USA > Michigan > Mason County > History of Mason County, Michigan > Part 12
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66
Portage Lake Harbor of Refuge is in an incipient condition, being at present entirely inaccessible. It could be completed by aid of liberal appropriations within two or three years, but at the rate of appropriation heretofore afforded would be at least twenty years in process of construction. Grand Haven Harbor is approaching completion under the existing approved project, and at the present rate of appropriation will be finished in four or five years. These two harbors when completed will afford, in a great measure, much needed relief to the commerce of the coast, but will not fully secure it against disaster in stormy weather. Grand Haven will be avail- able for vessels canght in a storm toward the head of the lake, and Portage Lake for those similarly unfortunate, while upon the course from the Straits of Mackinac to the west coast, which course bears well away from the east coast abreast of Point Aux Bees Scies, which is only twenty-three miles below Portage Lake.
But between Portage Lake and Grand Haven there is a long stretch of about 100 miles of dangerous coast, totally unprovided with any harbor which a vessel could safely attempt to enter in stormy weather.
As regards danger to navigation, the portion of the east coast of Lake Michigan under my charge may properly be divided into three bights, in either of which if a vessel is caught in stormy weather on a lee shore she must make a harbor of refuge within the bight or expect to go upon the beach. Reckoning from south northward there is first to be noticed the long reach of a little over 100 miles coast line between Saint Joseph and Little Point Sable, which will be provided for by the harbor of refuge at Grand Haven; and passing to Big Point Sable the coast northward from that point will be provided for, by the harbor of refuge at Portage Lake, but the short and most dangerous, because most concave, bight between the two Points Sable, remains at present unprovided for; and no matter how generally accessible in the future the harbors of Grand Haven and Portage Lake may become, any vessel unfortunate enough to get caught on a lee shore between the two Points Sable could reap no benefit from either of the harbors just mentioned, but being unable to round either point would be in imminent danger of stranding. In this connection I respectfully submit the appended table of statistics of wrecks which have occurred between the two Points Sable since 1848, kindly furnished me by the deputy collector of enstoms at Ludington. This table does not by any means state all the cases of vessels stranded between the points, but is full as far as definite information could be obtained. It omits many cases .
Digitized by Google
1
RES. OF JAMES FOLEY, LUDINGTON , MICH .
1
...
-
2
1
-
Digitized by
0
HISTORY OF MASON COUNTY.
45
where information afforded is too vague to entitle the instance to definite record.
From the foregoing course of reasoning and these statistics of wrecks, it will be seen that a harbor of refuge at some site between the two Points Sable is at least desirable, if not a general necessity. That it is a necessity as regards local commerce of that region I think I have demonstrated. Either Ludington or Pentwater, both of which harbors are situated within the bight above specified, would be suitable for a site for a harbor of refuge, each being partially under cover of one or the other of the Points Sable, but Ludington, being one of the termini of the Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad, a trunk line crossing the lower peninsula of Michigan and having direct communication with all points east, in a commercial point of view, would seem to offer the greater advantages. It is probable that the assurance of safe access in any weather to the port of Ludington would induce capitalists to place on one or more lines of steamers connecting the Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad with roads on the opposite side of the lake having termini at west coast ports, in which event the commerce of Ludington would be greatly stimulated and the revenues of the United States at this point cor- respondingly increased.
The most important characteristic of a harbor of refuge for general lake commerce at this location, intermediate as to the head and foot of the lake, should be its perfect accessibility in the stormiest weather, and under most adverse circumstances. This characteristic, in my opinion, can only be secured by building the harbor exterior to the coast line.
I maintain that no system of parallel piers of entrance to an interior basin can ever afford perfect security, for either the piers have to be placed so far apart that the channel cannot be certainly secured from shoaling, or else, if placed nearer together, form too narrow an entrance for a vessel to attempt with perfect security in stormy weather, particularly in the dark or in fog or thick mist. The interval of 300 feet fixed upon for the harbor of refuge at
the result of practicable experience in the construction of harbors of this character. But at the harbor of Grand Haven, where the pier interval is nearly 400 feet, even when there is good water in advance of the piers, vessels occasionally miss the entrance; nor do I think this difficulty will be entirely remedied even when the piers have been carried into deep water, and all fears of shoals at the entrance have disappeared.
