43D CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. f Ex. Doc. 1st Session. No. 194. 1SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE ACROSS THE MISSISSIPPI RRIVER. LET TER FROM THE SE CRETARY OF WAR, TRANSMITTING Reports on the construction of the Saint Louis and Illinois bridge across the llMississippi River. MARCH 31, 1874.-Referred to the Committee on Commerce and ordered to be printed WAR DEPARTMENT, March 28, 1874. The Secretary of War has the honor to transmit to the House of Representatives, for such action as may be deemed necessary, letter of the Chief of Engineers of the 26th instant, and two reports of a'board of engineers, on the construction of the Saint Louis and Illinois bridge across the Mississippi River. WM. W. BELKNAP,'Secretary. of War. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, ~Washington, D. C., March 26, 1874. SIR: I had the honor October 6, 1873, of submitting to you the report, dated September 11, 1873, of a board of engineers convened at Saint Louis, Mo., by Special Orders, No. 169, War I)epartment, AdjutantGeneral's Office, dated August 20, 1873, " to examine the construction of the Saint Louis and Illinois bridge across the Mississippi River at Saint 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." A copy of the report was furnished to the bridge company. The board was reconvened on January 14, and on January 31 a supplementary report was submitted by it. I now have the honor to transmit copies of the two reports of the board, and, concurring in their views respecting the obstruction to navigation which the peculiar construction of the bridge forms, to renew my recommendation that the subject be submitted to Congress. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, A. A. HUMPHREYS, Brig. Gen. and Chief of Engineers. Hon. W. W. BELKNAP, Secretary of War. 2 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. OFFICE OF TIHE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS. Washington, D. C., October 6, 18 3. SIR: Congress by acts approved July 25, 1866, and July 20, 1868, (Statutes at Large, vol. 14, pp. 245, 246; vol. 15, p. 123,) authorized the Saint Louis and Illinois Bridge Company to build a bridge across the Mississippi River, at Saint 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 completed, wonld materially obstruct and injuriously modify that navigation, a board of officers of engineers was ordered to convene at Saint 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 liver, 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 subnitted. The board confined itself strictly to the consideration of the question whether the bridge will prove to be a serious obstruction to the navigation of 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 o'pinion "~ that the bridge, as at present designed, will prove a very serious obstruction to the free navigation of the AMississippi.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 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 with safety," when necessary, the board recommend "' as the most feasible modification a plan which has been already tried and found efficient at the railroad bridge over the Ohio River at Louisville, Ky.," viz: "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 120 feet." The shore side of this cut to be laid out on an easy curve joining the general shore-line about 5()0 feet above the bridge, and about 300 feet below it. This opening to be spanned by a draw-bridge, giving a clear span of 120 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 but 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 modification proposed by the board will not interrupt the work of constructing 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. Jt is further suggested that the Chief of Engineers be authorized to SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 3 furnish the bridge company with a copy of this communication and the report of the board. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, A. A. HUMPHREYS, Brig. Gen. and Chief of Engineers. Hon. W. W. BELKNAP, Secretary of War. The recommendations of the Chief of Engineers are approved by the Secretary of War, October 10, 1873. H. T. CROSBY, Chief Clerk. REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS. ENGINEER OFFICE. IUNITED STATES ARM~Y Saint Louis, Mo., September 12, 1873. GENERAL: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for your consideration, the report of the board of engineer officers convened by Special Orders, No. 169, War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, August 20, 1873, to examine and report on the Illinois and Saint Louis bridge. The papers furnished for the information of the board are herewith returned. I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. H. SIMPSON, Colonel of Engineers, U. S. A. Brig. Gen. A. A. HUMPHREYS, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A., Washington, D. C. ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, Saint Louis, MA3o., September 11, 1873. GENERAL: The board of engineer officers convened by Special Orders No. 169, War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, August 20,1873, "to examine the construction of the Saint Louis and Illinois bridge across the Mississippi River at Saint 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," 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 modifications 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 modifications as may be determined on. The board have obtained from the steamboat-men who complain of the present structure a statement of their objections and the reasons therefor. 4 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 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: A. Copy of special order 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 span of bridge, and portion of western approach, (furnished by the bridge company.) F. Tracing showing the outline of the lower part of the superstructure as originally designed, and as now being constructed, (furnished by the bridge company.) G. Water-record of the port of Saint 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 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 174 feet, or 87 feet on each side of the center of the arch. I. Drawing showing outline of center arch, with lines of extreme high and low water, and also the width 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 Saint Louis. (Furnished by the Boatmen's Association of Saint Louis.) L. Diagram giving graphically the heights of chimneys and pilothouses of steamboats enumerated in the preceding list, and showing the relative height of the chord of center arch, which is 174 feet long and 5 feet below the crown of the arch, for different stages from extreme low water of 1863 to extreme high water of 1844. (Prepared by the board.) These drawings, &c., present the general features of the structure so clearly that a detailed description seems unnecessary. The objections made to the bridge are as follows, viz: 1st. The height under the lower arch is so small that a large 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 larger boats will not be able to pass under it during the higher stages, even with their smoke-stacks down. 2d. 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. 3d. These difficulties would probably deter most boats from ever passing the bridge, thereby preventing the ready transfer of freight from ofie boat to another, or its delivery and shipment at different parts of the city, without resorting to costly transfers by drays or barges. This, it is claimed, would practically cut the Mississippi River in two at this place. SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 5 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 draught to the furnaces and economical combustion of fuel. Artificial means to produce 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 large size is a very serious matter indeed. Their weight is so utterly disproportionate to their strength, even when new, that no machinlery 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 an unobstructed view of the river 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 at different heights above extreme low 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 (226 feet.) By a subsequent modification, the lower arched tube was lowered 4 feet at the crown, while the railroad-tracks were raised through a similar distance. This brings the roadway entirely above the arch and increases the height at the center of the arch about 4 feet. The practical conditions are, however, but little altered by this modification. The full height is only given at the exact center of the arch, and in order to consider the matter in its practical bearing, it is necessary to assume that some definite width will be required for the safe passage of a boat. The width of draw-spans required by congressional legislation up to this date varies from 160 to 200 feet. The former width would be too small for the large boats used on the Lower Mississippi, and an approxiination to the greater width would probably be necessary. The horizontal chord of the center span, which lies 5 feet below the crown of the arch, is 174 feet long, and gives the least width of water-way which seems compatible with safe navigation. The height of this chord is 50 feet above the city directrix. It may therefore be assumed that a boat, no portion of whose structure extended above this limiting height, might pass safely under the bridge, provided that the pilot was enabled to keep her within the space mentioned, viz, 87 feet on each side of the center of the span. The position of this chord with reference to different stages of water, is given in appendix L, which also shows the relative height of the chimneys and pilot-houses of a large number of the boats which will wish 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 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. They maintain that the same width of water-way between piers with clear headway above, would be far pref 6 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. erable. The reason given for this is that the piers would define the available width with exactness; they are easily seen and can be avoided. In case of wind a boat can be dropped through the opening by lines made fast to ring-bolts on the pier itself.* In case of striking them 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. 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. 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 Saint Louis it would be almost, if not quite, impossible to give the lights 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 a boat sheering or making so much leeway as to come in contact with the bridge. In this case the shock would come upon the light upper works, which 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 fromn a point about at the level of high water of 1844. The third objection seems fairly sustained by the facts already cited, especially when it is remembered that the principal part of the riverbusiness is done during the higher stages of water. The large New Orleans boats, for instance, rarely attempt to do business after the river gets to a lower stage than 20 feet above extreme low water. A large part of the Saint Louis river-front is above the bridge, and several elevators, a sugar-refinery, and other similar buildings are already located above it. These could not safely be reached during high stages by the large boats navigating the lower river, and much inconvenience and expense would thus be entailed, but the board consider these interests in a measure local, and of infinitely less importance than the national interests involved in the question. The Governtment has expended, and is still expending, large sums of money in improving the navigation of the Upper Mississippi, Missouri, Illinlois, 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 allow, at the very threshold of these inprovements, a structure which would practically 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 free navigation of the Mississippi River. They would, moreover, state, that arched trusses like those under consideration present so many difficulties to free navigation, that in future their use should be prohibited in plans for bridges over nmavigable streams. The board have very carefully considered the various plans proposed for changing the present structure, but find none of them satisfaictory. The piers being only made strong enough to withstand the thrust of the unloaded arches, it will be impossible to raise separately either of In this case the piers would have to be extended up stream about 400 feet by cribs, piles, or other suitable means. SAINT LOUTIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 7 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 Saint Louis, could not be used without considerable modification, as the stea.mlbo'atmen deem a clear height of 75 feet above high water the least admissible. Under these circumstances the board do not feel justified in recolmmending any change which would involve a complete remodelling 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 piass 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 been already tried and found efficient at the railroadbridge 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 waterway of 120( 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 about 3(10 feet below it. The river-side may be entirely open, but the shore-side should be revetted 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 120 feet in width. By this plan boats as large as any now built would be able to get through the bridge, in any weather and at any stage of water, and only at the 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 difficultv can be mitigated, if not entirely overcome, by providing machinery capable of opening and closing the draw with any desired rapidity. The use of this draw by the boats will be only in cases of necessity, and the inconvenience which this use may occasion to travel on the bridge there seems no course but to submnit to. 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 mnade 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 markls 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 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 the recommendation that action be taken to enforce the 8 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. modification, and at the same time to determine by whom it shall be carried out. Respectfully submitted. J. H. SIMPSON, Colonel of Engineers and Brevet Brigadier-General, U. S. A. G. K. WARREN, Major of Engineers and Brevet Major-General, U. S. A. G. WEITZEL, Major of Engineers and Brevet Mlajor-General. WILLIAM E. MERRILL, Major of Engineers and Brevet Colonel. CHARLES R. SUTER, ZJiajor of Engineers, U. S. A. Brig. Gen. A. A. HUMPHREYS, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A., Washington, D, C. A. [Special Orders No. 169-Extract.] WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, August 20, 1873. 10. A board of engineers, to consist of Col. James H. Simpson, Maj. Gouverneur K. Warren, Maj. Godfrey Weitzel, Maj. William E. Merrill, Maj. Charles R. Suter, is appointed to meet at Saint Louis, Mo., on the 2d day of September, 1873, or as soon thereafter as practicable, to examine the construction of the Saint Louis and Illinois bridge across the Mississippi River at Saint 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. The junior member of the board will act as recorder. By order of the Secretary of War. E. D. TOWNSEND, Adjutant-General. Official: J. P. MARTIN, Assistant Adjutant-General. A true copy: J. H. SIMPSON, Colonel of Engineers. B. [Extract.] AN ACT to authorize the construction of certain bridges and to establish them as post-roads. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be lawffill for any person or persons, company, or corporation, having authority from the States of Illinois and Missouri for such purpose, to build a bridge across the Mississippi River at Quincy, Ill., and to lay on and over said bridge railway-tracks, for the more perfect connection of any railroads that are or shall )be constructed to the said river, at or opposite said point, and that when con structed all trains of all roads terminating at said river, at or opposite said point, shall be allowed to cross said bridge for reasonable compensation, to be made to the owners of said bridge, under the limitations and conditions hereinafter provided. And in case of any litigation arising from any obstruction, or alleged obstruction, to the free navigation of said river, the cause may be tried before the district court of the United States of any State in which any portion of said obstruction or bridge touches. SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That any bridge built under the provisions of this SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 9 act may, at the option of the company building the same, be built as a draw-bridge, with a pivot or otlier form of draw, or with unbroken or continuous spans: Provided, That if the said bridge shall be made with unbroken and continuous spans, it shall not be of less elevation in any case than 50 feet above extreme high-water mark, as understood at the point of location, to the bottom chord of the bridge; nor shall the spans of said bridge be less than 250 feet in length; and the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river, and the main span shall be over the main channel of the river, and not less than 300 feet in length. SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That the Saint Louis and Illinois Bridge Company, "a corporation organized under an act of the general assembly of the State of Missouri," approved February fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, and an act amendatory of the same, approved February twentieth, eighteen hundred and sixty-five, and also confirmed in its corporate powers under an act of the legislature of the State of Illinois, approved eighteen hundred and sixty-four, or any other bridge company organized under the laws of Missouri and Illinois, be, and the same is hereby, empowered to erect. maintain, and operate a bridge across the Mississippi River, between the city of Saint Louis, in the State of Missouri, and the city of East Saint Louis, in the State of Illinois, subject to all the conditions contained in said act of incorporation and amendments thereto, and not inconsistent with the following terms and provisions contained in this act. And in case of any litigation arising from any obstruction, or alleged obstruction, to the free navigation of said waters, the cause may be tried before the district court of the United States of any State in which any portion of said obstruction or bridge touches. SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That the bridge authorized by the preceding section to be built shall not be a suspension-bridge or draw-bridge, with pivot or other form of draw, but shall be constructed with continuous or unbroken spans, and subject to these conditions: First, that the lowest part of the bridge or bottom chord shall not be less than fifty feet above the city directrix at its greatest span; second, that it shall have at least one span five hundred feet in the clear, or two spans of three hundred and fifty feet in the clear of abutments; if the two latter spans be used, the one over the main steamboat-channel shall be fifty feet above the city directrix, measured to the lowest part of the bridge at the center of the span; third, no span over the water at low-water mark shall be less than two hundred feet in the clear of abutments. SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the right to alter or amend this act so as to prevent or remove all material obstructions to the navigation of said river by the construction of bridges is hereby expressly reserved. Approved July 25, 1866. C. AN ACT amendatory of an act approved July twenty-six [fiveJ, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, entitled " An act to authorize the construction of certain bridges, and to establish them as post-roads." Whereas the Saint Louis and Illinois Bridge Company, organized under the laws of the State of Missouri, and the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge Company, organized under an act of the general assembly of the State of Illinois, have been consolidated in pursuance of the authority granted to the said Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge Company in their act of incorporation, and the authority granted to the Saint Louis and Illinois Bridge Company, by an act of the general assembly of the State of Missouri, approved March nineteen, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight: Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the company formed by this consolidation under the name and style of the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge Company is hereby recognized and declared to be a corporation by that name, with full power and authority to construct a bridge across the Mississippi River opposite the city of Saint Louis, in conformity to the act of which this act is amendatory, with all the rights, privileges, and powers granted and conferred by the several acts of the general assemblies of the States of Illinois and Missouri to the respective companies, by the consolidation of which the said Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge Company was formed, and not inconsistent with the provisions of the act to which this act is amendatory: And proridedfurther, That in constructing said bridge, there shall be one span of at least five hundred feet clear between piers. SEC. 2. And be itfurther enacted, That the said corporation may execute a mortgage and issue bonds payable, principal and interest, in gold; and their bridge across the Mississippi River and approaches thereto, when constructed, shall be a post-road to carry the mails of the United States, and enjoy the rights and privileges of other postroads. 10 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That said corporation may hold their meetings in either the State of Illinois or the State of Missouri, as the board of directors may elect, and the directors may be citizens of any of the United States; and said corporation may sue and be sued in any circuit court of the United States: Provided, That nothing in this act or in any previous legislation affecting the premises shall be so construed as to deprive the legislatures of the States of Illinois and Missouri of the right to regulate the tolls and fares which may be charged by said company for the use of such bridge: Provided further, That the tolls now fixed by the legislatures of Illinois and Missouri shall not be increased. Approved July 20, 1868. G. Record of the stage of water in the Mississippi River at Saint Louis, compiled front the official reports of the city engineer. NOTE.-The following tables show on how many days of each month the river-surface was at or above the indicated heights above low water: High water of 1844 reads on the gauge —.. —.................................. + 7. 58 High water of 1851 reads on the gauge. -.. -..-..-.... + 2. 80 High water of 1858 reads on the gauge.................. + 3. 28 Low water of 1860 reads on the gauge... —-- --—.. ——. -—.. —-—. ——. —--— 33.21 Low water of 1863 reads on the ogauge.. —-—... —-..... —.. - -33. 81 The zero of the gauge is a bench-mark at the foot of Walnut street, which, when established, was supposed to be at high-water mark. This bench-mark is called the city directrix, and all ordinary stages of water are below it, and have minus readings on the gauge. The directrix is 7.58 feet below the high-water mark of 1844. SPECIAL HIGH-WATER RECORDS. Incomplete records of the high water of 1844, 1851, and 1858, are found in the office of the city engineer, which are consolidated in the following table. Height in feet No. of days on which above low water. Year. Month. observations were taken. 30. 35. 40. 1844.. June 21 to July 13............................. 23 23 21 6 1851. June 3 to July 21.-..-. —..-. ---... —.-... —-- 49 46 24 0 1858.. June 8 to June 23.......................... 16 16 8 0 Height in feet above low water. Month. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30. 35. 1861. January...........-.. -- -----—.. —........... —---- -. February... —-—.... —-—.. —.-..... — 15 13. March. —. —---------------- -—. —--- 31 31 27.. April..................................................... 30 30 " 3( l I.......... April.30............................ 31 30:o30 " -i May.................................. 3....... 3 1 31 31 13 "3. July.............................................. 31 31 23............... Julys............................................... 3l 319...... August............,.,.,., 3L 9.. September ----..,,,,, —-... —-—.. 30 1 26.. —..... -..... October................................................... 31 9.............. October..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 31 16....... November................................................. 30 ------ - --.... --- - ----- December................................................ 24 ----- -- -- ---- --- - Total days in the year............................... 314 1 217 141 29 3 i1............... SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. I1 Height in feet above low water. Month. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30. 35. 1862. January....-.................................. 16 8....... February.................................................. 28 1................ March.................................................... 31 18 13.................. April............................................ 30 30 30 28 19 9...... May...................................................... 31 31 31 31 12 1...... Jnune..................................... 30 30 30 10.................. July.............................. 31 31 31 12.................. August.31........................................ 31 31 3............ September.................................... 30 26................. October......1....................... 31 31. —- ---------- Novemberr. 30 2. Noebr................................................. 30 2 ----—..........................December.................................. 28 4................ Total days in the year............................... 347 243 138 81 31 10...... 1863. January............................. 31 25 2. - - - - -- February.................................................. 28 20 13.'''" -' March..................................................... 31 31 20............. April.................................................... 30 30 11........................ May............................................. 31 31............ June...................................................... 30 18................ July....... —---- ---- ------—......................... August................................................. 31 2.............................. September......................................... 23........................ October.. ----------—. —--- -—. —- -------------------- -- ---------- - - - - - - Novecber................................. 12.................................... November.. 1... December.-... —..... -.. —....-..........-..-.............. I —. —-—.-.. Total days in the year................................. 278 163 46 1864. January. 23........................... February'.................................. 29............................... March............................................... 31 10 April........................................... 30 21....6............ May. —------------- ---- 31 29 13........................ June.30 24............................ 3 4..... July.. 31 24.. Julys..................................................... 3 19 2................................ August..19... —-----—.... —-------- ------- ----- 19. September -—. —------- ----------------------- October. —------------------------------------------------ November 7...7....................................... December..............::::::::::.................. 19. ---........... Total days in the year.............................. 250 108 19...... 1865. January. February.................................................. 16 3 1 March..................................................... 31 31 19 1......... April...................................................... 30 30 30 12 1....... May.31........................................ 31 31 22 1....... June................................................... 30 30 11. —-...... July...................................................... 31 31 31 9 4...... August............................. 31 31 31 17 2...... September..................................... 30 30 6........................ October.................................................. 31 26. ---..... November............................................ 30 19. —-- ---- -.... December.- 31 3. Deebr................................................. 31 3............... Total days in the year............................ 322 265 151 40 7.- ---- 1866. January............................................. 31 25 4........................ February.................................................. 28 9. March.................................................... 31 31 19 3.................. April............................................... 30 30 25 13 9............ May...................................................... 31 31 31 21.................. June..................................................... 30 30 30 4.................. July..................................................... 31 31 28.................. 12 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. Height in feet above low water. Month. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30. 35. 1866. August.................................................... 3 1............... Au31 31. September............................................... 30 30 10 4............ October..-.................................... 31 17 5. November-.,,.,., —. —-—.30 18.i N ovem ber ------------------------------------------------- 30 is........................I...... December... —-.. —. —---—............. —. 31 9................ Total days in the year.......3..65................ 36 292 152 45 9. ~~7 ~~~i7! 1867. January................................................... 22 February................................................. 28 20 13 11. March........................................ 31 31 21 2. —-.. April.................................................... 30 30 24 17 14... May......................................... 31 31 31 25 7....... June.............................................. 30 30 30 30 8... July...................................................... 31 31 31 31 17... August.................................................... 31 31 21.................. September.........................30................. 30 12... October... 3..1............... 31 —----------------- November........................................ 30 ---... December................. 7... —- --------------- Total days in the year...................332 216 171 116.46-... —1868. January.................. 7.................................... February................................................ 17..................... March..................................................... 29 20 13....... April....................................................... 30 30 14 2-...... May......................................................a. 31 31 31 19...... June...................................... 30 30 18.................. July...................................................... 31 31 12 August...312............... 31............................. September.................................................30.................. October.....3..1................... 31............... November.........................................1.... 30 5...... December..27........................... 27...............................Total days in the year............................... 324 159 88 211869. January.................................................. 31 20 February —-. —------ ------------- -— 28 21 4. March......../........................ March.'.................. 31 17 3.1 1 —------- JuneA.................................... 30 30 30 21 -.... July..3..1.................................. 31 31 31 30. August.....................................,.- 3 31 31 31 8..... September................................................ 30 30 30 3...... October.............................. 31 31 29. November........................................ 30 30.. December..3115................. 31 15 -—... -------—: —l -- Total days in the year................................ 35 317 210 6 32 --- 1870. January................. 31. February........................................................ - - - --- - -- -- -- - --- - - February —------------------—.. - 28 -. —. --- March.. —------------—. —------— 31 15 4 April............................30 30 30 30 6. —---- May.....................................................31 31 31 14.June.............................30 30 12.................. July..31 1......................................................... August...............3..1 2...... 31 2...........