Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

As the Senator from Minnesota has observed, we have two bridges now across the Mississippi river connecting the State of Iowa with the State of Illinois. There has been complaint, and constant complaint, about one of those bridges ever since it was erected, not because they do not open the draw in ample time whenever a steamboat presents itself and demands passage, but because they were unfortunate in placing the piers at the time of its original construction so that they do not stand parallel with the current. Now, this bill specifically requires that in the bridges authorized to be erected under it this necessary point shall be provided for.

then, further, whether provision is made in this bill to secure the building of the piers so as to meet that contingency.

Mr. GRIMES. The current does change sometimes during the season of floods in the spring, but any company that owns a bridge will see to it that the piers are so arranged that the current will run through their draw. I have had a little experience in this question of currents myself. Sometimes the river threatens to leave a town on the banks; it becomes necessary, therefore, for the corporate authorities or individuals to throw in obstructions above, so as to cause a set of the current to run by the landing or levee of the village where it was originally, and which it has threatened to leave. They had a very good illustration of that in the city of St. Louis. St. Louis, a few years ago, was threatened to be left entirely away from the river; but by the expenditure of some thousands of dollars, I do not know how many, by putting in obstructions, stopping the flow of the current on the Illinois side, they caused the current to flow back, along down on the Missouri side, so as to make their landing a great deal better than it was before the river threatened to leave them. The railroad company will see to it that the channel is through their draw.

Then another trouble with Rock Island bridge, where this difficulty has been, is that it is situated right at the foot of the rapids, where the current which comes over the rapids for ten miles above is much more rapid than at any other point in the Mississippi river from St. Anthony to New Orleans, except at another rapids known as the Des Moines rapids. Those conditions do not exist anywhere else on the river, and no bridge built exactly upon the plan of the Rock Island bridge would present therefore the same impediments that the Rock Island bridge does. But the bill which has come from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads requires that the draw through which boats will be compelled to pass shall be much larger than the draw at Rock Island. I think if I remember aright the draw at the Rock Island bridge is one hundred and twelve feet.

Mr. RAMSEY. One hundred and twelve and one hundred and seventeen feet.

Mr. GRIMES. Under the bill which is now before us, the draw will be one hundred and seventy-five feet.

Mr. RAMSEY. Not one hundred and seventy-five feet in the clear; about one hundred and fifty or probably a few feet more.

Mr. TRUMBULL. That had better be limited so as to make it clear.

Mr. GRIMES. The only objection I had when I read the bill was that it seemed to me that the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads were requiring rather too much when they required a draw of one hundred and seventy-five feet, because the difficulty at the Clinton bridge and the Rock Island bridge has never been in consequence of the width of the draw, but in consequence of the flow of the current occasioned by setting the piers improperly at the time the bridge was constructed.

Now, what will be the effect of the passage of this bill if we adopt it? The Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company are already about to build a bridge at the place where I live. They have the authority from the State of Illinois to do it, and they have the authority of the State of Iowa to do it. They will not put in as wide a draw as is required by this statute unless this statute is passed. Your passing the statute, therefore, facilitates the commerce of the river, by compelling them to put in such a draw as the navigation of the Mississippi river requires; so that in every point of view it seems to me it would be advisable if this bill should pass; and living on the river as I do, and interested in the navigation as I am, a navigation which has been the building up of my town, I am perfectly free to declare that I believe the interests of the river commerce as well as the interests of the internal commerce of the State that wants to find its way eastward over the various railroads that connect them, across the Mississippi river with the country east of them, to the eastern States, require that authority should be granted to companies to bridge the Mississippi river. I do not think there is the slightest incompatibility between the navigation of the Mississippi river and the commercial interests of the railroads, provided a bill shall be passed properly guarded, as I believe the bill now under the consideration of the Senate is.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I should like to ask my friend from Iowa whether, from his knowledge of the river, the current where the boats pass does not change from time to time, and

Mr. RAMSEY. I have here the opinion of Captain Blakely, a gentleman of long experience in the navigation of the Mississippi river, who gives this as his opinion:

"The draw, if one is built, should be made as wide as is practicable to build and have it answer a good purpose for the railroad, say no less than one hundred and fifty feet in the clear between the center pier and the pier on which the end of the draw rests when closed, and if found practicable, no less than one hundred and seventy-five feet in the clear."

Captain W. F. Davidson, who has been a long and successful navigator on the upper Mississippi, says:

"I think section two of the bill"

Alluding to one of the railroad bridge bills sent to him

"should be amended by forcing the company to build a draw"

considering that less obstructive than a bridge with continuous spans.