It is no easy matter in thick weather when a heavy sea is rol- ling to hit an entrance of even 400 feet width, and when a vessel in such weather misses the entrance to leeward she is invariably stranded. No hawsers will hold her in such a sea as rolls behind the piers of the east shore of Lake Michigan in a heavy gale of wind. If she is fortunate enough to make the error to weather, which is the exceptional case, she may possibly escape, although the tendency is to set her ashore. The reflex wave in this case assists her efforts to keep off the pier, and by hard hauling she may get clear, but always in a more or less damaged condition.
With exterior works, however, the case is entirely different, and the maximum amount of security is afforded to the distressed vessel. The heavier and more direct the sea dashing against the breakwater, the more pronounced is the reflex wave, acting as a water-cushion, fending her off from collision, and unless the vessel is so small or the waves so heavy as to swamp her, by good maneuvering she may be worked along the breakwater to the end, where, if she is at all in a navigable condition, she has plenty of sea room to work up and let go her anchor under cover of the work. With a work having eight feet height of superstructure and finished with substantial snub- bing posts, she could do this by aid of hawsers in any ordinary gale
without great difficulty. A vessel approaching a harbor of refuge of this character does so with her greatest confidence, no matter how thick and heavy the weather may be, for the master knows that even if he is unfortunate enough to miss the entrance to the exterior harbor, he has every opportunity of extricating himself, and plenty of sea room to remedy his misfortune by casting anchor under the lee of the work before being thrown on the beach. In the case of interior harbors, however, the master of the unfortunate vessel is morally certain that if he misses the entrance there are nine chances ont of ten that he will lose his vessel.
The piers of Ludington have only 200 foot interval, and Pere Marquette Lake, at the town front, is fully monopolized by the local commerce. The harbor, therefore, in its present condition, is un- suitable for refuge, nor from conditions just advanced do I think it can be modified for such a purpose to advantage. I therefore pro- pose for a harbor of refuge at Ludington, if Congress should so pro- vide, the trace indicated on the map hereto appended.
The project contemplates the extension of the present south pier of entrance for 1,000 feet, to end in twenty-eight feet soundings. This extension is necessary to head off a sand spit, which the littoral current flowing from the southward is gradually pushing northward, thus threatening the present channel of entrance at a point about 350 feet in advance of the present pier head. As this extension is a necessity for the preservation of the channel, as long as it is in hand it may as well be pushed still further, converting the south pier of entrance into a south breakwater.
Unfortunately, at the Ludington front the water deepens so suddenly that from motives of economy only a minimum area for anchorage can be projected without making the project cost enormously, and altogether out of proportion to the benefit sought to be obtained. The degree of pier extension, 1,000 feet, is deter- mined by the position of the detached breakwater, the most im- portant feature of the project.
The main arm of this breakwater, which is 2,000 feet long, I Portage Lake appears to have been adopted as a judicious medium, , have located in an average depth of thirty feet soundings, which is
as deep as it can be built in with any degree of economy, and at a distance of 2,200 feet from the shore, which is little enough to give good sea room. From the main arm at the northerly end I set off a return of 1,000 feet in an oblique direction shoreward, to shut off what little northwesterly sea may occasionally arise, and thus make the lee of the breakwater a snug harbor in all weathers.
Northwesterly gales are the least frequent at Ludington, and less felt on account of the lay of the land to the northward; the partial interposition of Big Point Sable interfering to break the full force of the sea. Vessels seeking shelter from such a gale, even if abnormal in severity, would find easy access to the harbor of refuge by rounding the north end of the breakwater, which is situated at a distance of 1,600 feet from the shore line, affording ample room for the maneuver, and giving the vessel the option of letting go her anchor under the lee of the short arm or seeking the entrance to the inner harbor, where there would be comparatively still water.
The most violent gales at Ludington are from the southwest, veering to due west. I have established the width of entrance be- tween the south breakwater head and the south end of the detached breakwater at 350 feet, which I consider ample for works with the relative situations of those I project. There is a vast difference between the force and character of the wave in open lake driving through a clear entrance in deep water into a large area of roadstead, and the same wave striking an entrance even of the same width between parallel piers. In the first case the wave enters naturally, with no excessive combing, and is dissipated in the covered arca beyond; in the second case, between parallel walls, its mass accu-
-
-
Digitized by
--
46
HISTORY OF MASON COUNTY.
mulates in a towering crest, which gives the vessel entering all she can do to keep her course and avoid being flung upon the end of the long line of work abreast of her; which end in the other case she has passed in an instant, and finds in the main line a shelter rather than a dangerous lee wall, as in the instance of parallel piers. For a vessel, then, to enter the projected harbor under stress of a southwest gale, the entrance of the head of the south breakwater should be sought; and this passed, as it could be in the heaviest weather, instantaneously and with perfeet safety, the vessel could then either pursue her course in still water, under cover of the south breakwater, into the inner harbor, or keep away to anchor under the lee of the detached work until the storm blew over. It will be noticed that in all cases but one there will be perfectly still water at the entrance to the inner harbor, which, in the case of parallel piers, is the most dangerous point of all, no matter from what direction the gale may come.
