In addition to the papers mentioned in the report, three others referring to the subject, which seem to be of importance, are also sent herewith. Letter from Mr. J. H. McCreery, dated May 25, 1883. Letter from Assistant Engineer Martin, dated October 25, 1883. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Brig. Gen. H. G. WRIGHT, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A. WM. P. CRAIGHILL, Lieut. Col. of Engineers. REPORT OF BOARD OF ENGINEERS. PHILADELPHIA, PA., October 25, 1883. The Board of Engineers convened by Special Orders No. 31, Headquarters Corps of Engineers, March 21, 1883, "to consider and report upon certain questions in connection with the bridge over the Ohio River near Beaver, Pa., erected by the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company," met at Pittsburgh April 3 and 4, 1883, and at Philaadelphia October 23, 1883. After carefully considering the matters brought before it, the Board has the honor to submit the following report: The questions presented to the Board for consideration, as shown by the various communications between the United States, as represented by the Departments of Justice and War, and the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, refer to a failure on the part of the railroad company to fully comply with the requirements of the law under which the bridge over the Ohio River at Beaver, Pa., was built. The special instructions given to the Board as contained in a letter of the Chief of Engineers, dated March 21, 1883, are as follows: The Board will give the subject full consideration, and report its views and recommendations as to the best method of arriving at a proper solution of the questions involved, with a view to avoiding litigation with the railroad company. The papers laid before the Board by the Chief of Engineers were as follows: 1. Letter dated Office of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, Washington, D. C., March 21, 1883, containing instructions to the Board as above given. 2. Letter to the honorable the Secretary of War, dated January 25, 1883, from the general solicitor of the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, suggesting the selection of a Board of Engineers by the War Department to examine the questions at issne, with a view to avoiding litigation between the Government and the railroad company. 3. Report of the Chief of Engineers on above letter, which states that the questions at issue between the Government and railroad company have been referred to the Department of Justice, and are now in the hands of the United States Attorney for the western district of Pennsylvania; but in view of the wishes of the company to avoid litigation, and in the hope that the difficulties may be arranged to the satisfaction of all parties, it may be deemed advisable to refer the matter to a Board of engineer officers. 4. Indorsement of the Acting Chief of Engineers, dated November 16, 1882, submitting to the Secretary of War Major Merrill's letter of November 7, 1882, which quotes certain portions of the act under which the bridge over the Ohio River, near Beaver, was built, gives information relating to the questions at issue, and requests such action as may be deemed advisable for the protection and security of the navigation of the Ohio River. 5. Letter addressed to the honorable the Attorney-General by the honorable the Secretary of War, November 17, 1882, transmitting Maj. W. E. Merrill's letter of November 7, and reciting the fact that the bridge across the Ohio River at Beaver, Pa., built by the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, does not conform to the requirements of law, and asking that such action may be taken as may be deemed advisable for the protection and security of the navigation of the Ohio River. 6. Letter addressed to the honorable the Secretary of War, November 23, 1882, by the honorable the Attorney-General, stating that the United States Attorney for the western district of Pennsylvania had been directed to cause such action to be taken as may be deemed advisable, &c. 7. Copies of Senate Ex. Doc. No. 28, Forty-sixth Congress, second session, of Appendix X (in part) and of Appendix A A, of the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1878 and 1880, which give the report of the Board of Engineers which recommended the plans, & c., in accordance with which the bridge was to be built; also, a general history of the bridge and the questions at issue between the Government and the railroad company. From Lieut. Col. W. E. Merrill the Board obtained the following papers: 1. Letter of November 7, 1882, addressed by Lieutenant-Colonel (then Major) Merrill to the Chief of Engineers, reporting that the railroad company had allowed riprap, &c., to remain around the piers of the main channel span in violation of law, that the company were notified of the fact September 29, 1881, but that no attention was paid to the matter. He recommends that suitable measures be taken to enforce compliance with the law. 2. Letter of December 8, 1882, addressed to W. A. Stone, United States Attorney, by Major Merrill, transmitting report and sketch relating to riprap and other obstructions at the channel piers of the Beaver bridge. 3. Copy of report and sketch above referred to. From Mr. W. C. Quincy, general manager of the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad, the Board obtained a tracing showing the location of the bridge at Beaver and the Ohio River in its vicinity; and from Mr. J. H. McCreery, general solicitor, a blue print of plan of dike which the railroad company at one time proposed to build, which were returned to those gentlemen. From Colonel Craighill, president of the Board: 1. Copy of letter informing Mr. J. H. McCreery, general solicitor, of the appointment of the Board and date of meeting. 2. Letters of April 10 and June 7, 1883, from W. C. Quincy, transmitting resolutions of the board of directors of the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company. 3. Copies of resolutions above referred to. 4. Copy of letter dated May 5, 1883, addressed by Colonel Craighill, president of Board, to J. H. McCreery, solicitor of the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, calling attention to the fact that the resolutions passed by the board of directors of the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, at its meeting of April 6, 1883, did not cover all the points discussed, and suggesting modifications which might lead to the avoidance of litigation and to the satisfactory adjustment of all interests involved. 