United States Engineers convened under Special Order No. 169, War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, August 20, 1873, which is among the papers referred by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, under date of December 30, 1873, to the Board at its present session, for consideration and report, as senior member of the Board I think proper to make the following answer, so far as it relates to my action previous to the organization of the Board on the 4th of September, 1873: Dr. Taussig, in his affidavit, swears "that said bridge company has never received from said Board of Engineers or from the War Department any official notification whatsoever of the issuance of said order No. 169, nor of its object, nor of the grounds of any complaints which may have been made against said bridge, nor of the names of any complainants, nor of the day or time of the sittings of said Board of Engineers; but that said bridge company was entirely ignored and disregarded; that the only information derived by the company of these intended proceedings was from the reports of newspapers some two weeks before the sitting of said Board of Engineers." In reply, I assert that on the 25th day of August, 1873, as senior member of the Board, I addressed the following communication to Capt. John S. McCune, president of the Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company: "ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, "1122 Pine Street, St. Louis, Mo., August 25, 1873. "SIR: In order to facilitate the work of the Board to examine the bridge over the Mississippi River at this city, I would be glad to know the names and dimensions of a number (as great a number as possible) of the largest packets and tow-boats which ply on the river past this city. The information should come from reliable sources, and could be given in a form like the inclosed. "Very respectfully, your obedient servant, "Capt. JOHN S. MCCUNE, "J. H. SIMPSON, "Colonel of Engineers, U. S. A. "President Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company, St. Louis, Mo." On the same day that I addressed the above letter to Captain McCune, August 25, I called at the office of the bridge company, on Col. Henry Flad, acting chief engineer of the bridge company in the absence of Mr. J. B. Eads, understood to be abroad, and requested him to furnish such drawings of the bridge as might be necessary for the use of the Board, which was to convene on the 2d of September, for the purpose of determining whether the bridge was an obstruction to navigation. Colonel Flad politely furnished me with an official drawing of the bridge, as may be seen by the following correspondence: "ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, "1122 Pine Street, St. Louis, Mo., August 26, 1873. "COLONEL: I acknowledge, with thanks, the receipt of the tracing, designated 'skeleton' of Illinois and St. Louis Bridge, which you have kindly forwarded to me, in accordance with my request of yesterday. Shall I return it to you, or can the Board of Engineers, which are to convene here on the 2d proximo, have it for file with their report? "Very respectfully, your obedient servant, "Col. HENRY FLAD, "J. H. SIMPSON, "Colonel of Engineers, U. S. A. "Chief Assistant Illinois and St. Louis Bridge Company, St. Louis, Mo." "ST. LOUIS, Mo., August 28, 1873. "COLONEL: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 23d, [26th,] and beg leave to inform you that the skeleton-map of the Illinois and St. Louis Bridge which I sent you need not be returned, but is at your service or that of the Board of Engineers. "Very respectfully, your obedient servant, "Col. J. H. SIMPSON, U. S. A." "HENRY FLAD. The foregoing will show that the bridge company had at least a week's notice of the meeting of the Board, and of its purpose; and it also answers another portion of Dr. Taussig's affidavit, in showing that the bridge company had not only as many hours as the complainants had been granted weeks to get their evidence ready," but that each party had the same time. Dr. Taussig also swears "that the bridge company being largely interested in the subject-matter to be investigated, and being possessed of or able to furnish much valuable testimony and other evidence in relation thereto, expected to be notified and informed as to the character of the complaints made against the bridge, but that receiving no notice, after waiting until within a few days of the meeting, this affiant called personally on the 30th day of August, 1873, on Colonel Simpson, in order to obtain such information, on which occasion all he could obtain was a printed copy of the order convening said Board, which was handed to him personally, but in no wise took the character of an official notification to the company." In answer to the foregoing charge, I aver that on the 30th of August I addressed to Dr. Taussig the following letter: "ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, "1122 