But, Mr. President, we did not feel at lib. erty to report against the allowance of bridges, and in many respects thought it advantageous to seize this opportunity of regulating them. I would, however, at the same time, desire that Congress should create a commission, authorize the President or Secretary of War to send a commission to survey the whole river, and decide, at least as to the future, what should be the character of the bridges there. The probability is that before the close of the next session of Congress you will be compelled to authorize a dozen of these bridges. The thing will get to be serious when they come to be so numerous as that. I think we have guarded this bill as well as, with the light before us, it was possible for us to do; and yet I should like when this extensive building of bridges on the Mississippi river is entered upon, to have the opinion of a board of scientific engineers; and with that view, some days since I introduced a joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, but they have not seen fit to return it yet with a report. I feel reluctant to vote for any other bridge than the one reported by the Post Office Committee in this bill, simply because it is but one; though I have no particular objection to any other except as to the number; but I hope that when this bill passes we shall authorize a commission to be sent to survey the river and determine and settle the essential points to be guarded in the construction of these bridges; how, where at the same time the railroads may be accommodated, the navigation shall be preserved. It is of great importance, not only to us, but to the whole country, that this should be done. My resolution, to which I have referred, and which was introduced some days ago, was in this language:

of Engineers of the Army, to examine and report at the present session of Congress, if practicable, and if not, before the next session of Congress, upon the subject of the construction of railroad bridges across the Mississippi river at such localities and upon such plans of construction as will offer the least impediment to the navigation of the river; and that the sum of $10,000, or so much thereof as may be neces sary, be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to defray the expenses of said commission."

"That the Secretary of War be directed to appoint a commission, to consist of three officers of the corps

[blocks in formation]

It strikes me that if these draw-bridges be built there will be controversy between the boatmen and bridge owners in regard to the neces sity of opening the draws. At certain stages of water on the sides of the draws a certain class of boats may pass under the permanent spans. There will be permanent spans on either side; the bill requires them. A small boat comes along that is not more than thirty or forty feet high, or, perhaps, a boat that is not more than twenty feet, or ten feet, if you please. It wants to pass through the draw, and the owners of the bridge declare that there is no necessity for opening the draw; that the boat may very well pass beneath the permanent span. Who is to settle the controversy between the boatman and the owners of the bridge as to whether, upon proper signal, the draw shall be opened or not? If boats can pass under the span they will give no sig nal; if they cannot, they will give the signal;

and why should not the bridge owners open the draw when the signal is given?

Mr. TRUMBULL. The bridge company would certainly act at their peril. The boats are not to be constructed with that view. The provision is that said draw shall be opened promptly upon reasonable signal for the passage of boats whose construction shall not be such as to admit of their passage under the permanent spans of said bridge.'

"1

Mr. HENDERSON. Who is to determine the question as to whether the construction of the boats is such that they may pass ? Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly the bridge company would act at their peril. If they did not open the draw, and the construction of the boat was such that any damage was done, they would clearly be responsible.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I believe that is about all there is in it. The States of Missouri and Illinois have at this point authorized a ferry. Nearly all the ferries over the Mississippi, and I do not know but all of them, are authorized by the joint acts of the Legislatures of the different States bordering upon the river. The object of this section is to make this ferry a post road. I suppose all roads of this kind, all the great highways of the country ought to be post roads. We say every session in a post-route bill that such and such roads, leading so and so, from one place to another, are declared to be post roads; and I do not imagine there can be any objection to this ferry being made a post road. Mr. HENDERSON. I suppose there is no objection, then, to letting the section be stricken out. I do not like this way of Congress legislating advantages to a particular ferry company across the Mississippi river. I do not see any necessity for it. I do not know anything about this ferry company at Quincy; I do not know an individual connected with ft; but the State of Missouri and the State of Illinois might desire to charter another ferry company across the Mississippi river, and I think that this section would affect that ferry, if it were authorized, perhaps injuriously.

Mr. HENDERSON. I suppose the only remedy the boatman would have if the draw was not opened and he was forced to undertake a passage between the piers of the bridge, under the permanent spans, would be to sue the bridge company. Then I suppose the long, the everlasting controversy which has been had in regard to the Rock Island bridge, as to whether it is an obstruction or not, would be renewed for trial in the courts; or there would be a similar controversy, whether the particular boat could pass through or not.

How? This is not

Mr. TRUMBULL. exclusive. Mr. HENDERSON. Suppose the company the draw at all, it is in the interest of the pub-named in the section do not discharge the duties

Mr. RAMSEY. If you allow bridges with

lic that they should be taxed as little as possible; that is, that they should not be required to open the draw on any unnecessary occasion. Of course, a boat that cannot pass the permanent spans must pass through in this way; but it is desirable that the draw should be opened as little as possible and on no unnecessary occasion.

enjoined upon them by the act of incorporation from the Legislatures of Missouri and Illinois, but they claim the right to take the mail across; that this is a postal route, and they claim the right to continue their ferry, under this act of Congress, notwithstanding their violation of the laws of the State of Missouri and of the State of Illinois. What effect would this aet then have, I will inquire of the Senator from Illinois? I suppose that the charter may be forfeited by their failure to comply with the terms and conditions upon which it was granted, and the States respectively might desire to incorporate another company that would behave better

Mr. HENDERSON. I do not profess to know a great deal about these subjects; but it strikes me that the words which I have moved to strike out ought not to be in the law. I do not want a controversy between the bridge owners and the steamboat men in regard to this matter. I do not suppose that a steamboat man will give a signal unless he wants the draw to be opened. I apprehend that if he can pass under the permanent spans he would not require the draw to be opened, he would scarcely put the bridge owners to that trouble. As the bill now stands it will leave the bridge owners to open the draw or not just as they choose. Of course it will be at their peril, but only subject to a suit; that is all at last. I suppose damages might be recovered, provided the steamboat man could show that his boat was of such construction as to require that the draw should be opened, but look to the field there will be for the admission of testimony on both sides. It may be said by competent steamboat men that if the pilot had understood his duty he might have passed under the permanent spans without injury to his boat notwithstanding his boat has been destroyed; that the construction of that particular boat was such as to have admitted it to pass under the permanent spans. I think it is better to have this provision out.

