ARGUMENT 
 
 CAPT. JAS. B. EADS 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE 
 
 OF THE SENATE, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS 
 
 OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 MAY 21 AND 22, 1884, 
 
 IN SUPPORT OF 
 
 SENATE BILL 1632 AND A LIKE BILL IN THE HOUSE, 
 
 TO PROVIDE FOR THE 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF THE CHANNEL 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 GALVESTON HARBOR AND THE GULF OF MEXICO. 
 
 WASHINGTON : 
 
 Rufus H. Darby, Printer. 
 1884. 
 
ADDRESS. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee : 
 
 Several months ago while in London I received a commu¬ 
 nication from the Mayor and Council, and a very large num¬ 
 ber of the most prominent citizens of Galveston, asking my 
 opinion as to whether deep water could he secured there, 
 what it would cost, and whether I would be willing to under¬ 
 take the work. A number of times within the last few years 
 I have been urged by prominent persons in Galveston to 
 express my opinion as to the probable success or failure of 
 the plans upon which the Government engineers are seeking 
 to improve this harbor, but in every instance I declined to 
 express my opinion on the subject. When, however, I re¬ 
 ceived the communication to which I have referred I felt that 
 it was my duty to speak frankly, which I did in a letter since 
 published in this country, and which, perhaps, some of the 
 members of the committee may have seen. In it I emphat¬ 
 ically declared : 
 
 1st. That deep water could not be secured under the pres¬ 
 ent plans of the United States engineer officers. 
 
 2d. That I w r as sure I would be able by works properly 
 located and constructed, to secure a navigable channel 
 through the outer and inner bars, thirty feet in depth ; and 
 3d. That I would be willing to undertake the work upon 
 ^ terms then stated, the total price to be §7,750,000, payable in 
 installments as various depths were secured. The payment 
 of money by the Government to be in every case dependent 
 J'upon channel depths obtained, and no money to be paid 
 unless I fully complied with all obligations assumed by me. 
 
 My appearance here is at the urgent solicitation of the peo¬ 
 ple of Galveston and that of the united Texas Congressional 
 .^.. delegation, and I come the more willingly because I feel it 
 ^ due to myself that I should answer certain very unfair criti- 
 ^icisms of my proposition, made by General Newton, Chief of 
 Engineers, and Major Mansfield, the United States engineer 
 officer in charge of the work, in their recent official reports 
 upon the pending bill. I think I will be able to show you— 
 1st. That any appropriations to carry out the present plans 
 will simply involve a waste of that much public money, 
 because those plans are radically defective and never will 
 accomplish the purposes designed; and 
 
 \> 41&09 
 
4 
 
 2d. That by proper plans deep water can be secured. I 
 have no hesitation in declaring that I can, beyond all doubt,, 
 and within a comparatively short time, give to Galveston as 
 good, if not a better, channel than that through the jetties at 
 the mouth of the Mississippi. 
 
 An examination of the reports of the Chief of Engineers- 
 from 1874 to the present date shows, so far as I am able to 
 discover, that no change had been authorized in the plans 
 submitted by Major Howell ten years ago for the improve¬ 
 ment of Galveston harbor, except in so far as relates to the 
 method of constructing the works. 
 
 In submitting the survey and plan, Major Howell says : 
 “ The. object of the survey, as stated in your letter of instruc¬ 
 tions, was to determine and estimate the cost of some plan 
 calculated to give an eighteen-foot entrance to Galveston 
 harbor.” This plan was referred to a board of engineers 
 composed of General Tower, General Wright, late chief of 
 engineers, and General Newton, the present chief of the 
 corps. General Humphreys in his report, (Report Sec. of 
 War, vol. 2, part 1, 1874,) under the heading of “The Im¬ 
 provement of Galveston Harbor,” says : “ Captain Howell 
 submitted a report upon the results of the survey he had 
 been directed to make for the purpose of determining and 
 estimating the cost of some plan of improvement calculated 
 to give an eighteen-foot entrance to this harbor.” 
 
 I desire to call attention to the fact that only an eighteen- 
 foot entrance was contemplated by Major Howell’s plan, and 
 that no alteration has since been announced by which it can 
 be claimed that it will produce a greater depth. General 
 Newton says in his recent report upon Senate bill 1652, 
 embodying my proposition, “ The mode of improvement at 
 Galveston has been reported upon by Boards of Engineers in 
 1874-’75-’76 and 1880. Two jetties on the south and north 
 were recommended as necessary, and this view has since been 
 held without a change in this office.” 
 
