IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

1.25

1^1^ 12.5
1^ IM III 2.2

i '- IIIIIM

1.8

U III 1.6

^"^

Photograpliic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 873-450i

v^ ^\ W^

K%:^

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

D
D

Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur

I I Covers damaged/

Couverture endommagde

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde

I I Cover title missing/

Le titre de couverture manque

I I Coloured maps/

Cartes gdographiques en couleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)

I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/

Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other material/
Relid avec d'autres documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La re Mure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intdrieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas dtd filmdes.

The
to th

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modificax'on dans la mdthode normale de filmage
sont indiquds ci-dessous.

I I Coloured pages/

Pages de couleur

Pages damaged/
Pages endommag^es

□ Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes

Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages ddcolordes, tachet^es ou piqudes

Pages detached/
Pages d^tachdes

Showthrough/
Transparence

Quality of prir

Quality indgale de I'impression

Includes supplementary materii
Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire

Only edition available/
Seule Edition disponible

The
poss
of th
fiimi

Origi

begii

the

sion,

othe

first

sion.

or illi

I I Pages detached/

r~7| Showthrough/

I I Quality of print varies/

I I Includes supplementary material/

I I Only edition available/

The
shall
TINU
whic

Mapt
diffei
entin
begin
right
requi
meth

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont dt6 filmdes d nouveau de fa^on d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.

Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl6mentaires;

Various pagings: [1 - 3] - 16, [1 - 3] - 32 p.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/

Ce document est fiim6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous.

10X

14X

18X

22X

26X

SOX

12X

16X

20X

24X

28X

32X

The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

Library of the Public
Archives of Canada

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "COI^-
TINUED"). or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the ijpper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grflce A la
gAn6rosit4 de:

La bibliothdque des Archives
pubiiques du Canada

Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetd de l'exemplaire i\\m6, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'iilustration, soit par le second
plat, seion le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'iilustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparaitra s<ir la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le
symbols V signifie "FIN ".

Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
fiim6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clich6, il est fiimd i partir
de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mithode.

■**

' #

V <

/:]

C3 '^'w'i.2*5^iri

THE CANADIAN ENGINEER

OF TTTE

YTCTOEIA BEIDGE.

i^Y A MONTREALER ;

10 WHICH IS AODEli

THE VICTORIA BRIDGE,

AT MONTREAL, CANADA.

Sl()o is nititleb U \\n atiiit of its Couception ?

01!,

A SHORT HISTORY OF ITS ORIGIN.

BY A CANADIAN.

PRINTED BY JOHN LOVELL, ST. NICHOLAS STREET.

ISGO.

• *«»■

' i' #~

.*•'

5%.

*■

THE

CANADIAN ENGINEER

OP TUE

VICTORIA BRIDGE.

BY A MONTREALER.

PRINTED BY JOHN LOVELL, ST. NICHOLAS STREET.

1860.

INTllODUCTION.

\'^

In the description, which was published in 1853, of
the first design for the Victoria Bridge, the similarity to
the one designed by a Canadian Engineer was evident.
In proof of this, Mr. Stephenson in his report of Nov.,
1855, remarks that "in the first design for the Victoria
Bridge ice-breakers very similar to those described in Mr.
Reefer's report, were introduced," &c. From the
description which appeared in the papers, it was
manifest that a very large use was about to be
made of the views of the Canadian Engineer ; but
as no acknowledgment was given, he determined at
once to publish his report and plan, for which the con-
sent and assistance of the Hon. John Young (Chairman
of the Committee by whom he had been employed) was
readily obtained. In his letter authorising the publication
Mr. Young said : " as I am most der rous that you should
*' get full justice as to your ideas resp jcting the Bridge,
*' which I know are original with you, and of which
" there is a fair chance you are about to be unjustly de-
*' prived, I beg you will at once report and publish,
*' addressed to me as late Chairman of the Provisional
*' Committee of the Montreal and Kingston road, or in
" any other way you may see fit so as to get out your
" report, and for any expense attending the printing you
" can draw on me, and we will trust to Providence to
*' get it back."

It is worthy of remark that this report was published,
not at the instance of the Grand Trunk Company, the
contractors, or of any of their em[)]oyees, but purpose-
ly to protect the claims of the Canadian Engineer, and
to meet the question which it was foreseen would arise.
No further allusion was made to the subject until 1^56,
when, after three years of fruitless efforts to obtain sim-
ple payment for his survey (which the Company were
bound by law to assume) he was compelled to petition
the legislature, when he stated that " he was prepared
to prove that the contract for the Bridge was based upon
his survey, none other having at that time been made^'' This
assertion has never been contradicted ; — on the contrary
Mr. Stephenson (the arbitrator proposed by Mr. Keefer)
at once allowed the amount claimed. Before the report
was issued here the proof-sheets were forwarded to Mr.
Stephenson, who had been entrusted with the responsi-
bility of the undertaking, and a letter of acknowledg-
ment was received from him, stating that he had not up
to that time given any attention to the subject ; so that
this report (which he has publicly characterised as *' an
admirable" one) was before him when he matured his
plans.

Under these circumstances, the omission (in the opening
proceedings which took place last year) of all reference to
the Canadian Engineer whose views have been so largely
incorporated into the structure, naturally excited the sur-
prise of those who were familiar with its history. The
writer of this, who had taken an interest in the Bridge
question before the Grand Trunk Company were in exis-
tence, — and whose early doubts had been removed by
reading Mr. Keefer's report, — published in the Montreal
Gazette, under his own initials, a letter claiming for the
Canadian Engineer equal honor with the English Engi-
neers whose names have been engraved by the Contract-
ors, without the sanction of the Directors, upon the por-

t. ■;

tals of the structure. Shortly aftor this, a similar omis-
sion in the London Times of January last, drew out a
Canadian'uentleman, — one who lias l)een connected with
the Press, and is the author of several pamphlets upon
the Railways and Commerce of Canada, — who, feeling
keenly the injustice done to his countryman, published a
pamphlet in London, where he was staying, containing
the communications and editorials which had appeared
in the Canadian papers, with an introduction and
copious extracts from ]\[r. Reefer's Report, provmg the
identity between his views therein expressed and the
structure as completed.

In consequence of these publications and the discufy-
sions to which they gave rise, the Hon. Mr. Allan, a na-
tive Canadian and school-fellow of the Enmneer, intro-
duced the subject into the Legislative Council in May
last, and obtained an unanimous expression of opinion
that Mr. Reefer's name should be placed upon the Bridge,
beside those of the En<»lish Eniz:ineers. On that occasion
a Director of the Company stated that the Board had had
nothing to do with the present inscription, and promised
to bring tlie matter before them at their next meeting.
This it is understood has been done ; but the Directors,
Vi^hile acknowledging Mr. Reefer's merits, &c., have de-
clined to interfere with the arranu-ements of their con-
tractors. One of the leading daily nt, vvspapers ascribes
this inaction to old differences between the contractors
and several of the Board on one side, and Mr. Reefer,
who it is well known has openly opposed the policy of
the Company as to its political connections and consecpu^.nt
unprofitable extensions ; as to its guage, as proclaim-
ing non- intercourse with the markets of the Atlantic
States ; — and as to the control exercised by the contrac-
tors in the organization of the Board of Directors and of
the Engineer Department, and in the location of the
railway.

The challenge thrown down by the friends of Mr.
Keefer, in the introduction of this subjcict into the Legis-
lative Council, the highest body in Canada, cannot bo
disregarded, even thougli the explicit statements made in
the press of Canada, the scientific journals of the United
States and in London, might be overlooked. While, how-
ever, discussion is avoided, and it is not known whether the
Directors, the Contractors or their Engineer dispute the
position assumed for the Canadian Engineer (which is,
that all which is peculiar — all which distinguishes this
Bridge from any other — is derived from him) the inscrip-
tion points to an intended though peaceful absorption of
his ideas ; and his friends are therefore compelled to lay
the facts before the public in order that the question
may be fully understood at a time when public attention
is so prominently directed towards this great work.

rUOVIXCIAL PARLIAMENT.

LE(;iSLATlVK COUNCIL.

Reported for the Montreal Gazette.

MR. KEEFER AND THE VICTORIA BRIDGE.

Quebec, Miiy Itli, 1860.

Hon. Mr. Allan said lliat before the orders of the day were called,
there was a subject to Avhich he desired to call the attentiuti of the
House and which he desired the Government to hear. The subject was
one connected with the expected visit of Ilis Royal Highness the Prince
of Wales to this Province. There were peculiar circumstances con-
nected with tlie claims which he was about to mention, which rendered
the present an appropriate time to draw attention to them. Tiie Rail-
roads, Canals, and Bridges of the Province could compare favorably with
those of any other part of the world. Among our Railroads stood pro-
minent that noble road stretcliing from one end of the Province to the
other, the Grand Trunk. This groat road however would not be what
it is were it not for the connecting link of the Victoria Bridge, the open-
ing of which was tlie principal object of the approaching Royal visit.
Many persons eminent in the sciences, among others of rank and wealth,
would accompany His Royal Highness on that occasion. It was true
that for many of our public work?, the Province was indebted to British
capitalists — and especially was the Victoria Bridge so indebted for their
timely aid. It was also true that one of England's greatest engineers
had given the sanction of his name to the Victoria Bridge. But it was
also true that that great work was indebted in the first place for its con-
ception to Canadian skill. To a Canadian engineer was due the first
enunciation of the scheme of laying down the present bridge in the place
where it now stands. In 1847 Hon. Mr. Young of Montreal and the
Finance Minister obtained a survey of the St. Lawrence in order to see
if it were possible to erect the bridge. The survey was carried on by
an engineer of experience, but this gentleman reported that the scheme
of bridging at Point St. Charles was impracticable. At the same time
he reported the feasibility of building a bridge over Nun's Island. In
1851 Hon. Mr. Young obtained another survey of the St. Lawrence for
the same purpose conducted by Mr. Thos. C. Keefer, an engineer whose
talents were well known in the Province. The result of this survey
was given in a report published immediately afterwards. In this report
Mr. Keefer demonstrated the practicability of erecting the bridge in the
place where it now stands. The plans on which the bridge should be

constructed were also laid down. It was recommended that it should
be a solid railrond bridge, that it should be erected high over naviga-
tion, instead of having draw-bridges in it. A certain distance was to
intervene between the piers. It was to be for railroad traffic alone,
and lastly, and what was of greatest importance, solid approaches
should be constructed to diminish the waterway, instead of enlarging
it as miglit have been proposed, and to guard against the crush of ice.
It was wortliy of remark Ihat the present bridge was constructed pre-
cisely as this report recommended. (Hear.) In consequence of the
changes which afterwards took place in the management of the G.T.R.
the undertaking was transferred to English hands, and the work in ques-
tion was constructed by other persons. The Bridge, however, was built
in accordance with Mr, Reefer's report. (Hear.) All the leading prin-
ciples set forth in his report were adopted by the English Engineers.
This being the case, he (Mr. Allan) claimed that Mr. Keefer should not
be overlooked ; that the English Engineer should not receive the whole
of that credit, an equal portion of which was due to the Canadian. He
claimed for Mr. Keefer that his name should be engraved on the Victo-
ria Bridge beside the names of Stephenson, Ross and the other engi-
neers connected with that work, whose names were already cut upon
it. He made this proposition with the greater confidence, because on
many occasions the celebrated Stephenson had acknowledged Mr. Ree-
fer's claims with regard to the originating of the work. (Hear.) The
Grand Trunk Railroad Company had also acknowledged Mr. Reefer's
claims, for they had been compelled to pay him a certain sum for his
report, and also for his services ; and not only had justice been done to
Mr. Reefer by Stephenson and the Grand Trunk Company, but even in
the American Railroad Journals credit was given to him — not once but
on several occasions. (Hear.) Now in view of all this, Canada ought
not to be backward in acknowledging the merits of one of her sons.
He (Mr. Allan) laid these facts before the House in order that not only
might honorable gentlemen be aware of the true features of the case,
but also that they might go forth to the country. There was no doubt
that anything that might come from the Government on the subject
would have great weight ; and he appealed to his Hon. friend the Com-
missioner of Crown Lands to lend his valuable aid to see justice done
in the prcm-ses. He believed that it was just one of those subjects
which he might venture to bring before the House — especially in view
of the event which was soon to take place — the opening of the Bridge ;
and it was therefore that he ventured to trespass on the time of hono-
rable gentlemen. (Hear.)

Hon. Col. Prince would ask il.e hon. gentleman what it was that he
suggested? What did he wish to have done in the matter?

Hon. Mr. Allan did not like to suggest any positve course to the
government. It was well known that the government were in a mea-

sure identified with the Grand Trunk Company, and anything coming
from them would not fail to receive proper attention. He thought that
Mr. Keefer had a right to have his name engraven on the Victoria Bridge
besides the names of other engineers connected with that work.

Hon. Col. Prince thought it but fair that Mr. Keefer should get the
credit due to him — especially as his clams had been recognized by
Steplienson. It gave him pleasure to hear that Mr. Keefer, a Canadian,
had a hand in the great work in question. vSome time ago he had heard
Mr. Reefer's claims advocated — and now he was glad to see them sub-
stantiated. It always gave him pleasure to see Canadian talent recog-
nized, and he was glad to state, whether in this instance, or in the law,
his own profession, that rising Canadian talent was conspicuous. He
trusted that the Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands would take notice of
the matter, and see that justice was done to Mr. Ketfer.