At Ludington the wind sometimes veers and blows heavily from dne west. In this case the south breakwater would be of little ser- 1 vice, and a heavy sea would roll as at present directly toward the inner harbor. This sea might in this instance make entrance to the inner harbor inconvenient, but in this case the whole 3,000 feet of detached breakwater would make the area of sixty acres anchorage a snug harbor throughout its whole extent, and a vessel could readily wait there until the services of a tug were available.
The question may here be asked, Why not extend the south breakwater to lup the detached work covering the entire area of an- chorage just as completely against waves from the southwest as from the west? The answer is that it has been shown by experience that such a relative arrangement is dangerous and apt to throw the entering vessel upon the detached breakwater, which would then be to leeward of the south breakwater head. In other words, this arrangement.practically reproduces the vital defect of the parallel pier system, and it is better to suffer the inconvenience of a subsiding swell in a portion of the area of anchorage than to endanger the entrance by any obstruction designed to remedy an interior incon- venience.
- --
The same objection applies to an additional covering break- water shutting of waves from the westward. The simpler the entrance consistent with absolute safety, the casier the harbor is of | access, and therefore the more serviceable.
Again, it may be asked, why not arrange the covering works to the southward of an extension of the north pier and thereby make a perfect lee in a southwest gale?
There are practical difficulties in arranging the entrance for such a harbor as this, which it is not necessary to enumerate here; but the main objection is that the littoral current which flows from the southward would convert such a harbor in Winter-time into a large field of drifted ice anchored and compacted so as to block all navigation, probably until long after it had opened elsewhere. Ou the other hand, under the project I have the honor to submit, I should expect Ludington to be accessible by steam navigation all Winter, the south breakwater being connected with the shore and effectually protecting the chanmel of entrance from all drift.
In carrying into effect this project, the first measure to be taken in hand is the south pier extension converting it into a south break- water. Owing to the great amount of driftlogs and ice which is dashed against this pier in southwest gales, its construction must be of substantial timber work filled with stone and resting upon a firm foundation. For such a work, resting on brush mattress, which will probably be less expensive, and has been proved by last year's | experience to be as unyielding and secure as a pile or stone founda- tion, I estimate the expense as follows:
700 feet piering. 30 feet wide, with 6 feet superstructure. in an average of 23 feet soundings, at siso por linear foot . . $130.200
250 feet piering. 34 feet wide. with $ feet superstructure. in an average of 25 feet soundings, at $250 per linear foot . . 62.500
A pier-head 50' × 40', in 2812 feet soundings, with 8 feet superstructure. 15,000
Total 207.700
10 per cent contingencies .. 20,770
Estimated cost of south breakwater. 228,470
The detached breakwater upon a pile foundation with stone filling, built according to the plan successfully used at Michigan City, Ind., and other places, would cost as follows:
2,000 linear feet, 49 feet wide, with 8 feet superstructure. in oh average of 30 feet soundings, at $300 per linear foot . . $600,000 1,000 linear feet, with an average width of 34 feet. and with
8 feet saperstructure, standing in an average of 27 feet soundings, at $265 per linear feet .. . 265,000
Total 865.000
10 per cent contingencies 86,500
Estimated cost of detached break water. 951,500
To which adding cost of south breakwater. 228.470
Gives cost of entire project. 1.179.970
Making allowance for the variation in cost of labor and material during the series of years through which the project would probably be in course of execution, it may be fairly estimated that it will cost from $1,000,000 to $1,500,000, depending upon the variations above mentioned and the length of time the project is under construction.
The detached breakwater could be constructed of piles and mill edgings, with stone filling at the top, at a much less expense than by building in timber and stone on a pile foundation, if a method can be devised to secure the work while in process of construction. To this end I have devised a frame caisson for carrying edgings in raft in sections of 100 feet length, which I would prefer testing in shoaler water before applying the system to a work of so great depth as the one under consideration.
