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

in favor of such a compromise. I further state that, except for such statement of Judge Headington and the belief in such compromise, no such resolution of consent could have been reported or passed. He further says that he has read over the statement of James K. Moorhead, to which this is attached, and the statement of Richard C. Gray and others, referred to therein, and he believes that these statements are true; and that the river interest yielded 100 feet in the length of the span over the main channel in consideration of the agreement that the bridge should be built as high as the suspension-bridge at Cincinnati.

Statement of Hon. S. F. Cary.

BENJAMIN EGGLESTON.

I, Samuel F. Cary, of Hamilton County, Ohio, state that I was a member of the Fortieth Congress from the second congressional district of Ohio. That I felt a deep interest in the subject of bridging the Ohio River; that I was an advocate of a 500-foot span, and nothing less. I further say that I was not induced to yield my opposition to the proposed bridge between Cincinnati and Newport until I was assured by Judge Headington, representing the bridge interest, and by those representing the river interests, and by telegrams shown me from Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, (or officers thereof,) that a span of 400 feet across the channel would be satisfactory to all interests, provided the bridge was as high as the Covington suspension-bridge. It was late in the session, and I feared that the result of non-action by Congress might be attended with serious injury to the river interests, and I supported the resolution. But for the distinct understanding that the bridge was to be as high as the Covington suspension-bridge, and that the resolution was satisfactory to all concerned, I do not believe the resolution could have been passed, and I certainly would not have supported it. I have read the statement signed by the Hon. J. K. Moorhead, and the paper of Richard C. Gray and others, therein referred to, and say that, according to my recollection, they are substantially correct. I further say that the resolution of consent was reported upon the faith of a compromise being thus effected, by which the bridge was to be as high as the suspension-bridge, and of the pledge of the bridge company repre-sented, as I understood by Judge Headington, that the bridge should be so built. CINCINNATI, December 3, 1870.

S. F. CARY.

Statement of committee of Pittsburgh councils and Coal Exchange

The undersigned committee, appointed by the joint committee of the city councils and Coal Exchange of the city of Pittsburgh, to confer with Colonel T. A. Scott, vicepresident of the Pennsylvania Central Railroad Company, in relation to the Cincinnati and Newport bridge, would beg leave to report that they met Colonel Scott, and asked him if the bridge could not be raised to the height of 100 feet above low-water mark, or to 40 feet above high-water mark. Colonel Scott said that he could not answer that question himself, but would call in Mr. Roberts, engineer, who was also vicepresident of the company. Mr. Roberts, after some hesitation, said it could; that the' method would be to raise the piers six feet higher, and to make the roadway over the top of the truss instead of the bottom, and raise the piers of the channel-span to the fall height of the truss-work of the other spans, and construct the truss-work of the channel-span so that the road would be on the bottom chord, and thereby connect with the road running over the top of the truss-work of the other spans; but this change would cost considerably more money. Colonel Scott said the change could be made, but how would the means be raised? The committee stated that they did not come prepared to make propositions, but wished to hear from the Pennsylvania Central Railroad Company. Colonel Scott said if the city of Cincinnati would subscribe to the stock of the bridge, and issue city bonds for the amount necessary to make the change, the Pennsylvania Central Railroad Company would take the bonds and furnish the money. One of the committee suggested the method of raising the money required, by the bridge company issuing bonds, the same as they gave the Pennsylvania Central Railroad Company. Colonel Scott objected. It was then suggested that they issue second-mortgage bonds. Colonel Scott stated that the only acceptable way to raise the money would be by subscription to the stock of the bridge company.

In answer to the question, how would river crafts pass under the bridge in the high water, Colonel Scott said he had no doubt that the coal men would find means to pass through; said he would guarantee that if his friend Captain Bigley had a tow of coal above the bridge in high water, he would manage to get it through.

In answer to the question, what object had they in view for working night and day, also on Sunday, Colonel Scott stated it was to get the piers above water; that they were doing nothing that would not be required for a higher bridge. Colonel Scott treated the committee very kindly, and showed a disposition to do all in his power to remove the present objections to the bridge, provided the means could be raised to

make the changes without expense to the Pennsylvania Central Railroad Company, and also stated that they would take up the matter at once and make the estimate of the additional cost, and correspond, without delay, with the committee.

