VERSUS FLOATING BRIDGES. 33 



boiler to supply the steam for the whistle on any boat for which I am responsible. I would 

 then rather follow Mark Twain's prescription, namely, stopping the boat to blow the whistle. 



I believe Mr. Kemble has made a very unfortunate comparison between the tow barge 

 and the self-propelled barge. I would not for a moment care to make such comparison. What 

 I did compare was the unit of the self-propelled barge system against the tow system. As 

 part of the tow system there are, for instance, the coal barges, some of them called "cracker- 

 boxes," but to compare these barges with the self-propelled barges seems like comparing a 

 push-cart with a motor truck. In matter of strength I compare the self-propelled barge to 

 the sternwheeler, or steel barges as built by the American Bridge Co. and the like, which, in 

 my opinion, exceed by far the strength that would be required of them if they were handled 

 with the proper care. 



I cannot agree with Mr. Kemble either when he states that, when I sent in August 

 of last year a barge from New Orleans to St. Paul, we had 12 feet over what would be consid- 

 ered normal stream height. As a matter of fact we had in many cases less than 5 feet in 

 the channel, and had to do a good deal of hunting to find the channel at that. Our carrying 

 capacity was greatly restricted on account of the very low water. 



Where Mr. Kemble says his sympathies are entirely with the screw propeller, I would 

 like to answer that my sympathies are with no particular method of propulsion but merely 

 with the best method under each circumstance. I do believe there are cases when the stern- 

 wheeler is best, as, for instance, shown when I advocated the construction of the old type 

 sternwheeler with steam engines and boilers on the Peace River. I for one do not believe any- 

 judgment should be passed on any type of inland craft unless one is familiar with all the 

 details — the route, channel, freight to be handled, distance to be covered, and many others. 

 The fact I wanted to make clear is that this blind following of the sternwheeler on all our 

 waters is not correct. 



His remarks about the screw would perhaps not have been made had he been familiar 

 with the amount of driftwood the self-propelled barges have had to contend with for over 

 two years. The changing of the propeller blade or propeller will eventually mean nothing 

 more in time loss than the changing of a tire on an automobile, and this efficiency once es- 

 tablished will certainly give added reasons against the sternwheel which lifts, on steamers now 

 running between New Orleans and St. Louis, often as much as 50,000,000 gallon-feet of water 

 needlessly. 



As to the chances of getting a screw-propelled barge off a sand-bar against that of a 

 sternwheeler, I can assure Mr. Kemble that under many circumstances I would rather have a 

 screw-propelled barge there than a sternwheeler. I think I would be able to quickly convince 

 him should he be on a multiple screw-propelled barge when grounded. 



When Mr. Kemble says there are plenty of points on the Mississippi River where the 

 current runs up to 13 miles per hour he must be mistaken, and I doubt if he could point 

 out one place on the Mississippi, from St. Paul to its mouth, where the average current exceeds 

 6 miles. There are two places where the current may exceed a speed of 8 miles on very 

 rare occasions, but I doubt this. 



When Mr. Kemble referred to my statement that the cargo is carried on deck without 

 any hatches he replied that he has not seen any steamers on the Ohio that did not embody 

 these features. I think he must be mistaken. I frankly admit I do not know of a stern- 

 wheel boat on any of the inland waters that has not some opening in the deck and which 

 decks are watertight. 



