U. S. Engineer's Report
- ON -
THE ST. LOUIS BRIDGE
REVIEWED.
By JAMES tD. EADS,
Ch ief Engineer.
ST. LOUIS:
DE MOCRAT LITHOGRAPHING AND PRINTING COMPANY.
I873.








ENGINEER'S OFFICE, ILLINOIS AND ST. Louis
BRIDGE COMPANY, October, I873.
To the President and Directors.
Gentlemen: The Report of a Board of United States Engineer
Officers, dated September II, 1873, approved by the Chief of Engineers U. S. A., having been referred to me, I respectfully submit on
these important papers the following
REVIEW:
Owing to an inadvertence which occurred in the U. S. Bureau
of Engineers when transmitting to this Company the above papers,
it was stated that the Report had been approved by the Honorable
Secretary of War. Fearing such high official sanction might possibly affect the credit of the Company, the Chairman of your Executive
Committee and myself immediately visited Washington to obtain
a,recall of this approval until a review of the' Report could be laid
before'the Department.*
We learned from the Honorable Secretary that he had not
approved the Report, and had taken no action on it, and a letter from
the Chief of Engineers, addressed to the President of the Company,
explained and corrected the inadvertence above mentioned.
The order convening the Board directs it " to examine the construction of the St. Louis and Illinois Bridge across the Mississippi
river at St. Louis, and report whether the Bridge will prove a
serious' obstruction to the navigation of the river; and, if so, in what
manner its construction can be modified."
I was informed by the Honorable Secretary of War that the
board was convened as " experts" -to examine the subject, and was
*The Report of the Board, with the approval of the same by the Chief of Engineers, will be
found in the Appendix.




L4 1
not required to take the opinion of others upon it. The Report, however, conveys, by its tenor, the evidence *that the decision of its
members was formed not alone on their own judgment as experts,
but also upon the statement of a few of the steamboatmen examined. I was not present, but am reliably informed that the Board
refused to receive the rebutting testimony of the Company, which,
in consequence, has made complaint through its counsel to the War
Department.*
The Report declares that the Bridge will be a very serious obstruction to navigation when completed.
The correctness of this decision rests wholly upon the reliability
of the testimony received by the Board, and the qualifications of its
own members as experts in river navigation. For manifestly if the
evidence relied upon be untrustworthy, and the members themselves
not qualified to act as experts, their opinions, although unanimous,
and strengthened by the indorsement of the chief officer of their
corps, can be of no value whatever. The views of the steamboatmen
referred to in the Report are shown by the accompanying letters to
be wholly incorrect. The first one of these letters is from the Mayor
of St. Louis, Capt. Joseph Brown, who commanded several of the
largest steamers on the river, and the second one is from a number
of other well-known, highly respected and skillfiul commanders,
who have also navigated some of the largest steamers afloat. Several of these gentlemen are to-day deeply interested in the largest
ones; hence they would be pecuniarily injured if the Bridge were
really a serious obstruction.  Not one of these gentlemen has a
dollar of interest in the Bridge.
The height necessary for the pilot, and the difficulty of steering
through the central part of the arch, are the only two questions on
which the Board seemed to think it necessary to support its own
views by reference to the assertions of steamboatmen. It will be
hereafter seen by quotations from these letters that on these two
points their statements were wholly unreliable. This fact established, it remains to examine what value should attach to the
opinions of the distinguished experts themselves.
Webster defines an " expert" as " one who has skill experience,'See affidavits of Dr. Win. T'aussig and Gen. Noble, in Appendix.




Ls5
or peculiar knowledge on certain subjects of inquiry in science, art,
trade, or the like."  I believe this definition is generally accepted
as correct. The possession of either "' skill" or "experience" in
steam navigation on rivers can only be the result of individual practice and as these gentlemen have not had this, it cannot be claimed
that they have either skill or experience. Hence their qualifications
must necessarily rest solely upon the possession of some "' peculiar
knowledge" of river navigation, and this, for the same reason,
cannot be practical knowledge.
Their distinguished reputation would, however, lead the public
to infer that they had carefully studied the various problems of river.
navigation, and that their superior scientific acquirements made the
correct solution of these questions so simple that practical knowledge
was unnecessary. It will be presently seen whether the views of
the Board justify this inference. The opinions of purely scientific
gentlemen on questions of commerce, navigation and the like, must,
when challenged, bear the crucial tests of experience, or they will
fail to command public confidence. The Report declares:
" The apparently unreasonable height and size of the chimneys' in general use on these steamboats, are really essential to secure a
"good draft to the furnaces, and economical combustion of fuel.
"Artificial means to procure the same end are generally very
" expensive, and often ineffective."
Nowhere has the economy of fuel been so closely studied as in
the construction of ocean steamers. Artificial means are seldom
used on them to produce a draft, aud although the largest ones
consume much more fuel per day than any Mississippi steamer,
none of their chimneys approach the height of some of those on the
river. The great development of power witnessed every day in
locomotives, whose chimneys never exceed ten or twelve feet in
length, is obtained without any artificial means to produce draft,
except by the escapement of their waste steam. These facts completely disprove this first statement of the Board.
The Report says: " Although it is a comparatively easy task to
" lower small chimneys, dealing with those of a large size is a very
" serious matter, indeed. Their weight is so utterly disproportionate
" to their strength, even when new, that no machinery yet devised




[6]
" will enable large chimneys to be lowered either wholly or in part
" without very great labor and danger. "
As it is well known to every one that it is more difficult to raise
a thing than to lower it, the reader will wonder by what extraordinary means these formidable chimneys were ever erected, when
it is so very difficult to let them down. The second letter referred
to above, says: "' We have often raised and lowered them, and do
not think with such appliances (falls, and derricks) that it is either
dangerous or a very great labor. We believe $i,ooo or $1,500
would pay for hinging the chimneys and providing improved appliances by which the largest chimneys in use could be readily lowered
and raised." This is the testimony of thirteen experienced steamboat captains, and it is sufficient to refute this second statement of
the Board.
The entire weight of that part of the largest chimney which would
require to be lowered is only three or four tons. If we assume the
length of this part to be seventy feet above the hurricane deck, and
seven feet in diameter, and made of No. 12 sheet-iron of a strength
equal to 50,000 lbs. per square inch, a little calculation will show
that such a cylinder, if well riveted, will, even after discounting 40
per cent. of its strength for the riveted joints, require over 300 tons
to pull it asunder. Standing erect, it will sustain 60 tons with safety.
If each end of such a chimney be provided with a strong angle iron
flanch sufficient to preserve its circular form, and it be placed horizontally on rests at its ends, it will support a distributed load over
its length equal to half a dozen such chimneys.
The size of chimney named is an extreme one, whilst the thickness is not unusual, nor is the tensile strength beyond that of good
iron. A few of the simplest calculations that are made in the office
of an engineer will suffice to disprove completely the third statement
of the Board, to the effect that " their weight is so utterly dispropor"tionate to their strength, even when new."
The Board enforces its opinion respecting the necessity of very
high pilot-houses, by declaring that " experience has decided this
" point most clearly."  This declaration loses all of its force when
compared with the following simple statement made by the gentlemen just referred to, one of whom is the captain and part owner of
the Richmond, which probably carries the highest pilot-house afloat.




