than water they cannot be raised unless power can be brought to bear. It is possible to obviate these difficulties in this way:

Let the upper gate be made buoyant; it will then remain up and act as a gate in still water. If now the space underneath the gate be connected with the lower pool by a culvert, the pressure of the upper pool will keep the gate down, and thus the gate can be maneuvered under either condition. For the lower gate the conditions must be reversed. It must be made heavier than water, and can only be raised by bring. ing the head of the upper pool under it by means of culvert in the side walls. The necessity for these two large culverts would make this use of bear-traps usually more expensive than the ordinary miter-gates, and thus far they have not been used for locks.

Mr. Kirk has also several devices for limiting the height of the water under the gates and preventing them from being overturned by too great a pressure. These consist of relief weirs, automatic closing of the inlet and opening of the outlet valve, and a valve in the lower leaf which is opened when the gate passes beyond a certain limit. The Board consider that serious difficulties will be encountered in attempting to put in practice some of these methods, but they call attention to the use of relief weirs as likely to prove the most effective and prac ticable of those mentioned. The details of these various devices can be found in Mr. Kirk's plans, submitted herewith.

In the designs for coffer-dams Mr. Kirk has neglected a most essential feature required in such works-that of proper means of preventing leakage underneath his structure. To remedy this defect sheet-piling must be driven, or some method devised to prevent water from passing through the permeable strata upon which his pontons rest. When this is properly done the cost of using this design would be so great that the Board do not feel that they can recommend it as a substitute for the methods now in use, as it has not been made to appear that it has any special advantage beyond the fact that the pontons may be removed and used again in constructing other coffer-dams.

Mr. Kirk also called special attention to the hinge, which he had designed for fastening bear trap gates, and also to his improved inletvalve. As to the former, the Board think it sufficient to state that it appears to be a good hinge. It does not, however, possess marked advantages over several others that the Board have seen, and therefore they regard a simple mention of it sufficient.

The improved valve is shown on Sheet No. 19 of the drawings submitted by Mr. Kirk, and is fully described by him (see Appendix D). So far as is known to the Board, this valve has never been tried practically. The combination of sliding and rolling action, as shown in the model exhibited to the Board, seems to warrant the opinion that it is likely to prove a useful valve, notwithstanding its slow movement. It probably can be used to advantage where sluicing is necessary, such as in locks and chutes, but as a substitute for the ordinary valves of filling or emptying culverts for locks or movable dams, too much time is consumed in opening or closing this valve to make it available for such

purposes.

In addition to examining the models which were submitted to them, the Board were directed by your indorsement of February 29, 1884, on a letter from T. H. Pollock, of Monongahela City, Pa., to consider the apparatus for opening and closing lock-gates for which Mr. Pollock has received letters patent No. 287575, dated October 30, 1883. Mr. Pollock's invention is substantially as follows:

On each lock-wall he runs a shaft, extending nearly the full length of the wall, which is put in motion by any convenient source of power. Parallel to this main shaft are a number of short counter-shafts, provided with drums, some of which receive the lines used for opening the gates and others the lines used for shutting the gates, which pull on the outer end of a spar, whose inner end is fastened to the gate. Motion is transmitted at will from the constantly moving shaft to any one of the counter-shafts through friction gearing, the particular style used in the case in question being toothed friction rollers, such as are common in iron mills. The counter-shafts have a slight play around one end, as a center, so that the rollers may be thrown in and out of gear by a lever Besides operating the gates, the patent contemplates the use of one or more capstans, each similarly attached to an independent countershaft and similarly actuated. These capstans are for pulling boats into or out of the locks.

The patentee only claims the combination of the devices which have been just described, no claim being made for the devices themselves, all of which are well known to mechanics.

The Board saw the combination at work at Lock No. 1 on the Monongahela River, and consider it an excellent one for use under similar conditions. The plans for Government Lock No. 8, on the Monongahela River, which were prepared some years back, contemplate the use of somewhat similar mechanism, with the exception that local conditions made it advisable to have a separate source of power at each gate. The use of friction gearing is believed to be indispensable in such cases. The service of locks is much expedited by the use of such devices, and the Board heartily commend them to the profession.

CONCLUSION.

The instructions received by the Board direct them to examine and report upon the various models submitted to them, and they have endeavored to comply with these instructions by permitting all inventors to speak for themselves, and by giving their own opinions on the various inventions submitted to them. Some of these inventions are meritorious, and by bringing them to the attention of engineers those to whose work they are adapted can make use of them.

The majority of the inventions that came before the Board are modifications of the venerable and well-known bear trap, and they are chiefly designed to adapt this gate to wide chutes and to locks, its past service having been limited to narrow chutes. As the United States is now preparing to build two wide bear-trap gates on the Kentucky River, on the recommendation of the members of this Board, and as the most promising of the many modifications that have come before them will naturally be adopted for that work, it does not seem necessary at this present time to make any special recommendation as to testing any of these devices.

The following papers and drawings accompany this report:

*Appendix A.—Statement of John Du Bois, describing his invention, with one sheet of tracings.