 I am further justified in declaring that the present plan of 
 improvement does not contemplate securing a channel of 
 more than eighteen feet, from the following statement in 
 General Newton’s recent report on this bill, when taken in 
 connection with the reports of the various boards of engi¬ 
 neers to which he refers. General Newton says : 
 
 “ The north and south jetties, placed according to the 
 official plan, can, by an extension into deep water, and by the 
 construction of auxiliary works, if needed, be made to develop 
 all the depth of channel which the nature of the locality will 
 admit.” 
 
 In the face of the fact that these several boards have 
 
 i 
 
reported upon this plan without altering it or recommending 
 an alteration by which a greater depth than eighteen feet is to be 
 secured, Colonel Mansfield has not hesitated to make the 
 following statement in a report which he has submitted upon 
 .Senate bill 1652, which provides for a depth of thirty feet. 
 He says: 
 
 “ The Government is to commit itself .to the payment of 
 $7,750,000 during the next sixteen years for about what the 
 Government can secure by continuing the present work dur¬ 
 ing the next two years for $750,000.” 
 
 General Hewton, in his report upon the bill,likewise makes 
 the following inaccurate statement: 
 
 “ The case can be plainly stated as follows : Colonel Mans¬ 
 field, with the expenditure of $750,000 and two seasons’ 
 work, will obtain an increase of depth exceeding two feet, 
 and probably reaching five or six feet, while Mr. Eads 
 and associates promise after a period of two years and eight 
 months after the passage of the bill to gain two feet of depth 
 ior an expenditure upon the part of the Government of two 
 million dollars.” 
 
 He says “ after a period of two years and eight months,” 
 which is precisely the reverse of what the bill declares. In¬ 
 stead of the word “after” the bill declares that I must secure 
 at least two feet before two years and eight months, under 
 penalty of forfeiting .the privileges, &c., set forth in it. 
 
 The Mississippi jetty bill contained a similar clause with 
 the same time for a forfeiture of the grant, but in one year 
 from the date of The approval of the act, the Mattie Atwood, 
 drawing thirteen feet of water, passed out through the uncom¬ 
 pleted works, and although we had, as in the present bill, 
 eight months in which to begin the works and two years 
 thereafter in which to accomplish specified results, we com¬ 
 menced them in about three months and deepened the water 
 five feet in nine months, and in two years and eight months 
 after the approval of the law, we had secured a twenty-two 
 foot channel, having deepened the bar fourteen feet. 
 
 It is important when comparing the estimate of cost for 
 the completion of the works on the present plan, with those 
 which I propose, to bear in mind that the former plan only 
 contemplates a depth of eighteen feet at mean low tide, while 
 my proposition is to secure at least thirty feet at tnean high 
 tide, or eleven feet greater depth. 
 
 At the time Major Howell’s plan was approved by the 
 board referred to, General Humphreys, then chief of engi¬ 
 neers, General Wright, the last chief of engineers, and Gen¬ 
 eral Hewton, the present chief of engineers, and Major 
 Howell, were the most prominent and outspoken opposers of 
 
6 
 
 the application of the jetty system at the mouth of the Mis¬ 
 sissippi River. The Galveston plan and the reports of the 
 hoards on it, and the arguments advanced by its members at 
 that time, and subsequently, all bear testimony to the fact 
 that these gentlemen entertained views directly contrary to 
 the theories on which I based my expectations of success at 
 the mouth of the Mississippi. 
 
 The late chief of engineers (General Wright) was the presi¬ 
 dent of the civil and military commission of engineers to 
 which was referred the question of applying jetties at the 
 mouth of the Mississippi. He reported adversely to the jet¬ 
 ties, and in favor of the Fort St. Philip Canal. Later on I 
 shall have occasion to quote from the official reports of Gen¬ 
 erals Humphreys and Newton and Major Howell, regarding 
 their ideas of the jetty system. 
 