"In no case is it absolutely necessary for safety (in navigating the
largest boats) for the pilot to be more than 5 or 40 feet above the
water line."  The fourth statement of the Board is thus shown to
be fallacious.
On the assumption that a clear height of 50 feet above directrix is
requisite for safe navigation, the Report says: " The horizontal chord
" of the center span, which lies 5 feet below the crowh of the' arch,
"is I74 feet long, and gives the least width of water-way which
" seems compatible with safe navigation."
On this assumption it will be evident, presently, that the Board
has understated the safe width at least fifty per centum.
The highest part of the boat remaining, when the chimneys are
lowered, is the pilot-house. This, on large steamers, is usually surmounted with a pyramidal canopy or roof, the apex of which is of
course safe anywhere within the I74 feet. As it is much higher
than any other portion of the boat, it follows that when it is at either
end of this distance, one-half the width of the steamer must be outside of this i74 feet, and yet in safety under the descending part of
the arch-for the apex of this canopy is immediately over the keel
of the boat. As the largest steamers are from 85 to 90 feet wide, it
is evident that that much more should have been added by the Board
to this I74 feet. Therefore, on its own data, this fifth statement, towit: that the least width compatible with safe navigation is only
174 feet, is also an error. It should have been stated at about 260
feet.
The Board having arbitrarily assumed I74 feet as the only width
of water-way compatible with safe navigation afforded by an archway 520 feet wide, and 55 feet high, then endeavors to support the
remarkable proposition that if the piers were placed at no greater
distance than 174 feet apart, they would be " far preferable" if there
were clear head way above. The arguments advanced in support of
this novel opinion are equally as notable as the proposition itself.
The Report says: "' The reason given for this is that the pierswould
" define the available width with exactness; they are easily seen and
" avoided." "'In the case of a wide arch, however, the case: is different. The piers are too far apart to be of service as guides,
"and lights placed on the structure will be so nearly overhead as to
" be of no great assistance." Even the possibility of hitting the piers




E  ]
when so close together does not lessen the superiority of the narrow
gauge. In this event the Board offers the following consolation:
" In case of striking the piers under headway, the damage done is to
" the hull alone; and even if so great as eventually to sink the boat,
" time will generally be afforded to save the lives of the crew and
"passengers;" whereas in case of a collision with the arch, the
Board assumes that the upper works of the boat would be
destroyed, and, " as the passengers are carried on the upper
" decks, such an accident would probably be attended with great
" loss of life." Further on we are told that " the steamboatmen deem
" a clear height of seventy-five feet above high water the least admis" sible" - a concurrence in which opinion doubtless actuated the
Board in recommending the canal.
In these last few extracts there are three distinct assumptions, and
these constitute the 7th,.Sth and 9th errors on which the decision of
the Board rests. These are as follows:
i. Lights placed on an arch fifty feet above high water are of no
great assistance.
2. Greater head room for passing boats is indispensable.
3. Piers 520 feet apart are too wide to serve as guides.
From these three postulates, draw-bridges and narrow piers are
absolutely necessary for safe navigation. If lights fifty feet high are
" of no great assistance," surely they will be of no use at all seventy-five. feet high; and if piers 520 feet apart are too wide to serve
as guides, there would be no means left the bewildered navigator in
approaching an opening 520 by 75 feet, but to run it by the compass, or by buoys placed in the channel.
The absurdity of this corollary proves that the three premises, of
which it is a logical sequence, are incorrect.
The fact that all three of these assumptions are errors is fully
established by the counter-statements in the letters referred to. In
addition-to this disproof, the following extract from the Report will
show the fallacy of two of them, and prove conclusively that the
Board itself believed it quite practicable for an arch fifty-five feet
high to be effectively lighted, and its wide piers distinguished with
certainty. The Report says: "Whether this modification (the canal)
" he carried out or not, the Board deem it very important that such




[91' lights and marks should be displayed by the Bridge as will enable
" boats not only to distinguish the position of the piers and arches
"with certainty, but also to be able to tell the clear headway avail"able under the Bridge."
Reasonable gentlemen would hardly wish to compel the Company
to display lights to enable boats " to distinguish the position of the
piers and arches with certainty," if they really believe "' the piers are
too far apart to be of service as guides, and lights on the structure
will be so far overhead as to be of no great assistance." As the latter
statement is completely refuted by the former one, I think its insertion in the Report must have escaped the notice of the Board.
Another proof that the Board was not justified in declaring that
the arch is too low, is shown by the following facts, which the:
Bridge Company was prevented from laying before the Board:
In the Spring of I866, several large meetings were held on'Change in this city, by gentlemen interested in protecting the navigation of these rivers. Much discussion ensued as to the proper
conditions to be imposed by law in bridging them. A memorial to
Congress presented at one of the meetings, was referred to a committee of the following fifteen gentlemen: J. S. McCune, J. F. Griffith,
Barton Able, Joseph Brown, H. C. Moore, David White, J. H.
Alexander, Wm. M. McPherson, A. W. Fagin, Geo. Pegram,
Adolphus Meier, Felix Coste, James Ward, N. Stevens and J. B.
Eads.
On the i8th of April, i866, this committee unanimously reported
a series of resolutions, and from their report I quote the following:
" Your committee have'carefully examined the subject with referance to ascertaining what restrictions are really demanded by the
marine interests involved, and what can be conceded by those interests to such an extent as to leave no serious difficulties in the way
of the requirements of the land transportation in crossing the river,
and yet preserve a comparatively uninterrupted navigation on the
Mississippi.
" The views of your committee are embodied in the following
resolutions, the adoption of which they respectfully recommend:
"Resolved, That the delegation in Congress from Missouri be requested to procure at an early day, the passage of a law to regulate




[ Io ]
the construction of bridges over the Mississippi River, and that
they earnestly endeavor to incorporate the following provisions in
said law:
6" I. That all bridges crossing the Mississippi River shall have
a clear height of fifty feet over the main channel, between the lower
part of the bridge and high water mark, measured in the center of
the greatest span.'    L2.   If below the mouth of the Missouri, they shall have one
span of 600o feet, or two spans of 450~ feet each, in the clear of
abutments.    *    *    *' 4. No draw-bridge, with a pivot or other form of draw, shall
be permitted.'"Resolved; That a copy of this report and resolutions be sent to
each member of the Senate and House of Representatives from
Missouri at Washington."
These resolutions were unanimously adopted by the Exchange,
and may, therefore, be taken as the authoritative expression of the
largest and most influential body of merchants, shippers and steamboatmen in.the valley of the Mississippi. Among the fifteen names,
are those of ten gentlemen directly interested in river navigation,
and, with very few exceptions, these were all representative men in
that interest.
In recommending such unusually long spans, the committee was
informed at the time by me, that arches of such great length were
entirely practicable, but that trusses increased in weight so rapidly
in proportion to the span, that their great cost made them yirtually
impracticable.  It was for this reason, and with a full knowledge
of thefact, that in defining the height, the words " measured in
the center of the span" were inserted by this committee.
These resolutions were published in the papers at the time, and
everyone had, therefore, full notice of the height agreed upon, and
that that height referred expressly to the centre of the greatest span
over the channel. After a company has during the last five years
expended millions of dollars in constructing a bridge with spans
greater and higher than those required in these resolutions, and
with its plans publicly exposed on'Change all the time, it is a remarkable fact that some of the gentlemen who were most influential




[ I i]
in shaping the report of the committee in i866 have been the most
active in I873 in obtaining from six eminent United States engineers
an official declaration that the Bridge, whose dimensions they were
chiefly instrumental in fixing, will when completed, prove " a very
serious obstruction to navigation." And this, too, after being prominently active in securing an official declaration from the Merchants'
Exchange of St. Louis that these dimensions will " preserve a comparatively uninterrupted navigation  on the Mississippi."   This
Exchange is composed of more than I,ooo members, a large number of whom are owners and captains of steamboats, while almost
everyone in it is more or less directly interested in preserving the
navigation of the river.  On such questions it can speak more
intelligently than any other body in this valley.
It is no justification for the bad faith of these recalcitrant committeemen to say that the Exchange declared in I873 that seventy-five
feet in height was requisite for the safe navigation of the Mississippi.
The Exchange did not, like them, ignore and repudiate in I873 what
it said in iS66. The height of seventy-five feet, as will be seen by
the resolution of last May, applied only to bridges that may be built
below St. Louis.
It will, on these facts, be conceded that it was an error of the
Board to assume that greater height than is given by the center arch
of this bridge is really necessary.
The tenth objection to the Bridge is because its arches make the
following method of navigating bridge openings impracticable when
descending the stream:
"In case of wind, a boat can be dropped through the opening by
"lines made  fast to ring-bolts in the pier itself."  "The chance of
" dropping through along the pier is not available in this case, as
" the arch of the center span springs firom a point about at the level' of high water of 1844."
This method of navigating bridge openings, I think, originated
with the Board, as it is not credited to any of the steamlboatmen
examined, and has not yet, I believe, been used on these rivers. I
have never seen a steamboat, or other vessel, dropped down in a
current by a line attached to a ring-bolt below her, and I think the
laws of gravity would prevent the success of the system, even if this




