The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-09-10
The Proceedings.

an address and proposed in behalf @
the body he represented TO divide tn,
expense OF putting up what work MAJ
be necessary for the present until the
Legislature cOnvenes on the leveei
from the northern line OF Bolivar
county to the north end of the leveel
already built by this board in Coaho
ma lunty. The committee then re
tired, with a request from this board
to return at l AS o'clock p. m. for rs
ply to the above proposition; and the
board, at :l5 o'clock am. went into
executive session 10 onsider the same
when IL was resolved to decline said
proposition, and committee was ap-
pointed to prepare the same. The
board then took recess until 1:45
O'Clock pm.
The Board met at | :45, and Col. W.
A. Percy, one OF the attorneys Of the
Board, read the reply 10 the com
mitiee OF the Lsvee Board Of the
Yszoo- Mississippi Levee District, as
ollows:
WHEREAS, A committee from the
Board Of the Yaz 1o-Misti sippi Delta
Levee Commissioners, has this day
presented proposition to this Board
to share equally with the said YFZlo.
Mississippi Della Laves Board the cost
OF repairing that portion OF the line
Of levee formerly built by this board
and extending iIom the north bound
airy line of Bolivar county into Goa
homa county about sixteen miles; and
WHEREAS, the proposition has re-
ceived that careful and thoughtful
consideration demanded by the gravity
of interests at stake, it's possible effect
upon the prosperity Of the whole
Yazoo Delta, and lively sense Of the
duty owing iIom this boa d to its con.
stiiuency; therefore,
Resolved, That neither a sense OF
duty TO our constituency would war.
rant, nor combinations OF fair deal.
ing and neighborly kindness toward
our sister board demand, that this
board should share in the expense of
mainttining line Of levee not within
its territory, aud add that much TO lis
already disproportiona'e burden, in
the work of levoe projection for the
Yazoo Delta. And that We may not
appear II be actua 81 by sslasn mo-
tives in rejecting proposition appar'
emily fair, or TO be wanting In a due
sense of our responsibility in the all
important matter OF levee protection,
we recite ,the following facts and
reaeons for our fction: At an early
date, and when this board was the
only existing levee organization In the
Delta, It built into Coahoma county,
for the greater safety Of its district,
the line OF levee In question, and
up TO q recent date has
maintained it. The money actually
expended by this beard, in its con-
struction in 1867 and subsequent
maintenance, amounts to $3l9,52S %.
Under the law which organized the
Upper Board that levee Is now in lite
territory; is its property; and with ex-
press provision in the act that no part
OF the above sum shall be repaid to
this board. II any duty then devolved
upon this board to share in its cost, 1t
would seem that we were entitled to
heavy credit. This board has within
the limits OF its own territory about
200 miles Of levee TO maintain. The
Upper Board, including the levee now
in question, has only about 100 miles.
Our estimated revenue for the present
year is S24S,s97 81. Our necessary ex-
penses are $4,000. OF this latter
amount 100000 is required for actual
construction. The net fund in the
hands OF our sister board, and which
eau be appropriated to construction
and repair, amounts TO $S30,000. The
territory OF the upper district is
larger, aud its capacity, II it 30
chooses, to pay levee revenue is
greater than ours,
The levee in question 10 doubtless
important to the perfect safety Of our
district. For that reason we built it,
when there was no other organization
authorized by law to do 20. 1t is
greatly more important to the safety
OF large part OF the upper dittrict
it is within the limits OF that district,
rs defined by law. Tnat district has
the ability to maintain 1t, especially az
the estimated cost OF the work neces.
sary TO be done on IL during tho pres
ent year will n t exceed $4,000, and,
as stated in the able opinions OF the
Attorney General and Hon. w. p,
Harris, the board Of that district not
only hiss the legal power, but II is its
legal duty 10 maintain said levee.
The fact that portion OF this dis
trict would suffer from crevasse in
this levee ought not to and cannot
enter into this question. The came
thing is true of any large and impor-
tant section in the line Of the Upper
Boards levee, and 1t is equally true
that the upper district would suffer
severely ftom crevasses at Rosedale
Riverton and other important sections
OF the levee in this district, and solely
maintaiuedsby this board, Each dis
tri is necessarily dependent for its
perfect safety upon the efficient main.
tenance Of the others line OF levee.
The Delta is divided by law into two
districts and upon each is imposed the
duty OF leveeing lis own river front.
For twenty years this board has en-
deavored faithfully to perform that
duty. The cost has been great, the
taxation oherous. We would not feel
ju titled in adding to the burden i'm
posed upon us by law, by assuming a
part Of that which is legally imposed
upon our sitter district.
Resoiued further, That, urged by
genuine toljcitlde for the safety OF
the whole Delta, and believing that
its prosperity as a whole and the en-
vleble reputation which 1t is scquir-
ing abroad, depends upon the main
tensnce Of en- efficient levee system
sleng its entire front, this bosrd feels
that it would receive the hearty APP
prob ltion Of its constituency in ex-
binding all aid within It's power to the
Upper Board in time Of need; aud
should said last named board find
that the repair work on the levee in
0hestionEwill seriously embarrsss it's
4nsnoes, and desire aid from this
board, any proposition to that end,
sp oroprialely providing for repayment
.of any ontlay by this board, will be
favorably considered and, If possible,
the aid extended.
n.e ~ IcOnard'a Financial Trans
aciiOnr.
CHICAGO, ILL.,, September 9.-0ne of