In this connection some of the conditions prevailing during the late flood in the Ohio, though exceptional, may be referred to. The highest point at the month of the river (February 10) was 61.16 above low water. New River and the Upper Kanawha were but moderately high, not up to ordinary high mark at the time. The highest reading at Hinton (February 9) was 10.60 feet; at Cannelton (on the 10th), 23.70; Charleston (on the 11th), 29.40; mouth of Coal, 38.50; Winfield, 32 miles above the mouth of the river, 46.50 feet. All practically with reference to low water.

The following table shows the height above water of the pilot-houses and smokestacks of some of the largest tow and passenger boats on the river:

The governing condition as to height of bridge is shown to be the pilot-honses of the larger passenger boats. If a bridge is high enough for them there will be ample room for tow-boats. The Virgie Lee is the largest of the large boats running in the river. The Pittsburgh packet Chancellor is the next largest. It will be noticed that the Virgie Lee's pilot-honse is over 4 feet higher than the Chancellor's and from 5 to 9 feet higher than the large tow-boats. The heights for pilot-houses given is the top of the "ginger-bread work." This on the Kanawha boats is about 1 foot, generally rather less than that, above the top of the roof.

Captain Turtle, in his report to you of July 20, 1880, respecting the proposed wagon bridge at Charleston, says:

"I am of opinion that 45 feet for height of pilot-house and 60 feet for chimneys will be as great dimensions as will ever be found useful for boats doing general business on the Kanawha."

It appears to me that a safe regard for the prospective river interests and conditions will require a bridge high enough to pass a boat like the Virgie Lee in highnot extreme-stages. It is supposed, of course, that the boats will be provided for lowering their chimneys, and that, when necessary (which should rarely be the case even for the large boats), whistles and stove-pipes could be reduced to about the level of the pilot-house roof.

All considered, my own judgment in regard to limitation for heights of channel spans would be, for all bridges between the mouth of the river and the head of Koob Shoal at least 90 feet; between the head of Knob Shoal and the head of Red House Shoal at least 85 feet; between the head of Red House Shoal and the mouth of Coal River at least 82 feet; between the mouth of Coal and the month of Elk River at least 78 feet; between the mouth of Elk to the head of proposed slackwater navigation at least 75 feet. All above local low water measured to the lowest part of span.

A bridge 75 feet above low water at Charleston would let the Virgie Lee pass, and allow 20 inches above pilot-house for clearance, up to a 31-foot stage. The table shows that the water has been up to this height less than one day in a year on an average. In eleven years it has been up to and above 31 feet nine days altogether. It would let the Boone and T. W. Means pass, with 12 inches clearance, up to a 37-foot stage, and the Telephone and Lewis up to 38 feet. The water has been up to 38 feet but one day in eleven years. The smoke-stacks of all the boats on the list except the Lee, Means, and Liberty could pass under, without being lowered, to at least 24-foot gange. The water at Charleston has been at and above 24 feet thirty-one days altogether in eleven years, or an average 2.83 days per year.

The records show that a bridge 90 feet high near the mouth of the river would be practically with reference to average headway about the same as a bridge 75 feet high at Charleston. Ninety feet there would let the Lee pass with same pilot-house clearance up to 46 feet and the Telephone and Lewis up to 53 feet gauge reading. (The difference of eight-tenths of a foot between gauge zero and low water is not considered.) The record shows the water to have been at and above 46 feet 1.4 days per year, or seven days altogether in five years, and up to 53 feet one day only in five years. It will be remembered that last month's unprecedented rise in the Ohio is not included in this record.

Captain Turtle, in the report referred to on the proposed wagon bridge at Charleston, fixed on 70 feet as the lowest elevation to be permitted.

Considering only the past record and the present size of boats the heights proposed herein may appear somewhat greater than the interests of navigation require.

It should be borne in mind, however, that the high-water line and the average high stage tend to increase as the country becomes cleared and settled up. It is to be expected, too, that larger boats, particularly for towing, will come into use as the river is improved and the business increased. gested are thought to be every way sufficient for the navigation interests, but no All considered, the elevations sugmore than they are entitled to demand, and at the same time practicable and reasonable from either a railroad or a highway bridge point of view.

WIDTH OF CHANNEL-SPANS.

On this point the comparative width of our navigation passes and the channel spans of bridges may be first alluded to. Captain Turtle, quoted by him in his report referred to, to the effect that the spans You make reference to this in a letter to should be wider than the passes.