[ I2 ]
Bridge had unlimited head room; but as the proposition seems
seriously advanced by U. S. engineer officers of the highest rank,
and as objection is made to the bridge because the proposed system
"is not available in this case," I have deemed it proper to question experienced navigators of the Mississippi on the subject. I quote
the following reply from letter No. 2:
"As the face of the piers is only from one-fourth to one-sixth of
the length of the large steamers, we don't know how such a thing
is possible. Ring-bolts, to be useful in dropping a steamer, must
be placed above tlte boat, not below her. To check the lower end
of the boat, as it enters the opening by fastening to ring-bolts in
either pier, would simply result in having the upper end swing
around broad side, and would probably wreck her on one of the
piers. The upper end could not, of course, be controlled by ringbolts I50 or 200 feet below it. In case of wind it would be still
more impracticable."
From this it is evident that without further explanation, the proposed system of ring-bolt' navigation will meet with but little favor
from the steamboatmen. On their testimony I feel justified in saying
that this tenth statement of the Board is not sustained.
The Board thinks the steering through I 74 feet of the center of the
arch-way would be a matter of great uncertainty, but the testimony
in the letters directly refutes this objection. Letter No. 2 declares
on this point: " It would not be a matter of any difficulty * * * *
Many of the channels through the difficult bars below St. Louis
are not over Ioo or I50 feet wide, and these are run by the largest
boats either by buoys in them or by marks ashore." So much
for the eleventh objection of the Board.
The Report says: "They would moreover state that. arched
" trusses, like those under construction, present so many difficulties
" to free navigation that, in future, their use should be prohibited
" in plans for bridges over navigable streams."
It is to be regretted that the Board was not more explicit in defining the " so many difficulties" before condemning the use of a form
which often combines the highest economy with the most elegant
and graceful proportions in architecture and engineering. Only two




[ I3 ]
of these " many difficulties" are clearly indicated in the Report.
One is that it prevents the proposed system of navigation by ringbolts, and the other is the danger to life in case the upper works of
the boat should come in contact with the arch.
The opinion of practical navigators, as set forth in the letters,
seems to prove that ring-bolts would be useless, even if there were
no arch to limit the head-room, and therefore the first objection falls
to the ground. In the second one. the Board offers only the alternative of narrow piers and danger to the hull, versus wide arches and
danger to the upper-works. As practical navigators (see the second
letter) assert that injury to the hull would be more dangerous than
to the upper-works, the second objection falls also. Under this
evident diversity of sentiment between practical boatmen and the
Board, it would seem advisable not to prohibit the use of arches
until experience shall demonstrate what insuperable difficulties will
really result here when this Bridge is completed. On almost every
navigable river in Europe, arches are in use, and are passed without delay by steamers. It will be' asserted that these steamers are
much smaller than ours, but it may' be answered that the arches
under which they pass are also much smaller and lower. Certainly
a large vessel can pass through a large one as safely and easily as
a smaller one can through a small archway, if the relative proportions of the arches and vessels be the same.
The Report says of the proposed canal: "' The steamboatmen have
" stated to the Board that they would be satisfied with this modifi" cation, and the engineers of the Bridge Company only raise as an
" objection the delay to trains caused by opening and shutting the' draw. "
I do not know what authority the Board had for thus committing
me to a plan which, in my opinion, is impracticable and useless.
No " bridge engineer" but myself is justified in speaking authoritatively on any proposed modification of this Bridge, and I was not
addressed on the subject by a single member of the Board, nor in
any way notified of its appointment or sitting. Col. Flad, who was
temporarily in charge of the work during my absence, assures me
that he gave no authority for any such statement, nor do I know of
a " bridge engineer" who did. If consulted on the subject, I should




[ 14 ]
have objected to the canal, for several reasons: First, it is absolutely
unnecessary; second, it would delay the completion of the Bridge;
third, it would be enormously. expensive; fourth, it would destroy
all of the wharf of East St. Louis alongside of the canal; fitth, it
would ruin the landing for several hundred feet below the canal, by
causing a deposit along the shore; sixth, it would involve a drawbridge, which would be inconvenient and dangerous, if ever opened;
and seventh, it would mutilate the Bridge.
It has never been claimed that the Bridge will not, to some extent,
prove an impediment to the free navigation of the river. A single
pier cannot be planted in its channel without involving increased
caution on the part of those who navigate it, nor can a structure be
thrown across the stream which will not either limit the height
of that which floats' beneath it, or rethrd its progress until a draw
be opened to let it pass. The right, however, of the traffic which
flows east or west to cross the river, is fully equal to that of the commerce on the river to go to the north or south. They are both
common interests of the whole country, and the one cannot be
favored at the expense of the other without loss to the nation. Both
intersect each other at St. Loutis in such volume, that mutual concessions are imperative to insure the least delay to each other. These
facts must be patent to the uneducated mind, and should not be
ignored by gentlemen of intelligence, when sitting as experts in a.
matter where the question of what concessions should be made by
each of these great interests really underlies the problem they were
ordered to investigate. If they had no authority to consider this
cardinal question, there was no necessity of convening so much
ability, for it requires no great intelligence to discover that two piers
standing in the main channel are an obstruction to navigation, and
that the sides of an arch are too low to permit the passage of a craft
as high as the crown of it. Yet this is really the sum total of the
information given us by the Board. Such a result is no less unfortunate for the Board than for the Bridge Company. For the ability
of its members in their legitimate profession, no one entertains a
more profound respect than myself. The question of obstruction
to navigation, however, is not an engineering one.  It is one in
which the judgment of experienced boatmen is of more value than
that of the ablest engineers living. I cannot help regretting, there



[ I5s 
fore, that the Board thought its instructions did not require it to
hear evidence in favor of, as well as complaints against, the Bridge.
Constrained by a sense of official duty not to seek for the testimony of experienced steamboatmen in favor of the Bridge, the Board
was deprived of the intelligent and liberal opinions of such gentlemen as those whose views are herewith submitted, and the result is
that it was unconsciously biased in its judgment while striving to
discharge its duty conscientiously. The Report, therefore, reflects the
absurd objections of the complainants, and some of those are set forth
with an amount of superlatives which serve to make their fallacies
still more prominent. Unreasonably high chimneys are declared
"really essential for an economical combustion of fuel." Dealing
with large ones is " a very serious matter indeed," because their
weight is " so utterly disproportioned to their strength;" that they
cannot be let.'down " without very great danger and labor;" pilot
houses cannot be lowered, because " experience has decided most
clearly" that they must be maintained too high for the arch; " great
loss of life" will most probably occur if the upper works collide
with the arch, but none is expected from the boat striking narrow
piers; ring-bolts cannot be used in dropping boats through;' "the
piers are too far apart to serve as guides;" lights on the arch " will
be of no great assistance," and therefore the Bridge is not simply
declared an obstruction, nor even a serious obstruction, but "a
very serious obstruction to navigation."
This recitation of difficulties and objections is greatly to be regretted for reasons beyond those which affect the bridge; for when
gentlemen of acknowledged technical ability are led, from any cause
whatever, to utter opinions which experience disproves, or judgments which time will reverse,. public confidence in the value of
scientific acquirements is lessened, whereas their real worth, when
legitimately applied, can scarcely be overestimated.
As a remedy for imaginary difficulties, the Board proposes to
destroy the stone arches on the Illinois shore, and in their place to
make a canal with a draw-bridge over it. One argument in favor
of this scheme is as follows: "They (the Board) think, moreover,
" that it will only be in exceptional cases that boats will desire to
" pass through this draw, so the delay to trains from this cause will
not be excessive." In this opinion I fully concur. I fail, however,




[ I6
to see the propriety of building such an expensive canal for such
exceptional cases. This one argument alone is certainly sufficient to
condemn the proposition it is intended to sustain.
The remarkable decision rendered against your Bridge, and the
remedial canal proposed, will constitute one of the notable incidents
connected with its history. If there be any who still think the
structure will prove a very serious obstruction to navigation, the indulgence of a little patience from them must be asked until the completion of the work, and then the Bridge will vindicate the judgment
of the St. Louis Merchants' Exchange, which officially fixed its
dimensions in I866, and secured from Congress an incoporation of
them in the charter of the company, in strict conformity to which
the Bridge is now being constructed.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES B. EADS,
ChiEf Engineer.
[LETTER NO. I.]
MAYOR'S OFFICE,
ST. LouIS, November 7, I873To the Illinois and St. Louis Bridge Company,
Capt. JAMES B. EADS, Chief Engineer:
DEAR SIR-Having been requested to give my opinion as to
whether the Illinois and St. Louis Bridge, now building across the
Mississippi River at St. Louis, can, be considered an obstruction to
navigation, I have to state, that in one view of the case every formidable object placed in the channel of a river is an obstruction to
navigation; but it is also clear that bridges are a necessity, and that
they cannot be built over large streams without placing piers where
they must interfere more or less with navigation.
The spans of the Illinois and St. Louis Bridge are the largest arch
spans in the world, the central river piers being over five hundred
feet apart, and consequently interfere less with the free navigation
of the river than any other span bridge.




