-p i/.f. PREFACE. The information deemed of general value in the work pertaining to the Council and its Executive Board is to be published in three parts. Part I. is designed to present matter bearing specifically upon legislation now proposed in Congress. Part II. is designed to present matter bearing upon the broad questions involved. It will consist of reprints from various sources. Part III. will present the official record of proceedings of the Council and its Executive Board. The following papers of Part I. were laid before the President of the United States by the Executive Board, in Washington, on Nov. 11th last: “Council of Engineering Societies on National Public Works," “Memorial to the President of the United States,” “Basis of Proposed Organization,” and Appendices Nos. 1, 2 and 3. There was also pre- sented to the President a bound volume of Proceedings with a col- lection of papers upon the general question, published at various times, or substantially a large portion of what will be included in Parts II. and III. L. E. COOLEY, E. L. CORTHEIiXi, John Etsenmann, Hiero B. Herr. [ r Committee on Publication. Chicago, 111., March 10, 1888. ' P \ S CONTENTS Council or Engineering Societies on Natioval Public Works — History and Purpose 7 Memorial to the President of the United States 9 Memorandum on Public Works Organizations 13 The Legislation Proposed — Introduction 16 The Future Department 16 Theory of the Bill 17 The Organization 20 The Initial Establishment 21 Relative Cost 22 Conclusion 22 Basis of Proposed Organization — Distribution of Improvements, Examinations and Surveys for Harbors and Waterways. (Map) 23 Personnel and Cost of Present Establishment 26 Personnel of Proposed Establishment 28 The Initial Establishment 29 Administration 29 Buies and Regulations 30 Property 31 The Cullom-Breckinridge Bill 32 Proposed Amendments 38 APPENDICES. No. 1. The Public Works of the United States — (a) . Distribution of Expenditures for Rivers and Harbors. ( b ) . Expenditures for All Civil Works. (c) . History Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, (d) . History of Public Works 40 No 2. The Public Works of France — Origin of the Organisation des Ponts et Chaussees — Tra- vaux Publics — Ponts et Chaussees, Ecole Nationale — Central Administration des Ponts et Chaussees — The Conseil General des Ponts et Chaussees — Hierarchical Order of Engineering Reports -Recruiting, Organiz- ation of the Service, Grades and Various Positions of the Engineers — Preparation and Approval of Public Works — General Accountability, Works on Govern- ment Account 47 VI No. 3. The Public Woeks or Prussia — I. Regulations Showing the Course of Study and the Ex- amination of Aspirants for Government Positions. . 55 II. Preparation of New Projects and Construction of Pub- lic Works in Prussia 56 No. 4. The Public Works of Great Britain— Letter from Secretary, Institution of Civil Engineers 59 •No. 5. The Press and the River and Harbor Bill of 1886. 60 No. 6. Agitation Previous to Organization of Council. .. 62 Supplemental Report. Proposed Revision of Bill. 68 COUNCIL OF ENGINEERS SOCIETIES ON NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS. (HISTORY AND PURPOSE.) On December 3d, 1885, duly accredited delegates from ten Civil Engineering Societies of the United States held a Convention at Cleve- land, Ohio, pursuant to a call of the Civil Engineers Club of Cleve- land. This Convention adopted unanimously the following report : “The foremost nations of the old world have organized systems of internal improvements. .The United States at present has no such system. The marvelous development of this great country demands some adequate organization of such a system. “ In the formation of such an organization, advantage should be taken of the best features of the systems of other nations. “ The main reason for the success of such works in foreign countries is due to the fact that they are executed under a civil administration although the governments themselves, in other respects, are more essentially military than our own. “ The distinguishing feature of these organizations is the employment of the best available talent, of men especially fitted by education, training and experience to design and execute such works. “lUnder our present methods, the Government cannot possibly secure such trained skill. The reason is that no emoluments or reputation, commensurate with the service rendered, or equal to what can be obtained on other civil works, are attained on the public works of our Government. “ These facts deter men of experience from entering the service of the Govern- ment, and also those who have gained experience therein, from remaining in its employ. “Recognizing that a comprehensive system of public works is necessary, we respectfully suggest that Congress should be asked to establish a Civil Bureau of Public Works ; the basis of organization of this bureau to be made the subject of study and repoi t, by a Board appointed by the President of the United States ; said Board to consist' of seven members, — three military engineers, three civil engineers and one member of the legal profession.” A permanent Executive Board was elected to transact the business of the National Committee into which this Convention resolved itself for the purpose of perpetuating its work and furthering its objects. On March 31st, 1886, the societies again met in convention at Cleveland as a National Committee on Public Works and a permanent organization was effected under the title of “ Council of Engineering Societies on National Public Works,” whose object, as exjiressed in resolutions, was “ to promote an improved system of National Public Works.” The following Engineering Societies had, previous to that meet- ing, appointed committees to represent them in the Council: Boston Society of Civil Engineers 120 Members. Civil Engineers’ Club of Cleveland 140 “ Civil Engineers’ Club. University of Illinois 100 “ 8 Civil Engineers’ Society of St. Paul 34 Members. Connecticut Association of Civil Engineers and Sur- veyors 67 “ Denver Society of Civil Engineers 25 “ Engineers’ Club of Philadelphia 440 ‘ Engineers’ Club of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 38 “ Engineers’ Club of St. Louis 125 « Engineers’ Society of Western Pennsylvania, Pitts- burgh 325 “ Illinois Association of Engineers 28 “ Indiana Association of County Surveyors and Civil Engineers 75 “ Iowa Society of Civil Engineers 30 “ Michigan Engineering Society 183 “ Nebraska Association of Engineers and Surveyors 30 “ Ohio Society of Surveyors and Civil Engineers 103 “ Southern Society of Civil Engineers 75 “ Technical Society of the Pacific Coast 145 ‘ Technischer Yerein, Chicago, 52 “ Technischer Yerein, New York, 255 “ Western Society of Engineers, Chicago, 111 120 “ Cornell University Association of Civil Engineers t 70 “ Missouri Association of Surveyors and Civil Engineers. 100 “ Total 2680 In addition to these Societies, a large number of the members of the American Society of Civil Engineers have personally expressed their favorable interest in the objects of the Council, and have signed a memorial to Congress on the subject of National Public Works. In- cluded in this number are several Past Presidents of the American Society, several Yice-Presidents and other prominent members of the Society, The total number who have by this, or through the Council of Engineering Societies expressed their approval of the objects of the Council is over three thousand. MEMORIAL TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. We have the honor to present for your careful consideration our views on the subject of National Public Works, so far as they relate to Eivers and Harbors. Their commercial importance and the necessity for their improve- ment are admitted by all. We have an indented coast line 20,000 miles in length. Many ports lying along this coast are the outlets of extensive river systems Avhich are either navigable or can be made so to a greater or less degree. One of these systems has not less than 16,000 miles of navig- able waterways. Our Great Lakes receive and send to the seaboard the immense products of the northwest. Our Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific harbors are the natural entrepots through which the products of other lands may reach the interior of the country. By the desultory and unsystematic methods of river and harbor improvement which have prevailed in this country up to the present time, neither the harbors nor the rivers are at all adequate to the needs of commerce. The navigable waterways at present are in detached lengths, not suited to economical transport, and many are useless for a large part of the year. They should constitute connected systems, and their improvement should be so planned as to avoid transshipment as much as possible. The value of these commercial channels is gradually but surely impressing itself upon our people. All admit their cheapness for heavy traffic. It has been the accepted policy of the General Government for half a century to improve the rivers and harbors of the country out of the public fund, and the Supreme Court has defined as navigable waters of the United States those that “form, in the ordinary con- dition by themselves, or by uniting with other waters, a continuous waterway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other states or foreign countries in the customary modes in which such commerce is conducted by water.” Although the General Govern- ment has paramount jurisdiction and clearly defined limits and powers over the harbors and the navigable rivers of the country, yet the methods of National Public Works have been variable and unsys- tematic, and are so at present. In the necessary legislation, primary and accompanying the improvements, is this want of system particu- larly seen. Public improvements have sfecured appropriations most largely through local and sectional influence. The evils attending on the inception in Congress *>f public works and on the introduction of various schemes and projects in the Eiver and Harbor Bill are well understood. The waste of time in discussion of these schemes, the local jealousies, the contests over items in which individual members of Congress have a personal interest, and the ever present danger of failure to the Eiver and Harbor Bill due to its many faults, form a part of our legislative history of National Public Works. These evils are so great and inherent that in the nature of things the present 10 methods cannot give satisfactory results. The River and Harbor Bill has properly fallen into disrepute and its provisions are rightfully looked upon by an intelligent public as well as by the Executive as unworthy of approval. In the administration of these public works there are also many serious faults. Although the works are purely civil in their char- acter, yet they have been placed more by accident than by well-con- sidered intention in charge of the Military Engineer Corps and the War Department. This military corps has administrative rather than proper legislative sanction for civil works, and its river and harbor duties are in the nature of detached service by assignment of the Secretary of War. In their anomalous and detached position upon these works the military engineers find themselves in a neutral and powerless condition. They are unable to advise or recommend any adequate and complete system, much less a civil system. Their tenure in this work is uncertain and temporary. For their civil duties no special course of study, preparation, experience or aptitude is made a pre-requisite. Although essentially military specialists they are assigned to civil duties for which their academical and subse- quent training does not primarily adapt them. In this uncertain and anomalous state of affairs the Government has made no provision for educating specialists for this important branch of public service. At West Point a very limited instruc- tion is given in surveying and studies pertaining to civil engineer- ing, as nearly all available time is consumed in military drills and routine. That these military engineers have attained any success is only proof of what could have been obtained in a still greater degree by men educated and trained especially for this peculiar civil engi- neering business. However competent and ambitious these men may be to make this specialty a life work, they have constantly before them the fact that their position is uncertain and temporary by reason of more important and legit:ir.&te military duties, and that their work is liable at any time to be suspended for want of appro- priations by Congress. The comparatively few government officers who are temporarily detailed from time to time for the improvement of rivers and harbors are assisted by a large number of civil engineers whose position upon these works is still more temporary, not averaging over three years. The best civil engineering talent of the country cannot be expected to be employed under such conditions or in the very subordinate and irksome positions in which they are plaoed, under military officers whose special knowledge and experience is often considerably in- ferior to that possessed by their subordinates. The civil engineers of the United States have, during the last seven years, given this important national subject careful and earnest study. All the complex questions have been considered; they have not only carefully studied the unsystematic methods of our own Government, but have examined into and compiled the important 11 facts pertaining to systems and methods of foreign countries. After mature consideration we, as the representatives of over three thou- sand civil engineers, practicing their profession in nearly every state in the Union, propose a reorganization of our National Public Works on a system in harmony with the genius of our institutions and sound business principles, and we are prepared as professional engineers and as patriotic citizens to place the results of our studies and labors before the Executive and Legislative branches of the Government. Of all existing national systems of public works, that of Prussia is the most reasonable and effective, and it is essentially a civil system both in education and practice. In education it combines the best methods of theoretical engineering education, which is the distin- guishing excellence of the French system, and the best methods of practical education, which is the special advantage of English engi- neering. In the inauguration and management of public works it is productive of the best results. The entire civil works of the govern- ment of every kind are merged in a department, presided over and directed by the Minister of Public Works, or, as we would express it in this country, by the Secretary of the Department of Public Works. Ordinarily the initiative in all new works is taken by this depart- ment and is brought, as a thoroughly digested project, to the atten- tion of the legislative branch of the government. If the initiative be taken by others it is first referred to this department for examina- tion and report. The Secretary of the Department presents the plans with the estimates for all works which he considers desirable. He, or the board which assists him in these matters, or the engineers who have had the matter directly in charge, appear before the ways and means committees of the houses of the legislature, and sup- port by argument and facts the plans presented. The whole country is divided into natural divisions for its river and harbor works, with competent and experienced state civil engi- neers in charge. All projects, or motions, and petitions for such, reach the Legislature through this Department of Public Works. The Legislature appropriates a fixed sum annually for all river and harbor works in progress, which sum is apportioned to these works according to the judgment of the Secretary of the Department; but in case of the new works which, after discussion, the Legislature decides to undertake, the total amount and time required for com- pletion are approximately determined and appropriations made accordingly; and in the following years no discussion upon them takes place in the Legislature unless the Secretary of the Depart- ment, to meet some unexpected contingency, asks for a much larger sum than was approved when the works were instituted. All civil constructions are under this department, also all surveys for civil purposes, rivers and harbors, lighthouses, public buildings, coast and geodetic and geological surveys. This system, in the main, is consonant with our principles of government, and it would be to the great advantage of this country 12 if it could be made to take the place eventually, of the mixed, anom- alous and unsystematic methods which now exist here. In order, however, to avoid the evil results of too radical a change from present methods we have suggested a plan that will meet practically, we think, the most pressing needs of the case. The objects to be accomplished by this reorganization of the river and harbor methods are: 1. The adoption and execution of only those projects that are necessary or useful to commerce. 2. Correctness of plans, and economy and effectiveness in their execution. 