The increase within the last six months is in greater proportion than that of the preceding years, and, according to the ratio of increase for the six months of the present year, will exceed that of last year more than one-third in number. The amount of merchandise, the quantity of which is determined by weight, is also annexed for your consideration, and is as follows: Amount of merchandise weighed during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1870— Amount of merchandise weighed during the year ending June 30, 1871 Pounds. 317, 259,977 3,718, 112 5,437,094 326, 415, 1-3 Pounds, 394, 75, 496 -5, 157, 33 13,563,990 11, 294,771 Total...... 424, 891,390 Excess over the year ending June 30, 1870 ...... This is exclusive of merchandise measured, gauged, in packages, &c. 98,477, 152 The domestic exports for 1870 and the six months ending June 30, 1871, are as follows: The whole of his interesting letter is appended hereto; an abstract of bids received is also appended. Amount expended during fiscal year ending June 30, 1871.. $20,453 30 92,010 38 200, 000 00 Abstract of proposals for dredging in Patapsco River below Fort Carroll, opened at 12.10, p.m., April 1, 1871. CUSTOM-HOUSE, BALTIMORE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th instant, requesting me to furnish you with information respecting the amount of revenue collected at this port during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871, and any other information kindred thereto that may have a bearing upon the further improvement of the entrance to the harbor of Baltimore. In compliance therewith, I have to state that the sum collected in coin for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871, as duties on imported merchandise, was $8,892,528 98, and the total receipts for the same period, including currency derived from tonnage, hospital, storage, steamboat inspections, licenses to pilots and engineers, &c., amounted to $5,993,086 70. In order to obtain an appreciable idea of the extent of the foreign commerce of this port for the time mentioned, it will be proper, in this connection, to state that for six months of that time the duties were collected under the new tariff rates, which are about one-third less of what they were the six months previous; so that it may be fairly estimated that the duties, at the old rates, would have exceeded the sum of $10,000,000, which are in excess of the previous year, and greatly above the total receipts of any previous year at this port. For the purpose of furnishing you with a general idea of the increase of foreign trade at this port, I append a list of receipts of duties in coin, exclusive of currency for each calendar year named below: It will be observed that the increase for 1870 was not proportionate to that of the preceding years, which fact may be accounted for, because of two reasons: 1st, FrancoPrussian war, which suspended for a time the Bremen line of steamers; and 2d, the merchants, in expectation of reduced rates of duty, imported cautiously, and also warehoused largely their goods, which were not withdrawn until the year 1871. The fact must also be taken into consideration that quantities of merchandise, shipped to this port, are again exported, as well as transported, to a considerable extent, to inland ports west, where the duties thereon are paid, and consequently the amounts so collected do not enter into the receipts here. The arrival and entry of vessels from foreign ports, for the last two and a half years, . bear the following proportions: 1-69..... 1870 From January, 1871, to June 30, 1871, six months 650 vessels. 735 vessels. 508 vessels. The increase within the last six months is in greater proportion than that of the preceding years, and, according to the ratio of increase for the last six months of the present year, will exceed that of last year more than one-third in number. The amount of merchandise, the quantity of which is determined by weight, is also annexed for your consideration, and is as follows: Amount of merchandise weighed during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1870: Amount of merchandise weighed during the year ending June 30, 1871: Pounds. 317, 259, 977 3,718, 112 5, 437, 094 326, 415, 183 Pounds. 394, 875, 496 5, 157, 833 13, 563, 290 11, 294, 771 424,891, 390 Pounds. 98,477, 152 This is exclusive of merchandise measured, gauged in packages, &c. The domestic exports for 1870, and the six months ending June 30, 1871, are as follows: In connection with the above, I will add that it often occurs at this port that vessels entering with foreign cargoes have to be lightened at Swan Point and other intermediate places, varying from seventeen to thirty miles from Baltimore, before they can reach their landing. This difficulty occurred in several instances, last winter, with the line of steamships engaged by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, running between here and Liverpool. Doubtless you are thoroughly familiar with the facts, but I deem it proper to mention them, because, coming as they do under my official notice, I am made cognizant of the drawbacks inflicted