Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

we further certify that we believe the Little Kanawha the best natural harbor (being deep) on the Ohio River.

Subscribed before me this 18th day of December, 1879.

H. LOGAN,
WM. LOGAN.
LAW. P. NEAL.
S. N. NEAL.
GEO. B. NEAL.

E. P. CHANCELLOR,

Notary Public.

APPENDIX B.

RESOLUTION OF THE LITTLE KANAWHA BRIDGE COMPANY.

At a meeting of the stockholders of the Little Kanawha Bridge Company, called by the president and directors thereof, and held at the office of Dr. A. G. Clark, in the city of Parkersburg, W. Va., in pursuance of a public notice, on Wednesday, the 31st day of December, 1879, at 10 o'clock a. m.

Present, a majority of stockholders of said company, representing a majority of the capital stock thereof, and a majority of the votes of the said company.

The president of the board of directors explained the object of the meeting, and, on motion of Dr. A. G. Clark, the Hon. George Loomis was called to the chair.

"On motion of William M. Evans, seconded by Henry Logan, it was unanimously "Resolved, That in contemplation of the proposition for the construction of an ice harbor in the Little Kanawha River by the United States, and in view of the fact, in the construction of such ice harbor, it will be necessary to alter the present bridge of this company across the said river at the city of Parkersburg by making the same a draw-bridge, this company hereby gives its consent to such alterations on the following conditions:

"If the crossing of the said bridge shall not be interrupted more than ninety days, then this company will require no consideration as compensation for the said bridge during such ninety days; but if such crossing shall be interrupted more than ninety days, then this company to be paid ($400) four hundred dollars per month for the time the crossing of the said bridge shall be so interrupted beyond such ninety days." A copy from the minutes under the seal of said bridge company by its secretary. [SEAL.] S. C. SHAW, Secretary, &c.

APPENDIX C.

LITTLE KANAWHA BRIDGE COMPANY TO MAJOR W. E. MERRILL, CORPS OF ENGINEERS. PARKERSBURG, W. Va., January 9, 1880.

SIR: In reply to your letter of the 8th instant I have the honor to inform you that at a called meeting of the stockholders of the company held on the 31st ultimo, the question of granting permission to the United States Government "to raise their bridge continuing it in its present form," was discussed at length and met with issurmountable opposition, the main objection being the damage that would result to private property of our citizens, especially that on Market street, by reason of the elevated approach which would be necessitated by the change. The only proposition which did obtain their willing consent was the one embodied in the resolutions of which, by order of the meeting, you were furnished an official copy, viz, that of chang ing the present into a draw-bridge.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Col. W. E. MERRIL,

Major Corps of Engineers, U. S. A.

W. VROOMAN, President Little Kanawha Bridge Company.

APPENDIX D.

CAPTAIN E. P. CHANCELLOR TO MAJOR W. E. MERRILL, CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

PARKERSBURG, December 13, 1879.

DEAR SIR: In compliance with a promise made some time ago, although a little late, I write in the interest of steamboat owners, river men, and shippers on the Upper Ohio, with the view of calling your attention to the necessity of an ice harbor and its small cost, at the mouth of the Little Kanawha River. This is probably the most

remarkable stream emptying into the Ohio, as it is the only one of any size on the Upper Ohio which has deep water at all times at its mouth, and which maintains this depth for 4 miles to the first dam, giving mooring for boats for 8 miles on the two sides of this harbor. This dam spoken of is 14 feet high, and breaks the ice as it passes over, and renders it harmless to boats below it. The only trouble ever experienced, heretofore, in a general break up, has been in the Ohio; ice in large cakes stopping the mouth of the Kanawha, and gorging. This difficulty has been obviated to some extent by the building of the great railroad piers, about half a mile above in the Ohio. By the erection of three additional piers between the bridge piers on the Virginia side, it would entirely protect the Kanawha from gorging, and render the harbor absolutely safe. These piers would have a tendency to stop the ice early at this point, and allow the ice below to flow out and give open navigation through the winter to all points below, and give boats below an opportunity of making the harbor of safety before the terrible break up from above should occur.

It would be necessary to raise the bridge now spanning the Kanawha River, say 30 or 35 feet, to give ample room for boats to go under at any stage of water. This would be better, if not cheaper, than a draw-bridge, and would not necessitate the erection of piers which would obstruct navigation. The Kanawha heads south, and does not freeze up so early nor so heavy, and it disappears much earlier than ice in the Ohio or streams heading north. There have been more or less steamboats laid up for ice in the mouth of this river for the last forty years, or since the invention of steamboats, and not one has ever received the slightest injury. This proves its absolute safety as a harbor for the protection of boats from the destructive ice floes which occur almost every winter in the Ohio River.

The cost of these improvements would be very little indeed compared to the great benefit which would ensue to the commerce to the Ohio Valley. Every facility will be offered by the citizens of Parkersburg, the bridge company, and others whose interest may in any way connect them with the improvement. The Little Kanawha has lately become a navigable stream of the United States, as also a post route, I believe, and the bridge over it should be raised, as it is now an obstruction. This would be at least half the cost of the improvement.

