DOCUMENT NO. 88. 
BOARD OF ALDERMEN 
APRIL 23, 1838. 
The Commitee on Roads and Canals, to whom was referred 
so much of the report of the Water Commissioners, as re- 
lates to the construction of the Aqueduct across the Harlaem 
River, presented the following report thereon, which was 
laid on the table and directed to be printed. 
THOMAS BOLTON, Clerk. 
The Committee on Roads and Canals, to whom was refer- 
red so much of the Waler Commissioners' report as relates to 
the carrying the aqueduct across the Harlaem River, for the 
purpose of bringing water to this city, and also the remon- 
strance of the owners of property in that neighborhood, against 
injuring the navigation of the river, respectfully 
R E P O R T: 
That the plans proposed by the Commissioners contemplate Doc, No. 88. 
616 
crossing the river in two modes ; one plan is by a high bridge, 
sufficiently high to allow vessels to pass under the same, and to 
preserve, uninjured, tJie navigation of the river. This bridge 
would be required to be 1,450 feet in length, and to be ele- 
vated 163 feet above the rock bottom, and 138 feet above the 
tide. It is contemplated by them to erect the same on piers, 
with arches varying from 50 to 80 feet in width. The por- 
tion of the bridge over the stream would be composed of six 
arches, each eighty feet in width, and the residue being on the 
land of a smaller size. The estimated expense of this bridge 
with the aqueduct, as made by the Engineer at this time, is 
$935,745. If pipes should be substituted instead of the aque- 
duct, the cost might be reduced, as your Committee are in- 
formed by the Engineer, about $35,000 ; so that the cost of 
the high bridge would be $900,000. 
The other plan, proposed by the Water Commissioners, is 
to carry the aqueduct across by what they term an inverted 
syphon. 
By this plan they proposed to leave open an arch of 80 feet, 
resting on piers, and in height 50 feet at one side of the wa- 
ter. This arch is placed immediately adjoining the New 
York shore, where there is now about two feet of water, and 
where, as the Commissioners think, the current will be so 
strong as in a very short time to carry away the mud now 
deposited at the bottom of the river, and leave sufficient depth 
of water to pass through, with such vessels as might be used 
for navigating the river. The remainder of this structure 
they propose to form by filling up across the river, an em- 
bankment of stone, by casting them into the river until a 
sufficient bed shall be formed to support the foundation walls 
of the aqueduct. The estimated cost of this plan is $426,027. 
The Water Commissioners, in their report, submitting these 
two plans, give a preference to the latter or the plan by an in- 
verted syphon or pipes, as preferable to the high bridge, for 
seven reasons: 
1. The difference in the cost. 617 
Doc. No. 88. 
2. That the same objects will be obtained by the low bridge 
as that of the high one, at one half the expense. 
3. Because the experience in sinking piers in mud and build- 
ing them to so great a height is very limited, and if badly 
built, the injury would be very serious to the aqueduct. 
4. The water in the aqueduct would be more exposed to 
frost, while the iron pipes would be protected entirely from 
frost by being covered with earth. 
5. The leakage of the aqueduct would be injurious to the 
masonry, while it would be entirely avoided by the pipes. 
6. The time necessary to complete the high bridge would 
be more than for the low one. 
And lastly, if the river should be made navigable by re- 
moving the obstructions, that the archway proposed by them 
would admit the passage of vessels for every useful purpose, 
and that more would be unnecessary. 
The Commissioners, however, after expressing this opinion, 
admit that so far as architecture is to be considered, the high 
bridge has the preference, and that if the Common Council 
shall direct the construction of the high bridge, the aqueduct 
shall be so constructed. 
Since this report was submitted, the Commissioners have 
altered the latter plan, by enlarging the arch to the width of 
120 feet, and the heigh th of 65 feet, which causes an addition 
to the expense of $50,000, making the estimated cost $476,000. 
Your Committee have felt duly sensible of the importance 
of the subject referred to them, both on account of the expen- 
diture of money involved, and the interests of the City, as well 
as of the proprietors of land in the neighborhood of the proposed 
bridge, as to the proper decision of this question. They have 
had several interviews with the Water Commissioners, as well 
as with the Engineer, and such other persons as they were 
able to procure the attendance of. They think that the pub- 
lic good would have been promoted, had they been authorized 
to obtain the opinion of some scientific gentlemen on this sub- Doc. No. 88. 
