engineer of the new bridge, showing the present location of the Washington Highway Bridge, the new location of this bridge, and the location of the railroad bridge. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, GEORGE H. ELLIOT, LETTER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF PAWTUCKET, RHODE ISLAND. PAWTUCKET, R. I., August 16, 1884. DEAR SIR: Yours of the 24 instant was duly received, but have delayed answering, as Mr. George E. Newell, who has been appointed by the governor as one of the commissioners to construct a new bridge in place of the Washington Bridge, has been out of the State. There are no causeways or structures now erected or in process of erection that will interfere with the free and safe navigation of the Pawtucket River, except the Washington Bridge and railroad bridge near its mouth. A new bridge is in process of erection in place of the Washington Bridge, with good and sufficient draw-openings. The railroad Bridge, with insufficient draw-openings, is a serious obstruction to navigation, and could be remedied by making a wider draw nearer the center of the river. It is an undisputed fact the railroad bridge is the only structure upon the river that is an obstruction to our river. Inclosed please find letters from some of our prominent citizens, giving their views. Should you wish further information, I shall be pleased to inform you to the best of my ability. Very respectfully, GEORGE H. ELLIOT, Esq., E. A. GROUT, President Town Council. Lieut. Col. of Engineers. LETTER OF MR. GEORGE E. NEWELL. PAWTUCKET, R. I., August 16, 1884. DEAR SIR: In reply to your communication in relation to the railroad bridge over Pawtucket River, I find it is an obstruction to the free navigation of the river. The draw is narrow, and it purports to be 60 feet; it is practically but 45 feet, or nearly that. It is a serious obstruction to the passage of large vessels and barges. It should be widened and located differently. This draw is in the bend of the river, which makes it more difficult for vessels to get through. In my opinion, it should be placed farther west, and have two openings of not less than 80 feet each in the clear. Respectfully, yours, Mr. E. A. GROUT, President of the Town Council, Town of Pawtucket, R. I. GEO. E. NEWELL. LETTER OF MR. L. D. HORTON. PAWTUCKET, R. I., August 15, 1884. SIR: Your inquiry in regard to the obstruction to navigation of the Pawtucket River is at hand. In answer would say that while the proposed removal of Washington Bridge ameliorates the condition of navigation, a very serious and important obstruction will remain in the railroad bridge just below, on account of its position, causing a crooked passage-way, its width of draw rendering it impossible for craft to pass and repass, being obliged to turn while passing. The only remedy is in constructing a draw of suitable width, 80 feet at least, in lieu of the present narrow one of 45 feet, farther to the westward, thereby straightening the passage-way for vessels. Yours, with respect, E. A. GROUT, President of Town Council, Pawtucket, R. I. L. D. HORTON. REPORT OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL WALTER M'FARLAND, CORPS OF ENGINEERS. ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, New Haven, Conn., January 14, 1885. GENERAL: Under section 2 of the act of Congress relating to rivers and harbors, approved July 5, 1884, I have the honor to report as follows upon bridges and other works which interfere with free and safe navi gation, all in the engineer district of which I have charge, extending from the headwaters of the Hudson River to the eastern end of Long Island Sound. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Brig. Gen. JOHN NEWTON, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A. WALTER MCFARLAND, REPORT UPON BRIDGES, CAUSEWAYS, OR STRUCTURES WHICH INTER FERE WITH FREE AND SAFE NAVIGATION OCCURRING OR EXISTING IN THE ENGINEER DISTRICT EXTENDING FROM THE HEADWATERS OF THE HUDSON RIVER TO THE EASTERN END OF LONG ISLAND SOUND. ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, New Haven, Conn., December 31, 1884. The only instances of this kind which have come under my notice in this district are those which occur in streams flowing into Long Island Sound. Complaint has been made to me of the following bridges, namely: Those belonging to the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, (1) at Cos Cob, Conn.; (2) Bridgeport, Conn.; (3) the Housatonic River, Connecticut; (4) New Haven, on the Quinnipiac River. Connecticut; (5) Middletown, on the Connecticut River, Connecticut; (6) the city bridges at Bridgeport; (7, 8) the city and the Tomlinson Bridges, at New Haven, Conn. The complaints against the railroad bridges crossing the Housatonic and Connecticut rivers (3 and 5) are that the under-water part of the piers at the draws projects so far into the stream, and into what ap pears to be and ought to be a clear-way, that the safety of vessels passing through the draw is endangered, and one or two vessels have already been seriously damaged by striking these hidden projections. The remedy for this is the breaking off of these projecting parts and the placing of fender-piles to prevent passing vessels from coming in contact with the piers. Any projection of this sort, or any batter to the faces of the draw-piers, causes a sensible reduction in the width of the draw-span, making it less than it appears and is presumed to be, and probably less than the law under which it was constructed requires it to be. The complaints against the railroad bridge and the city bridge at New Haven (4 and 7), crossing the Quinnipiac River, are that they are both without