Evening journal., 1897-10-08

In 1890, estimated cost to complete,
Ss7 ,694
In 1894, estimated cost to complete,
s476S4.
in 1895, estimated cost to complete,
$22 634.
Reply. The sums stated as estimated
for the completion OF the project are
correct and they would have COM
pleted tho project at tho times stated.
And moreover, up to 1894, the estimated
amounts would, in addition, have suf-
feed to redredge the entire channel TO
width Of $50 feet and depth of If
teen feet at mean low water. After
1894 IL was rather a question of work |
on the new project which was then to
be submitted, ard upon which Congress
was expected to appropriate at its
next session, and actually did appro- |
PIRATE at that session. ] Will add that
in those years / also stated the amounts
that could be profltably expended on the
work, within the general estimate. !
Those were $4,000 each year, in 1885, |
1886, 1887 and 1888; 100000 in 1889;
$S7 634 in 1890 and 1891, and the ball
ance remaining on the estimate, S47 ,63l,
in 1892, 1898 and 1894. IL will be OBJ
served that the amounts given for the
| first three years would have covered
the entire amount of the original esti-
mate for the completion of the project.
Let these estimates be compared with
the small appropriations made by Con-
gress for those years.
Whereas, The United States agent in
\ charge did report to the secretary of
war that the project was completed
from the mouth Of the river to within
seventy-fve feet Of Market street
bridge, except over the rock at Third
street bridge, the removal of which was
then in progress and estimated that the
work could be completed for S476S4.
Reply. That was correct, as / have
already stated above, except that the
date was in 1898, when the work was
at that stage.
Whereas. In June 1895, the United
States agent did report to the secretary
of war that the project was all COM
:, pleted from the mouth of the river to a
point 2,515 feet above Market street
bridge. and all that remains to be done
[ was TO widen the cut from this point up
the river for distance Of 1,7S0 feet, at
! an estimate cost Of S22.634.
4 Reply. That was correct, TO complete
I the project, as | have already siare'-
Whereas. There never has been 2
channel 100 feet wide and fifteen feet
deep at low tide. from the mouth of the
:, river to a point 2,5l5 feet above Market
strete bridge. and In December OK 1895
h the United States agent made a con-
q tract for dredging from the mouth o
y the river towards he Pulp Mill, TO OBJ
tain thirteen feet of water at low tide
,, there being then less than a nine-foo
% channel 150 feet wide, between thes
d points.
Reply After making a seventy-iiv
~ foot cut the 150 foot cut was begun II
~ 1889, and completed in December, 1S9;
= between the points named. If It is in
tended to say that the depth of iiftee
-, feet had not been continuously main
~ tanned. that is another matter On Jun
4 80, 1883, Major Heuer, my predecessor
10 reports that a twelve-foot channel eX
lists from the mouth OF the river
~ Market street bridge. On June q
y, 1884, he reports the same condition {
~ things as before reported. The fac
/, was that between the completion of tn
=, twelve-foot channel to the Summer {
1884. $4,000 cubic yards of sedimeI
- had been deposited in the channel. TIL
y, Is shown by the harbor commission
~ ers' map of 1884 Major Heuer only II
~ tended to report the condition OF u
- channel at the last examination MAJ
~ by him. IN the same way my repor
~ of 1894 and 1895 must be interprete
- Had there been any sum appropriate
rs, or considered as for maintenance of q
channel l should have reported in eaC
of these reports the then existing COZ
- dltion of the channel. Under the ci
On cumstances l had to report my eifor
w, to carry out the project, j. e., to dig
"a channel of the prescribed width al
40 depth. without reference to its maint
- nance, and TO report the condition whit
"a last examined. OF course there was
~ intention to represent the work 0the
Or wise than it was. The phraseology
which attention has been called do
4. not appear in subsequent reports.
'at AS a matter of fact, so far as maint
- nance is concerned during the progre
a. of this work and before, dredging h
been done that was not a part Of {
80 original estimate The bar was dredg
in 1885, the draw through the Mark
"a, street bridge i'm 1856, the seventy-h
~ foot cut from Market street bridge
ss'. Delaware river i'm 1887 and 1888 was !
H dredged when the channel was widen
~ to $50 feet in 1SS9-1S93. and the bar W
~ ~ redredged in the latter year; the cha
An mel from the Delaware river to abo
ssi the Brandywine redredged to thirte
feet in 1896, and this year dredging
- fifteen feet was resumed where IL Il
~. off last year. and has so far been c.
~ ried to about $50 feet below MARI