Engineer, who places the discharge at 96,480 cubic feet per hour. At the same place, (Laughton's ford) it was again guaged by Messrs. Harrison and Guion, on the 8th August, 1830, and found to discharge 54,504 cubic feet per hour. In the month of October, of the same year, I found the discharge to be 60,000 cubic feet per hour. The Calamic river was guaged by me in the month of September, 1830, and the discharge estimated at 320,000 feet per hour. It was also guaged by Mr. Guion, assistant Civil Engineer, in the service of the United States, about the same time, and the discharge placed by him at 1,033,000 cubic feet per hour. It may be proper to remark here that the fall of 1830 was a season of extraordinary drought.

On the Erie canal in the state of New York, the supply not being very abundant in some parts of it, great care was taken to ascertain the quantity of water required to supply the evaporation and leakage in dry seasons, and it was determined by experiment that on the middle and western divisions, 100 cubic feet per minute per mile, was a safe estimate, with proper care in guarding against the waste of water.' On the eastern division 125 cubic feet was required. On the canals in the state of Ohio, 100 cubic feet per minute was adopted as the minimum; and in the state of Indiana, it has since been adopted as a standard in estimating the supply required for a canal of 40 feet surface and four feet depth of water, except in one instance, where the canal passes through an uncommonly wet region of country.

The allowance of 100 cubic feet per mile per minute for evaporation and filtration was assumed by me as the basis of all calculations in deliberating the minimum quantity of water to be provided for the Illinois and Michigan canal.

The surface of the canal as at present proposed to be constructed, is 60 feet, and bears the proportion of one and a half to one to the surface of the canal as at first proposed. The depth of water is now six feet whereas it was formerly four feet, consequently, the pressure of water being as the squares of the heights, and the leakage nearly as the square roots of the heights, the pressure will be more than doubled, and the leakage (taking into calculation the great surface) increased in proportion of one and a half to one. The quantity of water, then, that will be required to supply the evaporation and leakage in a canal of the dimensions proposed, will be 150 cubic feet per minute per mile; and with reference to the peculiar character of the country through which the canal paзses, I know of nothing which would justify a departure from the established rule, in regulating the supply of water. It is true, the upper level is situated in a very wet county, but the levels below dependant upon the summit for water, are located on ground very badly calculated to retain it, and it is possible that more than the ordinary supply may be required.

If the project of supplying the canal from Lake Michigan be abandoned, and the high level resorted to, the length of canal, including feeders, to be supplied with water on the upper level is 56 miles, which

will require 8,407 cubic feet per minute to supply the evaporation and leakage, and a further supply of 2112 for lockage, making in all a minimum supply of 10,512 cubic feet per minute.

Very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

J. M. BUCKLIN.

Aside from the fact, that according to the most authentic information, the Calimic and Des Plaines do not afford sufficient water for the use of the canal, it is an admitted fact that the Calimic takes its rise in Indiana. From the latest maps it appears to bend through the corner of Illinois, and pass into the Lake near the state line. It is contended by some, that it formerly passed into the Lake in Indiana; it is however certain that the state of Indiana may use the water of the river, to the exclusion of Illinois. The committee are not advised of any improvement projected by the state of Indiana, requiring the use of this river. But the testimony of Lieutenant Burnett herewith submitted, although not conclusive, tends strongly to prove, that a company incorporated by the state of Indiana have projected a canal, which will require the use of at least half the water of that stream.

Upon the point now under consideration, the committee have arrived at the following conclusions:

1st. That the Calimic and Des Plaines do not afford sufficient water for the use of the canal.

2d. That if they did, it would not be prudent or safe to rely upon the Calimic.

In arriving at these conclusions, the committee have relied upon the evidence referred to, consisting of extracts from Reports and other authentic documents. It must be evident to all those who have given the subject any examination, that the point on the Calimic where it is proposed to take the water is below the the summit of the canal line, and only 2 feet 81-100 above the level of the Lake. The erection of a dam across the Calimic would there fore, be absolutely necessary, the effects and consequences of which, cannot with any certainty, be calculated or ascertained. One effect would doubtless be, the oveflowing of an immense tract of country, and a consequent loss of water by evaporation, absorption, &c.