 To enable the committee to form an intelligent judgment 
 upon the merits of the Galveston plan, and to forecast the 
 probable results which will attend its completion, it will be 
 important to refer to the general principles or natural laws 
 which control the action of flowing water and its power to 
 transport sand and other sedimentary matter, so far as these 
 law r s are involved in the jetty system. To enable the com¬ 
 mittee also to fully comprehend the reasons which actuated 
 these officers in recommending the Galveston plan,it will be 
 necessary to quote from their official reports some of the 
 ideas which they then entertained, so that the committee 
 may see how completely their plan harmonizes with the 
 errors which possessed their minds at that time. 
 
 If the natural laws referred to are clearly understood by the 
 committee, it will have no difficulty in arriving at a correct 
 judgment in the premises. The jetty system is a method of 
 deepening and maintaining a channel across a shoal by such 
 artificial works as shall compel the water flowing over the 
 shoal to pass through a narrower channel. The principles 
 involved in the system may be thus stated in brief: 
 
 1st. The current is caused by the fall of the water from a 
 higher to a lower level, which fall is indicated by the slope 
 or inclination of the surface of the water. 
 
 2d. The friction of the bed over which the w r ater flows is 
 the chief element or force opposed to the current. 
 
 3d. The force of the current will he increased by either 
 increasing the slope of surface, or by increasing the volume 
 of water passing through the channel, or by increasing both. 
 
 4th. The friction of the bed controls the velocity of the 
 current just as the application of the brakes to a railway 
 train, going down grade without the aid of the engine, regu¬ 
 lates the velocity at which the train moves. The railway 
 
7 
 
 brakes and the friction of the bed are to this extent identical 
 in their effect. 
 
 5th. The friction increases just as the width of the bed 
 increases. That is to say, if the bed of the channel he twice 
 as great, the friction will be twice as great. It is important 
 to remember the fact as we proceed, because friction is one 
 of the very important elements that are totally ignored in 
 planning the Galveston jetties, as will be presently seen. 
 
 6th. The power of water to transport sand increases with 
 the square of the velocity of the water. That is to say, if 
 the current be made twice as rapid, it will be able to trans¬ 
 port four times as much sand. 
 
 How if we consider these simple facts in their application 
 to the plan now being executed at Galveston, it will be ap¬ 
 parent that if the jetties,“instead of being located twelve 
 thousand feet apart, (2J miles,) were located, for instance, 
 only four thousand feet apart, the friction retarding the flow 
 of the water through them would only be one-third as great. 
 Hence, with the same slope of surface from Galveston Bay 
 to the sea, or from the sea to Galveston Bay, the current 
 through them would be greatly accelerated. And as the 
 transporting power of the water increases with its velocity, 
 it would, with this reduced width of channel, be much 
 greater, and it would more rapidly excavate and maintain 
 a much deeper channel than could possibly be secured by 
 the present design. 
 
 The reason why these jetties were located so widely apart 
 is to be found in the fallacious arguments which the officers 
 responsible for the plan advanced regarding the reformation of 
 the bar. Major Howell, discussing in 1874 the application 
 of jetties at the mouth of the Mississippi, declared that— 
 “ Jetties will have to be built further and further out, not 
 annually, but steadily every day of each year to keep pace 
 with the advance of the river deposit into the gulf, provided 
 they are attempted,” (at the mouth* of the Mississippi.) 
 
 General Humphreys (Ex. Hoc., Ho. 220, 43d Congress, 1st 
 sess., April 15,1874,) says, under the head of “ South Pass :” 
 “The mean width of the pass is 700 feet, but a less width 
 for the jetties must be taken if a channel way of suitable width 
 with a depth of 27 feet at low water is to be attained. As¬ 
 suming 500 feet for this width, then as the width of this bar, 
 where the annual accretion of 111 feet is made, is 3,000 feet, 
 we shall, with jetties 500 feet apart, have an annual advance 
 of 670 feet.” 
 
 General Hewton, in the same document, under date of April 
 4, 1874, (see report of Secretary of War, 1874, vol. 2, part 
 1, p. 883,) says: 
 
8 
 
 “ It is evident, that in proportion as the cross-section of 
 discharge on the outer crest of the deposit or bar widens, its 
 progress into the gulf will become slower, and on the other 
 hand, if the cross-section he narrowed, the progress of the 
 deposit will become more rapid. Whether the relative pro¬ 
 gress he in the simple inverse ratio of the width of discharge, 
 or in some other, it is not important here to inquire. The 
 essential fact, that as the width of the cross-section diminishes, 
 the rate of progress of the bar into the Gulf must increase, 
 is self-evident. 
 