SIMPSON HORNER.
N. J. BIGLEY.
CHAS. A. DRAVO.
HILL BURGWIN.

OCTOBER 27, 1870.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBSTRUCTURE OF THE NEWPORT AND CINCINNATI BRIDGE AND APPROACHES-EFFECTS UPON THE CURRENTS OF THE RIVER-CHARACTER OF THE WORK, AND ESTIMATE OF ITS COST.

As the location of the 400-foot span is the controlling feature in the structure, so far as navigation is concerned, we will begin with it, and refer to other governing features as they arise in the progress of description, premising that the position of the bridge itself was determined by the desire to make the least expensive location for connecting two railroads on opposite sides of the river. On the drawings of the bridge company the piers are numbered from the Ohio shore, so that pier No. 1 is next to the abutment on the Cincinnati side, and the others are numbered regularly across to the Newport side. In describing them we will use the same numbers.

The pier on the Cincinnati side of the main channel (pier No. 3) has its center-line about 50 feet south of the low water line, and in a depth of 24 feet at low water. The pier on the Newport side of the channel (pier No. 4) has its center-line 418 feet from that of pier No. 3, in 34 feet at low water, and about 310 feet from the low-water line on the Newport side. This location of the 400-foot span leaves the main low-water channel between them, with a depth at low water of about 6 feet. No special examinations were made by the bridge engineers to ascertain the depth to solid rock at different points, and the pier locations were made without regard to it, though we have reason to believe that piers 4, 5, and 6 have their foundations within 2 feet of the solid rock. The tops of the channel-piers are finished with three courses of cut stone, each projecting a little from the course below, and the three courses together being 4 feet thick. The upper surface, which receives the end-posts of the trusses, is 73 feet above low water. The batter of the piers begins below the three top courses, where the piers are 10 feet wide and 69 feet above low water, and extends down to within 6 inches of low water. This batter or slope of the sides is the same for all the piers, and is 24 upon 1. At the foot of each pier, 6 inches above low water, there is an offset of 6 inches on each side, and a course of stone 14 feet thick; then another offset of 6 inches, and another course of stone of 14 feet thickness; then another offset of 6 inches, and a course of stone 14 feet thick; and finally a timber grillage of three courses of poplar timber, each 1 foot thick, projecting 14 feet beyond the masonry. In no case does. this timber foundation rest upon the rock.

The width of these piers 6 inches below the low-water line is therefore 174 feet. The direction of the axis of the bridge along which the span of the trusses is measured is not, during any stage at which we have measurements, at right angles with the river current, and consequently the piers, which are at right angles to the axis of the bridge, are not parallel with the current of the river. The line of direction of the current does not materially vary from low water up to a stage of 10 feet above low water, and during these stages the piers are 12 out of the line prescribed by law. The length up and down stream of the channel-piers, at their bases, is about 58 feet, and therefore their want of parallelism with the current contracts the water-way space between them by 10 feet, leaving a practicable opening of about 390 feet.

The foundations of the channel-piers are very defective. The bottoms of the wooden platforms are between 4 and 5 feet below low water, while the depth at low water between these piers is 6 feet now, and probably, owing to the contraction of the waterway, this depth will be much increased by the scour of high water. These foundations are, therefore, apparently insecure. At present they are somewhat protected by riprap and by the coffer-dams used in their construction, which have not yet been removed. To secure them it will probably be necessary to greatly increase this riprap. These foundations are similar to those at the Steubenville bridge, where the riprap occupies at least 40 feet of the channel-way between the piers. Snch a protection here (and it would be unsafe to make a less effective one) would reduce the space between the channel-piers available for navigation by not less than 40 feet, except at stages of the river high enough to submerge the riprap several feet. It is possible, however, to protect these piers without materially obstructing the navigable channel, but it would be somewhat expensive.

The want of parallelism of the piers with the current arises from the Cincinnati end of the bridge being thrown above the Newport end, to facilitate connection with the Little Miami Railroad. The law says "the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river as near as practicable." Some persons have contended that

this meant as near as practicable to suit the approaches to the bridge; but obviously this cannot be the case. The opening designated was for the benefit of the navigation of the river, and to admit any impracticability in the approaches as governing the case might operate almost indefinitely to the detriment of navigation. We can imagine a case of a bridge crossing so obliquely as to reduce by one-half the space practicable for navigation. If the site selected for the bridge be such that it really is impracticable to make the bridge at right angles to the current, it is obviously the duty of the company either to lengthen their spans so as to secure the navigable width that the law requires, as was done in the case of the Keokuk bridge, or else to select some site where they can comply with the law. There was no absolute necessity of this bridge crossing at Saratoga street, as better sites could have been found higher up the river. The company selected this site on account of certain supposed pecuniary advantages, and if these advantages are greater than the extra cost of complying with the law, they should not complain at having to do so. If they are not, they should go elsewhere to build their bridge.