[ I7 ]
From observation and from twenty years' experience as a boatman
and navigator of the Mississippi River, if I was in charge of one of
our largest steamers (numbers of which I have commanded), I
would not be afraid to take her through between the piers, even in
a storm or any other weather except fog, and it is impracticable to
run a steamer anywhere on the river in a fog.
I consider the proposition of the Government Engineers to drop a
steamer between the piers down stream, by the aid of ring-bolts attached to the piers,' as entirely unnecessary, impracticable and contrary to the laws of gravitation.
In relation to the elevation  of' the spans of the Bridge, it
would have been better if the arches had been higher, as in some
stages of water it may prevent the largest class of steamers from
passing under it, even'if their chimneys were lowered; and to pass
under it in high water would necessitate a change in some portion
of the upper works, suCh as the texas (so called) and pilot-house.
I think the pilot-houses could be so located and constructed that the
largest steamers could pass under the arches at the highest stage of
water, but, in my opinion, it would be at the sacrifice of the symmetry of the boat and somewhat of the adaptedness of the location
and construction of the pilot-house for piloting purposes.  As
between the present structure without a draw, having piers
(500) five hundred feet apart, and a structure with a draw and
piers only (I74) one hundred and seventy-four feet apart, I am
satisfied the present Bridge will obstruct or interfere with a much
smaller proportion of the various craft navigating the river.
While I greatly wish that the arches of the Bridge could have been
placed higher, yet I know that was impossible from its location and
connection with the Tunnel, the height of which was arbitrary on
account of having to pass under the streets of the city, hence the
height of the arches had to conform to the height of the Tunnel.
In regard to making a canal around the east abutment of the
Bridge on the East St. Louis side, I should think it a poor commentary on the good sense of our law-makers at Washington to
authorize the damming up of the Mississippi to such an extent as to
render it necessary to construct a canal in place of it. Indeed I
think it would be a poor way of remedying the evil, for it would
create another by destroyin'g the East St. Louis levee,'and even if




[ Is ]
constructed, I do not believe enough steamers would pass through
it to pay toll sufficient to maintain it, saying nothing of the original
cost.
Finally, the Illinois and St. Louis Bridge has now been nearly
five years in constant construction at a cost of probably $Io,oooooo,
and I consider its completion more vital to the interests of St. Louis
than any other public improvement now in progress, and to delay
or obstruct its completion would be a very great injury not only to
the business of the city but the country at large, and especially the
commercial development of the West. Whatever inconvenience
may be caused the larger class steamers during extreme high water
(which is to be regretted), yet we must come back to the original
proposition, viz: are not the advantages accruing to business and
commerce, through the instrumentality of the Bridge, of far greater
importance than any injury it may entail upon river navigation, and
the answer must be emphatically in favor of the Bridge. I consider
thl time for fault-finding or urging its removal as having more than
elapsed, and that now no obstacle should be placed in the way of its
earliest completion, leaving the future to dictate what means, if any,
may seem necessary to obviate any difficulties that may present
themselves, for I consider the structure one of national importance,
and in every point of view past modification or removal.
Very respectfully,
JOSEPH BROWN, Mayor.




[ I9 1
[LETTER NO. 2.]
ST. LOUIS, November 5, 1873.
Capt. JAMIES  B. EADS, Chzief Engineer
of the Illinois and St. Louis Bridge:
DEAR SIR-We are in receipt of your letter of November i, I873,
requesting replies to certain questions, herein repeated, which we
have answered in their respective order, as follows:
Question. —At what height do you deem it really essential to place
the pilot above the surface of the water for the safe navigation of the
largest steamers on this river?
Answer.-An elevation that will give the pilot a fair view of the
upper outlines of the boat. In no case is it ab3olutely necessary for
safety to exceed thirty-five or forty feet above the water line.
Question.-In passing through an archway of this Bridge, would it
be a matter of very great difficulty to keep the boat within a width of
I74 feet, occupying the central portion of the archway?
Answer.-It would not be a matter of any difficulty, as the current
runs parallel with the face of the piers. Many of the channels
through the difficult bars below St. Louis are not over Ioo or I50 feet
wide, and these tre run by the largest boats, either by buoys in them,
or by marks on shore. It is when steamers have barges or other vessels in tow that wide spans in bridges are most important. In foggy
or very windy weather it would not be safe to attempt running narrow
and difficult channels anywhere on the river, and in such weather
there would of course be some danger in passing through the Bridge.
Question.-Is it a matter of great labor or danger to raise or lower
the largest chimneys on the river with the usual appliances of falls
and derricks?
Answer. —We have often raised and lowered them, and do not think
with such appliances that it is either dangerous or a very great labor.
We believe $I,ooo or $I,500 would pay for hinging the chimneys and
providing improved appliances by which the largest chimneys in use
could be readily lowered and raised.




[ 20 ]
Question.-Do you deem such very high chimneys really necessary
for economy of fuel or draft?
Answer.-We think not, too great a draft may be created for economy; the proper construction of the furnaces render extra'lengths of
chimneys unnecessary.
Question.-If there was clear head room alongside the piers of the
St. Louis Bridge, would it be practicable to drop a large steamer
through by means of lines and ring-bolts -fastened to the piers, either
in windy or clear weather?
Answer.-As the face of the piers is only from one-fourth to onesixth of the length of the large steamers, we don't know how such a
thing is possible. Ring-bolts, to be useful in dropping a steamer,
must be placed above the boat, not below her. To check the lower
end of the boat, as it enters the opening, by fastening to ring-bolts in
either pier, would simply result in having the upper end swung
around broadside, and would probably wreck her on one of the piers;
the upper end could not, of course, be controlled by ring bolts I50 or
200oo feet below it. In case of wind it would be still more impracticable.
Question.-Do you believe steamboatmen are generally hostile to
this Bridge?
Answer.-We believe, on the contrary, that a large portion are
-friendly to it, because it proves that wide spans are practicable.  Of
course they would prefer higher spans; but they recognize the right
-of the railways to cross the river, and they feel that the steamboat
interests must make reasonable concessions. We think the construction of any steamer afloat can be altered, at little cost, so as to enable
her to pass its arches at all stages of water.  These alterations
would only relate to her upper works. Large boats need seldom go
above the Bridge, and can in high water take a little extra care in
going through it. If it were located below the city, and in the constant track of the big boats, it would then be important to have the
arches much higher.
Question.-What do you think of the canal proposed by the United
States Engineers?
Answer.-We think it altogether impracticable.
Questikn.-For safe and convenient navigation, would it be preferable for this bridge to have an opening limited in width by piers to




[ 21 ]
174 feet, but with clear head room for chimneys and upper works, or
to have an archway of 520 feet with the central I74 feet of it limited,
in height to fifty feet above the city directrix?
Answer. —As the portion of the archway that is full fifty feet high
is greatly more than I74 feet in ordinary water, and as very high water
comes quite rarely, we think the present form and width greatly
preferable, so far as safety is concerned. It is chiefly a question of
which is the greatest danger, having the hull collide with the piers,
or having the upper works damaged by the lower part of the arch.
The latter accident would of course be much less dangerous, and
hence the wide span is much safer.
[Signed]
N. S. GREEN, Steamer Richmond.
JOHN McCLOY, Steamer Continental.
N. BOFINGER, Prest. St. L. & N. O. Packet Co.
JNO. W. CARROLL, SuPt. St. L. & N. O. Pk't Co.
HENRY C. HAARSTICK, V. P. Miss. Val. Trans. Co.
THEODORE LAVEILLE,
J. P. FITZGERALD,
DANIEL G. TAYLOR,
GEO. W. FORD,
BARTON ABLE,
W. H. BROWN,
J. S. NANSON,
P. YORE.