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. HENDERSON. I will inquire of the gentleman reporting this bill, what is the meaning of the fourth section? What is the necessity for it?

Mr. RAMSEY. We accepted the fourth section as we found it in the bill as referred to us. It reads as follows:

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the ferry authorized to be established by the Illinois and Missouri Transportation Company, by the laws of the States of Illinois and Missouri, across the Mississippi river at the city of Quincy, shall, during the time so authorized by the laws of the States aforesaid, and until the completion of said bridge, under and according to the provisions of this act, be and the same is hereby declared, recognized, and known as a post

route.

I understand it only refers to a transit across the river at that point now. We found it as a

section in the bill referred to us, and as we knew of no reason why it should be stricken out we allowed it to remain in the bill.

tion have? I presume no other ferry company would be authorized to take the mails across; and the effect of this provision--I do not suppose it is intended in that way-would be to override the State laws and to make this a postal route, notwithstanding the effort on the part of the Legislatures of Illinois and Missouri to establish another ferry. I ask the Senator if that would not be the effect, or whether it could have any other effect.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I am surprised at the inquiry of the Senator from Missouri

Mr. HENDERSON. I know you are always surprised.

||

Mr. TRUMBULL. Perhaps I do not understand it, but surely I am surprised at the inquiry. I cannot conceive how this can interfere with any other company. I am not for it if it can have any such effect. If it is to be an exclusive right to establish ferries on the part of Illinois and Missouri at this or any other point, I am opposed to all such legislation. I do not understand it in any such way. How it could possibly have such an effect I do not know.

Mr. HENDERSON, I expressly excepted it from the intention of the Senator.

Mr. TRUMBULL. How the section can give any exclusive privileges I am at a loss to conceive. But the Senator is aware that in order to take the mail over any of the common roads of the country, we make them post roads. We provide, for instance, "that the road from Hannibal to Palmyra, in Missouri, is hereby declared to be a post route."

Mr. HENDERSON. That is now a post route; the route itself is a post route. Then what is the necessity for this provision?

Mr. TRUMBULL. But there is no post route, I suppose, from Quincy across the river. Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, sir, there is; it is now a post route.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I was not aware of it.. Mr. HENDERSON. There is no doubt

about it. I am not aware of any legislation of Congress making a particular ferry company or its boats a post route. This is the first legislation of that character I ever heard of, and I have been on the Post Office Committee for some years. It is common to declare the line of road between two certain States a postal route; but I am not aware of any such provision as this existing in any law of Congress. I have never seen anything of the sort. From Quincy to Palmyra, and from Palmyra on to St. Jo. is now a post route, and it can do no harm to strike out this section. The Senator of course does not wish to vest this ferry company with any peculiar or special privileges. I protest that I know nothing in respect to this company; but I think it is bad legislation to commence on the part of Congress to select any particular ferry company, and to declare that that company as now established shall be a postal route, because it may bring up a conflict with the laws of the respective States. The Senator will readily see that it may do so. The section can have no beneficial effect as it now stands, and therefore I ask that it be stricken out, if the Senator has no objection.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not see that it can have any injurious effect. When I expressed surprise at the amendment, the Senator rather rebuked me for that; but I really do not see how the section can have such an effect as the Senator supposes. What is a ferry? What do the law-books call a ferry? It is a highway, nothing else. A ferry is just as much a highway as a turnpike road; and I can see why there might be a necessity for a ferry being a post route. You cannot compel the mails to be taken across the river. I am not aware of any law that makes a ferry across the river a post route. If there is such a law, I am not aware of it. The Senator says there is a law already in existence making a post route from Quincy to Palmyra and to Hannibal.

Mr. HENDERSON. How would the mails be carried, otherwise, across the river?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not know whether there is a provision of that kind; there may be; that would embrace this very line of road. I do not know who compose this ferry company; the Senator is as well informed in reference to that as I am; but here is a ferry already authorized by the two States of Illinois and Missouri. If it is not, the section would not amount to anything. The bill recites the fact that there is such a ferry authorized there. Now, what possible objection can there be to making that ferry, until the bridge shall be completed, a post route? I see nothing exclusive in it. It seems to me it is perfectly proper that there should be a ferry there to transport the mails, and that it should be a post route. How that will interfere with any other company I cannot conceive.

Mr. GRIMES. I do not know any reason why this section is inserted here; and unless there is some explanation of it given I shall vote to strike it out. I can imagine this case: suppose there has been an old ferry company at Quincy, and the mails are transported by that old company

Mr. TRUMBULL. I asked the question, if there was such a company.

Mr. GRIMES. I do not know; but unless we have some further knowledge on this subject I think we ought to strike this section out. If the parties interested have not seen fit to enlighten anybody so that we can obtain information on the subject the section ought not to be here. Suppose, I say, there had been an old company established there that carried the mail, and other parties have gone recently and secured a charter from Illinois and Missouri for a new ferry company, to be called the Illinois and Missouri Transportation Company, may they not now seek, perhaps, by this section to declare that that company, and that onlyMr. TRUMBULL. Not "that only." Mr. GRIMES. Well, that that shall be the post route.