draws, and so prevent 6 miles of the Quinnipiac River which are navigable, and were formerly used, from being any longer used. The city bridge formerly existing there had a draw in it. The new one has not, nor has the railroad bridge, which crosses near it. It is evident that by these constructions the right of the property-owners above these bridges to the free navigation of this part of the Quinnipiac River has been violated. The remedy is to require the city of New Haven and the railroad company to put draws in these bridges, without which they are obstructions to the navigable waters of the United States, according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The complaint against the Tomlinson Bridge (S), which crosses the mouth of the Quinnipiac, is that its draw is narrow and dangerous from the strong current through it, produced by the contraction of the natural water-way from 1,400 to 310 feet, caused by the construction of a solid causeway 920 feet long, and five clumsy piers, taking up 170 feet more. The effect of all this is exceedingly bad, as it prevents the free inflow and outflow of the tides, and nearly destroys the usefulness of the Quinnipiac River above the bridge as a tidal basin. The obstruction to the passage of the water is so great that the bottom between the piers has been scoured to a depth of 18 feet, where the normal depth should be but 9 feet, and I have seen the water on one side of the causeway standing a foot higher than it was on the other side at the same time. This bridge is owned by a bridge company, but is, I understand, now in the possession of or controlled by the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. On account of the difficulty of the passage of the draw, boats are every now and then capsized there, in consequence of being thrown against the piers by the violent current. The bridge is in a dilapidated condition, and ought to be removed and replaced by a more modern construction, which would permit the free passage of the tides, and which should be provided with a sufficient draw. It now constitutes an obstruction to a navigable channel of the United States, as defined in the decisions of the Supreme Court and in the act of Congress under which this report is being made. Its piers are three times as thick as they should be. The complaints against the railroad bridges at Cos Cob (1) and Bridgeport (2) are that the draws are managed in such a way that they practically close the streams which they cross to navigation. I inclose a copy of the complaint received concerning the Bridgeport Bridge, from which it appears that under the railroad regulations this bridge is kept closed about twelve hours out of the twenty-four, and about ten of these hours are between daylight and dark. The same complaint is made about the Cos Cob Bridge. Congress has repeatedly by law authorized the construction of drawbridges over the navigable waters of the United States, so that a draw-bridge is not to be regarded in itself as an obstruction to navigation in a legal sense; but it is evident that although its construction may be authorized by law, yet it may be so managed after construction as to impede navigation unnecessarily, and thus become such an ob struction to the navigable water which it crosses as to demand its abatement. The traffic over the railroad to which this bridge belongs is very large, from sixty to seventy passenger trains passing it every twenty-four hours, while the number of vessels which have to pass through the draw daily is quite small. It is plain that the larger interest can not give way to the lesser one, and the only point that needs to be determined here, then, is whether the larger interest shows due respect to the lesser and does what it can to avoid obstructing it, or whether, secure in its power, this wealthy railroad corporation disre gards its obligations towards its weaker competitor, a part of whose rights it has already taken away under the protection of the law and obstructs its operations. Most of those engaged in navigation at Cos Cob and Bridgeport. whose vessels must pass these draws, are men of humble means, who must make their living out of these vessels, and who can not defend themselves against a rich corporation like this if it chooses to oppress them, which it may readily do by omitting to take the means necessary for facilitating the passage of their vessels through the draw. The ac companying copy of the complaint from Bridgeport shows what diffi culties are encountered by tows attempting to pass the draws there. The complaint makes no mention, however, of another source of trouble that is felt particularly at Cos Cob. Here there is so little water that unless a vessel goes through at a high tide she can not go at all, and it when high tide occurs the bridge is closed, the vessel must often wait for the next high tide, and if this occurs after dark, she must wait again for the next one oecurring in daylight or take the chance of grounding in the dark, and so it may be delayed twenty-four hours, and if the cargo consists of garden produce, as is often the case, intended for the New York market, it is often rendered unsalable by the delay, and the owner and carrier suffer the loss. This is, of course, no reason why the operation of a great line of travel should be obstructed or interfered with, but it is a very good reason why the corporation that manages it in their own interest should pay for the damage which the pursuit of their own interests causes to those who originally had a right to the free and unobstructed use of these waters. The remedy for this difficulty is this: The draws should be of the most approved