Pine Street, St. Louis, Mo., August 30, 1873. "SIR: As requested by you verbally to-day, I transmit herewith, for the information of the Board of Directors of the Illinois and St. Louis Bridge Company, a copy of Special Order No. 169, paragraph 10, War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, dated August 20, 1873, directing a Board of Engineers, United States Army, to convene in this city on the 2d proximo, or as soon thereafter as practicable, to examine and report upon the Illinois and St. Louis Bridge. "Very respectfully, 'WILLIAM TAUSSIG, Esq., St. Louis, Mo." "J. H. SIMPSON, "Colonel of Engineers, U. S. A. This letter certainly bears on its face an official character, and with the previous correspondence with Colonel Flad, the acting chief engineer of the bridge company, shows that the bridge company had not only not been "ignored and disregarded,” to use the language of Dr. Taussig's affidavit, by the Board, but that as senior member of the Board I had, previous to the meeting of the Board, done everything fairly and in good faith for facilitating the business of the board when it should convene. But further, Dr. Taussig, while swearing positively that the bridge company had received no official notification of the meeting of the Board, in the very next paragraph of his affidavit expressly acknowledges it in the following words: "That thereupon the president of the bridge company and the undersigned sent to the Board of Engineers a letter, a copy of which is hereto annexed, and received from said Board a reply thereto, a copy of which is also annexed." The following is an extract from the letter of the president of the bridge company and Dr. Taussig referred to, and will show more fully that the bridge company not only received a copy of the order of the War Department convening the Board, communicated by my letter of August 30, but that they considered it official: "ST. LOUIS, Mo., September 2, 1873. "Col. JAMES H. SIMPSON, Maj. GOUVERNEUR K. WARREN, Maj. GODFREY WEitzel, Maj. WILLIAM E. MERRILL, and Maj. CHARLES R. SUTER, Board of Engineers under Special Orders No. 169, War Department, August 20, 1873. "The undersigned, the Illinois and St. Louis Bridge Company, having learned from a copy of Special Orders No. 169, issued by the War Department, and obtained from you on Saturday, the 30th ultimo, by personal request, that your honorable Board is convened in this city for the purpose of examining the construction of this company's bridge, and reporting whether it will prove a serious obstruction to the navigation of the Mississippi River, and, if so, in what manner its construction can be modified, begs leave to represent that this company has received no notice and is possessed of no information as to the grounds for or character of the complaint, if any, on which your special order is based, and that, being largely interested in your proceedings and final actions, it feels authorized to respectfully request that you permit it to be represented at your several meetings by counsel." It is true that the bridge company in the above letter, while admitting the receipt of the order of the War Department convening the Board and acknowledging its official character, also states that it was "possessed of no information as to the grounds for or character of the complaint on which the order from the War Department was based." But they were put in the possession of the basis the War Department had given to the Board for its action, and therefore all I could give the bridge company; and as for the particular grounds of complaint against the bridge, these could not be known until they could be brought out by the Board in its investigations after organizing. In conclusion, I will state that previously to the assembling of the Board I took all the precaution, as senior and local member of the Board, I could, to obtain from the parties on both sides interested in the bridge question the data proper to be laid before the Board, showing no partiality to either; and that each party had the same and sufficient time to enable them to prepare themselves for the presentation of their respective cases, in such mode as they deemed best; and this, in my judgment, was all, as an individual member of the Board, before its session, I had any right to do in the premises. I am, very respectfully, &c., J. H. SIMPSON, Colonel of Engineers, U. S. A., President of Board. Brig. Gen. A. A. HUMPHREYS, D. Personal statement of Maj. G. K. Warren, Corps of Engineers. ST. LOUIS, MO., January 16, 1874. GENERAL: The remark made by me in a meeting of the Board of Engineers on the bridge at this place last September, quoted by Mr. William Taussig in his affidavit sent to the honorable Secretary of War as showing a want of fairness toward the bridge company, was made, as those present know, at a time when all the information necessary to decide the matter under consideration was before the Board. The motive in making