Production Note
Cornell University Library produced this volume
to replace the irreparably deteriorated
original. It was scanned using Xerox software
and equipment at 600 dots per inch resolution
and compressed prior to storage using CCITT
Group 4 compression. The digital data were used
to create Cornell’s replacement volume on paper
that meets the ANSI Standard Z39.48-1984. The
production of this volume was supported in part
by the New York State Program for the
Conservation and Preservation of Library
Research Materials and the Xerox Corporation.
Digital file copyright by Cornell University
Library 1994.HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
ITS CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT
DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
COMPILED FROM RECORDS IN THE U. S. ENGINEER'S OFFICE,
BUFFALO, N. Y.
BY MAJOR THOMAS W. £YMONS,
Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, M. Am. Soc. C. E., Engineer Officer in charge,
AND
JOHN C. QUINTUS, M. E.,
M. Am. Soc. C. E., Principal Asst. U. S. Engineer.
Along in the closing days of the eighteenth century the
important part that the Great Lakes were to play in the com-
mercial development of our country was becoming recog-
nized with greater and greater force. Wise and thoughtful
men familiar with the lakes and their connecting waters and
the country in their vicinity, were impressed with the fact
that at the lower end of Lake Erie, where the waters con-
verge into the swift and impassable Niagara River, there
must come into existence a city and harbor where vessels
navigating the lakes could discharge or take on cargoes and
passengers en route between the East and West.
At this time there were two methods of communication
between the Atlantic seaboard and the foot of Lake Erie:
by foot, horseback or wagon across the state of New York;240	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
or by boat up the Hudson and Mohawk rivers, over to
Oneida Lake, and down Oneida and Oswego rivers to Lake
Ontario, making all necessary portages, thence on through
Lake Ontario to the lower Niagara River at Lewiston,
thence by portage about the Falls to the upper Niagara
River and Lake Erie. The rapids at the extreme head of
the Niagara precluded the use of this river as a harbor in
which the small sailing boats of that day navigating the
Great Lakes could find a refuge and discharge and take on
cargo. Some protection was required by vessels in harbor
against the storms of Lake Erie, and this was furnished
to a certain extent by a small island called Bird Island, sit-
uated just at the head of the Niagara River on the American
side. Behind this little island the small vessels of the day
could get a partial shelter, and on the river bank at this
sheltered spot the village of Black Rock was started, and its.
projectors and early settlers built high hopes on its becoming
the chief commercial emporium at the foot of Lake Erie.
But the spirit of enterprise and rivalry was abroad.
About two miles above Black Rock a small stream known as
Buffalo Creek emptied its waters into Lake Erie, and about
its mouth a little settlement was started. Buffalo Creek was
navigable for canoes for some eight or ten miles above its
mouth; in the lower part of its course for a mile or more it
was deep enough to float the largest lake ship of the time,
but there was a troublesome sandbar at its mouth and the
entrance to the creek was uncertain, crooked and bad, mak-
ing the inner harbor very difficult, and sometimes impos-
sible, of entrance. “If this wretched bar could be removed
and the entrance rendered straight and stable, Buffalo Creek
is a better harbor than Black Rock.” So said the early Buf-
falonians. This was scoffed at by the Black Rockers, and
an intense rivalry sprang up between these two frontier vil-
lages, about two miles apart.
In the meantime an event fraught with tremendous con-
sequences to New York State and to Buffalo in particular
was in course of preparation and about to culminate. This
was the construction of the Erie Canal. This was under
consideration for many years before the canal was finallyHISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
241
completed, and before this stage was reached it was neces-
sary to decide on .its western terminus.. The decision was
narrowed down to Black Rock and Buffalo, and the rivalry
between the two places became in consequence more and
more bitter, and feeling ran high as the partisans of each
place recognized that the settlement of this question would
turn the scale and decide which would be the chief city of
the future.
A canal commission came and sat, and examined and
listened to the rival claims. The Black Rockers had built a
pier to add to the facilities of their harbor. The Buffalonians
had yet to prove that a suitable entrance could be made to
their creek, but they secured the consent of the canal com-
mission to reserve their decision as to which should be the
canal terminus until they had time to construct their harbor
entrance. Then came the struggle, but the Buffalonians had
faith in their harbor and joined hands and pockets “to re-
move that bar.” They did remove it and the canal com-
missioners at last decided in favor of Buffalo. They wisely
felt that they were not deciding the question in the light of
the past and present, but chiefly in the light of the future,
and that Buffalo could more easily be made into a harbor of
ample dimensions to accommodate the lake commerce of the
future than could the Niagara River at Black Rock. Inci-
dentally also by tapping L^ke Erie at Buffalo Creek they
would gain a foot or two of elevation of water over tapping
the Niagara River at Black Rock, and this would mean a
foot or more less excavation all the way to Lockport.
The decision of the canal commission settled the matter,
and Buffalo’s supremacy was assured, and it commenced in
absolute security its onward march to the proud position in
the world of trade and commerce that it occupies today,
during which it swallowed Black Rock, which now is but a
small corner of the great city.
This position was not reached without great struggles
and sacrifices on the part of the people of Buffalo, in which
they were very materially aided by the United States. To
convert the little Buffalo Creek into a safe and easily-
entered harbor in which it is possible to handle the enormous242	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
commerce of the present day has been a work of great mag-
nitude and cost. It was accomplished by degrees and con-
sumed all of the nineteenth century, and now at the dawn
of the twentieth century, that commerce, both in magnitude
of products handled and in the size of ships, is outgrowing
the creek harbor, and the greater Buffalo of the future must
develop along other lines, and in a more commodious outer
harbor.
The history of the development of the harbor is interest-
ing and instructive, and it is proposed to outline it and to
describe briefly the harbor works built in the past and now
being built by the United States Government to provide for
the present and future accommodation of Buffalo’s com-
merce. These works, it must be understood, are simply
those built to secure and protect the entrance channel and
the river and outer harbors. The United States Govern-
ment lends its aid only to securing and maintaining the great
public highways of commerce; not to developing and im-
proving the inner channel ways, the building of docks and
warehouses and elevators, which are owned and controlled
by municipalities, corporations, and individuals.
The original troublesome bar at the mouth of Buffalo
Creek was made by the detritus brought down by the. stream
and by the sands moving along the lake beach towards the
Niagara River. Similar formations exist at the mouths of
most streams emptying into great bodies of water subject
to strong wave action, and engineers are very frequently
called upon to develop and maintain channels across such
bars.
At Buffalo it was not only necessary to excavate the
channel across the bar, but to build protective structures
which would prevent the sand borne by littoral currents
from filling it up again. This was originally accomplished
by the pioneers pi Buffalo as before stated. The early resi-
dents of Buffalo did not ha^e much money, but fhey had
abundant faith and plenty of “sand” in their make-up to
combat the sands of the bar. Several of them clubbed to-
gether and borrowed $12,000 from the State of New York,
a large sum in those days, giving their personal notes for theHISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
243
amount. Then they went to work and dug their channel and
to protect it built a portion of what are now the United
States piers, of timber crib work filled with stone and of piles
and brush. Although it has passed through many vicissi-
tudes, this is the entrance channel of today. The history of
the opening of the entrance channel and the construction of
the original piers is most interestingly and graphically de-
scribed in Judge Wilkeson’s paper in the archives of the
Buffalo Historical Society.*
The preliminary work as above outlined, the struggle to
secure the primitive entrance channel, was accomplished in
1820 and 1821. It was accomplished with funds advanced
by the enterprising citizens of Buffalo, and afterwards re-
funded by the State of New York, the State assuming con-
trol of the harbor. The United States Government had not
yet extended a helping hand. For a description of these first
harbor works we must depend upon the records of the Buf-
falo Historical Society. Drawing upon those records, John-
son's Centennial History of Erie County says (pp. 350-351) :
“The mouth of the creek (Buffalo) was 60 rods north
of where it now is, the stream running for that distance
nearly parallel with the lake. The ridge between them was
found to be of gravel, so solid that it could not be removed
(as was necessary to make a new mouth and a straight chan-
nel) by manual labor without immense expense.
The harbor was completed in the summer of 1821, 221 work-
ing days having been occupied in its construction." It con-
sisted of a south pier composed of timber cribs filled with
stone and brush, extending a quarter of a mile into the lake
to 13 feet of water, and a north pier composed of a double
row of piles filled with brush and stone. This north pier
was about 1,000 feet in length, f
From Judge Wilkeson’s narrative we can infer (for he
gives no data on channel dimensions) that.the channel be-
* Published, pp. 134-214 of this volume.
t William Peacock’s original report to the Legislature, 1819, proposed a
stone pier 990 feet long, six feet above lake level, 30 feet broad at the bottom
and 10 feet broad at the top. Its cost was estimated at $12,787, or if built of
wood, at $10,500.—See abstract in the Albany Gazette, reprinted in the Niagara
Patriot, March 2, 1819.244
HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
tween the piers was about eight feet deep. The piers were
about 200 feet apart, the same as now, but it is not probable
that the original channeLwas of this width. It was probably
about ioo feet wide. From old records we find that as an
aid to navigation at this primitive harbor, a stone lighthouse
had been built by the United States Government, about 1820,
some 1,400 feet southeast of the present Buffalo light on the
United States south pier. It was located “on a low sandy
point,” near where the oil house of the Lighthouse Depart-
ment now stands, south of the south pier. A primitive light
“was fixed at the pierhead (south pier) for the use of the
steamboat.”
Such was the harbor of Buffalo in 1821, and such it re-
mained during the following five years, without any im-
provements except possibly minor repairs by the State of
New York. The facilities it offered, however, appear to
have encouraged commerce, for we find that while the num-
ber of vessels arriving and departing was 120 in 1820, the
number had increased to 359 in 1825. It was in this year,
1825, that the Erie Canal was completed, and it evidently
at once stimulated trade. In 1827 the number of vessels
arriving and departing had increased to 972, two and three-
quarter times as many as in 1825.
In 1826 an appropriation of $15,000 was made by the
Federal Government “for building a pier and repairing an
old one at the mouth of Buffalo Creek.” (Ex. Doc. No. 64,
page 176, H. R. 48th Congress, 1st Session.) “Upon that
the United States Engineer (General Macomb) took pos-
session and made it a government work.” This was the be-
ginning of the United States Government’s aid to, and ad-
ministration of, Buffalo harbor, and it has not failed to con-
tinue such aid with increasing liberality up to the present
time.	.	.
From that time as the needs of commerce developed,
projects for the harbor’s improvement also developed. First
in importance came the improvement and preservation of
the entrance channel to Buffalo Creek, or the inner harbor,
and the piers protecting that channel. Then came projects
for protecting the inner harbor from lake storms, andHISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.	245
finally the development of an outer harbor. This develop-
ment involved the construction of definite structures., and
the history of the harbor can perhaps best be outlined by
taking up these structures in chronological order, and giving
their history separately. They may be enumerated as fol-
lows :
I.	The entrance channel and piers.
II.	Protection works along the lake shore; including (a)
the sea wall, and (b) the sand-catch pier.
