^, 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 y 
 
 
 v. 
 
 ^^\y 
 
 v^. 'Vo 
 
 ip 
 
 U.s 
 
 Y 
 ^ 
 
 % 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 lii m 112.2 
 
 lit 
 
 Ml 12.0 
 
 iA IIIIIL6 
 
 ^^ 
 
 vQ 
 
 
 /.^ 
 
 
 /A 
 
 § 
 
 m 
 
 rV 
 
 \^ 
 
 •s? 
 
 ^ 
 
 A 
 
 N> 
 
 [v 
 
 
 
 6^ 
 
^v. 
 
 
 C!']M/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions 
 
 institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical Notes / Notes techniques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 originai copy avaiiable for fiiming. Physical 
 features of this copy which may alter any of the 
 images in the reproduction are checked below. 
 
 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couvertures de couleur 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Certains 
 dAfauts susceptibles de nuire d la qualit6 de la 
 reproduction sont notte ci-dessous. 
 
 □ 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 T 
 
 P 
 o 
 
 fl 
 
 T 
 c 
 o 
 
 ai 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes g6ographiques en couleur 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured plates/ 
 Planches en couleur 
 
 T 
 fi 
 ir 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqu6es 
 
 Tight binding (may cause shadows or 
 distortion along interior margin)/ 
 Reliura serr6 (peut causer de I'ombre ou 
 de la distortion le long de la marge 
 intdrieure) 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Show through/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 N 
 in 
 u| 
 b( 
 fc 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires suppiimantaires 
 
 Bibliographic Notes / Notes bibliographiques 
 
 D 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 D 
 
 Pagination incorrect/ 
 Erreurs de pagination 
 
 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 D 
 
 Pages missing/ 
 Des pages manquent 
 
 n 
 
 Cover title mis&ing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 D 
 
 Maps missing/ 
 
 Des cartes gdcgraphiques manquent 
 
 D 
 
 Plates missing/ 
 
 Des planchuia manquent 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments/ 
 Commentaires supplimentaires 
 
B 
 
 ins 
 la 
 
 The imagoft appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall 
 contain the symbol —^-(meaning CONTINUED"), 
 or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever 
 applies. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6ti reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet« de I'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la der- 
 nidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: 
 le symbols — »- signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole 
 V signifie "FIN". 
 
 The original copy was borrowed from, and 
 filmed with, the Itind consent of the following 
 institution: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 Maps or plates too large to be entirely included 
 in one exposure are filmed beginning in the 
 upper left hand corner, left to right and top to 
 bottom, as many frames ns required. The 
 following diagrams illustrate the method: 
 
 L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce it la 
 g6n«rosit6 de I'^tabiissement prAteur 
 suivant : 
 
 La bIbliothAque des Archives 
 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 Les cartes ou les planches trop grandee pour Atre 
 reproduites en un seul clichA sont filmAes A 
 partir de I'angle supArieure gauche, de gauche A 
 droite et de haut en has, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nAcessaire. Le diagramme suivant 
 illustre la mAthode : 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 

 RlilPLY 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Montreal Harbour Engineer's Report 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ST. LAWRENCE BRIDGE 
 
 _ AND — 
 
 MANUFACTURING SCHEME. 
 
 BY 
 
 F. FOSTER BATEMAN, 
 
 M. INST. C'E. 
 
 ^_ 
 
I 
 
 } 
 
REF^LY 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Montreal Harbour Engineer's Report 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ST. LAWRENCE BRIDGE 
 
 — AND — 
 
 MANUFACTURING SCHEME. 
 
 BY 
 
 F. FOSTER BATEMAN, 
 
 M. INST. C.E. 
 
3 Jdolsoixs (55*<X7i^ Chctmhers, 
 
 Montreal, 26th December, 1882. 
 
 To the Chairman and Members of the 
 
 , ' " St. Lawrence Bridge and Manufacturing Scheme." 
 
 Gentlemen, , ■ ■' ;■ 
 
 On Wednesday, the 20th instant, I v. as faA'oured with the report upon the 
 above Scheme by Mr. John Kennedy, M. Inst. C. E., Chief Engineer of the Harbour Com- 
 mission of Montreal ; which I now, as yoiir Engineer, propose to answer. 
 
 Before doing this, I should recommend to you the advisability of sending my answer 
 to the Hon. the Minister of Public Works at Ottawa, of printing it in pamphlet form, and 
 of having the substance of it published in the papers as soon as possible. 
 
 Mr. Kennedy's report is both able, exhaustive, and represents what must necessarily 
 be the case, the natural feelings which would animate any person in his position, with 
 such an important trust on his shoulders, when called upon to report on a scheme of such 
 magnitude, as that which this session we are bringing before Parliament : provided, he 
 wished to report as he should do, with a due regard to the interests of the public body 
 which he represents. 
 
 Although I have already said that Mr. Kennedy's report is both able and exhaustive, 
 I think that he has in some degree, taken upon himself more than was required of him ; 
 and that the conclusions he has arrived at, are in many instances incorrect ; in others, that 
 they touch more on the details of the scheme, without being of any important value in the 
 general outline. Such details naturally belong to the after consideration of the scheme, 
 should the charter be obtained ; and would be adapted to meet all requirements, as shewn 
 most advisable, after a much closer survey had been made, about the time when the works 
 were going to be commenced. Such detailed survey would be far too expensive, and 
 somewhat unnecessary for the purposes of a Parliamentary investigation. 
 
 It is further to be remembered that Mr. Kennedy has based his calculations upon 
 my preliminary report to the Minister of Public Works, which although at the time per- 
 fectly correct, has been in some cases slightly modified and altered, to meet the further 
 developer- '^nts of the surveys, which have been conducted very fully, during the last 
 twelve mt .•.<,. Also that the Bill which was left with the Government Officials, although 
 shewing the general outline of the Act of Incorporation was only a draft Bill ; and that owing 
 to the postponement of the application to Parliament until the next session, neither the 
 Bill nor the plans were necessarily those which would be presented this session. Little 
 change, however, will be made in the plans ; that which is made will affect only the 
 details or extensions of the scheme, and not the general outline. The Bill should have 
 some alterations and modifications inserted, but the outline and generalities of it will also 
 remain the same. 
 
I will pass over the commencement of the report until we arrive at Section 1, only 
 remarking that the marked difference which is made between the worda feasibilitt/ and 
 jtracticabilUy, (although meaning precisely the same), and the intention of using such differ- 
 ence, shows a desire tc pass beyond the limits of instructions. 
 
 Section 1 of Mr. Kennedy's Report, 
 
 In this section of the report the following paragraph appears : — 
 
 "The Bill in Section 8 asks for power to construct and maintain locks, gates, 
 sluices, basins, wharves, etc." 
 
 On this point I should strongly recommend that no claim to the rights of wharfage 
 or the revenues therefrom derived should be made by your Company ; but that any 
 advantages we may create in this way by the building of our embankment should be 
 handed over to the Har))our Commissioners. 
 
 "■ ' ■ • 
 The report then proceeds to question the harbour accommodation which your Com- 
 pany states it will afford to the Harbour Commissioners, at no cost to themselves. Taking 
 the question according to the report, I would say that accommodation for, and in a ha" bour, 
 is produced by nature or artificially, as the case may be. Such accommodation is depen- 
 dent upon what is required from it, not upon what, in other cases, might be required from 
 it. For instance, a broad deep bay in the centre of a highly productive country, at the head 
 of ocean navigation, would be harbour accommodation of the very best kind. Such har- 
 bours can be seen at Rio Janeiro, Queenstown, and other places, and require little expense 
 in utilizing them. On the other hand, a shallow bay or arm of the sea, under the same 
 conditions, would require extensive and costly works to render them available for harbour 
 accommodation ; and such bays or arms of the sea may be seen in many places on the 
 coast of Brazil, in the Rio de la Plata, and on the west coast of Africa. 
 
 In the case of rivers, such as deep, broad, sluggish, tidal streams, excellent accom- 
 modation is created, as in the case of Liverpool, London, Grlasgow, and others ; but more 
 or less owing to the ebb and flow of the tide, costly works have to be erected, both for 
 maintenance by dredging and convenience by wharfage ; and in the above quoted cases, 
 it is to be remarked, that both sides of the bays or rivers can be used. 
 
 In the case of Montreal, only one side of the river is at present available, and what 
 your Company proposes doing is to artificially create a further available side by the 
 embankment, to form a bay, to deepen the harbour where considered necessary, to decrease 
 the present violent currents in the harboui, and by artificial means to give to the harbour 
 of Montreal what at present it does not possess, two sides, and thereby to create accommo- 
 dation which I maintain would be of the highest possible kind. 
 