 “Let us test by this rule the relative advances of the bars 
 at the mouths of the Southwest Pass and South Pass, and 
 of Pass a L’Outre, each mouth being supposed to be treated 
 with the jetty system, and the width of cross-section at the 
 end of the jetties, being that corresponding to the mainte¬ 
 nance of the depths of 25 feet on the passes themselves. 
 
 
 Southwest Pass. 
 
 Pass a’L’Outre. 
 
 South Pass. 
 
 Natural width of cross-section of 
 
 Miles. 
 
 Miles. 
 
 Miles. 
 
 discharge into the gulf.. 
 
 
 l H 
 
 1 
 
 Width between heads of jetties. 
 
 X 
 
 4 2-300 
 
 
 Ratio between these. 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Present annual rate of progress of 
 
 
 
 
 the bar. 
 
 338 
 
 302 
 
 280 
 
 Estimated annual rate of progress 
 
 
 
 
 of the bars after completion of 
 
 
 
 
 jetties. 
 
 1,014 
 
 1,208 
 
 2,240 
 
 General Newton, in the above, undertakes to show that, 
 under the influence of jetties at the mouth of South Pass, to 
 produce only twenty-five feet depth of water, the advance of 
 the bar would be at the rate of 2,240 feet per annum ! As 
 the jetties have maintained a thirty-foot'depth of channel for 
 nearly five years, during all of which time there has been no 
 occasion to extend them a single foot, and as there has been 
 no indication of bar advance to justify a belief that it will 
 be necessary to extend them a single foot during the next 
 hundred years, it must be evident that all these distinguished 
 officers were greatly mistaken. If General Humphreys 
 had been correct I should have had to extend the jetties by 
 this time nearly three-quarters of a mile; if General New¬ 
 ton had been correct, I would have to be at work to-day on 
 the jetty ends two miles and a half farther out, where the 
 water is 160 feet deep; and if Major Howell had been cor¬ 
 rect, the jetties would be well on their way towards Cuba. 
 
9 
 
 When the stubborn facts of 1884 at the mouth of the South 
 Pass are compared with these declarations, comment becomes 
 .unnecessary. 
 
 That the entire board which approved Major Howell’s 
 plan, entertained the views expressed by these officers will 
 he seen from the following qotation from their report to the 
 Chief of Engineers : 
 
 Major Howell says, (report of Secretary of War, 1874, vol. 
 2, part 1, pp. 732-’3:) “The jetties are expected to act as 
 training walls for the lower-ebb channel, while the upper 
 will pass over them. They are calculated to give a depth on 
 the outer bar of from 18 to 19 feet, and at the same time 
 only confine and direct so much of the ebb and flood cur¬ 
 rents as may he useful, thus preventing a great advance of 
 the bar gulfward, as might be expected were the jetties built 
 up to the plane of mean low tide.” 
 
 At page 737 of the same volume Messrs. Tower, Wright, 
 .and Newton say: 
 
 “The letter of instructions before referred to imposes 
 the condition that an increased depth of water shall be 
 * permanently ’ secured. If taken literally this condition 
 cannot, in the opinion of the board, be fulfilled by the present 
 project, or by any other known method of improvement.” 
 
 This opinion, regarding the impracticability of securing a 
 permanent depth of channel, is based upon this mistaken 
 theory of bar advance. 
 
 After submitting his estimate of the cost, Major Howell 
 says: 
 
 “ After construction, these jetties will, from time to time, 
 require extension to keep pace with the extension of the 
 bar gulfward The times and amounts of such extensions 
 cannot be stated, but it is my opinion that the advance of the 
 bar will not be rapid.” 
 
 The quotations I have made from General Humphreys and 
 'General Newton’s reports respecting South Pass show that, in 
 their opinion, in proportion as the improved channel is 
 narrowed by the jetties, the greater will be the rate of bar 
 advance. As this would, in their judgment, be more rapid 
 with a narrow channel, and as the whole plan at Galveston 
 was purely experimental, the very moderate depth of 18 feet 
 was taken as the maximum that should be secured to reduce 
 to the lowest limits the enormous expense that was to be 
 looked for in the extension of the jetties afterwards. General 
 Humphreys stated that the annual extension of jetties at the 
 Southwest Pass would cost a million dollars per annum. 
 The depth of 18 feet was the least that the demands of com¬ 
 merce could be satisfied with at Galveston, and as this depth 
 
10 
 
 was determined upon, it followed, by their arithmetical 
 theory, that the magnificent width of 2 J miles was necessary 
 to he established between the two jetties to restrain the 
 phantom of bar advance. 
 
