New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-01-31

ing Of too much opinion and too little o
the Facts on which the opinion is grounded
1t $3.50 bears evidence on its face Of ,
compromise of different opinions in orde
to create unanimity. In these respects
the report lacks akeng.h and is inferior
to that Of the preceding board.
Althe canal projects receive consider
alton but are briefly disposed of with tn.
exception of the Fort St. Philip canal
In this, the last board agrees with its pre-
decessor in the location of the canal, bu
changes that Of its gulf debouche undel
the lee of Sable Point. This change wat
also suggested by member of the former
board. The boards also agree in pro
nouncing the construction entirely prac
ticable, and the estimates Of the probable
cost there are about the same In retain.
ing the general features Of the plan, how.
ever, the report recommends several
changes which greatly increase the est.
| mates:
1. A basin is suggested 1000 feet wide
and 1000 feet long between the lift lock
and the gulf This is no doubt adopted
in imitation Of the Rhone canal, without
thought Of the peculiar reasons for
giving that canal such a basin. The
Rhope canal admits vessels drawing
twenty-three feet Of water to its basin.
Here places are provided for transferring
freight from them to others of lighter
draught that are alone able to ply the
shallow waters of the river. That is the
purpose Of the Rhone canal basin. With
the deep water Of the Mississippi its canal
requires no such basin, and its introduce
ton into the plan only serves to increase
the estimated expense.
2. 1t is further proposed to widen the
excavation for the gulf approach from 300
feet at the six foot curve to 400 feet at
the twenty foot curve. Such an
alteration, largely and needlessly increas-
ing the estimate, seems strange in the
face OF the statement Of the report that
900 feet is sufficient width between the
jetties, Or dykes, as they are called, at
South Pass.
8. Another unnecessary expense is sug-
gested in the recommendation Of a second
lock. Only vague hints of possible in
jury or obstruction to the main lock are
offered, but no evidence presented. No
statement is made that the locks of the
Rhone and Vistula canals have been OBJ
structed, consequently it must be pre-
sumed that no such danger exists there,
or the fact would have been mentioned.
Yet the expense of the useless basin is to
be swelled by the construction of a second
lock, although the board does not give
any figures Of its probable cost
The statement Of the report is that the
dykes, if successful, would give at South
Pass an entrance 900 feet wide, and
minimum width of pass of $50 feet, which
would be ample, while the canal would
give width Of but 300 feet. TIE report
neglects to say that this width would be
ample, which must be an oversight, if
not disingenuous. No data are given to
show that it is known that dykes 900 feet
apart would give navigable width of 900
feet between them. Neither does it ap-
pear that the navigable width of the Sulina
It the piers is equal to the distance be-
ween them.
In this review Of the report it is not |
possible to notice more than the most |
alient points. 1t is very apparent from
his analyzing Of that portion devoted to
he consideration Of the canal that the
pirit Of compromise was unfavorable to
is friends, or that they were less skillful
t fence than its opponents. A careful
eading will show that many insinuations
'erc shrewdly inserted which ought to
ave been Indignantly rejected. |
A statement has been attributed to
aptain Eads that members of the board
Guild be summoned before the Senate
ommittee to give testimony regarding
leir real opinions. This statement, in
lew Of the further fact that Senator
lest predicted the verdict of the board
lille they were pursuing their investiga-
ons at the mouth of the river, is Of some
lportance. It should be the duty of the
under these circum stances to
i've all the members of the board before |
and not only those Captain Eads may
lect.
The board, with the exception of Gen
al Wright, who considers them imprac-
cable, and is unqualifedly in favor of
Q canal, gives preference to the jetties
er the canal, but with the condition '
at they be applied at South Pass This
in opposition to the views of Captain c
Ids, who insists on Southwest Pass. |
lis conclusion has evidently been ar c
red at by compromise. The doubts in Q
g minds Of some Of the members were c
listed only in that way, and it must be c
ID the 'sifs" have it. Some facts, that
uld not be ignored, are stated, the pos Il
'llity of construction admitted, and the Il
neral features of plan agreed upon. Il
The report says: 1.-The question of the b
erage annual expense of prolonging "
jetties is very serious one." Certain S,
scifcations, based on IFS" are given, c,
d are made to lead to mathematical re- i,
is which have no foundation except in t
cory. The general statement 10 made ,,