And in summing up in that report, he further says:

In conclusion, I have to express the opinion that the ship-canal project requires further study before plans and locations and modes of operations can be fixed and a reliable or even approximate estimate can be made; and I recommend:

*

Third, that the survey of the ship-canal be continued, and further studies as to locations and plans to be made; and in this connection one important experiment to make (in connection with multitudinous borings) would be a practical trial of excavation for the canal-prism for a length of one or two hundred feet.

In common with other members, I was strongly impressed, until the appearance of the report, which has been cited, that the dissenting member entertained an opposite view of the feasibility of excavating the trunk of the canal, which he based in part upon the successful excavation of the North Sea Canal to a depth of 7.50 meters through an alluvial soil.

The idea of this experimental prism was probably adopted from a suggestion by one of the signers of the report of the board, made prior to the visit to New Orleans.

The preliminary report of the board had previously recommended an appropriation, among other objects, to be used for determining "the best locations for locks and for the trunk of the canal." The second report of the board again refers the location of the canal to the result of future examinations and borings. The author, in his second minority report, not only makes no mention of any apprehended difficulties in the excavation and maintenance of the trunk of the canal, but even appears to fault the board with not determining the location of the canal until further borings and examinations should be made, and states:

Neither observation of, and familiarity with, engineering works in Louisiana, nor the borings made by Captain Howell, suggest to me that any material variation of its location will be suggested by further scrutiny of the substrata by boring.

On the question of maintenance of the side-slopes of the prism of the canal, there have been apparently, on the part of the dissenting member, two changes of opinion, and, on the question of the necessity for further borings, one change of opinion, so that on these points at least the board cannot be said to have disagreed with him.

The only difference between the dissenting member and the board, so far visible, is, he believes, "a more protracted and more comprehensive study is required to fix the location," while the board urges additional borings and examinations to be made as a preliminary to the determination of the best location of the canal.

2. The foundations for the locks are diffusively treated in the minority reports of December 6, 1873, and of January 29, 1874.

But there is no controversy on this score that I can discover between the board and the dissenting member, the board simply stating that the foundation can be laid by any one of several processes well known to engineers.

3. One of the paragraphs of the minority report is so worded as to leave it to be inferred that the grillage designed in the project laid before the board was approved by them. This is a mistake; the grillage was never approved.

4. The Board of Engineers, in their last report (printed) upon the canal project, arrive at the conclusion, "more particularly and pertinently from the character of the borings made by Captain Howell," that the construction of the canal is entirely feasible. "But it is suggested, in order to avoid beds and pockets of quicksand known to exist at some points in this locality, that the precise line of the canal should not be decided upon until a more thorough examination of the substrata has been made

by borings." The board thinks that such an examination may indicate the necessity not only of adopting a curve or series of curves for the axis of the canal, but also of selecting other points of termini than those recommended by Captain Howell; also "one member of the board is in favor of locating the Gulf terminus to the northward, and consequently under the lee of Sable Point, and of securing the requisite depth of water into Isle au Breton Pass by dredging. This would naturally carry the river terminus nearer to Fort St. Philip, and perhaps within suitable distance from the work to satisfy the requirements of a good defense without the erection of special works for that purpose."

Before drawing my inferences, I invite particular attention to conclusions 1, 4, 7, and 8 of that report. The borings made by Captain Howell being very few and far between, the board must have inferred the general character of the formation to be uniform, the number of borings otherwise not being sufficient to predicate anything upon, and, least of all, to sustain the conclusion of the board that the construction and maintenance of the canal presented no extraordinary engineering difficulties. Notwithstanding the minority report expends much space and time in the attempt to show that the board thought there were material variations in the character of the formations, the variations which the board say do exist are limited areas or pockets of quicksand, and it might have been said of soft mud, which, for the economical construction of the locks and trunk of the canal, it were expedient to avoid. The minority report, though embracing a long quotation from the report of the board, neglects to instance the subject above, though this alone would furnish a sufficient reason for demanding further borings. The minority report, however, afterward concedes this point in the following words:

The mobility of "the find sand" where it exists, as it sometimes does, in strata, almost destitute of clay, may, indeed, enhance the difficulties of making the canal trunk, and of getting through them to reach the lock foundation.

This acknowledgment is as much as could be desired.

5. Another reason for extended examinations was contained in the project of Major Warren; this being the debouché of the canal north of and under the lee of Sable Point. I send a tracing herewith, giving Major Warren's line of the axis of the canal. Major Warren's idea of a radical change of the location of the axis was explained to the board long before that of Colonel Barnard or of General Beauregard, and the minority report mistakes when it asserts that the idea originated with the latter gentleman. This may not be a matter of importance, but it is the fact.