 These gentlemen totally overlooked the fact that the fric¬ 
 tion through such a wide channel would neutralize the effect of 
 the current, an increased force of which must be had to in¬ 
 sure the deepening of the channel. Forgetful of the retard¬ 
 ing effects of friction on such a channel, they then committed 
 their crowning mistake of leaving enormous lateral outlets 
 near the land, through each jetty, by which the current should 
 be still more enfeebled. 
 
 Another equally important principle involved in the jetty 
 system was likewise overlooked by them. I allude to the 
 effect of wave action upon the sandy bottom of the shore of 
 the sea. Neglecting the consideration of this important 
 factor, it is simply impossible to permanently maintain be¬ 
 tween submerged jetties any increase of depth even if their 
 works could produce it. It is necessary to explain wave 
 action so that the committee will fully understand its bearing 
 upon the question of bar advance, as well as the maintenance 
 of the channel between the jetties. 
 
 The waves of the sea produce no continuously horizontal 
 motion whatever in the water over which they are passing, 
 unless the depth be so shallow that the crest of the wave 
 when it sinks will feel the resistance of the bottom. When 
 this occurs a motion of translation or horizontal motion, in¬ 
 variably toward the shore, is induced in the water. Of course,, 
 the higher the waves the greater will be the depth at which 
 this horizontal movement will be produced. The waves of 
 the Gulf of Mexico are not high enough to produce this 
 effect sensibly in a greater depth than twenty-five or thirty 
 feet. Waves result from the friction of the wind, and they 
 increase in size in proportion to the “ fetch ” or distance they 
 are driven under its influence. The fetch in the Gulf of 
 Mexico is limited to about eight hundred miles, and the 
 waves are not, therefore, excessively high. Large waves 
 near the shore are always driven towards the shore, for the 
 reason that a wind blowing off* the land cannot create them 
 of any considerable magnitude near it, and because the shal¬ 
 lower the water in which the waves are travelling the slower 
 will be their progress ; hence, if the waves are moving under 
 an impulse parallel to the shore they will be moving at right 
 angles to that shore and the end of the wave nearest the land 
 will move more slowly because it is in shallower depth. 
 This will cause the waves to come obliquely upon the shore. 
 Hence the horizontal or translatory motion of the water in- 
 
11 
 
 duced by the waves is always towards the land. As the} 7 move 
 onwards to the beach, this horizontal motion increases in 
 velocity, until under its impulse the water is driven far out on 
 shore. 
 
 Under the influence of severe storms the transporting 
 power in the gulf waves is limited to the depth of twenty- 
 five or thirty feet, and increases in strength as they roll into 
 the shallower water ; therefore when they rush out upon the 
 beach they are highly charged with sediment; a momentary 
 pause ensues before the retreat of the wave occurs and dur¬ 
 ing this pause the sand is dropped on the shore. As the re¬ 
 turn current starts from a state of rest it has less power to 
 carry the sand down to the sea than the rapid current had 
 to bring it out upon the shore. In addition to this the re¬ 
 treating current has less volume, because during the momen¬ 
 tary pause before the ebb sets in, the volume of the water, 
 which is one of the elements producing the current, becomes 
 much less than it was when coming out on to the shore, much 
 of it sinking into the beach, and, therefore, the return cur¬ 
 rent, although induced by the steep slope, will be slower and 
 incapable of transporting all of the sand back again. 
 
 In this way the sea waves are continually transporting sand 
 shoreward on the san.dy beaches of the sea, and where no 
 lateral current exist these beaches continue to grow seaward. 
 
 The water which issues from any tidal basin such as that 
 at Galveston or from any river, must struggle to reach the 
 sea through the barricades of sand that are thus continually 
 heaped up by the waves. 
 