5. Copy of modifications above referred to. 6. Letter addressed to Col. W. P. Craighill by J. H. McCreery, dated May 25, 1883, stating that the board of directors of the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company would adopt a resolution relating to removal of coffer-dam, but declined to construct the additional 618 feet of dike. This letter also states that the weight of testimony seems to favor the construction of a dike, and that the railroad company will immediately complete its portion if the Board considers the work necessary. 7. Copy of letter dated May 29, 1883, addressed to J. H. McCreery, solicitor Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, by Colonel Craighill, informing him that the Board of Engineers having the subject under consideration is clearly of the opinion that a dike 918 feet in length should be built; that there was no United States fund available for the work, and asking that notice of the action of the board of directors be given as soon as possible. 8. Copy of letter dated July 2, 1883, addressed to W. C. Quincy, general manager of the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad, by Col. W. P. Craighill, forwarding copy of his letter of May 5 to Mr. McCreery, with inclosures. Copy of Mr. McCreery's letter to Colonel Craighill of May 25, and reply of May 29, 1883, and requesting Mr. Quincy to re-examine the matter fully, bring it before his board if necessary, and to specially consider the reasons given in the communication to Mr. McCreery, why it seemed desirable that the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company should construct the extended dike at once and look to Congress for reimbursement. 9. Letter from Chief of Engineers United States Army, dated September 29, 1883, authorizing the reconvening of the Board of Engineers, constituted by Special Orders No. 31, Headquarters Corps of Engineers, current series, at Philadelphia, Pa., for further consideration of the whole matter presented to the Board. After a general consideration of the papers laid before it and consul tation, early in April, 1883, with the general manager and general soli citor of the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, the United States Attorney for the western district of Pennsylvania and Lieut. Col. W. E. Merrill, Corps of Engineers, the officer in charge of the improvements of the Ohio River, the Board proceeded to and thoroughly examined the site of the Beaver bridge in company with representatives of the railroad and of the Pittsburgh Coal Exchange. Subsequently further consultations were had with the above-mentioned parties and such members of the Coal Exchange as desired to appear before the Board. On the 23d of October, 1883, the Board reconvened in Philadelphia, Pa., to consider the resolutions adopted by the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, and correspondence relative thereto received subsequent to last meeting of the Board. To explain the questions at issue between the United States and the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, a brief review of the history of the bridge and correspondence relating thereto is necessary. The bridge across the Ohio River near Beaver was built in 1878, by the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, under the law governing the construction of bridges over the Ohio River, approved December 17, 1872, which law provides: # * SECTION 2. That every bridge hereafter erected across the Ohio River, above the mouth of the Big Sandy, shall have at least one span of a height not less than 90 feet above low water and of not less than 40 feet above local highest water measured to the bottom chord of the bridge. That this high span shall give a clear opening of at least 400 feet between the piers, measured at right angles to the current at every stage, and that it shall be placed over the main channel of the river used by boats during ordinary stages of water. SECTION 3. That the piers of the high span shall be built parallel with the current at that stage of the river which is most important for navigation, and that no riprap or other outside protection for imperfect foundation will be permitted in the channel-way of the high span. SECTION 4. and if the Secretary of War is satisfied that the provisions of the law have been complied with in regard to location, the building of the piers may be at once commenced; but if it shall appear that the conditions prescribed by this act cannot be complied with at the location where it is desired to construct the bridge the Secretary of War shall, after considering any remonstrances filed against the building of said bridge, and furnishing copies of such remonstrances to the Board of Engineers provided for in this act, detail a Board composed of three experienced officers of the Corps of Engineers to examine the case, and may on their recommendation authorize such modifications in the requirements of this act as to location and piers as will permit the construction of the bridge; not, however, diminishing the width of the spans contemplated by his act: Provided, That the free navigation of the river be not materially injured thereby. SECTION 6. And in case of any litigation arising from any obstruction or alleged obstruction to the navigation of said river created by the construction of any bridge under this act, the cause or question arising may be tried before the district court of the United States of any State in which any portion of said obstruction or bridge touches. SECTION 7. That the right to alter or amend this act, so as to prevent or remove all material obstructions to the navigation of said river by the future construction of bridges, is hereby expressly reserved, without any liability of the Government for damages on account of the alteration or amendment of this act, or on account of the prevention or requiring the removal of any such obstructions; and any change in the construction, or any alteration of any such bridge that may be directed at any time by Congress, shall be made at the cost and expense of the owners thereof. Previous to construction, the project and plans as proposed by the railroad company were laid before a Board of Engineers detailed by Special Orders No. 88, Headquarters Corps of Engineers, August 1, 1877. This Board considered all the proposed sites in the vicinity of Beaver objectionable, but recommended three modifications of the plan presented which they believed would, as far as was practicable in such a locality, protect the interests of navigation. The railroad company accepted the modification of their project which required the selection of a site from 300 to 400 feet further up-stream than originally proposed, the increase of channel space from 400 to 425 feet, and the building of a smooth guiding dike, 300 feet in length, extending up stream from left channel pier, with its crest at a height of 15 feet above low water. Previous to the completion of the bridge, the coal shippers