Page:TASJ-1-3.djvu/75

 coast, to unite with the Shinano opposite Niigata, while both rivers flowed into the sea by one single mouth. The consequence was, that a much larger volume of water being discharged, the channel over the bar had always a sufficient depth for navigation, being in fact never less than 20 feet, as is reported. But probably in order to prevent inundations along the Agakawa, it was resolved upon, 170 years ago, to lead its water directly to the sea, by cutting through the hills which border the sea-coast, near the place where the Agakawa bended to the S.W. to unite with the Shinano.

Echigo was divided between several princes (I believe there were 11 of them); to one of whom belonged the Shinanogawa-mouth, while the new Agakawa-mouth came into the possession of another. In order to prevent the trade of Niigata from being transferred to Matsugasaki, which lies at the mouth of the Agakawa, and of which fear existed (as, owing to the greater velocity of the current at the Agakawa-mouth, its depth would probably be greater than that of the Shinanogawa-mouth), a treaty was concluded between the two princes, in which it was stipulated that junks would never be allowed to load or unload at Matsugasaki, and would only be permitted to anchor in the Agakawa-mouth in case of bad weather. A guard-house was built near the coast to watch the interests of Niigata, which was only removed last year, though the junks are not yet officially permitted to trade at Matsugasaki. This place is built against the slope and on the top of the downs; it is a fishing village of very poor and dilapidated appearance, but with its red-painted temple and large torii, projecting above the houses on the top of the hill, it is nicely situated, as looked at from the river. The trade along the Agakawa is by no means so important as that along the Shinano; the river is navigable up to Tsugawa, twelve or thirteen ri from its mouth. The part of the river I visited, over a length of 3 ri upwards from the mouth, is very shallow, the greatest depth being for a great part not more than 2$1⁄2$ or 3 feet. But as the river is very broad, it could