 How, as the influence of this action depends upon the 
 height of the waves, it must follow that the deeper the mouth 
 of the jetty channel is made, the less will be the ability of 
 the waves to create a bar in front of that channel. I think 
 it would be simply impossible that the waves of the Gulf of 
 Mexico should disturb the sand in the bottom of the channel 
 twenty-five or thirty feet deep at the end of the jetties. This 
 opinion is based upon experience and observation at the jet¬ 
 ties of the Mississippi River. Consequently, instead of there 
 being a propriety in placing jetties two miles and a quarter 
 a part at such a location as Galveston, through fear of an ad¬ 
 vance of the bar, it must be evident that they should be 
 placed so as to create the deepest channel compatible with 
 the safety of the jetties against being undermined, and with 
 due regard to the economy of their maintenance. The closer 
 together they are, within the limits of safety, the less will' 
 the friction of the bed retard the entry and exit of the water 
 through them, the deeper will be channel produced by the 
 current, and the earlier will be the relief afforded to com- 
 
12 
 
 merce. The deeper the channel the less possible will he the 
 reformation of the bar in front of it. If they he placed too 
 -close together, the channel will become so deep that the jet¬ 
 ties themselves will he undermined, or the cost of mainte¬ 
 nance will be increased. 
 
 It must be evident to any engineer who takes up the study 
 of a problem like this, that these gentlemen entirely over¬ 
 looked the effect of both friction and wave action in the 
 location of their works, and were totally wrong in anticipat¬ 
 ing an advance of the bar; nor did they consider the effect 
 of wave action in determining the height of their jetties. In 
 a space of two and a quarter miles wide, and but from twelve 
 to fourteen feet deep, with a bottom of quicksand, disturbed 
 by every storm which sweeps across it from one side or the 
 other, the wave action would be sufficiently energetic to level 
 down and obliterate any channel which the current in calmer 
 weather might he able to excavate; hut it will he presently 
 seen that the height to which they limit the jetties, must ex¬ 
 pose any channel excavated between them to serious inter¬ 
 ruption, if not obliteration, by the sands which would he 
 transported from the outside of them into the jetty channel. 
 They propose that only a portion of their jetties shall be 
 built up to the level of mean low water, thereby leaving the 
 tide to rise from one to four feet over the tops of these por¬ 
 tions even where they are highest. 
 
 The jetty system is essentially a system of conservation of 
 the water and not one of diffusion. But, as if this facility of 
 overflow were not a sufficient violation of the fundamental 
 principle underlying the jetty system, they actually leave into 
 their plan enormous outlets by which the lateral escape of 
 the water through each jetty near the land will be made. 
 (See plan of works in Colonel Mansfield’s report of 1880.) 
 
 What is known on the Mississippi River as the outlet sys¬ 
 tem has undergone the most crucial scientific discussion and 
 careful study during the last eight or ten years. It has been 
 condemned by the Mississippi River Commission, who were 
 directed by Congress to examine and report upon it, and it 
 has been also rejected by the action of several Congressional 
 committees as a system wholly wrong in principle where the 
 deepening of a channel is to he sought. Although this 
 decision was arrived at four or five years ago the experi¬ 
 mental plan of the Galveston jetties has continued, and the 
 flood-tides, whose volume should be retained in their outflow 
 to deepen the chanel, are allowed to escape over the whole 
 length of the submerged jetties. 
 
 Under the mistaken idea of facilitating the inflow of the 
 tide, oblivious of the fact that, if it be made to flo*w through 
 
one single channel of moderate width, it will have less fric¬ 
 tion to retard it, and will more easily till the bay than if it be 
 made to come in through three wide ones, they proposed 
 two lateral channels near the land end of the jetties. The 
 one through the south jetty, as shown on the plans published 
 1880, is a mile long; the one through the north jetty is ten 
 thousand feet, and the one through the direct jetty channel 
 is two and one-quarter miles, making a total width of over- 
 five miles. They seem to have wholly forgotten also that 
 these lateral outlets will offer the readiest, shortest and 
 easiest route for the escape of the ebb tide, which must do 
 all of the excavation required to secure and maintain the 
 improved channel. They evidently believed when planning 
 these novel works that the water will flow in through these 
 short routes to the bay, hut will go out through one three 
 times as long to deepen their channel. If we suppose the 
 height of the water at the present outlet of Galveston Bay, 
 between Fort Point and Bolivar Point, to be twelve inches 
 beyond the level of the gulf beyond the bar, it will be seen 
 that to reach this latter level through the jetties the water 
 must travel about four and a half miles, which would give a 
 slope of about two and a half inches per mile, whereas,, 
 through these great lateral outlets the water can reach the 
 same level in a distance of a mile or two, by a fall more than 
 two or three times as steep. It is, therefore, preposterous to- 
 suppose that the discharge of the bay will be made through 
 the ends of the jetties and over the shallow part of the bar 
 when it can be so much more easily discharged through and 
 over the jetties. But aside from this great error, which 
 ignores one of the most elementary principles of hydraulics, 
 namely, that water will flow by lines of least resistance, it 
 is absolutely necessary that the jetties to he successful should 
 he built up so high as to prevent not simply the waste of 
 water over them, but also the wave action bringing sand 
 over their tops from the outside into the improved channel. 
 