APPENDIX.
AFFIDAVITS:
STATE OF MISSOURI, }
COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS. f
William Taussig, being duly sworn, on his oath says, that he is
a member of the Board of Directors of the Illinois and St. Louis
Bridge Company, and the chairman of its Executive Committee;
that on the occasion of the investigation had by the Board of Engineer Officers convened under Special Order No. I69, War Department, Adjutant General's Office, dated Washington, August 20,
1873, to examine the construction of the St. Louis and Illinois Bridge,
and report whether the Bridge will prove a serious obstruction to
river navigation, and if so, in what manner its construction can be
modified, which proceedings were had at St. Louis about September
4th, and following days.  He was present at the sittings of said
Board, and represented the Bridge Company, in connection with
John W. Noble, who acted as counsel for said company.
Affiant states that he has read the affiidavit of John W. Noble,
dated November 26, I873, and that the statements therein contained
are true, and in addition thereto affiant further states, 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. I69, 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.




[ 23 ]
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.
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 3oth day of August, I873, on Col. 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.
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.*
That at the sittings of the Board of Engineers, to-wit: during the
whole of Thursday, 4th, and during Friday, the 5th of September,
up to 2 o'clock P.M. of that day, only the complainants against said
Bridge and their witnesses were heard and examined by the Board;
that during that time a great many persons, witnesses procured by
the Bridge Company to attend, had called and were present for the
purpose of being heard, but left again because no opportunity was
given them; that on Friday, September 5th, at 2 o'clock P.M., the
first two witnesses of those in attendance on behalf of the Bridge
Company were given an opportunity to testify, and at the close of
their testimony, it then being late and all of their witnesses having
left, affiant, in behalf of the Bridge Company, asked for an adjournment to the next day (Saturday) or to the Monday following, in
order to enable the company to bring forward important evidence
upon the points involved and as to the complaints made, tending to
disprove such statements as had been heard from complainants
against the Bridge, and which statements were the first intimations
the Company had of the ground of complaint. In making this request, affiant stated that the Bridge Company "asked only for as
many hours as the complainants had had weeks within which to
*See page 24.




[ 24 ]
prepare their testimony," as was evidenced by the complainants'
carefully prepared plats, schedules, measurements, and otherwise
organized opposition to the bridge.
This request was positively denied, and when this affiant stated
that a great many old and experienced steamboatmen were ready to
disprove the statements of those complaining against the Bridge, one
of the members of said Board of Engineers, Maj. Warren, said:
"If a thousand steamboatmen should come anid say that this Bridge
was no obstruction, it would not' change my opinion."
And thereupon, as affiant further says, the Bridge Company asked,
at least, for the privilege of being allowed to present a paper signed
by steamboatmen and experts, similar to the one which had been
prepared by the Board of Engineers, and by them handed to the
complainants present for signatures, but of the contrary import.
This request was also denied; whereupon the Bridge Company,
represented by affiant and their counsel. formally protested against
said proceedings, as partial and one-sided, and withdrew from all
participation therein.
Affiant says that the Bridge Company would have been prepared,
if sufficient and reasonable time had been granted them, to disprove,.
by a large number of experienced and expert persons, by statistics,
by measurements, and by adducing of facts, all of the grounds of
complaint which had been heard and considered by said Board, but
by the arbitrary and summary action of said Board they were prevented therefrom.
WM. TAUSSIG.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this fourth day of December,
[SEAL.]    A. D. I873.              THEO. F. CHILDS,
Notary Public, St. Louis Co., Mo.
OFFICE ILLINOIS AND ST. LOUIS BRIDGE CO.,
ST. Louis, Mo., September 2, I873.
Cao. JAMES H. SIMPSON, Major GOVERNEUR K. WARREN, Major
GODFREY WEITZEL, Major WM. E. MERRILL, Major CHARLES
R. SUTER, Board of Engineers under special Order No. I69,
War Department, August 20, 1873 ~
The undersigned, the Illinois and St. Louis Bridge Company,




[ 25 ]
having learned from a copy of special Order No..I69, issued by the
War Department, and obtained from you on Saturday, the 3oth 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.
This Company has been in existence and practically at work, carrying out the objects of its charters, for over five years; it has expended
and become liable for about $g9,ooo,ooo; its plans for the Bridge have
been published and circulated widely, and have been thoroughly
known to the public during the whole time above spoken of; the business of this city has been largely affected by the expected completion
of the Bridge, and the railroad grade of this Bridge has been established and fixed in accordance with and for the accommodation of
the grade of more than twenty leading trunk railroad lines, all converging at the Bridge, which railroad lines carried to and from the city
of St. Louis in the past year over 5,000,000 tons of merchandise.
During the whole of this long period no complaints have been
made by either the government or the people; the citizens of St.
Louis, all of whom are directly or indirectly largely interested in the
commerce of both rivers and railroads, looked on with the utmost
favor and approval, giving every aid and encouragement that would
hasten the final completion of this great undertaking; whilst it is safe
to say that its size, location, and importance render this structure one
of national concern.
If, therefore, under these circumstances this Company learns for the
first time that, just as its work is on the eve of completion, your
Honorable Board is convened for the purpose of examining the construction of a Bridge, the plans of which were well known all over the
country,. it cannot but be somewhat startled at the intelligence.
Entertaining a profound respect for the scientific attainments and




[ 26 ]
honorable reputation of the members of your Board, and fully satisfied that you will discharge your duties impartially, this Company,
being desirous on the one hand of rendering all the assistance it can
in your investigation, and on the other asking to be heard on its own
behalf, would most respectfully request:
First. To allow this Corporation to appear and be represented
before you by its officers and counsel, to assist in obtaining, arranging and eliciting testimony.
Second. To have your proceedings and all testimony adduced
reduced to writing by a short hand reporter.
Third. And to order your sittings so that this Company may be
represented thereat.
In all these matters it is expected that. your Board shall of course
have unlimited control, nor is any more asked than that the Company
shall be allowed to protect itself from any misapprehensions under
which it might suffer by being excluded from participating, to an
ordinary degree, in proceedings so directly pertaining to a business in
which its own interest, as well as that of the public at large, is so
greatly involved.
Yours, very respectfully,
GERARD B. ALLEN,
President.
WM. TAUSSIG,
Chm. Exec. Com.
ENGINEER'S OFFICE, U. S. ARMY, II22 Pine Street,
ST. Louis, Mo., September 4, I873.
GERARD B. ALLEN, Esq., President Illinois
and St. Louis Bridge Company, St. Louis, MAo.
Sir - Your communication of September 2d, 1873, has been
received. Our Board is directed to consider but two questions, viz.:
Whether the Bridge, as constructed, will prove a serious obstruction
to navigation, and if so, in what manner its construction can be
modified.
In doing this, we are desirous of having your Company represented
by its Chief Engineer, and by any other executive officers of the




[ 271
Company you may think best, but we do not desire to hear legal
counsel, as we are not directed to consider questions of law.
We are not authorized to take sworn testimony, but only such as
persons interested may choose to give.
We do not, therefore, consider it worthy of being recorded in the
manner you propose.
Such serious obstructions to navigation as we may find, if any, and
such modifications, if any, as we may propose, will be based on our
own determinations of facts.
I am, sir, very respectfully,
Your obed't serv't,
J. H. SIMPSON,
Col. Eng'rs, U. S. A., President of Board.