Mr. TRUMBULL. A post route.

Mr. GRIMES. Well, a post route; that that

intend to argue it. I argued the question a day or two ago. It is in reference to drawbridges or continuous-span bridges. I desire to make a motion in that regard, as my constituents in Missouri have requested of me to do so. I do not see fit to read the documents that I have received on the subject from various towns on the Mississippi river, and from individuals, engineers and others, and steamboat men on this subject, as I do not wish to occupy the time of the Senate. Suffice it to say that I have been requested by a very large number of individuals, commercial bodies, &c., in my State to resist the construction upon the Mississippi river of any bridges except continuous-span bridges.

It is the opinion of some Senators here that draw-bridges can be constructed so as to be of less obstruction to navigation than continuous span bridges. The Senate will remember that two years ago we authorized the building of a bridge at Steubenville. The late lamented Senator from Vermont (Judge Collamer) was at that time chairman of the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads. He reported a bill for the building of that bridge at Steubenville, the fourth section of which provided for the construction of any bridges on the Ohio river, and required that the continuous spans, if the bridges were built with continuous spans, should be three hundred feet in length. I remember that when the late Senator from Vermont reported the bill, he stated that if individuals wanted to construct such bridges they might attempt it, but his belief was that no such bridge could be built; that it was an utter impossibility. I learn from the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] that a bridge has been constructed at Steubenville ninety feet high, and with a continuous span of three hundred feet, and that it is operating well; that the railroads are using it, and drawing across it the largest freight trains; that there is no difficulty whatever. It is true the bridge cost a good deal of money, about $900,000; but it is said to be one of the most substantial and permanent structures ever built in this country; it is a piece of bridge architecture perfectly wonderful in itself.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not for the life of me see how the making of a ferry a post route is any more dangerous than making a bridge a post route. That is the very object of the bill. All these bridges are declared to be post routes when built. Does anybody suppose that the declaring of these bridges post routes, as this bill does

Mr. HENDERSON. This is not a bridge. Mr. TRUMBULL. I am speaking of the bridges. Does anybody suppose that the declaring them post routes gives these particular bridge companies an exclusive right, and prevents other bridges from being built? If I supposed so, I would not vote for the bill. How does a ferry differ from a bridge? If it is proper to have a post route, I ask the Senator from Missouri why it is not proper that a ferry should be a post route until the bridge is built. That Is the provision here. I do not wish to take up time about it. I suppose that the parties who prepared the bill-it was not prepared by me-and who contemplate building this bridge, wanted to use their ferry until they got the bridge constructed; and that is the provision here. I do not suppose it is intended, and I do not see how it can interfere with any other company.

Mr. HENDERSON. Let me ask the Senator, as a lawyer, if this provision shall be adopted can any other ferry company at Quincy take the mails of the United States across from Quincy opposite to Westminster?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly it can if it is a post route.

Mr. HENDERSON. But it will not be a post route without the legislation of Congress. The Senator says that he did not draw the bill. I am very well aware of that, and I suppose the Senator, like myself, knows nothing about this ferry company; but I do not wish any par ticular ferry company now established by the laws of Missouri and Illinois to be legalized into being as the only post route at that town until this bridge shall be built. It may be forty or fifty years before the bridge is built, and other ferry companies may be incorporated by Illinois and Missouri. Why is it that this company shall be constituted the only post route at that point?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I have tried to explain to the Senator that it is not so to be declared. I do not know that there is any especial importance in the section, and I do not wish to have any controversy about it; but for the life of me I cannot see why the Senator will persist that this is the only post route. If there is no post route there, ought there not to be one? I have no more to say about it. I care nothing about it. I have no interest in it one way or the other, further than to authorize these great lines of travel to accommodate themselves to each other. I think the time has come when we have got to have bridges.

Mr. SHERMAN. I think it is possible that this bill will occupy all day if we proceed with it, and therefore I think we had better take up the Post Office appropriation bill:

Mr. TRUMBULL. I have nothing further to say about it. Let the Senate dispose of it as they think proper.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. ANTHONY in the chair.) The Senator from Missouri moves to amend the bill by striking out the fourth section.

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HENDERSON. There is one vote that I feel I ought to have on this bill. I do not

Inasmuch as it has been demonstrated by the construction of that bridge that the views and opinions of individuals a few years ago were not correct, and that a bridge of that character can be constructed, I think it would be better to adopt the continuous-span project on the Mississippi river. My impression is, that it is of less obstruction to the river than draw-bridges. At least, that is the view of all who have written to me on the subject. In all the communications that I have received since this subject was introduced here, and since my colleague introduced a proposition to bridge the Mississippi river at St. Louis, I have not received one that did not express a preference for a continuous-span bridge. It is not impracticable anywhere. I know it was said in 1862, when the bill for the Steubenville bridge was passed, that it was perfectly impracticable anywhere. There are always any number of arguments to be adduced as to the impossibility of a project. A bridge constructer remarked the other day, I think very forcibly and aptly, that there was no impossibility with the American people; that he had ceased to suppose that there was any impossibility. When the Senator talks about the impossibility of a construction of this character, I think he misses the mark. I am not disposed to think that the inventive genius of the American people will now fail them. Four years ago we thought it was an utter impossibility to build a bridge across the Ohio river with a span of three hundred feet, but the thing has been done. Everybody says now that it is a perfect success. There is no objection to building such a bridge across the Mississippi river. It can be constructed without any doubt.

