Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-08-12
DAILY T.INTEIuGENcER.
Mr. sRApsnAws LErTKR.

caus IL ia urssunabls that, II u . not
absolutely unansvsrabls. the writer N
vitsd and anticipated reply. We nave
M desire 10 discuss sseE the a7esH rs
raised. and evidently TO his OWE saiisfso-
ton, settled By Mr.. Bradshaw In nis
accommodation. We say right here
,b.. had the letter been written 10 the
otsoe Of the attorney for the Northern
Pacific railroad company at Mes fofk'
and given publicity through the Columns
Of the Tacoma Ledqsr it would not more
nseriy represent ths present attitude OF
said railroad company IN regard 70 its
forfeited grant. Ii 10 quite unnecessary
20 state the notorious fact that the pres
ant position of the company land Mr..
Brsdshav) 10 its last ditch" Com
passion. selnshDess, and tbs efforts OF
ia .friends' oompriss its sole reliance
10 perfect It's grab. The probabilities
are that they will not prove Sufficiently
powerful.
Mr. bradshaw states that last spring
bs sioued a remonstrspce against for
feiture, printed and forwarded 70 ron
Townsend By the Seattle Chamber OF
Commerce. II Is true that Mr.. Brad
sh.v signed such a rsmonsiranoe. de
made haste TO do 30. At least this 10 the
inference, az his name IL the nrst ep-
pended TO said document. Bat 1t u not
true that it was printed and forward
sdD by aid Chamber. On the contrary
/, was prepared by Mr.. Paul Schultz, OF
the Northern Pacific Railroad Company,
which company paid for printing the
document and caused it 10 be circulat-
ed. Mr.. Bradshaw 10 equally unfortn-
nate in his statement that three weeks
Afterwards came q petition from the
same Chamber of Commerce. asking oor
signatures for forfeiture OF the same
GRANT, II We remember correctly II
vas about two months after the passage
of its first resolution that the Chamber
of Commerce resoinded Sit, and Is II
positively false that said Chamber has
ever prepared for circulation or caused
10 be circulated any petition either Ia
favor of or against forfeiture. Mr..
Bradshaw is an attorney, and aware
that facts are essential 10 support case.
We are told in this letter that East
ern Washington Is hemmed 10 by the
monopolizirg influences OF sransporta-
ton companies, and can only ship her
productions 70 tide-water by a sacrifice
of enc third their value" and therefore
We should not oppose the land grant.
Let us see. The land grant IL to the
same company thst nov holds, or ex-
pecss by permanent lease TO secure, the
only outlet from Eastern Washington
TO tide water. II proposes TO paw a large
annual rental for that portion not
owned. Its railroad il heavily mort
gagged, and the fixed charges must be
earned. The road from Spokane Falls
20 Tacoma, via the Colun bia river,
must be made profitable enongh 10 paw
interest on fixed charges. rent 10 the
Oregon Railway and Navigation Com
pany, and dividends, IL possible. To
build road across the Cascade Noun
tains will cost 10000 The money
mus, be borrowed and must draw an
interest Of not lsss than $4,000 per an
sum. The new road must earn this net
sam, and its proportion Of the divi-
dends, IL any are declared. upon the
capital stock.
Should the Northern Pacific complete
its Cascade Division IL would monopo-
lie the carrying trade OF Eastern Wash
inQ.on. How would IL be able TO reduce
charges, even we're il 30 minded? Ii has
now the whole through transportation.
Will il pay to divide that at PRESENT.
Il will shortly be able TO carry out from
Yakima and Kittitss valleys all their
products. VIII IL be good policy 10 run
In debt $4,000. 600 In order 10 bring them
over the mouxtainsl II has a road to
Tacoma and tidewater. What need OF
another We are forced TO differ abso-
iutely from Mr.. Bradshav's conclusions.
According to our view Of the matter the
execution Of the lease alluded 20 viii
render II not only unnecessary but alb
surd for the Northern Pacific 10 build
lis line over the mountains. II will thy
TO get the good land. then stop. Mark
this prediction. There 10 no relisf.
there can be none afforded to Eastern
Washington by placing q monopoly Of
transportation in the hands Of one CON-
pany. On the contrary, experiences. OBJ
servation, business sense and the his
tory OF transportation monopolies eom-
bine 10 prove that excessive charges ars
inssparably connected with control of
transportation. This Is what Mr.. Brad
shaw advocates IL Is 10 accomplish
this identical result that he would have
the land grant continued. We need not
in this connection add that the oatlet
for our products TO Eastern Washing.
ton would neither be enlarged. nor
transportation rates reduced. II both
the present and the new roats we're con-
tinned under one management. A man
does not generally make rivals of his
two legs or arms. which ander Mr..
Bradshsw's proposition would be neces.
sary IL charges were reduced. IL is the
interchangeable and nnconsradicied
--of Northern Pacific engineers tha,
the cost Of hauling freight N Puget
Sound would not be less by the noun
tain than ~. present by the Columbia
river route. This being true, upon What
ground can reduction Of freight
charges be predicatedf Relief 10 the
people Of Eastern washingten will,
when 10 comes, be the result of Gem.
petition. not between two sections Of
the same railroad. bat with q rival. To
aid in completing the circle. which will
scrround the best portion Of this Ter
riscry under the control Of a single cor
poration 10 absolutely faiuous, il 10 salt