III.	The breakwaters and outer harbor; including (a) the
old breakwater, (b) the breakwater extension to
Stony Point, and (c) the north breakwater.
I.
The Entrance Channel and Piers.
The south pier at the entrance proved to be a very trou-
blesome structure to maintain. It was exposed to the full
force and fury of the storms of Lake Erie, and the frail
structures first put up were washed away again and again.
It took some years and much experience to demonstrate that
only a structure of tremendous strength could withstand the
fierce onslaught of the lake when lashed into fury by a south-
wester. To secure a structure of adequate strength con-
sumed a greater part of the Government appropriations up
to 1839, when the south pier was finally reported completed.
It was in this interval of 13 years (i826-’39) extended,
straightened and strengthened. The old timber-work grad-
ually gave place to stone-work of heavy cut stone well
cemented, forming a mole or wall with a vertical face to-
wards the entrance channel 14 feet above water. Along the
channel below this wall was a heavy stone-paved “towing
path” for handling canal-boats, and on the south, or lake
side, a paved stone slope extended from the top of the mole
to the water’s edge. The pier was 1,790 feet long, of which
about 1,425 feet was built of stone, forming the mole, and246	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
the remainder was crib-work extending easterly from the
inner end of the mole towards the “elbow,” where the Wat-
son elevator now stands.
The mole was 14 feet above water, and the tow-path
three feet above water on the north side. There was a row
of piles on the south side of the mole. The lake end was
swelled out to receive a lighthousie, and the stone Buffalo
light now standing was erected in 1833. There was a row
of close piling along the channel face of the “tow-path.”
The pier as thus.built stood unchanged, except for Re-
pairs to the stone sea-slope and strengthening in weak places *
from time to time, from 1839 to 1848, in which the Black-
well (City) Ship Canal was constructed by the city, com-
mencing “at the Government land on the south side of Buf-
falo Creek, and running in a general southerly direction to
the south side of the (proposed) south channel, being 200
feet wide and 16 feet deep.” The construction of this canal
must have required the removal of a part of the timber part
of the south pier at its eastern end, and eventually the United
States relinquished some of its land and carried out the con-
struction of the dock front of the Lighthouse Department
property as it now exists, running southeasterly from the
inner end of the mole, at the Life-saving Station, so as to af-
ford a roomy entrance to the canal from the entrance
channel.	^
In the meantime, the north pier of course demanded at-
tention. It was also found necessary to rebuild the Other
pier on the north side of the entrance channel 200 feet from
the south pier. The original north pier, being protected by
its big brother on the south, was of cheaper construction,
being made of piles and crude timber work filled wtih brush
and stone. The first appropriation, in 1826, provided for
this north pier in its provision for “repairing an old pier.”
The work was begun promptly in 1826, but the pier being
sheltered by the more important south pier did not need the
care and attention given to the latter. It was probably re-
paired and rebuilt in more substantial form than the original
pile pier, but no records of the work appear to exist. In
1833 the north pier was reported to be “1,250 feet long, 600HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.	247
feet less advanced than the mete (south pier), built parallel
to the mole and 200 feet distant to the north. This is a tim-
ber pier filled with stone and is 15 feet broad.” In 1882 Mr.
C. W. Evans of Buffalo stated “that he [Evans] had let the
contract for building the Evans Ship Canal in 1831, that it
was commenced in 1832 and finished in 1834; that it was
built by the Evans estate, and that so far as he could recol-
lect the end of the north pier then ran up to within 100 feet
of the south end of the canal/’ This pier must have been a
frail affair, and it suffered damage from storms frequently,
in spite of the protection afforded by the south pier.
In 1839 we find the report: “The north pier needed re-
building, and an estimate was made to rebuild 2,400 feet at
a cost of $5,016 by cribs 30 feet by six feet by five feet high/’
In 1842 Capt. W. G. Williams in his annual report of
Oct. 10, 1842 (H. R. Ex; Doc.), states that the north pier
675 feet in length has been nearly destroyed and that the
water is flowing in through a break at the eastern end.”
There are no records in regard to the rebuilding of this pier,
but it must have been done as recommended in 1839 for a
length of about 700 feet easterly from the outer end to about
the west line of what is now Dock Street. For the re-
mainder of the distance to the Evans Canal, about 412 feet,
there probably remained enough of the original old pile pier
to afford protection to the channel. This rebuilding prob-
ably occurred later than 1842, after the severe damage re-
ported by Capt. Williams, but only for the vital part, or
same 700 feet.
It is to be inferred then, that in the year 1848 the north
pier was in a fair condition of repair, so far as needed to
protect the channel, and that it formed with its protector,
the south pier, a substantial entrance-channel protection.
During this time what had been accomplished in the im-
provement of the entrance channel?
In 1826 it was eight feet deep. In 1832 it was proposed
“to excavate the creek to 10 feet; dredge off the 'elbow’
jutting out into the creek easterly of the boundary of the
United States lands.” (At the point now occupied by the
Watson Elevator.) In 1835 this had evidently been accom-248	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
plished, and the report of thq channel says:	“During the
year io feet of water was obtained throughout the channel.”
Soon after this nature favored lake commerce and its in-
terests by bringing on a period of high water level which
prevailed from 1838 to 1848. The io-foot channel together
with the advantages gained by this high water appears to
have relieved all concern as to the channel depth, and, aside
from further work at the “elbow” and along the south pier
to secure a greater width of channel 10 feet deep in 1845,
the entrance channel appears to have been adequate for the
commerce of the port, and little or no improvement work
was done. The arrivals and departures of vessels had grad-
ually increased, amounting to 9,441, with a tonnage of
3,092,427 in 1852—ten times as great as in 1827.
It will be seen from the foregoing that by 1850 the en-
trance channel, its piers, and the inner harbor had taken
practically the shape in which we find them today, though of
course without the extensive improvements in wharves,
warehouses, elevators, and other facilities for handling com-
merce. The Erie Canal was in full operation. The Erie
Basin existed as it does today (the stone breakwater form-
ing this basin was built by the State shortly after the com-
pletion of the canal) ; the Blackwell or City Ship Canal was
in existence (though afterwards twice extended until it cul-
minated in the Tifft Farm basins in 1884). The improve-
ments made since that time were not then required in the
direction of making a harbor entrance, but of maintaining it
and keeping its depth in pace with the ever-increasing size
and draft of lake vessels. It was to this end that all further
effort was directed. Appropriations were not always forth-
coming when needed and often repairs were delayed by lack
of funds, but the works were maintained in fair condition.
From 1853 to 1864 no appropriations were made, except two
small allotments in 1853 and 1855, aggregating less than
$1,000, and during this period came the long and dreary
years of the Civil War with its fearful drain upon the life-
blood, energy and treasure of the nation. When these were
happily passed, aid and attention were again directed to the
building up and development of the “works of peace.” TheHISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.	249
harbor of Buffalo was not overlooked, and in 1868 radical
improvements were demanded and taken up.
In the year 1868 the south pier was extended 318 feet,
lakeward, from the axis of the lighthouse to check the filling
in of the channel by the littoral drift which had “made”
beach and shoal water by its accumulation against the south
pier as we see it today. The north pier was also repaired,
and in 1870 these repairs were reported completed. The
entrance channel also required deepening to meet the de-
mands of commerce. This deepening was accomplished in
1869-’70 and secured 14 to 15 feet of water at low stage,
equivalent to full 16 feet at mean stage. This channel was
maintained by a small amount of dredging in 1874 and 1876.
The year 1876 was a, sort of halting point in the Govern-
ment's operations on the entrance channel and its protecting
piers. All its appropriations and attention were for years
thereafter—until 1900, to be exact—practically confined to
the greater work of the outer breakwater, as will be shown
later on.
The south pier remained intact and unchanged through
these 24 years, until in i900-'oi the old “towing path” or low
part of the pier was removed and a durable and sightly con-
crete banquette built in its place for the whole length of the
mole, 1,425 feet.
In 1900 the substantial and well-appointed lighthouse
■depot was built on the south side of the pier, just east of the
Buffalo light, and preparations were made for a new life-
saving station just east of the lighthouse depot, in place of
the station now and for many years located at the inner end.
of the mole. During the period of 24 years the entrance
channel was looked after by the city of Buffalo, and dredged
from time to time to secure the deeper water demanded by
commerce. The 16-foot channel had grown to an 18-foot
channel by 1890, and the “400-footers” which were built in
such large numbers in the subsequent decade found this'
channel inadequate in 1900. In that year the United States
Government again assumed control of the entrance channel
from the outer harbor to its junction with Buffalo Creek
;and the City Ship Canal, and dredged the channel so as to250
HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
provide 22 feet of water at mean level and about 20 feet at
low water. This is the channel through which now annually
ten thousand vessels with ten millions of entering and clear-
ing tonnage pass on their way to and from the busy wharves
and elevators in the inner harbor.
As we have shown, the south pier and channel have re-
turned to the fostering care of the United States Govern-
ment after having been left to the care of others, or to care
for themselves largely, for nearly a quarter of a century,
But what was the fate of the north pier ? Alas! while
the Government was striving with the seas of Lake Erie,
trying to build an outer breakwater in spite of the angry
protest of the lake storms, and had its eyes directed on that
work, the north pier fell a victim to a great railroad cor-
poration. This pier was put in repair by the Government in
1870. It rested undisturbed until 1879, when suddenly it
was pounced upon by a railroad corporation, and in spite of
protests, demonstrations with United States troops, and
pleadings, it was held fast and remains a captive to this day.
In 1879 the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad
Company began filling in the low beach back of the north
pier with a view to establishing a coal dock there. ‘ The rail-
road company claimed that the United States had no title to
the land on which the north pier was built, and that they
could prove a right and title in this land, and that having a
title to the land they also owned the pier. It acted according
to its “convictions.”
The pier as it then existed was built upon the sand bot-
tom 10 feet below water. The railroad company wanted 18
feet of water along the pier on which they proposed to build
a coal-trestle with chutes for loading vessels lying alongside
the pier. Excavating to this draught would result in toppling
the pier into the entrance channel and leave them no founda-
tion for their trestle. They were “convinced” that the pier
was theirs, and consequently they could do what they pleased
with it. They dug it out and threw it away. In its place
they built a new pier founded on rock at a depth of 18 feet
below water, and 720 feet long from the pier-head. The
new pier was half done when the Government turned itsHISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.	251
eyes on it. Protests were made, and on Oct. 29, 1879, the
work was stopped by Government officials, and United
States soldiers took possession by order of the Secretary of
War to prevent further work. Then came discussions and
parleys between the Secretary of War and the railroad com-
pany. The latter presented their case and showed very
plainly that they had the best of the argument as it then
stood. Said the company’s attorneys :
“In the prosecution of this undertaking they (the rail-
road company) have removed 500 feet of the old pier, have
constructed to the surface of the water 315 feet, and were
engaged with a force of more than 100 men and two dredges
in the work, expecting to complete it this fall (having com-
menced Oct. 2, 1879), when on the 20th inst. (November,
1879), they were stopped by the Government officials, who
took possession by Federal soldiers.