The reasons why the bridge-spans should be materially wider are obvious, and may be principally referred to as follows:

(1) The long lock-wall, extending, with its head crib, some 400 feet above the line of the central pier, is an excellent guide to descending boats. gives direction to the current, but boats with tows are enabled, in the most common The lock-wall not only towing stages, to "straighten up" alongside of it before starting to run the pass. This last is of great importance, particularly in time of wind.

(2) In time of high towing stages, when the works are covered, the lock-wall still directs the current, and the risk of striking on this side is very small, and even in case of collision, it will be a side or glancing blow of little danger compared with running or drifting against the end of a bridge pier.

(3) The pass piers are covered at medium high stages, and we have practically the entire width of the river at dam during the time of greatest danger at a bridger. The pier of Dam No. 6 will be carried to a depth of 7 feet with Charleston gauge reading 17 feet.

Even if a bridge and pass were equally difficult to "run" there is no good reason why the one should be governed at all by the other. required to maneuver a pass, its width is necessarily restricted. On account of labor and time too, it is important to get the greatest length of weir possible. The dangers of naviOn the Kanawha, gation should not be increased by bridges even if there is difficulty at the dams. In fixing the minimum width of channel-span we are to be governed almost entirely by experience on the Ohio. In this, as well as most other important conditions suggested and referred to herein, I have been guided by Ohio River practice and experience, mainly as indicated by the full and valuable letter of Lieutenant-Colonel Merrill, published in the report of the Chief of Engineers for 1882, and the law for Ohio River bridges as amended by act approved February 14, 1883. The size of Kanawha coal fleets is somewhat smaller than on the Upper Ohio. Colonel Merrill in the report referred to, says: ally composed of from six to sixteen barges "Above Louisville the fleets are usufeet, and a length of from 400 to 600 feet." * with a width of from 75 to 100

*

Kanawha tow-boats ou "bar stages" generally take out from Charleston pool from five to fifteen barges.

A fleet of eight barges has a width of about 75 feet and a length, according to the size of the tow-boat and the way the tow is "hitched up," of from 400 to 570 feet, A stern-wheel boat with such fleets in a strong current, and, as frequently happens, during considerable wind, must have a good deal of "play room" between the piers of a bridge. Long experience on the Ohio has proved that a clear width of 400 feet is not enough for that stream, and the requirement has recently been increased to 500 feet. Kanawha tow-boat men and the coal interests generally claim (and with intinate knowledge of experience on the Ohio) that the channel spans of Kanawha bridges cannot be safely made less than 400 feet wide, and will not, I believe, be satisfied with anything under that. This claim appears to me to be based on reasonable grounds. With a properly located bridge and span, a clear opening of 400 feet will no doubt be entirely sufficient, but I am of the opinion that the requirement should not be fixed at less. In many locations a span of this width would preclude the necessity of having more than two piers in the water, or between the top of banks, and for this reason be more economical perhaps than a narrower one.

SECTION 2.

Section 2 of bill, as drawn, is faulty and deficient in some important particulars. Under this head the law should at least require

(1) That the axis of bridges be located at right angles to the current at hightowing stages, and that the piers be parallel thereto. (The words "as near as prac

ticable" used in connection with the piers in the second section are thought to be unnecessary and objectionable.)

(2) That the clear opening of the channel-spans be measured at low water on a line at right angles to the current at high stages.

(3) That the center of the channel-span be located in the center of the channel, as ordinarily run by coal fleets on high-towing stages.

(4) That the height of channel-span is to be measured to the lowest part of span, and not to "bottom chord." (The difference in the two wordings is material. On the Ohio River bridge at Point Pleasant it amounts to something over four feet, as recently reported by the engineer in charge.)

(5) That all the spans should be "through" spans. On this point, in addition to the advantages noted by Colonel Merrill in his report, referred to, may be mentioned that of enabling boats to run next to the shore in high water. This is of great importance to ascending boats. Many boats of small power are compelled, in order to make headway at all, to keep near shore in high stages. Experience on other rivers points also to the great advantage of "through" spans in point of safety to both boats and bridges, in case of a steamer becoming disabled or taking fire above.

SECTION 3.