Hon. Mr. Crawford confirmed the statement that Mr. Keefer was the
first person who had, after the survey, pointed out the spot where the
Victoria Bridge now stands. His brother, Mr. Samuel Keefer, also de-
served, perhaps, equal credit. With regard to the engraving of the
Bridge, he begged to inform the House that the Directors had had nothing
to do with it. It had been done by the Contractors. Mr. Hodges had
done it of his own accord, and at liis own expense. It was true that
Mr. Reefer's claims had been acknowledged by Mr. Stephenson, for on
that gentlemen sending in his account to the Grand Trunk Company
in connection witli the Bridge, it was disputed and referred to Mr.
Stephenson, who immediately allowed it. With regard to the engrav-
ing he did not know how it could be altered now, though he would like
to see the names of both the Reefers engraved on the Bridge. He did
not know what the Governnent intended to do in the matter. For his
own part he would be happy to meet the wishes of the Mon. gentleman
who had Introduced tiie subject. He suggested that perhaps Mr.
Blackwell, the Vice President of the Company, might be able to man-
age the matter. He would be glad to hear any suggestions, by which
the desired object could be accomplished.

Hon. Mr. Seymour thought that any suggeetion coming from the
Government, after all tlie money they had granted to the Company,
would go a long way. ]\Ir. Allan deserved a great deal of credit for
bringing the subject up ; and he was satisfied that any representation
from the government would bo attended to. He also bore testimony to
the fact that Mr. Stephenson had awarded to Mr. Keefer the credit of
initiating the work.

Hon. Mr. De Blaquierb thought the House would in this case, not
refuse to accord to a Canadian the credit that was due to him. He
trusted that Mr. Reefer's claims would meet with that recognition
which they deserved, and that he would be placed in that position
which, as a scientific man, he would like to occupy. When we saw the

tributes that were being daily paid to scientific men, no wonder that
Mr. Keefcr should seek for his share ; and the House very well knew,
that to a scientific man such a recognition was everything. He thought
that under the circumstances it would be impertinent in him to make
any suggestion to the Government ; but he thought that v,'hen the Prince
of Wales was about to open the Victoria Bridge, it should be the im-
mediate province of the Government to present to his Royal Highness,
among others, an Engineer who had so much to do with the success of
that work. (Hear, hear.)

Hon. Mr. VANKoroiiNGT as a Canadian was glad of Mr. Keefer's
success, and said he was sure it must be gratifying to that gentleman to
know that his talents were so highly appreciated in the House. No one
could be more anxious to recognize Canadian merit than he (Mr. V.).
Perhaps he was even bigoted in the desire to do cj. With regard to the
claims of Mr. Kcefer, he believed that they had been hand" jraely ac-
knowledgCil already, as mentioned by other honorable gentlemen, and
also by journalists. The Guvernment, he would inform the House, had
no power over the Victoria Bridge, but he was sure they would do honor
to Mr. Keefer, or to any one who had so distinguished himself as Mr.
Keefer had. With regard to the approaching visit, he would repeat what
had passed in debate, and of course proper action would be determined
on. Even, however, if the matter was to go no further, it would be gra-
tifying to Mr. Keofer to know that the council had mentioned his name
so honorably.

Hon. M. CuAWFORu again remarked, in connection with the insertion
of Mr. Keefer's name on the bridge among those already engraved, that
the letters were engraved on a peculiar kind of stone, and it would de-
stroy all proportion if Mr. Keefer's were inserted ; and to put on any other
Stone would not do. However, he intended to bring the matter before
the Directors at their next meeting, which would be on the 23rd of May,
after which there would be time enough to make the necessary altera-
tions, if determined on. (Hear, hear.)

The subject then dropped.

Extracts /mm " Glance at the Victoria Bt'idge and the men who
huilt it,'' hy CiiARLES Leqge, C. E., an Engineer employed
on the work.

" The conduct of this important survey was intrusted to Mr. T. C.
Keefer, a young Canadian engineer of great talent, but at that time more
widely known for the clear, able, and eloquent manner in which, as a
writer, he had advocated various public works of utility, than as being
the possessor of that practical ability afterv/ards displayed in the origin-
ation and construction of some of the finest hydraulic works on the con-
tinent."

It
le
|c

rs
to

" A better selection could scarcely have been made for this work,
than the professional gentleman in question, from his intimate acquain-
tance with the St Lawrence in all its yearly changes, acquired in the
prosecution of extensive hydrographic surveys lately carried on for the
Proviucial Government, together with the S( hooling obtained as engi-
neer of the works on the Ottawa, a river second only to the one he was
now to contend with. In fact, the wisdom displayed in the choice of
Mr. Keofer for this onerous office, is abundantly demonstrated by the
bold and original views he took of the subject, and the able and scienti-
fic embodiment of them in the plans and report laid before the directors."

" The bridge, as thus arranged, contained twenty-two piers and two
abutments, with solid approaches from either shore, extending out to a
depth of live feet of water, and measuring 1350 feet on one side and
1710 feet on the other, making the entire length of the bridge about 10
thousand feet. This is the first instance in the history of the bridge, of
embankments being made use of, and regarded as an essential feature
in the design, &c."

" From this, Mr, Keefer draws the inference, that if the bordage-ice
can be retnined in situ and the taking over of the Laprairie bay ex|)edit-
cd, a very large proportion of the supply furnished for the dams would
be cut off and their extent correspondingly diminished, which duty he
proposed to accomplish by the solid approaches from either side of the
river, thus converting them into a source of protection, rather than, as
many would suppose, of danger from any anticipated rise of water which
might follow their construction. We regret that this occasion does not
admit of more than the foregoing imperfect synopsis of this ingenious
theory, and the clear and able arguments with which it is substantiated
by the originator."

Referring to Mr. Reefer's objections to suspension bridges, Mr.

Legge says ;

" In thus disposing of this character of roadway Mr. Keefer had th3
satisfaction afterward of having his views fully and strongly substantiated,
as will be seen when we come to the designs as prepared by Messrs. Ste-
phenson and Ross."

" The importance of substituting imperishable for perishable and inflam-
mable material in the erection of this great bridge, was strongly felt by
Mr. K'^efer, who had in viev the tubular principle as discovered and deve-
loped by Mr. Stephenson ; but as its adoption would email an additional
expenditure of $2,000,000 he knew it would prove a fatal condition to
the then purely private commercial project, if dem.anded as an essential
feature in the design. He insisted however on the centre span being four
hundred feet in length and surmounted by a tubular iron beam, at an
additional expense of $112,000 than if it were of less width and built of

'^,

wood. This he considered essential for the navigation, as well as to
afford security against the chimneys of passing steamboats and cutting
off communication in the event of fire occurring, thereby exposing only
half of the structure to destruction."

" We have cndeavou-ed to give a short accout of this bold proposal for
crossing the St, Lawrence, at a point pronounced impraticable by Mr.
Reefer's predecessors, but are aware of the utter impossibility in this
imperfect sketch of doing the subject that justice to which it is entitled.
The idea brought forward cf carrying the railway traffic over the St.
Lawrence, above the tallest masts of the lake craft, on a structure that
would bid defiance to all the powers of the river, must have been as
startling to the committee, as was the nearly similar project of Robert
Stephenson to the Hritisli House of Parliament. It is true, the genius of
that illustrious man was to be invoked in the erection of the tube over
the channel, and, did the means admit, the remaining tubes likewise ;
but at the same time, apart from this, every unprejudiced mind must
admit, as did Stephenson himself, that an enormous stride towards suc-
cess had been taken by Reefer ; that he had in fact solved the problem,
in reducing the question from a dead impossibility to a living certainty.
The father of the bridge and his friends could now exult iu this success-
ful result as an earnest of what mrst speedily follow."

As <a proof of the similarity between the present structure and
that designed by Mr. Kcefer, the following is taken from the tabu-
lar statement in Mr. Lcircre's work.

73 .

f->

Names of Engineers.

Description

Structure.

bf.

re
o .

54- O

o ,

'o .

O ri

r !"

rS *-

T ^ T c

— o

1^1

«e

si O e«.5

r,S

t»

'<.

- 1^
1

-J

Mr. T. C. Keefor

Stone & Iron....

10000

100

1
1

400! 250

30fi0
abuts.

0040

Stephenson & Ross

Stone & Iron.,..

9181

330| 24-2

2000

0594

Extract from " A Brief Histori/ " of the Victoria Bridge, hy F.
N. Boxer, Esq., C. E. (pp- 27-28.)

" To Mr. Keefer was Mr. Stephenson indebted for all the valuable
data collected and mentioned in Mr. Reefer's Report, and this Engineer
is justly entitled to the full credit of having designed the first plan of a
bridge over the St. Lawrence which could have been successfully carried
nto effect, as has been subsequently proved by the construction of the
Victoria Bridg-e on nearly the same site."

OPINIONS OF AMERICAN ENGINEERS.

From the Railway Tijncs, Boston.

The original design of this bridge is due to a Canadian Engineer,
Thomas C. Kecfer Esq., whose published Report in 1852 fixes the site
and determines the general arrangement of the structure, which has
been but little modified in execution. He also in a long and elaborate
argument, demonstrates, as far as such a thing could be done on paper,
that a bridge could be built to resist the ice, and that its ellect would be
to diminish instead of increasing the winter floods.

Such was the state of the enterprise in 1852, but the bridge would
probably not have been built had it not been undertaken by the Grand
Trunk Railway Company and adopted as part of their vast scheme.

The late Mr. Stephenson came to Canada, and after examining the
proposed location and plan with great care, gave Mr. Koefer's views the
sanction of his great name, and assumed the responsibility of construct-
ing the bridge. Had he given an adverse opinion, it is not too much to
say that the capital would never have been raised in England. As his
whole professional reputation Avas at stake, he gave the closest atten-
tion to the details of construction. All the working drawings were
made in his office at Westminster, and bear the signature of his princi-
pal assistant, G. A. Stephenson, and no alterations were permitted with-
out his sanction. Some of the friends of Mr. Stephenson's resident en-
gineer in Ciinada, Mr. A. M. Ross, have claimed for him the credit of
the design. Mr. Stephenson's friends deny this point blank. Mr Ross
himself has said nothing. The bridge bears a tablet on which is en-
graved, in lasting characters, the names of Robert Stephenson and A. M.
Ross, engineers. In. the absence of futher evidence, we must declare
that the honor of designing this huge structure lies with Keefer, Steven-
son and Ross ; how much belonging to each, perhaps it would be unpro-
fitable to enquire.

From the Railroad Journal, New York

In 1851, Mr. Thomas C. Keefer, a Canadian Engineer, was employed
by the Montreal and Kingston Railroad Co., to examine the site with a
view to an estimate of cost upon some definite plan. Probably no person
could have been selected better able to measure, safely, the difficulties to
be encountcrd from the phenomena referred to. Mr. Keefer had for j'eara
been familinr with the locality, and his experience had been extensive
upon the Canadian rivers. The ice phenomena had been his study, and
the very able report made by him in 1853 showed that he fully understood
his subject."

In concluding a long article, the writer, speaking of Mr. Kee-
fer says :

The whole matter had been carefully considered by the most experi-
enced and^competent engineer in Canada, who was " to the manner born,"
and who saw the whole thing in a correct light.

REPORT OF AX EXGLTSH EXCINEER.

[Although the first design for the Bridge adopted tlie wooden
icebreakers proposed by Mr. Keefer, this was subscr|uently changed
and these were made of stone and attached to the pier. In de-
fending tliis change it was said that this cribwork " would occupy
25 per cent, of the water breadth of the river," and this was given
as " one of the most prominent reasons for their abandonment."
It is but justice to IMr. Keefer to call attention to the fact that,
after having tried other methods, the plan of cribwork cofferdams
as proposed by him was found to be the most efficient, and by these
the greater part of the work has been done. The debris of these
dams remains, and is likely to remain, so that a greater portion "of
the water breadth of the river" is now occupied, than in his plan.
The question naturally arises, whether, had it been foreseen that
this expense and obstruction could not be avoided, the English Engi-
neers would not have held to their first design and have converted
these cribs into icebreakers, and thereby diminished the cost of the
masonry in the piers and abutments.]

Mr. Chas. Liddell, the Engineer of the Crumlin A^iaduct, in
his report thus alludes to this subject :

Mr. Keefor proposed that the "shoes" should serve during the con-
struction of the bridge as coffer-dams^ ^'composed of the cheapest materials."
Mr. Ross, Paragraph 17, reminds us that from "the description he has
"given of the nature of the foundations to be dealt with, he need not
" recount the difficulties which, under such circumstances, would present
" themselves " to making use of the crib-work shoes as cofter-dams.

In Parn graph 19, Mr. Ross says, " our present dams are generally about
" 5 to 6 feet above summer-water level, and cover an area corresponding
" nearly ivith that described ; latterly we have constructed them, similar to
" these, filling the external barrier [of wood cribs] xoith stone and the inner
*' with clay, necessary to render them water-tight."

