GLEN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

SUBMERGED CULTURAL RESOURCES SITE REPORT: 

CHARLES H. SPENCER'S MINING OPERATION 

AND 

PADDLE WHEEL STEAMBOAT 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

by 

Toni Carrel l, Editor 

Submerged Cultural Resources Unit 

James E. Bradford 

Branch of Cultural Resources Management 

W. L. Rusho 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Illustrations by Ernesto Ma rtinez and Jim Koza 

Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers 

Number 13 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 

1987 
Submerged Cultural Resources Unit 

Southwest Cultural Resources Center 

Southwest Region 

National Park Service 

U.S. Depa rtment of the Interior 

iv 
PUBLISHED REPORTS 

OF THE 

SOUTHWEST CULTURAL RESOU RCES CENTER 

1. La rry Murp hy, James Baker, David Buller, James Delgado, Roger Kelly, Daniel 

Lenihan, David McCulloch, David Pugh; Diana Ski les; Brigid Sul livan. 

Submerg ed Cultural Resources Survey: Portions of Point Reyes National 

Seashore and Point Reyes-Farallon Islands National Marine Sanctuary. 

Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 1984. 

2. Toni Carrell. Submerged Cultural Resou rces I nventory: Portions of Point 

Reyes National Seashore and Point Reyes-Farallon Islands National Marine 

Sanctuary. Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 1984 

3. Edwin C. Bearss. Resou rce Study: Lyndon B. Johnson and the Hill Country, 

1937- 1963. Division of Conservation, 1984. 

4. Edwin C. Bearss. Historic Structures Report: Texas White H ouse. Division of 

Conservation, 1986. 

5. Barbara Holmes. Historic Resource Study of the Barataria Unit of Jean Lafitte 

National Historical Pa rk. Division of History, 1986. 

6. Steven M. Burke and Marlys Bush Thurber. Southwest Region Headquarters 

Buildinng, Santa Fe, New Mexico: A Historic Structure Report. Division of 

Conservation, 1985. 

7. Toni Carrell. Submerged Cultural Resources S ite Report: NOOUEBAY, Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore. Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 1985. 

8. Daniel J. Lenihan, Toni Carrell, Them Holden, C. Patrick Labadie, Larry Murphy, 

Ken Vrana. Submerged Cultural Resources Study: Isle Roya le National Pa rk. 

Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 1987. 

9. J. Richard Ambler. Archeological Assessment: Navajo National Monument. 

Division of Anthropology, 1985. 

10. John S. Speaker, Joanna C hase, Carol Poplin, Herschel Franks, R. Christopher 

Goodwin. Archeological Assessment: Barataria Unit, Jean Lafitte National 

H istorical Pa rk. Division of Anthropology, 1986 . 

1 1. James E. lvey, Ma rlys Bush-Thurber, James T. Escobedo, J r., Tom Ireland. 

The M issions of San Antonio: A Historic Structures Report and 

Administrative Hi story. Divisions of Conservation and History, 1987. 

v 
1 2. Roger E. Coleman. The Arkansas Post Story. Division of History, 1 987. 

1 3. Toni Carrell, James E. Bradford, W. L. Rusho. S ubmerged Cultural Resou rces 

Site Report: Charles H. Spencer Mining Operation and Paddle Wheel 

Steamboat, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Submerged Cultural 

Resources U nit. 1 987. 

vi 
SUBMERGED CULTURAL RESOURCES U NIT 

REPORT AND PUBLICATION SERIES 

The Submerged Cultural Resources Unit was established in 1 980 to conduct 

research on submerged cultural resources throughout the National Park System 

with an emphasis on historic shipwrecks. One of the unit's primary responsibi lities 

is to disseminate the results of research to National Park Service managers, as 

well as the professional community, in a form that meets resou rce m anagement 

needs and adds to our understanding of the resource base. A report series has 

been i niti ated in order to fulfi ll this responsibil ity. The following are the categories 

of reports that comprise this series. 

Submerged Cultural Resources Assessment 

First line document that consists of a brief literature search, an overview of the 

maritime hi story and the known or potential underwater sites in the pa rk, and 

prel iminary recom mendations for long-term management. It is designed to have 

application to GMP/DCP's and to become a source document for a pa rk's 

Submerged Cultural Resources Management Plan. 

Submerged Cultu ral Resources Survey 

Comprehensive examination of bloc ks of park lands for the purpose of locating and 

identifying as much of the submerged cultura l resources base as possible. A 

comprehensive literature search would most likely be a part of the Phase I report 

but, in some cases, may be postponed until Phase II. 

Phase I -- Recon naissance of target a reas with remote sensing and visual survey 

techniques to e stablish location of a ny archeological sites or anomalous features 

that may suggest the presence of archeological sites. 

Phase II -- Evaluation of arc heological sites or anomalous features derived from 

remote sensing instruments to confirm their nature a nd, if possible, their 

significance. This may i nvolve exploratory removal of overburden. 

Submerged Cultural Resources Study 

A document that discusses, in detail, all known u nderwater archeological sites in a 

g iven pa rk. This may i nvolve test excavations. The i ntended a udience is 

managerial and professiona l, not the g eneral public. 

vii 
Submerged Cultural Resources Site Report 

Exhaustive documentation of one a rcheological site which may i nvolve a partia l or 

complete site excavation. The i ntended audience is primarily p rofessional and 

incid enta lly managerial. Although the document may be useful to a pa rk's 

i nterpretive specialists because of its i nformation content. it would p robably not be 

suitable for general distribution to park visitors. 

Submerged Cultural Resources Special Report Series 

These may be in publ ished or photocopy format. Included a re special 

commentaries, papers on methodological or technical issues pertinent to 

underwater a rcheolog y, or any miscellaneous report that does not appropriately fit 

i nto one of the other categories. 

Daniel J. Lenihan 

viii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES 

LIST OF TABLES 

FOREWORD 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

I. I NTRODUCTION - Toni Carrell 

II. 

Ill. 

IV. 

Project Objectives 

Research Design 

Funding 

Project Ma ndate 

Project Dates and Participants 

THE PLACE OF CHARLIE SPENCER'S MINING OPERATION IN LEE'S 

FERRY HISTORY - W. L. Rusho and Toni Carrel l 

LEE'S FERRY HISTORIC SITE BACKGROUND - James E. Bradford 

H istorical Description 

The Spencer Mining Yea rs, 1910-1912 

The Post-Spencer Decade, 1912-1921 

U.S. Geological Survey Years, 1 921-1963 

The National Park Service, 1 963-Present 

Summary 

Prior Research 

Administrative Status 

LEE'S FERRY HISTORIC SITE DISCUSSION - James E. Bradford 

S ite Location 

Research Methodology 

Site Descri ption 

V. THE PLACE OF THE PADDLE WHEEL STEAMBOAT C HARLES H. SPENCER 

IN COLORADO RIVER MARITIME HISTORY AND PADDLE WHE EL 

xi 

xiii 

XV 

xvii 

xix 

2 

2 

3 

3 

4 

7 

15 

16 

16 

28 

34 

47 

50 

53 

54 

57 

57 

57 

58 

VESSEL D EVELOPME NT - Toni Carrell 67 

Colorado River Navigation 67 

ix 
VI. 

VII. 

Upper Colorado and Green River Navigation 

Riverine Shipwreck Resources 

Vessel Context and Development 

Paddle Wheel Steamboats 

Colorado River Paddle Wheel Steamboats - The Place of 

CHARLES H. SPENCER 

CHARLES H. SPENCER BACKGROUND - Toni Carrell 

Vessel History 

Historical Descri ption 

Description of Loss - The Wreck Event 

Post-Depositional I mpacts 

Prior Research 

Administrative Status 

CHARLES H. SPENCER SITE DISCUSSION - Toni Carrell 

Site Location 

Research Methodology 

Site Description 

Site Analysis 

Hull 

Paddle Wheel Assembly 

Machinery 

Miscellaneous Wreckage Scatter 

Summary 

VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGE MENT RECOMMENDATIONS -

Toni Carrell and James E. Bradford 

REFERENCES CITED 

APPENDIX A: Summary of CHARLES H. SPENCER's Attri butes 

X 

74 

79 

82 

82 

84 

99 

99 

1 05 

1 07 

1 09 

111 

1 1 2 

1 1 3 

1 1 3 

1 1 3 

1 1 5 

1 1 6 

1 1 7 

1 32 

1 37 

1 44 

1 47 

1 5 1 

1 59 

1 65 
1.1 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

3. 1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

3.5 

3.6 

3.7 

3.8 

3.9 

3. 10 

3. 11 

3. 12 

3. 13 

3. 14 

3. 15 

3. 16 

3. 17 

3. 18 

3. 19 

3.20 

3.2 1 

3.22 

3.23 

3.24 

3.25 

3.26 

3.27 

3.28 

3.29 

3.30 

3.3 1 

3.32 

4. 1 

4.2 

5. 1 

5.2 

5.3 

5.4 

5.5 

5.6 

5.7 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Location of Project Area 

Charles H. Spencer in Coconino Basin, 191 1 

Paria C reek Flume, circa 1 909 

Dredging Machinery Set Up at Lee's Ferry 

Lee's Ferry Fort in 1910 

Spencer Mining Area in 1915 

Spencer Mining Area in 1914 

Remains of Cellar 

Boiler for Lovett Pipe Dredge in 1910 

Lovett Pipe Dredge 

Nozzle of Pipe Dredge in Operation 

The Amalgamator Along the River 

New Boilers Being Insta lled in 191 1 

Water Pump for Hydraulic Mining 

Hydraulic Mining of the Chinle Formation 

Map of Lee's Ferry After the Spencer E ra 

The Post Office at Lee's Ferry 

Plan and Elevation Drawings of the Post Office 

Plan and Elevation Drawings of the Chicken Coop 

Panoramic View of Lee's Ferry After the USGS Period 

Spencer's Bunkhouse/USGS Laboratory in 1 986 

Plan and E levation Drawings of the Bunkhouse 

Boiler as it Appeared in the 1 960s 

Side View of the Boiler as it Appeared in 1 986 

End View of the Boi ler in 1 986 

Rema ins of Possible Amalgamator from the 1 930s 

Map of Lees' Ferry at the End of the USGS Era 

View of Lee's Ferry in 1 963-64 

View of the Spencer Area in 1 963 

View of the East Portion of Spencer Area in 1 964 

View of the East Portion of Spencer Area in 1 986 

Lee's Ferry Fort in 1 986 

Lee's Ferry Fort and Spencer Addition in 1 986 

Plan and E levation Drawings of Lee's Ferry Fort 

Paddle Wheel from Southern California Edison gas-powered boat 

Map of Lee's Ferry National Register District 

Map of Lee's Ferry in 1 986 

Panoramic view of Spencer Area in 1 986 

Settlements and Stea mboat Landings 1 8 1 0-1910 

Paddle Wheel Steamboat S EARCHLIGHT 

Gasoline-powered AZTEC, circa 1 893 

Gold Dredge ADVANCE 

Stanton's HOSKANINNI on the Upper Colorado River 

Steamboats on the Colorado River System 1 850- 1 920 

Comparison of Steam-powered Sternwheelers 

xi 

5 

9 

11 

11 

17 

18 

20 

20 

24 

25 

25 

26 

26 

27 

27 

29 

31 

31 

33 

35 

38 

38 

41 

41 

42 

42 

45 

48 

48 

49 

49 

51 

51 

52 

52 

55 

63 

65 

69 

73 

73 

75 

75 

85 

87 
5.8 

5.9 

6. 1 

6.2 

6.3 

6.4 

6.5 

6.6 

7.1 

7.2 

7.3 

7.4 

7.5 

7.6 

7.7 

7.8 

7.9 

7.10 

7.1 1 

7.12 

7. 13 

7.14 

7. 15 

7. 16 

7. 17 

7. 18 

7. 19 

Gasoline-powered Boat Construction 1 850- 1 920 

Steam - and Gas-powered Boats 1 850- 1 920 

C HARLES H. SPENCER after Launching February, 1912 

CHARLES H. SPENCER East of Lee's Fort, Spring 1912 

Copy of CHARLES H. SPENCER Original Plans, 191 1 

CHARLES H. SPENCER Abandoned on Shore, 1915 

The Bow of CHARLES H. SPENCER in 1 963 

The Bow of CHARLES H. SPENCER in 1 973 

CHARLES H. SPENCER Site Location. 

CHARLES H. SPENCER Under Construction, View from Bow 

Hull Cross-Section 

Exploded View of Main Deck Construction 

Detail of Overhanging Guard Construction Amidships 

CHARLES H. SPENCER Waits for Launching, Spring 1912 

CHARLES H. SPENCER Starboard Elevation 

CHARLES H. SPENCER Site Map 

Exploded View of Typical Stern Paddle Wheel Boat 

CHARLES H. SPENCER U nder Construction, View from Stern 

Profi le and Plan Photog raphs of Pitman Assembly 

Detail Drawing of Paddle Wheel Hub 

Detail Drawing of Boiler 

Detail Drawing of Heater 

Photograph of Heater Intake and Exhaust 

Detail Drawing of Hooker No. 3 Bilge Pump 

Photograph of Boiler and Pump in situ in 1 962 

Detail Drawing of Samson Post Cap 

Disarticulated Samson Post Cap in situ 

xii 

87 

90 

1 02 

1 02 

Pocket I nsert 

1 08 

1 1 0 

1 1 0 

1 1 4 

1 1 8 

1 20 

121 

121 

1 22 

1 23 

Pocket Insert 

1 27 

131 

1 34 

1 36 

1 38 

1 43 

1 43 

1 45 

1 45 

1 46 

1 46 
4. 1 

5. 1 

5.2 

LIST OF TABLES 

List of Features Documented at Lee's Ferry H istoric Site 

Possible Steamboat Remains in the Colorado and G reen Rivers 

Comparison of Selected Attri butes 

xiii 

59 

79 

93 

FOREWORD 

This report is n um ber thirteen in the Southwest Cultural Resources Center 

Professional Papers and is the fifth report in that series generated by the 

Submerged Cultural Resources Unit. 

Our special expertise is in extending arc heological methods and techniques 

to underwater environments. Shipwrecks and other cultural remains found in the 

sea, rivers, or lakes a re significant only when their greater context is understood. In 

this site report Toni Carrell, Jim Bradford, and Bud Rusho i ntegrated underwater and 

traditional land archeology in a manner that perm its the reader to understand the 

full story told by the a rcheological record at Lee's Ferry. 

Also, in keeping with N PS phi losophy, the research was tota lly 

non-destructive. I nformation came from arc hives and archeological documentation 

of visible features, not exc avation. The discussion is tech nical and deta iled when it 

needs to be, but the a uthors take care to relate their d i scussions of old bottles and 

paddle wheel hubs to the social, environmental, and human dynamics that caused 

them to be there. It is a fa scinating story that loses nothing in the tel ling. 

Daniel J. Lenihan 

Chief, Submerged Cultural Resources Unit 

National Pa rk Service 

XV 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

No field research project is successfully accompl ished without the 

cooperation and support of each i nd ividual associated with the effort, from i nitial 

planning through the preparation of final graphics. Dave Weg ner, manager of the 

Bureau of Reclamation Glen Canyon E nvironmental Stud ies Office, John 0. Lan caster, 

Superintendent of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Adrienne Anderson, Rocky 

Mountain Regional Archeologist, and Daniel J. Lenihan, c hief of the Submerged 

Cultural Resources U nit, provided extensive administrative support to this project. 

Project funding was shared by the Bureau of Reclamation G len Canyon 

Environmenta l Studies Office, and the National Park Service Submerged Cultural 

Resources Unit. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area made a non-monetary 

contribution of services and support personnel. Without the ass istance of the Park 

staff, this project could not have been completed. John Benjamin, Glen Ca nyon 

Downlake Di strict Ranger, coordinated all of the logistical support for the d ivi ng. 

Jon Dick, River District Ranger, and David Fowler, Seasonal Ranger, provided 

invaluable assistance tra n sporting our diving equipment to and from the site each 

day. Thanks also goes to Grand Canyon Ranger Tom Workma n, who provided us 

with a place to work and store equipment. The Glen Canyon d iving team 

participated in a survey to determine the presence of additional cultural remains in 

the river channel. Surface documentation and support of this activity was provided 

by Larry Weise, C hief, Division of Interpretation, and Glen Gossard, Division of 

I nterpretation, Glen Ca nyon NRA. 

Di strict Ranger Jon Dick oriented us to the historic site, provided i nformation 

about i mpacts, and c heerfully answered n umerous questions about the area. 

Archeological documentation of Lee's Ferry historic site was underta ken by John 

Stein, Branch of Cultural Resources Management, Southwest Regional Office. John 

was assisted by Glen Canyon N RA Volunteer-In-Pa rks Reilly Mitchell. Jim Bradford, 

acting c hief of the Branch of Cultural Resources Management, tackled the task of 

i nterpreting the historic site and sorting out the various recent i mpacts from g round 

disturba nce. Jim authored Chapters Ill and IV, and was a willing sounding board for 

the entire project and this publication including mapping the steamboat, completing 

the sta rboard profi le, and two detail drawings included in Chapter VII. 

A special n ote of a ppreciation goes to Jim Koza, Division of Ranger S ervices, 

La ke Mead National Recreation Area. Jim pieced together all of our field data from 

the paddle wheel steamboat to prod uce the site base map. Jim also carefully 

documented the vessel's boiler and produced the exploded construction detail 

d rawings included in Chapter VII. The support of the Western Regional Director 

Howard Chapman, and the will ingness of the Superintendent and the Assi stant C hief 

Ranger, Lake Mead N RA, to loan Jim to us is an indication of the degree of 

tri-regional cooperation this project received. 

Chris Ki ncaid, Glen Canyon N RA Park Archeologi st, took an active i nterest in 

the project and provided us research materials and access to park fi les. Jim 

xvii 
Delgado, N PS Maritime Historian, provided i nformation on naval engineer and builder 

James Robertson and the significance of his career. After considerable diggi ng, 

Dottie House, Librarian at the Museum of Northern Arizona, located a fragile and 

faded copy of the original plans for the steamboat. Nancy Brian a ssisted in getting 

the plans to the USGS office in Flagstaff where Mr. Hugh Thomas, Supervisor of the 

Photographic Division, took over. The Photographic Division reproduced both 

photo-mylars, black line positives, and negatives for our use. This was no easy task 

given the poor condition of the original. Mike Snyder, Rocky Mounta in Region 

Division of Planning, provided us with ortho-topos and aerial photo negatives of the 

lee's Ferry area. 

Jerry Livingston, who has participated in many Submerged Cultural Resources 

Unit projects in the past, contributed his skills to the steamboat documentation and 

produced a deta il drawing incl uded in Chapter VII. Jerry also spent the extra time 

necessary to put this report i nto publishable form by overseeing much of the 

g raphic production needed for printing. Ernesto Marti nez took the brunt of the job 

of inking the graphics for this report. His patience and willingness to accept 

changes to "fi nished" illustrations is sincerely appreciated. 

Without the contribution of Bud Rusho this publ ication would be sadly 

lacki ng. When I contacted him about this project, he became whole-heartedly 

i nvolved. Bud opened up his files on the lee's Ferry a rea and gave us unlimited 

access to h is years of research. I nformation from i nterviews, photographs he took 

and those from his personal col lection, copies of documents he obtained, and 

copies of p u blished a rticles were all freely provided. In addition, he was our contact 

for photogra phs from the Bureau of Reclamation historic photo file. Bud, along with 

his close friends G reg Crampton and Don Cecala, briefly vi sited the site. For two 

days we did noth ing but talk about lee's Ferry, Charlie Spencer, a nd the steamboat. 

Their ideas and enthusiasm about the region was infectious. Bud also provided the 

basic i nformation needed to write Chapter II. 

Edwin Bearss, Dan Lenihan, la rry Murphy, Jim Delgado, and Bud Rusho took 

the time to review the manuscript and each made several helpful suggestions. Their 

continual support is appreciated. 

Any inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or downrig ht errors in this publ ication 

a re my sole responsibility. It is also my pleasant d uty to thank the n umerous 

contributors to the project and this report. 

Toni Carrell 

xviii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This study of the remains of a historic industrial m1nmg s ite and a historic 

wooden vessel located in the downstream river corridor of Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area has been designed within a park management framework. The 

project wa s geared towa rd generating i nformation that would be useful in cultura l 

resources site interpretation, visitor safety, protection, and conservation; in meeting 

Federal compliance requirements; in contributing to the story of the park and the 

maritime history of the region; and in answering questions of general archeological 

and historical i nterest. 

The Charlie Spencer mmmg area has undergone many adverse impacts and 

destruction as a result of man's a ctivities with in the limited amount of space in this 

section of Lee's Ferry. The effects of USGS remodeling on what would have 

become historic building s, however, is a moot point becau se most of the buildings 

were destroyed in 1 967. This event is unfortu nate because much of the physical 

evidence of an important chapter in regional history was removed with the 

structures. 

The key to the situation today lies in preserving and interpreting the 

remaining features related not only to the Spencer mining operations, but also to 

the USGS years of survey and river monitori ng at Lee's Ferry. Some physical 

evidence and adequate a mounts of docu mentation for both periods survive today 

and provide us with the tools and information necessary to present a full 

interpretive progra m to the public and allow continued research into the h istory of 

the area by those whose i nterests have and will continue to bring them to Lee's 

Ferry. 

The most d etrimental impa ct to the paddle wheel steamboat is wet-dry 

cycling resulting from the fluctuations of the water level below the dam. In ideal 

conditions, the vessel would be best preserved and protected from the i mpact of 

wind- or boat-driven waves and wet-dry cycling if it remained underwater at all 

times. The lowered water level also i nvites human a ctivity on the site and, 

therefore, an increase in adverse impacts. Inadvertent or purposeful vandalism a re 

much more likely to occur at these times. 

The wood used in construction of the vessel remains hard and 

well-preserved below the level of the water fluctuations. Piping, truss rod, 

turnbuckles, paddle wheel hubs, and the machinery present a re all in good 

condition. A portion of the boiler and firebox, as well as wood in the bow, both 

exposed to wet-dry cycles, a re in poor condition. Rusting of the boiler and firebox, 

along with loss of some of the historic fabric is evident. 

The paddle wheel steamboat CHARLES H. SPENCER is both an interesting and 

well-preserved cultural resource. It is a significant site that could easily stand alone 

as a National Register of Historic Places property. The steamboat's inclusion in the 

Lee's Ferry Historic District in 1 974, eliminates the need for a separate nomin ation. 

xix 
H owever, additional documentation of the vessel using a National Register 

continuation sheet is recommended. 

The history of the steam boat, the role that Charlie Spencer played in the 

region, and how the steam boat was later used to help decide a Su preme Court ca se, 

is a story that can meaningfully contribute to the interpretation of Glen Canyon and 

the upper Colorado River. Continued protection of this s ite will ensure a data bank 

for future resea rchers who have specific questions on ma ritime construction of the 

period or who wish to have a source of comparative data for other similar vessels. 

XX 
CHAPTER I. I NTRODUCTION 

This study of the remains of a historic industrial mining site and a historic 

wooden vessel located in the downstream river corridor of Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area has been designed with in a park management framework. The 

project wa s geared towa rd generating information that wou ld be useful in 

submerged cultural resources site i nterpretation, visitor safety, protection, and 

conservation; in meeting Federa l compliance requirements; in contributing to the 

story of the park and the maritime hi story of th� region; and in answering 

questions of general archeological and histori cal i nterest. 

Projects that are anticipated to run over several years, field sessions, or 

where funding, time constra i nts and park priorities d ictate a segmented approach, 

require special attention in the planning phases and the organi zation of work 

undertaken. The results of each segment should meet specific management needs 

and be able to stand alone as individual management documents. The overa ll 

submerged cultural resou rces management approach may be conceptual ized as 

distinct phases or steps; the ideal course of research leading in a logical sequence 

through initial assessment, survey of portions of a pa rk, and then inventory of all 

known submerged resources in an area. Each of these steps is d i scussed in 

greater detail, as separate report formats of the Submerged Cultural Resources 

Unit, el sewhere in this report. This sequence of steps may be physically divided 

by time, space, and reporting, or conducted concurrently and reported on in one 

document when a project runs conti n uously. 

Park funding, priorities, and other constrai nts rarely permit the ideal research 

sequence to occur. More commonly it is segmented and cond ucted in response to 

specific management needs. The Glen Ca nyon project fa lls i nto the latter c ategory, 

being undertaken to document the remains of both a historic industrial mining site 

and a paddle wheel steamer used to support mining activities. 
The results of research undertaken in 1 986 and reported here, provides 

recommendations for the long term management, i nterpretation, p rotection, and 

conservation of the shipwreck remains identified as CHARLES H. SPENCER. This 

report also presents architectural information on the vessel and analysis of these 

remains. Further, this report addresses both the historical context and physical 

remains of the Spencer mining operations and the role that the vessel SPENCER 

played in this a ctivity. 

Project Objectives 

The goals of this project were fourfold in nature. They were: 1) to 

thoroughly document the remains of CHARLES H. SPENCER; 2) to evaluate the 

present condition of the site in order to provide an assessment of the vessel's 

short- and long-term management and conservation needs; 3) to evaluate the 

vessel's historica l significan ce; and 4) to d ocument the h istoric ind ustrial mining 

location operated by Cha rles H. Spencer. The purpose for g athering this 

i nformation is for the comprehensive management of the shipwreck site by the 

National Park Service and the Bureau of Reclamation. 

In addition to the stated objectives a bove, one day was spent conducting a 

riverine survey from the a rea of Lee's Ferry crossing to below the p resent boat 

launch ramp. The purpose of the survey was to determine the n ature and extent 

of cultural remains in the river channel. 

Research Design 

The questions this research was designed to address were fa ll into four 

categories: 1) What is the n ature of the construction and technology displayed by 

the historic wooden vessel, i.e. a paddle wheel steamer circa 1 9 1 1; 2) How have 

shal low-water deposition, fluctuations in water level, and wet-dry cycling affected 

site d eterioration/preservation and research potential; 3) What s ocia l, economic, 

and environmental conditions extant in the upper Colorado River affected the 

nature and potential deposition of vessel remains in the river and how does the 

vessel below Lee's Ferry crossing fit i nto this historical context; and 4) How does 

the Spencer mining operation fit i nto the history of the Lee's Ferry a rea and what 

role did the paddle wheel steamer play. 

2 
The primary objective of the project was site documentation and eva luation. 

Therefore, specific questions were posed addressing general vessel constructio n, 

that is, hull configuration and framing, i nternal or external strengthening, hatch 

arrangement, steam machinery, engines, and paddle wheel arrangement. These a re 

addressed primarily in Chapter VII. 

The question of shallow-water deposition, fluctuations in water level, and 

wet-dry cycling and their i mpacts to physical site i nteg rity and research potential 

is addressed in chapters VII and VIII. The relationship between the loss of vessels 

on the upper Colorado River, particularly the vessel at Lee's Ferry, and the social, 

economic and environmenta l milieu in the region a round the turn of the century is 

addressed in Chapters V and VI. 

The role that Charlie H. Spencer played in exploration of and the impact of 

his mining activities on the u pper Colorado River region is addressed in Chapters II 

and I l l. The results of nearly continual occupation of the Lee's Ferry area from 

before the turn of the centu ry to the present day a re addressed in Chapter Ill. 

Finally, the i mpacts resulting from land modification, multiple use, and reservoir 

construction and their effect on physical site integrity and i nterpretation a re 

discussed in Chapter IV. 

Funding 

This project was jointly funded by the Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Region, Glen Canyon E nvironmental Studies Division, and the National Park Service, 

Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Submerged Cultural Resources Unit. A 

non-moneta ry contribution of services and support personnel was provided by 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. 

Project Mandate 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area was established to "... Provide for 

public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of La ke Powell and [adjacent] lands ... 

and to preserve the scenic, scientific, and h istoric features contri buting to the 

3 
public e njoyment of the a rea ... " (Public Law 92-593, October 27, 1 972). Further, the 

stated management objectives of the park regarding cultural resources a re: 

... To p rovide the richest possible i nterpretive experience 

to vi sitors of the recreation a rea . 

... To i nterpret historical and a rcheological resources ... 

while centering i nterpretive themes a round outdoor 

recreation. 

[and] ... to survey the natural and cultural resources of 

the a rea to provide factual data on which to base 

development and management responses (Statement for 

Management 1 985). 

The field work undertaken in this initial effort to document a known vessel 

loss in the upper Colorado River, with in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and 

the Bu reau of Reclamation downstream river corridor management a rea (Figure 1.1 ), 

meets cultural resources management objectives for both agencies. The study was 

designed to maximize data returns from a very limited time, fund ing, and personnel 

base in order to meet management needs. 

