of the harbor gauge. Such a channel, generally following the line of best water, is shown in the map marked "Section A" by heavy black lines, and the estimate of the quantity to be dredged is about 211,000 cubic yards, which at 20 cents per yard will cost, with contingencies, $45,000. The annual cost of maintaining such a channel is estimated at $4,000.

12. Considering the comparatively large amount of business which is successfully carried on at such towns as Benton Harbor, South Haven, and Manistee through navigable channels of half the above proposed width, it would seem that the above estimated cost could be materially reduced by narrowing the proposed channel and still furnish adequate facilities for the commerce which may be developed at this point.

13. An estimate on the basis of the same depth as suggested above, but for a width of only 75 feet, which is believed to be compatible with the probable use by the relatively infrequent commerce involved, results in a quantity of 70,000 cubic yards dredged, which at 20 cents per yard, with contingencies, would cost $15,000. The annual cost of maintaining this channel is estimated at $2,000. The location of this channel is shown in heavy broken black lines in the map marked "Section A." It follows the line of best water, and will therefore probably insure a minimum cost of maintenance. In the case of transfer docks or terminal facilities being constructed at or near Beech Tree Street, this location would result in a larger expense for dredging by the local interests, in order to connect with the improved channel.

14. A modification of this channel can be made involving practically the same amount of excavation and the same cost by throwing the upper end of the channel closer to the left bank of the river, in shallower water, and stopping the work about 700 feet below Fulton Street. A public dock in connection with a dock for the adjacent tannery is proposed by the Grand Haven interests at and above the foot of Beech Tree Street.

15. In paragraphs 8 and 14 of the report on the preliminary examination reference is made to existing or prospective terminal facilities. In addition to this information it may be stated that the only place in Grand Haven Harbor open to the public for transfer direct from rail to water lines is at the foot of Franklin Street, and, as in the case of all such wharves at street ends, the length is too short for any ordinary vessel without trespassing on the adjacent property. Coal for use of Government plant on Grand River is transferred direct from car to scow at this place, but the U. S. dredge General Meade is obliged to transfer coal from car to dredge over one of the private docks; and even with ample wharf and transfer facilities in the vicinity of the east end of Fulton Street no benefit would result to the General Meade on account of the drawbridges, as 70 feet width of draw is considered the least through which it is safe for the dredge to pass, to say nothing of the round-trip distance of 5 miles to reach such wharf. At present cargoes of lumber, stone, gravel, etc., carried by any except the regular boat lines must be handled at street ends or over the wharves of the Grand Trunk Railway or the Goodrich Transit Co.

16. As stated in the report on the preliminary examination, dated May 31, 1909, the interests primarily to be benefited by this improve

ment are the four factories located near the east end of Fulton Street, viz, the Eagle Tanning Co., the Challenge Machinery Co., William Heap & Sons and the Fountain Specialty Co. The town of Grand Haven owns vacant factory sites in this vicinity, although not on the water front, which the improvement might help to develop. As there is a railroad track to the factories mentioned above it would be possible to provide terminal and transfer wharves in this vicinity.

17. If the improvement of the channel to the east end of Fulton Street is with a view to make its benefits available to the public as well as to the four individual firms already named, it would seem necessary that the execution of the work by the Government be made conditional upon the providing by the city of Grand Haven ample space, both at the end of Fulton Street and also at the end of Beech Tree Street, for public wharves and the improvement of the same with suitable and substantial wharf structures, with railroad track at one if not both places, where cargoes could be transferred direct from vessel to car, and the maintenance of these structures provided for and their use guaranteed on like terms to all. With such public wharf carrying a railroad track any benefits resulting from the improvement would extend to other industries, as well as those in the immediate vicinity. The absence at the harbor of terminals such as those here indicated illustrates well the one-sidedness of present methods, where the benefits resulting from improvements made by the Government are all obtained by some few public-service corporations and individual firms, while no provision is made by the local authorities to accommodate the general public.

18. In addition it may be stated that an efficient channel can not be secured without material changes in the bridges crossing it. The piers of these bridges should be rendered secure from damage resulting from excavation to the proposed greater depth, and each of these bridges should be provided with at least one clear opening suitably located, and with minimum width of 100 feet at right angles to the proposed channel.

19. Such considerations as the above emphasize the undesirability of work of this character being undertaken by the General Government, which lacks the necessary local control of the situation and which, furthermore, receives no appreciable benefit from any rise in land values that may result.

20. I am of opinion that the General Government should do no further work inside of the inner ends of the entrance piers at Grand Haven, and from there inward all work be left for execution by State or local agency.

21. This course accords with the recommendation for establishing uniform rules in making harbor improvements contained in House Document No. 1067, Sixty-first Congress, third session, as submitted by a special board, and substantially concurred in by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and by the Chief of Engineers. It is believed that there are no special conditions at Grand Haven to justify a departure from the rigid application of the principles stated in item 3 of those recommendations.

22. I have the honor to state therefore that, in my opinion, the improvement of Grand Haven Harbor, Mich., to east end of Fulton Street and including channel into Spring Lake is not worthy of being undertaken by the United States.

23. No questions of water power, forestation, or flood protection would be involved in the improvement of this harbor. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

C. S. RICHÉ,

Major, Corps of Engineers.

THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY, (Through the division engineer).

[First indorsement.]

OFFICE OF DIVISION ENGINEER, LAKES DIVISION,
Detroit, Mich., January 12, 1911.

1. Respectfully forwarded to the Chief of Engineers, United States Army.

2. While concurring with the district officer that in harbors of this character the work of the General Government should be confined to breakwaters, entrance piers, and channels of approach, as recommended by a board of engineers for establishing uniform rules in making harbor improvements, published in House Document No. 1067, Sixty-first Congress, third session, attention is invited to the fact that the recommendations of the board have not yet received the sanction of Congress. A uniform rule, applicable to all the harbors of the Great Lakes, requiring the inner harbor to be improved by those directly interested is just and equitable; but so long as certain localities receive appropriations for developing manufacturing sites along their rivers it will not be equitable to decline to grant them to others equally deserving.

3. I am of the opinion that project B will be of considerable local benefit at a comparatively small cost both for construction and maintenance, and that there is less liability that land speculators will be the sole beneficiaries of the work than is sometimes the case with these inner-harbor improvements.

C. McD. ToWNSEND,
Colonel, Corps of Engineers,
Division Engineer.

[For report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors on survey see p. 2.]

O

HD-63-1-vol 10- -37

WITH A LETTER FROM THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, REPORT ON EXAMINATION OF ST. FRANCIS RIVER, MO., AND PLAN AND ESTIMATE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT.

NOVEMBER 26, 1913.-Referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors and ordered to be printed. with illustration.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 15, 1913.

The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a letter from the Acting Chief of Engineers, United States Army, dated 14th instant, together with copies of reports from Capt. A. B. Putnam, Corps of Engineers, dated March 22, 1913, and May 22, 1913, with map, on preliminary examination and plan and estimate of cost of improvement of St. Francis River, Mo., made by him in compliance with the provisions of the river and harbor act approved July 25, 1912.

Very respectfully,

LINDLEY M. GARRISON,
Secretary of War.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
Washington, November 14, 1913.

From: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army.
To: The Secretary of War.

Subject: Preliminary examination and plan and estimate of cost of improvement of St. Francis River, Mo.

1. There are submitted herewith for transmission to Congress reports dated March 22, 1913, with map, and May 22, 1913, by Capt. A. B. Putnam, Corps of Engineers, on preliminary examination and plan and estimate of cost of improvement, respectively, of St. Francis River, Mo., called for by the river and harbor act approved July 25, 1912.