up to the dock with. This arrived at 3 p. m. Monday afternoon and cost us $145 more. By 6 o'clock Monday afternoon we were once more along of the dock. Under the conditions at Racine at present I hope I never will be asked to fetch another load there, and think that after our owners received my letter stating conditions here I am satisfied they will not send us here again unless conditions are improved. GEO. A. MONTGOMERY, Captain of the Steamer Nyanza. The CHAIRMAN. The value of your tonnage appears very high. The tonnage is stated to be 221,000 tons and valued at over $6,000,000. Mr. COOPER. There are many factories with a large aggregate output. Mr. SWITZER. Do you think this proposed improvement will remedy the condition you complain of? Mr. COOPER. A project exactly similar to the proposed harbor for Racine has been completed and in operation for several years at Manitowoc. The same conditions obtain there. It is a perfect success. The existing project at Racine, when completed, will also be a perfect success, and thereafter require no expenditure excepting an occasional small sum for dredging or repairs. The CHAIRMAN. What particular forces make the water run in there in the manner you have described? Mr. COOPER. It strikes the south pier, Mr. Chairman. The winds come down from the northeast here [indicating], this is the south pier running out into the lake [indicating], the deep water is driven along this pier up the river into the city. I have seen it roll over the dock of a coal company near Case & Co.'s plant, and break into the coal yard, around the curve of the river, fully three-fourths of a mile from the harbor entrance. The CHAIRMAN. What would be the effect if that south pier remained there? They propose taking it away, do they not? Mr. COOPER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Would the difficulties still exist to such a degree? Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, that exact question is completely answered in the Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1913, volume 2, at pages 2785 and 2786, that the south pier is in a very bad condition, and it is imperatively necessary either entirely to rebuild the pier in the immediate future or to remove the same and build a south breakwater as provided in the approved project. In the annual report for 1909 an estimate was submitted for the construction of both north and south breakwaters in conformity with the approved project as recommended by the Board of Engineers in their report of July 15, 1905, and adopted by Congress March 2, 1907. In the annual report for 1909, referred to, it was stated that the north breakwater should be built first, that the south breakwater should not be undertaken until the necessity for it should be demonstrated. It was thought that the partial improvement would fully satisfy all the necessities of navigation. It has been found, however, that the complete protection of the harbor which has been anticipated has not been realized. Northeasterly waves run around the outer end of the breakwater and are intercepted by the south_pier, causing a heavy swell in the harbor during northeast storms. If the south pier were removed, this trouble would disappear, but the harbor would then be entirely open to the storms from a southeasterly direction. Experience in the completion of the north breakwater to the shore indicates that a satisfactory protection to this harbor can be had only by the removal of the existing south pier and the construction of a south breakwater to the shore in conformity with the approved project. These recommendations of 1913 were repeated by the Chief of Engineers in his annual report for 1914, in which report he again refers to the project, adopted March 2, 1907, as the existing project" for Racine Harbor, declares that there has been no modification of such existing project since its adoption, and renews his recommendation for an appropriation. Racine is not asking for a new project; it asks only for the completion of the last half of the project adopted eight years ago. Congress provided for the completion of only the north half, because it desired to learn whether the completion of the entire project would be necessary. Experience has unanswerably demonstrated the urgent need for its immediate completion. The situation is exceedingly serious. Just how serious is graphically told in the letters, one of these I read, which I have received, written by captains of steamers, describing their own personal experiences in the harbor during storms. These letters may be found in volume 52, part 2, pages 1882-1883, Sixty-third Congress, third session. I have seen gales come up there from the southeast as well as from the northeast. Mr. TREADWAY. The recommendation you referred to was the recommendation made in 1909? Mr. COOPER. Yes, for the completion of only a part of the project. But the completion of the whole project was recommended in 1913, and the same recommendation has been made in other reports. The CHAIRMAN. The engineers are going ahead with that work. They have already done a part of that Mr. Cooper has mentioned. Mr. COOPER. They have done nothing since 1913. They took out the north pier, but, as I say, that left the wind and waves full opportunity to work violence by running along the south pier and up into the city. The engineers say that experience shows the necessity for completing the project. Mr. BOOHER. Has the removal of the south pier been authorized? Mr. BOOHER. And the construction of the south breakwater? Mr. BOOHER. Is that included in this appropriation of $200,000? The CHAIRMAN. So far as I am concerned, I will say that I think it would be a good thing if we had something in addition to what we have in this report. Mr. COOPER. Yes. Mr. BOOHER. What was the amount written in the bill a year ago? That was passed, was it? The CHAIRMAN. $167,400. Mr. COOPER. I suppose the engineer has in mind the economies. always resulting where a contract is let for an entire project. The CHAIRMAN. He wants to start it all together. Mr. COOPER. He wants to start it all together, yes; and when they assemble the apparatus to do the work they want to finish it up. In this way they can do it for less money than by doing parts of it at different times. Mr. KENNEDY. This $167,400 was just half of the cost that the engineers estimated, was it not? Mr. COOPER. The Chief of Engineers