The Portland daily press., 1900-10-13

Another witness was Mr. Clark OF the
firm Of J. 5. WinsloH & Co. Mr. Clark
testified that very few vessels which now
come TO Portland with caFgoes OF coal
consigned TO parties IN the interior and
to be shipped to them over the railroads
were able to get through the upper
bridges and had to discharge their car
goes at the lower coal docks OF the rail-
road, thus ocasioning delays. He said
that the shipping interests demanded
that the draws Of these two bridges Be
made larger so as to accommodate these
ships and to remove an impairment to
navigation OF free waters.
Another witness was Captain Tenney
Of the Portland low Boat company,
whose tugs handle about all Of the ships
which are forced to pass through these
bridges. e-told why it was hazardous
and dangerous to the safety Of the vessels
70 60 through these narrow draws and re-
lated some instances OF accidents Occa-
stoned by the narrOwness Of the draws
He said that In his opinion the interests
OF the shipping men demanded that the
constantly increasing size of the ships
which came to demand a passage Of these
draws and ali that he stated was c0TrObO-
rated BY Capt. MeDuffis who is one Of
the captains of toWboats employed by
this conn any.
In the afternoon the witnesses called
for the remonstrants were Civil Engi-
neer Snow OF the Boston and Maine and
Robert a. MoClutohy, freight agent for
the Boston and Maine in Portland. Mr..
Snow testified as to his opinion Of the
Eastern Railroad bridge and in his Opin-
ion the draw was large enough for the
ships which were required to pass
through It. He said that IN Boston there
was not a draw in any bridge which he
knew Of large enough Tor the passage OF
a vessel OF any size and a tow boat along
side OF her as the tow boat men in Port
land had said was the proper way in
which to handle vessels. He also gave
some facts as to the cost Of thu repairs
which were made on the Eastern Rail-
road bridge a few years ago after a report
OF Col. Hams, at that time United States
engineer in charge here had stated that
these draws were adequate to the ship
ping passing through them and to the
interests involved.
Mr.. McClutehy testified that he had
some knowledge of the coal business Of
the railroads and said that he did not
deem it necessary to have the draws en-
larged as the ships which now bring car
goes to these railroad docks and which
pass through these draws are small
enough to get through without trouble.
Some time accidents occur, but these
have been occasiOned by carelessness or
on account of some unavoidable accident.
All the ships which pass through these
draws do so with cargoes for the Boston
and Maine or other railroads, and no 9TH
er interests bring ships through these
draws nor are likely to. The wharf prop
erty in Portland has deteriorated to some
extent in the past few years especially
that part OF the wharf property above
Brown wharf SO that the commercial
interests of Portland would not be bene-
tiUted in his opinion, by the enlargement
OF these draws in Vaughan's and the
Eastern Railroad bridges as there is
plenty of property still available at fair
prices below Portland bridge If any one
ne eds 1t.
He had never known OF any cases where
dsmurrage had been demanded by vessels
which had been delayed because OF the
lower docks of the railroad being occu-
pied and the ships were too large to pass
through draws of the upper bridges
pIhere might have been some cases OF this
kind, but there had not been very many
Of them. From January first up to this
time forty nine vessels had passed
through the upper bridges carrying coal
for the railroad. He said that hs did not
know Of any vessels which had been IN
duly detained because OF the narrowness
Of the draws Of the bridges. He mad never
heard Of much complaint being made be-
cause of the delay occasioned vessels. On
cross examination Mr.. McClutehy was
questioned rather sharply by Mr.. Libby
as to his assertion that wharf property
had been deteriorating in Portland.
1nls enQed The INTRODUCTION OF evidence
although the report OF the committee on
public works as to the condition of
Vaughan's bridge was introduced by Mr..
Libby for the cOmplainants. There were
also several letters and other documents
introduced which viii be mentioned in
their proper places as they were referred
TO IN the arguments OF the opposing
counsel.
Judge Symonds made the argument