618 
ject, whose views would have greatly aided the Committee 
in arriving at a correct decision of this matter. They were 
not however authorized to incur any expense, and they have 
been compelled to come to a decision, in regard to it, from 
such information as they have been able otherwise to procure. 
In order to arrive at a just conclusion, it is important to in- 
quire into the capacity of the stream which is to be crossed 
by this aqueduct. 
Harlaem River runs between the main land, and the Island 
of New York on the north-easterly side. Its extent is about 
seven miles from the North to the East River. It varies in 
depth below M'Comb's Dam, from 20 to 30 feet, and above 
the dam, owing probably to the deposits of mud, in conse- 
quence of former interruptions to the current, by the dam, its 
depth is from 21 to 10 feet. 
A late survey of the river made by order of the Common 
Council, now in the Street Commissioner's Office, shows the 
depth of this river throughout. Formerly this river was na- 
vigated by vessels of considerable size up to the bridge which 
crosses it at the manor of Fordham, and was interrupted by 
the erection of M'Comb's Dam. The proposed removal of 
these obstructions from the river, either by the Corporation, 
or by a chartered Company, will restore, in a great degree, 
the navigation; and it is now to be decided by the Common 
Council, whether they will not only refuse to aid in restoring 
this navigation, but place in the river an obstacle which here- 
after would be insurmountable, and must end all hopes of ever 
preserving the river for such purposes. 
It is not to be supposed that the owners of land lying on 
the river above the proposed bridge will quietly submit to a 
measure which must be very detrimental to their interest, and 
very much decrease the value of their property, and they doubt- 
less will resort to all legal measures to preserve the navigation 
of this river from injury. 
In the original estimate, submitted to the people, both 
places were spoken of by the Commissioners. In the re- 619 
Doc. No. 88. 
port of the Water Commissioners, submitted to the people, 
in 1835, and on which they voted for this project, the Com- 
missioners say, a third plan was to substitute inverted sy- 
phons in the place of aqueducts, in crossing Harlacm River 
and the Manhattan Valley. The estimates are founded 
upon the principle, that the water is to be taken at a certain 
determined heighth on the Croton, and delivered at another 
determined heighth in the city; the quantity to be delivered 
being also assumed. Upon this data, with other collaterals 
stated by the Engineer, he estimates the cost of crossing the 
river by aqueducts, at ... . $415,650 00 
That of a syphon of 4 thirty-inch pipes . 364,280 90 
Difference in favor of the syphon . . $51,370 00 
In this plan the whole estimated expense of the aqueduct, 
including all the bridges and aqueducts, was fixed by them at 
$4,150,709 71, and the expense of distributing the same by 
pipes, was fixed at $1,261,627 01 ; making in all the sum of 
$5,412,336 72. Of this amount, $415,650 was stated as the 
estimated cost of the high bridge, and the Commissioners add, 
that the use of the syphon at Harlaem River, will save in the 
expense, $44,605 50. (See page 347 of their report.) In the 
report of the Committee, directing the matter to be submitted 
to the people, in March, 1835, it is stated as follows: 
The estimated expense of bringing the Croton to 
Murray Hill, is about .... $4,250,000 
To this is to be added the estimated expense of 
laying the water pipes in the city, to distribute 
the water ...... 1,262,000 
Total expense .... $5,512,000 
This same bridge which, when the subject was submitted to 
the people for approval, was estimated to cost $415,650, is Doc. No. 88. 
620 
now estimated to cost $935,745. It is proper to remark that 
these estimates are made by different Engineers, and that the 
Water Commissioners found their opinions on the reports of 
those employed by them for that purpose; but it is at the 
same time worthy of consideration, whether, with such dis- 
crepancy in the estimates between Mr. Douglass and Mr. 
Jervis, the Engineers, it would not be well to make more 
thorough and satisfactory estimates before commencing the 
work. 
