The Savannah morning news., 1902-03-24
AGAINST THE BRIDGE
CAPT. VI. p. USINA HAS SENT TELE-
GRAMS TO SENATOR'S.
He OBJECTS AS A PILOT.
HOLDS THAT PIERS IN STREAM
WOULD DAMAGE PORT.

Capt. Usina Said Yesterday That the
Pilots of Savannah Have Discussed
the Bridge Question and Decided
That the Interests of the Port
Would BE Damaged-Great Danger
Lies in the Steering of Heavy
Ships-Says Capt. Churchill Would
Move His Business From Savnn-
nah-Expected That the Senate
VIII Consider the Bill To-day.
7 am not opposed to the eonstruc-
ton of a bridge across the Savannah
river. but am certainly opposed to
the erection of piers in the stream. 1
have telegraphed to several senators
at Washington, urging them to pre-
vent the infliction of such blow upon
the commercial interests of Savannah
as the construction of the bridge, as
proposed by the Georgia and Alabama
Terminal Company, would prove"
Capt. NJ. P. Usina made this state
ment yesterday. He had acted, he said,
for the pilots of Savannah, who had
informally discussed the proposed
bridge. determining that its effect, if
built, would be to vastly injure the
business of the port.
Il am not opposing a bridge by any
means" declared Capt. Usina II would
offer no opposition to an enterprise in
tended for the improvement and de-
yelopment of the city that was unac-
companied by the certainty of injury
to the port. would welcome a bridge
that would not require piers in the
stream. If piers could be built, one on
either side of the river. 1 would gladly
support the movement to secure a
bridge. A. piers in the stream are
called for, l am opposed to the bridge
SaVannah's commerce is its life
Take that away and there is little left.
This great advantage of the city is
threatened by this proposed bridge
Capt. A. F. Churchill handled one-half
the tramp steamships that have come
TO this port this season. He brought
his business here, and he can take it
away. He declared most positively to
me that there would be nothing else
Tor him to do if this bridge should be
built. His business is done at the
wharves of the Central Railway.
The danger from the bridge would
lie altogether in the piers OF course.
shoaling that would follow from the
construction of the piers in the stream
could be removed. But there is a
strong tendency in vessels to sheer,
and, when they sheer they must come
upon something. Then look at the
damage.
Take a ship of the bulk of that
which put to sea not long since with
1900 bales of cotton. Let a ship like
that come down from the Central
Railways wharves, with tide and the
current from a freshet and it is too
much to look for her to get safely
through the draw. 1t is no easy task
to keep such ship, 400 or 500 feet in
length from steering, and when she
sheers she must strike a pier
The operation of traffic through
draw on the Chicago river is no fit
comparison for one on the Savannah
river The Chicago river is a narrow
stream, and the vessels cannot be
likened to some of those that come to
this port. Next year even larger ones
may be expected here, for the German
Lloyd people have been considering
sending their ships to Savannah.
Il have no interests in the Seaboard
Air Line or in the Central Railway
1t is my business and my duty, how
ever to look out for the interests of
the port, and believe they are threat
ened by this proposed bridge. Those
whose interests demand that they
should oppose its construction have
been asleep too long"
The bill allowing the const ruction
of the bridge has already passed the
House, and it is expected that ii will
be brought before the Senate to-day.