The committee would gladly forego the labor of investigating the other reasons urged by the committee of the House, in favor of the Summit Division of the canal, but having arrived at a different conclusion from that committee, in regard to the cost of the canal, it may be considered their duty to state to the Senate the facts and reasons upon which their opinion is formed. Your committee feel no disposition to engage in the controversy which seems to be unnecessarily started as to the correctness of the estimates of the Engineer. They have no feel. ing or interest, prompting them to such a course, and without any desire either to approve or condemn either party to this controversy, they intend only to bring before the Senate such facts as they have been

able to obtain, bearing upon that poiut. The estimates of the Engineer have been published, aud whether they are too high or too low, would be matter of opinion if no facts were known to exist by which that opinion may be controlled or corrected. At page 4 of the report, the committee of the House say "the first Division of the canal commenc. ing at Chicago and terminating at Lockport, is estimated by the chief Engineer, to cost on the present plan $5,897,801 13. In this estimate of the Engineer your committee regret to say, that from facts de. veloped during the investigation of the subject before them, they find themselves unable to concur, but are constrained to believe from the information elicited in reference to this division of the work, that the above sum is much less than will be actually required to complete the same, upon the plan proposed by the canal commissioners."

At page 5, after giving a copy of the estimates of the Engineer, the committee say, 'By referring to the above abstract it will be perceived that the item of Rock Excavation has all been estimated as coming within the denomination of Quarried Rock; whereas, all the information which your committee have been able to obtain upon that subject, tends to show most conclusively, that at least two thirds of this will fall under the class of solid rock excavation. If this be the fact, and that it is has been proved to the satisfaction of the committee, the whole amount as estimated by the Engineer must be greatly enhanced.' From the foregoing extracts there is some difficulty in deciding whether the committee mean that the estimates are too low in reference to the work estimated, or that more work will be required, or that the work has not been properly classed. It may be inferred from reading the extracts, in connection with what is said at pages 6 and 7, that more work will be required than is estimated, and that the work estimated has not been properly classed. It is impossible for this committee to know what "facts were developed" or "information elicited" during the investigation before the committee of the House, except from what appears upon the face of the Report, or the testimony appended to it. These being examined, no "fact" or "information" is discovered upon which this committee can predicate an opinion. If the objection to the estimates be that the work required to be performed by the Engineer has been estimated too low, the answer to that objection will be found in the statement of the canal commissioners, (see answer to question one) that those estimates were based upon contracts already made and in the course of execution, and in this view of the subject, the answer is deemed sufficient. But if the objection applies to the classification of the work, that objection is also answered as far as such an objection can be answered at this time. From the very nature of things, it would seem to be impossible at this time to furnish conclusive testimony, as to the character of all the Rock required to be excavated. This question cannot be placed beyond all doubt, until further progress is made with the work. Testimony which will satisfy one of the existence or non-existence of a fact, might satisfy another of

the reverse of the proposition. The testimony referred to by the com. mittee of the House upon this point, is too uncertain in its character to be relied on. It is the opinion of a witness no doubt honestly given, who did not and could not from the nature of things, possess sufficient knowledge upon the subject, to give him confidence in his own opinion, nor does he state sufficient facts to enable others to form an opinion. He does not state the number or situation of the places where he obtained the information-the thickness of the rock on or near the surface-the depth of excavation, the thickness of the rock at the bottom of the excavation, nor does he state that he has ever been engaged in excavating rock, so as to be able to form an opinion upon the subject. Contractors might have resorted to blasting for the purpose of loosening the strata when the rock was only six inches thick, and no fact is stated by the witness to rebut such a supposition. So far as information has been obtained from contractors upon this branch of the subject, the opinions of the Engineer and Canal Commissioners are fully sustained.

