IMPROVEMENT OF THE MISSOURI AXD MISSISSIPPI RIVERS. 223 



of the figures shows the ample character of the proposed outlet for the drainage 

 of the highest flood ever known. 



Why then is this self evident plan opposed ? It is upon the assumption that 

 if you let the water out through these new mouths the channel will be shoaled. 

 No other objection having any practical bearing can be made, or can be urged to 

 stand a moment, in view of the difference in cost — the outlet being estimated at 

 $250,000, the other plan at $50,000,000. Is the objection a valid one? 



I contend that it is not only without support in fact, but is based upon a false 

 assumption as to what the outlet plan is. These outlets only propose to drain 

 the flood-waters, not to make new river channels. When the river is within its 

 banks now, navigation is just as desired. All the outlets propose is to keep the 

 water from overflowing the banks. How, then, when the river is within its banks, 

 or bank-full, in October, and at its maximum excellence for navigation, can it be 

 destructive to navigation when in precisely the same condition, in March or 

 July? That is all the outlets propose to do — to keep the river at this maximum 

 at all seasons. They are not deep enough, and cannot be made deep enough, to 

 affect the normal channel of the river, or the quantity of water in it. Or in other 

 words, the channel of the outlet is ten feet deep, while the river channel at the 

 outlet is 100 feet deep. How is this outlet to drain the river dry, or shoal it? 

 It simply draws off the flood-waters, leaving the normal channel unaffected. But 

 we are not left to theory. The United States topographical engineers by measure- 

 ment at crevasses have demonstrated that the operation of these openings actual- 

 ly deepens the channel below the point of outlet. And this is exactly what is 

 claimed for its effect — that the river confined within its banks by its increased 

 current deepens its channel. 



It is upon this theory that the Missouri River improvement is based, and I 

 am not illogical enough to deny the operation of the same law in the Lower Mis- 

 sissippi that obtains in the Missouri. But it is upon this very fact that the im- 

 provement of the navigation of the Lower Mississippi is based. It is claimed at 

 points where bars interfere, that by works which will confine the waters to lesser 

 space the channel will be deepened. Now, if the water confined to the normal 

 width of the channel on a bar deepens the water, why not the channel be deep- 

 ened and improved when the whole river is confined within its banks? The 

 statement is the answer. It is the object of all our appropriations, of all our sur- 

 veys, of all our plans, to keep the river within its banks, natural or artificial. 

 If, as is contended, when we build the banks higher in order to confine the water, 

 it will deepen the channel, will not the same effect result if the waters are confin- 

 ed within the natural banks? It needs no argument; its demonstration is a fact 

 known to every practical navigator of the great rivers of the West. 



>i< >K Jji ^ -^ ^f. 



I beg the House to remember one fact, that the advocates of the outlet sys- 

 tem have only assumed one thing — the mere cost of making it. Every other fact 

 connected with it is from the highest engineering authority ever known in this 

 country; is copied from the official report of the board of engineers of the Army 