Project Dates and Participa nts 

Field work began on September 29 and concluded on October 9, 1 986. All 

a ctivities took place within the Recreation Area locality of Lee's Ferry. Eighteen 

National Park Service employees from the Rocky Mountain, Southwest, and Western 

Regions, a Volunteer-in-Pa rk, and two Bureau of Reclamation emp loyees partic ipated 

in or provided direct support for the field operations. A tota l of 27 persondays of 

diving and approxim ately 25 persondays of work were completed, excluding donated 

preparation a nd planning time of key personnel in the three Regional Offic es, the 

Park, and the Southwest Cultural Resources Center. 

The following people contributed to the success of the 1 986 research project 

at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: 

Administrative Support: 

John 0. Lancaster - Superi ntendent, Glen Canyon N ational Recreation Area 

Daniel J. Lenihan - Chief, Submerged Cultural Resources Unit 

Adrienne Anderson - Regional Archeologist, Rocky Mounta in Region 

David Wegner - Bureau of Reclamation, Glen Canyon Environmental Studies 

Manager 

4 

Bureau of Reclamation: 

Wi lbur L. Rusho - Public Information Officer, Upper Colorado Regional Office; 

background i nformation, historic photos 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: 

John Benjamin - Downlake District Ranger; logistics support, diving a ssistance 

riverine survey 

Chris Kincaid - Park Archeologist 

Jon Dick - River District Ranger; surface su pport 

David Fowler - Seasonal Ranger, River District; surface support 

Dick Kolbenschlag - Seasonal Ranger, Downlake District; boat support riverine 

survey 

Chris Wa rd - Wahweap Subdistrict Ranger, Downlake District; logistics support 

Brian Smith - Area Ranger, Downlake Di strict; logistics support 

Richard Obernesser - Area Ranger, Downlake Di strict; logistics support 

Robert Mull ikin - Seasonal Ranger, Downlake Distri ct; diving assistance riverine 

survey 

Wi lliam Briggs - Rain bow Bridge Subdistrict Ranger, Downlake Di strict; diving 

assista nce riveri ne su rvey 

La rry Wiese - Chief, Division of I nterpretation; surface support and documentation 

riverine survey 

Glen Gossard - Division of Interpretation; surface support and documentation 

riverine survey 

Riley Mitchell - VIP; mining operation mapping assistance 

Grand Ca nyon National Pa rk: 

Tom Workman - Division of Ranger Services; d iving assistance riverine survey 

La ke Mead National Recreation Area: 

Jim Koza - Division of Ranger Services; diving assistance, graphics 

Southwest Cultural Resources Center: 

Jim Bradford - Branch of Cultural Resources Management; diving assistance, 

graphics 

John Stein - Branch of Cultura l Resources Management; mining operation site 

mapping 

J erry L. Livingston - Branch of Cultural Research; diving assistan ce, graphics 

Toni Carrell - Submerged Cultura l Resources Unit - pri ncipal i nvestigator 

6 
CHAPTER II. THE PLACE OF CHARLIE SPENCER'S 

MINING OPERATION IN LEE'S FERRY HISTORY 

During the last two decades of the 1 800s, a minor gold rush was running its 

course along the Colorado River and throughout many of its tributary canyons. 

Many p rospectors passed through Glen Canyon and Lee's Ferry, either on their way 

in or out of the canyon country, concentrating their efforts on g ravel bars lying 

several feet a bove the river. Initiated partly by Cass H ite, whose tales of gold 

discoveries were carried all over the region, the rush continued only long enough 

for the prospectors to learn that all the land near the river was composed of 

sedimentary strata, representing the disintegration of a ncient mountains, and any 

concentration of minerals was unlikely. Gold was litera lly everywhere, em bedded in 

minute amounts throughout a lmost every formation. Without massive equi pment 

there was simply no way to extract the fine gold in commercial quantities 

(Crampton 1 959:23). 

No sooner had individual prospectors departed the region than the bigger 

companies, with i nvestors, payrol ls, and heavy equipment, began moving in. The 

Zahn Brothers set up a large gold d redge beside the San Juan River and began 

overturning gravel bars. In 1 897 Robert B. Stanton formed the Hoskaninni Company 

to recover gold from the entire length of Glen Canyon. 

I ntri gued by the placer gold possibilities, Stanton began construction of 

HOSKANINNI, a massive 1 80-ton d redge to extract gold particles. During its 

construction, Stanton traveled up and down Glen Canyon sta king out claims he 

expected to mine with a whole fleet of dredges (Crampton and Smith 1961 : 1 1 ). 

Stanton sta ked claims down to and i ncluding Lee's Ferry in 1 898. The following 

year Stanton had his men build a road along the south river bank from the area of 

the ferry, upstream for a distance of 1 1 /2 m i les. The road served no other purpose 

than to meet a ssessorial requirements to prove his claim. 

7 
Both the Zahn brothers and Stanton's Hoska ninni Company failed. Gold was 

certa inly present, however the particles of the metal were so fine that they would 

not settle on the amalgamators. By 1 900 only an occa sional prospector was seen 

along the river a bove Lee's Ferry (Crampton 1 959:23). In late 1 901 Stanton ceased 

all operations, abandoned the d redge, and placed the company into receivership. 

During the years from 1 905 to 1 909, Charlie Spencer made several trips to 

investigate the gold mining potential of the San Juan River area (Figure 2. 1 ). More 

importantly perhaps, he began to develop techniques for attracting investors who 

would bankroll his activities. One of the men who later worked for Spencer wrote: 

His Western manners and the magnitude of his projects 

and their fabulous possibi lities seemed to have an 

irresistible a ppeal to the small investor, and when one 

operation failed or was inconclusive, he a lways managed 

to raise more money and try again (Jones 1 960: 1 ). 

Born Novem ber 1 2, 1 872, at Wa lsenburg, Colorado, Charles Harvey Spencer 

moved with his parents and family to Farmington, New Mexico in 1 879. Over the 

next severa l yea rs Charlie s pent m uch of his time at this father's trading post along 

the lower Sa n Juan River learning how to cope with the desert and even to speak 

understandable Navajo. For the Spencer family, however, Navajo hostility resulted in 

a move into the Mancos, Colorado area in 1 884, whic h had been recently cleared of 

Utes and had been opened to white settlement. Cha rlie saw little of schools; 

instead he spent his time farming and lea rning how to mine gold and coal in the 

nearby La Plata Mountains. Spencer's early involvement with gold was to influence 

the remainder of his life. 

Spencer's interest in the San Juan-Glen Canyon a rea first developed in 1 893 

when he spent a few months mining copper in Copper Canyon, a tributary canyon to 

the San Juan. Returning to his Mancos home, he continued miscellaneous mining in 

Colorado u ntil 1 905. In that year he was hired to set up a boiler and a small mining 

operation on the San Juan. Spencer spent severa l months working at that operation 

before it was a bandoned as unsuccessful (Spencer 1 961:1 ). 

By 1 908 he had a massed enough investment capital to begin his own 

operation on the San Juan River. Spencer and his company hired a few trained 

mining specialists, many laborers, bullwhackers, a nd cooks. A small ore extra ction 

plant consisting of crusher, d rive motor, boiler, pumps, compressor, and 

8 

a malgamators, was purchased and brought together along with wagons, oxen, and 

horses. Large samples of Wingate sandstone were d ropped i nto the crusher, 

h owever tests and assays were run with negative results. The mining engineer 

hired by the Chicago-ba sed i nvestors declared that the operation had no 

commercial value and closed it down in 1 909 (Jones 1 960: 1; Waller 1 961:1). 

Spencer traveled to Chicago in an effort to convince his former i nvestors to 

allow him to try again. Undaunted by their refusal, he found new investors, put 

together another group of men and made ready to try again. In December 1 909, the 

whole outfit left Mancos, Colorado, for a bone-chilling trip through Monument Va lley 

and on to the San Juan River. The crusher and amalga mator were set up at Paria 

C reek, 1 25 m i les above Lee's Ferry (Figure 2.2). 

They tried their luck on the Wi ngate sandstone, the thick, reddish, broken 

rock that occurs widely throughout the canyon country. Once again, they met 

fa i lure. During the testing, one of the mining engineers assayed a sample of the 

Chinle shale and found that it contained as much, if not more, gold than the 

Wingate. Even more importantly, the purple-hued Chinle was soft, c ru mbly when 

d ry, but sluicable with high-pressure hoses. 

A second discovery was equally important. A conversation d uring a chance 

encounter with two m iners who had worked on the Colorado River disclosed that 

the Chinle shale occurred abundantly, not only on the San Juan River, but at a much 

more accessible location called Lee's Ferry, across the border in Arizona. Since 

wagon road s reached Lee's Ferry from Flagstaff, or from Utah, it would be relatively 

easy to bring in heavy mining equipment. Furthermore, coal depo sits were known 

to exist in the c l iffs a few m i les to the northeast. 

Without further debate, the decision was made to move the operation to 

Lee's Ferry. Spencer and his first c rew arrived in May, 1910, and immed iately began 

assembling a dditional men and the mechanical equipment needed to sluice the 

Chinle shale from the cliffside a bout 250 yards north of the Colorado River, behind 

the old L ee's Fort. 

Even before locating the necessary deposits of coal to su pport a mining 

operation, Spencer began experiments on the shale at Lee's Ferry u sing driftwood 

10 

for fuel (Wi lson 1 961 :24). A pipe dredge, a device that injected air a nd water u nder 

high pressure directly down i nto the ground forcing sand and fine particles up 

through a casing, was tried. The pipe dredge was set up on a g ravel bed near the 

river bank, u nfortunately just below the surface they hit coarse rock and the casing 

would sink no further. The experiment was given up as a fa ilure. 

Spencer went a head with his plan to recover gold from the Chinle by 

sluicing. A large boiler and pumps were set up near the river and water was 

pumped through hoses to big pressure nozzles aimed at the shale (Figure 2.3). The 

dissolved Chinle was carried down a long flume back toward the river where an 

amalgamator wa s set u p. Spencer's first "runs" at the mine were made in the 

spring of 191 1. While everything worked fine at first, it soon became apparent that 

the mercury in the amalgamator was becoming clogged. The gold was passing on 

out with the ta ilings, instead of being absorbed by the mercury. N umerous efforts 

and tests were made to solve the problem with no success. Samples were even 

sent to outside experts who could not identify the "foreign" element present. It 

wa sn't until many yea rs later that the element was identified as rhenium. 

While the chemists and mining engineers attempted to resolve the problems 

at the m ine, Spencer contin ued to promote his enterprise. On at least one occasion, 

he used trail construction to impress a group of investors from C h icago. His men 

were instructed to put on a good, noisy show, by setting off sti cks of dynamite. 

The investors l eft satisfied that Spencer's men were earning their money (Leach 

1 961 ). 

In the m ean time, the question of an adequate supply of fuel for the boilers 

was sti ll unresolved. After examining severa l rugged canyons, eventually a sizeable 

vein of coal on a d istant br an ch of Warm Creek was located, 28 m i les u pstream in 

Glen Canyon. At first Spencer thought that m ules could be used to haul coal from 

the mines on Wa rm C reek to the mining site. Spencer and his men were familiar 

with Dominguez Pass, but j udged it too difficult for convenient access to the mining 

a rea. Instead of using Dominguez Pass, Spencer ordered his men to build a trail up 

the Echo Cl iffs i mmediately east of his mining operations at Lee's Ferry. The trail 

was built d uring the late summer and fa ll of 1 9 1 0. 

12 
Company backers were convinced that the only economical way to move 

coal from Warm C reek to the mining location just below Lee's Ferry was by boat. A 

road from the coal mine down Warm C reek to the Colorado River was a lso sta rted 

in late 1910. 

_

The m iners l ived in tents at the coal m ine, a pproximately 6 miles up 

the canyon from the river. While the coal mine was being opened up and the road 

to the river constructed, work began on a barge at the mouth of Wa rm C reek. The 

first load of coal was sent down by wagon to the barge in the spring of 191 1; the 

men were able to make the round trip from the mine to the river and back in a day 

(Spencer 1 961: l). Three or four men

· d rifted down on the barge from Warm C reek 

through Glen Canyon to Lee's Ferry with the first load of coal (Leach 1 961 :4). 

The problem of how to get the barge back up to the mouth of Warm C reek 

was thought to be solved with the purchase of a lau nch, VIOLET LOUISE. 

Unfortunately, the launch was fa r too underpowered to push a barge against the 

current while negotiating the many sandbars. It was at this point that the Chicago 

backers decided upon a large steamboat to ca rry the coal from Warm Creek down 

to the mine operation. 

A paddle wheel steamboat (discussed in d eta il elsewhere in this report) was 

ordered from San Francisco, constru· cted at the mouth of Wa rm Creek, and launched 

in late February 1912. 

I heard that Spencer was having a steamboat built up 

the river someplace and that this boat was to ca rry coal 

down to our operation at Lee's Ferry. I don't know what 

the coal was to be used for. Nothing that I could see 

going on req uired much coal (Leach 1 961 :3). 

While the value of the steamboat wa s questionable to many, nonetheless it wa s 

used to b ring some coal from Warm Creek. U nfortunately, by the time that the 

vessel wa s operational and a means available to tra nsport coal, the whole mining 

operation was on the verge of collapsing. 

The fouling of the mercury plates in the a malgamator was an insurmountable 

problem, further, the value of the mercury required exceeded the value of the gold 

that was recovered (Jones 1 961 :8). About the same time the financial backers of 

the company: 

... became greatly displeased with the management; 

account books were reported lost; many of the men 

13 
were not paid; law suits were brought; the bank account 

Spencer used for operating expenses and payroll was 

attached; etc. ...the proof that the silts were not a 

commercial enterprise definitely eliminated the group 

interested in that development.. .. (Jones 1 961 :8). 

Finally, in the Spring or Summer of 1912, the entire mining operation was 

shut down and the hired hands departed the area. By 1 9 1 3, almost everyone 

associated with Spencer had left Lee's Ferry and Spencer had moved on to other 

business ventures. In the 1 960's Spencer returned to his sti ll va lid claims at Paria 

to mine the rhen ium, which is a highly valuable super-conductor of electricity. 

Once again, his efforts met with fa ilure. 

Min ing a ctivity continued sporadically in and a round Lee's Ferry. In the 

1 930s, p rospectors once again attempted to search for gold in Glen Canyon, and 

again their efforts proved fruitless (Crampton 1 960). In the 1 950s u ranium was 

a ctively sought in the immed iate vicinity of Lee's Ferry. The Shinarump 

conglomerate, often found to contain uranium, is prominent in Lee's Backbone, 

across the river from the mining site. Severa l claims were staked in the vicinity, 

m ines were opened, and access roads were bulldoz ed. However, uranium 

m ineral ization in the Lee' s Ferry area was found to be too low, and within a few 

yea rs all of the m ines were abandoned and prospecting had ceased ( Phoenix 1 963). 

14 
CHAPTER Ill. LEE'S FERRY HISTORIC SITE BACKGROUND 

When Charlie Spencer first viewed Lee's Ferry from atop the Buzzard Highline 

Trail 'on May 9, 1910, only one building stood in the large, boulder-studded bend of 

the river just downstream of the ferry. Lee's Ferry Fort, origi nally built on directions 

from Jacob Hamblin in June/July of 1 874, was probably last used as a trading post 

by Joseph L. Foutz in the summer of 1 877 (Crampton and Rusho 1 965:22). The 

building was never again used as a trading post, but was uti lized by various groups 

intermittently during the i ntervening 33 years until Spencer's a rrival. Beginning with 

the fort, and with characteristic zeal and energy, Spencer lost no time in initiating 

the metamorphosis that would change the immediate a rea around Lee's Ferry Fort to 

one of the larger mining endeavors on this section of the Colorado River. 

Soon after arriving at Lee's Ferry, Spencer took a party of men u pstream to 

locate a reported vein of coal that could serve as a fuel source for the boilers 

necessary to operate his mining equipment. During the next six weeks another 

exploratory trip was made upriver while Charlie and others made a trip to Flagstaff 

to obta in supplies and equi pment necessary for the venture. The second exploring 

party was sent u priver in search of the gold-bearing Wright Bar g ravel bed and a ny 

sources of coa l within a reasonable d ista nce from Lee's Ferry. While some of the 

men were in Flagstaff, Spencer apparently made a trip to Chicago to find additional 

investors for the operation. By about June 20, 1910, most of the party wa s back at 

Lee's Ferry with some supplies and enough equipment to begin operation of the 

"Lovett pipe dredge" to be used in dredging the river bottom for gold. By this time, 

original c rewman Albert H. Jones stated that they had "set up a camp in the willows 

on the south side of the river not far below the ferry, and subsequent operations 

were conducted from this base" ( 1 960:6). 

If Jones' statement on the location of the camp is correct, then his 

photog raphs at the time i ndicate a switch to the north bank of the river was 

15 
accom plished within the next few weeks. According to dates on several of Jones' 

photog raphs Lee's Ferry Fort had been adapted for Spencer's use by July, 1910. 

Taking advantage of the good condition of the building, Spencer added a 26-foot 

extension on the west end of the fort and utilized the structure as a cookhouse and 

m ess hall for his miners (Figure 3. 1 ). 

A second mess hall was soon built and the fort wa s used to house two 

m i ners (Kolb 1914:178). The extension was converted to an office for Arthur C. 

Wa ller (Rusho, personal communi cation). The addition was still attached to the fort 

and in use during the 1 935 reunion of pioneers who had crossed at Lee's Ferry 

(Rusho and Crampton 1 981 : 85); however, by 1 962 it was in ruin. 

Although not recorded in the documents, the "down time" waiting for 

supplies and equipment was probably spent erecting the buildings n ecessary for the 

mining operation. Within a short span, Spencer's crew constructed at least seven 

major buildings in the immediate area. As l isted by Crampton and Rusho, these 

included the Cook House, Laboratory, Blacksmith Shop, Cook's House, Bun khouse, 

First Bu nkhouse, and a Ruined Building (a building very similar to, and al igned with 

the two bunkhouses) ( 1 965:25-26). A historical seq uence of the Spencer mining 

community at Lee's Ferry, reconstructed through available documents, is presented 

in the following sections. 

Historical Description 

The Spencer Mining Yea rs (1910-1912) 

A single road from the mouth of Paria Canyon snaked eastward a long the 

right bank of the Colorado R iver to the upper ferry and its cluster of buildings. By 

early 191 1, Spencer's mining community consisted of eight or nine structures 

located on either side of the ferry road (Figu re 3.2). Actual mining operations were 

situated both to the south and north of the complex. Efforts to siphon gold from 

the riverbed gravels with the pipe dredge were carried out at locations along the 

north river bank just upstream and downstream of the blacksm ith shop. In addition 

to d redging the river, mining the exposed Chinle formation severa l hundred feet 

n orth of the river was undertaken. Here, hydraulic methods were incorporated to 

wash the materials out of the ground and sluice them down to an amalgamator 

16 






the Glen Canyon area for m i ning purposes (Crampton: 1986 : 116). One of these 

boilers (Fig u re 3.5) generated steam to run an air compressor and both the boiler 

and com pressor were used to power the Lovett pipe d redge located at va rious 

places along the river bank. The second boiler was undou btedly used to power 

pumps that pul led water from the river and piped it uphill to the location where the 

hydraulic mining of the Chi nle silts was cond ucted. Wood, mostly d riftwood 

g athered from the vic i n ity, was used to fuel the boilers (Rusho 1961: 16). 

The d redge itself was something of an experiment and consisted of a central 

discharge pipe (4 to 6 inches in diameter) held vertical by a single derrick and winch 

(Figure 3.6). Surrounding the discharge pipe were two smaller pipes that carried 

pressu rized water and two pipes that carried compressed air to the nozzle at the 

bottom (Figure 3.7). The nozzle would be i n serted i nto the sands and g ravels along 

the river. Compressed air would then be released at the bottom of the d i scharge 

pipe a nd, along with the i njected water, would force the sands up the discharge pipe 

and convey it through a flexi ble hose to the amalga mators l ocated on a platform 

i m mediately downstream (Figu re 3.8). 

Spencer's hydraulic mini ng operation was basic. The second boiler was used 

to run the pumps set up near the river (Figures 3.9 and 3.1 0). Water was pulled 

from the river, through the pumps, and forced through the pipes and hoses to the 

hose ra cks located in the exposed Chinle clays n orth of the community. Th is 

o peration is now evidenced n ot only in photos taken at the time (Fig ure 3.11 ) , b ut 

also by a series of cairns and supports form ing a line from near the cook's house to 

the top of the small ridge immed iately to t h e n o rt h . From this ridge, the shales and 

clays of the Chinle were was hed o ut, the slurry collected i nto a fl ume and, using 

g ravity flow, ta ken down to the amalgamators l ocated on the river (see Figure 3.11). 

Eighteen of these supports and one p iece of high pressure hose were located during 

this i nvestigation. Also located during this study were the remains of two small 

cuts or platforms constructed i nto the slopes of the ridges and on which the sleds 

or fra mes for the monitors or hydra ulic nozzles were positioned. These stations 

were l ocated as necessary in order to g et the stream of water directed a bout 20 to 

30 feet upslope. 

A second set of boi lers was purchased and i n sta lled j ust below the 

blacksmith shop in 1911 (see Figure 3.9) . H owever, these boi lers may never have 

23 










continued to serve as the major cros sing and access point to the Colorado River 

a bove the Grand Ca nyon and below Hite, Utah. Eugene C. La Rue of the USGS 

passed through Lee's Fe rry in 1915 while cond ucting his survey of the Glen Canyon 

area in search of possible dam sites on the u pper Colorado River. La Rue's party 

u sed Lee's Ferry as a base of operations and "l ived in the rock cabins, some of 

which were among the seven b u ilt by Spencer" during their work u pstream from the 

ferry (Measeles 1 98 1 :1 00). Rejection by the USGS of La Rue's choice of a site 4 

m i les above the ferry postponed any im med iate activity by the government in the 

vicinity and, for the m ost part, the area remai ned dormant u ntil renewed activity 

came to Lee's Ferry in 1 921. 

The U. S. Geological Survey Years (1921-1963) 

The studies conducted by the government through the 1 9 1 0s relative to 

flooding of the Imperial Va lley in Cal ifornia and flood control for the Colorado River 

resu lted in more st udies in the early 1 920s for a dam site in the u pper river basin. 

In Ju ly, 1 921, an unu sual cooperative effort by Southern Cal ifornia Edison (SCE) and 

the USGS resu lted in the establishment of a river gauging station at Lee's Ferry. 

The SCE crews were sent to the a rea to survey for a dam s ite and construct the 

gauging station, a lthough the USGS, u nder E. C. La Rue's supervision, wa s actu ally in 

charge of the fa cility. At this ti me, Spencer's former mess hall was "remodeled into 

a residence and a nother [building] converted i nto a warehouse" (Rusho and 

Crampton 1 981 :77). From 1 921 to 1 923, SCE crews worked out of Lee's Ferry 

collecti ng data for a dam site at La Rue's mile 4 location and for a power plant to be 

located between the upper ferry location and the Spencer buildings (LaRue 

1 925:Piates IV, V). 

Although La R ue's dam site was never selected, the USGS was to conti nue its 

presence at Lee's Fe rry for the next 42 years. Even though personnel turnover was 

high because "few men, however ded icated, could stand the unrel ieved isolation 

very long" (Rusho 1 968:73). many changes to the larger structures Spencer had bu ilt 

occu rred. All of Spencer's buildings were used in one manner or another. Those 

not used for daily activities were utilized for storage. Add itions were built onto the 

mess hall and the laboratory and new roofs were constructed on these buildings as 

well as on the blacksmith shop and the eastern bunkhouse. Rusho's 1 962 

photograph of the area (Figure 3. 1 6) illustrates the various changes made during the 

34 


USGS period and serves as the basis for the followi ng descriptions of the more 

specific cha nges made to each stru cture. 

Bu nkhouses: By 1 921, the superstru ctures attached to bunkhouses had been 

re moved and only the more su bstantial portions of the buildings re ma ined at this 

time (Measeles 1981 :62, lower photo). As evidenced at the 1 935 reun ion at Lee's 

Ferry, all three bunkhouses were used up to about the time of World War II (Ru sho 

and Crampton 1 98 1 :85, figure). During the next 25 yea rs, however, the western 

bunkhouse fell i nto dis re pair and was dismantled and rem oved while the middle 

bunkhouse fell into di suse but was still sta nding in 1 964. The eastern bunkhouse 

continued to be used and was remodeled by the USGS sometime prior to 1 962. 

During this remodel, the east doorway was parti ally sealed and converted into a 

wi ndow, the window in the north wall was converted i nto a doorway, and the entire 

structure was re- roofed with a more modern and higher pitched roof (Fig u res 3. 17 

and 3. 1 8). A vent was also i nsta lled through the roof and the bui lding was adapted 

for use as a laboratory for sediment studies (Rusho: personal com munication.) 

M ess Hal l/Kitchen: This stru cture was remodeled into a residence for the USGS 

employees in the 1 920s. During this period, an additional room WilS added to the 

west end of the structure enclosing the fireplace within the house. Th is add ition 

measured a bout 18 by 10 feet and conta ined a window in the center of the north 

wall, another window in the nort h section of the west wall, and, undoubtedly, a 

wi ndow or door in the south wall. Exte rior modifications incl uded the atta chment of 

an open front porc h along most of the length of the south wall of the structu re, a 

c a rport attached to the east wall, and an enclosed wooden porch, (meas uring a bout 

7 feet wide a nd exte nding outwa rd towa rd the root cellar about five feet) at the rear 

entrance. The root cellar was appa rently sti ll in use during the 1 960s. Ad ditiona lly, 

a wood en shed (probably housing a generator) was constructed i nto the slope just 

northwest of the root cellar and a junk pile or "bone yard" located to the northwest. 

Finally, a small structure a bout the size of an outhouse was located immediately 

west of the junk pile and adjacent to a few large boulders that sti ll remain there 

today. Outside mod ifications a l so i n cluded the formal ization of a yard on both the 

east and west ends of the house and an access road from the west to the area of 

the junk pile or back yard. 

37 





still be seen. In addition, the Survey had erected a small pole or rod within the 

fenced area a bout 300 feet northeast of the fort. Rema ins of the sup port wires 

were found during this study. Remna nts of the secondary road to the back yard of 

the la rge re sidence is al so visible. 

Near the head of the d rainage that runs under the small wooden bridge are 

the remains of further mining activities. One featu re is the concrete base of what 

may have been an amalga mator set up in the bottom of the dra i nage (Fig u re 3. 22 ). 

The concrete base measures 1 9.3 feet n orth-south by 31.2 feet east-west and 

a ppears to have been built in two phases: 1) the lower section being a thick stone 

foundation with cement mortar, and 2) the upper portion consisting of a finished 

concrete pl atform that may have accommodated four sluice boxes. A section of a 

wooden flume, located just north of this feature, is constructed of 1 -by-6-inch 

lum ber, and measures 1 0.4 feet long by 1 foot wide. Two cuts in the h i llside to the 

west of the cement foun dation indicate that hydraulic sleds were, at one ti me, 

located on the m i ned slope. Just downstream from the possible amalgamator is a 

partially buried piece of circul ar steel almost 5 feet in diameter. It appears to be a 

guard that covered a pulley wheel or gear. Al l of this material is located with in an 

area of obvious past mining activity. No record indicating that this immediate area 

was worked d u ring the Spencer era has been located, but Rusho ( 1 986: perso nal 

commun ication) believes that Spencer returned to mine at Lee's Ferry in the 1 930s 

and that this particular area represents those efforts. Figure 3.23 indi cates the 

major features at Spencer's old mini ng commun ity at the close of the USGS era. 

The completion of the Navajo Bridge across Marble Canyon in 1 929, just 

downstrea m from Lee's Fe rry, relegated the ferry area to further isolation. 

Throughout the 1 940s and 1 950s, the lower end of Glen Ca nyon contin ued its 

pattern of isolation. The u ranium boom of the the 1 950s caused some activity 

within the general area but promising deposits of u raniu m-bearing formations were 

not to be found. Some exp loration roads were cut i nto the surrounding hill s but 

Lee's Ferry wa s to escape the main focus of this activity. 

The pri mary activity at Lee's Ferry during this time was the developm ent of 

the river ru nning trade Tri ps upriver to Rainbow Bridge, as well as down-river trips 

through Marble and Grand canyons originated here. Many co lorful characters who 

would become legends in the local history frequented Lee's Ferry during this time. 

43 



Commercial development occu rred at Marble Canyon on the north end of the bridge 

soon after it wa s con structed and increased during the 1 940s when thousands of 

river floaters experienced the tri p from Hite to Lee's Ferry. Just as the construction 

of the Navajo Bridge altered the im portance of Lee's Ferry in the late 1 920s, the 

constru ction of Glen Canyon Dam in the late 1 950s was to c hange the pattern of 

river ru nning. 

