Page 2
University Daily Kansan Tuesday. May 5,195
The Tuttle Creek reservoir (No. 5) is the only one shown on the diagram which is under construction. However, this construction is temporary in nature because the proposed federal budget contains no funds for continuing construction.
FLOOD PROTECTION—Shown above are the existing and projected flood control units for the Kansas River basin. The diagram shows the location of Lawrence, Topeka, and Manhattan in relation to the Tuttle Creek dam site on the Big Blue river.
Numbers 1 to 4 indicate positions of basic local flood protection units recommended for construction. They are: 1. Fort Riley unit on the Kansas river; 2. Manhattan unit, Kansas river; 3. Stonehouse Creek unit, Stonehouse creek; and 4. Frankfort unit, Black Vermillion river.
Numbers 6 through 15 and 34 are basic reservoirs for flood control recommended for construction. They are: 6. Humboldt unit, Clarks creek; 7. Onaga unit, Vermillion creek; 8. Camp Creek unit, Rock creek; 9. Rossville unit, Cross creek; 10. Spring Creek unit, Spring creek; 11. Illinois unit, Illinois creek; 12. Halifax unit, East Branch Mill creek; 13. South Branch unit, Middle Branch Mill creek; 14. Nehring unit, Nehring creek; 15, Kinsley unit, Kinsley creek; and 34. Grove unit, Wakarana river.
State Hot Potato -
Flood Control Issue Sizzles on in Kansas
Editor's Note: This is the first in a series of interpretive editorials about the issue of flood control in Kansas. This controversy has raged for years, and should become even more important in the future. The first several editorials will outline the issues of flood control for the entire present-day staff members. The letters column will be open to present any views of readers.
The whys and whhereforees of the Tuttle Creek dam dilemma and all its ramifications so far have produced hours and hours of conversation—mostly heated—and reams and reams of editorial copy.
At KU there probably are more viewpoints represented on the problem than in any other single area in Kansas. And Lawrence townspeople and farmers in the immediate Kaw valley have even more opinions on this vital topic.
This controversy concerns more than just a dam and a river. It concerns people who suffered tremendous losses of time, money and land in the disastrous 1951 Kaw valley flood. Moreover, it concerns thousands of valley residents who will lose their farmlands if big dams flourish on Kansas rivers.
In one corner are the thousands of Kaw valley farmers who are down river from the site of the Tuttle Creek dam near the Blue river. Added to those are the residents of such river cities at Topeka, Lawrence and the Kansas Cities. These metropolitan centers suffered heavily in the '51 ordeal.
The factions line up like this:
These folks are the loudest proponents of big dams to regulate the rate of flow of the river waters. They realize that if this area ever again receives a saturation to the extent of 1951, their land will be submerged again.
In the opposing—and vehemently opposing—corner are chiefly those who own residences in the areas which would be immersed by water held behind the big dams. Of this faction, the residents of the Blue valley area above the Tuttle Creek dam have been the loudest in protest.
The Blue valley residents have been so well organized in their protest that they have bombarded state and national legislators with their opinions, and were even instrumental in the defeat last fall of Rep. Albert Cole (R.-Kan.), a four-time member of the House of Representatives, to Howard Miller, Democrat, over the issue. Rep. Cole, although a Republican, had espoused the big dam plan.
This problem of controlling the Kaw Valley floods has turned into one of the hottest political potatoes the state has ever known. Its solution affects thousands of Kansans. It will be impossible to please them all.
—Bob Stewart.
Congress Stalls on Seaway
The present Congress and executive are not unlike any that have proceeded them on one legislative question: the St. Lawrence seaway and river power project.
President Eisenhower has vigorously voiced his support to both phases of the project, citing the National Security council's recommendation that the seaway be built for security reasons.
And Sen. Alexander Wiley (R-Wis.) has dutifully introduced pending seaway legislation similar to the one that have failed repeatedly in the last
This situation marks the culmination of 20 years of congressional bickering on the subject. Canadians and the Roosevelt and Truman administrations have always approved it, but powerful American railroad and port interests—fearing the freight competition—have effectively blocked Congressional action. There has been a Canadian-American treaty for a joint project since 1941.
The St. Lawrence seaway when completed would make it possible for ocean-going vessels with a draft of 27 feet to sail from the Atlantic to the head of the Great Lakes. At those depths, the vessel must neck of 151 miles—from Odgenburg, N.Y., to Montreal—needs to be deepened.
Concerning the power phase, New York state and Ontario would split an estimated 12,600 million kilowatt hours per year. The cost of the new system would be about $300 million and the power facilities $400 million.
In 1951 the Canadian Parliament was tired of dallying and gave the go-ahead signal to their engineers who began dredging their side of the 115-mile boundary stretch. But to have dams and power, there must be American accord since they must also be anchored on American soil.
The plan was that if Congress then balked at activating the American commitment, non-federal agencies would do the job.
