The case stands thus: the river, left to its own devices, separates
below Pest into two branches, called respectively the Soroksar and the
Promontar; these branches continue their course independently of each
other for a distance of about fifty-seven kilometres, forming the great
island of Csepel, which has an average width of about five kilometres.
By certain embankments on the Soroksar branch the _regime_ of the river
has been disturbed, and according to the opinion of M. Revy, a French
engineer,[22] this has been a grave mistake, and he thinks that the
Danube misses her former channel of Soroksar more and more. He further
remarks in the very strongest terms upon an engineering operation "which
proposes the amputation of a vital limb, conveying about one-third of
the power and life of a giant river when in flood--a step which has no
parallel in the magnitude of its consequences in any river with which I
am acquainted."
Now let us see which side the Danube took in the controversy in the
spring of 1876. On the 17th of February the public mind had been almost
tranquillised by the gradual fall of the water-level, but appearances
changed very rapidly on the morning of the 18th, for alarming
intelligence came to Buda-Pest from the Upper Danube. It seems that a
sudden rise of temperature had melted the vast deposits of snow in the
mountains of the Tyrol and other high ranges which send down their
tributary waters to the Danube.
Pages:
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282