Pointe Coupee Democrat. [volume] (False River [i.e. New Roads], Parish of Pointe Coupee [La.]) 1858-1862, 1860-08-04

repeal of the then existing levee laws
by what is commonly @known as the
Claiborne Bill, and by the subsequent
repeal of the Claiborne Bill by our Leg,
islature. concluded that 1t was best to
r~eorganize our whole lcvce system. For
this purpose, u committee of three was
appointed by the president OF the police
Jury (the name of the president being
subsequently added) to recommend the
adoption of such ordinances as they
might think proper. That committee
have recommended certain ordinances,
in doing which, they consulted not only
the views of their respective constltu-
ency, but, as they believe, the expressed
views of two-thirds of the voters of the
parish. Such being the case, they could
, certainly not have done otherwise than
report as they did, thatfront proprietors
should build their own ievees.
P. C. objects to the size Of the levecs
required by Article I'd Of report. We
are not aware that it is open to any such
objection. Article PA of the old levce
ordinances, requires five feet of base for
every foot in height. Article "a OF the
proposed ordinances, requires only four
feet base for every foot in height, of all
~levecs three feet high; five feet base for
every foot in height, of .levees six feet
high; and all levees over six feet high,
six feet of base for every foot of height
so that we perceive that for small
~levccs, such as are alongthe whole front
! Of our parish, with but some few exccr=
tons, the base is actually smaller than
is required by the old ordinances, to
which no objection has been urged; and
it is only in levees above six feet high
that more base is required. And we
think that if experience has demonstrate
ed that larger levees are required, that
the committee were right in recommend
ing such an alteration as would tend to
insure safety and protection to the in
h%abitants.
P. C. objects to Article 10th o~freport,
which gives a privilege upon the land
for work done upon the levee and road,
as of doubtful constitutionality. That
question we leave ?. G. to settle with
the judiciary, as the article is almost
~re5atiim ct Hteratim from the Act of 1929,
p. "a, sec. 81, and also Act of 1855, p.
39+, sec. 3.
P. C. objects to Article 18th Of report,
and says that "it is SO manifestIy I'm
Just that it is amatter of time and paper
to comment on it," Fortunately, how
ever, for the committee, there are always
two sides to a question, and the &c portt
views of P. G. are not to be taken Tor
granted. Article 18th is based upon
thehypothesis that when a crevasse oc'
GUS upon a plantation, that it is from
the neglect of the proprietor of said
plantation, either in not building his
Ievee sufficiently large, or a sufficient
distance from the bank of the river, OF
from not building it a sufficient time be,
fore the time of high water, that it may
resist the action Of the water npon it
Who viii say that tie proprietor on
whose land it occurs, should not morally,
as well as legally, be bound, not only
to pay the price of closing the ~crevasse,
but all damages that may be incurred
by ~neighboring proprictors? And we
fully believe that not a single crevasse
occurs but thatsit may be attributed to
the neglect of the proprietor in n of
thecauses mentioned above.
4. Article goth of the report is objected
to by-P. G. for the same reason as Art.
10th, to wit: That it is manifestly un-
just to make a propsietor upon whose
land creyasse occurs, pay for the ex-
'pense of stopping it. Article Goth, how.
eve, goes a little farther; it gives, and,
we think, properly, into the hands of the
inspector of The district, the right to
call out hands, in case of immediate
danger Of the breaking of a levee, to
work upon the levee. This withdraws
from the proprietor the power of injur-
ing by his own neglect, a whole neigh
borhood; it places i'll the hands of a re-
sponsible officer the protection Of the
parish.
Thus, Mr.. Editor, have | attempted to
review the criticism of P. G. upon the
report, and to show that the report is
not only open to unjust criticism, it re-
presents the wishes and views OF the
whole parish.
A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEES.
" r@,.o~~anI@n44