Of the propriety of preserving the navigation of this river, 
and the rights of those interested in it, there can be but one 
opinion, and if the adoption of the low plan, or the inverted 
syphon, would deprive individuals of such rights without com- 
pensation, it ought to be abandoned. Your Committee are of 
opinion that such would be the case. The proposed arch in 
the low plan, would not be sufficiently high to allow the pas- 
sage of sloops, and would therefore only answer for vessels 
without masts. If such a structure should be placed over the 
river, it doubtless would cause a constant deposit above the 
bridge, and the consequence would very naturally be, that in 
a few years, the whole of the bed of the river above the 
bridge, would be changed to a mud flat, and navigation there 
entirely ended. A river of the size and depth of the Harlaem 
River, would, in other places, be considered a stream of too 
much value to be wantonly destroyed, and when we consider 
the peculiar situation of this city, its rapid growth and popu- 
lation, and we look forward to the time when the shore of 
this river will be thickly inhabited, the importance, of at least 
avoiding injury to the river, must be apparent to every un- 
prejudiced mind. This question is not to be decided by a 
mere reference to the present situation of the city, or to its 
present population. If the low structure should be adopted 
and carried out, the injury to the river is permanent and can 
never be removed ; and those who are to succeed us in after 
years, can only express their unavailing regrets at the mis- 
taken policy which would sacrifice the interests of this part 621 
Doc. No. 88. 
of the island to avoid a portion of the necessary expendi- 
ture consequent on retaining this stream. It would be an 
act of misplaced economy on the part of the Corporation, 
producing an injury which could never be repaired. 
Various other reasons might be adduced why the plan of 
filling up the river is unadvisable, but the Committee will only 
notice the reasons given by the Water Commissioners for 
preferring this plan. 
The first reason as to the cost, is not one which should in- 
fluence the decision of this question. In an expenditure of ten 
or twelve millions, for what was originally contemplated to cost 
four and a half millions, it is neither just nor equitable to 
sacrifice the rights and interests of others, and by a departure 
from the original plan, destroy this river to save 400,000 
dollars. 
The second reason advanced by the Commissioners is, that 
all the purposes will be attained by the low bridge, which can 
be by the high one. 
The Committee would refer to the former part of their re- 
port as an answer to this proposition. The navigation would 
be obstructed for every thing except boats and vessels with- 
out masts, and the depth of the river would be continually de- 
creasing until it finally becomes filled up, and all further 
navigation through it be at an end. 
The third reason is, the want of experience in constructing 
the high bridge. Your Committee do not think this a satis- 
factory reason against undertaking the work; if there is a want 
of experience in those employed by the Commissioners in 
working on the Croton Aqueduct, it certainly is not to be sup- 
posed that men of competent abilities and experience can be 
found to undertake and complete this work. The London 
Bridge, the bridge over the Potomac, as well as several other 
works in our own country of a similar character, all required 
as much experience and skill as this work, and your Com- 
mittee do not think that this can form any reasonable objection uoc. No. 88.' 
622 
to the high bridge, if it should be adopted by the Common 
Council. 
At a late interview with the Engineer, Mr. Jervis, he stated 
to your Committee, that " he did not consider that there was 
any serious difficulty in the erection of the high bridge, nor 
did he believe that the danger from the climate, in injuring 
the work, was as great as had been represented. That he 
believed the work might be completed, and that it might be 
so constructed as to withstand the ordinary changes of climate 
in this country. That from its height it would of course be 
more exposed than the other proposed structure, and might 
in the course of time, require extensive repairs." The mere 
possibility of having to repair this bridge at the expiration of 
80 or 100 years, is not, in the opinion of the Committee, any 
argument at all that should weigh against the propriety of pre- 
serving the navigation of the river. The one, if it needs re- 
pairs, can be repaired at pleasure, the river, if destroyed by 
building the low bridge, can never be restored. 
The fourth and fifth reasons are, that the aqueduct would 
be more exposed to the frost, than the pipes on the low plan, 
and would leak, and thereby injure the masonry. This diffi- 
culty is easily obviated by substituting pipes in the place of 
the aqueduct over the bridge, if it should be thought best, and 
would be a saving of nearly $40,000 in the expense, accord- 
ing to the estimate of the Engineer. Or if an aqueduct should 
be thought best, it can, by the mode proposed by the Water 
Commissioners, be lined with iron plates, so as to make it per- 
fectly tight. All the benefits anticipated by the Commission- 
ers from the pipes, can be obtained by substituting them over 
the aqueduct, aud thereby the objection as to frost and leak- 
age will both be obviated. If, however, there is any force in 
the argument as to frost and leakage, and the consequent in- 
terruption of the aqueduct, the same reasons should apply, with 
equal force, to the Sing Sing Bridge, which is constructed in 
the same manner, and which, if interrupted for repairs, would 623 
Poe. No. 88. 
produce the same inconvenience to the city from interruption 
of the water. See p. 94, Doc. 55, Commissioners' Report. 