I shall submit a project to this effect in a report upon another work to be rendered very shortly, and if the work in question is ordered will have ample opportunity to test the efficacy of this method before the time would arrive to begin the detached breakwater con- struction under the project herewith presented. Pile and edging construction has a record for standing a great deal of wear and tear at points as much exposed as the site of the proposed breakwater, and I do not see why it cannot be applied to advantage at this point when the mechanical difficulties and question of supply are solved.
The breakwater in pile and edging construction would cost as follows:
2.000 linear feet, at $110 por linea" foot $220,000
1.000 linear feet, at $70 per linvar foot 70,000
Total 290,000
10 per cent contingencies 29,000
319.000
Which, substituted for the $951,500 estimate for the same work ! in timber and stone, would reduce the estimated cost of the entire project to $547,470, or about one-half.
As, under the existing approved project of pier extension at Ludington Harbor, the south United States pier must be soon rapidly extended to head off the sand spit which is threatening the approach to the channel of entrance, in the event of the adoption of the project for a harbor of refuge, it would be well, while having the entire project in view, to hold the construction of the detached breakwater in abeyance until the south breakwater was completed;
Digitized by
1
:
--
-
O
RES. OF H. A. SCOTT, 4 th Ward, LUDINGTON, MICH.
BOILER SHOP.
LUDINGTON BOILER WORKS, THOSE.DAVIES, PROPR, LUDINGTON, Mich.
Digitized by
!
Digitized by Google
47
and if, in the meanwhile, experiment in the cheaper pile and edging construction should show it to be available, by its adoption the total cost of the project would be reduced one-half, as above demonstrated.
Should it be decided to construct the harbor of refuge at Ludington on the plan I propose, or any other plan involving the extension of the south United States pier, I should require for the first year $140,000 to enable me to build the first 700 feet, in order to throw out of consideration the threatened attack of sand from the southward, which, if permitted to advance and encroach in any large mass upon the channel of entrance to the interior harbor, would add an estimate for its removal or dispersion to the estimates
I have already made. One hundred and forty thousand dollars is, therefore, my estimate for the first year's work; and the balance of the estimate for the south breakwater for the second year, in order to complete that work in two years. The detached breakwater could then be taken up, and built upon any plan and with such degree of annual progress as might be deemed advisable and Congress by appropriation might afford.
. I have the honor to be, General, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
F. HARWOOD, Major of Engineers.
LETTER OF COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AT LUDINGTON, MICH. LUDINGTON, MICH., February 8, 1882.
DEAR SIR :- In compliance with your request that the citizens of this place forward to you an account of the wrecks on this shore and included between "Big and Little Point Sable," I have compiled the inclosed statement, giving names of vessels, value of vessels, value of cargoes, total loss, number of lives lost and where lost.
In compiling my statement, I have been as careful as possible, gaining my information from my own books, the books of the life- saving stations, and from the older citizens-reliable men.
Some of the cargoes lost I could not ascertain the value of, so have left blank. Any other information required please let me know, and I will give it my personal and immediate attention.
Hoping this may be of much service to you, and that our legis- lators may recognize the necessities of the proposed project,
I remain, Major, very truly and sincerely yours,
EUGENE ALLEN,
Collector of Customs for the District of Michigan,
To Maj. F. Harwood. City of Ludington.
P. S .- Should some of the values prove incorrect, you will know that the account is as near as could be made.
The Chief of Engineers, U. S. A.
Year.
Name and denomination of vessel.
Value of
vessel.
Value of
Total value
of vessel
and cargo.
Number of
lives lost.
1848
Barge Neptune.
$35,000 20,000
15,000
35,000
Off Ludington
4
1854
Schooner Falchon.
10,500
4,500
15,000 Seven miles north of Ludington
1855
Bark Samuel Strong*
25,500
7,500
33,000
Off Ludington
9
1855
Schooner J. B. Wright
12,000
6,500
18,500
.do
12
1855
Schooner A'mina
12,000
4,000
16,000
.do
1855
Schooner Dole*
10,500
4,500
15,000
.. do
1855
Schooner Buckeye*
15,500
5,000
20,500
.do
1855
Schooner Wicks*
10,300
4.300
14,600
.do
1855
Schooner Pacific.
10,500
4,500
15,000
.do
1855
Schooner Fashion .
