St. Landry democrat., 1882-04-01
The Improvement of the Mississippi.
New Orleans States.

New Orleans States.l
The war between the advocates of
the Mississippi River Commission plan
of improving the Mississippi and the
supporters Of the outlet theory, contin-
ues to rage, and the chief mssels in the
absence of any human certainty as to
which is the true plan, are abuse and
ridicuie.
Here, if an "outlet man" ventures to
open his mouth he is overwhelmed with
abuse and ridiculed and denounced as
an enemy Of the river by journals and
men who know about as much OF the
matter as a monkey does of the prob
lens of Euclid, while the outlet theo
rists in other localities do not seem as
yet to have run short of ammunition OF
the same sort.
In our issue to-day we reprint let
ter from our friend, that veteran navi
gator of the Mississippi, Captain T. P:
Leatlers, who favors the outlet plan OF
Captain Cowdon. We print Captain
Leathers' letter because the views of
practical man of half a century's expe-
rience ON the river, possessed OF first
class horse sense ought to go to the peo-
pie as we'll as the propositions Of the
trained engineers.
As for our part we do not agree fully
with either of the parties to this con
troversy. In our opinion the river is
too vast, and its conditions too varied
and numerous to be controlled by any
one exclusive and arbitrary system. Du-
ing the present food it has exhibited
phenomena that we venture to say no
engineer and no practical navigator
can account for -ss5 -
Besides, the. laws which govern this
greatest river in the world are not so
fully and thoroughly known as to justi
~ any man in claiming a mastery Of
them. In short we do not believe that
the one scheme or the other, applied
singly and exclusively, will CONTROL the
floods Of the Mississippi. A combina-
tion, however. of the reservoir sytem,
proposed by GOV. Pond, of Missouri,
the levees and protection OF the banks
proposed by the commission. and the
outlets of Cowdon, we believe, will
aaeamplish the object desired, and at a
s.usE not in excess Of the magnitude of the
undertaking, and not greater than that
of the plan or the Commission carried
10 its consummatlon.
We have seen the breaking of the
Morganza levee twice carry off over
nine inches of water and permanently
reduce the food to that extent. 1t is a
fact beyond question that there is deep
er water at the mouth of the river at
dead low water, than when the river is
highest. 1t is also fact that as the
river falls the bars are washed out,
and uanb7IJtly over these bars there is
still deeper water after the river has
fallen four or five feet than there is at
its highest.
These facts indicate that the concen-
tration Of vast volume Of water is not
the best means of controlling the forces
and deepening the river. They show,
also that the flood tide can be reduced
by providing for the escape of the wa
tiers of the surcharged river, while it is
entirely clear that if reservoirs, as has
been suggested, are constructed at the
head of the river to retain a portion of
the water, the quantity precipitated up
on us must be 1essened.
Finally any scheme of improvement
must, from our limited knowledge and
want of precedent, be an experiment.
The river is vast enough to try all the
plans or experiments in conjunction,
and if combined they are not sufficient
to protect us, the operations and effects
of each may be observed separately and
that which operates best selected.
Our opinion and, notwithstanding the !
clamor in some quarters, nine men out
of ten who are interested in our alluvial
lands entertain the same views, is that |
we require both levees an outlets.
The principle of the Jetties is not in
volved. That they have been success,
so far as giving us deep passage to |
the sea, cannot be successfully ques-
toned. But they stand apart and a
success independent Of any and all of |
thesepyarious theories or schemes.