51st Congress, ) HOUSE OF KEPRESEKTATIVES. i Keport 1st Session, ( \ No. 928. BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIYER AT NEW YORK CITY. March 21, 1890. — Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. iMr. Baker, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following REPORT: [To accompany H. R. 3886.] The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred bill H. R. 388G, entitled "A bill to authorize the construction of a bridge and approaches at New York City across the Hudson River, to regulate commerce in and over such bridge between the States of New York and New Jersey, and to establish such bridge a military and post road," have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to report, in lieu thereof, the following amendment in the nature of a substitute: That authorization is hereby given to Jordan L. Mott, John King McLanalian, James Andrews, Thomas F. Ryan, Garrett A. Hobart, F. W. Roebling, Charles J. Cauda, Edward F. C. Young, Henry Flad, Gustav Lmdenthal, A. G. Dickinson, John H. Miller, William Brooktield, Samuel Rea, William F. Shunk, Philip E. Chapin, and their associates, as a corporation as hereinafter provided, to locate, build, main- tain, equip, and operate a bridge, proper approaches thereto and terminals, appur- tenances and works connected therewith, across the Hudson River in and between the City of New#York, in the State of New York, and the State of New Jersey, and to lay tracks thereon lor the connection of the railroads on either side of said river in order to facilitate interstate commerce in the transportation of persons and property, and for vehicle, pedestrian, postal, military, and other purposes: Provided, That said bridge shall have not less than six railroad tracks, with a capacity foi- four additional tracks for future enlargement, and shall be constructed with a single span over the entire river between the towers, located between the shore and the established pier- head lines in either State, and at an elevation above the river, not less than that of the existing Brooklyn Suspension Bridge, over the East River, and which elevation may be increased by the Secretary of War as hereinafter provided, and that no pier or other obstruction to navigation, either of a temporary or permanent character, shall be constructed in the river between said towers. Sec. 2. That the construction of said bridge shall be commenced within three years after the passage of this act, and shall be completed within ten years after the commencement of construction ; but that the Secretary of War is hereby author- ized to extend the time for the commencement of construction for two additional years upon cause shown by the company, and provided that the Secretary of War shall deem such cause sufficient and satisfactory ; and that if tho company fail to commence the construction of said bridge within the time so extended, this act shall be null and void. And the company, at least three months previous to commencing the erection of said bridge, shall submit to the Secretary of War a plan of the bridge, with a detailed map of the river at the proposed site of the bridge, and for the distance of one-half of a mile above and below the site, with such other infor- mation as the Secretary of War may require for a full and satisfactory understanding of the subject ; and the Secretary of War may, upon receiving said plans and map and other information, order a hearing before a board of engineers appointed by him for taking testimony of persons, interested in railroads and navigation, relative to the clear height of the superstructure above ordinary high water; such clear height shall not l3e less than that named in section 1 of this act, and the Secretary of War may thereupon order such additional clear height as he shall deem necessary for the security of navigation. And he is hereby authorized and directed upon being satisfied that a bridge built on such plan and at said locality will conform to 2 BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. the conditions of this act, to notify the said comparvy that he approves the plans therefor; vrherenpon said company may proceed to the erection of said bridge. But until the Secretary of War approve the plan and location of said bridge, the erec- tion of the same shall not be commenced; and should any change be made in the plan of the bridge during the progress of the work thereon, such change shall like- wise be subject to the approval of the Secretary of War. Sec. 3. That the bridge, with its approaches and railroad thereover, constructed under the provisions of this act shall he a lawful structure, and a military and ptost road, hut no toll charges shall he made for the transmission over the same of the mails of the United States, or for the right of way for United States postal telegraph purposes. Sec. 4. That for the purpose of carrying into effect the objects stated in this act, the persons named in the lirst section hereof, and their associates, are hereby con- stituted and created a body corporate in law, to be known as the North River Bridge Company, and by that name, style, and title shall have perpetual succession; may sue and be sued, implead and be impleaded, complain and defend, in all courts of law and equity, of record and otherwise; may make and have a common seal, and shall have and possess all the rights, powers, franchises, and privileges, incident to or usually possessed by such companies. It may receive, purchase, and also acquire by lawful appropriation and condemnation upon making proper compensation therefoi', to be ascertained according to the laws of the State within which the same is located, real and personal property and rights of property', and may mortgage, encumber, charge, pledge, grant, lease, sell, assign, and convey the same. And to aid in the construction of said bridge and approaches thereto, and railroad terminals, appur- tenances, and works connected therewith, and to carry out the purposes of this act, the said North River Bridge Company is hereby authorized to issue its bonds and secure the same by mortgage on its property and rights of property of all kinds and descriptions, and its franchise to be a corporation. And generally and specially for the fully carrying out of the purposes and intentions of this act, the said North River Bridge Company, and its successors, shall have and possess all such rights and powers to enter upon lands, and for the purchase, acquisition, condemnation, appropriation, occupation, possession, and use of real estate and other property, and for the location, construction, operation, and maintenance, of eraid bridge, with its approaches, termi- nals, and appurtenances, as are possessed by railroad or bridge companies in the States of New York and New Jersey, respectively. That all persons, railroad and telegraph companies, respectively, desiring to use said bridge shall have and be entitled to eq ;ial rights and privileges in the passage over and the use of the same and the approaches thereto, for a reasonable compensation, to be approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, as hereinafter determined, and to be paid to the North River Bridge Company, which is hereby duly empowered to collect the same. And sufficient track- age and terminal facilities shall be provided for all railroads desiring to use said bridge and appurtenances. In case any litigation arises out of the construction, use, or operation of said bridge or approaclies thereto and railroad thereon, or for the con- demnation or the appropriation of jjroperty in connection therewith under this act, the cause so arising shall be heard and tried before the circuit court of the United States for the judicial district in which the bridge or one of the approaches is located. Applications for condemnation or appropriation of property shall be made in the cir- cuit court of the United States for the district in which such property is situated upon the petition of said company, and the hearing and trial of all other proceedings thereon shall conform as nearly as may be to the practice in the courts of the State in which such district is situated, in the case of condemnation or appropriation of property for railroads. Sec. 5. That the Interstate Commerce Commission is hereby authorized to require the said North River Bridge Company, in addition to such reports as it may lawfully require of railroad companies, a statenient certified to by the president of said North River Bridge Company of the actual cash expenditure for all property acquired and for the cost of construction of all structures and appurtenances, for equipment and for other proper and legitimate expenses incurred under this act ; said statement shall be made on the completion of all the work and before the said North River Bridge Company shall collect tolls from the connecting railroad companies. The Interstate Commerce Commission shall be authorized to employ, at the expense of said North River Bridge Company, such expert accountants, as it may appoint and direct to ex- amine the accounts of said North River Bridge Company for the purpose of verifying the said actual cash expenditures under this act. And the said ascertained cash ex- penditures shall form the basis on which the Interstate Commerce Commission shall approve the toll charges, to be paid by the connecting railroad companies to said North River Bridge Company, for the use of said bridge, approaches, tracks, and ter- minals in such manner, that whenever the net revenue, derived from said toll charges after paying all expenses for the proper and safe operation and maintenance of its property, and after paying all taxes, and after deducting five per centum of the gross revenue for the sinking fund, to be applied to the liquidation of any indebtedness, BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. 