St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1884-06-14
THE LEYEE HUMBUG.
Meridional.

show the folly and injustice of levy
ing tax on all the upland portion
of Louisiana to build Levees on the
Mississippi. Il is true this tax, in
the Statute, is called an Engineer
fund, but practically, it is a levee
fund, exclusively for Red and the
Mississippi rivers, and it is called a
Levee tax in the Constitution. Now
the question isis the levying OF
this tax on the upland portion of
Louisiana, and attempting to re-
claim the Mississippi Swamp from
overflow, wise +? I maintain it is
not. lit can be shown that it is
impossible to reclaim these lands, or
that the reclamation if possible.
would greatly exceed the value of
the lands after they we're reclaimed,
then the case is made: and the fol-
" Of this tax would be apparent to
the dullest intellect. I shall en-
deavor to show that in the first place
it is practically impossible to reclaim
any large proportion Of them ; and
secondly, that if there were a posi-
bibility Of doing SO, the cost to the
State, would greatly exceed all adj
yantages derived by her from such
reclamation.
Firstly then, is the thing possible?
The friends Of the levee scheme say
that is possible, and that Mr.. James
B. Eads says it is possible, and
that his ipse diGit. is proof enough
to satisfy any one.
Now, I am not sure Mr.. Eads has
ever said any such thing but if he
has, I think something more than
even his say so, is required to iusti-
fy the expenditure of so many mil
lions Of money by the State, in face
Of past experience. Mr.. Eads is no
doubt a great engineer, and his
opinion is very justly entitled to
great weight. yet he is not infallible
There is, however, a greGter engineer
than Mr.. Eads even Of greater ex-
peIence that has built much water
works, who declares, (if I can read |
Alright his declarations) in unmista-
kable ways that the thing can't be
done! That Engineer is the Mis-
sissippi itself! Mr.. Eads and the
Levee advocates are invited to butt
against ''the stern reality Of facts.
Is it a fact well established, that all
the water Of the river at ''big flood
tide has ever passed through be-
tween the levees /? NO! Is it not /
a fact. Such a thing was never
known. The time has never been
when probably more than one-half
Of the water passed between the ]
leYees, in a ''bag avdte,'.'' I have /
been well acquainted with the river
since 1857 and I well know that
during all that time the entire
Swamp on both sides Of the river
has been full of water, at every biz
rise, certain localities of small er-
:ent Of course, excepted.
Of course it is not denied that
some spring rises have been held =
within the levees, but that no large
food such as occurs every 8 or 4 /
years has ever been. Nay more, it 3
$ the opinion, Of many well ac- !
luainted with the river, that it is h
for the great volume of !
water, at food tide, to ever pass !
through between the levees without
giving the leVees a height, and the t
current q velocity, that would be t
destructive of the levees themselves !
ind this for the same reason that a If
quart of water cannot be put into a j
int cup. The truth is that about =
II the space, between the high or
latural banks of the river are re- t
Iuired to carry off the immense vol t
me of water at food tide, and can n
lot be restrained between two lev i,
es less than one mile apart. There a
one very important point I think i
hat the securing theorists loose s
ight Of in applying it to the river r.
nd that is when the water Is up toll I,
be top Of the leyee, there is little or is
o current, at, Or near, the bottom Il
the river, to do the securing, but "
n the contrary the bel actually n
LIS up. I think every steamboat f
ian will substantiate this. There .,