The plain meaning of "parallel as near as practicable" is this: The current almost everywhere in the river has different directions at different stages. It is thus impracticable to build piers that shall always be parallel with the channel. Such a location for the piers must be made as is parallel to the average of the directions of the current at all stages, or parallel to the current at that stage of the river when such condition is most important to navigation. If the variation in direction is great, the bridge should be built somewhere else. The effect of this obliquity of the piers of the channel-span is to make the current set upon the one on the Newport side, and, owing to the shape of the bend in the river above the bridge, this increases as the river rises. At low water this span is undoubtedly over the main flowage of the river; but, from half to full stage, at least half the flow must be on the Newport side of it.

The navigation interest therefore complain, and with reason, that the Newport channel-pier is practically in the main navigable channel.

Before discussing the height of the channel-span, it is best to finish up with the locations and directions of the other piers, continuing toward the Newport side.

From the center-line of the Newport channel-pier to the center-line of the next pier on that side (No. 5) is 237 feet, leaving a clear span of 220 feet, and then comes the drawspan. Some of the river men think that the draw-span would have been better next to the channel-span. But the law approved July 11, 1862, provided that "one of the next adjoining spans shall not be less than 220 feet in length," and as it was inconvenient with the location given the channel-span to make a 220-foot span next to it on the Cincinnati side, as will be seen when we describe that side of the bridge, the 220-foot span was placed on the Newport side, and the draw-span pushed that much further toward that side.

Pier No. 5 is parallel to pier No. 4, makes the same angle with the current, has the same defective foundations, requiring riprap, and differs from it only in being 2 feet narrower on top, and in being made a rest-pier for the end of the draw when not open. This drawbridge differs materially from any constructed on the western waters with which we are acquainted, and it is impossible to describe it in a few words. The law requires that it shall be constructed" with spans of not less than 100 feet in length on each side of the central or pivot pier of the draw." It was designed at first to make it exactly so, but this span was increased 1 foot each side of the pivot-pier from the following cause: Both of the rest-piers were commenced before the pivot-pier. In sinking the foundations for the second rest-pier, the coffer-dam settled somewhat further from the one first built than was intended. The pivot-pier No. 6 was therefore placed midway between these two piers, and therefore the span on each side of the pivot was somewhat increased. As built, the centre-lines of the two rest-piers (No. 5 and No. 7) are 260 feet apart, or 130 feet from the center of the pivot itself. The rest-pier, No. 7. on the Newport side of the pivot, is built like pier No. 5, already described, and parallel with it, making the same angle, 120, with the current. The distance between these two piers at the low-water line is 260 feet, diminished by 16% feet, or 2434 feet. The pivot-pier has a circular horizontal section, 424 feet diameter at low water, so that the space left each side of it is 1004 feet at the low-water line. Like the others, it rests upon a timber grillage, and, like them also, it will require riprap protection.

The protection-pier or pivot-guard, placed above the pivot to protect it from ice, and to make a rest for the draw when open for navigation, is not placed so as to form a long pier at right angles to the bridge with sides parallel to the other piers, but is placed parallel to the present direction of the current. The consequence is that the upper end of the rest-pier on the Cincinnati side of the draw projects into the drawspace about 7 inches, and the lower end of the pier on the Newport side of the draw projects 5 inches. This not only diminishes the space, but it presents to the navigator a very ugly and dangerous appearance. The end of the protection-pier is placed about 185 feet above the pivot, and consists of a sawed timber crib filled with stone. It does not extend to the pivot, but stops 118 feet from it, where it forms a rest for the draw when open. The space between this protection-pier and the pivot proper is occupied

by a crib filled with stone up to 10 feet above low water; and above this by a float made of framed timber, which rises when the water reaches it, and is guided and kept in place by projections on the pivot and protection piers. It is designed to direct boats and floating objects through the open space, and to prevent them from striking the end of the draw-bridge when open. At low water/there is no water in the Newport drawspace and but little in half of the other. No design has yet been made for a rest and protection-pier below the pivot. All the draw-bridges built on the Mississippi have them, and they seem essential to the security of the bridge.