Last April both countries asked the International Joint Commission to approve the river power project, which it did Oct. 29.
This is where the project now stands. Meanwhile, Canada is going ahead on the navigation phase, constructing all the canals and locks on Canadian soil. She has set up a St. Lawrence Seaway authority to finance and supervise the work and finished product.
So while the President heartily endorses the St. Lawrence Seaway and Sen. Wiley introduces legislation, Canada is quietly doing the project on her own.
The Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario has signed a contract with the Canadian government to pay half the cost of the power injections. The American agency shares the electricity is to furnish the other half.
It is to be hoped that delegation of work on the power phase to a state agency works, because nothing can be expected of Congress—and Canada is waiting.
Jerrv Knudson
UNIVERSITY Daily Hansan
University of Kansas Student Newspaper News Room KU 251 Ad Room KU 376 Member of the Kansas Press Assn., National Editorial Assn., Inland Daily Press Represented by the National Advertising Service, 420 Madison Avenue, N.Y. City.
EDITORIAL STAFF
Editor-in-chief
Bob Stewart
Editorial Attributes
Dan Nielsen
Editorial Addition
Charles Cox
NEWS STAFF
Ms. skiing Editor ... Bob Longstaff
Ass. Mr. Editors ... Bob Noid, Ron Kull,
Clarke Keys, News Editor ... Mary Cooper
Society Editor ... Rozann Atkins
Asst. Soc. Editors ... Velma Gaston,
Gladys Henry
Sports Editor ... Chuck Morelock
Sports Editor ... Don Tice
Writter Frith ... Maurice
Picture Editor ... Ken Coy
News Advisor .. Victor J. Danilov
BUSINESS STAFF
Business Manager        Virginia Mackey
Adv.-Promotion Mgr... Patty Vance
Retail Adv. Mgr... Tom Breckentridge
National Mgr... Don Landes
Circulation Mgr... Lorean
Urgency Adv. Mgr... Lorraine Golding
Business Advisor... Dale Novotny
Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or
$50 a month. Send a semester to Lawrence.
Lubbock. Published in Lawrence, Kan.
every afternoon during the University
year except Saturdays and Sundays,
and on weekends in institution
periods. Entered second class.
Sept. 17, 1910, at Lawrence, Kan., Post
Office under act of March 3, 1879.
Korean Speech Traces Back to Chinese Bases
Editor's Note: The following article, seventh in a series by foreign students, investigates Yang, a research assistant in chemistry, Mr. Yang has been in the U.S., since last fall.
I have encountered more than once the following question: "What language is spoken in Korea?" It is not a silly question, because English is spoken in the United States, Spanish in Argentina and so forth. "Korean," was my answer.
Korean language belongs to the Ural-Altaic family of language, which includes also Japanese. Words in Korean inflect nothing less than words in Indo-European languages; only the way of inflection is a little different.
Two characteristic features in Korean may be the following. The case is always indicated by putting a certain suffix to the noun, and there is no preposition. The predicate usually comes after the objective, as is often the case with Latin and is sometimes with German.
The grammar is very similar in Korean and Japanese, and the structure of the sentence in both languages is strikingly alike. This fact helped some historians to make a supposition on the historical and anthropological backgrounds of the two countries.
In Korea, some codes were worked out from Chinese characters and had been used since a long time before. But they were very far from being adequate. About six hundred years ago a sagacious man, the King Sejong, reigned over Korea. He and a number of scholars invented an alphabet and published it under the title, "The Proper Sounds for Informing People".
Chinese characters were introduced to Korea and then to Japan thousands of years ago. However, these countries soon found that Chinese characters were not fit for describing their own languages. Thus some new characters of their own had to be developed.
Although it had all the advantages over Chinese characters, some scholars and many aristocrats opposed the alphabet. Thus it has long been neglected by the learned and the aristocrats, since they published most of their works in Chinese classics.
Korean alphabet consists of twenty-four letters (four letters were eliminated from the original twenty-eight); ten letters are for vowels and semi-vowels, and fourteen are for consonants. The spelling is so logical and strictly phonetic that an attentive beginner will easily master it in a week or so.
This was the situation until as late as to the second third of last century. Readers may notice that Chinese classics are to Korea (and also to Japan) as Latin is to many European countries.
We are fortunate to have this alphabet, because had it not been for it, the illiteracy in Korea would be far more than that we have now. As of 1950, about 80 per cent of the people could write and read it.
But still there is a problem, since a tradition is difficult to change and many people write in a mixture of the alphabet and Chinese characters.
In such a mixture, only the words derived from Chinese roots can be written in Chinese characters. And even for such words, the inflecting part or the suffix must be in the alphabet.
Of course, there is a movement to abolish Chinese characters. Writers in Korea have always been in front of this movement, since fiction has been printed entirely in Korean alphabet for these thirty or forty years. And it has proved to be quite successful.