-.................. Se t m e - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - 0 1......................................... September...30..17.................................. October~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iii..31.27 Octolber. —.. —..-.... -..-..-...~...-..-..~.................. Novmber..-...3..0.................................. December --- 31..31........ Total days in the year.365 189 85 44 6-.. —[ —-I-'~ —-" 1-161...... SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 13 Height in feet above low water. Month. 5. 10. 15. 20. 25. 30. 35. 1871. January................................................... 21 7........................ February.................................................. 28 20 5.-........... March..................................................... 31 31 31 9.......... April.. —........................................ 30 30 7........................ May..-.................................................... 31 31 21........................ June...................................................... 30 30 8........................ July................................... 31 23...................... August............................................. 31.................................... September............................. 9.................................... October.................................................. November..................................................16................................. December................................................. 18..................... Total days in the year............................. 276 172 72 9 - ---. —1872. January......................................... 15.................................... February.................................................. 29 1.............................. March.................................................... 31 2.......... April...................................................... 30 30 16 May~~~~~~~~~~~~~~01........................................ 3 31 2 0.......... May...................................................... 31 31 26 10 September ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2.........................1 0........................... June.................................................... 30 30 30 19.................. July.31 31 31 4 August...,..,.,,._, __ ~_LI_ 31 29 8.~__ S ep tem ber.,..,,.,,,,.,,,,,,, 30. October..- 3..........0.......................... 34.................. December................................................. 31 1873. January.............................................. 31 11.............................. Febuary.................................................. 28 12 1........................ March..31 20 10........................ April.......................................... 30 30 25 13 6............ Moa ay s nteya.............................. 3 1151133....................9 Manay....,.,.,,,,_I~_~_ ~__~_~. 31 31 31 15 June........................30 30 30 30 2 March............................................ 30 30 0 2.................. Total days in the first six months of the year........ 181 134 97 58 8 H. Duration of each stage. This table shows the number of days in each year during which there were not less than the following heights above low water: Year. 5 feet. 10feet. 15feet. 20feet. 25feet. 30feet. 35 feet. 1861..-..-.....- -....-................ 314 217 141 29 3 1862.. —...-..-..-..-..-.................. 347 243 138 81 31 10... 1863......................................... 278 163 46................................ 1864......................................... 250 108 19 1865......................................... 322 265 151 40 7........ 1866...-....-... —........................ 365 292 152 45 9.......... 1867......................................... 332 216 171 116 46................ 1868......................................... 324 159 88 21 1869........................................ 365 317 210 65 32....... 1870........................................ 365 189 85 44 6................ 1871......................................... 276 172 72 9...................... 1872......................................... 316 154 111 33 1873, first six months.................... 181 134 97 58 8..... Average duration of each stage...... 2...... 322. 8 210.3 118.5 43.3 11.4 0. 8 Corresponding space under center of bridge... 83. 57 78. 57 73. 57 68. 57 63.57 58.57 Corresponding space available allowing a width of 174 feet........................... 78. 57 73. 57 68. 57 63. 57 58. 57 43.57........ 14 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. K. Names and dimensions of some of the largest boats employed on the Mimssssippi River, and which pass the city of Saint Louis, Mo. PASSENGER-PACKETS. 0. ~~~~ 0 0 0~~~e o~, o o~ ot o~ Names of boats..S 4 o W CZ Cd Id.0 0 00 o 0o -.. 0 0 0 a~ Ft. in. Ft. in. Ft. in. Ft. ijn. Ft. in. Ft. in. James Howard -........................................ 69 — 69 --—.. —.. —.. —. 104.. Thompson Dean..................................... 67 46 4 36 8 91 4 306 79 4 Phil. Sheridan...................... 65 8 36 2 27 8 72 8 222 62 J. H. Johnston......................... 65 8 36 2 27 8 72 8 246 62 Andy Johnston....................................... 63 2 36 2 27 8 80 8 273 72 Jo. Kinney.......................................... 62 3 35 9 27 9 75 9 241 6 65 Tom Jasper........................................ 62 37 6 27 10 72 257 68 Richmond........................................... 61 2 45 35 5 97 5 340 80 John A. Scudder..................................... 59 7 43 10 34 2 94 2 306 88 Dexter............................................... 59 44 33 10 87 10 340 89 G:rand Tower.............................. 58 4 41 32 90 276 73 Lucy Bertram.........................5............ 58 4 34 4 26 2 76 2 250 67 Continental......................................... 57 40 6 31 4 83 4 288 73 City of Helena................................ 56 10 40 4 31 4 93 4 277 74 Pauline Carroll...................................... 56 8 42 32 88 266 6 77 Belle of Memphis.................................... 56 40 31 93 273 72 Exporter..................................... 55 39 32 77 238 62 City of Chester...................... 55 38 10 30 84 250 70 Henry Arnes......................................... 54 10 39 9 I 31 83 305 74 Julia............................................ 54 8 34 8 27 4 83 4 243 6 70 Emma C. Elliott...................................... 53 8 38 28 3 82 3 222 63 6 Commonwealth...................................... 53 39 30 84 264 73 8 Illinois............................................... 52 9 35 3 27 8 67 8 210 50 Susie Silver.......................................... 52 4 37 2 28 86 265 68 John Kyle........................................... 52 1 38 3 31 1 83 1 299 786 P. W. Strader............................ 51 8 35 8 26 8 80 8 233 566 City of Quincy....................................... 50 10 36 10 29 6 79 6 280 78 Rob Roy —.. —---- - 50 4 36 27 4 79 4 273 73 Lake Superior....................................... 49 9 35 27 8 76 8 245 64 Clinton ---------—....................... 49 9 35 11 27 8 73 8 253 65 Northwestern ----------—................. 46 7 29 11 21 7 65 7 257 72 Fanny Keener............................. 46 5 33 Ii 25 7 67 7 208 40 Great Republic, not in port, higher than that of any on this list, and runs to sugar-refinery and elevator above the bridge. TOW-BOATS. Z.. Names of boats. 0 Ft. in. Ft. in. Ft. in. Ft. in. Mohawk... —----—..-... —. —.-....-......................... 64 3 78 3 189 0 35 0 Future City......................................... 51 0 75 5 22 0 46 4 Saint John.................................... 37 8 59 0 200 0 44 0 Atlantic............................................ 37 8 64 8 191 0 33 5 Crescent City, Mary Alice, and Bee, not in port, are as high as, and two of them are higher than, those given in the above list. SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 15 FERRY-BOATS. Names of boats. i. o Ft. n. Ft. in. East Saint Louis..4... 2................................. 40 2 0 6 Belleville, Cahokia, Charles Mulliken, Edwardsville, Ed. C. Wiggins. Louis V. Bogy, S. C. Christy, Springfield, America, Bunker Hill, Lavina Marie, and Submarine No. 13, are near, or about the same measurement as the East Saint Louis. JAMES McCORD, Secretary of Boatman's Association of Saint Louis, Mo. SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF BOARD OF ENGINEERS. ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, Saint Louis, Mlo., January 31, 1874. GENERAL: The board of engineer officers constituted, by Special Orders No. 169, dated War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, D. C., August 20, 1873, to examine and report upon the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge across the Mississippi River, at Saint Louis, Mo., having been reconvened by its president, under instructions fromn the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, dated November 25, 1873, met at Saint Louis, Mo., January 14, 1874, to consider and report upon the survey and estimates made in pursuance of the recommendation of the board in their previous report, and also to consider and report upon certain documents submitted to them by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, under date of December 30, 1873. These documents consisted of a review of the previous report of the board by Mr. James B. Eads, chief engineer of the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge; and of two affidavits made by William Taussig, chairman of the executive committee of the bridge company, and John W. Noble, its attorney, setting forth that, in the investigation made by the board at its first meeting, the bridge company had been unfairly treated. The board were also directed by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, under date of January 10, 1874, to investigate and explain certain discrepancies between the official report of the board as received at the War Department, and the copy of the same published by the Saint Louis papers and quoted by Mr. Eads in the review already mentioned. Having performed the duties assigned them, the board have the honor to submit herewith their report, to which are appended the following maps and documents. LIST OF APPENDICES. A. Map showing the cut around the last abutment of the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge over the Mississippi River, at Saint Louis, Mo., as proposed by the board of United States engineer officers, convened by Special Orders No. 169, dated War Department Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, D. C., August 20, 1873. 16 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. B 1. Letter of Win. Taussig, chairman of the executive committee of the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge Company, to the honorable Secretary of War, dated December 19, 1873, inclosing affidavits, &c. (The three following documents were inclosediu the above. B 2. Review of the first report of the board by Jas. B. Eads, chief engineer Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge. (The appendix to this review is omitted.) B 3. Affidavit of John W. Noble, addressed to the Honorable Secre. tary of War. B 4. Affidavit of Wm. Taussig, addressed to the Honorable Secretary of War. C. Personal statement of Col. J. H. Simpson, Corps of Engineers, senior member of the board. D. Personal statement of Maj. G. K. Warren, Corps of Engineers. E. Letter addressed by the board to Mr. Eads, dated January 14, 1874. F. Reply by Mr. Eads to the above letter, dated January 15, 1874. PLANS AND ESTIMATES. The plan sketched by the board in their first report contemplated a canal, or rather an open cut, behind the east abutment of the bridge, giving a clear width of water-way of 120 feet at the abutment; the shore-side of this cut to be laid out on an easy curve, joining the general shore-line about 500 feet above, and 300 feet below, the bridge; the river-side to be entirely open, but the shore-side to be revetted vertically with stone or crib work to a height of 5 feet above extreme high water; this wall to be provided with ring-bolts and posts, to enable boats] to work through the cut with lines; finally, to span the opening thus formed by a draw-bridge, giving a clear span of 120 feet in width. The survev made in accordance with the recommendation of the board developed the necessity for several modifications, which are set forth in the accompanying map, (Appendix A.) The cut, as shown, is 1,400 feet long, extending an equal distance above and below the bridge. The bottom is 40 feet below the Saint Louis City directrix, or 6 feet below extreme low water. The shore side has a slope of one horizontal to one vertical, and is paved with stone, the foot of the slope being secured by sheet-piling. The pivot pier rests on a square bed of concrete, with piles underneath,, the area covered by the concrete being inclosed by sheet-piling. The draw-span is 308 feet long, one end resting on the east abutment, and the other on a new pier built on Front street, in East Saint Louis. A combination of wooden cribs, filled with stone and floats, rising and falling with the water-surface, is designed to prevent boats from coming in contact with the draw when opened. Finally, ring-bolts on the levee-slope, and attached to the cribs, are designed to enable boats to work through the cut with lines. Estimate. Land damage: 1,400 linear feet river-front, less 100 feet owned by Bridge Company, 1,300 feet, at $300....... $390, 000 00 Removing present approaches: Taking down masonry of present eastern approach, 10,684 cubic yards masonry, at $3..............$32,152 00 Removing foundation of eastern approach, four caissons, at $1,000....................................... 4, 000 00 Foundation tower-pier............................ 2, 000 00 38, 052 00 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 17 Canal: Earth excavation, (dredging,) 108,620 cubic yards, at 30 cents.. $32, 586 00 Paving side-slope, 5,924 square yards, at $1.50...... 8, 886 00 Sheet-piling at foot of slope, 1,471 linear feet, at $3............ 4, 413 00 $45,885 00 Pivot-pier: Excavation for foundation and pumping, 11,500 cubic yards, at 90cents...........................-...-.............. 10,350 00 Concrete, 749.555 cubic yards, at $10.......................... 7,495 55 Sheet-piling, 244 linear feet, at $10............................ 2, 440 00 289 piles, at $20............................................. 5,780 00 Masonry of pier, 3,620.68 cubic yards, at $18...-.......... 65, 172 74 - 91,238 29 Draw-pier: Excavation for foundation and pumping, 300 cubic yards, at 75 cents...................................................... 225 00 Concrete, 200 cubic yards, at $10.............................2, 000 00 Masonry, 800 cubic yards, at $18...................... 14, 400 00 16, 625 00 Cribs: 300,700 feet (board measure) of lumber, at $40 per thousand... 12, 028 00 2,000 cubic yards stone, at $1.50............................. 3, 000. 00 6,000 cubic yards excavation, (dredging,) at 30 cents.......... 1, 800 00 16, 828 00 Floats: 106,000 feet (board measure) lumber for floats, at $50 per M.... 5, 300 00 20,000 feet (board measure) lumber for platforms and guides, at $40............................................... 800 00 30 piles for platforms, at $25...............................-.. 750 00 20,000 pounds iron, (bolts, spikes, &c.,) at 8 cents............. 1, 600 00 8, 450 00 Miscellaneous iron-work-ring-bolts, &c................................ 1,500 00 Repairs to levee......................-.......................... 5, 000 00 Draw-span: 308 feet long; width, &c., to correspond with present structure.. —-.... 225, 000 00 Total........................................................... 838, 578 29 Contingencies, 10 per cent.. -................ 83, 857 83 922, 436 12 Annual expenses: Labor, operating draw, &c................................. 5,000 00 Repairs to canal............................................. 10, 000 00 Total................................................. 15,000 00 The above ($15,000) capitalized, at 6 per cent.. ——........ 250, 000 00 Grand total..................................................... 