And thus it appears that in the course of writing the short Paragraph
18, the difficulties which " tlie large boulders heaped together, forming
" the bed of the river in most parts, the interstices filled with gravel,
" sand, and mud " presented, and which he thought it needless to "recount"
have vanished, and his present dams are similar to Mr. Reefer's shoes,
and have been rendered water-tight by the usual simple means of clay-
puddle filled into the inner cribs.

The assertion in Paragraph 18 that " these quarter-acre islands would
•' occupy 25 per cent, of the water breadth of the river," must not, for
Mr. Reefer's sake, be passed unnoticed. Mr. Reefer proposed 22 clear
Bpana of 240 feet, with one of 400 feet.

"J
ims

[ese

lesc

an.

hat

The Victoria Briflge is to consist of 24 spans of 242 feet clear, and one
of 330 feot. The (liffercnce in water-wiy then of the two designs is only
458 feet ; or, the water-way between the " islands " was 7 per cent, less
than between the proposed piers.

Now, considering tliat since the contract for the Victoria Bridge was
made, a reduction in water-way has been made to the extent of 1332 feet,
or three times the difference between the water-way proposed by Mr.
Keefer, and that now adopted, this allusion to the proportion occupied
by the " islands" docs not bear examination.

From the Toronto Globe, June 30, 18G0.

THE VICTORIA BRIDGE.
The Hamilton Spectator informs its readers that the Hon. John Rosa
does not intend to place Mr. Reefer's name upon the Victoria Bridge,
notwithstanding the unanimous feeling displayed in the Legislative
Council in favour of this measure of simple justice. Mr. Ross, it a])pears,
thinks that the Canadian Engineer should be satisfied with the very gen-
eral expression of opinion in his fiivour by the press and the country; but
in this he is manifestly inconsistent, for, if deserving of so much, he is
equally entitled, with the English engineers, to the permanent record of
his merits. A Director of tlie Company stated in his place in the Legis-
lative Council that the contractors had arranged the inscription, and the
Spectator truly says, "this is a sufficient explanation why no mention of
Mr. Reefer's name was made, for he has been bitterly opposed to and by
the contractors." As our contemporary does not go further upon a deli-
cate point, we will supply the omission. When in 1855 additional aid
was granted to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the Legislature, sus-
picious of the management, insisted that the road sliould be examined by
engineers not connected with the Board of Works or the Railway Com-
pany, and Mr. Cayley agreed tliat Mr. Reefer (who was unconnected
with the contractors or the Government) should be employed for the
purpose. This promise was fulfilled so far as that the appomtment was
made, during the absence of the Hon. John Ross in England ; but th'
contractors' agents succeeded in delaying action until his return, when
it was revoked, the Conservative section yielding to the Hincksites of
the Cabinet. Two contractors' engineers were appointed, and " things
were made pleasant " all round. Everything was found right, and the
money was paid. On tlie re-assembling of the Legislature, however,
explanations were demanded, and were so awkwardly given aa to call
from Mr. Reefer a prompt and decisive disproval of the sincerity of the
reasons alltidged by members of the Government in tlie Upper and Lower
Houses, both of whom are now Directors of the Grand Trunk Railway.
Attacked by the contractors and their Hincksite allies for this presump-
tion, he replied, and proved that the inspecting engineers were really

the nominees of the Grand Trunk Railway contractors, and that the
inspection was a sham. He said the road had been located to cheapen
the cost to the contractors (who had appointed one of their own serv-
ants as the Company's engineer) and to promote land speculations.
Also, that the curves and inclines were more numerous than they should
be, and tiie latter steeper than the contract allowed. Time has proved
the truth of all these assertions. Miies of the railway between Cobourg
and Port Hope have been abandoned, and the road is taken back upon
the original survey made by Mr. Kecfer ; while in other places a large
expense has been incurred to protect it from the Lake. At Port Britain
the road was, to its manifest injury, brought down to the water level in
a foolish attempt to build up a new harbour on Lake Ontario ; and at
other points stations have been established for the purpose of selling
lots — to the destruction of local traffic, it being as easy and cheap to
travel by the old roads from town to town as to get on and off the Rail-
way.

Another circumstance which excited the hostility of influential parties
was that in some lectures delivered before the University of McGill
College, Montreal, previous to the explanations referred to, Mr. Keefer
exposed the manner in which railway contractors, directors, and engin-
eers might combine for the purpose of plundering shareholders and
municipalities, and warned young engineers against such corrupting in-
fluences. Although there was nothing personal in these lectures, he
was bitterly assailed for his outspoken views ; and considering how
difiicult of proof such rascalities are, many respectable persons no
doubt thought that the statements were over-drawn. But the revelations
which followed the death of a large contractor in the West, showed not
only the weakness of human nature, but the enormous sums contractors
can afford to pay to a single individual, and the great temptation to
which our public men are consequently exposed. In the controversy
which followed this expose^ he did not spare either Ross the president, or
Ross the engineer, or the contractors who had appointed them both ;
and we are not therefore surprised that the}' should now oppose the de-
mand made on his behalf by the press and in the Legislature.

Judging the comparative merits of the surviving engineers by the
above authorities few will dispute that in putting the English engineers'
names on the Bridge portals and in leaving the Canadian's off, gross
injustice has been done ; and although the contractors and their friends
in the direction will no doubt succeed in punishing him for his want of
subserviency, we believe with the Quebec correspondent of the Pi7o/,
that Mr. Reefer's name '* will be engraved on the heart of every sensible
" man " who understands anything of the subject.

THE

YICTOEIA BRIDGE,

AT MONTREAL, CANADA.

mo is ««**««« *" t*!' *^"^«'^" "* "* (ffa»«p«on

OB,

A SHORT HISTORY OF ITS ORIGIN

BY A CANADIAN

LONDON :
PRINTED BY JOHN KING & CO., 63. QUEEN STREET, CHEAPSIDE.

1860.

Prin

pliai

Will

taki

be 1

pub

desi

hou

con

La^

peo

infi

fac

las

the

eff(

tro

lli(
W

ca
mi
in

hi
re
m
h

P
c

T
G

THE VlCTOrJA BEIDGE.

It being at length oflicially announced that His Royal Highness the
Prince of Wales intenas to visit Canada in May or June next, in eoiu-
pliancc with tlie invitation of the Legislature and i)eople of tlic province,
with tlie view of being present at the inauguration of tlii.^ great under-
taking, any information respecting its originators and designers, it must
be presumed, will be interesting alike to His Royal Highness and the
public at large, The writer of this notice, a Canadian by birtli, bting
desirous that the just pretensions of his countrymen to share in the
honor of conceiving the idea and demonstrating the practicability of
constructing the bridge which now spans the rapid and miglity St.
Lawrence, should not be overlooked by his Royal Highness and the
people of England, has taken the trouble to procure all the authentic
information extant in the province on this interesting- subject. The
facts thus collected vrill bo found embodied in the following pamphlet.

The Loudon Times, in an article v/hich appeared on the 5tli January
last, in ignorance no doubt of the true state of the case, has ascribed all
the credit of the conception as well as the execution of this gigantic
effort of engineering skill, to the late lamented Robert Stephenson.
The views of the Times on tlie subject will appear by the followiup- ox-
tracts from the article in question : —

" A great event has just occurred in Canada. The Victoria Bridge,
the greatest work of Robert Stephenson, has been opened for trallic.
We believe that seven years and upwards have been consumed in the
construction of this wonderful bridge, and at last a train has passed
over it, and the St. Lawrence is no longer an obstacle to free communi-
cation between the Canadas and the United States. This Bridge id the
most magnificent work of the kind in existence ; for, although -with-
in our own island we have the bridge across the Meuai Straits, yot in
every point the Victoria bridge is far superior."

" It is indeed to be doubted if ever a monument has been raised by
human hands which can oiler a prouder memorial of the race which
reared it than the Victoria Bridge. To Robert Stephenson is due the
merit of its conception ; to Messrs. Peto and Brasscy the praise ^yhich
belongs to the contractors for such a work when successfully executed."

Had Stephenson lived to have seen the announcement thus made,
his high sense of justice and delicacy of feeling would no doubt have
prompted him to have set the Tiims right in regard to the source of the
conccplioii of the Victoria Bridge. Fortunately for the fame of those
who are entitled to this credit, Mr. Stepheusou has left behind him con-
clusive evidence in their favour.

Strictly ppcfiking the *' conception " of the idea of constructing a
Briilge ncross tlic St Lawrence at Montreal may fairly bo claimed hy tlio
Honourable John Young, of that city, a gentleman to whom the pro-
vince is under great obligations for the development of many grand
projects for its commercial improvement. But to Tlionms C. Keefer,
Esq., civil engineer, a native of Canada, to use the words of the TimeSf
'• is due the merit" of demonstrating the entire practicability ofaccom-
j.lijliing this truly great work.

As his Royal Highness in order to do justice to all parties, will feel
it incumbent on him to obtain full and reliable information on this subject,
the writer has compiled the following statenient relative to the preten-
sions of his countryman, Mr. Keefer, from documents recently published
in the Canadian papers, and which have thus far remained unchallenged
as to their accuracy. He has also appended copious extracts from Mr.
Reefer's able report on the Bridge question, which was published early
in 1853, before 5Ir Stephenson had even an intimation that his services
would be required in executing the intended work. The writer trusts
that the length of these documents and extracts will not deter His
Royal Highness from making himself thoroughly familiar with the merits
of the question. It will be seen by the letter of Mr. G. R. Stephenson,
the nephew of the late Mr. Stephenson, written for the purpose of refut-
iur' the claims set up by the friends of the resident engineer, Mr. Ross,
respecting the conception and design of the Victoria Bridge, that the
pretensions of Mr. Keefer are fully admitted. But independent of these
admissions, Mr. Keefer may fairly rest his case on the plea of priority,
and the great ability displayed in his report, and on the circumstance
that this survey and report were made the basis whereon the contract-
tors undertook to perform the work, us no other survey and report had
been made at the time the contracts were let.

The writer desires to disclaim the existence of a wish or intention to
detract one iota from the great merit due to the late Mr. Stephenson for
the part which he performed in bringing into existence the work which
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales proposes to inaugurate. But
for the name of this great engineer being connected with the enterprise,
the capital for its execution could not have been raised and the time would
have passed by and the work have remained without a commencement
— a mere idea in the brains of Mr Young and Mr. Keefer, and
those who were convinced by their arguments that a bridge could be
thrown across the wide and rapid river. The only claim here advanced
is that justice should be accorded to all parties.

The writer woul'^ also remark, that in a compilation like the following
there must of necessity be found some repetition of statements, which
circumstance, however, will doubtless be overlooked by those who wish
to fully investigate the subject. As his Royal Highness, and others tak-
ing an interest in the matter, v ill no doubt be desirous of information
respecting the antecedents of a gentleman whose name cannot be over-

looked in any impfirtial history of the Victoria liridgo, the following
sketch nill not bo inapproitriate. This allusion to Mr. Kccfcr's past
life will also shew that his reputation a?! an en^Muoor does not rest wholly
upon his al)lc re[iort in favour if bridging the Ht. Lawrence. It will be
seen that he had been professionally eniploye(l ujion many iniportant
pnblic works, especially in connection with the iraprovumcnl of the navi-
gation of the Canadian rivers.

Shout Sketch oe" Mk. Kekfer's TftOFEssioxAL like.

Mr. Thomas C. Keefcr ia a native of Thorold, a township ui)on the
Welland Canal a few miles from the falls nf Niagara. His father was
the first President of the Welland Canal Company, and a Director of
that Company, and an active co-laborer with the Hon W. H. Merritt, from
the first projection of that undertaking, until its as3unipti(jn by the
Government. This connection made several of his sons engineers.
Mr Keefer's father was born in the Hritish Province of New Jersey, pre-
vious to the revolutionary war. His father (the grandfather of the en-
gineer) was a native of Franco, of German extraction, who spelled his
name Kictfcr. He joined the Loyalists and died while serving under
Sir William Howe, in New York. His property which was considerable
was confiscated and his impoverished family removed to Canada, wheie
all the Loyalist families were invited by the crown.

Mr. Thomas C. Keefer after having had the charge of an important
portion of the Welland Canal, was apjyointed to the Superintendence ot
the Ottawa Works, works to facilitate the descent of timber on the rapids
and falls of the Ottawa. In this school, he acquired that practical know-
ledge of rapids and the action of ice, which fitted him to deal with tlie
question of bridging the St. Lawrence. In 1849, he published the
" Philosophy of Railroads," a pamphlet which ran rapidly through several
editions, and led to the railway agitation, which resulted in the forma-
tion of the Grand Trunk Railway. A few weeks after this pamphlet
appeared, the official Gazette annonnced that Mr. Keefer was the success-
ful competitor for the prize offered by Lord Elgin, for the best essay on
the " Influence of the Canals of Canada on her Agriculture." In ISTiO.
Mr. Keefer was appointed to survey the rapids of the St Lawrence, and
also one of the routes of the Inter-Colonial Railway between River Du
Loup below Quebec, and the River St. John in New Brunswick. In this
survey of the rapids, he, as is mentioned in his report, had an opportu-
nity of forming an opinion upon the Bridge question.