This section is drawn after section 4 of the old (1872) law for Ohio River bridges, and is necessarily defective in highly important respects. The substitute for this section (No. 4 of Ohio law) approved by act of February 14, 1883, embodies the late valuable experience on the Ohio, and should be the guide for the Kanawha. The change in the form of procedure, which directs, that in each case the maps and plans be first submitted by the Secretary of War to a board of engineers for examination and report, is particularly desirable. Section 4 of the revised Ohio law is in every respect, except as to names of places, suitable to the Kanawha. I would suggest that the sentence providing for showing on the maps "the location of other bridges in the vicinity" be made to include locks and dams, coal.tipples, cribs, and all public and private structures inside of high-water lines.

SECTION 4.

No change is suggested in this section. It may be well, however, to add after the words "Light-House Board,” “or the United States engineer officer in charge of the improvement of the river."

SECTION 5.

Though the necessity for the provision of this section is not apparent, particularly with reference to bridges of the character proposed for the Kanawha, it appears reasonable, and I can see no objection to it. So far as I am informed there is no similar provision in the present Ohio River bridge laws.

SECTION 6.

No change is suggested in this section. It is a copy practically of section 6 of the Ohio law.

SECTION 7.

This section and its provisions should be entirely omitted from the law. The fact that it annuls all of the other important safeguards to navigation at certain points in the river is alone sufficient to condemn it. I am now of the opinion that a bridge should not be allowed under any conditions to cross at or very near any dam, permanent or movable; but if this is allowed there is no reason why the requirements governing it should not be as guarded and explicit as for any other part of the river. This section seems to contemplate either a low bridge with a draw or a high bridge with a comparatively narrow span. Otherwise I can see no object in it.

So far as crossing on either dam, 2 or 3, is concerned, it is believed a provision to allow this would be of no practical or pecuniary advantage to any interest. The deoisive objections to a draw for a river like the Kanawha need not be discussed. The subject fully commented on in recent reports on Ohio bridges. Without doubt a draw over a lock or its approaches would be more of "a nuisance and danger, both to the railroads that must build and operate it and to steamboats which must pass through it," than at almost any other point.

As to crossing near a lock and dam, even with the regular requirements as to height and width of span, it would seem, but for the proposed provision in section 3, advis

able to prohibit altogether a crossing nearer than within about 1,800 feet of any lock and dam. The provisions referred to would probably be sufficient, however, to guard against bad location at any point.

SECTION 8.

No change seems necessary in this. It is a copy of section 7 of the Ohio law. In regard to confliction with State laws, the following from section 22 of act passed by the legislature, February 22, 1883, to make the State law conform to the laws of Congress as to the Ohio (page 51, acts of West Virginia, 1883), bears directly on the point of your inquiry:

"The provisions of this section as to the building of a railroad bridge across the Ohio River shall extend to and include the Great Kanawha and the Big Sandy rivers; and no railroad bridge, except as has been or may be provided by law, shall be built over either of said rivers in any way or manner than is or shall be provided by the Congress of the United States as to the Ohio River."

A synopsis of the State laws, on the subject of bridging the Great Kanawha, will be forwarded to you by next mail.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Lieut. Col. WM. P. CRAIGHILL,

A. M. SCOTT, Assistant Engineer.

Corps of Engineers.

APPENDIX E E.

IMPROVEMENT OF HARBOR AT DULUTH, MINNESOTA, AND OF THE ENTRANCE TO SUPERIOR BAY, LAKE SUPERIOR-IMPROVEMENT OF THE HARBOR AT GRAND MARAIS, MINNESOTA.

REPORT OF MAJOR CHARLES J. ALLEN, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OFFICER IN CHARGE, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1884, WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE WORKS.

The present project of improvement is based upon the report and estimates of a board of engineers convened in January, 1881, and contemplates the maintenance of the existing dredged areas and enlargement of the harbor by dredging as follows:

1. On a line from Rice's to Minnesota Point;

2. On a line past the Blast Furnace docks to intersect with the channel of the Saint Louis River;

3. On a line parallel to Minnesota Point; and

4. Along the west side of Rice's Point, in Saint Louis Bay. The dredging to provide for a depth of 16 feet at low water.

The cost of the project, including maintenance of the canal piers for the present, as stated in Annual Report, 1881, was placed at $212,988.36. The Duluth Canal, to secure direct communication between the harbor and Lake Superior, was constructed by the city of Duluth in 1870 and 1871. It came under the charge of the United States Government in 1873 in consequence of an appropriation by Congress for its maintenance, act approved March 3, 1873. During the construction of the canal, opposition was encountered from the State of Wisconsin, and an injunction was obtained under the plea that the diversion of a part, if

5908 EN-114

18909