3. To avoid the wastefulness of public funds in legislation and administration. In consideration of the great importance of this matter we have, Mr. President, sought this interview for the purpose of earnestly re- questing you to recommend to Congress, in your annual message at this coming session, the careful study of this whole subject of lliver and Harbor Works with the view of presenting some plan that shall be free from the very serious evils inherent in the present methods of legislation and administration— a plan that will command thd confi- dence of the people and that will enable the Executive consistently to approve regularly and without exception the measures, carrying- appropriations for river and harbor improvements, that may be pre- sented to him for his signature. We are, Sir, with great respect, For the Executive Board of the Council of Engineering Societies on National Public Works, L. E. Cooley, President. John Eisenmann, Secretary. E. L. CortheliIi, Member. Louis J. Barbot, Member. Augustus Kurth, Member. i MEMORANDUM ON PUBLIC WORKS ORGANIZATIONS. The public works organizations of the other European countries of the Continent are, in a general way, modeled after two well-perfected types, that of France and that of Prussia. The detailed investigations of the Board have, therefore, been mainly restricted to the systems existing in these two countries.* In Great Britain, no public works organization of the government, as understood on the Continent or in this country, has ever existed. In India, however, where the problems presented are more general, as on the Continent, rather than local as in Great Britain, a full organi- zation has been provided. The theory of continental systems, up to a recent time, has been to regard all public improvements as the provipce of the State. This resulted in the establishment of State schools for thorough education in all technical matters of public utility. These schools have (supplied the personnel of the technical service, and also that for general prac- tice. Private practitioners are still mainly recruited from these schools. The employment of technical men outside of the State ser- vice has greatly increased in recent years, owing to the large develop- ment of manufacturing, and the investment of private and corporate capital in public enterprises. The continental systems were, up to a recent time, open to the charge of requiring a high theoretic education not properly balanced by practical experience.! In recent years, however, this has been rectified. The tendency of these systems to drift into a bureaucracy, as formerly charged, is not now brought forward. It is believed that the stimulating effect of outside engineering effort in the recent marvelous industrial development, has had much to do in maintain- ing a live, active and useful service. Promotions are partly by merit and partly by seniority, and many eminent savants have come for- ward. The merits of the' continental system in the development of men high in theoretic and practical attainment has been recognized by the profession in England since the Paris Exposition of 1867. In England the education of engineers proceeds largely from the practical stand- point, by pupilage under practicing engineers. Kecently, liow T ever, the tendency is decidedly toward the attainment of a preliminary theoretic education. Except works for military and naval use and other government purposes (usually supervised by Royal Engineers though eminent civilians have been employed) public works in Great Britain are car- ried out by local harbor boards, trusts or corporations, receiving port dues and aided often by subventions or loans of credit by the gov- * A most interesting review of technical education in the several countries of Europe was published by the Institution of Civil Engineers, Great Britain, in 1870. + The Prussian system aims to combine the two. 14 turnout. There are Ho public civil works of the government in the sense understood on the Continent or in the United States. This is due, doubtless, to the fact that the practical limits of navigation is the reach of the tide, or every improvement is independent of any other and essentially local. The economic theory prevailing has, also, placed these improvements on the basis of actual or direct monetary returns on the capital invested. That such a condition is local and peculiar to Great Britain, is best evidenced by her own practice in India, or what has developed under different conditions in Canada. In the latter country, harbor improvements have been made by local authorities, as in some of the harbors on the Grea : , Lakes, and the Biver St. Lawrence has been im- proved from Quebec to Montreal by the city of Montreal. Some of these have had aid from the government. After the union of Ontario and Quebec in 1841, the St. Lawrence system of canals and other works were undertaken by the government, and since the Dominion confederation in 1867, this policy has been more generally adopted until now, government enterprise is more fully developed than in the United States. From the historical resume compiled by Prof. Haupt, it will be seen that public improvements in the United States in an early day, followed close on the policy which«still prevails in Great Britain. It soon became evident, however, that the transportation facilities recpiired in the early part of this century in a country of immense distances could not be provided by these agencies, and with and fol- lowing the construction of the Erie Canal was developed a remark- able enterprise by States until the railway age ushered in a new era of corporate and individual effort. It is true that some of the States undertook river and harbor works and to levy toll for their use. The decisions of the United States courts early defined the limits of State control over navigable waters, or virtually settled for this country for all time the imprac- ticability of following the English policy. The improvement of har- bors and waterways has then, from the tendency of court decisions and the interstate or long distance character of their commerce, stead- ily assumed more of a national aspect. Since the Civil War, the money appropriated for works of this character is more than double that of f 11 our previous history, and the policy of the General Government aay be considered as settled,. In early days engineers were educated by pupilage, much as now in England. West Point was established in 1802, and began to fur- nish educated men to the profession, though the great public works, as canals, railways and municipal works, in the first half of this cen- tury, and it may be said, up to this time, have been almost wholly executed by civilians. The Government has not patronized engineer- ing schools. The first one established was at Troy, N. Y., in 1824, and several others have been established in more recent times, pro- viding in various special lines, most excellent technical training. 15 From these schools the vast body of practicing engineers who have obtained recognized standing have been recruited, and they are abreast the demand of the times. It will be seen from this exhibit that the United States is practi- tically the only nation employing military engineers on its civil pub- lic works, and that the most military nation (France) adopted'a civil system some three centuries ago. It will also be noticed that the public works policy developed by the United States and Canada is a middle one between that of England and the Continent, and that the education of the engineer, so far as it may be said to be fixed, takes also a middle ground. The tendency is, however, most pro- nounced for a thorough theoretic training. Unfortunately, with the mass of the public, engineering has not the same status, as a learned profession, that prevails abroad. As the logic of our national development has placed us upon mid- dle ground in relation to a public works policy, it would seem rational to assume a middle ground in the development of an organi- zation and personnel adapted thereto. The whole question presses earnestly for solution and should receive the most careful and candid consideration of reflecting minds. We are on the eve of great public enterprises, a development in harbors and waterways and dependent industries, which has been neglected hitherto in our great growth and absorption in more agile means of transportation. As supplemental to railways, and as a logi- cal development of denser' inhabitation, with narrower profit mar- gins, warterways assume renewed importance and take on value more fully recognized in older countries, while the harbors are of supreme importance as the entrepots of foreign commerce and the termini of domestic transportation systems. The policy already in- augurated will surely reach its legitimate conclusion, and we cannot too soon provide the special agencies for its promotion and consum- mation. 16 THE LEGISLftTlON PROPOSED. INTRODUCTION.* In the spring of 1886, topical committees were constituted, and their reports received by the Executive Board in the summer of 1887. A committee of the Board was then appointed to digest the ma- terial collected, to prepare a memorial and draft the brief for a bill. When the matter had been collated it was intimated that the subject was one of much interest to the President of the United States, and accordingly an audience was arranged for November 11, 1887, at which time the Board presented its views to the President in Washing- ton. The Board was well received, and its mission given earnest atten- tion, with results, it may be said, favorable to well digested legislation, calculated to place the waterway question on broad national grounds. Immediately after this the matter was placed in the hands of Hon. 0. K. Breckinridge, who had given much attention to the subject for several years. The draft of a bill was submitted to the Executive Board and others, and, as revised, was introduced in the Senate on Jan. 16,1888, by Hon. Shelby M. Cullom (Senate, No. 1448, referred to Com- mittee on Commerce) , and in the House on the same date by Hon. C. K. Breckinridge (H. E., 4923, referred to Committee on Expenditures in the War Department) . This bill has since been more widely circulated, and amendments have been suggested to more specifically define some of its provisions. Discussion will doubtless develop imperfections which will require correction in the final revision, the bill as introduced aiming princi- pally to set forth the theory of the legislation proposed. To the general theory of the bill no material objection has been offered. Some have doubted the expediency of retaining the bureau in the War Department, while a larger number had expected the Coun- cil to exploit a general reform of the technical bureaus with a view to a Department of Public Works. THE FUTURE DEPARTMENT. The incongruous departmental assignment of the several technical bureaus, the diverse organization, the lack of harmony and general pur- pose, the tendency to aggrandisement at the expense of other bur6aus and sometimes their open strife, have impressed all thinking men with the desirability of systematizing the technical work of the Government and placing all the more or less closely related bureaus in a distinct department, where segregation of duty, co-ordination of effort, eco- nomy and administrative responsibility can be best enforced. Several of these bureaus started, as ill defined units, to accom- plish some specific purpose, and have taken on other functions and grown by accretion without special organizing prevision, their effi- ciency being largely the attributes of a chief rather than of an organic *The Official History of the Council and its Executive Board will be presented in Part HI. 1 ? system. Tlie scientific and constructive work of conceded utility is now sufficiently developed to warrant its complete segregation in well defined units. Each of these units will touch others at many points — will often be closely associated — and not only the structure of indi- vidual units but their relations also, should be well defined in the new department. The wisdom of at once placing heterogeneous and semi- independent bureaus together is a matter of very grave doubt. Will not they jostle rather than embrace ? A Joint Committee of Congress for over two years (1884-6) consid- ered the work of several of the scientific bureaus without reaching important conclusions, though the testimony taken is voluminous and valuable. Changes of minor import only wefe suggested by the per- sonnel, a result not surprising, for the very good reason that the per- sonnel is an integral factor in the evolution by which the present conditions have obtained. It would seem from this experience that any movement for wise change must come from the outside, and from such a distance as will present a true perspective. The members of this Council are men busy with the personal affairs of life, who can give but limited time to questions of the public wel- fare. After mature consideration, it was concluded to restrict present efforts to a Bureau of Harbors and Waterways, and to give to this that detailed consideration required for wise legislation. This bureau would be the most important and complex of the future department, and its inauguration would lead the way for those naturally associated therewith, thus establishing the departmental nucleus to which others would aggregate in conformity to a homogeneous growth. Meantime it would be unwise to disturb unnecessarily the bureau’s departmental position. It seems expedient, therefore, to retain the Bureau of Harbors and Waterways in the War Department until the creation of a new depart- ment is justified. Action by scientific and other societies in regard to bureaus with which they may be more intimately acquainted, would hasten the desirable consummation, and the Council may not rest with- out further endeavors. It has been suggested to the Board to advise an expanding organ- ization which would cover any technical business, as telegraphs or railways, that the Government might enter upon. Much of the conflict and duplication of work in the past has resulted from this expanding quality. As new and special purposes are to be accomplished, proper agencies should be provided without infringing on those with well defined duties. Harbors and Waterways furnish an ample field for a magnificent service, under a rational policy covering over half the entire expenditure of the future department, and it should be special- ized as closely as geodetic surveying or architecture. THEORY OF THE BILE. The bill organizes specifically the Bureau of Harbors and Water- ways under the War Department. It is to be a civil bureau, departing 18 as little as possible from what experience has shown to be good in the present service, correcting its evils and engrafting such features as experience in commercial engineering and in foreign systems has shown to be desirable. It is proposed to create a system which, while securing thorough administrative responsibility, will at the same time utilize without repression all the brains of the personnel — a system the vitality and usefulness of which is the aggregate expression of the corps rather than of its chief ; not only this, but a system perfectly adjusted to its work, and that will interpret and develop those natural provisions for com- merce with which nature has so richly endowed our country. It is a characteristic of foreign organizations that all projects should reach the legislature through the executive rather than originate with the legislator or with a committee. Many have thought such a provision would be wise here. It is not a matter for discussion, as the fundamental law does not permit, and wisely, any abridgement of the right of petition. At the same time it may be, and is, made the duty of the Corps to study and report upon the needs and require- ments of the country, with a view to the development of a homogen- eous harbor and waterway system, and in time, no doubt, all the pos- sibilities and their measure of importance will be duly defined. The admitted evils which have attended river and harbor legis- lation in the past it is not feasible to remedy in a bill except so far as they are due to administration. It is made the duty of the Corps not to expend money until some useful result, commensurate with the ex- penditure, can be vouchsafed. Congress must be governed by its own rules, and the needful changes have been introduced in the House, where all appropriation bills must originate. Aside from these desir- able regulations, it is to be expected that the inauguration of a sys- tem which appeals to the confidence of the public and the adoption of a fixed policy toward harbor and waterway development, will surely correct those evils which have been so seriously criticised. The present river and harbor “district” has proved a convenient administrative unit. This does not differ greatly from the proposed Division, in charge of the Division Engineer, under which class the formulation of plans and the carrying out of construction will be directly supervised. The fact, however, that several of these districts are often embraced in a single topographical basin, or other area with community of interests, demands co-operation with a view to homo- geneity of plans and co-ordination of effort. For instance, the Great Lakes embrace several districts, but the general requirements should be considered as a unit. The same may be said of the North Atlantic Coast, where tidal effects are most marked. Likewise of the Mississippi River and of its principal tributary basins. Hence the desirability of a departmental organization and boundaries segregated largely on phy- sical lines. The same reasoning applies to the country as a whole, in the mutual and less definite relations between the several departments and also in the great general purposes to be served by a harbor and 19 Waterway system, met in the provision for an Advisory