 General Newton, when discussing in 1874 the application 
 of jetties at the mouth of South Pass, said, (see report Sec¬ 
 retary of War, 1874, vol. 2, part 1, p. 885 :) 
 
 “ The longitudinal section of its bar and bed by its irregu¬ 
 larities indicates very clearly that the shoaling process is 
 going on throughout, and that the pass at the present time 
 is hanging between the conditions of a live pass and a stag¬ 
 nant ditch, to the last of which results it must arrive if a rev¬ 
 olution in the delta does not redeem it. And this most 
 probable fate will be precipitated by applying the jetty system 
 to its mouth.” 
 
 In his official criticism of the bill which embodies my 
 
14 
 
 proposition to produce thirty feet of water at Galveston, at 
 the sole risk of myself and associates, and without pay if we 
 do not succeed, this same officer says: “ Should Congress be 
 resolved to make a change in the administration of this work, 
 at least it will be for the interest of the service to await the 
 construction of the north jetty, and the observations of its 
 effects which will lead to the possession of facts and data cal¬ 
 culated to throw a needed light upon the amount necessary 
 to he expended for obtaining a proper depth on the bar.” 
 When we examine the reports of these officers and read the 
 the prediction of their chief regarding the South Pass of the 
 Mississippi which, by his scientific reasoning was to be con¬ 
 verted into a “ stagnant ditch” by the application of jetties 
 instead of being made by them, as it is, the grand highway 
 of a nation’s commerce, it cannot be wondered that he should 
 utter this plea for “ the interests of the service ” and declare 
 that they will be promoted by the possession of facts and 
 data by which a needed light can be thrown upon the prob¬ 
 lem they have in hand. The want of this u needed light ” in 
 1874 caused the present chief of engineers not only to op¬ 
 pose the application of the proper method of securing deep 
 water for the great valley of the Mississippi, but also to sus¬ 
 tain a hopeless plan to give eighteen feet of water at the 
 chief shipping port of a territory larger than Great Britain. 
 And now ten years after he recommends that the interests of 
 Texas and the vast section tributary to Galveston be subor¬ 
 dinate to the interests of “ the service ; ” and in admitting the 
 lack of this “ needed light,” he virtually admits what every 
 citizen of Galveston well knows by this time, namely, that 
 the plan to which the} 7 are clinging so tenaciously to-day is 
 simply an experiment which, in ten years, has produced no 
 substantial benefit whatever, and from which it is utterly 
 hopeless to expect any in the future. 
 
 In comparing the cost of the jetties contemplated in Sen¬ 
 ate bill 1652, with those which were constructed at the mouth 
 of the Mississippi River, for five and a quarter million dol¬ 
 lars, it will be observed that the distance to deep water across 
 the bar at Galveston is more than twice as great as it was to 
 the same depth at the mouth of the Mississippi. In other 
 words, the jetties at Galveston must be more than double 
 the length of those at the mouth of the Mississippi. The 
 cost of extending works out into the sea to twice the distance 
 involves a much greater cost than would be at first supposed, 
 because the further out from the shore the works extend, the 
 more exposed they become, the heavier they have to be con¬ 
 structed, and the greater is the danger to the boats, appar¬ 
 atus, &c., required in their construction. In addition to the 
 
15 
 
 length of jetties required, extensive works are needed to 
 deepen the inner bar, to create a depth of thirty feet to the 
 harbor of Galveston. These works will need to be quite as 
 extensive and quite as expensive as those which were re¬ 
 quired at the head of the South Pass. 
 
