and for preserving the depth of water in the channel entrance to that harbor, required by its commerce." One result of my conference with the boards was, that immediately after, the city authorities appropriated $75,000, to be expended in continuing the dredging of the direct channel through the outer bar of the mouth of the harbor, which the city had already opened to some extent, and the putting in of 400 feet extension of the United States north pier, the place of the work and the direction of the extension to be approved by the government. On my recommendation, which was approved by the engineer department, the War Department authorized the proposed extension by the city. But there was no understanding between me and the city authorities, or the said boards, nor did I encourage them to hope or believe that the city would be reimbursed for the cost of the extension or dredging out of the appropriation for "repairs and preservation" or even by any future appropriation by Congress. (See the map from a to b.) I found the old United States north pier entirely in the possession of individuals and corporate firms, for dock purposes, and this I concluded I could not recommend to be repaired at the expense of the United States, as such a repair would be tantamount to making repairs at public cost upon private property. From bout to the very extremity of the north pier no repairs whatever were required. In regard to the old south piering, all this, except 290 feet, from c to d, had been appropriated for the use of the railroad company, and on this portion (e d) I found all the superstructure decayed and gone down to a little below the surface of the water, and its repair or restoration, without first extending the north pier, could give no protection or preservation to the proper channel at the mouth of the harbor. I assumed that the channel referred to in the order for me to take immediate measures for preserving the depth of water in was the direct channel, which the city had just reopened. For the foregoing reasons it appeared to me neither expedient nor wise to expend a cent of the appropriation for repairing the old north pier. It was under these circumstances that I recommended in my report as follows: "That the city continue, at its own expense, the dredging it has so favorably conducted, and put in the 400 feet extension, and after that, the money allotted ($25,000) under my control could be expended for preserving the direct channel thus restored or reopened, either by dredging if required next season, (1865,) or by extending the city's extension 110 feet further, which would be required to make up the whole 510 feet which I had demonstrated would preserve the direct channel until the year 1881." As before said, the dredging and extension by the city at its expense was authorized; but as yet no authority has been given to expend the twenty-five thousand, as suggested by me, and consequently not a cent of the appropriation has been expended on this harbor. The city went on and obtained a good channel and put in about 100 feet extension of the north pier, up to about 1' above the surface of the water last season, when the weather became too severe for further work. During the present summer the city has put in the remainder, and some 20 feet more of the extension, making the whole extension 437 feet, which, on my last inspection, I found had been brought, some half of it, to the required height above water, while the remainder (the outer part) was only to a height of about one foot above the water, and all well filled with stones. In the mean time, from the opening of navigation this season (1865) a good channel has been the result of the work done by the city, and the harbor has now the capacity of being one of refuge even. It has never been so good before. Work that should be done this season to preserve this condition of the harbor.— In my judgment, the $25,000, government allotment out of the appropriation, should be expended in part as follows: * 1. Build up the 150 feet outer part of the city's extension 5' above water and fill with stones.. 2. Extend the city's extension 72 feet further in the same direction, but by a better plan, 22' wide, and fill with stones 5′ above water.... 3. Build up upon the old remaining work as a foundation that portion of the south pier from e to d, 290 feet to a height of five timbers above water, and fill with stones.. Contingencies on all.... Total probable cost... $2,788 85 6,576 94 4,478 00 1,384 21 15,228 00 Work that should be done after the season of 1865.—I demonstrated in my report, (23d of August, 1864,) as just explained, the channel would be preserved till the year 1881, when, if left without further extension, the outer bar would again become troublesome. I am fully persuaded now, after a more critical survey, giving all the circumstances bearing upon the question, that that demonstration is very nearly correct, and that the following demonstration in that report is, in consequence, correct to a degree of almost certainty. We should, therefore, go on next season, 1866, and add 490 feet more in extension to the north pier, to carry it into 23 feet water. This part of the pier would stand in water of depths from 14 up to 22.9 feet, (mean depth on the line, shown by the soundings, 20'.21,) and it should be 24' wide, and filled with stones up to 5 feet above water; cost, $51,868. South pier. I also in that report expressed the opinion that this pier should be extended so as to carry its eastern extremity 900 feet beyond the railroad company's breakwater. This, after repairing the old part, e d, would require us to add 610 feet of piering, to be built in water increasing in depth from 8'.5 up to 14', having a mean depth on the line of the pier of 11.7 feet. In my judgment, 16 feet average in width, filled with stones, would be ample for the extension, and it should be built up to five timbers above water; cost, $36,836, to which add $51,868, and we have for cost of extension of both piers †$88,704. Should the city of Chicago or Congress make an appropriation of $88,704, and the work be properly put in, this harbor would be adequate for all time to the wants of commerce, with an expenditure afterwards merely to keep the superstructure above water in repair, and no dredging will be needed, and it would be a harbor of refuge. It is not necessary to go into the proofs to show this here; they are, in substance, given in the report of August 23, 1864; nor is it necessary to enter into the details of the mode I would adopt for constructing the extension of the piers. III. RACINE HARBOR. The accompanying drawing shows the recent survey of this harbor. The work of repairs and preservation has consisted 1. In levelling back the sand-heaps from back of north pier. 2. In completely replacing by new timbers, and filling with stone, the shore portion that was likely to be breached, north pier. NOTE.-These three items should be done out of the present appropriation for "repairs and preservation, &c.," and the following work by another explicit appropriation for this harbor. If items 1, 2, and 3, above, cannot be done the present season, the materials should be obtained this season, and the work put in next season, early. +For this a specific appropriation to be made. |