But in order to test that one question, without making any extended argument on the subject, because I know the Senator from Ohio is very anxious to get up the Post Office appro

priation bill, I move, in the fourteenth and fifteenth lines of the second section, after the word "act," to strike out all down to the word "bridge" in the eighteenth line. The clause now reads in this way:

That any bridge built under the provisions of this act may, at the option of the company building the same, be built as a draw-bridge, with a pivot, or other form of draw, or with unbroken or continuous spans: Provided. That if the said bridge shall be made with unbroken and continuous spans it shall not be of less elevation, &c.

If my motion should be adopted it will read thus:

That any bridge built under the provisions of this act shall be made with unbroken and continuous spans, and it shall not be of less elevation, &c.

That will strike out that portion of the section which leaves it discretionary with the company organized under this bill to build drawbridges, and it simply brings up the question as to whether draw-bridges shall be built on the Mississippi river or not. That is the plain, naked question. If my proposition should be adopted it disposes of the draw-bridges, and all bridges built must be built with continuous

spans.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I presume that amendment is not now in order. It is an amendment to an amendment of the committee which, I understand, has been agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is an amendment to an amendment already agreed to, striking out and inserting, and will not be in order until the bill is reported to the Senate.

Mr. HENDERSON. I was not aware that that amendment of the committee had been agreed to. I will wait until the bill is reported to the Senate, and will then offer the amend ment.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, The question now is on concurring in the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I desire to alter one of those amendment, and I suppose that this is the proper time to do it, before we concur in it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The better course will be to have the amendments on which a separate vote is required by any Senator excepted, and to take the question on concur ring in all the other amendments to which there is no objection.

-Mr. TRUMBULL. I desire to alter one of the amendments of the committee in order to carry out the purpose of the gentleman who has charge of the bill. It is in the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth lines of the amendment to the second section. The clause now reads:

And with spans of not less than one hundred and seventy-five feet in length on each side of the cen

tral or pivot pier of the draw.

The Senator from Minnesota means that from the center of the pivot; but the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. HowE] thinks it is not susceptible of that construction. The intention is to have an opening of at least one hundred and fifty feet in the clear. I therefore move to amend that amendment in the twenty-ninth line by striking out the words "seventy-five" and inserting fifty," and after the word "length" inserting the words "in the clear;" so that it will read:

T

And with spans of not less than one hundred and fifty feet in length in the clear on each side of the central or pivot pier of the draw.

That is what the Senator from Minnesota intends it shall be; but I think in the way it stands now there might be a controversy about it.

Mr. RAMSEY. I should very much prefer if the opening between the piers on either side of the pivot pier was two hundred feet.

Mr. TRUMBULL. But that is not what you meant.

Mr. RAMSEY. One hundred and fifty feet is the least that I would assent to. The advantage would be very little in favor of that here. From the center pier would be about twenty feet. The other piers, at least they are so at the top, where the superstructure rests upon

be that in the clear. They were to be one hundred and fifty feet. I understood that the parties in interest were willing to accept this modification, and the bill was so reported. We were aware that by this phraseology we would gain a few feet in the opening, which was desirable. Of course if the Senate determine that it shall not exceed one hundred and fifty feet, the amendment will be agreeable to them. Mr. HENDERSON. I stated a day or two ago that the navigation of this river was to be changed almost entirely in its character. My impression is that in the course of a year or two the steamers that are now running upon the river will be changed entirely to tug-boats and barges, and hence my desire is to have as wide openings as we possibly can have, if bridges are to be constructed upon this river at all. My recollection is that one of the draws at the Rock Island bridge is one hundred and seventeen feet.

the pier at Rock Island, are about eight feet. Now you subtract about one half of each of those end piers and the whole of the center pier, and you do not have much above one hundred and fifty feet. I should prefer having the advantage of one foot, and if the bridge can be built with that span, I should prefer it very much.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment that Senators are discussing is not now before the Senate. The question will be taken on concurring in the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole, excepting the amendment indicated by the Senator from Illinois, and the one indicated by the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. HENDERSON. Both our amendments are to the same amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question will then be taken on concurring in the other amendments.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I desire also to except the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri for the building of a bridge at Hannibal.

[blocks in formation]

That any bridge built under the authority of this act shall be constructed us a draw-bridge, with a span over the main channel of the river, as understood at the time of the erection of the bridge, of not less than three hundred feet in length; and said span shall not be less than thirty feet above the low-water mark, and not less than ten feet above the extreme high-water mark, measuring to the bottom chord of the bridge; and one of the next adjoining spans shall not be less than two hundred feet in length; and, also, that there shall be a pivot draw constructed in said bridge, at an accessible and navigable point, with spans of not less than one hundred and fifty feet in length on each side of the central or pivot pier of the draw.

And with spans of not less than one hundred and fifty feet in length in the clear on each side of the central or pivot pier in the draw.