The 6th reason offered in favor of the low bridge, is the 
time necessary to complete the high bridge. The Commis- 
sioners have not stated the additional time required to com- 
plete the high bridge beyond that for building the low bridge. 
It may be true that the high bridge might require another 
yearfor its completion, beyond that required for the low 
bridge ; but it must be remembered that a very considerable 
time is to be occupied in building the necessary works on this 
island, both reservoirs and aqueducts; and your Committee 
think that the bridge, whichever plan should be adopted, can 
be finished as soon as it will be required to supply the other 
parts of the work. But even if it should produce a delay of 
a year, your Committee will only use the language of the 
Commissioners themselves, on page 365 of their last report. 
"A work of this magnitude and importance, which is intended 
to last for ages, must not have its permanence and safety jeo- 
pardized by a too rapid execution of its parts;" and the same 
reason should apply to the inconsiderate adoption of any mea- 
sure which would produce an irreparable injury. 
It is also doubtful whether if time would not be lost by 
adopting the low plan. The Commissioners would atonco be 
involved in law suits, and probably be restrained by injunction 
from proceeding with the work, until the rights of the parties 
and the legality of the proceedings of the Water Commission- 
ers could be tested by a decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States. The time thus lost would more than equal 
the additional time required for the construction of the high 
bridge, and would be much better spent in work to preserve 
the navigation of the river, than in a legal controversy to take 
away the rights of others. 
The seventh and last reason of the Commissioners has been 
referred to, and is included under the second. In the opinion 
of the Committee, if the river should be made navigable to 
the North River, the proposed arch would not, in any way,. Doc. No. 88. 
624 
afford sufficient facility for the navigation that would pass 
through the same; and the rapidity of the current through 
the archway, for at least half of the time, would be such as to 
make it dangerous to pass through, even if the height was suf- 
ficient. 
These are all the reasons which the Commissioners have 
given, why the low bridge should be adopted; and your Com- 
mittee do not think that any of them afford any arguments 
against the high bridge, with the exception of the difference 
in expense, which has heretofore been noticed. 
It is proper, also, here to notice other parts of the plan of 
the Water Commissioners, as connected with the upper part 
of the island. The first reservoir, which is called the receiv- 
ing reservoir, is placed south of 86th street; and until the water 
reaches this place, it is not proposed, in the plan as reported, 
to draw off' any water for the use of that portion of the city. 
This would then afford no benefit to the upper section of the 
island, until an alteration should be made in the plan, and a 
new reservoir erected, at some other spot, above 86th street; 
a measure not contemplated, or even suggested, by their re- 
port. 
At the same time, the debt for the construction of the Cro- 
ton Aqueduct, is a debt charged upon the whole city. The 
interest which will annually become due on the stock issued 
must, as soon as the premiums received on the sale of the stock 
are exhausted, be raised by tax, as no prudent Common Coun- 
cil would determine to continue annually adding to the princi- 
pal of the debt the sum of 8500,000 for interest, until the aque- 
duct should produce revenue sufficient to defray it. If such 
tax should become necessary, it must .be very apparent that 
the upper part of the island would be taxed proportionably for 
the annual interest of this project, while it could not derive any 
corresponding benefit from it. It is not for the Committee to 
pass at this time on the propriety of this mode of taxation, they 
only refer to it here as showing that this expenditure will 
press more heavily on the upper part of the island than the 625 
Doc. No. 88. 
lower part, because they will be compelled to pay for that 
which is productive of no benefit to them, while the lower part 
of the city will receive its supply of water, both for use and 
for the extinguishment of fires from it. It is true that what- 
ever benefits one part of the island is conducive to the general 
advantage of the whole ; but this is an individual benefit, not 
at all equal to the amount of taxation. 
