water is no longer forced to rise in order to discharge itself. The surface therefore, being lowered, no more water passes through the cut-off than was previously forced through the bend by the rise in the water above. As to the increase of velocity, that in a river with as slight a fall as the lower Mississippi, cannot become too great; indeed, can never become greater than is necessary to keep its channel clear. In fact, the benefit from the cut-off consists as much in the increased velocity as in the free and unimpeded discharge of the water, for both are inseparably connected together. But whatever increase there may be in the velocity, arising from a cut-off, it cannot increase the tendency to overflow in the next bend below, as that depends, not upon the velocity, but upon the perpendicular height of the water kept back by the bend. When the water in the reach above a bend rises to a certain height, it commences discharging through the bend the same quantity it would discharge through a straight channel, with a reduced surface; and whether it comes down a little more slowly or a little more rapidly, it will commence relieving itself at that point only, and not before. In this respect a bend may be compared to a dam. Water cannot pass over a dam until it reaches a certain height; neither can it pass through a bend. As soon as it reaches that height, it commences discharging itself over a dam; so it does through a bend. And whether it comes down more rapidly or more slowly from above, provided the quantity remains the same, cannot affect the height of surface in the river below the dam; neither can it, for the same reason, when it passes through the bend. The tendency of both is to impede the discharge of water. The fear from increased velocity is therefore an idle one; for it is not only actually serviceable in deepening the new channel, relieving the reach above, and also deepening the reach below, thus establishing uniformity in the bed above and below, or in the inclination of the surface of the water; but it cannot possibly do any injury.

When it is considered that the river, itself, must be the great agent in all improvements made in its channel, and that all its alterations are from above downwards in the direction of its current, can any one doubt as to the propriety of the mode which nature adopts to effect her objects? When she begins her operations from above and works downwards, does man show his wisdom by arguing that she ought to begin below and work up? Were an extended system of improvements projected for the Mississippi, embracing the bar at the mouth, as well as the whole channel of the lower river, it might be well to prepare the mouth first, that the whole united force of the river, after all the outlets on either side of the pass were closed, and the channel constructed to the normal breadth might be brought to bear upon the bar, so as to deepen it, if not remove it altogether. But, in the mere opcration of straightening the course of the river by cut-offs, it would be more advisable to begin from above, as by that means, the power through whose aid we expect to effect any improvement in the bend below is rendered more efficient.

The second opinion, upon which Major Barnard seems to ground his opposition to cut-offs in the Mississippi, is the peculiar character of the channel. He states that while there are several bends above the junction of the Red River, which might be cut through with benefit to that

part of the river, below that point the course of the river, being for the most part moderately winding, has only a few bends that can be cut through; and, therefore, that the cutting of those above, though it might relieve that part of the river, would inundate the lower part. How this necessarily follows I am at a loss to conceive. If the lower part of the river be only moderately winding, it certainly would not oppose such resistance to the discharge of the water coming from above, as would authorize Major Barnard, even were I disposed to admit his premises, to argue overflow as a necessary consequence. But though a part of the lower channel being only moderately winding, may have no bend that requires to be cut, or that could be cut so as to improve the course of the river, is that a reason why that part, where the free discharge of the water, is obstructed by bends, should not be relieved? A straight channel of a normal width, with uniform banks, and a uniform depth, discharging its waters without obstruction and with a regular velocity, would certainly be the most perfect, that a river flowing through a country inclining almost imperceptibly towards the sea, could have. But, though it may not be possible to bring the channel of the Mississippi to this degree of perfection, it does not follow that every attempt to approximate to it should be abandoned, such a conclusion is consistent neither with reason, experience, nor common sense. If the improvement of the Mississippi cannot be carried as far as might be wished, let it be carried as far as it is practicable.

With respect to levees; there is no principle with regard to wide or narrow leveeing laid down in hydrotechnics, because an artificial river is always formed of two different profiles of a normal breadth-one for a low and the other for a high stage of the river-whereby the velocity of the current is regulated in such a manner as to prevent abrasion of the banks as well as the deposit of the heavy material which the river brings down, When the quantity of water which the river discharges, at high water mark, is ascertained we are able to determine the normal breadth of the river at its highest stage, together with the height of the levees and their distance from one another. There cannot be, in my opinion, a more mistaken idea than that one rule of distance is applicable to rivers of every degree of magnitude. The leveeing of the Po, or the Loire cannot, therefore, be taken as a standard by which to determine the location of the levees along the Mississippi, and, in this particular, the latter may be considered a river sui generis.

