Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1876-04-27
TIE RIVER AND LKYEEs.


&C." in the LEDGER yesterday, I'M
dertakes to answer that part of our
article on the river in last Fridays
issue, in which we asked if it would
not be well to be cautious in spend
ing any more money, or taxing the
people any further for such ques-
tionable improvements as levees.
&C." it seems, is an cid advocate Of
levees, as he speaks of his article in
the Avalanche. We did not see the
article mentioned, or have forgot
ten it if we did, consequently we
do not know what he said. But
in his letter yesterday he unin'
tentionally admits nearly all we
claimed against the levees
when he says that the
waters Of the present flood
were twelve inches higher in the
vicinity Of ChicOt than at any for
mer flood, and that there waS a
local cause for it. He does not say
what that cause was, and we think
can't give any other reason than the
one we claim-that is the levees.
He says: "The vicinity of Chicot
presents the only considerable ex-
tent of country where both sidesof
the river are overhowed, and yet
this is the only section where the
levees are broken to any considera-
bic extent on both sides of the
river" He also says that from
Memphis to Chicot there are COM
paratiVely no leveeS on the west
side of the river, while on the east
bank of the river between these
points the leyees are comparatively
intact. In reply to which we say
there has been comparatively no
levees since the tDar on the Arkan-
sas side of the river between Mem
phis and Chicot, or in fact above
Lake Providence, and that on the
Mississippi side the levees were, UNI
til the present flood, considered
perfect. The people were enorm-
ously taxed for their construction,
and considered themselves safe be-
hind them; and the levees actually
resisted the floods until a point was
reached by the water unheard
of before. The strength of
these levees combining the water
caused it to rise to this I'M
precedented hight, when the levees
could no longer resist, and gave
way, and then, and not until then,
did the river fall at Chicot, the Gre
vases reducing the hight of the
water; then followed the result of
the theory, if correct, as to the lat
eral current and eddy forming be-
low a crevaSse, thus retarding the
forward motion of the current and
depositing a dam of sand in the
river channel, thereby, as he claims,
damming up the water and more
than counteracting the relief af-
forded by the creyasse. But the
fallacy of this theory is, that his
dam Of sand never forms until after
the creyasse, and the crevasse, il
of any considerable magnitude
never has failed to produce a de
cline in the river in its vicinity
But without further discussing thu
theory of a retarded or lateral cur
rent in the river forming a dam il
the channel by a deposit of sand
we will simply state that we thin
the levees having failed, there ca
be a less expensive and more per
feet mode of protection adopted
If there were no levees there woul,
be no crevasses, consequently n
dams from the lateral current o
eddy. These are questions tina
should be investigated; if correc
they are but another of the man,
arguments against levees. We still
feel assured that if confined wit
its natural banks, by leyees iron
Cairo to Vicksburg, there are seyc
raj points within that distanc
where the water would have bee,
ten to fifteen feet higher durini
the present overflow than it ha
reached, and a creyasse in such
case, if 30" is correct, might pre-
duce a bar of sand in the channe
of the river that would be a YER
serious matter. In conclusion, W
would remind &c" that the bars h.
speaks Of as having produced tn.
results claimed by him for then