The average cost of sites and building thirteen lights in Ireland under the Dublin Board, from 1820 to 1834, is more than 65,000 dollars.—(Ibid., p. 74.) From an estimate made by M. Fresnel, French Director of Lights (Ibid., Appendix R., p. 236), it is shown, that- Thirty-one lights, to be built in 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1836, would dollars. cost on an average about 20,000 Ditto, apparatus, lantern, lamps, &c. Of these thirty-one lights, eighteen were to be of the first order, and 27,000 5,500 Expense of Establishment, compared with that of England and France.- From a report of the Fifth Auditor, made to Congress, October 1, 1835, it appears that— dollars. The average expenses, per annum, of sustaining each lighthouse, including repairs, salaries of keepers, oil, &c., was 911 Ditto, lightboats 2862 Ditto, lighthouses in England 2268 5922 Ditto, lightboats in England From the report of the Select Committee referred to (p. 30), the average expense of each of the lights is as follows: Difference in favour of American boats. 2979 From a report made by the Trinity Board, to which is intrusted the management of the British lights, made to the House of Commons, in 1837, the expenses are thus stated:: For the year ending June 30, 1837, the expenses for the same services in the United States were as follows: Being more than 200 per cent in favour of American economy in this branch of the public service. Besides, in England, commerce is heavily taxed, in the form of light-money, by the owners and lessees of lighthouses, for their own emolument and for the support of pensioners and charities. There are fourteen lighthouses thus owned. The promptings of individual sagacity and private interest will usually insure the performance of any enterprise or the sustaining of any establishment with an economy much exceeding that used by agents of governments. But the private lights in England are kept up at an expense much exceeding that of the United States. Fourteen lights in hands of private persons in England, 1834: Gross amount of collections Allowance for collection Expense of maintenance Profits £ 79,676 £10,244 9,100 19,344 60,332 Average expense of maintenance, 6501. (3140 dollars); 180 per cent more than American expenditure. (See same report, p. 37.) The annual expense of maintaining private lights of the first class is much larger, being on an average 4760 dollars. (Ibid., p. 41.) The expense of the third (smallest) class of individual lights is (average) 2490 dollars, being more than 120 per cent more than the American lights, great and small. This comparison is highly favourable to the economy of our system. Comparison with French Lights.-The report of the select committee referred to (p. 31), states that the annual charge of maintaining a lens light of the first order to be 3401., say 1640 dollars; but this is exclusive of repairs. In all the French accounts of "expense of maintenance," repairs are excluded; so says M. Fresnel, principal engineer (see Ibid, Appendix R.). M. Fresnel says: "These (the British) expenditures are found mixed up with each other (that is cost of maintenance and repairs); hence the impossibility of arriving, with any degree of certainty, at a comparative estimate of the two services (French and British)." Our accounts are mingled in the same way; hence the like difficulty of instituting a comparison with the expenses of the French lights. That the expenditure of the French establishment should be less than ours, or that of Great Britain, would excite no surprise, when the relative cost of labour and skill is taken into account. The British committee (p. 31), after commenting on the unequal expenditure in the maintenance of French and British lights, say: "In explanation of this difference, it must be observed "Ist. Salaries to light-keepers in England are understood to be nearly double those in France. "2nd. The price of spermaceti oil used in England is stated to be double to the oil de colsa used in France." Wages in this country are much higher than in England even; and we also use sperm oil. Yet notwithstanding the great inequality in the salaries of keepers and the cost of oil, it will appear from the evidence furnished by M. Fresnel, that the management of our light establishment cannot justly be reproached with want of prudence and economy. M. Fresnel says (see p. 229, Appendix) that The annual expenditure of a light of the first class (exclusive of repairs) is francs. dollars. 8500 = 1615 The annual expenditure of a light of the second class (exclusive of repairs) is 7000 = 1330 The annual expenditure of a light of the third class (exclusive of repairs) is 3600 = 684 Average 1209 Some nine per cent more than the cost of American lights, including cost of repairs. The report (p. 233) gives the expenditure of some of the lights specifically, from which it appears that the cost of maintenance is much larger than the above account of M. Fresnel, viz. : Cordovan light of the first order, ordinary annual expenditure Total expense Ushant light, first order (p. 235), ordinary annual expenditure (exclusive of repairs) St. Mathieu light, second order, ordinary expenses (repairs ex cluded) francs. 