Thus far, I have thought it necessary to notice the views of Major Barnard. Were they put forward by any person not expected to be acquainted with the principles which Hydrotechnics teach, and which professional experience enables the mind to understand and appreciate, they might be looked upon without surprise, and passed by in silence; but, coming from a gentleman, invested with all the dignity of professional pretension, they cannot but be looked upon, to say the least, as singular, and the more singular because they are professedly based upon the authority of extracts, which, in reality, were intended to refute the very conclusion at which they arrive. But, to render the article still more singular, Major Barnard, in his closing remarks, admits that he has no plan for the improvement of the Mississippi, and that he is utterly ignorant of any data upon which one could be based. The conclusions

to which Major Barnard has come, taken altogether, reminds me of the decision to which the council of Castile, Spain once came with regard to a similar question. They decided after solemn deliberation: That, if it had pleased God to make the river straight, he would not have wanted human assistance to enable him to make it so. But as he has not done it, it is plain he did not think it proper that it should be done. To attempt it, therefore, would be to violate the decrees of his providence and to mend the imperfections which he designedly left in his work. Such a decision may be in accordance with Major Barnard's views, but I doubt very much if it will meet those of the people of Louisiana. MOBILE, August, 1850.

ART. II-SPANISH PARTIES IN THE WEST.*

THIS party in Kentucky-which took its name not from the adoption of Spanish views and interests by any party in Kentucky, for such was never the fact, but from the employment of Spanish officers to seduce the people of Kentucky from the Union-took another form in 1795, which may be distinguished as its second shape or phase.

At this time, the navigation of the Mississippi was still an unsettled question between the governments of the United States and Spain. Even the boundary of the United States stipulated by the Treaty of Paris in 1783, was resisted by the latter. She claimed, and actually exercised, jurisdiction on the Mississippi up to Vicksburg-then called the Walnut Hills; maintained forts at the latter point and at Natchez. Our relations with Spain, fluctuated with all the changes of relation between her and other European powers, and particularly France.

In June, 1795, Thomas Pickney was sent to Madrid, to bring these negotiations, so long pending, to a close. In the mean time, possibly under instructions from Spain, issued before the arrival of Pinckney, Carondelet, governor of Louisiana, despatched Thomas Power from New Orleans to Louisville, in Kentucky, with a letter addressed to Benjamin Sebastian, then a judge of the Court of Appeals of that State. In this communication, which is spread on the legislative records of Kentucky, he declares "that the confidence reposed in you by my predecessor, Brigadier General Miro, and your former correspondence, have induced me to make a communication to you, highly interesting to the country in which you live, and to Louisiana." He then mentions

"that the king of Spain was willing to open the navigation of the Mississippi to the western country, and desirous to establish certain regulations reciprocally beneficial to the commerce of both countries." To effect these objects, Judge Sebastian was, the governor says, "to procure agents to be chosen and fully empowered by the people of your country, to negotiate with Colonel Gayoso, (afterwards governor of Natchez,) on the subject, at New Madrid

Continued from July No.

*

*

*

whom I shall send there in October next, properly authorized for the purpose, with directions to continue at the place or its vicinity, until the arrival of your agents."

Some time in November, or early in December of this year, (1795,) Judge Innes and William Murray, afterwards a distinguished lawyer of Natchez, were requested by Judge Sebastian to meet him at the house of Col. Nicholas (the father of the present Louisville Chancellor.) The gentlemen went to Col. Nicholas, as they were desired, and there met Judge Sebastian. Some deliberation ensued, which resulted in the unanimous opinion of the gentlemen assembled, that Judge Sebastian should meet Col. Gayoso, to ascertain the real views of the Spanish Government in these overtures. Sebastian accordingly descended the Ohio and met the Spanish Agent at the mouth of that river. In consequence of the severity of the weather, however, the gentlemen agreed to go to New Madrid. Here a commercial agreement was partly ef fected; but some difference of opinion occurring between the negotiators, they repaired to New-Orleans, to submit the matter to the Governor General at that city. This adjustment was deferred by some pressing business, when, after a few days, the Spanish Governor sent for Sebastian, and informed him that a courier had arrived from Havana, with the intelligence that a treaty had been signed between the United States and Spain, which put an end to the business between them. The Kentucky envoy, after vainly urging the Spanish Government to close the sub-negotiation, in the expectation that the treaty would not be ratified, returned to Kentucky by the Atlantic ports. Thus ended the attempt, in 1795, to form a commercial connection between Kentucky and New Orleans, on the part of the provincial authority of the Governor of Louisiana.

