New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-12-20
LETTER FROM GENERAL BRAURE-
GARD.

NEW ORLEANS, December IA, 1874.
EDITOR REPUBLICAN,.
Nv attention has been called to the ex
tracts, in your paper of the thirteenth In
| slant, of Major C. w. Howells report upon
the improvement of the mouth OF the Mis-
sissippi for the p1st year, IN which be as
| sumes the responsibility Of criticising in
severe terms the operations and reports Of
eome of his predecessors. of whom l had
| the honor to be one, and Of repeating
(thoughtlessly. hope), some idle and un-
generous charges, in an official paper, ad'
dressed to the chief of the United States
engineers, which will be widely circulated
over the country through the action of Con-
gress. In order not to misrepresent him,
quote bis language, as follows:
With the dredges now employed. and the
manner Of obtaining and reporting depth
| and width of channel, my reports do not
| show the maintenance throughout any one
! wear of q channel eighteen feet deep and
300 feet wide. Depths from seventeen to
| twenty feet at extreme low tide are fre.
| aueutly reported, but never width of 300
Yet it was reported that in 1859 and 1860,
| for . whole year. a depth OF eighteen feet
| and q width of 800 feet was maintained by
| simply dragging harrOws and scrapers over
the bar at Southwest Pass, at cost OF
| only $50, 600. Also. that under the con-
tract of Craig e. Right0r the same depth
and width was obtained at Southwest Pass
! and Pass al Outre, the latter by exploding
| a few hundred pounds of gunpowder on the
bar.
NV experience on this work during 1863,
| 1870 and 1871 convinced me that there was
something wrong about the measurements
| on which these reports we're based. IT not,
then, we were spending $780, year with
plant worth $500, 900. when as good results
might be obtained for S6O, 900 year.
investigated the matter. l questioned
pilots, towboat captains. shipmasters and
employees of the contractors who received
pay for the results reported. The ilforma-
tion 80 obtained could not be put in shape
for report, for the reason that while the
men interviewed would freely tell me what
they knew they were unwilling to sign
written statements. A few months ago
suit for libel was brought against me by the
Towboat Association, which offered an op-
portunity to bring this testimony out; but
the suit was withdrawn aud costs paid by
the plaintiff.
In view Of the fact that have satisfied
myself that the depths and widths Of chan
nels reported in 1853, 1857, 1858, 1859 and
1860 have been erroneously reported, it
seems proper to state my grounds tor be-
lief.
There are many tricks about sounding
that, while generally known to seafaring
men, are unknown to or escape the observa
tiOn Of the most conscientious and careful
inspectors. l will explain some Of them.
There are various qualities of lead lines;
all shrink more or less on being wetted.
Experiments I had made with several
~. Is D-n& Anl
showing shrinkage of from six inches to
two feet in length Of twenty feet. An
inspector who does not select his lines and
measure them himself, when thoroughly
wetted, neglects prime precauti0n against
getting wrong results.
There are various shapes and sizes Of
leads suited to different kinds OF soundiDgs.
When the water is only abouG twenty
feet deep and the bottom soft, as at the
mouth Of the Mississippi, accurate results
can only be obtained with light, fiat lead,
since long lead, and especially u heavy
one, though well thrown, will sink great
part Of its length into she bottom, and,
whether the lead line be measured from the
lower or upper exd of the lead, wrong re.
snlts are obtained. Then much depends on
the honesty Of the leadsman. Even when
the water is smooth, it requires an expo
rieneed and close observer to determine il
he be- nat calling from six to twelve inches
more or less than the actual sounding. In
rough water it is yet more difficult to detect
error of this kind, since the leadsman him.
self must average the rise and fall Of the
waves to give the true sounding.
1t will be seen from this, how, even
ascribing to contractors and leadsmen
average honesty, and to inspectors average
knowledge of and attention to what has
been stated above. erroneous sesults may
be obtained,
Returning to the works of 1855, 1857. 1858,
1859 and 1860, all my informants agree chat
those works at no time afforded Q channel
more than sixteen feet in depth at mean
low tide. Why was, q grestes depth re.
pOrteds
The contractors provided the ieadsman
leads and lead lines; the leads were long and
heavy, such as used for of shore soundings;
the lines were measured dry, and from the
lower end of the lead; the sOundings were
often taken from the bow Of q steamer.
with the inspector in the pilothouse. watch.
ing the leadsman as well as he could,
recording the calls, and his attention dis.
tracted rs much as possible by the conyer.
satiOn Of persons about him.
In one case they were taken from boats.
one on either side Of the steamer. at q dis.
tance Of $50 feet from the latter. with the
inspector on the steamer.
These sOundings, it was thought. were
verified by trisngulstion, the inspector and
his assistant using the instruments from
stations on mud Jumps distant from the |
channel, while soundings located were
employees.
Ny inform q nts were some OF them az The |
time cognizant of the fact that the inspect.
ors we're being systematically deceived. rs |
! have Indicated.
l give the statement Of q master Of a
az near as l can remember it, |
~ sample of my information:
We had . channel between fifteen and |
sixteen feet deep: the contractors reported |
it eighteen feet deep and called for inspec-
ton. / was notified that the inspector |
would be down on q certain day.
l selected the most lOosely-laid lead line |
had and stretched it over the boiler Of
he boat, fastening it at one end aud attach.
ng Q weight at the other.
When the inspector came aboard, the line
was thoroughly dry and stretched. Our
'ther lines were put out OF sight. The
Inspector took our prepared line, carefully
and marked it himself. We then
.an down to the bar. As we neared the
bar the leadsman was instructed to take
'oundings in water that We knew was
,ver eighteen feet deep, oetensibly to show
he depth above the bar. but really to wet
he line SO that it would be properly shrunk
before using on the bar.
We then sounded back and forth through
he channel, the inspector standing by the
eadsman and watching every throw, as if
le thought he could Judge from mere sight
whether the leadsman was throwing and
falling honestly or not. There resulted the |
eporting Of channel over eighteen feet
leep at mean low tide. when there was
eally not channel sixteen feet deep.
The result not only deceived the inrpec-
or, but exceeded nv expectations, as had