The National Park Service ( 1 963-Present) 

The creation of Lake Powell behind Glen Canyon Dam resu lted in the 

establishment of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Under cooperative 

agreements with the Bureau of Recla mation in 1 958 and 1 965, the Natio nal Park 

Service (NPS) began the task of land acqui sition and management of the 1,193,67 1 

acres of federal land within the recreation area boundary. The first decade or so 

was a time of acquis ition, organ ization, i nadequate staffing, and no shortage of 

problems to solve. 

Although the task of managing the rec reation area was focused on the lake 

and its surrounding environ s, Lee's Ferry was to feel the impacts of development of 

public facilities early on. In 1 963, the NPS began development of housing, a Ranger 

station and roads west of the Paria River and, by 1 965, a bridge over the Paria and a 

new road to Lee's Ferry Fort. A large area between the post office/fort and the river 

was cleared and leveled for a pa rki ng lot and boat ramps (Figure 3.24). An L -sha ped 

berm 300 feet in length was built several hundred feet behind the fort to divert 

water into the d rainage u nder the wooden bridge (Tu rner and Ka rpiscak 1 980:44). 

The road through Spencer's area remai ned, b ut forked east of the blacksmith shop; 

the new branch dead-ending at the river just downstream from the paddle wheel 

stea mboat CHARLES H. SPENCER (Figure 3.25). Al l of Spencer's major buildings 

remained i ntact, as they had through the USGS era, except for the western 

bu n khouse which had been removed by this time. 

In 1 967, the la st major cha nges occurred at Lee's Ferry. Accord ing to P. T. 

Reilly, several of the Spencer buildings were razed in February of that year 

(correspondence, 1 986). The demolition was achieved with a bulldozer and resu lted 

in the destruction of the laboratory, blacksm ith shop, cook's house, mess 

hall/residence, and the middle bunkhou se. All of these structures were pushed i nto 

47 





o n ly provided him with the geologic formation he was seeking, but it also provided 

him with the main access route to the river in this section of the canyon. Although 

not successful in h i s venture, Spencer was to have a major i m pact on the 

i m mediate vicinity. He created a small community at Lee's Ferry and provided a 

new, although limited, economy for the a rea. The rock structures bu ilt for his 

min ing o perations were to serve his men, river run ners, scientists, and engineers for 

the next 50 years. The actual mining activity left a visual impact on the a rea a nd, 

although it too fa i led, the Lovett pipe dredge was tested at Lee's Ferry; one of 

hundreds of patented pieces of equi pment developed for the Glen Canyon mining 

boom around t h e t u r n o f t h e century. 

Although the USGS period was one of isolation and limited activity for Lee's 

Ferry, life would have been more primitive for the employees stationed there had it 

not been for Spencer's structures. They adapted and improved the buildings 

Spencer had left a nd, in their own way, left a reminder of this period of h istory at 

the ferry. 

With the advent of the NPS, it is n ow a time of preserving the remaining 

structures and i nterpreting the past events to the pl!l bl ic. Although much history 

preceded Spencer's time there, the hi story of Lee's Ferry would not be complete 

without giving Spencer his credit. Th is can only be done, now, through the written 

record and through the recognition and preservation of those phys ica l remains still 

at Lee's Ferry. 

Prior Research 

Published references to the Lee's Ferry area and Charlie Spencer's mining 

operation are n umerous. The a uthors include: Kolb (1914), Haskett ( 1 935), Colton 

( 1 957, 1 962), Crampton ( 1 959, 1 960, 1 986), Rusho ( 1 962, 1 968); Cra mpton and Sm ith 

(1961 ), Crampton and Rusho ( 1 965), Lingenfelter ( 1 978), Measeles ( 1 981 ), Phoen ix 

( 1 963), Rusho and Crampton (1981), Sykes ( 1 937), Turner and Ka rpiscak ( 1 980), 

among others. 

The a rea has been photographed i ntermittently from 1910 through the 

present. The Burea u of Reclamation has an extensive collection of historical 

photogra phs, as does W. L. Rusho in his private col lection. 

53 
Documentation of the historic site has been limited to a handful of 

unpubl ished manuscripts, and National Park Service administrative reports (Cra mpton 

and Rusho 1 965, Dick 1 985, Reynolds 1 974, National Park Service 1 985, Richert 

1 967). In December of 1 985, Di strict Ranger Jon Dick provided a preliminary map of 

the remains of CHARLES H. SPENCER a nd, in early 1 986, he and seasonal ranger 

Dave Fowler prepared a sketch map of all known features in the Spencer mining 

area. Also in 1 985, the Submerged Cultural Resources Unit was contacted to 

i nvestig ate the condition, h i story, and effects of differing water levels on the sunken 

vessel. That request led to the study reported on in this document. 

Administrative Status 

In October 1 972, legislation formally establishing Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area was passed (Public Law 92-593) and resulted in the a pplication of 

all regulatory and preservation mandates for all resources conta ined within the 

boundaries. Most a ppropriate to this study a re those laws and reg ulations providing 

protection and preservation to historic sites and structures. With the application of 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1 966 (as amended in 1 980), the structures 

at Lee's Ferry were eva luated and determined eligibile and qualified as a h istoric 

d i strict. In 1 976, the Lee's Ferry Fort/Spencer mining area and Lee's Ferry cross ing 

were entered in the National Register of Hi storic Places. Lonely Dell Ranch, 

purcha sed for i nclusion i nto the recreation a rea in 1 976, was also listed as a 

separate d i strict in the National Register in 1 978 (Figure 3.32). These a ctions were 

positive steps in the p reservation a nd protection of the physical remains at Lee's 

Ferry which are very important a spects of the regional history of Utah and Arizona. 

54 
\ 

I 

I 

I 

1! Cemetery I

'

· 

I 

I 

I 

I 

0 500 

feet 

1 000 

Lee's Crossing 

Figure 3.32. A map of the National Register of Historic Places district at Lee's Ferry. 

55 

CHAPTER IV. LEE'S FERRY HISTORIC SITE DISCUSSION 

Site Location 

Charlie Spencer's mining o peration was located alm ost m idway between the 

Paria River and Lee's Crossing (upper ferry) on the north bank of the Colorado River 

(see Figure 3.32). The community was located one mile u pstream from the present 

confl uence of the Colorado and Paria Rivers and encompassed an area of about 75 

acres. General orientation of the site is to the south towa rd the river. 

Research Methodology 

Field i nvestigations of the historic site were cond ucted in conjunction with, 

a nd as an adjun ct to, the study of the sunken paddle wheel steam boat CHARLES H. 

SPENCER. Documentation of the s ite consisted of conducting a pedestrian survey of 

the area and locating, with the help of the District Ranger, all visible remains of 

previous activities within the site. S ite boundaries were d etermi ned by the evidence 

on the ground as well as by the use of historical photog raphs. All manifestations 

were designated with a feature n umber and marked for later reference. After 

location, the features were compared to historical photos and discussed with Mr. 

Rusho to confirm the time period they represented. 

A measured map was then created u sing a plane ta ble and a l idade. Eight 

sheets of mapping paper were required to cover the entire a rea, and from these a 

composite map was generated at the scale used in the field and later reduced for 

inclusion in the final report. Contour interva ls were taken from an o rthophoto 

contour map of the Lee's Ferry a rea and overlaid o nto the plane table map using a 

Map-o-Graph machine. Minor variations in the contours that appear in this report 

are based on the a uthor's interpretation of landscape changes as shown in 

photographs of the area taken through time. 

57 
I nterpretation of the changes in the structures and other features through 

time is also based on historical photographs and documentation made available by 

M r. Rusho. The function or period of use of minor features cannot always be pinned 

down using this m ethod. Other means of documentation (i.e. personal papers, 

diaries, etc.) concerning Lee's Ferry were not exhausted and would prove to be 

beneficial for a more deta iled level of i nvestigation. 

Site Description 

A thorough description of the site through time is provided in the previous 

c hapter. Today the structures and features a re considerably d ifferent from the 

Spencer era a nd the latter USGS period. Only two of the buildings standing during 

Spencer's time a re sti ll i ntact and both have been modified to some extent. The 

bunkhouse was rem odeled into a laboratory by the USGS and Lee's Ferry Fort has 

been re-roofed and the Spencer addition has fa llen into ruin. Of the 12 structures 

that stood at various times during the USGS era, only 4 a re still present: the guest 

house, the bun kho use/laboratory, Lee's Ferry Fort, and the chicken coop. 

Despite the loss of most of the buildings that were once present at this site, 

a closer examination of the area revea led the presence of numerous smaller 

features. These featu res represent the remains of activities carried out by the 

various people that l ived and worked within the general Lee's Ferry vicin ity from 

1 874 to the p resent. Table 4. 1 lists the 49 feature designations assigned during the 

fieldwork for this p roject. These are listed in order by feature number and are 

fol lowed by a short description according to i nformation obtained on them during 

this study. The feature numbers assigned correspond to nu merical data presented 

in Figure 4. 1, a map of the S pencer mining area as it appeared in 1 986. Comparison 

of this figure to Figures 3. 12 and 3.23 will provide a graphic d i splay of the changes 

that have been documented at the site. Figure 4.2, a panoramic photograph of the 

a rea in 1 986, will also provide comparative i nformation on the historical changes at 

Lee's Ferry through time when compared with Figures 3.2 and 3. 1 6. 

58 
No. 

1A 

1B 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Table 4. 1 List of Features Documented 

Feature 

Spencer's La boratory 

Trash Dump 

Tra sh Dump 

Spencer's Blacksmith 

Shop 

Spencer's Cook's 

House 

Spencer's Mess Hall/ 

Kitchen 

Spencer's Bunkhouse 

Lee's Ferry Fort 

Post Office 

Burned Outhouse 

Storage Building 

Boiler 

Machine Part 

Water Pump 

Paddle Wheel 

USGS G uest House 

Unassigned Number 

Spencer Bunkhouse 

at Lee's Ferry H i stori c Site 

Comments 

Razed in 1 967 

Composed of coal clinker, ki ln brick, and 

crucible fragments. 6.5 feet in diameter of 

which only one quarter rem a ins. Distu rbed 

d u ring ra zing of the laboratory. 

Same as 1A in character. 9 feet in diameter. 

Razed in 1 967. 

Razed in 1 967. 

Razed in 1 967. 

Later remodeled by USGS. 

Bui lt in 1 874. Remodeled by Spencer in 191 1. 

Bui lt prior to 1915. Good condition. 

S uperstructu re burned. Pit conta ins 2 x 4 inch 

runners spanned with 1 x 12 i nch planks and 

weighted with roc ks; 6.5 feet across. 

Semi-subterra nean building, razed. Possibly a 

powder magaz ine. Used as a tra sh dump in 

the 1 950s by USGS. 

Horizontal, "locomotive type" boiler u sed by 

Spencer to operate mining equipment. Made 

by Nagle Engine and Boiler Works, Erie, Penn. 

Possibly a piece off of Feature 1 2. 

Cyl inders of a steam-driven water pump. 

Remains of a chain drive paddle wheel. 

Built in 1 950s. Good condition. 

Razed in 1 967 

59 
No. 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

Feature 

Wooden Post Remnant 

Amalgamator 

Flume 

Root Cellar 

Root Cellar (?) 

Trash Dumps 

Boiler 

Chicken Coop 

Spencer's Bunkhouse 

Cairns & Supports 

Surveyor's Brass Cap 

Wooden Pole Remnant 

Wooden Post 

Former Road 

Upright Sla bs 

Iron Pipe 

Iron Pipe 

Rock Cairn 

Comments 

Remains of a wooden fence post. 

Concrete base for a malgamator. 

Wooden flume remains. 

Superstructure gone. Unknown depth, 6.5 feet 

on a side. Pit lined with 2 x 6 inch boards and 

reinforced with sandstone blocks. 

Roughly circ ular depression 15 feet across. 

Upright 2 x 8 inch board in center of 

depression, probably a roof support. 

Two roughly circular piles of tra sh near the 

ferry road. Artifacts date to 1 950s. 

Pa rtia lly buried boiler. Same as Feature 10 but 

resting on its side. 

Built prior to 1915. 

Razed prior to 1 967 . 

Eighteen rock ca irns, steel rod and wooden 

post�supports associated with the hydraulic 

m ining hose. 

Stamped with BISA 

Appears to be a util ity pole sawn off at ground 

level. 

Probably a wooden fence post now rotted off 

at g round level. 

Traces of road tracks. 

Rock slabs set into the ground a long with 2 x 

4 inch posts suggest remains of a small 

�tru cture. H istoric a rtifacts Include broken 

glass a nd a leather boot. 

Not ma pped. 

Two segments of i ron pipe d riven into the 

ground and con nected to h eavy gauge wire. 

Probably s upport wires for an antenna. 

Assoc iated with electrical wire and suggests a 

support for a util ity pole. 

60 
No. Featu re 

35 Platform 

36 Platform 

37 Root Cellar (?) 

38 Root Cellar 

39 Low Berm 

40 Concrete Pl atform 

41 Large Berm 

42 Meta l G uard 

43 Structural Debris 

44 Structural Debris 

45 Paddle Wheel Boat 

46 U nassigned N umber 

47 Unassigned Number 

48 Mined Area 

49 Mined Area 

50 Mined Area 

Comments 

Level platform cut into the side of the hill and 

supported by a rock reta iner wall on the 

downslope side. 

Similar to Feature 35. 

Pit in ground measu ring 6.5 feet on a side. 

Surrou nded by earth berm 3 feet in width and 

containing beams and plan king. 

Remains of root cellar behind Lee's Ferry Fort. 

L -shaped berm constructed to redirect surface 

water away from Lee's Ferry Fort. 

Built i nto the larger berm behind Lee's Ferry 

Fort and may have been associated with a 

trailer house located here in the l ate 1 960s. 

Massive berm constructed to redirect surface 

water away from the Fort Lee concession and 

housing area in the late 1 960s. 

Appears to be a guard from a piece of 

machinery associated with the 1 930s mining 

a rea. 

What appears to be the remains of the mess 

hall, laboratory, blacksmith shop bulldozed into 

the arroyo. 

Scattered remains indicating the former 

presence of a fra me structure. 

CHARLES H. SPENCER. 

Slopes of hill mined in 1 930s. 

Slopes of hill m ined in 191 1-1912 

Area of the Colorado River near the north bank 

where the Lovett pipe dredge was used. 

Although most of the physical remains of the major structures in Spencer's 

mining area have been removed, information col lected during this study will a l low a 

61 
reconstruction of the major events at this location d uring Spencer's time there and 

to allow a history of those resources since. The USGS period itself lends a certain 

a mount of history to the a rea a nd, within the historic record, provides a continuum 

of events rel ated to the earlier Spencer era remains. With much of the primary 

resources since removed, it is more difficult to i nterpret to the public the events 

that helped shaped the history of Lee's Ferry during the early part of the twentieth 

century. However, the NPS has made a beginning in this i nterpretive endeavor and 

could, with the i nformation p rovided in this study, expand and enhance the 

i nterpretive story at Lee's Ferry. 

62 
Il 

24 

GRAVEL PARKING LOT 

---

63 

/ / / / / / 

/ /3 0 / / 

• 

5 

12 

, 

FIGURE 4. 1 

SPENCER MINING AREA 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PERIOD: 1 963-1 986 

GLEN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

NATIONAL PARK S E RVICE 

S UBMERGED CULTURAL RESOURCES UNIT 

J. STEIN/J. BRADFORD 

0 25 50 75 100 

FEET 

.""' 

11 - - - -



CHAPTER V. THE PLACE OF THE PADDLE WHEEL STEAMBOAT 

CHARLES H. SPENCER 

IN COLORADO RIVER MARITIME HISTORY AND 

PADDLE WHEEL VESSEL DEVELOPMENT 

Colorado River Navigation 

Historica lly the Colorado, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and the Columbia River 

systems were the main thoroughfares for settlement and development in the 

Western i nterior. In the period from 1 849 to nearly 1 900, paddle wheel steamboats 

provided the cheapest and most efficient form of transportation and all three rivers 

supported thriving steamboat businesses. Despite the distances between them, 

there was an a ctive interchange of men and boats. A pioneer of Colorado River 

steamboating eventually headed a monopoly on the Sacramento River, and Columbia 

River shipwrights built the last surviving steamboat on the Colorado (Yuma Sun 

June 1 7, 1910). Steam navigation on these four far Western river systems 1 was 

directly related and was intertwined with the development of transportation in the 

West. 

The California Gold Rush of 1 849 was the major i mpetus for expansion i nto 

the Colorado river country. That same year the first formally recognized ferry at 

Yuma c rossing was established just below the j unction of the Gila (Lingenfelter 

1 978:2). Fort Yuma was established in 1 851 on a nea rby bluff, and the need to 

s upport the garrison led to subsequent efforts to navigate the river. The first 

1 Although it is appropriate to refer to the Colorado, Sacramento, San Joaquin, 

and the Columbia Rivers as Western rivers in this discussion, it should not be 

confused with the general term "Western Rivers." This term has more commonly 

been used in d iscussions of maritime history to refer to riverine systems in the 

midwestern United States. The four fa r Western rivers d iscussed h ere a re part of 

the Pacific d rainage system and may be characterized as such. 

67 
attempt to reach Fort Yuma wa s made in 1 850 by Captain Alfred Wi lcox, in the 

schooner I NVINCIBLE. Unreliable i nformation on the distance of the fort from the 

mouth of the river and 6 foot tidal fluctuations forced the vessel to abandon river 

travel. 

An army representative on INVINCIBLE wa s later to suggest using a 

steamboat. Lieut. George Horatio Derby, U.S.A., recommended "a small stern-wheel 

steamer with a powerfu l engine and thick bottom ... eighteen or twenty feet beam, 

drawing two and a half to three feet of. water" (San Francisco Daily Herald, October 

22, 1 851 ). Derby's suggestion was ignored for nearly two years while sailing vessels 

were tried. The first paddle wheel steamboat on the Colorado was launched at the 

mouth of the river in November, 1 852. The 65-foot sidewheeler UNCLE SAM, loaded 

with supplies for Fort Yuma, arrived nearly two weeks later. Newspapers on the 

west coast qui ckly announced that steam navigation on the Colorado River was 

establi shed beyond doubt (Los Angeles Sta r, December 25, 1 852). 

Commerce on the Colorado fol lowed and settlements up the river were 

established in rapid succession (Figure 5. 1 ), and 

Before the 1 850s passed, steamboating over this 

one-hundred-fifty-mile stretch of river had assumed a 

regular schedule, and there had even been some 

exploratory steamboat navigation above the fort. 

Initiated as a means of supplying the mil ita ry at Yuma, 

other opportunities for trade subsequently developed. 

Mormons in the Utah territory, in their efforts to i m port 

needed supplies, saw in this riverboat trade an 

opportunity to connect a ... water freighting route with 

wagon freighting l ines from west coast points. Mi neral 

developments in Southern Arizona al so served as a 

stimulus as did the hauling of army supplies and such 

produce as wool, hides, pelts, farm machinery, 

household commodities, newsprint, and general d ry 

goods (Winther 1 964:82-83). 

The discovery of si lver in 1 861, fol lowed by the discovery of gold, triggered 

the Colorado River rush of 1 862. In the boom yea rs of the 1 870s, Colorado River 

steam ers were carrying more than 1 00 passengers a month, and freight was 

tra nsported for $40 per ton (Arizona Sentinel, September 1 876). Recognizing the 

potential for profits, the Colorado Stea m . Navigation Company e stablished regular 

routes from San Fra ncisco to Port Isabel, at the mouth of the Colorado. By the 

68 
N 

I 

25 50 

Figu re 5. 1. Settlements and steamboat landings on the Colorado and G reen Rivers, 

1 880 to 1910. After Lingenfelter, 1 978. 

69 
mid-1 870s the company was handling 7,000 tons of freight and a bout 1 ,000 

passengers annually (Lingenfelter 1 978:7 1 ). 

During the 1 860s and 1 870s, paddle wheel steam boats regularly traveled up 

the river as far as Hardyville, some 300 m i les a bove Y uma. Ha rdyvi lle wa s the 

practical head of navigation at this time and was the principal shipping center for 

northern Ari zona. In the period from 1 850 to the late 1 870s steamboat landings 

nearly tripled, from less than a dozen to 35 (Lingenfelter 1 978: 1 0, 34). 

Colorado River navigation was further aided by the fact that the mining 

operations produced large amounts of ore. So much so that it all could not be 

smelted loca lly; smelters d uring that period being sma ll, ind ividually owned 

operations. By 1 867 the need for larger smelters was so g reat that Thomas H. 

Selby, of San Fra nci sco, established the first major smelter on the Pacific Coast. 

Colorado River stea mers carried ore down to the mouth of the river, where it was 

then freig hted by ship and ra il to San Fra nci sco. Selby's operation was so large it 

ha ndled Colorado copper and s i lver, Nevada s i lver and gold, as well as the ores 

extracted from Ari zona and Utah. This smelter al so provided gold for the U.S. Mint 

(Delgado, personal commun ication 1 987). 

The substa ntial profits made by shipping companies came to an a brupt halt 

in the late 1 870s. In the spring of 1 877, the Southern Pacific ra ilroad reached Yuma, 

breaking the Colorado Steam Navigation Company's m onopoly on the river trade. 

The company could n ot compete with the cheaper, faster ra ilroad, and steamboating 

a bove Yuma slowed to a trickle. By 1 879 the population of Yuma had fa llen from 

a pproximately 1 500 to 500, and the second largest town on the river, Ehrenberg, 

was virtually abandoned (Arizona Sentinel, June 1 879). 

Coin cidential ly, in July of that yea r the head of Colorado River navigation, the 

mouth of the Virgin River, was finally reached. Capta in John Mellon navigated the 

1 49-foot sternwh eeler GILA from Eldorado Canyon, through the rapids in Black 

Ca nyon and Callevil le, to the Mormon settlement of Riovi lle at the mouth of the 

Virgin on July 8, 1 879 (Ari zona Sentinel, July 1 879). Navigation a bove Black Canyon 

was limited to a shallow-d raft sloop d uring the d ry summer months, while during 

high water GILA made the trip. steamboating a bove Eldorado Ca nyon was 

70 
short-lived however, and finally came to a halt in 1 887 when mining operations at 

Eldorado ceased (U.S Congress, 56th Congress 1 900:3, 6). 

The ra ilroad brought reduced shipping costs throughout most of the Ari zona 

Territory and with it a boost to mining in the reg ion. The reduction in rates was not 

reflected along the Colorado River however, where they remained nearly 

unchanged. As a result, mining efforts shifted away from the river country. Lim ited 

river commerce was reduced even further when the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad 

crossed the Colorado below Fort Mojave (Arizona Sentinel, January 1 880). After the 

construction of the bridge across the Colorado at Needles in 1 883, only one 

steam boat remained on the river; i ronically, it was GILA (Ari zona Sentinel, May -

July 1 885). 

The Colorado River region languished until the repeal of the Sherman Silver 

Act in 1 893 and the final collapse of silver prices. The decl ine of silver and the 

steady price of gold lured prospectors back and, in the ea rly 1 890s, several mining 

operations were opened along the Colorado. The Searchlight m ines, just south of 

Eldorado Canyon, were d i scovered in 1 897. Other mines near Yuma and Fort 

Mojave, d iscovered just after the turn of the century, further boosted river 

transportation. Several of the newly discovered mines were completely dependent 

upon river transportation, so once again steam boats began to a ppear on the river 

(Arizona Sentinel, October - December 1 901, March - May 1 902). 

The introduction of the gasoline engine on Colorado River craft occurred 

about this time, and led to the a ppeara nce of gasoline-powered paddle wheel and 

propeller-driven boats. The first gasoline-powered boat on the Colorado River was 

launched in December 1 891. ELECTRIC S PARK was an i nstant success, and in fact 

the gasoline engine was so powerfuL the boat was rebuilt with a larger hull and 

re-named ELECTRIC in 1 892 (Needles Eye, December 1 891; Arizona Sentinel, January 

1 892). Smaller-sized, lighter-draft boats, such as the less than 60-foot E LECTRIC, 

were more cost-efficient than 1 49-foot GILA and its contempora ries. These boats 

were a ble to make a profit carrying smal ler cargos and making more frequent and 

shorter trips. 

Competition for trade heightened after the turn of the century. The Colorado 

River Transportation Company was organized in the fa ll of 1 902. By December of 

71 
that yea r the company had contracted with Columbia River shipwrights for the 

construction of a 9 1 -foot long, 1 8-foot beam, stern-wheel steamer (Figure 5.2). 

S EARCHLIGHT was equipped with a marine boiler and a 1 00-horsepower steam 

engine, had a cargo capacity of 60 tons, and was fitted out with six staterooms, a 

s moking room, and a galley to serve passengers (List of Mercha nt Vessel s of the 

United States 1 904:297). The boat was in regular service by April, 1 903, ca rrying 

passengers and freight from the Needles ra ilroad connection 60 miles up river. 

Despite its success, S EARCHLIGHT proved to be the la st steam boat launched on the 

Colorado River below the G rand Canyon (Lingenfelter 1 978:95). 

Despite ELECTRIC's s uccess, between 1 890 and 1 900 only 5 gasoline boats 

were pl aced on the river. Gasoline-powered boats peaked between 1 900 and 1910 

with 18 vessels; however, with the majority of them less than 40 feet long, they 

were no rea l threat · to the steam boat in the competition for river trade (Figure 5.3). 

The gasoline-powered boats as a g roup also p roved to be underpowered for the 

river c urrents (Lingenfelter 1 978:88). Their limited uti l ity resulted in a ra pid dec rease 

in num bers, and by 1912 there were only 5 boats still in use; by 1914 the last was 

p ut out of service (Li ngenfelter 1 978: 1 1 8). 

Along with the a rrival of gasoline-powered boats after the turn of the 

century, the revival in mining a long the river brought the i ntrod uction of the gold 

d redge. Dredges had profitably been used in various locations in the West since 

1 894, and by 1 900 m ore than 75 dredges were working in the region. A dredge was 

being used in the u pper Colorado basin, near present-day Breckenridge, on a 

tributa ry of the Colorado in 1 896; and by 1 900 gold d redges were being i ntroduced 

on the Colorado River itself (Los Angeles Mining Review, December 1 900). 

ADVANCE was a typical Colorado River d redge. It had a beam of 30 feet, was 

1 1 0 feet long, was equipped with a contin uous chain of ha lf-ton buckets, and was 

powered by a pair of SO-horsepower locomotive engi nes. Up to 4,000 cubic yards 

of gravel a day could be d u mped i nto a revolving cylindrical processer, mounted 

a midships. The finer gold-beari ng gravels were then run through an 80-foot sluice 

to remove the gold (Los Angeles Mining Review, February-September 1 900). 

ADVANCE was unable to adequately col lect the fine gold from the Yuma-area 

deposits. In 1 909 NORTH DAKOTA, a nother d redge, also failed for the same reason; 

this time farther up river near the mouth of Eldorado Canyon and the once 

72 

productive mines located there. In January, 1910 the dredge swam ped and sank in 

a flood; the editor of the Searchlight Bul letin commented: 

The monster barge seems to have solved the problem 

confronting the u nfortunate stockholders of what to do 

with the "wh ite elephant" by committing suicide (January 

1 91 0). 

The fa ilure of both ADVANCE (Figure 5.4) and NORTH DAKOTA to show a profit 

marked the end of gold dredg ing below the Grand Canyon and a decline in gold 

exploration. Dredges did continue to be u sed to both im prove navigation on the 

river a nd, more importantly, to cut irr!gation canals. Furthermore, by 1 900 the 

general decline in mining in the region had reduced the n umber of steamboat 

landings down from the high of 35 in the 1 860s and 1 870s to 19 (Lingenfelter 

1 978:80). 

U pper Colorado and G reen R iver Navigation 

Steam boating activity on the Colorado was not li m ited to the lower river. 

The idea of running steamers i nto the deep canyons of the upper Colorado had 

been discussed by entrepreneurs from the late 1 860s. The com ing of the Union 

Pacific Railroad to G reen River, Wyoming in 1 868, and the explorations of the 

canyon country by Major John Wesley Powell fueled ideas of canyon steamboating. 

Additionally, the Rio Grande Western Rai lroad established a station at G reen River, 

Uta h in 1 883 (Cram pton 1 959: 1 1, 20; Lingenfelter 1 978: 1 06). I ronical ly, the ra ilroads 

and the esta blish ment of several communities a long the river provided new impetus 

for the u se of paddle wheel steamboats. Between the 1 890s and 1910 there were a 

tota l of 10 steamboat landings established on the Green and Colorado Rivers (see 

Figure 5. 1) (Lingenfelter 1 978: 1 08). 

It wa s the potential for i mmense profits, however, that finally brought about 

the launch of the first steamboat a bove the G rand Canyon. 

