The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-03-01

Mr. Burton-Certainly.
Mr.. Curtis-I hope the chairman will
not make the statement that the house
has approved it. The appropriation bill
was so worded a couple of years ago
that a r5oint of order was sustained
against an amendment similar to the
one have offered today, but there was
no vote Of the house There was siInp-
~ a sustaining of the point of order by
the chairman of the committee and not
a vote by the house
Mr. Burton-I adhere to the statement
made, and the gentleman will agree
with me. I recall the point of order
very we'll. The gentleman from Kan
sas offered an amendment to the sun
dry civil bill, putting on an amount for
this same improvement myself made
the point OF order that it did not be-
long to that bill, that it belonged to this
bill If it belonged to any. In support
of my prior statement l will say that
both in the bill of 1901, which failed.
and in that of 1902 We discussed at
great length the question Of appropri-
ationS for the Missouri river, and de-
cided against them. II the action of the
house is in question, would state that
after full discussion in the committee
the house approved the bill recommend
ed by the committee of the whole.
This is but one of probably 80 projects
along the Missouri river. If we do any
thing for this we must do something
for Omaha and we must do something
for Kansas City where the exigency is
4
say is that this is clearly something
which private property owners ought to
do When l say that, l can not ignore
the fact that in past years the govern
ment has expended probably about a
million of dollars right around in the
neighborhood of st. Joseph on a similar
class of work.
Mr.. Curtis-Right there, would not
this $50, 900, if expended, complete the
work that has already been done by the
government at st. Joseph on the Kan
sas side?
MT. Burton-It would complete the
work that was originally laid out. If
we have made an error in the past,
that is. no reason why we should follow
it, The river and harbor act of 1902
asked for a survey in this locality and
other localities. 1 read briefly from the
report in part ofathe engineers re
port, page 1888, right on the point the
gentleman asks about, Of the incom-
pleteness of the work:
= craving in mind the fact that some
of the work upon which large sums
have been expended under the late
Missouri riv = commission in prosecu-
ton of it's plan for a systematic i'm
movement o. the river IS incomplete,
and that all of = is naturally subject
to deterioration or Icss. consldsr7-tio on
has been given to the aavisa0iltty =
completing or maintaining any at such
works. It is obvious that no benSfits
worth the cost would follow the main
tenance of short improved reaches,
disconnected with each other or with
the mouth of the river. This being the
case it follows that it is inadvisable
to maintain, by continuing expendi-
lures, works that have been built for
the rectification of such reaches. And
the board believes this to be true, even
if, due to changes that cannot all be
now foreseen, the systematic improve
ment of the Missouri is at some I'M
known future time to be resumed OF
the nature of additions to OF main
tenance of works heretofore executed
are the improvements contemplated in
the act at st. Joseph and Wilhoite. The
board does not consider works at these
points advisable
The gentleman from Kansas has
been very strenuous in presenting the
claim on repeated occasions. think
he has done his full, duty, but 1 trust
the committee viii vote down the
amendment. Laughter.
The ChairmanzThe question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle
man from Kansas.
The question was taken. and the
amendment was rejected.
Mr.. Curtis=Mr Chairman. I now
offer the following amendment
The Chairman-The clerk will re-
port the amendment.
The clerk read as follows:
con page IS, after the word Iowa
in line =. add the following:
Improving the Kansas river: For
improving the Kansas river by
Strengthening. deepening, dredging and
riprapping said river, and building
levees, and making such other i'm
provements as may be necessary to
protect the property along said river
from floods, overfiows, and other dam
ages, 100000, said improvements to
be made under the direction of the
secretary of war.
Mr.. Burton-Mr. Chairman. I trust
that amendment will be voted down.
1t would involve a total expenditure Of
$10.0OOOOO.
Mr.. Curtis-I only ask for five hun
dred thousand.
Mr.. Burton-It is a very excellent
entering wedge, and if the gentleman
got that I can foresee how. in his en-
thusiasm, he would come back here
and say that we ought to give another
100000.
Mr.. Curtis-Mr. Chairman, as the
chairman of the committee has said
so much. I want to say to the house
that the people living on the Kansas
river in 1903 had one of the greatest
floods in the history of the United
States.
A Member ali came out alive.
Mr.. Curtis-No; we did not Hun
dreds of lives were lost in that flood
and millions of property destroyed. 1t
was the greatest flood in the history
of this country, and these people
lVlnS along that river for 200 miles
have ever since that time tried to re-
build that property. The flood did such
damage to the banks that it is almost
impossible for them to restore it by a
local taxation. In many of the richest
counties they have issued bonds to i'm
prove the river, but there are localities
where the taxation district is small and
they can not bear the burden. All
ask is that you appropriate 100000. so
as to restore the banks to the condition
they were in prior to that great flood.
As they are now, any ordinary spring
rise of water will come over the banks
and destroy that property. I venture to
say, gentlemen of the house. that if the
house had been in session when that
flood of 1908 occurred this house would
have anpronriated a million dollars and