Page images
PDF
EPUB

(Pp. 20, 30, 95 to 100, 170, 204 to 261, &c., &c., public documents at end of Light-house board report, and appendix B to this report.)

3. That our light-boats are inferior to the British in all essential qualities and especially in the lighting apparatus, which is antiquated and wasteful in the extreme.

§33, p. 10. Are comparatively useless for the want of efficient lamps and parabolic reflectors.

$34, p. 10. Are defective in size, model and moorings.

335 and 36, p. 10. Are not properly designated by day or night. (Pp. 35, 50, 96, 97, 174, 196, 206 to 257, 261 to 281, and letters of Jacob Herbert, esquire, Lieutenant William Lord, R. N., &c., &c.

4. That the inspection of oil is inadequate. (Pp. 23, 25, 61, 171 to 204, 283 to 285, 288, 292, &c., &c.

5. That the French lenses are more economical than reflectors, in the proportion of nearly four to one, and that, in consequence of their greater efficiency and economy, the Trinity board is now replacing their old reflector lights, by the lens lights. (Pp. 13, 23, 25, 27, 79 to 92, 119, 206 to 261, 303, 307, 315, 321, 324, 338 to 341, and letters of Alan Stevenson, esquire, Jacob Herbert, esquire, M. Leonor Fresnel, M. L. Reynaud, and public documents in Light-house board report, also in the appendix to this report.

6. That there is a general want of system in every part of the establishment, except that of accounts, such as must arise from a want of practical scientific knowledge in the director of it.

§61, p. 11. There is no system in the management of the light-house establishment of the United States. (Pp. 20 to 41, 48 to 67, 104 to 127, 170 to 204, 261 to 282, 288 to 298, &c.

7. That this defective organization leads to waste in construction, in supply and in illumination, and that therefore, under a well organized system, the lights, beacons, buoys, &c., might be greatly increased in number and efficiency, at a large saving upon the present annual cost. (Pp. 20 to 29, 79, 118 to 123, 170 to 204, and letter of general superintendent of lights.)

CONSTRUCTION.-§4, p. 8. The towers and buildings are defective in materials, and have not been constructed by competent and faithful engineers. (Pp. 22, 27, 52, 53, 68, 109, 113, 145, 170 to 204, 262, 265, Executive document No. 14, second session thirty-first Congress, and public documents in Light-house board report.)

§5, p. 8. These defects have been verified by the board. (Pp. 22, 27, 135, 170 to 204.)

§6, p. 8. The extensive repairs and renovations required, are the result of the non-employment of competent persons to plan and construct the buildings. (See annual estimates and appropriations, and pp. 52, 53, 68, 170 to 204.)

§7, p. 8. The towers and buildings are defective. (Pp. 170 to 204.) $8, p. 8. The lanterns and other accessories are also defective.

§9, 10, p. S. And without proper ventilation. (Pp. 23, 30, 170 to 204.)

$11, p. 9. Not properly painted. (Pp. 22, 170 to 204.) $14, p. 9. Unsuited to the service and locality. (Pp. 16, 132 to 142, 170 to 204.)

$15, p. 9. Not in general in good repair. (Pp. 170 to 204.)

$31, p. 10. That contractors are not held under sufficiently rigid superintendence, &c.

$32, p. 10. That some of the modern light-houses are inferior in point of materials and workmanship to older ones. (Pp. 170 to 204, and letter of general superintendent of lights, &c.)

§75, p. 12. That competent engineers have not been employed to plan and superintend the construction, &c. (See notes of inspection, pp. 170 to 204.)

§76, p. 12. The large amounts required annually for repairs, &c. is attributable to the manner in which the work is executed and the materials employed. (Pp. 170 to 204.)

§77, p. 12. Large sums now required to preserve foundations, &c. might have been saved by the adoption of proper plans and foundations for them. (See annual estimates and appropriations, and notes of inspection of Lighthouse board, p. 170 to 204.)

§78, p. 12. No systematic and economical plan of construction has been employed. (Pp. 269 to 282, and notes of inspection of Light-house board pp. 170 to 204.)

§13, p. 9. That there never has been an efficient and systematic plan of construction, illumination, inspection and superintendence, &c., in the United States. (See letter of general superintendent of lights, &c.; notes of inspection, &c., pp. 170 to 204.)

ILLUMINATION. §16, p. 9. That the illuminating apparatus is inferior, requiring costly repairs and frequent renewal, and is ineffective at best. (Pp. 170 to 204, 269 to 282.)

$17, p. 9. Is defective in form, material and finish.

$26, p. 9. Is not made under competent professional supervision (Pp. 170 to 204, 269 to 289, letters of general superintendent, collector of Boston, &c.)