Imagine the calliope [of a steamboat] p1pmg its 

stentorian music through the canyons and labyrinths of 

this most beautiful and majestic scenic route on a 

moonlight night. The Colorado River Canyon country 

will bEf the Mecca of the world's wonders ... and billions 

of dollars will be spent by the traveling public for no 

other purpose than the novelty of its scenes (Grand 

Va l ley Times, February 1 904). 

74 

The lead in stea mboating in the u pper Colorado region was taken by the 

comm unity of Green River, Uta h in the fa ll of 1 890. B. S. Ross wa s impressed with 

the canyons of the Green River and, together with a few others, establ ished the 

Green, Grand and Colorado River Navigation Company for the purpose of running a 

line of excu rsion boats down the Green River to just below its junction with the 

Colorado. At that location Ross and company planned to build a hotel. Their first 

purchase was a small steam launch in Chicago; the open-dec ked, 35-foot boat was 

shipped by ra ilroad to G reen River, Utah and launched in August 1 891. MAJOR 

POWE LL was equipped with two 6-hosepower steam engines and twin screws. 

While Ross had ordered a boat that would require no more than 20 inches of water 

when fully loaded, MAJOR POWELL had a 26-inch draft light, and needed a great 

quantity of coal for its boi ler (Colorado Sun, July 1 892; Cheyenne Sun Annual, 

November 1 892). 

MAJOR POWELL's first excursion down the river was short l ived, smashing its 

il l-suited propellers on a bar just below the town. The following yea r the tri p down 

the ca nyon was attem pted again, but this time the propellers were protected by i ron 

shields. With spring floods in their favor, the crew had no problem navigating the 

river passed Wheeler Ranch, through Labyrinth Canyon and down to the Colorado 

River to the first rapids, 4 miles below the ju nction with the Green River, and the 

lower limit of river navigation (W. F. Reeder, U.S. versus Utah, 1 929, Abstract of 

Testimony 2: 1 242). U nfortunately the vessel was underpowered for the return and 

was a ba ndoned at Wheeler Ranch (Colorado Sun, June 1 892). MAJOR POWELL was 

run down the G reen only twice more, both times in 1 893 by William H. Edwards, 

who hoped to esta blish regular freight service to futu re settlers in the canyons (U.S. 

versus Utah, 1 929, Abstra ct of Testimony 1 :555-586). Edwards' hopes for regular 

service quickly faded, and in 1 894 MAJOR POWELL was purchased and stripped of 

its engin e. 

The fa ilure of MAJOR POWE LL did not deter other entrepeneurs and 

subsequently other steam boats were launched from G reen River, Utah. They 

included: UNDINE (1901), CITY OF MOAB ( 1 905) later rebuilt as CLIFF DWELLER, and 

BLACK RIVER (1 907). Each h ad limited success in navigating the river, mostly due to 

fluctuating water levels and shifting sandbars. During this same period, smal ler 

gasoline-powered vessels were being tried. WILMONT ( 1 904) a sternwheeler, PADDY 

ROSE ( 1 905) a s idewheeler, COLORADO ( 1 905), MARGUERITE ( 1 906) a sternwheeler, 

76 
NAVAJO ( 1 908) a propel ler, IDA B. ( 1 909) a propeller, BABY BLACK EAGLE ( 1 909) a 

propeller, and much later a large open sternwheeler du bbed "THE BIG BOAT" ( 1 925), 

were la unched (Lingenfelter 1 978: 1 1 0- 1 1 8). 

Steamboating out of Green River, Wyoming lagged behind the rest of the 

upper Colorado River region until 1 908, when Marius N. Larsen launched COMET, a 

60-foot sternwheeler. He i ntended the vessel to support his general store and cut 

overland freight costs. Like other vessels on the river, so long as the water level 

was high enough no problem was encountered in navigation, however as the water 

level dropped, shifting sand bars limited or brought upstream progress to a halt 

(Green River Star, July 1 908). 

Gold dredges were also tried on the upper Colorado River. Robert Stanton's 

i nterest in placer mining in Glen Ca nyon was the i mpetus behind the organization of 

the Hoskaninni Company and his dream of a fleet of gold dredges. Stanton 

eventually located a suita ble claim and, with backing from Eastern i nvestors, 

obta ined materials for the construction of the d redge HOSKANINNI in June 1 900 

{Figure 5.5). The dredge was 1 05 feet long, 36 feet in beam, had 46 buckets, a nd 

was powered by 5 gasoline engines that generated 1 68 horsepower (Cra mpton and 

Smith 1961:121-140). Like its predecessors ADVANCE and NORTH DAKOTA, the 

results were disappointing. In nearly two months work the dredge only recovered 

$30. 15 worth of gold; a second location resu lted in recovery of $36.80 (Crampton 

and Smith 1 961:139, 1 43). Final ly, in Septem ber 1 901, the company went into 

receivership, and the d redge and other related company property were sold for $200 

{Crampton and Smith 1 961:148). 

Several gasoline-powered launches were used on the Upper Colorado River 

just after the turn of the century. Stanton used an 1 8-foot gasoline launch to 

supply his various camps on the river. Unfortunately, the vessel unable to make 

headway against the river currents. Bra nded the "white elephant", it was eventua lly 

aba ndoned {Crampton and Smith 1 961:1 04). 

The gasoline-powered sternwheel launch, LUCY B, was built at Hite in 1 902 

for the Moquie Mining Company. It was equipped with a 2-cylinder a utomobile 

engine and 2, 6-horsepower engines. The engines did not run at peak efficiency 

and the underpowered LUCY B was abandoned on Olympia Bar, upstream from 

77 
Stanton's d redge (Bennett, U.S. versus Utah, 1 929, Abstract of Testimony 

2:828-833). A second boat was built for the Moquie Mining Company at Green River 

in 1 905. The 22-foot propeller-driven launch had a 1 2-horsepower gasoline engine 

and 1 6-inch propeller. While not underpowered, the propeller continua lly stuck on 

g ravel bars. The vessel eventually sank at Tickaboo in 1 90(> (Chaffin, U.S. versus 

Utah, 1 929, Abstract of Testimony 2: 1 249- 1 259). 

For several years no efforts were made to navigate the upper Colorado and 

G reen Rivers. The next vessels to appear were two gasoline launches, the 27-foot 

VIOLET LOUISE and 1 8-foot MULLINS. Both boats were used to support the 

American Placer Corporation operations just below lee's Ferry. C harlie Spencer was 

the managing director of the corporation, and it was his need for coal to fire boilers 

for the placer operation that led to the last paddle wheel steam boat to be 

constructed on the Colorado River; C HARLES H. SPENCER was launched at Warm 

Creek in February 1912. The sternwheeler was 70 feet long between uprights 

(stempiece to stern post, not including paddle wheel guard) a nd, according to the 

plans, had a 20 foot beam (Shultze, Robertson and Shultze, 191 1 ). 

like many of SPENCER's predecessors on the river, the principal problems 

encountered were the changing levels of the river and shifting sand bars. The 

steam boat g rounded on several occassions, and by the time the crew had worked 

out steering and navigational problem s, the mining operation was collapsing. The 

steamboat was tied up and a bandoned just below lee's Ferry in 1912. 

It was the completion of laguna Dam, 14 miles above Yuma, that ma rked the 

end of steam navigation on the Colorado River. Officia l ly opened on March 31, 

1 909, politicians ha iled the completion of the dam as the beginning of a new era of 

a gricultural prosperity for the lower Colorado region (Arizona Sentinel April 1 909). 

While severa l d redges were involved in construction of the dam a long with the 

paddle wheelers SEARCH LIGHT ( 1 902) and ST. VALLIER ( 1 899), no new vessels were 

built. 

Ironically, it was the completion of Glen Canyon Dam and creation of lake 

Powell in 1 964 that ultimately led to the reappearance of a paddle wheeler on the 

upper Colora do River. A d iesel-powered replica sternwheeler, CANYON KING, was 

launched from Moab, Utah, on April 30, 1 972. A 93 foot long, 26 foot broad, 

78 
double-decked excursion boat, CANYON KING makes regular trips down the 

Colorado (Moab Times-Independent December 1 971, February - May, 1 972). 

Riverine Shipwreck Resources 

The potential va riety of h istoric vessel resources that lay along the Colorado 

and Green Rivers mirror the exploration, g rowth, and development of the region. 

Open rowed-boats used by various expeditions, sailing craft used in early attem pts 

to reach Fort Yuma from the G u lf, ferries, steam- and gasoline-powered paddle 

wheelers, gasoline-powered prop launches, barges, and dredges, used for travel, 

commerce, mineral exploration, navigation, and agriculture, have contributed to the 

rich h istory of the region. The documented population of vessel remains i ncludes a 

cross section of vessel types. These vessels, together with many associated land 

sites (mines, landi ngs, ferry crossings), can contribute meaningfully to the story of 

the Colorado River and its tributaries and to the severa l National Pa rks that have the 

river as their focus. 

Each of the various vessel types used on the river have contributed to the 

development of the reg ion, although it was the steamboat that was used for the 

longest period, from 1 854 to 1916. The potential population of steamboats that may 

exist in some form on the Colorado and Green Rivers are presented in Ta ble 5. 1, 

below. 

Name(s) 

BLACK EAGLE 

C HARLES H. 

SPENCER 

CO C HAN 

Table 5. 1 Possible Steamboat Remains in the 

Colorado and Green Rivers* 

Prop. 

Type 

screw 

stern 

wheel 

stern 

wheel 

Place Bui lt 

Dates of Use 

Green River, Utah 

June 1 907 -? 1 907 

San Francisco, Cal if. 

reassembled Warm C reek, 

Ariz. 

Feb. 1912 - Sum mer 1912 

Yuma, Arizona 

Nov. 1 899 - Spring 1910 

79 

Reason for Loss/ 

General Location 

Explosion 

Valentine's Btm., 

Utah 

Green River 

Aba ndoned 

Lee's Ferry, Ariz. 

Colorado River 

Dismantled 

Yuma, Ariz. 

Colorado River 
Prop. Place Built Reason for Loss/ 

Na me(s) Type Dates of Use General Location 

COCOPAH II stern Yuma, Arizona Dismantled 

wheel March 1 867 - 1 881 Yuma, Ari z. 

Colorado River 

COLORADO I stern Estuary, Mexico Dismantled 

(rebuilt as wheel Dec. 1 855 - Apr. 1 862 Fort Yuma, Ariz. 

COLORADO II) 

COLORADO II stern Yuma, Arizona Dismantled 

wheel May 1 862 - Aug. 1 882 Yuma, Ari z. 

Colorado River 

COMET stern Green River, Wyoming Aba ndoned 

wheel July 1 908 - ? 1 908 Green River, Wyo. 

Green River 

ESMERALDA stern San Francisco, Calif. Dismantled 

wheel 1 862 - 1 868 Fort Yuma, Ari z. 

Colorado River 

EXPLORER stern Philadelphia, Penn. Engine Removed 

wheel rea ssembled Robinson's 60 mi. below Pi lot 

Landing, Mex Knob, Cal if. 

Dec. 1 857 - 1 864 Colorado River 

GENE RAL J ESUP side Estua ry, Mexico Machinery Removed 

wheel Jan. 1 854 - 1 859 Minturn Slough 

Colorado River 

GILA (rebu ilt stern Port Isabel, Mexico Dismantled 

as COCHAN ) wheel Jan. 1 873 - Nov. 1 899 

MAJOR POWELL screw Green River, Utah Machinery Removed 

Aug. 1 891 - 1 894 Ha lverson's Ranch, 

Utah 

Green River 

MOHAVE (II) stern Port Isabel, Mexico Dismantled 

wheel Feb. 1 876 - Jan 1 900 Jaeger's Slough, 

Arizona 

Colorado River 

R ETTA stern Yuma, Ari zona Sunk 

wheel 1 900 - Feb. 1 905 Between Mellen & 

Wi lliam's Fork, 

Ariz. 

Colorado River 

ST. VALLIER stern Needles, Cal if. Sunk/Dynamited 

wheel 1 899 - Mar. 1 909 Yuma, Ariz. 

Colorado River 

80 
Prop. Place Built Reason for Loss/ 

Name(s) Type Dates of Use General Location 

SEARCH LIGHT stern Needles, Cal if. Sunk 

wheel Dec. 1 902 - Oct. 1916 Yuma, Ariz. 

Colorado River 

UNCLE SAM side Estuary, Mexico Sunk 

wheel Nov. 1 852 - May 1 853 Fort Yuma, Ariz. 

Colorado River 

UNDINE stern G reen River, Utah Wrecked 

wheel Nov. 1 901 - May 1 902 Near Big Bend, 

Uta h 

Colorado River 

*after Lingenfelter 1 978:161-163 

Table 5.1 is a useful tool insofar as it provides a framework for eva luati ng 

the potential population of steam-powered vessels that may be found along the 

Colorado and G reen Rivers and the relative number of i ndividual types, based upon 

propu lsion employed. For example, of the 18 stea m-powered boats listed, 2 a re 

screw-driven, 2 a re sidewheelers, and 14 are sternwheelers. 

The remains of the screw-steamer BLACK EAGLE, may still be ava ilable for 

study on the G reen River just above its confluence with the Colorado. Remains of 

the second screw-steamer MAJOR POWELL, located fa rther up the G reen, may also 

exi st. With such a limited population poss ibly avai lable for study, the discovery of 

either of the screw-steamers, would be significant; their potential eligilibity for the 

National Register is clear. The same reasoning can be appl ied to the two sidewheel 

steam boats, GENERAL JESUP and U NCLE SAM. GENERAL JESUP, abandoned in 

Minturn Slough near Fort Yuma, and UNCLE SAM, the first steamboat on the 

Colorado River, sunk below Fort Yuma, may exist in some form. However, it is 

highly possible that they have been im pacted by river channel ization. 

Of the 14 sternwheel steamboats included in Table 5. 1, 7 have been 

dismantled (COCHAN, COCOPAH II, COLORADO I, COLORADO II. ESMERALDA, GI LA, 

MOHAVE II). The degree of destruction and final d i sposition of these vessels is 

unknown. Two dismantled vessels, COCHAN and COLORADO I. were rebuilt into 

larger vessels; those vessels were also later dismantled. 

81 
The remaining seven a bandoned and sunk sternwheelers i nclude three lost on 

the upper Colorado or Green Rive rs. One vessel is below Glen Canyon Dam 

(CHARLES H. SPENCE R), and two a re above the upper reaches of Lake Powel l 

(COMET, UNDINE). These three a re not known to have been heavily sa lvaged and 

a re representative of post- 1 900 paddle wheel construction. 

The four final vessels, all lost on the lower Colorado River include: two sunk 

j ust below Yuma, Arizona, (ST. VALLIER, S EARCHLIGHT) that may have been i mpacted 

during channelization of the river; one lost near El Rio below Pilot Knob (EXPLORER) 

that is reported to have been heavily salvaged in the late 1 920s (Sykes 1 937:90-92); 

and one (RETTA) that may retain structural integrity but whose final location is 

unclear. 

The potential for National Reg ister eligibility of the dismantled sternwheelers 

is dependant upon their physical i nteg rity, for criteria A, and potential to yield 

i nformation, for criteria D, when and if they can be located. While impacts to 

physical integrity do not prec lude nomination of a vessel, it does p rovide a tangible 

link to the identity of the vessel and a strong tie to the events or patterns of history 

with which it is associated. The same holds true for the three lost or sunk 

sternwheelers on the lower Colorado River. The impacts from river channelization 

and heavy salvage are i m possible to evaluate. Four sternwheelers hold the most 

promise for future research; the two on the upper Colorado River (SPENCE R, 

UNDINE), the one on the G reen River (COMET), and the one whose location is 

unclear (RETTA). Based solely on the sca rcity of resources of this type available to 

study, these four sternwheelers appear to be eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places. When other National Register requirements a re 

considered, i.e. citeria B and C, the significance and eligibility of these vessles for 

listing may, of course, be enhanced. 

Vessel Context and Development 

Paddle Wheel Steamboats 

It has been well docu mented that the American river steam boat was a major 

contributing factor in the opening of both the midwest and western i nterior. 

Despite popularized misconceptions, " ... gambling and small time theatrics ... were 

82 

.-
negligi ble ... in the hey-day of steamboati ng. The true steamboat did a specifi c job 

in a particular manner and was ... a special ized c raft" (Bates 1 968:5}. American 

paddle wheel steamers evolved to meet the need for movement of passengers, 

general cargo, and bulk freight through the Western river systems. They were at 

once floating palaces, general purpose packets, insignificant tow boats, ferries, 

dredge tenders and even Civil War gunboats. While there was a great vari ety 

a mong steamboats, they were limited in overall size and draft by the width and 

depth of Western Rivers and their tributa ries during periods of low water. 

The Ohio River ... had a way of drying up each year to 

the point that the boats drawing over 15 inches had to 

quit (Bates 1 968:5}. 

The underlying necessity for an extremely shal low draft i nfluenced the general 

development and spec ific chara cter of the Western river steam boat. 

The generally accepted form and style of steamboat is typically one that 

plied the Mississippi or its tributaries. Its early development resu lted from the 

efforts of many individ uals, with elements dating back to the Roman empire (Gilfillan 

1 935, in Murphy and Saltus 1 98 1 :9 1 }. As ea rly as 1 729, a prototypical steamboat 

was patented in England and experiments using steam power were being undertaken 

in America by 1 763. The first boat to be powered by steam in the United States 

resulted from the efforts of John Rumsey in 1 786. The first commerical use of a 

steamboat occurred in 1 790, and finally in 1 807 Robert Fu lton's NORTH RIVER 

STEAMBOAT OF CLEREMONT heralded in the era of steamboating as a commerically 

viable a lternative to horse and wagon for i nterior travel (Gilfillan 1 935; Thurston 

1 939, in Murphy and Saltus 1 98 1 :92-93}. 

By the arrival of the 20th Century, the paddle wheel steamboat had more 

than 1 00 years of refinement in hull form as well as d ramatic im provement in steam 

machinery. In fact, the paddle wheel steamboat, whether ocean-going or 

river-running, had become generally standardized during the 1 840s through the 

1 850s, had entered i nto a "cl assic" period in form and machinery during the 1 860s 

and 1 870s, saw some decline in use after 1 880, and was entering a "modern" era 

with electric lights and generators by 1 900 (Murphy and Saltus 1 981: 161-163}. 

83 
Colorado River Paddle Wheel Steam boats - The Place of CHARLES H. SPENCER 

Context: The steam-powered boat was the true workhorse of 

riverine commerce, transporting passengers, package and bulk freight such as ore 

and goods for mining commun ities. Wh ile never numerous, especially when 

compa red to other riverine systems where steamboats were used, their numbers on 

the Colorado River and its tributaries reflect the shifting socio-economic trends in 

the region from 1 850 through 1 920. The hey-day of the steam boat coincided with 

with the peak of commerce and min ing, the period from the late 1 850s through the 

1 870s and again at the turn of the centu ry. Figure 5.6 tab u lates the number of 

steam-powered vessels operating on the river for each 10 yea r period from 1 850 to 

1 920. 

The most preva lent stea mboat configuration was, by fa r, the sternwheeler. 

Of the 24 steam boats used on the river from their introduction in 1 852 to their 

demise in 1916, 18 were sternwheelers, that is, 75%. They ranged in size from only 

45 feet in length to nea rly 1 50 feet long, and from a breadth of only 6 feet to 31 

feet. By the time that C HARLES H. SPENCER was built in 1912, the use of 

steamboats in the Colorado River system had already pea ked and was declining. 

In order to understand the place of the sternwheeler C HARLES H. SPENCER 

a mong Colorado River steam boats, two broad q uestions should be considered: how 

did economic factors in the region from 1 850 to 1 920 affect the rise, fa ll, and use of 

gasoline and steam-powered vessels; and, can the results of these economic factors 

be observed in the physical attributes of these vessels, their relative n u mbers, and 

types p resent? 

An increase or dec rease in the construction of vessels, logically enough, 

often parallels periods of regional or economic change; numbe rs, types, and si zes of 

vessels built reflecting perceived tra nsportation and commercial needs. Based upon 

that axiom, then it follows that a known population of vessels, such as the Colorado 

River steamboats, and their dates of construction should be correl ata ble to the 

periods of social or economic change in this region. In addition, the sizes of these 

vessels should reflect extant transportation and commercial needs, taking i nto 

consideration environmental constraints. 

' 84 
12 

1 0 10 

C/') 

.. 

LU 

C/') 8 C/') 

LU 

> 

-

0 6 

0: 

LU 

Q:l 

::;: 

:: 

z 

2 

0 

1 850 1 8 60 1 8 70 1 8 80 1890 1 900 1910 1 92 0 

DECADES of OPER ATION 

Figure 5.6. Steamboats operating on the Colorado River and tributaries from 1 850 

through the 1 920s. 

85 
Chronicling the dates of construction for each of the 18 sternwheelers 

revealed two periods of activity, from 1 856 to 1 876, and from 1 899 to 1912. Loosely 

sorting the vessels by size resulted in dividing the sternwheelers i nto two broad 

length categories, less than 75 feet (7 vessels) and 90 to 1 50 feet ( 11 vessel s). 

Although not a one-to-one correlation, a comparison of the Colorado River 

steam-powered sternwheelers by year of construction and size revea led some 

interesting rel ationships. Figure 5.7 illustrates preferences in size of sternwheeler 

construction by decade. 

The first period of g rowth and mining in the reg ion was between 1 855 and 

1 876; nine of the eleven sternwheelers 90 feet long or greater were built during that 

period. Not surprisingly, these vessels were constructed to handle bulk ore and 

general freight in order to support the growing number of m ines, settlements, as 

well as Fort Yuma. The two exceptions, COCHAN and SEARCHLIGHT, were built in 

1 899 and 1 902 on the eve of the second mining boom in the region a nd, like their 

earlier counterparts, these vessels were used to transport bulk ore a nd freight. 

Six of the seven vessels less than 75 feet long were constructed in the 

second boom period, from 1 899 through 1912. Despite the small resurgence in 

m ining in the region, these vessels were primarily geared toward hauling light 

freight and for passenger excursions; reflecting a shift in use of the region from a 

predominantly industrial base to general commerce and tourism. The exception in 

the under 75 foot class is EXPLORER. This vessel wa s built in 1 857 and was used 

for early riverine exploration. CHARLES H. SPENCER, built in 1912, was the only 

vessel of less than 75 feet constructed for bulk ore tra nsport and the last such 

vessel built for this use on the river. 

The shift away from heavy industrial use toward general commerce and 

tourism is also reflected in the numbers and commercial use of the smaller sized 

gasoline-powered boats. These boats first appeared in 1 891, and continued in use 

until 1914; the second boom period in the region. Figure 5.8 g raphically illustrates 

the numbers of g asoline-powered boats constructed for use on the river between 

1 890 and 1 920. 

The 25 documented gasoline-powered boats were all 60 feet or less in 

length and were principally involved in transportation of light frei ght, passengers, 

86 
20 

18 

1 6 

en 

..J 

IJ 14 

en 

en 

IJ 12 :> 

IJ. 

0 10 

0: 

IJ 8 a:l 

::;: 

;: 6 z 

4 

2 

0 

D STERNWHEELERS <75 

bS STERNWHEELERS >go 

6 

0 0 0 

1 850 1 8 60 1 870 1880 1 8 90 1900 1910 1920 

YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION 

Figure 5.7. Comparison of steam-powered sternwheelers by size and year of 

construction. 

en 

..J 

IJ 

en 

en 

IJ 

> 

IJ. 

0 

0: 

IJ 

a:l 

::;: 

;: 

z 

20 

18 18 

16 G A SOLINE soArs 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

1 850 1 860 1 870 1880 1 890 1 900 1910 1920 

YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION 

Figure 5.8. Gasoline-powered boat construction from 1850 through the 1 920s. 

87 
and excursionists. Only MULLINS and VIOLET LOUISE, both associ ated with the 

Spencer mining operation, were used on an experimental basis to move bulk coal 

needed for mining at the Spencer site. However, these vessels were principally 

involved in the transport of light freight to support the small settlement at Lee's 

Ferry. 

Other indicators of change in the · region that d irectly impacted the presence 

of steamboats were the numbers of boat companies operating and freight rates in 

the region. During the first boom period ( 1 852- 1 876), a tota l of nine steamboat 

companies were operating. In the decade from 1 850 to 1 860 four companies were 

in exi stence; this had increased to six companies in the mid- 1 860s. 

Freight rates. not surprisingly fl uctuated with the n umber of compan ies and 

the n u mber of boats on the river. In 1 855 overland rates were $500 a ton; by 1 862 

overland rates were $250 a ton and steamboat rates were $100 a ton. In 1 864 the 

number of operators were at their height and freight rates at their lowest, at $65 a 

ton; the result of a freight war between two prominent companies (Lingenfelter 

1 978:33, 37, 47). As a result of the rate wars, there was a decline in the n umber of 

operators and the freight rates stabil ized at $250 a ton overland and $100 a ton by 

steamboat, by the end of the decade. 

Between 1 870 and 1 879 only 2 companies were sti ll hauling freight. In 1 873, 

again because of fierce competition, freight rates by steamer from Hardyvi lle to San 

Francisco d ro pped to $20 a ton. By compari son, the overl and rate for the 35 miles 

to get the ore to Hardyvi lle wa s $20 a ton (Lingenfelter 1 978:68). Final ly, with the 

coming of the rai lroad in 1 877, the combination of three day delivery from the 

freight landings to San Francisco and a rate of $42 a ton, resu lted in the further 

reduction of boat freighting companies. A decline in the productivity of the mines 

after the mid-1 870s, further impacted those companies sti ll in business and by 1 880, 

only one company rema ined. 

The second period of growth in the region began in 1 889 and resulted In a 

slight increase In the number of boat operations. By 1 900 the number had risen to 

five. During the peak of the second boom period, the decade from 1 900 to 1 9 1 0, 

there were 12 boat companies. These companies were using smaller, more 

economically feasible and commercially adaptable gasoline-powered boats. The use 

88 
of this type of boat supports the argument that the growth in the region was in the 

transport of light freight with a shift towa rd tourism and passenger transport. The 

boom and bust cycle was repeated after 191 0; with the exception of the U.S. 

Reclamation service operating u ntil 1916, there were no other boat operations in the 

reg ion (Lingenfelter 1 978: 1 66). 

(, 

When looked at together, the numbers, dates of construction, and sizes of 

both the steam-powered sternwheelers and gasoline-powered boats, clearly reflect 

the socio-economic trends in the region. Figure 5.9 graph ically combi nes the 

construction data by decade on the steam-powered and gasoline powered vessels. 

Ba sed upon the above analysis, it is rea sonable to state that the sternwheeler 

CHARLES H. SPENCER wa s a socio-economic anachronism. The vessel was built 

after the peak of steamboat and sternwheeler construction, it was small in 

comparison to the most successful sternwheelers on the river used for bulk ore, it 

was designed to support a ra pidly dying mining industry, and was never adapted for 

use in general commerce, i.e. transport of light freight, or passengers and 

excursionists. 

Technolog ical Context: Was CHARLES H. SPENCER a technological a nachronism as 

wel l? In order to evaluate the vessel in that context, that is, in the evolution of 

paddle wheel vessel construction, it is helpful to compare SPENCER's major 

attributes, i.e. boiler, engines •. breadth, and length, to the "typical" western river 

vessel of the period as we ll as to similar Colorado River vessels constructed for 

similar duties at a pproximately the same time. 

The "typical" post- 1 900 shal low-draft western river paddle wheel steamboat 

was briefly described by Charles E. Ward in a paper presented to the Society of 

Naval Architects and Marine Engineers in 1 909. The following general discussion of 

hull form, boilers, engi nes, paddle wheel and shaft is based upon his presentation, 

u nless otherwise i ndicated. 

Hull: Like their predecessors, the majority of paddle wheel stea mboats built 

in 1 909 were constructed of wood, with thick bottom planking; often 4 inch oak. 

The use of steel was limited and was being used only a bout 1 0% of the time. 

Ward's description of the hull form indicates very little a lteration from the 1 860s. 

89 
20 

18 

16 

r;J) 

.. 1 4 UJ 

r;J) 

i:l 12 

::> 

10 

8 

O sTERNWHEELERS <1s 

� STERNW HEELERS >go 

§ GASOLINE BOATS <so' 

6 

0 0 0 0 

18 

000 

1 8 50 1 8 60 1870 1 8 80 1 8 90 1 9 00 1 9 10 1 9 20 

Y EAR OF CONSTRUCTION 

• ALL LESS THA N 60 FEE T 

Figure 5.9. Com parison of steam- powered sternwheelers and gasoline-powered 

boat construction from 1 850 through the 1 920s. 

90 
The flat-bottomed hull was designed with a considerable fl are in order to a l low the 

current to run under the boat, rather than having the bow split the current in order 

to run through it. The very broad design of the stern and transom al lowed the 

vessel to run almost on top of the river. The accepted system of bracing and 

trussing, that is, tying the deck, floor frames, and cyl inder timbers together with 

meta l rod and turnbuckles was still in use. 