Mr. RAMSEY. They are one hundred and seventeen and one hundred and twelve feet. Mr. HENDERSON. In the clear? Mr. RAMSEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HENDERSON. It may be said that it is owing to the rapidity of the current there that so much property has been destroyed; but let me tell Senators, you cannot build a bridge on the Mississippi river that that very same difficulty will not come up, provided you do not have wider draws than are proposed here. In very high water the currents change, and it is an utter impossibility to pass through. These piers will have to be very large. If the boats have a large number of barges, or the boats are very wide, or the number of boats that are to be taken through occupy a large quantity of room on the river, it will be an utter impossibility to pass between the piers without striking them and destroying a part of the cargo. It has been and is now exceedingly perilous and dangerous to life at times to pass through that one hundred and seventeen feet draw at Rock Island.

And to insert in lieu thereof:

That any bridge built under the provisions of this act may, at the option of the company building the same, be built as a draw-bridge, with a pivot or other form of draw, or with unbroken or continuous spans : Provided, That if the said bridge shall be made with unbroken and continuous spans, it shall not be of less elevation in any case than fifty feet above extreme high-water mark as understood at the point of location, to the bottom chord of the bridge, nor shall the spans of said bridge be less than two hundred and fifty feet in length, and the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river: And provided, also, That if any bridge built under this act shall be constructed as a draw-bridge, the same shall be constructed as a pivot draw-bridge with a draw over the main channel of the river at an accessible and navigable point, and with spans of not less than one hundred and seventy-five feet in length on each side of the central or pivot pier of the draw, and the next adjoining spans to the draw shall not be less than two hundred and fifty feet; and said spans shall not be less than thirty feet above low-water mark, and not less than ten above extreme high-water mark, nearing to the bottom chord of the bridge, and the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I now move to amending the amendment in the twenty-ninth line, by striking out the words "seventy-five" and inserting "fifty; and after the word "length" inserting "in the clear;" so that the clause will read:

Mr. HENDERSON. I hope very much that that amendment will not be adopted. I was not disposed to submit, if I could prevent it, to the construction of draw-bridges upon the Mississippi river at all. I have stated how sensitive myonstituents feel on that subject. This bill was clearly drawn with the idea that the openings in the clear should be one hundred and seventy-five feet.

Mr. TRUMBULL. No, that was not the understanding. Mr. RAMSEY. They were not expected to

I understood the Senator from Minnesota to say that a draw had been built in France with an opening much larger than this. Is it pos sible, I submit to the Senate, to build a bridge with a draw of one hundred and seventy-five feet? If so, there is no stream on God's earth that requires this width of draw more than the Mississippi river. It is a great stream, and it is a rich country that lies upon it. We in the West desire to preserve the navigation of that river, and I think the Senator from Illinois ought not to consent to any rule of construction that will obstruct in the future the navigation of this stream. He is as much interested in it as I am. I know that he feels as deep an interest in it as I do; and so does the Senator from Iowa. I do not put myself forward as the champion of the navigation of this river. I do not feel that I have any interest in it more than they have; but I do insist that now when we are laying the foundation of this system, because what we do here will be done for all time in the construction of bridges over that great stream, every precaution should be taken to secure the navigation. It is a stream havtwenty-five hundred miles of navigation, the best stream for navigable purposes, perhaps, on the face of the earth, considering its length, and the country is just beginning to be Take that immense developed, as it were. country north of St. Louis and that must pour | in upon the surface of that stream immense quantities of the products of the earth, in time to come, and manufactures and everything that can employ the industry of man. We all know that the transportation upon the surface of that river will not cost the people one third of the cost of transportation by railroad lines. While we are doing so much for the railroad companies, can we not do something also for the continued full navigation of this great river.

In the State of Missouri we have constructed steamers that take the cars across the river at St. Charles. No bridge has been built there, but a train of cars is run upon the boat and carried across immediately, without much ob

struction; and that might be done on the Mississippi river; but gentlemen say no, they must have bridges. A bill is introduced here for the purpose of constructing them, and, as I understood, with spans of one hundred and seventy-five feet. I was opposed to drawbridges entirely; I wanted spans of three hundred feet; but gentlemen insist on pivot bridges, and as I supposed, with spans of one hundred and seventy-five feet. I had a conversation with the gentlemen engaged in the construction of this bridge, and I told them that I desired the spans to be two hundred feet. They said one hundred and seventy-five feet in the clear was as much as they could stand, but they could construct a bridge with that span. Now, it is deliberately proposed this morning, when we are about to pass the bill, to reduce that width to one hundred and fifty feet.

I warn gentlemen who are just as much interested in this subject as I am, that they are doing a thing this morning that they will regret in the future. I am sure of it. I see a disposition to pass this bill, and why? Because of a desire to do what it is supposed will facilitate communication. We ought to adopt the glorious mean in this thing. I am willing to give the railroad companies on the east side of the river the facility of communication to the western bank; but I desire that the Senate in doing that shall not neglect the communication upon this great river itself. They should remember that they are interfering with that navigation which is much better for the people than any transportation they can get by railroad.

Mr. GRIMES. But that takes the transportation in the wrong direction.