Board. This same co-ordination of effort, which the bill seeks to make compre- hensive, has been attempted in a limited way heretofore, as in the Mississippi Biver Commission. In the execution of plans authorized by Congress, rigid executive responsibility is enforced. In the preparation of plans, deliberation and a consensus of brains are provided, so far as consistent with proper discipline. The development of these plans, so far as feasible, begins with the man charged with the detailed investigation and they pass in review the higher authority, thus bringing the conception in closest contact with the data from which it is evolved. This is an admirable feature of the French system, as also that which allows junior officers to submit, without repression or prejudice, any well digested review of projects or works. It is the purpose of the organization to secure, accredit and utilize every thought which may contribute to the public good. The military organization in all ages has been the perfection of human thought and experience for one specific purpose, the preserva- tion of the national life. It demands for its officers a generous educa- tion and special training from youth for the development of the mili- tant instinct. Actual experience and perfection in the manual of arms from 4 the duties of a private upward are insisted upon. Actual knowl- edge and experience in every detail are necessary, and as these are acquired the officer in due course rises from grade to grade. All great corporate and commercial organizations apply the same general rules, requiring of men special training and fitness, advancing them to responsible positions step by step. As these organizations are perfected they parallel more closely a military system, so far a applicable to the nature of the service. In great engineering enter- prises it is prerequisite that the chief shall not only be an able man, but shall have had a preliminary training and an actual experience in the details which he is called upon to supervise. These rules are never wisely violated. It is the same logical method by which military perfection is attained that it is proposed to apply, so far as practicable, to the Corps of United States Civil Engineers — recruiting the ranks largely from men of special education, such as is now provided by several en- gineering schools, with promotion from grade to grade as that detailed experience is acquired Avhich, in the military service, is deemed so es- sential to the wise commander. To inject men into commanding positions in the river and harbor service, men without antecedent special experience, is as illogical as to set civil engineers to planning forts and other military construc- tions. If competent experience can be acquired in a brief space, why not also in military affairs ? Mechanical engineers are not set to locat- ing and building railways, or architects to designing pumping engines, yet these branches are perhaps more closely related than military science to harbor and waterway engineering. 20 The truth is that harbor and waterway improvement is as distinct a specialty as the field of engineering presents, and probably, above any of its kindred, requires special training and development, such as this organization aims to secure. THE ORGANIZATION. Wise provisions for appointment and promotion are most difficult of definition. On the one hand admission to the lowest grade only and promotion entirely by seniority is liable to drift into a nerveless, dead level bureaucracy: while, on the other, selection through pressure of influence and personal preference carries far greater possibilities for evil. The ideal system would be based on brain and experience — competence or merit, such as involve the engineering instinct — and so ordered that no member feels other obligation than duty well per- formed. Primarily, it is provided that the Corps shall be recruited in the grade of Cadet Engineer, largely, no doubt, from the graduates of technical schools and of the military and naval academies — all subject to such tests for admission as may be provided in the rules and regula- tions. This grade is essentially one of probation, in which will large- ly develop the characteristics of future usefulness. Promotion to the grade of Second Assistant Engineer is to be upon the recommendation of an examining board, who are to consider experience and adaptation to the work, as well as scholarly attainment. Promotion will be in the order of seniority, provided the candidate exhibits those qualities which satisfy the board of future usefulness, and an enlightened self- interest can be relied upon to assure the promotion of only competent men. An additional stimulus is added in an outside candidature for one-third the vacancies in the grades of Second Assistant Engineer and First Assistant Engineer. The rules governing promotion up to Division Engineer will be essentially the same, except that Division Engineers can only be re- cruited from First Assistant Engineers. It is assumed that experience is a necessary pre-requisite to a proper discharge of the duties of this grade — the first one of well-defined responsibility — such experience as can be best obtained in a lower grade. Under a well ordered system, requiring several tests for fitness and experience, none but deserving men will reach the grade of Division Engineer. Above that, tests can hardly be valuable, and the rule of seniority will probably be as efficient and fair as any other. The Chief Engineer, however, is made selective from the grade of Associate Chief. The Rules and Regulations will make detailed provisions in regard to all matters pertaining to entrance and promotion. Provision will be made therein for the removal of incompetent men or those who may be- come incapacitated, and also for proper action in regard to all conduct that may be prejudicial to the usefulness of the service. Retirement at some fixed age is believed, on the whole, to be the 21 logic of experience and conducive to the best efficiency. The provis- ion of half-pay would seem proper, the more especially as the older men who may desire to enter the service from the Army cannot be expected to forego their prospects in this particular. THE INITIAL ESTABLISHMENT. In the new establishment it is designed to use the experience of the profession in this special class of work. It is proposed to transfer from the army such engineers as can properly be spared, and who may be sufficiently qualified by experience for work of this character. Tfcese will number about one -half the present army corps, or practi- cally all who may desire to enter this service from those ranks con- taining experienced men. None need be disbarred, for entrance on the same footing as civilians is always open. In this connection it may be remarked that the only grade now filled by army engineers is that of District Engineer Officer, corres- ponding in duties to those proposed for the Division Engineer. A few perform, generally in the office, nominally the duties of assistant, a species of preparation for|responsible and individual charge. All the other very important duties of engineering and administration, cor- responding to the lower grades of the new establishment, are per- formed by civilian employes, generally of engineering training. Only those corresponding to the grade of Eirst Assistant Engineer are usually reported as Assistant Engineers. Without tenure of position, hope of promotion, or the pay com- manded by men of experience, the civil assistant has usually been a young man, often a novice, who remained but a few years, leaving in the service largely those timid of untried fields, or those stranded by the necessities of a present unvarying income. The education of these young men has cost and is costing the government a very large sum, and in the past twenty years, as they have become valuable, one thousand or more have left the service, from whose experience the government derives no benefit. This experience is most valuable in those higher grades to which civilians are not now eligible, and the com- paratively simple routine of administration is not difficult of acquire- ment. In fact, the civil assistant in the field necessarily becomes familiar with the more difficult features of disbursement, while on the other hand the office man does not acquire the far more difficult technical field experience required for wise supervision. Certainly there can be no difficulty in making a wise selection of some thirty civilian engineers for the grades above First Assistant Engineer. For First Assistant Engineer and lower grades, no difficulty need present itself, for, with slight exception, the service is now actually performed by civilians. In bringing about these changes no vested interest is unnecessarily disturbed, and a proper spirit of comity and fairness is introduced. In providing a graded and responsible service, based on competence in duties actually performed, the economy in results to be obtained should many times outweigh all other considerations. 22 The Executive Board has found the above averments to be sub- stantially conceded. The doubts as to the expediency of the present movement have been based on the gratuitous belief that Con- gress would so order the change as to. impair the personnel and usefulness of the service. If such a belief were seriously entertained, certainly the Council would be the last to promote a change. After mature consideration, the agency provided is a Commission of eminent engineers, who are to recommend the nominees, above the grade of First Assistant Engineer, and formulate the rules and regulations which are to govern the initial establishment. # RELATIVE COST. In comparing the cost of the present establishment with that of the one proposed, it will be erroneous to take only the aggregate salaries of the army officers and those reported as Assistant Engineers, as these virtually correspond to the grades of Division and First As- sistant Engineer only. If a full comparison is made, including all the employees with duties similar to those expected of the new corps, as imited for a like amount of work, the account will not be greatly different. So far as this can be exhibited in detail the reader is referred to the “Basis of Proposed Organization.” It must be apparent to the thinking that the cost of any organization which secures efficiency'will be about the same. The cost of the pres- ent one is obscured by placing part of the burden upon the river and harbor appropriations. The ephemeral employment of inexperi- enced men, that elastic feature which the uninformed have com- mended, is subversive of true economy. The higher efficiency of an establishment, specifically adapted to its work, will be its own best recommendation in the results accomplished. CONCLUSION. It has been the aim to provide for the initial establishment and to lay down the principles which should govern its development, leaving details to be formulated in the rules and regulations, and subject to amendment by the logic of growth. This, it was thought, would give to the Corps greater elasticity and facility of adaptation, until prece- dent had fully defined its methods. It was not supposed that in the multiplicity of thought desirable amendments might not be sug gested, nor that, after the establishment of the Corps, supplemental legislation would not be required. The next topic should be read in detail, as giving an exhibit of the practical questions involved, and as preliminary to the study of the bill. Special matter is presented in the Appendices. Part II. pre- sents the broad national questions which argue the changes proposed. 23 BASIS OF PROPOSED ORGANIZATION. [Report of Committee on Basis for Legislation.]* DISTRIBUTION OF IMPROVEMENT, EXAMINATIONS AND SURVEYS FOR HARBORS AND WATERWAYS. (MAP.) To arrive at conclusions in regard to the character of an organiz- ation for the entire country — the distribution in Departments and Divisions for administrative purposes and for community of plans — the following tabular statements have been compiled: The number of works, examinations and surveys and the amounts appropriated are made up from the River and Harbor Bill, approved August 5th, 1886. The headquarters of Divisions have been placed in the larger cities, except in a few instances where only smaller towns have a sufficiently central location. The limits of Departments are assumed with the view of equalizing to the greatest convenient extent the number of the works and the disbursement of the funds in each Department. North Atlantic. Division Headquarters. Works, No. of. Exam, and Surv., No. Amount Appro- priated. 1 . Portland, Me 13 10 $ 198,500 2. Boston, Mass 10 11 232,250 From Northern point 3. Newport, R. I 15 1 237,000 of Cape. Henlopen, 4. New Haven, Conn. . 14 2 262,500 with tributary 5. Burlington, Vt 6 94,500 waterways and the 6. New York, N. Y 9 5 998,750 Lake Champlain 7. Jersey City, N. J 11 3 173,750 System. 8. Philadelphia, Pa 10 4 363,750 Total 88 36 $2,561,000 South Atlantic. 9. Baltimore, Md 10. Washington, D. C... 11. Washington, D. C... 12. Norfolk, Va 7 3 Special 11 13 13 10 3 1 Approp’n 2 4 7 5 $220,025 401,700 for D. C. 283.500 284,550 290.500 510,975 From Cape Henlopen to Key West, with tributary water- ways. 13. Wilmington, N. C.. . 14. Charleston, S. C 15. Savannah, Ga Total 57 22 $1,991,250 * Comroittee— L. E, Cooley, E. L. Corthell, Hiero B. Herr, DEPARTMENTAL MAP. — The above outline illustrates how the River and Harbor Bill could have been distributed in Departments. 25 Gulf. Division Works, Exam, and Amount Appro- Headquabters. No. of Surv., No. priated. 16. Apalachicola, Fla . . . 13 7 $ 106,500 Gulf Coast, with trib- 17. Mobile, Ala 14 3 346,975 utary waterways, 18. New Orleans, La. . . 8 7 265,500 exc. Miss. E. above ID. Galveston, Tex 8 1 • 1,112,450 Plaquemine, La. Total 1 43 18 .$1,831,425 Lower Mississippi. 20. Shreveport, La 4' 6 $103,000 The Lower Miss. Eiv. 21. Natchez, Miss 6 7 618,500 system, from Pla- 22. Vicksburg, Miss. . 8 509,500 quemine to New 23. Memphis, Tenn 11 2 521,750 Madrid, Mo. 24. Little Eock, Ark — 6 3 131,375 Total 35 18 $1,884,125 • Ohio. 25. Chattanooga, Tenn. 26. Louisville, Ky 27. Cincinnati, O 9 5 3 s 3 $379,000 407,000 432,500 317,775 The Ohio Eiver Sys- tem. 28. Pittsburgh, Pa 9 4 Total 26 10 $1,536,275 Middle Mississippi. 29. Columbus, Mo 3 $100,000 The Miss. Eiv. Sys- tem, exc. the Ohio 30. St. Louis, Mo 5 4 705,000 Eiv., from N. Mad- 31. Kansas City Mo 4 200,000 rid to the mouth of 32. Omaha, Neb 5 i 300,250 the Illinois Eiv. Total 17 7 $1,305,250 Upper Mississippi. 33. Burlington, la 5 $224,950 108,550 136.250 191,500 209.250 219.250 The Miss. Riv. system, from the mouth of the Ills. River to the 34. Eock Island, 111 35. St. Paul, Minn. . •6 5 6 36. Duluth, Minn. .. 9 2 source of the Miss. 37. Milwaukee, Wis 38. Chicago, 111 12 9 2 1 Riv., the Red Riv. of the North, Lake Su_ perior and the West" Shore of Lake Mich- igan, with tributary waterways. 1 Total 46 11 $1,089,750 Lakes. 39. G’d Eapids, Mich. . . 10 2 $185,750 The Great Lakes sys- tem, except Lake 40. Detroit, Mich 8 [ 7 586,000 Superior and the 41. Cleveland, O 10 2 382,000 West Shore of Lake 42. Oswego, N. Y 11 2 339,375 Michigan. Total 39 13 $1,493,125 26 Pacific. Division Headquarters. Works, No. of Exam, and Surv., No. Amount Appro- priated. 43. Portland, Ore 8 1 $475,500 The entire Pacific 44. Salem, Ore 4 6 138,700 Coast, with tribu- 45. San Francisco, Cal . 6 2 207,250 tary rivers, includ- 4G. Los Angeles, Cal. . . 2 1 80,000 ing Alaska. Total 20 10 $901,450 Summary. Summary of Departments. Works, No. of. No. of Examinations and Surveys. Amount Appropriated. North Atlantic..*. 88 36 $2,561,000 South Atlantic 57 22 1,991,250 Gulf 43 18 1,831,425 Lower Mississippi 35 18 1,884,125 Ohio 26 10 1,536,275 Middle Mississippi 18 i 7 1,305,250 Upper Mississippi 46 11 1,089,750 Lakes 39 13 1,493,125 Pacific 20 10 901,450 G rand Total 372 145 $14,593,6:- 0 PERSONNEL AND COST OF PRESENT ESTABLISHMENT. Tlie last issue of tlie Official ^Register of Officers and Employees in the Civil, Military and Naval Service of the United States, gives the rank, number and salary of every officer and employee in the service on the 1st day of July, 1885. The following table, compiled from this register includes only those employees whose duties were such as would be performed by officers and cadets of the proposed corps of civil engineers and whose rate of pay was not less than $60 per nionth. Employees on River and Harbor Service July 1, 1885. Rank. ! No. Monthly Rates of Pay. Limits of. Total. Average. Agents 2 $ 250 $ 500 $250 00 Civil Engineers 1 250 250 250 00 Assistant Engineers 130 90 to 250 21,495 165 35 Superintendents 16 90 to 250 2,215 138 44 Hydrographers and Topogs. . 8 110 to 150 1,000 125 00 Draughtsmen 32 67 to 175 3,957 123 65 Transit and Level -men 18 75 to 150 1,980 110 00 Inspectors 119 60 to 175 12,667 106 44 Overseers 70 60 to 165 6,811 97 30 Recorders, Computers and: Observers ! 19 60 to 150 1,600 84 21 Receivers of Materials ! 