It is clearly perceived, from this recapitulation, that an extensive field of investigation was laid out; the possible location of the canal along any line from Fort St. Philip down to or even below the line selected by Captain Howell, would include not only an examination of the land, but likewise of a certain area of the bottom of the Gulf.

6. If a line be adopted emerging into the Gulf north of Sable Point, which condition would carry with it the excavation in the water of a large portion of the trunk, no jetties would be necessary, and their cost, or a portion thereof, might be devoted, if considered necessary, to the construction of a breakwater against northeast and north storms. No protection from southeast storms would be required, the land serving as breakwater against them.

If the line of Captain Howell be selected, jetties would be required, and these should be spread apart at their junction with the land, and

inclined toward each other at their seaward extremities, after the usual mode of forming a harbor with piers. The direction of the axis of the canal being northeast, besides the harbor itself, there would be a considerable lee on the outside of the piers for the protection of many vessels of moderate draught of water against southeast storms. These considerations of the protection of shipping against storms are not now, for the first time, thought of; they formed the subject of discussion by members of the board, and were so evident that it was not considered necessary to incorporate them in their report. Such, at least, was my view at the time.

7. The necessity of fortifying the canal was likewise so evident that the board assumed it without discussion, and the only question in reference to it to be found in their report is whether the defense of the canal should depend upon existing works, or upon works specially constructed. No doubt has ever been expressed of the advisability of attaching the defense of the canal to existing works, provided other important points, among which was the permanence of the banks, which might involve the security of the foundation of the lock, could be adjusted suitably. General Beauregard says in his letter: "Its (the canal's) location on the river should be under the protection of the guns of Forts St. Philip and Jackson, due regard being had to the permanency of the river-bank." (The underscoring is mine.) The permanency of the bank is the very point, for it has been represented to members of the board that encroachments upon one bank and fillings at the other are progressing at the bend, and in the neighborhood of Fort St. Philip. This state of things requires careful investigation before deciding upon the location of the canal near that fort.

8. The fact that the board had found it necessary to relegate the whole matter to the officer in charge for additional investigations before the location, even, of the canal could be satisfactorily settled, is a sufficient justification for their brief report, (if brevity in such matters is ever to be excused,) and for omitting to discuss further details, most of which will probably be solved by the examination recommended.

9. The line of canal recommended in the minority report furnishes a good lea against northeast storms, but not against southeasters. It would be ten and three-quarter miles long, of which eight and threequarter miles would lie in the water. The navigation of a long, narrow channel, by vessels under the influence of side winds, would be difficult, owing to the constant tendency to drift upon the side of the excavation. I do not perceive how the cost could be less than that of Captain Howell's project, which is the most expensive of the various lines considered by the board; and, besides, our present knowledge of the bed of the Gulf in that locality is too limited to permit it to be assumed that the excavation of the trunk would be permanent. Investigations in the shape of borings, which the minority report will not join the board in recommending, appear to be necessary to solve the question.

10. The minority report, to sustain its views, quotes with approval from a report of the late Colonel Abert, in reference to the canalproject of the late Major Chase. The latter, in his report on a shipcanal said:

The obstacles presented to an easy entrance of the Mississippi by vessels drawing 12 feet of water are productive of great injury to the commerce of New Orleans, and require to be promptly removed; or, failing to be done, the construction of a ship-canal on the plan indicated by Major Buisson should be resorted to.

No wonder that the expense of the project, ten millions, should have turned Colonel Abert's views back to the methods of improving some

one of the passes, to ascertain whether 12 feet, or a little more, could not be obtained there.

In my opinion Colonel Abert was justified in rejecting the canal, because an adequate motive for its construction was wanting; while the passes could be improved easily to the depth then demanded. But if instead of 12 feet, the question had been of 25 or 26 feet in depth at the passes, would Colonel Abert have decided as he did? I think not. 11. No breakwater could be constructed in Isle au Breton Pass, in the neighborhood of the canal, on account of the damage and deterioration which might result to the pass itself from the structure; it might be placed south of Isle au Breton, but in order to protect vessels against storms, from southeast around to northeast, it would be necessary, if there was but one breakwater, to make it in the shape of an L, and this form would result in the filling of the interior space with silt, and considerable loss of benefit. I think the necessity for a breakwater, other than would be afforded by the construction of the outlet of the canal itself, has been much exaggerated. The storms from the southeast, which are the most violent, prevail exactly at that period of the year when the export trade of the Mississippi Valley is at its minimum. Against northeast storms, the lee of Isle au Breton, and of the shoals around it, would constitute a considerable protection. Large ships in that anchorage would ride out any ordinary storm, and it would be going too far to suppose that a navigator would allow himself to be caught in this cul-de-sac, when he might obtain due notice of the approach of a hurricane or cyclone. At all events, during the civil war our blockaders, composed mostly of merchant-vessels, were able to blockade continuously the ports of the Gulf, and even of the Atlantic coast.

