Hawkinsville is about 50 miles below Macon. No work has ever been done by the United States above Macon.

The distance from Macon to Juliette is about 23 miles, of which the lower 6 miles appear to be susceptible of improvement by ordinary open-channel methods, while the remaining 17 miles are obstructed by rock shoals and rapids having a reputed fall of over 50 feet. Besides these obstructions, there is a power dam across the river 8 miles above Macon, and there are four bridges at Macon, none of which are provided with drawspans.

The following is quoted from the letter of the secretary of the Macon Board of Trade:

Our people have for a number of years been working to prepare the river between here and Brunswick for the navigation of steamboats, but it has never been deemed advisable to undertake to run steamboats above this city. I had an interview with our Congressman, the Hon. Charles L. Bartlett, to ascertain what was the object in the examination between Macon and Juliette. I am advised by him that it was only intended to ascertain the water power, etc.; it was not intended to spend any money to remove shoals or other obstructions. He said that he and Senator Bacon had talked over the matter and thought it would be well to have the information that such an examination would give. It seems to me that in view of this explanation through Congressman Bartlett, it is unnecessary to go further into the matter.

The physcial conditions of Ocmulgee River between Macon and Juliette are such that it can not be made navigable except by a slackwater system of improvement. There is at present no commerce on this section of the river, and as the prospective commerce is not of sufficient magnitude to justify the probable cost, the Board is of the opinion that it is not advisable for the United States to undertake the improvement of Ocmulgee River, Georgia, from the City bridge at Fifth street, Macon, to Juliette, Monroe County.

For the Board:

WITH A LETTER FROM THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, REPORT OF EXAMINATION OF BAY RIDGE CHANNEL, NEW YORK HARBOR.

DECEMBER 7, 1905.-Referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors and ordered to be printed.

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, December 6, 1905.

SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a letter from the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, dated August 21, 1905, together with copy of a report from Lieut. Col. W. L. Marshall, Corps of Engineers, dated May 10, 1905, of a preliminary examination of Bay Ridge channel, New York Harbor, made by him in compliance with the provisions of the river and harbor act of March 3, 1905.

Very respectfully,

WM. H. TAFT,

Secretary of War.

The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

WAR DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,

Washington, August 21, 1905.

SIR: Under authority conferred by section 9 of the river and harbor act of March 3, 1905, I have the honor to submit herewith for transmission to the Public Printer a report, dated May 10, 1905, by Lieut. Col. W. L. Marshall, Corps of Engineers, on preliminary examination, odered by the said act, of Bay Ridge channel, New York Harbor, with a view to the construction of a breakwater opposite the wharves. It is the opinion of Lieutenant-Colonel Marshall, concurred in by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and by me, that the

HD-59-1-Vol 44- -65

construction by the United States of a breakwater opposite the wharves at Bay Ridge channel is not advisable, nor a work worthy to be undertaken by the General Government.

Very respectfully,

Hon. Wм. H. TAFT,

A. MACKENZIE,

Brig. Gen., Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army.

Secretary of War.

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF BAY RIDGE CHANNEL, NEW YORK HARBOR, WITH A VIEW TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BREAKWATER OPPOSITE THE WHARVES.

UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE,

New York City, May 10, 1905. GENERAL: I have the honor to submit the following report upon a preliminary examination of Bay Ridge channel, with a view to "the construction of a breakwater opposite the wharves," made in compliance with instructions from the Chief of Engineers, dated March 23, 1905, and in pursuance of provisions of the river and harbor act, approved March 3, 1905:

Bay Ridge channel is the designation of that part of the Upper Bay, New York Harbor, which lies along the South Brooklyn waterfront from Ninety-second street to the Erie Basin bulkhead, a length of 4 miles; this channel, with Red Hook and Buttermilk channels, forms a continuous deep waterway, close to the pier line on the east side of the harbor, connecting the Narrows with the East River. Bay Ridge channel has been deepened by the United States since 1880, and now has an available depth of over 30 feet at mean low water, under a project adopted in 1899 for making it 40 feet deep and 1,200 feet wide.

The principal wharves on Bay Ridge channel are those of the Bush Terminal Company, consisting of five piers about 1,300 feet long, with deep slips between them; two similar piers are projected but not yet built. These piers are leased to several different steamship lines which do a large freighting business with foreign ports. Besides this company, the New York and South Brooklyn Ferry Company has its Brooklyn terminus upon this channel; the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company, the Edison Company, and the F. S. Sanford Coal Company receive coal at points along the channel; the H. W. Johns Company receives and ships asbestos and asbestos manufactures; the Long Island Railroad Company receives freight; the Morse Iron Works and Dry Dock Company has a large plant for construction and repair of ships, and the E. W. Bliss Cartridge Company has a considerable business, all details of which are refused. The amount of freight handled at the Bay Ridge channel piers during 1904, as nearly as can be ascertained, is 1,501,755 tons, valued at (estimated) $71,907,706; of this amount about 80 per cent of the tonnage and 92 per cent of the values is handled at the piers of the Bush Terminal Company.