Boi ler: The cyl indrical flue, fire tube boiler was in general use by 1 909. 

These ranged in diameter from 30 to 40 inches and in length from 15 to 30 feet. 

One of the attractions of the flue boiler was its external fire box. The fire box and 

fire bed were made from sheet iron, li ned with firebrick and had very low 

combustion cham bers. In addition they were felt to be the best for use in m uddy 

water. 

Engines: Low pressure condensing beam engi nes, used in east coats 

steamers, were too heavy for Western River, i.e. midwestern, steamboats. The high 

p ressure engine, with no condenser, was preferred and quickly became the standard 

(Sawyer 1 978:76). Ea rly engines, of the slide-valve type, had a stroke about 4 times 

the diameter of the cyl inder. The length of the pitman, the limberness of the hull, 

and the presence of muddy water, caused uncerta in valve action and problems with 

these engines. 

The lever-poppet-valve engine was adopted to correct problems associated 

with the sl ide-valve and was widely used after the turn of the century. These 

engines were equipped with two cams, one for reversing, the other, ca lled a 

"cut-off," cut off steam at one-half, five-eighths or three-fourths of the stroke. This 

allowed the engineer to adjust the a mount of steam entering the piston and 

therefore, the a mount of power. Broken va lve stems were a common problem, as a 

result, the Frisbee balanced valve was developed. These proved so successful, 

many of the older lever engines were retrofitted with the valve and new engines 

were automatically equipped with them. The horizonta l configu ration of both the 

slide-va lve and lever engine were idea lly suited to the sternwheeler. Dual engines, 

common by 1 900, were mounted on pairs of cylinder timbers that were tied i nto the 

boat's frames. 

91 
The tandem compound engine was also used on Western river steamers and 

was mounted in the same manner as the lever engine. While the compound engine 

was more efficient, they were more commonly placed in only the larger vessels due 

to their weight and size. 

Wheel and Shaft: Stern- and side-paddle wheels on western river boats 

were built of wood because of its availabi lity and ease of repair. The general rule of 

thumb was one bucket for each foot of the wheel's diameter. One problem with 

paddle wheel boats wa s the great weight of the paddle wheel and shaft. By 1 900 

the solid shaft was either iron or steel, although iron was by fa r p referred. In an 

effort to a l leviate the weight problem, a hollow shaft was tried in a few boats built 

after the turn of the century. The use of a hollow shaft eventually p roved 

u nsatisfactory and was abandoned (Wa rd 1 909:79-92). 

An eva luation of CHARLES H. SPENCE R, based upon Ward's paper, clearly 

indicates that the San Francisco-built steam boat was technologically within the 

mainstream of paddle wheel vessel construction. This is not surprising g iven the 

reputation of the vessel's bui lder, Shu ltze, Robertson & Shultze, a highly respected 

shipbuilding company, and James Robertson's significant career as a naval a rch itect, 

shipbui lder, and marine engineer. 

How did C HARLES H. SPENCER compare to two of the most successfu l stern 

wheel wooden steamboats on the river system, SEARCHLIGHT and COCHAN, and a 

similarly-sized steel-hulled steamer ST. VALLI E R? Both SEARCHLIGHT and COC HAN 

were engaged in the tra nsport of general freight, passengers, and bulk ore, the latter 

being essentially the same a ctivity that was a nticipated for SPENCER. ST. VALLI ER 

was engaged in the tra nsport of light freight and passengers and is considered here 

because of its similarity in size to SPENCER. 

COCHAN, built in 1 899, was 1 35 feet long (overal l), had a beam of 31 feet and 

d rew just under 24 inches fully loaded to its maximum capacity of 1 25 tons. 

COCHAN was constructed to replace the 26 year old GILA and wa s outfitted using 

the engines and boiler from the older boat. COCHAN traveled the same route that 

GILA had followed, the run from Yuma to the Searchl ight Mine and El Dorado 

C anyon, u ntil 1910 when it was retired. While COCHAN was much larger than 

C HARLES SPENCER, there is noth ing to suggest that it was technologica lly more 

92 
sophisticated than SPENCER. I ndeed, COCHAN/GI LA's machinery was built in 1 873 

and remained in continuous use until 1910, a period of 37 years. At the time of 

SPENCER's construction, COCHAN's machinery would have been considered old, but 

not outdated or technologically inadequate. 

SEARCHLIGHT, built in 1 902, was 91.2 feet long, had a beam of 18 feet, and a 

capacity of 60 tons. Very similar in size and ca pacity to SPENCER, it was more 

elaborate with three decks, six state rooms, a smoking room, and a galley. The boat 

wa s equi pped with a marine boiler and engines rated at 1 00 horsepower 

(Lingenfelter 1 978:95). SEARCHLIGHT wa s regularly used on the river between 

Needles and Quartette Landing until 1916. Once again, there is nothing to suggest 

that SEARCHLIGHT was superior in any way to SPENCER. 

ST. VALLIER was built in 1 899 and was used on the river until 1 909. The 

vessel's length was 7 4 feet, its beam was 17 feet, and it had a capacity of 

approximately 50 tons. Although ST. VALLI ER was steel-hul led, placing it well ahead 

of its contemporaries, in all other respects it was simil ar to SPENCER and nearly 

duplicated its size and capacity. 

Ta ble 5.2 Comparison of Selected Attributes 

COCHAN SEARCHLIGHT ST. VALLI ER SPENCER 

Yea rs of 

Operation 1 899- 1910 1 902-1916 1 899- 1 909 1912 

Size 1 35 X 31 91.2 X 18 74 X 17 70 X 20 

Draft 24" loaded 20" light 

Capacity 1 25 tons 60 tons 50 tons 50 tons est 

Engines 1 00 h.p. 1 00 h.p. 

CHARLES H. SPENCER compares favorably with SEARCHLIGHT, COCHAN, and 

ST. VALLIE R, vessels used for similar purposes and built a bout the same time. If 

SPENCER was technologically sound, and similar to successful Colorado River 

steamboats, why then has that vessel been generally referred to as a fa ilure in 

contemporaneous and modern accou nts? SEARCHLIGHT, COCHAN, and ST. VALLI ER 

had highly successful ca reers, however, it was not because of their innate 

93 
s uperiority over other vessels plying the river. The major d ifference between them 

and SPENCER is environmental, that is, where on the river they were used. 

SPENCER was the only one of the four used on the upper Colorado River, it was 

also the largest boat used on that stretch of river u ntil after the construction of 

Glen Canyon Dam. 

From the 1 860s through the 1 920s, the most widely referred to problem with 

n avigation on the upper Colorado and Green Rivers was the extreme varia bility of 

water levels coupled with the presence of sand bars. In the court case United 

States vs. Uta h, 1 929, n umerous witnesses were called to testify to the condition of 

the upper Colorado, San Juan, and G reen Rivers for navigation. Several witnesses 

gave testimony on the condition of the river from Lee's Ferry to just above Warm 

Creek. Frank Ba rnes, a mechanic and boat handler hired by Charlie Spencer, arrived 

at Lee's Ferry in 1910. He testified to the following: 

Answer. We made one trip [of] ... twelve or fifteen 

m i les [up from Lee's Ferry], and there were lots of short 

trips made, two or three mi les. ... Well, we hitched the 

big boat on to this scow and sta rted up stream; 

whenever we got stuck on a sand bar the crew got out 

and pulled it with ropes. 

Question. How many times would you say you got 

stuck between Lee's Ferry and Warm Creek? 

Answer. Oh, I would say about ten times. 

Q. Did you have a ny d ifficulty in getting the boat 

down [river]? 

A. Yes sir, we had some; run on to sand bars a bout 

twice, I believe. 

Q. In that stretch of river from Dandy crossing down 

to Lee's Ferry, where did you get your best water, below 

or a bove Warm Creek? 

A. Below Warm Creek .... (U.S. vs. Uta h, 1 929, 

Tra nscript of Testimony 1 3:2529-2539). 

Bert Loper was on the Colorado River regularly from 1 895 to 1 921. On one 

occasion he traveled with two men in an open motor boat from the mouth of the 

San Juan down to Lee's Ferry. Loper testified that the principal difficulties 

e ncountered were sand bars, going both downstream to Lee's Ferry and on the 

return upstream. He further testified that during all of his yea rs on the river he was 

94 
not able to develop a knowledge that would enable him to n avigate the river 

without getting stuck on a sand bar (U.S. vs. Uta h, 1 929, Abstract of Testimony 

1 : 623-638). 

William Marrs, a boatman on the river for Ed ison Company in 1 921, testified 

that from Lee's Ferry to Warm Creek they had the least trouble navigating because 

the river was wider and shallower, although they were never able to make a trip 

from Lee's Ferry up to Warm Creek in less than a day and a half (U.S. vs. Utah, 1 929, 

Abstract of Testimony 1 :638-644). 

Finally, John W. Pal mer, employed by Spencer as assistant fireman on 

CHARLES H. SPENCER, testified that he made one and a half trips on the boat 

between Warm Creek and Lee's Ferry. Palmer stated that they were stuck several 

times on sand bars going down to Lee's Ferry and back to Warm Creek. On another 

occasion, Palmer was on board when Charlie Spencer wanted to go u pstream from 

Warm Creek. They went about a quarter of a mile when then ran i nto a large sand 

bar on the south side of the river, could not proceed any fa rther, and returned to 

Warm Creek (U.S. vs. Utah, 1 929, Abstract of Testimony 2:807-8 1 4). 

The boats used by Barnes, Loper, and Maars, none of which were steamboats, 

were smaller and less powerful than CHARLES H. SPENCER. All three men mention 

having problems with sand bars and the shal low water, however, they did not 

mention encountering currents so strong they were unable to make headway 

upstream. In addition, Charlie Spencer stated that the paddle wheel boat worked 

perfectly "providing there was suffi cient water in the river" (Interview by W. L. 

Rusho, June 1 8, 1 961). Clea rly, with adequate water levels, the trip from Lee's Ferry 

to Warm Creek was possible by boat. 

Two often repeated rea sons for abandoning SPENCER, and therefore 

confirmation of the vessel as a fa ilure, were first, that it was not powerful enough 

to make headway against the currents given adequate water levels, and second, it 

used up all of the coal it could ca rry just to make the round tri p from Warm Creek 

to Lee's Ferry and return (I nterview of Bert Leech, February, 1961; correspondence 

between P.T. Reilly and Bert Leech, July, 1 964; Rusho and Crampton 1 981 :71 from 

interview with Bill Wilson, September, 1 961). 

95 
Another way of examining the coal consumption and efficiency of SPENCE R's 

boiler is to compare the paddle wheeler with Ohio, Upper Mississippi, Lower 

Mississippi, and Upper Missouri River steamboat average consumption. Average 

coal consumption was based upon the enrolled admeasurement ton, i.e. the g ross 

reg istered tonnage, of the vessels in question. Purdy computed the average 

consumption of all vessels, running an average season, on the a bove rivers. The 

range, per g ross ton, per year, was from a low of 2.70 tons to a high of 6.82 tons 

(Hunter 1 969:657). A n avigation season varied on Western Rivers from 5 months to 

yea r-ro und, the average being 7- 1 /2 months (Hunter 1 969:223-224). If SPENCER 

was used on one of the above rivers, its average consumption would have ranged 

from a low of 1 58.76 tons to a high of 40 1 .02 tons per year. Based upon an 

average season of 7- 1 /2 months, that wo uld be a monthly consumption range of 

21.17 to 53.47 tons per month of continuous operation. That is a far cry from 50 

tons per trip. 

There is little reason to bel ieve, based u pon all of the information available, 

that CHARLES H. S PENCER was under-powered. Machinery configu rations very 

similar to SPENCE R's were successfu l on other sections of the Colorado River and 

on oth er similar riverine systems in the fa r West, Pacific Northwest, and Alaska. 

Even lesser-powered boats were able to navigate the stretch of river between Lee's 

Ferry and Wa rm Creek given adequate water levels. 

Herman Rosenfelt, the shipwright who s upervised the assembly of the 

steamboat at Warm C reek, testified to the condition of the vessel's boiler and 

engines at the time of its launch. 

Question: After you had the boat assembled, did you 

assist in launching it? 

Answe r. launched it, and two United States 

inspectors, inspector of hulls and i nspector or boilers, 

came out to inspect her and help me launch. As I 

wasn't ready to launch her when they a rrived, the 

inspector of hulls went to work with me, and the 

i nspector of boilers went to work with the machinist 

they bro ught o ut with them, to get her ready. 

We launched her and got the boiler tested out to 

have water. We was [sic] a long ways from the water at 

the time, so we had to launch her, and everything was 

tested and found satisfactory, everything perfect 

[emphasis added].... 

96 
Q. Did the boat travel e ither up or down the river 

while you were there? 

A. We had to try the engine before I could leave, 

and we went up and down there -- a kind of bight in 

the river -- we traveled up and down there .... 

0. How many miles above Warm Creek did this boat 

go? 

A. We did n't go a ny miles; maybe one hundred 

yards or so up and down [to test the engine] (U.S. vs. 

Utah, 1 929, Transcript of Testimony 1 6:3006-30 1 4). 

John W. Palmer's testimony, along with the statements of others who rode 

the boat from Lee's Ferry to Warm Creek on more than one occasion, provides 

sufficient evidence that SPENCER's machinery was powerful enough to make the 

return trip. If the engines were not powerful enough, the boat could not have made 

even one trip back to Warm Creek. In addition, because there is some q uestion 

over the a ctua l nu mber of trips the boat made between Lee's Ferry and Warm Creek, 

the question of power is purely academic. Further, while currents exi sted in the 

river, they were not mentioned by Palmer or any one else as the principal problem 

in navigating the section of river between Lee's Ferry and Warm Creek (U.S. vs. 

Utah, 1 929, Abstract of Testimony 2:807-8 1 4). 

Bill Wilson stated that " the boat couldn't h ave ca rried any m9re [coal] 

anyway . ... [and] when we got down there [to Lee's Ferry] we didn't take but very 

little coal off of the boat because we needed it all to get back up [to Warm Creek]" 

(Interview by W. L. Rusho, September, 1 961 ). This statement has been i nterpreted to 

imply that the boat needed all of its 50 to 60 ton carrying capacity to make the 10 

mile run from Lee's Ferry to Warm Creek. Herman W. Freeze. testified that on its 

first trip down from Warm Creek, SPENCER only carried 3 or 4 tons of coal (U.S. vs. 

Utah, 1 929, Abstract of Testimony 1 :686-687). Jeremiah Johnson testified that 

SPENCER carried about 5 tons of coal on each of two trips down from Warm Creek 

(U.S. vs. Utah, 1 929, Abstract of Testimony 2:786-787). John W. Palmer also stated 

that SPENCER was only loaded with 5 tons of coal on the trips he made (U.S. vs. 

Utah, 1 929, Abstract of Testimony 2:808-809). 

Most of the coal used by CHARLES H. SPENCER would have been on the 

upstream journey to Warm Creek. However, to suggest that the boat req uired all of 

97 
the coal it could carry to make the round trip is impossible. A hypotheti cal scenario 

regard ing the quantity of coal used by the boat can be constructed based upon 

examination of the i nformation provided by the individuals above. If the vessel 

carried the maximum amount reported on its first trip, that is 5 tons of coal, and if 

even 1 or 2 tons were unloaded at Lee's Ferry, that would mean the paddle wheel 

boat used 3 to 4 tons to make the round trip between Warm Creek and Lee's Ferry. 

The c a rrying capacity of SPENCER is estimated to have been 50 to 60 tons. A 

consum ption rate of 3 to 4 tons, from a maximum capacity of 50 to 60 tons, figures 

out to be a use rate of 5% to 8%. Herman W. Freeze testified that on a later trip 

the boat ca rried 15 to 20 tons of coal (U.S. vs. Uta h, 1 929, Abstract of Testimony 

1 :686-689). Using the rate of 3 to 4 tons of coal to make that round trip, the result 

is 1 5% to 25% consumption. In either scena rio, the rate of coal use is well below 

all that could be, or was reported to have been, ca rried by the boat. 

The statement of Arthur C. Wa l ler, a mining engineer and a contempora ry of 

Charlie Spencer, echos my own opinion: 

I never did believe that it [the paddle wheel boat] was 

so ineptly desig ned as to require all the coal it brought 

down to ascend on the return trip" (Comments by Arthur 

C. Wa l le r, 7/ 1 5/61, on Charlie Spencer i nterview of 

6/1 9/6 1 ). 

G iven all of the i nformation available on CHARLES H. SPENCER, its place in 

the mainstream of paddle wheel ma ritime technology, its construction by a 

well-respected San Francisco firm, its attributes in comparison to successful paddle 

wheel steamboats on the Colorado River system, its mechanical engineering ability 

to make the round trip/ between Warm C reek and Lee's Ferry, and its coa l 

/ / 

consumption effi ciency, it /is difficult to accept the notion that the vessel was a 

technologica l fa ilure. 

The steamboat was and has been characterized as a fa ilure by association 

rather than by a carefu l exam ination of the facts. C HARLES H. SPENCER became a 

scapegoat and was used as an 

( 

excuse to help explain the collapse of a 

poorly-co nceived mining operation. Charlie Spencer's steam boat wa s not 

a ba ndoned because it was a technological fai lure, the steamboat was a bandoned 

because the men and the mine were an economic fa ilure. 

98 
CHAPTER VI. CHARLES H. SPENCER BACKGROUND 

Vessel Hi story 

C HARLES H. SPENCER was built in 191 1 by the South San Francisco shipya rd 

of Shultze, Robertson, Shu ltze. The paddle wheel steam boat was designed to be 

framed up, temporarily pinned together, disma ntled, transported to the mouth of 

Warm C reek, Utah, and there reassembled u nder the direction of a company 

shipwright. At the time of SPENCE R's construction, James Robertston, an officer of 

the compa ny, was serving as secreta ry, designer, and plant manager. Robertson is 

recognized as a regionally significant marine engi neer (Delgado 1 987: 1-16). 

Robertson was born in San Franci sco in 1 873 of Scotch parents who had 

immigrated to the United States in 1 870. The Robertson family returned to 

Aberdeen, Scotland when James was only 6 weeks old. The death of his mother 

a nd subsequent rema rriage of his father culminated in a retu rn to the San Francisco 

bay area in 1 886. Upon his return, James, then 1 3, a pprenticed to the Union Iron 

Works, where he worked off and on until 1 891. That year the family relocated to 

Puget Sound, and Robertson went to work for the well-known Hall Brothers shipya rd 

at Port Blakely, Washington, to learn the wooden shipbuilding trade. In 1 894 

Robertson returned to San Fran cisco and the U n ion I ron Works where he was p ut in 

charge of building the tug FEARLESS. There, he began working closely with Hugo P. 

Frear, naval architect and chief designer of the compa ny. 

In 1 903, as a nava l engineer, Robertson was sent by the Union Iron Works to 

Vladivostock to supervise the construction of caissons for dry-docks at the Imperial 

Russian Naval Yard. Fol lowing completion of the dry-docks, Robertson was hired by 

the noted firm of Cla rkson & Company to construct a g ravi ng dock, machine shops, 

and saw mills. 

99 
In 1 906 Robertson returned to San Francisco and with a portion of his 

earnings bought i nto the firm of Shultze and Shultze, renaming it Shultze, Robertson, 

Shultze. From 1 906 to 1912, Robertson designed and supervised the construction of 

a number of ferries and riverboats, including CAPITOL CITY, FORT SUTTER, DELTA 

KING, DELTA QUEEN, COLUSA, BRIDGET, CHARLES VAN DAMME, and C HARLES H. 

S PENCER. The partnership with the Shu ltze brothers was dissolved in 1912 when 

Robertson purchased the establ ished Matthew Turner shi pyard in Benicia (Russell 

Robertson 1 961 ). Robertson continued his distingui shed career in Benicia, and later 

in Alameda, building a n umber of im pressive and significant vessels, including 

ocean-going 4- and 5-masted schooners, until his death in 1 927. 

Herman Rosenfelt, the Shultze-Robertson-Shultze company shi pwright put in 

charge of construction of CHARLES H. S PENCER, began putting up the vessel's frame 

in the beginning of July, 191 1. Framing and pinning was completed in August of 

that year. The vessel was di smantled, packed into two 40-foot a utomobile ra ilroad 

cars and shipped to Marysvi l le, Utah in September. Rosenfelt a rrived in Marysvi lle 

on Septem ber 9, and once the boat materials arrived supervised their transfer to 

four wagons for transport over-land to Warm Creek. The first team, loaded with 

four planks, took 39 days to make the trip from Marysville to Warm Creek. Three 

other teams loaded with parts of the vessel, took 23 days to deliver their cargos. 

The teams were forced to make several more trips before all of the pieces arrived 

at Warm Creek (U.S. vs. Utah, 1 929, Transcript of Testimony 1 6:3006-30 1 4). 

At the same time the boat arrived, supplies for Lee's Ferry came in and were 

m et by Bill Hunt with a wagon and five-yoke bull team. Hunt loaded his supplies 

and left, followed shortly by the horse-drawn wagon with the vessel's boiler on it. 

At one tight elbow turn near Circlevil le, Hunt negotiated the turn successfully, 

h owever the wagon with the boiler did not. The boiler and wagon fell over a ledge, 

rolling down a steep slope. After some time and numerous unsuccessful attem pts 

to retrieve the boiler, the teamster who held the contract to deliver the boat 

m aterials was fired. Bill Hunt returned to the site, recovered the boiler, and 

del ivered it to Warm Creek without further incident (Interview with C harlie Spencer 

by W. L. Rusho, September 27, 1 963). 

Final ly, in late October or early N ovember, 191 1, all of the parts of the boat 

a rrived at Warm Creek and the job of assembly began. Sometime in November, 

1 00 
during a trip through the G rand Canyon, the Kolb brothers photogra phed the vessel 

under construction (see Figures 7.2, 7. 1 0). They described the scene at the mouth 

of Warm Creek: 

We rowed about twenty m i les down the river before 

we learned what had caused the noises heard in the 

morning. On rounding a turn we saw the strange 

spectacle of fifteen or twenty men at work on the 

half-constructed hull of a flat-bottomed steamboat, over 

sixty feet in length. This boat was on the bank quite a 

distance above the water, with the perpendicular wall of 

a crooked side canyon ri sing above it. It was a strange 

sight, here in this out-of-the-way corner of the world. 

Some men with heavy sledges were under the boat, 

d riving la rge spikes into the planking. This was the 

noise we had heard in that morning. 

The blasting, we learned later, was at some coal 

mines, several miles up this l ittle canyon, which bore the 

name of Warm Creek Canyon. A road led down through 

the canyon, making it possible to haul the lumber for 

the boat, clear to the river's edge. The nearest ra ilroad 

was close to two hundred mi les from this place, quite a 

haul considering the ruggedness of the country. The 

material for the boat had been shipped from San 

Francisco, all cut, ready to be put together. The vessel 

was to be used to ca rry coal down the river, to a d redge 

that had recently been installed at Lee's Ferry. 

The dinner gong had just sounded when we 

landed, a nd we were taken along with the crowd. . .. We 

resumed our rowing at once after dinner, for we wished 

to reach Lee's Ferry ... that evening. We had a good 

current, and soon left our friends behind us. We pul led 

with a will, and mile after mile was covered in record 

time, for our heavy boats (Kolb 1 9 1 4:169- 1 75). 

While the exact date of the vessel's launch is not recorded, based upon 

Rosenfelt's testimony it was some time in late Februa ry, 1912. Prior to the 

shi pwright's departure, the steamboat was tested, found to be satisfactory, and with 

the exception of completing a few deta i ls, ready for use (Figure 6. 1 ). Rosenfelt 

returned to San Fra ncisco on March 5, 1912, just two days short of six months from 

the date of his departure to Warm Creek , (U.S. vs. Utah, 1 929, Tran script of 

Testimony 1 6:3006-30 1 4). 

The number of trips that were made by C HARLES H. SPENCER is not clear. 

The evidence that was provided by severa l witnesses in U.S. vs. Utah is confl icting, 

as is the information provided through i nterviews. On the one hand there is the 

101 

statement of Charlie Spencer, who claimed that during the summer of 191 1 (sic) the 

boat made a trip from Lee's Ferry to Warm Creek and back almost every week 

(Interview by W. L. Rusho, June 1 8, 1 961 ). Completely opposite is the statement of 

Bert Leech: 

... I was asked to go to Warm Creek to clear the channel 

and to bring back the steam boat. We took the boat to 

Lee's Ferry without a load. Later men tried to get it to 

go back up the river, but found that the boat had 

insufficient power to run agai nst the current (Interview 

by W. L. Rusho, February 1 8, 1 961 ). 

Bill Wilson, a packer and d river for the Spencer mining operation, provided a 

somewhat different answer, indicati ng the boat made one and one-half trips 

between Warm Creek and Lee's Ferry. 

We went down to Lee's Ferry, back up to Warm Creek, 

then back to Lee's Ferry and they tied it up down there 

and that was all they was to it. That was the only move 

it ever made that I know of (Interview by W. L. Rusho, 

September 24, 1961 ). 

When both Bill Wi lson and Bert Leach were shown a photo of CHARLES H. 

SPENCER with a crew on board, Wilson did not recogn ize anyone, while Leech was 

able to identify all of the men (Figure 6.2). This suggests that there may have been 

two different crews, and supports additional statements made by Charlie Spencer: 

After their trips, the first crew was broken up, some sent 

to other jobs and some disc harged. In Ju ly, 191 1 [si c], 

a nother crew was got together, the boat was taken up 

to Warm Creek and filled with coal. No barge was used; 

the coal was loaded on the decks. The July crew made 

three or four trips with the boat (Interview by W. L. 

Rusho, August, 1 962). 

Jeremiah Johnson, photographed on the boat with Bert Leech in 1912 (see 

Figure 6.2), stated that the boat m ade two and one-half trips. 

They built the CHAS. H. SPENCER at Warm C reek, came 

down to the ferry and back to Warm C reek. That was 

one trip. Down to the Ferry and back to Warm Creek, 

and down to the Ferry and tied it up, and that was the 

last it was ever used. It sunk. [I] saw it sink (U.S. vs. 

Utah, 1 929, Abstract of Testimony 2:785-797). 

Johnson, a ferry boat operator at Lee's Crossing, was continuously at Lee's Ferry 

during this period, unlike many others who quit or were rea ssigned to other jobs by 

Spencer. His recol lection of two and one-half trips is supported by the testimony 

of three other witnesses in the U.S. vs. Utah R iver Bed Case of 1 929. 

1 03 
John W. Pa lmer, employed as assistant fireman on the steamboat, also stated 

that the boat made a tota l of two and one-half trips, and he made one and one-half 

trips on it. Pa lmer said that the boat ca rried about five tons of coal along with a 

cargo of wagons and machinery (U.S. vs. Utah, 1 929, Abstract of Testimony 

2:808-809}. 

Frank Johnson, who along with Jeremiah ran the ferry, reiterated his brother's 

assertion that SPENCER made two and one-half tri ps. 

The first time ... [I] saw it, it had a few wagons and 

some machinery on it. . .. [the] boat was tied up in the 

early part of 1912, with a plank from the boat to the 

shore to keep it from getting too close to the rocks. 

The boat was built at Warm Creek. It came down river 

to the ferry and made two round trips after that. There 

was some coal in bind on the last trip (U.S. vs. Utah, 

1 929, Abstract of Testimony 2:799-80 1 }. 

Final ly, there is the testimony of Herman W. Freeze, who was employed by 

the American Placer Corporation as superintendent of machinery at Lee's Ferry in 

1911. 

The C HARLES H. SPENCER boat was built up above Lee's 

Ferry while [I] wa s there . .... [I] didn't see it launched. It 

might have been a week or two after it was launched 

that ... [I] saw it. ... the boat made three round trips 

from Lee's Ferry up to Wa rm Creek. 

On the first trip it looked ... as if there were three or 

four tons of coal brought down. . .. They brought a l ittle 

more coa l on the second trip than on the first one ... 

about five or six tons the second time. . .. The third time 

they had the front, the nose of the boat, pretty well 

covered with coal; ... about fifteen or twenty tons. They 

brought this fifteen or twenty tons about a mqnth before 

[I] left (U.S. vs. Utah, 1 929, Abstract of Testimony 

1 :686-689}. 

When taken together the preponderance of testimony, given 17 years after 

the fact, versus i nformation from interviews nearly 50 years later, weighs strongly in 

favor of two and one-half trips for the paddle wheel steamboat. The initial trip 

down to Lee's Ferry, in late February or early March by one crew, then two round 

trips from Lee's Ferry to Warm C reek sometime later in the spring or summer by a 

second c rew. Fol lowing the steamboat's last trip, it was tied up a pproximately 1 /4 

mile east of Lee's Ferry Fort, where it remains today (see Figu re 3.32}. 