During the prevalence of a hurricane or cyclone the protection afforded by a breakwater would not be of the slightest moment; vessels unable to enter a port on the approach of such storms have to run out to sea. In a severe gale vessels cannot enter the passes of the Mississippi, Galveston Harbor, nor, I think, any harbor on the Gulf except the Tortugas.

12. It has been said that the board should have included the cost of defensive works in their estimate for the canal. The board have confined their action to the instructions given them, after a careful consideration of their scope; and, besides, it would have been impossible to estimate for defensive works when the location, even, of the canal had not been settled.

I understand that the defenses of Forts St. Philip and Jackson have been planned under the supposition of there being a depth over the bar, at the passes, of about 18 feet, and that an increase to 25 feet, which is sufficient for the large class of iron-clads, would compel a considerable addition to be made to the present projects for those works; and further, that the cost of these additions would equal that of any defenses which it would be necessary to provide for the canal. Supposing the passes improved-as they cannot be defended by fortifications-the whole lower part of the river would be at the service of an enemy having a naval superiority. It is impossible, on the other hand, unless the canal be absolutely abandoned to the enemy, for him to make use of it. In the question of military defense, therefore, the canal is much superior.

13. The minority report appears to differ materially from that of the board, but this appearance is due principally to the fact that there are two reports discussed in the same paper-the project of Captain Howell,

and the report of the board-and from a certain inattention to precise arrangement the distinction between the two becomes obscure, and the reader is apt to mistake which party-Captain Howell, or the board-is criticised by the dissenting member. I have analyzed the supposed differences and give the result.

1. The board and the dissenting member consider a canal to be entirely practicable.

2. Both consider Isle au Breton Pass as suited for the outlet.

3. Both consider the peninsula of Fort St. Philip, below the fort, as the proper place for the other terminus.

4. Neither party would consent to place the terminus at a position where the river-bank was in danger.

5. Both desire the outlet to be near Sable Point.

6. Both consider that the canal should be under the protection of defensive works, and of existing ones, if possible.

7. There are no differences, of which I am aware, about the lock. 8. There was no controversy about foundations.

9. There was no controversy about location, because the board had not fixed one.

10. There is practically no difference about protection to vessels; and probably had there been a complete understanding between the parties, of their respective views, this present discussion would not have been necessary.

11. The dissenting member thought the width of the canal-trunk somewhat in excess, but two large vessels with a tow-boat on each side would take up nearly all the width; sidings, however, might be constructed for passage of vessels.

12. He, however, objects to the estimate put forward by the board because no sufficient data for an approximate estimate, even, in his opinion, exist.

It is proper to say that the board considered the location chosen for the project of the engineer in charge as representing the most costly in the amount of work, as well as in the requirements of protection of vessels; and adopted it for the above reasons, in order to fix, not an approximate, but a limiting, value to the estimated cost.

However, when he discusses particulars, he makes but one exception, viz, that of 50 cents per cubic yard for excavating the trunk of the canal, which he considers too little, in view of contingent difficulties; from the knowledge which various members had of the cost of dredging, the nature of the soil to be excavated from the canal, &c., they were of the opinion that 50 cents per yard would be largely in excess, and that said excess ought to be ample to insure against probable drawbacks.

As the minority report considers the character of the soil to be suffi ciently known, and even that additional borings to test it are not necessary, the author would have doubtless gratified the board-I can speak at least for myself-by submitting his estimate for a canal, and such an attempt on his part would have been entirely feasible, claiming, as he does from professional experience, a knowledge of the difficulties to be encountered. The board, feeling that differences of opinion might arise on the subject of the improvement of the passes, and as the two subjects were radically distinct in their nature, decided to make the report on the canal separate from the other. Such a course it was thought would also have been more conducive to harmony of action.

Having carefully gone through the work of comparison, I have found the supposed differences to have nearly, if not quite, disappeared, and