1,172,436 12 This plan does not give promise of all the accommodation to navigation that the steamboatmen and our own judgment deem necessary, and the comments of the bridge company's agents show that it is exceedingly distasteful to them, and, as they hold, quite inadmissible. Its cost will, moreover, be so great that it is desirable to consider whether the difficulty might not be more effectually met without involving a much larger expenditure. Several plans have been proposed. One of these, if practicable, seems more desirable than the canal. It consists in buttressing the west pier, so as to enable it to resist the thrust of the loaded central arch, then removing the -vest arch and substituting for it a truss with horizontal chord, or else a pivot-draw as long as can be operated. The space remaining in the latter case would be filled by a short span. Another plan would be to buttress the east and west piers and remove the center arch, substituting for it a straight chord-truss, and at I. Ex. 194 2 18 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. the same time increasing the gradient of the railway track as much as possible. This plan would give more clear headway than the other. The trusses with straight, continuous, horizontal chords would not interfere with the passing on the bridge, and would be less of an obstruction to navigation than the present ones. The draw, located as proposed, would undoubtedly be better for navigation than the canal and draw around the east abutment, and it would not obstruct the Saint Louis landing. It would, however, be objectionable, as all draws must be, to travel on the bridge. All these projects would involve as much or greater expense than the one already estimated for, and would probably be objected to by the bridge company, not only on this account, but also because they would destroy the symmetry of the bridge. It has always been held that navigation should never be subjected to injury from bridges that reasonable expenditure and engineering skill could avoid. This bridge, though admirable in some engineering features, is so faulty in its relations to navigation, that, if no acceptable modification can be made, then, in our opinion, it should be entirely reconstructed. The simplest plan of doing this, involving no new masonry, would be to remove all three arches, and substitute for them horizontal trusses at the same grade as the railroad. This is the structure apparently intended by law. This change could be made entirely satisfactory to the river navigation by, at the same time, raising the bridge about 27 feet. The abandonment or modification of the present approaches would result from this change, but is one of the unavoidable difficulties of changing this structure. CHANGES IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT. A letter from the Chief of Engineers, of January 10, 1874, called the attention of the board to the fact that their report, as published by the Saint Louis papers, and as quoted by 1Mr. Eads in his review, did not correspond in several respects with the official copy on file in the War Department. As printed by the papers, two paragraphs read as follows: A large portion of the Saint Louis River front is above the bridge, and several elevators, a sugar-refinery, and other similar buildings, are already located above it. These could not safely be reached by the large boats during high stages, and much inconvenience," &c. * * * The steamboatmen have stated to the board, &c., * * * 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 that the delays to trains from this cause will not be excessive. In the official report these paragraphs read as follows: A large portion of the Saint Louis River front is above the bridge, and several elevators, a sugar-refinery, and other similar buildings, are already located above it. These could not safely be reached during high stages by the large boats navigating the lower river, and much inconvenience, &c. * The steamboatmen have stated to the board, &c., by providing machinery capable of opening and closing the draw with any desired rapidity. The use of this draw by the boats will be only in cases of necessity; and the inconvenience which this use may occasion to travel on the bridge, there seems no course left but to submit to. These alterations were made by one of the members of the board, to whom the report had been forwarded for signature, and the recorder SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 19 was duly notified. This officer was at the time absent from Saint Louis, so that the senior officer was not notified of the changes made until after the report had been made public. The official copy received by him from Washington was by instruction at once forwarded to the bridge company, and the representatives of the press were given a retained copy of the report as it left Saint Louis. Why Mr. Eads, in his review, used this incorrect copy instead of the official one furnished him, the board are unable to state. They wish it, however, to be understood that the alterations noted were such as meet with their entire approval, and they desire to call attention to a foot-note, which they have added to the original report, to explain more clearly their views on the subject of dropping through the bridge by means of lines, a carelessly worded sentence in the report having given rise to a misconception of their meaning, as noted further on in their reply to Mr. Eads's review. REPLY OF THE BOARD TO MR. EADS'S REVIEW OF THEIR FIRST REPORT. (For this review see Appendix " B.") As the review of Mr. James B. Eads, chief engineer of the bridge company, is one of the documents which has been referred to the board, they make the following reply to such portions of it as seem to require an answer: Mr. Eads commences with a philological disquisition on the meaning of the word expert. As this term was not used by the board, but is quoted from a private conversation with the honorable Secretary of WVar, who is presumed to be acquainted with the character and ability of the officers of the Army, it is hardly necessary to follow Mr. Eads in his comments on this subject. The question of adaptability of certain forms of bridges to the wants of navigation is one with which all the members of the board are familiar from several years' service in improving western rivers; in which service they have been compelled to study the managements of steamboats in narrow channels, under all circumstances of wind and weather. In addition to this general experience, the majority of the members of the present board composed the board on all the bridges over the Ohio River, and one or more of the members have been on every engineer board convened since the war to examine western-river bridges. This matter of so arranging bridges that they shall not be unnecssary obstructions to navigation, has thus become a specialty with the members of the board, and from the success that has thus far attended their efforts to harmonize the two opposing interests, they feel justified in considering themselves as better informed on this special subject than those whose engineering knowledge and experience are confined to a single bridge, or than such steamboatmen as seldom, if ever, take their boats above the bridge in question. Mr. Eads goes on to state that the opinions of the board must bear the crucial test of experience. With this they fully agree, and are quite willing to meet him on that ground. Although their report has been published in the newspapers, (with some errors, however, due to copying the first draught, which had been somewhat changed,) and has been subjected to much unfair criticism, been held up to public ridicule, and an erroneous public sentiment created by appeals to local interest, the members of the board have felt it improper for them to reply. Now, however, that the matter has been recommitted to them, the board take this opportunity to comment upon the criticisms that their report has called forth. 20 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. HIIEIGHT OF STEAM3IBOAT CHIMNEYS. Mr. Eads quotes from the report of the board: The apparently unreasonable height and size of the chimneys in'general use on these (western river) steamboats are really essential to secure a good draught to the furnaces and economical combustion of fuel. Artificial means to produce the same end are generally very expensive and often ineffective. He then goes on to state: Nowhere has the economy of fuel been so closely studied as in the construction of ocean-steamers. In this statement Mr. Eads is entirely in error. Economy in fuel has been chiefly studied in connection with land engines, especially those used for pumping. Here there is no limit to the size that can be given to the boilers, and by using very large evaporating surfaces and slow combustion, great economy in fuel has been attained. The mechanical effect due to the combustion of a pound of coal, generally expressed by the number of pounds raised one foot high in a minute, is alone considered in this case, the time required for combustion being immaterial. But if from any cause the size of boiler is restricted. while the same amount of mechanical effect is required, it is manifest that the element of time must be considered. For instance, suppose an engine to be supplied with steam by a boiler of such capacity that the necessary amount of water can be evaporated by burning 5 pounds of coal per square foot of grate per hour. Now, suppose the engine to be replaced by another requiring double the previous amount of steam, the boiler remaining unchanged, other things being equal, it is clear that the boiler can only accomplish the work required by burning 10 pounds of fuel per square foot of grate per hour. instead of 5 pounds, as in the previous case. In practice the amount would be greater, so that economy of fuel has been sacrificed to efficiency in steam generation. To drive large ships at high rates of speed requires powerful engines and boilers, while the room allowed for the machinery is kept as small as possible. Marine boilers are therefore necessarily very compactly built, and maintain a high rate of combustion. In their construction efficiency in supplying steam with sufficient rapidity is the ruling consideration. Economy of fuel, while still of course important, must and does give way to it. Artificial means are seldom used on them to produce a draught, and although the largest ones consume much more filel per day than any Mississippi steamer, none of their chimneys approach the height of some of those on the river. The statement that "the largest ones consume much more fuel per day than any Mississippi steamer," is certainly undeniable. As the engines of the larger ocean-steamers work up to six or seven thousand horse-power, while the largest ones on the Mississippi probably never run higher than 3,000, it is not surprising that the fuel consumption per day is greater in the former case. If, however, Mr. Eads refers to the rate of combustion —that is, to the number of pounds of coal burned on a square foot of grate per hour, then he is again in error. On ocean-steamers this rate is from sixteen to twenty-five pounds, while on western-river boats it runs from twenty to fifty pounds. The next statement, that " none of their chimneys approach the height of some of those on the river," is specious and deceptive as well as erroneous. SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 21 Persons who judge the height of an ocean-steamer's smoke-stacks from that proportion of them which they see projecting above the upper deck, may well infer that this height is snmall when compared With that of the chimneys of some of our river-boats. But it must be borne in mind that on the ocean-steamer the boilers and furnaces are located deep down in the hold, so that a large portion of her chimneys is hidden by the hull, and the actual height, measured from the grates to the top of the chimneys, may be very respectable. Still this height'must always be limited, first by the depth of hold, and secondly by the height to which it will be safe and expedient to carry the chimneys above the upper deck. A very great projection would cause much resistance during head winds, and the chimnneys would be liable to be rolled overboard in heavy weather. The board append a table in which are given the heights of the smokestacks of a number of ocean-vessels both large and small. These dimensions are taken from Scott, Russell, anld Rankin's works on shipbuilding. 1n addition to the examples given in the table, they would state that on the large vessels engaged in the transatlantic trade, this heiglit is from 60 to 70 feet. They also append a table giving the height above the grates of the chimneys of a number of river-boats frequenting this port, which were selected by the river-men as an argument against the small height of the bridge, and hence may be considered extreme cases. From this information it will be seen that the chimneys of the James Howard, the largest boat on the river, are of the same height as those of the Great Eastern, the largest boat on the ocean, and that 65 feet, the average height for large ocean-vessels, does approach the height of a good many of the chimneys used on the river. Still, their height is generally less, and, as Mr. Eads states, they do not usually require artificial draught. Presumablv the drift of this statement is, that as the short chimneys on marine boilers give a natural draught, the higher chimneys on river-boilers are unnecessarily high. To decide this question, it will be necessary to refer to the laws which govern the combustion of fuel. To effect this combustion a certain number of pounds of air must be supplied to the furnace for each pound of coal or other combustible burned therein. This air may be mechanically forced into the furnace by a fan or blowing-machine, or it may be forced in by the excess in density of the external air over that of the gases in the chimney. This excess of density may be caused solely by the rarification and constant expansion of the gases by the heat of the furnace, and in this case the draught is called natural. The same effects may be produced by exhausting or drawing out the gases by a fan or by driving them out by a jet or blast of steam. The velocity of a natural draught depends upon the head produced, and this is equal to the difference in weight between a chimney full of hot gas and an equivalent bulk of the external air. This difference, or head, thus varies with the temperature of the gas; hence two chimneys of equal sectional areas, but of unequal heights, will give the same draught if the temperatures of the gases contained in them are inversely proportional to the heights. For instance, the draught produced by a chimney 100 feet high in which the gases have a temperature of 6000 may be produced in a chim50 feet high and of similar sectional area, provided the gases are heated up to 1,2000. Sea-going Ve7M&. IND a'_ Dimensions. Smoke-stacks. a a a ~~ ~~~~a C) CO~ ~~~~~~~~~. I - ad 0 0 cc 0. co co Ca 0 Name. 4. 0' a 4 $="~~~j p, "; ~~~~~O C, ~~Remarks. o~~~~~~~~~..0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.0.0 a Ce ) Great Eastern Fe. Fe.Fe. Fe. Fe. Fe. Fet b. SIfe.S~et Warrior.680.... 118T 58 28 5 6 56 x 5[ 44 /96 102[1 2,1]00 8, 716 7, 652 Stacks, oval section. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 Ulter - - 327 661 21 8 4 6 32 ]48 8 15 40 677 7 pdc Mose.. 3.7.......-2.h 29 4 8 48. Holyhead royal Irish mail. Guienne - - 3(15~~ 64 25 I8. 27 1 7. 2 *'26 /5'2 4t6 -.. French Brazil line, (height top above deck-honse.)* Vtia Ab 2q ~ 8 1 2 6 [ 34 [53 4 2Royal steam-yacht. Gropt E 15 *e10 2 6 38 e49 4 2Blockade-runner, (between perpendiculars.) actiori............268 38 28 2052 2 5 20 5 4 15 2 412 9,421.4 - A2stra lianpassenger, screw. Paifc - 4 6 543 25 8 12 2176138-1- 2 5 [ 45 674 18 20 420 9, 507 1, 684 Meditecrranean, passenger. Ulota..............pedclr.) Jona - 245 ~~~~44I 11l *7 2 5 ] 21 ]35} 4 0Blockade-runner, (free board when light.)*' y190 362' 24 7 71 1 4 1 ]6 36 2 "10 26 4,2 87" - Screw-corvette, royal navy. MuishTraer..........62932HlharolIismi. h-7 188+ 4:4 14 5 2 3 30 41 2 12. 169 4,2~)'28. Screw. Recruit............2 Rrt7 47128 2 6 3 53 4.318 38-12 2.3 26. 33j.4 15 126.. "'754 Paddle-dispatchbont, royal navy. * O th lage teaersof he onadWhite StarC and other transportation-lines the height of smoke-stacks above the grates is from 60 to 70 feet. I Abont. SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 23 Height aboce grates of the chimneys of a nl'mber of steamboats frequenting the port of Sain t Louis, Mlo. Ft. in. Ift. in. James Howard................... 96 East Saint Louis.................. 72 6 Richmond................... 89 5 Rob Roy -........................71 4 John A. Scudder..................- 6 2 City of Quincy.................. 71 6 City of Helena.................., 85 4 Mohawk................ 70 3 Belle of Memphis.............,.. 85 Exporter......................... 69 Thompson Dean................. 83 4 Lake Superior.-................ 68 8 Grand Tower -..-.-.8'S...........82 Lucy Bertram.................... 68 2 Pauline Carroll................... 80 Jo. Kinney...................... 67 9 Dexter........................... 