, for the same reason, the resistances to traction, which are directly dependent on the width of water-way, must not be too largely increased.

The dimensions given allow 6 feet for guard-timbers and for space between passing boats, and the resistances will be about 25 per cent. greater than on the 70-foot canal.

The rock through which the excavation will be made is slate and sandstone, of variable quality, from a sandstone shale to the most solid character of rock. Lying below the summit crossed at a depth of 1,000 to 1,300 feet, it is reasonable to suppose that a large portion of the rock will be sufficiently firm and solid to stand without a lining arch. I have, however, included in the estimate the cost of arching one-half of the whole length of the tunnel.

The cost, as estimated, of this line from the mouth of

Fork Run to the Greenbrier is ..... And by the high-level route...

Difference against the low level.....

$15, 636, 757

7,959, 564

7,677, 193

Before comparing these two routes as to the relative cost of transportation over them, we must determine as the elements of computation the probable tonnage and the cost of transportation, per ton, per mile. On the Erie Canal 198 boats have actually been passed through a single lock in one day; we may then safely assume a capacity for 180 boats. The tonnage of the boats which will be used will be about 280 tons, but as the freight going west will not be more than one-fourth of that from the west, we will average them at 180 tons, which will show a trade of 9,720,000 tons per annum or for a season of three hundred days.