Third form or phase of the Spanish Party in Kentucky.-This private negotiation, though terminated so abruptly by Carondelet, contrary to the urgent representations of Sebastian, was again renewed by the former officer in 1797. This was while the territorial line on the south was marking, between the United States and Spain. It was again attempted through the agency of Messrs. Power and Sebastian, on the respective parts of the Governor of Louisiana and certain Kentucky gentlemen. Thomas Power again arrived at Louisville, Ken. tucky, in the spring of 1797, as the agent of the Governor of Louisiana, and ostensibly on a mission to General Wilkinson, who then had his head-quarters at Detroit.

Power, immediately on his arrival in Louisville, communicated a letter from Governor Carondelet to Sebastian, desiring him to lay it before Messrs. Innes, Nicholas and Murray. In this letter, the proposal was boldly made "to form a government wholly unconnected with that of the Atlantic States." To aid these perfidious purposes, in the face of a treaty just negotiated between the two governments, and to compensate those who should consign themselves to infamy by assisting a foreign power to dissolve the sacred league of the States-to convert its free republican institutions, into dependencies on the arbitrary and jealous government of Spain, orders for one or even two hundred thousand dollars on the royal treasury of New Orleans; or, "if more convenient, these sums were to be conveyed at the expense of his Catholic

Majesty into the country," (Kentucky) and held at the disposal of those who should degrade themselves into Spanish conspirators. Other de. tails of arms, &c., were entered into on an occasion not worth repeating.

The compensation to Spain for the free use of money and arms, made in this communication, was to be found in extending the northern boundary of Florida, at least to the Yazoo, to which Spain had tenaciously adhered, and which she now desperately and for the last time, endeavored treacherously to retain. It will be remembered that Great Britain had, while Florida passed under her dominion by the treaty of Paris, in 1763, extended West Florida north to the Yazoo River, hence the pretension of Spain to the same boundary, when adjusting the territorial limits between herself and the United States.

After receiving this communication from Power, Sebastian visited Judge Innes at his seat near Frankfort, and laid it before him. The Judge, and I quote from his own communication to a legislative com. mittee, immediately observed that "it was a dangerous project, and ought not to be countenanced, as the western people had now obtained the navigation of the Mississippi, by which all their wishes were gratified.

Sebastian concurred in sentiment, after, it must be observed, this explicit declaration of Innes, who seems to have given tone to the whole conversation. Still, as Power desired an answer in writing, Sebastian prevailed on Innes to see Col. Nicholas, saying, "whatever they did he would concur in." A few days afterwards, Nicholas was seen by Innes at Lexington, Kentucky, who agreed, in opinion, with the Judge. The Colonel, accordingly, wrote an answer to Power's communication, (dated September 4, 1797-Rep. Journal, 1806,) unequivocally declaring that they "would not be concerned in any attempt to sever the Western country from the United States; that whatever part they might, at any time, be induced to take in the politics of their country, that her welfare would be their only inducement; that they would never receive any pecuniary or other reward for any personal exertions made by them to promote that welfare." The reply containing these sentiments, was forwarded to Sebastian, and by him communicated to Power. Thus terminated this pertinacious and treacherous intrigue on the part of Spain, to dissever these States. It is due to this subject and its actors, to state how these secrets were disclosed. In the session of 1806, Judge Innes was summoned before a committee of the House of Representatives of Kentucky, which had been instituted to inquire into the conduct of Judge Sebastian. Before this committee, Judge Innes disclosed the whole tissue of the Spanish intrigues, which have been related. Upon this frank and honorable disclosure, preserved in the legis lative records of Kentucky, and subsequently communicated by order of the legislature, to the Congress of the United States, this relation has been based. There the whole matter slept the sleep of death, from which, Judge Rowan has often told the writer, he could not awaken it. A committee was appointed, but never made a report; high influence, it was said, suffocated the whole matter. We will now advert to the character of the persons involved in this memorable passage of western history. These are all marshalled for judgment and execution by the author of this truculent essay. The first character in order is John Brown, who is mercilessly arraigned on the sole testimony of a libellous