79 10 Future City..........67 5 Susie Silver....................... 78 Clinton...........................65 8 City of Chester................... 76 Phil. Sheridan5.,,., 54 8 Commonwealth..-.-..... 76 J. H. Johnston.................... 64 8 Continental............-......,,75 4 Tom Jasper............... 64 Julia..............................75 4 Illinois..........5......9 8 John Keyle.............. 75 1 Fanny Keener................... 59 7 Henry Ames...-.. -......... 75 Northwestern......... 5.....,,.7 7 Emma C. Elliott....... 74 3 Atlantic..........................56 8 Andy Johnson.......2 8 Saint John.................-..- 51 P. WV. Strader..........-... 72 8 Now, in the types of boilers used on ocean-vessels, the flues or tubes. through which the gaseous products of combustion pass, on their way from the furnace to the chimney, are always short; the whole distance from furnace to chimney rarely exceeding 15 feet, and being generally less. On western-river boilers this same distance varies from 40 to 80 feet; therefore it is evident that, in this latter case, the gases on their way to the chimney will be longer in contact with cooling-surfaces, and will finally reach the chimney with a much lower temperature than would be the case in the short-finued marine-boiler. Therefore, from what we have previously stated, it must be apparent that the river-boiler will require a higher chimney than the marine to give the same intensity of draught. So much for ocean-steamers. As Mr. Eads formerly commanded river-steamboats, and he has several times crossed the ocean, he certainly should have known that he was comparing things whose conditions were ill no way alike. He goes on to state: 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 a draught except by the escapement of their waste steam. To locomotives the same remarks apply as to marine-boilers, but in a still greater degree. Lightness and compactness are the essential qualities, and all questions of economical combustion must be subordinated to the thr more important one of efficiency in generating steam rapidly. They are simply machines wherein enormous power is packed away in small compass. The rate of combustion is from 40 to 140 pounds of coal per square foot of grate per hour, and it must be apparent to any reasonable person that no natural draughts could supply the air needed for such rapid combustion unless a chimney of most inordinate dimensions was employed. Even if such could be safely carried on a locomotive, it would be a source of great loss of power from the resistance of the air, and, therefore, the men who first made the locomotive-engine a success wisely decided to produce the requisite draught by artificial means; for the escapement of the exhaust-steam into the chimney, to which Mr. Eads alludes parenthetically, and as though it were of no particular importance, is really the life and breath of the machine, and without its 24 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. help the loconmotive-engine, as we see it to-day, would be an utter impossibility. It is a difficult and tedious matter to get up steam on a locomotive, and all round-houses are provided with special means for temporarily lengthening out the chimney until the fire is got fairly burning. After steam is once raised, the fire is kept up by a jet of live steam in the chimney when standing still, and by the fierce blast of the exhauststeam when in motion. So much for the facts which Mr. Eads asserts " completely disprove this first statement of the board." Before leaving the subject, the board wish to state that the whole choice between natural and artificial draught is pretty much a matter of dollars and cents. To run or fan a blowing-machine uses up a portion of the available power; to use a steam-blast reduces the power of the engines by back-pressure on the pistons; the steam-jet uses live steam from the boiler, and hence appears the most costly of all; finally, natural draught requires the expenditure of fiel for heating the air in the chimney. Where the choice is unrestricted, the cheapest and most efficient method would naturally be adopted. It should, however, be stated that while all artificial means of producing draught involve a direct expense, natural or chimney draught may be created by heat which would otherwise go to waste. When this is the case, it is unquestionably the cheapest and best, and from the universal preference given it by river-mlen the board judge that the proper conditions for its economical use are obtained by them. Probably the most economical artificial draught is obtained by using the blast of the exhaust-steam. The main objection to its use is the heavy back-pressure which it throws on the engine-piston when the nozzle-pipe is much contracted. It is also very destructive to the chimneys as it hastens oxidation. The force of the blast, by detaching rust scales, constantly presents fresh surfaces to this action. The life of a chimney is shortened fully 50 per cent. by its habitual use. A very important argument in favor of tall chimneys is afforded by the fact that the sparks thrown out of a short chimney by a powerful draught are ar very great source of danger, as hay, cotton, and similar bulky and highly combustible materials form a very important item of river-freight. With a tall chimney the sparks are either extinguished before they reach the top or else are thrown clear of the boat. The next question discussed by Mr. Eads is the practicability of raising or lowering large. chimneys with facility and (lispatch. lie says that it is perfectly feasible, at an expense of from $1,000 to $1,500. This statement may or may not be correct, but there is no proof of it other than the. statement itself and a document signed by "' Thirteen experienced steamboat-captains." As the apparatus recommended is not stated to be in use, and presumably has been invented by Mr. Eads or some friend of his, it must be received with the usual discount due to the statements of inventors. The real difficulty is not in raising or lowering a newv chimney at a wharf, but in handling one not new and under the pressure of winds. When chimneys are raised on a steamboat under construction it is done at a favorable time, when'there is no wind, and while the chimneys have their maximum strength. When once up they are secured as firmly as possible by chain-guys, but even this precaution does not prevent them from being occasionally blown overboard. These guys must be cast off before the chimneys can be lowered. They are thus left unsupported, and would probably go overboard if much wind were blowing. There SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 25 fore a boat arriving in windy weather at a bridge which required her chimneys to be lowered, would either have to risk losing them overboard or else wait until the wind abated, and might thus be detained for days at a time. The "thirteen experienced steamboat captains" have been paraded at considerable length as river-men who are in favor of the bridge. As so much is made of their testimony, it may be worth while to see who they are. The following brief descriptions are from the best information we could get, and are believed to be substantially correct: W. S. GREEN: Steamer Richmond; is a steamboat captain of good report, whose business is entirely confined to the river below Saint Louis. JOHN MCCLOY: Steamer Continental; is personally unknown to us, but the newspapers have informed us that his steamboat has recently been sold by the sheriff. To the best of our knowledge, he is now out of occupation on the river. N. BOFINGER: President of Saint Louis and New Orleans Iacket Company; has not commanded a boat since the war. He is a recent convert to the bridge, having until lately strongly opposed it. JNO. W. CARROLL: Superintendent Saint Louis and New Orleans Packet Company; has not been in command on the river since the war. Has been on duty on a wharf-boat in Saint Louis since that time. HENRY C. HAARSTICK: Vice-president Missouri Valley Transportation Company; has not commanded a boat on the river since the war. As his business is confined to transportation by barges, it is manifestly to his interest to have as many obstructions to large steamboats as possible, provided his tow-boats are not injured thereby. THEODORE LAVEILLE:'Has been one of the proprietors of the Southern Hotel, in Saint Louis, since it opened, in 1865, and during this time has not been in command on the river. J. P. FITZGERALD: IS at Shreveport, on the Red River, acting as steamboat-agent. It is not known to us definitely when he left active service on the river. DANIEL G. TAYLOR: IS understood to have no interest in steamboats, and has not, so far as we can learn, commanded one since the war. GEORGE WV. FORD: Is one of the proprietors of the Southern Hotel, in this city, and, according to his own statement, left the river in 1861. BARTON ABLE: Left the river about the close of the war. J. S. NANSON: Is a commission-merchant, and has not commanded a boat since the war. P. YORE: Commands steamboats when he can get one; but we understood that he has no regular position on the river. This record of the' thirteen experienced steamboat captains" does not make a very satisfactory exhibit for the bridge. Of all the steamboatmen who frequent this port, which is probably second only to New Orleans in the amount of its commerce, the bridge authorities have only been able to produce one steamboat-man, Captain Green, who is now in active service. His opinion is, of course, entitled to respect, but all the others either left the river about the time of the war or are now out of employment. The value of the opinions of ex-river-men on this point may be estimated when it is known that before the war the only bridges across the Ohio were at Steubenville and Wheeling. The only ones across the Upper Mississippi were at Clinton and Rock Island; and there were none over the Missouri or the main Mississippi. The nearest bridge on the Upper Mississippi was three hundred and 26 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. forty-seven miles above Saint Louis, and the nearest one on the Ohio was one thousand and seventy-seven miles distant. The board do not think it their province to enter on the question of possible changes in the character of river-vessels. Opinions will differ on such points, and speculations on possible changes are of little value. Taking the navigation as it is and as it was before the late bridges were built, it seems reasonable to suppose that the character of construction. which is the result of fifty years' experience, is that which best meets the requirements of the trade which it accommodates. They therefore take for granted that there are sound practical reasons for having elevated pilot-houses and high chimneys. Mr. Eads entirely misrepresents the position of the board on the subject of wide and narrow spans. He states that they hIave come to the following conclusions: 1. Lights placed on an arch 50 feet above high water are of no greater assistance. This they maintain to be absolutely true, but nevertheless they recommendqd the establishment of lights on the bridge because they are of some little service, and therefore they proposed using their help for what it is worth. Something must be done to help find the middle of the span, and although the remedy is an imperfect one, it is yet the only thing that the paltry construction of the bridge will permits and therefore they recommend it. 2. Greater head-room for passing boats is indispensable. This they also maintain, and in defense of the proposition they quote Mr. Eads himself. In the report of the proceedings of the congressional convention held in Saint Louis in May, 1873, page 50, the following resolution was introduced by Mr. Eads: Seventh. That the vast commerce depending on the Mississippi River for cheap trausportation demands that no artificial obstruction be permitted in its channel, except upon the most urgent necessity, and that no bridge should be authorized across it below Saint Louis having spans over the stream of less width than 500 feet, alnd a clear height of 75 feet above high-water mark should be preserved under the center of the channel-spans of such bridge. This was his opinion about any future bridge, but he thinks that his own bridge need only'be 431 feet above high water, and that only at the middle of an arch, a deviation from which exact point might insure the destruction of a passing boat. The excellent principles which he applies to others he is unwilling to have applied to himself. The board are decidedly of the opinion that either the bridge under question should have been of this height above water throughout the span, or else should have been built with a draw. A more objectionable formn than the one adopted could scarely have been devised. 3. Piers 520 feet apart are too wide to serve as guides. This sentence, as it stands, conveys a false impression of the meaning of the board. Piers as wide apart as stated would give ample space for navigation. The true statement of their opinion is that this width is practically useless in the present case, as no boat could approach within 150 feet of either pier on account of the arches, and therefore these piers are useless as guides.'Mr. Eads makes a strong point of one sentence in the report of the board, which was carelessly written and open to misconstruction, though it is difficult to see how it could have been really misunderstood by persons who profess to be familiar with river navigation. The sentence reads: " In case of wind a boat can be dropped through the opening by lines made fast to ring-bolts in the pier itself." The true meaning of this sentence, as intended, is that in case of a narrow open SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 27 ing, with a clear headway, it would be practicable to extend the piers upstream for more than the length of a boat, so that before passing through the opening she could round to, make fast to the extension of the pier, and then drop through gradually. This system is adopted at the Louisiana bridge over the Upper Mississippi for passing the draw in windy weather, and a similar method is used at other bridges where the draw is located near the shore. That this use of ring-bolts has often been made on the Upper Mississippi and Missouri was a fact well known to ail persons navigating those streams. MIr. Eads thinks that the board have not been sufficiently explicit in their reasons for condemning arched bridges over navigable streams. They thought that they had said enough to convince any unprejudiced person, but for his benefit they will repeat their reasons for this statement. They will be based solely on the effect such structures have on navigation. In determining the height and shape of a bridge, the first point to be settled by those building it is, what shall be the least height of the roadway? The second question is, shall this roadway be supported from above or from below? The latter question will generally be answered by bridge-builders either way which-may seem convenient and economical. The board make a definite issue between two bridges with roadways on the same level, one of which is supported from above and has a level bottom chord, and the other is supported underneath by an arch. Both may give the same height for navigation under the center of the span, but the straight-chord bridge allows a boat to pass anywhere under this span without danger, while the arch-bridge compels a boat to pass at the exact central point. As a practical case, take two bridges built as above, and suppose a boat, whose highest part when chimneys are lowered is just within the clear height afforded, to arrive from up-stream at these two bridges in succession. If she has an inch to spare, she can pass with perfect safety under any part of the straight-chord bridge, whether she heads straight downstream or goes down broadside under the influence of wind or current; but it is self-evident that any attempt under such circumstances to pass the arched bridge might result in the partial or total destruction of the boat, and she would probably go to the bank rather than risk it. River-steamboats are very high above water, fiat-bottomed, and of shallow draught. They have, therefore, little hold on the water, and are easily turned out of their course by the wind. To assume, therefore, that such boats, under all the varying conditions of wind, weather, and currents, can be steered so as to follow a line exactly, would show great ignorance of river-navigation. The great width of spans given the present bridge is, therefore, practically useless. A narrower span with level chords would be much better, as the piers would always be clear and distinct