[ 28 ]
STATE OF MISSOURI, Ss.,
COUNTY OF ST. LouIS.
John W. Noble, being duly sworn, on his oath deposes and says,
that he is acquainted with the proceedings of the Board of Engineer
Officers, so far as' the same were made public, under special Order
No. I69, War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington,
August 20, I873, to examine the St. Louis and Illinois Bridge across
the Mississippi at St. Louis, and report whether the Bridge will prove
a serious obstruction to the navigation of said river, and if so, in
what manner its construction can be modified.
Which' proceedings were had at St. Louis, commencing September
4, I873; that affiant appeared before said Board with Dr. Wm.
Taussig, Managing Director of the Illinois and St. Louis Bridge
Company, affiant acting as attorney and counsel; that on September
2, I873, the Bridge Company had addressed to the said Board of
Engineers a written communication, requesting, among other things,
that the corporation should be allowed to appear and be represented
before the Board by its officers and counsel to assist in obtaining,
arranging, and eliciting testimony, and also requesting the Board to
have its proceedings and all testimony adduced reduced to writing
by a short hand reporter.  To this communication a reply was
received from the Board by the Company, in writing, dated September
4, 1873, stating, among other things, that the Board'was desirous of
having the Company represented by its Chief Engineer, and by any
other executive officers of the Company, which the Company thought
best; but the Board did not desire to hear legal counsel, as it was not
directed to consider questions of law, and also saying that the Board
was not authorized to take sworn testimony, but only such as persons
interested might chose to give, and the Board did not, therefore, consider it worthy of being recorded in the manner proposed.
When this answer was received the Board went into open session,
and affiant and Dr. Taussig were informed that they might attend,
if they saw fit. Affiant and Dr. Taussig went before the Board, and
there were present also Capt. Jno. S. McCune, and some other representatives of the river interest, with Mr. Bryson. Some interchange




L 29 J
of opinion was then had between said Taussig, affiant, and the members of the Board, regarding the propriety of the Company preparing,
arranging and presenting testimony by affiant, as attorney, on the
different branches of'facts and statistics as to the navigation of the
river, and statistics as to other branches of commerce in connection
therewith- the result of which was, that affiant was told that there
would be no objection to his presence, but that no legal discussion
would be entertained. The Board then proceeded to hear the statements of Capt. McCune and others against the'Bridge, Col. Bryson
acting as agent or attorney'in making suggestions to witnesses against
the Bridge, propounding questions and otherwise actihg in the capacity of an attorney. Affiant does not mean that the said Bryson was
an attorney at law, but acted in that character.
The witnesses against the Bridge testified concerning the heights of
boats, their chimneys, the character of the St. Louis harbor, the necessity for high pilot-houses and tall chimneys, the comparative safety of
raising or lowering steamboat chimneys-whether they could be lowered and raised at all —whether artificial draft could be used, the
expense that would be incurred by preparing chimneys, and the difficulties of piloting boats under the Bridge.
The persons who appeared at the different sessions and gave testimony against the Bridge, were Capt. Jno. S. McCune, Capt. Silvers,
Capt. E. W. Gould, Capt. J. R. Pegram, Mr. James Collins, and it
may be some others.
A paper was presented to the following purport: " To the BoardThe river interests, represented by those present, hold, that the lowering of the pipes and pilot-houses is impracticable, and any bridge
requiring it to be done, for any considerable portion of the season, is
a serious obstruction to navigation;" to which was affixed the names
of several of the persons opposing the Bridge, they being present and
assenting thereto. This paper was received by the Board, having been
suggested and prepared, as affiant remembers, by Gen. Warren, as a
means, it was said, of shortening the investigation.
The Bridge Company had secured the attendance of a number of
steamboatmen, entertaining views' on the questions which the Board
had investigated, directly opposed to those already received by the
Board, and was prepared to bring forward other river men of experience, who were of opinion that it was not impracticable to lower




[ 30 1
steamboat chimneys and pilot-houses; that it was more desirable to
alter the boats than the Bridge, and that the alleged difficulties of
piloting under the Bridge did not exist.
Of these, the Company presented Capt. Bart. Able, and Capt. Geo.
W. Ford-Capt. Ford expressing the opinion that steamboat chimneys were built a third higher than they ought to be.
Affiant then proposed to meet the paper already received by a
paper to the contrary, signed by river-men holding views exactly
opposed to those expressed in the paper received, and asked if it
would be received?  The President of the Board said he did not
think it would.
Affiant then, it being Friday afternoon, proposed an adjournment
until next Monday morning, that the Company might bring forward its
other witnesses, stating that the Company had not been informed by
reasonable notice of the coming of the Board; that the other side, protesting against the Bridge and upon whose application the special
order was issued, had had every means of knowing the questions to
be raised and preparing therefor, while the Company had had no
reasonable notice and was desirous of the adjournment only to concentrate their testimony. The members of the Board expressed
themselves not only as opposed to any adjournment, but to hearing
any further testimony except from the Chief Engineer, and to make
such inquiries of a scientific character as they saw fit.
Dr. Taussig joined with affiant in his request of an adjournment
for the purpose of presenting further testimony, stating, in effect, that
the other side had had months while the Bridge Company had had
only a few days, but was also told that there would be no continuance,
and that further testimony was not expected, except from the Engineer, and on scientific questions.
Whereupon, the Bridge Company, speaking through affiant and Dr.
Taussig, informed the Board that they withdrew from any further participation in these proceedings, leaving Col. Fladd, the Engineer, at
the request of the Board, to give them such scientific information as
they stood in need of.
Affiant has read a printed report, purporting to be a report of said
Board, dated Sept. i ith, i873, addressed to the Chief Engineer of the
United States Army, wherein appears the following statements: " the
apparently unreasonable height and size of the chimneys in general




[ 31 1
use on these steamboats are really essential to secure a good draft to
the furnaces and economical combustion of fuel. Artificial means to
procure the same end are generally very expensive and often ineffective." "Although it is a comparatively easy task to lower small chimneys, dealing with those of a large size is a very serious matter indeed.
* *   *"  "The elevated position of the pilot-house is necessary to
enable the pilot to have unobstructed view of the river ahead and the
stern of his boat. Experience has decided this point most clearly."
And wherein it is also said, "there remains still to be considered the
practical difficulty of keeping a boat within the limited width necessary for safety.  It is the opinion of the Board that this will be a
matter of very great uncertainty, and this is also the view taken by
intelligent pilots who were questioned on this point." Which report
then proceeds to give the reasons stated by said pilots to maintain
this proposition.
Affiant says that the said Board did not,land would not, give the
Bridge Company the opportunity to produce before them the testimony
they had at command, on reasonable notice and opportunity, of
numerous experienced pilots and steamboatmen, whose views were
entitled to consideration, and which would have been against the conclusions and reasons stated in the said report, and above quoted.
And further, affiant saith not.
Signed,           JOHN W. NOBLE.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 26th day of November,
[L. S.]   A. D.:873, at my office, in St. Louis.
Signed,         THEO. F. CHILDS,
Notary Public, St. Louis County, Mo.