While such is to be the' operation of the debt incurred in 
constructing the Croton Aqueduct, in reference to the distri- 
bution of the expenditure fur the same, it appears to the Com- 
mittee that it would be improperand unjust towards the north- 
ern part of this island in addition thereto, to add injury by in- 
terfering with or destroying the navigation of the Harlaem 
River. 
Though this stream may not be considered at the present 
time of much value, on account of the small number of vessels 
which navigate it, yet it must be remembered that one and 
the principal reason is the obstruction already existing to the 
navigation thereof. 
As the Committee have heretofore remarked, this question 
must not only be decided with reference to the interest of the 
present generation, but as to that of posterity-the time will 
come when that portion of the island will become thickly in- 
habited, and then, if not before, the value of preserving a river 
of the depth of the Harlaem River, will be known and admitted. 
It has been proposed to build a pier in the North River, for 
the purpose among others of providing a basin for the smaller 
craft coming to the city, at an estimated expense of four or five 
millions of dollars. At some future day this river, without any 
other expense than that of removing the obstructions now ex- 
isting, would form one far superior in extent, while the cost 
would not exceed 100,000 dollars. 
From these and other reasons which might be offered, the 
Committee have come to the conclusion that it would not be 
expedient to adopt the plan recommended by the Commis- 
sioners, of the low bridge with one arch over the river. Doc. No. 88. 
626 
Though the immediate expense would be less, yet the mea- 
sure would-be one far more injurious to the city, and par- 
ticularly to the upper portion of the island, than the addi- 
tional expense, which might be incurred in preserving the na- 
vigation of the river unimpaired. The Committee have found 
more difficulty in adopting a plan to recommend, than in de- 
ciding on the inexpediency of the first plan proposed. 
With a view of reducing the expense of this bridge, they 
have requested from the Engineer, Mr. Jervis, a plan some- 
what partaking of both plans referred to by the Water Com- 
missioners, a draft of which is herewith submitted. By this 
plan it will be seen that about 200 feet in width of the river 
would be preserved, but the heighth of the arches is not suffi- 
cient for ordinary sloops to pass through. The additional ex- 
pense attending it would be about 100,000 dollars, and it 
does not receive the approbation of Mr. Jervis. In his opinion 
as expressed to the Committee, " if the navigation of the river 
is to be preserved, no modification of the low bridge would an- 
swer. The low bridge was submitted without reference to 
the navigation, and the high bridge only would allow masted 
vessels to pass through." He also objects to the plan last re- 
ferred to as being very objectionable in its architecture, while 
there is not enough saved to warrant the adoption of it. 
It appears to the Committee, that it is necessary that open- 
ings, of at least 200 or 300 feet in the whole, should be left, 
whatever plan may be adopted ; and that the arches should 
be sufficiently high to allow of the passage of sloops under 
them; and if no other plan can be devised, by which the ex 
pense can be reduced and the navigation of the river pre- 
served, they are of opinion that the high bridge should be 
adopted. 
They have not referred to the proposition contained in the 
remonstrance, to construct the aqueduct so as to allow of or- 
dinary travel over the same; the additional expense which it 
would cause being nearly one-third of the whole expense of 
the construction ; and the additional weight that it would add 627 
'Doc. No. 88. 
to the aqueduct, far exceed any considerations in favor of it. 
If a bridge should hereafter be required for travel in that neigh- 
borhood, it can be constructed for a very small portion of what 
would be required for the enlargement of the aqueduct, so as 
to admit of its being used for a viaduct. 
The Committee, in conclusion, offer the following reso- 
lutions': 
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to adopt the plan proposed 
by the Water Commissioners for crossing the Harlaem River 
by means of a low bridge, or syphon. 
Resolved, That the Common Council hereby request the 
Water Commissioners, in constructing the aqueduct across 
Harlaem River, to leave at least three hundred feet of the 
channel of the river open, excepting where piers may be ne- 
cessary to support the aqueduct, and that they build the bridge 
over the river in such a manner as to allow the free passage 
of sloops ; and unless the Commissioners shall propose to the 
Common Council rsome other plan less expensive in the con- 
struction, and embracing the foregoing propositions, that they 
be requested to adopt the plan proposed by them for the high 
bridge across the Harlaem River. 
D. P. INGRAHAM, 
JOHN V. GREENFIELD, 
A. V. WILLIAMS, 
JOSEPH N. BARNES, 
J. WESTERVELT.