New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-05-29
TIE EADs BRIDGE a BOTCH.

Congress is called on to refuse an ap.
preparation to the canal which has been
surveyed for location three times by most
competent federal and civil engineers be-
cause that work has not been sufficiently
studied. The St. Louis press demands
that the best outlet shall be delivered
over to be improved without any prelimi-
nary survey at all. Why is this distinc-
ton?
l. Because Mr.. Eads has made Cheap
John proposal to do the work without any
advance Of federal money.
2. Because the renown OF that eminent
engineer is such as to assure the nation
that any work projected by him must be
successful.
We have always thought the proposal
to construct this work Of improvement at
private risk as derogatory to the nation,
nor can we see why, if Congress should
appropriate as many millions to improve
the channel at He'll Gate as would be
necessary to improve the Mississippi out
let, it is not under equal obligation to in
prove the one on national account as the
other.
The renown Of Mr.. Eads as a profess
sional engineer stands upon a very shad-
owy basis. He claims the merit OF having
constructed certain tin-clads for the fed
eral government, during the war. As his
countrypen on the Clyde constructed the
Confederate cruisers which inflicted so
much damage on the Union commerce,
we suppose the merit of Scotch interven-
ton is nearly balanced. The motive, we
may presume, was the same in the Union
tin-clads as in the Confederate privateers-
money! A Scotch mechanic, like others,
will work for those who pay best But
the renown derived from the construction
of his bridge across the Mississippi. at St.
Louis, seems very questionable. In refer
ing to the subject, we rely for our facts
upon the report of the Secretary Of War
on the construction of the ST. Louis and
Illinois bridge, Congressional aocu-
ment, dated March %, 1874.
1t seems that when this bridge ap-
preached completion the shipping in
terests Of st. Louis protested against it
as an obstruction to navigation. Upon
this complaint, the Secretary Of War d.
rected General Humphreys, chief engineer
United States army, to examine this al
legged obstruction and report the facts.
A commission, consisting OF one Colonel
and four majors Of engineers, United
States army, was appointed, and reported
that the bridge, as at present constructed,
would prove very serious obstruction to
The truss arches were OBJ
jected to, and while the builder could not
be required to make a change in them,
Congress was urged to forbid their en-
ployment on similar bridges in future.
1t was SO absolutely necessary that some
provision should be made for the passage
Of large boats, that ship canal around
the east abutment Of the bridge was
recommended.
In these views and recommendations Of
the board General Humphreys concurs,
and submits to Congress the means of
giving effect to them. To this report Mr..
Eads appears to have excepted. His
first objection was that the United States
engineers were not experts of river navi-
CATION or bridge building. He endeavors
% invalidate the report by inlputing prac-
ical incompetency to the United States
Engineers appointed to perform the SER
7ice:
l. He claims that height Of chimney is
lot essential TO the draught Of furnace.
2. That the truss arches of the bridge
'fer no impeachment to navigation.
In the course of this letter Mr.. Eads
makes an illogical application of an ad-
ritted fact. That the trade. going one way
5 entitled to the same protection as the
rade going another, is true. 1t is said |
hat "the one can not be favored at the
Expense of another" and yet it is added
hat it has been claimed that ''the bridge |
nil not to some extent prove en- impedi-
nent to the free navigation Of the river"
'hus the principle enunciated and agreed |
n is contradicted; for while the bridge
oes interrupt navigation, the navigation
oes not interrupt the use Of the bridge,
bus giving an avowed advantage to the
ne mode of transportation over the other.
The response Of the United States en-
ineers was conclusive of their objections.
hey modestly explained how it was tina.