In the following year he was appointed Chief Engineer for both the
Canadian Companies, forming the line between Montreal and Toronto,
and also of the Bridge Survey. The subsequent organization of the
Grand Trunk Company displaced the Canadian Companies, and led to
the retirement of Mr. Keefer, and the appointment of the Contractor's
Engineer, Mr. A. M. Ross. During the construction of the Grand Trunk
Railway, Mr. Keefcr has devoted himself to general practice, and has

successfully completed two of the finest engineering works in America
— the water-works of the cities of Montreal and Hamilton. lie has also
died the post of engineer to the ^Montreal Harbour Commisdion, while
carrying out their extensive Dredging Oiierations in Luke St. Peter; and
Las been connected with several of iIk; provincial railways, of one of
which he is now acting, and another cunoulting, engineer.

THE VICTOIIIA BRIDGE.

[TO THE EDITOR OF THE MOX'IUBAL GAZETTE.]

Sir. — This monument of engineering skill having been completed
,'ind now commanding the attention of tlio world, the question has
ra'iscn to whom does the credit of the same belong ? Some persons at-
tribute it to the late Robert Stephenson, others to Alex. Ross. The
former engineer has authorised a direct claim to be made on his behalf
liy G. R. Stephenson in a letter published, in the Illustrated Nrws of
•he 1st October last. The latter has allowed the credit to bo attributed
to him publicly in the newspaper above referred to as well as elsewhere,
and has by his silence sanctioned the indirect claim thus made on big
behalf. The manner in which these rival claims have been placed
before the public differs also in thic respect, that while Mr. Stephenson
does not fail to acknowledge the asbistance of others, Yir. Ross allows
the inference to be drawn that his genius alone raised the Victoria Bridge.

It m."iy be that his attention has been occupied to the exclusion of
this sr.bject, or that other good reasons may have prevented his obvi-
ating this position in which he now stands placed before the public.

Without pretending to decide on the comparative value of the pro-
fessional labors of these gentlemen, it appears right at the present time
to put on record such facts relating to this work as may prove that, al-
thougii a Stephenson or a Ross, or both of them, were instrumental in
erecting the superstructure of the Victoria Bridge, a Canadian en-
gineer was the l:rst to remove tlie almost universal impression of the
impracticability of a bridge; to demonstrate the safety and propriety
of the present site after it had lieen condemned by his only predecessor
and to lay down the engineering principles on which a bridge has
since been constructed.

In this lies the gist of the question, Stephenson's groat idea of the
tubular principle having been already embodied at the Menai Strait and
there patented by him for after ages.

It is within the memoiy of many persons that about the year 184(>
.Mr. Young and Mr. Gait obtained a survey of the St. Lawrence, with
the view of ascertaining the engineering practicatiility of building a
railway bridge across the river opposite to this city, wliioh could resist
the jtressurc of the ice without interrupting the navigable channel. This
survey was entrusted to Edward F. Gay, an American Engineer, then- in
the employ of the Columbia and Philadelpliia Railway Company, who
Imported that the dilllculties in the site selected were iusunnountuble and

. railway bridge impracticable, at the same time suggesting a line
across the Nuns' Island. It may also be reraerabored that at the time
referred to the difficulty of resisting the " ice shove " as it is termed, in
the St. Lawrence appeared to justify the dovibt whether a bridge could
be made to withstand this pressure, and if it could, whether the vast
body of water dammed back might not be turned over the city, to its
certain destruction, not forgetting the difficulty of avoiding an interrup-
tion to the navigation, a point of some importance to a people who had
expended 10,000,000 dollars to make the St. Lawrence navigable,
which also stared them in the face. At this gloomy juncture, 'Mr. Young
(be it said to his honor), with the fieal and perseverance of a Clinton,
again obtained a survey, which was commenced in 1851 and completed
in 1852, by Tliomas C. Keefer, a Canadian Engineer, when a plan of
the bridge was made and in the following spring published in a " Report
on the survfiy for the railway bridge over the St. Lawrence at Montreal,
surveyed 1851-'52 by order of the committee of the Montreal and
Kingston Railway Company, — Hon. John Young, Chairman, T, C. Ree-
fer, Esq., Fngineer."

The professional responsibility of tliis report and plan was assumed
by Mr. Kccfcr, and if there be any professional credit attached to it be
is clearly entitled thereto.

In this report Mr. Keefer states his theory as to tlie effect of a bridge
in preventing the sudden packing of the ice and consequent rise in the
water of the river ; the means to be taken to render it secure and useful
as a railway bridge, and the means of maintaining and improving the
navigable channel. The superstructure is also detailed and the com^
parative value of iron and wood stated, preference being given to the
former, but the latter recommended, " if the project is to be taken up a?
a self sustaining commercial speculation."

All which points, and the peculiarities of the present bridge as to solid
api>roacheg, to curtail the channel, as to distances between the piers, to
allow the passage of vessels and rafts, and as to a gradual rise in level,.
to avoid the necessity of a draw-bridge, are so plainly stated, that it
makes the use to which Mr. Keefcr's report was subsequently applied ,
apparent even to an unprofessional observer, and leaves the details of
Stone and iron work alone for Mr. Kecfers successors.

In 1852, after Mr. Keefer's plans were made, Mr. Ross appeared in
Canada, driving the locomotive of the Grand Trunk Company, and clai-
ming the right of way and sway for it and its engineers. He then
availed himself of the plans, knowledge, and brain-work of Mr. Keefer,
and submitted the result of his observations to Mr. Stephenson. This
gentleman in 1953 visited, professionally, the pro])oscd site of the
bridge, and v ith a slight deviation adopted Mr. Keefer's surveyed line,
his approaclies, spans and theory as to resisting the ice pacl^, candidly
stating the name of the person on whose data he chiefly relied to be
tliat of Keefer, and admitting the value of those labors, and the advan-

tages which local knowledge, combined with professional skill, gave this
Canadian engineer.

It was not until 1856 that Mr. Keefer stated his intercourse with Mr.
Ross, or made public hia claim for professional credit. This he did only
in self-defence, whilst urging against the Grand Trunk Company, hia
demand of compensation for the survey above referred to, made on account
of the Montreal and Kingston Railway Company, and assumed by the
Grand Trunk Pailway. This obligation, be it remarked, was admitted,
and paid by the Grand Trunk Company, and his claim of professional
credit now stands unchallenged.

The great and noble Stephenson did raise the superstructure that
spans the St. Lawrence. His hand is there as over the Menai Strait.
He, without the weight of whose name, the bridge had not been built,
assumed the responsibility of the work, which Mr. Ross and his assistants
have so ably executed.

But Mr. Stephenson did not forget to ascribe honor to whom honor is
due, and is it for us Canadians to ignore, or to allow to be ignored, a
fellow countryman, who stands forth to the world as worthy of an honor
that might well add lustre even to the brow of England's favored son ?
Such conduct should make us worthy of the charge of shining only by
a reflected light, and deserving of having our candle stuck under a
bushel.

Public opinion is always right, and must prevail. It did justice to the
demonstrator of the egg problem, although Amerigo for a time wore hia
master's honors, and I doubt not that hereafter, when this subject has
been winnowed, public opinion wili do justice to this Canadian Engineer,
in attributing to him the credit of being the founder of the Victoria
Bridge, a work worthy of its architect, its builders, and of the honored
name which it bears of our beloved sovereign.

"Without making this communication longer by apologies for its not
being shorter, which I found impracticable, believe me to remain, truly
yours, W. B. L.

Montreal, Dec. 22, 1859.

Letter of Mr. GEORGE ROBERT STEPHENSON.
[to the editor op the morning post.]

Sir, — In your impression of the 8th instant there appeared a letter,
under the signature of " Veritas," claiming for Mr. Alexander M. Ross, an
engineer in Canada, " the entire credit of the plan by which this bridge
has been accomplished," and designating that gentleman as " the man
to whom Canada and the world is indebted for conceiving the Victoria
Bridge, maturing it, providing for and successfully overcoming all its
diflSculties, and carrying out all the details of the plan."

The writer adds that " the position which Mr, Robert Stephenson
occupies in relation to the undertaking is a very secondary one," and he
appears to desire that the same inference should be drawn with regard

to the construction of the tubular bridges on the Chester and Holyhead
Railway, with which he describes Mr. Ross as having been " associated."

Referring to the original prospectus of the Grand Trunk Railway, he
also states — " As at this date Mr. Stephenson had no connection with
the Grand Trunk Railway, his name, of course, does not appear in the
prospectus."

Knowing, as I do, the extreme reluctance of Mr. Robert Stephenson
to make any personal statement apon any question, however nearly it
may touch his reputation, I did not consider myself authorized to notice
the letter in question until an opportunity oflfered of personally consulting
him. I now, however, request you to record the following simple facts :

1. The Mr. Alexander Ross referred to in the letter was an assistant
to Mr. Stephenson in the construction of one division of the works on
the Chester and Holyhead Railway.

He had a subordinate share in the construction of the masonry of the
bridge at Conway, but no share whatever in the construction of the
Britannia-bridge, nor was he concerned in any way in the construction
of the tubes for either structure.

2. Mr. Ross went out to Canada in 1852 as agent for the contractors
for the construction of the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada. At a sub-
sequent period he became chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Railway, a
position, however, from which he was discharged by the directors before
the completion of their line.

3. The original prospectus of the Grand Trunk Railway described the
line as " forming 964 miles of railway (including a bridge over the
St. Lawrence at Montreal) which will be constructed under the superin-
tendence of Robt. Stephenson, Esq., M. P., and A. M. Ross Esq." Mr.
Stephenson has at no time had any connection with the railway ; but as
regards the bridge, although its importance was specially pressed on the
Directors by the Hon. Mr. Young, yet so great were felt to be the
difl5culties of carrying the railway over the St. Lawrence, that no bridge
was really determined upon until Mr. Stephenson visited Canada in 1853.
Mr. Stephenson having then reported that a bridge was practicable, it
was ordered to be constructed on his plans, which adapted the principle
of the Britannia-bridge to the peculiar conditions of the river St. Law-
rence.

4. Upon the adoption of Mr. Stephenson's plan for the construction of
the bridge, Mr. Stephenson became chief engineer, and Mr. Ross resident
engineer of the bridge works. After Mr. Ross's dismissal by the directors
of the railway, Mr. Stephenson, as chief engineer, nevertheless continued
Mr. Ross in his office at the bridge.

5. Mr. Stephenson, although he has, no doubt, relied frequently and
largely upon Mr. Ross, is by no means mainly indebted to that gentleman,
as the letter would imply, even for " the data" on which his calculations
were made. Those data were chiefly collected by Mr. T. C. Keefer, before
Mr. Ross visited Canada, and Mr. Keefer handed over his material to Mr.
Ross on leaving the service of the Company.

! .;

6. All the details connected with the bridge have from first to last
been under Mr. Stephenson's supervision, and many of tliera have
been worked out in his office in London under my sole superintendence.
The whole of tlie iron work has been designed in this office. It has
been constructed, and some of the tubes put together temporarily, in
England, and it has all been shipped to Canada, with detailed drawings
and instructions, approved by Mr. Stephenson himself, so as to leave
the parties on the other side little more than the duty of putting the
pieces together as desired.

1. Mr. Ross, from his first connection with the Victoria Bridge, has
been together with the rest of the engineering staff, under the pay of
Mr. Stephenson, the chief engineer. — Mr. Ross has not ventured at
any time on any important work connected with the bridge, except
upon instructions or after consultation with Mr. Stephenson ; nor has
Mr. Ross had to bring any originality of conception or ingenuity of
adaptation to bear upon either the designs or the details since the work'
commenced.

8. The construction of the bridge was from the very first, placed in
the hands of Mr. Stephenson by the directors of the raihvay, with full
powers to appoint whomsoever he thought proper to assist him. The
directors have placed their reliance on his design and reports, and
have held him responsible for the works. Mr. Stephenson would not
have shrunk from his responsibility had any unforeseen failure or acci-
dent occurred, nor has he shrunk from defending both the principles
and details of his plan from the various attacks to which they have been
subject.

Undftr such circumstances, you will probably be of opinion that justice
to Mr. Stephenson requires that the public should be set right as to the
claim made on behalf of another, not onh- to have " conceived but to
have matured, overcome the difficulties, and carried out all the details,
of this bridge." Allow me to add, however, that it is with great reluc-
tance, and only as an act of justice to other parties concerned, that Mr.
Stephenson authorizes, and that I feel myself compelled to make this
Statement. Mr. Stephenson has always been, and always v/ill be ready
to do ample justice to Mr. Ross, who has never himself advanced the
extraordinary pretensions claimed for him by his injudicious friend in

England.

I am, &c.,

GEO. ROBT. STEPHENSOJf.
24. St. George street,

"Westminster, Sept. 22.

