the slight undertow in the harbor is a trifling matter, dangerous neither to life nor property, and can easily be avoided altogether by anchoring well to the westward or going into Long Cove. In regard to the need of a beacon on Harts Ledge it may be remarked that Harts Ledge is not located in any part of Tennant Harbor. It lies about a mile south of Tennant Harbor light, and the question of properly marking it belongs to another department of the Government. In view of the above I am of the opinion that Tennant Harbor, Maine, is not worthy of improvement by the General Government. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, PETER C. HAINS, Lieutenant-Colonel, Corps of Engineers. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF GEORGES RIVER, MAINE. [Printed in House Ex. Doc. No. 58, Fifty-second Congress, second session.] OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY, Washington, D. C., December 5, 1892. SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith a copy of report dated October 17, 1892, by Lieut. Col. Peter C. Hains, Corps of Engineers, of the results of a preliminary examination of Georges River, Maine, made to comply with provisions of the river and harbor act approved July 13, 1892. Lieut. Col. Hains is of opinion that the river as far as Thomaston is worthy of improvement by the General Government, and that it will require $1,200 to make the surveys necessary to the preparation of plan and project with estimate of cost of improvement proposed. I concur in his views. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, THOS. LINCOLN CASEY, Brig. Gen. Chief of Engineers. REPORT OF LIEUT. COL. PETER C. HAINS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, GENERAL: In compliance with requirements of Department letter of July 14, 1892, I have made a preliminary examination of Georges River, Maine, and have the honor to submit the following report: Georges River, sometimes called St. Georges River, is a deep tidal stream nearly up to Thomaston. Three and a half fathoms can be carried to within a mile of that town. Near the town itself the channel becomes narrow, and at one place there is a sharp bend which it is difficult to pass through on account of the swiftness of the cross currents. Thomaston was formerly the center of a large shipbuilding industry. Some of the largest American sailing clippers were built here. This industry has greatly fallen off; still there are many sailing ships that were built, and are still owned in Thomaston, though they seldom visit that port except for repairs. Large quantities of lime are manufactured and shipped from here. This is a bulky article of commerce, and gives constant employment, it is said, to no less than thirty vessels of from 150 to 500 tons capacity. The amount of lime shipped the past year, which is rather under the average, is put at over 300,000 barrels, valued at about $250,000. The manufacture of lime creates a large demand for coal and cord wood. It is estimated that not less than 10,000 tons of coal and 15,000 cords of wood are received. The importation of wood gives employment to a large number of small sailing vessels, as the most of it comes from the Dominion of Canada. The exports and imports from the river above Thomaston would add considerably to the above, but no account of that is taken. The improvement desired is the deepening and straightening of the channel in front of the town and in the bend already referred to. When a vessel goes ashore it is apt to cause a leak, and a leak in one loaded with lime is a serious matter, resulting in the almost certain loss of the cargo, and the probable destruction of the vessel. Two vessels are reported to have met with such an accident recently by being swept ashore at the bend by the swiftness of the current. One of them was lost by fire, and the other had to be scuttled to save her. In view of the above I am of the opinion that Georges River, Maine, is worthy of improvement up as far as Thomaston, and I recommend that a survey be made, the estimated cost of which is $1,200. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, PETER C. HAINS, Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers. Brig. Gen. THOMAS L. CASEY, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A. A 31. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF PORTLAND HARBOR, MAINE, WITH A VIEW TO EXTENDING THE CHANNEL ALONG THE FRONT OF THE WHARVES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HARBOR, SO AS TO GIVE A DEPTH OF 8 FEET AT MEAN LOW WATER AS FAR SOUTH AS THE PLUSH MILL WHARF. [Printed in House Ex. Doc. No. 102, Fifty-second Congress, second session.] OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY, Washington, D. C., December 5, 1892. SIR: I have the honor to submit the accompanying copy of report dated November 19, 1892, by Lieut. Col. P. C. Hains, Corps of Engineers, upon preliminary examination of Portland Harbor, Maine, with a view to extending the channel along the front of the wharves on the south side of the harbor, so as to give a depth of 8 feet at mean low water as far south as the Plush Mill Wharf, made to comply with requirements of the river and harbor act approved July 13, 1892. Col. Hains states that he is of the opinion that Portland Harbor is not worthy of improvement by the General Government in the manner specified, and I concur in this opinion. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. S. B. ELKINS, THOS. LINCOLN CASEY, Brig. Gen., Chief of Engineers. Secretary of War. REPORT OF LIEUT. COL. PETER C. HAINS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS. UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE, GENERAL: In compliance with requirements of Department letter of July 14, 1892, I have made a preliminary examination of Portland Harbor, Maine, "with a view to extending the channel along the front of the wharves on the south side of the harbor, so as to give a depth of 8 feet at mean low water as far south as the Plush Mill Wharf," and have the honor to submit the following report: The commercial importance of Portland Harbor is well known. The General Government has recognized this in expending large sums on the improvement of its channels and the construction of a breakwater. No dredging, however, has been done on the south side of the harbor, as no necessity for it has existed. A few wharves have been built, but those west and south of the Marine Railway are cheap structures which, for lack of use, have been allowed to go to ruin. From the Ferry Wharf westward the shore line recedes from the channel until it approaches the bridge, near which is a deep indentation or cove. In front of this shore line is a large area of flats. I am informed that various projects for filling these flats have been considered, but none adopted, though the idea seems never to have been definitely abandoned. They remain as they long have been, nearly bare at low tide. As the mean rise and fall of the tide is about 9 feet, there is about that depth on them at high tide. This depth is not sufficient, however, for vessels of any size. The Plush Mill Wharf, located about half a mile west of the Ferry Wharf, is a cheap, temporary structure, built on wooden piles. It is 31 feet wide and 214 feet long, widened to 47 feet at the outer end. The wharf is located on the flats referred to, so that the approaches to it are impracticable except when the tide is in. It was built, however, within the last year, during which time the conditions have in no degree changed. I am informed that besides the plush mill there are other manufactories likely to be established on the south side of the harbor, which, it is alleged, will give employment to a large number of operatives and require the consumption of large quantities of coal and other supplies. What prospect there is of the realization of these anticipations I am not able to say, but at the present time the plush mill is the only one in existence, and it is not yet in operation. I have not been able to obtain any reliable data as to the amount of coal and supplies that will be needed, but I am informed that the amounts will be large. The plush mill itself is not a large establish ment, and unless other industries spring up, of which there is as yet no visible evidence, I can not see what will create this large demand. The excavation of the channel referred to will not, in my opinion, do it. Under the circumstances it is not practicable to make a reasonably fair estimate of the prospective demands of commerce on this side of the harbor. These will depend entirely on the developments of the future. That the immediate demands are quite small is evident. I have been in communication with persons interested in the development of this locality, but I have not been able to obtain any tangible data to show the necessity for such improvement. I do not understand that a channel such as the order for examination contemplates is needed for the accommodation of vessels other than those that will go to the Plush Mill Wharf. There are in fact no others west of the marine railway; there are only the ruins of two pile structures that once were wharves. In 1882, by authority of the legislature of the State, harbor lines were established for Portland Harbor. That on the south side is a straight line from the Ferry Wharf to the Portland Bridge, and passes about 100 feet outside of the existing dry dock. The Plush Mill Wharf is so located that its outer end does not come within 1,000 feet of this harbor line. Hence to extend the channel south to the Plush Mill Wharf will carry it far inside the duly-established harbor line. In this connection it is perhaps not improper to call attention to section 5 of the river and harbor act of 1892, which provides— That no money appropriated for the improvement of rivers and harbors in this act or hereafter shall be expended for dredging inside of harbor lines duly established. In view of the above I am of the opinion that Portland Harbor, Maine, is not worthy of improvement by the General Government in the manner specified in the order for examination, viz: With a view to extending the channel along the front of the wharves on the south side of the harbor, so as to give a depth of 8 feet at mean low water as far south as the Plush Mill Wharf. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Brig. Gen. THOMAS L. CASEY, PETER C. HAINS, Lieut. Col., Corps of Engineers. Chief of Engineers, U. S. A. ENG 93- -47 |