The weekly Thibodaux sentinel and journal of the 8th Senatorial District. [volume] (Thibodaux, Lna. [i.e. La.]) 1875-1898, 1880-11-27
The Drainage

MEL was an exposition OF the
work and labors OF the members
of the Local Board OF Swamp
Land Commissioners" with y Sy-
nOpSis Of the contract entered III
to, between that Board and Mr..
WIN. Fl. Newton of Chicago, to
cut the proposed canal.
The Board having made an ar>
rangement for the construction OF
a certain canal, located In a speci
tic place, collected loans from the
people Of Lafonrche and Terri.
unilr. Interested in the drainage
Of the lands lying between Bay
GUS Lafourche and Terreboune,
based upon The erns Of the above
named contract.
The work was, at first, delayed
by the epidemic of 1873, but thai
should have been only a delay in
tie commencement.
Mr.. Newton expressed. after
having visited the lands and loca
tons through which the canal
was 10 be drrdged, an umd0ubted
ability to cut it out with great
.api'lity, and with ease. Why
his dredge proved so complete IA
failure to core up to his, and the
.;oarI.' hopes, is not easily to be-
explained.
The same kind of dredges had
worked to good satisfaction
aroauh Chicago, and no doubt
seemed to be entertained of its
complete success in Louisiana.
Tue very terms of the contract
showed plainly the unlimited con
Gdence which Mr.. Newton hal in
its power to consnmmate, With
ease and rapidly, the object for
which it was bnilt.
Still it was Il failure, not 10 cut
a canal, for it did make an excel
lent one for souIe distance, but to
| dredge one at al expense that
would pay for its successful work
ings.
1t is probable that one error
! was made in the construction OF
| the Boat upon which the dredg
! ing machinery was placed, it be-
ing too narrow and too short,
| thus enabling the weight Of the
dredging apparatus to sink it too
| deep Into the water.
The depth drawn caused great
deal of trouble in removing the
dredgc boat from Lock port where
it was constructed to the scene of
| its future labor.
The failure of the Dredge to
perform it's work satisfactorily
| could not be considered a valid
excuse for the claim that was
made upon the Local Board for
extra work. The contract was
plainly made to place the mud a
certain distance from the centre
of the canal. 1t WAS the duty OF
the operators Of the boat TO SO
place it. The contractor and bis
agents had examined the soil and
should have judged for them
I selves what was necessary to
place the e%xcavated matter at the
distance agreed upon.
The finding of IA stump in the
pathway Of the canal in what was
called "AOating prairie" was some
thing that should not have caus
ed any extraordinary surprise, in
a country that bears innnmerobIe
indications Of having once bee,,
dry land, and subsequently GOV
cred by lnundation, and chonged
into a Lake. At all events, it
was an unforeseen obstruction,
for which the Board OF Local Di.
rectors was not responsible.
Even had such been the case, a
sum of twelve hundred dollars
for its removal was certainly Il
pretty liberal demand, at least.
when there were men living in
that neighb0rLood who would
gladly have contracted to remove
it for fifty dollars, if not for one
half of that amount.
AS regards the claim for a GER
tain length of Canal, cut h order
to reach the point indicated. stak
ed, aud pointed out to the con
tractor. previous 70 the building
Of his Dredge, as the init al point
at which the dredging was to CON
mence, a demand for the trauspol
tation OF the machinery from Bo.
ton would he equally as equitable
The contractor constructed bis
boat SO small as to draw too much
water to pass through the Lake,
and it he had to dig bis way ht
ought to have known that from
the beginning.
The question now arises, wha,
is to be done3 The Newton
Dredge Boat Company to whom
has been assigned the contract