“Waiving the question of legal rights for the present,
certain practical considerations make it desirable that the
work be continued. In the first place, should it not be, it is
probable that by the storms of the coming season the earth
will be washed into the harbor and the spring navigation
obstructed. Secondly, the company will sustain great pe-
cuniary loss, and all this will be without benefit to anybody.
If we are permitted to go on, a new pier in place of the old
one, much better and more permanent, will be put on the
site of the old one before the winter fairly sets in, the dam-
ages to future navigation will be guarded against, and the
harbor much improved, We respectfully request that such
immediate examination be given by the Department of these
matters (not including questions of title) as will satisfy it
as to the facts, and that orders may be given that the rail-
road company be not further interfered with in the prosecu-
tion of this work, the company meantime executing such in-
struments as may be satisfactory to you, guaranteeing that
whatever shall be done in this behalf shall not affect the legal
status.”
The War Department as requested immediately set about
securing the “facts.” It was found that the railroad com-
pany had actually removed 6i3 feet of the pier, and desired252	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
to build only 107 feet more, or a total length of 720 >
feet. They had a contract in force for building all of this
pier at once, and the harbor interests required the protection
of the pier. The company would disturb no other part of the
pier, and would provide conveniences at or near the pier for
a boathouse and landing for the Government officers. The
rights of the United States in the new pier would be con-
ceded by the company to be precisely the same as its rights
in the old pier, unprejudiced by any action then taken.
In view of these facts it was advisable to allow the rail-
road company to complete the pier in accordance therewith.
The troops were withdrawn, and the pier and coal trestle
thereon completed, and a boathouse built for the United
States at the corner of the dock at Coit Slip and Erie Basin,
the foundation of the old boathouse at the pierhead being
incorporated in the new pier. This was done under a
written agreement dated Dec. 9, 1879, between the two in-
terested parties.
. The pier was again in existence and performing its func-
tions as a channel protector. Then was begun the matter of
proving title, but the railroad company felt no great anxiety
in that matter, so long as they held the proverbial “nine
points” in possession, and the matter still rests in the courts,
while the railroad company continues to enjoy its “posses-
sion,” now 21 years old!
II.
Protection Works along the Lake Shore.
The sea wall.—The work of making Buffalo Creek
.available as an inner harbor by the construction of the en-
trance channel and its piers had scarcely been well inau-
gurated when plans for increasing the security of the harbor
demanded attention. Vessels in the creek, and the wharves
.and warehouses along its banks, were liable to serious injury
from heavy seas sweeping across the narrow sand-spit which
separated the creek from the lake, extending southwardHISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.	258.
from the south pier. The presence of the south pier in-
creased this danger, as it increased the liability of storm-
driven waters of the lake to pile up in the angle which the
pier made with the spit. The danger threatened was so ap-
parent as to demand the consideration of the Government
immediately after it assumed control in 1826. In 1829 Capt.
Maurice reports:	“It was also determined to construct a.
cross—or sea-wall—nearly at right angles to the eastern end
of the mole, so as to enclose the old lighthouse and keeper’s
house, and prevent the lake from making a breach between
these two and the mole.” Moreover it was possible that the-
ta w sand-spit might be cut through and another river mouth
be formed to the southward, to the detriment of the original
one or entrance channel. This was the more to be guarded
against, as there was even at that early day, 1829, a favored
proposition to cut a channel from Buffalo Creek to the lake
across the spit, from the bend in the creek where the
Louisiana Street bridge is now located, and where the spit
was only about 1,000 feet wide. This channel, though never
made, was known as the “South Channel” and figured as a.
desirable proposed improvement for many years, and con-
trolled in plans for other improvements, notably the Black-
well or Ship Canal, the sea-wall and the outer Buffalo
harbor.
There is no definite record as to the year in which the
decision was reached to construct the sea-wall really built
and now in existence in a dilapidated form extending from,
the eastern end of the mole, or parapet, of the south pier
southerly some 5,720 feet. Some few hundred feet of wall
may have been built in 1834 to protect the old lighthouse and’
keeper’s dwelling as recommended by Capt. Maurice; as to*
this records are not clear.
In 1837 the high water level prevailing reported as “the-
increased height of the lake” (nearly three feet) brought
forcibly to view the need of protection, and we find this re-
port:	“The whole area of Buffalo harbor and creek,- in-
cluding the entire surface from the mouth of the creek to
the projected south channel, is less than 28 acres. If nothing-
more effectual be done to enlarge the accommodations for254
HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
vessels, it will soon be necessary to construct a wall upon
the beach or lake side of the peninsula (spit) about one mile
in length at a cost of about $40,000	.	.	. and the wall
in front of the Government land must be completed at a cost
of about $8,000.”*
In 1838 an appropriation of $48,000 was made specifi-
cally “for erecting a mound or sea-wall along the peninsula
at Buffalo, N. Y.”, and the construction of the sea-wall was
begun in the same year. •
Capt. W. G. Williams, Topographical Engineer, United
States Army, officer in charge, reports in 1838:	“During
the year 1,900 feet of the mound was three parts finished, of
the facing wall 400 feet was raised to nine feet, viz.: within
three feet of the completed height, and 250 feet was raised
to five feet. This has an average width at base of 4feet.
The sea-wall consists of an earth mound with masonry fac-
ing, running, from the end of the wall enclosing the light-
* Among miscellaneous documents preserved by the Buffalo Historical
Society is found the following “Copy of a Petition to the Secretary of War in
relation to the Sea Wall in 1837”:
“To the Hon. the Secretary of War:—The undersigned, a Committee of
the Common Council of the City of Buffalo, appointed to communicate with the
War Department and to solicit therefrom assistance in counteracting the effects
of the elements which are now rapidly working the destruction of Buffalo
Harbor, respectfully submit the following facts and solicitations:
“Buffalo Harbor'is about a mile and a half long and is nearly parallel to
the Lake Shore, with a-low peninsula between them, varying in width from 60
to 90 rods. The surface of this peninsula is sand; the substratum clay. On
its extreme point stand the Pier and Light House built by the United States.
For a few years past the lake has been constantly rising, so that in gales this
narrow strip of land is completely inundated and the swells pass unbroken over
it with such force as to endanger every vessel in the Harbor. The effect of
this frequent inundation has so far been to wear away the lake shore and lower
the surface of the peninsula by sweeping into the harbor the sand of which it
is composed; and this operation has been going on with great rapidity for the
last three years. During the recent gale (22nd Nov.) immense damage was
done. The shore was washed away for a considerable distance, much of the
loose soil on the peninsula removed, deep channels worn in the hard earth, the
United States pier so injured as to require prompt repair, the shipping driven
out of the Harbor into the middle of our streets, the wharves and storehouses
greatly damaged, and several lives lost.
“The peninsula is now too low to protect the Harbor from the swells of the
lake, in anything more than a moderate blow, and every appearance indicates the
speedy removal of the earth which still remains. When this happens, and
happen it soon must, unless measures are speedily taken to prevent it, there willHISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
255
house lot and parallel to the shore, 200 feet from it to the
southward, to protect that part of the city from inundation.
The top of the mound is 14 feet above the surface of the
water.” This was the beginning of the construction of the
sea-wall proper. It was completed for a length of 2,320 feet
in 1839. In 1840 “the sea-wall was extended 1,450 feet, and
did good service in a gale in which the lake rose six‘feet
•eight inches above the normal stage.”
Then came the halt in operations owing to no appropria-
tions of funds. In 1845 we find this report: “The violent
storm of October, 1844, overthrew much of the sea-wall, and
it was found necessary to change the plan of construction,
giving it a cross-section at the base of 18 feet, carried up five,
feet, and then stepped in 1*4 feet at regular heights until it
had a top width of two feet with a one-foot coping.”
The sea-wall apparently remained in the condition in
which this storm left it until 1866. In the meantime, steps
.be no Harbor at Buffalo, the money expended by the United States in building
the Pier and Light House will be lost, and there will be no connection, what-
ever, between the navigation of this lake and the Erie Canal. Indeed, the en-
tire commerce of the whole chain of Western lakes will have no harbor what-
ever at their northern extremity, the only point through which they now con-
nect with the Atlantic coast. At this time all the Steam Boats (more than one
Iiundred in number), together with all the ships, brigs and schooners on the
Lakes, have no other resort than Buffalo Harbor for business or shelter at the
north end of Lake Erie, and through no other point than Buff silo can they con-
nect their business with the Erie Canal. In case of war with England the loss
of this Harbor would be to the Government an incalculable injury.
“Under these circumstances the Common Council have thought proper to
make to the War Department a plain statement of facts, having the fullest con-
fidence that nothing further will be necessary to ensure the prompt and vigorous
action of that Department, to secure with the least possible delay this all-im-
portant harbor, Another year may destroy it entirely.
“The ground has been viewed by practical engineers who are of opinion
that at a moderate expense a sea-wall can be constructed, beginning at the
present United States Pier and running up the peninsula parallel to the lake
shore, of sufficient height and strength to serve as a perfect protection.
“For the purpose of-getting such a wall constructed, or some other equally
.good protection, the Common Council are about to petition co Congress for- an
appropriation. Preparatory to an action of Congress on this subject it is earn-
estly desired that you will be pleased to direct the necessary surveys and esti-
mates to be made, by engineers in the service of the Government, at the earliest
possible day, that the subject may be acted on before the close of the present
session. Not the least doubt is entertained that such a statement-of facts will
.be presented by the engineers as to secure the influence of your department with
•Congress in inducing them to speedily make the necessary appropriation.”256
HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
were taken to secure title to the land upon which this then
important harbor work was being built. Under date of
May 2, 1864, the Legislature of the State of New York
passed an act authorizing the City of Buffalo “to lay out,
make, and open a public ground in said city 130 feet wide
along the shore or margin of Lake Erie, for the purpose of*
maintaining thereon and protecting a sea-wali or break-
water/^ This act, briefly, authorized the city to take the
private property along the line of the sea-wall, built or to be
built, from the southeast end of the United States land to the
north side of the so-called South Channel for a width of 130
feet, and that after such property should be acquired the city
might deed it in part or in whole to the United States, on
condition “that the United States shall maintain and keep
in repair on said land the said sea-wall or breakwater. No*
dwelling-house, warehouse, shop, barn, shed or other build-
ing shall be erected upon, moved on to, or permitted to re-
main upon the land mentioned/' The design was at this
time to continue the sea-wall to the “South Channel," which
would have given it a total length of about 7,000 feet.