11,598 dollars. = 2204 950 The average annual expense of these three lights (exclusive of repairs) is 1685 dollars; exceeding, by fifty per cent, the average expense of American lights. The most expensive American light is that on Frank's Island, having two keepers, and, in 1841, amounted to 180,623 dollars, as follows: Keeper's salary Oil 779 gallons Tubes, glasses, &c. Window glass and putty. dlrs. cts. 600 00 360 00 779 00 68 23 9 00 The average expense of the Cordovan and Ushant lights, both of the first order, was 1957 dollars, being more, by 151 dollars than the Frank's Island light. The little experience we have had in this country in the use of the French lenticular apparatus, induces the belief that our anticipation in regard to the saving of oil, will not be fully realised. The two lights in the lens plan, at Neversink, consume per annum 1095 gallons of oil; they consumed, on the old plan (thirty-one argand lamps), 992 gallons of oil. This consumption of oil is about the same as that of a lens light of the first order in France. It is said in the report (Ibid., p. 32) that "the consumption of oil in the Cordovan lighthouse is equal to that of seventeen argand lamps." The average consumption, per annum, of such a lamp, is thirty-five gallons, which gives to the Cordovan light a consumption of 595 gallons per annum; being nine per cent more than that of one of the Neversink lights. The French manufacturer of the lenticular apparatus claims for it a great saving of oil. Further experience in this country may demonstrate the reality of this claim. But it remains to be proved to what extent, if any, such saving may be carried. The communication of M. Lepaute, the manufacturer, to Governor Davis (See Senate Doc. 1st. Sess., 26th Congress, No. 474), in which he attempts to show the difference in the consumption of oil in the French and American lights, does not inform us on what authority the quantities of oil consumed in the American houses are given. With the best intentions to give the quantities correct, he may not have been in possession of the true account of them. He puts down the quantity consumed at the two Neversink lights, under the old plan, at 1135 gallons; but the amount consumed was 992 gallons only-a mistake of fifteen per cent in favour of his statement. He also puts down for the use of lens lights at that place, 800 gallons, but we consume in them 1095-a mistake of thirtyseven per cent in favour of the lens lights. The two mistakes, combined, show more than fifty per cent in favour of the lenses. In like manner he puts down the consumption of oil at Frank's Island light, at the mouth of the Mississippi, at 1.050 gallons, but the true amount is only 779 gallons, an error of thirty-five per cent. Should the same errors extend through the whole of his table (and the committee have examined these two cases, being the only ones before them showing the actual quantity of oil consumed) the result, as stated by him, will hardly bear close examination. It has been said that the French lights are superior to those of any other nation. Their sea-lights are no doubt excellent. They have kept pace with the march of science and the improvements of the age; but it is doubted whether their claim to any considerable degree of superiority can be successfully maintained. The British select committee (Ibid., p. 31,) say the British lights are considered generally very good, and sufficient for the purposes they are intended for, and superior to the generality of French lights, many of which are harbour lights, and, perhaps, small in comparison with the sealights." COMPARISON of American and French Lights in regard to Reach of Light. 1st order...... 27 viz.; AMERICAN. 2 of 9 leagues portée, 27 miles. Harbour lights...32, viz.; 19 of 2 leagues portée, 6 miles. Ditto ditto... Ditto ditto... 24 Ditto ditto..... 3 21 Ditto ditto...... Ditto ditto...... " 39 Average of the whole, say 14 miles. Average of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd (sml) and 4th orders, say 15 m. The committee are unable to give the reach of visibility of all the lighthouses in the United States. The limits of those which have been ascertained warrant the conclusion that they are, on an average, larger than the French lights. Professor Paine, of Cambridge College, in 1838, made a survey of twelve lighthouses in Boston bay and vicinity. (See House Report, Third Session, Twenty-fifth Congress, No. 187.) He says:-"I therefore feel myself warranted in drawing the following conclusions that, in ordinary clear weather, our best lights, such as the Boston, Highland, Scituate, &c., are visible from the mast-head of a square-rigged vessel about twenty-five miles; that our second class of lights, such as those on Thatcher's island, Eastern point, the high light on Baker's island, and those on Plum island, are visible from twenty to twenty-two miles; and that the third class, such as those at Straitmouth island, Ipswich beach, Squam, Marblehead, and Long Island head, are visible from fifteen to eighteen miles." Lieutenant Bache, in his report, to which reference has been made, gives the ranges of visibility of fifteen lights, varying from nineteen to twelve miles, and averaging fourteen miles. Of these lights, eight were of the third class, having only nine inch reflectors; five of the second class, having fourteen inch reflectors; and one of the first class, with eighteen inch reflectors. Mr. Lewis gives a statement of the portées of all the lights of the first class, from Passamaquoddy to South Pass entrance of the Mississippi, in November, 1839, ranging from fifteen to thirty miles, and averaging twenty-four miles. (Senate Document, 1837-38, vol. ii., No. 138.) Mr. Frick, superintendent of lights at Baltimore, gives the portées of twelve lights in the Chesapeake, ranging from ten to twenty miles, averaging fifteen miles.