IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) // I >r 1.0 1^ I.I L25 III 1.4 - 6" Photographic Sciences Corporation 2,5 2.2 1.6 V '^ v N> % V ■<«*>. O^ ^^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 <^ •t." .«$• U.A is CIHM Microfiche Series (Monograplis) ICMH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques ft Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques at bi'iliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy whirh may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couveiture restauree et/ou pelliculee D □ Cover title Le titre de Cover title missing/ couverture manque D Coloured maps/ Caites geographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de < ' couleur (t.c. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured pt Planches et/ ates and/or illustrations/ t/ou il from Montreal arrive at Quebec before any arrival from sea, viz. : — 111 1845 a days earlior 1850 3 " In 1882. 1884. 7 (lay.s oarlior 1 In the years 183G, 1847, 1855 and 1863, the arrivals from Montreal and from sea were simultaneous. Contrariwise, the table establishes that in the 38 years when there was no ice-barrier at Quebec, the first arrival at that Port was of a Steamer from Montreal 20 times, and a Vessel from Sea 16 times, — on two occasions arrivals both ways being simul- taneous. Let it be borne in mind that navigation is not considered open until a vessel has come down to Quebec from Montreal, and the importance of the facts summarized in the "Statement" becomes more apparent ; for, in point of time, the arrivals from Montreal when there was no ice-barrier at Quebec, occurred in the month of April 35 times out of 38,— the opening of navigation being in May 14 times out of 19, when the ice-barrier existed between Quebec and Levis. I I \ y I i t: a It is worth while, also, to particuhirize that, in the years when there was no ice-barrier at Quebec, the Montreal steamers plied between the two Ports before the arrival of the first vessel from sea, as follows : — 1111830 odays 1832. 1833 1834. 1838. 1839. 1842. 1844. 1849. 1850. 5 " 22 " 18 " 5 " 17 " 12 " 9 " 3 " 3 " In 1853. 1857 . 1858 . 18,59 . 18(iO. 1864 . 18G5. 18(i(). 1871. 1881. 1 clay. 11 11 7 2 n 8 2 4 1 Total. 150 (lays. On the other hand, when there was no ice-bridge, vessels from sea came up to Quebec before the arrival of any of the Montreal steamers, as follows : — In 1831 . 1837. 1840. 1841. 1851. 1852. 1856. 1861. 5 days 2 it 4 U 2 n 2 11 15 li 7 a 4 it In 1808 5days 1869 3 " 1873 1877 1878 , 1879 1880 Total 59 days. Another result shown in the foregoing " Statement" is, that between 1830 and 1884, in the years when there was no ice- barrier at Quebec, navigation between that City and Montreal was opened as early as the 17th day of April,-the average of the years being the 24th day of that month ; whereas, when the barrier did exist, the opening of navigation was retarded until the 11th day of May, the average opening being on the 8th of that month,— or an a\erage retardation of fourteen clear days annually. It seems clear, therefore, that if the ice formation between Quebec and Levis were prevented, the opening of navigation between Quebec and Montreal would, on the average of years, occur at least a fortnight earlier than when the ice-bridge, so- called, is in existence. The following extracts from a diary show very strikingly what was the experience at Quebec, in two seasons without an ice- barrier, and in a recent season xoith the obstruction : — 1877 — April 10. Scvoral schooners in Port from below, ly. Li^ht-hhip.s out and ready lor below. 20. Summer ferry-boats running. 24. Ship at Metis. 25. First ship arrived. 30. Allan Steamship arrived. The Winter Ferry-boats had run all Winter. « 1878 — April 2. Pilot Schooners out and ready for below. " 8. Boat from Island of Orleans. " 10. Two small Steamers from Montreal. " 13. Light-ships ready for below. " 15. Ten Ships at Fox Elver and Metis. Five Schooners arrived in Port. " 18. Slimmer Ferry-boats running. First Ship from sea, " 21. Fii'st Steamer from Montreal. " 24. Allan Steamship in Port. Winter Ferries had been J-unning all Winter. 1883 — Jan. 8. Ice formed at Cap Eouge. Feb. 3. Ice formed opposite Quebec to lower end of Indian Cove, five or six miles below the City. " 8. First freight carted across, — five days' detention. April 10. Schooners at lower edge of ice, — cannot get into Port. " 14. Schoonei's loading at edge of ice, — five miles down — charge for cartage, $1.00 per small load. " 16. Ice dangerous ; — carting ceased. " 23. Ice-bridge gave way opposite town. May ^1 « H (I II 1. SteiimHhip "Ontario" arrived at Indian Covo. 2. SleamHhip "Concordia" arrived at Intlian Cove. 3. Stoamwhips "Scotland," "Grecian," " Lalte Champlain " and "Scandinavian" arrived at Indian Cove, 4. Ice at Cap Rou;L;e gave way. 5. The al)ove-montionod Steanisiiips left for Montreal. 