In 1866, 1,303 feet were built, and in 1867 the sea-wall
was reported “4,081 feet built with coping, 1,319 feet with-
out coping, and foundation laid, without anything above it,
for 321 feet more, leaving about 1,020 feet of the original
design upon which nothing was done." The further exten-
sion of this wall does not appear to have been required at
that time.
With the exception of some very minor repairs, no fur-
ther work was done on the sea-wall. The construction was
ordered stopped by the Chief of Engineers in 1867, and in*
1871 a balance of some $24,000 of sea-wall funds was re-
appropriated and applied to other works. The total amount-
expended on the sea-wall was $103,305.96.
The sea-wall as built above the foundation reached a
point about 400 feet south of South Michigan Street, and it
is still in existence, though wrecked in many places where
the “squatters.," whose squalid huts line the wall, have
* Laws of N. Y., 87 Sess. Chap. 547, p. 1200-, on- file in Law Library atr
Buffalo, N. Y., with tracing of map.HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.	257
robbed it of its stone for building purposes. The provision
of the legislative act that no buildings should be built on the
land acquired by the city was grossly neglected, as the
squatter settlement thereon now testifies.
The abandonment of the sea-wall construction was de-
cided upon advisedly by the Government. Plans for an
outer breakwater and harbor had become well developed and
decided upon, and a greater outer breakwater would afford
all of the protection gained by the sea-wall and much more.
There were evidently persons and interests, however, who
regarded the stoppage of further sea-wall construction by
the United States Government with misgivings. This is
evidenced by a second legislative enactment under date of
May 14, 1870, in general intent identical with the act of May
2, 1864, except that it provided that “such public ground
may be of such width and may extend for such distance
along the shore or margin of such lake within said city as
the said Common Council may deem expedient,” instead of
defining the land to be acquired as in the first act. Also,
“the said lands shall be and remain a public grounds for the
purposes of protecting the harbor of said city and the lands
adjacent thereto from the encroachment of said lake, and
the said Common Council may at any time thereafter erect
and maintain thereon or on any part thereof a sea-wall or
breakwater.”
The strip of land whose acquirement by the city was au-
thorized by the two legislative enactments referred to was
actually acquired from the north line of outlot 36, the
boundary of United States property at the south pier, to the
proposed “South Channel,” and 130 feet wide. None of the
land was ever deeded to the United States, probably because
the United States plainly showed its intention to abandon
the sea-wall by actually beginning the construction of the
outer breakwater in 1868. This tangible proof of intention
allayed all fears as to the safety of the harbor, as the break-
water structure progressed, for the Common Council was
never called upon “to erect or maintain a sea-wall” as pro-
vided by the act of 1870. The land is known as the “sea-
wall strip”; and in this year of 1902, the city, through a258
HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
harbor commission duly appointed, is striving to clear its
apparently clouded title to this strip, with a view to convert-
ing it into a grand lake-front street now desirable and neces-
sary for the development of dock facilities in the outer har-
bor, whose shore line yet lies in an entirely unimproved con-
dition and presents to the eye the same stretch of barren
beach that greeted the eyes of the pioneers of Buffalo.*
The sand^catch pier.—The sea-wall was the only work
of real importance erected for the protection of the harbor
during its existence prior to the final culmination in the con-
struction of the great outer bfeakwater. There were other
works proposed, however, aiming to remedy an evil which
came after the construction of the south pier. This was the
accumulation of sand and littoral drift on the beach south of
the pier, and stopped in its course towards Niagara River
by the pier. In time the beach extended outward, shoal
water formed around the head of the pier, and during
storms the sands accumulated on these shoals were carried
into the entrance channel.
Catch-sand piers or jetties of tight sheet piling were sug-
gested, distributed along the beach as far as the proposed
South Channel, l1/* miles from the pier, to arrest and hold
the moving sands.
In 1867 a Board of Engineers, convened to formulate
plans for improving Buffalo harbor, proposed among other
improvements “to open a canal 2,820 feet long and 200 feet
wide from 14 feet of water in the lake to 14 feet of water in
Buffalo Creek, at a point iy2 miles south of the lighthouse
pier [the site of the long proposed 'South Channel’],• with
* It is also to be noted that the Legislature of the State by an act passed in
April, 1898, authorized the City of Buffalo “to use or occupy” the sea-wall strip
presumably for such public purposes as it Saw fit. It was formerly owned and
controlled by the city only for the specific purpose of “maintaining and pro-
tecting a sea-wall or breakwater along the shore or margin of Lake Erie.” It
can now be used for the purposes of a grand highway along the splendid pro-
tected outer harbor which has been built by the General Government. Such a
highway is a necessity to the proper development and use of the harbor, and it
seems almost providential that the land for it should have been acquired for it
in the early days.HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.	259
two close pile piers 20 feet wide and five feet above water,
one 1,058 and the other 1,000 feet in length, to protect the
channel from the shore [lake] to the 14-foot curve.” These
tight piers would serve the double purpose of protecting a
new harbor entrance and of checking the sand movement
towards the south pier and entrance channel. The Board’s
proposal was not approved by the Chief of Engineers. In
1869, Major Harwood, then officer in charge, advocated
changes in the plan proposed by the board to the effect that
“the new channel should be at right angles to the stone line,
and that from the end of the South Channel pier an exten-
sion should be built at an angle to the directiqn of the
heaviest seas for 500 feet, the outer end resting in 20 feet of
water.”
Again in 1873 the same officer reported that the con-
tinued accretion of sand along the shore and pier south of
the lighthouse made it advisable to build the south pier of
the proposed South Channel as a means of stopping the flow
of sand to the southward. The matter was considered of
sufficient import to refer to another board of engineers,
which was convened in i873-’4. This board recommended
the construction of a pile pier 10 feet wide and six feet above
water, commencing at. a point 550 feet south of the proposed
south pier of the South Channel, connected by piling with
the railroad bulkhead on the shore at that locality, and ex-
tending out to the 12-foot depth in the lake; thence pro-
longed by crib work 20 feet wide and six feet above water to
make a total length of pier of 1,270 feet. The board also
reported:	“It is expected that other jetties of slight con-
struction, not to exceed 300 feet in length, may be needed
at different points between the site of the one now proposed
and the south United States pier, to arrest the transfer of
sand and prevent abrasion of the beach during the period in
which covering-works (meaning the breakwater) are in pro-
cess of construction.”
The same board reconvened later in 1874, August and
September, and changed their location for the proposed
sand-catch pier “to a point on the shore line opposite to the
south end of the Blackwell Canal.” The canal at this time260	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
ended at the location of the proposed South Channel. This
board also recommended that “the old South Channel, ap-
proved in the project of the board of 1868, should not be
built by the Government as it is purely a matter of local in-
terest.”
The construction of the sand-catch pier recommended by
the board was begun in the fall of 1874, 650 feet being built
that year. In 1875, 220 were added, making the pier
870 feet long. As it was found, however, that no sand was
arrested by it, its construction was stopped. This sand-
catch pier exists today. In 1897 it was further extended to
a total length of 1,148 feet, to comply with a special pro-
vision of the Act of Congress appropriating money for Buf-
falo harbor in 1896. It has not, however, proved useful in
any way, and the lake beach being now protected by the
breakwater, the sand-catch pier has lost all value as a harbor
work, and all kindred piers or jetties if built would now
serve no useful purpose.
. At the same time that the sand-catch pier was begun in
1874, an experimental jetty of piles and plank was built ex-
tending 400 feet into the lake, at a point about 900 feet
north of South Michigan Street. It stood a few months,
long enough to demonstrate its uselessness, and was carried
away by winter storms in 1875.
III.
The Breakwaters and Outer Harbor.
It is apparent from the perusal of the foregoing account
of the Government’s operations for improving Buffalo har-
bor, that it had a fixed purpose and confidence in its purpose,
to overcome all of the menaces to the safety of the harbor by
constructing a barrier against all destructive seas of Lake
Erie in the form of a great breakwater well out from the
shore line, so as to afford at the same time a roomy outer
harbor and anchorage ground between it and the shore
which it would so effectually protect.
The desirability of an outer harbor for Buffalo was earlyHISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.	261
recognized, and this could only be secured through the
medium of a breakwater so located and built as to cut off a
portion of the lake in which ships could find safe anchorage
or moorings and which could be reached under any condi-
tions of weather. As the Buffalo breakwater is one of the
great breakwaters of the world, it is well to have a clear
understanding of what a breakwater is, and what, from an
engineering standpoint, the building of such a structure as
the Buffalo breakwater implies.
A breakwater is a structure of any kind which serves to
break the force of the waves and protect a harbor or anchor-
age against them. Some of the greatest and most difficult
engineering works ever conceived and carried out by man
have been breakwaters, and they have been constructed with
a great variety of forms and materials. When an engineer
is called upon to construct a breakwater at any particular
harbor, he must decide a number of important questions.
First, as to location. This is largely a matter of judg-
ment in which is involved the character and amount of the
commerce of the port both present and future, the depths of
water, the funds available, etc. It is rare that a breakwater
is built in the location first selected for it, unless it is built at
once. In the course of time new conditions are constantly
being developed which bring about modifications in plans.
Second, as to the character of the structure.' In deciding
upon this the engineer must consider whether the break-
water is to be used simply to cover an anchorage, or to serve
for mooring purposes, or as a wharf for loading and un:
loading passengers and goods. He must be governed largely
by the character of materials available, by the depth of
water, the force and violence of storms to which it will be
exposed, and the character of the foundation on which it
must be built. The method of carrying on the work will
depend on the prevailing conditions of the sea and weather,
and whether the structure abuts on the shore or is detached
therefrom.
One of the simplest types of breakwater is that at Port-
land, England. This is about 8,000 feet long, and consists
simply of a mound of rubble stone and cost about $6,000,000,262	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
or $750 per foot. The breakwater at Plymouth, England, is
similar to that at Portland, but on account of its greater ex-
posure it has been found necessary to cover the top above
low tide with granite block-paving of huge stones set in
mortar. This structure is 5,100 feet long, and has cost about
$8,000,000, or nearly $1,600 per foot.
In our country the Delaware breakwater is of somewhat
similar construction. The old breakwater there is simply a
mound of stone constantly added to until it has reached a
condition approaching stability. The new breakwater being
built there is formed of a rubble mound up to low water;
above this are great stones set carefully in place on horizon-
tal beds. This has just been finished, and by the same con-
tractors who are building the big breakwater. Rubble
mound breakers are often capped with huge concrete blocks,
and sometimes covered on the exposed side with these blocks.
Those at Algiers, Port Said, and Alexandria are of this
character.
Many breakwaters have been built which consist of a
rubble mound coming up to about low water surmounted by
a structure of masonry in place arranged for the transit of,
or loading and unloading of, persons and goods. This su-
. perstructure, by extending well above high water, gives
more complete protection to the water area which it covers.
