New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-30
MISSISSIPPI LEVEES A NATIONAL CON-
Germ.

who was of the party, engaged Mr.. Gree
ley in discussion on the subject of tn
levees along the banks of the Mississippi
as work eminently calling for aid from
the general government We regret t.
say that Mr.. Greeley, in a conversation
we had with him subsequently, expressed
himself as utterly opposed to the general
government granting aid for the construc.
ton of levees or similar works. such as q
ship canal of sufficient capacity to obviate
the never-ceasing necessity and annual
expense of keeping the passes at depth
sufficient to answer the exigencies of COM
merce.
As Mr.. Greeley has by his talents
placed himself in such position that his
least dictum becomes subject of interest
to thousands, either for appreciation or
dissent, we propose to make his reason
ing opposing the construction and main
tenance by the United States government
of system of Mississippi levees, sub
|
Mr.. Greeley took the ground that the
levees on the banks of the Mississippi are
an affair of purely local interest and of
comparatively contracted nature. That
for the general government to take means
to construct these levees, which, after all,
benefit but small portion of the people
of these States, namely, those Immediately
resident in the near neighborhood of the
Mississippi, would be tantamount to tax
ing the many for the benefit of few,
principle which, he said, could not be for
one moment admissible. We understood
Mr.. Greeley to say, further, that the APP
plication of the national money for pur-
poses of local nature was wrong in priH-
ciple and would be ruinous in practice
We do not pretend to quote Mr.. Greeley
uerbdtim, but we are sure that we have
fairly represented his ideas.
We know that there has existed large
party, nearly ever since the formation of
the government, opposed to internal i'm
provements, which party contends that
the national treasure, the result of general
taxation, should never be applied to a
work of local nature.
1t is difficult to understand the princi-
pie upon which this theory of opposition to
national improvements is founded; because
it is difficult to conceive of any national
work which does not benefit some
more than others, and which does
not bestow upon those in its near neigh
borhood degree of advantage that can
not be obtained by those removed to
great distance from the location of the
improvement in question.
The only legitimate conclusion derived
from all this is that there should be no
national improvement at all, and that
what could not be accomplished by State
or individual resources must be left I'M
done. We question the principle the
fruit of which is a conclusion like this.
Leaving for moment the peculiar rea-
sons which favor the construction and |
maintenance, by national means, of a |
system of levees along the Mississippi, |
we believe that such national enterprise |
could be abundantly justified by reasons
Of a general character.
1t would not be possible, by securing
from overflow the fourteen States drained
by the Mississippi, and thus insuring
their prosperity, without the benefits of
the measure being largely shared by the
other States of the Union, if not to an
equal extent, any more than it would
be possible to heal an ailment on the ex-
remities of the human body without the
whole system benefcially feeling the effect.
1t ought to be obvious to common sense
hat one great purpose of a mighty nation
g that its whole force should be directed
oward and concentrated upon any point
where such force may be needed to &C
omplish an object. Were any of the
United States possessions on the Pacific
cast invaded and endangered by an
nemy, would it not be thought COM
'etent for the general government to direct {
he entire military force of the nation to ,
rain every State Of every available man,
need he, in order to preserve from {
obstruction a single town, however in ]
lgnifcant? What is the difference in f
rinciple between sending an overwhelm- I
lg army, organized at an inconceivable
ost OF money, to preserve an insignificant 6
OWN, and spending portion of the same t
loney in measures to resist the invasion {
nd destructive ravages of water?
1t must be borne in mind, too, that the c
obstruction and maintenance by the fed e
al government of a system of levees is C
0t in the nature of an internal improve C
ent as generally understood. A work t
internal mprovement-the construction r
road, for instance-however desirable, O
ay not be a matter of the most extreme b
ecessity-a matter involving the safety i;
human life, and the preservation of I'M b
lown millions of property. But protec- a
on from the rising of the Mississippi
aters involves all this, and more; and if 81
e exertion Of all the force of nation for Il
lie preservation of a portion of the ma ton, p
owever small, is not matter of national G.
'ncern and national duty, then we con- b
SIS ignorance of the purposes for which C.