6 60 to 110 470 78 33 Rodrnen, Chain and Leadmeni 16 60 to 80 1,103 68 94 27 The above table gives the number, rank and rate of pay of em- ployees for one month only. To approximate the average number in each rank during an entire year, it will be necessary to consider the provisions of the River and Harbor Bill approved July 4, 1884, and the condition of the items appropriated thereby on July 1, 1885. The Bill provides as follows* : For 304 separate and distinct improvements $11,627,600 00 For 3 surveys (one being under the Miss. River Com.) 99,600 00 For 134 examinations and surveys (by allotment) 125,000 00 For improvements under the Miss. Riv. Com 2,070,000 00 For snagging operations on the Miss, and Mo. Rivers 125,000 00 On June 30, 1885, f only 147 of the 304 works appropriated for were in operation. The appropriations for the others had either been ex- pended previous to this date, or operations were suspended for some other cause. But one of the three surveys was in progress, that be- ing of the Missouri River, for which $15,000 was appropriated. Dur- ing the year all of the “Examinations and Surveys” had been completed, and all work under the Mississippi River Commission, south of Cairo, 111., had been suspended. For this portion of the river $1,350,000 w^as appropriated, with $75,000 additional for surveys and observations for varidus purposes. Work having been suspended on more than half the total number of improvements, on a still larger proportion of the surveys, and all the “Examinations and Surveys” being completed before July 1, 1885, the average number of employees required during the fiscal year end- ing June, 30, 1885, in the positions included in the foregoing tabular statement was probably not less than indicated in the following Statement : Rank. Number in Service. Annual Pay! (Average). Total Pay. Julv 1, 1885. Additional during Year. Total Av. for Year. Agents 2 2 $3,000 $ 6,000* Civil Engineers 1 1 3,000 3,000 Asst. Engineers 130 20 150 2,000 300,000 Superintendents 1 16 4 20 1,660 33,200 Hydrogs. and Topogs 8 12 20 1,500 30,000 Draughtsmen 32 8 40 1,484 59,360 Transit and Level-men . . . 18 22 . 40 1,320 52,800 Inspectors 119 31 150 1,277 191,550 Overseers 70 30 100 1,168 116,800 Recorders, Comp, and Obs 19 41 60 1,017 61,020 Receivers of Materials 6 4 10 940 9,400 Rodmen, Ch. and Leadmen ! 16 34 50 827 41,350 643 $904,480 * See Report of Chief of Engineers for 1884, Vol. IY. + See Report of Chief of Engineers for 1S85. t See tabular statement, previous page. 28 Salaries paid officers of the Corps of Engineers, tt. S. A., during fiscal year ending June 30,1885, on duty connected with civil works under provisions of the River and Harbor Bill, approved July 4, 1884:* No. Rank. ♦ Rate per Annum. Total Pay Com. Qrs. Pay Proper. Total. 1 Brig. -General $864 $',500 $3,364 $6,364 20,880 4 Colonels 720 4,500 5,220 11 Lieut. -Colonels 586 4,200 4,736 52,096 19 I Majors 536 3,500 4,036 76,684 24 j Captains 432 2,800 3,232 77,568 ii First Lieutenants 288 2,088 2,376 26,136 70 $259,728 We have then a total of officers and employees 70 + 643 = 713 who received in salaries during the year $259,728 + $904,480 = $l,164,208f On November 1st, 1885, 51 stations, or districts, corresponding to the proposed division s, were occupied. Some of the men in the foregoing list were not educated or trained as engineers. In the proposed Corps of United States Civil Engineers the duties should be such that cadets will have the opportunity of working upAvards from the simplest technical details, learning by ex- perience all portions of the work which they may be called upon to direct when occupying higher grades in the corps. Note. — The cost to the Government of educating Army Engineers at the Military Academy is somewhere in the vicinity of $12,000 each. The expense of the Academy is not only that annually appropriated by special bill, but also includes the salaries of officers and men and the general expenses of the military establishment at this station. The exact sum, or that properly chargeable to the education is difficult to estimate. PERSONNEL OF THE CORPS OF U. S. CIVIL ENGINEERS. The corps should be under the direction of the Secretary of War. The personnel should be as follows: Salary Grade— per annum. 1 Chief Engmeer $10,000 4 Associate Chief Engineers 7,500 9 Department Engineers 6,000 50 Division Engineers 4,000. 100 First Assistant Engineers 2,700 200 Second Assistant Engineers 1,800 250 Cadets 1,200 All engineers should be commissioned by the President, and be subject to promotion and retirement in manner similar to that pro- vided for the Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. * As to number of officers, see Report of Chief of Engineers, U. S. A., for 1885. The rate of pay is taken from the U. S. Statutes and is exclusive of forage allowance ] The new corps for the same work will probably cost less for personnel andlmucb less for attendant administrative purposes. Promotion to any grade below that of Department Engineer should only be made upon the recommendation of a proper Examining Board. Cadets should be commissioned under similar restrictions by the Secretary of War. Upon the* recommendation of such Examining Board a limited number of commissions in the grade of first and second assistant engi- neers may be issued to engineers who may not have served in an inferior grade. THE INITIAL ESTABLISHMENT. The Corps should be primarily established in the manner follow- ing, to wit: The Chief of the Corps of Engineers, U. S. A., at the time this organization is initiated, should occupy the position of Chief Engi- neer and should continue such occupancy during his term of active service in the U. S. Army. Officers of the Corps of Engineers, U. S. A., not to exceed fifty- two (52) in number should be detached for duty in the Corps of Civil Engineers and should be appointed by the President on recommen- dation of the Board of Commissioners hereafter described, and should be distributed in the various grades, as follows: Two (2) in the grade of Associate Chief Engineer. Five (5) in the grade of Department Engineer. Twenty-five (25) in the grade of Division Engineer. Twenty (20) in the grade of First Assistant Engineer. They should take rank alternately with the Civil Engineers to be commissioned in the corresponding grades. No exti^ compensation should be allowed officers of the Corps of Military Engineers for service in the Corps of Civil Engineers. Any Army Engineer on detached duty in the corps should be privileged at any time within two (2) years after the date of the or- ganization of the corps, to resign his commission in the Army and accept a commission in the Corps of U. S. Civil Engineers, taking the rank of the position he occupied in the corps at the time of such re- signation. If at the expiration of the said two years any Army Engineer so detached should not resign his commission in the Army, his services in the Corps of Civil Engineers should cease. The remaining positions in the grades of Associate Chief, Depart- ment and Division Engineers should be filled by Civil Engineers to be commissioned by the President upon the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners, for which provision is hereafter made. The offices o 1 the lower grade should be filled in similar manner by the President, upon the recommendation of a properly constituted Board of U. S. Civil Engineers. The grades of Second Assistant Engineer and Cadet should be filled gradually, as the requirements of the service may demand. ADMINISTRATION. In the proper execution of the duties pertaining to the Corps the following provisions should be made: 30 The Chief Engineer with the four Associate Chief Engineer should constitute an Advisory Board. The whole area of the United States should be divided into nine (9) departments, and each department should contain from four (4) to eight (8) divisions. Each department should be in charge of a Department Engineer and each division should be in charge of a Div- ision Engineer. Should there be more divisions than available Division Engineers, First Assistant Engineers may be placed in charge. Projects for continuing improvements, with estimates of the amount of funds which can be profitably expended during the next fiscal year, should be prepared by the Division Engineers and sub- mitted to the Department Engineers, who should transmit them to the Advisory Board with such recommendations as they may deem essen- tial to the best interests of their departments. From these projects and estimates, and after consultation with the Department Engineers, the Advisory Board should determine upon the amounts which should, in the interest of commerce and the best development of the country, be appropriated for each improvement, construction and maintenance of harbors and waterways. The Sec- retary of War should submit the amounts so determined to Congress as a basis upon which appropriations should be made and should, if requested, either in person, or through the Advisory Board or De- partment Engineers, present to the committees in Congress having these matters in charge, the reasons in detail for the several estimates. The Secretary of War should also submit to Congress at the same time a detailed report of all work executed, with the amoi^t expended on such work during the preceding fiscal year. Examinations and surveys for the purpose of determining the utility and cost of proposed new improvements should be ordered- by the Advisory Board upon recommendation of the Department Engi- neer, provided the cost of such examination or survey does not exceed the sum of $5,000; but the project and estimate of cost for any new improvement and any survey whose cost may exceed $5,000 should be approved by Congress before such improvement or survey is inau- gurated. RULES AND REGULATIONS. A Board of Commissioners to consist of three Army Engineers and three Civil Engineers, to be appointed by the President, should formulate a system of Kules and Begulations for the government of the Corps. They should relate to the method of disbursement of funds, purchase of material, care of property, discipline, examinations for promotion and appointment of officers and cadets, employment of experts, foremen and laborers, to retirement, and all other matters which they may deem necessary for a proper administration of the duties of the Corps, and for its inauguration* and maintenance as an honorable and useful national servant. 31 The civilian members of the Board of Commissioners, should receive compensation at the rate of $450 per month, with necessary traveling expenses. To defray the expense of the Board and for the compensation above provided, $20,000 should be appropriated to be expended under direction of the Secretary of War. After the Rules and Regulations have been approved by Congress, the Board of Commissioner j should submit to the President their re- commendations of engineers for all grades above that of First Assistant Engineer. PROPERTY. All public property in charge of the Corps of Engineers, U. S. A., pertaining to the Improvement of Rivers and Harbors, should be transferred to the proper officers of the Corps of United States Civil Engineers. 32 THE CULLOM-BRECKINRIDGE BILL. The bill to create the Bureau of Harbors and Waterways was intro- duced in the two houses of Congress on the same day — in the Senate, by Hon. Shelby M. Cullom, and in the House of Representatives, by Hon. C. R. Breckinridge. The Senate bill is numbered 1448 and referred to the Committee on Commerce. The House bill is printed in full below : 50th CONGRESS, ’st Session. H. R. 4923. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, January 16, 1888. Read twice, referred to the Committee on Expenditures in the War Department, and ordered to be printed. Mr. Clifton R. Breckinridge introduced the following bill : A BILIv To regulate certain expenditures in the War Department, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That there shall be under the War Department a bureau to 4 be known as the Bureau of Harbors and Water-ways, to be 5 officered by a corps to be known as the Corps of United States 6 Civil Engineers. 1 Sec. 2. That said bureau shall be cha rged with the con- 2 struction, execution, conduct, and preservation of the harbor 3 and water way works in aid of navigation now completed or 4 possessed, or in course of construction, or being operated by 5 the United States, including what is known as snaggingand 6 dredging operations, and all such works as may now or here- 7 after be provided for by law, and the making of all examina- 8 tions, surveys, plans and estimates relating to harbor and 9 water-way improvements ; and it shall be charged with the 10 supervision an00 appropriated March 3rd, 1821, Vol. Ill, p. 643. CFIAP. 29. Reviving and continuing Act for Md. and Ga. Steam Passenger Boats exempt from duty, April 20th, 1822, Vol. Ill, p. 665. CHAP. 31. Authorizing Secretary of Treasury to build by con- tract, to be approved by the President, a sea -wail at Smutty Nose Island, N. H., and Me., and appropriating $71,500; also Secretary of Treasury, to authorize and re- quire, to cause to be erected in the Bay of Delaware, near the shears, by contract, two piers of sufficient dimensions to be a harbor for vessels from the ice, if expedient, and appropriating $22,700, May 7th, 1822, Vol. III., p. 698. CHAP. 56. Act authorizing the President to make examination and survey of obstruction between Gloucester and Squam, Mass., and to remove by contract and appropri- ating $6,000; also, that $150 is appropriated to enable the President of the U. S. to cause to be examined and sur- veyed by one of the topographical engineers of the United States, Harbor of Presque Isle, Pa. March 3rd, 1823, Vol. Ill, p. 780. CHAP. 46. Act authorizing the President of the U. S. to cause the necessary surveys, plans and estimates to be made of such roads and canals as he may deem .of national importance in a commercial or military point of view, or necessary for the transportation of the public mail, etc. To carry into effect the objects of this act he is authorized to employ two or more skillful civil engineers and such officers of the corps of engineers or who may be detailed to do duty with that corps as he may think proper, and appropriates $30,000. April 30th, 1824, Vol. IV, p. 22. CHAP. 65. Authorizing improvement of Coosa R., Ala.; also con- nection between it and the Tenn. R. and improvement of latter as per local statute. May 13th, 1824, Vol. IV. p. 23. CHAP. 139. The President authorized to cause navigation of Ohio R. to be improved over following bars * * * and he may employ any of the engineers in the public service which he may deem proper, etc.; and be it further enacted to improve navigation of Miss. R. from mouth of Missouri to N. O., and of the Ohio from Pittsburgh, the President is authorized to remove trees and to procure and provide * * * the requisite water craft, machinery , implements and force to raise all trees called “ planter’s sawyers ” or snags as 44 may be found at the lowest stages, etc. ; $75,000 is appropri- ated and the President is to submit his annual report of such operations to Congress. May 24th, 1824, Vol. IV. p. 32. CHAP. 153. CHAP. 11. CHAP. 20. CHAP. 113. CHAP. 9. • CHAP. 15. CHAP. 17. CHAP. 40. CHAP. 65. CHAP. 73. CHAP. 78. $20,000 each to Presque Isle Harbor, Pa., and Ply- mouth Beach, Mass. May 26, 1824, p. 16. $28,567 in addition to the unexpended balance “ for making surveys and carrying on the operations of the Board of Engineers in relation to internal improvements.” Feb. 21st, 1825. Assent to improvement of Appomattox River by State of Va. March 3rd, 1825. Sundry local works; Plymouth Beach, $5,712; pier at Cuyahoga R., Ohio, etc. March 3rd, 1825. $20,000 for canal from Atlantic to Gulf of Mexico, S. of St. Mary’s River, Fla. President. March 3rd, 1826, Vol. IV, p. 139. Authorizing three -fifths of 5 % fund to be applied to roads, etc., in Miss. March 14th, 1826. $13,184.90 completing repair, Plymouth Beach; $7,000 completing Presque Isle Channel; $50,000 for surveys, etc., for roads and canals. March 25th, 1826. Secretary of Treasury to subscribe for 1,000 shares Louisville and Portland Canal stock. May 13th, 1826. Secretary of Treasury to subscribe for 600 shares Dis- mal Swamp Canal, and appropriating $150,000 to aid in its construction. Examination by U. S. C. Engineers, May 18th, 1826. $50,000 appropriated under direction of President to improve Savannah River below Savannah. An act for improvement of certain harbors and the navigation of certain rivers and creeks and for author- izing certain surveys to be made, etc. (in extenso) . May 20th, 1826. DATES OF VARIOUS RIVER AND HARBOR BIRDS. March 2nd, 1827. May 19th, 1828. May 23rd, 1828. March 2nd, 1829 — At disposition of President. March 3rd, 1829 — “ “ “ April 23rd, 1830 — No authority stated for disbursement. March 2nd, 1831 — “ « “ July 3rd, 1832— " « “ March 2nd, 1833. June 28th, 1834. March 3rd, 1835. July 2nd, 1836. July 4th, 1836, 46 March 3rd, 1837. July 7th, 1838. 1839 — No general bill but a few special items aggregating $19,500. 1840— No general bill but a few special items aggregating $1,225.39. March 3rd, 1841 — To pay deficiency on two steam dredges for Lake Michigan, $4,369. March 3rd, 1841 — For removing raft of Red River under direction of Secretary of War. September 4th, 1841 — 500,000 acres of land granted to Ohio, Illi- nois, Indiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas and Michigan after December 31st, 1841, for building “roads, railways bridges, canals and improvements of water courses and draining of swamps,” and such improvement shall be free to U. S. mails, troops, etc. September 9th, 1841 — Deficiency for roads, harbors, etc., $40,000. September 11th, 1841 — Joint Rules relative to title to land for public buildings. June 4th, 1842 — Act to relieve Plumb Id. Bridge and Turnpike Co., Mass; $8,000 for the destruction of a bridge occasioned by the construction of a breakwater by the U. S. August 23rd, 1842 — For arrearages and preservation of public prop- erty at the several places of harbor and river improvements, $15,000, and for building, etc., boats for improvements on Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio and Arkansas Rivers, $100,000, under Secretary of War; and for preservation and repair of public works heretofore constructed for R. and H., $30,000. March 1st, 1843 — Continuing improvements on Mississippi, Mis- souri, Ohio and Arkansas Rivers, 1£ fiscal year, $150,000. March 3d, 1843 — For Harbors on Lake Michigan; Milwaukee, Chicago, St. Joseph. June 11th, 1844 — General bill for Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri and Arkansas, and for numerous Lake Harbors. 