The Butler weekly times. (Butler, Mo.) 1881-1918, 1905-06-22
Reply to Bells Letter.

Bell, In his letter 10 the viewers o. the drain.
are project claims the most rational methsd Of
getting ct the solution Of the overflow problem
10 10 ascertain what proportion OF the water tn,
proposed ditch will relieve the river Of Of Ia
initial point This lie net the proposition st all
The proposition 10 TO ascertain how much wstsI
the present channel and other sources viii dis
charge into the district under existing eondi'
tons then ascertain the increased discharss
into the district after the food line has beer
lowered, making . dumping ground for the
Kansas foods and then nnd out hsw enough
water can be discharged Of the lever end OF the
Of les initial point will discharge $50 cubic feet
per second, which the writer comedies. He
further claims the upper twelve foot section oil
the river channel, $50 feet top and 1875 feet bot
tom will have . velocity Of "a feet per second
and discharge f7l5 cubic feet per second. which
10 not correct. The only way in which he could
arrive ct such Q conclusion would be TO tres,
the top twelve foot section - . shallow ditch
with elk inch fall per mile, but the fall from
the state llas to Belize Mill 10 fifteen inches per
mile and would give the top twelve fost section
Q velocity Of SO feet per second and discharge
.. SIS cubic feet per second. Or In other words
the top twelve foot seetisn will discharge into
the district more than six times 90 much % the
proposed ditch will discharge ct point neal
CORTLAND, for ct that point the ditch has fell
OF siI Inches per mile and decreases ss Papips-
Vile 10 approached. He further claims that on
account Of the ditch having about one-third Of
the distance or the old channel that IL 10 per.
feetly safe to multiply the discharge Of the
proposed channel by three, which would give q
discharge Of $50 cubic feet per second, against
top twelve foo, section old channel 2, 7l6 cable
feet per second. 1t is euriously strange how
this ditch with fall at the upper end Of about
eighteen inches per mile will discharge emily
ons-third % much water as ct the lower end
where the fall, II the project lie successful, will
be negative for good many miles before Pap
insvllle 10 reached The ditch will have ths
same cross sectional area at Psplnsville as II
has at the upper end. while the cross sectional
area and discharging capacity Of the river 81
Papinsville ls much greater than at the upper
end Of the ditch. No sane man will believe
that Q shallow ditch 60 feet wide and 70 feet
deep will discharge anything like - much wa
ter ss the river. Ask Judge Sullens II the
leland Slough will discharge three times a
much as the river. This 10 parallel case with
the proposed ditch. Bell concludes his letter
by stating, THAT no more deceptive or srrons.
Gus results could be obtained than by figuring
On this drainage area - . lake full Of water
and then draw IL on byA ditch, Of certain size
and capacity " The writer put this PROPOSE
ton to Bell: GLOW long would II require q
ditch Of the capacity proposed to discharge Z
three foot nsod over the drainage district II II
came In at the upper end OF the dltchS" The
reader can draw his own conclusions. II seer
tain that the County Court In Its fairness and
brosdness will not countenance . proposition &C
overwhelmingly deficient on Its face.
RE. JOHNSON.