Probably the‘most celebrated breakwater of this type is at
Cherbourg, France. It is 11,880 feet long, has a gun battery
at each end and one in the middle, was 70 years in building
and cost about $13,000,000, or about $1,100 per foot. There
are many structures of this general type, among which may
be mentioned Holyhead, Alderney, Marseilles, Genoa, Bastia
and Boulogne.
Another type which has developed of late years finds its
most noted illustration at Colombo, Island of Ceylon. After
passing through various contingencies and being modi-
fied as experience dictated, the form of construction at last
adopted was to build a rubble mound to a depth of 20 feet
and upon this to raise a superstructure 50 feet wide at the
base and about 35 feet high, all formed of huge concrete
blocks set in place on sloping beds. There are a number ofHISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
263
other very interesting examples of breakwaters, built mostly
of concrete blocks, and there is every probability that here-
after concrete will be used more and more for breakwater
construction.
In the early days of the nineteenth century, when the
necessity for breakwaters at some of the lake harbors became
recognized, the only ones in existence were in the older coun-
tries of the world, and those were of stone and masonry,
costing from $500 to $1,500 and over per foot. Such ex-
pensive structures were beyond the financial resources of our
people at the time. With true American adaptiveness, how-
ever, another type was designed of far less cost which has
been extensively built on the lakes and has done good serv-
ice. This was a timber crib filled with rubble stone.. The
abundance and cheapness of timber, and the fact that the
fresh waters of the Great Lakes are free from the teredo and
other marine destroyers justified structures of this character.
The era of cheap timber is now about over. Our re-
sources are greater, quarrying and transportation of stone
are now vastly less expensive than formerly, and concrete
made with our excellent and cheap American cements, have
all combined to declare the days of perishable wooden break-
waters about at an end. We can still, however, with perfect
propriety, if circumstances demand it, build a breakwater
with wooden and stone substructure, for in the fresh waters
of the lakes submerged timber is practically imperishable, as
far as decay is concerned.
In the Government records of Buffalo harbor, the first
official mention of an outer breakwater was in 1835 in a re~
port of the officer in charge, recommending a breakwater to
the north of the entrance and extending to Bird Island. In
this year Lt. T. S. Brown, Top. Engr., made a survey of
Buffalo and Black Rock harbors, with a view to constructing
an outer harbor suitable for commerce. The project was
“to continue the Black Rock breakwater from Bird Island
(its then terminus) to the southward to a point 1,000 feet
north of the new lighthouse/’ (The Buffalo light on the end264	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
of the south pier.) This was to be a breakwater of crib-
work filled with stone.
Again, in 1839, a survey was made and another plan for
a breakwater north of the harbor entrance was proposed,
“from a point 500 feet north and 30 feet east of the outer end
of the mole (south pier), when extended into 23 feet of
water, and carry it down 330 yards towards Bird Island at
Black Rock in from 10 to 25 feet of water.”
In 1884 a modification of the plan brought out in 1839
was recommended by Col. Abert, who advised “a breakwater
at the Horseshoe Reef about 2,650 feet from the northern
shore; the breakwater to be 3,700 feet in length, its outward
end 2,100 feet from Black Rock pier, and its eastern end at
about 800 feet from a proposed extension of the present
south pier. . .	. This would give a harbor 7,400 feet
long, 2,100 feet wide, with 14 to 20 feet of water. .	. . ”
In October, 1844, a violent storm overthrew much of the
sea-wall. This emphasized the importance of providing
harbor protection more adequate than that provided by the
sea-wall, and a board of engineers was appointed to decide
on a proj ect for an outer breakwater. This board proposed
two projects : 1. “A detached breakwater 5,100 feet long to
the north of the lighthouse pier, its southern end 2,200 feet
west of the end of the lighthouse pier, the north end about
2,800 feet from the shore .	.	.” 2. “A detached break-
water south of the lighthouse pier, 6,050 feet in length, the
north end of which would be 2,500 feet s. s. w. of the end
of the lighthouse pier, and the south end about 3,600 feet
from shore .	.	.” The board recommended the south-
ern breakwater as being the more suitable, but stated that it
might become necessary at some future day either to build
the northern one, extend the southern one to Four-mile
Point (Stony Point), or connect its southern end with the
shore, so as to protect the proposed south channel .	.	. ”
In these projects for a breakwater north of the channel en-
trance, the influence of Black Rock, the former rival of Buf-
falo, was still apparent, and also the influence of the im-
portant Erie Canal interests. The Erie Basin and the stone
breakwater which forms it did not exist in 1845. They wereHISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
265
"built several years later, after 1850, being part of a plan de-
vised by the State Canal Board to connect Black Rock Har-
"bor with Buffalo Creek, through the Erie Basin; a plan
probably decided upon when it was found that the United
States was in favor of building its breakwater to the south
of the entrance channel.
It may be noted here that the views of the United States
Board of Engineers as above cited were a true prophecy.
The south breakwater has been extended to “Four-mile
Point” (Stony Point), and a north breakwater has been
huilt on approximately the site recommended by the board.
The realization came 50 years later. But 23 years were to
elapse after the report of the engineer before a breakwater
structure was to be commenced, 23 very eventful years dur-
ing some of which the Government had all it could do to
preserve its integrity, and the enormous expenses of the
Civil War left it nothing to expend on rivers and harbors.
During- those 23 years the commerce of Buffalo grew
very much. In 1835, when the subject of a breakwater was
first officially mentioned,, the vessels entering and leaving
Buffalo numbered 3,280. In 1845 this number had increased
to about 4,500, and from that time on it jumped with greater
strides. In 1856 the number of entrances and clearances
was 8,128, and in the next six years, to 1862, it doubled,
Eeing in that year 16,390. This was the high water mark as
far as numbers went, and it is worth remembering that it
meant during the season of navigation an average daily ar-
rival of 34 ships, and the departure of a like number. From
1862 the number of arrivals and clearances gradually de-
creased, but at the same time the average size of the vessels
increased with still greater rapidity, so that at the present
time, 1902, the number of arrivals and clearances is about
two thirds of what it was in 1862, while the total tonnage of
the vessels is nearly three times as great.
The old breakwater.—In 1868, the Civil War being
over, the Government again took up the work of improving
its rivers and harbors, and the breakwater at Buffalo was
commenced. A board of engineers in that year formulated a
project “to construct a detached breakwater in about 27 feet266
HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
of water, commencing at a point 2,500 feet from the light-
house and on the prolongation of the lighthouse pier, and
running southerly 4,000 feet on a course generally parallel
with the shore line. This was to be of timber crib-work
about 36 feet wide, filled with stone, with superstructure
carried five feet above the highest water known. The
board’s project was approved, and the construction of what
is now known as the old breakwater, the section beginnings
at the south side of the entrance to Buffalo Creek, was be-
gun. By June, 1869, 150 feet of cribs had been placed, and
the construction progressed with fair rapidity and few mis-
haps, until a gale in September, 1872, displaced some 315
feet of incomplete crib-work. The completed breakwater
was then 2,400 feet long, and afforded fair protection to the
entrance channel between the piers.
Then followed encounters with difficulties and misfor-
tunes from storms. The lake bottom was found to have
changed from solid gravel to soft clay, necessitating much
extra labor and expense in securely founding the cribs. The
misplaced cribs could not be straightened, and formed the
irregular part of the structure known as “the ice-breaker.”-
In i873~’4 a board of engineers was convened to devise plans
for overcoming the difficulties encountered, and at the same
time it modified the project for a detached breakwater 4,00a
feet long and recommended that it be extended “3,600 feet
on the same line, giving a total length of 7,600 feet, from its
southern end, and leaving a fine-weather opening of 15a
feet; a shore arm should be run, at an angle of 45 degrees
to the shore line, until it reached the sand-catch pier pro-
longed to meet it.” This modification of the project was
approved, and the construction went on from year to year.
The main part of the structure was completed, 7,608 feet
long, in 1893, a quarter of a century after beginning the
work. ’
The whole structure was built of hemlock timber cribs
covered with white pine timber superstructure, all filled with
stone. The crib-work under water is practically inde-
structible, so far as decay is.concerned, but the superstruc-
ture, after about 20 years of exposure to weather, becomesHISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.	267
weak and shows serious decay. Before the south end was
completed, therefore, the north end had “lived its life” and
required rebuilding above water level. This rebuilding be-
came imperative in 1888, but new conditions presented them-
selves. The cost of white pine had advanced greatly, and
the cost of Portland cement concrete was fast being reduced
by the rapidly increasing production of cement. A concrete
superstructure would be practically indestructible. The con-
ditions were carefully weighed, and Capt. F. A. Mahan, then
officer in charge, recommended a new superstructure built
of concrete. His recommendation was approved by a board
of engineers, and the result was that 1,900 feet at the north
end of the breakwater was rebuilt with a solid concrete
superstructure in 1889, the first structure of its kind built on
the Great Lakes, if not in the United States.
In 1891 another 1,900 feet of the old wornout timber
superstructure was replaced with solid concrete, and in 1899-
1900 a length of 1,015 feet. The “ice breaker” section be-
tween the 1,900-foot sections before mentioned, was rebuilt
wilh concrete, not solid, but of the shell construction de-
scribed further on in this paper. This placed two thirds of
the length of the old breakwater in permanent form, and
before many years the remaining third will be placed in the
same permanent condition.
In 1893, 800 feet of the proposed shore arm at the south-
ern end of the old breakwater was built complete and 300
feet more partially built. All was hopelessly wrecked by a
great storm in October, 1893. In this disaster the weak
character of the lake bottom played an important part, just
as it did in 1872. We have the old saying, “It’s an ill wind
that blows nobody good.” The sequel to this great wind-
storm proves the saying true, in this instance at least. The
wrecking of the shore arm led to important results, and
secured for Buffalo a greater harbor. The growth of com-
merce and crowded condition of the inner harbor had by this
time, 1893, brought commercial interests to the conviction
that the outer harbor as being formed was too small. The
building of the shore arm brought regret, as it put in the
remote future all prospects for the consummation of the268	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
longed-for greater harbor extending to Stony Point. After
the wrecking, hope revived, and the commercial interests
combined in urging the Government to change its project
and give Buffalo the outer harbor it needed. The appeal
was heeded, and a board of engineers convened in 1895 to
consider and decide the matter. The board decided “that the
breakwater should be extended all the way to Stony Point.”
Buffalo was at last to have her greater outer harbor. The
report of the board was made just before one of the authors
of this paper* took charge of the harbor works in October,
1895.
The board of engineers recommended the construction
of a breakwater, or rather a system of breakwaters, extend-
ing from the southern end of the old breakwater to Stony
Point. They were to be four in number, en echelon, with
openings between them of approximately 400 feet. In con-
struction they were to be simple mounds of rubble stone
brought to about eight feet above the water level. A strong
foundation was to be secured by dredging the mud of the-
lake bottom-down to the rock, and filling the trench so made
with gravel or sand. The plans as made by the board of
engineers appeared to Major Symons to be defective in
several important particulars, and he called attention to these
defects in a report, and proposed remedies.
