385 



perhaps, because Mr. Stoddard has said, "The tides 

 have little effect on the water at New-Orleans ; they 

 sometimes cause it to swell, but never to slacken its 

 current."* 



But does it follow that the current is not checked at 

 the distance of twenty, or even ten miles below, be- 

 cause it does not appear to be slackened at New- 

 Orleans? I must reply, by no means. It is, at times, 

 and under certain circumstances, materially slacken- 

 ed at the distance of twenty miles below that city, 

 and doubtless from the causes which I have mention- 

 ed : and if checked at that distance, it must necessari- 

 ly be proportionately so at New-Orleans. That this 

 is the fact, is obviously implied by the remark, which 1 

 have just quoted, viz : " They (the tides) sometimes 

 cause it to swell." 



If then the tides cause the river or current to swell 

 at New-Orleans, can a proof more positive be requir- 

 ed, that it is at the same time slackened ? I answer no. 

 If nevertheless it be still doubted, what shall we say 

 to the following, "Heavy winds," says Mr. Stod- 

 dard, " roll in the water from the gulf, and cause sud- 

 den rises of the river, in some instances, equal to a 

 spring freshet "-\ 



In this instance, can it be supposed, that the water 

 of the bay of Mexico is actually driven by the winds 

 up to New-Orleans, so as to occasion the elevation of 

 the current of the Misssissippi ? No one, it is pre- 

 sumed, will answer in the affirmative. 



* Stoddard' Sketches, page 164. t Do. page 164. 



50 