upon the commerce of Baltimore, and the embarrassments to which it is subjected thereby, and, as a consequence, preventing an increase of revenue to the Government. If any further information in reference to the commerce of Baltimore is desired by you, previous to the submission of your report to Congress, I will cheerfully supply it. I am, very respectfully, Major W. P. CRAIGHILL, U. S. A., United States Engineer Office, Baltimore, Maryland. JOHN L. THOMAS, Collector. Q 2. Annual report upon the Susquehanna River below Havre de Grace, Maryland, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871. An appropriation of $12,000 was made by the act of July 11, 1870. Under a contract with the American Dredging Company, of Philadelphia, operations were begun September 20, 1870, in dredging a channel 100 feet wide and 10 feet deep at low water, extending from near Fishing Battery light to mouth of the dredged channel. contract price was 25 cents per cubic yard. The I relieved Colonel Simpson of the charge of the work on the 7th of November, 1870. The channel having been completed to a width of 75 feet, and the season becoming very inclement, operations under this contract were suspended December 19, 1870. In accordance with my recommendation of February 8, 1871, I was authorized to use the material of the old, movable deflector, and such moneys as might be available for this purpose, for the construction of a fixed wooden dike or deflector, to concentrate the flow of the river, as had been proposed, and partially accomplished by the temporary movable structure built in the fall of 1867. The projected dike was to consist of piles driven 5 feet apart, braced by sloping piles behind them, and bolted to them; the whole connected by strong, double-cap pieces, between which 3-inch planks were to be closely driven, forming a nearly water-tight barrier. The separation, selection, and preparation of old material were commenced in March, 1871, and the driving of piles about the middle of April. The line selected requires 3,500 linear feet of structure, and on the 30th of June all the vertical piles were driven, (700,) 1,200 linear feet of double capping were in place, 350 back-piles driven and secured, and 100 linear feet of sheet-piling were driven. It is hoped to complete the work during August, 1871. As this work, consisting of wood entirely, cannot be expected to endure very long, and as I am still of the opinion (as expressed in previous reports to the Chief of Engineers) that a concentration of the flow of the river at this point is the most feasible and economical method of improvement, I recommend the appropriation of $50,000 for the completion of this work in a more permanent manner; that amount can be profitably expended during the next fiscal year. The improvement is in the collection district of Baltimore, which is the nearest port of entry; it extends from opposite Point Concord. Light to Spesutie Island. The trade between Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York, and the Susquehanna Valley to near its head, is interested in this work. The amount cannot be certainly ascertained. Amount of revenue collected at Baltimore as duties on imported merchandise for the fiscal year was, in coin, $8,892,528 98. The following proposals have been received for excavating channel: F. B. Colton, American Dredging Company, 25 cents per cubic yard; N. G. Dodge & Co., 294 cents per cubic yard; Edgar M. Payn, 30 cents per cubic yard; E. R. Seward, 40 cents per cubic yard. The following is the only contract made for this work: For excavating channel, with American Dredging Company, price as proposal above, (see first part of this report.) Expended in fiscal year ending June 30, 1871.. $11,253 35 7,283 05 50, 000 00 Q 3. Annual report on the improvement of the Potomac River for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871. This improvement was in charge of Major N. Michler, Corps of Engineers, from the 1st of July, 1870, until the early part of November, 1870, when, under orders from the War Department, I relieved him of the duties and responsibilities connected with it. An appropriation of $50,000 was made by the act approved July 11, 1870, for the improvement of the river between the Long Bridge and Georgetown, D. C. After due advertisement, a contract, dated October 20, was made for the excavation of a channel within the limits prescribed by the law, which, however, did not receive the approval of the Chief of Engineers. On the 29th of November, 1870, the following letter was addressed to the Chief of Engineers: UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, Baltimore, Maryland, November 29, 1870. GENERAL: In response to the call of November 23d, for information as to the propriety of increasing the depth of water in the Potomac, between the Long Bridge and Georgetown, beyond 12 feet or to 15 feet, as suggested in my letter of November 19th, I have the honor to report as follows: The appropriation of $50,000 for the Potomac, made by Congress at the last session, was to be expended between the Long Bridge and Georgetown, and was obtained, as I have