Mr. HENDERSON. It will not do to close up the existing direction, if the people desire so to send the products of their farms. I know that that is to have its influence; but if gentlemen desire to insist on the change of direction and that the cargo shall go to the East, and they feel disposed to close up a great river like the Mississippi simply in order to change the direction, when that new direction costs at least four times as much, I will not make any further complaint, but I do think that if a bridge can be constructed with a span of one hundred and seventy-five feet it should be done.

||

The Senator who has charge of this bill says it can be done; that much wider spans have been built; it is possible to build them. Then let American genius go to work and construct such bridges here. It has been done in France; American workmen can do what French workmen can do. It has been done in England; American workmen can do whatever English workmen can do. If it is required for the commerce of France, it is demanded for the commerce of our great West. If it is demanded in any part of England for the commerce of England, it is as much demanded for the increasing and growing commerce of the people of the United States.

There is no reason why as great advantages should not be given here as are given elsewhere. If the railroad companies can construct such bridges, let them do it, and then you will have the advantages of communication both by railroad and by water. I sincerely hope this amendment will not be adopted.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. TRUMBULL.]

Mr. RAMSEY. I thought the amendment was withdrawn. What is it?

one

Mr. TRUMBULL. It is to strike out 66 hundred and seventy-five" and insert " one hundred and fifty;" and insert "in the clear" after "feet." It carries out precisely what

was meant.

Mr. RAMSEY. The gain is so little to the bridge company that I do not think it neces

sary.

Mr. TRUMBULL. It makes what is meant clear.

Mr. GRIMES. I am not at all astonished that the Senator from Missouri should be as tenacious on this subject as he is, because he is represent

ing, as he says, the sentiment of the State of Missouri, the head and front of which is the city St. Louis, that is anxious that the whole northwestern country should be tributary exclusively to that particular city. Now, Mr. President, it so happens that a portion of my constituents who live in that Northwest of which the Senator spoke, and for whom I profess to be able to speak as well as the Senator can speak, are not only anxious sometimes to go to St. Louis, but they are anxious to have facilities for reaching the eastern cities; and they want, if they possibly can, to be able to do so in the winter, when the ice is running, when it is impossible to cross sometimes for weeks in succession without great risk of life; and they want an opportunity when they choose to send their freight and their live stock to the only market they have without breaking bulk at the Mississippi river.

Now, sir, the Senator says that the proposition which comes from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads ought not to be adopted, because it does not give sufficient opportunity for boats to pass. Who is to judge of that? Did not the gentleman representing the committee read to us the opinion of three Army engineers detailed to go out and examine the Rock Island bridge? Did they not state specifically in that report the objections to the Rock Island bridge, and that it was solely because the piers were not placed parallel with the current of the stream? Have not the committee modified this bill so as to correspond with the report which these engineer officers made? Is not that the best information we can obtain? As I understand it, this bill is predicated upon that report. It is brought in here by a gentleman who is as much interested in the navigation of the Mississippi river as any man can possibly be who occupies a seat on this floor. He is at the very head of the navigation of the Mississippi river. His individual interests and the interests of his neighbors would probably be against the construction of any bridge anywhere on the Mississippi. He has told us that his prejudices and prepossessions were all in opposition to the construction of any bridge. But yet even he, under these circumstances, after having thoroughly investigated the whole subject, after having read the report of these three Army engineers, recommends the Senate to pass this bill.

Mr. President, I need not say that my colleague and myself, who live on the Mississippi river, and who represent several tolerably important commercial towns, are deeply interested in the navigation of the river; and I would not, and I am satisfied that he would not, do a single thing here or elsewhere that could by any possibility obstruct the free navigation of that river; and I am not disposed to rest under the imputation which might be inferred from the remarks of the Senator from Missouri that we would obstruct the navigation. We are deeply interested in it. We want for the present time, and we want all future ages, to have uninterrupted navigation of the stream; but we want at the same time, if it can be done, and we are satisfied that it can be done, opportunities to get eastward as well as southward and northward. We want to be able to transport our produce and ourselves with as little inconvenience as possible to the eastern markets; and that is the reason why we insist that these railroad companies shall have an opportunity to bridge the Mississippi river, provided they do so without interfering in any degree with the navigation of the stream. The Post Office Committee having investigated the whole subject, predicating their report upon the opinion of three skillful Army engineers who were sent out there for the purpose of investigating the subject of bridges across the Mississippi river, have submitted us a bill, and for that I vote, and for that I trust a majority of the Senate will vote.

Mr. HENDERSON. I am sorry that my friend from Iowa should have thought that I was making any imputations upon him or the Senator from Minnesota. I distinctly stated

that both of them were as much interested in the navigation of this river as I could possibly be; but the Senator seems to think that I made some imputations on them, or that the effect of what I said might have that bearing. I think not. I certainly did not intend my language in that way, and I am perfectly sure that no such construction can be properly put upon it.

He seems to think that, occupying the position that I do, living in Missouri and looking to my constituents there for sentiment upon this subject, and the State of Missouri having the great city of St. Louis in it, of course it is not astonishing that I should take the ground I do. If the Senator thinks that I am adverse to the interest of any town in Iowa or any town in New England, he is very much mistaken. If he supposes that I would knowingly do any act as a Senator here that should tend to build up a town in my own State to the prejudice or to the injury of another, when that act required a wrong on my part, I can state to the Senator that I would be very far from doing any such thing. It is true that I am a Senator from Missouri; I look to the interests of the people That any bridge built under the provisions of this whom I represent; and none, I think, ever act may, at the option of the company building the same, be built as a draw-bridge, with a pivot or other looked more closely to the interests of his own form of draw, or with unbroken or continuous spans: constituents than the Senator from Iowa. I Provided, That if the said bridge shall be made with never blame the Senator for it. He has a perunbroken and continuous spans, it shall not be of less elevation in any case than fifty feet above extreme fect right to do so; and he ought not to blame high-water mark as understood at the point of locame for standing by the interests of the peopletion to the bottom chord of the bridge, nor shall the of Missouri. spans of said bridge be less than two hundred and fifty feet in length, and the piers of said bridge shall be parallel with the current of the river.