obstacles, and a boat, under all ordinary circumstances, could avoid them without difficulty, knowing that if she did this she was safe. It would be very different from endeavoring to steer for an illy-defined point, high in the air, with the knowledge that if the exact point were not reached the boat might be wrecked. The least change in the current, and the currents of different stages are seldom exactly parallel, may vitiate the conclusions of the best-informed pilots, and none of them would approach such a dangerous spot without dread. It seems hardly necessary to multiply minor reasons against this form of bridge, as any steamboat-man who would not be convinced by the above would probably continue a skeptic no matter what evidence were brought before him. 28 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. As a practicacal illustration of the effect of this bridge, we will state that during the few weeks that have elapsed since the arches were closed two ferrry-boats have been injured by striking against the ironwork of the bridge. During this time navigation on the upper river has been pretty much suspended by ice and low water, or the number of casualties would probably have been much greater. Mr. Eads concludes by stating that he alone was the bridge-engineer, and therefore he alone was authorized to speak for the company on engineering-matters. As he was said to be in Europe when the board met, it was manifestly impossible to call upon him for information, and therefore the board called upon Colonel Flad, the engineer, who has generally been understood to be responsible for the scientific part of the work, and also upon Mr. Katte, who, as the engineer of the contractors for the superstructure, was largely responsible for that part of the work. Colonel Flad was presented to the board of engineers by Mir. Taussig, chairman of the executive committee of the bridge company, as the officer authorized to speak for them on matters of engineering, and all the drawings presented to the board were signed " James B. Eads, per Henry Flad." If the board misunderstood Colonel Flad, they regret it, but they certainly can recollect of no other objection from him to their proposed modification of the bridge than the one alluded to in their report. Although great exception has been taken to the report of the board, and many difficulties in the construction of the lateral cut have been indicated, yet no other remedy for the obstruction to navigation has been proposed by the bridge company. They have contented thelmselves with stating that the bridge is not much of an obstruction after all. This is, however, simply a question of fact, and the board believe that any intelligent man is able to judge in this matter for himself, and that all such who are unbiased by interest or local feeling will come to the same conclusions that they have. If that fact be conceded, it is an inevitable consequence that some change ought in justice to be made. The cost of making the change is something for which the board are in no wise responsible. It is the inevitable result of a badly-designed bridge. The board think it due to themselves to state the review of Mr. Eads has mainly been based on minor and comparatively unimportant points. The main and essential point that the board made was that this bridge was a decided obstruction to the navigation which now exists on the Mississippi River, and to prove this they cited figures and dimensions, which have not been contested, and which of themselves prove the extent of the obstruction. The substance of Mr. Eads's reply is that the majority of river-steamuboats must be rebuilt to conform to his bridge. If a duplicate of this bridge were to be built at Carondelet or Cairo, it would be generally denounced in Saint Louis as a great outrage upon her river-commerce, and the board cannot see why the present bridge is not as serious an obstruction to the commerce of all the cities and towns above Saint Louis. REPLY OF THE BOARD TO THE AFFIDAVITS OF Mi\R. TAUSSIG AND MR. NOBLE. (See Appendix B, Nos. 1, 3, and 4.) The affidavits made by William Taussig, member of the board of directors of the bridge coumpany, and John W. Noble, acting as attorney SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 29 and counsel to this company, concerning the proceedings of this board at its first meeting, addressed to the honorable the Secretary of'War, and transmitted to the board for our [their] information, "and for consideration and report," having been considered by the board, they subtnit the following report in regard thereto: There appears to have been a misunderstanding oil the part of the affiants as to the duties of the board, although the latter did all in their power to explain their understanding of the instructions furnished them, which alone could be their guide. The board regarded themselves as engineers directed by the orders of a superior officer to examine into certain alleged facts, and did not think it necessary to inquire of anybody regarding matters which were plain to their own observation and reason. The only facts that were vital to the question were the height, width, and form of the bridge-spans, and the height and general dimensions of the steamboats likely to pass under them. These were all before them. The board, however, granted the fullest liberty to all parties to appear before them and make their own statements. There existed from the first a marked difference of opinion between the board and the afflants; the latter, as shown by their affidavits, holding that such statements were testimony, while the board held that "testimony is strictly the evidence of a witness given under oaths and, as they had not the legal right to administer an oath, they could not take testimony. The board, therefore, declined to make record of the irresponsible statements which they received, deeming that they, in their own judgment, could rightfully give to each statement the weight it deserved, and that the Secretary of Wiar wanted their opinions on the facts of the case, and not those of irresponsible persons. The board also, as stated by the affiants, declined to hear counsel on questions of law, that subject not having been submitted to them. The senior member of the board duly informed the bridge company of the order directing their meeting, as shown by the paper prepared by him, and which accompanies this report, (Appendix C.) No pains were spared to give that company the earliest notice practicable and to treat them fairly. The board, in its hearings, first had before them those who complained of the obstruction of navigation by the bridge. These gave their views, in the words of Mr. Noble, one of the affiants, "concerning the heights of boats, their chimneys, the character of the Saint Louis Harbor, the necessity for high pilot-houses and tall chimneys, the comparative safety of raising or lowering steambdat-chimneys, whether they could be raised and lowered at all, whether artificial draught could be used, the expense that would be incurred by preparing chimneys, and the difficulties of piloting boats under the bridge." The above hardly states the number of questions which were considered; bnt, taking it as it is, it is evident that a very considerable time was necessary to hear an individual on each point. A large number of persons opposed to the bridge were present and ready to give their views on these points. After hearing several, and finding their statements merely cumulative, in order to save time, one of the members of the board drew up the memorandum quoted by Mr. Noble, and asked these men if it did not in brief express their opinion as to what constituted a serious obstruction in regard to height. To this they all assented, and wrote their names in pencil upon the memorandum, although such action was not requested by the board. The board then proceeded to hear those river-men that the bridge 30 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. company brought forward on their side. All present, consisting of Barton Able and George W. Ford, were heard. They were both out of riverbusiness and but little interested in it. The afflants then stated that they could bring others to make similar statements, if the board would adjourn till the next Monday or Tuesday, it being then Friday. This was impossible, because the other duties of the members of the board did not admit of this delay. The affiants then asked'to be allowed to circulate a paper for signature, in opposition to the memorandum drawn up by a member of the board, to represent the views of those opposed to the bridge. This was objected to by the board, as they had determined not to take the views of any one that did not appear before them in person, so as to answer the questions they might put to him as to his knowledge of the subject. The senior member specially informed the affiants that any one who appeared in person should be heard. To avoid any appearance even of unfairness, the memorandum, which had been signed by the river-men, as to what constituted a serious obstruction to navigation was torn up, and no use was made of it by the board. The remark made by Major Warren, and quoted by Mr. Taussig in his affidavit, Major Warren asks to be allowed to make his own explanation of. This he has done in writing, and his statement accompanies this report. (Appendix D.) Respectfully submitted by your obedient servants, J. H. SIMPSON, Colonel Engineers and Brevet Brigadier-General, U. S. A., President of Board. G. K. WARREN, lajor Engineers and Brevet Mfajor-General, U. S. A. G. WEITZEL, l1Major of Engineers and Brevet Major-General, U. S. A. WM. E. MERRILL, 1Major Engineers and Brevet Colonel. CHARLES R. SUTER, Major of Engineers, U. S. A. Brig. Gen. A. A. HUMPHREYS, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A., Wlashington, D., C. B 1. ILLINOIS AND SAINT LOUIS BRIDGE COMZPANY, Sainlt Louis, December 19, 1873. SIR: Inclosed I have the honor to transmit the affidavits of Gen. John W. Noble and of myself, relative to the manner of conducting the investigation by the board of United States engineers, convened under Special Orders No. 169, War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, August 20, 1873. These affidavits cover the grounds of complaint which I have the honor to submit to you personally on behalf of this company, and which you desired me to forward to you. The pressure of other important business has prevented me from attending to it sooner. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, WM. TAUSSIG, Chairnman Executive Committee. Hot. W. W. BELKNAP, Secretary of WTar, fashington, D. C. SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 31 B 2. ENGINEER'S OFFICE, ILLINOIS AND SAINT LOUIS BRITDGE COMPANY, October, 1873. To the president and directors: GENTLEMEN: The report of a board of United States engineer officers, dated September 11, 1873, approved by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, having been referred to me, I respectfully submit on these important papers the following review: Owing to an inadvertence which occurred in the United States 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 learn 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 Saint Louis and Illinois bridge across the Mississippi River at Saint 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 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.t 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 Saint Louis, Capt. Joseph Brown, who commanded several of the largest steamers on the river, and the second is from a number of other well known, highly respected, and skillful 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, 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 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 * The report of the board, with the approval of the same by the Chief of Engineers, will be found in the Appendix. ISee affidavits of Dr. William Taussig and General Noble, in Appenlix. 32 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. on these steamboats are really essential to secure a good draught 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 draught, and 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 10 or 12 feet in length is obtained without any artificial means to produce draught, 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 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: "W~e 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 $1,000 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 70 feet above the hurricane-deck, and 7 feet in diameter, and made of No. 12 sheet-iron of a strength equal to 50,000 pounds per square inch, a little calculation will show that such a cylinder, if well-riveted, will, even after discounting 40 per centum of its strength for the riveted joints, require over three hundred tons to pull it asunder. Standing erect, it will sustain sixty tons with safety. If each end of such a chimney be provided with a strong angle-iron filanch 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, while 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 disproportionate 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 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 35 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 crown of the arch, is 174 feet longwand gives the least width of waterway which seems compatible with safe navigation." On this assumption it will be evident, presently, that the board has understated the safe width at least 50 per centum. The highest part of the boat remaining, when the chimneys are lowered, is the pilothouse. This, on large steamers, is usually surmounted with a pyramidal canopy or roof, the apex of which is of course safe anywhere within the 174 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 174 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 174 feet. Therefore, on its own data, this fifth statement, to wit, that the least width compatible with safe navigation is only 174 feet, is also an error. It should have been stated at 260 feet. The board having arbitrarily assumed 174 feet as the only width of water-way compatible with safe navigation afforded by an arch-way 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 headway above. The arguments advanced in support of this novel opinion are SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 33 equally as notable as the proposition itself. The report says, "The reason given forthis is that the piers would 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 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 steamboat-men deem a clear height of seventy-five feet above high water the least admissible," 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, 8th, and 9th errors on which the decision of the board rests. These are as follows: 1. Lights placed on an arch 50 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 50 feet high are " of no great assistance," surely they will be of no use at all 75 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. Iu 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 55 feet high to be effectively lighted, and its wide piers distinguished with certainty. The report says: " Whether this modification (the canal) be carried out or not, the board deems 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 to be able to tell the clear headway available 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 serve 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 1866, 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, William M. McPherson, A. W. Fagin, George Pegram, Adolphus Meior, Felix Coste, James Ward, N. Stevens, and J. B. Eads. On the 18th of April, 1866, this committee unanimously reported a series of resolutions, and from their report I quote the following: "Your committee have carefully examined the subject with reference to ascertaining what restrictions are really demanded by the marine interest 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 the construction of bridges over the Mississippi River, and that they earnestly endeavor to incorporate the following provisions in said law: "1. That all bridges crossing the Mississippi River shall have a clear height of 50 feet over the main channel, between the lower part of the bridge and high-water mark, measured in the center of the greatest span. " 2. If below the mouth of the Missouri, they shall have one span of 600, or two spans of 450 feet each, in the clear of abutments. * * * * * H. Ex. 194- 3 34 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. " 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 steamboat-men 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 virtually impracticable. It