-(Ibid.) Mr. Anderson, superintendent at Portland, Maine, says, that fifteen harbour-lights in that vicinity can be seen from twelve to eighteen miles. These are not intended to be seen at sea. Also, that twelve coast-lights in the same vicinity can be seen from five to ten leagues. (Ibid.) It appears from a list of the lighthouses, published by the superintendent, in 1839, that the average "reach of light" of seventy-six lighthouses (that being the number whose reach is given) is nineteen miles. The average "reach" of six of our best lights (Neversink, Baker's island, &c.) is twenty-seven miles and a half. The committee believe that the statements of average distances of extreme visibility made by Professor Paine, is true in regard to all our lights. The average reach of light of 170 British lights, as shown in the British list, published at the Hydrographical office, Admiralty, in 1832, is less than fourteen miles. The average reach of six of their best lights (Needles, Beachy Head, Lundy, &c.) is twentyeight miles and a half. In comparison with the progress of improvement in the old world, our march in this, as in almost every other useful establishment, has been extremely rapid. In the comparatively short period of fifty years, we have built 276 lighthouses and boats. Since 1812, the useful effect of our lights has been nearly doubled, and the consumption of oil lessened by more than fifty per cent. For centuries before our existence as a nation, England and France had been commercial nations; but, up to the close of the last century, no improvement had been made in the quality of their lights. About that period oil was substituted for coal. At the close of the year 1812, we had forty lighthouses fitted up with patent-lamps and parabolic reflectors. At that time, both England and France had not ten houses thus fitted up. It is believed that, when the improvements now in progress shall have been effected (in connexion with a proposed change in the mode of inspection) our system will be more efficient, useful, and economical than that of any other nation. Forty-four collectors act as superintendents of the lights in their respective districts. By the act of May 7, 1822, their maximum compensation per annum is 400 dollars. Some four or five receive that amount; the others receive from 100 dollars to 200 dollars each, per annum. These superintendents are required to visit the lighthouses but once each year. Captain Howland, who is in the employ of the department, also visits them once in each year, and makes reports of their condition, &c., to the fifth auditor. Mode of Contracting for Building, Apparatus, and Oil.-Since 1816, all the lighthouses and light-boats have been built by contract, invited by notice in the public prints. The contracts invariably have been given to the lowest bidder, having the ability to guarantee its performance. A suitable practical mechanic is employed to oversee the work constantly. Nothing is paid or advanced to the contractor until he obtains the certificate of the overseer, that the contract has been faithfully performed. In like manner, proposals for fitting up the lighthouses with lamps, reflectors, &c., are invited, and the contracts given to the lowest bidder. By this mode competition is elicited, and, in the opinion of the committee, economy most effectually promoted. No losses can occur, as no advances are made until the completion of the work. In the same way all the oil is procured. It is the interest of the contractor to furnish the best quality; for if found bad, he not only gets no pay for it, but is bound to take it back, and substitute the best quality. Actual experiment by burning is the only true test of the quality of oil. The oleometer will not prove it. The practice now adopted of taking samples from each cask and submitting them to the test of the lamp, cannot but insure the best quality. That oil congeals in cold weather is no proof of its badness. Oil pressed in winter, when the thermometer is at a given degree, will congeal whenever the thermometer falls below that degree. A stove and oil heater are the only remedies. A vessel in the employ of the department is constantly engaged in visiting the lighthouses, supplying them with oil and other necessary supplies and having on board a mechanic to make all proper repairs to the lighting apparatus. Captain Howland, in 1840, 1841, on board this vessel, visited 155 lighthouses, from Maine to the Sabine, and put them in repair. As a proof that the oil furnished by the contractors is good, he found but 900 gallons of oil in all of them bad, and much of this was settlings. mere It has been objected by some who arraign the department for want of economy, that the average consumption of oil in our lighthouses is less than that consumed in the British houses. This is no doubt true. But the committee do not perceive the justice and consistency of the rebuke, especially as it appears that our lights are more efficient than those of Great Britain. It is said that the average annual consumption of oil per lamp in England is forty-three gallons. From the accounts given by Captain Howland it does not exceed thirty gallons per lamp: showing an economy in the use of oil of more than forty-three per cent over the British lights. It will be seen by the above statement, that the average expense of the British |