New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-07-26
WEsT,s EXPLANATION,
Observations Of Major Howell.


the New Orleans Chamber of Commerce, on
the. twentieth instant, made certain insinu-
atioEs that call for remark. Whys Because
Mr.. West is Senator of the United States;
this is the only reason.
The part of Mr. Vests speech on which I
shall remark is made up of false statements,
insinuations and opinions delivered with an
object in view that must be inferred from
his desire to explain.
Mr.. West having, it is generally believed
here, betrayed his trust as Senator, is
alarmed at the result and seeks shelter be-
hind the corps of engineers. This provokes
my remarks. He begins by insinuating
that the report of the board of engineers
convened to consider project for the Fort
St. Philip canal, and projects for improv
ing the natural outlets of the Mississippi
river, has been suppressed in New Orleans
that it has been suppress sed by the friends
of the canal project, for the resson that it
absolutely condemned the canal" Off
GERS Of engineers, known friends of the
canal, and those kno wn to have been given
copies of the report for distribution, are by
implication parties to this suppression
He says this report "has never seen the
light in this city"
See how easily he is contradicted. had
fifty copies for distribution. / sent them to
all the newspapers and to many prominent
terested in the subject of the report. Mr..
Sypher states that he distributed here
about fifty copies. Other Representatives
we're entitled to copies for distribution. Mr..
West was entitled to 3 large number.
What has he done with theml
The first edition was not large enough,
and the chief of engineers had a second
edition published. The principal newspa-
pers here publicly acknowledged receipt of
copies.
In the face Of these facts what are We to
think of Mr.. Vests statement
He says the report absolutely con-
dsmned"-what! He leaves US to infer that
he meant the canal. This is a, matter of
opinion. l had thought it absolutely con-
demned everything except the canal. There
are hundred people here who have the
report. Let us have their views.
Mr.. West, after his first insinuation, slips
aside and insinuates that the engineers un-
necessarily delayed the report.
A few facts about this appear called for.
The House of Representa- tives passed thy
resolution, that called for the survey and
report, March IA, 1871. Afterward, the
usual steps had to be taken, in Washing
ton, to obtain from the treasury an allOt-
ment of money to conduct the survey. My
orders to make the survey were dated April
lS, 1871. and l was informed that $4,000
had been allotted for the work.
The summer is no time for doing such
work either economically or well. ] COM
menced it in November. The field work
consumed several months, the plotting sew
eral more, the preparation Of elaborate
detailed plans, several more. The results
of the survey were then in shape for care
full study; the Importance of the subject
demanded such study. In February, 1873,
I submitted my report-some fifteen months
after the commencement of the survey.
Was that an unreasonable time? What
was l expected to do-dash of a project
that from its crudeness would have no
weight trust had better conception
Of my duty than that.
Perhaps, with all my care, the report was
yet crude 1.-THE subject W as large one); yet
1t was complete enough to meet the COM
mendation and enlist the support of many
Of the leading engineers of the country.
The chief of my corps considered 1t 80 i'm
portant and its conclusions so at variance
with those generally held, that he withheld
it from Congress until he could have it con-
sidered by board of engineers. The report
of that board, Of which there are at least
hundred copies in New Orleans, supports
my conclusions, merely suggesting changes
in details Of plan and consequent neces-
sity for greater estm ate of cost. 1t affords
the only justification I want for not dashing
off hasty report and then going to Europe
to study my subject.
This delay gave weight to my conclu-
sions that they would not have had if pre-
sented to Congress without the Endorsement
of engineers of we'll established profess
sional reputation.
To this dignifed, honest course of action,
which has made the Fort St. Philip canal a
power in the land, Mr.. West Objects-he
prefers the dash Qet US call it that) Of Mr..
Eads.
So far, by implication, the engineers have
suppressed their work. 1t is certain they
have been too slow for Mr.. Vests ardent
temperament. The way has been paved
for another insinuati ton. Here it is neces-
sary to quote:
Captain Howell prefaces his report by
this statement Where that gentleman gets
his information l don't know. Possibly he
NAV have got it from the chief engineer of
the army. He commences his report by re-
ferring to the location of the Fort st. Philip
canal. Whether it was the general repu-
tation of that locality, or whether it was in
of preceding Investigations
made here, and in which the board had
also been engaged, or whether it was under
from the chief engineer him
self that this officers attention was directed
to that particular locality, l am not pre- |
pared to say. But the fact is patent that the |
Congress of the United States had instruct |
ed the engineers to seek for an outlet from |
the Mississippi river, and that the officer |
charged with looking for that object does
not seem to have given his attention to any |
other method Of getting into the waters of |
the Gulf, except this particular one. There |
nay be some significance in that. Perhaps |
subsequent investigation may develop it.
Now, what had yon right as citizens of |
Louisiana to expecta And what had as
vour representative right to expect to
zee being done by this officerl
Don't you suppose that he subordinated
hat duty to othersl Don't you suppose