horses and the proper arms, say the short 2-foot barrel rifle and Sharps sword bayonet, will be worth more than any regiment of infantry to aid parts of a train in difficulties or to repel attacks. Of this my experience with trains leaves me not the slightest doubt.

As to Lieutenant-Colonel Spaulding's proposition for three or four canvas boats for each train, to carry over troops to drive off opposing forces, although referred to in my marginal notes, I would here say more distinctly, I do not think this expedient, for if opposition is to be expected the troops should be thrown over in large masses, strong enough to bear down all probable opposition, and not by driblets of three or four canvas boat loads at a time.

It was by thus transporting troops in masses that, heavy as the wooden pontoons are, I had the bridges laid on the 29th of April last at the Franklin Crossing, below Fredericksburg, in the face of a fire from rifle-pits, without the loss of a single life; and this was done by carrying the wooden boats about 1 1/2 miles by hand, to avoid the alarm sound of the pontoons, very peculiar on bad roads, and much like that of artillery. Captain Reese, of the Engineer Corps, reported to me that on trial he found that 36 men could carry one pontoon, and as he felt certain" with one rest, even to the river" (the 1 1/2 miles stated). I had double this number of volunteers detailed, and at the principal point where I remained this method was a complete success. At the lower position, where I went only to start the pontoon, as I did dismounted, my orders were countermanded after I left and the boats reloaded, the result of which was a full preparation to meet us by the enemy, and a repulse, with a delay of several hours, and a final laying of bridge only with a severe loss in killed and wounded. This leads me to think that where the bridge cannot be laid by method of the simultaneous lays, and swinging the long raft with the 20 men concealed in each pontoon, the whole of the boats should be first employed for the passage of the attacking forces. On another point still a great advantage can be gained in the construction of these wooden pontoons by reducing their length by cutting them off at the bow and stern, leaving the pontoon pretty much of the present shape, though the ends might be slightly changed in shape if deemed expedient.

The modification I propose (of which I inclose sketch*) in the French pontoon is to take off 3 feet in length from the bow and 2 feet from the stern, while the "floor" remains of the same length, the ends to the depth of one plank downward to be of a thick plank or timber, with a shield or bunter which should slope about 3 inches outward. The bottom planks should then be sent up to the lower edge of this upper plank, if they will admit of such a curvature; if not, another plank across the end between the "middle streaks" can be substituted about over the "chord" of the bent part, and the bottom plank only bent in that case as far upward as the upper edge of the lower side plank. This will prevent, or avoid to a very great extent, the most fruitful source of injuries to the pontoons during land carriage-the great overhanging weight at the bow and stern, and though it appears to take from it some buoyant power, the position of that power is such that it is scarcely ever used, or necessary; and while it still leaves nearly all of the buoyant power that is generally used or required, it reduces the length of the boat 5 feet, of very great advantage in transportation and

---------------

*See p. 413.

---------------