Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1879-04-18
EfADS,
The Industrious Engineer whom a Few
are Trying TO Rob Of The LaureIs
He Justly Wears, Answers
some Recent Partisan
Criticisms.

Ihe following letter, dated the eighth OF
| April, we find In the New Orleans Times OF
the 18th:
Editor Cincinnati Commercial:
DEAR SIR-In alluding to my letter in the
New York II i6Hne Of the third instant, you
say: The captain writes at great length,
but we do not see that he refers to that
| lovely stone contract, which is the chief
charm of the whole business" In that let
ter | simply confined myself to a refutation
| of the inaccuracies published in yoUr col
umns, from time to time, respecting the
work | am conducting, and the results pro-
duced by 1t, emitting any reply to your
frequent personal assaults. One OF these
is the charge that | am interested
in a contract to deliver stone for the
jetties, on which clear profit of FIVE dollars
per cubic yard is made at the expense of
the government. In my letter to the ITib-
tne | fully refuted the following statements
made in the Commercial: First, that certain
steamers had been recently delayed by shoal
water IN the jetties; second. that the depth
of the jetty channel has been constantly over
stated; third that it is but little better e. an
the Southwest pass bar was during the late
war; fourth. that vessels then crossed that
bar drawing twenty-one feet; fifth, that the
bar is reforming ih front of the jetties; sixth,
that the jetties will he destroyed by sea-
worms; seventh, that the lefty act was
changed By the last congress, regardless of
the interests OF the government; eighth, that
the whole thing is job; ninth, that the Ina
bility of the United States has been increased
Eve million dollars by the recent amendment
As you have failed to tell your readers that
you were mistaken In making any one of
these statements (save the last and most
transparent one OF them), | am not encour-
aged to believe that you are really anxious to
deal generously or even justly toward me
and my work. Ia this l may, however, do
you injustice, and as the above extract
indicates a desire to know the facts
about 'that lovely stone contract" |
hasten to assure you and your read
ers that the story Is as devoid of truth
as any one of your other inaccuracies.
| am not interested in the profits of any stone
contract at all, and the highest price paid by
me for stone to any one during the past if
teen months ia but three dollars and eighty
cents per cubic yard, except stone for concrete
blocks, for which seventyahVe cents per yard
extra was paid. AS the price to be paid
to me for the jetty works is fixed at
FIVE and quarter million dollars, it matters
nothing whatever to the government what l
choose to pay per yard for the stone; there
fore, even If ! were interested with the con-
tractors in the profits on it, as you declare, no
wrong whatever to the government cou,d
possibly ensue. 1t must also be evident from
these facts that whatever profit is made on
the stone that profit must necessarily be made
at my expense. Il is surprising therefore,
that one so astgte as the editor of the Com
lsereioI should be deceived by such a silly
story; and that he should so often occupy wit!
it such valuable space in its columns. | ven
ture further to ask that you will do me the
Justice to correct the statements made in
the Commercial to the effect
taat the success of the works at
South pass is to be used by me for the
purpose of inducing congress to expend vas t
sums of money on the Mississippi rlver. in
the interest of myself and a ring of iobbers
supposed TO De associated with me; and that
L am advocating system that Is to cost sew
enty million dollars. In an address in New
Orleans, more than year ago, | deelar
that had no intention to apply for con-
tractor concession by which the improve
ment Of the Mississippi should be placed in
my hands, and that | was by no means GER
tain that | would consent even to assume the
direction OF such a system of improvement
as | would myself approve, if such position
were rendered to me. | repeat that do not
intend to apply for, and would not accept any
contract to execute such work or any part Of
it. You, therefore, misstate the motives which
induce me to advocate plan of improvement |
throughout the alluvial basin of the river,
which has proved so eminently successful in |
the lower part 1t. Nor have you any other |
Justification for the declaration that such i'm.
proVement will cost seventy million dollars, |
than the bare assertion OF its Opposers. | !
have invariably stated that no correct |
estimate of its cost can be given in /
advance of surveys, and that 1t will be greatly |
or reduced according to the ability |
and experience of the engineers who execute |
it. | am quite safe, however, in saying that |
if the extent Of its application were limited /
simply to securing but ten feet depth In low
water from st. Louis to New Orleans, it
would not cost ten millions Of dollars, and in
Ill probability not more than half that sum,
My recommendation, however, contemplates
4 low-water channel from twenty to twenty
i've feet deep; not, as some suppose, for the
purpose of enabling ocean vessels to reach
st. Louis, but to protect the alluvial basin
without the need of levees, and to prevent
,ut-otfs and cavlng banks. These results can
only be secured by reducing the width of the
excessively wide places 50 as to produce
comparative uniformity in the width of the
liver, and comparatively uniform current.
When this Is done the caving of the banks
will be almost wholly prevented without
them; the channel will be-
'ome permanent, q uniform depth of
wenty or twenty-five feet will iney-
tably be produced and the food line
Vill then be kept within the banks of the
liver. This system concentrates the waters
# the river; the outlet system which you are
dvOCatine, or at least encouraging, proposes
0 ditfuse them. They are precisely opposite,
therefore,, in principle, if they we're not, you |
would no doubt hail the remarkable results
ecured at South pass by the first one as |