Year: 1874

l NEW OKLkANS, Oece1QUcE sOs Ac|ts
| EDITOR REPUBLICAN,:


Referring to the letter Of General Beau
| regard, published N your paper OF De-


cember 90, 1874, solicit the use Of your


columns for reply.


The portion of my annual report criticised
by General Beauregard was not written


thoughtlessly, but with several distinct and
! proper objects in view, as ] will presently
explain.


1t was not intended in the report to con-


vey any other impression than that in
| spectors of certain works at the mouth OF the
Mississippi had been deceived By the con-
tractors for or by the employees engaged on
those works. After the most careful read
ing Of the report, l find no word that can
| be construed as rejecting on the integrity
| of such inspectors.


The charge that I have, in my official
| report to the chief of engineers, "aspersed"
| the character of any one of those inspectors
| ie therefore, without foundation. l appre-
hend that there are no engineers living
who, in the course of ar extended practice.


have not many times been deceived. There


is 10 discredit in that. There is
not even sufficient cause for humiliation,
| since it is well known that those who
practice deceit can invent methods faster
than honest men can detect them.
General Beauregard's allusion to the hon
| Ored dead, whose memory hold as dear
perhaps as he does, appears most unkind.
The results of their professional labors
| while living are proper subjects for ques-
tion and discussion. If it were not SO, if
tho seal of death were to render such re-
| suits sacred, advancement in engineering


knowledge would be sadly fettered. My
own experience, gained during five and q
half years su uperintendence of cont inued


dredging and investigation at the mouth Of


the Mississippi river, convinced me that


inspectors of p revious works of dredging at


Southwest Pass and Pascal pOutre had all


been deceived. Stories that came to my


ears, in the course of investigation, from


pilots, dredgeboat captains and shipmasters


as stated in my report, which if "idle" were


wonderfully alike, served to confirm my


belief.


1t occurred to me that, although these


inspectors would, naturally enough. from


having brief connection with the work, or


from being transferred to distant stations,


perhaps be the last to hear of the ingenious


tricks played upon them, and that my re-


port would reach those yet living, causing


not only vigorous denial, but a de tailed


statement Of the manner in which their re-


ported results were obtained, from which it


might be Judged if any loophole had been


left open for the practice of deceit.


The latter was what l wanted. The


printed reports in my possession are not
complete enough. Facts given me in con.


versation are not as valable as facts put in


writing or print. General Beauregard has
given some details of his method of in
spection. My purpose would have been


better subserved had he been more detailed.
l trust Captain Fuller, in the statement he


wilt probably make, will be more explicit.
Should the contractors deny the practice of
deceit, l shall agree with General Beaure-
gard, that men who once deceive may do go
again. It was my second object to defend
my own work against unfair comparison
with previous works. 1t was this which
led me into the investigation that has re-
suited in the firm conviction very plainly
stated in my report.


1t is well known fact that multitude
of plans have been suggested for the I'M
provemert of tho mouth of the Mississippi,
and that at each session of Congress sew.
eral of these have been pressed on the
attention of that body. l have officially
reported on a number of them, and over
forty have been brought to my attention.
The parties originating and presenting
these plans represent all the various grades
of inventive genius to be found in this
country-from the talented engineer 20 the
man who ought to be in lunatic asylum,
from the man who knows something about
the mouth of the Mississippi to tho man
who knows absolutely aoating-all press
their plans forward with arguments based
on comparison of inspectors reports, the
accuracy of which Iquestion on the grounds
have stated, or else resort to calculations
based on factors ever changing and so in
definite in value that every one can assume
value to suit his own case.


When assure General Beauregard that
since the dredgeboats were sent to Pass-a-
POutre, about twenty months ago, when
there was but about twelve feet of water
on the bar, the channel across the bar has
been deepened to admit the passage of
twenty foot vessels without detention, and
the whole pass, except on the bar just above
the lighthouse, has been deepened fully
five feet and that much of the bottom was
sloughed out through the channel made,
what weight will he give his calculation of
100000 cubic yards year, as the amount
of deposit removed id l852-39 Such calcu-
lations have no real value; such COM
parsons, for reasons have indicated in my
report, are deceptive. I have entered a
a protest against them and have given my
reasons.


That l am convinced that the present
method of dredging is the most effective
yet tried must be evident 1t would take
more time than have at command to
state the facts on which have based my
opinion. 1t will appear that am not
biased in opinion from the fact that my
experience has led me to recently state in
a report to the chief of engineers that, if
in charge of the work at the mouth of
the river when it may become necessary
to build new dredgeboat, will recon-
mend the trial of another plan, not my