I have invited parties interested, either for or against a breakwater for Bay Ridge channel, to express their views as to the neces

sity for such a work, with reasons for the same, and to indicate the general plan of structure desired, if any. * * *

The only plans which have been presented propose a breakwater about 5,200 feet long, extending southwardly on the west side of the channel, to be followed (southward) by an island 5,800 feet long and 1,500 feet wide, containing about 135 acres, and a second breakwater 7,200 feet long, the breakwaters and island to overlap, with channels 500 feet wide between them, and the whole series to extend from onefourth mile above Erie Basin entrance to a point about opposite Seventy-ninth street, an entire distance of 18,000 feet.

Some of the advocates of a breakwater desired it, provided it may be made a sightly structure, such as would not mar the beauty of the

harbor.

The river and harbor act does not contemplate the building of an island; therefore in lieu of such an island this report considers a breakwater of equivalent length. Nor is it believed that the request for an ornamental breakwater, so as not to detract from the beauty of the harbor, is one which could be followed without special authority of Congress. The obvious and economical way to build a breakwater in this locality would be to deposit riprap and build a wall about 6 feet above high water, with 5 feet top width. This would answer every purpose of a breakwater, but it would not be sightly.

The situation of the Bay Ridge water front at the widest part of the Upper Bay exposes it to west and northwest winds which have a sweep of 4 to 4 miles over the water; when the winds are very strong the seas rise to a height of 4 feet or possibly at times slightly higher. The seas are short and choppy and offer no serious impediment to navigation, except in small boats. They do, however, make it at times uncomfortable and even unsafe for lighters to lie alongside larger ships or at the pierheads when loading or unloading cargoes.

The northwesterly winds are the prevailing winds in the coldest weather, and in winter whenever the harbor is full of drift ice they drive it over to the east shores and fill the slips on the east side of the North River, East River, and Buttermilk channel, as well as along Bay Ridge channel. At the latter place the shore forms a broad bay and the tidal currents are of only moderate strength, and the ice collects and remains in a wider area than in other parts of the harbor. In very severe winters, such as the last two have been, access to the slips is frequently difficult and sometimes impossible without the aid of tugboats to break up the ice and keep it loose. The condition is not peculiar to Bay Ridge channel; it is felt more or less in all parts of the harbor whenever the presence of drift ice and the direction of the wind combines to block up the slips.

These ice fields soften in the salt water as soon as the weather moderates and are either gradually carried off by the tide currents or, if the wind changes to offshore, are driven away.

The shoal where it is desired to have a breakwater has depths from 9 to 20 feet or over; it is an authorized anchorage ground and is much used. A breakwater would take away from the anchorage area not only the width of the wall itself, but a width on either side equal to the length of an anchoring cable added to the length of the vessel at anchor, or, say, a strip the full length of the breakwater and about 800 feet wide.

Such a breakwater would of necessity leave an open channel not less than 1,400 feet wide at its northern end, because Red Hook channel is now being improved to a width of 1,200 feet at that point. The location suggested by the Bush Terminal Company plans the north end of the breakwater inside the part of Red Hook channel to be dredged; this is undoubtedly an inadvertance. With so wide an opening a breakwater would still afford considerable shelter to small vessels at the Bush Terminal piers and in that vicinity. These piers are built at right angles to the general shore line and almost directly into the heaviest of the seas; if they had been built oblique to the shore the piers themselves would have afforded much shelter, though of course the construction would not have been economical of room.

As regards accumulation of ice, a breakwater would keep some part of the drift ice away from the Bay Ridge piers, the amount depending upon the openings in the structure; the broad openings at the upper and lower ends would admit ice in large fields. It may be regarded as certain that such a breakwater would materially retard the escape of ice, and in a severe winter like that just passed, it is not unlikely that the area inside the breakwater would freeze up solid-a condition which existed last winter over much of the area inclosed by the bulkhead for the Governors Island enlargement.

A breakwater is not believed to be at all necessary for maintenance of the improved channel at Bay Ridge, and it is quite possible that it might cause more shoaling than it would prevent. The filling in from the banks as yet is small and would not warrant any considererable expediture to prevent it were the result certain.

The chief benefit expected from a breakwater would accrue to the Bush Terminal Company and its lessees, an allied group of corporations which can readily secure representation and make its wishes known. The chief detriment, aside from expense of construction, would be felt by the numerous vessels which use the anchorage ground and by the small boats which freely pass over it. These interests are so many and so scattered that it is practically impossible that they should unite in opposition to the plan.

It is estimated that a breakwater, with two passage openings and covering a total length of 10,000 feet, would shelter all of the water front which requires it, including some which does not. Such a breakwater built of riprap may be assumed to cost about $35 per linear foot. If built with the part above low water of laid masonry, so as to be more or less sightly, it would cost $60 per foot, or more, according to the character of appearance desired. The cost of annual maintenance of such a structure would be small, probably not exceeding 1 per cent of the cost of construction. The wall would have to be lighted at four points, or perhaps at six. The expense of maintaining the lights may be approximately estimated at $2,000 per year.

From the above considerations the construction by the United States of a breakwater opposite the wharves at Bay Ridge channel, as proposed, is, in my opinion, not advisable, nor a work worthy to be undertaken by the General Government. Briefly summarized, the reasons which have led to this opinion are the following:

(a) The only certain advantage to be gained would be shelter from seas for lighters and similar small boats along the Bay Ridge piers.

(b) No breakwater is needed to protect the channel.