First. They restricted too greatly and unnecessarily the
deep water area inside them. To remedy this it was pro-
posed to build the breakwater farther out in the lake, in the
location now occupied by the breakwater, giving an addi-
tional area inside it of 130 acres, all of water about 30 feet
deep.
Second. The numerous openings were not necessary
for circulation of water in the harbor or for convenience of
navigation, and they were a detriment in that they permitted
the waves to enter the harbor, and so lessen the protection
given to the waters behind the structures. To remedy this it
was proposed to build the structure with but one main
opening near its southern end, and a small opening at the
northern end for the use of tugs and small vessels.
* Major T. W. Symons, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A.HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
26£
Third. The form of cross-section given to the rubble
mound, a simple heap of stones, was not satisfactory. Ex-
perience elsewhere had shown, and it was recognized by the
board, that such a heap of stones would be constantly dis-
turbed and washed down by the waves, and would require
constant additions to be made to it to keep it up to the de-
sired height, and that with these additions and under the in-
fluence of storm, action, the mound would gradually reach
what would be a section of permanent stability. This sec-
tion of permanent stability was known—why not adopt it
and build to its lines in the first place? This was recom-
mended, and it was further recommended that the top, the
lake face to a depth of 15 feet, and the harbor face to a depth
of 10 feet, be covered with large selected stones carefully set
in place to the lines of this section of stability.
Fourth. The excavation of the mud bottom of the
lake and back filling the trench so made with gravel for a
foundation for a rubble mound did not appeal to Major
Symons as necessary. Equally good results, and at far less
cost, it was believed, could be attained by founding the stone
structure directly upon the natural mud bottom and let-
ting it settle down into the mud as much as it would. By
doing the work in proper continuity all danger of unequal
settlement could be guarded against. This was recom-
mended, and it may be stated here that in making the esti-
mates of cost, an allowance was made for an average settle-
ment of the structure into the mud of about 12^ feet. As a
matter of fact it has settled into the mud but about two or
three feet.
Fifth. The plan of the board called for the entire struc-
ture to be made of quarried stone, in conformity with uni-
versally prevailing custom. This was very expensive and
prohibitive of the new plan which must not exceed the old
plan in cost. To meet this situation, it was decided that
while stone was necessary on the outside of the structure, it
was not necessary on the inside, and this inside, the great
mass or hearting of the mound, could be made of some
cheaper material, as gravel, quantities of which were known
to be available. This was recommended and adopted, and it270	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
may be stated here that the contract price for stone is about
$i per cubic yard, while the gravel hearting costs 13 cents
per yard. This represents a saving of about $50 per foot of
the breakwater. The gravel hearting is protected from wave
action by its depth and by the stone which encloses it on the
top and sides. This design, which I believe has never before
been adopted in breakwater construction, has been eminently
successful.
Sixth. One serious defect of any rubble-stone break-
water is that it does not afford facilities for mooring ships.
This is important at Buffalo, as many ships and consorts are
constantly moored at the breakwater during the period of
navigation. To meet this demand it was considered that the
qld breakwater, 7,600 feet long, would furnish all the moor-
ing facilities required at the northern end of the harbor, and
that if there were provided at the southern end of the harbor
several thousand feet of breakwater adapted to mooring pur-
poses, the demand in this respect would be fully met.
It was recommended to build about 5,600 feet of timber
crib breakwater similar to the old structure, about half on
each side of the main southern entrance. To provide suit-
able foundation for this timber crib structure, it was recom-
mended that a trench be dug to the solid rock and back-filled
with gravel. The new breakwater, therefore, was to be of
stone and gravel for 7,250 feet of its length, and of timber
crib filled with stone for the remaining 5,600 feet.
The estimated cost of the breakwater proposed was not
greater than the estimated cost of the vastly inferior works
proposed by the board of engineers, and all of Major
Symons's recommendations were approved by the Chief of
Engineers and the War Department.
The River and Harbor Act of June 3, 1896, contained
the following item:
Improving harbor at Buffalo, New York: Improvement by ex-
tending the breakwater southerly to Stony Point:	Provided, That
contracts may be entered into by the Secretary of War for such
materials and work as may be necessary to carry out such extension
and the plan of such improvement as modified in the report of the
Chief of •Engineers for the improvement of that harbor for 1895,HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
271
such contracts to provide that the sand-catch pier be extended to the
bulkhead line, at a cost not exceeding $35,000, and that the northerly
section of said extension to Stony Point and the sand-catch pier ex-
tension shall first be constructed, to be paid for as appropriations
may from time to time be made by law, in the aggregate not to ex-
ceed $2,200,000:	And provided further, That in making such con-
tracts the Secretary of War shall not obligate the Government to
pay in any one fiscal year, beginning July 1st, 1897, more than 25 per
centum of the whole amount authorized to be expended.
The merits and needs of Buffalo had at last received full
recognition, and her greater outer harbor was assured to her.
Plans and specifications were at once prepared for the great
work, and a contract made for the whole work with Hughes
Bros. '& Bangs, of Syracuse, N. Y. Under this contract
5.000	feet of the breakwater extending southerly from the
small entrance off the south end of the old breakwater was
±0 be of the rubble mound or stone type, and in continuation
thereof there was to be about 5,000 feet of timber crib break-
water, the two forming what is now known as the South
Harbor section, about 10,000 feet long. This would bring
the breakwater to the south harbor entrance 600 feet wide.
Beginning at the south side of this entrance there was to be
a timber crib breakwater about 2,800 feet long, to the shore
at Stony Point. This is now known as the Stony Point
.section.	•
The contractors began the construction in May, 1897,
and the work has continued uninterruptedly, except during
the winter, up to the present time. The Stony Point section
.was completed on June 30, 1899. The timber portion of the
South Harbor section was completed on October 30, 1900,
for a length of about 2,800 feet. The length of this portion
as projected was reduced 2,000 feet, it having been %found
advisable in 1898 to increase the length of the stone, or
rubble mound, construction by this amount, making it about
7.000	feet long instead of 5,000 feet. The rubble mound, or
stone, breakwater has been completed for 4,000 feet, and
will be wholly completed in 1903.
Breakwater to stony point.—There is one thing of
interest attaching to this work which concerns the great in-272	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
dustry—the Lackawanna Steel Company's plant—estab-
lished at Stony Point. It will be noted that the act author-
izing the work required among other things “that the north-
erly section of said extension to Stony Point .	.
shall first be constructed." This was put in for certain rea-
sons unnecessary to specify here. It stood directly in the
way of the proper and most economical conduct of the work,
as it was desired to carry on at the same time the work of
building both types of breakwater, the stone, or rubble
mound, and the timber crib. To build the latter, it was
necessary to commence at the shore at Stony Point. In
every way it was desirable to commence at both ends and
work towards the center. But the law seemed to prohibit
this, and it was necessary to devise some way to get around
the law. Fortunately, there was on hand a balance of an
old appropriation which was available for the work and
which had no such annoying restrictions on it. It was rec-
ommended and approved that this balance be used in startings
the work at Stony Point. This was done, and the work
thereafter kept up with the regular appropriations. The
Stony Point section was in consequei&e completed several
years before it would have been, had a strict and literal in-
terpretation of the law been complied with. This Stony
Point section in itself forms a beautiful and well-protected
harbor, and it was in consequence of this good and available
harbor that the Lackawanna Steel Company decided to lo-
cate their great works in Buffalo and at Stony Point.
As these two types of breakwater possess unique features,
a brief description of the details may be of interest.
The Stone, or Rubble Mound, Breakzvater.—In building
the rough stone, or rubble mound, breakwater, the first thing
done is to deposit from dump scows two rows of small stone
along the lake and harbor foot of the slopes of the mound as
it will be when completed. This stone is not allowed to be
over a foot in any dimension, and has been so prescribed
because it has been found that a paving of small stone tends
to prevent larger stone from settling far into the mud, in-
fact, acts as a mattress. These rows, which are 135 feet
apart “from out to out," are brought up by ordinary rubble-HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.	273
stone to a height of about six feet, and the space between
them is then filled nearly to their tops with gravel dug out
of the Niagara River and transported in and dumped from
dump scows. Other rows of stone are then deposited to the
established grade lines and the space between partially filled
with gravel as before. This is kept up until the gravel
reaches an elevation io feet below water level; above this
no gravel is used. Everything above this io-foot level is
heavy stone put in place by derricks.
When the lake side reaches an elevation of 18 feet and
the harbor side of io feet below water, an off-set is made for
the foot of the large capping-stones which cover the mound
like a huge pavement. These capping-stones are uniformly
six feet thick, quarried so as to fit together like huge paving-
stones. They vary in size and weigh from three to 14 tons
each, averaging about seven tons. All are quarried at Wind-
mill Point, Canada, from the thick strata of flint limestone
found there. The rubble portion is then built up to above
the water line, approximately to the grade required for the
placing of the capping-stones. The beds for the capping-
stones are made with small stone, and they are set with
powerful derricks and guided into place by men feeling with
rods and observing them through water telescopes. In this
way the covering of the great stones is slowly brought up
to the water surface after which the placing proceeds more
easily and rapidly until the whole is completed.
Allusion has been made to the gravel hearting as a
unique feature of this breakwater. It has another unique
feature, and that is in the method of placing the capping-
stones. In every other known instance the large stones
forming the top of the breakwater have been placed horizon-
tally on their beds, and the desired cross-section has been
secured by stepping them back. In our Buffalo breakwater,
the blocks are placed normal to the surface so that the ex-
posed surface of the structure has no steps but is compara-
tively smooth. Angle stones are quarried for the base of the
harbor slope and for the upper angles, and the result is that
the capping-stones are all keyed together and support each
other, and the waves can get no pronounced bite anywhere.274	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
This description of the stone, or rubble mound, break-
water at Buffalo is very brief and very simple, but there is a
great deal of engineering work connected with it, in seeing
that the proper alignment and cross-sections are kept, direct-
ing and keeping track of every scow-load of material
dumped, determining the amounts of material placed in the
work, and directing and passing upon the placing of every
individual capping-stone.
During the year 1900 there were two abnormally heavy
storms, and the completed portion of the breakwater endured
their onslaughts without the slightest damage being suf-
fered.
