Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "203744518",
    "label": "Report on the Proposed Chesapeake Bay and Potomac River Tide Water Canal, S.H. Sweet, 1866",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/203744518"
}

{
    "id": "203744518",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/203744518",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Report on the Proposed Chesapeake Bay and Potomac River Tide Water Canal, S.H. Sweet, 1866",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/203744518",
    "collections": [
        "Dr. Robert Kapsch Collection",
        "Senior Scholar Records"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/KAP/Sweet_Report_on_the_Proposed_Chesapeake_Bay_and_Tide-Water_Canal_1866.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/KAP/Sweet_Report_on_the_Proposed_Chesapeake_Bay_and_Tide-Water_Canal_1866.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/KAP/Sweet_Report_on_the_Proposed_Chesapeake_Bay_and_Tide-Water_Canal_1866.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/203744518",
    "naId": 203744518,
    "levelOfDescription": "item",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/electronic-records/KAP/Sweet_Report_on_the_Proposed_Chesapeake_Bay_and_Tide-Water_Canal_1866.pdf",
    "mediaId": "3fee6a9b4b85a5b5",
    "ocrText": "Google\nThis is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project\nto make the world's books discoverable online.\nIt has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject\nto copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books\nare our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.\nMarks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the\npublisher to a library and finally to you.\nUsage guidelines\nGoogle is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the\npublic and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to\nprevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.\nWe also ask that you:\n+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for\npersonal, non-commercial purposes.\n+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine\ntranslation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the\nuse of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.\n+ Maintain attribution The Google \"watermark\" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find\nadditional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.\n+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just\nbecause we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other\ncountries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of\nany specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner\nanywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.\nAbout Google Book Search\nGoogle's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers\ndiscover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web\nathttp://books.google.com/\nNYPL RESEARCH LIBRARIES\nTSB\n3 3433 02050330 O\nSweet, Sylvanus H.\nReport on the proposed\nChesapeake Bay and Potomac\nRiver tide-water canal,\nfrom Washington to Annapo-\nlis.\n1866.\nNot in R.D\n913-27 B.K\nCompliments of S.H Sweet\nas\nTHE NEW YORK\nPUBLIC LIBRARY\nASTOR FOUNDATION\nR\nΓ\nEPORT\nON, THE PROPOSED\nChesapeake Bay and Potomac River\nTide-Water Canal,\nFROM\nWASHINGTON to annapolis.\nS. H. SWEET, Engineer.\nSweet\nALBANY:\nARGUS COMPANY, PRINTERS.\n)\n1866.\nK\nDigitized by Google\nDigitized by Google\nREPORT\nON THE PROPOSED\nChesapeake Bay and Potomac River Tide-Water Canal,\nFROM\nWASHINGTON TO ANNAPOLIS.\nS. H. SWEET, Engineer.\nALBANY:\nARGUS COMPANY, PRINTERS.\n1866.\nMSm.\nDigitized by Google\nDigitized by Google\nOFFICE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND POTOMAC\nRIVER TIDE-WATER CANAL COMPANY,\nWASHINGTON, D. C., August 23d, 1866.\nan\nTo the Corporators of the Ches. Bay & Potomac River T. W. Canal:\nGENTLEMEN - I herewith transmit a report upon the feasibility\nand cost of constructing the 6. Chesapeake Bay and Potomac River\nTide-water Canal.\"\nARGUMENT.\nThe length of the proposed canal route from Washington to\nAnnapolis, is 34 miles. The distance between the same points via\nPotomac River and Chesapeake Bay, is 190 miles; saving in distance\n156 miles, and from 24 to 30 hours in time to all the markets of the\nEast. The total saving to the consumers of Cumberland coal alone,\nwould, upon the yield of 1865 and rates of 1866, amount to over\none million dollars annually. (For cost of transportation, see appen-\ndix A).\nBy the proposed canal route, the cost of transportation from\nCumberland would be 25 per cent less to New York, 35 per cent\nless to Philadelphia, and 34 per cent less to Baltimore, than if sent\nover the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and inland canal route. Upon\nthe rates of 1866, this would reduce the cost per ton at New York\n$1.60, at Philadelphia $1.84, and at Baltimore $1.29; resulting in a\nsaving of $576,000 at New York (assuming that one-half brought to\ntide over the road is shipped to that point), of $165,600 at Philadel-\nphia (on one-sixth the whole tonnage), and $116,100 at Baltimore.\nAs affecting the cost over the present water lines from Cumber-\nland to the eastern markets, it would cheapen the cost of transport-\nation 10 per cent to New York, 11 per cent to Philadelphia, and\n12 per cent to Baltimore, and reduce the cost of coal to New York\n54 cents per ton, 50 cents to Philadelphia, and 43 cents to Baltimore.\nAssuming, as in the first case, that two-thirds is sent to New\nYork, one-sixth to Philadelphia, and one-sixth to Baltimore, the\nresult would be a saving of $123,600 at New York, $28,500 at'\nPhiladelphia, and $24,500 at Baltimore; making a total saving to\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nIV.\nthe coal consumers of New York of $700,000, Philadelphia $194,-\n100, and Baltimore of $140,610; total $1,034,710, equal to an\naverage reduction of $1.20 per ton.\nAs to the local trade with the District of Columbia, the advan-\ntages gained are equally as important. From Washington, the cost\nof transportation would be 13 per cent less to New York, 26 per\ncent less to Philadelphia, 38 per cent less to Havre de Grace, and\n40 per cent less to Baltimore than if sent via the Potomac River,\nChesapeake Bay and inland canal route. Assuming the consumption\nof anthracite coal within the district at 150,000 tons annually (which\nis not an over estimate), and that one-half comes from Philadelphia\nand the balance from Havre de Grace the saving to consumers\nupon the rates of 1866, from Philadelphia would be $31,125, and\nfrom Havre de Grace, $28,500 total $59,625, equal to an average\nreduction of 40 cents per ton. The average distance saved to the\nabove points is 153 miles, and in time from 24 to 30 hours.\nBy referring to appendices B and D, it will be seen that the con-\nstruction of this canal is of vital importance to the Chesapeake and\nOhio Canal. Great difficulty is now experienced in obtaining\nvessels at Georgetown, and the consequence is, that large shipments\nnow made at this port, are by vessels especially chartered at New\nYork and Boston at increased rates. This embarrassment is not\nexperienced at Baltimore, from the variety and magnitude of its\ncommerce, and would not be so for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal if\nits terminus was brought near Baltimore. Annapolis (the terminus\nof the proposed canal) is only 38 miles from Baltimore, while\nGeorgetown is 225 miles; and the distance by ocean, from Anna-\npolis, is 70 miles less to New York than from Georgetown. This\nadvantage, together with the control of railroad lines leading from-\nCumberland into the mines, would make the coal tonnage of the\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal equal to one million tons annually,\ninstead of one-third of that amount.\nThe Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company now pay the Cum-\nberland and Pennsylvania Railroad Company $1.04 for the trans-\nportation of a ton of coal 23 miles, from the mines to the canal, 150\nper cent greater than charged upon any of the coal roads of Penn-\nsylvania, as shown in appendix D. The actual cost of transporting\nthe same over the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad would be 22 cents\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nV.\nper ton, a difference of 82 cents per ton that would be saved if con-\ntrolled by the canal company. The rates now charged via ocean,\nfrom Baltimore to New York, are $2.65 per-ton, and from George-\ntown, $3.00. Allowing the same rates from Annapolis, and the\ncharges would be $2.48 per ton, a saving of 52 cents per ton, if\nshipped at Annapolis instead of Georgetown; and a total direct\nsaving by these improvements suggested at the termini of $1.34 per\nton. The coal tonnage of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, for\n1865, was 343,202 tons. Assuming that two-thirds of this quantity\nwent to New York, the amount that would have been saved on\nthis, is $281,425 at Cumberland terminus, and $119,000 at Anna-\npolis terminus; total $400,425, equal to 10 per cent on a capital of\nfour million dollars.\nBy referring to appendix D, it will be observed that the lowest\nthe Baltimore and Ohio Railroad can reduce its rates, is mills\nper ton per mile, while upon the same relative basis of cost the\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal can reduce its rates as low as 4100 mills\nper ton. These rates are without profits to carriers or stockholders.\nAs shown in appendix A, the average cost of transportation of coal\nupon railroads is 2½ times the average cost on canals, 4 times the\naverage upon tidal rivers and bays, and 8 times the average of coal\nsea-borne. The average cost of management on gross receipts, for\nrailroads, average 55 to 65 per cent, and for canals 20 to 35 per\ncent.\nIn the analysis of canals and railroads, appendi D, it was\nfound by experiments on the cost of fuel over different roads, that\nCumberland coal was 121 per cent cheaper for locomotive uses than\nthe semi-bituminous coal of Northern Pennsylvania, 141 per cent\ncheaper than anthracite, and 54 per cent cheaper than wood.\nSize, Capacity and Cost of Canal.\nThe size of the proposed Chesapeake Bay and Potomac River\nTide-water Canal and locks are of the same dimensions as the\nDelaware and Raritan, thus admitting the largest class of boats\ntrading with New York and Philadelphia to the wharves of Wash-\nington without transhipment, and of a capacity to pass vessels of\n270 tons burthen. The summit level is 90 feet above mean tide,\nrequiring 18 lift locks of 10 feet each, and two tidal locks, seven\nDigitized by Google\nVI.\nfeet lift each. The prism is 75 feet wide at surface of water, 47 feet\nat bottom, and seven feet depth. The locks are 110 feet in length\nbetween quoins, and 24 feet wide.\nThe total quantity of water required to supply this canal is 12,487\ncubic feet per minute, for 270 days navigable season, based upon a\ntrade of 120 passages per day, and annual tonnage capacity of six\nto eight million tons. It is proposed to obtain this quantity of\nwater mainly from the Big and Little Patuxents, which furnished\nin the aggregate, from careful measurements last August, 8600 cubic\nfeet per minute; the balance from one or more reservoirs on the\nBig Patuxent The drainage area required to supply this quantity\nfor 270 days; is 27,071 acres, including area of pond. Ample facili-\nties are offered for the construction of reservoirs and receiving from\nthis source an abundant supply of water, or four times the quantity\nrequired. upon the branches of the Big Patuxent alone, as will be\nseen by reference to page 33.\nThe estimated cost of canal on the South River line, for timber\nlocks and bridge supports, and inner slopes faced with slope walls\nand lining the entire length of canal, including five per cent for\ncontingencies, is $3,539,420. The same, without slope walls and\ncontingencies, $3,045,106. The estimated cost for wooden locks\nand bridge supports, with protection walls on both slopes for one-\nhalf the length of canal, including five per cent for contingencies,\nis $3,369,390, equal to $132,133 per mile. The same, upon the line\nterminating at Round Bay, is $3,552,101, equal to $139,298 per\nmile.\nSince the completion of the surveys proper, and while the report\nand estimates were being prepared, a reconnoissance was made, by\nwhich it was found that the lines could be shortened three miles\nwithout materially increasing the cuttings. This would reduce the\ncost of the South River line $396,396, making the total cost upon\nlast-mentioned basis $2,972,994, and the Round Bay line $3,134,207.\nIf the South River line should terminate at South River, instead of\ncontinuing the canal through the ridge 1½ miles to Annapolis, the\ntotal cost would be $2,769,294. The following presents the esti-\nmated cost of the two lines as revised, with wooden locks and bridge\nsupports, and slope walls and lining for one-half the length of canal,\nincluding five per cent for contingencies:\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nVII.\nSouth River Line, terminating at South River. $2,769,294-$115,383 per mile.\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\" Annapolis\n2,972,994 = 116,588\n\"\nRound Bay Line\n\"\n\" Severn River, 3,134,207 - 122,910\n\"\nThe inducements presented for adopting the Round Bay line are,\nthat if desirable at any future time to extend this canal to Balti-\nmore, it could be accomplished at a small expense by connecting\nthe arms of the bay, requiring in the aggregate only from 21/2 to\nthree miles of canal, which would shorten the distance between\nthese points nearly one-half, or 15 miles, and make the total distance\nfrom Washington to Baltimore 51 miles, 174 miles less than by the\nChesapeake Bay and Potomac River, and only 11 miles greater than\nby railroad. I am of the opinion that a canal thus constructed from\nWashington to Baltimore, the cost would not exceed $3,850,000.\nAs shown in the analysis of canals and railroads, appendix D,\nall of the Atlantic coast canals, between New York city and Pamlico\nSound, are of the first-class investments of this country. The\nChesapeake and Albemarle Canal yields an annual net revenue of\n21 per cent on its cost; the Chesapeake and Delaware, 10 per cent,\nand the Delaware and Raritan, 24 per cent on its cost. The Chesa-\npeake and Ohio Canal, under its present bad management, yields\nan annual net revenue of 7% per cent on a capital of $2,640,340\nthe Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 17 per cent net revenue on its\ncost. The Atlantic coast canals form an inland communication for\nvessels of 270 to 300 tons burthen from New York city to Pamlico\nRiver, a distance of 514 miles.\nFor a more full discussion of the questions involved in this pro-\nject, I would most respectfully call your attention to the following\nreport and appendices:\nAppendix A shows the cost of transportation of coal, and freight\nother than coal, upon railroads, canals, tidal rivers and bays, and\nsea-borne.\nAppendix B embraces descriptions of the principal bituminous\ncoal mines, quality and character of coal, also the relative cost and\ndistances of same from market.\nAppendix C-Sketch of Maryland, its climate, soil, productions and\nresources, physical characteristics and the estimated revenue that\nwould be received along the line of the proposed canal.\nAppendix D embraces descriptions in detail, also an analysis of\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nVIII.\neach of the Atlantic coast canals, showing trade, cost of manage-\nment and net revenue on investment; also same for the Chesapeake\nand Ohio and New York State canals for 1865, and the Baltimore\nand Ohio Railroad for 1863. The latter embraces important exper-\niments and deductions on the cost of fuel, also the service of loco-\nmotives.\nAppendix E-Synopsis of all former surveys for a canal from\nWashington to Baltimore.\nAppendix F-Report of Thomas Franklin, assistant engineer,\ngiving elevations above mean tide and distances upon the lines sur-\nveyed for the present proposed canal.\nIn regard to the probable business of the proposed Chesapeake\nBay and Potomac River T. W. Canal, I would add: That from the\ncareful analysis made of the length of routes and the cost of trans-\nportation over each, the great advantages resulting from its construc-\ntion would make it the key controlling the entire trade from the\nCumberland coal fields and the District of Columbia. It would draw\ncommerce to the District, and take all of that which now passes down\nthe Potomac, destined eastward. It would restore and establish the\ncommercial supremacy of Washington, SO long abandoned to her more\nenterprising sister cities, and convert her capacious canal, now used\nas a sewer, into a harbor for all transhipments from the interior, of\ntraffic destined to markets along the coast east of Baltimore.\nThese results will most assuredly be secured, as already demon-\nstrated; and if the commerce of the District, with an aggregate popu-\nlation of 100,000 inhabitants, together with the advantages to secure\nat least seven-eighths of the traffic from the Cumberland coal fields,\nis an inducement to capitalists, then I would recommend the\nspeedy construction of this canal. I have adopted the method of\nshowing the ability of this canal to compete, rather than attempt an\nestimate of its probable tonnage and revenues.\nRespectfully submitted.\nS. H. SWEET,\nEngineer in charge.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nREPORT.\nThe surveys were commenced March 14th, and the field work\ncompleted about the middle of June, 1866. During this time over\n100 miles were carefully examined with the transit and level, and\n50 miles of reconnoissance made with the level only.\nThe examinations were first directed toward finding a feasible\nroute for a tide-water canal, and, failing in this, our instructions\nwere to obtain the most practicable route for an elevated or lock\ncanal.\nEXAMINATIONS FOR A TIDE-WATER CANAL\nThe surveys were commenced on the Eastern Branch Potomac,\nat the mouth of \" Beaver Dam Creek,\" and the valley of this stream\nwas surveyed four miles from its mouth, resulting in an elevation\nof 80 feet above mean tide. This line was abandoned, and another\nrun up the \"Cat-tail Branch a distance of six miles, and meeting\nwith an elevation of 181 above tide; a third line was traced up\nthe northeast prong of the Cat-tail Branch, meeting with an eleva-\ntion of 1561 feet above tide 61 miles from the Eastern Branch.\nThis line was also deemed impracticable, and another line was\nsurveyed up the \"Cabin Branch\" a distance of four miles, at\nwhich an elevation was found of 110 feet above tide within two\nmiles of the summit. A reconnoissance was then made in the\nvicinity of the head-waters of the Piscataway, to find, if possible, a\ngap through the ridge or table land; but the country proved more\nformidable than by the first lines, and all further attempts for this\nobject were abandoned.\nThis singular plain, commencing at the foot of Parr's Ridge, is of\ncomparatively recent formation, and belongs to the great Atlantic\nplain, which extends from the Hudson to the Mississippi. Parr's\nRidge (the base of which is composed of primary rocks of the\nstratified series) was once the original shore line of the sea, and the\nDigitized by Google\n2\nintervening country to Point Lookout (composed of tertiary beds\nof clay and sand, highly fossiliferous) was by a slow process uni.\nformly packed by the united action of the two great rivers along\nits borders, the Potomac and Susquehanna. The records of numer-\nous surveys show that the highest elevations throughout this lower\nplain, as also the lowest depressions, keep about the same general\nlevel above the sea. Parr's Ridge sweeps semi-circular from the\nSusquehanna, passing about 30 miles north of Baltimore, reaching\nthe Potomac below the mouth of the \"Monocacy,\" with a uniform\nelevation of from 850 to 1,000 feet above tide.\nEXAMINATIONS FOR A LOCK CANAL\nAfter a thorough examination of the country, the most practicable\nroute for a lock canal was found, having two feasible termini (from\nthe Big Patuxent) on Chesapeake Bay one on South River, and the\nother on the Severn, at Round Bay. This line, for description, is\ncalled upper line B.\nThis line commences at the Annacosta or Eastern Branch Poto-\nmac, three-quarters of a mile from Bladensburg, and about 41 miles\nfrom Washington. It follows up the Paint Branch\" about seven\nmiles, with a uniform grade of 10 feet to the mile; thence up the\nBeaver Dam Branch about four miles, with a grade of 13½ feet,\ncrossing the summit, 156 feet above tide, upon the land of Luther\nD. Jones, Esq. It then follows down Cass Valley\" about two\nmiles, on a grade of 32 feet per mile, reaching an elevation of\n90 feet above tide on the land of Dr. Wm. Duvall. The line then\nfollows along the western bank of the Big Patuxent valley, at an\nelevation of about 95 feet above tide, for 2½ miles, crossing the\nHorse pen Branch,\" the valley of which is 50 feet above tide.\nThe line crosses the Big Patuxent at \"Priest's Bridge,\" one-half\nmile below the junction of the Little with the Big Patuxent. The\nsurface of water of the latter stream was found 25 feet above tide.\nFrom the Patuxent the line passes up \"Sanford's Branch' about\ntwo miles, with a grade of 22 feet per mile, and crosses the summit,\nbetween the Patuxent and South River, 165 feet above tide. From\nthis summit the line follows down \"North Run Branch\" three\nmiles, to South River, at Clagett's Landing; thence down South\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n3\nRiver 4⁴ miles; thence across the ridge 1½ miles, to Annapolis Bay.\nThe summit of this ridge is 50 feet above tide. The total distance,\nby this line, from Washington to Annapolis, is 34½¹ miles, 251 of\nwhich is canal.\nROUND BAY TERMINUS,\nThis line commences three-quarters of a mile west of the Big\nPatuxent, on the line described above, and this stream is crossed\nabove the forks. The surface of water in the creek is 48 feet\nabove tide, and the summit, between the Little and Big Patuxents,\n165 feet above tide, on the land of Chas. T. Bealmer, Esq. From\nthe summit, the line approaches the Little Patuxent on a grade of\n60 feet per mile, and crosses this stream near \" White's Mill,\" the\nsurface of water being 43 feet above tide. The line then follows\nup \" Tower's Branch,\" reaching the summit, between the water sheds\nof South and Severn rivers, on the land of L. W. Wharfield, 1321\nfeet above tide. \"From this summit two lines are presented, one\nto the Severn and the other to South River; the latter, from recon-\nnoissance, found one mile shorter, and the grade as favorable.\" (See\nThomas Franklin's report, Appendix E, giving report of the seve-\nral lines in detail, also elevations and distances upon all the lines.)\nThe summit between the South and Severn rivers is found, on\nthis line, at an elevation of 100 feet above tide; thence (cross-\ning the Elk Ridge Railroad 100 feet above tide) passes down\n'Indian Creek,\" on a grade of about 231/2 feet per mile, to Round\nBay, on the Severn, seven miles from Annapolis. The length of\nthis line is as follows:\nDistance from tide to tide-Potomac to Severn River-total of canal. 251 miles.\ndo do Eastern Branch Potomac to Washington\n41 de\ndo used of Severn River, from terminus to Annapolis\n7\ndo\nTotal distance from Washington to Annapolis\n362 miles.\nSince the commencement of this report, Messrs. Franklin and Carter made a reconnoissance with the\nlevel, with a view of improving the above described lines, in which they were very successful, as will\nbe seen from the following report of Mr. Franklin: \"The line is much shorter than either of the other\nlines, it being the chord of which the Beltsville, or upper line B, is the arc. By this line the total dis-\ntance of actual canal would be reduced to 221, miles to either South River or Round Bay, and the\nsummit but a few feet higher. The ridge between the 'Fally and Horse-pen Branches' can be\navoided in part by increasing the length of line about one-half mile.\" Desiring to be on the safe side,\nI have made no estimate upon this improved line, and have not in any of the calculations made use of it\nin the Report proper.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n4\nGENERAL PLAN AND SIZE OF CANAL ADOPTED.\nIn deciding upon the height of the summit level, especial import-\nance was given to the reduction of lockage. From an accurate\ncalculation, the grades or lockage on the Pennsylvania canals\nincrease the actual cost of transportation (exclusive of tolls) 40 per\ncent. Upon the New York State canals, the average time, for the sea-\nson, consumed in overcoming feet of lockage, is equal to that\nin passing over one mile of canal. The time in passing through\nthe locks average 25 feet, as equal to one mile, but in falling from\nand recovering the original speed, together with other detentions,\nbring it down to the above standard.\nBy fixing the height of the summit level at 90 feet above mean\ntide, not only was the lockage reduced to a minimum, but also the\ncutting across two-thirds of the summit level, and giving an eleva-\ntion deemed most practical for crossing the valley of the Big\nPatuxent, and for diverting its waters with that of the Little\nPatuxent, by artificial feeders about five miles in length, into the\nsummit level of the canal.\nThe size of the prism and locks were fixed the same as the\nDelaware and Raritan Canal\" for two reasons: first, that the largest\nclass of boats trading between the cities of Philadelphia and New\nYork, could land their cargoes at the wharves of Washington\nwithout transhipment; and, secondly, that locks and canals with\nthese dimensions, secure greater economy in the cost of transporta-\ntion commensurate with the cost of the work, than any within the\nStates of Pennsylvania and New York, except the Erie, Cayuga\nand Seneca, as will appear from the following calculation of the\ncost of movement, is based upon prices previous to 1862, and\nreduced to level canals.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTABLE No. 1.\nSIZE OF CANAL.\nSIZE OF Locks.\nBURTHEN\nCosT OF MOVEMENT.\nBOATS.\nTRACTION OR RESISTANCE.\nMills per ton per mile.\nReduced to a\nlevel.\nNAME OF CANAL.\nLength of main\ncanal.\nWidth at sur-\nface.\nWidth at bot-\ntom.\nDepth of water.\nNo. of locks.\nWidth of cham-\nber.\nLength of cham-\nber.\nAmount feet of\nlockage.\nPractical.\nTheoretical.\nArea boat to area\ncanal.\nWidth boat to\nwidth canal.\nResistance, in\nNo. horses re-\nquired.\nCost, including\ndetentions,\nlockages, &c.\nlbs.\nSpeed, per\nhour.\nCost on lev-\nel canal.\nErie canal\n3501\n70\n56\n7\n71\n18\n110\n655\n210\n240\n1:3.878\n1:4.00\n428\n2.85\n2.21\n2\n1.90\nChenango canal (present)\n97\n40\n24\n3.9-12\n116\n15\n90\n1015\n70\n76\n1:2.553\n1:2.75\n234\n1.56\n6.03\n2\n3.14\n\"\n\"\nwith exten.\n1351\n40\n24\n4\n135\n15\n90\n1086\n76\n80\n1:2.510\n1:2.75\n258\n1.72\n5.25\n2\n3.09\nCayuga and Seneca\n21\n70\n56\n7\n11\n18\n110\n761\n210\n240\n1:3.878\n1:4 00\n428\n2.85\n2.35\n2\n1.90\nChemung\n23\n42\n26\n5\n49\n15\n90\n491\n85\n90\n1:2.576\n1:2.89\n319\n2.12\n6.92\n2\n2.41\nJunction\n18\n42\n26\n41\n11\n17\n90\n70\n85\n100\n1:2.318\n1:2.54\n349\n2.32\n4.70\n2\n3.53\nNorth Branch\n105\n42\n26\n41\n1:2.318\n1:2.54\n349\n2.32\n4.42\n2\n3.86\n5\n37\n17\n90\n280\n85\n100\nWyoming\n64\n40\n28\n41\n1:2.318\n1:2.42\n349\n2.32\n4.42\n2\n3.86\nW. Br. Susquehanna division\n41\n40\n28\n41\n17\n90\n861\n85\n100\n1:2.318\n1:2.42\n349\n2.32\n4.42\n2\n4.00\nPenn.\n\"\n\"\n46\n40\n28\n41\n17\n90\n116\n85\n100\n1:2.318\n1:2.42\n349\n2.32\n4.50\n2\n3.70\nSusqehanna and Tide-water\n45\n40\n28\n41\n17\n90\n235\n85\n100\n1:2.318\n1:2.42\n349\n2.32\n4.94\n2\n3.40\nWest Branch\n76\n40\n28\n41\n17\n90\n1381\n85\n100\n1:2.318\n1:2.42\n349\n2.32\n4.40\n2\n3.82\nDelaware and Hudson\n108\n48\n30\n6\n107\n15\n100\n1028\n120\n130\n1:3.009\n1:3.31\n354\n2.36\n4.15\n2\n2.25\nLehigh, Nav. and canal\n72\n60\n45\n6\n81\n22\n100\n955\n74\n195\n1:2.680\n1:2.86\n567\n3.77\n5.41\n2\n1.70\nMorris canal\n101\n40\n25\n5\n*23\n11\n95\n1674\n74\n76\n1:3.439\n1:3.81\n200\n1.33\n5.00\n2\n2.90\nUnion canal\n773\n43\n28\n41\n95\n17\n90\n395\n85\n100\n1:2.422\n1:2.60\n341\n2.29\n4.86\n2\n3.27\nSchuylkill navigation\n1084\n60\n40\n6\n71\n18\n110\n6181\n170\n186\n1:3.116\n1:3.43\n429\n2.85\n2.98\n2\n2.00\nDigitized by\nDelaware and Raritan\n43\n75\n47\n7\n18\n24\n110\n116\n270\n280\n1:2.798\n1:3.18\n724\n4.82\n2.42\n2\n2.00\nPenn. Delaware division\n60\n44\n26\n61\n32\n11\n90\n166}\n90\n100\n1:3.536\n1:4.18\n235\n1.56\n3.58\n2\n2.88\nChesapeake and Delaware\n13½\n66\n46\n91\n4\n24\n220\n250\n300\n1:2.515\n1:2.80\n1071\n7.14\n2.98\n2\n2.59\nChesapeake and Ohio\n184\n70\n58\n6\n15\n100\n600\n120\n142\n1:4.815\n1:4.82\n309\n2.00\n3.30\n2\n2.60\nGoogle\nPenn. Juniata division\n127\n42\n26\n4\n15\n90\n516\n76\n80\n1:2.666\n1:2.89\n247\n1.64\n4.42\n2\n3.26\n* 23 planes, 23 locks.\nbocks lengthend\n6\nFrom the above calculation, the cost of movement on a level over\nthe Chesapeake and Ohio Canal is 30 per cent greater than over\nthe Delaware and Raritan. The size of prisms are about the same,\nbut the locks of the former are nine feet less in width and ten feet\nless in length than the latter; and, while the cost of construction is\nabout the same, the Delaware and Raritan has double the capacity.\nDESCRIPTION AND ESTIMATED COST OF EACH LINE,\nAS LOCATED.\nUPPER LINE B.\nThe total length of this line, from Washington to Annapolis, is\n341 miles; 251 of which is actual canal, as follows: Distance from\nWashington to Annacosta, 41 miles; Annacosta to summit, between\nPotomac and Patuxent, 11± miles; summit to Big Patuxent,\nmiles; Big Patuxent to summit, between Patuxent and South River,\n2ₜ¹σ miles; summit to South River, 31½ miles; South River to\nCrab Creek, 4 ⁴ miles; Crab to Spa Creek or Annapolis, 1½ miles.\nThere are 20 locks, 18 of which are lift locks of 10 feet each, and\ntwo tide locks at each end, of seven feet lift each. Lock No. 1 is loca-\nted about 800 feet from the Annacosta, and the summit lock, No.\n10, is 91 miles from the Annacosta; the intermediate ones, at nearly\nequal distances apart. The length of the summit level, or from\nNo. 10 to 11, is miles, and from summit lock to South River,\n21 miles; the intermediate locks being at nearly equal distances\napart. These locks overcome a rise and fall of 180 feet.\nThe grade from the Annacosta to the summit cutting is uniform,\nand averages 14 feet per mile. The depth of cutting to the summit\nlock averages from three to four feet at the head of each lock\nascending, and 12 feet at the foot. The total quantity of excavation\non this portion is about 985,900 cubic yards of earth, and about\n66,400 cubic yards of embankment.\nThe distance from the summit lock to the summit cutting is 1%\nmiles, the depth of cutting regularly increasing from 3½ feet to 66\nfeet at the summit, and falling again to a cutting, on the opposite\nside, of seven feet, in a distance of 31 miles from the summit lock.\nThe total quantity of excavation in this distance, through the sum-\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n7\nmit, is 2,420,100 cubic yards, 1,193,400 cubic yards of which is from\na cutting of over 20 feet.\nThe depth of cutting from the foot of the summit to the\nPatuxent is from four to five feet, except for a distance of 500 feet\neach side of the \"Horse-pen Branch,\" where it is from 20 to 25\nfeet. The canal level crosses the Horse-pen Branch at an elevation\nof 40 feet above the water in the creek, and the width of the valley\non this line is about 1,000 feet.\nThe surface of water in the Patuxent is 65 feet below the canal\nlevel, and the bottom of the valley about 60 feet below. The width\nof the valley, at the bottom, is 1,800 feet, and at the top or canal\nlevel, 2,800. To pass this stream will require a four arch stone\nculvert, or one with a single arch of 75 feet span, and to cross the\nvalley, 1,345,800 cubic yards of embankment.\nFor 11 miles east of the Patuxent the line passes along the slope\nof Sanford's Branch, where the excavation is just enough to make\nthe embankments. The greatest depth of cutting through the sum-\nmit, between the Patuxent and South River, is 75 feet, and the\ndistance through it, on a line of seven feet cutting, is 1½ miles,\nrequiring for the distance 1½ million cubic yards of excavation, one\nmillion of which is from a depth of over 20 feet cutting.\nFrom the summit lock, No. 11, to South River, the surface of the\nground falls with a uniform grade of 40 feet per mile, and the cutting\naverages 12 feet in depth at the foot of each lock descending, and\nfrom 21/2 to three feet at the head.\nIt is proposed to use South River from Clagett's Landing to Crab\nCreek, a distance, by triangulation, of 4₅ miles. The depth of\nwater, from the termination of the canal line to six feet depth, is\nabout one-half mile.\nThe distance across the ridge of land separating South River from\nAnnapolis Bay, is 1½ miles. The greatest depth of cutting is 561\nfeet, requiring the removal of 926,000 cubic yards of earth excava-\ntion.\nNo rock is met with on the whole line, and the material being of\nloam, clay and sand, mixed in proper proportions, can be easily\nhandled.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n8\nThe following statement shows the quantity of earth work on each section\n(one mile each) upon the main line (Upper Line B), from the\nAnnacosta to Annapolis.\nCUBIC YARDS.\nCUBIC YARDS.\nNo. OF SECTION.\nNo. OF SECTION.\nExcavation.\nEmbankment.\nExcavation.\nEmbankment.\nNo. 1\n112,700\nNo. 14\n6,700\n161,800\n\"\n2\n146,100\n\" 15\n27,800\n103,800\n\"\n3\n91,900\n11,700\n\" 16\n70,900\n29,500\n\"\n4\n75,300\n25,600\n\" 17\n79,000\n145,800\n\"\n5\n99,100\n4,100\n\" 18\n112,300\n\"\n6\n99,100\n4,100\n\"\n19\n56,100\n1,345,800\n\"\n7\n114,700\n\" 20\n55,700\n\"\n8\n83,400\n18,200\n\" 21\n1,188,800\n\"\n9\n100,600\n2,700\n\" 22\n240,900\n\" 10\n114,700\n\" 23\n112,000\n\" 11\n610,900\n\" 24\n112,100\n\"\n12\n1,193,700\n\"\n25\n2,200\n\"\n13\n186,000\nCrab to SpaCr\n926,000\nTOTAL\n6,018,700\n1,853,100\nEstimate of the Cost of Constructing the CHESAPEAKE BAY AND Poro-\nMAC RIVER TIDE-WATER CANAL, on Upper Line B, South River\nterminus.\nTotal length miles of canal, 25}. Summit level, 90 feet above tide. Locks, 110 feet in length between\nquoins, and 24 feet wide in the clear. Prism, 47 feet wide on the bottom, 75 feet wide at surface water,\nand 7 feet deep. The locks to be constructed of timber, also the bridge landings or abutments, and all\nthe culverts of rock-dressed masonry. The inside slopes of canal banks to be protected with slope wall\none foot thick. The prices used are 75 per cent greater than previous to 1861 for the same character of\nwork.\nQUANTITIES.\nITEMS.\nPRICE.\nAMOUNT.\n300 acres\nGrubbing and clearing\n$50 00\n$15,000 00\n25 sections\nBailing and draining\n350 00\n8,750 00\n6,018,700\nCubic yards excavation earth (no rock)\n22\n1,324,114 00\n1,853,100\n\"\nembankment\n20\n370,620 00\n116,400\n\"\nlining in rear walls\n25\n29,100 00\n132,700\n\"\nslope or protection walls\n2 25\n298, 575 00\n80,000\n\"\npuddling in banks\n20\n16,000 00\n1,800\n\"\nvertical wall (dry)\n4 00\n7,200 00\n1,000\n\"\n\"\n\" (in cement)\n5 00\n5,000 00\n158,400\nLineal feet piles driven at termini\n28\n44,352 00\n253,500\nFeet B. M. hemlock timber under walls\n20 00\n5,070 00\nTOTAL COST SECTION WORK\n$2,123,781 00\nDigitized by Google\n9\nQUANTITIES.\nITEMS.\nAMOUNT.\n20\nWooden locks, including fixtures, adjoining piers\nand docks\n$768,000 00\n10\nRoad bridges, including embankments and abut-\nments of timber\n30,000 00\n4\nSmall stone culverts (arch)\n30,000 00\n9\nReceivers\n18,000 00\n1\nLarge four arch stone culvert at Patuxent\n128,000 00\n5\nMiles feeder\n75,000 00\n1\nReservoir, including land damages, 600 acres\n200,000 00\nTOTAL COST CANAL, WITH WOODEN LOCKS AND PROTECT'N WALLS\n$3,372,781 00\nCost of canal, wooden locks, slope walls, with five per cent\nadded for contingencies\n3,539,420 05\nSame without slope walls, with five per cent added for contin-\ngencies\n3,197,361 30\nSame with slope walls for half length canal, with contingencies\n3,369,390 15\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nand stone locks in-\nstead of wood, with contingencies\n3,881,390 15\n(Wooden locks in the State of New York cost 40 per cent less than stone locks.)\nROUND BAY LINE C.\nFrom Eastern Branch Potomac or Annacosta to within three\nfourths of a mile of the west side of the valley of the \"Big Patux-\nent\" the line is the same as described on upper line B.\nCommencing on the summit level, three-fourths of a mile west of\nthe Patuxent, the canal line is carried across the valley of the\n\"Big Patuxent\" at an elevation of 48 feet above the water, and\nabout 22 feet above the valley. The width of the valley, at this\nelevation (on the canal level), is 3,800 feet, and at the bottom, 2,500\nfeet. To pass this stream will require a four arch stone culvert, or,\nwhich would be more preferable, a single semi-circular arch of 50\nfeet span and to cross the valley, 538,000 cubic yards of embank-\nment.\nThe greatest depth of cutting through the ridge between the\nLittle and Big Patuxent is 65 feet, being one mile from the Big, and\n1100 miles from the Little Patuxent; making the distance between\nthese two streams 2TTor miles. The distance through this summit,\non a line of seven feet cutting, is 4,000 feet, and the quantity of\nexcavation required, about 1,266,000 cubic yards, 800,000 cubic\nyards of which is from a cutting of over 40 feet,\n2\nDigitized by Google\n10\nThe canal level crosses the valley of the Little Patuxent at an\nelevation of 43 feet above the water, and about 40 feet above the\nvalley. The width of the valley, at the bottom, is about 1,200 feet,\nand at canal level, 3,200 feet. To pass this stream will require a\nfour arch stone culvert or a single arch of 50 feet span and to cross\nthe valley, 831,000 cubic yards of embankment.\nAfter leaving the Little Patuxent, the line passes through a wide\nridge dividing the waters of South from Severn River. The length\nthrough this ridge, on a line of seven feet cutting, is 8,600 feet, and\nthe distance through, on a line of 30 feet cutting, is 7,200 feet. The\ngreatest depth of cutting is 42 feet, and the average for the whole\ndistance about 34 feet. To pass through this ridge will require the\nremoval of 1,371,000 cubic yards of excavation. This summit\ncommences about 20 miles and ends 22 miles from the Annacosta.\nThe eastern end of the summit level is 2TTTO miles from Round\nBay, and 2,100 feet west of the \"Annapolis Elk Ridge Railroad.\"\nIt is proposed to pass the canal under this railroad, by a tunnel, as\nthe road is about 30 feet above the bottom of canal. The cut-\nting from the summit lock to Round Bay, is light. The grade is\nuniform, and the locks are located at nearly equal distances apart.\nThe distance from the canal terminus, at Round Bay, to Annapolis,\nby the Severn River, is seven miles. The total distance, by this\nline, from Washington to Annapolis, is 364 miles, 251 of which is\nactual canal.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n11\nThe following statement shows the quantity of earth work upon the main\nline (Round Bay Line C), from the Annacosta to Annapolis.\nThe length of summit level on this line is 13% miles.\nCUBIC YARDS.\nCUBIC YARDS.\nNo. OF SECTION.\nNo. OF SECTION.\nExcavation.\nEmbankment.\nExcavation.\nEmbankment.\nNo. 1\n112,700\nNo. 14\n6,700\n161,800\n\"\n2\n146,100\n\"\n15\n27,800\n103,800\n\"\n3\n91,900\n11,700\n\"\n16\n25,000\n393,000\n\"\n4\n75,300\n25,600\n\" 17\n1,162,000\n145,000\n\"\n5\n99,100\n4,100\n\"\n18\n104,700\n277,000\n\"\n6\n99,100\n4,100\n\"\n19\n223,300\n554,000\n\"\n7\n114,700\n\" 20\n112,200\n\"\n8\n83,400\n18,200\n\"\n21\n685,100\n\"\n9\n100,600\n2,700\n\" 22\n696,000\n\" 10\n114,700\n\"\n23\n12,000\n265,000\n\" 11\n610,900\n\" 24\n112,200\n\"\n12\n1,193,400\n\"\n25\n112,200\n\"\n13\n186,000\n\"\n251\n45,600\nTOTAL\n5,952,700\n1,966,000\nEstimate of the Cost of Constructing the CHESAPEAKE BAY AND\nPOTOMAC RIVER TIDE-WATER CANAL, upon Line C, terminating\nat Round Bay.\nTotal length miles canal, 25}. Summit level, 90 feet above tide. Locks, 110 feet in length between\nquoins, and 24 feet wide in the clear. Prism, 47 feet wide on bottom, and 75 feet wide at surface of\nwater, with 7 feet depth. The locks to be constructed of timber, also the bridge landings, and all the\nculverts of rock-dressed masonry. The inside slopes of the banks to be protected with slope wall one\nfoot thick. The prices used are 75 per cent greater than previous to 1861 for the same character of\nwork.\nQUANTITIES.\nITEMS.\nPRICE.\nAMOUNT.\n300 acres\nGrubbing and clearing\n$50 00\n$15,000 00\n25 sections\nBailing and draining\n350 00\n8,750 00\n5,952,700\nCubic yards excavation earth (no rock)\n22\n1,309,594 00\n1,966,000\n\"\nembankment\n20\n393,200 00\n116,400\n\"\nlining in rear walls\n25\n29,100 00\n132,700\n\"\nslope or protection walls\n2 25\n298, 00\n180,000\n\"\npuddling in banks\n20\n36,000 00\n1,800\n\".\nvertical wall, laid dry\n4 00\n7,200 00\n1,000\n\"\n\"\nin cement\n5 00\n5,000 00\n158,400\nLineal feet piles driven at termini\n28\n44,352 00\n253,500\nFeet B. M. hemlock timber under walls\n20 00\n5,070 00\nTOTAL COST SECTION WORK\n$2,151,841 00\nDigitized by Google\n12\nQUANTITIES.\nITEMS.\nAMOUNT.\n20\nWooden locks, including fixtures, piers and\ndocking\n$768,000 00\n21\nRoad bridges, including embankments and land-\nings\n63,000 00\n2\nSmall stone culverts\n15,000 00\n2\nLarge four arch culverts at two Patuxents\n256,000.00\n9\nReceivers\n18,000 00\n5\nMiles feeder\n75,000 00\n1\nReservoir, including land damages, 600 acres\n200,000 00\nTOTAL COST CANAL, WITH WOODEN LOCKS AND PROTECT'N WALLS\n$3,546,841 00\nSame with five per cent added for contingencies\n3,724,183 05\nSame with slope walls for half length canal, with contingencies\n3,552,101 70\nSame without slope walls, with contingencies\n3,380,124 30\nSame with stone locks and slope walls for half length canal,\nand contingencies\n3,892,124 30\nI would recommend, for this canal, the construction of wooden\nlocks, and wood supports for the bridges, instead of stone; as the\nmaterial for the former is more accessible than for the latter. It\nwould reduce the original cost of canal over one-half million dol-\nlars, greatly facilitate the completion of the canal, which could be\nmade available in transporting and distributing the heavier mate-\nrials for stone structures whenever the old ones require rebuilding.\nWooden locks will last, with slight repairs, 20 years.\nCOST OF CANAL PER MILE.\nThe following shows the cost per mile of the two lines, based\nupon the construction of wooden locks, and protection or slope\nwalls entire length :\nUpper Line B-South River terminus\n$138,800 per mile, including contingencies.\nLine C-Round Bay\ndo\n146,046\n\"\nAverage or intermediate line, including land damages\n144,923\n\"\n\"\nReducing the above cost to its equivalent upon prices previous\nto 1862, and adding $63,750 for land damages, the cost per mile, as\ncompared with the New York State canals, is shown by the follow-\ning statement :\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nTABLE No 2.\nSIZE OF CANAL.\nNo. AND SIZE Locks.\nNAME OF CANAL.\nLength in miles.\nWidth on surface.\nWidth on bottom.\nDepth of water.\nNumber of locks.\nLength between\nquoins.\nWidth in clear.\nCest per mile, canal im-\nprovement and land dam-\nages.\nFeet of lockage.\nAverage burthen boats.\nMaximum burthen of boats.\nChes. Bay and Pot'ac R. T. W.\n251\n75\n47\n7\n20\n110\n24\n$82,813 00\n180\n270\n280\nErie Canal.\n363\n40\n28\n4\n83\n90\n15\n19,679 87\n6751\n70\n76\n\"\nenlargement same\n3501\n70\n56\n7\n71\n110\n18\n90,824 65\n655\n210\n240\nOswego Canal\n38\n40\n24\n4\n18\n90\n15\n14,880 00\n155\n70\n76\n\"\nenlargement same\n38\n70\n56\n7\n18\n110\n18\n66,105 00\n155\n210\n240\n13\nCayuga and Seneca Canal\n21\n40\n24\n4\n10\n90\n15\n10,190 50\n831\n70\n76\n\"\nenlargement same\n23\n70\n56\n7\n11\n110\n18\n49,282 00\n831\n210\n240\nChamplain Canal\n66\n50\n35\n5\n20\n100\n18\n\"\n12\n~~\n~\n1664\n80\n85\nGlens Falls feeder\n12\n50\n35\n5\n100\n18\n21,556 32\n132\n80\n85\n\"\npond ab. Troy dam\n3\n1\nBlack River Canal and feeder\n50\n42\n26\n4\n109\n90\n15\n60,000 00\n1,082\n70\n76\n\"\nimprovement\n42\n1\n110\n18\n3,707 00\n70\n76\nGenesee Valley Canal\n1244\n42\n26\n4\n112\n90\n15\n45,305 00\n1,0454\n70\n76\nChenango Canal\n97\n40\n24\n4\n116\n90\n15\n25,684 00\n1,015$\n71\n76\nChemung Canal and feeder\n39\n42\n26\n41\n53\n90\n15\n26,983 00\n421\n85\n90\nDigitized by\nOneida River improvement\n20\n80\n60\n41\n2\n120\n30\n5,397 00\n64\n70\n76\nOneida Lake Canal\n7\n40\n24\n4\n7\n90\n15\n7,143 00\n604\n70\n76\nBaldwin'le and Sen. tow path\n54\n40\n24\n4\n1\n90\n15\n2,884 00\n70\n76\nCrooked Lake Canal\n8\n42\n26\n4\n27\n90\n15\n38,262 00\n278\n70\n76\nGoogle\n14\nTHE COST PER MILE, AS COMPARED WITH THE ATLANTIC COAST\nCANALS.\nChes. Bay and Potomac River T. W. Canal-length 251 miles. $82,813 pr mile.\nChesapeake and Delaware\n\"\n\"\n14\n\"\n232,290\n\"\nDelaware and Raritan\n\"\n\"\n43\n\"\n80,000\n\"\nQUANTITY OF WATER REQUIRED FOR THE CHESAPEAKE\nBAY AND POTOMAC RIVER TIDE-WATER CANAL.\nThe questions involved in the solution of this problem are :\nEvaporation, Filtration, Waste at Structures, Lockage Water and\nLeakage at the summit locks.\n1st. EVAPORATION FROM WATER SURFACES.\nThe evaporation from water surfaces exceeds the annual fall of\nrain on an average of 50 per cent in this country, and from 30 to\n40 per cent in England.\nThe following statement shows the mean monthly evaporation from\nwater surface, and from the surface of the ground, in England,\nduring the years 1796, 1797 and 1798, by HOYLE & DALTON; to\nwhich is affixed the average daily evaporation, deduced from the\nmonthly.\n[From the Edinburgh Encyclopedia.]\nNo. 1.\nEVAPORATION FROM THE SURFACE OF\nMean\nMONTHS.\nWATER.\nGROUND.\nRain.\nMonthly\nDaily\nMonthly\nDaily\ninches.\ninches.\ninches.\ninches.\nJanuary\n2.46\n1.50\n0.0484\n1.01\n0.0326\nFebruary\n1.80\n2.00\n0.0714\n.53\n0.0189\nMarch\n0.90\n3.50\n0.1129\n.62\n0.0200\nApril\n1.72\n4.50\n0.1500\n1.49\n0.0496\nMay\n4.18\n4.96\n0.1600\n2.69\n0.0868\nJune\n2 48\n6.49\n0.2163\n2.18\n0.0726\nJuly\n4.15\n5.63\n0.1816\n4.09\n0.1319\nAugust\n3.55\n6.06\n0.1955\n3.38\n0.1090\nSeptember\n3.28\n3.90\n0.1300\n2.95\n0.0983\nOctober\n2.90\n2.35\n0.0758\n2.67\n0.0861\nNovember\n2.93\n2.04\n0.0680\n2.05\n0.0683\nDecember\n3.20\n1.50\n0.0484\n1.48\n0.0477\nAmount\n33.55\n44.43\n25.14\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n15\nFrom this statement, the greatest daily evaporation was in June=\n0.2163, or less than one-fourth of an inch. The annual evaporation\nwas 44143 inches, 30 per cent or one-third greater than the fall of\nrain.\nOf the Monthly Evaporation from the surface of. water, at Ogdensburgh,\nN. Y., in 1838, by JAMES COFFIN, Esq., Principal of the Ogdens:\nburgh Academy; to which is affixed the average daily evaporation\nfor each month, deduced from the monthly, also, the monthly tempera-\nture and rain.\n[From the Report of the Regents of the University of N. Y. for 1838.]\nNo. 2.\nEVAPORATION.\nMONTHS.\nInches of rain\nDegrees of\nand snow.\ntemperature.\nMonthly\nDaily\ninches.\ninches.\nJanuary\n1.625\n0.0533\n2.36\n24.75\nFebruary\n.817\n0.0292\n.97\n12.33\nMarch\n2.067\n0 0667\n1.18\n32.94\nApril\n1.625\n0.0542\n.40\n39.81\nMay\n7.100\n0.2290\n4.81\n52.54\nJune\n6.745\n0.2248\n3.57\n66.53\nJuly\n7.788\n0.2512\n1.88\n71.66\nAugust\n5.415\n0.1745\n2.55\n68.31\nSeptember\n7.400\n0.2466\n1.01\n59.22\nOctober\n3.948\n0.1273\n2.73\n44.58\nNovember\n3.659\n0.1220\n2.07\n29.74\nDecember\n1.146\n0.0370\n1.08\n19.43\nAmount\n49.362\n24.61\nThis statement shows the greatest daily evaporation to be 0.2512,\nor one-quarter of an inch, which occurred in July, and the annual\nat 49ToB feet. The evaporation in this table is a\nlittle over 50 per cent greater than or double the fall of rain and\nsnow.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n16\nThe following statement shows the results of Experiments by J\nTREMPTER, at Seneca Lake, in the month of July.\nNo. 3.\nQuantity of evaporation from cylinder,\nTemperature of\nTemperature of\nfreely exposed to the sun and wind.\nJuly.\nLake Seneca.\nair.\nDAY.\nNIGHT.\n18\n73°\n66°\n.50\n.05\n19\n70\n78\n.35\n.00\n20\n70\n76\n.40\n.03\n21\n70\n76\n.47\n.05\n22\n70\n78\n.31\n.00\n23\n70\n76\n.40\n.00\n24\n72\n76\n.20\n.00\n25\n71\n70\n.20\n.05\n26\n71\n69\n.50\n.00\n27\n71\n54\n.55\n.00\n28\n72\n60\n.42\n.08\n29\n70\n70\n.48\n.05\n30\n72\n74\n.50\n.05\n31\n72\n71\n.15\n.00\nFrom this statement, the daily average evaporation was 0.39 of\nan inch, and the greatest in any one day 0.55, or over one-half inch.\nThe following statement shows Monthly Evaporation from a mean of\nsix years, at Whitehaven, in one of the most humid districts of\nEngland.\nThe observations were. carefully made from a shallow copper vessel, 11 inches deep, filled daily, and\nprotected from the rain. The experiments were made from 1843 to 1848, inclusive. The annual fall of\nrain at this place was 421 inches.\nNo. 4.\nEVAPORATION IN INCHES.\nMONTHS.\nMonthly mean.\nDaily mean.\nJanuary\n0.88\n0.020\nFebruary\n1.04\n0.037\nMarch\n1.77\n0.057\nApril\n2.54\n0.084\nMay\n4 15\n0.134\nJune\n4.54\n0.151\nJuly\n4.20\n0.135\nAugust\n3.40\n0.103\nSeptember\n3.12\n0.104\nOctober\n1.93\n0.062\nNovember\n1.32\n0.044\nDecember\n1.09\n0.036\nTotal\n30.03\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n17\nFrom this statement, the greatest daily evaporation was 0.151 of\nan inch, and about 281 per cent less than the fall of rain. This may\nbe regarded, under the most favorable circumstances, as a minimum.\nThe following statement shows the evaporation from water surface on the\nsalt flats of Syracuse, in New York.\n[From the Agricultural Report for 1863.]\nNo. 5.\nEVAPORATION IN INCHES.\nMonthly mean.\nDaily mean.\nJanuary\n0.67\n0.022\nFebruary\n1.48\n0.052\nMarch\n2.24\n0.072\nApril\n3.42\n0.114\nMay\n7.31\n0.236\nJune\n7.60\n0.253\nJuly\n9.08\n0.300\nAugust\n6.85\n0.221\nSeptember\n5.33\n0.162\nOctober\n3.02\n0.097\nNovember\n1.33\n0.044\nDecember\n1.86\n0.060\nTotal\n50.20\nFrom this statement, the greatest daily evaporation was 0.30, or\none-third of an inch.\n3\nDigitized by Google\n18\nThe following statement shows the evaporation from the surface of water\nin a thoroughly puddled basin, in Central Park, New York; also,\nthe filtration and evaporation from a natural pond near the former.\nThe observations were generally made daily, though intervals of one or more days occurred in which\nthey were discontinued, owing to rain or other causes. The height of water was registered anew after\nsuch intervals, so that no variation of surface, by rain or otherwise, was allowed to affect the result.\nThe experiments were made under the direct supervision of J. S. Lawrence, from August 5th, to Octo-\nber 29th, 1858.\nNo.\n6.\nEVAPORATION FROM\nEVAP. AND FILTRATION.\nPUDDLED BASIN.\nBASIN NOT PUDDLED.\n1858.\nNo. of\ndays.\nNo. of Days.\nDaily\nNo. of Days\nDaily\nInches.\nInches.\nInches.\nInches.\nAugust 5 to August 11\n51\n3.125\n0.570\n3.625\n0.658\n\" 11 \"\n\"\n18\n7\n2.125\n0.303\n3.125\n0.446\n\"\n18 \"\n\"\n25\n7\n2.500\n0.356\n2.750\n0.393\n\"\n25 \"\n\"\n31\n61\n1.000\n0.154\n1.250\n0.192\n\"\n31\n\"\nSept.\n7\n61\n1.375\n0.211\n2.000\n0.305\nSept.\n7 \"\n\"\n15\n71\n1.125\n0.150\n1.375\n0.183\n\"\n15 \"\n\"\n20\n21\n0.375\n0.150\n0.375\n0.150\nTotals\n421\n11.625\n0.270\n14.500\n0.332\nSept.\n20\nto\nSept.\n30\n8\n1.625\n0.203\n\"\n30 \"\nOct.\n11\n5\n1.375\n0.275\nOct.\n11 \"\n\"\n19\n41\n1.000\n0.222\n\"\n19 \"\n\"\n23\n41\n1.100\n0.244\n\"\n23 \"\n\"\n29\n6\n1.125\n0.187\nTotal\n701\n17.850\n0.252\nFrom the foregoing statement, it appears that the greatest loss\nfrom evaporation per day was from August 5th to 11=0.57 inches,\nover one-half inch, from the puddled basin ; and from the basin not\npuddled=0.658, or two-thirds of an inch, leaving for filtration 0.088\nof an inch daily. The average loss for the first 421/2 days was, from\nthe puddled basin 0.27, or over one-quarter inch per day, and from\nthe basin not puddled 0.332, or one-third inch per day, leaving an\naverage loss from filtration of 0.062 inch, or one-twelfth of an inch.\nThe mean daily evaporation for the month of August was about\none-third of an inch per day, and was assumed at this rate for seven\nconsecutive months in the calculations made of the quantity of\nwater received into the basin from drainage sources in the Central\nPark. The filtration was assumed at one-tenth of an inch daily.\nDigitized by Google\n19\nCollecting the foregoing results, and assuming the greatest daily\nevaporation from each, we have the following as the maximum\nevaporation from water surface for the entire navigable season of\n270 days:\nFrom Table No. 1\n0.2163 of an inch daily.\n\"\n\"\n2\n0.2512\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n3\n0.5500\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n4\n0.1510\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n5\n0.3000\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n6\n0.5700\n\"\n\"\nTotal average\n=0.3397 or 1 of an inch daily.\nThe surface of water in the proposed canal is 75 feet wide and\n251 miles long; hence, the total loss, from evaporation, will be 7.61\ncubic feet per minute per mile, or 75 X 5280 X 1 inch X 251 = 194.05 for\n24 X 60\nthe whole length.\nFILTRATION.\nNumerous experiments were made upon the Erie and Chenango\ncanals to obtain the total loss from leakage at structures, evaporation\nand filtration. The size of canals were 28 feet on bottom, slopes\n1½ to one, and four feet depth of water. The total loss upon 36\nmiles of the Erie Canal, as determined by O. W. Childs, from these\ncauses, was 85 cubic feet per minute per mile; and upon the Che-\nnango Canal, from evaporation and filtration, by Messrs. Tracy and\nTalcott, cubic feet per minute per mile. The average loss\nfrom all the structures, except locks, upon both canals, was nine\ncubic feet per minute per mile, and from evaporation, three cubic\nfeet per minute per mile. The original loss assumed for new canals\nof these dimensions for evaporation, waste and filtration was 100\ncubic feet per minute per mile; calling the loss from evaporation\nand waste 12 cubic feet per minute per mile, there would be left for\nfiltration, in the first result, 73 cubic feet, upon the second, 621, and\nupon the third, for new canal, 88 cubic feet per minute per mile;\nmaking the average 741 cubic feet, which quantity is assumed for\nthe Potomac and Chesapeake Tide-water Canal in the calculations\nfor filtration.\nFiltration upon canals, of different depths and areas, are as the\nsquare root of their depths and areas pressed; and, areas being the\nsame, are as the square root of their depths. Hence, the width of\nDigitized by Google\n20\nbottom that would discharge a quantity equal to that discharged\nfrom the slopes, would be, for a canal 28 feet wide on bottom, four\nfeet deep, with slopes 11 to one, as follows: √4=2 and √2=1.41\nfor slopes; the length of both slopes=12 feet, which is inversely as\nthe square root of depth on bottom to the square root of depth on\nslopes, viz., 2:12::1.41:8.46 the width of bottom, and the whole\nwidth=8.46|28=36.46 feet.\nApplying the same principle to the Chesapeake Bay and Potomac\nRiver Tide-water Canal (being 47 feet wide on bottom, seven feet\ndeep, and slopes two to one), 7=2.645 for bottom, and √3.50=\n1.87 for slopes, the length of both slopes=28 feet; hence, 2.645:-\n28::1.87:20, the width of bottom and whole width=67 feet. If the\nformer had seven feet depth instead of four, it would discharge\nV4:~7::73]:97.20 cubic feet; hence, the quantity discharged by\nthe proposed canal (36.46:67::97.20)=178.61 cubic feet per minute\nper mile; allowing, relatively, the same filtration through the bottom\nas the sides. The general formula used, and much more simple, gives\nabout eight per cent less in result, viz., (4/4+28/4):7v/7+47\nV7::1:2.24x73=164.64 cubic feet per minute per mile.\nWASTE AT STRUCTURES.\nFrom careful measurements at structures, waste weirs and acque-\nducts, upon the Chenango and Erie canals, the average loss from\nthis source was about nine cubic feet per minute per mile ; hence,\nincreasing this in proportion to the increased size of canal, and it\nequals (40+28); cubic feet per min-\nute per mile.\nCollecting results, the total loss upon one mile of canal, exclusive\nof water required for locks=200.35 cubic feet per minute per mile.\nLOCKAGE WATER AND LEAKAGE THROUGH GATES, AT\nSUMMIT Locks.\nThis item is naturally resolved into the amount of trade of the\ncanal, and the number of locks full of water required for each\nboat. Under the most favorable circumstances, one lock full is\nrequired for each boat, and two locks full is the greatest ever re-\nquired for one boat. Considering the great irregularities of trade,\nfound in practice to effect this item unfavorably, I am of the opinion\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n21\nthat nothing less than three locks full should be allowed for the\npassage of every two boats. The following are the greatest number\nof lockages made in any one day upon the New York State canals:\nErie Canal 264 (double locks) and 199 single Champlain Canal,\n88; Oswego, 96.; Cayuga and Seneca, 86; Chemung, 51; Genesee\nValley, 58; and Crooked Lake Canal, 32 lockages. The greatest\nnumber of lockages made in any one season on the Chesapeake\nand Delaware Canal was 15,417 or 57 lockages per day. The\nlength of navigable season averages upon the New York State\ncanals 240 days, and reaches as high in some seasons as 255 days.\nWhen locks are in good condition, boats can be passed in five\nminutes; but when locked in rapid succession, it takes from seven\nto eight minutes, caused by a too sudden reduction of water directly\nat the head of the lock.\nIt is believed safe to assume, for the trade of this canal, 120 lock-\nages a day, or one every 12 minutes, requiring 180 locks full of\nwater, and the length of navigable season at 270 days. This will\ngive a capacity (calling the trade going westward one-half of east-\nern) of 6,561,000 tons, 10 per cent greater than ever experienced\non the New York State canals.\nThe two summit locks are 110 feet between quoins, 241 feet\naverage width, and 10 feet lift. Hence, the quantity of lockage\nwater would equal (110 x 24} x 180 x 10) 3,368.70 cubic feet per minute.\nTo this should be added 12 per cent for flushing and waste, making\nthe total lockage water=3773 cubic feet.\nFor the item of leakage much depends upon the condition of\nthe locks. They are found to vary upon the Erie Canal, with the\nsame lift, from 800 to 1300 cubic feet per minute. Lock No. 60,\nErie Canal (18 feet wide and 10 feet lift), was found to leak 1344\ncubic feet per minute, and No. 61, of eight feet lift, 1220 cubic\nfeet. The locks upon the Chenango and Erie canals (15 feet wide\nand 8 feet lift) were found to average 500 cubic feet per minute.\nAssuming the leakage at 1200 cubic feet per minute for a lock\n18 feet wide and 8 feet lift, that for 10 feet lift would be equal to\n(8:/10::1200=) 1344 cubic feet per minute. Hence, the leak-\nage of the two summit locks of the Chesapeake Bay and Potomac\nRiver Tide-water Canal would equal (18:24::1344:1803> 3606\ncubic feet per minute.\nDigitized by Google\n22\nCollecting the foregoing results, and we have the total quantity\nof water required, as follows\nEvaporation on 251 miles canal,\n-\n194,05 cubic feet per minute.\nFiltration on 251 miles canal,\n- 4,554,55\n\"\n\"\nWaste at structures 251 miles canal,\n=\n360,31\n\"\n\"\nLockage water at summit locks,\n- 3,773,00\n\"\n\"\nLeakage at summit locks,\n=\n3,606,00\n\"\n\"\nTotal required,\n-12,487,91\n\"\n\"\nSOURCES FROM WHICH WATER IS OBTAINED\nTO SUPPLY THE CANAL.\n1st. FROM STREAMS.\nCareful measurements were made August 18, 1866, of the natural\nflow of the following streams. At the time of measurements, no\nrains, of any more than ordinary character, had fallen, and the\nstreams were pronounced, by the inhabitants, lower than they had\nbeen for many years. The sources of these streams are from\n'Parr's Ridge,\" and are of the most permanent and constant char-\nacter.\nBIG PATUXENT RIVER.\nThis river is the largest within the State. It rises in Parr's\nRidge, and flows southeasterly through the lower plain. It is\nnavigable to Nothingham, 40 miles, for vessels of 250 tons, and for\nlarge boats, 15 miles, to Queen Anne. About 60 miles from its\nmouth, it approaches within five miles of one of the arms of\nChesapeake Bay, and flows southward, nearly parallel, within 10\nmiles from the western coast. After flowing eight miles from its\nsource, it receives the Cabin Branch, 7½ miles long, from the north\nfour miles further, it receives the Cat-tail Branch, nine miles long,\nalso from the north; six miles lower, Hawlings river, 12 miles long,\nenters, and soon after joined by the Little Patuxent, from the east.\nThese are the main branches of the \"Big Patuxent,\" and are\nremarkable for their permanency or constant flow. The direct drain-\nage of the Patuxent was estimated by Geo. W. Hughes, in 1837,\nat 100 square miles, and the Cat-tail Branch at 46 square miles.\nThe point chosen for gauging this stream was directly at the\nBaltimore and Ohio Railroad bridge. The section of the stream at\nDigitized by Google\n23\nthis point was uniform and the slopes regular. The length of\nsection from which the measurements were made was 50 feet in\nlength, and the velocity taken nine times at different points on the\nsurface, and the depths or soundings taken throughout the entire\nsection. The measurements were made between the hours of 9 and\n11 o'clock A. M., and found to furnish 3616 cubic feet per minute. This\nstream was measured at the mill immediately above, in May last,\nand found to furnish, at this time, 4016 cubic feet per minute. It\nis proposed to introduce this water into the canal by a feeder about\nfive miles long, entering the summit level on the lands of Dr.\nDuvall.\nLITTLE PATUXENT RIVER.\nThis stream rises also in Parr's Ridge, gathering the waters from\na broader extent of country, and rather intercepting the upland\ndrainage from Parr's Ridge from flowing into the Big Patuxent.\nThere are three considerable branches to the main stream before it\nreaches the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. It joins the Big Patux-\nent about seven miles below the railroad.\nThe section selected for obtaining the measurement of the flow\nin this stream, was about 1000 feet below the Baltimore and Ohio\nRailroad. The section was uniform, of regular width and uniform\nvelocity. Six observations of the surface velocity were made, and\nthe depths obtained throughout the section. It was found to fur-\nnish 4771 cubic feet per minute.\nMeasurements were also made of Dawson's and Rogues' Branches,\nthat enter the Little Patuxent from one-half to four miles below\nthe railroad. These two were found to furnish, in the aggregate,\n222 cubic feet per minute. All of these streams are remarkable\nfor their constant and permanent flow.\nCollecting the foregoing results, we have from natural sources :\nFrom the Big Patuxent River\n3616 cubic fect.\n\"\nLittle\n\"\nand two branches. 4993\n\"\nTotal from natural sources\n8610\n\"\nRequiring from reservoirs, say\n3888\n\"\n2d. FROM RESERVOIRS.\nThe quantity of water that can be collected into a reservoir,\ndepends upon the character of soil, slopes of the catchment\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n24\nbasin, and the annual rain-fall. From the experiments made by\nMr. John B. Jarvis, in this State, 45 per cent of the annual fall of\nrain was collected. From experiments in Ireland, on the River\nRobe, in 1851 and 1852, an average of 571 per cent passed into the\nriver, and upon the catchment of Ballinrobe River, 58 per cent.\nIn the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, Mr.\nJosiah Parks states, that 421 per cent of the annual rain-fall filters\nthrough the soil, and 571 per cent is evaporated; being mean\nresults of eight years' observations. Upon the whole area of England,\nNeville estimates that one-third of the annual rain-fall passes into\nthe streams and sea. Upon flat tillage soils of Ireland, it was\nfound that only 40 per cent of the annual rain-fall filtered through\nthe soil, while the drainage in the high, steep districts ranged from\n75 to 100 per cent of the rain-fall.\nStatement showing Evaporation and Filtration from ground surface.\nTABLE No. 1.\n[From the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, England, by Josiah Parks.]\nTOTAL\nQUANTITY PER\nRAIN-FALL.\nEVAPORATED.\nREMAINING.\nACRE DEPOSIT-\nED.\nMONTH.\nInches.\nInches.\nPer cent.\nInches.\nPer cent.\nCubic Feet.\nJanuary\n1.847\n0.450\n29.3\n1.307\n70.7\n4.744\nFebruary\n1.971\n0.424\n21.6\n1.547\n78.4\n5.616\nMarch\n1.617\n0.540\n33.4\n1.077\n66.6\n3.910\nApril\n1.456\n1.150\n79.0\n0.306\n21.0\n1.111\nMay\n1.856\n1.748\n94.2\n0 108\n5.8\n.392\nJune\n2.213\n2.174\n98.3\n0.039\n1.7\n.142\nJuly\n2.287\n2.245\n98.2\n0.024\n1.8\n.087\nAugust\n2.427\n2.391\n98.6\n0.036\n1.4\n.131\nSeptember\n2.639\n2.270\n80.1\n0.369\n13.9\n1.339\nOctober\n2.823\n1.423\n50.5\n1.400\n49.5\n5.082\nNovember\n3.837\n0.579\n15.1\n3.258\n84.9\n11.826\nDecember\n1.641\n0.164\n00.0\n1.805\n100.0\n6.552\nTotal\n26.614\n15.320\n57.6\n11.294\n42.4\n40.932\nJohn B. Jarvis, Esq., made a series of experiments upon the\nquestion of the ratio of drainage to the fall of rain, and these, I\nbelieve, are the only ones ever made on this subject in this country.\nThe following extracts are from Mr. Jarvis' report:\nDigitized by Google\n25\n\" On Madison and Eaton brooks, gauge sluices have been put in,\nand the water gauged daily, at each, during the whole time exhibited\nin the following tables. A rain gauge was established at Eaton\nBrook, and the quantity of falling water carefully recorded ; at\nMadison Brook, the rain gauge kept at the Hamilton Academy has\nbeen furnished for this purpose. The country descending to the\nsluice, in each case, has been measured, and the results from the\ntables afford correct data to determine the question of drainage.\nEaton Brook Valley.\nNo.2.\nFALLING WATER ON\nAMOUNT SAME PASS-\nRAIN\nAN AREA OF 6800\nING SLUICE FROM\n1835.\nGAUGE.\nPercentage\nACRES.\nSAME AREA.\nof drain-\nMONTHS.\nage to fall.\nInches.\nCubic Feet.\nCubic Feet.\nJune\n6.72\n165,876,480\n59, 407, 394\n0.358\nJuly\n2.74\n67,634,170\n27,994,240\n0.414\nAugust\n2.86\n70,596,240\n13,547,058\n0.192\nSeptember\n1.34\n33,076,560\n9,586,513\n0.290\nOctober\n3.00\n74,052,000\n20,694,651\n0.272\nNovember\n2.20\n54,304,800\n23,772,620\n0.438\nDecember\n*\n0.96\n23,696,640\n36,525,544\n1.541\nJune to December, inclusive\n19.80\n489,236,880\n191,528,020\n0.392\nJune to October, inclusive.\n16.66\n411,235,440\n131,229,856\n0.319\n*Drained the snow of November.\n4\nDigitized by Google\n26\nMadison Brook Valley.\nNo. 3.\nRAIN\nFALLING WATER\nAMOUNT OF SAME\n1835.\nGAUGE.\nON AN AREA OF\nPASSING SLUICE\nPercentage\n6800 ACRES.\nFROM SAME AREA.\nof drainage\nMONTHS.\nto fall.\nInches.\nCubic feet.\nCubic feet.\nSnow on ground, which fell\nin Nov. and Dec. of 1834, s\n87,120,000\nJanuary\n2.17\n47,262,600\n23,192,079\n0.491\nFebruary\n2.50\n54,450,000\n35,377,594\n0.649\nMarch\n1.03\n22,443,400\n43,284,656\n1.928\ntApril\n5.00\n108,900,000\n80,776,974\n0.741\n+May\n1.98\n43,124,400\n58,013,176\n1.345\nIJune\n8.05\n175,329,000\n20,138,006\n0.115\nIJuly\n3.87\n84,288,600\n23,141,302\n0.274\n[August\n3.06\n66,646,800\n23,725,060\n0.356\n1September\n0.88\n19,166,400\n19,158,957\n0.999\nOctober\n3.86\n84,070,800\n19,544,880\n0.232\nINovember\n2.10\n45,738,000\n18,232,372\n0.399\nIDecember\n0.76\n16,552,800\n19,401,364\n1.172\nJan'y to Dec'r, incl., and snow.\n35.26\n855,092,800\n383,986,420\n0.449\nJanuary to May, inclusive\n12.66\n363,300,400\n240,644,479\n0.662\nJune to October, inclusive\n19.72\n429,501,600\n105,708,205\n0.246\nShows the quantity of water furnished by the snow on the ground when the gauging commenced.\nt With melting snow.\n$ Drainage equalized by reservoirs.\n\"From table No. 2, it appears the average drainage, from June to\nDecember, inclusive (seven months), was 0.392 of the falling water,\nor nearly two-fifths; and the average, from June to October, inclu-\nsive (five months), was 0.319, or nearly one-third of the fall.\nAugust is the minimum month, and shows a drainage of 0.192, or\nnearly one-fifth of the fall. July is the maximum month (except\nDecember), and the drainage was 0.414, or over two-fifths of the\nfalling water.\n\"From table No. 3, the drainage for the year was, including\nsnow on the ground, 0.449, or nearly one-half falling water;\nJanuary to May, inclusive (five months), 0.662, or two-thirds of the\nfall; June to October, inclusive, was very uniform, although the\nfalling water is very different, which causes a great range in the\nratios for several months. This was produced by the reservoir on\nMadison Brook, which retained the flood waters and discharged\nthem nearly uniform through the reservoir pipes, causing the highest\nratio to appear in the month of the least fall, and the smallest\nDigitized by Google\n27\nratio in the month of the greatest fall, of water. It is, therefore,\nobvious that an average of June to October (five months) will be\nrequired to give a proper view of the drainage during the season of\ngreatest evaporation.\n\"From June to October, the Eaton Brook valley gave a drain-\nage of 0.319, and Madison Brook valley, 0.246 of the falling water.\nThis result, it is believed, has been produced by the different\ncharacters of the two districts drained. The Eaton Brook valley\nis, in itself, very narrow, and the grounds that drain into it are\ngenerally quite steep, and the soil mostly of a very close texture.\nThe Madison Brook valley is much wider, the slopes of the ad-\njoining lands that drain into it more easy, and the soil in some\nparts more porous than that on Eaton Brook.\n\"The Eaton Brook valley, I should think, would afford more\nthan an average drainage over a large district of country, including\nthe usual varieties of soil; and the Madison Brook valley would\nnot differ materially from the general average.\"\nFive years after the above experiments by Mr. Jarvis, Mr.\nWm. H. Talcott found, from actual measurement, that to discharge\nthrough the pipes of Madison Brook reservoir the drainage shown\nin the table from June to October, inclusive, an average of twenty\nmillions cubic feet each month, required a head of 30 feet, and\nremarks that, \" with a depth of 45 feet of water, the surface area\namounts to 235 acres.\" It may, then, reasonably be supposed that\n30 feet deep will cover at least 100 acres, and, therefore, the drain-\nage of this valley must have been exposed, during the whole time,\nto the waste of the reservoir of these dimensions.\nThe Canal Commissioners, in their report of 1835, say, in rela-\ntion to waste from reservoirs, that \" a special examination of the\nbanks of reservoirs Nos. 2 and 3, on Madison Brook, has shown\nthat the soil is much more porous than was anticipated, and more\nparticularly No. 2.\" \"This,\" remarks Mr. Talcott, \"indicates that\nthe waste from filtration may have been very considerable in addi-\ntion to the evaporation.\" Mr. Talcott found from measurements in\n1840, that the fall of rain on Oil Creek valley, during September,\nOctober and November, was 5.54 inches, and the drainage 1.17 in-\nches (ratio 0.211), leaving 4.37 inches for the consumption of the\nground by evaporation, or a ratio of 0.789 of the fall.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n28\nFrom table No. 2, the fall of rain for September, October and\nNovember, in 1835, was 6.54 inches, and the drainage 2.19 (ratio\n0.334), leaving 4.35 inches (a ratio of 0.666) for evaporation from the\nground. The total fall of rain on Madison Brook valley, from\nJanuary to December, was 35.26 inches, and the drainage 15.83\ninches (ratio 0.449), leaving 19.43 inches (ratio 0.551) for evapora-\ntion from the surface of the ground.\nDoyle and Dalton determined the evaporation from the surface\nof the ground, in 1796, 1797 and 1798, to average 25.14 inches,\nwhich was 76 per cent of the rain-fail, and 24 per cent for filtration\nand drainage; and from the surface of water the evaporation was\nfound to average 44.43 inches, or nearly 24 per cent greater than\nthe rain-fall.\nENGLISH AUTHORITY AND EXPERIMENTS ON DRAINAGE.\nThe following tables, Nos. 4 and 5, show the monthly fall of rain, and\nthe corresponding discharge of the river Robe, at Baltimore, County\nof Mayo, Ireland.\nThe area of drainage or catchment basin being 70,000 acres, the lower end 100 feet and the upper end\n336 feet; the average height of the surface, about 180 feet above the level of the sea. The average fall\nof the river, not including the rapids, is from one to two feet per mile; the catchment is about 20 miles\nong, about one-tenth of the area bog or low marsh, and nine-tenths clayey and gravelly; the river is\nabout 33 miles long. The observations were made in 1851 and 1852.\nObservations in 1851.\nNo. 4.\nRain-fall each month,\nDischarge, in cubic feet, per\nin inches.\nDischarge, each\nmonth, of rain-fall.\nDischarge, in cubic feet, per min-\nute, from a catchment of 70,000\nminute per acre, for each\nacres, for each month.\nmonth.\nMONTHS.\nMax.\nMin.\nAverage.\nMax.\nMin.\nAverage.\nJanuary\n9.2\n7.4\n85,836\n20,133\n43,373\n1,158\n0,287\n0,620\nFebruary\n6.8\n4.7\n72,448\n18,420\n30,410\n1,034\n0,263\n0,434\nMarch\n4.4\n3.6\n49,137\n10,860\n20,945\n0,702\n0,155\n0,300\nApril\n3.4\n2.5\n24,200\n5,760\n14,355\n0,345\n0,082\n0,205\nMay\n1.0\n0.8\n5,820\n4,125\n5,001\n0,083\n0,059\n0,071\nJune\n3.8\n0.8\n7,040\n1,114\n4,230\n0,100\n0,016\n0,060\nJuly\n3.8\n0.5\n4,920\n1,500\n2,558\n0,070\n0,021\n0,036\nAugust\n2.4\n0.9\n17,055\n1,240\n4,866\n0,243\n0,017\n0,069\nSeptember\n1.9\n0.5\n4,746\n1,200\n2,854\n0,067\n0,017\n0,040\nOctober\n5.0\n1.6\n23,980\n6,940\n12,588\n0,342\n0,099\n0,179\nNovember\n13\n1.2\n12,852\n6,000\n7,827\n0,183\n0,085\n0,111\nDecember\n2.6\n2.5\n44,712\n6,210\n14,373\n0,638\n0,088\n0,205\nTotal\n45.6\n27.0\n352,749\n83,502\n163,380\n4,965\n1,189\n2,830\nDigitized by Google\n29\nObservations in 1852.\nNo. 5.\nMONTHS.\nRain-fall each month,\nDischarge, in cubic feet, per min-\nDischarge, in cubic feet, per\nDischarge, each\nmonth, of rain-fall.\nute, from a catchment of 70,000\nminute per acre, for each\nin inches.\nacres, for each month.\nmonth.\nMax.\nMin.\nAverage.\nMax.\nMin.\nAverage.\nJanuary\n7.5\n5.2\n41,600\n12,852\n28,730\n0,594\n0,183\n0,410\nFebruary\n4.8\n4.3\n56,400\n8,190\n25,296\n0,805\n0,117\n0,361\nMarch\n1.0\n0.7\n9,600\n2,737\n6,702\n0,137\n0,039\n0,095\nApril\n1.1\n0.5\n3,931\n1,468\n2,477\n0,056\n0,020\n0,035\nMay\n1.9\n0.4\n3,931\n1,050\n1,861\n0,056\n0,015\n0,026\nJune\n6.6\n1.2\n22,764\n1,400\n6,547\n0,325\n0,020\n0,093\nJuly\n2.5\n1.0\n15,439\n3,172\n6,057\n0,220\n0,045\n0,087\nAugust\n4.5\n0.6\n3,856\n2,236\n3,070\n0,055\n0,032\n0,043\nSeptember\n1.8\n0.5\n3,427\n2,642\n2,874\n0,048\n0,037\n0,041\nOctober\n3.9\n1.0\n32,040\n1,114\n5,932\n0,457\n0,016\n0,084\nNovember\n5.5\n5.2\n45,360\n17,000\n30,742\n0,648\n0,242\n0,439\nDecember\n12.0\n9.5\n115,656\n23,232\n54,846\n1,657\n0,331\n0,783\nTotal\n53.1\n30.1\n354,004\n77,093\n175,134\n5,058\n1,097\n2,497\nApplying the same calculation to the experiments of John B.\nJarvis, as presented in the foregoing English results, and we have\nthe following comparison of ratios of drainage to the total fall of rain,\nalso the minimum yield, in cubic feet, per minute per acre, from\neach experiment.\nNo. 6.\nENGLISH EXPERIMENTS.\nAM'CAN EXP'MENTS.\nYEAR 1851.\nYEAR 1852.\nYEAR 1835.\nMONTH.\nRain-fall each\nmonth, in inches.\nDischarge each\nmonth.\nRatio drainage\nto rain-fall.\nMinimum yield\nper acre, in cubic\nfeet, per minute.\nRain-fall each\nmonth.\nDischarge each\nmonth, in inches.\nRatio drainage\nto fall of rain.\nMinimum yield\nper acre, in cubic\nfeet, per minute.\nRain-fall each\nmonth, in inches\nDischarge each\nmonth, in inches.\nRatio drainage\nto fall of rain.\nMinimum yield\nper acre, cubic\nfeet, per minute.\nJanuary\n9.2\n7.4\n0.804\n0.287\n7.5\n5.2\n0.694\n0.183\n2.17\n1.06\n0.491\n0.779\nFebruary\n6.8\n4.7\n0.691\n0.263\n4.8\n4.3\n0.900\n0.117\n2.50\n1.62\n0.649\n0.120\nMarch\n4.4\n3.6\n0.818\n0.155\n1.0\n0.7\n0.700\n0.039\n1.03\n1.98\n1.928\n0.150\nApril\n3.4\n2.5\n0.735\n0.082\n11\n0.5\n0.455\n0.020\n5.00\n3.70\n0.741\n0.275\nMay\n1.0\n0.8\n0.800\n0.059\n1.9\n0.4\n0 211\n0.015\n1.98\n2.66\n1.345\n0.196\nJune\n3.8\n0.8\n0.210\n0.016\n6.6\n1.2\n0.182\n0.020\n8.05\n0.92\n0.115\n0.069\nJuly\n3.8\n0.5\n0.131\n0.021\n2.5\n1.0\n0.400\n0.045\n3.87\n1.06\n0.274\n0.080\nAugust\n2.4\n0.9\n0.375\n0.017\n4.5\n0.6\n0.133\n0.032\n3.06\n1.09\n0.356\n0.081\nSeptember\n1.9\n0.5\n0.263\n0.017\n1.8\n0.5\n0.277\n0.037\n0.88\n0.84\n0.999\n0.065\nOctober\n5.0\n1.6\n0.320\n0.099\n3.9\n1.0\n0.257\n0.016\n3.86\n0.86\n0.232\n0.066\nNovember\n1.3\n1.2\n0.923\n0.085\n5.5\n5.2\n0.940\n0.242\n2 10\n0.84\n0.399\n0.060\nDecember\n2.6\n2.5\n0.961\n0.088\n12.0\n95\n0.800\n0.331\n0.76\n0.89\n1.172\n0.063\nTotal\n45.6\n27.0\n0.592\n1.189\n53.1\n30.1\n0.567\n1.097\n35.26\n17.52\n0.449\n1.304\nJune to Oct, inclusive\n16.9\n43\n0.259\n0.170\n19.3\n4.3\n0.269\n0.150\n19.72\n4.77\n0.246\n0.361\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n30\nThe following table presents the average ratio of Drainage to the total\nfall of Rain of the three above experiments combined.\nNo. 7.\nRATIO OF DRAINAGE TO TOTAL FALL OF RAIN.\nTOTAL AVERAGE RA-\nMONTH.\nEnglish.\nAmerican.\nTIO OF THE THREE\nEXPERIMENTS.\n1851.\n1852.\n1835.\nJanuary\n0.804\n0.694\n0.491\n0.663\nFebruary\n0.691\n0.900\n0.649\n0.780\nMarch\n0.818\n0.700\n1.928\n1.148\nApril\n0.735\n0.455\n0.741\n0.643\nMay\n0.800\n0.211\n1.345\n0.785\nJune\n0.210\n0.182\n0.115\n0.169\nJuly\n0.131\n0.400\n0.274\n0.268\nAugust\n0.375\n0.133\n0.356\n0.288\nSeptember\n0.263\n0.277\n0.999\n0.513\nOctober\n0.320\n0.257\n0.232\n0.269\nNovember\n0.923\n0.946\n0.399\n0.756\nDecember\n0.961\n0.800\n1.172\n0.977\nTotal average\n0.592\n0.567\n0.449\n0.557\nHaving obtained the average ratio of drainage to the total fall of\nrain, it is now only necessary to obtain the quantity of rain-fall in\nthe State of Maryland to arrive at the drainage territory required\nto supply the deficiency, viz., 3880 cubic feet per minute for 270\ndays.\nRAIN-FALL IN MARYLAND.\nThe quantity of rain which falls annually varies with the district,\nthe year, and at different parts of the same district; indeed, it is\nnecessary to obtain the fall, from observation, for any particular\ndistrict, when it is necessary to apply the results to scientific pur-\nposes. Elevation is also an element controlling the annual rain-fall,\nas found by experiments in England. At Kinfaun's Castle, Scot-\nland, a gauge 600 feet high, on a hill, gave 41½ inches fall of rain,\nwhile one at the base, 580 feet lower, gave only 251/2 inches. From\nthe 23d of February, 1860, to June 6th, 1860, the fall of rain, at\nDublin, was eight inches, while at the Leefin Mountains, 2000 feet\nhigh, it was 13.1 inches, showing an increase of 40 to 50 per cent.\nProf. Phillips, of England, has given the following formula for\n\"calculating the difference between the ratios of rain falling on the\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n31\nground at any height, h, in the same place, t~the temperature of\nthe season, and c, a co-efficient dependent upon it; then the differ-\nence d is The mean height at which rain begins to form,\nfrom this formula, is 1747 feet over the ground; and at 356 feet\nhigh the depth which falls is half of what falls on the ground.\"\nThe slight difference of the elevations in the district of Mary-\nland in which it is proposed to collect the water, will not, materially,\naffect the average fall of rain. From observations, in 1836, at the\nMaryland Academy, by Lewis Brantz, the quantity of rain that fell\nfrom July to November, inclusive, was 11.83 inches, as follows\nJuly, 1.32 inches; August, 3.13; September, 1.28 ; October, 2.55 ;\nand November, 3.55 inches. The quantity that fell during the\nsame months, in 1817, was 18.13 inches, an increase of 35 per cent.\nThe average annual fall at Georgetown, from 1819 to 1827, inclu-\nsive, was 38.10 inches, and the average of least fall, 31.67 inches.\nThe following statement shows the average (by weights of periods) of the\nquantity of rain that fell each month, in the State of Maryland made\nup from the three periods of observation, viz., 1817 to 1824, inclusive,\n1854 to 1859, inclusive, and for the years 1863 and 1864.\nThe fall, from 1854 to 1859, is made up from observations annually recorded at five different points\nwithin the State, embracing the higher and lower distriets, also for the years 1863 and 1864; to which 18\naffixed a column of minimum rain-fall, the former being the maximum average.\nNo. 8.\nFALL OF RAIN IN INCHES.\nFALL IN INCHES.\nMONTH.\n1817 to 1824.\n1854 to 1859.\n1863 and 1864.\nMax. average.\nMin'm average.\nInches.\nInches.\nInches.\nInches.\nInches.\nJanuary\n2.85\n3.32\n3.11\n3.05\n2.85\nFebruary\n3.22\n2.20\n2.52\n2.75\n3.22\nMarch\n3.71\n2.54\n3.58\n3.27\n2.71\nApril\n2.20\n3.57\n5.63\n3.18\n2.20\nMay\n3.65\n4.25\n5.24\n4.09\n2.85\nJune\n3.66\n4.60\n2.07\n3.77\n2.66\nJuly\n3.85\n3.05\n4.64\n3.68\n1.77\nAugust\n4.30\n3.85\n2.06\n3.82\n3.13\nSeptember\n4.45\n4.46\n3.33\n4.29\n1.28\nOctober\n2.97\n2.92\n2.78\n2.92\n2.55\nNovember\n3.20\n2.49\n2.92\n2.91\n3.55\nDecember\n2.90\n3.64\n4.30\n3.36\n2.90\nTotal\n40.96\n40.89\n42.18\n41.09\n31.67\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n32\nThe following calculation shows the maximum and minimum quantity\nof water, in gross, that can be collected from an acre of drainage ter-\nritory, in the State of Maryland.\nThe ratios of drainage to fall of rain are taken from table No. 7, and the quantity of rain-fall from\ntable No. 8.\nNo. 9.\nMAXIMUM.\nMINIMUM.\nRatio of drainage to\ntotal fall of rain.\nQUANTITY\nQUANTITY\nCOLLECTED\nCOLLECTED\nMONTHS.\nFALL OF\nDEPTH\nFROM AN\nFALL OF\nDEPTH\nFROM AN\nRAIN.\nDRAINED\nACRE.\nRAIN.\nDRAINED\nACRE.\nInches.\nInches.\nCubic feet.\nInches.\nInches.\nCubic feet.\nJanuary\n0.663\n3.05\n2.02\n7.318\n2.85\n1.89\n6.839\nFebruary\n0.780\n2.75\n2.14\n7.753\n3.22\n2.51\n9.147\nMarch\n1.148\n3.27\n3.75\n13.590\n2.71\n3.11\n11.225\nApril\n0.643\n3.18\n2.04\n7.405\n2.20\n1.41\n5.140\nMay\n0.785\n4.09\n3.21\n11.630\n2.85\n2.24\n8.102\nJune\n0.169\n3.77\n0.63\n2.265\n2.66\n0.45\n1.655\nJuly\n0.268\n3.68\n0.98\n3.528\n1.77\n0.47\n1.680\nAugust\n0.288\n3.82\n1.10\n3.863\n3.13\n0.90\n3.267\nSeptember\n0.513\n4.29\n2.20\n7.840\n1.28\n0.66\n2.395\nOctober\n0.269\n2.92\n0.78\n2.831\n2.55\n0.68\n2.400\nNovember\n0.756\n2.91\n2.19\n7.840\n3.55\n2.68\n9.713\nDecember\n0.977\n3.36\n3.28\n11.891\n2.90\n2.83\n10.280\nTotal,\n0.557\n41.09\n22.89\n87.754\n31.67\n17.64\n71.843\nReducing the former results to total quantity collected from an\nacre for the year, and we have the following as the average yield\nper acre per annum:\nFrom the English experiments for the year 1851, -62, 493 cubic feet per acre.\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n1852, =57, 658\n\"\n\"\n\"\nAmerican\n\"\nby Mr. Jarvis, 1835, -68,538\n\"\n\"\n\"\nabove calculations for State Maryl'd max., -87,\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nmin., -71,843\n\"\n\"\nTotal average,\n-69,657\n\"\n\"\nThe foregoing average yield per acre is in gross; or, to determine'\nthe drainage area required to supply a definite quantity of water,\na deduction should be made for the space occupied by the reser-\nvoir or pond, upon which the loss, from experiments, is four times\nthe fall of rain.\nThe average area of six of the principal reservoirs in the State\nof New York, is about five per cent of the catchment basin. The\nannual loss from the surface of the reservoirs, has been found to be\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n33\none-half Qf an inch per day, or 1871 inches for the year; 49% inches\nof which is from evaporation, and 137.84 by filtration. These,\ntogether with the area of the pond, are assumed at 20 per cent,\nwhich, it is believed, is beyond any contingency. This leaves a net\nyield per acre of (69,657-20 per cent) 55,726 cubic feet.\nThe deficiency, or quantity required beyond that furnished from\nnatural sources, is 3880 cubic feet per minute, or 1,508,544,000 cubic\nfeet for 270 days. Hence, the drainage area required to supply this is\nequal to (1,508,544,000) 27,071 acres, including area of reservoir.\nAmple facilities are offered for the construction of reservoirs,\nand receiving from this source an abundant supply of water, even\nupon the branches of the Big Patuxent River. The drainage area\nof the Cat-tail Branch (one of the branches of the Big Patuxent)\nwas found, by Col. Abert, to equal 27,000 acres. The following\nshows the location and drainage area of reservoirs proposed by\nCol. Abert, upon the principal branches of the Big Patuxent\nCat-tail Branch\n27,440 acres, with a dam 50 feet high.\nCabin Branch\n10,200\n\"\n\"\n20\n\"\nHawlings River\n6,515\n\"\n\"\n45\n\"\nBig Branch\n2,497\n\"\n\"\n30\n\"\nGoshen Branch\n4,613\n\"\n\"\n20\n\"\nBranch of the Seneca\n10,908\n\"\n\"\n40\n\"\nTotal\n62,173 acres, nearly 21 times area required.\nThe same facilities are offered on the branches of the Little\nPatuxent River, giving in the aggregate over five times the area\nrequired, or 19,400 cubic feet per minute.\n5\nDigitized by Google\nAPPENDIX A.\nCOST OF TRANSPORTATION.\nThe commercial value of a route depends first, upon its geograph-\nical location; and second, its capacity for the movement of freight.\nOn canals, the cost of movement depends upon the burthen of boats\nand the amount of lockage; on railroads, upon the grades and\ncurves, which affect the economy of transportation.\nTo determine the comparative cost of transportation between\nrailroads and canals, both should be reduced to level grades; that\nis, the increased expense overcoming grades and curves reduced\nto its equivalent of level road, and the time or detentions in passing\nlocks, to that of uninterrupted navigation, or to a uniform speed of\ntwo miles an hour.\nThus, taking the speed of freight trains at 15 miles an hour, the\nresistance on a level is=9₁³σ lbs. per ton, and the total resistance due\nto a 30 feet grade lbs. As-\nsuming the length of incline at 10 miles, its equivalent of level road\nwould equal (22.04 of 10) 23.72 miles; hence, if the cost of transport\nation over this 10 miles was 15 cents, the cost on a level road would\nequal (150.72) mills per ton per mile.\nUpon the New York State canals the detentions for lockages\naverage feet lockage as equal to the time passing over one\nmile, at a speed of two miles an hour. The length of the Erie\ncanal is 3501 miles, and the cost of transportation, exclusive of\nmills per ton per mile. Then the cost upon a level\nwould equal 350}>< 21 mills per ton per mile.\nThe actual cost of transportation, instead of freight charges, should\nbe used for comparison between routes, as the latter fluctuate on\nthe different routes of the same length and capacity, and on differ-\nent articles, affected always by monopoly.\nCOST OF TRANSPORTATION ON RAILROADS.\nThe following statement shows the actual cost of transportation\nand freight charges, for a series of years, determined from the reports\nof the several railroad companies sent annually to the State Engineer\nand Surveyor of the State of New York.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nCost of Transportation of Freight, other than Coal, on Railroads in the State of New York.\nTABLE No. 1.\nCOST OF TRANSPORTATION, IN MILLS, PER TON PER MILE.\nLength main line,\n1852.\n1853.\n1854.\n1855.\n1856.\n1864.\nTotal\nNAME OF ROAD.\nin miles.\nWidth gauge.\n1862.\n1863.\neach road.\nReceipts\nCost.\nReceipts\nCost.\nReceipts\nCost.\nReceipts\nCost.\nReceipts\nReceipts\nCost.\nReceipts\nceipts\nCost.\nCost.\nRe\nCost.\nReceipt\nCost.\nBuffalo, Corning and New York\n142\n6.00\n56.3\n23.3\n40.0\n22.1\n28.2\n18.6\n32.9\n21.4\n28.3\n19.0\n20.3\n12.2\n19.5\n13.1\n18.7\n20.7\n30.5\n18.8\nBuffalo and State Line\n68}\n4.83\n54.6\n45.0\n54.3\n30.0\n32.6\n18.0\n24.5\n12.7\n21.7\n16.9\n27.8\n14.5\n27.8\n14.0\n32.9\n21.0\n34.5\n21.5\nCayuga and Susquehanna\n34g\n6.00\n26.0\n19.7\n23.0\n18.2\n22.2\n16.1\n25.3\n15.9\n27.9\n16.2\n26.1\n16.6\n26.0\n20.0\n29.7\n24.1\n25.8\n18.6\nAverage southern lines\n45.6\n29.3\n39.1\n23.4\n27.6\n17.5\n27.5\n16.6\n25.9\n17.3\n24.7\n14.4\n24.4\n15.7\n27.1\n21.9\n30.2\n19.6\nTHROUGH LINES.\nErie Railway\n446\n6.00\n19.5\n10.2\n25.5\n12.7\n26.2\n12.8\n24.2\n11.4\n24.7\n11.6\n18.9\n9.5\n20.9\n9.5\n23.3\n14.5\n24.1\n11.5\nNew York Central\n2974\n4.71\n30.5\n15.4\n36.0\n15.4\n30.5\n16.0\n32.0\n15.4\n29.7\n14.0\n22.3\n13.9\n23.8\n15.5\n27.2\n20.0\n29.0\n15.7\nHudson River\n1441\n4.71\n31.0\n16.0\n24.1\n16.2\n22.2\n185\n37.1\n30.4\n35.9\n25.8\n22.6\n12.0\n27.4\n13.3\n29.3\n18.0\n27.7\n18.8\n35\nNew York and Harlem\n1304\n4.71\n49.3\n36.7\n33.4\n29.3\n33.0\n14.5\n39.0\n22.6\n49.6\n31.2\n37.4\n28.2\n38.8\n32.7\n55.5\n49.0\n42.0\n30.5\nAverage trunk lines\n32.6\n19.6\n29.7\n18.4\n28.0\n15.4\n33.1\n19.9\n34.9\n20.6\n25.0\n15.9\n27.7\n17.7\n33.7\n25.3\n80.7\n19.1\nNORTHERN LINES.\nRome, Watertown and Ogdensburgh\n189%\n4.71\n29.0\n17.0\n26.5\n14.8\n26.4\n16.0\n27.8\n22.2\n27.3\n17.5\n31.2\n19.7\n29.2\n21.4\n32.8\n26.7\n28.8\n19.4\nOswego and Syracuse\n36\n4.71\n34.2\n26.2\n31.2\n22.8\n33.0\n19.0\n39.6\n20.2\n38.8\n20.2\n34.9\n17.2\n36.1\n18.9\n38.8\n20.9\n35.8\n20.7\nRensselaer and Saratoga\n251\n4.71\n43.6\n34.7\n44.4\n37.0\n42.1\n34.6\n50.8\n34.2\n45.5\n37.6\n49.0\n36.4\n52.5\n35.2\n68.5\n39.5\n49.5\n36.1\nSaratoga and Whitehall\n40&\n4.71\n32.8\n23.1\n29.5\n20.6\n30.0\n21.0\n39.6\n27.8\n30.5\n25.6\n31.1\n19.6\n28.3\n18.0\n70.0\n43.4\n36.5\n24.9\nNorthern\n118\n4.71\n19.5\n11.5\n16.0\n11.7\n22.6\n15.0\n24.1\n19.0\n23.5\n16.7\n20.5\n11.9\n22.9\n12.8\n25.4\n16.6\n21.8\n14.4\nAverage northern lines\n31.8\n22.5\n29.5\n21.4\n30.8\n21.1\n36.5\n24.7\n33.1\n23.9\n33.3\n20.9\n33.8\n21.2\n47.1\n29.4\n34.5\n23.1\nEASTERN LINES.\nDigitized by\nTroy and Boston\n35\n4.71\n51.7\n27.6\n43.6\n22.3\n41.0\n17.1\n40.2\n18.8\n44.4\n17.2\n28.9\n13.2\n30.9\n19.8\n38.8\n22.5\n39.9\n19.2\nLong Island\n94\n4.71\n26.0\n22.8\n28.0\n31.3\n34.3\n29.0\n88.7\n31.5\n35.5\n30.2\n36.6\n22.9\n39.0\n16.8\n44.2\n21.2\n35.3\n25.7\nAverage eastern lines\n88.8\n25.2\n35.8\n26.8\n37.6\n23.0\n39.4\n22.6\n39.9\n23.7\n32.7\n18.0\n34.9\n18.3\n41.5\n21.8\n87.6\n22.4\nGoogle\nTotal average\n36.0\n23.5\n32.5\n21.7\n30.3\n19.0\n33.9\n21.3\n33.1\n21.4\n29.1\n17.7\n30.2\n18.6\n38.2\n25.6\n32.9\n21.1\n36\nFrom the above statement, the average actual cost\" of trans-\nporting freight upon the Erie, New York Central and Hudson River\nrailroads, for eight years, was 15] mills, or a little over 11 cents per\nton per mile; and the receipts, 26ᵣₒ mills, or a little over 2%\ncents=58 per cent of the receipts. The average \"actual cost\"\ntransporting freight over the \"Erie Railway,\" from 1854 to 1864,\ninclusive, was 1₁²₀ cents per ton per mile, and the receipts,\ncents. The actual cost over the New York Central for the same\nperiod, was 1100 cents, and receipts, cents per ton per mile.\nThe total number of tons moved one mile over the Erie Railway,\nfrom 1854 to 1864, inclusive, was 2,587,274,914, equal to an aver-\nage of 235,206,810 tons a year. The number of tons moved one\nmile over the New York Central for the same period, was 2,132,-\n073,612, equal to an annual movement of 193,824,874.\nThe following statement shows the percentage of expenses for manage-\nment, on the gross earnings, upon the principal Railroads in the State\nof New York.\nNo. 2.\nPERCENTAGE OF EXPENSES ON GROSS EARNINGS.\n1862.\n1863.\n1864.\nBuffalo, New York and Erie\n66.54\n71.28\n72.10\nBuffalo and State Line\n51.33\n62.43\n60.45\nErie Railway\n61.93\n61.51\n66.27\nHudson River\n51.89\n48.81\n62.54\nNew York Central\n59.93\n62.79\n71.91\nNew York and Harlem\n60.43\n60.72\n75.78\nNew York and New Haven\n54.39\n57.88\n58.18\nNorthern\n64.11\n73.17\n75.69\nOswego and Syracuse\n44.71\n48.96\n48.83\nRome, Watertown and Ogdensburgh\n49.79\n52.37\n55.32\nSaratoga and Whitehall\n64.26\n62.52\n64.57\nAverage\n57.21\n60.22\n64.70\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n37\nActual cost of transportation and motive power per ton per mile, on\nsome of the principal Railroads in New York, for 1854, 1855 and\n1856.\nNo. 3.\nCHARACTERISTICS.\nCOST, IN MILLS, PER TON PER MILE.\n1854.\n1855.\n1856.\nNAME OF ROAD.\nLength of road.\nGauge.\nAverage grades per\nmile.\nTotal actual cost.\nTransportation.\nCost of motive\npower.\nTotal actual cost.\nTransportation.\nCost of motive\npower.\nTotal actual cost.\nTransportation.\nCost of motive\npower.\nTHROUGH TRUNK LINES.\nNew York Central\n2974\n4.71\n16.0\n4.68\n15.4\n5.72\n14.0\n4.29\nErie Railway\n446\n6.00\n18.\n12.8\n4.73\n11.4\n3.92\n11.6\n4.01\nHudson River\n144½\n4.71\n18.5\n4.81\n30.4\n10.61\n25.8\n7.45\nAverage\n15.8\n4.74\n19.1\n6.75\n17.1\n5.25\nLATERAL THROUGH LINES.\nNew York and Harlem\n1304\n4.71\n18.6\n14.5\n5.84\n22.6\n7.05\n31.2\n7.94\nNorthern Railroad\n118\n4.71\n20.7\n15.0\n3.15\n19.0\n2.64\n16.7\n3.20\nRome, Watertown and Og'h\n189%\n4.71\n18.5\n16.0\n3.72\n22.2\n7.21\n17.5\n5.15\nSaratoga and Whitehall\n404\n4.71\n17.3\n21.0\n27.8\n25.6\n6.91\nOswego and Syracuse\n36\n4.71\n8.6\n19.0\n6.64\n20.2\n6.50\n20.2\n7.13\nAverage\n17.1\n4.83\n22.4\n5.85\n22.2\n6.06\nWESTERN LATERAL LINES.\nBuffalo and State Line\n631\n4.83\n15.1\n18.0\n3.11\n12.7\n3.04\n16.9\n5.05\nBuffalo, N. Y. and Erie\n142\n6.00\n18.4\n18.6\n7.20\n21.4\n8.64\n19.0\n5.02\nAverage\n18.3\n5.15\n17.0\n5.84\n17.9\n5.03\nEASTERN LINES.\nTroy and Boston\n35\n4.71\n22.9\n17.1\n4.74\n13.8\n6.19\n17.2\n4.99\nLong Island\n94\n4.71\n14.8\n29.0\n11.35\n31.5\n11,64\n30.2\n10.78\nAverage\n23.0\n8.04\n22.6\n8.91\n23.7\n7.88\nTotal average\n18.5\n5.69\n20.2\n6.83\n20.2\n6.05\nFrom the foregoing statement, the total average cost of steam\npower is 301 per cent of the total actual cost of transportation for\n1854; 34 per cent for 1855, and 30 per cent for 1856 ; making the\ntotal average cost for the three years 31½ per cent of the total\nactual cost.\nThe same upon the New York Central, for 1854, is 29 per cent;\nDigitized by Google\n38\nfor 1855, 31 per cent, and for 1856, 301/2 per cent; making the total\naverage for this road for the three years=30 per cent.\nThe following deductions are from the official reports on the rail-\nroads of the State of New York, for the year 1864:\nRoads Operated with Steam.\nCHARACTERISTICS.\nLength of roads in miles,\n2,821.18\nLength of roads laid,\n2,511 28\nLength of double track, including sidings,\n1,131.26\nLength of branches laid,\n494.68\nLength of double track on same\n21.43\nLength of equivalent single track,\n4,158.65\nNumber of engine houses and shops,\n171\nNumber of engines,\n814\nNumber of first class passenger cars,\n724\nNumber of second class cars,\n135\nNumber of baggage, mail and express cars,\n259\nNumber of freight cars,\n12,729\nCost OF CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT.\nFor graduation and masonry,\n$41,829,251 83\nFor bridges,\n2,311,213 94\nFor superstructure, including iron,\n22,253,372 09\nFor passenger and freight stations, buildings and fixtures,\n4,249,320 64\nFor engine and car houses, machine shops, machinery and\nfixtures,\n1,969,583 79\nFor land, land damages and fences,\n9,171,207 60\nFor locomotives and fixtures and snow plows,\n5,461,939 03\nFor passenger and baggage cars,\n2,513,430 40\nFor freight and other cars,\n4,939,381 50\nFor engineering and agencies, &c.,\n8,130,318 19\nTotal cost of construction and equipment of roads using steam\npower,\n$144,264,165 78\nTotal cost of construction and equipment of roads using horse\npower,\n16,194,727 29\nIf we exclude the city roads, we have, as follows :\nAverage number of miles traveled by each passenger,\n43.39\nAverage number of passengers in each train,\n85.80\nAverage number of miles each ton of freight was transported,\n124.41\nAverage number of tons in each freight train,\n88.21\nAggregate movement of passenger trains is equivalent to passing\nover the road,\n2,867 times\nAggregate movement of freight trains is equivalent to passing\nover the road,\n4,568 times\nAverage number of trains passing daily over the road, about,\n201\nAverage cost, per mile of road, for maintaining roadway\n$3,812 12\nAverage cost, per mile of road, for repairs of machinery,\n2,459 73\nAverage cost, per mile of road, for operating road,\n4,818 23\nAverage cost, per mile of single track, for maintaining roadway,\n2,302 02\nAverage cost, per mile of single track, for repairs of machinery,\n1,485 55\nAverage cost, per mile of single track, for operating road,\n2,909 59\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n39\nAverage sum received for carrying one passenger one mile,\n2.27 cents.\nAverage sum received for transporting one ton of freight one mile,\n2.60 cents.\nAverage number of miles of travel for each passenger killed\n6,843,620\nAverage number of miles of travel for each pass'ger killed or inj'd,\n2,975,487\nAverage number of passengers carried for each one killed,\n157,689\nAverage expense is 69.83 per cent of all the earnings.\nCOST OF TRANSPORTATION OF COAL ON RAILROADS.\nBut few railroad companies keep their accounts so that the cost\nof this class of freight can be obtained. I herewith present all the\nexamples I have been able to obtain from the Auditor General's\nreport on the railroads of Pennsylvania, and other official sources.\nThe following statement shows the average cost of transportation of\nfreight on Railroads, other than coal, for eight years, as shown in\ntable No. 1; also the cost of transportation of coal, the average being\nmade from the years 1863 and 1864.\nNo.\n4.\nFROM AN AVERAGE OF EIGHT YEARS.\nFROM AN AVERAGE OF TWO YEARS.\nFOR FREIGHT OTHER THAN COAL.\nFOR FREIGHT EXCLUSIVELY COAL.\nMills pr ton mile.\nMills pr ton pr mile.\nLen.\nActual cost.\nLen.\nN. Y. RAILROADS.\nActual cost.\nin\nPENN. RAILROADS.\nin\nmiles.\nWithout\nWith\nmiles.\nWithout\nWith\ncharges\ncharges.\ncharges.\ncharges.\nNew York Central.\n300\n15.7\n29.0\nBaltimore & Ohio.\n178\n10.00\n18.60\nErie Railway\n446\n11.5\n24.1-\nNew Jersey Cen.\n74\n8.50\n19.00\nHudson River\n1441\n18.8\n27.7\nPhila. & Reading.\n93\n12.00\n26.60\nBuf., Corn. & N. Y.\n142\n18.8\n30.5\nPenn. Coal Co's\n47\n10.00\n14.00\nBuffalo & State Line\n681\n21.5\n34.5\nShamokin\n23\n13.00\n24.00\nOswego & Syracuse\n36\n20.7\n35.8\nNorth Lebanon\n7 ᵃ\n12.50\n28.00\nRome, W'town & O.\n189\n19.4\n28.8\nHunt'don & B. Top\n31\n10.00\n29.00\nNorthern\n118\n14.4\n21.8\nLykins Valley\n16\n9.00\n25.00\nCayuga & Sus'hanna\n34\n18.6\n25.8\nLehigh Valley\n46\n7.61\n18.70\nTroy & Boston\n35\n19.2\n39.9\nPennsylvania\n355\n14.00\n26.60\nAverage\n17.9\n29.8\nAverage\n10.76\n23.08\nFreight charges=60 per cent greater\nFreight charges=47 per cent greater\nthan cost.\nthan cost,\nAverage cost motive power=51 mills\nAverage cost motive power-34 mills\nper ton per mile.\nper ton per mile.\nDigitized by Google\n40\nCost OF TRANSPORTATION ON CANALS.\nFrom experiments in France, it was determined that when the\nsectional area of the canal was times, and its width 41 times\nthat of the boat, the conditions were then the same as the move-\nment of the boat in an indefinite space of water.\nThe resistance to the movement of a boat in a canal is caused\nby the piling up of the water at the bow by being confined within\nthe banks, and falling from this height, escapes along the sides,\nproducing, by displacement, a counter action and resistance, the\nmore considerable as the interval between the sides of boat and\ncanal is reduced.\nNo experiments of this nature have been made in this country,\nwith our build or model of boats ; but it is deemed sufficiently\naccurate to use the formula obtained from the barges upon the\nLanguedoc Canal, as they partake of the general build of our boats.\nDubuat's formula P\"=P\"[(1-0.18³)X(1-q)x(-1)]; or P'=\n8.46\n(where q=ratio between the resistance with and without a\nprow ; c=sectional area of canal ; s=sectional area of boat ; P=\nresistance of a boat in an indefinite fluid, and P'=that experienced\nin a canal). This formula was found to nearly double the resistance\nactually experienced on the Languedoc Canal.\nD'Anbuisson made a series of experiments, and corrected\nthe formula of Dubuat, so that the resistance from calculation\nagreed with the observed resistance. The formula, as corrected,\nor with sufficient exactness,\nwas found to agree with the actual force expended. This part of\nthe calculation embraced in the cost of transportation, covers the\nexpense of towing, and is, upon different canals, in proportion to the\nresistance.\nThe Erie Canal is taken as a basis, it furnishing the most accu-\nrate and reliable record of the expense of animal power as applied\nto towing, which has not, for several years, exceeded 25 cents a mile.\nThe resistance, at a speed of two miles an hour, with boats of 210\ntons burthen (the average now used), upon the Erie Canal, is\n428 lbs. The description and dimensions of\nDigitized by Google\n41\ncanals over which the products from the coal mines are transported,\nare given in the preceding pages of this report.\nThe following statement shows the cost of transportation upon Canals,\nBays, Rivers and Sea-borne, together with the rates added for tolls\nupon Coal (1861).\nThe calculations are made upon the following basis: Age of boat assumed at 10 years, which, together\nwith cost of furniture and interest, is divided into 2300 days; the repairs of boat and furniture 25 per\ncent of original cost; expense of crew $6 per day, and the cost of maintenance assumed at 40 per cent\nof gross receipts. The items of calculation were obtained from the most reliable sources, and, from\nnumerous applications, found correct.)\nNo. 5.\nPER TON PER MILE.\nNAME OF ROUTE.\nLength of route\nand canal.\nBurthen of boats.\nActual cost of\nmovement per\nmile.\nActualcost of\nmovement.\nSame includ-\ning c st of\nmanagement\nSame includ-\ning cost of\nmanagement\nand tolls on\ncoal, 1861.\nMiles.\nTons.\nCents.\nMills.\nMills.\nMills.\nErie Canal\n3501\n210\n46.530\n2.21\n4.01\n5.01\nChenango\n97\n70\n42.200\n6.03\n7.03\n8.03\nCayuga and Seneca\n21\n210\n49.420\n2.35\n4.15\n5.15\nChemung\n23\n85\n58.840\n6.92\n8.72\n9.72\nJunction\n18\n85\n40.000\n4.70\n8.70\n18.70\nNorth Branch\n169\n85\n37.561\n4.42\n6.42\n11.42\nSusquehanna\n208\n85\n38.777\n4.75\n6.21\n9.87\nDelaware and Hudson\n108\n120\n49.840\n4.15\n6.25\n11.50\nLehigh and Morris\n148\n74\n36.705\n5.00\n7.40\n13.40\nUnion\n771\n85\n41.308\n4.86\n6.86\n11.86\nSchuylkill\n1084\n170\n50.700\n2.98\n5.98\n13.48\nDelaware and Raritan\n43\n270\n66.530\n2.42\n6.42\n16.42\nChesapeake and Delaware\n131\n270\n72.450\n2.65\n6.65\n16.65\nChesapeake and Ohio\n191\n120\n38.483\n3.30\n4.78\n8.48\nAverage\n112\n138\n47.810\n4.05\n6.40\n11.40\nHudson River (sail)\n160\n450\n55.612\n1.23\n1.23\n2.20\n\"\n\"\n(c. boats)\n160\n120\n27.140\n2.26\n2.26\n2.90\nDel. and Ches. Bays (boats)\n120\n270\n81.750\n2.72\n2.72\n3.73\nOcean (sail)\n530\n450\n56.680\n1.26\n1.26\n2.50\nAverage natural channels\n242\n322\n55.295\n1.87\n1.87\n2.83\n6\nDigitized by Google\n42\nCollecting the foregoing results from tables Nos. 4 and 5, and the fol-\nlowing statement shows the cost of transportation upon Railroads,\nCanals, Tidal Rivers and Bays, and Sea-borne:\nNo. 6.\nPER TON PER MILE.\nCLASSIFICATION.\nActual\nFreight\ncost.\ncharges.\nMills.\nMills.\nTransportation upon railroads, freight other than coal\n17.90\n29.80\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nexclusively coal\n10.76\n23.08\n\"\n\"\ncanals, exclusive of tolls\n4.05\n6.40\n\"\n\"\n\"\nincluding tolls on coal (1861)\n6.40\n11.40\n\"\n\"\nrivers, (steam towage)\n2.26\n2.90\n\"\n\"\nbays,\n\"\n2.72\n3.73\n\"\n\"\nocean, (sail)\n1.26\n2.50\nFrom the above statement, the freight charges for the transporta-\ntion of coal upon railroads, are over double of that upon canals,\nand over seven times greater than upon the average of natural\nchannels.\nThe following shows the rates of freight actually charged for carrying\nCoal, upon some of the principal Canals, including and exclusive of\ntolls, during the years 1861 and 1864.\nNo. 7.\nFREIGHT CHARGES, MILLS, PER Ton PER MILE.\nYear of 1861.\nYear of 1864.\nWithout tolls.\nWith tolls.\nWithout tolls.\nWith tolls.\nErie Canal\n4.50\n5.50\n10.39\n12.39\nChenango Canal\n10.34\n11.34\n26.35\n28.35\nDelaware and Hudson\n9.26\n14.51\n12.56\n35.56\nMorris Canal\n5.81\n11.62\n12.13\n25.13\nSchuylkill\n5.50\n8.50\n12.64\n17.00\nChesapeake and Ohio\n5.92\n13.42\n13.46\n31.66\nAverage\n6.90\n10.81\n14.60\n25.00\nFrom this statement, the freight charges of 1864 are 57 per cent\ngreater than those of 1861.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n43\nRates of freight actually charged on Coal sea-borne from Tide-water\nPorta, Oct. 10th, 1861, and Oct. 20th, 1864.\nMILLS PER Ton PER\nDISTANCE IN\nMILES.\nMILE.\n1861.\n1864.\nFrom Philadelphia and Reading Railroad, Rich-\nmond, Philadelphia, to-\nPortland, Maine,\n(sail)\n620\n1.61\n4.43\nPortsmouth, N. H.,\ndo\n590\n1.86\n4.83\nNewburyport, Mass.,\ndo\n575\n1.91\nBoston, Mass.,\ndo\n560\n1.78\n4.91\nNew Bedford, Mass.,\ndo\n395\n2.28\n5.82\nNewport, R. I.,\ndo\n390\n2.30\n5.77\nNew London, Conn.,\ndo\n375\n2.40\n6.00\nNorwich, Conn.,\ndo\n390\n2.56\nTortugas,\ndo\n1,200\n3.54\nCuba,\ndo\n1,270\n3.34\nNew Haven, Conn.,\ndo\n360\n2.43\n6.38\nBridgeport, Conn.,\ndo\n345\n2.53\n6.66\nNew York,\ndo\n285\n2.89\n7.02\nNewark, N. J.,\ndo\n287\n2.87\nAlbany,\ndo\n445\n2.02\nTroy,\ndo\n451\n2.22\nPhiladelphia, Penn.,\ndo\n3\nFortress Monroe,\ndo\n277\n3.61\nKey West,\ndo\n1,230\n3.45\nProvidence, R. I.,\ndo\n405\n2.22\n5.50\nAverage\n2.51\n5.73\nIncrease of rates, 1864 over 1861-156 per cent.\nFrom N. J. Central Railroad, Elizabethport, to-\nNew York\n12\n2.91\n6.25\nNew Haven, Conn\n96\n4.94\n14.60\nBoston, Mass\n382\n2.10\n6.54\nAlbany, N. Y\n172\n2.90\nNorwich, Conn\n145\n3.96\n10.34\nProvidence, R. I\n200\n3.00\n9.00\nFall River, Mass\n225\n2.66\n8.00\nNewport, R. I\n170\n3.52\n10.56\nTaunton, Mass\n225\n3.33\n8.44\nPawtucket, Mass\n230\n3.04\n8.26\nNewburyport, Mass\n400\n2.00\n6.62\nPortland, Maine\n450\n1.77\n5.55\nTroy,N.Y\n178\n2.80\nPoughkeepsie\n87\n5.17\nHartford\n167\n4.49\nNew London\n132\n4.16\n12.12\nDerby, Conn\n100\n6.50\nAverage\n3.48\n8.85\nIncrease of rates, 1864 over 1861-154 per cent,\nDigitized by Google\n44,\nMILLS PER Ton PER\nDISTANCE IN\nMILES.\nMILE.\n1861.\n1864.\nJULY 6th, 1864.\nFrom Balt. and Ohio Railroad, Locust Point, to-\nBoston\n770\n5.35\nNew York\n490\n6.12\nNew Haven\n585\n6.41\nPhiladelphia\n440\n(3.41)\nProvidence\n620\n6.45\nPortland\n830\n4.97\nPawtucket\n630\n6.74\nAlbany\n640\n5.08\nAverage\n5.87\nCurrent rate of freight, July, 1866, from Port Richmond, reported by\nthe Coal Exchange, 2051 Walnut street, Philadelphia.\nTo Albany and towing\n$1 60\nBoston\n3 00\n\" and per bridge\n03\nBridgeport\n2 25\nBelfast\n3 00\nBath\n3 15\nBangor\n3 00\nCommercial Point\n3 00\nChelsea\n3 00\nCharlestown, Mass\n3 00\nCambridgeport (and three cents per bridge)\n3 00\nCohasset Narrows\n3 00\nDorchester Point\n3 00\nDighton\n2 60\nDanversport and dispatch\n3 00\nEast Greenwich\n2 50\nFall River\n2 00\nFredericksburg\n1 75\nGardner and towing\n3 25\nGloucester\n3 25\nHartford\n3 25\nHudson\n1 90\nHingham and dispatch\n3 00\nLynn and dispatch\n3 00\nMalden\n3 50\nMedford\n3 55\nMystic\n2 50\nMarblehead\n3 00\nNorfolk\n1 50\nNew York\n1.60 and\n1 65\nNew Haven and Demur\n2 30\nNorwich\n2 60\nNew London\n2 50\nNorwalk\n2 25\nNew Bedford\n2 50\nDigitized by Google\n45\nNewburyport\n$3 25\nNantucket\n3 00\nNewonsett\n3 00\nNewport\n2 50\nPoughkeepsie and towing\n1 60\nPortsmouth, N. H\n3 25\nPortland\n3 00\nPawtucket and towing\n2 50\nProvidence\n2 50\nQuincy Point\n3 00\nRoxbury\n3 25\nRockport\n3 25\nRichmond\n1 85\nSaco\n3 62\nSalem\n3 00\nSalisbury\n3 40\nSt. John, New Brunswick, in gold\n1 25\nWashington\n1 60\nWeymouth\n3 25\nNoank, Conn\n2 50\nPeekskill and towing\n1 80\nYarmouth, Maine\n3 25\nKennebunkport, Maine\n3 60\nWestchester\n1 80\nIpswich\n3 35\nStamford and towage\n1 00\nThe following statement shows the average rates charged for towing coal\nboats and barges, by the Steam Towing Companies, on the Chesapeake\nand Delaware bays and rivers, also the Hudson River, for the\nyears 1861 and 1864:\nMILLS PER TON PER MILE.\n24 Miles.\n120 Miles.\n270 Miles.\n160 Miles.\nBURTHEN OF\nBOATS.\nHavre de Grace\nBet. Philadelphia\nPhiladelphia\nNew York\nto\nand\nto\nto\nChes. & Del Canal.\nBaltimore.\nWashington.\nAlbany.\n1861.\n1864.\n1861.\n1864.\n1861.\n1864.\n1861.\n1864.\n50 tons\n3.33\n5.83\n3.66\n10.80\n11.11\n14.81\n1.37\n1.53\n60 \"\n2.77\n4.86\n3.05\n9.72\n9.56\n12.46\n1 37\n1.53\n70\n\"\n2.38\n4.16\n2.61\n8.93\n8.46\n11.42\n1.37\n1.53\n80 \"\n2.60\n4.16\n2.43\n8.33\n7.63\n10.00\n1.37\n1.53\n85 \"\n2.41\n4.41\n2.26\n8.09\n7.30\n9.47\n1.37\n1.53\n90 \"\n2.77\n4.63\n2.30\n7.08\n7.00\n9.05\n1.37\n1.53\n120 \"\n2.43\n5.55\n2.42\n6.94\n5.80\n7.25\n1.37\n1.53\n175 \"\n3.00\n6.43\n2.13\n6.06\n4.56\n5 54\n1.37\n1.53\n200 \"\n2.29\n6.66\n2.13\n5.83\n4.16\n5.09\n1.37\n1.53\n250 \"\n2.25\n7.00\n2.10\n7.16\n3.70\n4.44\n1.37\n1.53\n300 \"\n2.22\n7.22\n2.08\n6.73\n3.30\n4.00\n1.37\n1.53\n134 Average\n2.59\n5.53\n2.47\n7.70\n6.60\n8.52\n1.37\n1.53\nDigitized by Google\n46\nThe following statement shows the rates of toll charged upon each canal,\nas made up for the season, from the published toll sheets, for a series\nof years:\nRATES OF THROUGH TOLLS ON ANTHRACITE COAL.\nTHROUGH RATES FOR SEASON.\nNAME OF CANAL.\nMills per ton per mile.\nRemarks.\n1861.\n1862.\n1863.\n1864.\nErie Canal\n1.00\n1.00\n1.00\n2.00\nChenango\n1.00\n1.00\n1.00\n2.00\nCayuga and Seneca\n1.00\n1.00\n1.00\n2.00\nChemung\n1.00\n1.00\n1.00\n2.00\nJunction\n10.00\n10.00\n10.00\n10.00\nWithin comb'n.\ndo\n25.00\n25.00\n25.00\n25.00\nOutside comb'n.\nNorth Branch\n5.00\n6.00\n6.00\n8.50\nWithin comb'n.\ndo\n25.00\n25.00\n25.00\n25.00\nOutside comb'n.\nWyoming\n3.66\n4.14\n4.50\n5.50\nWest Branch and Susqueh'a\n3.66\n4.14\n4.50\n5.33\nPenn. Eastern Division\n3.66\n4.14\n5.00\n5.00\nSusquehanna & Tide-water\n4.66\n4.66\n6.00\n7.00\nUnion Canal\n5.00\n5.50\n6.00\nDelaware and Hudson\n5.25\n4.50\n23.00\nLehigh Canal\n6.00\n4.37\n10.00\n10.00\nMorris Canal\n5.81\n13.00\nPenn. Delaware Division\n5.50\n8.00\nSchuylkill\n7.50\n13.25\n18.20\nDelaware and Raritan\n10.00\n10.00\n11.11\nChesapeake and Delaware\n10.00\n10.00\n10.00\n18.51\nChesapeake and Ohio\n3.00\n3.00\n3.00\n4.36\nPenn. Juniata Division\n5.00\n5.00\n5.00\n5.00\nDigitized by Google\n47\nINFLUENCE OF RAILBOADS AND CANALS AS AFFECTING THE\nMARKET VALUE OF WHEAT AND CORN.\nThe following calculation- shows the effect upon the market value of a\nton of wheat and corn transported on railroads, canals and wagon\nroads. The cost of transportation upon railroads is assumed at 1&\ncents per ton per mile; canals, cents; and wagon roads, at 15\ncents per ton per mile. In a ton of wheat of 2,240 pounds, there\nare 37½ bushels, and 40 bushels in, a ton of corn, and the value\nassumed in market for the former is $56.25, or $1.50 per bushel,\nand the latter $30, or 75 cents per bushel.\nTRANSPORTATION OF WHEAT.\nTRANSPORTATION OF CORN\nBy\nBy\nBy\nBy\nBy\nBy\nRailroad.\nCanal.\nWagon.\nRailroad.\nCanal.\nWagon.\nAt market\n$56 25\n$56 25\n$56 25\n$30 00\n$30 00\n$30 00\n10 miles\n56 00\n56 10\n54 75\n29 82\n29 88\n28 50\n50 \"\n55 37\n55 65\n48 75\n29 12\n29 40\n22 50\n100 \"\n54 50\n55 05\n41 25\n28 25\n28 80\n15 00\n150\n\"\n53 63\n54 45\n33 75\n27 38\n28 20\n7 50\n200 \"\n52 75\n53 85\n26 25\n26 50\n27 60\n250 \"\n51 88\n53 25\n18 75\n25 62\n27 00\n300 \"\n51 00\n52 65\n11 25\n24 75\n26 40\n330 \"\n50 48\n52 25\n6 75\n24 27\n26 04\n350 \"\n50 13\n52 00\n3 75\n23 88\n25 80\n375 \"\n49 69\n51 75\n23 44\n25 50\nThe above calculations show that wheat, 50 miles from market,\nis worth 18 cents more per bushel upon the line of a railroad, and\n19 cents more, if upon a canal, than if sent to market over the\naverage of first-class wagon roads; and at 375 miles from market,\nwhile the entire value of a bushel of wheat is absorbed in the cost\nof transportation over a wagon road, the cost by railroad has only\nreduced it 17 cents, and by canal only 12 cents per bushel. Corn,\n200 miles from market, by wagon road, is just equal, in value, to\nthe cost of transportation, while the same distance by railroad, its\nvalue is only reduced 10 cents, and by canal only six cents per\nbushel.\nDigitized by Google\n48\nCOST OF TRANSPORTATION FROM CUMBERLAND AND WASHINGTON\nVIA PRESENT ROUTES, AND BY THE PROPOSED CHESAPEAKE\nBAY AND POTOMAC RIVER T. W. CANAL.\nThe following statements show the cost of transportation from the Cumber-\nland coal fields, also from Washington to the markets of the East,\nbased upon the rates embraced in tables Nos. 4 and 5.\n(The cost of transportation over the proposed Chesapeake and\nPotomac Canal is the same upon a level as the Delaware and Raritan,\nand increasing this by the lockage would equal 180\n3.17 mills, and assuming five mills for tolls, with 40 per cent added\nfor cost of management, and the total cost is equal to 10.17 mills per\nton per mile.)\nLength\nRates inclu-\nCost trans-\nFROM CUMBERLAND.\nof Route.\nding tolls.\nporting one\nton.\nTo N. YORK VIA CHES. BAY & POTOMAC R. T. W. CANAL.\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal\n191\n8.50\n$1.623\nPotomac River and Eastern Branch\n71\n2.90\n0.021\nChesapeake Bay and Potomac River T. W. Canal\n251\n10.17\n0.260\nChesapeake Bay\n65\n3.73\n0.242\nChesapeake and Delaware Canal\n131\n16.65\n0.224\nDelaware River\n78\n2.90\n0.226\nDelaware and Raritan Canal\n43\n16.42\n0.706\nNew York Bay\n34\n3.73\n0.126\nOne transhipment at Georgetown\n0.100\nTotal distance and cost\n4571\n7.49\n$3.528\nTo N. YORK VIA BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. AND OCEAN.\nBaltimore and Ohio Railroad\n178\n18.60\n$3.310\nOcean, vessels of 450 tons burthen\n490\n2.50\n1.225\nOne transhipment at Baltimore\n0.100\nTotal distance and cost\n668\n7.00\n$4.635\nTo N. YORK VIA BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. AND CANAL.\nBaltimore and Ohio Railroad\n178\n18.60\n$3.310\nChesapeake Bay\n60\n3.73\n0.223\nChesapeake and Delaware Canal\n131\n16.65\n0.224\nDelaware River\n78\n2.90\n0.226\nDelaware and Raritan Canal\n43\n16.42\n0.706\nNew York Bay\n34\n3.73\n0.126\nOne transhipment at Baltimore\n0.100\nTotal distance and cost\n406\n12.08\n$4.915\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n49\nLenth\nRates inclu-\nCost trans-\nFROM CUMBERLAND.\nof Route.\nding tolls.\nporting one\nton.\nTo NEW YORK VIA CHES. & OHIO CANAL AND OCEAN.\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal\n191\n8.50\n$1.623\nOcean, vessels 450 tons burthen\n530\n2.50\n1.325\nOne transhipment at Georgetown\n0.100\nTotal distance and cost\n721\n4.22\n$3.048\nTo PHILA. VIA CHES. B. & POTOMAC R. T. W. CANAL.\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal\n191\n8.50\n$1.623\nPotomac River\n71\n2.90\n0.021\nChesapeake Bay and Potomac River T. W. Canal\n251\n10 17\n0.260\nChesapeake Bay\n65\n3.73\n0.242\nChesapeake and Delaware Canal\n131\n16.65\n0.224\nDelaware River\n42\n2.90\n0.121\nOne transhipment\n0 100\nTotal distance and cost\n3441\n7.52\n$2.591\nTo PHILADELPIA VIA POTOMAC AND CHESAPEAKE BAY.\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal\n191\n8.50\n$1.623\nPotomac River\n125\n2.90\n0.363\nChesapeake Bay\n125\n3.73\n0.467\nChesapeake and Delaware Canal\n13\n16.65\n0.224\nDelaware River\n42\n2.90\n0.123\nOne transhipment\n0.100\nTotal distance and cost\n4961\n5.84\n$2.900\nTo PHILADELPHIA VIA BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. AND\nCHESAPEAKE AND DELAWARE CANAL AND BAYS.\nBaltimore and Ohio Railroad\n178\n18.60\n$3.310\nChesapeake Bay\n60\n3.73\n0.224\nChesapeake and Delaware Canal\n131\n16.65\n0.224\nDelaware River\n42\n2.90\n0.122\nOne transhipment at Baltimore\n0.100\nTotal distance and cost\n2931\n13.56\n$3 980\nTo BALTIMORE VIA CHES. BAY & POTOMAC R. T. W. CANAL.\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal\n191\n8 50\n$1.623\nPotomac River\n71\n2.90\n0.021\nChesapeake Bay and Potomac River T. W. Canal\n251\n10.17\n0.260\nChesapeake Bay\n44\n2.73\n0.164\nOne transhipment at Georgetown\n0.100\nTotal distance and cost\n264\n8.21\n$2.168\nTo BALTIMORE VIA POTOMAC RIVER AND CHES. BAY.\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal\n191\n8.50\n$1.623\nPotomac River\n125\n2.90\n0.363\nChesapeake Bay\n100\n3.73\n0.373\nOne transhipment\n0.100\nTotal distance and cost\n416\n5.91\n$2.459\n7\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n50\nADVANTAGES GAINED OVER OTHER ROUTES BY THE CONSTRUCTION\nOF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND POTOMAC RIVER\nTIDE-WATER CANAL.\nThe following statement, made up from the foregoing calculation, is sub-\nmitted, showing the distance, average rates, and cost of transportation\nper ton (gold at par), from Cumberland, also from Washington, to the\neastern markets. The cost of transportation over the Chesapeake Bay\nand Potomac River Tide-water Canal is assumed at mills\nper ton per mile, including five mills for tolls:\nAverage\nAmount\nMARKETS.\nROUTES.\nLength,\nRates, in\nTransporta-\nin Miles.\nMills.\ntion.\nFROM CUMBERLAND,\nTo New York.\nVia Ches. Bay & Pot. R. T. W. Canal\n4571\n7.49\n$3.528\n\"\n\" Baltimore & Ohio R.R. & ocean\n668\n7.00\n4.635\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\ncanals\n4061\n12.08\n4.915\n\"\n\" Ches. and Ohio Canal and ocean\n721\n4.22\n3.048\nTo Philadelphia\n\" Ches. Bay & Pot. R. T. W. Canal\n3441\n7.52\n2.591\n\"\n\" Pot., Ches. Bay, Ches. & Del. Ca.\n496\n5.84\n2.900\n\"\n\" Bal. & Ohio R.R. &\n\"\n\"\n2931\n13.56\n3.980\nTo Baltimore\n\" Ches. Bay & Pot. R. T. W. Canal\n264\n8.21\n2.168\n\"\n\" Potomac River and Ches. Bay\n416\n5.91\n2.459\n\"\n\" Baltimore and Ohio Railroad\n178\n18.60\n3.310\nFROM W ASHINGTON,\nTo New York.\nVia Ches. Bay & Pot. R. T. W. Canal\n2661\n6.78\n1.805\n\"\n\" Potomac River and ocean\n530\n2.60\n1.375\n\"\n\" C. Bay & Pot. R. T. W. C. & ocean\n485\n2.91\n1.408\nTo Philadelphia\n\" Ches. Bay & Pot. R. T. W. Canal\n1531\n5.65\n0.868\n\"\n\" Potomac River and ocean\n440\n2.56\n1.127\n\"\n\" Pot., Ches. Bay, Ches. & Del. Ca.\n3051\n3.84\n1.175\nTo Ha. de Grace\n\" Ches. Bay & Pot. R. T. W. Canal\n924\n5.33\n0.505\n\"\n\" Potomac River and Ches. Bay\n245\n3.30\n0.810\n\"\n\" Railroad.\n74\n18.60\n1.376\nTo Baltimore\n\" Ches. Bay & Pot. R. T. W. Canal\n73\n6.09\n0.445\n\"\n\" Potomac River and Ches. Bay\n225\n3.27\n0.736\n\"\n\" Baltimore and Ohio Railroad\n40\n18.60\n0.744\nTo Annapolis\n\" Ches. Bay & Pot. R. T. W. Canal\n37\n8.10\n0.299\n\"\n\" Potomac River and Ches. Bay\n190\n3.18\n0.604\n\"\n\" Baltimore and Ohio Railroad\n42\n18.60\n0.781\nFrom the foregoing results, the cost of transportation between\nCumberland and New York, by the construction of the \" Chesapeake\nBay and Potomac River Tide-water Canal,\" would be 25 per cent\nand 212 miles less than if sent over the Baltimore and Ohio Rail-\nroad and ocean, and 29 per cent less than over the Baltimore and\nOhio Railroad and canals. To Philadelphia, it would be 11 per\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n51\ncent and 153 miles less than if sent by the Potomac and Chesapeake\nBay; and 35 per cent less than by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad\nand canal. To Baltimore; the cost of transportation would be 12\nper cent and 153 miles less than by Potomac River and Chesa-\npeake Bay; and 34 per cent less than by the Baltimore and Ohio\nRailroad.\nFrom Washington, the cost of transportation would be 26 per\ncent and 153 miles less to Philadelphia than by the Potomac River,\nChesapeake Bay and canal; and 25 per cent and 288 miles less\nthan by Potomac River and ocean. To Havre de Grace, the cost\nof transportation would be 38 per cent and 153 miles less than by\nthe Potomac and Chesapeake Bay, and 65 per cent less than\nby Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. To Baltimore, the cost of trans-\nportation would be 40 per cent and 153 miles less than by the\nPotomac and Chesapeake Bay, and 471 per cent less than by rail-\nroad. To Annapolis, the cost of transportation would be 50 per\ncent and 153 miles less than by the Potomac and Chesapeake Bay,\nand 60 per cent less than by railroad.\nDigitized by Google\nAPPENDIX B.\nDESCRIPTION OF THE PRINCIPAL BITUMINOUS COAL FIELDS,\nTOGETHER WITH COST OF COAL FROM EACH,\nAND DISTANCES FROM MARKETS.\nCUMBERLAND COAL FIELDS.\nThese mines are situated at and near Cumberland, at the termina-\ntion of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, and along the Baltimore\nand Ohio Railroad and its auxiliaries, the Cumberland and Pennsyl-\nvania Railroad, Cumberland Coal and Iron Company's Railroad,\nGeorge's Creek Railroad, and Hampshire Railroad.\nThese mines rank the first of bituminous coal fields on this conti-\nnent, not only in quality, but superior advantages for transportation\nto the great markets of the East, and facilities for mining. The\nworkable mines are embraced within the Frostburg and Piedmont\nregions, lying mostly within the county of Allegany, Maryland.\nThese mines were opened in 1842, and, although followed by new\ndevelopments in the north of Pennsylvania, have always been\npreferred for marine uses. The coal contains a greater percentage\nof carbon than any found in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Missouri,\nas will be observed from the following analysis:\nMINES.\nSTATE.\nPercentage of\nCarbon.\nEvaporation\nper pound,\n(Steam 212.)\nQuantity of\nheat, by vol-\nume.\nPercentage of\nCoke, by\nweight.\nMaryland\nMaryland\n73.5\n11.2\n85\nCumberland\ndo\n74.3\n11.0\n85\nBlossburg\nPennsylvania\n73.4\n10.9\n85\n.83\nKarthans\ndo\n73.8\n9.8\n85\n.88\nCambria County\ndo\n69.4\n10.2\n85\nClover Hill\nVirginia\n56.8\n8.5\n85\n.68\nTippecanoe\ndo\n64.6\n8.5\n85\nPittsburg\nPennsylvania\n55.0\n8.9\n85\n.68\nMissouri\nMissouri\n.57\nBarclay Mines\nPennsylvania\nDigitized by Google\n53\nThe Frostburg region extends from Pennsylvania through Mary-\nland into Virginia, a distance of 30 miles, with an average width of\nsix miles, and embracing an area of over 200 square miles. The\ncoal lies in a trough between Davis and Savage mountains, and\noccurs in four principal beds, as follows: The lowest vein is five feet\nthick, and includes a stratum of iron one foot thick; the second is\neight feet thick, and the third 14 feet, and the fourth 41 feet thick.\nBesides these, there is a vein six feet thick, lying 600 feet below\nthe \"big\" or 14 feet vein. The quality of the lowest, or five feet\nvein, partakes of the nature of anthracite, and contains 85 per cent\nof carbon; the second or eight feet vein, yields a coal of 80 per\ncent carbon and 20 per cent bitumen; the third, called the \"Big\nvein\" of 14 feet, consists of two kinds, one possessing considerable\nlustre, and the other dull and hard, resembling cannel coal. This,\nthe principal vein, contains 74⁻³⁻ per cent of carbon.\nNumerous other veins occur, alternating in the lowest portions of\nthe deposit with slates, shales, bands of iron ore and slate clay,\nand the upper portions alternate with strata of shale, sandstone and\nlimestone.\nBeyond the ridge called the \"Backbone,\" is the \"Younghis\nGarny\" coal fields, with seams 20 feet thick.\nThe following shows the number of companies and workable mines,\ntogether with the yield from each, in 1865.\nYIELD IN\nCOMPANY.\nCOMPANY.\nYIELD IN\nTons.\nTONS.\nAmerican Coal Company\n88,918\nNew Hope Mines\n37,936\nCentral C. M. and M. Co.\n102,209\nMidlothian Coal Co\n20,050\nPiedmont Coal and Iron Co.\n31,797\nBarton Coal Co\n10,296\nSwanton Mining Co\n36,415\nAtlantic and G. Coal Co\n16,519\nPotomac Coal Co\n32,482\nSavage Mountain Co\n5,273\nGeorge's Cr'k Coal & Iron Co\n45,276\nGeorge's Creek Mining Co.\n38,652\nHampshire and Balt. Coal Co\n112,159\nFranklin Coal Co\n41,576\nNeff Run Coal Company\n2,680\nCumberland Coal & Iron Co\n127,880\nConsolidation Coal Co\n58,098\nBlaeu-Avon Coal Co\n24,469\nBorden Mining Co\n60,599\nSpruce Hill Coal Co\n10,209\nTotal\n903,495\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n54\nThis quantity was sent to tide-water over the following routes :\nTONS DELIVERED To\nAUXILIARIES TO TRUNK LINES.\nTOTAL\nBalt. & Ohio\nChes. & Ohio\nLocal.\nRailroad.\nCanal.\nBy Cumberland & Penn. R. R.\n368,280\n285,295\n16,017\n669,592\n\"\n\"\nCoal & Iron R. R.\n101,471\n57,907\n3,180\n162,558\n\" Hampshire & Baltimore R. R.\n70,365\n980\n71,343\nTotals\n540,116\n343,202\n20,177\n903,495\nThe total quantity of coal mined and sent to market from the\nCumberland coal fields, from 1842 to 1865, inclusive, is as follows :\nFrom the Frostburg Region\n6,610,106 tons.\n\"\nPeidmont\n\"\n(opened in 1853)\n2,739,623\n\"\nTotal\n9,349,729\n\"\nOf this quantity, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad transported.\n6,516,010\n\"\nAnd the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal (opened 1850)\n2,833,714\n\"\nThe total quantity of bituminous coal imported since its intro-\nduction\n8,500,000\n\"\nTotal quantity mined and sent to market of bituminous coal\nfrom all the mines in Pennsylvania, since 1845\n6,500,000 \"\nFrom this, it appears that over 35 per cent more coal has been\nsent to market from the Cumberland mines than from all the\nbituminous mines in Pennsylvania.\nOf this vast trade, the Baltimore and Ohio transported, in 1865,\n35 per cent more than the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. As shown\nin a preceding statement, coal can be sent to New York from Cum-\nberland, via the proposed canal, 26 per cent cheaper, and to\nPhiladelphia 29 per cent less than by the Baltimore and Ohio Rail-\nroad and ocean, the cheapest present route from the coal fields,\nexcept the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and ocean.\nTo show the practical development of the Cumberland coal\nregion, also the present facilities and cost of getting this coal into\nmarket, a general description of the property owned and worked\nby the \"Hampshire and Baltimore Coal Company\" presents, per-\nhaps, the fairest example. The property is embraced in two tracts,\nthe Hampshire and Midland, 12 miles apart, embracing an aggre-\nDigitized by Google\n55\ngate area of 2212 acres, 350 acres of which is the \" Big vein,\" of\n14 feet in thickness.\nThe Hampshire tract is situated at Piedmont, and is bounded on\nthe north and east by the Potomac River. The succession of work-\nable coal veins are as follows: The Big vein (from which the coal\nis now mined) is 1000 feet above the river, is 14 feet thick, with\ntwo slate seams, one two inches thick, and the other 10 inches.\nThe next vein is 2½ feet thick, and lies 60 feet below the Big vein\nand of a harder quality. The third vein is three feet thick, 460\nfeet below the Big vein. The fourth vein is six feet thick and 535\nfeet below the Big vein, and 595 below occurs a vein three feet\nthick, making, in all, an aggregate depth of about 261 feet of coal,\nestimated to yield 38,720 tons per acre. The coal is mined at an\nelevation above the railroad, and delivered directly from the chute\ninto the cars. The tram roads are worked by eight-ton engines\ninstead of horses.\nAll of the coal from these mines is sent by the Baltimore and\nOhio Railroad 208 miles to Locust Point, Baltimore, and there\neither transhipped into vessels of from 250 to 450 tons burthen, and\nsent by the ocean 490 miles to New York, or which is more pre-\nferred, by the inland canal route in boats of 270 tons, 2281 miles to\nNew York. The freight charges from Baltimore via the inland\ncanal route to New York in 1865, averaged $3.00 per ton (13.15\nmills per ton per mile), and in July, 1866, averaged $2.65 or 11.60\nmills per ton per mile; and to Albany, from Baltimore, $3.25 or 81\nmills per ton per mile; the total distance being 3881 miles.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n56\nThe following statement shows the amount it has cost the company per\nton, including cost of mining, interest on investment, freight charges,\nsalaries, office rents, insurance, &c., for the years 1861-3-4-5 and 6,\nfrom the Hampshire mines.\nVIA BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD.\nCosT PER TcN.\nCLASSIFICATION.\n1861.\n1863.\n1864.\n1865.\n1866.\nActual cost of mining\n$0.63\n$1.00\n$1.16\n$1.43\n$1.10\nInterest on investment\n0.25\n0.25\n0.32\n0.32\n0.32\n208 miles, Baltimore & Ohio Railroad\n3.83\n3.86\n3.86\n4.63\n3.80\nTranshipment and wharf'e, Baltimore\n0.12\n0.20\n0.25\n0.25\n0.25\nCost on board vessels at Baltimore\n$4.83\n$5.31\n$5.59\n$6.63\n$5.47\n2281 miles inland, or 490 ocean trans.\n1.43\n2.60\n3.00\n3.00\n2.65\nCost at New York\n$6.26\n$7.91\n$8.59\n$9.63\n$8.12\nFreight charges, New York to Albany\n0.47\n0.50\n0.80\n0.80\n0.60\nCost at Albany\n$6.73\n$8.41\n$9.39\n$10.43\n$8.72\nAdd salaries of officers, rents, cont. ex.\n0.08\n0.10\n0.11\n0.11\n0.11\nTaxes, commission, interest, insurance\n0.10\n0.11\n0.12\n0.15\n0.15\nTotal cost per ton\n$6,91\n$8.62\n$9.62\n$10.68\n$8.98\nThe Midland tract is located in the heart of George's Creek val-\nley, Allegany county, Maryland, 12 miles from Piedmont, 6 miles\nfrom Frostburg, and 23 miles from Cumberland, at the head of the\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal, and 207 miles from Georgetown. It\nembraces an area of 279 acres, 95 of which is the \"Big vien\" coal\nseam, 14 feet thick. One-half of the tract is upland, and the other\nbottom. The aggregate area is estimated to yield 10,000 tons per\nacre. The coal is mined about 300 yards from the line of railroad,\nand at an elevation above it, thus dispensing with the use of tram\nroads. The company own a fleet of 26 canal boats, of capacity to\ntransport, without interruption, 9000 tons per month.\nThe coal from these mines is sent 23 miles to Cumberland, by\nthe \" Cumberland and Pennsylvania Railroad\" where it is tran-\nshipped into boats of 115 to 120 tons burthen, and sent 184 miles\nover the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal to Georgetown. The coal is\nhere transhipped into vessels of 250 to 400 tons burthen, and sent\n530 miles by the ocean to New York, or 418 miles by the inland\ncanal route.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n57\nThere are many embarrassments operating against the success of\nthis cheap and capacious outlet from the Cumberland coal fields, viz :\nFirst, the exorbitant freight charges of the Cumberland and Penn.\nRailroad, being 150 per cent greater than charged upon any of the\nPennsylvania coal railroads; second, the unprecedented delays and\ndetentions on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, together with the\nhigh rates of toll; and the last, but perhaps the greatest, is the\ndifficulty of obtaining vessels requiring return cargoes, from the\nlimited commerce of the district. This last embarrassment is not\nexperienced at Baltimore, from the magnitude and variety of its\ncommerce, and would be SO for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, if\nits terminus was brought near Baltimore as by the construction of\nthe proposed canal; Annapolis (terminus of proposed canal), is\nonly 38 miles from Baltimore, while Georgetown is 225 miles, and\nthe distance, by ocean, from Annapolis, is 70 miles less to New York\nthan from Georgetown.\nThe following statement shows the amount coal has cost the company\nfrom the Midland mines, including cost of mining, interest on invest-\nment, freight charges, salaries, office rents, insurance and taxes, per\nton, for the years 1861-3-4-5 and 6.\nVIA THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL.\nCosT PER ToN.\nCLASSIFICATION.\n1861.\n1863.\n1864.\n1865.\n1866.\nActual cost mining\n$0.63\n$0.75\n$1.00\n$1.33\n$1.00\nInterest on investment\n0.25\n0.25\n0.32\n0.32\n0.32\n23 miles, Cumberland & Penn. R. R\n0.46\n0.80\n1.00\n1.04\n1.04\nTranshipment at Cumberland\n0.08\n0.08\n0.10\n0.10\n0.08\n184 miles trans. & tolls, Ches. & O. Ca.\n1.62\n1.96\n3.25\n2.92\n2.42\nTranship't and wharfage at Georget'n\n0.12\n0.25\n0.50\n0.60\n0.55\nCost on board vessels at Georgetown\n$3.16\n$4.09\n$6.17\n$6.31\n$5.41\n530 miles ocean, or 4181 miles inl'd ca.\n1.96\n2.50\n3.18\n3.25\n3.00\nCost at New York\n$5.12\n$6.59\n$9.35\n$9.56\n$8.41\nAdd freight to Albany\n0.47\n0.50\n0.64\n0.70\n0.60\nCost at Albany\n$5.59\n$7.09\n$9.99\n$10.26\n$9.01\nAdd salaries of officers, rents and ins.\n0.08\n0.10\n0.11\n0.11\n0.11\nTaxes, commission, interest and ins\n0.10\n0.11\n0.12\n0.15\n0.15\nTotal cost, including incidentals\n$5.77\n$7.30\n$10.22\n$10.52\n$9.27\n8\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n58\nBLOOSBURG MINES.\nBefore the enlargement of the Cayuga and Seneca and Erie\ncanals, coal, from these mines, was sent over the Tioga Railroad, 40\nmiles, to Corning, and there shipped into boats of 70 to 80 tons\nburthen, and carried to the Erie Canal markets. Since the comple-\ntion of the enlargement of the above canals, all the coal from the\nnew, extensive mines of John McGee, Esq., is sent by railroad from\nBloosburg, 80 miles, to Watkins (at the head of the Seneca Lake),\nand there shipped into boats of 210 tons burthen, and carried to\nBuffalo, 209 miles; Rochester, 116 miles; Montezuma, 56 miles;\nSyracuse, 89 miles ; Oswego, 127 miles; Utica, 145 miles; Albany,\n255 miles, and New York, 405 miles, from Watkins.\nThe character of this coal is: Percentage of carbon, 73.4; steam\n(of 212°) evaporated, per lb., 10.9; quantity of heat, by volume,\n85; percentage of coke, by weight, .83.\nBARCLAY MINES.\nThe only outlet from these mines into this State, is by the North\nBranch and Junction canals. The coal is brought over the Barclay\nRailroad, 16 miles, to Towanda, and there shipped into boats of 85\ntons burthen, and sent to Athens, 15 miles; Elmira, 38 miles;\nWatkins, 61 miles. At Watkins the coal is transhipped into boats\nof 210 tons burthen for distant ports on the Erie Canal. It would\nbe economy to tranship if the distance to be transported from Wat-\nkins exceeded 50 miles. The total distance of these mines from\nWatkins, by canal, is 77 miles; Bloosburg mines, by rail, 80\nmiles - the point of transhipment from both mines.\nThese mines were not considered practically in operation pre-\nvious to 1854. In relation to the facilities and working condition of\nthese mines, Col. O. W. Childs, in his report on the Chenango Canal\nextension, remarks, that the Barclay Railroad Company forwarded,\nin 1858, 16,000 tons, and in 1859, 30,000 tons, of which only 18,482\ntons came into this State by canal. Their road, machinery and\nmines appear to be in good working order, and although the quan-\ntity shipped in 1859 was less than double that of 1858 (a year of\nthe early use and interrupted employ of the road, added to the\ndelays consequent upon seeking and introducing their coal to a new\nand untried market), the company being more fully prepared now,\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n59\ncontemplate doing a much larger business another year, and with\nsome additional motive power could, in a single season, send forward\n\"120,000 tons.\"\nTHE TREVORTON MINES.\nThese mines are situated at the outer croppings of the 2d Middle\nAnthracite Coal District, in the vicinity of Trevorton, 13½ miles by\nthe Trevorton Railroad to Port Trevorton, on the Susquehanna.\nRiver.\nPort Trevorton has a direct water communication with the New\nYork State canals at Elmira (via the Susquehanna, North Branch\nand Junction canals), 200 miles; with Havre de Grace (via the\nSusquehanna and Penn. canals), 119 miles; with Baltimore (via\nsame route), 173 miles; with Philadelphia (via the Susquehanna,\nUnion and Schuylkill canals), 197 miles.\nThere are also direct railroad communications from the mines to\nBinghamton (via the Northern Central, Lackawanna and Blooms-\nburg, Delaware, Lackawanna and Western, and New York and Erie\nrailroads,) 184 miles; to Elmira (via the Susquehanna, Williams-\nport and Elmira railroads), 1421 miles; with Baltimore (via\nNorthern Central Railroad), 141 miles, and with Philadelphia (via\nNorthern Central, H. P. and Mount Joy, and Penn. railroads), 179\nmiles.\nLYKENS VALLEY MINES.\nThese mines lie at the extreme northwest corner, or arm, of the\n1st Southern, or Schuylkill District, and 16 miles by the Lykens\nValley Railroad to Millersburg, on the Susquehanna River.\nCoal from these mines is shipped into boats of 85 tons burthen,\nat Millersburg, and sent by direct water communication to Havre\nde Grace (via the Susquehanna), 104 miles; to Baltimore, 158\nmiles ; to Philadelphia (via the Susquehanna, Union and Schuylkill\ncanals), 182 miles ; to Elmira (via the Pennsylvania, North Branch\nand Junction canals), 215 miles.\nFrom these mines there are direct railroad communications with\nBinghamton, 187 miles; Elmira, 160 miles; Baltimore, 128 miles ;\nand Philadelphia, 166 miles.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n60\nSHORT MOUNTAIN MINES.\nThese mines lie adjoining the Lykens Valley mines, and the coal\nis sent to market over the same routes.\nDAUPHIN COUNTY MINES\nAlso lie adjoining the Short Mountain and Lykens Valley mines,\nand the coal is sent to market over the same routes.\nBROAD Top MINES.\nThese mines are situated between Seaton and Hopewell, on the\nBroad Top Railroad, 36 miles from Huntingdon. Coal is sent to\nSeaton by a branch about eight miles long, and at Hopewell by a\nbranch about five miles long. The mines are seven miles long, and\nabout three miles wide. The coal is sent by the Broad Top Railroad,\n31 miles, to Huntingdon, and there shipped into boats.\nHuntingdon has a direct water communication with Harrisburg\n(via the Juniata and Susquehanna), 107 miles; Havre de Grace,\n183 miles; Baltimore, 237 miles; Philadelphia (via Juniata, Susque-\nhanna, Union and Schuylkill canals), 261 miles; with Elmira (via\nJuniata, Susquehanna, North Branch and Junction canals), 320\nmiles; with New York city (via Juniata, Susquehanna, Union,\nSchuylkill, Delaware and Raritan, and Bay), 374 miles; with\nAlbany (via Juniata, Susquehanna, North Branch, Penn. Coal Co's\nRailroad, Delaware and Hudson Canal and Hudson River), 412\nmiles.\nFrom the mines there are direct railroad communications with\nBaltimore, 219 miles; Philadelphia, 241 miles; New York, 313\nmiles; Elmira, 268 miles.\nPITTSBURG COAL MINES.\n[From Hunt's Merchants' Magazine.]\nThe Pittsburg coal fields embrace an area of 15,000 square miles, or 9,600,000\nsquare acres. The developed territory lies along the Monongahela, Youghiogheny\nand Allegheny rivers, and along the Pennsylvania, Connellsville, Pittsburg\nand Steubenville railroads.\n\" There are 70 collieries along the Monongahela, embracing 12,894 acres,\nvalued at $4,809,875, and from which the main supply is received in the markets.\nThey give employment to 3500 hands, and it is estimated that over 13,000,000\ntons of coal have been taken from these mines since 1845. The amount of tolls\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n61\ncollected from shipments of coal on the Monongahela, in 1865, was over $85,000,\nan increase of $45,500 in two years.\nThe coal shipped on the Youghiogheny is brought to market over the Con-\nnellsville Railroad. There are 22 collieries along this road, that embrace an\narea of 3929 acres, valued at $1,000,000. They give employment to 900 men.\nTwo million tons (valued at about $5,000,000), have been transported over the\nConnellsville road in the past five years.\n\" There are 12 collieries in the hills surrounding the city, covering an area of\n1570 acres, valued at $1,250,000, and which furnish employment to 1500 men.\nSeveral of the rolling mills in Sligo and Birmingham are supplied from collieries\nimmediately above them.\n'These city mines' furnish nothing for outside markets. They yield a\nyearly product of 3,000,000 bushels, all of which is consumed by our rolling\nmills and iron works.\nThe collieries that border the Pennsylvania Railroad from this city to the foot\nof the mountain' are not usually classed as in Pittsburg measures, though\nthe most valuable lie nearest this city. The bulk of the trade goes East. Those\nimmediately in the vicinity of the city cover about 1000 acres all told, employ 400\nhands, and send to this market an annual average of 4,500,000 bushels. The\nAllegheny Valley collieries, though neither very numerous nor productive, extend\nover a large tract of territory, perhaps 1500 acres, and employ about 500 hands.\nFrom these collieries, the Allegheny Valley Railroad brought to this city last\nyear about 70,000 tons. These coal lands are considered exceedingly valuable,\nand but for the limited facilities for transportation at the very season when their\nproduct is most called for, they would no doubt be extensively worked.\n\" The exact depth and value of the coal measures around Pittsburg it is impos-\nsible to figure. But the upper seam alone averages eight feet in thickness. An\nindustrial writer figures the contents at 53,516,430,000 tons, which, at $2 per\nton, would be worth $107,032,860,000. The total number of collieries at pre-\nsent in operation in the Pittsburg coal field, embracing the whole range which\nwe have described, is 103 ; hands employed, 6424; value of lands, $7,589,700;\nvalue of annual coal product, $5,000,000.\"\nThe length of the Monongahela navigation, from Pittsburg to New\nGeneva, is 82 miles; and the Youghiogheny navigation, from Mc-\nKeesport to West Newton, 18 miles.\nThe most direct route to the Philadelphia market for the Pitts-\nburg coal, is via the Pennsylvania Railroad, 355 miles; and to\nChicago, via the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad, 4671\nmiles.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n62\nThe following statement shows the length of railroads and the freight\ncharges on coal per ton per mile, over the trunk lines and branches\nleadin from the Pittsburg mines, for 1865.\nLENGTH.\nMILLS PER\nROAD.\nFROM.\nTo.\nTON PER\nMILES.\nMILE.\nErie and Pittsburg R. R\nGirard\nNew Castle\n81\n25.00\nPennsylvania R. R\nPhiladelphia\nPittsburg\n355\n26.60\nPittsburg and Connellsville\nPittsburg\nConnellsville\n581\n17.50\nPittsburg, Fort Wayne & Chicago\nPittsburg\nChicago\n468\n15.00\nThe actual cost of transporting a ton of coal over the Erie and\nPittsburg, was 15 mills, and Pennsylvania, 18.40 mills per ton per\nmile, and over the latter, for 1863, 14 mills.\nThere is also another route from the Pittsburg mines to Philadel-\nphia, via railroad and canal, as follows:\nPittsburg to Johnstown, via Western Division Pennsylvania Canal\n104 miles.\nThence by Pennsylvania Railroad to Hollidaysburg\n55\n\"\n\"\n\"\nJuniata Division Pennsylvania Canal to Susquehanna\n127\n\"\n\"\n\"\nSusquehanna to Middletown\n28\n\"\n\"\n\"\nUnion Canal to Reading\n77\n\"\n\"\n\"\nSchuylkill Canal to Philadelphia\n70\n\"\nMaking total distance\n461 miles.\nThe burthen of boats over this 461 miles of canal, average 90\ntons, and the cost of transportation, for 1861, averaged 11.86 mills,\nand for 1865, 19 mills per ton per mile. The cost of transportation\nover the Pennsylvania Railroad averaged, for 1861, 20 mills, and\nfor 1865, 26.60 mills per ton per mile. The cost of transhipments,\nin 1861, averaged eight cents per ton, and for 1865, about 16 cents.\nThe following statement shows the cost of Pittsburg coal delivered in the\nmarkets of Chicago and Philadelphia, for the years of 1861 and\n1865 :\nThe mines are estimated 25 miles from Pittsburg.\nCosT PER Ton.\n1861.\n1865.\nAT CHICAGO VIA RAILROAD.\nActual cost mining, including royalty\n$0.88\n$1.75\n443 miles railroad transportation\n5.31\n6.65\nTotal cost at Chicago\n$6.19\n$8.40\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n63\nCost PER ToN.\n1861.\n1865.\nAT PHILADELPHIA VIA RAILROAD.\nActual cost mining, including royalty\n$0.88\n$1.75\n330 miles railroad transportation\n6.60\n9.90\nCost at Philadelphia\n$7.48\n$11.65\nAT PHILADELPHIA VIA RAILROAD AND CANAL.\nActual cost mining, including royalty\n$0.88\n$1.75\n55 miles railroad transportation\n1.10\n1.65\n381 miles canal transportation\n4.51\n7.23\nTwo transhipments\n0.17\n0.32\nCost at Philadelphia\n$6.65\n$10.95\nRELATIVE COST OF BITUMINOUS COAL FROM THE PRINCIPAL\nMINES.\nThe following statement shows the relative cost of bituminous coal in\nmarket, based upon the prices and rates of 1861, embraced in Appen-\ndix A. Where rates are not specified, the average is used. The cost\nof mining is assumed at $1.50 per ton, including interest on invest-\nment; and all transhipments at eight cents. The cost of coal, as given\nbelow, is, upon a fair average, 40 per cent below the cost for 1865.\nThe cheapest routes from the mines are selected.\nMILES OF\nTotal\nCost per\nBay\nDistance\nTon.\nRail-\nCanal.\nand\nroad.\nRiver.\nFROM THE BLOSSBURG MINES.\nAt Albany, via Tioga 0 R. R., N. York State canals\n80\n220\n35\n335\n$4.65\n\" New York, \"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nand H. River\n80\n220\n195\n495\n5.45\nFROM THE BARCLAY MINES.\nAt Albany, via Junction and N. Y. S. canals\n16\n281\n35\n332\n4.59\n\" New York, \"\n\"\n\"\nand Hudson River\n16\n281\n195\n492\n5.39\nFROM THE CUMBERLAND MINES.\nAt Albany, via Balt. & Ohio R. R, ocean and Hudson River\n208\n650\n858\n6.71\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\ncanals\n\"\n208\n561\n332\n594\n6.70\n\"\n\"\n\"\nChes. & Ohio Canal, and proposed canal & riv.\n23\n272,\n344\n639\n5.35\n\" New York,\n\" Balt. & Ohio R. R., ocean and Hudson River\n208\n490\n698\n6.26\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\ncanals\n\"\n208\n561\n172\n436\n6.25\n\"\n\"\n\" Ches. & Ohio Canal, and proposed canal & riv.\n23\n272\n183\n478\n4.73\n\" Philadelphia\" Balt. & Ohio R. R., and canals\n208\n13½\n103\n324\n5.35\n\"\n\"\n\" Ches. & Ohio Canal, and proposed canal\n23\n230\n113\n366\n3.97\nFROM THE BROAD Top MINES.\nAt Albany,\nvia Juniata, N. Branch, Del. & Hudson canals\n83\n307\n64\n454\n7.24\n\" New York, \"\n\"\nUnion, Schuylkill, Del. & Hud. canals\n36\n304\n70\n410\n6.11\n\" Philadelphia \"\n\"\nand Schuylkill canals\n36\n261\n397\n5.23\nFROM THE PITTSBURG MINES.\nAt New York, via Penn. R. R., Del. & Raritan canals\n330\n42\n70\n442\n8.44\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n& Penn., Schuy., D. & R. canals\n55\n423\n70\n548\n7.53\n\" Philadelphia,\" Pennsylvania Railroad\n330\n330\n7.48\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nand canals.\n55\n381\n436\n6.65\nDigitized\nby\nGoogle\nAPPENDIX C.\nMARYLAND-ITS CLIMATE, SOIL, PRODUCTIONS AND\nPHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS\nThis State was named after Queen Henrietta Maria, and was the\nfirst English province settled in America, in 1632. There were no\nslaves imported after 1769, and was prohibited in 1783. The Irish\nand Germans settled principally in the western counties. In 1665\nthe population was 16,000, and in 1830 there were 291,100 whites\nand 156,000 blacks.\nBaltimore was founded in 1730 ; Annapolis was founded in 1683,\nunder the name of Proctor's Landing; and was made the capital in\n1692, and incorporated a city in 1708. St. Mary's was the first set-\ntlement made in the State.\nThe State boundary is very irregular, and embraces an area of\n7,680,000 square acres, 5,438,000 of which is land. The Chesapeake\npeninsula has an area of about 3,200,000 square acres, and is about\n180 miles in length from Elkton to Cape Charles. The eastern shore\nis less broken than the western, and both are deeply furrowed by\nthe action of streams. The neck between the bays joining the\nmain shore, is about 12 miles wide, and expands to 70 miles in\nwidth, and again contracts to 10 miles in a distance of 60 miles. Its\ngeneral elevation is about 220 feet above tide.\nChesapeake Bay embraces an area of about 2,240,000 square\nacres, or one-quarter the area of the State. The length of the bay,\nfrom its mouth to Havre de Grace, is 190 miles from south to north.\nThe width of its mouth, between capes Charles and Henry, is 11\nmiles. Its average width below the mouth of the Potomac, is 14\nmiles; opposite, 10 miles, and above, eight miles; throwing off, on\nboth sides, numerous arms, forming beautiful and capacious harbors,\ndeep and navigable for large class of vessels. A sand bank, called\nthe \"middle ground,\" covered with from 10 to 18 feet depth of\nwater, lies midway between the capes, leaving broad and deep chan-\nDigitized by Google\n65\nnels each side. The area of country drained by this bay is over\n44,800,000 square acres, upon which there is annually deposited\nfrom rains, an average of 224 million cubic feet per minute, 751\nmillion cubic feet of which reaches the bay. The following are the\nsailing distances between the several towns and cities doing com-\nmerce on the bay:\nLength of Potomac River, from Washington to the centre of the bay, 125 miles.\nDistance from mouth of Potomac River to mouth of the bay\n72\n\"\n\"\n\"\nWashington to Annapolis\n190\n\"\n\"\n\"\nAnnapolis to Baltimore\n38\n\"\n\"\n\" Washington to Chesapeake city (Ches. & Del. Canal) 250\n\"\n\"\n\" Baltimore to Chesapeake city\n60\n\"\n\"\n\" Washington to Baltimore\n220\n\"\n\"\n\" Annapolis to Chesapeake city\n64\n\"\n\"\n\"\nAnnapolis to Havre de Grace\n58\n\"\n\"\nvia the proposed canal, Washington to Annapolis\n37\n\"\n\"\n\" Air Line, Washington to Annapolis\n31\n\"\n\"\nfrom Washington to Havre de Grace\n244\n\"\nThe following statement shows the rise and fall of tides at different\npoints on the Bay, in 1855\nOld Point\nPoint\nBodkin\nBaltimore.\nComfort.\nLookout.\nJackson's\nAnnapolis\nLight.\nWharf.\nRise of highest tide obs'd above the plane of ref.\n4.8 ft.\n2.6 ft.\n3.2ft.\n2.4 ft.\n3.1ft.\nFall of lowest\n=\n\"\nbelow\n\"\n\"\n1.7 \"\n1.8 \"\n2.4 \"\n1.6 \"\n2.2 \"\nFall of mean low water of spring tides below\n\"\n0.3 \"\n0.2 \"\n.\n0.2 \"\n0.2 \"\nHeight of\n\"\n\"\nneap tides above\n\"\n0.3 \"\n0.4 \"\n0.1 \"\n0.2 \"\nMean rise and fall of tides\n2.5 \"\n1.4 \"\n0.9 ft.\n1.0 6.\n1.3 \"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nspring tides\n3.0 \"\n1.9 \"\n1.0 \"\n13 \"\n1.5 \"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nneap tides\n2.0 \"\n0.7 \"\n0.8 \"\n0.8 \"\n0.9 \"\nMean duration of rise\nreck'g from the mid. of 1\n6h.01m\n5h.59m\n6h.11m\n5h.23m\n5.54m\n\"\n\"\nfall\nstand to the mid. of next\n6h.25m\n6h.19m\n6h.15m\n7h.08m\n6.33m\n\"\n\"\nstand\n0h.14m\n0h.35m\n0h.32m\nThe commerce from the bay proper with Philadelphia, for 1866,\namounted to 140,432 tons; the tolls upon which, over the Chesa-\npeake and Delaware Canal, for the same year, amounted to $56,875.\nThe following statement shows the total amount of tolls collected on the\nChesapeake and Delaware Canal, from the total commerce passing\nover the Chesapeake Bay, in 1865 and 1866\nJune 1, 1865.\nJune 1, 1866.\nBaltimore\n$169, 765 73\n$165,' 759 49\nHavre de Grace\n25,145 95\n189 28\nPort Deposit\n82, 644 77\n57,051 89\nNorfolk, Richmond, Petersburg\n1,577 43\n9,807 91.\nDistrict of Columbia\n85,811 54\n44, 103 66\nCanal Levels\n2,492 42\n3, 110 61\nWood\n3,479 44\n4,372 76\nChesapeake Bay.\nOysters\n13,075 98\n11, 123 29\n9\nDigitized by Google\n66\nJune 1, 1865.\nJune 1, 1866.\nFish\n$789 15\n$1,251 45\nChesapeake Bay.\nMerchandise, &c.\n33,787 13\n25,763 60\nEmpty vessels\n5,743 05\n4,406 00\n$424,312 59\n$350,939 94\nThe Potomac River is about 125 miles in length; it is about 71\nmiles wide at its mouth; 70 miles above, three miles, and at\nAlexandria, one mile wide. The depth between its mouth and\nWashington, is from 18 to 120 feet; and the tide flows to George-\ntown, 128 miles from its mouth. The distance, by air line, from\nWashington to the mouth of the Potomac, is about 72 miles.\nSOIL.\nThe character of the soil in the region of the proposed route of\nthe Chesapeake Bay and Potomac River Tide-water Canal, through\nthe counties of Anne Arundel and Prince George, is of the richest\nand most durable kind, and one of the finest tobacco districts in the\nState. The soil is composed of light silicious loam, mixed with clay\nin proper proportions for culinary plants, strawberries and cereals.\nIt is finely pulverized, yet not sandy; mixed in due proportions with\ngreen-sand-marl on the surface, showing great fertility, productive-\nness, and inexhaustible, even under indifferent cultivation.\nThe surface, in every direction, is undulating, the elevations not\nabrupt or rising above a general level, but graceful and easy for cul-\ntivation and for perfect drainage. These remarkable characteristics\nof soil and rural beauty are more applicable to the eastern half of\nPrince George's county. Material for enriching the poorer sections,\nis everywhere abundant, from the masses of oyster shells at the\nmouths of streams, from six to eight feet deep, called \"Indian shell\nbanks,\" together with the immense beds of shell-marl, in no respects\nfossilized, and the oyster rocks of Sinepuxent Bay. When the new\nsystem of labor is successfully introduced into this portion of the\nState, the land can be made to yield 25 per cent more than the\naverage of the best agricultural districts of the State of New York;\nand, the soil being light and the drainage perfect, can be worked\nfrom 15 to 20 per cent less in expense. It is not unusual for\nfarmers to raise three crops a year.\nThe existence of a belt of the upper secondary series, extending\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n67\nacross the State, south of Parr's Ridge, through the counties of\nCecil, Kent, Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, has been\nfound of the same age as the New Jersey green-sand-marl. This\neastern plain consists of tertiary beds of clay and sand, in some\nplaces highly fossiliefrous, and in others quite destitute of organic\nremains. The beds of shell-marl occur in the central, eastern and\nlower western counties-sometimes at the surface, and sometimes\ncovered by a stratum of sand and gravel from 10 to 30 feet thick-\nconsisting of shells of different kinds imbedded in clay and\ncemented together by a calcareous cement.\nThe shell-marl deposits through large portions of the State, were\nfrom the closing of immense bays, such as the process now going\non of Sinepuxent Bay, which is four miles wide and thirty long.\nWest of this plain extends a belt of primary rocks of the stratified\nseries, comprising gneiss, mica-slate, hornblend rock, limestone, ser-\npentine chlorite and clay slates, &c., and passing on the west side\ninto rocks of the Grauwacke group.\nCLIMATE.\nThe following Meteorological Table shows the comparison between the\ntemperatures of the States of New York and Mary!and, also the rain-\nfall, which clearly illustrates the superior advantages of the latter\nfor culinary plants, grapes and strawberries.\nThe observations for the State of New York were taken at eighteen different localities, and for\nMaryland at five places.\nSTATE OF NEW YORK.\nSTATE OF MARYLAND.\nMONTH.\nAv. 1854 to 1859.\nAv. 1863 and 1864\nAv 1854 to 1859.\nAv. 1863 and 1864.\nMean\nMean\nMean\nMean\nMean\nMean\nMean\nMean\nTempt.\nRain.\nTempt.\nRain.\nTempt.\nRain.\nTempt.\nRain.\nJanuary\n23°.4\n3.13\n28°.5\n3.60\n30°.4\n3.32\n35°.6\n3.11\nFebruary\n25 .2\n3.54\n27 .1\n2.54\n32 .1\n2.20\n35 .0\n2.52\nMarch\n32 .0\n2.59\n30 .5\n3.08\n40 .3\n2.54\n37 .7\n3.58\nApril\n43 .9\n4.43\n44 .8\n3.40\n51 .3\n3.57\n48 .5\n5.63\nMay\n56 .6\n3.47\n59 .5\n4.16\n62 .8\n4.25\n65 .7\n5.24\nJune\n65 .9\n4.39\n64 .3\n1.71\n70 .7\n4.60\n73 .5\n2.07\nJuly\n72 .4\n3.72\n72 .8\n3.97\n77 .0\n3.05\n76 .4\n4.64\nAugust\n67 .5\n3.38\n71 .0\n5.75\n73 .1\n3.85\n78 .4\n2.06\nSeptember\n60 .5\n3.60\n58 .5\n3.08\n67 .2\n4.46\n64 .1\n3.33\nOctober\n49 .8\n3.17\n48 .5\n3.94\n54 .0\n2.92\n53 .9\n2.78\nNovember\n39 .0\n3.09\n40 .0\n3.98\n43 .7\n2.49\n45 .7\n2.92\nDecember\n27 .5\n3.40\n29 .0\n4.20\n34 .8\n3.64\n34 .6\n4.30\nAverage\n46°.9\n41.91\n47°.9\n43.41\n53°.1\n40.89\n54°.1\n42.18\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n68\nThus, we find the climate of Maryland within the limits of vine\nculture; the mean summer temperature being 73°.4 for July, 76°\nfor August, 75°.5, and for September, 65°.5.\nThe same for the State of New York, summer mean 67°.5; July,\n72°.6; August, 69°.2, and September, 59°.5. As to the quantity of\nrain, it is about the same ; and, from the temperature, the seasons of\nMaryland precede New York about five weeks.\nPRODUCTIONS.\nThe staples of the eastern shore are Indian corn and wheat,\nand the same articles, with tobacco, are the staples of the western\nshore. Rice and cotton are raised to a limited extent in the south-\nern counties, and the castor oil bean found to thrive. Prince George\ncounty yields the greatest quantity of tobacco of any in the State.\nIn 1860, there were in Maryland over three million acres of\nimproved land, and 1,833,300 of acres unimproved. The cash value\nof farms was estimated in 1860 at $145,973,600, and for farming\nimplements over four million dollars. For the same year, the\norchard products were estimated at over one-quarter of a million,\nand garden products over one-half a million dollars. The\nquantity of tobacco raised in 1860 was nearly 40 million of pounds,\nand the estimated value of live stock, for the same year, was 142\nmillion dollars. The capital invested in real and personal estate was,\nin 1860, nearly 52 million, and the value of annual products, 421\nmillion dollars. The taxable value of real and personal property\nof the State, in 1865, was 2781 millions, and in 1864 it was 2854 mil-\nlion dollars, showing a decrease of 71 million dollars, caused by\nthe deduction of all slave property.\nEpsom salt is also produced from magnesian earth, associated\nwith serpentine also, yellow chrome; blue vitriol from the black\nearth of Monocacy Valley, red and yellow ochre, copperas, fire-brick,\npottery, stone and glazed wares. Iron, coal and lime are the staples\nor constitute the mineral wealth of the western counties; also chro-\nmiferous ores near Baltimore and Cecil. Porcelain earth, lime,\nmarble, manganese and copper ores, occur in this tract. In the\ncounties of Dorchester, Caroline, and Worcester, is found the bog\niron, and in the belt forming the western plain, hone ore, brown\nore, and brown oxides. Among the useful minerals found in Prince\nGeorge and Anne Arundel counties, are the valuable clays for the\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n69\nmanufacture of stone and glazed wares, and in Cecil county is\nfound materials for fire-brick, alum earth, copperas ore, red and yel-\nlow ochres. In the valley beyond the Blue Ridge, is found the\npipe or limestone ore and the coal measures of Alleghany county.\nIn Mr. Trimble's report on the survey of the Potomac and Balti-\nmore Railroad, 70 miles long, he estimated the gross revenue from\nlocal freight at $271,600 per annum, assuming that all the products\nof the country, for five miles in width, each side of the line, would\npass over this road. On looking over the products of the State, I\nthink this estimate a fair one.\nAssuming the same basis of calculation, and increasing the area or\nwidth by the difference in the cost of transportation, (which is at least\none-third less per ton per mile than upon the railroad), and it makes a\nstripe each side of the proposed canal about 71 miles wide. Using\nthis as a basis, and making the allowance for difference in distance\nand rates of transportation, and the gross revenue received from\ntolls on local trade on the proposed Chesapeake Bay and Potomac\nRiver Tide-water Canal would be $48,500 per annum.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nAPPENDIX D.\nTRADE, MANAGEMENT AND REVENUES OF THE ATLANTIC\nCOAST, CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO, AND N. Y. STATE CANALS,\nALSO BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD, FOR 1865.\nALBEMARLE AND CHESAPEAKE CANAL\nThis canal is 14 miles in length, and forms an artificial connection\nbetween Elizabeth River, at the foot of Chesapeake Bay, and Cur-\nrituck, as also Albemarle and Pamlico sounds; making a complete\ninland communication from Norfolk to St. John's River, in Florida,\nfor vessels of nearly 300 tons burthen. With the exception of a few\nmiles, there is now a good inland water communication from New\nYork city to Pamlico River or Ocracoke Inlet, for vessels- of the\nfollowing burthens, through the following natural and artificial\nchannels:\nLENGTH\nDEPTH\nBUR-\nDIVISIONS.\nFROM.\nTo.\nIN\nTHEN\nOF\nSTATUTE\nOF\nWATER.\nMILES.\nVES'LS.\nNew York Bay\nNew York\nNew Brunswick\n34\n18 to 30\n270\nDel. & Raritan Canal\nNew Brunswick\nBordentown\n43\n7 ft.\n270\nDelaware River\nBordentown\nDelaware City\n78\n18 to 30\n300\nChes. and Del. Canal\nDelaware City\nChesapeake City\n131\n91\n300\nChesapeake Bay\nChesapeake City\nNorfolk\n2051\n30\n300\nChes. & Albemarle C.\nNorfolk\nCurrituck S'd\n14\n7\n300\nAggregate of Sounds.\nCurrituck S'd\nOcracoke Inlet.\n126\n8 to 18\n300\nTotal\nNew York\nPamlico River\n514\nThe following shows the number of vessels that have passed\nthrough this canal from 1861 to 1865, inclusive :\nSteamers, 3844; schooners, 1690; sloops, 438; lighters, 1044;\nbarges, 474; rafts, 16; total, 8824. Many of these vessels, of too\ngreat capacity for the Delaware and Raritan Canal, take the sea\nfrom New York to Norfolk, and then the inland route to Newbern\nand other points along the coast. During the last four months of\nthe season of 1865, over 40 steamers bound from New York, Phila-\ndelphia, Portland, Boston, and Baltimore, to Charleston, Savannah\nand the West Indies, availed themselves of this inland route. Before\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n71\nthe blockade of the southern ports in the late war, over 300 vessels\nof all classes were occupied with the commerce passing over this\ncanal.\nThe following shows the amount of tolls collected upon this\ncanal from 1861 to 1865, inclusive :\nTolls for the year 1860, ending October 1st\n$24,619 00\n\"\n\"\n\"\n1861,\n\"\n\"\n23,407 70\n\"\n\"\n\"\n1862,\n\"\n\"\n4,435 51\n\"\n\"\n\"\n1863,\n\"\n\"\n19,686 15\n\"\n\"\n\"\n1864,\n\"\n\"\n42,715 67\n\"\n\"\n\"\n1865,\n\"\n\"\n70,421 16\nFrom other sources\n8,992 81\nTotal\n$194,268 00\nThe total expenditures for the above period,\nincluding cost of construction, repairs and incidental\nexpenses, were as follows:\nEngineer expenses\n$1,885 50\nCanal repairs and expenses\n62,957 89\nInterest and law expenses\n11,761 25\nCurrituck county, North Carolina\n2,056 09\nSteam tow boats and contingent expenses\n36,329 90\nBills payable and exchange account\n14,234 57\nU. S. Revenue Tax\n1,116 97\nSteam dredge and repairs\n10,364 32\nConstruction\n43,802 43\n184,508 92\nBalance\n$9,759 08\nThe following deductions are made from the foregoing financial\nexhibit :\nTotal amount expended for construction and repairs\n$184,508 92 = $13,108 per mile.\nCost of canal-construction, equipment and engineering\n92,382 15\n=\n6,591\n\"\nBalance of expenditure assumed for repairs and management\n92,126 77\n6,580\n\"\n=\nAverage annual cost of repairs and management\n15,355 29\nIt\n1,097\n\"\nTotal amount of receipts from tolls\n194,268 00\n=\n13,876\n\"\nAverage annual\n\"\n\"\n34,756 00\n=\n2,482\n\"\nFrom the above, the average annual cost of management and\nrepairs was 44 per cent of the average annual gross receipts; and\nthe net revenue on the cost of canal for the six years averaged 21\nper cent per annum, and for the year 1865 it was over 59 per cent\non the cost of canal.\nCHESAPEAKE AND DELAWARE CANAL.\nThis canal is 131 miles in length, and connects the heads of\nChesapeake and Delaware bays. The prism is 46 feet wide on\nbottom, 66 feet at surface water, and 91/2 feet deep. The locks 220\nfeet in length between quoins, 24 feet wide, and four in number,\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n72\novercoming a rise and fall of 30 feet. The capacity of the canal\nwill pass boats of 300 tons burthen.\nThe summit level is supplied with water by steam power. It is\naccomplished by two engines, attached to a wheel 38 feet in diame-\nter, revolving in a reservoir, that raises the water in curved radial\ncompartments, discharging it at the shaft, 13 feet above the sur-\nface, of lower pond. By this method 6,000,000 cubic feet is raised\nand discharged into the canal every 24 hours, equal to 4166 cubic\nfeet per minute. To operate it requires two enginemen, four fire-\nmen, and nine tons of coal every 24 hours, at an annual expense\n(1866) of $31,618.61.\nComparative statement of tolls received from 1860 to 1865, inclusive :\nJune 1, 1860.\nJune 1, 1861\nJune 1, 1862.\nJune 1, 1863.\nJune 1, 1864.\nJune 1, 1865.\nBaltimore\n$79,153 08\n$70,689 75\n$95,673 56\n$118,953 50\n$147,092 85\n$169,765 73\nHavre de Grace\n38,519 15\n37,959 35\n25,324 00\n37,987 90\n34,159 76\n25, 145 95\nPort Deposit\n34,572 74\n37,406 16\n40,078 15\n42,505 96\n60,816 16\n82,644 77\nNorfolk, &c\n5,880 51\n4,925 51\n1,115 74\n613 67\n1,577 43\nDistrict of Columbia\n9,742 14\n9,667 51\n34,756 21\n60,014 92\n80,461 65\n85,811 54\nCanal Levels\n1,712 93\n1,642 23\n2,077 25\n2,153 30\n1,933 93\n2,492 42\nWood\n10,627 43\n9,301 91\n4,369 98\n2,769 39\n4,327 72\n3,479 44\nChes. Bay.\nOysters\n12,405 25\n3,655 38\n5,202 69\n8,964 39\n15,035 45\n13,075 98\nFish\n2,213 46\n2,303 45\n1,377 35\n1,110 00\n378 00\n789 15\nMerchandise, &c\n19,263 85\n16,836 14\n20,731 30\n14,691 08\n19,889 64\n33,787 13\nEmpty Vessels\n2,165 00\n1,559 00\n1,964 00\n2,858 00\n4,404 00\n5,743 05\n$216,255 54\n$195,946 39\n$231,555 49\n$293,124 18\n$369,112 83\n$424,312 59\nFrom the above statement, the tolls received upon the trade with\nthe District of Columbia, was, for 1864, $80,461, and for 1865,\n$85,811.\nOf the total amount of tolls received in 1865,\n$167, 255 70\nwas from the steam trade,\n80, 779 27\n\"\nsail vessls,\n96,262 78\n\"\nbarge trade, and\n80,014 84\n\"\nthe timber trade.\nThe following statement shows the tonnage and number of boats that\npassed through the canal from 1860 to 1865, inclusive:\nNo. OF BOATS PASSED.\nTonnage.\nWestward.\nEastward.\nTotal.\n1860\n6,411\n6,299\n12,710\n623,150\n1861\n5,683\n5,664\n11,347\n596,294\n1862\n5,750\n5,963\n11,713\n501,389\n1863\n6,813\n7,480\n14,293\n674,305\n1864\n7,230\n8,187\n15,417\n782,670\n1865\n5,780\n7,031\n12,811\n916,973\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n73\nOf the above tonnage in 1865, 268,026 tons of anthracite coal\npassed westward, and 92,755 tons passed eastward. In 1866,\n108,818 tons of anthracite coal passed westward, and 39,136 tons\nsemi anthracite and 120,433 tons of bituminous coal passed east-\nward. Mr. H. V. Lesley, the secretary of the company, informed\nme that over 70,000 tons of anthracite coal passed over this canal in\n1865, consigned to the District of Columbia. The total coal tonnage\nof this canal was, for 1865, 360,781 tons, and for 1866, 268,387 tons.\nThe construction of this canal cost, up to 1866 (including new\nmachinery for raising water, $31,515, and old feeder, $110,925),\n$3,271,127, equal to $242,306 per mile, and without the old feeder\n(now dispensed with), $234,090 per mile.\nThe cost of repairs and management, exclusive of cost of new\nmachinery, for 1865, was $98,725.38, equal to $7313 per mile; and\nfor 1866, it was $127,668.08, equal to $9457 per mile.\nThe gross amount of tolls collected, in 1865, was $424,312, equal\nto $31,430 per mile; and for 1866, $350,939, equal to $25,995 per\nmile.\nFrom the foregoing statements the following deductions are made for\n1865 and 1866:\nPER MILE.\nITEMS.\n1865.\n1866.\nCost of canal\n$242,306\n$242,306\n\" repairs and management\n7,313\n9,457\nGross receipts from tolls\n31,430\n25,995\nCost of repairs and management, on gross receipts\n251 per ct.\n351 per ct.\nTotal tonnage that passed over the canal\n69,405\n54,068\nAverage rate of toll on gross tonnage per ton\n31 cents.\n3.22 cents\nRates of toll established on coal per ton\n14 cents.\n1½ cents\nNet revenne on cost of canal (annual)\n10 per ct.\n7 per cent\nThe annual net revenue is based upon the cost of supplying the\ncanal with water by mechanical means, while the others, with which\nthis canal is compared, are supplied from natural sources; hence,\nreducing it to the same standard, we have:\nCost of canal, including cost of old feeder, and not machinery\n$3,239,612\nCost of repairs and manag't, exclusive of expense of mach'y, for 1865\n67,107\nSame for 1866\n96,050\n10\nDigitized by Google\n74\nAnd the annual net revenue equals 111 per cent on cost of canal\nfor 1865, and about eight per cent for 1866.\nDELAWARE AND RARITAN CANAL.\nThis canal is 43 miles in length, from Bordentown, on the Dela-\nware River, to New Brunswick, at the mouth of Raritan River.\nThe size of prism is 75 feet wide at surface of water, 47 feet wide\non bottom, and seven feet deep. The locks are 18 in number, 110.\nfeet in length, between quoins, and 24 feet wide, overcoming a rise\nand fall of 146 feet. The burthen of boats equal 270 tons, and the\nmotive power used upon the canal is steam towage. The canal is\nowned by and embraced in the \"Camden and Amboy Railroad\nand Transportation Companies.\"\nThe distance. from Port Richmond (east limit of Philadelphia) via\nthis canal, to New York, is 100 miles, as follows: Port Richmond\nto Bordentown 23 miles; Delaware and Raritan Canal 43, and New\nYork Bay' 34 miles.\nThe following shows the coal trade of the canal, for the year of\n1865:\nCoal from Schuylkill,\nin boats\n664,5381 tons.\n\"\n\"\nRichmond,\n\"\n\"\n493,8954\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nsloops and schooners\n44,664\n\"\n\"\n\"\nFeeder,\n\"\nboats\n339,620\n\"\n\"\n\"\nCumberland,\n\"\n\"\n39,389\n\"\nTotal tons\n1,552,108\nThe total tons that passed over the canal in 1863 was 2,034,798.\nThe receipts of the Delaware and Raritan Canal Company were\none million, one hundred and twenty-eight thousand and seven dollars\nand thirty cents ($1,128,007.30), and the expenses were three hun-\ndred and seventeen thousand, five hundred and seventy-seven dollars\nand seventy-five cents ($317,577.75), inclusive of transit duties.\nThose duties which accrued from the canal were sixty thousand, nine\nhundred and ninety dollars and ninety-nine cents ($60,990.99), and\nthose paid were fifty-four thousand, five hundred and ninety-eight\ndollars and eighty-four cents ($54,598.84).\nThere are employed upon the canal, mainly, 24 steamers and five\npropeller tugs.\nI have been unable to obtain the cost of this canal, and have\nassumed it the same (although far inferior in the character of con-\nEnlarged fact length\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n75\nstruction, but about the same in capacity) as the average of the\nCayuga and Seneca, Oswego and Erie canals, equal to $80,000 per\nmile. This makes the total cost of construction $3,440,000, and\nthe annual net revenue on same for 1865 equals 24 per cent, and\nthe cost of management and repairs 28 per cent of the gross receipts.\nThe average rate of toll upon the gross tonnage is about 1π³⁻ cents.\nThe toll upon coal in 1861 was one cent, and in 1864, 1100 cents\nper ton per mile.\nBusiness and financial statement of the Atlantic Coast Canals (sum-\nmary of foregoing statements), for the year 1865\nALBEMABLE\nCHESAPEAKE\nDELAWARE\nCLASSIFICATION.\nAND\nAND\nAND\nCHESAPEAKE.\nDELAWARE.\nRARITAN.\nLength of canals\n14\n13½\n43\nCost of construction\n$92,382\n$3, 271, 127\n$3,440,000\n\"\n\"\n\"\nper mile\n6,591\n242,306\n80,000\nGross receipts from tolls\n34,756\n424,312\n1,128,007\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\" per mile\n2,482\n31, 430\n26,232\nCost of repairs and management\n15,355\n98,725\n317,577\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nper mile\n1,097\n7,313\n7,385\nRate of toll on gross tonnage\n3½ cts.\n1.3 cts.\nPercentage of cost of repairs and\nmanagement on gross receipts\n44\n251\n28\nAnnual net revenue on cost of canal.\n21\n10\n24\nCHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL.\nThis canal is 184 miles in length, from Georgetown to Cumber-\nland. The size of prism is 70 feet in width at water surface, 58\nfeet wide on bottom, and six feet deep. The locks are 100 feet in\nlength, between quoins, and 15 feet wide, overcoming a rise. and\nfall of 600 feet. The burthen of boats are from 115 to 120 tons.\nThe following shows the trade and receipts from tolls, for the\nyear ending December 31st, 1865 :\nAggregate tonnage ascending\n2,707 tons.\n\"\n\"\ndescending\n369,628\n\"\n\"\n\"\nascending and descending\n372,335\n\"\nEquivalent\n\"\n\"\n\"\nfor one mile\n63,701,690\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nfor 184 miles\n340,623\n\"\nAverage distance on all articles transported\n171 miles\nAverage toll, per ton per mile, on all articles, includ'g boat toll\n5.54 mills\nA ggregate amount of tolls collected, ascending\n$ 14, 531 51\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\ndescending\n331, 633 95\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nascending and descending\n346, 165 47\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n76\nThe following shows the cost of repairs and management, for the\nyear ending December 31st, 1865 :\nRepairs, ordinary\n$100,722 21\n\"\nextraordinary\n10,778 43\nPay superintendents, collectors and lock-keepers\n34,317 62\nCost of repairs and management, proper\n$145,818 26\nAdd pay of officers\n$6,784.00\n\"\ncontingent expenses\n972.50\n\" law expenses\n747.49\n\" incidental damages\n433.75\n\"\npostage, printing and stationery\n172.16\n9,109 90\nTotal cost of repairs, management and incidentals\n$154,928 16\nThere was paid, during this year, on interest account\n146,375 77\nTotal current expenses, with interest on debt\n$301,303 93\nThere was also expended, on new work, belonging to con. ac't\n6,243 69\nTotal payments made during the year\n$307,547 62\nThe total expenditures for this canal, from its completion to\nDecember 31st, 1865, including cost of construction, land\ndamages, interest account and guaranteed dividends, repairs\nand management, offices, together with all incidentals\n$26,330,874 54\nOf which there was expended for construction, extraordinary\nrepairs, land damages, interest on loans and guaranteed di-\nvidends\n22,882,530 07\nThe cost of construction proper of this canal was $10,561,359.24,\nequal to $55,080 per mile. The current expenses proper of repairs\nand management of this canal, for the year 1865, is as follows :\nOrdinary repairs, $100,722.21 pay of superintendents, collectors\nand lock-tenders, $34,317.62 pay of officers, contingent expenses,\nlaw expenses, incidental damages, postage, printing and stationery,\n$9,109.84; total working expenses, $144,149.67.\nFrom the foregoing the following deductions are made for the year 1865 :\nITEMS.\nAMOUNTS.\nCost of construction\n$55,080 per mile.\n\"\nrepairs and management\n783\n\"\nGross recepts from tolls\n1,881 \"\nCost of repairs and management on gross receipts\n41 per cent.\nTotal tonnage passed over canal\n2023 per mile.\nAverage rate of toll on gross tonnage per ton\n5.54 mills per mile.\nAnnual net revenue on cost of canal\n2 per cent.\n\"\n\"\n\" one-half the cost of canal\n3.82 \"\n\"\n\"\n\" one-quarter \"\n\"\n7%\n\"\nPar value of canal upon business of 1865\n$2,640,340\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n77\nThere was transported over this canal, in 1865, from Cumberland\nto Georgetown, 343,202 tons of coal.\nFrom an accurate calculation, the actual cost of moving freight over\nthe Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, is as follows, based upon prices for\nthe year 1861. (See Appendix A for the cost of movement over\ncanals.)\nCost of motive power\n18 cents per mile.\n\" \" boat and furniture, with interest on the same\n4.345\n\"\n\"\n\" \" repairs\n0.638\n\"\n\"\nExpense of crew\n15.500\n\"\n\"\nTotal actual cost of movement, exclusive of tolls\n38.483\n\"\n\"\nwhich, divided by the burthen of boat (120 tons), equals mills\nper ton per mile, exclusive of profits to carrier, or toll. The actual\nrate charged for 1861, exclusive of tolls, was 51 mills per ton per\nmile, and including tolls, 81 mills. The cost of repairs and\nmanagement is assumed at the average for canals, 30 per cent of\ngross receipts from tolls, and we have the following, reduced to a\nlevel canal, and including the cost overcoming lockage:\nActual cost of movme't, mills pr. ton pr. mile 3.2 for lockage, and 2.49 for a level.\nProfits to carrier\n\"\n\"\n\"\n2.3\n\"\n\"\n1.79\n\"\nTolls\n\"\n\"\n\"\n3\n\"\n\"\n2.34\n\"\nTotal cost of transport'n, including tolls. 8.5\n\"\n\"\n6.62\n\"\nshowing that, if the canal was level, the same profits would be\nrealized at 6% mills per ton per mile as with the present rates of 81\nmills. The actual cost of moving freight over railroads, embraces\nexpenses of maintaining roadway and real estate, cost of repairs of\nmachinery, and cost of operating the road. Applying the same\nbasis for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, we have:\nRepairs of rolling stock\n0.638 cents per mile.\nCost of motive power\n18.000\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\" crew and maintaining canal\n34.000\n\"\n\"\n\"\nTotal cost of transportation, exclusive of tolls\n52.638\n\"\n\"\n\"\nequal to mills per ton per mile upon the basis of the actual\ncost of railroad transportation, and the lowest rate to which the cost\nof transportation over the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal can be\nreduced, and the total receipts per ton per mile, including profits\nto stockholders and carriers, for the year 1861, as follows:\nDigitized by Google\n78\nActual cost of transportation, including expense of crew, repairs of\nboat and canal\n4.38 mills.\nProfits to carrier\n2.30\n\"\nNet toll (1863) or profits to stockholders\n2\n\"\nTotal rate of freight charges\n8.68\n\"\nwhich may be taken as the maximum rate; hence, the Baltimore\nand Ohio Railroad, to compete with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal,\nmust make the actual cost of transportation equal to 4100 mills per\nton per mile, and freight charges 8% mills, based upon [prices pre-\nvious to 1862. Assuming that all conditions were equal, this could\nnot be done, as the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad cost, exclusive of\nequipment, $14,383,734 more than the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal,\nand the percentage of expense on the gross receipts for repairs\nand management, has never been below that experienced upon the\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal.\nIt is evident that seven-eighths of all the coal from the Cumber-\nland mines should pass to tide-water over this canal, and the only\nadditional facilities required to secure this trade is the control, by\nthe canal company, of ráilroad lines leading from the canal to the\nmines, and the shipments, via ocean, to be made from Annapolis\ninstead of Georgetown, which would secure in the first a reduction\nin the cost of coal of 82 cents per ton, and in the latter a ready\ncommand, at all times, of vessels requiring return cargoes, from its\nproximity to Baltimore, and a reduction of 52 cents per ton in\nfreights.\nThe following shows the rates of freights actually charged, including\ntolls, over the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal; also; via ocean, from\nGeorgetown to New York; also, over the Baltimore and Ohio Rail-\nroad and ocean, for the years 1861-4-5 and 6 :\nDISTANCE, IN\nMILLS PER Tox PER MILE.\nROUTE.\nMILES.\n1861.\n1864.\n1865.\n1866.\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal\n184\n8.50\n17.01\n15.86\n13.15\nOcean, Georgetown to New York\n530\n2.50\n6.12\n6.13\n5.66\nOcean, Baltimore to New York\n490\n2.50\n6.12\n6.13\n5.61\nCanals,\n\"\n\"\n\"\n228\n13.15\n11.62\n\"\n\"\n\" Albany\n388\n8.38\n\"\nGeorgetown to Philadelphia.\n310\n6.45\n5.16\nBays,\n\"\n\" H're de Grace\n244\n4.10\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n79\nNEW YORK STATE CANALS.\nThere are 12 canals within the State of New York, of an aggre-\ngate length of 8861 miles. These canals connect natural channels\nto the extent of 386 miles, making the total length of navigable\nchannels within the State, 12721 miles. Of the above length of\ncanals, 411 miles are of capacity to pass boats of 230 tons burthen,\nand the balance from 76 to 90 tons. The construction of these\ncanals commenced in 1817, and the Erie was completed, 363 miles\nin length, in 1825, and the others up to 1837, except the Black\nRiver canal, which was completed in 1849. The enlargement of\nthe Erie, Cayuga and Seneca, and Oswego canals were commenced\nin 1835, and the construction account closed in 1862, although prac-\ntically completed in 1859.\nThe following statement shows the total amount expended for construc-\ntion of these canals, with and without interest on loans; also, the\namount of tolls collected, and the cost of repairs and mangement,\nfrom completion to 1865, inclusive:\nCost, with Im-\nSame, with Inter-\nTotal Amount of\nTotal Cost of Re-\nNAME.\nprovements and\nest on Loans.\nReceipts from\npairs and Man-\nLand Damages.\nTolls.\nagement.\nErie Canal\n$42,952,997\n$55,187,890\n$83,629,243\n$12,818,517\nOswego\n3,850,634\n4,422,029\n2,420,265\n1,605,490\nCayuga and Seneca\n1,713,232\n1,950,636\n771,366\n559,000\nChamplain and feeder\n2,300,396\n4,500,396\n4,401,539\n2,351,327\nBlack River\n3,458,432\n4,542,802\n102,773\n210,645\nGenesee Valley\n6,419,058\n10,174,325\n614,146\n794,280\nChenango\n2,944,532\n4,207,324\n585,475\n560, 171\nChemung and feeder\n1,382,517\n1,953,866\n437, 601\n897,988\nOneida River Imp't\n125,167\n190,555\n201,600\n25,005\nOneida Lake Canal\n50,000\n74,916\n65,180\n91,671\nSen. T. path & Bald'ville\n16,585\n16,585\n1,261\n12,388\nCrooked Lake\n431,298\n544,085\n41,838\n161,165\nTotals\n$65,644,848\n$87,765,409\n$93,272,287\n$20,087,647\nThe above statement presents a complete financial view of the\nentire canal system of the State of New York. It shows that the\nreceipts from tolls alone have more than paid for the construction of\nthe canals, including interest on loans, and over $27,000,000 in\nexcess of the cost, exclusive of interest. The cost of repairs and\nDigitized by Google\n80\nmanagement average, for the whole period, 21 per cent of gross\nreceipts.\nThe total cost of repairs and management for the year of 1864,\nwas $923,642, equal to $990 per mile; and the gross receipts, from\ntolls, was $3,983,981, equal to $4312 per mile. The total tonnage\nfor this year was 4,852,941, equal to 871,335,150 tons moved one\nmile. The average rate of toll, upon gross tonnage, was 457 mills\nper ton per mile, and the freight charges, including tolls, averaged,\nfor the season, 11½ mills, being for down freight, and for\nup freight. The cost of repairs and management was 23 per cent\nof gross receipts.\nSKETCH OF THE ERIE CANAL, SHOWING COST OF TRANSPORTATION.\nThe following condensed sketch of the Erie Canal, showing the\ngradual reduction in the cost of transportation, and the method\npursued in the foregoing calculation, may be of interest to many\nnot conversant with its general character as connected with this\nsubject:\nErie Canal. - The construction of the Erie Canal was com-\nmenced July 4th, 1817, and completed October 26th, 1825, at a\ncost of $7,143,789 19,255 per mile. The dimensions were\nas follows: Width at surface, 40 feet; at bottom, 28 feet, and four\nfeet depth. The locks were 90 feet in length between quoins, 15\nfeet wide. The average burthen of boats used was 50 tons. The\nlength of canal, before its enlargement, was 362 miles, from Albany\nto Buffalo.\nThe cost of transportation, in 1830 (the earliest record preserved),\nwas, for tolls cents, and for tolls and freight 51 cents per ton\nper mile, from Albany to Buffalo; and from Buffalo to Albany, the\ntolls were about 1½ cents, and tolls and freight 2½ cents per ton\nper mile ; making an average upon the tonnage to and from tide-\nwater (which was five to one)=three cents per ton per mile, includ-\ning tolls. The enlargement of the Erie Canal was authorized May\n11th, 1835 and accompanying the estimate of its probable cost,\nwas one showing, that by the proposed enlargement the cost of\ntransportation would be cheapened 50 per cent.\nThe cost of transportation, in 1835, was, from tide-water, for tolls,\ncents, and for tolls and freight 4x½ cents per ton per mile;\n2\nDigitized by Google\nS1\nand to tide-water, for tolls nine mills, and for tolls and freight 14\ncents; making the average cost upon the tonnage to and from tide-\nwater (which was about 5&4 to one) 21% cents per ton per mile,\nincluding tolls.\nThe enlargement was practically completed in 1859, but\nthe construction account was not closed until April 10th, 1862.\nThe total cost of construction, including the original canal, was\n$42,952,997, and including land damages and interest on loans,\n$55,187,890. The present size of this canal is 70 feet surface, 56\nfeet at bottom and seven feet depth, and 3501 miles long. The\nlocks are 110 feet in length between quoins, and 18 feet wide in\nthe clear. The average burthen of boats now used is 210 tons.\nThe cost of transportation, in 1862, averaged, from tide-water, for\ntolls four mills, and for tolls and freight 7 π¹σ mills per ton per mile\nand to tide-water, for tolls six mills, and for tolls and freight\ncents per ton per mile; making an average upon the tonnage to\nand from tide-water (which was as eight to cents per\nton per mile=a reduction of 50½ per cent from 1835.\nThe aggregate of the carrier's charges, in 1862, averaged\nmills, and the tolls mills per ton per mile.\nThe total cost of repairs and management of the Erie and\nChamplain canals for 1864, was $578,330, equal to $1366 per mile,\nand the gross receipts from tolls, $4,042,092, equal to $9716 per\nmile. The total tonnage of these two canals was 3,382,582 tons.\nThe cost of repairs and management for 1864, was 14½ per cent of\nthe gross receipts, and paid a net revenue of 7% per cent on a\ncapital of $45,250,000, equal to the total cost of these two canals.\nThe actual cost of movement, calculated upon the method\nadopted in this report, is as follows:\nExpense of crew (1 captain at $60 per month, 2 hands, $45 each\n1 cook, $30 per month)=$6 per day, by 81/2 days\n$51 00\nCost of boat and furniture, with interest for 10 years, divided\ninto 2300 days-total per day $2.50, by 81 days, the time\nof passage\n21 25\nRepairs of boat, 25 per cent of cost=38 cents per day\n3 23\nTowing 25 cents per mile, by 3501 miles\n87 62\nTotal cost of passage\n$163 10\nActual cost, including lockage, per ton per mile (210x350) 2.21 mills.\n\"\nreduced to a level,\n(11.37 +350%)\n655\n1.90 \"\n11.37\n11\nDigitized by Google\n82\nTo make it upon the same basis as the actual cost of railroad\ntransportation, it would be as follows :\nCost of repairs, boat and furniture\n0.920 cents per mile.\n\"\nmotive power\n25.000\n\"\n\"\n\"\ncrew\n15.500\n\"\n\"\n\"\nmaintaining canals\n21.000\n\"\n\"\nTotal\n62.420\n\"\n\"\nEqual to three mills per ton per mile, exclusive of tolls; and the\ntotal cost, including tolls and profits to carrier, is as follows :\nActual cost movement, including expense of\ncrew, repairs of boat and canal\n3.00 mills per ton per mile.\nProfits to carrier\n3.93\n\"\n\"\n\"\nNet toll\n3.57\n\"\n\"\n\"\nTotal cost upon basis of receipts of R. Rs. 10.60\n\"\n\"\n\"\nHence, railroads, to compete with the Erie Canal, must reduce the\nactual cost of transportation to three mills, and receipts to\ncents per ton per mile.\nThe total number of boats registered up to 1854, was 2126 upon\nthe New York State canals, and the total number registered from\n1844 to 1864, inclusive, was 8943 ; making total number 11,069\nboats. The total number registered from 1854, to 1864, inclusive,\nwas 5427, and the number registered in 1864, was 399, the greatest\nnumber of which was 210 tons burthen. Allowing two horses to\neach boat, the total cost of equipment of the New York State\ncanals in 1864, was about $18,000,000.\nDigitized by Google\n83\nThe following statement shows the receipts per ton per mile for transport-\nation, over the New York Central, Erie Railway, and New York\nState canals, also the tonnage of each, from 1854 to 1864, inclusive\nNEW YORK CENTRAL.\nERIE RAILWAY.\nNEW YORK STATE CANALS.\nin-\nPer\nin-\nPer\nFISCAL\nNo. of tons\ncrease and de-\nton per\nmile.\nNo. of tons\nNo. of tons\nmoved\none mile.\nPercentage,\nCents\nmoved\ncrease and de-\ntonper\nmile.\nYEAR.\nPercentage,\nCents.\nmoved\ncrease.\none mile.\ncrease.\none mile.\nRe-\nPercentage of in-\ncrease each year\non tonnage.\nReceipts per ton,\nper mile, includ-\nRe-\ning tolls.\nceipts.\nceipts.\n1854\n81,168,080\n3.05\n130,808,034\n2.57\n668,559,044\n4½-\n0.861\n1855\n99,605,836\n22. +\n3.20\n150,673,998\n14. t\n2.43\n619,170,651\n73/4-\n0.941\n1856\n145,733,678\n46.\n2.97\n183,458,046\n21. t\n2.48\n592,009,603\n4 1/3-\n1.11\n1857\n145,873,776\n0.8t\n3.13\n167,100,850\n8½-\n2.45\n484,750,864\n18. 0.80\n1858\n142,691,178\n2.\n2.59\n165,895,635\n0.8-\n2.32\n564,842,095\n16½+\n0.80\n1859\n157,136,000\n10. t\n2.13\n147,127,039\n11.\n2.17\n544,309,072\n3%-\n0.68\n1860\n199,231,392\n26. t\n2.06\n214,084,395\n46. t\n1.84\n809,524,596\n48½+\n1.00\n1861\n237,392,974\n20. t\n1.96\n251,350,127\n17. t\n1.73\n863,623,507\n6%+\n1.08\n1862\n296,963,492\n21. +\n2.22\n351,092,285\n39. t\n1.89\n1,123,548,430\n30.\n0.96\n1863\n312,195,796\n5½1\n2.38\n403,670,861\n15. t\n2.09\n1,034,130,023\n4-5-\n0.87\n1864\n314,081,410\n0.6+\n2.90\n422,013,644\n5½1/21\n2.41\n871,335,180\n16.\nTotal\n2,132,073,612\n2.60\n2,587,274,914\n2.22\n8,175,803,065\n0.91\nt for percentage gained, and - for loss.\nFrom the foregoing, the average receipts of the New York Cen-\ntral were cents; Erie, and New York canals cents per\nton per mile, or the average of both roads 2% times the cost upon\nthe canals.\nThe total value of the total tonnage of the New York State\ncanals for 1864, was $274,500,000. The value of total tonnage\narriving at tide-water from the Erie and Champlain, was $145,500,000,\nand the value of wheat and flour which came to the Hudson River\nfor this year, was 48,333,333.\nThe total cost of repairs of the New York State canals for 1864\nwas $846,624, equal to $943 per mile.\nBALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD.\nThis was the first railroad opened for passenger traffic in this\ncountry, in 1830, and the second upon which locomotives were first\nused, in 1831. The first locomotive was built at West Point, and\nweighed four tons, with a maximum speed of 20 miles an hour.\nSince 1850, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal has been its only\ncompetitor in the transportation of coal from Cumberland to tide-\nwater. From 1860 to 1865, inclusive, 2,375,256 tons of coal was\nDigitized by Google\n84\ntransported over this road to Baltimore, and 1,310,797 tons over the\nChesapeake and Ohio Canal. In 1865, 424,316 tons was transported\nover the former and 343,200 tons over the latter.\nThe following analysis of this road is from the annual report of\nthe company for the year 1863. The report is very deficient in\ndetail, omitting to classify the expenses and receipts for passenger\nand freight traffic, and to give the number of tons of freight moved\none mile. The desired results are, however, approximately obtained\nby comparison with other railroads for the same year.\nLength and cost of roads owned by the company.\nCosT OF ROADS.\nLENGTH.\nMILES.\nTOTAL.\nPER MILE.\nMain stem, cost of road\n379\n$18,515,666\n$48,853\n\"\nsecond track\n1,551,238\n4,093\n\"\nrolling power\n3,021,755\n7,973\n\"\nreal estate\n1,223,234\n3,228\nTotal\n$24,311,893\n$64,147\nWashington Branch, cost of road\n40\n1,016,800\n25,420\nrolling power and real estate\n633,200\n15,830\nTotal\n$1,650,000\n$41,250\nNorth Western Virginia, cost of road\n104\n2,220,560\n21,342\nTotals\n523\n$28,182,453\n$53,886\nTotal receipts and expenditures for the year.\nTotal Expendi-\nTotal\nTotal Receipts.\ntures.\nNet Revenue.\nMain stem proper\n$6,509,945\n$1,965,847\n$4,544,097\nNorthwestern Virginia\n446,220\n404,095\n42,125\nWashington Branch\n703,123\n273,233\n429,890\nTotal\n$7,659,288\n$2,643,175\n$5,016,113\nSAME PER MILE.\nMain stem\n$17,179\n$5,186\n$11,993\nNorthwestern Virginia\n14,194\n3,886\n309\nWashington Branch\n17,578\n6,830\n10,748\nTotal average\n$14,645\n$5,053\n$9,592\nDigitized by Google\n85\nCost. of Management on Gross Receipts.\nFrom the above statement, the percentage of expenses on gross\nreceipts, for the management of the main stem, was per cent;\nnorthwestern Virginia 901 per cent, and Washington Branch\nper cent, making an average of 341 per cent. The same for all the\nNew York State railroads, for 1863, was 601 per cent. Upon 13 of\nthe principal railroads in New York, it averaged 591 per cent, 41\nper cent greater than the Baltimore and Ohio road. The net\nrevenue on the cost of main stem, is 16 per cent; northwestern\nVirginia per cent, and Washington Branch 421 per cent, mak-\ning the average annual net revenue, for 1863, on total cost of road\nand equipment of 17 per cent.\nExpenses of the machinery department.\nPER MILE.\nExpenses of\nMiles Run by\nDepartment.\nEngines.\nRoad.\nRun.\nMain stem, Washington Branch\n$795,200\n3,432,223\n$1,897\n23.17 cts.\nNorthwestern Virginia\n184,502\n298,035\n1,774\n61.90 cts.\nTotal\n$979,702\n3,730,258\n$1,873\n26.26 cts.\nThe total expense of the machinery department for all of the\nrailroads in New York for 1863, was $7,601,155, and total miles run\nby passenger and freight trains, 16,611,561, making the cost\ncents per mile run, 42 per cent greater than the Baltimore and Ohio\nRailroad-same ratio as between cost of management. The lowest\ncost of machinery department for the New York roads in 1856, was\n38.10 cents per mile run, fuel being 161 cents.\nThere were 79 engines in use upon the \"Northern Central Rail-\nway\" in 1863, varying in weight from 32,000 lbs. to 63,000 lbs.\nThe tractive power of the smallest is equal to 3780 lbs.; of the\naverage, 10,967 lbs., and the largest, 12,936 lbs., with a working\npressure of steam on cylinder of 70 lbs. per square inch.\nAssuming a speed of 15 miles an hour, the traction on a level\nroad is equal to lbs. per ton.\nHence, the smallest will draw 406 gross tons, and 208 tons net.\nAnd the average\n\"\n1178\n\"\n\"\n\"\n629\n\"\nThe largest\n\"\n1388\n\"\n\"\n\"\n743\n\"\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n86\nThe total mileage of passenger trains was 344,474 miles, and of\nfreight trains, 849,557 miles, making total mileage 1,249,479 miles.\nThe transportation of freight during the year amounted to 66,906,315\ntons moved one mile, and the total cost of machinery department was\nas follows :\nMain stem, passenger engines\n17.90 cents per mile run.\n\"\ndistrib'ng\n\"\n23.20\n\"\nit\n\"\nfreight\n\"\n25.70\n\"\n\"\n\"\naverage for total miles run\n22.20\n\"\n\"\nShamakin Division, freight engines\n29.27\n\"\n\"\nElmira\n\"\npas'ger\n\"\n17.60\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\ndist'ng\n\"\n16.70\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nfreight\n\"\n21.50\n\"\n\"\nMaking total average on entire road\n22\n\"\n\"\nIncluding cost of new engines\n25.20\n\"\n\"\nThe following is a comparison of results of cost of machinery\ndepartment :\nBaltimore and Ohio Railroad\n26.26 cents per mile run.\nNorthern Central Railroad\n25.20\n\"\n\"\nNew York State Railroads\n45.70\n\"\n\"\nCOST OF FUEL.\nThe Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company expended $132,-\n620.17 for fuel, including cost of preparing same and filling tenders,\nequal to cents per mile run by freight and passenger trains.\nThe expenses, for the same, upon the New York State railroads,\nfor 1863, was $2,210,112, equal to cents per mile run for pas-\nsenger and freight, and 13 cents per mile for freight.\nThe expense, for the same, upon the Northern Central Railway,\nfor 1863, was $145,418.64, equal to cents per mile run by pas-\nsenger and freight\nBy a comparison of the results, the fuel of the Baltimore and\nOhio Railroad cost 721 per cent less than upon the New York\nState roads, and 70 per cent less than upon the Northern Central.\nThe amount expended upon the New York Central Railroad, in\n1863, for fuel, including cost of preparing same and filling tenders,\nwas $722,734.72, equal to 16½ cents per mile run by passenger and\nfreight trains and for the year 1856 it was equal to cents per\nmile run.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n87\nThe relative values of wood, coke \"and coal for locomotive uses, deter-\nmined from experiments with the best and purest character of mate-\nrials, is embraced in the following statement from Vose's Hand-book\non Railroad Construction :\nCoxe.\nCOAL.\nWOOD.\nWeight, per cubic foot, in pounds\n63\n80\n30\nDegrees of heat generated\n4.300\n4.000\n2.800\nPercentage of carbon in fuel\n95\n88\n20\nEconomic bulk, or cubic feet, to stow one ton\n80\n44\n107\nEconomic or stowage weight, per cubic foot\n28\n51\n21\nCubic feet of air to evaporate one pound of water\n22.4\n32\n16\nEquiv't economic bulk to evaporate same weight of water\n13\n10\n60\nWeight of water evap'd per lb. of fuel in ord'y practice\n81\n6\n21\nRelative value, as fuel, disregarding actual cost\n100\n71\n29\nThis statement shows that, by bulk, 13 of coke is equal to 10 of\ncoal and 60 of wood; that one pound of coke evaporates 81 pounds\nof water; coal, 6 pounds, and wood, 21 and their relative evapora-\ntive efficiency, wood 1, coal 2.4, and coke 3.4.\nA cord of wood contains 100 cubic feet solid, or 128 feet as piled,\nand will weigh 3000 pounds. The relative evaporative efficiency\nof a ton of each to a cord of wood is : wood, 7500 ; coal, 13,640 ;\ncoke, 19,040. Hence, if a cord of wood, cut and prepared for\nburning, costs $3.00, the price that may be paid for a ton of coal is\n$5.45, and for coke $7.62, to be as economical for motive power.\nCost of a cord of wood\nPrice that may be paid for a ton\nready for burning.\nOf coal.\nOf coke.\n$3 00\n$5 45\n$7 62\n4 00\n7 27\n10 16\n5 00\n9 09\n12 70\n6 00\n10 90\n15 24\n7 00\n12 72\n17 78\n7 50\n13 63\n19 05\nExperiments were recently made upon the Baltimore and Ohio\nRailroad to determine the relative cost of fuels-wood, coal and\ncoke ; and the result shows 16 per cent more in favor of the coal used\nby them in the above experiments, and 45 per cent less in value of\ncoke. The following were the results of these experiments:\nWith wood\n7.8 cents cost per mile run.\n\"\ncoal\n3.6\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\ncoke\n5.6\n\"\n\"\n\"\nDigitized by Google\n88\nMaking a difference in favor of coal of 54 per cent, and coke 29 per\ncent.\nThe experiments were made with the same engine, running with\nmail and express trains, and hauling, in each case, five cars.\nConstructing a statement similar to the above, and the following\nshows their relative values:\nCost of a cord of wood\nPrice that may be paid for a fon of\nready for burning.\ncoal.\ncoke.\n$3 00\n$6 15\n$4 18\n4 00\n8 66\n5 57\n5 00\n10 83\n6 96\n6 00\n12 99\n8 35\n7 00\n15 16\n9 75\n7 50\n16 24\n10 44\nFrom experiments made previous to 1857, on the Baltimore and\nOhio Railroad, it was found that 2.55 lbs. of pine wood was equal\nto one pound of coal, and upon the Reading Railroad, that three lbs.\nof pine wood was equal to one pound of anthracite coal. This makes\nthe relative value of Cumberland to anthracite coal as 2.55 to 3,\nor 16 per cent more valuable for locomotive uses. Assuming the\nsame value for Cumberland coal as given in the last statement, and\nthe following shows the relative values of Cumberland and anthra-\ncite coal :\nCost of a ton of anthracite coal.\nPrice that may be paid for Cumberland coal.\n$5 52\n$6 50\n7 36\n8 66\n9 20\n10 83\n11 04\n12 99\n12 88\n15 16\n13 80\n16 24\nExperiments were made with the semi-bituminous coal from the\nBarclay mines situated in the northern part of the State of Penn-\nsylvania, in 1859. The trial was continued for several months over\n96 miles of the Erie Railway, and the superintendent of the\nmotive power, Mr. F. Leech, stated in his report for that year, \" that\nit proved 47⁻³⁻ per cent cheaper than wood, reckoning the cost of\nthe former at two dollars and seventy cents per ton, and the latter\nat three dollars per cord, all delivered in the tender.\"\nThe result of this experiment shows, that when wood cost three\ndollars per cord, coal was worth five dollars and seventy cents per\nton.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n89\nCollecting the results of foregoing experiments, and the follow-\ning shows the relative values of. different coals, also wood, for\nlocomotive uses :\nPRICE THAT MAY BE PAID FOR A TON OF\nWhen wood costs\nper cord.\nCumberland\nBarclay\nSchuylkill\nbituminous.\nsemi-bituminous.\nanthracite.\n$3 00\n$6 50\n$5 70\n$5 52\n4 00\n8 66\n7 60\n7 36\n5 00\n10 83\n9 50\n9 20\n6 00\n12 99\n11 40\n11 04\n7 00\n15 16\n13 30\n12 88\n7 50\n16 24\n14 25\n13 80\nCost, per mile run, of different kinds of fuel, based on results of\nthe foregoing experiments :\nWith English coke\n3.07 cents, cost per mile run.\n\"\nAmer'n \"\n5.60\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nCumberland coal, (bituminous)\n3.60\nit\n\"\n\"\n\"\nBarclay\n\"\n(semi-bituminous)\n4.10\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nSchuylkill\n\"\nanthracite\n4.20\n\"\n\"\n\"\n.\n\"\nWood\n7.80\n\"\n\"\n\"\nFrom these results, Cumberland coal is 121 per cent cheaper for\nlocomotive uses than the semi-bituminous coal from the Barclay\nmines, 141 per cent cheaper than anthracite, and 54 per cent\ncheaper than wood.\nThese experiments clearly demonstrate that, by the use of coal\nupon railroads instead of wood, one-half the cost of fuel is saved,\nand this item alone, upon all the railroads in the United States,\nwould amount to over 11½ millions of dollars annually.\nCost of Transportation, and Effect of Grades on same.\nAs determined in the forepart of this analysis, the cost of man-\nagement on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad was 341 per cent of\nthe gross receipts over all the roads operated by the company, and\nper cent on the main stem. The same upon 13 of the\nprincipal railroads in the State of New York was 591 per cent,\nequal to 41 per cent greater than the former of aggregate lines,\nand 50 per cent above the cost of the former for the main stem.\nThe actual cost of transportation on the 13 New York roads was\n12\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n90\n184 cents, and receipts cents per ton per mile; hence, the\nactual cost of transportation in the aggregate on the Baltimore and\nOhio Railroad for 1863, was cents, and main stem cents\nper ton per mile. The receipts, to realize the same profit as upon\nthe New York roads, should have been, for the aggregate, 17 cents\nper ton, and upon the main stem, 1100 cents per ton per mile. The\nrates actually charged in 1863 for the transportation of coal on the\nmain stem from Piedmont to Baltimore, was 1800 cents per ton per\nmile.\nThe relative advantages of different railroads, depends upon their\ngrades and curves, which affect the economy of transportation; and\nto effect a comparison, should be reduced to level lines requiring an\nequal expenditure of power. Experiments were made on an\nextensive scale in England, as also upon the Erie Railway, to find\nthe resistance due to grades and curves, at different speeds; also,\nthe resistance on a level. The formula obtained by D. K. Clark, a\ndistinguished engineer and author, for the total resistance to the\nmotion of a railroad train upon a level was +8-R where V=\nvelocity in miles per hour, and R=the resistance in lbs. per ton.\nThe resistance due to any grade is independent of all other consid-\nerations, and determined by the formula 2240 5280\nThe resistance\ndue to curves was determined by Mr. McCollum, at one-half lb. per\ndegree of curvature per 100 feet, or for a 4° curve two lbs. per ton.\nMr. Clark estimated the resistance due to curves of one mile radius\nand under, at lbs. per ton. \"The general practice of some\nengineers,\" remarks Mr. Vose, \"in equating for curvature, is to add\none-fourth mile to the measured length for each 360° curvature,\ndisregarding radius.\" The average of the three experiments on\ncurves gives 1140° curvature as equal to the expense in passing\nover one mile of straight level line.\nThe chief items affected by grades are fuel and first cost of loco-\nmotives. In doubling the work done by engines, the cost of fuel\nis only increased 90 per cent.\nIn descending grades, 25 feet per mile is sufficient to allow the\ntrain to roll down by the force of gravity alone, and any more than\nthis is of little use; hence, in equating for descending grades, one\nmile should be deducted for each mile of 25 feet grades.\nDigitized by Google\n91\nThe following table shows the resistance, in lbs., per ton, and for 100 tons,\nat speeds of 10 to 100 miles an hour on a level road, calculated from\nthe formula 171+8; also, the resistance per ton upon grades of 10 to\n100 feet per mile, calculated from the formula 2240 X grade the latter\nbeing independent of the former:\nPOUNDS RESISTANCE.\nPOUNDS RESISTANCE.\nVOLOCITY.\nGRADE.\nMiles per hour.\nOne ton.\n100 tons.\nFeet per mile.\nOne ton.\n100 tons.\n10\n8.58\n858\n12\n8.84\n884\n10\n4.24\n424\n15\n9.31\n931\n20\n8.48\n848\n20\n10.34\n1034\n30\n12.73\n1273\n25\n11.65\n1165\n40\n16.96\n1696\n30\n13.26\n1326\n50\n21.20\n2120\n40\n17.36\n1736\n60\n25.46\n2546\n50\n22.62\n2262\n70\n30.00\n3000\n60\n29.05\n2905\n80\n33.93\n3393\n100\n66.48\n6648\n100\n42.40\n4240\nThe total resistance encountered by a freight train of 750 tons\nup a 30 feet grade, at a speed of 15 miles an hour, would equal\nlbs., or, from the above\ntable, resistance on a level 9.31-resistance on grade 12.73=2203\nlbs. resistance per ton X750=16,522 lbs. resistance of train.\nThe working tractive power of an engine is generally one-\nsixth the weight on driving wheels, or by the formula\n( area piston, be Circumference pressure lbs. per wheel square in inches. inch x twice the stroke) Assuming the following\ndimensions for a first class engine on the Baltimore and Ohio Rail-\nroad, viz., weight of engine, 66,100 lbs. ; weight on drivers, 42,750\nlbs. ; weight of tender, 40,000 capacity of tender, 2000 gallons;\ndiameter of cylinder, 18 inches; stroke, 20 inches; 4 drivers, 5 feet\neach in diamaeter, and 100 lbs. steam pressure per square inch, the\ntractive power would equal (2X 254.5)X100X2X20 188.5 =10,801 lbs. and\nat a pressure of 70 lbs. per square inch on pistons, the tractive\npower is equal to one-sixth of the weight on driving wheels=7126\nlbs. working power. To lead well, the truck of an engine should\nhave at least five tons placed on it.\nThe following are the dimensions of the largest engine in use\nupon the New York and Erie Railroad in 1856, viz: Weight of\nDigitized by Google\n92\nengine, 73,700 pounds; weight on eight drivers, 73,700 pounds\nweight of tender, 40,920 pounds; capacity, 1747 gallons; diameter\nof cylinder, 181 inches; stroke, 23 inches diameter of driver, four\nfeet. The tractive power of this engine, with a steam pressure of\n100 pounds to square inch (2x261.5) 150.8 X 100 (2x23) 15,953 lbs.,\nand at 75 lbs. pressure the tractive power is=12,000 lbs., the work-\ning power being about one-sixth the weight on drivers.\nThe following calculations show the gross and net loads, in tons, each\nengine will draw up the following grades at a speed of 15 miles an\nhour:\nAVERAGE OF FIRST CLASS ENGINES.\nHEAVIEST OF FIRST CLASS ENGINES.\nGRADES.\nFeet.\nGROSS TONS.\nNET TONS.\nGRADES.\nFeet.\nGROSS TONS.\nNET TONS.\nLevel.\n765\n397\nLevel.\n1290\n689\n10\n526\n264\n10\n900\n472\n20\n400\n200\n20\n674\n346\n30\n324\n152\n30\n500\n250\n40\n271\n122\n40\n457\n226\n50\n233\n103\n50\n400\n194\n60\n205\n88\n60\n345\n166\n70\n182\n75\n70\n320\n150\n80\n167\n66\n80\n277\n136\n90\n151\n58\n90\n254\n113\n100\n138\n50\n100\n232\n101\n116\n121\n41\n116\n204\n86\nIn the above calculations, the dead weight is assumed at 1.80+\ntotal weight of engine and tender, including outfit.\nThe following are the maximum grades on the several divisions\nof the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad:\nBaltimore to Harper's Ferry\n80 miles; maximum grade, 82 feet.\nHarper's Ferry to Cumberland\n98\n\"\n\"\n\"\n40\n\"\nCumberland to Raccoon\n88.2 \"\n\"\n\"\n116\n\"\nRaccoon to 148 miles\n60.5 \"\n\"\n\"\n40\n\"\n148 miles to Wheeling\n51.3 \"\n\"\n\"\n80\n\"\nThe relative length of each division, reduced to level roads, is as\nfollows - assuming, from the general rule, that the greatest load\nthat can be taken over any section is limited by its maximum grade,\nand the following shows the relative length of each division reduced\nto level roads :\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n93\n80 X (93+3+3) = 379.20\n98. X (9.3+9.3) = 275.30\n88.2 X (9.3+9.3) = 555.66\n60.5 X (9.3+17) = 170.61\n51.3 X (93+93) = 238.54\nMeasured 378 miles; equated 1619.31 miles, equal to 4⁻³₀\nthe actual length, or requiring times more expenditure of power\nthan if the road was level. The actual cost of transportation over\nthe main stem was found to be mills per ton per mile; hence,.\nthe cost, reduced to a level, or upon a level road, would equal\n(9.2*3.31) 2114 mills per ton per mile. This is a very flattering\nresult, and proves beyond question, that the adaptation of power to\ngrades on this road is perfect.\nAs demonstrated in a former statement, the actual cost of trans-\nportation over the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal was 4TOT mills per\nton per mile, including repairs of boats, furniture and canal, and\ncost of movement; or upon the same basis as over the Baltimore\nand Ohio Railroad, without profits to carriers or stockholders. The\ncost, reduced to a level canal, would be (19.374.33) mills\nper ton per mile, equal to 37 per cent greater than the Baltimore\nand Ohio; showing that if both were level, the road could carry\nfreight at rates 37 per cent lower than the canal; but by the increase\nof grades and cost of overcoming them, the canal can carry 50 per\ncent lower than the railroad.\nThe following are the characteristics of the New York and Erie\nRailroad. The divisions are made to correspond with those of the\nBaltimore and Ohio.\n1st\n107.70 miles of level road.\n2d\n93.06\n\"\nwith maximum grade of 10 feet.\n3d\n99.00 \"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n20 \"\n4th\n97.63 \"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n50 \"\n5th\n49.54 \"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n70 \"\nThe equated length of the above divisions are as follows:\n107.70 X (level) = 170.70\n93.06 X (9.3+9.3) = 135.78\n99.00 X (93+93) = 189.09\n97.63 X (9.3+21.3) 320.22\n49.54 X (9.3+9.s) = 209.05\nActual 446.93 miles; equated 961.84 miles, equal to 215\ntimes the length, or requiring more than double the expenditure of\nDigitized by Google\n94\npower than on a level road. The actual cost of transportation over\nthe Erie Railway, in 1863, was 91 mills per ton per mile; hence,\n9.5x446.93\nthe cost, reduced to a level, would equal\n961.84\nper\nton, or 51 per cent greater than the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.\nIf the foregoing calculations are correct, the cost of management\non the main stem of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad should be 51\nper cent lower than on the Erie. The cost of management of the\nErie, in 1863, as stated in the annual report of the State Engineer\nand Surveyor, was ; hence, for the Baltimore and Ohio. it\nshould be per cent, which corresponds with the amount as\nstated by the company in their report for 1863. The business of\nthe Baltimore and Ohio road was performed by 221 engines of all\nclasses, in 1863, and upon the Erie with 249 engines of all classes.\nThe total miles run by the former during the year was 3,730,258,\nand by the latter 5,818,779, or 371 per cent greater.\nThe following calculation shows the cost of overcoming grades from 10\nto 116 feet per mile, based upon the actual cost of transportation over\nthe Baltimore and Ohio and Erie raïlroads, under the following con-\nditions: Weight of engine 73,700 lbs., distributed on eight drivers ;\nweight of tender, 40,000 lbs. ; capacity, 1747 gallons; diameter of\ncylinder, 181 inches ; stroke, 23 inches ; diameter of drivers, four feet,\nwith a steam pressure of 75 lbs. per square inch, and at a speed of\n15 miles an hour.\nCOST, IN CENTS, PER Ton PER MILE.\nGrade, in Feet, per\nNet Load, in Tons\nMile.\n(2240).\nBaltimore and Ohio.\nErie Railway.\nOn a level\n689\n0.21\n0.44\n10\n472\n0.31\n0.64\n20\n346\n0.42\n0.87\n30\n250\n0.59\n1.21\n40\n226\n0.65\n1.34\n50\n194\n0.76\n1.56\n60\n166\n0.89\n1.83\n70\n150\n0.98\n2.02\n80\n126\n1.18\n2.40\n90\n113\n1.31\n2.68\n100\n101\n1.46\n3.00\n116\n86\n1.72\n3.52\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nAPPENDIX E.\nSKETCH OF FORMER SURVEYS FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE\nCHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL TO BALTIMORE.\n1st. DR. WM. HOWARD'S SURVEY, 1826.\nDr. Howard, a distinguished civil engineer, made a survey in 1826\nfor a canal from Georgetown to Baltimore. He made the total length\n44 miles, and lockage of 262 feet; estimating the cost at $3,530,000.\nThe size of canal adopted was 33 feet on bottom, 48 feet at surface\nof water, and five feet deep. There were to be 38 locks, overcoming\n130 feet of ascent, and 164 feet descent. The summit level was\nfixed at 146 feet above tide, and was over 12 miles in length.\nUpon this line there were three extensive cuttings: 1, of the\nridge, between the Patapsco and Patuxent, greatest depth 64 feet,\nand extending 21 miles; 2, of the middle ridge, between the two\nbranches of the Patuxent, 74 feet depth and 18 miles long 3,\nthe ridge between the Patuxent and Potomac, of 72 feet greatest\ndepth, and 2½ miles in extent. The aggregate expense of these cut-\ntings, he estimated at $1,200,000.\nThe length from Georgetown to Bladensburg was 91 miles, with\ntwo locks descending 18 feet; expense $480,522, including aque-\nducts over Rock and Tiber creeks and the Eastern Branch. From\nBladensburg to summit level, 91 miles, with 17 locks ascending 130\nfeet; expense $388,903, including aqueducts over Northeast and\nPaint branches.\nFor a supply of water, the Doctor contemplated diverting the\nwaters of the two Patuxents, with several smaller streams, for the\nsummit level, and, in descending toward the Potomac, receive the\nwaters from Northeastern Branch, also the Northwestern; and\nfrom Bladensburg, to meet the waters from the Potomac.\nThe streams having been gauged during a season of unparalleled\ndrought, the report affirms that a canal laid down and constructed\nin the manner proposed, could be amply supplied with water, and\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n96\nwas entirely practicable; and, from examinations, that no canal com-\nmunication from Baltimore to the Potomac could pass northwest of\nthe line selected, consequently that all the routes proposed through\nMontgomery county were impracticable\nThe ridge between the two Patuxents, on the most southern\nroute suggested by Dr. Howard, was found but 135 feet above tide,\nnear a school house; and that the depression on Snowden's Ridge,\non the land of Zelic Duvall, was 155 feet above tide. He made\nthe summit level 21 feet above the depression between the two\nPatuxents, and but nine feet below the summit of Zelic Duvall's.\nDr. Howard made accurate gauges of the streams, and found a\nnatural supply of 2411 cubic feet per minute.\nThe Doctor's route was along the valley of the Northeastern\nBranch to Bladensburg; thence crossing the Eastern Branch and\ncontinued along its right bank to near Benning's Bridge; thence to\nthe north of the capitol and city hall to Rock Creek, and over this\nstream to the line of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. It was calcu-\nlated to feed the canal to the Eastern Branch from a large basin or\nreservoir, at the termination of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal,\nwhich was 25 or 30 feet above tide. Going east, the line continues\nalong the Eastern Branch, and crosses it by an aqueduct immediately\nbelow the bridge at Bladensburg. Passing through this town, it\nfollows, first the valley of the northern Eastern Branch, then Pinery\nBranch, crossing the turnpike road one-quarter of a mile south of\nVanesville. A little beyond this, the line attains its highest eleva-\ntion.\nCoL. ABERT'S SURVEY, IN 1838.\nCol. Abert's was the last survey made for a canal from Washing-\nton to Baltimore. He pronounced the \"Singanore and Seneca\nroutes\" entirely impracticable, and passes a general review of all\nformer surveys. He declared the \"Brookville route\" practicable,\nwith a due supply of water. The summit level of this route was\n16 miles long, connecting on one side with the Seneca, at the mouth\nof \" Weststone Branch,\" and on the other with the Patuxent, at the\nmouth of Hawling's River. The summit level was fixed at 375\nfeet above mean tide, and 120 feet below the \"Seneca route,\" and\nfrom eight to nine miles south of it. This route required two tun-\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n97\nnels, the total length of which was over three miles. The line\nadmitted of using the waters from six reservoirs, with a united\ndrainage area of 64,044 acres. (For location of these reservoirs, see\nappendix C.)\nCol. Abert made the total development of feeder lines, from the\nreservoir, 15 miles in length, uniting, however, so as to form but\ntwo points of connection with the summit level. He estimated the\nyield from these reservoirs (assuming 29 inches fall of rain, and that\none-third would be collected) at 2,247,199,497 cubic feet of avail-\nable water. He then shows the quantity of water required, as\nfollows:\nTo fill the canal\n909,774,500 cubic yards.\nLeakage at locks\n1,999,995,000\n\"\nFiltration and evaporation\n18,195,490,020\n\"\nLockage water\n26,666,666,000\n\"\nLoss from feeders\n11,376,199,999\n\"\nHalf-inch loss per day from reservoirs for the year 17,206,399,000\n\"\nMaking a total of cubic yards\n76,354,524,049 or\n\"\n\"\n\"\nfeet\n2,061,572,148\nLeaving a surplus of cubic feet\n185,627,349\nAnd he remarks, that with this result the Brookville route may be\nconsidered practical.\nCol. Abert made a supplemental report, dated February 11, 1839,\nthat the whole length of the canal, as laid down by him, was about\n70 miles; and that an actual survey had been made of 21 miles;\nestimating the cost of same at $116,700; but that no estimate had\nbeen made of the remaining 49 miles, as this would show a cost of\nmore than one-half million dollars per mile.\nREPORT OF CHAS. B. FISK AND GEO. W. HUGHES, 1837.\nThe report of these gentlemen embraced examinations more\nespecially to the facilities for supplying any canal across this portion\nof Maryland with water. They estimated the drainage area of the\nPatuxent valley at 64,000 acres. They estimated the flow of\nstreams at 2400 cubic feet per minute, and doubted the capacity of\nnatural resources for supplying a canal from Washington to Balti-\nmore with water.\n13\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n98\nThe following statement was submitted by them, showing the character-\nistics of the route surveyed:\nLENGTH.\nLOCKAGE.\nMILES OF\nNAME OF ROUTE.\nMiles.\nFeet.\nTUNNEL.\n1st. Mouth of Monocacy to Georgetown\n42\n220\n2d.\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\" Balt. via Singanore\n81\n827\n21\n3d.\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\nWestminster\n113\n850\n41\n4th.\n\"\n\"\n\"\nvia Singanore and Westm'r\n116\n900\n41\n5th.\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\" Seneca\n81\n761\n21\n6th.\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\" Georgetown\n87\n475\nREPORT OF ISAAC TRIMBLE, IN 1837.\nMr. Trimble's report is a review of reports on former surveys, and\neach route analysed. The \" Westminster route,\" which ascends the\nPatapsco and its north branch to Westminster, thence descends by\nthe valleys of Little Pipe Creek and the Monocacy to the Potomac,\nwas deemed, by Mr. Trimble, impracticable.\nSINGANORE ROUTE\nwas estimated to cost $8,810,000-$100,000 per mile. The natural\nsummit at Grimes' tobacco house, in a depression of Parr's Ridge,\nwas found 7661 feet above tide. The summit level was assumed\n2381 feet below this point, or 528 feet above tide; which involved\nthe construction of a tunnel three miles long, and cuts at extreme-\nties of same of 50 feet. The quantity of water required above\nthat furnished from natural flow, required the construction of a\nreservoir, the drainage area of which was fixed at 16,640 acres,\nwhich was estimated to yield (assuming one-half the annual fall of\nrain on this area) 951,567,831 cubic feet, from which was deducted\nevaporation and leakage at one-fifth, 190,313,550 cubic feet, leaving\n761,254,281 cubic feet, to which was added natural flow of streams,\nmaking the total available supply 955,576,521 cubic feet. The\nquantity of water required for the canal was estimated by Mr.\nTrimble, for a trade of 125 lockages and 270 days navigable season,\nat 1,196,774,946 cubic feet, or 3077 cubic feet per minute. For the\nsize of canal adopted by Mr. Trimble, this is but about one-quarter\nthe quantity required at the lowest possible estimate. The size of\ncanal was fixed at 32 feet wide on bottom, 60 feet at surface, and\nsix feet deep. This route was pronounced impracticable by Mr.\nTrimble.\nDigitized by Google\n99\nSENECA ROUTE.\nThe cost of canal on this route was stated by Mr. Trimble at\n$6,324,300. This route, leaving Baltimore, follows the valley of\nPatapsco to Elk Ridge Landing; thence ascends the valleys of Deep\nand Licking's runs to Merrill Ridge; thence acrosss the ridge and\ndown Chandler's Branch to the north branch of Patuxent; thence\ncrosses the tongue of intervening land at a depression near a school\nhouse, and reaches the \"Big Patuxent;\" thence ascends the same\nto Etchison's mill; thence, crossing the summit, descends the Seneca\nto the Potomac. Four lines, says Mr. Trimble, were traced across\nthe summit within a space of four miles. Here, Mr. Trimble\nobserves, surveys were never before made over this summit. The\nsummit alluded to is a spur of Parr's Ridge, diverging at Damascus\nin a southeast direction, and dividing the waters of the Patuxent on\nthe east from those of the Seneca on the west.\nThe elevation of the summit, one mile north of H. Griffith's, was\nfound 587.83 feet above mean tide, and 122 feet above the Patuxent\nat Etchison's mill. A tunnel 690 yards long at this point was pro-\nposed, with a depth at extremities of same of 50 feet, to reduce the\nsummit level to 495 feet above tide. This was assumed as the\nsummit level, and the Patuxent was crossed 1½ miles above, near\nAnnapolis Rocks, at an elevation of 36 feet above.\nHe proposed to obtain the quantity of water required beyond\nnatural flow, from reservoirs on Patuxent, Cabin Branch, head of\nof Hawling's River, and branches of the Seneca, together with the\nnatural flow from the valleys. He estimated the drainage area of\nthese basins at 16,640 acres, and the available supply 1,346,834,493\ncubic feet.\nAll of which is respectfully submitted.\nS. H. SWEET,\nCivil Engineer.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\nAPPENDIX F.\nOFFICE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND POTOMAC\nRIVER TIDE-WATER CANAL COMPANY,\nWASHINGTON, July 25, 1866.\nS. H. SWEET, Esq., Engineer in charge of the\nChesapeake Bay and Potomac River Tide-water Canal:\nDEAR SIR - Capt. Thomas H. Bates, the engineer in charge of\nthe field work, was suddenly called to assume the duties of Division\nEngineer on the Pacific Railroad, before its final completion. I,\ntherefore, in his absence, transmit herewith the result of examina-\ntions for a canal from Washington to Annapolis.\nThe following are the field notes, showing the elevations above\ntide, also the distances between the same, upon the several lines\ndesignated as 'Lower Line A,\" \" Upper Line B,\" and \"Round Bay\nLine C.\"\nTable of distances and elevations (Lower Line A) from the mouth of the\n\"Beaver Dam Creek\" (Potomac River) to \"Clagett's Landing\" (South\nRiver.)\nDistance\nElevation.\nRemarks.\nDistance\nElevation.\nin Miles.\nFt. above Tide\nin Miles.\nFt above Tide\nRemarks.\n0\n0.0\nE. Branch Potomac.\n14\n110.0\n1\n5.5\n1\n103.0\n}\n6.0\n1\n95.0\n4\n14.5\n1\n88.0\n1\n16.0\n15\n82.0\n1\n21.0\n1\n84.0\nCollington Branch.\n1\n24.5\nBeaver Dam Creek.\n1\n92.0\n4\n31.0\n4\n106.0\n2\n33.0\n16\n144.5\nSummit.\n1\n36.5\n1\n106.0\n48.0\n1\n90.0\n4\n43.0\n4\n78.0\nBoyd's Branch.\n3\n44.0\n17\n64.5\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n101\nDistance\nElevation.\nDistance\nElevation.\nin Miles.\nFt. above Tide\nRemarks.\nRemarks.\nin Miles.\nFt. above Tide\n1\n47.0\n4\n45.0\n1\n50.0\n1\n39.0\n4\n56.0\n4\n36.0\n4\n61.0\n18\n28.0\nBoyd's Branch.\n66.0\n1\n22.0\n72.0\n1\n20.0\n4\n79.0\n11.0\nPatuxent River.\n5\n82.0\nCat-tail Branch.\n4\n21.0\n1\n91.0\n19\n33.0\n1\n96.5\n4\n53.0\nSelman's Branch.\nA\n110.0\n1\n65.0\n6\n121.5\n4\n75.0\n4\n147.0\n20\n88.0\n1\n156.0\nSummit (B. Tolson's)\n1\n104.0\n4\n143.0\n1\n103.0\n7\n120.0\n4\n104.0\n1\n110.0\n21\n108.0\n1\n103.0\n4\n114.0\nProvidence Branch.\n4\n100.0\nMuddy Hole Branch\n1\n132.0\n8\n97.0\n4\n151.0\nSum't, Dr. B. Walkins\n1\n94.0\n22\n114.0\n95.0\n1\n79.0\n4\n91.5\n100ml\n69.5\n9\n90.0\n1\n51.0\n4\n88.0\n23\n42.0\n1\n85.0\n4\n31.0\nChainey's Branch.\n1\n79.0\n100ml\n21.5\n10\n78.0\nWestern Branch.\n4\n12.0\n4\n76.0\n24\n6.0\n1\n73.5\n1\n0.0\nSouth River.\n4\n70.0\n11\n69.0\nFROM CRAB CREEK TO SPA CREEK.\n4\n66.0\n1\n72.0\nDistance\nElevation.\nRemarks.\nin Feet.\nFt. above Tide\n1\n79.0\n12\n84.0\nN. E. Branch.\n0\n0.0\nHead of Crab Creek.\n4\n86.5\n1000\n7.0\n1\n90.0\n2000\n20.0\n4\n95.5\n3000\n41.0\n13\n111,0\nTables between the\n4000\n52.0\nSummit.\n4\n124.5\nCollington and N.\n5000\n36.0\n1\n129.0\nE. Branches.\n6000\n7.0\n+\n128.0\n6500\n0.0\nHead of Spa Creek.\nDigitized by\nGoogle\n102\nTable of distances and elevations (Upper Line B) from Eastern\nBranch Potomac (three-quarters of a mile below Bladensburg) to head\nof South River.\nDistance\nElevation.\nDistance\nElevation.\nRemarks.\nin miles.\nFeet above tide\nin miles.\nFeet above tide\nRemarks.\n0\n0.0\nE. Branch Potomac.\n1\n103.0\n1\n6.0\n4\n99.0\nCass Valley\n8.0\n13\n95.5\n10.0\n4\n90.0\nWm. Duvall (feeder)\n1\n11.0\n1\n89.5\n11.5\n4\n78.0\n12.0\n14\n87.5\n9.5\n4\n99.0\n2\n10.5\n1\n92.0\n14.0\n4\n79.5\nW. bank Patuxent.\n16.0\n15\n88.0\n19.5\n4\n97.0\n3\n23.0\n1\n94.5\n25.5\n4\n96.0\n29.0\n16\n100.0\nPaint Branch.\n31.0\n50.0\nHorse-pen Branch.\n4\n35.0\n4\n119.0\n39.0\n1\n98.0\n41.0\n*\n97.5\n44.0\n17\n95.0\n5\n47.5\n4\n95.0\nW. bank Patuxent.\n50.0\n1\n96.0\n52.0\n4\n95.5\n55.5\n18\n95.0\n6\n59.0\n4\n96.0\n62 0\nNO\n84.0\n67.0\n25.0\nPatuxent River.\n68.5\n4\n28.0\n7\n71.0\n19\n70.0\n74.0\n4\n114.0\n74.0\n1\n108.0\n76.5\n4\n118.0\nSandford's Branch.\n8\n79.5\n20\n125.0\n80.5\n4\n120.0\n83.0\n1\n131.5\n85.0\n1\n144.0\n9\n87.5\nBeaver Dam Branch\n165.0\nSummit.\n89.5\n21\n122.0\n94.0\n&\n109.0\n4\n98.0\n100m\n101.0\n10\n103.5\n4\n91.0\n1\n107.0\n22\n81.5\n116.0\n1\n70.5\n4\n126.0\n1\n60.0\nNorth Run Branch.\n11\n140.5\npc\n51.0\n156.0\nSummit (L.D.Jones)\n23\n40.0\n&\n154.0\n1\n29.5\n1/2\n130.0\n1\n20.0\n4\n118.0\n1\n9.0\n12\n111.0\nCass Valley.\n24\n0.0\nSouth River.\n1\n106.0\nDigitized by Google\n103\nTable of distances and elevations (Round Bay Line C) from Eastern\nBranch Potomac (three-quarters of a mile below Bladensburg) to\nSevern River-first 15 miles same as Line B.\nDistance\nElevation.\nDistance\nRemarks.\nElevation.\nin miles.\nFeet above tide\nin miles.\nFeet above tide\nRemarks.\n1\n87.0\n1\n127.5\n1\n82.5\n1\n131.5\n4\n70.0\n21\n121.0\n48.0\nBig Patuxent.\n4\n125.0\n16\n64.5\n1\n132.5\nSummit.\n4\n80.0\n4\n117.0\n1\n100.0\n22\n102.0\n4\n144.5\n4\n86.0\n165.0\nSummit. (Snow-\n100ml\n81.0\n17\n132.0\nden's Ridge.)\n4\n75.0\n1\n99.0\n23\n85.0\nSummit (ridge be-\n1\n82.0\n101.0\ntween Severn and\n4\n71.0\n4\n89.0\nSouth rivers).\n18\n72.0\n1\n76.0\n1\n47.0\n98.0\nAnnapolis and Elk\n43.0\nLittle Patuxent.\n4\n62.5\nRidge Railroad.\n1\n134.0\n24\n59.0\n4\n105.0\n4\n53.0\n19\n77.0\nyour\n47.0\n4\n76.5\n4\n40.0\n100m\n77.0\nTowser's Branch.\n25\nIndian Creek.\n33.0\n1\n89.0\n1\n21.0\n20\n103.5\n1\n13.0\n4\n117.0\ncolor\n0.0\nSevern River.\nRespectfully submitted.\nTHOMAS FRANKLIN,\nAssistant Engineer.\nDigitized by Google\nCoogle,\nGoogle\nX\nGoogle"
}