said, in 1913, volume 2, page 2786, "It is recommended that $406,000 be appropriated for the construction of a south breakwater," etc. This, of course, includes the expense of tearing out the south pier, which he says it is necessary to reconstruct or entirely remove. I was out on it last summer. is a wreck. It Mr. KENNEDY. Do I understand you are asking now for the $200,000 that the engineers designate? Mr. COOPER. Yes. There ought to be enough appropriated to complete that work. If it is completed under one contract, the Government will save money. Moreover, justice demands the prompt removal of such a serious condition as exists in the harbor at Racine. The CHAIRMAN. I think it will be the disposition of the committee to do whatever is necessary. Mr. KENNEDY. Could they not use the material in the pier? Mr. COOPER. If the whole thing is let at once, it is possible that they could use some of the rock now in that tumbledown south pier. The engineers examined the harbor last summer, at a time when I was absent from the city. Some time later I went to Milwaukee and called at the office of the engineer in charge. He was absent, but I saw one of his assistants. He told me there was no question about the necessity for this improvement. The CHAIRMAN. They have $141,000 on hand, which they are holding onto until they get more money. Mr. COOPER. They didn't tell me that at the Milwaukee office, but I surmised that such was the fact. May I read just one word, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mr. COOPER. I have here a short letter written by David M. Cochran, superintendent of the Goodrich Transit Co., a steamboat line plying up and down the lake. (Thereupon Mr. Cooper read from correspondence in vol. 52, pt. 2, pp. 1882-1883, Congressional Record, 63d Cong., 3d sess.) That was just two years and one month ago. I never met the gentleman until he came down here with the delegation. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in a further brief statement in regard to this matter. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. COOPER. The existing project for the harbor at Racine, Wis., was adopted by Congress in the rivers and harbors act of March 2, 1907, in the following words: Improving harbor at Racine, Wisconsin, for maintenance and improving said harbor in accordance with report submitted in House Document sixty-two, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session, $50,000. Always since that date (March 2, 1907), the Chiefs of Engineers, in their several annual reports, have referred to the project then adopted as the "existing project" for Racine Harbor. For example, in report of 1907 (vol. 1, p. 619), the Chief of Engineers, referring to Racine Harbor, says: The existing project adopted by Congress March 2, 1907, provides for the maintenace of a 21-foot channel and work incident thereto, for extension of north breakwater, for a south breakwater, * * * in general accordance with type plan as set forth in the report submitted in House Document 62, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session. Again, the chief says, in report of 1909 (vol. 1, p. 700): Racine Harbor, Wis., the existing project adopted by Congress March 2, 1907, provides, etc. In the same year (1909), volume 2, page 1976, the Chief of Engineers says: Improvement of Racine Harbor, Wis.: The present project recommended by the Wave-Action Board in the report of July 16, 1906 (H. Doc. 62, 59th Cong., 1st sess.), adopted by Congress March 2, 1907, provides, etc. The type of improvements recommended by the board provides for the extension of both breakwaters to the shore and the removal in whole or in part of the existing parallel piers, etc. From the foregoing it is perfectly clear that the "existing project" for Racine Harbor provides for the removal of both existing parallel piers and the construction of a north breakwater and a south breakwater to the shore. In the report for the same year (1909), the Chief of Engineers gives a complete detailed estimate of the cost of the "entire improvement," the total being $649,000. He then recommends that only the north breakwater be built at first. The south breakwater should not be undertaken until the necessity for it is demonstrated. Nothing, he says, should be done to the south pier except temporary repairs, until it has been fully demonstrated that the south breakwater is not necessary. Accordingly, the act of June 25, 1910, provides as follows: Improving harbor at Racine, Wis.: For maintenance and continuing improvement in accordance with the partial project submitted in the annual report of the Chief of Engineers for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1909, $243,000. It is clear that this law of 1910 in no wise modified the project adopted March 2, 1907. Proof of this is found in all subsequent reports of the Chief of Engineers. In his report for 1912 (vol. 1, p. 997) the Chief of Engineers referred to this project adopted March 2, 1907, as the "existing project" for Racine Harbor. In the Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1913 (vol. 1, p. 1106) is found the following statement concerning the harbor at Racine: The existing project, adopted by Congress March 2, 1907, provides, etc. The estimate of the cost of part of this project amounting to $243,000 was published, etc. It will be observed that three years after the act of 1910 was passed the Chief of Engineers speaks of the "existing project," adopted March 2, 1907, and refers to the act of 1910 as containing the estimate of the cost of a part of the project. But conclusive evidence that the Chief of Engineers did not consider that act of 1910 had in any way modified the project adopted in 1907 is found in a report for 1913, on the same page of the above-quoted excerpt, in the following words: There has been no modification of the existing project since its adoption. * * * In his report (Appendix J J 16) the local officer sets forth the desirability of additional work at this locality by removing the existing south pier and the construction of a south breakwater to the shore in conformity with the plan, etc. * * * The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything further to say, Mr. Cooper? Mr. COOPER. No, thank you, that is all I have to say, Mr. Chair man. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. We will call on you if we need any more information. |