[From the Hamilton Spectator, Dec, 6 ]

Who is bntitlid to the honor of being ttib originator op

The Victoria Bridge ? — Two letters have appeared in the Montreal

Gazette, claiming for T. 0. Keefer, Esq., presently of Hamilton.

the honor of originating the ideas which have resulted in the building

lias
of

[at

Jpt

of the Victoria Bridge. It is said that Mr. Kcefer's report, published
in 1853, showed that the bridge should be built precisely where it now
stands ; that it should be constructed at the jiresent high level ; that
causeways should be run out into the St. Lawrence as they actually
have been ; that the distance between the piers should be within a fev,'
feet of that finally determined upon ; and that the bridge should be
used for Railway purposes only. Mr. Reefer's design was indeed for a
wooden superstructure, w-ith a centre span of iron. But this was only
on the score of economy, for this report says that " if, as he conceived
it should be, it be made to jiartakc of the character of a national work,
it should be built for all time ; the expense limited only to the means to
be attained. As a connection of the two sections of the Grand Trunk
Railway, its cost should be distributed over the whole line, and however
unprofitable it might then appear as an independent stock, it vv'ould in
a thousand direct and indirect ways be cheap at any cost." The v.riter3
in the Gazette, are unwilling that a Canadian, entitled to the credit of
virtually designing the bridge, sliould have his name less prominently
associated with the great work tlian those who merely carried out hi3
ideas, hovi'ever celebrated they may be as Engineers.

[to tub editor of the spectatoe.]

Sir, — In your notice of the Victoria Bridge in to-day's paper, some
of the statements respecting my connection with tliat work, are more
unqualified than I would wish them to bo. Jly location of the Bridgo
was not " precisely wliere it now stands," but a little lower down.
The subsequent alteration, which did not involve any princii)le, was
made by another Canadian Engineer — Mr. Samuel Kcefer, after the
contract liad been executed. Point St. Charles, being the nearest point
above the harbour, and the most convenient to the city, is the sito
which would, at first, naturally suggest itself to any engineer as the
place for the Bridge ; and but little importance would have been at-
tached to the question of location, had it not been for the fact that two
American Engineers of high standing had previously located Bridge
lines higher up the river, upon Nun's Island ; and one of them bad
expressed the opinion that any attempt to bridge tlie river at Point St.
Charles would, in consequence of the action of the ice, " be attended
with gi-eat risk, if not prove a total failure." I took a ditferent view,
and a great part of ray report is taken up in demonstrating that the
danger was more apparent than real-— and in endeavouring to prove
that a bridge at Point St. Charles could successfully resist the ice. My
reasoning was sustained by Mr. Stephenson, and the Bridge was placed
upon the forbidden territory.

I did not fix the bridge " at the present high level," (which is about
fifty-five feet above high water over a part of the channel,) but at a
higher one ; because I did not suppose any encroachment upon the
navigation would be permitted. This was before the Grand Trunk era,

:;■?

and I had iinderestimated the strength of Railway influence in our
Parliament and Executive. The other specifications of my plan in your
article — as to the solid approaches ; exclusion of common travel and
distance between the piers — are correct.

In addition to these four distinctive features of my plan, which, with
the site, were adopted by Mr. Stephenson, my report also shewed the
inapplicability of the suspension principle to this place. There was at
that time a strong but indiscriminate feeling in favor of suspension
bridges, as (by affording wider spans) offering less obstruction to the
ice ; and this principle was then about to go into operation for railway
purposes at Niagara, To this day opinions are divided upon this point,
many believing, after the successful working at Niagara, that greater
safety for the structure and greater economy would have been attained
by adopting the suspension principle for the Victoria Bridge, without
reflecting that while this plan is on all grounds the most suitable for the
peculiar conditions at Niagara, it would have been the most unsuitable
and expensive, even if practicable — at Montreal.

The lamented death of Stephenson has deprived me of that final and
explicit acknowledgement of my labors which would have been given
bad he lived. In a, letter, the publication of was authorised by him, it
is stated that the " data on which his calculations were made" were
" chiefly" supplied by me. On more than one occasion since 1853, in his
reports and speeches, he has alluded to my report in flattering terms.
Upon this testimony, and the text of my report, which speaks for itself,
I am content my claims should rest.

Eamilton, Dec. 26, 1859. THOS, C. KEEFER.

Letter from Mr, KEEFER'S ASSISTANT in the Survey.

[to the editor of the TORONTO GLOBE.]

Sir, — A discussion upon the authorship" of the Victoria Bridge, has
recently been carried on in the Montreal and Quebec papers, and occa-
sionally noticed by the press of Upper Canada, in course of which the
claims of Mr. T. C. Keener have been warmly advocated by his friends,
and, singularly enough, have passed unchallenged by those of Mr. A. M.
Ross, with the single " per contra" of a Mr. Doyle, who, in the Quebec
Chronicle attempts to summarily dispose of Mr. Reefer's pretensions.
The gist of his argument is, that because that gentleman was set aside
to make room for the English engineers who carried out the principles of
his design, and because he was not actually engaged upon the construc-
tion of the bridge, that, therefore, it is not Ais bridge, and his name sho'Id
not appear thereon. By this species of logic Mr. Doyle sets the manufac-
turer above the patentee or orginator, a conclusion more remarkable for
its convenience than its truth. He also appears as the champion of
the late Mr. Robert Stephenson, a superfluous task at all times, and
rendered doubly so on this occasion, from the fact that Mr Keefer cons-

tantly admitted that the name and aid of the great engineer were mate-
rial in the accompliishment of the magnificent work in question.

Having been employed upon the surveys for this bridge in 1851-2, I
feel called upon at this conjuncture to state briefly facts known to me
concerning Mr. Reefer's claims to the merit of having designed its leading
features, and projected itspresentsite, but I must premise that the recent
statements in that gentleman's favour are by no means the first or most
important which have been published, and I beg to draw attention to the
following extracts from a letter which appeared over the signature of Mr.
Keefer in the Globe of the 6th of June, 1856 — and which was induced by
a series of personal attacks upon the subject in question. In reply to the
assertion of the Leader that Mr. Keefer affected to treat it as his own
work, he says : —

'* I have as yet made but one claim with reference to the Victoria
Bridge (which is to be found in my petition to the Legislature), viz : that
" the contract of it was based upon my survey." This was forced upon
me by the refusal of the Grand Trunk Company to pay for what they
had made use of ; and not until I made this public did that Company
consent to arbitration.

" What I now, at the challenge of the Leader, will claim, is as
follows :—

" 1st. That I placed the bridge on the Point St Charles shoals, after
that site had been condemned by the American engineers, from whom
the Leader says I borrowed my idea, and that upon these shoals it hag
been placed.

" 2nd. That I designed it with solid approaches, not only as necessary
to its own safety, but for the purpose of retaining in situ the bordage
ice; and that I demonstrated that the obFt.aotion formed by these ap-
proaches should have the effect of dimir'.shing, instead of increasing the
rise of water above the bridge. The feature is also retained in Mr.
Stephenson's plan.

" 3rd. That notwithstanding the low banks of either shore, I elevated
it so as to go over the navigation and avoid a draw-bridge, which would
have been impracticable. This feature has been followed, although upon
a considerably reduced scale.

" 4th. That I gave a clear water-way of 250 feet, while that in the
present bridge is 242 feet, or only eight feet less.

" I made the ice-breaker detached, and of crib-work, and proposed, for
economy, to use wood for the superstructure of all but the central span.
In the work in progress, the ice-breakers are of stone, attached to the
piers, and a superstructure wholly of iron is proposed.

" The above, I submit, are all the leading features of the bridge; and
I invite the Leader to show when and where, and from whom I derived
any of them, and also, of what there is originality in the design as now
being carried out or in what respect it differs essentially (save only in a
reduction of the quantity of the work) from the plan proposed by me.

!'iH

All thC3e contributions to the original design of tlie Victoria Bridge,
T>hich Mr. Ro33 put into Mr. Stephenson's liands, and for whicli he claims
to be associated with him as engineer, were taken without aclinowledg-
ment from my office."

The slatomcnts made here in 185G, arc corroborated in 1859 by Mr
G. R. vStc[ilien3on, writing under the sanction of his illustrious relative
"ivhcrc lie says ; —

" 5th. Mr. Stephenson, although he has, no doubt, relied frequently
and largely upon Mr. Ross, is by no means mainly indebted to that
gentleman, as the letter would imply, even for the 'data' on wliich his
calculations were made. These data were chiefly collected by Mr. T.
C. Kecfor before Mr. Ross visited Canada, and Mr. KeeRn" handed over his
material to Mr, Ross, on leaving the service of the Company."

These claims, so boldly put forth in the Globe o{ 185G, have never been
called in question, although they were made while Mr. Ross was in Ca-
nada, and three years before Mr. Stephenson's death. The journal which
had attacked Mr, Keefer, whilst replying to his previous communications,
was silent as to these.

In the autum of 1851, a hydrographical chart of the St. Lawrence, in
the noiglibourhood of Montreal, v/as prepared under Mr. T. C. Reefer's
direction, upon which the outline of both shores and the navigable chan-
nel, — between the head of Nun's Island and the foot of the currant St.
Mary, were delineated. In the winter of 1851-2, however, a more accurete
examination of the river bed was completed over the same area, aud a
thorough investigation of that part of it was perfected upon Avhich the
Victoria Bridge has since been built. All the sinuosities of the deep
water line in and about the harbour were shown upon the chart referred
to ; the line of the Point St. Charles shoals was clearly marked thereon,
and the peculiar " retrecisemenV of the channel, together with the bar
xiear Moliat's Island, were exactly fixed. In fact, all the information
material in definitely locating the bridge was then obtained. The site
of the present bridge and its immediate vicinity received particular at-
tention, as Mr. Reefer's predecessor had condemned this position, and he
was therefore anxious that no requisite detail should be wanting in sup-
port of his reversal of that decision. When this preliminary information
had been obtained, I assisted in preparing the plans for a railway bridge
upon the combined arc and truss principle, the clear spans to be 250 feet,
with stone piers and solid abutments projeting for some distance from
either river bank towards its centre, and an ascending grade line from
each shore to the point of crossing of the navigable channel, which was
about midway ; the lower chords to be 100 feet above summer level of
water, I also drew the " general elevation ," showing all these particu-
lars, and bearing a marked resemblance to the outline of the present
bridge, Mr, Reefer declared that the wooden trusses should be changed
for iron tubes, were the work made a provincial undertaking.

When these plans were prepared, Mr, A, M. Ross, subsequently the
Chief Engineer of the Grand Trunk Railway, visited the office, accom-

■aims

[fdg.

lativo

mtly
tliat
|h his
ir. T.

n' Lis

panied by Mr. T. C. Kecfcr, who explained to him his opinions and con-
clusions, Uio fruit of several months previous labour and investigation,
and shewed liim in my presence, all the plans upon which his designs
were exhibited. As no further examination of the river was then made,
even if it could have been accurately effected in tho rapid open water of
the summer of 1852, I presume that the wisdom of adopting Mr. Keefer'a
plans was at once recognized, and subsequently paid for by the Grand
Trunk Company, upon the decision of the late Mr. Robert Stephenson.
When it is considered that the phenomena of the packing and slioving
of the ice in the narrow parts of Canadian Rivers, consequent upon tho
annual descent of ice fields formed in the basins lying above these
points, have furnished an interesting topic of discussion for tlic most
scientific minds in this Province, and that Mr. T, C. Keefer ))i'ougiit to
the consideration of this part of the subject (upon which the proper
location of the bridge mainly depended) 14 years professional exper-
ience, chiefly gained in hydraulic engineering, and attended by tho
most marked originality and success in combating with the ice jams
and rapids of the Ottawa, it will not be so much a matter of surprise
to find him completely refuting the arguments of hia predecessor, Mr.
Gay, whose experience, though not so large, was gained in the samo
school as his own. But it cannot fail to excite indignation when the
attempt is made by his former successor to quietly absorb his well
grounded claims ; and althougli it is yet a matter of dispute as to whom
the honor is due for the admirable manner in which Mr. Reefer's ideas
were elaborated and carried into effect, there can be no doubt of tho
fact that Avhen he quitted the discussion of this subject, he precluded
the possibility of any leading feature of the present noble structure
being ascribed to any other origin than his own.

I am. Sir,

Your obedient servant,

THOMAS MONRO.
Toronto, Feb. 8th, 1860.

Extract from a letter addressed to the compiler from Canada^ under date

of 28th January, 1859.
But Mr. Reefer's position does not rest upon hear-say and the mere
fact of the claims made by him having been unchallenged. His report
published before Mr. Stephenson visited Canada, and before he had
given any serious attention to the Bridge question, shews clearly what
his views were, and the Bridge now shews how many of them have been
adopted, Mr. Stephenson in his speech at Montreal, and in his report,
has not failed to acknowledge his obligations to Mr, Reefer, and has uot
feared to characterize his report, as an " admirable one," or to speak of
Mr. Reefer, as an engineer whose opinions are entitled to confidence.
Mr, Ross, who was under far greater obligations to Mr, Reefer (for Mr.
Keefer's previous labours enabled Mr. Ross to bring over a bridge scheme
ready for contract) has not mentioned hia name at all. Probably Mr.

Ross supposed that as Mr. Kcefcr was only a colonist, the discovery of
his piracy would never be made in London, but strange to say, that re-
velation has come from the higliest quarter, the undoubted authority of
Mr. Stephenson himself. Even the Toronto Leader, which in 1850 at-
tacked Mr. Keefermost savagely,— in 1859, in writing the history of the
Victoria Bridge makes tlio following admissions : — '* Mr Keefer dealt
" both boldly and ably with the subject ; he laid down the principle that
" the bridge should pass over the navigation, that it should rest upon
" piers which should be as few in number as practicable and although
<' admitting the advantages of iron over wood, yet owing to the increase
" of cost of the former, his preference was evidently in favour of the
" timber bridge. Mr. Keefer likewise argued against constructing the
" bridge for a general as well as for railway traffic, because the ferries
** in summer and the ice in winter would successfully compete with it."