Appendix B.-Pamphlet and statement of G. W. Parsons, describing his inventions, with three sheets of drawings (blue prints).

*Appendix C.-Letter of George Archibald, describing his inventions, with one sheet of drawings.

*Appendixes not printed.

* Appendix D.—Statement of Arthur Kirk, describing his inventions, accompanied by a book containing seventeen sheets of drawings.

*Appendix E.-Letter of T. H. Pollock, with a description of his patent, referred to the Board by the Chief of Engineers.

GENERAL: I have the honor to report that the required preliminary examination of the Greenbrier River, West Virginia, was made in the last third of October, 1884, by Mr. William Proctor Smith, lately of the Corps of Topographical Engineers, U. S. A., my other duties having prevented me from undertaking it in person.

A copy of Colonel Smith's report, dated November 1, 1884, is inclosed herewith.

The Greenbrier is about 125 miles long from the Forks near Traveler's Repose, in the northern part of Pocahontas County, West Virginia. Though it has a width of 600 or 800 feet at a few points, it is very shallow where so wide, its average width not exceeding or equaling 300 feet. The country through which it flows is believed to be well adapted for grazing, and moderately so for agriculture, containing fine timber and some valuable minerals. It is, however, very broken and hilly, and may even be styled mountainous. The declivity of the stream is considerable, averaging, Colonel Smith reports, about 8 feet to the mile. From the mouth of Howard's Creek, near the Greenbrier White Sulphur Springs, in Greenbrier County, to Hinton, in Summers County, where it empties into the New River, the Greenbrier River was very carefully surveyed in 1874 by Lieut. Thomas Turtle, Corps of Engineers. His report was printed in full in the Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1877, Part 1, commencing at page 709.

A portion of the river above the mouth of Howard's Creek for about 40 miles, as well as that covered by Captain Turtle's work, was surveyed some sixty years ago by Captain McNeil, of the United States Corps of Topographical Engineers, whose report is printed in the document referred to above, commencing on page 762.

The river is not navigable, and the portion of New River below its mouth is also unnavigable. A down-stream sluice navigation for batteaux might be made at a cost of about $125,000, the sluices to be 25 feet wide and 2 feet deep at low water. If the sluices were made 50 feet wide the cost would be doubled. Such a navigation would enable the

*Appendixes not printed.

products of agriculture and the mines to be transported more cheaply to the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad than by hauling in wagons, as at present; but it would probably be still necessary for the people to depend almost entirely on land transportation for return freights. To give a convenient water transportation both up and down stream wou'd require the construction of numerous locks and dams, at a total cost very much greater than that given above for sluice navigation.

For details of the commercial condition of the country through and near which the river flows, reference is requested to Colonel Smith's report.

Under all the circumstances of the case as given above and in Colonel Smith's report, I do not consider the advantages which would result from an improvement of the Greenbrier sufficient to justify the cost, and therefore I report, in the phraseology of the law, that in my opinion the Greenbrier is not "worthy of improvement by the General Government."

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Brig. Gen. JOHN NEWTON,

WM. P. CRAIGHILL,

Lieut. Col. of Engineers.

Chief of Engineers, U. S. A.

REPORT OF MR. WILLIAM PROCTOR SMITH, ASSISTANT ENGINEER.

BALTIMORE, MD., November 1, 1881.

COLONEL: In compliance with your instructions to make an examination of Greenbrier River, West Virginia, I have the honor to report that I left Wilmington, Del., on the 17th of October, and proceeded by rail to Ronceverte, W. Va., a station on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, thence by wagon to the forks of the river, a distance by land of 89 miles, and returning by various roads which cross the stream, for none are found along the river banks. I got a very good idea of the country and river from its source to the mouth of Howard's Creek, a distance of about 100 miles, at which point I finished the examination, as a complete survey was made in 1874, from the creek mentioned to the mouth of the Greenbrier at New River, a distance of 49 miles, by Capt. Thomas Turtle, Corps of Engineers, a description of which may be found in your report to the Chief of Engineers for the year 1877 (Appendix V, on the third division of the central transportation route to the seaboard).

The Greenbrier River has its source in what is called the Back Alleghany Mountain, in the northern part of Pocahontas County, and is composed of two forks, east and west, which, uniting 20 or 25 miles below, form the main stream, 125 feet in width, which increases to 700 feet at Marlin's Bottom, or the mouth of Knapp's Creek, and is about the same at the mouth of Howard's Creek. It flows southwesterly between the Alleghany Mountain proper on the east and Cheat and various other mountains on the west; the limits of the part under consideration being entirely in Pocahontas and Greenbrier Counties.

