« AnteriorContinuar »
row places widened; shoals to be removed, and all by artificial means, and to be maintained in the same way. An improvement carried on, on such principles will be comprehended by every practical man of good judgment, and every one will see the reason and necessity of any proposed work. The consideration of physical laws lead to prolonged investigations and involved conclusions, that few can understand or submit to, and should be avoided unless the question has no other solution. They delay practical operations and consume time and money. I do not mean that plain natural laws should be disregarded, nor do I wish to restrict any one in exhausting the subject, in any direction he thinks necessary, who has a voice in deciding the questions that arise. I but give the advice upon which I would act myself.
My answers to the eight questions are as follows:
Answer to question 3. This is really two questions, but the answer of my colleagues makes it three. They state there “is no data from which to conclude that there has been any change in the range of the tide in the Seekonk river." I think there is, and that the obstructions at India Point have had the injurious effect of retarding the flood tide wave, and diminishing its useful effect above. Your honorable board, however, as I read it, does not ask the question. There may be some doubt on this point, however, as the use of the words Providence harbor has a different signification in the questions, and in the preliminary remarks of my co-members.
The question: “ Has there been any change in the Seekonk river to the injury of Providence harbor? I answer, I do not know of any. To the second part of the question put, I think any judicious filling of the Seekonk basin could be made to a large extent without injuring Providence barbor, as it is proposed to improve it.
Answer to question 4. I would use every effort to have the bridges at India Point rebuilt, and the passage made as wide and straight, and free from piers as practicable, for the convenience of navigation. The way to do this requires no study for my guidance. In engineering there is no matter better settled than how to do this. The opposition will be the resistance of adverse interests. “Vested nuisances” they may be called.
Answer to question 5. This is implied in answers already given.
Answer to question 6. I agree with my co-members, excepting the last sen. tence relating to “physical reason."
Answer to questions 7 and 8. I agree with my co-members.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
G. K. WARREN, U. S. Engineer Corps,
Member of Advisory Council.
ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF GEN. G. K. WARREN, TO CHIEF
OF U.S. ENGINEERS, FOR 1877.
Pawtucket, or Seekonk River, Rhode Island. No work has been done in this river during the past fiscal year. The remainder of the last appropriation is reserved to deepen certain shoals which are re-forming, or for the removal of any accidental obstruction which may take place.
For a history of this work, see Annual Reports of the Chief of Engineers for 1874, Part II., page 227, and for 1876, Part I., page 207.
Pawtucket river is in the Providence collection district, and that place is the nearest port of entry. The amount of revenue collected there during the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1876, was $182,352.57.
July 1, 1876, amount available.....
July 1, 1877, amount available.
Bulkhead Rock, Providence River, Rhode Island. The removal of the rock to eighteen feet depth, at mean low water, is of importance to vessels entering or leaving the harbor of Providence.
Under the appropriation of $2,500, made in 1870, it was removed to fourteen feet at mean low water, but this depth is not enough.
Providence river is in the Providence collection district. Providence is the nearest port of entry. The amount of revenue collected there during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1876, was $182,352.57.
$74 98 774 98
July 1, 1876, amount available...
ing June 30, 1879....
Newport Harbor, Rhode Island.
The improvement of this harbor was essentially completed last year, as far as designed. (See Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1873, pages 964-967.)
The small amount on hand at the beginning of the fiscal year had been reserved for contingencies, and with it, we, assisted by the Naval Officers of the United States Torpedo Station, and by the Old Colony Steamboat Company, removed a large bowlder from the channel, between the south end of Goat Island and Lime Rock Light. This bowlder had but eleven feet on it at mean low water, and in extraordinary low run of tides, not more than nine feet.
The steamboats have occasionally struck something in coming into the barbor, but it being at night and the vessels never sticking, the location of the obstruction and its nature had been a matter of conjecture. Last winter, the large steamboat Bristol, in entering the harbor, at time of very low water, struck on it so hard as to tear off a large amount of copper. The divers employed to examine her bottom, reported that she must have struck a rock or an anchor. We then swept this part of the channel with two boats and a weighted line, between them. This line, after repeated trials caught, and : diver was sent down, and reported a bowlder about twelve feet by thirteen feet, and five feet above the bed. He brought up several pieces of copper, similar to that on the Bristol. The rock was then shaken to pieces with charges of dynamite, by Prof. W. N. Hill, of the Torpedo Station. The pieces were raised so as to leave a depth of fifteen feet at mcan low water. In sweeping for this rock, a can buoy was found, which was raised and returned to the Light House Department.