was for this reason, and with a full knowledge of the fact, 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 every one had, therefore, full notice of the height agreed upon, and that that height referred expressly to the center 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 in shaping the report of the committee in 1866 have been the most active in 1873 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 Saint Louis, that these dimensions will " preserve a comparatively uninterrupted navigation on the Mississippi." This Exchange is composed of more than 1,000 members, a large number of whom are owners and captains of steamboats, while almost every one 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 committee-men to say that the Exchange declared in 1873 that 75 feet in height was requisite for the safe navigation of the Mississippi. The Exchange did not, like them, ignore and repudiate in 1873 what it said in 1866. The height of 75 feet, as will be seen by the resolution of last May, applied only to bridges that may be built beloiw Saint 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 from 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 anyof the steamboat-men 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 bridge had unlimited head-room; but as the proposition seems seriously advanced by United States 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 the boat, not below her. To check the lower end of the boat, as it enters the opening, by fastening to the ring-bolts in either pier, would simply result in having the upper end swing around broadside, and would probably wreck her on one of the piers. The upper end could not, of course, be controlled by ring-bolts 150 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 steamboat-men. On their testimony I feel justified in saying that this tenth statement of the board is not sustained. The board thinks the steering through 174 feet of the center of the archway 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. I * I * Many of the channels through the difficult bars below Saint Louis are not over 100 or 150 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. SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 35 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 of these "many difficulties" are clearly indicated in the report. One is, that it prevents the proposed system of navigation by ring-bolts; 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. In 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 steamboat-men 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."' 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. Colonel 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 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 uncommonly expensive; fourth, it would destroy all of the wharf of East Saint Louis alongside of the canal; fifth, it would ruin the landing for several hundred feet below the canal, by causing a deposit along the shore; sixth, it would involve a draw-bridge, 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 retard 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 Saint Louis 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 more profound respect than myself. The question of obstruction to pavigation, 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, therefore, 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 boaid "was deprived of the intelligent and 36 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 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 disproportionate 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; "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 schene 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, 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. lIf 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 Saint Louis Merchants' Exchange, which officially fixed its dimensions in 1866, and secured from Congress an incorporation 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. 1. MAYOR'S OFFICE, Saint Lo8is, NYovemnber 7, 1873. To the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge Company, Capt. James B. Eads, Chief Engineer: DEAR SIR: Having been requested to give my opinion as to whether the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge, now building across the Mississippi River at Saint 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 Saint Louis Bridge are the largest arch-spans in the world, the central river-piers being over 500 feet apart, and consequently interfere less with the free navigation of jthe river than any other span-bridge. 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, SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 37 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 stages 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 feet apart, and a structure with a draw and piers only 174 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 Saint Louis side, I should think it a poor commentary on the good sense of our lawmakers 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 destroying the East Saint Louis levee; and, even if 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 Saint Louis Bridge has now been nearly five years in constant construction, at a cost of probably $10,000,000, and I consider its completion more vital to the interests of Saint 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 to the country at large, and especially the commercial development of the West. Whatever inconvenience may be caused the larger class of 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 nmust be emphatically in favor of the bridge. I consider the 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. Letter No. 2. SAINT Louis, November 5, 1873. DEAR Smli: We are in receipt of your letter of November 1, 1873, 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 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 absolutely necessary for safety to exceed 35 or 40 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 174 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 Saint Louis are not over 100 or 150 feet wide, and those are 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 $1,000 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. Question. Do you deem such very high chimneys really necessary for economy of fuel or draft? 38 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 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 Saint Louis Bridge, would it be practicable to drop a large steamer through by means of lines and ringbolts fastened to the piers, either in windy or clear weather. Answer. 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 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 swing around broadside, and would. probably wreck her on one of the piers; the upper end could not, of course, be controlled by ring-bolts 150 or 200 feet below it. In case of wind, it would be still more impracticable. Question. Do you believe steamboat-men 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 eugineers? Answer. We think it altogether impracticable. Question. For safe and convenient navigation, would it be preferable for this bridge to have an opening limited in width by piers to 174 feet, but with clear head-room for chimneys and upper works, or to have an anchorage of 520 feet, with the central 174 feet of it limited in height to 50 feet above the city directrix? Answer. As the portion of the archway that is full 50 feet high is greatly more than 174 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. N. S. GREEN, Steamer Richmond. JOHN McCLOY, Steamer Continental. N. BOFINGER, Presideitt Saint Louis and elew Orleans Packet Company. JNO. W. CARROLL, Suyperintendent Saint Louis and NTen Orleans Packet Company. HENRY C. HAARSTICK, Vice-President Mississippi Valley Transportation Company. THEODORE LAVEILLE. J. P. FITZGERALD. DANIEL G. TAYLOR. GEO. W. FORD. BARTON ABLE. W. H. BROWN. J. S. NANSON. P. YORE. Capt..JAmIE B. EADES, Chief Engineer of the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge. B 3. STATE OF MISSOURI, County of Saint Louis, ss: 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 Orders No. 169, War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, August 20, 1873, to examine the Saint Louis and Illinois bridge, across the Mississippi, at Saint Louis, and report whether the bridge will prove a serious obstruc SAINT LOUIS ANI) ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 39 tion to the navigation of said river; and if so, in what manner its construction can be modified; which proceedings were had at Saint Louis, commencing September 4, 1873; that affiant appeared before said board with Dr. William Taussig, managing director of the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge Company, affiant acting as attorney and counsel. That on September 2, 1873, the bridge company had addressed to the said board of engineers a written communication, requesting, among other things, that the corpora — tion 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 towriting 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, by 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 choose to give; and the board did not therefore consider it worthy of being recorded in the manner proposed. WVhen this answer was received the board went into open session, and afflant 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. John S. McCune and some other representatives of the river interest, with. Mr. Bryson. Some interchange 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 discussions would be entertained. The board then proceeded to hear the statements of Captain McCune and others against the bridge, Colonel Bryson acting as agent or attorney in making suggestions to witnesses against the bridge, propounding questions, and otherwise acting in the capacity of an attorney. Affiant does not mean that the said Bryson was an attorney-atlaw, but acted in that character. The witnesses against the bridge testified concerning the heights of boats, their chimneys; the character of the Saint Louis harbor; the necessity for high pilot-houses and tall chimneys; the comparative safety of raising or lowering steamboat chimnevs; whether they could be lowered and raised at all; whether artificial draught 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. John S. McCune, Captain 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 board: " The 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 were 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 General Warren, as a means, it was said, of shortening the investigation. The bridge company had secured the attendance of a number of steamboat-men entertainining 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 rivermen of experience, who were of opinion that it was not impracticable to lower 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. George W. Ford; Captain 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 40 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 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 afflant and Dr. Taussig, informed the board that they withdrew from any further participation in these proceedings, leaving Colonel Flad, 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 September 11, 1873, addressed to the Chief Engineer of the United States Army, wherein appear the following statements: "The apparently unreasonable height and size of the chimneys in general use on these steamboats are really essential to secure a good draught 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 large size is a very serious matter indeed. * * i * 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, and 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 steamboat-men whose views were entitled to consideration, and which would have been against the conclusion and reasons stated in the said report, and above quoted. And further affiant saith not. JOHN W. NOBLE. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 26th day of November, A. D. 1873, at my office in Saint Louis. [SEAL.] THEO. F. CHILDS, Notary Public, Saint Louis County, Missouri. B 4. STATE OF MISSOURI, County of Saint Louis, ss.: William Taussig, being duly sworn, on his oath says that he is a member of the board of directors of the Illinois and Saint 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 Orders No. 169, War Department, AdjutantGeneral's Office, dated Washington, August 20, 1873, to examine the construction of the Saint 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 modfled-which proceedings were had at Saint Louis about September 4 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 affidavit of John W. Noble, dated November 26, 1873, 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 whatever of the issuance of said order No. 169, nor of its object, nor of the grounds of any complaints which may have been made against said bridge, nor of the names of any complainants, nor of the day or time of the sittings of said board of engineers, but that said bridge company was entirely ignored and disregarded; that the only information derived by the company of these intended proceedings was from the reports of newspapers some two weeks before the sitting of said board of engineers; 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 within a few days of the meet SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 41 ing, this affiant called personally, on the 30th day of August, 1873, on Colonel Simpson, in order to obtain such information; on which occasion all he could obtain was a printed copy of the order convening said board, which was handed to him personally, but in no wise took the character of an official notification to the company; 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, the 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 5, 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 that at the close of their testimony, it then being late and all 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 grounds 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 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 steamboat-men were ready to disprove the statements of those complaining against the bridge, one of the members of said board of engineers, Major Warren, said, " If a thousand steamboat-men should come and 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 steamboat-men and experts similar to the one which had been prepared by the board of engineers and by them handed to the complainants present for signature, 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, 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 4th day of December, A. D. 1873. [SEAL.] THEO. F. CHILDS, Notary Public, Saint Louis County, Missouri. C. SAINT LOUIS, MO., January 17, 1874. GENFERAL: Touching the affidavit of William Taussig, esq., a member of the board of directors of the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge Company, and chairman of the executive committee, on the mode of conducting the investigation by the board of United States engineers convened under Special Order No. 169, War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, August 20, 1873, which is among the papers referred by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, under date of December 30, 1873, to the board at its present session, for consideration and report, as senior member of the board, I think proper to make the following answer, so far as it relates to my action previous to the organization of the board on the 4th of September, 1873: Dr. Taussig, in his affidavit, swears " that said bridge company has never received from said board of engineers or from the War Department any official notification whatsoever of the issuance of said order No. 169, nor of its object, nor of the grounds of any complaints which may have been made against said bridge, nor of the names of any complainants, nor of the day or time of the sittings of said board of engineers; but that said bridge company was entirely ignored and disregarded; that the only in 42 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. formation derived by the company of these intended proceedings was from the reports of newspapers some two weeks before the sitting of said board of engineers." In reply, I assert that on the 25th day of August, 1873, as senior member of the board, I addressed the following communication to Capt. John S. McCune, president of the Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company: "ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, "1122 Pine Street, Saint Louis, Mo., Algust 25, 1873. "SIR: In order to facilitate