The river presents characteristics peculiar to all streams having their sources in the elevated regions of the Alleghany Mountains. It forces its passage through and around the points of small mountains, which frequently confine it within narrow limits, such as are to be found at the mouth of Deer Creek and Drop Mountain. In such cases its banks are steep, precipitous, and rugged, but for the greater part of the distance the hills slope down gradully and often recede from the river, showing rich flat alluvial deposits. Its principal tributaries from the east, going downstream, are Deer, Setlington, Knapp's, Beaver, and Anthony's creeks, and Spice Run at Drop Mountain, and from the West Clover Lick, Stony, and Spring creeks, with some minor streams. During freshets the river rises about 5 feet at the forks, 8 feet at Marlin's Bottom, and 12 feet at Greenbrier Bridge, near the mouth of Howard's Creek. At the time of examination the water was very low, in fact lower than it has been for several years. At one point, Falling Springs, about 23 miles above Howard's Creek, the bed was entirely dry for 14 miles, the water having sunk, which occurs only on rare occasions when it is excessively dry. The bed of the stream is composed of sandstone, over which the current flows smoothly and freely, except at one or two points.

mentioned above, where the river is narrowed by the approach of the mountains. There are no precipitous falls, such as are generally found in streams in mountainous districts, and very few ledges make their appearance. The average fall seems to be about 8 feet per mile, some places as much as 10 feet, and others as low as 5 feet. The river divides the limestone lands on the west from the sandstone lands on the east. The country on the west is hilly, but very productive; on the east the land is light and not very good for farming purposes, but it has on it the finest of white pine, and the Beaver Lick Mountains, between the Alleghany and the river, and extending from Dunmore to Howard's Creek, 65 miles, are full of red and brown hematite iron ores-the same veins that run through to Chattanooga, Tenn., and Birmingham, Ala. Near Dunmore magnetic iron ore is said to exist in Michael's Mountain. On the west side of the river, white oak, hickory, poplar, walnut, cherry, and yew pine are found in the greatest abundance. Blue-grass, timothy, clover, and red-top furnish plenty of grazing and hay. Lumber and cattle are now the principal sources of wealth, and iron will soon be added thereto. Coal has been found in Cheat Mountain, both above and below the forks, and also near Greenbrier Bridge, and iron in the latter locality, which belongs to the great belt already mentioned. The limestone is blue, and makes a good building material, as well as produces all the lime used in the country and some for shipment. The sandstone is the best of its kind.

There are ten towns in Pocahontas County, with a population from 25 to 100 persons each, the stores of which sell annually about $150,000 worth of general merchandise. Goods are hauled to the northern part of the county from Staunton, Va., a distance of 75 to 100 miles, over five mountain ranges, and the products of the country taken away in the same manner. Huntersville, the county seat of Pocahontas, gets its supplies from Millborough, on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, 40 miles distant, and the southern part of the county deals at Lewisburg and Ronceverte. The former, the county town of Greenbrier, 4 miles from the railway, containing a population of about 1,200, has 10 stores, selling $100,000 worth of goods per year, 2 carriage factories, and 2 furniture establishments; the latter, a flourishing town, from 800 to 1,000 inhabitants, on the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, the station for all the up-county spoken of, has a large foundry and flour mill, eight or ten stores, which sell about as many goods as are sold in Lewisburg, and a steam saw-mill, with a capacity for sawing 100,000 feet per day, belonging to the Saint Lawrence Boom and Manufacturing Company, and has sawed this season all the logs floated down the Greenbrier and its tributaries this year, viz, 9,500,000 feet, into lumber and shingles. This company expects to get out the coming year 15,000,000 feet of white pine logs and saw them into lumber. It has a boom extending from Ronceverte nearly up to the mouth of Howard's Creek, about 4 miles. This boom enables the company to run or float its logs. With good rises in the river this company, which only cuts white pine, which floats easily, has had no trouble in the past three seasons; but should the river not rise, as was the case for several years before, it would have great difficulty in getting over the rocks, particularly at Droop Mountain. Some work is absolutely needed for those timber owners who have no boom and wish to raft their logs or timber, which requires more water than for running, particularly should the rafts be composed of white oak or some other heavy timber.

There are eleven small towns in Greenbrier County besides those referred to above tributary to the river, with 15 stores, which sell annually $150,000 worth of goods; these with the others mentioned give a total of $500,000 worth of general merchandise sold in this section of the country per annum.

The celebrated Greenbrier White Sulphur Springs are on Howard's Creek, 6 miles from the river, which yearly consume large quantities of the farm products of the counties referred to, all of which has to be hauled in wagons for a long distance.

The area of country drained by the Greenbrier River and its tributaries, within the limits specified, is about 1,200 square miles. The number of farms, upwards of 2,000, containing nearly 200,000 acres, are valued at nearly $6,500,000. Seventeen thousand beef cattle are raised annually, whose value, with the other live stock, amounts to $950,000. The value of farm productions, as near as could be ascertained, is $750,000. Annual production of corn 330,000 bushels, and wheat 100,000. Assessed value of property, about $6,000,000. Population, 20,000.

In view of the wealth of this section of the country in minerals, timber, and agricultural products, and the fact that there is no outlet, except by wagon, through long distances and over rough roads, it is respectfully recommended that a survey, which will cost $3,300, be made from the forks to the mouth of Howard's Creek, a distance of 10 or 15 miles, for the purpose of ascertaining the best method of improving this river and the cost of the same. Respectfully submitted.

Lieut. Col. WM. P. CRAIGHILL,

Corps of Engineers, U. S. A

WM. PROCTOR SMITH,
Assistant Engineer.