If the objections be considered with reference to omissions on the part of the Engineer to include in his estimates, items of necessary expenditure, not included, reference must be had to the report for a specification of those items. At page 6 of the report, it is objected that no estimate is made for cutting down a towing path; at page 7 no estimate is made for a slope wall from Chicago river to the Point of Oaks, seven and a half miles, and none made for a guard lock at the northern termination of the summit division: exception is also taken to the per cent. allowed for contingencies. At page 11 it is said that "many items of expense are known to exist," which have not been estimated by the Engineer or the committee.

The Committee will examine the exceptions in their order.

1st. In reply to the exception relating to the towing path. It is proper to remark that no reason is assigned in the report why it is deemed necessary to cut down such a path, and the answers of the Engineer to questions relating to this point, at page 27 of the report shows, that it is not proposed to cut the towing path down on the present plan; and that the expense of constructing the towing path is included in the estimates. Your committee cannot perceive any reason or use for such a path. The average depth of the cut being but eighteen feet, it is believed by lengthening the tow ropes, that no inconvenience will result from the horses travelling on the surface.

'The second exception relates to the seven and a half miles of slope wall. The committee do not affirm or state that this slope wall will be necessary, nor do they express an opinion to that effect, except by estimating the cost of such a wall, and saying "of the necessity of which there can be but little doubt." Mr. Smith, whose statement is relied upon, gives no opinion upon the point, nor does Mr. Gooding, both of whom answered the same question; and the only difference between their answers consist in the difference of opinions expressed as to the extent of the wall. Mr. Gooding's answer favors the idea, that if a slope

wall should become necessary at all, it will be to protect the banks of the canal from the Chicago river to the Point of Oaks, and that the wall need be only one foot above top water line of the canal; whereas Mr. Smith thinks if a slope wall shall become necessary, it ought to be estimated to the natural surface of the earth. From the guarded man. ner, in which the question seems to have been framed, it might be supposed, that there was a view to obtain an admission of a fact, the existence of which had not been established; no admission or expression of opinion, however, was made by either of the witnesses. It is supposed by your committee, that no conclusive opinion can be formed in regard to this wall, until that part of the excavation shall be completed, and perhaps not until the completion of the whole canal. It is therefore deemed improper, at this time, to include in the estimate of the cost of the canal, any estimate for this wall.

The third exception relates to the guard lock at the northern termination of the canal. The committee say, that "the necessity of a guard lock has been admitted by the Chief Engineer himself, or his examination before your committee." Your committee will again repeat, that the questious involved in reference to the plan of the canal, ought not to be considered as questions of disputation between the Legislature and the Engineer, nor yet as a question between two rival cities or villages; and it cannot but be a source of deep regret, to every friend to the great interest of the State, that collateral, incidental and immaterial questions should be brought forward and made to operate upon the decision of an abstract proposition, involving in its consequences one of the most important projects ever attempted by any State in this Union. Your committee, judging from the nature of the case, are inclined to the opinion, that a guard-lock will be necessary at the northern termination of the canal, but whether an estimate has been made for this or not, or if not, the reason for the omission is not deemed of sufficient importance to be noticed in arguing a proposition of so much consequence to the State. As this committee understand the statement of estimates, it does not include specifically the cost of a guard-lock, nor purport to do so. What it will cost to make the lock, this committee have not ascertained, but judging from other estimates' they suppose it will not cost any thing like the sum estimated by the committee of the House, and it may be, the sum allowed for contingencies will be sufficient to cover this item.

The fifth exception relates to the allowances for contingencies.This item must necessarily depend npon the knowledge of the Engineer, of the character and cost of the work to be performed, and the confidence he may have in the character of the estimates made. It cannot be regulated by any general rule, unless that rule be adopted without reference to any given case. Your committee are therefore unwilling and unable to decide npon the sufficiency or insufficiency of the allow ances made by the Engineer, with referencee to this division of the work.