VERSUS FLOATING BRIDGES. 31 



thirty river barges, or Canadian canal steamers, or whatever you call them, and we have tried 

 gas engines, and oil engines, have tried various kinds of engines, and we lost a good deal of 

 money trying them. We have done a great deal of experimenting with these things, and if 

 I were able to throw on the screen, just as Mr. Bernhard has done, photographs of the appara- 

 tus, you would hardly be able to tell the difference between them and those which Mr. Bern- 

 hard has shown you. It is the same type of barge for the same purpose. 



As for the terminals and coaling arrangements, those things are not novel, but, of course, 

 credit is due to Mr. Bernhard for having introduced methods of development in a new sphere 

 and a new direction. 



There is a remark which Mr. Bernhard makes here which I think is of very great interest 

 to us as naval architects, and that is at the foot of page 20. It is as follows: "Only recently 

 we had a discussion whether it would be possible to build craft that could successfully 

 navigate the Erie Canal and the Great Lakes on account of the limitation of I5y2 feet dis- 

 tance from water level to bridges over the canal." Mr. Bernhard thinks they can do that, 

 no difficulty about it whatever, but I think that he has not given this problem as careful 

 study as he has undoubtedly given to the Mississippi problem, because, having looked into 

 it rather particularly, I am quite satisfied that it cannot be done. Of course there is noth- 

 ing impossible in this country or any other country, if you have enough money to lay out to 

 accomplish the object — you could use aeroplane wings to get over the bridge or you could 

 make a submarine to go down into the depths of the Great Lakes, but what you cannot do 

 is — you cannot design a type suitable for the New York State Barge Canal so that it will 

 be satisfactory for this 15j/^-foot bridge limitation and the other limitations introduced by 

 narrow sections, and at the same time make that a barge suitable for going through the 

 Great Lakes. The two things cannot be done, but you can get either one or the other. 

 That is important in one way. Here is this great barge canal built at an ex- 

 pense of something like $1 50,000,000 and it is defective in this, that the type of boat you will 

 put on it will have to discharge its whole load, at terminal points such as Buffalo, into 

 another boat. In other words, half the usefulness of the canal is taken away from it. I have 

 no doubt Mr. Bernhard can provide a boat suitable for taking cargo up and down the canal 

 itself, and probably across Lake Oswego, but when you go into the open lakes the con- 

 dition is very different — this 15i/2-foot bridge height holds you down, and you cannot get any 

 decent condition for the pilot house, funnels, etc. When Mr. Bernhard is as familiar with 

 the Great Lakes as he appears to be with the Mississippi, he will realize that what I say is a 

 fact. 



The President : — The Chair wishes to say that having had some experience in navigating 

 southern waters that he wishes to endorse heartily the importance of the subject of low-draught 

 boats shown by Mr. Bernard. There are many thousands of miles of inland rivers which are 

 open to boats which do not draw more than 4 feet of water. 



In regard to the comparative value of the stern wheel and propeller type of boat, in my 

 first houseboat I experimented with a stern wheeler. I replaced that houseboat with a boat 

 which had a propeller, and I found the propeller had very many advantages — it was on the 

 whole much more economical and certainly much more agreeable in service. 



Is there any further discussion on this paper? If there is no discussion, if the author 

 would like to reply to the comments which have been made, we would like to hear from him 

 again. 