1845 — Only four special bills. August 8th, 1846 — Lands granted to Territory of Iowa, to improve the Des Moines River. August 8th, 1846 — Lands granted to Territory of Wisconsin, to im prove Fox and Wisconsin Rivers and connect them by canal. 1847 — A few special relief and deficiency bills. 1848— -None. 1849 — A few special appropriations for surveys and relief. 1850 — A few special acts and to survey Delta of Mississippi. 1851— None. August 26th, 1852 — Authorizing Michigan to construct St. Mary’s Falls Ship Canal, and granting 750,000 acres to aid. August 30th. 1852 — General River and Harbor Bill again passed, and a commission of Topographical and Civil Engineers to be ap- pointed by Secretary of War to survey and report upon enlarging canal at Louisville. 46 1853 — Several special acts for Eivers and Harbors. 1854 — Several special acts for Eivers and Harbors. 1855 — Several special acts for Eivers and Harbors. 1856 — Several special acts for Eivers and Harbors. 1857 — One relief bill, $13,913.62, for Dog Eiver Bar in Mobile Bay. 1858 — Two relief bills. 1859— One relief bill. Admission of Oregon; 5 per cent, of land sales. 1860 — Belief of Shade Calloway for work on Tennessee Eiver in 1853, $1,350; and* $50,000 to improve the Tennessee Eiver and to enlarge Louisville canal. Jan. 29th, 1861 — Kansas admitted; 5 per cent, condition for roads, etc. 1861 — Bill to improve Baltimore, and assenting to acts of States of Arkansas, Texas and Louisiana for removing Eed Eiver raft. June 28th, 1864 — A few relief bills and appropriations to provide for preserving certain public works. March 3d, 1865 — Land grant to Michigan for Portage Lake Canal, etc. April 10th, 1866 — Land grant to Wisconsin for Breakwater in Sturgeon Bay. June 23d, 1866 — General bill for repair, preservation and comple- tion of Public Works, and sundry local bills. March 2d, 1867 — General bill as for 1866, and sundry bills and res- olutions, among them one of March 29th, 1867, “That the Chief of En- gineers may, with the approval of the Secretary of War, employ such Civil Engineers, not exceeding five in number, for executing the sur- veys and improvements of Western and Northwestern Eivers, necessary to proper and diligent execution of same. Compensation not to ex - eeed $3,000 per annum. July 1st, 1868 — General bill, $1,500,000, and certain special grants and resolutions. April 10th, 1869— General bill for $2,000,000. July 11th, 1870 — General bill and sundry special bills and reso- lutions. March 3d, 1871— General bill. June 10th, 1872 — General bill, and sundry special bills. March 3d, 1873— General bill and sundry special bills. June 22d, 1874 — Mississippi Eiver Commission, three U. S. En- gineers, two Civil Engineers, at $5,000, and appropriating $25,000. June 23d, 1874— General bill. March 3d, 1875 — General bill; Eads’ contract in bill; Colorado ad- mitted, 5 per cent. August 14th, 1876 — General bill. The above exhibit shows that the public works have been con- ducted at different times by the States, by private incorporated com- 47 panies, by the Secretary of the Navy, the President of the United States, the Collectors of Government Districts, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Quartermaster General, by composite Boards of Civil and Military Engineers, by the Chief of Engineers, Secretary of War, etc. APPENDIXJO. 2 . THE PUBLIC WORKS OF FRANCE— THEIR ORGANIZATION CONDUCT AND EXECUTION. Report by Mr. L. J. Barbot, Committee on Public Works of France and Italy. 0 ORIGIN OF THB “ ORGANISATION DES PONTS ET OHAUSSEES.” It may not be uninteresting to preface my report with an histori- cal sketch of the origin and first steps taken in the organization of the bureau for the administration of the Public Works of France known as “ L’ Administration du Bureau des Ponts et Chaussees,” an institution of France which has afforded a model to all other nations, of Europe. About the year 1535, and following the eventful disasters of France, the Kings, by an instinct the most remarkable and fruitful in its results, directed their attention to the building and opening of highways of communication, in order to give an impulse to life and society, in facilitating the transportation of and furnishing and estab- lishing outlets for the commercial and agricultural interests of the Kingdom. Thus did Francis I. order the construction of the Canal D’llle et Ranee, in Brittany, which, while affording a route for mer- chandise by way of the interior from Yannes to St. Malo, avoided a very perilous route to navigation and aided the commercial purposes and interests by a reduction in distance of thirty to forty leagues, which at all times had been extremely hazardous. He caused the examination of the first project to be made between the two seas in 1535. Under Henry IV., for the improvement and maintenance of the public roads of the Kingdom, was instituted the office of road sur- veyor. During his reign, the first canal with a summit level, and in- volving the application of locks (“the Briare Canal,”) was commenced and nearly finished. It was completed under Louis XIII. and by the first chartered company in France. Under Louis XIV., the “ Canal du Midi " was awarded to Riquet, ♦As a result of study and researches of the documents, etc., which Messrs., the Consuls of France and Italy have' had the kindness to obtain and courteously place at my disposal and use for the purpose above indicated. I have been able to satisfy myself that the organization and administration of the Bureau of the Public Works of the Kingdom of Italy were modeled after those of France, which I have the honor to detail as hereinafter appear*. L. J. B. 48 who was recognized aa its proprietor, and received, in order to carry it to completion, large subsidies from the Crown, from the States of “Languedoc,” and several other States of the Kingdom. Colbert, who presided over this large work, was also charged with, and occu- pied himself about the routes over the whole of France. There existed at this period throughout the Provinces of France, arhitects who were styled, “ Engineers to the King,” and who were charged with the surveys and supervision of all such works in their respective provinces. In view of the disasters following the reign of Louis XIV., under which the Kingdom was still suffering, the Regent of France, being determined to try a remedy for the failure of the agricultural, industrial and commercial interests of the country, adopted the idea of covering the entire territory of the Kingdom with a vast network of routes, to the extent of 12,000 leagues. For the execution of this great scheme, he instituted in 1722, the organization and the adminis- tration “ des Ponts et Chaussees,” consisting of a Bureau of Engin- eers with two chiefs, the Comptroller “ des Ponts et Chaussees,” who should have charge of all the financial and administrative questions, and the most prominent engineer of France, who should have charge of the technical portion of the work, both to be placed under the authority of the Comptroller- General of Finance. In the course of fifty years the whole territory of France was furrowed with mag- nificent public roads, which are without doubt the most remarkable monuments to the memory of Louis XV. ; they were built under the care of Intendents, “ de Trudaine et fils, ” and after the surveys and plans and under the direction of Engineer Peronnet. In the year 1750, “L* Ecole des Ponts et Chaussees” was founded, and placed under the superintendence of the same engineer, Peronnet. In the year 1791, the National Assembly maintained “Le Corps des Ponts et Chaussees,” with its grades, by a school at Paris. By Decree, 25th August, 1804, “L’ Ecole des Ponts et Chaussees,” was newly organized, and a General Director was placed at its head, under the authority of the Minister of the Interior. In 1836, “L’ Ecole des Ponts et Chaussees et Mines” was placed under the Minister of Agriculture, Commerce and Public Works. In 1839 was created “Le Ministere des Travaux Publics, ” with an assistant Secretary of State, charged with the direction of “L’ Ecole des Ponts et Chaussees et Mines,” and the administration of its schools. “travaux publics.” The character of the Public Works was restricted for a long time to works executed in the interest of the State, as reclaiming tidal lands and building public routes; it embraces to-day all works of a public character and necessity, whether undertaken by the State, the department, committees, public boards or syndical associations. Summary : The works comprise the construction and mainten- 49 ance of the public roads and bridges, the construction and mainten ance of commercial ports, dykes, sea -coast works— such as dredging, etc. — canals and works for maritime purposes and navigation of the interior, the establishing and building of lighthouses, beacons and buoys, the improvement and maintenance of the navigation of rivers and tributaries— towpaths, jetties, piers, works for shore protection to river banks — drainage and reclamation of lands, construction and maintenance of railroads, etc. “ PONTS ET CHAUSSEES, ECOLE NATIONALS." The engineers “des Ponts et Chaussees” are drawn for a greater part from the National School of Paris. The organization and educational training of this school, having for its object the making of Engineers and Constructors of Public Works, is composed of three parts: 1. Of all that relates to the means of communication by water or land, railroads, canals, rivers, streams and maritime ports. 2. The Public Works, which are always directed by the Govern- ment, even when not executed at its cost, such as irrigation of lands and their reclamation, the regulation of water courses, rivers and the uses and employment of water-power of the country for manufactur- ing purposes, the distribution oi sources of water supply. 3. Of the scientific training, the knowledge of which is necessary to the engineer, in mechanics, architecture, civil engineering, miner- alogy, geology, agriculture and the administration of works and the laws of administration. Courses are embraced in the above, consisting of — 1. Oral lessons by professions. 2. Graphical studies, mental solution of problems, reduction in form of digest, competitive designing of all -works of art with descrip- tive papers of same. 3. The manipulating and experimenting on constructive mater- ials of all kinds, their weights and application to engineering and architectural uses. 4. Exercises in leveling, projection of plans and details of con- struction. 5. Visits to the workshops, etc., etc., etc. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION “DES PONTS ET CHAUSSEES." The Central “Administration des Ponts et Chaussees” is formed by the Minister of Public Works, the Directors “ des Ponts et Chaussees " and Kailroads, and Chiefs of Bureaus. The Minister approves of the schemes for all new undertakings and extensive reparations, assigns or divides the legislative appro- priations of the Ways and Means Committee to each department, prepares the decrees relative to the positions of Engineer Officers em- ployed, from the second class downwards. 50 THE “ CONSEIL GENERAL DES PONTS ET CHAUSSEES.'* Tlie “ Conseil General des Ponts et Chaussees ” is composed prin- cipally of the General Inspectors of the first and the second class. The duties assigned to the “Conseil General” consist in giving its opinion. 1. On the projects and plans of the works, on all questions of art which are submitted to it. 2. On the question of keeping and rendition of accounts. 3. On all questions arising from the use of the water motive power of the country. 4. On all the questions of litigation which are to be brought be- fore “Le Conseil d’ Etat,” or to be decided by the Minister of Public Works. The Territory of Prance is subdivided into 16 Inspection Districts through which the General Inspector makes a tour every three months, and then renders report according to forms prepared and filled out by the Chief Engineer. The forms embrace six objects: 1. The Personnel. 2. Eoads, Bridges and Railroads. 3. Rivers, Canals and Wharves. 4. Maritime Ports, Harbors, Light Houses, Reclamation of Dunes. 5. The improvement and rebuilding of lines of communication over water courses, 6. The general accountability of all such works. All reports of a personal character can, by reason of any private matter contained, be addressed to the Minister by letter sent under private enclosure or mark. Five of the General Inspectors of Railroads are exclusively charged with the thorough examination and researches as to the com- mercial advantages and financial condition and management of the various companies. They are members of the Board of Direction of Railroads, in the organization of which they form a permanent com- mittee of consultation, charged jwith advising the Minister on all questions, particularly in w r hat may concern — 1. The establishing of rates of tariff and their application, and the fixing of rates of charges and their application. 2. Particular agreements and international conventional arrange- ments and their application on the basis of the tariff. 3. The issuing of obligations in the form of notes and bonds. 4. State loans and subsidies by the Government, and guarantees of interest by the companies or the division of profits with the State. The Commission reports monthly to the Minister the financial condition of the companies, and submits all statistical documents showing the freight and passenger business of the railroads, etc. HIERARCHICAL ORDER OF ENGINEERING REPORTS. £he Ordinary Engineers, the Chief Engineer, and above all thq 51 General Inspectors of Divisions, are charged with the same reports in the matter of departmental service. The greater part of these objects are inherent to the departments service, and form the necessary elements of it, such as — 1. The study and preparation of the plans and projects. 2. The preparation of and opening of credits or accounts. 3. The execution of the works by contract or by days' work under the Government. 4. The management of the “Bureau of Construction." 5. The payment for work and the delivery of checks. 6. The discussion of questions likely to lead to litigation. 7. The assignment of the personnel in charge of the works. All the reports of the Ordinary Engineers are made subject to the revision of the Chief Engineer, who personally makes his examination before the execution of such works. There is consequently a con- stant co-operation and consultation of two engineers for all the essen- all matters of the service. For large projects, such as those which have for their purpose the improvement of rivers and navigable streams, the opening and building of new routes, or for the location of lines of railroads yfhich traverse several of the departments, the re- ports of the Ordinary Engineer and Chief Engineer can be submitted to the Inspector- General of Division, who makes the final examination and report, and places his hand and seal to the study or report, with the view of securing a general and well-ordered system. The Engineers are particularly charged with the works of con- struction ; they supervise the works to their completion, carefully observing the faithful carrying out of the same, agreeably to the specifications, etc. They cannot become undertakers or contractors, or be interested in any way in works on pain of dismissal. RECRUITING — ORGANIZATION OF THE SERVICE — GRADES AND VARIOUS POSITIONS OF THE ENGINEER. The Engineers are taken for the most part from “ L’ Ecole Nation - ale des Ponts et Chaussees,” to which are admitted as engineering students of the Government, those students of “ L’Ecole Polytechni- que,” who attain a very high order of merit. One-sixth of the number of engineers are reserved for the superintendence of work, who have had at least ten years of service, and who are declared admissible after a competitive examination. The service “ des Ponts et Chaussees ” is divided into three branches : 1. Ordinary Service, which embraces all permanent work, or work conducted under the day’s work plan. 2. Extraordinary Service, which embraces all works of a tempor- ary character, and which, upon completion, forms part of the first class. 