Mr. Reefer's preference was not as stated by the Leader in favour of
■wood, but he was employed by Canadian Companies and saw no hope
of an iron structure being obtained. He had not that capital to depend
upon which the Barings and Glyns were ready to furnish upon the re-
commendation of Stephenson.

In a letter written to correct some statements made in his behalf oy
the Hamilton Spectator in December last, (published herewith) Mr.
Keefer mentions that in addition to the four distinct features of his plan
specified in the extract from the Globe, there were two others — one of
■which, the exclusion of common travel, is mentioned in the extract from
the Leader — the remaining one was that the bridge should be a solid
tubular one, whether the tubes were all made of wood or Iron ; and his
report shows how inapplicable the suspension principle would be, al-
though that principle was then being applied to railway purposes at
Niagara.

The main features of Mr. Keefer's plan are three, although the five
mentioned in Mr. Monro's letter (already given,) have been incorporated
into the bridge, as built. The deviations from his plan are altogether
mechanical ones, such as the form of a pier, the substitution of iron for
wood, the alteration of a gradient, or the slight shifting of the line of
crossing. These three main features were — First : the placing of the
bridge upon the point St. Charles shoals after that site had been condemned
by distinguished American engineers. Second : the elevation of the
centre of the bridge by uniform gradients from the low banks of each
side and thus passing over the navigation, whereas in the plans of his
American predecessor, it was proposed to stop the navigation alto-
gether by a level bridge. Thirdly : the solid approaches of several
hundred yards upon each shore, thus blocking up so much of the water
way of the river in addition to the obstruction caused by the piers.
This was a bold proposition, for when Mr. Keefer commenced the survey
in 1851, there were not ten men in Montreal who believed that a bridge
upon the Point St. Charles Shoals could be made to stand at all, and

nine engineers out of ten mi^Iit have been disposed to conlinno h«^f||fi
and nrclies to the sljore and tluis Imvc given the greatest freed n to tho
river. Ihit Mr. Kecfor sliewcd that the danger was to be appn iiendcd
from the grounding of tlie icebergs, by tlie two great widtli and ^lial-
owness of tlie water and tliat the h(jrilage ice sliouhl i)e prevented from
descending by tlie solid canseways on each shore. lie argued the ice
question so successfully, that after the publication of liis report, public
opinion was changed upon the question, and when Mr. Stephenson ar-
rived in Canaila the number of doubters was inconsiderable.

That Messrs. Stephenson and Ross liad Mr. Reefer's views fully before
anything was done, is evident from the 22nd paragraph of Mr. Stephen-
son's report of 3rd of November, 1855, whore he says. " In the first de-
sign for the Victoria Bridge, ice breakers very similar to those described
in Mr. Reefer's report were introduced, (fee."

EXTRACTS FROM REPORT OF TIIOS. C. REEFER Esq.,

I will first state what I conceive to be the conditions of bridging the
St. Lawrence, and then proceed to a description of the characteristics
and phenomena of the river above and below Montreal, before alluding
to the details of the bridge and the principles of its construction.

First. The bridge must be so arranged as not to obstruct the naviga-
tion. The navigation of the section of the St. Lawrence which it
is proposed to bridge is in one direction (downward) only — the ascend-
ing craft going by canal ; also it is confined to daylight, as no craft will
attempt to descend the rapids in the night. In so far, therefore, as any
bridge may be considered an impediment to a navigation, it is evident
from the consideration above mentioned, that the site proposed would
offer the miuimura of obstruction. The current being such as to render
a drawbridge inadmissible, there is no other means of providiug for the
navigation than by elevating that portion of the bridge which spans the
navigable channel, above the limits required for the passage of craft.

This height, in the case of the Menai Bridge, in Britain, and the
Harlaem Bridge, (for the Croton Aqueduct) in America, has been estab-
blished at one hundred feet.

The bridg"e site being above the " sea navigation" of the St. Lawrence,
I applied at Oswego for information as to the headway required for lake
and river craft, and submit the following reply from a most competent
quarter. From this it will be seen that with the topmasts struck, the
main spars of the largest lake craft stand 86 feet above the water line,
80 that the provision I have made of 100 feet above low water and
01 feet above highest water at any navigable period, must be considered
ample.

To shew the impracticability of accommodating the navigation by
means of a " draw-bridge," I would state that the Supreme Court of the
United States have decided in the Wheeling Bridge case, that for the
current of the Ohio (which is less than that of the St. Lawrence oppo-

;fi.i

site Montreal) a " draw" oftwo hundred feet in width is tho least wiiich
can be accepted.

Even if it were practicable to meet the requirements of the navipfa-
tion by a " draw-bridge," it is questionable whether the " higli level"
bridge would not be preferable. The highest known ice Hoods have
risen to a point 25 feet above extreme low water mark. It would not
be prudent to place tho supcrdtructure of a bridge witltin at least 20
feet of this point, so that any bridge over the St. Lawrence at Montreal
must be elevated about 45 feet over low water mark. Fixing the abut-
ments, therefore, at this height, the additional cost of elevating the
whole bridge gradually from either shore to the height required to pass
over the navigable channel will not be much greater than the coat of a
drawbridge, and ihe necessary approaches and expense attendant upon
it. The fact that there is but one navigable channel, and this so narrow
that it can be spanned by a single arch, has enabled me, by elevating to
the extreme heigiit this arch only, to make an arrangement of the bridge
which while it admits of the greatest economy in the construction, en-
hances the architectural eflfect, and offers an unmistakeable guide to
lead the river craft into tlie proper channel.

By increasing the centre span the cliannel may be crossed higher up
and the bridge shortened— the width of the otlier spans and the length
of the approaches maybe increased or diminished and the outline of
the structure may be varied, but I am of opinion tliat the plan now pro-
posed for bridging the St. Lawrence will, in all essential features, be
found the most secure, effective, and economical.

The second condition is, that the bridge must be a solid one adapted
to the passage of railways trains.

Suspension bridges in this country have of late been adopted for larg«
bridges, and are now about to be applied to railway purposes. Where
a channel is too wide to be spanned by beams or arches, or where the
depth of water or narrow chasms make piers or towers impracticable,
the suspension bridge is the only and most economical resource. For
railway purposes a single span may be made available, but for a long
bridge where a succession of spans are required, if constructed in the
ordinary manner the vibration would be destructive to the work, and if
constructed on any other principle their economical advantages disap-
pear. From the vastly increased quantity of masonry required a sus-
pension bridge would be more expensive in tlie site proposed than any
other class of structure.

The third condition is that the bays or distance between the piers
should be as wide as practicable. From economical considerations only
the great cost of every pier would dictate the employment of the least
possible number ; but as the " conditions " proposed have no reference
to the cost of the structure, I would state that it is on account of the re-
quirements of the timber navigation and the safety and efificiency of the

atnicture itself that t have left a clear water way of about 250 feet for
each hay. The ii-mal length of a " dram " of timber floating down tho
river ranges from 200 to 210 feet, and as rafts arc not under the same
control as bo^its hut are liable to be driven from one sitle of the river
to the other by wimd, the raftsmen cannot select a particular arch for
shooting the bridge, nor are they able to prevent its " swinging" and
passing broad side through.

The iraportanc* '>f the solid approaches upon the shoals at either end
of the bridge (whii h will b« explained in another place) renders it de-
sirable that this arrangement should bo mainfaiiied, and as thereby a
considerable portion of the water way of the stream is occupied — forcing
the passage of the river toward mid-channel— it is clear that, unless the
number of piers are kept within certain bounds, too much of the area of
discharge may be taken up, particularly if the large " shoes" of crib
work surrounding the base of each pier, — which I consider indispen-
sable, are adopted.

But the most important argument in favor of wide bays is that all
risk of an " ice jam" between the piers is thereby reduced if not wholly
removed. The greater the distance between the points of support the
weaker will be the resistance of any solid sheet of ice arrested by the
piers, and the more rapidly it will be borne down, broken, and driven
through by the current and following ice. Although there might be
little or no risk to an elevated bridge from the jamniing of ice, yet a
greater evil, that of a temporary stoppage and overflow of the adjacent
bank above the bridge, is incurred by planting the piers too close to each
other.

Having stated, first, that the bridge should pass over the navigation ;
second, that it should be a solid railway bridge resting upon piers, and
thirdly, that these piers should be as few in number as practicable, I
will add, that it is greatly to be desired that so extensive and important
a structure could be constructed of some durable and less inflammable
material than wood. The length of superstructure required is above
7000 feet, the cost of which, if constructed of iron, would be about six
times greater per lineal foot than if built of wood. The exira cost of
iron over wood would be about .£500,000, or much more than the whole
estimate for a wooden bridge. A wooden bridge properly constructed
and protected will last at least half a century, and if it were not for the
coatingency of fire would be all that is needed.

The risk of fire should not, however, operate against the construction
of the bridge in wood — if tlie more expensive structure be unattainable,
because it is slight, considering the vast number of wooden railway
bridges in America, — and would be reduced in the present instance to a
very remote contingency. Cut off by the solid approaches from either
shore, and elevated where the wooden structure would necessarily com-
mence from 50 to 100 feet above the water, it is exposed to fire only from
the passing of engines. The rails being laid upon the top of the bridge—

with the exception of the centre span whicli would be iron — by casing
in the sides, top muI bottom, no accidental fire could be communicated
to it, and as tlie bridge would be und( • constant surveillance I consider
V. ^ risk of fire should be no barrier toils early construction. The width
of the spans liavc been established at nearly the limits of a wooden
structure for railway traffic, both for reasons already given, and with a
view of replacing, at some future date, the remainder of the hollow
wooden beams by similar ones of iron.

It has been proposed to arrange the bridge for ordinary traflic as well
as for railway trains. This I have not done, considering it unnecessary
and objectionable if a wooden structure be adopted. In winter the
carriage way underneath the rail, being covered, would be impassable
for lack of snow ; but, if by any arrangement made passable, it would
not be used (except for a few days while the ice is forming or leaving)
because of the detour made by the bridge. For the same reason, ferriosi
in summer, by running directly to the Bonsecour Market or other desired
points, would compete successfully with the bridge for the local traflic
The revenue to be anticipated from this source would not pay the collec-
tor, and it would be manifestly imprudent to expose a Avoodeu bridge to
the ever active pipes of passing habitants.

A path for foot passengers can, however, be projected from the sides
of the bridge, which would be profitable, as it must become a favourite
resort.

ACTION OF THE ICE.

The disturbance of the river level by the action of the ice is peculiar
to Cornwall and points below the Lachine rapids ; the current between
Caughnawaga and the head of the Lachine rapids, that at the head and
foot of all the rapids above these, except the Longue Sault, viz, the Co-
teau, Cedars and Cascades, and those of the Ottawa, is not checked and
frozen over during the winter as is that of Current St Mary and of the
Sault Xormand. There is no doubt that if the level of the river opposite
Montreal harbour were undisturbed by the action of the ice, the Current
St. Mary, the Sault Normand, and the Laprairie basin would remain
unfrozen.

Lakes St. Louis and St. Francis freeze over and although vast quanti-
ties of ice descend and are formed in the rapids above them during the
whole winter, the ice does not pass on tmdcr the frozen surface of the lake
or produce any permanent or important effect on the level of the river.
It piles at the foot of the rapids, where it is destroyed gradually on the
approach of spring — without passing through the lakes. Also, after the
Laprairie basin becomes frozen over, large quantities of ice are still
brought down and piled at the foot of the Lachine rapids, which remain
there.

All destructive effects of the ice are incidental to the elevation of the
river and the sudden " slipping" of some of the ice dams, and it becomes

important thoreforo to consifler wliprc and lioio tliese are formed — and
whether they can be ameliorated or guarded against.

The ice first " talves" in LalieSt. Peter fifty miles below this city, after
the St. Lawrence has received the main branch of the Ottawa, and seve-
ral large streams from the north and south shores. The stopping of the
ice on the shoals in and at the entrance to this lake, gradually raises the
level of the St. Lawrence as far up as Bout de I'lsle and Pointc anx-
Trembles, but seldom to a height greater than five feet, Avliich tlierefore
is for this portion of the river the excess of the winter level over that
which obtained before the commencement of frost. This amount of ele-
vation would on account of the current be but slightly fell in Montreal
harbour, where the average excess of the winter over the autumnal level
of the water is three times as ereat. We thus find the water, standing
at a winter elevation in our harbour of fifteen or twenty feet, while
twelve miles below us at the same moment of time, the elevation does
not exceed five feet. Similar investigations will shew that the principal
obstructions are found between ^lontreal and Longue Pointe. The
'' longitudinal ci)ening" in the Current St. Mar;^ , described by Jlr. Logan
proves that the greatest encroachment on the discharge of the stream takes
place at this point.

The ice also takes at the head of Isle Bourdon or Porteous' Island
(at Bout de I'lsle,) among the first points : no drift ice therefore comes
out of the Ottawa to block up the main channel of the St. Lawrence and
get i-he waters back upon Montreal : and since there are no streams
coming into the St. Lawrencj between Montreal and Bout de I'lsle the
materials of the ice dams must be derived from points adjacent to and
above the city.