been informed, through the influence of persons interested in the trade of Georgetown, and with the understanding that it was to be expended in the improvement of the only real channel in that part of the river for commercial uses, which is that one commonly called the Georgetown channel. Without considering any local interests, which, I am aware, in this portion of the Potomac River are quite conflicting, at least in the opinion of those who are personally concerned in them, I have looked simply at the terms of the law, which restrict the expenditure of the money to that portion of the river between the Long Bridge and Georgetown, and concluded that the best use to be made of the appropriation was the excavation of the Georgetown channel to a width of about 200 feet at bottom, and to a depth of 15 feet at low water. My reasons for this conclusion are the following: If there were two or more useful channels in that part of the river, the Georgetown channel would be a proper subject for improvement, on account of its importance; still more is it under existing circumstances, when it is, as I have already stated, practically the sole channel of any commercial value in that part of the river. To use any portion of the $50,000 elsewhere than in the Georgetown channel would be to use it in making, not improving a channel. To make a channel, even of 12 feet, anywhere else between the Long Bridge and Georgetown, would cost more than the whole appropriation. I determined, therefore, to recommend the expenditure of the appropriation in increasing the depth of the Georgetown channel to 15 feet at low water, and to a width of about 200 feet. This will require the removal of about 100,000 cubic yards of material. The contract price for removal and deposit is 33 cents under certain circumstances, and 51 cents under others. The proposed improvement of the Georgetown channel would absorb, therefore, nearly the whole of the appropriation. A small margin should be held in hand for contingent expenses. I considered whether it would be best to give a channel of 200 feet in width and 15 feet in depth, or 12 feet in depth and greater width. This was a question for decision by the business people interested in the improvement. They prefer the narrow and deeper channel. On Saturday afternoon last, November 26th, I had an interview with the collector or the port of Georgetown. He did me the honor to address to me a communication, under date of the 28th of November, a copy of which is inclosed. I inclose also copies of two other letters of November 28th, one from Mr. Evan Lyons, president of the Merchants' Exchange of Georgetown; the other from Mr. Alexander Ray, one of the chief business men of that city. Their opinions are entitled to careful consideration and much weight. It is my own opinion that the commerce of Georgetown has languished for want of greater depth of water than 12 feet, and it is of sufficient importance to justify an increase of depth to 15 feet, or even more if money were provided. The fact that vessels can arrive and leave with only partial loads, which the collector assures me is of frequent occurrence, is a proof that arrangements should be made, if practicable, to permit such vessels to arrive and depart with full loads, as they have done in times past, and would do again if they could, the wants of the trade of the place making their use highly advantageous, if they could come to the wharves, and preferable to the use of smaller vessels, with which the business is now forced to content itself to a great degree. It is proper I should here remark that the opinion I have expressed as to the proper manner of spending the existing appropriation of $50,000 would not preclude me from agreeing to, or even strongly recommending, a different treatment of the Potomac between the Long Bridge and Georgetown, provided it was a part of a general plan of improving the river between Alexandria and Georgetown. The erection of the Long Bridge was a great injury to the navigation of the Potomac River, and it is idle to attempt a permanent improvement of the river so long as that structure remains. A dredged channel seldom remains permanent, unless steps are taken to remove the cause of the deposition. The deposition in the Potomac is due very much to the obstruction to its flow caused by the Long Bridge. This deposition will continue as long as the obstruction remains. The Georgetown channel has been more than once dredged out, but the material has hitherto been placed where it could readily find its way soon again into the channel. I propose to require the material removed under this appropriation to be deposited behind Analostau Island, in the deep water immediately adjacent to the causeway, at its upper end. It may be added, that to give a practical useful depth of 12 feet, requires the excavation to be 13 or 134 feet in depth. A depth of 15 feet gives, therefore, a useful depth of 13 or 14 feet. Considering all the circumstances, I respectfully recommend that I be authorized to excavate the Georgetown channel to a width, at bottom, of 200 feet, and a depth, at low water, of 15 feet. |