3. Detailed Service, which embraces such works as are not 52 paid from the State Budget, but which, however, are to be done under the Engineers, such as the maritime and colonial works, water- works, street improvements, &c. The Engineers, ‘“des Pouts et Chaussees,” forming part of the “Administration des Travaux Publics,” are appointed by the Govern- ment and are paid from the Budget of the “Ministere des Travaux Public.” GRADES : General Inspector of Division, 1st class pay, $ 3,000 “ “ “ “ 2nd “ 2,400 Chief Engineer “ 1st “ 1,400 to 1,600 “ 2nd “ “ 1,200 Ordinary “ “ “ 1st “ 900 u u « u 2nd “ 700 a « t< u 3rd “ 500 Students of Engineering 360 The Engineers in service receive from the Government, besides their pay, commutation of quarters and service of a clerk. They also receive certain fees from the works in which their services have been applied for, and are paid by the parties offering* the employment. Their fees are not admitted when they are occupied in the execution of works in which the Government or the public interests require such services. PROMOTION. The Engineers of the 3rd class are obtained by the promotion of engineering students w'ho have completed their studies; and, to fill the six positions in the Corps as Superintendents of Public Works; admissions are made after a competitive examination. The Engineers of the 2nd class are promoted from those of the 3rd who have had two years of service. A service of two years is also necessary for Engineers of the 2d class to pass into the 1st. Two years of service in the 1st class are necessary for promotion to Chief Engineer of 2nd class, and three years in 2d class to reach the 1st class. Three years are required for Chief^Engineer of the 1st class, to become Inspector- General of the 2nd class, and four years in 2d class, to become Inspector- General of the 1st class. Promotions are made by the President of the Kepublic upon the recommendation of the Minister of Public Works. The advancement of classes is made by the Minister. There are six different positions of the Engineers. 1. Active employment. 2. Waiting orders or relief from duty. 3. Leave of absence (unlimited) . 4. Suspension from duty. 5. Leave of absence (limited) . 6. Dropping from roll of service. The Minister relieves from duty, by reason of want of work or em- ployment, when the pay is reduced to two-thirds of the salary; or, of disability, due to sickness or other reasonable cause, when the pay is reduced to one-half the salary. Leave of absence without limit is sometimes granted to engineers, that they may attach themselves to the service of companies, whether foreign or at home. These engagements are without any pay from the Government; for a period of five years their names are kept on the Government roll, and they retain their right to promotion. Suspension from service is pronounced by the Minister as a dis- ciplinary measure, and the engineer thus relieved from duty forfeits his pay, but can retain two-fifths of it upon the favorable consent of the Minister; he is deprived of his right to promotion, but retains his right to be placed on the retired list. Temporary leave of absence is granted by the Prefects for ten days, and for three months by the Minister. Should they exceed the time of leave, they are deprived of their pay during the entire period of leave. Should they exceed their leave for a period of three months, they may be considered as dismissed the service. The dropping from roll of service takes place for three causes: 1. Discharge, which takes effect only by decree, upon the sug- gestion of the Minister and the opinion of the “Conseil General des Ponts et Chaussees,” hence his loss of his right to retirement. 2. Resignation, by which he loses his right to be retired. He cannot leave the service until its acceptance by the President of the Republic. 3. Retirement from service is by right granted to all Engineers of all grades who have performed 30 years of service, and have asked to be placed on the retired list. It takes place for all Ordinary Engi- neers at the age of 60 years, for all Chief Engineers at the age of 62 years, for General Inspectors of the second class at 65 years, for those of the first class at 70 years. The Vice President “du Conseil General des Ponts et Chaussees” can be retained in his office no matter what may be his age. The Engineers of different grades and classes preserve their sub- ordination in relation to the Engineers of superior grades and classes. PREPARATION AND APPROVAL OF PUBLIC WORKS. The works upon national routes, canals, railroads, canalization of rivers, harbors, docks built by the government or companies, with or without toll, with or without subsidies or grant of land for right of way, can be authorized only by laws passed after an administrative ex- amination and inquiry as to the character of the projects. Decrees preceded by such inquiries can alone authorize their construction as aforesaid, provided the extent of such works as may be contemplated is not greater than twenty kilometres. All public works which are carried out at the cost of the State can be placed under execution only by virtue of the law and a credit previously provided and inscribed in the Budget. The Minister decides upon all large undertakings, based upon the appropriation made for such. Examinations or inquiry as to the character of the projects are only made in cases where total renewals are contemplated. The Engineers proceed to the examination of the works in contem- plation or proposed, make the necessary reconnaissance and report, accompanied by maps, plans, leveling, etc. These, when adopted, are followed by the preparation of the regular plans, etc. When such works extend into the territory of the Military Zone, the preparation and report, by maps, plans, etc., etc., are made by the officers of the army. All extensions of works through private territory are provided for by appraisement and indemnification. GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY— WORKS ON GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. All works of repair and unimportant in extent, are placed on the Budget of the “Minister of Public Works,” which is approved each year by the Chamber of Deputies upon the report and presentment of the “Minister of Public Works.” * All works of magnitude and of great importance are executed upon legislative appropriations. All grants, subsidies and advances to the various departments and small communities, as well as propositions of loans to cities, for municipal improvements, have to be ratified by the “Chamber of Deputies.” All works for Departments are paid by means of the funds appro- priated to the Department Budget which is made each year by “Le Conseil General” of the Department, upon the application and report of the “Prefect.” A sum varying according to the needs of the Department is in- scribed in the Budget of the “Minister of Public Works” for the relief of those Departments that cannot provide for their own works of needed improvement. The works of cities and towns are generally provided for by municipal and communal appropriations voted by their councils upon the report and recommendation of their mayors, respectively. The works of great magnitude in cities, such as sewerage and water works, are paid for on loans ratified by the Chamber of Depu- ties. Such works for towns are carried out by advances made by the Government. For all works of general and local interest, a detailed estimate and report is made of the necessary sum of money, which amount is paid by the Government, the Departments and the “Communes” or towns. ) All the works for public defenses, consisting of fortifications, etc., etc., are executed by the officers of the army and paid from the funds of the Budget of the Minister of War. 55 APPENDIX NO. 3. THE PUBLIC WORKS OF. PRUSSIA— CONDENSED ACCOUNT OF THEIR ADMINISTRATION. Report f by Mr. Augustus Kurth, Committee on the Publie Works of Austria and Germany. L REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE COURSE OF STUDY AND THE EXAMI- NATION OF ASPIRANTS FOR GOVERNMENT POSITIONS. a. School course; certificate required showing that the candidate graduated from a German “ Gymnasium or from a Prussian “ Real Gymnasium. ” Average age of the graduates from 18 to 20 years. b. Technical course, subdivided into three branches, viz.: 1. Architecture. 2. Civil engineering. 3. Mechanical engineering. « The course of study in the two first-named branches, comprises: A two-years’ course at a Technical High School (Polytechnic School) , those of Prussia being located at Berlin, Hanover and Aachen (Aix- La-Chappelle) . Following this, a preliminary examination, particu- larly in the sciences auxiliary to building, such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, descriptive geometry and the rudiments of building construction. Following this examination, two more years of study at a Technical High School, at the end of which term the candidate is required to pass the first examination. If he is successful he is ap- pointed u Regierungs Baufuehrer ” (assistant engineer or architect on public works) . As such he has to serve one preparatory year, with- out salary, on some government work, following which the two next years are spent in actual practice with a limited amount of responsi- bility and under the direction and guidance of a “ Regierungs-Bau- meister ” (government engineer or architect) . After having passed his first examination, the candidate is required to take an oath as to the faithful and conscientious performance of the services required of him. The second examination takes plefce when the two years of practical service are over. In this examination the candidate is required: First, to work out independently some elaborate project, and this he is permitted to do at home and with the assistance of all information available on the subject; second, he is required to work out during three examination days several problems and projects without the aid of information, such as is contained in books of reference, treatises * The course of study in a German Gymnasium coincides closely with the general course in any of the principal American Colleges. The word "Gymnasium” is used in Germany in a different sense from that in use here. The essential diff- erence between a German Gymnasium and a Real Gymnasium is, briefly, that in the former, particular attention ^ paid to the study of Latin and Greek, while in the latter more time is devoted, to teaching aa& study of mathematics ana modern lan- guages. tDaUv J "-ane, 1887. and pocket-books; finally, lie mnst pass a verbal examination lasting two days! Having successfully passed tlie whole examination, the candidate is appointed “ Regierungs Baumeister.” The proper fulfilment of the requirements of the second examination just referred to involves usually about a year’s time, consequently the whole technical course of study for government architects and engineers takes up eight years. The course in mechanical engineering is somewhat modified, in- asmuch as the candidate having graduated from a “Gymnasium” or “Real Gymnasium,” is required first to serve one year as apprentice in some machine shop in order to become practically acquainted with the handling of tools and with the work of such handicrafts as pattern- maker, molder, smithy, turner and locksmith. The course of study of mechanical engineers embraces, therefore, the following: One year as apprentice in a machine-shop. Two year’s study at a technical high school, following which, oc- curs the preliminary examination. Two more years of study, after which occurs the first examination. Two years of practice. One year for passing the second examination — eight years in all. The “Regierungs Baumeister” are then assigned to the Presidents of Government Railroads and of Government Works for temporary employment on such works. The salary which they receive amounts to from 10 to 12 mark ($2.50 to $3.00) per day. As a rule, it takes five years and sometimes longer before a “Regierungs Baumeister” receives his first permanent appointment from the Government. With this appointment he receives the title of “ Koenig licher Ban- Inspector" (Royal Inspector of Public Works), after which he is successively ap- pointed a “Regierungs und Baurath,” “Oberbaurath,” etc. (higher offi- cials) . The salary of an inspector amounts at first to about 3,000’ mark, or $750 per annum. He is entitled to a pension from the day on which he takes his oath of office. Every government employee has to pay a certain percentage of his salary into the general pension fund. The maximum amount of the pension to which he is entitled is seven-eighths of the salary which he receives. II. PREPARATION OF NEW PROJECTS AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WORKS IN PRUSSIA. The authorities controlling both architectural and river and har- bor works, are divided into three classes, namely: Into district authorities, provincial authorities, and a Central Bureau, which latter is called the “ Ministerium” (Ministry) of Public Works at Berlin. The authorities in charge of railroad and mechanical works are divided into “ Eisenbahnbetriebs Aemter” and a Central Bureau. Following this general division all projects for new works are, as a rule, made by local government employees; that is, by government inspectors, assisted by the necessary number of “Baumeister” and “Bauiuehrer, ” in the district office, or in the office of the “ Eisenbahn - bftriebs Amt” The projects are sent from here to the higher author- ities (the Provincial Board or the Chief Office of the Railroad), where they are examined by the “ Regierungs ” or “Bauraethe.” If this Board approves of the project and recommends its adoption and con- struction, the project is forwarded by it to the Central Bureau of Public Works in Berlin for final examination. If disapproved it is re- turned to the local office for alteration. The Central Office or the Bureau of Public Works in Berlin is composed of a number of high government officials (“Regierungs, Bauraethe, Geheime Oberbauraethe, Oberbau-Direktoren,”) assisted by a number of Government Inspectors for each of the three branches, viz.: architecture, civil and mechanical engineering. The projects sent in are examined by them and are either approved for execution or else referred back to the next lower board for alteration. In all works of importance the final decision is made, not by one high offi- cial, but by the whole board, and finally by the Minister (Secretary) of Public Works. Within the last few years a different mode of procedure has sometimes been followed, the usual order being reversed, and the preliminary sketches for important projects being made in the Cen- tral Bureau of Public Works by government inspectors, which sketches are subsequently sent to the Provincial and District Boards to be worked out in detail by the latter. On the basis of the detailed projects and accurate estimates of the cost of the proposed works as prepared by the government officials, the Ministry of Public Works makes up each year a budget containing a statement both of the regular annual running expenses and of the amounts required for new works. The Minister of Public Works represents the projects at the meetings of the Chamber of Deputies and the House of Lords, and here he applies for the sums needed for construction. In case of large public works, a certain percentage of the total sums required is usually appropriated at the beginning of each fiscal year. All accounts are kept by the local officers, are forwarded to the Provincial Board, and again by them to the Central Bureau, which transmits them to the General Auditor, where all accounts for public works are examined and audited. In the case of prominent public buildings of importance from an artistic point of view, both the Imperial German Government and the Prussian Government have recently arranged for public competitions such as, for instance, those for the new Parliament buildings in Ber- lin, the building for the Supreme Court at Leipsic, the addition to the Royal Museum at Berlin, etc. Should the successful competitor turn out to be an architect in private practice (not a government employee) he is given an assistant, who must be a high official in the employ of the Government, to mate out the accounts. This, for in- stance, was done by the Government in the case of the new Parlia- ment building, the accepted plans of which were prepared by au architect in private practice. For nearly six years there has existed in Germany an Academy of Public Works (“ Akademie des Bauwesens”) , to whom the Imperial Chancellor and the Minister of Public Works refer such projects as in their judgment, appear to be of special magnitude and importance. The Academy is divided into two branches, one for architecture and the other for civil and mechanical engineering. Each of these branches is composed of members residing in Berlin and of members who do not reside there. To the architectural branch of the Academy belong, in addition to the highest Prussian Government employees, some officials from other states of the German Empire; also, a number of Prussian and German architects in private practice; also, some of the leading artists, sculptors, painters and teachers of art. To the branch of civil and mechanical engineering, belong the highest government officials of Prussia and the German Empire, also a number of prominent civil engineers in private practice as well as some large manufacturers, such as, for instance, Dr. Werner Siemens, in Berlin, “ Geheimer Kommerzienrath,” Schwartzkoff in Berlin, and finally some scientific authorities, as, for instance, Professor Helmholtz. The Academy makes written reports on all projects submitted to it. Its members do not receive any compensation for their ser- vices, the position being entirely honorary. The following works are directly under the control of the Minis- ter of Public Works; In Civil Engineering : The construction, operation and mainten- ance of all government railroads, including the rolling stock belong- ing to them; all Works of construction and maintenance in government mines; all river, canal and harbor works; all marine and lighthouse service works. In Architecture: Public buildings for worship and education, such as churches, schools, museums, university and technical high school buildings; all court-houses (which are subdivided into three classes, viz.: supreme court, provincial court and district court-houses) ; pris- ons and jails; all administration buildings, including the residences of high officials. Separate and independent works which are directly subordinate to the Imperial German Government are: 1. All public works of the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. 