[ 32 1
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
WASHINGTON, D. C., October 6, IS873.
Hon. WV. W. BELKNAP, Secretary of War:
Sir — Congress, by Acts approved July 25, I866, and July 20,
i868 (Statutes at Large, volume I4, pages 245 and 246; volume I5,
page I23), authorized the St. Louis and Illinois Bridge Company to
build a bridge across the Mississippi at St. Louis, Mo. This Bridge
is now in process of construction; and, representations having been
made by parties interested in preserving the free navigation of the
river that the Bridge, when completedi would materially obstruct
and injuriously modify that navigation, a Board of Officers of Engineers was ordered to convene at St. Louis, and, after a careful
examination of the whole subject, to report whether the Bridge
will prove a serious obstruction to the navigation of said river, and,
if so, in what manner its construction can be modified.
The Board met in accordance with the order, and in pursuance
of their instructions made a Report, which is herewith respectfully
submitted:
The Board confined itself strictly to the consideration of the
question whether the Bridge will prove to be a serious obstruction
to the Mississippi River, and, if so, to the remedy therefor. Having
obtained from the representatives of the navigation interests on the
one hand, and from the officers of the Bridge Company on the
other, the statistics and drawings necessary to a clear comprehension
of the subject, and having caused examinations and measurements
to be made under their-own direction to assure the accuracy of the
latter, the Board are unanimously of the opinion that the Bridge, as
at present designed, will prove a very serious obstruction to the
free navigation of the Mississippi River. The Board, in addition,
state that arched trusses, like those in the Bridge under consideration, present so many difficulties to free navigation that in future
their use should be prohibited in plans for bridges over navigable




[33 ]
streams. No satisfactory plan for changing the present structure
could be decided upon, and as it was deemed absolutely necessary that
some provision should be made for allowing large boats to pass the
Bridge in safety when necessary, the Board recommend, as the most
feasible modification, a plan which has already been tried and found
efficient at the railroad bridge over the Ohio River at Louisville,
Ky., viz.: A canal, or rather an open cut, to be fbrmed behind the
east abutment of the Bridge, giving at the abutment a clear width
of water way of I20 feet, the shore side of this cut to be laid out on
an easy curve, joining the general shore line about 500 feet above
the Bridge and about 300 feet below it. This opening to be spanned
by a draw-bridge, giving a clear span of I20 feet in width. This
plan would enable boats of the largest class to pass the Bridge in
any weather and at any stage of water, with little delay. The
steamboat interest would, it is stated, be satisfied with this modification, and the Bridge Company object to it only on account of the
delay to railroad trains caused by the opening and closing of the
draw.
Detailed estimates of the cost of this modification can only be
given after a special survey and study of the locality.
The modifications proposed by the Board will not interrupt the
work of construction on the Bridge.
The views and recommendations of the Board are concurred in
by me, and it is recommended that the matter be submitted to Congress at its next session, for such action as in their judgment may
seem to be necessary.
It is further suggested that the Chief of Engineers be authorized
to furnish the Bridge Company with a copy of this communication
and the Report of the Board.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
(Signed)   A. A. HUMPHREYS,
Brig. Gen. and Chief of Engineers.
The recommendations of the Chief of Engineers are approved
by the Secretary of War, October io, I873.
(Signed)          H. T. CROSBY,
Chief Clerk.
A true copy.                    J. H. SIMPSON,
Colonel of Engineers.




[ 34 1
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
WASHINGTON, D. C., October I5, I873.
President St. Louis and Illinois Bridge Company,
St. Louis, AMo.:
Sir -I am authorized by the Secretary of War to forward for
your information a copy of the Report of the Board of Engineer
Officers, convened at St. Louis by special orders No. I69 War
Department, Adjutant General's Office, dated August 20, I873, to
examine the construction of the St. Louis and Illinois Bridge across
the Mississippi River at St. Louis, and report whether the Bridge
will prove a serious obstruction to the navigation of the said river,
and, if so, in what manner its construction can be modified, and
also to furnish you with a copy of the letter of the Chief of Engineers submitting to him the Report of the Board.
It will be seen that the views and recommendations of the Board
have, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, received
the approval of the Secretary of War.
The Board, in their Report, refer to sundry maps and statements
(most of them furnished by the Bridge Company), which, it is presumed, are accessible to that company, and copies of them have not
therefore been made.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
(Signed)       A. A. HUMPHREYS,
Brig. Gen., Chief of Engineers.
A true copy.                 J. H. SIMPSON,
Colonel of Engineers.
ENGINEER'S OFFICE, U. S. A.,
ST. LOUIS, Mo., October 18, I873.
Originals furnished Gerard B. Allen, Esq., President St. Louis
and Illinois Bridge Company, by the hands of S. S. Hutchins,
Chief Clerk, this day.                           J. H. S.




[ 35 ]
ENGINEER'S OFFICE, U. S. A., I222 Pine Street,
ST. LOUIS, Mo., September Ii, I873.
Brig. Gen. A. A. HUMPHREYS, Chief of Engineers,
U. S. A., Washington, D. C.:
General-The Board of Engineer Officers convened by special
order No. I69, War Department, Adjutant General's Office, Washington, August 20, I873, "'to examine the construction of the
" St. Louis and Illinois Bridge across the Mississippi River at St.
"Louis, and report whether the Bridge will prove a serious obstruc" tion to the navigation of said river; and, if so, in what manner its
" construction can be modified," have the honor to submit the following
REPORT:
In considering the subject laid before them the Board have
confined themselves strictly to their instructions, which direct them
to ascertain whether the Bridge, as being built, will be a serious
obstruction to the navigation of the Mississippi River, and, if so,
what modification can be made in its construction.
They have not undertaken to decide whether the Bridge is or
is not being built in conformity to the acts of Congress authorizing
its construction, although this question will be of importance when
it becomes necessary to decide who shall pay for such modification
as may be determined on. The Board have obtained from the
steamboatmen who complain of the present structure, a statement
of their objections and the reasons therefor. They have obtained
from the officers of the Bridge Company such drawings and statistics as were needed for a clear comprehension of the nature of the
structure, and have caused a sufficient number of measurements to
be taken to assure them that the drawings herewith submitted are
substantially correct.
Appended to this Report are the following documents and
drawings:




[ 36 ]
A. Copy of special orders convening the Board.
B. and C. Copies of acts of Congress authorizing the construction of the Bridge.
D. Tracing giving profile of Bridge and approaches (furnished
by the Bridge Company.)
E. Tracing showing elevation of center and west spans of
Bridge,.and portion of western approach (furnished by Bridge
Company.)
F. Tracing showing outline of the lower part of the superstructure as originally designed, and as now being constructed
(furnished by Bridge Company.)
G. Water record of the port of St. Louis for the last thirteen
years, giving the duration of various stages for each month of each
year, and also some special observations taken previous to the continuous records (compiled by the board from the official records.)
H. Tabular recapitulation of the above, giving the duration
of the various stages for each year, the average yearly duration of
each stage, with the corresponding heights under the center of the
middle span, and the heights available for a width of I74 feet, or
87 feet on each side of the center of the arch.
I. Drawing showing outline of center arch. with the line of
extreme high and low water, and also the widths of clear headway
available at different heights above extreme low water. (Prepared
by the Board.)
K. Tabular statement giving the most important dimensions
of some of the principal steamboats plying to and from the port of
St.. Louis. (Furnished by the Boatmen's Association of St. Louis.)
L. Diagram giving graphically the heights of chimneys and
pilot-houses of steamboats enumerated in the preceding list, and
showing the relative heights of the chord of the center arch, which
is I74 feet long and 5 feet below the crown of the arch, for different
stages, from extreme low water of I863 to extreme high water of
1844. (Prepared by the Board.)
These drawings, &c., present the general feature of the structure so clearly that a detailed description seems unnecessary.
The objections made to the Bridge are as follows, viz.:
I. The height under the lower arch is so small that a large




[ 37 ]
proportion of the boats which will have occasion to pass under it
must lower their smoke-stacks at all, or nearly all, stages of the
river, while many of the large boats will not be able to pass under
it during the higher stages, even with their smoke-stacks down.
2. The small height afforded is only available for a portion of
the whole span, owing to the arch form of the lower part of the
superstructure. Moreover, the difficulty of passing under the exact
center of the arch will be very great, especially in foggy or windy
weather, and any considerable deviation to either side may bring the
boat's upper works in contact with the Bridge.
3. These difficulties will probably deter.most boats from ever
passing the Bridge, thereby preventing the ready transfer of freight
from one boat to another, or its delivery and shipment at different
parts of the city, without resorting to costly transfer by drays or
barges. This, it is claimed. will practically cut the Mississippi
River in two at this place.
An examination of appendices K and L will show. that the first
point is well sustained. The list of boats enumerated therein comprises only those which happened to be in port at the time the Board
was in session, or whose dimensions were attainable. It might have
been increased considerably, had time been available. The apparently unreasonable height and size of the chimneys in general use
on these steamboats are really essential to.secure a good draft to the
furnaces, and economical combustion of fuel. Artificial means to
procure the same end are generally very expensive and often ineffective. Although it is a comparatively easy task to lower small
chimneys, dealing with those of a large size is a very serious matter
indeed. Their weight is so utterly disproportioned to their strength,
even when new, that no machinery yet devised will enable large
chimneys to be lowered either wholly or in part without very great
labor and danger. The elevated position of the pilot-house is necessary to enable the pilot to have all unobstructed view ahead and
astern of his boat. Experience has decided this point most clearly.
The second objection is mainly owing to the peculiar system of
superstructure employed, and which we understand was adopted
principally on the ground of economy. Appendix I gives the widths
which are available under the center span, above extreme low




