The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1897-10-27
A LETTER FROM JAS. b. MILEs.

- '"oej P'ouaO'y Illo DeAI
known Of all "hvcr prophets" md ,
subscriber aud fIicnd OF lorg stand
= ing, writes to the TIMES as follows;
ED. TINES:
IA you know | am a subscriber tC
your paper, aud, as told YOU want
It, OF course, to know about the river
. ana levees in your section ca both
sides of tho river, as believe have
told you that | was born in sight of
GreenviIlo cn The Leland plantation in
1928, or "A years ago.
, When | was young man, from
1874 to so | used to sail up TO and
above GreenvlIle almost every day
when the wind was up stream. /
would go up aud around the point as
far as | could and then row back.
GreenVille amt where it was then, but
1t still has the name. would there
fore suggest, or ask, that you now
and then refer TO the condition of the
levees on the Arkansss side. under
sIaHd my old place is considerably
outside the leYee. If | could coax
you to investigate my cut off, or
strengthening notiouS, think you
would consider they were all right.
The notion that the levees do not
raise the water in the river at high
water ! think Is generally given up.
There have been no cutofs made
above Greeuvllle since the Council
Bend, just above ST. Francis river, and
yet the river has been five aud a half
feet higher than in 92. The last
water was 3 IS feet above 50, aud
would probably have been over one
foot higher had the leveos not broken
above.
With levees high enough to hold
between Helena and Greenyillo YOU
would probably have had soma five
feet more water, and had Arkansas
aud White rivers come out at the |
same time, as they did In '82, you
would have had some FIVE feet mole.
provided the leVCes had been high F.
enough to hold it.
The people down below the Ameri-
can Bend (Lake Leo cut off were op,
posed TO this cut oft, but after II was
made some of them said they were
glad of it, as it lowered the water
above and strengthened the evee, aud
they conld protect Themselves bet er
from the front water than flom the
overflow. Or, as you might say, If
the levees had held in Bolivar county
you would have been oyer1owed by
back water.
Now, if you had cut off Spanish
Moss (Carter's) and Sorrcl's Bend, you
would have lowered tie water nearly
eight feet at Arkansas City, aud the
lGvses would have held to the upper
end of your district Then, Instead
Of having TO spend the 100000 your
district gets from the government in !
Bolivar county, you could have it TO ;
make your levees higher in Washing y
ton county and below. Study this :
point and suggest it to Major Star =
ling, and think he will see the point :,
| claim that cut offs can be made ct
Cypress, Bolivar Scrubgrass, and the :
Bend of '66 that will reduce the dis. :,
ianCe between Helena and Greenvile !,
from 172 miles to 112-or 60 miles, :,
If the river maintained the same slope :,
or incline to the mile, this would ;,
over the bed of the river at Helena 4
20 feet. ] do not calculate on that, 9
out 1t would be very great. Making Z
III allowances, it Should lower the :
water at Helena at least ten feet, and -
learly that all above Bolivar Bend to
Arkansas river. This lowering, mind 3
'ou, is not below The present high n
water mark, but what it would be -
With the lcYees high enough to hold o.
II the water in such q rise as we bad =,
ast spring, | have always held that y,
be gauge readings at all points below f.
hould be as great as at Cairo, or even ~
bove that For instance the gauge ~
I Cairo was 81 60, ana al Helena Il,
/ S5, with indications hat II would h,
ave gone to 50 feet hnd the levees -,
TODD or been high enough; u d should
ave Deeh a",, s.n"", lne same down 10 r.;
ear Waite river With raise III ID
arkansas audsWhlte rivers the gauge to
| Arkansas City would have been oil
ear so feel; and with The cut ofs it n,
'ould have been about So feet. [ do
OF claim that the river would be ten
,et lower along the Bolivar front
lan this spring, but that the st
resent leVee would be high enough pc
There are only a few bends between er
Ireenvile and Vlcksburg that could II
g cut off, but they would relieve the au
ends below hat much u
But did not start this letter with -
10 intention of writing about the ,h
yer, but to call your attention 10 an ia
1ito,ial published some time ago, in W "
hich you commented on the increase Nv
cotton factories in the South, and ue ".
lat the North was standing still, if VI
OF retrograding =
1t looked to me as though you and W
Lher editors were forgetting yont Is
d notions about the tariff aud pro- 'n
elton. To read your editorials some un
me ago your readers would suppose lu'
Iat there was section in the tariff -
at prohibited manufactures any u"
here West Of the AlleghenIes er 81
1ulh OF Mason and Dixon's line a., au
ne prolectionist said protection was -
good for the South and West as 9.'
+ the East. 1t begins to look now "
though our Southern editors begin