of Pittsburgh presented protests against the shortness of the proposed guiding dike. Major Merrill, Corps of Engineers, in charge of improvements of the Ohio River, after a personal examination in company with many of the interested parties, decided that the dike ought to be lengthened 618 feet, giving it a total length of 918 feet. A report to this effect was submitted August 26, 1878, to the Chief of Engineers and by him to the Secretary of War, who approved of the proposed increase of length and ordered the dike to be built by the railroad company. The company after presenting plans for a dike, 918 feet long, which were approved, and after expressing a willingness to build the same, delayed the matter, and failed not only to build the additional length of dike, but also the 300 feet which formed a part of the plan originally approved and accepted. The failure on the part of the railroad company to build the dike was reported to the Chief of Engineers by Major Merrill, June 23, 1879, and by the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War, July 3, 1879, by whom the matter was referred to the Judge-Advocate General, who, in an opinion dated July 19, 1879, expressed his doubt as to the right of any other authority than Congress to compel the construction of the additional length of dike, but recommended that the matter be submitted to the Department of Justice. On the 7th November, 1882, Major Merrill brought to the attention of the Chief of Engineers additional complaints against the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company that in violation of section 2 of the act of December, 1872, the channel-way of the bridge over the Ohio River near Beaver, Pa., was obstructed by riprap and the remains of a coffer-dam. This communication was referred by the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War, November 15, 1882, with an indorsement referring to the refusal of the bridge company to carry out the requirements of the Secretary of War in the construction of the bridge, and requesting such action as might be deemed advisable for the protection and security of the navigation of the Ohio River. The matter being referred to the Department of Justice by the Secretary of War was, by the Attorney-General, placed in the hands of the United States Attorney for the western district of Pennsylvania. In accordance with instructions received an action has been brought by the United States Attorney in the United States court to compel the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company to construct the dike as required by the Secretary of War, and remove the riprap from around the piers of the high spans. The question of jurisdiction has been argued, but no decision has as yet been rendered as far as the knowledge of the Board extendsWith a view to avoiding litigation, the general solicitor of the Pitts burgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company addressed a communication to the Secretary of War, under date of January 25, 1883, suggesting that a re-examination of the questions at issue by a Board of Engineers might result in a satisfactory settlement. This suggestion met with the approval of the Secretary of War, and the present Board was detailed for the purpose. The position heretofore taken by the railroad company appears to the Board to be, that the Secretary of War has no right to require the construction of the additional 618 feet of guiding wall desired by the Pittsburgh Coal Exchange, and that the construction of the 300 feet of wall, forming a part of the approved plans in accordance with which authority to construct the bridge was granted, will be of no aid to navigation, the proper location of the dike being on the north side of the channel span. It does not appear that at the present time, the company claim the right to retain the riprap and other obstructions around the channel piers. The question of locating the guiding wall was fully considered by a former Board, and the opinions of all the experts examined by this Board confirm it in the belief that the original selection of location was a proper one. It is true the dike proposed might not be of service in the case of a boat becoming unmanageable above the bridge at such relative stages of the Ohio and Beaver as would throw the main current to the north of the high spans, but as such cases of accident are exceptional, it is not proper to give them the same weight in selecting a location for the dike as the general needs of the immense commerce passing the bridge. A bar now exists at the mouth of the Beaver which partially answers the purpose of a guiding wall. Were accidents due to boats becoming unmanageable above the bridge so common as to require especial consideration, the dangers could be obviated by the construction of a floating sheer boom to guide boats through the channel span, without exerting the dangerous influences on the currents and channels which would result from a permanent high dike located as proposed by the railroad company on the north side of the channel. The increase in length of the dike extending up from the left channel pier from 300 feet to 918 feet meets with the approval of Lieutenant Colonels Weitzel and Merrill, the only living members of the original Engineer Board, and is considered by the present Board a necessity. To express forcibly the immediate necessity for some action which will, partially at least, remove the difficulties and dangers to which navigation is now subjected by reason of the condition of the bridge at Beaver, the following extract from the report of the Board which originally considered the subject of its location, &c., is given: * Unfortunately all of these sites are objectionable to the river interests for the following reasons: The currents in the Ohio opposite and below the Beaver are variable. The map shows that at this point the Ohio makes a change of 90 degrees in direction; that the Beaver River enters at the apex of the curve, and that there is a very large bar at the mouth of the latter, forcing the low-water channel of the Ohio over to the left ahore. The high-water currents are also forced over to the same shore when high water in the Beaver is simultaneous with high water in the Ohio. But, on the other hand, a rise in the Ohio may be entirely a head rise, and the Beaver may be dead low or nearly so. Under such circumstances the Ohio River currents are free to conform to the shape of the river, and if the rise is high enough to destroy the influence of the Beaver bar, the draught of water will be towards the middle of the river or to its right bank. It is the variableness of current, combined with the natural difficulties of navigating the Beaver shoals, that begin just below the proposed bridge site, that makes the location |