Traffic has very much increased on the Kanawha since the slackwater has been completed, and several steamers are engaged in transportation and towing on it.

In conclusion I may say that the Little Kanawha is the best natural harbor on the Ohio River; the expenditure to perfect it has four-fifths been made in the building of the dam before mentioned and the erection of the bridge piers in the Ohio, and I feel well assured if the matter is understood by Congress there will be no hesitation in granting the necessary funds to complete it. In doing so there will be no necessity for additional outlay in all time; no dredging, no locks to keep up, no superintendents to pay, and all this at probably one-tenth the expenditure to construct an effective or safe harbor at any other point.

Hoping that your views may not be at variance with my own, and that you may recommend favorably to the Little Kanawha, I remain,

Your obedient servant,

Col. W. E. MERRILL,

Major, Corps of Engineers, U. S. .1.

S. Ex. 83

E. P. CHANCELLOR.

[blocks in formation]

In compliance with Senate resolution of February 12, 1880, all reports relating to the improvement of Exeter River, New Hampshire.

FEBRUARY 17, 1880.-Referred to the Committee on Commerce and ordered to be

printed.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

Washington City, February 16, 1880. The Secretary of War has the honor to transmit to the United States Senate, in compliance with resolution of that body of February 12, 1880, calling for all reports relating to the improvement of the Exeter River, New Hampshire, made in pursuance of the act of Congress approved June 3, 1874, a letter from the Chief of Engineers, dated the 14th instant, covering copy of Executive Document 75, Part 2, House of Representatives, Forty-third Congress, second session, which contains the information required.

The PRESIDENT

of the United States Senate.

ALEX. RAMSEY,
Secretary of War.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, Washington, D. C., February 14, 1880.. SIR: I have the honor to return herewith the resolution of the Senate of the United States of the 12th instant, directing the Secretary of War To transmit to the Senate all the reports relating to the improvement of the Exeter River below Exeter, New Hampshire, made in pursuance of act of Congress approved June 3 [23], 1874,

which was referred to this office for report, and in obedience to its requirements to submit the inclosed copy of Executive Document 75, Part 2, House of Representatives, Forty-third Congress, second session, which contains, at pages 11 to 15, the information called for.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

H. G. WRIGHT,

Chief of Engineers, Brig. and Brt. Maj. Gen., U. S. A.

[blocks in formation]

SURVEY OF EXETER RIVER, BELOW EXETER, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE,
Portland, Me., December 9, 1874.

GENERAL: I have the honor to present the following report on the survey of Exeter River, below Exeter, N. H., called for by act of Congress approved June 23, 1874, "making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works on rivers and har bors, and for other purposes."

This survey was made under my direction in September and October, 1874, by Mr. Sophus Haagensen, assistant engineer, whose report and map, dated the 7th instant, also prepared under my supervision, are here with submitted.

Exeter River is navigable at high-water from its mouth in Great Bay (where it meets Lamprey River) up to the wharves of Exeter, the head of tide-water, a distance of 8.3 miles. In the survey of it, over 12,500 soundings were made, in order to ascertain the actual condition of the channel, from which those shown on the general map were selected.

10001

Special surveys were also made, with great care, of such points as require improvement, which, with the numerous soundings taken, are platted on a scale of 16, the general map being drawn on a scale of 4006. These soundings are all referred to the plane of mean high-water, the mean rise and fall of the tide being 6.4 feet in Great Bay, and 6 feet at the head of tide-water in Exeter. This survey shows that the channel of the river can, at a comparatively small cost, be made safe and practicable for vessels drawing 12 feet at ordinary high water, from its mouth in Great Bay up to the Oxbow, a distance of 5.6 miles; but that the continuation of this depth above the Oxbow would involve a greater expense than the commerce of this river would warrant.

It is, therefore, proposed to improve this river so as to have a good towing-channel of not less than 40 feet in width and 12 feet in depth, at mean high-water, up by South New Market to the Oxbow, and thence with the same width and a depth of 10 feet at mean high-water up to the upper wharves at Exeter, taking care to remove throughout the entire length of the river all bowlders and other obstructions between the present 10-foot curves, so as to afford a safe beating-channel, with not less than 4 feet of water at low-tide for the smaller class of vessels. The estimated cost of this work will depend upon the project to be adopted for its improvement at the Oxbow. Should it follow the natural bed of the river around the Oxbow, the estimated cost is $24,000; but should a cut-off be made at the narrowest part of the Oxbow, which is much preferred, the estimated cost is $34,000.

This cut-off will obviate the dangerous and difficult navigation in the tortuous channel of the Oxbow, as well as avoid the dangerous ledges and bowlders which obstruct it, and at the same time shorten the distance six-tenths of a mile. For the items of these estimates you are respectfully referred to the accompanying report of my assistant engineer, which has been prepared under my supervision.

The amount that is required for the completion of this work in the manner as above recommended is $34,000; which, if appropriated by Congress, could be profitably expended during the next fiscal year.

As bearing upon the facts which show to what extent the commerce of the country would be promoted by the contemplated improvement of Exeter River, I will add that the manufacturing towns of South New

« AnteriorContinuar »