§18, p. 9. Is of a kind which is nearly obsolete, having been superseded by the Fresnel lens. (Letters of Messrs. Fresnel, Reynaud, Jacob Herbert and Alan Stevenson, appendix to Light-house board report, &c.)

$19, p. 9. That the sea-coast lights are defective in power and range. (Pp. 204 to 262, and appendix B to this report.)

$47, p. 10. And those south of the highlands of Navesink are comparatively useless for the same reason. (Pp. 206, 212, 216 to 262, 315 to 327, &c., and appendix B to this report.)

$20, p. 9. The reflector sea-coast lights are not sufficiently powerful. (Pp. 204 to 202, 315 to 327, and appendix to this report.)

$21, p. 9. Are placed without regard to divergency. (Notes of inspection, pp. 170 to 204.)

$38, p. 10. Many of the small lights have too many lamps, and the seacoast lights have too few. (Notes of inspection, pp. 170 to 204, list of lights, &c., &c.)

$39, p. 10. The forms and adjustments of the reflectors are not made according to scientific principles. (See notes of inspection, pp. 170 to 204.)

§40, p. 10. That in effect there is not a single first-class light on the coast of the United States. (Pp. 42, 44, 170.)

$41, p. 10. The Navesink lens lights and Sankaty Head second order lens are the best lights on the coast. (See letters, appendix B, &c., pp. 206 to 262, 303 to 315, 321 to 327, 338 to 341.)

$42, p. 10. There are few, if any, reflector lights on the coast of the United States better, in useful effect, than the third order lens light, larger model, on Brandywine shoal. (Pp. 28, 29, and letters from captains of vessels.)

§44, p. 10. The Fresnel lens is greatly superior to any other mode of lighthouse illumination. (See reports of M. Leonor Fresnel, executive document No. 488, first session, twenty-ninth Congress, Alan Stevenson and Trinity board returns, letters from MM. Reynaud and Fresnel, report of Royal Society of Edinburg, Scotland, appendix to Light-house board report and to this report.)

§74, p. 12. That light-house construction, illumination, inspection and superintendence, involve a large amount of general professional knowledge of a high character, and therefore, should only be entrusted to the most competent professional persons. (See letters of Sir David Brewster, M. Fresnel and M. Reynaud, Mr. Alan Stevenson, &c.)

SUPPLIES.-$28, p. 9. That supplies of all kinds are not selected and properly tested before delivery.

$29, p. 9. That there is not proper responsibility on the part of agents connected with the light-house establishment. (Pp. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 170 to 204, 271, 278, 283, 285, 288, 292.)

§30, p. 9. That the present mode of procuring and distributing supplies, apparatus, &c., is not calculated to ensure either efficiency or economy. (Pp. 79, 285, 288, 292.)

$57, p. 11. The supplies of oil, chimneys, wicks, &c., are not properly and carefully tested.

§58, p. 11. There is no proper system of distributing supplies. §59, p. 11. And no proper attention paid to their purchase.

§60, p. 11. The cleaning powder for the reflectors is not of the right material, and other articles are equally defective. (Pp. 61, 64, 170 to 204, 285, 288, 292, and letters of Jacob Herbert, esquire, and Alan Stevenson, esquire.)

§66, p. 11. The supplies are not delivered at proper intervals of time. (Pp. 170 to 204, letter of general superintendent of lights, and also from Captain Howland.)

8. That the system of attendance, inspection and superintendence is inefficient; the illuminating apparatus nearly obsolete; the sea-coast lights defective in range and power; unclassified; without proper distinctions, and without due regulation. (Pp. 30, 36, 37, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 69, 86, 87, 134, 141, 170 to 204, 206 to 260, 269 to 327, 338 to 341.)

§22, p. 9. The attendance of one keeper is not sufficient for a sea-coast light. (Letters of M. Fresnel, M. Reynaud, Jacob Herbert, esquire, Alan Stevenson, esquire, and the Fifth Auditor on p. 14 of his reply.)

$13, p. 9. No efficient system of inspection and superintendence has ever

existed in the United States.

§25, p. 9. Nor does any moderately useful nor efficient system now exist. (Notes of inspection, pp. 170 to 204, 269 to 274, 276 to 283, 289 to 298.) §64, p. 12. That frequent and rigid inspections and superintendence by

t

competent persons are necessary. (Stevenson, Herbert, Fresnel, and Reynaud, in appendix to Light-house board report.)

§74, p. 12. That light-house construction, illumination, inspection and superintendence involve a large amount of special and general professional knowledge of a high character, and therefore should only be entrusted to the most competent professional persons. (See Stevenson, Reynaud, Fresnel, Herbert, Walker and others, Parliamentary report, 1845, and Skerryvove light-house, executive document No. 488, first session, twentyninth Congress.)

§18, p. 9. The reflectors are giving place in other countries to lenses, on account of the superior brilliancy and economy of the latter. (Pp. 7, 69, letters of Stevenson, Herbert, Fresnel, Reynaud, Lepaute, and Letourneau in appendix to Light-house board report.)