1 04 
Historical Descri ption 

No written records or documents of enrollment exist for C HARLES. H. 

SPENCER, further the vessel does not appear in the Annual List of Merchant Vessel 

of the United States for 191 1 or 1912. Fortunately, several photographs of the boat 

were taken and have been widely circulated (see Figures 6. 1, 6.2, 6.4, 7.2, 7.1 0). A 

reference to builder's pla ns, submitted as evidence in the River Bed Case of 1 929, 

led to the d iscovery of a copy at the Museum of Northern Ari zona. Working from a 

faded and fragile blueprint, the Photographic Division of the U.S. Geological Survey 

in Flagstaff, Arizona, was able to lift a photo mylar. The original plans were 

re-drawn for publication and have been reproduced as Figure 6.3, located in the 

back pocket of this report. Some additional elements were identified for cla rity. 

The following brief description is based upon i nformation from the historic 

photographs and the plans. 

CHARLES H. SPENCER wa s desig ned to ca rry bulk cargos of coal and 

miscellaneous package freight. The length of the vessel has been erroneously 

reported to have been 90 feet 6 i nches; this error has stem med from Herman 

Rosenfelt's testimony in the River Bed Case of 1 929: 

a. Have you got with you a bluepri nt of that boat? 

A. Yes sir. 

a. Will you g ive me the dimensions of it plea se? 

A. The hull is eighty foot long and a twelve foot 

wheel on the stern, and six inches clear, makes the 

whole over all ninety-two feet and a half. 

a. What is the beam? 

A. About twenty-five feet. 

a. When fu l ly equipped, how much water did that 

boat draw? 

A. Drawed between eighteen and twenty i nches, 

light. 

a. Light, you say? 

A. That i s, empty (U.S. vs. Uta h, 1 929, Transcript of 

Testimony 1 6:3007). 

105 
A part of the confusion on the vessel's size rests with terminology, the other with 

an error on the part of Mr. Rosenfelt in reporting the facts. 

The length of a vessel, for classification and documentation purposes, is 

measured from the inside of the stem-post to the inside of the stern-post. This 

measurement on a stern wheel boat would exclude the paddle wheel and guard. 

Length over all is measured from the forward side of the bow to the aftermost point 

of the stern; this measurement would i nclude the paddle wheel and guard. Mr. 

Rosenfelt quoted the latter measurement in his testimony. Others, using this 

testimony as a basis for description, have fa iled to add the critical phrase "over all" 

when giving the vessel's dimensions. The common practice, when giving vessel 

particulars of this type, is to reference classification length rather than length over 

all. 

The length of C HARLES H. SPENCER, based upon the blue prints and 

confirmed by field measurements, was 70 feet (see Fig u re 6.3). The boat's length 

over all, that is, its length with stern wheel and guard, was 85 feet 6 inches. The 

discrepa ncy between the historic blue p rints and a rcheological measurements, and 

M r. Rosenfelt's testimony is attributed to his error. 

The breadth of a vessel is its measurement from one side to the other at its 

widest point. Extreme b readth on a vessel is a measurement that includes the 

thickness of the outside planking or plating. The breadth, or statute width, for 

classification purposes is normally measured from inside the side planking at the 

deck. This measurement would exclude the overhanging guard on a paddle wheel 

boat. The breadth of C HARLES H. SPENCER, according to the what was written on 

the plans, was 20 feet. Scaling off the plans resulted in a breadth of 21 feet; field 

measurements c onfirmed 21 feet as the breadth. The d iscrepancy between what is 

written on the plans, versus the scaled measurement of the plans may have been 

clerical error. Rosenfelt's statement that the breadth of the vessel was 25 feet 

included the overhanging guard (see Figure 6.2). 

The depth of a vessel is measured from i nside the hull bottom planking to 

the top side of the deck beams amidships. The depth of SPENCER was 4 feet. The 

depth of a vessel should not be confused with the vessel's d raft. Draft is the 

measured depth of the submerged part of the hull. The d raft of a vessel changes 

1 06 
with the weight of its load and therefore determines its ability to pass through 

shal low water. Roosenfelt reported SPENCER's d raft to be between 18 and 20 

inches unloaded, this is, witho ut cargo. 

Charlie Spencer reported the steamboat's ca rrying capacity to be 

a pproximately 1 00 tons {I nterview by W. L. Rusho, June 1 8, 1 961 }. From keel to pilot 

house, the boat was bu i lt of wood; single frames were used throug hout the hull. 

Based u pon archeological observations, no ceiling planking was used above the turn 

of the bi lge. SPENCER had two decks and long, unbroken hold {see Figu re 6.3}. It 

has a plain {stra ight} bow and a square stern. Like other paddle wheel boats, 

SPENCER's hull is reinforced with a system of braces and truss rods. The boiler is 

located forwa rd, u nder the pilot house. The main deck cabin was open only 

amidships; the machinery spaces in the bow and stern were enclosed {see Figu re 

6. 1, 6.2}. The boiler deck, i mmediately above the boiler was also open, however 

there was an enclosed cabin aft of this space {see Figure 6. 1, 6.3}. C HARLES H. 

SPENCER a ppeared to be unpainted in historical photographs; no ind ication of paint 

was observed on the remains in 1 986. 

Description of Loss -- The Wreck Event 

Following the boat's last run down from Warm C reek, sometime in the spring 

or summer of 1912, it was tied up to the bank approxi mately 1 /4 mile east of Lee's 

Ferry Fort {see Figure 3.32}. By the time the boat was photogra phed again in 1915, 

flood water had forced d riftwood u nder the hull causing it to list to starboard 

{Figu re 6.4}. 

Bill Wilson reca lled seeing the boat sitting up on the bank at the time Lee's 

Ferry Bridge was dedicated in 1 929 {Interview by W. L Rusho, September 24, 1 961 }. 

Wi lson does not indicate whether the vessel was partially submerged at the time he 

saw it. Based upon the photograph and Wilson's recollection, it was some time 

after 1915 and possibly after 1 929, that the vessel was l ifted off the driftwood, or 

the driftwood became u nstable, as a resu lt of high water and slid sideways i nto the 

river. Frank Johnson reported that the boat tipped over and sank {Interview by W. L. 

Rusho, October 28, 1 962}. In fact. field observation confirmed that it did not tip 

over, rather as it slid sideways, it struck a large boulder j ust below the turn of the 

bilge, fi l led with water and sank. 

1 07 

Post-Depositional Impacts 

After aba ndonment, CHARLES H. SPENCER was systematically stripped of its 

upper deckworks. Evidence of this removal was found during field investigations. 

The samson posts, which provided partial framing for the cabins, were found to 

have been sawn, not broken, near the point at where they pass through the main 

deck. Subsequent i nformation confirmed salvage of the deckworks by local 

residents for building projects in the canyon and in the community of Hurricane. By 

the mid- 1 930s the vessel's hull is reported to have been only out of the water by 4 

feet (P. T. Reil ly, correspondence to Ton i Carrell, N ovember 3, 1 986). 

A photograph of the vessel's remains, taken by A. E. Turner in 1 959 shows 

most of the port side sti ll intact. along with the tip of the bilge pump and edge of 

the boiler exposed a bove the water. By that date the boiler had rolled over onto the 

sta rboard side, and top portions of the fire box were already gone as a result of 

rusti ng. 

Photographs taken by W. L. Rusho in 1 963 show the port side rea sonably well 

intact, nearly up to the level of the overhanging guard (Figure 6.5). The boiler, rolled 

over onto the starboard side, shows some evidence of c racking in the firebox. The 

small hand pump is still in situ aft of the boiler. 

Deterioration of the hull wa s more pronou nced by 1 973 (Figure 6.6). Three or 

four additional sta rboard planks were m issing, two more were m issing from the port 

side, and the forward end of the firebox had rusted open. Surprisingly, the hand 

pump was still in place. The depth of siltation a ppeared greater than in 1 963, and 

the quantity of vegetation on and around the site had increased dramatically. 

Thirteen years later, comparison of the 1 973 photos with field observations in 

1 986 found that the starboard planks are now missing down to the level of the silt 

and the port side has lost at least one or two more planks. The level of the silt has 

changed very little since 1 973, possibly having now reached a stable point in 

relation to the presently mainta ined water levels. The small hand pump is no longer 

on the deck, but has fa llen or been pushed over the sta rboard side. The boiler 

firebox is greatly deteriorated with a large rusting hole at the forward end. 

1 09 

Deterioration of the steamboat from environmenta l causes has continued at a 

steady pace. Because photos have been taken at irreg ular i ntervals, the rate of 

deterioration can only be inferred. Silt now completely fi lls the hold aft of the boiler 

and nea rly fi lls the bow forward of the boiler. Side hull planking is l ikely to be less 

impacted now that it is substantially buried. Only the exposed portions of the 

vessel, those not buried and those su bjected to fluctuations in water level, will 

continue to deteriorate. 

What is much more d ifficult to determine, is the degree of i mpact resulting 

from visitation to the site. At lowered water levels, fishermen have been observed 

walking on the site and climbing on the boiler, using that feature as a fi shing pier. 

It is impossible to determ ine, for exam ple, whether the hand pump was finally 

toppled by a large log or other floati ng debris, as is shown present on the site in 

Figure 6.5, or whether vi sitors pushed it over the edge. The latter is suspected 

simply because of the excellent condition of the wood on the site. 

Prior Research 

The remains of CHARLES H. SPENCER have been vis ited irregularly since it 

was abandoned 1912. The vessel was photographed by E. C. LaRue in 1915 (Figure 

6.4), and was observed by Wilson in 1 929. P. T. Reilly reported visiting the site in 

1 935 (Correspondence to Toni Carrell, 1 986). A Bureau of Reclamation photographer, 

A. E. Turner, photographed the site in 1 959. W. L. Rusho photographed the site in 

1 963 a nd 1 973. Little documentation, other than photography, is known to have 

been completed at the site prior to 1 963. That year P. T. Reil ly, along with two 

others, took some general measurements of the vessel (Reilly 1 964). 

In August, 1 981, Daniel J. Lenihan, Chief of the Submerged Cultural Resources 

Unit, and John Benjamin, G len Canyon Downlake District Ranger, visited the s ite. 

Photographs and additional measurements of the boiler, paddle wheel shaft, and 

length over all of the boat were obtained. National Park Service i nterest in the 

steamboat continued, and in December, 1 985, River District Ranger Jon Dick, 

prepa red a brief report on his observations of the site at various water flows and 

sketch map of the site (Dick 1 985). It was not until Septem ber, 1 986, that a 

111 
concentrated documentation effort was made at the site. The results of that effort 

are reported on in this publication. 

Publi shed references to Charlie Spencer's mining activities and the steamboat 

at Lee's Ferry include: Through the Grand Canyon from Wyoming to Mexico (Kolb 

1 9 1 4: 1 69- 1 75), Arizona Highways (Haskett 1 935( 1 1 ):6-7, 1 7-18), Steamboat Bill 

(Colton 1 957:6-7), Outl ine H i story of Glen Canyon (Crampton 1 959:30-38), H istorical 

Sites in Glen Canyon (Crampton 1 960), Arizona Highways (Rusho 1 962:34-39), 

Plateau (Colton 1 962:57-59), Journal of the West (Rusho 1 968:64-75), Stea mboats on 

the Colorado River (Lingenfelter 1 978: 1 27- 1 32), Desert River Crossing (Rusho and 

Crampton 1 981 :63-73), A Crossing on The Colorado, Lee's Ferry (Measeles 

1 98 1 :44-47), Ghosts of Glen Canyon (Crampton 1 986: 1 30- 1 33), among others. 

Admini strative Status 

CHARLES H. SPENCER is included on the National Register of Historic Places 

as part of Lee's Ferry H istoric District (Reynolds 1 974). The shi pwreck does not 

have a State of Arizona site number, however, it is recorded separately by the 

National Park Service. The site is managed by the National Park Service in 

cooperation with the Bureau of Rec lamation. Sport diving is not prohibited, however 

to date the a rea has received diving attention only by the National Park Service. 

1 1 2 
CHAPTER VII. CHARLES H. SPENCER SITE DISCUSSION 

Site Location 

The remains of the historic wooden vessel lie in a small eddy below Lee's 

Ferry on the Colorado River (Figure 7. 1 ). The steamboat is approximately 1 /2-mile 

east of Lee's Ferry Fort, on the north side of the river. The site can be reached by 

walking ea st, approxi mately 2000 feet, along a National Park Service trail from the 

main parking lot adjacent Lee's Ferry Fort. 

Research Methodology 

A tota l of 27 persondays of diving were completed on the wreck. The diving 

was gea red towa rd several specific objectives, outlined for the Glen Ca nyon project. 

They included: 1) obtaining a verba l description a nd photog raphs of the site 

location; 2) determining the nature and extent of the wreckage present; 3) 

developing a base map, with photo and video documentation, of the site to aid in 

a nalysis, feature identification, and i nterpretation; 4) famil iarizing the Recreation Area 

cultural resource and protection staff with the resource; and 5) providing preliminary 

recommendations for the vessel's short- and long-term management. 

The methodology used to meet these objectives included trilateration 

measurements of all wreck elements from a physical base line; drawings of selected 

machinery and construction details; photographs of construction deta ils; videotaping 

all significant features and major elements; reconnaissance of the general site a rea 

to determine the extent of wreckage; probing of overbu rden; and limited probing 

with close examination of wood to determine structural i ntegrity and degree of 

i mpact from freshwater organisms. The impacts of changes in water flow, 

fluctuations in water level, and wave action were a lso recorded. 

1 1 3 
� 

0 

Fort 

--, .. , 

Spencer's 

Mining Area 

' () ',,l:l ' .. , ' .._, , 

.. 

Colora do 

-��',, ... ,. \ \ 

500 1 0 00 

Feet 

.. , 

\ \ 

Lee's Crossing 

Figure 7. 1 CHARLES H. SPENCER site location. 

\ 

\ 

.. , 
The pol icy of the Submerged Cultural Resources U n it is to conduct site 

research using a minimal impact approach. Only rarely is overburden removed, and 

then only to answer very spec ific questions. Substantial portions of the site were 

exposed and available for study, therefore no excavation was conducted, nor were 

any artifacts removed. 

Site Description 

The paddle wheel stea mboat lies directly offshore on a coa rse sand and silt 

bottom that g radually slopes south toward the river channel. Depth of water over 

the site varies with the water flow released from Glen Canyon Dam. During normal 

operations, from 1 5,000 to 26,000 cfm, the water depth ranges from 2 to 3 feet 

a long the bank and from 15 to 18 feet below the sta rboard side. At these flows the 

site is completely submerged. During periods of reduced flow, in some cases as 

low as 5,000 cfm, as much as 2/3 of the boiler, part of the deck, and the center and 

port paddle wheel hubs are exposed. During low flows it is possible to walk on the 

port side deck and climb on the boi ler without getting wet. It is during these 

periods that visitors can do the most damage to the site. 

The site trends in a Northwest-Southeast direction and is confined to an a rea 

approximately 90 feet long by 60 feet wide. The site covers an a rea of 5400 square 

feet, roughly 1 /8 of an acre. The vessel's hull, from stempiece to sternpost, is 

substa ntia l ly i ntact up to the level of the main deck. All of the upper deckworks are 

gone. The paddle wheel guard is i ntact and the vessel's three paddle wheel flanges 

a re in place. Bits of wood, from the paddle wheel a rms, were found in the a rm 

pockets on the flanges. Several sections of the i ron circle, the principal wheel 

bracing located just i nside the buc kets, were located on the site. The paddle wheel 

shaft is also i ntact and a rticulated with the pitman, pil low block and cylinder timber 

on the sta rboa rd site. The port side is buried. 

The vessel is l isting to sta rboa rd and appears to have settled stern first on 

the bottom as it sank it . The hull is completely si lted in, a lthough much of the 

decking on the port is only buried by a few i nches of overburden. The overburden 

deepens to 1 1 /2 to 2 feet on the sta rboard. The sta rboa rd side, from the bow to 

the rudder well and from the level o f t h e main d e c k t o t h e bottom below the turn of 

the bi lge, is exposed. 

1 1 5 
The vessel's boiler has rolled and is resting on the gunnwhale, while m uch of 

the steam piping lies just below the sta rboa rd side on the sand and rock bottom. 

Other m achinery present on the site includes the sta rboard engine, pitman eccentric 

rods, throttle, bilge pump, and heater. Truss rod and turnbuckles, part of the hull 

strengthening system, are well represented across the site, as a re the samson post 

caps. None of the samson posts were located. 

Site Analysis 

A verba l description of the site location (see a bove), video and photo 

documentation of the area were the first pieces of data generated. The steam boat's 

remains consist of the intact hull, including paddle wheel guard, and a scattering of 

machinery below the sta rboard side; these a re ind icated on the site base map 

(Figure 7.8, located in the back pocket of this report). 

Evaluation of the general condition of the site suggests that it has undergone 

limited environmental i mpacts. Wave action, normally a major contributor to site 

deterioration, has been m inimal. Water flow over the site has had l ittle direct 

adverse impact, because of the site's location in an eddy well out of the river's main 

channel. As a result, rather than coming apart at points of structural wea kness, as 

expected in most similar situations, the hull began fi lling in with silt. This served to 

firmly plant the hull in place and slow its deterioration. 

The natural aspects of the site formation process, that is th e dynamics that 

resulted in the present day condition of the site, were accelerated as a resu lt of 

salvage by local inhabitants. The u pper deckworks were removed, probably along 

with the supporting fra mework provided by the samson posts. The truss rod was 

either a l lowed to fa ll or may have been pushed over the side simply to get it o ut of 

the way d uring sa lvage of the deckworks. Sa lvage probably occurred prior to 

sinking, because of the ease of access at that time. Decking in the bow could have 

been removed d uring this same period. 

D ry rot is likely to have weakened the exposed hull to some degree. When 

the vessel wa s partially re-floated off the piled up driftwood, seen in Figu re 6.4, it 

slipped sideways listing slightly to sta rboard and settled on a boulder that 

1 1 6 
punctured the hull. It is probable that the boiler rolled over at this point, pulling the 

stack, breeching and piping with it. 

For purposes of cla rity, the site will be d iscussed by major structural features 

(hull, paddle wheel assembly), the machinery (boi ler, pump, engi nes, throttle, heater, 

etc.), then the miscel laneous wreckage scatter below the sta rboard side. In addition 

a summary of CHARLES H. SPENCER's key construction attributes is provided in 

Appendix A. 

Hull 

CHARLES H. SPENCER has a flat bottom, square stern, and a straight bow 

(see original plans Figure 6.3). The vessel's design is based u pon a standard 

configuration for paddle wheel vessel s of the period, with construction elements 

nearly identical to a "typical" boat. Genera l ly speaking, these vessels were framed 

as lig htly as possible to insure shallow draft; SPENCER is no exception. While it was 

impossible to verify the d imensions on many of the i nternal structural members, the 

plans do provide some deta il s. 

The steamboat was scheduled to have 1 2-inch keelsons, resting atop 8-inch 

floors. The plans do not indicate the width of these timbers, although it is 

reasonable to assume that the keelsons could have been 12 by 12 inches, and the 

floors 6 by 8 inches. A 6 by 8 inch floor timber would have readily a rticulated with 

the 4 by 6 inch single fra mes used throughout the boat. Frame spacing normally 

becomes tighter fore and aft to allow for curvatu re of the hull in the bow and the 

stern. SPENCER's frame spacing in the bow, and to a degree in the stern, reflected 

this construction techn ique. What is unusual, however, it that the steamboat's 

frames a re i rregularly spaced throughout the length of the hull, and varies from 16 

to 24 inch centers. 

A photograph of the vessel under construction at Wa rm Creel< in the fa ll of 

191 1, clearly illustrates the framing (Figure 7.2). The stringer, or futtoc k, seen at the 

turn of the bilge provided longitudinal support for the hull. A centerline keelson 

provided support for stanchions, that in turn supported a top (longitudinal) stringer. 

The stanchion and stringer are evident in the i nterior of the hull. The deck beams 

are lying across the centerl ine stringer and on a shelf at either side of the hull. A 

1 1 7 

hull cross section was developed based upon field data, the pla ns, and h istoric 

photographs. The width of the keelsons, the size of the longitudinal stringer at the 

turn of the bilge, height of the centerl ine stanchion and top stringer are all 

speculative (Figure 7.3). Figure 7.4 ill ustrates the relationship of these various 

components at the level of the main deck. The deck beams do not lie on top of the 

fra mes, but are butted up against them and lie on the shelf. SPENCER's shelf 

consists of a 2 by 8 inch plank. 

The deck bea ms extended beyond the hull to form an overhanging g uard. 

Figure 7.5 deta ils the construction of the guard found on SPENCER. The guard, 

designed to ca rry additional cargo on this type of vessel, extends 15 inches beyond 

the hull planking. It was constructed using 4 by 5 inch spreaders between deck 

beams, and faced with two 1 by 5 inch protective planks. With the exception of 

three heavier timbers, the deck beams were uniformly 2 by 4 inches. The three 

heavy deck beams, located at either end of the boiler hatch, and just forward of the 

engine space, a re 4 by 5 inches. These beams a re indicated on the original plans 

(Figure 6.3). The main deck planking would have continued out over the g u ards. 

The decking varies in width from 5- 1 /2 to 6 i nches by 1 inch. 

Side planking also varies from 5- 1/2 to 6 inches by 1 inch, and is atta ched to 

the frames using 6 by 3/8 inch square spikes. Just a bove the turn of the bilge the 

planking is 9 i nches wide. The planks are attached to the fra mes with a single 

spike; just a bove the turn of the bilge the 9 inch plank and the knuckle 1 are 

attached with two spikes each. The knu ckle is a full inch thicker than the side and 

bottom planking, measuring 10 by 2 i nches. Bottom planking cons ists of 12 inch 

planks; thickness could not be verified but is suspected to have been 1 i nch. In 

order to accommodate the curve of the hull in the bow and stern, the planking was 

tapered and fitted together. The tapering is evident in a photograph of the vessel 

just prior to launch (Figure 7.6) a nd in a photograph taken at Lee's Ferry (Figu re 

6.2). The only evidence of tapering on the wreck was found in the bow, where 

planks that a re broken out would have been tapered to articulate with those 

remaining (Figure 7.7). 

1 The knuckle is a plank that faces the cocked hat or futtock at the turn of the 

bilge. See Petsche 1 974:76, figure 76. 

1 1 9 

Figure 7.4 Exploded view of main deck construction. 

INCHES 

0 G 12 

0 I 2 

FEET 

\_Jx5 GUARD 

Figure 7.5 Deta il of overhanging guard construction, approximately amidships. 

121 

Truss Rod Edge of Overhanging Guard 

. - "' .

. - : � 

1 23 

Figure 7.7 

CHARLES H. SPENCER 

GLEN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 

National Park Service 

Submerged Cultural Resources Unit 

Starboard Elevation 

J. Bradford 

·-
\ 

(� ' ' 
No ceiling was observed on the exposed i nboard side of the vessel, and due 

to overburden it was impossible to verify the presence of ceiling on the bottom. 

The original plans do indicate that at least the engine room floor was planked. 

Fig ure 7.8 (located in the back pocket of this report) is a plan map of the 

vessel as it existed in the fall of 1 986. The following discussion is based u pon that 

map. 

The framing construction of SPENCER's bow was accomplished using three 

separate timbers. The stem piece is a trapezoid that measures 3 inches and 7 

inches on the parallel sides (i.e., fore and aft) and 5 inches on the non-parallel sides 

(port and sta rboard). A 3 by 3/8 inch meta l stem guard protects this piece from 

damage by floating debris. The stem guard is atta ched to the stem using the same 

type of fastener as found elsewhere on the vessel, these are 6 by 3/8 inch square 

spikes. Immediately behind the stem piece is the apron, another trapezoidal timber 

measuring 7 and 10 inches, fore and aft, and 5 inches port and sta rboard. A 

stemson is present and consists of three recta ngular timbers that would have 

measured 6 by 8 inches each when the vessel was built. All three elements, the 

stem piece, apron, and stemson, are in d eteriorated condition, showing the effects 

of wet/dry cycling (see also Figures 6.5 and 6.6). A portion of the deadwood is 

visible aft of the stem son, the exposed portion consists of a 6 by 10 inch timber 

butted up against the stemson. Hull planking extends only to the apron. 

Immed iately aft of the d eadwood are remnants of the tow bitt. This feature 

is normally tied in to the keelson, and there is no reason to suspect otherwise in 

this instance. The bitt consists of three timbers, each 6 by 6 inches, forming a 6 by 

18 inch base over a l l. At the time of construction, the outer tim bers extended up 

through the main deck and were topped with a thick plank (also see Figure 6.2). 

The port side is only partially exposed, while the sta rboard is exposed a lmost 

to the turn of the bilge (see Figure 7.7). Four frames remain on the port side, while 

the frames are i ntact back to the stern on the sta rboard. The shelf is completely 

missing in the bow on the port s ide, while it does appear just forwa rd of the boiler 

on the sta rboard side. Sand and silt completely fill the bow, other than the tow b itt 

1 25 
and the upper portion of the deadwood, the only other exposed features are truss 

rod and turnbuckles, part of the vessel's i nternal strengthening system. 

Truss rod, also cal led hogging chain, and turnbuckles were used in long 

wooden-hulled vessels like C HARLES H. SPENCER because there was l ittle to provide 

i nternal stiffness. Western river steamboat hulls were very long in proportion to 

their depth a nd their width. The tendency of these hulls to take on a snake-like 

curve was very common. I nternal structural support was needed to offset 

longitudinal and tran sverse strains that resulted in the ends of the boat d rooping, or 

"hogging," and the middle rising or "sagging." This problem was solved in the 

1 840s with the development of a system of braces, also called samson posts, and 

rods. Figure 7.9 (top) illustrates the arran gement of braces and rods on a typical 

stern wheel steamboat. 

The truss rod was designed to reduce longitudinal hogging, i.e. upwa rd 

curvature, of the hull, . The turnbuckles were used to tighten s ections of rod, 

pulling the vessel bow, stern, paddle wheel, and paddle wheel guard up. This would 

offset the weight of the boiler, engines, and paddle wheel located in the bow and 

stern, respectively (Figure 7.9 bottom). As the rod is tightened, it also exerts 

downward pressure on the samson posts. The samson posts a re stepped i nto the 

kee lsons, and where the truss rod is attached to the keelson, a clamp is used. The 

downward pressure of the samson post on the keelson forces the u pwa rd curve, or 

sagging, of the hull a midships to flatten out. The samson posts also press down on 

the cylinder timbers just b elow the engines, red ucing sagging, i .e. d ownward 

curvature, in that a rea. The illustration on top of Figure 7.9, could very well be 

CHARLE.S H. SPENCER. It m irrors the truss rod and samson post a rrangement used 

on the boat, involving two parallel rows of samson posts. The historical photo 

taken during the boat's construction also shows the truss rod and samson post 

a rrangement (Figu re 7.2). 

Based upon the arran gement of samson posts, it is possible to determine 

that CHARLES H. SPENCER had three keelsons. As discussed earlier, the centerline 

keelson supported the stanchions, while the port and sta rboard sister keel sons 

supported the parallel rows of samson posts (refer to Figures 7.3, 7.9). 

1 26 
STERNWHEELER 

HULL, UNBR ACED, UNL OADED 

H U LL, LOADS PLACED 

After Bates 1 9 68 

Figure 7.9 Typical a rrangement of keelsons, cylinder timbers, samson posts, and 

truss rod on a stern paddle wheel boat and hull stresses as a result of boiler and 

engine loads. 

1 27 
In all, eight turnbuckles a re exposed on the site; these mea sure 10 by 3 

inches each. The two in the bow, in situ, sti ll had sections of threaded truss rod 

protruding from both ends. The bow was the only a rea where it was poss i ble to 

examine the portion of rod that extended below the level of the main deck. Two 

sizes of threaded truss rod were d i scovered; below the level of the main deck the 

rod was 2 inch diameter, while above the level of the deck it was 1-1/2 inch 

diameter. 

The boiler sits im med iately aft of the truss rods in the bow. That feature will 

be discussed in greater deta il below. At the time of the vessel's construction, the 

boiler would have been sitting upright in the boiler space, a 19 foot by 7 foot 6 inch 

hold (see orig inal plans, Figure 6.3). The entire forward part of this hold is now 

m issing, the after end, however is still partially intact (refer to Figure 7.8, base 

map). Decking aft of the hatch open ing in intact. Two sections of hatch coam ing 

are present; one lying just behind the boiler, the second aft and to port of the 

boiler. That section of coam ing to port of the boiler measu res 7 feet 6 inches long, 

is 3 inches wide and 5 i nches high. The ends of this section a re sawn, not bro ken, 

suggesting this piece is intact and came from the aft edge of the hatch. The 

section of coa ming immediately behind the boiler is broken; it too is a 3 by 5 inch 

plank, its length is just under 4 feet. Th is is probably a portion of the sta rboard 

coaming. 