Another large bowlder, having but nine feet on it at mean low
water, where the depth around it was eleven feet, was removed from the inner harbor. This rock had to be broken with dynamite, like
. the other, before the schooner employed could raise it.
The improvement of this harbor, has been made by dredging a channel along the new harbor line, with an approach 250 feet wide in the middle part, and one fifty feet wide at the north side. Along the barbor line, the width varies from eighty-five to one hundred and five feet, and the depth, from twelve feet in the middle portion, to ten feet at the ends. Wharf-owners have now the opportunity of dredging from the new channel in to their wharves, or extending the latter out to the channel.
A jetty was also built at the south end of Goat Island, which has served effectually to prevent the shore sands and gravel from drifting into the inner harbor.
No further improvement of the harbor is needed at present for its local business, except what should be done by private parties.
The whole outer shore of Goat Island should, however, be protected by short jetties or by a sea wall.
Newport is in the Newport collection district, and is a port of entry. The amount of revenue collected during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1876, was $258.20.
July 1, 1876, amount available....
$954 06 923 92
July 1, 1877, amount available....
Block Island Harbor, Rhode Island.
At the beginning of the present fiscal year, the amount of funds available for this work ($22,447.70) was too small to commence the building of the detached pier, which, unless completed, would prove a dangerous obstruction.
By act of Congress, approved August 14, 1876, $40,000 was appropriated, but this was not made available until February 7, 1877.
Advertisements were issued February 22, inviting proposals for furnishing granite for continuing the work. On the 22d of March the following proposals were received:
Abstract of Proposals received at the Engineer Office United States Army, Newport,
Rhode Island, March 22, 1877, at 10 A. M., for furnishing riprap granite for Block Island Breakwater.
1 Patrick Harrington & Co., Groton, Conn.....
$1.29 May 1, 1877.. Nov. 30, 1877, 34,573 2 Simeon A. Chapman and A. D. Cook, Groton, Conn...
1.43 May 1, 1877.. Nov. 30, 1877 31,648 3F. H. Ingerson and W. H. Mol.
throp, New London, Conn... 1.55 Apr. 15, 1877. Nov. 30, 1877 29,032 4 Francis H. Smith, New York City* 1.69 May 1, 1877. . Nov. 30, 1877 26,627 5 Ballou & Sylvester, Boston, Mass 1.69 May 1, 1877. . Nov. 30, 1877 26,627 6 Samuel Dale and Levi Moses, Springfield, Mass
1.69 May 1, 1877.. Nov. 30, 1877 26,627 7 Beattie & Dresser, Guilford, Conn. 1.70 May 1, 1877. . Dec. 30, 1877 26,470 8 D. V. Howell, New York City,t.. 1.77 May 1, 1877. . Nov. 30, 1877 25,424 9 Asa C. Palmer, Fayetteville, N.Y. 1.88 May 1, 1877.. Nov. 30, 1877! 23,937 10 John F. Hamilton, Portland, Met 2.00 May 1, 1877.. Nov. 30, 1877 22,500 11 Staples & Phillips, Taunton, Mass. 2.08 May 1, 1877. . Nov. 30, 1877 21,634 12 Clinton Stephens, New York City. 2.20 May 1, 1877. . Nov. 30, 1877 20,454 13 Swift & Linker, Providence, R. I. 2.20 May 1, 1877.. Nov. 30, 1877 20,454 14 Emil von Trentini, New York City 2.20 May 1, 1877.. Nov. 30, 1877 20,454 15 John L. Hopkins, Vinal Haven, Mef 2.90 May 1, 1877.. Nov. 30, 1877 15,517
Colby & Trumbull, Lawrence, Ms. 2.32 May 1, 1877.. Nov. 30, 1877 19,396
* Guarantors' signatures not witnessed.
The contract was awarded to Patrick Harrington & Co., of Groton, Conn., at $1.29 per ton. They commenced work in May, and up to