3 stiall exceed ten per centum on the above specified casli expenditure, the Interstate Commerce Commission may order a reduction of toll charges: Provided, Thai said reduction shall not be ordered ofteuer than once in three years: Provided fnriher. That nothing contained in this section shall be construed as establishing contract rights between tlfe United States and said North River Bridge Company as to the rate of toll authorized to be collected, but this section shall be subject to amendment or repeal as is provided in relation to every other section of this act. Sec. 6. That the government and direction of said company shall be vested in a board of seven directors, who shall be stock holuers of record, and who shall hold their office for one year, and until their successors are duly elected and qualified. The said directors, five of whom shall be a quorum, shall elect one of their number presi- dent; they shall also appoint a secretary and treasurer. The directors of said com- pany shall have power to make such prudential by-laws as they shall deem proper for the management and disposition of the stock, property, and business afl'airs of said company, not contrary to the laws of the United States, and prescribing the duties of officers, artificers, and servants that may be employed, for filling vacancies, and for carrying on all business within the objects and purposes of said company. There shall be an annual meeting of the stockholders, for choice of directors, to be held at such time and' place, under such conditions, and upon such notice as the by-laws may prescribe ; and such directors shall annually make a report of their doings and of the business of the company to the stockholders, a copy of which, sworn to and signed by the president of the company, shall be transmitted to the Interstate Commerce Com- mission. Failure to elect directors on the day fixed by said by-laws shall not be deemed to dissolve said company, but such election may be held on any day ap- ])oiuted thereafter by the directors, first giving thirty days' notice thereof in manner provided in said by-laws. The capital stock of said company shall consist of not less than ten thousand shares of one hundred dollars each, which shall in all respects be deemed personal property, and shall be transferable in such manner as the by-laws of said company shall provide ; but no share shall be transferable until all cjills thereon shall have been fully paid in, and it shall not be lawful for said company to use any of its funds in the purchase of any stock in its own or any other corporation. The amount of such capital vstock may be increased upon the vote of two-thirds of such stock of said company at any time outstanding. Sec. 7. The real and personal property of the company shall be subject to taxation for State, county, and municipal purposes in the State where the same is located, but at no higher rate than other real and personal property in the State. Sec. 8. That the said North River Bridge Company shall maintain on the bridge, at its own expense, from sunset to sunrise, such lights or signals as the United States Light-House Board shall prescribe. Sec. 9. Thalfuothing in this act shall be held or construed to in any manner in- volve the United States Government in any pecuniary obligations whatever, other than the payment of tolls over said bridge and approaches for troops and munitions of war, for which no higher charge per mile shall be made than the rate paid to rail- roads connecting with said bridge; but Congress hereby reserves the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act as the contingencies of commerce or the public good may re- quire, and said company shall further be subject to the provisions of the interstate- commerce laws, and any amendments and supplements thereof. The bill is by this substitute amended so as to embrace substantially the recommendations of the Secretary of War. The committee have further provided by the new section, incorporated in the substitute as section 7, that the real and personal property of said company shall be subject to taxation in the States of New York and New Jersey the same as other real and personal property therein. The committee submit herewith as a part of their report the several letters from the Hon. Secretary of War relating to the said bridge, and also the several exhibits embraced in the appendix marked Exhibits A to P. NECESSITY FOR BRIDGE. The necessity for a bridge over the Hudson Eiver at New York is well known, as was fully attested before your committee at the hearings on the subject. The number of passengers crossing the Hudson Eiver, between the State of New Jersey and the city of New l^ork, is estimated to exceed 40,000,000 per year, about half of which are railroad passengers. 4 BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. The danger of the present method of crossing the river by stean. ferry-boats during fog and in winter time from ice, together with loss of time by failure to make proper railroad connections, and also the inconvenience of landing along a water-front overcrowded with teams and vehicles oi all descriptions, have been shown to the committee. The necessity for such improvement as the proposed bridge will greatly increase from year to year, according to the growth of the country and increase of traffic to and from New York City, so that the speedy con- struction and completion of such a bridge, with its increased facilities for crossing the Hudson River, is of great importance, not oidy to the immediate neighborhood of IS^ew York City, but to the country south, west, and north of it. Its commercial importance would seem to be as great as its engineer- ing magnitude is unprecedented. In the appendix is given a detailed description of tlie colossal structure proposed. It will have a length, including the necessary approaches, of 5J miles. It is a commendable feature of tbis enterprise that the plans for the bridge and the method of its construction have, for several years past, engaged the careful attention of eminent engineers, who have succeeded in gathering together representatives of large cajntal, who express themselves anxious and willing to carry this great work to a speedy completion, provided the project is approved by Congress as one worthy of its recognition, as asked for in the bill which they have presented. And it is promised on behalf of the incorporators named in the bill that the structure which it is proposed to erect will surpass all that the world has yet witnessed in the art of bridge construction. THE BRIDaE AS A NATIONAL WORK. Your committee is of the opinion that the bridge should be a national work, built under national authorization, and its operation should be under the supervision of the National Government for the following reasons : (1) The bridge is not only of commercial importance to the immediate neighborhood of New York City, but to the whole country. It will be a gateway for the commerce of all the- surrounding States into and out of the commercial metropolis of the country. The trafiQc over the bridge will be wholly interstate, and therefore should be subject to national regulation under the United States inter- state-commerce laws. (2) To prevent abuses of administration and conflict of authority in the regulation of its afiairs under the incongi:uous laws of two States, the bridge company should be placed directly under the protection and control of the TJnited States Government. (3) It has been, with apparent good reasons, shown to your commit- tee that the raising of the vast amount of necessary money can be accomplished with less cost to the undertaking under one charter, and that to be a national one, than would be possible under the composite, conflicting, and patchwork legislation of two States, to be supple- mented by an act of Congress of the United States. The legal reasons for this view, as submitted to the committee, are given in the appendix in the briefs of counsel. (4) The colossal magnitude of the work, the difficulties of its con- struction, and the vastness of its commercial importance make it a fit subject for direct national recognition. BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. 5 In retuiii for this national recognition it is provided that the United States shall pay no toll charges over the bridge for the transmission of the mails or for the right of way for United States postal tele- graph purposes. The saving which may be thus obtained for the Gov- ernment is not accurately ascertained, but is estimated to be over $150,000 per year, and will be growing as the mail traffic increases with the growing population. To throw proper safeguards around the enterprise against fictitious capitalization and against financial abuses, it is provided that the books of the company shall be subject to examination by expert accountants to be appointed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, to ascertain the actual cash cost of the whole work, and the tolls, which the com- pany shall be allowed to collect, shall be based on that cash cost. The whole financial operations of the company are thereby subject to the most searching governmental inspection and control. As the traffic may increase over the bridge, the benefits therefrom are not to accrue to the company in the form of increased dividends, but to the people in the form of reduced toll rates. It is also provided that the Government shall be under no pecuniary " obligations of any kind in connection with the work. The exhibits accompanying this report, marked A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, X, O, P, are herewith returned and made a part of the report, in order that a fnller and clearer understanding of the magni- tude of the proposed undertaking may be had, and of the reasons which have led your committee to report the bill as proposed to be amended by. the substitute. The title should be amended by inserting before the words " To authorize" the words "To incorporate the Xorth Eiver Bridge Company and." # 6 BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. VIEWS OF MR. TURNER, OF GEORGIA. I concur in that part of the bill which authorizes the construction of a bridge across the Hudson Kiver, upon such terms as the Chief of En- gineers recommends and as may be necessary to protect the interests of navigation. This is the usual practice in such cases. But I dissent from those provisions of the bill which create a bridge corporation within two States and confer corporate franchises, and which also grant power to condemn and appropriate private property within a State under proceedings in the United States courts. Waiving now any discussion of the precedents on this subject, no sufficient reason has been given for not asking these extraordinary grants from the States of New Jersey and New York. H. G. Turner. APPENDIX. MEMORANDUM OF EXHIBITS REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING REPORT. Exhibit A. — Letter of Brigadier General Casej^, Chief of Engineers, to the Sec- retary of War, dated January 23, 1890. Exhibit B.— Letter of the Secretary of War, dated January 24, 1890, transmitting Exhibit A to the chairman of the Committee on Commerce. Exhibit C. — Letter of the Secretary of War, dated January 31, 1890, transmitting Exhibit D to the chairman. Exhibit D.— Copy letter from the Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, dated July 10, 1888, relating to H. R. 10642, Fiftieth Congress, second session, and S. 3250, same Congress, having reference to the same project. Exhibit E.— Letter dated February 4, 1890, from the Board of Engineers, U. S. Army, to the Chief of Engineers. Exhibit F. — Letter dated February 12, 1890, transmitting Exhibits E and G to the chairman, having reference to the bill H. R. 3886. Exhibit G. — Letter dated February 10, 1890, from the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary oi" War, having reference to the same bill. Exhibit H. — Detailed description of the proposed North River bridge, made he- fore the committee by Gustav Lindenthal, the designer and architect thereof, with views and diagrams. Exhibit I. — Tlje argument of Mr. Lindenthal, made before the committee in behalf of the project. Exhibit J. — Legal briefs and opinions, by John K. Cowen and J. E. D. Cross, pre- sented to the committee in response to their request for information upon the ques- tions stated. Exhibit K. — Opinion and remarks of Charles F. McLean upon the power of Con- gress to authorize the powers proposed to be conferred by the bill. Exhibit L. — Opinion and remarks of M. H. Houseman before the committee. Exhibit M. — Remarks of James Andrews before the committee. Exhibit N. — Remarks of Samuel Rea, engineer, before the committee in relation to the proposed project. Exhibit O.— Remarks of Alexander D. Anderson upon the public necessity and importance of the proposed bridge. Exhibit P. — Extracts from press comments in relation to the proposed bridge. 