Decking on the sta rboard side, aft of the boiler, is b roken as a result of the 

boiler rolling over out of place. Remains of the sta rboard hatch coaming a re not 

visible u nder the boiler, nor is there a ny evidence of the forwa rd sta rboard samson 

post. It is suspected that the post was removed by sa lvors shortly after the 

vessel's abandonment; its presence would have prevented the boiler from toppling 

over and c rushing the sta rboard hatch coaming. The rem nant of the forwa rd port 

sa m son post is buried by deep sand and silt. Aft of the boiler along the sta rboard 

side, the remains of the _overhanging guard are evident; the guard extends to the 

tra nsom. 

I mmediately aft of the boiler hold the remains of the vessel's tow post is 

present. The 6 by 6 inch ti mber was sawn off, not broken, even with the level of 

the deck .. According to the plans, this post was scheduled to be 17 feet 6 inches 

high. No other remains of the tow post were located elsewhere on the s ite. 

1 28 
Decking a round the tow post is i ntact, with the exception of a small hole directly 

behind the post remnant. This is the former location of the hand operated bilge 

pump, as ind icated in the orig inal plans (Figure 6.3). The excel lent condition of the 

decking in this area, coupled with the fact that until as recently as 1 973 the pump 

was in pl ace, suggests that the pump was forceably removed and pushed over the 

sta rboard side. The pump now lies below the boat, almost directly below its former 

location on deck (see Figure 7.8). 

Approxi mately 6 feet aft of the tow post are the remains of the port and 

sta rboard mid-ships samson posts. Both of these were also sawn, not broken, off 

at the level of the deck. These 6 by 6 inch timbers were scheduled to be 16 feet 6 

inches in high. No remains of either samson post were found elsewhere on the 

site. Just forward of the sta rboa rd samson post is a small hatch, measuring 2 feet 

6 inches by 1 foot 3 inches. This open ing provided access to the bilge. Decki ng 

around the sta rboa rd samson post and hatch is intact, and in good condition. The 

existence of a similar hatch forward of the port samson post could not be 

confirmed because no decking exists in that area. Approxi mately 1 24 square feet of 

deck is exposed; much of this is i ntact and in good condition. 

Approximately 4 feet 9 i nches behind the sta rboa rd mid-ships samson post a 

section of truss rod protrudes through the deck. The rod is still a rticulated with the 

keelson below deck, the turnbuckle just above the deck, and eventua lly a samson 

post cap over the side of the boat. I mmediately behind the truss rod, lying partially 

on the deck and parti ally on the sand, is an "L" shaped disarticulated section of 

2-inch o.d. piping (refer to Figure 7.8). A union and two valves connect the va rious 

smaller sections. The pipi ng, now lying in the general vicinity of the feed pipe to 

the heater, may have once been a rticulated to that feature, however this is entirely 

speculative. 

From the mid-ships c;rea aft, the deck is covered with an increa singly deeper 

layer of sand and silt. The depth i ncrea ses rapidly moving from bow to stern and 

from port to sta rboard. Protruding from the sand approximately 4 feet aft of the 

port samson post remnant is a section of truss rod; behind that a nother 6 feet is a 

section of truss rod and an additional turnbuckle (Figure 7.8) 

1 29 
Completely to port, a 4 by 5 inch deck beam is partially exposed, as is a 6 

foot section of s helf. No additional sections of hull along the port side a re visible, 

a lthough the shelf and decking are buried by only a few i nches of sand. Inboard 

and slightly towa rd the stern, an eight foot section of decking is exposed. This is 

the a rea of the engine room. Aft of the decking a small section of truss rod is 

exposed. 

Accord ing to the p lans, the third pair of samson posts were located 

approximately 15 feet aft of the m id-ships pair. Located in the engine room, they 

should have been just inboard of the cylinders (refer to Figure 6.3). The position of 

the third pair could not be verified due to the depth of sand in that area. 

A cleat is present on the overhanging guard outboa rd of the sta rboard engine 

cylinder head. Approxi mately 3 feet aft of the cleat is a chock. Both deck features 

can be seen in a historic photo of the vessel (Figure 6.4). Lying adjacent to and 

over the chock a re two sections of truss rod. The rods are still attached below 

decks and to samson post caps lying over the side of the vessel (Figure 7.8). 

As the overhanging guard nears the stern, it na rrows down (Figure 7.8). 

Supporting construction for the after end of the guard is provided by an extension 

of the vessel's tra nsom. This is clearly visible in Figure 7. 1 0, a historic photo of the 

vessel under construction taken by the Kolb bothers in 191 1. Additional bracing for 

the na rrowed-down guard is provided by a 1 by 12 inch rod, connecting two 

longitudinal timbers, and a 1 inch by 4 foot rod connecting the guard to the cylinder 

timber. The transom is exposed from the outer edge of the guard to the sta rboard 

edge of the rudder well, a distance of just over 5 feet. 

Only the edge of the rudder well is exposed; no other features associated 

with the rudder could be examined due to the depth of sand overburden. The Kolb 

photo (Figu re 7. 1 0) taken in 191 1, and the E. C. LaRue photo (Figu re 6.4) taken in 

1915, both from the stern, provide additional construction detail on the stern and 

rudder configuration. In Figure 7.1 0, two sets of rudder gudgeons a re visible bolted 

d irectly on the tra nsom. The rudders, visible in LaR ue's p hoto (Figure 6.4), were 

reinforced with i ron stra p. 

1 30 

Paddle Wheel Assembly 

For purposes of the fol lowing d iscussion, the paddle wheel assembly consists 

of these features: cylinder tim ber, pitman, crank, pillow block and cap, paddle wheel 

shaft, paddle wheel, and paddle wheel guard. 

Cylinder Timbers: Two pair of cylinder timbers on the port and sta rboa rd sides of 

the vessel not only provide support for the engines, they extend out toward the 

stern to support the paddle wheels. Because of the weight of the engines and the 

vibrations caused by its functioning, these timbers a re tied in to the vessel's sister 

keelsons (refer to Figure 7.9, top). Specifica l ly, the in board timbers rest on top of 

and a re attached to the side keelsons. The cyl i nder timbers on CHARLES H. 

SPENCER were scheduled to be 6 by 12 inches each, tapering down to 6 inches high 

at the stern guard. Only the sta rboard pair are exposed on site; field measurements 

of the timbers found several discrepancies from the plans. The i n board timber, the 

one tied in to the keelson, is 6 i nches wide as scheduled, however, it's height is 18 

inches rather than 12 inches; it tapers down to 6 i nches at the guard. The timber is 

exposed at the tra nsom and continues towa rd the stern, unchanged, for 6 feet 3 

inches; at this point a 2 inch wide strap encircles it. At the stra p the timber begins 

a· sharp taper down to 6 inches; the length of the timber from the beg inning of the 

ta per at the strap to its end is 8 feet 6 inches. The exposed s ection of inboard 

cylinder timber is 14 feet 9 i nches, overall. The tapering of the cylinder timbers is 

visible in Figure 7. 1 0. 

The outboard cylinder timber, unlike the · inboard timber, is only 3 i nches 

wide. This is one-half the width that wa s ahticipated, based upon the plans. In all 

other d imensions, the outboard timber mirrors the i nboard timber. The outboa rd 

timber d iffers from the inboard timber in one other deta il, a series of nine 4 by 4 

inch holes a re carved along a portion of its length (refer to Figure 7.7). The pitman, 

a long timber drivi ng the paddle wheels, moved in the 1 3-inch space between the 

cylinder timbers. Its rotational movement caused water turbulence; the holes in the 

outer timber allowed the water to rush out lateral ly, rather than having to move out 

under the boat. The o utboard timber forms the outer edge of the paddle wheel 

guard on the port and sta rboa rd sides, respectively. 

1 32 
It is impossible to determine, based upon archival or other documentary 

evidence, whether the change in the width of the outboard cyl i nder timber was 

made while the vessel was under initial construction in San Fra ncisco or was the 

result of creative-adaptive boat building by the s hipwright on site, possibly finding 

h imself with only three, rather than four, cyl inder timbers. The only fact that is 

i ndisputable, is that the plans called for 4 6-inch timbers and that is n ot what is 

represented on site. 

Pitman, Crank, Pillow Block and Cap: The pitman serves as the connecting rod 

between the engine and the cyl inder s haft. While a few were made of steel, the 

vast majority were made of wood (Bates 1 968:96). The pitman on CHARLES H. 

SPENCER is a wooden timber 5 inches wide and varies from 3 inches high at the 

jaws to 12 inches in the center, forming a lozenge-shape feature (Figu re 7. 1 1 , top). 

The pitman timber is encircled, longitudinal ly, by a 3 inch wide iron strap that is 

through-bolted to insure stabil ity (Figure 7. 1 1 , bottom). The exposed portion of the 

pitman measures 15 feet 1 inch, overa ll . 

The pitman is atta ched to the crank by an extension of the iron stra p, called 

jaws, and a small shaft from the crank (Figure 7. 1 1, top). The s haft rests in a 

bearing block in the pitman jaws and is held in place by a gib and a key. A g rease 

cup on the jaws provides lubrication for the shaft and beari ng block. The g rease 

cup and brass knob a re sti ll in pla ce, and it is possible to turn the knob. 

The 3-foot c rank on CHARLES H. SPENCER, visible inboard of the pitman in 

the Figure 7. 1 1 (bottom), is a rticulated to the paddle wheel shaft. The rotational 

movement of the pitman and crank, turns the paddle wheel shaft and the paddle 

wheels. 

A brass-bearing pillow block and cap provides support for the paddle wheel 

s haft. SPENCE R's pil low block still has the g rease cups and brass knobs in place 

(Figure 7. 1 1 , bottom). The brass knobs still moved easily after nearly 76 years. The 

pillow block and cap is through-bolted onto the inboard cylinder timber. 

Paddle Wheel Shaft, Wheel, and G ua rd: The paddle wheel shaft, sti ll securely ,resting 

in the pil low block, is partially exposed on the site. According to the plans, the 

1 33 

overall length of the hol low i ron shaft was scheduled to be 15 feet 3 inches and be 

4- 1 /2 i nches in dia meter. Field measurements confirmed these di mensions. 

All three paddle wheel hubs are present and are in their original locations 

(Figure 7.8). The paddle wheel hubs measure 42- 1 /2 i nches in diameter, and have 

12 pockets for the spokes, or arms. Fig u re 7. 12 (bottom) is a deta il d rawing of the 

hubs found on SPENCER. Remnants of the 7-by-2-inch wooden a rms still exit in 

several pockets. The arm fragments are attached to the hub with a 3/4 by 5 inch 

bolt and hex-head n ut. Paddle wheel arms were carefully cut then forced in the 

pocket; when wet the arms swel led insuring a tight fit. 

In some instances, the a rms were reinforced just outside the flange with a 

triangular block of wood, called a cocked hat. No evidence of cocked hats were 

found on the hubs, and it is not possible to verify from historic photogra phs 

whether SPENCER's wheels had this featu re. One or more rings of additional 

wooden reinforci ng, called blocking, was also used in paddle wheel construction. 

This blocking could be circular, forming an inner ring on the wheel, or, as in the 

case of SPENCER, be long square timbers running from wheel to wheel. The latter 

type of blocking is visible in the LaRue photograph of the boat, Figure 6.4. 

The pri ncipal bracing for the wheel is at the outer ring, or circle. This 

wooden circle is located j ust inside the long planks, called buckets, that ru n from 

wheel to wheel (Figure 7. 1 2, top). The wooden circle is sandwiched between two 

i ron c ircles that are through-bolted. Three pieces of iron circle, measuring 2 i nches 

wide by 1 /2 thick, are present on the site. One long piece is lying adjacent to the 

sta rboard cylinder head, another is protruding from the sand just forward of the 

cylinder, while the third piece is just forwa rd of the port paddle wheel hub. 

The buckets were scheduled to be 10 inches wide by 12 feet long. No 

remains of the wooden circle, blocking, buc kets, or disarticulated a rm sections were 

identified on the site. However, based upon the i nformation a vailable, SPENCER's 

paddle wheels were composed of 12 arms and buckets, were 12 feet wide and 

measured 12 feet in diameter. The clearance from the outer edge of the wheel to 

the rudder was sch'eduled to be 9 inc hes. It wa s not possible to verify this 

measurement on site. 

1 35 
BRACE TO KEELSON 

FLANGE 

I 

I 

I 

I 

FRONT VIEW 

0 

 

INCHES 

6" TO 1 ' -0" 

END VIEW 

10 

Figure 7. 12 Typical a rrangement of paddle wheel, rudder and transom on 

sternwheeler (top). The paddle wheel arms were strengthened by an iron-reinforced 

wooden circle. Deta il drawing of CHARLES H. SPENCER's paddle wheel hub (bottom). 

136 
Decking from the overhanging guard would have extended to the stern, 

forming the port a nd sta rboa rd paddle wheel guards (see Figure 6.4). The deck level 

support structure for the overhanging guard is missing, on the sta rboard side, from 

the transom to the stern. Decki ng is present between the cyl inder timbers, aft of 

the pitma n, to the stern guard. A heavy timber, measuring 4 by 6 i nches forms the 

stern guard. The cyl inder timbers are fitted into the guard timber with a mortise 

and tenon joint. A 1 by 6 inch plank faces the inside of the stern guard and is 

attached by a series of bolts and n uts. The mortise and tenon joint and stern guard 

are clearly visible in the Kolb brothers historic photograph (Figure 7. 1 0). 

Machinery 

Boiler: Boilers used on paddle wheel steam boats around the turn of the century 

were typically the cyl indrical flue, fire tube type. These boilers are externa l ly fired, 

with the firebox and firebed constructed of sheet iron, and li ned with firebrick. They 

genera lly had two furnace fl ues, but as many as six was not uncommon. The 

furnace flues ranged in diameter from 12 to 16 inches (Wa rd 1 909:82). 

In all respects CHARLES H. SPENCER was a typical paddle wheel steamboat of 

the period, therefore the expectation was for a boiler very similar to that described 

by Wa rd in 1 909. Exa mination of the boiler on site confirmed the general 

configuration presented by Ward. However, when comparing the specifics found on 

site to the orig inal plans some discrepancies were discovered. According to the 

original plans, the boiler on CHARLES H. SPENCER was scheduled to be 72 inches by 

1 20 inches with a 35 inch firebox. In actual fact, the boiler on s ite is 77 i nches by 

131 inches with a 25 inch firebox. Figure 7. 13 is a deta il d rawing of SPENCER's 

boiler, presently lying over on its sta rboard side. Overa ll, the boiler and firebox 

measure 13 feet long rather than the 12 feet 6 inches scheduled on the plans. 

Boiler plate riveting is a good temporal indicator for construction dates. The 

riveting patterns on longitudinal seams changed through time and were also 

required, through legi slation, to meet c ertain safety sta ndards. Prior to 1 873, the 

typical seam was single-riveted with an over-lapping joint (Jeter 191 7:7). In 1 873, 

the Supervi sing Board of Inspectors of Steam boats adopted rules s pecifying 

double-riveted longitudinal lap joints (Sweeny 1 887, in Murphy and Saltus 

1 981:1 1 0). The dou ble-riveted lap joint was used where the seams are not exposed 

1 37 

to direct furnace heat. By the late 1 880s the dou ble-riveted lap joint was replaced 

by the b utt joint with straps of unequal width. The last style in general use was the 

triple-riveted butt joint with straps of unequal widths. This style is common in 

post- 1 900 boilers (Jeter 191 7:7- 1 0). 

The longitudinal boiler joints on CHARLES H. SPENCER are double-riveted lap 

seam, required after 1 873, and commonly used only until the 1 880s. This indicates 

that the style of boiler used was popular during this period, however it does 

necessarily not mean that the boiler was 25 years old. Boiler styles did not 

necessarily change rapidly, and local construction may have dictated the style. 

However it is reasonable to assume, based on this i nformation, that it may not have 

been a new boiler, although Charl ie Spencer's employees believed that it was new. 

It had a brand new boiler, a good one, a marine boiler .... 

(Bill Wi lson i nterview by W. L. Rusho, September 24, 

1961 ). 

This does not mean that the boiler was inadequate or in poor condition when 

it wa s put i nto SPENCER. By law at that time the boiler was i nspected and tested 

by the I nspector of Boilers and found to be satisfactory (Rosenfelt. U.S. vs. Utah, 

1919, Tra nscript of Testimony 1 6:30 1 1 ). In addition, it was not uncommon to take 

the machinery from one vessel and re-use it in a second vessel. In fact, the 

machi nery from other contempora neous Colorado River steamboats was re-used; 

the machinery from COLORADO I was re-used in COLORADO I I, and the machinery 

from GILA went i nto CO CHAN (Lingenfelter 1 978:4 1, 53, 91 ). 

The original plans do not indicate new or u sed machinery on the boat. 

However, what is clear is that the boiler insta lled on the boat is not the same size 

as the boiler that was originally indicated in the p la ns. It wou ld not be u nusual that 

the equipment used would have va ried somewhat from the plans. A decision to 

deviate from the plans, in this case, must have been made in San Francisco, when 

the various pieces and parts were c rated up and packed i nto the two ra ilroad cars 

for shipment to Marysville, Utah. No documenta ry or a rchival evidence has been 

located to expla in the change, and it is pure speculation to suggest that insta llation 

of a possibly used boiler could have been directed toward c utting costs. Although, 

g iven Charlie Spencer's continual search for moneta ry backing, some cost cutting is 

to be expected. 

1 39 
Overall, the boiler is in reasonably good condition, given its continual 

exposure to the elements and wet/d ry cycling due to the fluctuations in the water 

l evel in the river corridor. The g reatest damage has been to the fire box, which is 

badly rusted. Fire brick sti ll lines the box and several pieces of coal are sti ll 

present. The bricks measure 4 by 9 by 2- 1 /2 i nches and a re sta mped with the 

l etters "N.C. & S.", the manufacturer's initials. Several bri cks also lie below the 

starboard side on the sand and silt bottom. All appeared to be in excel lent 

condition. 

No evidence of the smoke box, or breeching, was located on the site. The 

smoke box, attached to the boiler at the after end, directs the smoke up to the 

smoke stack (refer to Figure 6.3). The only evidence found of remains from the 

smoke stack is a circular flange, or collar, that would have kept the stack from 

touching the wood decking as it passed up through the boiler deck and the pi lot 

house. Its 2 inch base was bolted to the deck, and the 2-1/2 inch high collar was 

attached to the metal shield that formed the outer casing for the stack. The 

diameter of the collar is 3 feet 5 inches, matching the plans exactly. It is located 

off the sta rboa rd side of the boat lying on the sand bottom. 

E ngines: The sl ide-va lve high pressure engine with no condenser wa s commonly 

used after the Civil War, especially in vessels of small tonnage {Hunter 1 949: 1 47). 

Quite long eccentric rods and pitmans were necessary with these engines beca use 

of their long stroke. The limberness of the hull resulted in uncertain valve action 

with these long-pistoned engines. The lever-poppet-va lve engine was developed to 

c orrect problems with the slide-valve and wa s widely used after the turn of the 

century. These engines were equipped with two cams, one for reversing, the other, 

ca lled a "cut-off", a l lowed the engineer to adjust the a mount of steam entering the 

p iston and the a mount of power and save fuel (Ward 1 909:84-85). 

Prior to the turn of the century, reversing the engine in a steamboat was 

done by the manual o peration of va lve l evers. It was descri bed by Merrick: 

The reversing gear ... was like nothing else of its kind, 

a nywhere under the sun. ... The connecting-rod 

(cam- rod we cal led it) weighed at least fifty pounds .... 

In reversing, the end of the connecting-rod was lifted 

off its hook at the bottom, the lever thrown over ... the 

rod l ifted about three feet, and d ropped on to the upper 

hook. It was all right when you did this once or twice 

1 40 
in making a landing; but in a piece of "crooked river," 

the boat dodging a bout among reefs and bars, with the 

bells coming faster than you can answer them, it was 

a nother matter, and became pretty trying work for a 

stripling boy; his arms could not keep the pace .... 

(George B. Merric k, Old Times on the Upper Mississippi, 

1 854 to 1 863 in Hunter 1 948: 1 48). 

The adoption of an improved reversing gear, circa 1 909, allowed the engineer 

to throw a lever at the center of the boat to operate the reversing gear on both 

engines at once (Hunter 1 948: 1 48). The presence of this feature provides temporal 

indicator on the construction of the engine. 

The dual engines used in SPENCER were typical of the period. Schedu led to 

be 8 by 40 inches, indicating the diameter and stroke of the piston, their operating 

pressure should have been 17 4 psi. The sta rboard engine is partially exposed on 

the site (Figure 7.8). Comparison of the exposed portions of this feature with the 

plans resulted in verification of its genera l measurements. A small connecting rod 

coupled to a rocker lever is also exposed. Its location and general configuration 

reflect those indicated on the plans, and places the reverse lever in the m iddle of 

the boat. This dates the piston-va lve engines, at the earliest, to 1 909. 

Heater: The heate�. presently lying off the sta rboa rd side of the boat, was used to 

pre-heat the water that entered the boiler. This was accomplished by a system of 

piping and a small feed pump. The hot exhaust from each engine was carried 

upward to the heater via two 2- 1 /2 inch pipes. The hot air entered the heater 

through the after end, exited toward the bow, and traveled to the smoke stack 

through a 3- 1 /2 inch exhaust pipe (see Figure 6.3). A cold water pump, located on 

the deck between the engines, took water from the river and pumped it i nto the 

heater through a 1-1/2 inch feed pipe that also entered the heater from the after 

end. The water ran over a series of perforated plates or through a coil in the 

heater, warming nea rly to the boiling point (Ward 1 909:89). The heated water exited 

the heater through a 1 inch feed pipe, was separated i nto two feed pipes, and ran 

forward toward the boiler. At the boiler, it was fed i nto the top of the boiler, and 

fi lled the space between the fire tubes. The water was again h eated and steam 

generated to power the engines. 

141 
Close exa mination of the heater and comparison of the field data to the plans 

resulted in the discovery of only minor discrepancies. Figure 7. 14 is a d etail 

d rawing of the heater. The hot air exhaust pipe is 4- 1 /2 inch o.d. rather than the 

3- 1 /2 i nches ca lled for on the plans. A short d istance after the pipe exi sts the 

heater, it is buried by sand and rocks; it rea ppears under the bilge pump exposing a 

coupling flange (see Figure 7.8). The length of the exhaust pipe that remains 

attached to the heater, is 10 feet 2 inches, inc luding a coupling at the partially 

buried end. A disarticu lated section of similar pipe is lying nea rby. The length on 

this piece is 7 feet 8 i nches. The length overall of the exhaust pipe was scheduled 

to be 18 feet, not including a double reverse elbow shown on the plans. The two 

sections of pipe present on sight measure 17 feet 10 inches without the elbow. 

The double reverse elbow is s hown in the plans connecting the exhaust pipe 

to the smoke stack (refer to Fig.u re 6.3). Rather than being attached at the s moke 

stack, the elbow is attached at the heater (Fig ure 7. 1 5). All other pipes and 

connections shown in the plans matched those found on site. 

Throttle Va l ve a nd Steam Pipes: Steam generated in the boiler exited through the 

steam dome and traveled to the throttle through a 3 inch extra heavy steam pipe. 

The throttle and lever were located overhead, between the engines and just forward 

from the reverse lever (refer to Figure 6.3). Two branch steam pipes exited from the 

throttle, passed overhead, then down to the engines. The engineer stood in the 

a rea between the reverse lever and throttle, stopping, sta rting, reversing, and 

powering the engines up or down as needed (Ward 1 909:89-90). 

Th e th rottle is lying near the heater on the bottom off the sta rboa rd side of 

the boat. It is sti ll articulated to a 16 foot section of extra heavy 3 inch steam 

pipe. The length of the steam pipe from the steam dome to the throttle was 33 

feet; the section of pipe attached to the throttle represents approximately half of the 

o riginal piping p resent on the vessel when constructed. A second section of 3 inch 

steam pipe with a coupling flange is prot ruding from the sand under the throttle; 

this is most likely the remainder of the steam pipe. 

The throttle l ever is missing although the "t" connection for the engine steam 

pipe is still attached. Steam wa s provided to the engines through 2 inch steam 

p ipes; one section of 2 inch pipe is lying below the bilge pump on the sand 

1 42 




feed line from the feed pump to the heater. Three separate sections of 2 inch pipe 

are lying below the boiler on the sand bottom. They are 24 inches, 30 inches, and 5 

feet 9 inches long. The only indicated use of 2 inch pipe on the plans is steam line 

from the throttle to the engine, in the stern. The present location of this piping 

near the boiler does not preclude their original use in the engine room, although it 

is reasonable to assume that the piping was probably used in conjunction with the 

boiler. 

Summary 

CHARLES H. SPENCER was not the first steamboat to be prefabricated by the 

Shultze, Robertson, Shultze Compa ny, nor was that company the first to prefabricate 

vessels. The company shipwrights were, no doubt, fa miliar with the techniques 

used for such a job and the necessity for careful planning. The task of such an 

undertaking for Herman Rosenfelt, one of the company's shipwrights, must have 

been reasona bly straightforward. The steamboat had been "put up" in San 

Francisco, that is the frame was constructed and temporarily put together with 

screw bolts, then disassembled for shipment to Marysvil le, Utah, and eventual 

delivery to Warm Creek (U.S. vs. Utah, 1 929, Tra nscript of Testimony 1 6:3007). Upon 

arrival at Warm Creek, rea ssembly of the boat and the machinery would complete 

the task. 

By the time of SPENCER's construction, the industry of shipbuilding was well 

established with foundries, boiler works, and machine shops, as well as ship's 

carpenters and other skilled tradesmen employed in the business. Removed from 

that work environment and in a remote loc ation, Herman Rosenfelt must have felt 

some level of frustration during CHARLES H. SPENCER's construction at the mouth 

of Warm Creek. 

The sources of Rosenfelt's frustration can rea sonably be hypothesized from 

the statements of workers at the mining camp and from Cha rlie Spencer. 

Optimism wa s a pparently high a mong company 

officials, for they freely invested money in rather 

haphazard fa shion and employed a nyone who wanted a 

job. Not all wages, however, were paid. 

The men were induced to work not only for the 

promise of future wages, but for a sta ke in an irrigation 

project to be built by the company. [Charlie] Spencer 

1 47 
told the men that the company pumps would be used to 

irrigate the lower Paria River va lley at some indefin i_te 

future time. The men were to be a l lowed to homestead 

on the n ewly opened land. . .. the ra nch at Lee's Ferry 

was visible proof to the workmen of the fertil ity of the 

soil. 

With the prom ise of land, [Charlie] cheated many 

out of almost all their wages. . .. sometimes $1400 to 

$ 1 500 (Bert Leach, interview by W. L. Rusho, February 1 8, 

1 961 ). 

Leach was hired on as a miner, however, because the mining operation never 

really got u nder way he, like many of the other men, worked on a variety of other 

jobs. The men hired by Charlie Spencer included unskilled and semi-skil led laborers 

and miners. Obviously, some of the men hired were hopeful fa rmers, working for a 

plot of land and the possibi lity of a homestead. The miners, working for wages 

rather than for the promise of land, would have been quickly disill usioned by the 

lack of progress in the mining efforts and with the lack of pay. Many of these men 

would have had some carpentry and possibly some blacksmith ing skills. Miners, 

almost by definition, had some ca rpentry s kills particularly if their experience 

included working in underg round m ines. However, these men were fa r from skilled 

ship's carpenters and machinists, as were those men who built most of the Western 

River steamboats. 

Working with semi-skilled and unskilled la borers, if nothing el se, would have 

been a challenge for Rosenfelt. It is entirely possible that the results of this 

challenge a re reflected in the construction cha nges discovered on the vessel and 

changes in the installation of the piping for the machinery. When problems were 

d iscovered, it would have been extremely d ifficult to resolve them at Warm Creek. 

For exam ple, if the machinist's plans were not corrected to account for the 

change in the size of the boiler, a lterations to the steam lines would h ave been 

necessary to accommod ate the larger piece of equipment. There is every reason to 

s uspect that the boiler a lteration resulted in a variety of problems. Bi ll Wi lson, a 

packer and frig ht team d rover, had this to say about the construction of the 

steam boat: 

I carried messages, d rove freight teams and did the 

packing. They [the workers at the mining site and on 

the steam boat] had to pack a lot of things back and 

forth. All the pipefittings they'd get wrong. I don't 

know why. They'd send the pipe over and they'd cut 

1 48 
threads on it and cut it off or make it longer (Bill Wi lson 

i nterview by W. L. Rusho, September 24, 1 961 ). 

