ENPages
96
showing the location & afterwards ??? for giving the altitude of the ground only??? The Coast Survey tracing showed the 70' course as the highest one at the point, & I overlooked the report of the Colonel entirely (& my clerk did not seem to know anything about it.) When you called my attention to the discrepancy I carefully examined the C.S. Map again & also the sketches on page 132 C. Pilot of Oregon & concluded I was about right. Afterwards while down there I measured it with a tape & found it about 70' above high tide, from which I assume that there could not have been an error of one curve in the tracing: even one curve would only make it 90'. I estimated that there was a covering of 15' of earth over the rocks, of course this was a rough guess made
363
97
from climbing down the edge of the precipices & trying to form some idea of the shape of the rock. My overseer had excavated 11 feet & thinks he may have to go 10' or 12' further. There is as little earth on the rock here as anywhere else, without you descend to the 50' level.
As the Colonel says the ground descends from the point back towards the hill then being a depression of say 15' may be more. The site for the Dwelling is a very good one requiring no grading the side of the house being 90' from the centre of the tower. I shall make on the back of this a copy of a sketch made in my diary Sept. 25 when the location was made on the ground. If you look at page 132 of the Coast Pilot of Oregon you will see a capital sketch & the proportions agree
364
98
with my figures the hills being respectively? 360' & 401' high.
Sketch
There is no higher point than this without you go way back on the hill. The edge given in sketch above is the one visible from the ground between the dwelling & tower though between it and sea is a small table about 50' above the sea. I have directed my overseer to ascertain the depth of the rock below the present excavation (11:) Suppose it is 10' more, is it the custom of the board to incur such
365
99
expense in order to get to solid rock (I?) was in hopes we would reach rock within? ten feet even. A tower 80' high I feel ought to be on solid rock if $10,000 would accomplish that result. What is your opinion? Kind regards to Mr. E. & Col. W.
Yours & c,
(signed) H.M. Robert
366