7 8 BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. Exhibit A. Office of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, WasJirngton^ D. (7., January 23, 1890. Sir : I have the liouor to return herewith H. E. 3886, Fifty-first Con- gress, first session, A bill to authorize the coustructiou of a bridge and approaches at New York City across the Hudson Kiver, to regulate commerce in and over such bridge between the States of New York and New Jersey, and to establish such bridge a military and post road," and to recommend the following amendments thereto : Section 1, lines 23 to 27, strike otit all of this section after the word " lines" in line 23. Section 2, line 15, strike out the words ^' or reasonable;" for, if left in, these words would simply tend to complicate the case, and render the determination of the question of the height of the bridge uncer- tain and difficult. As it is important to fix a time limit for the commencement and com- pletion of the bridge, the following additional section is recommended: Sec. 9. That plans satisfactory to tbe Secretary of War for said bridge shall be submitted to him witbiu one year after tbe passage of tbis act. and tbe construction ol" said bridge sball be commenced within one year after the approval of the plans by the Secretary of War, and tbe structure shall be completed within ten years from the date of said approval ; otherwise the provisions of this act sball be null and void. A copy of H. R. 3886 with the proposed amendments indicated thereon is herewith submitted, and as thus amended I know of no objection to its passage, so far as the interests of navigation are concerned. The letter from the chairman of the Committee on Commerce was re- ceived here to-day and a reply is asked by to-morrow, the 24:th. If time had allowed this bill w^ould have been referred to a I3oard of Engi- neers for report, but as report must be made at once, in order to reach the committee by to-morrow, the above is respectfully submitted. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Thos. Lincoln Casey, Brig, Gen.^ Chief of Engineers. Hon. Redfield Proctor, Secretary of War. Exhibit B. War Department, Washington City, January 24, 1890. Sir: In returning herewith H. R. 388G, ''To authorize the construction of a bridge and approaches at New York City," etc., which was referred to this Department for its views thereon, I beg to invite atteuliou to the accompanying report of the Chief of Engineers, in which certain amendments and additions to the bill are suggested, and to the inclosed copy of the bill on which are indicated the amendments and additions referred to. Very respectfully, Redfield Proctor, Secretary of War, Hon. Chas. S. Baker, Chairman of Committee on Commerce, House of Ee^resentatives. BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. 9 Exhibit C. War Department, Washington, January 31, 1890. Sir : In response to your request of the 27tli instant I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of the report of the Board of Engineers, dated July 10, 1888, upon House bill 10G42, Fiftieth Congress, first session, " To authorize the construction of a bridge and approaches at New York City across the Hudson Eiver in and between the States of New York and New Jersey." Yery respectfully, Kedfield Proctor, JSecretary of War, Hon. Charles S. Baker, Chairman Committee on Commerce, Rouse of Representatives, Exhibit D. The Board of Engineers, Army Building, New YorJc City, July 10, 1888. General: The Board of Engineers, to whiih was referred, by your letter of July 3, H. R. 10642, a bill To authorize the construction of a bridge and approaches at New York Cit}^ across the Hudson Kiver in and between the States of New York and New Jersey," and by your indorsement of July 9, 1888, S. 3250, a bill for the same purpose, has the honor to reijort that these bills differ but slightly in language and without aff'ecting the subject under consideration ; that the Board has this day held a public meeting upon the matter contained in the bills, the proceedings of which will be forwarded as soon as the stenographic notes can be transcribed ; that the Board has carefully considered the bill H. E. 10642 and recommends the following changes in its language: Page 2, line 13: Strike out the word "established" and insert in its stead the word "existing." Page 2, lines 14 and 15 : Strike out the words "forty feet in the clear above the level of ordinary high water, and that this minimum height" and insert in their stead "forty-five feet in the clear above the level of mean high water at the towers of the bridge, and one hundred and fifty- five feet above the same level at the center of the main span, and these heights;" so that the proviso of this section shall read, Provided, That said bridge shall be constructed with a single span over the entire river between the existing pier lines in either State, and at an elevation over the river of at least one hundred and forty-five feet in the clear above the level of mean high water at the towers of the bridge, and one hun- dred and fifty-five feet above the same level at the center of the main span, and these heights shall be exclusive of the deflections of the super- structure from loads oi temperature effects, and that no pier or piers or other obstructions to navigation either of a temporary or permanent character shall be placed or built in the river between said pier lines under this act." On page 3, section 4, line 8: After the word "plans" insert "and location." 10 BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. In section 5: Strike out lines 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the word "provided" and insert that plans satisfactory to the Secretary of War for said bridge shall be submitted to him within one year after the passage of this act, and the construction of said bridge shall be commenced within one year after the approval of the plans by the Secretary of War, and the structure shall be completed within ten years from the date of said approval ; otherwise the provisions of this act shall be null and void." The Board is of opinion that if these changes are incorporated in H. R. 10642 they will sufficiently guard the interests of the United States and the navigation of the Hudson River. The copies of EL. R. 10642 and S. 3250, with the letters from the Com- mittee on Commerce of the House of Representatives respectively trans- mitting them to the War Department, are herewith returned. Respectfully submitted, Thos. Lincoln Casey, Colonel, Corps of Engineers. Henry L. Abbot, Colonel of Engineers J Brevet Brigadier- General. C. B. COMSTOCK, Colonel of Engineers and Brevet Br igadier- General. D. C. Houston, Lieutenant Colonel of Engineers, W. R. King, Major of Engineers, The Chief of Engineers, TJ. S. A., Washington, D. C. Exhibit E. The Board of Engineers, Army Building, New YorJc City, February 4, 1890. General: The Board of Engineers, to which was referred, by your indorsement of January 28, 1890, H. R. 3886, Fifty-first Congress, first session, a bill ''To authorize the coustruction of a bridge and ap- proaches at New York City across the Hudson River, to regulate com- merce in and over such bridge between the States of New York and New Jersey, and to establish such bridge a military and post road," has the honor to report as follows : The Board concurs in the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers as expressed in his communication of January 23, 1890, and also sug- gests in this instance what it has already recommended in a previous report upon a similar bill for the construction of a railroad bridge across North River at New York City, that the bridge shall be constructed at an elevation over the river of at least 145 feet in the clear above the level of mean high water at the tower of the bridge and 155 feet above the same level at the center of the main span. The question whether tlie towers should be built out to the pier-head line or should bo restricted to the bulkhead line is a matter dependiug on location, and sliould be left to be decided by the Secretary of War when the location of the bridge is definitely determined. These recommendations will be carried into effect by the following changes in the language of the proviso in section 1 of the bill ; Strike out the words ''the established pier" in line 19 and substitute BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. 11 therefor ^'towers whose location between the shore and the existing pier-head." After the word "State" in line 20 add ''shall be determined by the Secretary of War; "also add after the word "and" in the same line 'Hhat the bridge shall be constructed." Strike out all of section 1 after the word river " in line 20 and sub- stitute therefor "of at least one hundred and forty-live feet in the clear above the level of mean high water at the towers of the bridge and one hundred and fifty-five feet above the same level at the center of the main span, and these heights shall be exclusive of the deflections of the superstructure from loads or temperature effects ; and that no pier or other obstruction to navigation either of a temporary or per- manent character shall be placed or built in the river between said towers under this act." As thus amended the proviso will read as follows i Provided, That said bridge shall have not less than six railroad tracks, and shall be constructed with a single span over the entire river, between towers, whose location be- tween the shore and the existing pier-head lines, in either State, shall be determined by the Secretary of War, and that the bridge shall be constructed at an elevation above the river of at least one hundred and forty-live feet in the clear above the level of mean high water at the towers of the bridge and one hundred and fifty-five feet above the same level at the center of the main span, and these heights shall be exclusive of the deflections of the superstructure from loads or temperature effects ; and that no pier or orher obstruction to navigation, either of a temporary or permanent character, shall be placed or built in the river between said towers under this act. The papers referred by you, forming the subject of this report, are herewith returned. Eespectfully submitted. Henry L. Abbot, Colonel of Engineers, Bvt. Brig. Gen., U. J.., President of the Board, ;^ C. B. COMSTOCK, Colonel of Engineers, Bvt. Brig, Gen,, U, S. A, D. C. Houston, Colonel of Engineers, G. L. Gillespie, Lieutenant- Colonel of Engineers, The Chief of Engineers, U. S. A., Washington, D. C, Exhibit F. * War Department, Washington City, February 12, 1890. Sir : I return herewith H. R. Ko. 3886, " To authorize the construc- tion of a bridge and approaches at iTew York City across the Hudson River, to regulate commerce in and over such bridge between the States of New York and New Jersey, and to establish such bridge lieaton, 738. The following instances of corporations created by act of Congress may also be referred to: The Northern Pacific Railroad Company, incorporated by act of July 2, 1864, 13 Stat., 365. This corporation was organized to construct a railroad from a point either in the State of Minnesota or Wisconsin, to the Pacific coast. The Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company was incorporated by act of Congress, July 27, 1866, 14 Stat., page 292. This corporation was created to construct a railroad from Springfield, Mo., to the Pacific coast. The validity of all these acts has been practically sustained by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hall vs. The Union Pacific Railroad Company, 91 U. S.; and in the Pacific Railroad cases in 127 U. S.J and as far as we know the constitutionality of this legislation of Congress, creating corporations to build railroads, has never been ques- tioned. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the practical construction given to the Constitution during a long series of years by Congress itself, demonstrate two propositions : (1) That under the power to regulate commerce. Congress can con- struct a bridge over an interstate stream, or can construct a railroad for interstate commerce. (2) That Congress, having the power to do this itself, can employ any agency which is appropriate to accomplish the end aimed at; that is, the construction of the bridge or the railroad, and, therefore. Congress can organize a corporation for such purpose. Third. The whole question of the i)ower of Congress to authorize the construction of bridges across interstate streams was examined by Justice Bradley in the case of Stockton vs. The Baltimore and New York Railroad Company and the Staten Island Rapid Transit Railroad Com- l)any, 32 Federal Reporter, page 9. Congress, by an act approved June 16, 1886, had authorized the Staten Island Rapid Transit Railroad Com- pany, a corporation of New York, to construct a bridge across the Arthur K\\\ the stream separating New Jersey from that part of New York known as Staten Island. The legislature of New Jersey, on April 6, 1886, had enacted a law providing as follows: That no lu idii^o, viaduct, or fixed structure shall be created by any person or corpora- tion, over or in au^'^ part of tbe navigabk^ waters separating this State from other States, where the tide ebbs and flows, without express permission of the legislature of this State given by statute for thai) purpose. BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. 27 New Jersey, therefore, contended that no bridge could be builtacross the Arthur Kill excei)t with her consent, and that the act of Congress, conferring the power of constructing such a bridge not only without her consent but against her protest, was invalid. Justice Bradley, and the two circuit judges who agreed with him, held that Congress could authorize a foreign corporation not created by New Jersey to build a bridge across the Arthur Kill. He used this language, pages 14 and 15 of the report : At all events, if Congress, in the execution of its powers, chooses to employ the in- tervention of a particular corporation, whether of the State or out of the State, we see no reason why it should, not do so. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent it from making contracts with or conferring powers upon State corporations for carrying out its own legitimate purposes. What right of the State would be iu- vaded? The corporation thus employed or empowered iuexecutlDg the will of Con- gress could do nothing which the State could rightfully oppose or object to. It may be added that no State corporation more suitable than the defendant could be em- powered to build the bridge in question in this case, since one half of the bridge is in the State of New York, and the railroad of thedefendant is to connect with it on the New York side. In our judgment, if Congress itself has the power to construct a bridge across a navigable stream for the furtherance of commerce among the States, it may authorize the same to be done by agents, whether individuals or a corporation a-eated lij itself, or a State corporation already existing and concerned in the enter- prise. * * * So that we are brought back to the question of the power of Congress to build a bridge, and whether that power is independent of the consent and concurrence of the State government, and in our judgment this question must be answered in the affirma- tive. The power to regulate commerce among the several States is given by the Con- stitution in the most geuf ral and absolute terms. "The power to regulate," as ap- plied to a Government, has a most extensive application. With regard to commerce it has been expressly held that it is not confined to commercial transactions, but ex- tends to seamen, ships, navigation, and the appliances and facilities of commerce, and it must extend to these or it can not embrace the whole subject. Under this power the navigation of rivers and harbors has been opened and improved, and we have no doubt that canals and water-ways may be opened to connect navigable bays, har- bors, and rivers with each other or with the interior of the country ; nor have we any doubt that under the same power the means of commercial communication by land as well as by water may be opened up by Congress, between different States, when- ever it shall se^ fit to do so, either on the failure of the States to provide such com- munication, or whenever, in the opinion of Congress, increased facilities of commu- nication ought to exist. Hitherto, it is true, the means of commercial communication have been supplied either by nature in the navigable waters of the couutrj^, or by the States in the con- struction of roads, canals, and railroads ; so that the functions of Congress have not been largely called into exercise under this branch of its jurisdiction and power, ex- cept in the improvement of rivers and harbors, and the licensing of bridges across navigable streams. But this is no proof that its power does not extend to the whole subject in all its possible requirements; indeed, it has been put forth in several notable instances which stand as strong arguments of practical construction given to the Constitution by the legislative department of the Government. The Cumberland or National road is one instance of a grand thoroughfare projected by Congress, extend- ing from the Potomac to the Mississippi ; after being nearly completed it was sur- rendered to the several States within which it was situated. The main stem of the Union Pacific commences at Council Blufls, in Iowa, aud crosses the Missouri by a bridge at that place, erected under the authority of Congress alone. In 1862 a bridge was authorized by Congress to be constructed across the Ohio River, at Steubenviile, between the States of Virginia and Ohio, to be completed, maintained, and operated by the railroad company authorized to build it, and by another company named, anything in any law or laws of the above-named States to the contrary notwithstanding." Still it is contended that although Congress may have power to construct roads and other means of communication between the States, yet this can only be done with the concurrence and consent of the States within which the structures are made. If this is so, then the power of regulation in Congress is not supreme, it depends on the will of the States. We do not, concur in this view. We think that the power of Congress is supreme over the whole subject, unimpeded and unembarrassed by State 28 BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. laws or State liens; that in this matter the country is one, and the work to be accom- plished is national, and that State interests. State jealousies, and State prejudices are not required to be consulted. In matters of foreign and interstate commerce there are no States. Judge Wallace, of the United States circuit court for the district of New York, held the same view in the case of Decker vs. The Baltimore and New York Railroad Company and others, 30 Federal Reporter, page 723. Fourth. We assume, of course, that no one questions the right of Congress to exercise the power of eminent domain, or to authorize a corporation to exercise that power in any case where it can employ a corporation as one of the agencies to carry into execution the powers vested in Congress by the Constitution of the United States. This point has been definitely settled by the case of Kohl vs. United States, 91 U. S. 367. The conclusions, therefore, may be summed up as follows : (1) That Congress has express constitutional power to regulate com- merce among the several States, and that by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States the possession of this power enables the United States Government to either itself construct, or authorize others to construct, bridges across interstate streams. (2) That Congress, having the express power to authorize the con- struction of a bridge, can employ any appropriate means for the execu- tion of that power, and there can be none more appropriate than the crea- tion of a corporation for that purpose. As in the case of the United States Bank, it may be said that the creation of a body corporate to build such an improvement as that you propose across the North River, is certainly a most appropriate means for carrying out the express power of regulating commerce. (3.) In this instance. Congress is the only body that can act, as New Jersey has by statute prohibited the construction of the bridge across the Hudson River. (4.) That, as Congress can create a corporation and authorize it to construct a bridge, it can, of course, vest the corporation with full and complete power of eminent domain, the exercise of which is essential in any corporation that would attempt such a stupendous work as that of bridging the North River. We have not, in this opinion, referred to the numerous decisions of the United States Supreme Court upon the subject of regulating inter- state commerce, having thought it best to confine ourselves to the late opinions of that court upon the power of Congress to authorize the construction of bridges. Nor have we thought it worth while to refer to the National Banking Act, under which Congress created national banks in every State of the Union, because the whole subject was fully discussed in the opinion of Chief- Justice Marshall, from which we have quoted so largely. We beg to say, in conclusion, that we have examined the bill which you have submitted to Congress, and see nothing in it whatever which is not clearly within the power of Congress under the commercial clause of the United States Constitution. Yours, respectfully, John K. Co wen. E. J. D. Cross. BRIDGE ACKOSS THE HUDSON KIVEU AT NEW YORK CITY. 29 Exhibit K. remarks and opinion by charles f. maclean. GUSTAY LiNDENTHAL, JAMES ANDREWS, JORDAN L. MOTT, THOMAS F. Ryan, and others. Sirs: The questions on which my opinion is asked in connection with the bill now p'endiug before Congress providing for a bridge across the North Eiver, between the States of l^ew York and New Jersey, and for that purpose creating a corporation with the right of obtaining the necessary lands by process of condemnation, may be stated as : (1) Has Congress power to authorize the construction of the bridge? (2) Have the United States such right of eminent domain that Con- gress can authorize the compulsory condemnation of property 1 and, (3) Can Congress create a corporation for the purposes of the bridge? I. The first of these questions has lately been passed upon respecting the Staten Island Bridge, likewise between the States of New York and New Jersey. In Stockton vs. Baltimore and New York Eailroad Company, 32 Fed. R., 9, Bradley, J., there says : lu our judgment, if Cougress itself has the power to construct a bridge across a navigable stream for the furtherance of commerce among the States, it may au- thorize the same to he done by agents, whether individuals, or a corporation created by itself, or a State corporation already existing and concerned in the enterprise. * * *■ So that we are brought back to the question of the power of Congress to build a bridge, and whether that power is independent of the consent and concur- rence of the State government; and, in our judgment, this question must be answered in the affirmative. Judge Br'idle}" discusses the subject at considerable length, idacing the right upon the constitutional powers of the Government to provide for the common defense, to establish post-roads, and to regulate com- merce among the several States, more especially the latter. He adds: We think the power of Congress is supreme over the whole subject, unimpeded and unembarrassed by State laws or State lines; that in this matter the country is one, and the work to be accomplished is national, and that State interests. State jealousies, and State prejudices are not required to be consulted. In matters of foreign and interstate commerce there are no States. The whole of that case is so pertinent to the subject in hand, that instead of extended extracts, I do better to refer you to the original report. In California vs. Pacific Railroad, 127 U. S. 3, it is held that " Congress has authority, in the exercise of its power, to regulate commerce among the States 5 to construct, or authorize individuals to construct, railroads across the States and Territories of the United States." Bradley, J., citing laws creating Pacific Railroad, says: It can not at the present day be doubted that Congress, under the power to regu- late commerce among the several States, as well as to provide for postal acconnnoda- tions and military exigencies, had authority to pass these laws. The power to con- struct, or to autLiorize individuals or corporations to construct, national highways and bridgi's from State to State is esst-ntial to the complete control and regulation of interstate commerce. Without authority in Congress to establish and maintain such highways and bridges it would be without authority to regulate one of the most im- portant adjuncts of commerce. * * * a. sounder consideration of the subject has prevailed and led to the conclusion that Congress has plenary power over the whole H. Rep. $ 45 30 BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIV^ER AT NEW YORK CITY. subject. Of course, the authority of Congress over the Territories of the United Statee, and its power to grant franchises exercisable therein, are, and ever have been, un- doubted. But the wider power was very freely exercised, and much to the general satisfaction, in the creation of the vast system of railroads connecting the East with the Pacific, traversing States as well as Territories, and employing the agency of State as well as Federal corporations. 11. The right of expropriation of private property rests upon the princi- ple of sovereignty ; that is, the right to resort to the whole resources of the nation for the common benefit, and not npon the final right of prop- erty, which resides in the States themselves. The leading case is Kohl vs. United States, 91 U. S. 367, which arose from proceedings for con- demnatioQ of a site for a court-house, etc., at Cincinnati, under Laws 1872, Stat, at Large, 39, 352, 523: Strong, J. : It has not been seriously contended during the argument that the United States Government is without power to appropriate lands or other property within the States for its own uses, and t'l enable it to perform its proper functions. Such an authority is essential to its independent existence and perpetuity. These can not be preserved if the obstinacy of a private person, or if any other authority can pre- V(>nt the acquisition of the means or instrument by which alone governmental func- tions can be performed. The powers vested by the Constitution in the General Gov- ernment demand for their exercise the acquisition of lands in all the States. These ar<> needeurpose8 re- quired by the Constitution this right exists in the United States independently of any consent of the State in which the property lies." The right itself arises from ut c<'ssity, of which necessity the sovereignty taking the property must be the judge, and is qualitied only by the duty of making compensation to the owner. 1 he case of United States vs. Jones, 109 U. S., 513, arose upon the act of March 3, 1875, providing for taking lands, etc., for a canal, paying damages ''which may have been ascertained in the mode provided by the laws of the State'' where the land lay. Field, J.: The power to take private property foi public uses, generally termed the right of eminent domain, belongs to every independent Government. » * * The provision found in the fifth amendment to the Federal Constitution and in the constitution of BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. 31 the several States for just compensation for the property taken, is merely a liuiitation on the use of that power. In Van Brocklin vs. State of Tennessee, 117 TJ. S., 151, Gray, J., said • So the United States, at the discretion of Congress, may acquire and hold real prop- erty in any State, whenever such property is needed for the use of the Government, in the[execution of any of its powers, whether for arsenals, fortifications, light-honses custom-houses, court-houses, barracks, or hospitals or for any other of the many pub- lic purposes for which such property is used ; and when the property can notl)e ac- quired by voluntary arrangement with the owners, it may be taken against their will by the United States, in the exercise of its power of eminent domain, upon making just compensation, with or without a concurrent act of the State in which the land is situated. In Fort Leavenworth Eailroad vs. Lowe, 114 U. S., 525, Field, J., said: But not only by direct purchase have the United States been able to acquire lands thev needed without the consent of the States, but it ha s been held that they possess the right of eminent domain within the States, using those terms, not as expressing the ultimate dominion or title to property, but as indicating the right to take private property tor public uses when needed to execute the powers conferred by the Consti- tution ; and that the General Government is not dependent upon the caprice of indi- viduals or the will of State legislatures in the acquisition of such lands as may be re- quired for the full and effective exercise of its powers. * * The right to acquire property in this way by condemnation may be exerted either through tribunals ex- pressly designated by C ngress, or by resort to Tribunals of the State in which the property is situated, with her consent for that purpose. Such consent will always be presumed in the absence of express prohibition. This right of the General Government is fully recognized by the State of New York. The court of appeals of that State, In re United States, 96 N. Y., 227, sustains the right and holds that it may be exercised by the United States either in the Federal courts or in the State courts. Congress has from time t-o time passed a number of acts for expropri- ating lauds. Among them may be mentioned that of 1879 for the im- provemeut of the Tennessee River, and that of 1880 for reservoirs in Minnesota, which adopt the State practice by mere reference thereto. The power of the United States to create corporations to carry out the powers granted by the Constitution was settled by McCulloh vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat., 407. In that case, which involved the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, Chief- Justice Marshall examines the subject at consid- erable length, and sustains the power as incidental to the powers spe- cifically granted. The case has always been regarded as of the highest authority. In it he says: Throughout this vast Republic, from the St. Croix to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended, armies are to be marched and supported. The exigencies of the nation may require that the treasure raised in the North should be transferred to the South ; that raised in the Enst con- veyed to the West, or that this order should be reversed. Is that constriu tion of the Constitution to be preferred which would render these operations diiliciilt, hazard- ous, and expensive? " * * The Government which has a right to do an act and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must according to the se of etl'ccting something else. No suQicient reason is therefore perceived why it may not pass as incidental to those powers which are expressly given, it it be a direct mode of exe- cuting them. 32 BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. The case of Railroad Company i^s. Peniston, 18 Wall., 5, involved the corporate powers of the Pacific Railroads. Strong, J., referring to use of roads for i^ostal and military purposes and other provisions of charter, says : Thej^ all look to a purpose of Congress to secure an agency competent and under obligation to perform certain offices for the General Government. NotwithstandiLg this, the railroad and the telegraph lines are neither in whole nor in part the prop- erty of the Government. Admitting, then, as we fully do, that the company is an agent of the General Government, designed to be employed and actually employed, in the legitimate service of the Government, both military and postal, does it follow, etc. Swayne, J., says that the road is a " national instrumentality." Bradley, J., after quoting Chief- Justice Marshall, in the McCulloh case, says : Now I think it can not he doubted at the present day, whatever may have been contended in former times, that the creation of national roada and other means of communication between the States is wilhiu the power of Congress in carrying out the powers of regulating commerce and in providing for the national defense, and for military operations in time of war. And no one will contend that if the creation of a corporation is a suitable agency and means of carrying on the definite operations of the Government, the creation of a corporation is equally apposite as an agency and means of carrying out the objects above mentioned. Among other instances of the exercise of this power are to be men- tioned the laws creating the Pacific Railroad Companies. Some of these acts adopted State corporations and extended their powers; but others created corporations which had not existed before. These acts have been sustained by the Supreme Court. See cases already cited, and also Pacific Railway Removal Cases, 115 U. S., 18, 19. I have forborne citing any of the minor cases. It is to be noted that these decisions, with a single exception, are recent, and represent the opinion of the Supreme Court at the present day, and were in most cases pronounced by judges who are still upon the bench. Under the construction of the powers of Congress, given by the Su- preme Court of the United States, all the questions stated at the outset must be answered, in my opinion, in the affirmative. I am, sir, your obedient servant, Charles F. MacLean. Exhibit L. remarks by m. h. houseman. The purpose of the bill before you is to authorize the construction of a bridge over the Hudson River at New York City, with proper ap- proaches and appurtenances, and the formation of a company with its necessary power to build, operate, and use the same. The unusual magnitude of the work will require a very large amount of money, and investors will have to wait perhaps some ten or twelve years belbre revenue can be derived from the operation of the bridge. The risks and unavoidable delays by reason of the peculiar character and extent of this undertaking will undoubtedly be much greater than those met with in the construction of an ordinary bridge. One of the most important requisites to be complied with to obtain the needed capital for such a work is that the company should possess clear legal rights to construct and operate the bridge, so that the risks BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. 33 of the undertakiug slioukl not be iucreased by an^' complications as to its charter powers. Past experience and serious losses have taught in- vestors to avoid such investments, wheva the rights and powers of the company are doubtful and uncertain, and which may serve only to incur upon them years of litigation to establish their validity and interpreta- tion by the courts. The structure is to extend over and across a uavigable river, which is under the jurisdiction of Congress, and its termini will be in two sep- arate States. The laws of one of the States, namely, New Jersey, ex- pressly prohibit the bridging of the Hudson Kiver from or into that State, except by the special consent of the Sta.te, to be expressed through its legislature, which may or may not be given, or if so given it may be so qualified as to virtually prevetit the building of that part of the structure so extending into that State. It may be stated that bridges over navigable streams elsewhere form- ing the boundary between two States have been erected merely under license acts from Congress, but it will be found that in all such cases the formation of the company was made feasible under the general rail- road laws of the States. But there is no law adequate in either the States of New York or Xew Jersey under which a bridge company can be formed with authority to build the proposed structure, and even if such a law could be enacted by these respective States the effect thereof would be limited within the State, and by the State line somewhere in the Hudson Eiver, the exact location of which is itself said to be in dis- pute. The charter and authority of a company thus made up would also be subject to modification or repeal from year to year by either State independently of the other. Thus, through the influence of rival interests, or, i^erhaxis, by reason of conflict between political parties, the legal stability of the company's affairs might be constantly endangered. We are not without good grounds for this apprehension, and can speak from experience that investors could not well be induced to trust their moi^ey in an undertaking which might be subjected to interference from two independent and rival sovereign powers. The traffic over the proposed bridge will be wholly interstate j the administration of its affairs throughout from end to end should be uni- form, and subject only to one controlling and regulating authority, which should be superior to that of either State, and can only properly be lodged by the Congress of the United States in the National Government. The ten more railroads which may use the proposed avenue into New York City derive their rights, powers, and privileges from different States, and their common regulation and control in the use of the bridge can best be effected under the Government of the United States. It is obvious that if a company were formed by the consolidation of State corporations, each subject to different and incongruous laws within the two separate and respective States, it would be further necessary to supplement this consolidation by a license act from Con- gress, with authority to construct the bridge. The life and existence of a company thus formed would depend upon a patch- work legislation, with uncertain paternity, and would be lack- ing in merit and stability. With such an aggregation there would indeed be good reason for apprehension of conflict and disagreement between the States, arising out of the operation, regulation, and control of the legal affairs of the company. Such a company could not with confidence appeal to capital for the stupendous undertaking here pro- posed. After several years of patient bibor in connection with this project, H. Kep. 928 3 34 BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. and after frequent consultatioiis with financial intercf^ts, we deem it but proper here to say that we have found men with large capital, as well as representatives of financial institutions, to be unwilling to embark with their money into an enterprise of such magnitude unless full authority to construct and operate the same be obtained through a national charter from Congress. The bill here submitted for your approval provides, however, that the company in the exercise of its necessary power to acquire property by lawful appropriation shall do so under the laws of the respective States, and shall make proj)er compensation therefor, and that the amount of such compensation is to be ascertained according to the laws and in conformity with the practice of the courts of the State within which the said property is located. The property of the company is likewise made subject to local taxa- tion for State, county, and municipal purposes. In part return for the grant by Congress, the proposed act provides that the mails of the United States shall pay no toll over the said bridge, also that the United States shall have the right of way thereon free of charge for postal telegraph purposes. The bridge thus becomes a post-road in a much wider sense than any heretofore constructed. It becomes a post-road on which the United States Government has free right of way. The mails from and to New York City and the greater part of Xew England will pass over this mail route, which, without question, will become the most important in the world. The bridge will be for the greater safety and convenience of the United States mail as much as for anything else. This of itself should cause the structure to be wholly under Government control. In addition it will form a military road, the only one by which, without delay, rapid communication will be possible between INew Englu^nd, I^Tew York City, and the country along the Atlantic coast, and this is a further reason for Governmental control and regulation of the structure. That the Congress of the United States has full constitutional power for the creation of the proposed corporation, and for authorizing the work as ijroposed, has been well shown by my colleagues in the legal briefs submitted to you. Exhibit M. remarks of james andrews to committee. About a year and a half ago I was in England and took occasion to go up to the site of the Forth bridge, about 10 miles out of Edinburgh. The engineer of the bridge, Mr. (now Sir Benjamin) Baker, was with me. In going over the work, huge and overwhelming in appearance, he remarked to me: "You have some big things in the United States, but you have nothing as big as this bridge." I happened to have a lithograph of our proposed Hudson River bridge in my pocket, and handing it to him, I jokingly remarked, " We are just getting ready for a bigger bridge than yours, and when we are done with it, w^e may warm up to something that will really astonish you." The project, now be- fore your committee, was enough to astonish the engineer of the Forth bridge. It is a clean jump from spans of 1,700 feet in his bridge to one of nearly 3,000 feet in our proposed bridge, flanked by spans of 1,500 feet each. The Forth bridge has only two tracks, ours will liave ultimately ten tracks. The Forth bridge cost $14,000,000, is used only BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. 35 hy three railroads, extending' about 200 miles north into Scotland. It Mas built to save about 25 miles of distance. Our bridge with ap- pi'onclies and terminals may cost $40,000,000, but if it should cost more, it will yet be cheaj) as compared with the Forth bridge. If the cost of our bridge were equally divided among the ten railroads that will cross it, it would be about $4,000,000 per railroad. This is not enormous when you know that the Pennsylvania Eailroad Company has sp?nt about'$5,000,000 on its Philadelphia station, and upwards of $7,000,000 to get through Baltimore, and like sums in other large cities. l<]very railioad company is obliged to contiuuall}" expend large sums of money for improvements and terminals, as the i)opulation of the country in- creases. Though the interest and returns on the capital so invested are sometimes slow and inadequate, yet these are risks connected with ail such work. The country at large always profits from them. I have been associated with Ca])tain Eads in all his large engineer- ing works, and if he were alive he would undoubtedly have been con- nected with this work before you. It ai)peals to the admiration of all enterprising men, to men who love grand subjects and can deal in grand aftairs. If you will consider for a moment the dimensions of this work, it will show you the boldness and admirable conception of it. As a man of practical affairs, and with my large and long experience of en- gineering subjects, I am glad to say that the project has beeu prepared with a thorough practical and theoretical knowledge of the problems to be met with. I have every confidence in Mr. Lindenthal's ability to build and direct this work, and I have associated myself with him, together with his other friends, to aid him with all my power to carry out this undertaking. Money can not be obtained uow a days for mere si)eculative schemes. A project must be fully worked out and stand the test of criticisms from exi)erts of technical, legal, and financial issues and subjects. I know of no other large project which was half so well i)repared as this one is before legislation was obtained for it. This bridge should not be a mere utility structure, with perhaps some limber trusses hung up to cables from skeleton towers, over which trains would be obliged to creep; it should be just what the plans be- fore you show it to be, a grand monumental work, correct in its archi- tectural proj)ortious, inspiring in its magnificent dimensions; it should be so strong that the heaviest express trains can run over it on all ten tracks at the same time at full speed ; there should be no slacking up of trains ; it should be built to endure for centuries, and of such archi- tectural harmony that it will remain a model of what such a bridge should be for all time to come, as the Cathedral of Cologne is a model, and will remain one to the remotest times> of the inspiring and noble architecture which it represents. This work is more than a mere bridge for running trains over; it is to represent the highest development of the art of bridge building of our time; it is to represent, our enterprise, our civilization, our wealth ; it will forever exact admiration and respect for this country from all the rest of the world. 36 BRIDGE ACROkSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. Exhibit ^f. REMARKS BY SAMUEL REA, ENGINEER. I feel honored in having the privilege of making some suggestions to the committee on the subject of the North liiver bridge, and in which I am associated with Mr. Lindenthal. When he first showed me his plans in the summer of 1885, 1 was somewhat doubtful as to the feasi- bility of such a large bridge from a business point of view. The plans provided then for only four railroad tracks, but this, of itself, w^as such a daring innovation for a long span that it seemed as if it could not be realized for many years to come. Five years have elapsed, and the plans are now arranged for ten tracks. 1 may say that I have been tirging this increase of tracks on Mr. Lindenthal, in our discussion of the plans, since my return from England three years ago. I went there to study, among other things, the railway terminal facilities of London and of other English and continental cities. I hoped to be able to aid Mr. Lindenthal, who advised me to pay particular attention to this question of terminals abroad. I have recorded my views on the subject in a book, "The Railways Terminating in London," and I may say that the statistics collected in the same have been instructive to many of our railroad managers. Tliis country has only made a beginning in the construction of large terminal railroad stations. We have none that will compare in size, in comfort, and in convenience with the largest railroad stations abroad. We have no adequate conception yet in this country of the possibilities of the suburban traffic, and have not given the same attention to its development as it has received in foreign countries. Thus, the South Eastern Railway in England is not a large railway in point of mileage, having in all only 369 miles of double track, yet it owns two of the largest passenger terminal stations in London, Charing Cross and Cannon street. The road expended $15,000,000 through the city, or at the rate of $1,750,000 per mile of track; whereas the cost of our pro- );osed North River bridge will hardly exceed $1,000,000 per mile of track, including bridge, terminal station, and right of way. The bridges over the Thames approaching Cannon street and Charing Cross stations have recently had their capacity doubled. The other London stations show similar great cost, and costly additions are constantly being made to accommodate the growing traffic. Liverpool street station, terminus of the Great Eastern Railway, is now being enlarged, and when com- pleted will have six main tracks into it, and all under ground. From my experience and study I feel justified in expressing the opin- ion that the proposed North River bridge should not be for less than ten railroad tracks, although six may be enough to commence with. The ten tracks may be needed within three years after the structure would be opened for traffic. At the rate of one train every three min- utes on each track, in and out, the number of trains would only be one hundred, in or out, per hour, or at the rate of about twenty thousand passengers, in or out, per hour for ordinary occasions. This is not an extravagant estimate for the morning and evening hours, and yet it shows tlie necessity of providing for ten tracks if all the railroads are to be benefited by the proposed bridge. It is quite likely that the bridge will lead to the building of numerous suburban lines from the near set- tlements in New Jersej^ A bridge at New York City is such a great necessity that it would have been built long ago if the United States Government had not jeal- ously watched over the sacredness ot the Hudson River as a part of the BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. 37 harbor of Kew York and prevented its desecration with bridge piers. Submarine tunnels seemed to be the only solution, but they are not in favor either with the railroads or with railroad passengers. They are expensive to maintain, and disagreeable to the passengers who would probably prefer crossing on the ferries to trusting themselves on slow trains running through damp and chilly submarine tunnels. Bridges with one or more piers have been proposed, but such schemes have met with popular disapproval and opposition from the navigation interests. Not until Mr. Lindenthal presented his plans for a single- span bridge was there a likelihood of obtaining governmental authority for building a bridge at all. But first of all, it was necessary to show that a single-span railroad bridge of nearly 3,000 feet was feasible. This Mr. Lindenthal has done. His professional practice, his experience, his attainments fitted him for it. No engineer doubted the feasibility of a long-span suspended bridge, but the question was, could it be made serviceable for the requirements of modern railroads, for the heavy con- centrated loads of huge locomotives and cars at high speed on multiple tracks 1 Unless the bridge were designed to fully satisfy these severe conditions it would be useless to the railroads, and the money for it could not be obtained. Many were the rebuff's experienced by Mr. Lindenthal and his friends ; many were the sneers at the so-called vis- ionary idea of bridging the broad and deep North River without a pier. But now the project is on a sound and firm basis, has the endorsement of practical and experienced men of af^iirs, and of great capitalists, and is merely waiting the authority from Congress to be built as speedily as the gigantic nature of the work will permit. Exhibit O. remarks by alex. d. anderson, on the public necessity and f importance of the bridge. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee : After the able speeches by Representatives Bayne, McAdoo, Cummings, Belden, and other gentlemen, on the public importance of the proposed bridge, there is very little left for me to say on the subject. I will, however, invite your attention to a few facts which may be of interest. The project is of national importance, for it is a grand interstate trunk line, which will supplement and i^rolong to New York City, near its hotel center, the ten great railway systems which, with their various tributary lines, first intersect the surrounding States, the South, the West, and great interior, and then converge at Jersey City with the Hudson River as a heretofore insuperable barrier in their pathway, unable to enter the great metropolis. It is in national importance on a level with the Union and Central Pacific Railways, the Nicaragua Ship Canal, the improvement of the Mississippi River, the improvement of New York Harbor, and other great public works. It is, indeed, a remarkable fact, and I may add a discredit to Ameri- can enterprise, that passengers who can come in comfort and luxury all the way across the continent from San Francisco, from New Orleans, and the Gulf ports, and even from the City of Mexico, without change of cars to Jersey City, have there, within sight of the greatest Ameri- can city, to halt and disembark and submit to the annoyances and dangers of fog, ice, and collisions, in crossing the Hudson by ferry. How great these annoyances and dangers are can best be appreciated 38 BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. by referring' to the files of the New York daily papers during the j^ast two years. I find in the New York Herakl of Dreember 8, 1888, a graphic description of the dangers passengers from Philadelphia, Wash- ington, and the South, on their way to New^ England, were subjected to in the middle of the night in being ferried from Jersey City around lower New York and then up the East liiver. I will quote briefly as follows : Upward of fifty lives were in jeopardy in the annexed district shortly before mid- night last night, and in fact they only escaped by the barest miracle from a most dire- ful fate. The steara-boat Maryland, the transfer boat of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, caught fire at ten minutes past 11 o'clock, just after she had made fast to her slip at the railroad wharf at Port Morris, in the Harlem River. On board of the boat was the Washington express, which is transferred every night from the Pennsylvania Railroad yards at Jersey City by the Maryland to the New Haven road, whence it proceeds to Boston. Tlie train was made up of two sleepers, one of them named the Magenta, a passen- ger coach, and a baggage car. In the two sleepers, the porters say, there were about fifty passengers, both men and women, all of whom were sleeping entirely unconscious of Ihe danger that was soon to encompass them. * * * The scene that ensued was a most thrilling one. Already the roofs of both cars were on fire. The men and women in the berths, realizing that they had no time to spnre, were tumbled out, and, without waiting to dress or even pick up hastily any of their garments or valuables, fled pell-mell for the platforms. They jostled and fought in the narrow aisles in their frenzy. Last December, during the terrible fog which overspread New York City and Harbor, the traveling public were again subjected to a thrill- ing experience in crossing from Brooklyn to Jersey City on the Annex boat No. 1, of the Pennsylvania line. The New York World of Decem- ber 21, 1889, thus describes the adventures of this transport: Annex boat No. 1, of the Pennsylvania Railroad line had an eventful experience while trying to make a trip from Brooklyn to Jersey City. She left her pier on the ]5i(»ol^ht it best for the safety of the passen- gers to tie her up and keep her there until the fog raised. The pier was at the foot of Jackson street, on the East River. The frightened passengers left the boat and huddled together on the pier. It was the intention of the captain of the Annex to lay up at Jackson street pier, but another vessel wandered along in the diiection of the pier and crashed into the Annex. The force was sufficient to break the ropes which had secured the Annex to the pier and again she was adrift. She was completely at sea, and a tug-boat at- tempted to tow her around the Battery. Again she came into collision with another vessel and the tug-boat was compelled to draw off. The Annex managed to guide her way around the Battery, but while she was heading for the Jersey shore she had the misfortune to meet another vessel in the North River, and she received another bump. The little Annex kept up her pluck, however, and, despite her adventures, paddled into her Jersey City slip at fifteen minutes to 9 o'clock, four hours and forty-five minutes after she had started from Brooklyn. Only a few weeks later another fog over the North Eiver jeopardized the lives of passengers seeking to cross by ferry. 1 quote as follows from the New York Tribune of February 27, W30': In the closing hour of the fog of yesterday morning two ferry-boats in the North River narrowly escaped a disastrous collision. The Hoboken Ferry Company's boat Montdair runs between Barclay street and Hoboken, and the Pavonia Ferry Com- pany's boat Erie travels between Chambers street and Jersey City. At 7.30 a. m. the MoHtclair, carrying only fifty people, was going to Hoboken, while the JCrie, crowded with passengers, was on her trii) to New York. At this time the fog was so dense that it was impossible to discern objects at a distance of more than 30 yards. The BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. 39 Monichiir bad nearly reached midstream when Captain St. John saw the head of a large craft start up with jjjhost-like suddenness on the .l/o/i fc7air's port side. The frightened passengers on the Montclair had barel>> time to scvaiuble out of tlie cabins when the ii'rie craslied into the Alontclair^s paddle-wheel, sniasliing the box and break- ing away a part of the railing. In the meantime the wildest panic prevailed among the Erit's four hundred passengers. Women screamed and fainted, while men rusln d wildly from end to end of the boat, as if temporarily deprived of reason. Some even made attempts to jump into the river, but they were held back by those around them. These are bat illustrations of the frequent discomforts and dangers I)assenous suspension bridge, for railway traffic and other purposes, across the Hudson River between New^ York City and the north New Jersey shore. The bill has been introduced in both Houses of Congress. [From tlie Brooklyn Eagle, January 21, 1890.] Perhaps it was thought that the science of bridge building had reached its highest development in the graceful structure which rose to view beneath the hand of Roeb- ling, but, as a matter of fact, the Brooklyn highway was no more in advance of what had preceded'it than the proposed North River bridge, if successfully completed, would be in advance o( our own magnificent span. The need of closer communication between New York City and the Jersey shore is a subject which has long been agitated, and now there has arisen a company which talks of meeting the demand by constructing the greatest bridge in the world. What is equally to the point the plan may be deemed to be practicable, inasmuch as it was designed by an engineer of international repu- tation, and meets with the indorsement of the foremost engineers. * * * The dimensions of the proposed structure are so conspicuously in advance of those which mark the proportions of the Brooklyn highway, that we can not fail to admire the daring <»f the genius which has jjlanned the work, any less than we can hoi>e to see it brought to successful comi)letion. From the business and commercial point of view, there is i)r()mise of even greater advantage than has attended the construction of the Brooklyn bridge, for the missing link in the transportation between the South and the Eastern States would be supplied, and this woiild mean the cheapening of freight rates and conseriuent decrease in the price of goods landed in the New York markets. * * Congress might reasonably be iisked to aid the enterprise under conditions which would guaranty adequate return (^n completion. The argument is not purely local ; it embraces, in a more or less vital degree, the interests of the entire country. BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. 41 [From the Wasliingtou Critic, July 21, 1888. J That a railway bridge will eventually span the Hudson at New York, a8 proposed by the present projectors f>r upon other plans yet to be determined, is only a question of time. The desij^ns of Mr. Lindenthal, the engineer of the company now seeking incorporation by Congress, are pronounced by other engineers to be both admirable and practicable, and the necessily of such a crossing for the accommodation of the 900 railway trains now arriving daily on the Jersey side of the river is of course ad- mitted. The bridge will **come high " as to cost, but the investment can not fail to be a profitable one, and the whole country, especially outside of New England, will welcome the structure that gives it unimpeded access to the metropolis, as the greatest benefaction of this conimorcial age. [From the K ew York Times, Jannary 26, 1889.] What New York most needs for its future growth and prosperity is closer con- nection with the territory about it. The more tunnels and bridges there are connect- ing Manhattan Island with adjacent lands, provided there is no obstruction of navi- gation on its surrounding waters, the better for the city, and their construction should be encouraged and promoted in every legitimate way. The one great ad- vantage of this city, which has made it so largely the emporium of the country's commerce, is its unsurpassed harbor and its unequalled water front. * * * But New York's advantage from accessibility by water, and the facility of handling traffic that comes and goes upon that clement, has been considerably offset by the break in communication with it by land, save in one direction. This adds largely to the inconvenience and ex[)cuso of handling traffic by rail, and is a serious draw- back for the city. The easier it is to get into the city and out of it, and the less trouble and expense it involves, the better for its growth and prosperity. * * * * * * Every effort of capital and enterprise to supply the bonds of union be- tween sections of the metropelis, and to give it a more perfect connection with the channels of traffic in every direction, should be encouraged and promoted. All bar- riers should be removed, and our borders should lie open to the workh [From the Xew York Tribune, Deremher 1, 1889.1 At the foot of Corfclandt, Liberty, Chambers, and other streets, and along the water front of West street, are all the fc^i i y-houses through which passage is taken to New Jersey. Not less than l'JO,000 people are compelled every day to make this perilous journey across West street, and the wonder is how they ever manage to do it without being drawn into a whirlpool of slime, muck, wheels, hoofs, and destruc- tion. ^ * * Think of Macauley'a enlightened New Zealander standing on the top of the Pennsylvania ferry-house watching that fearful scene. Hear him gasp with amazement ^nd vexation, ''Why in thunder don't these people get up a revolution or build abridge?" [Namely, over West street]. [From the Saratogian, Saratoga Springs, N. Y., January 10, 1889. A bridge across the Huds:on River at New York? If all this little sentence contains is not apparent to any individual, let him visit New York and look over the ground, or rather the water, for there is enough of water between New York and Jersey City to stagger any bridge builder who has lived up to the present time. Across the Hudson — not under it or on its bosom, but above — so far above that the great ships and steamers having their docks further up may go in and out without being hin- dered. The problem of getting passengers and freight from New York to Jersey City, and rice versa, by some better methocl than ferriage, has long stared the officers of rail- roads centering in Jersey City in the face. ^ * * It will be well to crown the gigantic works of the nineteenth century with the building of this proposed bridge. It seems fitting that the century which produced the Atlantic cable should not go out without the completion of some great engineer- ing feat, and a bridge at New York, across the Hudson, would be a fitting work with which to close the magnificent list of triumphs. * * * A bill is before Congress to permit the building of this bridge, and there is no rea- son to suppose the request will be refused. [From the Commercial Gazette, Pittaburgh, Pa.] The East River bridge, which unites New York and Brooklyn and the collection of towns upon Long Island, and which was opened for general traffic some six years ago, has proved how far behind the reality the boldest predictions respecting the growth of traffic between the two cities have turned out to be. When the project of an East River brige was tir.st mooted, some twenty years ago, it was held to bo impracticable and extravagant; but, as it approached completion, the forcshadowings of its great utility called into life the project of a permanent way acro.ss the North River. The great width Jtnd depth of the Hudson, however, seemed to render the serious consid- eration of a bridge project useless, * * * 42 BRIDGE ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER AT NEW YORK CITY. Gustav Liiideullial, the bridge eugineer, has formed a project to cross the Hudson with a colossal suspeDsion bridge, with a single span of 2,850 feet. This is the great- est length of 8i)au lor a bridge that has ever been planned. [From the New York Sun, July 6, 1888.] The bill which has just been introduced into Congress, authorizing the construction of a bridge across the Hudson between the city of New York and the New Jersey- coast, presents several features of importance. It is to be a railroad bridge as well as for other travel; in fact, from the points at which it would necessarily be con- structed, its chief immediate importance would be for railways. The great commercial convenience of opening an all-rail route from New York to the West and South, avoiding the present barge work for freight and ferrying for passengers must be- obvious. * * * A noticeable feature is, that it is to be constructed with asingle span over the entire river ; and this is not to be done by advancing the terminal piers beyond the present wharf line, since it is expressly provided that they must be kept within that line. This provision must disarm at the outset the main opposition hitherto encountered against a bridge. * * * Another provision is, that the bridge shall have at least 140 feet in the clear, above the level of ordinary high water. [From the Statesman, Tonkers, N. T., April 9, 1889.] When the East River bridge was first broached, the idea was disaparaged by all the old fossils who never fail to predict insuperable obstacles in the face of enterprise. The saiy^e spirit will be sure to be opposed in certain quarters to the North River bridge, wbicli, it is thought, will some day facilitate communication betw^een New York and Jerbcy City. * * * The conteniplated completion of the bridge is ten years hence ; but, if we allow only two years for incidental delays (and ten years are very little to allow), we pre- sume the sat isfaction wi;l be all but universal if rapid transit is thus efi'ected by the close of the first year of the twentieth century. [From the Journal, Newark, IsT. J., January, 1890.] This is truly a magnificent conception, and its realization would be the wondt^r of a world accustomed to stupendous undertakings. The engineering difficulties are not such that could not be overcome as readily as those involved in the corstructiou of the Brooklyn bridge. . [Brooklyn Times, March 6, 1890. J Engineer Liudenthal explained his great Hudson River bridge to a Congressional Committee yesterday. It will be a fine thing for New York and for New Jersey, and Congress need not hesitate to authorize it. [Rochester Herald, March 10, 1890.] New York's greatest need is for rapid transit between the business part of the city and the resident portion and the suburbs. In only one direction can the people get out by steam cars, and that is over the New York Central. A great many New York business men make their homes in New Jersey or on Long Island, either of which is reached by ferries always overcrowded at the busiest hours, and often delayed by fog and ice. The exception is found in the Brooklyn bridge, which from the immense throngs that cross it night and morning is more uncomfortable even than the ferry- boats. Rapid transit over an immense bridge to New Jersey would afford relief and comfort. [From Engineering News, January 7, 1888.] A paper of remarkable and unusual interest was read at the Wednesday meeting of the American Society of Civil Engineers, by Mr. Gustav Liudenthal, of Pitts- burgh, Pa., outlining in detail the great project of a six-track railroad suspension bridge over North River, which Mr. Liudenthal has been engaged in studying lor some time, under auspices wliich, we are assured, give strong promise of an early begin- ning of the work. The necessity for some such costly and monumental structure is becoming so clear that only the enormous cost of it (some $15,000,000) for the bridge only, and perhaps doubt as to its unprecedented engineering problem, can delay it long. But the cost is certainly not so formidable an obstacle for to-day as was that of the Brooklyn Bridge for 18(58, when its construction was determined on, nor does vastness of itself imply corresponding technical difficulties, while there is probably no one on either side of the ocean who could be counted'on more confidently to deal successfully with the intricate engineering problems involved than Mr. Lindeuthal. Certainly, no one of the eminent eugineers who have already constructed great Jong- span bridges could have been justly regarded as better equipped for his work at its inception. o