St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-01-01

whereas they have not planned 1t, have not
] executed it, and are entitled TO no credit in
connection with 1t.
| 1t would be but just, If in future river and
harbor bills, all reference to the Mississippi
river commission were omitted in connection
with items for:
Improvement Of Mississippi river from st.
Paul to pesMoines rapids.
improvement of Mississippi river from
DesMolnes rapids to mouth of Illinois.
Improvement of Mississippi river between
mouths of Illinois and Ohio.
Improvement of the Mississippi above the
falls of St. Anthony.
This would leave the immediate and entire
control of this. work where it was and where
1t belongs, in the hands of the engineer
corps acting under the chief of engineers
and secretary of war, and would leave under
the immediate control of the Mississippi river
commission the 1000 miles below Cairo;
section of river which the commission were
undoubtedly organized to improve, and on
which they and they alone have inaugurated
work. 1t is on this last stretch that the prob
lem OF controlling the mighty stream is most
appalling; where enormous amounts of
money must be expended, and where
great local interests mingle with
the general question Of channel i'm
pfovement. 1t Is proper that
this special and most able com mission should
plan, lay out aud execute work such as is
above referred to, andit would also appear
that the problems to be solved or the Misss-
sipp below. Cairo were sufficient to absorb all
the attention of the commission.
To practically accom- plish what seems to be
in the interest of the improvement of the
Mississippi and to retain under its proper
jurisdiction the several sections of the Mis-
sissippi river, it is desirable that in the items
In the river and harbor bill, which refer to
these sections of river, the same wording is
used as is given in the reports OF the chief of
engineers, and that no additional wording
be used, such as was added to the last river
and harbor BILL that is, wording which actu-
ally places the work under the river commits
sion rather than the engineer department.
Another cogent reason might be
added why the Mississippi river
commission should not have control of
the upper Mississippi river Improvements, or
participate in carrying out the wise and well
digested plans of the engineers Of the army.
One OF the plans for improving the upper
river is by means of reservoirs to be con-
structed near the headwaters Of the main
river and its tributaries in Minnesota and
Wisconsin. This plan has received the APP
prevail of many of the ablest engineers in
and out of the army, and has been recon-
mended by the war department; and sue
cessive appropriations amounting in the
aggregate to over $4,000 have been made
by congress to investigate the plan. and later
to inaugurate the work now in progress.
The best results are anticipated from the
completion of the reservoirs, and it is ex-
pected that the volume of water from St. Paul
down will be more than doubled whenever the
system is fully completed. For some reason
best known to themselves, but never ex-
planned, the Mississippi river commission
have been hostile to the reservoir system.
This hostility has been manifested in their
reports and in arguments before the COM
mittees of congress, whenever the subject
hiss been under discussion. This fact would
seem to justify the northwest in asking that
the work of improving the navigation of the
upper Mississippi river be left in the hands of
the engineer corps of the army, free from
the control or supervision of the Mississippi
river commission.
All Of which is respectfully submitted.
PLATT b, WALKER,
Ed. w. DURANT,
WILLIAM CROOKS,
State Commissioners, improvement of Mis-
sissippi River.