 Most of these questions are admitted in the report, but the statements therein are 
 qualified by questioning the advantages of such accommodation, and by stating the dis- 
 tances from the city. Supposing what you propose doing artificially had been done natu- 
 rally, would it, or would it not, have been used before now for commercial purposes ? I am 
 convinced that if such were the case, the Harbour Commissioners themselves would have 
 already built wharves there, without suggestion from any outside person. 
 
The question, as introduced in the report, of cartage, is a small one, as railway com- 
 munication will bo in the immediate vicinity of any wharf that may be built, and that of 
 crossing the canal is the same with regard to the present Mill Street wharf, or any future 
 extensions, such as those proposed by Messrs. Bell, Newton and Fleming ; and the fact 
 that the Grand Trunk Railway and other lines now find it advisable to lay their rails on 
 the present wharves is a strong argument against this objection. 
 
 Following the report, the question of the sluices and the adaptability of the wharf- 
 age in their proximity arises. I myself fail to understand how the calculations in regard 
 to the velocity and discharges from the sluices are arrived at ; but from the statements 
 made in the report I should imagine that Mr. Kennedy has first divided the quantity dis- 
 charged from all the sluices (as given in my report) by the number of the sluices, in order 
 to find out what each sluice will discharge. That he has then taken the sectional area of 
 the culvert or archway into which each sluice discharges, instead of the orifice in the 
 filuice ; for he says that each controlling sluice would discharge a stream of water 40 feet 
 wide by 22 feet deep, and 20 feet wide by 22 feet deep in the case of each mill sluice ; 
 then, in order to find the speed, he appears to have divided the maximum discharge in each 
 case by the sectional area of the stream which this would give, the stream so mentioned by 
 him being the whole size of the culvert. 
 
 If my surmises are correct, this is a mode of arriving at the discharge of a sluice, or 
 of verifying my calculations, which I am compelled to say I have never heard of before, 
 and where, with the fall through the embankment, our head for water-power would be, if 
 such a stream were possible, I am unable to say. 
 
 The sluices will be placed in the face of the embankment on the St. Lambert's side 
 of it, and will have a head of water of more than five feet over the centre of each control- 
 ling sluice. These sluices will each be 40 feet long, with a five-foot opening, or 200 square 
 feet in area ; the mill sluices will be 20 feet in length, with whatever sized opening may 
 be considered necessary. The water will have a velocity through the orifice or sluice due 
 to the head upon it, and a discharge due to this velocity and the area of the sluice. At 
 the immediate point of eflux from the mouth of the orifice or sluice, the velocity will be far 
 greater than is claimed by Mr. Kennedy, but the sluice will discharge into still water in 
 the culvert of the same level as that in the harbour, the culvert thereby forming a kind of 
 tail-race about 150 feet long, and in the finished Parliamentary plans there is a further open 
 tail-race shown which will be of greater width than the culverts. 
 
 The water will pass through the culvert and tail-ruce, with a gradually reducing 
 speed, until it loses itself in the broad water of the harbour basin. As soon as it arrives 
 in the water of the harbour, it will very rapidly lose its speed. 
 
 The discharge from all the sluices would gradually join together in the broad and 
 deep water of the harbour, and would create an uniform velocity towards St. Mary's 
 Current. 
 
 The diiFerence of levels of water on each side of the embankment, although denied 
 in the report, were marked upon the plan, shewing clearly the depth of the finished outlet 
 of the sluices ; but it has evidently been overlooked. But it must be remembered, as has 
 been already stated, that the Parliamentary plans have been slightly modified, the maxi- 
 mum discharge at low water from all the sluices being now estimated at some 850 million 
 cubic feet per hour, as against 935 million in my report to the Hon. the Minister of Public 
 Works, and upon that report Mr, Kennedy has based his calculations. 
 
6 
 
 With regard to the question of wharfage, why it should be necessary to berth 
 vessels broadside on to the stated currents of from 3J to 4J miles per hour, I am xinable to 
 see, as I Ihink much better arrangements could be made ; but oven supposing it were 
 necessary to do so, the current mentioned, acting on the very small portion of each end of 
 the vessel, berthed broadside on between the sluices, which would be exposed to such 
 currents, would have little or no effect upon it. 
 
 Mr. Kennedy then says that a more favourable arrangement of sluices could doubt- 
 less be made, but my opinion is, that a more favourable arrangement of wharfage accom- 
 modation can be made, than that which he appears to think we contemplate. lie further 
 states that the disc harge will have to be brought through a wharf, and will certainly create 
 currents of a most objectionable kind and strength ; it will not be brought through a 
 wharf at all if such wharves are properly designed and constructed, and the report shews 
 the current will not be more objeitionable than those at present existing in different parts 
 of the harbour ; and I think in evi" ' way, even sxipposiug there were no sluices to act on 
 the shipping, the most economical ( tainly as far as space is concerned) way of utilizing 
 the embankment, would be by building wharves at right angles to it, and laying the 
 vessels end on to the embankment. This is done at New York, under much less favour- 
 able circumstances than would be the case with your scheme. 
 
 It will thevel'ore be evident that vessels coming iip the harbour would, under such 
 arrangements, run straight into their berths without any trouble ; and even were the cur- 
 rents created by the discharge from the sluices, as great as stated (some 4 miles an hour) in 
 the report, the vessels lying end on to the embankment, as they should do, would certainly 
 not feel more inconvenience than they would do at Hochelaga. 
 
 In this manner at least double the number of vessels could be berthed in the same 
 space between the sluices, to what could be done if laid broadside on or parallel to the 
 embankment, and there would thus be no necessity for placing any vessel in front of the 
 sluices. 
 
 Referring back to the remark, that a more favourable arrangement of sluices could 
 be made, it is precisely for that reason that 1 have not shewn on the general plan the 
 position of the mill sluices ; and their position is one of those questions of letail to which 
 I have already alluded. / . • 
 
 I think I have no\A' shewn how the currents from the sluices will not be brought 
 through the wharves, or damage shipping interests in any way. 
 
 I further maintain that there will be no lowering of the water of the harbour, 
 except at the top of St. Mary's Current, where there is now an upheaval of water; and at 
 Sault Normand, where there is a fall of 2 feet 6 inches in a short distance. My calcula- 
 tions of the lowering of water at the top of St. Mary's Current, shew that it is due to the 
 decrease of the current in the future, and this lowering will amount to about G inches, 
 which is very nearly that of 8 inches stated in the report ; but how the 8 inches have 
 been arrived at so definitely for the general lowering of a harbour, now filled with water 
 of a variety of levels, currents, and falls, I am unable to vxnderstand. But I am of opinion 
 that it would be unwise for either the Harbour Engineer or myself to reveal the manner 
 in which we have worked out our respective calculations at present. 
 
 Section 2. 
 
 The report denies that the velocity of the water in the " pocket " or " horse-shoe '» 
 is as great as I have stated. But Mr. Kennedy states that the only current approaching 
 
the velointy whioh 1 claim is at the Sault Normaud ; and there, he sayo, " where the 
 water drops over the side of a shoal, and shows as a broken rapid at low stages of the 
 river." 
 
 Now, in the harbour blue book, published in ronnection with the Bell, Newton and 
 Fleming plans, at the end of the book, a paragraph, stated to pir.anate from Sir W. Logan, 
 distinctly gives, as one of the reacons of the St. Mary's Current, the violence of the current 
 of the Sault Normand. Now, if the Sault Normaud is merely a rapid over a shoal of rocks 
 at low water, how could it possibly have any marked ette("t upon such a mass of water as 
 passes hourly through St. Mary's Channel ? It is further stated that after the embankment 
 is built, etc., the site of the sault will be occupied by the larger and slower flow from the 
 sluices, but this is termed as merely incidental, and not a point of advantage in itself, 
 although the currents from the sluices have already been criticized, as being of a most 
 objectionable kind and strength 
 
 It is precisely because these currents at the upper end of the harbour will be so 
 much slower in the future, that you will be able to maintain the harbour at its present 
 level ; and as the discharge through the narrow orifice at St. Mary's Channel requires a 
 certain velocity to pass the now full volume of the St. Lawrence, which velocity, according 
 to Sir W. Logan and myself, is created greatly by the force of the upper current such as the 
 Sault Normand, the lesser speed in the future, not having the same force, will be unable 
 to pass through St. Mary's Channel the same quantity of water in the same time, but only 
 about two-thirds of it, or rather less. This is what in the future it is proposed to supply 
 to the harbour, and it is for this reason that the harbour will be kept at its present level. 
 
 This is one of the main features of the scheme, and cannot therefore be called either 
 incidental or of no great advantage. 
 