form, to be quickly opened and closed by steam-power. The regulations requiring them to be closed ten minutes before a train is due should be rescinded, and such signals should be established as would indicate to an approaching train, day or night, whether the draw is open or not, as is done on other railroads. The vessels should have the prior right of passage, as trains would seldom be delayed by them, and when delayed the time lost would commonly be made up, while with the incessant passage of trains the vessels must be delayed hours, and may be delayed a day, time which they can not make up, and which must prove a serious loss to men who are not able commonly to bear it. In being permitted to construct bridges across navigable streams, railroad companies acquire valuable rights, which materially increase their revenues, while shippers suffer a corresponding loss. It is only fair that this loss should be borne by those who reap the benefit, which might be done by requiring the company to pay the owners of vessels at established rates for all delays caused by the non-opening of their draws when required, or by requiring them to keep tugs at hand to help these vessels through the draws. The real question here is whether the law will compel a rich and powerful corporation to deal fairly and justly with those who have already been by law compelled to surrender to it a part of their rights, ostensibly for the public good but practically for the good of the corporation only. The complaint against the city bridges at Bridgeport (6) is the same as that against the railroad bridge there. The only difference here is that the city corporation takes the place of the railroad corporation in the preceding case. It may be left to the city of Bridgeport to decide what is best for their city interests; but if for the good of their community they find it expedient to obstruct the navigable waters of the United States, they should pay for the damage that they do to those who are entitled to the unobstructed use of those waters, and they should, moreover, provide every facility for passing vessels through the draws with as little delay as possible. I submit herewith copies of the written complaints against the Bridgeport and New Haven city and railroad bridges, and the railroad bridge across the Connecticut at Middletown. Respectfully submitted. WALTER MCFARLAND, COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BRIDGE AT BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT. BRIDGEPORT, CONN., August 21, 1884. SIR: In response to your circular asking for information concerning bridges, causeways, or structures that are an obstruction to navigation, we wish to write you in behalf of the Messrs. Beardsley, who do an extensive towing business in this vicinity. On May 17, 1884, we wrote the honorable Secretary of War upon this same subject. Whether this letter was referred to you or not we do not know, but take the liberty of giving several extracts from said letter, as the troubles and dangers complained of therein still exist and flourish in all their original vigor. "The common council of Bridgeport has passed an ordinance relative to draw-bridges by which all the four draws are closed from 6.40 to 7 a. m., from 12 to 12.20 p. m., from 12.40 to 1 p. m., and 6 to 6.20 p. m. Under the city's orders, the draws are closed one hour and twenty minutes during the busiest portions of the day, when boats wish to be placed at their docks to be unloaded. Between 12 and 1 o'clock the draws can be opened for the benefit of navigation only twenty minutes, and, inasmuch as a tow after passing through the first bridge could not reach the last before the twenty minutes of grace has expired, it is an actual obstruction for the whole hour. * * * "The New York and New Haven Railroad has also given to the draw-tender the following order, to wit, being number 49 of special instructions: No draw shall be opened within ten minutes of the time that a train is due, nor when a train is in sight or within hearing.' This draw-bridge is used both by the New York and New Haven Railroad and the Naugatuck Railroad, and about seventy trains cross it daily, so that the draw is closed by the railroad company eleven hours and forty minutes during the twenty-four hours of the day, which, with the time it is kept closed by the city, makes thirteen hours' time during which no tow nor boat can pass through the bridge. This is computed for the whole twenty-four hours, and most of the eleven hours left come in the night time, when the trains are much less frequent and when no towing is required. "Between 6 o'clock in the morning and 6 in the afternoon fully fifty trains cross the bridge at short intervals, keeping the draw closed cight hours and twenty minutes, and, adding the time it is kept closed by the city, we find that it is closed nearly ten hours out of the twelve. Of course, if a train is late, the draw is kept closed until it is past. "The two hours left during which the draws may be opened is scattered through the twelve hours in such small portions that it is almost impossible to make a continuous trip. If there were but one draw, there would be but little trouble, as a tug with a tow could time its start so as to get through without having to wait; but passing through one bridge, and having nearly reached the next, it may have become within ten minutes of the time when a train is due or the city's order may interpose, and the draw, after having been opened, is quickly shut and passage is barred. Then the trouble begins. The tug, of course, can stop and control itself, but a heayily-loaded schooner or barge acquires a momentum which makes it exceed |