Pier No. 8 is 8 feet wide on top, and its center-line is 2024 feet from that of No. 7. It stands on the river bank, and has the same kind of timber foundation, placed in an excavation of 15 feet, the bottom being at the level of low water, at which depth compact gravel was found.

Pier No. 9 is 7 feet wide on top, and has its center-line 2024 feet from that of No. 8. Its foundation consists of 2 feet of concrete, resting on sand, about 16 feet below the natural surface, and 274 feet above the low-water line.

The Newport abutment is so placed that the space between it and pier No. 9 is 1254 feet, which brings it on Saratoga street, south of the river bank. The truss from this abutment to the pier is 132 feet long, and crosses Front street of Newport.

The descent toward Newport of the wagon-road begins at pier No. 9, along the bottom chord of the span connecting it with the Newport abutment; and thence on brick arches, on a grade of 5,637 to 100, reaching the level of Saratoga street at Market street, about 180 feet from the abutment.

The railroad descent on the Newport side, which has a grade of 0.2393 to 100, also commences at pier No. 9, and continues beyond the abutment, over brick arches, turning about 10 to the right at Taylor street, in order to keep along Saratoga. Market street is crossed by a bridge of 58 feet spau, 14 feet above the street, and the city grade is reached at Southgate street, about 750 feet from the abutment. No street of Newport is stopped by the approaches for either the wagon-road or the railroad.

We will now complete the description of the substructure by returning to the Cincinnati side of the channel-span. The channel-pier on that side, pier No. 3, has already

been described.

Pier No. 2 has its center-line 137.4 feet from that of pier No. 3. The reason for making this span so short was in order to begin a curve near this pier for the railroad connection with the present Little Miami depot. Long spans on a curve are very objectionable, and hence, as mentioned before, the 220-foot opening was placed on the Newport side of the channel-span. This span, however, could have been made 237 feet, without changing the curvature, by placing the channel-pier 100 feet further from the Cincinnati shore, but this would have required the Cincinnati channel-pier to have been built in water 34 feet deeper It would, however, have made the channel-span much better for navigation. Had pier No. 2 been placed 100 feet nearer the Cincinnati side, the curvature of the railroad connection would have exceeded 10° if the line itself remained unchanged. The curvature is already as great as is allowable. Pier No. 2 has the same grillage foundation as the others, resting on compact gravel at about the level of low water, and excavated about 12 feet below the present natural surface. It is 8 feet wide on top, and has the batter of 24 upon 1. The wagon-road approach begins to descend from this pier along the bottom chord of the next span. Pier No. 1 has the middle point of its center-line 964 feet from the corresponding point of pier No. 2, but its center-line being a radius of the curve of the railroad connection, makes an angle of 40 with No. 2, and consequently of 16° with the course of the current. Its foundations are at the level of low water, and consist of a wooden grillage, 3 feet thick, resting on compact gravel 25 feet below the present surface of the ground. The pier is 54 feet wide on top, and five feet lower than the others, owing to the descent of the bottom chord of the trusses, in order to accommodate the wagonroad approach.

The Cincinnati abutment is the same distance from pier No 1 that the latter is from No. 2. It is so far back on the levee that it will not obstruct the flow of any high water not already stopped by buildings. The wagon-road approaches continue to descend from the bridge at the rate of 5.637 to 100, reaching the city grade at Front street, 175 feet from the abutment.

The railway continues for 100 feet on a curve, with 609 feet radius, supported by two brick arches rising between the two wagon-way approaches; then comes a span of 100 feet, built on this same curve, under which the two wagon-way approaches unite. The curve continuing, the railroad now crosses Front street by a bridge of 100-foot span, and about 14 feet in height above the street. The grade of the railroad has been descending from pier No. 2 at the rate of 0.435 feet per 100, on a curve of 609 feet radius. The grade now changes to 0.8 to 100, on a radius of 573, which continues for 450 feet. At the point where this change in grade and curvature takes place, wooden trestles begin.

The railroad grade continues to descend at 0.8 per 100 on a tangent, crossing Eggles