VERSUS FLOATING BRIDGES. 27 



hard mentions it. There has been a good deal of opposition to overcome. You may be aware 

 that some two or three years ago a board was formed to take up this question of transporta- 

 tion on rivers, called the Mississippi Towboat Board. I had the pleasure of being associated 

 with that Board and conducting a number of experiments for them in connection with types of 

 barges. The results of those experiments appear in a government report which, I am sorry 

 to say, is now out of print, but perhaps some time in the near future I may ask to submit 

 the data we obtained there to the Society so that it may be of permanent record. We tested 

 out about nine different types of barges, and those of you who have seen the report will realize 

 the enormous difference that can be obtained by designing a barge properly — that you can 

 save a tremendous amount in the power required to propel the vessel by simply getting the 

 proper design of barge to suit the depth conditions of the river. So that I think this whole 

 problem of river transportation will receive in the future the attention that it deserves. 



There is one other item which Mr. Bernhard has touched upon, and which I think is 

 a very important one, and that is the question of terminals. There is no doubt that the 

 economical transportation on our inland rivers cannot take place unless we have proper termi- 

 nal facilities. The case that he mentions — where he would rather have paid the owner of 

 the lumber than to have carried the lumber because of the delay in loading — illustrates the 

 point, that before we can get really economical transportation in rivers we must have 

 proper terminal facilities. 



With regard to the question of driving a thousand-ton barge 24 miles an hour in 6 

 feet of water, I would rather not hazard an opinion at the present moment. 



Mr. Parker H. Kemble, Member: — -I am glad of the opportunity to express my con- 

 gratulations to Mr. Bernhard for the results which he has accomplished, because results, after 

 all, always stand and form a monument to the man and his work, and I think also he is to 

 be congratulated on having found financial backing to put his ideas into concrete form. 



My excuse for taking the time of my fellow members is that on the 3d of June last I 

 ended in Louisiana an eight months' trip down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers and some of 

 their tributaries, covering between 3,000 and 4,000 miles, which, as time was no particular 

 object, enabled me to spend a large part of that eight months in a study of the conditions of 

 river navigation and the revetment work on these two rivers and some of their tributaries. 



There were some points in Mr. Bemhard's paper to which I will take exception, based 

 upon what I saw during that trip. ■' 



Beginning with an unimportant feature, mentioned at the bottom of page 19, in 

 regard to smoke discharge, I saw many steamers on the Mississippi, and I rarely saw a 

 steamer smoking except when approaching a landing. I inquired of some of the captains and 

 engineers about this, and I found it was a custom of the good old times when by smoking 

 up in approaching a landing they appeared to be making more speed and more bustle — in other 

 words, it was an advertising feature. The po nt is that, in the thousand odd miles from Cairo 

 to New Orleans, the many steamers which I saw were not smoking when I saw them, and 

 they were carrying good loads and towing many barges. 



On the question of the whistle, from a study of the banks of the Mississippi River, the 

 location of the towns, the roads and the character of the people, they do not have there the 

 "watch your step" or "move quickly" conditions of the east. You will find that the whistle 

 reaching 3 to 5 miles is a great advertising and trade-getting feature. Many of the popula- 

 tion do not get up out of bed until they hear the whistle and then have time to get 



