Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 9.djvu/299

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Oregon's First Monopoly.
275

In order to fully understand the monopoly of the Columbia River by the Oregon Steam Navigation Company it will be necessary to study in detail the geographical formation of the gorge of the Columbia. The obstructions to navigation here are:

First, The Cascades, and

Second, What is known as The Dalles rapids and the Ten Mile rapids, which are regarded as one.

The Cascades are 160 miles from the mouth of the river. There is an Indian legend in connection with the forming of the Cascades that is interesting. Many, many years ago a huge mountain fell and dammed up the river. Soon it forced through, forming a bridge. This was called the Bridge of the Gods. A long time afterwards an earthquake caused it to fall, forming the obstruction which we know as the Cascades.[1] The Cascades have always been of importance on account of the break in navigation, making a portage absolutely necessary. The rocks and falls in the river extend for a distance of five miles.

The obstruction at The Dalles, 220 miles from the mouth of the Columbia, generally called The Dalles rapids, and consisting of The Dalles rapids. Three Mile rapids. Ten Mile rapids and Celllo Falls, twelve miles in all, extending from the foot of Three Mile rapid, which is located about two miles below the foot of The Dalles rapids, to what is known as the head of Celilo Falls.[2]

These obstructions cut off absolutely from communication with the lower Columbia and sea navigation by steam or other boats, 1,294 miles of the 1,664 miles of navigable waters of the Columbia and its tributaries.[3]

The 220 miles below these obstructions and 150 miles of navigable waters of the Willamette, making 370 miles, constitute the whole of the navigable waters of the Columbia and its tributaries that are not affected by these obstructions.


  1. A Brief Hist, of the O. S. N. Co., by P. W. Gillette.
  2. Senate Doc. No. 344, February, 1890.
  3. Senate Doc. No. 344, February, 1890.