it was to assure Mr. Taussig that, as far as I was concerned, his case lost nothing by not hearing the steamboat-men whom he had proposed to bring the following Tuesday. It was then Friday, and the Board, owing to other pressing public duties, were unable to adjourn until the time thus asked for. We had, at the time, the drawings of the bridge, furnished by the bridge company, and we had verified by measurement the principal dimensions shown on the drawing. We had also the dimensions by measurement of the steamboats of the class whose business required them to pass the bridge. There were the steamboats themselves, and there was the bridge itself before us. From these alone it was plain to see with our eyes that a majority of these boats could not pass the bridge at all, which was proof the bridge was a serious obstruction. It was an undeniable fact. But, in addition to this, many of the principal business men engaged in the navigation of the river at the present time had stated to us that the bridge was a most serious obstruction, which would, when completed, to use their own words, "practically cut the river in two." In the face of this positive statement of those injured that they are injured, I did not give much weight to the statement of those who are not injured on account of not being engaged in river-navigation. It is sufficient to make a thing a nuisance that it be obnoxious to a large portion of the public by interfering with their rights. This is especially true as to the effect of this bridge on navigation, for it injures all those wishing to pass it, and is only harmless to those who have no large boats engaged in business requiring them to pass it. The steamboat-men (so-called) whom Mr. Taussig presented to us are not now engaged in river-navigation, and I have no doubt that a close examination will show that all steamboat-men who may be got to say the bridge is no obstruction have no occasion to pass the bridge, or are in some way benefited by the injury received by others. It is, therefore, beyond doubt that, according to the statements of men truly representing the steamboat interest, the bridge is a serious injury to navigation. I wish to state that I have been since the autumn of 1866 (under a resolution of Congress) engaged at various times in collecting information on the subject of building bridges across the Mississippi, between St. Paul and St. Louis, so as to cause the least obstruction to navigation. I have in this period also been a member of many boards of engineers considering bridges at different places, and on one such board the question of bridging for the whole Ohio River was considered. I also planned the bridge across the Mississippi at Rock Island, and located the abutments and piers. I have also been a member of several engineer boards on various riverimprovements and in charge of improvements. I have had steamboats and steamboatmen directly under my control. In all these operations I have been in frequent consultation with steamboat-men, and believe I know their views generally on the subject of bridges nearly everywhere on the western rivers. Therefore, in considering the bridge here in the heart of the Mississippi Valley, which threatens to sever or clog this great artery of commerce in its middle course, I feel that the opinions of river-men in any one locality should not be allowed to materially affect my judgment. Besides this personal experience, I had read the voluminous proceedings in the Wheeling-Bridge case, which in essential features was like the one at St. Louis, where all the points raised at St. Louis about high chimneys and high pilot-houses were fully considered and discussed, which bridge the Supreme Court required to be removed, although there were then but nine steamboats interfered with by it. I had heard all this matter talked over at Cincinnati about a bridge that Congress has since required to be raised, so that I really believe I know all that could be said on the questions involved. Thus I said to Mr. Taussig, as quoted by him, (in order to show him that higher considerations than the statement of irresponsible river-men controlled my mind,) "That if a thousand steamboat-men were to come and say the bridge was no obstruction it would not alter my opinion." I meant no disrespect to the steamboat-men. I believe there are none of them now engaged in river-business that will say it is no obstruction to navigation. I do not believe there is any disinterested man who will come and look at the bridge, who will say it is no obstruction. Those who may doubt the correctness of my opinion, and the report of this Board, should come here and look at the bridge and at the steamboats, and not make up their minds by such misleading illustrations as have been lately given out from the press of the "Democrat" of this place. There can be no doubt that this bridge is an obstruction to navigation. What modification of the bridge will remedy this is one of