Timber Crib Breakwater—The fact that great trouble
had been experienced with unequal settlement of the cribs
in the construction of the old breakwater, combined with the
further fact that the shore-arm built in 1893 was wrecked
by a storm in the fall of the same year, due to the inadequacy
of sustaining power in the soft clay lake bottom, all indicated
that it would not do to build a timber crib breakwater
directly upon the lake bottom. So in planning for the timber
crib structure, it was required that a trench be excavated
through the mud and clay forming the lake bottom down to
the solid rock, somewhat wider at the bottom than the crib
structure, and with such side slopes as the material would
take, and back-fill this with gravel to the level of the lake
bottom. This was a pretty large undertaking, and required a
special dredge, as the water was 30 feet deep, and the mud
and clay 30 to 40 feet thick to the rock, making it necessary
to do much of the work at depths of 60 to 70 feet. For this
purpose a huge clam-shell dredge was built, designed to
handle io cubic yards of mud at one operation. Keeping
this dredge at work in the fixed location, and making exactly
the cross-section of trench desired without going outside the
limits, was a work of considerable difficulty and required
great care and patience.
The filling of the trench was done with gravel dredged
from the Niagara River near the International bridge.
When this filling reached the original lake bottom, it was
surmounted by a flat-shaped stone mound built up to theHISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.	275
height of 22 feet below water level. This mound was 50
feet wide, 14 feet wider than the cribs to be sunk on it, and
it was carefully leveled off. Then the cribs, 36 feet wide, 22
feet high, and 180 feet long, made of 12 by 12-inch timbers,
were towed out and sunk in place, filled with stone and cov-
ered with the superstructure of timber and stone, six feet
above water on the harbor side and 12 feet above water on
the lake side. A small amount of rip-rap was placed along
each side of the structure; and it is intended as rapidly as
practicable to keep on placing rip-rap along the lake front
of this timber crib breakwater until it reaches a condition of
practical stability well up to, or above, water level. This
was not planned at first, but experience demonstrates that it
will be safer to have this enrockment, which will somewhat
break up the waves before they reach the vertical face of the
timber structure.
There are few breakwaters that have been built exactly
as planned and been found entirely safe and satisfactory,
and that building at Buffalo is no exception. It was hoped
for a long time that there would be no fly in our ointment,
but it got there. It blew in on the tail end of the great West
Indian storm of Sept. 11-12, 1901, which so completely
wrecked Galveston and then made its way up through the
Mississippi Valley and paid us a visit on its passage to the
North Atlantic. This storm practically wrecked the super-
structure on about 2,000 feet of our timber crib portion of
the South Harbor section.
The Galveston storm was followed ten weeks later, Nov.
21, 1900, by another wind-storm of abnormal severity, which
took hold of the already partially wrecked superstructure
and played havoc with it. About 1,500 feet of the super-
structure was razed nearly to the water’s edge. Luckily the
substructure, or portion below the water, stood all right, and
in excellent condition to put on a new superstructure. The
portion of the breakwater wrecked is in the deepest water
and directly in the axis of Lake Erie, and was attacked by
the waves with a ferocity far exceeding that with which the276
HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
old breakwater ever had been attacked. The vertical front
oLthe structure received the waves and deflected them up-
wards to a height estimated at from ioo to 150 feet, and the
great masses of water so deflected came down with such
force upon the deck as to crush it in and to break great tim-
bers 12 inches square as if they were matches. • The deck
once broken in, the waves and falling water were enabled to
wash out the stone filling and get at and demolish the back
walls and crush and tear out the cross and longitudinal ties.
A considerable portion of the superstructure built 12 feet
high was carried away, down to the ordinary level of the
lake.
In the engineering world, as well as in most other worlds,,
we learn as much, and perhaps more, by failures as by suc-
cesses, and the failure of our timber crib breakwater' has
taught several important things about breakwaters. One of
the lessons that it has taught is that in the same vicinity, and
with water of nearly identical depth and with the same gen-
eral exposure, two breakwaters, or sections of the same
breakwater, may be attacked by the waves with far differing
degrees of ferocity. It is difficult to conceive why the new
breakwater should be attacked with so much greater violence
than the old one, but it is so beyond a doubt.
Another thing that we have learned is that the deck of a
breakwater is a more important part of i‘t and requires
greater strength than we had previously understood to be
necessary, particularly in the case of a breakwater with a
vertical front wall. The failure has also taught many minor
points in regard to construction, and in particular it has
taught that wood is a very poor material with which to build
a breakwater in comparison with stone or concrete.
Plans were at once made for the repairs of the breakwater.
They were begun in 1901, and the work will be completed
by July, 1902. It has always been proposed with these
wooden breakwaters of the Great Lakes that when their su-
perstructure became so rotten that they could no longer be
depended upon to resist the action of the winds and waves,
they should be replaced with superstructures of masonry.
It has never been deemed practicable, where the struc-HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.	277
ture was not founded upon rock bottom, to put the masonry
superstructure on when it was first built, on account of the
liability to excessive and unequal settlement, which would
tend to crack and damage the masonry. About tWo thirds
of the old breakwater has received a concrete superstructure,
a portion of which was put on under the direction of Major
Symons last year. When we came to consider what should
be done with the wrecked breakwater near Stony Point,
three general methods of repair suggested themselves. One
was to rebuild the wooden superstructure, making it
stronger and able to withstand- such storms as those that
wrecked it before. The objection to this was that it would
be expensive, and would still leave the superstructure to be
changed to masonry at some time in the future. A second
method was to finish it on the top and lake side with rubble
and capping-stone similar to the regular rubble mound
breakwater heretofore described. This appealed to all very
strongly, but the serious objection to it was the time that it #
would require. It would probably take two years or more to
do it, and in the meantime the wrecked breakwater would be
liable to greater and greater damage, if not complete de-
struction. A third method was to put a concrete superstruc-
ture on it similar to that put on a portion of the old break-
water and on the new North breakwater. This, it was be-
lieved, could be done in one working season. The objection
to putting it on in the first place no longer held, as the break-
water had settled to a practical condition of stability and
been thoroughly well pounded down by the waves.
As this concrete superstructure involves some interesting
engineering features, it will be described, premising the de-
scription with the statement that it is similar in all respects
to the superstructure put on the old breakwater and the new
North breakwater, only made somewhat heavier on-account
of the greater exposure.
This style of superstructure was first devised and adopted
at Buffalo, and we call it the concrete-shell construction, to
distinguish it from the solid concrete superstructure which
has hitherto and elsewhere been adopted. It consists, briefly,
of three rows of concrete blocks weighing io to 14 tons each,278	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
extending from two feet below ordinary mean lake level to
two and three feet above this level, and resting upon these
blocks and covering all the space between them a shell of
concrete three to five feet thick, with all the interior space
filled with packed stone.
In doing the work the cribs are first cut down and leveled
off at the elevation of two feet below water, as it is consid-
ered that below this level the wood is practically .imperish-
able. The concrete blocks are used about the water-line on
account of the difficulty of getting good concrete made in
the water and subject to the lapping action of the waves. To
make these blocks as nearly monolithic as possible, joggle
channels three inches deep are made in their ends, and when
they are placed end to end, the double joggle channels six
inches wide are filled with rich concrete well tamped in. The
blocks once up, and the space between them filled with stone,
forms or molds are put up and the place concrete is put in,
forming the walls. Stone is filled in between the walls, and
the deck is then put over all, resting on the walls and stone
filling. At every 36 feet cross-walls are put in, making a
series of pockets. To bond the concrete made in place to
the concrete blocks, panels are made in the latter six inches
deep which are filled with the place concrete. This shell
concrete superstructure is believed to be fully as good as one
of solid concrete and is much cheaper, the filling stone cost-
ing about $1 a yard, replacing the concrete costing $7 to $8
per yard.
The north breakwater.—The Act of June 3, 1896,
provided for the protection of the whole water front of the
City of Buffalo south of the entrance channel, but there re-
mained one link to make the chain complete and secure pro-
tection for the entire city front. The missing link was at the
north end of the chain. The New York State breakwater,
forming the Erie Basin, protected the shore line and its ele-
vators and lumber and coal docks for about 2,400 feet north
from the entrance channel. Then there was a stretch of
some 2,300 feet of exposed shore line before the Bird Island
pier, also a State structure forming the entrance to Black
Rock harbor, was reached. The entrance to Erie Basin at279
HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
its northerly end, and the entrance to Black Rock harbor,
were thus exposed to lake storms, as well as the main shore
between the two. This exposure had precluded the building
of any wharves or docks along the main shore, and it was
bare of any improvements from the foot of Georgia Street
to the foot of Porter Avenue. The desired protection could
be secured by a section of breakwater covering the open
space.
The importance of Buffalo harbor was so well recognized
that favorable Congressional action providing for this sec-
tion was promptly secured. The River and Harbor Act of
March 3, 1899, provided:
For the improvement of the Buffalo Entrance to Erie Basin and
Black Rock Harbor, New York, $50,000: Provided, That a contract
or contracts may be entered into by the Secretary of War as may be
necessary for the completion of said project, .	.	. to be paid
for as appropriations may from time to time be made by law, not to
exceed in the aggregate $198,113.80, exclusive of the amount herein
appropriated.
Briefly stated, the project was to build a breakwater
2,200 feet long on the location now occupied by the North
breakwater, of hemlock timber cribs resting on solid rock
bottom, and surmounted by a concrete superstructure of the
shell design before described. Under the provisions of the
Act of March 3, 1899, a contract was entered into with
J. B. Donnelly of Buffalo, N. Y., for the whole breakwater,
and the construction was begun by the contractor in August,
1899.	Construction advanced favorably during the re-
mainder of that season and during the following season of
1900,	until the great Galveston storm of Sept. 11-12, 1900,
made its unwelcome and destructive visitation. The wind
reached a velocity of 78 miles per hour, and the water rose
5.6 feet above mean lake level. The construction of con-
crete superstructure had just been commenced. Some 200
concrete blocks had been laid on the cribs ready for the con-
crete walls. These blocks were 4 by 5 by 10 feet in size, and
weighed some 14 tons each. Most of them were thrown off
the cribs by the great seas sweeping over the work, and 100
feet of concrete walls built over blocks in place, was cracked
and severely damaged. The blocks were promptly recovered280	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
by a large derrick with the help of a diver, and work went
on. By November 21st over 1,000 feet of the breakwater
was completed. Then came the second great storm, Nov. 21,
1900, with its 60-mile wind, and severely damaged 150 feet
of freshly-made concrete superstructure, and covered all
with a coating of ice. Work was necessarily stopped. In
March, 1901, the work was taken up again, and the whole
breakwater fully completed June 4, 1901. In the meantime
Congress had provided the funds necessary, and thus the
whole breakwater, 2,200 feet long, built in an enduring form,
had been built and paid for in less than two years’ time, and
in less than 16 months of actual working time.
When the remaining portion of the stone breakwater is
completed, Buffalo will have by far a greater length of
breakwater than any other city in the world. From Stony
Point to the end of the North breakwater there are 22,500
feet of breakwater, very , nearly double that at Cherbourg,
France.
The cost of the different types of breakwaters which I
have described, built in water 28 to 30 feet deep, is ap-
proximately as follows, which prices include the cost of su-
perintendence, office expenses, etc.:
The rubble mound, or stone, breakwater costs $130 per
foot.