It is therefore certain that the inundations are to be attributed to dams
formed by ice floated 7)rts< the city, that they are not the result of opera-
tions going on ftcZow us, and which cannot be influenced by improvements
here. Having established the point where the ice dams are made, it is
important next to examine the area frojn which they draw their su]iplie3.

The length of river which sends down ice for the formation of these
dams is about fifty miles — extending from Montreal to lake St. Francis.
This lake being comparatively deep becomes frozen over early, and
arrests the ice which descends from Prescott and the intermediate
islands — another stretch of about fifty miles of river. Cornwall tliere-
fore presents phenomena similar to Montreal. The great distance,
numerous islands, the strong currents and rapi<l3 between Prescott and
Cornwall, send down inordinate quantities of ice, which being arrested by
the solid crust over the lake St. Francis, "flashes" the river oy>iM)sito
Cornwall. In like manner the current, the rapids of tlie Coteau,
Cedars, Cascades, and the Sault St. Louis and Xormaud, bring down
the manufacture of fifty miles of river to be arrested principally between
Montreal and Longue Pointe. The shallow expanses of Lake St.
Louis and the Laprairie basin arc of no value in arresting the ice on

'l:i

account of their strong currents. If Lake St. Louis were frozen over
at the same time with lake St. Francis — the winter inundations at
Montreal would be diminished about 50 per cent ; but as it does not
present a barrier to the ice descending from the rapids above it until
about tlie same time that the river is closed opposite Montreal — it
affords no protection. It is worthy of remark, however, that the causes
which produce the closing of Lake St. Louis and the river opposite
Montreal at about the same time, have no connection with each other.
The river takes here because by the rise of water the current is slack-
ened, and the floating ice from above is arrested against the " bridge" be
low without current enough to force it under — like logs in a boom,
whereas the level of lake St. Louis is not altered, but a certain time
and degree of cold are necessary to enable the opposite bordages to
encroach upon its strong current. If the early part of the winter be
mild or changeable and accompanied by much wind, these bordages may
be broken off repeatedly by the swell before they are closed ; but if the
winter sets in, as in December last, (1851) with uninterrupted severity,
this lake is closed sooner — less ice descends and a diminished rise
of water is the result at Montreal. This explains the apparent anomaly
of greater inundations in " open" winter and less in severe ones.

The Laprairie basin is so extremely shallow that it is not frozen over
until its depth is increased about ten feet by the action of the ice dams
below. While this lake-like expanse is of no more value than Lake
St. Louis in arresting the early ice, — its extensive shoals and margins
furnish proportionall}' the largest in quantity and the most formidable
in character of the material of which the ice dams are composed. The
ice which descends from points above the Lachine rapids, is composed
of ** fragments of the glacial fringe broken off by the wind, and enlarged
in tlieir descent by the cold ;" but in the Laprairie basin the strong clear
ice which forms round the islands, rocks, and upon the shore and shoals
with the first frosts, is forced up and broken off from its attachment to
the sides and bottom by the hydraulic lift of the subsequent rise of water
and — from the peculiar bend of the coast between Longue Pointe and
the Lachine rapids — there exist no projecting "jetties" of land to
i-etain this formidable bordage in the place of its formation. With the
rise of water the current " in shore " increases and sets the whole field,
sometimes half a mile in width and two or three miles in length, in
motion. These form the *' league after league " mentioned by Mr.
Logan, and by their momentum these masses break up the resisting
" bridge," and force under with such violence the blocks which form the
dam. This process may be repeated — a new bordage being broken off
by a second rise of the water and sent down to aid in a still further ele-
vation of the river. When a sufficient quantity has thus been sent
down to raise the level of Laprairie basin about ten feet the current
therein is so diminished that it becomes frozen over, and then all fur-
ther supply is cut off.

The natural inference from the foregoing is, that if the bordages ice
can be retained in situ and the " taking over " of Laprairie basin thereby
be expedited, a very great portion of the supply furnished for the ice
dams would be cut off and the intensity of these be correspondingly di-
minished. This hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that in severe
winters when the ice takes rapidly there is a lighter inundation than in
milder ones. In tlie former case the time required to close the river
(and therefore the quantity of ice which can pass down in a given time)
is a minimum, while in the latter the stopping and starting, the freezing
and " slipping" extend over a long period of time, — and a greater quan-
tity of ice passing down, a greater dam is formed and a greater inunda-
tion takes places. A most important effect of a protracted closing over
of the open water is the greatly increased quantity of snow which, falling
in this water, is converted into '' frasil" or " anchor ice," and having
about the same specific gravity as water is carried under the sheet-ice,
and "banks" upon the shoals, reducing the waterway of the stream.

For the foregoing reasons I am led to the conclusion that the inten-
sity of the ice phenomena at Montreal is due to the great area of open
water which exists until January above the city, the absence of natural
features above us for arresting or retaining the ice formed witliin this
area, and to the existence of such features immediately below and op-
posite to the city.

Inasmuch as the natural bridges of ice wherever formed, have the
effect of arresting its further descent — which descent is the sole cause
of the winter inundations— I am of opinion that an artificial bridge, in
so far as it will aid in arresting descending ice, retain in situ the
bordages, elevate the level of the water— thereby diminishing the cur-
rent,— and expedite the closing over of the river above us— will unques-
tionably tend to diminish rather than to increase the intensity of the
winter inundations at Montreal.

SITE OF BRIDGE.

While the selection of the site has been governed by the accidental
conditions of the river, it possesses a variety of advantages which under
such circumstances could hardly have been anticipated.

1st. The location is on the most direct line of connection for the
Grand Trunk Railway. This road, without reference to the bridge,
would on approaching the city cross the canal at the only convenient
point (which is near Gregory's and above all the basins) and proceed
down to Point St. Charles for its freight terminus and for a connection
with the harbour independent of the canal. The bridge line is a con-
tinuation of the main track coming down to Point St. Charles.

2nd. The line in the river runs upon a rock bottom and in more
shallow water than can be found upon any other direct line crossing
the 3t. Lawrence. It is a remarkable fact that the shoalest water to be

It^ :

\^^

found in the St. Lawrence below Lake Ontario is on the lust rapid —
the Sault Norniand opposite ^lontreal.

The width of the river, and consequent length of the bridge is not
only counteracted by this shoal water (fully half of the whole distance
being less than live feet deep,) but this width involves little disadvan-
tage, because the distance between the only navigable channel and the
shores admits of a gradient, which passing over the limits required for
the navigation, yet descends at once so as to strike the business level
at both of these shores.

3rd. The ice seldom lodges above the line of the bridge, although it
always does to a greater or less degree iniuiediately below it. Nun's
Island gives a direction to the current which throws the ice against
Moffatl's Island, where it piles with great force. The shoal which is sus-
pended from the lower end of Nun's Island to the centre channel will
act as a breakwater to the western half of the bridge against the effect
of '•' ber^-s " of ice. The average depth of water on this shoal not ex-
ceeding seven feet, detached ice breakers can be constructed upon it at a
moderate cost, which will break the momentum of large descending
fields, — while accumulations of ice having too great a draught of
water to pass under the arches will be " picked up " by this shoal before
reaching the piers of the bridge. On the eastern half of the bridge, the
greater portion of the work will derive much protection against the
effects of descending ice, by the works of the Cliamplain and St. Law-
rence Railway, and by the natural breast work of Mofl'att's island.

4th. The site, while it possesses all the advantages of a line in the
rapids where there is but one navigable channel, not only has that
channel narrower than any available one in the rapids above, but this
rapid is so moderate as not to offer any great impediment to the work
of erection and construction, and for three months in the year is frozen
over and accessible at every point upon strong ice.

5th. Terminating at Point St. Charles in immediate contiguity with
the canal basins, the water level of which, aided if necessary by an ad-
ditional sui)ply from the head of the Lachine rapids, can be conducted
over hundreds of acres both on land and in the river, — the bridge will
lead all the railroads from the southern shore to tlie only point where they
can be placed in immediate connection with the navigation and receive
supplies " ex-warehouse " or direct from inland or sea craft for distribu-
tion to every part of New England or the Lower Provinces. In con-
nection with this subject I have projected a scheme of docks around
Point St. Charles, which shews the capabilities of the place in point of
extent to be at least equal to that of Liverpool, Glasgow or London,
and which may be taken up in sections and extended as required for the
increasing wants of commerce.

The importance of this point, its fitness for a general railway termi-
nus in connection witii the sea and inland navigation, is explained at
large in the appendix in an extract from my unpublished Report on

the Montreal and Kingston Railway, and also an extract from a lecture
before the Mechanics' Institute of this city.

It will be seen at once on reference to a map, that the whole of the
channel between Nun's and Montreal Islands may be filled with water
and made available fur the navigation. Also by obtaining (upon top
of the embankment) permanent access to Xun's Island, the outer coast
of that island presents an extensive frontage and deep water where
barges and lake and river craft not drawing over nine feet water may
load for ports below.

It is only by an artiticial harbour accomodation like this that Montreal
can ever hope to share with Quebec any portion of the exjiort trade in
deals. 15right deals brought by railway to Point St. Charles and Nun's
Island could afford this transportation on account of the higlier price
these command over those which have been floated. This trade by at-
tracting a larger marine to this port could not fail to give an ini])ortant
impulse to our commerce.

PRINCIPLES OF CONSTUUCTION.

The importance of retaining the " burdage '' ice m si/ii has been ex-
plained, and for this purpose, that p.irt of the Bridge extending from
the shores over the shoals, to the depth of five feet water, heiug a dis-
tance of 450 yards on one side, and 570 on the other, is designed to bo
a solid causeway or embankment carried above the level of the highest
winter flood ; from wliich point to tlie level of the rails it may l)e carried
up by a viaduct of arches — an enibaukment or trestle work for the pre-
sent. On the southeastern shore tlie great width and dead shoal water
around the Lapairie basin, form s([uare miles of ice, which so soon as it
is freed from its attachment to the shore is carried by tlie throw
of the current directly down through the 7ioio important cliannel
between Moffatt's Island and the St. Lambert side. The works of
the Champlain and St. Lawrence Railroad Company although in-
complete and not high enough, retained this bordagc in .situ during
last winter, (1851 — 1852) and this in connection with the fact that
the winter set in with great severity, was one cause why the in-
undation at Montreal was less than usual, — was unaccompanied either
on the formation or departure of the ice with any " shoves " — and that
the surface of the river opposite Montreal presented the evenness of a
millpoud instead of the ragged quarry aspect of broken ice usually
seen.

The solid approaches will be cheaper and more snbstantial than any
other portion of the bridge of equal length ; and in fact no substitute
tvhich will bring the rails down to the level of Point St. Charles can be
devised for them except that of extending the piers and bays to the shore
and carrying the masonry up to the level of the rails. A system of
masonry arches giving free passage to the water Avould be ex[)osed to
the risk of being blocked up and overthrown by the shoves of the ice.

To carry out the arrangement of descending from the central arch'fo
each shore on the top of the tubes, it is evident (since the depth of these
is 30 feet under the rails) that as the shore is approached the lower
side of the tubes would be brought witliin the reach of the winter flood.
Before this point is reached, therefore, the arrangement and character
of the structure must be changed, and as it would destroy the effect of
the bridge again to elevate the tubes and run through them — the solid
causeway is necessary. It is true that by abandoning the proposed ar-
rangement of running on the top of the tubes, raising the masonry of
all the piers to the level of the rails, and continuing the piers and tubes
to the shores — the solid approaches can be dispensed with ; but I con-
sider there are objections to such an arrangement exclusive of economi-
cal considerations and the loss of the effect of the solid approach in re-
taining the bordage. If the spans are such that tubes, whether of iron
or wood are required, passengers would be confined in a tunnel two
miles in length with all its disagreeable connections, and if the spans
are so narrow as to admit of an iron bridge open at the top, the side
trusses would yet be necessarily so high, that it would become a lon^
trough which unless open at the bottom would fill with snow, while it
would effectually deprive the passengers in summer of that view from
the windows of the train, which will constitute one of the great attrac-
tions of the bridge. On the other hand by the arrangement proposed
the appearance of the bridge with passing trains is improved — the
Bnow is avoided — the monotony of t^'e outline is broken by the single
elevated tube in the centre, and the channel is thereby clearly displayed
to the navigation. The pleasure and comfort of the passengers is en-
hanced — economy and safety to the structure are secured — and if built
of wood the risk of fire is greatly diminished.

THE PIERS.

The most important question in connection with the structure
is that of the piers. The superstructure and approaches are simple
matters, and so would the piers be were it not for the ice pheno-
mena. Many persons (astounded by the commotion when a " shove ''
takes places) entertain the belief that piers cannot be made to stand in
the river below the Lachine rapids, or at least below Nuns' Island ; but
the simple contrivance described by Mr, Logan shows how easy it is to
elude the effects of the ice, however difficult it may be oppose them.
That the ice is not, as is often remarked, " irresistible," may be proved
from the fact that the islands, rocks, wooden wharves and stone quays
have not been removed by it. Probably there is no point where the
ice strikes with greater force than against the long wharf at the Bonse-
cours Market — but this cribwork has resisted the shock, and forced into
the air a broken heap of fragments. The poAver required to crush a
cubic inch or foot of ice is very much less than that required to crush
stone, iron or wood. If therefore there is mass enough or support

enough, as is annually proved by the stone quays of Montreal, the ice
is broken into fragments or ground into powder ; — but the simpler, more
economical, and effective method is that universally employed where
ice is to be encountered, o^ turning the ice back upon itself and leaving
the first arrivals to take the shock of all that follows after. By sloping
the up-stream face of a pier or ice breaker so that the ice will ride up
upon it, the stability of the pier is increased by additional weight piled
upon it and a heavy rampart of ice receives all futtire assaults.