[ 38 ]
water.  The side spans have not been considered, as they are four
feet lower than the central one. Appendix F shows the lower line
of the superstructure as originally designed, with the railroad tracks
below the arch for a portion of the width —zz6 feet.  By a subsequent modification the lower arch tube was lowered four feet at the
crown, while the railroad tracks were raised through a similar distance.  This brings the railway entirely  above  the arch, and
increases the height of the centre of the arch about four feet. The
practical conditions are, however, but little altered by this modification. The fiull height is only given at the exact centre of the arch,
and in order to consider the matter in its practical bearings, it is
necessary to assume that some definite width will be required for the
safe passage of the boat.
The width of draw spans required by Congressional legislation
up to this date, varies from  I6o to zoo feet. The former width
would be too small for the large boats used on the Lower Mississippi, and an approximation to greater width would probably be
necessary. The horizontal chord of the center span, which lies five
feet below the crown of the arch, is 1:74 feet long, and gives the
least width of waterway which seems compatible with safe navigation. The height of this chord is fifty feet above the city directrix.
It may, therefore, be assulmed  that a boat, no portion of whose structure extended above this limiting aheight, might safely pass under
the Bridge, provided the pilot wvas enabled to keep her within the
space mentioned, viz.: eighty-seven feet on each side of the centre of
the span. The position of this chord with reference to the different
stages of' water is given in Appendix L, which also shows the relative heights of the chimneys and pilot-houses of a large number of
boats which will havze to pass under the Bridge when it is completed.
There remains still to be considered the practical difficulty of
keeping a boat within the limited width necessary for safety.  It is
the opinion of the 1Board that this will be a matter of very great uncertainty, and this is also the view taken by intelligent pilots who
were questioned on this point.  They maintained that the same
width of water-way between piers with clear headway above would
be far preferable. The reason given for this is that the piers would
define the available width with exactness-they are easily seen and
avoided. In case of wind, a boat can be dropped through the open



[ 39 1
ing by lines made fast to ring-bolts in the pier itself. In case of
striking them under headway, the damage done is to the hull
alone, and even if so great as to eventually sink the boat, time will
generally be afforded to save the crew and passengers.
In case of a wide arch, however, the case is different. The piers
are too far apart to be of service as guides, and lights placed on the
structure will be so nearly overhead as to be of no great assistance.
If range lights could be placed at some distance above and below
the Bridge, the difficulty might be mitigated; but in a crowded
harbor like that of St. Louis, it would be almost, if not quite, impossible to give the light sufficient individuality to avoid the chance
of mistakes. Moreover, in foggy weather, the lights could not be
seen. In case of wind, there would be great danger of boats sheering, or making so much lee-way as to come in contact with the
Bridge. In this case, the shock would come upon the light upper
works, wvhich would probably be destroyed. As the passengers are
carried on the upper decks, such an accident would probably be
attended with great loss of life.
The chance of dropping through along the pier is not available in
this case, as the arch of the center span springs from a point about
at the level of high water of I844.
The third objection seems fairly sustained by the facts already
cited, especially when it is remembered that the principal part of the
river-busine'ss is done during the higher stages of water. The large
New Orleans boats, for instance, rarely attempt to do business
when the river gets to a lower stage than twenty feet above extreme
low water.
A large portion of the St. Louis River-front is above the bridge,
and several elevators, sugar refinery, and other similar buildings, are
already located above it. These could not safely be reached by the
large boats during the high stages, and much inconvenience would
be entailed.  But the Board consider these interests in a measure
local, and of infiniitely less importance than the national interests involved in the question. The government has expended, and is still
expending, large sums of money in improving the navigation of the
Upper Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois, and other rivers, for the express
purpose of allowing the largest steamers to navigate them. It would,
therefore, seem entirely out of keeping with this general policy, to




[ 40 1
allow, at the very threshold of these improvements, a structure which
would debar a large proportion of existing steamboats from using
them. The Board are therefore unanimously of the opinion that the
Bridge, as at present designed, will prove a very serious obstruction
to the navigation of the Mississippi River.
They would, moreover, state that arch trusses like those under construction, present so many difficulties to free navigation that in future
their use should be prohibited in plans for bridges over navigable
streams.  The Board have very carefully considered the various
plans proposed for changing the present structure, but found none
of them satisfactory. The piers being only made strong enough to
withstand the thrust of the unloaded arches, it will be impossible to
raise separately either of the spans or to substitute for one of them
a straight truss, or a suspended roadway.  The practical difficulty
of raising the entire structure would be very great, as well as enormously costly.
Moreover, in any such plan the present approaches, including
the costly Tunnel. under a portion of the city of St. Louis, could not
be used without considerable modification, as the steamboatmen
deem a clear height of seventy-five feet above high water the least
admissible.
Under these circumstances the Board do not feel justified in recommending any change which would involve the complete remodeling
of this magnificent structure, now so nearly completed. At the same
time, as already stated, they deem it absolutely necessary that some
provision should be made for allowing large boats to pass the Bridge
with safety whenever they find it necessary to do so.
They would therefore recommend, as the most feasible modification, a plan which has already been tried and found efficient at the
railroad bridge over the Ohio River at Louisville, Ky.
Let a canal, or rather, an open cut, be formed behind the east
abutment of the bridge, giving at the abutment a clear width of
water-way of I20 feet. The shore side of this cut should be laid out
on an easy curve, joining the general shore line about 500 feet above
the bridge, and 300 feet below it. The river side may be entirely




[ 4' 1
open, but the shore side should be riveted vertically with stone or
with crib work, to a height of about 5 feet above extreme high water.
This wall should be provided with ring-bolts and posts, to enable
boats to work through the cut with lines. Let this opening be
spanned by a draw-bridge, giving a clear span of I20 feet in width.
By this plan. boats as large as are now built would be able to get
through the bridge in any weather, at any stage of water, and only
at a cost of some little delay.
The steamboatmen have stated to the board that they would be
satisfied with this modification, and the engineers of the Bridge
Company only raise as an objection the delay to trains caused by
opening and shutting the draw. While recognizing the validity of
this objection, the board deem that the difficulty can be mitigated,
if not entirely overcome, by providing machinery capable of opening
and closing the draw with any desired rapidity. They think, moreover, that it will only be in exceptional cases that boats will desire
to pass through this draw, so the delay to trains from this cause will
not be excessive.
Detailed estimates of the cost of this proposed modification can
only be made after a special survey and study of the locality. Owing
to the pressure of their other official duties, the Board deem that it
would be impossible for them to remain in session while these surveys and calculations are being made, and would therefore recommend that it be made a special duty of the local engineer officer to
prepare and submit the estimate.  Whether this modification be
carried out or not, the board deem it very important that such lights
and marks should be displayed by the bridge as will enable boats
not only to distinguish the position of the piers and arches with
certainty, but also be able to tell the clear headway available under
the bridge.
The modification proposed by the board will not require the
present work of constructing the bridge to be interrupted, and the
only action which seems necessary, is to submit this matter to
Congress at its next session, with a recommendation that action be




[ 42 ]
taken to enforce the modification, and at the same time determine
by whom it shall be carried out.
Respectfully submitted,
J. H. SIMPSON,
Col. of Engineers and Brvt. Brig. Gen. U. S. A.
G. K. WARREN,
Maj. of Engineers and Brvt. Maj. Gen. U. S. A.
G. WEITZEL,
/Maj. of Engineers and Brvt. Maj. Gen.
W. E. MERRILL,
Maj. of Engineers and Brvt. Col.
CHAS. R. SUTER,
Maj. of Engineers U. S. A.