 In comparing the amount of seven and three-quarter mill¬ 
 ions with the official estimates for the completion of the 
 works at Galveston, it will be noted that these estimates do 
 not include any works for the deepening of the inner bar. 
 Upon this subject the hoard of 1874 says, (see report of 
 Chief of Engineers, vol. 2, part 1, page 739:) 
 
 “ As regards the works within the bay, designed by Cap¬ 
 tain Howell for the purpose mainly of increasing the width 
 of the harbor of Galveston, and of improving the bar at its 
 mouth, the board is of the opinion that nothing should he 
 done till the question of the practicability of permanently im¬ 
 proving the outer bar shall have been demonstrated, and it 
 therefore expresses no opinion thereon.” 
 
 The two jetties which are required at Galveston will have 
 to be nearly nine miles long, and will have to extend out into 
 much deeper water than those designed by Major Howell. 
 In addition to this, as I have already stated, it is absolutely 
 necessary that they be built up, not simply to high tide, but 
 very considerably above i+, to prevent the sand from being 
 brought over into the jetty channel from the shoals on the 
 outer sides of the jetties. 
 
 Colonel Mansfield reports that the south jetty is only built up 
 to mean low tide, through a distance of about four and one- 
 quarter miles. The plans for the north jetty show that it is 
 to.be built up no higher, and for a distance only about one 
 mile. It is therefore unfair as well as idle to attempt to com¬ 
 pare the cost of this system of low submerged jetties, from 
 two to fourteen feet high, and not extending into deep 
 water with those which must, to be successful, extend out 
 into it, and be built to twice or three times the average 
 height of the other, for the reason that the cost of both sys¬ 
 tems will be as the square of their heights, other things being 
 equal, while the extensions into the deep water will increase 
 in a much more rapid ratio. Besides the jetties must be 
 capped with heavy concrete blocks or other substantial con¬ 
 structions to resist the force of the waves, whereas the jetty 
 built at Galveston has no such force to withstand in its sub¬ 
 merged condition. 
 
 In proportion as we build the jetties up to the surface of 
 the water, this force oi the waves becomes more and more 
 powerful against them. It must be apparent, then, that a 
 jetty to resist the violence of the waves, and stop them from 
 
16 
 
 3 0112 077580840 
 
 breaking over into the channel, must be vastly stronger than 
 if they be built only up to the level of mean low tide. Hence 
 it is idle to attempt to' compare the cost of jetties properly 
 budt up to the necessary height and extending with that 
 height from the land clear out to 30 feet water beyond 
 the bar, with those which have been designed by the 
 United States engineers for G-alveston harbor. As the 
 tide sometimes rises three or four feet above mean low tide 
 the jetties will have to be built at least eight or nine feet 
 higher than the one now completed by Colonel Mansfield. 
 
 The total cost of this jetty wrongly located, and of these 
 insignificant proportions, has been one million and a half 
 dollars, including the wrecked gabionade on the north side 
 ot the channel. 
 
 If the plan of the Government at Galveston possessed real 
 merit, it is not at all likely that the immense territory which 
 is to be relieved by deep water at that harbor would attain 
 the relief sought within the next fifteen or twenty years, if 
 the present system of appropriating money to carry on pub¬ 
 lic works is persisted in, and it seems so hopelessly fastened 
 upon the country, that there is no present appearance of its 
 abandonment. It is not unlikely that if the method by which 
 the mouth of the Mississippi River has been deepened had 
 been placed in the hands of the United States engineers and 
 appropriations for it had been doled out in the way in which 
 they are voted from year to year, that the works would 
 scarcely be completed to-day, wdiereas the commerce of the 
 Mississippi valley obtained its relief about seven years ago, 
 at which time the depth through the jetties was sufficient to 
 admit at least 90 or 95 per cent, of the commercial tonnage of 
 the world, while for the last five years the depth has been 
 amply sufficient for the largest steamers afloat. 
 
 By the proposition which I make it must be evident that 
 it will be to the interest of myself and my associates to secure 
 at the very earliest possible date the greatest depth of water 
 which we propose to secure, and it is needless to say before 
 this intelligent committee that the producers in the territory 
 which is tributary to Galveston must annually save a sum far- 
 greater than that which it is proposed shall be paid for the 
 entire work.