2. Works exclusively designed for army and navy purposes; buildings, such as military barracks, hospitals and administration buildings, being designed exclusively by architects or engineers in private practice; works of fortification being designed and constructed by engineer officers of the Army, and defensive works of harbors be- ing designed and built by engineers of the Imperial Navy. 3. Buildings for postal and telegraph service are designed and con- structed by architects not in the service of the Government, but in the employ of the Imperial German Mail Service (“Reichspostamt”) , with this restriction; that all projects exceeding 100,000 mark, or $25,- 000, in cost are to be submitted for examination to the Minister of Public Works. Only such candidates are taken into the service of the German Empire as have passed the government examination as specified for Prussia, or some equivalent examinations in Saxony, Baden, Bavaria or Wurtemberg. All large German cities have separate boards for the design and superintendence of municipal public works. The higher municipal technical offices are filled exclusively from the ranks of such candi- dates as have successfully passed the government examination. Municipal engineers and architects are either appointed for life or for a term of years (in Berlin, for instance, for 12 years) . They are usually made members of the City Government. APPENDIX, NO. 4. THE PUBLIC WOKKS OF GEEAT BEITAIN. The following letter, received by Mr. E. L. Corthell from Mr. James Forrest, Secretary of the Institution of Civil Engineers of Great Britain, through Sir Charles A. Hartley, will disabuse the minds of those who have the impression that the Public Works of Great Britain are conducted by military engineers. * The subject is discussed farther in “Memorandum on Public Works Organizations.” The Institution of Civil Engineers, 25 Great George St., Westminster, S. W., 24th February , 1885. Sir Charles A. Hartley, K. C. M. G. My Dear Sir Charles: In reply to Mr. Corthell’s inquiries, through you, I have to say that there can be no parallel between the employ- ment of civil ( i . e., civilian) engineers in the United States and in this kingdom, for the simple reason that few works are undertaken here by the Government, except dockyards and harbors of refuge, the latter mainly because they would not pay commercially and because they afford a field for convict labor. There are no Government C. E.’s; the only engineers that can come under that category are Koyal (or military) Engineers. These officers frequently obtain civil appointments, but rarely to design or carry out works. Eivers and harbors here are under Boards or Trusts, who go into the open market and secure the services of any engineers they may choose to select. I think the. above nearly exhausts Mr. Corthell’s questions. I may add that the only approach to a Government Engineering College in this country is the Boyal Engineering College at Cooper’s Hill, near 6o London. This was created some years ago for the purpose of training young men [civilians] for the Public Works Department of the Gov- ernment of India. Even in that great dependency of the British Empire, all the leading railways have been executed by private com- panies with engineers selected by themselves, without let or hin- drance from the Government. I remain Yours very sincerely, James Forrest, Secretary. APPENDIX. NO. 5. THE PRESS AND THE RIVER AND HARBOR BILL OF 1886. Report by Prof. J. B. Davis, Committee on Legislative Information. The condition of administration and legislation in regard to river and harbor appropriations, makes the press comments thereon and the facts they reveal of peculiar significance in a study of this matter. Complete statistics in this field for the year 1886 are now accessible and are compiled below. The American Newspaper Annual (N. W. Ayers & Son, Philadel- phia, Edition of 1887) is authority for the statements herein made as to circulation, politics and newspaper statistics. The National Press Intelligence Co., New York City, furnished the articles on which the conclusions are based, from about 2,000 newspapers examined daily at their office, a small portion of these being weeklies. The articles furnished were from the leading papers of the United States, were almost exclusively editorial, and are thus taken to indicate correctly the position of the papers severally apon this subject. A few papers speak in two ways and so stand in the classification. In this collection* are found 22 papers that speak in favor of this bill — Republican, 7; Democratic, 10; Ind. Rep., 1; Ind. Dem., 1; un- known politics, 3 — with a total circulation of 176,830. There are 31 papers maintaining a neutral position— Rep., 6; Dem., 8; Ind. Rep., 2; Ind. Dem., 2; Independent, 10; scientific, 1; unknown politics, 2— with a total circulation of 569,513. There are 129 papers speaking against the measure — Rep., 38; Dem., 33; Ind. Rep., 11; Ind. Dem., 3; Independent, 30; others, 14; with a total circulation of 2,458,740. The 22 papers, speaking in 36 articles, all editorial but one, should furnish the best of arguments for river and harbor legis- lation. As a fact, a reading of all tlie..e articles reveals a line of statements made up almost entirely of the following matters: Apolo- * The detailed tabulation is omitted. 61 gies, Platitudes, Abuse, Seduction of Railroad Rates, Belittling the Steals (not denying them) , Coloring Matter, Untruths, Local Influ- ences (our own river) , Claims of Political Influences, Claims of Rail- road Opposition, Claims of Eastern Opposition, Calls for Bills of Particulars, President Cleveland’s Re-election, Local Distribution of Public Money and Sectional Jealousies. There is not a single reference to the fundamental error of the great want of system in determining what is needful and profitable, what is national and what is local, whether a demand for money is justified by any considerations at all or not, if a sum is allowed — where it will lead to, or any of the questions which group themselves about the inception and undertaking of an enterprise by the nation. Nor is there any attempt whatever to do more than apologize for the methods of expenditure and administration; nor is there a word even in excuse for the burdens under which our army engineers work and have always worked — for inadequate means, inopportunely fur- nished or unwarrantably cut off, or for the manifold interferences and embarrassments continually suffered at the hands of those beyond and outside their own corps. One may look in vain through these papers for a word that reaches down into the organic life of our policy — or no policy — in these matters, involving the raising, appropriation, administration and expenditure of millions. And what of the future? Only local hopes, or political, or personal preferences. Shall a great nation build its system of expenditures for internal improvements upon such a foun- dation? No further comment is needed. Whoever wishes to know the facts can consult the tables. Politics seems not to control speech in these matters as the figures show. The character of the papers are known. Those with 2,458,740 circulation, as against the rest, with 569,513 neutral and 176,830 in favor, may be left to carry what convic- tion they may. It is no uncertain sound which these figures and papers utter. Summing up the whole matter, it may be said that, since those papers favoring the River and Harbor Bill of 1886 make no mention of fundamental principles and avoid the real question at issue, and those neutral do not touch upon it, the press of this country furnishes no grounds whatever for continuing in the present way, even when spurred to the effort as by the active canvass of this matter in 1886. It must be concluded then that the Press of the United States, willy nilly, furnishes its contribution to this question in favor of a different plan from the custom now in vogue. / 62 APPENDIX, NO. 6. AGITATION PREVIOUS TO ORGANIZATION OF COUNCIL. HISTORICAL RESUME OF EFFORTS FOR REORGANIZATION OF NATIONAL PUBLIC WORK. Report by Mr. E. L. Corthell. Ik presenting a report on the subject of a Bureau of Harbors and Water-ways, it is desirable to accompany it by a brief resume of the steps that have led up to it so far as the action of the civil engineers of the country is concerned. In 1874, Congress authorized the President to appoint a mixed commission to examine and decide upon the question of the best method of opening the mouth of the Mississippi River. On this com- mission were appointed three military engineers, one member of the Coast Survey, and three well-known civil engineers, namely: W. Milnor Roberts, T. E. Sickles and H. D. Whitcomb. This commission decided in favor of the jetty system, a plan which was afterwards carried out by Mr. James B. Eads, a distinguished civil engineer. In 1879, memorials were presented to Congress asking for the appointment of civil engineers upon the commission to have charge of the improvement of the Mississippi River. One of these memorials, with its signatures, was as follows: MEMORIAL OF THOMAS DOANE AND OTHER CIVIL ENGINEERS RELA- TIVE TO THE ORGANIZATION OF “ THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IMPROVE- MENT COMMISSION.” Charlestown, Mass., February 14, 1879 Hon. B. K. Bruce, Chairman of the Select Committee on the Levees of the Mississippi River, U. S. Senate, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: I have before me House Bill No. 4318, entitled “ An act to provide for the organ- ization of ‘ The Mississippi River Improvement Commission,’ and for the correction, permanent location, and deepening of the channel and the improvement of the navi- gation of said Mississippi River and the protection of its alluvial lands.” It has been read twice in the Senate and referred to the Select Committee on the Levees of the Mississippi River. The bill deals 'with a very momentous subject. It proposes to benefit the trans- portation of half our continent, and may involve the Government in vast expendi- tures. It is a step not hastily to be taken, and the organization of the commission should be most carefully considered. It should embrace the best talent of the coun- try and should draw upon all branches of the engineering profession from which it will be likely to receive aid. The way is not distinctly left open, and perhaps not at all, for the Civil Engineers to be represented on the commission. That the Army Engineers take prominent position on the commission is no doubt wise. They have been well educated; have a theoretical fitness for the work; but Army work being their specialty, they may not have that practical fitness which some others may have. Having no other work, how- ever, to do, it is very wel] that they be thus employed without extra expense to the Government. As the whole length of the river must be surveyed, with all the adjacent country liable to overflow by the Mississippi, would it not be well to join to the commission one or two officers of the Coast Survey? The Coast Survey Department is in the best 63 possible position to furnish the maps, and at the least cost. Many of its officers are well up in hydrography and hydraulics That some intelligent men, familiar with the river and its habits for many years, should appear in the commission, there can be no doubt. Would it not also be th.6 part of wisdom to put into the commission some eminent civil engineers. 1 suppose there can be no doubt that there are men in this department of engineering who, in theoretical fitness for the work proposed, are not inferior to any in the Army, or Coast Survey. And I suppose it will be conceded that in the Construction departments they have done as good work as any other engineers, and vastly more of it, and probably with much greater economy. This would enable them to become useful or the commission in making up estimates of cost of proposed improvements, and especially so in carrying forward any construction that may be entered upon. The only objection that can, with propriety, be urged against such appointment of civil engineers, is the fact that they may. not now be in the employ of the Government, and that their appointment would involve additional expense to the Government for salaries ; but that is a very small matter in comparison with the magnitude and value of the project. As there is no time to be lost in laying, the matter before your committee, and in getting action upon the bill, I have ventured to re-write such sections of the bill as compliance with the above suggestions would require and enclose them to you here- with. Yery respectfully, Thomas Doane, President Boston Society Civil Engineers, late Chief Engineer of the Hoosac Tunnel. We concur: T. W. Davis, City Engineer, Boston, Massachusetts. G. S. Rice, Civil Engineer, “ “ E. S. Philbrick, Consulting Engineer, Boston, Massachusetts. A. H. Howland, Civil Engineer, “ “ E. W. Bowditch, Civil Engineer, '* “ I. S. P. Weeks, Civil Engineer, “ “ v Congress authorized the appointment of the civil engineers upon this commission. At the twelfth annual convention of the American Society of Civil Engineers, held at St. Louis in 1880, a resolution was adopted to appoint a committee to draft a memorial to Congress asking that the civil engineers of the country should be placed in full charge of works carried on by the Government. The committee thus appointed at the next annual convention reported against the contemplated action of the society as a society, since such action might be considered preju- dicial to the interests of some of its members, who are military engi- neers, and who had, many of them, joined the society in the year during which the committee h$d this subject under consideration. The committee, however, presented to the society the draft of a memorial to Congress. The chairman of the committee, in the cir- cular letter dated April 5th, 1885, suggested that after the society committee would be discharged: “A self -constituted committee can take up the memorial and circulate for signatures. This will relieve the Society of all responsibility and at the same time be quite as likely to accomplish the desired result.” The committee, in fact, presented a draft of three memorials, the first of which the writer caused to be printed, and he obtained signatures not only among members of the American Society, but also among other engineers. This me- 64 morial, with its signatures, all of which were obtained prior to the close of 1884, is as follows: TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES: Your petitioners, citizens of the United States, and civil engineers by profession, beg leave to call your attention to the fact that the civil engineering works now carried on by the General Government, such as the improvement of harbors and rivers, explorations and surveys for the extension of agriculture and commerce, etc., although they employ in positions of responsibility and trust a large number of civilians, are superintended, with one or two exceptions, exclusively by officers of the Corps of Engineers of the Army. The number of such works is greater than the number of experienced officers who can be detailed to take charge of them, in addition to their other duties in the con- struction and maintenance of our national defenses. Consequently, most of these works are practically in the hands; of civilians, although occupying subordinate positions, and many of the most experienced civil engineers in the country, who are well fitted by skill and education to take principal charge, are unwilling to accept such positions, where neither adequate emolument nor reputation can be hoped for. Your petitioners therefore pray that such legislation may be had as shall admit of the direct employment of civil engineers upon Government works in such positions as they may be competent to occupy, and shall put the civil and military engineers of the United States upon a common footing in regard to the execution of national public works not of a military character. ♦Ashbel Welch, Am. Soc. C. E C. Whaler Smith, *D. J. Whittemore, +G. L. Bouscaren, +0. Chanute, Eliot C. Clarke, Casimir Constable, tTheodore Cooper, Fredk. De Funiak, Alex. Dempster, +Jas. B. Eads, J. Albert Monroe, E. L. Corthell, I Walter Katte, C. C. Martin, A. M. Wellington, Alf. P. Boiler, Jno. G. Van Horne, Chas. A. Beach, *Jas. B. Francis, Am. Soc. C. E. P. P. Dickenson, Edward R. Andrews, JA. Fteley, O. H. P. Cornell, *Chas. Paine, Geo. S. Morison, +Jos. P. Davis, iChas. B. Brush, tWm. H. Paine, D. McN. Stauffer, H. W. Brinckerhoff, Geo. B. Cornell, Fred. W. Watkins, G. M. Rusling, .St. Louis, Mo. .Milwaukee, Wis. .Cincinnati, Ohio. .Kansas City, Mo. .Boston, Mass. .Constableville, N. Y. .New York City. .Louisville, Ky. .Pittsburgh, Pa. .Providence. R. I. .New York Citv. .New York City .Brooklvn. .New York City. .Albany, N. Y. .Lowell, Mass. .New York City. 6b C. D. Ward, Am. Soc. C. E New York City. W. H. Atwood, “ “ A. A. Caille, “ “ Wm. Hattan, . East Orange, N. J. Herbert Keith, Great Barrington, Mass Lincoln Cabot, Boston Soc. C. E Boston, Mass. Horace L. Eaton, “ “ H. M. Wightman, Am. Soc. C. E Dexter Brackett, Bost. Soc. C. E " Fred. Brooks, Am. Soc. C. E ** Solon M. Allis, “ E. P. Adams, Boston Soc. C. E “ Desmond Fitzgerald, Am. Soc. C. E “ Clemens Herschel, “ Holyoke, Mass. Wm. B. Harris, “ E. A. Ellsworth, “ E. E. Allen, “ H. T. BardweU, • “ T. P. Tower, “ Ed. Walther, Jno. H. Cook, “ Fred. H. Cook, Chas. L. Swain, “ T. W. Mann, A. F. Sickman, “ Geo. A. Ellis, Springfield, Mass. Chas. M. Slocum. “ H. E. Flint, Stockwell Bettis, “ Jno. F. O’Rourke, Am. Soc. C. E New York City. Edward S. Philbrick, “ Boston, Mass. Jos. O. Osgood, “ Toledo, Ohio. E. A. W. Hammatt, Bost. Soc. C. E Boston, Mass. Samuel M. Gray, Am. Soc. C. E Providence. P.. I. Samuel B. Cushing, “ Geo. C. Tingley, Am. Soc. C. E Joseph A. Latham, E. A. Fuertes, Am. Soc. C. E Ithaca, N. Y. Chas. D. Marx, C. L. Crandall, J. P. Church, Wm. A. Anthony, Frank S. Washburn, Chicago, 111. J. L. Morris, Ithaca, N. Y. James Archbald, Am. Soc. C. E Scranton, N. Y. Chas. C. Ross, “ J. F. Snyder, “ Niles Meriwether, Am. Soc. C. E Memphis, Tenn. A. J. Murray, “ J. M. Kloster, G. S. Jordan, “ C. C. Burke, “ J. R. Richardson, Owen Meriwether, J. J. Williams, Jackson, Tenn. J. W. Mercer, Jno. L. Williams, H. P. Fayran, “ J. M. Tobias, “ G. H. Meade, ,,,,,,,,,,, , , Little Rock, Ark, 66 J. H. Haney, Geo. P. C. Bum bough, .... Theo. Hartman, .... Jos. Harrington, .... E. J. Hosford, .... F. W. Campbell, A. L. Clarke, Jno. G. Mann, C. H. Churchill, E. C. Kinney, Am. Soc. C. E Hosea Paul C. E. Club of Cleveland T. C. Bowen, Clemon H. Snow, S. W. Whinery, Am. Soc. C. E G. B. Nickolson, Ward Baldwin, R. L. Engle, W. W. Follet, R. L. Read, S. W. Stone, Joseph Earnshaw, Henry Earnshaw, Arthur L. Hobby, Wm. Archer, E. C. Rice, Am. Soc. C. E. Robt. E. McMath, Am. Soc. C. E J. B. Johnson, “ C. M. Woodward, William Popp, S. H. Broadhead, F. N. Fennig, Am. Soc. C. E C. F. Dutton, J. C. Spencer, .... Chas. F. Hoffmann, G. F. Allarde, Lyman Bridges, A. Vander Naillin, Wm. C. Alberger, Jas. D. Schuyler, Am. Soc. C. E Luther Wagoner, .... R. P. Hammond, Jr. T. H. Humphrey, Francis Bridges, G. H. Shoritt, N. D. Gates, Am. Soc. C. E Max E. Schmidt, “ Chas. F. Smith, J. Francis Le Baron, Am. Soc. C. E. Chas. F. Hopkins, Arthur A. Rogers, B. S. Ellis, Thos. Doane, Am. Soc. C. E L. Fredk. Rice, Boston Soc. C. E Geo. L. Yose, “ G. F. Swain, “ Alfred E. Burton, “ C. H. Latrobe, Am. Soc. C. E Frederick H. Smith, “ Ernst Reese, E, T. P. Meyers, Jr. Little Rock, Ark. Oberlin, Ohio. Lorain, “ Cleveland. Somerset, Ky. Covington, Ky. Cincinnati, Ohio. * Shreveport, La. Cincinnati, Ohio. St. Louis, Mo. Milwaukee, Wis. San Francsico, Cal. << << H Mexico. Jacksonville, Fla. Charlestown. Mass. Boston, Mass. Baltimore, Md. Richmond, Va. C. C. Dunti, R. W. Wheat, Edward Potts, Jr., Ed. S. Safford, Am. Soc. C. E. Geo. A. Dickinson, H. T. Douglass, W. E. Cutshaw, E. T. D. Meyers, Chas. E. Bolling, Frank T. Bates, S. Edward Bates, Jackson Bolton, A. Langstaff Johnston, Channing M. Bolton, ! Past Presidents. + Vice-Presidents. Alexandria, Va. Baltimore, Md. Boston, Mass. Baltimore, Md. Richmond, Va. Richmond, Va. Directors. Of these petitioners sixty are members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, of whom thirteen are past and present officers of that Society — four presidents, five vice-presidents and four directors. On the 3d of December, 1885, by invitation of the Civil Engineers’ Club of Cleveland, representatives of several engineering societies met in convention at Cleveland, Ohio, and at a subsequent conven- tion on March 31st following, the Council of Engineering Societies on National Public Works was finally organized. The history of this organization is briefly presented as the first paper of this compilation. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT THE CULLOM- BRECKINRIDGE BILL. S. 1448. H. R. 4923. INTRODUCED, JANUARY 16, 1888. PROPOSED REVISION BY EXECUTIVE BOARD, MARCH 17, 1888; ORDERED APPENDED TO PART I. AS A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Tliat there shall be under the War Department a bureau to be known as the Bureau of Harbors and Water-ways, to be officered by a corps to be known as the Corps of United States Civil Engineers. Sec. 2. That said bureau shall be charged with the construction, execution, conduct, and preservation of the harbor and water-way works in aid of navigation now completed or possessed, or in course of construction, or being operated by the United States, including what is known as snagging and dredging operations, and of all such works as may noAV or hereafter be provided for by law, and of all other works of a civil character that are now or may liereaiter be placed under the direction of the Secretary of War, and with the making of all examinations, surveys, plans and estimates, relating to such works; and it shall be charged with the supervision and preser- vation of all harbors and water-ways for purposes of navigation, and with the supervision in the interests of navigation of all crossings of navigable watery which are or may be under the control of the United States; and it shall be charged and entrusted with the care of all boats, instruments, implements and plant of every kind relating to such operations, works, examinations and surveys, and all the records and documents relating to the same as may now be or may hereafter become the property of the United States, — all under tlie direction and authority of the Secretary of War; and the President shall see that the transfers herein contemplated are fully and promptly made. Sec. 3. That no appropriation or allotment of money for a har- bor or water-way work shall be expended upon such work unless it is sufficient to provide for the completion of said work, or unless, in addition to the current appropriation, provision shall have been made by law for funds necessary for its completion: Provided , That this shall not apply to snagging or dredging operations continuous in their nature, or to the care and keep of plant, property and works, or to the operating of works wholly or partially completed so as to be useful to commerce, such as locks and dams, or if the funds provided are adequate to complete in a permanent manner a particular and dis- tinct stretch, reach, section or part of said work, which shall by .and of itself be sufficiently beneficial to commerce to justify the comple- tion of said stretch, reach, section or part, or to work that is design- edly of a temporary character: Provided, however, That the funds spent upon a part of a temporary work shall contemplate as much stability for the part as is contemplated for the whole work: And pro- vided further, That the expected benefit to commerce of the partial improvement shall be positive and advisable, it being the purpose and intent of this act that no power or discretion shall rest with the engineers or War Department to spend public money when the amount applicable to a. work is insufficient to serve any useful public purpose in connection with benefits to commerce or the completion of the work. No work shall be done except under a distinct and de- tailed plan for each work, accompanied by estimates of annual needs of funds, and of the amount necessary for completion, and unless approved and authorized by Congress; and the Secretary of War shall carefully examine into all failures to complete work within the speci- fied limits of time and money, and into all reasons assigned therefor, and report the same to Congress at each regular annual session, and he shall enforce the highest degree of economy, efficiency and re- sponsibility among and upon the members of this corps, and a rigid compliance with law by it, and he shall report to Congress upon those subjects at each regular annual session. Funds once appropriated for these works shall remain available for them until covered back into the Treasury by Congress, but allot- ments of a general fund, made by Executive authority, may be changed by order of the Secretary of War. Sec. 4. That in the preparation of plans and estimates, and in advising and recommending alteration of plans and estimates, and in reports upon the progress and conduct of works and operations, all reports of officers shall be successively made to the officer next in authority, with reviews and recommendations by each officer, to be thus duly and fully transmitted tc the Secretary of War, and by him to Congress at each regular session when required. In carrying out the intent of this act, any officer may also submit other plans than those contemplated by the instructions of his superior, to be trans- mitted by said superior to the officer next in authority, and at his dis- cretion forwarded through the regular channel. All transactions, expenditures, and results shall be fully reported in detail. In each annual report, which shall be transmitted to Con- gress by the Secretary of War, there shall be a financial statement under the head of each separate work, giving the original estimate of *70 cost for total completion, the amount expended and on hand at the close of the last fiscal year, ending June thirtieth of each year, the amount originally stated as required for each year, the total and the annual amounts appropriated, the amount still required, both annual and total, and whether the same is provided for. Sec. 5. That the Secretary of War shall have work done by con- tract after due advertisement, when he shall be satisfied that such work can be done as efficiently and more cheaply in that Avay than in any other, and to the best interests of the Government; and he shall take adequate bond and security for the proper performance of the contracts; and all such proceedings shall be reported in full to Congress. Sec. 6. That there shall be a chief of the Corps of United States Civil Engineers, one learned and experienced in civil engineering, and especially with reference to harbor and water-way works, who shall be located at Washington, and be known as Chief Engineer. There shall likewise be four engineers located at Washington, and of qualifications similar to those required for the Chief Engineer ; and they shall be known, without distinction of rank among themselves, as Associate Chief Engineers. One Associate Chief Engineer shall be assigned to duty in the office of the Chief Engineer, and the others shall be assigned to such divisions of the harbor and water-way works as the Secre- tary of War may approve or direct. The Chief Engineer shall be charged, under the Secretary of War, with the execution of all laws and duties pertaining to the corps, and during his absence or sickness the Associate Chief Engineer in connection with his office shall act in his stead or under his lawful orders. These engineers shall also con- stitute an Advisory Board for all such questions as may be submitted or referred to them by the Department Engineers, by the Secretary of War, or by Congress. There shall be not more than eleven, nor less than nine engineers, to be known as Department Engineers, who shall have charge of such divisions into departments as may be made of the harbor and water- way works, and they shall be located at such central or convenient points in the departments as may be directed. There shall be fifty engineers, to be known as Division Engineers, who shall have charge of such works and surveys in the several departments as may be assigned to them. There shall be as many engineers, to be known as Resident Engi- neers, as may be hereafter required, but not to exceed one hundred in number, who may have local charge of the works and surveys under the direction of the Division Engineers. There shall be as many engineers, to be known as First Assistant Engineers, as may be hereafter required, but not to exceed two hun- dred in number. There shall be as many engineers, to be known as Second Assist- ant Engineers, as may be hereafter required, but not to exceed two hundred and fifty in number. Members of this corps above the grade of First. Assistant Engineer 71 shall be known as officers, and all members shall be citizens of the United States. Sec. 7. That the chief engineer, the associate chief, depart- ment, division, and resident engineers of this corps shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate: Provided, however, that officers from the Corps of Engineers U. S. A., may be assigned to temporary duty in this corps as hereinafter pro- vided: And provided further, That all such appointments and assign- ments, except that of chief engineer, may be made upon the recom- mendation of a commission or examining board as hereinafter provided. The first assistant and second assistant engineers of this corps shall be appointed by the Secretary of War, upon such tests as may be provided for in the- rules and regulations. In making appointments to this corps below the grade of division engineer they shall be made upon the basis of work being or that may be conducted, and all appointments shall be with special reference to experience, capacity, training and fitness for the work assigned to this corps. In case of the office of chief engineer of said corps becom- ing vacant, it shall be filled by appointment from the grade of asso- ciate chief engineer; and vacancies in all other grades shall be filled by promotion from the next lower grade of the corps: Provided, how- ever, That every third vacancy occurring in the grade of first assistant engineer, every fifth vacancy in the grade of resident engineer and every tenth vacancy in the grade of division engineer, may be filled by engineers not formerly members of the corps, who may present themselves as candidates and submit to such examinations and tests as may be provided for in the rules and regulations. Sec. 8. That the relative rank in each grade below that of asso- ciate chief engineer shall be determined by date of commission or ap- pointment, except as hereinafter provided. Promotions from any such grade to a higher shall be in the order of seniority; Provided, however , That such senior in the grades of resident, first assistant and second assistant engineer shall be recommended for promotion by an exam- ining board as hereinafter provided. Sec. 9. That the Secretary of War shall, from time to time, in accordance with the needs of the service, determine the number of vacancies to be filled by promotion and appointment in the grades of resident, first assistant and second assistant engineer. He shall con- vene boards to examine and recommend for promotion and appoint- ment to the grades of division, resident, first assistant and second assistant engineer, as may be provided in the rules and regulations. He shall constitute all proper agencies for the determination of all questions of incompetence and incapacity, and he shall enforce the proper penalties, all as may be provided in the rules and regulations. Sec. 10. That the pay of members of this corps shall be at the fol- lowing rates per annum: chief engineer, ten thousand dollars; associate chief engineer, seven thousand five hundred dollars; de* 72 3 0 12 105252 72 partment engineer, six thousand dollars; division engineer, four thousand dollars; resident engineer, two thousand seven hundred dollars; first assistant engineer, one thousand eight hundred dollars; second assistant engineer, one thousand two hundred dollars. All members of this corps shall receive traveling expenses while traveling under orders. The Secretary of War may employ special engineering counsel in connection with works he may deem of sufficient difficulty to make this step necessary; and he may also temporarily employ engineering assistance for the class of work usually performed by first, and second assistant engineers of the corps, when required by temporary exi- gencies of the services. Sec. 11. That when any officer of the corps arrives at the age of sixty-five years, he shall be retired from active service in the corps, and shall, after such retirement, receive one-lialf of the per annum rate of pay to which he was entitled at the time of his retirement. Sec. 12. That no member of this corps shall be employed upon work other than that assigned to this corps, except upon the Special order of the President, and such orders shall be reported to Congress by the Secretary of War. Sec. 13. That in establishing the Corps of United States Civil Engineers the chief engineer may be assigned by the President from the Corps of Engineers, U. S. A., but of not lower rank than colonel in said military corps. Half of the associate chief engineers may be assigned from the military corps, but of not lower rank than lieutenant-colonel in said corps. Five of nine, five of ten, or six of eleven of the department engineers may be assigned from the military corps, but of not lower rank than major in said corps. One -half of the division engineers may be assigned from the military corps, but of not lower rank than captain in said corps. Twenty of the resident engineers may be assigned from the military corps, but of not lower rank than first lieutenant in said corps. Such assignnients, except that of the chief engineer, may be made by the President upon the recommendation of the commission and board hereinafter provided, and all officers so assigned shall be subject to all rules and shall per- form all duties as though actually commissioned in the Corps of United States Civil Engineers. Engineers from the Army assigned to duty in the Corps of United States Civil Engineers shall take rank alternately, except in the grade of associate chief engineer, with the civilians commissioned in this corps, and shall receive only the pay of officers of the Army on detached duty until such time as they may be commissioned in this corps as hereinafter provided. Sec. 14. That engineers from the Army who may be assigned to this corps shall, at the expiration of three years from the passage of this act, resume their connection with the Army without impairment of rank, unless meantime they elect to remain in this corps. Engi- neers from the Army who elect to remain in this corps may resign