the work of the board to examine the bridge over the Mississippi River at this city, I would be glad to know the names and dimensions of a number (as great a number as possible) of the largest packets and tow-boats which ply on the river past this city. The information should come from reliable sources, and could be given in a form like the inclosed. "Very respectfully, your obedient servant, "J. H. SIMPSON, "Colonel of Engineers, U. S. A. "Capt. JOHN S. MCCUNE, "President iKeokuk.Northern Line Packet Company, Saint Louis, Mo.' On the same day that I addressed the above letter to Captain McCune, August 25, I called at the office of the bridge company, on Col. Henry Flad, acting chief engineer of the bridge company in the absence of Mr. J. B. Eads, understood to be abroad, and requested him to furnish such drawings of the bridge as might be necessary for the use of the board, which was to convene on the 2d of September, for the purpose of determining whether the bridge was an obstruction to navigation. Colonel Flad politely furnished me with an official drawing of the bridge, as may be seen by the following correspondence: "ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, "1122 Pine Street, Saint Louis, Mo., August 26, 1873. "COLONEL: I acknowledge, with thanks, the receipt of the tracing, designated'skeleton' of Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge, which you have kindly forwarded to me, in accordance with my request of yesterday. Shall I return it to you, or can the board of engineers, which are to convene here on the 2d proximo, have it for file with their report? "Very respectfully, your obedient servant, "J. H. SIMPSON,' Colonel of Engineers, United States Armly. "Col. HENRY FLAD,' Chief Assistant Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge Company, Saint Louis, Mo." "SAINT LOUIS, MO., August 27, 1873. "COLONEL: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 23d, [26th,] and beg leave to inform you that the skeleton-map of the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge which I sent you need not be returned, but is at your service or that of the board of engineers. "Very respectfully, your obedient servant, "HENRY FLAD. "Col. J. H. SIMPSON, U. S. A." The foregoing will show that the bridge company had at least a week's notice of the meeting of the board, and of its purpose; and it also answers another portion of Dr. Taussig's affidavit, in showing that the bridge company had not only " as many hours as the complainants had been granted weeks to get their evidence ready," but that each party had the same time. Dr. Taussig also swears that the bridge company being largely interested in the subject-matter to be investigated, and being possessed of or able to furnish much valuable testimony and other evidence in relation thereto, expected to be notified and informed as to the character of the complaints. made against the bridge, but that receiving no notice, after waiting until within a few days of the meeting, this affiant called personally on the 30th day of August, 1873, on Colonel Simpson, in order to obtain such information, on which occasion all he could obtain was a printed copy convening said board, which was handed to him personally, but in no wise took the character of an official notification to the company." In answer to the foregoing charge, I aver that on the 30th of August I addressed to Dr. Taussig the following letter: "ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARMY, " 1122 Pine Street, Saint Louis, Mo., August 30, 1873. "SIR: As requested by you verbally to-day, I transmit herewith, for the information of the board of directors of the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge Company, a copy of SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 43 Special Order No. 169, paragraph 10, War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, dated August 20, 1873, directing a board of engineers, United States Army, to convene in this city on the 2d proximo, or as soon thereafter as practicable, to examine and report upon the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge. "Very respectfully, "J. H. SIMPSON, "Colonel of Engineers, U. S. A. "WILLIAM TAUSSIG, Esq., Saint Louis, Mo." This letter certainly bears on its face an oficial character, and with the previous correspondence with Colonel Flad, the acting chief engineer of the bridge company, shows that the bridge company had not only not been " ignored and disregarded," to use the language of Dr. Taussig's affidavit, by the board, but that as senior member of the board I had, previous to the meeting of the board, done every thing fairly and in good faith for facilitating the business of the board when it should convene. But further, Dr. Taussig, while swearing positively that the bridge company had received no official notification of the meeting of the board, in the very next paragraph of his affidavit expressly acknowledges it in the following words: " That thereupon the president of the bridge company and the undersigned sent to the board of engineers a letter, a copy of which is hereto annexed, and received from said board a reply thereto, a copy of which is also annexed." The following is an extract from the letter of the president of the bridge company and Dr. Taussig referred to, and will show more fully that the bridge company not only received a copy of the order of the War Department convening the board, communicated by my letter of August 30, but that they considered it official: "SAINT LOUIS, Mo., September 2, 1873. "Col. JAMES H. SIMPSON, Maj. GOUVERNEUR K. WARREN, Maj. GODFREY WEITZEL, Maj. WILLIAM E. MERRILL, and Maj. CHARLES R. SUTER, Board of Engineers under Special Orders No. 169, War Department, August 20, 1873. "The undersigned, the Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge Company, having learned from a copy of Special Orders No. 169, issued by the War Department, and obtained from you on Saturday, the 30th ultimo, by personal request, that your honorable board is convened in this city for the purpose of examining the construction of this company's bridge, and reporting whether it will prove a serious obstruction to the navigation of the Mississippi River, and, if so, in what manner its construction can be modified, begs leave to represent that this companv has received no notice and is possessed of no information as to the grounds for or character of the complaint, if any, on which your special order is based, and that, being largely interested in your.proceedings and final actions, it feels authorized to respectfully request that you permit it to be represented at your several meetings by counsel." It is true that the bridge company in the above letter, while admitting the receipt of the order of the War Department convening the board and acknowledging its official character, also states that it was " possessed of no information as to the grounds for or character of the complaint on which the order from the War Department was based." But they were put in the possession of the basis the War Department had given to the board for its action, and therefore all I could give the bridge company; and as for the particular grounds of complaint against the bridge, these could not be known until they could be brought out by the board in its investigations after organizing. In conclusion, I will state that previously to the assembling of the board I took all the precaution, as senior and local member of the board, I could, to obtain from the parties on both sides interested in the bridge question the data proper to be laid before the board, showing no partiality to either; and that each party had the same and sufficient time to enable them to prepare themselves for the presentation of their respective cases, in such mode as they deemed best; and this, in my judgment, was all, as an individual member of the board, before its session, I had any right to do in the premises. I am, very respectfully, &c., J. H. SIMPSON, Colonel of Engineers, U. S. A., President of Board. Brig. Gen. A. A. HUMPHREYS, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A. D. SAINT Louis, Mo., January 16, 1874. GENERAL: The remark made by me at a meeting of the board of engineers on the bridge at this place last September, quoted by Mr. William Taussig in his affidavit 44 SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. sent to the honorable Secretary of War as showing a want of fairness toward the bridge company, was made, as those present know, at a time when all the information ]necessary to decide the matter under consideration was before the board. The motive in making it was to assure Mr. Taussig that, as far as I was concerned, his case lost nothing by not hearing the steamboat-men which he had proposed to bring the following Tuesday. It was then Friday, and the board, owing to other pressing public duties. were unable to adjourn until the time thus asked for. We had, at the time, the drawings of the bridge, furnished by the bridge company, and we had verified by measurement the principal dimensions shown on the drawing. We had also the dimensions by measurement of the steamboats of the class whose business required them to pass the bridge. There were the steamboats themselves, and there was the bridge itself before us. From these alone it was plain to see with our eyes that a majority of these boats could not pass the bridge at all, which was proof the bridge was a serious obstruction. It was an undeniable fact. But, in addition to this, many of the principal business men engaged in the navigation of the river at the present time had stated to us that the bridge was a most serious obstruction, which would, when completed, to use their own words, "practically cut the river in two." In the face of this positive statement of those injured that they are injured, I did not give much weight to the statement of those who are not injured on account of not being engaged in river-navigation. It is sufficient to make a thing a nuisance that it be obnoxious to a large portion of the public by interfering with their rights. This is especially true as to the effect of this bridge on navigation, for it injures all those wishing to pass it, and is only harmless to those who have no large boats engaged in business requiring them to pass it. The steamboat-men (so-called) which Mr. Taussig presented to us are not now engaged in river-navigation, and I have no doubt that a close examination will show that all steamboat-men who may be got to say the bridge is no obstruction have no occasion to pass the bridge, or are in some way benefited by the injury received by others. It is, therefore, beyond doubt that, according to the statements of men truly representing the steamboat interest, the bridge is a serious injury to navigation. I wish to state that I have been since the autumn of 1866 (under a resolution of Congress) engaged at various times in collecting information on the subject of building bridges across the Mississippi, between Saint Paul and Saint Louis, so as to cause the least obstruction to navigation. I have in this period also been a member of many boards of engineers considering bridges at different places, and on one such board the question of bridging for the whole Ohio River was considered. I also planned the bridge across the Mississippi at Rock Island, and located the abutments and piers. I have also been a member of several engineer boards on various riverimprovements and in tharge of improvements. I have had steamboats and steamboatmen directly under my control. In all these operations I have been in frequent consultation with steamboat-men, and I believe I know their views generally on the subject of bridges nearly everywhere on the western rivers. Therefore, in considering the bridge here in the heart of the Mississippi Valley, which threatens to sever or clog the great artery of commerce in its middle course, I feel that the opinion of river-men in any one locality should not be allowed to materially affect my judgment. Besides this personal experience, I had read the voluminous proceedings in the Wheeling-Bridge case, which in essential features was like the one at Saint Louis, where all the points raised at Saint Louis about high chimneys and high pilot-houses were fully considered and discussed, which bridge the Supreme Court required to be removed, although there were then but nine steamboats interfered with by it. I had heard all this matter talked over at Cincinnati about a bridge that Congress has since required to be raised, so that I really believe I know all that could be said on the questions involved. Thus I said to Mr. Taussig, as quoted by him, (in order to show him that higher considerations than the statement of irresponsible river-men controlled my mind,) " That if a thousand steamboat-men were to come and say the bridge was no obstruction it would not alter my opinion." I meant no disrespect to the steamboat-men. I believe there are none of them now engaged in river-business that will say it is no obstruction to navigation. I do not believe there is any disinterested man who will come and look at the bridge, who will say it is no obstruction. Those who may doubt the correctness of my opinion, and the report of this board, should come here and look at the bridge and at the steamboats, and not make np their minds by such misleading illustrations as have been lately given out from the press of the Democrat of this place. There can be no doubt that this bridge is an obstruction to navigation. What modification of the bridge will remedy this is one of exceeding difficulty. If it should prove that no change that can be devised and carried out will satisfy the interests of navigation, without destroying the usefulness of the bridge, then justice demands the bridge must come down and a suitable one take its place. I am not indifferent to the importance to the public and to this great city of having a reliable means of crossing the river at all times. I am not indifferent to the interest of those who have lavished their money in this undlertaking; but a greater public inter SAINT LOUIS AND ILLINOIS BRIDGE. 45 est should not be destroyed unnecesarily for their sake. I am convinced that a bridge suited to this great want, at an expense much less than has already been made, almost if not entirely unobstructing navigation, could years ago have been completed upon designs well known and tried in this country, had not the authors of the present monster stood in the way. Very respectfully,.... WARREN, Major of ALngineers. Brig. Gen. A. A. HUMPHIEYS, Chief of Engineers U. S. A. E. ENGINEER OFFICE, UNITED STATES ARIY, 1122 Pine street, Saint Louis, Mo., January 14, 1874. SIR: The board of United States engineers on the Saint Louis bridge have re-assembled to prepare estimates of the cost of making the cut and draw-bridge which they recommended around the east abutment of the bridge. Your reply to the report of the board is among the documents which have been referred to them. As you were absent when the board held its first session, and may be desirous to present your views in person, they take this opportunity to notify you that they are prepared to give you a hearing. As their time is limited, they would suggest that you call at 1122 Pine street at such hour to-morrow morning after 10 o'clock as may be convenient to you. Captain McCune has also been invited to call to-morrow. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. H. SIMPSON, Colonel of Engineers, U. S. A., President of the Board. J. B. EtDns, Esq., Chief Ea'gineer Illinois and Saint Louis Bridge Company, Saint Louis, Mo. A true copy: J. H. SIMPSON, Colonel of Engineers. ILLINOIS AND SAINT LOUIS BRIDGE COMPANY, CHIEF ENGINEER'S OFFICE, Nos. 213 and 215 Washington Avenue, Saint Louis, January 15, 1874. SIi: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 14th instant, notifying me of the re-assembling of your board " to prepare estimates of the cost of making the cut and draw-bridge which they recommend around the east abutment of the bridge,'" and stating that my " reply to the report of the board is among the documents which have been referred to them." Your offer to give me a hearing at any time to-day after 10 o'clock, if I desire it, is likewise noted in your letter, and also the fact that Captain McCune has been invited to be present. Having nothing to communicate on the subject beyond what is embraced in my review of the report of the board, a copy of which you possess, and thanking you for the courtesy of your notification and invitation to be heard by the board, I have the honor to be your obedient servant, JAS. B. EADS, Chief Engineer. Gen. J. H. SIMPsoN, President of Board, 4'c., United States Engineers.