6. In the evening,— first Steamer from Muutreal. If, in view of what has )M't>u advaucod in the foregoing "Statement" and analysis, it may at any time be determined upon to endeavor to make available the advantages expected to accrue from the removal or prtn'ention of the ice-barrier between Quebec and Levis, the initial obstacle will be the subsection of the Act recited at the beginning of this Report. That its achieve- ment is possible is the deliberate opinion of many of the best informed observers. Among others whose views might be quoted, special reference may be made here to the opinions of Mr. J. U. Gregory, Agent at Quebec of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, which have been submitted to experienced and aged navigators, whose lives have, for the greater part, been spent at or in connection with the Port of Qnebec, and approved of by them. The replies to the subjoined queries embody the opinions of Mr. Gregory, as recently expressed by bim : — 1. With existing moans, could the ice Ije prevented from forming, under ordinary circumstances, both opposite to Quebec and at Cap Eouge ? Ans. Yes, at Quebec ; — but at Cap Rouge ice is ver^- much packed or jammed, — do not think it could be kept open without a .suitr able boat, kept constantly at work, breaking the ice in the channel, — and this is doubtful. 2. In the interest of the trade of the country, and the reputation of the Elver St. Lawrence, is it more desirable to have an ice- bridge at Quebec than open water all Winter ? Ans. In the interest of trade, it is decidedly an advantage to have the river open ; — for navigation below Quebec is quite as safe in March, or earlier, as in April or May. 3. Whii'li tnciuiM of croMHiiii,' tho Hivci- St. Lawrence iit. Quobec in Winter iH the Hiilbr iind choupor (on the v lolo,)— the Stoum Korry or the horne sloigh '! Ant. The Hloiiui Kerry is choapor, and on tlio whole nafer. 4. If K(»me extraordinary cireum-tually earned away by the ice. Tf I can give any further information in the matter, pray -command me. Yours sincerely, (Signed) W. II. COTTON. With re-ard to the influence of the ice-barrier at Quebec upon the ice formation at Cap Rouge, it is most important to consider that the bend in the River St. Lawrence which forms the basin or harbor at that City, extending from above Hadlow Cove to tne paiM called Point Levis,-a distance of about four miles,-diverts the flow of the current nearly at a right angle to its course through the Cap Rouge channel, besides materially checking it, so that in the harbor proper the speed of the current is less than at almost any other point from Lake St. Peter vo the sea. It must be evident, th efore, that when the harbor of Quebec becomes frozen over, the ice can only move away when thoroughly rotten, and mmt retard that at Oap Rouge from breaking up. The foregoing tabular Statement [see page 3 of this Report] proves that such is the case, when it shows that, in the 38 years when no ice-barrier formed at Quebec, the navigation between that City and Montreal opened in the month of April 35 times, notwithstanding that the ice must always have " taken " at and above Cap Rouge ;-while, when the " bridge " had formed at Quebec, that same navigation had been delayed until well into the month of May. mtmmm^ 11 confitlent i. I WHS il cost of f $37. e, for the iod away c'omm anJ roN. bee upon consider he basin ve to the — diverts 3 through so that in at almost e evident, )zeu over, and must foregoing at such is ice-barrier I Montreal Lg that the e ; — while, navigation CONCLUSION. Having .oiisiderod the various particulars adduced, it seems to the Secretary as if the qu(>stions which were to be kept in view by him might be justly answered as follows :— 1. Can the liiver St. Lawrence, between Quebec and Levis, bi; kept open during Winter by Steam Ferry Boats V Ans. Yes, with but lew exceptions. 2. What inllu.Mice has the ice-barrier (the so-called ice- bridge) at Quebec upon the ice-formation at Cap Rouge ? Ans. Undoubtedly u great deal. 3. Can the ice-l.nirrierat Cap Rouge be destroyed in Spring, so as to uduiil of navigating the River at an earlier date than usual ? Ans. Yes. 4. To what extent does the ice-barrier at Quebec retard the opening of River navigation '{ Ans. Probably several weeks. Further,— the Secretary has no hesitation in saying that the important advantages of an earlier opening of navigation on the River St. Lawrence ought to induce the prompt removal of the existing statutory obstacle, which prevtiuts experiments and operations that might be beneficial to the trade of the cities and towrs from Quebec upwards, as well as to the foreign commerce of the Dominion.