New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-06-22

criterion by which to determine the height
OF an overflow. Il is well known to accu-
rate observers tha. during almost every
overflow. owing to the operation of local
causes and influences, the water in certain
areas or districts will attain height con-
siderably greater than it's general level
throughout its whole length and breadth.
10 illustrate: Twice within my memory,
owing to very unusual floods in the
Ouachita river. the water of the over
| flowed country in the vicinity of and below
| Monroe. perhaps as far down as Colum.
bla. and east Of that point to the Bnuf
| prairie and the Mason and Deer creeks at.
tained a heigh: very considerably above
! the general level Of the food of 1928.
refer to the overflow of 1915 and to that oi
| last year. 1874. This exceptlona! height,
however. is comparatively confined to small
districts. The cause is obvious. Large
volumes Of waite. from given source
thrown suddenly upon the general expanse
| OF water forming overflow will, to a certain
| extent, heap up. as j. were. upon that over
| How, waters that will produce an inequality
! IN the level Of the general surface Temporal
| rlly. and until by 4 natural law they come
to general Level! Very marked was this
| the case last year. The water OF the Qua.
| chita at Monroe was much higher than in
1898. and this was the case as far down. l
think, as Columbia. Bat at Harrisonburg
! and throughout the swamp region gener-
ally that low down. the flood OF last year
did not come within eighteen inches Of she
high water mark Of 1898.
! Having promised these facts, showing ex.
ceptioDai high water in small districts of
| country. let us 60 back to what Mr.. King
says about the tlocd Of 1867. He informs us
that from table made ou. by commits
sion of United States engineers the highest
water ever known at Cairo. Memphis.
Vicksburg and Natchez was in the year
1862 Yet there was no great overflow that
year." He adds. however. that lowing to
the breaking Of Grand Levee the lower delta
was slightly Overt!owed." It is quite prob
able that at the points named on the Mis-.
sissippi the water of the river inside Of the
levees did rise higher than tho people of
those cities ever saw it: but does it follow
merged region attained d greater height
than any flood ever dido Tnat the surface Of
the river within the levees has often at
tanned height above the water of 1923
.cihtout lcrees can readily believe. There
is no difficulty in the way of such belief.
The next highest water at those places tthe
italics are mine) was in the year 1858.
can believe this for the reason just assigned.
"N0 owe, flow overflow whatever occurred
that year. The river brought down that
year much more water than it did in 1867.
the greatest over tiow ever known" have.
! feel satisfied. established that the overflow
of 1867 was not the greatest ever known.
have established tie occurrence Of four.
each Of which greatly exceeded it. BY
what process fny friend ascertained that
more water passed down the channel of the
river in the year 1858 than ever passed in
one year before Ia has not informed US.
Aud yet he informs US there was no over.
say on that subject is. that admitting the
fact as stated (which am far from admit
ting), that more water passed through the
channel Of the Mississippi in the year 1853
than ever passed before in any one year. it
passed by "piscemeal' and at well yegu.
lated intervals, and must have consume
the whole year in passing. In the usual
course of things. Cor the greatest flood ever
known in the Mississippi to pass without
producing any overflow whatever" and. |
will add. without tearing the leyees all to !
pieces. is simply an impossibility. But to
recur to the flood of 1862. It is admitted |
by my opponent that on the occurrence Of |
this great food, when the river was higher |
at Memphis, Vicksburg and Natchez than it |
was ever known" and no great overflow
occurred, there was breaking Of Grand |
levee. and that a eight overflow OF the
lower delta of the river. Ny friend might
have admitted further. that there were
various other breakings Of the levee along
the river that year, and that. generally, the
alluvian region of the Mississippi was over
flowed, and especially, that all the fine
plantations of the rich districts of Tensas,
Black and Little rivers, were totally cub
merged. and immense losses sustained from
the drowning OF stock of all kinds. Before
leaving the overflow Of 1862, specially call
attention to the fact that in the spring OF
1862 the levees of the Mississippi were in
more perfect state, more solid, larger, high.
er and more substantial than they ever
were before or ever have been since; and
hat this greatest food lever seen at Mem.
Dhis. Vicksburg and Natchez," tore them to
pieces. and destroyed the cultivation of that
year, a striking fact. making good my posi-.
ion. that in extraordinary freshets leyees
urnish no protection against overtiows.
My ingenious opponent says that my
article is based upon the erroneous idea |
hat there are exceptional floods in the ! {
rs much as eight times the ordi.
lary discharge of water. No such extra {
rdinary fluctuations occur" II
Will my friend maintain that the waters !
( the Mississippi do not rise higher some q
ears than in others! j. he prepared to e.
ablish that the same quantity of rain falls 7
very year! Surely he will not. Then. if 8
1ore water is accumulated in the channel a
+ the Mississippi some years than others. /
hat evidence have we that there is a Ger d
ain ascertainable excess only in some ! q
ears. and that this excess can not be in. a
reased! Ii. from predominance OF rain u
yer extensive regions Of the valley OF the '
[issisippi. some seasons a volume of water
Sceeding by one-half the usual quantity of
rdinary years is produced. why not double
) much. and if double as much, why not fl
We, eight or twenty times as much! We are 81
ealing in matters rounding in the iilimit- | s