The timber crib breakwater, including the trench excava-
tion and filling same with gravel, costs $160 per foot, and if
to this the lake-side enrockment is added, the cost is $200 per
foot. If to this we add the cost of the concrete superstruc-
ture as built on the portion wrecked in 1901 and. as will be
required eventually to replace all timber superstructure, the
cost is $300 a foot.
It will be observed that these costs are small, compared
with the costs of foreign breakwaters which run ordinarily
from $500 to $1,500 per foot.
There have been appropriated and expended on the con-
struction and improvement of Buffalo harbor by the United
States Government, the amounts shown in the following
table:HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
281
STATEMENT OF ALLOTMENTS AND APPROPRIATIONS MADE FOR IMPROVING
HARBOR AT BUFFALO, N. Y., FROM MAY 26, 1826, TO
THE PRESENT TIME;
May	26,	1826...	. .$ 15,000.00	June	23, 1874-••		• •$ 75,000.00
May	19,	1828...	34,206.00	March	3,	1875.••	100,000.00
April	23,	'1830...	15,488.00	Aug.	4,-	1877...	85,000.00
March	2,	1831...	12,900.00	June	18,	1878...	80,000.00
July	3,	1832...	10,300.00	March	3,	1879-■•	100,000.00
March	2,	1833-••	31,700.00	June	14,	1880...	90,000.00
June	28,	1834...	20,000.00	March	3,	1881...	90,000.00
July	7,	1838...	68,500.00	Aug.	2,	1882...	125,000.00
June	11,	1844...	40,000.00	July	5,	1884...	... 100,000.00
Aug.	30,	1852...	14,000.00	Aug.	5,	1886...	112,500.00
March	3,	1853-••	349-05	Aug.	11,	1888...	225*000. 00
March	2,	1855-••	452.32	Sept.	19, i8qo. ..		300,000.00
June	28,	I864...	15,000.00	July	13, 1892...		300,000.00
July	2,	I864...	37,500.00	Aug.	18, 1894...		70,000.00
June	23,	1866...	... 131,000.00	June	4,	1897..	
March	2,	I867...	... 100,000. oo‘	July	1,	1898...	
April	10,	1869...	89,100.00	March	3,	1899.	485,498.00
July	10,	1870...	80,000.00	March	3,	1899..,	75,000.00
March	3,	1871...	100,000.00	March	3,	1901.	400,000.00
June	10,	1872...	75,000.00				
March	3,	1873...	75,000.00	Total..			
Feb.	23,	1874...	20,000.00				
To this should be added the appropriations for the break-
water at the Buffalo entrance to Erie Basin and Black Rock
Harbor (the North breakwater) as follows:
March 3, 1899........................................ $ 50,000.00
June 6, 1900. ....................................... 191,701.25
Total..................................... $241,701.25
This gives an aggregate of over $5,000,000.*
*For a description of Buffalo harbor as it is (spring of 1902) see Survey of North-
ern and Northwestern Lakes: Bulletin No. 12 D, Lake Erie and Niagara River to
.Niagara Falls, published by the War Department, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army,
April 30, 1902. It summarizes the work thus far accomplished; shows that in the
•outer harbor “ there are about 605 acres of water with 20 feet and over in depth,”
and “ about 700 acres between the breakwater and the established harbor line which
■coincides generally with the 18-foot curve, all good anchorage ground.” Statistics
and accurate data are given on every phase of the harbor as it is, well showing what
lias been accomplished by the Government outlay of nearly $5,000,000.282	HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
Nothing has been said here about the development in the
inner harbor of Buffalo. To treat this subject properly
would take much time and research and does not properly
belong in a paper on the work done by the General Govern-
ment. Suffice it to say that the people of Buffalo have tried
to ‘‘keep up with the procession,” with the larger and ever
larger boats and constantly increasing business, by deepen-
ing the river and making slips and canals, and building ele-
vators, warehouses, etc. In all, the hand and brain of the
engineer have been all-important. New methods and im-
provements are constantly being devised and made, and the
end is very far from being reached yet. Here, as every-
where else, there is room for the inventiveness and adaptive-
ness of the engineer. Owing to the quick loading and un-
loading devices at the lake ports, an amount of business is-
being done several times greater than could have been done
with a fleet of the same capacity 40 or 50 years ago. One
example illustrating this:
Fifty or 60 years ago when a ship arrived in Buffalo with
a load of grain, it was taken out by a string of men climbing
up a ladder with full baskets on their shoulders, emptyings
the grain into bins, and going down another ladder into the
bowels of the ship with empty baskets, and painfully re-
peating this process hour after hour. A busy-brained man,
Mr. Joseph Dart, seeing them thus employed, thought the
process could be improved, upon by fastening the basket to
an endless chain put up in a nearly vertical position and kept
going by steam power. From this idea sprang the great ele-
vator system of Buffalo, where grain is handled in greater
quantities and at a less cost than at any other port in the
world. So rapidly is this work done now that a great
steamer carrying 200,000 bushels of wheat can, with the aid
of a dozen or fifteen men, be unloaded in eight or ten hours.
Under the old system it would have taken them two or three
weeks.*	•
Buffalo is one of the great ports of the world. It is dif-
ficult, if not impossible, to get accurate statistics of the
* See, on this subject, Joseph Dart’s own account of The Grain Elevators of
Buffalo, Buffalo Historical Society Publications, Vol. I., pp. 391-404.HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
283
water-borne commerce of different ports, but from the best
data available it may be asserted that in our country the
commerce of Buffalo is only exceeded by that of New York
and Chicago, and in the whole world there are but about five
or six cities which have a greater amount of water-borne
commerce than Buffalo.
The ships in which the business of the Lakes is now done
have grown so large, approximately 500 feet in length, and
the amount of business so great, that the inner harbor in the
narrow creek has been outgrown, and the dema'nd for'a
more commodious harbor is imperative. It is to meet this
demand that the outer harbor was made, and it is expected
that soon quite a transformation scene will be exhibited by
the erection of wharves, elevators, warehouses, etc., in the
outer harbor, and the transaction of the greater part of the
business there. It is with this end in view that the great
Government works were built. In regard to these works
Buffalo has a very proud record:
1.	It is the first city on the Lakes at which a fully ex-
posed breakwater was built.
2.	It is the first city on the Lakes whose timber crib
breakwater received a solid concrete masonry superstructure.
3.	It is the first city on the Lakes at which a massive
stone breakwater was built.
4.	It is the first city on the Lakes, and it is believed in
the world, at which a stone breakwater has been built with a
gravel hearting.
5.	It is the first city on the Lakes, and probably in the
world, where the concrete-shell structure has been adopted
and used surmounting a timber crib breakwater.
Lights and Aids to Navigation.—Among other work
done by the General Government for the benefit of the navi-
gation interests are the construction and maintenance of
lighthouse and fog-signal stations and the placing and care
of buoys.
Buffalo Main Light.—The first work of the kind done by
the Government at Buffalo was the erection of a lighthouse
near the mouth of Buffalo Creek. This was in 1820, and its
location was about that of the present lighthouse slip, op-284
HISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
posite the Watson Elevator. The character and cost of the
light are unknown. In 1833, when the South pier had been
built by the Government, the entrance light was removed to
the end of the pier where a mole had been prepared for its
reception. Upon this the handsome cut-stone lighthouse was
built and surmounted by a fine iron and glass lantern. In
this was installed a third order dioptric Fresnel lens illum-
inating an arc of 216 degrees. The tower at first had a fog
bell, but this was taken down in 1880 when the fog-signal
station was established on the breakwater. Of late years this
tower had been kept painted white, to better serve as a day
mark to boats approaching the harbor. The light is 76 feet
above the waters of the lake.
Breakwater Light and Fog Signal.—In 1872, after the
breakwater commenced in 1868 had been built to several
hundred feet in length, a lighthouse was established at its
northern end. It was built on a separate crib work and
stone pier 40 feet square, just inside of and detached from
the breakwater. In 1899 the light was raised 12 feet, and it
is now 53^4 feet above the lake. It is a fourth order, fixed
red light. In addition to the light there has been installed
on the same pier a steam fog-signal apparatus which con-
sists of a 10-inch whistle, the steam for which is supplied by
duplicate water tube boilers. The apparatus went into com-
mission in 1893, and owing to complaints on the part of
people in Buffalo, and to increase its efficiency lakeward, it
was later provided with a reflector to deaden the sound
towards the city and increase it towards the lake. The sta-
tion is also provided with a fog bell to be rung in case the
steam apparatus is out of order.
Horseshoe Reef Light.—On a rocky ledge known as
Horseshoe Reef, at the head of the Niagara River, on the
north side of the approach to Buffalo harbor from the lake,
and about one third of the distance from the Canadian to
the American shore, is the Horseshoe Reef light. This was
first built in 1856, and was rebuilt and strengthened in 1871,
and has received various additions since. It is a light of the
fourth order, and is a fixed white varied by a white flash
every 30 seconds. It is 44U> feet above the water and is on aHISTORY OF BUFFALO HARBOR.
285
timber stone-filled crib, surrounded by heavy stone to pro-
tect it against storms and ice shoves.
Niagara River Range Lights.—-For the purpose of guid-
ing vessels through the best channel at the head of the
Niagara River, two range lights have been built in the City
of Buffalo. The front light is on the embankment separating
the Erie' Canal from the Black Rock Harbor Canal, near the
water works pumping station, and the rear light is on a small
triangular park at the eastern end of Hampshire Street.
Both are handsome towers of wood and concrete foundations
and were built, the rear in i898-’9 and the front in 1900.
These lights were originally established in 1885 as simple
post lights. They were afterwards changed to the skeleton
towers with a little house on top, and these in turn changed
to the present handsome structures. The lights are both
fixed white, and are, front 54.3/2, and rear 103, feet above the
water of the lake.
New Lights to he Established.—Contracts have been let
for three new lights and a new fog-signal station for Buf-
falo harbor. One new steel tubular lighthouse is to be built
on the south end of the new North breakwater, and a similar
structure is to be built* to mark the northern extremity of the
new main southern entrance to the outer harbor. These are
both to be fixed red lights. On the northern extremity of the
Stony Point arm of the new breakwater, to mark the south
of the new main southern entrance, is to be built a very fine
structure in which will be installed a lightning flash-light of
great beauty, intensity and power. It will flash every ten
seconds, two white flashes then a red flash in one revolution
of the lens. This will be one of the finest lights on the Great
Lakes. At the same location will be built a fog-signal sta-
tion in which will be installed a pair of Harnsby-Akroyd oil
engines with air compressors, the compressed air from which
will operate a siren. This is a strictly first-class, up-to-date
outfit for fog signal purposes.
Besides the lights, the Government maintains a number
of buoys to aid vessels to safely reach and leave Buffalo
harbor.