$19, p. 9. The range and power of sea-coast lights is inadequate. (Pp. 206 to 260, and appendix B to this report.)

$23, p. 9. There is no proper system of classification of lights. (Pp. 269 to 282.) §24, p. 9. There are no sufficient distinctions to prevent one light from being mistaken for another. (Pp. 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 134, 139, 141, 142, 206 to 262, 269 to 282.)

§27, p. 9. There are no adequate general or special rules for keepers, &c., to insure a faithful performance of the duties. (See instructions to light-keepers in this country and in Europe in appendix to Light-house board report.)

$56, p. 11. That in many cases the keepers are not competent. (Pp. 170 to 204, 269 to 282.)

$62, p. 11. The instructions to keepers in regard to trimming, lighting and extinguishing lights are not enforced. (Pp. 170 to 204.)

§63, p. 11. Such knowledge is not imparted to keepers, as a general rule, to enable them to keep their lamps, &c., in such order as to insure the best lights. (Pp. 170 to 204, 269.)

$65, p. 11. To insure good lights at all times, competent keepers and a proper system of inspection are necessary. (See letters of Fresnel, Reynaud, &c., in appendix to Light-house board report.)

§71, p. 12. That the erection of light-house towers withoat regard to the exigencies of the service, is contrary to the first principles of light-house engineering. (Pp. 105, 269, &c.)

9. That the coast is unequally lighted in different points and there is no arrangement proposed by the Auditor to remedy this defect. The lightvessels are not kept in their places during seasons of the year especially dangerous to navigation. There is no efficient arrangement for giving notice of changes in lights, beacons, buoys, &c., and that in fact the bureau does not know when these changes are made.

§50, p. 10. There is no systematic plan for rendering navigation easy, by means of lights, beacons, buoys, &c. (Pp. 46, 50, 67, 104, 105, 125, 147, 148, 170 to 204, 206 to 261, 269, &c.)

§51, p. 11. Lights and other aids to navigation are provided, as a general rule, only through the action of Congress on petitions emanating from local interests. (See letters of Fifth Auditor in appendix D to this report.)

§52, p. 11. Under a proper organization the officers of the light-house establishment would collect information from reliable sources, decide upon

doubtful points, and recommend to Congress cases requiring appropriations. (See organization of European light-house establishments.)

§49, p. 10. That the entire southern coast of the United States requires additional lights, &c. (Pp. 125 to 131, 204 to 260, and appendix B to this report.)

§48, p. 10. The dangerous reefs and shoals of the Florida coast are not properly lighted or marked. (Pp. 204 to 260, 313 to 327, and appendix B to this report.)

§53, p. 11. The approaches to some of our most important harbors, &c., are not sufficiently lighted and marked to render steam navigation as rapid, easy and safe as the wants of commerce demand. (Pp. 125, 126, 127, 128, 204 to 260, and appendix to this report.)

$54, p. 11. It is obvious that the duty of lighting and marking our extended coasts can only be performed efficiently and economically by persons of professional experience. (See organization of European light-house establishments, pp. 69 to 76, letters of Alan Stevenson, esquire, Jacob Herbert, esquire, M. Leonor Fresnel, M. Reynaud, &c.)

§73, p. 12. For want of a proper system, densely populated coasts have a superabundance of lights, while on sparsely settled coasts there is not a sufficient number. (See account of southern coast, pp. 125, 204 to 260.)

$68, p. 11. That the removal and placing of light-vessels, extinguishment or lighting of lights, removal or placing of buoys, &c., without giving ample notice, are subjects of grave complaint. (Pp. 204 to 260.)

§69, p. 12. There is no good reason why the light vessels of the United States should not remain at their moorings under as unfavorable circumstances as those on the coast of Great Britain and Ireland. (Pp. 204 to 260.)

§70, p. 12. Whenever light vessels are reported to have parted their moorings, every circumstance attending them should be carefully investigated.

§79, p. 12. Changes are constantly taking place in the aids to navigation, without official notice of them being given to the public. (Pp. 204 to 260.)

§81, p. 12. The list of light-houses and light-vessels is defective in many respects. (See official list of 1851.)

$82, p. 12. That there is no regular systematic or effective mode of giving notice to mariners of proposed changes in lights, &c. (Pp. 269, 204 to 260.)

10. That the buoys are defective in size, shape, material and mode of mooring, and that there is no general list of them with their positions, character, &c. (Pp. 66, 73, 151, 152, 170 to 206, 206 to 261, 269, and appendix B to this report.)

THIRD SECTION.

The board would call attention also, to the following errors contained in the reply:

1. The lens lights at Navesink were not procured by the Fifth Auditor

« PreviousContinue »