The Evening critic., 1882-07-05
VAN HORNS SPEECH
On the Mississippi River Improve
mont - outlets Required on the
Lower River.

Lower River.
In his speech about tho Mississippi River
Mr.. Van Horn, after demonstrating that tho
problem Of tho lower river was too much
water, no continued:
Two know that the money already appro-
priatcd has not been expended because tho
flood.waters have been In the way. Now, wo
contend that IL tho river had have had moro
charging capacity the waters would hqvo
been within the banks and TINT money have
been expended for tho use intended. And
why not open moro dlscharglng capacity?
What is
The Cause of the OvernOws
Of tho Lower Mlsssslppi2 II is, stating It
broadly, because the mouths OF the river are
not BIC enough. This fact comes from two
causes, the slow current near tho sea and tho
consequent precipitation OF sand and
mud held iu suspension. These
causes result in narrowing tho channel as
1t approaches tho sea- Tho fact that by actual
measurement the inflow at average floods Mt
Cairo Is 1,d75, 600 cubic feet of wator per sec.
ond, and that after receiving the waters OF oil
rivers below, the now at New orleans 10 only
1,1oo,oo0 cubic feet por second, tolls the story
OF the disastrous annual ovornows. This sur.
plus water must go somewhere, and tho only
place for IL IA TO overflow the adjacent coun-
Try. 10 conflne this Immense flood OF waters
within artificial walls, built OF tho mud the
It's own discharge, 49, submit, ono OF those
stupendous foliics which sometimes fasclnato
men merely from the fact of their magnitude
Vast Sums of Money
involved
''That new mouths Will draw on tho water
Just in ratio with their capacity is as plaln
proposition rs that barrel Of water will DO
depleted by opening tho bung.hole. Tho river
below New Orleans, with fall OF y Inches to
Of a
proposed Lake Borcne outlet, with n fall OF
2 30 feetto the mile, would have n correspond
ing Increase of current and consequent dis
charging capacity. But only calculating tho
now at 10 feet per second, with width OF 1
mile and 10 feet deep, Its discharge would be
52S,210 cubic feet Of water per second, or one.
third OF the whole inflow at Cairo. But the
current would DO more than 30 feet per Soc
ond, or capacity nearly equal TO the whole
river at Cairo. Tho nero statement of the ng-
ures shows the ample character OF tho pro-
posed outlet for the drainage of tho highest
Hood ever known.
"Why then is this
ScIEEyIdent Plan Opposed?
1t is upon the assumption that II you let tho
water out through these now mouths the chan.
mol VIII be shoaled. No other objection having
any practical bearing can DO made, or can DO
urged to stand moment, In view OF the differ
ence In cost-the outlet being estimated at
$25O,00O, tho other plan at $50,00O0O0. Is
the objection valid one?
~ contend that 1t is not only without sup
port In fact, but is
Based Upon u False Assumption
as to what the outlet plan is. These outlets
only propose to drain the aood.waters, not to
make new river channels. When the river is
within Its banks now, navigation Is last as
desired. All the outlets propose is to keep
tho water from OVERLOOKING the banks. How,
then, when the river is within It's banks, or
bank.full, In october, and ut Its maximum ex-
cellence for navigation, can It DO destructive
condition, in March or JulyS That is ali the
outlets propose TO do-to keep the
enough, and cannot BIO made deep enough, to
affect the normal channel OF tho river or tho
quantity of water in 1t. Or, In other words,
while tho river channel at the outlet Is 100
feet deep. How is this outlet to drain the
river dry or shoal IL? 1t simply draws OFF the
1ood.wators, leaving tho normal channel I'M
affected. But wo are not left to theory. The
United States typographical engineers by mea-
surement at crevasses have demonstrated that
the operation OF
These Openings Actually Deepen
tho channel below tho point OF outlet. And
this is exactly what Is claimed for Its effect
| that the river confined within Its banks by Its
increased current deebens its channel.
81 beg the House To remember one fact, that
| the advocates OF the outlet system have only
assumed ono thing-thc mere cost OF making
| It, Every other fact connected with 1t Is from
| the
Highest Engineering Authority
over known in this country; Is copied from
the official report OF tho board of engineers OF
| the Army OF surveys and Investigations made
under the authority of Congress during pro
| tractod period OF ten years, embracing every
thing connected with the river at high and low
| water, as to levee, and entertainments, naylgl l.
| tion, currents, tn bed Of the river, Its floods
| and all phenor Sna. We assume nothing; We
have no theories, no experiments, no hypothe
| ses; simply the fact
That Water Runs Down Hill,
that It is not compressible; these re enforced
as TO results by ascertainod facts by tho mos
thoroughly applied scientific methods.
| sand what Is the plan hero proposed? Lo
mo state It simply. Asnow, the riyer has bo
low New Orleans current that moves over
bed with fall of ~ inches per mile. TIT
Orleans the Gulf OF Mexico approaches {,
within miles Of tho Mississippi by an arm
known as Lake Borgno. The river thus reaches
the gulf level at point ITO miles loss thai
now, or in miles we roach tho Same levo
that the river now does In ITO miles. Gentle
men can discount the Immense drainage ca
pacity OF 10 feet fall In miles In tho one case
and the same fall In ITO miles rs now, In TIL
discharge OF these surplus waters. That Is al
there is to the proposed Lake Borgne outlet.
"Mr. Chairman, the very last mon who oueh
to object 10 the proposed outlet arc those IL
trusted by Congress with the improvement G
the Mississippi.
They Cannot Oppose 1t and Escap
Criticism.
They tell us that they have not spent tn
money appropriated last year because tho hig
| waters prevented. Row are tncy going
spend the four millions by this bill before ney
session, when four or Ave more Will be asked
And II they cannot use II what is the need
nppropriating 1t? Let the water out or kee
twithip the banks, and they can then use IN
money and demonstrate their plan. Why r.
fuse to let the water DO drained OF when the
cannot work because 1t does not subside?
Referring to the objection that the Lax
Borgne outlet would cause the jetties to shoa
he said:
"Tho truth is, Mr. Chairman, that were 1t nc
for tho large appropriation to DO expended u
der the present plan, tho outlet would
urged as the very solution for the annual O
penditure In dredging out the channel with
the 1etties. AS
An Original and Constant Friend {
the Jetties
enter my protest against the covert way
which they are being assailed. Their on
+ safety against future attack Is In tho openiI
= OF the proposed outlet at Lake Borgne.
"Mr. Chairman, why should We heslta
over so plain n proposition rs this2 IL the GU
let Is the useless thing claimed, why not di
n pose OF III BY this amendment not one dollt
= Is 10 be paid II It Is n failure as an improv
! ment OF tho river. To try 1t can do no harm
as has been shown. II II does what Is elaine
n for 1t you have results for $250,000 that wi
u cost, by friendly estimate, $50,O0O,OOO by Il
other plan. Whatever men Interested mt
wish or desire, surely Congress can have
hostility to that result. Why, then, not pla,
$ the two together and definitely solve q
o | problem one way or another
u all time, 80 that hereafter we IN