exceeding difficulty. If it should prove that no change that can be devised and carried out will satisfy the interests of navigation, without destroying the usefulness of the bridge, then justice demands the bridge must come down and a suitable one take its place. I am not indifferent to the importance to the public and to this great city of having a reliable means of crossing the river at all times. I am not indifferent to the interest of those who have lavished their money in this undertaking; but a greater public interest should not be destroyed unnecessarily for their sake. I am convinced that a bridge suited to this great want, at an expense much less than has already been made, almost if not entirely unobstructing navigation, could years ago have been completed, upon designs well known and tried in this country, had not the authors of the present monster stood in the way. Brig. Gen. A. A. HUMPHREYS, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A. G. K. WARREN, Correspondence between the Board of Engineers and Mr. J. B Eads. E. ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, 1122 Pine Street, St. Louis, Mo., January 14, 1874. SIR: The Board of United States Engineers on the St. Louis bridge have re-assembled to prepare estimates of the cost of making the cut and draw-bridge which they recommended around the east abutment of the bridge. Your reply to the report of the Board is among the documents which have been referred to them. As you were absent when the Board held its first session, and may be desirous to present your views in person, they take this opportunity to notify you that they are prepared to give you a hearing. As their time is limited, they would suggest that you call at 1122 Pine street at such hour to-morrow morning after 10 o'clock as may be convenient to you. Captain McCune has also been invited to call to-morrow. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. B. EADS, Esq., J. H. SIMPSON, Colonel of Engineers, U. S. A., President of the Board. Chief Engineer Illinois and St. Louis Bridge Company, St. Louis, Mo. A true copy: F. J. H. SIMPSON, Colonel of Engineers. ILLINOIS AND ST. LOUIS BRIDGE COMPANY, CHIEF ENGINEER'S OFFICE, Nos. 213 and 215 Washington Avenue, St. Louis, January 15, 1874. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 14th instant, notifying me of the re-assembling of your Board " to prepare estimates of the cost of making the 46 ent and draw-bridge which they recommended around the east abutment of the bridge, and stating that my reply to the report of the Board is among the documents which have been referred to them." Your offer to give me a hearing at any time to-day after 10 o'clock, if I desire it, is likewise noted in your letter, and also the fact that Captain McCune has been invited to be present. Having nothing to communicate on the subject beyond what is embraced in my review of the report of the Board, a copy of which you possess, and thanking you for the courtesy of your notification and invitation to be heard by the Board, I have the honor to be your obedient servant, Gen. J. H. SIMPSON, President of Board, &c., United States Engineers. JAS. B. EADS, Q 4. PONTON RAILWAY-BRIDGE ACROSS THE MISSISSIPPI AT PRAIRIE DU CHIEN. Report of Colonel J. N. Macomb, Corps of Engineers. ROCK ISLAND, ILLS., May 6, 1874. GENERAL: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 14th ultimo, transmitting to me for report a letter of 9th April, 1874, addressed to the Hon. Secretary of War by the chairman of the Committee on Commerce of the Senate of the United States, inclosing H. R. bill 2538 To legalize and establish a ponton railway-bridge across the Mississippi River at Prairie du Chien and requesting information and suggestion in regard to proposed laws. On the receipt of your letter I gave instructions to my assistant engineer, Mr. E. F. Hoffman, to proceed to Prairie du Chien and make the requisite examination on which to base the report called for; and I now beg leave to present his report upon the subject, by which it appears that while the bridge in question is exceptionally free from objection, as an obstruction to the navigation, it only conforms to existing laws regulating the bridging of the Mississippi River, in that it affords excellent facilities for steamers and rafts to pass through the draw-openings. view of this fact, it is suggested that in legalizing the construction of the bridge it should be required that the draw-openings be maintained without any reduction of their existing widths. In The third section of the proposed act seems to provide amply for all alterations in this bridge that may be found necessary hereafter for the better protection of the navigation. The papers sent to me for report are herewith returned as required. I remain, very respectfully, your most obedient servant, Brig. Gen. A. A. HUMPHREYS, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A. J. N. MACOMB, Colonel of Engineers, U. S. A. |