15,000
6,000
21,000
.do
1855
Schooner Cherokee*
12,800
6,000
18,800
North of Ludington
10
1855
Steamer Reindeer*
35 500
25,000
60,500
Off Big Point Sable
16
1855
Schooner Helen Kent*
10,500
3,500
14,000
.do
1
1855
Schooner Telegraph*
20,000
20,000
40 000
Off Little Point Sable
1855
Steamer Amanda Howard*
15,000
10,000
25,000
do
1856
Propeller Mary Stewart*
20,000
20,000
1857
Schooner North Yuva*
15,000
12,000
27,000
do
1858
Schooner Maria Cobb
30,000
25,000
55,000
North of Ludington
3
1858
Schooner Titon.
25,000
25,000
50,000 Off Ludington.
1858
Schooner Equator ..
7,500
2,500
10,000 Off Little Point Sable
1860
Schooner Garden City
25,500
8,500
34,000 South of Ludington.
1864
Schooner H. N. Gates*
9,500
9,000
18,500
12 miles south of Ludington
1865
Schooner Lavant*
11,000
8,000
1865
Schooner Monsoon.
11,000
7,000
18,000
.do
1865
Schooner G. F. Foster
12,000
5,000
17,000
North of Ludington
1866
Schooner A. D. Fartior
8,500
8,000
16,500 Off Ludington.
1866
Brig A. H. Mitchell*
40,000
36,000
76,000 Off Little Point Sable
1866
Propeller Brockwell*
25,000
15,000
40,000
Off Lincoln .
1866
Schooner Burnsides.
30,000
25,000
55,000 Off Big Point Sable
1867
Schooner Kate Doak*
4,300
4,000
8,300
Off Ludington
1867
Schooner Argo
10,500
8,000
18,500
do.
1869
25.000
10,000
35,000 Off Big Point Sable.
1871
Schooner City of Boston*
30,000
20,000
50,000
.do
1872
Schooner Jennie Lind
10,500
5,500
16,000 Off Ludington
1875
Bark Kate Bully*
20,000
10,000
30,000 North of Ludington
1875
Propeller City of Painesville*
35,000
25,000
60,000
.do
1875
Schooner Thomas Mott
25,000
20,000
45,000
Off Ludington
1875
Schooner Suvenier
12,000
3,500
15.500
.do
6
1875
Schooner Minnie Carlett
12,000
3,600
15,600 South of Ludington
1879
Schooner A. O. Hanson
10,000
3,000
13,000 North of Ludington
1879
Schooner Mercury
12,000
5,000
17,000
Off Ludington
1
1879
Tng Lamont
2,000
2,000
South of Ludington
3
1879
Schooner Gen. Grant
10,000
2,000
12,000
do
3
*Indicates that Vessel was total loss.
+Unknown.
Digitized by
37
1852
Schooner Acia Wilcox
$35,000
$70,000
Off Big Point Sable
.do
1855
Schooner Skinner*
19,000 Off Ludington
1865
Steamer (a Canadian)
Unknown
Off Hamlin
10
3
Schooner Ben Flint*
40,000 South of Ludington.
8
-
HISTORY OF MASON COUNTY.
Where wrecked.
cargo.
1
Year.
Name and denomination . f ves- el.
Value of vessel.
Value of
cargo.
Total valne
o f ves: el
and cargo.
Number ..!
lives lost.
1879
Schooner G. P. Ward*
6,000
2,000
8,000
.do
1879
Schooner Restless
Unknown
do
1879
Schooner Gen. Worth.
Unknown
.do
1879
Schooner Chas. Smith.
3,000
600
3,600
.do
1880
Propeller City of Toledo*
40,000
30,000
70,000
North of Ludington
1880
Schooner City of New York
15,000
Off Ludington
1880
Propeller Hilton
20,000
4.500
24,500
South of Ludington
1880
Barge Rutter
70,000
60,000
130,000
Off Ludington.
1881
Schooner Thayer *.
40,000
7,500
47,500
Off Sheboygan. Wis
1881
Propeller Columbia*
80,000
35,000
115,000 North of Big Point Sable
16
1881
Schooner Wm. Sturgis*
10,000
t
Schooner Jefferson.
15,500
10,000
25,500 Off Ludington
+
Schooner Frank Forest
15,500
10,000
25,500
Off Big Point Sable
+
Schooner Davi.1 Vance
Off Ludington
4
Total
1,073,900
646,500
1,705,400
146
*Indicates that vessel was total loss.
+Unknown.
All the cargoes were total losses. The captain of the schooner Thayer, which went ashore at Sheboygan, Wis., says that if there had been a harbor on the east shore of Lake Michigan he could have saved his vessel; as it was, he lost his vessel and cargo.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.