The problem with the pipes can be attributed to any of three g roups; either 

the workers at the site were unable to follow the machinists plans and made 

mista kes, or the pipefitters in Marysvi lle were unable to correctly make adjustments 

to the pipes, or the pipefitters in San Francisco did n ot either adjust for the 

differences in the length of the boiler or did not put that portion of the vessel 

together to check for proper fit. It is i mportant to keep in mind that the workers at 

Wa rm Creek were under the supervision of an experienced shipwright, who was 

equipped with both builder's and machinist's pl a ns. Additional ly, the inspector of 

boilers wa s on site near the end of re-assembly and supervised the completion of 

that aspect of the boat. This leads to an obvious q uestion. If the boat was 

completely put together in San Francisco, why weren't the problems with the 

cylinder timbers, the connection for the heater, the adjustments of the steam lines 

for the larger boiler and other piping, found there and corrected prior to shi pping? 

The answer may lie in Rosenfelt's testimony. 'The frame [emphasis added] 

was put up and put together temporarily with screw bolts, and then ta ken 

down"(U.S. vs. Utah, 1 929, Tra nscript of Testimony 1 3:3007). Rosenfelt said nothing 

about complete assembly of the boat, only assembly of the frame. 

Why wasn't the boat completely put together? Was it standard practice of 

the period, or was the remote location and the d iffi culty of transporting the boat not 

clearly understood by the contractor, the owners, and the shipwright? Some 

additional research in the company records might shed l ight on standard practices 

for prefabri cated boats. If only limited assemb ly was standard practice, then the 

ability of the shi pwright to be able to make corrections during construction was 

crucial. A thorough understanding of the remoteness of the construction site and 

the d ifficulty of access to lumber mills and machine shops becomes critical. The 

necessity for freighting piping back and forth from Wa rm Creek to Marysvi lle 

suggests that the d ifficulties associated with the remote location were, at best, 

poorly understood. 

The headaches of construction with an inexperienced crew, the remote 

location of the building site, and the inaccessibility of lumber mills and machine 

shops were not the only problems during the winter and spring of 191 1-1 912. One 

1 49 
of the biggest problems faced by Charlie Spencer was trying to keep his men from 

selling liquor to the Indians and, most likely, keeping them from d rinking too much 

themselves. His teamsters even cached food and other goods along the tra il, only 

to pick up the items l ater and sell them in town for liquor (Charlie Spencer i nterview 

by W. L. Rusho, Augu st 1 8, 1 962). The degree to which drinking contributed to the 

necessity for a lterations from the plans is u nknown, but can be surmised to have 

been a factor. 

The successful completion of the steam boat CHARLES H. SPENCER. under the 

direction of Herman Rosenfelt. is even more amazing given the difficulties and 

o bstacles overcome. 

1 50 
CHAPTER VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

Historic Site 

The Charlie Spencer mining area has, through the yea rs, undergone · many 

adverse impacts and destruction as a result of ma n's activities within the limited 

a mount of space in this section of Lee's Ferry. When Spencer abandoned his 

properties at Lee's Ferry in 1912, the idea of them becoming a historic district was 

never imagined by Charlie or those who util ized the properties in the fol lowing 60 

years. For the purposes of the USGS, Spencer's building provided convenient 

housing for the survey crews and later employees stationed at the ferry. Rather 

than accrue the expense of building anew in a place of extreme isolation, the survey 

took advantage of the previous work provided and adn pted the necessa ry buildings 

for their use. 

Arg uments over how m uch the USGS changed the character of the original 

buildings or what the possible historic components added by USGS may have been 

could keep historians and preservationists busy for years. The effects of this 

remodeling on what would have become historic build ings, however, is a moot point 

because most of the buildings were destroyed in 1 967. Th is event is u nfortunate 

because much of the physical evidence of an i mportant chapter in regional history 

was removed with the structures. 

The key to the situation today lies in preserving and i nterpreting the 

remaining features related not only to the Spencer mining operations, but also to 

the USGS years of survey and river monitoring at Lee's Ferry. Some physical 

evidence and adequate amounts of documentation for both periods survive today 

and provide us with the tools and i nformation necessary to present a full 

interpretive program to the public and allow continued research i nto the history of 

1 5 1 
the area by those whose i nterests have and will continue to bring them to Lee's 

Ferry. 

Recom mendations 

1. The National Park Service should continue to monitor the condition of the 

standing structures with in the historic district at Lee's Ferry and provide, as 

necessary, any stabilization or preservation measures required to keep the 

structures in their current condition. Each building is an important part of 

the overall story at Lee's Ferry a nd, as such, relates to the overall interpretive 

story the N PS presents to the publ ic. 

2. Minor features located during this study should be kept in their current 

condition and left undisturbed. These features, too, contribute to the overa ll 

story of the Spencer mining complex and could be incorporated into the 

interpretive story of the area. 

3. Additional research into the Lee's Ferry story, particularly the Spencer mining 

era and the USGS period, should be encouraged. 

4. A more comprehensive interpretive program for the Spencer mining area at 

Lee's Ferry should be developed. Much information is available on the 

su bject and a more complete story of this period of h istory at Lee's Ferry can 

be provided to park vi sitors. 

5. No developments should occur within the area between the present boat 

ramp and Lee's c rossing. I mpacts to the Spencer mining a rea have been 

cumulative and have taken their toll on the cultural resources. To continue 

this pattern would only exacerbate the destruction of the remaining 

reso urces. The area has been designated as a nationally significant site and 

should be managed accordingly. 

1 52 
Paddle Wheel Steamboat 

Vessel Preservation and Im pacts 

The wood used in the construction of the vessel remains hard and well 

preserved below the level of water fluctuations. Pipi ng, truss rod, turnbuckles, 

paddle wheel hubs, and the machinery are all in good condition. All of the metal 

observed on the site has a small amount of encrustation. Th is is expected and, in 

fact, has probably contributed to sta bilization of these remains. A portion of the 

boiler and firebox, as well as wood in the bow, both exposed to wet-dry cycles, a re 

in poor condition. Rusting of the boiler and firebox, along with loss of some of the 

historic fabric, is evident. Several hull planks, present in 1 963 and 1 973 photos of 

the site, are gone from the bow. 

The silt which has buried the vessel up to the level of the main deck has 

contributed to its overa ll good condition. Algae, which is present in a bundance on 

the site, has had no obvious detrimenta l effect on the vessel's preservation. 

During three days of lowered water levels, October 7-9, 1 986, it was possible 

to observe the i mmediate effects of this action on the site. Several impacts were 

noted. The partial exposure of the boiler, a portion of the bow, and the lowered 

water over the main deck of the vessel, exposed these areas to both wind d riven 

waves a nd boat wake wash. The lapping of the waves resulted in erosion of the 

bank and movement of sand and silt over the site. Splashing water alternately wet 

then exposed the bow an·d the boiler. Wet-dry cycling has been documented to be 

one of the most severe impacts to cu ltural remains in re·servoirs· and riverine 

environments (Lenihan et. al. 1 981). 

The lowered water level also i nvites more human activity at the site. The 

exposed boiler has been used as a convenient platform for local fishermen. With 

the main deck being under only a few inches of water, wading · across the site has 

occurred. Inadvertent destruction of the vessel, or possibly purposeful vandalism, 

becomes much more likely during periods of low water flow. The removal of the 

bilge pump probably occu rred during one of these periods. 

1 53 
Algae, which is growing on the upper areas of the vessel, principally on the 

m etal remains, d ries out and dies during lowered water levels; it is not clear 

whether the deterioration of algae would in the long term have a direct adverse 

impact on site p reservation. Cultural remains in an anerobic environ ment have been 

found to be well p reserved after many hundreds of years. The lowered water levels, 

increased exposu re to sunlight and photosynthesis, and the decay of dead algae in 

an aerobic environment, contribute to the deterioration of many cl asses of cultura l 

remains, particularly wood (Lenihan et. al. 1 981). 

While the vessel is located in a back eddy, and out of the current in the main 

river channel, m ovement of water over the site is steady. During the days of 

normal water flow, i.e. 20,000 to 2 5,000 cfs, the divers had to hold on or kick 

vigorously to maintain their pos ition in the shal lower areas of the vessel, but water 

flow was n ot suffi cient to present any danger to the dive team or to the stability of 

the vessel. Debris stead i ly moved across the site and wil low branches often lodged 

themselves a round the boiler, only to col lect algae and other small twigs. No 

readily observable adverse impacts occurred as a result of these processes, 

h owever the build-up of debris could adversely impact the un buried portions of the 

vesse l by mechanical a ction, i.e., the grinding or bumping of the materials against 

fragile remains. 

Perusal of photographs of the site dating from 1919, the early 1 960s, and 

1 970s, along with our first-hand observations, suggest that the high water flow of 

1 982-83 had a negligible impact on the vessel. Its location in an eddy probably 

contributed to a reduction of potential impacts from flooding. It is impossible to 

d etermine when the hull planks were lost from the area of the bow. These changes 

to the site could h ave occurred at a ny time and cannot be attributed to high water 

flow. 

C HARLES H. SPENCER, like so many vessels lost in marine and other 

freshwater environments, has become an a rtifi cial reef and fish habitat. Trout 

a bounded as did small shrimp and worms. The presence of these freshwater 

o rganisms present no adverse impact to the site. 

Recommendations 

1 54 
Clea rly the most detrimental impact to the site is wet-dry cycling resulting 

from the fluctuations of the water level below the dam. In ideal conditions the 

vessel would be best preserved and protected from the impa ct of wind- or 

boat-driven waves and wet-dry cycling if it rema ined underwater at all times. 

Under less than ideal circumstances some other options present themselves: 

1. Extend the no wake zone around the boat launch a rea to beyond the site of 

SPENCER. Th is would reduce splashing at the site and some of the steady 

bank erosion. 

2. During periods of lowered water levels, proh ibit vis itors from wa l king around 

on the vessel and climbing on the boiler. Direct human impacts could be 

eliminated in this man ner. 

3. Gather additional background information on the vessel. W. L. Rusho and the 

Bureau of Reclamation have photographs of the site in the early 1 960s and 

1 970s. Photographs from the 1 920s through the 1 950s, the late 1 970s and 

1 980 to 1 986, may be in the private collections of previous Park employees, 

residents, or visitors. A request for photographs of the vessel as well as the 

Spencer operation, published in local newspa pers and spread word-of-mouth 

among the "old timers" who were recently i nterviewed, would contribute to 

the story of the park and aid in the development of i nterpretive progra ms. 

Further, a photo log of the vessel wi ll help to document deterioration and 

na rrow down the dates impacts occurred. 

4. Develop a monitoring program for the vessel. Service divers should be 

encouraged to visit the site in order to become familiar with the resource. 

They should carefully review the maps, photographs, video tape and sl ides 

provided to the pa rk, prior to such a visit. At minimum the site should be 

visited by divers following periods of very high or very low water. The site 

map and photographs generated as a result of the work in October, 1 986, can 

be used as a basel ine to measure and define impa cts. 

5. Develop an i nterpretive display on land near the site. While the research was 

being conducted, a steady flow of vis itors passed by, often stopping to 

comment on the vessel remains. An i nterpretive display would result in a 

1 55 
better understanding of the role that the steamboat played in the local 

history a nd encourage a positive attitude toward other cultural remains in the 

pa rk. Another possibil ity would be the esta blishment of a small wharf 

adjacent to the site with i nterpretive i nformation. The shallow water over the 

site would permit visitors to see the site more clea rly. A wharf would also 

provide access for those visitors who want to fish in the vicinity, without 

i mpactin� the vessel. 

6. The site should be c hecked regularly for the obvious build-up of debris or 

trash arou nd the bow and the boiler. Regular removal of this build-up will 

prevent any potential a dverse impacts from mechanical action. 

7. Th e site should be documented through the completion of a National 

Register of Historic Places continuation sheet, a ppended to the existing 

historic d istrict nomination. Documentation of the vessel's history and 

remains through this process. will materially aid to the register's usefulness 

· a s a n. ·inventory of significant shipwreck sites and will cla rify the contribution 

this feature makes to the district nomination. 

Conclusion 

The paddle wheel steamer CHARLES H. SPENCER is both an i nteresting and 

well-preserved cultural resource which can mean ingfully contribute to the 

interpretive programs in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and the Colorado 

River downstream corridor. While there may be nu merous exa mples of this type of 

vessel lost in the Western Rivers, there a re onl.y a few that a re potentially available 

/ 

for study. Continued protection of this site will ensure a data bank for futu re 

researchers who have specific questions on maritime construction of the period or 

who wish to have a source of compa rative data for other similar vessels. 

Although the potential for additional remains, buried in the sand and silt 

bottom below the sta rboard side of the boat, is h igh, excavation of this site is not 

recommended. I nformation that may be gathered through such an effort would 

shed a dditional light on the construction of the vessel, but the data that could be 

g athered is negligible When weighed against the potential for a dverse impacts to 

the h ull, and the possibility of losing remains due to the current. If excavation is 

1 56 
ever considered for this site, the development of a comprehensive research design 

is strongly recommended. The research design should, among other items, ind icate 

why it is in the best interest of the public and the resource to engage in such an 

activity. It should also make it clear why the posed research q uestions could not be 

answered without excavation or answered by examination of comparable s ites or 

collections elsewhere. 

1 57 

REFERENCES CITED 

Anonymous 

1 983 Lees Ferry and Lonely Dell Ranch Historic Districts: A Wa l king Tour 

Guide. Grand Canyon Natura l Hi story Association. 

Ba rnes, Frank 

1 929 U.S. vs. Utah, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term. Transcript of Testimony 

1 3:2529-2539. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wa shington, D.C. 

Bates, Al an 

1 968 The Western River Steam boat Cyclopoedium or Ameri can Riverboat 

Structure and Deta il Sa lted with Lore. Hustle Press, Leonia. 

Bennett, Frank 

1 929 U.S. vs. Utah, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term. Abstract of Testimony 

2:826-837. U.S. Government Pri nting Office, Wa shington, D.C. 

Chaffin, A. L. 

1 929 U.S. vs. Uta h, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term. Abstra ct of Testimony 

2: 1 244- 1 267. U.S. Government Printi ng Office, Washington, D.C. 

Colton, Harold S. 

1 957 The Colorado River Steamboat "Charles H. Spencer." In Steamboat Bill 

6 1 :6-7. Steamship Historical Society of America, Flushing. 

1 962 Steamboating in Glen Canyon of the Colorado River. In Plateau 

35(2):57-59. 

Crampton, C. G regory 

1 959 Outl ine Hi story of the G len Canyon Region, U nivers ity of Utah 

Anthropolog ical Papers, Number 42. U niversity of Utah, Salt Lake City. 

1 960 Historical S ites in G len Canyon - Mouth of San Juan River to Lee's Ferry, 

University of Utah Anth ropological Papers, Number 46. U nivers ity of Utah, 

Salt Lake City. 

1 986 G hosts of Glen Canyon: History Beneath Lake Powell. Publishers Place, 

I nc., St. George. 

Crampton, C. Gregory and Dwight L. S mith, eds. 

1 961 The Hoskaninni Papers: Mining in Glen Canyon 1 897- 1 902, U niversity of 

Utah Anthropological Papers, Number 54. Un iversity of Utah, Salt Lake 

C ity. 

1 59 
Crampton, C. G regory and W. L. Rusho 

1 965 A Report on the History of Lee's Ferry, Arizona. Unpublished manuscript. 

On file National Park Service, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Page. 

Delgado, James P. 

1 987 National Register of Historic Places Nomin ation, "Matthew Turner/ Ja mes 

Robertson S hipya rd, 1 883-1918". On fi le, Hi story Division, National Park 

Service, Wa shington, D.C. 

Dick, Jon 

1 985 Documentation of Charles H. Spencer Steam Boat at Lee's Ferry, Ari zona. 

Unpublished document. On fi le Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, 

Page, and Submerged Cultural Resources U nit, Santa Fe. 

Edwards, William H. 

1 929 U.S. vs. Uta h, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term. Abstract of Testi mony 

1 : 555-586. U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, Wa shington, D.C. 

Freeze, Herman W. 

1 929 U.S. vs. Utah, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term. Abstract of Testimony 

1 :686-687. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wa shington, D.C. 

Ha rker, Mary 

1 965 I nterview cond ucted by W. L. Rusho on March 1 8, 1 965. In possession of 

W. L. Rusho. 

Haskett, Bert 

1 935 Steam Navigation on the Colorado River. Arizona Highways 1 1 :6-7, 1 7-18. 

Hunter, Louis C. 

1 969 Steamboats on the Western Rivers. Octagon Books, New York. 

Jeter, S. F. 

1917 Riveted Boiler Joints. McGraw-Hill Book Compa ny, I nc., New York. 

Johnson, F rank 

1 929 U.S: vs. Utah, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term. Abstract of Testi mony 

2:799-80 1. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wa shington, D.C. 

1 962 I nterview conducted by W. L. Rusho on October 28, 1 962, In possession of 

W. L. Rusho. 

Johnson, Jerem iah 

1 929 U.S. vs. Utah, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term. Abstract of Testimony 

2:786-787. U.S. Govern ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Jon es, Albert H. 

1 960 Review of Mining Operations on the San Juan and Colorado Rivers, 

Promoted and Conducted by Charles H. Spencer, et. al ., 1 908, 1 909, 1 9 1 0, 

191 1. Unpublished manuscript. In possession of W. L. Rusho. 

Kolb, Ellsworth L. 

1914 Through the G ra nd Canyon from Wyoming to Mexico. The MacMi llan 

Com pany, New York. 

1 60 
Leach, Albert 

1 961 I nterview conducted by W. L. Rusho on February 1 8, 1 961. In possession 

of W. L. Rusho. 

Len ihan, Daniel J., Toni L. Carrell, Stephen Fos berg, La rry Murp hy, Sandra L. Rayl, 

John A. Ware 

1 981 The Final Report of the National Reservoir Inu ndation Study, Volume I and 

II. Southwest Cultural Resources Center, National Park Service, U.S. 

Depa rtment of the I nterior, Santa Fe. 

Lingenfelter, Richard E. 

1 978 Steamboats on the Colorado River 1 852- 1916. University of Arizona Press, 

Tucson. 

Loper, Bert 

1 929 U.S. vs. Utah, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term. Abstract of Testimony 

1 :623-638. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wa shington, D.C. 

Ma rrs, William 

1 929 U.S. vs. Utah, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term. Abstract of Testimony 

1 :638-644. U.S. Government Pri nting Office, Wa shington, D.C. 

M easeles, Evelyn Breck 

1 981 A Crossing on the Colorado: Lee's Ferry. Pruett Publishing Co., Boulder. 

Murphy, Larry and Allen R. Saltus 

1 981 Phase II Identification and Eva l uation of Submerged Cultural Resources in 

the Tom bigbee River Multi-Resource Distri ct, Alabama and Mississippi. 

Office of Archeological Research, Univers ity of Al a bama, Tusca loosa. 

National Pa rk Service 

1 985 Statement for Management, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Glen 

Canyon N RA, National Park Service, U.S. Department of I nterior; Page. 

Palmer, John W. 

1 929 U.S. vs. Utah, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term . Abstract of Testimony 

2:807-8 1 4. U.S. Govern ment Printi ng Office, Washington, D.C. 

Petsche, Jerome E. 

1 974 The Steamboat Bert rand: Hi story, Excavation, and Architecture. National 

Park Service, Department of the I nterior. U.S. Goverment Printing Office, 

Wa shington, D.C. 

Phoenix, David Al len 

1 963 Geology of the Lees Ferry Area, Coconino County, Arizona, U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 1 1 37. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Reil ly, P. T. 

1 964 Measurement of the Charels 

cfs. Unpubl ished document. 

Santa Fe. 

H. Spencer when exposed by a flow of 1 000 

On file Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 

161 
1 986 Letter to Southwest Regional Historian. On file National Pa rk Service, 

Southwest Regional Office. Sa nta Fe. 

Reynolds, Tem ple A. 

1 974 Lee's Ferry Historic Di strict, National Regi ster of Historic Places 

Nomination. On file Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Page. 

Richert, Roland 

1 967 Ruins Stabilization Unit Monthly Report for Septem ber 1 967. Unpublished 

report. On file National Park Service, Western Archeological and 

Conservation Center, Tucson. 

Robertson, Russell 

1 961 Ma nuscri pt History of the Robertson Fami ly. Unpubli shed manuscript. On 

file National Maritime Museum, San Francisco. 

Rosenfelt, Herman 

1 929 U.S. vs. Uta h, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term. Transcri pt of Testi mony 

1 6:3006-30 1 4. U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, Washi ngton, D.C. 

Reeder, W. F. 

1 929 U .S. vs. Uta h, U.S. S upreme Court, October Term. Abstract of Testi mony 

2:1 236- 1 244. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Rusho, W. L. 

1 962 Charlie Spencer and his Wonderful Stea mboat. 

37(8):34-39. 

In Ari zona Highways 

1 968 Living History at Lee's Ferry. In Journal of the West 2(1 ):64-75. 

Rusho, W. L. and C. Gregory Crampton 

1 981 Desert River C rossing: Historic Lee's Ferry on the Colorado River. 

Peregrine Smith, I nc., Salt Lake City. 

Sawyer, William D. 

1 978 The Western River Engine. In Steam boat Bill 1 46(Summer, Fall). 

Steamship Historical Society of America, Providence. 

Spencer, Charles H. 

1 961 I nterview cond ucted by W. L. Rusho on June 1 8, 1 961. In possession of W. 

L. Rusho. 

Sykes, Godfrey 

1 937 The Colorado Delta. Kennikat Press, Port Washi ngton. 

Turner, Raymond M. and Martin M. Ka rp iscak 

1 980 Recent Vegetation Changes Along the Colorado River Between Glen 

Ca nyon Dam and Lake Mead, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1 1 32. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Congress 

1 900 House Document 67, Preliminary Examination of the Colorado River, 

N evada. 56th Congress, 2nd Session. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C. 

1 62 
1 972 P.L. 92-593, An Act to Establish G len Canyon N ational Recreation Area in 

the States of Arizona and Utah (86 Stat. 131 1 ), October 27, 1 972. 

U.S. Government 

1 904 List of Merchant Vessels of the United States. U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Wa shington, D.C. 

Wa l ler, Arthur C. 

1 961 Comments on I nterview Between W. L. Rusho and Charles H. Spencer on 

June 1 9, 1 961. Unpublished manuscript, July 1 5, 1961. In possession of 

W. L. Rusho. 

Ward, Cha rles 

1 909 Shal low-Draught River Steamers. In Transactions of the Society of Naval 

Arc hitects and Marine Engineers 1 7:79- 1 07. Society of Nava l Architects 

and Marine Engi neers, New York. 

Wilson, William 

1 961 I nterview conducted by W. L. Rusho on September 24, 1961. In possession 

of W. L. Rusho. 

Winther, Oscar Osburn 

1 964 The Transportation Frontier: Trans-Mississippi West, 1 865- 1 890. 

Holt-Rinhart-Win ston, New York. 

Periodicals: 

Arizona Sentinel, Arizona 

Colorado Sun, Colorado 

Cheyenne Sun Annual, Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Grand Va lley Times, Utah 

Green River Sta r, G reen River, Utah 

Los Angeles Mining Review, Los Angeles, California 

Los Angeles Sta r, Los Angeles, California 

Moab-Times Independent. Moab, Utah 

Needles Eye, Needles, California 

San Fra ncisco Daily Herald, San Fra ncisco, Ca lifornia 

Searchlight Bul letin, Arizona 

Yuma Sun, Yuma, Arizona 

1 63 

APPEN DIX A: SUMMARY OF CHARLES H. SPENCER's ATTRIBUTES* 

Length : 72' 

Beam: 21' 

Depth of Hold: 4' 

Frame Arrangement: single, 2" by 4" each 

Frame Spacing: irregular from 1 4" to 29" 

Shelf Width/Height: 2" by 8" 

Deck Beam: 2" by 4" by 23' 6", a midships 

Main Keelson: 1 2" high, width unknown 

Side Keelsons: 1 2" high, width unknown 

Floors: unknown width, 8" high 

Ceil ing Planking: absent 

Floor Planking: 1" by 5- 1 /2" to 6" 

Hull Plank pla nking, a bove turn of bilge: 1" by 5- 1 /2" to 6" 

Hull Plank, above knuckle: 1" by 9" 

Hull Planking, at knuckle: 2" by 1 0" 

Bottom Plank Width: 1 2" 

Bottom Plank Thickness: 1" 

Deck Plank Width : 5- 1 /2" to 6" 

Deck Plank Thickness: 1" 

Fastening Pattern above turn of bilge: 1 , 6 " by 3/8" spike 

Fastening Pattern at turn of bilge: 2, 6" by 3/8" spikes 

Sampson Posts: 6" by 6" by 1 6'-6", a miships 

Cylinder Timbers, i nboard: 6" by 1 8" 

Cylinder Timbers, outboard: 3" by 1 8" 

Paddle wheel width: 1 2' 

Paddle wheel diameter: 1 2' 

Number of buckets : 12 

*Based upon original plans and field measurements 

165 
As the n ation's p rincipal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has 

basic responsibi lities to protect and conserve our land and water, energy and 

minera ls, fi sh and wildlife, pa rks and recreation areas, and to ensure the wise use 

of all these resources. The Department also has major responsi bil ity for 

American Indian reservation communities and for people who l ive in island 

territories u nder U.S. administration. 

1 66 

1< U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1987-573 737 REGION NO. 8 
Figure 6.3 

AFTER: 

SHULTZE, ROBERTSON, SHULTZE 

San Francisco, California , 191 1 

Length 70'-0" 

Breadth 2 0'-0" (SIC 2 1' - 0") 

Depth 4'-0" 

Engines 8" X 4 0" X 17 4# B.P. 

Boiler 7 2" X 1 20" X 1 7 4# H.S. ( Corr. 7 7" X 1 30" X 1 7 4#) 

Wheel 1 2' o� Dlam 

1 •• 

I 

4 1 / 2" 

1 6' ou 

� 

-

 

1 •• 

(Cylinder Timber ) 

( Cylinder Timber ) 

)( 

.. 

)( 

.. 

- 

• 

• 

.: 

� 

c 

'" 

0 

. 

• -

c 

• 

0 

0 

,_ 

. 

2 

c 

• 

0 

. 

"' 

' 

� 

-

--

• 

• 

"' 

• 

• 

. 

• 

> 

• 

� 

"' 

)( 

.. 

Upper Deck Line 

Heater 

Steam 

Steam C y linder 

En • oom 

Steam Cyl. 8"X 4 0" 

----- ---- _, 

- - � 

Steam Cyl. S" X 40� 

� 

u 

• 

Q 

----- -. 

' 

____ ___ , 

- , 

' 

- - ---- - ----' 

( Truss Rods 

To line of Beams 

1 2" Keelson 

Upper Deck Line 

Main Steam Pi e 

Main Exhaust 

8' Frame 

r Feed Pipe 

1" Feed Pipe 

.. . 

' 

>< , 

.. . 

' 

" 

" 

" 

, . 

, , 

.. ' 

' 

' 

.. . 

>< 

.. 

>< 

io 

' -

•• 

o, 

.. 

I :1: : 

o, 

,_I 

I 

Feed 

Cock 

/ 

S �ction to 

Hatch 

W II 

_]__ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1/ 

/ 

I 

' 

/ 

1/ 

7 2 " X 1 2 0 " 

(77� X 1 30") 

Boiler 

8" 

--- -

To Check Va lve 

Steam Dom 

Boiler 

7 2" Dlam 

1 2 0� Long 

- - - - --

� 32" 

Fire Box 

(25') 

D ry Back 

F ire Box 

Hatch 

Hatch 

seam 

1 0 1 2 3 

Feet 
Pa ddle Wheel H ub 

Ecc entric R o ds 

C y linder Timbe 

C y linder Timber 

P i t m a n 

0 2 4 

- - �H ORE_!.I N E 

·:- -

S a mpson P o st Cap 

6 8 10 

FEET 

 ,. : ,. 

P l ank 

Thr ottle 

3" o.o. S t eam Pi pe 

1" X 3" P l ank 

1" O.D. 

Eng ine 

Cle at 

D eck Beam 

.·. 

R o d 

4 1 / 2" O.D. 

Exh aust P i pe 

H eater 

Sam son P o st 

D 

Overhanging Guard 

Tr uss 

B i lge 

2" 0.0. 

4 1 / 2" O.D. Exhaust Pi p e --

- s moke S t ack Funnel C o llar 

2" X 8" P l ank 

- -

H atch C o aming 

Tow P o st H atch C o a m ing 

Bo i l er 

D ecki ng 

- -

Tow B i t t- § 

Figure 7 . 8 

CHARLES H. SPENCER 

GLEN CANYON NATI ONAL REC R EATI ON AREA 

N ational Park Service 

S u bmerged Cultural Resou rces Unit 

Pl animetric Vi ew 

J. Koza/J. livingston