But it is to be expected that the violence of the ice shocks will be
diminished rather than increased by the erection of a bridge. At pre-
sent when a dam slips and the ice begins to m )ve, it is carried on with
increasing momentum until it strikes the shore. But if sustained at
intervals of 100 yards or less across the stream by piers, the initial velo-
city would bo checked and the ice would rise and fall m situ with the
variations of the water level.

The plan I have ])ropo3ed contemplates the planting of very large
" cribs" or wooden " shoes" covering an area of about one-fourth of an
acre each, and leaving a clear passage between them of about 240 feet
—a width which will allow ordinary rafts to float broad-side between
them. These " islands " of timber and stone will have a rectangular
well left open in the middle of their width toward their lower ends, out
of which will rise the solid masonry towers supporting the weight of the
superstructure, and resting on the rocky bed of the river. This enclo-
sure of solid crib work, all round the masonry yet detached from it,
will receive the shock, pressure, and " grinding " or the ice, and yield to
a certain extent by its elasticity without communicating the shock to
the masonry piers. These cribs, if damaged, can be repaired with faci-
lity, and from their cohesive powers will resist the action of ice better
than ordinary masonry. During construction they will serve as coffer
dams, and — being formed of the cheapest materials — their value as
service ground or platforms for the use of machinery, the mooring of
scows, &c., during the erection of the works will be at once appreciated.
Their application to the sides of the piers is with particular reference
to preventing the ice from reaching the spring of the arches which will
be the lowest and most exposed part of the superstructure if wood be
used.

The class of superstructure proposed for these wide spans, if of wood,
would be a a strong rectangular open built hollow beam, assisted by a
deep open built arch. The two systems of arc and truss, however objec-
tionable in iron bridges, have been proved to be susceptible of advan-
tageous combination in the numerous and excellent bridges built on
what is known as the "Burr" or Pennsylvanian principle — decidedly
the best class of wooden railway bridges in existence. The elasticity
of timber permits both systems to come into play without injury to either
when a strain is upon them, (which is not the case with iron) while the

too groat elasticily of the wooden nrcli is couutoractctl by the rig'ulity
of the truss to wliich it is attached.

Experiment at Menai proved the superiority of the rectangular form
for hollow beams in iron. It is somewhat singular, that the best form
of wooden bridge in America for wide spans was, long previous to the
Menai experiment, a type in wood of the CLdobrated tube. The strength
of both bridges is collected near the four angles ; the sides, top and bot-
tom, in the iron wonder, serving chiefly to maintain the relative i)Osition
of the vital parts. The strength of the wooden tube must be wholly in
the top and bottom chords— the inferior capacity of wood for the con-
nection of its parts being in some measure compensated for by the })rac-
ticability of emi)loyiug the auxiliary arch.

EFFECT OF TIIK RrUDGE ON THE HIN EU AXO ICE.

The area of the water section of the river at the site of the bridge is
in ordinary winters more than double that in summer, allhough the
flow of water remains the same — the velocity only being dimiuished.
The elfect of a bridge by preventing the descent of a large portion of
the materials which now aid in forming the ice dams, and by eoucen-
trating the current in the main channels, would, in myjjudguicnt, pre-
vent the grounding of the ice at many points where from the great
breadth of the river, the distribution of the cnrrent over its whole sur-
face (and therefore its reduced power) it now grounds ; and, imrticularly
by restoring to Current St. Mary that portion of the flow which the ice
dams now drive through the channel east of St. Helen's — Avould aid iu
keeping the former channel clear and thus diminish the packing which
is here so formidable.

There are but two ways in which the bridge can produce an effect
upon the river — and in either case the result will be the same — viz :
the Laprairie basin will " take " at an earlier date nud at a lower level
than it now does. Taking the most alarming view of the case, viz : that
the first ice which descends in December is arrested and chokes up a
portion of the water Avay between the piers, a rise of water is the
consequence which, if maintained, so deadens the current in the Lap-
rairie IJasin that it is frozen over — the further descent of the ice, and of
course the further elevation of the water, is arrested. If this first
rise is not maintained it will be because the additional head of water
acquired will cut out the obstruction and avert the inundation.

In the event of the early ice being arrested as above the consequence
will be that the river would remain open during the winter opposite
Montreal as it now is opposite Caughnawaga.

But if, (as is most probable), the first coming ice passes under the
arches and descends to form the ice dams below, — the water rises and
breaks off the bordage — the current slackens, and before the Laprairie
basin has reached the point at Avhich it now generally freezes, the bridge
by its piers and ap))roaches will have arrested the now slowly moving

bordage nnd close tlie rivor. Thus Laprnii-ie bnsin is the guage of the
inundalioiiri — and altliough tlio Icvid at wliicli it now cdoscs varies with
♦lie soveiity of tiic season — it is niiuiifost that any bridge must tend to
.ipcditc rullier than retard this consuniniation.

It may still be feared that the bridge will increase the inundation
when tlie ice breaks up in spring. Tlie worst case is wlien th(( ice
gives way in Lake St. Louis, and descends into the Lai)rairie basin upon
the top of the local ice there — before the latter lias started. iJut as tho
bridge will retain the ice in the Laprairic basin longer than usual, (al-
though being above, it will not delay tho opening of navigation in Mon-
treal harbour,) the result will be that the Lake St. Louis ice will be
received by the solid crust of the Laprairie basin at the foot of the La-
chinc rapids — and any temporary "Hashing" Avill be confined to these
rapids, where it can do no harm.

The "longitudinal opening'' in the current St. Mary will probably
be regularly extended up to the bridge as the concentration of the cur-
rent caused by the latter, will tend to cut through the surface ice — keep-
ing an open channel opposite Montreal, and ensuring the quiet and
gradual departure of the ice without shoves.

To bear out the assumption that "obstructions" in the St. Lawrence
at Montreal would diminish the winter inundations, it may be remarked
that these last have certainly not been increased by the canal and har-
bour improvements. It is a well established fact that the water has not
stood so high by fit least four feet since the wharves were constructed as
before.

It is an encouraging reflection that the progress of improvement
which follows the demands of commerce may have the same amelior-
ating effect upon the character of our river as that of cultivation on the
soil. If this were not probable, the prospects of tho future commerce of
Montreal would be gloomy indeed. The new wharves at Caughnawaga
and Lachine will aid in retaining the bordages, and future improve-
ments — when the Board of Works make i)ermanont instead of floating
Light-Houses — will still futhcr aid in arresting the descent of ice from
Lake St. Louis. There is very little doubt but that a liao of piers across
this lake near Isle Dorval would very much diminish the annual inunda-
tions at Montreal.

The real difliculty with the St. Lawrence opposite Point St. Charles —
the point where a "jam " is most feared — seems to be a superabundance
of room. The great breadth of the river and the diminished current here
•when the water is high permit the ice to ground on these shoals — whereas
if the channel were confined somewhat as it is in the summer, the water
would maintain its passage — as it docs at the head of every rapid in the
St. LaAvrence and Ottawa.

But assuming that the bridge fails to diminish the winter floods, and
that it should increase them, the extra inundation will be confined to the

N ^

Ml >'

shores above Point St. Charles, and it is important to consider what can
be done.

It would be but a slight expense to run a dyke or levvSe at the few low
points where the river would overtiow its banks and to turn the course
of the River St. Pierre so that it may disciiarge below the bridge.

ESTIMATE AND REVENUE.

The cost of bridging the St. Lawrence, from Point St. Charles across
Moffatt's Island to the St. Lambert sliore, will of course depend upon the
plan and material employed; but as the financial obstacles have hitherto
been the barrier to its commencement it is necessary to present estimates
shewing the least amount for which a serviceable structure can be attain-
ed, as well as estimates for a completed and durable work worthy of thf.
great interests whicli it affects.

Recognizing the principle that it is the duty of an engineer to shape his
plans according to the wants and necessities of the case, it will be evi-
dent that the class of structure undertaken will be governed by the pros-
pective revenue — if it be viewed in the light of an inriepcndeiit commercial
Si-cculation. But if, as I conceive it should be, it be made to partake
of the character of a national work, it should be built for all time — the
expense limited only to the means to be attained. As a connection of
the two sections of the Grand Trunk Railway, its cost should be distri-
buted over the whole line; and however unprofitable it may now appear
as an independent stock, it will, in a thousand direct and indirect ways,
pay almost any cost.

I will not attempt to estimate the average tonnage and rate of toll
which may be charged for the next twenty years, and thus determine the
amount which may now be expended on a bridge, but with the rate of
return which it is usual to anticijiate from such structures in this coun-
try, and in view of the fact that the broad guage has been adopted for
the trunk line I have come to tlie conclusion to recommend a superstruc-
ture chiefly of wood if the project is to be taken up as a self-sustaining
commercial speculation.

The cost of an efficient railwa}'' bridge upon the site proposed, with a
superstructure of wood for tlic side arches and a wrought iron tube for
the centre one — the whole resting upon abutments and piers of substan-
tial masonry, and having approaches formed by solid embankments of
earth, will be £400,000 Currency. With an iron siisperstructure in the
side arches, the cost would be increased to £900,000 Cy.

My instructions having in view the connection of the Canada Grand
Trunk Railway I did not deem it necessary to examine sites f'r the bridge
above Nuns' Island, as the detour would be objectionable, the cost at
least as great, and facilities for construction less. The arguments in
favour of sites above Point St. Charles are a sup[)03ed greater immunity
from the action of ice, and less risk of inundating the city by reason of
the "obstruction" which it is presumed by some the bridge will csuse.

As I do not entertain any appreliensions on either score, I have selected
the present site as the most convenient, and in every respect the most
eligible one.

Extract from the Repout op Edward F. Gay, Engineer of thb

Columbia and Philadelphia Railuoao, upon Buidoincj the

St. Lawrence at Montreal, made in 184G.

[It may be remarked that ^h\ Gay is the only En-
gmeer preceding ISIr. Keet'er who made a report, plans
and estimates. Mr. Morton took a line of soundings for
u site, which like Mr. Gay's, was across Niui's Ishind,
considerably above where the Victoria Bridge now
stands.]

"The data thug obtained, confirmed as it is by impressions derived
from a pergonal examination of the river, and by my familiarity with the
operations of large bodies of ice on streams somewliat similar, eniibles
me to express the opinion, that any attempt to construct a permanent
bridge across the St. Lawrence, below Nun's Island, or between it, and
the lower end of St. Helen's Island, would be attended with great risk
if not prove a total failure. This is inferred from the fact, tliat the riv-
er is so much contracted in its width at St. Helen's Lsland as to form a
natural dam, sufficient to obstruct the free passage of the ice, during its
formation and breaking up, and thus cause an accumulation of both ice
and water opposite the city, which would endanger and probably des-
troy any structure of the kind, that might be attempted at that point.

"Another line has been examined across the river, under tlie direction
of Mr. Morton, chief engineer of the Atlantic and St. Lawrence liaihvay,
to whose kindness I am under obligations for a copy of the soundings
taken upon it, which is the more valuable, as affording comparative evi-
dence of the accuracy of our measurement.

"This line, which may be denominated the "railroad line," crosses the
west channel, about one- fourth of a mile below the site whicli I have
selected, and being near the foot of the Island, is considered objectiona-
ble, as a bridge upon it would be exposed to the re-action of the ice from
the main channel.

"It has been suggested that the construction of a "draw'' in tlie bridge
would be required. If so, it is to be regretted, as the shallowness of the
water near the shores, would require the location of the "draw'' to be
made in the channel, at considerable distance from the shore, in order
to accommodate the river trade, or rather masted vessels descending the
river.

"And as a "draw," exceeding sixty feet in length, cannot well be made
sufficiently strong for the purpose of railway travel, it must be evident
that the erection of two piers in the river channel, within sixty feet of

.12

each otiior, would bo calciilatc(l to oh.struct the pa33apfo of tho ice, and
perhaps jeopardise the safety of tlio bridge, more CHpcoially, as the sii-
pcrstriictiuu of one hundred and twenty feet, of one span, next tho
" draw," would Inive to be constructed three feet nearer the surface of tlio
water than would olliorwise be required, in order to allow the "draw",
to be nioveil back witliiu it, It it; to lie liopcd, therefore, that the con-
struction of a draw may not be found nece.-!.~!ary.

'•The vast importance of a permanent bridge across the St. Lawrence
at Montreal, and its tendency when finished, (by the facilities for inter-
course which it will offer, to dovelope tho resources, and promote the pros-
perity of the [)rovince generally,) must be obvious to any one wlio is
familiar witli tlic river in that vicinity and has reflected on thcjiubjcct.
And it certainly would affonl cause of rrpeat regret, if the authority for
building the bridge should bo coupled with conditions calculated to im-
pair its safety or its usefulness when done."

con-