The Evening critic., 1882-05-03
The HYnnders Of Scicnce.

The wonders of Science.
Ia 1858 the Government engineers stated
that the inflow of water into the head of
the great river at Cairo was $4,000 cable
feet per second. That year the water came
from the Upper Mississippi, Missouri and
Ohio. and raised the Mississippi at Cairo
higher than ever before.
By the same high engineering authority
we learn that the discharge at the rivers
mouth at that time was only 100000
cubic feet per second, after receiving in
addition the waters Of the Arkansas, Red
and other rivers below Cairo.
As natural consequence this excess of
inflow over the outflow produced great
overflow.
This is a result that no one with parti'
Gle of common sense will deny, but tho
sequel will show how "science" knocks
this all to pieces.
The present overflow all came from the
Ohio and its tributaries, and the water
lacked two feet Of being up to the high
water mark of 1858 at Cairo and Paducah.
Therefore, as natural consequence, the
inflow could not have been as great at Cairo
as it was in 1858.
But, strange to say, the valley below
Cairo was as badly overhowed in 1882 as it
was in 1858, and people cannot understand
the reason for this.
Now comes science in the person of one
Mr. Harrod, a New Orleans architect and
member of that body of great engineers
sometimes called the River Commission,
and makes all this as clear as mud when he
says that the Atchafalaya and other outlets
below are now discharging 100000 cubic
feet per second, or a volume equal to the
discharge Of the Mississippi into the Gulf
through its mouth.
This overflow, if his statements be true,
can only be accounted for on the purely
scientific principle that a cistern would
overflow, if water was flowing in at the top
end through two-inch pipe, when at the
same time it was being discharged at the
lower end through four-inch pipe.
This shows how wonderful is the science
| that can make people believe there can be
| an overflow when the outflow is greater
than the inflow, or to prevent overflow that
the flood-line must first be raised; that to
increase the current of a river the angle of
|
of levees which elevate the water surface,
and that when the Mississippi is bankfull
and running over the tops of the levces and
dischargng all it can into the Gulf it can
be made to discharge an additional six tril-
lion cubic feet through the single stem and
mouth without raising the floodline, whicA
is about the amount of the present over
| flow.
Such are the teachings of the River Com
mission, whose plan is to dam up the water
by levees and river jetties at a cost of
100000 600, rather than to see the whole
valley freed from overflow by outlets, which
can be done for $250,000.
The question is not which plan shall Con-
gress adopt-the outlet at Lake Borgne pro-
posed by Captain Cowden, or the levee
system proposed by the Commission-but,
How can Congress vote dollar for the
levees and not also give Cowdcn the oppor-
tunity to try his outlet?
The Commission have faith in their plan,
and they are the ones to try it, while, on
the other hand, Cowden has faith in his
plan, and he alone should try it, Cowden
would be as competent to build levees
which he condemns as would the Commits
sion TO make outlets which they oppose
On the one hand we have science, which
asks for 100000, 900, while on the other
hand we have common sense, which pro-
poses to do the same work for $3.50 000
Why not give the cheap plan a chance?
| --4
THE proposed change of route (or rather