 Without going into what can or cannot be proved, either by going up through the 
 channel near Sault Normand or Sous-le-Mont, or by watching the steamer passing up, and 
 by comparing the velocities in St. Mary's Current with what you observe in the above men- 
 tioned channel, " pocket " or " horse-shoe," it will be easily ascertained that at one point 
 between Sous-le-Mont and the end of Moflfatt's Island wharf the current must be consider- 
 ably greater than St. Mary's, and it is further a fact that without greatly increasing the 
 current in the vicinity of this point over 6 J miles per hour, which the report asserts it to 
 be, the whole volume of the river St. Lawrence could not be passed through such a channel 
 into the harbour, as is now the case. 
 
 Section 3. 
 
 Mr. Kennedy does not appear to consider the <^o8t of removing detritus brought 
 down each year as serious, although he admits that it is felt in the cost of dredging ; but 
 I am of opinion, supposing our works are not made, that when all works are finished in 
 connection with deep channels and deepening the harbour, he will find that as in the case 
 of all navigable rivers, the cost of clearing the detritus brought down by the scour from 
 gravel or boulders, will be a serious item in the future expenses of the Harbour Com- 
 missioners ; and if it is remembered that every dollar annually expended, represents a 
 certain capital which at 5 per cent in 14 years doubles itself, it becomes a far more serious 
 matter than seems to be admitted in the report. 
 
 It is then stated in the report as follow : " As to the deposit from local causes, by 
 which I understand sewage deposit, rubbish from ships, etc., I cannot see how the lesser 
 
8 
 
 scour which will be obtained from the sluices would clear this oat when the winter and 
 spring flood of the river fail to do so. On the contrary, it seems to me that the reduced 
 current especially during winter would allow of the deposit of some of the sewage matter 
 now swept away." 
 
 With the above quotation my opinion is entirely at variance. The Harbour of 
 Montreal, is as I have before stated, and which the report in many places admits, filled 
 with different currents, different obstructions, and the contour of the sides is in every case 
 irregular. Now, all these phenomena are reasons for backwater and eddies, and for the 
 consequent deposit of sewage matter. Whatever may be the future result, that we can 
 do away altogether with this I consider improbable ; but the water as now discharged 
 into the harbour is delivered spasmodically, owing to the irregularity of the bed over which 
 it has to pass, and it proceeds with different velocities derived from local and other causes, 
 increased in some cases, decreased in others, imtil it discharges into the broad river below 
 the harbour. In our case we propose an uniform and regulated discharge into the har- 
 bour ; regulated by the area of intake, as also by the area of eflux ; with a velocity due to 
 whatever head is created near our embankment, and although eddies and backwater will 
 not probably be absolutely done away with, they will certainly be ameliorated, and the 
 sewage will pass down more slowly, but more regularly. 
 
 Section 4. . •"' ■ .';,::"■ 
 
 This section passes on to state with regard to St. V-^y's Current as follows : — 
 
 " At low water I und the highest mean ra. •<'* ' with a loaded rod, of 20 feet 
 depth, and showing fairly what a ship has to stem, to b oout 4f miles at the head of St. 
 Helen's Island, 6 miles at the Canadiar Rubber Fact' Papineau Square, and 7 miles at 
 the middle of Le Ronde, where it attains the highest s^ id." 
 
 With regard to the foregoing, I am of opinion that a loaded rod by no means shows 
 fairly what a ship has to stem ; and as the majority of vessels now coming to Montreal do 
 not average more than from 20 to 22 feet draught, I cannot see how the keel of a vessel 
 will represent the point of greatest resistance to the water. A loaded rod of 12 feet depth 
 would be miich nearer the mark, but I am of opinion that loaded rods or submerged floats 
 by no means show the true velocities, as the different ciirrents above, acting upon the gear- 
 ing, increase or decrease the speed of the float, thereby giving an erroneous velocity for the 
 stream. 
 
 I myself took the velocity of the stream with sxirface" floats and a current meter. On 
 the surface the current meter and floats exactly agreed, but nine feet below the surface the 
 velocity increased from about 7i to about 9 miles per hour. This, in my opinion, is due 
 to the narrowing of St. Mary's Channel, the piling up of water behind it, and the conse- 
 quent undercurrents created in order to pass the great body of the water. No doubt 20 
 feet below the surface the currents would be greatly decreased, owing to the near approach 
 to the bed of the river and the consequent loss of velocity by friction on the bottom and 
 sides. 
 
 The report goes o^ to say : — " At ordinary high water of 22 feet on the sill, the rate 
 at He Ronde rises to 7J m^les, and at other places in proportion." Further on it states : 
 " With the embankment built and the discharge through the sluices, that the speed ' at low 
 water ' would be reduced to about 5J miles an hour, and at high water it would be reduced 
 to 4f miles an hour." I fail to see why high water in one case should give an increased 
 
9 
 
 velocity, and in the other case for high water a decreased velocity, and for low water an 
 increased velocity in St. Mary's Current. It appears to me that these two statements con- 
 tradict each other. 
 
 Mr. Kennedy admits that the decrease in the current of St. Mary's would be felt 
 as a great relief, but questions the money A'alue of it. Relief in this case means a saving 
 of time, fuel and labour, and each ot these represent money. Again comes in the 
 question of every dollar annually spent representing capital. 
 
 Further, the report states that four screw-tugs are kept in use, and a chain-tug was 
 built expressly for St. Mary's Current, and although it has never been used, there must 
 have been some reason lor building it. Possibly with the reduced current the four tugs 
 ' would not be necessary ; certainly they would use less fuel. 
 
 It is further stated : — " With these facts in mind as regards the whole current, it 
 would seem that taking away about one-third of its rate can hardly be of such practical 
 vahie as to be much felt." ' i 
 
 First of all, I question these facts, both with regard to the velocity Mr. Kennedy 
 states there is, and will be, in the St. Mary's Current, and also as to the amount the cur- 
 rent will be reduced ; and I think I have shewn, by using his own arguments, that the 
 reduction of the current will be of great practical value. At any rate, I question whether 
 ship-owners would agree with him. 
 
 Before leaving this section of the report, I should like to draw attention to a sen- 
 tence in it, as follows : — " In every case the speed falls off rapidly towards the shores, and 
 vessels according to their draft can find water at one-fourth to one-third less speed of cur- 
 rent." According to my limited experience of nautical matters, I should imagine that any 
 ship-master or pilot in charge of a vessel of considerable size would always choose the 
 deepest portion of the channel for entering a port, which in this case would be the centre 
 of St. Mary's Current ; ordinary prudence would lead him to do so in so confined a chan- 
 nel, even though he v.'ould have to encounter the strongest part of the current ; for should 
 he hug the shore to avoid the strength of the current, should anything untorseen occur, 
 especially in the case of a sailing vessel being towed ; should such vessels not answer 
 their helms well ; and in the case of a vessel in tow of a tug, should she take a broad 
 sheer inshore, and part the hawser, they would be swept ashore in a very short time. 
 
 -'. s ■'.■•■' ■'■■.■.. ';:^ ':'<■■'■■;/ Sections. 
 
 Mr. Kennedy finds that the fall from the foot of Lachine Canal to the foot of St. 
 Mary's Current is from 22 to 24 inches. In some cases he is no doubt right ; so much the 
 better for my arguments, and I ^A'ill shew how : — 
 
 Admitted, as every reasonable man must admit, that the water of the St. Lawrence 
 will follow the laws of nature, from which laws, by multitudinous experiments have been 
 evolved certain correct formulas for hydraulics. 
 
 "With a 2 feet 3 inches head from Lachine Canal to the foot of St. Mary's Current, 
 only between 700 and 800 million cubic feet of water per hour could be passed ; but 
 actually nearly 1,300 million are being passed. But by taking the fall from above Sous-le- 
 Mont to the foot of St. Mary's Current, which is a distance rather less than that above men- 
 tioned, the fall is about 4 feet 9 inches, and gives by calculation a discharge through St. 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 Mary's Current of nearly 1,300 million cubic feet per hour, agreeing thereby with actual 
 experiment. With only 24 inches fall from Lachine Canal, it is obvious that the discharge 
 would be still less through St. Mary's Current (if such discharge were due merely to that 
 head of water), and it proves that there is a considerable further fall or head of water in the 
 vicinity of Sous-le-Mont, which we intend to utilize for giving a portion of the head riecessary 
 for the discharge through our sluices ; and as such discharge through the sluices will 
 amount to between 800 and 900 million cubic feet per hour, we must, as the distance from 
 our embankment to the lower end of St. Mary's Current is a little less than that from the 
 Lachine Canal lock, create by the discharge which will come through our sluices a head 
 of water at the upper end of the harbour sufficient to give a velocity for discharging 
 between 800 and 900 million cubic feet per hour through the narrow part of St. Marys 
 Current ; and the head must be more than 2 feet three inches, because a 2 feet 3 inches 
 fall from Lachine Canal will only pass some 800 million cubic feet per hour, and we must 
 in a less distance haA'e sufficient head to pass between 800 and 900 million cubic feet per 
 hour through the same channel. 
 
 From the above I think it is shewn that if the fall from Lachine Canal to the 
 lower end of St. Mary's current, is only 24 inches at the present time, and v}e must have 
 a head of 2 feet three inches, to pass the discharge which will come from the sluices 
 through the same waterway, in some part we must raise the water of the harbour, and 
 not lower it. ' ' " ' " '" ' ' •- ' ^ . > ■ 
 
 I further question in every way the velocity of 4 miles per hour opposite the 
 Hudon Cotton Mills 
 
 The statement that there is a stationary wave is proved incorrect by the fact that it 
 varies from 1 J to 3 inches. 
 
 Why only 90 per cent of my estimated lischarge through the sluices should be 
 taken, I am unable to understand, as my calculations for the discharge are based on the 
 theoretical discharge, due to the head upon the sluices ; and only 86 per cent of such 
 theoretical discharge is usually taken as being effective ; therefore my estimate is only 
 86 per cent of a theoretical discharge. • - 
 
 ,;.-« • .;" Section 6. , , ./! v .:•' , 
 
 This part of the report I agree with in the main, but I think the ice jam at St. 
 Mary's Current is far underrated, as also the advantage to be gained by the city by doing 
 away with it. 
 
 Section 7. 
 
 Section 7, 1 naturally agree with. 
 
 Section 8. 
 
 The reports admits the excellence of the highway and footpath, but qualifies this 
 by remarking upon the disadvantages which must necessarily accrue to any bridge for 
 such purposes over the Eiver St. Lawrence. But considering that there is now no high- 
 way or footpath across the river, nor present probability of one being made, it seems to be 
 going rather out of the way to remark upon the disadvantages. 
 
■ 
 
 11 
 
 Section 9. 
 
 With regard to the water power at the embankment, Mr. Kennedy's main 
 objections are the question of ice. Now both his objections against, and my argument in 
 favoixr of, the possible result ; must by their nature be hypothetical, and this I think he 
 does allow. 
 
 My opinion is, that after the alteration of the current in the south channel, the 
 clearing of the channel, the considerable depth of the sluices on the St. Lambert's side 
 below the surface, when the river is highest, and the head that will then be upon them, 
 they will answer the purposes for which they are intended. 
 
 " "With regard to the drowning out of the water power, this would not be the case; 
 
 for if so, Mr. Kennedy's arguments in other portions of his report must fall to the ground; 
 such as the flooding of La Prairie and the rise of water on the St. Lambert's side of the 
 embankment, and also the lowering of the water in the harbour. But there will always 
 be a head of water on the upper side of the embankment, no matter what happens, and 
 arrangements could be made to always utilize this head. The back water in the River 
 St. Lawreii ^' is not in the true meaning of the word backwater at all in my opinion. But it 
 is I think, the piling up of the water of the river, caused by obstructions lower down, the 
 smaller water way, the altered velocities, and the double wetted perimeter ; but it always 
 has a certain velocity, except in certain places, and a certain movement forward. The 
 velocity may be sometimes slower, sometimes more rapid, but the water is never 
 absolutely at rest. 
 
 Although the embankment w^ill be parallel to the shore of Montreal, as Mr. 
 Kennedy says, the conditions of the river if the embankment be built, will by no means 
 be to that embankment, what the conditions of the river now are to the shore of Montreal. 
 
 A glance at the map (I quite agree with Mr; Kennedy) reveals the causes which 
 make the main water of the St. Lawrence flow towards the Montreal shore, but I doubt 
 much whether we should agree as to why it does so. 
 
 The reason why the ice is thrown on the shore of Montreal, and why the great ice 
 shoves in the harbour occur, as at present, is because by local causes the current is thrown 
 across the narrow ledges of rock, through the " pocket," carrying along quantities of float- 
 ing ice and frazil, which is deposited in the harbour. As soon as too groat an amount 
 to paes through St. Mary's Current is accumulated, the current acting almost at right 
 angles to the shore of Montreal throws the ice on to the revetment wall, and creates the 
 shoves which now occur. 
 
 By walking on the ice in the winter, or rather tumbling over it, you will find it in 
 every portion of the harbottr piled up in every possibly conceivable shape ; you will be 
 able to clearly trace the shoves, and you will find that the lines of these shoves are below 
 the site of our proposed embankment, and running about parallel to it. 
 
 I maintain that when our embankment is built, Moffatt's Island wharf and all 
 obstructions in, or on the sides of the South Channel are removed, and every facility given 
 for a clear water-way ; the water will pass straight forward down the South Channel. 
 At the present moment, were our embankment built, the currents in the river remaining 
 the same, neither those currents nor the ice would strike the embankment in the same 
 way as they strike the shore of Montreal, and I hold in no two cases could the present 
 and futiare conditions of the river be more dissimilar. 
 
12 
 
 Mr. Kennedy also states in this section of his report that — " as the same features 
 do to each other and to the shore opposite the central part of the city ; and plainly the 
 causes which now work to heap up mounds of ice on the city front would hereafter act 
 upon the dam." But in page 3 of his report he says : — " The building of the bridge is a 
 simple matter, and presents no difficulties. Neither is there anything in the main features 
 of the design which need make it difficult to secure the details from damage by the action 
 of the ice." Surely this is somewhat of a contradiction. 
 
 I am of opinion that the shallow ridge of rocks, and the rapid currents near Sous- 
 le-Mont and at the toe of the boot of Moflatt's Island wharf, which deflects the current 
 towards Montreal, are some of the reasons for the creation of a large portion of the frazil 
 in the harbour of Montreal. 
 
 It is natural that in the swifter part of St. Mary's Current frazil should be found, 
 as also at Sous-le-Mont. 
 
 Certainly, mills and I'actories do use water-power, and successfully in this country, 
 even with the low water-fall which Mr. Kennedy refers to. I deny the truth of this very 
 low water-fall during the summer months, as my calculations are based upon data taken 
 in December, 1881, when the river was never known to be lower. 
 
 Mr. Kennedy further proceeds to state : — " Lifts and warehouses, etc., are mentioned 
 as cases in which a summer power only is required, etc., would not probably utilize the 
 power of a single sluice of the size proposed." This is entirely wrong. 
 
 Are we to suppose that the commerce of Montreal is to remain in a state of stagna- 
 tion, and never increase ? 
 
 Are the different railways, etc., now being built mythical, and will they develop 
 the resources of Canada ? , 
 
 Montreal is the head of ocean navigation, the biggest city in the Dominion. Will 
 it be wise, for want of a little foresight and energy, to permit such an opportunity of 
 providing for the necessities of the future to slip by ? 
 
 Other Effects of the Scheme. .:• 
 
 Before entering upon this part of the Report, I am compelled to inform you of certain 
 facts which came to my knowledge during the Surveys which I personally conducted last 
 year. 
 
 I am compellnd to do this, as in this the most able and exhaustive portion of the 
 Report, different dimensions and measurements of the River St. Lawrence are greatly re- 
 ferred to, and calculations based upon them. 
 
 The result of my Surveys shows that there are grave discrepancies in the public 
 Plan and Survey of the Harbour of Montreal ; and as these discrepancies touch greatly 
 upon the calculations arrived at by the Harbour Engineer, I am obliged to take cognizance 
 of the fact. 
 
 My Surveys do not agree with the public plan of the Harbour of Montreal, but 
 they do agree, except on the South side, with that of Bell, Newton and Fleming ; and I 
 find in their Report that they also detected errors. 
 
18 
 
 My Survey disagrees with the Harbour Plan in the position of He Verte, Si. Helen's 
 Island, and He Ronde, and also on the South f?hore, and is remarkable in this that I find 
 the width of St. Mary's Current considerably less, and the South Channel greater than Mr. 
 Kennedy states (2,700 feet). 
 
 The position of the above-mentioned Islands in the Bell, Newton and Fleming 
 plans agree with mine. 
 
 Floods and Ice Shoves. 
 
 Mr. Kennedy goes on to say : " By far the greatest question raised by the Scheme 
 is that of its probable effect upon the height of the River, at the time of the p^-reat ice 
 shoves. Sir W. Logan has vividly described, .j. clearly discussed, the causes of these 
 grand phenomena of the St. Lawrence " — and it is trom a portion of the following extract 
 in this Report of Sir "W. Logan's, that I propose partly to argue your case upon. Sir W. 
 Logan says : " There is no place on the St. Lawrence where all the phenomena of the 
 taking, packing and shoving of ice, are so grandly displayed as in the neighbourhood of 
 Montreal, the violence of the Current here is so great, etc." Further he says: " By the 
 time the ice has become stationary at the foot of St. Mary's Current, the waters of the St. 
 Lawrence have usually risen several feet in the Harbour of Montreal, and as the space 
 through which this Current flows affords a deep and narrow passage, for nearly the whole 
 body of the river, it may well be imagined that when the packing here begins the in- 
 undation rapidly increases. The confined nature of this part of the Channel afibrds a more 
 ready resistance to the progress of the ice, while the violence jf the Current brings such 
 an abundant supply and packs it with so much force, that the river dammed up by the 
 barrier which in many places reaches to the bottom, attains in the Harbour a height 
 usually 20, and sometimes 25 feet above summer level " 
 
 Before using the above quotation, I must ask you to follow me through some por- 
 tion of the remarks in the report. Passing over the remarks on La Prairie Basin and 
 Victoria Bridge for the present, I come to the question of the breadth of St. Mary's Chan 
 nel; it is stated to be 1,900 feet. I suppose this is at the narrowest point, and at low 
 water. It should certainly be taken at the narrowest point for the question we are now 
 touching upon. Now, I maintain it is not 1,900 feet, but only about 1,400 feet. The 
 Report states the South Channel to be 2,700 feet. I maintain it is between 2,800 and 2,900 
 feet wide, but when the works are completed; even taking the present low water and 
 present condition of the river as the basis of calculation, this Channel would be instead of 
 2,700, 3,100 feet wide. 
 
 Many of Mr. Kennedy's further measurements I do not agree with, and I will ask 
 you to pass on to the next paragraph of his Report. 
 
 Now, going back to Sir W. Logan's statement, I find that he lays great stress upon 
 the confined nature of St. Mary's Current, upon the violence of the currents of the Harbour 
 of Montreal, and upon the packing of ice from these two causes ; and he appears to put 
 little value upon the depth of the Channel, but, to look upon it, considering its confined 
 nature, to be rather detrimental than otherwise. 
 
 The action of ice must necessarily be a question upon which nobody can form any 
 exact theory ; but, to form a theory at all, you must bring the question down to units. 
 
 In the case of St. Mary's Channel and the South Channel, I propose to do this. (See 
 tabulated form appended.) 
 
■pwBivmpwi 
 
 14 
 
 Mr. Kennedy is not quite in accord with Sir W. Logan, but no doubt his later ex- 
 perience accoimts for this. 
 
 Sir W. Logan says : " The confined nature of this part of the Channel (St Mary's 
 Current) affords a more ready resistance to the progress of ice, while the violence of the 
 Current brings such an abundant supply, and packs it with so much force, that the river 
 dammed up by the barrier, which in many places reaches to the bottom, etc." Mr. Kennedy 
 states : "At lie Ronde, too, where the St. Mary's Curreiit is narrowed, the Island is sub- 
 merged at high water, and the loss of breadth is made up by the enlargement and deepen- 
 ing of the Channel between He Ronde and St. Helen's Island." A more absolute mal- 
 distribution of argument, I think, never came under my observation before. 
 
 Why should we not be allowed to use shallow water, if Mr. Kennedy is allowed 
 to use it, as must be the case in the submerging of Isle Ronde ? and why cannot we 
 calculate upon rises in the south channel, as well as Mr. Kenned]' does in St. Mary's 
 Current ? (which is the interpretation I give to " enlargement anc deepening " in his 
 report.) 
 
 From the above, I think I have shewn that the depth of the water, is by no means 
 so important as the floating surface of it. 
 
 Ice is a floating body, and it does not matter under what conditions, it must follow 
 the rules of such bodies ; and a channel with a floating surface double that of another, 
 must pass the same quantity in half the time. All floating bodies are capable of being 
 directed in their progress, and I maintain that what we propose in the South Channel 
 will be able to pass floating masses of ice at the lowest water, in less than half the time 
 we could pass them in St. Mary's Current. 
 
 I would further point out to you, again, the quotation from Sir "W. Logan, that the 
 harbbour of Montreal is filled, and St. Mary's Current jammed, far more speedily, owing 
 to the violent currents, than Mr. Kennedy seems to think ; and, with the reduced distance, 
 and more luiiform current, which we propose in the South Channel, such will not be the 
 case. ' ■■iy"\ :•''>.' ' "■ '''■-":'.'';■■>"./-"'■--■'■■•■-.■-■ .,''v,:t^.'-;', •' " ■' ' ,;.^ '-.■'';',. V-; •., ■•;-;'.\" . 
 
 The strongest proof of thib is, what has jixst been handed to me by one of my 
 assistants, living and employed on the St. Lamberts side of the river in watching the take 
 of the ice, that the South Channel is now, 25th December, 1882, entirely open from 
 Moff'ait's Island Wharf nearly down to Longueuil Wharf; whereas, from other data given 
 to me, St. Mary's Current is already jammed ; then, as proofs of what I have already said, 
 and will say further on, when the ice is released from above Mofiatt's Island, my observa- 
 tions shew that it was swept into the harbour more rapidly, thereby filling the harbour 
 with accumxilated ice, 
 
 I further deny, from personal observation, that ice passes freely over the obstructions 
 in the river such as wharves. 
 
 Following on from the above, let us take a paragraph in Mr. Kennedy's Report ; he 
 takes fifteen feet as being the rise above low water mark al Montreal in the winter ; he 
 then takes 65 feet as being the greatest depth of St. Mary's Current (I suppose in 
 Winter.) 
 
 Is St. Mary's Current 50 feet deep in any part at low water ? and has it an average 
 depth of 35 feet ? It had not in December, 1881, the greatest depth at lowest water being 
 
 I 
 
 SJ s 
 
16 
 
 88 feet in the narrowest part. If it has been lowered 12 feet since then, the volocity of 
 the current must be considerably increased, and the lowering of the harbour must have 
 already commenced. 
 
 But I think if we were to take 50 tieet as the winter depth, and 80 feet as the ave« 
 rage (Mr. Kennedy's rise being 15 feet m Montreal in the winter), we shall be nearer the 
 correct thing ; and if we take St. Mary's Current (owing to the rise of water) to be some- 
 what wider thon 1,400 feet, bay 1,500 feet, with an average depth of 30 feet (instead of 36 
 feet, as per Mr. Kennedy), we shall have a waterway of 45,000 square feet area, instead of 
 73,000 square feet, as per Mr. Kennedy. 
 
 With a 10-foot rise in winter, as common to the upper portion of the river (as per 
 Mr. Kennedy), the a\ erage depth in the South Channel in its present state (I suppose at 
 ■the site of our bridge) of 15 feet would, I think, be about correct ; but taking the rise of 
 10 feet in the river, the breadth would be over 3,000 feet, and would give us an area of 
 45,000 square feet, as against 40,000 square feet (as per Mr. Kennedy). 
 
 The two channels together would thus give us an area of 90,000 square feet, as 
 against 113,000 square feet (as per Mr. Kennedy). 
 
 With a rise of 10 feet at Victoria Bridge, according to Mr. Kennedy, the sectional 
 area is about the same, but he gives as depths, with a rise of 10 feet, only two, viz., 14 and 
 28 feet. Taking his breadth at Victoria Bridge as 6,570 feet (which is wrong), and an 
 average depth of 21 feet, we have a sectional area of 127,970 square feet ; whereas the 
 sectional area of the whole river of 4,600 teet by 24J feet, his average depth, taking all the 
 channels, only gives 110,000 square feet. These statements do not agree, and are certainly 
 not quite correct. 
 
 Mr. Kennedy then proceeds to discuss the currents or motive power in ice-shoves, 
 and although, as I have already shown, I do not agree with him in his velocities at low 
 water, I agree with him as to the currents being diverted and changed during winter. 
 
 Mr. Kennedy then shows that the ice blocks, owing to Victoria Bridge, are only 
 240 to 330 feet broad. He then says : — " The gorging of the river and the formation of 
 ice-dams are, however, not due to the size of the masses, but to their quantity, /or only 
 such blocks as can be rolled under the stationary ice are effective in choking up the water 
 channel." At the present time few sheets of ice are passed down the South Channel, but 
 nearly the whole of the ice is carried into the harbour basin by the violent currents, as 
 already shown ; and, as explained by Sir W. Logan, the confined nature of St. Mary's 
 Current is an incentive to the jamming of ice. 
 
 This must naturally be so, because of the violent currents, and the entrance to the 
 South Channel being obstrut.-ted by Moffatt's Island Wharf. 
 
 This channel is filled with different impedimenta, and although at very high water 
 it may pass ofi some small portion of the floating ice, the natural direction of floating bodies is 
 with the strong currents. When this .is altered, the South Channel deepened and 
 widened, and the rise due to that volume of the St. Lawrence which will in future pass 
 down the South Channel, is taken into consideration, I maintain that the risk of jams will 
 not be great. 
 
 But taking again Mr. Kennedy's report, I find that he says " that the formation of 
 ice dams is not due to the sizes of the floating sheets ot ice, but to the blocks that can be 
 rolled under the stationary ice." 
 
16 
 
 Now, with extra velocity, clearing away all obstructions, deepening, widening, and 
 the rise due to the extra volume of water down the South Channel, I think the ice will 
 not become stationary sooner than in St. Mary's Current, and not as soon. After having 
 become stationary it will take longer to fill up, for the following reasons : The South 
 Channel is in width at lowest water neaily 2^ times that of the St. Mary's Channel, and 
 can pass down double the floating blocks of ice in one layer, supposing it is sufficiently 
 deep. 
 
 For every rise of one foot of water in the ^'outh Channel, St. Mary's Current must 
 rise 2 feet for increased area, and so on every foot until it reaches its maximum. 
 
 It will be plain from this that by continually multiplying the increased sectional 
 area of St. Mary's Channel by 2, we shall soon get in the South Channel an equal sec- 
 tional area to that which the two channels give now ; and we shall also have the sluices 
 in the embankment to help us. I append a tabulated form of the above. 
 
 I find from Mr. Kennedy's history of floods, that after 1860 they appear to be due 
 to the jam of ice at Boucherville ; before that date they appear to have occurred at the 
 site of Victoria Bridge, and higher up the river. It would therefore appear that Victoria 
 Bridge has had much to do with freeing the river from jams above the city. Victoria 
 Bridge somewhat narrowed the river, but did not raise the water higher than that due to 
 the obstruction of the piers and the length»of the abutments. We propose to widen the 
 river at the site of our Bridge, raise the water, and give a fairly uniform velocity. Where- 
 ever, after careful examination of the shores, we find low portions likely to be flooded on 
 account of the extra rise which we should create in the South Channel, levees of a height 
 of 5 feet above the maximum height the St. Lawrence will be raised in the South Channel 
 by our works will be built ; thereby making a shore level equivalent to the rise we shall 
 create. . " 
 
 I cannot understand the following sentence in Mr. Kennedy's report : — " In inves- 
 tigating the practical consequences of ice jams, as distinct from their causes, it appears at 
 once that it is only the floods which accompany the jams that are of serious importance. 
 The movements of the ice itself for the most part occur within well-known limits, and 
 are easily guarded against, but the floods extend over great and indefinite areas, and work 
 serious damage." Mr. Kenneay is wrong. Floods do not accompany the ice jams, but 
 are an after consequence, and the floods themselves dispose of the jams ; therefore, the 
 broader the channel used for passing ice, the better. He seems in this case to contradict 
 himself, as by his own shewing the ivements of ice do not occur within veil-known 
 limits ; at least, if they do, the limits ..lUst be enormously large. 
 
 He further states the channels of the river are already too small. This by the 
 nature of things cannot be so ; but they are no doubt in many cases badly adapted for 
 the passing of ice, as in the case of the violent currents in the harbour, and the confined 
 nature of St. Mary's Current, as shewn by Sir W. Logan. 
 
 "What we propose doing is to give a short, straight channel, over double the width 
 of St. Mary's, which will have uniform velocities, and which, I maintain, is better adapted 
 for the passing of ice, and will do it quicker than the longer and more circuitous channel, 
 with spasmodic currents, through the harbour and St. Mary's Current. 
 
 I have already gone into the relative sizes of these two channels as at present, at 
 high water, and it is not necessary again to touch upon them. 
 
17 
 
 Mr. Kennedy then passes on to say that it is not a question of the capacity of one 
 channel, but of the two channels ; but he omits to detine what the capacity of a channel 
 moans. 
 
 It meanb what water it will pass, and this is due to the sectional area of the channel 
 and its velocity. 
 
 It will be e^'ndciit that a channel without any obstructions, and with an uniform 
 velocity, will do its work far more easily than one with spasmodic and different currents, 
 and with obstructions dae to the irregularities of the shores and bottom. 
 
 I therefore maintain that i,he South Channel will, with what we propose as its 
 future conditions, be able to do the work much better than the present arrangement, and 
 will have a sufficient capacity. 
 
 It is then said in the leport : — " These and other instances which might be quoted 
 all go to show that the channels of the river are already too small, that they are liable to be 
 choked with ice in any winter, and the axperiences of the past *o be repeated " It is 
 further stated : — " Whatever increase of capacity the St. Lambert Channel can have given 
 it by the highest permissible rise of water, it may have and docs have now " I do not 
 agree with this statement. The highest permissible rise is the height for which we make 
 provision in the future, and works of safety will, as already stated, be made for the 
 maximum rise which we create. • ■ v . i ■■ , 
 
 Mr. Kennedy then goes on to state : — " That we propose doing nothing of import- 
 ance in the South Channel, except the deepening of a portion for the boat channel." 
 
 This is entirelij incorrect. We do everythiufr of importance ; we lower the bottom 
 some two feet ; we do away with all present obstructions ; we give a free intake ; we 
 widen the channel by straightening the sides ; we build our embankments with a view 
 to guiding the ice as fairly as possible towards the narrow portion of the channel ; and we 
 widen the area of eflux at tae point of discharge from the South Channel. Is all this 
 unimportant? . * , . , . 
 
 The sectional area of the piera of our proposed bridge will not be one-third that of 
 the proposed boat channel. . , 
 
 The report next states : — "The water is intended to be raised high enough to force 
 itself through, but no elevation of the surface within the safe flood level, can give this 
 channel alone a sectional area equal to that of both channels." As 1 have before shewn, 
 the elevation of the surface of the water in the South Channel can be guarded against by 
 works of safety, and, by Mr. Kennedy's own shewing, the flood rise of water will be only 
 increased by the amount that we raise the surface, in order to pass the volume of water 
 which has to be passed. 
 
 We then come to the following' statement : — But it is not a mere question of sec- 
 tional area, for manifestly the great depth of the central part of St. Mary's current, is a 
 safieguard against it being choked by the ice, while a shallow one is especially liable. If, 
 however, a pack does take place in the deep channel of sufficient extent to retard the 
 water and cause it to rise farther up, the St. Lambert Channel comes in to assist, and the 
 two together pass the water with ease " — and I may here say that in many places in Mr. 
 Kennedy's report he states that it is a question of sectional area, and he apparently does 
 not agree with Sir W. Logan in this. 
 
 I should like to ask now a practical question, although there may be exceptional 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 cases ill connection with the formation of ire, which will alter this : whether a deep 
 narrow channel, or a broad, fairly deep one, would be best for passing floating bodies ? 
 
 For every rise of one foot it must always be remembered, that for the increased 
 sectional urea of St. Mary's Current for that one foot, the one foot rise in the South Chan- 
 nel gives more than dovible. 
 
 Mr. Kennedy must, if the latter part of the above quoted clause be correct, allow 
 that the South Channel never jams even now, because, if with its extreme shallowness it 
 did do so, it could not help the St. Mary's Current, and he allows " that if a jam does take 
 place sufficienl to retard the water in the St. Mary's Current, the St. Laral)ert Channel 
 comes in to assist it, and the two together }iass the water with ease ;" but Sir W. Logan 
 says that St. Mary's Current in many plac > sometimes jams down to the bottom, thereby 
 shewing that the South Channel, both by Sir W. Logan and Mr. Kennedy, has to do at 
 present a great portion of the work, which we propose it should do in the future, and 
 with the rise, deepening, etc., which we propose, in the future it will be capable of doing 
 all the work. ' : > . * • ' ' 
 
 Mr. Kennedy says " the bottom of St. Lambert Channel, even when cleared out. 
 Will be higher than the bottom of the river in its vicinity," and then goes on to say it will 
 be five feet higher. The South Channel has many points in it ; to which point does he 
 refer? I think this need not be touched upon, as he is wrong in his supposition, they are 
 certainly not shewn in my jilaus, ^ 
 
 Mr. Kennedy then goes in for a scheme of his own. He proposes sundry things 
 which he says are practicallj' the same as our Scheme. I deny the truth of that. They 
 are neither the same as the present or future conditions of the River where we propose to 
 place our embankment. "Why take a supposed position in a river, utterly diiierent in 
 currents, in depths, velocities, area, contour of the sides, and phenomena above and below ; 
 and suggest it is the same as something situated in an entirely different spot, and with 
 entirely differ . conditions. 
 
 I believe I said in my Report to the Honorable the Minister of Public Works, that 
 the right fall to be taken for the Harbour should be 4 feet 6 inches, instead of 2 feet 3 
 inches, as now taken from the sill of Lachine Canal Lock; and taking this fall of 2 feet 3 
 inches shows an inclination to localize, and not to take the River St. Lawrence in its 
 entirety, but to attribute all reasons to the local phenomena, without considering the rest 
 of the River above and below the Harbour, and this is exemplified by the suggested 
 parallel case of an embankment to Nun's Island under entirely different conditions. 
 
 The Report then returns to the actual scheme, and says the controlling sluices 
 should be kept closed during the winter; so they should, as the mill sluices will pass 
 sufficient water for all practical purjioses, but by my Repoit to the Honorable the Minister 
 of Public Works the Harbour Commissioners can open and shut them as they choose. 
 
 I must again correct Mr. Kennedy as to the nominal discharge of the mill sluices* 
 which follow in his report, by stating ; that my calculations are the actual discharge, the 
 effective, but not the theoretical. 
 
 The Report then goes on to state the " contingency of an ice jam at the proposed 
 bridge" — considering the history of Victoria Bridge this is very problematical. It then 
 says in such case the sluices would have to be opened to relieve the river, and that it is 
 more than probable they would be jammed by ice. 
 
19 
 
 111 my opinion thin is not kvimi prolinble, bnt it certainly is not more than probable, 
 and taking the history of Victoria Bridge, an ice jam at oar bridge in unlikely; and there- 
 fore the probability of the sluices being " useless when most required," to quote the 
 report, i.-i certainly more than improbable. 
 
 Mr. Kennedy then says that the current which I propose in the South Channel, or 
 St. Lambert's Channel as he calls it, is IJ miles less than that in St. Mary's, but he seems 
 to have i'ori^otten that (he South Channel is over twice the width of St. Mary's. He 
 then remarks upon the levees ; these I have already explained, and they are approxi- 
 mately shown upon the plan. 
 
 Then comes the following: — " In fact, Mr. Bateman says that while the proposed 
 works are expected to raise the water at Laprairie only 4J feet, the lowest land is some 11 
 feet above present water, and it is therefore impossible that it would be flooded." This 
 quotation from me is incorrect, as 1 state the following (see page 3 of my report) : — •' With 
 regard to the low lying lauds between Laprairie and Victoria Bridge, the result of the 
 investigations that I have made, is that the proposed alterations would only create a rise 
 of the water at Victoria Bridge of about 4 feet 6 inches, and as the lowest land in the 
 neighbourhood of Laprairie is some 11 feet above the level of the water at this point, it is 
 impossible that the jamming of ice in the lower portion of the St. Lawrence, having raised 
 the water above Victoria Bridge to the height that it generally does at these times, should 
 alter the height of water at Laprairie and the adjoining lands themselves." 
 
 From the above two quotations it will be seen that I do not propose to raise the 
 water at Laprairie 4 feet H inches, but only at Victoria Bridge, and by looking at the plans 
 atta<;hed to my report, that 1 state "the levels will be slightly lower than shown here," and 
 that I do not say it is impossible our works would flood Laprairie, only that they would 
 not do so more ttian now. 
 
 The remaining portion of the report it seems to me unnecessary to touch upon, 
 further than to state that in the extensions to the schera.^ I propose a canal from Brassey's 
 Wharf into the Lachine Canal Basin, and should it be necessary, a tunn-^ under the 
 Lachine Canal to connect with any railway lines the future Company may wish to con- 
 nect with. 
 
 Taking, however, into consideration my statement before the Harbour Board with 
 regard to the wharfage which Mr. Kennedy mentions in the last paragraph of his report, 
 his last incorrect quotation from my report, and the different errors which I think I have 
 been able to point out to you, I think I may, gentlemen, strongly recommend you to pro- 
 ceed with your scheme, and endeavour to obtain a charter from the Dominion Parliament. 
 
 I have the honour to be, 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 F. FOSTER BAT.BMAN, 
 
 M. Inst. C. E. 
 
3 
 
 M S 
 O CO 
 
 Is 
 
 « g 
 
 r 
 
 Si 
 
 I I 
 
 
 •5^ 
 
 I 
 
 2» 
 
 ^ 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 
 4- 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •g. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 stance over w 
 fall extends i 
 river. 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 « 
 
 o 
 
 
 s 
 
 •^ 
 
 •o 
 
 -a 
 
 ■o 
 
 ■3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 si 
 
 
 -.o 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 t> 
 
 
 00 
 
 «o 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 3'c 
 
 &: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 **-• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 4iJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ted 
 ter 
 er. 
 
 c^ 
 
 
 
 ?!5 
 
 00 
 
 t- 
 
 
 Wet 
 
 rime 
 
 riv 
 
 , 
 
 IM 
 
 C-l 
 
 CO 
 
 -* 
 
 
 S 
 
 CO 
 
 M 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 0H 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 . *- 
 
 
 fO 
 
 OS 
 
 
 88 
 
 
 
 2 > 
 
 « 
 
 t- 
 
 t- 
 
 00 
 
 (35 
 
 (M 
 
 
 il'C 
 
 
 1— < 
 
 OO 
 
 ifl 
 
 (M 
 
 © 
 
 
 i ■< 
 
 . 
 
 M 
 
 M 
 
 •* 
 
 »fl 
 
 © 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 «o 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 
 .J3 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■s > 
 
 , 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 in 
 
 00 
 
 © 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 4-3 
 
 rH 
 
 1-H 
 
 1-H 
 
 1— t 
 
 (M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 <:;> 
 
 M 
 
 1— ' 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 00 
 
 
 - fe 
 
 «S 
 
 in 
 
 00 
 
 
 CO 
 
 lA 
 
 
 ■2 2- 
 
 . 
 
 «5 
 
 05 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 i-n 
 
 c 
 
 (M 
 
 ■N 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 2 
 
 h^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 « 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 o 
 
 O b 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 l« 
 
 t- 
 
 © 
 
 I-H 
 
 
 T 
 
 
 Fc 
 
 4> 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 ■a 
 
 •o 
 
 -d 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 h5 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 4> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ts . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ¥ 
 
 
 <l 
 
 pq 
 
 O 
 
 fl 
 
 W 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 D 
 CO 
 
 PM 
 -< 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 bd 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *>9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 •1 
 
 2? 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 ^1 
 
 © 
 l- 
 
 
 S3 
 
 
 (M 
 
 © 
 
 fO 
 
 a' 
 
 
 X 
 
 e-i 
 
 © 
 
 «J 
 
 A 
 
 
 © 
 
 S'l 
 
 oc 
 
 1- 
 
 © 
 
 |1 
 
 © 
 © 
 
 ?? 
 
 1- 
 
 © 
 
 £ 
 
 ^ 
 
 X 
 
 0-. 
 
 05 
 
 »-< 
 
 * 
 
 6>t 
 
 — s 
 
 Is. 
 (2: 
 
 .si 
 
 
 •2 "5 
 
 T3 
 
 o 
 
 3 ■ 
 "C O 
 
 © o 
 »-l © 
 •* © 
 
 © 
 
 lA 
 
 
 in © 
 
 © © 
 
 S3 
 
 « 
 in 
 
 © 
 in 
 
 © 
 
 in 
 
 CO 
 
 © © 
 I- a- 
 
 CO CO 
 
 c 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 in 
 
 © 
 in 
 
 9 
 
 in 
 
 © 
 in 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 0-. 
 
 
 © 
 
 00 
 
 © 
 
 1— CO 
 
 © 
 
 C'l 
 
 o 
 
 l; 
 
 © 
 in 
 
 c 
 
 © 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 © 
 ® 
 
 o 
 
 ■3 
 
 <| pq o ft a 
 

 09 
 
 < ^ 
 
 CO 
 00 
 
 a 
 
 z 
 
 (M 
 
 ■«: 
 ■«: 
 
 04 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 en 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ud 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 :>: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 *■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f iS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 -» 
 
 -< 
 •* 
 
 ** 
 
 - 
 
 -• 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S^ 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 •»* 
 
 ^ 
 
 - 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 3 
 
 'J 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sa 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •«? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •*a 
 
 h- 
 
 Tf 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 MM 
 
 &< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 32 
 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 B 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 Ol 
 
 OS 
 
 05 
 
 05 
 
 ■J 
 
 iO 
 
 •'J" 
 
 fO 
 
 M 
 
 N 
 
 IN 
 
 N 
 
 
 &< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t> 
 
 d 
 
 
 W 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 CL.M 
 
 "■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "t; 
 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 «fj 
 
 t- 
 
 © 
 
 N 
 
 tO 
 
 ^S 
 
 b 
 
 5^ 
 
 5: 
 
 5$ 
 
 ^ 
 
 1— ) 
 
 S 
 
 s 
 
 4) ir 
 
 
 f-H 
 
 1— < 
 
 fM 
 
 1-H 
 
 1-H 
 
 »^ 
 
 1-H 
 
 ^a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 flfl 
 
 f-H 
 
 
 50 
 
 to 
 
 »— t 
 
 1—4 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 Ol 
 
 "t 
 
 Ol 
 
 
 (M 
 
 01 
 
 CO 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 cc 
 
 I- 
 
 © 
 
 ^ 
 
 Ol 
 
 1—* 
 
 »rt 
 
 < • 
 
 ro 
 
 eo 
 
 Tf 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■* 
 
 ift 
 
 >a 
 
 «• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 .a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i> 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 50 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 «i 
 
 I— 
 
 0-. 
 
 M 
 
 •>* 
 
 t- 
 
 05 
 
 (M 
 
 bi 
 
 TJ 
 
 M 
 
 y. 
 
 CO 
 
 M 
 
 eo 
 
 ■'J' 
 
 Is 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -«f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ja !S 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 1 
 
 00 
 
 I-H 
 
 
 5 
 
 CO 
 
 
 © 
 
 1-H 
 
 •5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "e 
 
 
 .' 
 
 a to 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 « • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 tiou 
 
 
 t«'^ 
 
 «o 
 
 t- 
 
 © 
 
 1—" 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 S; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 fc 
 3 
 
 
 « 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ;^^ 
 
 
 < 
 
 pq 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 » 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 »j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 q: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'M 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 3 . 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 s 
 
 s 
 
 © 
 © 
 
 3 
 
 .si 
 
 (M 
 
 ^ 
 
 © 
 
 1-H 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 © 
 1- 
 
 ?8 
 
 m 
 
 fO 
 
 eo 
 
 (M 
 
 t- 
 
 m 
 
 IN 
 
 
 © 
 01 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 1— < 
 
 (N 
 
 I-H 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 •W 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d & 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 f-H 
 
 1 
 
 
 © 
 
 s 
 
 •^ 
 
 CO 
 
 ^5 
 
 t- 
 
 -1< 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 .*j I. 
 
 1ft 
 
 05 
 
 m 
 
 10 
 
 CO 
 
 t- 
 
 00 
 
 g 8, 
 
 fi-: 
 
 N 
 
 IN 
 
 IN 
 
 IN 
 
 IN 
 
 IN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■sg 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 ift 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 in 
 
 .^1 
 
 S 
 
 ^ 
 
 03 
 
 §5 
 
 2 
 
 © 
 lA 
 
 
 u 
 
 ift 
 
 'X" 
 
 ■* 
 
 ■* 
 
 5 
 
 •* 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^ > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 igS 
 
 to 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 ^ 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 •^ 
 
 10 
 
 «-H 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 .2 ^ 
 
 N 
 
 .^ 
 
 _^ 
 
 1-H 
 
 T-H 
 
 1-H 
 
 »-< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 £e 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a-- 
 
 •. 
 
 ^ 
 
 »■ 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 ■^ 
 
 «. 
 
 s« 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 ■o 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2^ 
 
 ■* 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 © 
 
 c^ 
 
 s? 
 
 CO 
 
 25 
 
 S 
 
 IN 
 
 (N 
 
 fO 
 
 eo 
 
 eo 
 
 ■S a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >. « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 S 
 
 b' 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 1 S 
 
 
 N 
 
 >ft 
 
 t- 
 
 © 
 
 <M 
 
 us 
 
 "0 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 
 l-H 
 
 ^H 
 
 I-H 
 
 a 
 
 fc 
 
 C« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 ■s 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 >* 
 
 = 
 
 4) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 B . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^n^ 
 
 <1 
 
 ca 
 
 Zj 
 
 Q 
 
 e^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 03 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BB 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5Q 
 
 n 
 
 Area of the 
 
 water-way for ice 
 
 and water after the 
 
 ice dam took place. 
 
 o 00 «3 OO 
 ,$ « t- CO 
 <^ CO CO rH 
 
 Area of the 
 
 water-way for ice 
 
 and water before the 
 
 ice dam tock place. 
 
 Sq. feet. 
 31,723 
 
 11 
 
 S.ii 
 
 Sq. feet. 
 
 7,115 
 
 21,045 
 
 26,555 
 
 Breadth 
 of the floating sur- 
 face for ice 
 after the ice 
 dam took. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 2,824 
 2.784 ' 
 700 
 
 Breadth 
 of the floating sur- 
 face tor ice 
 before the ice 
 dam toot. 
 
 
 Mean depth of 
 
 water afttr 
 
 the ice dam 
 
 took place. 
 
 Ft. in. 
 8.0 
 ' 7.6 
 0.6 
 
 Mean deptn of 
 
 water before 
 
 the ice dam 
 
 took place. 
 
 .= CO - = 
 
 fe 2 ^ ^ 
 
 
 Ft. in. 
 2.6 
 7.6 
 
 10.0 
 
 o 
 
 1 ^ . 
 
 3 • - 
 
 Schedule No. 
 
 O 3 s 
 
 Oi 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 M 
 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 IN 
 
 CO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 00 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 0^ 
 
 o 
 
 S 
 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 •A 
 
 o 
 
 Oi 
 
 CO 
 
 d 
 
 s 
 
 CO 
 
 
 05 
 
 pq 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 © 
 
 3 
 
 
 H 
 
< K 
 
 H 2 
 
 
 00 
 
 CQ 
 
 i § 
 
 .c g 
 
 
 « "TS 
 
 .§" 
 
 CQ 
 
 09 
 
 03 
 
 
 the game as 
 onth Chan- 
 ; 6 in. only, 
 the same as 
 outh Chan- 
 k. only. 
 
 <) 
 
 
 ►." « ^M ^ 1 
 
 a 
 
 
 "S a '-t: g -" 
 
 
 
 
 S"! i 
 
 
 
 J' ' 
 
 4^ 
 
 o © «« 
 
 ?, i- ,i 
 
 .V 
 
 to M •«1< 
 
 J> 4^ 3J 
 
 tH 
 
 ■"L ®, —- 
 
 fc- 4) 
 
 i 
 
 
 «? 1 
 
 
 
 ^a 
 
 
 
 d « 
 
 
 
 gH- 
 
 
 o 
 
 QJ 
 
 <-< 1 
 
 Ji-S-i 
 
 c; 
 
 C-. J J 
 
 -^^2 
 
 , ;, 
 
 fif 
 
 
 -»* 
 
 v-£ 
 
 M 
 
 * ■ 
 
 O V 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 flS 
 
 
 
 "TT 
 
 
 © © in 
 
 9 
 
 .V 
 
 Iffl 05 » 
 
 .;^ 
 
 C; 
 
 t^ aD_ t^ 
 
 c 
 
 p4< 
 
 w' — " CO* 
 
 «! 
 
 0^ 
 
 !M -M 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 <i 
 
 
 
 J. ^ 
 
 
 
 of floa 
 ace foi 
 fter 
 took 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 © C -(> 
 M <M lO 
 
 ■c^ * i 
 
 i 
 
 ro — ift 
 
 |sg-§ 
 
 Eu 
 
 f-T f-^ 
 
 £ c o 
 
 
 
 m'~ •'■ 
 
 
 
 Breadth of float- 
 ing 8iirf&"e for 
 
 ice before 
 ice dam took. 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 00 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 <ta 
 
 
 
 l^i 
 
 
 
 ^ ^ m 
 
 B 
 
 © © OJ 
 
 •S <~ I 
 
 u a 
 
 ^ 
 
 (M ©" . CO 
 
 fl -s-t 
 
 IM r- 
 
 So! 
 
 
 
 S ^ V 
 
 
 
 S .ii 
 
 
 
 «M 
 
 
 
 » £^ 
 
 
 
 5^g 
 
 _• 
 
 
 
 • - 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■o a 
 §1- 
 
 
 
 U 5 03 
 
 
 
 a».a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 = 6 
 
 
 © © JC 
 
 ifl bl e<i 
 
 5/ U 
 
 ^ 
 
 -H e-i 
 
 a. Si 
 
 
 
 «tM 
 
 
 , 
 
 O . 
 
 
 S 
 
 §^ 
 
 
 t ■= - 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 1-- 
 
 
 ^ . 
 
 8- 
 
 
 ^ - ^ 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 *-# 
 
 
 
 
 
 "S 
 
 
 < 
 
 J3 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 a^ 
 
 ft? 
 
 
 
 
 S '<5 'Si 
 
 
 ■a 
 
 itbe 
 hann 
 ould 
 
 
 -e 8 
 
 SO* 
 
 ■Sx-S 
 
 
 |S^ 
 
 |.ss 
 
 
 
 M ^ 4 
 
 
 ^.E§ 
 
 'C o 
 
 
 SfO 
 
 lA 
 
 
 tA 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 oo 
 
 
 3i 
 
 c 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 f— ' 
 
 -t 
 
 
 »! 
 
 t- 
 
 
 X 
 
 M 
 
 
 t 
 
 in 
 
 
 la 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 00 
 
 
 on 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 GO 
 
 N 
 
 
 ■M 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 e> 
 
 
 rc 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 ^^ 
 
 © 
 
 f-* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 © 
 © 
 
 «^ 
 
 § 
 
 t 
 
 s 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 
 1-H 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 t- 
 
 N 
 
 
 CO 
 
 « 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 M 
 
 
 CO 
 
 5-1 
 
 
 N 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 53 
 
 
 
 (M 
 
 
 0) 
 
 « 
 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 
 M 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 f- 
 
 pa 
 
 
 IS