Mr. GRIMES. I did not cast any censure on the Senator.

Mr. HENDERSON. The Senator from Iowa is sadly mistaken, if he thinks I could be induced to step aside from my duty to the injury or expense of the people of any State of the Union. I do not desire to do it, and I would not do it. He says the Senator representing the committee on this question has recommended this amendment. I do not understand that the Senator from Minnesota recommends any such thing. The bill as it now stands provides that;

If any bridge built under this act shall be constructed as a draw-bridge, the same shall be constructed as a pivot draw-bridge with a draw over the main channel of the river at an accessible and navigable point, and with spans not less than one hundred and seventy-five feet in length on either side of the central or pivot-pier of the draw.

That, of course, is the length in the clear. And the next adjoining spans to the draw shall not be less than two hundred and fifty feet.

If the Senator from Minnesota will say that it is his intention to reduce the width of the spans to one hundred and fifty feet, I will take back what I have said in reference to my opinions as to the construction of the bill; but I never doubted the construction of the bill. If the Senator from Illinois will allow the bill to pass as it stands, I am satisfied with it; but he moves this amendment; and the Senator from Iowa says that the gentleman having charge of the bill on behalf of the committee insists upon the amendment. I have not so understood the Senator from Minnesota, who read a steamboat man's letter declaring that the passage of vessels required one hundred and seventy-five feet.

the Senator from Illinois if he will put it at one hundred and sixty feet.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Well, I will agree to that.

Mr. HENDERSON. Very well, Mr. President

Mr. TRUMBULL. If my friend from Missouri will cease talking we can take a vote. I modify my amendment so as to make the provision read:

Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator from Minnesota will allow me to make a suggestion. We ought not to take up time, I think, in a disagreement as to what we mean. The Senator from Minnesota has stated once or twice that he did not intend the bill as the Senator from Missouri understands it, that the opening was to be one hundred and seventy-five feet on the clear, but he understands that there is to come out of this length of one hundred and seventyfive feet whatever the draw rests upon on the piers, which he thought would make it a little more than one hundred and fifty feet. I have consulted the Senator from Minnesota, and he is willing to make it specific by saying that the opening shall not be less than one hundred and fifty-five feet. Then there can be no doubt about it.

Mr. RAMSEY. I am willing to agree to that. Mr. HENDERSON. I will compromise with

And with openings of not less than one hundred and sixty feet wide in the clear on each side of the central or pivot pier of the draw.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Illinois as thus modified.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HENDERSON. I wish now to call the attention of the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Minnesota to the first portion of the second section of the bill as it has been amended on the motion of the committee, and I desire to suggest an amendment to it, to which I hope they will consent. It now declares:

If these bridges are to be built as continuousspan bridges, I think it ought to be more specifically stated how they shall be constructed. I propose, therefore, in lieu of this language, to make it read:

That if any bridge built under the provisions of this act shall be constructed with continuous and unbroken spans, it shall not be less than fifty fee above high-water mark as understood at the point of its erection, measuring for such elevation from the surface of the water and such high stage to the bottom chord of the bridge. The main span of such bridge shall be made to cover the main channel of the river.

There is no such declaration in the bill now, but the bridge company may build the main span where they choose, are not compelled to build it over the main channel of the river:

And such span shall not be less than three hundred feet in length.

I suppose this will have to be altered to two hundred and fifty feet if the Senators insist on

that width.

Mr. RAMSEY. I do not insist on the spans being only two hundred and fifty feet, but I have the opinion here of an engineer attached to the War Department. He says:

"In regard to the question of the economy and practicability of truss bridges for railroads, I have the honor to state that, in my judgment, spans of two hundred and fifty feet in the clear are as great as should be adopted for crossing navigable rivers." They are the extent of spans over almost all the rivers with which we are familiar. The spans of the great bridge crossing the Susque hanna river, now in process of erection, are two hundred and fifty feet. It is desirable, of course, to have them three hundred feet if the Senate think they can be constructed of that width.

Mr. HENDERSON. Every bridge on the Ohio river is built with three hundred feet by the law I have before me.

Mr. RAMSEY. there on the Ohio?

How many bridges are

Mr. HENDERSON. Here is a general law, pages 289, 290 of the Session Acts of 1861-62, and no continuous-span bridge can be built with less than three hundred feet on that river.

Mr. RAMSEY. What is the width of the Ohio river where the bridge is erected? There is but one on the river, I think, now built.

Mr. HENDERSON. There are several bridges on the river that have not been built under this law; and they have led to continual controversies in the courts of the United States on the subject.

Mr. RAMSEY. In a narrow stream, of course, it is easily thrown at a very high eleva tion, but the Mississippi is wider than the Ohio river.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »