t >^4^^^

A COMPLAINT
    HON. ALBERT G. BROW,

           (OF MJSSISSI1TI,)    \,    \

CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE'S COMMITTEE ON THE
       DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                   <

        CPON THE SUBJECT OF THE
| POTOMAC  BRIDGE,?
M£
OBSTRUCTION TO THE COMMERCE
GEORGETOWN, D. C.


      BY

  HENRY ADDISON,

 MAYOR OF GEORGETOWN. D. C.
  WASHINGTON:
HENRY POLKINHORN, PRINTER.
     1856.
#;-£y,M^£frft^ 
• 
A COMPLAINT
      HON.  ALBERT  G. BKOWJV,

                 (OF MISSISSIPPI.)

CHAIRMAN OF THE  SENATE'S COMMITTEE ON THE
           DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
UPON THE SUBJECT OF THE
POTOMAC  BRIDGE,
OBSTRUCTION TO THE COMMERCE
GEORGETOWN, D. C.
 HENRY ADDISON,

MAYOR OF GEORGETOWN, D. C.



 coTjiivr'j.vJvy  v
   WASHINGTON :
HENRY POLKINHORN, PRINTER.
       1856. 
 
To Hon. Albert G. Brown,
       Chairman of the Senate s Committee
                   on the District of Columbia.
   Sir :—According to my promise, I now proceed to state in
this form,  our  objections to the  continuance  of  the " Long
Bridge" in our river.   I may very well take for'my text tho
following resolutions of the Corporation of Washington City:
      " Joint Resolution in Relation to the Long Bridge.
   Whereas, it is manifest, from the proceedings of the United
States Congress, that certain members of that body have been
led into  error in ascribing to  the construction of the Potomac
bridge on  its  present site the existence of the " flats " in the
Potomac river,  and the consequent interruption of navigation
and production of disease ; and  whereas certain interested par-
ties have designedly  led those gentlemen into the above error
from selfish and sinister motives, there being abundance of evi-
dence  to prove that the " flats " existed before the construction
of the  bridge,  and that the present structure has not increased
the evil;
   And, further, that Congress,  by a series of legislation, com-
mencing  in 1808, and extending upwards of forty-four years,
evidenced  clearly the design to make the present route of the
bridge perpetual, it  being the most  convenient, direct  mail
route north and south.
   And, further, that the destruction of the bridge would be tho
most  serious  injury to the interest of our community, to tho
extensive and increasing population of the adjoining States, and
to the  public generally.   Therefore,
   Be  it  Resolved,  Sec,  That  the joint committee appointed to
represent the  interests of the Corporation before Congress bo
instructed  to  lay before that  body the facts in  relation to tho
above, and at the same time appeal to the justice of  Congress
and the  claims of the people  of this metropolis to have tho
bridge retained  and maintained  on its present site."
   It may be profitable now to see  what has been the legislation
of Congress upon the subject of that bridge, and how far it was
intended to make it " perpetual."
   The following is a statement of the acts of Congress upon the
subject of the  "  Potomac Bridge," from the time of its original
construction until now. 
4
  1st.  "An act authorizing the erection of a bridge over the
Potomac  river,  within  the District of Columbia,"  approved
February  5, 1808.   This  act chartered  "The Washington
Bridge  Company "  with a capital  of  $200,000, to build and
sustain a toll bridge on their account.
  2d. " An act to alter the bridge and draws across  the poto-
mac, from Washington City to  Alexandria," approved May
14, 1830.   This act was intended to render the bridge less in-
injurious to the commerce of Georgetown than it had been, and
appropriated $6,000; " the work to be done under the super-
intendence of the Corporation of Georgetown."
  3d. " An act providing for the purchase, by the United States,
of the  rights of the  Washington Bridge Company, in the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and for the erection of a  public bridge on the
site  thereof;"  approved July 14, 1832,  "and appropriates
$20,000 to purchase said bridge and all " the lands, piers, abut-
ments,  roads, and  ways, and all the  materials owned at the
site of the said bridge, &c.;"  and $60,000  to commence a new
bridge on the same site.
   4th. " An act in relation to the Potomac bridge;"  approved
March  2,  1833,  which appropriates $200,000 for a bridge at
the same site on a plan to be approved by the President of the
United States.
   5th.  " An act authorizing the construction of a bridge across
the Potomac, and repealing all acts already passed in  relation
thereto;" approved June 30,1834, which, as the title indicates,
abandoned the extravagant plans before adopted, appropriated
$20,000 for damages incurred on their account, and provided
for the erection of another structure, on the old plan of  1808,
only that 1,660 feet of its length was to be so  constructed as
to  entirely prevent the passage  of  the water.   A drawing of
this bridge will be put in your possession.
   6th.  " An act  to amend  an act entitled  ' an act authorising
the construction of a  bridge across the Potomac, and repealing
all acts in relation thereto ;' " approved March 3, 1835, which
authorizes some further changes in that structure, provided the
" entire cost" did not exceed the sum  of $300,000.
   7th.  " A resolution authorizing the repair of the bridge across
the Potomac river, at Washington;" approved June  7, 1846—
repairs which had become  necessary in consequence of injuries
which it had sustained by a flood.
   8th.  " An act to provide for the repairing of the Potomac
bridge;" approved  September  11,  1841, which appropriated
 $15,806 for that purpose. 
r>
  9th. In  the  the civil and  diplomatic bill, of August 12,
1848, the sum of $1,700 was appropriated for the repair of the
bridge.
  10th. In  a similar bill, of August 12, 1848, $1,700 was ap-
propriated for repairs of the bridge.
  11th. In a similar bill, of August  31, 1852, $900 was again
appropriated for the same bridge, and it was then " surrendered
to the authorities  of this District of Columbia."
  12th. In  a similar bill,  of  March 3d, 1853, another appro-
priation of $20,000 was made for its repair.
  13th. Another  appropriation was made in the civil and diplo-
matic bill of March 3d, 1855,  for its repair.
  We were opposed to the building of the bridge in 1808—wo
made that opposition known to Congress by humble and earnest
petitions, and by  personal  appeals  to  the members of both
Houses.   Our memorials  and  remonstrances are now on the
files of Congress, and have, on a late occasion, been shown to
one of the District Committees.  We opposed the building of
that bridge, because we  apprehended serious injuries from it.
The question may now be asked, were our fears well founded—
have they been justified by subsequent events  and actual ex-
perience ?   It would have been well for us  if only our appre-
hensions had been realized—if its effects had not been far more
disastrious than were then foreseen.  And it will now  be my
object, with candor and brevity, to state how, in what respects,
and to what extent we have been injured.
  You are aware of the fact, that Georgetown has always re-
lied upon commerce  for  its support and prosperity—that we
were located in the immediate vicinity of Alexandria, a highly
respectable  seaport, whose population, wealth, and enterprise
were, in all  respects, equal to our own.  She was our natural
and unavoidable competing market for the great staples pro-
duced in the contiguous counties of Maryland and Virginia.
In making choice between  the  two markets, interest and con-
venience were paramount considerations  with  the farmer, the
planter,  and the distant  merchant.   Commercial  facilities,
safe and certain transportation, and unobstructed navigation,
arc indispensable requisites of a commercial port.  Equality, in 
fi
 these respects with our neighboring rival, was essentially neces-
 sary to a fair and successful competition ;  and just such a com-
 petition was notoriously maintained by us until the erection of
 the Potomac bridge.   And how did the bridge retard and crip-
 ple our commerce ?  Proper  answers to that question will cover
 the whole subject.
   First. It injures us by presenting such a barrier to the pas-
 sage of vessels, that their owners and masters, residing abroad,
 wijl  not come to our harbor for produce if it can be had at Alex-
 andria, even at an additional price.  That barrier presents both
 delays and injuries.   During certain winds, tides, and currents,
 the contracted drawer of that bridge  cannot be approached or
 passed at all with safety.   Hundreds of vessels have been more
 or less injured while passing through the drawer, when every
 precaution had been taken to ensure  their safety.  For these
 injuries no remuneration has  ever been made, and for which no
 man, association or body politic seems to be responsible.  I am
 now refering, of course, to  casualties and  disasters that occur
 during daylight.  None but a madman would attempt  to ap-
 proach  that  drawer during a disturbance  of  the  elements at
night.   (Seo Appendix A, B, C, D, E, F, G, II, I, J.)
  Secondly.  As already stated> we  have always had to contend
 with our neighboring rival  for a fair participation in a trade
 which was essential to  our commercial  existence.   To do that,
 it was important that we should be left in full possession of all
 our inherent rights and natural advantages.  But it often hap-
pens that  at a most important season of the year wo are en-
 tirely deprived of the  use  of our river.  At  the  termination
 of our  winters,  after the whole  river had  been  closed by
 ice for  weeks, and sometimes for months, it was  exceedingly
 important to our merchants that the produce which  had been
 accumulating on their hands, should be shipped to distant mark-
 ets at the earliest practicable period.  Just as important was it
to them that they should then receive their arrivals from abroad.
But it has happened, time and again,  that just at  that critical
time, when the ice had been entirely carried off from Washing- 
7
ton City to the mouth of the  river,  the  bridge intercepted its
passage from our harbor, and  our navigation has remained sus-
pended for weeks, while Alexandria  remained in  the free and
uninterrupted enjoyment of all the facilities that the river could
at any time afford.   This is no fiction, nor is it an evil of rare
occurrence.   During  this very season a vessel from the West
Indies, belonging to merchants of Georgetown, not being able
to get higher up the river than the bridge, was obliged to  re-
main at Alexandria for a considerable time, with serious loss
and expense to her owners.  It is worse even than  that.   In the
event of a recurrence of severe weather, just at such junctures,
it has happened that the ice became hardened and strengthened
to such a degree, that our harbor remained closed for weeks,
while Alexandria was entirely free, from the annoyance.  But,
sir, that  is not all the injury which is inflicted upon us by the
bridge as an obstruction to the passage of the ice.  It is only
when the ice becomes suddenly broken up by  a  rushing flood,
occasioned by melted snows and heavy rains, that we are made
to feel the most frightful of the evils resulting from the obstruc-
tion presented by the bridge.  On these occasions  immense
masses of ice lodge against the piers of the bridge and become
packed in a solid body from the bed of the river to the surface
of the water.   The great  volume of water becomes thus ob-
structed  and thrown back upon our wharfs and all the houses
and other valuable property contiguous to the river.  In these
seasons,  all business is suspended, and our people have plenty
of time humbly to behold the progress of a desolation instituted
for them by an act of the Congress of the United States.
  TniRDLY. The bridge, as you are aware, was originally con-
structed  upon wooden  piers  braced by heavy   timbers, and
placed from each other about thirty feet.  Soon after its com-
pletion, it was found to produce accumulations of  mud from its
site to a  considerable  distance towards our harbor, which grad-
ually reduced the general depth of  water, and occasioned fre-
quent and vexatious  variations in the direction  of our main
channel,  to the great  detriment of its navigation.   To such an 
                             8

extent, and so rapidly were these deposits made in the bed of
the river, that in a few years about one-half of the stream, for
some distance above  the bridge, became a mere shoal of  mud,
and hopelessly unnavigable.   Then  the wooden piers on that
part of the ruined river were removed and  substituted  by a
solid causeway with stone walls on either side for its protection.
In one respect, especially, this  change in  the construction of
the bridge greatly aggravated its evil, and rendered it more
than ever an  intolerable nuisance.   These great walls of  stone
not only intercepted the passage  of the mud, and rapidly in-
creased it in  our channel, but it presented  a barrier to the cur-
rent of  the river during heavy floods,  and  increased tho  inun-
dations already noticed.
   These accumulations of mud show themselves so plainly, and
have increased  so undeniably since the erection of the bridge,
that their existence, and  the  period  of their existence, have
long ago ceased to be topics of debate.  Other things may be
denied, and many sound facts have been denied, but, as  these
mud banks are " fixed facts,"  constantly lifting their unsightly
heads above the water's surface, they  determined that their ex-
istence shall  not be denied, and  they  have at last  silenced all
denials.  I deeply regret that these banks of mud should an-
noy others than the  people  of Georgetown,  and  particularly,
that they should so much  have annoyed Mr. Hunter.  In his
late speech he said the mud banks were there, just where we
said they were.  But he said that  they were occasioned by a
causeway which we had ourselves erected  between Mason's Is-
land and the Virginia shore.   Says Mr. Hunter:
   "I know that objections have been made to the Long Bridge,
on the ground that it has inflicted an injury on Georgetown.
The general idea  prevails that it is owing to that bridge that
the mud-flat above it has accumulated, and that a portion of the
channel through which vessels go to Georgetown has been filled
 up.  Now, it so happens that this morning I was  looking over
 the old charts of the river, and I  find that, according to the
 chart of 1792, there was no more water in that channel through
 which vessels now pass under the Long Bridge than there is at
 present.  I  find that at that time the mud-flat was in existence,
 both above and below the bridge." 
9
   To this you replied:
   "My friend from Virginia has been looking at documents on
 this subject, but I think he could have obtained more reliable
 testimony by simply consulting those who see the bridge every
 day.  The opinion of the old inhabitants of Georgetown, and
 of many in  Washington is, that  since the construction of  that
 bridge the flat, which is represented on the chart of 1792, has
 filled up, and that, while then it was a flat under the water,
 seldom subjected to the rays of a summer's sun, it has now been
 raised by the action of the water and accumulation of mud, until,
 with every flowing of the tide, it is exposed.  That I understand
 to be the complaint.  It is not denied that there was a flat there
 before, but it was generally covered with water until after  this
 bridge was built.   Therefore the deductions from the  chart do
 not  meet the points of complaint."
   Again says Mr.  Hunter:
   " But let us suppose that the citizens of Georgetown are right;
 and that it is  owing to the Long Bridge that the mud-flat has
 accumulated, then I say it results from that portion of it which
 is called the "causeway," if it results from anything; and  it
 would not help the citizens of Georgetown to permit the bridge
 to go down  unless we should take away the  causeway.  If we
 were to take away the causeway, the bridge might still  be main-
 tained in that place on piers."
   I  regret,  on his own  account, that Mr. Hunter cannot more
 satisfactorily dispose of these same  "flats." They occur to his
 mind so often that he was at last obliged to put them all down
 as an evil resulting from the causeway of the bridge.   Mr.
 Hunter here attributes more  sin to  that causeway than it ever
 committed.  No one, not even Col.  Abert, should say that  that
 causeway caused the offensive "flats."  We complained of the
 flats which had been  produced, or greatly augmented, by the
piers of the  bridge many years before the causeway was built,
 and  only complained of the causeway as still further increasing
 the evil.   How the removal of the causeway and the replacing
 of the piers, which were only  a less  evil of the two, will remove
 all our complaints, as Mr. Hunter supposes, I cannot  compre-
 hend.
   We complain of the bar and flats which block up our river,
and which are so ruinous to our navigation.  Mr. Hunter meets
              2 
10
us with the  chilling rebuke, "that  whatever injury has hap-
pened has been caused  by the improvement made by George-
town."   So that if anybody has  been killed, it has  not been
by  an act of murder, or even manslaughter, but by absolute
suicide!  Innocent dead people are not likely to  derive much
consolation from such an assurance as that.   Mr.  Hunter says
a great  deal about the flats, or mud banks, and still more about
"the bar" in our channel.  It is truly more of  "a barv  than
" the bar."  The current of the river, particularly during floods,
becomes so much disturbed and misdirected by the obstructing
bridge,  that a new channel is often created, and the former one
filled up with mud.  We have then to go hunting after the new
channel, and can only find it by a careful sounding of the bed
of  the river.  As Col. Abert did not inform Mr. Hunter of
these mutations in the direction of our channel, so palpably oc-
casioned by  the bridge,  he cannot be blamed for saying " that
whatever injury has happened has been caused by  the improve-
ment made by Georgetown."
  Now, as the causeway is placed  about  a mile  west of the
bridge,  and  no water  can pass through it to that part of the
river which  lies  below it, I hold it to be impossible that it can
create  a bank of mud at the site of the bridge and cause it to
extend up the river towards Georgetown.  That would be but a
repetition of the old  story of the lamb muddying the wolf's
water.   The bank begins at the bridge and progresses up the
river.   How it is possible  for the causeway to create a bank of
mud precisely at the bridge a mile below, is a question as hard
to see through as the bank of mud itself.
  If it be true, as asserted in the resolutions of the Washing-
ton Corporation, that flats were forming in the river before the
bridge was built, was not that one of the strongest reasons in
the world why no further obstructions should have been thrown
in our way.   I have been waiting for some years for an opinion
from Col. Abert, that the Potomac bridge was the  only blessing
that had rescued our  navigation from irretrievable ruin;  that
without the bridge, we should, by this time, have no river at all. 
11
  Mr.  Hunter's speech  was substantially the same one which
was delivered by the late Mayor Maury before the House Dis-
trict Committee two years ago, and the materials of both were
doubtless derived from the  same source.  As did Mr. Maury,
so, also, does that distinguished Senator, argue the whole ques-
tion under the following nine heads:

  1st.  " Col. Abert, who had a survey made under the order of
the government by one  of the  officers of  his department re-
ports, that whatever injury has happened has been caused by
an improvement made by Georgetown, itself connecting Anolos-
tan or Mason's Island, with the Virginia shore."
  2d.  "Especially the opinion of Col. Abert, who declares that
the injury complained of by Georgetown was not occasioned by
the Long Bridge, but by the  Georgetown  improvement; con-
necting Mason's Island with the main land."
  3d.  " We find the opinion expressed by Col. Abert, that the
injury was occasioned by the causeway from  Mason's or An-
olestan Island to the Virginia shore, an improvement made by
the citizens  of  Georgetown long ago."
  4th.  "It  it his,  Col. Abert's opinion, that it is the bar which
was manifestly caused by the  improvement at Mason's Island,
and not by the Long Bridge."
  5th.  " The bar which stops the vessels, is the bar formed at
the lower end of Mason's Island, which did not exist until that
causeway was thrown over by Georgetown."
   6th.  "But is a bar at the lower end of Mason's Island, oc-
casioned by the causeway erected by the people of Georgetown
themselves."
  7th.  "A  causeway was made from Mason's  Island to the
Virginia shore, which has been the cause of the injuries which
they suffer."
   8th.  " There was  no bar below Mason's Island  until  the
causeway was made from the island to the  Virginia shore."
  9th.  " That is  owing to their own work that this bar  was
formed."
  Mr. Hunter  was so determined  to preserve the identity of a
single idea, in the nine counts of his indictment, that he would
not  trust it  to the possible detriment of even a slight diversity
of expression.  A small degree of verbal variation would have
agreeably relieved it from the harshness of such absolute posi-
tiveness and downright monotony.  This remarkable peculiari- 
                             12

 ty would not so much have attracted my attention, if Mr. Hun-
 ter had not, at the same time, greatly erred in matters of a topo-
 graphical and statistical character.  He said:
   " Why do we hear nothing of obstructions to the navigation
 of the Eastern Branch by the bridges which the Senator from
 Maryland proposes to  repair ?   Ships went up the  Eastern
 Branch to Bladensburg thirty or forty, or perhaps fifty years
 ago.  Upon that  side we hear nothing of obstructions; but
 here,  in regard to a  bridge whose utility  is sustained by such
 testimony as I have stated, we are told  that, because the people
 of Georgetown happen to be inimical  to it, we must disregard
 all the other great interests, and put aside the opinions of en-
 gineers who have declared that  the injury to them was occa-
 sioned, not  by this bridge, but by their own  work—the cause-
 way from Analostan Island to the Virginia  shore."
   Georgetown and Bladensburg are not adjacent cities of the
 same magnitude, or located  upon streams of equal capacity,
 nor  have their commercial career been  marked by the same
 fluctuations and vicissitudes, and the same tendency to extinc-
 tion.  Bladensburg is exactly where it  always stood.   George-
 town was once situated  upon the shore  of a  bold navigable
 river,  free  from the  obstructions of  Congressional contriv-
 ance.  Bladensburg, if not a mere inland village, has been
 known, for many  years, as nothing more than  " a commercial
 emporium " of about five hundred inhabitants, located upon the
 bank of a creek, not  always  navigable for scows in quest of
 sand from its bottom.  Mr Hunter says, that " ships went up
 the Eastern Branch to  Bladensburg thirty or forty years ago."
 He may be perfectly assured that he has been egregiously  mis-
 informed, as to that statement.   Thousands  of people in this
 District, and its neighborhood, can satisfy Mr. Hunter that he
has been entirely misinformed.  As  I  resided in that seat of
 commerce just  fifty years ago, and for more than forty years
since then, in Georgetown, I may  be supposed to have  some
knowledge and information in regard to all matters upon which
 a comparrison can,  at  any time with propriety, be instituted
between them.  We know Mr. Hunter  a great deal better than
he knows us; and we are perfectly assured  that he did not pre- 
13
 dicate that comparison for the mere purpose of ridicule or dis-
 paragement.  Secretary Guthrie can inform Mr. Hunter, that
 there  are not, in the State of Virginia, more than two cities
 whose commerce equals that of Georgetown.   And, if Mr. Hun-
 ter will take away the Potomac bridge, give us as much money
 as Congress has given to Alexandria, and recede us to the State
 of Maryland, in ten years, we would not agree to change con-
 ditions even with Richmond.
   After all, I think Georgetown has some just ground  for self-
 gratulation.   Last year  a Senator told me  Ave were  " a one-
 horse  town;" now,  Senator Rusk intimates very clearly, that
 we are a " two-horse town."  I don't, in this connection, exactly
 comprehend the figure of  the "horse;" but, as I happen to
 have  great admiration for  that noble animal, I presume it was
 intended to convey some sentiment of a very complimentary
 character.   If General Rusk be right—and he is seldom wrong
 —it is very evident that we  have gone up a "horse " within
 the last year, and must necessarily be on the road of prosperity.
I am  quite sure it was not intended as a mortifying taunt, or
derisive reproach.  No city containing 10,000 respectable and
unoffending inhabitants,  enjoying  the blessings of civilization
 and refinement, devoted industriously to all the creditable oc-
 cupations of American life, profoundly attached to the institu-
tions of our  happy country,  can  really merit humiliating in-
uendos from the lips of one of our most distinguished and esti-
 mable statesmen.
   Col. Abert was so often quoted in that speech, in connection
with the causeway, that  it will be difficult hereafter to separ-
 ate the  one from  the other, or  to  think  of either  without
thinking of both.   It is  not  the first time in our world that
signal  discoveries, or brilliant  achievements  in  science  or
 war, have given both  men and localities a very prominent as-
 sociation on  the same page of history.  This  has sometimes
been  done without the loss of a drop of blood, or of a man's
being justly  suspected of possessing even one valuable attain-
ment  in science.  In  this  case, the  Colonel has become re-
nowned without, perhaps, paddling  his canoe over one of these 
14
flats, or even having placed a foot upon that mischievous cause-
way.  He made  his  discovery,  no  doubt,  while sitting down
very comfortably  on his wide arm-chair, and still broader repu-
tation.
   Mr. Hunter says nothing about the dangers to which vessels
are exposed while passing through the draw of that bridge—he
says nothing about the unwillingness of those having the control
of vessels, to trade with Georgetown, in consequence  of the ex-
istence of the bridge—nothing about the annual embargo which
it  imposes upon us in connection with the ice, and not  a word,
does he say, about  the overwhelming inundations by which we
are  so often and  so disasterously visited in consequence of its
obstruction to the passage of the water.   I  think I could  name
an  engineer, sometimes relied  upon by members of  Congress,
who would either deny the existence of these evils,  or ascribe
them all, in a batch, " to the causeway erected between Mason's
Island and the Virginia shore."
  Now, sir,  what  are the facts in regard to that causeway, over
which  Col. Abert has fairly traveled himself out of  breath, if
not out of reputation  as an engineer.  It may be news to tell
that distinguished  engineer,  (whose accomplishments,  great
learning and practical experience, in his own estimation, have
enabled him to make a nearer approach to infallibility, in his
profession, than any other man  now living,) that from the time
of Noah's flood to the year 1783, neither history nor tradition has
ever intimated that there were mud bars in the present George-
town channel!   It  may be news to him that, up to the year
1783,  there was  no stream that could be navigated between
Mason's  Island and the Virginia shore.   There was  nothing
there but a mere marsh, and  a small stream through which
boats and small pungys would  sometimes pass, but most  gene-
rally in which they " made fast,"  as a place suited to their safe-
ty.   In the year 1783, a temporary river was made there; but
in a few years it began to revert back to its pristine condition,
and received only water enough  to  make it an injury to that
great channel upon which we relied to accommodate our com-
merce.  See Appendix,  K. 
                            15

  The people of Georgetown were wiser in those days than they
have been since.   It will not do for any modern engineer, deep-
ly interested in the prosperity of Washington, and with as deep
and bitter prejudices against the people of Georgetown, to tell
us that those who lived here fifty  years ago did not know what
they  were about.  The Masons, Stoddards,  Corcorans, and
Foxalls, of that day, would not have agreed to pay the sum of
$24,000  to  make a causeway which was  to ruin their river.
Mr.  Hunter says:  " They were  told at the time, as I under-
stand, by a person cognizant of the facts, by the very engineer
who made the structure, that it would have the effect which has
ensued from it—that it would injure instead of improving  the
navigation."
  Mr. Hunter, no doubt, had full  confidence  in  the accuracy
and  reliability of his informant.  But, whoever he was, he was
entirely  mistaken, and if I had  an  opportunity to  do so,  I
would like to read to  Mr. Hunter the following extract from
an original report of the engineer to whom  he  referred, and
which is  now in his own chirography before me.
  That engineer was a Quaker gentleman, of Maryland, and of
great reputation  as a man of sound judgment  and practical
knowledge.
  In his report  to a committee of the Corporation of George-
town, dated 4th March, 1810, being several years after he had
finished  the work upon the Causeway, he  made  the  following
statement:
  "The  direction of the former ship channel from Georgetown
to Alexandria, was in exact  conformity to what might have
been expected from the shape of the shores, Mason's Island,
&c, &c, and had it not been for  the fortuitous opening on the
western  side of the island, would probably have  continued a
good channel to the  present time.  This opening, it is well
known, had the effect to partially choke the original channel,
and to commence a new one, called  the  middle  channel.  By
greatly diminishing the current on the Georgetown side  of the
island, an opportunity was given  for the deposition of heavy
sediment in the eddy of the island, just below the town, which
event accordingly took place to the rapid increase of the bank
that was before slowly forming in that place.   Had it not have 
16
 been for these  circumstances, when  the western  channel was
 stopped  by the  causeway, and the whole of river again turned
 to the Georgetown  side, it would have sought its former chan-
 nel and traveled as before."   (See Appendix K.)
   It must be observed  that  our causeway  was erected not  to
 obviate any evil that had  been occasioned by  the Potomac
 bridge, because the  bridge had at that time no existence.  The
 causeway was intended to remedy a defect  which  had arisen in
 our channel in consequence of " the  fortuitous opening on the
 western side of  the island."  And I will now give Mr. Hunter,
 for whose high  character I have the most  profound respect, a
 most concise and graphic description of that "fortuitousevent,"
 in the language of a distinguished member of the  House of
 Representatives, from Maryland.  When  the subject  of our
 causeway was before Congress in 1804, in the course of the
 debate the Hon. Mr. Lewis made these remarks:
   " Before the year 1784, the channel on the western side was
 so shallow that  only vessels of very ordinary burthen could
 pass, while on the  Maryland  side  vessels of great draft of
 water  could  easily  pass up  to  Georgetown.   The uncommon
 hard winter  of  1783-4, was followed in  the  spring  by the
 greatest torrents ever known in the  Potomac.   The bodies of
 ice were  of  immense magnitude, and many  of them lodged
 upon the island  and under the rocks of its  bed, prising with a
 force beyond  all credibility.   It  tore  the  rocks asunder, and
 pressed them over into  the new channel, occasioning a rise of
 30 to 40  feet on  the Georgetown shore.   On the Virginia side
 the torrent also forced itself,  and deepened  that channel, while
 it left a vast  quantity of mud, rocks and sand, in the east chan-
 nel, which has been constantly accumulating since that period.
 The  situation of  the present  bar is at the meeting of the two
 arms of the river, below the  island,  and does  not admit the
 passage of vessels drawing more than 12 feet."

  The  " fortuitous event" to which  Mr. Lewis was alluding,
happened only twenty years  before the time at which he was
speaking,  when it was fresh in the recollections of most of the
people  of this neighborhood, and when  no efforts had  been
made to "engineer " them into a profound obfuscation of ideas,
and a total misapprehension of palpable facts. 
17
   I presume that Col. Abert will not go quite so far as to say
that the causeway built in 1804, occasioned the flood of 1784!
   It will  be seen that Mr. Lewis says that before  the year
1784, " Vessels of great draft of water could easily pass up to
Georgetown," while in 1804 " the river did not admit the pas-
sage of vessels drawing  more  than 12 feet."   That was the
growing and alarming evil, to cure which the people of George-
town erected their causeway, at a cost, out of their own pock-
ets, of $24,000,  and rebuilt it within the  last two years, at
another cost of about $10,000  more!
   The fact is, from the time of the  subsiding of the waters of
the flood, which were beheld by none but Noah and his family,
down to the year 1784, there were no  bars in the Georgetown
channel;  and the grand idea  of Col.  Abert that a causeway
produced  a bar, or mud bank, years before it was built, can be
better recognized as an amusing metaphysical intricacy, than as a
fact for rational consideration.   Yet, so late as January 16th,
1850, this same Col. Abert did not hesitate, with the Long Bridge
before his eyes,  to say  to  the Secretary of War, that " All
these difficulties are supposed to originate chiefly from an error
committed many years since, in obstructing, by a causeway,
the channel which then  existed between Mason's Island  and
the Virginia shore!"
   He  had been  called upon  to make an examination of our
river, to see if something could not be  suggested for our relief
from the flats which were forming in it, to the ruin of our har-
bor.  In his report he did not  hesitate  to recommend that our
channel should be entirely closed up as an experiment, to as-
certain if a good channel could not  be secured for the City of
Washington.   It may seem incredible  that he would dare to
make such a proposition, but we have  it  from under his own
hand, and he cannot  deny it.   I will give  his own language,
that there may be no mistake about it:
   " In addition to this modification of the  bridge, some ob-
structing work could be thrown from the lower end of Mason's
Island, in a direction best adapted to turn the descending tide
and freshet waters thrown there from the shore between Rock
                3 
18
creek and Easbey's wharf, back to the Washington shore, giv-
ing to the channel of that shore and to the mouth of the Eastern
Branch, the  benefit  of its  scouring force."
  I say that that was a monstrous proposition, and an outrage
upon the feelings of the people of Georgetown.
  In  that same  call of the War Department, Col. Abert was
requested to give  " an estimate of the cost of constructing a
bridge across the Potomac, at the aqueduct of  the canal at
Georgetown."  He  refused to give any estimate  for a bridge
there, at all, and with his accustomed captiousness in reference
to all matters submitted to his consideration for the promotion
of the interests of Georgetown, he replied thus :
  " As the  piers of the aqueduct were  not constructed with
reference to a bridge as well as aqueduct, and do not admit of
the erection of a bridge  over  them without serious inconve-
nience to the aqueduct, or without  great expense, it is consid-
ered unadvisable to  entertain any  idea of a bridge over those
piers."*
  Now, what earthly reliance is to be placed upon the opinions
of a gentleman who would advance such  a  preposterous asser-
tion as that ?  I  take  it for granted that somebody else will
tell  Col. Abert  that a  few more such blunders as this, on his
part, will prevent Mr.  Hunter from placing the least reliance
upon his assurances.
  Major Turnbull is now in the city, and honorable members
of Congress can  refer to  him.  The  aqueduct  was built by
him.   He brought  it up from the distance of many feet below
the surface of the river's bed, and was daily  upon the work
until it was finished.  It was no arm-chair  and fire-side affair
with him.   It was a Turnbull  aqueduct, and should have al-
ways been  known by his name.   He  has told us, again and
again, that  that structure could well  accommodate a  bridge,
and was  of that opinion during its construction. He  even
called the attention of our corporate authorities  to that fact.
  •As to the "great expense" which so  much alarmed Col. Abert, it is
enough to say that a highly respectable engineer is now in the city, who was
ready more than a year ago to build the bridge for the sum of #200,000, and
will agree to do it now for that sum. 
19
The engineers and practical workmen we  have consulted upon
the subject have  all agreed  that the piers of that work may
safely challenge the scrutiny of any man living.  They speak
for themselves, and discountenance the " idea " of Col. Abert,
that they are not suitable for the purpose of " a bridge as well
as an  aqueduct."   Major Turnbull is upon the spot, and can be
consulted.
   Col. Abert talks so flippantly about " the Washington chan-
nel" that Mr. Hunter might well suppose that there really was
a  "Washington channel."   If there  is any such channel be-
tween Easby's point and Tiber creek,  it  resides exclusively
within the ample cranium of Col.  Abert; and, in justice to
him,  it should be called hereafter in congressional  debates
"Abort's Channel"—one would always know then where it was,
and how to find it, without waiting for " the scouring force" of
a  break-water to be erected  by an appropriation from Congress.
The magnitude and the  merits of that same channel will be
properly appreciated after reading the following affidavit:
District of Columbia,
      Washington County, to wit:
   On this 5th day of April, in the year 1856, before me, the sub-
scriber, a justice of the peace in  and for said county, personally
appeared Henry Lewis,  and made oath on  the Holy Evangely
of Almighty God, that on the 4th day of the present month he
made examination of that part of the Potomac  river which is
usually called the city channel, and which lies between Easby's
point and  the Tiber creek;  it is a mere flat at low tide, and at
high  tide only a portion of it would be covered with water, and
only  from one  to three feet deep ; and he feels certain  it  has
been in that condition for many years.
   Sworn before me.                HENRY REAVER,
                                        Justice of the Peace.
   Mr. Hunter says:  " I discover that by the report of an en-
gineer, Col. Hughes,  in 1832 it was recommended to build the
causeway which forms part of the structure of the Long Bridge,
 for the purpose of forcing the water through  a narrow channel,
 to close up what was  called  the squash  channel, and to keep
 open that  channel now used by  vessels going to Georgetown.
 So far from being an injury, in the opinion of engineers  it has
 been a benefit to the  commerce of Georgetown," 
20
   I have never seen the report of Col. Hughes, but I have no
doubt  that Mr. Hunter is  perfectly correct in his statement.
But only hear what Col. Abert says in regard to  that matter.
I  quote  from his  report, to the  Secretary, of January 16th,
1850:
   "By an examination of  the  chart which accompanies Capt.
Graham's report, and a comparison of it with those  of former
surveys,  the Long  Bridge causeway has aided in the difficulties
just stated, by elevating the shoal above and  below the bridge,
if it has not increased its dimensions in length and breadth, as
the shoal now lends its aid to  force water into the  Virginia
channel,  and to reduce the  quantity passing through the Wash-
ington channel."   Here  the  Colonel fully sustains  the fact
upon which I have always insisted; namely, that that  huge
mass of stone and earth which now forms the  middle portion of
the structure of the bridge extended the bars which have utterly
ruined our channel.  But I wish it to be  distinctly understood
that I never quote Col. Abert except against the views of those
who rely upon his  authority.
   The Colonel further says:
   " Allow me to state that the causeway of the Long Bridge is
not the result of the plan of any U. S. engineer, but was against
the advice of all who were consulted on that occasion; but the
plan being made a positive direction of law, it had to be pursued
in the construction of the bridge."  We say that the causeway
is an injury to our commerce, inasmuch as it fearfully increases
the beds  of mud in our channel.   Mr. Hunter says that  "It is
the opinion of competent engineers that it would be an injury
to the navigation of the river to remove the causeway."   Col.
Abert says " This last evil (the  elevation of the shoal above and
below the bridge) is to be remedied by the removal of the cause-
way, and by constructing over its extent, and to the Washing-
ton  shore, an elevated  bridge, upon the  plan and the dimen-
sions of the repairs lately put up  over the Virginia channel."
Perhaps  Mr.  Hunter will soon begin to think that Col. Abert
is not " a competent engineer."
   It has  been often stated that the bridge occasions a very un-
healthy condition of the atmosphere, in certain seasons,  in the
neighborhoods adjacent to the shores of the river  immediately 
21
west of the bridge.   That fact has been flatly denied;  and a3
it is a matter which does not very particularly concern the peo-
ple of Georgetown, I will  content myself with giving you the
following  extracts from speeches of senators of the highest
character, viz:

The amendment upon which the debate arose was as  follows,
  viz: " For repairs of the Long Bridge across the Potomac a
  sum not exceeding $12,000."
  Mr. Badger.  "I hope the amendment will not be adopted.  I
told my friend from  Illinois the other day, when he announced
it, that I was decidedly opposed to  it.  I would  much rather
vote an appropriation of $25,000 to remove that wretched and
unsightly structure from the Potomac river than vote $12,000
for the purpose of patching it up and keeping it in a condition
in which it will continue to be an obstruction to the flow of that
river.  I do not agree with my friend that we ought to let this
bridge stand until we get another.  I think it far better to have
none than the present one.  I  think it far better to have the
river open.   Why should we  inflict upon Georgetown the in-
convenience  and loss of having the navigation obstructed ?
Why should we have this structure, a large portion of it a solid
causeway, a total obstruction to the flow of the water, filling up
the river with shoals that at low water are exposed to the sun,
and must ultimately  become a source of disease to the whole of
that part of the  city ?  It is  an unsightly, injurious, and dis-
graceful nuisance, and I do not want to mend it at all."
  Mr- Badger proposed the following amendment:  "For the
removal of the remains of the bridge $18,000," and then ob-
served:  "I desire to say a word or two on this subject, because
I have some reason to believe that the importance of the removal
of this structure is not fully appreciated by the members of the
Senate.  The accumulations that have  been making  by that
bridge, which have been steadily increasing every year, have
now got to such  a pass that at low-water every day a large sur-
face which is covered at high-water, is exposed to  the influence
of  this August sun.   This has been  going on for many years.
As far back as  1841, when I was residing temporarily in this
city, my attention was called to the effect of the bridge by one
of the most intelligent men who has ever been here from a for-
eign country, Baron Mareschal, then  the  representative  of
Austria here.  He had no small experience on the subject, and
he told me that if that thing was allowed to go on, yellow fever at
Waslungton would be the necessary consequence.  The health 
22
of the city is first in importance.  All the members of Congress
are obliged to spend a portion of every year here: and when
we regard our own health and comfort, or the health and com-
fort of the people of this city,  it is a matter of high considera-
tion to maintain no establishment here that may even probably
result in danger to either.  Again, I am opposed  to maintain-
ing the bridge,  because it has been and is a serious obstruction
to the commerce of that venerable city, Georgetown.   Its citi-
zens feel it to be so.  Senators have lately had laid upon their
tables a most earnest and respectful remonstrance of the entire
population of that city, begging that the  nuisance  to  them, of
the nuisance to us, be put out  of the way, may be removed.  I
sincerely trust that the Senate will  concur  in this view of the
amendment, and that the appropriation will be for  the removal
of the nuisance instead of perpetuating it forever  or for any
time."
  Mr.  Clarke, of Rhode Island.  "My own  impression is that
this bridge has a deleterious effect on the city of Washington.
Its abutments have undoubtedly served to produce  the deposits
above it, creating, I suppose, a malaria injurious to the health
of the city;  and I have come to the conclusion that, instead of
permanently rebuilding it at great cost, it will be better to have
a steam ferry there.   It may be known, also, that  there was a
bridge some three  miles  above Georgetown which  was carried
away by the same freshet that  injured this bridge.  The city of
Georgetown  has no means to build a bridge.  They had a
bridge; it has  been carried  away,  and  they desire  to have
another.  I have no particular  feeling on this subject, for I
never was there more than  half  a dozen times in my life, and
never expect to be again; but it seems to  me that the  city of
Georgetown is equally entitled with Washington to the  foster-
ing care of this Government.   We hold jurisdiction over both
equally, and there is no reason in my mind why all legislative
appropriations should be made for the one and none for the other.
I took some pains, Mr, President, as one of the Committee on
the District  of Columbia, to look at what I thought would be
the best method of connecting  the  District with the  Virginia
shore, and came to the  conclusion that it would be better to
build the bridge across the Potomac at the city of Georgetown,
a little above the aqueduct, where there are some rocks in the
river,  and connect the  city of Georgetown with the  Virginia
shore; and  then, in my opinion, it would be  better to connect
the city of Washington with the Virginia shore by a steam ferry
boat than  by the present bridge." 
23
  Mr. Mason, of Virginia.  " What the Senator  from North
Carolina has in view strikes  me  as an object that  must be
attained  one of those days by  Congress.    I presume there
can be no question that, from  the manner the  present bridge
has been constructed, it has done serious injury to  the town of
Georgetown.  It is not only by causing the flats in the river,
resulting from the deposits above,  that  it  has impaired the
health of the opposite part of the city, but it has so obstructed
the channel as to do  very  serious injury to  the commercial in-
terests of Georgetown."
  Mr. Bright.   " I do not believe that the Long Bridge, so
called, can ever be made a safe  crossing point.  But even ad-
mitting that I am in this incorrect, which I do not believe, there
is one point in this District, one city in this District, one  por-
tion of the population of  this  District which has been seriously
injured by the erection and maintenance of this bridge.  They
have no  representative here to  speak for  them;  hence it  is
proper that those who understand the facts connected  with this
matter should present them to the Senate;  and I  was greatly
in hopes that the honorable Senator from  Virginia, (Mr.  MA-
SON,) when he was up, would have gone on and stated the griev-
ances which Georgetown,  which  lies entirely within the limits
of this District, has suffered  and is suffering.  The people  of
Georgetown have, from time to time, complained of that struc-
ture as an interference with  their commerce, and they have
asked Congress frequently, and  in the most respectful manner,
to afford them some  relief from these grievances, in short,  to
remove the nuisance.  But Congress has thus far been deaf to
their appeals.   Latterly,  by the act of God,  a portion of the
Long Bridge has been swept away, and it is to be regretted
that the whole of it was not taken."
   Gen.  Shields.   " I prefer  that  a bridge  should be erected at
Georgetown, and I hope that  we shall be able to determine that
one great bridge can be erected there, above  navigation, that
will answer all the purposes."
   Mr. Pratt.   " One or two considerations have been advanced,
about which I wish  to say a  word.  The  first proposition is,
that the erection of the bridge  has destroyed  the  trade of
 Georgetown in consequence of  the obstruction it has  caused in
the river.   Now, I believe no one can deny the fact  that it  is
so.   Many years ago I went  to school in  Georgetown, and at
that time vessels almost  of the largest class  were able to  as-
cend the river at that point  and  load with  cargoes for every
part of  the world.    At the present day it is impossible for ves- 
24
sels of that class to get up there.   Georgetown has been a place
of  considerable trade, but from some cause or other that trade
has been destroyed, and  its inhabitants allege the erection of
the bridge, and the consequent obstruction to the navigation, to
be  the cause.   I  have no doubt that is the fact."
   Gen. Shields, (Chairman of District Committee.)   "As far
as we have been able to make  any inquiries in relation to this
matter from many competent  engineers, we have  ascertained
that if there is a new structure it must be placed in a new posi-
tion.   It must be placed in a new locality, near Georgetown;
perhaps at Georgetown;  perhaps near the aqueduct at George-
town."
   Mr. Underwood.   " I know that for the last fifteen or twenty
years that the  city of Georgetown has been  complaining bit-
terly of the  destruction  of the harbor at that place in conse-
quence of the erection of that bridge, and that its citizens have
preferred very  heavy claims against  Congress,  and asked for
remuneration for the injury done to their commerce by putting
up  this bridge, which has destroyed their harbor.  Now, if you
intend to  renew this bridge by rebuilding it, or building another,
you do the people of that city the injury of which they already
complain.  I think that  before you  repair the old bridge  or
build another, something ought to be done in  reference to  the
feelings of that people.   The interests of that people ought to
be  consulted before you  put an obstruction in the river which
will destroy their harbor.  I therefore wish that the committee
who have charge  of this  subject would inquire into the present
condition  of our relations with respect to Georgetown, the in-
jury of which the citizens complain,  and what  further injury
they may receive by the  repair of the old bridge or the build-
ing of a new one."
  Mr.  Geyer.   " The Senator from North Carolina informs me
that the difference in the height of the water above  and below
the bridge last  spring  was four feet.   The result is, that the
water thus banked up enters the canal and  floods the whole of
the little valley on the south side of the avenue.   This is a very
serious evil, and may be of frequent occurrence.  But it was
not so much with a view to mention these facts that I arose to
address the Senate.   My principle  object is to call the atten-
tion of the Senate to the fact that we are legislating here for a
people placed under  disabilities by their position; and in that
legislation we should  take care  that we do not injure them
further than is  necessary to subserve  the public interests.  We
have erected a nuisance which has proved injurious to the health 
25
of both cities, the old and the new.  Part of that nuisance has
been swept away by a flood;  and the question now before the
Senate is, not whether that nuisance should be continued per-
manently-^-for it is admitted by gentlemen who  advocate this
appropriation that at no very distant day it must be removed—
but whether it shall be continued some time longer ?   I ask if
we have a right  to inflict an injury on the present  generation?
Have we a right to expose  those  who are our wards, and who
have no power  themselves to act on this subject, to the evls
which that bridge causes ?   I place this matter on the grounds
of justice, and affirm that there is an obligation on the  part  of
the Government of the United States to remove that structure
as they have  placed it  there.   I shall support,  then, as the
utility of the bridge is by no means  correspondent to its evils,
the proposition of the Senator from North  Carolina for the im-
mediate removal of the remains of the bridge, as I am firmly
convinced that its  retention  will prove most  injurious to the
health of the present generation."
  Mr. Seward.  " Before the question is tak,en I wish to say
one word for the purpose of justifying any  apparent inconsis-
tency in my  votes.  I do not know whether this question was
taken by yeas and nays when a similar proposition was  made
in the deficiency bill; but if it was, I voted against the propo-
sition which  I shall now sustain.  In doing so, I must say that
I change my vote because I am  satisfied, with the arguments
which I have heard, that this bridge is a serious injury to the
health and prosperity of the  city of Georgetown, and unneces-
sary, in its present condition, to the  interests  of the  people
here."
  Mr. Badger.   " One word now in regard to the people who
are interested in this  bridge.   The people on  the Virginia
shore, below  Alexandria, usually come up the river by boats.
They do not  drive up from Alexandria for the purpose  of pass-
ing over it;  and the people above Georgetown cross there.   If
I understand the matter correctly, therefore, there are only two
or three farms lying between Georgetown and Alexandria who
are interested in this matter."
  On another occasion the following remarks were made :
  Mr. Mason.  " I wish to say a single word in reference to the
State of Virginia, which I represent here.  My impressions are
favorable to the  railroads proposed to be benefited.   Both pro-
positions are  that this road shall be done by private companies,
and by those companies alone ; and my disposition would be,
wherever the public interest would admit  it, to give to those
                  4 
26
companies  the  largest liberty to construct ways for the public
convenience.  But I do not know how far the interest of the State
which I represent may be affected by terminating the railroad
at the point proposed by the amendment.  I shall, therefore,
vote against the amendment,  with the knowledge, that although
the Baltimore and Ohio company has been operating their road
for twenty years,  this plan did not occur to them until an ap-
parent rival interest started up in Virginia to make a railroad to
cross the  Potomac at a different point.   I shall therefore vote
against the amendment."
   Mr. Toucey.  " I am opposed to this amendment in toto.  I
am in favor of the legislation which has already taken place on
the part of the Senate.   I think it is due to the people of this
District, both the inhabitants  of Washington and the inhabitants
of Georgetown, that the Senate should adhere to the bill as they
passed it before. I ask a moment's attention. After we had pro-
vided that there should be a railroad from Alexandria by way of
Georgetown, without interfering with the navigation of the river,
to connect with the Baltimore road at this depot, the Baltimore
and Ohio company steps in and proposes to extend a branch to
the east of this Capitol, opposite to Alexandria, by which they
will have the power of carrying all the freight and all the pas-
sengers down to a point upon the Potomac, opposite Alexandria,
and thus  break up the legislation which was intended by the
Senate, and which was intended in Virginia.   I hold that it is
due to  the people of this District, as well as to the people of
Virginia, that the railroad from Alexandria, by way of  George-
town to the depot in this city, should be carried out, and that
we should not incorporate into the bill an amendment that will
defeat it.
   Sir, I am in favor  of  that  road for two or three considera-
tions.   In the  first  place, it  is the shortest way, and by the
route which is proposed by the bill  as it passed the  Senate,
passengers can come fronv Alexandria to the depot in a shorter
time than they can by any other  way, because they are not in-
terrupted by the passage of any ferry which requires slow move-
ment.  According to the celebrated engineer whose report has
been laid on our tables, it is  the shortest route in point of time.
In the second place, it is due the citizens of Georgetown.   They
are entitled to the accommodation of this road.   Cars passing
through to the south by way of Georgetown can take passage
there, and can connect with  the northen roads by that route in
less time than by any other, according to the report of the en-
gineer.  I am also in favor of it, because I desire to get rid of 
27
any obstruction in the river below Georgetown.   Whether there
will bo a bridge across that river in any place, either below or
here,  whether it will ultimately  lead to one or not, I do not
know.   I  say I  am utterly opposed to it.   I think it is due to
the citizens of Georgetown that the river should be kept open.
I am opposed to closing up these great channels  of communica-
tion which the God of nature has opened.   I say they have a
right to have the channel kept upon, and not have it obstructed."
  Now, sir,  having  but hurriedly and very imperfectly stated
our objections to that bridge, I will close what I have to say,
by  stating that there is no kind  of necessity for harrassing us
any longer with that evil.  A bridge below Georgetown is not
demanded  by any  necessity, either  local  or  national.   The
bridge was originally asked for as a means of communication be-
tween Washington City and Alexandria.  For that purpose it has
been superseded by steam ferry-boats, and members of Congress
can now  go from the  Capitol to Alexandria,  in less than an
hour, without putting their boots  in either mud  or dust, for the
small sum of 12J cents, and  return in the same time and with-
out exposure to the effects of the weather for the same small
sum.   The same constant and accommodating facility is offered
alike to all.
   Will it be pretended  that there is a great agricultural region
on  the other side of the river, which seeks a market over that
bridge ?  Every body knows that that is not so.  There are, to
be sure, some potato patches, cabbage gardens, berry bushes,
and fruit trees, located in the interesting vicinity of the sage of
Arlington, whose products are now brought over that bridge to
to the Washington market.   But could not these immense pro-
ductions be  brought here in ferry-boats  of even the smallest
class.   Ferrys answer for the same purpose elsewhere, why not
here ?  If a ferry will answer at Havre de Grace to accomodate
the great through-travel, between the North and the South, and
if ferrys will answer all the  demands of the hundreds of thou-
sands of persons, and all kinds of vehicles which are daily pass-
ing between Newark and New York, and New York and Brook-
lyn, why will not one answer here ?  (See Appendix N.)  And, 
28
sir, to come nearer home, if a ferry is all that Alexandria de-
mands for her intercourse with the people of Maryland, why will
not a ferry answer between Washington City  and " Cooney."
In a word, if ferrys will answer where the  demand  upon them
is unlimited, and, in other places where that demand is uncom-
parably less,  what conceivable necessity, or  comprehensible
force of circumstances, renders them inadequate to the public
or private demands here.
  The Potomac Bridge was built by a chartered company, with
a capital of two hundred thousand  dollars.  Their tolls were to
be a source of  excessive revenue  to the  stock-holders; the
travel over it  was to be immense, with only one variation, and
that  was to be found in an annual increase,  in  a precise ratio,
with the augmentation  of the population of Washington City.
Well, the city went  on  augmenting  from  6,000 in 1808, to
80,000  in  1832, but the travel over that bridge became less
and less, during that same period, until the  stock-holders found
that  instead of receiving their promised dividends, it had be-
come a tax upon them too intolerable to be borne.  They then
sold  out their $200,000 bridge to  Congress  for the sum of
$20,000, with all "their lands, piers,  abutments,  roads, and
way, and all their materials " thrown into  the bargain.   Why
was all that done—simply because there was no travel to sustain
the bridge.
  But, sir, if Congress determines that a bridge shall be erected
somewhere in  the District of Columbia, to secure an uninter-
rupted connection between the railroads of the North and the
South, we think  that that can be done without sacrificing the
commerce of Georgetown, by ruining its navigation.   We think
that  a bridge  for that  purpose can be erected above George-
town at a much less cost than it could at the site of the old Long
Bridge, or anywhere else  in  its vicinity.   You can adopt the
site of the aqueduct  or  the one  indicated by Mr. Ellet, which
I placed in your hands.   We know that some wild and reck-
less  assertions have been made as  to the greater distance of
the Georgetown  route, and the consequent loss of time in trav-
eling over it,  These ridiculous exaggerations I now prooeed 
29
to expose, by producing  the testimony of persons who have a
proper regard for their veracity, as well as for their professional
reputation.
  As to the matter of increased distance, I beg leave to refer
you to the following  letter from the accurate and experienced
Surveyor of Washington  county:

                           Georgetown, April 5th, 1854.
  Dear Sir : By your request I herewith send you a copy of
certain measurements I made some years since, of the distances
from Georgetown ferry, by the main road, to King street, in
Alexandria.  From last  mentioned  point, by the turnpike to
the Long Bridge, and from thence, by the shortest way, to the
General Post Office, and from thence to the ferry again, which
I found to be as follows:
                                             MILES.  PERCHES.
Distance from Georgetown ferry to  Kings street,
  Alexandria..........................................   7  and 13
From Kings street,  in Alexandria, by way of
  the Long Bridge to U. S. General Post Office  7 J and 16
From the U. S. General  Post Office to George-
  town ferry...........................................   2f and 12
  If a road was laid out  from the  General Post Office by way
of the Three Sisters  or Aqueduct, and thence to Alexandria,
the difference then in going from  the General Post Office to
Alexandria  by  way  of the Long  Bridge—7£ miles  and 16
perches—and going by way of the Three Sisters or Aqueduct,
which cannot be much, if any, over 10 miles, would seem to be
about 3 miles. Not having the measurement of the distance from
the Post Office  to the Three Sisters  in the probable line for a
road, I can only approximate to the difference, as I have done,
between that and  the measured distance to the ferry.  The
distance to the ferry, as  above given, was  measured with the
centre of the streets and round  the squares, so that it is very
likely that if the distance to the ferry be considered as an ex-
tended cord, and swept round as the radius of a circle, it would
not show a  difference of more than a quarter of a mile to the
Three Sisters, (but I would have  this to be understood as a
mere supposition.)  And from thence to Alexandria, by such a.
location of a road as would aim for the best  ground and short-
est line, the distance above given from the ferry to Alexandria
would  not  be increased  but very little, if any.   So, as above 
30
given or stated, the whole difference in distance of the two
lines, would not much exceed 2| or 3 miles.
                  I am, Sir, very respectfully,
                           Your obedient servant,
                                    LEWIS CARBERY.
  To Henry Addison, Esq.,
             Mayor of Georgetown.
  As to the time which would be taken to pass from Washing-
ton and Alexandiria on  the two proposed  routes, I  desire to
refer you to the  following statement, which you will find  in
Mr. Ellet's report:
  " The  site of the  bridge has been chosen with a  view to
avoid any obstruction to the navigation of  the  Potomac, and
to relieve Georgetown of the impediments which it is alleged
have  been  formed in the  channel of the river  since the  con-
struction of the dilapidated Long Bridge and the  contraction
of the water-way; and, at  the same time, to afford  a conve-
nient approach  for  the railroad trains  and common travel
crossing the river on the great Northern and Southern lines.
  " The chief objection that has been urged against this loca-
tion, is the  fact that any  railroad which  may be projected to
unite the road leading  from  Baltimore to Washington,  with
those leading from  Alexandria to  the south and south-west,
must be carried out of the direct  line in order to cross at this
point.  The distance is supposed to be about three miles greater
than it might be if the  new bridge were placed on the site of
the obnoxious  Long  Bridge.   I am of opinion, however, judg-
ing from the map of Washington and my personal knowledge
of the localities, that the actual increase will be less than three
miles.  Yet, in the  absence of precise information, I shall as-
sume three miles as the true measure of its value.
  " This increase of  distance might appear to be a substantial
objection to the site proposed.   Yet  it is, in my  judgment per-
fectly clear, that if the object were  to  locate the  connecting
railroad with a view to  the least possible loss  of  time to the
through travel, this  is  precisely the point  at which the engi-
neer would wish to cross the Potomac.  A bridge on  this site,
as already stated, can be conveniently approached  by railroad
lines from both directions.  There is no dense population on the
route of the connecting  road  to retard the trains, or to pre-
vent the highest desirable speed.  There is here no Long Bridge
to be traversed at a slow rate, nor draws  to  interfere  with
the passage of trains,  nor  streets nor  crowds to be  provided 
31
for.   The  through trains  may therefore maintain  their full
headway.
  " The line of the road, crossing  at the proposed site of the
bridge, will pass immediately on the western border of George-
town ; it will then sweep round to the north, skirting the town
in that quarter, and affording every convenience that can pos-
sibly be dervided from a railroad without  carrying  it actually
through the place.
  "It will cross over Rock creek  near the foot of the new
cemetery,  and  traverse  the  whole  length of  Washington,
through the northern wards, from Rock creek to the Baltimore
railroad, keeping near enough for the accommodation of the
city, yet far enough north of  the present built up  district,  to
relieve the public of the danger and nuisance of a through rail-
road within the city.
  " The ordinary time on  a good  railroad  cannot  now be as-
sumed at less than a mile in two minutes, or 30 miles an hour.
Much higher speed than this is made on  many English roads,
and if less than 30 miles an hour is now  suffered on the main
lines  of this country,  it will not be  long tolerated, after connec-
tions  are formed between the finished roads east and those west
of the Alleghany mountains,  and  the  great flood  of western
travel begins to be vented.
  *' To traverse the three miles assumed to  be  lost by crossing
the Potomac  above Georgetown,  and passing  north of Wash-
ington, will involve  an apparent  loss  of six  minutes  in the
through time; in the supposition  that no  corresponding loss
will be incurred by crossing at or  near the site of the aban-
doned Long Bridge.   But there will be material losses on any
line;  and  these losses must be properly noticed  in any just
comparison.
   "If we cross at the site of  the  Long Bridge we  shall  meet
with the following detentions,  which are avoided on the line
proposed.
  1.  " The loss of time required  to cross a bridge one mile
longer than the proposed Georgetown bridge, at a speed of, say
eight miles an hour;  this loss will  be 5J minutes.
  2.  " The loss of time in  passing one mile through the built
up part of Washington, at  8 miles an hour, which  would also
be 5£ minutes.
  3.  " The loss  to be encountered in case the draw should
chance to be raised for the passage of a vessel  on the approach
of a train, which loss would vary with circumstances.
  " It is easy to perceive, without going  into a minute investi- 
32
cation, that the through trips  can be made quicker on a rail
road which crosses the Potomac where it is  narrow, and above
the navigation, and which passes north of Washington, than on
any line whatever leading through the heart of the city.
  "It is not my purpose,  I repeat, to take  general ground
against local railroads in cities,  when  properly designed for
the accommodation of the cities.   Yet, I am clearly of opinion
that,  at  an early  day,  the through trade and  travel of this
country must be accommodated by lines which pass around the
great cities, and avoid the obstruction which a dense population
offers.
  " In the case before us, it is my opinion that the best speed
and the best time can be made on a through road passing west
of Georgetown; and, moreover, that the site  selected for the
proposed bridge is  the only place  where the Potomac can be
crossed by  a  railroad without injury to the  navigation, and
affording just ground of complaint,  unless the structure be a
suspension bridge of very great height and span and cost."
  A great deal has been said, too, about the  impracticability
and the enormousness of the cost of a  bridge above George-
town.  Upon that  point I must beg leave to refer you again to
Mr. Ellet.   He says:
               Estimated  Cost of the Bridge.
  "We have now all the material  needed for determining the
cost of this bridge.   And in making this estimate, as in arrang-
ing the plan of the  structure, I have not deemed it at all ex-
pedient or proper to  practice a close economy.  It would seem
to be more appropriate in designing a structure to be  erected
within sight of the Capitol, for the conveyance both of the rail-
road and common travel across the Potomac, on the great north-
ern and southern thoroughfare,  rather  to  seek to make the
edifice a monument of strength and stability worthy of the site
and its purposes.   I shall therefore  submit a  liberal estimate
and assume that a  work of  the first order is to be erected.
                         Estimate.
1,520,000  pounds of wire, including the  cost  of
  manufacturing, raising and  adjusting the cables,
  at 10 cts.................................................   $152,000
40,000 pounds No. 12 wire, in the suspenders, at
  12 cts....................................................       4,800
190,000 pounds bar  iron in the anchorage, at 7 cts.     13,3^0 
33
 31,000 pounds bar iron in bolts, for the flooring,
   parapets, &c, at 7 cts................................       2 170
 50,000 pounds cast iron, for saddles, rollers, roller
   plates, &c, at 4 cts...................................       2 000
 47,500 cubic feet of  timber in the flooring and
   parapets, including framing and raising at 30 cts.     14,250
 600 cubic  yards rock  excavation in the fastening
   chambers, at $7.00....................................       4,200
 2200 cubic yards masonry in the towers, at $10.00     22,000
 7100  cubic  yards masonry in  the  abutments  at
   $4.00....................................................     28,400
 7250 cubic yards masonry in the arches, piers, and
   wing-walls, at $7.00..................................     50,750
 500 cubic  yards masonry in the fastening cham-
   bers, or anchorage, at $8.00........................    '   4,000

            Total cost...................................   $297,870
   " Or, in round numbers, I estimate the entire cost of the bridge
 at $300,000.
   " If the structure were in all respects the same, excepting only
 that the railway track were left  out, but preparation made for
 its introduction;  and four of the cables, which would then be
 unnecessary, were temporarily dispensed with, the  cost of the
 bridge would be reduced to $250,000. No change of plan would
 be required to build it in this way.  It would merely involve
 the omission of the stone flagging, the upper and lower girders,
 and four of the  cables; all  of which  might be supplied when-
 ever they would be required for  the use of a connecting link of
 railway.  The anchorage would, however, need to be prepared
 for these additional cables in the progress of the work.
  " Still, I think it scarcely probable that the construction of
 the railroad track can be delayed beyond the completion of the
 bridge.  Indeed, if the erection  of this bridge be authorized by
 Congress, I hesitate not to say that the railway to connect the
 northern and southern lines would be promptly  undertaken  as
 a private enterprise.  All that now stands in the way, and pre-
 vents this connecting link from offering inducements sufficient
 to justify parties in undertaking the work, is the want of a
 charter for the  road, and the need of this  bridge across the
 Potomac."
  I deem it unnecessary to  quote any further from Mr. Ellet's
report, as I can  furnish it to any member of Congress who may
request me in a note to do so.
             5 
34
  It is not for me to treat of the Potomac Bridge as a nuisance
which threatens every year, more and more, the  public health
of Washington.  It is not for me to account for any evil, real
or imaginary, from  which President Van Buren and President
Fillmore desired to escape, by locating themselves, during cer-
tain seasons of the year, on the hights of Georgetown.  It is
not for me to estimate the injury that would be inflicted upon
the best interests of that city,  should a prevailing and deadly
pestilence, attributable to the bridge, occasion the flight of, even
Congress itself, from the Capitol.  All that we desire, and all
that we have a right to claim, is the free and uninterrupted use
of a river, upon which we located ourselves when it was in an
unobstructed condition.   We have no  hostile feelings towards
Washington; no desire to war with a city so immeasurably our
superior in all the  elements of  wealth, position, and numerical
force ;  no insane desire to be querulous with those whose power
to do mischief is so much greater than our own.   On the  con-
trary, we wish to see this only ground of angry contention be-
tween us removed, and shall be glad should her prosperity be
coeval with the fame of him whose name she bears.
   In conclusion, allow me to say that the whole country is de-
manding the removal  of every obstruction to its  commerce.
We sometimes read the National Intelligencer and  the Con-
gressional Globe, and attend occasionally the  debates in Con-
gress ;  we have an eye, too, once in a  while, to resolutions of
inquiry and appropriation  bills.  We have seen Congress be-
seiged by clamorous demands for river and harbor  improve-
ments, for  light-houses and  break-waters, and have seen and
heard a good deal about coast  surveys, and matters of a kin-
dred character.  It is sometimes more than a rumor that even
the lest populous and most  distant States are borrowing  mil-
lions, pledging their resources, and combining public and private
means and energies to make roads, dig canals, and remove ob-
structions from navigable  streams.  But what do  we behold
here?   A  solid structure has been thrown across our river
within our corporate limits, and which has entirely sealed up
our navigation forever in the western part of our harbor.  That 
35 ,
was done by Congress, for the benefit of Alexandria, out of the
Treasury of the United States.  Now you are implored to build
another solid obstruction below our harbor, and utterly ruin our
channel for the imaginary benefit of Washington city.  All this
oppression  has  been  going on for fifty years—an oppression
dealt out on a population of 10,000 people, for whom Congress
only can legislate, and who abide almost under the dome of the
Capitol.
       With great respect,  your obedient servant,
                                  HENRY ADDISON.
   Mayor's Office, Georgetown, D. C,
   April, 1856. 
 
appendix.
  On this 5th day of April, 1856, before the subscriber, a jus-
tice of the peace in and for the county of Washington, District
of Columbia,  personally appeared Thomas A. Lazenby, late
Deputy  Collector and  Inspector of the Port of Georgetown,
who  being  first sworn  on the Holy  Evangely  of Almighty
God, deposed as follows:  That he was employed in the Cus-
tom House  from the year 1835 to 1845, and from 1849 to 1853 ;
that  it was  his duty, during that period, to board almost every
vessel that  arrived at said Port, and have more or less inter-
course with their masters; that in the discharge of his duties
he had abundant opportunities of hearing the views of said mas-
ters  in regard to the evils occasioned by the Potomac bridge;
that, to the best of his recollection, they had but one opinion of
the bridge,  as to  its being a most dangerous and inconvenient
obstruction to the navigation of the river, many of them  having
been delayed above  or below the bridge, and sometimes had
their vessels more or less injured by coming in collision with it;
that  the  complaints  of the Georgetown  merchants have been
unceasing in  regard to the same evil; that he has often heard
masters declare that they would never  again  visit the Port
of Georgetown; that the Port of Georgetown was in bad repute,
owing to the existence of the Long Bridge, and that masters
prefered  obtaining freight at the Port of Alexandria, rather
Chan incur the detentions and danger to which they were ex-

POstS StKk.             HENRY REAVER,
                                    Justice of the Peace.
                           B.
  On this 4th day of April, 1856, before me, the subscriber, a
justice  of the  peace in and for the county of Washington, in
the District of Columbia, personally came Capt. John Ham-
mond,  and made oath on the Holy Evangely of Almighty
God, that he has been navigating the river  Potomac for the
last fifteen years, in carrying wood, grain,  &c, to market; he 
ss
would rather sell his wood at Alexandria for 25 cents less on
the cord, than bring it to Georgetown on account of the deten-
tion and danger of getting through the draw of the Long Bridge.
I have frequently known vessels to be injured by trying to get
through the draw.

                                JOHN *  HAMMOND.
                                      mark
   Witness,
         H.  Reaver,
         C. B.  Rice.
   Subscribed and sworn to before me the day and year above
written.               Henry Reaver,
                                Justice of the Peace,
                            C.
   On this 5th day of April, 1856, before me, the subscriber, a
justice of the peace in  and for the county of  Washington, in
the District of Columbia, personally appeared  Elijah Phillips,
who being first sworn  on the  Holy  Evangely,  deposed as
follows: that he is captain of the schooner Mary Elizabeth, of
twenty tons burthen; that on yesterday, the 4th of April, 1856,
he made five ineffectual attempts to get through the  draw of the
Long Bridge with his vessel, using, each time, all the skill and
precaution in his  power; that on the sixth  attempt he got
through by kedging; that after getting through, he lost his
headway,  causing him to fall back against the bridge ; that his
sails were very much damaged, and his vessel just barely escaped
capsizing; that he has been frequently detained by said bridge in
attempting to reach Georgetown, and that, particularly, on one
occasion,  he was compelled to lay near the draw three days,
waiting for an opportunity to get through, when, if the bridge
had not been there, there would have been no difficulty.
   Sworn to before me the day and year above written.
                                   HENRY REAVER,
                                     Justice of the Peace*
                            D.
  On this 5th day rf April, 1856, before me, the subscriber, a
justice of the peace in and  for the county of Washington, in
the District of Columbia, personally came Henry Reaver, and
made oath on the Holy  Evangely  of Almighty God, that he 
39
has been engaged in navigating the Potomac river, from the
year 1821  until the year 1840 ; that during that time he has
met with great obstructions in getting through the draw of the
long bridge;  that in three instance he has been within a few
moments of loosing his life and vessel—it being with the utmost
exertions that he could save either his life or vessel__it being
almost impossible to get through the draw when the wind is
down the river; that while the vessel is in the  draw she loses
all  her  headway, and,  frequently before she can get headway,
she is eithe© blown ashore or against the bridge ; that he has
known two  vessels to be  drifted sideways  against the  bridge,
one of which was loaded with shad for the Georgetown market;
she lay there during the fishing season, causing a loss  of the fish
and expense of getting her up, and repairs ; that during the years
above mentioned he was engaged in fishing ; that he has many
times lost in the price of his fish, on account of his vessel being
unable to get to Gorgetown on account of the bridge;  he has
many times known, that when the farmers have come to George-
town for a  supply of fish, that they have had to go to Alexandria
to buy them—there being no vessel able to get to Georgetown on
account  of the  bridge—when they would willingly have paid
one dollar more per hundred for shad, could they have obtained
them in Georgetown,  thereby causing  a serious loss to the
men employed in fishing ;  whereas, if there was no such obstruc-
tions as the  bridge causes,  there would hardly ever be a time
that vessels could not get  to Georgetown. He further declares,
on  account of the difficulty caused by the  bridge, that supply
of fish,  in  the spring, coming to Georgetown market, has been
reduced more  than one  half,  thereby causing  a considerable
loss to  the town, and  also putting the farmers  to great incon-
venience.                           HENRY  REAVER.
   Subscribed and sworn to before  me the day and year above
written.                   Joseph W. Fearson,
                                      Justice of the Peace.
                            E.
District of Columbia,
     Washington County, to ivit:
  On this 5th day of April, in the year 1856, before  me, the
subscriber, a justice of the peace in  and for said  county, per-
sonally appeared Joseph N. Fearson, who, after having  been
sworn on the  Holy Evangely  of Almighty God, deposed as fol-
lows: that sometime during the year 1825, he was on board of
the schooner Adventure on her way from Alexandria to George- 
40
town, when the wind was blowing very hard, and it being al-
most then dark, when  arriving at  the  Potomac  Bridge,  the
schooner, which was owned by himself, while he was attempting
to go through the draw of the bridge, struck violently against a
pier of the bridge, and  at the same  time the concussion threw
his brother, William Fearson, overboard, and was immediately
crushed to death between the vessel and the pier.  He also de-
poses, that a vessel, owned by another of his brothers, had her
mast carried away while attempting to pass through the same
draw, and greatly injured her deck; and that he has known of
instances in which vessels have been brought in  collision with
the bridge at the same place, and have been sunk thereby.
   Sworn before me.                HENRY REAVER.
                                      Justice of the Peace.
                            F.
  On this 4th day of April, 1856, before  me, the  subscriber,
a justice of the peace in and for the county of Washington, in
the District of  Columbia,  personally appeared John  Ellis, a
resident of Georgetown, in said  District, and made oath on the
Holy Evangely of Almighty God, that he has been employed in
sailing vessels to and from Georgetown for the last fifteen or
twenty years; that, in several instances, he has been prevented
from getting to Georgetown on account of it being impossible
to get through the draw of  the  Long Bridge; he has  had his
vessels frequently injured by trying to get through the draw; he
has had his sails torn to pieces while going through the  draw.
And in the spring of the year, while employed in carrying fish
from the fishing landings, he has had to anchor and lay  below
the bridge all night, thereby being unable  to get  up to market
in time; and often he has had to run back to Alexandria with
his  fish.  At one time, on account of the wind being ahead, he
had to anchor below the bridge, and had his vessel cut through
with the ice that accumulated in the night, his vessel sunk, and
cargo lost.   Had it- not been for the bridge, he could have got
to Georgetown without damage.              his
  Witness,                          JOHN X  ELLIS.
         H. Reaver,                      mark.
         C, B. Ried.
  Subscribed  and sworn to before me the  day and year above
written.                   Henry Reaver,
                              Justice of the Peace. 
41
                            G.
 ^ On this 4th day of April, 1856, before the subscriber, a jus*
tice of the peace in and for the county of Washington, in  the
District of Columbia, personally appeared  Henry Lewis, who
being first sworn on the  Holy Evangely of  Almighty God, de-
posed as follows: that he has been trading to Georgetown, D.
C, as a captain of vessels from 160 to 300 tons, for fifteen years
last past; that, even with a fair wind, there is difficulty and danger
in attempting to get through the draw in the Long Bridge; that
when the wind is not fair,  a vessel is obliged to obtain the aid
of a  steamboat, or come to  anchor and warp through by kedging,
which latter proceeding frequently causes very considerable de-
lay ; that he has known at least  a dozen  instances in which
Considerable damage has happened to vessels  in  attempting to
sail through said draw, although every possible precaution and
care was taken ; that his own vessel, on three several occasions^
ran foul of the said bridge in attempting to get  through  said
draw, he using  every precaution and care  to avoid doing so;
that the current of the channel does not run straight and true
through said draw, but at a very considerable angle; that in con-
sequence of the difficulties created by said bridge alone, he, as
captain and owner of a vessel, would charge  less freight from
New York to Alexandria than from New York to Georgetown;
and, for the same reason,  would give higher prices for produce
at Alexandria, for shipment, than at Georgetown ; and that it
is a  common objection amongst captains and shippers  against
coming to Georgetown, that the aforesaid difficulties of naviga-
tion  exist, and that additional  expense  is incurred by the fre-
quent necessity of employing steamboats for towing.
                                       HENRY LEWIS.
  Subscribed and sworn to before me the day and year above
written.                         Henry Reaver,
                                       Justice of the Peace.
                            H.
  On this 4th day of April, 1856, before me, the subscriber, a
justice of the peace in and for the county of Washington, in the
District of Columbia, personally appeared James F. Gross, who,
being first sworn on the Holy Evangely of Almighty God, de-
posed as follows: that he has been generaly employed during the
last twenty years in navigating vessels to and from the port of
Georgetown, D. C; that in that time he has heard of many ac-
cidents which had happened at the Potomac Bridge to vessels
                   6 
42
and their cargoes while  attempting to pass through its draw.
On one occasion, about three years ago, a  schooner which was
owned by himself  attempted to  approach said draw,  but was
prevented from doing so by  a high wind which was prevailing
at the time; that said vessel was detained below the bridge du-
ring the night, and on the succeeding morning was so severely
cut  by the ice,  which  had formed  the preceding twelve
hours, as to  occasion her to sink; the  loss which he sustained
by the casuality amounted to about the sum of six hundred dol-
lars ; about a week after that, he had a smaller vessel  sunk in
nearly the same place and under like circumstances, by which
he lost about fifty dollars.   He  also states that he  knows of
many other instances in which vessels, owned by other persons,
have been injured in trying to sail their vessels through the
draw of that bridge.   He says, further, that  at ebb-tides, and
while the wind is blowing hard  from the north-west, vessels
cannot pass the bridge on their  way to Georgetown without
kedging, or the aid of a steamer, and even  then not without
danger?                            JAMES F. GROSS.
  Subscribed and  sworn to before me this 4th day of April,
1856.                          Henry Reaver,
                                      Justice of the Peace.
                            I.
  On this 4th day of April, 1856, before the subscriber, a jus-
tice of the peace, in and for the county of Washington, in the
District of Columbia^ personally appeared James A. Magruder,
who being sworn on the Holy  Evangely of Almighty God, de-
posed as follows: That on the 11th day  of  June,  1855, the
schooner William Henry, consigned to him at Georgetown, with
a load of salt, in attempting  to get through  the  draw of the
Long Bridge, had a hole knocked in her bow, which caused her
to sink about a hundred yards above the bridge, thereby  caus-
ing an almost total loss of the cargo ; that the captain was re-
puted to be  very careful and skillful, and was himself a part
owner of said vessel, on which there was no insurance.
                                   J.  A. MAGRUDER.
  Subscribed and sworn to before me the day and year above
written.                      Henry Reaver,
                                    Justice of the Peace.
                            J.
                            Georgetown, April 2, 1846.
H. Addison, Esq.
  Dear Sir :  In answer to your inquiry as to whether or not 
43
there has been any cases in which vessels coming to or leaving
the port of Georgetown has been  delayed, or other loss or in-
convenience arising from the Long Bridge, I have to say,  that
on repeated occasions I have had vessels with grain to beat up
to the bridge and there detained until the wind changed, or un-
til I sent a steamboat after them, which I did on various occa-
sions, subjecting me to  considerable expense and detention in
consequence of the bridge.  In the winter of 1849-'50,1 ship-
ped, in the schooner Hamilton, 600 barrels of flour.   She left
here in the afternoon, (when the weather had turned very cold,)
and in consequence of some  difficulty  with  the  draw, she had
to anchor close to the bridge, and the ice making very hard that
night or next day, which caused her to lay there  about a month
in great danger.   If she had not been detained at the bridge I
should have been able  to  have realized $600 to $800 on the
flour more than I did;  consequently I estimated that as my loss
at the time as chargable to the bridge.   There is no doubt with
me, that the bridge is a great injury to the commerce and chan-
nel of Georgetown, and would be still more  so by a railroad
crossing there, while there was any commerce left to George-
town, to pass through it.  As  an example of it, I saw yester-
day a small fish vessel beating up to the bridge,  which was one
hour and a quarter  getting through, the draw being open all
the time.   I was on my way to  Alexandria at  the  time, and
was in a position to see, and noted it at the time.  On niy re-
turn this morning,  I learned that the same  vessel was injured
in her sails in passing  through.
                              Respectfully yours,
                                CHARLES WILSON.
District of Columbia,
     Washington County,  to wit:
   On the  8th day  of April, 1856,  before me, the subscriber,
one of the justices  of  the peace  in and for  the said county,
personally  came Charles Wilson  and made oath on  the Holy
Evangely  of  Almighty God, that the foregoing  statement
is true as therein stated.
   Subscribed and sworn to before me.
                             Henry Reaver,
                                    Justice of the  Peace.
                            K,
  This is to state  that  I  have been  employed  as  clerk
Treasurer of the corporation of Georgetown—the former , 
44
from 1791, and the latter office from about ten years afterwards,
both to the present time.   During the most of that long period,
I also served as Secretary of the Board of Aldermen of said
corporation.  In these positions I became necessarily cognizant
of all the measures of the corporation ;  and in regard to  the
most prominent or important of these measures, I think I  can
generally rely upon the accuracy of  my memory, particularly
when aided by records and vouchers,  which  have always been
in my possession.   I have a distinct recollection of the extra-
ordinary flood in 1784.  Before that  event it was not usual for
large merchant vessels to approach the  town through that arm
of the river between Mason's  Island and the Virginia shore—
for what reason I do not know—but such vessels came to  the
town through the  eastern arm of that river.
  In the winter of 1783 and '84, the weather was intensely cold,
and  the ice became unusually thick and hard.  Early in  the
spring of the latter year,  say in March, there came  down  the
river the heaviest flood that perhaps was ever witnessed  here;
the torrent was so large and rapid that the ice in the Potomac,
for miles above Georgetown, became broken, and descended  the
river in  immense masses.   From some  cause or other, the ice
became  obstructed in its passage down the  river immediately
opposite this town, and there accumulated to the height of  say
30 or 40 feet; there being then an immense volume of  water
in the river, it turned from what was known as  the eastern
channel into the arm of the river between Mason's Island and
the Virginia shore, and reduced its bed  to a considerable depth.
For some  years after this occurrence  large merchant vessels
arrived at and departed from Georgetown through that channel.
At a still later period it was discovered that  the ohannel lead-
ing to the town below Mason's Island was becoming somewhat
shallow, and the attention of our city councils and citizens gen-
erally became a good deal directed to that  fact—perhaps  dif-
ferent plans to remove  the evil were  considered—and eventu-
ally, about the year 1804 and '05, a Quaker gentlemen of some
eminence as a practical engineer, then living in Maryland,  was
called upon  by the corporation of the town to examine the con-
dition of our river, and to submit a plan for its improvement and
the prevention of bars in the channel below  the island.    I
am very certain  Mr. Moore  recommended the building of a
causeway between the island and the  Virginia shore as the best
plan to  cure the  evil, and have never  since heard  that  fact
doubted until now.  Mr. Thomas  Moore, the engineer,  not
only recommended the building  of the causeway, but built  it 
45
himself under a contract with the corporation  of Georgetown
for $24,000, and which was  paid him by the corporation.  I
add, also, that the rebuilding of the causeway being so clamer-
ously called for by a large portion of the citizens of the town,
it was  recently rebuilt by the  corporation at  an expense of
$8,741.34.                            JOHN MOUNTZ.
  Sworn to by John Mountz to the best of his knowledge and
belief April 8th, 1856.
District of Columbia,
     Washington County,  to wit:
  I hereby certify that the  above  instrument  of  writing was
subscribed and sworn to by John Mountz  before me this 8th
day of April, 1856.
  Witness my hand.                   Henry Reaver,
                                      Justice of the Peace,
                           L.
District of Columbia,
     Washington County, to wit:
  On this 7th day of April,  1856, before me, the subscriber, a
justice of the peace in and for  said county,  personally ap-
peared William E. Bell, who, after being sworn upon the Holy
Evangely of Almighty God,  deposed as follows:  that  he has
been engaged during the last ten years in sailing vessels to and
from the port of Georgetown, D. C.; seven years of that timo
he was employed as mate  and captain  of the steamer  Salem,
and that he has  had constant  opportunities of witnessing the
passage of vessels through the  draw of the Long Bridge.  On
one occasion, about  five years sinoe, while the steamer Joseph
Johnson was towing the schooner Industry from Alexandria to
Georgetown, when the wind was blowing so hard that she could
not otherwise have passed through the draw; that said schooner,
on passing, struck upon the  side  of the draw of the bridge, and
was so much injured by the  collision that she  sunk within an
hour afterwards—but cannot state to what amount that vessel
and her cargo was injured.  About a year after that accident,
he says that the schooner Susan  was  on her way from George-
town to Alexandria, when there was considerable current in the
river, and a light wind blowing, she struck against the draw ot
the Potomac Bridge, lost her jib-boom and top-mast, and had
her rigging much injured, and understood at the time  that her
injuries amounted  to  the  sum  of five  hundred dollars.  On
another occasion, within the last  twelve months, he  was em- 
46
ployed in towing down the river,  by his own steamer,  the
schooner Arctic, when said schooner struck the side of  the
draw and was much injured,  but  cannot say what amount of
money it required to repair her damages.  He saw the steamer
Maryland, half an hour after she  had struck the bridge, and
would judge that her injuries amounted to two hundred dollars.
He says, further, that his own steamer has often been injured
while  attempting to pass  through  the draw, but the damages
were  not at  any one time very heavy.   He  further  deposes,
that he  has known of many occasions when vessels have laid
below the bridge three or four  days because they could not pass
through the draw with any hope of safety.  That he has known
it  has often  happened that the river was entirely navigable
below the bridge when navigation had been suspended between
the bridge and Georgetown by ice  for weeks.   The ice could
not escape in consequence of the obstruction presented by the
bridge.                           WILLIAM E. BEALL.
  Signed and sworn to this  7th day of April, 1856.
                                 Lewis Carbery,
                                      Justice of the Peace.
                           M.
               Office Swanton Coal and Iron Co,,
            57 Exchange Place, Baltimore, April 5, 1856.
The Hon. Mayor and Councils of the City of Georgetown.
  Gentlemen :  The Swanton Coal and Iron Company respect-
fully represent that they have established a depot, and erected
wharfs and fixtures at great expense, for the shipment of coal at
Georgetown.   These expenditures were made  on the faith of
the assurance  that  the ordinances of the council provided  ap-
propriations for deepening the  channel of the  river below
Georgetown,  sufficiently  to  allow  ordinary  coal  vessels  to
pass freely.  The  depth of the water required, should not be
less than  15 feet.   The time for commencement of coal ship-
ment is rapidly approaching, and it is the opinion of this com-
pany that no time should be lost in deepening the channel, and
they respectfully request the council to take such action as will
insure the desired result.   If coal vessels experience difficulty
in getting to Georgetown, the trade must pass on to Alexandria,
to be lost to your city, and our expenditures will be valueless.
  All of which is repectfully submitted on the part of the com-
pany,              Your obedient servant,
                          THOMAS JOHNS, Secretary. 
47
                           N.

             Office of the Union Ferry Co. of Brooklyn",
                                   April 4, 1856.
Hon. Fernando Wood :
  Sir—The estimated number of passengers passing the seven
ferries of the Union Ferry Co.,  per day, (exclusive of persons
in vehicles,) is 83,000.   Number of vehicles 4,167.
                    Very respectfully,
                            Your ob't serv't,
                                       J. A. PERRY,
                                             Treasurer*
                            0.
  On this 12th day of April, 1856, before me, the subscriber,
one of the justices of the peace in and for the county of Wash-
ington, D. C, personally came Joseph Ratcliff, and made oath
on the Holy Evangely of God, that  about 15 or 20 years ago
he  had  three vessels engaged in carrying  fire-wood to the
Georgetown market, he had one of his vessels seriously injured
in going through the draw of the Potomac Bridge, it being al-
most impossible to go through the draw of the bridge when the
wind is ahead; that on account of the injury to his vessel, he
incurred a heavy expense in repairs to his vessel, beside the
loss of time in the use of his vessel while being repaired.
  Sworn to before me the day and year above written.
                                 HENRY REAVER,
                                    Justice of the Peace.
                            P.
  On this 15th day of April, 1856, before me, the  subscriber,
a justice of the peace in and for Washington county, District
of Columbia, personally appeared Jon. D. Cathell,  who, after
being sworn on the Holy Evangely of Almighty God, deposed
as follows :  That some five or six winters since, he was in com-
mand  of  the  schooner Statesman; that early in  December,
when there had been a slight freeze and a subsequent thaw, he
proceeded with his vessel, towed by a steamboat, from George-
town ; that the ice was broken in the harbor of Georetown, but
had been driven by a north-west wind against the bridge ; that
the steamboat, when within a quarter of a mile of said bridge*
was obstructed somewhat by the ice on the surface ;  that when 
48
Within fifty feet of the draw, the steamboat became entirely ob-
structed in its passage> and after several ineffectual attempts to
push her way through, he went with his vessel's boat below the
bridge, where  the river was free from ice, and proceeded to
examine the draw ; that he found the  ice packed to the depth
of more  than ten feet from the upper part of the draw to where
the steamboat stopped, presenting a barrier through which no
boat could force its way ; that  it was ebb tide, and the pieces
of ice packed in and above the draw being not more than  two
inches thick, by means of his boat and oars, he removed them
piece by piece, and in this labor was detained several hours.
                                     J. D. OATHELL.
  Subscribed and sworn  to before me  this 15th day of April,
1856.                                          J     F  i
                      Henry Reaver,
                             Justice- of the Peace. 
*